George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has announced a group effort plan to help fund the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife with a portion of the general taxation. SAM is teaming up with The Nature Conservancy and the Maine Audubon seeking 1/8% of sales tax revenue to fund MDIFW.

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

GRAY – The Maine Wildlife Park in Gray, owned and operated by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, played host to more than 102,200 visitors this year, up 9 percent from 2008, despite the rainy summer.

The Maine Wildlife Park seeks to provide education and information about Maine’s native wildlife, as well as the programs and projects being undertaken by IF&W to manage and conserve wildlife as an essential resource of the state.

The increase in visitors translated into a 24 percent increase in revenue, attributable to a small admission fee increase in 2009 and sales from the park’s Nature Store.

Per Legislative mandate, all revenues generated by the Maine Wildlife Park are dedicated specifically and only to the Maine Wildlife Park, from which all annual operating expenses are withdrawn.

By conducting periodic surveys of Maine Wildlife Park visitors throughout the season, we have found that as many as 45 percent of our peak season (mid to late summer) visitors are from out of state, and visitors from around the globe constitute close to 5 percent of overall attendance. Visitors repeatedly stated that they heard about the Maine Wildlife Park from friends and family, and the Maine Wildlife Park’s website consistently is in the top 5-10 pages viewed on IF&W’s website.

Several special events this season had record-breaking attendance; including the annual “Honor the Animals” Native American Pow Wow with close to 5,000 visitors for the 2-day event; our popular ‘HalloweenFest’ with 1,200 visitors, most in costume, for the 3-hour evening event; and more than 1,000 people for the 2nd Annual Rick Charette concert. The busiest non-event day on record with close to 1,500 people on the Friday of April school vacation!

It appears that the Maine Wildlife Park has become a destination and/or a ‘staycation’ for both residents and out-of-state visitorsl. Although people enjoy all of our resident wildlife, clearly the most popular species is the moose. As the wildlife park continues to make annual improvements in the exhibits for wildlife, as well as for visitors, we look forward to seeing new and returning visitors in 2010.

For more information about the Maine Wildlife Park, please visit our website at: www.mainewildlifepark.com or become a fan on Facebook! Just search “Maine Wildlife Park.”

AUGUSTA – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) is strongly encouraging anglers to protect Maine’s fish by changing from soft plastic lures to biodegradable ones.

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

It all makes little sense to me. Maine, like just about every other state in the Union is looking at ways to cut the budget and Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci insists on targeting the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. At least 90% of the budget is paid for through license fees and reimbursed taxes paid through Pittman-Robertson. Only recently did the Maine legislature cough up any money to assist MDIFW. Budget constraints on the Department have come mostly due to the demands placed on it for services outside fish and game (oh, sorry! Fish and Wildlife. That changed a few years back), yet those taking advantage of those services pay little or nothing.

Now Gov. Baldacci is seeking a license fee increase and he seems determined to either get the increase or merge the fish and wildlife into one huge natural resources entity, of which nobody wants to see. An article by Kevin Miller of the Bangor Daily News says that Baldacci is threatening sportsmen to either accept the fee increase or he’ll merge the departments.

Baldacci spokesman David Farmer stressed that the consolidation proposal is being put forward as an alternative to higher user fees. If the sporting community can live with the fee increases, then the consolidation proposal goes nowhere,

Sure sounds like a threat to me.

Generally speaking sportsmen are content to pay reasonable fee increases when they can see value for their dollar. What’s getting really old is paying extra for the license in order to pay for things that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing and trapping. Maine has to find a way to make up the shortfall by collecting fees from those who use and don’t pay, admittedly a difficult task.

I can assure you though that consolidating departments and morphing Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into a huge natural resources kind of department would be the biggest mistake Maine could make. Just look around at the states who have. First and foremost, it saves no money but more importantly two things happen.

One, fish and game doesn’t get the attention it needs. Monies are moved around and license fees continue to escalate in order to pay for more non-game activities and services. This results in the second problem. Time and again when talking with other sportsmen in other states and even looking at surveys taken, one of the biggest complaints by sportsmen who have stopped buying a license is that they feel they have no say anymore with fish and game.

