Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Summer 1979 by Maine State Library

MEET COMMISSIONER MANUEL

The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has a new commissioner-Glenn H. Manuel, of Littleton, whose appointment by Governor Joseph E. Brennan became effective June 4, 1979. He succeeds Maynard F. Marsh, who retired February 28. Commissioner Manuel is no stranger to the operations of the Department, having worked with this agency in several capacities since 1964. Then a state senator, he was chairman of the Legislature's Committee on Inland Fisheries and Game. He was chairman from 1965 to 1967 of the Legislature's Interim Study Committee on Inland Fisheries and Game, which made a detailed study of the Department's operations. While serving in the Senate, Mr. Manuel teamed with Sen. Elmer Violette and Sen. Floyd Harding to introduce and encourage passage of a bill that established Maine' s Allagash Wilderness Waterway. From 1971 to 1977, he was a member of the Department's Advisory Council and served as vice-chairman. He was also chairman, from 1973 to 1976, of the Department's Long Range Planning Committee. In 1974, in a statewide referendum, Maine citizens approved a $4,000,000 bond issue for use as a Fisheries and Wildlife Acquisition Fund for purchase of wildlife habitat. Mr. Manuel was a prime instigator of the legislation calling for the referendum. In 1978, he was appointed to a three-year term on the Department's Waterfowl Council, a post he vacated on being appointed to head the Department. Mr. and Mrs. Manuel, the former Bernice Mccusker, were married in 1944 and live in Littleton. They have four grown children. A native of Hodgdon, Maine, the Commissioner was graduated from Hodgdon High School and attended the University of Maryland. From 1940 to 1944, he was a technical officer with the Aeronautic British Air Commission, Washington, D. C. After serving as procurement officer, British Commonwealth Scientific Office, Washington,

he put in two years as assistant chief, Salvage Section, American Red Cross National Headquarters, in Washington. Returning to Maine in 1948, he started a farming career raising potatoes in Aroostook County. He has been a member of numerous state and national agricultural organizations. From 1978 to date, he served as director of the Potato Board of the United States and was on its Administrative Committee for the Northeast U. S. A. Commissioner Manuel took office when the Legislature was considering a bill to provide additional revenue to the Department by increasing license fees. Though the original proposal was not enacted, a compromise bill was, and the new fee schedule was set to go into effect January 1, 1980. The income problem remained, however, as the fee increase will hold off the effects of inflation only temporarily. Commissioner Manuel still faces the matter of solving a long-term problem of keeping Department income adequate to stay abreast of the inflation rate. That problem and many others constitute an assignment he is already working on and finding very challenging. We're glad to welcome him and to work with him in keeping the Department active and successful in its numerous programs in fish and wildlife management in Maine.

MAINE FISH AND \VILDLIFE

INSIDE

Vol. 21, No. 3

Summer 1979

Governor Joseph E. Brennan

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Glenn H. Manuel J. William Peppard Kenneth H . Anderson David 0. Locke Alanson B. Noble Lyndon H. Bond Peter C. Brazier Robert W. Boettger William C. Mincher Clayton G. Grant Richard B. Parks Lorenzo J. Gaudreau Alfred L. Meister

Commissioner Deputy Commissioner Director, Planning and Co-ordination Superintendent of Hatcheries Chief Warden Chief, Fishery Division Business Manager Chief, Wildlife Division Director, Information and Education Chief, Engineering Division Chief, Realty Division Director, Recreational Safety and Registration Chief Biologist, Atlantic Salmon Commission

Advisory Council Rodney W. Ross, Chairman Brownville, Maine Ralph L. Noel

Robert E. Moore

Auburn

Casco

George E. Prentiss

Dennis L. Smith

Rumford Nathan Cohen Eastport

Otter Creek Alva S. Appleby Skowhegan

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine

Seabird Islands: Fragile Factories

Alan E. Hutchinson

Five Senses Of Fish

Owen C. Fenderson

\Varden School 1978

William F. Allen

\Vest Branch Study Results

Paul R. Johnson

KID-BITS

Game Management Misconceptions

Hammond Eve

Hooking Mortality: \Vhat \Ve've Learned

Kendall Warner

Rockets, Radios, & Research

James K. Ringelman Jerry R. Longcore

Deer Seasons Set

Spruce Budworm Monitoring

Editorial

Steven A. Timpano

THE COVERS Front: A double-crested cormorant, or "shag", was once a rare sight on the Maine coast but is now one of our most common nesting seabirds, although not to everyone's liking. You 'II learn more about cormorants and the other birds that nest on Maine's coastal islands in the article beginning on page 2. Wildlife biologist Alan E. Hutchinson, who wrote the article, also took the photographs on this issue's front and back covers. Back: Black guillemots, year-round residents of the Maine coast, are the most common members of the Alcid family found nesting there. Inside back: One of those summer creatures more often heard than seen, this green frog decided to remain out in the open when Photographer Bill Cross happened by.

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

MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE (ISSN 0360-005X) is published quarterly by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State St., Augusta, Maine 04333, under Appropriation 4550. Subscription rates to United States zip code addresses : $2.50 for one year; $4.00 for two years; $5.50 for three years. No stamps, please. Second class postage paid at Augusta, ME 04330. ÂŠ Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1979. Written permission must be secured from the Department before reproducing any part of this copyrighted material. No advertising accepted.

All photographs in this issue were made by the Information and Education Division unless otherwise indicated.

POSTMASTER: Send Form 3579 with entire magazine to .284 State St., Augusta, ME 04333.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

By Alan E. Hutchinson Assistant Migratory Bird Research Leader

ICTURE A GRAY, overcast day in mid-March. The wind, blowing hard from the northeast, is driving a freezing rain before it. The seas, running as high as 15 feet, are pounding onto the islands of Penobscot Bay. It's not a "fit place for man or beast," and certainly not a day to bring to mind summer days and nesting birds. Yet, found on a number of these islands, in the patches of ground bared by the melting snow, are herring gulls and great black-backed gulls, already establishing their breeding territories. These two gull species are the earliest of Maine's island nesting birds to return, and their presence on a wintry day in March is the first sign foretelling the activity soon to come with the arrival of warmer weather. Including these two early arrivals, there are 19 species of birds that return to Maine's coastal islands to nest and that hold special interest in Maine due to their traditional use-often in large numbers-of certain coastal islands. The 19 nesting species include 12 in the seabird group, 1 species of waterfowl, and 6 species of wading birds. The length of the Maine coast, measured as a straight line from Kittery to Eastport, is about 250 miles. However, if the distance is measured so the actual shoreline of all the bays and coves is included, the true length is well over 2,500 miles, or equal to the distance from Bangor to Los Angeles! Found along this expansive coastline are approximately 3,000 islands and major ledges ranging in size from a few square yards to over 100 square miles (Mount Desert Island). The majority of these islands, however, are relatively small .

Of Maine's 3,000 coastal islands, approximately 350 are used by seabirds, waterfowl, and wading birds for nesting and rearing of young. The breeding season starts as early as March for some species and ends at late as October for others. Nesting concentrations, called colonies, may range from a few breeding pairs to over 2,000 pairs of a single species. The seclusion offered by the island situation enables these concentrations to exist and is a major reason Maine's seabird colonies have survived. During the nesting period, however, the birds-particularly the young-are extremely vulnerable to predation or exposure, and any human disturbance can disrupt their normal behavior and result in a tremendous loss of hatchlings and eggs.

N 1976, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undertook a major survey to determine which of Maine's islands are used by colonial nesting birds. The species on each island also were determined and their numbers estimated. This co-operative effort (a contractual agreement between the University of Maine at Orono and the Office of Biological Service, U.S.F.W.S., with additional support from the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department) is now completed. The following discussion of the colonial nesters found on Maine's coastal islands is based largely on the findings of that survey. Seabirds. Maine's 12 species of seabirds include three members in the Alcid family: the common puffin, black guillemot, and the razorbill auk. Black guillemots are the most common of the three and are often seen, in both summer and winter, diving and feeding just off shore. Puffins and razorbills are much less common in Maine, although large numbers of them breed on the islands of Newfoundland and Laborador. The islands of Maine are the southern Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

limit of the breeding range for all three Alcid species and, therefore, represent the only nesting sites in the United States. In common with most island nesters, the three Alcids were practically eliminated as breeding species in Maine at the turn of the century. Unregulated disturbance, egg collecting, and killing of birds for food, fish bait, and sale to the millinery trade reduced the populations to the point where the sighting of one of these birds was a rare event. Previous articles in this magazine, by Packard (1969) and Mendall (1976), presented further details of this situation. With the advent of proper regulations, a more enlightened view of seabirds as a limited resource, and a timely change in millinery fashions, the island nesting birds began to increase in numbers and repopulate Maine's islands. Black guillemots have increased to an estimated level of two to three thousand breeding pairs and are found on 115 islands. Puffins and razorbills, on the extreme southern fringe of their breeding range, have never been very abundant in Maine and should not be expected to increase greatly without major climatic changes or shifts in ocean currents. Currently, Maine has one or two islands with nesting puffins or auks. Three species of gulls nest on the coastal islands: herring gulls, great black-backed gulls, and laughing gulls. Herring gulls are the most numerous island-nesting species, with over 25,000 pairs estimated in Maine. The herring gull population has increased rapidly in the past few decades, apparently a beneficiary of man's wasteful habits, particularly open municipal dumps. However, this population increase seems to have peaked and there is speculation that with the end of open dumping, the herring gull population might decline to a point where it would be more in balance with its natural food sources. Great black-backed gulls are apparently newcomers to Maine, with breeding pairs first recorded in the 1920's. This population is on the increase, and currently over 200 islands support about 10,000 nesting pairs. Both these species of gulls, but particularly great blackbacks, will feed on the eggs, young, and occasionally the adults of other island nesting birds. For this reason, they've received much "bad press" and there is often pressure to control their numbers. In certain isolated instances, control measures are warranted, but frequently, the gulls have not been the real culprit! The story is often told by a visitor to a nesting island of the eggs and chicks they witnessed being eaten by the gulls. The fact is, if the visitor had not approached the nesting colony in the first place, the resulting chaos-adult birds fleeing and leaving the eggs and chicks unguarded-would not have occurred and the gulls wouldn't have had the opportunity to prey on them. Gulls and the other species of colonial nesters have apparently nested in mixed colonies for centuries and prob-

ably benefit from such associations. In an undisturbed colony the adult bird can usually defend itself and its offspring from neighboring gulls, but add the disruption of an unaware birder or a picnicing family and the scene changes dramatically for the worse. The best policy when observing a nesting island is to remain far offshore. The third nesting gull, the laughing gull, is at the extreme northern limit of its breeding range in Maine. No great numbers of them have ever occurred here, and historical records range from none to about ten colonies in any given year. Laughing gull colony locations and sizes can be extremely variable from year to year. Six nesting sites and a total of about 200 nesting pairs were found in 1977. Four species of nesting terns are found on Maine's coast. One of these, the least tern is not known to nest on the islands but is limited to a few sites on sandy beaches of the mainland. The other three species, the Arctic, common, and roseate terns, are found nesting, often in mixed colonies, on islands from south of Portland to eastern Washington County. However, in contrast to the other island nesting seabirds, the terns have not shown an increasing trend since their population lows of the early 1900's. Their populations in Maine apparently peaked about 1940 and are now approximately half that level. Competition and predation from gulls, predation by rats, grazing of nesting islands by domestic animals, human disturbance, and chemical contamination have all been suggested as possible reasons for the decline.

::,

Q) Q)

'E co C:

At the southern limit of their breeding range, only about 25 pairs of razorbill auks nest on Maine's coastal islands.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

Cl.

