Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Winter 1981 by Maine State Library

MAINE

INSIDE

FISH AND "\VILDLIFE

A Time For Unity

Robert E. LeResche

Vol. 23, No. 4

Don't Waste The Year Of The Big Snow!

Ernest F. Swift

KID-BITS

Build That Fire ... The Right Way!

Gary Anderson

Predator And Prey: How Do They Relate?

John T. Major James A. Sherburne

From The Fly Tying Bench: THE GREY GHOST

Peter G. Walker

The Coyote: A Look At His Lifestyle

Suzanne L. Caturano Daniel J. Harrison

D-J Expansion: Financing For The Future

Robert E. Foye

Angler Attitudes

Stephen D. Reiling Cristanna M. Cook Janice L. Taylor

Fish And Wildlife Briefs

Winter 1981

Governor Joseph E. Brennan Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Glenn H. Manuel J. William Peppard Kenneth H. Anderson David 0. Locke John F. Marsh Lyndon H. Bond Peter C. Brazier Robert W. Boettger W. Thomas Shoener Clayton G. Grant Henry R. Sleeper Lorenzo J. Gaudreau Alfred L. Meister

Commissioner Deputy Commissioner Director, Program Development and Co-ordinal ion Superintendent of Hatcheries Chief Warden Chief, Fishery Division Business Manager Chief, Wildlife Division Director, Public Information Chief, Engineering Division Chief, Realty Division Director, Recreational Safety and Registration Chief Biologist, Atlantic Salmon Commission

Advisory Council Rodney W. Ross, Chairman Brownville, Maine George E. Prentiss Dennis L. Smith Rumford Otter Creek Nathan Cohen Alva S. Appleby Eastport Skowhegan Robert E. Moore Francis D. Dunn Casco Patten

Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine W. Thomas Shoener, Editor Thomas J. Chamberlain, Managing Editor Thomas L. Carbone, Photographer Patricia J. Hogan, Editorial Assistant

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

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Front: A closer-than-usual look at Maine's newest predator: the eastern coyote. See related article beginning on page 19. Photo by Henry Hilton Inside Front: Another well-known Maine predator, the bobcat's habits are discussed in the article beginning on page 14. Photo by Bill Cross Inside Back: Baxter State Park is beautiful every day of the year, but its beauty is never more breathtaking than in winter. This shot of Mt. Katahdin, taken from Chimney Pond in Cathedral Bowl, makes the point well. Photo by Bill Cross Back: Warden Pilot Jack McPhee braves the cold (COLD!) to measure and weigh a lake trout for a lucky north Maine woods ice fisherman. Photographer Tom Carbone says it was colder than it looks! MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE (ISSN 0360-005X) is published quarterly by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State St., Station 41, Augusta, ME 04333, under Appropriation 4550. Subscription rate: $6.00 per year. No stamps, please. Second class postage paid at Augusta, ME 04330. ÂŠMaine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1981. Permission to reprint text material is granted, provided proper credit is given to the author and to MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE. Clearance must be obtained from artists, photographers, and non-staff authors to reproduce credited work.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Send both old and new addresses to Circulation Section, MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, 284 State St., Sta. #41, Augusta, ME 04933. Allow six weeks for change to take effect. Your post office cannot forward copies unless you provide forwarding postage. POSTMASTER: If undeliverable, send form 3579 to Circulation Section, MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, 284 State St., Sta. #41, Augusta, ME 04333.

. ··•··.

The hunter, the anti-hunter, and the wildlife manager must consider each others ethical burdens an~ social constraints in ·order to unify their conservation efforts.

By Robert E. LeResche.

Editor's Note: Although arguments over hunting have not reached the proportions in Maine that they have elsewhere, all of the same underlying attitudes and beliefs exist here. Nationally, over the past Jew years, tremendous amounts of time, money, and effort have been expended by three groups of people who seem continually determined to argue with one another but whose objectives are, infact, close to identical. These groups are the hunters, who proclaim their right to hunt; the anti-hunters, who argue for a halt to all killing of wildlife; and the wildlife managers, who are often caught between the two. While those who are most concerned about wildlife debate and in-fight over what constitutes proper use of these resources, other forces are at work eliminating what is left of our natural world and reducing our options in the matter of variety and numbers of wildlife. In the following article, the author-a former game biologist and now commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources-makes an eloquent plea for mutual understanding by all who are concerned about wildlife, regardless of the motivation for that concern. It is appropriate that Mr. LeResche represents a state where, as in Maine, wildlife is so important to the lifestyle of so many of its people and to the economy of the state.

PARJt: To fhe hoofer By now it is an aphorism that the hunter is an endangered "species," and that social and ethical concerns of non-hunters are the basis for your philosophical impossibility of debating taste or personal ethics. Your actions are suddenly socially unacceptable. Your public image is low and declining. Recent essays have explored anti-hunting, and have clarified how others see hunters. Arguments against hunting have recurrent themes, but can be divided roughly into three categories: the "cruelty argument"; the "uncivilized argument"; and the "ecological argument." The first two can only be answered by personal opinion-for that is all they are themselves. There is some rational basis for the third. I feel it is very important that hunters take each of these seriously, however, for there are millions-people who vote and thereby control America's public land-who sincerely feel them. The cruelty argument is straightforward-killing is cruel. Wild animals are happy and innocent until man arrives with his roaring machines, traps and guns. The animals he kills suffer, their bereaved friends and relatives mourn their loss. Their offspring are left to starve. The answer, you say, is simple. Ridiculous! Don't put man's feelings onto animals. They have no emotions. But as one tries to develop this counter-argument the real truth becomes plain: there is no proof on either side, and "their" ideas are as true to them as yours are to you . The uncivilized argument is more insidious and a little less fair, for it attacks the hunter rather than the act of hunting. Hunters are culturally immature-throwbacks to the caves, or at least to the dark ages . Or, worse yet, they are sexually inadequate, and their guns are merely extensions of Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Freud's cigar. In short, hunting is bewildlife ecology. But hunters must allow contemporary human dignity and so admit that the advent of the airhunters are unfit for today's society. craft, the ATV and the snow machine, Counter-arguments to this are without a simultaneous development many and fascinating . Man evolved a of a new ethic for their use, has enhunter, still retains the trait, and a dangered the ecological balance and healthy human personality accepts, made proper management and preserrather than represses, its true nature. vation a struggle. Hunting is a better outlet for man's Indiscriminate shooting, crippling losses and illegal or unreported kills inherent aggressiveness than is war. Or, simply a direct reversal-a natuand harassment of game by hunters probably have decreased some popural human being can be defined as lations and redistributed others. In one who hunts. The ecological argument maintains today's world, arguments about the that hunting endangers the ecological ecological necessity of hunting are abbalance, and may lead to extinctions. surd. To save hunting, hunters will Look at the passenger pigeon, the have to admit these things and do bison, the great auk. Look at how something about them, fast. many more moose and grizzlies one There is a recurrent theme in all the can see in McKinley Park than in anti-hunting arguments: the hunter is other parts of Alaska where hunting a slob . He thinks only of killing. He is allowed. Look how the walrus and has no respect for the rights of other humans or other animals. Can you seal and polar bear were almost extinct before we saved them with the deny this categorically? Do you like Marine Mammal Protection Act. all who call themselves "hunters"? I hope not. Lucky we forced the Fish and Game Department to close that doe It has been said that "America is hunt-they'd have killed off all the the only nation that has gone from deer. They are all the same argument. barbarism to decadence without ereating a civilization in between.'' I These criticisms sometimes are at least rational, though often based on wonder if that does not all-too-truly describe the development of our misinformation. In some cases they may even hold merit. We know that . . hunting. culture? . The' days of since modern game management' no ' ' .:' . ' ' species in North America.has beens~ . verely depleted by legal sport hunt- · .: ing, and many have benefited . t.r~:- ..· . · •. mendously. We also .know that spqrt · · · · . hunters have been the single strongest · factor in preserving all kinds of wild- . · life and wild lands over the last few· decades and in financing the work · that has taught us what we know of

·1:

nonregulated market hunting may have merely faded into the days of mechanized, no sweat, kill-'em-andtake-'em-home hunting, and it is hard to discern any culture or set of ethics that developed in between. I know it is there, somewhere, but it is difficult for a non-hunter to see. Stating a civilized set of ethics loud and clear-by deed much more than by words-is in my mind the only salvation for the sport of hunting. Psychologists tell us that people don't like what they fear, and they fear what they do not understand. So, what we are talking about, you say, is education. Maybe so, but what I'm not talking about are news releases saying ''The National Wildlife Federation explained today that they have ethics and love animals." As one who has "explained" cow moose hunting before more than one town meeting, well I know that in the real world the quickest way to alienate someone is to give him a lucid, hard-hitting, rational explanation he didn't ask for. How do we educate people to believe in hunting? The best way I can summarize it is by educating them to believe in hunters. As a hunter, you must decide what are your own personal ethics regard-

ing hunting and conservation. That is more difficult than you might think. Once decided, you must consciously stick to those ethics, whether you are in a crowd or in the wilderness. How many of us have, just once, chased an animal with a snow machine? Hazed one with an aircraft? Failed to kill cleanly and humanely? Left just a bit of edible meat in the field? Hunted a species we knew little about? Forgotten for a moment that hunting is much more than killing something and getting home fast? Ethics have a way of eroding very quickly at the tiniest breech. Once you know your principles and follow them, talk about them. Don't ignore acts by other ''hunters'' that are wrong in your eyes. You can't make that fellow who just shot from the road share your ethics, but you can let him know you find his behaviour offensive. Have an opinion; antihunters certainly do. Don't be defensive about hunting. Don't say, "It isn't any worse than letting animals starve," or "The game can take it." Hunting is not merely the lesser of two evils. With the pride you have in your principles and in the fact you follow them without exception, and with the biological knowledge you have, you need not be ashamed of hunting. If you are ashamed of it, why do you do it? As a corollary, never get into a position where you defend all hunting. Admit there are slobs who hunt (there are also slobs who belong to antihunting groups), and make it plain that you disapprove of them as much as anyone does. Many practices lumped in the public's mind under sport hunting _are despicable.

