Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Fall 1975

FALL 1975 55¢

MAINE Governor James B. Longley

FISH AND "\VILDLIFE

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner

Maynard F. Marsh J. William Peppard

STATE OF MAINE

Devuty Commissioner

Kenneth H. Anderson Director, Planning and Co-ordination.

Vol. XVII, No. 4

Fall, 1975

Supt. of Hatcheries

Stanley P. Linscott harles S. Allen

Chief Warden

Lyndon H. Bond

Chief, Fishery Division

Legislation Roundup

2

William C. Minch er

Search

4

Thomas J. Chamberlain

Bi1siness Manager

Ralph C. Will Robert W. Boettger

Chief, Game Divisio11

You've Got a Plan

6

Kenneth H. Anderson

William C. Mincher

Directo1¡, Information and Education

The Eastern Coyote

9

Candie L. Teer

Clayton G. Grant

Chief, Engineering Division

Ecologogriph 12

Richard B. Parks

Chief, Realty Division

Big Bucks, 1974 13

Lorenzo J. Gaudreau

Director, Safety and Snowmobile Registration

Robert H. Johnson

Dfrector, Watercraft Registration and Safety

Alfred L. Meister

Chief Biologist, Atlantic Salmon Commission

Kid-Bits 14

Thomas J. Chamberlain

Maine Animal Tracks 16 Brant and Snow Geese 1

Patrick J. McGarvey

Advisory Council Dr. Alonzo H. Garcelon, Chainnan Augusta, Maine

What About This Anti-hunting Thing? 21

John Madson

Glenn H. Manuel Littleton

Asa 0. Holmes Belfast

Robert D. Steele Scarborough

Burleigh Richards, Jr. Buxton

Ecologogriph Answer 25

Ralph L. Noel Aubuni

Rodney W. Ross Brownville

What's the Late t on Maine's Eagles ? 27

Francis J. Gramlich

White Wildlife ... and Black 30

W. Thomas Shoener

Maine Fish and Wildlife is published quarterly by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State St., Augusta, Maine 04333, under appropriation 4550. No advertising accepted.

William C. Mincher, Editor W. Thomas Shoener, Managing 1Editor Thomas J. Chamberlain, Features Editor William W. Cross, Photo Editor Thomas L. Carbone, Photographer

Š Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1975. Written permission must be secured from the Department before reproducing any part of this copyrighted material.

Subscription rates: $2.00 for one year, $3.50 for two years, $4.75 for three years. No stamps, please. Second class postage paid at Augusta, Maine 04333.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1975

Letters, Notes, Comment 24

THE COVER Front: 'Ruffed Grouse" by Ron Jenkins is reproduced as this issue's front cover by permission of the National Wildlife Art Exchange, Drawer 3385, Vero Beach, Florida, 23960. It and other examples of fine wildlife art are available as limited edition prints from the Exchange. All Rights Reserved.

Inside Front: This close-up of the head of a bald eagle was photographed by Tom Carbone, staff photographer. You can learn about the status of Maine's eagle population in the article that begins on page 27.

Inside Back, and Back: The albino red squirrel on the inside back cover and the melanistic chipmunk on the back cover are related to the article on "salt and pepper" wildlife beginning on page 30. The squirrel was photographed by Photo Editor Bill Cross, and the chipmunk by Mrs. Frances Marsh of Gorham.

1

Legislation Roundup a summary of major fish and wildlife law changes enacted in 1975 by the 107th Legislature

By Bill Mincher

The 107th Maine Legislature made a number of changes in laws of interest to sportsmen. The following summary is intended to explain briefly the major changes. It is an advisory interpretation only and should not be construed as law.

Words in quotation marks are direct quotations from the law.

"Commissioner" as used he1¡ein refers to the commissioner of inland fisheries and wildlife unless othe1¡wise specified.

Unless otherwise indicated, all measures are now in effect.

The Maine fish and wildlife laws are contained in Title 12, Revised Statutes of Maine, chapters 301335. Section numbers cited refer to those chapters unless another Title is mentioned by number. The LD number in pa1¡entheses at the end of entries represents the Legislative Document generating the stated law.

HUNTING Sec. 1901. The term "firearm" is changed to include pellet guns. (LD 1679) Sec. 1202 of Title 30. "It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt bear within 200 feet of any dumping area in the unorganized territories and plantations of this state." (LD 695) Sec. 2355-A and Sec. 2355-D. Prohibits the use of dogs in bear hunting from May 1 to August 1 and during regular firearms season on deer; it limits the number of dogs to four at any one time in hunting bear. (LD 1059) Sec. 2455. Refers to the section on night hunting: "Any person convicted of a violation under this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and by imprisonment of not less than three nor more than five days for the first offense, and by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and by imprisonment of not less than ten nor more than fifteen days for each succeeding offense. No punishment under this section shall be suspended. Any firearms seized in connec2

tion with a violation of this section shall be retained by the State pending disposition of criminal proceedings and sold at public auction by the State upon conviction." (LD 1261) Sec. 3551 is modified by removing "raccoons" from the list of animals that may be used for dog training from September 1 to October 15 each year. A new section, 3551-A was enacted: "The commissioner may issue to any licensed hunter a permit for training coon hounds on game during the closed season upon application and the payment of a $3 fee." Before training sessions, the area fish and game warden must be notified of the time and place of the training sessions. (LD 1063) Sec. 2355. R~pealed was the provision prohibiting owner of a legally registered deer from giving away more than one-half the deer. (LD 734) Sec. 2355-C. Changes from 72 hours to 12 hours the period within which a bear may be kept before being registered, or within which a person must notify a warden if he leaves the woods without taking a bear which he has killed. (LD 1817) Sec. 2455. Prescribes the general law penalty (set forth in Sec. 3060) for hunting between sunset and one-half hour after sunset during the open season on deer. (LD 1817) Sec. 2456. Shags and seals may no longer be hunted from a motorboat. (LD 1817) Sec. 2466. Removes from the list of unprotected species: the common crow, great horned owl, kingfisher, and cormorant or shag. (LD 1817) FISHING Sec. 2552. "The open season for all fish in waters or portions of waters naturally free of ice in lakes and ponds shall be from April 1st to September 30th." The special season on black bass is repealed ; bass will come under the general law. The open season for all fish in ice-free rivers above tidewater shall be April 1 to September 15 except that in Aroostook County, the season shall be May 1 to September 15.

The open season for all fish in brooks and streams in Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1975

ice-free waters shall be April 1 to August 15 except that in Aroostook County, the season shall be May 1 to September 15. (LD 1531) Sec. 2553. The minimum size limit for brown trout and rainbow trout is established as 12 inches except that there shall be no length limit on brook trout, brown trout, or rainbow trout taken from brooks and streams. (LD 1531) SNOWMOBILE Sec. 1977. The commissioner of transportation may now issue special permits for designated crossings of controlled access highways by snowmobiles.

Properly registered snowmobiles may cross a public way, sidewalk, or culvert by crossing as directly as possible using only the distance necessary on the extreme right but in no case to exceed 300 yards.

A bridge, overpass, or underpass may be crossed as above using only the distance necessary but in no case to exceed 500 yards.

Snowmobiles may now operate at night on the portion of a public way not maintained for motor vehicles as long as they travel with the flow of traffic.

All snowmobiles must come to a complete stop before entering any public way.

Snowmobile registration reciprocity is now allowed to all non-residents provided their states, provinces, countries or districts allow similar privileges to residents of Maine and provided they are covered by a valid registration from their state, province, country or district. (LD 1030) TRAPPING Sec. 2403. "It shall be unlawful for any person to use auxiliary teeth on any leg hold trap set on. land." (LD 489) Sec. 2404. "Molesting traps. Whoever disturbs any trap or takes any fur-bearing animal from any trap other than his own without the consent of the owner of such trap in violation of the prohibition of the last paragraph of section 2451 shall be punished by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $500."

(LD 1437) LICENSES Sec. 2302. The mandatory revocation of licenses for violation of numerous sections mentioned in Sec. 2302 is repealed. (LD 1817) Revocation is made discretionary.

License fee increases: Changes fees for snowmobile registration; not in effect until July 1976.

Changes other license fees effective January 1, 1976. (The new fees for most licenses are listed on page 24.)

Sec. 2401-B. Repeals provision allowing resident licenses to be bought by nonresident civilian employees on military stations in Maine, and by Canadian armed forces members stationed in Maine.

Repeals provision for complimentary licenses for Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

members of Canadian Immigration Customs Forces serving 011 the Maine border and for nonresident writers, photographers, and visiting dignitaries.

(LD 1512) (Nonresident members of U.S. armed forces permanently stationed in Maine- and their spouses and children permanently residing with them - may buy hunting, fishing, pr combination licenses at resident rates. (LD 1760) Sec. 2403 (new) refers to issuance of licenses to persons convicted of certain offenses: Anyone found guilty of breaking and entering a building in unorganized territory, or stealing any hunting or trapping equipment or any animals obtained by hunting or trapping, shall not thereafter be eligible to obtain any license issued by the Fish and Game Dept., except that in case of a first conviction, the restriction on obtaining licenses shall be for a period of two years. (LD 1139)

OTHER Sec. 2953-A. Section is changed to read as follows : "Whoever willfully shoots and wounds, or kills any domestic animals or birds or dogs shall be punished by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $1,000, which fine shall not be suspended, or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or by both.

The commissioner, upon receiving a written note of the final disposition, shall revoke or suspend the current license or the right to hunt or the right to obtain a hunting license for a period of not less than one year after such final disposition. Nothing in this section shall interfere with a duly authorized officer in the performance of his duties." (LD 1451) Sec. 2354. Removes "blueberry lands" from the areas in which protected animals may be killed when doing damage to crops. Provides that "no person shall be authorized to kill deer on blueberry lands unless written permission is first given by a fish and game warden for a stated period of three days."

(LD 50) Sec. 2901. Bounty on bobcats is repealed. (LD 339) Sec. 1951 and Sec. 1952. Name of Department is changed to "Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife"; commissioner's title becomes "Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife." (LD 588) A new chapter, 337, was enacted "To insure the Conservation of Endangered Species in the State of Maine." It is too long to quote here but establishes definitions, regulations, and other provisions concerning endangered species of fish and wildlife in Maine, including penalties for violations of the Act. (LD 1767) Sec. 2951. Adds moose to the section concerning motor vehicles substantially damaged by collision with a deer. Resident owners may be entitled to possess the carcass of the deer or moose following investigation by a warden. The entire carcass must be removed by such owner - not merely a portion.

