I took this photo from a lobsterman’s dock in Eastport, Maine. Running nearby to the dock I was standing on was the remains of an old pier. As you can see in the photo, vegetation of this variety has little difficulty growing on top of the remains. And of course two likely suspects don’t mind settling down in the growth while keeping a watchful eye on any likely scavenged meal.

Photo by Tom Remington

Tom Remington

Photo by Tom Remington

As the summer rush of beachgoers begins this holiday weekend the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, and Maine Audubon would like to remind people to be considerate of fellow beachgoers: piping plovers and least terns.

The piping plover is federally listed as threatened and both species are on Maine’s endangered species list. Piping plover and least tern nest and raise their chicks on Maine beaches, with June through August being the critical nesting and chick rearing period for these rare birds. Unfortunately, this also is the busiest time at Maine’s beaches.

Even under natural conditions the summer nesting season is a challenging time: the rigors of coastal storms and predators take there toll. Currently our 26 piping plover pairs are at various stages of nesting, and this Fourth of July weekend is a critical time for these birds. Beaches can be crowded with visitors at a time when plover and tern families are exceptionally vulnerable to disturbance from people and their pets, resulting in nesting failure and the death of plover chicks. Plover and tern chicks are capable of roaming large areas of beach, away from protected nesting areas, depending on constant vigilance from their parents for protection.

This year, the Maine Warden Service will patrol beaches in southern Maine throughout the holiday weekend to ensure a safe holiday for beach visitors and the endangered species that make their home on our beautiful beaches. Game Wardens will patrol beaches from Ogunquit to Scarborough to make sure that beach visitors are respectful of the piping plover nesting areas and keep dogs on leashes and away from nesting areas.

Everyone can do his or her part to make the Fourth of July holiday enjoyable and safe for ALL beach residents.

You can help assure the survival of these remarkable birds by observing these simple guidelines:

· Steer clear of nesting areas. These areas are fenced with stake and twine and posted with “Restricted Area” signs. Enjoy these beautiful birds from a distance by using binoculars.

· Keep pets off the beach or leashed from mid April to mid September. Plovers and terns perceive even leashed dogs as potential predators and may abandon their nest or young when approached.

· Fly kites well away from nesting areas. Plovers and terns mistake kites for hawks and leave their nests to ward off the “intruders.”

· Take your trash and food scraps with you when you leave the beach for the day. Garbage attracts gulls, foxes, raccoons, and skunks which prey on plover and tern eggs and young.

· Call your local police department or the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to report harassment of birds by people or dogs.

Currently plovers and/or terns are nesting on: Wells Beach, Ogunquit Beach, Crescent Surf Beach in Kennebunk, Goose Rocks Beach in Kennebunkport, Goosefare Brook in Saco, Western Beach and Higgins Beach in Scarborough, Seawall Beach in Phippsburg and Reid State Park in Georgetown.

AUGUSTA – Towns and organizations interested in the preservation of Piping Plovers, endangered species in Maine, have partnered to ensure the shorebirds will successfully nest and raise their chicks to adulthood.

The towns of Wells, Ogunquit, Old Orchard Beach and Scarborough have joined the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maine Audubon, Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, USDA Wildlife Services’ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, The Nature Conservancy, Bates College, Cabela’s, Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, and supportive beachfront landowners to form a community-based team that is dedicated to the protection of Piping Plovers in Maine.

The Piping Plover is a small, sand-colored shorebird that nests on beaches from Newfoundland to South Carolina. Although once common on sandy beaches in southern Maine, it now is considered imperiled throughout much of its range and is listed on the state’s Endangered Species List, and is a Threatened Species on the national level.

In 2008, only 22 pairs of Piping Plovers nested in Maine – the lowest number in 17 years. Piping Plover numbers steadily increased during the 1990s, reaching 66 pairs in 2002. Habitat loss due to development and storms, such as the 2007 Patriot’s Day nor-easter, coupled with human disturbance, wild animal predation such as by foxes, and the increased presence of dogs on beaches are the primary factors for a decline in nesting pairs.

“The recent, precipitous decline of Piping Plovers in Maine is alarming, and it requires intervention by people and communities who strongly desire to share their beaches with these fragile shorebirds,” according to IF&W Wildlife Biologist Lindsay Tudor. “We’re at the point now, at the start of nesting season, that if action isn’t taken to protect Piping Plovers, they may soon disappear from Maine.”

Piping Plovers are in the process of returning to Maine beaches in the hopes of establishing a nesting territory, finding a mate, and successfully raising their chicks.

