Maine Trappers Association

Decision On Lynx Lawsuit Expected Soon

The second lynx related lawsuit in as many years was filed against the Fish and Wildlife Department last August. This one was filed by the Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute. About two months later they filed a motion for a temporary injunction on trapping for the 2008 season. That motion, if granted, would have banned foothold and body-gripping traps at land sets in Wildlife Management Districts 1 through 11 and 18. In late-November, the judge denied most of that motion. He did, however, order the Department to modify their rules because of a lynx that was killed in a conibear earlier in the season. The death of a second lynx in early December brought another motion from the plaintiffs. Their motion for a Temporary Restraining Order asked the court to ban the use of conibear traps for the rest of the 2008 season or, as an alternative, require that conibears be checked daily. A few days later, Judge Woodcock denied that motion, saying that “the plaintiffs have produced no new evidence of harm to lynx caused by trappers acting in compliance with existing state law".

Maine trappers walked away in pretty good shape from the first two skirmishes in this ongoing battle. We received a tremendous amount of help from other interveners in the case - US Sportsmen’s Alliance, Fur Takers of America and National Trappers Association. How we’ll make out in the final episode remains to be seen. The lawsuit will be decided, one way or the other, when the case finally goes to trial in mid-April. The trial is scheduled to begin at 8 AM on Monday, April 13th, and last for up to four days. Judge Woodcock will decide if the Fish and Wildlife Department is liable (at fault) when lynx are taken accidentally by licensed trappers in traps set legally for other species. If the judge finds that the State is not liable, that’s the end of it. If it is determined that the State is at fault, the judge will then decide what, if any, further trapping restrictions are needed.

Portland Lawmaker Rejects Term “Non-consumptive User”

Representative Jane Eberle lives in South Portland. This is her second term on the Legislative Fish and Wildlife Committee. She doesn’t hold a hunting, fishing or trapping license, but she obviously has a deep appreciation for Maine wildlife. In my opinion, Representative Eberle is an excellent committee member. I have to admit that when she was first assigned to the F&W Committee in 2007, I was a bit skeptical. Not any more! While she might not agree with us on some issues, I have found her to be fair, open minded and always willing to listen. I’m glad she’s there.

Representative Eberle spends a lot of time at the family cottage in the Belgrade area and enjoys being on the water in a canoe or kayak, watching the loons, ospreys and other wildlife. While some might consider her a typical “non-consumptive” user of our wildlife resources, she doesn’t see things that way. That’s why she sponsored LD # 626, An Act To Increase Participation in Funding the Activities of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The bill would require a $19 license to operate an un-motorized watercraft on inland waters for anybody who doesn’t already have a hunting, fishing or trapping license. Representative Eberle believes that she, and others like her, should be paying their share to manage and protect Maine’s wildlife resources. She feels strongly that “non-consumptive” users are not non-consumptive. Even though people may not hunt, fish or trap, they still have an impact on the environment whenever they paddle our rivers, hike our backcountry or photograph our wildlife.

LD # 626 doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. Lots of people are opposed to paying for something that’s always been free, something they’ve always taken for granted. Eventually they’ll wind up paying, one way or another, but probably not this year. In the meantime, partly because of the efforts of Representative Eberle, the term “non-consumptive user” may soon become a thing of the past. The term has become little more than an excuse for those unwilling to pay their fair share. These people use and enjoy our wildlife resources just as much as those of us who hunt, fish and trap, but they have never been willing to pay for it. In the future, thanks to Representative Eberle, I’ll be referring to these folks as “non-contributing users”!

Non-Contributing Users Ask Feds To Protect Coyotes!

At a recent public hearing on a bill being considered by the Fish and Wildlife Committee, I listened as a non-contributing user of Maine’s wildlife gave his testimony. He started off by saying that he was proud to be a non-hunter. Frankly, none of us give a “rip” whether this guys hunts or not. That’s his choice, and it would never enter our minds to try to convince him otherwise. This individual, however, does care about what we do. He is doing his best to force us to give up hunting and trapping. He doesn’t approve of those activities, so he doesn’t believe anybody should be able to do them.

His most recent attempt to put us out of business really “takes the cake”! He has asked the federal government to protect coyotes in the Northeast to make sure that coyote hunters and trappers do not take wolves accidentally. No, I’m not joking. I’m not sure if his petition has the support of the Wildlife Alliance of Maine (WAM) or the Maine Wolf Coalition (he’s active in both), of if this was something he and a few of his friends dreamed up on their own. Whichever the case, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will now be forced to waste valuable time and public resources to provide an official response to this absurdity.

An email message dated March 10th from a wildlife biologist employed by the USFWS says this: “I learned this morning the John Glowa and others recently submitted a formal petition to the USFWS to protect coyotes throughout the Northeast via the "similarity of appearance" policy of the USFWS to protect any wolves that may be dispersing into the US. In some instances the Service protects non-protected species as a measure to help recovery of federally threatened and endangered species. (For example, all cougars, pumas and panthers in Florida are protected - even released pets - to protect the endangered Florida panther.) The Service is beginning to process this petition and usually provides an initial response on the merits of the petitions within 90 days of submission.” Note: You can view the entire 7-page petition submitted by Mr. Glowa by going to the following website: http://easterncoyoteresearch.com/downloads/ESApetition2009final.pdf

Baiting Bill Would Have Been Disastrous For Trappers

Many of our members have been hearing “bits and pieces” about a bill dealing with the baiting of wild animals. Although it was never intended, the bill was written in such a way that trapping would have definitely been affected. LD # 138, An Act Regarding the Placement of Bait To Attract Wild Animals or Birds for Hunting, started right off with the following definition of “bait”: “Bait means any animal or plant or derivative of any animal or plant used to attract or hunt wild animals or wild birds.” (Most lures used by trappers would fall within this definition.) The bill went on to require landowner permission, on a statewide basis, before anyone could place bait (or lure). It also required that any area where bait was placed be “plainly labeled with a 2-inch-by-4-inch tag with the name and address of the person placing the bait and the name of the landowner”.

