*Editor’s Note* This story was submitted by trapper and Maine Guide, David Tobey of Maine. It has been edited by Tom Remington. This story goes hand in hand with yesterday’s article on reinstating of the snaring program that Maine needs to help rebuild the lost deer population. Follow this link for that story.

~~~~~

The morning started like many others. I was sitting, peering out the window hoping for a coyote to come to the bait. This cabin my grandfather bought in 1928 for the purpose of deer hunting, a cabin that has slept six generations of deer hunters in my family, along with countless numbers of others that rate the times spent here as being an important part of their lives. The cabin is in a County that boasted for years the highest deer kills in the state. An area where all hunting camps in the region have memories and pictures of full game poles. In a county where for years famous bounty hunters and trappers, such as Wilbur Day and George Magoon, kept the bear numbers very low. Then there were the famous bounty hunters for bobcats such as Ash Peasly and Lloyd Clark who along with many others kept the cats as scarce as hens’ teeth. This all contributed to the healthy deer herd.

At this time the IF&W [Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife] was made up of folks with practical experience who made their decisions based on common sense and input from the guides, trappers and woodsmen that lived their lives in and around the woods and on the waters of Maine. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think of the past and how well things worked, and ask myself why can’t folks like those in the past surface and once again make it happen for the sake of the deer?

As I scanned the shore past the bait, barely seeing with the aid of binoculars in the predawn darkness, I saw a coyote come around the point headed for the bait. After sliding open the window and positioning the 22-250, I saw that the first coyote had behind, her mate. It took about twenty minutes for the the coyotes to make their way to the bait. The fifteen or so ravens now there acted as a fear eliminator. As the first coyote, the bigger, got within a few feet of the bait the birds flushed making the coyote freeze in its tracks.

With the gun in a vise, I gently squeezed the trigger dropping the coyote. To my surprise the other “yote” ran about fifty feet, turned around and waited for its mate to leave with him. Unlucky for him the next 55-grain bullet flattened him too.

Of course I was beside myself scoring a double on the wily coyotes, but was happier then a dog with two tails when I discovered the first one was a 43-pound female with half-inch long black teets, along with worn teeth. This told me she was an old breeder. Her and the 40-pound mate of her’s would not be raising 5-7 young this spring in the same deer fawning grounds they have in the past. As a passionate deer hunter, I had done my part to help the whitetail this morning.

After hanging the coyotes, I got the sled ready for a forty-mile loop to the west, checking beaver traps. This trip is the same course I’ve taken for 35 years either trapping beaver or snaring coyotes. Even though the ride gets old the signs and things you see are always interesting.

The first several miles never showed a coyote track in the fresh inch of snow, but now I was nearing Gassabias Lake where I’d found a deer kill the trip before. The “yote” tracks were becoming more numerous. This got my dander up because for years I was able to snare this area to protect a very large intact deer yard on this lake. I still remembered back in the early 80’s being deployed to this area by warden Pratt from Enfield. The first day there I found eight coyote-killed deer. I remembered how helpless I felt because I only had 10 snares with me to set because I already had twenty of my thirty snare limit out in other areas.

My thoughts changed as I turned off the logging road onto the old carry trail, the same carry trail that Manly Hardy used 150 years ago as he traveled the area. In the snow covered trail ahead of me showed the running tracks of a 170-pound buck. I knew this wasn’t good. After a few feet, two coyote tracks showed up following the deer. I knew the outcome. I’ve seen it a hundred times before.

Photo by Dave Tobey

I sped up following the chase hoping I could intervene and save the deer to live at least another day. The deer ran to the lake, crossed a cove and onto the east shore, bare of snow maybe where he could get better footing to fight off his attackers.

They drove him back onto the shore ice. I saw for the first time where they took him down. There was blood and hair; not a lot. I turned off the sled and walked the track knowing well what I was going to find. The buck had made his way to a granite boulder, big as a truck. The giant boulder had gathered enough sun to melt the shore ice out ten feet to where the water ran a depth of 12”-16”. Here the buck took his last and best stand.

