AUGUSTA – Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin is pleased to announce that the 2010 Moose Permit Lottery Drawing will be held Thursday, June 17, at L.L.Bean in Freeport.

The drawing of names will begin at 6 p.m. under the moose lottery tent near L.L.Bean’s Hunt and Fishing Store. This year, 3,140 permits will be drawn for the fall harvest. Last year, 82 percent of hunters were successful.

No more applications for the lottery are being accepted as the deadline has passed.

Since 1999, the Moose Permit Lottery Drawing has been held at different locations throughout the state. Two years ago, the event was hosted by an outdoors retailer, and vendors were on hand to display hunting products and tips, and last year, the St. John Valley community carried that theme when the drawing was held at the University of Maine at Fort Kent.

This year, L.L.Bean is scheduling moose hunt education programs, covering topics such as gear, shooting techniques, moose calls, and “secrets” from “moose masters.” An indoor archery moose hunt and a five-stand public shoot also are planned.

“Over the last couple of years, the Moose Permit Lottery Drawing has evolved into a spectacle where hunters can gather to swap tips, learn how to improve their skills, and share their favorite hunting stories,” according to Commissioner Martin. “This year is no exception. L.L. Bean is planning an event that will leave hunters better informed on how to make a hunt a success. And, possibly, the hunters also will leave knowing their names were drawn for a permit. I thank L.L. Bean for its support of the 2010 Moose Permit Lottery drawing and I look forward to attending this well-planned event.”

Ken Kacere, senior vice-president and general manager of retail, L.L.Bean, said the retailer is thrilled to be hosting this year’s event.

“We are very pleased to have been chosen by the Department to host the 2010 Maine Moose Permit Lottery Drawing,” Kacere said. “For generations of hunters, the Maine Moose Lottery has become an annual tradition that celebrates Maine’s rich outdoor heritage. We are honored to be a part of it.”

Commissioner Martin said that IF&W staff from Augusta and local biologists and game wardens will be on hand at the event. The Department will be conducting a panel discussion on how to make the most of a moose hunt beginning at 5 p.m., one hour before the lottery drawing commences.

“This is a great opportunity for sports enthusiasts and the general public to interact with our personnel,” Martin said.

Added Mac McKeever, senior public relations representative, L.L.Bean, “In celebration of the Maine Moose Lottery Drawing, we’re offering a fun, festive array of family-oriented activities throughout the day to really enhance folks’ enjoyment and participation in the event.”

Activities are set to begin at 11 a.m., with most scheduled under the moose lottery tent next to the L.L.Bean Hunt and Fishing Store. They include:

· 11 a.m.: Gearing up for you moose hunt, presented by L.L.Bean experts;

· 11 a.m.-4 p.m.: Free indoor archery moose hunt, archery range, L.L.Bean Hunt and Fishing Store;

· Noon: Moose hunting in New England, presented by Mossy Oak Pro Staff panel of experts;

· 1 & 3 p.m.: Josh Cottrell, Primos Pro-Staff, moose calls demonstration and gear tips;

· 2 p.m.: Scouting techniques and tools for your moose hunt, presented by L.L.Bean experts;

· 2 p.m.-dusk: Five-stand public shoot, fee charged, see store representative for details;

· 4 p.m.: Moose calling seminar with Maine Professional Guides Association;

· 5 p.m.: Making the most of a moose hunt, presented by IF&W staff;

· 6 p.m.: Maine Moose Lottery Drawing begins. Moderated by Commissioner Martin and WGME-TV 13 broadcaster Doug Rafferty.

For more information, visit www.llbean.com/stores and select “upcoming events” or www.mefishwildlife.com.

AUGUSTA – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will be conducting a controlled moose hunt in Aroostook County again in 2010 in response to farmers’ concerns about crop depredation and to address the increasing incidence of moose/vehicle collisions along Routes 1 and 161.

The controlled hunt, which will occur between August 16 and September 25, 2010, was approved by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council on Thursday, April 22.

Last year, which was the first year of the controlled moose hunt, 100 permits were allocated and hunters had an 81 percent success rate.

“Once again this year, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is implementing a controlled moose hunt to ease the negative impacts caused by moose on broccoli and cauliflower crops in parts of eastern Aroostook County, as well as help reduce the risk of moose-vehicle collisions,” according to Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin. “Last year’s controlled hunt was a successful start in helping to alleviate problems in this area, and this year’s effort too will make a significant dent in the population where recreational hunting has not.”

For several years, IF&W has increased the number of moose permits during the annual fall recreational hunt to respond to the landowners’ concerns for crop damage and communities’ requests for safer roads. With the controlled hunt, IF&W has greater flexibility to effectively manage moose in areas that may have limited access or are in “non-traditional” habitats, such as an agricultural-woodland mix, that may not be attractive to hunters.

The controlled hunt is NOT open to all hunters. Persons eligible to participate include:

· Landowners with 80 or more contiguous acres, who own property in Limestone, Caribou, Woodland, Presque Isle, Fort Fairfield, Washburn, Westfield, Easton and Connor Township. The eligible property is agricultural, forested or undeveloped land that is open to hunting, including hunting by permission. A dependent living in a landowner’s household also is eligible.

· Any shareholder in a corporation that qualifies under the Internal Revenue Service Code as a Chapter S corporation is eligible for the landowner permit drawing if the property meets the landowner permit requirements. Dependents of shareholders are not eligible.

· All Registered Maine Guides that currently have all Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife license privileges in good standing, are not convicted felons, and did not receive a controlled moose hunting permit by lottery in 2009. Guides will NOT be eligible to hunt and only three permittees picked at the discretion of the Guide will be eligible to hunt.

A total of 100 permits will be available. Eligible persons wishing to participate must file an online application form that’s available on IF&W’s website, www.mefishwildlife.com. A person may not file more than one application, and each application is for “one chance.”

This controlled moose hunt is not the recreational moose hunt. Applications for the recreational moose permit lottery were due by May 14.

