Black Bear Blog » Hunting Politics

Maine Should Bring Back Snaring

Tom Remington — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:29:29 +0000

*Correction/Clarification* In this article I made reference that the coyote snaring program was suspended through legislative action. I stand somewhat 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

Maine Should Oppose Funding Fish And Wildlife With General Taxation

Tom Remington — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:05:57 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declaration for an Independent and Democratic Wildlife Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Proposed New Jersey Bill Would Bring Back Bear Hunting

Tom Remington — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:45:28 +0000

Assembly Bill 181, proposed by Assemblyman Gary Chiusano (R- Frankford Township) and Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R- Franklin), would allow for the reinstatement of bear hunting as part of a scientific approach to wildlife management.

Under the rule of Gov. Jon Corzine and his appointed director of the Department of Environmental Protection, Lisa Jackson (now with Barack Obama’s administration), bear hunting was canceled, along with the state’s court-approved bear management plan.

AB 181 would put control and authority of wildlife issues back in the hands of the wildlife commission. The bill would prohibit any authority the DEP head had to this point to stop or overturn any commission approved wildlife management plan, including hunting.

Sportsmen in New Jersey are strongly encouraged to contact your representative in support of this bill.

Tom Remington

Montana High Court Says SSNs To Hunt And Fish Necessary

Tom Remington — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:49:08 +0000

Gun Group Frustrated with Supreme Court Privacy Opinion Constitutional Rights for Sale?

MISSOULA – The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) was handed an unfavorable decision by the Montana Supreme Court in MSSA’s lawsuit claiming that it violates the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution for Montanans to be required to divulge a Social Security Number (SSN) in order to legally hunt and fish in Montana.

This MSSA lawsuit has been percolating through the courts since January of 2006. While MSSA argued that the requirement to provide an SSN to hunt and fish was unconstitutional, the State of Montana contended that it must collect SSNs to remain eligible under federal law for federal funds for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

The lawsuit was handled by attorney Quentin Rhoades of Missoula.

In an Opinion released on January 19th, the Supreme Court sided with the State, holding that the SSN requirement to hunt and fish does not violate the constitutional right to privacy because the plaintiffs’ expectation that their SSNs be kept private is, as the Court put it, “unreasonable.” The Court held that SSNs are a government-issued identifier, not the personal property of the citizen to whom an SSN attaches, and that because the federal government issued the identifier, it is not reasonable to expect that it should be kept private from other government agencies, like the Montana DFWP. The court was further persuaded by the State’s argument that the federal money made available because of SSN collection was too important to risk.

MSSA President Gary Marbut commented, “While members of the Court talk a good game about constitutional rights, what they’ve said in this decision is that the constitutional rights that the people have reserved to themselves from government interference may be sold to a high bidder by state government if the price is right and the court-determined impact is low. We had hoped for relief for the people of Montana from the judicial branch. But, it appears that the judiciary is simply another governmental entity willing to support the legislative branch which passed the SSN requirement, and the executive branch which lobbied hard for the Legislature to pass the law.”

Continuing, Marbut said, “It will be interesting now to see what other constitutional rights will be sold to the high bidder, and how soon that will happen. How much federal money will the state get for tolerable infringement on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms? Certainly in this time of economic difficulty the state will be desperate for additional sources of revenue. Watch for other constitutional rights on Ebay as cash-strapped state agencies scratch for funding.”

MSSA was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Individual named plaintiffs were Gary Marbut of Missoula, Robert Clark of Ryegate, and Carol Latta of Whitehall. Clark, a former Montana Highway Patrol officer and former legislator, quit buying hunting and fishing licenses when an SSN became required for that purchase. Latta suffered identity theft and tens of thousands of dollars of expense because her SSN was stolen. Marbut objected to surrendering his right to privacy in order to exercise his right to hunt.

The only remaining alternative for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit will be to ask the Legislature to respect the right to privacy by repealing the state law requiring SSNs to hunt and fish. However, it is predicted that the Department of Public Health and Human Services will use taxpayer funds to fiercely lobby the Legislature in opposition any such proposal.

Intellectuals And Wildlife Management

Tom Remington — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:43:54 +0000

There exists a divide between the “educated” wildlife biologist and the hunter, fisherman, trapper and outdoors person. It is unfortunate that this divide prohibits better wildlife management. Let’s call the divide what it is. On the one side you have the college educated intellectual who can prove most anything he or she wants to using data and computer modeling. Generally speaking, these intellectuals look down their noses at the average “Joe” who spends far more time in the field than the biologist. And of course on the other side of the divide, is the outdoor sportsmen, some of whom have spent countless hours and years witnessing first hand what’s going on in the woods. One would think putting the two together would be like dipping your chocolate into the jar of peanut butter. Such is not the case.

