For more than a decade, an exception in the deer driving law has provided that, “a group of 3 or more persons may hunt together as long as they do not use noisemaking devices.” Maine game wardens have never liked the law change but have not cited a group of 3 or fewer hunters for driving deer since the exception was added to the law.

Captain Cloudier presented a very interesting report, requested by Senator Anne Haskell, on deer driving laws in other states and the hunting accident incident rates in those states. Clothiers report listed 19 of the nation’s more popular hunting states where deer driving is legal, including New Hampshire and Vermont. New Hampshire limits driving to 6 hunters. Vermont has no limits. Oklahoma’s driving law is particularly interesting. Driving deer is legal there, “unless using smoke or fire.” Some states even allow dogs to be used in deer drives.

The information on hunting accidents was also interesting. “Although it inherently seems to be a dangerous practice, Vermont’s statistics involving hunting related shooting don’t support that notion,” was the report received from that state.

Not satisfied with the IFW Committee’s decision to accept the warden’s interpretation of the law, several committee members began working on an amendment to the deer driving statute. Representative Tim Marks actually drew a diagram of what he considered an illegal drive to be, and he took that diagram and his idea for clarifying language to Colonel Wilkinson.

The Colonel came up with the language that the committee unanimously agreed to add to the law: “A person may not participate in a hunt for deer during which an organized or planned effort is made to drive deer. For the purposes of this section to be considered ‘driving deer’ it would require four or more hunters, working together in an effort to move deer.” The second sentence is the Colonel’s amendment to the law.

The amendment was included in DIF&W’s omnibus bill that makes about a dozen changes to existing laws and is certain to be enacted.

So, for the upcoming season, three hunters trying to drive deer toward one another will not be acting illegally.

At the same time, new board member Amos Eno also resigned. Amos founded and directs the Resources First Foundation, described as an organization “founded in 2000 to support and develop conservation programs to strengthen and sustain rural communities, economies and green businesses, and to support private sector conservation initiatives by supporting the multi-faceted conservation needs of private landowners.”

The Foundation has been very successful and now has a presence all over the country. Amos brought a lot of expertise – and an extraordinary ability to raise money – to the SAM Board, but served there for less than a year. He was brought on board by Gorman to strengthen the group’s leadership and fundraising team.

Only four members remain from the last 12-member board I served, just two and a half years after I left SAM to write full time. No board  members remain from the group that served during most of my 18-year tenure.

Jim Hilly

Jim Hilly contributed to SAM’s work at an extraordinary level. A resident of Portland, Jim’s passion is firearms and he was a strong advocate for gun rights. He’s also very proud of his moose! While he once served as Portland’s Transportation Director, much of his career was spent as an Unemployment Compensation Commissioner in both the King and Baldacci Administrations.

Jim was especially good on the laws and rules that govern nonprofit groups. He was our in-house expert on SAM’s bylaws and other legal and organizational issues. When we merged SAM with its Conservation Education Fund a few years ago, Jim wrote the legal documents including by-laws and sheparded us through the process to win federal approval for the merger.

But it was when he stepped up and volunteered to manage the State of Maine Sportsman’s Show that Jim most strongly demonstrated his commitment to SAM. SAM shares ownership and responsibility for the state’s largest sportsman’s show with The Maine Sportsman magazine. Jim managed the last five shows on behalf of SAM, sharing that duty with TMS’s editor Harry Vanderweide. Jim and Harry worked on the show year-round, often meeting weekly. It’s a lot of work. Harry retired from his jobs as TMS’s editor and show organizer last year, and Jim managed this year’s show with Kelly Allen (now general manager of The Maine Sportsman but also SAM’s office manager during much my tenure there).

I learned the hard way, more than once, that Jim’s advice is the best. The SAM board and I made several mistakes over the years when we ignored his advice. Jim Hilly has been an extraordinary leader of Maine’s sportsmen, and his presence on the SAM Board and contributions to the organization will be missed. Honestly, I am not sure he is replaceable.

Jim Gorman

Jim saved SAM in 1995. I do not say this lightly. As SAM’s President that year, Jim stood up to board members who resigned and sued the remaining board members and me. He led us through a turbulent year that, finally, resulted in a Judge’s one-paragraph summary judgment dismissal of the lawsuit. This all happened in my second full year as executive director, and it was not only troubling but very disruptive, as you can imagine.

Without airing the entire matter, I can tell you that Jim Gorman’s strength and vision made the difference for the organization at that time. After he led us through that black period, SAM took off to become one of the state’s most influential organizations. He was a very big part of it all.

Throughout my 18 years as SAM’s Executive Director, I served just two SAM Presidents. Jim was President at the beginning and end of my service. Edie Cronk served as President for ten years in the middle of my tenure. Both were great people to work for and with, and will go down in the group’s history as its most effective leaders. And I say that as a former SAM President myself!

Jim never trumpeted the fact, but he is LL Bean’s grandson and works at Bean. It’s no accident that Jim’s family includes some of  SAM’s most generous donors and lifetime members, or that LL Bean has been SAM’s most generous corporate partner. In January of this year, when SAM was in financial difficulty, the Gormans stepped up with extremely generous donations to get the organization through that crisis.