The deer was laying in the water. He stood up as I neared. At first I thought maybe I got here in time but then I saw why the deer wasn’t leaving. The buck had used the vertical rock as protection for his back while he put the hooves to the coyotes while standing in water. The two coyotes though were relentless.

After almost tearing his scalp and hide from his face, they weakened the buck enough that he just laid down in the water while the two yearling 20-pound coyotes ate about ten pounds of meat from his hind quarters.

As I watched the deer lay back down never to get up again, I thought what a way to go. Lay in ice water and watch and feel two coyotes rip, tear, and eat one-third of your hind quarters. At first I was mad at myself. If only I was here sooner. If only I had trapped this area last fall I could have caught these two pup coyotes, that biologist think aren’t important enough to kill and believe pose no threat to a deer.

Then my anger turned to the IF&W. If Commissioner Martin, Governor Baldacci and others hadn’t ended the snaring program, I could have prevented this. I realized this area where I was standing is in the shadows of the Bangor office when the sun sets every day. How many times have I called there inviting biologist to accompany me on my trap line? And to just think, the large mammal group leader and state’s deer biologist are trapped in cubicles, not thirty miles away.

Folks, our government will never be the ones to save the whitetail deer in Maine. The sportsmen can fix this problem though; by supporting a private bounty system for coyotes; by donating and fund raising for conservation easements on Deer Wintering areas; and supporting the bill I will introduce next year to take the coyote off the list of fur bearers and allow year round trapping of coyotes.

David Tobey
Registered Maine Guide

P.S. Hope the following photos aren’t to offending or gross for the viewer, but this is happening every day and night in Maine.

Scalp almost torn from his head as he used his hooves to defend himself – David Tobey Photo

Imagine alive and standing after loosing this much flesh. Wish those that took my snares were there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! – David Tobey Photo

Notice blood soaked water and hair – David Tobey Photo

Copy, Print, and post in every corner store in Maine. This is whitetail management at its best!!!!!!!!!!!!! – David Tobey Photo

Photo from fOTOGLIF

*Correction/Clarification* In this article I made reference that the coyote snaring program was suspended through legislative action. I stand corrected. According to V. Paul Reynolds of Northwoods Sporting Journal, the snaring program was halted by Commissioner Roland Martin. It was, however, the Legislature also went to work and ended up with this bill.

*Editor’s Note and Update* I posted a follow up story to this from David Tobey. Please follow this link.

Maine has a wildlife management problem. Maine has a deer management problem. Maine has a game management problem. Maine either has no interest in managing game animals or they are not interested in fighting the lawsuits that have become a way of life for most animal rights groups. If Maine doesn’t address their problems they will soon be facing bigger problems.

Whitetail deer herds in parts of Northern Maine are all but gone. Much of Downeast Maine is riddled with sparse deer populations and too many coyotes as are portions of the Western Mountains Region. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wants to tell us that it’s all because of two back to back severe winters and the loss of habitat due to our modern methods of tree harvesting. These two things certainly have taken their toll on Maine’s deer but it more and more looks like MDIFW is trying to hide behind this, shrugging it off as something they have no control over while refusing to address those things they can.

Doubts abound in the outdoor world as to whether MDIFW or even this current administration has any serious interest in trying to restore the deer herd in these regions. Perhaps it’s just easier to let it go, let Mother Nature take its course. Let natural management “balance our ecosystems”. But that is irresponsible, isn’t it?

The first step in resolving an issue is to first admit there is a problem. MDIFW is willing to admit there is a weather problem and a tree harvesting problem but that’s about it. This is unfortunate for all of Maine’s people. You see it is in the best interest of all the Maine people to have a healthy forest. This cannot be achieved when so many protections are laid upon one species that it is destroying others.

I get emails from Maine people asking me why I hate coyotes. I don’t. It’s futile to try to make them understand that allowing coyotes to run rampant, destroying deer herds and all other prey animals, isn’t showering much love anywhere. Predators get their name because of what they do. They prey on things they like to eat and destroy. If we allow our wildlife to come out of balance with any prey species, we have to expect trouble. I ask again. Is allowing this to happen being responsible stewards of our wildlife?

