Thanksgiving means different things to different people. For us here at Skinny Moose Media and from Tom and Steve Remington, we want to take a few minutes and just thank everyone for being a part of our lives.

All too often we can get caught up in so many bad things going on around us that we forget about how many things we should and can be thankful for. And as such, I am thankful for you and both Steven and I and everyone associated with Skinny Moose Media want to wish you the absolute very best Thanksgiving Day. And may it be the most special day of all.

Tom and Steve Remington

AUGUSTA – The Maine Warden Service is urging people to not venture out onto any ice that may be covering Maine’s waterways.

In some parts of the state, Maine’s lakes and ponds may appear to be frozen, but safe ice conditions cannot be assumed even though temperatures have been below freezing in recent days and at night. Also, any snow covering thin layers of ice acts as insulation and slows the freezing process.

“There are no safe ice conditions anywhere in the state right now. Period,” said Col. Joel Wilkinson, chief warden of the Maine Warden Service.

As the temperatures continue to fall in the coming weeks, and the ice begins to thicken, the Maine Warden Service is recommending that people check the thickness of any ice before venturing out for any activity on frozen water.

If you must go on the ice this winter, the Maine Warden Service offers these tips for ice safety:

· Never guess the thickness of the ice – Check it! Check the ice in several different places using an auger or some other means to make a test hole and determine the thickness. Make several, beginning at the shore, and continuing as you go out.

· Check the ice with a partner, so if something does happen, someone is there to help you. If you are doing it alone, wear a lifejacket.

· If ice at the shoreline is cracked or squishy, stay off! Watch out for thin, clear or honeycombed ice. Dark snow and dark ice are other signs of weak spots.

· Avoid areas with currents, around bridges and pressure ridges. Wind and currents can break ice.

· Parents should alert children of unsafe ice in their area, and make sure that they stay off the ice. If they insist on using their new skates, suggest an indoor skating rink.

If you break through the ice, remember:

· Don’t panic.

· Don’t try to climb out immediately – you will probably break the ice again. Reach for solid ice.

· Lay both arms on the unbroken ice and kick hard. This will help lift your body onto the ice. Once on the ice, roll, DON’T WALK, to safety.

· To help someone who has fallen through the ice, lie down flat and reach with a branch, plank or rope or form a human chain. Don’t stand. After securing the victim, wiggle backwards to the solid ice.

AUGUSTA – An investigation conducted by the Maine Warden Service has lead to four men receiving 25 summonses for alleged poaching and drug offenses committed in Aroostook and Washington counties, primarily in the Danforth and Bancroft areas.

Twenty of the 25 citations carry penalties of $1,000 if found guilty. The investigation was initiated on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2008, and all of the men were charged by Monday morning.

“The district Game Wardens involved initiated the investigation, and through their persistence and teamwork developed the case over a period of five days,” according to Maine Warden Service Lt. Doug Tibbetts. “Some aspects of the investigation are continuing and further developments are possible.”

The men who are charged are:

· Larry Oliver (45 years old) of Danforth, ME:

1 count killing moose in closed season; 2 counts possession of moose killed in closed season; 1 count exceeding the bag limit on deer; 2 counts killing an antlerless deer without a permit (Washington County); 1 count possession of turkey during closed season

· Thomas Kenyon (24 years old) of Weston, ME:

2 counts possession of moose killed in closed season; 4 counts possession of antlerless deer without a permit (Washington County); 1 count furnishing schedule W drugs (to a minor) – Class C; 1 count possession of a usable amount of marijuana

· Jeff Miller (41 years old) of Danforth, ME:

1 count killing a moose in closed season; 2 counts possession of moose killed in closed season; 1 count possession of turkey during closed season

· Travis Potter (24 years old) of Wytopitlock, ME:

1 count exceeding the bag limit on deer; 2 counts killing an antlerless deer without a permit (Washington County); 2 counts possession of moose killed in closed season

1 count furnishing schedule W drugs (to a minor) – Class C

Game Wardens Ben Drew, Durwood Humphrey, Scott Martin, Paul Farrington and Alan Curtis conducted the investigation.

Any person who sees or suspects that a poaching-related activity may be occurring is urged to call Operation Game Thief at 1-800-ALERT-US (800-253-7887) or call the Maine Warden Service.

I read an article in the Bangor Daily News recently about proposed cuts being considered at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Among those cuts as listed by Kevin Miller were:

Elimination of 10 game warden positions out of 124 statewide.

— Loss of at least three biologists.

— Discontinuation of tagging stations for deer and other big game.

— Elimination of DIF&W’s deputy commissioner position.

Needless to say this didn’t sit well with me and the more I considered the consequences of such actions the more upset I became.

First, let’s consider the facts when it comes to the budget of the MDIFW and what Gov. Baldacci is asking MDIFW to do. Baldacci is asking every department to cut 10% from its budget. MDIFW’s budget is roughly $24 million dollars with all but around $3 million of that coming from license fees, etc.. In fairness, shouldn’t the governor be asking MDIFW for a 10% reduction of the $3 million that comes from general taxation? This would result in a budget decrease of around $300,000. This is ridiculous and becomes obvious that Baldacci may be more interested in getting back the $3 million to fund other departments.

