Meeting Minutes

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
August 11, 2026 @ 9:30am
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Regional Headquarters
15 Game Farm Road, Gray, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

Attending:
Timothy Peabody, Acting Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Division Deputy Director
Jen Vashon, Game Management Section Supervisor
Liz Latti, Fisheries and Hatcheries Division Director
James Bruce, Fisheries and Hatcheries Deputy Director
Kevin Schaberg, Fisheries and Hatcheries Section Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner and Research Coordinator
Jacob Scoville, Fisheries Resource Supervisor
Aaron Cross, Warden Service Major
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Eric Ward
Catherine Gordon
Jim Andrews
Mike Gawtry
Tony Liguori
Scott Ireland - Teams
Wing Goodale - Teams

Joe Powers - Teams

GUESTS
1 in person (Katie Hansberry, Humane World for Animals)
11 additional public members and staff online

I. Call to Order

Acting Commissioner Peabody 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 Tony Liguori to accept the minutes as presented and that was seconded by Catherine Gordon.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes accepted.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Tremont Special Hunt for Deer
   Acting Commissioner Peabody stated the meeting was advertised on the IFW website to be in Augusta. It was advertised in the Kennebec Journal to be in Gray and the agenda that went to the Council indicated that it was in Gray. We had staff posted in Augusta to accommodate anyone that chose to come to Augusta. He had heard from staff that there were no public members in Augusta to attend the meeting. He apologized for any confusion, and we would be moving forward with the Tremont discussion.
   

Nate Webb stated Mount Desert Island (MDI) had been closed to deer hunting since at least 1931. The island was not closed to hunting, but it had been closed to deer hunting for that time period. Over the last number of decades staff had interacted with residents and leaders from MDI on deer management and concerns with overabundant deer. This was a topic the Legislature had discussed two years ago. There was a bill, had it moved forward, that would have opened the Town of Tremont to a deer hunt. The bill did not move forward but the Department committed to working with the town to try and address their concerns. Traditionally, we worked with residents in the town to manage deer/human conflicts through a variety of non-lethal methods as well as issuing depredation permits. There was the complexity of Acadia National Park comprising a large portion of the island as well, it was a unique situation and environment with a very long history surrounding deer management.

The Town of Tremont asked the Department to work with them to develop the framework for a special hunt that they could discuss with their residents to potentially bring forward to the Advisory Council and Department for approval. The statute dictated we receive approval from the town in order to move forward with opening any portion of MDI to deer hunting. We worked with the town and they developed a proposal. They had a town vote and the majority of town residents that voted were in favor of the proposal. Subsequent to that the selectboard voted in favor and asked the Department to go to rulemaking.

The framework for the rule that was proposed would open a special hunt during the month of November starting this November in 2026 and extending for three years unless either the Tremont selectboard or IFW decided to suspend the hunt. After the three hunting seasons the town would hold another vote on whether to continue regulated hunting within the town in some form. The town would administer the hunt. Hunters must follow all specifications of the hunt set by the town in addition to all the other laws and rules regarding deer hunting. The basic framework was something we used regularly when conducting special hunts around the state. Information that was considered was human/deer conflicts, collisions, Lyme disease prevalence, property damage and tame deer in the town. The town residents and selectboard both did vote in favor of having the hunt.

The proposal was presented to the Council at Step 1 on July 16th and a public hearing was held on July 20th and one member of the public attended. There was no testimony given at the hearing. The public comment period closed on July 30th and we received 21 written comments. Five of the comments were mixed support or unclear, four were in support and twelve were opposed. He gave a brief overview of the comments. There had been a long and continual discussion with residents and municipalities on MDI about deer management. Deer conflicts had been a long-term issue. Nathan Bieber had an index he used to look at deer/human conflicts around the state and the towns in MDI were all in the top 10 statewide in terms of that index. Tremont was #6 statewide of all the towns in terms of the index that he used to look a deer/human conflicts around the state for a variety of purposes. Having the special hunt would increase the amount of hunting activity and pressure, but it wouldn't be a new thing to have hunting in Tremont or MDI. That had been occurring and there was a reasonably high turkey harvest on MDI. In terms of legal concerns, we consult with the Attorney Generals office (AG) on our draft rules before they are advertised. We also shared relevant comments that point out legal issues that we received with our AGs office. The rule itself before being adopted had to be reviewed and approved by the AGs office. We felt comfortable that the rule met the statutory requirements to move forward.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Jim Andrews asked if the AGs office specifically addressed the issue raised by an attorney in one of the public comments.

Nate Webb stated he did have a discussion with the AGs office about that specific comment and they believed that the rule as proposed met the statutory requirements.

Wing Goodale asked about the town vote, did we have the percentages of the pros and cons on the town vote and did the town council vote unanimously?

Nate Webb stated 314 voted in favor and 227 opposed that was the vote at the town meeting and the selectboard vote was unanimous in favor. Nathan Bieber had spoken with the town manager that morning as there had been media coverage based on the comments and the town did want to continue to move forward.