Accept that anti-hunters are sincere, that many people are made ill by the sight or even the thought of a dead wild animal. These people don't deserve to be written off as kooks any more than do hunters. Have concern for sensibilities of others. Practically translated, this means asking yourself what you gain by leaving a gut pile in view of the road, by tying a bloody deer carcass on the hood of your car or by carrying an easy rider gun rack full of loaded firearms in view in your pickup. These acts are nothing less than gross disrespect for the sincere feelings of others. As hunters, personally and as a group, acknowledge that there are other legitimate uses of wildlife than hunting, and support a suitable number of closed areas, walk-in areas and parks, where appropriate. Wildlife belongs to all people, not just to hunters. No one who really understands the natural world is against hunting, and the more chances we provide for people to learn about ecology the better. Don't, though, make the mistake of thinking hunting is always imcompatible with non-consumptive uses. With proper management and seasonal zoning they are compatible in a majority of cases. Finally, become a naturalist. Learn all you can about wildlife and the environment. It will enhance the pleasure you get from hunting. It enhances the average hunter's image when he can intelligently talk about "healthy ecosystems" instead of "more shootable game," and when he knows as much about the fantastic migration of the arctic tern as he does about the relative merits of a lung shot and a shoulder shot.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

er wildlife survives another day. As Dr. Raymond Dasmann put it:

... the nature lover who can weep over baby whales while turning a blind eye to other marine utilization schemes that would destroy the food supply of all whales, certainly lacks understanding. Those who would protect all animals from hunters, but leave them to starve on a depleted habitat, have some strange kink in their humanitarianism. Those who would eat meat, but oppose all killing of animals, live at best in a peculiarly sheltered world.

PARI2=

Tofhe anfi-hunfer You are a new phenomenon-new in American history and new in the evolutionary history of mankind. Studies indicate that you tend to be more educated, on the wealthy side, and urban, and your group includes a higher proportion of women than is found among hunters. You have been very successful, in an increasingly urbanized environment, in achieving your goals over the past several years. You have made important contributions to the welfare of rare and endangered species, and have forced the hunter to undertake a re-examination of his behavior. You have often inserted humanity where only demography previously ruled. It may surprise you to hear me say that you are in danger of losing what you strive to protect. Extremism has a way of catching up to one in the fickle public arena. Flushed with success, you have often become unreasonable and oppressive, and have forgotten human social rights and ethical constraints in Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

your rush to protect the rights of other animals. At your worst, you are blindly intent on eliminating an important aspect of human diversity, and foreclosing any future for an important and long-satisfying human experience. You would prohibit something that is culturally and genetically based, and is emotionally fulfilling to many of your fellow humans. You would prohibit something that is ecologically sound, and that most ecosystems have evolved alongside. Most important, by focusing your considerable energies against fellow conservationists-hunters who share your perception of man's relationship to nature-you give free rein to others who don't give a damn wheth-

By misdirecting your efforts against those who in reality share your most basic concerns, you are in danger of losing it all. As a thoughtful conservationist you should consider several suggestions before expending your energies to fight against all hunting: first, learn more about ecology. Learn that the real danger to ecosystems is not limited killing of consumer species, but rather wholesale destruction of substrate and producing species and injection of pollutants. Learn the principles of compensation. Learn that once an ecosystem is altered by man (and few remain unaltered), further manipulation is often necessary to preserve it. And learn more of the ''natural'' lives of wild animals and the conditions they have evolved to cope with. When you understand these things, I predict that you will have a much deeper love of natural things than you now have, and will be able to relate to them more than you ever dreamed. Love based on knowledge transcends any emotional attachment based on fantasy and misinformation. Second, learn more of human evolution and of man's primordial relationships to natural systems. You will discover that man has long been at or near the top of the food chain, and that he has long been intertwined with many prey species as a predator. You will discover how many of man's behavioral and cultural attributesattributes as basic as family structure-evolved because of his hunting 5

heritage. You will learn that huntergatherer societies are the least destructive of natural systems, and that agricultural societies have been responsible for atrocious environmental degradations. You will learn that hunting man has always felt the greatest reverence for wild things, and has always mourned their disappearance (and strived for their protection) more than has urban man. Most important, you will discover that true hunting is not an aberration, but is an integral part of evolved mankind. The closer man returns to the natural world, the more he returns to hunting. Third, learn to distinguish between hunters, hooligans and exploiters. The true hunter sincerely enjoys what he does and finds himself fulfilled and brought closer to nature by it. He cherishes the intimacy and respect inherent in the hunter-hunted relationship, and understands wild things better than anyone else. He is no more a bloodthirsty "kook" than you are. These things distinguish the true hunter, and he shares your disgust for those who kill and destroy thoughtlessly, wastefully or cruelly. Fourth, learn what hunters have done for wildlife. It may be a difficult thing to face, but you are a Johnnycome-lately to conservation: the American hunter has talked about ecology, pollution, habitat destruction and the "balance of nature" for more than half a century, and hunters in other lands longer than that. Hunters' dollars have paid for the research that has taught us almost all we know about wildlife. Hunters' dollars have paid for preserving millions of acres of land that support millions of wild animals. Hunters have fought for decades to preserve wild systems when no one else cared. These are facts you cannot ignore. Fifth, you must recognize the fact that subsistence economies will continue to be the most ecologically sane means of support for people living in the North. This support comes at no cost to the ecosystems it derives from and allows one of the most satisfying life-styles left on earth. To preseve such a life-style is the best way to pre6

serve our last great natural systems in North America-and the best way to insure that your children might one day have the opportunity to understand wild things as only the selfsufficient subsistence user can. The alternative is grim: an increased load on our wasteful energy/ resource economy, an immense area of "wild" land supporting ecosystems deprived of a natural predator, and in turn burdened by thousands of industrial consumption-oriented visitors, and another deeply satisfying dimension of human life forever lost. You owe it to your fellow humans to consider each case on its merits, to really consider all the ramifications of hunting or the abolition of hunting, and to never summarily prohibit something you do not understand. Most importantly, put your efforts where they will do the most good-toward stopping the developer, the energy salesman, the polluter and their ilk. Don't squander them on your closest ally, the hunter.

PART 3= To the Wildlilc T1i1Di1f!ÂŁf

You, the professional wildlife manager, are caught in the middle of an apocalyptic struggle that will decide the future of the things you believe make life worth living. You are beset on one side by hunters, on another by anti-hunters, and from all around by

drillers, ditchers, cutters, builders, burners and polluters, You have watched hunting, which likely lured you into your profession, degenerate into gadgeteering, and tarnish because of it. You have welcomed a new ecological awareness in the general public in hopes that someone finally might understand the multitude of threats to wildlife-and more often than not have been rewarded only with counter-productive emotion. Most frightening, you have watched industrial society, which took 100 years to merely sprout, suddenly mushroom into a monster before which nothing is sacred. These things have called for a reassessment of your values, and a re-definition of your goals. If you are to save wildlife and the human satisfaction natural things provide, you must consider several things: First, you must re-examine the entire concept of wildlife management. "Management" is a young concept, with its roots in husbandry and agriculture. Managers have traditionally dealt with the demographic principles of production and mortality, and with preserving (and often improving) habitats. You have largely dealt with how many individuals might be taken from a given population, and have strived to increase this allowable take by manipulation of population structure and habitat. However, the more we learn of natural systems the more we realize that omnipotent manipulation is seldom, if ever, possible without a significant loss of diversity and stability. More important, we learn that the crop itself is nearly always far less important than the variety of human experiences the resource can provide. And we learn that maximum production of experiences requires unmanipulated as well as manipulated communities. It is crucial that you as a wildlife manager recognize that what you are truly managing for is a diversity of human experience with wildlife. In many cases this means you are more a people manager than a wildlife manager. Producing game is no longer enough. Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Secondly, wildlife managers must become less insular in outlook. You no longer work only for hunters. If indeed you ever did. Hunters pay the bills, it is true, but they are not buying the right to kill something. Rather they are supporting programs to preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat, and to preserve diversity of human interactions (both consumptive and non-consumptive) with wildlife. You are working for the resource, the future and for all who come into contact with the resource, not merely for anyone who buys a firearm or a hunting license and thereby contributes money to wildlife management. Third, you must stress quality rather than quantity. "Hunter days afield'' is one valid measure of your success as a manager, but it is only a part of the picture. The nature of the experience those hunters undergo is the real basic measure of the product you are providing. And do not fall into the trap of thinking that without harvesting there is no management-that nonconsumptive use is no use at all. Today's overabundance of potential users and reduced number of wild systems doom any attempt to supply unlimited demands. Fourth, realize that you are managing ecosystems, not deer, cottontails or mallards. Your obligation extends to all the non-game creatures which Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

are part and parcel of diverse systems. Without songbirds, insects, reptiles, rodents and all the other animals which are never harvested, the natural world would hold much less fascination for hunters and nonhunters alike. Fifth, spend more time finding out what today's public wants. Bureaucrats and technocrats tend to dictate and manipulate rather than to ask, and many wildlife managers seem to be serving the public as they imagined it existed 10 years ago. You have often forced biologically sound maximum sustained yield management on a public that really did not want it,

stressing the dollars and cents values involved rather than the emotional values left unrealized. If you wonder at the adversary relationship that has developed between you and both hunters and anti-hunters, you might look here for an explanation. Sixth, try a little creativity. Learn about compatible-use zoning, about flexible restrictions in time and space. Learn how some systems can accommodate a multitude of wildliferelated uses if they are properly managed. Learn how you can enhance each user's experience with education and regulations that transcend traditional thinking. Laissez-faire in people management is a luxury we can no longer afford, least of all in the lands whose wildness we most want to preserve. Finally, help both the hunter and the non-hunter toward an understanding of where the true satisfactions of hunting and other interactions with wildlife are to be found. Do not shrink from discussing-even teaching-ethics and concern for wildlife and for other humans who love wildlife. If you can do this one thing, you will expand the horizons of modern man tremendously, and create a concern that will never allow wild things to be forced from the earth. This is the function of a â&#x20AC;˘ wildlife manager. 7

DON'T WASTE THE YEAR OF THE BIG SNOW! By Ernest F. Swift Editor's Note: The recent succession of light snowfall winters has led many observers to believe that Maine is overdue for a good, old-!ashioned snow year, and that it's coming this winter. We share that feeling. We also believe that an important part of life in the northern latitudes should involve more than Just surviving the test of winter. The cold months can be enjoyed and appreciated. They can also be a time for learning. To help set the stage for what may be the year of the big snow, we are reprinting the fallowing article by the late Ernest F. Swift, farmer conservation advisor to the National Wildlife Federation. The author clearly enjoyed and appreciated winter and he understood its lessons. If this does turn out to be the kind of winter we are overdue for, don't waste it. Get out and explore winter's community of life.