“With the help of this conservation team, and the management and protection activities they are committed to, along with the cooperation of beachfront landowners and beachgoers, perhaps the plovers will have a chance to mount a comeback,” Tudor said.

Anyone in these coastal towns can become a Piping Plover protector. Here’s how to be a responsible beachgoer on Piping Plover nesting beaches:

· Respect fenced and/or posted areas for Piping Plovers and other wildlife. Do not move or tamper with the fences.

· Keep dogs or any other domestic animal that is brought to the beach away from Piping Plover nesting areas and keep the animals on a leash at all times.

· Remove your trash from the beach and take it home for disposal.

· When walking or playing on beaches, check the area carefully for any signs of these well-camouflaged little birds and their nests. Should you be lucky enough to see one, STAY AWAY FROM IT! Enjoy looking at it through binoculars. Report your finding to the landowner or beach manager.

· Contact Maine Audubon (www.maineaudubon.org) or your town office to be a volunteer Piping Plover monitor. They will appreciate your help!

· Help IF&W’s efforts to protect Maine’s endangered and threatened species by purchasing a Conservation Loon Plate (www.myloonplate.com) and/or by contributing to the Chickadee Checkoff. Your financial support is greatly appreciated – and is critical to the future of Piping Plovers and other rare species in Maine.

Posted by Tom Remington

AUGUSTA – Recently, a large number of finches have been reported sick or dead at feeders across southern and central Maine. Contacts outside Maine, and even outside the Northeast, suggest that many other states are affected as well. Such widespread mortality at feeders is not uncommon this time of year, but can be alarming to witness and has resulted in a large volume of calls to Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and to Maine Audubon as well as an influx of sick birds to local wildlife rehabilitators.

The cause of death, though no Maine specimens have been tested, is very likely to be Salmonellosis, according to IF&W Wildlife Biologist Tom Hodgman. This gastrointestinal disease is caused by the bacteria Salmonella, and leads to death most commonly in gulls and songbirds (especially finches), but also waterfowl and herons. Most reports currently in Maine are of affected Pine Siskins, with lesser numbers of American Goldfinches and Common Redpolls.

Salmonellosis is commonly seen in late winter and early spring when three things work together to increase risk to birds at feeders. First, a winter’s worth of seed waste (and bird droppings) has accumulated on the ground under feeders. Throughout the winter, snow repeatedly covers these, limiting to some degree exposure to feeding birds. Second, the weather in late winter and early spring results in melting conditions that exposes seed and bird waste. Furthermore, warm temperatures, especially in the debris under feeders, likely reach temperatures favorable for bacterial (i.e., Salmonella) growth. Third, wintering finches often arrive at our feeders in great numbers, far more than can fit on a platform feeder or can perch on a tube-style feeder. The resulting “overflow” of birds land on the ground and sift through the seed waste under feeders looking for bits of food that have fallen from above.

Many birds suffering from Salmonellosis appear “puffed out”, with their head down and eyes closed. Many will have no fear of humans and remain at the feeder while you approach. This behavior increases their vulnerability to predators, including pets. Recently, cats known to have eaten infected birds became seriously ill and required veterinary care. It is important to keep cats indoors at all times and especially so during a Salmonella outbreak. The family dog and even humans (especially children) can be exposed if they handle sick or dead birds. If you find dead birds at your feeder, it is recommended to place your hand in a plastic bag, pick up the bird then invert the bag over the bird. Bird and bag can be disposed of in domestic trash or the bird could be buried if the ground is not frozen. Do not simply discard the carcass where scavengers could find it, become infected, and further spread the disease. Be sure to wash your hands after handling dead birds and bird feeders.

It is important at this time of year to break the Salmonella “cycle”. To do so, a few steps can be taken to minimize future exposure. First, bring your feeders in and wash them in a solution of 10 percent Clorox /90 percent water. Scrubbing all the nooks and cranny’s with an old toothbrush is helpful. Allow the feeder to sit in the sun and thoroughly dry before reusing.

Second, and most importantly, clean up under the feeder. Rake up seed waste and dispose of in trash or bury it. If you reinstall your feeder, do so in another location to prevent birds from continuing to use the contaminated site.

Third, resist the temptation to feed during summer. This contributes to chronic Salmonella infection (mildly-effected birds that serve as carriers which can reinfect the population next winter) as warm temperatures and messy conditions under feeders during summer often lead to limited outbreaks in July and August. Those who must feed during summer, should do so over a paved driveway, brick walkway or other solid surface that can be swept clean regularly.

Fourth, begin feeding in fall once cooler temps have arrived and only use feeds that are preferred. Avoid using mixed seed where much of the millet and other seeds are not used and end up on the ground. Instead, feed only preferred items like black oil sunflower, suet, and niger (thistle).