A motion was made by Tony Liguori to move the agenda item to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Catherine Gordon.

Vote: Unanimous agenda item moved to Step 3

Jim Andrews stated he would be opposed to voting on the proposal that day. He would ask the proposal be at Step 3 at the next meeting. He had a concern with the legal basis. He thought they should ask for a written opinion from the AGs office or something in writing from them. The statute that authorized special hunts specifically did say to maintain deer populations and balance with available habitat. As far as he knew, we didnt have any information on that except for the proposal from Tremont which indicated that there had been no special studies to estimate the number of deer in Tremont and there was no indication that the population had reached its biological carrying capacity. The majority of deer appeared healthy and the females were often seen with two fawns. Theres general agreement among the residents that the number of deer have significantly increased during the past decade, but indications that deer have reached their social carrying capacity.... He wanted to make it clear he was in favor of the proposal and it gave the Department a unique tool to deal with these types of conflicts. His concern was the legal wording of the statute. He thought we were putting ourselves at risk if they agreed to the rule without some indication that biological carrying capacity had been reached.

Catherine Gordon asked how Tremont had ended up at #6 on the list if they hadnt done a lot of research on that particular issue.

Nate Webb stated we had keyed in on that wording. The word habitat was not defined in statute. The traditional view of that word and what it meant was biological; food, cover, water, space. When we looked at that word it was common to use it in that framework, but it was also common to use it in the context of the human environment as well. The deer living in Tremont needed food, cover, water and space but they also lived in a heavily modified human dominated landscape which was part of their habitat. Biologically, he would personally argue that the social tolerance, the human/wildlife conflict that occured, the human component of that landscape that the deer were living in was part of their habitat, but that was not a legal argument. That was where the AGs advice was important.

Jim Andrews stated his concern was that the social issues were what was compelling Tremont to ask for the hunt and they had spelled that out in their request. That seemed different from the biological issue to him. He felt they should get some clarification from the AGs office.

A motion was made by Tony Liguori to move the agenda item to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Catherine Gordon.

Vote: Vote: seven (7) in favor; one (1) opposed (Jim Andrews) - motion passed.

1. Fishing Regulations
   Acting Commissioner Peabody stated there were some comments that came in after the public comment period had ended on the proposal. Those comments could not be discussed or considered. When the Council was approached during the rulemaking process after the public comment period had closed, they couldnt engage the public comment, they had to clarify it was past the comment period. There should be no discussion related to those after the comment deadline.
   

Liz Latti stated the packet contained 6 themes with 191 proposals. A public hearing on the proposal was held on July 21st with two members of the public providing testimony. We received ten written comments. Of the ten written comments eight were considered to be germane to the proposed rule changes. Comments that were not germane to the packet still provide insight into public concerns or interests the Department could take into consideration in the future. Of the eight germane comments six were supportive of the proposed rule changes and two were in opposition. The two members of the public who provided testimony at the hearing also submitted electronic comments that mirrored their testimony.

The themes that were specifically commented on was first expanding angler opportunity. One comment was in support of the rule to allow ice fishing at Mud Lake. The second theme that received comments was the lake trout simplification. One comment was in support of the proposed changes. We did receive two comments that were opposed to the simplification of statewide lake trout regulations, specifically of the removal of the protective slot that currently required the release of lake trout between 23"-33. The Departments response to the comment was that the theme was a broader effort intended to simplify/standardize lake trout regulations statewide making easier interpretation among anglers while also maintaining appropriate protections. One commenter specifically mentioned West Musquash Lake. Our biological data indicated that West Musquash Lake and several other waters with the current no kill slot between 23-33 received limited angling pressure and limited harvest. Data indicated the populations showed signs of poor growth and stockpiling with abundance of smaller, older and reproductively immature fish, with very few fish reaching larger sizes. The proposed rule change would allow anglers to harvest these fish which would reduce competition allowing for greater growth potential for larger lake trout as well as other managed species. The Department felt the regulation change would not harm the larger lake trout population as it still afforded conservation protection for larger fish, allowing for the harvest of only one fish over 23. The proposed change continued to meet our objectives in other waters in the region where we managed for large lake trout. We would continue to monitor and make adjustments as warranted. The current slot limits were being removed and all had data to support we were stockpiling fish before they reached the protective slot. The only water retaining the slot was Lobster Lake. It was the opposite of the waters we were proposing to remove the slots from.

The last theme that received comments was State Heritage Fish waters. There were two comments in general support.

A motion was made by Joe Powers to move the agenda item to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Scott Ireland.

