COYOTES – Sent in by David Miller

Last year about this time five members of the Carrabassett Valley Trappers reported in an article that the five had trapped and tagged 70 some coyotes. They had taken the coyotes in the early canine season in late October of 2010. This effort helped to reduce damage to livestock and wildlife (deer in particular).

This last year’s (2011) take during the same time frame resulted in the five individuals tagging 83. The period trapped is the special canine season that runs two weeks before the general trapping season and deer hunting season. The five trappers in the photograph are left to right Dave Miller, Gordon Blauvelt, Matt Landry, Steve Rankin, and Jerry LeBeau.

With approximately 2000 licensed trappers in the state, if each caught just 5 apiece, the benefits to our deer herd would be tremendous. With the current condition of the deer herds in western, northern, and down east Maine recovery is about impossible with the current level of predators. These predators that prey on deer size mammals include bears, bobcats, and coyotes; with coyotes being the most prevalent and damaging. At present, the deer numbers are so low that with the level of current predation deer recovery is impossible. This is because the number born and surviving to adulthood is less than that taken annually by the predators.

Trappers, hounds men, and hunters together with effort can reduce the predation by coyotes to a level where recovery is possible along with proper deer wintering area management and the lack of back to back bad winters. The loss of our deer herd has resulted in a tremendous impact to our states economy and in particular that of rural Maine. Deer hunting alone was a multi-million dollar business to the state. In recent years we have seen a great reduction in the number of out of state hunters. The majority of those same hunters (at their own admission) now go to New York, Pennsylvania and other destinations to hunt. They say, why hunt in Maine when there are so few or in some areas no deer anymore.

*Editor’s Note:* Below is a copy of a letter sent to licensed trappers and others in the State of Maine from the Maine Trappers Association. It concerns a request for comments about proposed rules that will govern trapping in Maine to protect the “threatened” species of Canada lynx, according to the Endangered Species Act.

At the end of the following letter are instructions on the proper way to submit comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The deadline for comments is February 7, 2012. Please reference this website for additional information on this issue.

Dear trapper, December 28, 2011

We need your help! Twelve years ago the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Canada lynx as a threatened species. Maine’s healthy lynx population was included in that listing. At the same time, the USFWS promised to adopt a rule to “to address incidental take of lynx resulting from otherwise lawful hunting and trapping”. Unfortunately, that never happened. Failure of the Service to address “incidental take” paved the way for animal activists to use the listing to attack trapping. They filed two separate lawsuits against the State of Maine, both of which attempted to outlaw trapping in lynx habitat, nearly half the State, and which eventually resulted in increased trapping restrictions. Until the incidental take issue is resolved, more lawsuits are likely and our trapping heritage remains in jeopardy.

The USFWS now appears ready to address the incidental take of lynx by trappers in Maine. They are currently accepting comments from the public in response to Maine’s application for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). This permit, if issued, would allow a limited number of lynx to be taken incidentally in traps set for other furbearers. Depending on the conditions attached to the ITP, trapping for other furbearers would be allowed to continue, and individual trappers would be protected against prosecution for accidentally catching a lynx

Maine’s application spells out the things the State plans to do to try to keep lynx from being taken accidentally in traps. The State believes, and the MTA agrees, that what they have proposed is adequate to protect lynx. However, the USFWS has listed numerous additional requirements and restrictions for protecting lynx that could be added to, or adopted in place of, what the State has proposed. That’s where things get really scary for trappers. The animal fanatics will be pushing hard for the most severe restrictions and will be sending lots of written comments to support those restrictions. If the number of comments received by the USFWS is lopsided in favor of the protectionists, there is a possibility that the ITP could be accompanied by restrictions that would be devastating to trappers, including an end to land trapping in lynx areas.

In order for trappers to have any input, they must prepare comments in writing and submit them to the USFWS prior to February 7, 2012. The MTA will be submitting comments on behalf of our membership, but that’s not enough. The USFWS will consider it as “one comment received”. That’s why we are asking individual trappers, not just in Maine but from across the country, to help us out and send comments opposing the alternative restrictions listed by the USFWS.

Here is a list of the things the State is proposing to do that would directly impact trappers. The Maine Trappers Association supports this list.
* Maintain most of the trapping rules that are currently in place.
* Maintain current restrictions on the use of killer-type traps in WMDs 1 through 11 and 14, 18 and 19, but consider expanding the use of killer-type traps at baited boxes, protected with lynx exclusion devices, on the ground.
* Maintain current size restrictions on cage-type live traps.
* Work with trappers to continue to develop techniques that will help reduce the incidental trapping of lynx.
*Eliminate the jaw-spread restrictions on foothold traps that are currently in place in WMDs 1 through 6 and 8 through 11.
* Maintain current rules regarding anchoring devices on foothold traps.
* Maintain current restriction regarding the use of visible bait.

The USFSW has listed other restrictions that could be implemented to protect lynx from being trapped incidentally. These things could be added to, or take the place of, the things the State has proposed. The MTA is adamantly opposed to every item in this list. However, the USFWS will have the final say. What they decide will depend a lot on the comments they receive.
* Require lynx-exclusion devices for all killer-type traps at land sets, including elevated sets on poles and trees, in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19.
* Require that all trappers phase in foothold traps meeting BMP standards for fox, coyote and bobcat over the next 5 years and rescind existing jaw-spread restrictions once BMP trap requirements are fully implemented.
* Eliminate the use of drags and require short chains, swivels or in-line springs for foothold traps at land sets in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19.
* Limit the use of killer-type traps at land sets, including elevated sets, to size #120 (5-inch) and smaller in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19.
* Require 24-hour check of all killer-type traps at land sets, including elevated sets, in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19.
* Require pan-tension devices on all foothold traps at land sets in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19.
* Limit the use of foothold traps at land sets in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19 to the months of October and November only.
* Prohibit trapping with land sets (including elevated sets) in WMDs 1-11, 14, 18 and 19.
* Require periodic re-training of all trappers on how to avoid incidental lynx captures.