When I first saw this bill, I couldn’t believe it. It was the closest thing to “reverse posting” that I’d seen in a long time. As written, here are several of the most obvious things the bill would have done:

Placed restrictions on baiting all wild animals for the first time ever.

Defined bait in a way that includes lure as well as food items.

Made it unlawful to hunt deer with the use of lure.

Failed to differentiate between placed and naturally occurring “bait”.

Required landowner permission before placing, or hunting over, bait or lure.

Required landowner permission before hunting over naturally occurring food.

Required the name and address of the hunter at every baited location.

Required the name of the landowner at every baited location.

Applied all these restrictions to trapping as well as to hunting.

After reading the bill, I contacted the sponsor and then spent a ton of time over a three-week period working with the sponsor and the Department to get things straightened out.

In the end, we changed the new definition of bait to make it clear that it only applies when hunting (not trapping) and that bait does not include “a derivative of an animal or a plant in a liquid or paste form”. We also removed the landowner permission requirement. What remains of the bill, and will likely be enacted, is that bait sites will have to be labeled with the name and address of the baiter, a person will need permission from the baiter to hunt at that bait site and the site will have to be cleaned up within 20 days after the baiter stops hunting there. There is also a provision that the bait will have to be removed immediately upon landowner request. Finally, we added an exception so that none of these new provisions apply to bait placed on the ice over inland waters. (Note: Bear baiting is already covered by another section of law and is not affected in any way by the changes I’ve just explained.)

Landowners Drop Nuisance Beaver Bills After Meeting With MTA

In early January I received a “heads up” from the Forest Products Council that some of their members were on the verge of submitting legislation that would give landowners more authority to protect their roads from extensive damage by beavers. Their proposal would have also allowed Canadians to trap beaver in remote areas along the boundary. During the past year, landowners had become increasingly irritated by what they felt was an unwillingness by some wildlife officials to allow them to remove problem beaver when road damage was imminent. They were especially frustrated by the lack of uniformity in the way the nuisance beaver policy was being administered. In some regions, foresters were apparently being told to “do whatever had to be done to solve the problem”. In other regions, lethal removal of beaver by foresters was not allowed under any circumstances. I don’t know who was right or wrong in the way these policy decisions were made. I do know that for corporate landowners to get that worked up, something had to be “out of whack”.

I immediately started communicating with the landowners and was able to convince them that trying to solve their problems in front of a legislative committee was a bad idea for several reasons. Instead, the Maine Forest Products Council agreed to set up a meeting so that we could all sit at one table and talk things through. I was there along with MTA President Dana Johnson. James Cote represented the Forest Products Council and brought in several landowner representatives. Deputy Commissioner Paul Jacques represented the Department along with Wildlife Biologist John Pratt who oversees the Animal Damage Control Program. In the end we reached an agreement that will better allow landowners to protect their investments in emergency situations, increase ADC efforts to remove roadside beaver in remote (currently under trapped) locations and continue to allow fur trappers to maintain beaver populations at acceptable levels through liberal trapping seasons. The Department is still in the process of amending their ADC policies to implement these changes. I’ll give you an update in the July newsletter after I’ve reviewed the finished product.

MTA Defeats Bill Allowing Towns To Shoot Nuisance Beaver

At the same time we were convincing landowners that legislation is not the answer to nuisance beaver problems, town officials in Androscoggin County were having different thoughts. By the time I got wind of it, their bill had already been submitted. It was submitted by Senator John Nutting on behalf of the Town of Leeds. For those not familiar with Leeds, it’s situated between Androscoggin Lake and the Androscoggin River and contains a tremendous amount of wetland. Beavers raise havoc with many low-lying town roads each and every year. Leeds is a small rural community with a small budget and a pile of beaver problems. Allowing town officials to try to solve their problems with shotguns and rifles, however, is not the answer.

LD # 457, An Act Regarding Nuisance Beaver, would have given town officials the authority to shoot beaver that are plugging culverts and damaging roads. The Legislative Fish and Wildlife Committee held a public hearing to consider the merits of the bill on March 3, 2009. The road commissioner from the Town of Leeds opened the testimony in support of the bill. He described the many beaver problems that the town faces each year and the associated costs. A lobbyist for the Maine Municipal Association testified that many Maine towns have similar problems and should be allowed to remove the offending animals by hunting. A lobbyist for the Water Districts made it clear that it isn’t only the towns that need help solving beaver problems and asked that Water District officials be given the same authority.

I gave MTA testimony in opposition to the bill. My testimony included some history, because I wanted the Committee to understand the importance of beavers to our economy and our environment, from colonial times right up to the present. When I finished, Mark Stadler, Director of Wildlife for the Department, stood up and echoed many of my remarks. Everyone on the Committee seemed to understand that the beaver is a unique and valuable furbearer, and that it would be a mistake to weaken a law that has been in place for generations to give beaver special protection. Committee members acknowledged that beaver sometimes cause problems and must be removed, but most of them appeared satisfied that our current method of dealing with problem animals is working pretty well. A Committee work session on the bill (on March 10th) generated little additional discussion, and the bill received a unanimous “ought not to pass” report. The bill is now dead!

Governor Removes Tax Dollars From Department Budget

Trappers, along with hunters, anglers and guides, have pretty much funded the Fish and Wildlife Department for more than a hundred years. In the beginning, it made sense to ask these user groups to pick up the tab, because nearly 100% of the Department’s focus was on fish and game. Over the past few decades, however, the Department has been saddled with an ever-increasing number of mandates that have little to do with those of us who hunt, fish and trap. When I moved to Topsfield in the mid-sixties as an idealistic young game warden, the ink on Maine’s boat law was still wet, most Mainer’s had never seen a snowmobile and the term “non-game” didn’t exist. Since then, a growing “chunk” of sportsmen’s dollars have been spent on administering programs and enforcing laws that have no direct connection to the licenses we purchase.