OME PEOPLE like the four seasons. Winter, however, is complained of by those who can afford to complain, and used as a status symbol to retreat south during the snow months. I like winter because of its uncompromising challenge. Even with modern conveniences, a good old-fash-

ioned winter does not allow too many stupid mistakes or total irresponsibility. This is the "year of the big snow" in many northern regions. Snow years are cyclic as are rain years and drought. The term "snow year" has a particular connotation to natives. It means storms and drifts and shoveling; it means cold, clear dawns when smoke rises from chimneys straight as a gun barrel. It means sun dogs, and the house creaking as the frost fights to get in. It means white, windswept landscapes. There was a time when winter meant huge wood piles; it meant sleighs and gooseneck cutters and buffalo robes, the jingle of harness

and horses with their noses festooned with icicles. Today, recreation knows no seasons. People ice fish, ski, and of late explore with snowmobiles. Ice fishing can be a test of stamina without a shanty or windbreak. Skiing has become immensely popular, and it is claimed that the snowmobile now allows people to explore the hinterlands. Snowshoeing is becoming a lost art, even with game agents . I have always preferred snowshoes, plus a packsack containing a tea pail, black bread, and bacon. The travel is slower on snowshoes, but the education is much greater than with a snowmobile or just sliding down hill on skis. Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

What is there out in this winter desert that is of interest? Some people .simply look without comprehending, others see and perceive. There is a track in the snow. Should it be passed by without examination? Certainly not! What kind of animal made it? It is hard to tell in the loose snow; and what is the animal doing, traveling or hunting? So the track is followed until a good print indicates a fox, and further trailing into a maple thicket tells that it is hunting mice. Here is a story etched in the snow. The predator fox which has been accused of killing off the fall crop of ruffed grouse and pheasants is now busy protecting the young forest growth. There are other small tracks which finally lead to a big oak with a squirrel nest in its upper branches . A fox squirrel has been exploring for acorns and hickory nuts-or just exploring. Down at the creek the beavers have built themselves a dam. At the head of the pond is their house, indicating that the family is snug for the winter. Off in an adjacent marsh are several snow-covered muskrat houses, and across the ice are the tracks of a small animal. They look like mink tracks, and when followed disappear under the ice. Mr. Mink would not be above killing an unwary muskrat in the murky water below. Upstream the bank rises rather sharply. What is this deep groove in the snow? Why, it is a slide where the otter have been frolicking!

O HERE we have a community of wildlife. The beaver found a suitable site for a dam, plus aspen and birch for food. The muskrats located in a back water where there was a winter's supply of aquatic plants and tubers. The beaver pond furnished winter quarters for trout, minnows, and suckers; and so the otter and mink found a happy hunting ground. Where the beaver had done their logging, the ground is tramped down by snowshoe rabbits-a good place for a bobcat to get a quick meal. In

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

the spring a pair of black ducks may preempt the pond and raise a brood. Of course, some trout fishermen will curse the beaver because their special brand of conservation is affected. Like many sportsmen, they fail to appreciate the community of life. Some distance upstream the creek seeps out of a cedar swamp, where surrounding lowlands are covered with a growth of tag alders, black ash, moose wood, and balsam. Deer trails disappear into the swamp, and on climbing over down timber there is a large area tramped down like a sheep pasture. Several deer flit away through the shadows of low-hanging boughs. Many cedar, however, are stripped of their green needles as high as one can reach. The deer have been feeding on them as well as browsing on the balsam and moose wood and ash at the perimeter of the swamp. Several dead fawns are to be found, partly eaten by scavengers. The edible browse was out of their reach. Fawns are always the first to die.

T IS NOW time to hang a tea pail over a little fire, and put the bacon on a stick to sizzle. The frozen bread is placed on a piece of bark below the bacon so that the fat can drip down and thaw it out. Invariably a Canada jay, a snow bunting, or a chickadee will perch on nearby branches, hoping to share in the lunch. They are also important in this community of life. The trek out of the woods follows a ridge through scattered hardwoods and the deep green of pine. There is a porky-hog up a hemlock getting his evening meal. This "varmint" is hated by the foresters. He doesn't fit into their life community. There are low, scudding clouds of late afternoon, and the sharp rattle of popple branches as night closes down, bleak, cold and uncompromising. The pace is increased to keep the blood circulating, and ear laps are pulled down. The winter wilderness seems ready to strike if there is some breach of judgment, such as falling

into a spring hole or losing direction. That is part of the fascination of the snow country-the potential risk. I could by no means count the many times and the many winters that I have lived these experiences; and now I go back to live them again. I always seem to need a refresher course on the beauty and vitality of nature-on the basic truths and lessons of ecology, survival, and the harsh exacting laws of nature. These are things which feelingly persuade me what I am. They make me small and insignificant. This is no flattery.

INTER is a magnificent season of the year, and its educational lessons in resource management are just as important as any other. It has a great challenge if one likes challenges, and a pair of snowshoes is the proper means of travel to properly absorb all of winter's wonderland. Do this and the year of the big snow will not be wasted. â&#x20AC;˘

Escape The Winter Blahs.

TRY ICE FISHING! Do the long cold winter days make you yearn for warm weather? Does the winter never seem to end? Why not try a new sport like ice fishing and make those winter days melt away into pleasant memories? It's relatively inexpensive, it's good exercise, it can provide plenty of fresh fish for the months ahead and it can be very exciting. Any ice fishermen will tell you that once the fish start striking they'll have you running from one ice trap to another retrieving fish. During the times that the fish aren't quite so active, you may want to do some ice skating or maybe even some snowmobiling, but remember not to stray too far from your traps, because Maine law requires that you supervise your traps at all times. For more detailed information on the laws, you may write for, or pick up, your copy of the ice fishing regulations at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If you've never been ice fishing, you'll need to know what you should have for gear. For starters, you'll need some ice traps. Illustrated here are three different types of traps, any of which are acceptable. You may build them yourself or they can be purchased. Some are made of metal-others are made of wood. It's all a matter of preference. Here's an example of how an ice trap works. When the fish takes the bait, the line will come off the reel and the reel in turn triggers a stiff wire or narrow strip of metal to tip up the trap's flag, telling the fisherman he has a bite.

WOODEN ICE TRAP WITH REEL BELOW ICE

I I I

I I"" ~ I I\

',..~.

~Âˇ.Âˇ'-~ ,_

METAL TUBULAR ICE TRAP WITH REEL BELOW ICE

WOODEN ICE TRAP WITH REEL ABOVE ICE

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Letters should be sent to: Patricia Hogan, KID-BITS Editor Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine 284 State Street, Sta. #41 Augusta, ME 04333

ICE SPUD

SHOVEL TYPE AUGER

spud, it'll reduce the noise and in turn won't scare the fish away. A bait pail and ice skimmer should also be part of your outfit. A good bait pail will help keep your fish alive for hours, and a skimmer is a must for dishing out slush that may form in the hole. The last item, a windbreaker may be considered a luxury by some, but on a cold and windy day it can provide you with some shelter. Shown in the illustration is an easy and inexpensive pattern which you may want to use. You can make the winter days fly by if you spend some time pulling Maine fish through the ice. Why not try it this winter?

Another basic item you will need is an ice spud. It will help you probe for thin ice when going out on a lake and it can also be used to make your holes in the ice. If you become an avid ice fisherman, you may want to invest in an ice auger. Besides being easier to use than an ice

WINDBREAKER

ÂĽ ... /1.S

..,..,tH

J(EA.D.S

ICE SKIMMER AND BAIT PAIL Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Build That Fire . ..

THE RIGHT WAY! By Gary Anderson Safety Officer

F YOU WERE ASKED which is more important, knowing how to build a fire or how to carry out first aid, I expect you'd be hard pressed to answer. Almost anyone can find a first aid course at a moment's notice-but how would you acquire skills in fire-building? You can certainly find articles on the subject, but you have little chance of finding actual training courses. In this article, we will point out some fire-building techniques, and suggest possible sources for additional practical firebuilding instruction. There must be three elements present to create combustion-a combustible substance, oxygen, and heat. Nature provides the fuel and the oxygen; you must supply the heat and knowledge. Let's discuss fuels first. When preparing to lay a fire, you should have tinder, kindling, and fuel. Small dry sticks , dry leaves, paper, and brush make good tinderbut you may need to help it along. A candle placed beneath imperfect tinder will help it ignite. Also helpful are kerosene-soaked sawdust or commercial fuel tabs. The "kero-dust" is safe, convenient, non-evaporating, Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

and can easily be made at home. It can be carried in a plastic container and sprinkled throughout the firebed, pretty well guaranteeing ignition. Several companies sell waterproof matches. It's best to stay away from those that require a striker-if the striker is wet, the match can't be ignited. A more reliable product can be made by dipping kitchen matches in melted paraffin once. Over-dipping clogs them and they won't ignite. Clear nail polish also does an excellent job of waterproofing and won't clog the matchhead. A very serviceable product can be made by wrapping wool yarn around a strike-anywhere kitchen match and dipping it in wax. The match is still an excellent kindle, even if you knock the head off. Good kindling can be found under brush piles-or use the ends of dead tree limbs, birds ' nests, leaves, and of course, birch bark, which will ignite whether wet or dry. Bag the kindling in a shirt when gathering it during a rainstorm. Reach up under overhanging stream and river banks for dry kindling; the last runoff left it there for you and the breezes up the river dried it out. Always gather lots of kindling so you can rebuild your coals into a good fire easily. If you find some dead, dry softwood, make some "fuzz sticks"-start to whittle a shaving off, but stop just short of a full stroke. Repeat this until you have something that looks like a bottle brush. Larger wood should be gathered next. Even green or wet wood can be utilized by laying it across your fire and letting it burn into two sections, etc . Poorer grades of wood can be used as windbreaks, fire foundations, etc. If, after you've gotten a good bed of coals built up, you want a slow steady fire, use round wood. Split wood will burn with more flame because of the extra edges. At this point you should have a spot picked-away from other combustibles, not under snow-laden limbs, and not in the way of too much wind. Clear the ground to bare earth

for at least 8 or 10 feet around your fire spot . Better yet, place a flat stone or some gravel under your fire. Have some water handy-for you and for fire protection. It is wise to dampen the earth around your fire. Don't place your spare wood too close to the flames or coals, and be alert to sparks on your gear. Let's look at a fire-building situation. It's raining, you're getting cold, and you want to warm some lunch. After choosing your spot, find some dry kindling and protect it by bagging or placing it under some nearby overhang. Then select your tinder. If you're prepared you'll have kero-dust or some wax-impregnated item on hand. If not, forage, and protect what you find. Try to find a clump of earth, a stone, or a wet piece of wood around which to place your materials. This will provide a draft. Quickly ignite by striking your match on something perfectly dry. If you have a candle, light it. It will really help in this situation, as it provides constant heat to your tinder. A cheap butane lighter of the disposable type is also an excellent emergency igniter. As soon as you have good flame, feed in the kindling, slowly increasing size and quantity until you have a coal bed. Don't leave your fire untended for even a few minutes. In rainy weather you may lose it; in dry weather you may wish you had!! For wet weather fire-laying, the pyramid design is probably best. Each good woodsman seems to have his or her favorite firelay, however, and you must practice to find yours. One of the great treats in camping is spending pleasant moments beside an open fire . But remember-there are few places in Maine where you can build fires without a permit. Always check in with your local forest ranger. Recommended reading for the serious student of woods skills and survival: You Alone in the Maine Woods by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Fieldbook for Boys and Men by the Boy Scouts of America. â&#x20AC;˘ 13

PREDATOR

HOW DO THEY RELATE?