How to Submit Written Comments
It is important that your comments address one or more of the items mentioned in the list above. You should include factual information about why a particular restriction is objectionable and unnecessary. These comments must be submitted prior to February 7, 2012 in order for them to be considered. All comments must be in writing and may be submitted either through regular mail or by email to one of the addresses below.

Regular mail: Email address:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hcpmainetrapping@fws.gov
Maine Field Office
17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 2
Orono, ME 04473

Additional information about the Maine lynx situation, including Maine’s application for the ITP and the Environmental Assessment prepared by the USFWS in response to that application, is available online at the following website: www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/Canada_lynx.html

Thank you sincerely for your help!
Maine Trappers Association

With the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) recently presenting an application for incidental taking of Canada lynx to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), what most deemed a great opportunity to rectify a lot of trapping and snaring issues, is rapidly turning into a nightmare.

The Canada lynx was declared a “threatened” species in the state of Maine in 2000. In 2009, the Federal Government designated a large chunk of northern Maine as “critical lynx habitat”. In the midst of a lawsuit by animal rights/environmental extremist groups, Maine agreed to and signed a Consent Decree that would allow the state to continue with its trapping program, albeit in a limited and restricted fashion. Also in the Consent Decree, MDIFW listed Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10, and 11 as their own brand of critical Canada lynx habitat designation. According to the Consent Decree, within these WMDs, Maine trappers were restricted to smaller trap sizes, aimed are reducing “incidental” trapping of lynx and the use of snares for limiting coyote mortality on deer in wintering yards was banned, among other restrictive measures. Maine remains under the throes of the Consent Decree until such time as the state can obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the Federal Government.

An ITP is an agreement reached between the state and the Feds on how to conduct a trapping plan in order to continue adequate protection of a “threatened” or “endangered” species in order that this species will not be blocked from recovery. You can view the application for an ITP for Canada lynx at this link.

I learned a few days ago, through hours of research, that Maine’s current laws on trapping are NOT what most sportsmen believe them to be. I would strongly suggest reading that article before proceeding with this one.

Most sportsmen in Maine believe that if Maine can obtain this seemingly illusive ITP, then trapping can resume as normal and that the commissioner of the MDIFW can implement snaring programs to save the deer herd. This is not the case.

To be as brief as possible, the current law governing trapping and specifically snaring in Maine can be found in Maine Statute 12252 and Maine Statute 10105, as recodified under LD 1600 signed into law on June 3, 2003 by Gov. John Baldacci. MS 12252 bans snaring in Maine with exceptions. In part, MS 10105 lists the authority the commissioner has to utilize some form of “coyote control program”, in which he can hire trained agents to implement snaring in unorganized townships during winter (this was not part of LD 237).

While the law was effectively rewritten during recodification, it must be further understood that obtaining an ITP from the USFWS will not free up the commissioner or even the Maine Legislature to use snares to kill coyotes.

First of all, the application for an ITP is nothing more than a clone of the Consent Decree signed in 2007. It bans the use of snares and still retains the restrictions on trap sizes. The application and plan is not restricted to just those WMDs that MDIFW listed. It becomes statewide.

In the very first parts of the application it states:

The Department seeks a Section 10 permit that would cover its agents and licensees from liability in the event of incidental take of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Maine that may occur as the result of otherwise lawful activities.

This Consent Decree clone of an application now will stretch out and cover the entire state, or at least that is how I understand the terms of the plan as written thus far. In essence Maine rids itself of one ball and chain, Consent Decree, and replaces it with a bigger ball and chain, ITP.

In short, where currently Maine is continuing its trapping program under the Consent Decree, which I believe in conjunction with current laws, the commissioner COULD, implement a snaring program outside of the 10 WMDs listed, in unorganized townships during winter. When and if this ITP is granted, the commissioner will lose his authority to do that.

If my calculations are correct, then short of dealing with some kind of liability issue for incidentally catching and or killing a lynx (which by the way, since 2000 no lynx has been killed as the result of an incidental take), why would Maine even seek an ITP that is more restrictive than the one in place now?

Some believe that Maine then needs to apply for an ITP for snaring in Maine. You will probably witness me walking on water before that ever happens. I doubt that if you collected all those in Maine Government and the Federal Government who would support an effective snaring program, you could fit them all into the eye of a needle.

From the frying pan to the fire.

Tom Remington

In 2003, by mandate of the Maine Constitution, laws governing the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife were “recodified”. The end result was a statewide ban, with exceptions, on the use of snares for trapping, other than underwater snares for beaver and foothold snares for bear.

If you are puzzled, join the ranks of thousands of other Maine sportsmen.

Let me present a bit of personal history to help readers understand how I got here. As a hunter, I have become concerned over what I believe to be an overgrown population of coyotes in many parts of Maine. This has contributed to a sizable reduction in the whitetail deer population there. Efforts to do something about that population have seen many hurdles and are currently mired in court orders and confusion over just what the Maine laws are. Perhaps it is intended to be this way.

Trappers using snares has proven to be an effective tool to target those coyotes who like to consider wintering deer yards as their own private 5-star restaurants. Implementation of snares around deer yards took care of a respectable number of coyotes that would kill winter-weary deer.

Use of snares was stopped and subsequent lawsuits by environmental and animal rights groups, coupled with a federal listing for protection of Canada lynx, has left Maine in a situation where, even if IFW agreed coyotes were that serious a problem, there is little they are willing or able to do to stop the demise of the deer herd.

But confusion has run deep as to what the Maine laws governing trapping and in particular snaring are. Here’s a brief history.

