Home → About → Advisory Council → Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes
December 10, 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
Frank Frost, Regional Fisheries Biologist
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Division Deputy Director
Phillip DeMaynadier, Wildlife Diversity Section Supervisor
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Management Section Supervisor
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Caitlin Drasher, Bear Biologist
Aaron Cross, Warden Service Major
Cody Lounder, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Eric Ward
Rod Grant
Jim Andrews
Catherine Gordon
Wing Goodale
Mike Gawtry
John Neptune - Teams
Scott Ireland - Teams
Tony Liguori Teams
Joe Powers Teams
Dave Craven - Teams
GUESTS
Jason House
Larry Bastian
7 additional public members 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
Introductions were made.
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Jim Andrews to accept the minutes as presented and that was seconded by Tony Liguori.
Vote: unanimous in favor minutes accepted.
V. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.
B. Step 2
- Haymock Lake fish regs petition
Liz Latti discussed the public comments that had been received on the proposal. There were 41 total comments received with 85% of them in support of the petition and 15% opposed. She read a summary that was provided to the Council. For a copy of the summary please contact becky.orff@maine.gov.
Frank Frost gave a slide presentation on the management of Haymock Lake. For a copy of this presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov.
Haymock Lake is a remote water east of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. There is access via a plowed road (Pinkham Road) each year. Historically, it has been a popular lake trout (togue) fishery. There were approximately 27 togue waters within Region G. Haymock was an above average fishery and there was high fishing pressure there during the 80's. There had been good survival and growth rates exceeding those of similar waters such as 3rd Musquacook, Echo and Priestley Lakes.
Frank Frost discussed angler trends for the area. The trend across northern Maine has been lower and lower use in the past 10-15 years; Haymock once supported a very popular fishery with exceptionally high use...use has dropped here more dramatically than other waters in the AWW region. Summer flight counts from 1997 and 2025 showed a decrease from 1600 anglers in 1997 down to 50 in 2025.
Commissioner Camuso asked if our survey effort for use was consistent.
Frank Frost stated they were consistent with our standard use protocol.
Commissioner Camuso stated our fishing license sales were stable to increasing, did he have a guess why such a drastic drop off in the northern part of the state.
Frank Frost stated he thought people were still buying licenses but not going out as much. The mill closing in Millinocket was another factor.
Scott Ireland asked if there was any change in sporting camp activity during that time?
Frank Frost stated he couldnt think of any. He discussed flight counts and how the data was used as the foundation of management.
Commissioner Camuso asked about changes in behavior around catch and release.
Frank Frost stated that the catch and release ethic was much more prevalent. There were only 15 togue harvested this summer on Haymock. This was not the first formal petition we had received to open Haymock to ice fishing. In March of 1991 we received a petition from Doug Denico which was denied after going through the process.
Wing Goodale asked if there were any independent assessments of the stock beyond the fishing use.
Frank Frost stated we had done trap netting and gill netting. There was invasive smelt there that we detected in 2019 and that had what appeared to be a dramatic impact on the wild togue population. That impact had more to do with the survival of the young togue when they hatched in the spring. We were seeing these impacts on lake whitefish and char as well. We were shifting from a wild population there to a hatchery population. The smelts competed for food.
Scott Ireland asked about stocking to combat the smelts.
Frank Frost stated we had an effort there where we were trying to conserve whitefish. We needed to stock a large number of togue to do that. 1,000 togue annually for Haymock was a large number. And there was the petition to open it to ice fishing. We were trying to put in perspective what the harvest would be in the winter. Staff felt that the impacts of winter angling and increased harvest would not have any impact on efforts to conserve whitefish. Use was low and angler behavior had changed and all that was used to calculate harvest.
Commissioner Camuso asked him to explain how introducing togue would benefit whitefish.
Frank Frost stated when we had high togue densities, we stock a large number of togue which knocks the smelts down for a year or more and it allows a couple years of recruitment for whitefish.
Wing Goodale asked how the smelt were introduced.
Frank Frost stated we detected them in 2019, they were likely there several years prior. We were not sure how they were introduced. It had been a no live fish as bait restriction for many years so it had been illegal to use smelts there for a long time. It was either inadvertent or it could be illegal.
Scott Ireland asked about the impact to wild brook trout that was mentioned in the opposition.
