Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Winter 1980-81 by Maine State Library

Commissioner's Comment:

LEGISLATION NEEDS Three subjects of major importance to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are expected to be much discussed during the 110th Maine Legislature. The department is supporting several bills which address these areas of concern. In summary, they are: â&#x20AC;˘ Experience in Maine and other states has shown that the authority to regulate seasons, bag limits, methods, and other factors relating to the taking of fish and wildlife is needed if fish and wildlife management agencies are to manage these resources effectively. This has been demonstrated often in fishery management when, for example, it has been found necessary to change regulations to ease pressure on certain fish populations, or to close waters, change minimum length limits, or make other important changes. In most cases this authority rests with the commissioner, who upon deeming the changes necessary, may implement them, following administrative procedures prescribed by law. When it comes to the management of big game species, however, the opportunity to regulate is severely limited. As an example, about a decade ago Maine's deer population suffered a decline, due to winter severity. Under existing statutes there were no management alternatives available other than to shorten the hunting season. This may not always be an effective way of regulating harvests, especially in areas with heavy hunting pressure. Fish and wildlife populations are normally not stable, but ever-changing in response to such things as habitat changes, climatic conditions, predation, and hunting, fishing, and trapping pressures. There is a demonstrated need for the capability to make regulatory adjustments designed to maintain or establish desired population levels. With the proper authority invested in the commissioner, it would be possible to make fine-tuned changes, as required, without the time, expense, and

problems involved in implementing them via the legislative process. â&#x20AC;˘ Traditionally, the cost of providing protection and management of fish and wildlife has been supported through the sales of fishing and hunting licenses. Now, in some states, an opportunity is being provided for the general non-fishing /hunting populace to contribute to the management of non-game species of wildlife. There are hundreds of non-game species in Maine, such as the terns and puffins which nest in colonies on the coast, hawks, owls, songbirds, and small mammals. They presently receive little or no management attention, mainly for lack of funds. Several states make it possible for the general public to contribute, by providing a voluntary income tax check-off for the purpose of generating funds for non-game wildlife programs. Among the states with this kind of supplementary funding are Colorado, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Oregon. The results in these states indicate that if Maine people are seriously concerned about non-game wildlife, a voluntary funding plan to benefit these species would be an effective way to express that concern. â&#x20AC;˘ The emergency closure of the bear hunting season in 1980 to forestall an overkill of bears points up the need for a better way of monitoring and regulating big game hunting pressure and harvest levels. Under the present licensing system it is impossible to identify bear hunters or to control hunting pressure when necessary. A new system of licensing, with separate permits for those planning specifically to hunt deer and / or bear would provide important basic information about who is using which big game resource-information vital to the effective regulatory management of these species. We urge you to become acquainted with legislative proposals concerning these issues ... and then lend them your support.

Glenn H. Manuel, Commissioner

MAINE

INSIDE

FISH AND WILDLIFE Vol. 22, No. 4

Winter 1980-81

Governor Joseph E. Brennan Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Glenn H. Manuel J . William Peppard Kenneth H. Anderson David 0. Locke Russell E. Dyer Lyndon H . Bond Peter C. Brazier Robert W . Boettger William C. Min cher W. Thomas Shoener Clayton G. Grant Richard B. Parks Lorenzo J. Gaudreau Alfred L. Mei ster

Commissioner Deputy Commissioner Director, Planning and Co-ordination Superintendent of Hat cheries Acting Chief Warden Chief, Fishery Di vision Business Manager Chief, Wildlife Di vision Director, Reg ulations Director, Public Information Chief, Engineering Di vision Chief, Realty Di vision Director, Recreational Safety and Registration Chief Biologist, Atlantic Salm on Commission

Advisory Council Rodney W . Ro ss , Chairman Brown ville , Main e Ralph L. Noel Robert E. Moore

Winter Bear Hunting

Gary Lamb

Is It A Salmon Or A Brown?

Richard M. Jordan

Blasting For Waterfowl

Patrick 0. Corr

What's Happening With The Bears

Henry Hilton

Winter Perching

Richard Arsenault

The Case For Hunter Orange

Gary Anderson

KID-BITS

Coping With The Crunch

Fish and Wildlife Briefs

Imported Baitfish: Let's Keep Them Out Of Maine

The Moose Season In Review

Tom Chamberlain

W. Thomas Shoener

THE COVERS Front: Maine has long been noted-and rightly so-for its four-season beauty. And some of the most spectacular winter vistas are available to those who pause at the summit of one of Maine's excellent ski areas. Indian Pond lies in the distance in this photograph of winter solitude taken on Squaw Mountain by Photographer Tom Carbone.

Auburn

Casco

George E. Prenti ss

Denni s L. Smith

Back: This early winter (one of those dull gray days) photograph by John

Rumford

Otter Creek

Nathan Cohen

Al va S. Appleby

Eastport

Skowheg an

Norton graphically illustrates just how visible hunter orange clothing can be. That's Safety Officer Gary Anderson, author of a related article on page 14, wearing the orange cap and vest.

Franci s D. Dunn

Patten

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine W. Thomas Shoener, Editor Thomas J. Chamberlain, Managing Editor Thom as L. Carbon e, Photographer Patricia J . Hogan, Editorial Assista111

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE (ISSN 0360-005X) is published quarterl y by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife , 284 State St., Station 41, Augusta , ME 04333, under Appropriation 4550 . Subscription rates to U.S. zip code addresses: $3.50 for one year ; $6.50 for two years; $9.50 for three year s. No stamps , please. Second class po stage paid at Augu sta, ME 04330. ÂŠ Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife , 1980. Permi ssion to reprint text material is gra nted, provided proper credit is given to the author and to MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE. Clea rance must be obtained from arti sts and photographers to reproduce credited illustration s.

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

WINTER BEAR HUNTING

Separated from their mother for a few minutes, bear cubs are kept warm by Roy Hugie, former bear project leader.

By Gary Lamb Wildlife Technician

O MOST Maine sportsmen, black bear hunting is something that is done in the spring, summer, or fall. It may involve long hours spent in a tree stand over bait, miles of bushwacking through the woods trying to keep within earshot of a pack of bear hounds, or lengthy treks in and around hardwood ridges, apple orchards, oat fields, blueberry barrens, and raspberry patches. But to biologists associated with rhe Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife black bear

study, the ideal conditions for a bear hunt are the subfreezing temperatures and deep snows of January and February. Using a small, single-engine aircraft equipped with sophisticated radio telemetry equipment, the biologists relocate denned bears which during the summer months they had fitted with radio transmitter collars . (See "How to Bug a Bear," MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE, Fall 1977 .) Having plotted den locations from the air, the biologists later strike-off on the ground-with the aid of snowmobiles, snowshoes, and hand-held

telemetry equipment-to track the radio signals to the precise locations of the collared bear's den, which is most often identified by the presence ofaventho~inthesnow. Because they can be awakened, it is necessary for the biologists to immobilize the bears with a drug before they can be handled. The drug used is Ketamine hydrochloride, a muscle relaxant and analgesic or pain relieving drug, which has proven to be a safe and effective immobilizing agent. A large capture net is draped over the den opening to try to prevent

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Winter 1980-1981

den site. Finally, general comments are recorded concerning the health of the bear, outstanding den feat ures, and any other pertinent in format ion. The whole procedure from the time the den is located to when the bear is placed back in the den takes from two to four hours.

Immobilized adult bears are kept warm in a sleeping bag while data collection and other work proceeds.

the awakened bear from leaving the den before the drug takes effect. For adult bears, the drug is administered with a jab stick, which is basically a spring-loaded drug tube mounted on the end of a four-footlong piece of aluminum tubing. One quick, firm thrust inserts the barbless needle into the bear and injects the drug within a fraction of a second. Great care is taken to make sure the drug is injected into the thick muscle of the hindquarter and away from the abdominal cavity. Yearling bears that den with their mother are usually removed from the den with a noose pole called a "cub catcher" and are then drugged with a hand syringe . Newborn cubs are not drugged at all and are kept warm inside a sleeping bag or winter jacket. Adults, too, are placed in a sleeping bag to minimize loss of body heat. With proper dosage, the bear will be completely immobile within 15 minutes and will remain in that condition for approximately 30 minutes. Frequently, additional drug must be given. with a hand syringe to provide a longer working time, especially in the case of a female with one or more yearlings.

ATA COLLECTION and other work on the bear begin once it is immobilized. The old radio collar is removed and a new one, with fresh batteries, is installed so biologists can continue to track the bear until the next denning season . Ear tags, installed previously, are checked and replaced if necessary. Rectal temperature and measurements of head, neck, and chest girth are recorded for comparison with the same in formation collected when the bear was last captured. The bear is then placed on a stretcher and weighed on portable scales hung between two trees. Biologists also take notes on den construction, along with aspect, slope, and cover type of the

EARS DO NOT HIBERNATE in the tech nical sense of the word. True hibernation is characterized by a large drop in body temperature and greatly reduced respiration and metabolic rates. Bears do enter a state of dormancy with a 5 - to 7- degree drop in body temperature (about 102 ° down to 96 °) and a relatively small decrease in respiration and metabolism. While in the den, bears do not eat, drink, defecate, or urinate. Females give birth and nurse their young throughout the winter months solely from the metabolism of body fat that had been stored up during the summer and fall months. No two bear dens are alike, but, as a rule, the dens of males can be distinguished from those of females by the females' preference for much more elaborate dens with better protection from the elements. While a female may carefully dig out comfortable winter quarters in or around the root system of a standing or blown-down

Entrance to den of female bear. Dens of females are more elaborate, and offer better protection from elements, than male dens.

!,..-·.... ---:' .->..."

... .. ~~,

.._:

1·· '

tree, a male's winter shelter may be nothing more than a dense patch of young fir trees where he settles down and allows the snows to cover him over. This article has referred mainly to dens containing one bear, but, in fact, there may be as many as four or five bears spending the winter in a den. Maine black bears breed every other year, during May through July. Males and females den separately, and the sow gives birth to her cubs during January and early February. During good food years a sow may give birth to three, but rarely four, cubs, with slightly over two being the average. The cubs remain with their mother until she is again ready to mate, dur-

ing the year following their birth. Once she enters her breeding cycle, she will drive the yearlings away to fend for themselves. At this point the young bears are approximately 15 months old and weigh from 20 to 80 pounds, with 30 to 40 being the average.

HIS WINTER den work is just one part of the ongoing research being conducted by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to learn more about black bear ecology. The study was started in 197 5 by former Assistant Big Game Project Leader Roy Hugie, who served as study leader until July 1980 when he resigned to work in the

ecologogriphs ACROSS

1. 5. 8. 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 19. 20. 24. 26. 27. 29. 32. 34. 35. 36. 37. 39. 40. 41 . 43. 46. 47. 49. 50.

To throw out a fishing line. A soft plug in a shotshell. Shade tree of the olive family. The ringdove or wood pigeon. Large, American moth with eyelike spots on wings. Outdoor Expedition (abbrev.). Grass used in making cordage, baskets, etc. Mark left on a stem by the fall of a leaf. Long primer (abbrev.). A group of trees. Toenail of an animal. A skunk's " trademark. " Beagles and bassets. A row or layer. Deep, threatening sound of an animal. The home of a mountain lion. Nature's pollinator. A tree's lifesblood. One whose profession is . .. (noun suffix). Colbalt (chem. sym.). Letter formed by flying geese. You 'd surely find one on a porcupine. A rodent of the cavy or guinea-pig family. To molt. Evergreen shrub or tree of the pine family. Rhenium (chem. sym.). Small, fresh-water fish related to the perch.

West. As of August 1980, 43 bears had been radio collared and monitored regularly throughout two major study areas in northern Maine . With the recent increase in bear hunting pressure in Maine, biologists are having to make management decisions that will control the annual harvest and ensure the continued existence of an adequate breeding population. These decisions can only be made with a thorough understanding of black bear ecology. Continued research into the habits and habitat needs of the black bear can provide useful data which will help biologists formulate effective management plans. Through these efforts, we hope to ensure a healthy and productive future for Maine's black bear. â&#x20AC;˘

test your outdoor knowledge 52. A northern European merganser. 54. Polynesian palm tree. 56. Carnivorous mammal noted for its " laugh." 57. All carn ivores have five of them on the front foot. 58. Blacksmiths. 59. Belonging to America.

DOWN 1. Fish with dorsal fi n the entire length of the back. 2. The haje. 3. Not deep. 4. Waterproof cover. 6. A three-toed sloth . 7. Act. 9. To sail , as an eagle or hawk. 10. Group of deer. 11. Corps of Engineers (abbrev.). 12. Tanganyika Territory (abbrev.). 16. Buckshot of .33 inches in diameter. 17. Pellet in a shotshell. 18. Our only deer with antlers projecting forward . 21. State flower of New York, North Dakota, and Iowa. 22. Civil Defense. 23. Bear skins. 24. Cut down a tree. 25. Compass points. 28. Hazardous insecticide. 30. Ecology Engineer (abbrev.). 31. To examine again.

33. Possible result of contact with poison ivy. 38. Hunt ing dog dating back to 16th century: English _ _. 39. Seashores. 42. The Gem State. 44. A gentle breeze. 45. Erosion fighting, oxygen producing plants. 46. To point game, as a hunting dog. 48. The least colorful ring-necked pheasant. (pl.). 51. The grain of a cereal grass. 53. Large, flight less, extinct bird . 55. Island (abbrev.).

ANSWER ON PAGE 21

ÂŠ

Deur Jackson 1975

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

IS IT A SALMON OR A BROWN? By Richard M. Jordan Fishery Biologist

NE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT fish identification situations Maine anglers sometimes have to deal with is distinguishing a brown trout from a landlocked salmon. Every year, fishery biologists receive reports of brown trout catches from waters where no brown trout are supposed to exist, and vice-versa with landlocked salmon. In most of these cases the fish proves to be either a mature male salmon in its dark spawning coloration, making it look like a brown trout, or a lake-dwelling brown trout which has taken on a very silvery coloration and resembles a landlocked salmon. Telling one species from the other may do nothing more than satisfy your curiosity, or it may assume a greater importance if you are fishing in waters where the daily bag limit is different for each. Sometimes, too, fishing derby prizes are at stake. Coloration of brown trout and landlocked salmon is the most often used method of distinguishing between the species, but, as we have seen, it is not always reliable. Brown trout are normally yellow-brown, with many large black spots on the back, sides, and on the dorsal and adipose (the small, fleshy fin on the back, between the dorsal and tail fins) fins. These spots are usually surrounded by faint, light-colored halos. A few black spots usually occur on the brown trout's tail fin, also. And, in

the brown trout, the edge of the adipose fin often has an orange or red coloration, while the salmon's is slate grey to olive and is never fringed with orange or red. Landlocked salmon coloration is normally characterized by a blue-black back and very silvery sides. However, at spawning time, male salmon take on a dark brown or bronze coloration. The outline of the tail fin is another characteristic which, like coloration, can be helpful in identification but is sometimes misleading. The tail fin of a large brown trout (over 16 inches) is square to fan shaped when spread; in salmon it is usually forked but occasionally is perfectly square. The tail in smaller brown trout is only slightly forked and has rounded lobes; in young salmon it is deeply forked with the lobes tapering to points. The caudal peduncle (the area just before the tail) is heavy and robust in the brown trout but slender in salmon. Since confusion often arises when brown trout and salmon identification is attempted on the basis of the above characteristics, a more positive technique, based on tooth structure, can easily be learned and used. Identification is made by examining the vomerine teeth, which are located on the bone in the center of the roof of the mouth. Brown trout exhibit a double or zig-zag row of well-developed vomerine teeth. Landlocked salmon, however, have only a few vomerine teeth, not well-developed. Some of these teeth are lost by salmon as they grow older. The next time you face the question of whether a fish is a brown trout or a salmon, take a look at the vomerine teeth. It's the only positive way to separate these two fish species.

Ph oto by auth or

Differences between the teeth on the bone in the center of the roof of the mouth are used for identification of adult salmon and brown trout. In brown trout (left), these teeth are well developed in a double or zig-zag row. In salmon (right) they are weakly dev_s!loped in a single row.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

w B L

A T

R F 0

s 0F R

I N

By Patrick O. Corr Wildlife Biologist

HE 262nd Engineer Bat-

tallion, Maine Army National Guard, provided expertise, men, and equipment for two days in September 1980, and aided the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife with waterfowl habitat improvement work on the Pond Farm Wildlife Management Area in Howland. Blasting potholes and ditches has proven an economical and effective method for improving marsh ecosystems for waterfowl, and in this cooperative effort both the Army National Guard and the Fish and Wildlife Department gained valuable results. The explosive materials, provided by the Fish and Wildlife Department, helped the Guardsmen, who are headquartered in Bangor, gain hands-on ture was also accomplished and the experience in the use of demolition 6

Regional Wildlife Biologist Barry Burgeson, center, watches as guardsmen place dynamite stick inside 50-pound bag of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil. Charges were buried four feet deep in marsh bottom.

materials during the two-day operation. The project was conceived and planned by Wildlife Biologist Barry Burgeson of Enfield, who after approval of funding for the materials approached the National Guard to aid in the blasting. Pond Farm Wildlife Management Area, located in Howland, lies between the main stems of the Penobscot and Piscataquis rivers and is a valuable area for breeding and migrating waterfowl in central Maine. In 1980, Burgeson drained the area to aerate the soil and allow the dormant seeds of smartweeds and sedges to develop. While the area was drained, repair work on the water control strucMaine Fish and Wildlife -

Winter 1980-1981

preparations for the potholes and ditches were completed. During the two days of blasting, the air reverberated with explosions and a few local residents were annoyed by the noise and minor trembling of the earth around their homes. There were no major problems, however, and after explanation of the activities the citizens were content to endure the minor inconvenience created by the noise. After the blasting was completed, the planks were reset in the control structure to catch fall rains and reflood the area . The water level at Pond Farm was expected to return to normal levels by fall, and the abundant supply of duck food provided by the many acres of smartweed and sedge seeds to be available to migrating waterfowl. By creating these potholes Burgeson increased the interspersion of open water and vegetation present in Pond Farm and, thereby, increased

the diversity of the wetland. These fresh water ponds and ditches will provide ideal habitats for invertebrates and fishes which were previously limited. These areas also will be used by many species of animals and birds which frequent Pond Farm, as well as providing waterfowl with feeding, nesting, brood rearing, and loafing areas in a section of the marsh which previously was not available because of the lack of open water.

N TOT AL, the coopera-

tive project between the Maine Army National Guard and the Fish and Wildlife Department resulted in the creation of 15 small ponds and over 800 feet of connecting ditches at the Pond Farm Wildlife Management Area. People benefit from this kind of cooperation, but the big winners are the wildlife, which have gained valuable new places to live out part of their life cycles. â&#x20AC;˘

Blasting created 15 small ponds to open dense vegetaÂˇ tion and improve waterfowl habitat.

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Pho to by Tom Carbone

Winter 1980-1981

Aerial view in late fall shows ponds and connecting channels filled with water.

By Henry Hilton Wildlife Biologist

HROUGHOUT MOST OF HISTORY there

has been little question in most peoples' minds that bears have been abundant to the point of being a nuisance in Maine's woodlands. In point of fact, a bounty was levied against them for many years. Records of bear harvests, and, indeed, information about any aspect of their exploitation by man, have been scanty. Only in the past five years has adequate harvest data-in the form of mandatory kill registrations-been collected. It appears that from 1946 to 1970, about 1,000 bears were killed annually - often fewer but rarely more. Between 1970 and 1974, the registrations showed an average kill of 915. From 1975 to 1978, however, the harvest increased steadily to a record kill of 1,320. In 1979, the registered kill again was a new record, 1,630 bear. Not only has the total bear kill been changing in recent years, but also the distribution of the kill. More and more bears are being taken in the "big woods" of northwestern and north-central Maine's unorganized townships where previously few bears were taken. During the 1970s, bear populations in other states were being diminished as hunting pressure increased . In response to this situation, many states shortened or closed their bear seasons. Because Maine still had a relatively large bear population, bear hunters and, subsequently, guides and outfitters proliferated. The black bear, once the maligned object of "predator" management, increasingly has become looked upon as an important aesthetic and economic resource for the state. In addition to the satisfaction many Mainers receive knowing bears exist in their woods, symbolic of the wilderness, it has aesthetic appeal to growing numbers of visitors who see them for a fleeting instant in a road, or perhaps Maine Fish and Wildlife -

at a still-open dump; commercial enterprises also look to the bear resource as an important economic product. It is now more widely accepted that black bear management should not be taken lightly or left to luck. The Fish and Wildlife Department, through its long-range species planning project, is trying to assure that bears are able to maintain their rightful place in Maine's future wildlife populations. The Department's revised management plan for bear takes into consideration several biological factors: I. Bears are long-lived but are very slow reproducers. In comparative terms, foxes may have four to six pups every year, beginning after the female' s first full year; deer average about two fawns every year, beginning sometimes in the doe's first full year. The female bear, on the other hand, won't breed until she is four or five years old, and then only every other year. In Maine, the average litter size is about two cubs. A 12- to 15-percent annual increase is all that can be expected for bears in Maine. Hunting, though not the only cause, is the major cause of mortality. 2. There are about 23,000 square miles of land in Maine that can support a population of bears. From our own work and from studies in states such as Montana, Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York, we have learned that in the very best habitat we can expect to have about one bear per square mile; in less good, but more common habitat, one bear for every two to four square miles; and in poor habitat, one bear per 18 square miles. That gives us a possible range of 25,555 bears, if all our habitat was the very best, to 1,278 bears if all our habitat was poor. From recent studies in Maine, it looks like one bear per 2.1 to 3.2 square miles is "reasonable" to expect on a statewide basis. This calculation yields a population estimate for the state of about 7,000 to 11,000 bears. Another estimate can be calculated by dividing the long term "average kill" by the proportion of cubs in the population. The method, which has its

Winter 1980-1981

faults but is useful in establishing ball park figures, comes out to 6,500 to 8,100 bears. A 1952-54 study in Maine estimated the bear population at 5,000 to 7,000. Though none of these population estimation methods is conclusive by itself, the weight of converging estimates-that is, the trend of different indicators toward a common figurelends more credibility to the conclusions based on them. Because our best expectation of the allowable rate of harvest tells us to kill no more than 1,000 bears annually, and because of two years in a row of 1,300+ and 1600+ kills, and the possibility of 2,200 + in 1980, the season was closed by Commissioner Manuel's emergency action on September 13, with the registered kill at 1,058. Although this action was necessary, it was unfortunate because it "costs" the commercial bear guides business during the early fall when hunting with hounds is popular, and it deprives the deer hunters of the extra attraction of hunting bears in the fall. 3. It is the direct experience of other states, including Pennsylvania and New York, that bears do not "bounce back" from over-harvest or habitat losses, unlike other important wildlife species such as deer or foxes. Once a bear population is over-harvested, it may take a decade of complete protection (no hunting or trapping open season) for a return to normal. There are several reasons for this, including the slow reproduction rate, late maturity (4-5 years) of females, and vulnerability of young bears. It pays, therefore, to be conservative in managing bears because it takes so long to regain losses.

T IS UNFORTUNATE

that an emergency measure was necessary to contain the harvest of bears; but it is heartening to know that the "system" can respond quickly and decisively to a stated need and "black bear management" becomes a reality. In order to avoid an emergency closure in the future, the 9

Department will propose regulations which will result in equitable seasons which conform to the capability of the resource and to the various public desires regarding hunting and trapping. Season manipulation alone cannot

achieve an equitable solution to the problem. We also need a new license structure which will enable us to learn some much-needed, basic information about those who are using the bear resource. Under the present license structure we cannot even identi-

fy bear hunters to learn how many of them there are! From this beginning-a rough beginning-hopefully we are entering a new era in socially acceptable and biologically sound bear management • in Maine.

1980 EMERGENCY SEASON CLOSURE The record 1978 and 1979 black bear harvests exceeded the desirable harvest of about 1,000 by 320/o and 630/o respectively. Attempts were made to predict the final 1980 harvest-based on the 1980 kill to July 15, the total 1979 harvest record, and a 5-year average. The projected harvest figures ranged from a low of 1,600 to a high of 2,200 bears. The accompanying graph shows the 1979 harvest by hunting day (Line A), and the 3 projections for the period mid-July to the end of deer hunting. On July 15, 1980, the bear kill registrations were 350/o (205 animals) ahead of those for 1978. A continuation of that percent increase throughout the season would result in a projected kill of 2,200 bears (Line B). A continuation of the actual number increase of 205 bears would result in a projection of 1,850 registered kills. The lowest projected season kill, about 1,600 bears, would result if the registrations for the remainder of the season declined to the longterm average. The magnitude of the projections, compared to the allowable harvest, was the basis for a decision by the Commissioner and his Advisory Council to close the season on September 13. Efforts are being made to avoid the emergency action in the future by providing for an allowable harvest equitably distributed among all hunters.

Accumulated Bear Registration for 1979 and Projections for 1980 by Hunting Days 24

- - - 1979 Experience ............. 1980, If registrations continue 35% above 1979 _____ 1980, If registrations continue 205 above 1979 -·-·-·- 1980, II registrations oecline to the average for 1975-79

Ill

...."' 0 ID

Z 14

... ...:

.,;-

Ill

...:s

i; 10 Ill

Cl: Cl: C Ill

Ill

8 6 4 2

100 80 HUNTING DAYS

120

140

160

180

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Winter 1980-1981

"Family" Fun:

WINTER PERCHING

Mai ne Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

By Richard Arsenault Photos by Thomas Carbone

You're getting ready to go ice fishing. Your children are watching you check out your gear, and they say "Gee, can I go with you?" "Not this time. But we've got to get you some gear so you can come with us next time." And out you go, thinking about the money that'll have to be spent to outfit your kids for a fishing trip. But it doesn't have to break your wallet. Why not take your family perch fishing this winter? First of all, you can take a veritable army of kids fishing for just the cost of your licenses (which you probably already have), as long as they are younger than 16 years of age. Secondly, since there is no limit on the number of perch you can catch, this "army" could catch enough perch in one day to pay for your licenses for the year! Just consider the price of fish in the markets these days, and this will become crystal clear to you. And third ... Practically no gear is required to catch perch-white or yellow. All you need is a small hook, a small piece of bait, and a small sinker. Then, summer or winter, drop this to within a foot of the bottom, using a short pole or jig, and move it slowly up and down. It will produce ACTION and RESULTS, and your kids will love it! A warm winter day with no wind is just the kind of day to take your family "perching." Perch are very willing biters on this kind of day, especially in the morning. To find a school of yellow perch, go to any weedy bay in the lake and cut any number of holes in the ice over water from three to fifteen feet deep. Let the kids walk from hole to hole and try them all out. Someone's going to get a bite-and they'll holler when they do! In the meantime, you can set a few traps for pickerel (not more than five traps, by law, but when you're helping several kids haul in their perch, five is enough). 11

Catch 'em.

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

White perch are frequently harder to locate than yellow perch because they prefer deeper water. I suggest that you locate a lake or pond that you know has an abundant supply of white perch, and that is less than 40 feet deep. White perch like to stay near the bottom, so the deeper the lake, the harder they are to locate . In the early morning, for instance, white perch often feed right on the bottom. As the day progresses, they move upwards and are less apt to bite your bait. In the late afternoon, they move deeper again and action will pick up.

So. You've outfitted your family with hook, line, and sinker, and the beautiful weather has aided them in depositing a heap of white and/ or yellow perch on the ice. You take the pictures, and tell them what fine fisherman they are. And then what? You don 't eat perch, do you? Of course you do! To clean your perch, just get out your long-bladed sharp filleting knife, a board, and a penknife to cut the rib cage. Then follow the step-by-step procedure shown in the pictures accompanying this article. You'll soon end up with a nice pile of perch fillets which (and A perch jig-set and waiting.

"I got him, Dad! It's a big one!"

"Hey Geoff! Come here quick, we've got another bite! "

I'm not kidding) will make a good lunch ,or supper for those hungry pint-size anglers who caught them. First of all, these perch fillets have no bones-and it's the bones that discourage people from eating fish . Many Maine anglers are aware of the edibility of white perch, but there is really little of no difference in the taste of white and yellow perch. It's only my opinion, but I love them both! For perch, I have one recipe that I especially like. It's easy, and the culinary results are astounding. Here's what to do. Cut your fillets (this

works for bass fillets, too) into bitesize chunks. Then roll them in a thick batter of commercial pancake mix and the soft drink of your choice. Put them in a pan which has the bottom covered with hot cooking oil, and as your fish-bits start to cook, put a big dab of batter on top of each one. Fry these to a deep golden brown, serve them hot, and WOW! You might never have eaten a fish meal which tasted quite as good. And once you've done this, from baiting the hook to biting the finished product, you'll know why my family and I spend a great deal of time perching.

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

.and clean

'em!

Slice down to the backbone behind the head and saw your sharp fillet knife flush along the backbone. Don't cut the fillet off at the tail.

Grasp the tail end of your perch and run the knife between the flesh and the skin. Then cut out the rib cage.

Job completed! A nice brace of boneless perch fillets-one yellow, one white!

THE CASE FOR HUNTER GE By Gary Anderson Safety Officer

Fluorescent blaze orange clothing for hunters is paying off in Maine. In 1973, fluorescent blaze orange was selected by t11e 106th Maine Legislature as the most visible color available for hunter protection. A law passed by that session, therefore, mandated the use of "an article of hunter orange clothing in good and serviceable condition which is visible from all sides" for anyone hunting "with a firearm during the open firearm season on deer." During the seven hunting seasons from 1973 through 1979, it has become obvious that this was a wise decision. Total color-related accidents (including in the line of fire, swinging for game, victim out of sight of shooter, and mistaken for game) have dropped by more than 28 percent! That is certainly an impressive record-but even more impressive is a 56 percent reduction in color-related hunting fatalities during the same period! And, to top it all off, both these reductions occurred while the number of hunters in Maine increased by 30,000! We certainly want to take some credit in Maine for the wonderful work done by our volunteer safety instructors, who have certified more than 54,000 students to date. This represents about 25 percent of Maine's hunting population, and certainly helps reduce the accident rate-but I really feel that a large portion of our accident reductions statistics can be attributed to the blaze orange law. We have had some instances recently when only three or four "mistaken for game" accidents occurred during an entire year! Safety officers who worked in Maine during the terrible accident-riddled '40s and '50s, and even into the '60s, can hardly believe their eyes when they see yearend statistics indicating as few as 31 accidents, or only two fatalities, in a year. They think back to when they had many more than that during only October and Nove;nber (the only months for which such statistics were kept) . There is a shortcoming in our blaze orange law, however-in the words "during the open firearm season on deer." I have always felt, and there are certainly plenty of sportsmen who agree with me, that the law should include all hunting with firearms during all firearm seasons with the exception of waterfowl hunting (which is, of course, already exempted from the orange restriction). It has become evident in recent years that this feeling is true . Grouse hunting, rabbit hunting, and other such T'S WORKING!

"exempted" activities are sl hunting as the predominant Consider grouse hunting seven years prior to enactme total of 31 accidents-and enactment, grouse hunters : times. Few of these victims (the ones who did wore onl that we have not affected th second most popular huntin. seems to have followed this corded involving grouse hur Yet another benefit of ht Ii kely didn't occur to early for hunters-is the fact that found more quickly if they a speedy location of these h rescued in much better me Searches are shorter and les

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Winter 1980-1981

wly taking the place of deer .c cident statistics. for a moment. During the l of the orange law, we had a luring the seven years since 1ot each other a total of 39 o re fluorescent blaze orange !Âˇ aps). This clearly indicates , group, which represents the !activity in Maine. And 1980 ,attern, with 10 accidents re~rs-incl uding 2 fatalities! Iler orange- and one which dvocates of protective color Jst hunters in November are Âˇ wearing hunter orange. The nters results in their being cal and physical condition. costly, and dangerous low-

level flying time is reduced. What we cannot yet prove is that youngsters or inexperienced hunters can be better watched, or that lost hunters can work themselves out of the woods more easily because they can spot other "orange" hunters and get help. We have experienced a steady decrease in lost hunters (during the month of November) since 1973. Our yearly figure was 188 back then, but it is now 126 and still dropping. In 1979, for example, we had only 96 reported. Part of this decrease is likely due to the greater visibility of orange-clad hunters.

T IS CERTAIN that the current legislature will be asked to further consider fluorescent blaze orange, specifically to require its use for all firearm hunting except waterfowling . In this officer's opinion, such a move could reduce hunting accidents by another 20 percent, and very possibly save more hunters' lives. Orange works for deer hunters-let it work for all of us!

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980- 1981

Adapted from an article in MINNESOTA VOLUNTEER

compiled, the scientists will have a better understanding of the moose and their needs. Moose calves are born in late May or early June. They weigh between 25 and 35 pounds at birth, but by their first fall-six months after birth-they may weigh 450 to 500 pounds, an average gain of more than two pounds per day!

Artwork courtesy Mel Hurlbert Indians called them "mose" or "mons," which means "twig-eater." They are the largest antlered animals on earth, and the largest game animals in Maine. Do you know who they are? They are A/ces alces andersoni-Canadian moose. And here are some more facts about this impressive resident of the Maine woods. One of the most impressive facts about the moose is his size-males, or bulls, sometimes weigh well over 1,000 pounds and stand about seven feet tall at the shoulder! And topping this is an impressive set of flat, platelike antlers which can weigh as much as 35 pounds and measure more than five feet from tip to tip! Maine has one of the largest populations of moose in the United States-more than 20,000 in the northern half of the state alone! The Maine Legislature authorized a one-week moose hunting season in 1980, which was held in northern Maine in September. Up until then, there hadn't been an open season on moose since 1935 ! Chosen for the hunt were 700 hunters-and 636 were successful! The hunt gave wildlife biologists an ideal opportunity to learn more about Maine's moose. Every hunter who shot a moose brought his trophy to a tagging station where the biologists could examine it and take certain measurements. Among the information they recorded were the weights and heights of the moose and also the sizes of their antlers. They also determined the age of each one, which they do by studying their teeth! Once this in formation is 16

Cows usually have only one calf the first time they have babies, but twins are sometimes born after that. Calves stay with their mother until about two weeks before she is ready to have more babies, at which time she usually drives the yearold calves away by charging, butting, and kickmg. Moose are not animals that enjoy one another's company, although they will gather together where the food supply is good. During summer and early fall, they often feed on aquatic plants, especially water lilies, which provide good vitamins and minerals in their diet. Moose, as big as they are, are very good swimmers and divers, and often completely submerge Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980- 1981

in order to feed on lake-bottom vegetation. They can swim between five and six miles per hour and cover as much as 12 miles in a continuous swim! Twigs of shrubs and young trees comprise most of the moose's year-round diet. Favorites are aspen, willow, hazel, birch, fir, and several types of berries. Moose have also been known to strip off and eat the bark of trees such as aspen or poplar, but only when other foods are hard to find. Bull moose, like male white-tailed deer, grow and shed antlers every year. By the end of April, the moose's new antlers are small knobs. During May and June, the antlers grow quickly under a cover of fine hair and soft skin called velvet. The antlers at this time are relatively soft, flexible, and easily damaged. By August, the antlers are complete and the velvet begins to dry. For the next month, the bull scrapes off the velvet on bushes and small trees. Bulls are often seen with strips of velvet hanging from their antlers. By fall, the antlers are hard and polished. They are light in color, but turn darker as time goes on. They are usually shed sometime between December and March, and the process then begins again. During the mating season, during September and October, bulls are restless and excitable as Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

they search for cows. The cows don't wait to be found, but call to the bulls with low grunting sounds, which will usually bring on the run any bull within hearing distance. Older bulls with larger antler spreads are in charge at this time. Younger bulls, although capable of mating at one and one-half years of age, are usually forced to wait their turn, which may not come until they are as old as four and onehalf years. The short-tempered bulls, said to be in rut at mating time, size one another up; if bulls with nearly equal antler spreads meet, a fight may occur. The two approach each other, stiff-legged, heads down, neck hair bristling. Locking antlers, they begin a tussling, head-shaking, pushing match until one forces the other to leave. The winner then joins the cow and stays with her until the end of her mating time (from seven to ten days).

In the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department's Augusta office, in the lobby, are the heads of two bull moose who were unable to free their locked antlers after such a fight. The smaller of the two died after his neck was broken trying to get free-the other starved to death, unable to feed because of the dead weight of the first moose. It is a very interesting sight, and a good chance to see just how big a moose head can be! Anyone who has seen a magnificent Maine moose can easily see why the animal is pictured on the Maine state seal and was also chosen recently as Maine's official state animal. He is truly one of the most interesting and impressive residents of the Maine woods! â&#x20AC;˘ 17

Coping With The Crunch By Tom Chamberlain Managing Editor

NERGYCRUNCH. OPEC. Energy crisis! Escalating gasoline prices. Gas shortages. Concern about having enough heating oil at ANY price. Sound familiar? Facing the energy situation is not a problem that is confined to the private citizen. Government at all levels is faced with coping with the same problems-maintaining its services while, at the same time, cutting back on energy usage. Government also should set a good example of energy conservation, coupled with fiscal responsibility. It's a big job, but it IS being faced here in Maine-at all governmental levels, including some notable examples in the Fish and Wildlife Department. For example, when Gov. Joseph E. Brennan mandated a 10 percent cut in vehicle usage some time ago, to be adhered to by all agencies of state government, the Department went the whole nine yards-and accomplished a cut of better than 15 percent, the best effort in Maine state government! This reduction was accomplished in several small ways which add up to worthwhile savings. The move is also being made to smaller, more fuel-efficient, automobiles, pick-up trucks, and even to trail bikes instead of four-wheel drive vehicles for off-road travel. Vehicle use is being closely examined- trips are being combined, not only within divisions but between divisions, for more efficient use of each mile driven. Some problems naturally arise from this cutback in vehicle use, but they are minor. Smaller pick-ups haul fewer passengers and I or freight , so more careful planning is necessary. And combining of trips to accomplish

more than one objective per trip means that some things don't get done as quickly as before. But they get done-or, upon examination, they become less important than before, and are postponed, or scrubbed altogether! Another example of energy conservation in the Fish and Wildlife Department has been the conversion from oil to wood heat in Departmentowned buildings across the state, whenever feasible. In compliance with a policy formulated by Commissioner Glenn Manuel, warden houses, fish hatchery facilities, regional headquarters, and other buildings have been or soon will be converted to wood heat. In many cases, these facilities are used cooperatively by several

One of the major energy-conserving efforts undertaken by the Department has been the installation of wood stoves and/or furnaces where feasible. Here, Engineering Division's Steve Kibbin finishes the pipe installation at one such facility.

divisions within the Department, such as the combination Warden Service, Fishery Division, Wildlife Division, and Warden Flying Service complex at Greenville. With a total of 14 woodstoves, five wood boilers, and 10 wood furnaces already purchased for Department use, and installations going on as rapidly as they can be scheduled, the problem of what to burn in them is also being solved. The Engineering Division, in addition to serving as the primary division for wood heating installations, has also been cutting, fitting, and hauling wood to feed the growing number of woodburners. Cutting has been going on primarily on the Department's wildlife management area lands, in a manner consis-

data and enlisting the assistance of the Office of Energy Resources to determine the potential for this type of development at some o f our hatcheries. If it is determined that hydroelectric power is feasible, hatchery power bills should be dropping substantially in the future .

tent with sound wildlife management practices. In fact, the Wildlife Division sees a possibility of more intensive habitat management as a result of these increased cutting practices. Careful attention to the settings Âˇof thermostats in department facilities is also beginning to pay off. In many cases, thermostats are being set as low as 55Â° at night, and only a few degrees higher in the daytime. Coupled with this, some field facilities have been audited by the Bureau of Public Improvements and the Office of Energy Resources, and results of the audits have been acted upon. For example, an energy audit at the Grand La ke Stream fish hatchery resulted in the allocation of nearly $11,000 in state bond issue monies for energy-related improvements such as insulation, removal of windows, tightening of doors, and electrical im provements. With typical Yankee ingenuity, suggestions have come from Department personnel concerning ways to conserve energy, and speci fie changes are being made within the various divisions. The Hatchery Division, for example, has put into use two new fish transportation tanks capable of

hauling more than twice the number of fish as the standard tanks, resulting in an obvious savings in transportation cost. Two more such tanks will be put into service in 1981. Hatcheries being what they are, a good water supply is a must. When one combines running water with an energy-oriented outlook, an immediate thought of "hydroelectric power" comes to mind . Hatchery Division personnel are currently assembling

T'S TRUE that pennies make dollars. So each energy-saving suggestion a Department employee makes is being reviewed and, if practical, put into use. lnstallation of an on-off switch on the water heater in one field office, as inexpensive and easy as that is , has already shown a savings o f $5 per month! And that's the way to do itone step at a time! There are obviously price tags on these changes-in some cases, considerable ones . And, of course, we have to consider the time spent in making these changes as money out-of-pocket. But the department is moving ahead, confident that these energy alterations will pay off in the oil-uncertain future. And no one can say that Yankees stand by and watch a problem get worse. We solve it! â&#x20AC;˘

New tanks on this Hatchery Division truck mean more fish per trip-less trips!

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS DEER SEASON REPORT

Maine's 1980 deer season was the most productive for hunters in more than a decade. Preliminary registration figures show a firearms kill of 37,777. The final kill figure, which will include the archery tally, won't be available until mid-winter. The 1980 harvest represents a 40 percent increase over 1979, which was an abnormally low year due largely to poor hunting conditions.

Roland H. Cobb Former four-term department commissioner Roland H . Cobb, 85, died in December after a long illness. Cobb, who was first appointed to head the Department of Inland Fisheries and Game in 1950, initiated changes and programs during his 12-year tenure that are important to the present direction of the department. He was a firm believer in the scientific approach to fishery and wildlife management. He established the Division of Fishery Research and Management and was also instrumental in the creation of the Maine Cooperative Fishery Research Unit at the University of Maine. Another major project of the late commissioner's was the complete renovation and reconstruction of Maine's fish hatchery system. Under his direction, the emphasis was changed to fewer

The northern zone produced 8,173 deer, the southern zone 27,835, and the new western zone 1,796. The western zone was established this season to ease hunting pressure in an area where the deer population has been low in recent years due to severe winter weather, coupled with a loss of important deer winter habitat, and predation. Key factors contributing to the big kill-the largest since 1968-were a healthy, rebuilt deer population throughout much of the state, and ex-

but larger and more efficient hatcheries. Maine's Warden Service also underwent progressive changes during Cobb's years as commissioner. Improvements such Âˇ as two-way radios in warden vehicles, state-owned warden vehicles, modernized aircraft, and new uni forms were made under his direction. He was also responsible for the placement of wardens under the state personnel codes and the upgrading of salaries . Game research and management also received considerable emphasis under Cobb's direction. Deer research and management and habitat protection and acquisition were among his priority programs. He also was a pioneer in conservation education, helping organize the Conservation Education Foundation of Maine and to establish Maine's Conservation Education School at Bryant Pond. Cobb also advocated basic firearms training as the best method for reducing hunting accidents. He was instrumental in the early development of Maine's voluntary hunter safety training program, which to date has graduated more than 55,000 students. First appointed to the commissioner's post by Governor Frederick Payne, Cobb was later appointed to his successive three terms by Govs. Cross, Muskie, and Reed. He resigned in 1963 to devote full time to his private summer camp business . Survivors include his wife, Helen, of Cape Elizabeth, and two children.

cellent hunting conditions. A longawaited good tracking snow in southern Maine was likely the single biggest hunting conditions factor helping boost the kill. Also, in 1980 the Thanksgiving holiday period, a traditional time of heavy hunting pressure, occurred later in November than it has in recent years, putting more hunters in the field during the rut, or mating time, when deer are more active. Although license sale figures are not yet available to substantiate it, the common impression is that there were more hunters out in 1980. It is also felt that they hunted harder, encouraged by the tracking snow and a general abundance of deer signs. The Wildlife Division estimated the pre-season deer population at 240,000. Adding 10 to 15 percent deer mortality from poaching and other causes to the legal deer kill indicates the Maine deer herd numbers in excess of 190,000 animals at the start of the current winter, which is considered well within the size the herd needs to sustain itself. Two relatively mild and snow-free winters in succession set the stage for the increase in deer numbers in 1980. Among other factors contributing to the healthy deer situation include increased cutting of fuelwood, which promotes the growth of hardwood sprouts preferred by deer as a source of food, and increased trapping of predators to meet the demand for furs. Hunting accidents were down in 1980. The preliminary total at the close of the deer season was 30, of which four were fatal. Two fatalities occurred during the bird hunting season, two during deer hunting. '81 BEAR SEASON UNCERTAIN

Bear season dates for 1981, selected in December by Commissioner Glenn Manuel and his Advisory Council,

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

may or may not go into effect. The' commissioner and council, recognizing the need to curtail the rapidly rising annual bear kill, had attempted to set a split hunting season on bears, to run from May 1 to June 13 and from October 1 to November 15. But after the dates had been publicly announced, the regulation that would have implemented them was ruled invalid, on a technicality, by the outgoing Attorney General Richard S. Cohen. At press time, it was uncertain how the department would proceed, but there does exist the possibility that new bear season dates could emerge if the matter is re-opened through the regulatory process. The former attorney general's rejection of the bear season regulation stems from a minor procedural question raised by the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. Wildlife Division biologists believe a stable bear population can be maintained with an annual kill of 800 to 1,000 animals. They had recommended the fall hunting season, as adopted by the Advisory Council, and a spring season during May only. PERSONNEL NEWS

Recent personnel changes within the Fish and Wildlife Department include the following: In the Warden Service, Colonel Alanson B. Noble retired after 24 years of service; he had been chief warden for three years when he retired. Major Russell E. Dyer has been acting chief warden since Noble's retirement. Also retiring, after 20 years, was Warden David H. Spencer of Norway. In the Hatchery Division, Edward L. Nadeau, foreman of the Casco Hatchery for the past 20 years, retired with a total of 34 years with the Department. He was replaced as foreman by his former assistant, Bruce W. Winslow. Promoted to take Winslow's assistant foreman position was Steven A. Wilson, formerly a fish hatchery worker at Casco. Promoted and transferred to fill the vacant fore-

man position at the Palermo Rearing Station was Lawrence G. Burton, formerly an assistant at the Enfield Hatchery. Burton was replaced at Enfield by Dean E. Varney, who had worked at the now-deactivated Deblois Hatchery. In the Planning Division, Environmental Coordinator Charles S. Ritzi retired after a 25-year career with the department, during most of which he worked as a regional fishery biologist in the Rangeley Region. Named to be the new environmental coordinator was Steven A. Timpano, formerly a regional fishery biologist in the Fishery Division . Also transferring to the Planning Division, from the Wildlife Division, was Henry Hilton, who will be a program development specialist. Transferring from the Warden Service to Planning and filling the vacant warden planner position was Lt. Norman E. Trask. In the Wildlife Division, Wildlife Biologist Mark Stadler was promoted and transferred to Ashland, becoming the regional biologist in Region G. Arlen Lovewell, a Livermore native, was hired and is working as an assistant regional wildlife biologist in Greenville, Region E. In the Public Information Division, Paul J. Fournier of Hallowell was hired to fill a vacancy and work as a news media coordinator. NEW NONRESIDENT LICENSE

A combination hunting and fishing license, such as has been available to Maine residents for many years, can now be bought by nonresident sportsmen. The new combination license, authorized last year by the Maine legislature, costs nonresident U.S. citizens $87.00, nonresident aliens $140both representing a few dollars saving from the cost of big game hunting and season fishing licenses purchased separately. SAFETY PROGRAM HONORED

Maine's voluntary hunter safety program has received an AAA rating,

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980- 1981

the highest possible, from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Maine's program was judged against those of 37 other states and Canadian provinces. Safety Officer Gary Anderson credits the volunteer instructors witb the success of Maine's program. "The fact that we have consistently placed in the top 10 in recent years, and that we have now achieved AAA rating, is a tribute to these instructors," he said. ANSWER TO PUZZLE ON PAGE 4

1981 LICENSE FEES * RESIDENT Hunting ( 16 and older I Fishing ( 16 and older) Combinalion Hunlinl( and Fi!thing ( 16 and older) Junior Hunting ( 10 to 15 )ears indusive) Combinalion •·ishing and Art·her) Hunting

( 16 and older) Seniceman (residenl) Combination Hunting and Fi-,hing Archer) Hunling ( 16 and older)

S 9.00 9.00 16.00 1.00

16.00 S.00 9.00

Trapping ( 16 and older)

25.00

Junior Trapping ( JO 10 IS )ears inclu!tive ) (;uide (18 and older)

S.00 34.00

NONRESIDENT CITIZEN Big Game Hunling ( 10 )ears and older)

65.00

Season fohing ( 16 and older)

30.00

Junior Season Fishing ( 12 to 15 incl.)

15-day Fishing 7-daJ t' ishing 3-d•J Fishing

3.50

20.00 17.00 9.00

Combination Hunting and Fishing ( 16 and older)

87.00

Small Game Hunting ( 16 and older)

35.00

Junior Small Game Hunling ( IO 10 15 )ear!rl inrlusivt)

Archery Hunting ( 16 and older) Guide ( 18 and older) Trapping (ani age)

15.00 35.00 130.00 300.00

NONRESIDENT ALIEN Big Game Hunting ( 10 and older) Season Fishing Combinalion Hunling and fishing ( IO and older)

Small Game Hunting ( 10 and older) Archery Hunting (16 and older) Guide (18 and older)

105.00 50.00 140.00 50.00 50.00 155.00

•Not including issuing a~em /ee of !I.

Imported Baitfish:

Let's Keep

Them OUT of

Maine!

N THE WINTER OF 1979, Maine wardens set

a precedent by arresting an Argyle, Maine bait distributor for illegally smuggling live baitfish into Maine from an out-of-state source. The arrest was the culmination of extensive detective work and resulted in the bait dealer's conviction and a stiff fine. In the winter of 1980, a similar investigation resulted in the arrest and subsequent conviction of two Eddington, Maine men on similar charges. Maine stands alone among northeastern states in taking such a conservative stand on the importation of live baitfish. At present, there is a movement afoot to repeal this law and legitimize the actions of a few men who presently defy it. Commissioner Glenn Manuel has vowed to oppose this attempt. We urge all concerned sportsmen to follow suit. One of our prime concerns is preventing introduction of "exotic" species of fish into Maine waters. By exotic, we mean any species of fish that is not indigenous to the State of Maine. Whenever a new species is introduced to a body of water, it has some impact on the other fish species present, and on the ecosystem as a whole. All too often, experience tells us, this impact is negative. In other words, those fish populations already present are adversely affected in some way. Even in the case of deliberate introductions, it is seldom known beforehand what the exact effect will be. Unfortunately, in most instances, the full impact is understood only after the fact. A case in point is the common carp of Europe and Asia. In the late 1800s, the carp was heralded as "the fish of the future"-an answer to agricultural woes in the Midwest. The federal government arranged for shipments of carp from Europe and the fish were disseminated throughout 22

the country by means of a special railroad car. From an economic standpoint, the carp was a dismal failure. The hoped-for lucrative markets never materialized. If carp were an economic failure, they were a biological disaster. They escaped into the wild nearly everywhere they were raised, causing incalculable harm to the environment. They competed directly with many less aggresive fish species, and their habit of alternately sucking up and spitting out bottom sediments clouded the water. Cloudy water prohibits sunlight penetration and this, in turn, reduces plant and algae growth. Practically all aquatic organisms from the tiniest microbes to waterfowl were adversely affected. Sadly, it is damage that will probably never be undone.

HE CARP IS ONLY ONE of many such cases . In a recent article in the N.H. Times, Dr.

James McCann, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Gainesville, Florida, stated: "Naturally, we have identified 84 different species of fish that have been brought into the United States recently. Of this number, 41 have established breeding populations and are basically out of control .... None of us knows what the total impact of this will be, but the spread of exotic fish is something that could damage fish life as we know it now. This whole thing has been seriously underestimated by government, and I hope somebody starts to take notice in each state." Of course, at the State of Maine level, fish species native to other states may be just as "exotic" and just as dangerous as those foreign to the United States as a whole .. In many states that have no importation laws, a significant proportion of the fish population is comprised ?f nonindigenous species. Here in Maine, though, we are still Mai ne Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

relatively unscathed. Tough importation laws over the past 20 yearsÂˇ have undoubtedly served to keep out exotics that have spread widely elsewhere. Even so, two non-endemic minnows have recently become established in Maine-probably as a result of illegal bait importations. Neither the spottail shiner nor the emerald shiner was originally found in Maine. However, a tremendous wild bait fish industry has sprung up on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. We have strong reason to believe that illegal shipments originating from this source have resulted in the establishment of these two species here in Maine. It is by no means only the principal bait species that we are concerned about. In one shipment of emerald shiners examined last winter, a department biologist found 15 other fishes of six different species, including three never before recorded in Maine. This points out the very real danger that exists here. There are many fish species in the Great Lakes, Arkansas, and elsewhere that could cause considerable environmental harm if introduced into Maine. We do not feel that such a risk is justified.

HE DANGERS OF bringing in exotic diseases or parasites is another serious concern. One prime example is a species of tapeworm now widespread through the golden shiner industry in the South. It underscores our previous point to explain the whole story: In the 1960s, a big push developed to introduce the grass carp or white amur from Asia as a biological weed control. The original plan was to import a few thoroughly inspected fish and quarantine them at a federal research facility in Arkansas while their habits and effects on the environment were studied. Unfortunately, certain fish farmers couldn't wait and took matters into their own hands. A second, uninspected shipment was smuggled into the country and soon distributed to fish farms in several states. Contrary to advertising claims, this species can and has reproduced in the wild environment in North America . In other words, like the common carp before it, the white amur is now out of control, and we don't know what the impact will be. It was in fish of that second, uninspected shipment that the Asian tapeworm (Bothriocepha/us acheilognathi) apparently entered the United States. It soon showed up wherever the grass carp spread. The parasite's life cycle involves tiny planktonic water fleas as intermediate hosts. Since golden shiners feed heavily on water fleas and, since this parasite can apparently in fest almost any species of fish, the southern shiner industry was soon plagued with Asian tapeworm problems. Our sources tell us that virtually all of the Arkansas/ Missouri area golden shiner stocks are contaminated with this tapeworm. In commercial minnow culture, the Asian tapeworm can be suppressed by feeding special drugs called antihelminthics. In the wild, however, such measures of control are not feasible. We feel that, until proven otherwise, the Asian tape-

Maine Fish ,and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

worm represents a threat to the fisheries of the State of Maine. In the same N.H. Times article Professor Bill Rogers, noted fish parasitologist and head of the prestigious Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture at Auburn University in Alabama, said: "It is possible for the Asian tapeworm to get into fathead minnows, possible for it to invade any plankton-eating fish." Here in Maine, the establishment of this foreign parasite could mean serious trouble for our native minnow and smelt populations. Smelts in particular are extremely important as the forage base for our native landlocked salmon and lake trout fisheries. The health of these fish is of prime importance to the sportsmen of the State of Maine. Professor Rogers went on to say: "I know I have seen references to the tapeworm having been discovered in New England. . . . If it were up to me, I would have voted to have the tapeworm restricted. It is widespread now ... " "No one knows what the final outcome will be. Let me tell you that part of the problem is the attitude of t he fish bait industry. One of the people in the industry told me that now the worm is everywhere, there is no cause for alarm in the industry because there is no need for restrictions!" There are other bait minnow diseases which we still know very little about. These include a protozoan parasite called Plistophora ovariae which slowly destroys the ovaries of female shiners, a recently discovered golden shiner virus disease, and a protozoan causing "snownose disease" (Dicauda atherinoid1) on the heads of emerald shiners. What the effects of these would be to our populations of Maine bait fishes are not known. There are too many examples of what has happened elsewhere to justify taking unnecessary risks. In the trout and salmon industry, certain states (including Maine) impose rigid controls with respect to the importation of eggs and fish. Hatcheries must pass strict disease inspections before shipment is allowed. It has been suggested that such a system could be applied to the bait industry. However, we are still many years away from such developments. The salmonid fish disease program is the culmination of decades of research and many millions of dollars invested. Before similar disease inspection techniques can become implemented in the bait industry, it is likely that a program of the same magnitude will be necessary. Scientists have yet to agree on which bait fish diseases are serious enough to warrant restriction, to say nothing of developing reliable techniques for their detection. It has also been argued that, from a supply standpoint, there is no other way to maintain Maine's live bait industry than to import shiners from out of state-illegally or otherwise. We strongly refute this statement and have much evidence to back us up. One part of this argument states that minnows can't be raised economically in Maine. There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. It may or may not be impossible to raise numbers of golden shiners-the principal species being smuggled from Arkansas-to a marketable size in a 23

single Maine growing season. However, there are some 14 other species of bait minnows now breeding in the wild in this state which have not yet been tried on a large scale. We find it very interesting that second only to Arkansas in the commercial rearing of baitfish is the State of Minnesota with a climate equivalent to or perhaps even more severe than ours! The bulk of Minnesota's production consists of fathead minnows, a species established and available to Maine bait farmers in several Maine waters.

HERE IS AN EVER-INCREASING amount of minnow culture technology available in the form of scientific and trade literature, books and pamphlets and in some instances, directly from the sources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and certain universities are helping to make more and more information available every year. In the past year, Superintendent of Hatcheries David 0. Locke has given two lectures to Maine aquaculturists on the fundamentals of baitfish farming. The lectures were apparently well received since several individuals have now expressed their intent to begin such operations. We heartily support these ventures and fully expect them to succeed. Another part of the pro-importation argument is the contention that there simply is nowhere near enough wild bait available in Maine to supply the demand. Perhaps there isn't enough available to consumers at this point in time. However, there is certainly a lot more wild bait in many areas not yet being exploited. What appears to be

lacking is adequate storage facilities for wild bait at the wholesale level. At present, there are few, if any, wholesale bait dealers with holding facilities large enough to store an adequate stock of wild bait from the time it is gathered in the fall through the winter season. This may soon change, however. We know of at least one wholesaler who is near to completion of such a facility. Still another has recently contacted us with a similar proposal. Commercial minnow farming will undoubtedly involve substantial capital outlays for pond construction. An alternative to be considered is the existence of hundreds of rural farm ponds in Maine which are physically incapable of supporting trout but well suited to minnows. Enterprising bait dealers could work out arrangements with landowners whereby minnows would be raised and the profits shared. Intensive culture, wherein the ponds are fertilized and the fish fed regularly, should fncrease the yields of such ponds substantially.

N VIEW OF THESE FACTS, we can't help asking why we should spend our money in Arkansas when it is far better spent at home? It is very clear that much more can be done here in Maine to provide our sportsmen with safe, home-grown bait. There is also the possibility that such an industry could develop a lucrative export market in neighboring states. The fish importation issue is complicated, and our position is a conservative one. But we have much to protect and urge the support of bait dealers and sportsmen alike.

SUBSCRIPTION EXPIRING? Don't take a chance on missing a single issue of MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine-check your label to see when your subscription expires. If you see "LAST ISSUE" printed on your label at the right of your address, your current subscription has run out. The three digits next to your identification number on the top line of the label indicate the last issue of your current subscription-383 on the sample label below means the fall issue of 1983. Here's how to read the essential information on your magazine label: Ml =one-year sub M2 = two-year sub

- - - - - - - - Final issue and year (183 = spring, M3 = three-year sub ---;:=:::?=~---------------:-;;;;t.~:::;::::::::;:~ 283 =summer, 383 = fall, L B 483 = winter, 1983)

293 P= personal G=gift C = complimentary

ME 04330

File number for this subscription

(your own personal code number)

If you wish to renew your subscription, or if there are any problems with delivery of MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE, please let us know-we want you to receive the magazine. But please, whenever you write, include a label from a recent copy of your magazine, or copy all information from it and send it along with your letter. This coding will greatly speed up processing of your request, whether it be a problem or a renewal. If you don't receive MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE magazine now, but would like to subscribe, blanks for that , purpose are found inside the front or back covers of each issue. There's also a form there for you to use to change your address on our files. Here's hoping you continue to enjoy MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE!

Maine Fish and Wildlife -

Winter 1980-1981

The Moose Season â&#x20AC;˘

Review By W. Thomas Shoener THE GRAY DAWN

grudgingly yielded to daylight on September 22, 1980, two unusual events were beginning at Lazy Tom Bog, some 20 miles north of Greenville: a fall thunderstorm, and Maine's first legal moose hunt since 1935. In their own ways, both generated quite a lot of noise but little in the way of real problems. But unlike the thunderstorm, which quickly rumbled its way into obscurity, the reverberations of the 6-day moose season may be heard around the State of Maine for some time. Lazy Âˇ Tom Bog and Greenville were, without doubt, the two most frequently mentioned reference points in news accounts and discusÂˇsions of the 1980 moose season. Lazy Tom because it is the prime example of potential conflicts between two uses of Maine's moose resource, hunting and moose watching. Greenville because it is the base of much of the expressed concern over that con flict and also was the location of a moose registration station where nearly one-half of all the successful

hunters brought their moose, thus providing a natural attraction for the press and the public. The 1980 moose hunt was established by the Maine legislature, with the support of the Fish and Wildlife Department. Fundamental to the department's support was the knowledge that as the moose herd has grown larger, so too has public interest in restoration of moose hunting, and that a properly controlled open season represented a legitimate use of the resource without risk of diminishing non-hunting uses, such as moose watching. While the law authorizing the season did represent the beginning of scientific moose management in Maine, it was a very conservative approach to the re-establishment of moose hunting. Less than one-half of the state was to be open, and only 700 moose hunting permits were authorized. The herd in the open area, conservatively estimated in the 20,000 range, could suffer no conceivable harm, even in the event of very high hunter success. And the herd in the rest of the state, very large in some areas, would remain protected from hunting .

1980 moose hunt went exceedingly well, both from the hunters' viewpoint and HE

from the department's. The final registration figure was 636 moose, which means that 91 percent of the moose hunting parties were successful-a figure unsurpassed anywhere . Seventy percent of the moose taken were adult bulls. This was not too surprising considering the trophy status of bull moose and that the high population of moose encouraged hunters to be selective. The hunt also coincided with the moose rut (breeding season) when the travel and behavior patterns of bulls make them more vulnerable than cows. At least 19 of the bull moose weighed over 1,000 pounds, field dressed. The top two each weighed 1,070 pounds, which equates to an approximate live weight of nearly 1,400 pounds. The greatest antler spread was 63 Yi inches, with two other racks close behind at 63 inches. The largest known number of antler points was 31. Such numbers, while interesting, are only a small part of the story of the moose season. Beyond the hunters' own personal yarns there is the overall story of a high level of sportsmanship and cooperation between hunters and with department personnel. Game wardens, whose ranks in northern Maine were temporarily in-

Bill and Julie Orton , Sebec, made moose hunting a family affair, camping out with Dick, 19 months, and Ben 4 months. Bill shot his 900-pound bull near Caribou lake.

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

creased for the moose hunt, had high praise for the hunters' behavior. Compliance with laws and regulations was exceptionally good. The few violations they reported were mostly minor in nature. One bad incident, involving a cow and calf moose shot together and left in the woods, was never conclusively link<:!d to the moose season; it may have been but one of many similar acts of poaching or vandalism that wardens regularly investigate. Wildlife biologists also gave the moose hunters high marks for cooperation with their efforts to collect biological and hunting information about moose. The open season presented the biologists with a unique opportunity to gather a vast amount of information on the general characteristics and condition of Maine's moose, and, with the help of hunters, they took maximum advantage of that opportunity. Details of the results of this work will be presented in a future issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife. Hunters were generally observed to be very well prepared for the hunt. Many had scouted the area they intended to hunt, and they came with know-how and equipment for proper Âˇ field care of their moose. Considering the difficulty of getting a moose out of the woods, it was expected that most hunters would quarter them, or cut them up into manageable pieces, for ease of transportation. Surprisingly, though, the majority figured out ways to get their moose out of the woods and into their vehicles whole. Logging skidders played a big role, but "grunt labor," winches, and large amounts of Yankee ingenuity also came into play. A major concern before the hunt was the possibility of meat spoilage in the warm weather that a late September season could produce. But thanks to seasonably cool weather and the preparedness of hunters, few spoilage problems developed. Most hunters headed directly home or to meat processing facilities as soon as possible after making the kill, some taking such spoilage precautions as 26

packing body cavities with bagged ice or transporting their moose in refrigerated trailer units. A post-season survey of some of Maine's professional meat cutters indicated that hunters did exceptionally well in field care and transportation of their moose. Of 184 animals they reported handling, 58 percent were rated in very good to excellent condition, 28 percent were in good condition, 14 percent fair, 1 percent poor, and none in very poor condition . It has been estimated that the moose season produced 150 tons of choice meat for the dinner tables of hunters and their friends.

ROBLEMS that developed during and as a result of the moose season were gratifyingly few, attesting to legislative and departmental forethought and planning, and, of course, to the high level of concern shown by the participants. The biggest problem, which may have been more of a social problem than a biological one, was the uneven hunter distribution. Hunters tended to concentrate in a few easily accessible areas, most notably in the townships around Kokadjo, east of Moosehead Lake. This resulted in a concentration of the moose kill. Smithtown (T.1,R.13) and Spencer Bay Township (T .1, R.14), with moose kills of 48 and 36, had a combined registration total more than double any other two adjacent townships. Only 10 towns had a registered moose kill of 10 or more. On the other hand, vast blocks of more remote townships, also containing good moose populations, were either lightly hunted or were not hunted at all. No moose were shot in approximately 166 townships, while 84 others had a kill of only one moose. The problem involved in having the moose kill concentrated in easily accessible towns is that it has the potential of bringing hunting and moose watching into direct conflict. Smithtown, Spencer Bay, and a handful of other townships with easy access and high moose populations are well

known among vacationers, photographers, and others as good places to see moose. Given the regularity of moose sightings in these towns since the season ended, and the facts that more moose will be born next spring and that other moose will filter in from surrounding, lightly-hunted towns, it is unlikely that next summer anyone will be able to detect that a moose season has been held. (A mid-December flight over the township with the highest moose kill, Smithtown, by Chief Pilot Dana Toothaker, revealed 59 moose, and tracks of many others,Âˇ within three miles of Lazy Tom Bog.) Yet, heavy hunting pressure in a few popular moose watching areas is an issue that caused much of the dissatisfaction with the moose season. The problem was anticipated by the department, but a zoning plan that would have distributed hunting pressure was not included in the moose season legislation.

T MAY HAVE BEEN a big success in other ways, but the non-hunting publics' perception of the moose season was not all that favorable. The vast majority of people initially had only news stories and rumors on which to judge the season. Although most news accounts portrayed the moose hunt fairly, immeasurable damage was done by a few which were widely circulated, written by distant reporters, and based more on antimoose-hunting fantasy than on what was actually happening in northern Maine that week. The thunder over Lazy Tom Bog may have spent itself quickly on opening day, but the thunder o f public sentiment lives on. One can only hope that logic and fact will eventually overcome the emotions that were stirred against Maine's historic, and controversial, 1980 moose season. â&#x20AC;˘

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

What the moose hunters had to say. Non-participants have said and written a lot about Maine's 1980 moose season. The following are excerpts from a sampling of hunters' written comments to the Fish and Wildlife Department, presented so that those who experienced the hunt first-hand can also be heard.

I believe the moose hunt was conducted in an excellent way. Everyone-biologists, game wardens and other hunters-were very helpful and courteous. It's too bad anti-moose-hunters wouldn't realize the rare opportunity for 700 hunters to save on their grocery bill. As far as I'm concerned, we have been wasting our moose resource for the past IO to 15 years. Wilmen Pelletier, Sherman Mills

I found the seminar in Greenville very helpful, should be mandatory for everyone going afield to attend. This moose hunt was a tremendous learning experience about an animal often seen but which I knew very little about before participating in this successful hunt .

Being from N.H., it was a privilege for me to participate in this moose hunt, thanks to my Maine friend. Moose and deer were plentiful. The game wardens we met, both in the field and at the check-in station, should be commended for a job well done. They were courteous and helpful to all of us hunters. The Scott Paper Company personnel we met during the hunt should also be commended for their assistance in getting out so many moose from cut-off areas and woods. They did not charge for this service but would take a token when we insisted they do so. I don't believe 636 moose taken put a dent in the herd. Ernest K. Howard, Manchester , N.H.

Blood vials should be either plastic or have a suitable container to put them in. My large one was broken in the woods; salvaged the bottom half, but it leaked a bit after it was filled. Season was well run by the State of Maine!! Appreciated all literature I received from the Department prior to hunt. Very informative!! The group at the Greenville Registration Station were the finest!! Efficient, courteous and helpful. Sandra J. Adams, Eliot

William S. Lowell, Brunswick

Season was very well controlled and regulat ed. The wardens and biologists were most helpful and well organized. I would be very disappoint· ed if there was not going to be another moose season. I think thinning a small percentage, as this past season, will make a stronger and bet· ter herd. I can't help but think it will improve the deer herd in the northern zone, which seems to be declining over the past years. I do feel the population of the moose was underestimated. Wayne Smith, Winthrop

We saw from September 20 and 21, in scouting , a total of ten moose. We found it paid off on Monday, for we saw 7 more. There were places we saw very few, others there were many. We found the moose in great shape. Hunters worked hard for a bull, not a cow. We had a great hunt. Dale Henderson, Orrington

Instructions from the Department were well thought out, so we were very well prepared, but emphasis should be made on the size and difficulty of moving a moose. The health of people involved is very important. It is very strenuous and time-consuming. Our whole hunt was just great and we certainly support all efforts to establish another moose season. Jane C. Alley, So. Bristol

All moose seen were running. Deer seen were slow in comparison .

Season should be continued. If the resident hunters don't harvest the moose, the autos, trucks, disease, and poachers will. Would like to see hunt in October- cooler weather would help the meat and the hunters. Arthur L. Sargent, Mechanic Falls

The moose were sensitive to sounds and scents of man and showed intelligence about the same as a buck deer. The hunt was more difficult than expected. It wouldn't hurt to increase the fee of the lottery, license, and tagging fee, so that more wardens could be put in the field. Paul D. Smart, Cape Elizabeth

Although I didn 't encounter too many moose, I nevertheless have to tell you that the area that I hunted showed many moose signs. I just had bad timing during my hunt, and too little patience at still hunting. The week after the hunt, during my travels for my company, I saw 5 different moose at 5 different locations. This tells me very strongly that we definitely have a good herd. Thanks so much for a fine memory.

Leonard Lajoie, Sabattus

•

involved in bringing a bull moose through the woods without any mechanized equipment. Otherwise, 1 thought that the moose season went very well . I was able to get the whole moose out of the woods, and from everything I saw, everyone that got one was able to do the same. I saw no parts wasted. I found most hunters, hunted safely. I also found this time of year a little warm to hunt. I would recommend mid-October for this type of hunting. Scott A. Doucette, Lewiston

Both my father and I had a great experienceenjoyed the great out-of-doors, and were pleased to have gotten a moose. We would very much like to see another moose season held in the same fashion. Also, would like to comment on how friendly and helpful hunters were that we met during our stay. And particularly, how cooperative the game wardens and Department officials were. Richard A. Knight, Farmington

Everyone we saw was certainly trying their best to do everything right. I feel a season every year would not hurt the herd at all. We saw moose tracks in every area we went. We had an enjoyable and beautiful hunt. Lewis C. Alley , So. Bristol

An excellent hunt. A real professional one. Well organized which demonstrated good foresight by the Department. No constructive criticism to offer. Good Job!!! Samuel D. Soule, Yarmouth

I had a very nice hunt and saw much more moose signs in T. B,R. I I than I have ever seen for any animal. I also wish to thank you for this chance to go moose hunting in the state and hope it can be continued in the future for other people of the state. Asa Pickard , Brewer

I felt the moose hunting went well, as a personal comment. One thing I feel could be improved on : The areas we hunted in were crowded; we should have areas assigned to us. Burleigh C. Lewis, Hallowell

Deane A. Lambert, Caribou

The moose herd seems to be quite large and healthy. I am making this comparison from three trips to Newfoundland in the early 1960s and one to Ontario five years ago. We don't have a problem with wolves here. An annual moose season would create jobs. A moose to me is worth at least a $500.00 gamble. Robert E. Mclellan, Boothbay Harbor

William H. Feeney, Falmouth

I think the moose season was a big success. There is an over-abundance of moose in this state . I also feel there should be more controlled moose seasons. It was one of the most exciting things that has ever happened to me in my lifetime, and more Maine citizens should be able to enjoy it.

•

This experience was the most gratifying that I think I have ever had . After the bull was down, my husband and I had only ourselves to take the moose out.

L. Heather Thatcher, Jonesboro I recommend that there be three people per permit, as I found that there was much work

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

The season should be later when it is a little cooler (if there is another season). Hunters should be assigned areas to hunt. Daniel Ross , Orono

Have nothing but the highest praise for the way the moose season was handled by everyone. The wardens were very helpful and full of information . The men with the logging crews were most cooperative and interested in whatever we were doing. They used their equipment to help load the moose into the pickup. During the week in the woods, we never saw any poor sportsmanship or other foolishness. It was a great experience to be fortunate enough to shoot a moose. It should provide our meat for the next year. My highest hope is that a limited moose season can be held evey year. Patrick O. Peters, Boothbay Harbor

Sincerely enjoyed moose hunting. I was very pleased with the cooperation of all hunters. The Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wardens and biologists were very courteous and helpful. They were very professional and very well organized. It was very obvious that they had spent a considerable amount of time preparing for the moose hunt, and the hours of preparation certainly paid off. All people involved are to be congratulated. Lawrence B. Libby, Hartland In T.ll,R.13, we saw the tracks of a moose that-after seeing hooves on 840, 960, and 1070 pound bulls that were harvested-I estimate at about 1,250 to 1,300 pounds, dressed weight. Tracks were about 9 inches wide by 11 Y, inches long, on firm ground. John R. Meister, Old Town I can only comment on the Ashland Registration Station, but if all stations were as well organized and prepared as this one, the hunt had to be a success. All wardens and other state employees were helpful, friendly, and not an unpleasant one among them. Wallace S. Gilley, Southwest Harbor I think the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife did an excellent job of conducting an experimental season in such an orderly and professional fashion. It is of my opinion that if such a season were conducted on an annual basis that it would have a stabilization effect on an over-abundant moose herd . Many thanks to the Department for a quality moose hunt. James H. Alexander, Mars Hill I am originally from the Pacific Northwest and have hunted antelope, white tail deer, mule deer, and elk in Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. In 22 years of hunting I have never observed a more carefully planned and organized hunt. The information hunters received from Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Outdoor Life magazine was very useful in planning . I was assisted by wardens and some Greenville area sportsmen in removing my moose from the field and made use of the refrigerated truck to cool the carcass before transporting it. Such cooperation made this hunt a unique and memorable experience. If there are future moose hunts in Maine, I hope the issue of moose-viewing areas, such as the Lazy Tom Bog area, where I took my moose, can be addressed. I would have been happy to hunt elsewhere had I known about this controversy. I am deeply grateful to all whose efforts made this historic hunt possible. Harry E. Batty, Bangor I thought that the complete program was well organized in all respects. Warden personnel in the field were courteous and helpful. Biologists and wardens at Greenville are to be commended for the fine job they did in handling my moose. Moose season should be established annually in the same manner which the present one was conducted, only later in the year. September is too warm to hunt due to the possibility of moose spoilage. Also, I feel that there should be a higher fee for moose license-suggest $50 to $75 per license. George D. Fenderson, Cumberland Foreside The area we were hunting was crawling with moose, but there is plenty of feed. There were also plenty of deer signs and also plenty of feed for them. I feel another hunt would be good, but I feel calves should be protected. I also feel

it would be better if it were held one month later, for cooler weather. Joseph Flanders, Norway We tented in the area hunted . The same techniques as for hunting deer were used, with about as much challenge to us as hunters. I have shot moose in Newfoundland; this was a better hunt. We entered the woods at noon Sunday to scout. We exited at 4 P .M., Tuesday. We saw no other hunters. We heard only 2 very distant shots. A good hunt! Peter Anderson, Bangor Had a very enjoyable hunt. Wardens David Peppard and Roland Pelletier were most helpful to us in getting our moose out to our vehicle. I would like to see another open season on moose. William Snow, Jefferson From those we talked with and saw, it was a well organized and coordinated hunt. Courtesy and cooperation of Great Northern Paper appreciated. Think the Outdoor Life seminar before the season should be mandatory (good program). Sincerely hope it may be possible to use the knowledge gained from this great experience! Barbara J. Swenson, Brunswick Enjoyed the hunt. Saw a large number of signs, indicating a large moose population . Feel the season was worthwhile for good moose management and control. Would hope that a similar season could be held yearly. Received outstanding cooperation from the game wardens. Also feel that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife did an outstanding job in putting it all together. Hope the final statistics will prove that the hunt was a necessary event. Dale C. Glidden, Winthrop I feel the moose hunting season was a great success . I think it should be done yearly if the moose herd is able to withstand the harvesting of a few animals. The main reason for my hunting for moose was for the supply of meat. Ted Clark, Augusta Hope we have another moose season in the near future. I was lucky enough to get one and the meat will come in handy. If there is another season, I think it should be in October when it is colder and the leaves are falling . Normand Tancrede, Lisbon This was one of my most enjoyable hunts. I met and made a dozen new friends and was checked by two wardens, whom I'd never seen before, who were polite and considerate about their business. If our herd can be managed with this kind of season, all I can see is an improved herd. Thumbs up for more moose seasons . William C. Kenyon, Millinocket This has been a hunt of a lifetime for me. I am now 65 years old, hunted and fished all of my life and there has never been any kind of enjoyment that I have derived from anything more than this hunt. The country was beautiful, game was plentiful, and the management was st upendous especially through the game wardens who I found to be very courteous and instructive, even to showing you where they, "the moose," were. I would sincerely thank warden #109 (David Allen-ed.) for the sportsmanship that he showed me toward the sport.

Thanking you sincerely #109. Arthur E. Boulanger, Chelsea It was a good hunt. The only drawback was the warm weather. If there is another year of moose hunting, I hope that I will be lucky to go on it. It was a fun week. Didn't shoot, or even see, a moose. Mike Mulherin , Fort Fairfield I think the Fish and Wildlife Dept. should be congratulated on doing a fine job, from the drawing of the permits, to their field work (checking hunters, etc.), to the weighing of moose. All hunters we met were cooperative and it was a pleasure to have taken part in Maine's first moose hunt in 45 years . I am sure the bleeding hearts and anti-moose hunters will still be able to see moose in Lazy Tom Bog! Robert L. Libby, Waterville I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Department for the privilege to hunt such a fascinating animal, and I wish to express special gratitude to all the game wardens in Greenville . The game wardens in Greenville deserve a citation for being so kind and helpful to all of us. They literally went out of their way to help us in any way they could. I thank you. You are gentlemen and hard workers above and beyond the call of duty. Thank you! James Michaud , Greene It seemed to me that although there were a number of people hunting in our area, everyone was very courteous to everyone else, which is important when hunting. We were very proud to have been drawn in the lottery and did our very best to do everything as it should have been done, also to make Maine a better, safer place to hunt. I'm proud to be a resident of Maine . Susan H. Smith, Augusta

Had a wonderful time harvesting the Maine moose herd. I hope this can be as well planned and organized in the future. The game wardens and biologists were very interesting and hospitable towards us when we tagged our moose in Greenville . Thank you. George B. Robinson , Oxford Opponents of the moose hunt said it would be like shooting fish in a fish bowl. I can only say that the "fish bowl" was very large in the Van Buren area. I expect I'll probably get some thank you notes for not bagging a moose. In any case, being a former native of that great, big, beautiful, and magnificent State of Maine, I support the moose hunt. Every sportsman does, and perhaps some day, former Âˇnatives will be eligible for the lottery. If you don't have any more moose hunts, it'll be like growing a herd of cattle j ust so you can watch them! Also, why give it all to the poachers? Lorn A. Martin, So. Windsor, Ct. Did shoot a bull moose-tagged at Ashland. Had a very good hunt , by canoe. I have been hunting moose in Ontario for several years, but never saw as many moose as I did on this trip. 1 think more moose could be killed per year and still not harm the herd . I liked very much the way it was handled by everyone. Thanks. Harold I. Dowling, Havelock, N.C. All persons connected with the moose season are commended for their cooperation, sports-

Maine Fish and Wildlife - Winter 1980-1981

man like conduct, help to one another, and organ ization. Wardens in the field and biologists an d other personnel at the check-in stations deerve special praise for their cooperation, efficient organization, and handling of all phases of this moose season. They are real professionals. It was a pleasure to be a part of thi s moose eason, and I hope I will have the pleasure of bei ng able to participate in another one in the futu re . John S. Rogers, Jr., Auburn

If possible, for the next season, if it is going to be a lottery-type thing, maybe certain specific areas could be assigned to the permittees , also by lottery. This, or some other method , should be devi sed to evenly di sperse the hunters throughout the Northern Zone . We had a terrific time and, overall, felt that it was handled quite well. We are looking forward to the next Maine moose hunting season which will be soon, hopefully . Malcolm Johnson, Jr., Gardiner

This was a great experience for me and my two teenage sons. The moment s will live forever. We took man y pictures, also 50-100 feet of film. On Sunday, the 21st, we spent 8 hours (100 miles) sco uting the tote roads in back of Jackman (Scott land). We did not see an animal, very few tracks-a little di sappointed . Monday, at 7:30 A.M . we shot a bull-weight 1,020 pounds, 16 points, 51 inch spread. There were four moose-2 bulls, and cow and calf. What a sight! After many handshakes and pie-

-, Editorial

ture taking, we loaded the moose and headed for Jackman and the tagging station. I believe thi s moose season was a successful one. There will be scores of information from it. Robert England, Sr., Searsport

I hunted moose with a boyhood friend , with whom ! have hunted and fished for forty years. It was our ultimate experience to have shared in the kill of a grand moose. Every bit possible of the animal is being utilized, including the hoo ves, hide , and horn s. The meat was commerciall y processed and will be consumed with appro pr iate ceremon y and delight. It is my fervent hope that the moose project will continue and that others in the future will have the opportunity to harvest this wonderful, renewable reso urce that Maine is privileged to enjoy. Alex Dmitrieff, Boothbay I think the moose hunt was a wise deci sion in wildlife management. Needless to say, there will always be some co ntroversy from antihunters and environmentalists. If these nature nuts knew anything about the field, or could take time from their office job and get out in the woods, they would clearly see why the moose hunt took place. I know that I speak for 75 percent of my school. ! guarantee yo u my full support in a future moose hunt. Brian Tolman, Owls Head

The entire structure of the hunt was impeccable . I saw hunter cooperation which was most gratifying, and I feel that rapport between hunter, warden, and biologist has been tremendously enhanced by thi s seaso n. I commend Warden Sgt. Dave Sewall and Wardens Ted Han son, John Ford , and Jim Brown for their courtesy and assistance. Predictably , the news media in our area chose to eliminate the positive and accentuate the negative . But reali zing this, and realizing that the media and vocal minority have the potential to eliminate our hunting entirely, may serve as a catalyst for sport smen to be vocal, also, and write the letters and make the calls to legislators , etc.! Capt. Granville I. Smith, Portland

The hunt was professionally staged from start to finish. Wardens and biologists were well or-

1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----,,

Significantly, opponents of restoration of moose hunting in Maine have not seriously tried to use what would be their best argument against it, provided the facts fit: that hunting would be detrimental to the state's moose herd. By their silence on this issue, even the most dedicated anti-hunters seem to be recognizing that a limited open season on the large population will cause the herd no harm. They have made an issue of their next best argument, that hunting may diminish their non-hunting enjoyment of the moose resource. Although one open season won't affect moose watching anywhere, it is an issue that should be addressed in considering future moose seasons. Proponents of the hunting of any species bear the obligation that their uses of the resources do not preclude, or seriously limit, other uses . A zoning scheme to distribute hunting pressure away from popular moose watching areas would be an easy solution to this potential problem. Beyond the issue that they know enough not to raise, and the one for which a simple solution exists , opponents of moose hunting in Maine are left only with arguments that stir emotions but which should have no bearing on whether future moose seasons are held. I

ganized, friendly, and skilled in their various tasks-definitely a credit to their Department. There were a great man y moo se in the area we hunted , spread over a very large area. Certain sub areas, widely recogni zed as moose viewing areas, should be off limits-an easy remedy to a major criti cism of the seaso n . Richard W. Doane, Cumberland Center

Chief among these is the question of the sporting value of moose as a game species. Opponents say moose are not a sufficient challenge for the hunter, that they are too easily located and killed. Such judgments are the hunter's alone to make. If a species of legal game does not interest him, he doesn't hunt it. If he does hunt but the "right" opportunity does not present itself, he simply does not make the kill. If all the sport involved was the execution of an animal, most hunters would give it up out of boredom. Future moose seasons in Maine should be considered on factual, pertinent, and rational information. As a beginning, these questions should be answered: Is the herd large enough to withstand a limited harvest? Is there sufficient demand for this use of the resource? Will hunting unduly conflict with other uses? What will be the future of the moose herd , both with and without hunting? To dismiss future moose seasons on emotional arguments and without good answers to these questions would hardly be befitting a state whose past, present , and probable future are closely tied to the wise use of its natural resources.

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

284 State St.,

Sta. #41

Augusta, Maine 04333