I especially appreciated Jim’s leadership style. He fostered a relationship that allowed me to work as a team with the board, creating an environment of trust where we were able work together in good will and friendship. It was very effective. In fact, without that, I would not have lasted 18 years. Every one of my contracts gave the board the opportunity to fire me at will. I often told them I did not want to work there if they didn’t want me.

In my last issue of the SAM News, published in November of 2010, I listed SAM’s achievements from 1993 to 2010. It’s a very long list, and Jim Gorman and Jim Hilly were important to every single achievement. Winnowing the list down to what I considered the top ten achievements, I came up with these:

Became an influential force at the legislature, with annual agendas that enjoyed great success.

Made SAM PAC a powerful nonpartisan political action committee with a very high percentage of victories.

Won the very challenging 2004 bear referendum.

Created a Fishing Initiative Committee of avid anglers who have worked together for 18 years to bring fishing issues to the forefront, including at the legislature, and led the effort to establish fall fishing, protect native brook trout, grow quality landlocked salmon, simplify fishing rules, and much more.

Brought stability to SAM’s finances and membership and constructed one of the state’s most beautiful and functional headquarters and conference centers.

Played a key role in conservation projects that added 2 million acres to Maine’s inventory of conservation lands open to hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation.

Created strong alliances with other sportsmen’s groups, landowners, farmers, and environmentalists.

Created – with our partner Maine Audubon – the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund that has awarded more than $17 million to conservation and outdoor recreation projects.

Created the Pickering Commission that regularly reviews laws, rules, and publications to simplify, clarify, and improve them.

Created the Sportsman’s Congress that brings outdoor leaders together once a year to preview issues that will dominate their agenda in the coming year.

Conclusion

It’s a pretty impressive list, wouldn’t you agree? And Jim Gorman and Jim Hilly were very impressive leaders of our state’s largest and most influential sportsman’s group. On behalf of all the SAM members I served, I can only say: Thank you Jim and Jim.

If you see either of the Jims anytime soon, please let them know that you also appreciated and valued their service.

The committee had asked that Lee Kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife’s moose biologist, attend the work session to answer questions. For the work session, and in response to comments from committee members at earlier work sessions, I prepared an amendment to my bill that directed the department to increase the moose harvest to 10 percent of the total population over the next three years. I will attach my work session memo and amendment to this column.

“I will be the first to admit that the department needs a nudge sometimes to be innovative in our thinking,” said Jim Connolly, DIF&W Wildlife Division director. “But these bills go too far and take the decisions out of the hands of the department. You will be astonished by the increase in permits since the year 2000 when the legislature turned over these decisions to the department.”

Kantar said you could not compare moose to deer or bear. They breed differently and mortality issues are different. Ticks are a key factor in moose mortality. Kantar expressed confidence in his new population surveys — helicopter flights that he described as “dangerous,” — and said that the moose population increased by only 4 percent in the last year in WMD 2, the district he described as “the best.”

“We’re maximizing the harvest in that district right now. You can’t nuke the moose there.”

He said he was very concerned about the impacts on moose of climate change and ticks. He also said that recent hunts taking out adult cows have reduced the possibility of growth in moose populations in those areas.

“The population in those areas is in decline, by design,” he reported.

“We are maximizing hunting opportunity,” Kantar said. “If you continue to increase permits, mature trophy bulls will be jeopardized.”

He seemed very concerned about any increases in cow permits, and in the possibility of a serious reduction in trophy bulls, something he said was most important to guides and outfitters. He said some districts were now below desired populations, and, “they are not coming back anytime soon.”

I have to admit, Kantar’s presentation was impressive, even though he really discouraged the committee from supporting my bill calling for an increase in permits. He buried them in data, while noting there is a lot he doesn’t know about moose mortality.

“We’re in a position here where we need to see where we are and quantify our losses from all sources of mortality.”

He said he hoped to research these issues, modeled on work being done in New Hampshire and Vermont. Minnesota has embarked on the biggest moose research project in history — worried that their moose are going extinct. Minnesota is spending a lot of money on this, including collars that alert biologists when a moose dies.

“We’ve had four easy winters, and this has been good for deer but bad for moose, increasing the problem of winter ticks,” Kantar said. He reminded legislators that after a few warm winters, the moose harvest success rate dipped to 69 percent, and “hunters thought the sky was falling.”

He said there are a few districts where he’ll be increasing permits this year, but there are others where the number of permits will be decreased.

Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, expressed concerns that the department had not provided this information at the public hearing on these moose bills.

“This is a lot of information that I didn’t hear at the public hearing when we had a lot of people both for and against the bills. This is a different presentation that I am used to hearing at a work session,” he noted.

LD 177 Work Session

The committee struck a number of provisions in this bill at an earlier work session, and amended one section to give moose permits to resident hunters over the age of 70 who have the maximum number of bonus permits and never won a permit.

Kantar did his job, completely discouraging the committee from directing the department to increase permits.

“I think Lee Kantar knows what he is doing out there and is giving all the permits he can,” said Rep. Mike Shaw, D-Standish, a sentiment that most committee members seemed to share.