For the past quarter century, sportsmen and sportswomen have been complaining that a lot of the money we contribute to the Department is being spent on non-fish-and-game programs. Numerous attempts have been made to correct this funding inequity, but, until quite recently, little progress had been made. Governor Angus King was the first Governor who seemed to be sympathetic to the demands of sportsmen that non-fish-and-game programs should be funded with general tax revenues – from the General Fund.

Near the end of Governor King’s term in office, a determination was made that 18% of the services provided by the Department is not directly related to the management and protection of fish and game. As a result, the Legislature enacted a law creating the Fiscal Stability Program, which states: “The Fiscal Stability Program is established to ensure that the general public and hunters and anglers share the cost of the fish and wildlife conservation programs of the Department. To achieve this goal, the biennial budget submitted by the executive branch must include an additional General Fund appropriation of 18% in excess of the Department's requested biennial budget.”

Since that time, although the General Fund appropriation has never come close to the 18% level, we have been able to gain some ground. Over the past few years, General Fund money, to the tune of several million dollars annually, has been added to our license revenue to help fund Department programs. Late last fall, however, when preparing for the upcoming 2-year budget cycle, the Department was ordered to reduce their budget by 10 %. Had they been told to cut the “General Fund” portion of their budget, we’d have understood. They were told, however, that their entire budget had to be cut by that amount. The end result is that nearly all the general tax money that the Department has been receiving is gone, and sportsmen and sportswomen are being told that we’ll have to make up the difference with another fee increase.

If anyone at the Department is looking for a reason why sportsmen are not flocking to Augusta, check book in hand, to bail them out, they need look no further than the Office of the Chief Executive. It isn’t the three or four extra bucks we’re concerned about. It’s the failure of this Administration to fully appreciate the economic potential of our fish and wildlife and their unwillingness to invest tax dollars in a public resource that benefits every single Maine resident.

In the end, after all the political posturing, the Department will be okay. Sportsmen will agree to a bunch of revenue enhancers, including a modest license fee increase, and most current services will be funded. Before that happens, however, we’ll be “loud and clear” that this new money, from the pockets of sportsmen, is only a temporary “patch”. We’ll continue to pressure the Administration to come up with a long term strategy ensuring, as the law already requires, “that the general public and hunters and anglers share the cost of the fish and wildlife conservation programs of the Department”.

Wolf Expert Testifies For Plaintiffs In Lynx Lawsuit

The trial to resolve Maine’s lynx related lawsuit began at 8:30 AM on Monday, April 13th. The stakes were high. The outcome would determine what, if any, further concessions Maine trappers would be required to make in an effort to keep lynx out of legally set traps. The plaintiffs in the case, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute, called their first witness. Their immediate goal? To bring an end to land trapping in the northern half of the state. Their ultimate goal? To outlaw all trapping.

Dr. Paul Paquet is no stranger to the witness stand. He has testified as an expert witness in other wildlife related trials and has sided repeatedly with animal protectionists. It took several minutes for him to detail the credentials that qualify him as a wildlife expert. Although he testified about having trapped in his younger days, his terminology was not consistent with someone intimately familiar with traps, and, under cross-examination, his knowledge of modern trapping techniques appeared to be very limited. Based on his testimony, he is strongly opposed to the use of traps for both fur harvesting and research. In spite of his personal bias against trapping, his qualifications are quite impressive.

Dr. Paquet lives in Saskatchewan. He holds a PhD in zoology from the University of Alberta. He worked as a biologist for the Canadian Wildlife Service for many years. He is an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary, where he supervises graduate student research. Dr. Paquet is Senior Ecologist with the Conservation Biology Institute and Raincoast Conservation Foundation. He is a long-time fellow of World Wildlife Fund Canada. He was one of the architects of the World Wide Fund for Nature and the European Union’s Large Carnivore Initiative. Dr. Paquet has written more than 100 scientific articles and reports and published several books on the behavior, ecology, and management of wolves. He appears to be much more knowledgeable about canines than felines.

Dr. Paquet was on the witness stand for one full day and part of another. Much of his testimony focused on the stress related impact of lynx being captured in traps, both cage traps and footholds, by both trappers and researchers. Although acknowledging that stress is very difficult to measure, Dr. Paquet testified that stress related damage to lynx from being caught in traps would negatively impact their ability to hunt, to reproduce and to survive. He also testified that the death of only a few lynx, in a population of more than 500 animals, could negatively impact the entire population’s ability to sustain itself.

Motion Denied, Answer The Question!

The plaintiff’s second and final expert witness was Ms. Camilla Fox. She testified as a representative of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). Under cross-examination, Ms. Fox made it clear that the connection between her and Mr. Dejoy, executive director of WAM, does not include marriage. She described their relationship as “partners”. There had been rumors that the two had “tied the knot” after working closely together in the previous lawsuit where Ms. Fox was employed as an expert witness by the Animal Protection Institute (API).

I’m not sure how Ms. Fox qualifies as an expert witness in this lawsuit. Her expertise is based almost entirely on various studies she has “ferreted out” which support her anti-trapping agenda. Most of her testimony consisted of her reading into the record portions of studies that were conducted by someone else. I wasn’t impressed with her testimony, and I don’t think she said anything that was detrimental to our case. If anything, she may have helped us.