Leach's petrel is probably the least understood of all the colonial nesters on Maine's islands, yet it could prove to be one of the most abundant. Petrels nest is burrows dug in the peat layers of treeless islands or in the soils of sprucecovered islands. The burrows' entrances are often concealed in rock crevices or under vegetation. This, plus the fact that the ocean-feeding adults only return to the burrows in the dark of night, have made accurate surveys and inventories all but impossible. Current population estimates of this elusive nester range as high as 19,000, but the limitation of the inventory techniques leave this estimate open to question. Maine is on the southern edge of the Leach's petrel's breeding range. There are currently 17 islands in Maine known to support breeding colonies. Today, the double-crested cormorant or "shag" is familiar to all who visit the coast, but this has not always been the case. During the early part of the 1800s, the cormorant was all but eliminated as a breeding species in New England. It was not found again breeding regularly in Maine until about 1930. Since that time, the population has expanded to a current level of about 15,000 pairs and may now have reached a peak. This rapid expansion and the cormorant's fish eating habits have earned it the displeasure of both commercial fisherman and Atlantic salmon sport fisherman. The basic diet of the cormorant is composed largely of the so-called "trash-fish" such as sculpin and tom cod. Overall, it's doubtful that cormorants seriously affect any fishery important to Maine. However, in certain instances, such as particular times along stocked salmon rivers, feeding_cormorants may take considerable numbers of young

Summary of Coastal Bird Colonies in Maine, 1977 Species

Number of Colonies

Common Puffin Black Guillemot Razorbill Great Black-backed Gull Herring Gull Laughing Gull Common Tern Arctic Tern Roseate Tern Least Tern Leach's Petrel Double-crested Cormorant Common Eider Great Blue Heron Little Blue Heron Snowy Egret Louisiana Heron Black-crowned Night Heron Glossy Ibis

F'Atlmated Number of Breeding Pairs 125

116 2 223 224

2,665

25 10,009 26,387 231

2,095

1,640 80 21 19,131 15,357 22,385 903 4

3 2 17 105 240 18 2 4 1 8 3

117 75

Information from: Korschgen, C.E. 1979. Maine Coastal Waterbird Colonies 1976-1977. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. Unpublished report.

.............~......_ &

....___

Glossy ibis.

salmon, and limited control efforts are warranted to minimize losses of these valuable fish. Control efforts are most effective when limited to the locale of the problem. Controlling cormorants at the breeding colony has the disadvantage of disrupting other breeding species and possibly not even affecting the individual birds causing the problem. Instances of severe depredation from cormorants-or any species-require well planned, long-range solutions . Waterfowl. Although Maine's coastal islands and marine habitats are important to over a dozen species of waterfowl thoughout the year, only the common eider nests there in large numbers. Due to this traditional association with coastal islands for nesting and its colonial nesting nature, the eider is unique among Maine's waterfowl and warrants inclusion in any discussion of Maine's island nesting "seabirds." Maine represents the southern extent of the breeding range for the common eider and, with the exception of Alaska, is the only state with breeding eiders . The eider population in Maine, in common with several species, reached a low point at the turn of the century when it was nearly extirpated as a nester. The population has increased since then and appears to be leveling off at the present level of approximately 20,000 nesting pairs. Wading Birds. The phrase "wading bird" is a general one referring to the long-legged, colonial nesting species such as the herons, egrets, and ibises. Six such species breed in Maine and although not restricted to nesting on coastal islands, their populations appear to be concentrated there and deserve inclusion in reference to Maine's coastal island nesters. The six species, in order of decreasing abundance, are great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, snowy egret, glossy ibis, little blue heron, and Louisiana heron. Historical records indicate that great blue herons and black-crowned night herons have nested in coastal Maine since at least the late 1800s and probably earlier. Reports are incomplete, however, and any long-term trends are impossible to determine. The other four species of wading birds are recent additions to Maine as breeding birds, and their range extension into southern Maine has been well Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

documented by the Maine Audubon Society. Snowy egrets were th first to appear, with reports in 1963. A slow, but significant increase has occurred since then, with the four species now found in one or more mixed colonies on four southern Maine islands.

HE RECENTLY COMPLETED INVENTORIES found approximately 350 of Maine's 3,000 coastal islands to support one or more pairs of colonial nesting birds. F\;rthermore, historical records, compiled during this survey show the traditional importance of these islands. This information indicates that a rather small percentage of Maine's coastal islands are responsible for supporting these seabird populations and that an even smaller percentage (those with the larger colonies) support the major portion of the populations. The majority of the nesting islands, including a large number supporting important colonies, are currently under private ownership. Largely due to fate, but often as a result of the care and stewardship shown by their owners, many of these islands remain suitable for nesting birds. However, rising taxes and increasing pressures for recreational and industrial development provide little assurance that this will continue. With the goal of at least maintaining present levels of nesting seabird populations, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is continuing its efforts to protect the most significant colonies. This is being done through island acquisition and transfer, private landowner agreements, encouragement of land use planning and zoning, and co-operative management with other island-owning government agencies and private organizations. The Fish and Wildlife Department has a long history of involvement and concern with nesting islands, stemming primaril.Y from interest in the eider duck. Today, however, with expanded responsibilities for the management of nongame species and our active participation in the process of environmental impact assessment, the Department has expanded its interests and efforts to include the management of all the island-nesting species. The management policy for coastal, nesting islands owned or managed by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has three basic Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

management objectives as indicated below. We also recommend them to any other island owners interested in the protection of nesting birds. 1. To provide adequate breeding habitat for the coastal island-nesting species. Existing conditions on a nesting island are assumed to be responsible for the presence of the nesting birds. On most islands, therefore, little or no habitat manipulation will be carried out, for the management goal is to maintain existing conditions. Acquisition programs and liaison with other agencies and individuals responsible for coastal islands will continue, with the goal of increasing the number of islands managed for colonial nesters. 2. To protect nesting birds from human or other disturbance. During the nesting period, from May 1 through July 15, no human activity will be allowed on nesting islands, except for emergency situations and Department-authorized personnel involved in management or research. These dates may vary slightly on certain islands depending on the species of birds using the island. For example, Leach's petrels are late nesters and their young may still be in the nesting burrows in September. In such cases, the dates of restricted activity should be adjusted accordingly. To give further protection to nesting birds, the release of wild or domestic species such as rabbits, cats, dogs, deer, raccoons, mink, fox, sheep, goats, cows, chickens, ducks, and pigs is prohibited to avoid problems of predation and destruction of nesting cover. Developments of any kind are prohibited, with the exception of Department-authorized research or management projects. In certain cases, it may become necessary to control problem species if they are limiting the nesting success of other species. Timber and mineral exploitation will be prohibited from these islands to avoid disruption of nesting habitat. 3. To provide for public use. Except during the nesting period, as stated above, the islands will be open for public use. Certain recreational uses will be permitted-including fishing, hiking, hunting, wildlife studies and photography, picnicing, wild crop harvesting, and trapping-provided no damage is done to the nesting habitat.

AINE'S SEABIRD nesting islands represent a unique and valuable resource to the people of Maine and the nation. With the ever increasing developmental pressures being exerted along our coast, every effort should be made to maintain their natural values. LITERATURE CITED

Korschgen, C. E. 1979. "Maine Coastal Waterbird Colonies-1976, 1977." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-79/xx. 97pp. Mendall, Howard L. 1976. "Eider Ducks, Islands and People." Maine Fish and Wildlife. Spring 1976. pp. 4-7. Packard, Christopher M. 1969. "Maine's Seabird Nesting Colonies." Maine Fish and Game. Winter 1969-70. pp. 16-19.

The

the senses of fish is far from complete, some essential facts are known; and some interesting theories have been developed from pieces of information that will be useful in guiding future research on this subject.

Five

Senses of Fish

By Owen C. Fenderson Fishery Research Biologist

Note: This article originally appeared in the fall 1967 issue of MAINE ~IS~ AND GAME Magazine. We are reprinting it here as part of a con!mumg program to expose our newer readers to some earlier articles of mterest.

Fish apparently do not have specialized cells that respond to touch as mammals and birds do, but some fish have nerve endings on parts of the body, especially the head region, that are sensitive to touch. Fish have a unique sensory organ, called the lateral-line system, which can probably be classified as an organ receiving touch sensations. The lateral line on such fish as the salmon appears as a thin line running along the side of the body from on the head to the base of the tail. Upon close inspection under a microscope, it can be seen that the line is made up of tiny openings to channels leading to small cells in the skin, which are in turn connected to an elaborate nervous system. From recent studies, it has been concluded that the lateralline system informs the fish of localiz.e d disturbances caused by water vibrations or by currents flowing against its body. Thus, fish traveling in a school may keep informed of each other's direction of movement by detection of water motion created by their own swimming movements. Through the lateral-line system, fish may also have a "distant touch" sense for locating distant objects, such as prey or predators, which transmit water movements back to the fish. There is also evidence that some fish can locate fixed objects from reflected water movements, created by its own swimming motions, which are bounced back to them. This ability would be similar to the "echo location" techniques of bats and porpoises that transmit and receive reflected sound waves for detection of food, obstacles, and approaching enemies. Also, the lateral-line system is involved in the detection of low frequency sound and thus may serve as a hearing aid. Fish probably do not experience pain as we know it, because they have primitive brains. There is Touch.

a fish can feel, taste, see, hear, or sr_nell an object in .its environment leads to important quest10ns concerning both the sportsman and the fisheries scientist, to say nothing of the fish itself. A fisherman will select a certain lure from his tackle box-on the basis of color, shape, or size--with the assumption that the characteristics of the lure have meaning for the fish. The choice of a large, red, streamer fly over a small, brown one, for example, presupposes ( 1) that the fish angled for is not color blind and has a "preference" for red, and (2) that the fish can discriminate between sizes and will have a "preference" for the small fly. A fishery scientist .should have some knowledge of a fish's sensory capabilities before he can properly evaluate the effects of pollutants on the behavior of migrating fish or know how they will react to currents in a particular fishway design. A fish must be endowed with senses that will allow it to detect food, avoid predators and noxious chemicals, locate spawning grounds, recognize individuals of its own kind and sex, and respond to a wide variety of other stimuli affecting its well-being. Because we know that fish live in various kinds of habitat that are continually changing, we would expect them to have a wide range in sensory capabilities and different species to vary in structure and function of .sense organs, depending on their particular way of life and habitat requirements. Although the present state of our knowledge about HETHER OR NOT

Development of the different senses varies considerably between fish species. For example , the bullhead has well developed se~ses of s~ell, touch , and taste, but poor eyesight, while the pickerel has acute vision but little sense of taste.

SMELL

SIGHT

HEARING Bladder

Body Surface Sketch by Malcolm Redmond

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

the classical story of a fish being caught and released, then a few moments later caught again with its own eye as bait! However, fish do possess an elaborate nervous system and well developed sense organs, and this suggests that some sensations akin to pain may be experienced. Taste. Most fishes have generalized organs of taste in the mouth and throat and even on the outside of the body. In some species, the senses of touch, taste, and smell are highly integrated. The bullhead, for example, has poor eyesight and relies mainly on scent, touch, and sensitive taste buds distributed over much of its body to find its food. The ability of fish to distinguish different kinds of taste sensations varies. The carp, a prodigious eater, can sense substances that are salty, sweet, bitter, or acid; but many other species apparently can distinguish only substances that are in their natural food, uch as extract of earthworms. The pickerel has acute vision to aid it in capturing fast moving prey which it gulps down voraciously. It may have no need to taste its food, which invariably consists of living flesh. Salmon, also sight feeders, show little discrimination in what they take into their mouths. A smelt or aquatic insect is natural food and will be unhesitatingly eaten, but often the almon will take into its mouth a bit of wood floating in the water. Occasionally, the "food" may be some bizarre contraption, resembling nothing found in nature, which has been contrived by some presumptuous angler. Such foreign objects, however, will be immediately .spit out. An experienced flyfisherman can vouch for the fact that the hook has to be set quickly. Salmon apparently can discriminate rapidly an edible from a non-edible object, perhaps by taste, texture, or smell. S mell. Many experiments with fishes have shown that their sense of smell is especially acute and that they can detect a variety of substances dissolved in water in very minute quantities. Some fish rely on an accurate sense of smell in obtaining food. Bluntnose and fathead minnows can distinguish rinse water in which several different species of aquatic insects have been held. These fish can tell differences not only between insects but between several Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