Today, Thomas Sowell writes:

Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

Sowell’s article of course is about the impact that intellectuals have had on the world’s societies – good and bad. Ideas are great and God only knows where we would be without those who can produce ideas. But as Sowell points out, only time can tell whether those ideas are for the better or the worse.

Wildlife management these days is born in the field of academia, where once it seemed more important to rely on the experience of the man in the field. With an ever shifting to the left within our educational industry, wildlife biologists are coming fresh out of school indoctrinated with a host of ideas, many of them idealistic and not grounded in sound scientific facts or matching what exists on the ground. With the passing of each successive generation it seems we are witness to snotty-nosed graduates bucking up against seasoned outdoorsmen. Instead of the forces working against each other, they should be working together as both sides can contribute valuable resources.

There is an organization in Idaho that has a website called Save Our Elk. Their mission is to educate and draw attention to the facts of what is really taking place in the field. Their goal is simple – saving elk. As part of their strategy, they send out emails containing news, stories, studies and just about anything to inform and educate. I am privileged to receive those emails.

It seems that one of the leaders of Save Our Elk, Tony Mayer, received an email from a professor at the University of Idaho, who works for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, requesting that Mr. Mayer remove her from his “repulsive email campaign”. As Mr. Mayer pointed out, sometimes the truth is hard to take.

What is most disturbing and yet telltale about this action/reaction is that an academic of fish and wildlife, would be so close-minded to other thoughts and information being collected from those who spend so much time in the outdoors. Bear in mind that this person is responsible for some of the education and teaching that our young wildlife biologists are getting. Dare we question why these young biologists choose not listen to the crusty old veterans of the woods?

One gentleman responded to the professor’s lack of interest in “repulsive” facts this way:

Even if you don’t like, or disagree with, the message in the article, I would think that a mature, curious scientist, who had an interest in the “interface” between science and policy – particularly in the very area of her expertise -, would actively seek communication with an existing, robust, substantial community of interest, such as Idaho hunters. The opposite appears to be the case.

Steve Alder, President of Idaho for Wildlife, reminded his members that it took two years from the time that a seasoned outdoorsmen began informing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that the severe winter of 1996-1997 had destroyed the state’s elk herd in the Lolo Region, until they were willing to admit he was right.

This same man informed the IDFG in the Spring of 1997 that they had lost over 50%,(Approximately 10,000) of the elk in the Lolo zone alone due to the horrible winter of 96-97 and he was quickly enlighten how wrong he was and that the elk had suffered an average winter kill and a warm thaw had saved the elk that year. This man was led to the computer where he was shown in the monitor that the elk were doing just fine.

The same has held true in reports of elk and mule deer being destroyed by wolves and other large predators. These people are valuable eyes on the front of where it all happens. This divide between idealistic computer modeling and true to life events in the field needs to disappear before more damage is done.

Alder also quotes one of those experienced outdoor sportsmen and what he had to say about wildlife management.

The late legendary Montana and Idaho Cowboy, outfitter, Outdoor writer and gun expert Elmer Keith, (1899-1984), in his biography, “Hell I was there”, (1979), wrote, “Here in this Country, (Salmon, ID region), Our biologists labor under the delusion that the predators kill off the old, crippled and sick game which could never be farther from the truth.” “These ecologist have never seen a mule deer out in the crusted deep snow up to its belly as it floundered along and a pack of coyotes or wolves crowding along beside eating the poor animal alive.” “First the guts hurtle out and they eat them up and pull them out.” “Finally the poor thing goes down and they literally eat him alive with no attempt to kill him clean first.” “With proper management, game can be brought back but it requires proper management by men who have lived with the game and understand it and not by some biologist with a four-year degree from college alone.”

Idaho is not alone when it comes to problems with wildlife management. Maine is currently in the midst of a major whitetail deer problem. Hunters have been complaining for several years that portions of the state didn’t have any deer. I think the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) agreed that in the northern, eastern and portions of western Maine, the deer herd was struggling. What I think they didn’t realize is just how bad it was. But those in the field knew. Is this a case of this same divide causing the demise of Maine’s deer herd because the “intellectuals” didn’t want to listen?

I remember that it was right after the deer hunting season in Maine, December 2006, when I first was notified by some disgruntled hunters in Northern Maine. They wanted to start a petition drive asking MDIFW to close down the deer hunting season until the herd had been rebuilt. Whether that would work is really immaterial. This issue is that the hunters already knew there was a problem and MDIFW hadn’t admitted it.

As a matter of fact, MDIFW wants to lay the biggest part of the blame for the decimation of the herd on the two back-to-back severe winters – the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. As you can see, the complaints I began receiving from unhappy hunters was prior to those two severe winters.

