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

~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Dave Tobey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Tobey
Registered Maine Guide

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

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

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

Notice blood soaked water and hair – David Tobey Photo

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

Photo from fOTOGLIF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declaration for an Independent and Democratic Wildlife Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in order to obtain around 100,000 email addresses of those who bought hunting and fishing licenses online. As a result, it has set off a firestorm across certain channels of the hunting and fishing outdoor world in Maine. At issue is privacy and unwanted SPAM from SAM as well as the ability of any other individual or group to obtain the same list. Potentially, this could open a can of worms.

According to WMTW-TV website, SAM obtained the emails to send out information about coyotes. SAM has become very active of late in working to get all hunters involved in doing what they can to stop the further decline of the whitetail deer herd in Maine, which is suffering greatly due to many factors; poor management, severe winters, loss of habitat, overblown populations of predators, among other things. One aspect is to encourage and promote the hunting of coyotes.

One would have to recognize and appreciate SAM being all agog to fire up the licensed hunters and get them involved but I have to seriously question the decision to mount an email campaign using emails obtained, 1). through FOIA request, and; 2). using emails from fellow hunters without their approval. These are the guys you want help from. It’s an odd way to go about it.

We all hate SPAM and some are obsessed with it. It think it safe to say that most hunters are not very thrilled with the prospects of what can come from this move by SAM. First, it immediately creates bad public relations. Second, it forms distrust. Many hunters are asking whether SAM will resell the list to other agencies. This all comes at a time when hunters need to unite in an effort. I think SAM is attempting to do this but they failed to grasp what would happen. Third, if SAM, which had to go through the Maine Attorney Generals Office, can obtain this list, anyone else can. That fact in and of itself, has angered a lot of people.

In my opinion, here is what SAM needs to do. Immediately issue a public apology. Promise the list will not be used and that they will work with the Attorney General and MDIFW in order to get the law changed to protect those emails. I don’t believe this was the intent of FOIA. This only makes sense. MDIFW has promoted their MOSES online license purchasing program for quite some time. It is time and money saving for MDIFW. If perspective license buyers can’t be confident their email information and perhaps other personal information, cannot be safeguarded, it will seriously detract from the program. This has to be done immediately.

Once SAM has done what it can to minimize the damage they have caused, then they can choose other routes to get their message out. SAM has a website that needs updating to become more user friendly and interactive. They can wage an opt in/opt out email campaign for sending out newsletters, etc. and seeking new members. They can provide needed updates on their website along with providing RSS feeds so other websites, including blogs and forums, can post SAM’s feed so their readers have easy access.

Press releases can also be generated from the website and sent to all media outlets across the state. If SAM is wondering how well this might work, then just take a lot at how quickly and widespread the news traveled about them confiscating emails. I rest my case.

We live in an electronic age. With the rapid growth of the Internet, lack of knowledge can set businesses and organizations back in their progress as was the case for SAM. On the same token, knowledge can advance their cause. They now need to mend some fences and get with the times. The days of “stealing” email addresses to send unsolicited information is not only outdated but is extremely bad business. SAM needs to become cutting edge in this regard.

Tom Remington

Many of us who were opposed to the Baxter Land swap of nearly 3 years ago, knew it was a bad deal for the people of Maine. There were several reasons for coming to such conclusions but for me, I didn’t think a breech of contract, resulting in the deliberate destruction of one of Maine’s largest deer wintering yards, would be one of them.

My blood is actually boiling at the moment. I can feel it, as my ears crackle and pop. I’m trying to control my breathing but I find it difficult. Why? I just finished reading George Smith’s article, “Maine’s Deer Wintering Areas”, published in Down East Magazine.

As the article began, I got irritated because Smith said he was going to go after the Gardner Logging Company for cutting down deer wintering habitat. As most of you probably know, I am a very strong advocate for property rights. As a matter of fact I have been yelled at and accused from several directions of selling out hunting and fishing in favor of land owners. I thought this was one of those landowner attacks by another outdoor sporting group.

But as I read on is when my blood boiled. To refresh readers’ memories for a minute, the Baxter Land Swap involved the State of Maine obtaining ownership of the Katahdin Lake parcel adjacent to Baxter State Park. To get that land, of which was mostly owned by the Gardners, it involved a series of land swaps that left the Gardners holding many hundreds of acres more of prime land than Maine was getting in return. In short, the deal was inequitable.