The plaintiffs have insisted from the beginning that this lawsuit is about protecting lynx and not about trying to end trapping. In cross-examining Ms. Fox, Assistant Attorney General Chris Taub asked the following question, “Ms. Fox, isn’t it true that you are opposed to all recreational trapping?” The room went quiet, and the expression of the witness appeared similar to that of “a deer caught in the headlights”. After what seemed like minutes, but was probably only seconds, the plaintiff’s attorney jumped up and objected to the question as being irrelevant. The motion was overruled, and the judge instructed Ms. Fox (more than once) to answer the question. Eventually, after further discussion and a repeat of the question, Ms. Fox testified that if it were up to her, all recreational trapping would be stopped.

Dr. Ken Elowe Testifies On Behalf Of The State

I heard a lot of good witnesses during my law enforcement career, but I can honestly say that I’ve never seen anybody do a better job under very stressful circumstances than the State’s only expert witness, Dr. Ken Elowe. His credentials are very impressive, and he has a tremendous amount of practical experience dealing with wildlife. Dr. Elowe gave direct testimony for the better part of one day and was cross-examined relentlessly for most of another. His knowledge of the Maine lynx situation was far superior to the previous witnesses, and, in my opinion, he discredited much of the testimony given by Dr. Paquet. When testifying about the stress related impacts on lynx from having been held in traps, Dr. Elowe cited case after case where collared lynx trapped in Maine dozens of times, in both cage traps and footholds, as part of the ongoing lynx research project, continued to exhibit good health and produce healthy litters year after year after year. One of these cats has been caught more than four dozen times over a four-year period and has produced four litters of kittens. The animal appeared to be healthy and in good condition each time it was handled.

Time Runs Out – Case Continued!

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had previously assured Judge Woodcock that four days would be more than adequate to complete this trial. Wrong! At the end of business on Thursday, the fourth day, Dr. Elowe was still on the witness stand being “grilled” by the plaintiff’s attorney. We (the MTA and the other interveners) hadn’t even started with our testimony. We were out of time, and the judge’s calendar was full for the next several days. Consequently, we all went home with the understanding that the trial would be continued later in the summer.

We have since been notified that the trial will resume at 8:30 AM on Monday, June 29th, and continue through July 1st, if necessary. As a result, by the time this newsletter reaches you, the trial will probably be over. When we resume, the Plaintiff’s attorney will finish her cross-examination of Dr. Elowe. We (the interveners) will present our case, consisting of direct testimony from Maine trappers and from Dr. Craig McLaughlin, a wildlife biologist who conducted much of the early lynx research in Maine. Our witnesses will be cross-examined, and then both sides will be allowed to call witnesses back to the stand for rebuttal testimony. Attorneys will get one last chance to sway the judge during closing arguments, bringing the trial to an end. It may then be several more days, or possibly several weeks, before Judge Woodcock issues his decision. I’ll give you the “rest of the story” in the October newsletter.

MTA Gets Outstanding Legal Help – USSA, FTA & NTA Come Up Big!

It’s amazing what can be accomplished when we all work together. During the earlier Maine lawsuit that was settled in 2007, the MTA received a tremendous amount of help from our friends who joined us as interveners in that case. In addition to the MTA, interveners included the US Sportsmen’s Alliance, Fur Takers of America, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and the National Trappers Association. The USSA alone spent upward of $200,000. in legal fees. Their attorney, Jim Lister, came to Maine to argue on our behalf and did an outstanding job! In the end, we walked away with a negotiated settlement (Consent Decree) that has allowed us to continue to trap in lynx habitat with most of our existing equipment. Yes, we were forced to make concessions that have negatively impacted some trappers, but it could have been much worse. The reason we fared as well as we did was a direct result of the financial help and legal assistance we received from our friends.

Heading into the current lawsuit, the MTA decided that we were done trying to negotiate with these fanatics and would go to trial. The US Sportsmen’s Alliance came through again and sent Jim Lister back to Maine to continue providing us with top-notch legal representation. The terms of our agreement with the USSA was that the MTA would pay all the costs of our local attorneys. The length of the trial has made it an expensive proposition for us, and the MTA has already spent more than 16 thousand dollars in legal fees. The USSA is again taking on substantial costs, and Fur Takers of America continues to support us every step of the way.

In addition, the National Trappers Association has come through for us in a big way during this lawsuit. Their attorney, Gary Leistico, did a lot of the legal work getting us ready to go to trial, and the NTA flew him to Maine to participate. Gary is from Minnesota. He is a trapper and a member of the Minnesota Trappers Association. He and Jim Lister worked together on a similar lawsuit in Minnesota that was resolved last year. Gary and Jim have now joined forces here in Maine to continue to fight for the rights of trappers. The MTA, USSA, FTA and NTA, all working together, are a formidable force. Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit, I don’t know of any more we could have done or how we could have done it any better. Trappers in Maine and across the nation have every reason to feel proud. Please support your state trapping associations and the three national associations that stand ready to come to the assistance of trappers whenever and wherever we need them!

Legislative Session Ends – Little Impact On Trappers

The First Regular Session of the 124th Maine Legislature came to an end in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 13th. There were few bills submitted this session that would have directly impacted trappers. The biggest hurdle was a bill submitted by Senator Nutting (LD 457) that would have given towns the authority to shoot beaver found in the act of plugging culverts and flooding roads. The MTA strongly opposed this bill. We were successful in getting a unanimous “ought not to pass” committee vote on this legislation, killing it immediately. We may not be as fortunate the next time around – read more about nuisance beaver problems later in this article.

A bill dealing with the placement of coyote bait (LD # 138), as originally written, would have been a nightmare for trappers. However, as I reported in the April newsletter, we were able to get the objectionable language removed, and trapping will not be affected. The amendment language that replaced the original bill was enacted and signed into law. For those of you who hunt coyotes over bait, this is how the new law is worded:

"Bait site" means the place where the bait has been placed and the immediate surrounding area.