(LD 1224) • 3

Pro duced by Thomas Chamberlain fro m accounts by Wa lter R. Gooley, Jr ., Maine Bureau of Forestry and Supervisor John Shaw and Inspector Duane Lewis, Maine Warden Service

spector Duane Lewis of Philips, assisted by State Police Captain Ronald Hiltz of Farmington and State Police Lt. G. Paul Falconer of Winslow.

The topography in the search area could only be termed "rough going." Steep mountains, cliffs, heavy slash from cutting operations, spruce-fir thickets, boulders, pot-holes, and wet ground hindered and slowed the search effort from beginning to end.

I

T BEGAN SHORTLY AFTER NOON

Aug. 31 with a telephone call to a Eustis forest warden.

Before it was over, nearly two weeks later, several thousand persons, numerous governmental agencies, and a staggering number of support personnel and equipment had become involved in the largest state-co-ordinated search and rescue attempt in Maine's history.

Despite the excellent co-ordination of man and equipment throughout the 14 days of search-

ing, no trace was found of fouryear old Kurt Newton of Manchester, Maine. The boy disappeared while riding his tricycle at Natanis Point Campground, in the remote Chain of Ponds area of northern Franklin County.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has the prime responsibility for coordination of search and rescue efforts. The Chain of Ponds operation was under the joint direction of Warden Supervisor John Shaw of Wilton and Warden In-

T

first night of the search, the temperature dipped to 26 °, and heavy rains later hampered the operations. The searchers used shoulder-to-shoulder methods across a four-square mile area, checking every square foot.

So thorough was the coverage that one man who lost a wallet in the dense woods found it while going back over the well-marked block.

Miles of plastic tape formed the layout of the grid system.

HE

Last-min ute in struct ions are given to o ne of man y search parties heading o ut in the fog and rain.

Photos by Walter R. Gooley, Jr. and Christopher Corbett

Searchers tore brush piles apart and carefully checked holes in the ground. Each area was checked out more than once in the course of the search.

The logistics of conducting such a wide-scale search are tremendous. Mass feeding, transportation, communications, first aid, search co-ordination, grid layout - all details needed attention. The smoothness of the operation at Chain of Ponds spoke well for the many organizations involved.

And then there were the volunteers. Unbelievable numbers of people lent their hands and eyes to the frustrating and discouraging hunt for Kurt Newton - on the weekend of Sept. 6 & 7, nearly 2,000 persons combed the foursquare-mile search area surrounding the place where the boy was last seen.

The faces of Warden Supervisor John Shaw and others show the strain and fatigue of many successive days of fruitless activity.

T

hroughout the two weeks of searching, factories closed down so employees could aid in the effort; organizations and housewives from as far away as Bethel cooked food; International Paper Co. lent buses to transport searchers ; many other organizations sent food and other essentials.

Inmates from the Maine State Prison, students from the University of Maine-Farmington, men from the Norway-Rumford unit of Maine National Guard, private wilderness rescue units, the Franklin County Sheriff's Department, the Sugarloaf Ambulance Service - all were represented at the site.

In addition to those state agencies previously mentioned, valuable assistance was provided by

the Department of Transportation, the Maine Forest Service, and the Bureau of Emergency Preparedness. A C-130H aircraft, equipped with low-flight television scanners and infrared sensors, joined the search from Elgin Air Force Base in Pensacola, Florida.

The search, while ending unsuccessfully, strongly reaffirmed two facts: that the State of Maine can effectively co-ordinate a large-scale search ; and that Maine's people respond quickly and unselfishly when help is needed. It was the largest such effort in Maine's history - and it was a good one. • Governor James B. Longley comfort s the missing boy's mother (right) during one of his two visits to the area.

Below, searchers are almost hidden from view themselves in the thickly wooded search site.

Hot food and beverages were constantly available to tired, hungry workers throughout the search period.

~-

In a changing Maine, the future of your fish and wildlife resources will not be left to chance.

You've Got a Plan

By Kenneth H. Anderson, Director Planning and Co-ordination

60's - 1968, to be exact - the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife undertook a new approach for considering the future of Maine's fish, wildlife, and marine resources. We were then the Department of Inland Fisheries and Game; the names of some of the other agencies mentioned here have also changed.

The idea for a planned approach for the development of a long range fish and wildlife program had been around for some time. We were aware that private industry maintains ongoing inventories, develops consumer profiles, makes projections, and perhaps most important of all - continually updates this vital information. About the time these thoughts were going through our minds, the State of California published the "California Fish and Wildlife Plan." A review of this "Plan" gave us the

I

6

N THE LATE

confidence to tackle the problem, and the decision was made to develop a similar plan for Maine.

We were faced with the complicated task of deciding how to develop a comprehensive plan, as no one in our department had had any training or experience in the resource planning field. The California planning group gave up some good advice.

They told us that in developing our planning approach, we would do well to use people familiar with fisheries and wildlife problems and state needs as well as departmental functions and programs, rather than individuals with training in urban planning and / or landscape architecture. And so, FWAC-2 Series - the federal designation for Fish, Wildlife, Anadromous, and Commercial Fish Comprehensive Planning Project- came into being.

Funds for this program came from the State of Maine (25 per cent) and federal agencies (75 per cent) on a cooperative, matching basis. Federal monies consisted of Pittman-Robertson funds (PR

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1975

funds are derived from an 11 per cent federal excise tax at the manufacturer's level on all sporting arms and ammunitions) ; Dingell-Johnson funds (DJ funds are derived from a federal excise tax on fishing equipment); Anadromous Fish funds administered by the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service; and Commercial Fisheries funds, administered then by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.

To get the "show on the road," members of the California group came to Maine and conducted a three-day planning workshop for would-be planners.

Since the requirements of Maine's fish and wildlife are so varied and so readily affected by the activities of other resource agencies, it was obviously advantageous to have as many different agencies as possible attend the workshop. Attendance was varied and included personnel from agencies now known as the State Planning Office, Bureau of Forestry, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Department of Marine Resources, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and others with an interest in natural resources.

At the conclusion of the seminar, we formed a planning team for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Members were a director or coordinator, wildlife resource planner, fisheries resource planner, and Warden Service planner. To augment the group, the services of a resource economist were acquired on a contractual basis to assist in the development of the planning effort. The composition of this group remains essentially the same. at this point may well be "what in the world do we need a group like that for? Everybody knows what we need and what we want. Why, haven't we been telling them for years that all we want is more of everything for less money?" To which we say "Right you are!" Nearly everyone has a good idea of what he wants THIS year based on the "Good Old Days" or what he experienced last year!

Unfortunately, times have changed and are continuing to change at a rapid rate, and the good old days are "gone but not forgotten." Your Fish and Wildlife Department has recognized this as fact and is attempting to keep abreast of the times through its planning effort. We hope to cause people to think not only of today and tomorrow but beyond. We hope they will think about what the state, the habitat, human populations, and last but not least, the distribution and numbers of the fish and wildlife resources will be 15 years from now.

Whether we like it or not, the world is changing, Maine is changing, and attitudes are changing. To insure that WE as well as those who come after us

T

HE READER'S THOUGHT

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1975

will have a choice, we have to predict, and we have to plan. Planning is just another way of saying, "thinking ahead." This is what your plan is all about: assessing where we are now; predicting what the future will bring (a projection) ; deciding on what we would like to have in the future (this is a goal) ; defining why we want to attain a certain achievement by a particular time ( this is called an objective in that it tells us why) ; and finally, developing the programs that will satisfy the objectives and help us reach the goal that has been set.

Through our planning procedures, we have defined management goals and objectives for many of our fish and wildlife resources. We are in the process of determining and describing the programs necessary to satisfy the objectives and reach the ultimate goal. In short, we have made 15-year predictions and developed a comprehensive set of 5-year programs which we intend to review and update at 3-year intervals. Planning is a continuous process, and changes must be made when conditions warrant.

The programs that are selected for individual species of fish and wildlife will be combined into one overall Departmental program requiring the coordinated effort of all 11 divisions of the Department to accomplish. All Department personnel will have a role to play and will be responsible for working toward the selected goals. s

we have been saying WE quite often. Perhaps we had better define who WE means when we say "WE." In our case, "WE" are the individuals assigned the task of doing the research and writing the assessments for each species, along with the development of the candidate goals, objectives, problem definitions, strategies, and uggested jobs. The list is long and includes almost every fisheries and wildlife biologist in the Department. All the members of their respective divisions reviewed, examined, criticized, and discussed their assessments and proposals. Each member of the review committee voted for the first, second, and third goal and objective of their choice. This process is considered the first part of the work of the "WE" group.

The next step in the "WE" process was a rerun of the first; it involved the same procedure but different players. This time, the players were the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and chiefs of the following divisions within the Department: Information and Education, Wildlife, Fisheries, Warden Service, Hatcheries, Engineering, Administration, Snowmobile, Watercraft Safety and Registration, Realty, and Planning. Once again, the assessments were reviewed, examined, criticized, and discussed. Voting followed.

A

YOU WILL NOTICE,

7

The third part of the "WE" was a group of volunteers from outside the Department. This group, called a Steering Committee, consisted of the following: Glenn Manuel, Chairman of the Committee, representing the Commissioner's Advisory Council; John Sinclair, President of Seven Islands Land Company (later replaced by Al Leighton, Vice President of Seven Island Land Company) - industrial forest landowners; Clinton Townsend - natural resource interest; Oscar Cronk, President of the Maine Trappers Association - Maine sportsmen; Hershel Good - public at large; Richard Anderson, Executive Director of the Maine Audubon Society - nongame interest; John Martin, Speaker of the House, 107th Maine Legislature - public at large; and Dr. Malcolm Coulter, Associate Director, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine at Orono universities and colleges. The Steering Committee followed the same procedure, each member registering his vote.

A special word of thanks is extended to the above mentioned persons. They gave freely of their time and traveled at their own expense, not only for this Department but for the people of Maine as well.

The fourth and final part of the "WE" is the Commissioner's Advisory Council: Upon reviewing the species assessments, alternative management objectives, and the results of the previous votes concerning proposed management goals and objectives, the Council chose one goal and one objective for each species . . . the one which will guide our Departmental program for the next five years. Listed below are the selected management goals and objectives for a few of the many species of wildlife and fish that we are working on.

DEER Goal: Maintain deer numbers in balance with normal winter carrying capacity of the range in the northern wildlife management units (1, 2, 3, and 5) and increase deer numbers in southern wildlife management units (4, 6, 7, and 8) in order to provide for greater hunter-deer contacts.

