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
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Division Deputy Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Management Section Supervisor
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Aaron Cross, Warden Service Major
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Eric Ward
Rod Grant
Jim Andrews
Catherine Gordon
Scott Ireland
Wing Goodale - Teams
Mike Gawtry - Teams
Joe Powers - Teams
Dave Craven - Teams
GUESTS
In person 2
24 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 Eric Ward.
Vote: unanimous in favor minutes accepted.
V. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.
B. Step 2
1. Moose permit allocations and 2. Moose Season dates
Nate Webb gave a brief overview of both proposals and a summary of the public comments received. Moose permit allocations was a rule that we proposed annually to set permit numbers for the fall hunts. This year, the only real change was the elimination of the adaptive hunt and the permits that were associated with that hunt. That was a five-year research project.
The research itself was still ongoing with some data collection that moose biologists and regional staff were still working on. The hunt component had concluded, and we would be working to analyze those results, and hopefully make some recommendations based on those results within the next year or so. The proposal was for 3,705 permits statewide, 2,645 antlered, and 1,060 antlerless permits. The proposal also eliminated the language in our Chapter 16 rule regarding the framework for the adaptive hunt as well.
The second proposal essentially did two things. It added a September hunting season for antlered moose in all remaining wildlife management districts in which moose hunting permits were issued. It also adjusted the timing of the October antlered moose season, such that there would always be a one-week gap in between the September and October seasons. Some years now, based on the calendar and the way that those seasons were structured in rule, there's a two-week gap. This proposal would collapse that such that there's a one-week gap every year. This was advanced in response to the moose management plan for 2017, as well as a working group established by the legislature in 2023 that led to a scientific survey that we conducted to look at various aspects of the structure of the moose hunt, timing of the hunt, and potential changes to the conflict between moose hunters and between moose hunters and other users on the landscape.
For both of these proposals, the timeline and public comment process was the same. We held an in-person public hearing in Oquossoc on January 20th, and at that meeting we had approximately 25 members of the public attending in person. There were six online. There were six people that spoke and offered comments on the proposals at that meeting, and all those were in favor of the proposals. We also had a public hearing in Greenville on January 22nd. That meeting had approximately 90 people that attended in person and 19 individuals that attended or participated online. There were 39 people that offered testimony either in support or in opposition or neither for nor against the proposals. It was roughly an even split. In terms of written public comments, we accepted those until February 2nd. We received approximately 351 written comments.
There were a number of individuals that supplied multiple comments, so that was the number of distinct comments that we received, but in some cases there was more than one comment submitted by an individual.
It could be difficult at times to interpret whether someone was for or against the proposal. In many cases they're in favor of certain elements and opposed to others or neutral to other components. Based on what he read, there were about 75 in favor, roughly 265 that were opposed, and there were half a dozen to a dozen that either their comments weren't really relevant to the proposal or they seemed to be neutral. The numbers could differ just by interpreting the comments a little bit differently. This was just a rough breakdown. For those that expressed opposition, most of the comments were related to opposition for adding the second week in September.
There was some opposition to adjusting the timing of that October season, and there were a handful of comments that were directed towards the permit recommendations and were in favor of either reducing the number of permits issued in certain wildlife management districts or in some cases were advocating to eliminate permits or close hunting, at least temporarily altogether. Some of the comments that were made by those in opposition, there was some concern about moose susceptibility during the rut, which could cause an unsustainable level of harvest. There was some concern about the impacts of hunting during the rut on reproductive success of moose or genetic integrity of the population. There were a number of comments that indicated that moose, at least in certain areas, are more acclimated to people, which could make them more vulnerable to harvest than in other districts. There were some concerns about safety in terms of having hunters and other people in the woods in the same areas at the same time. There were a number of comments that were concerned about perceptions that the moose population was already declining and that sightings had declined and that people were seeing less moose.
There were also comments about the economics, particularly in the Moosehead Lake area, particularly in districts 8, 9, and 14, and concern that is peak foliate season and a lot of other recreational activity and tourism in the Greenville area in particular at that time of year, and having hunters on the landscape at the same time could cause negative economic consequences for some of those businesses in the regional economy. There was some concern that this proposal was being advanced as a way to generate more revenue by the department. There were also a number of comments about orphaning of cows, which weren't necessarily relevant to the proposal at hand, but that was a theme that came up quite a bit and there was some concern that landowners may post their land if the moose hunting season were extended into September in certain districts.
