Maine Preliminary 2009 Deer Harvest Numbers Released

*Editor’s Note* Below is a press release sent to me by MDIFW. It took 2 months to tally an “initial” harvest number of 18,045 deer, a 14% decrease from the abysmal year of 2008 of 21,061. 2007 saw 28,884 deer taken; 2006 was 29,918; 2005 a harvest of 28,148; 2004 at 30,926. A twenty year history prior to 2006 saw an average of 28,700 deer taken each season.

This brief report does not tell us information about harvest according to WMDs. The press release blames severe winters and poor hunting conditions for the decline,in harvest numbers, in addition to a reduction of “Any-Deer Permits”.

AUGUSTA, Maine – Preliminary deer harvest numbers show a decrease of 14% from the 2008 harvest with an initial tally of 18,045 deer taken by hunters.

“To put this into perspective, we must consider that the 2008 and 2009 winters represent the most severe back-to-back winters since 1971-72,” according to IF&W Deer Biologist Lee Kantar.

Long winters with deep snows have a tremendous impact on the overwinter survival of deer. Both expected regional declines in deer abundance and adverse hunting conditions — two weeks of poor hunting conditions during the firearms season — played a role in the fall 2009 harvest decline. Decreases in the deer harvest from 2008 also were expected given the 16% decrease in any-deer permits for Maine’s hunters (reducing overall success rates). The reductions in any-deer permits for 2009 were necessary to allow the deer herd to begin to recover.

Relative to adjacent provincial and state jurisdictions, the decline in Maine’s deer harvest was less in comparison to our Canadian neighbors in Quebec and New Brunswick whose deer harvests declined greater than 30% during the same time period, but was greater than the decline in New Hampshire’s deer harvest (decrease of approximately 5%).

For 2009, Department biologists projected a statewide harvest of approximately 19,289 deer. The annual deer harvest projections by department biologists in the late spring result from an analysis of mortality and reproductive rates, harvest trends, and any deer permit allocations to meet Wildlife Management District (WMD) goals and objectives. Thus our initial number for statewide harvest was 6% less than projected.

Over the next few weeks, department biologists will complete a more detailed analysis of the 2009 harvest and will release the final deer harvest number and further details about how the harvest looked by season, WMD, sex and age.

Maine’s Deer Herd May Be In Worse Shape Than Feared

The only way that we can tell about what’s really going on with the Maine deer herd is reports from hunters in the field and a look at deer harvest numbers. Then we can guess. We don’t have official deer harvest numbers yet but when we do, I think we may be shocked when we look at tagged deer numbers broken down by regions. The tendencies in the past have been to look only at the overall harvest numbers.

If you will recall, last year the overall deer harvest was down 27% from the 2007 season, a harvest of just over 21,000 deer – the lowest number since 1986. I believe I recall Lee Kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife head deer and moose biologist, say we could expect as much as a 30% decrease. At that time, Maine was in the middle of the winter following the 2007 season and he predicted another drop in harvest numbers. We may have dropped far greater than anyone had predicted. Is there a reason for not being able to predict?

If you haven’t seen John Holyoke’s article in the Bangor Daily News dated 12/10/09, I’ll try to sum it up.

Holyoke reports that deer hunters who ventured into the North Maine Woods, a linking together of private land comprising around 3.5 million acres, had a success rate to bag a Maine buck about that of winning the Tri-State Megabucks.

“We had 5,500 parties enter NMW during November with a harvest of less than 100 deer,” Cowperthwaite wrote. “So odds were one party in 55 shot a deer. Or about one hunter per 120. Or one deer per 35,000 acres. Or one deer per 1.5 townships.”

Al Cowperthwaite, the executive director of North Maine Woods Inc., gathered his information from gates where hunters have to enter and leave this land. He explained that his information wasn’t scientific but he felt it quite accurate.

These numbers don’t stack up well in comparison to other years, although Copperthwaite admits he doesn’t have much data from the past.

And although Cowperthwaite has no similar tally from past years, he said that during one season about 10 years ago hunters took 144 deer out through the Telos Gate alone. This year, staffers counted 18 deer at the Telos Gate.

This is quite sad and beyond dismal. I think we are staring directly into the real possibility of extirpation of the whitetail deer herd in Northern Maine. Could this have been prevented?

I will not disregard MDIFW’s claim that the recent back-to-back severe winters took its toll. I’ll also not shy away from their notion that the deer habitat, particular the wintering yard areas have shrunk so that it too is having a serious impact on deer. What I will harp about is that I don’t think MDIFW is taking serious enough the impact coyotes (and I use that term loosely) are having on the deer population.

Bob Humphrey, in an article in the Maine Outdoor Journal, puts it into writing as well as any Maine outdoor writer I’ve read.

However, deer overabundance is hardly a problem in our state – quite the opposite. Furthermore, according to a 1995 report from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, coyotes accounted for nearly 30 percent of annual deer mortality in Maine, killing as many deer each year as hunters. Fourteen years later, we have more coyotes and fewer deer, so it’s reasonable to assume that percentage is larger, possibly much larger.

The first point Humphrey makes is a good one and one that would do MDIFW a good turn if they paid closer attention. Too many “studies” about coyotes and their impact on deer and ecosystems in general, come from areas where sustaining a whitetail deer herd isn’t a problem. Areas of Maine that have been hit the hardest have never had an overabundance of deer. While MDFIW has been working toward increasing deer herds in these areas, they have not seen the success they hoped for, even when the weather cooperated.

Large predators are devastating on deer when there become too many predators and not enough prey/deer. I have to ask the question as to whether or not this has been considered? Even if one wanted to rely on the claim that coyotes will self-regulate and the numbers would shrink according to the food available, this doesn’t happen overnight. It isn’t simply directly proportional.

History shows us that large predators, wolves and coyotes in particular, if allowed to grow unchecked or via the infamous “natural” method, once they clean out their food sources, they either move on, resort to cannibalism, or their own diseases wipe them out.

Humphrey also points out a statistic that I wasn’t aware of. According to him, a report from the MDIFW claims that 30% of the annual deer mortality in the state of Maine comes from coyotes. How can MDIFW make the claim that the impact of coyotes in Maine is negligible, while killing as many deer as man does?

In his article, Humphrey tells us about a recent study that shows that 22% of coyotes in Maine have genes that can be traced back to wolves. Anyone who has spent anytime in the Maine woods has known that the coyotes Maine has aren’t the ones you see in the South or out West. If we can determine that at least some of the “Eastern Coyotes” in Maine are wolf hybrids, then maybe we shouldn’t put so much emphasis on studies done on coyotes that don’t even habituate the state or in this case, have the same killing patterns.

Wolves we know, are killing machines. All too often we, in our Disney mentality, want to think of the howling wolf in a cute, cuddly and romantic fantasy. We can argue pro and con about whether these large predators are important to our ecosystem but those arguments must include facts. If Maine’s “coyotes” have wolf genes and are a much larger canine than what is found in other parts of the country, then we can conclude that they have a better ability to kill deer and/or larger prey.

And HURRAY to Bob Humphrey! He told a truth about these canine killers that few outdoor writers and media people are willing pass on.

Without going all Farley Mowat on you, coyotes can also keep deer herds healthy by culling the sick and the weak. But they don’t take just the sick and the weak. In a typical Maine winter, deer may represent 50 to 80 percent of the coyote’s diet, according to the IFW report. In a severe winter, when deep snow severely impedes deer mobility, coyotes become opportunity killers. They will literally go from one deer to the next, killing every deer they can, even with a full belly. And the carnage doesn’t stop there.

The sooner we dispel this myth of predators only culling the weak and sick, the sooner we can move on and grow our wildlife management plans to better cope with reality. Some would argue that even if coyotes indiscriminately kill deer there are always other predators and scavengers that will clean it up. That’s partially true but also partially a myth. Studies and on the ground evidence has shown time and again, prey animals such as deer and elk, are killed and gone untouched.

In the North Maine Woods, there is no doubt few deer are left. Coyotes still have to eat. They are not going to starve themselves to death while being restricted to some fictitious menu of only sick and weak prey. We have seen nothing that would indicate the coyote population is shrinking. Depending upon circumstances, coyote numbers can grow easily by 30% per year. When a predator to prey balance becomes skewed, all hell can break loose. All hell has broken loose!

With a diet of deer that comprises 30% of the herd statewide annually and 50% – 80% of their total diet in winter, coyotes are having a very serious impact on the herd. With any hope of rebuilding and/or increasing deer numbers, this element of wildlife management must be brought under control.

We have to wait on the weather. Efforts are underway to protect remaining deer wintering areas. More needs to be done. It will be years, if ever, that deer will return to Northern and Eastern Maine but if we implement programs now, there is hope.

Perhaps one of the best things we can do is admit we don’t know everything, that mistakes have been made and that what was thought to be a really good deer management program isn’t producing the results hoped for. That’s a start. A management program has to include everything that man can control, at least to some degree.

Tom Remington

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

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

Changes And Advisories For Upcoming Maine Deer Hunting Season

Deer Hunters Advised of Changes, IF&W Initiatives

AUGUSTA – Hunting seasons are underway in Maine, and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wants hunters to be aware of rules and agency initiatives in order to have a safe season.

