Sportsman’s Alliance Of Maine’s Public Statement About Procurement Of Sportsman’s Email Addresses

Below is a copy of a statement made available to the public by George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. This article is in response to the concerns of sportsmen whose email addresses were obtained by SAM through Maine’s Freedom of Access Act law. Following this letter, please find my response.

~~~~~

Email Address Purchase Explanation

By George Smith

January 28, 2010

I am disappointed, discouraged, and yes, a bit angry at the way the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has handled SAM’s purchase of the department’s list of email addresses. Here’s the whole unvarnished story.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) was enacted to bring transparency to our government. I believe secrets have no place in state government and everything state employees know, we should know.

Nearly all information gathered by or created by state agencies is available to the public, from research reports to draft policies to databases. The State of Maine FOAA website (www.maine.gov/foaa/) explains this law and the process required to request information. FOAA requests are received regularly at DIF&W and other agencies and are routinely processed.

SAM was a charter member of Maine’s Freedom of Information Coalition, and I served on the Coalition’s board of directors for several years. SAM remains an active member of the Coalition.

The Coalition has been working, inside and outside the legislature, on FOAA issues including questions about what if any information deserves protection in this new technological age. I do not believe email addresses will ever be protected, any more than mailing addresses have been, but we’ll see.

Every state agency is required to abide by the FOAA. DIF&W has provided information on its licensees for decades to all who asked, including political parties and candidates, businesses, and nonprofits. Included in the information DIF&W provides are your name, address, and licenses purchased.
When you get those “Dear Sportsmen” letters from political candidates, where do you think they got your name and address? DIF&W, of course.

The department is allowed to charge a fee equal to the cost of providing the requested information. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. In my experience, if they are happy to provide the information and it suits their purposes, there is no charge. If they are unhappy about your request, you will pay. SAM paid $1500 for the list of email addresses.

It is important to remember that the law already protects information we all consider private such as our Social Security and credit card numbers. Please understand that such protected private information was NEVER the subject of SAM’s FOAA request for email addresses.

No lawsuit or other legal action was taken to procure the list. The Attorney General’s staff merely advised DIF&W that the list was subject to FOAA. Your email address possessed by DIF&W has always been available to the public. SAM’s purchase changed nothing in that regard and set no new precedent.

The Process

For many years I have been purchasing DIF&W’s entire list of licensees including names and mailing addresses. The list served as a principle means of prospecting for new SAM members and allowed us to send our messages to the entire constituency of sportsmen. But as the costs of mailings increased, we were forced to reduce those mailings.

As I began to receive DIF&W’s emailed messages myself, it occurred to me that their email addresses would give SAM a new and inexpensive way to communicate with sportsmen. My initial plan was to email our new SAM E-News. We are already using the email addresses of SAM members for this purpose and decided to extend this effort to all sportsmen who could be reached by email.

The first time we email a message to DIF&W’s list, we intend to give recipients the opportunity to opt out of future messages from SAM.

There are many sources of email addresses (and that’s one reason we get so much unsolicited email including SPAM). I chose DIF&W because its list is a perfect constituency of those SAM wants to reach.

A private company, InforMe, is the state’s database vendor. DIF&W’s email list is managed by InforMe and the department’s emailed messages are sent by another private company, Constant Contact. So I asked InforMe to sell DIF&W’s list of email addresses to SAM. My first request was sent in March of 2009.

InforMe refused my request. So I turned to DIF&W for help. After another refusal, I asked the Attorney General’s staff for help.

After receiving the Attorney General’s guidance, DIF&W sold SAM the list of email addresses.

FOAA requests

I have had to utilize the FOAA many times. It always surprises me when a state agency refuses my request for information, because they receive training in FOAA. I have been refused a document that a DIF&W leader was reading from, draft policies, and more. I have taken to submitting most of my requests to DIF&W for information using FOAA, because it simply is quicker than waiting to find out if they are willing to give me the information without a FOAA request.

Here’s a good example of the problems we have encountered. Last fall, after SAM’s Fishing Initiative Committee spent more than a decade encouraging DIF&W to adopt a comprehensive policy for the management of salmonids, John Boland, DIF&W’s Fisheries Director and a person I respect and work closely with, informed me that he had put a new salmonid policy on the Commissioner’s desk.

I emailed Commissioner Dan Martin, asking for a copy of the policy. He refused, saying he would not provide the policy until he had read and approved it. He had no right to withhold that policy and I asked the Attorney General to intervene on my behalf. I received the policy the next day.

Senator David Trahan and I used FOAA recently to obtain information about logging in deeryards that were supposed to be protected. We currently are awaiting information in response to a FOAA by Senator Trahan concerning the saltwater fishing license, information we hope will help us defeat the license proposal.

DIF&W’s emailed message

The message DIF&W emailed to its customers about SAM’s purchase of email addresses was unfortunate and incomplete. By taking their message to the media and 100,000 customers, the department assured that many more requests for the list would be received. They didn’t need to do this.

Never before have they chosen to inform licensees when their names and addresses and other information was sold.

SAM has asked the department to send another message, fully explaining this matter, including an accounting of those who have purchased information about licensees in the past, and making sure you understand that the information you provide when purchasing a license is available to the public. Legislators have also suggested that DIF&W post a similar notice on its website. That would be a good idea for all state agencies.

SAM’s Position

While SAM did nothing wrong in obtaining information that is available to anyone, we regret the discomfort this has caused those we serve. We hope you find our action understandable, and if you happen to receive emailed information from SAM, you will find it useful and important.

