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

When I wrote my article the other day, “Maine Should Bring Back Snaring”, I stated in that article that Maine had banned snaring due to action by the Maine Legislature. I was somewhat called out on that and I would like to clarify this and offer a bit of commentary also, if I may. In the previous article, I said:

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

Due to the timing and dates on this bill, it appears as though the bill was approved after Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Roland Martin put a stop to coyote snaring. The original bill was titled, “An Act To Prohibit Coyote Snaring and Eliminate the Coyote Snaring Program” and read as follows:

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA ?7035, sub-?3, ?B, as amended by PL 1999, c. 636, ?1,
is repealed.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA ?7504, sub-?4, as enacted by PL 1979, c. 420, ?1, is
amended to read:

4. Coyotes. The commissioner may cause department personnel
to take coyotes at any time and in any manner that he may
prescribe, except that coyotes may not be taken by snaring.

Sec. 3. Appropriations and allocations. The following appropriations and
allocations are made.

INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,

DEPARTMENT OF Resource Management Services -

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Initiative: Deappropriates funding used to pay agents for
the snaring of coyotes.

General Fund 2003-04 2004-05

All Other ($15,700) ($15,700)

SUMMARY

This bill repeals the statutory authorization for the coyote
snaring program and deappropriates funding associated with the
direct costs of the program. Under the bill, hunting coyotes
with firearms and dogs or trapping them without the use of
snare traps will still be authorized.

It was subsequently amended and the title changed as well to, “An Act To Improve the Coyote Control Program”. That amended bill was enacted on April 25, 2003 and reads as follows:

CHAPTER 73

H.P. 192 – L.D. 237

An Act To Improve the Coyote Control Program

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA ?7035, sub-?3, ?B, as amended by PL 1999, c. 636, ?1,
is repealed.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA ?7035, sub-?3, ?B-1 is enacted to read:

B-1.__An agent may use snares to control coyotes during
winter months under the following conditions.

(1)__Agents may use snares only for animal damage
control purposes to help meet management goals
established by the commissioner for deer, threatened or
endangered species or other wildlife species or to
benefit agricultural interests as described in
paragraph C.

(2)__Agents must be trained and certified by the
department in the use of snares.

(3)__Agents must be deployed by a department wildlife
biologist before setting snares.

So I was half correct when I said that coyote snaring was banned by the Legislature. I was half correct when I said the Legislature needed to overturn the ban. I still say they need to overturn the ban but I wasn’t aware at the time of writing my previous article that the amendment to the snare banning bill still gave the MDIFW Commissioner the authority and discretion to employ the use of snares and agents to control coyotes to protect deer. Obviously this was never done and in my opinion reeks heavily of deer management neglect and may even border on criminal.

Under the conditions that exist and knowing full well that even beginning as late as 2008 at the conclusion of the first severe winter, the Commissioner had the authority to begin a program that certainly would have helped to protect deer and did nothing is inexcusable.

According to what V. Paul Reynolds wrote in his Northwoods Sporting Journal, comments and questions I am receiving make more sense.

Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Danny Martin suspended the [snaring] program over concerns that an anti-snare organization would bring a civil action against the state. At the time of his decision we were assured that the coyote control program would be restored in about a year when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) granted Maine an Incidental Take Permit.

Discussion has centered around whether coyote snaring could be reinstated once Maine received an “Incidental Take Permit” from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It now seems obvious that Maine didn’t even need an ITP and trappers were led to believe snaring would return with an ITP. At a minimum MDIFW could have used agents and a snare program to limit damage.

With a Legislative action that limits use of the snare for predator control, to implement a state wide snaring program again, appears to require Legislation action to repeal LD237.

While all this nonsense continues, the Maine deer herd continues to suffer. Makes little sense to me at all.

Tom Remington

*Editor’s Note* I contacted Albert Ladd and asked him if he would be willing to write up some information as he sees it as it pertains to trapping and snaring, mostly dealing with coyote and predator control.