"Bait" means an animal or plant or a part of an animal or plant used to attract wild animals for the purpose of hunting. "Bait" does not include a derivative of an animal or plant in a liquid or paste form, including but not limited to urine or commercially prepared lures or scents.

A person may not place bait unless the bait site is plainly labeled with a 2-inch-by-4-inch tag identifying the name and address of the person establishing the bait site.

A person may not hunt at a bait site established by another person unless that person has permission from the person that established the bait site.

A person placing bait may not leave the bait or bait label at the bait site and must clean up the bait site immediately after the landowner requests the removal of that bait or, if not requested by the landowner, within 20 days from the last day the bait site was hunted over by the person that established the bait site.

(Note: The above requirements do not apply to the placement of bait on the ice of inland waters and do not apply to bear baiting. Bear baiting is already highly regulated and the bear baiting laws did not change.)

Also for you coyote hunters, another bill was enacted to provide additional opportunity to hunt coyotes at night. LD # 54 was sponsored by Representative Howard McFadden of Dennysville and was signed into law on April 21st (Public Law, Chapter 46). Effective this year, the night hunting season for coyotes will open on December 16th (previously January 1st).

LD # 164 would have required the operator and passengers in any type of watercraft to wear a Coast Guard approved Type I, Type II or Type III personal flotation device. The MTA strongly opposed this bill. The bill died in committee when it received a unanimous “ought not to pass” committee vote.

Fees Increase Substantially – Resident Trapping Unchanged

Heading into this legislative session, it appeared that the Fish and Wildlife Department might have to lay off nearly three-dozen employees, including wardens and biologists. In an attempt to avoid most of these lay offs, the budget submitted by the Governor for the two-year period (beginning July 1, 2009) contained an increase in fees for all licenses and permits issued by Fish and Wildlife. The increase would have applied equally to residents and nonresident - a $2.50 increase in 2010 and another $1 in 2011.

The Fish and Wildlife Committee didn’t like that formula, so they put together their own budget for the Department. The fee increases they proposed included a $2 hike on resident hunting, fishing, archery and combination licenses (other resident licenses and permits would have stayed the same), a $6 increase on nonresident hunting, fishing, archery and combination licenses and a $2 increase on all other nonresident licenses and permits.

The Appropriations Committee has the final say on what goes into the budget. They liked the concept used by the F&W Committee, but they felt that additional revenue was needed to keep the Department operating efficiently. As a result, they further increased the fees. Those increases have now been enacted into law as part of the state budget and will go into effect on January 1st of 2010. The increases, which will allow the Department to operate without any lay offs, are as follows: (a) resident hunting, fishing, archery and combination license fees will go up $4; (b) all other resident licenses and permits (including trapping licenses) will remained unchanged; (c) nonresident hunting, fishing, archery and combination license fees will increase by $12; and (4) all other nonresident licenses and permits will go up $7. In addition, registrations for all motorized watercraft will increase by $5, with the entire increase going to the Fish and Wildlife Department. Snowmobile registrations for residents will also go up by $5, all of which will go to the Department of Conservation for maintaining snowmobile trails. Finally, beginning this fall, the fee for tagging a moose, deer, bear or turkey will increase to $5. (Fur tagging fees remain unchanged.)

Governor’s Super Agency Goes Down In Flames!

In 2006, when seeking re-election, the Governor told us that he was opposed to merging the Fish and Wildlife Department into a large natural resource agency. His words at the time were, “I have said repeatedly over the past four years that departments like Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may be small by comparison to other state agencies, but they serve large and distinct constituencies that deserve, and have reason to expect, that they will have an agency whose focus is on their interests and needs”.

Two years later, we listened in disbelief as the Governor announced, in his televised State of the State speech, that the supplemental budget he was about to submit would include a directive that the four natural resource agencies be merged into “not more than two” larger departments.

The MTA worked with the other members of the Natural Resources Network to defeat that merger. In the spirit of compromise, however, we agreed to support the creation of a Governor’s Task Force to look at all the natural resource agencies and develop recommendations for improving the services that these agencies provide. Many of us even agreed to serve on this Task Force with the hope that we could help bring about some changes that would benefit Maine people. In the end, after a tremendous amount of work by a lot of dedicated people, our efforts failed. The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on a major restructuring plan. The one thing that most of us did agree on was that throwing all the natural resource agencies into one big pot was a bad idea.

Contrary to what you might think, the story doesn’t end there. More than halfway through the session (in mid-April), the Governor submitted emergency legislation to merge the four natural resource agencies into one super agency. His bill (LD # 1453) would have combined the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation, Agriculture and Marine resources into the Department of Natural Resources. The effective date of this proposed merger was July 1, 2009. Unbelievable!

I found it very troubling that this Administration insisted on trying to merge the natural resource agencies even after it became abundantly clear that the people who would be most affected do not want it. The Administration preaches about the need to protect the things that make Maine unique and, at the same time, appears obsessed with discarding four unique state agencies that are extremely import to Maine people. It’s pretty unique for a trapper and his son to be able to walk into the office of the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and discuss trapping issues.

Long story short – the MTA and the other members of the Natural Resources Network turned out in force to oppose this merger. Our Network consists of fourteen organizations that rely on Maine’s land and water resources for both business and recreation. Our interests cover a broad array of pursuits from trapping, guiding and snowmobiling, to hunting and fishing, to growing salmon, potatoes and blueberries, to harvesting forest products and lobsters to producing fruits, vegetables and dairy products. We have a combined membership of more than 65,000 people and enjoy a lot of political clout. We opposed the Governor’s plan, and Maine lawmakers listened. For the second year in a row, efforts to merge the natural resource agencies have been soundly defeated.

Debate Continues About Removal Of Nuisance Beaver

Unfortunately, the debate about who should be allowed to remove nuisance beaver is far from over. Several large landowners came very close to submitting a bill this past session to allow landowners to shoot nuisance beaver in situations where significant damage to a company road is imminent. However, because of the positive relationship between the MTA and the forest landowners, we were able to keep the issue out of the political arena, at least for now.

