Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Fall 1976 by Maine State Library

MAINE FISH AND \VILDLIFE 75 CENTS

George W. Bucknam A true sportsman died on August 7, 1976. George Bucknam was many things - teacher, trap shooting champion, hunting dog authority, former fish and game commissioner, gentleman, diplomat, conservationist, and much more - but embodying all official titles and earned epithets, he was a consummate sportsman. Few words could describe him better, and few sportsmen could invest the word with more dignity. Being a good sportsman and being good for his sports were both vocations and avocations for George. As deputy commissioner and then commissioner of this Department, he worked for many years for the protection and management of Maine's wildlife and fish resources. Although he was strongly motivated by human enjoyment and uses of these resources, his foremost concerns were always for the species themselves. His work was mainly with people, and his dual abilities to hear what others were saying and to express his own thoughts well, earned him wide respect among sportsmen and legislators and in other important places. Low-key nature, yet methodical and persuasive, he worked effectively but often without recognition to advance causes that will continue to benefit Maine and her people for generations to come. George practiced the arts of the sportsman as tirelessly and effectively as he worked to perpetuate them. In the pursuit of personal excellence, or in competition with others, he was unrelenting; but at the same time he was humble, compassionate, and quick with humor and with praise for others. And above all, he was an ethical sportsman, not only

following the written and unwritten rules but making his own personal ones as well. He was born October 25, 1903, in Columbia Falls and attended local schools and Washington State Teachers College in Machias. He earned his B.S. in education from the University of Maine at Orono. He taught for 28 years at public schools in Baring, Woodland, and Waterville. During the last twelve years of his teaching career he also operated a recreation camp at Belgrade Lakes. In 1953, George was named deputy commissioner of the Department, under then Commissioner Roland H. Cobb. He continued to serve in the same capacity under Commissioner Ronald T. Speers until 1970 when he was nominated for the commissioner's post to replace Speers who resigned. He retired in 1971 but was rehired temporarily in 1972 to serve again as deputy commissioner under his successor, Cammi sioner Maynard F. Marsh. Among other honors, George was named Outdoor man of the Year in 1972 by the New England Outdoor Writers Association. After retirement, he continued to work on behalf of sportsmen's interests and to participate in the sports that he loved. He died suddenly while competing in the Maine Trapshooting championships at Richmond. As hi friend and bird hunting companion, outdoor wri r Gene Letourneau, put it in his column, "George died Saturday just the way he would have written the script, 'with my boots on.'" He is survived by his wife, Helen, of Augusta, two grown children, two brothers, and one sister.

MAINE Governor James B. Longley

FISH AND WILDLIFE

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Maynard F. Marsh

Commissioner

J. William Peppard

Deputy Commissioner

Kenneth H. Anderson

Director, Planning and Co-ordination

David 0. Locke

Supt. of Hatcheries

Charles S. Allen

Chief Warden

Lyndon H. Bond

ST ATE OF MAINE Vol. 18, No. 4

Fall, 1976

Chief. Fishery Diuision Business Manager

Ralph C. Will Robert W. Boettger

Chief, Wildlife Diuision

William C. Mincher

Director, Information and Education

Clayton G. Grant

Chief, Engineering Diuision

Richard B. Parks

Chief, Really Diuision

Lorenzo J. Gaudreau Alfred L. Meister

Director, Recreational Safely and Registration Chief Biologist, Atlantic Salmpn Commission

Advisory Council Dr. Alonzo H. Garcelon, Chairman Augusta, Maine Glenn H. Manuel Lillie ton Robert D. Steele Scarborough Ralph L. Noel Auburn

Asa 0. Holmes Belfast Burleigh Richards, Jr. Buxton Rodney W. Ross Brownuil/e

Trapping:An Old Sport Gets Some New Rules 2 Should We Hunt?

Ecologogriph

Lee E. Perry National Wildlife Federation

SPECIAL SECTION: Wildlife Species Plans Try Cusk

Scott Roy

Kid-Bits

Thomas J. Chamberlain

atural Way to Get the Most Out of Life 10

Roger Latham

Ecologogriph Answers 11 Big Bucks - 1975 12

Maine Fish and Wildlife i 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 Editor Thomas J. Chamberlain, Features Editor William W. Cross, Photo Editor Thomas L. Carbone, Photographer

ÂŠ Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1976. Written permission must be secured from the Department before reproducing any part of this copyrighted material. Subscription rates: $2.50 for one year, $4.00 for two years, $5.50 for three years. No stam ps, Second class postage paid at Augusta, please. Maine 04330.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Fall 1976

THE COVERS Front: No one wants to get lost in the Maine woods, but good outdoorsmen are prepared and know what to do in case it happens. A good fire is one important key to comfort as well as quick rescue - which in this deer hunter's case was by Warden Service helicopter. Photo by Tom Carbone. Inside Back: A handsome , buck white-tailed deer - one of the most thrilling sights in all of outdoor Maine. Photo by Bill Cross. Back: Looking for a Christmas gift idea? Why not consider giving a gift subscription to Maine Fish and Wildlife?

By Lee Perry Assistant Chief, Wildlife Division

ECREASING LICENSE SALES and declining fur

prices perhaps best summarize t he history of trapping in Maine beginning in the mid 1950s. This relatively low interest in trapping remained stable until about 1970, when trapper in terest rose with an increase in prices of long hair fur. Although fur values for some species, such as the fisher , fox , and raccoon , have not approached those observed in earlier years, the value of others, such a bobcat, have reached previously unknown highs. Trappers, wardens, and wildlife biologists became concerned that some upland furbearers, especially fisher ," could not sustain themselves if current trapping pressures were maintained or increased. In response to petitions by concerned trappers and recommendations by the Department's Wildlife Division and Warden Service, Commissioner Maynard F. Marsh chaired public hearings at eight locations in the state during the fall of 1975 and winter of 1976. Testimony from trappers - as well as other outdoorsmen, fur buyers, and Department personnel led to the promulgation of a revised trapping code in August, 1976. To those who are not familiar with all the reasons for the recent changes, these regulations may seem overly restrictive, perhaps even ridiculous. As for those who attended the hearings, I am sure they realize that it is difficult if not impossible to arrive at regulations which adequately address all the problems, yet satisfy everyone with an interest in the outdoors. Nevertheless, we tried. This article is intended to explain our reasons for these changes. 2

In the past, there has never been a completely closed trapping season; that is, it has been legal to trap some species at some time during the entire year. These liberal seasons resulted in unauthorized although often inadvertent trapping of protected species, as well as destruction of animals whose pelts have little value. The new regulations address these problems by providing for fall and winter trapping during two general seasons: one for upland and one for water trapping. With the exception of the bear season and trapping by special permit to alleviate predation problems, it is now illegal to set a trap on land except during the October 20 to December 15 trapping season. During this period, it is legal to take bobcat, coyote, fisher, fox , marten, raccoon, skunk, and weasel. To achieve a reduction in the harvest of fisher , a species which is apparently being overtrapped, we could have chosen, as many trappers wished, to close the fisher trapping season entirely. We realize, however, that fisher will be taken accidentally in other land sets, so rather than ignore these losses, we chose to: (a) shorten the open season for all land trapping from 365 to 57 days; (b) restrict the legal limit of fisher per trapper to three annually; and ( c) prohibit the use of the 220 Conibear trap, the most effecti\'e fisher trap, on land. We hope the fisher will re pond favorably to these regulations so that the restrictions may be lessened in a few years. Harvest and area restrictions were retained on marten (five animals per trapper) whose reproduc t\'e potential cannot withstand heavy trapping pre --ure and whose distribution is limited to northern Âˇ d northwestern Maine. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 19, 6

egulations must also consider the indirect effects of season dates. Since numerous sportsmen who hunt birds with dogs had expressed concern that their animals would be injured if caught in steel traps, the use on land of any trap with teeth on the jaws will be unlawful in southern Maine - Wildlife Management Units 4, 7, and 8 - between the opening of the trapping season and the opening of the firearms season on deer. An alternative that was considered would prohibit trapping until early November. Imposing this restriction would severely limit fox trapping since freezing temperatures at that time of year hinder the use of the dirt hole set - a favorite and effective means of trapping foxes. The dates we have chosen are designed also to reduce the inadvertent taking of birds of prey, such as the bald eagle, which are occasionally trapped during the winter months when natural food supplies are low and trappers use exposed bait. In summary, Maine's new upland trapping regulations have attempted to provide for a sustained supply of our upland furbearers - as well as other species which might be affected by trapping - for trappers and other persons who use the outdoors.

Killer type traps with a jaw spread larger than eight inches (size 330) which are now prohibited for use on land, are also unlawful for use underwater except during the open season on beaver. This restriction is designed to reduce the incidental harvest of beaver during the fall otter season. In any area of the state that is open to beaver trapping, it will be lawful for a trapper to keep any otter or muskrat taken accidentally while beaver trapping.

Left , preparin g a wa ter set fo r beaver. Above , a dirt hole set be ing baited and prepared by an upland fox trapper. Both water and upland trapping are affected by the new t rapping regulations this year.

eason dates for aquatic furbearers remain relatively unchanged, but there have been some changes in allowable trapping methods and open seasons. Muskrats are now protected during the spring on all wildlife management areas and in all management units except 5 and 6 - eastern Maine. This change was made to protect muskrat breeding stock in the more heavily trapped portions of southern units and to prevent accidental trapping of waterfowl. Common steel traps and killer-type traps with a jaw spread not exceeding eight inches (this includes the size 110, 120, and 220 Conibear) are lawful for use underwater.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

And finally, so that we may assess the effects of these new regulations on harvest, and gain better information on which to base future regulation changes, we require that the pelts of fox, bobcat, marten, fisher, otter, and beaver be tagged. These revisions of upland and aquatic furbearer trapping regulations we hope will serve to bring them in line with the modern-day pressures affecting our wildlife resources. Copies of these regulations are available from the Department, 284 State Street, Augusta. â&#x20AC;˘ 3

SHOULD WE HUNT? (Editor's Note: The following article is a summary of an article by the same title published by the National Wildlife Federation. Copies of the entire article are available by writing to National Wildlife Federation, 1412 - 16th. Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20036. Material is used with permission.)

ECAUSE HUNTING BEGAN long before record-

ed history, we have no way of knowing whether Pleistocene men argued among themselves about the propriety of killing and eating preWe do know that historic sabre-toothed tigers. hunting has been a matter of some controversy at least since Biblical times. Since the conservation movement began in this country at the turn of the century, hunting has been a topic on which reasonable men differ - but seldom differ reasonably. Traditionally, the antihunters have attributed the acts of poachers and vandals to hunting - and branded it "immoral." Hunters, on the other hand, have denounced antihunters who eat meat as "hypocrites." Between bursts of invective, each side has accused the other of being "emotional." If America's wildlife heritage is to be preserved, conservation efforts will need all the support they can get, whether these efforts come from bird watchers, big game hunters, nature photographers or trout fishermen. Experts agree that providing adequate environment is the key to both variety and abundance of wildlife. The environment, or habitat, is a vital concern to all wildlife managers and an integral part of scientific wildlife management. Wildlife management is a science which seeks to maintain the optimum numbers and varieties of wildlife that our country's range, or habitat, can support, consistent with the best interests of man. Its first task is to provide and protect habitat

- areas where animals can find food, water, and cover in which to raise their young. Without habitat, there can be no wildlife. Wildlife management uses many tools and techniques to achieve its goals. Animals may be livetrapped and transplanted to new areas; better food or cover conditions can be created by planting or burning; the list goes on and on. Management also calls for the protection of endangered and threatened species. And it prescribes the culling, cropping, or thinning out of those species which are abundant or threatened with overpopulation. Thinning out game populations has been accomplished for years by hunting. Why hunting? Because the federal government, all 50 state governments, all of the nation's major conservation organizations and reputable wildlife biologists recognize regulated hunting as an efficient means of reducing surplus wildlife populations. The question of whether to hunt is one that each individual must decide for himself. The National Wildlife Federation and 15 other national conservation groups recognize hunting, not just because it is good outdoor recreation for hunters, but because it has proved effective in helping to maintain healthy wildlife populations. The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality in its Fifth Annual Report said, "Since the development of modern wildlife management in the 1930's, no American wildlife has been exterminated by sport hunting. On the contrary, wildlife management has restored many depleted or threatened species." ILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS, who determine when a species is endangered, and who recommend the rules and regulations for hunting - the season , the hours, the bag limits, the restrictions on weapon operate within certain inexorable laws of nature. 1. Barring natural disasters, most species prod uce a surplus (i.e., more animals than their range can u: tain) every year.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

...

2. If the carrying capacity of the range remains unchanged, a number of animals equal to the yearly surplus must die during each 12 months. There is no biological question of whether surplus animals will die, only how. With songbirds, nature takes the entire surplus. With game animals, man takes part of it. But the surplus must die. The task of the biologist, or wildlife manager, is to see that man does not take more than the surplus. If the species is not to be depleted, a breedstock sufficient to replace all losses must survive. Good management will produce a "maximum sustainable yield" (MSY) of wildlife each year. Since barely 100 of the more than 1,700 species of birds and mammals in the United States are hunted, hunting is not the biologist's biggest concern. Wildlife scientists clearly see the destruction of wildlife habitat, now proceeding at the alarming rate of about one million acres a year in this country, as the greatest threat to our animal populations. Wildlife "conservation" and "management" are synonymous terms according to Congress, which long ago recognized hunting as a management tool and even in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 recognized the need for "regulated taking" in some cases as a means of relieving wildlife "population pressures." Everyone seems to understand the idea of protecting a dwindling, endangered species, but some have trouble accepting the fact that, without management, overpopulation can also be a problem for many forms of wildlife. Why, they ask, must we manage? Why can't we let nature take its course? The answer to that question is that man has been interfering with the "course" of nature ever since the first Europeans settled on this continent 400 years ago. Through his own reproducing; cutting of woodlands; draining of wetlands; bulldozing of the prairies; and polluting of air, water, and food chains, he has so disrupted wildlife habitat and disturbed our ecosystems that the "balance of nature" is badly impaired. If there were no wildlife management, some species, such as the deer, would increase so sharply in numbers - for awhile - that farmyards, highways, and Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

even suburban gardens would be overrun with hungry animals. Both public and private lands would be overgrazed. Does the annual thinning of a herd reduce the deer population over a period of years? Experience has shown - no. In 1890, there were an estimated 350,000 white-tailed deer in the United States. Today there are more than 15 million, which is more than were here when the Pilgrims arrived. Deer are not the only species that have proliferated under sound, scientific wildlife management. The pronghorn antelope, the alligator, the sea otter, the fur seal, and the trumpeter swan, have all made comebacks. In 1907 there were only about 41,000 elk; today there are a million. In about the same period, the antelope population has increased sevenfold and the wild turkey census by tenfold. Wildlife management has proved that it can reduce disastrous population highs and raise the lows. It can maintain a more stable population in the interest of both wildlife and humans. ANY ALTERNATIVES to hunting have been pro-

posed. To name a few: (1) do nothing or "let nature take its course," (2) let predators do the job, ( 3) let professional marksmen do the job, and ( 4) introduce wildlife birth control. The let-nature-take-its-course option seems to be most appealing because it sounds so simple. As we have seen, however, it is a "boom and bust" method. It produces a bumper crop of animals - at first. But, as population peaks, the animals - especially those that browse and graze - exhaust their food supplies. When undernourished - if they don't simply die of starvation - they are especially vulnerable to parasites and diseases. Re-establishing larger predator populations to control game animals is simply substituting predators for man, except that predators kill indiscriminately, preferring a slow, fat calf to a lean, quick deer. There have yet to be found the professional park rangers or game wardens who want to work as paid executioners, and the public is apparently not ready to hire gunmen to do for money what hunters do each year for food and recreation. The fourth alternative, birth control, has been successfully tested on some species of animals in captivity, but it doesn't have practical application to free-roaming animals. Oral contraceptives have been developed for deer, for example, but daily adminil':trnt.ion in the wild would obviously be impossible. RONICALLY, under the present law, there would be

little money for wildlife research or for allimportant habitat acquisition and protection if it were not for hunters. Since 1937, hunters (who launched 5

the conservation movement late in the 19th century) have provided the basic support for all state and federal wildlife programs through license fees and taxes on their firearms and ammunition. Fishermen have added their support through similar excise taxes on fishing gear since 1950. The federal excise taxes alone have produced more than $600 million in matching grants to state fish and wildlife agencies over the years, and the states have spent more than $100 million of this money acquiring 3.5 million acres of land and water for wildlife habitat. In addition, about 42 million Americans shell out about $240 million each year for state hunting and fishing licenses. The question of hunting remains vividly entrenched in many minds. While we believe that each individual should make a personal decision as to whether to

hunt, we also believe he or she should be tolerant of those who choose differently. Eastern city dwellers should not determine life styles for western ranch hands, nor southern farmers for those who live in wooded New England. It is a part of the genius of the American system that majorities do not force their will upon minorities in such matters. We are convinced beyond doubt that to abolish hunting, as proposed by some protectionists, would undermine the whole concept of wildlife management and thus be detrimental to our wildlife. In the overall conservation effort, the battle between hunters and antihunters will serve only to diminish potential accomplishments of the conservation movement. By utilizing the directive of the old phrase "Strength in Unity," conservationists can make this planet a better world - for man and beast. â&#x20AC;˘