Additional resources to better understand this disease and others that affect birds at feeders can be found at the website for the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology. Point your web browser to http://www.birds.cornell.edu/pfw/ to learn more.

AUGUSTA – This spring, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will conduct a nearly statewide census for nesting great blue herons and other colonial wading birds. This large-scale effort will be conducted primarily by state biologists, but there are a couple of opportunities for the public to become involved.

Information regarding the location of active heron or other wading bird colonies is needed. In addition, a new volunteer-based adopt-a-colony program called the Heron Observation Network (HERON) will begin this spring – and members of the public are encouraged to join. These efforts have been prompted by recent concern over the status of Maine’s breeding population of great blue herons.

The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) is often touted as one of the most widespread and adaptable wading birds in North America. It certainly is no stranger to Maine. The birds can be seen foraging in tidal marshes, along riverbanks, and even in open grasslands. In flight, their form is reminiscent of a prehistoric creature: large body, long snake-like neck with a sharp dagger for a bill, all carried about by those ever so graceful wings that when wide open may stretch two meters across. Upon liftoff, their squawk further confirms their prehistoric essence.

Though they tend to forage alone, their nesting habits are the complete opposite. Colonies can contain anywhere from a few pairs to several hundred, and often multiple nests occupy the same tree. Location of a colony is somewhat predator driven, but is also determined by the proximity of quality foraging habitat. In addition, human disturbance can be a real threat to a colony’s continued occupancy.

Recent observations have indicated that colonies in Maine may be declining. Colonies that once held scores of active nests, have dwindled to a few pairs or have been abandoned altogether. Have the birds simply redistributed themselves across the landscape, occupying different sites that support fewer pairs, or is there a true decline in the number of breeding “great blues”? North American Breeding Bird Survey data for Maine indicate a significant declining trend in the number of birds detected between 1980 and 2007. Although most would still argue the great blue heron is a common sighting in Maine, this declining trend is somewhat alarming.

Consideration of this decline, evidence of fewer active nests in recent years, and observations of predation by an increasing eagle population prompted MDIF&W to list the great blue heron as a state Species of Special Concern in 2007. Unlike Endangered or Threatened status, Special Concern is an administrative category established by policy, rather than by regulation, and is used for planning and informational purposes only. Basically, it’s a way of saying, “let’s keep an eye on this species and make sure it’s not really in peril.”

MDIF&W conducts periodic breeding censuses of heron colonies, primarily along the coast. The last thorough census was done in 1996. Observations and reports of numbers of nests for most colonies have filtered in over the past 13 years, but have primarily been incidental and opportunistic in nature and therefore haven’t shed enough light on the situation. A thorough nest count is long overdue.

In late April through early May, MDIF&W will fly over the state in search of nesting colonies of great blue herons and other colonial wading birds such as snowy, great, and cattle egrets; little blue and tricolored herons; glossy ibis; and black-crowned night-herons. All historical wading bird colonies, including more than 180 that have hosted nesting great blue herons, will be checked for use in 2009. Suitable habitat en route to these locations also will be surveyed.

The formal census will be performed by state biologists, but reports of active colonies from the public are extremely helpful. As mentioned earlier, many of the larger colonies documented in past censuses have since broken up into smaller colonies and moved to other locations. Herons nest in a wide variety of habitats including coastal and freshwater islands, beaver flowages, small and large wetland complexes, as well as upland sites that may be fairly close to good foraging areas. Maine has no shortage of these habitat types, so finding colonies may be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In order to maximize the efficiency of the aerial census and minimize flying time, information is needed from on-the-ground observers regarding the locations of active colonies. In addition, more detailed information regarding the use of these colonies over time will aid in assessing the population’s trend and planning future surveys and management activities.

During their 2009 springtime adventures, members of the public are encouraged to take note of active breeding great blue heron colonies and share their findings with MDIF&W. Nesting herons can be extremely sensitive to human disturbance, and may even abandon a colony as a result of human intrusion. From the onset of courtship behavior through fledging, it is extremely important to keep a distance of 300 meters (984 feet) from the colony. Without causing any disturbance to the birds, record the location on a DeLorme atlas, the approximate number of active nests (if visible from less than 300 meters), and the date(s) of your observation(s).

To take an even more active role in this project, the public may sign up to be part of the Heron Observation Network. HERON volunteers observe known active colonies one or more times between May and July to determine the number of nesting adults and the vegetative structure and health of the colony. Aerial censuses are expensive and time consuming; therefore they cannot be done on an annual basis. The information collected by HERON volunteers will assist with assessing the breeding population over time. An added benefit of this volunteer-based program is that the time contributed by volunteers can help to leverage federal dollars to perform future aerial censuses.