Where once sportsmen organized into clubs in order to have input into the management of game no longer exists to the same degree. Ask any sportsman and they’ll not give a real positive impression of their own fish and game departments. On top of that bury the fish and wildlife into a huge, bureaucratic nightmare of a “superagency” and what little confidence left gets further eroded to efforts of futility, devaluing the experience and rendering a license purchase a waste of time and money.

Maine Senator David Trahan, (R) Waldoboro, who sits on the Fish and Wildlife Committee says he wants people to know “Over my dead body”.

“I’m not interested in having this discussion about consolidating these agencies into one,” said Sen. Dave Trahan, R-Waldoboro, a member of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee. “I just want people to know that. My position is ‘Over my dead body.’”

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says he opposes both of the governor’s proposals.

SAM’s executive director, George Smith, has promised to fight both proposals to increase fees or merge the agencies. Smith and other several other speakers said the state needs to find a way to get kayakers, hikers and other outdoor recreation enthusiasts to help pay for the services that game wardens and DIF&W biologists provide.

The chairman of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, Bruce Bryant (D) Oxford, also thinks Maine has to find ways to get those utilizing services to pay to play.

Sportsmen complain about the fee increases. Others don’t because they enjoy the benefits bought and paid for by the sportsmen and yet these same free loaders are making much of the demand for bigger and better services.

There is one thing that is certain. We can get mad at the governor. We can berate the fish and game department but if we don’t stop placing demands for more and bigger, how can we expect to keep fees down? Granted our departments have to hold the line on spending but at the same time we need to stop demanding.

Tom Remington

Restoration projects don’t always result in desired outcomes. Maine’s Penobscot River once provided a bounty of resources; a multitude of fish species, nutrients to care for the fish and other aquatic plant life, along with numerous opportunities that benefited the natives and residents within the river watershed. Then progress got in the way, so to speak.

Several dams were built along the river stretching from near Ellsworth north toward the Millinocket region. These dams, all a part of progress, were built mostly for producing electricity and water control. The result played a pivotal role in the destruction of a natural fishery that included several species of sea-run fish.

Man has been the culprit of many things but man being an intelligent creature with instincts for survival, learns from the mistakes and over time works to correct them. Efforts are currently underway to remove some more of the dams and construct fish ladders, fish lifts or fish ways as they are commonly called. The dream is to restore the Penobscot River to what it used to be.

Even though man is all too often blamed for every bad thing that happens to the environment, there is one thing that is certain and yet is overlooked. Man is still here. Man isn’t going away anytime soon, we hope. And with this knowledge, man must also become a part of the equation to solving our environmental problems.

While it certainly is a commendable dream to want to restore the Penobscot River to or near its original condition, we have to ask if it’s feasible, practical and the right thing to do both biologically and socially.

The Penobscot River Restoration Project is lead by the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. The Trust is comprised of the following organizations: 1) the Penobscot Indian Nation, 2) American Rivers, 3) Atlantic Salmon Federation, 4) Maine Audubon, 5) Natural Resources Council of Maine, 6) Trout Unlimited, and 7) The Nature Conservancy. These groups are working with the U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service), the State of Maine and PPL Maine Corporation, the company that owns the dams.

All of these groups have worked together in forming an agreement that aims to accomplish certain things, as are listed on their website.

# Restore self sustaining populations of native sea-run fish, such as the endangered Atlantic salmon, through improved access to nearly 1,000 miles of historic habitat;
# Renew opportunities for the Penobscot Indian Nation to exercise sustenance fishing rights;
# Create new opportunities for tourism, business and communities;
# Resolve longstanding disputes and avoid future uncertainties over the regulation of the river.

The agreement also will provide for the following:

* The Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT) the option to purchase three dams from PPL Corporation, and subsequently remove the two lowermost dams on the river: Veazie and Great Works;
* The PRRT, after obtaining the approval of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, to decommission and pursue construction of a state-of-the-art fish bypass around the third dam, Howland, that will, if found feasible maintain the impoundment;
* PPL Corporation the opportunity to increase generation at six existing dams, which would result in maintaining essentially all of the current energy generation;
* PPL Corporation to improve fish passage at four additional dams.

There are two issues with this effort that may not be getting the attention and the scrutiny that they should. One is the replacement of the lost electricity from removal of two dams and the closing of a third. The other issue is that of accounting for the spread of other invasive species now living below the dams that were not there back in the days of which the PRRT dreams of restoring the river to.