According to Smith, on at least one of those large parcels of land, sits 350 acres in T2R4 that is home to a very large deer wintering yard. As a part of the stipulations of the land swap, Gardner was supposed to protect that yard.

The lands, which were going to the Gardner family’s logging company (the owner of the Katahdin Lake parcel), were encumbered with several key provisions.

Section Two, Part 6, of the legislative Resolve requires the Gardners to enter into “an agreement with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to continue management of winter habitat for white-tailed deer on those lots that is consistent with the management agreement between DIF&W and the Department of Conservation in effect on March 30, 2006 and that the agreement will remain in effect as long as the grantee owns the lots.”

It seems an effort by George Smith and Senator David Trahan has revealed a violation of that agreement.

An investigation by Senator Trahan and myself proved, to us, that this has not been done. In fact, according to DOC’s very credible long-time wildlife biologist, Joe Wiley, the deer wintering habitat that was to be protected has instead been harvested and no longer provides winter shelter for deer.

This is not a case of a landowner being strong-armed by government to tie up its lands. The Gardners signed an agreement or did they. If such an agreement was signed, they knew full well that when they made the land swap deal with the state and all other participants, it required the protection of this deer wintering area. If there was an agreement, they willfully violated that trust and should be prosecuted for that behavior.

But there’s still a ton of unanswered questions. Smith and Trahan dug up past emails that showed that Wiley and other biologists at the Department of Conservation(DOC) and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) told their superiors, Pat McGowan and Danny Martin respectively, the yarding area was being cut. Nothing was done. Smith points out also that Karen Tilberg, who at the time of the Baxter Land Swap was working for DOC and very much involved in the swap, was notified by email of the Gardner’s cutting. Tilberg is one of Gov. Baldacci’s top aides now and was working in that capacity at the time of the notification. Did she notify the Governor?

But it seems the disregard for what the Gardners were doing is even more blatant if you can believe it.

The harvesting in the deeryards on those lots – which began only days after the Gardners obtained ownership – was not an accident. The Gardners even notified DIF&W, in writing, that they were going to cut the deeryards.

Heads need to roll! I’m sorry but this reeks of total corruption as did the entire Baxter Land Swap. In instances where it may not be corrupt, then it is a simple matter of not doing one’s job. Dots need to be connected. Was there ever an agreement made between Gardner and MDIFW concerning the deer yards? If not, why? When did Gardner notify MDIFW that they were going to cut the deer yards? When did the employees notify their superiors that the yards were being cut? Why didn’t Pat McGowan and Danny Martin do something about this or how much did they do to try to stop it? Was the Governor ever notified and if so why not?

The Gardners violated a legal contract from what I can see and the DOC and MDIFW, as well as one of Baldacci’s top aides, fell down on the job. Just how much of this goes back to the original Baxter Land Swap? Is this all part of a behind the scenes deal making that DOC, MDIFW and Baldacci would turn a blind eye to the Gardners cutting of the deer yards if they would finalize the deal? Perhaps Gardner was enticed into signing the deal if he was told they wouldn’t seek a binding agreement about the deer yards. Looking back on everything and seeing what has transpired, I think these are questions that need some serious answers.

Thank you George Smith and Sen. David Trahan for your hard work on this.

Tom Remington

The Maine Warden Service this week arrested or summonsed seven adults and a juvenile from Aroostook County on hunting, fishing or drug charges, the result of a six-month special investigation into illegal fishing and hunting activity that was initiated from a tip to a district game warden.

On Tuesday evening, January 12, 2010, game wardens and supervisors of the Maine Warden Service served four search warrants and an arrest warrant in Aroostook County with the assistance of the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency. Two individuals were arrested and six received summonses.

The Maine Warden Service is working with the Aroostook County District Attorney’s Office on this case.

In June 2009, the Maine Warden Service received information that alleged that Stephen Rediker, 30, of Mapleton was committing fish and wildlife law violations. During an investigation, the Maine Warden Service documented more than 90 violations by Mr. Rediker, including the illegal killing of deer and moose. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Rediker had several associates who were participating in the illegal possession of fish and wildlife, resulting in additional search warrants and suspect interviews.

The total number of violations detected by this group exceeded 125, according to Maine Warden Service Captain Daniel Scott.