We can point fingers and spread the blame everywhere but it won’t do much good until we can shrink the divide. I have written about this before. The hunters, the trappers, the fishermen and everyone who ventures afield have to be the eyes and ears of the fish and game. Fish and game has to be accepting of this.

We can’t have academia refusing to consider facts because they find them “repulsive”, or probably more accurately defined as in disagreement with one’s ideals.

Intellectuals float ideas, some good and some bad. Those in the field come armed with what they see. Meshing these two together could be quite productive.

Tom Remington

So Why Not “Predator Free Zones” In Maine?

Tom Remington — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:53:43 +0000

Open for discussion! Please use the comment section at the bottom of the page.

I tossed out a suggestion a few days ago as one of several on ways to help protect and rebuild Maine’s depleted whitetail deer populations. That suggestion was to create predator free zones, mainly around deer wintering areas. My idea is a modification of predator zoning suggested by Dr. Valerius Geist.

I thought about this idea a bit more this weekend. It seems that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wants to put the blame on the deer demise on two specific occurrences: harsh winters and loss of wintering habitat. While I know of nobody who disputes that assessment, I also know of few who think that’s the ONLY problem.

We can’t do much about the weather and trying to tell private landowners what they have to do with their land is a touchy subject. We know some winter deer yards have been destroyed but many still exist. George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says that some of the winter deer yards on the state’s public lands don’t have any deer in them. This tells us that the problems with the wintering yards isn’t that they have simply been cut down. Why are there no deer in these yards?

There is a situation in parts of the state where the deer are reported to have been depleted beyond sustainable levels. In these areas and others, the state is no longer looking at maintaining population numbers and certainly not reducing. The deer need to be replenished. At these levels saving one or two deer might make the difference.

Smith (SAM) has asked MDIFW if they will map out the deer wintering areas. If this can be done, then why can’t we use the same mapping and designate predator free zones around those wintering areas that are low on deer and high on predators? Of course this would take a strong commitment on the part of MDIFW to stand by such a decision as being one of necessity in order to save a species. They can’t start the project and then back down at the first threat of a lawsuit aimed at stopping predator control.

These predator free zones would receive immediate and priority attention and resources. The goal here wouldn’t be to kill off all predators but to keep them away from winter deer yards. Gerry Lavigne, retired deer biologist for MDIFW, believes that targeted predator control will work. He is not alone. Dr. Valerius Geist says that creating predator zones should be an integral part of wildlife management.

Reducing the number of predators around winter deer yards will save some deer and will help with fawn survival rates. If we are staring down the barrel of extirpation, I see saving one, two or six deer as well worth the effort. What do you think?

Do you think predator free zones can work? What are your ideas on how to implement a predator free zone? Please use the comment section of this article to express your thoughts and ideas.

Tom Remington

Maine’s Vanished Deer Herd: “Fact Finding”

Tom Remington — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:17:05 +0000

This is another in a series of responses to George Smith’s email about the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s (SAM) commitment to seek action in stopping the further demise of Maine’s deer herd and attempts to restore it back to something sustainable. Smith is the Executive Director of SAM.

Please find the entire email of Smith’s at this link. I will also attempt to provide all the links to all the articles pertaining to this debate at each of the sites where posted. Yesterday’s response can be found here.

Let me begin this article by first making some general comments about Smith’s and SAM’s efforts, etc. I have been reading George Smith’s recent articles published in newspapers and magazines, along with his blog at the SAM website. I believe he has a pretty good handle on the condition of Maine’s deer herd and the overall atmosphere and attitude of Maine’s angry licensed hunters. I think he also grasps the negative effects the loss of hunting will have on Maine’s economy and private business. I appreciate Smith’s work on this issue.

As pertains to the email I posted previously, I have a couple of comments. I am going to assume that where this email was only a draft to be considered by the Board of Directors for SAM, that what appears in the SAM newsletter may not be exactly the same, although overall content should remain similar.

The second thing I’d like to point out is that most all of what Smith writes is good stuff and should be considered by all of us. My attempt is not to find fault with his information but to expound on it and offer my own perspective and solutions to this sensitive issue. As is always the case, I welcome comments and responses from readers below in the comment section.

As we plod ahead, all ideas and observations need to be explored. A faithful reader on a previous article made a comparison of Homeland Secretary Janet Nepolitano’s comments about the “Pantie Bomber” terrorist and the failure of Maine’s deer management.

Nepolitano’s comment was that the “system” worked. Nobody could understand how the system worked if a terrorist was successful in getting explosives on a plane. The only failure was the “Pantie Bomber’s” inability to detonate the bomb.

