Does industrial wind and wildlife really mix well? I would suggest no. There has been much research into the affects of industrial wind turbines and its deadly affect on bats and birds, but little to none on mammals.

The effects on both livestock and wildlife are starting to be realized by land owners, and by hunters and trappers. The effects of wind turbines on domestic animals are thankfully starting to be recorded, such as 100 goats dying in Taiwan because they could not feed. The turbines noise kept them “instinctively on alert” for predators to the point they could not eat. The livestock of an Ontario cattle rancher having many still born and what few calves were born were attacked by their mothers who kicked and bit them, others refused to nurse their young as a result of the affects of newly installed industrial size wind turbines. These are but two recorded and reported examples. Domesticated animals cannot escape the noise and shadow flicker of wind turbines because of their restricted (fenced in) range resulting in these types of incidents.

The higher forms of wildlife such as deer, bear, moose, and many furbearers take the option of leaving the immediate area of industrial wind complexes. But by this action, they are forced into habitat that is already occupied resulting in conflicts such as over browsing and an increased rate of predation. These activities have been recorded in various locations where industrial turbine complexes have become operational. The loss of habitat due to road, transmission line, and turbine site construction also results in the loss of thousands of acres of habitat. The affects of the turbines on the lower forms of wildlife such as rodents, snakes, and even insects is an unknown to date. They all have their place in the chain of life and any single loss will affect other wildlife and also the overall environment.

The hydrology of the mountains may also be impacted by the deep bed rock blasting that is required to make the foundations for the 400+ foot tall wind turbines. This may affect our drinking water supplies and the surface waters that hold various species of life including our beloved cold water brook trout and landlocked salmon fisheries.

Fragile and rare high alpine vegetation will be destroyed by mountain top wind development. In places such as Maine, moose will be driven off the high mountains sides where many go to have the cold temperatures of winter freeze off their tick infestations that can if bad enough weaken them to the point that they may parish. The pine martin, one of the most valuable of our fur bearers thrives on mountains with heavy spruce growth. Our depleted northern deer herds will be further stressed and damaged due to the fact that the low frequency noise and construction will force them from current habitat. The use of herbicides to prevent re-vegetation may cause long term harm to wildlife, aqueduct species, and maybe our own drinking water. The possibility of forest fires will be greatly increased due to lighting strikes to the turbines and overheated gearbox lubricants igniting. This is in areas mostly far removed from any firefighting equipment and men.

The affects of industrial wind on wildlife (other than bats and birds) is not being actively researched by various federal and state fish and game departments due to several reasons, such as a lack of funding and most commonly due to political pressure where state administrations do not want anything negative being brought to light. This is because they support wind power development along with its tax incentives, stimulus monies, political gains, and of course their own long term pocket wealth over that of the welfare of wildlife. The loss of revenues generated by wildlife such as licensing fees and employment related to hunting, fishing and trapping industries which generates millions annually for the states affected by industrial wind is not in their greedy equations.

It must be noted that the scientific and medical communities are realizing the effects of low frequency noise and the strobe affect of the blades in sun light that cause mental and medical problems in humans. Even this is being contested and down played by the big wind companies with their multitude of lawyers and our greedy politicians who gain to lose face and wealth by opposing big wind. They are doing all they can to discredit those who oppose big wind. Along with that, they come into communities where they want to place commercial wind turbine complexes and buy off the local governments and tax payers with bribes of reduced electrical fees, offers to pay for lawyers to represent the local communities during negotiations, and cash settlements with private individuals who have to sign agreements not to publicly oppose them for the duration. Here in Maine we are staged to lose over 350 miles of mountain tops along with many thousands of acres of habitat. Most of the land is privately owned and the land owners cannot be blamed because of upfront monies, reduced tax burdens, and long term leases. This is all done with stimulus funding which are our federal tax monies or that borrowed by our current federal administration from foreign countries which will hurt generations of Americans for many decades. The sad part is that wind power generation is not even cost effective, nor does it reduce carbon emissions because more coal and oil fired generation plants must be built to back up wind power generation which is a variable dependent on wind. These are the basic reasons I feel that commercial wind generation is not beneficial to wild life, along with consideration of its impact to the human race.

I ask that you form your own opinion on this matter, but please educate yourself on the pro’s and con’s of this subject before forming that opinion. There are many websites that will educate one. All you need to do is search or Google industrial wind or wind turbines.

Dave Miller, Lexington TWP, ME

Dave Miller is a Maine resident, an outdoor writer and a member of the Carrabassett Valley Trappers Association.

