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

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

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

Sure sounds like a threat to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

I am happy to announce that my two very good friends, Rocky and Lisa Freda, owners of Sun Valley Sports in the Bethel/Newry/Sunday River area were chosen as the recipients of this year’s Innovation in Tourism Award issued by the Maine governor, John Baldacci.

A friend and local business woman, Wende Gray, nominated the Freda’s for the award. Below is a copy of the nomination letter sent to the governor’s office.

In 1995 after 20 years as a field representative for an agricultural supply company, Rocky Freda found himself without a job, a casualty of the mid 90’s corporate downsizing. Rather than wallowing in self pity, Rocky saw this as an opportunity to change his lifestyle and pursue a career doing what he loved best: being in his beloved outdoors, hunting, fishing and snowmobiling.

As fate may have it, his future was determined at a chance meeting at a snowmobile shop with the operations manager of Sunday River Ski Resort, who encouraged him to check out the Bethel area to set up an outfitting business. In the winter of 1995, Rocky purchased a 3 acre parcel on the Sunday River Road in Bethel. The real estate included an old mobile home (fondly nick-named the “Tuna Can”), and two 300 square foot hunting shacks. Not the most attractive facility to rent his fleet of 12 snowmobiles but Ricky was resolute. With the help of Mother Nature’s snowfall that year, his fledgling Sun Valley Sports was off and running.

Since 1995, Rocky has invested over a half million dollars in his outfitting business. The 3 acre parcel is now home to a 1200 square foot retail store that offers canoes and kayaks, and fishing equipment, clothing and accessories as an Orvis franchise; a storage and repair garage for his fleet of snowmobiles and ATV’s and two three bedroom pine-sided cabins, one which is his home and one, complete with outdoor hot tub for his sporting guests. He has a fleet of 20 snowmobiles, 7 ATV’s, three drift boats, two 15-passenger shuttle vans, a 4-wheel Suburban, and 60 canoes and kayaks..

Sun Valley Sports is a full service outfitter providing Orvis Endorsed fly-fishing instruction and guided trips, canoe and kayak rentals and shuttles on the Upper Androscoggin River, ATV tours, moose safaris, paddle sports youth programs, hunting trips, whitewater rafting trips on the Kennebec in partnership with a licensed whitewater outfitter and guided snowmobile tours in the winter.

As a testament to Rocky’s indomitable spirit and Yankee ingenuity, last winter and again this year when Mother Nature did not co-operate with plentiful snowfall, Rocky hauled out his ATV’s, worked with the landowners to secure an ATV trail and provided his guests with wildlife tours. Unlike many other small snow dependent businesses, Sun Valley Sports survived an otherwise disastrous winter season.

In addition to Rocky and his wife Lisa, Sun Valley Sports employs a full time Master Maine Guide year round and part time receptionist. This summer Sun Valley expects to employ five additional Maine Guides.

Sun Valley Sports has aggressively marketed its business through its website, advertising, public relations and partnerships with Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Orvis. Rocky has been instrumental in promoting the resurgence of the Upper Androscoggin River as a fishing destination.

This past summer Rocky had the pleasure of hosting visitors from Australia, the United Kingdom, Texas, Tennessee, California and Michigan.

Along with the demands of growing a small business, Rocky has served on the Bethel Chamber of Commerce as its Treasurer and President; board member of two local snowmobile clubs and project director for the Dept of Conservation’s Western Mountain Snowmobile region; Bethel Snowmobile Winter Fest Organizer, a member of Trout Unlimited and its regional director for the Androscoggin River and is now into his second, three-year term as a member of the Bethel Planning Board.

Of course, behind every good man is a good woman. In 1995, Lisa Freda gave up her position as a medical technician, earned her Master Maine Guide’s license and hitched her wagon to Rocky’s star. Using an appropriate outdoor metaphor, Rocky admits “I’d be up s____ creek without a paddle if it weren’t for Lisa.” Lisa is transportation engineer, IT manager, comptroller, reservations and housekeeping manager, professional guide, inventor of the “Lisa’s Leach” streamer fly, as well as Rocky’s appointment secretary, personal chef and mistress of their two labs, Buddy and Brookie.

