George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has announced a group effort plan to help fund the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife with a portion of the general taxation. SAM is teaming up with The Nature Conservancy and the Maine Audubon seeking 1/8% of sales tax revenue to fund MDIFW.

Smith writes of how nearly one million Maine residents enjoy the benefits of the hard work done by MDIFW and yet do not pay a nickel for it. He’s correct. MDIFW is funded through license fees and federal money kicked back via the Pittman-Robertson Act. And yet, MDIFW is overburdened with non fish and game programs all funded on the backs of hunters, trappers and fishers.

Changing the funding to come from general taxation is a bad idea and I’ll explain why. First let me briefly lay out my plan for how to ease the financial burden along with the stretching thin of MDIFW personnel. Remove a majority of the non game programs that have been dumped in the lap of MDIFW and place them at the Department of Conservation or other departments where they belong. Then fund those programs with general tax dollars. This would include but not be limited to management of all non game wildlife, including plants and vegetation. Add to that endangered species protection, wildlife viewing platforms, etc. and let’s put search and rescue and snowmobile/atv law compliance into law enforcement. When the Warden Service is needed, they can bill out their services to the appropriate department.

Keeping general tax dollars out of MDIFW is essential. If Maine should opt to allow this money for funding, I guarantee, environmentalists, anti-hunting and animal rights groups will begin pounding the drum and demanding that they have representation on the MDIFW commission. Just about every state in America that has buckled to the financial pressures to find ways of funding and chose tax dollar funding, has run up against this very problem.

Here’s one state in which I’ll give you an example. New Jersey began funding it’s fish and wildlife division, which by the way was morphed into a larger Department of Environmental Protection, with tax dollars. Almost immediately animal rights and anti hunting groups demanded representation. This was a petition that was circulated there last year.

I support Assembly bill A3275 and Senate bill S2041 – legislation that will democratize, modernize and remove the corrupting influence of profit from the hunter-dominated New Jersey Fish and Game Council, the state body that has power over our wildlife.

Declaration for an Independent and Democratic Wildlife Council

We, the people of New Jersey, stand united against the NJ Fish and Game Council, for it has abused its power, has broken the law, and benefits from millions of our tax-dollars every year without giving one voice to the common man.
We seek nothing but reasonable reforms that will prepare our state for managing wildlife in the twenty-first century. We aspire to nothing more than bringing democracy to a state body that now has none.
We act for the environment, for wildlife, for the people of New Jersey and the ideal of good government, for when one special interest holds tyranny over all, only arrogance and corruption can follow.
In this cause we are unanimous and resolute: The NJ Fish and Game Council must be dramatically reformed, so that it will at last serve the interests of the many instead of the recreational hunting desires of the few.

Notice the demonizing of hunters through “profit” when their goals is to put an end to all hunting and fishing. They describe it as “modernizing” and “democratizing” wildlife management. Is this what Maine wants?

In Smith’s article he points out that $2.4 billion is raked in each season through benefits directly related to work by the MDIFW. If you want to see that amount of money shrink in a hurry, then allow the animal rights groups to get a foot in the door to limit hunting and fishing opportunities. MDIFW spends enough time now wasting valued wildlife management dollars defending senseless lawsuits brought on the state by the same groups that will be demanding representation.

I appreciate George Smith’s eagerness to find funding for MDIFW but not at the expense of the hunting, trapping and fishing heritage Maine has enjoyed for decades. I contend that we can actually grow the economic contributions to the state of Maine by shrinking MDIFW back to a fish and game department, while moving all non game programs into other departments, including Conservation and better funding those programs with the tax dollars they deserve.

The money that MDIFW generates now from license sales can then be put toward game management, which is suffering badly. With improved hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities, license sales will go up and non resident sportsmen will return to Maine to spend their valuable sports dollars.

Maine voters should seriously get all the answers and completely understand what an amendment to the Constitution would do to their hunting and fishing heritage. The quick fix to a money problem might look appealing but in the long run it may not be in the best economic interest for Maine to do this.

Tom Remington

I was reading through the threads and comments of the Maine Sportsman Forum this morning. Some of you may have read my articles about the controversy of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) seeking email addresses of sportsmen from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife through the Freedom of Information Act law. This thread is discussing that topic and that’s where I pulled the comment below made by Harry Vanderweide, Editor of the Maine Sportsman.

SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Maine Audubon have joined together to seek passage of a constitutional amendment referendum that aims to create stable dedicated funding for the Department through a tiny percentage of the sales tax. That effort is crucially important to DIF&W. The Department currently gets no state tax money and is now running deeply in the red with no way out. In other words, as a matter of simple survival, it is in the Department’s best interest to work with SAM because nobody else is offering solutions to solving the Department’s serious financial woes.

This comment is saying that MDIFW is so financially in trouble it is willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain funding and that nobody else is offering suggestions. Well, I have been offering suggestions for quite some time. Either nobody is listening or I’m not offering suggestions that anyone is interested in hearing. Let’s try again.

The first problem why MDIFW is broke is they have morphed into being a do-all department, much of which has nothing or little to do with fish and wildlife and too much to do with issues not related to fish and game. Call that a problem or not, but you can’t keep asking the MDIFW to take on nongame issue while only asking the fish and game license buyers to fund these programs.

So the solution is quite simple actually. If, as Vanderweide says, SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Audubon have teamed up to find tax dollars to fund IFW, then why not put these nongame entities into the hands of the Department of Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Law Enforcement, or any other non fish and non game entity, and then fund it with tax payer dollars the way it should be?