Frank Frost stated he would touch on that later. In the past, we had a petition in 1981 which was denied based on high summer fishing pressure. 1980 was the first year for a 1 togue daily bag limit. That was an effort to build the togue population at that time. We still maintained the 1 togue daily bag limit and was our most restrictive regulation on togue currently. People did not harvest as much as they used to. Overharvest of lake trout was not a concern. The population would shift from wild to stocked based on smelt, regardless of ice fishing. We were not expecting fishing pressure to rise significantly. We would be working in the area in 2027 and would be able to more frequently monitor the waters during the summer and winter.
Frank Frost discussed the pros and cons of opening to ice fishing. Pros would be increased opportunity which was part of our mission. It would also allow some flexibility in managing togue numbers. Cons could be possible impacts on brook trout (there was a small population there). We felt the same number of fish would be harvested, that harvest would shift across seasons.
Eric Ward stated he felt anytime we could increase opportunity that was a good thing. 1st Roach Pond was opened 15 years ago with the intent of cleaning out some of the smaller togue and after two years they harvested many of the big fish. It was bigger and deeper. Haymock had sporting camps, he was concerned. With the stocking of togue, a lot of the comments mentioned smelts. Now we were rewarding however they got in the lake. People werent going to catch smelts, it was no live fish as bait. There was concern this was driven by business opportunity, did this set a precedent further down the road.
Commissioner Camuso stated Moosehead Lake was the known destination for angling. 1st Roach was 25 minutes from Moosehead. When that opened up it opened up a place for a lot of people that were already in the area. There were not that many people going to Haymock.
Eric Ward stated this would be something new, and may attract people to the area.
Liz Latti stated with similar waters, the first year was the heaviest use and it steadily declined. We looked at use and harvest when petitioned. Its hard to compare setting a precedent, each case is viewed individually, its location to a population, current use, the fishery there, etc.
Commissioner Camuso asked if Haymock was on their list to consider opening in the future?
Frank Frost stated it was not one we would jump on. We would consider whats available in the area and how many people were there.
Mike Gawtry asked if there was clear public access there or was it limited through private ownership.
Frank Frost stated it was North Maine Woods entirely. It was roadside parking and an unimproved boat launch area that people could access the lake.
Dave Craven asked about lake and dwarf whitefish populations.
Frank Frost stated they were the same species just two different forms. Dwarf whitefish were found at Haymock and averaged 10".
Dave Craven stated because they didnt reach a size anglers would go after, was there value to them as a forage fish for brook trout and togue?
Frank Frost stated they were not a size that anglers would target and yes they did provide some forage for the lake trout and limited extent for the brook trout.
Commissioner Camuso asked why we were managing for whitefish if they werent a target species or providing much for food.
Frank Frost stated it was because of the decline we were seeing over the last several decades.
Liz Latti stated Maine was unique, similar to char with its wild populations, it was one of our native fisheries. There were few in the northeast putting emphasis on 1 of 50 waters.
Jim Andrews stated he followed the logic of why we were stocking togue to beat back the smelt population. Based on the logic this was a lake we needed to supplement togue for some time becoming a stocked fishery as opposed to a wild fishery for togue, he was not worried so much about the impact to the togue population but he did have some lingering worries about the brook trout population and what the impact of the additional amount of anglers would have on that, particularly winter anglers. He thought survival rates on catch and release in the winter was much lower.
Eric Ward stated it was about 30% mortality.
Jim Andrews stated he did worry about the brook trout population. We had protected them in Haymock with a fairly restrictive rule. Was it a target species there?
Frank Frost stated it had never been a targeted fishery. Although we classified it as a principal fishery it had really never been a destination for brook trout fishing. Anglers there were mostly targeting togue. He thought the low numbers of brook trout, we had known that for a long time. That regulated how many were caught. He thought the overall harvest would not change it would just shift between seasons.
Jim Andrews asked about the smelt impacts on brook trout.
Frank Frost stated they competed for food and the smelt was a predator for small fish.
There were no further questions or comments.
A motion was made by Tony Liguori to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Dave Craven.
Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.
Commissioner Camuso stated there was also an amendment to the proposal to add the classification as a "B water for an opening date of January 1 annually.
A motion was made by Jim Andrews to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Catherine Gordon.
Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.