Rocky and Lisa’s commitment to raising the standards of Maine’s outfitting industry, understanding of outdoor recreation and its integration with hospitality and tourism, and unselfish dedication to the Western Maine region is worthy of recognition by the State’s Tourism industry.

Congratulations Rocky and Lisa Freda!

Tom Remington

When and Where:

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

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

chris lewey, executive director
chris@ravenwildlife.com

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

Tom Remington

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) along with co-sponsor Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have introduced their own version of the House’s bill called, Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act. According to a press release by Sen. Whitehouse, the Act will accomplish three things.

The bill would direct the federal government to develop coordinated national strategies to identify, monitor, and protect or restore wildlife populations and habitats that are likely to be harmed by global warming;

It would also create a panel to advise us on what we should do.

The bill would create Advisory Boards, with members appointed by the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and a new National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center within the U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct research and provide scientific and technical advice on strategies to help wildlife, oceans, and coastal ecosystems adapt to global warming. A special panel would also be convened to look specifically at the impacts of climate change on endangered species (emboldening is added).

The bill would also provide funding in order to further study wildlife, oceans and habitat that are being affected by global warming. This money would also be used to implement programs to protect wildlife and habitat that are being affected by global warming.

We have certainly pressed the panic button in this society over global warming which is being proven time and again, day after day that it is just not scientifically supported. This is a hoax that is sure to bring billions of dollars into the pockets of scientific research and with this new proposed act would also distribute money to organizations to “implement programs” to counter global warming. And just where do you think that money will go?

I’ll give you one hint. The Defenders of Wildlife think this Act is a terrific idea and I’m sure other extreme environmental groups and animal rights groups will be jumping on this bandwagon.

This act is troubling in other ways as well. First of all, this appears to be another back door attempt to get federal government in control over state’s wildlife management programs. For decades the feds have, for the most part, recognized the 10th Amendment when it comes to managing wildlife programs and has butted out of allowing state sovereignty to prevail, with one exception being the Endangered Species Act.

Now all of a sudden because we have a group of emotionally charged people jumping on the global warming train ride, the state’s wildlife management programs are not good enough to deal with changes? State’s wildlife officials should be insulted as well as concerned. The feds want to take control over their wildlife and lands that provide the habitat.

The Endangered Species Act, as much as I think it is now outdated and in dire need of being revamped or axed, has sufficed lawmakers to this point in protecting threatened species. This act sounds like another way to put more power into the hands of the feds to further reduce hunting and fishing opportunities as well as outdoor pursuits all in the name of establishing habitat they claim is disappearing because of global warming.

Along with this grabbing up of more land for habitat protection comes the loss of individual property rights, say nothing of the millions of dollars that will be lost because of restrictions put on logging, mining and other businesses that rely on these lands.

Climateatrisk.com writes of the introduction of Whitehouse’s bill and describes the powers that would be granted to the appointed, not elected but appointed panel that would be in control.

The national strategy identifies specific goals and methods to protect, acquire and restore wildlife habitat in order to build resilience to global warming, and provide habitat linkages to facilitate wildlife movements in response to global warming. The National Strategy would also protect natural communities most vulnerable to global warming, and restore and protect ecological processes that sustain wildlife populations.

Does this language sound at all familiar? The Wildlands Project is an organization whose goals are to take land away from private landowners in order to create vast areas of land closed to humans and left for the “natural” use of wildlife at the expense of human productivity and freedom. The want wildlife to have the freedom to move about unimpaired by you and I owning land.

The Wildlands Project’s work to reconnect the continent begins with “MegaLinkages”–vast pathways that tie natural places together.

Within each continental MegaLinkage we propose regional systems of core protected areas connected to one another by “wildlife linkages,” mosaics of public and private lands that provide safe passageways for wildlife to travel freely from place to place.

Private land owners within proposed conservation planning areas are not bound in any way by our recommendations, but are encouraged to participate in voluntary actions to protect landscape linkages and native species.

It is not coincidental that the use of the word “linkages” is used in describing both goals by the Wildlands Project and the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act.

But it doesn’t stop here. Rocker Carole King, a wildlands/wilderness advocate, who I am told is friends with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got her chance to meet with the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, to promote her agenda of creating more wilderness – described as the biggest wilderness creation act since the Alaska Land Act.