The MTA worked with landowners, the Forest Products Council and the Fish and Wildlife Department in hopes of collectively resolving most of the “emergency” beaver problems along company roads. The proposed solution is a liberalization of the Department’s depredation policy regarding beaver and increased assistance from MTA members in targeting problem beaver through more lenient trapping rules. We still have a ways to go to get everything in place. However, if things go as discussed, beaver trapping season in a handful of WMDs, those with the most problems, would open at the same time as the early canine season (about two weeks earlier than in the past). In addition, the setback distance from houses and dams in those areas would be liberalized or eliminated. At the same time, foresters would be given depredation permits to remove beaver that are posing an immediate threat to the integrity of a company road.

There will obviously be some objections to these changes. Some trappers won’t think they are necessary, and some regional wildlife biologists have already voiced their concerns. The bottom line is this – if these measures are not implemented, there will be another bill submitted to the Legislature next winter. It will force a public fight between trappers and landowners, something that, in my opinion, should be avoided at all costs. If a bill is submitted, it will be a tough for us to defeat it. Remember, beaver is the only animal in the state that cannot be killed when found doing damage to property. If we force this battle, not only will we jeopardize our positive relationship with some of the landowners, but, if we lose, beaver will be fair game to anyone with a shotgun who doesn’t want their woodlot flooded or their maple trees chewed down. To me, this is a “no brainer”! The Department needs to get these changes in place as soon as possible.

Have an enjoyable summer! - Skip ó

OCTOBER 2009

MTA Rendezvous A Big Success

The 2009 Rendezvous went well. The Capital Area Chapter of the MTA is to be commended for pulling everything together. Although a bit chillier than in past years, the weather cooperated, trappers showed up in good numbers and vendors seemed to be selling lots of supplies. For those of you who missed it, you missed a really good time! Be sure to mark your calendar for next year’s event. It will be held at the same location – the Silver Spur Riding Club in Sidney. This great location is easy to find, is just a couple of miles from the Interstate and has lots of room for expansion. If it were my call, I’d hold the Rendezvous at this same location for the foreseeable future, although I expect trappers living in other parts of the state might disagree. It has long been my theory that holding the Rendezvous on the same weekend and at the same location year after year will eventually result in much better attendance. My theory is based, in large part, on what has happened at Neil Olson’s in Bethel. I don’t think I’ve missed one of his Trapper Weekends in all the years he’s been holding them, and his attendance just seems to keep getting better every year regardless of fur market conditions.

Lots Of Questions About The Lynx Lawsuit

Trappers that attended this year’s Rendezvous were all asking the same questions. What’s happening with the lawsuit and are our trapping privileges going to be further eroded because of lynx? Unfortunately, the lawsuit has still not been decided, and everyone is still “in the dark” about whether the judge will order the State to take additional steps to protect lynx. Judge Woodcock understands that the State needs a certain amount of time to impose new trapping restrictions and to notify trappers about any changes. He is also aware that our early canine season is scheduled to start in less than three weeks and that the handful of lynx taken incidentally in foothold traps each year are most likely to be taken during this early season. Based on the judge’s comments at the end of the trial, we were expecting a decision sometime around the end of August. I’m completing this article on September 30th, and we still haven’t heard a word from the court. (I got approval to submit my article later than the normal deadline in hopes of being able to tell you about the judge’s decision. I can’t wait any longer. However, if we receive the decision before the newsletter actually goes to the printer, we’ll try to add a few extra lines to at least give you the highlights. Otherwise, we’ll get out an “alert” on the MTA website the minute we get any new information.)

Our Experts “Did Us Proud” On the Witness Stand

As you all know, the trial to settle the lawsuit started on Monday, April 13th, at the Federal Courthouse in Bangor. Four days had been set aside for the trial. At the close of business on day four, however, the State’s only expert witness (Dr. Ken Elowe) was still on the witness stand being “grilled” by the plaintiff’s attorney. We (the MTA and the other interveners) hadn’t even started with our testimony. Time had run out, and the judge’s calendar was full for the next several days. Consequently, we all went home. We were later notified that the trial would resume on Monday, June 29th.

The trial finally ended late in the day on Tuesday, June 30th, after a total of six full days. We (the interveners) called two expert witnesses to the stand. First was Dr. Craig McLaughlin, a wildlife biologist that we flew in from Utah. Craig previously worked for the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department and was involved with developing and implementing the lynx studies in Maine that are still in progress. He did a great job on the witness stand. Not only did he corroborate (agree with) testimony already given by Dr. Elowe that contradicted testimony given by the plaintiffs, but he also did an outstanding job in explaining how the removal of other predators from lynx habitat by trappers is more beneficial to lynx than what little harm might be done from incidentally catching a few lynx in foothold traps and releasing them. He cited numerous instances where fisher have killed lynx in Maine, and he also referred to several studies showing that fisher, coyotes, bobcats and other predators compete directly with lynx for snowshoe hare. In short, trappers are helping lynx by removing some of the competition.

MTA President Dana Johnson then took the witness stand on behalf of Maine trappers. Dana did an outstanding job contradicting plaintiff’s testimony that Maine’s trapping rules are too complicated for trappers to understand and comply with. He made it clear that trapping is extremely important to many Maine people for a lot of different reasons. He explained that many trappers rely on the sale of fur to supplement their incomes, but he also highlighted the importance of trapping to many small businesses, such as fur buyers, taxidermists, trapping supply dealers, farmers and others. Dana made it clear that a twenty-four hour tending requirement on body-grippers (which, among other things, the plaintiffs have requested) would spell the end of trapping in remote areas. He left no doubt that many Maine people would be harmed in one way or another if trapping were banned in areas frequented by lynx. Dana warned us ahead of time that this would be his first time on the witness stand and that he was really nervous. You never would have known it. He handled it like a pro!