PREY

By John T. Major

and James A. Sherburne ANY PEOPLE enjoy the sight of a red fox crossing the road or hunting mice in an open field. Others find it intriguing following the tracks of a bobcat, coyote, or fisher on snow to see where it traveled, or maybe where it found a meal. Furbearing mammals are a very interesting and valuable component of Maine's rich wildlife resource. While the sight of one of these animals or its distinctive sign is itself a rewarding experience, trappers and hunters also find the pelts provide an economic incentive for their sport. And since most of Maine's furbearers are carnivores, or predators, they are the focus of much lively discussion on predation and its effects on game species or livestock. There are many things we must still learn about these elusive, wary, and wide-ranging creatures in order to manage them better for both economic and aesthetic values. In fact, furbearing species are the subject of several studies in Maine at this time, conducted by the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. In one study, we are investigating

The authors, respectively, are graduate research assistant and leader, Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.

the ecology and species relationships among three furbearers-coyote, fox, and bobcat-in the Pierce Pond area of western Maine. The western mountain region of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife's Management Unit 3 was chosen for our research project for several reasons. This was traditionally an area where many bobcats were harvested, but the take declined during several years prior to the beginning of fieldwork in the fall of 1979. Understandably, we were interested in the bobcat population of this area and the factors which affected them. The deer herd of Wildlife Management Unit 3 was also known to be declining through the 1970s. Some deer studies were conducted within this area, particularly with respect to winter severity, and provided a beginning toward understanding part of the problem. And since the area was generally thought to be one of the first places in the state supporting numbers of coyotes, we had a unique opportunity to see just how this animal fit into the furbearer /predator complex. Information available on fox, coyote, and bobcat suggested that all three may be quite similar in many of Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Technician John Dykstra uses a jab-pole attached to the syringe containing an immobilizing drug injected to permit handling of this large male bobcat.

their basic ecological requirements. Our study was designed to determine how these species with similar ''niches'' are able to coexist on a common resource base, a given land area with its habitats and prey populations. We are collecting information on habitat use, home range, food habits, movements and activities, and population structure which will provide the foundation for future furbearer management and planning decisions. Since the beginning of fieldwork two years ago, over 35 individual animals have been handled. A variety of techniques have been used to obtain study animals. The most successful method has been trapping with steel traps, modifed to reduce any risk of injury to captured animals. Box traps intended for fisher have also produced several young bobcats. And one large, male bobcat-treed with the aid of hounds owned by Neil "Sonny" Wade of Pleasant Ridge-was tranquilized with a dart gun so that a defective radio collar could be replaced. When an animal is captured, it is physically restrained with a noose pole and given an injection of an immobilizing drug. Within a couple of minutes, the animal can be handled easily, and information on the sex, relative age, Student researchers examine and record data for a bobcat, one of the predators whose habits are studied, prior to radio-collaring and release.

Photo by John Major

Photo by John Dykstra

neighboring bobcat, coyote, and fox for five continuous days, 24 hours per day. The data collected during this "blitz" are being used to produce a computer-simulation movie depicting the movements of the three animals throughout their ranges.

Standing on a small peak, John Major makes radio contact with collared animals in the Bigelow Mountain area.

weight, physical condition, and standard body measurements are recorded. Plastic tags are then applied to each ear so that the animal can be positively identified if it is ever captured again by the researchers, taken by a sportsman or falls victim to an automobile. Already, several animals have been recaptured and released, and mortality causes of 10 animals have been reported directly to the researchers or to cooperating wardens and biologists. Most of the adult animals captured are equipped with one additional item before being released: a radio collar. This device allows the researchers to locate the animal at any time by using a special receiver tuned to the exact frequency of the radio collar and determining the animal's whereabouts with a directional antenna. The animal is located by finding the intersection of bearings taken from two or more receiving locations. This technique is referred to as radio telemetry. Radio telemetry has proven to be an extremely useful tool in revealing the movements and activities of these wary wilderness creatures. The animals are monitored during both day and night hours and at all seasons. Sometimes, a single location every week or so is sufficient to determine that a well-studied individual is still alive and well and within its usual haunts. More often, though, an individual is monitored every 15 minutes for eight or more hours to provide detailed information on habitat use and movement patterns. When feasible, several neighboring animals are monitored simultaneously. During one notable monitoring session, additional personnel were "borrowed'' from other University of Maine wildlife research projects to enable the simultaneous radio monitoring of a 16

IETARY PREFERENCES of the predators are revealed by an examination of scats (droppings) collected while following the tracks of these animals in the snow and from along roads and trails year-round. Bone fragments, hair, and seeds present in the scats are identified with the aid of a museum collection. Snowshoe hare appear to be the top food item, followed by deer and small mammals such as voles and mice. In season, fruits and berries are readily eaten by coyotes and fox. Other items they occasionally eat are beaver, muskrat, red squirrels, porcupine, birds, and insects. Coyotes, in particular, are very opportunistic in their feed habits; one scat contained lobster fragments, probably scavenged from the remnants of a meal enjoyed by campers, as it is several miles to the coast! Since the foods eaten by these creatures depend on what is available, determinations of prey population levels reveal any year-to-year fluctuations in the prey base and can also be used to compare the prey availability in the Pierce Pond study area to other areas of the state in which other research projects are being conducted. Biologists of the Fish and Wildlife Department's Big Game Project estimate wintering deer density by counting pellet groups along transects established throughout the state, including the Pierce Pond area. The status of the snowshoe hare population is determined by counting them along the roadside during the summer months, counting their tracks crossing winter snow transects, and pellet counts within permanent plots. Small mammals are sampled in several habitat types during July and October, using snap-trap grids. An additional factor which may exert a strong influence on both predators and prey, particularly white-tail deer, is the severity of the winter. In cooperation with the Big Game Project, a weather station is maintained in the study area to record temperatures and snow depth and structure, as well as sinking depths of deer.

ANY INTERESTING THINGS have already been learned during the course of this investigation. When analyses of the data are completed, during the summer of 1982, we should be able to make a valuable contribution of basic data needed in making management decisions on several important species of wildlife. We can also expect the results of this study to present new and interesting challenges and to identify some remaining key questions to be answered in the quest for a more complete and thorough understanding of this fascinating forbearer community. â&#x20AC;˘ Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

the Fly Tying Bench

THE GREY GHOST

STREAMER FLY #1

By Peter G. Walker ABOUT THE FLY The Grey Ghost is the most famous of all Maine fly patterns. In fact, it is one of the few Maine patterns that has achieved worldwide recognition. In the summer of 1924, Wallace and Carrie Stevens lived in a cabin at Upper Dam between Mooselookmeguntic and Richardson lakes . Wallace was a fishing guide and Carrie, although an experienced milliner, spent the days keeping house and doing a bit of fishing. She was interested in fly tying and was in the process of teaching herself the art through trial and error. One day, Carrie had an inspiration for a streamer fly that would somewhat resemble a smelt. She postponed her chores and sat down to tie one, then took the finished fly to the waterfront to try it out. The result was a whopping six-pound, 11-ounce brook trout which subsequently won an award in a major outdoor magazine! Needless to say, it wasn't long before Carrie Stevens' streamer flies were in great demand. As time went on, she

became a very skilled tier. Besides the Grey Ghost, many of her other original patterns are now Maine classics as well. THE PATTERN HOOKS: (casting streamers) 6X long streamer hooks in sizes 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-(trolling streamers) size 4 wet fly hooks in tandem or special 8X long in sizes 2, 4 THREAD: black (some tiers use grey) RIBBING: flat silver tinsel BODY: orange floss THROAT: a small bunch of white bucktail extending beyond the hook the same length as the wings WINGS: four to six strands of peacock herl, over which is tied a single downward curved golden pheasant crest feather, over which are tied four blue dun (light grey) saddle hackles SHOULDERS: silver pheasant body feathers CHEEKS: artificial jungle cock eyes optional (real ones no longer available)

1 After creating an even body with careÂˇ ful, consecutive winds of floss (secured with tying thread), make the ribbing by evenly spacing winds of tinsel as pictured. Secure the end with tying thread and trim with scissors.

Tie down the ends of (1st) a length of ribbing tinsel and (2nd) a length of body floss, then wind the tying thread forward to the head area.

Secure the bucktail throat beneath the shank as pictured and trim off the excess.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

The first stage of the wings is made by securing several strands of peacock herl the same length as the throat on top of the shank.

Your streamers will be more durable if applications of thin lacquer or head cement are made between steps.

Carrie Stevens' artistic tastes dictated a golden pheasant crest feather in the wings as shown. Select one that is about the same length as the rest of the wings.

Select and match four saddle hackles so that their outer ends meet. Holding the matched feathers together, cut them off at the desired length. Next, pull off a few fibers around the bases to provide a good base of attachment. Then secure the bare bases with tying thread as shown.

A few winds of tying thread to even up the head, tie off, lacquer, and your Grey Ghost is a finished product.