An increase in permits was a key part of my bill, along with a provision establishing a guaranteed draw for Maine residents (a system that would give Mainers a permit every five or six years). My bill also directed 25 percent of the money raised from the moose lottery and hunt to moose research and marketing. It has frustrated me for a long time that DIF&W feels it has to be conservative on the number of permits because they don’t know enough about moose health and mortality. None of these suggestions got any traction today at the work session.

On an issue not related to my bill, Rep. Steve Wood, R-Sabattus, argued that moose permits in WMDs 22, 23, 25, and 26 should be limited to residents.

“We’re giving ourselves a black eye giving nonresidents permits in those districts,” because the chances of getting a moose there is so slim, he said. There was a lot of discussion about this. The committee decided to give hunters who win a permit in those zones the option of giving up the permit and retaining bonus points for future drawings.

The over-70 amendment and the WMD 22, 23, 25, and 26 amendment were all that was left of my comprehensive bill at the end of the work session. Still, I was happy, having given the committee a chance to deal with moose comprehensively, and to be educated on all of the key moose issues. They left the session today a whole lot better informed about moose than they were on Day One of the legislative session.

LD 738 Work Session

This bill awards up to 250 moose permits to state-licensed lodges and sporting camps that offered moose hunts in the previous year. The amendment’s language is very specific about who gets the permits, how many are issued, and how the permits can be used.

“I think this is an excellent bill,” said Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting. “I wish I’d thought of it. We have an obligation to move forward,” to help an ailing hunting industry. “I agree,” replied Rep. Mike Shaw, D-Standish. “I put the exact same bill in two years ago.”

Rep. Steve Wood, a Maine guide, said he’d heard from other guides who oppose the bill, because all guides are not eligible for permits. He said he’d abstain from voting because it might appear that he had a personal interest in the bill, as a Maine guide. He did explain why he thought the bill is a bad idea, “picking winners and losers” among guides and lodges.

Shaw pointed out that by awarding the permits to lodges, both guides and lodges would benefit, while only guides would benefit if they got permits directly without the partnership of the lodges.

Here’s how the system would work:

The total number of moose permits must be greater than the number issued in calendar year 2012. All hunters must hold valid Maine hunting licenses. The fee per permit would be $1,500. And the number of permits offered for sale to the sporting camps must be capped at 250.

The revenue received from the sale of the permits must be used to offset any loss from the moose permit auction by youth conservation education programs. Currently 10 permits are auctioned with proceeds going to the conservation education programs.

Ten percent of the prior year’s aggregate permit allocation would be reserved for eligible lodges (this would result in 250 permits this year). Eligible lodges are Maine Department of Health and Human Services licensed eating and lodging facilities offering American plan fully-guided moose hunting and lodging packages, that have guided or contracted with Maine guides or outfitters to guide at least two such hunts in the prior year.

Eligible lodges may request reserved moose hunting permits, limited to the number of American plan fully-guided moose hunts conducted in the prior year. If the number of tags requested exceeds the available tags, they are allocated to applicants by lottery.

If tags remain after all eligible requests are filled, the department will distribute the remaining tags to the eligible lodges on a weighted average basis,  related to tags requested (or may be auctioned similar to the current “Governor’s Tags”).

Tags may only be used for American plan fully-guided hunts within the eligible lodge’s zone or two contiguous zones. Tags would be transferable until the permit is issued, and would be valid for one time use during the current season or next season.

Got it? Yes, it’s complicated!

And frankly, I had a hard time understanding how the allocation of permits to lodges will be determined. Apparently, the number of permits issued, above the number issued in 2010, will be used to determine the number of permits available to lodges. In 2013, 4,110 permits will be issued, 970 more than were issued in 210. So the allocation to lodges in 2013 will be 97 (10 percent of the 970). At least, I think this is how it’ll be done!

The committee got into a very confusing discussion of how the permits would be selected (by zone, by sex) and then awarded to lodges. I don’t think I’m the only one who ended up confused about this aspect of the proposal. When the actual language of the amendment is ready for the committee’s review, I will try to explain this again. If I can figure it out!

Bill Swan, DIF&W’s director of licensing, told the committee “it would be a nightmare” to try to get this in place for 2013. So the new opportunity to lodges won’t begin until 2014.

And here’s a final thought from Rep. Ellie Espling, R-New Gloucester, who “reluctantly” voted in favor of the amended version of the bill: “I think we’re opening a can of worms. I think this will be back next year.”

The committee voted unanimously in favor of the amendment, except for Rep. Wood who abstained.

Here’s how it happened. A flood of turkey bills were submitted, including one sponsored at my request by Senator Tom Saviello, calling for a variety of actions to recruit more turkey hunters and increase the turkey harvest. Three legislators who have suffered losses on their farms because of turkeys, spoke forcefully for their own bills: Representatives Jeff Timberlake, Russell Black, and Craig Hickman. I reported on these bills and their public hearings earlier in the session.

But I had little hope that much would be done because the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife opposed all of the proposals. The agency even whipped up a one-day “task force” and issued a report indicating the group only supported an extension of the October turkey hunt to four weeks.