Do the Maine sportsmen want members of the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Wildlife Alliance of Maine or any other agency dujour not interested in the best interests of hunters, fishermen and trappers sitting on the Commission? That’s what you’ll get if this is the route that is pursued. Politics controls far too much of MDIFW now. Add tax dollars to the funding and it will only get worse.

I see no reason why these nongame programs can’t be moved to departments where they belong out of MDIFW and then funded with tax money as they should be. This will relieve the MDFIW from the monetary load of keeping these programs up and the manpower required, then they can get back to focusing on fish and game issue with the same amount of money. Doesn’t this make sense? Isn’t this better than having your fish and game department run by animal rights groups and environmentalists?

If you agree, call SAM, call your representative, tell your neighbor, tell somebody. If you disagree, call SAM, call your representative, tell you neighbors, tell somebody. But please tell somebody how you feel about your wildlife management.

Tom Remington

I would suppose that it is time to cut to the chase on this issue of Maine’s deer management problems. There are some cold and hard facts that have to be acted upon. Maine can no longer keep doing what it’s doing. It’s just not working very well is it? We can’t sit back and wait for the weather to break.

In Part IIIof, “Does Maine Have a Deer Management Problem?”, I promised that I would return to Part IV with a list of things that we, as hunters, can do to help replenish our deer herds in places where they need the attention. I apologize for taking so long on this but I have written and rewritten this article far too many times, each time closing out my browser and walking away because I knew I was going to incite too many people to anger. Part of what has encouraged me to rewrite it one more time, came from a reader who told me people were waiting for some help. I appreciate the support and the encouragement.

Briefly, Part I we looked into reports that there were far fewer trophy bucks being registered in the State of Maine. Part II, we tried to determine if the deer herd was healthy and in Part III I put together some data in order to verify that MDIFW’s assessment that the reduction in trophy deer registrations mirrored the reduction in harvest numbers. I also began looking at what the causes are that affect deer populations.

According to information supplied to us hunters, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife tells us that they have population density management goals. These density goals are determined in a number of ways but in layman’s terms it has to do with the number of deer a piece of land can support. But that’s not the only thing.

In Part III, Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s head deer and moose biologist, had this to say when offering information about how management objectives affect deer densities and populations.

“In addition deer mgt objectives (set by the public) changed in 1999 from growing deer to maintaining levels at 15-20 per square mile in order to reduce negative impacts of deer including risk of lyme disease, car-vehicle collisions, and overbrowsing of ornamentals, etc…”

Absent from that assessment was management based on sustainable deer harvest. There once was a day when it was the job of fish and game to manage game animals for sustainable harvest. That means they managed deer, bear, moose, fox, marten, mink, all animals considered to be game, in numbers that allowed for the citizens of the state of Maine to harvest these animals for personal use, i.e. food, furs, etc. That has since been yanked away from us as is proof in that one statement.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife cannot “manage” the game animals for sustainable harvest when that is not their goal. It has more become their goal to cow-tow to the animal rights and anti hunting groups because they are more afraid of them than those of us who pay the bills that keep them employed. For Maine to salvage a hunting and trapping future, this has to stop.

According to Kantar’s statement, deer management objectives are set by the public, not the hunters, not those who have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over several decades, but the public. This is Joe who lives on East Overstreet who just planted some pretty new shrubs and he don’t want the deer eating them up. This comes from the insurance companies who complain about having to pay out claims on people who drive like idiots, zooming past deer and moose crossing signs.

Do you see the problem with all this? Those putting all the demands on MDIFW, and getting what they want I might add, are those who don’t play a bloody nickel.

We hear all this big talk from MDIFW, from the governor’s office and others about how hunting, trapping and fishing are big business in Maine. They boast about the millions of dollars annually these “sports and recreations” bring into the state and they sure have an odd way of showing that appreciation.

The State of Maine, which is not Augusta, it’s not Danny Martin, it’s not Gov. Baldacci. It’s you and me. We have to make a decision. Either we want Maine to use our investment money to provide hunting and trapping opportunities or we keep digging in and providing the livelihood for those who want to take your’s away.

I get press releases from the MDIFW on a regular basis. Over the course of a year, the overwhelming majority of those releases have nothing to do with money and effort being put into deer harvest issues. And we wonder why there are no deer left in Northern Maine.

With all due respect to all those who have served on another one of Gov. Baldacci’s “working groups”, what have these groups accomplished, Mr. Governor? Are we better off today having had a group of people sit down and determine there aren’t any deer left in places we knew there weren’t any deer before they met? A mandated predator control group essentially told us we have predators. Learn to live with them. Please give me that authority.

Hunters, trappers and fishermen, it’s time to step up to the plate and either demand that your investment money be put into managing deer and other game for sustainable harvest or stop paying their way. I think if someone who knows, if there is anyone, exactly how many pennies for every dollar you spend for your license got spent on deer management, you’d laugh and then cry. You and I pay for a license that we think will permit us to bag a deer. What we are really doing is giving MDIFW our money so that they can spend it on countless non-game activities. Is that what you want?

Let’s go back to where I made the statement that Maine needed to begin acting like the economic advantages coming to the state from hunting was a viable industry. Talk is cheap. As long as the next governor and the governor after that, etc., can spout off about the millions of dollars hunting brings to the state, while ignoring the facts that hunting license sales are down, deer populations are dropping, more and more hunters are distraught and fed up with fish and game, nothing will get done. You can’t correct a problem if you’re not willing to admit there is one. Another side of that argument is you have to have something you believe is worth fighting for.