Deer hunting season starts Oct. 31 for Maine residents with valid hunting licenses and permits, and Nov. 2 for all hunters.

Hunters are reminded to read and carry with them their appropriate law books. The law books are available at any of the Department’s 840 licensing agents statewide and at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife offices. For more information, call 287-6000.

The Department issued 45,385 permits this year to residents, non-residents, landowners and Superpack holders.

An additional 755 permits were issued to Superpack holders who were inadvertently removed from the lottery drawing after the initial selection. Those permit holders have been notified.

Youth Deer Hunt Day is Saturday, Oct. 24; Changes to Program

Young hunters who participate in Youth Deer Hunt Day on Saturday, Oct. 24, will be participating in the same deer herd management practices that adult hunters will engage in when their season starts on Nov. 2.

This year, young hunters between the ages of 10 and under 16 years, may hunt bucks/antlered deer throughout the state. Doe hunting only is allowed in Wildlife Management Districts that are open to any-deer permit hunting during the regular deer season. Those districts are 15-17; 20-26, 29. To view the districts, go to www.mefishwildlife.com.

“This year, young hunters will learn a valuable lesson in how managing the state’s deer herd is everyone’s responsibility,” said Roland “Danny” Martin, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “Adult hunters will have an opportunity to talk with the youngsters about how harvest limits on the number and type of deer are important so that deer herds can rebound in areas where their numbers are low because of severe winters the last couple of years.”

IMPORTANT: Hunters Must Write Down Their Any-Deer Permit Number

IF&W no longer mails Any-Deer permits to permit winners. Instead, permit winners need to record their permit number and report the permit number to the registration station when tagging their deer. The Department suggests that permit winners write down their permit number and keep the number with their hunting license so it is readily available when needed at the registration station. Hunters can find their Any-Deer permit number by visiting our web site at http://deer.informe.org/index.htm.

New Registration Fees

A $5 registration fee will be collected at tagging stations during the hunting season. The fee, which was approved by the Maine Legislature, aids in the collection and processing of registration and biological information regarding big game.

Tagging stations receive $1 to collect information and the Department receives $4 to support the costs associated with inputting, processing and analyzing the collected data.

“This fee is critical to the management of all big game species in Maine,” said Lee Kantar, IF&W deer and moose biologist. “Without this fee increase, we would be in an extremely difficult situation as to how we currently register big game species and collect critical information about these species that guide our management decisions.”

Any-Deer Permit Swap Available

An Any-Deer, Landowner or Superpack deer permit winner may swap their permit with another same-type permit winner in order to switch hunting districts.

The permits must be the same type, and residents can swap only with residents and non-residents can swap only with non-residents.

IF&W does not maintain a list of individuals wishing to swap permits. Permit winners who wish to swap will need to locate and contact other permit winners on their own.

One sportsman, Jeff W. Zimba, is maintaining a non-IF&W-affiliated swap site – www.DoeTagSwap.com. For a small fee, permit winners can locate and potentially swap with other same-type permit winners. However, IF&W still needs to be notified of the swap, and the proper Department paperwork still must be completed.

The site also allows permit winners to download for free and print a business card-sized Any Deer Permit/Transportation Tag on their home computer. IF&W is not mailing Any Deer Permits this year, and winners are responsible for bringing their permit number to the registration station.

The IF&W permit swap fee is $7 (one fee covers both winners.) The swap can be done in person at our main office in Augusta or by mail with the required “swap request form” that’s available on our web site. The Department will assign a new permit number and mail back the form.

The swap can be done online until 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 30, 2008. Mail-in requests must be received by Oct. 30. Please allow at least one week for processing. Visit http://www4.informe.org/ifw/nedeer/netransfer.html to complete your swap.

Hunting In Maine Is Big Business

Approximately 204,000 people hunt in Maine each year, and those hunters generate more than $241 million in economic activity in Maine. Approximately 83 percent of the hunters are Maine residents.

Each hunter spends an average of $1,359 in equipment, licenses, memberships and trip-related expenses, and spends approximately 13 days engaging in the sport, according to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, the most recent information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The economic impact from hunting season is tremendous, supporting thousands of jobs and bringing millions in state sales and income tax revenue.

Make Sure Your Deer Hunt Is A Safe Hunt

The Department offers the following safety tips:

· Be sure that someone knows where you are headed, and when you plan to return. Leave a map and itinerary.

· If carrying a cell phone, be sure the batteries are charged and bring a spare.

· Carry emergency survival gear, a flashlight, extra batteries, map and compass, matches, water and snacks.

· Stop periodically to eat and re-hydrate yourself.

· Wear two pieces of hunter orange that are in good condition.

· Be sure of your target, and what is beyond it.

· Always keep the muzzle of your firearm pointed in a safe direction.

· Unload your firearm before entering a dwelling, before entering a vehicle, or before storing it.

Does Maine Have A Deer Management Problem? – Part IV

I would suppose that it is time to cut to the chase on this issue of Maine’s deer management problems. There are some cold and hard facts that have to be acted upon. Maine can no longer keep doing what it’s doing. It’s just not working very well is it? We can’t sit back and wait for the weather to break.

In Part IIIof, “Does Maine Have a Deer Management Problem?”, I promised that I would return to Part IV with a list of things that we, as hunters, can do to help replenish our deer herds in places where they need the attention. I apologize for taking so long on this but I have written and rewritten this article far too many times, each time closing out my browser and walking away because I knew I was going to incite too many people to anger. Part of what has encouraged me to rewrite it one more time, came from a reader who told me people were waiting for some help. I appreciate the support and the encouragement.

Briefly, Part I we looked into reports that there were far fewer trophy bucks being registered in the State of Maine. Part II, we tried to determine if the deer herd was healthy and in Part III I put together some data in order to verify that MDIFW’s assessment that the reduction in trophy deer registrations mirrored the reduction in harvest numbers. I also began looking at what the causes are that affect deer populations.

According to information supplied to us hunters, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife tells us that they have population density management goals. These density goals are determined in a number of ways but in layman’s terms it has to do with the number of deer a piece of land can support. But that’s not the only thing.

In Part III, Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s head deer and moose biologist, had this to say when offering information about how management objectives affect deer densities and populations.

“In addition deer mgt objectives (set by the public) changed in 1999 from growing deer to maintaining levels at 15-20 per square mile in order to reduce negative impacts of deer including risk of lyme disease, car-vehicle collisions, and overbrowsing of ornamentals, etc…”

Absent from that assessment was management based on sustainable deer harvest. There once was a day when it was the job of fish and game to manage game animals for sustainable harvest. That means they managed deer, bear, moose, fox, marten, mink, all animals considered to be game, in numbers that allowed for the citizens of the state of Maine to harvest these animals for personal use, i.e. food, furs, etc. That has since been yanked away from us as is proof in that one statement.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife cannot “manage” the game animals for sustainable harvest when that is not their goal. It has more become their goal to cow-tow to the animal rights and anti hunting groups because they are more afraid of them than those of us who pay the bills that keep them employed. For Maine to salvage a hunting and trapping future, this has to stop.

According to Kantar’s statement, deer management objectives are set by the public, not the hunters, not those who have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over several decades, but the public. This is Joe who lives on East Overstreet who just planted some pretty new shrubs and he don’t want the deer eating them up. This comes from the insurance companies who complain about having to pay out claims on people who drive like idiots, zooming past deer and moose crossing signs.

Do you see the problem with all this? Those putting all the demands on MDIFW, and getting what they want I might add, are those who don’t play a bloody nickel.

We hear all this big talk from MDIFW, from the governor’s office and others about how hunting, trapping and fishing are big business in Maine. They boast about the millions of dollars annually these “sports and recreations” bring into the state and they sure have an odd way of showing that appreciation.

The State of Maine, which is not Augusta, it’s not Danny Martin, it’s not Gov. Baldacci. It’s you and me. We have to make a decision. Either we want Maine to use our investment money to provide hunting and trapping opportunities or we keep digging in and providing the livelihood for those who want to take your’s away.

I get press releases from the MDIFW on a regular basis. Over the course of a year, the overwhelming majority of those releases have nothing to do with money and effort being put into deer harvest issues. And we wonder why there are no deer left in Northern Maine.

With all due respect to all those who have served on another one of Gov. Baldacci’s “working groups”, what have these groups accomplished, Mr. Governor? Are we better off today having had a group of people sit down and determine there aren’t any deer left in places we knew there weren’t any deer before they met? A mandated predator control group essentially told us we have predators. Learn to live with them. Please give me that authority.

Hunters, trappers and fishermen, it’s time to step up to the plate and either demand that your investment money be put into managing deer and other game for sustainable harvest or stop paying their way. I think if someone who knows, if there is anyone, exactly how many pennies for every dollar you spend for your license got spent on deer management, you’d laugh and then cry. You and I pay for a license that we think will permit us to bag a deer. What we are really doing is giving MDIFW our money so that they can spend it on countless non-game activities. Is that what you want?