Regardless that I have taken the time to clarify what I’m not trying to do, I will be demonized because I’m suggesting a different method of funding a Maine law enforcement agency, that has grown beyond “game wardens”, to a point where enforcing game laws is not the main function of this agency, or so it appears to me. Because I oppose how the department is funded, I will be accused of having a bone to pick with the Maine Warden Service or some other ridiculous notion. Let’s get beyond that.

I reader sent me a link to an article that appeared this morning in the Kennebec Journal. The piece was about efforts undertaken by two members of the Maine Warden Service to police illegal dumping by morons on private property. Illegal dumping can be an issue in some areas and especially with strict guidelines for refuse disposal and fees attached with it. But again, this is not the issue here for me. The issue is, why are my hunting and fishing license fees being used to pay the salaries of two or more agents of the Maine Warden Service to police private property in hopes of catching the idiots who are dumping garbage there?

The article has one of the Wardens explaining it this way.

“What concerns me is, as this keeps shaping up, owners of the land will post the property so there will be loss of access for people to use it for recreation,”

That’s a commendable concern but it still doesn’t answer my question. The same sentiment could probably be found in nearly every community throughout Maine. I should also point out at this time that the article continues informing readers about the efforts underway, many through volunteers, to clean up old dump sites and better monitor areas that seem prone to illegal dumping. These efforts should be commended.

The Maine Warden Service is part of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. There once was a day when the wardens took care of poachers, checked sportsmen for licenses and enforced the fish and game laws. A visit to the website of the Warden Service and we quickly see this is not the case any longer.

Col. Wilkinson writes that things have changed in the 128 years the Maine Warden Service has been operational. He also says that “demands from the public” have increased the Service’s responsibilities. Who could disagree? The problem is, the general public, and through the State Legislature, have dumped all these demands on the Service without providing the funding to do the job. As a result, they have sucked the money out of fish and wildlife funds, license fees, etc., and wildlife management has suffered while Game Wardens are out chasing down people ignorant and uncaring enough to get rid of their garbage on private land.

In the “Mission” of the Maine Warden Service we begin to get a picture of just how the responsibilities have grown from enforcement of “fish and game” to the “protection and conservation of Maine’s natural resources” and “public safety”. Here’s a list of many of those responsibilities.

1. Search and Rescue (More than 350 search and rescue missions each year.)
2. Fish and Wildlife law enforcement
3. Recreational Vehicle law enforcement
4. Policing the Whitewater rafting industry
5. Investigation and enforcement of environmental laws

This is a broad overview and upon examination of the written purpose and function of the Service, their responsibilities are so broad they could pretty much include everything.

But probably most or all of these functions require somebody’s oversight and perhaps the Maine Warden Service is the best group to do it. But search and rescue, recreational vehicle law enforcement, patrolling dump sites, investigation of environmental law infractions and policing the whitewater rafting industry should not be paid for through fees collected by hunters, fishermen and trappers. Losing those fees are directly responsible for the loss of quality fish and game management. At a time when Maine is facing a serious whitetail deer management crisis (yes, it is a crisis) it kicks you in the guts when you read that two game wardens are spending their time monitoring a dump site. As important as it is to stop the dumping and to bring those responsible to justice, this law enforcement activity has to be paid for through general taxation.

For those who have read me before, you know where I stand on how to fund the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife. If you would like to read more specifics, start at this link and also follow the related links at the bottom of the page.

There are some advocating that things should remain being run the way they are only that funding be shared between license and registration fees and a percentage of tax dollars. Gov. Baldacci has tried unsuccessfully to create a super department cramming fish and game, conservation and other departments all into one. I oppose both these formulas and advocate a complete restructuring of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, moving all non game programs into the Department of Conservation and/or Law Enforcement and pay for dump site monitoring, for example, through general tax money. Fish and game would be pared back to what should be their function and that’s managing the state’s fish and game. Perhaps, just perhaps, Maine wouldn’t be faced with an extirpation of whitetail deer in the northern half of the state.

Tom Remington

The people at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are claiming they are broke and are in need of funding, as much as doubling the current funding, according to Dr. Ken Elowe, Director of Resource Management for MDIFW.

You’ll get no argument from me that MDIFW is underfunded. What you will get are questions as to why and suggestions about the best way to deal with it. Let’s first address why the MDIFW is underfunded.

In the new issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife, MDIFW Commissioner Roland D. Martin, states that all the programs and responsibilities his department has to care for, brings back to the state of Maine some $2.4 billion annually. Maybe that amount could be more.