The first thing our governor, along with every employee at MDIFW, every state senator and every representative need to do is publicly aver that the state supports and will promote hunting and trapping as not only a respected and traditional means of sport but also a viable and a sustainable and renewable resource. That’s the easy part. The difficult part is to stand up to that belief and act like you mean it. If that were a possibility, then taking care of the deer shortage problem might come easier than we think.

For those of you familiar with me and my writings, you know I despise the interference of government but this is different. It is the government of the state of Maine that has laid claim to all the wild animals within its borders. They are the entity that claims responsibility for managing those animals, creating hunting and trapping seasons and the laws that regulate our hunting and fishing. We have few options.

They are also the entity the animal rights activists and anti-hunting groups seek out to sue. When the lawsuits begin and our government is willing to concede to their wishes, what future is there for us. With each concession hunting dies another death. The only variable here is at what rate of speed will the concessions come that eventually kills it altogether? Either the Maine government believes in hunting and will support it or they won’t. Would they act the same way if this involved stopping the tourism business or pulp and paper industry?

If we should dare suppose that our government believed in and supported hunting and was willing to do all the necessary things to better manage its deer population, then we could proceed. We should never want our government to bully landowners. We have to have the deepest respect for all landowners, even those we want to hate because they close off their land to us. In time they will come around once they see the benefits wildlife management brings them.

Let’s address the things we can change. We first must readily admit that we have a predator problem. For reasons unbeknown to me, Maine still seems reluctant to admit we have too many coyotes and in places too many bear, the two largest predators of deer.

While the deer population in Northern Maine suffers, doesn’t it make sense to increase the bear harvest in order to help reduce predation by bears on deer? If there are not enough bear to sustain a population then there shouldn’t be a predation problem for deer. While Northern Maine suffers economically because of the downturn in deer hunting, it would be a small economic kick to extend or find creative ways to provide more hunting opportunities for bear. When the deer population recovers, then if necessary back off on the number of bears taken.

This may also hold true with moose. Although moose may not be directly connected to a downturn in deer populations in Northern Maine, changing goals to reflect a management of moose densities on the low end in order to 1.) provide more hunting opportunities, and 2.) once again help out the fine businesses in that part of the state who are going to suffer with a dismal deer hunting season, could help out.

The key to all of this is for the state to have the determination that it will do whatever it deems necessary to protect the hunting industry. They have to. Having said that, then we can address the coyote problem.

The first thing we need to do is make sure that every Maine resident understands that the coyote is a varmint, that there are thousands of them, that there are far too many and that they are destroying populations of other wildlife. They need to help out and kill as many as they can.

Hunters need to take up the chase as well. There is nothing any worse than listening to a hunter bitch and complain about those damned coyotes and he or she has done absolutely nothing to get rid of them. Oh, the animal rights groups will cry and they’ll start telling everybody we’re going to eradicate the Maine woods of coyotes – those beautiful, harmless creatures of God. That’s what they do. It’s time we do what we do and tell them where to get off.

MDIFW and the state need to make every provision for killing coyote. Year round hunting, trapping, baiting, calling, use of dogs and if necessary aerial gunning. Yes, I said aerial gunning. It’s done in other states and the states are the one’s who believe in the necessity of controlling predators as part of wildlife management. They have to in order to protect existing game animals. Aerial gunning is expensive but can be very effective depending on terrain, etc. Hunters would love to see their money being spent on programs that directly benefit them.

Winters in Maine can be harsh. We’ve always had harsh winters and deer have struggled but survived. Yes, some things have changed and some of those things we can’t do much about. What we can do is come up with other ways to counter those uncontrollables.

In places where the winters are the worst and deer populations are at their lowest, perhaps it is time to begin a winter emergency feeding programs. Yes, we will here all the reasons why we shouldn’t be feeding deer but let me ask you this. How’s that Northern Maine deer management program you got in place right now working out for you? I thought so.

This isn’t a new idea. Idaho has an emergency winter feeding program for their elk, mule deer and whitetail. They’ve devised a system that when certain weather conditions are met, emergency feeding kicks in. This began several years ago when hunters agreed to paying and extra buck or two in a license fee that went into an emergency feeding program account. With that money feed is bought each year as needed and is stored in designated places throughout the state – sometimes people would volunteer a barn, etc.

When weather got to as certain condition, volunteers would begin feeding. Of course this is not going to save all the deer but at the rate we’re going saving a handful might be just enough while we hope and pray for a couple or three relatively mild winters to help matters.

In the Idaho program, once a predetermined monetary level was achieved in the account, a percentage of the added license fee was also used for habitat restoration. This is good because we all understand that without proper habitat, all the other efforts are futile.

This money is off limits to anyone and everyone except to be used for emergency feeding and habitat restoration. It would be imperative that this program not be administered strictly by MDIFW. It will never work. There must be good representation from several entities, including the MDIFW. With the expertise of MDIFW the right strategic feeding places could be determined to best compliment the deer herd. Wouldn’t it be better to control and regulate the deer feeding than complain that people might not be doing it right?

Those of us who fork over the money for a hunting license are the ones who wield the most power. We just don’t know it nor are we organized enough to do anything about it. The truth is we can’t keep on keeping on. Something has to change and if we wait for our government, which seems to be the trend these days, not only will we have a long wait but they’ll surely screw it all up.