There are presently two organizations that I am aware of that have come out publicly in opposition to both the loss of electricity and the opening of the waterway to invasive species, namely the northern pike – The Millinocket Fin and Feather Club and the Town of Millinocket.

The Millinocket Fin and Feather Club recently drafted a letter of opposition to the dam removals and sent it to the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. (View a copy of the complete letter here.) FERC controls the licensing of the operation of the dams for the purpose of generating electricity. It is my understanding that the reason the letter went to FERC is because the next step in the PRRT restoration project is for PPL Maine to turn over their licensing in order that the dams can be purchased and removed. These groups want to stop that process.

The Town of Millinocket has also drafted a letter that has been sent to FERC with copies mailed to the Maine Governor, U.S. Congressmen and Women, state representatives, several towns along the river and other key players. Both letters essentially address the same two issues. (Read the Town of Millinocket letter here.)

The issue of invasive species should raise a pretty big debate. According to the Bangor Daily News, PRRT concurs that pike are present in the Penobscot.

Laura Rose Day, the river restoration trust’s executive director, said the trust shares the councilors’ concerns. Pike have been in the Pushaw Lake area of the lower Penobscot since at least 2003, state biologists said.

“We have been aware that pike are in the drainage of the river, and that’s why we had a team of experts that looked at that issue,” Day said Tuesday. “There is a risk, but it’s one factor among many.”

The real argument comes in whether or not northern pike, a known vicious predator of most fish species, including trout and salmon, would find its way north through the Penobscot watershed and into the many tributaries that have some of Maine’s finest trout and salmon fisheries. If this should happen the results could be devastating.

We need to go back for a moment and revisit what I said earlier in this article about the presence of man. The reason that pike are present in the Penobscot River below these dams is said to be the results of man’s illegal introduction of the fish into Maine waters. We can curse and throw worms to show our frustration but it doesn’t change the fact that this deed was done and now we have to live with it. It now becomes part of the restoration equation.

The Town of Millinocket and the Fin and Feather Club raise some serious questions about the spread of invasive species after the dams are removed. Ray Campbell, Jr., President of the Millinocket Fin and Feather Club, explains the possible watershed contamination.

If the surrender of license is to take place as planned, it would introduce invasive species, never there before, into the pristine Piscataquis River, plus giving northern pike, already in the Penobscot River below these dams, access into the Piscataquis River. The northern pike will not only destroy the fishery in the Piscataquis, but recent studies show that they, in all probability, will gain access from the East Branch of the Pleasant River (which flows into the Piscataquis) into upper Jo-Mary Lake, and from there into the West Branch of the Penobscot. This will essentially destroy the entire fishery downstream of
Ripogenus Dam.

Would opening the Penboscot River waterway threaten the existing fisheries? It appears nobody wants or has the ability to answer that question factually. There aren’t an abundance of studies available on northern pike migration. The fish is considered a sedentary species but that certainly doesn’t mean it doesn’t migrate at all.

The northern pike is commonly referred to as the wolf fish because of its notorious feeding habits and pronounced teeth. Essentially it will feed on most any fish species along with other aquatic animals including ducks. Fear runs rampant in trout and salmon fishermen when they hear of pike being found in their favorite fishing hole as the fish are known to destroy existing fisheries by both eating the fish and the fish the fish eat, like smelts.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s Northern Pike Management Plan (2001), fully recognizes the existence of the fish in several of Maine’s waters. The plan calls for managing the fish to provide opportunities for fishermen but recognizes that every effort needs to be made to prevent the fish from getting into undesirable waters. The plan offers very little insight into the migration and distribution of the fish.

A study conducted in the mid 1990s in Alaska (Seasonal Movements, Age and Size Statistics, and Food Habits of Northern Pike in Upper Cook Inlet during 1994 and 1995, David S. Rutz) lends us some knowledge of the habits of northern pike.

The Cook Inlet Study in part looks at the migration of pike from the inlet into rivers and other tributaries that feed the inlet. One tracked fish traveled a distance of 13 km (just under 8 miles).