I won’t try to predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Suffice it to say that I feel really good about how things went during the trial. We were well organized, we put on a really good defense and, in my opinion, the evidence we presented tipped the “scales of justice” in our favor. We’ll soon find out if Judge Woodcock agrees. The legal representation we received from Attorney Jim Lister with the US Sportsmen’s Alliance and Attorney Gary Leistico with the National Trappers Association could not have been better. These two guys, working closely with our local attorneys at Rudman and Winchell Law Firm in Bangor, were absolutely outstanding. To date, this lawsuit has cost the MTA just over $20,000.00 in legal fees, and I’m guessing that the USSA and the NTA, combined, have spent at least ten times that amount on our behalf.

Some Trappers Grumbling About Lost Opportunity

I sometimes hear trappers grumbling about what Maine trappers have lost over the past few years. Most of the grumbling involves the new trapping restrictions designed to prevent the incidental take of Canada lynx. I fully understand the frustration of trappers who have been forced to change their trapping methods to avoid catching a federally threatened species that, at least in the State of Maine, is not threatened at all. Our current lynx population is at an unsustainably high level. Testimony during the trial by the plaintiffs that the population is declining may or may not be accurate. Nobody really knows. One thing is certain, however. The Maine lynx population recently skyrocketed to levels never before seen in this State, and Mother Nature will eventually reduce those numbers to more historical levels. Right now, the F&W Department has no evidence that the population is in decline, and lynx are still pioneering into areas of the State where they haven’t been seen in at least fifty years and probably a lot longer.

When I started talking about lost trapping opportunity, I didn’t intend to get into a tirade about lynx. I guess I’ve just spent too much time in federal court over the past four years fighting to keep our trapping privileges from being washed away by lynx related lawsuits. In truth, the lynx isn’t to blame. The real culprits are (1) a federal bureaucracy that, in my opinion, made a huge mistake in listing the lynx as a threatened species in the first place and (2) the animal fanatics who have misused this bogus listing to further their own misguided agenda. Their obvious goal, as evidenced by the testimony of one of their expert witnesses, is to bring an end to trapping. The feds, in listing the lynx, paved the way for the animal rightists to file these lawsuits.

Trapping Opportunity In Maine Still Extensive

In spite of some recent restrictions that have inconvenienced trappers, trappers in Maine are still doing remarkably well when it comes to opportunity. For some reason, people tend to remember, or at least focus on, the negatives more than on the positives. Perhaps we’ve been “brainwashed” into thinking that way by listening to daily newscasts on television and reading the newspapers – mostly doom and gloom. The threat of the recent lawsuits seems to have overshadowed all the gains that the MTA has made over the past couple of dozen years. The trapping privileges that we enjoy today are “light years” ahead of what we had when I started trapping.

Citing from memory, here are some of the things we’ve accomplished over the past twenty-five years that have increased opportunity for Maine trappers:

Established a three day tend on body-grippers in organized towns (prior to that, dating back to the early nineteen hundreds, all traps in organized towns, except under-ice beaver sets, had to be checked every day).

Established a special two-week season on fox and coyote prior to the regular fall trapping season.

Established a special one-week muskrat season in northern Maine prior to the regular fall trapping season.

Legalized the underwater use of snares for trapping beaver.

Established beaver (and muskrat) trapping seasons that last for up to six months in some areas.

Eliminated the need for written permission when using drowning sets on navigable waters, state owned lands and public rights of way.

Legalized the setting of traps on abandoned beaver dams.

I’m sure I could add to this list by going back through my records, but I think you get the idea. We’ve lost some things, but we’ve also gained a heck of a lot during a period when trapping was being banned in other states, such as Colorado, Arizona, California, Washington, and Massachusetts. And we’re still gaining opportunity, as evidenced by the earlier beaver trapping season in remote areas of northern Maine this fall.

MTA Supports Earlier Beaver Season

November 1st has issued in the start of the beaver trapping season in northern Maine for a number of years. Historically, the MTA opposed the trapping of beaver at the start of the general fall trapping season (November), because the “early” pelts brought considerably lower prices than the heavier pelts of mid to late winter. That trend has changed somewhat in recent years, however, and the earlier, lighter pelts currently bring nearly as much as fully prime skins. This is especially true in northern Maine where pelts “prime up” a bit sooner than in our southern counties. It is almost a certainty, however, that the trapping of beaver in November would never have been legalized except for the damage that beaver were causing.

Problem beaver along paper company roads had to be removed one way or another, and it made sense to allow fur trappers to harvest as many of these surplus animals as possible when their pelts were saleable. Otherwise, either the state or the landowner would be paying someone to remove these animals at times of the year when the fur was worthless. As a result, the State opened the beaver season in high damage areas to coincide with the start of the regular fall trapping season. The goal was for fur trappers to reduce the beaver population and alleviate damage. In most cases the desired results were never achieved. However, until quite recently, a combination of fur trapping (in season) and ADC efforts (outside the season) made things tolerable for most landowners.

Now a depressed fur market, along with soaring gas prices, has dramatically reduced trapper effort in the more remote areas of the State. Beaver numbers are not being controlled in those areas and beaver problems are escalating. To help improve the situation, the Department proposed opening the beaver season in mid-October in these areas to coincide with the start of the special canine season. In theory, fox and coyote trappers running their lines along paper company roads would harvest many of the roadside beaver if the beaver trapping season was also open. To make it easier to catch these problem beaver, the Department also proposed eliminating (in these WMDs) the rule that’s been in place for ages requiring that traps be set at least five feet away from active beaver dams.