King is pushing the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act.

The bill, sponsored by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays would designate as wilderness nearly 7 million acres in Montana, 9.5 million acres in Idaho, 5 million acres in Wyoming, 750,000 acres in eastern Oregon, and 500,000 acres in eastern Washington.

Another three million acres in Yellowstone, Glacier and Grand Teton National Parks also would become wilderness, where no logging, road-building, motorized use, and new oil and gas drilling or new mining could take place.

Now that the Democrats, notorious for being environmentalists with little concern for economic welfare and property rights, are in charge, this is the kind of legislation they are trying to push through and it all goes hand in hand.

This Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act is unnecessary and will needlessly cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It will further inflate an already overinflated government that does not need more power over the states. We have brilliant scientists and biologists working all across this land protecting our wildlife and doing a commendable job. Let’s keep big government out.

This act will further tie up land deemed as critical habitat all in the name of global warming, a theory never proven scientifically to be valid. With those in charge fostering ideas that we need millions of square miles of unaccessible wilderness lands for animals is absurd and scientifically unfounded. This is Disney biology at its best.

We as hunters, fishermen and trappers witness first hand how our opportunities are shrinking on a daily basis when governments, pushed by environmental and animal rights groups, tie up land we use to hunt and fish on because of political hard balling.

To some this act may appear to be one that will work toward guaranteeing that we will continue to have game to hunt and fish. It is far from that. We have seen what an abuse of the Endangered Species Act has done for us and this Act will enhance the powers of those who administer the ESA. Is that what we want? Do we want left-wing environmentalists fear mongers further stripping us of hunting and fishing opportunities and taking land out of the hands of private citizens?

This act is not grounded in good scientific reasoning. It’s a means by which power hungry politicians can control the people using the fear of global warming to take away our land, our freedoms and our opportunities to prosper and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

I would encourage everyone to contact their senators and congressmen and tell them the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act is nothing our country needs. If you believe your state has the ability to handle your wildlife management and that you believe the American dream is to own land and have the rights to use that land, speak up now.

Tom Remington

My good friend and colleague, George Dovel, has put together one of the most eye opening articles I have read in a long time. The article contains information that deals with anti-hunting issues, land loss, property rights, the abuse by some states to illegally use money from hunting and fishing license to fund programs outside of fish and game, the Wildlands Project, Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act and an entire host of other topics.

This article is long but is worth the read. I would highly suggest that anyone who cares at all about hunting, trapping, fishing and the outdoors, read this article. Much of the topics discussed are centered in the state of Idaho but I don’t want you to think for one second that you couldn’t just as easily insert the state you live in. All of these things happening can and are taking place right in your back yard. It’s time to open our eyes.

I am going to provide you with a couple of different ways you can obtain it. You can begin the story here and follow the link to read the rest. On that page you can copy and paste the article into a word processor program and print it out. Also at the bottom of this page is a link to a pdf version of the story for your convenience.

I want to take a moment and thank George for granting me permission to republish this article in its entirety at the Black Bear Blog and other Skinny Moose Media websites.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News and Comment by George Dovel

About George Dovel: Following several decades of close association with state and federal wildlife mangers as a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot, a qualified volunteer on assorted wildlife research projects and a member of several fish and game advisory committees, George Dovel offers a unique perspective on what has happened to wildlife resource management. With record low big game and upland bird populations existing throughout the U.S. in 1969-1973 he edited and published The Outdoorsman which is credited with helping to restore scientific game management. The new crisis in game management throughout the West resulted in resurrecting The Outdoorsman in March 2004 to provide factual information for outdoorsmen and their elected officials.

On July 3, 2007, a public meeting of an ad hoc committee formed to discuss future funding for IDFG took place at F&G Headquarters in Boise. Chaired by Senate Resource Committee Chairman Gary Schroeder, the members included House Resource Committee Chairman John A. “Bert” Stevenson, Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) Co-Chair Senator Dean Cameron and former F&G Commissioner Representative Fred Wood. <<<<<Continue to the rest of this Article>>>>>

Click here to download a pdf version of this article.