There is certainly argument that can be made for each of the four proposed cuts listed above. To eliminate 10 Maine Warden positions may end up costing the state of Maine more than it thinks it is going to save. The Maine Warden Service has far too much territory to cover now and the demands put on them by other law enforcement agencies, along with search and rescue duties and policing snowmobiles and ATVs, stretching the department that much more could be quite costly. With a shrinking economy and a decrease in law enforcement, poaching will take a spike costing Maine taxpayers money in the end.

Losing biologists only cuts into the needed scientists to collect and process data that is vital to proper management of our wildlife. To go hand in hand with this cut proposal, to call for the elimination of tagging stations would be extremely detrimental to the deer, bear and moose management programs in place.

A close examination of the management plans, one can clearly see that the years of success and accurate data available to biologists has been made possible because of a program that relies on every aspect of information gathering. The information gathered by biologists at tagging stations is critical to understanding what’s going on with our game species.

I contacted Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist at Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and asked him what kind of impact losing tagging station information would have on his ability to manage game.

Given the current economic times there have been internal discussions on this issue. I do not believe anything has been resolved. We are trying to evaluate this potential shift. I agree with you that it is problematic. Mandatory registration of deer enables us to have high confidence in the deer kill by sex and age (adult,fawn; we use our biological data collection to correct for errors in sex and age and figure age distribution as well, i.e., adult, yearling, fawn) by Wildlife Management District. This is critical to how we manage deer in Maine and essential to the Any-deer Permit system. A change to some form of electronic registration (be that internet or phone), would require estimating the harvest; that may be fine statewide, but by WMD it would be incredibly difficult. Return rates in other states have been poor, other states return rates our enough to provide statistically reliable estimates of statewide harvest, again when estimating at smaller units, WMDs, this task becomes much more difficult.

I agree with Kantar’s assessment of what probably would happen. In examining the processes used in other states, some are extremely poor, resulting in scanty data and making it nearly impossible to have any confidence at all in the state of game species. When we consider some of the critical decisions being made, such as Endangered Species Act lawsuits, etc., how can there be legitimate decisions if the information that is being used to render these decisions is seriously flawed and/or lacking in any credibly backed scientific data?

As Maine is considering a decision on another lawsuit to end trapping in order to protect the Canada lynx, imagine the skewed information that would be bantered around the court room if the fish and game experts have no good means of having reliable data.

Another aspect to consider with the elimination of tagging stations and the implementation of some program of requiring hunters to report their takes, is the availability of complete and timely data. With the current process, MDIFW has so much data to consider before making decisions such as the allotment of “Any-Deer” permits. “Any-Deer” permits is the major tool used by biologists to manipulate deer populations.

History from other states have shown that in order to get this “required” reporting of data from hunters, they have to not issue another hunting license until a report is received. This could result in data not being available until a year after the fact or longer I suppose in some cases.

The bottom line is this. Only about 10% of the MDIFW budget comes from general taxation. If Baldacci insists that MDIFW cut its budget 10% then essentially we will lose the money that comes from taxation. That deficit could be made up in other ways.

If hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc. understand how the fish and game functions, I believe they are willing to make up some of that cost with a fee increase. Pressure should then be put back onto the Baldacci administration to put more of law enforcement and search and rescue expenses in other departments. There also has to be better ways of retrieving the costs of search and rescue, etc.

If Gov. Baldacci insists that MDIFW cut its budget 10%, we have to wonder if his motives aren’t simply to cut MDIFW’s budget and using that department to help fund other departments he may be more partial to.

It would be a real shame to be witness to cuts that would seriously change the structure of how MDIFW biologists have collected and utilized data in what is viewed by many as one of the best deer management programs in the country.

Tom Remington

Got up this morning and was greeted with 2 inches of new tracking snow. Any hunter worth his or her salt will be out there hot on the trail after the biggest Buck White Tail Deer ever taken. Pictures will be in every paper and on every website with anything to do with Hunting. WOW! Where are my Boots, Gun, Coat, Orange Hat, Dragging Rope, Etc.and Etc. I will be back shortly with a steaming deer liver on a forked stick.
Maybe I will have another cup of tea and a doughnut and watch the snow buildup out on the Ice covered pond . Sounds like the best ” ideer” to me. 78 year old Milt!!!