~~~~~

My Response:

I would like to say that I have never thought that the emails were obtained illegally. As a matter of fact, in the one article I wrote about SAM procuring the emails, I addressed the issue as one of extremely bad public relations.

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

Smith’s article is forthcoming and appears to be accurate from the information I have been privy to. There is somewhat a need to explain SAM’s legal approach in obtaining the emails because I have listened to some sportsmen wrongly accuse both the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and SAM for illegally giving or getting these emails.

Setting the legalities aside, there are two issues Smith talks of that I would like to address. First is his explanation about how SAM has used FOAA requests in the past to get information. The examples Smith gives are good examples of what the FOAA was intended to do. It is about transparency in government, not the legal ability to buy a list of emails for the purpose of sending and/or soliciting information to unwanted recipients, legal or not. It is understandable that from a “legal” perspective, emails and even personal mailing addresses would be included in FOAA because the politicians who made the law want access to that information for their own selfish desires.

The example Smith uses to explain some of SAM’s past uses of FOAA is a far cry from using FOAA to obtain email addresses.

Whether it’s legal or not misses the bus. It’s simply bad public relations and poor business. Is it really worth angering a few dozen people in hopes of getting one to read your propaganda? Which brings us to my second issue. Just because it is legal to go out and obtain emails doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best method of accomplishing a goal. Smith hints that if MDIFW hadn’t sent out an email warning those email holders what had happened, that sportsmen would not have known and no harm, no foul. I think this is a bit of a case of burying your head in the sand.

People don’t like SPAM and they don’t like junk mail that clutters their mailboxes and fills up our landfills. It’s unwanted, it’s rude and a poor business practice. To believe that by forcing information into someone’s email box with an explanation that an opt out function will be included in the first email, is about as good as receiving an unsolicited item in the mail that says if you don’t send it back you’ll have to pay for it.

As I explained before, SAM now has fences to mend and I offered steps I think they should take. They have explained their side of the story but I don’t believe that’s good enough. This is not an apology. It’s an attempt to release SAM from any legal wrongdoing and in the last sentence Smith exclaims, “we regret the discomfort this has caused those we serve”. It seems he is sorry SAM has angered a lot of people but all indications this isn’t going to stop them from their appointed task. He then goes on to ask readers to have an understanding and he hopes they enjoy the information they will be receiving through email.

“You’ve got mail!”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bidding Now On For 2010 Maine Moose Permit Auction

AUGUSTA – Bids are being accepted for the 2010 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Moose Permit Auction.