The comparison comes when people in Maine begin saying the system of whitetail deer management works. If the “system” had worked, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That doesn’t however mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It simply means some things need to change.

So, let’s further examine the ideas suggested and see if we can expand on those and make the process work better.

“Fact Finding” – Smith offers that fact finding “need not take long”. I can’t say that I agree with that sentiment.

Job one is to fully understand the facts of this situation. Many are casting blame in all directions. It’s time to step back and gather all available facts. This need not take long. We look to landowner organizations like the Maine Forest Products Council and to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for the information needed to properly assess the situation. I’ve already learned a lot in meeting with these interests over the past few weeks. We’re not looking to cast blame. But we must know as much as possible about the situation.

The information needed includes: 1) an evaluation of the system of voluntary deer wintering area management agreements between DIF&W and large landowners, and LURC zoned deer yards; 2) a report on the amount and quality of deer wintering habitat now available in the unorganized territories on private and public land; 3) an evaluation and explanation of the 2009 deer season including harvest and license sales; 4) an accurate estimate of the current deer population by WMD; 5) an explanation of the major challenges in restoring deer numbers to DIF&W’s population goals for each WMD.

He begins well by saying that we all need to fully understand, stop casting blame and gather all available facts. What I am troubled with is it appears Smith believes the fact finding mission is easy and tells us from what sources we should get our facts from.

In yesterday’s article, I expressed real concern about the need to be all inclusive, that every licensed hunter in the state is a stakeholder. They are a source as well.

I don’t believe Smith is suggesting that the Maine Forest Products Council (MFPC) and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are the only places we should get facts from. However, we can’t imply this either. From experience I can tell you that anytime I employ MDIFW data in support of my statements, it doesn’t always carry a lot of credibility. It should but it doesn’t. More on this in a bit.

If Smith is honest, and I believe he is, that “we better be together on this”, then we need to look out beyond just MDIFW, MFPC and the Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM), for facts. The best way I know of to be all inclusive is to not disregard somebody’s ideas but to be receptive and eager to hear and understand everyone’s frustrations. We all can learn a lot from those angry hunters.

It’s easier to collect information and responses from known entities, often by overlooking each individual hunter. That is a fact of how things operate and I’m not suggesting it should change or is wrong. I mention it because I think hunters need to find or formulate a local sporting club, get involved and become a very loud voice in the game management process. It’s your money and investment we’re discussing here.

Smith goes on to explain what he thinks the “information” needs to be. It would have been better had he added just a few words to his opening paragraph. He said, “The information needed includes:”. This would have been much more effective it had read, “The information needed includes, among other things – a list that will grow as we reach out to all concerned:”

Five items are listed. You can read them above. The list is good but incomplete. Troubling again is the fact that the information being sought comes from government agencies only – MDIFW amd Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). We shouldn’t disregard this information but once again, the system isn’t working the way hunters want it nor is it meeting the goals of the Maine Deer Management Plan. Therefore, something must change. It’s time to consider other ideas, perhaps those not so strongly influenced by politics or job security, etc.

It would appear to me that included in this list should be the following: (Note: Some may perceive this as finger pointing and blaming MDIFW. Not at all. To this point it is only MDIFW “facts” that have fueled the deer management machine. If we are to continue to use MDIFW “fact” then certain questions need to be answered. I am challenging for those answers, seeking honest dialog.)

1). What is MDIFW’s official statement about the impact of large predators on Maine’s deer herd. Hunters in Maine aren’t interested in what is written in outdated studies from coyotes that don’t share the same habits and characteristics as Maine’s larger coyote – more than likely a hybrid of wolf and coyote. Maine outdoor writer Bob Humphrey wrote in an earlier article that an MDIFW report done in 1995 stated that coyotes accounted for 30% of deer loss statewide. Is this accurate information? Is there more updated data?

We hear from some at MDIFW that coyote depredation on deer is insignificant. This information suggests otherwise and as Humphrey begged the question, what is that mortality rate in places like Northern Maine where the deer numbers are down around extirpation levels?

Some honesty would go along ways here. If MDIFW’s official position is they aren’t concerned about coyotes, which appears to be their position, then Maine hunters want to know precisely what that is being based upon other than worn out and unproven rhetoric.

2). Would MDIFW please tell licensed hunters in Maine exactly how terrified they are of dealing with lawsuits from animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups? Maine hunters want the truth about how much time and expense this is costing us and exactly how much effect this has had on their ability to properly manage the deer herd? We know that it has had some effect because the most effective means of trapping coyotes around winter deer yards was taken away from us via lawsuits.

3). How much of Maine’s licensed deer hunters’ money is going to pay for non-game programs at MDIFW? Along with that cost analysis could we also be given an evaluation of how taking license fee money away from game management has hindered the ability of MDIFW to properly manage the deer herd and other game species.