In 1929, the Maine Legislature passed and was signed by the governor, a law that banned the use of snares…..period. Over the years there have been minor changes to what equipment and definitions constituted a snare. I believe it was in 1983 when the Maine Legislature mandated that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) begin a program to control the population of coyotes. This, to my knowledge, was the first attempt at implementing the use of snares.

Through the 80s and 90s, it seems the Maine Legislature as a whole has been mostly supportive of controlling coyotes and have instructed MDIFW to do something about coyote control, and yet there is none.

To keep my focus where it needs to be in this article, I’ll become more directed to the events of 2003. The Maine Legislature and Gov. Baldacci, signed into law LD237, “An Act to Improve the Coyote Control Program”. Initially, LD237 was a bill to ban snaring again, even after it had shown its effectiveness. Subsequently and during debate, etc., LD237 was amended and thus the title I gave above was attached to the bill.

LD237 was not an all out ban on snaring. What remained was the authority given to the commissioner of MDIFW to use “agents” to “meet management goals established by the commissioner for deer……”. I say this with all due diligence that I firmly believe the overwhelming majority of Maine sportsmen believe this is the law that is in place today as it pertains to snaring. If this were the case, then surely the Commissioner, Chandler Woodcock, or any commissioner before him or after, could have easily put together a plan to implement a targeted snaring program for coyotes in areas of Maine most vulnerable to coyotes……if that were the law.

As the result of a lawsuit filed against Maine by the Animal Protection Institute, in 2007 a Consent Decree was activated by the Courts. In that Consent Decree, the use of snares was prohibited within those Wildlife Management Districts that had been deemed critical habitat for the Canada lynx; a species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Because the majority of hunters and trappers (and to be honest, I think the ignorance ran deeply into MDIFW and probably the Maine Legislature) were still thinking that Maine was operating under the statute of LD237, people began asking why MDIFW didn’t implement snaring programs in areas outside critical lynx habitat. Downeast regions come to mind.

The Consent Decree was to remain in effect until such time as Maine was granted an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), for the “incidental” taking of lynx during trapping season. Once again, sportsmen waited eagerly for Maine to acquire such a permit, believing that with this ITP, the commissioner has authority under LD237 to begin a snaring program. In the meantime, the deer herd is suffering.

I was one of many in the ranks of those led astray, or poorly informed, who wrote extensively on LD237 and the commissioner’s authority granted in that bill, fully believing through many hours of research that LD237 was the snaring law we were abiding by. Nobody has attempted to clear this up that I am aware of.

So, what law is the MDIFW, trappers and the people of Maine being governed by as it pertains to the use of snares? It took me many hours of research and a lot of dead ends and frustration, before I contacted the Maine Law Library seeking information, hoping it would answer some of my many questions.

What really piqued my level of frustration came when I was reading the Application for an Incidental Take Permit. Included at the end of this application was a copy of the trapping laws and rules that govern trapping in Maine. This is where I came upon Maine Statute 12252. Reading that statute, it says that it is unlawful to “set or tend a snare…….”. I told myself that there was something seriously wrong here. This isn’t even close to LD237, the law I and many others believed to be the law governing snaring.

A very important note that needs to be made here: This is the only statute provided in the ITP application that refers to the use of snares for capturing and killing coyotes. More in a minute.

Once the fine people at the Maine Law Library helped me and sent me some 800 pages of files and documents, I have learned that LD1600, “An Act To Recodify the Laws Governing Inland Fisheries and Wildlife” is the bill that governs trapping statewide.

Before I proceed, I want you to embed into your memory that LD237 was signed into law by Governor John Baldacci on April 25, 2003.

On June 3, 2003, Governor John Baldacci signed into law LD1600. LD1600 was introduced by Senator Bruce Bryant. There were no sponsors or cosponsors. Mr. Bryant was Chairman on the Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife at that time I was told by the Law Library. By law, the Joint Committee was to read LD1600 and debate all 600 pages or so and they ultimately made a unanimous recommendation to the Maine Legislature, “Ought to Pass”. According to House and Senate records there was no debate on LD1600. It passed the Legislature on May 27, 2003 and was signed into law by the governor as described above.

The Maine Constitution, Article X, Sec. 6, mandates the “recodification” of statutes every ten years beginning in 1973.

Section 6. Constitution to be arranged by Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court; Constitution to be enrolled and printed with laws; supreme law of the State. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court shall arrange the Constitution, as amended, under appropriate titles and in proper articles, parts and sections, omitting all sections, clauses and words not in force and making no other changes in the provisions or language thereof, and shall submit the same to the Legislature; and such arrangement of the Constitution shall be made and submitted to the regular session of the Legislature in 1973 and every 10 years thereafter unless sooner authorized by the Legislature; and the draft and arrangement, when approved by the Legislature, shall be enrolled on parchment and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State; and printed copies thereof shall be prefixed to the books containing the Revised Statutes of the State. And the Constitution, with the amendments made thereto, in accordance with the provisions thereof, shall be the supreme law of the State. (emphasis added)

My first knowledge about codification as it pertains to laws taught me that codification was more of a housekeeping measure. Its intent was to clear up language, redundancies, typos, grammar, etc., that sometimes made it difficult to interpret and administer the laws, but never to alter the law. Once statutes have been “codified”, which according to the Maine Constitution appears to have been in 1973, each ten-year term becomes “recodification”.

Wikipedia defines “recodification” this way:

Recodification refers to a process where existing codified statutes are reformatted and rewritten into a new codified structure. This is often necessary as, over time, the legislative process of amending statutes and the legal process of construing statutes by nature over time results in a code that contains archaic terms, superseded text, and redundant or conflicting statutes. Due to the size of a typical government code, the legislative process of recodification of a code can often take a decade or longer.