Each year, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife auctions 10 moose hunting permits and awards them to the highest bidders. Proceeds from the auction go to the Youth Conservation Education Fund, which awards partial scholarships to send Maine boys and girls, ages 10-14, to one week of conservation camp at the Bryant Pond 4-H Camp and Learning Center on Lake Christopher or Greenland Point Center on Long Lake in Princeton.

More than 400 boys and girls were able to attend conservation camp in 2009 because of these scholarships.

“Ever since the auction began, hunters have been very generous in their bids because, I believe, they know this program helps send Maine kids to conservation camp,” said Deputy Commissioner Paul F. Jacques. “We are appreciative of their participation in this program. While successful bidders get a permit, the real winners are the children.”

The Moose Permit Auction was created by the Legislature in 1995 specifically to fund youth conservation education efforts. Ten of this year’s 3,015 allotted moose permits will be auctioned. Last year, close to $100,000 was raised from the auction, and the 10 winners had a 90 percent success rate.

The 10 highest bidders are able to choose their 2010 season hunt dates.

Bids must be submitted to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife no later than 5 p.m. EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) on February 17, 2010. A non-refundable bid fee of $25 must accompany each bid. A bid packet is available by calling (207) 287-5207.

Submitted bids will be opened Feb 19, and successful bidders will be contacted. If selected, bidders have 30 days to send in the bid payment and select a moose hunting district, hunting week for the permit and permit type. A subpermittee, if desired, must also be selected at this time. The bid amount covers the resident or non-resident moose permit fee, but does not include the resident or non-resident hunting license fee.

The Bryant Pond 4-H Camp and Learning Center and the Greenland Point Center offer five-day residential camps that are designed to teach the boys and girls of Maine the importance of conservation, a respect for the environment and a working knowledge of outdoor skills. Subjects taught at the camp include wildlife identification, introduction to fishing, boating safety, archery, firearms handling, hunter safety, forest conservation and map and compass work.

The two conservation camps currently are accepting applications for this summer’s camp sessions. Partial scholarships are available and distributed on a first come, first serve basis. For information and applications, visit www.extension.umaine.edu/bryantpond/ or www.greenlandpoint.com

And while you are thinking about bidding on one of these permits, visit the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website and apply for a moose permit to be drawn by lottery in June.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

How Much Are Mountain Lions “Eating” Into Your Hunting Opportunities?

It seems that mostly what we hear these days is how predators, bears, mountain lions, wolves, coyote, bobcat, etc., have no effect on our deer herds. This of course is not true and is really a dishonest statement. Of course these large predators have an effect on the very areas in which they live. It might be more accurate to say that we don’t really notice the effect they are leaving behind until the game we hunt, which is often the same game these predators hunt, are disappearing.

If we look at the state of Maine as an example, here is a state that in the northern two-thirds there is essentially no more deer left. We have heard all the excuses – severe winters, loss of habitat, poor management, too many predators, etc. What we don’t seem to be getting a grasp on is what happens to our game management plans when the ecosystem gets torn to shreds by either uncontrollable circumstances(weather), or unpredicted effects(predators)?

I was emailing over the weekend with a good friend in Maine about the deer problems there. He made what I consider a profound and very accurate statement. He said, “Everything would be hunky-dory if we had not had two very severe winters in a row. It found all the weak spots in the management of the Maine deer herd.”

While I believe this statement to hold a lot of water, why is it we still are feeling this need to deny discussing some of those weaknesses other than blaming winters and habitat? As I pointed out just a minute ago, predators do make an impact on the very ecosystems that they live. In a robust ecosystem, most of us never pay notice to predators. In other words, there is plenty to go around – at least for now. So what happens when the ecosystem becomes lopsided? What happens when two severe winters in a row decimate a deer herd? What happens when two severe winters in a row finish off a deer herd that has already been weakened due to reduced habitat and too many predators, or at least what now appears as too many predators? These are some of the “weak spots” my friend was referring to.