Objective: Provide for an annual harvest of 30,000 to 37,000 animals by 200,000 hunters.

MOOSE Goal: Maintain moose abundance; increase non-harvest use; and provide for the harvest of the annual surplus of animals.

Objective: Harvest 1,000 moose annually in Wildlife Management Units 1 and 2 by 1,100 hunters.

FISHER Goal: Increase abundance and use.

Objecti e: Harvest 4,000 fisher annually by 1,000 trappers.

WOODCOCK Goal: Maintain abundance and use at present levels.

Objective: Harvest 150,000 annually by 25,000 hunters.

RUFFED GROUSE Goal: Maintain present abundance levels and increase use.

Objective: Harvest 500,000 grouse annually by 100,000 hunters.

SNOWSHOE HARE Goal: Maintain present abundance levels and increase use.

Objective: Harvest 400,000 snowshoe hare annually by 60,000 hunters.

8

LAKE TROUT Goal: Maintain abundance and fishing quality at present levels and increase use.

Objective (primary): Maintain a total population of approximately 1,082,000 lake trout, a harvest of 454,700 and 738,700 man-days of use, and average fish size in the creel at 2.5 pounds.

WHITE PERCH Goal: Maintain abundance at present levels and increase use.

Objective (primary): Maintain a total population of approximately 18,740,000 white perch, a harvest of 9,370,000 and 2,677,000 man-days of use, and average fish size in creel of ~ pound .

MUSKRAT Goal: Maintain abundance levels and increase use.

Objective: Harvest 60,000 muskrats annually by 2,000 trappers.

CANADA GEESE Goal: Increase abundance and distribution of breeding geese in Maine, and increase harvest and use of migrating geese.

Objective: Harvest 4,000 Canada geese annually by 8,000 hunters, and establish 100 nesting pairs.

S

o FAR, the work has been voluminous but relatively straightforward. We are now ready to begin the portion that really counts. As the old adage goes, "The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating."

Eating the pudding in this case means that we will have to look at all of the suggested jobs for each species and group similar tasks together (that is, surveys, inventories, regulatory, information and education, enforcement, hatchery, etc.) to avoid unnecessary overlap. Next comes the task of establishing prioritie - the selection or rating, based on those which are absolutely necessary versus those which may be nice to have. Once this is accomplished, the final step must be taken: that of determining the cost and comparing this to the expected benefits, short term and long term. Benefits are of many kinds so we must take care to develop those programs which will give us the most for each dollar spent. We cannot afford the luxury of being "big spenders" or of being "pennywise and dollar foolish." to describe briefly the logic and procedures your Department used to deW velop Your Plan. To be sure, many things can be E HAVE ATTEMPTED

improved, and this we hope to do by continually monitoring those conditions which directly affect the fisheries and wildlife resources. We will be updating Your Plan and suggesting changes in strategy when conditions warrant such a change.

To make you fully aware of our proposed programs, we will be publishing condensed versions of your species plans. We know that not everyone will agree with this comprehensive Long Range Plan, but we do feel that the approach is sound and necesary if we are to provide maximum use and benefits for the citizens of Maine now and in the future. ¡ • Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

Knowing where it came from and how it evolved will help you understand

THE EASTERN COYOTE

By Candie L. Teer when the term "endangered species" has become a common expression, it is interesting to find that Maine, along with most of the northeast, is acquiring an increasing population of a relatively new form of wildlife - the eastern coyote. The newcomer's arrival has been a matter of controversy, however. Hunters are afraid the coyote will seriously decrease wildlife populations. Farmers see a new menace to their livestock.

Still others, who view things from different vantage points, welcome the arrival of the coyote and urge its full protection.

Many studies have been and are being made to learn more about the eastern coyote and its relationship with other wildlife and with man. This report summarizes what has been learned to date, especially as it applies to the animal's genetic development and its range expansion route from the mid-western states to the eastern states including Maine.

I

N PRESENT TIMES

The author is a former wildlife student at the University of Maine at Orono; she researched and wrote this article in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a special problems course.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

The wild canid, called the eastern coyote, is a new coyote subspecies, Canis latrcms, var. (Lawrence and Bossart, 1967), believed to possess genes from the wolf, Canis lupus, and domestic dog, Canis familiaris, in its ancestry (Kolenosky, 1971). It is significantly larger than the plains coyote, Canis latrans latrans, and its skull has greater bulk and weight (Richens and Hugie, 1974).

One early theory was that this wild canid filled a niche abandoned when the wolf vacated the New England states 200 years ago. That niche wa a mature forest, with large mammals - moose, caribou, and deer - for food. However, more recent studies have shown that land inhabited by the eastern coyote includes second and third growth forests (Coppinger, et. al., 1973) and man-made clearings such as farmland, woodlots, roads, and railroads.

Also the coyote is both predator and scavenger, taking almost any available food including snowshoe hare and rabbit, woodchuck, deer, mice, apples, blueberries, chokecherries, grasshoppers, and crickets (Koons, 1972). It is, therefore, more likely that the eastern coyote is inhabiting a new, "man-made" 9

niche rather than that vacated by the wolf (Coppinger, et. al., 1973).

Before man had a significant influence on the North American continent, the coyote ranged from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean and from northern Mexico to southern Canada. Its range now extends into Alaska and east to the Atlantic Ocean.

Because this wide geographic range has exposed the animal to different environmental conditions, many different races of coyotes have developed. The subspecies with an established population in the easternmost range of North America is Canis latrans thamnos, the northeastern coyote. In 1951, this canid was found in east-central Saskatchewan, Manitoba, North Dakota, Iowa, northern Missouri, northern and central Illinois, northern Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, western Ontario, and southern Quebec (Young and Jackson, 1951).

the eastern coyote, begins with the northeastern coyote which entered Michigan from Wisconsin and became established on the southwestern Michigan prairies before settlement by man. The clearing of the woods allowed the coyotes to enter the northern section of Michigan's upper peninsula, probably around 1906 (Ozoga and Harger, 1966). Canis latrans thamnos, the northeastern coyote, then entered eastern Ontario in the 1920's and 1930's, simultaneously following two routes. The eastern extension of transcontinental railway tracks and roads provided a passage from northeastern Minnesota, Manitoba, and extreme western Ontario. Use of this route is indicated by the records of increasing "prairie wolf" pelts traded at the Hudson Bay Company stores in northern and central Ontario during this time. The second route, located south of the Great Lakes, originated in Michigan and entered the province in the Sault Ste. Marie region, across frozen lakes Huron and Ste. Clair. Following the shores of the Great Lakes in southern Ontario, the coyote continued the eastward movement ( Ontario Dept. of Lands and Forests, 1972).

Occupying that same area of Ontario and the northern lakt states is a small wolf subspecies, classified by Young and Goldman (1944) as Canis lupus lycaon, which is probably responsible for the eastern coyote's wolf ancestry. One of these wolves captured in Algonquin Park, eastern Ontario, and a northeastern coyote taken north of Toronto were mated and successfully produced fertile offspring (Kolenosky, 1971). As this established that Canis latrans thamnos and Canis lupus lycaon not only occupied the same geographic area but are also physically capable of breeding, it is possible that wolf genes may have physically influenced the eastern

T

10

RACING THIS NEW ANIMAL,

coyote during its eastward expansion through Ontario.

The frozen St. Lawrence River served as a link into New York and other eastern states. As early as 1912, coyotes were present in New York, and in 1925, the first one was shot in the St. Lawrence River area (Severinghaus, 1974). They gradually moved in to inhabit the Adirondacks.

In the northwestern Adirondacks, during the 1940's and 1950's, reports were made of wild canids that were claimed to be "coy-dogs," a hybridization between coyote and domestic dog. These canids were increasing in number, as evident from reports at deer checking stations. In 1943, no wild canids were seen even though many bobcats were brought in, whereas in the late 1940's and 1950's, "hundreds of coy-dogs" were reported at stations in the Adirondacks ( Severingha us, 1974) .

Coyote-dog hybridization was studied by Mengel (1971) and found to be possible. Ho~ever, the offspring experience a phase shift in the breeding season, which results in the birth of the young in midwinter. The harsh circumstances of birth plus complete lack of parental care by the male hybrid make survival of the young unlikely in wild habitat and, therefore, tends to rule out any large development of coyote-dog hybrids. A significant factor supporting this speculation is that reports of coy-dog sightings declined.

1960's, the canids that were becoming established in the Adirondacks were being identified as the eastern coyote (Severinghaus, 1974). The coy-dog population may have decreased as the necessity of the eastern coyote to mate with dogs declined with the growth of their own population. The coyote-dog hybridization created earlier did not persist due to physiological difficulties. However, many coyotes inhabit areas close to man and so are continuously exposed to domestic dogs. It is the opinion of this author that although coyote-dog hybridizations may not have long-lasting survival expectations, constant exposure to dog has had some influence on the eastern coyote, especially subsequent to its expansion into New York.

From the Adirondacks of New York, coyotes spread to the other eastern states with routes south, southeast, and east to Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Pringle (1960) states that coyotes in Massachusetts and Connecticut, taken in 1957 and 1958, may have been from New York and Vermont, respectively. Vermont coyotes, first reported in 1942 (Richens and Hugie, 1974) and believed established since the mid-1950's, have a suspected origin of New York and Quebec (James D. Stewart,

B

Y THE LATE

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

Vermont Fish and Game Dept., personal correspondence).

Although the first positive evidence of coyotes in New Hampshire was 1944, arrival is suspected to have been in the 1930's (Silver and Koons, 1972).

Recently, the population appears greater in the northern half of that state (Joseph Wiley, New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept., personal correspondence). This suggests infiltration from northern New York, across northern Vermont, or from Quebec.

The pathway from New Hampshire entered directly into the southwestern portion of Maine, probably around 1936 (Richens and Hugie, 1974), which corresponds to early reports of coyotes in the state.

Of the 14 canids submitted to the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit between 1944 and the mid-fifties, one was identified as having coyote-like characteristics. This canid was from the southwestern county of Kennebec. Twenty eastern coyotes were identified by the Unit between 1968 and 1971, 17 of which were captured in southwestern Maine.

Recent interviews with district game wardens suggest that the coyote is well established in western Maine, and its range now extends eastward through most of the state. to have entered Quebec from Ontario around 1944 (Grenier). In the 1950's, a large loss of sheep was blamed on coyotes in the counties of Brome, Frontenac, Beauce, and the municipality of St. Pamphile in L'Islet County, which reported a loss of 600 sheep in a three-year period. The animals believed responsible were trapped in 1960, and the skulls were sent to Washington, D.C.; they were identified by H. H. T. Jackson, S. P. Young, Viola Schantz, and John Paradiso as predominantly coyote, similar to the subspecies Canis latrans thamnos (Carson, 1962). St. Pamphile is very close to Aroostook County, Maine.