Coyotes and deer can most often coexist without too many problems. When this man-managed balance gets really out of whack, which has happened in Maine due to a combination of poor management and severe winters, something has to change. In Maine’s case, coyote numbers are high and deer populations in much of the geographical area of Maine are at record lows, perhaps at a point where they will never recover. Does it not make sense to reduce the number of coyotes and other large predators to give the deer a fighting chance?

Some say there are ample opportunities to get rid of coyotes. Maine has a year round hunting season, which includes periods of time when night hunting is allowed, and a limited trapping season. The trapping season is ineffective because there is no open trapping season on coyotes during the dead of winter when the pelts are most valuable and trappers have been stripped of their best tools to take coyotes.

During the winter months when the deer are gathered in what Mainers call deer yards, coyotes will prey on deer in those yards. In years past, trappers used snares near these deer yard areas. The method became very effective. Experienced trappers would learn the trails the coyotes would use to get into the yards and set up their snares accordingly. This reduced the amount of predation by coyotes on deer in winter, which helped the deer herds. It must be pointed out that all of this snaring of coyotes done prior to the ban did no harm to the population of coyotes because they are still at very high numbers and growing larger due to reduced harvesting. The key here is that coyotes were targeted around the yarding areas – better trapping opportunities and reduced predation on deer.

I have been emailing back and forth with David Tobey, a Maine Guide and trapper who lives in the eastern part of the state of Maine. Tobey is noted for his trapping knowledge and skills especially as they pertain to coyotes. He shared with me some of what makes snaring a much more effective trapping tool than a conventional foot-hold trap.

Snares -The best tool we have for the changing conditions across North America. Snares have come a long ways in the last few years. With new type locks, deer break-aways and compression springs, a properly set snare will humanely kill a coyote quickly. Snares can be used year round. When set in trails with the proper loop size and proper distance off the ground, it becomes very selective for the targeted animal you’re after.

Coyotes tend to travel the same paths generation after generation. Once a trapper learns their routes their removal becomes easy. When snaring for the state I would create these situations which would let me catch the coyotes in an area and move on, sometimes in just a few days time. I would haul 50-gallon barrels half full of frozen meat scrapes. When finding a pack of coyotes, I would cruise the area usually finding a dead end side road to leave the barrel. By leaving the bait in the barrel, it would attract the ravens, which in turn would bring in the coyotes. Typically the coyotes would not go into the barrel, but rely on a few scraps pulled out by the birds. Their tracks and trails in the snow would show me where the coyote wanted to die. Many times when I went back I would have 3 to 5 coyotes, load my barrel and move to a new location. This was a very effective and efficient way to remove a whole family of coyotes from an area, not only giving the deer a break, we consistently saw other game population rebound with their removal

Snares are relatively inexpensive to buy and of low maintenance. They are light weight, easy to carry and quick to set up, once you know where to be. One of the big advantages the snare has over the foot-hold trap is they are not affected by weather nearly to the extent foot-hold traps are. With snares, if a coyote releases a set trap, most often he doesn’t even realize it and moves on to the next area where another snare is set. Often when foot-hold traps get sprung, without a coyote in it, he disappears and is slow, if ever, to return again. They are not dumb animals.

Dave Tobey says that one year he snared 49 coyotes in just one area near Grand Lake Stream. He said the next year tagging of bucks went from the low teens to 37 tagged at the local store and tagging station.

Indian Township in Eastern Maine still snares 20 to 50 coyotes a year, protecting the large deer yard on their land. This is the reason Eastern Maine was experiencing an increase in the deer kill the last few years, until the severe winter last year. The Indian tribe goes by their own rules and don’t buckle under to the anti’s and animal rights groups.

This is one week’s catch with snaring. Tobey says he has gone an entire winter and only taken 4 coyote over bait.

Most people don’t realize what a dangerous predator coyotes can be. The above photo shows 24 deer, mostly pregnant does, slaughtered by coyotes and left to rot. Their method? Simple really. They herd the deer up and force them out onto frozen lakes and rivers. Once deer hit the ice, they are rendered completely helpless. This photo was taken on the St. Croix river in Eastern Maine. Killing the deer and leaving them to rot is proof of coyotes sport or surplus killing deer, something considered by most a myth. Too many people believe that coyotes, like wolves, kill only the sick and weakly deer leaving us with a healthy deer herd. How’s that theory working out in Maine?

