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

Editorial

IT'S UP TO YOU

N ALL PROBABILITY, the upcoming ses-

sion of the Maine Legislature will be asked to consider one or more bills whose final disposition will have a profound influence on the future of fish and wildlife management in Maine. Whether that influence is positive or negative depends on legislative approval or rejection. The Legislature's final decision can be greatly influenced by public sentiment. And that is where you fit in. The subject of this important legislation? New sources of revenue for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The editorial in the summer issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife outlined the problem. Despite heavy budget cutting and despite a license fee increase scheduled for 1980, the Department is rapidly running out of operating funds. Revenues are not keeping up with rising costs. Since that editorial appeared, the problem has been dramatically illustrated: June license sales revenue down 10 per cent. July, down 8.6 per cent. August, down 4. 7 per cent. The national inflation rate during that same period-UP 12 to 14 per cent. The gasoline situation this summer was, no doubt, the culprit in lagging sales of fishing licenses. Its effect on hunting license sales this fall is yet unknown, but considering the fact that nonresident big game license sales alone provide one-third of our license sales income, a sharp decline could be disastrous. All this is providing ample evidence-if any more were needed-that our traditional reliance on license sales as almost our sole funding source has somehow

got to be changed. Finding the best trail out of the financial woods is a job now in the hands of a legislative study committee. Together with the Department, this appointed group of legislators and lay citizens has been studying the feasibility and expected results of a number of funding alternatives. In the end, the courage and wisdom to travel the selected trail will have to prevail in the Legislature. But that decision can be greatly aided by citizen involvement. It's too early to offer any details of what might be forthcoming; but in the months ahead, you will have an opportunity to think about the problem and then to give careful consideration to the proposed solution when it is unveiled. We urge you to avail yourself of this opportunity and then offer your opinion to your elected representatives and senators. As readers of Maine Fish and Wildlife, you are probably more knowledgeable than most people about the Department's goals and its programs for achieving those goals. And perhaps you are also aware that our current level of programs and staffing is barely adequate to meet the needs of Maine's wildlife and fish resources with the pressures that are on them today-pressures that are growing. Your Fish and Wildlife Department is at one of the most crucial points in its 100-year history. It and its programs, without proper funding, will be walking at a time when keeping abreast of the needs requires running. Given the needed funding, we can enter the 1980s and meet the challenges that surely will greet us. In a very real sense, the choice of which way we go is up to you.

MAINE FISH AND "\VILDLIFE

INSIDE

Vol. 21, No. 4

Fall 1979

Editorial

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

Inside Front Cover

Something New Added: Maine's Big Bucks-1978

Togue-Will Today's Limits Ruin Tomorrow's Fishing?

Roger P. AuClair

Coyotes In Our Family

Rodney D. Sirois

Bird Feeding From Both Sides

KID-BITS

Streamer Fly Patterns

Peter G. Walker

Oil Soaked Birds: The Innocent Victims

Patrick 0. Corr

Landlocked Salmon Management At West Grand Lake

J. Dennis McNeish

Reverting Farms

Harold M. Blanchard

Legislative Roundup

William Ginn James L. Tabor

Inside Back Cover

THE COVERS Front: The advent of autumn bathes in brilliant colors this abandoned farm-an important source of food and cover for Maine's wildlife. See related article beginning on page 25. Photo by Tom Carbone

Robert E. Moore

Auburn

Casco

George E. Prentiss

Dennis L. Smith

Rumford

Oller Creek

Nathan Cohen

Alva S. Appleby

Eastport

Skowhegan

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine

Back: One of the tragedies of energy technology-a bird covered with crude oil-lies exhausted in the hands of a clean-up worker. See related article beginning on page 19. Photo by Lee Perry

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.

William C. Mincher, Editor W. Thomas Shoener, Managing Editor

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

SOMETHING NEW ADDED-

MAINE'S BIG BUCKS-1978 In 1978, 485 Club memberships were issued by its sponsoring organization, the Maine Sportsman (Box 507, Yarmouth, ME 04096). Although space does not permit the listing of all 485 deer entered in the Club last year, we do give recognition each year to the very largest ones. In the accompanying list are all of the 1978 Club deer with a dressed weight of 235 pounds or more.

HILE the traditional measurement of a big buck deer in Maine has been by its dressed weight, a movement is underway to

establish trophy status by a deer's antlers. The Maine Antler and Skull Trophy Club was organized in 1978 in the interest of recording and recognizing hunters and their qualifying trophy white-tailed deer (and black bear) taken in Maine. Richard P. Arsenault, Gorham, organizer of the club feels that the trophy-sized antlers that Maine has produced, and continues to produce, have gone largely unrecognized through the years simply from a lack of leadership and communications which his new club will provide. The Maine Antler and Skull Trophy Club gives recognition to trophy

NTEREST in Maine's big white-tailed deer has always run high, and through good hunting years and years that weren't so good these trophysized animals have set Maine a bit apart from the other eastern deer states. Probably above all else, regular production of "braggin"' whitetails has been Maine's hunting hallmark. A good indication of this is the continuing interest in The Biggest Bucks in Maine Club, which since its inception in 1949 has annually awarded 400 to 600 memberships to hunters who have taken deer that dressed-out at over 200 pounds.

A few of the trophy deer and bear that were on display at the first annual banquet of The Maine Antler and Skull Trophy Club.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

antlers taken in the past as well as ones taken during the current year . There are two categories for antlerstypical and non-typical-and according to Arsenault's records, a large 8pointer might qualify in the typical category but most entries are 10-pointers . Most qualifying non-typical antlers have 14 or more points over one inch long . The record keeping system, employing Boone and Crockett system scoring, is accumulative and will be

updated annually. Official club scorers are located in a number of Maine communities, and information on them can be obtained from Arsenault (RFD #3, Gorham, ME 04038. Phone: 727-3880). The Maine Antler and Skull Trophy Club has an annual banquet, the first of which was a sell-out affair in March 1979. It also recently published its first annual records booklet containing pictures and detailed information on current records of trophy deer

antlers and bear skulls taken in Maine . The booklet is available for $5 .75 from Arsenault at the address given above.

ETWEEN the activities of

The Biggest Bucks in Maine Club and The Maine Antler and Skull Trophy Club, it's doubtful that more attention has ever before been focused on the trophy-sized white-tailed deer that Maine proâ&#x20AC;˘ duced year after year.

BIGGEST BUCKS, 1978 Name

Address

Date Killed

Where Killed

Carl Preskitt, Jr. Donald Poland Claude Delisle Milton Baston Marcel Cote Lawrence Elkins, Jr . Thomas MacDonald Thomas O'Hearn John Lawrence Albert Cote Wesley Wilder Leland Weymouth Eugene Sutton Wilbrod Veilleux Joan Scannell Phil Ward Shannon Mosher Gary Williamson Dennis Clark Bradley Cieslak Clarence Bryant Everett McLeod Stanley Ouellette Steven Robinson Arthur Zina, Jr. Paul McCullough Norman Kiddy John Gallway Stephen Corrigan John Civello Joseph Catudal Carl Bishop Thomas Weimer Edward Adams George Lindstrom Mark Merrill James Freeman Tom Petraska Kendall Lee Bruce Densmore Alan Anderson

Charleston, ME Swanton, VT . Quebec, Canada Strong, ME Quebec, Canada Thorndike, ME Coburn Gore, ME W. Dennis, MA Mays Landing, NJ Saco, ME Poughquag, NY Gardiner, ME Rockwood, ME Augusta, ME Dexter, ME Greenville, ME Smithfield, ME Mexico, ME Oakfield, ME Raymond, ME Old Town, ME Lee, ME Ft. Kent, ME Blaine, ME Bolton, MA Parsippany, NJ Hampden, MA Calais, ME Caribou , ME Millinocket, ME Gray, ME Troy, ME Rector, PA Farmington, ME Millbury, MA Brownfield, ME Reading, PA Chester, VT. Danforth, ME Gardiner, ME Smyrna, ME

11-4-78 11-9-78 10-30-78 11-6-78 11-14-78 11-11-78 11-8-78 11-14-78 11-17-78 11-11-78 11-24-78 11-4-78 11-7-78 11-17-78 11-6-78 11-14-78 11-7-78 11-7-78 11-15-78 11-25-78 11-6-78 10-31-78 11-3-78 11-4-78 11-7-78 11-6-78 11-8-78 11-7-78 10-31-78 11-15-78 11-10-78 11-6-78 11-7-78 11-4-78 11-14-78 11-11-78 11-16-78 10-31-78 11-20-78 11-6-78 11-9-78

Charleston Coburn Gore Big Spencer Mtn. T.l, R.2 Tomhegan Knox Mass . Gore Soldiertown Misery Ridge Scarborough Wade Readfield Misery Augusta Ripley

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Smithfield Spring Lake Smyrna Merrill Bradley Merrill T.14, R.7 T.9, R.3 Cambridge T.4, R.11 New Vineyard So . Princeton Winterville T.2, R.8 Morrill Di xmont Wadley Pond New Vineyard Greenville Brownfield Kennebago Pittston Brookton Pittston Smyrna

Firearm .30-06 .270 .30-06 .30-30 .32 .30-30 .44 magnum .270 .32 .35 .30-30 .30-30 .284 .30-30 .308 12 gauge .30-06 .30 .30-06 .32 .308 .30-30 .30-06 .30-06 .30-06 .308 .22-250 .30-30 .30-06 .44 magnum .303 British .308 .300 .30-06 .308 .270 .30-06 .308 12 gauge 16 gauge

Dressed Weight

Live Weight

280 270 268 266 263 260 259 255 255 255 255 254 252 251 250 250 248 246 245 245 245 242 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 239 239 238 238 237 237 235 235 235

364 351 350 348 345 338 337 332 332 332 332 330 328 325 325 325 323 320 318 318 318 315 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 312 311 311 310 310 308 308 305 305 305

TOGUE Will Today's Limits Ruin Tomorrovv's Fishing?