kinds of aquatic plants as well. Scientists speculate that minnows may find their way to feeding grounds by following the scent of aquatic plants which grow there. Some fish, when injured, give off odors called alarm substances. These alarm substances warn other fish of dangerous predators in their midst. Certain minnows are frightened by the odors of yellow perch, salmon, and bullheads and probably recognize them as natural enemies this way. A bear's paw held in the water, or rinsings. of human hands, will delay the upstream migration of certain Pacific salmon or keep them from entering a fishway. Not only is the sense of smell important to fish in getting food and evading predators, it may also be used in orientation. Sunfish displaced from their home area in a stream will find their way back within a short time, but test fish with their nostrils plugged with cotton are unable to do .so or find their way with great difficulty. This apparent ability of some fish to find their way around by smelling the environment has led to an interesting theory concerning a strong homing tendency of migrating salmon. The young of cerfa.in species of salmon can distinguish water from their home .stream from that of other streams, presumably by some odor familiar to them. Scientists are exploring the possibility that young salmon learn the characteristic odors of their parent stream, which help them find their way back to spawn as adults. This implies that the salmon has some kind of long-term memory, because it spends several year.s far at sea before returning to its home stream. Vision. The eye of a fish is constructed much like our own, and in fishes that depend upon sight for obtaining food, recognizing mates, finding home territories, and other activities, vision is highly developed. In a group as diversified in their habits as fishes, there are, of course, notable exceptions. Blind cave-fishes of Kentucky that live in perpetual darkness have little need for vision, but they have compensated for this by developing their other senses to an acute level. Deep-water fishes of the oceans receive little light in their surroundings; but even there, some light penetrates, and fish with well developed eyes can be found. Nature has even gone to great lengths in providing some deep-sea fish with monstrous eyes that point upwards in order to gather all the available light in which to see prey or court their mates. As do land vertebrates (all animals with a back7

bone), such as the dog or man, fishes have the two most essential parts of the eye which are often compared to parts of a camera. There is the light sensitive retina at the back of the eye, which acts as the film screen, and the lens at the front of the eye, which focuses the image and projects it on the screen. Land vertebrates have a movable iris covering the lens, comparable to the diaphragm in a camera, which can adjust the eye to varying light intensities. Fish have a more or less rigid iris but can adapt their eyes to light by other means. Light sensitive cells called rods and cones in the retina of the vertebrate eye are well developed in most fishes. Fish can vary the amount of light their eyes perceive by moving the light sensitive cells away or toward light coming into the eye or by shading the cells with pigments. Land vertebrates have special eye muscles which can accommodate the eye to view objects that are both near and far away by changing the convexity of the lens. These muscles are poorly developed in some fishes, but eye accommodation is accomplished simply by turning the lens in relation to the retina. Some sight-feeders do have well developed eye muscles and have other specialized eye functions even more efficient than our own. Trout and salmon, for example, have the amazing ability to focus their eyes on near and distant objects simultaneously. Binocular vision is important . in judging distances. Man has no problem because his eyes are both at the front of the head, and the visual fields of both eyes overlap. A fish usually has eyes at the sides of the head and has to compensate for monocular vision (looking at an object with one eye). Many fish can turn their eyes independently and get binocular vision in at least part of their visual field. By looking slightly cross-eyed, so to speak, they can see in front of them, or by turning their eyes in the reverse direction, they can see behind. Thus, you can approach a man from behind or above without being detected, but a fish can see you easily. This visual ability can be a distinct advantage to an animal that has to be constantly alert for enemies coming at it from all directions. Some fish have good color vision, and this is probably the rule for practically all our game fishes. Fish have been trained under experimental conditions to distinguish not only different colors but al.so various hues and shades. One fish tested was able to discriminate between twenty-four hues of different colors, about the same range as man. Members of the catfish family that often inhabit muddy waters and have poor vision anyway, probably have poor color vision. The deep-sea fishes may have less acuteÂˇ color vision in a world in which only the ability to distinguish .shades of blue-green and grey is necessary. 8

Hearing and sound pro0 O 0 were duction. Fishes once considered essentially deaf or, at best, a ware of only the most violent .sounds transmitted through the water. More recent studies have shown that many fishes have acute hearing and, indeed, produce their own Fish lack the external and middle ear sounds. characteristic of mammals, but they have well developed inner ears which are .sensitive to sounds of varying pitch and tone. As in mammals, the inner ear also serves the fish well in maintaining balance. Fish also have some unique hearing aids. The role of the lateral-line system in perception of low frequency sound has been mentioned. Most fishes have an air-bladder which, besides serving as a hydrostatic organ regulating buoyancy in water, is also associated with the inner ear. Resonations of gases within the bladder, produced by .sound waves traveling through the water and the fish's body, relay sensations of sound to the ear. Since the development of sophisticated underwater sound detection devices during World War II, scientists have been listening in on fish and other aquatic animals. They have found the under-water world to be an especially noisy place and sound production by fishes to be a common occurrence. In one study of sixty species from the Atlantic Ocean, it was found that fifty-four produced sound. Sound is apparently an important means of communication. An endless variety of noises have been recorded in the vicinity of fishes and variously described as "squeaks," "pips," "knocks," "grunts," "staccato," etc. Each species seems to have its own particular calls which probably have meaning for fish of their own kind only. The goby, for example, courts the female of its choice with an amorous "grunt." Sound production is also known for several fresh-water fishes. The male satin-fin shiner produces a "rapid series of knocks" when fighting with another male and has another call described as "purring" during courtship. Apparently the female is silent, lending little support to the theory that the female does all the talking. Other fish produce a virtual chorus of sounds associated with feeding, which may serve to lead others to the feeding grounds. Through research, these and other interesting discoveries add to the growing knowledge of how fish live and react to their environment. Such information is essential to the fishery scientist charged with the preservation and management of a fisheries reâ&#x20AC;˘ source. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

Maine Warden School 1978

Something New's Been Added! By William F. Allen Warden Sergeant

HE MAINE WARDEN SERVICE School is one of the finest of its kind in the nation. As a matter of fact, we have had wardens from other states and agencies attend our Warden School because it is the best in the northeast. For the person who has the desire to be a Maine game warden, the school is hard but enjoyable. If a person did not have the necessary desire and drive, the school would probably be unbearable. The school is carefully designed to prepare young men and women, in various ways, for a career with the Maine Warden Service. The hours of studying are long, the self-defense is rough, and the physical fitness program every morning requires each candidate to draw from his or her inner reserves. The latest school was organized by Warden Lt. John Marsh, Sgt. Norman "Skip" Trask, and Sgt. John Crabtree. Cpl. Rod Sirois of St. Pamphile was in charge of the new wardens and also functioned as their physical fitness instructor. The school was attended by 16 men and one woman from our department as well as a warden from the Penobscot Indian Nation. The school started February 27, 1978, and ran through May 4, 1978. The first eight weeks were held at the University of Maine at Orono under the direction of Dr. Malcolm Coulter of the University of Maine staff. The last two weeks of training were held on Swan Island at Richmond under the direction of Lt. Marsh. At Orono, each day began at 5:30 a.m. with the physical fitness program. Cpl. Sirois started the class out with a mile and a half run followed by 30 minutes of exercises. At the end of the eight weeks at Orono, every member of the class was able to run 10 miles non-stop. After the physical fitness instruction, the wardens had breakfast, and then it was off to class. This portion of their training lasted from 8:00 a .m . until 5:00 p.m.

Part of the new bivouac period on Swan Island was devoted to studying sportsmen 's techniques. Here, Wildlife Biologist Harold " Doc" Blanchard familiarizes a group of warden trainees with the tools and techniques of the trapping trade.

The topics covered on the campus were as follows: Warden Service policy, care of equipment, game biology, conservation law, report writing, speech, swimming, rules of evidence, meat identification, use of explosives, selfdefense, public relations, first aid, courtroom procedure, map and compass, plant identification, use of firearms, drugs, accident investigation, search and seizure, fish identification, hunter safety, snowsled safety, interrogation, arrest and warrants, use of search and rescue team, preservation of evidence, and use of aircraft. The classroom work provided the new wardens with facts, theories, and rules from which to draw when making decisions in the field . This is a very important part of a warden's education because it is seldom that a warden has a chance to do any research before making a decision. Due to the very nature of our work, the warden will be called upon many times to make quick decisions. Without the proper background from which to draw, a quick decision could lead to negative results. It is the duty of the instructors, i.e., warden lieutenants and sargents, field wardens, University staff, and others to supply the new warden with the necessary mental equipment to make the right decision under stress and to do it quickly if the need arises.

ITH THE ORONO WORK completed, the new wardens were taken out of the classroom and given a chance to "try their wings" at Swan Island in Richmond. The next two weeks of schooling were something new to all of us. Never before had the Warden Service had

A real example of "hands-on" training-two new wardens apprehend a night-hunting " suspect" in one of the many staged violations during the two-week bivouac. The poacher, actually Warden Lt . John Marsh, was later taken to a mock court by the wardens-in-training.

a training camp as such. The purpose of the training camp on Swan Island was to introduce the new wardens to problems that they would encounter in the field. It was on Swan Island th_a t the class jelled and started to work as a unit rather than as individuals. As the two weeks progressed, the new wardens were exposed to various mock patrol problems, mock poaching problems, and, if an apprehension was made, a mock trail. During these two weeks, the students were broken up into two-man teams. They made mistakes, but they seldom made the same mistake twice. The ''violators'' were experienced wardens brought to Swan Island from all over the state. They were assigned a specific violation in a specific area at a certain time. All of this was co-ordinated by Sgt. Trask and Sgt. Crabtree. The types of incident encountered were trapping violations and hunting and fishing violations. Warden Ralph Sarty of Sebago Lake had instructed the new wardens in hunting accident investigation while they were at the Orono campus. At Swan Island, each team of wardens was taken to a nearby island where a mock hunting accident had been set up for them to investigate. The scene varied for each team and was made to look as realistic as possible, with bullet marks on surrounding trees, spent shell casings in the leaves, and even "blood" on and around the victim. All the clues needed to solve the crime were at or near the scene, but it was up to the students to find the clues and reconstruct the actual scene to determine what happened and who the shooter was. The students all agreed that they gained a great deal of knowledge from this exercise and that they were much better prepared to investigate hunting accidents in the field.

A S THE NEW WARDENS worked the island in their two-man teams, they were given assignments to patrol various areas on the island, not knowing what they were going to encounter. All teams worked during the daylight hours, and each night several teams were

assigned to night patrol. If they were not assigned to night patrol, they would often be called out at 2:00 or 3 a.m. on a night hunting complaint. When they arrived at the complaint area, they might or might not find activity. Needless to say, the older wardens blitzed the new wardens. The "violators" did not miss a chance to capitalize on a mistake by one of the students. The new wardens found themselves looking down the barrel of a pistol hidden in a boot, found themselves being assaulted with a knife that they missed in a search, and found themselves in many other undesiraple situations. Though they made mistakes, I doubt that they will make the same ones again, and they are much better wardens because of these mistakes. Whenever the wardens made an arrest, they had to take the violator to a mock jail and go through the search process and the booking procedure. Usually the trial was scheduled for the next day. The trial was made as realistic as possible, with older wardens acting as defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, and judges. The new warden first had to testify and then go through some ver)'..grueling cross-examinations by the defense attorneys. During the entire two weeks on Swan Island, Sgt. Trask and Sgt . Crabtree observed the new wardens and pointed out their mistakes as they went. Prior to the end of the training session, each warden was taken aside and told what his weaknesses and strengths were. This was probably the most important single act by the instructors. If these new wardens could be helped to evaluate their own characteristics, they could strengthen their weaknesses and capitalize on their strong points. While at the training camp on Swan Island, the new wardens were exposed to many different and difficult situations. They quickly learned how to deal with them and will be much better prepared to handle situations that they will encounter in the field. None of the new wardens ever said that Swan Island was easy, but they all felt that it was very worthwhile and that they are better game wardens because of it. At the end of the 10-week training, 17 new wardens said their good-bys and headed toward their respective districts. They were a very proud and capable group of young wardens because of the training that they had received at the University of Maine at Orono and on Swan Island. The State of Maine and her people can be proud of these young wardens, and I am sure that in the years to come, due to their capabilities, desires, and training, these wardens will be a benefit to all of us. â&#x20AC;˘ Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

WEST BRANCH STUDY REVEALS . ..