The ultimate ace up our sleeve, that I hope never has to happen, is that if MDIFW and the state’s government refuses to look after our interests, then we organize and stop paying license fees. It would take only one season to put them out of business. It’s time they began listening to the hunters and not the general public, which also includes the small handful of very loud animal rights people. They’ve had their way long enough. Time for us to take it back.

I’ve provided some suggestions and ideas of what we can do. There are others and I know there are far more intelligent and creative minds out there than mine who can devise ways to resolve this problem. I might add that fighting with MDIFW isn’t going to work either. We need not fight with them only to gently remind them of why they have their jobs and who controls the purse strings. yes, we all know of individuals at MDIFW who espouse more to non-game programs and I’d wager a guess some might even be anti-hunting, but there are some good people there who are as frustrated as we are. We need to get their attention…….seriously!

It’s kind of like the mule the old farmer had. Before he could get him to do any work, he had to nail him between the eyes with a baseball bat in order to get his attention. Time to pick up a baseball bat and get ready.

Tom Remington

AUGUSTA – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) is strongly encouraging anglers to protect Maine’s fish by changing from soft plastic lures to biodegradable ones.

Maine fisheries biologists are reporting increasing numbers of angled trout and salmon with indigestible soft plastic lures in their stomachs, according to John Boland, IF&W Fisheries Division Director. A discarded soft plastic lure consumed innocently by a brook trout from the bottom of a freshwater shoal likely remains in that fish’s stomach for the rest of its life and may cause health issues such as ulcers and weight loss.

Soft plastic lures are most commonly used by bass anglers, often in waters shared with trout and salmon. IF&W is cooperating in studies on the effects of soft plastic lure ingestion by trout and salmon, including one recent experiment at Unity College, which was conducted by IF&W Pathologist Dr. Russ Danner, Unity College Professor Jim Chacko, PhD., and IF&W Fisheries Biologist Francis Brautigam, and in another study currently underway at Southern Maine Community College.

The study conducted at Unity College found that 65 percent of brook trout voluntarily consumed soft plastic lures if they simply were dropped into water.

“We found that fish retained the lures in their stomachs for 13 weeks without regurgitating them,” according to Dr. Danner. “They also began to act anorexic and lost weight within 90 days of eating a soft plastic lure.”

Without regard to the chemical toxicity of ingested soft plastics, the fact that these lures are occupying space in a trout’s stomach limits the amount of space available for natural food. There is a lot of veterinary medical evidence that foreign bodies in the digestive tract cause ulcers, weight loss, and anorexia.

“We strongly encourage anglers to voluntarily purchase biodegradable and food-based lures rather than soft plastic ones,” Dr. Danner said. “Also, we are asking anglers not to discard plastic lures into any waters, and also to attempt to retrieve any soft plastic lures that have become unhooked”.

For millennia, trout and salmon have foraged the waters of Maine for nutritious natural forage such as small fishes, insects and other invertebrates. In the last 20 years, food mimics made of soft plastic has begun to compete with these nutritious natural forage items. The effects of soft plastic lure pollution on freshwater ecosystems are not well understood yet, but it is unlikely that eating soft plastic lures will be found to be a good thing.

“The wide assortment of soft plastic fishing lures is staggering,” Dr. Danner said. “Soft plastic lures come in every color, a myriad of sizes, and resembling every swimming, crawling, and flying creature a fish could imagine eating. Large fish searching the waters of Maine are bound to come upon brightly colored soft plastic lures lost or discarded by anglers and consume these imitators of natural food items.”

There are estimates that as much as 20 million pounds of soft plastic are being lost in freshwater lakes and streams annually in the U.S. The average life expectancy for these soft plastic lures is more than 200 years.

“We need all anglers to do their part to protect Maine’s valuable fisheries from this serious threat,” Dr. Danner said. “Natural lure alternatives are available at many retailers and online, and should become the choice of people who love to fish Maine’s waters”.

If you wish to learn more about the experiment conducted at Unity College a report on the project was published in the Northern American Journal of Fisheries Management. It is available at http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1577%2FM08-085.1.

Posted by Tom Remington

A bill in Maine that would have put an end to all game farms, including a handful that offer shooting opportunities, got killed in committee by a 12-0 vote – the vote for “ought not to pass”. Under Maine rules, a unanimous vote effectively kills the bill.

One member of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Chairwoman Rep. Wendy Pieh, D-Bremen, was quoted as saying the following:

…..whether it’s fair-chase hunting or farming, or whether it offends the morals of some, is not for the Legislature to decide.

I think those are issues the market can handle,

Give Rep. Pieh a blue ribbon!!!

Tom Remington

I’ve been covering for you some of the ins and outs of LD560, a proposed law in Maine that would ban killing animals on game ranches in that state. Yesterday I reported about the visit Fox News film crew had with Mark Luce, owner of the Hind-Site Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine. You can find more coverage of the proposed law and who’s behind it by following this link.

Fox News yesterday presented it’s report with Sheppard Smith.

Tom Remington

*Update* This link will take you to the Fox News video

Fox News out of New York traveled to Newport, Maine and visited the Hind-Site Deer Hunt Preserve, owned by Mark Luce, to do a documentary of sorts of the facility. This was in response to a bill, LD560, that is being proposed in Maine to end hunting on game preserves. Fox wanted to visit a typical preserve and see for themselves.

In an email update sent to me this morning by Luce, he conveys the surprises the news crew found.