I think it becomes clear and should be a logical conclusion that the purpose of recodification isn’t to rewrite existing laws; only to clear up any confusions, etc. that make it difficult to understand the law.

And so, with the passage of LD1600 by the Maine Legislature, this is where the MDIFW came up with the statute that they provided in the application for an ITP to the USFWS that included a statewide ban on the use of snares.

As you might expect, this story doesn’t end here. In the “recodified” MDIFW trapping laws, i.e. Maine Statute 12252, Section 2, paragraph A reads: “A. Set or tend a snare for the purpose of trapping any wild animal or wild bird, except as provided in section 10105, subsection 1 and section 12259;” (emboldening added). If we examine the “recodified” MDIFW statutes under section 10105, subsection 1, we see that it tells us that the commissioner has the authority to issue permits to anyone in order to assist in the “taking and destruction of any wildlife”.

However, there is no mention in Statute 12252, of any reference to section 10105, subsection 3, “Coyote Control Program”, which I am under the impression is an attempt to recodify LD237. There exists no other place in the MDIFW statutes any law that resembles LD237 except for what is found in Statute 10105, subsection 3.

But, I’m left here with some of what I am considering serious and troubling problems with this entire procedure and the end results. First, if the purpose of recodification is to clear up confusing laws, errors, etc., one would think that during this process that Maine Statute 12252, Section 2, paragraph A. would have been changed to read: “A. Set or tend a snare for the purpose of trapping any wild animal or wild bird, except as provided in section 10105, subsection 1 and subsection 3 and section 12259;” (I emboldened what should have been added during recodification.)

As far as the laws that govern snaring, doesn’t it make sense that if a law is created that bans snaring and there were exceptions to that ban that all exceptions would be listed? Furthermore, shouldn’t it be expected that this should have been corrected during the recodification process? So was this a mistake by those undertaking the ginormous task of recodification, or something more sinister?

Second, before you answer that last question about the possibilities of something being more sinister, let me get back to something I mentioned before about the only snare-relevant statute included on the application for an ITP was 12252. Why didn’t the application also include statute 10105? The ITP application was drafted, according to dates on the draft, August 13, 2008. Gosh, the recodification and passage of LD1600 took place on June 2003.

The purpose, I am to presume, of MDIFW including the trapping statutes for Maine, is to show the USFWS what Maine’s current laws are that pertain to trapping, including snares so that USFWS officials can better determine how current laws will effect protection of the Canada lynx. The application included 12252, which “exceptions” 10105 subsection one but no mention of subsection three.

Was the omission of Statute 10105, the recodified law about coyote control and snaring an error, or something more sinister? You have permission to attempt to answer that now, however, you might want to read further.

Third, I have one more issue to discuss and bring to light. Above I provided information that I had as it pertains to codification and recodification. I think I made my case that recodification is not a tool to be used to rewrite existing laws, only to clear up discrepancies.

If that be the case, then certainly there is room for debate as to whether the recodification of the laws governing snaring were clearing up discrepancies or rewriting laws.

I am of the opinion that Maine Statute 12252 is a clear attempt at re institution of a statewide ban on snaring as was done in 1929. Maine Statutes in 1929, Chapter 331, Section 44 reads: “No person shall set a snare…..for any fur-bearing animal…”. Statute 12252 reads that it is unlawful to: “Set or tend a snare for the purpose of trapping any wild animal or wild bird”. Other than changing up some non existent and outdated terms and language, the recodification appears cut and dry.

I’m not sure the same can be said about Maine Statute 10105, Section 3, paragraphs A, B, and C. This has to be either an attempt to recodify LD237 or LD237 was stricken from Maine Statutes and this law was inserted in its place. This article is already quite lengthy but I believe it’s imperative to post the following information in order that readers can easily review and decide for themselves.

First, is LD237 passed into law on April 25, 2003:

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §7035, sub-§3, ¶B, as amended by PL 1999, c. 636, §1, is repealed.

Sec. 2. 12 MRSA §7035, sub-§3, ¶B-1 is enacted to read:

B-1. An agent may use snares to control coyotes during winter months under the following conditions.

(1) Agents may use snares only for animal damage control purposes to help meet management goals established by the commissioner for deer, threatened or endangered species or other wildlife species or to benefit agricultural interests as described in paragraph C.
(2) Agents must be trained and certified by the department in the use of snares.
(3) Agents must be deployed by a department wildlife biologist before setting snares.
(4) Agents shall post access points to areas in which snaring activity is taking place, including, but not limited to, roads and trails for motorized vehicles, cross-country skiers or hikers or other obvious travel ways that may be used by people.
(5) An agent shall plainly label snares with the full name and address of that agent.
(6) An agent shall keep an accurate record of the number and location of snares set by that agent and must be able to account for those snares at all times.
(7) An agent shall check that agent’s snares that are equipped with relaxing locks on a daily basis.
(8) Department employees may accompany agents at any time an agent is checking snares.
(9) Agents shall report monthly to the department on forms provided by the department the coyotes and nontarget species taken by snaring during the reporting period.
(10) The commissioner shall revoke the snaring certificate of an agent who violates any provision of this paragraph.

The commissioner shall adopt policies and procedures on the use of snares as necessary to minimize the potential for taking nontarget species and to adequately protect threatened and endangered species.

And the following is Maine Statute 10105, Section 3:

3. Coyote control program. Pursuant to section 10053, subsection 8, the commissioner shall maintain a coyote control program as follows.

A. The commissioner may employ qualified persons to serve as agents of the department for purposes of coyote control. These agents must be trained by the department in animal damage control techniques and must be utilized by the department to perform coyote control duties in areas where predation by coyotes is posing a threat to deer or other wildlife. Each agent shall execute a cooperative agreement with the department specifying the conditions and limitations of the agent’s responsibilities as an agent, including any terms for reimbursement of expenses or payment of wages.

