Home → About → Advisory Council → Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes
August 6, 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
Liz Latti, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Kevin Schaberg, Fisheries Section Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Division Deputy Director
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Aaron Cross, Warden Service Major
Steve Allarie, Game Warden Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Eric Ward
Mike Gawtry
Rod Grant
Jim Anderson
Scott Ireland - Teams
Tony Liguori - Teams
Joe Powers Teams
Catherine Gordon Teams
GUESTS
Clarie Perry - Teams
I. Call to Order
Commissioner Camuso called the meeting to order.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
Introductions were made.
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Eric Ward to accept the minutes as presented and that was seconded by Mike Gawtry.
Vote: unanimous in favor minutes accepted.
V. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner Camuso stated we were taking nominations for Chair and Vice-Chair if there were members interested in that responsibility. Chair A motion was made by Joe Powers to accept the nomination of Eric Ward as Chair and that was seconded by Tony Liguori. Nominations ceased. Vote: unanimous in favor Eric Ward elected as Chair.
Vice-Chair A motion was made by Eric Ward to accept the nomination of Jim Andrews as Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Rod Grant. Nominations ceased. Vote: unanimous in favor Jim Andrews elected as Vice-Chair.
VI. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.
B. Step 2
- Ch. 1 Fishing Regulations 2026
Liz Latti stated we had twelve proposals and four different themes. The public comment period ended July 25th and we had a public hearing on July 15th with no members of the public attending. We had 16 written comments received and 70% of those were germane to the proposal. Overall, the comments were supportive. Nine of the eleven written comments that were germane were supportive of the proposals. The special need theme proposal for Crooked River and Harrington Lake was surrounding expanding angling opportunity around fishways. We had one comment that was supportive and one not supportive. That was surrounding concerns of fishing pressure of brook trout in the area. Historically, this was a very popular fishing site and was always under general law. If biologists were to see any changes we would provide additional protection. Anglers would not be allowed to fish in or from the fishway.
Schoodic Lake, which was expanding togue size and bag limits; we had three comments in support and two opposed. One angler felt we should not increase togue harvest but remove smelt as they thought it was impacting catch rates. One was opposed to expanding the harvest and felt we should focus on improving the health of the lake trout fishery by reducing stocking efforts. By increasing lake trout harvest, that is actually beneficial for all the fisheries within the lake. Schoodic Lake has a very low stocking rate. We stock 600 spring yearling salmon in a lake over 7,000 acres so that's 0.084 salmon per acre. On average, we stock .48 salmon per acre.
Schoodic is managed as a high quality salmon fishery so we kept the numbers fairly low so there was not a lot of competition, and they grew rapidly there. The overabundance of lake trout which was documented through winter creel surveys and trap netting. A public meeting was held and it was well supported to provide some sort of additional management action.
Jim Andrews asked if this was a similar regulation to the one used to help Mooosehead Lake?
Liz Latti stated yes. Moosehead had gone through several different lake trout regulations and was monitored. This may be modified as we saw additional harvest. We had two proposals for expanding angler opportunity, Cross and Lobster Lakes. Three members of the public were supportive. One member was in opposition of a liberalized fishing season, line restrictions and lake trout bag limit on Lobster Lake they felt existing regulations appeared to be supportive of the current trout fishery. We took a strong look at where we could increase opportunity that was biologically sound. Biologists had a long trend of declining use of the fishery so expanding line and bag limits would offset the declining use, we did not anticipate any negative impacts. For Errors, Conflicts and Confusion we had seven proposals. They were around the northern Maine early smelt season where anglers were encountering yellow perch and white perch. They had to release them by law. Perch were an invasive there and we wanted anglers when they encountered them to remove them. The proposals were to address that. We didnt have any comments specifically in support, but we had many comments in support of all the proposals. There was one member of the public in opposition as they had concerns with overharvest of native fish. All the fish with bag limits were protected and those were both native and sport fish. In these seven waters the native fish would be very unlikely to be encountered during this sort of fishing. If they were to encounter them, they would be similar to someone setting a bait trap and they could harvest and keep those. We would anticipate very minimal impacts for this type of fishing. We would be monitoring those species in these waters. Any overharvest would come from bait harvesting which we had not documented.
Joe Powers stated one of the things he was finding in Aroostook County was the Amish community loved to fish Cross Lake for white perch and they did extremely well at harvesting them.
Liz Latti stated they were a popular sport fishery; however, they were not native. As with all our non-native fish species, we didnt want to award protection to them. Similar with other species around the state people become attached to them, theyre fun to fish for and good to eat.
Eric Ward shared a comment regarding nets and the spread of invasive fish.
Liz Latti stated commercial bait dealers needed to follow a drying or cleaning period. Law enforcement was on the landscape trying to ensure that happened to prevent spreading invasive plants, etc.
Colonel Scott discussed clean, drain, dry and our efforts to educate the public and bait dealers.
There were no further questions or comments.
A motion was made by Joe Powers to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Tony Liguori.
Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.