4). Could Maine hunters get a breakdown of how much of their dollars goes toward search and rescue? And at the same time could we have an evaluation of how the loss of those dollars shifted to search and rescue has hindered the MDIFW’s ability to manage the deer herd and other game species properly.

I think you are getting my point. We are hearing and have heard for some time how that a lack of resources has kept MDIFW from doing the job they would like to do. My contention is that the lack of resources is the result of MDIFW, either willingly or forcibly, shifting dollars and manpower away from game management and into non-game programs. With a reduction of license dollars going toward good deer herd management and no income coming back to MDIFW from non-game beneficiaries, how can MDIFW properly manage Maine’s deer herd?

Remember, it’s Maine’s license buyers who fund MDIFW. Also realize that all employees of MDIFW are not hunters. It would naive to think that all employees at MDIFW are looking out for the best interest of hunters. Hunter’s interest headed south as soon as Maine fish and game became MDIFW, whose job it became to do many things not at all related to hunting, fishing and trapping.

Let’s keep going!

5). Could someone, anyone, please come up with an explanation as to how Maine’s Any-Deer Permit system works? I have tried as I’m sure many others have but it is next to impossible to convince licensed Maine hunters, especially angry ones with no deer to hunt.

While I’ve only scratched the surface, my contention still remains that fact finding will take a long time if this is to be done right. My facts don’t necessarily mean George Smith’s facts, or MDIFW’s facts. Maine hunters need convincing the source of these facts is reliable. That’s the task we face. How do we do that? If we can’t convince the angry hunters about our “facts”, I question how much success this effort will realize.

Being honest would be a great place to start. We all make mistakes. MDIFW has made some mistakes. They do a lot of good things but when something goes this awry, it’s time for adjustments. What better way to make those adjustments than done through honest dialog. Making excuses is just as bad as pointing a finger.

I suggest we take a deep breath for a second. We know that the longevity to a structure is a great foundation. I believe the foundation to “effective action”, as Smith calls it, is an honest and complete compilation of all the facts, not just the same one’s from the same sources. If we can build the best foundation possible, that meets the standards of all licensed hunters, putting in place an “effective action” will be made much simpler.

There is one other issue that needs mentioning and one that I hope doesn’t become lost in the rush to “effective action”. MDIFW can’t get a free pass on this. It appears to me they are too eager to pass the responsibility off on SAM and/or anybody else willing to take up the flag. We paid our fees and expected game management in return. Most are not satisfied with that effort.

Smith says we all need to step up and be responsible. I concur but not in order to give MDIFW a free pass. If they have forgotten who pays their bills, we need to rattle their cage. If we, the angry hunter, have to go about managing our own game, then maybe it’s time to dismantle and seriously downsize the fish and game department.

The managerial operation and structure of MDIFW comes from the governor and legislature on down. Remember that next time you go to vote.

Tom Remington

Wolf Hunters “Kill With Abandon, Glee”

Tom Remington — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:28:03 +0000

In a concrete jungle far, far away from where any wolf should roam (but perhaps where they ought too) people feel the need to demonize all who would oppose the irrational over-protection of wolves. From the midst of New York City, we all become enlightened by some of the most slanted editorials about wolves and wildlife management in general.

The New York Times on December 1, 2009 had an editorial, “Wolf Hunt” in which it was quite clear the editors are completely ignorant of what they speak but yet felt compelled to continue the environmentalist brainwashing they can so feverishly perpetuate in their daily rag.

“Wolf Hunt” says:

Nothing lays bare the true point of the wolf season more than Idaho’s recent decision to extend its hunt by three months, ending on March 31. The reason is that hunters have simply not killed enough wolves — only half of the state’s quota of 220 so far.

Unfortunately, this is a poor representation of the truth, not that that ever stopped an editorial. What the writer(s) is attempting to do is influence the reader to believe that the only reason a wolf hunt was extended was so that evil hunters could get in some more killing. How far from the truth.

Quotas on wolves weren’t randomly drawn from a hat. It was all based on projected goals of wolf populations within specified wolf zones or wildlife management areas. Tags were issued in numbers that represented the sought after number of wolves that best would biologically and socially be supported in that zone. The fish and game departments readily admitted the quotas were low in order to err on the side of caution.

The wolf hunt was therefore extended in regions where quotas had not been met based on science and wolf management goals not in order to fill the blood lusts of hunters. This same idiotic mentality is displayed in another letter to the editor in response to “Wolf Hunt”. The writer says,:

This small but fervent group (hunters) sees wolves not as part of a complex ecosystem but rather as an enemy to be conquered, a demon to be exorcised. Thus, they kill with abandon and, often, glee.