Check out some gift ideas at the Oregon Knife Shop

~~~~~

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), combined with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC) and Department of Interior (DOI), is proposing to create a new Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon that, if allowed, will entail nearly two-thirds of the state of Maine, when combined with the existing DPS.

In November of 2000, the feds created a DPS for Atlantic salmon that involved basically eight rivers of eastern Maine and much of its watershed.

The GOM DPS was defined as all naturally reproducing wild populations and those river-specific hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon having historical, river-specific characteristics found north of and including tributaries of the lower Kennebec River to, but not including, the mouth of the St. Croix River at the U.S.-Canada border. In the final rule listing the GOM DPS, we did not include fish that inhabit the mainstem and tributaries of the Penobscot River above the site of the former Bangor Dam, the upper Kennebec River, or the Androscoggin River within the GOM DPS (65 FR 69469; November 17, 2000).

The new proposal intends to create another new DPS which will include the three main rivers of the state – the Kennebec, the Penobscot and the Androscoggin – and all of their tributaries and watersheds. (see included map)

Before getting into the affects this proposal may have on Maine’s economy and the Atlantic salmon, lets first address an issue that, from what I can see, is not even being discussed but could come back and derail the entire process once lawsuits begin gathering at the doorstep of the Department of Interior. This involves Distinct Population Segments.

Back this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. What’s that got to do with Atlantic salmon? Good question. (You can read the complete ruling of Judge Paul Friedman here.)

Friedman’s ruling, considered by some as “shameful“, may have created a conundrum that few, if any, will see until it’s too late.

Friedman ruled that the reason the wolves had to be placed back on the Endangered Species List was because the USFWS cannot create a Distinct Population Segment within a Distinct Population Segment. Essentially what he ruled was that because in 1978 the USFWS declared wolves endangered or threatened in all 48 lower states, they couldn’t now create a DPS out of that, in other words the Western Great Lakes wolf population.

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment,” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

His reasoning, as I understand if from his ruling, is because the Endangered Species Act does not provide a definition of what a DPS is. Oddly and confusingly enough, Friedman, in his very own ruling seemed to contradict himself by saying the USFWS had the authority to create Distinct Population Segments, but in this case they couldn’t.

In another unusual move, he remanded the case back to the USFWS for a definition. In consulting a lawyer, I was told that this move was unusual because to remand a case usually involves sending the case back to a lower court. There was none in this case.

In any case, I have been told by some, including legal council, that although Friedman’s ruling doesn’t come right out and say it, he may have created a mess. Some feel that his ruling now makes it impossible for the USFWS to create any Distinct Population Segments. If this is the case, we now have to ask the questions as to whether or not the USFWS and the NMFS has the legal authority to create a new DPS of Atlantic salmon in Maine. One would think this could at least be challenged in court.

But as I said, this mess may not even rear its ugly head until long after the feds have decided whether to strap the state of Maine by essentially locking up two-thirds of the state in order to protect the habitat of the Atlantic salmon.

It has been 8 years since the feds declared rivers and watersheds in Eastern Maine off limits in order to allow the Atlantic salmon to grow. Since that time minimal change in the number of salmon in the rivers has occurred. Of course we have to wonder if declaring more waters critical habitat will do anything more for the Salmon or even if the effort will destroy the fragile and struggling Maine economy.

Many have argued this point. I read one article where someone said that back in 2000 the argument was used that listing the Downeast region critical Atlantic salmon habitat would destroy the economy there. They now show proof as the Downeast economy as remaining unchanged.

I offer a few things in rebuttal to that. Without meaning any offense to anyone Downeast, it’s hard to destroy an economy that doesn’t exist. The other argument that can be made is that when considering the geography and population densities of Washington County and Eastern Maine, compared with the areas surrounding the Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin rivers and their watersheds, there are astounding differences. And, we can’t lose sight of the fact we are in the middle of an economic crisis of which we have to wonder if this piling on of listing the Atlantic salmon would be too much for Maine or the federal government to handle?

I know of no one who does not want to see a return to Maine of Atlantic salmon. The question has to be, at what expense compared to the results of the effort? It would seem to me that much of the effort that has taken place all across Maine has contributed to the minimal successes we have seen for the Atlantic salmon. With continued efforts, that would include the anticipated removal of some dams in these rivers and construction of fish ladders at others, we can continue moving forward with that progress without the interference and numbing, crippling restrictions of the federal government and administrating the Endangered Species Act.

I did a bit more asking around and gathering information on areas this listing would affect that maybe many of you haven’t even considered. I received information from an anonymous source about one aspect of how a listing would affect us all. Below is a map of Maine that shows the regions that would be effected by an Atlantic salmon listing. Areas in red show the existing area of critical Atlantic salmon habitat. The green and gray encompass the area that will be affected by the new proposal.

As you can see, the creation of this area as critical and protected Atlantic salmon habitat is enormous when compared to the entire geographical scope of the state. What this would mean to each and every citizen is actually unclear as is always the case in dealing with the Endangered Species Act and especially when specific cases end up in our courts which have historically disregarded science, the Commerce Clause and the intent of the ESA.

One area that has already had a broad sweeping affect on Maine residents has been the Department of Transportation. The MDOT has opted to take the position that assumes the listing will occur. A memo was sent out to supervisors of DOT that will be affected by an ESA listing.