A motion was made by Scott Ireland to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Joe Powers.
Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.
C. Step 1
- Repeal Ch. 22 Rules Pertaining to Department Publication
Commissioner Camuso stated these were the regulations that outlined the Departments magazine which we had not printed since 2008 and were now obsolete.
Eric Ward asked why we no longer printed the magazine.
Commissioner Camuso stated we had the magazine, and we had the lawbooks and we moved to put some of the stuff that was in the magazine into the lawbooks. Feedback was that people didnt want articles, etc. in the lawbook as it made it too big and confusing. We did continue to produce articles, but they were posted on the website. We did have a virtual magazine for a short time but did not receive a great response. At this point the rule chapter was obsolete.
There were no further comments or questions.
2. Musquash Lake, West, T6R1 NBPP (South Zone) rule change
Liz Latti stated the proposal was coming in now as a result of an illegal introduction of largemouth bass into West Musquash Lake. This was a lake Downeast that had lake trout, brook trout and salmon, all self-sustaining populations. Biologists received a picture of someone that caught a largemouth bass in early July. Biologists confirmed that they were present in multiple age classes on July 9th. It was unique in that this water was in the south zone where under general law, bass had a size and bag limit and were managed. However, given that this was an illegal introduction and was in a water with a cold water, self-sustaining fishery we would like to propose an S-13 regulation which was no size or bag limit. We didnt want to manage a non-native illegally introduced fish that could promote people moving fish. We didnt want to give the incentive that if fish were to show up in new waters that we would begin to manage them. We recognized that in many waters around the state bass were a sport fish and we managed them, however, this water was in the south zone and we would like to give it the north zone regulation which was no size or bag limit. We would move to have this go into effect not January 1 as with the other fishing regulations, but after being adopted.
Scott Ireland asked if there was a concern with the bass wiping out the needle smelts coming in from Flood Brook?
Liz Latti stated bass were aggressive foragers so they would key in on smelt runs. If there was any shore spawning for brook trout they would target the fry as they hatched. Not only were they competing for food but they were also preying upon the YOY juvenile fish.
Eric Ward asked about doing a project with electrofishing and trying to remove as many as possible.
Liz Latti stated we had done that in the past, and it could be effective to an extent. It was very time and labor intensive. Certain areas of the state we could do that when the fish were on the nest and remove adults. In other waters such as the Rapid River, we could manipulate flows to push the juvenile bass off the nests. This was a first step to try and manage this new introduction. We would be looking at other ways we could manage it.
Eric Ward asked about LD 1548 - An Act to Prevent the Introduction or Transfer of Invasive Fish Species in Inland Waters of the State. He had read articles where people were still under the assumption that you had to catch someone dumping the fish in the body of water. That was no longer the case. Was there any update on the investigation for this introduction?
Colonel Scott stated it was being investigated. The burden of proof was always on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. The fact there was a presence of bass in the lake and there was no other way they could have gotten there other than someone putting them in was called corpus delicti. We then had to prove who did that. If we had a credible witness that said they were there and watched someone dump the bass in, it was up to a judge or jury if that was good enough evidence. A confession could also be used. One of the challenges was when did the crime occur? It may take more than the statue of limitations to even realize the bass were there. He believed the new law was from time of discovery, so July 9th would be when the statute of limitations would kick off. That would be a misdemeanor crime, so it would be 3 years from July 9th to have the evidence together and present it in court.
Jim Andrews stated part of the issue was when these things came to court, he thought Colonel Scott was right that wardens were hesitant to charge cases where it was unintentional. There were other institutional barriers once it got to court. Going through the District Attorneys (DA) office you had to have a DA that would go in front of a judge and ask for a $10,000 fine. The reality of the judicial system in the State currently with the lack of council, prosecutors and judges was that you would have a very difficult time getting a judge to go along with even having a hearing or a trial for that. The education programs and going after those that were sponsoring the contests, he thought that was where the meat of it was going to lie. Illegal introduction cases were extraordinarily hard to prove. Not only was there the statute of limitations but there was also the problem of proving the identity of the person who actually did the stocking beyond a reasonable doubt and if you were alleging someone put largemouths in West Musquash, if you had someone say they saw someone dump fish into that lake, you had to prove those fish were largemouth bass.
VII. Other Business
Commissioner Camuso provided a few updates for the Council. A new director for the USFWS had been confirmed. Multi-state grant funding had been released. Some of the Departments positions were funded solely through these. Cooperative unit funding and state wildlife grants may also be approved in the federal budget, but the President could deny this. The Warden Service was beginning to hold their annual meetings, and the Departments annual employee appreciate days were being held over the next couple of weeks. We were also looking into holding a bear den visit day for Council members this winter. A moose video premier was being held in Portland in September, and we were also working on a video of 50 years of the bear project.
VIII. Councilor Reports
Councilor Reports were given.
IX. Public Comments & Questions
There were no public comments or questions.
X. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 10, 2025 at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.
XI. Adjournment
A motion was made by Eric Ward and that was seconded by Rod Grant to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.