What Fishermen Want

By Paul R. Johnson Fishery Biologist Photos by the author

HE West Branch of the Penobscot River between Chesuncook Lake and the Pemadumcook chain of lakes provides a very popular fishery for landlocked salmon . Easy year-round road access to and along the river between Ripogenus Dam, on the outlet of Chesuncook Lake, and Abol Stream, 11.5 miles downstream, concentrates much of the fishing pressure along this section of the river. The fishing season opens on the first of April. At that time, when most other waters in the area are still icebound, Maine residents-especially from the Millinocket area-troll for salmon in the Nesowadnehunk and Abol deadwaters. Fishing pressure decreases in late April and early May. Higher than normal water levels from spring runoff sometimes make fishing difficult during this period. From Memorial Day through Labor Day, both Maine residents and nonresidents frequent the river, and many anglers camp in areas along the shore. In the summer, fishing from shore is most popular. Many summer anglers travel long distances to fish the West Branch for a weekend or a week, and a significant percentage of them have been regular annual visitors there. Use drops again after Labor Day and is very low during the last two weeks of the season, when fishing is restricted to fly fishing only, with a daily bag limit of one fish.

proved the opportunity for anglers to fish in the river. Some West Branch anglers maintain that the quality of the salmon fishing has declined significantly as a result of these changes. Fishing regulations on the West Branch have spirited much interest and controversy over its management. Between 1959 and 1973, there were 4 changes in the laws that affect all or sections of the river between Ripogenus Dam and Abol Stream. In 1972, the daily bag and possession limit was reduced from 8 to 2 salmon. In 1973, another change permitted the use of worms and live fish as bait (general law) after 8 years of restrictions limiting terminal gear to artificial lures and flies. Many anglers expressed concern over this change, fearing that worms and live bait could lead to substantial salmon losses, especially among young, sublegal-sized fish caught and released . Study showed that quality fishing for landlocked salmon was an important motivation of West Branch fishermen , but not the only one.

URING the past 25 years, improvements in

access routes to and along the West Branch have greatly increased the opportunity for anglers to reach the river. The end of pulpwoÂˇo d drives, in 1972, also im-

Editor's note: The first part of this appraisal of the West Branch of the Penobscot River appeared in the Fall 1978 issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

To determine the status of the West Branch salmon population and its fishery, the Fishery Division collected information from 1973 to 1975 on the fishing and on age and growth characteristics of the salmon in the anglers' creels. Estimates were made of angler use and harvest. Along with the 1975 creel census, we gave questionnaires to licensed anglers contacted in a sample of census days. An analysis of the responses to these questionnaires has permitted an assessment of angler characteristics and preferences, and their opinions about fishing quality, fishing regulations, and other factors related to their use and enjoyment of the West Branch salmon fishery. All of this information has been and will be used to guide the management of the river toward assuring the continued high quality of the fishery and the river environment so important to the fishing experience. In 1975, counts on the river from April through September indicated that anglers spent nearly 5,000 days pursuing their sport on the 11.5 miles of the West Branch that were studied. From angler surveys in 1973 and 1974, and traffic records maintained by the Great Northern Paper Company, it appears that fishing pressure was similar during those years. June and July accounted for approximately one-half of the total annual use, while April accounted for less than 10 per cent. During each of the study years, interviews by census clerks resulted in angler information from between 10 per cent and 37 per cent of the total estimated number of days spent fishing each season. From this information, we were able to learn much about the use of the river and the quality of the fishing. In April and May, Maine resident anglers outnumbered nonresidents; but throughout the remainder of the season, there were more nonresident than resident anglers. Of the total number of angler days each season, approximately 12

Downstream from Little Eddy, Mt. Katahdin in background. Scenic beauty is an important feature of the West Branch.

one-half were from Maine residents, and one-half from nonresidents. Maine residents indicated an average of 8 days per season fishing the West Branch, involving several trips there each season. Nonresidents averaged 7 days of fishing per season, with the majority of them making only 1 trip to the river. The length of time fishing in any 1 day averaged between 4 and 5 hours. To determine the distribution of fishing pressure along the river, 3 areas were identified: Area I, the first 5 3 I 4 miles from Ripogenus Dam to the head of the Nesowadnehunk Dead water; Area II, the 2 1/ 4 miles included in the Nesowadnehunk Deadwater; and Area III, the 3 1/2 miles from Nesowadnehunk Falls to Abol Stream. During the three years of the study approximately onehalf of the fishing pressure each season occurred in Area I above the Nesowadnehunk Deadwater. Use was concentrated in the Big Eddy area and was distributed throughout the season, with a peak in late June and early July. Area II and Area III each accounted for approximately onequarter of the fishing pressure each season. However, most of the use in the Nesowadnehunk Deadwater occurred in April and May, while use in Area III was similar to that in Area I. Fishing in the lower section concentrated around Nesowadnehunk Falls and at the campground near Abol Stream. TUDIES OF THE TYPES of terminal gear used by anglers during the 3 years when general law regulations were in effect indicate that parties of anglers with fly fishermen increased each season, from 40 per cent in 1973 to 70 per cent in 1975. The number of parties with anglers using worms remained fairly constant-

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

around 30 per cent each season-and the number with anglers using artificial lures increased from 30 per cent in 1973 to 40 per cent in 1974, then decreased to 22 per cent in 1975. Very few anglers were found to use live or sewn-on fish as bait, and most of those who did fished in April. The above percentages add to more than 100 per cent each season because anglers in the parties interviewed often used more than one type of terminal gear during a day of fishing. Angler success-that is, the percentage of days fishing , when anglers caught a salmon over 14 inches-averaged nearly 30 per cent during each of the study years. This success is higher than that observed for landlocked salmon anglers in many Maine lakes. In considering angler success on the West Branch, a very important distinction must be made between legal-sized salmon caught and legal-sized salmon kept by anglers. From 1973 to 1975, between 30 and 45 per cent of the legal salmon caught by West Branch anglers were released! Most of these were reported to be less than 17 inches long. Apparently, many anglers fished because of the opportunity to catch large salmon. With the 2 salmon daily bag limit, they released many of the small legal fish they caught while in pursuit of larger individuals . Using the total number of angler days spent on the West Branch, and the average catch of legal salmon per angler day, we estimate that over 2,000 legal-sized salmon, averaging approximately 16 inches in length, were caught each season from 1973 to 1975. However, because of the release rate of legal-sized fish, the actual harvest of salmon from the 11.5 miles ofriver studied probably ranged from 1,200 to 1,500 fish each year. The average size salmon in the angler's creel ranged from 18 inches, in 1973, to 17 inches, in 1975, and weighed approximately two pounds. Four and five year old salmon made up a majority of the catch, while the older, larger salmon comprised from 10 to 20 per cent. Salmon less than the 14 inch legal minimum length limit also contributed significantly to the West Branch fishery. From 1973 to 1975, these "short" fish made up between 64 and 72 per cent of the total angler catch during the season. Yet, the percentage of shorts in the catch varied a great deal through the season. In April and May less than 40 per cent of the catch consisted of sublegal-sized salmon. This percentage increased through the month of June; and by July and August, nearly 80 per cent of the catch involved short salmon. We estimate that the total catch of short salmon each season was over 5,000 fish. The West Branch salmon demonstrate a good growth rate in comparison to salmon from other Maine waters. The availability and abundance of smelts swept into the river from Chesuncook Lake accounts for much of this good growth. It is also likely that smelt populations exist in the deadwater areas throughout the river, and these offer a forage source when smelts are not being swept down from above. In addition, aquatic insect life is abundant throughout the river. This sustains the large number of young salMaine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

Wading, canoes and boats, and shore fishing are all employed on the West Branchi varying with the seasons and water levels.

mon in the West Branch, and adult salmon are commonly observed feeding on the many hatches that occur during the summer months.

N THIS STUDY we were also interested in learning how successful various kinds ofterminal gear were in catching salmon. From angler reports during the 3 seasons studied, an average of 40 per cent of the legal-sized salmon, and 54 per cent of the short salmon, were caught on flies. Approximately 30 per cent of both legals and shorts were caught on worms, and 26 per cent of the legals and 15 per cent of the shorts were taken on artificial lures. Live fish, and fish sewn-on as bait, accounted for the remaining 4 per cent of the legal salmon and 1 per cent of the shorts. After considering the distribution of fishing pressure along the river, and information on the catch of sublegalsized salmon and the use and success of terminal gear types by anglers, the Fish and Wildlife Department recommended a return to an ''artificial lures and flies only'' restriction for the section of the West Branch between Ripogenus Dam and the Nesowadnehunk Deadwater. Maine studies on mortality of salmon caught and released indicate a greater survival of those fish caught on artificial lures, and flies, than on worms. Thus, the recommended regulation was designed to reduce potential hooking mortalities in salmon caught along the section of the West Branch most heavily used by anglers during the months when most of the sublegal-sized fish were caught. This change in regulations was instituted beginning with the 1976 season.

HE STUDY also sought information on West Branch fishermen's attitudes on several subjects. In 1975, questionnaires were completed by 524 anglers, ages 16 and older, contacted along the river. While a complete analysis of the results is not possible here, the responses to several of the questions are worthy of brief consideration in light of the present status of the West Branch salmon fishery and its management. Nearly two-thirds of the anglers indicated that they were satisfied with the fishing in the river. Anglers not satisfied most commonly mentioned poor fishing and discontent with the fishing regulations as the reasons. Many of these implied that the fishing had deteriorated because of liberal fishing regulations and increased fishing pressure, or that the fishing regulations should be more restrictive than the regulations in effect for 1975. Rating the importance of sizes and numbers of fish caught to their satisfaction with the fishing in the West Branch, most anglers indicated that the size of the fish they caught, or kept, was more important than the number. This might be expected on a river such as the West Branch, where many anglers were selecting among legal-sized salmon for the larger individuals. Anglers were asked whether they favored, opposed, or were undecided on five specified regulation alternatives ''if restrictions were necessary to protect the West Branch fish14

ery." "Fly fishing only" was favored by 52 per cent of anglers, while 33 per cent opposed it, and 15 per cent were undecided. Concerning the other alternatives: Favor

Oppose

Undecided

Single-pointed-hooked artificial lures only

440/o

340/o

220/o

Artificial lures only (treble hooks permitted)

21 OJo

560/o

230/o

Catch and release (all fish caught must be released)

100/o

680/o

220/o

Shorter season

190/o

51 0Jo

300/o

None of these four alternatives was favored by a majority of anglers, and only the ''single pointed hooked artificial lures only'' regulation was not opposed by a majority. While it is surprising to find that the more restrictive ''fly fishing only'' regulation was favored by more anglers than the two "artificial lures only" alternatives, these results are undoubtedly influenced by the large percentage of anglers (70 per cent) who fly fished in 1975. Since camping, sightseeing, and fishing, respectively, were the three most common recreational uses along the 11. 5 miles of river studied in 197 5, before commercial rafting began, anglers were asked for their opinion about the numbers of these users. A majority felt that the use of the river by these recreationists was "about right." There were fewer anglers who felt there could be more of these users than those who felt there were too many in 1975. Finally, anglers were asked what they enjoyed most and also what they found most bothersome about their trip to the West Branch. As the most enjoyable aspect, anglers most commonly mentioned the beauty and other features of the river and its surrounding environment, followed by the fishing itself, getting out and "away from it all," and the peaceful or relaxing atmosphere. As the most bothersome aspects, it was not surprising to discover that insects (blackflies, mosquitoes, and midges) were most commonly mentioned, followed by factors related to travel to and from the river. It is noteworthy that 20 per cent of the anglers found nothing bothersome about their visit to the West Branch, and only 5 per cent indicated that the existing general law regulations were most bothersome. HE RESULTS of three years of study show that the West Branch below Ripogenus Dam is providing a high quality landlocked salmon fishery. , Because of a very good growth rate, salmon attain sizes which anglers find very attractive. With the two salmon daily bag limit, many anglers release significant numbers of the smaller, legal-sized fish they catch. It appears that a majority of West Branch anglers were satisfied with the fishing there in 1975, and also with the number of other recreationists who shared the river with them. The natural environment of the river played an important role influencing their enjoyment of the fishing. Also, the size of the fish available seemed to be more im-

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

portant than the number available-at least for many anglers . Few statistics are available for the West Branch fishery before 1973, when terminal gear restrictions were in effect for all or portions of the river below Ripogenus Dam. During the 3 study years, the average length of the salmon in the angler,s creel decreased slightly, from 18 inches in 1973 to 17 inches in 1975. If it can be assumed that the salmon population in the river in 1973 was influenced by regulations in previous years, it is possible that the change to general law in 1973 may have influenced this decrease in the ' average fish size. However, from the 1973-1975 studies there are no indications that the general law regulations were detrimental to the maintenance of a wild salmon population in the West Branch. With the change in regulations back to artificial lures and flies for the section above the Nesowadnehunk Dead water, and general law regulations remaining on the rest of the river, the West Branch should continue to provide good salmon fishing and fishing opportunities for anglers with a variety of preferences, at least under the conditions of angler use and harvest that prevailed from 1973-1975 . In spite of the quality of the present fishery, many West

View upstream, just above Big Ambejackmockamus Falls.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

Branch anglers remember the years when larger salmon were more abundant. These anglers feel that the West Branch should be managed to provide a fishery for large salmon, with more special regulations regarding length and bag limits and terminal gear restrictions . Yet, others would rather see as few restrictions as necessary, and a higher harvest of salmon than could be sustained if the river were managed to produce larger numbers of big fish than at present.