OYOTES ARE BELIEVED

C

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1975

During a recent trip by this author to St. Pamphile and western Aroostook County, evidence of the presence of coyotes in the area was abundant. Many droppings were found and tracks seen throughout the area. Game Warden Rodney Sirois has captured a number of coyotes at different times, four of which remain in his custody and five of which are being studied by Henry Hilton, a University of Maine graduate student. The presence of Sirois's captives near St. Pamphile has brought out stores of old timers who remember when animals similar to those now called coyotes were called "brush wolves."

Brush wolf is actually the common name for the coyote Canis latrans thamnos, as thamnos is the Greek word for bush (Young and Jackson, 1951).

It is very likely these "wolves" seen years ago were really coyotes.

One old timer, Camille Viencourt, is the "jumping Frenchman" in Helen Hamlin's book Nine Mile Bridge. In 1924, Viencourt's father killed a "wolf," but Camille describes this canid as very similar to the current coyotes. Lionel Caron, who was born at Seven Islands in Aroostook County and lived there many years, saw tracks of "wolves" and also saw animals like the canids now in the area. A warden now in Estcourt, Phil Dumont, was told of coyotes or wolves in Yankee Valley 17 years ago and though he saw only tracks, claims the description fits Sirois's coyotes.

It is evident that coyotes inhabit the Quebec and northern Maine region and have been there for some years. Failure to recognize this may be due to the sparsity of human population and, thus, few reports from the area. There is also a language barrier, since information from Quebec is written in French.

This should not veil the fact that invasion from the northwest is as important as from the southwest, in tracing the expansion of coyotes into Maine.

a very adaptable animal, has successfully inhabited the eastern states, with indications of a still increasing population. Although difficulties in identifying this new canid have complicated the theories of its expansion, tracing its route offers possible answers to physiological and behavioral questions - questions that should be answered so that man can put into better perspective • his relationship with this interesting animal.

T

HE EASTERN COYOTE,

REFERENCES Carson, H.S. 1962. "Coyote, coy-dog or dog?" Maine F ish and Game. Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Game. 4(1) :4-7.

Coppinger, R.P., M. Sands, and E. Groves. 1973. "Meet New England's New Wolf." Massachu setts W ildli f e. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Game. 24(3) :8-12. (continued)

11

Cross, P.A ., V .B . Richens, and R .D. Hugie, 1972. "The Coyote - Maine's Newest Wildlife Resident." Maine Fish and Game.

Maine Dept. I nland Fisheries and Game. Reprint No. B-306.

Ozoga, ,J .J. and E.M. Harger. 1966. "Winter activities and feeding habits of Northern Michigan coyotes." Journal of Wildlife Managem ent. 38 (3) :447-454.

Grenier, P. " Le loup et le coyote." Faune du Quebec. Service de la Recherche Biologique. Br ochure No. 11.

Pringle, L. P. 1960. "Notes on coyotes in southern New England." Journal of Mammalology. 41 (2) :278.

Richens, V. B. and R. D. Hugie. 1974. "Distribution, taxonomic status and characteristics of coyotes in Maine."

Jo urnal of Wildlife Managem ent. 38 (3) :447-454.

Kennett, A .T . 1970. "Maine's Coyotes." Maine Fish and Garne. Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Game. Reprint No .

B-244.

Kolenosky, G.B. 1971. "Hybridization between wolf and coyote." Journal of Mammalology. 52 (2) :316-336.

Severinghaus, C.W. 1974. "The coyote moves east." The Conservationist. New York Dept. of Environmental Cons. Oct.Nov. pp. 8 and 36.

Koons, G.O. 1972. "Food habits analysis of the eastern coyote (Canis latrans) in New Hampshire." Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources. Univ. of New Hampshire.

15 pp.

Silver, H. and W.T. Silver. 1969. "Growth and behavior of the coyote-like can id of northern New England with observations on canid hybrids." Wildlife Monograph 17. 41 pp.

Silver, H . and G. Koons. 1972. "Those New Hampshire coyotes." New Hamps hire Profiles. April. pp. 40-47.

Lawrence, B. and W.H. Bossert. 1967. "Multiple character analysis of Canis lupis latrans and familiaris, with a discussion of the relationships of Canis niger." Am. Zool. 7 :223232.

Vermont Fish and Game Dept. 1973. "Coyotes in Vermont."

V ermont Game Annual. Bulletin 73-1. pp. 29-31.

Mengel, R.M . 1971. "A study of dog-coyote hybrids and implications concerning hybridization in Canis ." J. Mammal.

52 ( 2) :316-336.

Young and Goldman. 1944. Th e Wolves of North America.

The American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. 636 pp.

Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. 1972. "Wolves and Coyotes in Ontario." 14 pp.

Young, S.P. and H.H.T . Jackson . 1951. The Clever Coyote.

Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa. and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 411 pp.

ecologogriphs ..................................................... test your outdoor knowledge ACROSS

Spawn of oyster.

Fungus disease of timber: _ _ _ rot.

A bird's beak.

Cougar or mountain lion. (pl.).

13. Animal doctor.

15. Tuft of feathers on a bird 's head: - - - -knot.

17. The fish hawk.

19. Only fish that holds head at 90 deg. angle: horse.

21 . A New England state (abbrev.).

22. Number of eggs laid by female blue whale.

23. Camping fuel.

25. A poplar tree.

27. A direction.

29. A grampus or other cetacean.

30. Narrow strip of wood .

31 . Chopping tool.

33. Enormous legendary birds of prey.

36. The Cotton State.

37. Fish with a spoon bait or swivel.

38. N. A. Indian of southeastern Nebraska.

39. Forward and downward motion of trees, flowers,, etc.

40. The twelfth month.

41. Good plinking and small game rifle.

42. One who excels in any field .

44. Inlet.

45. The male elephant, moose, whale, etc.

46. Animal fat found in many bird feeders (pl.).

1.

5.

8.

11.

12

50. Whalebone .

52. Meridian (abbrev.).

53. Large Tasmanian evergreen: ____ pine.

55. Either.

56. A summer beverage.

57. Mother-of-pear l.

58. Air rifle ammunition.

59. Woody shelled fruit.

60. Bird related to buntings and sparrows.

DOWN 1. Fishing lure.

2. Secretion from inflamed tissues.

3. Clasping a stem , as the base of some leaves.

4. Protective cover.

6. Recreational Vehicle.

7. Affirmative reply.

9. The neuter pronoun.

10. Formerly Richardson's Owl (two words).

12. State flower of Utah . Bulb is edible.

14. The wintergreen : berry.

16. Large spotted fish of mackerel fam ily.

18. Genus of perennial carduaceous herbs.

20. A long-eared equine quadruped.

24. Diving duck with black plumage (pl.).

26. To stock a river.

28. The back of a fish next to the head.

32. Two compass points.

34. Genus of highly poisonous, biennial herbs of parsley family.

35. A bristle like part of an organism (pl.).

37. The Coyote State (abbrev.).

41. Small, short-tailed East Indian skunklike mammal.

43 . Dress game for cooking.

45. Fish hook projection.

47. To melt.

48. Of the same or like kind.

49. Projecting root of swamp trees.

50. Large, ball-shaped bait for catfish.

51 . A seine.

54. Rock containing metal.

57 . North (abbrev.).

ANSWER ON PAGE 25

Š

Dou~ Jackson 1971.i

Ma ine Fish and Wildlife -

F all 1975

BIG BUCI(S, 1974 there is little on the Maine hunting scene that people talk about more than big bucks ... the one that had been showing a lot until the day before the season began ... the one that bounded into view and was gone again before the startled hunter had a chance to react ... the one that always managed to be behind a doe when seen by a hunter ... and on and on. But 534 of the big bucks talked about during and after the 1974 hunting season were not only big, they were the Biggest Bucks in Maine, otherwise known as "Club Bucks."

The Biggest Bucks in Maine Club is an association of sports-

Y

EAR IN, YEAR OUT,

men who have taken white-tail deer that weigh two hundred pounds or more, woods dressed.

Started in 1949, the Club has until recently been run by a state agency, the Maine Department of Commerce and Industry, which also ran awards clubs for fisher-

men who caught trophy-sized fresh-water or salt-water fish.

However, the future of these promotional clubs became uncertain following the recent reorganization of Commerce and Industry.

Recognizing the Clubs' value to the state and the great amount of interest that they have built up over the years, the Maine Sportsman-a monthly outdoor-oriented tabloid newspaper - agreed to take over the club program and run it until it can again be picked up by a state agency.

Although the clubs are now under different administration, members and prospective members will notice little change in them. Application cards will continue to be available from game wardens and fishery and wildlife biologist s. Club rules will remain the same, except for a few changes in the fish clubs which were in the works before the Maine Sportsman accepted sponsorship.

Also, Maine Fish and Wildlife will continue to list in the spring and fall issues, respectively, the top fresh-water fish and the biggest of the biggest bucks taken during the previous year. Such a list follows:

BIGGEST BUCl(S, 1974 Name Larry R. Shaw Emil Linnus Charles Briory Edward J. Bennett Donald Fringue Lewis W. Hatch Donat Dion John Purington Anthony Dimeo Joseph R. Goulette Robert W. Twining John M. Bailey Ernest G. Richmond Michael P. Tardy Robert M. True, M.D. Donna Smith Robert Wellman Russell Day Charles Hurley Arthur Downs Ronald L. Fournier

Address Cumberland Ctr., Me. Worcester, Mass.

Manchester, N. Y. Newry, Me. Harrisville, N. Y. Thomaston, Me. Fort Kent, Me. Gardiner, Me. Hammonton, N. J. Dexter, Me. Paterson, N. J. Pt. Elizabeth, N. J. Mansfield, Mass.

Plymouth, Mass.

Freeport, Me. Phillips, Me. Oakland, Me. Wilmington, Mass.

Grafton, Mass.