Tom Remington

Scott Andrews, registered Maine Guide and outdoor blogger for MaineToday.com offers a photo journal article today of his weekend canoing and kayaking trip down the Upper Androscoggin River from the Shelburne Dam to Davis Park in Bethel.

Milt Inman Photo

Tom Remington

A 21-member task force assembled by Gov. John Baldacci, whose commission is to oversee and make recommendations on how best to manage Maine’s public lands, held its first meeting on Wednesday.

According the Boston Globe, the Maine Department of Conservation Commissioner, Patrick McGowan, spent time highlighting all the lands available for outdoor recreation. He expressed concern that too few people in Maine are aware of how much land the state owns for public access. He quoted 950,000-plus acres. He also said more people need to see his presentation.

“I think this presentation needs to be seen by a lot of people in the state of Maine so they can see what they own,” he said. “This is publicly owned land.”

Is it? I’ll have to double check the figures but I believe the people of Maine own somewhere around half that amount. The rest is held through wildlife easements, etc.

There are some real areas of public lands that have been bones of contention among different Maine outdoor groups and justifiably so. When the scam that cost the Maine people over 7,000 acres of public lands in order to buy the Katahdin Lake parcel that remains open only to exclusive users, it angered a lot of people. We still have no land to compensate for that loss.

Management of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway has always been a thorn in the side of so many and nothing at least in the near future indicates that it will change.

And most recently when the Appalachian Mountain Club bought up the 37,000 acres of the former Katahdin Iron Works using public money and then closed 10,000 of it to snowmobiling after it promised it wouldn’t do that. Now the AMC is asking that more land be closed to bear hunting. Public money should never be used to buy land and then exclude certain users.

It will be an interesting chemistry to observe as 21 people, representing a wide array of areas, all vie for their interests in public lands. As much as I would like to see something constructive come from this, I’m not holding my breath. There are just too many special interest groups in Maine and too many of those care only about themselves and are not interested in sharing space. Watch out!

Tom Remington

The world is shrinking! We are a society of outdoor recreation and as humans we love water. Today, when we can easily toss a canoe or a kayak on top of the car and move about to more and more rivers with more and more launch sites, we see increased numbers of people using the waters. Fishing is easier with greater access and with the ability to fish the waters of Vermont today and wet a line in New Zealand tomorrow, it is safe to say that the world is getting very tiny.

With this ease of access and increased activity comes dangers, the threat of the spread of invasive algae. Milfoil is one that at least here in the Northeast, we have been dealing with for a few years now but we have another one just confirmed in the Connecticut River. Didymo, or Didymosphenia geminata or “rock snot”, has been confirmed in the Upper Connecticut River. It was first discovered by a river guide, Lawton Weber.

Didymo is bad news!

It will destroy the fish and most other living creatures in our waters. How it got here remains a mystery but it can easily be spread. It can be carried from one water body to another by getting on boats, boots, gear, equipment, birds, animals and even heavy winds.

Word is spreading rampant across the Internet as people, especially fishermen, are angry and scared. On Saturday, a post was made at the Fly Fishing in New Hampshire website about the discovery.

Butch Moore, owner administrator for New England Outdoor Voice, notified me by email so that I would know about this. Butch has mounted his own campaign to inform his readers and spread the word about what to do to avoid spreading the stuff.

The Fly Fishing in Maine website, has a post at their forums discussing the event as well. This method of communication and education should help to spread the word quickly. I have read where some have already begun putting up signs at boat launches and passing out information to people in and around the rivers.

A report today in the Times Argus says that there is a possibility that a second case of didymo has been found in the White River in Bethel, Vermont.

The best way to avoid the spreading of the invasive algae is by cleaning and effectively killing it. Here is a suggestion for cleaning from the New Zealand government BioSecurity website. New Zealand is also dealing with this algae.

Cleaning Methods for Didymo

Didymo is a single-celled micro-organism that can spread from one river or lake to another by the movement of water, equipment, clothing and any other damp item. People and their activities are the main cause of spread.

To ensure you don’t spread didymo or other aquatic pests, wherever possible restrict equipment, boats, clothing and other items for exclusive use in a single waterway between cleaning.

If you are moving items between waterways, you must Check, Clean, Dry.