Let’s go back to where I made the statement that Maine needed to begin acting like the economic advantages coming to the state from hunting was a viable industry. Talk is cheap. As long as the next governor and the governor after that, etc., can spout off about the millions of dollars hunting brings to the state, while ignoring the facts that hunting license sales are down, deer populations are dropping, more and more hunters are distraught and fed up with fish and game, nothing will get done. You can’t correct a problem if you’re not willing to admit there is one. Another side of that argument is you have to have something you believe is worth fighting for.

The first thing our governor, along with every employee at MDIFW, every state senator and every representative need to do is publicly aver that the state supports and will promote hunting and trapping as not only a respected and traditional means of sport but also a viable and a sustainable and renewable resource. That’s the easy part. The difficult part is to stand up to that belief and act like you mean it. If that were a possibility, then taking care of the deer shortage problem might come easier than we think.

For those of you familiar with me and my writings, you know I despise the interference of government but this is different. It is the government of the state of Maine that has laid claim to all the wild animals within its borders. They are the entity that claims responsibility for managing those animals, creating hunting and trapping seasons and the laws that regulate our hunting and fishing. We have few options.

They are also the entity the animal rights activists and anti-hunting groups seek out to sue. When the lawsuits begin and our government is willing to concede to their wishes, what future is there for us. With each concession hunting dies another death. The only variable here is at what rate of speed will the concessions come that eventually kills it altogether? Either the Maine government believes in hunting and will support it or they won’t. Would they act the same way if this involved stopping the tourism business or pulp and paper industry?

If we should dare suppose that our government believed in and supported hunting and was willing to do all the necessary things to better manage its deer population, then we could proceed. We should never want our government to bully landowners. We have to have the deepest respect for all landowners, even those we want to hate because they close off their land to us. In time they will come around once they see the benefits wildlife management brings them.

Let’s address the things we can change. We first must readily admit that we have a predator problem. For reasons unbeknown to me, Maine still seems reluctant to admit we have too many coyotes and in places too many bear, the two largest predators of deer.

While the deer population in Northern Maine suffers, doesn’t it make sense to increase the bear harvest in order to help reduce predation by bears on deer? If there are not enough bear to sustain a population then there shouldn’t be a predation problem for deer. While Northern Maine suffers economically because of the downturn in deer hunting, it would be a small economic kick to extend or find creative ways to provide more hunting opportunities for bear. When the deer population recovers, then if necessary back off on the number of bears taken.

This may also hold true with moose. Although moose may not be directly connected to a downturn in deer populations in Northern Maine, changing goals to reflect a management of moose densities on the low end in order to 1.) provide more hunting opportunities, and 2.) once again help out the fine businesses in that part of the state who are going to suffer with a dismal deer hunting season, could help out.

The key to all of this is for the state to have the determination that it will do whatever it deems necessary to protect the hunting industry. They have to. Having said that, then we can address the coyote problem.

The first thing we need to do is make sure that every Maine resident understands that the coyote is a varmint, that there are thousands of them, that there are far too many and that they are destroying populations of other wildlife. They need to help out and kill as many as they can.

Hunters need to take up the chase as well. There is nothing any worse than listening to a hunter bitch and complain about those damned coyotes and he or she has done absolutely nothing to get rid of them. Oh, the animal rights groups will cry and they’ll start telling everybody we’re going to eradicate the Maine woods of coyotes – those beautiful, harmless creatures of God. That’s what they do. It’s time we do what we do and tell them where to get off.

MDIFW and the state need to make every provision for killing coyote. Year round hunting, trapping, baiting, calling, use of dogs and if necessary aerial gunning. Yes, I said aerial gunning. It’s done in other states and the states are the one’s who believe in the necessity of controlling predators as part of wildlife management. They have to in order to protect existing game animals. Aerial gunning is expensive but can be very effective depending on terrain, etc. Hunters would love to see their money being spent on programs that directly benefit them.

Winters in Maine can be harsh. We’ve always had harsh winters and deer have struggled but survived. Yes, some things have changed and some of those things we can’t do much about. What we can do is come up with other ways to counter those uncontrollables.

In places where the winters are the worst and deer populations are at their lowest, perhaps it is time to begin a winter emergency feeding programs. Yes, we will here all the reasons why we shouldn’t be feeding deer but let me ask you this. How’s that Northern Maine deer management program you got in place right now working out for you? I thought so.

This isn’t a new idea. Idaho has an emergency winter feeding program for their elk, mule deer and whitetail. They’ve devised a system that when certain weather conditions are met, emergency feeding kicks in. This began several years ago when hunters agreed to paying and extra buck or two in a license fee that went into an emergency feeding program account. With that money feed is bought each year as needed and is stored in designated places throughout the state – sometimes people would volunteer a barn, etc.

When weather got to as certain condition, volunteers would begin feeding. Of course this is not going to save all the deer but at the rate we’re going saving a handful might be just enough while we hope and pray for a couple or three relatively mild winters to help matters.

In the Idaho program, once a predetermined monetary level was achieved in the account, a percentage of the added license fee was also used for habitat restoration. This is good because we all understand that without proper habitat, all the other efforts are futile.

This money is off limits to anyone and everyone except to be used for emergency feeding and habitat restoration. It would be imperative that this program not be administered strictly by MDIFW. It will never work. There must be good representation from several entities, including the MDIFW. With the expertise of MDIFW the right strategic feeding places could be determined to best compliment the deer herd. Wouldn’t it be better to control and regulate the deer feeding than complain that people might not be doing it right?

Those of us who fork over the money for a hunting license are the ones who wield the most power. We just don’t know it nor are we organized enough to do anything about it. The truth is we can’t keep on keeping on. Something has to change and if we wait for our government, which seems to be the trend these days, not only will we have a long wait but they’ll surely screw it all up.

The ultimate ace up our sleeve, that I hope never has to happen, is that if MDIFW and the state’s government refuses to look after our interests, then we organize and stop paying license fees. It would take only one season to put them out of business. It’s time they began listening to the hunters and not the general public, which also includes the small handful of very loud animal rights people. They’ve had their way long enough. Time for us to take it back.

I’ve provided some suggestions and ideas of what we can do. There are others and I know there are far more intelligent and creative minds out there than mine who can devise ways to resolve this problem. I might add that fighting with MDIFW isn’t going to work either. We need not fight with them only to gently remind them of why they have their jobs and who controls the purse strings. yes, we all know of individuals at MDIFW who espouse more to non-game programs and I’d wager a guess some might even be anti-hunting, but there are some good people there who are as frustrated as we are. We need to get their attention…….seriously!

It’s kind of like the mule the old farmer had. Before he could get him to do any work, he had to nail him between the eyes with a baseball bat in order to get his attention. Time to pick up a baseball bat and get ready.

Tom Remington

Does Maine Have A Deer Management Problem? – Part III

If we are to believe the conclusions reached by compiled data at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, we can determine that the deer herd in Maine is healthy. The same data show us that in Northern Maine, most of Eastern Maine and parts of the Western Mountains of Maine have deer densities that are far below management targets and in some cases nearing unsustainable levels.

In Part I, I examined some charts that clearly showed that the number of big-bodied deer and trophy-antlered deer had dropped significantly in Maine since 2002. When Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife examined and compared those charts with his own deer harvest and population data, he concluded that the descending registration of trophy deer was in direct proportion to a reduction in deer population and annual deer harvest.

In Part II I tried to answer the question raised in Part I as to whether the reduction in deer harvest and population was a result of an unhealthy herd or perhaps even poor management.

We all have to be willing to accept Kantar’s conclusions that the herd is healthy and then we can move on. I did however opt to create my own graph comparing trophy deer registrations with annual harvest numbers and estimated post hunt deer populations, done as a comparison of percentages to see if Kantar was right in his assessment that trophy deer reductions mirrored that of harvest and population. It appeared to me that they did.

If we put all this together and conclude that the herd is healthy, that the shrinking number of registered trophy deer isn’t a function of poor management, in the sense that we are shooting too many or the wrong deer or letting them starve to death, and that we simply have a problem with deer densities in some locations around the state, then we have to ask two questions. Why and what can be done about it?

Answering those questions isn’t easy. I’ll spare readers the details of the laundry list of events that affect a deer herd. Nearly every hunter in Maine recognizes the items on the list but seldom can there be a real consensus in which ones have the most effect on deer. As given to me in Kantar’s response, here’s a list of things that he points out as problems. These are in no particular order and I may expound a little on them to clarify Kantar’s reasoning.

1. Winter weather – Northern Maine has always dealt with harsh winters, it’s when the extreme ones come along when it can hurt. Kantar explains: “Despite a terrible 2008 winter and a horrible start to the 2009 winter, we were fortunate that March 09 came in and out for the most part like a lamb with lots of snowmelt and very little precipitation. This shortening of the winter will be positive for overwintering fawns and give a boost to pregnant does near the end of their term, hopefully they will drop hearty fawns and give populations a boost.”

2. Consider 3 Decades of Changes in Maine – Kantar: “3 decades have not been good from a deer management perspective.”

3. Forest Cover – Spruce Bud Worm and changes in logging practices.

4. 25,000 miles of private logging roads – Kantar: “Think of driving down logging roads cutting a track and following that buck.”