ANGLER PREFERENCES ASIDE, several mat..!"'\.. ters important to the future management of the West Branch salmon fishery remain unresolved. The importance of the river as a spawning area has not been determined. Salmon movements in the river, and between the river and the lake system downstream, are not thoroughly understood. The percentage of the adult salmon harvested by anglers remains unknown. All of these must be fully understood if the West Branch is to be managed effectively in the future. A study which will answer these questions is now in progress, and until it is completed, the data analyzed and conclusions reached, any changes in the management of the river would be premature and perhaps not in the best interest of the fishery. Until then, the West Branch salmon population appears adequately protected â&#x20AC;˘ under the existing regulations.

by Cathy Tudor eaver are considered the most important among the animal conservers of water. They are often referred to as "upstream engineers." You probably are already aware that the beaver is known for building dams along creeks and streams, and many of you have probably seen a beaver dam; but do you know why the beaver bu i Ids a dam? Beaver dams, as well as large, manmade dams, stop the flow of water, creating a reservoir behind the dam. The beaver dam forms a small pond, and this is where the beaver makes his home or lodge. In the pond, the beaver's lodge, made from sticks and mud, is safe from enemies and winter storms. The beaver and his family work together to build their lodge and dam, making sure it is ready before winter arrives. Baby beaver, called kits, also help with the work. In the fall they cut down trees using their sharp, chisel-like teeth and bite off limbs and pieces of the tree. These pieces are

used, along with mud, for construction of the dam and lodge. The bark from the tree ·',. .,{,"JI \l· ., , is stored underwater in the "cellar" of the lodge for the beaver family's winter food supply. (In the spring and summer beaver eat grass, lily pads, ferns and other green plants that grow around the pond.) In addition to protecting his home, the beaver helps us and the environment by building dams. The small reservoirs or ponds his dams create also serve to break the force and reduce the crest of floods, to prevent erosion, to increase groundwater supply, to improve fish resources of streams and lakes and to increase stream flow in dry weather. The next time you see a lot of sticks and mud stretched out across a stream, notice how the water is backed up behind them. Can you find the beaver lodge in the pond? Don't forget to look for tree stumps where the beaver has cut down trees for his building materials.,,, »

•

Story reprinted from The Tennes

ILLUSTRATION BY JON JAG ER

scramble these word·s from the

ry. Then rearrange the shaded ters to spell the important job avers help us do.

Al 1 1_1 D

O L

1i i i D G L

i i 'i • 1

IRS

11111111 _I

El t: 1 1 1 T T H

Answers on page 24.

nservationist , March/April 1979

Note: This article originally appeared in the June 1976 issue of OUTDOOR OKLAHOMA, and appears here courtesy of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.

GENERAL MISUNDERSTANDING of ecolo-

gy has led a faction of our population to conclude that ''game'' management is detrimental to nongame species, and that hunting is an unnecessary, cruel activity. The leaders of this parade are often taken in by some writers who find it rewarding to attack hunting; so rewarding in fact that it becomes their livelihood. All one needs to do is to report acertain game management activity, which can be verified; present whatever uninformed or purposefully inaccurate interpretation meets the personal scheme of the instigator; then rely on the gullible to become so biased they

Many non-game species receive benefits from game management practices. Efforts to improve habitat for game species also help these animals.

By Hammond Eve Assistant Chief of Game

refuse to communicate with the "enemy" . Assuming that animal populations, if left alone, will stabilize at a level in balance with available food is a fallacy. Some will, and some will not. A robin is adept at extracting worms from lawns, but he also eats caterpillars, beetles and assorted fruits. When there are too many robins for the available food, the bird's only alternative is to seek a less populated feeding area. He cannot rip the earth asunder in search of worms. So, the earth will continue to yield worms at a given rate. He cannot change food habits or invade the niches of other species. The robin consumes the "interest" that the habitat provides, but he is incapable of destroying the "principal". He cannot render his environment incapable of supporting robins. Most species of wildlife live in harmony with their environments, as does the robin. A notable exception, however, is the hoofed browser. Where food production exceeds consumption, deer move about feeding and nibbling on various plant species, stripping none. Under these conditions the plant community is diverse, and the food the deer consume may be considered the excess yielded by the habitat. As deer density increases, however, the most desired food plants will be nibbled more frequently by more deer, until they are consumed or die. The disappearance of these plants is a slow process apparent only to the trained observer. The diversity of

plant species is reduced slowly, eventually forcing deer to eat plants of inadequate nutritional value. Deer first exceed the habitat's carrying capacity, then begin to reduce the carrying capacity itself. This phenomenon is easily understood, if a single browse plant is considered. A plant must have a minimum amount of foliage to meet its own metabolic needs, and it will have some foliage in excess of this. This excess, the "interest", can be consumed by browsers over an indefinite period with no harm to the plant. As the deer population continues to grow, however, the deer will consume more than the plant can afford to supply, and will begin to destroy the ''principal''. This begins to reduce the habitat's capacity to provide food. Thus, deer have the capability of altering their environments to their own detriment. If exceeding the carrying capacity resulted in a sudden die-off and removed the bulk of the deer herd for a period of quite a few years, the habitat could recover to some extent. But this is not what normally happens. A slow decline begins in the health of all deer, followed by declining reproductive success and increasing fawn mortality. Enough deer continue to survive, however, to prevent full range recovery, and the continuing food shortage results in malnourished deer. In the absence of some form of control, both deer and habitat decline. The deer are poor physical specimens subsisting on the brink of starvation, consumed within and without by parasites, but still producing enough offspring to perpetuate their dilemma. Some people who believe in letting nature take its course have claimed that, with the reduction in deer numbers, other wildlife species could increase to occupy a larger portion of ' the habitat. An ecological principle, Gause's Law, states that two different species cannot continue to occupy the same niche at the same time, or that two species in direct competition cannot coexist. Removal or reduction of deer will not result in an increase of other species, unless these species are compet.ing with deer. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

Birds and other animals needing low shrubs for nest sites or other purposes would definitely be scarce on an area seriously overpopulated with deer. Overpopulation is not the biologist's objective, however, and where it occurs it does so because the biologist has not been granted the authority to rectify the situation. Most wildlife areas are not overpopulated with deer. , Thus, to eliminate scientific deer management would result in environmental abuse, rather than balance. Specifically, a decline in diversity of both plant and animal species would occur, not an increase.

A PRODUCTIVE game man~ agement area is diversified. There will be tracts of mature forests and both grassy and brushy areas. Where any of these communities join an ecotone is created, and many different species abound. Good game lands also produce excellent habitat for a variety of non-game species. The birdwatcher can hardly condemn conservation departments which urge diversification of mature hardwoods to get more brushy growth for deer, since cutting some hardwoods creates nesting habitat and cover for wrens and many other species. Deer in many parts of the eastern United States were extirpated by the turn of the century. The game departments, with hunter support, eventually reestablished deer in these areas. To allow the herds to expand, it was at first necessary to harvest a percentage of the herd that was less than the annual rate of increase, which was accomplished through ''bucks-only'' laws. This led to the public belief that with bucks-only laws there would be deer, and without that law there would be none; so what is now an outmoded practice in some areas cannot be abolished. The hunter is presently in a transition period between sticking to his buck-only heritage or going to harvest of doe on areas where this is necessary. Another erroneous belief non-hunters hold is that animals displaced by Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

habitat destruction constitute a surplus population, which they say is one of the goals of game departments. Such departments would not create population surpluses through habitat destruction. The objective is to develop good habitat. When animals are displaced by habitat destruction, they generally just disappear. Habitat destruction, short of floods and fires, is an insidious process that gradually reduces the animals' living space and does not create surpluses. Any successful population increases at a geometric rate, while its means of subsistence increases at an arithmetic rate. Ideally, the population will increase to the habitat's carrying capacity. When an overpopulation develops, the source is within the population, the simple result of natality exceeding mortality. Intrinsic checks on deer population growth rates are inadequate, and overpopulation is inevitable if deer are not harvested. When a deer herd grows larger than the number which the habitat can sustain, it will eventually consume all natural vegetation within reach and starve. This illustrates another aspect of deer behavior; they stay in place and starve, rather than leave in search of food. Animals are not people, and anyone assigning human attributes to animals or trying to understand their behavior in terms of human needs and emotions

is destined to remain ignorant. The life spans of most animals are rather brief. Nature is a killer with a voracious appetite. Of 1,000 song sparrows hatched, 900 will die in less than 18 months. Of 1,000 rabbits born, 800 will die during the first year. In an unhunted population, the majority of deer will die within three years. Causes of these deaths are starvation, predation, diseases, parasites and accidents. An animal is lucky to be killed by a predator, either man or animal, rather than undergo the lingering agony of some of nature's other processes. Deaths among animal populations are of awesome magnitudes, yet the species survive. Man's intelligent harvesting of wild creatures is, in fact, a part of natural phenomena.

AN IS A PART of the na-

natural world, not an intruder from outer space, and his right to live on this planet is equal to that of any of the other life forms. Man's knowledge and intelligence separate him from other animals. He can transmit knowledge from one generation to the next, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect him to be able to manage his environment for recreational and esthetic enjoyment without endangering the survival of wildlife species. â&#x20AC;˘

Deer are perfect examples of animals which MUST be managed in order to maintain healthy populations. Without proper controls, these browsers can render their habitat incapable of supporting their own kind .

Single-hook vs. Treble-hook. Lures vs. Flies . .. What About Worms??

What We've Learned

About Hooking And Releasing Fish By Kendall Warner Fishery Biologist

ANY SPECIAL FISHING GEAR restrictions

have been established for Maine waters because of concern about the fate of gamefish hooked and released by anglers. Gear regulations have often been implemented because certain gears are suspected to cause less hooking mortality than others. Such restrictions are very often based upon opinions of the proponents rather than upon real evidence. Of course, there are situations where special gear restrictions may be beneficial to the fishery involved. Before any special gear restrictions are imposed for the purpose of reducing hooking mortality, however, the extent of such mortality caused by commonly used gears should be thoroughly evaluated. Before 1972, we had little real information on the effects of hooking 20

on caught-and-released landlocked salmon. In 1972, we initiated a detailed study to evaluate hooking mortality of salmon caused by commonly used angling gears under various environmental conditions. We designed the study to assess hooking mortality: (1) in hatcheries (spring and fall), (2) in a lake (spring and fall), and (3) in a river nursery area (spring). We hoped that the hatchery studies would be representative of some situations in the wild, with the advantage of large sample sizes in the hatchery. We operated the lake and river studies to simulate as closely as possible angling conditions and gears used by anglers in spring and fall, the periods of most concentrated fishing effort on Maine salmon lakes. Unfortunately, however, sampling difficulties did not permit us to operate experiments during summer and winter, and we can

only speculate on possible results based on findings with similar gears during the other seasons. Hooking mortality studies for other salmonid species in other geographical areas have been carried out over a period of many years. The findings of these studies served as a basis for design of our experiments in Maine. Results of studies outside of Maine were summarized in an earlier article in Maine Fish and Wildlife (Winter, 1974-75). At the Casco and Grand Lake sta- ' tions in spring, 1976-78, we angled salmon to evaluate mortality caused by hooking with four gear types (see Tables 1 and 2). Overall mortality of fish hooked on all gears was only 5 per cent, and ranged from 2 to 8 per cent during three years; only one control fish (0.3 per cent) died. Mortality of hooked fish was significantly Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