Where specific wildlife management districts were mentioned, those references were mostly to WMDs 8, 9, and 14. There were also quite a few individual references to district 9 specifically, from those that were concerned or opposed to certain aspects of the proposal.
Nate Webb discussed comments that voiced support for the proposal. There were a number that mentioned that they felt that splitting the hunters across two weeks of hunting would reduce conflicts, not only between moose hunters, but between moose hunters and other people on the landscape. There were a number of comments that felt there would be a positive economic benefit and allow local businesses to take full advantage of the moose hunters across a two-week period rather than a one-week period. There were comments that mentioned that they felt that safety would increase. Many of those that were in support felt that the hunting experience would be better than it is currently in those districts, both due to the timing of the season in September, which aligns better with the rut and opportunities to call moose, and also that splitting hunters across two weeks would reduce crowding. There were a few comments that were specifically related to some of the viewing tours. There was some mention that they only visited a handful of very specific locations, and that hunters tend to avoid those areas.
There were a number of folks that commented that moose viewing can already occur six or more months per year, while hunting guides and other businesses that are dependent on moose hunting only have one week in those districts currently, and that Maine already has many hunting seasons that overlap with that time period.
Commissioner Camuso stated she wanted to address a couple of comments that came up, which she personally found rather offensive, one being that the Department had already made up its mind on the proposal and wanted to clarify it was a public process. The Department put forward a proposal, and then we listened to the public. If we weren't going to listen and engage with the public, then there'd be no point in the public process. We absolutely went to those hearings with the intention of listening and hearing what people had to say. There was also a letter written to our legislative committee challenging the timing of those events. The Department went to Rangeley and the hearing started at 4:00pm until whenever they were done. We went to Greenville, same thing, 4:00pm until whenever it was done. If the public wanted to participate in a law, the public must come to Augusta, either at 9:00am or at 1:00pm for a hearing. The legislature did not travel to communities to hear from the public. People had the opportunity with this process to participate virtually or in person, and we made every effort to connect with the communities most impacted as effectively as we could. People had ample opportunity to comment.
Nate Webb stated he was proud of the moose management program. We had a dedicated full-time moose biologist and he believed we were the only state in the lower 48 that had that. We invested a lot in moose and were very proud of the work that we did. It was a department-wide effort. We were proud of the science and that we're able to bring the recommendations that we made regarding how we manage moose in the state. Revenue was never a consideration when we set permit numbers. It was not uncommon for the department to oppose legislation that would have a positive economic benefit on the department if we feel like it wasn't the right thing to do for Maine's wildlife or for the public and the state of Maine. In terms of this proposal, it would not increase revenue to the department. In fact, there would be a greater financial and staff burden in administering another week of moose hunting.
Lee Kantar and other staff and the research done had shown, that winter ticks and impacts from other parasites were the primary cause of moose population declines that we've seen in Maine, not hunting. Lee Kantar had said repeatedly that hunting really had little, if any, impact on the moose population given the permit levels that we're issuing now. That was the reason we implemented the adaptive hunt to see if we could increase harvest at a level which would actually impact the population enough to cause an improvement in moose health.
Nate Webb discussed the context around the decline in moose sightings, particularly near roads. There were a lot of comments about that. The previous moose management plan, which was established in 2017, one of the primary objectives of that 15-year plan was to reduce vehicle collisions with moose. That was a key driver in how we managed moose in the state for a long time and it still was an important factor. We worked very closely with the Department of Transportation to reduce moose activity near roads. We used signage, lighting, drainage, changes to visibility, all with the intent of reducing vehicle collisions. He also discussed the advertising of the public hearings. There was a very strict statute that outlined how rules were advertised, the Administrative Procedures Act, and we followed that for every rule and were consistent in the way that we did that.