“This special investigation was a priority for the Maine Warden Service, especially given the struggling deer herd in northern Maine,” said Major Gregory Sanborn. “After much-spirited and emotional debate last summer, policy makers decided that our junior hunters would be prohibited from taking antlerless deer during the special youth hunt day last fall in northern and eastern Maine, and yet this small group appears to have had no such reservations or concerns on the lasting impact as a result of their actions.”

On Tuesday, Jan. 12, Mr. Redicker was arrested for night hunting, exceeding the bag limit on deer, and killing a moose in closed season – all Maine Title 12 Class D violations – and criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon (Class C, Title 17A), and trafficking prescription drugs (Class B, Title 17A). He was taken to Aroostook County Jail in Houlton. Class D violations carry mandatory minimum fines, jail terms and mandatory license suspensions, if convicted.

As the investigation continues, more charges are likely against Mr. Rediker, according to Captain Scott.

During the execution of the search warrants, Game Wardens seized firearms, deer meat, fishing equipment, illegal drugs and other evidence.

Julie R. Faria, 37, Mapleton, was arrested for furnishing prescription drugs and possession of marijuana. She was taken to the Presque Isle Police Department, where she posted bail and was released.

The following individuals were summonsed for their involvement:

· Robin D. Cobb, 37, Woodland, possessing antlerless deer, possessing unregistered deer, cultivation of marijuana;

· Timothy N. Rediker Jr., 55, Presque Isle, illuminating wildlife, night hunting;

· Joseph H. Little, 69, Presque Isle, possessing deer killed at night, possessing deer killed in closed season, possessing antlerless deer;

· Roy D. Little, 20, Mapleton, possessing deer killed at night, possessing deer killed in closed season, possessing antlerless deer;

· Adam S. Murphy, 18, Mapleton, hunting fox in closed season.

“These individuals are intentional violators who had a significant negative impact on our fish and wildlife resources,” according to Captain Scott. “They demonstrated complete disregard for Maine’s fish and wildlife laws and the safety of the public.”

The Maine Warden Service urges anyone with information regarding the abuse of our fish and wildlife resources to call Operation Game Thief at 1-800-ALERT-US.

Hunters pay their share in fees and take to the woods. For most, their aim is to bag a deer (pun intended). Whether a hunter is searching for that “trophy” (it’s often all in one’s perspective) or simply “meat hunting”, all are seeking an “opportunity”. There are some species of game we hunt where opportunity is limited. In other words, game officials determine to what extent a certain species can yield in a harvest and still fall within the guidelines and goals of each species’ management plans. This limitation is most often seen in lottery type permits issuance. Maine as an example, has the moose hunt. Only a specified number of permits are issued and to have a chance at receiving a permit, a hunter must enter a lottery.

It is not often that we see this kind of restricted opportunity with deer hunting. In Maine’s case we are now seeing reductions in opportunity as the deer herd has pretty much disappeared in portions of the state. In Northern Maine, the shooting of female deer is now forbidden and there is talk of shortening the hunting season in those areas or perhaps even a complete closure. This of course means lost opportunities for hunters. When those opportunities are gone, so is revenue to the fish and game agencies that depend on that money to operate. This is why fish and game hates to restrict hunter opportunities and they should realize that when there is no game, interest drops as well.

So what is stealing your opportunities?

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. There are many people out there today – environmentalists, animal rights groups and anti hunting organizations (some may be hiding at your local fish and game department) – that could care less about your hunting opportunities. Under the guise of “protecting” wildlife, their agendas all too often put into peril the very species they claim to be wanting to protect, which of course makes us question their motives.

Most state fish and game departments manage game animals for surplus populations because their mandate is to provide hunting opportunities. Some states aren’t too concerned about providing enough deer to hunt but instead are trying to come up with creative ways to reduce herds down to healthy levels. Maine is not such a state, at least not in Northern, Eastern and the Western Mountain regions.

I have repeated over and over that deer management is a very complicated issue, one that I don’t pretend to be an expert in and one that I wish those who claim to be experts at, would admit they don’t understand or have all the answers.

I would like to make an attempt at explaining my interpretation of hunting opportunities – what creates them and who or what steals them away.