5. Predation

6. Road kill

7. Poaching

8. Wounded Deer Loss

9. Increase in Human Population – Encroachment

10. Less Available Land to Hunt – Kantar: “This means you are putting the relatively same numbers of hunters on smaller accessible lands to hunt, squeezing folks into pressuring the herd in the same areas.”

11. Deer Management Objectives – Kantar: “In addition deer mgt objectives (set by the public) changed in 1999 from growing deer to maintaining levels at 15-20 per square mile in order to reduce negative impacts of deer including risk of lyme disease, car-vehicle collisions, and overbrowsing of ornamentals, etc…”

I wouldn’t want to try to shuffle this list around and prioritize it to what I think is the most to least negative impact on deer. I think there’s enough others who are willing to do that. From my perspective I see the deer problem in Maine as one that is affected by everything on this list and when you break the list down, I find it frightening.

How many things on that list can we really control easily? Obviously we can’t control the weather. How much do you honestly think we could or should control what landowners do with their land? We are up against tough economic times and we certainly don’t want to be talking about restrictions to landowners that would cost jobs and personal livelihoods. Although we are rapidly approaching a fascist state, we aren’t there yet. We must respect landowners and their rights. I like the idea of working with landowners to offer some kind of incentive to protect deer yards and migration corridors, etc.

The shocking fact here that may leave hunters standing with their mouths wide open is that there may not be anything that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife can do about our problem with deer densities outside of what they are doing now. Please don’t think I am trying to make excuses for them. I just think the reality is they don’t have the resources to get the job done.

Just today I read about the frustrations of one Maine hunter who said he had heard a rumor that MDIFW didn’t plan to do anything about the low deer population. His comment was he was sick and tired of it all. I haven’t heard anything as to whether MDIFW plans to do anything about the deer problem but I can assure you maintaining the present course is doomed for failure. We can wait for better weather but even during those years when the weather was much less severe, there were density issues.

MDIFW has eliminated Any-Deer Permits in those regions mostly affected by reduced populations. The risk the department faces should they opt to close the season altogether, then becomes economic. With closed seasons, it would mean a reduction in license purchases further hindering the MDIFW from being able to do their job. There already is a serious economic problem in parts of Northern Maine which lack of hunters whose money spent is a viable part of that region’s economy.

In my opinion, here’s the real problem. It began several years ago when the brain trust of the Maine Government decided that the fish and game department was going to expand out to include the management of all wildlife and other assorted goodies. The problem with that is quite clear unless you have selective blindness.

We now have the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife whose job it has become to do more than just manage fish and game and how it has been paid for has been on the backs of license buyers. Not only has MDIFW taken on the role of managing butterflies and caterpillars but we fund search and rescue and other responsibilities that hunters shouldn’t be paying for. In short, the department is pulled and stretched so thin, all funded on the backs of license holders.

Hunters, fishermen and trappers are seeing their money being spent on programs that do not directly have any affect on hunting, fishing or trapping. They are also beginning to feel like their money is being spent to promote and cater to the wildlife watchers, hikers, canoeists, kayakers, etc. who pay nothing for that privilege and yet demand more.

When animal rights groups step in with their unending lawsuits, these same hunters, fishermen and trappers are seeing more and more of their rights and privileges being taken away. They are tiring of digging deeper and deeper into their pockets while seeing their deer herds disappear while wildlife viewing platforms are being built or more of their money going to fund non-game activities.

Some feel that the non-consumptive outdoor enthusiast has to start paying their way. Nobody has come up with any creative way of doing that as of yet. The answer is not in funding fish and game with general tax money. The worst thing that could ever happen to Maine’s fish and game interests is to lose further control over it. Once general tax dollars are brought into the mix, there will be more demands for representation to the MDIFW from animal rights groups, environmentalists and preservationists.

The current administration has proposed lumping together several departments into one bigger “natural resources” entity. Bad idea. Simply visit several states who have done this. Hunting, fishing and trapping are disappearing and all funds and efforts are going into locking up land use, preservation and non-game efforts.

Unfortunately, I hold out little hope that Maine will do a 360 and return the MDIFW to the Maine Department of Fish and Game and go back to managing game and fish and leave the search and rescue and the migration of the ruby-throated croople poop to the department of conservation or Bird Watchers Anonymous.

The short of all this is, those of us who continue to pay for MDIFW, are being used and abused. In this regard we really only have two options – try to reverse the trend or seek general taxation, or some other creative tax, to fund MDIFW and fight to retain as much control over our investment as we can.

Part IV will deal with things we can do to help our deer herds. If we have healthy deer and low densities we have to figure out how to work within the parameters we are faced with and restore our deer populations. MDIFW does not have the option to do nothing about it. They are mandated to care for our deer.

Perhaps the days are over that hunters, fishermen and trappers can just populate the local coffee shop and bitch and complain about what a lousy job fish and game does. Let’s be proactive instead of reactive.

Tom Remington

Does Maine Have A Deer Management Problem?: Part II

Indications seem to be everywhere that hunters in Maine aren’t harvesting the big body whitetail deer bucks or the trophy-antlered bucks as they once did. The million dollar question is why?

The state of Maine is notorious for producing big-bodied buck deer, well in excess of 200 pounds on a regular basis. I’ve seen a few of the frighteningly large rack of horns Maine produces as well. Al Wentworth, a legend to many around the state of Maine, has kept track of recorded big deer in Maine for a long time and his charts and graphs show us that the number of trophy deer being registered has dropped significantly, especially between 2002 and 2008.

You can read about this and view the charts in Part I of this article.

Lee Kantar is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife head deer and moose biologist. I have enormous respect for Kantar and the sometimes thankless job he does. Being a scientist is a most difficult task when handcuffed by politics.

As you may know, if you read Part I, I contacted Kantar about these charts that I had received that were part of Al Wentworth’s collection, and asked for his response. In short, Kantar said that Wentworth’s charts seemed to mirror a reduced population in deer not just throughout the state in general but by deer management regions. In other words, if the deer population in Region II went down, so did the number of trophy bucks harvested. Kantar examined data collected by Al Wentworth dating back to the 1930s. He also stated that this same trend mirrored deer harvest data.

If Kantar has successfully determined that the reductions in trophy harvests follow the reductions in deer population and harvest, then we only need to determine why there are reductions in deer populations in these areas. We should first attempt to determine if the Maine deer population is healthy.

Kantar says:

Looking at the big picture, if you analyze the biological parameters of our deer populations you will see relative low-moderate yearling buck frequencies, excellent yearling body weights, 2nd to only New Brunswick in the east, and good size yearling antler beam diameters, suggesting that bucks are getting enough feed to maintain good body condition over time and therefore growth.

Even though Kantar qualifies this statement with, “Looking at the big picture”, it seems he is telling us the deer are healthy and supported by good feed. As a matter of fact, near the end of his report to me, he says this:

In the end what I conclude from the reams of data in hand is that biologically are (sic) deer herd is very healthy, even though in northern Maine we are at a real low point for densities.

If I’m understanding Kantar correctly, the deer we have show all the signs of being in good health. If that holds true all across the state, then why are there so few deer in the North and East?

I decided I wanted to look at some of the numbers Kantar talks about, specifically that his data mirrors that of Al Wentworth’s showing the same decline in the registration of big-bodied deer and trophy-antlered deer.

Before I jump into this with you, there are some things that need to be brought to the front. The data I am going to work with is not all the complete data on deer management. I intend to create a graph that will help us understand if Kantar is correct. I will be using the data that exists on the MASTC charts (big bucks, trophy antlers), as well as MDIFW’s data on harvest numbers and estimated deer populations. I’ll say this again, as I’ve stated many times before. The deer population numbers are estimates. These numbers are derived using tons of data and there is certainly a percentage of error, one of which I can’t tell you. I’m looking to support or refute a trend.

Follow this link to a graph that I compiled. You can open that pdf file and reference it along with my explanation of what you see.

Down the left column are percentages, pluses and minuses. Across the bottom are years shown from 2000 to 2008. I used these years because this is the time period for which I have data on trophy buck harvests.

Just above half-way up the graph, you’ll notice a horizontal red line marked at 0%. This is important. You’ll see 5 colors charted on the graph. Each color represents data. Black = the 200-plus pound bucks harvested. Green = the perfect antler trophy bucks harvested. Red = the typical antlered bucks harvested. Blue = Maine’s deer harvest statewide and Yellow = estimated deer population statewide.

At the year 2000, 0% represents the numbers for each of the categories for that year. I have them written on the graph but let me list it again.

In the year 2000, there were 772 registered 200-plus pound deer registered.
In the year 2000, there were 53 perfect-antlered bucks registered.
In the year 2000, there were 54 typical-antlered bucks registered.
In the year 2000, there were 36,885 deer harvested statewide in Maine.
In the year 2000, there were 291,000 estimate post hunting season deer wintering in Maine.