Select two matching silver pheasant feathers, trim off their bases to the desired size and attach to either side of the fly as shown.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

THE COYOTE H

AVE A PAIR of yellow

A Look At His

Lifestyle By Suzanne L. Caturano and Daniel J. Harrison The authors are graduate assistants at the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

eyes met your headlights lately? Has a flash of fur and long legs crossed your path as you drove down a backwoods road at twilight? Chances are good the elusive critter you caught a glimpse of was a coyote, Canis latrans. During the last 30 years, coyotes have been expanding their range eastward from Quebec and New Hampshire and into Maine. They are likely to be well established in a new area before local residents are fully aware of their presence. You may catch a glimpse of one darting into the brush, or maybe find tracks and scats (droppings) that are larger than those of a fox but smaller than those of your neighbor's German shepherd. If that same German shepherd starts howling in the middle of the night and wakes you up, and the fire whistle isn't blowing, it may be in response to a group of coyotes howling up a storm across the ridge . Or, come fall, you may set a trap for that handsome dog fox you've seen several times in the field across the way, only to find a coyote waiting for you the next morning! At first glance, the coyote may remind you of a small German shepherd in size and appearance, but there are several characteristics that distinguish a coyote from a dog. An eastern coyote has large, erect ears, a slender nose, yellow eyes, and a full, black-tipped tail held down, unlike a dog's. Typical coloration is a grizzled grey with a lighter cream or white underside, but a reddish-blond variation is not uncommon. Coyotes appear heavier than they really are. Adults usually range from 25 to 35 pounds, although a few weighing 40 to 50 pounds have been taken in Maine. Coyotes are Maine's largest furbearing predators, since wolves were eliminated from the state in the early 1900s. And the controversy over coy-

otes in the western states has become fully ingrained in the minds of many Mainers. As a result, these animals are generally not considered a desirable or acceptable addition to the Maine woods. The coyote has been protected in some states, bountied in others. In Maine, it is classified as a furbearer and is considered a renewable fur resource, but adequate knowledge necessary to manage coyotes is needed. Sifting out the myths that surround the coyote from the facts about the animal's habits and lifestyle is the basis for research being conducted through the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Maine. In the fall of 1979, we began a study of coyotes in Hancock and Washington counties, part of an overall predator ecology project headed by Dr. James Sherburne, in cooperation with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The objectives of this project are to assess the habitat use, movement and activity patterns, and food habits of adult and juvenile coyotes in an area ecologically representative of eastern Maine. The study area covers approximately 250 square miles. Logging operations are common in the area as most of it is forested. Non-forested lands are primarily peat bogs or blueberry barrens. Several mammalian predators coexisting with coyotes on the study area include bobcat, fox, raccoon, otter, mink, weasel and an occasional fisher. Common game species include moose, deer, bear, showshoe hare, ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, and several species of migratory birds. One of the more controversial aspects of coyotes anywhere they live, including Maine, is their diet. One method of determining the food habits of coyotes is to analyze scats, which they often drop in conspicuous places on rocks and at trail and road crossings. A detailed examination of 573 scats we collected showed coyotes had fed on snowshoe hare consistently, year-round. Although evidence of 19

This 16-week-old coyote pup, recaught to check its growth rate, has been wearing this radio collar with ease since six weeks of age. The collar is designed to expand as the coyote grows. Photo by Dan Harrison.

deer and hare appears in scats collected during winter and spring, the occurrence of deer drops off to a very low level during summer and fall and is substituted by fruit, mainly blueberries, and small mammals. As of late summer 1981, we have live-trapped 15 coyotes. After being sexed, weighed, measured, and photographed, all have been fitted with numbered ear tags and a collar containing a small (1.5 oz.) radio transmitter. In addition, a litter of four pups was radio-collared at six weeks of age in June 1981. Each animal is given a unique radio frequency so it can be located and monitored with a special receiver and antenna. Coyotes have been radio-tracked around the clock four to six times per week. Depending on the monitoring schedule and time of year, we have obtained one location at a time or followed the animal for up to 24 hours; always noting its location, habitat used, and activity (resting or active) every 15 minutes. To date, we have obtained over 3,000 relocations for these 19 coyotes and from them have determined the home range, movements and activity patterns, and habitat use by each animal. Habitat use was determined by totalling the number of relocations which fell into each of five broad cover-type classes: hardwoods, softwoods, mixed woods, bogs, and barrens. 20

The home range of a coyote was considered to be the area the animal normally covered in its activities of feeding, resting, and interacting with other coyotes. When the outermost radio-locations were connected, an imaginary boundary was formed which delineates the home range and represents the minimum area used by the coyote. Home range size can be compared at different times of the year to determine factors affecting coyote movement patterns. We separated our data into four time periods which represent changes in the coyote's reproductive cycle: Reproductive Period Pairbonding and Breeding Gestation Nursing Family Unit

Time January-February March-April May-June July-December

AIRBONDING AND BREEDING. Male and

fem ale coyotes form pair bonds and breed in early winter. The mechanisms of mate selection and duration in eastern coyotes are still to be discovered, but it appears that the bond between a breeding pair may be strong enough to last their lifetime. One of our pairs has bred at least two years in a row. During this period, we had two breeding pairs and one yearling male whose behavior and activity indicated he was paired to an uncollared fem ale. Females in our area

began to show signs of being in heat in mid-January. Dating back from when the pups were born, we calculated that they conceived in midFebruary. Relocated coyote pairs were discovered to be traveling and resting together more often during this season than at any other time in the year. From snowtracking, we learned pairs often hunt as a team, following hare trails and zig-zagging through thick brush to flush out potential prey. Coyotes were found in forested cover almost all the time, primarily softwoods. Open areas, such as bogs and barrens, were virtually never used in the winter except to travel across for short distances. In the daytime, coyotes were actively hunting or traveling about half the time; at other times we would find them resting. Rest sites were found and examined from backtracking known animals in the snow after we had plotted their movements. These sites were often found in sunny areas on knolls with sparse cover, or atop large boulders. The average home range for these coyotes during this period in early winter was less than five square miles. GESTATION. The nine-week gestation period in late winter-early spring is characterized by the shrinking home range of the fem ale as her pregnancy progresses. In April, we concentrated our efforts on the female of the western pair so we could pinpoint when and where the pups were born. We located the female an average of once every two hours, day and night, beginning April 4. We found her resting in softwood cover 90 percent of the time. The male traveled extensively during this month, sometimes four to Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

six miles from the female and covering an area of about seven square miles. He would return to his mate daily, usually in the early morning, and would rest until shortly after sunset. The pair spent relatively little time at the eventual den site but concentrated their inactive periods at four or five other sites, possibly potential dens. Five to seven days before giving birth on, or about April 20, the female remained at the den site constantly and only ventured out for brief periods around sunrise and sunset. Her home range during the last week of gestation was only one square mile! NURSING. Coyote pups are nursed for about six weeks following their birth in late April. Initially, the pups are blind and helpless. During this critical period, female coyotes spend about 80 percent of their time at the den and restrict their movements to a single, daily hunting trip of up to six hours. These forays are taken during the day when temperatures are high enough to insure the warmth of the unattended pups. Male coyotes hunt extensively during the nursing period, but their daily visits to the den are usually coordinated with the female's absence. On one occasion, we observed a radiocollared female returning to the den from a hunting trip, and within a few

minutes her mate left the same area in what appeared to be "a changing of the guard.'' Pups emerge from dens to play and sun themselves at approximately four to five weeks of age, at which time they weigh nearly three pounds. Females then begin to leave them unattended more often, and hunt or rest away from up to 15 consecutive hours. Throughout the nursing period, pups are frequently moved to new den sites. One fem ale moved her pups six times during a nine-week period. This movement often follows human disturbances, but sometimes it is

COYOTES RADIO-COLLARED BETWEEN 1979 AND 1981

Yi +

Weight (pounds) 29.5 30.6

Time monitored (months) 10 12

M F F

1+ 1+ 15 weeks

32.0 32.0 11.0

16+ 16+ 1+

Wes tern Pair

F M M

Yi Yi

25.5 29.5 25.5

4 7 5

Fall Family Group

1 Yi

F 4 Pups

3+ 6 weeks

27.5 ÂŤ4.0

3 3+

Mother and Litter #2

4 Pups

19 weeks

13.0 Avg.

Litter #3

M F

Yi Yz

24.4 22.7

Sex

F M

Age when collared (years) 2 Yz

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

Social Groups (as referred to in text) Eastern Pair

Pup of their Litter #1

Undetermined Undetermined

This six-month-old coyote with radio collar in place already exhibits many of the physical features characteristic of adults. Photo by John Dykstra.

made for no apparent reason. New dens which we located were usually within a mile of previous sites, and it took the parents two or three nights to move their entire litter. Our coyotes were never radio tracked to a den site once it had been abandoned, but there have been reports of pairs using the same dens for several years in a row. Dens varied from cavities under large boulders to excavations from the sandy remains of old fox and woodchuck burrows. All of the dens we examined were situated in welldrained soils and had entrances with southern exposures. Most consisted of a single chamber five to eight feet in length and 16 to 20 inches in width, but multi-chambered dens with more than one entrance are not uncommon. Unlike fox dens-which are usually cluttered with bones, skulls, and feathers-coyote dens are amazingly clean and devoid of prey remains or scats. Coyotes used forest cover heavily during the nursing period, and few, if any, locations were in barrens or bogs. However, open trails at barren edges were used extensively as travel routes. 21

ÂŁ, w u z w ~ ~

::::,

u u

WINTER

SPRING

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

EARLY FALL

Figure 1. Seasonal coyote food habits for predator study area in eastern Maine.