But DIF&W’s Judy Camuso delivered a big surprise at last week’s work session on the turkey bills, informing the committee that the department had decided to offer a whole package of ideas.

Changes proposed in the law by DIF&W would be:

Reduce the price of the second spring tom from $20 to $10 for both residents and nonresidents

Reduce the nonresident turkey permit fee from $54 to $20

Reduce the turkey tagging fee from $5 to $2

Add a second fall turkey of either sex

Changes that the department proposed to take through its rule-making process would be:

Offer a one-tom limit in WMDs 1-6 and 8 in the spring

Maintain the current spring bag limit of two toms in WMDs 7 and 9 –29

Allow all-day hunting for the last two weeks of the spring season

Allow all-day hunting for youth day in 2014.

For the 2013 season, DIF&W also proposed to take the following proposals through the rule-making process:

A two bird of either sex limit in WMDs 15-17 and 20-15 and 28

A one bird of either sex limit in WMDs 12, 13, 18, 26, and 29

A month-long season in October, coinciding with the fall archery season for deer

Maintain the fall hunt shooting period of ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset

Allow both shotgun and bows in all fall hunting zones (but not crossbows).

“This is a bold play. I like the effort that’s gone into this,” Senator Anne Haskell told Camuso. Both Representatives Steve Wood and Tim Marks felt that the fee was still too high, and wanted to either eliminate tagging altogether or allow online tagging. Many committee members including Representative Paul Davis and the two committee chairs, Senator David Dutremble and Representative Mike Shaw strongly supported all-day hunting throughout the spring season.

Because the agency had already opened the door to all-day spring hunting by suggesting it for the final two weeks of the spring season, I think the committee felt emboldened to go further.

Rep. Ellie Espling was very concerned that all-day spring hunter would irritate homeowners in her southern Maine district. The department’s handout on these issues also reported, “The department is concerned that the non-hunting public will not support having hunters in their fields and forests in the afternoons in the spring, when many people enjoy being outside. We have heard from several individuals that this change will result in an increase in posted land and less support for hunting in general in the area of the state with the highest turkey and human population.”

The department did report that it would take all-day spring hunting to the public through the rule-making process, if the committee desired.

In an unusual move, the committee gave Dave Trahan of SAM, Don Kleiner of the Maine Professional Guides Association, and me a chance to offer our thoughts on these proposals during the work session. We all really appreciated that. I offered comments supportive of all of the proposals, especially all-day spring hunting. I also told committee members that I didn’t think – even with all of this – that a lot more hunters would take up turkey hunting. My bill would have eliminated the turkey hunting fee and permit altogether, and include turkey hunting in both the big game and small game licenses.

Rep. Shaw reminded all of us that another bill sponsored by Rep. Denny Keschl at my request -  to create a single comprehensive hunting license – would also eliminate the need to pay extra to hunt turkeys. That bill appears to be gaining support and is scheduled for work session this coming Friday.

With all but Rep. Espling in favor, the committee endorsed a turkey hunting amendment that puts all of the following into law (avoiding the need to take these through the rule-making process where they would need to win the support of the Commissioner and the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council):

Reduce the turkey hunting permit to $20 for both residents and nonresidents, with no additional fee for a second tom in the spring

Expand the fall season to the entire month of October and add a second turkey of either sex to the fall season

Reduce the tagging fee from $5 to $2 for each turkey (with all of the fee going to the tagging agent)

Extend the spring season to all-day (1/2 hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset)

Offer all-day hunting for youth day.

All of these changes were inserted in a bill sponsored by Rep. Marks that originally called for an extension of youth day to a full week. The rest of the changes that DIF&W proposed for the rule-making process will go forward that way.

Amazing!

Two concepts will be central to a work session discussion next Tuesday (May 14): substantially increasing permits, and providing a small number of those permits to licensed sporting camps and lodges that are currently hosting moose hunters. The committee has asked DIF&W’s moose biologist Lee Kantar to attend the work session to answer their questions.

I expect one question posed to Lee will be, “What is an acceptable harvest percentage for the moose herd?” Based on Lee’s assurances that the moose population is currently 75,000, we harvested only 3.9 percent of those moose in 2012 (2,937).

I already know his answer. When I asked him this question last year, he replied, “The maximum sustainable yield is between 4 and 6 percent,” a starkly lower percentage than recommended by the agency’s Big Game Working Group in 2007. In six Wildlife Management Districts, the group recommended harvests of 12 to 20 percent, and in six others, 25 percent! The department rejected those recommendations, settling on harvests from 8 percent to 14 percent in those 12 WMDs, still considerably higher than Kantar is now recommending.

I really don’t understand why DIF&W allows much higher harvest percentages for other game animals, but insists on such a low percentage for moose. In 2012, we harvested 10.4 percent of our bears (3,207 out of a population of 31,000). And DIF&W’s bear biologists have repeatedly emphasized that we need to kill more bears.

We even harvested 10.7 percent of our deer herd (21,355 out of a population of 200,000) – at a time when we are trying to rebuild the herd. And the department has announced that it will award a lot more any-deer permits for 2013.

That begs the next question, “If we can harvest 10.7 percent of our deer and 10.4 percent of our bears, why not 10 percent of our moose?”