Beginning at the year 2000, each successive year will show either a percentage of increase of decrease of each of the items listed from that point. Bear in mind when reviewing the trends the graph show, that trophy information is accurate, as is the number of deer harvested state wide. The data used for deer populations are estimates but those estimates are derived using basically the same formulas for each season.

There is nothing here that would indicate to me anything different than what Kantar said and that’s that the trophy deer registrations matched by trend that of deer harvest and estimated deer population. What I don’t have here is a break down of region, Wildlife Management District or town. I also am waiting to see if I can get some data that might show sudden drop offs in trophy buck registrations in localized areas that traditionally yield large deer. But if the graph is an accurate indication and the trends remain relative, if trophy bucks taken in traditional areas dropped off, then we would have to conclude they went up someplace else. We are however not talking about huge numbers of trophy deer.

I tend to have to agree with Kantar that if his assessment is that the deer are healthy and reduced numbers of registered trophy deer matches the same reduction in harvest and general estimated deer populations, then we need to find those areas where deer densities are awful and find out why and what we can do about it.

In Part III, I’ll take a look at that. We can get a sneak into something that Kantar said.

Over this time period buck mortality has increased by all causes in each Region, but the hunting mortality part of this probably has not.

The time period he was referring to was from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Buck mortality has increased since the 1980s but mortality by hunting has not and our deer populations in some areas are shrinking. Why?

Tom Remington

Does Maine Have A Deer Management Problem?

I’m reminded of a cartoon clip taken from an old edition of an outdoor magazine that’s nailed firmly to the wall of hunting camp. In the cartoon, two crusty old timers, obviously both have spent their time in the outdoors and have bagged more than their share of game, are reminiscing. Plastered all over the walls of the hunting camp in the cartoon, are so many deer head mounts, you would be hard pressed to find room to put up a 3×5 postcard. One man is speaking to the other and says, “Just ain’t as many deer around here as there used to be!”

Managing herds of whitetail deer in Maine is a chore and that’s an understatement. Not only am I not qualified to do the job, I’m not sure I’d want it because I don’t think I have thick enough skin to take all the heat that comes from hunters, especially when there “just ain’t as many deer around as there used to be.”

It is no secret that Northern Maine has for a long time, perhaps since forever, struggled to keep up a healthy and sustainable whitetail deer herd. On the other extreme within the boundaries of Maine, parts of Southern Maine are experiencing too many deer. There are so many factors that play into this phenomenon, if you will, that I can’t possibly cover it in this one article.

I’ll back up a few years when I was contacted by a concerned hunter from Northern Maine who was concerned about what he called a non-existent deer herd in his part of the state. He was interested in starting a petition drive to see if he could generate enough interest to have the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife shut down the deer hunting season for as long as it took to bring back the deer herd.

I was of course, sympathetic to the concerns but wasn’t convince that was the answer to the problem. I should explain that as a hunter, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to protect and replenish the deer herd. I only require one thing. The science to back it up.

A couple weeks ago now, I caught wind of some grumblings that perhaps Maine had a more serious problem with the deer herd than just the severe winter of 2008-2009. I was sent two charts. One is a chart of the Maine Big Bucks Club, showing from the year 2000 until 2008 the number of big bucks (200-plus pounds) registered with the Club. The second chart is from the Maine Antler & Skull Trophy Club. This shows for the same duration of time the number of trophy antlers registered with MASTC. You can view both of these charts by clicking on the links provided.

Interestingly enough both the Big Buck and the Antler charts seem to be mirror images of one another, both showing a serious decline since 2002. In fairness, while this shows a real decline, none of us really know why. What is real is that we sure can make some speculations. The truth is, looking at these two charts should at least give us to concern.

I sent the two charts to a friend and someone I consider a very valuable resource – Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of the University of Calgary and a well respected researcher and wildlife expert. His response back confirmed my initial reactions.

There are no simple answers. The graphs you sent are fascinating as they say that as the frequency of heavy bucks drops so does the proportion of trophy bucks, typical or atypical. Right on! Unfortunately, we do not know if the AVERAGE body weight dropped. We cannot say that the bucks are getting smaller, and therefore fewer big fellows are shot. The data, unfortunately, remain mysterious although clearly something interesting is happening!

Hang on to this thought for a moment.

These two charts also fell into the hands of Lee Kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife head deer and moose biologist. I contacted Lee to ask him if he had the charts and could he take some time and talk to me about it.

I will not attempt to cover every aspect of Kantar’s response in this article alone. What I will do is provide you with Kantar’s findings and how they might explain the missing parts that Dr. Geist said were needed.

Here’s what Kantar responded with as it relates to the information in the two charts.

The number of Big Bucks/MASTC bucks etc in the harvest will be a function of the relative size of the herd, the age structure, hunting pressure and annual changes in mortality…for starters. Al Wentworth, who keeps the MASTC data was good enough to provide me with his data back into the 30′s. This is good because he also had the data based on town ( so a lot of ways to begin looking at this).

This seems to be in agreement with Dr. Geist’s brief assessment that it is difficult to make a judgment without data that shows age structure and health of deer. I also emailed with Al Wentworth and even though we might have gotten off to a rocky start, after a couple shots back and forth, why gained a better understanding and more importantly we are both on the same page that his data is something that needs attention and that we need to get to the bottom of it.

Not to get off subject but it was mentioned above about data on deer harvest by town. The MDIFW website has that harvest information if you’re interested.

Kantar explained to me that he opted to review the data provide him by Al Wentworth and break it down by regions, which we all know is a better way to address wildlife management because of the many varying factors. He also looked at the data over the past 70-plus years mostly because of changes in management – Any Deer Permit implementation and deer population goals, etc. As Kantar said, over this length of time there have been an unbelievable number of changes in the state of Maine that have affected our deer herd.

He took the percentage of MASTC bucks harvested to the overall harvest by region. Here’s how he explained it.

So I looked at the percent of MASTC bucks in the harvest each year as a percent of the total buck harvest, then I pooled this information by Regions and by decade, i.e., 80′s, 90′s, 2000′s. OK. To the point. The % of MASTC bucks reported increased in Regions A and B from the 1980′s to today and the % of MASTC bucks reported decreased in Regions F and G from 1980 to today. Downeast was moderate in the 80′s, dropped in the 90′s and came back up in the 2000′s. Moosehead Region was slightly up in 90′s and back down in 2000′s. And western Mts went up in the 90′s and stayed.

The key here is that Kantar is saying that the percentage of MASTC bucks taken compared to the harvest data is a true reflection. In other words, if harvest drops let’s say 10%, the number of MASTC bucks drops 10%…….in theory.

What Kantar is trying to find out is whether or not the deer population is healthy. The charts seem to want to tell us that deer body weight is dropping as well as antler size or it could be telling us that there is a healthy deer herd, there are just simply not enough deer available to harvest, as has been indicated with Kantar’s data research.

Over this time period buck mortality has increased by all causes in each Region, but the hunting mortality part of this probably has not. One thing is clear that as expected with decreased deer populations in the north country from the 80′s to present that means less deer available to harvest.

It seems here that Lee is trying to tell us that his data shows fewer deer to harvest. Does this reduced harvest fall in line with the charts we have that show fewer big bucks and trophy antlers?

If the buck age structures have not shifted dramatically then you have relatively the same buck age structure available for harvest, but less bucks (or for that matter does) available. And with overall lower pop’ns of deer in these regions buck hunting success decreases as well. If you take the 7 regions and chart their changes in overall population from the 80′s to present you will have a mirror image of the changes in big bucks.

It appears that to answer this part of the equation correctly, you have to examine the harvest data, which he says he has, and says that the reduced harvest matches the charts provide by Al Wentworth. I’m not totally convinced it is an exact mirror image of the two but I haven’t examined the data nor am I sure I am qualified to draw any conclusions from doing so.

Now the question becomes, is our deer herd healthy? If the drop in harvest numbers matches the charts and can be supported with Lee Kantar’s data that there are fewer deer to harvest, then we understand at least part of the problem.

If the deer herd is healthy, just small, then we need to work to recover those populations. If the herd is unhealthy, I think it safe to say we got bigger problems than bad winters and too many predators.

In Part II of this report, I’ll take a look at Kantar’s thoughts on herd health, his conclusions and what if anything we can expect on predator control.

Tom Remington

Maine’s Deer Harvest Dismal. Harsh Winter To Blame But What About Predation?