Predator or coyote control for reducing the population has a number of tools or methods that can be utilized – Traps, snares, hounds, shooting over bait, denning and “poison”.

Poison we know would never be allowed, but coyotes are such a problem in Saskatchewan that a bounty has been applied and with the use of trained officials poison will be used.

Denning is where you set up with a gun in a known coyote birthing area and give a pup-in-distress call. The adults come running to protect the pups. Works great in Wyoming where there are no trees, but not worth much in Maine.

Here in Maine, we can trap the early coyote season from the middle of October through the general trapping season that runs from November 1st to December 31. After that the only tools left are hounds, and shooting.

The shooting takes a lot of time and dedication. The ones having the most luck are the ones who set up in deer yards. Obviously the coyotes congregate here for the fresh supply of warm fresh meals – the ones (deer) that are too weak to make it through the deep snow and cold of winter.

Hounds do best in deep snow where they often take the coyote before the hunter even catches up to his hounds. Or, with the use of tracking collars, the hunters on snow sleds will intercept the hounds and set fresh ones on the coyote’s trail. Conditions have to be right. A crusty snow chews up the dogs feet real quickly. Plus, the more hunters the better. Often the coyote gets away because the hunt had too few participants.

Snares are cheap, easy to make, and real effective with all the modern methods tried and used thanks to their legal use in the western states and Canada. Even since the end of Maine’s snaring program 5/6 years ago there have been additions to the snare that claim to make them kill even quicker and more humane.

Snares are at work 24/7. Very little effects them unless it’s a deep snow with freezing rain. Traps need to be checked every 24 hours. Snares can be left unchecked for days because the coyote will be dispatched in quick order.

It takes experience to set a snare right. Entanglement with small trees is relative to cable length or position for a quick dispatch. Size and height of the loop matters as well. Snare should be 10-12 inches from the bottom of the loop to the bottom of where the coyotes paw will be. Half that distance and he can get his leg or legs through and you have a flank-caught coyote.

One coyote taken and a new well placed snare fills the opening. Albert Ladd Photo

Biologist claim you have to eliminate 60-70% of the coyote population annually before the population will decrease. Deer and bobcat I believe are in the 30% range. I think the estimated population of coyote in Maine is 14,000. So, that’s close to 10 thousand you’d have to take out each and every year.

Around 2,000 coyotes are reported trapped during the trapping season. Coyotes are of little value at present with the poor economy and many people are just trapping to help out the deer. Many trapped and shot are going un-reported. One local trapper here has caught 19 this year and none will be documented. One group of coyote hunters have taken 12 from bait this winter AND I DOUBT ANY WILL BE RECORDED.

In the West they’ve found that taking coyotes where they are doing the most damage is the best form of control. If we control them in the winter deer yards, then we’re doing like what’s done out there – controlling where they are doing the killing.

During one fall and winter another trapper, Bill, and I took a total of 120 coyote using traps and snares. The majority were snared in and around deer yards. It was the first year in the Rapid River area. Coyotes moved there like it was a magnet. The next year Bill, snaring with a fellow trapper named Greg, took 18 coyote from a 1/4 mile stretch of woods next to Pond In The River. The following year, after houndsmen complained of the snares, biologist who hated the snaring program, sided with the hound hunters and blocked us from this yard and every other deer yard but one from Newry to Stratton. Bill quit the program and I was left with just one small yard in Roxbury. The program was soon ended after a threat of a lawsuit.

The snare is made of aircraft cable. Has a lock that won’t release once tightened on the neck, a 50-lb choke spring to keep and add pressure on the neck for a quicker kill, and a 110-lb release or “break-away” that’s designed to release neck caught deer. Albert Ladd Photos

Albert Ladd Photo

By Albert Ladd

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

~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Dave Tobey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Tobey
Registered Maine Guide

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

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

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

Notice blood soaked water and hair – David Tobey Photo

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

Photo from fOTOGLIF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Certainly one with any knowledge of what goes on in Maine and any hint of the facts of coyote and wolf biological science would automatically assume that a recent letter to the editor in the Bangor Daily News is a joke. Unfortunately it’s not.