Although the committee is reluctant to dictate permit numbers to the department, some members are considering a gradual increase of the harvest. The proposal would still leave the agency in charge, because the number or permits would be based on their own population estimate each year.

Here is one possibility. The committee might direct DIF&W to continue to monitor both the moose population, harvest, and hunter success rate each year, and gradually increase the harvest to 10 percent. The legislation could direct a harvest of 6 percent in 2014, 8 percent in 2015, and 10 percent in 2016, at which point the entire moose hunting system and lottery would be reviewed by again by the legislature.

Based on a population of 75,000, this would require a harvest of 4,500 moose in 2014, 6,000 in 2015, and 7,500 in 2016. At the current success rate of 70 percent, this would provide 6,400 permits in 2014, 8,500 permits in 2015, and 10,700 permits in 2016.

The beauty of this is that the number of permits would be entirely based on the scientific research and data collected by DIF&W. Each year they would start with their population estimate – updated each winter – and multiply that by the previous year’s moose hunter success rate, to determine the appropriate number of permits to be issued.

If the previous year’s success rate dipped, the number of permits issued the following year would be less than my projection. If the success was higher than 70 percent, the number of permits could be increased.

 Stimulating the hunting economy

In other parts of the country it is common for states to partner with the outdoor industry to maximize the economic benefits of its game animals, without diminishing the opportunities of the state’s residents to hunt those same animals. We don’t have that tradition in Maine, but it’s time to recognize the value and importance of such a partnership here.

There is a very modest proposal before the IFW Committee next Tuesday to award some moose permits to licensed lodges and sporting camps. Some Maine guides oppose the proposal because they would not be eligible for the permits – although they could benefit from them by guiding for one of the lodges and sporting camps, as many guides do now.

I believe this makes sense. Even those guides who would not immediately benefit ought to understand that if this partnership works, more such opportunities may be possible in the future. As we’ve lost our deer hunting economy, and seen a steady economic decline across all industries in our rural and north woods regions, it’s time to try new things and be open to new ideas.

Moose Research

The IFW Committee has rejected two of the provisions of a bill that Senate Tom Saviello sponsored at my request, LD 177, An Act to Expand Moose Hunting Opportunities, at least on a preliminary basis. The bill will be up for more discussion next Tuesday.

I suggested that one of those provisions, a switch to a guaranteed draw for moose permits for Maine residents, be withdrawn, in favor of keeping the focus on an increase in permits. We can talk about a new lottery system down the road. Once the number of permits get above 10,000, it will be easy to switch to a system in which every Maine applicants gets to hunt moose every five or six years.

But the other provision of LD 177 that has not found favor is very important. The bill directed 25 percent of the $1.3 million moose lottery revenue to the existing Moose Research and Management Fund, to pay for more research – especially of moose health – and marketing of the hunt.

IFW Committee members asked good questions of DIF&W, but did not focus on what we do not know about moose health. In fact, the principle reason that Lee Kantar continues to oppose significant increases in moose permits is that he doesn’t know enough about moose mortality.

Kantar told the IFW Committee in February, “The big unknown is mortality and the causes of mortality. So we have to be cautious in the number of permits we issue.”

My response would be: it’s the responsibility of the agency to gather this information, so that the state can enjoy as much hunting opportunity as possible and rebuild its hunting economy.

This isn’t a new issue. I’ve tried in the past to get the legislature to direct moose lottery money to research, and been unsuccessful. When I wrote about this topic last year, Wally Jakubas, DIF&W’s Mammal Group Leader, wrote to tell me the agency had been doing some research on moose ticks. He also said, “I agree with your sentiment that more money is needed to support moose monitoring and research.”

And here’s what else he wrote. “Kantar has launched a limited project this year to research tick mortality, with the help of volunteers including hunters of shed antlers. But without doubt, the lack of definitive research on this critical issue, gives us another example of how a valuable resource is getting insufficient attention because the agency lacks funding.”

And this part of Wally’s message is particularly discouraging. “The key piece of this puzzle that is currently missing is what effect are winter ticks having on recruitment rates (i.e., the number of calves that reach breeding age). We submitted a proposal for this research in 2007 with Dr. Fred Servello, but were told we did not have the funds to support this research.”

In 2007, the agency recognized this need, but didn’t fund it. Today, we suffer the consequences, with DIF&W continuing to be very conservative in issuing moose permits because of what they don’t know about moose. To me, this is completely unacceptable.

I believe Kantar is right – we do have 75,000 moose. And that’s all I need to know to urge the IFW Committee to act positively next week to substantially increase moose permits, begin a partnership with the hunting industry by issuing the members of that industry a few of those permits, and allocating sufficient funds so that next year, Lee Kantar will know all he needs to know about moose.

Wildfire

Coincidentally, the topic of the current Wildfire show is moose. Harry and I take on some of these issues with Ed Pineau, a sportsman and lobbyist. You can watch the show online at the Maine Audubon website.

HSUS has also proposed a bear bill in this session of the legislature. Their bill, LD 1474, sponsored by Representative Denise Harlow of Portland, will be scheduled for a public hearing later this month. It would prohibit bear hunting with dogs and bear trapping, eliminate any chance of Maine restoring a spring bear hunt, prohibit the sale of bear galls, and substantially increase penalties for bear poaching.