First they were amazed how quickly the deer on the farm headed for the furthest corner of their paddock….They clearly were not pets or tame and reacted like any good whitetail would after seeing the strangers.

After the farm interview we spent 3 1/2 hours in the preserve and they did not see a single deer. We had baited a site earlier in the morning with the hope of sneaking in and getting some deer on film, even if it were deer headed quickly to cover. When we finally made our way to the blind the bait was gone and no deer in sight They really wanted to see some deer so we put on two deer drives and we failed both times as the animals found a way to double back……20 + deer were not going to be seen today.

All too often people jump to conclusions about what a hunt preserve must be like. Unfortunately because of a couple bad apples and public relations campaigns by anti-hunting groups eager to spread false accusations and descriptions of game ranches, people are led to think things that just aren’t factual.

Luce says he is happy that Fox News took the time to actually visit a preserve, which is more than can be said about those sponsoring the bill, LD560, or the lawmakers who will be casting a vote one way or the other. Luce tells it this way.

They [Fox News] also asked the sponsor of LD 560 if he had ever visited a hunt preserve to justify his bill ……………………The answer was no!

What Fox News found was much different than the antis had painted us to be. I have invited numerous State Reps. to visit our preserve, but they are too busy and we are not convenient to get to.

It’s sad actually. Luce says lawmakers say that he is in an “inconvenient” location for them. In reality, Hind-Site Preserve is located just 3 miles off Interstate 95, one hour north of Augusta, the state capital. I might have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that I might cast a vote to put some good and honest people out of work because it was “inconvenient” for me to find out the truth.

Amazing!

Tom Remington

Maine’s Senator David Trahan began an effort to put a stop to the proposal to require Maine residents to purchase a salt water fishing license. You can read more about that here.

The proposal for the license claimed that the license was a way to collect and track data from fishermen who use the resource. Sen. Trahan has come up with an alternative proposal to a license and he needs your help.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine has teamed up with Senator Trahan to promote this alternative. The New England Outdoor Voice has provided a site where you can read a letter that is being sent to the Joint Committee on Marine Resources asking them to consider Trahan’s proposal and why.

If you would like to read the letter and sign you name to send, click this link.

Tom Remington

Below is the press release sent out from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife pertaining to the results of this year’s deer harvest figures. At the end of the release, I’ll talk more about what some in Maine are saying about the dismal deer population as it relates to coyote predation.

~~~~~~~~~

2008 Deer Harvest Brought Down by Winter

AUGUSTA, Maine – The winter of 2008 was one of the worst winters for Maine’s deer population across the state. Preliminary harvest numbers of 21,062 deer represent a 27% decrease in harvest from 2007 and the lowest deer harvest since the beginning of the any-deer permit system in 1986.

The long winter, with record-setting snow packs, created extremely difficult conditions for deer, with deer yarded up on average for over 140 days statewide compared to the normal 84 days, according to Lee Kantar, deer and moose biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. During those additional 56 days resulted in extremely low overwinter survival rates for fawns, and left adult does in poor condition prior to fawning season. The poor condition of the adult does likely resulted in a high rate of mortality for the fawns born in 2008. This was evident in the dramatic decline in the fawn harvest (45%) as part of the total antlerless harvest. Fawns were just not available during the fall hunting season.

The deer harvest by season showed an overall drop in success rates across most methods.

· Youth hunters harvested 510 deer, down 52% from 1,065 in 2007 (the second best youth harvest day ever);

· October archers harvested 834 deer and expanded archers harvested 921. Last year’s archery total was 2,236. October archery was up 18% despite new restrictions on October archers in bucks-only Wildlife Management Districts.

· Blackpowder enthusiasts harvested 1,137 deer – a 42% decrease from a record-setting harvest of 1,964 deer in 2007.

· Modern firearms users harvested 17,652, down 25% from 23,537 in 2007.

More deer (2,340) were harvested in Penobscot County again this year than any other county. Other counties with more than 2,000 deer harvested were Kennebec (2,062), York (2,108) and Cumberland (2,000).

Maine residents accounted for 91% of the total statewide deer harvest with Piscataquis County having the highest harvest by non-residents (26%) of all counties. Most counties (10 out of 16) had a deer harvest by residents greater than 90%.

Hunters killed 13,566 adult bucks and 7,496 antlerless deer. The adult buck kill was a 16% decrease over the previous year while the antlerless kill was down 41% from 2007. Yearlings were more scarce than normal in 2008. This is because as fawns in 2007 they suffered high losses over the 2007-08 winter. Yearlings normally make up a higher percentage of the buck kill. In 2007, the statewide yearling harvest of bucks comprised 49% of the yearling and older buck harvest, while in 2008 it represented only 37%.

“The harsh winter of 2007-08 and its effects on Maine’s deer herd will be felt for a long time,” according to Kantar. “The current winter of 2008-09 so far looks very similar to last year and will exert additional pressure on the state’s deer herd. If this winter results in conditions similar to last year, we will need to brace ourselves for a further decrease in any-deer permits as well as a reduced harvest in 2009. A reduction in any-deer permits is needed in order to compensate for an expected high rate of winter mortality.”

IF&W wildlife biologists will be meeting in the next few weeks to determine the preliminary number of any deer permits that will be available for next year.