Commissioner Camuso stated her recommendation was to have a discussion, and then for the Council to give feedback. The Department had the ability to modify the proposal. We couldnt expand on the proposal, but we could pull back components of the proposal and then bring that forward to the Council at Step 3. She didnt see any issue with moving the Rangeley Region districts forward. There was really no opposition to those. There was clearly significant opposition to the Greenville area and she recommended discussion around those districts and what they may want to move forward with or what we should pull back. She believed there needed to be a modification to the proposal. We heard from the public very clearly there was significant opposition to opening the three districts in the Greenville area
Wing Goodale asked about WMDs 8, 9, and 14, if there was additional information on how they differed from each other in public perception.
Nate Webb stated most of the opposition seemed to be focused on three districts, 8, 9, and 14. Where there was specific mention of an individual district WMD 9 was the most common district mentioned in opposition. WMDs 8, 9, and 14, Greenville was right in the area where those three came together. Portions of Greenville were in each of those three districts. WMD 9 was one that we had traditionally managed a little bit differently because of the strong moose-viewing industry and being very careful with the timing of hunting there was important to ensure that conflicts with moose-viewing and tourism in general were minimized. We also did not have an antlerless moose hunting season in WMD 9. That was something that biologically we were not very comfortable with. We should be harvesting antlerless moose in that district, but we did not currently.
Eric Ward stated he would like to read off for clarification some things he pulled out of the comments. "If moose hunting was to remain a sustainable and respected tradition for future generations, management decisions must be guided by sound science with long-term vision, not short-term revenue and increased hunter success alone. Maine's moose are more than a resource. They are an icon of the Northwoods, a cornerstone of the tourism industry, and a responsibility we hold in trust for those who come after us." He thought this had been answered, the proposal wasnt about an increase in revenue.
Commissioner Camuso stated what the permit levels were going to generate for income was not a consideration. She explained Department funding and money from the general fund that we received.
Dave Craven wanted to clarify, he thought there was no controversy in WMDs 7, 12, 13, 15 and 17.
Commissioner Camuso stated yes, but 14 and 17 were together, whatever we did in 14 we would have to do in 17.
Nate Webb stated there were many comments that expressed opposition to the proposal in its entirety and did not specify individual WMDs. He thought he saw one comment in opposition to WMD 7. All the remainder were regarding 8, 9 and 14.
Commissioner Camuso stated at the hearing in Rangeley a representative from the Board of Selectmen attended and shared that the board in Rangeley voted and unanimously supported the proposal. There seemed to be much broader community support in the Rangeley area for the WMDs in that area.
Lee Kantar stated the management plan drove the permits. The plan was constructed with public input and consultation. What was confusing to people, with the winter tick dynamic and research we had done, told us that if you had winter tick killing calves then there should be less moose. This was the difference between management from 15 years ago was what we had learned about winter tick.
Eric Ward read another comment. Unlike deer, orphan moose calves are not adopted by other cows. If a cow is harvested her calf is left to face Maines long winter alone without guidance, protection or learning survival behavior.
Lee Kantar stated it seemed someone would bring this up to deflect from what was really happening. He was not sure how orphan calves was pertinent to WMDs 8, 9 and 14 as there were no cow permits issued there. He was not sure what people were seeing on the landscape that led them to this. The scientific method was used. Observation was the first step. The next step was to test the assumptions and collect data to support that. When we did aerial surveys we counted bulls, cows and calves. Over the last decade we were doing this we classified over 4,000 individual moose. A lone calf was seen less than 5 times. He was not sure what people were referring to with concept of orphan calves. A calf in January was 400lbs. We had to consider the condition of the animal going into winter. The calf was weaned by the end of summer and lived like an adult. What pressured the animal over the wintertime was energetics and that was driven by the quality and availability of food and the depth of snow.
Areas where we had cow harvest, not all cows had a calf every year. There were changes in reproduction due to winter tick. This had been studied for 13 years documenting the impact of winter tick. We looked at ticks on moose during the harvest. On average, there were too many ticks on moose.
Commissioner Camuso talked about collard moose and the signal when there was mortality. The moose were located and examined.