CHECK: Before you leave a river or lake, check items and leave debris at site. If you find any later, treat and put in rubbish. Do not wash down drains.

CLEAN: There are several ways to kill didymo. Choose the most practical treatment for your situation which will not adversely affect your gear.

* Non-absorbent items
o Detergent: soak or spray all surfaces for at least one minute in 5% dishwashing detergent or nappy cleaner (two large cups or 500 mls with water added to make 10 litres); OR
o Bleach: soak or spray all surfaces for at least one minute in 2% household bleach (one small cup or 200 mls with water added to make 10 litres); OR
o Hot water: soak for at least one minute in very hot water kept above 60 °C (hotter than most tap water) or for at least 20 minutes in hot water kept above 45 °C (uncomfortable to touch).

* Absorbent items require longer soaking times to allow thorough saturation.
For example, felt-soled waders require:
o Hot water: soak for at least 40 minutes in hot water kept above 45 °C; OR
o Hot water plus detergent: soak for 30 minutes in hot water kept above 45 °C containing 5% dishwashing detergent or nappy cleaner; OR

* Freezing any item until solid will also kill didymo.

DRY: Drying will kill didymo, but slightly moist didymo can survive for months. To ensure didymo cells are dead by drying, the item must be completely dry to the touch, inside and out, then left dry for at least another 48 hours before use.

If cleaning or drying is not practical, restrict equipment to a single waterway.

This is perhaps the biggest and most serious threat to New England waters and fisheries that any of us have ever seen and we need to take it seriously. Everything and anything that we can do to prohibit the spread of this deadly algae has to be done.

Tom Remington

By now, just about every hunter in America has heard this statement before. (Got these from the MaineGuides.org website)

“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, December 30, 1991.

And this one to go along with that one.

“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” – Wayne Pacelle, as quoted in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991.

And finally,

“Sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.” – HSUS Website 2003.

A couple of weeks ago I told you about the preliminary results of the survey that is done every five years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In that survey, the media jumped to the immediate conclusion that in the last decade the number of participants in hunting and fishing had dropped around 14%. How they derived that figure is misleading and probably inaccurate as well.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts this survey every 5 years. What the results of the survey don’t show is the total number of people who hunt and fish. What it does show is how many people hunted and fished in 2006, in 2001 and in 1996. In other words, the survey is used as an indicator and shouldn’t be used to make a claim that there are 1.5 million fewer hunters today than there were in 1996. The survey doesn’t account for the number of hunters who hunt at odd times and off years.

Regardless of surveys and conclusions drawn by the media, groups like the Humane Society of the United States want to end hunting and fishing. This same survey shows that $64 billion is spent by anglers and hunters. The majority of that money is used to manage the wildlife, create habitat and sponsor education programs that millions of people benefit from, including the non-hunters and non-fishermen.

If you add in an additional $45 billion spent by wildlife viewers, $120 billion dollars annually is a sizable amount of money. I hear everyday from non-hunters who attempt to toss in the faces of us hunters how they outnumber us and can and will control what happens to the wildlife we take and they object to. Their statement is false. There are more wildlife viewers than hunters for sure but hunters outspend wildlife viewers considerably. More importantly, the vast majority of wildlife viewers that includes non-hunters, understand, support and approve of hunting. Only a small percentage of the so-called “non-consumptive” users disapprove of hunting and verbally speak out against it.

The funds generated from the sale of hunting, fishing and trapping fees are used to manage the wildlife, including most species that don’t get hunted. It is no secret that without these funds, wildlife viewing would be sparse unless taxpayers began footing the bill that license holders have for decades. Are the taxpayers ready and willing to pick up that tab?

Maine’s moose is a good example of how license fees were used to bring the moose population back to a point where hunting has once again been used to keep the numbers in check. With the added growth and abundance of the large, odd looking creature, millions of people flock to Maine in hopes to get a glimpse of the mammal.

Would these wildlife viewers be able to enjoy this pastime without hunting license fees? Perhaps but someone would have to foot the multi-million dollar bill to manage the wildlife.

This is just one aspect of what would happen should hunting, fishing and trapping be banned like animal rights groups want. The other is the billions of dollars in revenue to state and local economies that get pumped in each season. With the annual loss of $120 billion, how will that slack ever be picked back up? What about the jobs?