FAMILY UNIT. We carried out simultaneous monitoring of coyotes throughout the summer and fall to study family associations, movements, and mortality of these animals. Following weaning in midJune, families remain close-knit until the pups become independent and venture on their own in late fall and early winter. During this period, marked changes occur in the behavior and physical characteristics of the pups as they learn the skills necessary for their survival. Pup scats collected at den sites indicated that pups were weaned and began eating meat at about six weeks of age. At weaning, parent coyotes began to travel extensively to search for enough food to sustain themselves and their growing offspring. In fact, the home range of one female expanded from two square miles during the nursing period to 12 square miles in the first two weeks after weaning. Males often venture off for several days at a time, but continue making occasional visits to the den. Females are more regular in their den attendance and usually rest with their pups for up to six hours daily. At about eight weeks of age, pups begin short exploratory movements 22

Standard measurements are recorded for each study animal, such as this juvenile, prior to release. Photo by Dan Harrison.

of 100 to 200 yards. They appear to spend most of their time basking in the sun or playing in small openings near the den. By 10 weeks, pups regularly travel up to one-quarter mile, and litters of this age are often split between two different den sites. At 11 weeks, pups start howling and barking, and ours embarked on their first excursion over 1 Yi miles from the den with their female parent. Soon afterwards, they cease to use dens, sleeping at the base of large trees and rocks or under overhanging branches. By mid-August, pups are about 16 weeks old, weigh about 11 pounds, and travel an area of about two square miles, largely on their own or with litter mates. This partial independence of pups at such an early age indicates that they may learn many survival skills through trial and error rather than from their parents. Foods eaten by pups at this age include small mammals, which they appear to catch on their own, and fruit, mainly blueberries.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

This litter of six coyote pups, only a few days old, was examined briefly outside the den-a shallow cave once used by porcupines. Photo by Dan Harrison.

The home ranges of our coyotes during the family period were larger than at any other time of year, averaging 16 square miles. However, in mid-summer when the blueberries ripened in the extensive barrens, coyotes began to feed almost exclusively in these areas and occupied only about four square miles. When the berries disappeared, the coyotes expanded their range back to about

ÂŁ

l m 11 e

Figure 2. Home range size of an adult coyote pair in eastern Maine.

16 square miles, returned to softwood cover, and increased their use of live prey. In the latter part of the family period (Oct.-Dec.), we observed coyotes hunt, travel, and rest together, usually in pairs. In fact, three coyotes in one group were never located more than two miles from one another. Groups of coyotes are often referred to as "packs." The term more appropriately describes wolves or wild dogs but not eastern coyotes. The parents and pups which make up the family unit appear to have a home Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

range adjacent to, but not overlapping, neighboring coyote families. The amount of sign (tracks, scats) in an area, or a chorus of howls, might give the impression of a "pack" of coyotes, but a family of three to five animals can leave a considerable amount of sign . After the family group splits up in early winter, the population consists mainly of mated pairs and wandering, solitary juveniles. As a result, we rarely saw evidence of more than two coyotes traveling together from January through mid-summer.

E ARE COLLECTING

data on juvenile coyote mortality to gain information on the population dynamics of this elusive creature. Preliminary data suggest that few coyotes survive long enough to breed for the first time. One litter, which consisted of nine pups at one week of age, contained only four survivors by seven weeks. Fall mortality of newly-independent young coyotes is quite high as they are more vulnerable to trappers, hunters, and natural mortality (starvation, accidents, disease) than are adults. In fact, over 70 percent of the coyote pelts tagged annually are from young of the year. Our future plans include radiotracking surviving juvenile coyotes throughout the winter to document dispersal. Such movements should begin in late fall and sometimes involve many miles. One young female was trapped over 65 miles from her birthsite! These travels may help lead young coyotes into unoccupied ranges, and may reduce the chance of inbreeding among siblings. In fact, dispersal may be one reason for the recent establishment of the coyote in the Northeast. Through studies like the one we are presently engaged in, we can separate the facts from the fiction concerning this newcomer to the Maine woods. â&#x20AC;˘ 23

D-J EXP ANSI ON.

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

... Financing for the Future By Robert E. Foye Assistant Chief, Fishery Division N

THE LATE 1940s, Congressmen John Dingell (Mich.) and Edwin Johnson (Colo.) conceived the idea of improving sport fishing in this country by providing revenue from a 10 percent federal tax on the manufacture of certain types of fishing equipment-rods, creels, reels, and various types of artificial lures. Their idea was prompted by the successful results of a previous act of congress, The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, which generated funds from a federal

manufacturers tax on firearms and ammunition, the monies from which were earmarked for wildlife restoration projects. The Dingell-Johnson Act (to be referred to throughout this article as D-J) won congressional approval and became law in 1950-Maine soon began to realize important benefits . Allocation of funds from D-J are based on the percentage of fishing license sales and land area which each state bears to the total of all states. No state receives less than one percent

or more than five percent of the total amount apportioned each year. D-J funds are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, and are made available to state fish and wildlife agencies on a matching basis. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife matches D-J funds at a ratio of 1 to 3-in other words, three D-J dollars for each state dollar. Since 1950, D-J has provided an average of $11.3 million per year to state fish and wildlife agencies. The Fishery Research and Management Division of the Department, created in 1951 under then Commissioner Roland H. Cobb, has undertaken innumerable D-J projects, all designed to maintain or improve sport fishing in our state. Since 1951, a wide range of studies financed in part by D-J have paved the way for the development of a long-range species management plan. Goals and objectives of this plan are reviewed and updated by the Department every five years. Some outstanding accomplishments under the D-J program have been at Sebago Lake, where salmon fishing has been effectively restored to post-World War II levels following a long period of poor fishing due to low fish populations (caused by increased use during the 1960s of DDT by property owners near the lake). Maine's largest body of water, Moosehead Lake, likewise experienced declines in fishing from several causes. Fishing in this lake has now improved considerably due to long hours over several years of hard work by biologists and other personnel of the Department. The pond reclamation program has resulted in our ability to provide trout fishing in more than 100 ponds throughout Maine. Most of these waters are located in areas where trout fishing was of little consequence prior to reclamation. Over the years, it has become obvious to Department biologists that stocking rates play a very important role in providing good fishing for many species of game-fish. A few hundred, or even dozens, too many Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

fish stocked in some cases make a difference. Today, the Department has developed stocking guidelines established from data derived from manipulating stocks of salmon, togue, and trout in waters having a wide range of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. From what you've read so far, it sounds like we're blowing our own horn. Not really! What we're saying is that nearly all of our accomplishments have, in one way or another, been related to funds derived from the Dingell-Johnson federal aid to sport fish restoration program.

N THESE TIMES when

inflation is hurting everyone, current monies from D-J are not sufficient to fulfill the needs of the Department. Such has been the case throughout our nation. Naturally, considerable thought and attention has been given to this problem . Recently, the idea of expanding the list of taxable items seemed to many to be a logical approach, and bills have been introduced in Congress, in the House by John Breaux (H.R. 2250) and in the Senate by Senator Jennings Randolph (S.546), which would extend the 10 percent manufacturers excise tax to include fish hooks, lines, and numerous accessories, plus levy a three percent manufacturers excise tax on certain recreational boats, motors, and boat trailers. With this expansion, the total D-J fund would be increased by approximately $80 million per year. The question has arisen among the boating industry, members of congress, and many boat owners as to why recreational boats should be taxed. It does seem logical that not all boats should come under this tax. But it has been reported that more than 80 percent of all recreational boats are used for fishing-and it therefore

seems logical that these boats should qualify as a taxable item. It should be noted that, under the legislation currently before Congress, the following types of watercraft are excluded from the tax: boats used for commercial purposes (except commercial sport fishing), boats longer than 25 feet, sailboats, kayaks, and hydroplanes. Anglers should be interested in the following statistics which relate to the D-J expansion bills. First of all, as we have already mentioned, the new taxes will generate an additional $80 million annually for sport fishing restoration. It has been estimated that it will only cost the average angler about $1. 50 per year. Saltwater anglers will also benefit from D-J expansion, as the percentage each coastal state receives will be based on the ratio of licensed resident anglers to the estimated number of saltwater anglers. A newsletter issued by the American League of Anglers, Inc. in Washington, D.C. in July 1981 explains that the expansion bills need your help. While the President and his

The Dingell-Johnson Act aids · in the financing of the research _ needed for the fisheries management. - - -··•,

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

administration support the D-J expansion bills (as do such organizations as the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, American Fisheries Society, Sport Fishing Institute, Wildlife Management Institute, Audubon Society, and some independent manufacturers I retailers), several large manufacturers associations, individual motor manufacturers, and boating clubs testified in oppposition to House Bill 2250, and also House Bill 3717 (the same D-J expansion bill, but without the three percent tax on boats, motors and trailers) in hearings in July of 1981.

F YOU ARE in agreement

with an expanded D-J program, allowing for more research in areas which will improve United States sport fishing, contact your senator or representative in Washington, D.C. Don't wait! By the time you read this article, Congress may already be making strong decisions regarding the outcome of D-J expansion. We need your help! •

---.-::..= 25

Knowing what sportsmen want is important to fishery managers. Recent study results reveal important differencesand some similarities-in the preferences of ice fishermen and open water fishermen. RESHWATER FISHING is a popular recreational activity in Maine. In 1976, for example, the 253,000 people who purchased Maine fishing licenses spent almost 3. 7 million angler days pursuing their sport. An estimated 418,600, or 11.4 percent, of the total angler days were spent ice fishing. While 32 percent of the total licenses sold in 1976 were purchased by outof-state residents, nonresident anglers accounted for only 4 percent of the ice fishing angler days. Participation in both open water fishing and ice fishing has increased since 1976. In 1979, for example, over 270,000 licenses were sold, 28 percent

The authors, respecti\lely, are assistant professor, instructor, and former graduate research assistant in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Uni\lersity of Maine at Orono.

of which were purchased by nonresidents. Although the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has collected considerable information about use levels for both open water and ice fishing, it has little information about the characteristics, or the attitudes and preferences, of participants in the popular sport of freshwater fishing. It is important to determine the attitudes and preferences of both open water and ice anglers because the public today is demanding a higher level of accountability for public expenditures and greater input into the decision-making process of government agencies. In addition, management techniques such as habitat enhancement, stocking programs, and changing regulations impact directly on anglers and influence their fishing experience. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is aware of the importance of the attitudes, preferences, and behavior of the people who use the resources. It also recognizes the need to evaluate management programs in light of their effect on both the resources and the people who use them. Programs that strive to maximize the production of a given resource are not acceptable if they are unnecessarily inconsistent with the

Many open water anglers prefer to fish alone or with family members. They also prefer fishing for cold water species-trout, salmon, etc.

attitudes and preferences of users of that resource. This article focuses on the results of a study of freshwater fishing and anglers in Maine. The 1980 study was conducted by the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maine at Orono, in cooperation with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The objectives of the study included obtaining information about resident anglers and their attitudes and preferences about open water and/ or ice fishing; information was also obtained to estimate the economic impact of ice fishing in Maine. The survey findings summarized in this article are based on the responses obtained from a large sample of resident fishermen. Using this information we can discuss the differences in attitudes and preferences and social characteristics of open water fishermen and ice fishermen, and we can provide an indication of the economic impact or importance of ice fishing to the Maine economy.