By Roger P. Au Clair Regional Fishery Biologist

INTER FISHING for lake trout (togue) has long been a popular sport on Maine lakes. However, before the 1950s, most togue taken during the open-water season were caught either while the angler was trolling for trout and salmon shortly after ice-out, or during the summer by plug fishing in deepwater areas. Beginning in the late 1940s, deep trolling with lead core lines and wire lines increased in popularity. By this method, often called "dredging," one can troll lures and baits close to the bottom at depths of 50 to 80 feet or greater, where togue spend the summer in cold water. Some anglers now also use depth sounders to locate and fish the deep areas. Lakes than can support populations of wild togue must have substantial areas of deep, cold water with high values of oxygen, and there must be shorelines or shoal areas of clean rocks or stones were togue can spawn in late fall. Before the 19th century, togue occurred naturally only in northern North America in areas roughly coinciding with Pleistocene glaciation. In the United States, togue occurred naturally in northern New England; the Great Lakes

areas of New York, Michigan, Wisconsin; states in the northern Rocky Mountains; and in Alaska. Successful introductions were made in some western states, New Zealand, South America, and Sweden. In northern Canada, togue occur in some shallow lakes and in some rivers where waters remain cold throughout the summer. In Maine, the Fish and Wildlife Department has, over the years, stocked hundreds of thousands of young togue either to improve depleted natural populations or to establish new fisheries in lakes determined to have suitable conditions for togue survival. In all but a few instances, we have not been sucessful in establishing breeding populations of togue in lakes we thought were suited for natural reproduction. These failures have led us to take a closer look at the togue's requirements, habits, and potential. Until important commercial togue fisheries collapsed in the Great Lakes, and problems developed with new and closely regulated commercial fisheries in large Canadian lakes like Great Slave, Great Bear, and others, quotas were determined by largely theoretical methods. Mortality rates were based on ages determined by reading the annular rings on the togue's scales. This method is reliable for many kinds of fish but does not work well on old, slowgrowing fish, as many of the annular rings are absent or so crowded that they are misread. Improved methods of age Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

determinations have revealed that togue thought to be from 10 to 20 years old were really 20, 30, and even 40 years of age; mortality rates derived from earlier determinations were wrong. The managers had based their harvest rates on an accumulation of old fish that could not be replenished for many years. Consequently, the quotas had to be revised downward drastically to prevent complete collapse of the togue populations.

OU MAY WONDER, ''What does all this talk of commercial fisheries for togue on Great Slave or Great Bear Lake have to do with us fishing for togue on Big Eagle, Chamberlain, Moosehead, or Allagash Lake with hook and line. How can a few fishermen affect the togue population of a big lake like Moosehead or Chamberlain?'' Well, in the first place, it is not just a few anglers catching a few togue. Several anglers each weekday-with a couple of dozen on weekend days-can add up to a few thousand man days and many fish during the combined open-water and ice fishing seasons. On Moosehead Lake, where a few years ago you could fish all day and see only a few boats, the number of man days has increased from about 30,000 in 1971 to more than 61,000 in 1978. Allagash Lake is a good example of a small (4,260 acre) togue and trout lake which was isolated and fished very lightly until a few years ago. Suddenly, in a few years, with new roads in the area and the general discovery of the large togue and trout that may be caught there, the fishing has increased to an estimated 600 man days during the 1979 winter season and perhaps an additional 2,300 man days during the summer, for an annual total of about 2,900 man days. This amount will probably continue to increase now that the word is out. Secondly, estimates of potential harvests of togue made some time in the past were based on ages of togue read from scales. Togue grow slowly and live a long time. We tended to ignore their ages beyond 10 years or so because we could not read the ages on scales of togue more than 8 or 10 years old. Also, we were working with or trying to manage togue populations that were already overfishedtrying to improve them by stocking hatchery reared togue. Recently, Canadian biologists have put a lot of effort into togue management and have determined their ages by a different method. They found that their lightly exploited populations are composed of fish from 10 to more than 20 years of age. In a lake like Allagash, then, we are harvesting an accummulation of big, old fish that cannot be replaced readily by young fish. They are the breeders, and if their numbers are reduced below a certain level, a couple of bad years on the eggs or the recently hatched fry can result in a collapse of the population. There are few intermediate size fish to replace the old fish if they are harvested at a rapid rate. In most Maine waters, female togue are 7 years old and more than 20 inches long before they mature to spawn. The togue population in Allagash Lake, before it was Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

fished much, may be compared with a 4,000-acre forest of big, old pine trees. In such a forest, there is little place for young trees except around the edges, or where an old tree has blown over or finally died or was struck and killed by lightning. We want to harvest these trees to pay the taxes, but we do not want to destroy our beautiful and valuable forest. We cut a few trees, sell the logs to a local sawmill, and get a good price for them. The demand for the nice lumber grows rapidly and we cut more trees. . . until we begin to wonder what is going to happen to our beautiful forest in a few years. We call a professional forester who surveys the forest, assesses the situation, and gives us a report. The forester has counted the rings on many of the trees we have cut and tells us that they range from 50 to more than 100 years of age. They are all mature and range from 1 foot to 2 feet in diameter. Most are large enough for sawlogs and will run about 10,000 board feet per acre. At the rate we are presently cutting (about 200 acres in one year), we will have it all cut in 20 years and be left with the 4,000 acres stocked with various densities of pine from 1 to 20 years old, and probably most of the acreage full of rapidly growing poplar, pin cherry, beech, and birch. We quickly realize that if we want our grandchildren to enjoy and possibly harvest some big pines, we will have to put a leash on our logging operation. The forester recommends the following management plan: Since there are about 10,000 board feet per acre and we have (or had) 4,000 acres, we have 40 million board feet of stock which we can probably harvest at the rate of 100 acres or approximately 1 million board feet per year. However, this should be cut in patches or checkerboard pattern and with a diameter limit of at least 14 inches (possibly 16 inches). This method will allow pine seeds from nearby mature pines to blow in and provide a thick cover of young pines. Some healthy pines less than 16 inches will also be left to provide additional seed and to be harvested later. A good stand of young, fast growing pines should result; and, if everything works as planned, a thrifty stand of pine from 1 to 40 years of age should be left when the 4,000 acres are cut over. Also, there should be a fair number of older trees which can be harvested or left. These will continue to provide seed if a fire or some other event occurs. There are several points I am trying to convey with this analogy: 1. In an unexploited togue population, as in the mature pine stand, there is little chance for young fish to survive and grow. 2. When such a population is first exploited (fished), the fishing is fabulous and the fish are practically all large and mature. 3. Such a population can be easily and quickly overharvested. 4. Once over-harvesting occurs, drastic curtailment of fishing, plus a long recovery period, is required to correct the situation. 5. The unexploited or virgin population structure, like 5

Lower bag limits and increased minimum length limits are needed to assure good togue fishing in the future.

Maine's deep, cold-water lakes, like those mentioned earlier, have extremely low values of dissolved materials (our waters are very soft); therefore, the yields of fish are in the order of 1 to 1 1 / 2 pounds per acre per year. The amount that can be harvested safely is less than 1 / 2 pound per acre per year. For a lake like Allagash, we cannot allow a harvest greater than 6-tenths of a pound per acre per year. Also, length limits must be high enough to insure that a sufficient number of mature fish remains to spawn.

the 100-year-old pine stand, cannot be maintained if any harvest is allowed. 6. Proper management will allow a regulated harvest of mature fish and, within a few years, will result in a well balanced population.

ECENT STUDIES of yields (pounds of fish) and allowable harvests of fish from deep, cold-water lakes-especially of togue , trout, and whitefish-have resulted in a formula which employs the total dissolved solids (TDS) which is the weight of all the soluble minerals, salts etc., left after you evaporate all the water from a known quantity (quart, liter) of lake water. Hard water has a large amount , and very soft water has very little. Distilled water has none . This is the material that determines how much algae, insects, etc. , can grow. These, in turn, determine how many pounds of fish per year a lake can grow. The depth of the lake is also important as very little can grow in the dark depths of a deep, cold lake. Just as an acre of soil can grow only so much corn, there is also a limit to the fish production ability of every lake. Virgin soil may produce a good corn crop, but after a few years, we have to add fertilizer of some kind . By the same token, every pound of fish we take out means a "pound" of fertilizer is taken out of a lake, and replacement from the surrounding soil , rocks, and from the air is very slow. 6

OW, here is the problem: We know we should

not harvest more than 2,800 pounds of brook trout and togue (combined) per year from Allagash Lake, or more than 45,000 pounds of salmon, trout, and togue per year from Moosehead Lake. But how do we implement this limitation? Do we weigh every fish that comes out of the lake and, when the quota is reached, sound a big horn and order the lake closed? Do we restrict the number of anglers allowed on the lake each month or year? If we set a limit of one togue per angler on Allagash Lake, where the average togue caught weighs 4 pounds, and 1,000 anglers take one togue each, there is 4,000 pounds and togue which far exceeds the 2,800-pound quota we set for the combined togue and brook trout catch. Do we shorten the season or close the lake to winter fishing? On Moosehead Lake, we are trying to build up the togue populations from an extreme low of the 1960s and early 1970s so we adopted a 2 togue limit with a minimum length limit of 18 inches. During the past few years, the number of angler days has gone up from 30,000 to more than 60,000. We had hoped that the lower bag limit and increased length limit would increase the number of spawning fish in a few years, but the increase in the number of anglers has all but eliminated this possibility; or, at best, it has lengthened the time span, and we have lost our safety margin. Another effect we have not mentioned is the change in numbers and kinds of other fish caused by reducing the numbers of large predators. A high population of large togue is usually consuming practically all of the suckers, chubs, yellow perch, and even their own young as they become available at different times of the year. If we reduce the numbers of large togue too much, more of these other species can escape and grow large enough so they cannot be eaten by the predators. (I am certain you know of a pond where you used to catch some nice big trout, but now all there is is chubs and suckers. The chubs and suckers were always there, but their numbers were held down by the big trout.) Once this situation develops, it is difficult to change it. Compare this occurrence with the undesirable species in our pine forest where poplars, cherry, etc., took over the clear cut areas. However, unlike the pine stand where we can measure the trees before cutting them, we cannot easily select the Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

largest or oldest fish to harvest except to a certain extent by establishing a minimum length limit. If only we had a particular bait or method of fishing that would catch only togue greater than a certain size, we would have a great advantage in fish management. But in the real world of fishing, an angler may catch and release several togue less than 18 inches long before he catches one he may keep. Of course, this varies greatly from lake to lake. There is a mortality of perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of fish caught with bait and then released. If we were to increase the length limit to 20 inches, the mortality would be higher. All we can hope for is to decrease the number of years or fishing seasons a togue will be legal quarry before it matures to spawn, and to limit the number an angler can legally kill, so there will be enough large fish remaining to spawn each year. As the pine forest cannot be maintained in a virgin condition if we want to harvest some trees, neither can we maintain a togue population as it was before it was fished. An old fish, like an old tree, grows slower and slower with old age but continues to occupy space and consume food.

If we harvest some of the older fish, or trees, and make space for the younger, faster growing individuals, we can actually produce a greater poundage of fish per acre of water or a greater number of board feet of pine lumber per acre of land. However, we must not forget that these things are limited by the fertility of the soils and water, and the only way we can change these values is to add nutrients at a great expense.

OR THE PRESENT, at least, the best control we have on our togue fisheries is through Âˇ regulatory management; that is, through establishment and enforcement of biologically sound fishing regulations. Fishery research has shown that in most instances we are taking too many togue, and at too small a size, to permit an optimistic outlook for the future. The choice is clear: we can either raise minimum length limits on togue and reduce the harvest (sacrifice a little today, with tomorrow in mind) or we can do nothing and then a decade from now wonder what happened to the good togue fishing we used to have. â&#x20AC;˘

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

1. 4. 8. 11 . 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 30. 32. 33. 35. 37. 39. 41. 42. 43. 45. 49. 51. 52.