Vote: Unanimous agenda item moved to Step 3

A motion was made by Joe Powers to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Scott Ireland.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

VI. Other Business

Acting Commissioner Peabody stated we were working on the Departments budget recommendations to submit by the September 1st deadline. We were also working on Department bills for the upcoming legislative session. There would be a dedication ceremony held at the Verona Island boat launch on August 12th in honor of Kelsey Sullivan. The property had been donated to the Department because of Kelseys efforts.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilor Reports were given.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Tim Bannon stated he wanted to address the notice for the meeting. Tremont was about 2 hours from Augusta and further from Gray. He appreciated us posting someone in Augusta to receive people who may have shown up there based on the notices that indicated that was the site. The fact that no one showed up was in his mind not evidence that the notice was anything but confusing. He was not willing to set out for either destination without some firm guidance on where the meeting was being held. He also wanted to comment on the vote that was taken in Tremont. The issue presented to Tremont voters was not in the form of a question and did not focus on the imbalance between the deer population and its habitat. He thought the vote in Tremont signified nothing about the threshold question with respect to the statute and only was a test of who wanted or did not want to hunt. The issue was by statute a function of the imbalance in habitat but there were other factors that without the threshold question being met were even more concerning and that was the threat of violence not only in Tremont but neighboring towns because of the hunting activity and what he believed were the resources necessary to enforce it. He did not know if warden service had the capacity to extend their oversight of the hunt into the town of Tremont or neighboring towns. He did not believe the local police force had the capacity either.

Acting Commissioner Peabody stated the warden service worked with these types of situations all over the state. Tremont was represented out of the regional office in Bangor. We could have the Lieutenant reach out to Tremont to make sure there was adequate enforcement.

Lorraine Aaronson stated she was a Tremont resident. She submitted written comments but wanted to reiterate that because of the special statutory situation, the ban on deer hunting on MDI was island wide. Since the Commissioner was obligated to consult all effected towns they thought any exception to the island wide statutory ban should be treated as something that all four towns agreed to.

George Sanker stated he was a lawyer and did litigation in Boston for 40 years. He wanted to address the statute which had one condition for a special hunt and that was to maintain deer populations in balance with available habitat. That also meant that when a town asked for a special hunt they had to show credible evidence that the deer populations were out of balance with available habitat. They said themselves in their original deer management plan that they had not done that. It was pretty obvious that half the island was Acadia National Park that there was plenty of available habitat not only in Tremont, but the entire island of MDI. Available habitat was not a legal term, it was pretty simple did they have enough room to roam, eat, reproduce, etc. Obviously, they did on MDI. He was also a wildlife photographer and he had been doing that for a long time. Based on his experience all of the complaints in Tremont were because of people feeding deer. He saw other places along his route where people fed deer and it had nothing to do with deer being out of balance with the population. Deer were seen regularly on front lawns and next to the road. The town had done nothing. In 2023 scientists from the National Park Service and Schoodic Institute concluded an in-depth study based on 12 years of data concerning the health of the forest of national parks in the Northeast. They specifically found issues with some parts in the Northeast, but they found that the deer population in Acadia was low enough that forest regeneration failure was not a problem. Until it was proven with some credible evidence that there were too many deer, DOT statistics from 2020 until the present there had not been one reported injury to a human in a car crash with deer on MDI. He hoped we would look closer into the statute, clearly it would cause a legal issue that could end up in court.

Peter McKosky stated he worked for Peace Ridge Sanctuary which was an animal advocacy organization and also a sanctuary organization. In the summary, it was brushed over the fact that bowhunting rates had higher wounding rates. The expectation was that the people who lived on Mt. Desert Island were expected to accept seeing deer with arrows sticking out of them because we decided to do this. He thought it highlighted a philosophical underpinning of the organization that was problematic. Maine had a very large population of hunters compared to the rest of the U.S. but it was still a minority in the state. We seemed to consistently forget that when making decisions that affected everyone. The wild animals were entrusted to the Department by everyone, not just the people who were consumptive users of wildlife. We should look at other methods that were more innovative, i.e. wildlife fertility methods. There was a lack of recognition there were a lot of people who enjoyed their wildlife as neighbors, not commodities to be consumed. It was said much had been done to try to deal with coexistence issues, and no examples were given other than depredation permits. What coexistence education and actions had been done on MDI to address complaints with deer/human issues.

Nate Webb stated he couldnt speak specifically to what individual residents of Tremont had done, but he could talk about our program and the information we provided statewide. We had a lot of information on our website. We had a Living with Wildlife section which was pretty extensive. We had a relatively new program called the Wildlife Conflict Agent Program. We had ten seasonal positions that their only job was to handle calls from the public that came into the Department that were previously managed by either game wardens or wildlife staff. They worked to help resolve, avoid and minimize conflicts with wildlife including deer. We also had a full time position as well that helped manage and coordinate the program. A significant number of the complaints and calls were related to deer. There was a number of different types of information that they provided ranging from different types of fencing that could be effective, planting of different types of ornamentals that were less palatable to deer. Essentially, managing the environment around peoples homes to make them less attractive to deer. We also worked closely with DOT on deer/vehicle collision issues. We worked with identifying feeding locations that were contributing to high numbers of deer crossing roadways and tried to address those situations. We also worked on signage for deer. He could put Mr. McKosky in touch with staff that had been involved in discussions with Tremont residents if he wished.

IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The Council would be notified at a later time of the next meeting date. There were no rulemaking items currently pending.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Catherine Gordon and that was seconded by Jim Andrews to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45am.