Almost all instream work will need to be reviewed under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Although these changes have not been finalized (there is still time period for public hearings) we will have to treat them as if they have. The reason for this is pretty simple. If the habitat is designated when we are halfway through a project, all stream work will have to cease until consultation can be completed. When habitat is proposed, rather than designated, the process is referred to as a conference rather than a consult, but otherwise the process is the same. I will have to send a scope of work and a map to Dan Tierney, a biologist in our Environmental office in Augusta. Dan will do a screening which can take a few days. That said, there is a potential for formal conferencing, which can take six months or longer to process. Plus I will also have to have John Perry, a fish biologist out of our Environmental office, conduct a habitat assessment before Dan can get the ball rolling on the conference. Once the habitat is listed John may not be able to shock streams in the habitat without a USFWS or NOAA biologist on the scene which will take even more time. So what does all this mean to you? It is even more important that you get me scopes of work on instream work as soon as you can. It is never too early to get me that information. I will need to know existing conditions such as the existing length and existing diameter. I will also need to know the proposed length and diameter of what you want to put back. If you know of any instream work for next summer let me know now so I can get the ball rolling.

For those who don’t have a copy and/or would like to read the amended Endangered Species Act of 1973, can do so by clicking this link. Below I’ve provided only a portion of Section 7 of the Act, as was mentioned above as a necessary step before any work can be done by the MDOT in AS designated habitat areas.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee
pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the
prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementation of such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection
(d)

What does all this mean? As I said before, it’s really hard to say precisely but there are some things that are revealed through this memo that definitely will happen and that’s the slowdown of all work within the DOT that might affect critical habitat of the Atlantic salmon. That slowdown will cost money, so you can expect your taxes to increase to pay for the added time and expense of administering the Act.

That culvert repair or replacement at the end of your driveway, may not happen this year or next or perhaps not at all. Bridge construction statewide in areas of Atlantic salmon habitat will be slowed or postponed. It may be cheaper to try to put off construction than deal with added expenses.

General road repair may be affected, resurfacing and new road construction will be slowed and costs go up. Where is the end to this? And this is only an issue with the Department of Transportation. How will this affect businesses within the habitat area and the general population?

The truth is we really don’t know for sure but all this needs consideration before jumping to create another Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon that might not reward us with any more salmon than utilizing of the efforts we have in place.

Another aspect to consider is the length of time this listing will remain in effect. For those who don’t know, in order for a listing to happen, certain criteria of the Endangered Species Act must be present.

SEC. 4. ø16 U.S.C. 1533¿ (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
Q:\COMP\WILDLIFE\ESA73
January 24, 2002
225 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 Sec. 4
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Notice the Act doesn’t say all of these conditions, only one needs be proven before any species can be considered for listing. In the reverse of this action, in order for the USFWS and NMFS to remove the Atlantic salmon from protection, it has to be proven that the criteria that listed it has been met and that none of the other listed reasons exist.

This doesn’t mean that Maine can try a listing for a couple of years to see how it goes and then if it appears its not working well, bailout.

History has shown us that once a species is listed, rarely is federal protection removed. This costs all taxpayers money, strips management powers away from the state to care for its own populations of Atlantic salmon and seldom, if ever, protects local businesses, municipalities and the citizenry in general.

Me mustn’t lose sight of the fact that when listing critical habitat for a species, it affects all activities within that designated area including other species. What will this mean for recreational and commercial fishing in the area, home gardening, the farm that produces the milk next to the river, etc., etc.?

Even without the looming concerns of what’s going to happen to our economy, it is my opinion that the state of Maine and the efforts already exemplified can continue to work toward improvement of the waterways, removal of dams and construction of fishways and restoration of habitat, that will provide as much benefit as anything an ESA listing will accomplish. It may even provide a better outcome.

It should be up to the people of Maine and what they are willing and prepared to do to address this issue.

Tom Remington

In management of wildlife, shouldn’t it be considered imperative to have accurate and reliable population counts? After all, many a lawsuit that involves millions of dollars and just as many people have been decided on data that includes herd counts, especially Endangered Species Act lawsuits.

“I’ve been in the woods for over a month now and I can tell you there are at least 100 does for every buck!” This is a comment I received one day when attempting to communicate with fellow hunters about buck to doe ratios and the management plans Maine has in monitoring and manipulating the whitetail deer populations.

Whether that statement is true or not is not really up to me to decide but when I contacted a wildlife expert, I was told that in Maine, having a buck to doe ratio of 1:100 was nearly biologically impossible unless it was intentionally skewed.

I’m sure most of you at one time or another participated in the old “count the jelly beans” contest. This is where someone fills a glass jug with jelly beans and then formulates a contest in which the one who can guess closest the number of beans in the jar wins a prize.

In this scenario, you can see the beans through the glass but because it is three dimensional and the beans are stacked from all sides, one has to envision how many groupings of a selected number exist in the jar and then do the math.

Have you ever attended a concert or any kind of large gathering of people and been asked to estimate how many people in attendance? You might apply the same principle as the jelly beans – determine the size of say 50 people and see how many chunks of 50 people there are and once again do the math.

I have friends who are wildlife biologists. Often they volunteer to go on bird counts in Mexico during migration. I’m no expert on bird counting but I recall one of them briefly describing the process. The birds are flying in mass in the same direction. At certain places, the birds enter areas where the air rises. The birds get into these rises until they reach a certain height and then fly away headed for their final migratory destination.