To help state biologists better understand the status of the great blue heron in Maine by reporting active colonies or becoming a HERON volunteer, please contact Danielle D’Auria at danielle.dauria@maine.gov or 941-4478.

It all makes little sense to me. Maine, like just about every other state in the Union is looking at ways to cut the budget and Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci insists on targeting the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. At least 90% of the budget is paid for through license fees and reimbursed taxes paid through Pittman-Robertson. Only recently did the Maine legislature cough up any money to assist MDIFW. Budget constraints on the Department have come mostly due to the demands placed on it for services outside fish and game (oh, sorry! Fish and Wildlife. That changed a few years back), yet those taking advantage of those services pay little or nothing.

Now Gov. Baldacci is seeking a license fee increase and he seems determined to either get the increase or merge the fish and wildlife into one huge natural resources entity, of which nobody wants to see. An article by Kevin Miller of the Bangor Daily News says that Baldacci is threatening sportsmen to either accept the fee increase or he’ll merge the departments.

Baldacci spokesman David Farmer stressed that the consolidation proposal is being put forward as an alternative to higher user fees. If the sporting community can live with the fee increases, then the consolidation proposal goes nowhere,

Sure sounds like a threat to me.

Generally speaking sportsmen are content to pay reasonable fee increases when they can see value for their dollar. What’s getting really old is paying extra for the license in order to pay for things that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing and trapping. Maine has to find a way to make up the shortfall by collecting fees from those who use and don’t pay, admittedly a difficult task.

I can assure you though that consolidating departments and morphing Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into a huge natural resources kind of department would be the biggest mistake Maine could make. Just look around at the states who have. First and foremost, it saves no money but more importantly two things happen.

One, fish and game doesn’t get the attention it needs. Monies are moved around and license fees continue to escalate in order to pay for more non-game activities and services. This results in the second problem. Time and again when talking with other sportsmen in other states and even looking at surveys taken, one of the biggest complaints by sportsmen who have stopped buying a license is that they feel they have no say anymore with fish and game.

Where once sportsmen organized into clubs in order to have input into the management of game no longer exists to the same degree. Ask any sportsman and they’ll not give a real positive impression of their own fish and game departments. On top of that bury the fish and wildlife into a huge, bureaucratic nightmare of a “superagency” and what little confidence left gets further eroded to efforts of futility, devaluing the experience and rendering a license purchase a waste of time and money.

Maine Senator David Trahan, (R) Waldoboro, who sits on the Fish and Wildlife Committee says he wants people to know “Over my dead body”.

“I’m not interested in having this discussion about consolidating these agencies into one,” said Sen. Dave Trahan, R-Waldoboro, a member of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee. “I just want people to know that. My position is ‘Over my dead body.’”

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says he opposes both of the governor’s proposals.

SAM’s executive director, George Smith, has promised to fight both proposals to increase fees or merge the agencies. Smith and other several other speakers said the state needs to find a way to get kayakers, hikers and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts to help pay for the services that game wardens and DIF&W biologists provide.

The chairman of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, Bruce Bryant (D) Oxford, also thinks Maine has to find ways to get those utilizing services to pay to play.

Sportsmen complain about the fee increases. Others don’t because they enjoy the benefits bought and paid for by the sportsmen and yet these same free loaders are making much of the demand for bigger and better services.

There is one thing that is certain. We can get mad at the governor. We can berate the fish and game department but if we don’t stop placing demands for more and bigger, how can we expect to keep fees down? Granted our departments have to hold the line on spending but at the same time we need to stop demanding.

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

Many Americans believe that being in the outdoors is what makes their lifestyles so remarkable and frankly, having grown up that way, I just don’t know what I would do if I lost the freedom to do that anymore.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. This lifestyle is being threatened. Ask yourself who you would rather have looking out for your interests in these matters, someone who is one of us or someone with little if any experience in outdoor affairs, namely hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, boating, ATVing, horseback riding, rock hounding, canoeing, kayaking and the list goes on?

As we rapidly approach November 4, 2008, Election Day, I encourage everyone to get out and vote. This may be the most critical election ever to face our nation and you need to be a part of it.

If you are anything like me, where the outdoors is more of a part of my life than indoors, I have to seriously consider who I want leading the way. John McCain is an outdoor sportsman. He is a fisherman and doesn’t pretend to be something that he’s not. He has selected a running mate in Sarah Palin that doubles the draw of the ticket.