Applications for the controlled moose hunt are available starting Monday, May 17.

The online application deadline is 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on June 17, 2010. A random chance drawing will be held on June 18. The winners’ names will be posted on IF&W’s website. Selections are final.

Selected landowners and Guides may hunt during the entire six-week period (excluding Sundays).

There is no application charge. Permit fees are $52 for residents and $484 for nonresidents.

A total of 100 permits will be allocated as follows:

* Up to 45 percent will be issued to eligible Registered Maine Guides, and each selected guide will receive three moose permits (one for each of three permittees who will be chosen at the discretion of the Guide.) Of the three issued permits, one will be an any-moose permit and two will be antlerless-only permits. Registered Maine Guides who receive permits are required to guide their permittees in agricultural areas designated by the Department within the 9 towns open to hunting.

Each Registered Maine Guide selected by the lottery must attend a training session on June 30 in Presque Isle.

Registered Maine Guides selected by the lottery in 2010 will be ineligible to receive a controlled moose hunt permit for 2 years.

* Up to 55 percent of the permits will be issued to eligible landowners. Landowners who receive a permit are required to hunt on their own, eligible land. The Commissioner may authorize a landowner to use his permit to hunt on other designated lands identified in the area open to hunting.

In addition to the above moose hunting permits, the Department will allocate five (5) moose hunting permits to disabled veterans to participate in the controlled hunt. At least three of these permits will be issued to residents who possess a valid disabled veteran hunting license and no more than two permits will be issued to nonresident disabled veterans who possess a valid big game hunting license. A ” disabled veteran” means a person who: (1) is a veteran; and (2) has a service-connected disability evaluated at: (a.) 100%, or (b.) has a service-connected disability evaluated at 70% and has served in a combat zone during any armed conflict in which participants were exposed to war risk hazards. These permits will be issued in cooperation with the Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management. Maine Veteran’s Services will provide logistical support to the selected disabled veterans during their moose hunt.

The moose taken under these permits are in addition to the statewide bag limit. Permits issued under this controlled hunt are exempt from the provisions of the moose permit point system of the recreational moose hunt. A person who receives a controlled moose hunting permit is exempt from the two-year eligibility requirement of the recreational moose hunt. All other fees, laws and rules relating to moose hunting will apply to this controlled moose hunt.

Additional information about the controlled moose hunt is available on IF&W’s website or call (207) 287-8000.

Editor’s Note: Friends and readers who have been very supportive of my efforts have asked that I offer what I could for support for this project. The letter below was sent to me by a friend and I’m posting it for those who have an interest in this asking that you get involved.

Dear Friends,

As many of you know, I have been working to protect our local mountains from the massive Industrial Wind Turbine Development Project that is being proposed by Highland Wind LLC. If approved, this project will destroy nine miles of ridge top, while clear cutting over 500 acres, and building over 20 miles of road, to erect and maintain 48 four hundred foot tall turbines. All of this will happen within sight of The Bigelow Preserve, a place so special that the people of the State of Maine voted to protect it from development forever.

After much study, I have yet to find a single redeeming quality in this Industrial Wind Project. It will not clean our air, it will not reduce our use of fossil fuels, it will not reduce our electric bills, and it will not benefit our environment or our citizens in any way. What it will do is fill in wet lands, destroy critical habitat, and drive both animals and people from their homes. It is also likely to destroy many small businesses that depend on tourism.

In return for all this, a few men will get very rich, mostly from the government subsidies that will pay for the majority of the project, and a few politicians will get to look “green” in front of the news cameras.

The Friends Of The Highland Mountains www.highlandmts.org is currently working on a T.V. commercial to educate the people of Maine about this and similar projects. We are working hard to save our mountains and our way of life, but we can’t do it alone. That’s why I’m writing to you for help.

I am personally trying to raise the money to put our commercial on the air. It won’t be cheap. Five thousand dollars [$5,000.00] is my current target to get the ball rolling. The commercial is already in production, but if we don’t raise the money to air it, the people of Maine will never hear the truth about these projects.

So, I’m asking you to help in any way you can. Even five dollars will go a long way. I know money is tight and times are tough, but some things are too valuable to allow to be destroyed. If we allow tough economic times to keep us from doing what’s right, how will we ever live with ourselves, or explain to our children and grandchildren that we allowed a few powerful men to destroy irreplaceable mountain habitat for no reason other than greed?

I’m asking you, from the bottom of my heart, to please send a donation and help us preserve this unique and important corner of Maine. If you are involved with a corporate group, Scout Troop, or other service organization, please consider asking them to get involved as well. If we all work together, we can keep Maine’s wild places wild.

Checks can be made out to Friends Of Highland Mountains, and sent to me at the address below. Please write “for TV commercial” in the memo line. For those wishing to make a tax deductible contribution, please contact me for more information.

If we all work together, we can educate the people of Maine, and protect our mountains. Thank you in advance for your support.

Dave

David P. Corrigan
Registered Maine Master Guide
Fletcher Mountain Outfitters
82 Little Houston Brook Road
Concord Twp., Maine 04920
maineguide@live.com

AUGUSTA – Spring wild turkey hunting season is upon us with a significant change in the spring bag limit.

The regular season for spring wild turkey hunting opens on Monday, May 3, and ends on Saturday, June 5. This will be a full five-week season for all turkey permit holders.

A new regulation regarding the spring bag limit goes into effect this year. An initial permit for $20 will allow turkey hunters to take only one bearded wild turkey in the spring and a wild turkey of either sex in the fall. A second permit for $20 can be purchased anytime after the purchase of the first permit that would allow for the harvest of another bearded wild turkey in the spring only.

Youth Day will be held on Saturday, May 1. Kids ages 10-15 with a junior hunting license are allowed to hunt on this day with adult supervision. Youths will be allowed to take up to two (2) bearded wild turkeys during the spring season without any additional permit fees.