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

1. Our only goose with black breast set off from pale underparts. 8. Female sheep. 11. Large trout of deep, cold, clear lakes. 12. Nocturnal, silent-flying bird of prey. 14. Ocean. 15. Spring forth, as a river from its source. 16. Fishing, hunting, camping equipment. 18. Cartridge other than rimfire. Jackson. 20. Renowned fisherman: 21. Gold weight (abbrev.). 22. An elevated railroad . 23. A large terrier with wiry, tan coat and black markings. 25. Long-legged, three-toed marsh birds. 27. Rock containing metal. 28. The point in a celestial sphere that's exactly overhead. 29. Tracks left by a boat passing thru the water. 32. Girl. 33. Our largest deer with large, narrow antlers. 34. Compass point. 35. An excellent campfire wood. 38. Westernmost group of the Aleutian Islands. 40. A grassy field or plain. 42. The eggs of crustaceans. 43. Sharp pointed tip of an arrow. 46. Large, light-green, North American moth.

48. 49. 50. 53. 54. 55. 56.

The Gem State. Amidst; surrounded by. Small owl with ear tufts. Ocean (abbrev.). The Flickertail State (abbrev.). Deep pockets in a stream. Large bovine ruminant of central Asia.

DOWN 1. The tautog: fish. 2. Classification of the Ivory-billed woodpecker. 3. Non-motile reproductive spore in some algae. 4. A bird too young to leave the nest. 5. Large oxygen-producing plant. 6. The bowfin of sluggish waters. 7. Sunshine off the water surface. 8. Two compass points. 9. Initials of common names for: Mustela

29. Water line (abbrev.). 30. Any duck that frequents salt water, belonging to Nyrocinae subfamily. 31. Swordfish-like fish with shorter, rounded sword. 33. Wears away. 36. Long, narrow body of water. 37. A female lobster. 39. An African gazelle. 40. Constellation containing the Sickle and bright star Regulus. 41. Each (abbrev.). 44. A member of the Women's Army Corps. 45. Initials of former presidential candidate. 47. The common European viper. 51. Cobalt (chem. sym.). 52. A square land measure (abbrev.). 53. The Oregon Ash (init.).

ANSWER ON PAGE 11

rixosa; Cervus canadensis. 10. Our biggest bird of prey. 13. Wattled enclosures in a stream, to catch fish. 17. Hardwood tree having dense, crossÂˇ grained wood (2 words). 19. Poisonous North American snake. 20. Toward the sheltered side. 24. Noah's vessel. 25. Initials of common names for:

Mephitis mephitis; Equus zebra. 26. Ropelike climbing plant of tropical forests.

( Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 19 7 6

IN A CHANGING MAINE. THE FUTURE OF YOUR FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES WILL NOT BE LEFT TO CHANCE

FOREWORD

MAINE'S

WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

...

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 284 STATE ST., AUGUSTA, ME 0-t.333

Whether we like it or not, conditions throughout the State of Maine are changing, and these changes can be expected to affect the abundance of fish and wildlife and the amount of hunting, fishing, and trapping which they can support. In an effort to keep abreast of these changes and to increase our responsiveness to activities on current and developing problems, the Department embarked on a long range planning program. Basically, this involves the development and maintenance of fish and wildlife species assessments. These assessments are based upon the latest information available and are used as a basis for the selection of species management goals and objectives and the development of species management program proposals. The selected species management

programs are designed to provide specific information needed to understand a species more fully and to focus regulations and other management work on the most pressing needs at hand. This booklet presents a condensed version of the Department's recently completed five year management plan for the state's inland fish and wildlife resources. We publish it in this form for several reasons: (1) It is relatively nontechnical; (2) It is short enough to be easy reading; (3) It highlights the Department's assessment of the major inland fish and wildlife species and outlines management activities which will be undertaken during the next four years; and ( 4) It is brief enough so we can reprint it without great cost for the benefit of citizens who do not happen to see it in Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine. The long range plan at present (1976) occupies seven volumes which altogether are nearly 12 inches thick. It is based on the best information available , but it is not a plan which has been made to be followed without question. Instead, we consider this a living plan, and a living plan must be updated constantly and changed as new information becomes available and when conditions change materially. We intend to keep it a live plan , and a live plan must reflect change. The schedule for presentation in Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine provides for two parts: the wildlife-other-than-fish in the Fall 197 6 issue and the fish species in the Spring 1977 issue. The pages will be numbered so as to make a continuing publication: the Fish section will pick up where the Wildlife section ends. In the Fall 197 5 issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife, Planning and Co-ordination Director Kenneth Anderson described how the Department decided to develop a formal plan for fish and wildlife management. After much time and work, the plan has taken shape so it can be presented as it exists today. We should emphasize that it will not remain as it is today - as the subtitle of Ken's article said, "In a changing Maine, the future of your fish and wildlife resources will not be left to chance: YOU'VE GOT A PLAN."

We hope you will find this condensed presentation interesting and educational. We intend it to show some of the problems of today and some we anticipate for tomorrow. How these problems should be approached is another aspect of planning which will We don 't change as conditions change. intend to stand still.

Commissioner

CONTE TS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside cover Bi g Ga me Spec ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 Dee r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-2 Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-4 Mooe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-6 Upl an d Ga me Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-7 Gro use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-8 Gray Squi rre l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-9 Sno wshoe Hare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 O Migratory Bird Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-11 Wild Ducks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-12 Woo dcock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-14 Ca nada Goose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-15 Up land F ur bearer Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-16 Bobcat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 7 Wease l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-18 Coyote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-19 Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-20 Sku nk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-21 F is her . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-22 Mar ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-23 Raccoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-24 Aqu at ic Fu rbeare r Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-25 Beaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-26 Mi nk a nd Otter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-27 Muskrat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-28 No n-native Ga me Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-29 Pheasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-30 Wild Tu r key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-31 No n- ga me Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-31 Wildlife Manage me nt Uni ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-32 Manage me n t Units Ma p . . . Inside back cover

This booklet was fi na nced thro ugh Federal Aid in Fish and Wildli fe R estora ti o n Funds un der Project F WA-2-Series. Species Manage men t Pl ans wr itten by the F ishery, Wildlife, and Pla nn ing d iv isions. Text con densation by Henry Hilton. Sketches by Warde n J o hn A. F ord. Design , production, an d photogra phs not othe rwi se cred ited , by the Information a nd Educatio n Divisio n .

BIG

GAME SPECIES ----------

HE WHITE-TAILED DEER, moose, and black bear

comprise the big game category of Maine's wildlife resources. Of the three species, the deer is most intensively managed and hunted. Moose have not been legally hunted in Maine for about 40 years, and population levels in northern sections of the state (1976) are extremely high. The Department is concerned over the capacity of the habitat to support such high population levels. The black bear, which is slowly attaining full game status, is subject to potential overuse. These game animals together present a myriad of management problems. White-tails are Maine's "calling cards" for sportsmen, and the quality and quantity of the deer herd is extremely important to the citizens of the state. This species is at the northern extreme of its range in Maine, and limitations resulting from severe climatic conditions greatly complicate management efforts to maintain the herd at set levels. Although deer require small clearings for browse and dense softwood cover for protection from the elements, moose are more commonly found in larger, cut-over areas. The amount of this habitat type has been increasing in large areas of Maine and is partly responsible for limiting deer numbers while encouraging moose numbers to increase rapidly. The potential consumptive use of moose is restricted by a conMaine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

tinued closed season. This situation is resulting in a population explosion which ultimately will result in a decline in moose numbers to lower than optimum levels. The black bear presents a variety of problems and questions. It has been considered both a nuisance animal and a valuable furbearer. In recent years, it has attained the stature of a game animal, and emphasis has been placed on the perpetuation of this resource. Yet, in many areas, the bear is such a nuisance that it is repulsed from blueberry fields, apple orchards, and campgrounds. The effect of increased hunting of bears by hunters with dogs is of additional concern. Adequate population monitoring is needed to support the establishment of regulations which ensure that an overuse situation does not develop. Although overexploitation would solve the problem of nuisance animals, it would rapidly result in diminished numbers of bear and erosion of quality hunting for bear in Maine. Overall, Maine residents and visitors are fortunate to have a supply of big game resources not to be found elsewhere in the East. As an index to environmental quality, these three species speak well for Maine. For the sportsmen, as well as the non-hunting public, they are important species to maintain at optimum levels. S-1

Introduction. White-tailed deer are the most important game animal in Maine in terms of numbers of hunters, economic return, and esthetic value as ' well as research and management priorities. Maine has become a popular state in which to hunt, largely because of the agreeable atmosphere of Lhe extensive woodlands and the quality of the deer hunting experience available to the hunter. The white-tail has been a topic of great controversy over the years because of a lack of agreement on management objectives and misunderstanding of the deer's characteristics and habitat requirements. While many people think of the deer as a long time native of the state, once abundant and in recent years declining, it has, in fact, a long history of variable numbers ranging from very few to overabundance. The history of the deer in Maine is a prime example of this species' response to changing land use, climatic conditions, and harvest regulations. It gives testimony to the fact that a continuation of high abundance in all regions depends on suitable habitat conditions and "the grace of God"! White-tails exhibit three characteristics which are important in considering its management. First, deer population levels are, for the most part, governed by the availability of low-growing browse intermixed with a heavy forest canopy which provides both

escape and winter shelter. Only in areas where sunlight can penetrate the forest canopy does an abundant growth of low forage exist. The occurrence of favorable habitat is dependent on a variety of factors which result in the establishment of an abundant growth of low forage. When mature forests are cut, reduced by fire, or extensively opened by wind storms, natural regeneration of trees and shrubs provides an abundant supply of browse . Farmland abandonment and the large amount of subsequent growth of woody vegetation in the past resulted in ideal habitat conditions over much of the organized sections of the state. But these ideal conditions remain for only a short time, and as the lands pass through the early and intermediate stages of forest succession, deer thrive in a "man-made" ideal Âˇ habitat. The second element is the reproductive potential of deer. Where the range contains abundant food, yearling females bear young, and older females bear 2 - 3 fawns each year. In inadequate range, few yearlings produce young, and older deer may produce an average of fewer than 1 fawn per doe. In addition, wintering conditions have a significant effect on annual production levels. Following a severe winter, the fawns that are born suffer a higher mortality, further reducing the potential growth or maintenance of the herd. The third aspect of deer management to consider is that of overabundance. While it might be considered a luxury to enjoy too many deer, overabundance rapidly results in habitat destruction and lowered reproduction. With no limitations on their numbers deer reproduce beyond the capacity of the range'. In sharing what food there is, deer become weakened and physical growth is retarded. This is followed by a decline in reproduction and, ultimately, widespread starvation. Therein lies a major management decision: should the goal be to have a lot of small and inferior deer with the inevitable loss of large numbers of deer during severe winter conditions; or fewer deer, healthy and strong deer, with little or no winter loss to malnutrition. Current Status. Nearly all of Maine's land area can be considered deer habitat. Realistically, however, certain wetlands and areas intensively occupied by man must be excluded. Overall, this leaves about 87 per cent of the state, or 17 .5 million acres, of woodlands, farmland, and shallow wetlands which have the potential to support deer. Habitat quality varies extensively in different regions. The most important consideration is the degree of interspersion of vegetative types, providing both food and shelter. The northern and western wildlife management units together contain more than 50 per cent of the potential deer habitat in the state. For the most part, the forest land is continuous

S-2

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

and the interspersion with open land is poor. The carrying capacity of these areas is greatly limited by severe climatic conditions, and deer population levels are relatively low compared to other units. Further increase in deer densities under existing habitat conditions, especially in Units 1 and 2, would probably diminish the Jong term welfare of the deer herd. Unit 4, which stretches across the interior of the state, is characterized by a moderate interspersion of cover and forage types. Winter climate is less extreme than in northern sections; hence, the carrying capacity for deer is somewhat higher. The coastal units enjoy mild or moderate winter climate and have a good interspersion of cover types. Deer densities are high over much of these areas, and the physical development and reproduction of deer is the best in the state. Projected Trends. The quality of deer habitat in Maine will probably decline as abandoned farmland, which has provided excellent habitat, passes through its most productive stage for deer. Increased suburban development in Units 7 and 8, where our best deer habitat is located, can be expected to decrease gradually the amount of land available to deer hunters. The current level of farm abandonment and forest cutting will not compensate for these other losses except in Units 2, 3, and 5. In these units, improvement of the habitat will depend on how well shelter and food-producing cuttings are interspersed. The distribution of deer will not likely change radically, but short term changes in abundance will occur in response to winter severity. It is expected that full recovery of the deer population from recent lows will be at a level somewhat below the peaks of the 1950's because of the overall decline in habitat quality. No drastic change in supply and demand is anticipated on a statewide basis. Current imbalances in Units 7 and 8 will continue, with the trend towards more restricted access. A surplus supply in Unit 2 will also likely continue. It should be noted, however, that this area has a low capacity to support deer due to the existing habitat and severe wintering conditions; and relatively low population levels can be expected to continue in the future. Management Goal. The goal is to 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 in order to provide for greater hunter-deer contacts. In support of this goal, the Department will be striving to maintain an annual harvest of from 30,000 to 37,000 deer by 200,000 hunters. This goal is not without problems: among them are how to redistribute hunting pressure in order to provide for optimum harvest levels; how to minimize "posted" land; and Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

HUNTING LICENSE SALES IN MAINE 200 ci,180 Cl ~160 (/)

:::> 140 0

:I:

- Resident hunting licenses - -- Nonresident hunting licenses

t: 120 (/)

W100

< (I)

~ w

----- -------- - - -- - -- -

~ 40

1968

1969

1970

1971 1972 YEAR

1973

1974

1975

DEER HARVEST TRENDS ,o

DEER HARVEST LIM ITS

1960

1970

VfAR

how to maintain the quantity and quality of habitat needed to meet the long term harvest objectives. Public education considerations are necessary to inform the public of the role of hunting in deer management. Regulations to control harvests must maintain deer numbers which are neither so high that habitat is destroyed nor so low that hunting success and population viability are decreased. The overall objectives would provide the hunting and non-hunting public good opportunity to use the resource while maintaining a healthy, viable deer population.