Another study done in Germany (Long range seasonal movements of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) in the barbel zone of the River Ourthe (River Meuse basin, Belgium), M. Ovidio and J. C. Philippart, 2003) also shows us that northern pike can travel a substantial distance during normal migration periods.

In this study, pike were tracked through their migration periods up and down the river. Again, one fish traveled a distance of 15.7 km (9.75 miles). Of note was the fact that tracking of fish downstream was stopped due to what the study calls a weir (obstruction, possibly a dam. It doesn’t say.)

I think we can safely conclude that pike will migrate to distances far enough that other waters north of the dams could face fisheries problems. The question becomes how proliferate will the pike become and what kind of damage will they cause?

Even though Richard Dill, regional fisheries biologist for Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is hesitant to officially state that pike are in the main portion of the Penobscot, few will argue it’s only a matter of time.

As much as the Penobscot River Restoration Trust would like to bring the river back to its glory days, it would be irresponsible to not fully explore the dangers that exist. Yes, these pike are here because of the ignorance of man but ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

The BDN story says this about whether pike could find their way all the way to West Branch and beyond.

But biologists have not determined whether the connective waters — Upper Ebeemee Lake, Wangan Brook and Sanborn Pond — are deep enough to allow that, Dill said. Their studies are ongoing.

This presents another problem in trying to make a determination. The MDIFW Northern Pike Management Plan I referred to earlier, states some of the difficulties in trying to stop the proliferation of pike. It points out that when pike spawn they move into weedy areas. Biologists would like then to lower water levels to sharply reduce the survival of the northern pike. The problem is that the spawning period, also the period when pike migrate the farthest, coincides with spring when water is at it’s highest. This fact alone can aid in the further spread of the invasive pike.

What we know about the northern pike may not be enough to accurately assess the complete potential danger that exists should the dams be removed. One thing is for sure. It would seem that rushing into the removal could be a huge mistake. I know this may not seem like rushing for the PRRT. Perhaps the millions of dollars that are going to be spent to purchase these dams and tear them down, could be better spent trying to determine what might happen once they are removed; at least enough to satisfy everyone.

I would love to see the Penobscot returned to as close to what it used to be but not if it means ignoring the problems man has created that could destroy a healthy fishery now. That makes little sense.

Tom Remington

The Maine Chevrolet Derby 2009 features two ice fishing tournaments this winter. The Sebago Lake Derby is set for February 21 and 22 and the State Wide Derby is scheduled for March 7 and 8.

The tournaments are open to adults and youngsters and subject to all ice fishing regulations as set by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Competitors may fish for togue, pickerel, pike and muskie. Says Maine IF&W fisheries biologist, John Boland, “ The Sebago Lake Rotary has always coordinated with Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to ensure their events are consistent with our fishery objectives. The derbies have been a wonderful success-encouraging families to take advantage of ice fishing and most importantly, raising money for charity.”

For the Statewide Derby, first, second and third place cash prizes will be awarded for the largest fish of each species. All anglers who weigh their fish will be eligible for the grand prize drawing of a 2008 Chevy 4 x 4. Other prizes include a choice of 2009 Ski Doo or Can Am ATV, Kittery Trading Post gift certificates, Mission Trailer and Ice Shack and fishing trip to Libby Camps in Ashland, Maine.

Weigh Stations for the Sebago Lake Tournament are Raymond Beach on Route 302 and Jordan’s Store on Route 114 in Sebago.

There are twenty-two weigh stations from Cross Lake in Aroostook County to Acton in York County. Fisherman may fish all legal waters throughout the state.

The Maine Chevrolet Derby 2009, hosted by the Sebago Lake Rotary Club is a fund raiser for The Good Shepard Food Bank which supplies 500 food pantries throughout Maine; Camp Sunshine; Maine Children’s Cancer Program, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Rotary Foundation, the DARE Program and local charities selected by the statewide weigh stations.

Says derby organizer Tom Noonan of Raymond, “Over the years we’ve had thousands of fisherman participate and raised over $350,000 for charity. We are recognized by Field & Stream Magazine as one of the five best ice-fishing tournaments in the nation. Our hope is to become the nation’s largest Ice-Fishing Derby and generate awareness and funding for all our charities.”