F THE 1,708 questionnaires returned, 714 (41.8 percent) of the respondents had Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

fished both open water and ice during the last two years. Thirteen respondents (0.8 percent) had only ice fished, and 858 (50.2 percent) had only fished open water. In addition, a significant number, (123, or 7.2 percent) had not fished at all during the two years before the survey. Respondents who had fished during those two years were asked to identify the three most important reasons why they open water and/ or ice fish. (Anglers who participate in both activities were asked to give reasons for their participation in both activities.) Although the motivating factors for participating in open water and ice fishing followed similar patterns, differences clearly existed. Among the primary reasons, open water anglers preferred being outdoors, close to nature, and the challenge of catching fish. Ice anglers, on the other hand, more often desired a change from the daily routine, and companionship. Fishermen also seem to prefer different types of companionship while open water fishing and ice fishing. For example, the majority of open water anglers fish with members of their immediate family, while ice anglers are more inclined to fish with a group of friends. In addition, a much larger percentage of open water anglers prefer to fish alone. The social nature of ice fishing is also illustrated by the type of fishing site winter anglers prefer. They favor sites that have other fishing parties in the immediate area, while open water anglers prefer sites that offer isolation from other fishing parties. Hence, even though ice fishing is less of a family activity than open water fishing, the social aspects of ice fishing are a very important reason for participation in the activity. It is not surprising that Maine anglers prefer to fish for cold water

species. However, our study shows this preference to be much stronger among open water fishermen. Almost 75 percent of those anglers preferred cold water species, primarily lake trout, brook trout and landlocked salmon. In contrast, less than 60 percent of the ice anglers preferred cold water species. In addition, ice anglers exhibited a higher willingness to be satisfied with any species of fish they could catch. The difference in species preference between open water and ice fishing is probably due to many factors. Some of the factors are illustrated by the reasons anglers gave for preferring one group of the fish species over the other. The major reason open water anglers prefer cold water species is the fighting quality of the fish, followed by eating quality. The same two reasons are also cited as being most important by ice anglers, but the order of importance was reversed.

Fighting quality is also the major reason open water anglers prefer warm water species. However, ice anglers who prefer warm water varieties do so because of the ease of catching these species. Therefore, as one would expect, fighting quality is much less important as a reason for preferring either group of species while ice fishing. Eating quality of the fish and the ease of catching fish is more important in shaping the species preferences of ice anglers. These differences in preference among open water and ice anglers may have significant implications for the management of warm water and cold water species. Because a higher percentage of ice fishermen prefer warm water fish, and the ease of catching these species is the major reason they are preferred, catching fish should be more important to the success of an ice fishing trip than to an open water

Ice f lshermen are ÂˇÂˇ likely to prefer fishing with a group of friends and to favor sites with other fishing parties nearby.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

trip. Our survey results confirm this viewpoint; however, it is interesting to note that about 10 percent of both open water and ice anglers stated that catching fish was of no importance while fishing. People participate in fishing activities for many reasons, and catching fish is not a necessary condition for participating and enjoying the activity. Another factor that probably reduces the importance that catching fish has on the fishing trip is that people participate in other activities on approximately half of all open water and ice fishing trips. Camping and snowmobiling are the most common activities pursued during open water and ice fishing trips, respectively. The survey questionnaire also included a question regarding a recent change in the ice fishing regulations. Before 1978, ice fishermen could legally take cold water fish only during February and March, while warm water species could be taken during the entire December though March season. In 1978, the regulation was changed to legalize the taking of cold water species in January, too. Resident anglers were asked to indicate their attitude toward this lengthened season. As expected, the few respondents who participate only in ice fishing were unanimous in their support of the change. The majority of the anglers who participate in both open water and ice fishing also supported the change. It is interesting to note, though, that almost one-fourth of the anglers in this group opposed the change. On the other hand, over 46 percent of those who only fish during the open water season were impartial about the regulation change. Among those that were not impartial, a slight majority favored the change. Interestingly, the proportion of open water anglers who disapproved of the regulation change was only slightly higher than the proportion of disapproving anglers who participate in both activities. Another question related directly to the long-term funding problem of the Department of Inland Fisheries 28

and Wildlife . As with most state fish and game agencies, Maine's has been severely affected by inflation. Costs have risen much more rapidly than revenues, resulting in a shortage of funds to maintain programs . Several solutions to the funding problem have been suggested, and our survey included a question to determine resident anglers' opinions about the possible solutions. Increasing the price of nonresident licenses was the most popular solution; it was cited by almost one-third of the resident anglers as their first choice for increasing revenues. The percentage of anglers opting for appropriations from the state general fund and sales tax revenues was also quite high on the list of first choices. In contrast, 11 percent of the respondents indicated that their first choice was for the Fish and Wildlife Department to maintain its current budget level, even if it required a reduction in programs . Only 1 percent of the respondents favored an increase in resident license fees only, and 8 percent preferred increasing both resident and nonresident fees, as their first choice for solving the funding problem. It is only natural that resident hunters and fishermen would prefer an increase in nonresident license fees over an increase in their own fees. However popular with residents, though, such an increase may be ineffective or even counter productive. If the percentage decrease in the number of nonresident licenses sold is greater than the percentage increase in license fees, the revenue received from the sale of nonresident licenses would decline rather than increase. Any proposed changes in license fees must be examined carefully to insure that the change has the desired effect of increasing revenues rather than decreasing the level of funding support.

OCIAL CHARACTERISTICS such as personal history and experiences, age, sex, education, occupation, and income often influence a person's attitudes

and preferences as well as the type of activities in which a person participates, including fishing. Here, we discuss the differences in social charactenst1cs for three categories of anglers: those who only fish open water, anglers who only ice fish, and anglers who participate in both activities. The type of setting or area in which a person currently lives, or lived during childhood, can influence participation in various activities. For example, it may be difficult to participate in fishing if one currently resides in a metropolitan area and has to travel some distance to fish. Also, activity patterns established during the first two decades of life often influence current activity patterns . However, our study shows that childhood residence has no relationship to the kind of fishing activity. Current residence does, however, exhibit a strong relationship with current fishing activity. A much larger percentage of openwater-only anglers live in either suburban areas or cities. Rural residents, on the other hand, account for 75 percent of the anglers who specialize in ice fishing and 62 percent of the anglers who participate in both open water and ice fishing activities. The typical resident angler is male, about 41 years of age, married, and a native of Maine. Females comprise about 11 percent of the anglers who participate in both open water and ice fishing, and about 25 percent of those who only fish open water. The lower female participation rate for ice fishing is probably one reason ice fishing is less of a family-oriented activity than is open water fishing. Anglers who specialize in either open water or ice fishing are, on an average, about four years older than those who participate in both types of fishing. Although one might suspect that ice fishing is an activity that can be easily pursued by lower income individuals (due to low participation costs), higher income anglers are as likely to participate as lower income anglers. And since lower levels of education often mean lower incomes in our society, we might suspect ice Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

fishermen to have attained lower educational levels as well. However, this is not true either. Although 30 percent of the ice anglers had completed less than 12 years of education, 23 percent had four or more years of college. The percentage of ice anglers who had attended college was somewhat higher than for either the openwater-only anglers or anglers who participate in both activities. The occupations of responding anglers were grouped into four broad categories and a "not working" category to determine if the occupations of participants varied with the type of fishing activity. The results indicate that a higher proportion of respondents in the white collar, blue collar, and farm-forestry occupation categories participated in both open water and ice fishing. In contrast, anglers working in the service sectors had a higher participation rate for open water fishing only, as did those anglers who were not working (retired persons and students) at the time the survey was conducted. These findings are generally consistent with the results reported above concerning the current place of residence of anglers who participate in the two activities.

STIMATION OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT of ice fishing in Maine requires information about the characteristics of ice fishing trips and the level of expenditures associated with the activity. Economic activity is generated as part1c1pants purchase equipment, gasoline, oil, bait, food, and other items. The size of these expenditures is related to certain trip characteristics, such as the number of persons in the fishing party, the distance traveled to reach the fishing site, and the duration of the trip. Anglers were asked to provide information about the ice fishing trips they took during the 1979-80 season and the expendi-

tures they made in conjunction with the trips. Resident anglers took an average of about nine ice fishing trips during the season. However, these trips were relatively short in duration and distance traveled. The average duration of the trips was only 1.33 days, and one-day trips were the general rule. Only 5 percent of the trips lasted more than three days . The average one-way distance traveled to reach the fishing site was only 34 miles and the majority of the trips were even shorter than the average distance traveled. The size of the ice fishing parties ranged from one to 16 persons and averaged about 3.5 persons. However, some of the people who participate in the trip do not participate in fishing activities once they reach the site. The expenditures made by ice anglers can be separated into three broad categories. The first is travelrelated expenditures, including the cost of transportation, and expenditures for food and lodging while traveling to and from the fishing site. The second category is the expenditures made for items purchased or consumed while at the fishing site, such as food, lodging, bait, and travel costs at the site. The last category includes the purchase of equipment and other investment items. Investment purchases range from relatively inexpensive items, such as tip-ups and hand-operated augers, to more expensive items, such as power augers, snowmobiles and even camps if they were acquired primarily for the purpose of ice fishing . Each category is discussed briefly below. Vehicular travel costs-including the variable costs associated with

Warm water fish species such as perch and pickerel are more likely to be preferred by ice fishermen than by open water fishermen. Ease of catching them is the major reason.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

auto, truck, and snowmobile useaveraged $1 . 73 per angler day. About two-thirds of all trips had vehicular costs below this average value . The average is relatively low, of course, because of the short distances traveled. Air service was utilized for only about 2 percent of the trips but it was an expensive item when used. Lodging costs per angler day while traveling were also minimal-averaging only 26 cents-because very few trips included an overnight stay while traveling. Food and beverages purchased or consumed while traveling averaged $1.82 per angler day and was the most expensive item included in travel costs. Overall, total travel costs averaged $4.81 per angler day.