The biologists make a determination of how many birds can fill up this “elevator” of updrafts. Each counter picks out one bird as it enters the elevator, watches it until it reaches the top and exits. At this time the counter moves eyes back to the bottom of the elevator, picks another bird and counts “one”.

This entire process gives biologists a “count” of the number of that species of bird. I have no hard data but it might be plausible to guess the counting would be off by several thousand but when counting millions of birds, it is probably within tolerance.

In all of these cases I’ve mentioned, someone or group of people are attempting to count objects they can see, not necessarily individually but in groups, a lot of groups in some cases. So, how do we count species not in groups, not confined to small areas but spread out over huge areas of land and forests? Sometimes in the open, sometimes in dense forest?

There are several ways and not everyone uses the same methods and all produce varying degrees of accuracy. How accurate should it be?

If there are an estimated 1,000,000,000 sparrows, I’m not so sure that being real accurate on numbers is that important. On the other hand, if there is an estimated 100 of a particular “protected” species, it would seem imperative that we know exactly how many exist and where.

I can’t and won’t get into the exact methods used to count wildlife, but let me give a few examples to show the varying ways and degrees of effort put forth in determining herd counts in some states.

Let’s start first with whitetail deer in Maine. Maine has deer that live in areas throughout the entire state. Deer densities in southern Maine far exceed those in northern Maine. How do we know that? Biologists have formulated equations that by inputting data, comparing it to many years of previous data, they come up with an answer. Examples of data used would include: weather, habitat, predation, fawn survival rates, disease, hunter harvest and hunting pressure, open land, among others. The use of aerial surveys is also used but not on a regular, extensive basis. (For those interested in finding out more about how Maine manages and counts its deer herd, visit the website of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.)

Another state that is having a war over deer management is Pennsylvania. A few years back, biologists and state agencies announced that there were too many deer and as a result was destroying the habitat and creating a serious ecological imbalance. Pennsylvania began a program to reduce the deer population. Some don’t agree with the approach. The question for us today is how do they know how many deer they had and how many they have now?

The state of Pennsylvania Fish and Game offers a Deer Management Plan and an update to that that addresses the new plan of herd reduction.

From an examination of the Deer Management Plan and assuming it is being followed, we can see that Pennsylvania utilizes similar methods as Maine in counting their deer. Obviously, due to different geography and climate, certain methods are different.

I think Maine has an excellent system of data collection and utilization that gives most biologists a healthy degree of confidence in the outcome. The reality is it is still educated guessing but the key is increasing the level of confidence. When hunters discover that their biologists are producing accurate results, this level of confidence in the fish and game grows.

Gathering this information and determining how many deer live in states like Maine and Pennsylvania is good and serves not only to provide a professional means to manage the species but in so doing solves many social problems as well, i.e. keeping hunters and wildlife viewers satisfied, maintaining healthy forests, reducing human/deer encounters/accidents, etc.

But in both Maine and Pennsylvania, the whitetail deer is, for all intent and purposes, plentiful. Most people’s concerns about them involve avoiding running into them with their cars or being able to spot one occasionally in the field.

This is not the case for other species in other states. Let’s head west to Idaho. Idaho is home to mule deer, whitetail deer, elk and moose. It is also home to the gray wolf, an endangered and protected species that has created emotional conflict, to say the least.

The wolf was once native to Idaho and surrounding regions until it was nearly exterminated many years ago. The wolf had been found in northern areas of the state, having migrated down from Canada. But in 1993 and 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unloaded imported wolves into the forests of Idaho as an “experimental” population. Since that time, the wolf there has been relabeled endangered and is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Last year the USFWS removed the wolf from protection of the ESA and immediately lawsuits were filed by no fewer than 11 environmental, animal rights and anti-hunting groups to stop the process. A judge in Montana agreed and ruled in favor of a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under federal protection.

Since that time the feds have withdrawn their original proposal to delist and are now in the process of putting forth a new delisting proposal in hopes of getting this done by the first of next year. Once again, most of the same pro wolf groups have filed suit to stop the process until the new administration (Obama’s) has taken over.

Within Idaho there are varying degrees of emotions – satisfaction, dissatisfaction, anger and happiness – over the wolf issue. Ranchers have lost livestock due to wolf predation and hunters, along with some non-hunters, are angry that the wolf is killing more elk, deer and moose. To what extent this “decimation” of elk and deer is taking place, we don’t really know or perhaps we don’t know who to believe or what is accurate.

So, we should then conclude with the amount of controversy over the wolf, the assumed destruction of elk and deer herds, the loss of ranchers’ livestock and the reduced production due to the presence of wolves, combined with the mere number of Idaho citizens directly and indirectly affected by the wolf, that Idaho must have one of the best systems in place in the country to monitor wolf, elk, deer, moose, sheep and every other kind of wildlife populations. We mustn’t forget the mere millions of dollars spent on wolf reintroduction, managing the animal once it was placed there and the countless lawsuits past, present and future. How can lawsuits be determined fairly unless Idaho’s population monitoring isn’t flawless? And how can we administer the Endangered Species Act with faulty information?

I figured then that I would see if I could find out about how Idaho Department of Fish and Game monitors its animals.

I sent an email to Brad Compton, Idaho’s big game manager, and asked him if he could explain or provide me with information that specifically explained the processes IDFG uses to count and monitor its mule deer, whitetail deer, moose, elk and wolves. This is the complete response I got.

Tom,

Idaho is currently using “Aerial Survey” to estimate mule deer, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep populations. Information on the technique is available at:

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/fishwild/Garton/tools

I couldn’t really find out anything from this link except to be able to get a download of the computer software I presume IDFG uses to tabulate the results of the endless data they must collect.

