Meeting Minutes

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
May 28, 2025 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Emily MacCabe, Director of Information and Education
Angie Dionne, Director of Licensing and Registration
Kevin Schaberg, Fisheries Section Supervisor
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Management Section Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Lauren McPherson, Resource Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Aaron Cross, Game Warden Major
Steve Allarie, Game Warden Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Eric Ward
Roger Grant
Mike Gawtry
Tony Liguori - via Teams
John Neptune via Teams

GUESTS
Jim Andrews
Scott Ireland
Joe Powers via Teams
Catherine Gordon via Teams
Dave Craven via Teams
4 additional guests and staff online.

I. Call to Order Commissioner Camuso called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Prior to introductions, Commissioner Camuso gave a presentation on the Department's mission, organization and functions. For a copy of this presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

As there was not a quorum to vote, the April meeting minutes would be approved at the next meeting.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 27 Animal Damage Control Agent Certificate rules

Lauren McPherson stated ADC agents were certified by the Department and were agents of the Commissioner and had to operate to Department standards. The purpose of updating the rules was to improve clarity and consistency of the operating standards. We wanted to meet the demand for services for human/wildlife conflicts while increasing the integrity of the program. There was a classification of ADC certifications, most of the species fit to home and garden and there were others. We added one so that commercial pest management companies would be included. There was a demonstration of need section added and that gave staff the opportunity to use several categories to evaluate an applicant. A scoring rubric was established to help evaluate someone wanting to become an ADC agent. Most of the eligibility standards remained the same. They would continue to be required to disclose any criminal convictions, civil violations, they had to possess a valid trapping license, etc. They also had to get an endorsement through a district game warden and regional wildlife biologist. There was an expectation they have a good relationship with Department staff in their region. We did have specific eligibility by classification and certification. If someone wished to deal with conflicts specific to bear, they would have to comply with specific requirements. For bats, we would likely require some increased educational opportunities for them. We added eligibility for commercial pest management companies. The company would be responsible for training their staff to Department standards. It would reduce the burden on the Department from having to individually certify their employees. They would still have to follow the standards and could be removed from the program if the company or individuals didnt follow the standards.

Lauren stated there was a small component when applying they would need to be comfortable with humanely dispatching wildlife. The examination, we got to decide which course and examination we would like the applicants to take. We were working with an outside program if applicants were approved, they would then take the course and examination. If they passed, they would be able to continue forward. Operating standards were clarified. Terms of certification for a first-time applicant, a 6-month probationary period was added. Renewal of ADC certification would require a resubmission of part B and we could request a criminal background check as well (part A). Under denial, suspension or revocation of certifications we would have the authority to temporarily suspend someones certification if we found they were not abiding by the operating standards. We used to have an appeal process if someone was denied or there was a revocation, now it would be more of a reconsideration or review. There was no formal requirement for an appeal. Reinstatement procedures, anyones certification that had been revoked or failed to meet conditions we could suspend them. If they fail to comply with conditions they may be permanently prohibited from receiving certifications. If someone was denied, they could reapply but would have to wait 2 years. Anyone that was an ADC agent but failed to recertify within 3 years would have to go back through the program. If they violated conditions they could be permanently prohibited from the certification process.

Lauren stated the Department met with ADC agents to discuss proposed changes and there did not seem to be any concerns. Since the proposal was advertised, we had not received any written comments. The proposal had been well received from ADC agents and others.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer seasons, rule clarification

Shevenell Webb stated we had three sections of chapter 17 we were proposing to revise. The first was related to the beaver closures. These were at the request of landowners that were looking to prohibit beaver trapping on their property. This was something we reviewed annually. There was one closure being proposed for removal in WMD 17. The second section of chapter 17 we were proposing changes to was the time limit to register furbearers. Currently, trappers had within 10 days of the close of the trapping season to register their furs. We were proposing to expand that to 30 days to allow more opportunity for trappers. Usually, trappers were processing multiple individuals at a time so at the end of the season if they were trapping until the last day, it was nice to allow that extra opportunity. Historically, we had paper based registration cards and now we had electronic registration so as soon as the animal was registered, we had access to the data. We were not proposing any changes to the tagging of otter or bobcats taken by hunters or fox.