Lee Kantar discussed collecting samples in the field and sending to the animal health lab for diagnostic purposes. A peer review paper was published in the Journal of Zoology that talked about New Hampshire and Maine and the results of what was collected from the moose and cause of death. The only thing that stood out was iron levels which had to do with anemia, which was the blood loss from winter tick.
Eric Ward read another comment. It is quite clear by the way the state has handled this entire process barely meeting the minimum notification requirements that the decision has already been made and this whole process is simply going through the necessary motions to satisfy due process. That said, I fully understand my letter is all but guaranteed to fall on deaf ears and not likely to even be read by you or anyone else. This was made abundantly clear when all testimony made public in public hearings was thrown out from the record. Eric Ward stated someone from Greenville contacted him and ask about public comment from the hearing being thrown out. The hearing was recorded and transcribed, the comments were not thrown out.
Eric Ward read another comment. I oppose an extra week of moose hunting and moving up the existing October hunting in WMDs 8, 9 and 14. Id like to see the moose make a comeback.
Lee Kantar stated that was the unfortunate thing about winter tick, you couldnt stockpile moose on the landscape by having no hunting. Moose population growth was driven by reproduction. The biggest challenge was once the calf was born it had to make it through its first winter. Hunting had little impact on the moose population.
Eric Ward read another comment. Moose in the Moosehead Lake region are unique because they have adapted to human and vehicular presence. Because these moose are conditioned not to furtively fear human presence this initiative will severely jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the moose population.
Commissioner Camuso stated there was no change in the number of permits.
Eric Ward asked about any studies on human presence on moose. Was there an impact from the moose viewing tours.
Lee Kantar stated there had been work done on human presence and how it impacted wildlife and how far they moved away from people. Moose had a reputation for being more tolerant of human proximity.
Wing Goodale asked if during the one week of hunting, were the harvest goals met for a WMD. Would a second week of hunting make it more likely that the harvest goals would be met?
Lee Kantar stated one of the challenges with success rates, we had many WMDs open to moose hunting. Some open in September and October, some in just October. Looking at the data trends, it did appear the September season had a higher success rate than October. That may fluctuate by WMD and because of weather. He thought if we had a September season open in some WMDs we would get increased harvest. October may in some years have a higher success rate. The number of permits issued was very moderate.
Rod Grant asked which WMDs had the highest winter tick numbers.
Lee Kantar discussed tick numbers in some of the core moose districts, 8, 2 and 4. We looked at about 200 moose during the bull harvest in all open WMDs. Looking at the southern and more westerly areas, WMDs 7, 8 vs. WMDs 1, 2 and 3 in the northern tier, there was variability where one moose had low tick numbers and then some with high numbers in the same regions. Winter tick was everywhere.
Eric Ward read another comment. Maines Inland Fisheries and Wildlifes own research does not support this proposed change. A public survey completed in 2024 noted that most resident hunters, recreationalist, anglers, guides want the current moose structure to remain the same.
Nate Webb stated the survey was a recommendation of a stakeholder group that was established by the legislature in 2023. We did a comprehensive survey, we hired Responsive Management and there were a lot of questions on the survey about different options to adjust the season structure and timing. There were questions about whether people had experienced conflicts either as a moose hunter or recreationalist on the landscape during moose season. We looked at statewide trends and regional trends to get a sense for whether the perspectives varied across the state. We also targeted the survey at different categories of the public (hunters, guides, general public, other non-hunting recreationalists, landowners, etc.) trying to get varied perspectives. There was a lot of support for leaving the season structure as it was, there was also more support than opposition for making various adjustments to the season. In terms of the September season, that was a specific recommendation in our Big Game Plan to explore the social aspects/support for adding a September season in additional WMDs. We did have a September season in place in northern WMDs and had been quite successful. The survey did indicate there was more support than opposition for adding a September season specifically. Including residents of the Moosehead area. Looking at different groups from the survey and their response to questions, the sample size was relatively small so was that an accurate representation.
Eric Ward read another comment. IFW data shows that the current 125 permits in WMD 9 are already more than the population can support.
Lee Kantar replied that the data did not say that. He thought Nate had addressed that previously. There should be cow permits given with the winter tick situation.
Scott Ireland stated it had been discussed doing what was determined best by science. It had come up that we should be harvesting cows. Why was that not a percentage of the permits?