Written comments I submitted to the Department in response to these proposals included the following paragraph: “Trapping for beaver in mid-October runs counter to the MTA’s long-standing opposition to harvesting un-prime fur. However, the significant increase in nuisance beaver problems in remote areas of northern Maine, exacerbated by dwindling trapper effort, is cause for what we consider to be extreme measures. As a result, the MTA would support an opening date for beaver trapping that coincides with the two-week canine season in remote areas where beaver trapping pressure, in recent years, has been extremely low. We believe that if these were the only areas open to beaver trapping at that time of year, more trappers might be enticed to go there. To make things easier for trappers to reduce beaver populations in these areas, we would also support removal of the five-foot setback distance from active beaver dams.”

IF & W Adopts 2009/2010 Beaver Trapping Rules

After some give and take between the Department and the MTA on which WMDs would be opened early, the Department adopted the following season dates and set-back changes for the upcoming beaver season:

WMDs 1, 2, 4………………..October 18 – April 30

WMDs 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11....November 1 – April 30

WMDs 18, 19, 28……… …November 1 – April 15

WMDs 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29….Dec 1 – March 31

In addition, the 5-foot setback from active beaver dams has been eliminated in WMDs 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 for at least the 2009/10 and 2010/11 beaver seasons. You will note that removal of the setback requirements will apply in three WMDs that don’t open until November 1st. These three WMDs receive considerable trapping pressure, and the Department will use the harvest figures from these Districts to help determine if removal of the setback requirement will significantly impact the otter harvest. Depending on the outcome, we may soon be able to set traps on active beaver dams throughout the state. To me, this is a pretty big deal when you consider how long it took us to legalize the setting of traps on abandoned dams.

MTA Encourages IF & W To Resume Furbearer Studies

When submitting comments on the Department’s beaver trapping proposal, we also urged the Department to get back on track with various furbearer studies. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a full-time furbearer biologist, and, as a result, we no longer have a good handle on what’s happening with many of our furbearer populations. Here is some of what we said in our comments: “The MTA wishes to thank the Department for eventually finding a way to hire a full-time furbearer biologist. In just the short time that he has filled this position, John Depue has developed a good working relationship with Maine trappers. He attends meetings of the MTA Board of Directors on a regular basis, and his input has been very well received. Having gone nearly a decade without a full-time furbearer biologist, we believe that the State has a lot of catching up to do in the area of furbearer management. For example, the Department’s growing concern about the status of our fisher population has led to trapping restrictions that may or may not be warranted. We desperately need to update our fisher population estimate. Now that we have a furbearer biologist in place, we strongly encourage you to find the time and money to ensure that Maine’s furbearer management program remains among the best in the nation. A fisher population study would be a great start. The MTA stands ready to assist in any way possible, including volunteer help, in updating Maine’s fisher population estimate as well as compiling up-to-date information on other important furbearer species that have been neglected for too long.”

Questions and Answers – Permission to Set traps

Earlier this year, at Neil Olson’s Trapper Weekend, MTA member Richard Perry from the Katahdin Chapter came up and asked me if he needed written permission to make drowning sets along a public right of way within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling. I didn’t have my laws with me at the time, and, not remembering exactly how that particular law is worded, I told him I’d check it out when I got home and get back to him. The question Richard asked is similar to lots of questions I get about written permission requirements. That’s one area of the law that continually confuses trappers and wardens alike. As a result, I thought it might be worthwhile to go beyond Richard’s specific question and try to explain the whole “written permission” thing. This entire issue is especially confusing, because it involves two different laws. The first deals with setting traps on the land of another person. The second addresses the setting of traps within 200 yards of any occupied dwelling.

Permission To Trap On Another Person’s Land

The first law states that a person may not set traps on the land of another in any organized town without first obtaining written permission from the owner or occupant of the land where the traps are to be set.

The same requirement applies on cultivated or pastureland in any unorganized township if there is an occupied dwelling on that land.

There are three exceptions to this first law. Permission is not required by this law:

When trapping for beaver;

When trapping with the use of drowning sets on state-owned land and on public rights-of-way, and

When trapping with the use of drowning sets in navigable rivers and streams

Permission To Trap Near Occupied Dwelling

The second law requires that trappers have written permission before setting traps within 200 yards of any occupied dwelling.

There are two exceptions to this law. Permission is not required by this law:

When trapping for beaver; and

When trapping with the use of drowning sets on state-owned land and on public rights-of-way. (This answers Richard’s question – permission is not required!)

Trapping within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling along privately owned sections of navigable rivers and streams does require landowner permission.

This second law has created much of the confusion. Although traps may be set on one person’s land, those traps are sometimes within 200 yards of a neighbor’s house. So, where do you go to get permission to trap? You always get permission to trap from the owner or occupant of the land where the traps are to be set. The law never requires you to get permission to trap from an adjacent property owner.

Trapping Never Allowed If Landowner Objects

Because there are some situations where trappers are not required to obtain landowner permission, such as when trapping for beaver, some trappers assume that they have a right to go on another person’s land to set beaver traps even if the landowner doesn’t want them there. That assumption is wrong! The law may not always require you to have prior written permission to set traps, but the law always prohibits you from setting traps if the landowner says “no”. That “no” from the landowner can be given either verbally or by posting the property. That is why the MTA recommends that trappers always try to contact the landowner and get the landowner’s approval before setting traps even in situations where the law doesn’t require it. It’s a lot better finding out ahead of time that the landowner doesn’t want you there. Otherwise, you may spend a day setting traps, receive a call that night from a warden or irate landowner and spend the next day pulling those traps.

In addition, if you are going to be setting traps anywhere near an occupied dwelling, even if you are not required by law to obtain permission, the MTA strongly encourages you to touch bases with whoever lives there and let them know what you are doing. The law tells us where we can’t set traps. Common sense tells us where we shouldn’t be setting them. Trap responsibly – the future of trapping depends on it!