Shevenell stated the third section we were proposing changes to was the exclusion devices. There were two current rules we were proposing to clarify. One was related to the securing and anchoring the trap to an object outside and independent from the device. We wanted to make sure it was clear and trappers were not securing it to the device. The second part was related to a joint where it would open and the trap and bait could be placed inside. We were proposing changes to when there was a joint on the trap, that there were two opposite secure attachment points that secured the device so when it was set there was no separation happening and no way an animal could access and get inside where the trap was. The exclusion device protected Canada Lynx from getting caught in traps, as well as other non-target species such bald eagles.

Jim Andrews asked when there was a regulation change proposed and open for public comment, did Maine Fur Trappers receive notice or did they follow this type of thing?

Commissioner Camuso stated James Cote was the lobbyist for the Maine Trappers Association and we met with them quarterly to discuss what was going on in the Department and the trapping world and provide them with updates. They would provide comments and had provided a written comment in support of the proposal.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Fall turkey season WMD 3

Kelsey Sullivan stated this was an addition of WMD 3 to the fall turkey season. We had a spring season there since 2015, but no fall season had ever been there. It was an agricultural area of Maine similar to WMD 6. The regional biologist had requested the area be considered for a fall turkey season. The population was growing and there were increased complaints with turkey conflicts with farmers. Harvest trends were reviewed. Spring harvest was a good index as to what the population was doing. Based on the spring season and registration in the area, it suggested there were a good number of turkeys there. The data suggested that fall harvest was minimal and sustainable based on the spring season. The recommendation was to open WMD 3 to a one turkey bag limit for the fall season and to monitor for 3 years at the spring harvest index to see how the population was responding. For a copy of the PowerPoint presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov

Council Member Comments and Questions

Eric Ward asked if we monitored all the WMDs?

Kelsey stated we did. WMDs that had really low spring harvest were harder to track. Harvest from 2015 2024 for WMD 4 ranged between 1 turkey and 5.

3. Antlerless deer permits 2025

Nathan Bieber gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposal, for a copy please contact becky.orff@maine.gov

Nathan stated most of our management occurred at the WMD level. We were able to collect representative data within each district and capture most of or some of the regional variation that occurred across the state. Most of the management occurred at that level through the issuance of antlerless deer permits. We did some management at the sub-WMD level as well. We currently only had one in the middle of WMD 26. These were towns that were consistently identified as being among the highest for deer conflicts. We also had an expanded archery system that was used to increase harvest in areas where you couldnt safely hunt with a firearm. This included islands as well. At the town level we could help the town administer a special hunt to help meet whatever their deer removal goals were. Typically, the special hunts were driven by concerns about deer conflicts. We also managed on the parcel scale. We tended to prefer non-lethal control options where we could. We could help landowners by using deterrents and encouraging them to plant less palatable species if they were doing ornamental plants. For lethal control we had two options, depredation permits (issued to landowners to remove deer outside of the regulated hunting season) and deer management assistance program (DMAP) permits. These would be permits issued to landowners specifically on their property during the regulated hunting season.

Nathan discussed last years harvest and data used to inform the permit recommendations. We revised the antlerless system a few years ago to try to better meet doe harvest objectives and increase doe harvest generally. While we did increase doe harvest we were still falling short of objectives. It was moving in the right direction; it was our 4th highest doe harvest in the last 50 years. He discussed data collection. The most important information was the correct sex and age class. Incisor teeth were collected to age deer. Samples were also collected to test for CWD. A survey was conducted to estimate time spent hunting during the regular firearms season each year. For the last five years it has been an average of 33 hours per hunter. During the 2024 season it was down to 28 hours.

Nathan stated we also looked at winter mortality so we could see how many deer we think we lost during the winter and how that would factor into the number of permits we should issue. We had just completed a GPS collaring study a few years ago and had finished analyzing the data. The strongest model that best predicted winter mortality in the collared deer looked at snow depth and closed canopy covers as well as anthropogenic influence on deer which could include influences from feeding but also just living around people and their yards where theyre less likely to encounter predators with cleared roads and trails. We used the new model to estimate winter mortality rates. We had five WMDs we rated as a severe winter and two that were moderate. The rest were pretty mild winter conditions. We had some community science deer projects that we used to help inform management. We had the Deer Spy project that had been up for five years and we had collected over 10,000 observations of deer and deer groups in the summer and over 3,000 of those were usable in our recruitment data set and included does and fawns. 2023 was a poor recruitment year, the peak of fawning in Maine is the 1st or 2nd week of June and it was cold and rainy that week. 2024 was more typical and recruitment was up. Statewide over the last five years recruitment had been about .77 fawns recruited to the fall population per doe. Two years ago we added a rut watch project to gather observations of deer breeding season behaviors in the fall. We also had the Northern Maine wintering deer survey to collect observations of deer wintering in northern, eastern Maine to identify pockets of deer in deer wintering habitat.