Let’s take only one example, the mountain lion. But Tom! There are no mountain lions in Maine! Officially, there are no mountain lions in Maine nor are there any wolves and from my perspective it can remain that way until circumstances warrant a change.

Perhaps two months ago, this same friend sent me a photograph he had taken in Maine of what he believed to be a mountain lion kill of a whitetail deer.

I sent the picture for an opinion to some people who I knew had far more experience with mountain lions than either the two of us. Dr. Valerius Geist, a renowned biologist and expert on ungulates, commented this way:

We live in the boonies surrounded by large predators, including mountain lions. Deer vacate the land when puma show up. We know that from old work done with radio collared mountain lions and deer. So, no big surprise that the deer have vanished. Why the surprise over puma being present in the East?

I also got a response from George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman and years of experience in the outdoors.

Let me emphasize I am neither a cougar expert nor an expert cougar (mountain lion) hunter but I was a close friend to and hunted with the most successful Idaho lion hunter of the 20th century, *** *****, for a few years. During the 18 years I lived in what is now the Frank Church Wilderness I examined a fair number of cougar kills and, in those I examined closely on snow, I determined the lion always dragged the carcass at least a short distance once it killed or paralyzed the animal, and often – but not always – covered it. If the kill was not concealed by brush and/or trees and also covered by leaves, needles or other debris as in your photo, it was quickly discovered by magpies, ravens or eagles. The photo you provided might indicate a typical mountain lion kill.

So I have at least stirred up the idea in you that mountain lions might be around in a few places in Maine. What effect will this mountain lion have on the whitetail deer population within its territory? Under “normal” circumstances, probably none that would get noticed by the average hunter/outdoorsman. But what if the deer herd began shrinking because of winter kill, loss of habitat, etc.?

In the spring edition of North American Whitetail Magazine, 2010, Volume 28, Number 2, there is an article in there by Dr. James C. Kroll. He writes,

Although many state wildlife agencies still won’t admit they have lions, the public is now well aware they exist in a number of places. And, they can have a real impact on whitetails. In general, a male lion will eat one deer per week, while a female with young will eat two deer per week. The hidden blessing is that lions tend to have very large home ranges, and they therefore don’t defend their territories as vigorously as wolves or bears do.

If the mountain lion was ranging over territory that comprise whitetail deer populations that were healthy in numbers, let’s say 20 or more deer per square mile, I doubt any of us would ever much notice the deer the lion took out. Dare I say, we probably would not know the lion existed. But what if this lion was now living in the same territory where the population of deer has been reduced to 2, 3 or 4 deer per square mile. Being a good hunter, a hungry lion can finish off what remains of a deer herd within its territory, if it’s eating a deer or two per week. If the lion doesn’t completely wipe it out, it certainly can hamper the rebuilding effort or make it difficult to sustain a herd.

So now we are looking at a real predator problem, well, that is if one wants to maintain a deer herd. Where once the lion would go unnoticed, now hunters want to know where the deer all went. Predators do have an effect on whitetail deer numbers and under Maine’s circumstances one mountain lion ranging about an area with a drastically reduced deer herd, can finish it off. It’s now a problem. So, why not admit it?

Managing deer in Northern Maine, as well as parts of Downeast and the mountains in the west, is a challenge simply because geographically, these areas sit on the outer fringes of whitetail deer range. There will always be severe winters here and there and as my friend said, those bad winters show up the weaknesses in the deer management plan. If Maine wants to keep a deer herd in these areas, it best be plugging up some of these holes so that the severe winters, when they hit, won’t have such a devastating effect on the herd.

We can start by admitting that predators do have an impact on deer herds. How much we notice depends on certain conditions, some of which we are witness to now. We need to more closely monitor and manage predator numbers of bear, coyote, bobcats, as well as reduce competition for food and habitat between deer and moose.

None of this will be easy but a repeated denial that predators matter, isn’t going to cut it anymore.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is This The Right Direction Maine Fish And Game Should Go In?