The juice of plants. A ten-footed crustacean . The menhaden: _ _ back. A small body of water leading into a larger. A sound in a canyon might continue doing this . A marsupial. Delerium tremens . Cage-like traps; lobster_ _ . Opposite compass points. Object at which you aim . (abbrev.). A harsh growl. A fatty bird food. White flowered shrub of the honeysuckle family. The haje. Ammo for the bow hunter. Radium (chem. sym.) The primer of a cartridge or shell case. The home of a bird. First appearance of the sun. Social ranking of a flock of birds: _ _ -order. Underwriters' Laboratories (abbrev.). Chemical suffix. Utter a solemn promise. Wingless, web-spinning arachnids. Sudden flood of the tide in an estuary. Hook, _ _ , and sinker. The male of the red deer.

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

A garland of flowers. Fluid secreted by the cuttlefish (pl.). The American wapiti. A wingless rail of New Zealand. The Sunflower State (abbrev.) A large rodent. Popular fresh-water gamefish.

DOWN

1. Device for walking over snow: _ _ shoe. 2. The Cotton State (abbrev.). 3. Furs. 5. The chickaree: _ _ squirrel. 6. What the opossum does. 7. Initials of common names of: Castor canadensis; Urophycis. 8. Long , narrow arm of the sea, with high rocky banks. 9. Deciduous bony outgrowth on the head of a deer. 10. Type genera (abbrev.). 11 . A president 's nickname. 12. The ivory nut. 14. A gemstone. 20. Gull-like birds. 22. Semiaquatic, salamander-like amphibian . 24. Oxygen producing woody plant. 26. Antlers. 28. Fishes somewhat resembling sea robins. 29. Crappie, sunfish, etc.: _ _ fish.

31 . 34. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 44. 46. 47. 48. 50. 53. 57.

Osmium (chem. sym.). Groups of lions. Hounds. A pouched marmot. Angling on frozen water: _ _ fishing . The Baltimore oriole: _ _ bird. Valley streams. Subsurface fly. Defensive fluid of an octopus. A ratite bird smaller than an ostrich. The ocean: _ _ water. Inlet. Initials of common names of: Rodentia; Lampropeltis. West Africa (abbrev.).

ANSWER ON PAGE 15

,@ Douglas Ja c 1<s on 1 971.i

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

As I looked through field glasses, I could see six young coyotes on the river bank, all trying to imitate the sound of two nearby adult coyotes. Our canoe drifted within 100 yards of them before the coyotes ran up and over the river bank. I followed on foot and got about 20 yards from an adult that I estimated weighed about 50 pounds. The canine tracks of the past winter flashed through my mind, and it was now clear to me that those tracks had been made by coyotes. Little did I realize that these animals would bring such happiness, such pure joy, and yet such terror into the life of my family. During the next three winters I spent considerable time learning about coyotes and their habits. Many days were spent on the back track of coyotes to see where they had been and what they had killed. In the spring, possible denning sites were searched for. A few coyotes were trapped and sent to the University of Maine at Orono. Hundreds of coyote scats were pawed through to get some idea of what the coyote had been eating. I was fascinated by the animal's cleverness and his ability to adapt. It was clear to me that the coyote would soon be the top predator in the Maine woods.

t QJ

I >,

D 0

.s::

T THE University of Maine, a graduate student named Henry Hilton was working on his master's degree in wildlife management and concentrating his studies on the coyote. Henry spent considerable time at Seven Islands collecting information on the coyote and making sense out of the data already collected. During the winter of 1975, Henry asked if it would be possible to obtain a litter of coyote pups for a behavior study. A litter of coyote pups had not been taken from the Maine woods before, and we both knew that Lady Luck would play an important role in finding one. On April 30, 1975, Warden Inspector Oral Page and I patrolled to Seven Islands by snowmachine to try and find

a..

Coyotes in Our Family By Rodney D. Sirois Game Warden Corporal HE STORY BEGINS in the winter of 1971 as I patrol my newly assigned district, St. Pamphile, in Aroostook County on the MaineQuebec border. Large canine tracks were seen on two occasions that winter near Seven Islands on the St. John River. In July of 1972, I was fishing at Seven Islands with my wife, Judy, and six-months-old son, Clem, when we heard a strange sound, off in the distance, that startled us-a sound we had never heard before in the Maine woods. A howling, yelping, half-barking loon was our first thought.

a den of coyote pups. By 1:30 that afternoon we were on our way back to St. Pamphile with seven coyote pups that we estimated were between ten and fifteen days old. Henry arrived the next day and took five of the pups to be immediately flown to the University of Colorado for the behavior study. I retained the remaining two, one of either sex. Although the coyote pups could barely walk, our house cat immediately changed his sleeping spot from the floor to the top of anything in the house. In just a few weeks the pups were scampering throughout the house, chewing everything in sight. Their razor-sharp teeth could cut a boot lace off in a single bite. The female coyote, Princess, cut off the electrical cord to our television with one bite. Sparks flew as she jumped from fear of this strange conMaine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

traption! For several months after that experience, Princess would growl and the hair on her back would stand up as she made a definite detour around the electrical outlet. Tonka, the male coyote, was very aggresive about food. Nothing was safe on the kitchen table . One day as I opened the refrigerator door, Tonka jumped right into the meat department, gulping down everything in reach. Our cat, the coyotes, and our son, Clem, all grew up together. The coyotes would wag their tails as they licked and nipped Clem, or the cat, on the face. This peculiar form of affection was not appreciated by the cat, who would give the coyotes a cuff on the head, but never with open claws. One day when we were away from home, Tonka got out of his pen. He was soon parading through the Seven Islands village causing considerable concern . No one knew for sure whether he was wild or one of my coyotes until our cat walked right up to him and they touched noses. Our neighbors knew immediately where the coyote belonged. It was not long before Tonka discovered our turkeys; he jumped a seven foot fence and killed two of the six. With one turkey in his mouth, Tonka proudly displayed his catch to the neighbors. I thought the whole situation was rather humorous; however, I'm not sure that my neighbors-or the turkeys-shared my feelings! The coyotes would often howl late at night or in the early morning hours. One night I got up and pounded on the side of the house and shouted at Tonka and Princessmy usual procedure-which quieted them right away. As I started back into the house, I could hear coyotes howling about five hundred yards away. The countryside seemed to come alive with coyotes. This howling became a common occurrence. It seemed that every coyote that passed within several miles of our house would give a call and Tonka or Princess would always answer. Many nights our back yard sounded like something out of a Walt Disney production. If you doubt it, just ask any of my St. Pamphile neighbors! Photo by Henry Hil ton .

Photo by the author.

Clem , left , with coyote pup in 1975, and Guy (recent photo).

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

''I now realize how lucky I was that no one happened along to witness the local game warden ... embracing a full grown coyo t e . .. " Princess got out of her pen one night during the deer hunting season and was gone for several days. I was afraid she would be shot or just disappear forever. But one night as I was returning home from patrol, I saw what appeared to be a coyote running just to the right of my vehicle headlights. I just had to stop and see if it could be Princess! I sat quietly for a few moments, looking around to make sure no one was watching. On my hands and knees, in full warden uniform, I started-up my version of a coyote call, one that I had used since Princess was a pup. In a few moments, a coyote appeared with its tail wagging, standing in the shadows of the trees. I spoke softly in my very best coyote "baby talk" as Princess crawled on her belly to me and started licking my face. We both showed great excitment and joy in meeting again. Princess urinated, her usual procedure when very excited. I stood up with this full-grown coyote wetting in my arms, stepped back on the road, and slowly walked to the truck. I now realize how lucky I was that no one happened along to witness the local game warden on his hands and knees, embracing a fullgrown coyote in the middle of the woods.

T TWO YEARS OF AGE, Tonka weighed 40 pounds, and with his winter coat, was a very impressive-looking animal. He showed a definite preference for Judy's affection, while Princess showed a preference for mine. There was always competition between Tonka and Princess for Judy's attention whenever she would enter the pen. Clem was always accepted with both coyotes, as they had grown up together. Our youngest son, Guy, was born in September 1976. At this time we noticed a definite change in the attitute of both coyotes. Guy was not accepted; he was not considered family. Within one year, we realized there was a real problem. Guy was not safe alone with the coyotes, and there seemed to be a similar trend in their aggressive behavior toward Clem. Both animals would become aggressive whenever Judy showed affection toward Guy or Clem. Judy and I talked about returning the coyotes to the wild or giving them to the University of Maine. But Tonka and Princess were considered "family" and we just kept putting off what we knew should be done. During February 1977, while I was on assigned patrol in the Sebago Lake area, an emergency call came for me to contact my residence. Deep inside, I knew what to expect. Judy had been feeding the coyotes as Clem and Guy were 9

"By sharing our home with Tonka and Princess, we learned to be humble and respect the coyote.'' playing in the snow near the pen. Princess was in heat and more aggressive than usual. She was also annoyed at the boys being near Judy. Princess slipped out of the pen past Judy, who sensed the immediate danger and called Guy by name. Princess went directly to Guy, grabbing him by the face and shaking him like a rag doll. Judy, with the fighting fury of a mother defending her young, pulled Princess off. While Judy was screaming for someone to help, she sheltered Guy's torn and bleeding face in her arms. Princess then attacked Clem, biting him on the back of the head as he ran for the house. Judy was able to ward off the further attacks of Princess and got her two sons, who were bleeding profusely from the head and face, to the safety of the house. The boys were taken to the local doctor in St. Pamphile for emergency treatment. Clem was patched up with 15 stitches in the back of the head, and Guy received 22 stitches in the face. I arrived the next morning knowing what must be done. With a lot of sorrow, I dispatched both of the animals.

WILL TRY not to be too anthropomorphic in

explaining how we now perceive the situation. We believe the attack was mainly due to jealousy. Princess did not intend to kill Guy or Clem, only to "put

them in their places" and establish her dominance. Coyotes often grab with their teeth and shake one another violently to establish pecking order. A child's skin is far too tender to withstand the sharp teeth of a coyote. We fully realize that Princess was capable of crushing Guy's or Clem's skull if she had intended to kill them. Our boys healed like magic. Guy has a few small scars on his face that are disappearing gradually. Clem's scars are covered by his hair line and are not even noticeable. Guy will never remember the incident, and Clem seemed to handle the stress of seeing his brother injured exceptionally well. There are no emotional scars in our family. By sharing our home with Tonka and Princess, we learned much more about coyotes than their mere physical needs. We learned that the emotions shown by Tonka and Princess (happiness, sadness, joy, and shame) were very similar to those displayed by man's best friend, the dog. We learned about our responsibiiity to not interfere with wild animals. We gained some insight into the importance of the coyotes' presence in the Maine woods. We learned that coyotes belong in the woods and have a right to live there, fulfilling their natural predator-prey relationship within the wildlife community. Our family learned to be humble and respect the coyote. In our lifetime we have witnessed the migration of an animal into the Maine woods whose importance is not yet fully understood. A coyote has evolved with super abilities to fill a need in the evolutionary scheme of things. As our family reminisces about our experiences over the past eight years with coyotes in general, there is a special place in our hearts for two particular coyotes. The howl of the Maine coyote will always stir the very soul of our family. •

..------Two Christmas Ideas Inflation-proof your Christmas shopping with these limited-time offers: • Introduce a friend to MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE magazine with a new 3-year gift subscription or a 3-year extension of a gift subscription, and he or she will also receive a gift copy of THE MAINE WAY, our new cookbook of Maine game and fish recipes. An $8.50 value for only $5.50. To order, use the subscription form found elsewhere in this issue. Cookbook will be mailed directly to recipient. • Buy two copies of THE MAINE WAY cookbook and get one more free. Three for the price of two. A $9.00 value for only $6.00. Send order to COOKBOOK, Maine Fish and Wildlife Dept., 284 State St., Augusta, ME 04333. Make check or money order for $6 payable to "Treasurer, State of Maine."