Talk about broad strokes with a brush. And of course this is as far from the truth as one can get. Yes, there are those who would probably illegally kill a wolf for no real reason at all, just the same as there are environmentalists who would burn buildings, turn over cars, destroy property and harm people to perpetuate their agendas.

It is quite unfortunate that few of the environmentalists and wolf lovers are at all interested in discovering the truth about wolves. If they did, they would be better armed to know how to protect them. In their fervent love affair with the romantic and iconic wolf, much of what they promote is more harmful to the overall protection of the animal they strive to protect.

The information being used to sway readers to their side of the aisle is often inaccurate. But they don’t know that and don’t want to. In “Wolf Hunt” the editor writes:

What matters is the survival of not just a few token wolves, but strong, genetically healthy wolf populations.

Sounds great! But it’s a myth. What was deliberately kept from everyone, including most wolf lovers before reintroduction, was the fact that it had been learned that 1). the Canadian gray wolf to be introduced was not the same wolf that roamed this area before extirpation; 2). wolves were already established in Northern and parts of Central Idaho and Northwestern Montana; and 3). there really are no such thing as pure wolves. Testing that has been done has determined that wolves and coyotes regularly interbreed and have been for a long time. Combine that with the interbreeding of domestic dogs, both intentional and unintentional, and what we have dotting our landscape are populations of hybrid dogs, some of which we are spending millions of dollars on to protect.*

*See, “Wolf Recovery and the Corruption of Government Science” by George Dovel – The Outdoorsman; Bulletin Number 35; July-November 2009 issue; pages 14-21

It’s an uphill battle for sure. While virtually every major media outlet in this country and scores of smaller independent media sources, espouse to environmentalism and readily reprint the propaganda put out by these groups, the task of educating the public to the truth becomes enormous. Most people do long for the truth and they have yet to learn that their sources might not be giving them what it is they want.

Tom Remington

Maine Hunters Are Mad And Justly So……..For Many Reasons

Tom Remington — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:21:10 +0000

Better communication can resolve a lot of problems in our world. In the converse, lack of such can cause things to spin drastically out of control. Maine hunters, particularly deer hunters, are quite angry and I believe they are justified in at least some of their anger. All they are getting are excuses.

It is no secret the past winters of 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 were tough on the Maine whitetail deer herds. I think I read someplace recently that these two winters, back to back, ranked 3rd and 9th worse in the state’s history, but they obviously weren’t the worst.

The causes for the lack of deer in Maine are complex and hunters don’t feel they are being given the courtesy of a better explanation other than winters are tough, habitat is shrinking, excuses ad nauseum. While both bad winters and shrinking habitat are as true as true can be, hunters feel more could be done to protect the deer herds and should have been done before now. This order of frustration has been building over the past two deer hunting seasons in particular, culminating this year with one of the most dismal of seasons that old timers can recall.

Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, predicted this passing deer season would be bleak. He was right.

But that still isn’t cutting it for the hunters.

I have written in previous articles about things I think at least might be considered as ways of helping to recover a whitetail deer herd. I won’t take up space in this post to go through them again. Click here for the latest article on this issue and links to previous posts.

Let me hit briefly on the excuses being thrown out to Maine hunters about what happened to their deer herd or would I be more accurate to say the MDIFW’s deer herd, as ownership seems a bit fuzzy?

1). Severe winters
2). Loss of Habitat and Winter yarding areas
3). Predation

It should be made clear that in my opinion, I think the biggest reason hunters are mad is because they are not getting their questions answered satisfactorily and in some cases are not being treated in the manner they should be. Let’s face it, MDIFW has an uphill battle to maintain a good relationship with the public. It’s way beyond that when it comes to dealing with the license-paying hunters. They demand action for the dollars they’ve invested. But lest we forget who pays the bills? And therein lies perhaps the biggest rub.

It is my feeling, and I am far from alone, that the hunters, who have forked over the money for years for game management are being taken advantage of or at least they are perceiving it that way. This comes out in several ways but let me touch on a couple very quickly.

You don’t have to be a college educated researcher to understand that MDIFW spends way too much time addressing non-game issues, i.e. search and rescue, non-game wildlife, catering to wildlife viewers, who don’t give a dime to the cause, and spending far too much time in litigation with animal rights groups. Some of that comes from taking up a position of weakness from the MDIFW but that’s another day.

When license-paying hunters see this, combined with the reality they’ve spent a lot of money and can’t even imagine a deer in the woods, they want answers not excuses.

What this is all boiling down to is a simple matter of communication. Stop with the excuses nobody wants to hear anymore. Address the hunters as real people. They may not be all college educated but they are nobody’s fool either. Some greenhorn, wet-behind-the-ears biologists has years to go before he’ll grasp as much knowledge as some of these seasoned, crusty old Mainers.