B. Agents must be trained in the use of snares and must be deployed in the unorganized townships to control coyotes during the winter months. All snaring must be carried out under the direction of department officials and with the knowledge of the local game warden. All areas of snaring activity must be adequately posted.

C. Agents may be utilized for the benefit of agricultural interests as long as the department is reimbursed annually for the cost of those efforts by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources from funds specifically appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources for that purpose.

It certainly would appear to me that certain liberties were taken in “recodifying” LD237, if that is what this is supposed to be. While at first glace it may appear that this recodified statute is the same or at least similar to LD237, there is at least one specific qualifier in this statute that does not appear in LD237 and is far more than a clarification of text or outdated language, etc.

The first sentence in subsection “B” above states: “Agents must be trained in the use of snares and must be deployed in the unorganized townships to control coyotes during the winter months. (emphasis added).

In my opinion, this far exceeds what should be considered “recodification” of existing laws. Nowhere in LD237 did it state that snaring can only take place in “unorganized townships” nor was it limited to the winter months.

Granted LD237 gave the authority to the commissioner to formulate a plan which may spell out precisely that snaring will be in unorganized townships and in winter only. However, that was not necessarily the desire of LD237 nor was it even implied, nor is it the point of this article. If the Maine Legislature had intended to ensure that snaring was only going to take place in unorganized townships during the winter, then the bill would have stated such. Whoever rewrote this took the liberty to add in language that didn’t exist in LD237.

The question should become, who authorized or took in upon themselves to rewrite the laws of the state of Maine? Unless the laws in Maine that govern the recodification process are so lenient as to provide for such action, one must be left questioning whether this in an illegal action that needs some serious attention.

It should matter not whether one thinks snaring should or shouldn’t be used. It matters not whether snaring, if used, were to be relegated to unorganized townships. It matters not whether snaring should take place in winter or summer. What should matter is whether or not the recodification process in Maine results in the rewriting of laws enacted by the people of Maine? This cannot be. There has to be some kind of better oversight here, otherwise what confidence do any of us have that every 10 years our laws will get changed and we know nothing about it.

Did the process fail the people or was the failure a result of the process, which includes certain checks and balances or lack thereof? The Maine Supreme Court, via the constitution, is responsible for this undertaking. Were there all the necessary checks and balances done here to ensure no rewriting would take place.

The recoded laws, done by whom I am not sure, then went to the Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Did they read the entire revised statutes or give it a cursory nod that it must be alright? Was there a failure to perform according to the wishes of the people of Maine?

And then it went on to the Legislature in which there was no debate recorded. This should tell us nothing was read and obviously no questions asked. It all appears like a very easy and convenient way to make changes and rewrite existing laws for which most people will never be informed about until one day it might effect them personally.

While recodification may be a great idea and may help in the process of reading, understanding and applying laws, if laws are being rewritten, whether intentional or not, whether allowed by law or not, it can’t be. Something must change. This is a faulty process to say the least.

In my mind, I am left with three very important and unanswered questions:

1. Was it someone’s intent through recodification of the MDIFW statutes to actually alter the existing laws that govern snaring or was it ignorance, lack of proper skills and poor workmanship?

2. Was the omission of Maine Statute 10105 on the application for an Incidental Take Permit from USFWS an error, oversight or was it intentionally left off in order to deliberately deceive anyone reading the application?

3. And during the recodification process was it also intended to NOT make reference to Maine Statute 10105, subsection 3 when the recodification of Maine Statute 12252 was carried out?

Answers to these questions will never come about as there is no way to prove a person’s intent. I feel it is my duty and responsibility to share what I have learned and to ask questions that many of us will also be asking.

If, however, there is intent here somewhere to deliberately mislead the people of Maine through, 1). Using recodification as a tool to rewrite Maine’s laws, and/or 2). intentionally deceive the USFWS in order to achieve an ITP, then I shall have nothing to do with that. Other than exposing what I know, there is no way that I will become partner to any unethical, illegal or deceitful acts in order to obtain an objective that I feel is important.

I hope my efforts have helped some to come to better understand where we are as it pertains to snaring and trapping and its associations with Canada lynx.

Tom Remington

Oh them pesky coyotes that need so much protection! But it is a happy day here at BBB land. It pleases me when I learn that spreading the predator wealth is taking hold and that coyotes are taking up residences in the big cities of America. Such was the case the other day when a lady in Chicago was walking her two dogs with leashes and she was confronted by three coyotes. I’m sure they were lonely and just looking for someone else to play with. After all……….cute, cuddly, loving creatures they are.

But, there’s no finer place for these critters to live than in city parks. They are so friendly, it shouldn’t be long before they’ll move into your back yard and be really, really close. How lovely. Remember, take in your garbage, put lids on tight and leave your pets inside.

Oh, you don’t need to thank the hunters and trappers. This is all of your own doing. You want them protected so you share in the blessings of “learning to coexist with them” as your drivel always says. So have at it. Don’t get angry. The coyotes are only doing what coyotes do. But you should get to working with more effort to reduce those human populations. Nasty people ruining life for the doggies!

Oh, and don’t be dismayed. The idiots in charge say they are going to “humanely” trap and relocate the dogs. Good luck with that. Make sure they get relocated in other parks around Chicago, just in case they don’t have wild doggies of their own to possess and love.

Sharing the wealth the Chicago way. That’s what it’s all about.

Hey, do you suppose the prison where Gov. Blagojevich has any coyotes to play with. You could send some over there.

Tom Remington

For obvious and probably not so obvious reasons, the identity and exact location of where this photo was taken is being withheld. It’s a strange thing that in some places here in the United States, the Canada lynx is protected under the Endangered Species Act, even though that Act states that in order to list a species as protected it must be in danger of going extinct throughout its range. Well, in Canada and Alaska, the Canada lynx is trapped, as is shown in this photo.

While I haven’t completely read through and gleaned all the contents of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to permit for the incidental or accidental trapping of Canada lynx, it certainly appears that the only thing a successful application for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Maine will accomplish is to ease the state from liability from accidentally killing an Endangered Species Act-protected species, i.e. Canada lynx.

Contained in the application is a copy of Maine’s laws that prohibit the setting and tending of snares for other than beaver and foot snares for bear. Interestingly enough however, is the fact that the copy of the trapping laws published in this application are dated 2007.

In 2003, H.P. 192 – L.D. 237, did not outlaw snaring but gave the commissioner the authority of when and where to use snaring and under what conditions. Regardless, snaring was still banned by the commissioner.

And of course we now know that in October of 2007, Maine signed a Consent Decree with the Animal Protection Institute, and in that decree snaring was banned.

As near as I can tell from reviewing the information in MDIFW’s application of an ITP, the guidelines in the application process mirrors that of the Consent Decree. No mention is made in the application that MDIFW is requesting consideration of snares as part of the ITP and in reality explicitly lists the trapping rules that prohibit snaring.

The only change that I could see being requested from MDIFW was to allow for 13 incidental “takes” by trapping instead of 11 due to forecasts for increases in Canada lynx population densities.

It is my opinion in this case that, while still important to the state of Maine that the state be protected from violation of the Endangered Species Act, such an ITP will be useless as it might pertain to predator control and a rebuilding of a poor deer herd. And in answer to John Holyoke’s question as to who will show up for the public meetings on this topic, the answer will more than likely be nobody.

I predict that this ITP will be granted, not only because it essentially mirrors the Consent Decree, but I believe that the USFWS has every intention of furthering their fabrication of an “Eastern Wolf” and list Maine as critical habitat for this faux wolf that will be listed as an endangered species. Once completed, this ITP for lynx won’t matter anyway.

For more information on this ITP application and the process that brought Maine to this point, follow this link.

Tom Remington

*Scroll for Updates*

First, the information:

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has filed an application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for an Incidental Take Permit for trapping to pertain to the incidental trapping of Canada lynx. In addition to the application, an Environmental Assessment has also been filed – a requirement as far as the application process goes.

As is required by law, the notice of application has been posted in the Federal Register and 90 days are given for public comment on the proposal. As part of that comment period, MDIFW and USFWS have scheduled three public “educational” meetings.

Dates and Times:

* December 13 at University of Maine at Presque Isle, 181 Maine Street, Presque Isle, 04769 (Grand Ballroom—Allagash and Aroostook rooms); 207-768-9502
* December 14 at Black Bear Inn, 4 Godfrey Drive, Orono, 04473; 207-866-7120
* December 15 at University of Southern Maine in Gorham, 37 College Avenue, Gorham, 04038 (Bailey Hall); 207-780-5961

Planned Schedule of Event:

* 6 p.m. Doors open.
* 6:30 p.m. Overview presentation of the permit process.
* 6:45 p.m. Open house session begins. Experts from both agencies will staff booths on various related topics.
* 7:30 p.m. Agencies will begin a panel discussion.
* After the panel discussion, attendees are encouraged to return to booths for further discussion with agency experts. The open house should wrap up by 9 p.m.

In addition to these meetings, the public can also submit written comments about the proposal. Comments can also be sent to hcpmainetrapping@fws.gov or to the Service’s Maine Field Office at 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 2, Orono, Maine 04473. Comments sent through U.S. mail should be postmarked no later than February 7, 2012, to be considered.

And now the rest of the story:

John Holyoke, in his “Out There” blog at the Bangor Daily News, asks, “Who Will Show Up?”, meaning to attend the scheduled meetings. His question is a righteous one and with some correct and complete information perhaps more of Maine’s sportsmen will see their way clear to attend one or more of these meetings in addition to sending their comments to the USFWS. (Note: All sportsmen should send in some kind of comment about his application for incidental take. You don’t have to be a scientist to offer comment. However, please keep comments polite, professional and to the point.)

It is imperative that sportsmen get involved in this process to insure that MDIFW is successful in obtaining an Incidental Take Permit and here’s the main reason why.

Not mentioned in any of the discussions of late about this application process is why Maine has to apply for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Technically, MDIFW does not “have to” apply for one. Pressure from sportsmen have forced them to do so. When Chandler Woodcock took over as commissioner of MDIFW and the Deer Action Plan was devised, part of that plan called for the application for an ITP.

As I said, missing from discussions is the fact that Maine is shackled by a Consent Decree filed on October 4, 2007, between the Animal Protection Institute and the State of Maine through then MDIFW Commissioner Roland D. Martin.

Among several things listed in this Consent Decree was Maine’s agreement to limit the size of leg-hold traps in Wildlife Management Districts (WMDs) also declared as Canada lynx critical habitat. In addition, this Decree orders the following: “f. Commissioner Martin shall not permit the use of snares for any purpose other than to catch beaver and bear unless and until IF&W obtains an Incidental Take Permit explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.” This pertains only to those WMDs classified as Canada lynx critical habitat. This of course means that Maine is NOT restricted by any decrees, lawsuit rulings or even the Maine Legislature from the authorizing of the use of snares outside the lynx critical habitat. That decision is left up to the Commissioner.

But the importance of this ITP becomes even more clear when we read what is in the Consent Decree found on page 5.

7. If IF&W obtains an Incidental Take Permit for its trapping program, Commissioner Martin shall not be bound by the terms of this Decree during any period when said Permit is in effect. Instead, during any period when such a Permit is in effect, Commissioner Martin shall be bound by the terms of said Permit. An Incidental Take Permit will be deemed to not be in effect if it is vacated, stayed or enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

There are three very important points to make in this order. First, this Consent Decree no longer pertains to Maine once an ITP is issued. Therefore, if Maine is successful in getting the permit, then what becomes of the use of snaring and trapping in critical lynx habitat becomes the responsibility of MDIFW.

Secondly, it is just as important to understand what is being applied for in the permit application. The Decree says, “Commissioner Martin shall be bound by the terms of said Permit”. It would be useless to apply for an ITP that did not include permission to use snares, a known to be effective way of controlling coyote populations in and around winter deer yards. The permit must contain “terms” that provide for use of snares.

I have not had the opportunity as of yet to thoroughly review the application (300 pages) but I plan to report on that later.

Third, if MDIFW does obtain an ITP, while that declares the Consent Decree non binding, it does not prohibit lawsuits to be filed again to prohibit trapping and snaring. This is important as Maine sportsmen should know and understand the history of MDIFW and their uncanny ability to run scared and cave in to legal threats against them. It is therefore imperative that the ITP application contains all the correct information to obtain the permit but also done accurately and completely in order to provide the best possible defense to deter lawsuits that all sportsmen know will come about in a matter of time.

If Maine can successfully get their hands on a good ITP, then and only then does MDIFW no longer have the excuses of why they cannot implement more and better tools for predator management and control. This permit surely doesn’t guarantee the Maine Legislature won’t turn around, as they did one other time, and attempt to ban snaring and so sportsmen will always have their work cut out for them to stop the onslaught from all directions and factions.

So, please! I encourage all Maine sportsmen to become involved in this effort. It will not happen unless you speak out on the issue. Don’t assume someone else is looking out for your best interests. Attend one or more of these meetings, but if nothing else take 10 minutes and email a letter to the USFWS using the information above. You can also use snail mail by stamping an envelope and mailing it in. Don’t wait until the last minute. Do it now. History shows that the environmentalists, which include the animal rights groups and anti-hunting groups, will do their best to derail this effort. We mustn’t let them.

Thank you!

After having spent some time reviewing the application MDIFW has filed for an ITP, there are not only no provisions for snaring but the ITP bans snaring. More can be read about this here.

Tom Remington

The title of this blog makes about as much sense as the title of an Associate (de) Press (ed) article found in the Idaho Statesman. (Hat tip to reader “Lynn” for the link)

That article is titled: “Scientists: Wolf return could help restore lynx“, and thus this nonsense led me to craft the above headline.

According to the AP, “some scientists” in an article published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, say, more wolves = fewer coyotes = more rabbits = more Canada lynx. I’m not making this up. Consider their “logic”.

The wolf lovers will resort to most anything to be useful idiots for the real powers behind the effort and thus they spew this rubbish, much the same way that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service magically discovered a new species of wolf.

In Maine, the same nut-case environmental do-whack-a-dos, are working very hard to protect the coyote in order to PROTECT their precious Canada lynx; a protected species in the United States in some places but the animal thrives in ideal habitat where they belong to begin with.

None of this of course makes a lick of sense but I think I have it figured out. You see, a dog is a dog is a dog. Some are more wild than others but dogs will eat scat if that’s what’s in front of them and they are hungry and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lisa Jackson permits it. Other than opportunism, about the only difference between the diet of a wolf and a coyote (by the way, can you tell the difference between those species?) might be size and size is more based on available food than species differentiation. So big wolves may take down a big prey animal, say a moose, where a lone little coyote probably wouldn’t. Then of course if the varmint was hungry enough he’d try anything…..even cows and tin cans.

So what could possibly be the difference, I asked myself? Then it donned on me. Being that in the minds of some and probably “some scientists”, wolves are above human intelligence, and are smarter than coyotes and all politicians, because they want them to be. And therein lies the entire difference. For decades now we have had the warble of wolf worshipers whining in our ears that wolves kill ONLY THE WEAK AND SICKLY of their prey species.

I’ve been around in the Maine woods ever since I was old enough to walk (probably before) and I can tell you without any guilty conviction that I have never, in 59 years, laid eyes on a weak and sickly Canada lynx.

So there’s you scientific and substantiated proof that more wolves in our woods will save the Canada lynx. Isn’t the mind a wonderful thing!

For you outdoor sportsmen in Maine, if you see any caribou kicking about, expect some very cold weather over the next several years. But the caribou hunting will be good. They won’t be able to step in any of those smaller traps.

Tom Remington

Activism posing as wildlife science is setting the proverbial table, that once adorned with the finest of china and exquisite appointments will result in a giant leap toward ending most trapping in large portions of the United States. How can this be?

Environmentalists in this country, spurred on by the powers behind the United Nations and Agenda 21, want you off the land. They don’t want you to own land. One of the ways they intend to make that happen is to eliminate all the reasons you would want to own land and/or take advantage of the natural resources the land has to offer, as well as your preferred means of making a living. These delirious individuals think that you and I have no right to these resources and they would rather they rot than for humans to consume any of them.

Endangered species and implementation of the tyrannical Endangered Species Act is a tool used by these environmentalist groups to accomplish their goals. The agendas vary at prescribed levels but as it pertains to animals, their ambition is to end hunting, trapping, fishing, ranching, livestock ownership, pet ownership, use of any animal for any purpose. Ultimately the mission is to get you off your land.

Drover’s Cattle Network tells us that at the Taking Action for Animals Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 15-18, and Farm Animal Rights Movement’s Animal Rights 2011 Conference (AR 2011) two weeks later on July 21-25 in Los Angeles, attendees were encouraged to work toward the goal of ending ranching and other things.