The Sportsmen for McCain website says McCain supports your interests.

“John McCain understands that hunters and anglers are the first conservationists and without them, conservation as we know it will cease to exist. John McCain recognizes the importance of recruiting the next generation of hunters and anglers as well as maintaining those currently in our ranks. John McCain believes in multiple uses of public lands and knows that the revenue generated by the licenses and gear that we purchase is the life blood of state wildlife agencies.”

Our Endangered Species Act has been so far twisted out of shape it has lost its ability to protect the species we want to have long into our future. Who better to lead than someone with a real understanding of what proper wildlife management is. McCain is someone who knows that it is the outdoor sportsmen that make it possible for him to go fishing when he can.

I have to believe that one of the reasons John McCain recruited Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate, is because who else can have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the outdoors than the governor of the state that labels itself as “The Last Frontier”.

Having a grip on the importance of our outdoor heritage is huge. This directly affects tens of millions of Americans. Outdoor issues shouldn’t be overlooked in this election. Putting the future of our heritage in the wrong hands can gravely impact how we live as Americans.

Both McCain and Palin have track records on where they stand and what they have done to protect our heritage. Obama and Biden pale in comparison and have yet to show that they even care. Don’t hope for the best, when the best is right before you.

For more information on Sportsmen for McCain, visit their website.

Tom Remington

BIRDS, BIRDS, BIRDS!

In the mid 1980s, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife began to integrate nongame bird management throughout what was then referred to as the Migratory Bird Project. Before this time, the Department’s accomplishments in bird conservation focused on waterfowl and American woodcock research and management, and marine wildlife studies.

Currently, in addition to their traditional gamebird work, Bird Group biologists spend a significant portion of their time on “all bird” issues, including Endangered and Threatened birds. The breadth of the Bird Group’s programmatic responsibilities involve stewardship of 223 bird species that nest in Maine, and many more that migrate through or winter in Maine. Below is a sample of MDIFW’s bird management projects.

Peregrine Falcon

The peregrine falcon has benefited greatly from federal and state partnerships in endangered species conservation. Formerly a breeding resident of coastal headlands and cliffs in mountainous regions, the species was extirpated from Maine and the entire eastern U.S. by the early 1960s. Like bald eagles and many other birds of prey, peregrines were the victims of DDE, a persistent by-product of the insecticide DDT. Decreased reproductive rates among peregrines persisted for decades, and worldwide threats of extinction coincided with eggshell thinning caused by this contaminant. Today there is no evidence of residual contaminant impacts on Maine’s re-established peregrines, but the population needs careful attention to monitor for this possibility or other related problems.

More than 35 nations have conducted programs to restore peregrine falcons. A total of 144 young peregrines produced in captive-breeding programs were successfully released at 8 different locations in Maine during the period 1984 through 1997. The Peregrine Fund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Acadia National Park, and MDIFW jointly conducted this venture using methods based upon traditional falconry techniques. Some peregrines reintroduced in Maine were encountered as breeding birds in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. Others have been documented as migrant visitors to points as far away as Cuba and Venezuela!

Despite these dramatic movements, others have returned to breed in Maine. A peregrine from the 1984 release in Baxter State Park found its way back to the same Penobscot County cliff in 1985 and reappeared in 1986 as the first adult peregrine searching for a home (and a mate) in Maine. The first pair of peregrines to reside in Maine chose a historic eyrie, Mount Kineo in Piscataquis County, as their new home in 1987. In 1988, a second pair appeared at “The Precipice,” the Acadia National Park cliff last inhabited by peregrines before their disappearance in the 1960s. Also that year, an Oxford County cliff became the first site of successful breeding by reestablished peregrines.
Throughout the recent past, most peregrines breeding in Maine inhabited southern Oxford County near the state’s western border; but new peregrine eyries were found during 2007 in Cumberland County and Knox County. The first documentation of peregrine nesting in either in at least 50 years! Peregrines have inhabited a total of 26 different eyries over the last several years.