What matters is us license buyers give fish and game people a job and too often it is forgotten. These hunters deserve more than they are getting and I’m not talking about bigger deer herds. They want officials in Augusta to tell them, we believe what you are seeing in the woods is real. They want a biologist to admit that mistakes have been made. Instead of a wildlife official telling the hunters if they don’t like the coyote situation, that’s your problem. Go do something about it. Perhaps MDIFW would be well served to assume a little ownership too. Maybe for once they could just admit that there are too many coyotes, especially now that our deer herds are in trouble. They could better support efforts to focus predator reduction around winter deer yards instead of echoing the same hollow rhetoric that predator management won’t work. If a handful of deer can be saved this way, the resulting effort is far more positive than sitting in Augusta waiting for the weather to change but more importantly, it gives hunters back their sense of inclusion and ownership. Is that all bad?

One of the biggest complaints I hear from hunters when states absorb their fish and game interests into bigger government bureaucracies, like natural resources or conservation departments, is their loss of being a part of the wildlife management process. Communication disappears and nobody in the BIG government listens.

Travis Barrett, a public relations representative for MDIFW, has his own blog now. In a post dated 12/8/09 Barrett attempts to address hunters about their concerns over an overgrown population of coyotes and what MDIFW is going to do about it. His answer, while truthful, certainly didn’t use a very good approach if he really thought it would appease the angry hunters. I think he actually thought it more of a joke. His answer was, “Coyotes can be controlled by you.”

Maine has a year-round, open hunting season on coyotes during daylight hours (1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset). It also has a more than 6-month night hunting season on coyotes.

For just $4 for the permit, you can kill as many coyotes as you wish. Day after day after day after day…

There is also an extended opportunity to trap coyotes, again with no bag limits.

Notice there is no ownership of this problem by MDIFW. Nope! The thrust of the answer is, quit your complaining. If you don’t like there being too many coyotes, go kill some. While hunters need to do exactly as Barrett is suggesting, this is poor public relations.

George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his blog dated, December 3, 2009, he shares with us his notes and observations from the latest meeting of the Deer Task Force. If you haven’t read it all the way through yet, you should. The tone of the meeting that I derived from Smith’s blog certainly wasn’t encouraging as it pertained to Maine’s northern deer herd. In fairness though, there was a lot of good discussion about positive initiatives, etc.

I went away from reading this information feeling quite frankly as though MDIFW has no interest in putting any effort or resources into recovering the Northern Maine deer herd.

Stadler said lack of wintering area, including fragmentation of habitat, is the primary biological fact and “the forests of northern Maine are no longer biologically capable of supporting deer.” The driving factor is the poor winter cover.

We have coyotes in central and southern Maine, but winter cover is better in those areas so we have more deer, reported Stadler.

The reality seems to be that we will not rebuild the deer herd in the north in the short term.

Representatives of MDIFW made it a point that they have no resources available anyway; another excuse hunters want answers for.

George does bring up something he addressed the group with.

I offered the group these thoughts. Deer hunters are angry, casting blame widely, demanding fast action on all problems. Nonresident deer hunters have abandoned Maine causing severe economic loss in the outdoor industry and damaging DIF&W. It’s not good enough to say we’ll come back in a year and see what’s happened. We need real accountability and commitments now. Sportsmen also want to know what they can do and we need to provide that information.

Hunters don’t want to hear that MDIFW has no resources to do this. This is what they pay their money for and now there are no resources. Why? Because in my opinion, too many resources are being used on non-game issues. Lawsuits and the screaming, demanding wildlife viewers get the attention because MDIFW doesn’t want to deal with more lawsuits. Resources are drained and diverted away from game management.

We hear repeatedly that MDIFW has to consider all the “social” ramifications of its wildlife management decisions. It is true we can’t ignore the general public about such issues but when hunters see their investment being hijacked because of “social” issues, its going to make them angry.

While much of the information discussed at the Deer Task Force meeting that George Smith has shared with us all, is probably factual, how it is being dealt with is not doing anything to keep the hunter happy. When MDIFW loses sight of who pays their salaries, perhaps it’s time for major changes. Maybe Maine needs new leadership from the governor on down.

The question also becomes, why has it come to the point of staring down the barrel that Northern Maine’s whitetail deer population is gone? Did it have to come to such a drastic crossroad? We cannot control the weather but let’s be honest. Maine has always had stretches of bad weather and we’ve hung on.