greater than that of (seined) controls, strongly indicating that death was caused by hooking. Studies at the Enfield station in fall, 1972-74, were done by fishing with the same four gear types as in spring studies. Mortality from hooking injuries (3 .3 per cent) was again significantly greater than that (0.3 per cent) of controls. , In spring and fall, 1973-76, we carried out experiments at Big Bennett Pond in Guilford. Experiment anglers caught salmon by trolling with hardware lures (wobblers) and tandem hook-streamer flies (Tables 1 and 2). During four years of spring sampling, 18 per cent of the angled salmon died after hooking; only 4 per cent of the control (trapnetted) fish died. In fall, 8 per cent of hooked and 2 per cent of control fish died during the five-day holding period. Mortalities of both spring- and fall-angled fish were significantly greater than those of controls. The East Outlet of Moosehead Lake was the study site for angling experiments in a river nursery area in spring, 1975-77. This part of the study was designed to compare salmon mortalities caused by hooking with worms and flies, two of the most popular and controversial gears. Of 177 fish caught on both flies and worms, 22 per cent died after hooking. All control fish caught in the fishway trap at East Outlet survived. Mortalities of salmon caught on all gears in spring studies in a lake ( 18 per cent) and in hatcheries (5.1 per cent) were significantly greater than hooking mortalities in the fall (lake: 8 per cent, hatchery: 3.3 per cent). Lower mortalities in the fall may be associated not only with better physical condition of fish, but also with generally decreasing water temperatures and decreasing metabolic rate and physical activity. Hardware lures commonly used by Maine salmon anglers while trolling or spin casting, especially in spring and fall, were used as test gears in lake and hatchery experiments. Wobblers were equipped with either single or treble hooks to permit comparison Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

of hooking mortality. Treble hooks are often condemned by anglers who believe that they cause more hooking mortality than single hooks. In spring hatchery studies, we found no significant difference in salmon mortality caused by treble-hook (6.0 per cent) and single-hook hardware (4.6 per cent), while in fall studies, treblehook wobblers caused significantly less mortality (0.3 per cent) than did single-hook wobblers (2. 7 per cent). In lake studies, trolled treble-hook hardware caused no significantly greater mortality (8 per cent) than did single-hook lures (15 per cent). We evaluated salmon hooking mortality caused by trolled tandemhook Maine streamer flies (single or treble rear hook) during our lake studies (Table 2). No significant difference was found between mortalities caused by all hardware lures and all streamer flies (single and treble hook

Location Of Study

Month

types grouped). All trolled treble-hook gears combined Oures and flies) did not cause a significantly higher mortality than did all single-hook gears, either in spring or fall . The results of these studies strongly indicate that special regulations prohibiting use of cast or trolled treblehook lures are not justified and serve no useful purpose.

PECIAL REGULATIONS restnctmg an-

gling methods to "fly fishing only" have become widely established on many of Maine's salmon and trout waters. Reasons most often cited by those favoring this restriction include: limiting of spread of competing bait fishes; higher sporting quality of fly fishing; reduction in fishing pressure by prohibiting fishing by anglers who prefer other methods; and lower hook-

Year

Average Holding Water Fishing Period Temp. (F.) Method (Days)

Hatcheries Enfield

Casco Grand Lake

Sept. Sept. Oct. May May June June

1972 1973 1974 1976 1977 1978 1978

Casting Casting Casting Casting Casting Casting Still, Casting

May May May May Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept.

1973 1974 1975 1976 1973 1974 1975 1976

Trolling Trolling Trolling Trolling Trolling Trolling Trolling Trolling

5* 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

53 50 48 49 56 57 61 62

June June June

1975 1976 1977

Casting Casting Casting

1-2 1Âˇ2 1-2

66 65 66

14 14 14 5 5 5 14

58 57 50 56 69 56 61

Lake Big Bennett Pond

River Moosehead Lake, East Outlet *Minimum Holding Time

Table 1.

Background statistics for landlocked salmon hooking mortality studies, 1972-78.

The author (left) and Project Assistant Ed Speer add another hooked speciment to the holding pen for observation. This picture was taken during the September 1974 test period on Big Bennett Pond in Guilford, Fish were taken by trolling with several different types of terminal gear-all were held for at least five days, then compared with trapnetted (unhooked) control specimens.

ing mortality of released fish. Part of our study was designed to test the validity of the last reason, which assumes that fly fishing causes less hooking mortality than other methods, especially worm fishing . In our studies, salmon mortality caused by hooking with flies and worms was measured in hatcheries in the spring and fall and in a river in spring. Hooking mortality of flycaught and worm-caught salmon in hatcheries was nearly identical in spring and fall:

Spring Fall

Flies (per cent)

Worms (per cent)

4.1

5.7 5.7

4.6

Using more typical angling techniques in spring river studies, however, 35 per cent of worm-hooked salmon and only 4 per cent of flyhooked fish died after being hooked and released. Higher mortality of worm-hooked salmon in the wild was clearly the result of different angling techniques used. Salmon caught from hatchery 22

raceways were usually visible to anglers and consequently they were usually hooked superficially in the jaws or mouth soon after accepting the bait. Angling techniques used in the river were more typically variable. Some fishermen set the hook almost immediately upon receiving a strike, while others allowed the fish to ingest the bait more deeply, resulting in hook penetration of the throat, heart or other vital area; this resulted in greater mortality. Several studies on salmonids in other states have shown that fish hooked in certain anatomical areas (e.g. heart, gill, liver, throat) are much more likely to die from injuries caused by hooking than those hooked superficially. We recorded anatomical hooking sites for all salmon caught in lake and river studies and for salmon that died in hatchery studies to evaluate effects on hooking location. In lake studies using hardware lures and tandem-hook streamer flies, 61 per cent of the salmon were hooked in the jaws, 16 per cent in the mouth, 6 per cent in the gills, and 6 per cent in

the eyes . None were hooked in the throat or stomach. Mortality of gillhooked fish (63 per cent) was significantly greater than that of fish hooked in the mouth area. Mortality of jaw-hooked fish was significantly less than that of fish hooked in the mouth. The proportion and subsequent mortality of fish hooked in each anatomical location differed little among four gear types, two hook types, (single and treble), or two lure types (flies and hardware). There was no indication that any particular gear, hook, or lure type was more likely to hook fish in vital anatomical locations. In river studies, nearly all of the fly-caught salmon were hooked either in the jaws or mouth, resulting in low mortality (4 per cent). Of the worm- ' caught fish, about 37 per cent were hooked in the throat, and 4 per cent in the gills, which resulted in a mortality of 35 per cent. About 83 per cent of the gill-hooked fish and 72 per cent of those hooked in the throat died. This contrasts with the results of hatchery studies where most fish were hooked in the jaws or mouth. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

study was carried out in the hatchery to evaluate mortality of salmon that were deeply hooked (stomach or throat) with worm-baited hooks. A total of 106 salmon were purposely allowed to swallow baits and then hooked. The hook was removed (longnose pliers) from 50 fish, and the leader was cut at the mouth of 56 , other salmon. Of all deeply hooked salmon, 73 per cent died, but 90 per cent of the salmon from which the hook was removed died within 24 hours. Of the fish where the leader was cut, 57 per cent died. These findings indicate that for each 100 fish caught by deep hooking, 33 (33 per cent) could be saved by leaving the hook in place and cutting the leader at the mouth of released fish. The observation has often been made that fish bleeding from hooking injuries are more likely to die than those that do not bleed. For salmon hooked in lake studies, significantly more bleeding fish died (35 per cent) than did non-bleeding fish (10 per cent). Fish bleeding after hooking also died at a significantly higher rate (86 per cent) than did non-bleeders (15 per cent) in river studies. Judging from these results, it appears that anNE

Hardware Lure (Treble-hook) Study Location* Number O/o (Season) Caught Died Hatchery (Spring)

302

6.0

glers who are in the habit of releasing legal-sized salmon during periods of "hot" fishing might do well to keepbleeding salmon to add to their creels. Mortalities of salmon hooked on trolled streamer flies and wobblers as measured in spring and fall lake studies are quite likely typical of such mortalities actually occurring in Maine. Hooking mortality of salmon caught on cast wobblers and flies in spring and fall hatchery studies is also believed to be representative of mortality occurring in the wild using these gears. This is because most fish caught on these gears under both hatchery and wild conditions are hooked superficially in the jaws or mouth. The same is true for cast flies in river studies. Mortality measured for hooking with worms in hatchery studies, however, was probably an under-estimate of that experienced under wild conditions. Superficial hooking experienced in the hatchery is not the general rule in the wild, as indicated by results of river studies. Because of more typically variable angling techniques, more river-caught salmon were deeply hooked, causing greater mortality. We can only speculate on hooking mortality suffered by salmon during

Hardware Lure (Single-hook) Number % Caught Died 300

Flies (Treble-hook) Number O/o Caught Died

4.6

Flies (Single-hook) Number O/o Caught Died 319

4.1

Hatchery (Spring)

winter and summer, because no studies were done during these seasons. Deep-trolled wobblers in summer can be expected to cause at least as much and possibly more mortality of released salmon than the same gears fished in spring. Summer mortality may be greater because of temperature stress caused by bringing fish into the warm surface layers from the deeper, cooler water, thereby increasing vulnerability to predation. Salmon caught on deep-trolled worms or sewed fish baits could suffer even higher mortality if baits are deeply ingested and fish are hooked in the throat or stomach. The most common winter fishing methods for salmon are set tip-ups (or traps), using a live minnow as bait, and "jigging" with hardware lures. Mortality of short salmon caught on live fish and released is dependent upon hooking location. Unless the leader is cut at the mouth of a deeply hooked released fish, it will probably die. Most jigged short salmon are hooked in the jaws or mouth and therefore stand a better chance of survival when released. Colder water temperatures in winter generally favor survival of salmon hooked and released by anglers. Worms (Single-hook) Number % Caught Died 300 56*** 50****

Hatchery (Fall)

300

0.3

300

2.7

Lake (Spring)

9.0

20.0

Lake (Fall)

7.0

9.0

River (Spring)

Controls** Number % Caught Died

5.7

300

0.1

57.0 90.0

300

0.0

5.7

300

0.3

300

4.6

35.0

17.0

122

4.0

13.0

4.0

122

4.0

0.0

300

100

35.0

* Detailed data on study locations g_iven in Table 1. * * Unhooked fish caught by trapping or netting. * * * Intentionally deep-hooked; hook left in. * * * * Intentionally deep-hooked; hook removed.

Table 2.

Mortality of landlocked salmon caught on various gears and released in hooking studies, 1972-78.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

A S A RESULT of our studies, we can make a few generalizations regarding hooked and released landlocked salmon:

J-\..

1. Hardware lures, trolled or cast, and trolled streamer flies equipped with treble hooks are no more likely to kill released salmon than are those gears equipped with single hooks. Therefore, regulations restricting hook types used on salmon fishing gears are generally unnecessary. 2. Survival of salmon hooked and released in fall is greater than that of spring-caught fish because of better physical condition and decreasing water temperatures in fall.

3. Salmon hooked using typically variable worm-fishing techniques and then released suffered significantly greater mortality than fish caught by fly casting and released. Thus, closure of heavily fished salmon nursery streams to worm fishing may be justified in cases where juvenile fish production is important to the lake or river fisheries involved.

cent. This would indicate that a substantial number of short salmon might be saved to be caught as legal-sized fish if worm anglers would cut the leader rather than removing the hook. 5. Salmon that bled as a result of hooking injuries died at a significantly higher rate than those that did not bleed.

6. Mortality of salmon hooked and released by anglers is influenced by many factors including: Season, water temperature, type of environment, anatomical hooking site, variable angling techniques, and feeding behavior of the fish . Our studies were done over a several-year period to evaluate average hooking mortality under various environmental conditions, including year-to-year variations that occur during typical fishing experiences for landlocked salmon. •

DAM BESOUR~&S POtiD FLOY{ LQDG& RE~ERY.OIB IE&TH CONSERVE WATER!

Warner, K., 1978. Hooking mortality of lake-dwelling landlocked Atlantic salmon, Sa/mo salar. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107 (4):518-522. Warner, K., 1978. Hooking mortality of landlocked Atlantic salmon, Sa/mo salar. Pt. I. Spring studies of hatchery-reared fish, 1976-78. Final Rep. (No. 6), Proj. F-28-P, Job F-705, Me. Dept. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

We've got a good thing growing.