Many land managers have championed stewardship of peregrines nesting on their property: White Mountain National Forest, Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Seven Islands Land Co., Hancock Timberlands, and especially Acadia National Park. MDIFW and cooperating agencies manage several settings to mitigate potential recreational disturbances. Biologists can advise rock climbers where breeding peregrines are present. Hikers and rock climbers have assisted by reported peregrine sightings during their recreational pursuits. Peregrines have proven quite adaptable, and managers have successfully maintained peregrines in some high profile settings with only modest precautions.
Maine and most eastern states are now dependent mostly on state budgets for annual peregrine monitoring and management. Major increases of peregrines in the western U.S. are largely responsible for federal delisting of peregrines in 1999, but they are still recognized as Endangered Species under state jurisdictions in Maine and throughout the eastern U.S. For those who have witnessed the spectacular flight of a peregrine (whether in Baxter State Park or downtown Lewiston), it is an event not readily forgotten. Centuries of mankind’s fascination with the peregrine as the fastest-flying bird and an accomplished predator continue on!
– Charlie Todd, Wildlife Biologist, Bangor

Freshwater Marshbirds

The Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund sponsored a series of marsh bird surveys as part of the Ecoregional Survey Project conducted by MDIFW. A total of 137 wetlands were surveyed for marshbirds in the southern, central, eastern, and northwestern portions of the state. Based on these surveys, MDIFW identified several marshbird species that warranted management concern because they are uncommon, have limited distributions, or show evidence of population decline. Also, three marshbird species support hunting seasons (i.e., Virginia rail, sora, common snipe), and population data are required for harvest management. The least bittern, common moorhen, American coot, and pied-billed grebe were found in relatively few wetlands during these surveys. All are considered rare or uncommon, and the hunting season for the common moorhen has been closed because of low numbers. Least bittern and American bittern populations also may be declining. Least bitterns were not found recently in a few wetlands where they have been present in the past.
American bitterns were encountered less frequently in southern than northern Maine, suggesting that population declines in southern parts of New England also may be occurring in southern Maine. Population trend data are important for managing hunted species, to identify significant population declines in game and nongame species, and to provide a basis for conservation actions.

Information on population trends for marshbirds is sparse throughout the northeastern U. S., because these species are inconspicuous, often widely dispersed, and difficult to routinely monitor. However, we have a unique opportunity to measure long-term population trends in Maine because there are data available from two separate marshbird surveys; the first conducted during 1989-90 and the second from 1998-2000.In 2005, we began a project to resurvey most of these wetlands to determine 15+-year trends in wetland occupancy and relative abundance of marshbird species. We also examined short-term trends (approximately 5-8 years) by resurveying about 20 sites that were originally visited during the 1998-2000 ecoregional surveys. We focused our efforts on the least bittern, American bittern, pied-billed grebe, common moorhen, Virginia rail, sora, common snipe, American coot, and marsh wren, but data for other wetland species was recorded. A graduate student from the University of Maine led the fieldwork for this project.

Survey crews revisited 75 wetlands during spring and summer. Each site was visited on at least 3 occasions. Virginia Rail was the most frequently encountered target species. Based on our preliminary data and comparisons with earlier surveys, we observed a significant increase in the number of wetlands occupied by American Bitterns and Virginia Rails, yet a significant decline in the number of wetlands occupied by Least Bitterns. We found no change in wetland occupancy by Pied-billed Grebes or Soras.

An assessment of habitat use by American Bitterns, Virginia Rails, Soras, Pied-billed Grebes, and Least Bitterns is nearly complete. In brief, based on preliminary data analyses, Least Bitterns, Virginia Rails, and Soras prefer wetlands with substantial components of emergent vegetation, Pied-billed Grebes are strongly associated with large wetlands that contain a high proportion of open water. American bitterns prefer shrub wetlands, but will nest in wetlands that are dominated by emergent vegetation as well. This work is being supported by Outdoor Heritage Funds, the Loon Conservation Plate Funds, the University of Maine, and the Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.
– Thomas P. Hodgman, Wildlife Biologist, Bangor

Rusty Blackbird

The Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) is a wetland-breeding blackbird of the boreal regions of northern North America. Formerly considered common, it has shown dramatic declines in numbers during the past century, with these declines accelerating since 1970. The cause of this continent-wide decline is not clear, although experts suggest several anthropogenic factors, including draining and conversion of wetlands in their wintering range, wetland acidification leading to declines of invertebrate prey, and disturbance from landscape changes. However, none of these hypotheses clearly account for both the magnitude and prolonged duration of this decline. During recent Ecoregional Surveys, sponsored in part by the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, MDIFW conducted roadside surveys of nearly 200 wetland sites in northwestern Maine. They found breeding Rusty Blackbirds at only 18 locations, and some of these were of just single singing males.

In late 2005, MDIFW began a study that involves a baseline inventory of the current geographic distribution and abundance of Rusty Blackbirds in Maine. These data will be used to a) examine the validity of state and regional population targets and b) to make recommendations for an effective monitoring program for this species on their breeding grounds. We also will compare current records with past distributional information to evaluate whether the species’ well-documented decline has a) effected its distribution in Maine, and b) if populations show fidelity to known breeding locations. Finally, we will assess a) how habitat selection in Maine differs from that reported from elsewhere in North America, and b) compare habitat features at currently occupied breeding sites with other seemingly suitable potential breeding sites in the state, to test hypotheses on why this species has declined and what habitat management options exist to aid in its recovery.