The Wildlife Management Districts open for spring wild turkey hunting are 7, 10-18 and 20-26.

Hunters must have a valid spring wild turkey permit and a valid Maine big game hunting license in order to hunt wild turkey. Licenses and permits are available at IF&W’s Augusta headquarters, at licensing agents statewide, and at www.mefishwildlife.com.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife urges hunters to review the following safety tips:

Ø Never try to stalk a gobbling turkey. Your chances of getting close are poor, and you may be sneaking up on another hunter.

Ø Avoid hunting the same gobbler as your hunting companion or other hunters. Pick a different area to hunt.

Ø Stick with hen calls. A gobbler call is intended for special situations and might attract other hunters.

Ø Don’t be patriotic. Avoid red, white or blue. A tom turkey’s head has similar colors.

Ø Avoid unnecessary movement. This could alert turkeys and attract hunters.

Ø Don’t hide so well that you impair your field of vision

Ø Wrap your turkey in some blaze orange cloth for the hike back to the car.

Ø Always sit with your back against a tree trunk, big log or a boulder that is wider than your body. This protects you from being accidentally struck by pellets fired from behind you.

Ø If you use a decoy, place it on the far side of a tree trunk or a rock so you can see the birds approaching from all directions, but cannot actually see the decoy. This prevents you from being directly in the line of fire should another hunter mistakenly shoot at your decoy.

Ø Never shoot unless you’re absolutely sure of your target. Since only turkeys with beards are legal during the spring season, lack of positive identification could result in shooting an illegal bird, or worse, another hunter.

Ø Consider wearing hunter orange while moving from set-up to set-up. Take it off when you are in position.

The Aroostook County Conservation Association and many other volunteers worked tirelessly to gather thousands of signatures to put on a petition that requested that Governor John Baldacci of Maine take immediate action to stop the seeming decimation of the whitetail deer herd that’s taking place in Northern, Eastern and portions of Western Maine. In the absence of Maine Rep. Bernard Ayotte (Caswell), the petition was delivered to the governor by Maine Rep. Peter Edgecomb (Caribou) back in February.

According to a letter composed by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Deputy Commissioner, Paul Jacques, and dated April 2, 2010, Rep. Bernard Ayotte composed a letter to the department on March 8, 2010 seeking an update as to the status of the State’s application for an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it would pertain to trapping in Canada Lynx designated critical habitat. Jacques’ response was varied, covering a plethora of items he lists as all the things his department is doing to stave off the continued destruction of Maine’s whitetail deer herd. Time and space prohibits addressing all issues but I would like to take the time to clarify at least one item that seems to always get left out of discussions. To do this requires some brief history.

In 2006, an organization called the Animal Protection Institute (API) filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), (API v. Martin), claiming essentially that the allowance of trapping in Canada lynx designated critical habitat areas was causing undue harm against the lynx and was a violation of the Endangered Species Act. (This lawsuit and others followed after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reversed a decision and declared the lynx an endangered species in portions of Maine and at the same time defining protected areas of habitat.)

On October 4, 2007 a Consent Decree was reached through the court between MDIFW and API. That decree put limitations on trapping in lynx habitat areas.

The Decree required the Commissioner to impose restrictions on trapping in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11

Keep in mind that the Consent Degree applies to the Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) listed above. In addition to certain restrictions on leg-hold traps, cage traps and killer traps in the ten named zones, the decree banned snaring.

The Commissioner “shall not permit the use of snares for any purpose other than to catch beaver and bear unless and until the [DIFW] obtains an Incidental Take Permit [(ITP) ] explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.”

It should be noted here that according to the information I have gathered in the past, the Maine Legislature, under the recommendation of the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Danny” Martin, banned snaring out of fear that more lawsuits would be brought against the state. I should also like to note the obvious, that should the Maine Legislature so desire, they can overturn or even modify that ban to accommodate efforts by the MDIFW to reduce predator kills on deer and protect the species as they are so mandated to do by law.

Getting back to the letter from Deputy Commissioner Jacques to Rep. Bernard Ayotte, Jacgues makes the following assertion:

Also, and this is important, the first lynx-trapping lawsuit was settled by a Consent Decree in Federal Court that included a ban on snares. The Consent Decree has to remain in place until a recreational trapping ITP is obtained by the slate. This Department does not, therefore, have the authority to restart the snaring program at this time without violating a Federal Court order.

This statement is not entirely true and could be very misleading. Yes, I believe that, as I stated, the Maine Legislature has banned snaring. Under the circumstances of what most Maine sportsmen would classify an emergency situation, if that same sentiment were shared by the MDIFW leadership, they would request that this ban be lifted in the WMDs not designated as lynx critical habitat, being those ten zones named in the court ordered and approved Consent Decree.

If you look at the map of Maine, you’ll see all the Wildlife Management Districts as designated by the MDIFW. I have placed a large “X” over the ten WMDs listed by the Maine court as protected Canada lynx habitat where snaring is banned at least until MDIFW obtains an Incidental Take Permit. MIDFW Deputy Commissioner Jacques states that snaring is banned by court order and that’s not wholly true. The Consent Decree designates only WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11. Certainly those WMDs have severely diminished whitetail deer herds but so does WMDs 7, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and most of 28. These are WMDs in Eastern and Western Maine that suffer from serious deer mortality.

One would think that if the MDIFW had any inclination at all that coyotes and other large predators were having any negative effect on the deer herd, a request would go out to the Maine Legislature seeking a modification to the ban on snaring. We can only assume they don’t think predation is a problem and continue to rely heavily on loss of habitat and Al Gore’s theories on global warming as the only culprits that are destroying Maine’s deer herd.

So now to the Incidental Take Permit. The 2007 Consent Decree prohibited the Commissioner to authorize snaring in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, until such time as MDIFW obtained this illusive ITP. Even after Judge John A. Woodcock’s ruling in Animal Welfare Institute v. Roland D. Martin, the court ruled that any incidental taking of Canada lynx was not having any affect on the preservation of the Canada lynx. Nothing from the Consent Decree changed and in AWI v. Martin, Judge Woodcock refreshed our memories of the Consent Decree of 2007.