These offers are good until January 1, 1980, but for delivery before Christmas we should receive your order no later than December 10, 1979. 10

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

BIRD FEEDING - FROM BOTH SIDES

PRO

CON

By William Ginn

By James L. Tabor

,, HE DEFENSE of a favorite Maine pastime-

bird feeding-must begin by agreeing with those who oppose the feeding of birds that there are many valid points that can be made against some .. current bird feeding practices. I will try to address some of these problems later on, but I cc:rtainly will not act as an apologist for them, since I have fed birds for most of my adult life. It is the incredibly educational experience, as well as a gesture of deepfelt concern, that draws me to feed birds

LL TOO FREQUENTLY our perception of environmental degradation, conservation and the importance of wildlife is purely subjective. If an environmental reform inhibits our individual lifestyle or entails an economic penalty, we balk. If stringent conservation of a natural resource means that a cherished recreational activity is restricted, we cry "foul." And when the opportunity to exploit nature for a temporary advantage is frustrated, we bemoan the fact, even though the ultimate result might be negative, if not disastrous. Actual-

and, indeed, to justify the practice. I make this claim not on the basis of any hardwon scientific data, but rather on years of sitting by my window feeder during the winter. For me, feeding birds is a way of staying in touch with the seasons and the natural world. The feeder outside my living room is my bird barometer of the weather, the state of the wild food crop, and the relative health of those birds (and squirrels!) that partake from it. Once, two winters ago, a huge barred owl sat a few feet from my window hungrily eyeing my fat little chickadees. This is one time that I can say with certainty that sunflower seeds rather decreased the general bird population to the benefit of my barred owl! Yet I shall never forget to see acted out at my very doorstep this timeless natural conflict

ly, one of the greatest boons to wildlife and the environment would be a liberal application of objectivity - integrity, if you will - in the evaluation of pertinent activities and reforms. Rather than measuring the merits of our choices and those of society on the basis of "what's best for me?" or "what does my family want?" or "what is economically expedient for my business?", would it not make more sense if our approach were "what is right?" "What course of action will redound to the advantage of all - man as well as his fellow creatures; future as well as present generations?'' Admittedly, this philosophy is easier to enunciate than to embrace. A case in point is the practice of making commercially processed seeds and grains available for wild

.Editor's Note: William Ginn is the executive director of the Maine Audubon Society. James L. Tabor is a former vice president and trustee of Maine Audubon, and maintains a continuing interest in wildlife. The two articles were reprinted from The Maine Audubon Quarterly, Fall, 1979.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Pro,

continued

between predator and prey. While my feeder, no doubt, made the owl's work easier, I reasoned that, had it not been carried out by my window, the act, nevertheless, would have occurred on some nameless acre in the deep woods. I eagerly await the arrival each winter of my finches. If they storm down from the north in huge flocks, then I know that the seed crops are light, and the birds are shifting south for the winter in search of food. When the birds are sparse, I take it as a good sign that the wild food supply is holding up, and my finches are not roaming so far afield. I mention these two small anecdotes merely to make the point that the drama at my feeder is part of nature's larger drama, and it helps me to understand and learn more about it. I also suggest that bird feeding is a gesture of concern for wildlife. Far from wanting to discourage these acts of human generosity, we ought to be cultivating and encouraging more people to take an interest in our environment. I have always believed that, to the extent an individual feels a concern for the outdoors, we have gained a friend for the conservation movement in Maine. Those who love their environment are the most likely ones to defend it from exploitation. For many, bird feeding is their way of staying in touch with this part of our world. Any practice has its liabilities, and certainly bird feeding is no exception. I will not deny that we need to do much more in promoting natural feeding through conservation

Con,

continued

that bird feeding is a fascinating pastime. Not only does it offer a challenge to see how many different species can be lured to the feeder, but there is never-ending interest in just watching the birds themselves. Then too, the antics of the ubiquitous squirrels as they try various strategems to filch a free meal, make an entertaining sideshow. And of course, the "frosting on the cake" is the feeling that by feeding birds during our harsh New England winters we are enhancing their chances for survival. Yes, on the face of it, the serving of ready-to-eat convenience foods to the winter bird population would seem to be a great idea. Not only is it an interesting hobby but the concensus is that it is a blessing to an important segment of our wildlife as well. THE FACTS AGAINST BIRD FEEDING Unfortunately, the facts - unvarnished by emotion, personal predilections or commercial considerations by those who sell birdseed, feeders, etc., clearly indicate otherwise. Consider: 1. Commercial birdseed and grains can be unwholesome and injurious to birds. The possibility exists for increased concentrations of pesticide residues in wild birds through feeding on treated agricultural products, carelessly or neg12

plantings. We also need to curb the feeding of nuisance birds like pigeons and gulls, which annually compete with other species for nesting spaces and create problems in many other ways. Finally, we need to educate people that every year some wild animals starve to death because they become dependent on food left by well-meaning people and are then left to fend for themselves during the harshest part of the winter. Dealing with these problems is part of the mission of Maine Audubon, and they are challenges that we gladly accept. At this point, I am sure that many Audubon members will say in response to my arguments that they would like to feed birds, but commercial seed might contain poisons or bacteria which could seriously sicken or kill the birds. While I am no apologist for the agricultural practices that leave us a legacy of poison seed, on a relative scale the impact of such seed must be regarded as insignificant. In fact, the entire benefit or harm (depending on your persuasion) caused by feeding birds must be regarded as rather small when the entire bird population is considered. One estimate places the bird population in Maine at about 2 per acre, or about 45 million birds in the state as a whole. If we assume an average life span for a bird of about five years, that means that 9 million birds die every year from natural causes alone. More compelling proof will have to be found to convince me that, compared to nature's own "survival of the fittest" rule, the relatively small number of people who feed birds regularly cause significant harm. Until that time, I plan to continue to sit by my window feeder and enjoy a window into a most exciting natural world. ligently contaminated by uninspected birdseed. In an article, "A Perfectly Natural Peril," which appeared in the Maine Audubon Quarterly in the spring of 1978, Walter Litten pointed out that Aflatoxin, a carcinogen which can invade virtually any food, is found principally in grains and nuts. Weight for weight it is second only to plutonium as a carcinogen. Reprinted with the article was copy extolling the virtues of the National Audubon Society's own wild bird food which is tested for Aflatoxin. The point was made that many commercial bird food mixtures are not checked for this contaminant. Since obviously only a small fraction of the commercial bird food is formulated and tested by the Audubon, it is a fair assumption that this potential hazard from commercial feeds could be great. Incidentally, since grains growing locally represent a relatively small portion of the natural diet of our New England birds, any Aflatoxin which might be present in foods which they forage for themselves would pose a minimal threat. 2. Feeders increase exposure of birds to disease. By concentrating birds of many species with varying degrees of natural immunities, parasites and diseases such as fowl cholera can be spread readily at feeders by feces and feather droppings. 3. Artificially feeding wild birds can result in nutritional Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

deficiencies. Francis J. Gramlich, Maine State Supervisor, U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service, who is concerned about artificial bird feeding, has noted, ''Change in behavior of birds continually fed can result in dangerous lack of adaptation to natural foods and feeding processes and possible dietary deficiencies. I have watched chickadees fledging young apparently completely on a diet of sunflower seeds.'' 4. By artificially feeding birds we are subverting nature's law of survival of the fittest. When birds have to forage for their own food under adverse conditions imposed by nature, those that are the strongest, most adaptable, and have the best instinctive mechanisms, are most apt to survive and propagate. This bodes well for the vitality of the individual species. 5. Feeders which concentrate birds increase exposure to mammalian and avian predators. Domestic cats are given far too great an opportunity for unnecessary predation. Bird hawks and shrikes, which have their place in a natural, uncorrupted environment, kill excessive numbers of birds at feeders and are sometimes themselves illegally controlled by those who favor the birds preyed upon. 6. Artificial bird feeding can raise havoc with the competitive balance of the various species. For example, it is generally recognized that the increase in the population and geographical range of the bluejay can be attributed to winter feeding. The increase has put pressure on some of the less prevalent and less aggressive species during the nesting season because of increased predation of their eggs and young by the bluejays. Feeding tends to increase the numbers of pest species such as the vagrant pigeon, house sparrow, and starling. 7. The growing and marketing of birdseed places an unnecessary burden on our limited energy resources. The most recent estimated annual consumption of birdseed in New England is 76,000,000 pounds, of which 6 to 7 million are consumed in Maine. This respresents over 1800 twentyone ton trailer loads. Since most commercial bird food is grown in the Midwest, we can compute that some 375,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be consumed in moving this amount of product from a central location such as Kansas City to Boston. In addition, large amounts of energy are used to fertilize, cultivate, harvest, process, and package birdseed and to complete distribution. The proponents of feeding may argue that everybody needs, and is entitled to, some kind of recreation, be it boating, snowmobiling, travelling, bird feeding, or a thousand other diversions which utilize processed energy. Furthermore, they maintain that it is unreasonable to condemn a wholesome, nature-oriented avocation which actually utilizes less energy than any number of other recreational activities. In the context of our present energy shortfall, this line of reasoning is badly flawed. The truth of the matter is that all recreational activities which are energy intensive must give way to those which are not. Otherwise we will not even have enough energy in the foreseeable future for necessities. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Would it not be appropriate for the Maine Audubon Society to be in the vanguard in bringing about this change to entertainment and recreation which only require limited expenditures of energy? It seems to me that a change in our stance on bird feeding would be a good place to start. We could "have our cake and eat it too," by discontinuing the promotion of artificial bird feeding and by encouraging the growing of trees, shrubs, and other plants which can provide an almost unlimited assortment of wholesome, "natural" winter feed for wild birds. The list of plant species which are suitable for our area is extensive and varied. Here are some of them: "Rem Red" amur honeysuckle, American cranberry, firethorn, mountain ash, winterberry, American holly, bittersweet, woodbine, barberry and staghorn sumac. Not only do they provide feed but many offer good cover for nesting. They can beautify the landscape around a home, and some can serve as hedges and screens. 8. When the distribution of winter feed is discontinued,

it can seriously jeopardize the weljare of the birds which have become dependent on it. While most people who feed birds understand the critical importance of continuing winter feeding once it has been started, there is a very real possibility that the supply of commercial seed may be cut off. With gasoline and diesel fuel in short supply the transportation of items such as birdseed-and pet foods will have a very low priority. And if inventories "dry up" at a critical time in the winter after a substantial segment of the bird population has already been "hooked" on the commercial feed, the result could spell disaster.

VEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE against artificial bird feeding is impressive, many people may argue that the benefits outweigh the liabilities. In a classical "the end justifies the means" argument, proponents point to the fact that it stimulates interest in birds and wildlife, generally. However, an objective view most certainly would be that it makes no sense whatsoever to try to promote an interest in wildlife with a program or course of action which has a deleterious impact on that wildlife. In summary, the issue is not one to be taken lightly by bird watchers or, indeed, by anybody genuinely concerned about the preservation of wildlife. In addressing the seriousness of the situation, Frank Gramlich had this to say: "After completing this year's Christmas bird count, I became more convinced than ever that bird feeding has reached potentially dangerous levels for the majority of birds of some species. There is no use looking for birds anywhere but in the vicinity of feeders in the Augusta-Gardiner-Randolph-Whitefield area. There can be little dispute that the majority of the birds in large areas are completely dependent on feeders. The fact that we have larger number of birds than the natural habitat can support can mask the effects of habitat destruction and deterioration from many people - giving a false impression of environmental well-being.'' 1

â&#x20AC;˘

~'COUNT THE CRITTERS'' One type of information often needed by our biologists is the total number of animals of acertain species in a certain area-in other words, the "population." It is good to know, for instance, if there are enough smaller fish in a pond to serve as food for the larger ones, especially if we plan to stock the pond with larger numbers. Another good example concerns the size of flocks of ducks and other waterfowl. If biologists can determine how many ducks an area can successfully feed and nest, then knowing how many there are will tell them if the flock is too big, too small, or just right. This information is very helpful in determining how to best manage the flock in future years. Obviously, the best way to figure out how many "critters" there are is to count them. But this just doesn't work in a large area without boundaries. So biologists use other methods to "estimate" the population. Here's a simple example-a game called ''Count the Critters.'' To begin, find a fairly large number of objects which are all the same (beans, popcorn, pennies, etc.), but DON'T COUNT THEM! Now, mark 10 of these objects so that you can easily tell them from the rest. Put unmarked and marked ones together in a box or jar, mix them up, and you're ready to "estimate the population." 14

With a pencil and paper handy, close your eyes and draw out 10 objects, one at a time. Then take a look at your first "sample." Write down how many of them are marked, and how many are unmarked. Now put them back.

Do the same thing several more times (let's say 15 times), each time mixing them thoroughly, drawing 10 objects one at a time, and keeping track of how many are marked and unmarked. We did it this way: Sample Number 1 2

Number Marked

2 1 3

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15

1 0 0 2

1 3 2 2 0 1 25

Number Unmarked 8 9

7 6 7

9 10 10

8 9 7 8 8 10 9

Size of Sample 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 150

Now you've taken your samples, and you're ready to "estimate your population." You might need some help with the math, but here's how you do it: Multiply the total of all your samples (150) by the number of marked objects (remember, you marked 10 of them); that answer would be 1500 in this case. Now divide this answer by the total of marked objects in all the sall!ples, which is 25. Right?

That answer, 60, is your "population estimate." Now take all your ''critters'' out and count them. When we did, we found that there were 67. Pretty close to 60! And if we had taken 50 samples instead of 15, the estimate would have been even closer! This is a simple way to explain a process which scientists call ''random sampling.'' This same process, with some changes, is used by our wildlife biologists when they trap a number of ducks, band them for identification, release them, and then take several samples in the same area, by retrapping or by examining birds taken by hunters. It is also used by our fishery biologists when they trapnet a number of trout, mark them by clipping fins, release them, then re-sample the same lake or stream. The more samples taken, the better the estimate will be. But it works! If you enjoyed playing "Count the Critters," why not take the idea to school with you, and show it to your teacher? Maybe your whole class could play! With that many samples, your "population estimate'' would be even closer!

ANSWER TO PUZZLE ON PAGE 6 A T

u s l

E :r: 11 ;::l:

K S

s s 15

Oil Soaked Birds--

The Innocent Victims T

HE PROBLEM with oil

and wildlife stems from the ancient adage ''oil and water don't mix''; this causes serious trouble for birds, marine mammals, fish, and shellfish. In most instances, oil will float on water surfaces and is subject to movement caused by wind, tide and current, none of which can effectively be controlled by man in his efforts to "clean-up" a spill. This article will focus on only one aspect of oil spill clean-up: namely, oiled birds. Oiled birds are generally an immediate problem and often the first sign of a spill to reach the eyes of man. The sight of heavily oiled birds struggling toward a beach and hopelessly preening their feathers is truly sad. Emotions and public outcry flare because of this, rumors spread quickly, and large numbers of concerned volunteers usually arrive on site to help . In all major oiled-bird rescue attempts, this volunteer force has 16

played a vital role in providing labor, but the large influx of workers often causes problems for local communities. Let's look at what is involved in a well organized clean-up operation so you will begin to realize the magnitude of the problem. First, the effect of oil on birds should be understood. Birds have evolved into highly adapted animals obviously capable of flight and survival in the air, and, for many species, on the water. Oil affects the bird's ability to survive in both areas. When oil coats the feathers, it affects the bird's total weight and thereby makes flight difficult. It also affects the structure of the feathers and their natural oils which are critical in maintaining a waterproof plumage. If water birds cannot shed water, they lose their insulative protection and buoyancy, and they die from drowning and exposure. Their difficulty in flying and swimming also reduces their chance of obtaining adequate food,

and deaths from exhaustion and starvation ensue. These are immediate, external effects of oil on birds-there are also secondary, internal problems. As birds ingest oil while attempting to clean their feathers or drink oiled water, death occurs from poisoning or other complications. TheÂˇ recovery of birds from oiling is highly unlikely under natural conditions. Man's attempt at saving birds are the only alternative to watching passively as these helpless creatures die a slow death.

HAT SHOULD you do if

you observe an oil spill or oiled birds? First, "GET INVOLVED"! Notify the U.S. Coast Guard, Portland, Maine, (800) 424-8802; the Maine Spill Coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery, Orland, Maine, (207) 469Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

By Patrick O. Corr Assistant Migratory Bird Research Leader

Photo By Chris Ayres

2803; or your local district warden or regional biologist of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Also, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection maintains a toll free number for reporting oil spills, (800) 482-0777. Your second individual effort should be toward preventing further bird-oil encounters. In small localized spills, people in power boats around the spill can generally scare other birds from flying or swimming into the oil slick. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection will likely be the initial governmental agencies on the scene. After viewing the spill and determining the extent of damage, further technical assistance will be called in if needed. If oiled birds are involved, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Spill Coordinator will direct clean-up efforts and call in prearranged cooperators and volunteer groups if Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

necessary. Individuals desiring to organize a program to salvage oiled birds will be required to obtain permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department. It should be noted that great investments of time, money, and energy will be required to save a significant percentage of affected birds. Mortality rates in most species will be high, especially in severe weather - regardless of the amount of time, energy, or money expended, or the speed with which treatment is provided. Oiled birds must be captured whereever they happen to come to shore. They must be quickly transported to the nearest rehabilitation center where they will be initially screened for treatment. Many severely weakened individuals will need to be humanely dispatched so that time is not expended on hopeless cases . The victims selected for aid which may be successful must receive medical treatment and be held until they can be deoiled. This is done by volunteers who wash oil from plumage by dipping the birds in tubs of industrial detergents. These detergent solutions must be warmed to prevent further shock to the birds, which must be handled gently but firmly to remove the oil. After de-oiling, a warm, dry holding and feeding area must be provided to allow for adequate drying of plumage and recovery of energy reserves. When birds have recovered, the few that have survived this treatment may be released. This may be days or weeks after treatment, depending on the species involved and the extent of damage.

HE ABOVE paragraphs outline the major events which occur when oiled birds are involved during oil spills. Each step along the way presents problems, including co-ordination of rescue efforts, supply of men and equipment, acquiring and distributing materials, finding holding areas and food for the various species involved, providing shelter and food for volunteers,

and informing the news media and citizens of the extent and progress of the rescue operation. Much work has been conducted since the 1967 Torrey Canyon disaster off the Cornish coast, in which nearly 40,000 seabirds perished and only an estimated 1 per cent recovery rate for treated birds was realized. Many dedicated researchers have worked diligently to advance the technology necessary to improve these results. Their efforts have resulted in greater success in rehabilitating oiled birds; in the December 1976 spill of the Olympic Games on the Delaware River, an intensive effort resulted in an 11 per cent recovery rate. Unfortunately, technology has not yet progressed far enough to expect more than minor success in treatment of oiled birds. The threat of major oil spills in Maine is ever present; it is not a question of "will it occur?" but rather, "when and where will it occur and in what magnitude?" Oil terminals are well established in Portland and Searsport, tankers regularly ply the Penobscot River between Bucksport and Bangor, and a major refinery is being considered for Eastport. Offshore oil drilling, increased use of large tankers, overland pipelines, and highway and rail transport all present chances for major accidents .

ACH OF THE above situations implies that oiled birds will show up along Maine's beaches. It is only the matters of time, place, and magnitude that are unknown. We can only hope that large spills do not occur in Passamaquoddy Bay during the migration of phalaropes, sandpipers, and plovers, when literally millions of individuals are present; or that a major spill does not drift freely in Penobscot Bay or Casco Bay in winter where eider ducks by the thousands may be sitting out a storm. Given one of these occurrences, you can be assured that many of you and your friends will be involved in the very messy, exhausting, and generally disappointing attempt to rehabilitate once beautiful birds. â&#x20AC;˘ 17

From The Fly Tying Bench •

• •

Streamer Fly Patterns By Peter G. Walker Fishery Biologist

I am grateful to the many readers who responded so favorably to the "Maine Streamer Fly" articles in last year's spring and summer issues of Maine Fish and Wildlife. Several fly tyers inquired about the dressings for certain Maine streamer patterns that are seldom mentioned in print. For the benefit of our many fly tying readers, I have prepared a "cookbook" of 25 Maine streamer and bucktail recipes. Novice fly tyers can use the illustration to identify the various fly parts mentioned in the recipes.

Arnold Thread: black Tail: two jungle cock hackle tips splayed to represent the tail of a fish Ribbing: oval silver tinsel Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: four grizzly saddle hackles over white bucktail over red bucktail Shoulders: jungle cock eye feathers*

Ballou Special Author's Note: Ai W. Ballou, originator of the marabou streamer, and designer of this next pattern, passed away on September 24, 1979. At 85, Ballou was the last surviving pioneer of the early Maine casting streamer era which saw the likes of Carrie Stevens, Herb Welch and Joe Stickney. In passing, Ai leaves the sportsmen of Maine a legacy without parallel in the angling world.