Based on a survey of 327 wetlands, Rusty Blackbirds were observed in only 19 (5.8 percent) wetlands. In comparison, during 2001-2002 Ecoregional Surveys, 187 wetlands were surveyed for Rusty Blackbirds yielding 18 (10 percent) observations. Of the 18 observations made during 2001-2002, 14 of those sites were recently re-sampled and produced only a single Rusty Blackbird observation.

We also thoroughly re-sampled 21 atlas blocks (the area encompassed by a 7.5’ topographic quadrangle), where Rusty Blackbirds had been reported previously by the Maine Breeding Bird Atlas. Only 5 of these 21 blocks produced observations of Rusty Blackbirds. Results of this resampling effort suggest both a population decline and a range contraction. Further surveys will be needed to confirm these findings.

An unexpected outcome of our surveys was our ability to locate Rusty Blackbird nests. We found seven nests among the 19 sites and monitored each nest periodically and confirmed that 100 percent successfully fledged young. We collected habitat data around each nest to better understand nest site selection by this species in northern Maine. We anticipate further surveys, nest searches, and habitat measurements, plus if sufficient birds can be captured, we will attach radiotransmitters to a few birds to monitor their movements and better understand their habitat use. This work is being supported by Outdoor Heritage Funds, Loon Conservation Plate Funds, Pittman Robertson Funds, and the University of Maine.
– Thomas P. Hodgman, Wildlife Biologist, Bangor

Sharp-tailed Sparrow

Two species of sharp-tailed sparrows occur in Maine saltmarshes. Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus) occur from the Penobscot Bay area southward, whereas Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (A. nelsoni) occur coastwide. Partners in Flight lists the Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow as a “species of continental importance for the U.S.” and among a small number of watch list species in need of immediate conservation action due to multiple threats across their entire range. Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows are recognized as a Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Maine’s Wildlife Action Plan and are considered a Species of Special Concern in Maine. The subvirgatus subspecies of Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow is nearly endemic to Maine and the Maritimes, where their range is disjunct from the two other subspecies in North America. Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow likely warrants Special Concern status in Maine.

Both species complete their entire life cycles within estuaries, nesting just a few centimeters above ground in tidal marshes. Oil spills, therefore, threaten both local populations and their habitats. Additionally, high levels of mercury in the blood of Sharp-tailed Sparrows, rising sea levels, and habitat degradation threaten populations. Despite similar appearance and habitat use, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows have much higher blood mercury levels than Nelson’s suggesting differences in food habits. Understanding differences in diet between these species would begin to illuminate differences in habitat use that could be used to help mitigate for habitat damaged during an oil spill and could provide a critical link to understanding the pathways of mercury uptake for sharp-tailed sparrows. Specifically, diet information may help explain why Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows accumulate mercury at an alarming rate, while Nelson’s, feeding in the same marsh do not.

The Department has undertaken a study to 1) determine diet of nestlings of both species of sharp-tailed sparrows, 2) determine intraclutch, age-specific, and temporal differences in diet, 3) examine abundance (i.e., availability) of different insect taxa within habitat types in the high marsh, and 4) examine relationships between adult sparrow habitat use and diet of nestlings. This study was catalyzed by two significant opportunities. First, 68 dead nestlings were collected during a previous graduate study. Nestlings died as a result of tidal flooding of their nests; the key cause of nest loss among these species. Second, an intern at the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve has expertise in identification of insects and insect parts and an interest in gut analysis. This work is being supported by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Oil Spill Contingency Fund, and Loon Conservation Plate Funds.
– Thomas P. Hodgman, Wildlife Biologist, Bangor

Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership

In the Northeast, dozens of state, federal, and nongovernmental organizations operate hundreds of bird monitoring programs. Results have been used to guide conservation, research, and management actions throughout the region. Although some effort at alignment has been made in recent years, most programs operate independently. The lack of coordination has resulted in redundant data collection, inconsistent field protocols, and occasionally flawed survey designs. Meanwhile, several high-priority species and habitats receive little or no monitoring attention. A coordinated approach is needed to better address bird conservation and management issues in our region.

