*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

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

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.

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

Deer Hunting and EEE

The greatest Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) risk facing hunters is exposure to mosquitoes, not handling or consuming healthy deer. Although other mammals and birds have been exposed to the EEE virus for decades, there is no evidence that direct contact with these species can infect humans. While human infection is rare, hunters should take extra precautions against EEE by using insect repellents for personal protection from bites until mosquitoes are no longer active and using protective clothing.

Hunters in interior and coastal York County, coastal Cumberland County, Kennebec, Waldo and Penobscot Counties should:

o Not handle or consume wild animals that appear sick or act abnormally, regardless of the cause. All other deer meat should be cooked thoroughly (170-180 degrees) to kill the EEE virus, should it be present, as well as any other viruses and bacteria.
o Wear heavy rubber or latex gloves when field dressing deer.
o Handle knives carefully to prevent accidental cuts.
o Minimize contact with brain or spinal tissues. Do not cut into the head of any deer that behaved abnormally even to remove the rack. When removing antlers from healthy deer, use a hand saw rather than a power saw, and always wear safety glasses.
o Bone out the carcass, keeping both the head and spine intact.
o Wash hands with soap and water after handling carcasses and before and after handling meat.
o Thoroughly sanitize equipment and work surfaces used during processing with bleach solution (1 tablespoon of bleach to 1 gallon water). Consider keeping a separate set of knives used only for butchering deer.
o Freezing meat will not kill the EEE virus.
o DOGS: While dogs have been reported to have been infected with EEE in a small number of cases, they are not a primary species of concern; transmission of EEE is primarily by mosquito bite. While it would be possible for a dog to contract EEE when retrieving an infected bird, for example, the dog would have to have a cut in its mouth and come into to contact with the bird’s blood.

The appearance of EEE in Maine horses this summer prompted the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Maine Medical Center, and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct a study during the deer hunting season to better understand the distribution of the EEE virus in Maine. Harvested deer will be examined for the presence of EEE by testing their blood for antibodies specific for this virus. Deer are widespread in the state, are susceptible to infection with the EEE virus, and should be a good sentinel of EEE virus activity. Health officials hope to use the survey to map the prevalence of the disease in the state.

Hunters should be aware that the presence of EEE in deer does not affect the meat of the animal and that finding EEE in any of the samples does not indicate an infectious deer, only that there are EEE antibodies present.

Government basically screws up everything it touches its hand to and in addition to that it costs taxpayers bundles more than it ever should have. So what else is new? This is a success story, one that you won’t hear a lot about because it really only happened after the big and powerful government backed off.

It was only last March that I did a review on a brand new DVD production of Carter Davidson’s of Gray Ghost Productions, LLC called East by Northeast.

Davidson, through his generosity, took a section from his movie and made it into a short film, about 8 minutes in length. This film talks of the history of the Androscoggin River in Maine, once one of the 10 most polluted rivers in America. Not a title you really strive for. The films depicts some of what the river has become today.

The video can be viewed below but I thought I would share with readers my own personal knowledge about the river and the effort to clean it up.

In the video below, the narrator mentions the efforts of the federally mandated Clean Water Restoration Act, an act often tagged with the name of Senator Edmund Muskie, a resident of Rumford, Maine, located just a few miles downstream from my hometown of Bethel.

While the CWRA was responsible for cleaning up a lot of rivers and water bodies, it was not the end all solution to dirty water. Strong-arming the companies and municipalities along the river could only go so far. In attempts to keep the effort going to clean up the river, taxing and regulating could only go so far.

Essentially, the stiff arm of government forced paper companies and towns along the river to take care of the majority of their wastes and pollutants they were dumping in the river. That was the easy part. Taking care of the last 5-10% of the waste became very costly. Efforts stalled.

That was only part of the problem. What about all the private landowners and farmers along the river corridor? Was the government going to force them to stop spreading manure and fertilizers? Where they going to make landowners clean up old garbage dump sites, many of which the current landowner never participated in?

The effort to clean up the river seemed to come to a grinding halt. Opposition grew to the tactics being used by government and environmentalists. Let’s face it, you can only push Mainers so far before they balk.

Speaking specifically about the Upper Androscoggin River, the effort wasn’t quite dead yet. The actions taken so far were beginning to return life to the river. Ducks returned to some degree, fish were jumping and a few brave soles were paddling their canoes as well. Ospreys soon were seen overhead and occasionally a bald eagle.

I will give the Maine Environmental Protection Agency credit for one thing. Someone thought it might be worth the effort to try a different approach. Something other than force and bullying. I’ll have to go try to verify my history but if memory serves me, this effort might have been initiated, at least to some degree, by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s director at the time, Bucky Owens. I do know that Bucky loved the Upper Andro and during his tenure at MDIFW he had a vision to turn the Upper Andro into a trophy fishing mecca.

I knock came at my door one day. Someone from the EPA was looking for a location to have a meeting and help getting volunteers to attend a meeting. I had the meeting space and drawing from a few members of the Friends of the Androscoggin, we rounded up a few volunteers.

Our newly formed group thought that if we could convince the locals, that included me, that the river was clean and stayed clean all the time, perhaps we could begin a process of deprogramming these people about the past and get the years and years of dirty, nasty images of the river out of their heads. This was a huge chore.

A friend, Walter Hatch, and I volunteered to do sampling of the water once a week for the summer. We had five sampling stations spread out from New Hampshire to just below the Bethel village and the confluence of the Androscoggin and Sunday Rivers. We were all surprised at how well the water tested and how consistent those tests were.

That was 15 years or so ago and as they say a lot of water under the bridge. What makes this story such a success and one that I wish others would model is that the real long lasting clean up effort never happened until after big government butted out and local residents took ownership.

Industry, along with careless and thoughtless use and abuse of the river snatched it away from the people. Government tried to take it back. Once we could convince the people that there really was something there of value, something they could own and participate in caring for, then we knew the river could be safely returned to the people.

Enjoy the video. In it are many of my friends. I recognize most of the spots that you will see along the river and I can personally attest to how dirty it was and how clean it is now. I also want to take a moment and pay special notice to my good friend Rocky Freda, who appears in this movie. Rocky passed away just this summer and I miss him. His name will be forever etched into the Upper Androscoggin River for his efforts and tireless dedication to keep the effort alive.

Tom Remington

I took this photo from a lobsterman’s dock in Eastport, Maine. Running nearby to the dock I was standing on was the remains of an old pier. As you can see in the photo, vegetation of this variety has little difficulty growing on top of the remains. And of course two likely suspects don’t mind settling down in the growth while keeping a watchful eye on any likely scavenged meal.

Photo by Tom Remington

Tom Remington