IF&W acted swiftly and on December 4, 2008, the Department adopted an emergency rule imposing further limitations on the manner in which Conibear traps could be legally set in Wildlife Management Districts 1 – 11

And the Animal Welfare Institute clarifies any confusion about whether all of Maine or only designated lynx habitat had been banned from snaring or using “killer” traps, by specifically soliciting the court to include WMD 7 with the other ten WMDs listed.

Following the hearing, AWI expressly asked for injunctive relief that would “(1) prohibit the use of leghold traps on land in the identified lynx WMDs as well as in WMD 7 where . . . lynx have been identified as present and have been trapped.

October 4, 2007, a Consent Decree was issued and MDIFW was told that snares and killer-type traps could not be used in Canada lynx habitat areas “until the [DIFW] obtains an Incidental Take Permit [(ITP) ] explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.” It’s now April 19, 2010 and Maine appears no closer to obtaining an ITP than it did on October 5, 2007. How long does it take and what kind of serious effort is Maine putting into obtaining this permit?

It is my opinion that MDIFW doesn’t care whether they get a permit or not. It is my opinion the MDIFW does not see predators as any kind of problem that has had but the slightest of negative effects on the whitetail deer herd. All their money is riding on Al Gore and dumping the blame on landowners for cutting trees they own.

How many telephone calls has Roland Martin, MDIFW Commissioner, made to the USFWS pleading his case that Maine has a serious deer shortage problem? Has MDIFW ever heard of or considered utilization of the Endangered Species Act 10j rule? The 10j rule was put in place to make sure that at the cost of trying to protect one species we didn’t extirpate another.

Round and round she goes. Where she stops, nobody knows. If Lady Luck shines on MDIFW, their bets on global warming will pay off and the whitetail deer population in Northern, Eastern and Western Maine will magically reappear.

Tom Remington

I have written at length about the dire predicament that exists in Northern and Eastern Maine with the whitetail deer herd. The general consensus is that there are three main factors – weather, habitat and predation. I dug around and put together population and harvest numbers for the past dozen years. These I’ve put to graphs so readers can get a better sense of the decline. Unlike the “climategate” scandal, where participants have been accused of “hiding the decline”, nobody is trying to hide the decline in deer population and harvest. The argument is what has caused it and what is being done about it?

Before you examine the graphs below, let me explain a couple things. Bear in mind that the data used is for population estimates and harvest numbers statewide. The whitetail deer crisis is for Northern Maine and Eastern Maine, comprising perhaps as much as two-thirds or more of the total state land mass. From information and accounts given, it appears the deer population and harvest figures for Central and Southern Maine remain steady or even growing in some places. I just did not have available data to plot out deer population estimates for the Northern and Eastern Wildlife Management Districts.

With the figures available and keeping in perspective that in Southern and Central areas the deer herd is stable, it’s easy to see that Northern and Eastern Maine deer herds are essentially non existent.

The first graph plots Maine’s estimated, post-hunt deer population beginning in 1998 and ending in 2008. The 2009 estimated, post-hunt deer population figure has not been made available to the public as of yet. At least that I am aware of at this time.

The Y-axis reveals the estimated deer population with a peak of 331,000 occurring in 1999 and a low in 2008 of 199,600. The years are displayed in the X-axis.

The second graph illustrates the deer harvest numbers for the years 1998-2009. Unlike the deer population which is estimated, the harvest numbers are actual shot and registered deer (required by law). The Y-axis shows the harvest numbers, with a peak occurring in 2002 or 38,153 and a low just this past hunting season of 18,045.

You can do your own calculating if you wish to guess what the post-hunt deer population for this year will be. Each season the harvest becomes a percentage of the total population. Of course there are many things we don’t know, some of which are hunter participation, weather factors that keep hunters in doors, mortality rates other than hunting, etc.

Using a 11-year average of the percentage of harvest based on estimated populations, it’s feasible that this year’s post-hunt statewide estimated deer population could be as low as 150,000.

Tom Remington

I’m sure I will be chastised for daring to suggest that the majority of the Maine Warden Service should be funded by general tax dollars rather than by license fees paid by Maine’s outdoor sportsmen. This isn’t a commentary on how well the Maine Warden Service does its job or how necessary or not the functions that they take on are. I take no issue with the head of the Maine Warden Service, Col. Joel Wilkinson or anyone in his staff. No, really! Some of my best friends are Maine Wardens (I just had to get that in there.)

Regardless that I have taken the time to clarify what I’m not trying to do, I will be demonized because I’m suggesting a different method of funding a Maine law enforcement agency, that has grown beyond “game wardens”, to a point where enforcing game laws is not the main function of this agency, or so it appears to me. Because I oppose how the department is funded, I will be accused of having a bone to pick with the Maine Warden Service or some other ridiculous notion. Let’s get beyond that.

I reader sent me a link to an article that appeared this morning in the Kennebec Journal. The piece was about efforts undertaken by two members of the Maine Warden Service to police illegal dumping by morons on private property. Illegal dumping can be an issue in some areas and especially with strict guidelines for refuse disposal and fees attached with it. But again, this is not the issue here for me. The issue is, why are my hunting and fishing license fees being used to pay the salaries of two or more agents of the Maine Warden Service to police private property in hopes of catching the idiots who are dumping garbage there?

The article has one of the Wardens explaining it this way.

“What concerns me is, as this keeps shaping up, owners of the land will post the property so there will be loss of access for people to use it for recreation,”

That’s a commendable concern but it still doesn’t answer my question. The same sentiment could probably be found in nearly every community throughout Maine. I should also point out at this time that the article continues informing readers about the efforts underway, many through volunteers, to clean up old dump sites and better monitor areas that seem prone to illegal dumping. These efforts should be commended.