Commissioner Camuso stated there were three legs of wildlife management. There was the biological science, the social science and political science. In certain WMDs there was no social support for harvesting cows. It was contrary to the biological recommendations.
Eric Ward read another comment. The Department just finished collaring 1400 moose calves, most of which were orphans. They dont know how to survive the winter. Weve seen too many of their bodies curled up near a road where theyve starved and collapsed trying to get warm in the sun. It wasnt ticks that killed them, this was caused by the way the hunting has been managed and losing calves is contributing to the moose population decline. Eric asked how many moose necropsies had been done?
Lee Kantar stated we had completed 100s of necropsies and they were all full of food. They went through every part of the moose to try and figure out the cause of death. We had 100s of samples to make our conclusions on.
Eric Ward commented on people stating they were not seeing moose around the Shirley Department of Transportation garage.
Nate Webb stated moose being there was not a good thing from our perspective as it was right next to a main road. Staff had worked to reduce the presence of moose at that site to reduce vehicle/moose collisions.
Dave Craven asked if we went back to check the collared calves to see if they went back to the cow.
Lee Kantar stated we left them alone until a signal was received from the collar. We saw many different scenarios.
Jim Andrews discussed the comments that were received and the expression of concern about the perceived reduction in overall moose numbers. He thought that perception was not just based on anecdotal evidence. He thought they were using the wrong process to determine the cause. He thought the cause was the winter tick problem and other problems associated with that. By using that wrong process to think about what the cause was, it led to outrage over what was a very modest proposal. He thought a lot of the commentors didnt realize this did not add any additional permits. We were proposing moving 283 permits from October to September over 8 WMDs which was a huge area. Success rates were weather dependent. Looking at the success rates there would be no biological impact. One of the management goals was preserving viewing opportunities and he supported that goal. Another management goal was sustaining quality hunting opportunities and the most recent survey discussed conflicts. There had to be a balance and he thought they should reduce the amount of area the proposal covered. Primarily in areas where moose watching/viewing happened. To him that was WMD 9. We already treated WMD 9 differently than other districts, there were no antlerless permits there. It was not clear to him why in WMDs 8 and 14 a 6-day loss of viewing opportunities would be caused by the September season out of a month-long viewing season. It was not clear to him why WMDs 8 and 14 should be subject to that as well WMD 9.
Commissioner Camuso stated she would be recommending some sort of reduction in the WMD 8, 9 and 14 area. After all the public feedback she could not recommend the proposal move forward as written. The Council had a few options for recommendations. They could remove certain WMDs from the proposal or keep WMDs closed and work to split up the districts into sub-units but that would take time and could not be accomplished through this proposal.
Eric Ward stated WMD 9 was brought forward in the comments more than the others.
Wing Goodale stated he liked the idea of moving 8, 9 and 14. It was very important to listen to what had come out during the comment period. They were very large areas and seemed like they could be partitioned to allow an expanded hunt in some areas that didnt conflict with the wildlife viewing.
Joe Powers stated he concurred with Wing and the Commissioner. That was a good move forward based on all the public comments.
The Council was ready to move forward with the moose permit allocations proposal, but the proposal to amend the moose hunting season would be held until the Commissioner considered the recommendations and would bring a modified proposal forward to the Council at Step 3 in March.
A motion was made by Dave Craven and that was seconded by Joe Powers to move the moose permit allocations proposal to Step 3.
Vote: unanimous agenda item 1. moved to Step 3.
A motion was made by Jim Andrews to accept the moose permit allocations proposal as presented and that was seconded by Joe Powers.
Vote: unanimous motion passed.
- Youth hunting days for bear and wild turkey
Nate Webb stated this was the result of a bill LD 1322 that directed the Department to establish a 2-year pilot program to increase youth hunting participation. Part of the resolve directed the Department to conduct rulemaking to establish a 2-day youth bear hunting season on a Friday and Saturday as well as establish a youth day for hunting with dogs prior to the opening of the regular season for hunting with dogs and also to establish a long weekend or 2-day season on a Friday and Saturday for wild turkey for youth. This would be a pilot program for the 2026 and 2027 hunting seasons.