S-3

Introduction. The black bear is unique because until very recently - if not still in some quarters - it has been considered a nuisance animal, unworthy of the revered "game" status, yet is also recognized by some as a trophy big game species. In fact, the black bear is an animal of further contradiction because it is also considered a furbearer and valued for its thick, deep, black fur which is made into rugs and ornamental pieces. Bear are unusual species in other respects. Compared to many other Maine mammals, they have a low reproductive rate. If bears were harvested at the same rate as many other species, they would soon become extirpated. Most females likely do not

breed until they reach three to five years of age, and then only every other year, giving birth to one, two, or three cubs. Poor nutrition and factors such as high population densities tend to depress reproductive rates. Many of the young cubs die in lean spring periods when they emerge from their dens. Ironically, there are few restrictions on the bear harvest; yet, the animals appear to be doing well over most of the state. This is partly due to their secretive nature, the relatively limited amount of hunting pressure, and the vast amount of forested land over much of the species' range in Maine. In fact, many years of bounties did not apparently reduce bear numbers substantially. Bears are solitary animals; they maintain wide circuits rather than defined areas with set boundaries, making them less susceptible to traditional hunting techniques. The very system which aids to control their numbers below a state of overabundance, favors increases in their numbers when abundance levels are low by causing more females to deliver more cubs ; and with less competi-

BEAR

,. -

': I â&#x20AC;˘

RANGE IN MAINE

tion for food, more of the cubs survive so the population level rises. Current Status. In the past, there has been almost no research money spent on the black bear in Maine, with the only major work done in 1953-54. Since then, the only work has been to monitor changes in the annual kill. A new bear project underway will O BEAR RANGE

a NOMADIC BEAR RANGE 0 NON-BEAR RANGE

S-4

Bears range widely in Maine but occur less frequently in southern sections.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

start to fill the gap in biological and population information. Bear habitat in Maine includes about 71 per cent of the land area, or 22,775 square miles. This varies from more than 90 per cent of the land area in Unit 2 to less than 4 per cent in densely populated southern units. Unlike deer, bear prefer large tracts of forest and do not adapt well to man's developments. Not surprisingly, the units ranking highest in bear abundance are those with the lowest density of people. In 1955, the bear population was estimated at about 5,000 animals, with a maximum of 7,000, and increasing. The current population (1976) is probably between 7,000 and 10,000 bear. The highest abundance of bear is found in Units 2, 3, and 4; the lowest, in 7 and 8.

Weights of Maine Black Bears by Sex and Age

Age (Yrs)

Male (No.)

Sex Female (No.) -

Combined (No.)

0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-11 11+

64.8 (13) 110.8 (10) 174.1(28) 151.1 (11) 167.2 (10) 266. 8 ( 2) 263.5 ( 4) 318.5 ( 3)

108 .5 (12) 136.9 (11) 123.4 ( 9) 146.5 ( 5) 158.8 ( 5) 153.9 ( 9) 177.6( 4 )

64.8 109.5 163.6 138.6 160.3 189 .6 187.6 238.0

(13) (22) (39) (20) (15) ( 7) (13) ( 7)

Averages

134 .9 (81)

124.9 (54)

130.9 (135)

suitability of the habitat to support bear. Demand for bear will probably increase because of their trophy status, the decrease in bear numbers in other states, and general increase in license sales, especially by hunters expressly hunting bear. Management Goal. The Department's goal is to maintain current levels of bear abundance and distribution and maintain the use at current levels. This means a harvest of 800 - 1,000 bears with maximum harvest levels of not more than 15 per cent of each unit's estimated population. This will satisfy the demand by 30,000 hunters. There are several considerations to be made. First, better methods are needed to determine the size of the bear population, their habitat requirements, and the harvest rates. Second, bear hunting before deer season is increasing, requiring a re-evaluation of permissible uses. Bear hunting with dogs may lead to overexploitation although it may be the most desirable way to hunt bear since it allows hunters to select animals to be harvested. Selection minimizes the taking of cubs, and sows with cubs; and it also results in a very low crippling loss. Bear trapping with leg-hold and cable type traps may serve as a basis for criticism by some segments of the public, and the sale of bears is not consistent with increasing

The number of bears weig hed to produce t hi s cha rt appears after each weig ht figure.

The demand for bear is difficult to evaluate because of the variety of means by which they are taken under existing regulations. Many hunters take bear they encounter while hunting deer in the fall; others either hunt primarily for bear or are hunting bear and deer with equal effort. Bear are also hunted in the spring and summer with the aid of baits and dogs. The harvest has averaged just over 900 bear per year during the past 5 years. The opportunity to hunt bear is not restricted significantly by current harvest regulations. Only in Units 7 and 8 does the supply of bear substantially restrict bear hunting opportunity. Limited access gates to large land-holdings in northern units also restrict hunting to some degree. Projected Trends. Although no significant change in the amount of forest land in Maine is foreseen, bear habitat is likely to decrease as a result of general development, new roads, and other human activity. Large tracts of forest land will be broken up. Short term and local population levels of bear will be determined largely by regulations and hunting effort, but the long term levels will be determined by the Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

its status to a big game animal. The Department will be striving to learn more about the bear harvest through improved registration and sampling techniques, and more adequately to gather biological data from harvested bear. Also of importance is the determination of public attitudes in marginal bear range regarding desired or tolerated levels of bear densities. Harvest regulations must be adjusted to maintain huntable populations where the habitat and resident tolerances permit.

S-5

MOOSE POPULATION NOTE:

Censuses were taken only in the years shown.

Although some statewide censuses were taken, data used in this graph includes only Wildlife

Management Units 1 & 2, approximately the northern one-third of the state.

<1'. w

1975 1971 1968 1967

Overview. The moose was sought by Indians, early settlers, and travelers for its meat and hide. It is the largest member of the deer family and because of its size and impressive "rack" of antlers is a prized big game trophy animal. Currently, Maine is the only state in the northeast with a sizable moose population. The species is extremely abundant in northern portions of the state and may be found in limited numbers in most other areas. Soon after the early settlement of Maine, moose were being overexploited; and despite warnings, no law to protect the animals was enacted until 1830. That law established no bag limit, but it did limit hunting to four months in the fall. Periodic adjustments in the season were made until 1875 when Maine finally established a closed season. Illegal hunting continued, however, with perhaps 1,000 moose hides sold in 1884 in Toronto alone. In that same year, the commissioner requested the Legislature to provide funds for "four good wardens" to patrol the Maine-Quebec border to stop Canadian poaching, a complaint still often heard. By 1900, stiff penalties were levied, but penalties of up to $1,000 and four months in jail did not significantly reduce poaching of moose. Thereafter, seasons were opened and closed in response to varying indications of moose abundance. Since 1936, the hunting season has remained closed. Little effort was made to estimate moose numbers until the late 1960s, when the first aerial census was

1966 2

NUMBER OF MOOSE (THOUSANDS)

flown. Since that time, the estimated population has increased from 6,800 to 18,000. This increase is probably due to clear-cutting practices in many sections of Maine which have improved the habitat conditions for moose, and also to the decreased incidence of the parasite causing the so called "moose sickness." Decrease in this parasite has likely taken place as a result of low deer population levels in recent years. Records of moose suffering from moose sickness go back to the turn of the century, but it was not until recently that the cause was found to be a parasitic roundworm which is nonpathogenic to deer but is carried by them and transmitted to moose. In the moose, the parasite penetrates and damages the brain and spinal cord. There is no known cure or preventive measure, but knowledge about the disease is helpful in evaluating management objectives for the two species. Current Status. Maine contains about 30,000 square miles of forest and wetland cover types which are used by moose to various degrees. Throughout the state, changes in timber harvest practices have, overall, improved the habitat for moose by providing a greater amount of regenerating forest land. Currently (1976), the greatest densities of moose are found in Management Units 1, 2, and 3; the least in 6, 7, and 8. There is an increasing desire among the public to hunt moose as well as to observe and photograph them in the wild. The present population levels can support a harvest of 1,000 to 1,500 moose annually in closely defined management units. Most hunting would likely be relegated to Unit 2. Observing and photographing moose is becoming increasingly appealing and is considered a very important use of the resource. It is both possible and desirable that consumptive, and non-consumptive use as well, be satisfied through a moose management program. S-6

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

UPLAND GAME SPECIES

PLAND GAME SPECIES serve in several impor-

tant capacities, providing enjoyment to hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts, food for larger animals and raptorial birds of prey, and excellent sport for a growing number of hunting enthusiasts. The ruffed grouse, or partridge, and the snowshoe hare are primary among this group of wildlife although it also includes the gray squirrel. The grouse is one of Maine's most sought after game species, a status which contributes greatly to the overall vitality of the outdoor hunting and recreation scene. The snowshoe hare provides winter long activity for hounds and hunters, thereby filling out a schedule otherwise restricted to autumn. Along with these animals and the various uses made of them, go such factors as variable habitat conditions and population levels, the cyclic nature of their populations, and the effect of long term changes in habitat suitability on population levels. All of these must be considered if the Department is to provide for optimum harvest levels. As with many species, grouse, hare, and squirrels are subject to cyclic fluctuations in their abundance. The effect of these variations can be seen in the numbers of predator species - foxes, owls, and others - which occur in abundance often directly correlated to that of their prey. Climate also affects these species. Grouse seek shelter under the snow in winter. When frequent moist and cold winter conditions create a hard crust, grouse cannot penetrate the snow surface to hide

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

from predators and to become insulated from the cold. Wet spring weather can reduce the survival rate of the young chicks. Land use trends affect the long term quality and quantity of habitat available to support these resources and resultant population levels available to the hunter as well as the non-hunting public. These factors and others must be considered in a long term management plan. In that regard, much of the research and management for the upland game species is aimed at assessing habitat use, species abundance, and harvest levels. Regulation of harvests can then be established on a sound basis to assure the welfare of all species.

FARMLAND IN MAINE ~ 7,000,000 0

!i,000,000

'c; 5,000,000 z

:3 4,000,000 :!!: a:

<( 3,000,000

LL LL

0 2,000,000 (I)

51,000,000 <(

1880

1900

1940

1920

1960

1980

YEAR

S-7

Introduction. The ruffed grouse has been common in Maine since the early colonization, when it was compared in 1637 to a similar bird from England. "Partridges there are , much like our Partridges of England, nor are they colored about the heads as those are," an early visitor stated. The writer noted other dissimilarities to the European bird: " ... They sit on trees, for I have seen 40 in one tree at a time; yet at night they fall on the ground, and sit until morning so to gather. .. " Grouse, as they later became recognized, do sit in trees, eating the buds of poplar and other hardwoods. They literally cram the buds into their crops to be digested later when they return to the safety of ground cover, thereby evading avian predators. Market hunting of grouse became so widespread that protective laws were established in 1882. Later, the sale of grouse was prohibited. Season lengths were progressively shortened until the 1930s when our present limit of 4 birds and a 6 week season was established. Current Status. Most of Maine's upland except for agricultural land is considered grouse habitat, and the birds are found in relative abundance in most areas. The best habitat, for the most part, occurs in southern , coastal, and central management Units 4, 6, 7, and 8 where active and abandoned farmland is commonly found interspersed with woodland. There are about 82,000 hunters who annually report taking one or more grouse, with a total harvest of approximately 250,000 birds. Much of this hunting effort is concentrated in a relatively small percentage of what is considered grouse habitat, principally on abandoned farmland in southern, coastal, and central areas and along woods roads in northern sections. Although 250,000 birds is estimated to be less than one-half of the allowable harvest, the distribution of hunters results in a great variation in hunting pressure from one area to another. Of particular note is the heavy demand in Units 4, 7, and 8. Statewide, however, there is an under harvest due to several factors including: the reluctance by many hunters to S-8

take dogs in the field during deer hunting season, little or no hunting pressure in older growth woodland, and heavy foliage in most units during the early fall. Projected Trends. Grouse habitat is improved by cutting practices which create more frequent interspersions of different tree age classes. Reverting farmland also provides an "edge" type of habitat. In central and northern units, it is expected that increased demand for wood and the subsequent shorter cutting cycle will improve grouse habitat and increase their abundance. However, in other units, urban development and the loss of farmland to even-aged timber stands will reduce the amount of habitat, and grouse numbers will decline. Overall, this will not significantly affect the statewide supply and demand situation since there is (1976) and will continue to be a surplus of grouse above annual harvest levels. In all likelihood, the succession of abandoned farmland back to forest will have a significant impact on future grouse hunting. Hunting success in the southern, coastal, and central wildlife management units will decrease with the decrease in the occurrence of various types of abandoned farmland such as old orchards, grape arbors, etc., which attract grouse in the fall. The number of grouse hunters is not expected to increase sharply although a projected increase of about 20 per cent over the 15-year planning period is not excessive. Maine should remain a prime area for quality grouse hunting, especially with the expected increase in access to northern wildlife management units. Management Goal. Because of the nature of current grouse populations, the goal is to maintain the grouse abundance in line with habitat capacity and allow an increase in use of about 20 per cent. To maintain the numbers, land use and cutting practices which are conducive to good grouse habitat must be encouraged, and regulations will have to be established which distribute hunters more evenly over the state, increasing use in northern units.

t- O') l.Q -.:!' M t- O') ID C.000-.:t<-.:t<M0-.:!<00 t- C.O i:.C> 0 C.O CN C.O O') Mn Cf5' l.Qn CNn csf Mn Mn

OOMt-00-.:!'C.OOM

csici:i,-;ooO)~c-,:,-;

t- O') O') 00 00 00 t- t-

Ot-CNC.Ol.Ol.OO')C.0 MMl.0000MO')M t-O')l.OOOt-000 66cioot.Dci1Dn6 MC.OMCNOOMIDtMl.OMCNC.0-.:t<OCN Mn IDn (Nn Mn Mn Mn rl Mn

O') M C.On tCN

Overview. Although the gray squirrel is much sought after throughout much of its range, it is not a highly demanded game species in Maine. Ninety per cent of the squirrel population is found in the southern half of the state, with marginal range limited by climatic factors and lack of oaks and other hardwoods that produce nuts or mast. Gray squirrels are hunted incidently to other game hunting, and there have been regulations on the harvest since 1939. Present regulations permit hunting during the months of October and November with a daily limit of four and a total of eight in possession. Hunting of gray squirrels in parks and urban habitat is prohibited. In the future, the gray squirrel population in areas not restricted to hunting is not likely to increase significantly, nor is the consumptive use of the animal. The goals for managing this species in Maine are built largely around maintaining adequate levels to insure their visibility to the non-consuming public, and allowing harvests consistent with annually produced surplus animals. To attempt to increase the population would likely exceed the capability of the habitat, expose urban areas to overabundance situations, and increase the incidence of nuisance conditions.