C. Step 1
- Moose permit allocations
Lee Kantar stated the adaptive hunt, which was 550 permits, had reached its last year. It was a 5-year program and those 5 years were done. The 550 permits would be gone. In the spring of 2026 he hoped to have a finalized report on what we learned over the last 5 years. We were planning for a final capture in 2026 on January 5th in WMD 4 with 70+ calves. That was the final field component to support the adaptive hunt information.
If we subtracted the 550 permits to the permit allocation, there would only be a slight change in WMD 4. All the rest of the WMDs would remain the same for permit allocations. With the 550 permits gone, we were proposing to put 250 antlerless permits in WMD 4 during the normal cow season for that week. We were proposing a total number of 3,705 permits for the 2026 moose hunt.
There were no further questions or comments.
- Moose Season dates
Lee Kantar stated we were also proposing a change in the season, primarily the dates and also the introduction to opening the remaining western units to a September hunt. People have wanted only a week difference between the two bull hunts, the September bull and October bull. In the past, the September bull season opened after the close of bear baiting. It had always been tied to that and would remain tied to that. The October bull hunt had always been tied to Indigenous Peoples Day. Therefore, the way the calendar would fall each year, some years we had a week between the two bull seasons and some years we had two weeks. We would hear about that from the public. The proposal would amend the season language to ensure that despite the way the calendar days fell, there would always be one week between bull seasons.
Lee Kantar gave some history on the September opening of the western WMDs. The Wildlife Division had recommended this change since 2014. It was biologically feasible and we were not recommending any permit changes to those units. We wanted people to see we were not changing the permit allocations, we were just splitting the permits in half between the seasons. Some units would have an odd number of permits and those few would go to the September season. An important point as to why the September season had been important to many people was because in some of the western units there had been an increased challenge in land closing and access being difficult. With the ability to call a bull during the September season and maybe a slight advantage vs. October. That could be beneficial for success rates and opportunity for the September bull hunters in those WMDs.
In 2017 we redid our Big Game Plan, that was a 10-year plan. There was a moose subcommittee and a larger big game committee tasked with making recommendations to improve the quality of the hunt. In 2018 as part of the Big Game Plan we opened WMDs 10, 11, 18, 27 and 28 to a September hunt because there was a belief there wasnt as much social angst over that. The outcome seemed to be successful. In 2023 the Legislature directed the Department to convene a stakeholder group and to report back on strategies to reduce user conflicts during the moose hunting season. That tasked the Department with putting together a human-dimensions survey which was done by Responsive Management. That gauged public views on various aspects of moose management satisfaction including what the public thought about the September opening in the western region, Rangeley and Moosehead. When a proposal was put forward its important to get the viewpoints of all people in the state, not just one specific user group to have a broader perspective. The reports reflected that. Lastly, the September opening had much debate going back to 1999. After the surveys, the biologists spoke with the town officials in Rangeley, Eustis and Greenville. Based on discussions the decision was to bring this forth to rulemaking so the public would have an opportunity to comment.
Commissioner Camuso stated this had been discussed for about 25 years and it had been the desire of the wildlife division to open these areas to a September season. It would be controversial and we could anticipate there being a lot of comments. We would be having public hearings in Rangeley and Greenville. There were no additional permits being proposed, it was the same number of permits split into two seasons primarily to provide for a better experience for moose hunters, and anyone out on the landscape at that time of year. The goal was to reduce conflict.
Bob Cordes stated he felt the Responsive Management report was very informative. Public consultation was pretty lengthy. This was one of our bigger human dimensions surveys associated with a stakeholder group. Not only did we survey moose hunters directly, guides, landowners and their representatives, fishermen, outdoor businesses, etc. In that survey there wasnt the wide public outcry for this proposal. It was supportive of the proposal moving forward.
Jim Andrews stated he thought the impact on the quality of the hunt was going to be good. He thought it was much needed. Just the week before the hunt and getting ready could be maddening trying to find spots where there werent other people. This would spread out those moose hunters over two weeks. He thought it was supported by the survey as well. To the extent there was any criticism of the hunt in the survey was mostly about hunter conflicts with other moose hunters and bird hunters.
Scott Ireland discussed tagging a moose and having to mark the spot on the map where it was harvested. People were looking at the tagging books and then going to those spots. People were not giving accurate information to keep people out of their hunting spots. There had to be a better way to collect that data.
Lee Kantar stated the location requirement was for the purpose of the warden service and had no relevance to moose biological data. He usually tried to dissuade people from looking at the books.