A public hearing was held on December 23, 2025 and there were 5 people that participated. Comments were generally in support of the proposal in concept. There was some input regarding the timing/specific days for opening the youth opportunity. There was concern with conflict with school and some concern about the date for the youth hound hunting day. It was suggested that be timed on a Saturday during the summer earlier in August. In terms of the timing of the youth hound day we were bound by statute which set the sideboards for when we could have the bear hunting season framework. The request to have the day in August was outside those sideboards so that was not an option. We heard from the MPGA that the dates proposed were probably the least problematic given different considerations. They were generally in support of the proposed dates. We were not recommending any changes in the proposal. It was an obligation that we bring this forward and comply with the law that was passed.
Scott Ireland stated the youth day with hounds was a concern for him. To take the last day of the second week of the first phase of baiting was a big hit. That Saturday was their time for baits.
Nate Webb stated we recognized the conflict between hunting over bait and hunting with dogs. The challenge was the way the law was written there really wasnt another option for timing.
Jen Vashon stated a lot of the issues were dealing with perception vs. reality. We did surveys of bear hunters and specifically asked that question, when youre hunting with dogs or with bait do you have conflicts with other hunters. We had significantly more hunters indicate that they never had a conflict. She thought it was a small number of people that had conflicts. Anyone with a bear permit was provided the opportunity to respond to the survey.
Commissioner Camuso stated the legislature was keen on providing hunting opportunities for youth.
Bob Cordes discussed the R3 program. Youth programs were great for retention but not so much for recruitment.
Scott Ireland asked if it had to be a Saturday, or could it be a weekday?
Nate Webb stated the way the Resolve was written for youth day with hound hunting, it had to occur prior to the opening of the regular season for hunting with dogs. It had to be before the Monday that the hound season opened. We could have it during a weekday, but that was not the Legislatures intent. We had to have the youth hound day on a day when there was hunting over bait. A Saturday prior to that season would be outside the statutory window for when we could have bear hunting.
Commissioner Camuso stated they did not have to pass the proposal. The Legislature directed the Department to bring this forward in rule, but the Council did not have to pass it. The Council could provide guidance and direction and the proposal could be modified prior to Step 3.
- Ch. 10 Significant Wildlife Habitat
Nate Webb stated this was a major substantive rule. Once the Advisory Council completed their process the rule would go to the Legislature for their approval. The rule would align Chapter 10 to reflect recent changes to law concerning significant wildlife habitat and vernal pools. This will define significant wildlife habitat for state endangered and threatened species and to update the provisions regarding vernal pools. There was a companion rulemaking process at the Department of Environmental Protection to make similar changes to two different chapters in their rules. Our proposal was in alignment with theirs and would ensure consistency.
A public hearing was held on January 28, 2026 with one member of the public offering testimony. One written comment was also received from the same individual in support.
Wing Goodale asked what the changes would mean and how they would be implemented.
Nate Webb stated if a permit was required under NRPA and in review of the permit DEP determined the proposed footprint of the project would overlap with mapped habitat for endangered or threatened species, impacts to that habitat would be considered by IFW and DEP in the permit review process. Typically, both agencies worked with developers to minimize and avoid impacts to any significant wildlife habitat as well as other protected natural resources. In some cases where those impacts were unavoidable there could be mitigation required to compensate for those impacts. This brought in state habitat for state endangered and threatened species into the permit review process under NRPA in cases where a permit was already required. If the only protected resource that overlapped with the project footprint was habitat for state E&T species this provision wouldnt be triggered. It would have to be another protected resource that was already triggering the need for a permit under NRPA.
A motion was made by Joe Powers and that was seconded by Mike Gawtry to move the proposal to Step 3.
Vote: unanimous moved to Step 3.
A motion was made by Rod Grant to accept the proposal as presented and provisionally adopt the rule and that was seconded by Joe Powers.
Vote: unanimous motion passed.