C.O ~ 00

0 "'d' O') ID tC.O C-

M 00 M O') 00 M ooct5' <N CN

00 ID M

C.O CN

<NOOMl.0-.:t<O-.:t< 00 M C.O M M M C.O O') O') O') ~ On Mn OOn Mn t-n -.:!'n l.Qn C-.:!'t-M00C.00 Ml.Qt-.:t<-.:t<mOOMO')OCN 0 0-.;t<CNOC.OMOCN M rl l.(.)n ct5' Mn Mn Mn rl CM

MOOMIDMMMl.O M CNt-l.Ql.QCNO')t-M M -.:!'n Mn t-n Mn On <Nn l.Qn t-n M MO"'d'C.0-.:!'0IDM C.O l.Ot-"'d'MOOt-C.000 0 l.OO')l.QC.000<:.C>Mt--.:!' rll.Qn(Nnct5'ririrlrl 6 CN

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

S-9

Introduction. In Maine, the snowshoe hare is becoming a popular game animal with attributes which set it above the cottontail rabbit for hunters. The cottontail occurs only in southwestern Maine, but it is the number one game species in the United States. Unlike the hare, it seeks a den when pursued, thereby terminating the chase shortly after it begins. The hare, on the other hand, does not seek a den; it leads dogs on a merry chase through thickets and across streams, usually returning full circle to the original spot, on established runways. In the winter, the hare turns white, thereby blending with the snow cover; it will remain inconspicuously in position under a tree or in a thicket unless disturbed. Snowshoe hare have a high reproduction potential with up to four litters produced each year. The young, called leverets, number 3 - 4 per litter. In spite of cyclic fluctuations in abundance, the hare provides great surpluses each year, making it an important and usually abundant prey species. During low periods in the cycle, sportsmen often become alarmed and recommend restocking programs. Such programs are extremely expensive, and past experience has shown these efforts to be of little value. Hares were traditionally captured with snares, a practice still common in some Canadian provinces but now prohibited in Maine. The first "game" laws did not include hare, and it was not until 1905 that the first closed season was established in Maine. An October-through-March open season set in 1929 has remained in effect to the present time with only minor changes. Current Status. Hares are relatively abundant through most of the state, with highest populations in regions containing a mixture of young hardwood and softwood trees. The estimated statewide population is capable of sustaining a harvest much greater than the current rate although the supply and demand varies greatly among management units. Unit 8 has the highest density of hunters per square mile, amounting to 57 hunting man-days per square mile. At the other extreme, Unit 2 has considerably less, with fewer than 1 hunting man-day per square mile. Clearly, the op-

S-10

portunity to hunt in more populated units is restricting the availability of land on which one can hunt hare. For improved quality of the hunt, hunters need only travel to less heavily used units. Projected Trends. Except in Units 7 and 8 where urban development will gradually reduce habitat quality, snowshoe hare will continue in abundance. Small-game license sales are increasing, but the demand for snowshoe hare during the planning period is not expected to exceed the supply. Land posting may reduce hunting opportunity in southern and central units, but overall opportunity to hunt is expected to remain more than adequate. Management Goal. With the current supply of hares and the relatively light hunting pressure on the species, future supplies can be expected to satisfy adequately the projected levels of demand. The overall manage-

ment goal of the Department is to maintain current abundance levels and allow for an increase in the harvest to 400,000 hare by 60,000 hunters. The only restriction on use beyond current season limitations will be the restriction of use of dogs to hunt hare in 6 counties during the deer season. These objectives will insure excellent opportunity for hunters and non-consumers to enjoy the remarkable snowshoe hare in Maine for years to come.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES

\ ,~

FAR BACK as 1882, the commissioners of inland fisheries and game wrote, "wild ducks are rare and to be seen in but limited numbers owing to widespread crime of baiting and netting." A law established in 1870 making it illegal to use "other than the usual method of sporting with firearms" to take ducks and woodcock apparently marks the beginning of regulatory management of migratory birds in Maine. Eight years later, a law was established to prohibit destruction of nests, eggs, or young, Since that time, periodic amendments and revisions provided greater control of harvests and seasonal protection. In 1900, federal concern resulted in the Lacey Act, which prohibits interstate shipment of game for sale. Congress ratified the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918, bringing comprehensive management regulation and law enforcement to the protection of migratory

birds. In 1935, the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit was established at the University of Maine, with much emphasis on waterfowl research programs. Also in 1935, the University of Maine was among the first to offer degrees in wildlife conservation, and it has provided a continuing source of well-trained highly qualified waterfowl biologists. In 1934, the federal duck stamp began providing funds to purchase, develop and manage waterfowl areas. In 1937, this was reinforced by the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) by which sportsmen provide a significant source of funds ( through taxes on sporting equipment) for scientific study and wildlife management. As a result of federal aid and new sources of funding, waterfowl management became a reality in Maine. First came a statewide waterfowl habitat survey, followed by an extensive aquatic planting program and

finally an evaluation study in the early 1950s. Waterfowl hunting greatly increased following World War II, and a scarcity of black ducks occurred in the late 40's. The "Joint Black Duck" committee, and later the" Atlantic Waterfowl Council," composed of state, federal, and private personnel, worked to enhance waterfowl management throughout the Atlantic Flyway. Maine has continued to be active in all these councils, as well as in research and habitat management and wetlands inventory. The state serves as an important breeding ground for many waterfowl species and woodcock. It is also a wintering area for waterfowl and a migratory passageway for many migrating game bird species. The importance of Maine as a waterfowl production area is related to only a few of all the species which are observed in Maine from time to time; but it is, for example, a major breeding ground for black ducks, woodcock, eiders, and wood ducks which are harvested in Maine. Merrymeeting Bay provides an important "staging area" for migrating Canada geese and various other species of waterfowl. Up to 15,000 Canada geese may concentrate in the "Bay" area during the spring migration. Because so many species congregate and/or nest in Maine, the state has a responsibility to other states and provinces as well as ourselves, in assuring adequate management of these species. Management of migratory game species is an important component of the Department's efforts to maintain and enhance the state's inland fisheries and wildlife resources. This work is principally concerned with the development of annual species assessments and regulatory recommendations by personnel of the Migratory Bird Project, for consideration by the commissioner and his advisory and waterfowl councils. The enforcement of established regulations is also an important aspect of management. Of particular importance is the need to establish regulations providing adequately for the maintenance of the population of Maine-reared birds, as Maine is an important breeding area for several species. And we still must allow for the best utilization of migrant birds consistent with federal guidelines. This is an extremely difficult task, as population levels of the several species change as the birds frequent the state for different reasons during various times of the year.

S-12

Introduction. There are 29 species of duck which either spend the winter, breed, or migrate through Maine. Management is principally concerned with the preservation of existing wetland habitat and the establishment of hunting regulations which are responsive to hunting pressures and the available supplies of these resources. Species which breed in Maine include the black duck, blue-winged teal, ringneck dugk, goldeneye, and eider, as well as the common and hooded merganser. Abundance levels of these species have varied over the years in response to habitat changes, hunting pressure, and various management, regulatory, and law enforcement efforts. At least one species, the ringneck duck, pioneered and became established during recent times. Maine contains a variety of wetland habitats which are rather limited in occurrence and important to both native and migrant ducks. Coastal waters and intertidal flats which remain open throughout the winter months provide feeding and resting areas for ducks which over-winter in Maine, as well as for spring migrants which arrive in Maine before ice-out on inland waters. The adverse affects, both direct and indirect, resulting from coastal developments which disturb and

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

pollute these areas is of particular concern in light of the increasing demand for coastal property, pressure for off-shore oil drilling, and deep water oil-port facilities. Preservation of the amount and quality of these areas is vital to the long term welfare of the waterfowl populations in the state and along the Atlantic coast. For resident species, it is particularly important that inland wetland habitat be maintained to provide suitable living space needed to support nesting and brooding by native birds. Banding, production, and habitat studies, as well as behavioral investigations, continue to add new information needed to improve the overall management of wild ducks. Wood ducks have benefited from an active nest-box installation and maintenance program, and their numbers have been increased to relatively high abundance in many sections of Maine. Numbers of eiders, the major coastal island breeder, have increased from low to relatively high abundance. Presently, they are being studied in great detail by researchers at the University of Maine. Current and Projected Trends. The estimated number of waterfowl hunters and the duck harvest statewide since 197 3 have declined. This is partly in response to the increased cost ($5.00) of the migratory bird stamp, restricted seasons and bag limits, and reduced hunter affluence during the recent inflationary period. The long term trend in hunting pressure, however, is increasing, as reflected by hunting license and duck stamp sales. It appears that Maine-raised black ducks have been harvested in Maine at or above levels of allowable harvest. This has led to a reduced black duck bag limit in recent years, "noon" openings, and a shortening of the legal hunting hours. In 197 5, the opening day on black ducks was delayed by three days after the general duck season opened. Through the co-operative efforts of the Atlantic Flyway Council's black duck committee and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, continuous review of the population status and reasons for the apparent decline will lead to better management and ultimately to a reversal of this trend. Overall, habitat for breeding ducks in Maine should not decline in quality or quantity with continued efforts to protect critical wetland areas. Management Goal. Waterfowl comprise one of the most important groups of game species in terms of sport hunting, esthetic composition of the wildlife community, and as an index to overall environmental quality. In view of this, the goal is to increase the opportunity to hunt, photograph, and enjoy waterfowl by increasing their abundance but to maintain actual use in hunter-days below the estimated maximum allowable use. The distribution and the species composition of the harvest are important elements of the management objectives. This becomes particuMaine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

larly complicated when factors peculiar to individual species are considered in the establishment of harvest regulations tailored to supply and demand conditions. Though black ducks are in Maine throughout the season, wood ducks and teal are generally gone by the first of November; and goldeneyes and bufflehead will just be arriving by that date. Usually, the greatest hunting pressure occurs on opening days and Saturdays. Future harvest regulations should acknowledge these variations; however, season dates and bag limits to take all variables into consideration would be complicated and would meet considerable public criticism. Research programs will continue to monitor the effects of harvests, disease, pesticides, and other factors on waterfowl populations, as time and money permit. Changes in wetland habitat and the effect of pioneering mallards on black duck populations need to be constantly reviewed. Regulations should adequately balance supplies of wild ducks with the demand.

DUCK STAMP SALES IN MAINE 20

en C 2

~ 15 0

:r:

t: C

...J

0 10 Cl) Cl)

~ ~

I-

C/)

DUCK STAMP PRICES $1 .00 1934-49

1950-59 l960-71

$2.00

1972 on

$5.00

$3.00

1935

1945

1955 YEAR

1965

1975

S-13

Introduction. The woodcock has been a popular game bird in Maine for many years. Its erratic flight through dense cover, when flushed, challenges the shooting skill of the most proficient hunters. This migratory species is actually classified as a shore bird, but its habits are more like that of upland game birds. It spends the day probing for earthworms in moist soils along bottom lands, abandoned farmland, and under second growth hardwoods. At dusk, they walk or fly to openings in the forest or abandoned fields to roost - probably to avoid predators. The migration of Maine-reared woodcock to wintering areas extending from southern New Jersey to Georgia begins about mid-October. By mid-November, only a few stragglers may be encountered in extreme southern and coastal Maine. They are among the earliest birds to arrive in the spring when the familiar "peent" of the male marks the beginning of their mating season. Woodcock are particularly susceptible to changes in habitat and to certain pesticides. Abandoned farmland in mid-stages of succession, with alder and aspen stands interspersed with small openings, provides ideal habitat. Large stands of middle-to-old growth trees, urbanization, and extensive clearings deprive woodcock of the necessary elements for feeding and protection. Fluctuations in woodcock abundance have occurred throughout its history, and with them, changes in harvest regulations. Management in Maine has consisted mostly of setting harvest regulations consistent with the level of abundance. Current and Projected Trends. The distribution of woodcock habitat changes as forests mature, farms

are abandoned, and urbanization spreads. Currently, Units 4, 6, 7, and 8 provide the most habitat and, correspondingly, the most woodcock. Unit 1 contains large areas of cleared agricultural land and late succession forests and lacks the interspersion characteristic of ideal woodcock habitat. Unit 2 contains mostly late succession forest resulting, likewise, in poor habitat except in bottom land areas. The opportunity to hunt woodcock in many portions of the state is becoming more and more restricted by "posting" and the loss of woodcock covers to development. Hunting pressure is greatest in southern units where human and woodcock densities are greatest. The amount of woodcock habitat will likely decline, and with the decline will come a reduction in woodcock abundance and hunting opportunity. The abundance of woodcock in Wildlife Management Unit 4, which currently (1976) contains the greatest amount of reverting farmland, will gradually decline as the vegetative growth on these lands outgrows its value as woodcock habitat. At the same time, hunter interest has been increasing rapidly as the sport becomes more and more popular. This will result in excessive demand, and harvest regulations will have to be adjusted accordingly. Management Goal. Just as woodcock breeding, nest-

WOODCOCK HARVEST DAT A VJ

120+---=:~:c:c.~:=::~e .--

- - - - - + --l-l--+-+-+--

~~ ~~

+----- - -t-+--

----F~-t-+---+--+-+--+-~---+-

60t-----t-t--t--t---r!--j---j---t--t--t----t-+-+--t--i---t-+----l---+---

o 0 0 0

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

197d

1975

HUNTING SEASON

ing, and rearing habitat in Maine is declining, so is wintering habitat in other states. Because this bird is both a resident and migrant within the state, as well as being harvested elsewhere on its fall migration, management is extremely complicated. However, in order to fulfill its responsibility of providing sufficient resource abundance for both consuming and nonconsuming public, the Department set a goal of maintaining current abundance levels by influencing private land use and establishing harvest regulations which are responsive to assessments of breeding success, survival, and harvest of native birds, while allowing the optimum harvest of migrants consistent with available supplies in the Atlantic Flyway.

S-14

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

1J ce 0: **

-1r ~ 0

-t']~i cc cc "'O

ig~~

00 ©

-:-... ©

'X,

'°· C\l

<.O

-r

l.Q

O'l

L-

C'l

L.t'),,

-r.

<N <N.

l C'l C'l

'X,

l.Q

cr,

"SI" ,.....