I began asking around from people in that area who have had experience with aerial surveys, wildlife management, etc. When I asked one gentleman about this response from Brad Compton, this is part of what was said.

His (Ed Garton) computer models were used to estimate deer and elk populations and harvests in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery area in the 1993 Wolf Recovery EIS and his average overall estimate for the 20,000+ square miles exceeded known deer and elk populations in the three highest producing units in that area by more than 600%.

These were the figures presented to Congress and the general public to justify introducing Canadian wolves into Idaho.

You know what they say about computers and the programs designed to run on them? Garbage in, garbage out. If it was true that deer and elk populations were inflated by 600%, was this the fault of the computer program, the information used in the program or a combination of both?

It didn’t take long before I came to the conclusion that Idaho relies very heavily on aerial surveys to estimate game populations. I also began finding out that aerial surveys alone may not be very accurate and can lead to some serious problems involving game management.

Articles archived in the Lewiston Tribune from 1997 and 1998 offer a disturbing revelation. In the Clearwater Region it was feared that elk took a hard hit from the deep snows of 1996-97. The then regional manager said nothing they had found indicated anything out of the “normal” range.

“There’s no doubt we had some losses,” Crenshaw said, “but we haven’t seen anything to suggest it’s outside the normal range.”
About 5 to 10 percent of the elk herd dies off during the winter most years, Crenshaw said, adding this year’s losses might be pushing that upper end of the range.

He further went on to explain that he didn’t predict that there would be any changes to the number of elk permits to be issued for hunting in the coming fall. That was in May.

In December of that same year, 1997, hunters began complaining that the Clearwater Region didn’t have any elk in it. Also from the Lewiston Tribune:

Some Clearwater Region hunters have complained about finding fewer elk this fall, particularly in units around Dworshak Reservoir. Hunter success also was off in that region. Aerial and ground surveys of elk in northern units of the Clearwater Region last spring showed no signs of unusual winter kill.

Two months later in Feb. 2008, the Tribune reported that IDFG was reporting elk numbers in the Clearwater Region had dropped drastically since 1994 and blamed it on the severe winter of 1996-97. The total number of elk had been cut in half. These is the kinds of discrepancies that drive sportsmen nuts.

Aside from the computer software link Mr. Compton gave me, I found that Idaho Fish and Game website provides a Mule Deer Management Plan. Hoping to find more precise methods used to count deer and elk, I really only found a brief reference to something called, “sightability model”.

Because not all animals are observed during aerial surveys (Caughley 1974), IDFG developed a “sightability model” that corrects for those deer not observed (Unsworth et. al. 1994). Beginning in the mid-1990s, annual aerial surveys, using the “sightability model,” were conducted on 28 discrete winter ranges across southern Idaho. These winter range surveys provided reliable information on population composition, but were inadequate for determining overall abundance. Additionally, limiting monitoring to these winter ranges failed to detect potential changes occurring on the many smaller or peripheral winter ranges throughout Idaho.(I provided the hyperlink)

In theory, what this “sightability model” does is correct for what animals, and in this cited case, elk, are not seen in an aerial survey. This sightability model may not be accurate but will account to some degree on the number of elk counted. The model has to take into consideration as many factors that will effect the habits of the elk due to weather, ground conditions, time of year, terrain, habitat, etc. I would suppose one could say that the model is only as good as the data that gets dumped into it, provided of course that the basic model is sound.

I have communicated quite extensively with one man who has years of experience in aerial surveys and understands them well. He also shared thoughts with me about “sightability models”.

Instead of counting only under ideal conditions – or skipping the count that year if such conditions did not exist – IDFG Research Biologists spent years designing and re-designing this so-called “sightability” model in which the biologist enters a combination of data including precipitation, cloud cover, type of vegetation, snow cover, etc. to estimate the percentage of animals that exist versus those that were observed. In my experience almost every version of such a sightability model exaggerates the number of bucks and bulls or fawns and calves, and does nothing to improve the inability of a desk-bound biologist to spot and count wild animals – especially under less-than-ideal conditions. In my opinion, aerial counting under less than ideal conditions is a waste of time and sportsmen’s license money. Yet in many, but not all, areas it is possible to achieve up to 95% accuracy under the proper ideal count conditions. Accurate counts conducted every few years combined with accurate hunter harvest reports and other data provides far more accuracy than IDFG’s “sightability” surveys.

In the Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan, it states that in the future the department needs to develop a monitoring plan that uses less aerial surveys. This would seem to run contradictory to the statement made above by one experienced aerial surveyor.

I always hear from hunters disgruntled with the management efforts of fish and game biologists. The degree of distrust between hunter and biologist varies greatly from state to state and I believe this to be directly proportional to the trust factor or level of confidence I spoke of earlier. But we cannot disregard the evidence presented to us by those on the ground.

Many biologists that I have spoken with tell me that they put a lot of credibility in what the experienced hunters, guides, trappers, etc. are telling them they are seeing. After all, they are often the only eyes and ears on the ground in the woods and fields. To disregard this information would be foolhardy.

I also came across a person who has become part of a group of sportsmen who have decided to take a little game management into their own hands. About 12 years ago, a group of sportsmen and pilots began doing their own aerial surveys utilizing trained surveyors. This happened due to continued frustration on the part of the sportsmen that IDFG was attempting to do their own surveys with untrained personnel and coming up with data on herd populations that didn’t satisfy them from what they were observing on the ground. As one member of this group told me, “Around here we fly year around and spot what little game is left. You don’t just do it for a couple weeks in the year and then go back to your computer.”

