I guess it was to be expected, in the most dysfunctional and ugly legislative session I’ve ever experienced, that little was accomplished on outdoor issues. This is particularly disappointing given the excellent collaborative work of the legislature’s Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, chaired by Senator Paul Davis and Representative Bob Duchesne.
In the good old days, a unanimous vote by a legislative committee, on any bill, would nearly always mean a straight shot through the House and Senate and the signature of the governor. But not this session. As one veteran legislator told me, in his many years in the legislature, “I have not seen such intimidation (from leadership – example: the solar bill), lack of support for unanimous committee reports, lack of respect for the process and more interest in unspoken fundraising.” Very sad.
So, let’s start with what they did accomplish.
IFW Mission Statement Strengthened
The legislature added 19 important words to the mission of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department that significantly strengthens the role that hunting, fishing, and trapping plays in the management of Maine’s fish and wildlife.
This began with a proposal from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine designed to discourage wildlife ballot initiatives like the 2014 bear referendum. DIF&W raised concerns about SAM’s proposal and it was set aside by the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee.
Don Kleiner, lobbyist for the Maine Professional Guides, created new language that SAM endorsed, and the IFW Committee amended that language down to the 19 words that won the unanimous support of committee members and ultimately, the support of the entire legislature.
Here is the first paragraph In Title 12, Section 10051, titled “Department established,” with the new language underlined:
The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is established to preserve, protect and enhance the inland fisheries and wildlife resources of the State; to encourage the wise use of these resources; to ensure coordinated planning for the future use and preservation of these resources; to provide for effective management of these resources; and to use regulated hunting, fishing and trapping as the basis for the management of these resources whenever feasible.
New law expands protection of Maine shooting ranges
An amended version of a bill designed to protect existing shooting ranges has been enacted and signed into law by the Governor. “An Act to Protect and Promote Access to Sport Shooting Ranges” was proposed by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and sponsored by Representative Patrick Corey.
The original bill sought to exempt shooting ranges from new rules and ordinances if they would cause the shooting range to close or substantially limit sport shooting there, and to give the ranges immunity from lawsuits. It would have also allowed the ranges to expand, including scheduling more events and increasing membership. Those provisions were set aside in the amended version of the bill. Here’s what the new law provides:
- It expands sport shooting range immunity from nuisance lawsuits filed against the shooting range from nuisance lawsuits based on noise to any nuisance lawsuit.
- It prohibits municipal ordinances from being applied to limit or eliminate shooting activities that have occurred on a regular basis at a sport shooting range prior to the enactment date of the ordinance. Current law exempts the applicability of ordinances only with regard to noise control.
- It requires a sport shooting range to meet general gun safety and shooting range operation practices or be constructed in a manner not reasonably expected to allow a projectile to cross the boundary of the range in order to be exempted from municipal ordinances applied to limit or eliminate its current shooting activities.
- It provides that a municipality may not restrict a sport shooting range established prior to September 1, 2016 from performing maintenance or making improvements to enhance public safety and shot containment, provide access for persons with disabilities and provide rest room facilities. Other maintenance or improvements must be done in compliance with generally applicable municipal building codes and zoning ordinances. Repairing or rebuilding a building or structure damaged by fire, collapse, explosion or an act of God must be done in compliance with generally applicable municipal building codes and be completed within 2 years.
Other Achievements
Nonresidents who own 25 acres of more that is open to hunting will be allowed to hunt on the “Residents Only” first day of the deer season, thanks to a law enacted this session.
Many environmental groups and legislators told me they thought the greatest achievement this session was the successful move to overcome the Governor’s refusal to issue Land for Maine’s Future Bonds. And that was indeed very important, but the program remains in jeopardy. This session the Governor removed several LMF Board members and replaced them with a couple of folks who, to put it kindly, don’t have much of a track record of support for the program or for conservation. And there is still a ways to go before current projects are completed.
After years of effort, the Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine was successful in addressing problems with discontinued roads. SWOAM didn’t get all it wanted, but the new law is a significant step forward. I’ll report on this one in more detail later.
Hatchery Bond Died
A $28 million bond issue to construct a new hatchery, unanimously endorsed by the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, died on the Appropriations table, not really a surprise.
Last year Representative Russell Black submitted a bill at my request that got quite a bit of discussion, but a disappointing result. In my testimony for the bill, I reported on problems with stocking policies, genetics of brook, brown, and rainbow trout, and high costs and low catch rates. Our bill would have created a Hatchery Commission to:
- Examine the costs of production, the numbers and species of fish stocked, and the return on stocked fish, both in Maine and in other states;
- Conduct a survey of licensed anglers in the State, using contact lists at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, to assess the anglers’ interest in and satisfaction with fish stocked by the State;
- Make recommendations designed to provide for the production and distribution of fish sufficient to meet current and future demand in the most cost-effective manner.
The IFW Committee rejected our bill, and in its place, voted to appropriate $700,000, from DIF&W’s surplus account, to contract for an engineering study on upgrading the Grand Lake Stream Hatchery and constructing a new hatchery.
The study was done by FishPro Inc. of Illinois and cost $140,784. The FishPro plan included adding a second deeper water intake at the Casco hatchery, expanding the Grand Lake Stream water supply and production capacity, and building a new hatchery. FishPro outlined four possibilities: expansions of 10%, 25%, 39%, and 114% in pounds of fish.
The Casco recommendations could cost as much as $963,000 and the Grand Lake Stream recommendations could cost as much as $2 million. The costs of a new hatchery ranged from $10,896,000 for a 10 percent increase in fish production to $90,603,500 for a 124 percent increase in fish production. FishPro recommended, based on DIF&W’s fish production goals in each region, that a new $27.9 million hatchery be constructed. That would allow an increase in production of 49%.
When the IFW Committee sought a recommendation from Commissioner Chandler Woodcock, he could not give them one. So they voted without any guidance from the agency, unanimously endorsing a $28 million bond issue to construct a new hatchery. Improvements at the other hatcheries were not included. And that was as far as the bill got.
Constitutional amendments
Two Constitutional amendments designed to protect hunting got very little support. One would have prohibited referendum ballot measures on wildlife management. The other would have created a “right to hunt” in the Constitution.
Representative Steve Wood, a member of the IFW Committee, told me he intends to introduce both of these amendments next year, if and when he is re-elected.
Disappointments
I’m not going to dwell on the disappointments, although there were many.
I was particularly disappointed in the failure of a bill Representative Bob Duchesne sponsored at my request, to reinstate the marketing position and budget at Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, to help our struggling outdoor industry. DIF&W opposed the bill, but Mark Duda of Responsive Management, a national firm that has done great work in all 50 states, delivered a 350 page report and recommendations. One of the top recommendations was to create this marketing position at the agency.
The IFW Committee unanimously endorsed the bill, and included a modest budget for the position and program, suggesting that the funding come from the agency’s substantial surplus. But Republicans on the Appropriations Committee killed the bill.