C'1

O'l

-r

-r ©_

00 ,.-... 00

~-~ I

~~~ ~

M 0 M.

00 i-

oo.

l.Q-

~T~ ~

M"1

<..0... ._

......

Overview. The importance of geese to the general public can not be overstated; the typical "V" flight formation and deep, distinct honk of these birds brings an emotional response from even the most hardened individuals. The number of Canada geese in the Atlantic Flyway has increased from about 250,000 in the late 1940s to a current population (1976) of nearly 1,000,000. Maine is principally a passageway for birds migrating from wintering areas along the midAtlantic coast to nesting areas in Canada. The largest concentrations occur during the spring migrations although many birds are encountered annually during the fall hunting season. In Maine, young local breeding populations have been established in several areas from geese transplants from New York and New Jersey. The goal for management is to increase distribution and abundance of breeding Canada geese in Maine and to increase harvest and use of the resource. Hunting of Canada geese will probably increase locally. This will likely require redistribution of hunting pressure to alleviate pressure around prominent coastal staging areas. The use of transplant programs should be continued to move surplus birds from southern sections of the state to northerly areas. State-owned management areas will be developed to provide nesting islands and feeding pastures when probable success is likely, and hunting regulations will be designed to restrict use near important production areas.

0,,, Q)

ti<Sl 0

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

8-15

UPLAND FURBEARER SPECIES Overview. The distribution and abundance of upland furbearers in Maine has undergone many changes over the past fifty years. Accounts of past population levels of these animals in Maine provide good examples of how the status of a species can change over a period of time. This group includes such species as the fisher, marten, fox, bobcat, weasel, coyote , and raccoon. Fisher populations rapidly increased in most sections of the state, from very low to record high levels, before declining in recent years. Marten

TRAPPING LICENSE SALES 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 02,600

52,400 C/)2,200 ~2,000 ~ 1,800 W 1,600

:J 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 1955

1960

1965

YEAR

S-16

1970

1975

have steadily recovered from their near extinct status, and today (1976) they are very common in northern Maine. Fox numbers periodically increased and decreased. The recent establishment of the eastern coyote in western and northern portions of Maine deserves particular note. Trapping activity also changes. Rather favorable fur market conditions and a high level of trapping activity during the early 1900s were followed by a period of depressed fur prices and trapping effort following World War II. Fur prices rapidly increased during the 1970s, with. Maine trapping license sales more than doubling from 1970 - 1975. The relationship of high fur prices, increasing trapping pressure, and changes in animal abundance is likely the cause of a significant turnabout in the upland furbearer abundance and use situation. In many areas, the current demand for various upland furbearers is gre3:ter than can be satisfied on a sustained basis. At this time (1976), pelt values are still going up, and if history repeats itself, prices of pelts may go much higher. As a result of long range planning efforts, the Department has recently completed the development

Increased interest in trapping and an increase in t he value of furs has resulted in greater pressure on Maine furbearers.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 19 7 6

of a comprehensive management program for upland furbearers, based on the latest information available at the time. The plan will be updated on a regular basis to keep it current. Management goals and objectives were also developed (See "You've Got A Plan," Maine Fish and Wildlife, Fall 1975 issue). The upland furbearer management program is designed to measure species abundance more precisely (as well as hunting and trapping pressure) and to develop regulatory proposals to insure that future harvests are maintained in balance with allowable harvest levels. Initial activities are concentrating in several areas. Of primary importance is the development of upland furbearer trapping and hunting regulations which best support the species management goals and objectives. Other work is concentrating on (a) assessing the practicability of accurately measuring upland furbearer population levels and establishing allowable harvest limits within a Wildlife Management Unit; (b) identifications of specific cover types utilized by the upland furbearer species and measurement of the amount of each type within management units; (c) refinement of harvest estimates on a management unit basis, using pelt tagging records and mail questionnaires; and (d) measuring and evaluating land use trends in regards to their future impact on upland furbearer populations. This work is only the beginning of a comprehensive management program for upland furbearers in Maine. We hope our efforts will result in a better understanding of the animals and will allow the fullest utilization of these renewable resources consistent with the capacity of each species population to maintain itself.

8, which are for the most part too widely settled to provide quality bobcat habitat. The bobcat, an integral part of the wildlife community, is one of the few major predators in Maine. Its recent extremely high value as a furbearer, the sport value of "cat" hunting, and the moral obligation to provide for the wisest use of all wildlife species, together form the basis for management. Current Status. Available information (1976) indicates that Maine's 26,000 square miles of woodland is capable of supporting 4,000 bobcat and a sustained annual harvest approaching 1,000 animals. Population levels in most areas correspond to the availability of suitable habitat, with the highest densities likely occurring in Wildlife Management Unit 6 and the smallest densities in Units 7 and 8. High quality bobcat habitat is characterized as forest land containing a good interspersion of seedling and sapling growth and lacking suburban attributes. Several types of information are of particular importance to bobcat management efforts. These include demand (use) estimates based upon harvest records and hunter and trapper questionnaires, and bobcat supply estimates based on evaluations of habitat conditions and expected bobcat density levels throughout the state. Projected Trends. Looking to the future, the planning period to 1990, it is expected that more intensive forest management will increase the quality and quantity of bobcat habitat in most areas. If the present extremely high fur prices continue, this will result in a greatly increased demand for bobcats in the near future. Also, as hunting of other game increases, more bobcats will be taken secondarily. While the potential for higher bobcat numbers is

Introduction. If bobcats were to exist in superabundance, few people would be aware of it. They are secretive animals, nocturnal and quiet. Even under ideal population densities in Maine, they are too few to attract much visual attention by the general public and the average hunter. Currently, most sections of the state contain adequate range to support this species, except for Wildlife Management Units 7 and Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

S-17

expected to increase, so is the potential use of the animal. The demand for bobcats is expected to equal or exceed the supply in the near future if it has not already done so. Current reports (1976) suggest that overuse of bobcat may already be occurring in many areas. It should be noted that successful anti-trapping efforts could result in legislation reducing the opportunity to trap, thereby reducing the demand on bobcats. Obviously, future fur market conditions and trapping regulations will have the greatest influence on bobcat trapping activity. Management Goal. The management goal is to allow an increase in bobcat use consistent with efforts to maintain their abundance at normal, adequate levels. The strategy and supporting research to obtain this goal are based on current information and investigations regarding the habits and status of the animal. A more precise definition of what constitutes bobcat habitat, information regarding the amount of use of different habitat types, the relationship with competing animals, and a determination of bobcat abundance levels within each management unit are needed. Information must be gathered on the use and success by bobcat hunters and trappers and on the amount of land that is or will be restricted from use.

Introduction. The most easily recognized and also the smallest members of the weasel or mustelid family are the shorttail, longtail, and least weasel. No distinction is made among them in the fur trade, but the shorttail is the most common in Maine. In the winter, the weasels turn white and become less conspicuous against the snow. They are extremely bold and inquisitive, and in rushing around aggressively searching for food, they often fall to traps intended for other species. Because of this, along with a small amount of intentional trapping, many weasels are taken annually. This harvest varies somewhat with the market values and weasel abundance, both of which fluctuate through the years; but because of usually low prices paid for weasel, the annual surplus now greatly exceeds the demand. While there are no S-18

specific regulations regarding weasel harvests, data from harvest records help to show overall abundance of small predators as well as of their prey. Current Status. Weasel habitat includes old fields, young forests, and other areas where the small mammals on which they prey abound. This includes most of Maine with most abundance in Unit 7, least in Unit 3. In no area is the weasel subject to significant trapping pressure except in Units 4 and 7; even there, the supply greatly exceeds the demand. Projected Trends. It is likely that current forest practices (1976) will perpetuate young tree age classes as more and more areas are cut and new tree growth is started. This is expected to offset the loss of weasel habitat as abandoned farms mature to woodland. As with most wild animals, cultural developments will continue to erode habitat in Units 7 and 8 as well as localized developments in other units. There is no indication at present that the upward trend in fur prices has or will affect weasel pelt values. However, weasels will probably continue to be taken incidently by other trappers and serve also as a "learning" species for new and young trappers. It is unlikely that the animal will ever be fully utilized on a consumptive basis.

Management Goal. The goal for management of this abundant and underharvested furbearer is to maintain its abundance, thereby allowing an increase in all types of use. This goal is well within the capability of the habitat and could, in fact, be attained without special effort if pelt prices rose and non-consumptive use became increasingly important. There would be no undesirable consequences, and the harvest data from trapper questionnaires would be useful in monitoring population trends.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

Introduction. The coyote is one of the most intriguing members of Maine's wildlife community because it represents the establishment of a virtually new species of which the potential as a predator of game and domestic animals as well as its effect on other predators is largely unknown. The animal was first thought to be a wild dog, later a coyote-dog hybrid ( coydog); now it appears to be a coyote with an introduction of wolf genes. Called the eastern coyote, it is probably a descendant of the northeastern coyote and although possessing several attributes of small wolves is coyote-like in its actual niche and behavior. Understandably, it is feared for its predatory habits and revered for its cleverness and adaptability. The coyote did not increase dramatically in abundance until about 1972-73. Since that time, fur sales, trapper reports, and other data suggest that its population numbers are erupting; now the animal is becoming firmly established in all but extreme coastal areas of Units 7 and 8. Current Status. All the forested and agricultural land within the state is considered to be coyote habitat. Specific areas are used to varying degrees, but there is no definite habitat preference information available at this time (1976). Actual density or abundance of the coyote is difficult to ascertain accurately, especially at this time when the numbers appear to be increasing rapidly. Based on observations in Maine, published information from other areas, and the estimated capacity of potential habitat, the approximate numbers of coyotes lie between 1,500 and 5,500 animals. The highest numbers are likely in Management Units 2, 4 and 3; the smallest in Units 8 and 7. Fur harvest estimates for 3 years indicate that an average of about 100 coyotes are taken by about 80 trappers and hunters, but these numbers are changing yearly. The consumptive use has had virtually no effect on the population. Projected Trends. During the planning period to 1990, we expect the coyote to complete its range expansion and occupy all of the suitable range in the state. Populations will probably rise until the pioneer stage is complete and all available habitat is settled. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

At that time, there should be a decrease in overall numbers as the local populations become established and stable, thereafter rising and falling in response to various environmental conditions. The coyote should serve as a valuable furbearer to trappers who may find lower densities of other fur animals. Market value of the pelt is difficult to predict but is expected to remain an adequate incentive for its continued use. Demand is not expected to exceed the supply during the planning period. Management Goals. The management goal is to increase the consumptive use of coyote in response to its expected increase in abundance. The Department will be encouraging the use of this resource by hunters and trappers in order to reduce nuisance problems in localized areas. No attempt will be made to eradicate the coyote because such an effort would be costly and, in all likelihood, unproductive. Many of the research needs pertaining to other furbearers (habitat preference, abundance, and distribution) per-

tain as well to the coyote. In addition, studies should be conducted to evaluate the effect of coyotes on other wildlife species and to develop methods to increase trapping efficiency. Because so little is known about the coyote's role in Maine, the management goals and objectives will be carefully evaluated and updated as new information becomes available. 8-19

Introduction. Red foxes have been relatively abundant in Maine since the early colonization of the state, but their population levels have fluctuated periodically in response to such factors as prey abundance and climatic conditions; changes in the habitat brought about by fire, timber harvesting, and agriculture; variable hunting and trapping pressure; and disease. When overabundant, the fox is usually susceptible to disease - especially mange and rabies - and can be a public health hazard. Trapping and hunting provide the only practical way of removing surplus animals in order to maintain a healthy population. Low fur prices, as well as limited fox hunting and trapping pressure in the past, have encouraged high numbers of foxes and frequent outbreaks of rabies. Currently (1976) high fur values, good habitat, and abundant foxes appear to be providing use-opportunity at very high levels. However, tagging records are needed to evaluate more accurately the abundance and distribution of foxes, especially as numbers of trappers and hunters are expected to increase. As a natural scavenger and predator, the red fox fills an important ecological niche in Maine. This,

together with the great esthetic and economic value, makes the fox one of the more critical wildlife species to be considered in the wildli,fe planning program. Current Status. Between 15,000 and 22,000 foxes are currently estimated to occur over virtually all of Maine's 29,000 square miles of wooded and agricultural land, but their distribution varies considerably among management units. Fox numbers are high in the vast expanse of more mature woodland of Units 2 and 3, but the densities (number of foxes per square mile) are low. In contrast, although the actual total numbers are somewhat less, the densities are highest in the agricultural regions of Units 4, 6, 7, and 8. However, the number of foxes harvested in all Units except 2 and 5 appears to exceed the annual surplus. This is probably due to a high number of trappers in the more populated southern and western sections of Maine and the easy access to trapping

FOX PELT PRICES

S40

S35

S30 1...J UJ Q.

a: S 25 UJ Q.

u ii:

S20

S15

S 10

1964 65

YEAR

S-20

1975

areas in parts of eastern Maine. The suspected imbalance between trapping pressure and allowable harvest levels in these units is likely causing the fox population levels to be maintained below the abundance potential of their habitat. However, on a statewide basis - especially in remote sections of northwestern Maine - more foxes could be harvested by both trappers and hunters. A higher harvest would insure the quality of fox populations as well as provide sufficient non-consumptive use for photographers, hikers, and other nature enthusiasts. Projected Trends. The best fox habitat is agricultural land. Continued abandonment, subdivision , or restoration in southern regions of Maine may be responsible for a decrease in fox numbers sufficient to create a more serious supply and demand imbalance. In conMaine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

trast the woodlands of northern sections are being mor~ intensively harvested and will create better fox habitat as young tree classes become established. This improvement in fox habitat should offset the negative trend in southern sections, but it will not alleviate the problems associated with the distribution of the harvest. In northern sections, high fox densities may set the stage for outbreaks of diseases which could sharply reduce fox numbers. With an expected continuation of high fur prices through the planning period, the overall demand is probably going to exceed both the supply and the opportunity for all types of use. Careful evaluation and clear management objectives are necessary because of the complex factors associated with fox abundance levels. Management Goal. The management goal is to increase the abundance of foxes in areas where population levels are currently low because of high hunting and trapping harvest levels, and to increase the consumptive use where the fox numbers are high and may cause sharp natural declines. The statewide objectives are to maintain a harvest of about 7,500 foxes by about 10,000 hunters and trappers, by redistributing use to balance supply and harvest levels better. It appears that harvest levels should be decreased in Units 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 and increased in Units 2 and 5. This will have to be done by both regulatory and public information programs. In order to assure the continued abundance and availability of foxes, the Department is also recommending and implementing various research and management programs: these include research studies of optimum fox abundance levels; incidence of disease; relationships with other potentially competing species; and improved documentation of abundance and use information so that the objectives of providing optimum use, both consumptive and non-consumptive, may be realized.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

Overview. Probably of great surprise to many people is that the skunk was at one time second only to muskrats in the value of the annual catch. After the "fur boom" of the 1920s, the value of skunk pelts declined, and in recent years both the harvest and the pelt value in Maine have been low. The skunk is a scavenger and predator, and there has been concern for the affect it may have on the nesting success of waterfowl and other birds. However, studies have shown that the skunk has a considerable value as a predator of agricultural pests mice, rats, and various insects. Because of their susceptibility to rabies, skunks are nearly always implicated in rabies epidemics. Their close association with human habitation makes them a potential problem. Changes in land use, disease, and other factors are responsible for large fluctuations in their numbers. Currently (1976), there is little consumptive demand on the animal, and even though prices may increase somewhat, the demand for skunks is not expected to increase greatly. Management will be planned to maintain optimum levels to insure viable populations without introducing nuisance or detrimental public health conditions.

8-21

likely less than 4,000 animals; and although high trapping pressure is probably associated with this decline , it is very unlikely that the extremely high population levels experienced in various areas during the 1960s could be sustained over a long period of time. The greatest densities of fisher likely occur in Units 4 and 7 and the smallest in Units 5 and 6. Current available information indicates that the number of trappers is increasing while harvest rates and the

FISHER PELT PRICES

Introduction. The fish er has historically been one of Maine's most valuable furbearers. At a time when the average man 's wage was only a few dollars a week, a trapper could make as much as $100 on a fisher pelt and often spent several days tracking to capture the elusive mustelid. As trapping pressure increased, the fisher population declined until the mid-1930s when it was at an all-time low; the legislature declared a closed season at that time. In 1950, the season was reopened, with the tagging of pelts required, but it was closed again from 1951-1955. Since then , open season lengths have varied, with regulatory power given to the Department, and fisher have recovered throughout most of Maine. Once thought to be a species of the deep sprucefir forests, the fisher is now believed to be more adaptable, inhabiting hardwood forests and reverting farmland in all but eastern sections of the state. Attention to this economically important animal has consisted of the maintenance of fur tagging records and fisher reintroduction programs. Fisher management has been largely one of regulation of the harvest. Current Status. The potential fisher habitat in Maine includes most of the state's 26,000 square miles of woodland although the species does not currently inhabit all of this area. Fisher numbers have decreased in many areas over the last few years from a record population estimated to have ranged from 4,600 to 12,000 animals. The current population (1976) is

... ..J

~ $50 w

ii:

~ $40

~ ~

S30

!i:.

~ $20

1970

YEAR

Noteworthy increases in fur values has stimulated interest in fisher trapping in the past few years.

With increased pressure on the fisher there came a distinct change in the number of anima ls caught .

FISHER HARVEST RATES (1)4.5

g4.0 m gi3.5 "T1

~3.0 "T1

cij2,5

:::c ;2.0

;l 1.5 )> ~1.0

-c

::0 .5

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

YEAR

total harvest are declining in most areas. All available evidence indicates that with the exception of Unit 2, the demand is exceeding the supply. Projected Trends. Demand for fisher is expected to fluctuate somewhat with pelt values, but it will probably remain high because of increasing numbers of trappers. No significant changes are expected in fisher habitat except for continued loss of forestland to urbanization in Units 7 and 8. There are some localized, exploding fisher populations which are exS-22

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

pected to stabilize as the animals become firmly established. Without further safeguards, increased trapping will probably depress fisher population levels overall if the pelt values remain high. Management Goals. The management goal is to reverse the declining population trend and ultimately allow more trappers to harvest more fisher. In order to do this, fisher abundance levels in Units 5 and 6 must be increased. Trappers can be encouraged to use Unit 2, and trapper use should be discouraged in Units 4, 7, 8, 5, and 6. The management strategy includes the use of information and education techniques (to shift demand) and regulatory power (to restrict harvest) in the appropriate management units. With adequate concurrence of the public, these goals of fisher abundance and use throughout the state may be realized. But it will require that more precise information be collected regarding abundance levels, trapper use and success, and the impact of non-legal and incidental harvests.

Introduction. The pine marten or sable is a remarkable and tenacious little cousin to the fisher. Little historic information from Maine is available on the marten. This furbearer is extremely susceptible to trapping pressure and often is caught in sets not intended for it. Maine is geographically located at the southern margin of the marten's range, but the animal may have occurred in localized mountain sections in relative abundance when the overall population levels were low. Marten were considered rare and in danger of extinction in the early 1940s, and, although their abundance has increased in some sections, the season remained closed from 1935 to 1973. Populations increased sufficiently in northern Maine to allow a section in that part of the state to be opened each January in 1973, 197 4, and 197 5 with a 5 animal bag limit. Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forest types are considered important habitat for marten, but current research is intended to determine more precisely the habitat requirements and range limitations for the marten. Current Status. Unlike other, more adaptable furMaine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

S-23