Nathan discussed the permit recommendations for the 2025 season. The data was reviewed by staff in the seven different regions, and they discussed management strategy and developed a plan. There would be two ways you could take an antlerless deer. You could have a permit, or there were a few ways you could do it without a permit. During the antlerless deer permit system changes a few years ago, we were given the authority to designate districts open to either sex hunting without a permit. Just having a hunting license would allow you to take a deer of either sex in a designated district. If you wanted to take an additional antlerless deer, you would have to have an antlerless deer permit. In either sex WMDs it was an either or choice. If you just had a hunting license and no antlerless permits, you had to choose between a buck or doe with that license. This was an option we were proposing in areas where there were a lot more permits we were issuing than we were able to distribute to hunters. In some cases we had thousands of permits left over at the end of the season. There were two other seasons with ability to harvest antlerless deer without a permit and those were the archery season and the youth hunt. All WMDs would allow antlerless harvest without a permit during the archery season and during the youth hunt. In addition, we were also proposing WMDs 21-25 and 29 those districts would be open to either sex hunting without a permit for all seasons other than expanded archery. We were recommending issuing 123,695 antlerless deer permits, slightly down from 2024 but in addition to these permits we would have some either sex hunting districts as well.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mike Gawtry stated we were recommending fewer antlerless permits vs. last year because we believed we would make up for those antlerless permits with the areas we would be providing either or?

Nathan stated the permit numbers were calculated the same way, but the interesting part was trying to estimate, we did not know how likely someone was going to be to take a doe with their hunting license if given that choice. With that estimate, we looked at the number of hunters in a district, how likely they would be to take a doe and based on that, how many does we think are going to come of that.

4. Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) Permits

Nathan Bieber stated this was a program that helped facilitate site specific deer management goals at the property level. We typically met those goals by issuing permits that were specific to properties for antlerless deer. Other states had these as well. The intended purpose was to pull together existing resources and add new resources to better help landowners deal with deer conflicts on their property. There were three areas we were looking to improve, customer service, data collection and land access. For customer service we were developing a webpage that would serve as a one stop shop for people that had deer conflicts to see what their options were. We would also be issuing DMAP permits. These would be permits issued to commercial growers (orchard, nursery tree, and crop growers) that could demonstrate they were losing money associated with deer conflicts on their properties. We would issue permits for antlerless deer on their property to be used during the regulated hunting seasons. The permits would be free of charge. They could use the permit themselves or give them to other hunters to use within the property.

Nathan stated deer harvested with the permits would need to be registered. This would let us know how many deer were being killed with DMAP permits. The proposal developed criteria for those eligible for a DMAP permit. We were also looking at our ability to help landowners with fencing needs if that could help solve their problem. We made a change to the deer management fund a couple of years ago that allowed us to use $2 from deer registrations to go into the fund and set aside for deer conflict mitigation. We had been working with other fencing programs around the state.

Nathan stated we were looking to improve the data for deer harvested with a depredation permit as he currently did not receive that information. He stated he would like to use the program as a way to help improve land access by giving free permits out to landowners to distribute to hunters that needed help getting deer off their property. He hoped the growers would be willing to put their information on the website so that a hunter could see if there was a property near them that wanted deer removed and that there would also be free permits available at that property. The website should be live relatively soon. We would have a small number of DMAP permits on the landscape by summer to see how it went before advertising more broadly.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Eric Ward asked what seasons would the permits be issued for?

Nathan stated it would be open for all seasons other than expanded archery. When the deer was registered, it would be registered in a DMAP season.

Mike Gawtry asked if the accountability was on the landowner once the permit was issued that the hunters they gave them to were licensed hunters?

Nathan stated we would require that by September they provide a list of hunters including license numbers. We would have that information and know who the hunters were.

There were no further questions or comments.