We have to ask as well that if the money to manage the wildlife disappeared, wouldn’t also the opportunities for wildlife viewing be greatly reduced? Certainly we can’t assume that the number of viewers would increase to make up for the lost revenue. As I pointed out earlier, hunters far outspend wildlife viewers. Viewers tend to go on short excursions, buy gasoline and maybe a snack or meal. They don’t have gear necessary for viewing, with the exception of maybe a camera or pair of binoculars.

Statements such as the ones I shared above are unrealistic and not in the best interest of our society. Much as these groups want people to believe their rhetoric, it’s simply a bunch of malarkey. Sane citizens understand, appreciate and support hunting, fishing and trapping for everything it contributes to our “humane and caring society”. After all, it is about more than just killing animals.

Tom Remington

Steve Cartwright, staff writer for the Kennebec Journal, shares his experiences of a recent canoe trip down the Upper St. John River in Northern Maine.

Tom Remington

Now there’s a headline you’re not going to see very often, if at all. It’s also one that will rile the dander of just about every anti-hunter and animal rights group that believe humans should take a back seat to animals and let them run nilly-willy over the countryside.

All we ever hear about these days when it comes to human/wild animal encounters is how man is encroaching on wildlife and that we are to blame for forcing these poor innocent creatures into our backyards to eat our garbage, kill our pets and attack children.

What if it’s not our fault? What if the cause of these increases in coyote attacks in New Jersey and bear attacks in Utah, Pennsylvania and Kentucky were just the result of too many animals?

Don’t get me wrong. I do think that we are building far too many homes and developing too many areas that once was fine habitat for many species of wildlife but if we are to blame ourselves for these attacks, maybe we should consider that we have done such a great job managing our game and wildlife that we now have too many.

I’ve written several articles of late concerning bear attacks on humans. The latest being that of 11-year old Samuel Ives in Utah while camping with family. One particular article, “Expert Advice On Dealing With Black Bears“, relates to an article written in the Bangor Daily News by John Holyoke about how to deal with black bears. Holyoke talked with Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife field expert on bears, Randy Cross.

In that article, I took issue with a comment cross made about the frequency of bear attacks.

“I think it’s remote out there [in Utah] as well,” he said. “It’s not like it happens five times a year or even five times in a decade. We’re talking about something that happens less than five times in a century … almost anywhere you want to go.”

The article began a mini debate. Reader Richard Paradis wanted to know if I had links to support my claim that bear attacks occurred far more often than Cross suggested. I had forgotten to include the links in the original story and added them later in the comments section. Here again are those links.

Southeastern Outdoors, where they claim that there have been 52 known fatal black bear attacks in North America in the last 100 years.

Cooperative Extension Service of the University of Washington. This article claims there have been 45 black bear deaths since 1900.

Ithaca37, another Black Bear Blog reader wrote:

It is not as much bans on hunting as it is urban sprawl that has led to increased human-wild animal contacts. As people push farther[sic] out into “the woods”, the less space there is for wildlife.

The fact that there have been more attacks recently doesn’t mean anything unless you look at urban sprawl and what has happened to the number of national park visitors. I do not know if there are more people visiting national parks or not, but until someone can demonstrate that there has not been a significant change in other factors there can be no positive link between number of bear attacks and hunting bans.

I responded to Ithaca37 that there had to be some degree of a correlation between encroachment and the closing of hunting lands by landowners sprawling further out into the woods, resulting in less hunting opportunities. With less hunting comes an increase in bear populations.

Paradis, having some kind of trouble last evening posting further comments, sent me an email with information in it about bear populations and changes in hunting regulations.

The argument here is whether or not bears are encroaching on us or we are encroaching on them. Paradis points out an article that appears in the Foggy Mountain Guide Service website that was written by Craig McLaughlin, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist, Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The statewide population was estimated at 6,000-9,000 in 1979, and season restrictions were implemented to guard against over harvests. By 1984, improved information on bear densities yielded a revised statewide estimate of 18,000 bears. The 1985 population was estimated at 21,000 bears, but renewed interest in hunting and escalating harvests during the late 1980s reduced the population to 18,000 bears by 1989.