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

~~~~~~~~~

2008 Deer Harvest Brought Down by Winter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance in Maine

AUGUSTA – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife continues to test white-tailed deer for Chronic Wasting Disease, an untreatable disease that causes irreversible brain damage that ultimately leads to death in affected animals.

IF&W wildlife biologists recently received test results from 791 white-tailed deer, mostly from the 2008 harvest, as well as one moose euthanized by the Maine Warden Service. All samples were negative.

“Keeping Chronic Wasting Disease out of Maine is critical to the health and productivity of our deer and moose herds,” said Wildlife Biologist Lee Kantar, whose specializes in deer and moose. “Chronic Wasting Disease has been found in many states and Canadian provinces, and is as close by as New York.”

If it emerges in Maine, CWD could reduce Maine’s deer population by lowering adult survival. Monitoring and control of CWD is extremely costly and would divert already scarce funding and staff resources away from other much-needed programs.

The threat of Chronic Wasting Disease entering Maine is real, and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been vigilant about stopping that from happening by warning hunters about the risks and passing new regulations.

In 2008, two whole white-tailed deer carcasses, killed out-of-state, were brought into Maine illegally, according to Kantar. “Fortunately these deer tested negative for CWD,” Kantar said. “Since no state or province can claim to be free of CWD, it is critical to prevent this scenario. It also is why Maine has a tough law making it illegal for hunters who hunt or kill a deer, elk, moose or caribou in another state or province to transport any carcass parts that pose a risk of containing CWD prions into Maine.”

Hunters may return to Maine only with boned-out meet, hardened antlers (with or without skull caps), hides without the head portion, and finished taxidermy mounts. If still attached, skull caps must be cleaned and free of brain and other tissues. We ask that all sportsmen and women adhere to this and inform others about the importance of this rule.

It is legal for individuals to transport cervid carcasses or parts through the state of Maine if they are destined for other states, provinces, and countries. Transportation is to occur without undue delay and must use the most reasonably direct route through Maine to the final destination. Cervid carcasses or parts must be transported in a manner that is both leak-proof and that prevents their exposure to the environment.

If a hunter plans to hunt deer, moose, elk or caribou in a state or province known or suspected to harbor CWD, there are some commonsense precautions he/she should take to avoid handling, transporting or consuming potential CWD-infected specimens. For more information on these precautions or CWD, visit the IF&W website at www.mefishwildlife.com.

Chronic Wasting Disease is one of a group of diseases known as Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs). Other TSEs include Scrapie in sheep, Mad Cow in cattle, and Creuzfeldt Jacob Disease in humans.

Chronic Wasting Disease is known to occur in mule deer, elk, and white-tailed deer. Other cervids such as red deer, fallow deer and sika deer, as well as moose and caribou, also may be susceptible. CWD is thought to be caused by an infectious protein called a prion that upon entering the body causes the host’s normal proteins to take on a diseased form. These prions accumulate in the brain and spinal cords, as well as lymph nodes, spleen, eye tissues, bone marrow, saliva, feces and urine in diseased deer.

Posted by Tom Remington

Maine’s Moose Hunt Up, Deer Hunt Down

The February 3, 2009 edition of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife “Insider” is available for your reading pleasure. Follow this link. This report covers a wide variety of hunting, fishing and Maine outdoor news. Below highlights two reports on the Maine moose and deer hunts of 2008 as reported by Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Kantar reports that even though not all the needed data has been entered yet, preliminary numbers indicate that due to favorable weather conditions, most of the Wildlife Management Districts show a slightly higher success rate among hunters for moose. This was not the case for the newly expanded southern zones that seem to indicate very low success rates. Kantar is cautioning that until all the information is collected, we should not speculate on why. Here’s his moose report.

Overall the September and October moose seasons were fortunate to have very good hunting conditions during a majority of the season. In other words, cool, fall weather prevailed with crisp mornings and precipitation overall was scarce.

Moose season is typified by very high participation rates and therefore changes in hunting conditions may be demonstrated by an increase in success rate. For the September-October season, the success rate increased 5 percent over 2007. From 2007 to 2008, there were increased success rates in 8 of 19 WMDs or 42 percent of the districts.

The total harvest was ~2,202 of 2,880 permits. (Note that not all the moose data has been entered in the database.) The 2007 moose harvest was 2,052 so the 2008 season represents an increase harvest of 150 moose, not counting November moose and any September/October registrations that have not been yet accounted for.

The November Moose season, which took place for the first time in WMDs 15, 16, 23 and 26, had mixed results. With a total of 135 permits offered and the registered kill not yet entered into the database, the preliminary numbers appear very low, especially in WMD 26, where as little as 3 out of 45 permits were filled. The November season must be carefully assessed once all the data is in to balance the population objectives for these WMDs as well as ensuring that prospective hunters understand the nature of this hunt, i.e., low success rates, small landownerships, access issues and less moose habitat than in more northern and eastern WMDs.

As was predicted before the deer hunting season began, deer harvest numbers seem to follow what was expected in the harvest of far fewer deer due to the high mortality rate on deer from last year’s record breaking winter. Kantar also reminds hunters that he also predicted before this season began that biologically we can expect another season next year of reduced success rates for deer hunters. Here’s Kantar’s preliminary deer report for the 2008 season in which he explains why.

With deer season over I thought it may be of interest to put this season in context with other jurisdictions. Recall that during the spring permit allocation meeting we figured a fall harvest of ~24,200 deer. This, of course, is based on the deer management system and all the data we use to assess current conditions and ultimately project buck harvest, determine the appropriate harvest prescription, calculate adult doe quotas and expansion factors. After reviewing and gleaning the deer biological data I calculated the predicted fall harvest based on a regression formula using annual biological data collection and the annual registered harvest. This year, using the biological data collection, the predicted harvest looks to be about ~24,100 statewide.

One important point is that this decreased harvest is not unexpected — a drop of 5,000 deer or 17 percent from 2007, if the prediction holds out — and Maine is not alone! If we review adjacent jurisdictions — Quebec, New Brunswick and New Hampshire — and take a quick look at their 2008 harvest, we will see some striking changes across the board in decreased deer harvests: Quebec Zones 2-4, that are adjacent to Maine WMDs 1, 4, 7 and 8 were down 41, 46 and 22 percent respectively; Coos County, NH (the most northern county) is estimated to be down 19 percent, and Carroll County, just south of Coos and adjacent to Maine WMDs 12, 15, and 20, is down 48 percent. New Brunswick harvest, I believe, is down ~20-25%.

The widespread decrease in deer harvest on a generalized scale reflects the harsh winter conditions and lengthy yarding period experienced across the northeast throughout the 2007-08 winter.

As typical for the various deer hunting seasons spanning across the months of September through December, hunter conditions were highly variable including during the November firearms season. Tracking snow conditions were available in many parts of the state during both the firearms and muzzleloader season, which typically translates in increased hunter participation and potential harvest. However, in a large part of the state influenced by a long winter, deer numbers were down.

Each year a large portion of the harvest is comprised of yearlings. For hunting season 2008, that would be the fawns from 2007. It is widely recognized that during severe winters, fawns are most susceptible to winter mortality and hence the following year, yearling deer show a decline in representation in the harvest. Preliminary numbers in Maine would support this decrease and mortality influence. Actual numbers should be available in the next month or two.

Tom Remington

Trophy Hunting Produces Survival Of Weak And Scrawny?

This is by far not a new topic but one that has shown its face in the media world once again. I’m talking about the theory that trophy hunting culls out the best of the litter in game animals, dumbing down the genes and weakening the species.

A recent article published in Newsweek magazine once again raises the question.

When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. “Survival of the fittest” is still the rule, but the “fit” begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren’t the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There’s nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

The Newsweek discussion is in part the results of a study done on Ram Mountain in Alberta, Canada with big horn sheep. The study claims that over a research period of 30 years, the sheep have a 25% reduction in horn size and both male and female sheep have gotten smaller. Some, as in the author of the Newsweek piece, want to blame trophy hunting for at least a certain amount of this decline.

First of all, it should be pointed out that at the conclusion of the article, the writer states that none of the information provided can be proven.

At present, researchers’ alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove. To make scientific claims about the effects of hunting on the evolution of a species, researchers like Melnick would need thorough data from animal populations that lived at least several decades ago, which rarely exist. Evolution, it turns out, is a difficult beast to study in real time because it is the product of so many factors—changes in climate, habitat and food supply, as well as gene frequencies—and because it occurs so slowly. Researchers began tracking sheep on Ram Mountain in the early 1970s, corralling the entire population every year to make measurements and trace genealogies. “You cannot really just go out and take data and look for a trend,” says Festa-Bianchet. “Even if you find a trend it can be due to environmental changes, to changes in density. You’re really trying to tease out the genetic part of the change.”

I would guess that the writer thought the idea of blaming trophy hunting as good fodder for a story. The facts are the facts and from both ends of the spectrum we can speculate as to what evolutionary results are caused from.

I asked around a bit to see if I could muster up some information about the Ram Mountain survey area to see if this might help us better understand the study parameters. Dr. Charles Kay, Utah State University, told me the area under study is small with a lot of outside influences.

The study area, Ram Mt., is rather small and is located relatively close to Calgary. It is also accessed by a high-speed paved highway. In addition, the hunting is NOT by permit only. Instead, there is NO LIMIT on the number of hunters. Hunters are restricted to 3/4 curl or larger, THUS, the hunting pressure on this unit is extreme, unlike sheep hunting most places in the West