bearers, the marten does not appear to occur in any abundance beyond a 6,000 square mile area in northwestern Maine. The animal is either scarce or absent in most southern sections of the state. Units 1 and 2 have the highest densities; Units 5, 6, 7, and 8 have none. The low pelt values and the restrictive seasons have resulted in little increase in trapping pressure as compared to other furbearers. Projected Trends. Currently occupied marten range is not expected to change significantly during the planning period. Climatic conditions, lack of suitable habitat, and other factors may ultimately limit the expansion of the marten's range. With continued regulation of trapping and low market value of marten pelts, some extension of range is anticipated. This will likely be slower than that of the fisher because of a lower reproduction rate and, apparently, somewhat less adaptability. The opportunity to use marten should increase as access to Unit 2 increases and as the animal's range extends further south. Management Goal. In order to provide greater use of the resource, the goal is to accelerate an increase in marten abundance in southern and eastern units by regulatory and management efforts. The objectives will require flexible seasons on a Unit basis, a program usually unpopular to some segments of the general public. Methods must be devised to determine more precisely the abundance levels in each unit and to determine the relationships with other wildlife species. In addition, methods must be investigated to reduce unintended and illegal trapping of marten. This goal is intended to allow a greater abundance of this intriguing little furbearer for the pleasure of all outdoors enthusiasts - hikers, photographers, and consumptive users alike.

Introduction. Long ago, in 1634, the "Rackoone" was aptly described as "a deepe furred beast, not much unlike a Badger having a tayle like a Fox, (and) as good meat as a Lambe . . . " While the taste of raccoon may yet await the delight of many readers, the value of the fur for caps and coats is well known. The value of raccoon fur has fluctuated over the years, however, and as with most long-haired furbearers, it is currently increasing. Raccoon are very adaptable animals and occur even in heavily populated areas in relative abundance. The raccoon is hunted at night with trained dogs by a small proportion of hunters but has traditionally been pursued by a high proportion of Maine trappers. Various harvest seasons have been established over the years, with hunting generally between late summer and mid-December and trapping from early November to mid-February. While the animal is abundant and underharvested on a statewide basis, overuse is evident in some southern areas. Management policies are necessary to insure a balance of the supply and demand so that not only consumptive use but non-consumptive use as well may continue on a sustained basis. The raccoon is an expected and

usually delightful nuisance to hikers and campers and is also an important furbearing resource. Current Status. The raccoon utilizes a variety of habitats but is most abundant in about 9,000 square miles of agricultural and hardwood bottom land in Maine, usually not far from water. Precise population levels are not known at this time (1976), but harvest rates, personal observations, and published information on habitat requirements indicate that the animals are abundant in most areas. Units 4, 8, and 7 have the highest densities; Units 2, 3, Âˇ 5, and 6, the lowest. Currently, more than 45,000 raccoons are taken annually by more than 8,000 hunters and trappers. This use exceeds the expected annual surplus in Unit 8, which may maintain lower than normal numbers. Projected Trends. Because the raccoon is such an adaptable animal, its numbers will not be seriously affected by changes in land use during the planning period. The supply and demand relationships will

probably not overtax the resource except in southern units where use is highest; but some trends in land posting, and adverse public reaction to trapping and night hunting of raccoon, may reduce the opportunity to use the resource and, thereby, reduce the demand. Management Goal. The management goal is to maintain the abundance of raccoons at present adequate levels and to allow an increase in use as interest in hunting and trapping continues to grow. Problems of resource abundance, habitat, and opportunity do 1v)t affect this goal in most units; but restrictions may be needed to reduce the current increase of hunters and trappers in Units 3, 6, 7, and 8. 8-24

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

AQUATIC FURBEARER SPECIES FURBEARERS are being considered separately from Maine's other forbearing animals for two reasons. First, they require rather specific types of aquatic habitats which are rather limited in occurrence and vulnerable to different land use practices. Second, a variety of regulatory considerations must be made apart from upland species because of somewhat different life styles, habits, and environmental conditions. Species in this group include the beaver, muskrat, mink, and otter - animals that have long been a vital component of Maine's fur trade. They are also highly utilized by non-consumptive users of the state's wildlife resources. The beaver and muskrat, particularly, have a great impact on the habitats in which they occur, usually improving the physical conditions for other mammals and birds. There is a wide variation in both the availability of information concerning the status of each species, and the particular management problems. For example, beaver in abundance frequently cause an array of pro bl ems ranging from plugged drainage culverts to flooded timber and agricultural land. On the other hand, trapping pressures must be very

QUATIC

closely regulated if local populations are not to be overexploited. Existing procedures for establishing beaver trapping regulations provide for the very localized control of harvest needed to optimize management of this valuable resource. The quality of Maine's wetlands as muskrat habitat are quite variable, and much of the trapping pressure is concentrated on the limited amount of high quality habitat. Also, as muskrats are very prolific animals, inadequate removal of surplus animals because of low fur prices may result in population build-ups and habitat destruction. Conversely, overexploitation may be a local problem during periods of high fur prices. The demand for wild mink has decreased over the years because of increasing supplies of ranch-raised mink whose color and size are controlled. Otter appear to maintain stable numbers in spite of varia-

BEAVER PELT PRICES 23 22 21

ยง

~ 18 ~ 17

ffi

c..

w 15

u 0:

c.. 13 12 11

The price paid for beaver pelts has kept pace with inflation but has increased less than prices for other furs.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

10 1963 64

75 1976

S-25

tions in trapping pressure. Little is known about their habitat requirements or abundance levels. Aquatic furbearers have a major impact on wetland habitat, and they are affected by the quality of aquatic habitat available to them. The importance of these species as a resource is equalled by the overall impact which their activities have on such conditions as water level control, wetland habitat diversity, and small mammal population control. It is difficult to obtain good information on the use and abundance of these animals without a fur tagging program. Greater emphasis is being placed on gathering better harvest information for these resources as well as determining the quantity and quality of habitat available to them. Refined information of this nature is greatly needed if the Department is adequately to determine optimum levels of use and provide for harvests consistent with the capacity of the resources to provide sustained annual yields of fur. Aquatic furbearers present additional problems because of divergent public opinion on their use. As anti-trapping sentiment increases, the opportunity to trap may foreseeably be decreased by legislation and local ordinances, placing the responsibility of control on a few individuals - wardens and biologists and paid trappers. This would be less than the best use of these resources and would greatly complicate the management efforts. To deal with this, the Department's operational plan includes many information and education programs as well as biological research. The objectives are to maintain or increase the abundance of these animals within the limits of available habitat in order to provide for the optimum level of use for both consumptive and non-consumptive users.

Introduction. The beaver has an important historical place in Maine and continues to be a resource of great economic and esthetic importance. Before the white man arrived, the beaver was one of the most common mammals found in this area. Its pelt became the principal unit of trade with Indians in early days 8-26

and was exchanged for gold in England. Proof of the importance of beaver is evident from the fact that in Maine alone there are nearly 50 ponds and brooks named "Beaver." In the early days, however, beaver suffered from this popularity, and their numbers decreased, so that in 1763 the first regulations on harvest were enacted. As far as we know, these were the first game laws in Maine. The laws had little effect, however, until 1928, when law enforcement became effective. A beaver law of 1899 essentially closed the state to trapping; by 1918, the law suggested that beaver were again abundant enough to allow the reopening of several townships. During this same time, beaver prices rose and trapping pressure increased, mostly on an illegal basis. But heavy court fines, along with more effective law enforcement personnel, helped to encourage a further increase in beaver numbers. In 1963, the Legislature granted the commissioner the authority to lengthen or shorten the beaver season as deemed necessary. Since that time, beaver seasons have been annually established by the commissioner on the basis of individual township reports and

harvest-and-use records from field personnel. This procedure has proven to be a very effective management tool. Work to refine fur tagging records and habitat assessments has begun in order to increase further the responsiveness of the regulation system to changing supply and demand conditions on a local basis. Current Status. Beaver abundance in Maine is still below the capacity of the available habitat. It is estimated that wetland habitat in Maine is capable of supporting up to 35,000 beaver, while the current

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 19 76

(1976) estimate is about 24,000. Trapper numbers per unit of beaver habitat are highest in Units 4, 7, and 8; and lowest in Units 2, 3, and 5. Use opportunity is affected most by the timing of the trapping season, as it relates to changes in climatic conditions. Legal access to beaver colonies is not usually a problem, as most of Maine's wetlands are considered public domain; but physical access is more difficult because of deep snow, thick ice, and the remoteness of many areas. Pelt values vary considerably, affecting use; but during the past few years, the Department has experienced the greatest increase in trapping license sales on record. Licenses issued increased from 1,649 in 1971 to 3,369 in 1975. Projected Trends. Habitat quality will continue to increase for a few years. Increased use of forest products can be expected to increase the occurrence of young growth hardwoods and improve the quality of the habitat for beaver. In southern areas, urban development and road construction will be largely responsible for the eventual decline in suitable beaver habitat. The short term abundance of beaver will be affected by trapping season dates and harvest levels. Currently, the numbers are below the carrying capacity of most areas, and more towns are being closed and seasons shortened. This should lead to an increase in beaver numbers during the planning period. Projecting demand is difficult because of uncertainties in pelt values and the general economy. It is expected, however, that the demand will continue to exceed the allowable harvest and that restrictions will continue to be very necessary. Opportunity to trap will continue to increase with the growing use of snowmobiles and greater availability of roads in remote areas. In southern management units, land posting, and in northern tracts, tight and restricted access gates, will limit trapping activity somewhat. Management Goal. The goal is to continue to increase beaver abundance and thereby provide for an increase in all uses of the resource. Management objectives are to provide for an annual harvest of about 15,000 beaver by 1,500 trappers. At this time, 70 per cent of the towns meet their share of this objective. Of the 30 per cent not meeting the objective, about half still have too few beaver, and the other half have too few trappers. Regulations must make trapping more attractive in areas where there is currently little pressure, and more restrictive where use is too high. A major consequence of this goal will be a resultant increase in nuisance beaver problems which must be attended to by the Warden Service and other Department personnel. It is hoped that these problems can be kept to a minimum with a more refined use of the beaver trapping "openings" and "closures" regulatory system, particularly in existing nuisance areas.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

AQUATIC FURBEARERS

Introduction. The weasel family is well represented in aquatic habitats by the mink and otter. Both travel widely along streams and rivers and around ponds but may also go "cross country." The mink is most weasel-like in its energy and aggressiveness. The otter is equally energetic, is inclined to frolic, and often can be seen sliding down mud or ice slides in apparent recreational abandon. Both animals are excellent swimmers. Mink feed on almost any available mammal, insect, and aquatic life. They search out rock piles and old logs for mice, low lying shrubs for bird nests, and every other conceivable food source. Otter are most often found in or very close to the water and feed mostly on fish, frogs, and other aquatic life. While the mink is slim and fast, able to seek out small mammals and other elusive prey, the otter is an extremely good swimmer and frequently preys on fish. Current Status. Mink and otter are most abundant in western and northern management units. Aquatic habitats in southern Maine sustain lower numbers of both species, probably because of developments and other factors which decrease the habitat quality. Statewide, there is an underuse of mink, with supply exceeding the demand by an estimated 60 per

S-27

cent (1976). Unit 8 is the exception because of especially high use. Otter numbers appear to exceed the demand only in Units 2 and 3. Opportunity to trap both these species is not restricted significantly by access but is affected by the timing of open seasons. Mink demand is currently low (1976), partially because of the higher values and coinciding seasons for fox, fisher, and other furbearers. Fallcaught otter fur is highly valued and has resulted in record levels of demand. Projected Trends. Habitat for both mink and otter is not expected to decline significantly statewide, but loss due to developnvmt will occur in Unit 8. Improved water qualit will be especially helpful in restoring and maintaim J abundance of these animals. Mink will probably not be subjected to much increased pressure because of higher value of other furs. Fallcaught otter prices will likely remain high, and since the animals are never superabundant, the demand will continue to be strong, exceeding the supply in all except remote units. This will require more intensive legal restrictions on the harvests during the planning period. Management Goal. Because mink are not fully utilized, they represent a species which can accept more attention from trappers, with the added advantages of providing learning experience and trapping revenue. By increasing the use of this animal, we may reduce pressure on other overused furbearers such as fisher. The goal is to maintain the current abundance and allow appropriate increases in use by manipulation of regulations to redistribute use to areas of greater mink abundance. Otter present a somewhat different situation in that their use is already high. The goal for this animal is to keep the use at current levels and try to increase

S-28

the abundance. This means an ultimate annual harvest of about 800 animals by approximately 350 trappers. As with mink, however, the distribution of use is critical, and regulations should be planned to emphasize underuse areas in remote units. The information gathered from pelt tags will be especially useful in monitoring abundance levels and distribution of trappers and their harvest.

Introduction. The muskrat has traditionally been second only to beaver in importance as an aquatic furbearer. The demand for this furbearer goes back to at least 1763 when muskrat pelts were exported in large quantities to London. Choice habitat for the muskrat includes the shallow portions of lakes and ponds and slow-moving streams, where there is an abundance of aquatic vegetation. The muskrat plays an important role by improving and maintaining small channels through marshy areas which aid in waterfowl nesting and provide new "edge characteristics" which encourage a variety of plant and animal life. Muskrats have a high breeding potential; but over the years, harvest seasons have been complicated because of (a) climatic conditions affecting local population levels, and (b) the opportunity to trap in an ice-free situation. In the past, trap interference with non-target species, including waterfowl, has likely resulted in less than optimum removal of annual surplusses of muskrats. Current Status. Maine contains more than 1.5 million acres of wetlands with one-half million considered good muskrat habitat. The abundance of the species is directly related to the quality and amount of such wetlands in each management unit. Estimated densities are greatest in Units 4, 7, and 8; least in Units 1, 2, and 3. About 45,000 muskrats are trapped annually by some 2,000 trappers. Muskrat trappers generally work in areas where the animals are most numerous. Although high exploitation may be a problem in some of these areas, demand does not exceed the total supply in any Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

management unit. Most muskrat habitat is easily accessible to trappers, either by land or water, so there is no difficulty in getting to the animals. The use of the resource is limited periodically by low fur prices and short trapping seasons. State management areas are closed to spring trapping to prevent accidental loss of waterfowl in areas managed for waterfowl production. Otherwise, there are no bag limits, and the animal provides an excellent opportunity for young and new trappers to learn about proper trapping techniques and wise use of a wildlife resource. Projected Trends. Muskrat trapper numbers are not expected to increase significantly; but with the construction of more roads and the availability of better outdoor equipment, the distribution of trapping effort may shift and provide greater use of currently inaccessible areas. Current high use areas will likely con-

NON-NATIVE GAME SPECIES Overview. Sportsmen have long expressed an interest in the introduction of various game birds to Maine in order to provide challenging and rewarding sport for bird hunters beyond that provided by native species. The pheasant has a long history of rearing and release in Maine through private, Department, and cooperative programs, and a management plan for that species is currently in effect. Other potential species in this category include the wild turkey and sharptail grouse. A recent evaluation of the potential for wild turkey reintroductions in Maine has resulted in the implementation of a limited wild turkey stocking effort in southern Maine; this will enable an evaluation of the feasibility of reestablishing that species in Maine. In addition, a past assessment of the suitability of habitat conditions in certain sections of Maine for sharptail grouse will be reevaluated. The predicted success of introductions must be considered in relation to the impact on native species and the overall expected benefits to the citizens of the state in return for the introduction and management efforts. Several problems frequently related to release programs of this nature must be resolved; these include the rising cost of rearing and/or releasing birds, and the variety of conflicts associated with the release of birds and concentrating of hunters on private land.

tinue to receive high trapping pressure, and regulations will be necessary to assure the maintenance of population levels on a local basis. Management Goal. The goal for the planning period is to maintain the current abundance and allow for appropriate increases in use. Regulations should be established to improve the opportunity to trap and thereby increase the catch per trapper wherever and whenever appropriate. Research and information and education programs are planned to obtain better habitat quality control and to redistribute trapping pressure more evenly over the state.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

S-29

"'-

....

.. ,,. #. .. .. . . ~

.. ..

-.. .

...

. â&#x20AC;˘..Âˇ

- ~ JI

Overview. The ring-necked pheasant is one of the few "exotic" species to be successfully introduced to the United States and is the principal non-native bird released in Maine. The initial introductions from its native eastern China were probably made in 1790, and the major concentrations now lie between the snowbelt and the Mason-Dixon Line. A farmland bird, the pheasant thrives in areas where food and cover are well interspersed. The limited availability of winter food - principally wild seeds and fruit supplemented with grain - is the major factor limiting the abundance of pheasants in Maine. Initial introductions in Maine date back to about 1897, and by 1930, the species was commonly found in southern portions of the state. Annual releases by the Department began in 1933, and to date (1976), approximately 700,000 birds have been artificially provided. These releases have not resulted in a sizeable naturally reproducing population. It is apparent that while suitable habitat for pheasant may have existed during the 1920s - when 20-25 per cent of the state was in farmland - the amount of good pheasant habitat has decreased with the decline of farmland from 6 million acres in 1880 to approximately 1.7 million acres in 1969. In addition, the quality of farmland as pheasant habitat has declined as a result of changing agricultural practices. Large acreage is being planted to single crops; there is little or no rotation of crops with hay; and very little corn is left standing during the winter. Although no precise estimate is available for nonstocked birds in the fall population, a 1973 survey by district wardens showed pheasant abundance to be highest in the southern, central, and coastal sections, with abundance declining northwesterly across the state. However, even in Wildlife Management Units 7 and 8, which received the highest abundance ratings in the survey, the overall abundance of the species was still relatively low except in extreme

S-30

coastal sections. The majority of towns were rated as having no pheasants, but the species was rated as common in towns where pheasants had been liberated. Native reproduction of pheasants in Maine does not provide enough birds to warrant an open season. Over the years, up to 33,000 birds have been annually released by the Department to supplement the comparatively few birds hatched in the wild. Even though the pheasant season is quite liberal, the majority of the birds harvested are taken shortly after stocking; hunting pressure peaks after released birds are located, then drops off rapidly as birds are harvested and dispersed. A common problem has been the concentration of relatively large numbers of hunters in the immediate vicinity of pheasant release sites. This frequently leads to a poor landowner-hunter relationship and results in posted land. The amount of posted land has been increasing over the years and is highest in the management units which contain the best conditions for pheasants. The overall demand for pheasant greatly exceeds the available supply. Due to the small wild population and the high cost of raising and releasing birds, a relatively small number of birds are available in the wild during the hunting season. With spiraling costs, it is likely that the number of pheasants reared and released will have to be continually cut back for budgetary reasons unless a source of additional funds is found. Appropriate increases in the cost to the hunter associated with the maintenance of the program such as the cost of the pheasant stamp - can be expected to reduce significantly the demand for pheasant. The management goal is to maintain the supply of pheasants and the opportunity to hunt them, by stocking 22,500 pheasants annually. The stocking will be financed as much as possible with funds generated specifically for pheasant management. The game farm will continue to be used as a pheasant rearing facility and the co-operator program will continue to be supported. To increase hunting areas, suitable stocking sites will be identified, co-operative agreements will be sought with landowners, and pheasant releases will be closely supervised by Department personnel. Information and education programs will be implemented to increase public awareness about the pheasant programs and to improve hunter-landowner relations.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

NON-GAME SPECIES

...,,.; Q)

;:l

::Q)

...:l

@ ~-~~~~"i:i'i~

$ 0

..d