Additional restrictions on hunting season length have increased bear survival during the 1990s, and the population increased to 22,000-23,000 bears in 1998.

I’ll revert back to the Bangor Daily News piece in which Cross points out that Maine probably has fewer human/bear encounters because of hunting pressure that helps instill that fear of man by bears.

“The biggest problem I think you have with bears becoming dangerous are bears that have lost their fear of humans,” Cross said. “The habituation of bears usually begins with inadvertent feeding of bears and escalates from there. But once bears have lost their fear of humans, they’re a much more dangerous animal at that point.”

Cross said Maine’s hunting heritage may be a factor in reducing bear-human contact here, in that the most aggressive, bold bears are generally among the bruins that are shot each year.

Doesn’t this further explain why there are increased human/bear encounters in areas where bears are not hunted than in those that aren’t? Maine has a relatively small human population in proportion to land mass but one of the largest black bear populations in the U.S. One would think Maine would have more bear/human attacks than most other states.

Even to further confirm the 23,000 bear population estimate for Maine, back in 2004 during the big bear hunting referendum debate, opponents of that initiative put together a television commercial in which Jennifer Vashon, a wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, made the following statement.

“I’m Jennifer Vashon, the state’s bear biologist. Maine’s bear population is healthy and growing. Today we have over 23,000 black bears – one of the largest bear populations in the country. Our bear hunt is highly regulated and closely monitored by wildlife experts”.

We have to ask ourselves who’s encroaching on whom? As Paradis pointed out in his email, a 400% increase in bear numbers is huge.

I believe the fact that we have nearly a 400% increase in bear population in Maine over a relatively short period of time to be the most significant cause.

Cause, is referring to the cause for human/bear encounter increases.

Maine is only one case. I have no statistics on other states as far as increases in bear populations. On the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources website, officials estimate the black bear population at between 2,000 and 4,000.

Bunnell says Utah’s black bear population numbers between 2,000 to 4,000 bears. “While that may sound like a lot of bears, our bear population is actually small compared to many other states,” he says.

Bunnell says bears can be found in almost any mountainous area in Utah.

There is one other issue to address in which Ithaca37 brought up. This was the one of whether there was any increase in visitors to National Parks that would add to the increase in bear/human encounters.

Paradis pointed out an article published in the Portland Press Herald in July of 2006 that states that visits to Maine’s parks have taken a sharp decline and that it is a reflection of the trend nationwide.

Use of Maine’s two premier parks – Baxter State Park and Acadia National Park – has fallen sharply since 2000, a drop that mirrors national trends and is blamed by some on an exploding preoccupation with the Internet and entertainment media………

Attendance at Acadia dropped 20 percent during the same period, from 2.5 million to 2 million…….

The study found that park attendance increased nationally from 1939 to 1987. The steady decline since then has accompanied an explosion in electronic entertainment.

If this is true, then isn’t this further evidence that there are more bears, perhaps more than officials estimate and that there is far more competition among the animals for food and good habitat forcing them more into our back yards and campsites?

I’ll say it again. We need to slow down the sprawl and building of homes in the middle of wildlife habitat but we also need to stop completely blaming human encroachment on wildlife as the only cause for increased human/wildlife encounters.

We do a great job overall in managing our wild animals, perhaps too good. Demand is increasing from U.S. citizens to be able to drive around a view wildlife. With better science and management skills, decreased access to land for hunting, urban sprawl and development and continued insistence by anti-hunting and animal rights groups to ban hunting and trapping, this trend toward human/animal conflict will continue to rise. With this rise, fish and game officials will have to more closely monitor wildlife populations and manage accordingly.

I want to thank Richard Paradis for taking the time to email me the links with the very helpful information on them.

Tom Remington

A couple weeks ago I received an email from Whit Richardson, staff writer for MaineBiz.biz. He told me he was doing a story about Maine rivers, including the Upper Androscoggin. Through his research and I think mostly talking with Wende Gray, he learned that I had grown up living on the Androscoggin in East Bethel.

We played phone tag for a few days until finally we connected. I spent nearly two hours on the phone talking with Whit and sharing much of what I had experienced as a child living on the river when it was literally an open cesspool. Today, that same river is teeming with fish, the water is mostly clean and people are beginning to discover what it has to offer.