~~~~~~~

No one will argue that last winter was severe and took its toll on the whitetail deer herd. But is winter the only thing to blame? Northern and Eastern Maine have deer populations that have reached the point of no return. Some places in these two regions hunters are hard pressed to find one or two deer per square mile. But we can’t just keep blaming the winter. We’ve always had harsh winters and when they hit, we make necessary adjustments in harvest tactics and with any luck from Mother Nature, in a few years the herd recovers. So why have we allowed the deer herds in these areas to reach non sustainable levels?

That’s not a simple question to answer but we know there are issues – habitat and predation. We know that as long as we live in a state that has black bears, lynx, bobcat, coyotes and possibly mountain lions and wolves, we will have to deal with the predators’ destruction of the whitetail deer. But are we dealing effectively with it?

Hunters have groaned and moaned to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for a long time to do something about the dwindling deer population in Northern and Eastern Maine. There was some hope when the state formulated the Deer Task Force, made up of a diverse group (perhaps containing some who shouldn’t have sat on this board) whose job it was to make recommendations on what to do. This was enhanced by the fact that the state Legislature enacted a bill to deal with coyote predation. Some now are saying that nothing was done and nothing will be done.

Gerry Lavigne used to be the head deer guy at MDIFW. He’s retired now and some have told me that Lavigne was forced to “retire” because he was bucking the system, that he stood up to some at MDIFW and told them we needed to do something about coyote predation on whitetail deer. Recently he had this to say about the Maine deer herd.

“Early fawn survival in eastern and northern Maine is low enough to prevent population recovery, even after moderate winters. Predation, primarily by coyote and bears during the early fawning period seems to be the main cause of low fawn recruitment in eastern and northern Maine.”

Read for a minute what Levigne is saying. First he is saying that the deer population in Northern and Eastern Maine is beyond recovery. That means it can no longer sustain on its own. The numbers are too low. If this is true, how can any responsible fish and game department have allowed this to happen?

Lavigne is also saying that it is the predation of coyote and bears that’s destroying the deer. This statement seems to run contrary to what is being fed the public from MDIFW. There is little talk of predation and all the focus seems to be on the harsh winters.

It is not a popular topic when discussions surround the need to slaughter overgrown populations of coyote or any other predator that’s destroying an ecosystem. Look at the controversy that has surrounded Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin with their predator control program. So far Alaska has fought successfully against the animal rights groups because they believe in the necessity of what they are doing.

Popular or not, it is the responsibility of fish and game to take care of this problem. Many are angry and asking why hasn’t something been done? Is it too late as Lavigne suggests?

V. Paul Reynolds, editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal, says we, the Maine sportsmen, have been “hoodwinked again”.

That’s right, Maine sportsmen – apparently an easily beguiled group – have been let down once again by the agency that collects and expends our hunting and fishing license fees. We now know that all this talk about coyote control was just that – talk and no action. Did the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ever really have any intention of establishing a coyote management program? It would appear not. So we must conclude that assembling all of these deer task forces and predator control working groups was merely a political ploy to divert attention, turn down the heat, and buy some time.

Evidently the licensed hunters in the state of Maine don’t scare MDIFW as much as the animal rights groups and environmentalists. It is our license dollars that pay their wages and allows for them to “manage” wildlife. I thought IFW got the message loud and clear when Governor Baldacci ordered, after a lot of complaining, the formulation of the Deer Task Force. Then many of us felt encouraged when the Maine Legislature ordered the MDIFW to come up with a Coyote Management Plan. After all this, MDIFW makes a recommendation to formulate another working group to study the problem.

How much more will the hunters in Maine take? Nearly every licensed hunter I know has told me they would gladly pay a reasonable fee increase if they knew the money was being spent the right way and most of all to continue to provide hunting opportunities. I agree with Reynolds. We’ve been had! We are tired of our money supporting animal rights agendas!

Trappers that I have spoken with have made no bones about the fact that they can no longer effectively trap coyote once the animal rights groups were successful in banning the snare trap. Trappers used to set snares all around winter deer yarding areas where the coyote prey on the weakened and young deer. No longer. Under the lie of protecting a lynx population, the snare was outlawed.

Nearly every action against Maine brought by animal rights has only resulted in Maine making endless concessions and where has this left our deer herd? If MDIFW believes in the science they use in wildlife management, then it is time that they stand up in support of their own methods. But it appears they are scared. Maybe there are too many animal rights wildlife biologists who have infiltrated the MDIFW. This is happening all across America. I see it everyday.

I’m not sure how much it will take to really anger the hunting community. Maybe this isn’t enough. Maybe they don’t care any longer. If so, the anti-hunters, animal rights activists and environmentalists are winning the battle against us.

What are licensed hunters supposed to think when they continue to spend millions and millions of dollars for wildlife conservation and what we are now seeing is the result spending that money catering to the nonpaying population making all the demands against hunting and trapping. We now have a whitetail deer population in peril because of it.

I suppose it is now time to declare the whitetail deer in Northern and Eastern Maine endangered. If this was a native brook trout population in one of Maine’s famous trout ponds, efforts would be put forth to slaughter every invasive fish there that was destroying the brook trout. If Maine can slaughter hundreds of thousands of fish from a body of water to “reclaim” it, why can’t they justify fighting for the means to allow for the killing of coyotes that are destroying our deer?

Isn’t that what needs to be done now? It would be a start!

Tom Remington

Yesterday a public hearing was held in Room 206 of the Cross Office Building next to the state capital in Augusta, Maine. Those who showed up in opposition to LD 560, an act that would put game ranchers out of business, seemed to outnumber those in support. According to Mark Luce, owner of the Hind-Site Hunt Preserve in Newport, Maine, he was pleased with the turnout and the information presented to lawmakers.