Overview. The wild turkey occurred in portions of southern and coastal Maine during colonial times, but the supply rapidly diminished and was apparently non-existent by the late 1600s. Various introductions of captive-reared game farm turkeys have been made by sportsmen's groups in recent years; but even though remnants of these stockings are frequently reported, no wild turkey breeding populations appear to exist. Recent work in other northeastern states suggests that the success of wild turkey introduction programs is dependent on the use of "wild" birds. Also, Maine is on the northern fringe of this species' historic range, and a critical factor in its success appears to be the duration of deep, powdery snow which greatly reduces the availability of food supplies. Because Maine does not currently (1976) have any wild breeding turkeys, interest in this species has increased in recent years in response to the successful reestablishment of the wild turkey in other northeastern states. Potential wild turkey habitat appears to be limited to southern and coastal regions, which are also the same areas undergoing extensive urban development. For successful management, a rural area containing 5,000 acres of suitable habitat and lacking suburban characteristics is considered minimum. The Department will release approximately 35 "wild" turkeys next spring (1977) in what appears to be suitable habitat in extreme southern Maine. This stocking is being undertaken in order to investigate more fully the potential for wild turkey introductions in the state. The potential success of wild turkey introductions, the quality and abundance of habitat, and the feasibility of managing huntable populations must be closely evaluated. The outcome of this effort will be closely reviewed by the commissioner and his advisory council before any decision is made concerning the development of a wild turkey management program in Maine. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

Overview. Although much research, management, and planning has been directed toward wildlife species that are hunted and /or trapped, comparatively few investigations concerning other species have been undertaken in Maine. Legal authority and funding for specific non-game programs has been generally non-existent until recent years. The best known federal aid to wildlife program -which as of June 30, 1975, had provided $6,721,600 in Maine - is funded by the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. This Act came about because of strong interest in the recreational and commercial value of game species. Its revenue comes from a nationwide excise tax on firearms and ammunition. This money is allotted annually to state fish and wildlife departments, which match the federal aid dollars on a one to three basis ( one state dollar to three federal aid dollars). The resulting funds have been used primarily for game management, as the source of the taxes is the persons who use the resources. The Maine planning program, however, has had federal aid funds made available to aid in development of our comprehensive management plan, which includes all wildlife species. Legal authority and funding for specific non-game programs was provided in 197 3, when Congress passed the Endangered Species Act. This law authorizes federal regulation of endangered and threatened species in all states not entering into co-operative agreements with the Secretary of the Interior and further provides matching monies to states which do enter co-operative agreements. The Act specifies that before the Secretary enters into such agreements, he shall determine that the agency authorized to act for the state has the authority to manage all wildlife whether game or non-game - and specifically has the power to investigate, designate, and conserve endangered and threatened species. Maine's Revised Statutes of 1964, Title 12, Chapter 337, Sections 3201-3210 inclusive, provide such authority to the commissioner of inland fisheries and wildlife. To qualify for consideration for financial assistance, the state agency must have also established an acceptable conservation program for resident endangered species. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife's current non-game inventory and program development work has been found acceptable by the

S-31

is threatened or endangered in Maine. Specific management plans will then be developed for each species in need of special consideration. Although the foundation has been established for a non-game and endangered species program in Maine, little more can be accomplished until adequate funding is found to complete the basic inventory and program development phase, as well as adequately support the implementation of a management program for these species. We hope a source of state funds will be found in the future. These dollars, in conjunction with available federal Endangered Species monies, will support management efforts directed at our non-game wildlife.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS Secretary of the Interior, and a co-operative agreement for management of threatened and endangered species has been signed. Our intent to consider non-game species as part of the wildlife management plan has not yet been realized because the available information on these resources is very limited. Our work to date (1976) has shown us the type of information which is needed and available. These findings may be summarized as follows: The status of Maine's birds is probably best known, but no master species list is available. The most recent listing was compiled in 1949 by Palmer, who made up a comprehensive list of then current as well as historical records of Maine bird life. Recent discussions with the Maine Audubon Society and with numerous amateur and University of Maine ornithologists have not uncovered a more recent listing of this nature. The status in Maine of non-game mammals, particularly small mammals, is virtually unknown. University records and knowledge gained through scattered studies provide the only known data base. Knowledge on the status of reptiles and amphibians is even less complete than the information regarding mammals. Persons knowledgeable in this field will have to be sought out in order to develop information on the status of these species. Considering these findings, the emphasis of our non-game wildlife planning efforts is currently (1976) being placed on: (1) the development of a list of the state's non-game species; (2) the determinatiop of the distribution, abundance, and status of non-game wildlife in Maine; and (3), the determination of the type and amount of use the public makes of the non-game wildlife resource. Once completed, this information will be used to support the development of a nongame management program proposal, as well as the establishment of an official state list of wildlife which

S-32

The Department's Wildlife Division set up the present eight units (see the map opposite) in 1973 and has found them to be very useful in discussions of management programs and problems. Nearly everyone realizes that wildlife populations vary in number and distribution in different parts of the state. Similarly, we realize that these variations occur to a large extent because of numerous ecological similarities and/or differences ( climate, vegetation, soil, etc.). Study of these characteristics has shown us areas of Maine over which the general conditions are quite similar. We called the management units "ecological zones" at first, but the term was changed to one we feel is more meaningful. It would be feasible and perhaps desirable to have more than eight, but for several reasons, eight is the number right now. The characteristics of each unit are generally quite constant throughout the unit. This was arranged by nature - we are just looking at things the way they exist. It can be pointed out that from north to south or east to west in one unit, there may be at different times or seasons quite noticeable differences; but by and large, conditions in one section of a unit will be generally about the same over the unit as a whole. To come anywhere near eliminating the differences completely would require creating many more management units than would be convenient or easy to deal with. We expect to continue using our management units in setting various hunting and trapping seasons as we have been doing for several years. The units are very helpful to us and should be also to the general public. In many instances, we will be able to indicate hunting and trapping zones by referring to the management units, and regulations booklets or folders will carry copies of the map. Use of the units to distribute hunting pressure should be a valuable method in our various management programs. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

KEY TO STARRED AREAS

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS JULY 1976

Numbered stars appear in some places on the map where there is not room enough to print the name . The table here will prov ide the na me for each number.

The ma nagem ent units s h own have been form ed on the bas is of la nd-use, hum a n popula tion di s tri b uti on, climat ic cond itions, soil type, forest t ype, physiogra phy, a nd prese n t political bound a ries. Wh ere poss ible, wi t h out compromis ing th e original ,..;, TIIRIJ , Ali W[LS p urpose of th e zo nin g, co unty lines have WEL bee n used a s boundary lin es. fl6RU

** * • *

; 'wELs

TISRH

wns

TIJR1(i WEL S

Tl)RIS WE LS

•

~·ii·~'

" ~ · ,.,. ', ~~~· ti:; ~-""'

,-1',~'

** •

1) IQOC'C) A(1• Tr ac.t f! R6

•

TIHH1

WHS

"6R9 WE lS

T•6R8 W[LS

11!,AIJ

T1SP1]

11!,RI\

TISRIO

l1SR9

t1<,A8

\NhS

WElS

WE LS

WEl S

WHS

>W lS

Wh S

IS S1~, 10,, Sp, •"'Q •

16 .....~ 11 Fc,,u 1c,,., , 9i:w II CSu,plus Townsn,p 19 At\Oa..f WH1Surpl\l'I ..0 p.,,,_,n1To-nsn,p 11 Wu n,ngtonTo .. nst11 p 11 Un,1, To• ntl'l ,p

•

1t 1n0,.a11S1,_... ,1 Re l •lll• Soww TJ~

*n * •

2'& l1 op1<,n1A~•m,GrW1 1

E,u , 1,1 ,11,noc,ai

2'I NOl11'1 1'.,moutl'I Ac.lld~., G ... n l H A4 19 UWt,• Molun~us TI JW JO S,ant1 w ,cn Audem 1 Gt1n1 T1R \

•

J1 O.vs .t.c«1.,,,, G•1n1 lJ s.1-R,t)Q• l wp J4 Sou1n 8 11 si 0'

* *

TIJRH Y,EL S

T1un1on & A. 1nP11mG1 .an1 TI R1

'""" WElS

AROOSTOOK AGRICULTURAL This unit is made up of a mixture of intensive agriculture ( primarily the potato industry) and woodlands . It lies in the northern climatic zone but has a relatively dense human population ( about 25 persons / sq. mile).

- r.:~ ~·-;-;'!

between the spruce·

of Units 7 an~,,~:

[ ,U IDO"IC,1.,

13 F 111 m,nQdl l•

o.,

fur forests of Unit 2 hardwood forests

•

!'.t t.; 1 ..,

B•;~:r

and the wh ite pine-

So,.,t Pl•H I H..00,

* " ..... 10-.,ue,.,., *

3 WESTERN RECREATION W hi le much o f this unit is similar topograph ically and climatologically to Unit 2 , it differs in its de veloping intensive recreational use. Po pulation density is low ( fewer than IO persons / sq . mile ) . Mo st of the region ., is woodland and includes the transitiona l zone .

,-,,...o,,up

0.lt NNO

• •

_. /

I I

1Q ROQ1.1•8 lull 1

11 Mtchafl oc , 111 ,

•

NORTHERN WILDERNESS Th is unit includes Maine's largest undeveloped tract and sustains a very small human p opulation. It , too, lies in the northern climatic zone ; but the basic soils are shallow, stony, sandy loams, as opp o sed to the /. predominant channery loam soils in most of Unit I .

Bt1"C11y AlfOw :..t S wn,0011 I O.tmat1teot1a

•

116RI]

wtlS

I Ola Ortl\MI latll 1 wn 1 8 1tl'I

/ 1SA1S

•

* ** •

-<;:,

EASTERN WOODLANDS This unit is almost completely for e sted and has a ve ry small hum a n population . Lying in th e intermed iate climatic zon e , it supports ma inly spruc e -fir growth . The soil types are similar to thos e of Unit 2.

EASTERN COAST The coastal climatic zone subdivides this unit. Population density is about I 0 / sq . mile , and land use patterns are quite variable.

rJ"

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

CENTRAL COAST AL This unit is the second most densely populated in the state ( about 30 / sq . mile ) and supports a mixe d a gricultural , sem i-urban population. CENTRAL A transit ion of forest types \ imilar to that deTh is un it is characterized by th e d ivers ity scribed for Unit 3 occurs here . of it s land - use , which vari e s from int e ns ive Th is zonation cli\·ides t h late of Maine into ag r iculture to woodlands both product ive and units \\'ith d istinct simi larities of fac to rs used in recr e ational . Population d e n si ty is mod e rat e con:;id r ing the biological significance of the a r ea . 12 5-30 / sq . mile ) , and m uc h of th e ar e a fa lls in the intermed iate c lim a tic zon e. By breaking \\' il dlife data ar.:umu late d on a stat -

WESTERN COAST AL The most dens e human population (40/ sq . mile ) in Ma ine occurs here . The unit supports much white pine growth , with hardwoods be ing well distributed . Climat ic c ond it ions are probably the most moderate of any unit . Much of the unit is a co a stal plain , but the soils are similar to those in Unit 7 ( stony, sandy loams , low in silt and clay ).

M IHOA CIVIi.. 04 V l5 10HS STAT[ OF

'"'.'..~~'~\ .....

\\'idc basi,.; i nto t hese u nit~. int rpr eta t ion should be eased consicl rabl.1· . lt is lo be expected t hat as land use practices chanirc in the future. rc\·i sion or retinement of t h is un it rcgio na liza tion wi ll pro1·c necpssa r y. It i,- anticipated t ha t t he pre:;ent dh·i,-ion s hould meet t he r qui rcmcnls fo r al least a clrcade.

S-33

The second segment of this presentation will he published as part of the Spring 1977 issue of MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine.

TRYCUSK By Scott Roy Fish Technician

by many Maine anglers is the cusk or burbot, an abundant fish in a large number of our cool, deep lakes. The only fresh-water representative of the cod family, the cusk is easily identified by the single, prominent barbel or "whisker," on the underside of the chin. These fish sometimes reach 10 to 12 pounds, but a range of 3 to 5 pounds is considered large. It is not uncommon to find fishermen catching cusk while fishing through the ice for togue or other deep-water species. In fact, it seems that the only time cusk appear in the angler's catch is during the ice fishing season. This is no doubt due to the differences in methods of fishing in the openwater and ice fishing seasons. Cusk will take both live and dead baits. Biologists examining cusk stomachs very often find crayfish. These crustaceans, if available, would be good bait. Although cusk can be caught during the daytime, they seem to produce much better catches by night. In areas where winter anglers have "discovered" cusk fishing, it is not unusual to find some ice shanties used almost exclusively for night fishing. Except for certain special regulations on a few lakes, cusk is the only fish species that may be taken at night through the ice. Unlike his daylight-fishing counterpart, the night angler does not have to be on the ice with his

VERLOOKED

traps at all times. The law requires that traps at night be tended once every hour. Of course, if the cusk are biting, the fisherman finds it much to his advantage to check his traps more frequently. Sophisticated gear is not necessary to catch cusk. Regular tipups or underwater traps may be used. If you are fishing an area

with heavy snowmobile traffic and do not wish to hazard having your traps run over, you can use pieces of hardwood or dowels. Just a stick with enough line to drop the bait on bottom, plus an extra 10 to 15 feet of line to coil on the ice will suffice. Cusk do not tend to make the long runs that would be expected of salmon or togue. Most cusk fishermen find that the fish will swallow the bait without taking out much line. It is helpful to have extra hooks with you, as hook and bait are usually found deep in the esophagus and must be cut out. late-winter spawners, depositing their eggs beC fore the ice is gone. They are USK ARE

known to spawn in streams, and it is believed that they also spawn in lakes. The fact that they spawn in streams may be used to the angler's advantage. It is not unlikely to find very good catches of cusk taken near the mouths of larger tributaries. It is worthwhile for the cusk fisherman to locate areas within the lake and around tributaries where concentrations of these fish may occur. Fishing for cusk can be enjoyable and rewarding - both in numbers of fish taken and in the excellent flavor of the catch. Don't allow yourself to be fooled by this not-so-very-handsome fish. The cusk may not look like much, but its thick, white flesh is very satisfying to the palate. Not a bony fish, the cusk is easy to prepare for the plate. It should be skinned, however. Either in a chowder or fried, cusk can give you a tasty treat you will not soon forget. â&#x20AC;˘

Although not very handsome, cusk are abundant in certa in waters, grow t o a respe ctable si ze, and are exce l lent tab le fare .

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

HERE ARE MANY SIGNS that autumn

is near - flocks of birds flying south to warmer places, frost patterns appearing on windows, smoke beginning to curl from chimneys. But one sure sign, and one everyone thinks of as the real coming of fall, is the brilliant change in the leaves. What makes the leaves turn colors? Indians used to believe that the red came from the

Letters should be addressed to: KID-BITS MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine 284 State Street Augusta, Maine 04333 8

blood of the Great Bear, killed by legendary hunters to feed them through the winter and the yellow came from spatters of fat as the Great Bear was cooked in kettles. Still other people believe that Jack Frost should get the credit for the beautiful colors - that it is the frost alone that makes the leaves change. What actually happens is a series of chemical changes within the leaves themselves, beginning when days get shorter and air temperatures lower. The leaves are "food factories" for trees, using a chemical called chlorophyll (CLOR-a-fill) to take the sun's energy and use it to change carbon dioxide Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

Since Maine started hunter safety training programs in 1967, more than 41,000 have taken and passed the course. Whether you are a hunter or not, the Ten Commandments of Gun Safety are fine things to know. See if you can figure them out! 3

1. Treat every gun as if it were (10 Down). 2. Be sure of your (4 Across) before you pull the trigger. 3. Always be sure that the (5 Down) and the ( 3 Down) are clear of obstructions. 4. Never (11 Across) your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. 5. Never leave your gun unless you (12 Across) it first. 6. Avoid (8 Across) beverages both before and during shooting. 7. Never climb a (13 Across) or cross a (2 Down) with a loaded gun. 8. Never shoot at the surface of (1 Down). Make sure you have a safe (5 Across). 9. Carry only (7 Down) guns, taken down or with the action open, into your camp, car or home. 10. Storegunsandammunition (6 Across), beyond the reach of (9 Down).

from the air into sugar and starch, without which a tree cannot grow. Chlorophyll, when it is working, is bright green, giving the leaves their summer colors. As the sunlight becomes less plentiful, the chlorophyll slows down its work and loses its greenness, letting other colors in the leaves ( which are there all the time) show through. As the temperature of the air drops, the sugar in the leaves Âˇcannot move as quickly into the tree, and it is trapped in the leaves. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

2 4

Answer on Page 11

This sugar, when exposed to sunlight, turns red, adding even more color to the fall forests. And finally, after the food-making action has come almost to a stop, the leaves detach themselves from the trees and float downward, covering the ground itself with color and adding rich fertilizer to the forest floor to help with the coming of spring growth. So next time you walk through the woods in autumn, think of all that is happening inside each of the millions of leaves you see. It's a busy time of year for leaves! 9

Natural Way to Get the Most Out of Life

By Roger Latham Outdoor Editor PITTSBURGH (Pa.) PRESS

BELIEVE that God's greatest gift to man is life - and the promise of life hereafter. I believe that His second greatest endowment to man is the capacity to perceive - to sense in various ways the infinite things of the universe. Through these senses, man responds to various stimuli which bring pleasure. And it is the never-ending succession of intriguing and pleasant stimuli which makes his life meaningful and worthwhile. God planned well. He filled the earth and the heavens with substance which, in its complexity and variety of form, could challenge forever these delicate perceptory senses and contribute to the fullness of life for man. Not all persons perceive the wonders of the natural world in the same way. Some are blessed with extremely acute sensitivities and can see, hear, smell, taste, and feel well beyond the capacities of others. These are indeed fortunate individuals. There are those, too, who can interpret and interrelate sensory stimuli so that their emotional and intellectual responses are unusually pleasant and rewarding. These are the individuals who perhaps appreciate the gift of life most. A naturalist qualifies as one of those gifted individuals. He ( or she) is an outdoors person with the ability to drink in the beauties and the wonders of nature to a degree totally beyond the comprehension

of those with less well sharpened sensory perceptors. They see things which escape the eyes of the untrained and they hear sounds, beautiful sounds, which are far too subtle for insensitive ears. But so much of the outdoorsman's appreciation of the things of nature relate to his understanding of what he sees and hears. A night sound brings a smile, because he can mentally picture the creature which Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

made it. He does not fear nature, for he knows it intimately and responds to it in all its forms. The naturalist does not shut himself away from the thunderstorm. Instead he may seat himself in a sheltered corner of a porch and watch fascinated as the great jagged streaks rip the sky. He does not wince at thunder, but revels at the explosive roar and the mighty rumblings that follow. To him, a thunderstorm is nature's display of awesome power - nature's way of flexing her mighty muscles. He may sit spellbound until the spectacle is over and the last rumble is little more than a throaty whisper in the distance. Rain is truly something special to the naturalist. He knows how dependent all life is upon the substance which falls from the sky. To him, rain means spring flowers, green forests, spring-fed trout streams, lakes filled with water where bass live, and the wonderfully cool fresh air which follows a summer storm. Rain on a tent roof, or on the roof of a woodland cabin, is to him the sweetest lullaby of all. There is a hypnotic magic to that patter ( or drumming) which makes eyelids heavy and brings on the most luxurious slumber any person can ever experience. Then there is wind. It whispers to the outdoorsman as it passes through the tops of pines and hemlocks. He listens to the soft flutter of voices as a breeze activates the restless leaves of the aspen. He knows the stimulation of high winds slashing rain across his face as he intently watches a flock of ducks or geese straggling across the sky. He hears the whine, the whistle and the swish as the wind batters the reeds and lifts the tops off the whitecaps. And he remembers long after the hunt has ended, how strangely beautiful was the calling of the geese in the wind, how the sound rose and fell, became audible and then was snatched away, until finally it became lost entirely in the turbulence. The sounds of nature are among the most precious of an outdoorsman 's experience. He strives to know the origin of all that he hears, and each becomes a symphonic note. He listens to the cheery a wakening calls of the cardinal on early March mornings as the sky begins to take on its first pink streaks on the eastern horizon. In May, he eats breakfast to the comforting, cooing notes of the mourning dove. He knows the challenging "bob-white" of the quail in spring and the plaintive covey call of the same bird in the fall. Far up on the mountain he hears the gobble of the wild turkey tom and later stops casting his fly to the trout as he is absorbed by the rhythmic beat of the "thunder bird." He stands wet-faced and blinking as he watches a snipe perform its courtship antics almost out of sight

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

in the mist-filled sky. He listens as the winnowing of its wings grows in volume and pitch during its arrowlike descent toward the earth. What a remarkable gift to be able to hear the song of the wood thrush at dawn, the mellow whistle of the yellow-legs or the wind song of the upland plover. But even more remarkable is the fact that God gave man the ability to perceive color. What beauty and what inspiration this has brought into his life. And again, it is the outdoors person who knows best the meaning of true artistry. He is privileged to see the most spectacular works in the world. He sits watching the dark silhouettes of his waterfowl decoys as the morning sky begins to paint a pink glow on the water. Then the color grows in intensity and hue, until finally it is almost overwhelming in its sheer magnificence. Across this backdrop of pink and orange, graceful waterfowl wing their way to their feeding grounds. The outdoorsrrian knows the deep blues and greens of tropical seas, the eye-soothing greenness of Arctic tundra and the pure perfect whiteness of snow on evergreens. He is familiar with the pink of the ladyslipper, the brilliant red of the cardinal flower, and the velvet loveliness of the purple violet. To him, there is nothing more strikingly beautiful on the water or in the forest than the male wood duck, the cardinal, the bluejay, the Baltimore oriole or the indigo bunting. All add something special to his life. Yes, God was kind to Man. He filled the earth with beauty of all kinds and then endowed man with capability to recognize and appreciate all of it. This is a capacity not perfected as received. Each individual can perceive only what his senses are trained to perceive. Yet, the beauties of nature are there - all the pleasant and inspiring sights, sounds, and smells - for those who are willing to cultivate these God-given talents. Truly, man is thrice-blessed. a Answers to puzzles on pages 6 and 9

tL lJ•.,.1.Gcb -

BIG BUCKS 1975

<4n 4 s

J\Ppl Ic,41'/oN

-C.J'S]1 1J

Foll ME ~arne ·· -.. ~ociation of S 'AfIJER.slfJp City ·· ·· ... ... Ports,n j"l\ r ... ····· en Wh .J. V 71,r Date /(j··················· ··················· o lfar;e '/'. .J. 7\ rb Ca1. lied .... ·········· ... ······ .. aken 'I'ro .J. V 1ber R. lfJ . ··········· •. •• ··· ········· •. ··········. . • Phy J,yLIll. ~ .0 'ti . l1r;e . e, gau ..········. ... ..... . Street tetai1 D . Weight ge Shot ·········· . State ... eer in M . Create (add 30 gun ... ······· l,f/L ····· ··· · ame st spr, % to ·· ········· •1ere Sh ······ length ead of dressed ······· .. ot outs · antJe Wei h ······ Dr; ··· Certified b Ide curr;e le;s ············ g t) estimate essed Weight

(JCtr

Y.L.A_f

> "'"den : ; '.:''.' '.:

-C.J

C'r (J