Maine is a unique geographical region in that we often discuss Maine as being two states – the northern two-thirds and the lower one third. This follows the civilian population but also the same can be said about the weather. The Northern two-thirds of the state is much of the area where the deer herd is dwindling away to nothing, leading some biologist to believe it is unfeasible to try to manage a whitetail deer herd there. It is in this northern area that I would like to focus on for this article. I also want to attempt to keep this as simple as possible and yet acknowledge the unknown and complex factors not covered.

If the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is managing whitetail deer populations for surplus to provide hunting opportunities for Maine residents (which I believe they are), this means they have to manage or control as much as they can. In other words, they can’t control the weather but they can control how many and of what sex deer get taken in the annual harvest. When herds are struggling, as is the case in Northern Maine, efforts must increase to protect deer, perhaps in ways they have never had to in the past.

I was rereading and reviewing “White-Tailed Deer Population Management System And Database” by Gerald R. Lavigne. There is a section in there that deals some with deer mortality and how this is effected by severe winters.

We have all heard more than we want to about how it’s been the past couple of winters that has destroyed the deer herd. There’s no argument from me on that. What I will question is whether MDIFW really has a grip on the other factors that cause deer mortality.

Deer mortality is quite simple really. Just imagine all things that cause the death of a deer; natural, legal hunting, poaching, run over by car, becoming prey to such things as bear, coyote, bobcat, etc., disease, etc. etc. MDIFW has a system in place that accurately tracks the number of deer killed and tagged during the hunting season. Everything else is merely an educated guess based on many things of which I won’t try to explain because I don’t understand all of them.

On pages 31 and 34 of “White-Tailed Deer Management…….”, Lavigne provides some interesting pie graphs to help explain what might happen under certain conditions dealing with severe winters. First let me explain some of the terms Lavigne uses.

All-Cause Mortality – I think we have hit on that one pretty good above.
Fawn Recruitment Rate – How many deer born in the spring that survive heading into the fall hunt in November. This doesn’t tell us how many fawns were born only how many survived for that length of time. I believe in Maine this observation is undertaken in August. Fawn recruitment is generally recorded and utilized as a rate. That rate is determined by the number of fawns that survived per 100 adult does. If there are 75 fawns per 100 adult does, then the recruitment rate = 0.75. You may have also heard in your travels someone talking about what the fawn recruitment rate needs to be to sustain a deer herd or some other ungulate game animals, i.e. moose, elk, etc. This rate is highly variable depending on several conditions.
Winter Severity Index- MDIFW has devised a formula from data collected over many years, where they can attach an indexed number to how bad a winter was. They use this index to help determine winter mortality. This is factored into the All-Cause Mortality.

The All-Cause Mortality can and does vary much the same as the fawn recruitment rate depending upon certain conditions. Under perhaps “normal” conditions and depending on whether MDIFW is attempting to grow, reduce or maintain a deer population, an All-Cause Mortality might be 30%. This means that over the course of the year, hunting included, the total mortality of a deer herd can’t exceed 30%. If it does, it may mean the population is beginning to shrink.

If the pre-hunt deer population is 300,000 deer and we use Lavigne’s pie charts, we can make some determinations. If we determine that we can allow a 30% all mortality rate on the deer to sustain a population and we calculate in other factors like winter severity, fawn recruitment and others, then MDIFW can estimate that half of that 30% or 15% of the pre-hunt population can be taken by hunters, i.e. 45,000 deer. – your hunting opportunity. (This is all an estimate but I believe a reasonable one.)

Using the same charts, they tell us that this can be done because it is estimated that the winter will account for a reduction of 7% and 8% is attributed to “other”. More on “other” in a moment. This is all based on what MDIFW believes is a Fawn Recruitment Rate of 0.42 – 42 fawns per 100 adult does.

What happens when we begin to vary those percentages? Let’s say the following year the winter was very harsh and MDFW officials determined that it accounted for 15% of an All-Mortality reduction. If all other factors remain the same, then the deer harvest, your hunting opportunity, will have to be reduced by 8% of the total – an allowable harvest of 24,000 deer. Using this pie chart, etc., it becomes much easier to see how winter severity can cut into your hunting opportunity.

What happens if Fawn Recruitment drops significantly? More hunting opportunity is lost. A lower fawn recruitment means fewer deer replenishing the herd. If you are trying to sustain or grow a herd, a drop in fawn recruitment isn’t good. What effects fawn recruitment? Many things including weather – how late spring arrives, predation, habitat, etc.