The same gentleman told me that their frustration level grew when IDFG was reporting there were 5,000 elk in the zones they fly on a regular bases. This group had recorded their own count of 2,000 elk in two zones. They finally convinced IDFG to fly these two wildlife units and they counted 1,900 elk.

What was pointed out to me also was that with this effort of doing aerial surveys of their own, they have been able to convince IDFG to reduce elk tags in order to get the population of elk back up and they have since seen marked improvement. This is a direct result of accurate population monitoring and being able to adjust management tactics to meet known needs.

I digress to my original question about how important it is to have accurate information especially in regards to Idaho and their controversial problems with wolves and claims by sportsmen that the wolves are killing off all the deer and elk.

I have no way of really knowing exactly everything IDFG does to monitor their herds but I’ve presented some examples that certainly seem to prove that what is getting reported isn’t matching what’s on the ground.

Can we then have much confidence that data being presented is accurate? And if that confidence is low, how can a court rightfully pass judgment on the wolf and directly affect the lives of Idaho’s citizens based on guess work?

Wouldn’t it be historic if one of these judges, instead of overstepping their legal bounds and disregarding science in passing judgment, would go the other way and order the federal government and all those who filed the lawsuits to pony up the money and have a complete audit done of Idaho’s elk, deer, moose, sheep and wolf populations. Would we then not have answered the real questions and faced the issue head on?

Better yet, why not require the Department of Interior i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with anyone proposing a listing of any species, first spend the money to do a complete audit before any consideration can be given for listing?

Tom Remington

For those of you that know me, you know that I am a huge advocate for property rights and I will fight tooth and nail to help every person I can to maintain those rights. That doesn’t mean certain things are acceptable when it comes to being a good steward of your land. Case in point:

While I was in Maine in early November 2008 for the annual Maine deer hunting season, I got to cover a considerable amount of territory due to the fact that I have wonderful friends who are willing to loan our hunting camp a 4-wheel ATV and we have permission from the landowners of most everywhere we go to access their land for hunting and the use of ATVs. One of the reasons I use it is it allows me access to hunting places I couldn’t always go because of my bad back.

Having been raised by a good father who taught me to respect everything, when I enter someone’s land, I am fully aware and alert to the surroundings around me so that when I leave, I leave it the same or better than when I went in.

In one instance, I would have needed a dump truck to haul out the mess.

I have permission to access a parcel of land which requires the use of a shared right-of-way. I knew from hunting this area last year that a logging operation was going on at the lower part of the mountain. It didn’t take long upon entering the right-of-way to see that the operation was complete and the cutters had left. What they left behind is totally inexcusable!

This was one of the first things I saw upon entering the land. I might explain to readers that the pictures that follow encompass perhaps an area of several acres. At first, when I saw the old chains from the chainsaws and the cutter bars, I found it interesting. Then I got looking around.

A bit further along as I neared one of the bigger log landings, I spotted more chains hanging in a tree.

Not too far from the tree where the chains hung, I found a stump that seemed to be home to a variety of discarded items. Not only were there chainsaw cutter bars, old chains and files but plastic bags, old paper towels and broken parts probably from a skidder or automobile.

I turned from the stump and tree where the bar chains hung and couldn’t hardly believe what I saw. Right next to a small stream that fed a bigger brook, a stack of empty plastic bar and chain oil containers, among other refuse like cardboard boxes, plastic tarps and personal garbage.

This should give you somewhat of an idea of what the main log landing area looked like. You name it and it was left to rot here. I saw no indications that whoever put this there was coming back. Not only on this site but at another location I saw two discarded chainsaws. Under the tarps mostly empty containers that once held hydraulic fluid, bar and chain oil, engine oil, etc.

This of course should be the responsibility of the outfit who did the logging to clean it up. The landowner should demand it, or it may well have been the landowner who left the mess.

This is just totally unnecessary and is certainly not good for the land and the environment. Whoever left this like this should be ashamed.

Tom Remington

Some may think making a statement that there’s more to hunting than hunting and killing game is a cop out because of lack of success. Well, to each his own and while I might agree that in some cases that statement may hold water, I find as I get older there are just as many fascinating things to find in the outdoors than only game animals to fill my freezer.

My trip north to Maine this fall was a last minute affair. I had resolved not to go because I felt spending the money right now wouldn’t be wise but after discovering one of my hunting buddies had recently moved near me here in Florida, we talked ourselves into sharing expenses.

Last winter in Maine the severe weather and record-breaking deep snow took a sizable toll on the whitetail deer herds in Maine – some areas more than others and in some instances the winter couldn’t kill what wasn’t there to kill, that’s how bad some areas are as far as deer populations go.

Needless to say, the area where our hunting camp is located saw its share of deep snow and took its toll on the deer. I spoke with one Maine Warden who was part of the team the flew over our area to evaluate the winter severity. He described it as a blood bath.

But that wouldn’t hinder the curious and those eager to be “out in it”.

One day dawned bright and sunny. Temperatures that day topped out around 60 degrees, some 20-plus degrees above average for November in Maine. Three of us opted for a long ATV ride to an area we hunted years ago to assess the conditions now.

In this area nearly 30 years ago, logging operations virtually wiped out the excellent hunting. Now, as the forests begin to replenish themselves, signs of deer returning to the area were encouraging.

The trip was long and I followed behind the two camp’s elder members, combined with well over a century of hunting in this region.

Two friends, having spent nearly 55 years together hunting from the family hunting camp, share a ride toward the old hunting grounds. One passenger knows his limits and doesn’t carry a gun anymore but that doesn’t stop him from enjoying the outdoors with friends.

When hunters take the time to look around, it is amazing the things they can find in the woods. Of course different areas of the country offer a variety of discoveries for the curious. In New England, often times when you think you are hunting in “wilderness” area, you discover that not that many years ago hearty settlers braved the elements and survived the challenges that confronted them as real frontiersmen.