But even some of the rules in place that ban snaring and set the seasons for trapping coyote make little sense. I was told by Tobey that the reason the trapping season ends the end of December is because of fear of trapping the protected Canada lynx. The question becomes, why is coyote trapping season closed outside of Canada lynx protected habitat areas and why doesn’t Maine have a “Incidental Take Permit” that would allow trapping during these months in lynx habitat?

The other obvious question still remains. If snaring was banned in Maine supposedly because it is an inhumane way of killing an animal, what is humane about sitting idly by while coyotes destroy deer and other wildlife? Many people are probably not even aware that coyotes, when they kill a deer don’t do it very humanely. Most times the deer is eaten while it is still alive. Pregnant does will be brought down and the fetus ripped out alive and often the doe is left to die while the coyotes make a feast on a tender fetus. In short, it is not a pretty sight.

But this is only the beginning. There has to be a united effort from the Governor, the Maine Legislature, the MDIFW and the people, to commit to rebuilding and protecting the deer herds as much as there are protections for predators, like coyotes, black bears, Canada lynx and bobcats. That means more of an effort than waiting for the sun to shine. It requires a commitment to do what is necessary and in the best interest of all.

The Governor must be the leader. The current governor and the one that will be elected come November, must step forward and proclaim the importance of protecting whitetail deer in all of Maine. The Governor should seek the backing of the Legislature and together give the authority for the MDIFW to take the necessary steps to open up trapping for coyote through the winter months immediately in areas outside lynx habitat.

The ban on snaring can be overturned through the Legislature, by emergency ruling if necessary, to allow for snaring in and around known wintering yards for deer. This snaring should be allowed up and until the deer begin leaving the yarding areas.

It is a known fact that when deer move into their fawning areas, the coyotes follow killing and destroying as many of the newly born deer as they can. Snaring and killing of coyotes should be targeted at these areas. The only way the deer will survive, say nothing of rebuild, is that the fawns must survive. With fawn survival rates so low now, herds have reached unsustainable levels.

People need to understand that even under federal protection of the Endangered Species Act, protecting the lynx or any other species does not allow for the destruction of one species in order to protect another. The 10j rule provides a system in which the MDIFW can petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take extra steps to protect the deer herd while trying to protect the lynx. The question is, does Maine want to? Is this effort worth it to them?

The tools are at our disposal. It is time for leadership in this manner. Doing nothing is unacceptable. Scoffing at those who consider this a serious problem is not acceptable. Telling the people of Maine it’s their problem not the state’s, is no longer acceptable. Appeasing animal rights groups and anti-hunting/trapping groups is no longer acceptable. Either Maine believes in their wildlife programs or they don’t. I think it is obvious where the people of Maine stand, they now are looking for leadership and action. Who will step forward?

Tom Remington

Just over a week ago I posted a press release here at the Black Bear Blog that announced the delivery to Maine’s Governor John Baldacci (D-Maine) by State Rep. Peter Edgecomb (R-Caribou) a petition seeking action by the state to do something about saving the state’s deer herd and controlling predators. One of the actions seeking immediate attention was the implementation of an “effective” predator control program.

The petition calls on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IFW) to institute, without delay, an effective predator management program including, but not limited to, filing an incidental take permit in order to reactivate the winter coyote snaring program. The “incidental take permit” (ITP) refers to the snaring of lynx. Lynx, which are listed as “threatened” in Maine under the Endangered Species Act, cover much of the area in northern Maine where there is great concern for deer.

An Incidental Take Permit is required by law if activities taking place within an area where endangered or threatened species exist might cause harm to those species. In Maine’s case an Incidental Take Permit should be required for lawful trapping in areas where the Canada lynx are found. One of the requirements of obtaining such a permit is to show proof that the conservation activity taking place in which Maine would be seeking a permit for, outweighs any potential harm that might result to the Canada lynx.

Snaring, a method of trapping that was proven extremely effective in taking coyotes around winter deer yards, was banned in Maine believing that this kind of trapping would cause harm to the lynx. That debate continues.