Thread: black Tail: a golden pheasant crest feather curving downward Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: two white marabou feathers over a small bunch of red bucktail Topping: several stands of peacock herl Shoulders: jungle cock eye feathers*

1. Tail 2. Body 3. Rib 4.Throat 5. Collar 6. Wing 7. Topping 8. Shoulder 9. Cheek 10. Head 11. Tag

Barnes Special Thread: red Tail: two jungle cock hackle tips splayed to represent the tail of a fish Ribbing: oval silver tinsel Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: two grizzly saddle hackles outside of two yellow saddle hackles, all over white bucktail over red bucktail Shoulders: jungle cock eye feathers* Collar: a large white neck hackle

Black Ghost Thread: black Tail: yellow hackle fibers Ribbing: flat silver tinsel Body: black floss Throat: yellow hackle fibers Wings: four white saddle hackles Shoulders: jungle cock eye feathers*

Charlie McCarthy Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: four red saddle hackles over white bucktail Topping: several strands of peacock herl Shoulders: jungle cock eye feathers*

Chief N eedabeh Thread: black Tag: flat silver tinsel Tail: a section of duck wing quill, dyed red Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Ribbing: narrow flat silver tinsel and a bright red hackle, tied palmer Body: red floss Wings: two red saddle hackles outside of two yellow saddle hackles Throat: red hackle Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

a small bunch of white bucktail, under which is tied an upcurved golden pheasant crest fea th er-all extending beyond the hook Wings: four grey saddle hackles over a single downcurving golden pheasant crest feat her Shoulders: silver pheasant body feathers Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Colonel Bates

Golden Witch

Thread: red Tail: a section of red duck wing quill Body: flat silver tinsel Throat: dark brown hackle fibers Wings: two white saddle hackles outside of two yellow saddle hackles Shoulders: barred teal flank feathers

Thread: black Ribbing: flat silver tinsel Body: orange floss Throat: a small bunch of full length white bucktail, under which is tied a small bunch of short grizzly hackle fibers Wings: four grizzly saddle hackles over several strands of peacock herl Shoulders: golden pheasant tippet feathers Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Edson Tiger, Dark Thread: yellow Tag: narrow flat gold tinsel Tail: two yellow hackle tips Body: yellow chenille Throat: two red hackle tips Wings: brown bucktail dyed yellow Shoulders: jungle cock eye feathers*

Edson Tiger, Light Thread: black Tag: narrow flat gold tinsel Tail: a section of black and white tipped wood duck flank feather Body: peacock herl Wings: yellow bucktail Topping: two short red hackle tips Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Green King Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: two grizzly saddle hackles outside of two green saddle hackles, all over a small bunch of white bucktail Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Lady Ghost Thread: black Ribbing: oval silver tinsel Throat: several strands of peacock herl, under which is tied a small bunch of white bucktail, under which is tied an upcurved golden pheasant crest feather Wings: four badger saddle hackles over a single downcurved golden pheasant crest feather Shoulders: Reeves pheasant body feathers (hen eider body feathers make good substitutes) Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Liggett Special Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: red bucktail over yellow buck tail Throat: white bucktail (full length) Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Miss Sharon

Green Queen

Thread: red, painted white dot "pupil" on head Ribbing: narrow silver tinsel Body: red floss Wings: black bucktail over orange bucktail over white bucktail over red bucktail (all very sparse)

Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: two green saddle hackles outside of two grizzly saddle hackles, all over a small bunch of white bucktail Shoulders: copper ring-necked pheasant neck feathers Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: two black saddle hackles outside two green saddle hackles, all over white bucktail Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

9-3

Gray Ghost Thread: black Ribbing: Flat silver tinsel Body: orange floss Throat: four strands of peacock herl, under which is tied Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Parmachene Belle Thread: black Tail: red hackle fibers over white hackle fibers Ribbing: oval silver tinsel

Body: yellow wool yarn Wings: four red saddle hackles Shoulders: white saddle hackles 2/ 3 as long as the wings Cheeks: (optional) jungle cock eye feathers* Collar: mixed red and white neck hackles

Wings: two badger saddle hackles outside of two light blue saddle hackles Collar: mixed yellow and light blue hackles Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Pink Lady

Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Throat: yellow hackle fibers Wings: four grizzly saddle hackles over yellow bucktail over white bucktail Topping: several strands of peacock herl Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Sportsmen Say Thread: black Ribbing: oval silver tinsel Body: flat silver tinsel Wings: two grizzly saddle hackles outside of two orange saddle hackles, all over a small bunch of white bucktail Shoulders: wood duck flank feathers Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Queen Bee Thread: black Body: flat silver tinsel Throat: red hackle fibers Wings: four brown saddle hackles over white bucktail over yellow bucktail Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Senator Muskie Thread: red, painted white "pupil" on head Ribbing: narrow silver embossed tinsel Body: red floss Wings: two chinchilla saddle hackles over green bucktail over yellow bucktail over orange bucktail over white bucktail (all very sparse) Topping: four strands of peacock herl

Supervisor Thread: black Tail: a short piece of red wool yarn Ribbing: oval silver tinsel Body: flat silver tinsel Throat: white hackle fibers (optional) Wings: four light blue saddle hackles over a small bunch of white bucktail Shoulders: green saddle hackles 2 / 3 as long as the wings Topping: several strands of peacock herl Cheeks: jungle cock eye feathers*

Warden's Worry Thread: black Tag: narrow flat gold tinsel Tail: a section of red duck wing quill Ribbing: oval gold tinsel Throat: yellow hackle fibers Wing: brown bucktail

Spencer Bay Special Thread: black Tail: golden pheasant tippet fibers Ribbing: oval silver tinsel Body: flat silver tinsel

*real ones no longer available, but imitations can be obtained

- - - - - - - - T Y I N G A FLY-SIX BASIC S T E P S - - - - - - -

1. Tie on tail fibers, attach body materials 5. Wind hackles, tie off and trim /

:\.____ wing materials

4. Wind on body, tie off, then attach hackles

6. Make a head, knot and laquer

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

By J. Dennis MacNeish

EST GRAND Lake! To Maine anglers, there is

magic in that name. This 14,340 acre lake, on the West Branch of the St. Croix River in eastern Washington County, has a good variety of gamefish including landlocked salmon, lake trout, whitefish, and smallmouth bass. Each of these fish has its adherents among anglers, but when you start talking to a Maine fisherman about West Grand Lake, it's not long before you begin talking about landlocked salmon. West Grand's fame is not limited to the confines of the State of Maine. In fact, if you spend a little time some summer prowling any one of the several sporting camps located on the shore of West Grand, you are likely to see cars from all the New England states as well as several of the middle Atlantic states. In short, West Grand Lake is well known along the entire eastern seaboard. There are several good reasons for speaking of landlocks and West Grand in the same breath. For one, West Grand is one of the original home waters of landlocked salmon; that is, the distribution of landlocked salmon was limited to just four drainages, including the St. Croix River system, before Europeans settled in Maine. Also, West Grand's salmon population has become the single, largest source of landlocked salmon eggs for the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department's hatcheries. We have already touched on one of the principal reasons for the lake's fame-the lake provides a good fishery in its own right. The condition of the salmon fishery and the techniques used to manage it are of major concern to anglers. This two-part article will examine the present condition of the lake's salmon fishery and will set forth the Department's goals and objectives for the fishery as well as explain the techniques being employed to achieve our goals. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Fishery Biologist

EFORE we can begin to consider the state of

the salmon fishery at West Grand, we will have to present, at least briefly, some biological facts about landlocked salmon. First, salmon have two stages in their life cycle in the wild-a stream stage and a lake stage. The stream stage lasts about two and one-half years. During this time, salmon depend almost exclusively on aquatic insects for food, their growth is slow, and mortalities are high. Where stream growth is very slow, the salmon might not reach six inches until their fourth summer in the stream, and their migration into a lake would be delayed. In lakes, growth can be quite rapid. A six-inch salmon might double its length in one summer if conditions for growth were good. During this first summer in the lake, salmon are still very dependent on insects as a source of food. As they near 12 inches in length, salmon start to seek fish life for forage, particularly smelts. This is a very critical stage in the life of a salmon since, if smelts are abundant, growth can be very fast; but if smelts are in poor supply, salmon growth will be very slow. For example, in a lake where smelts are abundant and salmon growth is above average, some of the salmon can reach 14 inches by their second spring in the lake; and virtually all the fish will have reached legal length by their third spring in the lake. By the completion of their third summer, the salmon might average 18 inches (457 mm) and 2 pounds 21

(908 g). But if growth is slow, many of the salmon will not achieve legal length until the end of their third summer in the lake. Salmon have a much better chance for survival once they have reached a lake; however, they still have their problems with natural predators. Mergansers, loons, bass, pickerel, and lake trout all seem not to turn their noses up at a young salmon! The threat from natural predators is greatly reduced as the salmon near legal length (14 inches, 356 mm). When they have reached this length, salmon are confronted with their most severe test, namely , fishermen. The efficiency of anglers as a predator on salmon has become more and more apparent to fishery biologists and fishermen alike. We have, then, identified four major problems in salmon management. First, survival of salmon during the stream stage is poor. Second, mortalities continue to be a problem during the fish's first summer in a lake. Third, growth beyond 12 inches in a lake is very slow unless smelts are present in large numbers. And, fourth, anglers are capable of harvesting a very high percentage of the legal salmon in a lake . It is the role of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to attempt to control these problems to the benefit of the angler. Let's consider the manifestation of each of these problems in the West Grand Lake salmon fishery and the Department's approach to solving the problems.

VEN THOUGH West Grand Lake was one of

the original home waters of landlocked salmon for many years, natural reproduction of salmon was virtually absent because of the presence of a dam and fish screen at the lake's outlet (the principal salmon spawning and nursery stream), Grand Lake Stream. Oh, salmon will spawn almost anywhere if forced to do so by circumstances; but if their eggs and the young salmon which hatch from them are to survive, they must have a great deal of the type of habitat found in Grand Lake Stream-that is, lots of fast-moving water tumbling over rocky riffles, interspersed

with deep pools and gravelly bars. In fact, this type of habitat is so crucial to survival of the stream stage of landlocked salmon that many of Maine's salmon fisheries would disappear without stocking because most of our lakes and ponds lack sufficient quantities of the type of stream habitat so important to survival of salmon during their first 2 'h years of life. In late fall of 1973, a new fishway was completed on the dam at West Grand's outlet, and the following year, adult salmon were able to leave the lake to spawn in the stream. Large numbers of salmon have spawned in Grand Lake Stream each fall since 1974. Because of the presence of the fish way, the adult salmon are able to re-enter the lake. Once their progeny have completed the stream stage, they, too, will be able to enter the lake. Wild salmon should become increasingly important to West Grand 's salmon fishery in the years to come. However, even if production of wild salmon is extremely good in Grand Lake Stream, the role of wild fish in West Grand's salmon fishery will always be limited to one of augmenting rather than replacing stocking. Thus, the Department's approach to the problem of survival of salmon during their stream stage has been to circumvent the stream stage by capturing the adult fish in the fall, stripping and fertilizing their eggs, and rearing the young fish in our hatcheries until they are of sufficient size to ensure survival in a lake. Our hatchery system has become very efficient at rearing salmon. For example, the typical spring yearling salmon reared at Grand Lake Stream hatchery averages about seven inches long at stocking. In a lake like West Grand, survival of stocked salmon is strongly influenced by size of the fish at stocking, stocking methods, and growth rate during their first year at large. Studies by the Department's fishery biologists have shown that the larger the size of a salmon at stocking, the better its chance for survival to legal length. The critical size seems to be about six inches (152 mm). Salmon which are much smaller than that at stocking do not survive nearly as well as do salmon that are six inches long or longer. Salmon are scatter-planted in West Grand Lake; that is, the fish are placed in large buckets in boats and taken to deep water where they are stocked. Our studies have shown that scatter-planted salmon have a much better survival rate than do shore-planted fish. A big improvement in the scatter-planting technique has been the use of the batterypowered aerator. This device keeps the water in the buckets oxygenated, thus reducing stress on the salmon while boating them to the release points. Of course, it is important that the salmon grow well after they have been released. Salmon that grow poorly are subject to natural predation over a longer period than are fast growing fish. Fortunately, growth during the first summer at large in West Grand has been quite good, as sal-

Fin clipping marks many fish for later identification .