The Maine Warden Service is part of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. There once was a day when the wardens took care of poachers, checked sportsmen for licenses and enforced the fish and game laws. A visit to the website of the Warden Service and we quickly see this is not the case any longer.

Col. Wilkinson writes that things have changed in the 128 years the Maine Warden Service has been operational. He also says that “demands from the public” have increased the Service’s responsibilities. Who could disagree? The problem is, the general public, and through the State Legislature, have dumped all these demands on the Service without providing the funding to do the job. As a result, they have sucked the money out of fish and wildlife funds, license fees, etc., and wildlife management has suffered while Game Wardens are out chasing down people ignorant and uncaring enough to get rid of their garbage on private land.

In the “Mission” of the Maine Warden Service we begin to get a picture of just how the responsibilities have grown from enforcement of “fish and game” to the “protection and conservation of Maine’s natural resources” and “public safety”. Here’s a list of many of those responsibilities.

1. Search and Rescue (More than 350 search and rescue missions each year.)
2. Fish and Wildlife law enforcement
3. Recreational Vehicle law enforcement
4. Policing the Whitewater rafting industry
5. Investigation and enforcement of environmental laws

This is a broad overview and upon examination of the written purpose and function of the Service, their responsibilities are so broad they could pretty much include everything.

But probably most or all of these functions require somebody’s oversight and perhaps the Maine Warden Service is the best group to do it. But search and rescue, recreational vehicle law enforcement, patrolling dump sites, investigation of environmental law infractions and policing the whitewater rafting industry should not be paid for through fees collected by hunters, fishermen and trappers. Losing those fees are directly responsible for the loss of quality fish and game management. At a time when Maine is facing a serious whitetail deer management crisis (yes, it is a crisis) it kicks you in the guts when you read that two game wardens are spending their time monitoring a dump site. As important as it is to stop the dumping and to bring those responsible to justice, this law enforcement activity has to be paid for through general taxation.

For those who have read me before, you know where I stand on how to fund the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife. If you would like to read more specifics, start at this link and also follow the related links at the bottom of the page.

There are some advocating that things should remain being run the way they are only that funding be shared between license and registration fees and a percentage of tax dollars. Gov. Baldacci has tried unsuccessfully to create a super department cramming fish and game, conservation and other departments all into one. I oppose both these formulas and advocate a complete restructuring of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, moving all non game programs into the Department of Conservation and/or Law Enforcement and pay for dump site monitoring, for example, through general tax money. Fish and game would be pared back to what should be their function and that’s managing the state’s fish and game. Perhaps, just perhaps, Maine wouldn’t be faced with an extirpation of whitetail deer in the northern half of the state.

Tom Remington

At the time of this writing, it’s the end of March, 2010, and turkey season is about 5 weeks away! It’s a time of excitement for most turkey hunters, as we dig out all the gear, unpack the decoys, and play with our calls. For me, turkey hunting has become a passion and there’s nothing I’d rather do than watch the spring woods wake up at dawn, with my back against a nice big tree. Maine is still relatively new as far as turkey hunting goes, and it seems like only yesterday when we were given our first chance to go chase the wily gobbler. Actually, my area, (the Midcoast region of Maine), didn’t open up to public hunting until 1996 and though many seemed interested, few hunters were successful those first couple years.

I didn’t take an interest until 1998 but back then we were under a lottery system for tags. Sadly, I wasn’t chosen the first few times I entered but that didn’t stop me from hitting the woods to see what all the fuss was about, and I simply traded my weapon for a set of calls and a good pair of optics. The turkey population was sparse in the early days and to hear a distant gobble made my heart race and my blood boil as I took off running through the woods, hoping to get close enough to watch and observe. Having no turkey hunting experience whatsoever, I literally had to learn by trial and error, and one thing that really helped me was to watch them at any and every opportunity, studying their habits, calls, and flock interactions. I even learned enough to become involved in calling in turkeys for friends who were fortunate enough to secure a tag in the beginning when I had none, and so no season afield ever went to waste in my book.

Suffice it to say I’ve come a long way since my initial start in 1998, and the past 12 years have seen a lot of fine-tuning on my part. One of the many things I’ve had to struggle with is the use of decoys and decoy set-ups on turkeys. Like I said, it’s been trial and error mostly, but by trying new strategies each season, I’ve learned what works for me and what doesn’t. Now mind you, nothing is guaranteed in turkey hunting, and no set-up is by any means fool-proof, but if you use a little common sense and Yankee ingenuity, decoys can greatly enhance a hunters spring success.

The ‘Three-Phases’ of Decoy Use

Many times, during the early days of my toying with decoys, there were accepted scenarios already abroad, such as using a single hen, or the infamous ‘love triangle’ approach, in which two jake decoys were placed, (a passive model and an aggressive model), in conjunction with the hen. Unfortunately, the triangle, though it worked well for two back-to-back seasons, abruptly stopped producing for me. In fact, many times the decoys seemed to spook the turkeys, a problem many turkey hunters today still argue about. I won’t forget the first time it happened to me either. I was being filmed for a DVD series and things were looking pretty good. We had struck a gobbler and my calls had managed to lure him some 350-400 yards, through a small patch of woods, across a brook, and up a steep hill, and as the producer readied the big camera for the final scene, the gobbler hung up when he stepped over a stone wall and saw the decoys. He had been gobbling at every call and coming on a string but on looking back, it was the aggressive jake that shut him up and made him run. As soon as he saw it he went the other way…in a hurry!

For me…and through 3-4 seasons of experimentation in which I had nothing to lose…I discovered what I’ve come to call the “3-phases” of decoy use during the spring season. Here in the extreme northeast, our turkeys start to gobble and strut generally in or around the end of March, and active breeding commences in April. Biologists claim that, on average, a hen could pretty much have a full clutch of eggs laid by May 1st, however many factors come into play that could cause these averages to fluctuate. That being said, here is what I, personally, consider to be the best decoy arrangements and when to implement them.