Lee, Me. Garfield Plt., Me.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

Date Killed 11/ 12/ 74 11/ 8/ 74 11/ 5/ 74 11/13/ 74 11/ 11/ 74 11/ 13/ 74 11/ 15/ 74 11/ 13/ 74

-11/29/ 74 11/ 6/ 74 11/ 22/ 74 11/ 19/ 74 11/ 25/ 74 11/ 16/ 74 11/ 12/ 74 11/ 5/ 74 11/ 13/ 74 11/ 14/74 11/ 21/ 74 11/ 15/ 74

Where Killed Gray T.A,R.12 Lily Bay Newry Tomhegan Warren Wallagrass Chelsea Tomhegan Dexter T.8,R.5 Foley Pond Eustis Ridge Plymouth Squaretown #6 Twp. W. Middlesex T.14,R.12 T.5,R.3 Springfield T.8,R.8

Firearm .308 .308 .35 .30-06 .30-06 .30-06 .280 .270 .30-06 .30-30 .308 .308 .308 .35 .30-06 .30-06 .308 .30-30 .30-06 .243 .44

Dressed Weight 275 269 269 265 263 260 255 255 254 252 259 247 247 246 1h 246 245 245 243 243 242 242

Live Weight 357 1h 350 350 345 342 338 332 331 330 328 325 321 321 320 320 319 319 316 316 314 314

13

DT E RINGS! 1914

This tree is 62 years old. It's been through fire and drought, plague and plenty. And all of this is recorded in its rings.

When the tree was 6 yea rs old, something push.ed aga inst it. making it lean. The rings are now wider on the lower side. as the tree builds "reaction wood" to help support it.

1924

The tree is growing straici,t again.

But its neighbors are growing too, and their crowns and root systems take much of the water and sunshine the tree needs.

1927 The surrounding trees are harvested; The larger trees are removed and there is once aga in ample nourishment and sunlight. The tree can now grow rapidly again.

1930 A fire sweeps through the forest.

Fortuna tely, the tree is only scarred. and year by year more and more of the sear is covered over by newly formed wood.

1942

These narrow rings may have been caused by a prolonged dry spell.

One or two dry summers would not have dried the g round enough to slow the tree's growth this much.

1957 Another series of narrow rings may have been caused by an insect like the larva of the sawfly. It eats the leaves and leafbuds of many kinds of coniferous trees.

The tree grows rapidly, with no disturbance. There is abundant rainfall and sunshine in spring and summer.

The rings are relatively broad. and are evenly spaced.

C01"Ylt10HT, 1966, ST, lt[OIS l"A.. [R COMPANY, llO EAST •UNO STREET, N. 'f., H, Y. 10017.

AI.L fU OHTS RE:S[lt 'I EC.

14

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

Whose

()a e4re 'l'hese?

c:Nature e4uips animals in many ways to help them fit into their speeial roles. Can you figure out whieh deseriptions best fit the eyes of these tis ereatures? c4nswers and animal names on page 25.

A. J

• h con tain many Eyes wh1c rke • thousands of eyes • yours-called compound eyes.

6. £., ,es o

3

D.

he11 .-o,. .the s/.1 11e8 6 •c1r ~ood '!f I,/ 8 "'•lo11• 8 'de a,,d

F.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

15

MAINE ANI~ ( DIRECTION O;: TRAVEL OF )

• I. CANADA L.YNX

2 . BOBCAT

•

••

~a

,

Vao

a-:~~~·...,"...~ -

3. HOl/S£ CAT

4-. REL) FOX

FIJH££

5. bOG

13. MART£N

6. COYOTE.

...

.,~_

~ -.:~ o,,.'

Prepared by Klir Beck Revised 1975 by Cindy House

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

..A,,

•.:ir.·

1 " s:-~ · ·.-:C .~ 1K T -R.~ A 1

-~-=-_-

I

--

,

u

~

,,

" •

~

(_ -

..

.,

.

, - . ~,

.

y

t.L TRACKS IS TO TH£ RIGHT) · ~

1111,1 ·u1,·, ,,,..,~

1 1 ~fi!=: 111'·\'l .J ~~-:. \! ,: •.,: , :m ~~ ,1 .,

' . , •.!. :· .. · ' ; ; ~~-

.