Aside from the fact that just about everything in that letter is not factual, claims made by the writer cannot be scientifically substantiated. Most claims are merely perpetuated myths that have existed for decades or longer.

The writer speaks of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s coyote policy. What policy is he referring to? One that he made up in his own mind? The only policy MDIFW has toward coyotes is that they have a liberal hunting season on them. Aside from that, even a mandate from the Maine Legislature to come up with a bona fide predator management plan has gone by with little action.

I chuckled though at this writer’s comments about a nationwide conspiracy to kill all coyotes.

Despite a nationwide attempt to annihilate an important predator, there are more coyotes in North America than there were in the 19th century.

The writer also claims that no matter how many coyotes get killed they will automatically do a numbers count and make a few adjustments to their reproductive system and birth more pups than got killed the previous year. Before anyone should go spewing this poor information in a public forum, they should at least have the common decency to provide uninformed readers where they can verify the claims.

Unfortunately, for those readers who really don’t know what’s going on and should read this misinformation, it actually can do more harm for all wildlife should they decide to accept this as fact. Making claims that all hunters, trappers and those at the MDIFW want to do is destroy every coyote in the state is laughable. The writer is a ball of contradiction, first saying that no matter what anyone has ever done through history to eradicate us from coyotes, nothing has worked. As a matter of fact, the writer claims there are more coyotes in North America now than ever before. How can we attempt to kill all the coyotes and now have more than ever before coming out of one corner of his mouth while out of the other corner we hear fear mongering that MDIFW’s policy, along with hunters and trappers are going to wipe out the coyote population.

And lastly, the writer alludes to the fact that we should let things become “natural”.

If we just left them alone they naturally would self-regulate.

We hear this garbage incessantly. One of the major problems with this Disneyesque philosophy is that how they intend to make it work is to get rid of man, like somehow man is not a natural species in the larger scheme of things.

The writer not only suggests we should just simply let the coyote “self-regulate” but that we should “allow” the gray wolf to repopulate the state. Is there somebody not allowing this to happen? Surely the writer wouldn’t be suggesting that we import some wolves? My, that wouldn’t at all be “natural” now would it?

There is no way that the MDIFW is going to create a policy that is geared toward the eradication of coyotes. And even if they and all the hunters and trappers statewide wanted to do that, as the writer suggests, it’s for all intent and purposes impossible to do. What knowledgeable and concerned outdoor sportsmen are hoping to accomplish as part of an overall plan to restore severely diminished white tail deer populations, is go to areas hardest hit by severe winters and reduced habit and reduce predator populations before we end up with non sustainable deer herds.

It would be just as irresponsible and a “wrong Maine coyote policy” to allow for the destruction of one species while “allowing” another to self-regulate as it would be to promote for the eradication of coyotes from the Maine woods.