4. Most salmon worm-hooked deeply in the throat or stomach died if the hook was removed. If the hook was left in place and the leader cut, mortality was reduced about 30 per

KID-BITS ANSWERS

References

Warner, K., 1975. "Will That Fish Die? Maine Fish and Wildlife, Winter 1974-75. Warner, K., 1976. Hooking mortality of landlocked Atlantic salmon Sa/mo salar, in a hatchery environment. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105 (3):365-369.

From those first "Open Houses" at local gun clubs to professionally organized shopping center programs and recently expanded school activities, National Hunting and Fishing Day has grown and improved steadily over the past eight years. Throughout this growth we have de-

veloped a wide variety of materials to assist clubs and individuals in observing the Day. Like NHF Day itself, each has proven its effectiveness over the past eight years. Please order your easy-to-use materials today and help us keep a good thing growing.

National Hunting & Fishing Day® September 22, 1979 TO: NATIONAL HUNTING AND FISHING DAY• 1075 Post Road

Rwerside,Conn. 06878 0 I'm willing to do my part; please rush

"One-on-One" kits@$2 .00. I represent a dub; please rush "Complete Organizational Packets" @ $5.00. Please send copies of the official NHF Day Poster @ $1.00. Enclosed is a check or money order for$, _ _ _ _ __

Name:

Organization : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State: _ __ _ _ Zip, _ _ _ _ __

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

Rockets, Radios, & Research or

''Bugging the Black Duck" By James K. Ringelman University of Maine at Orono and

Jerry R. Long core U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service

N THE COLD darkness of an early spring

morning, we groped our way along a small beaver flowage to a well-concealed blind. After carefully checking the lines on the 30 x 30 foot rocket net, we prepared the rockets for firing, then scattered a few fresh kernels of corn in the trickle of open water in front of the net. Quickly, we entered the blind, trying to find a comfortable position in the crusty snow . On this morning, the wait was unusually short. The rustle of wings was followed by a glimpse of two dark forms plopping into the open water. A numb thumb nudged the toggle switch, ready to ignite the rockets as the wary pair of black ducks swam toward the yellow bait. NOW! With a thunderous roar, the rockets fired, and the net was jerked over the birds as they started to rise from the water. We scrambled from the blind through the rising cloud of smoke and seized the struggling ducks. These birds were not destined to remain captive long, however. Our intent was to attach a miniature radio transmitter to each duck and to release them quickly. Within the hour, the pair was again free-preening quietly on a secluded region of the flowage. This account is typical of many of our early spring encounters with black ducks. This co-operative study between the University of Maine and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks basic biological information on the breeding habitat requirements of black ducks. Data from this study will help unravel some of the unanswered questions about black duck habitat requirements and clarify reasons behind the population decline of this important species. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

HE USE OF battery powered radio transmitters

-a technique known as radio telemetryhas contributed greatly in recent years to our knowledge of animal behavior and habitat requirements. In its basic parts, radio telemetry is simple. The transmitter is attached to a duck with flexible plastic tubing, and the duck carries the transmitter on its back in much the same way a person carries a backpack. The transmitter, battery, and tubing weigh only 1 ounce, little more than 1 per cent of the normal black duck body weight. Each transmitter has a unique frequency and emits pulsating beeps which can be received up to 1 Y2 miles away. The battery life of these transmitters may be as long as 7 months, allowing an individual bird to be monitored for the entire breeding cycleMarch through September. An observer equipped with a receiver and directional antenna needs only to determine the direction and distance to the signal to locate the duck. Radio telemetry has been used successfully on a variety of species, from moose to woodcock. Telemetry is also one of the techniques that make it possible for us to study black ducks in their natural habitats. Anyone who has canoed the inland waters of Maine knows that black ducks tend to lurk in remote and inaccessible places. The redleg's habit of seeking out wet areas with thick cover makes it an especially difficult bird to observe and study. They also have fairly large home ranges (that area used during the course of daily activities) which may cover up to five square miles. Thus, at any particular time, the location of any individual black duck may be almost impossible to determine by means of plain observation. Telemetry is one technique which we can use to overcome these problems. In practice, radio telemetry techniques are often limited by the ability to capture animals. The rocket net has proven to be the most useful capture tec.hnique in early

Test firing of rocket nets shows how the black powder charge propels the reusable rockets, towing behind them the nets. These have proven to be the most successful tools to catch pairs of black ducks.

spring when open water areas are limited. After we have determined which areas are being habitually used by a pair, we install the 30 X 30 foot net along the open water of a stream or pond. Three or four reusable rockets are then fastened to the leading edge of the net and pointed over the water. The rockets, propelled by a black powder charge, fly out over the water, pulling the large net behind. The entire firing event occurs in fractions of a second-fast enough to catch even the quickest black duck as it attempts to fly. After nesting has started, we rely on nest traps to capture the ducks. Incubating hens are caught by securing a net around the bottom of the nest basin and manually pulling the cone of netting with a cord, up and around the hen when she returns to her nest. Late in the nesting season, we often employ bait traps to capture birds for our study. Sometimes, a brood hen and her ducklings, or a moulting adult, will be caught in these traps. Once the captured duck has been fitted with a transmitter and released, we monitor its movements and behavior several times a day.

After blacks are netted, tiny radio transmitters weighing only one ounce and producing a signal for up to seven months are installed on the duck's back using flexible plastic tubing . The birds seem to adapt well to the new addition.

UR TELEMETRY STUDY has already provided information about black duck habitat requirements. We have discovered that black ducks may use small wetlands of less than one acre as much as the larger ponds and bogs, especially during the nesting period. We are finding that the type of vegetation is a key factor in the use of wetlands by black ducks. For example, flooded alder or flooded timber created by beaver activity seem to be important to pairs and broods. A common event is for a radio-marked bird to lead us to a small wetland of whose existence we did not know, de-

A cone-shaped trap of netting is often employed to capture incubating black duck hens. These nets are attached to the underside of the nest, then pulled up manually after the hen returns to her eggs.

spite our efforts to identify all of the ponds on our study area through the use of both ground investigations and aerial photography. We have also found that the home range does not remain constant in size throughout the breeding season. The home range is largest in early spring when the birds first arrive; it decreases in size as the hen lays her eggs and concentrates her activities in the vicinity of the nest. The home range may again expand as the brood gets older and the hen starts leaving the brood for short periods of time. Even those hens with newly hatched ducklings frequently tend to move long distances overland with their ducklings. On one occasion, we monitored a hen that moved

A radio-marked black duck is located and tracked through the use of a portable antenna and receiver. The antenna, a directional type, can locate the direction from which the transmitter signal is coming and the approximate distance it is traveling, enabling the user to track the duck's range.

her two-day old ducklings more than two miles to a distant bog! This movement took place in a single night-quite a trek for ducklings that are little more than fluffy balls of down! By combining the information we gain from telemetry with our observations of unmarked ducks, we can predict the type of wetland where a black duck brood or a moulting adult can be found. In essence, this is our research goal. If we can gain enough information on habitat requirements of black ducks, we can better recommend what types of wetlands require protection, and we may be able to suggest ways in which existing habitat can be improved to maintain high black duck production. To do this, we find we must spend as much time examining the wetlands used by the ducks as we do in observing the ducks themselves. In this endeavor, we have measured and mapped wetland characteristics of 120 ponds and bogs. By examining wetland characteristics and relating them to black duck usage, we are able to determine the importance of specific types of wetlands. For example, beaver populations are naturally managing many wetlands on our study area. The types of habitat the beaver create are most useful to brood rearing activities. The harvest regulations set by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife on beaver are adjusted so that the population which remains after trapping is sufficient to maintain prime black duck habitats. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

'Flooded alder stands such as this one are often heavily used by foraging black duck broods.

UR STUDY will not answer all questions about

what a black duck pair needs to breed successfully, but we have plugged some of the information gaps in our knowledge. As additional studies probe how much, when, and where natural mortality occurs, perhaps the answer to why the black duck population continues to decline will emerge. In the final analysis, we wish to insure that there will always be black ducks to fill Maine's â&#x20AC;˘ autumn skies.

DEER SEASONS SET

AINE'S 1979 deer hunting seasons were set in July by Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Glenn H. Manuel. In setting seasons of the same length as last year's, the Commissioner noted that deer in most areas of the state had experienced a winter less severe than normal and that overall the herd should show a slight increase over last year. The biggest gains are expected to occur in central, southern, and coastal areas of the state. The Commissioner set the 1979 seasons after hearing the views of sportsmen, wildlife biologists, wardens, and his Advisory Council. One departure from recent deer hunting seasons is the location of the line separating the northern and southern zones. This year it will be the Canadian Pacific main line tracks, from Vanceboro to west of Jackman. Hunters had sought the zone line change, contending that the former one, which followed township lines, was difficult to locate. In the northern zone, the firearms season for all hunters will begin on October 29. It starts one week later, November 5, in the southern zone. Maine law provides that the Saturdays before the general opening dates are reserved for Maine resident hunters only-October 27 in the north and November 3 elsewhere. Deer hunting ends statewide on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, November 24. The special archery season for deer opens statewide October 1 and ends the day before the firearms season begins in each zone. The Commissioner and Advisory Council discussed thoroughly several proposals for adjusting the deer season in a few local areas as an attempt to build up deer populations. The proposals earlier had been aired at a public hearing.

The Department's Wildlife Division says that the herd is down in Wildlife Management Unit 3, the western mountainous section, because of severe winters and decreasing availability of quality winter habitat. Coyote predation is also implicated. To test the feasibility of rebuilding the herd, the Wildlife Division proposed closing several blocks of townships to huntfng.

The Commissioner and Council, however, felt that closing or shortening the season in local areas would not provide the solution to the problem. This also was expressed in letters and petitions from the public and at the public hearing. Sportsmen in the Fryeburg areahad asked that the deer season in that town and surrounding towns be shortened to one week to reduce hunting pressure. Commissioner Manuel felt that such a short season might result in a concentration of hunters, increasing the danger of hunting accidents and perhaps increasing the deer kill rather than reducing it. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

By Steven A. Timpano Fishery Biologist NSECTICIDES have been

applied aerially for control of spruce budworm outbreaks in Maine for 25 years. Over this time span, many changes have been made in spray strategies, techniques, chemicals, and overall forest management philosophies. During the same period, environmental concerns have strengthened and become more sophisticated. State fisherks managers have monitored the effects of forest spray programs and, in attempting to remain responsive to all the changes, have redefined and revised techniques the better to answer increased public awareness. This article gives a brief historical overview, current efforts, and indicates where we appear to be headed in the near future relative to Maine's fisheries interests. DDT was the first pesticide used aerially in Maine against spruce budworm. From 1954 through 1967, seven spray programs covered a total of 1,222,000 acres. Fish population studies in several northern streams showed a reduction in numbers of fish following spray application, apparently from both immediate and delayed mortality as a direct response to the chemical. Follow-up work indicated that populations should return to normal levels about three Âˇ

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

years after the program and that if application was made to a given stream more than one year in a row, repopulation would be correspondingly delayed. The more iqsidious effects of DDT accumulation have since been recognized, and its ban prompted a search for insecticides less environmentally destructive but still effective against the bud worm. Canadian work with fenitrothion and mexacarbate (ZectranR) showed promise as substitutes, and fenitrothion (AccothionR) was used on 210,000 acres in Maine in 1970. Again, fish population studies were made; and this time, no immediate reductions were found at spray dosages capable of knocking down spruce budworms. However, residue analysis confirmed that fish were taking the chemical in. Possible delayed effects were unknown. This, combined with studies which showed reductions of aquatic insects-necessary as forage for trout-changed the emphasis on future fisheries monitoring efforts. The demonstrable immediate effects of DDT were not evident, but nagging questions concerning fish growth and reproductive success remained. Over a three year period, beginning in 1972, 1,400,000 acres of forest were treated with mexacarbate. No formal fisheries monitoring projects were undertaken during this period. We set blocking seines in two brooks in 1972 to check for possible immediate mortality or downstream displace-

Concern for environment has caused many changes in spray program. Recent use of Thrush agricultural spray planes has permitted more accurate spraying near waterways and other non-target areas.

ment of fish, and we made general behavior observations, but no gross problems were noted. In 1975, three chemicals, carbaryl (SevinR), fenitrothion (SumithionR), and mexacarbate (ZectranR), were used operationally on more than 2,250,000 acres. In addition, pilot tests were made with fenitrothion using a single, intermediate dosage application (operational programs used two applications approximately one week apart), and two new (to the Maine program) chemical insecticides -trichlorfon (DyloxR), and aminocarb (MatacilR). These pilot test insecticides and two of the operational chemicals, carbaryl and fenitrothion, were monitored for effects on fish by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, assisted by Maine Department of Inland Fish & Wildlife biologists. Fairly extensive sampling was initiated for determination of insecticide residues in water and fish shortly after spraying. Another test of exposure to several of the chemicals was determination of brain acetyl-cholinesterase (an enzyme necessary for nerve conduction) depression. [The organophosphorus and carbamate families of insecticides cause a reduction in cholinesterase levels and, de-

pending on the dosage levels and length of exposure, can result in fish death. Measuring the acetyl-cholinesterase (ACHE) depression has become a standard technique for demonstrating exposure to several classes of chemicals although interpretation of findings is subject to consideration of many variables and open to debate]. The 1975 project found no direct fish mortality or unusual behavior due to the insecticide applications. Water samples and fish tissue analysis did show residues but at levels below those necessary to cause death in the species tested. ACHE depression was reported as "slight and temporary" and in most instances returned to normal within 48 hours after spray application. Again, however, as in prior monitoring, several new questions arose and were unresolved. New methodology had been tested and needed further definition.