We had the hearing yesterday morning and we did quite well in getting our message heard. We had four times as many people testifying in our favor.

Those testifying in opposition to LD 560 included, the Maine Guides Association, The Maine Trappers Association, The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine , The Maine Farm Bureau, The Maine Department of Agriculture, several Maine Guides, many people who have hunted on game ranches, feed producers, camp owners who supply lodging and others. Luce called the overwhelming support “a welcomed sight”.

George Smith, Executive Director for the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance, also showed up to testify on behalf of SAM. In the morning edition of the Kennebec Journal, Smith’s weekly column addressed LD 560 and what he foresaw as taking place that day in Room 206. Smith sums up his thoughts this way.

Simply put, commercial shooting areas keep farmers farming, put meat on the table, offer exciting experiences and are more humane than most of the techniques used to slaughter animals these days. Nothing wrong with that.

The main sponsor of LD 560 is Rep. Alan Casavant, D-Biddeford. During yesterday’s testimony, according to a related article in today’s Kennebec Journal, Casavant called hunting on these ranches “barbaric”.

“Though I consider the shooting for hire of animals behind fences to be barbaric and designed to satisfy the blood lust of a handful of out-of-staters, I also believe that we need to be sensitive to the economic realities of those associated with such businesses,”

Odd way of showing sensitivity. Casavant is either lying or has never stepped foot on one of these farms. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts on what they deem to be ethical, fair chase hunting. Targeting an agriculture business, in order to run them out of business, is an ineffectual way of promoting fair chase ethics if that is really his goal.

The Maine State Veterinarian testified also that all farms treated their animals humanely, defying an accusation made recently by Maine Friends of Animals.

“Our experience has been that the animals are treated humanely, well fed and well cared for, and that the hunts are also carried out in a humane manner,” said State Veterinarian Don Hoenig, in written testimony.

According to Luce, he said that several members of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, plan to visit some of the game preserves for a first-hand look.

Quite a few of the committee members are going to visit a few preserves and see for themselves that we have plenty of cover for our deer to avoid hunters.

If the Maine Friends of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States, both supporters of LD 560, were truly interested in animal welfare, they would offer to tag along with the committee members and get an education but most of us know that is not their agenda.

The next step in the process will be a work shop session(s), where lawmakers will pound out the issue and make a recommendation. Luce says he feels confident that he and other participants in Maine game ranches will know within a month where this issue stands.

Tom Remington

Travis Barrett, a writer for the Kennebec Journal in Maine, does what almost no other reporter has the intelligence or ambition to do. He got out of his cushy office (I don’t know what his office is like) and went to a game preserve in Newport, Maine and visited with the owner and gathered information about Mark Luce’s operation at Hind-Site Red Deer Hunt Preserve. Kudos to Travis Barrett!

Included in Barrett’s report are comments from the main sponsor of LD560, Rep. Alan Casavant, D-Biddeford, and co-sponsor Rep. Pamela Trinward, D-Waterville. LD 560 seeks to ban all hunt preserves in Maine. Here’s Casavant’s comment.

“Hunting is a longtime Maine tradition. It is a sport. But this kind of hunting on a preserve, well, I don’t see that as hunting or as a sport. I have major problems with that, and I think a lot of people who hunt do, too.”

This is lame excuse number one. I completely respect the fact that Mr. Casavant doesn’t think going to a hunt preserve, one that I’m quite comfortable in saying he’s probably never visited, is something he is comfortable with. Here’s some great advice. Don’t go! I’m not comfortable with spending gobs of money for the most powerful hunting weapon decked out with every gadget known in the hunting industry, sitting in a lofty tree stand and waiting for the right “trophy” to come by. So how do I deal with that? Simple, I don’t do it but who am I to tell someone else they can’t? I have some issues with archery hunting and muzzle loader hunting but I don’t seek to ban it because of personal preferences.

Rep. Casavant says this isn’t an attack on hunting. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t but you can be sure it’s an attack on property rights and this attack is coming because one person doesn’t think hunting in a preserve is “sport”. What goes around comes around and once you head down the slope of legislating one’s hunting ethics, the door is left wide open.

Moving on to lame excuse number two. Mark Luce took the time with Travis Barrett to explain much of the economic repercussions should this bill pass. He pointed out that other farmers who grow and sell hay to all the deer farms in the state would lose an estimated $1 million dollars annually. There are no exact figures on other revenues that would be lost, say nothing about how many of these people will lose their livelihoods, a way to make a living, which could cost them dearly.

Rep. Trinward it appears, didn’t do her homework and has signed on to a bill without knowing the full effect the bill would have.

“If I were convinced that small businesses, that Maine people, need this to survive, then I would be against that,” Trinward said. “I was under the impression that this was something that was really on the decline. … We’re very sensitive right now with what’s going on in economy. This is not a time when people would be making changes to (the income of) traditional Maine families. If that were the case, I don’t think anyone in the Legislature would be for that.

“My position is one that’s from a Maine family of hunters. My concern is for the herd and the safety of the animals. That’s really what it’s all about.”

Obviously she’s not convinced. But let’s make her thoughts clear. Her decision to sponsor this bill is because she doesn’t think Mark Luce needs to raise red deer to “survive”. What’s even worse is her admission that she was under the “impression that this was something that was really on the decline”. She doesn’t know anything for a fact it appears. Wouldn’t you think it an act of responsibility to first have facts, an environmental impact statement, before proposing to run people out of business?