I was reading through the threads and comments of the Maine Sportsman Forum this morning. Some of you may have read my articles about the controversy of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) seeking email addresses of sportsmen from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife through the Freedom of Information Act law. This thread is discussing that topic and that’s where I pulled the comment below made by Harry Vanderweide, Editor of the Maine Sportsman.

SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Maine Audubon have joined together to seek passage of a constitutional amendment referendum that aims to create stable dedicated funding for the Department through a tiny percentage of the sales tax. That effort is crucially important to DIF&W. The Department currently gets no state tax money and is now running deeply in the red with no way out. In other words, as a matter of simple survival, it is in the Department’s best interest to work with SAM because nobody else is offering solutions to solving the Department’s serious financial woes.

This comment is saying that MDIFW is so financially in trouble it is willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain funding and that nobody else is offering suggestions. Well, I have been offering suggestions for quite some time. Either nobody is listening or I’m not offering suggestions that anyone is interested in hearing. Let’s try again.

The first problem why MDIFW is broke is they have morphed into being a do-all department, much of which has nothing or little to do with fish and wildlife and too much to do with issues not related to fish and game. Call that a problem or not, but you can’t keep asking the MDIFW to take on nongame issue while only asking the fish and game license buyers to fund these programs.

So the solution is quite simple actually. If, as Vanderweide says, SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Audubon have teamed up to find tax dollars to fund IFW, then why not put these nongame entities into the hands of the Department of Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Law Enforcement, or any other non fish and non game entity, and then fund it with tax payer dollars the way it should be?

Do the Maine sportsmen want members of the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, Wildlife Alliance of Maine or any other agency dujour not interested in the best interests of hunters, fishermen and trappers sitting on the Commission? That’s what you’ll get if this is the route that is pursued. Politics controls far too much of MDIFW now. Add tax dollars to the funding and it will only get worse.

I see no reason why these nongame programs can’t be moved to departments where they belong out of MDIFW and then funded with tax money as they should be. This will relieve the MDFIW from the monetary load of keeping these programs up and the manpower required, then they can get back to focusing on fish and game issue with the same amount of money. Doesn’t this make sense? Isn’t this better than having your fish and game department run by animal rights groups and environmentalists?

If you agree, call SAM, call your representative, tell your neighbor, tell somebody. If you disagree, call SAM, call your representative, tell you neighbors, tell somebody. But please tell somebody how you feel about your wildlife management.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Sportsman’s Alliance Of Maine Obtains Email Addresses Via FOIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Baxter Land Swap Contributes To Death Of Maine’s Deer Herd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Hunters Getting Short End Of Stick When It Comes To Hunting Opportunities

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

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

So what is stealing your opportunities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Northern Maine Deer Population Topic of Public Informational Meeting

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

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

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

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

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

We Need A “More Sophisticated Understanding” Of Coyote Management

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

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

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Gov. Baldacci Trying For Third Time To Consolidate Natural Resource Departments

If there is ever one move by a state that can destroy fish and wildlife management, it’s to consolidate all the areas of natural resources, including environmental departments into one super department. It’s mostly done under the guise of saving money but in the end costs more money and diminishes the services and the functions it is assigned to achieve.

In George Smith’s article today in the Kennebec Journal he calls Baldacci’s proposal of consolidation, “more expensive and less responsive.” Smith is Executive for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.

Smith says it best this way:

Maine needs small mission-focused agencies, offering excellent customer service, able to react quickly to trends and new demands, accountable for their work and decisions, and constantly repositioning themselves to serve the needs of Maine’s economy and people.

Maine does not need a super natural resource agency that will be more expensive and less responsive.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Intellectuals And Wildlife Management

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

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

So Why Not “Predator Free Zones” In Maine?

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

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Deer Management Heading South, Warden Service Investigating Illegal Waste Dumping

Most of you know that I have complained for years that fish and game departments funded mostly by license fees cannot do their job of managing our game populations when resources are used up taking care of non-game business. The state of Maine is no exception.