. .,

IS. BEAVER

~~

·.:W-1

~~~~~

3"

t~,

23.

Ml/JKR/IT

I ~l---

~~

d-,~~ ,J~S. fir-~ ir~.

cow

( DOMESTIC )

~?

~ --=~

t1i!P

3

llJ. RACCOON

24.

lj

WIIITETA/L 1)££/l

...

~~ ~ .....•.·

~ti,

~

Jl<UNK

..

..._

......

~

qi,#

C'lAR.l)

~

~6. MOO.!£

~

~

~

'

,4,.. -~- ' ~·

'~

-~-

~ --:

27. Pli£AJANT

(!J

' -.,~

©_,~:

0·t~/:.

-~ -- -

O' -

(g~ :

~++- ....

3 ll

1~

+-

~

~

+

_J "28. RVFF£P GROUSEMaine Fish and Wildlife- Fall 1975

17

Snow geese.

Brant and Snow Geese WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT CASE HISTORIES Editor's note: In the Atlantic Flyway, including Maine, there were open seasons this fall for the hunting of two waterfowl species, one of which hadn't been legal game for several years, and the other for more than four decades. Although Atlantic brant and snow geese are not major species in this state, the story of what has happened to them is of interest and importance: it is a story of the gains to be realized by the protection of critical wildlife habitat; it is a story of environmental factors beyond man's control affecting wildlife populations; and it is a story of how wildlife management works, protecting species when they are in short supply and allowing controlled use of them when their numbers are sufficient or threaten to become excessive.

The hunting of brant and snow geese - like the hunting of all other game species - was authorized only after the surveys of trained and experienced wildlife specialists determined that a portion of their populations could be safely harvested; seasons and limits were set accordingly; and lrLw enforcement and monitoring of the actual take by hunters will assure that the predetermined allowable harvest is not exceeded.

In view of the fact that several anti-hunting 01¡ganizations tried but failed to stop these seasons using legal technicalities and emotion - the story of the 1975 brant and snoiv goose seasons takes on added importance as a major victory for sportsmen

18

and the system of wildlife management based on facts that they support.

The following report on the status of brant and snow geese was prepared from articles written by Patrick J. McGarvey, National Press Officer: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. BRANT - small, dark geese which spend nearly all their lives on the sea - have bounced back from a low of 40,000 in 1973 to an estimated population this year of 150,000, thus allowing the reopening of hunting along the east coa t this fall.

The season for brant will be short - 30 days, opening no earlier than November 10 - and a 48hour emergency closure provision in the regulations calls for a last minute population count of the birds on their wintering grounds before the November 10 season opening to make sure population estimate that were the basis for the reopening of hunting were accurate. The Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service said that if the number of brant was significantly lower than anticipated, or if food supply is limited on the wintering grounds, the season would be reduced or closed altogether, depending on the severity of the situation.

The gregarious Atlantic brant is tied inextricably to the salt-water environment. Except during migration, they rarely fly over land. They waddle onto tidal flats at low tide, preen on the open sea in

A

TLANTIC

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

clusters at high tide, sleep bobbing at sea at night, and dip beneath the shallows in bays and estuaries for their favorite food, sea lettuce.

Rather than flying as other geese do in a Vformation, they porpoise along almost on the water's surface, leaderless but undulating in concert with the ocean swells, sideslipping into grape-like clusters, then stringing out irregularly like an accordion gone awry, honking all the while in a characteristically plaintive croak all their own.

The urge in brant to migrate north in the spring shows up first in the flocks wintering off the North Carolina coast, in late February. By mid-March, in their restlessness and hopscotch movements north they have been joined by other brant, and large flocks gather off Monomoy Island, Massachusetts.

By early May, they arrive on their feeding grounds in the northern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence where they stay until the end of the month. Then they usually begin their long, overland flight to James Bay or Ungava Bay. From these two bays the migration continues to their Arctic Circle breeding grounds as weather permits in early June.

Atlantic brant nest on Southhampton Island, the Mellville Peninsula, and north into the Arctic Archipelago. They prefer low areas of grassy tundra close to water in the deltas and valleys of the Arctic.

Their nest cup is built on rocks, debris, or grass, and is lined with grasses, mosses, lichens, and down.

Brant nests are subject to destruction by summer storms because of their proximity to water.

Arctic breeding geese have precious little time to spare each summer to build nests, lay and hatch their eggs, and raise their young to flight stage.

When the goslings hatch in late June, they are taken immediately to sea by the parents. By mid-September, they are able to fly and make the southward migration along the eastern shore of Hudson Bay and James Bay, then overland to the Atlantic Coast.

Like other geese, the Atlantic brant is locked onto its migratory pattern so tightly that it will return year after year to the same wintering spots on the east coast, from Massachusetts to North Carolina, regardless of conditions there. They concentrate thickest along the New Jersey coast. In 1931, the species nosedived from a population of about a halfmillion to 10-thousand birds in one season when a fungus killed off the eelgrass crop - then their favorite food - along the entire east coast.

Most of the birds died of starvation that year, with the survivors consisting only of those adaptable enough to seek out another kind of food - sea lettuce. Slowly, through the 40's and 50's, Atlantic

Atlantic brant.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

brant made a comeback, and with it was noted a di tinct and basic shift in preferred diet from eelgrass to sea lettuce. Although eelgrass has long ince returned to its former abundance, the brant still continue to feed primarily on sea lettuce, as if the specie were now imprinted with a natural suspicion of eelgrass for the troubles it caused their ancestors.

Brant hunting was closed for 20 years after the 1931 eelgrass dieoff. By 1951, when hunting was reopened, the brant population had increased to more than 100,000. In 1971, the brant population was recorded at 150,000, but 1971 and 1972 proved to be disastrous years in terms of reproduction for the e birds. If snow or ice remains on the Arctic nesting grounds in June when the brant arrive, egg layjng is delayed and the young of the year may not have enough time to reach the flying stage before onset of the Arctic winter. No nesting is started if snow remains on the nesting grounds into late June.

Ph oto,- Š hy Leonard Lee Ru e III

Moreover, heavy rainfall along the east coast in the fall of 1971 destroyed the sea lettuce crop when the salinity of coastal bay waters was diluted. These conditions forced the brant to fly into salt marshes and even into upland fields to feed. This unusual behavior exposed them to more hunting pressure than normal. By January 1972, the population was down to 40,000 birds, and hunting was closed that fall. In 1974, the population was back up to 87,000, and 1975 was a good production year on the Arctic.

The flight this fall is expected to exceed 150,000.

REATER SNOW GEESE,

which winter only along the

middle Atlantic coast, were expected to show G up in numbers so abundant this fall that the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service lifted its ban on hunting this species - a restriction which has been in effect since 1931.

The Interior Department agency estimated that the fall flight of greater snow geese would approach 200,000 birds. This contrasts with a population of about 7,000 when the hunting ban was invoked.

Credit for the recovery is attributable to years of favorable breeding ground conditions, the biological factors influencing production, and the understanding and support of hunters during the decades of closed seasons.

Greater snow geese nest in the Arctic and subarctic area of northern Baffin Island, Ellesmere Island, and adjacent Greenland. Their migration south each fall, triggered by shortening days, sees them leapfrog from the Arctic region to the St. Lawrence River area of Canada in mid-September. Then, as colder weather sets in and the food supply dwindles

along the river, the birds follow their instinctive urge to winter in the same spot their parents guided them to as young birds. In early November, they fly to the salt marshes stretching along the east coast from New Jersey to North Carolina.

The snow goose prefers to eat salt marsh cordgrass, which it has a tendency to pull out by the roots. Because the birds often feed in flocks of several thousand, they can denude an area in a relatively short time and create "salt pans" where grass will not grow again for many years.

20

Since 1970, salt marsh cordgrass habitat has been damaged extensively in New Jersey wintering areas by the feeding of greater snow geese. In Virginia and North Carolina, greater snow geese have taken to feeding in fields of winter wheat crops. In Canada, where the greater snow geese assemble along a 100-mile stretch of the St. Lawrence River each fall before their migration south, wildlife officials fear that the natural food supply in the river staging area is not capable of supporting a larger goose population.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Office of Migratory Bird Management has an excellent opportunity to study greater snow geese. The precise breeding areas, staging areas, migration routes, and wintering areas of these birds are well known because of studies by the Service and Canadian wildlife agencies. Spring and fall staging area population estimates, based on aerial photography and ground surveys, cover approximately 95 per cent of the total population. Satellite photography of the Arctic breeding grounds now provides an early indication of the year's habitat conditions and probable production success. Thus, a comprehensive evaluation of the annual status of the greater snow goose population is readily available.

Management of snow geese consists primarily of acquiring and setting aside natural tracts of salt marshes for the wintering geese and then insuring that this natural space is not disturbed. The Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina, for example, was established specifically for greater snow geese. A total of ten national wildlife refuges dot the coast from New Jersey to North Carolina.

Snow geese have been hunted in Canada every year since the Migratory Bird Treaty Convention of 1916, with a total annual harvest that has never exceeded 7,000 birds. The 1975 U.S. harvest is not expected to exceed 5,000 birds, with a 10,000 bird harvest considered an extreme estimate. The combined Canada-U.S. snow goose kill, therefore, will not exceed 10 per cent of the fall flight population.

No significant limiting effects on the population are expected to result from this magnitude of harvest.

The 1975 season regulation referred to snow geese generally, because some lesser snow geese including some blue geese - gather with greater snow goose flocks on the wintering grounds. However, the lesser snow goose is the most numerous goose on the North American continent, and it will not be adversely affected by the limited harvest expected.

An emergency closure provision was included in the snow goose season regulations to provide insurance against too many geese being taken in the event that their productivity did not approach the exâ&#x20AC;˘ pected level in 1975.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

",.),!...._. ---¡-

long after World War II, and especially in the past 15 years. There are several basic reasons for that: For one thing, our growing population has become largely urban and suburban, losing its rural roots and forsaking the old rural arts - of which hunting is a prime example.

In recent years, the surge of environmental concern has turned some of the public against what seems to be reckless consumption of colorful wildlife resources. Add to that the fact that many communications media seem far more skilled in knowing how to communicate than in knowing what to communicate - and it isn't hard for modern magazines and television to arouse public revulsion against hunting.

We've heard it said that there is relatively no more anti-hunting than there ever has been - that the number of anti-hunters is larger because the population is larger but that the proportion is about the same. I don't believe that. We can be sure that anti-hunting sentiment has increased, that it is far more effective than it has ever been, and that it makes good sense to large segments of the public.

On the personal level, there are several basic reasons for anti-hunting sentiment.

What AboutThisAnti-huntingThing?

By John Madson Editor's note : This guest article was written and scheduled fo r this issue well befo re events of recent weeks which have included the controversial TV special "The Guns of A utumn" as well as courtroom challenges of certain hunting seasons. These developments underscore the author's ideas on the anti-hunting philosophy and the future direction of sport hunting.

is a hard thing to weigh and measure. Is it really significant, or is it one of those phantoms that exists more in the hunter's imagination than in the mind of the public?

I sometimes wonder - it seems that all a wellknown anti-hunter has to do is clear his or her throat and ten million of us go right up the wall.

But although our responses to our critics are often blown out of proportion, there's little real doubt that anti'-hunting is a growing force, and something that hunters must watch closely and try to understand.

For as long as I can remember, there have been anti-hunters. It's nothing new. But for a long time it was a shapeless attitude, unorganized and undirected. It seemed to take on a new dimension not

A

NTI-HUNTING

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

Joseph Wood Krutch felt that hunting was "the pure form of evil" which metaphysicians had long sought. Professor Krutch had no brief against killing for actual need. But killing for pleasure, or as part of a pleasurable pursuit, he felt, was reprehensible.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer felt that sport hunting demonstrated a total lack of "reverence for life." And as a theologian, scientist, and humanitarian, he felt that reverence for life was one of the highest conditions to which man can aspire. He once said that modern man is truly ethical only when he refrains from needlessly taking life.

Many anti-hunters oppose hunting because they feel it inflicts needless pain and suffering on innocent wild creatures. Others are more pragmatic; they simply feel that our wildlife resources face enough danger under modern technology, without being hunted in the bargain.

Finally, there are those anti-hunters who feel that hunting is a barbaric pastime that we should outgrow - not for the welfare of wildlife itself but for our own spiritual welfare. Their concern is less for the creature that is hunted than for the man who does the hunting. That is reminiscent of Oliver Cromwell's edict against bear-baiting in the English