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

mon often reach 12 inches (305 mm) after just a single summer in the lake. Unfortunately, in recent years the smelt population in West Grand has experienced a decline, and salmon growth after their first summer in the lake has suffered. Let me demonstrate : Each fall since 1972, fishery biologists have observed a sample of the salmon captured by hatchery personnel for stripping (Table 1). In the years 1972 through 1975, the salmon we weighed and measured exhibited good growth. For example, age three salmon observed in the fall of 1974 averaged 17.9 inches (455 mm) and 2.13 pounds (968 g) . In 1978, age three salmon observed during stripping operations averaged 16.2 inches (412 mm) and 1.34 pounds (611 g), or 1. 7 inches shorter and 0. 79 pounds lighter than the fish we saw in 1974. TABLE 1. Average size of age three salmon captured in the fall at West Grand Lake. YEAR OF CAPTURE 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

MEAN LENGTH (in.) 17.2 16.8 17.9 18.1 16.2 15.7 16.2

MEAN WEIGHT (lbs.)

1.8 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.3

This poor growth had an effect on fishing (Table 2). For instance, the salmon we observed during our spring 1973 census averaged 16.6 inches (421 mm) in length. In 1973, anglers reported releasing 13 .4 per cent of the salmon caught, because the fish were less than legal length. On the other hand, the salmon we saw during our summer 1978 census averaged just 15.1 inches (382 mm) in length and anglers reported releasing 34.2 per cent of the salmon they had caught, because the fish were sub-legal length. If you examine my summary of two of our recent censuses at West Grand, you will find that the 1976 and 1977 fishing seasons were even poorer than the 1978 season.

A S I HA VE already pointed out, poor salmon ~ growth is often associated with a low smelt population. Before we can discuss the Department's approach to this problem, it is worthwhile to consider some facts about smelts. First, this species' population density can vary tremendously from year to year in a given lake. This is true even when the lake contains few predators on smelts and even if the lake is closed to the taking of smelts. Although the Department has devoted many years of research to the study of smelts, we have not discovered a cure for the problem of smelt population crashes. However, we have determined that the problem can often be controlled. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

TABLE 2. Creel census summary, West Grand Lake, Washington County, Maine. 1

ANGLER- PERCENT DAYS PER SUBMEAN MEAN LEGAL LEGAL LENGTH WEIGHT SALMON SALMON (in.) (lbs.) 3.3 13.4 16.6 1.5 2.4 83.7 14.9 1.2 1.5 34.2 15.1 1.0 These figures are based on observations by census clerk; that is, voluntary census information is not included.

YEAR OF CENSUS 1973 1977 1978

We have discovered, for instance, that smelt population crashes occur more often and are slower to recover in waters that are stocked in excess of one spring yearling salmon per acre. But remember, I said that declines in smelt populations can be controlled, not cured, by adjusting the salmon stocking rate. That is, smelt population densities will still decline occasionally in lakes receiving low numbers of salmon; however, the declines should not occur so often, and the population should recover its number much faster than in lakes with high salmon stocking rates. This means that good salmon fishing will occur more often in a lake which is stocked with about one spring yearling salmon per acre. Of course, this figure is not carved in stone! Some lakes can produce consistently good salmon fishing at stocking rates in excess of one fish per acre while other lakes must be stocked at rates as low as 0.5 spring yearling salmon per acre if they are to produce decent salmon fishing. Even when we have established a stocking policy for a particular water, based on several years of data, adjustment in the stocking rates may become necessary. For example, salmon stocked in West Grand previous to 1975 averaged less than 5.4 inches (137 mm) in length, while the salmon we stocked in 1978 averaged 7. 9 inches (201 mm) long. Obviously, the salmon we stocked in West Grand in 1978 had a much better chance of survival than the salmon we stocked there in 197 4. Now, this increase in the size of hatchery-reared salmon is a two-edged sword, since, although the increased survival allows us to provide the same quality fishing with a smaller stocking, a stocking of a given number of salmon provides more pressure on a smelt population if the members of the planting survive in large numbers.

HE MESSAGE is clear! When the hatchery product improves to the point that increased survival occurs, we must take great care in determining stocking rates, or we risk losing our gains to poor salmon growth. In the period 1962 through 1976, we stocked an average of 40,000 spring yearling salmon per acre annually in West Grand Lake, or about 2.8 salmon per acre per year. In response to the reduction in salmon growth at West Grand,

we have reduced the stocking rate to approximately one spring yearling per acre per year or about 14,300 spring yearlings annually. Salmon, though, are not the only species of fish in West Grand that feed on smelts; consequently, we have lowered the annual lake trout planting at West Grand from 16,000 fish to 7,200 fish. The new stocking policies for togue and salmon were initiated in the spring of 1978. The lower stocking rates should begin to influence salmon growth in the near future. As salmon growth improves, we expect that the percentage of sub-legals in the catch will decline, and the average size of the salmon creeled will increase. Before continuing, we would do well to recall the adage that problems can be possibilities, so let us return for a moment to the subject of salmon biology and try to determine just how well a landlocked salmon can grow when conditions are just right. An analogy suggests itself. Landlocks are much the same fish as Atlantic salmon. An Atlantic salmon enters the ocean in the spring as a six-inch smolt and returns to its home water, after two growing seasons at sea, as an 8 to 10 pound fish. Landlocks that we stock in West Grand as six-inch spring yearlings average less than 15 inches long after two growing seasons in the lake. Why? Well, for one thing, the ocean is fertile compared to West Grand; but more importantly, there is a lot more ocean per young Atlantic than there is lake per young landlock ! To put it another way, any farmer can tell you that a pasture of a given size and fertility can support only so many milk cows. If you exceed the pasture's capacity, milk production will decrease! The same is true of lakes and landlocked salmon. West Grand has the capacity to produce a certain number of pounds of salmon per acre per year. The salmon production can be in the form of a lot of little fish, or much fewer large fish.

UST HOW large can a landlock get after just two growing seasons in a lake, and how many large salmon could we reasonably expect to produce from a particular water? The answer to the first part of the question will probably surprise you. For example, a Maine lake in Waldo County produced the following salmon during the 1976 and 1977 seasons: a 20.7-inch, 3-pound 12 ounce salmon which was just 2 years old; 4 age-3 salmon which were 21. 7 inches and 3 pounds 9 ounces ... 22.4 inches and 3 pounds 10 ounces.. . 25.2 inches and 6 pounds 14 ounces ... and 26.3 inches and 8 pounds 14 ounces, respectively, plus an age 5 salmon that measured 27 .8 inches and weighed 7 pounds 1 ounce! Now, I don't mean to suggest that with a wave of a magic wand, the millenium of salmon fishing will arrive at West Grand Lake and that, henceforth, all 3-year-old salmon captured at the lake will weigh a minimum of 3.5 pounds. Not at all! However, the data do suggest that where virtually no 3-pound salmon are taken at any age, it is possible to provide some 3.5 pound fish after just 2

growing seasons in the lake if we take advantage of the tremendous growth potential of salmon. But let's return to the second part of the question; namely, how many "large" salmon can a lake produce? In this case, we'll be a bit more practical and define a "large" salmon as one that weighs two or more pounds. Again, we cannot answer the question directly for West Gand Lake, but we can reach a reasonable estimate through examination of the data from a smaller water. Long Pond, an 897-acre (363 ha) lake on Mount Desert Island in Hancock County, has been the subject of a long-term salmon research project conducted by Keith Havey, research biologist with the Fishery Division. This water was stocked at different densities over the years, and the returns to anglers were measured to determine the best stocking density for landlocked salmon. Long Pond was stocked with 1,000 fall yearling salmon, just over 1 fish per acre, in 1965. The 1965 stocking came into the fishery at age 3 in the summer of 1967, after just one growing season in the lake. Approximately 257 salmon of the 1965 stocking were taken as age 3 fish at an average length of 17 inches and an average weight of 1.8 pounds. The 1965 planting lasted 2 more years in the fishery when an additional 136 salmon were taken-105 as age 4 fish and the remainder as age 5 fish. The age 4 salmon averaged 20 inches and 3.1 pounds, and the age 5 fish averaged 21.2 inches and 3 .1 pounds. Remember, this lot of salmon was stocked as fall yearlings; thus, in terms of the number of growing seasons in the lake, the age 4 salmon in Long Pond correspond to the age 3 salmon in West Grand. In the 3 years that the 1965 stocking was in the Long Pond fishery, anglers took a total of 393 salmon, of which 192 exceeded 2 pounds in weight. A total of 95 of the salmon caught from that single stocking weighed 3 pounds or more!