Other events scheduled in conjunction with the Sebago Lake Derby are a Kid’s Derby on Thomas Pond in Casco on Friday, Feb 20, 9 am to noon; a motorcycle and car ice-racing event in Windham Friday evening from 6-10 pm; the Maine Children’s Cancer Program Polar Dip at Raymond Beach noon, Saturday Feb. 21; hot air balloons, helicopter rides and a general aviation fly-in all day Saturday and a Snowmobile Radar Run at Raymond Beach from 10 am to 4 pm on Sunday, Feb. 22.

Maine fishing licenses and Derby entries may be purchased at the weigh stations and at the Kittery Trading Post. Entries along with a complete set of rules, prizes, weigh station locations, and registration information is available on line at www.icefishingderby.com or by phoning 1-888-ICE-FLAG. The entry fee is $30 per person for the Sebago Tournament, which includes a free entry into the Statewide Tournament, $20 per individual for the Statewide Tournament. A Kid Pack entry is $50 for Sebago and $30 for Statewide. The Kid Pack includes entry for an two parents and up to 6 children under the age of 18.

The Maine Chevy Derby Fest Awards Ceremony and truck drawing will be held Tuesday, March 10.

Posted by Tom Remington

AUGUSTA – Maine Fish and Wildlife, the quarterly magazine of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, now is available in an online version only – and is free!

The magazine can be viewed at http://www.flipseekllc.com/maine2009winter.html or from the IF&W website at www.mefishwildlife.com.

For more than 40 years, IF&W has published a magazine to showcase the work and dedication of IF&W employees to preserving and protecting Maine’s inland waters and woods. But given recent tight economic considerations, the magazine was facing extinction because of reduced funding.

During the last Legislative session, members of the Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife asked IF&W to come up with an inexpensive way to continue producing the magazine. The best solution was to put it online, according to Roland “Danny” Martin, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

“The Maine Legislature didn’t want to see the decades-old magazine cease in existence and neither did we,” Commissioner Martin said. “By putting the magazine online, not only are we saving money but now a greater number of people will have access to the publication and at no charge.”

More than 3,000 people had paid subscriptions to the quarterly magazine’s paper editions. By going online, the Department expects to reach more than 90,000 potential readers through e-mails and its website.

The online version of Maine Fish and Wildlife is produced in cooperation with FlipSeek LLC of Lyndhurst, Ohio, which developed a software application that gives publications such as magazines and catalogs the electronic look of hard copies. FlipSeek’s easy-to-use application lets readers flip through pages, zoom in and out of articles and pictures, and print what they’d like to keep in paper form.

Articles are written by IF&W employees, and the magazine is edited and designed by IF&W’s Division of Public Information and Education.

The electronic version of the magazine is not much different than the paper one. Readers will find insightful articles about projects or programs within the Department, see colorful pictures of biologists, wardens and educators at work, and share the reader-favorite “KidBits” with their children.

Also, readers will find “Field Notes” on Game Wardens’ activities or cases they have closed, “Biologist’s Journal” about an awe-inspiring or introspective event biologists may have experienced, and “Inside IF&W,” a feature about a talented staffer at IF&W.

“The 300 employees at IF&W are dedicated to managing fish and wildlife resources and enforcing the laws that protect them,” said Commissioner Martin. “Like our readers, our staff hunts, fishes, boats, snowmobiles, hikes or canoes/kayaks in the abundance of wilderness Maine offers. Their commitment will be evident in this publication.”

Posted by Tom Remington

Many Americans believe that being in the outdoors is what makes their lifestyles so remarkable and frankly, having grown up that way, I just don’t know what I would do if I lost the freedom to do that anymore.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. This lifestyle is being threatened. Ask yourself who you would rather have looking out for your interests in these matters, someone who is one of us or someone with little if any experience in outdoor affairs, namely hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, boating, ATVing, horseback riding, rock hounding, canoeing, kayaking and the list goes on?

As we rapidly approach November 4, 2008, Election Day, I encourage everyone to get out and vote. This may be the most critical election ever to face our nation and you need to be a part of it.

If you are anything like me, where the outdoors is more of a part of my life than indoors, I have to seriously consider who I want leading the way. John McCain is an outdoor sportsman. He is a fisherman and doesn’t pretend to be something that he’s not. He has selected a running mate in Sarah Palin that doubles the draw of the ticket.