21

arena - not because of any pain that it caused the bears but because of the pleasure that it gave the spectators. In recent times in England, it has been seriously suggested that red deer be completely eliminated from the British Isles in an effort to stamp out the last of the big game hunting there.

Incidentally, some of this same feeling has been directed against fishing.

HERE ARE THOUGHTFUL HUNTERS who can see flaws in all of these viewpoints and who can defend their act of hunting on ethical and philosophical grounds. But, as I said earlier, that's not the point under discussion.

The maddening part of all this is the fact that opposition to all hunting usually stems from critics for whom we have no real respect- critics who not only lack credentials, but who are them elves open to moral judgment.

Dr. C. H. D. Clarke, the eminent Canadian biologist, once wrote : "If one reasonable man speaks out against us, we owe it to ourselves to seek the truth. But the voices that have been raised against us have been charged with emotion, coming, not as they pretend, from the philosophical heights, but from tight compartments insulated from reality. For this reason, sportsmen have scorned them.''

The bitterness of the hunting - anti-hunting controversy is made keener because it's almost entirely emotional. Anti-hunters, generally, are operating on pure, unbridled emotion. And to a great degree, so are the hunters. As long as both factions are entirely emotional there i little hope of mutual understanding and tolerance.

It often seems to me that the greatest gap between hunter and anti-hunter exists at the lowest levels of outdoor experience and knowledge. The greater the lack of genuine outdoor mileage and perception, the greater thi gap between hunter and anti-hunter.

This basic gap tends to narrow as knowledge and total experience and understanding in nature increase, and the deeply involved hunter and the deeply involved nonhunting naturalist may merge until they are indistinguishable. The image of the "ideal hunter" at the point of the pyramid will vary according to what you feel the ideal hunter should be, but I suspect that it's a balanced blend of hunter, naturalist, and conservationist- a man with many polished outdoor skills and abilities, and whose affection and knowledge of nature are matched by his efforts to conserve it. Maybe this is the guy that James Fenimore Cooper called "the ideal man in the state of nature."

Those who aspire to thi ideal are deeply offended by both the slob hunter and blind criticism from

those who really know nothing about hunting or wildlife. Such criticism is even more biting because it is a puritanical indictment of a life style that we respect and cherish.

NTI-HUNTING

T

22

criticism is with us and will be from now on. Yet, there are some good things about it. Neither hunters nor their sport are perfect, and criticism forces the genuine hunter to examine himself and his motives - demanding that he understand himself and the resources that support his hunting. It hurts an ethical hunter to be called a barbarian who kills out of sheer bloodlust. But there's an old Korean saying: "Pain makes men think, thought makes men wise, and wisdom makes life endurable."

Out of the soul-searching that we hunters and professional conservationists are being forced to do, something good will come. We are being made to turn our eyes inward, as well as outward. It is no longer enough to say to our critics that we provide ten jillion dollars per annum to support wildlife conservation. We must defend our actions not just on financial grounds, but on ethical ones as well.

In the eyes of many people, our means do not j ustif y our ends. From their point of view, modern game management is analogous to a man buying a horse so that he can beat it to death. He may have paid cash for the horse, but his act is basically cruel and without purpose.

Put it another way: there is more to being a good father than just paying the bills. The good parent gives something of himself to his children - a spiritual and ethical base, a sense of values. Much the same can be said of hunting. It is not enough that we support wildlife conservation; we must also infuse our act of hunting with a special morality. I believe that one of the greatest respon ibilities of a con ervation department today is not just to manage fi h and wildlife populations as well as it can, but also to be an ethical arbiter of how those population are used by the public. The trouble is, game and fish people have had their hands so full of the first problem that they haven't had enough time to attend to the second.

Just one year ago, I was invited to speak to the student chapter of the Wildlife Society at Kansas State University. I pontificated for about 20 minutes, talking about hunting and anti-hunting to a fine group of 60 students. After that, just for the heck of it, I turned into a devil's advocate. I asked how many of the students were hunters: about 99 percent of them were. I then demanded that they defend their sport of hunting. For about a half-hour the students presented the usual threadbare defenses of hunting, and I tried to rebut those reasons as an

A

~

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

anti-hunter might have. Some of the kids began getting mad - but they also began to think. By the time the es ion ended, we had all been shaken up a bit. It was the sort of thing that they'll be facing when they get out of school, and they may as well begin now. I wish I'd gotten some of that in college - it would have saved me a lot of time. It might be a good idea for a wildlife school to hold a couple of senior seminars on anti-hunting, airing the pro-and-con philosophies of killing fish and wildlife for pleasure.

Anyway, our stock defenses of hunting aren't acceptable to much of the public. To defend hunting on the basis that managed game populations can afford to be hunted is like condoning burglary of a rich man's home simply because he can afford the loss. Such a defense of hunting will not satisfy a thoughtful nonhunting public. That public has the right to demand several things of us: that the wildlife population be able to support the hunting pressure exerted on it ... that hunting does not affect nonconsumptive uses of wildlife . . . and that the hunter conducts himself in an ethical manner.

The hunter is no longer free to act without ethical restraint. He i accountable to his port, to the wildlife that sustains his hunting, and to the nonhunting public. This sense of accountability must be drilled into hunters if the sport is to survive. I sometimes think that whatever the future holds for the hunter, he deserves. He's probably going to get what's coming to him; whether that is good or bad depends largely on him. the sport of hunting must operate on two principles: (1) that the act of hunting does not jeopardize the existence of any wildlife species, and (2) that the act of hunting shames neither hunter nor the animals that he hunts.

Professional game managers have been preoccupied with the first principle and have tended to neglect the second. Yet, if either of these principles is violated, the act of hunting is insupportable. So what can we do to strengthen these principles in the future?

Biological game management - based on good research and good enforcement of such managementis the beginning. This is basic, as is a solid information-ef.lucation effort. Then comes the big problem of conducting good public programs.

The best answer that I can see is mandatory hunter-safety training and certification of all new hunters. Actual safety training is only a part of this, and perhaps a minor part. More important is education in biological game and fish management, and in the principles of ethical hunting. If there's a grassroots effort that holds more promise than this one,

I

N ITS SIMPLEST TERMS,

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

I sure don't know what it would be. It is important to recognize that it i not "hunting per se" which is on trial - it is the conduct of the individual hunter which is at the heart of the issue.

The weak point, of cour e, is the availability of qualified instructors. They must be hunters who know guns and shooting, of course, but they must also be able to convey the essence of wildlife conservation and hunting ethics - and make it stick. It's a very tough job to find and recruit such instructors and furni h them with good materials, but it must be done.

To make things even tougher, there may be a critical time element.

A lot of us didn't begin hunting with a ready-made set of ethical guidelines. I sure didn't. Anything that I know about the ethical field behavior, and ethical attitudes toward wildlife, has taken me 35 years to learn. And we just don't have that kind of time today; we can't leave it to chance, and let our hunters "jes grow," like Topsy. We've got to give the young hunter a running start - a working knowledge of gun safety and conservation. And above all, we must instill in him a bitter intolerance of slob hunting. The militant anti-hunters won't give us much time to do this - they want the sport of hunting to be abolished now.

In the meantime, it's essential that professional wildlifers do a lot of homework on the ubject of anti-hunting. Two excellent sources with which to begin are Dr. C. H. D. Clark's "Autumn Thoughts of a Hunter" in the Journal of Wildlife Management, October 1958; and Jo e Ortega y Ga set's "Meditations on Hunting," published in 1972 by Charles Scribner's of New York. Doug Clarke is a brilliant wildlifer with a profound grasp of international literature; Gasset was a Spanish sportsman and one of the eminent philosophers of this century. Nowhere have I seen writings by anti-hunters as perceptive as these. The fact of the matter is, there has been far more good stuff written to support hunting than to condemn it. There's good reason for that - the people who write bitterly about hunting simply don't know enough about hunting to do a real job of it.

Unfortunately, that is not as true of television and motion pictures. Disney proved that. It is a simple matter to attack hunting with a motion picture or a TV special, and it can be extremely difficult to produce a TV pecial that captures the es ence of hunting - and even more difficult to sponsor it on prime time. This is the fault of television, not of the hunter. Someone has said that American television is a sword rusting in its scabbard while we're fighting environmental battles. That certainly applies to modern game management and what it has meant to Americans and American wildlife. â&#x20AC;˘

23

N

a_

~

I

•

111

:~

,

L 1--r:I~

,\,

• , ~-

r,

1

THE TRASH yo u LEAVE 0E. • HIND ON THE ICE DUl<ING THE WINTER GLUiTER$ ANO POLLUTES OU~ WATERWAYS ... GOOD MANNERS IN THE OUT·OF-OOORS HELPS KE:EP

C

1

MAINE SCE~IC ALL 'fEAR IWUND.

NEW NAME BUT SAME GOALS: Technically, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Game ceased to exist September 30, for on October 1, we became the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

We do not anticipate any drastic changes because we have a new name which indicates that we have an interest in wildlife other than simply the game species.

The Department has been charged with responsibilities involving all wildlife for a good many years. In recent years, however, we have been concerned increasingly with other-than-game species and with environmental matters in general. The new name will perhaps convey to the general public, today and for years to come, the fact that we are planning and working on behalf of all Maine wildlife.

A 30-inch yellow birch is

an exceptionally large tree for a beaver to attempt to fell~ and this one proved to be just a little too much for the ambitious beaver that started the job. The tree was found at Pepperpot Pond~ west of Rangeley~ by Ray Perkowski~ right~ of New Gloucester and was cut for use as a coffee table

by Roy Ed»Jards~ left~ of Magalloway. This photo was taken by Tom Galka of Wilmington~ Mass.~ and was sent to Maine Fish and Wildlife by Mrs. Dorothy Bow~e of New Gloucester.

24

1976 LICENSE FEES Nonresident Citizen Big Game Hunting-10 yrs. and over $ 60.50 Alien Big Game Hunting (new license in 1976) 100.00 Nonresident Small Game Hunting 16 yrs. and over 30.50 Nonresident Junior Small Game Hunting- 10-15 yrs. inc.

15.50 Nonresident Archery Deer Hunting12 yrs. and over 60.50 Nonresident Trapping 250.00 Nonresident Guide - 18 yrs. and over 125.00 Alien Guide (new License in 1976) 150.00 Nonresident Junior Fi hing12-16 yrs. inc.

4.00 Nonresident Season Fishing 16 yrs. and over 25.50 Nonresident 15-day Fishing 15.50 Nonresident 7-day Fishing 12.50 Resident or nonresident 3-day Fishing 7.50 Resident Fishing - 16 yrs. and over 7 .50 Resident Junior Hunting-10-15 yrs. inc. 1.50 Resident Hunting-16 yrs. and over 7.50 Resident Combination Hunting and Fishing - Over age 70 free Resident Combination Hunting and Fishing - 16 yrs. and over 12.50 Resident Serviceman Combination 3.50 Resident Archery Hunting -10 yrs. and over 7.50 Resident Trapping (Statewide) 13.00 Resident Trapping (Organized Townships) (This license will no longer be issued) (none) Resident Guide - 18 yrs. and over 32.00 40.50 Resident Deer Transportation License

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

HUNTER SAFETY AWARD: Maine's voluntary hunter safety training program was recently ranked among the top 10 in the nation in terms of effectiveness and overall excellence.

The ratings were made public at the 65th annual convention of the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners last month in Las Vegas, where Kansas received the top rating of all hunter safety programs entered.

Maine's program is obviously growing and effective. In 1974, we graduated 1,000 students more than in 1973, and the number of courses taught increased by 20 per cent during that same period.

The past three hunting seasons have seen the accident figure drop from an average of 50 per year to only 30 per year - and we presently have an average of only one fatality per year.

ANSWER TO PUZZLE ON PAGE 12

MOVING?

KID-BITS ANSWERS

If you are moving, please drop us a line and give both your present mailing address ( exactly as it appears on your mailing label) and your new one, including zip code. We must have this information at least four weeks in advance of the next publication date.

The magazine is not forwarded automatically.

A-6. Hare B-4. Owl C · l. Bolleat

D·S. Sna•• E-2. Fro• F · 3. Dra•onf ly

SUBSCRIPTION

EXPIRING?

Don ' t take a chance on missing a single issue of , L·\L 'E l-ISII .\. 'D WILDLIFE -- check to see when your subs ription expires .

If you sec L,\ST ISSUI: printeJ on your mailing label, your

urrent subscrip ion has nm out.

The

three digits on the seconJ line of your label at the right indicate your last issue -- 1~0, for instance, stanJs for the first, or winter, issue of 1976 . !~re ' s how to read the essential information on your magazine labels (starting with spring 1975):

'Pn·sona\ pa,4.

~ubsn,~tio~ . A ~ 1:t?t svlhc"ir,'ho\1 cS

";,,\\ "''Vt01 ' ,~s'tUd

p

:tcl•hi'1-91'c. at 1Dr>J "\o" f UE. nu m b!I" .P ~ r

----® M3 FOX , L. B. ROUTE 3 AUGUSTA

~ sv~scri pt1'oyt.

ME

0 4330

Ft~&/ i~sui a ~d '11A"'. ( I~ win'tu·; 2.= spri~i~ '3 ~ $cJMm•r; 4 .: -fl.a.\ ,. )