In response, state, federal, and non-governmental organizations have teamed up to develop a coordinated approach to monitoring bird abundance, distribution, and demographics in the thirteen states of the Northeast (CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV). The Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership was formed to develop and implement a regional bird monitoring framework that will assist state wildlife departments, federal natural resource agencies, and other organizations in improving the coordination and effectiveness of their monitoring efforts. This initiative will catalogue existing bird surveys, build consensus on monitoring priorities, and develop and implement needed new programs in the northeast. It will draw on bird conservation plans and state wildlife action plans to identify key management issues that can be addressed through monitoring. Annual workshops will afford opportunities for coordination among existing surveys, while enabling program biologists to consult with leading statisticians on matters of survey design and analysis. The project’s website www.nebirdmonitor.org will provide easily accessible resources for coordinating bird surveys across the region, including an innovative data management system. This system, to be administered by the Avian Knowledge Network at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, will feature a secure data archive, owner-specified access, and several options for data display and analysis. By providing new tools and collaborative opportunities, the partnership will help build the fundamental basis for science-based bird conservation in the Northeast.

Implementation is already underway in Maine. A pilot project begun in New Hampshire to monitor Whip-Poor-Wills has been expanded into Maine and other states in the northeast. Furthermore, Maine’s successful owl monitoring program has been modified by adding Northern Saw-whet Owls surveys to the newly implemented Whip-Poor-Will survey. This simple change both expands owl monitoring beyond Maine and more efficiently uses volunteers on both surveys. Efforts are underway to solidify funding for monitoring mountain birds, begin coordinated monitoring for marshbirds, and design a program for monitoring Rusty Blackbirds. The Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership is made possible by a 3- year multi-state grant of Pittman Robertson Funds. Participation in project implementation is supported with Loon Conservation Plate Funds.
– Thomas P. Hodgman, Wildlife Biologist, Bangor

Least Tern

Least terns are the smallest of four species of terns that nest along the coast of Maine. These Endangered birds nest on the same sandy beaches used by piping plovers in southern Maine. Nesting colonies of least terns in Maine are monitored and protected by biologists from the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine Audubon, and Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. During the recent past, the statewide population has fluctuated from 39 pairs at 3 sites in 1982, to 157 pairs at 5 nesting beaches in 2004. Since 1979, total productivity in Maine has ranged from 12 to 123 young fledged annually. In 2005, least terns nested on Stratton Island in Saco Bay for the first time, as well as on Western beach, which had been nourished the previous winter from dredge spoils from the Scarborough River. Western beach had not been occupied by least terns since the 1980s.

The erratic productivity of these birds in Maine can be attributed to human-related disturbances such as destruction of nests or young by humans and their pets or from predators such as crows, gulls, foxes, skunks, and raccoons, which are attracted to heavily used beaches because of food items and other bits of garbage left behind by beach-goers. Terns are also faced with challenges from natural events (e.g., tides, storms) and habitat alteration from coastal development.
Production of chicks in the last decade likely has not been sufficient to maintain the population. Management of least terns in Maine includes placing fencing and signs around nesting colonies and predator control. Public education, to inform recreational beach-goers and local residents about the conservation needs of least terns, is another important management activity. MDIFW and Maine Audubon have developed management recommendations for each of the nesting beaches to aggressively confront predation and disturbance problems. Funding for this work comes from the Outdoor Heritage Fund; Loon Plate and Chickadee Check-off funds; hunting license and permit revenues; and excise taxes on sporting arms, handguns, ammunition, and archery equipment (Pittman-Robertson Fund).
– Lindsay Tudor, Wildlife Biologist, Bangor

Posted by Tom Remington

Milt Inman Photo

Posted by Tom Remington

When and Where:

Thursday, 27 December 7 PM
Location: TMCC Nature Learning Center
1245 Bald Hill Road, Albany, NH

Join Chris Lewey for a slide lecture on the birds of winter. Why do some birds migrate? Why do some remain as year round residents? Why do many species visit us here in New England only during these winter months? Find out all the answers as we take a closer look at the variety of species you may see at and away from your feeder. Chris will discuss the ecological pros and cons of feeding birds and how you can improve your feeding areas with the birds in mind. Bring your recent sightings and we’ll discuss the current avian activity of the day. We’ll take a look at some of the birds and (bird-watchers!) in the area. It’s often an interesting flock to investigate!
This will be a good opportunity for anyone interested in learning more about and possibly participating in our 19th annual Christmas Bird Count that is scheduled for Saturday January 5, 2008.

chris lewey, executive director
chris@ravenwildlife.com

RAVEN I.P.
474 Butter Hill Road
Chatham, NH 03813-5308
603.694.2200 office
603.694.2535 fax
www.ravenwildlife.com

Tom Remington