Let’s now say that it has been determined that fawn recruitment has been dropping the past few years and is now down somewhere around 0.18, a level some say cannot sustain a population. Combine that with two severe winters, a bloated coyote population, a near record breaking population of black bear and basically what you end up with is no hunting opportunity. You may have opportunity but nothing to hunt, as has been the case in parts of Maine the past few years.

With all of these factors, it must be pointed out that the allowable All-Mortality also comes down. If something doesn’t change, not only is hunting opportunity eliminated, but a continued reduction in the deer population spirals downward until it can virtually disappear.

With that understood, then we hunters and MDIFW shouldn’t be discounting ANY factor that can change the makeup of Lavigne’s pie charts. I have read where Maine’s fawn recruitment is very low. Do we have a handle on why that is so? What can we do, other than change the weather, to improve that? Are biologists aware of the fact that the mere presence of predators can cause deer to abort or not conceive at all? Is there the available habitat for does to fawn in, protect and feed their young? We must look at all contributing factors.

The “All Other” part of that pie chart can make up as much as 8% or 10%, perhaps even more. We just don’t know because we don’t closely track this information. “All Other” comprises poaching. What can all of us do about poaching. I think we know the answer to that. There’s also automobile collisions. Can we take a look at where these occur most and make some changes? Are people feeding deer in their back yards causing the death of a few hundred deer because they get run over while crossing the road to get to the feed? Do we need better signage and education to get drivers to slow down and be aware when in deer crossing zones?

“All Other” includes predation. Why isn’t the MDIFW going to up the black bear kill to cut down on bear predation? The same can be asked of moose? Not from predation but from competition for food.

All of these little things contribute to the reduction of your hunting opportunities and none of them should be taken lightly. We have a situation where we question whether a herd can be rebuilt. Every little factor can help.

However, this is really dependent upon whether Maine hunters, MDIFW and the state as a whole, really think it is worth managing Northern Maine for deer. Some don’t think it is. Some believe to increase bear and moose hunting opportunities is the way to go. It’s your investment and your hunting opportunities. It’s up to you to do something about it.

Tom Remington

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin will conduct a public informational meeting on the northern Maine deer population and other wildlife-related issues on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Fort Kent Town Office.

State Sen. Troy Jackson, who asked Commissioner Martin to set up the public informational hearing, will be attending.

IF&W Regional Wildlife Biologist Richard Hoppe and other staff also will attend.

In Maine’s debate about what to do about predator control, some towns and local sporting clubs have started up coyote hunting contests in hopes of helping to save a deer or two. In places the deer herd is beyond serious trouble, it’s become unsustainable and will be extirpated. The contests have stirred up protests from the usual groups. The Bangor Daily News today in an editorial said, “But a more sophisticated understanding of the role coyotes play in the ecosystem is overdue.”

Just what does that mean? Watch and listen and find out.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

AUGUSTA – Maine 2010 hunting and fishing licenses now are available for purchase just in time for holiday gift giving.

Licenses are available using MOSES, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s online licensing system, at https://www.informe.org/moses/. This system, too, is used at more than 300 licensing agents statewide.

With MOSES, hunters and anglers can purchase licenses at any time of the day or night and print their licenses from their home or office computer in just minutes. It’s also easier to print duplicate licenses, and by clicking on “express user” the system will maintain your information for future license purchases.

Any resident or non-resident sportsperson looking to hunt or fish in Maine can use MOSES. This online service in not available for individuals that need to obtain a complimentary, lifetime or military license, or for those interested individuals from countries other than the United States or Canada.

All hunters and anglers will notice an increase in license fees this year. For resident anglers and hunters, most licenses are increasing by $4. The price increase, approved by the Maine Legislature, helps the Department cover the costs of fish and wildlife resource management. When considering the license fees in other states, Maine’s rates are comparable or are a better bargain for outdoor enthusiasts. Plus, Maine offers wide open spaces and some of the best opportunities in the country! Ask any angler and you’ll hear that this year’s fishing was the best in years!

The best value for residents is a hunt-fish combo license, which increased by $4. If you hunt and fish, buying a combo license instead of each license separately saves $4.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife primarily is funded from the sales of licenses and registrations. This year, the Department will receive little revenue from the state’s general fund.