That bill has little chance of success at the legislature. But the referendum is another story. The national lobbyist for HSUS told me that the ballot initiative will include all the things in their legislative bill, plus a ban on bear baiting. That sets up a rerun of the 2004 initiative, where the ballot question read, “Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps, or dogs, expect to protect property, public safety or for research?”

In case you didn’t know, bear baiting is the most common practice used by bear hunting guides and outfitters. Without it, there would be no bear hunting industry in Maine.

I raised $1.5 million for the sportsmen’s campaign in opposition to that 2004 HSUS ballot initiative, and the Board of Directors of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine hired my sister Edie Smith to manage that campaign. Polling showed us well behind when we began the campaign, but we turned that around, winning a fairly narrow victory, 53 percent to 47 percent. Honestly, we had to do everything right to win. Dr. Christian Potholm’s polling and strategy guided us to victory.

Although I raised much of the money out of state, Maine guides and outfitters sacrificed financially to make sure we had enough money to win. It took years for some of them to recover financially.

Today, I am not sure the money is there to win this referendum a second time. Maine’s bear hunting industry is in decline, mostly due to the prolonged recession. And polling once again shows us well behind with the public on these issues. HSUS has grown substantially since 2004, and has an almost unlimited amount of money to throw at us this time.

This sets up an intriguing – but remote – possibility. If HSUS was to somehow win its legislative battle this session and get LD 1474 enacted and signed into law, it would probably end its effort to place a bear initiative on the ballot next year. That would give bear baiting – the practice that drives the state’s bear hunting industry – a pass.

No one really wants to talk about this, or even think about it. And honestly, it is so remote that I thought about leaving it out of this column. But on the other hand, it might be the only way to head off a very tough battle in 2014.

So here are my questions: is the money there to defend bear hunting in a 2014 referendum? Who will raise it? Who will donate it? Who will be responsible for polling and strategy? Who will manage the campaign?

As we approach the public hearing and work sessions on LD 1474, these questions will be foremost in the minds of many sportsmen, bear hunting guides, outfitters, and sporting camp owners.

Boland has worked for DIF&W for 36 years, 33 in the Fisheries Division that he led for eight years before his promotion. His current job put him in charge of both the Fisheries and the Wildlife Divisions.

Boland is personable and smart and an avid hunter, so adding wildlife issues to his responsibilities was not new to him, although he had big shoes to fill. Not long after he took the new job, I had the pleasure of fishing for a couple of days with John, Commissioner Chandler Woodcock, and former DIF&W Marketing Director Bill Pierce in the Rangeley Region. All good guys, fun to fish with, smart and passionate about the fisheries and wildlife resources in our state. We had some great discussions – and amazing fishing.

Dr. Ken Elowe left the top position at DIF&W to take an important position at the U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service. Elowe was well respected with a particularly good understanding of the political world in which DIF&W lives.

In his current position, Boland managed 120 employees and a $14 million budget. I predicted when he took the new job that he would be frustrated with the small amount of time he’d have available for the “fun stuff,” the projects and initiatives that benefit Maine’s fish and wildlife.

After he leaves the department, I hope to sit down with John and give him a chance to reflect on his work. My relationship with Boland spanned the entire 18 years of my tenure as SAM’s executive director, and we wrestled with many contentious issues. I’m sure there were times he didn’t like me much – particularly as I brought more and more issues to the legislature.

When I began working for SAM in 1993, legislators sponsored very few fisheries bills. SAM changed that. This year the legislature was flooded with fisheries bills. SAM saw the waters of Maine as half empty of fish while DIF&W saw them as half full. That’s the simplest way to describe this disagreement.

As the years passed, these differences were magnified, leading SAM to the legislature with more and more fishing bills, all of which were opposed by DIF&W. I will never forget a SAM bill calling for year-round open water fishing, something that is common in other states.

DIF&W strongly opposed the bill at the legislature where it was defeated. One Regional Fisheries Biologist said year-round open water fishing would happen in his region over his dead body.

I remember a year when several SAM fishing bills at the legislature irritated Boland. But after speaking against the bills, Boland and his boss, Ken Elowe, worked with me and the legislative committee to improve the most important bill before it was enacted.

That bill required DIF&W to report to the legislature, no later than March of 2010, on what it had done to accomplish nine goals in The Maine Fishing Initiative, a statewide collaborative project created and coordinated by SAM’s Fishing Initiative Committee and endorsed by many anglers, sportsmen’s groups, and legislators.

In return for helping with that bill, Elowe asked me to make an effort to improve SAM’s relationship with Boland and his fisheries biologists. In September of 2009, an effort at rapprochement began, led by Elowe.  And we did make significant improvements in our relationship.     

John Boland deserves special praise for stepping back from the bitterness and hard fights of the past to create a new partnership between his division and the state’s largest sportsmen’s group.

When he presented the report required in bill mentioned above, the report was remarkably well done and worthy of recognition and praise. I posted it on SAM’s website and wrote a about it in the SAM News.