-~ Q)

:Â§

Â§ 't:J C:

s::. rn

u:: Cl)

::> vi Q)

Âˇco

- ::c ~

~ rn 0

s::.

AS AN ASIDE at this point ~ in the history of fish-

eries monitoring: the complexity of the problem facing fisheries managers becomes apparent from the several types of, and variations in, applications of forest insecticides. No single monitoring methodology can be applied to all types of chemicals and answer all the questions. Monitoring techniques become more sophisticated to respond to subtle sublethal effects on fish, rather than observing outright, immediate death. Questions concerning behavioral, reproductive success, and internal organ changes are beyond the capability of field monitoring and must be answered by rigid, laboratory tests. Adding to this, a general low level of monitoring and research funding and manpower completes the picture. From this, an integrated approach is begun to avoid duplication of efforts and provide a more complete environmental impact overview. Fisheries monitoring and aquatic insect studies are co-ordinated along with water chemistry work, and emphasis is placed on a single insecticide or application rate for individual research projects. The 30

11.

In determining sub-lethal effects of spray on fish populations, biologists employ a number of techniques including in-stream oxygen use monitoring (upper photo) and sampling fish populations by electrofishing.

switch to insecticides with supposedly shorter active, non-accumulative effects is applauded but brings with it a revision of what is now important to monitor. In 1976, carbaryl (SevinR) was used on nearly 3,500,000 acres in Maine. This massive project was monitored by an intensive, full-season effort through the Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Migratory Fish Research Institute of the University of Maine at Orono. Techniques used in prior years were applied, and the teams carried out aquatic insect population studies. Overall conclusions reached were that SevinR application did not cause "detectably significant harm to the salmonids and macro-invertebrates in the streams examined.'' Salmonid growth rates over the season were not altered, but it was noted that 1976 was an exceptional water year, very favorable to fish, and results might be different under different water conditions. Some effects on

aquatic insects from this and other studies were noted and have been followed up in subsequent years, showing that certain groups are slow to recover from initial depressions. Effects on young-of-the-year salmonids were not studied, nor were behavioral changes-both difficult to assess under field conditions. Resolution of certain questions allowed others to take priority for future work. SevinR was considered the "workhorse'' of forest insecticides at this point. Its effectiveness on spruce budworm was demonstrated, cost factors were competitive, and non-target environmental impact appeared accept- able though not completely known. In 1977, fisheries monitoring emphasis was shifted to two other insecticides: trichlorfon (DyloxR) and its effects on warm-water fish (previously unstudied under Maine conditions); and acephate (OrtheneR) a newcomer with promising low impact on the aquatic environment.

Studies on smallmouth bass exposed to DyloxR during the spawning season were aimed at detecting possible nesting behavior and success differences due to the insecticide, forage (plankton) changes for bass fry, and brain ACHE changes in adults. No direct results to adult bass behavior and nesting success, or to fry, were observed at dosage rates and application techniques used. Water residue levels of Dylox did reach concentrations reported to be toxic to zooplankton, but no reductions in the study lake could be attributed to this spray program. The potential to reduce forage for bass fry at a critical life stage was there but not activated. Acephate (OrtheneR) monitoring in 1977 was directed toward examining effects on salmon, trout, and smelts, and concurrent evaluation on principal forage (aquatic insects and plankton) for these species. Studies were carried out in tributaries to Moosehead Lake, and in the lake itself, under a contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A rigorous sampling and analysis program yielded information that gross effects of spraying were, indeed, temporary. Trout and salmon growth was not affected, nor were aquatic insect populations reduced. Comparisons with other insecticides used against spruce budworm showed acephate to be the least harmful to the aquatic community. From this, a policy of using acephate as a buffer along major waterways was developed by the Forest Service and, for example, has been applied along the St. John River when most of the area was sprayed with carbaryl (SevinR) in 1978. Due to trial of a new spray method for SevinR, consisting of two lower dosage applications about one week apart rather than a single, heavier application, and the fact that SevinR was the most widely used insecticide and had the most demonstrable harmful effects on the aquatic environment, monitoring was again directed to this chemical in 1978. New aspects of effects on fish behavior, metabolism, and short-term growth rates were tested. The goal was to answer Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

questions on possible loss of productivity of fish populations. Final reports are not available as of this writing, but preliminary results indicate the potential value of these types of studies. Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit and U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel at UMO developed and conducted these experiments. Some of the same methods and some new ones will be employed for the 1979 budworm spray program. Faster growing-and thereby more responsive to change-young-of-the-year salmonids will be targeted in these continued studies. During the later years of spruce budworm spray programs, the shift from persistent pesticides has led to much experimentation with different chemical and biological agents and methods for applying them. Use of specific chemical insecticides in certain areas of the state has developed to answer specific environmental concerns, to a degree, at least. For example, DyloxR has been used near the blueberry barrens downeast because it is less harmful to the bees necessary for blueberry production. Likewise, OrtheneR use along streams has been Âˇ recommended and utilized due to its lesser effects on the aquatic environment. Futher, more extensive use of OrtheneR has been suggested for spraying over the headwaters of streams to provide refuges for fish which can later repopulate lower stream sections which may have been affected by more damaging (but more economical) insecticides like SevinR. Development and testing of biological control agents such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been ongoing and offers some potential for less non-target impact. Chemical regulators of insect growth processes are also being tested. To date, most of the compounds being experimented with have shown inconsistent results or too high a cost for operational program use. Overall environmental imp~ct concerns have come more to the forefront in recent years and have had considerable influence on choices and direction of new research on methods of spruce budworm control. Integra-

tion of forestry management and chemical or biological techniques is being emphasized for future strategy. Recent upheavals in traditional funding processes, and public concerns, leave the future of budworm control programs quite open at present. Whatever direction forestry management/ spruce budworm programs develop toward will be based on past experience and will incorporate past recommendations for lessening impact on the aquatic environment. Much basic biology of Maine's streams and their inhabitants has been learned over the long years of monitoring spray programs. Many will argue, and perhaps justly, that crucial questions have not been answered and that more money and effort should have been applied to monitoring. Policy development such as leaving unsprayed buffer zones along major waterways, choice of more accurate spray deposition on target areas minimizing drift off-target, etc., has lagged somewhat as assessments have been underway. Always, the specter of potential worst-case problems has been balanced by economic concerns and lack of definitive monitoring or research results. There is no black and white solution in the offing to answer all pro or no-spray advocates. To date, with use of current, second generation insecticides, completely devastating effects to the aquatic environment have not been demonstrated. Questions concerning sublethal effects will continue to be studied as control programs are modified. Recent co-ordination between concerned monitors and researchers in several State of Maine agencies and the University offer the best hope for overall impact determinations. The Canadian/ United States (CANUSA) Spruce Budworms Program (East) should provide a better vehicle for funding specific research and monitoring programs. Overall, we have progressed a long way from the days of DDT, and continued vigilance and questioning have become and will remain an essential part of fisheries (and the larger aquatic community) management in Maine. â&#x20AC;˘ 31

Editorial

A "Temporary Repair'' for our Financial Problems

THOUGH the license fee increase going into effect next January will get the Department out of a bad financial situation, it will be only a stopgap measure. We appreciate the concern demonstrated by the Legislature in passing this bill which will lengthen the time period during which a long range solution to our financial problems must be developed . These money problems need discussion, for the Department needs public and legislative understanding and support for some sort of plan that will help us keep abreast of rising costs of operation. The problems are, indeed, complex, but the primary cause is the inflation with which everyone is familiar. To explain the situation without using dollar amounts is difficult, but the explanation is even harder if we do mention dollars. With the use of just a few figures, we would like to show what is happening. You would think that a license fee increase designed to bring in an additional $800,000 a year would solve the money problem for quite a while. In truth, it gives us only a few months before a serious set of circumstances will occur again. First, we must point out that we are not funded by state tax dollars (General Fund money). Most of our income is from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, with some federal aid funds each year. All programs we undertake, whether initiated by the Department in response to a demonstrated need or mandated by the Legislature, must be paid for from our own income. Our last license fee increase was in 1976. At first, it produced a certain amount of revenue above what was needed to sustain normal operations. The "extra," to put a label on this excess, serves, in a time of inflation, like a bank account from which we may "withdraw" periodically to make up for the diminishing value of the dollar. This "extra" can be made to last longer by careful managing of our yearly budget, and we have trimmed our budgets extensively each year since 1976. This did serve to stretch out the period in which that increase was effective, but things

caught up with us in 1979 because of three years of inflation running from 8 to 12 per cent ... the recent wage contract that went into effect in 1979 and now costs us an extra $700,000 a year ... and the severe and as yet unpredictable result of the drastic increases in costs of petroleum products. All these added up to a dangerous situation, and the Legislature bailed us out. Inflation-a word we're all tired of but still have to face up to-gnaws away at every dollar there is-ours as well as yours. As this sentence is written, an announcement has just been made that inflation is at the rate of nearly 14 per cent a year. That effectively reduces the $800,000 the fee increase is intended to produce-makes it worth only $688,000, even before the increase goes into effect in January! And apparently we can look foward to similar losses each year, just as family budget managers must. It is obvious that it will not be too long before the "$800,000" will not be effective in solving our problems. We have cut our budget by nearly a half-million dollars for the fiscal year 1979-1980 (July 1, 1979, to June 30, 1980). We are practicing every economy we know of, such as deferring the replacement of vehicles that have high mileage on them right now. But such measures-though they help on a temporary basis-are really counter-productive: repair bills will be numerous and high, and when the vehicles finally are replaced, the price for replacements will be higher than today's prices. If our income were somehow to be tied to the Cost of Living Index, things would be much better. As it is now, any license fee schedule will produce the same amount of income each year if sales remain the same. But operating expenses keep going up, and we can trim only so far before worthwhile programs must be severely curtailed or dropped. When that happens, our wildlife resources are on the losing end. With some sort of escalator clause tied to the inflation rate, our revenues would rise as expenses rose. We would stay about even. It would not be feasible to have license fees rise each year to accomplish this, though that would probably do the trick. License fees are about as high as they can go without the cost causing some license buyers to do without. Raising fees past a certain level would actually reduce the income we would receive, and it would make hunting and fishing too expensive for some outdoor enthusiasts. We don't know what the answer is, and neither do a good many fish and wildlife agencies in other states which are in the same boat we are in. We have seen some of the possible solutions being attempted in other states, and we are going to give them careful study. A committee of the Legislature will be working with our Department this summer and fall, and we hope its members will have some good recommendations to make to the 109th Legislature at its next regular session, in January. We intend to work closely with the committee in a co-operative effort to find some good answers to the problems that confront us and the people of Maine whom we serve. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1979

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