Dr. Elowe, in his article on who should fund MDIFW, also states that responsibilities to the department have grown out beyond fish and wildlife issues.

Over time, the Department’s mission has broadened significantly: It now manages whitewater rafting, registration of watercraft, snowmobiles, ATVs, hunter, trapper and recreational vehicle safety, conservation education, environmental permitting and other matters.

And that’s just scraping the surface. To this we should add search and rescue, law enforcement of recreational vehicles and all non game programs.

The major reason the MDIFW is underfunded is because it has been tasked to perform duties well beyond management of fish and wildlife. All of this has been done with essentially no additional funding. Presently the overwhelming majority of funding to MDIFW comes from license fees paid by hunters, fishers, trappers, and snowmobilers/ATVers.

I know of nobody who thinks MDIFW is properly funded. The problem now becomes what to do about it.

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, is promoting funding to come from general taxation. He is proposing that a percentage of the tax revenue be designated to the MDIFW. In all honesty I haven’t heard anybody else make a specific proposal that doesn’t involve using tax money to fund the current composition of the MDIFW and it’s ever expanding non game services.

While this proposal may seem functional on the surface, I have to wonder if most sportsmen, the one’s who will still be the major fund providers for the Department, understand that with such a move opens the door for non hunting, non fishing interests to demand more and more input into the decisions and direction the MDIFW should take. The majority of states that have followed this path have faced this problem and a problem it has become, with organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and PETA directly seeking or sponsoring their own representatives to fill seats on fish and game commissions. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I support increased funding for all the issues that Dr. Elowe lays out in his article. However, I don’t support them to be part of and funded by MDIFW. For regular readers, you know that I support a move that will put all non game programs into the Department of Conservation. Dr. Elowe says MDIFW doesn’t have enough biologists to cover everything. Fine, DOC, funded by taxpayer dollars, can hire their own wildlife biologists to take care of non game wildlife species. DOC can take care of environmental licensing, conservation education, etc. Law enforcement of snowmobiles and ATVs should be handled by state and local law enforcement as well as search and rescue.

This move would be unprecedented as the tendencies these days are to mash departments together believing money can be saved and programs run more efficiently. History has already shown us that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the bigger the department the further away from the average sportsmen a sense of ownership becomes, resulting in a significant loss of interest. In other words, when sportsmen lose their voice, participation drops. The larger the department the more bureaucratic it becomes swelling the budget, resulting in depletion of programs. In other words, more of the same.

Conservationist or perhaps better labeled, environmentalists, have no business dictating to a fish and game department how to manage game for hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities. Funding fish and game with tax dollars will accomplish that with very negative results.

It’s easy for Commissioner Martin or Dr. Elowe to exclaim how their programs contribute $2.4 billion dollars annually to the Maine economy. Think how much bigger that amount would be if the programs were split up so that each one saw the attention it deserves and that would provide better opportunities. With a smaller MDIFW, they could get back to managing just fish and wildlife for the purpose of providing opportunities for hunters, trappers and fishermen, then I believe these resources could improve with the end result a better revenue stream for MDIFW.

With a better funded and more targeted Department of Conservation, similar results could be seen and achieving the wishes shared by Dr. Elowe. This can be done and the results impressive, in my opinion. Who has the chutzpah to try it?

The groups involved in examining how MDIFW should be funded are supposedly contacting other states that fund their departments with general taxation. I hope these groups understand that just because everybody else does it, doesn’t mean it’s the best. I’m confident that if they look at the issue with open minds, they will realize what I did several years ago.

Let’s properly fund the programs that need to be funded in Maine and not just throw money at it. Two lean, mean departments, each properly structured with sufficient funding could reverse a management trend that is seeing lousy results.

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

Declaration for an Independent and Democratic Wildlife Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Maine fisheries biologists are reporting increasing numbers of angled trout and salmon with indigestible soft plastic lures in their stomachs, according to John Boland, IF&W Fisheries Division Director. A discarded soft plastic lure consumed innocently by a brook trout from the bottom of a freshwater shoal likely remains in that fish’s stomach for the rest of its life and may cause health issues such as ulcers and weight loss.

Soft plastic lures are most commonly used by bass anglers, often in waters shared with trout and salmon. IF&W is cooperating in studies on the effects of soft plastic lure ingestion by trout and salmon, including one recent experiment at Unity College, which was conducted by IF&W Pathologist Dr. Russ Danner, Unity College Professor Jim Chacko, PhD., and IF&W Fisheries Biologist Francis Brautigam, and in another study currently underway at Southern Maine Community College.