The petition handed to Governor Baldacci is asking that the state rescind the ban on snaring, essentially in an emergency effort to allow for better coyote control to help in eliminating further destruction of the deer herd, especially in Northern Maine.

Confusion arose when in the same press release as referenced above, an official for MDIFW stated an Incidental Take Permit had been applied for.

An IFW official said the department applied for an ITP from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in August 2008 while it was still fighting lawsuits from animal rights groups seeking to block the permit. The FWS has not acted on the ITP application to date; but Ken Elowe, the director of IFW’s Bureau of Resource Management, says action may be imminent. “I have had recent communications with FWS stating that they are nearing the point of (required) advertising in the Federal Register for 60 days of public comment before they can act on the application,” he reported. “IFW continues to work on this, with the help of Maine Trappers Association, to get a solution for Maine’s people.”

Some were led to believe that this Incidental Take Permit, if granted the state of Maine, would cover the incidental taking of Canada lynx should Maine rescind the snaring ban. Some even were led to believe that the permit would reinstate snaring. This is not at all the case.

It is my understanding that the permit that MDIFW has applied for would cover the present “legal” means of trapping that are permitted by law in designated lynx habitat. Methods permitted by Maine law does NOT include snaring. It would therefore be my assumption that should MDIFW be so bold as to defy the ban on snaring or repeal the present ban, this action would nullify the present permitting process. I would also assume that MDIFW could then reapply for an Incidental Take Permit on lynx that pertained to the legal method of snaring as well as all other methods within lynx habitat.

However, the ban on coyote snaring came through the Maine Legislature, as much to ward off animal rights lawsuits than anything to do with protecting or managing wildlife, and would require Legislative approval to change that law. This is something that could be done. What would also become necessary, in my opinion, is to seek a resolution within the Maine Legislature that would fully support a move to reinstate the snaring program and whatever legal actions the MDIFW deemed necessary to thwart further devastation to the deer herd. This would indicate a willingness to support and defend all actions to protect the Maine deer herd.

Recently the State of Idaho proposed a similar resolution that would notify the governor that he had the full support of the Legislature should he deem it an emergency situation to kill wolves in order to protect the state’s elk, deer and moose population, which happening there now.

The Endangered Species Act does not provide for the destruction of one species in order to save another. Maine now has to decide if it values its whitetail deer herd enough to fight for its survival. At the same time, Maine residents need to know that the Incidental Take Permit applied for by MDIFW will not address the coyote snaring issue nor does it have anything to do with efforts to save a rapidly dwindling deer herd.

Tom Remington

The Court denies the Plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunction against the state of Maine’s current trapping regulations because it finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Canada lynx as a species will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

A victory, perhaps only temporary, for trappers in Maine and all across the United States, actually. For simplicity, may I refer to this case simply as the Maine Lynx Lawsuit? Thanks. The entire 32-page ruling by Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. can be viewed by clicking this link.

I have read through the entire ruling at least a couple of times and have a few conclusions I have come up with that I would like to share. Please bear in mind I am not a lawyer nor do I wish to pretend to be one. It is however important that we learn as much as we can from such cases, which can mean listening to the conclusions drawn by other people. I welcome yours.

When the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine decided to sue the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife seeking a “permanent injunction” against Maine’s trapping laws, its claims where to protect the Canada lynx, a federally protected species, living in Maine. The court spelled out for us quite clearly that the onus or the burden of proving to the court the need for the injunction fell in the lap of AWI and WAM. They failed in that category.

Before I get into what specifically the Plaintiffs failed to persuade the court of, let’s first address what could prove to be a very important, if not the most important part of this ruling. Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. wrote the ruling and in that he determined an interesting finding.

The Court reiterates its view that the proper test for determining irreparable harm is effect on the species as a whole, not on individual members of the species, unless the take of an individual member has been demonstrated to affect the species as a whole.

This has not always been the view of some courts. It has been contended for some time that the intent of the Endangered Species Act was to preserve a species as a whole and not in my back yard, when the species may be thriving in many other widespread areas. Personally, I find this ruling encouraging.