As we poked our way along old woods roads, we stopped for a brief moment as we heard chatter on the radios that was coming from a fellow hunter. We were surprised to discover that one of the hunters had made his way to the top of a mountain, I would guess was in the area of 3 miles from us in a straight line. From our vantage point it was a clear and straight shot for radio communications to the top of the mountain. The radios we all carried generally wouldn’t carry communications beyond a few hundred yards while mired deep in the dense forests of Maine.

I sat quietly astride my ATV basking in the wonderment of healing sunshine on my face and shoulders, glad to be alive, thrilled to be fortunate enough as a free human granted that freedom from God. Was there anything more pleasant than the instance I was immersed?

As I looked around, I recalled that in years past the area where we now sat on our modern machinery exposed astounding views toward the west. After the logging operations had cleared the landscape, from the very spot we sat, one could easily view toward the west and suck up the beauty of the Presidential Mountain Range in New Hampshire – Mt. Washington, Jefferson and Adams. It occurred to me that that view was now blocked by the rapidly growing young growth of maples, birch, poplar and dogwood trees.

My hunting partners ahead of me continued a conversation with the guy high on the mountain who was sharing about the spectacular views he was experiencing. I began to look around from where I sat.

To my left I spied what appeared to be an old metal pan filled with glass. Curiosity yanked me hard from the comfort of my padded and warm seat. I had to find out what it was.

It was, in fact, an old gray metal pan, perhaps 4 inches deep and filled with pieces of old glass and bottles. I glanced around some more and much to my surprise I discovered an old cellar hole.

For readers not familiar with New England and in particular Maine, finding old cellar holes that once supported the homesteads of the brave who came before us, is quite common. Often when it was decided where the home would sit, along with sheds, carriage houses and barns, the excruciating work began to clear the land. This involved saving the rocks to use for walling up a foundation.

In the picture above, you can see the fine work that was done to create a cellar hole and walls that remain still standing after as many as 200-250 years. Near the center of the cellar hole, you can see what appears to be a square pile of stones with small trees growing up from the center of the pile. This is the remains of the base of the main fireplace used in the home. Many times these fireplaces were Dutch ovens designed to provide heat to the house and for cooking and baking purposes. This basement structure of rocks would not only support the massive weight of a fireplace and chimney but oftentimes was designed as a root cellar to store foods like potatoes, carrots, beets and a variety of other vegetables grown in the garden on site.

I had passed this location many, many times in the 36 years of hunting this area and this is the first time I had realized this even existed. The things you see when you stop and look around.

As I explored the setting, it was easy to see the seemingly endless rows of gorgeous stone walls built as a way to separate pastures, gardens, animals and also a place to put the massive amount of stones laying atop the ground and what got unearthed by the settlers.

It is difficult to see from the above picture of the cellar hole but the area around the cellar was raised up, built up with soil and more rocks to level the ground. Out from what was probably the front of the house, which faced the west, and the south-facing end of the house, the ground was built out nearly 10-12 feet and raised up as high as 5 feet. Puzzling to me was a hand-dug well right beside the house but built up onto the raised part of the landscape. It sat only about 4 feet from the retaining wall.

These old hand-dug and crafted wells are a work of art and ingenuity. This particular well looked to be about 10-12 feet deep. The original depth is hard to determine as I couldn’t tell how much the well had filled in with debris over the years. I was told that the size of the hole in the ground that was dug to build such a well was massive considering the end result. I would guess that a well of this depth probably saw a hole at the surface at least 25-30 feet across. Stones were used and laid in such a way as to ensure they would stay in place and slowly filled in around. This process continued until the stones, which could be as much as 4 or 5 feet out around the opening of the well, reached the top of the ground. As you can probably see from the picture, the well still had water in it.

After spending a substantial amount of time rummaging around the old cellar hole and of course searching for a dump site, we moved on. Dump sites were common somewhere near the house. Oftentimes valuable treasures can be unearthed from these sites – such things as old bottles and cans that collectors will pay handsomely for.

Just a short ways down the road, we stopped, still hoping to find that elusive dump site. We didn’t find THE dumping grounds but we did discover this 1937 International Harvester truck body, or what’s left of it.

We checked it out and discovered the motor was still in it, complete with distributor, generator, starter and coil. We wondered aloud if a clever mechanic could get it running again.

We did plan to do some hunting on this trip but we were just having way too much fun. As the two in front of me headed out, I glanced over my left shoulder and glowing vibrantly in the midday sun, was one tree that appeared reluctant to shed its golden leaves.

I turned around and drove up behind the tree so I could get this picture. During the peak of the foliage season, Maine sports a variety of colors from the multiple species of hardwoods. This maple variety seemed unwilling to undress for the winter.

We spent most of the rest of the day making short hunting trips. My two partners would usually sit together in a strategic place while I made a swing through the woods hoping to scare up some game. All I managed was to scare off a flock of about eight wild turkeys.

We knew the afternoon sun was sinking low in the western sky and the air was beginning to reveal a bite of chill. One last road to explore and a visit to the end to check on the status of a beaver dam. The beaver had been busy. As we explored about taking pictures and admiring the size of the beaver house on the south end of the pond, I spotted some interesting foliage.

The bushes, meshed with various species of vines, didn’t seem all that interesting until a close examination of the smaller parts revealed an interesting picture.

The background sky was still bright enough that as I approached the bush, I saw an “alien” face staring straight at me.

What a day. A day that is as memorable as sighting a big buck or any other species of game. There is more to hunting than bagging game, although I wouldn’t give that up for the world. Next time you’re out, if the hunting of game doesn’t seem to be rewarding, take a look around. You might be thrilled to discover what’s around you.

Tom Remington