Since our season opens around May 1st and runs for five consecutive weeks, ending the first week in June, I find that putting out a strutting decoy, (and I prefer a tom over a jake), works best for the first week and a half, to two weeks, depending on conditions. This works especially well if used in conjunction with a sitting or breeding-hen decoy, placed nearby. About 2-3 weeks into the season, I’ll swap out the strutter decoy for a standing jake and a standing hen…or even two. As the fourth and fifth weeks come along, I’ll often switch to just a few hens, and depending on the way the breeding season has taken shape, I might only use one.

The reasoning is fairly simple. At the onset of the season, toms and jakes are ready for action and ready to breed; dominance and territorial urges, coupled with the need to mate are strong and so a strutting decoy over a sitting hen often ignites raging jealousy, amidst toms and jakes alike. A boss gobbler who sees a strutter over a hen in his domain will absolutely not tolerate it, and will oftentimes come to the set-up at a full run. If left to see what happens, the boss tom usually tries to fight the decoy before trying to breed the sitting hen.

As the season hits about half way, many toms and jakes have been in so many battles they’re about wore-out, and many times a strutting decoy will scare off a subordinate tom, who just doesn’t have it in him to fight what appears to be another boss gobbler. That’s why switching to a passive jake and a standing hen works well, because the combination of both, especially with a jake who isn’t showing aggression, often allows a sense of security for another tom, even a subordinate, to come in and investigate without the fear of being immediately run off. As to the final week or weeks of the season, I’ve seen incoming toms freeze-up and hang back, even in full strut, if I have a jake decoy near my hen(s). That’s when I switch to only hens in standing or feeding positions. The afore-mentioned hunt in which the gobbler hung up at my decoys happened at the end of the season, and when I had an aggressive jake decoy in the mix.

The scenarios are far from foolproof, as I mentioned earlier, but for me this is what I have found to be a fairly reliable series of set-ups. And of course, with weather conditions and flock sizes, population fluctuations and other contributing factors, the timing could be off a few days either way as to when to switch-out my decoys. But… I’ll know when it’s time merely by watching how the turkeys react. And as to explanations concerning aggressive and passive jakes, keep this in mind… A passive jake will have less red coloration in the head and neck, being almost blue or white. This not only signifies submission, but a breeding attitude as well. An aggressive jake will have a full or mostly red color about the head and neck, and this is, as us rednecks would put it, is a sign he ain’t gonna put up with much from an approaching intruder.

Hopefully, this will give you the confidence you need in trying new decoy strategies this season. Decoys can play a major role in the success or failure of a turkey hunt, and only by experimentation can one become familiar with what to do and what not to do. Good luck in the coming weeks and above all, be safe! Carry your decoys well-concealed in a vest or bag, and when possible consider using a blaze orange hat when transporting both decoys or your harvested turkey.

(Blaine Cardilli is a freelance outdoor writer from Warren, Maine, and is currently on Prostaff with Hunters Specialties and Ameristep Quality Hunting; Blaine is also the vice president of the Midcoast Maine Chapter of the NWTF. He enjoys conducting spring & fall seminars on deer and turkey hunting)

Photo from fOTOGLIF

If there’s ever one thing any state fish and game department needs is good public relations and for the survival of that entity it is imperative that any fish and game have the utmost of quality public relations with the sportsmen who fund their department. While the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife does many good things, they certainly have produced some lousy imagery, particularly when it comes to dealing with a whitetail deer management crisis. It is a crisis you know.

No fish and game department can be everything to everybody, nor can they satisfactorily answer everyone’s questions and concerns. But that shouldn’t stop them from trying. Maine does, however, have a deer management crisis on their hands and too often it appears the only ones who think so are the sportsmen and a few citizens who are finding out there’s a problem.

Public relations is all about image and perception. It really may not even be about facts. It is simply a matter of how the public see their fish and game department. When too many see their fish and game department in a negative light, people at the department should be scrambling around to “photoshop” that image. After all, Maine does have a whitetail deer management crisis on their hands.

Maine sportsmen began complaining about the shrinking deer herd several years ago. I know this to be a fact because my email box contained several emails from hunters telling me about the problem and wanting to know if I knew anything that MDIFW was doing about it. I wasn’t aware of the problem and to be honest with you, I kind of blew it off myself. Shame on me.

But the grumblings grew louder and then the data began supporting what the sportsmen were yelling about. Where have the deer all gone? That became the question and it remains the question until sportsmen are satisfied with an answer. It appears we’ll get no more or better answers anytime in the near future.

MDIFW had a scape goat. They quickly blamed the problem on two consecutive severe winters with deep snow packs. Convenient, yes, but sportsmen weren’t buying that as the sole reason the Northern and Eastern Maine deer herds were shrinking rapidly. The blame quickly shifted to landowners who were cutting down trees that comprise all the winter deer yards. Again, sportsmen weren’t buying that as the sole reason for a shrinking deer herd. Many, myself included, yelled and screamed about predation from coyotes/wolf hybrids, bobcats and black bears, but sportsmen didn’t accept that excuse as the sole reason. After all, there is a whitetail deer management crisis in Maine.

Unofficially, Maine accepted the tri-fecta of snow, logging and predation as the problem. None of this has stopped the questions and nobody seems to be able to satisfy the sportsmen or citizens with any real solutions. Instead, sportsmen feel they have gotten the runaround and they’ve been witness to some pretty bizarre public relations stunts that have only fueled the flames of distrust while discoloring the image.

Back in December, when the fall deer hunting season was fresh in hunters’ minds, some serious complaining began. Much of that was directed at coyotes with hunters demanding that MDIFW do something about the problem. Not only did the demands fall on deaf ears but at the time Travis Barrett, one of MDIFW’s PR guys and a blogger, responded to complaints by saying essentially that coyote predation on deer wasn’t fish and games’ problem and that if hunters didn’t like it, they could go kill themselves all the coyote they wanted.