F THE return to the West Grand angler of salmon stocked there is similar to returns at Long Pond, we could expect a total return of about 5,700 salmon from a stocking of 14,300 spring yearlings. Once the smelt population has had a chance to recover, growth will improve greatly, and the size distribution in the salmon catch should be similar to that observed at Long Pond . Thus, about 2,800 of the salmon caught from one of the plantings of 14,300 would weigh 2 or more pounds (908 g); nearly 1,400 of these would weigh 3 or more pounds (1,364 g). The average size of all salmon creeled would be approximately 18 inches (457 mm) and 2.25 pounds (1,022 g). This greatly exceeds the average size of salmon taken at West Grand in the last few years and is even larger than the average size of the salmon that were taken in the good growth years of the mid '70s, but this growth is still within the capacity of the lake to produce salmon. (The second part of this article will appear in a later issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife.) â&#x20AC;˘ Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

By Harold M. Blanchard Regional Biologist

ANY HUNTING YARNS begin with remarks

like "Remember the time we got into the flight birds at the old Marsh farm cover?" or ''How about the time I got that big ten pointer in the old Stockwell farm orchard?'' Such recollections are common, for abandoned and reverting farm lands make up some of the most productive upland game habitats in Maine. The reasons for this are many; but, basically, farms have tended to be located on our most productive soils (fertile) such as river bottoms and in sections with longer growing seasons and nearby markets. The old style, self-sufficient farm contained a variety of habitats that included hayfields, croplands, pastures, orchards, woodlots, and even blueberry lands. This diversity created a variety of wildlife food and shelter conditions that peaked with farm abandonment and reversion. Many of these lands have passed their most productive stages for wildlife and are fast becoming scarce in the state. A look at the reasons for the abandonment of the old farm units would turn up many specifics, but economics is the primary reason. It became increasingly difficult to keep farms operating in the early part of this century as jobs in towns and in industry became more attractive, with better pay and regular hours. An additional major cause in some sections of the state was the advent of the broiler chicken industry boom in the post-World War II period. Many farms were essentially abandoned as agricultural operations even though the farmsteads were occupied as operations were moved inside large buildings devoted<!() the production of broilers. Yet another reason for farm abandonment was the increasing value of the land as urban sprawl and a return to ''country living'' occurred. This phenomenon accelerated the subdivision of farm units, as did the problems of inheritance, when lands became divided to satisfy the claims of heirs to deceased farmers' property. Even today, relatively cheap open lands (old fields) have felt the impact of the mobile home business. Ask a local bird hunter how many woodcock covers have been unuseable for this reason; you will, I am sure, be surprised at his answer. 26

In some areas, old farms have had a special appeal to our more affluent neighbors from other states and are being bought up as second or recreational homes, with land reversion being allowed to progress. There is also a tendency among this group to prohibit trespassing on their acquired holdings, which often offends their neighbors who then post their lands. It seems that the posting of lands in an area accelerates the posting of adjacent lands; thus, access problems of major proportions are created. Diversity of the old style farm has been scrapped as economics, soil conditions, and the decreasing cost of transportation of foods from other areas forced out competition. A mid-winter visit to your local supermarket will illustrate this point as lettuce from California and fresh fruits and vegetables from southern areas are readily available on the counters. Farm units that are still active must specialize in the production and marketing of one crop. The Aroostook potato farms and the large southern Maine dairy farms are examples. There has been some movement away from this position in recent years as some farms adjacent to market areas are diversifying production of fruits and vegetables. Advances in the knowledge of agricultural practices and the advent of organic farming have spurred this development.

OME READERS of this article probably own

some of the reverting farmlands described and are wondering what they can do with their holdings to keep them most productive to wildlife. Many specific treatments can be prescribed, depending on the layout of the lands or the species to be benefited; but it is my purpose to attempt to describe general practices that can be applied to reverting farmland to benefit a variety of wildlife species. Woodlots. The periodic removal of mature timber, as well as firewood cutting, is necessary to maintain productivity. Within the woodlots, small clearcuts of less than one acre, distributed to create as much diversity as possible, would be most beneficial. However, snag trees for dens and for a feeding place for insect-eating birds, and mast producing trees (oak, beech), must be left in strategically located Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

areas to insure that their presence will continue in the forest types involved. The typical farm woodlot will contain softwood as well as hardwood areas. If you are fortunate enough to own land in softwood cover types that regularly winter deer, then harvesting should again be done in small clearcuts, dispersed throughout the area in order to perpetuate the softwood type and at the same time create a diversity of habitat within the area. Winter harvesting would be helpful where possible, since food would be provided by fresh tops, and roads would be broken out, thus making travel easier for the deer . If you own the type of land described and are not interested or equipped to carry out this sort of operation, by all means find a reputable woods operator and sell the stumpage on a marked wood basis. A small, tractor or horseoperation-if you can arrange for one-would do less harm to forest stands . Brushy borders where woodlots meet field; waterways; orchards; or other land types are extremely beneficial as "edge." Creating this edge can be accomplished simply by cutting back the periphery of the woodlot and allowing a brushy stage to persist . Orchards . Grown up orchards-where old apple trees are

being topped by other trees and choked by competition to their root systems from surrounding vegetation-can be rejuvenated by cutting back the surrounding competition, allowing sunlight to do its work, and by on-ground application of fertilizer. Again, within the old orchard or with individual apple trees along a fence line, the tree release coupled with a diversity of habitat is the key to wildlife production. In addition to the wildlife aspects, the applesauce and pie potentialÂˇ of such an activity should provide some incentive for most landowners.

The " edge" -a very important feature which exists on many abandoned farms, and one which should be preserved. In places where this edge condition is no longer evident, some cutting back of the taller growth can restore this brushy cover strip.

Old field. Old croplands as well as hayfields are to be considered here. It is important for many wildlife species that landowners maintain such lands in open condition. The obvio_us way to accomplish this is to mow them annually. The potential for a cash hay crop is always there. It is also important to maintain a shrub border along field edges to provide shelter and habitat diversity for wildlife. With some croplands, it might be possible to rent or lease the land for the production of small vegetable gardens or even for larger crops. Pastures. In many sections of the state, old pastures have

been invaded by dense juniper clumps. The use of a gyromower to remove the juniper and create open areas is practical. The interspersion or mixing of openings in other types is desirable. Blueberry lands. Periodic, controlled burning of these lands should keep them in production. Even though a commercial operation may not be acceptable, the selling of harvesting rights on the berries to local hand pickers might

This apple tree (white arrow) is badly in need of " releasing " -cutting back the surrounding growth to give the tree air and light , thus allowing it to again blossom and bear fruit . Such fruit trees are an important part of old farm habitat, and should be encouraged wherever possible.

N SUMMARY, if you are fortunate enough to own part or all of an old farm, you possess some of the most important wildlife habitat in Maine. It is in the best interests of wildlife to maintain the diversity of habitat which exists on these old farms. The interspersion of all stages of plant succession will insure good wildlife populations. There is an opportunity for financial and other rewards for carrying out these practices. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out the counter-productivity achieved when old fields are planted to softwood trees. These plantations as they grow up are nearly sterile from a wildlife point of view. I would also make a plea to owners of the lands described above to keep them open for use by the sporting public. If posting is absolutely necessary, please post them to trespassing with permission, and give your permission to legitimate sportsmen. You'll feel good about it. For information on "Operation Respect"-a posting program designed to keep land open but controlled-contact Gary Anderson, Safety Officer, at the Department office, 284 State St., Augusta, ME 04333 . Telephone 289-2571. â&#x20AC;˘

add enough financial incentive to make burning worthwhile. Again, shrub borders, where adjacent land use types meet, are essential to maintain maximum wildlife production.

Fencerows also afford cover for smaller wildlife, and should be retained . If they have grown up too far, some cutting will also improve the usefulness of these areas to wildl ife.

If he likes... Maine ... and Fish ... and Wildlife

give him au three ...

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

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine Be sure to check our special Christmas offer on page 10! 28

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

Legislation Summary By Bill Mincher

Note: The Fish and Wildlife Errors and Omissions Bill, enacted as Chapter 534, Public Laws 1979, makes January 1, 1980, the effective date for all fish and wildlife legislation passed at the 1979 session of the 109th Legislature. Except as may be noted below, all measures become effective that date.

Ch. 394 PL. Would require that applicants for guide licenses pass an examination as directed by a board of examiners to be appointed by the commissioner of fish and wildlife. Licenses granted would be as a general guide or a specialized guide. This law, effective January 1, 1980, will not apply to persons who have held a guide's license in Maine before that date. Ch. 352 PL. Requires that a warden be notified if a person killing a deer leaves the woods without taking the deer with him. The notification must be made within 12 hours, indicate the location of the deer, and advise the warden of the reasons why the deer was left. Ch. 326. PL. Allows the director of the Bureau of Forestry to issue resident guides a statewide yearly permit for outdoor fires. (Effective Sept. 14, 1979.) Ch. 237 PL. This law brings bear into the registration and transportation laws which now cover deer. Ch. 204 P. No one under 12 may hunt with bow and arrow. A junior hunting license is required for those between 12 and 16, and such young hunters must be accompanied at all times while hunting, by a parent or guardian or an adult approved by a parent or guardian. Ch. 203 PL. There must be a boundary line that follows recognizable physical boundaries (river etc.) for any area in which the deer season is shortened by the commissioner. Ch. 160 PL. Requires that persons trapping in any unorganized or deorganized place shall visit, or cause to be visited, each trap at least once in every 72-hour period, except water sets and conibear traps, so-called. Ch. 56 PL. Too long to quote here, this law establishes an experimental moose hunting season in September 1980. Permits will be awarded to not more than 700 permittees, who must possess a valid 1980 Maine resident hunting IiMaine Fish and Wildlife - Fall 1979

cense to be eligible for the drawing to determine which applicants get permit. (More on this season will be published when rules are completely formulated.) Ch. 518 PL. Regulates commercial whitewater outfitters, requiring certain safety equipment on whitewater trips, the presence of at least one licensed guide in each watercraft during such trips, and a license (annual fee, $250) for commercial operators. (This law pertains to the business of conducting whitewater rafting, dory, or bateau trips on rapidly flowing rivers-it exempts canoe operation.) Ch. 230 PL. Increases the minumim fine to $100 and the maximum to $500 when the owner or keeper of any dog is found guilty of allowing the dog to hunt or chase any moose, caribou, or deer at any time or any other wild animal in closed season. Not more than $50 of the fine may be suspended. Ch. 241 PL. Combines the license for buying deer skins and heads with the license for buying raw furs. Fee for the combined license is $32 for residents, $63 for nonresidents. Ch. 441 PL. Combines the licenses and stipulations regarding keeping wild birds or wild animals in captivity. Ch. 151 PL. Establishes a 5-member "Junior Maine Guides and Trip Leaders' Curriculum Board," appointed by the fish and wildlife commissioner. Board members, who are not paid, will be charged with establishing requirements for Junior Maine Guide certificates. They will also adopt, approve, and review a camp trip leaders safety course curriculum. The chapter also sets other stipulations concerning both the Junior Maine Guide Program and the activities of camp trip leaders. It is too long to print here but is available from the Secretary of State's office. Trip leaders' permits will be granted without the qualifying requirements, until Jan. 1, 1980. Ch. 420 PL. This is a complete revision of the fish and wildlife laws and goes into effect Jan. 1, 1980. It also contains the watercraft, snowmobile, and airmobile laws. Ch. 543 PL. (The errors and omissions bill covering numerous sections of the fish and wildlife laws, it, too, becomes effective Jan. 1, 1980.) Provides that the members of the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council shall represent each of the management units established by the commissioner (they now represent the former Executive Council districts). Advice and consent of the Council will become part of the rule-making procedure for the commissioner. Persons convicted of molesting traps will be ineligible to hold any license issued by the Department, for three years (first conviction), or for five years (second or subsequent conviction). A new scale of license fees is established. Generally, resident licenses will go up $2; nonresident, $5, Jan. 1, 1980. Hunting licenses allowing the taking of bear will have a bear tag attached; procedure for registering bear will be like that for registering deer. Operating a snowmobile on plowed roads, snowmobile trails, and public ways is governed by three new measures. These regulating laws will appear in the new edition of the snowmobile laws published by the Department.

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