But this raises a very serious question that should be of concern to every Maine resident. Is Rep. Trinward saying that because she is under the impression that deer farms, or maybe she means hunting in general, is on the decline we should outlaw it? If that’s the case, who is next in line?

With a slumping economy, I’m not sure how hard pressed anyone would be to find a business that wasn’t “on the decline”. So should we then outlaw it?

The economy has nothing to do with Rep. Trinward’s decision to sponsor this bill. It’s about emotional preferences. It’s about control. It’s about having power to exercise for the promotion of one’s personal ideals.

Rep. Trinward then appears to want to deflect attention away from the fact she has no idea about anything to do with Mark Luce’s economic future or that of any other deer farmers and tells us that because she comes from a Maine family of hunters, her “concern is for the herd and the safety of the animals”.

If that is truly her concern, then she must have some supporting evidence that these Maine farmers are abusing their animals. If that’s true then it would serve all Maine residence to have a chance to look at that evidence.

Barrett’s piece in the Kennebec Journal also contained comments from readers. At the time of this writing, there were 10 comments from what appear to be 10 different individuals, all of them against this legislation to put Mark Luce and the other Maine farmers out of business.

But let’s not assume anything. Everyone needs to contact their representative and tell them you are American. Tell them you believe in the United States Constitution and that your rights are given to you by God and not some politician, and those include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such unnecessary laws are nothing more than giant obstacles in the way of achieving those goals.

Tom Remington

Jayne Winters, a board member of Maine Friends of Animals, was allowed to write a column that appeared in today’s Kennebec Journal. Her piece is in support of the Maine Legislature’s LD 560, a bill that would ban shooting animals on private land. In her piece she quotes only part of what I said in an article I wrote about the nonsense of trying to legislate one’s ethical ideals.

Here is how Winters quoted me.

In a recent blog entry, Tom Remington states, “It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. This is about rights … your rights as a free American.” He compares legislators and anti-hunting groups to Nazis who are “bent on the destruction of our freedom.”

Here is what I actually wrote.

It’s not about whether you approve or disapprove of high-fence hunting. Do you want to be a part of the ethics Nazis? This is about rights…..your rights as a free American.

Referring to those who sponsor such legislation as “ethics Nazis” is a bit different than calling them just Nazis. Please don’t skew my words.

But the real issue here again is that people like Winters feel compelled to make laws that dictate to you and I in what manner we must to live, all based on their personal ideals not yours. In Winters’ column she brings out many good points, most of which I cannot argue with. Because she claims these things to be her moral high ground, does it then make sense to turn them into law?

Winters’ points were valid until she began to show her ignorance of hunting ranches. In an effort to legislate your ethics, she is forced to make claims that are not true and cannot be backed up.

Living in the wild does not typically include being fed quality hay and feed on a regular basis and accepting the presence of man. If you query “game ranches in Maine” on the Internet, you’ll come up with a variety of photos showing elk and bison behind fencing, munching on bales of hay.

I am told that there are somewhere between 30 and 50 ranches in Maine that raise deer, elk, red deer, bison etc.. Of those, 8 are set up to include the use of shooting an animal for harvest. I don’t think going to the Internet and looking at photos of elk and bison “munching on bales of hay” is much of a way to substantiate the need to put these hard working Maine people out of business. Perhaps Ms. Winters should consider actually visiting one of these facilities other than looking at photos on line.

I warned in my previous article not to be fooled by groups like Maine Friends of Animals and the sponsors of this bill when they tell you this is about ethical hunting and animal abuse and has nothing to do with property rights. It has everything to do with property rights. A person has a right to farm and raise livestock. They also have a right to decide by which means they will harvest that livestock.

The legislation is not about land-use rights. It is not the tip of the iceberg to ban all hunting. LD 560 is about preserving the tradition of real hunting in Maine. It is about protecting and preserving our native species. LD 560 is about reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals that often die an agonizing death for the sake of a trophy head for someone’s wall.

Much of Maine Friends of Animals has been about banning hunting and trapping and this appears just another step in that direction. It’s called incrementalism. Raising deer, elk and bison has nothing to do with the “tradition of real hunting in Maine”. Claiming not to be a hunter but having friends that are, gives no one standing to convey to others about the “tradition of real hunting in Maine”.

Also Winters needs to substantiate a statement that this bill is about protecting and preserving our native species. This makes no sense at all and can only be taken as a feeble attempt at instilling fear into Maine people that somehow this ranches are a threat to our wild and native species.

And stopping deer farms will have absolutely nothing to do with “reducing the unnecessary suffering of animals that often die an agonizing death”. As I have said a million times before, resorting to lies and misinformation, especially as a tool to frighten people, for the purpose of promoting personal agendas only exposes groups such as Maine Friends of Animals for what they really are.

Maine people need to decide for themselves but please base that information on facts. If you’ve never visited a farm that raises deer, elk or bison, I encourage you to do that. Meet the people behind the operation that a small handful of people want to run out of business. And make sure you visit at least one farm that allows hunting, or shooting, or killing, or harvesting….whatever you want to call it, I have no problem with that.

This is completely about rights and don’t let anyone try to convince you otherwise. Remember, if you think you are qualified to dictate to others what their ethical standards will be, the day isn’t too far away when it will come home to roost.

Tom Remington