This information was verified by Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary, Canada. I also later confirmed that horn requirements are for a full curl.

The truth is we know far too little to make these kinds of claims and also leave too many unanswered questions. Without knowing the complete data of the study area, which includes hunting and harvest information, it is extremely difficult to draw real conclusions. However, if that particular area is over hunted, we might be able to make conclusions based on that study area but I fail to see how one can extrapolate from an isolated study that trophy hunting of game species worldwide is leaving us with species being represented by the “weak and scrawny”.

Over a year ago I spoke with Lee Kantar of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Kantar is the head deer and moose biologist for the state. I talked with him in reference to an article in a Pennsylvania newspaper that accused the lack of trophy deer in that state to archery hunters. This blame game was similar to the one presented in the Newsweek article in that archers were blamed for having first crack at the trophy deer and being notorious for taking only the larger horned animals leaving the “weak and scrawny” for the rifle hunters.

Kantar’s response dealt win many aspects that could possibly affect the species.

In the big game management world researchers have been looking more at potential consequences of trophy hunting and how it affects social hierarchies as well as the genetic structure of a particular herd. In order for real effects to take place, a significant number of older age class animals would need to be removed from the herd consistently over a number of years to start to have effects. In isolated herds with low total population numbers this could certainly be of concern and researchers have looked at some bighorn sheep populations to identify how these issues effect things.

If the big horn sheep population on Ram Mountain is shrinking and is being over hunted, there could be reason to believe the species is suffering on Ram Mountain. In short, it might be mismanaged, we just don’t know.

The theory though that hunters are taking only trophy game leaving only the weak and scrawny is a tough sell. While this may be a possibility in small pockets here and there, the idea that hunting has weakened the species isn’t very likely. For one, the number of animals taken is such a small percentage.

Kantar points out that in part of the state’s game management plans, there are several things that get considered and one of them is the percentage of hunters who they believe hunt only for “trophy” game.

But during the last 5 year increment from 2001-2005 our average annual yearling harvest was about 43%. That essentially indicates that 57% of the 2.5 year and older bucks escaped or survived for another year. IF you compare these numbers to other states it will tell you that Maine is looking pretty good as far as herd age structure and annual survival.

This is why it is important to have game management that is geared toward the healthy survival of the animal and not necessarily how many tags can be sold. To conclude that trophy hunting is weakening a species is also to say that there is widespread and extremely poor management of those game species.

There are things to ponder and questions to be asked if we are to consider trophy hunting as a cause for a weaker species. A myth that is perpetuated consistently is that hunters only take “trophy” game animals. This is understandable because most people only see on TV and in magazines stories about hunting trophy animals. After all, who wants to write or read a story about some average game animal taken by Fred and his hunting party? There are still ample “meat hunters”. Are the demographics changing? I believe they are but not to the extreme that it is affecting the game species. And even if there are more hunters only interested in trophy game, then fish and game management should adjust their plans to meet the changes.

The fact remains that only a percentage of hunters consistently pass up a smaller animal in hopes of taking a larger one. Are we even considering the vast number of alpha males that escape the intent of the hunter each year?

We must also consider the passing on of the genes of the dominant or alpha male, the one we say ensures the survival of the species. Is there a determination as to what age this so-called alpha male must be before its genes are any good to be passed on? Are these game animals being hunted before, during or after mating season? Are we ignorant enough to believe that only the biggest and strongest males get to do the mating while the eager, younger one stands by content to watch?

Some also think it is the big ole boys that are the strongest and therefore survive the most when in fact we know that often those male animals use up much of their stored fat supplies to do the mating and are susceptible to winter kill. Are we only considering the older the male the better the gene?

Perhaps a good question to be asked has to do with the theory of reduction in size of both antlers and body. If this is true, then we should probably not be seeing the continued breaking of records that come from harvesting trophy animals. If we are shrinking the species, leaving only the weak and scrawny, how do we explain the new records being broken? There is argument to be made that if hunting were removed from this equation, the size of the species would shrink even smaller, that it is the generations of hunting that has added to the viability of a species. Man is a predator and we cannot continue to attempt to exclude him from life’s equations.

And to go along with that same theory, studies are showing us that the number of hunters is decreasing, therefore the number of animals being killed should be decreasing as well, removing some of the pressure of trophy hunting. So, will this negatively or positively affect our game species?

The Newsweek article brought up the topic too that sometimes evolution makes for smaller antlered/tusked animals, perhaps even reduced body size, in order to adapt for survival.

The short of it is that claims of evolutionary changes in species cannot be made over short periods of time (30 years) and in small, uncontrolled study areas. Even though the author points out that the scientists say their theories can’t be proven, I am left wondering if the aim of the article isn’t politically motivated.

Tom Remington

Maine IFW Considering Budget Cuts That Would Drastically Alter Deer Management

I read an article in the Bangor Daily News recently about proposed cuts being considered at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Among those cuts as listed by Kevin Miller were:

Elimination of 10 game warden positions out of 124 statewide.

— Loss of at least three biologists.

— Discontinuation of tagging stations for deer and other big game.

— Elimination of DIF&W’s deputy commissioner position.

Needless to say this didn’t sit well with me and the more I considered the consequences of such actions the more upset I became.

First, let’s consider the facts when it comes to the budget of the MDIFW and what Gov. Baldacci is asking MDIFW to do. Baldacci is asking every department to cut 10% from its budget. MDIFW’s budget is roughly $24 million dollars with all but around $3 million of that coming from license fees, etc.. In fairness, shouldn’t the governor be asking MDIFW for a 10% reduction of the $3 million that comes from general taxation? This would result in a budget decrease of around $300,000. This is ridiculous and becomes obvious that Baldacci may be more interested in getting back the $3 million to fund other departments.

There is certainly argument that can be made for each of the four proposed cuts listed above. To eliminate 10 Maine Warden positions may end up costing the state of Maine more than it thinks it is going to save. The Maine Warden Service has far too much territory to cover now and the demands put on them by other law enforcement agencies, along with search and rescue duties and policing snowmobiles and ATVs, stretching the department that much more could be quite costly. With a shrinking economy and a decrease in law enforcement, poaching will take a spike costing Maine taxpayers money in the end.

Losing biologists only cuts into the needed scientists to collect and process data that is vital to proper management of our wildlife. To go hand in hand with this cut proposal, to call for the elimination of tagging stations would be extremely detrimental to the deer, bear and moose management programs in place.

A close examination of the management plans, one can clearly see that the years of success and accurate data available to biologists has been made possible because of a program that relies on every aspect of information gathering. The information gathered by biologists at tagging stations is critical to understanding what’s going on with our game species.

I contacted Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist at Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and asked him what kind of impact losing tagging station information would have on his ability to manage game.

Given the current economic times there have been internal discussions on this issue. I do not believe anything has been resolved. We are trying to evaluate this potential shift. I agree with you that it is problematic. Mandatory registration of deer enables us to have high confidence in the deer kill by sex and age (adult,fawn; we use our biological data collection to correct for errors in sex and age and figure age distribution as well, i.e., adult, yearling, fawn) by Wildlife Management District. This is critical to how we manage deer in Maine and essential to the Any-deer Permit system. A change to some form of electronic registration (be that internet or phone), would require estimating the harvest; that may be fine statewide, but by WMD it would be incredibly difficult. Return rates in other states have been poor, other states return rates our enough to provide statistically reliable estimates of statewide harvest, again when estimating at smaller units, WMDs, this task becomes much more difficult.

I agree with Kantar’s assessment of what probably would happen. In examining the processes used in other states, some are extremely poor, resulting in scanty data and making it nearly impossible to have any confidence at all in the state of game species. When we consider some of the critical decisions being made, such as Endangered Species Act lawsuits, etc., how can there be legitimate decisions if the information that is being used to render these decisions is seriously flawed and/or lacking in any credibly backed scientific data?

As Maine is considering a decision on another lawsuit to end trapping in order to protect the Canada lynx, imagine the skewed information that would be bantered around the court room if the fish and game experts have no good means of having reliable data.

Another aspect to consider with the elimination of tagging stations and the implementation of some program of requiring hunters to report their takes, is the availability of complete and timely data. With the current process, MDIFW has so much data to consider before making decisions such as the allotment of “Any-Deer” permits. “Any-Deer” permits is the major tool used by biologists to manipulate deer populations.

History from other states have shown that in order to get this “required” reporting of data from hunters, they have to not issue another hunting license until a report is received. This could result in data not being available until a year after the fact or longer I suppose in some cases.

The bottom line is this. Only about 10% of the MDIFW budget comes from general taxation. If Baldacci insists that MDIFW cut its budget 10% then essentially we will lose the money that comes from taxation. That deficit could be made up in other ways.

If hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc. understand how the fish and game functions, I believe they are willing to make up some of that cost with a fee increase. Pressure should then be put back onto the Baldacci administration to put more of law enforcement and search and rescue expenses in other departments. There also has to be better ways of retrieving the costs of search and rescue, etc.