C. Step 1
- 2026-2027 Migratory Bird Seasons
Kelsey Sullivan stated we were guided by the federal umbrella regulations for setting the season. Populations remained stable and harvest was within the limits we were allowed. We were allowed a 60-day season for ducks with a 6 bird total bag limit. The remainder of species all remained within the levels that were acceptable at the federal level for sticking with the prior seasons. The only changes in season dates were shifting based on the calendar. There were no changes in seasons or bag limits from last year. There were three species of ducks that we looked at at the state level to consider making changes. We looked at black duck populations, mallards and wood ducks. Populations were stable.
There was one thing we were proposing which was a modification to the North/South zone boundary in the western part of the state. It was a small shift in the line. The topic of timing of the hunting season in that area when migratory birds were arriving had been a continual topic. In 2012 we made a proposal to modify the line and received enough public comment that we did not move forward. Since then, it had been revisited and asked to be looked at. This was brought up by some Waterfowl Council members to bring the change forward. The Department conducted a survey and asked about preferences for the North/South zone boundary. They were asked if they would support shifting the line on Rt. 2; would they support splitting the season in the North zone; or leave it as it is. The survey was sent to all those that purchased a duck stamp for 2022-2024, approximately 20,000 people received the survey. We received 355 responses. Out of those responses, we looked at Maine residents. The two options for modifications were split, 31% supported the Rt. 2 option, the split option was supported by 31% and status quo was 38%. People had different preferences, some hunted rivers, some hunted ponds. There didnt appear to be a trend geographically for survey responses. We could only consider the boundary line shift every five years. We would let the rulemaking process follow through and see what we received for comment during the open comment period.
Wing Goodale asked about the scoter and sea duck language amendment.
Kelsey Sullivan stated this was a housekeeping item under Exceptions. There had been some confusion on what scoter bag limits were. The federal intent was that the bag limit for scoters was 3, any combination of scoter types. There was another small clarification in the zone line description that was necessary based on road changes in the Bangor/Brewer area. The labels on roads had changed there so that was being addressed.
- Ch. 13 Watercraft rules (visual distress signals)
Colonel Scott stated visual distress signals (VDS) were devices that allowed people to be quickly identified during the day or night if they were in distress on the water. There were two jurisdictions that dealt with VDS, territorial waters (tidal waters) and then out to the three-mile limit where DMR patrolled and federal waters which were beyond the three-mile limit. We dealt with internal waters, but the proposal did not cover inland waters. Our agency created all the boating rules whether it was tidal, territorial or inland. We were obligated to adhere to the U.S. Coast Guards laws and rules in order to remain eligible for federal funding. The feds had changed the rules around VDS with new technology to include a floating battery-operated electronic distress signal strobing light. This was just a change in technology; it had a strobe and showed heat. We were proposing to include that in our watercraft rules as an acceptable nighttime VDS in compliance with the Coast Guard. If you were boating at night instead of carrying three red flares, you could use this as your VDS in tidal waters or into federal waters. It didnt comply with the daytime visual distress signal, but did come with an orange flag. This was just updating our state rules to be in compliance with the federal rule.
Dave Craven asked if the length of the boat mattered.
Colonel Scott stated if it was 16 feet or more in length, you had to carry both daytime and nighttime VDS depending on hours of operation. If your boat was less than 16 feet and operating at night, you had to carry a nighttime distress signal. During the day, you did not have to carry a signal even though it was recommended.
VI. Other Business
Commissioner Camuso gave the Council a legislative update. Several reports backs had been given. One of note was regarding the electronic tagging of deer. Report backs were available on the Departments website.
VII. Councilor Reports
Councilor Reports were given.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
Glenn Durland asked about the moose lodge proposal, and he was directed to the legislative website for information as this was a bill before the Legislature, not a rulemaking proposal before the Advisory Council.
Matt Tinker asked about the moose hunting season proposal. The season began on the Monday following the close of the bear baiting season and ran for 6 days. Would there be some clarification on the language? To him, the bear baiting season went until October 31st. He understood the intent, but that was not what it said and he thought there should be some clarification there.
Nate Webb stated the rulemaking fact sheet had a rule summary, but looking at the rule language it provided the clarity and specifically referenced the bear hunting season with bait. Just looking at the summary, that could lead to some confusion but the rule language was clear.
IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, March 19, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, Augusta.
X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Jim Andrews and that was seconded by Scott Ireland to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.