The study conducted at Unity College found that 65 percent of brook trout voluntarily consumed soft plastic lures if they simply were dropped into water.

“We found that fish retained the lures in their stomachs for 13 weeks without regurgitating them,” according to Dr. Danner. “They also began to act anorexic and lost weight within 90 days of eating a soft plastic lure.”

Without regard to the chemical toxicity of ingested soft plastics, the fact that these lures are occupying space in a trout’s stomach limits the amount of space available for natural food. There is a lot of veterinary medical evidence that foreign bodies in the digestive tract cause ulcers, weight loss, and anorexia.

“We strongly encourage anglers to voluntarily purchase biodegradable and food-based lures rather than soft plastic ones,” Dr. Danner said. “Also, we are asking anglers not to discard plastic lures into any waters, and also to attempt to retrieve any soft plastic lures that have become unhooked”.

For millennia, trout and salmon have foraged the waters of Maine for nutritious natural forage such as small fishes, insects and other invertebrates. In the last 20 years, food mimics made of soft plastic has begun to compete with these nutritious natural forage items. The effects of soft plastic lure pollution on freshwater ecosystems are not well understood yet, but it is unlikely that eating soft plastic lures will be found to be a good thing.

“The wide assortment of soft plastic fishing lures is staggering,” Dr. Danner said. “Soft plastic lures come in every color, a myriad of sizes, and resembling every swimming, crawling, and flying creature a fish could imagine eating. Large fish searching the waters of Maine are bound to come upon brightly colored soft plastic lures lost or discarded by anglers and consume these imitators of natural food items.”

There are estimates that as much as 20 million pounds of soft plastic are being lost in freshwater lakes and streams annually in the U.S. The average life expectancy for these soft plastic lures is more than 200 years.

“We need all anglers to do their part to protect Maine’s valuable fisheries from this serious threat,” Dr. Danner said. “Natural lure alternatives are available at many retailers and online, and should become the choice of people who love to fish Maine’s waters”.

If you wish to learn more about the experiment conducted at Unity College a report on the project was published in the Northern American Journal of Fisheries Management. It is available at http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1577%2FM08-085.1.

Posted by Tom Remington

One member of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Chairwoman Rep. Wendy Pieh, D-Bremen, was quoted as saying the following:

…..whether it’s fair-chase hunting or farming, or whether it offends the morals of some, is not for the Legislature to decide.

I think those are issues the market can handle,

Give Rep. Pieh a blue ribbon!!!

Tom Remington

Fox News yesterday presented it’s report with Sheppard Smith.

Tom Remington

Fox News out of New York traveled to Newport, Maine and visited the Hind-Site Deer Hunt Preserve, owned by Mark Luce, to do a documentary of sorts of the facility. This was in response to a bill, LD560, that is being proposed in Maine to end hunting on game preserves. Fox wanted to visit a typical preserve and see for themselves.

In an email update sent to me this morning by Luce, he conveys the surprises the news crew found.

First they were amazed how quickly the deer on the farm headed for the furthest corner of their paddock….They clearly were not pets or tame and reacted like any good whitetail would after seeing the strangers.

After the farm interview we spent 3 1/2 hours in the preserve and they did not see a single deer. We had baited a site earlier in the morning with the hope of sneaking in and getting some deer on film, even if it were deer headed quickly to cover. When we finally made our way to the blind the bait was gone and no deer in sight They really wanted to see some deer so we put on two deer drives and we failed both times as the animals found a way to double back……20 + deer were not going to be seen today.

All too often people jump to conclusions about what a hunt preserve must be like. Unfortunately because of a couple bad apples and public relations campaigns by anti-hunting groups eager to spread false accusations and descriptions of game ranches, people are led to think things that just aren’t factual.

Luce says he is happy that Fox News took the time to actually visit a preserve, which is more than can be said about those sponsoring the bill, LD560, or the lawmakers who will be casting a vote one way or the other. Luce tells it this way.

They [Fox News] also asked the sponsor of LD 560 if he had ever visited a hunt preserve to justify his bill ……………………The answer was no!

What Fox News found was much different than the antis had painted us to be. I have invited numerous State Reps. to visit our preserve, but they are too busy and we are not convenient to get to.

It’s sad actually. Luce says lawmakers say that he is in an “inconvenient” location for them. In reality, Hind-Site Preserve is located just 3 miles off Interstate 95, one hour north of Augusta, the state capital. I might have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that I might cast a vote to put some good and honest people out of work because it was “inconvenient” for me to find out the truth.

Amazing!

Tom Remington