Whit put together an article that touches on aspects of all three of Maine’s largest rivers – Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot. Of course his focus, being the writer for a Maine business oriented magazine, is on how these three rivers can benefit the citizens of Maine economically.

Richardson talks with several people who have at least some degree of influence and knowledge of how these three rivers have in the past and are currently benefiting Maine people. The real question now becomes, what does the future hold?

Much of the talk these days is about how to lure the “deep pockets” of wealthy fly fishermen. While I agree that Maine needs to focus attention on luring the money-spending fishermen that will be a benefit to many businesses throughout Maine, we need to make sure this isn’t done at the expense of other aspects of fishing. More on that in a moment.

The goal, says Bill Pierce, a marketing specialist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is to create a brand around the Androscoggin and the Kennebec. Both are big rivers that are close to a big marketplace — in this case, the entire Northeast as far south as the Mason-Dixon line — and they have the tourist infrastructures already in place to offer a comfortable vacation, as well as options for non-fishing members of a family.

Pierce draws parallels to the Madison River in Montana or the Yellowstone River that snakes through Montana and Wyoming. “Those are brands in the angling community that are highly regarded, like Apple and Microsoft are highly recognized brands in the computer industry,” Pierce says. “If we create that energy around the upper Andro and the Kennebec, we will establish those as brands and people will come and spend money and they will have an economic benefit.”

I have a lot of respect for Bill Pierce and I believe he has done a remarkable job marketing Maine’s outdoor industry with very limited funds. I agree that we can draw some parallels with our rivers in Maine to the Madison and Yellowstone, but we will never be those for several reasons. That shouldn’t however hinder our efforts to continue to promote the assets each of our three major rivers hold.

Phil Monahan, editor of American Angler magazine in Bennington, Vermont put it this way.

Maine has the best fly fishing in New England, and could certainly become a regional paradise for anglers if it promoted itself more. But he doesn’t think the upper Androscoggin or the Kennebec will ever have the allure a river like the Yellowstone does for anglers. “Fly fishing tourism to a certain extent depends on a sense of romance for the angler,” Monahan says. “You just say ‘the Yellowstone’ to any fly fisherman and it conjures up images. I don’t know how the town of Bethel can generate that same kind of excitement.”

Whether Maine’s rivers are a draw to tourists or not and how much that will translate into revenue for struggling businesses remains to be seen. There are two issues that I see that are stumbling blocks for those eager to promote these rivers.

Be assured that not all Mainers want to see the rivers used more. Maine is a unique state in that many of her people are very eager to keep Maine as it is today or perhaps see it regress twenty or thirty years. Without the support of the majority of the people, promoting the rivers for tourism is that much harder.

The second issue is one that I touched on briefly before – promoting the river at the expense of others. Some sportsmen, as well as tourism officials, believe that it is the “Orvis” or “Cabela’s” or the “L.L. Bean” fly fishermen that has deep pockets and will save Maine by bringing in the big spenders to fish our native brook trout and associated waters. Whether that can and will happen, I haven’t a clue but it can’t be done at the expense of shutting down the rest of the fishing industry or at a minimum, giving it the short end of the stick.

As pressure mounts from groups promoting fly fishing as the end all to the fishing industry, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is facing decisions on regulation of its waters. For the fly fisherman searching for the ultimate experience, he wants a “Yellowstone” river. This means managing that body of water for that purpose and that purpose only. When this is done, it shuts out a bigger majority of spin-casting or general law fishermen, including a lot of kids.

Fishing is a big industry that involves many aspects and disciplines. It requires a balancing act by fish and game to do what is right in both managing fisheries for science and regulating waters to benefit all anglers, which in turn fires the economy.

Even if it is determined that Maine can benefit financially from promoting its waters as a destination fly-fishing haven, we can’t shut down the rest of the fishing industry to promote just that niche. We have to find the right balance.

One thing is for sure though. However one views the best way to take advantage of the waters of the Androscoggin, the Kennebec and the Penobsot, none of this will much matter if we don’t all do our part to keep these rivers clean and accessible to the public.

Tom Remington