We should however take to heart everything that Judge Woodcock served to us in his ruling. He contends and I concur, that the Plaintiffs failed to persuade him that the events taking place in Maine and concerning its trapping laws are putting the lynx species as a whole in any harm. While I agree with him, it doesn’t mean a better prepared group of plaintiffs couldn’t persuade him to change his mind.

Woodcock lays the ground rules as to what would force him into issuing a permanent injunction.

To issue a permanent injunction, the Court must find that:
(1) plaintiffs prevail on the merits; (2) plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the harm to plaintiffs would outweigh the harm the defendant would suffer from the imposition of an injunction; and, (4) the public interest would not be adversely affected by an injunction.

But the biggest burden of proof that sunk the Plaintiffs was their attempt at convincing the court that “irreparable” harm, the result of the current scheme of trapping regulations, would result in the destruction of the lynx; that incidental “taking” of the lynx was putting the species as a whole in danger. The court examined the major aspects of these trapping regulations, the equipment being used and expert testimony to make his determination as to whether “irreparable harm” was being put on the lynx species as a whole.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ arguments focused on criticism of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s statistics and findings, while offering no expert testimony to refute such findings. The Court was also unimpressed with the Plaintiffs’ reference to studies that would require a stretch of the imagination to consider them relevant to this case. (My words not those of the Court.)

In an earlier post, I shared with readers about the Plaintiffs’ attempt at convincing Judge Woodcock that the stress placed on a lynx by merely being captured in a trap could easily result in death. The Plaintiffs referred to this stress as “capture myopathy”.

Something that came out in the ruling I found very interesting; that is if I am understanding the Court properly. Many have argued that the MDIFW has been at fault for not applying for an “Incidental Take Permit” from the federal government. Such a permit, if granted, would release some of the legal responsibilities should Canada lynx, a protected species, be incidentally trapped in traps not intended for lynx capture.

In the Court’s ruling, it appears to me that MDIFW opted not to apply for that permit because they believed that the Endangered Species Act is designed to protect the species as a whole and not the incidental taking of an individual member of that species. They further believed that under the latest rules governing trapping, any incidental takings of lynx caused no harm to the individual animal and certainly posed no threat to the lynx species as a whole. From this perspective, MDIFW felt they were not in violation of the Endangered Species Act and therefore did not need an Incidental Take Permit. It appears that Judge Woodcock agreed.

IF&W argues that “proving a violation of the ESA, whether procedural or substantive, does not obviate the need to prove irreparable harm.” Id. at 15. For support of this argument IF&W cites a number of cases involving “ongoing procedural violations of the ESA” which still required evidence of harm……………………………
IF&W suggests that “only a procedural violation is at issue here. IF&W is permitting trapping without having obtained an Incidental Take Permit but without any evidence that a listed species is being harmed.”

If the MDIFW foresaw that applying for an Incidental Take Permit, was an act of admission that the Maine trapping regulations were harming the lynx species, then this is an act of brilliance and appears to have played an important role in the Court’s ruling. If they stumbled into it, we’ll take it.

We all should go away from this case happy that Judge Woodcock possesses common sense in reaching decisions while at the same time adhering to the laws. As I said before, we also must learn from this experience, walking away knowing full well that a better funded, better prepared group of plaintiffs could just as easily convince the court that Maine’s trapping regulations are putting the Canada lynx in jeopardy.

On a bit of a side note, I thought it worth a laugh when Judge Woodcock described the testimonies of Dr. Paul Paquet and Camilla Fox as mostly educated opinions and went as far as to refer to Ms. Fox’s testimony as “an educated advocate”.

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.

The June 2009 issue of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s “Insider” magazine is now available for your viewing pleasure. Please follow this link.

In this issue you will find information about a study done on the use of rubber or soft plastic lures for fishing and the effects this may be having on our fisheries. Anglers are encouraged to use biodegradable lures.

There’s also an article about the awards presented as part of the success of the recovery of bald eagles in Maine from the endangered list, a story of how 46 acres have been added to the Scarborough Wildlife Management Area, Warden of the Year honors, 2009 winter field study on Canada lynx, all about snakes in Maine, bears and bird feeders, the Open Water Fishing Report and tons more.

Tom Remington

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