5. Taxidermy rules

Steve Allarie stated an applicant would send in their request for classification through licensing and it was then forwarded to him. After review, he would set up an appointment with another board member for taxidermy testing. That could consist of a written exam and an oral board. In the case of skull, bone and antlers there was no written exam, but it was a presentation of one skull. The proposal was recommending a change to the definitions in Ch. 20. Under skull mount we wanted to make it clear that it was skull and antlers free of tissue and add oils and free of odor. In order to have a skull that met the criteria it had to be free of oils. Under the classification of taxidermy, we had 15-20 taxidermy exams per year. The majority of the exams were skull, bone and antler. Secondary were game heads. Currently, we had seven classifications for taxidermy. Mammals and heads were a combined classification. The board and staff recommended making these their own classifications. The majority of applicants wanted one or the other, most of them wanted to go for game heads. By separating the classifications it would be an improvement for the applicants. For the oral exam, head applicants would have to bring in one native antlered deer. For mammals, the applicant would have to bring in one small mammal no bigger than a fox.

There were no further questions or comments.

6. Whitewater Rafting rules

Steve Allarie stated as the whitewater boating specialist, he got to interact with and work closely with the commercial industry. The regulations were tied to the commercial side. It had decreased from the early 80s to now. They wanted quick trips and did not want to be away from cell coverage. The first proposal was to change the structure of a Level 1 license. Whitewater had a very structured program in rule under Chapter 14. Seven days of training, 5 days had to be on the river and they had to have 20 training runs currently, 5 of them guided. Because of climate change the biggest problem we had was with the rapidly flowing rivers because of the water source. Brookfield Renewable managed this, and they were held to federal license standards for flows. The Kennebec, which was the primary river for users (approx. 75% of customer base) the 20 training runs during early spring was very difficult to get in within 5 days due to the fluctuation of flows and water. Based on one year having a shortage, a lack of snow one year they couldnt refill their impoundments fast enough to meet their federal license standards.

Steve stated information was brought to the Department based on outfitters, river managers and the board that the quality was not there. The outfitters expressed they had to run and get the applicants down the river and were not able to spend the quality time giving them the proper instruction they needed. By reducing from 20 training runs to 15 it would give enough leeway for the outfitters to have discretionary time during the 3-hour window to squeeze in 3 runs per day and spend more time focusing on eddies and exits and safety training. They could do as many runs as they wanted, but this would be the minimum standard.

Steve stated the next part of the proposal was a housekeeping issue. Every whitewater guide had to take a written exam. Currently, it was 78 questions, etc. and features on the Kennebec River. We currently had a rule for all other testing for guides and taxidermy if someone was not successful on their written exam, they had to wait 14 days before they could retest. We were being consistent with other exams by removing the 30-day requirement and replacing it with 14 days to retest. There was a change regarding whitewater guides that we werent specific enough on what the expectation was when it came to safety equipment. This was for a knife. The boards expectation was that it be readily accessible. Some guides were having folding knives and having to search for it in zipped pockets or inside another vest. The proposal would clarify that were asking for a fixed blade. We had not updated the emergency medical kits for whitewater boating. Every outfitter had to carry a major medical kit that had the equipment listed. To update the required materials we were proposing to remove the report form and writing utensil. If you had an incident on the river beyond first aid it was reportable and a separate reporting requirement under commercial boating. We had an electronic form now for reporting so we could remove the paper from the list. We wanted add buckle straps. On the Kennebec River we had backboards that had been updated through donations and those were distributed along the river. We did not leave straps on the backboards because of the weather, they became brittle and would break. By adding the language, "include at least 2 buckle straps that were 9 long with a minimum width of 1" we thought this was essential. Most of the outfitters carried them. This would ensure that on every whitewater trip you would be able to strap the person to the backboard for evacuation.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mike Gawtry asked if it was necessary to specify further the type of knife?

Steve stated as long as they had a blade that was in good serviceable condition and was able to cut. It needed to be a fixed blade and normally they would wear it on the front of their PFD.

VI. Other Business

Rod Grant asked about suspension/revocation of ADC certificate, was that done by a committee?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we had an appeal board for all licensing appeals. The Attorney Generals office when drafting these new rules was very cognizant about the fact that it didnt go into the APA hearing process. This would be a reconsideration of persons certificate. They were an agent of the Commissioner as opposed to a public person that we were taking away a property right from someone. This was different than a hearing, it was a reconsideration based on Department staff. Being an agent of the Commissioner was different than having a licensed privilege, you were actually working for the Commissioner and there was a different set of standards.

VII. Councilor Reports

No Councilor Reports were given.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public questions or comments.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Council meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Eric Ward and that was seconded by Mike Gawtry to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.