Kantar points out that in the bad snow years of the late 60s and early 70s, the Northern Maine herd survived better then because there was more wintering habitat. Nobody will argue that fact, but still the question remains, did MDIFW plan for bad winters AND the loss of habitat other than talk about it? The fact is those winter deer yards didn’t just disappear last week. We all should have been more proactive, more aggressively dealing with the issue. The truth is we weren’t and now we are paying for it.

Here’s another factor that I’m sure will anger some and begin driving a wedge between hunters and outfitters; something that can’t happen. According to Smith’s accounting, it was asked if MDIFW planned on doing anything about reducing the bear population in areas where deer herds are suffering to help alleviate the predation; a suggestion I have had for some time.

Jim Tobin asked why we aren’t expanding bear hunting opportunities or bag limits. The answer is that the bear hunting outfitters oppose an increase in the bear harvest, and fear anything that opens up bear hunting to another referendum. Stadler said DIF&W was simply following the recommendations of the Predation Task Force.

We’re all in this together, aren’t we? I have no issue with outfitters trying to make a living and I certainly understand their concerns about being fearful of lawsuits and referendums but doesn’t anyone else see the anger that will arise when regular “Joe”, who’s mad as hell because the deer are gone, discovers the outfitters are making the decisions as to what is best for the protection and rebuilding of a seriously depleted deer herd? Now hunters will question the make up of the Predator Task Force. Perhaps Baldacci needs to form another “task force”. And doesn’t Stadler’s response sound more like a cop out?

These are only some of the issues that hunters see and are angry about. They are not getting any satisfactory answers. An employee of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, it would seem, would be seriously concerned about keeping a job. Are they not biting the hand that feeds them?

George Smith is right. Out-of-state hunters will not come to Maine and hunt, at least not for a long time. That’s big revenue loss. Without it, someone has to go at MDIFW.

But what could be worse than losing all that license revenue from out-of-state hunters? Simple. Losing resident hunters as well. They will get fed up with spending money each year to go walk around the woods looking at coyote tracks and recalling the days when there used to be a lot of deer around. Maine hunters are very supportive of fish and game interests and are willing to cough up more money when they are convinced the money is well spent. Trust me. They are not convinced!

Maine should be very happy they have Gerry Lavigne. He understands the problems and he sees Maine hunters are not going to get any help from MDIFW. They don’t see coyote predation as a problem. Travis Barrett was right. Hunters need to take this matter into their own hands and go kill coyotes. This is no joke! They need to kill as many as they can. They are like rodents and need to be kept in smaller numbers. They carry and spread disease and in numbers too great, they destroy other parts of our ecosystems.

Lavigne is taking positive steps to do something about predation. He spells it out here and here. My advice to you is to stop looking at MDIFW for help. They have their agendas and it isn’t necessarily the same as yours. If you think coyotes are killing all the deer in your favorite hunting grounds, it’s time to do something about it.

I wrote back last May what has now become the obvious. I said that the reality was that MDIFW did not have the resources to manage whitetail deer in Northern Maine. I’ve explained what I think is the reason, so what are we going to do about it? Should we let Baldacci create a bigger governmental kibosh by combining several agencies or are we going to demand that our investment into game management be better looked after?

I will repeat myself. Managing deer in Maine is a serious and complex undertaking. I am willing to believe that what the majority of Maine’s wildlife officials are telling us is true, even though I know many readers will not concur. Winters can be severe and will be again. Habitat has been reduced and efforts are underway to find a cure. I think MDIFW discounts the negative effects of large predators on our deer. I don’t. But the two biggest issues I have right now are these.

1). What got us to the point we are at now?, and
2). MDIFW needs to do a far better job in public relations than they are.

They need to stop putting down the hunters and ridiculing them for sharing their frustrations and on-the-ground observations. The also need to spend less of our time and money on non-game issues and get back to the business of managing game.

Maine cannot afford to lose its deer herd and it will never survive without the average “Joe” buying his license every year. Make all the excuses in the world as to what happened to the deer herd but there is no real excuse for poor communications and lousy public relations.

Tom Remington

Black Bear Blog » Hunting Politics

Maine Should Bring Back Snaring

Related Articles

Maine Should Oppose Funding Fish And Wildlife With General Taxation

Related Articles

Proposed New Jersey Bill Would Bring Back Bear Hunting

Related Articles

Montana High Court Says SSNs To Hunt And Fish Necessary

Related Articles

Intellectuals And Wildlife Management

Related Articles

So Why Not “Predator Free Zones” In Maine?

Related Articles

Maine’s Vanished Deer Herd: “Fact Finding”

Related Articles

Top Ten Black Bear Blog Stories Of 2009

Related Articles

Wolf Hunters “Kill With Abandon, Glee”

Related Articles

Maine Hunters Are Mad And Justly So……..For Many Reasons

Related Articles