All proceeds from the sale of licenses and registrations stay within the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. None of the money is used to support other state agencies.

If you believe in the Department’s efforts to manage Maine’s natural resources, but may not be a hunter or angler, consider buying a license to support our programs. Outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, ATV riding, snowmobiling, boating and wildlife watching contribute $2.4 billion to Maine’s annual economy and support 15,790 outdoors-related jobs.

Using MOSES is simple. License buyers will need to have available their personal information, such as first and last name, address, date of birth, and other pertinent information. Also, they’ll need their previous hunting license number or safety course number (if you are purchasing a hunting authority), and a credit card number. Visa, Mastercard and Discover credit and debit cards are accepted.

By purchasing online, buyers are saving the department the direct costs associated with the expense of manual paper licensing. These savings then can be applied to the important management of our fish and wildlife resources.

The second Marsh Island deer depredation hunt, an effort to assist the City of Old Town and the Town of Orono with nuisance deer problems and public safety concerns, took place over a three-week period in October and resulted in the harvest of 46 deer.

The depredation hunt occurred between Oct. 5 and Oct. 24, and utilized the Maine Bowhunters Association (MBA) and the Bowhunters Landowners Information Program (BLIP). This year, 22 BLIP archers harvested 46 deer: 35 in Old Town and 11 in Orono.

Of the 46 harvested, 39 were antlerless, including 28 adult does and 11 fawns, and seven were adult males. An additional four deer were not recovered. Extensive searches were made and included the use of tracking dogs in an attempt to recover these four deer. At least 31 of the 46 deer were donated by BLIP archers to various families and individuals.

As was the case last year, BLIP archers were not reimbursed for their expenses, which in some cases was considerable. Data was collected on all 46 deer using IF&W’s data form and a tooth taken for aging purposes. A review of the BLIP Reporting Card kept by archers indicated that as many as 334 deer were observed by the archers during the three-week hunt. Some of the sightings were certainly the same deer observed on more than one occasion.

This is the second year of this controlled hunt. Last year’s effort occurred during the first two weeks of December and took place on two city-owned parcels – the Airport and Penny roads. A total of 17 BLIP archers took part and harvested eight deer. After reviewing last year’s hunt results, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and MBA agreed to three major changes: moving the effort to October (pre-rut), adding a third week to the hunt, and include private lands with landowners’ permission.

With approval from the Orono Town Council and the Old Town City Council, IF&W proceeded with its rule-making process and the IF&W Advisory Council approved the hunt for 2009 and beyond.

To determine the private lands for this year’s harvest, IF&W and MBA met to review land ownership maps for Marsh Island and identified several parcels of land in hopes of obtaining landowner permission to allow BLIP archers to hunt. Letters were sent to these landowners seeking permission and several responded in support of our request. A total of 1,136 acres from 17 parcels were made available for the deer reduction effort. Of this, BLIP archers utilized nine parcels totaling 1,042 acres. Parcels not used were due to proximity to other residences or for other various reasons.

IF&W and MBA greatly appreciate the support of landowners who made their lands available to BLIP archers for this effort.

Some of the parcels hunted also were areas frequented by the general public for walking, jogging, and biking. BLIP archers were asked to keep track of the number of pedestrians observed while hunting. A total of 134 people were observed by the archers while hunting. Most people observed weren’t aware of the archer’s presence and passed by. There were some encounters on the ground but all were friendly and no issues arose. There were two instances where members of the public were (in the opinion of the archer) clearly looking for tree stands and included shining lights in the trees. There also was a situation were two individuals were apprehended by Game Wardens, Old Town Police, and University of Maine Campus Security while trying to steal a tree stand.

Additionally, during the pre-hunt scouting, an MBA BLIP archer, Game Warden, and Maine State Police K-9 Unit apprehended a poacher on an Orono parcel.

IF&W and the MBA greatly appreciate the assistance given to Game Wardens by University of Maine and Old Town police.

Overall, BLIP archers clearly showed that archers and the public at large can share the woods without incident or concern for safety. IF&W and MBA greatly appreciate the public support and positive feedback they received during the course of the three-week hunt. At this time, IF&W and MBA plan on a BLIP hunt on Marsh Island in 2010.