If any part of Boland’s presentation demonstrated the remarkable change in the relationship of SAM and DIF&W, it came when he reported what the department has done to achieve the goal of increasing fishing opportunities.

They opened many Maine waters to year-round open water fishing. “Large sections of our biggest rivers such as the Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Saco are now open year round to open water fishing,” reported Boland.

“Many other smaller rivers, once closed after September 30, are now open throughout the fall or in many cases year round,” he said, while noting that, “On April 1, 2010, lakes and ponds under general law management will be open to year round fishing in eleven counties, and open water angling will be permitted on all lakes/ponds open to ice fishing in the remaining counties.”

I am pleased to report that this was not done over anyone’s dead body.  Amazing things can be achieved when state agencies and interest groups set aside differences to work together for their shared constituencies.

I have come to admire and respect John Boland. His legacy is huge. Someday I hope to write that story. And I’ll bet he has some great recommendations for the future of the department where he contributed so much for so long.

The public hearing testimony of Bob Meyers of the Maine Snowmobile Association, who spoke in favor of the section of the bill calling for updating of the agency’s MOSES online licensing and registration system, was helpful.

The IFW Committee’s legal analyst Amy Winston did a superb job of presenting the issues at the work session.

And the work of DIF&W’s Deputy Director Andrea Erskine and Licensing Director Bill Swan was absolutely critical to the success of the bill.

While I’m handing out praise, I can’t leave out the IFW Committee’s clerk, Diane Steward, who has been a great help to me throughout the session and who keeps the committee organized and functioning smoothly.

Of course, the interest, good questions, and support of the members of the IFW Committee were very much appreciated.

So, what’s in the bill? A lot!

Section one begins the process of extending lifetime hunting and fishing licenses to all adults. Right now children and seniors can purchase these licenses which are very popular. Given the tremendous success of this concept, I proposed extending it to all sportsmen. Bill Swan suggested that the first step should be an actuarial study by an independent qualified person, to assure that the new adult lifetime license is priced right. The committee amended the bill, directing DIF&W to arrange for the study that will also reexamine the current fee structure for lifetime licenses to assure they are still appropriate.

Section two proposed allowing the transfer of any-deer permits to any other hunters. Right now we can transfer them to youth and seniors. The committee responded to Bill Swan’s concerns about the proposal by allowing residents to transfer their permits to residents, and nonresidents to nonresidents.

The committee also decided to remove the designation “alien” that appears throughout all of the hunting and fishing laws and to designate those who live outside of the country as “nonresidents.” This was a special concern of Rep. Ellie Espling, who tried to do this last session. Now, only those who don’t live on our planet will be called aliens.

Sections three and four were merged. Section three required the department to organize a task force to figure out how to reduce the complexity of licenses, permits, and registrations now administered by the agency. The committee is working on another of my proposals that would eliminate all hunting licenses and permits in favor of a single hunting license that offers all hunting opportunities. If that bill is enacted, we won’t need this task force. The committee directed DIF&W to consider ways to reduce the number of licenses, permits, and registrations, as it tackled the directive in section four that calls for a plan and budget to update the agency’s MOSES online system.

“It’s all doable,” Swan told the committee. “It comes down to money and time. We don’t spend much (now)” he noted. After asking for more guidance from the committee on what he should focus on, he was told to focus on the customer interface of MOSES. The committee’s House Chair, Mike Shaw, told a somewhat amusing story in his testimony on the bill about a frustrating experience he’d had while trying to buy a license online. The committee clearly wants MOSES to be more customer-friendly, and Swan said he’d work with InformME, the business that is responsible for the MOSES system, to recreate recommendations for the committee’s consideration.

The final section of this bill was designed to encourage DIF&W, and Deputy Commissioner Erskine in particular, to achieve some of the things she told SAM’s Pickering Commission two years ago were needed. Andrea’s support for this, at the work session, was the key to getting it into the bill.

Specifically, Andrea will be creating a plan to simplify and streamline the eligibility requirements for and issuance of complimentary licenses, the laws governing license revocations, and the laws governing hunting including age restrictions, equipment restrictions, and supervisory requirements. Specifically, the plan must extend the supervisory requirements for apprentice hunters to junior hunters and make supervisory requirements for hunting consistent with those that apply to trapping. Essentially, all of this is designed to make these laws consistent over all uses and users.

All of the studies and reports called for in this bill are due back to the committee by December 31, 2013, at which time the committee will have the authority to create a bill to act on the findings and recommendations.

After a very fruitful discussion and exceptional work on the bill, the IFW Committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the full legislature with an “ought-to-pass” recommendation.

Yet some members of the legislature’s Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee are reluctant to support this proposal, afraid that too many hunters will object. Here’s the proposal, and the problem.

The proposal would eliminate nearly all of DIF&W’s 67 hunting licenses and permits, in favor of a comprehensive hunting license that would cost $38 for residents and $144 for nonresidents. That’s right, for just $38, you get it all. Add $17 and you also get a year’s worth of fishing.

For the cost of a pair of jeans or cheap sneakers, you could hunt and fish all year in Maine. I can barely buy two cases of my favorite micro-brew for that.

Of course, maybe instead of hunting all year, you’d prefer to purchase 3 months of Netflix. But what will you do the rest of the year?