~~~:::<,;d, ;~;;;: ;; .. ..·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.··•···.·.·.······· . ••••••

( or 11lJ ········ ·· · ber of . ght al)tJ ·········· · A1 . "'1aiJ . es see ··· ····· 4 Points er .. . .. a1ne Sp this appJ · Other Sid ddress (or;er l . ··· ·· ······· ortsrnal) p ication t . e, Please) ·············· inch) ... ... ' .o. Box 507 0 · Big Buck ····· . ..... .... ... ··· ·· .. ' Yar CJub ····· ···· mouth A-1 ' aine 01096

FALL, 432 Maine deer hunters filled in their application cards, had them certified, and became members of the exclusive "Biggest Bucks in Maine Club." In doing so, they had joined the growing ranks of hunters who have taken a Maine buck deer heavier than 200 pounds, woods dressed. The Club was started in 1949 as a state promotional program and was an immediate success. White-tailed deer with dressed weights of more than 200 pounds are unheard-of in many states; thus, it didn't take long after the Club was started for word to get around that Maine had big deer. The number of new memberships each year has pretty consistently fallen in the range of 400 to 600, with a high of 608 recorded in 1970. Several of the largest deer ever entered in the Club had dressed weights exceeding 300 pounds. Administration of the Club was taken over in 1975 by the Maine Sportsman, but membership rules are unchanged, and application cards are still available from game wardens and wildlife biologists of the Fish and Wildlife Department. In each fall issue we list the largest of the Big Bucks entered in the Club the previous year. Such a list follows: AST

BIGGEST BUCKS, 1975 Name David Cochran Burton R. Snelling Michael Coombs Bradley Cieslak Laurent Marchand Dale Merrill Stanley Peters Daniel Connell Arlyn Trueworthy Frank Penecale Omar Mciver Robert Eisele Paul Prosser Robert Richard George Poole George Peavey Forest Osgood Lionel Lizotte Joel Guimond Vincent Cagguila Bill Biscieglia

Address Caribou, Me. Claremont, N.H. Mattawamkeag, Me. Gardner, Mass. Trois Rivieres, P.Q. Pittsfield, Vt. No. New Portland, Me. Clarksville, Tenn. Kezar Falls, Me. Northills, Pa. Greenville, Me. Leesburg, N.J. Cundy's Harbor, .Me. Rumford, Me. Glassboro, N.J. Bangor, Me. Norridgewock, Me. St. David, Me. Wallagrass, Me. Norton, Vt. Absecon, N.J.

Date Killed 11/15/75 11/ 7/75 11/11/75 11/14/75 11/13/75 11/ 6/75 11/28/75 11/24/75 11/15/75 11/ 3/75 11/ 5/75 11/ 5/75 11/15/75 11/ 7/75 11/22/75 11/20/75 11/21/75 11/ 8/75 11/21/75 11/18/7 5 11/ 6/75

Where Killed Allagash Spencer Bay Mattawamkeag Merrill T.10, R.7 Pittston Farm Dead River North Paris Parson field Hersey Soldiertown Mopang Lake Monson East Middlesex Middlesex Orneville Norridgewock T.17, R.5 Ramsey Brook T.10, R.13 Eagle Lake

Firearm .30-06 .308 .300 .30-06 .308 .308 .30-30 8mm .308 7mm .33WCF .270 .308 .30-30 .30-30 .308 .32 sp. .306 .30-06 .308 .30-06

Dressed Weight

281 268 268 260 257 252 250 248 246 246 244 243 240% 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240

Live Weigh1 365 348 348 338 334 328 325 322 320 320 317 315 313 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1976

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

If he likes... Maine ... and Fish ... and Wildlife give him all three . . .

in one gift, but he will get it four times each year

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine