Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Summer 1980 by Maine State Library

MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE

SUMMER

1980 75 CENTS

MAINE

INSIDE

FISH AND "\VILDLIFE

Trapping The Penobscot

Norman R. Dube

Vol. 22, No. 2

There's No Excuse!

Gareth S. Anderson

Public And Private Rights To Maine's Tidal Waters

Richard B. Parks

What Do People Think About Wildlife?

Maine Rivers: The Allagash

Kendall Warner Peter M. Bourque

Leave Them Be!

Russell E. Dyer

KID-BITS

Flying Fish. . . Then And Now

Peter G. Walker

Making The Most Of The Moose Season

Francis D. Dunn Karen I. Morris

Line Can Be Litter!

How To: Sew A Bait

David W. Walker

LURC And The Maine Sportsman

James Mehoke

Fish and Wildlife Briefs

Summer 1980

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

THE COVERS Front: Early morning angling on Matagamon Lake-water and fog seem to blend into one, and it's quiet. But the stillness may be broken if you put the right fly in the right place! Photo by Pat Hogan. Inside front: Fledgling great horned owl. Photo by Bill Cross.

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

Auburn

Casco

George E. Prentiss

Dennis L. Smith

Rumford

Otter Creek

Nathan Cohen

Alva S. Appleby

Eastport

Skowhegan

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine Produced by the Information and Education Division staff. All photographs in this issue were made by the Information and Education Division staff unless otherwise indicated.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Inside back: We're all busy-but none busier than this honey bee who gathers pollen all day long, so that we may have honey to enjoy-and pretty flowers to look at. Photo by Bill Cross. Back: Members of the Maine Warden Service and workers from the staff of the Embden Hatchery combine forces to load the Warden Service deHaviland Beaver-"the flying pickup truck" -with fish to be stocked from the air. See related story on page 18. Photo by Tom Carbone. MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE (ISSN 0360-005X) is published quarterly by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State St., Station 41, 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, 1980. Written permission must be secured from the Department before reproducing any part of this copyrighted material. No advertising accepted.

POSTMASTER: If undeliverable, do not return. When changing address, subscriber should send magazine mailing label, or all information from it, and new mail address, to: Circulation Section, Maine Fish and Wildlife Dept., 284 State Street, Station 41, Augusta, ME 04333. See change form elsewhere in this issue, or use POD Form #3578, available at your local post office. Allow eight weeks for change to take effect. Sorry, but we cannot replace issues lost through failure to give adequate notice of address change.

Atlantic Salmon Report

By Norman R. Dube, Biologist Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission

Trapping the Penobscot

HE 1970s was a significant

decade in Maine's Atlantic salmon restoration effort, highlighted by a multifold increase in returns to the state's largest river, the Penobscot. Success to date on the Penobscot is attributable to fishway construction, increased stocking of hatchery-reared salmon, and improved water quality through pollution abatement.

A project on the Penobscot that is extremely important to Maine's Atlantic salmon restoration efforts involves the live-trapping of returning fish. This operation yields brood stock from which eggs are taken to support the hatchery rearing program. A secondary benefit of live-

Aerial view of Veazie dam and fishway. Trapping facility is at top of fishway.

trapping is the ability to monitor the extent of yearly returns to the Penobscot. This is useful in evaluating certain aspects of the stocking program such as the quality of the stocked fish and the stocking sites and methods. Until a few years ago, salmon trapping on the Penobscot was done in the fishway at the Bangor dam. A breach developed in the old dam, though, gradually dewatering the fishway and leaving the trapping facility inoperable. It was then decided to shift the trapping operation upriver to the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company dam at Veazie. Operation of this trap began on June 6, 1978. A photo-story on the construction and installation of the Veazie trap appeared in the Summer 1978 issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife.

The Veazie trap, operated May through November, is tended daily except during peak periods of the run when it is tended several times a day. A motorized barge is used to travel to and from the mid-dam location of the fishway trap. A basket within the trap can be raised and lowered with the aid of electrical hoists. When we tend the trap, the basket is raised far enough to leave it in approximately one foot of water which still allows fish to swim freely . Individual salmon are then gently placed into a burlap bag. The bag is preferred over dip netting to make handling the salmon easier and to prevent injury to their eyes. In addition to sea run salmon, other fish commonly trapped include landlocked salmon, suckers, eels, sea lampreys, smallmouth bass, and alewives. These fish are all released to the river. After the salmon are transferred to

Atlantic salmon fishermen below Veazie dam. Penobscot River salmon runs increased markedly during 1970s; outlook for 1980s is optimistic.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

a livewell in the barge, they are conveyed to shore and placed in a hatchery tank truck . Each fish is carefully examined for marks or a tag, and its length, sex, and estimated weight is recorded. A scale sample is taken from the side of the fish near the dorsal fin, to be used in determining its age and growth. If necessary, a tag is applied just ahead of the dorsal fin. The tag is numbered to allow future identification of the fish, should it be recaptured somewhere in the future. After all data are collected, the salmon is either released into the river or transported to the hatchery.

ALMON numbers were

quite low through the early 1970s, but they increased considerably towards the end of the decade. The average yearly return to the Penobscot River during the first half of the decade was 297 salmon (range: 114-584), but during the second half, the average yearly return was 1,013 fish (range: 644-1, 824). The known catch by fishermen averaged 10 salmon (range: 1-26) or 3 percent of the fish returning during the years 1970 through 1974. The average rod catch increased to 161 fish (range: 55-360) or 16 percent of total salmon returns for 1975-1979. The average number of salmon live-trapped during the period 1970-1974 was 287 (range: 111-558) and for 1975-1979, 852 fish (range: 462-1,464). As noted earlier, some of the trapped fish are selected for brood stock to maintain the hatchery rearing program and the others are released to spawn naturally. In the years 19701974, brood stock selection accounted for an average of 188 salmon (range: 73-307) and for the period 1975-1979, 273 fish (range: 205-313). An average of 99 (range: 28-251) salmon were released to the river between 1970 and 1974; for the period 1975-1979, the annual average was 579 (range: 257-1,151). The salmon life cycle is generally five years, with fish spending two years in a hatchery or stream and usually two years at sea before returnMaine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

PENOBSCOT RIVER ATLANTIC SALMON RUNS 1970-1979

111111111 ANGLING -TRAP

1970 1971 1972 1973 QI:: 1974 < w >- 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

1111111111

O 2

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

CATCH {x 100)

ing to spawn during its fifth year of life. Fish returning after two years at sea, which represent about 91 percent of the returns, range from 26-32 inches in length and 7-12 pounds in weight. Fish returning after one year at sea are called grilse; they account for approximately 7 percent of all returns. Grilse are usually 20-25 inches in length and weigh 2-6 pounds. About 1 percent of the fish spend 3 years at sea before returning and range from 32-36 inches and 13-18 pounds. The remaining portion of the run, approximately 1 percent, is comprised of fish returning to spawn for a second or third time. These are trophy fish ranging from 32-42 inches and 14-25 pounds.

HE NEW Green Lake Na-

tional Fish Hatchery at Ellsworth Falls, combined with Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery, East Orland, are now capable of annual production of 500,000 Atlantic salmon for stocking. Over one million

eggs are needed each year for use at these facilities. In addition , eggs are provided for Atlantic salmon restoration programs in southern New England. The future for salmon restoration is even brighter now that improved fish passage facilities, increased releases of hatchery-reared salmon, and cleaner waters combine to heighten the attractiveness of the resource. Environmental enhancement through continuing efforts at pollution abatement by municipalities and industries has greatly improved recreational opportunities and aesthetic qualities of the Penobscot River. The Penobscot Salmon Club was revitalized during the mid-1970s after years of inactivity and a new sportsman club has been organized at Veazie. Each year, larger numbers of anglers are seen fishing the Salmon Pool and numerous other sections of the river up to the Veazie dam. Benefits from past efforts are now being realized, and continuing efforts bring optimism for increased returns during the 1980s. â&#x20AC;˘ 3

Searcll Continues for f OU

r Boaters

the Maine War,.11,..1QELEY ME-Divers frot:am continued efRl'U~ ' hand rescue Âˇ the waden Service searc st weekend, searching ersons forts through~ut fake for a trace of fourh~n their ters of Range ey rowned Wednesday V: a rain believed to lhaaV:el boat overturnefd. dul:;~ess and all over o d the era t m f smuali Witnesses spotte \easure boaters to sa esq . dto assist the four P d ank before rescuers hurne h boat capsized an s ty butt e _ ' h the scene. Wednesday even could reacft was refloated late buoyant cushThe era o life Jackets . and two the gunw ales. ing, and t7ound \ashed secure\~ to cene earlY said afloat in ions were ho arrived on t e s One of those w arentlY unable to stay having that the foi;:~:~isappeared quicki t~~e:afety of f m their boat an the chop, drifted away ro their \ife preservers.

EWS ITEMS like these

appear in every state, every boating season. And THERE'S NO EXCUSE! The United States Coast Guard has determined that personal flotation devices (PFDs) drift away from would-be survivors about as fast as the wind is blowing. Even an olympic swimmer wouldn't ordinarily be able to catch one. And safety experts today agree that there is simply no rational argument against wearing a PFD while boating. At one time, there was some credence to the arguments that PFDs were bulky, ugly, hard to put on and take off, and very restrictive of movement, although few argued that they were not effective. Even then, the ones who wore them had a far better chance of surviving. But the new breed of PFDs-just as safe as yesterday's life preserversare light, colorful, compact, and specially designed for the wearer's activity. Water skiers and/ or white water canoeists ordinarily prefer tight-fitting units with ample openness around the arms, often referred to as buoyant vests. One of the more recent innovations is a PFD designed for very small children-it consists of a two-part "skirting" which is adjustable and Velcro-fastened so the child cannot fall out. The device also has a "Queen Anne" collar to give ample head and chin support. 4

There,s No Excuse! By Gareth S. Anderson State Safety Officer

If you have reason to doubt the effectiveness of your PFDs, you can test them yourself-the United States Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies inspect and check such devices regularly. To test, squeeze the plastic envelopes within the unit firmly and listen for escaping air; firm pressure is enough-too much pressure could ruin a perfectly good PFD. Also, tug smartly on the tie lines. You needn't use great force here either-a tug is enough. Check the zippers for missing teeth and/ or corrosion . The zipper can be replaced on a home sewing machine if necessary, or freed up by applying soap or paraffin to corroded areas. Tie lines and straps may also be replaced on a home sewing machine, and small tears in the fabric may be patched, as long as the safety value of the unit is not impaired by United States Coast Guard standards. If your PFDs have reached the point of no return, or if you are contemplating purchase of additional ones, you will find that there is a great variety from which to choose. In many different styles, sizes, colors, and price ranges, PFDs today have combined safety, comfort, simplicity, and even fashion to the point where

there's NO excuse to be on the water without one! Have a safe and sensible boating season, and let's do away with those fatalities that could have been preâ&#x20AC;˘ vented simply by use of a PFD.

The author, holding some of today's stylish and comfortable personal flotation devices. The child ' s PFD with the "Queen Anne" collar is in his right hand.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

By Richard B. Parks Chief, Realty Division WITH THE inland waters of Maine, most laws relating to both riparian and public rights to tidal waters and the shores adjacent to them are based on the so-called Colonial Ordinance passed by the legislative body of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641 and amended in 1647. Maine adopted this law, which was a declaration of existing claimed rights, when it became a separate state in 1820. A brief history of title to the seashore, that land lying between the high and low water marks, is most interesting. It dates back to the Magna Carta. The seashore belonged to the Crown but was held in trust for the people as far as navigation and fishing were concerned. The Crown could make grants which included seashore

Editor's Note: This article was first published in 1967. Since then, changes have taken place which are reflected in this updated version. A companion article which dealt with public access rights to inland waters has also been updated and appeared in the winter-spring 1980 issue.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

and the shores of tidal rivers, but the grants were subject to the rights of the public to use this land for the above stated purposes, subject to control of Parliament. Some early cases in Maine courts suggested that, by grant, the Crown had included fishing rights, and, therefore, that these became private rights of the recipient of the grant. This was held to be untrue, as the Crown could not grant what it did not have, and such rights were held by the Crown only as trustee for the people. The granting of fee to the seashore, subject to these public rights, was sustained by the Colonial Ordinance; and since that time, Massachusetts and Maine courts have upheld this Ordinance time and time again . These public rights over private lands are, however, subject to controls by the State Legislature for the good of the public. This does not mean that land title to the shore can be diminished or extinguished by the Legislature without due process of law, but that body may impose such restrictions as are deemed for the good of the public in the hunting, fishing, navigation, etc., over these lands. The State is now the trustee of

Some of today's laws governing title to inter-tidal areas, such as this flat , had their origin in the Magna Carta.

these public easements in place of the Crown.

HE COLONIAL Ordinance gives the upland owner title to low water mark or one hundred rods (1650 feet) from highwater mark, whichever is nearest the high water mark. High water mark is that line to which the tide usually reaches at high water, and low water mark is the furthest point to which the tide usually ebbs. Any seashore or flats beyond the one hundred rod maximum is the property of the public; it is held in trust by the State as is land below low water mark. This private ownership to low water mark extends along the coast and as far up rivers and arms of the sea as the tide ebbs and flows. Title to the "shore," which by definition is the land between high water mark and low water mark, is presumed to be owned by the adjoining upland owner, but this is not necessarily so . Title to the shore is as complete as is title to the adjoining upland, except for public rights; and the shore may be severed from the upland 5

and sold separately or retained by an owner when the upland is sold. A deed reading ''to the shore'' or "by the shore" is very ambiguous, and other descriptive terms in a deed are usually used in deciding which side of the "shore" (high water mark or low water mark) is meant as the seaward line. Usually, unless there is evidence that the shore was meant to be excluded from a deed, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has held the shore to be included under these terms. However, both a given seaward distance (not carrying to low water mark from a land monument) and a plan showing the land in question going only to high water mark have been deemed as evidence that the shore was meant to be excluded from a deed or grant. It is interesting to note the method of ascertaining the sidelines of waterfront lots, from the upland to low water mark, under the Colonial Ordinance. If the side-lines have not been otherwise settled by the parties involved, a base line is drawn from one corner of each lot to the other, at the margin of the upland. A line is then run from each of these corners, at right angles with the base line, to low water mark. If the line of the shore is straight, the side-lines of adjoining lots, so drawn to low water mark, will be identical; but if, by reason of the curvature of the shoreÂˇ,.iiiey-eifher-di.verge or conflict with each other, the land enclosed by both lines-or excluded, as the case may be-is to be equally divided between the adjoining owners.

HE ORDINANCE, as applied to the ownership of the shore or flats, also applies to

Clam and worm digging, being deemed a form of fishing, is a public right to the shore of tidal rivers and the sea.

these areas around islands except those covered at neap tides. However, if an island lies within one hundred rods of the mainland and there is no channel or water between the two at low tide, a new rule applies. The mainland owner owns seaward including the near shore of the island and the island owner owns all shore on the seaward side of the island, up to the one hundred rod limit. Also,

the island owner does not own the flats on either side-line of the island, as this would deprive some mainland owner from low water mark or the one hundred rod limit, whichever came first. Private rights to the shore include the exclusive right to build fish weirs, attach fishing nets to the shore, build wharves, place fill on the land, remove soil from the land, remove seaweed, and take manure from mussel beds attached to the shore. Fishing by use of traps or nets which must be anchored to the shore is not considered one of the public fishing rights, but the exclusive right of the shore proprietor. As with other land rights, such fishing privilege is subject to lease or sale. Fish weirs in Maine may not be erected ''in tide-waters below low. water mark in front of the shore or flats of another without the owner's consent." This is a statutory law and applies to "all herring weirs and traps but does not apply to other weirs or traps, the materials of which are chiefly removed annually, provided such weirs or traps do not obstruct navigation nor interfere with the rights of others." However, wharves and weirs may not be erected by a shore owner without a license from the municipal officers of the town where the wharf or weir is to be located, and permits from the State Board of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A license does not mean such wharf or weir is permitted to be an obstruction to general navigation. The possession of flats may become practically exclusive by the building of wharves or other structures, by enclosing the flats with a permanent weir, or by any reasonable exclusion of the public from the exercise of its rights. However, such exclusion applies only to that part of any ownership actually so occupied. The owner of land abutting on the sea or tidal river has a presumptive right of ingress and egress over deep water for the whole length of his frontage. Therefore, no adjoining owner, or seaward owner in the case Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Private rights to the shore include the exclusive right to build fish weirs.

nothing about ice cutting; hence, one is reserved and one is not. The Maine courts have used language indicating that the public rights to use flats, and the water over them, include skating and riding when the flats are ice-covered. This opinion was delivered in 1900. Since that time, the mode of transportation has changed considerably from the sleigh or horseback to the automobile. Whether the court would uphold drag races or sport car rallies, which are held on ice today, as a public right, is pure conjecture. No cases concerning this have been found. These public rights do not extend to the upland, however, and the public has no right to cross the upland to reach or come away from the shore nor to deposit on the upland cargoes unloaded from vessels on the flats.

of a tidal river, may build an obstruction which will prevent the enjoyment of this right. The Maine Legislature has used the police power of the State to closely regulate all private rights to the shore as well as the directly abutting upland. Since 1967, a State permit has been required before a landowner may alter-in any way-land between "extreme low water'' and ''normal storm flowage.'' These definitions include not only the shore but private upland between normal high water and "normal storm flowage." Use of the upland adjacent to the shore has been restricted to a depth of 250 feet from normal high water mark under the Shoreland Zoning Law, first enacted in 1971. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

UBLIC RIGHTS which are property rights and constitute an easement on the shores of tidal rivers and the sea include the rights to hunt for fowl, to fish, boat, moor a boat, rest a vessel on the flats along the shore, and take aboard and discharge passengers and cargo. The fishing rights include the right to dig clams and worms, which is deemed to be a form of fishing. In a tidal river, the public has the right to cut ice below low water mark but not to use the flats to deposit snow scraped from the cut ice. One is permitted and not the other because the State owns the bed of the tidal river below low water mark, and the upland owner owns the flats, to the limit of one hundred rods. The Ordinance reserves the right of fishing and fowling but says

As MAY BE determined from

the foregoing, the laws governing the occupation and use of the shore of tidal rivers and the seashore are much more specific than in many areas of the law governing inland waters. This is because commercial fishing and navigation were formerly an extremely valuable use of tidal areas. Times have changed considerably since most decisions relative to these laws were handed down by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The trend today, however, is to take a liberal interpretation of these laws and apply pleasure boating and sport fishing in the place formerly held by their commercial counterparts. Undoubtedly, there will be decisions of great importance relative to modern uses of our shores, within the foreseeable future. â&#x20AC;˘ 7

WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK ABOUT WILDLIFE?

HAT DO Americans real-

ly think about saving endangered species, hunting, and other issues that affect wildlife? The first report on a comprehensive study of American attitudes toward wildlife has revealed some interesting answers-including some that might surprise you. The report analyzes initial findings of a 3-year study by Dr. Stephen Kellert of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Kellert conducted the study under a research grant from the Interior Department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to Service Director Lynn A. Greenwalt, "The results of 8

this study are significant because, without a doubt, people's opinions and behavior can influence the success or failure of conservation programs as much as any wildlife management technique. Wildlife managers hear often from some constituent groups, but there are large segments of the public about whom we know little. Dr. Kellert's study gives us a great deal of information that will help us work with the public in conserving our nation's wildlife." Greenwalt cautioned that the report will require careful study and analysis as more of the information becomes available. "Wildlife management can never be a popularity contest," he said, "nonetheless, the results will provide helpful insights, suggesting broad policy guidelines and directions and providing further understanding of the public's need for greater awareness and education." The study is based largely on an extensive questionnaire administered nationally in in.terviews with 3,107 people during the fall of 1978. The questionnaire deals with specific issues, such as the tuna/porpoise controversy, as well as with the general issues such as attitudes toward hunting. The survey population was selected through random sampling techniques that provided a representative sample of the American public. Supplementary samples were also taken in the Rocky Mountain States and Alaska to make sure that information about these important regions was based on an adequate number of interviews. Surveys of this type and sample size have a theoretical margin of error of less than 3 percentage points in either direction 95 percent of the time. Kellert's first report concerns American attitudes, behavior, and knowlc:~ge about endangered species; animal damage control; habitat protection; consumptive uses of wildlife, such as hunting and trapping; wildlife management; use of backcountry and parks; and miscellaneous issues. Responses were analyzed according to the respondent's age, occupation, place of residence, and other factors .

On many questions, the respondent's level of knowledge was considered in analyzing results. Among the study's findings: •Of eight selected wildlife issues, the public knew the most about "killing baby seals for fur" (43 percent knowledgeable) and "effects of pesticides such as DDT on birds" (42 percent knowledgeable). The least recognized issue was ''use of steel shot versus lead shot by waterfowl hunters" (14 percent knowledgeable). Only 34 percent indicated that they had some knowledge about the Endangered Species Act, and only 17 percent were knowledgeable about the much publicized snail darter /Tellico Dam controversy. •On a variety of questions, a majority favored protecting wildlife even at the expense of jobs, housing, and development projects. Fifty-five percent opposed the principle of building an industrial plant on a marsh needed by a rare bird species even if the plant would help solve an unemployment problem. Fifty-seven percent disapproved of building houses on marshes used by ducks and other nonendangered wildlife. Seventy-six percent thought cutting trees for lumber and paper should be done in ways that help wildlife even if it resulted in higher lumber prices. •The public's support for endangered species protection when it would increase costs for an energy project depended on the animal involved and the nature of the project. Americans overwhelmingly supported protecting the bald eagle, eastern mountain lion, American crocodile, and an endangered butterfly. They opposed protecting an endangered plant, snake, or spider if it increased costs for an energy project. On a snail darter type question, most people opposed blocking a hypothetical water project designed for essential uses such as drinking water, hydroelectric power, or irrigation to protect an unknown fish species. But nearly 60 percent opposed construction of a dam for "nonessential" purposes such as making a recreational lake if it would endanger a fish. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

In general, support for protecting endangered species depended on such factors as the animal's attractiveness, close biological relationship to humans, reason for endangerment, economic value, and importance in American history and folklore. • In a surprising finding, 77 percent said they thought it would be all right to kill whales for a useful product if the species hunted was not endangered. But on another intelligent sea mammal, the porpoise, 69 percent said they would rather pay a higher price for tuna fish than see the tuna industry continue killing porpoises in their net. The researchers said the apparently contradictory responses may be related to the tradition of whaling in the United States. •On the controversial issue of animal damage control, the public was not altogether opposed to controlling coyotes that prey on livestock, but strongly preferred nonlethal control methods or hunting only individual coyotes known to have killed livestock. Most were strongly opposed to poisoning, and were also opposed to shooting and trapping as many coyotes as possible. •Attitudes toward hunting depended on the purpose of the hunt. The public overwhelmingly supported traditional native American subsistence hunting and also supported hunting exclusively for meat, regardless of who hunted. Sixty-four percent approved of hunting for recreation if the meat was used, but about 60 percent opposed hunting just for sport or recreation. Over 80 percent opposed hunting exclusively for a trophy. • Although some observers have linked anti-hunting sentiment to an

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

anti-wildlife management attitude, results of the study did not support this. Sixty percent of members of humane organizations and 61 percent of those opposed to sport hunting supported government management programs to "control" populations of deer and ducks. •When asked about possible sources of funding for wildlife management programs, the public indicated stronger support for taxes on "consumptive" activities, such as buying fur, than on ''nonconsumptive" uses such as bird watching. Eighty-two percent favored a sales tax on fur clothing from wild animals; 75 percent favored entrance fees to wildlife refuges and other public wildlife management areas; the same number favored sales taxes on backpacking and camping equipment; and 54 percent favored taxes on birdwatching supplies and equipment. • Most Americans wanted to preserve wildlife values on public lands. Two thirds-including 77 percent of Alaskans-were opposed to hypothetical oil development in Yellowstone National Park if it would harm the park's wildlife. Fifty-six percent thought national forest land should be set aside to protect grizzly bears even if it resulted in some loss of jobs and building materials. •Attitudes toward many issues varied considerably according to the respondent's age, sex, education level, place of residence, and other factors. For example, support for protecting endangered species was strongest among the highly educated, people under 35, residents of areas with more than 1 million population, peo-

ple with higher incomes, professionals, and residents of the Pacific Coast and Alaska. Older persons, those with less than an 8th grade education, farmers, rural residents, and Southerners were more likely to oppose protecting endangered species. On the animal damage control issue, residents of the South-not the Rocky Mountain states, where predator damage is higher-expressed greatest support for shooting or trapping as many coyotes as possible. Residents of Pacific Coast states indicated the most protectionist sentiment. •Of all regions, Alaskans were the most knowledgeable about and supportive of wildlife. Their support was based on understanding of wildlife and ecology, rather than on emotional or sentimental notions about animals. As a group, Alaskans ranked third in level of knowledge, following only Ph.D's and those with other graduate education. They also expressed greater willingness to forego personal benefits such as recreation and jobs in order to preserve wildlife habitat and endangered species.

HIS REPORT is the first

of four being prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Service by Dr. Kellert. Future reports will deal with characteristics of wildlife users, analysis of socio-economic differences in attitudes, trends in wildlife attitudes and uses over the last 75 years, and how children's attitudes toward wildlife are formed. Single copies of the report are available from the Publications Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washing• ton, D.C. 20240.

THE

ALLA AS

By Kendall Warner & Peter M. Bourque Fishery Biologists

A VE THE ALLAGASH!" That conservationists' battlecry of the 1950s and early 1960s was fulfilled in 1966 with the establishment of the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. The effort that protected the Allagash from inundation for hydroelectric development and led to state ownership and control of the river corridor also focused national attention on this previously little-known jewel in Maine's crown of natural resources. Few people outside of New England, with the exception of the most ardent trout fishermen and canoeists, had ever heard of the Allagash River. New Englanders addicted to wilderness canoeing and trout fishing, though, had long revered the Allagash. Henry David Thoreau was probably the first naturalist to bring the Allagash to public attention through his chronicle, The Maine Woods. Since that time, many old accounts, as well as countless popular articles, have reaffirmed Thoreau's praise of the wonders of the Allagash region. The Allagash is one of the last areas in the Northeast where canoeing, camping, and fishing can be enjoyed on unpolluted waters and under semi-wilderness conditions . The Waterway is not a wilderness in the sense of being untouched by man. It is a wilderness in the sense that those who visit it can enjoy basic living under natural conditions in direct contrast to modern man's daily environment. Past and current logging activity are very much in evidence, except within the immediate river corridor, and six commercial forestry roads cross the river, permitting easier access in some seasons.

HE ALLAGASH River is a major sub-drainage of the St. John River system. The river measures about 62 miles in length from Eagle Lake to its confluence with the St. John River, including 47 miles of stream and 15 miles of lake. The drainage area of the Allagash at its mouth is 1,240 square miles. The river drops a total of 321 feet in the distance from Eagle Lake to its mouth. Major tributaries entering along its course include Thoroughfare Brook, Glazier Brook, Ross Stream, Schedule Brook, Musquacook Stream, Fivefinger Brook, and Big Brook. Numerous smaller tributaries also flow into the Allagash. The Allagash drainage is rich in lakes and ponds of all sizes. The larger lakes include Eagle, Churchill, Umsaskis, Long, Priestly, Pleasant, Cliff, Spider, Haymock, Ross, Clear, and the five Musquacook lakes. Lumbering activity in the Allagash dates back before 1850, when pine logs were driven down-stream to the St. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

John River. Chamberlain, Telos, and Allagash lakes were part of the original Allagash drainage; the outlet of Chamberlain flowed into Eagle Lake. In the mid-1800s, a dam (Lock Dam) was built at the original outlet of Chamberlain, cutting off its flow into the Allagash. A channel was dug between Telos Lake and Webster Lake, and the water from Chamberlain and Telos was diverted through this ''Telos Cut'' into Webster Lake and down the East Branch of the Penobscot River. This permitted driving logs from the Allagash area down the East Branch into the Penobscot River. The Allagash River was driven with logs in the early 1930s, and log-driving dams were built at the outlets of the large lakes and on many tributary streams. The remains of these dams and the outlines of their old flowages are still to be seen in many places. One of the largest dams, at the outlet of Churchill Lake, washed out in 1958 and lowered the levels of Churchill and Eagle lakes considerably. Churchill Dam was rebuilt in 1968 to help restore the lake water levels and to provide additional water for canoeists on the river. The Allagash drainage is gifted with an abundance of lakes and ponds that provide excellent living conditions for two of our most prized cold water game fishes, the brook trout and lake trout (togue). Where suitable water quality conditions and sufficient natural spawning and nursery areas exist, game fish populations thrive and provide high quality angling. For the most part, the lakes and ponds have not been affected by pollution from domestic or industrial sources although occasional siltation from logging operations occurs. The most abundant game fish in Allagash lakes and ponds is our native brook trout or squaretail. Of course, the quality of the trout fishery is directly dependent on the ability of each pond to grow and support trout populations. Brook trout may thrive either in shallow ponds with abundant cool springs or in the deeper lakes with plenty of cold, well-oxygenated water in their depths. Trout are widely distributed in the ponds of the Allagash and may be found in nearly every lake or pond at some season of the year. Lake trout, or togue, are found in the deep, cold waters of several of the larger lakes. Togue are primarily bottomdwelling fish, remaining in the deep water during warm weather and feeding on such food fishes as whitefish, smelts, suckers, and sticklebacks. Excellent wild togue populations are present in Eagle, Churchill, Spider, Priestly, Ross, Clear, and Third Musquacook lakes. Haymock, Umsaskis, and Second Musquacook lakes have togue populations supplemented by hatchery stocking. The latter three lakes are more accessible and have been subjected to greater fishing pressure, resulting in declines in their wild togue populations. Fishery workers in Maine and other northern states and the Canadian provinces have learned that lake trout can be readily over-harvested unless restrictive regulations are imposed. The female lake trout in Maine does not mature to a 11

I I

spawning size until it is 18 to 22 inches long and is a minimum of six years old. Therefore, the imposition of an 18inch minimum length limit will help protect a portion of the female population of togue until spawning size. A low daily bag limit will also help protect the wild togue population to insure fishing for the future. Through the 1970s, aerial counts of ice fishermen, coupled with creel checks, showed a significant increase in angler use and harvest of togue on Big Eagle Lake. It was evident that without the restrictive regulations now in effect the lake could not long continue to support a fishery for quality-sized lake trout and maintain a self-sustaining wild population of both lake trout and brook trout. The lake whitefish abounds in the larger lakes of the Allagash drainage. Most of these waters contain good-sized lake whitefish as well as populations of a "dwarf" form of the whitefish. Young lake whitefish and the "dwarf" form are used by lake trout as a forage fish. There was a whitefish discovery, of a sort, during the 1960s. Until that time, few anglers caught whitefish, and of those fish that were taken, few ever ended up on the dinner table. Since then, however, fishermen have gradually come to recognize the excellent eating qualities of the whitefish and have become proficient at catching them. Now an important sportfish, whitefish are more readily caught during the ice fishing season by using "jigging" lures although under the right conditions they also provide action for the summer fisherman who uses flies or small lures. Whitefish generally range from 1 Vi to 3 pounds, but

One of the few unspoiled rivers in the Northeast, the Allagash is best known for its canoeing opportunities and native brook trout fishing.

occasionally a lucky fisherman will take one ranging upwards of 6 pounds. Unfortunately, some anglers still confuse the whitefish with the large, silvery fallfish (chub) and, thus, treat them with disdain. Smelts were introduced in Ross (Chemquasabamticook) Lake a number of years ago and have now spread into Long Lake, Umsaskis Lake, and Round Pond. An unauthorized introduction of smelts was made in Chamberlain Lake some time since 1958. The smelt population there "mushroomed" in abundance, and smelts have spread downstream over Lock Dam into Churchill and Eagle lakes. Smelts are an excellent source of food for togue and trout and are utilized heavily by these fishes in the Allagash lakes. Both winter and summer sport fisheries are provided by smelts in many Maine lakes, but few anglers have taken advantage of the potential hook and line fishery for smelts in the Allagash lakes. The brook trout fishery in the main river and tributaries of the Allagash drainage is one of the finest in the Northeast. The trout population and fishery are maintained entirely by natural reproduction; no stocking of hatcheryreared trout is presently necessary. Natural reproduction is able to maintain the fishery because of the abundant and excellent natural spawning and nursery areas available. When waters are cool in the main river and larger tributaries, trout range freely and feed actively on an abundant food supply. During hot weather when water temperatures become higher, trout congregate in areas of cool water influence, such as springs and mouths of brooks. Allagash River trout generally do not reach trophy size, but they are renowned scrappers, especially in fast water. Countless smaller tributaries offer the avid brook fisherman many opportunities for struggling through the alders and fighting flies in quest of his limit of pan-sized brookies.

HE MAJOR PART of the Allagash drainage is

controlled by the Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Recreation. This Allagash Wilderness Waterway was established to preserve the wilderness character of the area. Access, camps, lumbering, and roads are limited within the corridor. The number of parties and persons visiting the Allagash has increased at the rate of from 11 to 14 per cent per year since 1966, but changes in the size of parties and length of stays actually caused a leveling off of total visitor days in the Waterway. This can be partially attributed to group size restrictions, a user fee, increased energy problems, and increased use of alternative rivers, notably the St. John. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is keeping a watchful eye on the Allagash fishery resources, and taking all steps possible to assure continuation of a â&#x20AC;˘ high quality natural fishery.

Editors Note: This article, written originally by Kendall Warner, appeared in the Summer 1967 issue of MAINE FISH AND GAME Magazine. It has been updated by Peter M. Bourque, presently fishery biologist in the Allagash region, for publication in this issue.

The Allagash has been under increasing ice fishing pressure in recent years, one of the prime targets being the whitefish. Jigging through the ice is the most used method, but the species can give a fly fisherman a good fight during the summer months, too.

The trout are there to catch, but many anglers prefer the relative ease of river fishing. Unfortunately, several kinds of fishes present in the Allagash drainage are almost certainly reducing game fish production to some extent by competing with them for available food and space. Among these competing species are hornpout, suckers, cusk, and ten kinds of minnow. One of the most abundant and serious competitors is the fallfish (chub), a gluttonous, silvery minnow that often reaches weights of one to two pounds in these waters. Nothing can be done to control the competing fishes already present in the Allagash drainage, but it is up to all anglers to see that unauthorized introductions of other potential competitors are not made by dumping pails of bait taken from other drainages. The Allagash is fortunate in lacking populations of competing warm-water fishes that have proved disastrous to many Maine cold-water fisheries. Yell ow perch are presently denied access to the upper Allagash waters by Allagash Falls, an impassable natural barrier. Other warm-water fishes that are serious competitors, such as bass, white perch, and pickerel, are not present in either the upper St. John or the Allagash drainages, and they must not be introduced. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Originally built in the 1800s to control water flow for logging operations, Churchill Dam was rebuilt by the Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation primarily to regulate water flow for canoeing parties.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Leave Them Be! By Russell E. Dyer Deputy Chief Warden

ACH YEAR, people with good intentions violate a law designed to protect our wildlife. They take home what they feel are abandoned deer, raccoon, rabbits-and nearly everything else that crawls, swims, flies, or trots. More often than not, taking this so-called "abandoned" wildlife into captivity ends up in a bad scene. Fox, skunk, and raccoon are the most common rabies carriers in Maine. In one recent case on record, eight people (including three physicians) had to take preventive treatment after handling a rabid fox pup. Each of the eight people received 23 shots-and therefore paid several hundred dollars for the privilege of handling a wild animal! Baby raccoons almost always grow up to bite. For every story about the big bad game warden confiscating a lovable "Bambi" from his captors, there is one of a "pet" buck going into rut and attacking its compassionate captor. Not only does a wildlife pet retain wild instincts, especially in breeding season, but, having been raised in captivity, he is without a full schedule of training for survival in the wild. When an animal has been raised in captivity, merely turning it loose in the wild is sentencing it to a death far more painful than quick execution by a bullet (i.e., starvation in winter or a ripping, agonizing death in the jaws of a predator). Any game warden or wildlife biologist can go on and on about the reasons why people should let Mother Nature take care of abandoned wildlife in her own way. There are times when it is obvious that her sentence is death. When this is the case, man can carry out this sentence and prevent prolonged suffering. I am sure that many people have heard wardens and wildlife biologists preach this same rationale time and time again . "If what we say is true," you may ask, "why do people continue to violate these laws?" One of the biggest reasons is the kind of exposure to wildlife given them by Walt Disney, Grizzly Adams, Lassie, and similar films and TV productions. These are designed for entertainment and, for that purpose, many of them are excellent. Unfortunately, many people view these programs as educational and accept what they see as the basis for their wildlife education. My appeal is this: watch Walt Disney for entertainment, but get advice and education from the experts. This will benefit both you and the wildlife of the State of Maine and the nation. â&#x20AC;˘

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

I'm sure you've heard stories about vampires-those ''men-who-change-to-bats'' that travel at night and drink human blood. In fact, there are so many stories like this that many people don't know much about the "real" lives that bats lead. Although there are some bats which drink animal blood (sometimes man's), these are not found in the United States. And only a few of the more than 100 species of bats in the world need a blood diet. Most bats prefer fruit, insects, plant juices, or fish. These amazing little creatures live in very large colonies (often as many as a million will be found together) in large underground caves or other dark, quiet places. And, although their eyesight is very poor, they are most active during the dim light of dawn and dusk-another reason for all the scary stories! Instead of depending on their eyes to help them find food, bats use a fine-tuned system called echo location (EK-o lo-KAY-shun). By making tiny squeaking sounds and listening for the echoes, bats can tell if something is in their way-just like ships at sea use radar. Bats can even tell how big and far away the object is-just from the echoes! Bats can even locate their food (insects in flight, for example) by this method, helped by their very sharp senses of smell and hearing. Some are so good at this that they can find, catch, and eat a flying insect in only a few seconds- and without landing! 16

What difference, some people ask, does one little bat make on our insect pests? Well, they fill their stomachs so quickly and so often that, even if we consider just one bat, his diet could eliminate one-half-pound of bugs during his fourmonth feeding period each year! That's a lot of mosquitos-and don't forget that there are millions and millions of bats! Even if we didn't have any insects for the bats to eat, it wouldn't mean that they could no longer help us. They also serve as food for many other important and beneficial species in our ecosystem, including many mammals, several species of birds, some fish, many reptiles (snakes) and amphibians (frogs), and even spiders and ants! Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

As helpful as bats are to man, their populations are getting smaller in the United States, largely because of man's activities. Cave explorers, called spelunkers (spi-LUNK-ers), enter caves and disturb hibernating bats in winter, unknowingly causing the bats much harm. It is very hard for bats to be roused from their winter sleep, and very difficult for them to find another cave, since not every cave provides the right conditions for bats. Misinformed people sometimes cause damage to hibernating bat populations, killing them by the thousands because of suspected diseases-or just because they're bats! Natural disasters such as cave-ins or floods also kill many bats each year. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

When the bats come out of their caves in the spring and summer, they move to tree roosts, and often to house attics or barns. Here again, they are often disturbed by man, who just doesn't seem to want the little fellows around. Increased tree cutting is harming bat populations as well, destroying insect dwelling places and therefore reducing a major source of food for the bat. Pesticides also have their bad effects on bats, as they do on many other beneficial species. Another bad effect comes from, of all places, those who are interested in bats-collectors, disease scientists, biologists, etc., also take their share of the bat populations, each for his or her own reasons. Bats are some of the most beneficial to, yet least understood and tolerated by, man. They need to be left alone-allowed to co-exist with us. And if we do give them a chance, they will â&#x20AC;˘ help us-in many ways! 17

Then and Prior to 1970, fish were flown in internal tanks and released through a stovepipe chute. Surprisingly, fish can withstand the fall unharmed.

By Peter Walker Hatchery Biologist

AINE'S HATCHERY SYSTEM has made

great strides in recent years in improving the size and quality of the fish produced. For example, yearling salmon that were stocked this spring were as large or larger than salmon held through a second growing season until fall just fifteen years ago! Improvements in diets, hatchery management, fish pathology and water treatment technology have all made their impact on the program. Reflective of this, fishery managers are now able to maintain fisheries by stocking fewer fish (of improved quality) than they could just a decade ago. The end result of all this is more efficient use of the sportsman's dollar. As is so often the case, while we were making great advances in fish culture, we almost overlooked a 18

brief, but critical, stage in the process. No matter how good a job one does in the hatchery, if the fish are not transported to the lakes in good condition, the whole effort is in vain. Our fish transportation equipment and techniques-largely developed in the early 1960s-had gone unscrutinized for years. Thus it was that in 1976 I was assigned to evaluate our stocking equipment and to make recommendations for improvement where necessary.

ANY OF THE LAKES

and ponds on our stocking -lists are too remote to be stocked by a hatchery tank truck. In such cases, it is necessary to carry the fish from accessible waters to the ponds aboard Warden Service aircraft. Then, depending on the flying condi-

tions and the size of the pond, the pilot either lands and dumps the fish from special, pontoon-mounted tanks or drops them into the water from several hundred feet in the air. Studies carried out years ago showed that trout and "salmon have a surprising ability to survive such drops unharmed. The first fish transportation tanks to be used in Warden Service aircraft were simple metal cans carried inside an old, gull-winged Stinson. Aeration and care for the fish during the trip were accomplished by a hatcheryman who rode beside the fish and ladled water with a dipper . The fish were poured into a funnel which led into a piece of stovepipe through the belly of the plane. The shortcomings of this crude system were obvious. The next method to be tried was a double compartmented, sheet metal Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

tank mounted inside the fuselage of a Cessna 180. The tank was aerated by a bottle of compressed oxygen and the pilot had control of a gate that allowed the fish to drop down a stovepipe chute through the belly of the plane. While a great improvement over the first style, this equipment still left a good deal to be desired. The tanks had open tops which allowed fish and water to slosh out onto the cabin floor in rough weather. In addition, carbon dioxide tended to build up in the tanks, jeopardizing the well-being of the fish.

AT ABOUT THIS POINT in ~ time, Chief Pilot George Later, Warden Pilot Malcolm Maheu (both now retired) and Fishery Biologist David Locke (now Superintendent of Hatcheries) had all become involved in solving the problems of transporting and planting fish by air. What seemed to be the ultimate solution was the invention of external tanks that could be mounted on a plane's pontoons. Credit for their construction goes to Aircraft Mechanic Howard Lambertson (now retired), who fashioned the prototypes from the wing-tip floats of a Republic Sea Bee amphibian. The trim aluminum tanks were mounted atop the pontoons of a Piper Cub in such a way that they could be flipped over to release their contents by means of levers in the cockpit of the plane. The little Cub served for years as the trouble-shooter of the outfit. It was assigned the smallest ponds where precision drops were necessary. The success of the external Piper Cub tanks eventually led to a major refitting of the entire aircraft fleet in 1969-70. With Hatchery Division funding, all four of the internal Cessna fish tanks were replaced with four new pairs of external tanks. Using the knowledge and experience gained from the little Cub tanks, Lambertson built improved fiberglass models that are still in use today. Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

A fish hatcheryman loads trout into the big Beaver float plane while a warden pilot looks on.

Each tank is cylindrical and tapered at both ends, with an oval opening at the top for loading and unloading. The 50-gallon contraptions are mounted slightly off center so that, when a solenoid is tripped from a dashboard switch, they roll over, discharging their contents off the sides of the pontoons. A baffle in the middle of each tank lends structural strength while helping to prevent the water from sloshing back and forth. From all outward appearances, the tanks seemed to be well aerated by the aircraft's slipstream. But were things as they appeared? This is what I was sent to find out.

OR ONE WEEK during

the fall of 1976 and again in the spring of 1977, I rode with the warden pilots as they stocked trout, salmon, and togue in remote ponds and lakes. The initial task was to determine whether or not the tanks were performing as well as we supposed. By means of a portable water chemistry kit, the water quality in the tanks was tested before and after rou-

tine stocking flights. Since it was necessary to land in order to obtain water samples, flights to larger waters were chosen. The results were surprising. Instead of adequate aeration, the tank water proved to be very deficient after even a short flight. Although still swimming when planted, the fish were definitely under stress. That afternoon I discussed the problem with Howard Lambertson and the pilots. Several suggestions were made and the pros and cons of various possible solutions were discussed. The next morning I arrived to find a new invention mounted on a tank of Pilot Dana Toothaker's Cessna. The simple device consisted of a piece of sheet metal fixed in the tank opening so that the upper end angled out into the slipstream while the lower end was immersed in the water. It was hoped that the air rushing into this baffle at more than a hundred miles an hour would be channelled down the face of the sheet metal and bubble up the back side. It worked! On each successive trial, the water in the tank with the sheet 19

metal baffle contained an acceptable amount of dissolved oxygen at the end of the trip. Still, we had reservations about the contraption, since it appeared to hamper the release of the fish when the tank was turned over. Thus we set out to test the baffle on an air drop. As feared, the metal sheet interfered with release. Although most of the fish cleared the float cleanly, a few were diverted back onto the upper surface of the pontoon and into the wire rigging. The final blow came later in the day when, in gusty weather at high airspeed, the baffle blew off. We were back to Square One. Howard Lambertson went back to the drawing board.

The pilot releases a load of fish by tripping a switch on the dashboard.

y THE THIRD MORNING of the trials, How-

ard Lambertson had equipped the tanks on Toothaker's plane with short lengths of garden hose. Each hose was attached to the forward edge of a tank opening so that an end faced into the slipstream. The other end was submerged to the bottom of the tank. It was hoped that air would be rammed down the hose and bubble out of the other end. This worked, too! Air rammed Garden hose aerator provides adequate oxygen for the fish during flight.

through the hose produced a geyser of spray in the back of the tank. Although not as efficient an aerator as the metal baffle, the hoses kept dissolved oxygen at a safer level than in tanks not so equipped. In addition, the hoses posed no problems in loading and dumping fish. To improve the efficiency of the garden hose aerator, we first tried attaching a funnel to the forward end to create an air scoop. It was reasoned that if more air could be rammed through the hose then aeration might be more complete. More air was rammed through the hose, all right; so much air, in fact, that a large portion of the water was blown out of the tank and lost in the slipstream! It was obvious that a funnel was not the answer. Next we turned our thoughts toward trying to make better use of the air that came in through the plain hose. If, instead of allowing the stream of air to blast out the end of the hose, we could break the stream up into smaller ones, the device might be more efficient. To accomplish this, the trailing end was clamped shut and many tiny holes were drilled along the submerged portion of the hose. At last we had the answer! Once

airborne, the aerator produced a dozen tiny streams of bubbles keeping the water well oxygenated throughout the trip. All of the tanks on the other aircraft were immediately fitted with similar hose aerators and our task was completed.

UBSEQUENT

WORK

with our aircraftmounted fish transportation tanks has shown that they are now capable of safely carrying up to 60 pounds of trout and lesser amounts of more delicate togue and salmon on 20-minute flights. There has been one other recent improvement in aerial fish stocking. In an effort to save time and gasoline, Chief Pilot Dana Toothaker has mounted two pairs of fish tanks on the floats of a de Havilland Beaverthe big workhorse of the Warden Service. With twice the capacity of a Cessna 185, this "flying pickup truck" has further contributed to our efforts to "get 'em there healthy." â&#x20AC;˘ My thanks to Chief Pilot Andy Stinson (retired), Aircraft Mechanic Howard Lambertson (retired), Chief Pilot Dana Toothaker, and the many pilots and hatcherymen who co-operated on this project-The author.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Help Us Encourage the Continued Professional Management of Fish and Wildlife. We need your financial and moral commitment to A. W. A. R. E. - America's Wildlife Association for Re source Education-so that we can promote the rational use of our natural resources. Your donation will help us foster a better public understanding of the need for conservation and fish and wildlife management programs. America's fish and wildlife resources are caught in a tightening squeeze-between zooming human populations and a diminishing land and water resource base. Our fish and wildlife agencies play a major role in the unending battle to restore fish and wildlife, protect its needed habitat, insure a better environment for all living things, and enjoy the wise use of our renewable resources. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies coordinates and promotes the programs of those agencies. Through its committees, representation in Washington, and participation in study commissions, the Association brings its expertise and prestige to bear in behalf of needed advances

and reforms in fish and wildlife management at both the state and national levels. Its concerns include related problems and programs in Canada and Mexico. It represents the interests of its membership in sound wildlife conservation before congressional committees and executive departments, and in judicial proceedings. Organized on July 20, 1902, at a meeting of state wardens and officials at Yellowstone National Park, the Association has played a major role in the evolution of national conservation affairs. Its officers and members include most of the Nation's conservation leaders. We have long known of the need for a broad based communications program. To educate the American Public on the realities of scientific management of the fish and wildlife resources of North America, to provide to the public professional insight concerning issues of current interest affecting fish and wildlife. To develop broader public understanding and appreciation of the importance of conserving forests , waters and soils and of wise management of fish and wildlife resources as a part of natural and managed eco-systems and as a source of recreation and food supply.

Your donation will be used to accomplish these goals. Please send check or money order to:

111111111111111111111111111 A. W.A.R.E. , Box 2954

Washington, D.C. 20013 Enclosed is my check o r mo ney o rde r in th e amo unt of:

$10

$25

$50

$100

$500

I understand this mo ney will be used by the Non -Profit A. W.A. R. E. Foundation establishe d in 1977 by o ur State Fish and Wildlife Directo rs to pro mote the continued wise manage ment of o ur fish and wildlife resources.

Street. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ State _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zip Code,_ _ __ Your donations are tax deductible.

Making the Most of the Moose Season By Francis D. Dunn and Karen I. Morris

HE MOOSE has been an

inhabitant of the northeastern United States for millions of years and throughout history has played an important role in man's survival. Records of early explorers tell of the importance of moose to the Indian way of life and how the white man depended on moose for meat and hides. Periodic fluctuations of moose numbers have been well documented The senior author, now retired, was the Wildlife Division's moose project leader. Morris now holds that position.

since the arrival of early explorers . The first law to protect moose in Maine was passed by the legislature in 1830, when the hunting of moose was restricted to the period from September through December. Laws regulating hunting seasons and bag limits continued to become more restrictive until 1935 when the last moose hunting season was held in Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo counties on November 28, 29, and 30-and 48 bulls were harvested. During the succeeding years as the moose herd gradually expanded-

probably in response to an improving habitat-renewed interest in a moose hunting season began developing. In 1943, a bill was introduced into the legislature to reinstate moose hunting but was defeated. Another unsuccessful attempt was made in 1951. That year, in response to a legislative directive to determine the number of moose in Maine, wildlife biologists made a major effort to estimate the moose population through use of the first aerial census of this species. That estimate indicated a population of 7,300 moose in northern Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Maine. Later aerial censuses-in 1975, 1977, and 1978-indicate that the number of moose has increased to a conservative estimate of between 15,000 and 20,000 animals north of the Canadian Pacific Railroad tracks. Moose hunting bills were introduced at each legislative session beginning in 1957, but it was not until 1977 that one passed in both the senate and house of representatives. That bill was vetoed by then Governor James Longley, but in 1979 another bill passed in the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Joseph Brennan. The law provides for a limited moose hunting season with a harvest of up to 700 animals in the section of the state north of the Canadian Pacific Railroad tracks. The season will be held September 22-27, 1980, for 700 Maine resident hunters (each allowed to be accompanied by one assistant) who will be chosen by a lottery this summer. Underlying the Department's continued support of restoration of moose hunting in Maine has been the conviction that a limited harvest of the large and growing population represents a legitimate use of the resource with no risk of jeopardizing other important uses such as moose watching. It is also seen as a major opportunity for the Wildlife Division to obtain biological information about Maine's moose herd, information that is much-needed for proper management of the resource but previously obtainable only slowly and unsatisfactorily through examination of road-kills and illegally shot moose. Wildlife biologists are making plans to ensure that maximum advantage is taken of this opportunity. The 1980 moose hunting law requires that all legally harvested moose be brought to a designated check station where Departmental personnel will register each animal and collect the needed biological data. It will be the responsibility of wardens to register the moose. Biologists will collect pertinent biological data, process hunter questionnaires, and dispatch aides to the kill site of selected aniMaine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

mals to collect samples of various internal organs. Each person who receives a moose hunting permit will be sent an informational packet which will include a hunter questionnaire form, a set of instructions giving detailed directions to the check stations, a small vial to collect a sample of fresh blood at the time of the kill, and a piece of flagging tape to mark the spot where the moose was loaded on the vehicle used to transport it to the checking station. Six checking stations will be located at strategic points throughout the moose hunting area. Three of the stations will be set up at Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife facilities in Greenville, Eagle Lake, and Ashland. The aircraft hangers will be used in Greenville and at Eagle Lake while the storage garage will be used in Ashland. The other three stations will be located at Maine Department of Transportation facilities in Medway, Littleton, and Jackman. The check stations will operate from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on each of the six hunting days, September 22-27, and from 7:00 a.m. to noon on the 28th.

HE MOOSE biological data collection will be nothing new to the deer hunter who has had the experience of having his animal checked by a biologist. However, anyone experiencing a check for the first time may wonder how the information collected is used. Briefly, the condition and ages of the animals taken by hunters can yield information on the condition of the entire herd. The data taken from the animals at the checking station, along with information gained from censuses and other sources, will be used in making management decisions. The following will be the general moose checking procedures and the reasons for them. Weights and measurements: After a moose is registered by a game warden it will be weighed. Several body measurements will also be taken. There is little known about the size, weight, and antler development of Maine moose, and the Department is

often requested to supply this information. It can also be used as a comparison against moose harvested in any future seasons; body size (by age class) is one indicator of nutrition and, therefore, range conditions. Antler Measurements: The diameter of the antler at its base will be taken with a set of calipers. Antler measurements by age class may reflect the range conditions in the area where a moose was taken. This will be one of the measurements used to learn where the best range for moose is in the northern part of the state and what components make up that habitat. Comparing antler measurements from year to year can indicate whether the quality of moose range is improving or declining. Removal of an incisor tooth: An incisor tooth will be removed from all adult moose. This will in no way damage the head in case the hunter wishes to have it mounted. The tooth will be processed at a later date and the annual rings counted to determine the age of each moose. Many of the other measurements would be meaningless unless the age of the animal is known. Also, by separating the sampled moose into sex and age classes and comparing the age structure from year to year, changes in survival and recruitment rates may be detected. Sex: The sex of each of the moose that passes through the check station will be recorded. This information along with the findings from hunter questionnaires and aerial surveys during the summer will provide estimates of the sex ratio of the herd. Harvest sex ratios will be monitored to minimize possibilities of overharvest. Blood sample: Because blood must be collected immediately after death, each permittee will be provided with a specially-treated vial and instructions for collecting a sample of moose blood. The hunter should bring the blood sample to the check station where it will be refrigerated and later sent to the University of Maine for analysis. The components of the blood indicate the condition of an animal. Reproductive tract sample: As 23

many kill sites as possible will be visited so that the viscera can be examined for parasites and to collect samples of internal organs, including female reproductive tracts. All permittees will be given a piece of flagging tape and asked to mark the spot at the roadside where they load their moose onto their vehicle. At the check station a biologist will ask for directions to that point. If possible, someone will then be sent to locate this point and find the kill site. The reproductive tracts collected will be preserved and later examined to determine the potential production of calves by each cow. By knowing the age of the cow, the number of calves she may have produced, and the kill location, it will be possible to determine the reproductive rate and earliest breeding age for moose in various areas. It will not be possible to visit all the kill sites, but if the hunters give good directions it will be easier to collect enough samples.

Head collection: Successful hunters who do not want to have their moose head mounted will be asked to donate the head for a study of the parasite which causes ''moose sickness'' and can cause a decline in the moose population. The head may be left at the check station, or arrangements can be made for a Department employee to pick it up after the moose has been butchered. The heads will be taken to Orono and examined for the presence of the worm to determine how many moose are affected and identify areas where it is most common. Questionnaire: Both the permittee and sub-permittee will receive a questionnaire that the law requires they complete and return to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The successful hunter may fill it out and give it to the biologist at the checking station. The unsuccessful hunter can return the completed questionnaire by mail. The questionnaire

Eagle Update M

AINE'S nesting bald eagles produced 38 eaglets in 1979-3 greater than the previously known high-and there were some small but encouraging signs from the 1980 winter survey. But Maine's bald eagle population is still far from out of trouble, and nationally the species remains an officially designated endangered species. A great deal has been learned about Maine's eagles in recent years, largely the result of a co-operative project between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Wildlife Resources Department at the University of Maine at Orono. A number of Maine citizens and landowners are also due credit for their interest and help in learning more about eagles and in protecting their habitat. Two major eagle inventories are conducted each year-the nesting surveys, in April and June, and the winter survey, in January. The 1979 statewide survey of nesting eagles revealed 52 nest sites occupied by breeding eagles. This is below the 1978 record high of 62 breeding pairs, but the decline is attributed partially to the fact that the aerial survey was conducted somewhat later than normal last year and some unsuccessful breeding pairs may have already abandoned their nests. All occupied sites were rechecked in June to determine production levels. Twenty-nine pairs successfully raised a total of 38 eaglets in 1979. This surpasses the previous known high of

will deal mostly with information on the area hunted, the time spent hunting, the number of moose seen, and the hunting methods used. It would be advisable for the hunter to fill in the information on a day-by-day basis so that he would not have to try to recall what happened several days earlier.

F MOOSE HUNTING becomes an annual event in Maine, Department wildlife biologists will be responsible for advising administrators and the legislature on the condition of the moose herd and to help in setting harvest quotas, length of season, hunting areas, and the number of hunters that can participate. It is only with the help of the hunter that this necessary information can be obtained. With this cooperation the moose herd can be properly managed to provide continuation of both the non-hunting and limited hunting uses of the resource.

35, in 1977, and greatly exceeds the low of 4 in 1965. This level of nesting success (56 percent of the known breeding population raised eaglets to fledgling age) is the highest reported in Maine since nesting surveys began in 1962. However, available information indicates that Maine's eagles still do not raise enough young annually to maintain their numbers. The winter survey in Maine is part of a nationwide inventory of wintering bald eagles, conducted each year in January. The count, sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation, tallied nearly 10,000 eagles in the lower 48 states last year. The 1980 wiuter survey in Maine revealed 115 eagles, an increase of 6 from last year. Also noted in 1980 was an increase in the proportion of immature birds in the population-24 percent this year, compared with a 16 percent average during the previous 3 years. The general improvement of reproductive success among Maine eagles is thought to result primarily from the diminishing effects of pesticides such as DDT. However, three spoiled eggs analyzed last year indicated that some segments of the population are still affected by DDE (a byproduct of DDT), PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, industrial pollutants) and mercury. These contaminants cause both eggshell thinning (increasing chances for breakage) and embryo mortality. The shells of eggs examined in 1979 were up to 25 percent thinner than normal. Recent mercury levels in Maine eagle eggs are among the highest ever recorded. Âˇ Also on the negative side is the fact that willful shooting and accidents continue to take a toll of Maine's eagle population. â&#x20AC;˘ Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

One Easy Way

By David W. Walker Photos by Tom Carbone

One of the most difficult and frustratinf the art of preparing a sewed bait for tro hook and commonplace equipment, tha1

2. 26

The only equipment necessary includes a hook, a sewing needle, approximately two feet of monofilament line looped at both ends (black line was used here for clarity), and a bait which has been killed by a sharp blow against its head (for humane purposes, and also to keep the bait from swimming and winding the line). All can be purchased at most bait shops.

After connecting one loop of the line to the needle, insert the needle down through the top of the head and pull the line about halfway through.

Repeat this procedure, sewing through the same hole in the same direction. Leave plenty of slack.

Insert the needle through the mouth, being careful to stay to one side of all loops in order â&#x20AC;˘ to avoid snarling or knotting the line.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Push the needle back out just behind the dorsal fin and pull the line through, again • leaving slack. (same people prefer to bring the needle through the underside of the bait, which will work just as well.

8•

Pull the preceding loop tight.

techniques for most fishermen to master is ing. Here is a technique, using an ordinary is both effective and easy to learn.

9• 6•

Pull the first loop tight, being careful to create a small curve in the body of the bait .

Remove the needle and loop the line onto the hook .

10. 7

Pull the line back through the mouth until the • shank of the hook is within the body of the bait.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

Top view (note body curve). Practice is necessary to create the proper curvature so that the bait will rotate slowly when trolled slowly. Avoid rapid spinning of the bait, since your line will likely get snarled. GOOD LUCK!

LURC and the Maine Sportsman

By James Mehoke

ROBABLY MOST Maine

sportsmen and sportswomen have at least heard of the Land Use Regulation Commission. But how many know what this state agency does and, specifically, what it does of importance to their outdoor sports? How many The author is a former informational writer with the Maine Department of Conservation.

of them are aware that the Commission, better known as LURC, has been protecting wildlife and fish habitat in the 10.5 million acres of unincorporated territory commonly referred to as Maine's wildlands? In 1971, the 105th Maine Legisla 'ture gave LURC jurisdiction over the unincorporated territory and charged the agency with encouraging proper land use management and multiple use of the area's resources, including such recreation activities as hunting,

fishing, boating, hiking, and camping. LURC's major policy statement, based upon the Legislative mandate of 1971, is found in its 1976 Comprehensive Land Use Plan: '' . . . Protect the natural resources by prohibiting those uses that will cause undue degradation of those resources, and that are not suitable in terms of social, economic, and cultural impact ... '' Seeking ways to implement this policy, LURC was open and receptive to guidance which came from several directions and from its own staff of planners. Through all phases of planning after 1971, LURC consulted with a Citizen 's Advisory Board. From the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, LURC gained expert advice which helped to form the regulations for remote ponds, stream management, and deer yard protection. Also, a professional poll was taken in 1974 which strongly indicated that most citizens of Maine wanted wildlife maintained or increased, and they wanted certain areas maintained in a natural and ''primitive'' condition for recreational use. Sportsmen have shown an active interest in remote ponds, streams, coastal islands, and deer yards, and LURC regulations concerning these areas are discussed in greater detail below. As Kenneth Stratton, former director of LURC, said, "The future of Maine depends upon land use." Paul Johnson, a fisheries biologist writing in Maine Fish and Wildlife magazine, expressed the remote pond idea this way: ''Many people want some waters kept inaccessible by vehicle, so they can walk or canoe there and enjoy fishing, camping, or simply relaxing in a natural, essentially wilderness environment.'' Harry Vanderweide, editor of the Maine Sportsman, says that his readers indicate ''very strong support for the remote pond idea and for restricted access to su<.:h ponds.'' Remote ponds are, of course, no Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

longer just a concept. They are identified in LURC's zoning regulations as ponds having no more than one camp on their shores and no permanent road nearer than one-half mile. Regulations permit haul roads to be built no closer than 1000 feet from a shoreline. Permits may be obtained for roads closer than 1000 feet but on the conditions that they will be used appropriately and ''put to bed'' on termination of cutting operations. Protective zoning regulations for reniote ponds are in addition to those regulations which exist for all ponds over ten acres in size and rivers which drain over fifty square miles. For these waters, a zone 250 feet deep follows the shoreline. Within this zone, clear cutting is limited to areas of 7,500 square feet. Smaller streams are bordered by a 75 foot zone. One purpose of these zones is to create a filter strip which protects the water from sedimentation. On smaller streams, zoning regulations insure that cutting operations leave a sufficient number of trees as a shade canopy so that stream water temperatures remain to the liking of trout and other cold-water fish.

HE LAND Use Regula-

tion Commission recognizes the importance of maintaining quality winter deer habitat by placing deer wintering areas in protective zones. Management plans, developed through consultation between landowners and wildlife biologists such as Douglas Marston of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, guide land use and cutting practices in deer wintering areas. Marston compliments landowners for their willingness to modify harvesting procedures for the sake of the whitetailed deer. An ideal harvesting procedure, according to Marston, would be one which would ''. . . allow for

the orderly harvest of different stands as they mature. With perbdic harvests occurring every ten to fifteen years, a portion of the area would be in adequate deer winter shelter at all times, and the young cutover areas would provide a sustained supply of browse.'' The interval of ten to fifteen years is the amount of time it takes for new growth to rise above deer browsing height. Adjacent to cutover areas should remain mature stands of cedar, spruce, and hemlock which provide deer with shelter and good travelling conditions. The snow under such mature stands lays more evenly and packs more densely than snow in the open, facilitating movement to browsing areas by feeding deer. In all, such deer yards comprise about 3.5 percent of LURC's 10.5 million acre jurisdiction. In keeping with the emphasis on habitat protection, LURC recognizes that certain coastal islands are a special resource, particularly those islands used by birds (such as the eider duck) as nesting sites. Acting on recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Department, LURC established zoning regulations that restrict development on such islands to protect nesting habitat. Although LURC attempts to accommodate private owners who seek to build on these islands, the Commission has on occasion denied building applications

when this was necessary to protect nesting bird colonies.

LARGE AND GROWING

number of Americans view governmental regulations as burdensome intrusions into their private affairs. Although one may be sympathetic with this view to some degree, Maine's enlightened sportsmen realize that regulations protecting deer yards, remote ponds, coastal islands, and rivers and streams are essential to fish and wildlife management in a state which is 98 percent privately owned. These independentminded sportsmen support zoning regulations not because of an affection for bureaucracy, but because they see land use planning as a workable means of protecting wildlife habitat. This attitude is reflected in the words of Dick Jones, director of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine: "The membership of Sportsman's Alliance of Maine has and does support the remote pond concept and forest management policies that offer maximum protection to deer wintering yards. Shoreline protection zones along rivers and streams are supported as being conducive to maintenance of cold-water fisheries. To the end that LURC policies and regulations are reasonably applied toward these objectives, the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine offer their full support."

Protective zoning of deer winÂˇ tering areas encourages timber harvesting in a manner planned to enhance the quality of the habitat.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS RATES TO INCREASE We announce with regret that the rates for Maine Fish and Wildlife are due for an increase beginning with the next issue. Rising production and mailing costs have made it impossible to maintain the same quality magazine at subscription rates set four years ago. The new rates will be: Single copy $1.00 One year 3.50 Two years 6.50 Three years 9.50 (These rates are for mailing to United States zip code addresses. For addresses other than these, subscriptions are $1.00 more per year, and the single copy price is $1.25.) We are announcing the rate increase . early so you will have the opportunity to subscribe or renew your subscription at the current rates for a while. We will accept orders at the present rates until the new ones become effective, September 1, 1980. You may extend your own subscription or a gift subscription for up to three years, or you may buy a new personal subscription or a gift, at the rates now in effect. The absence of paid advertising (prohibited by law) in Maine Fish and Wildlife makes subscriber support all the more important. We appreciate your past support and hope your interest in Maine and in fish and wildlife grows with us in the future.

TURKEY UPDATE During the winters of 1977 and 1978, the Wildlife Division released a total of 45 wild turkeys in southern York County in an attempt to re-establish breeding turkey populations in Maine. (For details of the wild turkey's history in Maine and of the reintroduction operation, see Maine Fish and Wildlife, spring and summer issues, 1977 .) 30

Wildlife Biologist Phil Bozenhard, in charge of the project, reports that the wild turkeys have generated a great deal of interest locally. Although interest stems from a variety of reasons, the anticipation of the wild turkey providing an additional upland game bird seems to be foremost.

The number of turkeys in Maine's 3-year-old flock has been variously estimated up to 400 birds. Bozenhard feels a realistic population figure is around 200. Sightings of wild turkeys were limited to a few crossing roads during the first year after re-introduction. Since then, more birds have been seen, both because people are more aware of their presence and because of the turkeys' increasing numbers. Bozenhard says that although the flock is growing, reproduction is apparently at a slow rate, which he attributes to the birds being near or at the northern limit of wild turkey range. Although there were reports of others, only one brood was documented during the summer of 1978 and two broods were verified during the following summer. All broods were seen in the same general area of southern York County. Hopes are high that turkey reproduction will respond favorably to the extremely mild winter of 1979-80. A more complete summary of the turkey project will appear in a later issue.

MOOSE DRAWING SET The drawing to select the 700 Maine hunters who will be eligible to acquire moose hunting permits for the 1980 season will be on July 15 at the Bangor Civic Center, beginning at 7:30 p.m. The public is invited. At press time, the Department had received over 15,000 applications, and by the June 10 deadline more than 20,000 are expected. The drawing will be televised live on the Maine Public Broadcasting Network. Applicants who are successful in the drawing will be notified by registered mail and will have until September 1 to acquire the $10 moose hunting permit. The open season, Maine's first on moose since 1935, will be limited to the northern two-fifths of the state, the area north of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. The season will be September 22-27, 1980. 1980 LICENSE FEES Nonresident Citizen Big Game Hunting-IO yrs. and over Allen Big Game HuntingNonresident Small Game Huntlng16 yrs. and over Nonresident Junior Small Game Hunting-10-15 yrs., Inc. Nonresident Archery Huntlng12 yrs. and over (permits hunting during all open seasons throughout year) Nonresident Junior Flshing12-15 yrs. Inc. Nonresident Season Flshlng16 yrs. and over Nonresident 15-41ay Fishing Nonresident 7-41ay Fishing Resident or nonresident 3-41ay Fishing Resident Flshlng-16 yrs. and over Resident Junior Huntlng10-15 yrs. Inc. Resident Huntlng-16 yrs. and over Resident Combination Hunting and Fishing-Over age 70 Resident Combination Hunting and Flshlng-16 yrs. and over Resident Serviceman Combination Resident Archery Huntlng12 yrs. and over Resident Combination Fishing and Archery HuntingResident Trapping (Statewide) Resident Gulde-18 ) rs. and over

S 65.SO 105.00

35.50 15.50

35.50 4.00 JO.SO 20.SO 17.SO 9.SO 9.50 1.50 9.SO free

16.SO 5.SO 9.50 16.50 15.00 34.00

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

EASY WINTER FOR DEER

As far as Maine's deer herd is con~ cerned, winter 1979-80 rated a 42. That's on a winter conditions scale where the lower the number, the better for deer. Anything above 90 indicates severe wintering conditions, and anything below 70, mild. The statewide 42 this past winter is a record low for the 8-year-old Winter Severity Index program of the Wildlife Division. The WSI reflects the average of deer wintering conditions in or near 46 deer ''yards'' or wintering areas throughout the state. To determine the WSI, wildlife biologists translate weekly records of snow conditions and temperatures into index values for each of the state's eight wildlife management units, which allows them to compare critical winter weather conditions on a month-to-month and year-to-year basis. The worst conditions for deer this winter were in Unit 2 (northwestern Maine), where the WSI was 57 for the whole winter and where the highest monthly figure-90, in March-was recorded. The winter's statewide average temperature was 25.2°F and the snow depth 4.6 inches-the temperature a record high average and the snow depth a record low. DEER DATES TO BE SET

Maine's 1980 deer hunting seasons are scheduled to be set in early June, too late to be included in this issue. The information may be obtained by writing to the Department's Augusta office. A self-addressed, stamped envelope will expedite the response. MOVING? It is now more important than ever that we have your correct mailing address. The high postage and labor costs involved in forwarding undeliverable magazines have forced us to end that service. In the future, if your correct mailing address is not on it , your magazine will dead end at the post office instead of being returned to us for forwarding. You can inform us of an address change by using the form printed on the subscription blank insert elsewhere in this issue .

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

1979 Warden of the Year George H. Chase of Saco is Maine's Game Warden of the Year for 1979, according to Chief Warden Alanson B. Noble. In announcing his selection for the honor, Noble said that Chase had, in addition to carrying out his regular duties, ''created good rapport with other law enforcement agencies, fish and game clubs, and the general public." Chase has been with the Warden Service for 12 years, having been assigned first to the remote St. Aurelie district of northern Maine in 1968. In 1972, Chase was transferred to the Biddeford district, where he is now stationed. He resides in Saco with his wife and two sons. Noble said that Chase, during his 12 years with the Department, has proven to be very dedicated, devoted, and conscientious in the performance of his duties, frequently volunteering to assist where additional help is needed. When new radios were ordered for

Warden Service vehicles, for example, Chase volunteered to travel throughout the state to assist in their installation. The 1979 Warden of the Year has assisted the Department in the area of gunsmithing as well, having repaired firearms and even creating tranquilizer guns for use by biological researchers. He is also active in the Maine hunter safety program and in his local fish and game club. Chase has also been a member of the Warden Service Honor Guard since its formation in 1976. He is a native of Bethel and a 1958 graduate of Gould Academy.

Helping Insure the Future Today, it is more important than ever that people participate and how many programs sportsmen have a nationally recognized plat- are held is up to you . form from which to spread the word on the To assist clubs and individuals in observoutdoorsman's leading role in conservation. ing NHF Day, we have developed a wide NHF Day®provides that platform. variety of materials which have proven their Sportsmen and non-sportsmen alike will effective~ess over the past eight years. come together at gun clubs, shopping cenPlease order your easy-to-use materials ters, schools and other locations on NHF Day, September 27, 1980. How many today and help NHF Day insure the future.

National Hunting & Fishing Day September 27, 1980 TO: NATK>NAL HUNTING AND FISHING DAY ® 1075 Post Road Riverside, Conn. 06878

o o

a ~

I want to do my part; please rush _ _ _ _ _ "One~n-One" kits@ $2.00. I represent a club; please rush "Complete Organizational Packets" @ $5.00. Please send copies of the official NHF Day Poster @ $1 .00. Enclosed is a check or money order t>r $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name: - - - - - - - - - - - - Organization : - - - - - - - - Address: State: _ _ _ _ _ _ Zip _ _ _ __

LETTERS Editor's Note: The winter-spring 1980 issue contained a shockingly-illustrated article on the problem of dogs that chase and kill deer. The back cover, in the words of one subscriber, was a real "gut wrencher" -a color photograph of a still-alive doe deer that had been horribly mutilated by domestic dogs. This hard-hitting treatment is not our usual style, and we expected some negative reaction from readers. Surprisingly, though, comments were overwhelmingly supportive. The following are excerpts from some of the letters received on this subject.

not just another "do gooder." I'm sure thousand of us hunters own dogs and we know this happens-to the other folks! I for one have nothing but praise for your guts in printing it! Arthur F. Brann Waterville

NECESSARY

Your back cover photo: Gruesome, grislybut very necessary. Keep up the excellent work. More needs to be done to enlighten the public and enforce rules on running dogs. I shudder at the thought of more regulation, but maybe we need a law to make the owners of dogs that kill deer responsible for damage done. It would seem the pocket book is the only vulnerable point on some people. Why cannot a citizen shoot a dog caught in the act? Would not a deer carcass and a dog together be bona fide proof of a crime? Richard F. Proulx Hampden Highlands

HORRIBLE STORY

I read your truly horrible story, "Dealing with Deer Predators," showing several photos. I very much hope that the legislature will pass a bill authorizing anybody to shoot dogs chasing deer. So far only game wardens are permitted to do this. Wolf Krahmer Rangeley

SHOCKING

I applaud the inclusion of the picture of the deer attacked by dogs. As a hunter for 25 years I had, of course, heard of dogs running deer, but I had never come across such a sight. The photo is shocking, but we need to be shocked. Dog owners must think about what their dogs can do when loose. Thinking people will support your educational efforts. Robert M. Tatem Cherry Hill, NJ

PUNISH OWNERS SEVERELY SAD, HORRIBLE, PATHETIC COPIES TO SCHOOLS

Your back cover was a bit rough, but I would have voted to print it! The dog owner who correctly disposes of his dog after the warden trails it home-and then pays his $200 fine -is not going to advertise the situation for us. W. David Dellert State Representative Gardiner

The picture on the back cover is the very exact thing I have seen while snowshoeing in Kingfield. I wish I had never seen this sight. It was the saddest, most horrible, pathetic thing I've ever seen. What a cruel way for an animal to die. I have been a hunter for over 25 years . When I came across this poor, sad, partially eaten doe (that looked exactly like the one on the back cover), I wished I had a gun or a knife with me. . . to put the suffering animal out of its misery immediately. The game warden came and shot the doe. She was carrying twin fawns, and that made me feel very bad, upset, and depressed. The way dogs kill is deplorable. At least a hunter tries for a clean kill and eats and enjoys the meat. I wish your article and pictures could be printed in all the newspapers. Then the people could see what their pet dogs are really doing. Mrs. Lorraine Wilbur Kingfield

NOT PLEASANT

"PETS"

As an avid sportsman I would like to thank you for bringing to the attention of the public what a dog can do to a deer. The pictures you displayed were not too pleasant to look at, but I think you were justified in publishing them. Now, maybe, some of these people who feel their ''pet'' would never harm a deer will think twice about letting their dog run loose. Keep up the great work. Paul R. Flynn North Windham

I feel that this article should show the owners of the dogs that they should keep their socalled "pets" tied up. I think that articles like this will convince more people to keep their dogs tied up or they'll have to pay the price of death to the dog or a $200 fine. I own a socalled "harmless" poodle, but I keep her tied because of the fact that she could kill. You have convinced me about the killing of deer. Please try to convince others. Jeffrey Allen Giroux Age 11 Waterville

Thank you for the pictures showing the horrors of dogs' damage to deer. I think copies and a reprint of the article should be in the schools. Similar pictures, brought in by the game warden's children when I taught in Allagash, answered a lot of questions. I love dogs. I enjoy hunting. I believe the leash law should be enforced by dog owners. I think dog control is more to be desired than gun control. Dawn S. Moirs East Corinth

ROUGH

WHAT A PITY

About that picture on the back cover: What a gut wrenching thing to have meet your eyes for the first time! What a pity you had to publish it as you did! What a pity that the same picture-in full color-together with its caption, couldn't be printed on the front page of every newspaper in the State of Maine! What a pity it can't be issued in poster form to every location selling hunting licenses! Well, I'm 64 and have fished and hunted all my life so I'm

THANK YOU

I wish to thank you for publishing the graphic pictures of deer killed by dogs, and the accompanying article. It is good to know that your magazine is willing to tackle such a controversial subject, and if those pictures get through to even a few people it will have done some good. Galen Howes Kennebunkport

Any (expletive deleted) who would allow a dog to inflict that kind of misery on another creature should be so severely punished that he would probably regret ever having owned a dog. I fully recognize that there needs to be laws to strengthen your efforts in combating the problem. However, some of our legislators (fail) to realize that a vital state resource is being decimated. A copy of this letter is being sent to my legislators. Good luck in your efforts to stop this terrible thing. George F. Albert Millinocket THEY SHOULD PAY MORE

I am a ten year old girl, and I go to Little Falls School in Gorham, Maine. I read about the killing of the deer. The owners of the dogs only had to pay 200 dollars. I think they should pay more because I like nature, don't you? I think the deer is the most beautiful animal in the world, don't you? I do. I really like deer. I really think that they should pay more and that deer are beautiful. Georgina Birrell Sebago Lake

MADE WIFE SICK

I support your decision to print the article and pictures on dogs that chase deer. My wife thinks it's terrible and that you shouldn't have done it (claims the back cover made her physically ill) although she admits that some people need the shock treatment to make them believers. The kids read it, studied the pictures, talked about the problem, and then took the magazine to school to show to their classmates. You may have offended a few subscribers, maybe even lost some who can't face reality, but I bet you also saved the lives of some of Maine's deer-and probably some in other states, too. I think a combination of education and swift, sure, expensive, and well-publicized trips to court for dog law violators is the answer. Don't give the public the authority to shoot dogs as has been done in some states-it causes more problems than it cures. Enclosed is 75 cents for a replacement for my magazine, which never came back from school! A.M. Porter Mechanicsburg, PA

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Summer 1980

POSTMASTER: If undeliverable, do not return Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

284 State St.,

Sta. #41

Augusta, Maine 04333