Maine is in the middle of a serious deer management problem. There is a lot of finger pointing to go around and the majority of it of late seems to want to end up pointing at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

In a related article, I asked several questions about how MDIFW was spending its money, allocating resources and how this was affecting deer management; specifically how it contributed to the demise of the state’s deer population. One of those questions was in regards to non-game activities.

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.

Not included in my list of questions is one about poaching and its effects on Maine’s deer herd. Perhaps it should have. George Smith, Executive Director for Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his latest article in Downeast Magazine talks mostly about what a safe hunting season Maine just had. But in the midst of his article he drops this bomb on us.

Interestingly, game wardens investigated 48 cases of illegal waste dumping, a good example of the mission creep that has caused serious problems for the Warden Service.

Some may question what’s the big deal in the Maine Warden Service investigating 48 cases of illegal waste dumping. Considering there were only 248 total Warden investigations last year, it becomes a clearer question to ask why are MDIFW resources being used for non-game activities that take up nearly 20% of all investigations? Smith describes this as “mission creep” but combine this with all the other “creeps” and we have mission leaps and bounds away from MDIFW’s appointed mission.

I guess many of us have been asleep at the wheel while MDIFW “crept” into areas that clearly have taken away from deer management. This negligence seems to be more telltale of the reasons Maine’s deer herd is in disarray. This is another example of why there needs to be a serious reformatting of the mission of MDIFW, which should include turning such activities as non-game Warden Service investigations and all others not directly related to game management over to the Department of Conservation and fund those activities with tax payer dollars instead of license fees.

Poaching is always a serious concern and in some cases can seriously damage the ability of any fish and game department of protect and manage a game specie. It is the function of the Maine Warden Service to enforce poaching laws and investigate all activities concerning those laws. Pulling wardens from their “normal” duties to go investigate illegal dumping should not be part of the job description.

Now all Maine licensed hunters want to know how many deer and other game were poached while our Maine Warden Service looked into illegal dumping? And while we’re at it, how much did that cost licensed hunters?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Animal Rights Groups And Governor Oppose Maine’s Coyote Hunts

Right on schedule, animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups are lining up in opposition to coyote hunting in Maine and more specifically the current coyote tournament sponsored by the Jackman-Moose River Chamber of Commerce. 6 hunters have enrolled and have killed one coyote since it began Dec. 16.

But what’s really at stake here is a test to witness the resolve and priorities of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife under the direction of Gov. Baldacci. According to the Maine Public Broadcasting Network website, Baldacci opposes the hunts too.

David Farmer is a spokesman for the governor. “The governor doesn’t support this kind of tournament — he finds the practice inhumane,” Farmer says. “He has spoken with his Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and asked that he reach out to the group that is sponsoring the event and see if they would be willing or interested in calling it off.”

I find it amazing that Maine’s governor doesn’t have at the least an understanding of what his state is facing concerning the destruction of its whitetail deer herd. To me this is a clear indication of why Maine’s deer herd has been decimated. He and MDIFW are ultimately responsible for this demise. They have failed and are offering little in the way of solutions, yet oppose efforts by locals to save their economies and deer herds.

Should the governor and MDIFW Commissioner Martin buckle to the whims of hypocritical and extremist environmental groups on this issue, then outdoor sportsmen in Maine have their answer as to why Maine will never see a return of deer to certain parts of the state.

It is hypocritical that these groups oppose the taking of coyotes in order to balance out the predator/prey ratios to protect deer. Why aren’t these misguided groups interested in protecting other species? Simple answer. They’re not. They are interested in stopping hunting.

So, Mr. Governor and Mr. Martin. It appears the ball is now in your court. What do you intend to do with it? Show us your true colors. Are you interested in protecting the deer and preserving Maine’s deer herd and deer hunting heritage? Or, are you scared of bad publicity that will be generated from a group of extremists that are mostly laughed at by Maine residents.

Your call.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine’s Vanished Deer Herd: “Fact Finding”

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

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »