The comment period has closed in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), by law, accepted comments from all interested parties concerning the State of Maine’s application for an Incidental Take Permit(ITP) for trapping. The Canada lynx is listed under federal law as a “threatened” species and certain critical habitat has been designated as needing further protections in order to assist in the growth of the lynx population. As a result of this process Maine should apply for and obtain this ITP to protect the state and trappers should some lynx be accidentally caught in traps intended for other species.

Here’s a look at SAM’s five demands and my comments on them.

1.) SAM asks that the ITP be approved as quickly as possible without delay and without any further restrictions added to the already harsh rules that govern trapping (by a court Consent Decree). All the data available indicate that the rules and programs in place are more than adequate to not only protect the lynx but to assist in a continuation of growing the population.

2.) The USFWS is requiring MDIFW to set aside certain public lands to be used as “lynx conservation areas”. SAM demands that if this is done the land remain open to, “all legal trapping, hunting, snowmobiling, and other traditional activities”. While I agree that all public land should remain open for all public use, I have serious concerns about portions of this “conservation plan” that calls for large areas of forests on these public lands to be “clear cut” in order to grow desirable lynx habitat. We would hope that no public lands be clear cut only for the purpose of creating habitat for one species with disregard for all others and the overall use of the land by the people.

3.) SAM demands that the USFWS set recovery goals. In other words, provide the people with the scientific criteria in terms of population numbers, etc. that must be reached and for how long, before delisting can occur.

For those who don’t know, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists, although extremely non specific, any condition that must be in existence BEFORE a species can be listed on the ESA. Please review the ESA for those criteria. The ESA also clearly states that the same criteria must NOT exist in order to remove a species for federal protection.

Because the criteria in the ESA is so non specific and much flexibility and deference is given to the Secretary of Interior, what SAM is demanding is reasonable and well within the scope and historic activities of the USFWS.

However, that same history shows us that setting population goals, genetic connectivity, etc. acts more as a catalyst for inflaming arguments over species management theories than providing reachable goals for delisting. In some areas, such as those battling over gray wolves, those goals keep changing making it impossible to ever delist a species.

4.) SAM demands that the USFWS, “modify its distinct population segment”. This is where the waters get really muddy; where science takes a back seat and politics take over and decisions that should be based on science get decided in the Courts.

Historic evidence shows us that animal rights groups and environmentalists have learned to use the very non specific Endangered Species Act to create great wealth. One aspect of abuse of the ESA comes over the debate about Distinct Population Segments (DPS). I would attempt to explain to readers what a DPS is supposed to be but the court rulings nationwide are so varied I’m not sure anyone knows any longer what the laws are regulating the use of DPSs.

The intent of a DPS was to designate a certain species of animal within a region that subsequently became federally listed through the ESA as a “threatened” or an “endangered” species. Of course in designating such a DPS, boundaries have to be used somewhere and decided upon somehow. However, the designation and use of such boundaries has led to some ridiculous court rulings making little sense, based on arbitrary decisions and mostly from activist-type judges.

In the Great Lakes region a few years ago, when the USFWS attempted to remove grey wolves from the ESA, a lawsuit ensued and Judge Paul Friedman, in his ruling, stated that the USFWS did not have the authority to create a Distinct Population Segment in order to delist a species. No explanation has ever been given as to why, then, it is acceptable to create a DPS to list a species but not to delist.

Judge Friedman remanded the case back the USFWS until such time as they could provide proof to the courts that they had the authority to create DPSs. Last year, the USFWS tried once again to delist grey wolves in the Western Great Lakes. The Final Rule in the Federal Register, goes into quite a bit of depth in explaining existing laws and past court rulings in an attempt to bolster their argument that they have all the necessary authority the judge deemed they didn’t.

Currently grey wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment have been removed from federal protection under the ESA. Environmental groups are threatening lawsuits and until such time as that happens we may not know whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the Court.

While I concur with the SAM on this to some degree, that a better job needs to be done, especially when the initial creation of a DPS is considered, making the demand to “modify its distinct population segment” for Maine’s population of lynx is a very complicated act. Which leads us into SAM’s fifth demand.

5.) SAM insists that, “individual states within each of the newly-created DPS’s need to be separable when lynx populations reach recovery goals in one or more states, but not in the others.”

Again, this is a very complex issue because of the involvement of the courts. When a species is brought under federal protection, it is the U.S. Government, i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that overseas and calls all the shots as they pertain to species protection and recovery. That management authority is taken away from the states and if and when the day comes that a species is declared recovered, wildlife management authority returns to the states. And yet, when it comes time to delist a species, even if one state has worked harder than another to recover a species, delisting cannot occur along state boundaries because of court rulings.

Example: The USFWS has designated large portions of Maine and smaller areas in New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as areas where the Canada lynx has known populations. Essentially, the USFWS includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as a Distinct Population Segment for Canada lynx.

SAM is asking the USFWS to be prepared to delist Maine’s population of lynx when it has recovered even if New Hampshire, Vermont and New York have not recovered their populations.

Court rulings have further confused this issue. As I stated earlier, Judge Friedman claims the USFWS does not have that authority under the ESA. In Maine’s case, according to Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS could not create a DPS along the boundary lines of the states for the purpose of declaring the Canada lynx a recovered species.

Out in the Northern Rockies, when the USFWS attempted to delist grey wolves, Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the USFWS could not exclude Wyoming from the delisting process because the Feds didn’t have authority through the ESA to do that. In other words, the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment included all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and small portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Cutting Wyoming out of the process was not something Judge Molloy was willing to do. For him, it was all in or all out while the issue of scientific recovery, within the borders of a state, of a species was never considered.

Even though it literally took an act of Congress to delist wolves in all of the NRM DPS except Wyoming, the laws are still very unclear about what the feds can do.

SAM says that the feds need to do a better job with their DPS designation processes and I would certainly concur with that statement. However, the first thing needed is a clear and definite set of rules and guidelines that should be utilized before any DPS is created and the specific guidelines for delisting, even if it included breaking off segments within a DPS. Science should be the driving force not politics or private agendas.

There is one thing that I can guarantee. Maine’s attempt at acquiring an Incidental Take Permit will not be simple. Depending upon the content of that ITP, will depend on the number of lawsuits that will be filed in an attempt to stop all trapping to protect the lynx. It is almost as certain that we will never see the Canada lynx removed from the ESA because the ESA, politics and the entire process that got the species listed is not designed to remove a species from federal protection. This is partially what is wrong with the ESA that needs fixing.

And, good luck with that.

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

What was even more troubling is that the newspaper, the Sun Journal, published his piece in the “Columns & Analysis” section of the newspaper instead of in the “Opinions” section where it belongs. You can find his wolf drool here.

I’ll hit on some of the highlights.

Goldman claims he knows the “truth” about wild canines. I suppose, as is nearly always the case, that when one disagrees with someone else, you hold all the truth cards. Goldman is attempting to rebut an article that was written previously in the Sun Journal about wolves by V. Paul Reynolds, a weekly columnist for the Sun Journal and an editor for the Northwoods Sporting Journal.

In many ways, Goldman’s incorrect and idealistic frothing is very typical of his ilk, claiming that “malicious and inaccurate information about wolves that, for centuries, has resulted in the unjust demonization and heartless massacre of this vital and beautiful animal”.

Because the animal was readily killed and rightfully feared, Goldman, like his fellow canine worshipers, believes this action was uncalled for and born from ignorance of the wolf. Obviously knowing little about the world history of wolves or blatantly refusing to include it in his predilection toward protecting wolves, readers are robbed of an opportunity to discover how the wolves attacked and killed humans on far more than “rare” occasions, as we are indoctrinated to think from our schools and media; or that wolves without much difficulty killed people’s livestock; or anything about the 30 or so diseases they carry, many harmful or deadly to humans. Is there a need by Goldman to shield his readers from truth or is this about only his truth; that which only he wants you to know about.

Goldman drops names as the means of his references from where he claims his “truth” comes, i.e. Aldo Leopold, Adolph Murie, David Mech, Farley Mowat and Barry Lopez. Perhaps the author should have told his readers that much of the information provided by this list of resources is outdated and not necessarily scientifically proven. For instance, Dr. David Mech, a well-known “expert” on wolves, to his credit, has recanted some of the claims of which he laid out as truth some time ago (probably in order to achieve his goal of wolf introduction). One example of that is the Alpha male myth that still is perpetuated; that killing the alpha male disrupts the pack and causes the wolves/coyotes to do unruly things – a convenient application for those seeking defense of their wild dogs, while blaming humans.

One should be embarrassed to have read Farley Mowat and still rant that his writings are accurate and scientific. Many of Mowat’s claims in his book, “Never Cry Wolf” have been proven many times over to be false and rife with intellectual garbage.

You see, seeking the truth and taking the time to sing from the rooftops that you know the truth, requires reading and learning all sides of an issue and studying all perspectives and scientific data involved. Then and only then can the truth be discovered. One has to wonder if Mr. Goldman has ever studied Dr. Charles Kay, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Tom Bergerud, Dr. Clay Dethlefsen? Or read books by Will Graves, Teddy Roosevelt, C. Gordon Hewitt, the diaries of many of the trappers, explorers, etc. that traveled many years ago in the West? How about even the Adventures of Lewis and Clark? Only to name a few. And, being that Goldman hails from Maine, I wonder if he has read, “Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving. I suppose that if he has, he would think the people back in the 1600s – early 1900s were maliciously spreading inaccurate information about wolves, while demonizing the creature causing unjust killing.

Instead, people such as Robert Goldman opt to cherry pick only the information that conveniently fits a narrative. Goldman admits that he has a love affair with wolves. Even though I think some people take their love affairs with animals a bit too far, I’m curious if Mr. Goldman is so concerned for his wolves that he would rather they be healthy, than riddled with disease and have to resort to cannibalism for survival? Perhaps his wolf world is just a bit too idealistic and bases that idealism on inane theories of “natural balance” or “natural regulation”?

It is unfortunate that what also takes place when there is discussion about wolves/coyotes is that anyone who asks for accurate and up-to-date scientific studies to base wild canine management decisions on, requesting a control in numbers of these and other predators, we are instantly accused of wanting to kill all wolves and coyotes and well, predators as a whole. This is simply not true and results from a person lacking any knowledge to rebut facts with facts.

Goldman says that wolves are, “instinctively wary of people and avoid contact with humans.” This is true under ideal circumstances. But people should understand that not always is everything “naturally balanced” as some would lead us to believe. All should read Dr. Valerius Geist’s “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?”

Goldman’s claim that wolves “instinctively” avoid humans is not entirely true. Wolves are not stupid animals. Their “instinct” to avoid humans wanes considerably when they learn that there is no good reason to avoid humans. As a matter of fact, they will soon discover, and their “instincts” take over, that man and his surroundings can be a very easy and convenient source of food.

Reading and understanding Dr. Geist’s seven steps to recognizing wolf/coyote behavior can not only save your life some day, but will teach you much about the real behavior of wolves/coyotes and not the myth that wolves/coyotes are cute and cuddly, human-loving puppies that only want to be our friends. Understanding that concept doesn’t mean you then have to become a person seeking the complete destruction of the animal or live in fear of it. You can choose to go right on liking the beasts, it’s just that now you’ll know more truth about the animal. Is there something wrong with that?

It is the common theme these days for people like Goldman to postulate that wolves/coyotes are a necessary “balance” for our ecosystems. This theory is simply not true, has not, nor never can be proven scientifically to be an accurate statement. To latch onto such a claim is conveniently dishonest, intellectually vacant and reeks to high heavens of agenda-driven propaganda.

It is equally dishonest to promote hostility toward hunters, blaming them for disrupting the “natural” process, while at the same time painting some far flung notion that wolves/coyotes only kill the sick and weak of their prey subjects while hunters muddle the gene pool by taking only trophy game animals. (Read this article for information about whether “trophy hunting” spoils gene pools.)

Let’s not kid ourselves, a wolf/coyote is an opportunistic hunter. They will kill what they can kill. If that conveniently, for the wild dog, happens to be a three-legged deer or elk, then so be it. There exist documented evidence that wolves/coyotes kill adult healthy prey species any time of year. Documentation also exist that these varmints kill for sport. This is far too often denied by those who simply want to protect their loveable canines.

What is really despicable and a totally unacceptable attitude of this writer is his claim that those who wanted enactment of the Endangered Species Act were “enlightened”. In addition, those who lied and created the biggest deception in American wildlife history through wolf introduction into the greater Yellowstone area, are described by Goldman as being “maturing American attitudes”. He then goes on, in ignorant fashion, to declare that anyone not agreeing with his perspective are liars.

He follows this up with lies of his own stating that elk populations in the Rocky Mountain Region,”are strong and healthy”. Goldman needs to get out more and get his “truth” straightened around.

As I began this piece, it is a pity that I actually feel the need to rebut this garbage. I have better things that I should be doing, but until, somehow, we can break this cycle of repeated ignorance and bias and get our media to get off their lazy backsides and actually do some research of their own, this remains a stumbling block to move forward with sensible, science-backed facts in the management of our wildlife.

Tom Remington

The fifth of Five Elements of Maine’s Game Plan for Deer looks like this:

Public understanding of the Department’s deer management plan and public support for the plan is essential for it to be successful.
Strategies:
• the Department will enhance its public outreach on two fronts:
• better informing the public about the many aspects of deer management and updating the public on progress in deer rebuilding efforts, and
• better providing information on ways concerned individuals and groups can improve deer habitat
• MDIF&W will increase public understanding and support for it efforts to increase the deer population

How is MDIFW doing? Are you satisfied? If you’re not, don’t remain silent. We were promised better. Now ask yourself if you are getting it.

There is one thing I learned very early on in life when it came to public service as well as my own adventures in business – keep the people informed. This is the best money spent. There’s several things wrong with our government and a lack of communication is one of them. The other is communicating the wrong information. If those two things could be overcome at MDIFW, many of the other problems with public relations would go away. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. After all, we are talking about a government agency here, one that is no different than any other and fails are communicating effectively because they want to keep information from us.

Sorry if I’m stepping on someone’s toes here but that is the reality and until someone can show me differently, I certainly will not change my approach.

To give credit where credit is due, at least MDIFW and all those involved in creating the Plan, if there were others, recognized that it was important enough to include as one of their five elements of things necessary to accomplish in order for the plan to work. If that is true and they fully believed that, then I ask sportsmen again to ask themselves if they are satisfied with the information and the amount of it that MDIFW is giving us about our deer plan to restore the Maine herd.

I’m not and here are the reasons why. In early February, MDIFW began sending out Deer Progress Reports. What was planned to be a weekly report began getting scattered until the first part of April when it was announced that aerial surveys of deer ceased because deer were no longer restricted to deer yards.

Three months passed by and MDIFW sent out a “Summary” of the past progress reports which I’m not sure I would call it a summary of deer progress but more of an update of plans with no specific data to satisfy the masses of sportsmen.

Perhaps I am different than most sportsmen but nothing I received all winter and into the summer told me much of anything as it pertained to the condition and the status the deer herd. While each progress report included a report of any predation issues, mostly what we were subjected to were copy and paste reports like this:

Staff monitored winter conditions [temperature, snow depths, deer sinking depths, and snow profile characteristics] at 26 individual monitoring stations throughout the state to estimate the impact of winter conditions on deer mortality.

How difficult would it have been to provide that information? If staff monitor winter conditions do they record it? I’m assuming they record it because I was told by Lee Kantar, head deer biologist at MDIFW, that this information is used to come up with a Winter Severity Index. This index is used as part of their calculations to formulate an educated guess as to how many deer died from the bad winter and how many survived.

My point is, if it’s recorded, why can’t it be at least placed on the MDIFW web site where sportsmen can go look at it? I don’t see this as being a difficult thing to do for this and/or all other data collected. Is there something to hide or are we just being “protected” by the enlightened here?

Sportsmen can view this in any fashion they so desire. I’m not so naive that I don’t understand that certain things cost certain money. I am however, savvy enough to know that certain monies, invested the right way can pay big dividends. If MDIFW wants our help as they claim, that begins by helping us.

However, there is more to replenishing Maine’s deer herd than monitoring winter weather stations, doing winter aerial surveys and trying to figure out if coyotes are killing many deer in the deer yards during winter. Maine has four seasons. Do we ignore them?

There are two major issues that I would like to see reported in deer progress after the winter surveys are improved upon. At some point in time, the biologists at MDIFW arrive at a fawn recruitment rate or percentage. This is done by compiling data from several areas, including spring time observations in the field. It’s not complicated this part of it. You look in a field with deer and you count how many does and how many fawns and do some math.

We can talk about predation mortality until the caribou come back but the survival of the Maine deer herd is dependent on the number of fawns that survive to replace the adult deer that die off from various things. Simple math can show that if more adult deer die off than new deer can replace them, eventually you will achieve ZERO.

Also, it is not being passed on to the public that predators’ have great impact on new-born fawns in the spring. Black bears are up and about and hungry. They know, as do the coyotes, bobcats, lynx, etc., where the deer traditionally go to fawn. They kill new born deer. These same predators understand migration routes for when pregnant does leave the deer yards and head back to their stomping grounds. They lie in wait.

Do we ignore this and hope it goes away? Perhaps monitoring this event is more important than reporting on “reports” of depredation problems during winter. Let’s demand that we have an accounting. Let’s see if there is anything we can do as sportsmen to limit or reduce fawn mortality in the spring. Let’s demand an accounting from MDIFW of recruitment and fawn mortality.

Here are questions for readers: Do you know what the current estimated deer population is in Maine? Do you know what the total deer mortality rate is per year? Do you know what the adult male, adult female and yearling mortality rates are each year? Do you know what the fawn recruitment for Maine is? Do you know at what level it needs to be just to sustain a population? Do you know what the mortality rate is for vehicle deaths? Do you know what data MDIFW biologists collect at tagging stations? Do they test for any diseases and if so what? Do they test for age of deer? Do you know what the age structure is for Maine’s deer? Do you know why age structure is vitally important? Why can’t we have all this information made easily available to us?

The second thing is harvest data. I see few legitimate reasons why sportsmen can’t have first count data on deer and bear harvests without waiting 4 – 6 months for that information. Yes, for some of us it’s nice to have the full report and examine harvest data by town, etc. but the overwhelming majority of hunters would like to see preliminary numbers within days of the end of hunting season. Let’s demand it.

I’m sure there are tons more issues sportsmen would like to see addressed. Demand it. Make noise. Don’t let officials off the hook. They told us they were going to do a better job of communicating information to us. I’m not satisfied. If you’re not, demand more. It’s your investment.

Tom Remington

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