If Gov. Baldacci insists that MDIFW cut its budget 10%, we have to wonder if his motives aren’t simply to cut MDIFW’s budget and using that department to help fund other departments he may be more partial to.

It would be a real shame to be witness to cuts that would seriously change the structure of how MDIFW biologists have collected and utilized data in what is viewed by many as one of the best deer management programs in the country.

Tom Remington

Understanding Maine’s “Any-Deer Permit” System For Deer Management

I’m certainly no expert on Maine’s whitetail deer management program but I have spent a considerable amount of time reading, studying and researching how it is done. Maine’s whitetail deer management program, and in particular the utilization of Any-Deer Permits for population control, is recognized across the country as being perhaps the very best.

There are those who will not agree with me and that’s to be expected but I like to believe that when the experts at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife predict deer harvests for an upcoming hunting season, based on their own scientific calculations, and consistently nail those predictions, they must be doing something right.

I just finished reading Travis Barrett’s article in today’s Kennebec Journal. Toward the end of his piece, Barrett wrote about a potential problem that might be occurring because Any-Deer Permit holders weren’t filling their tags and therefore it was messing with MDIFW’s deer population management goals. I have no intention of being critical of Barrett’s piece. I just want to clarify something I found confusing. Read on.

“It was very, very harsh and severe winter,” said Keel Kemper, a local wildlife biologist stationed in Sidney. “In many ways, deer science is rocket science — and we’ve accounted for the winter mortality.”

That mortality rate may be another example of nature’s sometimes complex — albeit cruel — checks-and-balances system.
Fewer doe permits have been issued this season, but in recent years, Kemper reported, most doe tags went unfilled. Many hunters who apply for doe permits carry them as “fall-back” plans — hunting bucks for most of the season and saving the doe permit for the final days of the season when they have no luck.

“We know that statewide, we’re probably not meeting our doe quota,” Kemper said. “We haven’t been achieving that for quite some time. We’re consistently about 20 percent short of the number.”

I found this to be a bit unclear and potentially misleading, if not incorrect, especially when you consider what the same biologist said at the end of the article.

“Do your part for wildlife management and shoot your doe,” Kemper said.

I reread the article and still came away wondering if other readers were getting the same impression, that anytime a hunter who chooses not to fill his “Any-Deer” tag is messing up Maine’s whitetail deer management plan and should somehow feel guilty because of it?

I said earlier that in the hours I’ve spent studying deer management plans and in particular Maine’s, I had to believe that the formula the state uses to arrive at a number of Any-Deer permits to issue and in what Wildlife Management Districts, they had to keep track of and have a handle on how many annually don’t fill an Any-Deer tag.

I fired off an email to Lee Kantar, head deer biologist for the MDIFW. He quickly responded for which I am grateful.

Each year we look at achieved versus desired doe permits. We adjust each year based on over or under achievement. Last year 2007, we were essentially dead on statewide. The year before we were 4% above statewide target and in 2006 8% below. There is a lot of variability among all WMDs in any given year and the percentages can be misleading. In other words, last year in WMD 9 we harvested 114% over desired goal, but what that means is we harvested 45 adult does when we wanted to harvest 21. In WMD 6 we underachieved by 22%, that means we wanted to harvest 76 adult does, but only harvested 59. The achieved doe success is important from a WMD perspective but also important regionally. It is important to note that in the big WMDs like WMD 17 and 23 were doe harvest quotas reach around 1,000 are achievement of these numbers was off by less than 5%-that’s pretty darn good.

The annual adjustments are critical to successfully managing doe harvests each year, and in WMDs that are at target or above objective like in south and central Maine, this is a crucial part of our management system and one that works.

In short, yes Maine has a good handle on a calculation for what they believe will be the number of those who will not choose to fill an Any-Deer tag or doesn’t have any luck to do so. With that knowledge, adjustments are made in the issuance of permits.

I feel quite confident that should something substantial enough upset the science of calculating the allotment of Any-Deer permits by WMDs, Kantar would be on top of it and necessary adjustment made to protect Maine’s deer herd.

Just as an aside on this story so readers won’t think I’ve totally lost my mind. There are exceptions to everything and Maine hunters know that WMDs in Northern and Eastern Maine are sparse when it comes to finding whitetail deer. As a result most, if not all, of those areas will receive no Any-Deer Permits in an effort to better assist in the refurbishment of the deer herd.

The deer populations in these areas were struggling anyway and with last year’s deadly winter, recruitment is very low and mortality very high.

Tom Remington

Sportsman’s Alliance Of Maine Director Smith Says Moose Management Going In Wrong Direction

Today, George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine chastised the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for doing an inadequate job of managing the state’s moose herd. His criticism came in his weekly column in the Kennebec Journal.

While I can agree with Smith that the moose isn’t getting the attention it deserves, I can also say that other species aren’t either much because the MDIFW is strapped for cash and Gov. Baldacci thinks he can cure some of the problems by creating bigger departments and absorbing fish and game into another entity.

Smith suggests that Maine pays much better attention to the lobster than the moose and says the state falls short in taking advantage of the moose as a tourist attraction.

Sure, our quality of place is important, but these two critters are critical to our tourist economy.

The state and its lobsterman take care of their lobsters. But the forlorn moose is left to fend for itself.

To compare the management of lobsters with moose is a stretch, even though I understand Smith’s point. He says lobstermen understand the importance of good management and are willing to fork over money for the cause. What competitive lobsterman wouldn’t do that? They can pass on the added expense to the hungry tourist who comes to Maine to dine on the crusty creature.

Moose hunters cough up a lot of dough over the course of each hunting season and the demands being placed on them to dig deeper is getting old. Moose hunters don’t set traps, harvest the moose and sell it at the local butcher shop for whatever the market value is.

If Smith wants to talk tourism and how the moose and lobster affect the Maine economy, that’s fine but comparing lobstermen with moose hunters isn’t quite the same.

Maine isn’t alone when it comes to trying to find the right balance between catering to the freebie wildlife watchers and to hunters. Survey after survey shows that hunting interest is holding steady or in decline while wildlife viewing is up. In fairness, many of those wildlife viewers are hunters and fishers.

States struggle to find funding to meet the demands of wildlife management. Part of the problems have come from states morphing their fish and game departments into fish and wildlife departments, moving their focus away from managing for game and managing for demanding wildlife viewers who essentially pay nothing for the privilege.

We must remember also that when we begin demanding that wildlife viewers pay their two cents worth, they will also demand better representation for the fees they pay and history shows us that not always are hunters and wildlife viewers in total agreement.

I concur with Smith that Maine should have a more accurate count of their moose population. This demand is always easily asked for but extremely difficult and expensive to do. Let’s face it, even the deer population estimates are only that, an estimate based on data and fancy formulas that get tweaked every year.

I hear demands from hunters all across the country that fish and game should go out and count the animals one by one and get it over with. Oh, really? I believe the most effective way to count game is by aircraft. It’s expensive and still is not highly accurate.

I believe Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer biologist and now moose biologist, is a smart man and does his job well. I do agree with Smith that a position should have been filled instead of dumping this in Kantar’s lap.

It is obvious to me the department is looking at ways to cut expenses. I’ve said this before and I’ll continue saying it. Maine needs to go in the opposite direction than what Gov. Baldacci is suggesting. The fish and wildlife department needs to return to the fish and game department for the purpose of managing game. If the state wants to start a department of natural resources, then fine. Then they can figure out how to levy fees against the freebie users of our lands and natural resources that hunters, trappers and fishermen have paid for for years but leave the fish and game alone.

Perhaps Smith needs to be reminded as to why we have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 moose in the state of Maine. It didn’t happen all by itself and it didn’t happen because somebody thought they could make a buck hauling tourists around in a van hoping to spot one of the gangly creatures mucking it up beside the road. It came from the fish and game management, through restrictive regulations and thought, all bought and paid for by the hunters.

I have no sour grapes that people want to go to Maine to see a moose or eat a lobster. I like doing that myself. What I don’t like is that more and more demands are being put on the fish and wildlife department, while using up my license fees, that aren’t benefiting me as a hunter.

Smith recalls what former Maine deer biologist Gerry Lavigne had to say.

Kantar’s predecessor, retired deer biologist Gerry Lavigne, summed it up well, saying, “You’ve got to put money and you’ve got to put resources into it, and you have to have leadership.”

Not assuming that Lavigne required those to be in order, I might first suggest new leadership. Baldacci must go. He has cost the state of Maine dearly in his poor leadership skills, especially in suggesting that MDIFW should become absorbed into some natural resources quagmire. Bigger government is not better and everyone, including the viewers, will suffer from this move. History proves it through the number of other states doing just as Baldacci is suggesting.

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to whether wildlife watchers and game hunters can operate well as a cohesive unit. It seems the goals of each entity are polarizing and would war with each other.

Moose watchers want one thing – moose to watch. They don’t understand wildlife management and tend to view hunting as nothing more than a reduction in the moose population, which runs contrary to their goals. This presents quite a problem and one that can’t be remedied simply by saying that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife needs to throw more money at the moose issue so both hunters and viewers will have more moose. It’s far too complex an issue and wrought with emotions and politics.

Yes Maine needs to do a better job in managing their moose but I’m suggesting it first begin with new leadership and a better structuring of departments so that all pay their fair share. Then, money will be available to better manage a valuable resource in the moose.

As Smith asks, “Shouldn’t a state agency that brings in $2 million from moose be able to do better than this?”

The answer is yes, as soon as the money stops being spent on none game projects demanded for by non fish and game projects.

Tom Remington

Next Page »