Tom Remington

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

~~~~~~~~~

2008 Deer Harvest Brought Down by Winter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

Sure sounds like a threat to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

The Canada lynx has made a remarkable comeback in Maine, mostly due to natural causes coupled with the results of timber harvesting and much in spite of what some egotists think implementing the Endangered Species Act has done. That doesn’t however mean the animal shouldn’t be reasonably protected.

The lynx in Maine lives on the outer fringes of its natural range. History has shown that the lynx follows the comings and goings of the snowshoe hare, its favorite food. When the hare is abundant in Maine, the lynx begins showing up partaking of the readily available food supply. The subsequent growth after timber harvesting provides great habitat for the snowshoe hare.

What’s unfortunate is that if and when the snowshoe hare population shrinks, as it will sooner or later, so too will the Canada lynx and once again man will be blamed for the act, much the same way that natural climate change affects wildlife and man gets blamed.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute, who seem to be trying to make a living off suing the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, sued in court in order to force the early closure of the Maine trapping season in order to protect the lynx. During this trapping season, two lynx were reported killed through trapping and both cases were the result of not following the laws regulating trapping procedures. The trapping season ends at the end of this month.

Judge John Woodcock, who has heard more than one case involving the Canada lynx, ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that Canada lynx were being harmed through lawful trapping measures.

From the Bangor News:

“Here, the plaintiffs have demonstrated that if a trapper violates Maine law and regulation, it may and likely will result in the illegal taking of a lynx,” Woodcock wrote. “However, plaintiffs have produced no new evidence of harm to lynx caused by trappers acting in compliance with existing state law.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs have not shown that the state’s licensure scheme as recently modified violates the [Endangered Species Act],”

In the comments section of the article, one reader likened the action to banning all driving because one person chose to drive drunk and kill someone. There are other interesting comments as well. This reader clearly doesn’t understand, or then maybe he does, what the Endangered Species Act is intended to do.

It’s nice to see the “trapping community” say it’s okay to kill a federally listed endangered species.

The only good lynx is a dead lynx, apparently.

Typical blather from someone attempting to paint trappers as only interested in killing lynx. At the same time another reader dumps on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

When IF&W starts to represent real science and the majority of Maine then WAM [Wildlife Alliance of Maine] will not be necessary.

Isn’t this typical of the environmentalists, anti-trapping/hunting and animal rights groups? Because fish and game science does align with their own ideology, they claim that science is not being used in the decision making of wildlife management – they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

All of this is very much a waste of money and resources.

Tom Remington

AUGUSTA – The Advisory Council of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife today adopted an emergency rule regarding the placement of conibear traps in a positive effort to protect the Canada Lynx, a federally threatened species.

The rule goes into effect immediately. The Department is sending a letter to all licensed trappers about the immediate rule change. The general trapping season ends December 31.

Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin urged all trappers who still are actively trapping to make sure that their sets conform to this new regulation.

“I sincerely commend all trappers for working cooperatively with the Department to make sure that trapping can continue and the impact on lynx can be minimized,” said Commissioner Martin.

The emergency rule was adopted in response to a mid-November death of a Canada Lynx in a conibear trap in Wildlife Management District 2. There were two factors that may have increased the likelihood of the lynx being caught: the angle of the tree in which the trap was placed and its proximity to another larger tree may have provided the lynx access to the trap.

On Nov. 26, a U.S. District Court Judge in Bangor ruled that the Department must act immediately to further prevent Canada Lynx from accessing conibear traps.

Today, the Advisory Council amended Chapter 4.01K of the Regulations of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife regarding “The Location and Preparation of Traps.” The language that states all conibear or killer-type traps in Wildlife Management Districts 1-11 that rely on the current rule requiring such traps be set at least 4 feet above the ground or snow level includes these provisions (additions are marked as new):

· The trap must be at least four feet away from any bank (new);

· The trap must be affixed to a pole or tree that is no greater than 4 inches in diameter at 4 feet above the ground or snow level;

· If a pole is used, the pole must be a natural selection of tree, with or without bark, the sides of which have not been sawed, planed or otherwise altered to create a flat surface (new);

· The pole or tree to which the trap is affixed must be at an angle of 45-degrees or greater to the ground (old) the entire distance from the ground to the trap (new);

· The area within 4 feet of the trap in all directions must be free of trees, poles or other objects greater than 4 inches in diameter and must be free of all trees or poles that are slanted at an angle of less than 45 degrees to the ground at any point between the ground and the height of the trap (new);

Also newly added to the rule is a statement of its purpose, namely that conibear or killer-type traps are not to be placed in the vicinity of objects that make it easier for lynx to access the trap.

Posted by Tom Remington