Maybe you’ve set your sights on that Magnum Hunting Stool at Cabela’s for $39.99. Give up a year of hunting in Maine, and it’s yours! Give up 10 years of hunting and you could buy the Primos Doublewide Blind – and use it for birdwatching.

I first heard this idea for a comprehensive hunting license from Bill Swan, DIF&W’s Director of Licensing, who brought it to SAM’s Pickering Commission two years ago. I thought it was a great idea then, and I submitted it to the legislature this year with the help of Rep. Dennis Keschel, my local Representative, who sponsored the bill.

At yesterday’s work session on the bill (LD 153), Swan did a superb job of explaining the costs and benefits of the license. The $38 price is designed to assure that his agency raises the same amount of money from the single license as it now does from the hunting licenses and permits it will replace.

Here are the concerns expressed by some members of the IFW Committee. Right now 69 percent of residents and 66 percent of nonresidents buy only a single hunting license, with no additional hunting licenses or permits. Most purchase the license only to hunt deer. That means they currently pay $25. To get the new comprehensive license, they’d pay an additional $13.

There is no question about this: some hunters will be unhappy. Swan projects that 10 percent will give up hunting. I think that is on the high side, but I also know that every time DIF&W’s license fees increased in the past, sales decreased – for a short period of time. Eventually sales returned to the same and higher levels.

In my mind, someone who gives up hunting over $13 is not much of a hunter. Really my friends, aren’t your hunting opportunities and experiences worth $38 a year?

Rep. Stan Short’s comments reflected the thoughts of several committee members. Stan said he can’t support the proposal because of his concern over the $13 increase for some hunters and the possibility that Maine would lose some hunters.

I think this is simply a matter of how the issue is presented. $38 is a bargain for a season of deer hunting – even without all the other hunting opportunities that will be included in the comprehensive license. And there are two other factors that should be considered.

I’ve been trying to find ways to encourage hunters to try new opportunities like rabbit hunting and turkey hunting. We know that the future of hunting will not be defined by a big increase in the number of hunters. It will be defined by a lot more hunting by those who hunt. If all hunting opportunities came with the license, I am sure many hunters would expand their hunting interests. And Maine needs to move in that direction.

Upland bird hunters might take a turkey in the fall, incidental to their grouse hunting. A deer hunter might get out for a winter’s day of rabbit hunting with a friend. A lot of hunters might spend a Saturday morning harvesting a turkey (and we all know a lot more turkeys need to be harvested).

This is exactly what happened to me when I purchased the Superpack license. I got out duck hunting one day – because it was included in my license. And I went rabbit hunting too, for the first time since I was a kid.

There are also great benefits in this proposal for DIF&W and its licensing agents across the state. Eliminating five-dozen individual permits and licenses simplifies the MOSES online system and will save the agency a lot of money. Every line in the MOSES system costs money. And it will be a whole lot simpler for agents to sell hunting licenses if there are only a few licenses to sell.

This is a big win for all of us. DIF&W raises the same amount of money but lowers its licensing costs. Most hunters get many more hunting opportunities and are likely to try some of them. The cost of a comprehensive license will be a bargain for anyone who enjoys hunting in this state. And we’ll be able to hunt a lot more – with no additional cost.

If you only hunt small game, or if you hunt with a bow and not a gun, Swan has revised the proposal to accommodate your interests. Here is how the new comprehensive hunting license would be structured and priced:

Guns                            $38

Bow                             $38

Small Game                  $27

Hunt/Fish Combo $55 (applied to either guns or bows)

There are other benefits to this proposal. For example, IFW Committee member Steve Wood, a Maine guide, noted that the $144 for the nonresident hunting license will make us more competitive with Quebec for big game hunts. I know that I pay $100 for 5 days of pheasant hunting in North Dakota. The price of the license is the smallest cost item for anyone who travels away from his or her home state to hunt.

Aliens (the term used for those outside our country) will be folded into the nonresident category, eliminating that offensive term all through the statutes.

Fees for junior and armed services personnel will not change.

Sportsmen will save on agent fees that are now applied to each and every license and permit (even by DIF&W).

Those with lifetime licenses would no longer have to purchase some of the additional permits and licenses.

The database maintained for game wardens who spend a lot of time checking for licenses and permits will be a lot simpler and smaller.

The separate course for those who wish to hunt with crossbows will be eliminated, in favor of a single course covering bows and crossbows (another cost savings for DIF&W and a savings of time for those who wish to hunt with both).

Legislators Wants Opinions

A number of legislators have posted information about this proposal on their Facebook pages, seeking opinions. Senator David Dutremble, Senate Chair of the IFW Committee, actually posted this on his page while the work session was going on, and read some of the responses he got almost immediately. They were all very positive.

I’ve been writing about this proposal for months, and asking sportsmen for their opinions, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive. It would be a shame – and a big missed opportunity – if this proposal fails.

SAM’s Dave Trahan told the committee he’d survey the 3,000 SAM members who are in the organization’s database and report the results next week.

They want to hear from you!

I’ve posted my testimony on my website. Please read it and share it with your friends and your legislators. Thanks! – george