The Sportsmen for McCain website says McCain supports your interests.

“John McCain understands that hunters and anglers are the first conservationists and without them, conservation as we know it will cease to exist. John McCain recognizes the importance of recruiting the next generation of hunters and anglers as well as maintaining those currently in our ranks. John McCain believes in multiple uses of public lands and knows that the revenue generated by the licenses and gear that we purchase is the life blood of state wildlife agencies.”

Our Endangered Species Act has been so far twisted out of shape it has lost its ability to protect the species we want to have long into our future. Who better to lead than someone with a real understanding of what proper wildlife management is. McCain is someone who knows that it is the outdoor sportsmen that make it possible for him to go fishing when he can.

I have to believe that one of the reasons John McCain recruited Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate, is because who else can have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the outdoors than the governor of the state that labels itself as “The Last Frontier”.

Having a grip on the importance of our outdoor heritage is huge. This directly affects tens of millions of Americans. Outdoor issues shouldn’t be overlooked in this election. Putting the future of our heritage in the wrong hands can gravely impact how we live as Americans.

Both McCain and Palin have track records on where they stand and what they have done to protect our heritage. Obama and Biden pale in comparison and have yet to show that they even care. Don’t hope for the best, when the best is right before you.

For more information on Sportsmen for McCain, visit their website.

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

The Boston Globe has a typical article today that shows the media’s desire to disregard hunting in favor of wildlife watching at the expense of hunters. It really kind of irks me, the ignorance that exists and then the arrogance from the wildlife watching community as they are continually told they outnumber hunters and are gaining the upper hand politically to have things their way.

And it appears that the Maine Office of Tourism isn’t exactly jumping up and down in support of the state’s thousands of hunters.

“It’s a challenge,” said Phil Savignano, senior tourism official for the Maine Office of Tourism. “Maine is changing . . . There is clearly a decline in hunting and a growth in wildlife viewing. But we want both to exist.”

According to officials at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, hunting participation has held pretty steady in Maine. I’m sure Savignano is referring to the USFWS survey that I have said for months is not an accurate measure of who hunts and who doesn’t, yet even state officials use that data instead of information from their own agencies. Go figure!

The difficulty, as I see it, does come from the power of the dollar. I don’t want the wildlife watchers taking over fish and game departments. Lee Kantar, a biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and who has recently been put in charge of looking out for the moose, had this to say about the pressures put on the department in managing the moose.

“Our job is to balance the interests of all people – the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care,” said Lee Kantar, a wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Population numbers, he added, “can be the stuff of battles.”

Perhaps this is what it has evolved into but it’s not supposed to be the function of the fish and game department to be managing game animals for the wildlife watchers and those trying to make a buck off charging people to go on wildlife watching safaris.

Once again we see history being lost in our society. People forget what state the moose was in not that many years ago and whose dollars it was that were used to restore the moose population. Now we have a seemingly abundance of moose and some hunters are demanding more permits to hunt the creature while at the same time wildlife viewers, who pay nothing for the management of the animal, are demanding more moose to watch.

For many reasons there are people who don’t want the two entities to coexist. I won’t go into all the reasons. The media does little to help as is shown in this article.

I want to see the wildlife watchers pay their share to meet the demands they are putting on MDIFW but separate from the fish and game department. I have said this repeatedly. Fish and game needs to be shrunk in size to a function of, well, fish and game and NOT as Mr. Kantar says: “Our job is to balance the interests of all people – the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care.” This is not a function of a wildlife biologist or the fish and game department in my opinion. Why should my license fee be used to satisfy those wanting to go moose watching, or for pandering to the insurance companies to reduce collisions, etc.?

There are no sour grapes here toward those who want to make a buck or two by schlepping those interested in canned photo opportunities and wildlife viewing safaris across the state. What irks me is their demands that hunters stop shooting the animals in order that they have more animals to watch. All this without paying a red cent to the agency they are demanding provide them more opportunities.

It’s been said countless times. If it wasn’t for the millions of dollars paid by hunters over the years, these viewers would have little to watch and safari organizers would be doing something different. Hunters generally speaking do not resent that people want to go wildlife watching. What we do resent is these groups looking to promote their new-found activity at the expense of running the hunters off the face of the earth.

Tom Remington