I even said at the time that Barrett’s comments were probably truthful but as I have just said in this article, image isn’t necessarily about facts. It’s all about perception and readers saw this aloof response as uncaring, even unconcerned. After all, Maine has a whitetail deer management crisis on their hands.

Maine citizens entered the fray. In Otisfield, residents gathered in February bringing in officials from town, county and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Residents wanted questions answered about what was going to be done about coyotes killing and harassing livestock and family pets. Essentially the response they got was to learn to live with it; a complete and utter public relations disaster.

Nobody at MDIFW stepped to the front to own the problem and work on improving a declining image. A simple, “We understand! We agree! We have a crisis! We are working on it!”, would have gone a long way but I didn’t hear that. I heard more of the same – bad winters, poor habitat. Knock, knock! Maine has a whitetail deer management crisis on their hands.

The rhetoric and bantering continued. Groups began to organize. Petitions were signed demanding the governor do something. In short, sportsmen wanted answers. They weren’t getting them. Hello! Maine does have a deer management crisis on their hands.

Then a bomb drops. George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, announces that he and Sen. David Trahan have discovered that Gardner Land Company cut down one of Maine’s prized winter deer yards on land they acquired from the controversial Baxter Land Swap.

There were a lot of accusations made and information shared putting MDIFW square in the middle of yet another controversy, another public relations image calamity. According to Smith, Gardner was prohibited from cutting the winter deer yard as part of the Baxter Land Swap agreement. Smith also wrote that MDIFW knew about the cutting and did nothing to stop it.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife needed to do something. Their image was suffering. With a deer management crisis on MDIFW’s hand, someone needed to step forward. They needed to reassure the sportsmen and Maine citizens that everything was under control. Instead, Commissioner Martin opts to rebut George Smith‘s “bomb drop” about Gardner Land Company cutting down the forest.

Instead of refuting all the accusations that have left many sportsmen and citizens fuming at what appears to be (image, perception) poor management and blatant incompetence, Martin manages only to tell people the deer winter yards they cut weren’t any good anyway. And in his words, he said that Gardner Land Company didn’t do anything that “IF&W wouldn’t have proposed on its own”. How reassuring! With a deer herd in Northern and Eastern Maine on the verge of extinction, one would be led to believe that an organization that continuously blames loss of habitat as one of the major causes, would see cutting any deer wintering yard as a bad thing. After all, Maine does have a whitetail deer management crisis on their hands.

Still searching for answers and leadership, Maine’s sportsmen and much of its citizenry seem more like the Israelites after Moses led them out of bondage, wandering aimlessly in the desert. As George Smith and Harry Vanderweide, the Maine Sportsman, prepare for Maine’s largest outdoor sports show, like Moses, they assure their followers that representatives of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will participate in a Q&A session so they can get their questions answered.

Billed as the “Save Our Deer Day“, it was planned that both George Smith and Harry Vanderweide would asked the tough questions of MDIFW experts and also take questions from the audience. Errrrrr, MDIFW has pulled the plug and will not participate. Yo!! Anybody at all at home in there!! Maine DOES have a whitetail deer management crisis on its hands. The mirror is cracked, the image is upside down and doesn’t even resemble the original picture.

Witness a public relations disaster! What’s up with all this? Is MDIFW guilty on all charges? Or are we just looking at a lame duck wildlife commissioner? The Commissioner’s position is an appointed one by the governor. Gov. John Baldacci is a lame duck and so is his commissioner. Is this what we are seeing?

The perceived image has become so skewed and soured that what is happening is very typical. People are left to draw their own conclusions and to keep pounding away with the questions. We are left wondering what to believe, who to listen to and who to follow.

In the meantime, I think I heard a little mouse someplace squeaking that Maine has a serious whitetail deer management crisis on their hands.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

The people at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are claiming they are broke and are in need of funding, as much as doubling the current funding, according to Dr. Ken Elowe, Director of Resource Management for MDIFW.

You’ll get no argument from me that MDIFW is underfunded. What you will get are questions as to why and suggestions about the best way to deal with it. Let’s first address why the MDIFW is underfunded.

In the new issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife, MDIFW Commissioner Roland D. Martin, states that all the programs and responsibilities his department has to care for, brings back to the state of Maine some $2.4 billion annually. Maybe that amount could be more.

Dr. Elowe, in his article on who should fund MDIFW, also states that responsibilities to the department have grown out beyond fish and wildlife issues.

Over time, the Department’s mission has broadened significantly: It now manages whitewater rafting, registration of watercraft, snowmobiles, ATVs, hunter, trapper and recreational vehicle safety, conservation education, environmental permitting and other matters.

And that’s just scraping the surface. To this we should add search and rescue, law enforcement of recreational vehicles and all non game programs.

The major reason the MDIFW is underfunded is because it has been tasked to perform duties well beyond management of fish and wildlife. All of this has been done with essentially no additional funding. Presently the overwhelming majority of funding to MDIFW comes from license fees paid by hunters, fishers, trappers, and snowmobilers/ATVers.

I know of nobody who thinks MDIFW is properly funded. The problem now becomes what to do about it.

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, is promoting funding to come from general taxation. He is proposing that a percentage of the tax revenue be designated to the MDIFW. In all honesty I haven’t heard anybody else make a specific proposal that doesn’t involve using tax money to fund the current composition of the MDIFW and it’s ever expanding non game services.