There were no further questions or comments.
- Youth hunting days for bear and wild turkey
Jen Vashon stated this came about from a legislative resolve which asked the Department to go through rulemaking to increase youth hunter participation by adding additional youth hunting opportunities. It effected our bear season and turkey season by providing additional youth hunting days for both and having a 2-day youth season during the regular bear hunting season as well as having a 2-day youth hunt during the spring turkey season and adding an additional youth day during the bear hound season. There may be some public concern because the bear hound season overlaps with the bear baiting and trapping seasons. The Council may hear concerns that by opening the youth season there could be potential conflict between those user groups. The regular season that would open the Monday following also occurred during the baiting and trapping seasons.
Commissioner Camuso stated most of the time when we had a youth hunt, were there other seasons already open? Did the conflict already sometimes exist? It was not the case that on youth day, only youth were allowed to hunt for any species.
Jen Vashon stated yes, that did occur. In accordance with the resolve we proposing to have the 2-day youth hunt the Friday and Saturday prior to opening day of bear season and the Friday and Saturday prior to opening of spring turkey season. This would be a 2-year pilot effort, and we would reassess whether or not we would want to continue with these youth hunting days after looking at potential conflicts. The proposed youth hunting with dogs was only a one-day season.
Currently, youth hunters harvested about 46 bears and 504 turkeys. We expected harvest of both to perhaps double, but we did not anticipate that having any impacts on the population. We also did not anticipate there being a significant increase in school absences. That had been a concern in the past. The bear season opened prior to Labor Day weekend so many schools were not in session. The turkey season was open all day so youth hunters could hunt before or after school.
Jim Andrews asked if we had information on whether participants in youth hunting day actually followed through with buying licenses and becoming active adult hunters?
Bob Cordes stated there was a fair amount of research with R3 nationwide and those youth hunting days were really a retention tool. Youth hunters that were already engaged had a support system and those contributed to the retention of those hunters long term. The youth days really werent a good recruitment tool, but they were a good retention tool.
There were no further questions or comments.
- Ch. 10 Significant Wildlife Habitat
Phillip DeMaynadier gave a slide presentation on the background of LD 1246 An Act to include Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat in the definition of Significant Wildlife Habitat under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). Please contact becky.orff@maine.gov for a copy of the presentation.
LD 1246 was a bill to extend protection to endangered and threatened species from development by requiring DEP to consult with IFW on development proposals that overlapped with polygons that we serve DEP of threatened and endangered species. One of the requirements of the bill was that there be major substantive rulemaking with DEP and IFW. The rules would sit within the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA), Significant Wildlife Habitat section. It was where seven significant wildlife habitats were located. Endangered and threatened species habitat was not one of them and hadnt been since 1998, we were trying to fix that. Habitat loss and fragmentation affected the greatest number of species, yet there was a regulatory gap. IFW did not see development reviews except if they were at the site location law level. This was trying to address that. The law change basically took the habitats for endangered and threatened species and added them to this tool where we could define them and serve GIS layer to DEP and removed it from requiring the static hard to update maps. This would only transpire when a NRPA permit was required, a lot of development did not require that. We wanted the IFW rules to essentially mimic the DEP rules re: LD 1246.
Wing Goodale asked how this would look on the ground. If there was a 5 house development that required a NRPA permit and it overlapped with one of the species that was described on the map. What happened during the consultation, what input would the Department provide?
Phillip DeMaynadier stated it would be site location law permitting, which we already had. It would be NRPA permitting which we didnt see now which was probably the most used plannings permit in Maine short of storm water. We wouldnt see storm water. If it required a NRPA permit or gravel and mining permit as well, it was covered under this process. That polygon we served to DEP which was our most parsimonious estimate of whats the required habitat for that species. If that intersected the property where a NRPA permit was already in play for other reasons this would require DEP to contact IFWs environmental review department. At that point we wouldnt be making any requirements, we would make recommendations to DEP about conditions on the permit we would like to see to help minimize impacts.
There were no further questions or comments.
VI. Other Business
Commissioner Camuso discussed the moose lodge permits briefly and stated we would be looking at applications for compliance.
VII. Councilor Reports
Councilor Reports were given.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
There were no public questions or comments.
IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 10, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, Augusta.
X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Tony Liguori and that was seconded by Mike Gawtry to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.