If you wish to rene\,' your subscription, or if there arc any problems with Jcliver~· of your IAI'.\E FISII

~

D WILDLIFE, please let us know -- but include a label from your maga:ine, or at least a copy

of all the information on the label .

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1975

It will greatly help speed up processing .

25

THE BOOK SHELF

\\ OH, coMg NOW/ //

ATLANTIC SALMON REPORT: Fishennen caught a reported 346 Atlantic salmon in Maine during the 1975 season, according to the Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission.

The catches were taken from seven rivers, with the Narraguagus topping the list with 113. The Machias River yielded 81 salmon, followed by the Penobscot with 70, the Dennys with 40, the Sheepscot with 11, the Pleasant with 8, and the Union with 3.

EXPRESSED CONCERN ... A record 43.5-million sportsmen paid more than $270-million for state hunting and fishing' licenses in 1974, according to the Wildlife Management" Institute. Sportsmen also provided an additional $75-million via manufacturers' excise taxes on sporting arms, ammunition and fishing tackle. Those two sources alone, WMI reports, provided almost all the funding for state fish and wildlife management programs, including those for nongame and endangered species.

During the 1974 fiscal year, 16,397,367 hunters spent $142,912,335.10 for state licenses, tags, permits and stamps. That is an increase of 888,055 hunters and $19.2-million more than in 1973.

In summary, the WMI report shows that from fiscal year 1923 through fiscal year 1974, sportsmen have provided more than $4.6billion to state fish and wildlife agencies for their essential work. No other segment of society has anywhere near that record of expressed concern for fish and wildlife resources.

26

Listed here are books on subjects of interest to those who enjoy the outdoors. These notes are set forth mainly to call your attention to the publications. If we have been able to evaluate a publication and recommend it, we will do so; but a lack of comment does not mean that the book is not deserving.

The Making of an Angler, by Bob Elliot. 1975. Winchester Press, N. Y., N. Y. 209 pages. A fine book on fishing, a fine book on Maine outdoors, and fine book of humor. Bob Elliot is well known as a writer, as a promotion man for vacation-travel in Maine, and as a man to hold conversation with. This is billed as being "the first X-rated fishing book," and it does contain some somewhat blue tales among its many anecdotes. But there's much more to it than that. Hard cover. $8.95.

Sportsmen Say, by Gene L. Letourneau. 1975. KJ Printing, Augusta, Maine. 215 pages. Another fine book about Maine, by another well-known writer who has spun a book of yarns on not only fishing but hunting and numerous other outdoor activities.

Gene has selected a good sample from the many outdoor columns he has written over the past 40odd years. This book combines reminiscences, a little Maine history, and some practical advice.

Hard cover. $5.95.

"Crockery Game Cooking," by Joan Cone. 1975. Boswell Printing Co. Available from the author at Box 2993, Williamsburg, VA 23185. 16 pages of game recipes for electric, slow-cooking pots. $1.00 postpaid.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

What's the Latest on Maine's Eagles?

By Francis J. Gramlich in still having bald eagles in most of their historic territories. In the other New England states and much of the Northeast, nesting eagles are only a memory. Our resident bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is truly a magnificent bird. In adult plumage, its white head and tail and contrasting brownishblack of its body are unmistak-

M

AINE IS FORTUNATE

able. Adult dress is not completely acquired until the fifth year.

Young birds vary from almost completely dark brown in their first season through mottled stages as their mature color gradually is developed. Eagles may weigh 8-12 pounds and their wings span 6-7 feet.

Several studies have shown that shooting has been the major cause of eagle mortality. Today,

Two eagle eggs from Minnesota , placed in foster nests in Maine last year, resulted in one fledged eaglet, pictured be low. The author, left, and federal biologist Paul Nickerson hold dead eggs , taken from the same nests , which were later found to be high in pesticide residues.

State Supervisor of Wildlife Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

there can be no excuse for shooting an eagle. All hawks and owls are protected, and eagles especially so. In fact, generous rewards are available for persons furnishing information leading to the arrest and conviction of an eagle killer. At present, an individual could be entitled to $3,500 or more for assistance in bringing an eagle slayer to justice. Penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and imprisonment for one year may be assessed for destroying our national bird. probably reside here throughout the year although a sizeable number may migrate varying distances in late fall and winter. Availability of food is apparently the controlling factor in movement. In January 1975, ~ study indicated that perhaps half the hundred-odd estimated population of Maine bald eagles was present along the ice-free portions of our rivers, lakes, estuaries, and coastal areas.

Since eagles are primarily fish eaters, their territories are established along the coast, including offshore islands, inland lakes, and major rivers. Aquatic birdswaterfowl, gulls, cormorants, and others, are also taken when the opportunity is presented. Injured waterfowl are particularly susceptible and frequently become food items in fall and winter. The bald eagle is a relatively poor hunter, and many mammals they eat are in the form of carrion.

Eagles build nests that they use for many years, possibly by successive generations of eagles.

Nests are almost invariably located within several hundred yards

M

ANY MAINE EAGLES

27

of a large body of water. While eagles may appear at their nesting sites occasionally at any time of year, the birds begin courtship and nesting activities in late February or early March. A territory may contain one or more nests although only one will be actively used to rear young in a given season. A single pair of adults may occupy different nests within their territory in succe sive years. The nest may be seven feet deep and six to eight feet wide, constructed of sticks up to four feet long and two inches in diameter. A liner of softer materials such as grass or pine needles is included. Eagles most often select white pine as nest trees, but they frequently use other species such as oak, beech, and maple.

Without exception, and significantly, the nest trees are in oldgrowth stands. A factor in the selection of a ne t site is the pres-

ence of one or more perching trees in the immediate vicinity.

The protection of old-growth stands close to water soon becomes evident in eagle management.

Tolerance of eagles to normal human activity varies considerably. Some will nest fairly close to residences, roads, or agricultural lands, but others seek remote, undisturbed nesting sites.

A new road or camp can cause desertion of an established nest.

Eagles are most susceptible to disturbance at nest building or at egg laying time, while the same activity at late incubation or after hatching might not bother so much.

They produce their white eggs, about the ize as those of geese, in mid-March in coastal areas, omewhat later inland. They take about 35 days to hatch. A normal clutch is two eggs with three be-

ing commonly observed. But, particularly in our areas with declining populations, single-egg clutches occur all too frequently. Seldom is more than one young per nest hatched.

Both parents share in the incubation of eggs and brooding and protection of the young, but the female spends more time at the nest than the male and may do almost all the feeding of the eaglets.

Young eagles are unable to feed themselves until they are half grown. The fem ale tears the prey into small strips and presents the food with her beak. When more than one eaglet is hatched, competition for food is continuous; and if food becomes carce, the larger, stronger chick gets the lion's share, and the smaller may starve. Normally, by the end of twelve weeks the young eagles are ready to leave the nest. Immature

Before releasing an eagle that had been injured and nursed back to hea lt h last summer, Ma ine and federal wi ldlife biologists marked the young bird with a co lored tag for late identifica t ion. The tag can be seen on the shoulder area of the left wing as the bird fl ies away.

28

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

Mature bald eagle. Scott-Swedberg photo.

and adults continue to use the nest as a perch anrl feeding platform after the young birds become proficient in flying.

I

evident in the early 1960' that eagles were not as numerous in certain areas of Maine as they had been previously. Population and production surveys were begun at that time, and although the intensity of the survey has increased since then, the number of known active nests has averaged close to 35 annually.

An active nest is defined a one in which an adult eagle is observed on the nest in an incubating posture.

Maine surveys have been conducted chiefly from aircraft, as eagles have little fear of a plane and will allow a close approach without alarm.

Certainly there are active eagle ne ts not known to the survey, but suspected locations indicated by the presence of adult eagles during nesting season suggest that there are now probably somewhat fewer than 50 pairs of eagles in Maine during the breeding season.

Production is measured by a later flight, in June, when the young can be easily counted before they are fledged. The production of eagles from the known nests has been disappointingly T HAD BECOME

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1975

low-about 0.3 eagles per nesting pair. It has been estimated elsewhere that the minimum production to maintain a stable population lies between 0.5 and 0.7 birds per active nest.

Reasons for the reduction in number of Maine's eagles are not completely understood. Certainly there are more human activities in the eagles' territories. And eagles have been caught in bobcat traps and even mu krat trap .

They have even been victims of traffic accidents, and, of course, illegal shooting.

The large-scale use of persistent pesticides and the increase in industrial pollutants have introduced new dangers to our eagles. Analyses of samples from the bodies of Maine eagles and their eggs have shown consistently higher residues of the DDT complex, dieldrin, and PCB's than other eagle ne ting areas. In 197 4, egg collected from failed nests bowed the highe t levels of these materials found ince eagle eggs were fir t analyzed. In 1975, a cru hed egg taken from a lower Kennebec nest had a shell 28 per cent thinner than normal.

Eggshell thinning has been found to be as ociated with high level. of pollutant in other birds.

The lower Kennebec nests have been singularly unproductive. No natural reproduction ha been known for more than 10 years.

In 1974, with the hope of recruiting young eagles to this population, two eagle eggs were taken from Minnesota and placed in two Merrymeeting Bay nests. Both hatched under foster parents. One eagle fledged and was in the Bay thi spring. In 1975, four eggs were transferred from Wi consin, two of which hatched in their Maine nests.

Sampling of known eagle foods ha not yet revealed the source of the residue problem. The pollutants are present, but generally not in excess of residues found in other parts of the country where eagles are still reproducing at a maintenance rate. It is hoped that recent bans on use of persistent pe ticides will be reflected in lower residues in our eagles.

Maine citizen is becoming more concerned about natural resources including eagles, and intentional destruction of our national bird should become a rarity. Protection of old-growth stands for nesting is an absolute necessity. Our growing system of parks, refuges, and co-operative ne t protection areas will assist in maintaining suitable ne ting ites. The future is not too dim for Maine eagles, and with a Ii ttle 1uck, they may still be flying at our next centennial celebration. â&#x20AC;˘

T

HE INDIVIDUAL

29

• • •

and BLACK Me Ian istic red squ irrel.

"SALT AND PEPPER" WILDLIFE ARE AMONG NATURE'S MOST FASCINATING PHENOMENA.

By Tom Shoener

albino animals and all greatly decreasing their chances of survival.

Just what is an albino? Briefly, it is an animal born without the ability to produce pigment or color. Its hair, feathers, or scales range from snowy white to straw colored. Any exposed skin on an albino is of a pinkish nature, due to the network of blood vessels that can be seen through the transparent tissue. One good way to identify a true albino positively is eye color, which is always pink or red.

The occurrence of albinism is controlled by genetics, which is the inheritance system of all living organisms. Every plant and animal has genetic records called genes which transmit various of the parents' characteristics-including color-on to the next generation. Genes are normally paired, with one-half of the pair Maine Fish and Wildlife -

coming from each parent. Some genes are stronger than others, and when two different kinds of genes make up a pair, the characteristic of the stronger one is expressed in the next generation.

Genes for normal coloration are always dominant or stronger than the r ecessive albinism genes; thus, in order for an offspring to be an albino, the genes received from

Fall 1975

both parents must be for albinism.

With the recessive albino gene so often eliminated by nature, there seldom develops the chance for a natural mating between two albinos.

than frue albinos are the so-called partial albino animals. These can

M

UCH LESS RARE

31

range from completely white to only a trace of white among normal-colored hair, feathers, or scales. The pink eyes of a true albino distinguish it from a partial albino animal, which have normal pigment in the eyes.

Not to be confused with albino and partial albino animals are species that are naturally white.

The snowy owl, an occasional visitor to Maine, is in this category as are our native snowshoe hare and weasels, which change color from brown in summer to predominantly white in winter.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from albino animals, which lack color pigment, are animals that are black or much darker than normal due to overproduction of pigment. This condition is known as melanism. Unlike albinos, melanistic animals are usu-

ally well adapted for survival. The extra pigmentation can serve as an increased barrier against skin and eye exposure to sunlight, increase absorption of body-warming heat in cold climates, or facilitate concealment of animals that are active at night.

Albino ruffed grouse.

Albino porcupine.

Partial albino fawn deer. Photo

by Homer D. Edgecomb .

32

you should happen to see a wild albinistic or a melanistic animal, consider yourself lucky because you-as well as they-are very definitely in the minority. â&#x20AC;˘

I

F SOME DAY

RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED Postmaster: If undeliverable, please return entire magazine with form 3579

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

284 State St.

Augusta, Maine 04333