While this proposal may seem functional on the surface, I have to wonder if most sportsmen, the one’s who will still be the major fund providers for the Department, understand that with such a move opens the door for non hunting, non fishing interests to demand more and more input into the decisions and direction the MDIFW should take. The majority of states that have followed this path have faced this problem and a problem it has become, with organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and PETA directly seeking or sponsoring their own representatives to fill seats on fish and game commissions. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I support increased funding for all the issues that Dr. Elowe lays out in his article. However, I don’t support them to be part of and funded by MDIFW. For regular readers, you know that I support a move that will put all non game programs into the Department of Conservation. Dr. Elowe says MDIFW doesn’t have enough biologists to cover everything. Fine, DOC, funded by taxpayer dollars, can hire their own wildlife biologists to take care of non game wildlife species. DOC can take care of environmental licensing, conservation education, etc. Law enforcement of snowmobiles and ATVs should be handled by state and local law enforcement as well as search and rescue.

This move would be unprecedented as the tendencies these days are to mash departments together believing money can be saved and programs run more efficiently. History has already shown us that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the bigger the department the further away from the average sportsmen a sense of ownership becomes, resulting in a significant loss of interest. In other words, when sportsmen lose their voice, participation drops. The larger the department the more bureaucratic it becomes swelling the budget, resulting in depletion of programs. In other words, more of the same.

Conservationist or perhaps better labeled, environmentalists, have no business dictating to a fish and game department how to manage game for hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. Funding fish and game with tax dollars will accomplish that with very negative results.

It’s easy for Commissioner Martin or Dr. Elowe to exclaim how their programs contribute $2.4 billion dollars annually to the Maine economy. Think how much bigger that amount would be if the programs were split up so that each one saw the attention it deserves and that would provide better opportunities. With a smaller MDIFW, they could get back to managing just fish and wildlife for the purpose of providing opportunities for hunters, trappers and fishermen, then I believe these resources could improve with the end result a better revenue stream for MDIFW.

With a better funded and more targeted Department of Conservation, similar results could be seen and achieving the wishes shared by Dr. Elowe. This can be done and the results impressive, in my opinion. Who has the chutzpah to try it?

The groups involved in examining how MDIFW should be funded are supposedly contacting other states that fund their departments with general taxation. I hope these groups understand that just because everybody else does it, doesn’t mean it’s the best. I’m confident that if they look at the issue with open minds, they will realize what I did several years ago.

Let’s properly fund the programs that need to be funded in Maine and not just throw money at it. Two lean, mean departments, each properly structured with sufficient funding could reverse a management trend that is seeing lousy results.

Tom Remington

The second coming of Christ may happen before the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will post up on their website the 2009 whitetail deer harvest broken out by towns. However, being the sly and resourceful person that I am (spelled out to mean I know people who know people), I was able to get my hands on a map showing the breakout.

Being that 2005 was a pretty decent year for deer harvest in Maine, I decided to do some comparisons. First, I took a print out of the Maine map showing towns and drew a big black line that would divide the state into two parts. The map to the left shows a shaded area that depicts most of Northern and Eastern Maine and also separated into 7 zones for ease of counting and making comparisons. I compared 2005′s count with 2009′s.

To do this wasn’t easy as all I had to work with were two maps and very tiny print. I will not vouch that the numbers I have are 100% accurate but I will attest that they are in the ballpark enough to realize Maine has a very serious problem. Essentially, I broke the entire area I wanted to count into 7 zones and counted each zone.

Within the entire shaded area that encompasses Northern and Eastern Maine, the 2009 deer harvest was 1,499 deer – that’s pretty pathetic. This compares with 2005 that was 5,067. My calculations put that at right around a 70% reduction in deer harvest.

Let’s look at this closer, by using my zones.

Zone 1 – 2009 = 117 deer harvested. 2005 = 634
Zone 2 – 2009 = 322 deer harvested. 2005 = 1,273
Zone 3 – 2009 = 205 deer harvested. 2005 = 352
Zone 4 – 2009 = 257 deer harvested. 2005 = 825
Zone 5 – 2009 = 173 deer harvested. 2005 = 521
Zone 6 – 2009 = 199 deer harvested. 2005 = 451
Zone 7 – 2009 = 226 deer harvested. 2005 = 1,011

There’s one thing about the present situation. Next year the harvest shouldn’t be such a drastic drop. After all, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Other things outdoor sportsmen should be aware of. The deer herd is virtually gone. This means there will be a lot of hungry coyotes and black bears roaming about. Expect to find both of these predators infiltrating your backyard and possibly posing a risk to you, your children, pets and livestock. The coyotes will also consume all the snowshoe hare, the prime diet of the Canada lynx, and the lynx will begin vacating the state. Generally speaking, some lynx will hang around and starve to death, some will resort to cannibalism but the majority will just make there way back north or wherever they can find food and habitat suitable for survival. This is a natural phenomenon but I’m sure trappers will be blamed for the disappearance of the lynx.

When bears come out of hibernation, they are hungry. It isn’t long thereafter that bears will target the new fawns. Judging that there will be no real fawns added to the deer herd in Northern and Eastern Maine, will result in hungry bears. Be prepared for that. Take down your bird feeders but I suggest you take more precautions than that. If you live in bear country, keep an eye on livestock and your children.

I’m also wondering if those at MDIFW see this as a real problem? I assume not in that no real action has been taken that would indicate any kind of emergency situation. Being that an “emergency” ruling opened the open water fishing season early (not sure the emergency) taking more fish must be more important than saving a deer herd. The trapping season should have been extended and snaring allowed at least in areas not designated as protected habitat for the lynx. None of this was done.

The bear season needs to be adjusted to reduce the number of bears that will result in fewer fawns taken in the spring. That doesn’t look like it will happen out of fear that the animal rights groups will sue. As we can see now, that fear has driven a deer herd to extinction and will chase lynx out of Maine, to name some of what has happened.

It amazes me that the fish and game department thinks nothing of completely destroying a predator that is bugging some fish in a pond but does virtually nothing to save a deer herd except hope Al Gore is right and tell everyone to stop complaining because they have an open season on coyotes.

Oh, and I almost forget! MDIFW doesn’t have any money to do anything with. Too bad they spend all our license money on things that have no benefit to fish and game.

Some things simply don’t make any sense.

Tom Remington

*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