Securing rights for farm animals and the promotion of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle to the mainstream public were hot topics at both meetings. Attendees were given tips on how to utilize social media, create “undercover” videos and craft effective messages to share their views with others. Speakers and exhibitors also encouraged aspiring activists to hold demonstrations, signature drives for ballot initiatives and leafleting campaigns.

The largest activist groups attended and sponsored both meetings, although messaging differed between audiences. Nathan Runkle, Executive Director of Mercy For Animals, Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing, and Gene Baur, President of Farm Sanctuary, spoke at both meetings. They encouraged a more aggressive, physical approach to eliminating animal agriculture at AR 2011. (Emphasis added)

But this is only one method of achieving dictatorial Marxism as it pertains to our rights and privileges. I have learned that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has given the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, as well as the New Mexico State Game Commission, notice that intends to file a lawsuit to ban the use of leg-hold traps in that state in order to protect the Mexican gray wolf, an introduced, Non-Essential Experimental population of a subspecies of gray wolf. CBD declares that the allowance of such traps violates the “take” provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

CBD would like for all of us to focus our attention on not only whether use of the traps is a violation of the ESA, but also on whether on not any Mexican gray wolves that incidentally get caught in trappers’ traps is limiting efforts to restore the wolf. Trust me. This is all a distraction from the ultimate goals. Assuredly CBD is playing the games they have learned to manage in order to steal taxpayers money through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and pad their coffers, but their agenda runs much deeper than a handful of gray wolves in New Mexico.

In Maine, environmentalists were successful in banning the size of leg-hold traps in designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. Lynx are another animal that is readily abundant in Northern North America but environmentalists have seized on the opportunity to promote their agendas by using the lynx as a tool to limit or ban trapping in Maine. The size reduction of traps was a result of a settlement reached between the state and the environmentalist groups. A lawsuit had demanded the end to all trapping in Maine to protect the lynx.

We are witness to several attempts nationwide by animal rights activists and environmentalists to limit or end trapping and hunting, and that march will continue. However, several moves recently by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) plays directly into the hands of these Marxist organizations.

Few outdoor sportsmen anymore believe that the USFWS is looking out for their interests at all. As a matter of fact many believe they are bought and paid for by the environmentalists and readily submit to their evil ways.

If the CBD is successful in banning leg-hold traps in New Mexico, consider the precedent this will set and the possible domino effect that may result. Before we can examine the domino effect, please understand the following.

The USFWS is currently attempting for the second time to get gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) region removed from the Endangered Species Act list. Aside from the fact that nothing has been done to change the reasons why Judge Paul Friedman denied the delisting, the USFWS is plowing ahead with a second attempt. Why would they do that? It’s anybody’s guess how this will turn out. The problem stems from the USFWS buckling to the agenda driven environmentalists spreading propaganda masquerading as science and they are considering the declaration of a brand new subspecies of gray wolf, calling it the eastern wolf. On top of that, they say both species are sharing the same habitat. Think about that for a moment but in the meantime…….

Magically as well as illegally, the USFWS decided that gray wolves didn’t inhabit much of the eastern United States. Instead it was the “eastern” wolf, now a subspecies of the gray wolf.

I say magically, because many actual scientists don’t buy into the trumped up BS that there is another species of wolf. It’s all political and a great and powerful tool ready at the hand of the environmentalists. One would swear that this is exactly as the USFWS intended it to be. (Attempting to delist the gray wolf while discovering a new species of wolf would effectively render the delisting a moot effort.)

I say illegally because the courts had ordered the USFWS to return to the 1973 maps that determined that gray wolves were officially listed as an endangered species in 47 of 48 lower states, excepting Minnesota, whose population of existing wolves were declared “threatened”. Two judges have told us that the USFWS does not have the authority to draw boundary lines to create a “Distinct Population Segment” of any species in order that that species be removed from the ESA list. That was Judge Paul Friedman and Judge Donald Molloy. Judge Donald Molloy returned gray wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming back to the ESA list because he determined that species don’t recognize boundaries and therefore you couldn’t delist wolves in Idaho and Montana and leave Wyoming out.

Never determined in any of this is that if both judges are correct then how can there be anything different than all 48 states have endangered wolves or no states have endangered wolves? On the same level, if the USFWS doesn’t have authority to create boundaries to determine “Distinct Population Segments” then how can the USFWS then randomly decide to remove the gray wolf from the ESA in the eastern third of the nation and then decide to create another “Distinct Population Segment” of endangered eastern wolves? Inquiring minds want to know. Is the USFWS selectively heeding some court rulings while turning a blind eye to others?

(Note: The USFWS also declared mountain lions “extinct” in much of the eastern half of the country. How can they legally do this? Judge Molloy and Friedman say they can’t.)

But, I am getting off subject. Imagine if you will that the USFWS is successful in their continued effort to fabricate a new species of wolf and then is successful in placing that wolf on the ESA list within that portion of the U.S. so designated as critical habitat.

Consider also that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) wins their lawsuit to ban leg-hold traps in New Mexico citing it as a violation of the “take” provision of the ESA. Is there a better than even chance that same success in court would be sought after for all of the “eastern wolf” habitat? Why not?

The state of Maine has already buckled under the pressures from the environmentalists to ban snaring, a very effective way to control coyotes that are destroying the deer herd. In addition they settled a compromise effort to reduce the size of the leg-hold traps to no larger jaw spread than 5 3/8 inches in hopes to reduce “incidental takes” of Canada lynx. Now, imagine what will become of what’s left of the deer herd and other important ecosystem creatures, if environmentalists can ban all leg-hold traps in order to protect a wolf. And before someone makes the absurd statement that hunters can hunt coyotes, then tell me how does a hunter differentiate between an “eastern wolf”, of which nobody has ever seen before and an eastern coyote, proven to be a hybrid of coyote, domestic dog and gray wolf?

Tom Remington