Total on-site expenditures were somewhat larger, averaging $7.40 per angler day. Interestingly, the largest component of on-site expenses was for bait, which averaged $3.07 per angler day. Food and beverages purchased or consumed at the site averaged $2. 77, while vehicular and lodging costs were both less than 50 cents per angler day. Total trip-related expenditures, which is the sum of travel and on-site costs, averaged about $12.21 per angler day. Hence, ice fishing is not an expensive activity when compared to other outdoor, winter activities such as downhill skiing and even hunting. For example, in 1978 Maine hunters spent an average of almost $16 per day of hunting. An estimate of seasonal, trip-related expenditures can be obtained by multiplying the costs per angler day by the total number of ice angler days during the season. Assuming that ice fishing accounted for 600,000 angler days during the 1979-80 season, the trip-related expenditures for the season totaled about $7.3 million. About $2.9 million was associated with travel costs and $4.4 million was attributed to on-site expenditures. Investment expenditures made by ice anglers also contribute to economic activity. Small investment purchases averaged about $46 per ice angler while large investment purchases averaged almost $81. Assuming that 30 percent of all resident anglers participate in ice fishing activities, total investment purchases accounted for about $7.3 million for the 1979-80 season. Hence, resident ice fishing participants spent over $14 million annually for trip-related and investment items related to ice fishing activities in Maine. These expenditures result in employment for Maine people and adds to the income level of people in the state.

RESHWATER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT is a complex process. Programs must be based on the physical and biological requirements of the resource and 30

the attitudes and preferences of the people who use the resource. Several types of information are required to achieve and maintain a balance between the resource and the users. Since fishermen use the resource for both open water and ice fishing activities, management programs must address both activities and the differences in participants' attitudes and preferences. Open water fishing is a specialized sport, as illustrated by the variety of fishing techniques and equipment used. This study found that open water fishing participants regarded this sport as a challenge, a chance to get out-of-doors, and a change from the normal routine. Open water anglers have a strong preference for cold water fish species, especially landlocked salmon, lake trout, and brook trout. These species are preferred for their fighting qualities and their flavorful meat. Part of the open water fishing experience is being close to nature and away from other groups of fishermen. Most open water anglers prefer the more remote areas that are rarely frequented by other fishermen. A majority of open water anglers fish with members of their immediate family. Despite these specialized preferences, less than 20 percent of the open water respondents consider fishing success to be of prime importance to the enjoyment of the open water fishing experience. Ice fishing, on the other hand, is a more social experience for many participants. The companionship of family and friends is relatively more important while ice fishing. In addition, ice anglers prefer fishing sites frequented by a few other fishing parties. Ice anglers also prefer cold water fish species, but the preference is much weaker than that exhibited by open water anglers. However, fishing success is slightly more important while ice fishing than it is while open water fishing. Thus, the survey results clearly indicate that the attitudes and expectations of anglers differ for open water and ice fishing. As expected, the fishing regulation

change to extend the season for cold water fish species during ice fishing was more popular among those anglers who ice fish. A majority of the ice anglers approved of the change, whereas only 29 percent of the openwater-only anglers approved it. Almost one-half of the open-wateronly anglers were impartial or had no opinion about the regulation change. Open water and ice fishermen were relatively consistent in their opinions regarding solutions to the funding problems of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The three most popular solutions were appropriations from the general fund, revenue from the state sales tax, and an increase in nonresident hunting and fishing license fees. The least popular solution was an increase in resident hunting and fishing license fees. Several socioeconomic characteristics of open water and ice anglers also varied with the type of fishing activity of respondents. For example, respondents who participate in both open water and ice fishing are generaly younger than those who specialize in either of the two activities, and female anglers are more prevalent among open water only anglers. Occupation and the current place of residence of respondents also varied significantly with fishing type. On the other hand, there was no statistical difference in income or education levels of respondents who participate in the two fishing activities. In terms of economic impact, ice fishing generates about $14 million in sales in the Maine economy. These expenditures are almost equally divided between trip-related expenditures and investment items. Food, beverages and bait are the leading trip-related expenditure items. The information presented above is vital to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in that it can be used to design and evaluate management progams. Together with the biological and physical data, it can be used to determine the best course of action to achieve a given objective. â&#x20AC;˘ Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS DEER, BEAR RESULTS Deer hunters did well in Maine in 1981 despite generally poor hunting conditions. Preliminary figures indicate that 32,339 deer were killed during the regular firearms season, a decrease from the exceptionally good 1980 season but above average for the past 10 years. Results of the archery deer season and the new muzzle-loading season were not available at press time. Commissioner Glenn Manuel said that "a good supply of deer available to hunters made the good harvest possible in spite of warm, wet weather, and a definite reduction in hunting pressure observed this season." The Commissioner also was pleased with the outcome of the split bear seasons . One thousand and one bears were registered-550 in the spring season, 451 in the fall season. That is just one bear over the number set as a

guideline for long-term stability of the state's bear population. It wasn't until the closing days of the deer season that the first two fatal hunting accidents occurred, marring an otherwise excellent year for hunter safety. Nevertheless, two fatal accidents tied the all-time low mark. A more detailed report of the 1981 deer and bear seasons will appear in a future issue. PERSONNEL NOTES Recent personnel changes within the Fish and Wildlife Department include the following: In the Hatchery Division, Walter E. Snell, fish hatchery worker, retired with over 29 years of service, all of which was at the Palermo Fish Rearing Station. Taking Snell's place at Palermo was Dean E. Varney, who transferred from the Enfield Hatchery. Varney's vacancy at Enfield was filled by a new employee, Michael

Boyer of Casco. Another new employee, Walter Brown of Grand Lake Stream, filled a vacancy at the fish hatchery in his hometown. In the Realty Division, Henry R. Sleeper was promoted and made chief of the division, replacing Richard B. Parks, who retired last spring. Retiring from the Realty Division, but previously an employee of the Wildlife and Engineering divisions, was Forrest A. Smart, a construction foreman with over 25 years with the Fish and Wildlife Department. Assigned new duties as the department's rules and regulations officer was Game Warden Lieutenant Norman E. Trask, formerly attached to the Warden Service and then the Planning Division . In the Public Information Division, W. Thomas Shoener was promoted and made chief of the division, replacing William C. Mincher, who retired.

Commentary ~~~~~~--------.....L..,, Supporters of the initiative to ban moose hunting in Maine must be given high ranks for their persistence, sincerity, and inventiveness. Despite failing to convince the last three sessions of the legislature not to pass moose hunting bills, and despite failure of their first effort to force a referendum vote on moose hunting, they are back at it again with SMOOSA II (Save Maine's Only Official State Animal, second effort). Petition circulators are at work, trying to get enough signatures to force the legislature to repeal the moose hunting law or, failing at that, to have a referendum vote on the matter. I've talked with enough supporters of this effort to be convinced that they are nice, sincere, well-meaning, and dedicated people. But what I hear them saying, and what I read in their press statements, convinces me all the more that their efforts will be for naught. Emotional side issues-some of them irrelevant, many with no foundation in facts-are all they are offering. I have little doubt that the SMOOSA people will persist and will eventually obtain enough signatures to force a showdown vote on moose hunting.

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1981

I also have little doubt that when they are no longer debating an empty chair there will be a vigorous campaign for voters' minds, one that will pit biological facts and wildlife management principles against trumped-up emotionalism. Maine voters have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to sort out important facts and make intelligent decisions. My bet is that when they reflect on the significance of limited, legal moose hunting they will come to the conclusion that it represents a good use of an abundant and renewable natural resource. And that brings me back to my most basic problem with SMOOSA and similar activities: They are a waste of the time, money, and energies of a lot of people who give a damn about wildlife. Wildlife activists on both sides of the issue will expend their resources debating the wisdom of a small, legal moose harvest, which on a one-to-ten scale of important wildlife issues would have to be a one. Too bad people who are actively concerned about wildlife, regardless of the motivation for that concern, couldn't pull together on a few tens for a change.

-Tom Shoener

'82 MOOSE HUNT The Fish and Wildlife Department is now accepting applications from hunters seeking permits to participate in Maine's 1982 limited moose hunting season. Permits will be issued to 900 Maine residents and 100 nonresidents following a public drawing tentatively scheduled for May 1, 1982. The hunt, which is limited to northern Maine, will take place September 20 through 25. Application for the permit drawing must be made on a standard form provided by the department. Only one application per person may be submitted. Maine residents may obtain application blanks from resident license agents. Nonresidents and aliens may get theirs by writing to the department's Augusta office. A self-addressed return envelope would be appreciated, but no money should be sent when requesting the application form. The deadline for applying is April 1.

The nonrefundable application fees are $5 for Maine residents and $10 for nonresidents and aliens. Possession of a hunting license is not required to apply for the drawing. Permit fees,. for those selected in the drawing, are $25 for Maine residents and $200 for nonresidents. In addition, a valid Maine license to hunt big game is required. Each applicant successful in the drawing will be notified by registered mail shortly after the drawing. He or she will then have a period of about six weeks in which to acquire the permit and to designate a subpermittee, or hunting assistant, if one is desired. Laws and regulations governing the 1982 moose season are similar to the ones that hunters operated under during the highly successful 1980 season, which was Maine's first on moose in 45 years. The major change in 1982 will be the assigning of hunters to designated zones, to spread out the hunting pressure better than occurred without zoning in 1980. Permit quo32

tas have been established for six zones, and applicants are required to list the zones in the order they would want to hunt in them. Full details of the zones and other moose season information accompany the application blanks. In 1980, more than 32,000 Maine residents applied for a chance at one of the 700 permits issued. The hunters took 636 moose in six days. Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Glenn Manuel predicts there will be many more applying for the 1982 moose season. '' Most people realize that the 1980 season was a tremendous success in every respect," he said. "Allowing limited legal hunting of moose makes more sense to them than seeing the natural resource wasted through non-use and misuse, such as poaching.''

spawning tributary to the big southern Maine lake. "In tending this trap," DeRoche wrote, "we occasionally get a togue from Sebago, and on October 6 there was a seven pound eight ounce fem ale togue in the trap. "Since she was heavy with eggs and I thought the best place for her would be back in Sebago Lake, a distance of about 25 miles away, I marked her and trucked her back to the lake in the vicinity of the state park camping area. ''Two days later when I again tended the trap, much to my surprise, the same fem ale togue was back in the trap. She had traveled at least 25 miles, passed over two breached dams and up a fishway in two days or less as she may have been back in the trap the next day.''

RALPH L. NOEL Ralph L. Noel, member of the Fish and Wildlife Department's Advisory Council and former member of its long-range planning steering committee, died in September after a brief illness. An Auburn resident, Noel represented Androscoggin, Sagadahoc, and Franklin counties during his six-year term on the Advisory Council. He was first appointed to the council by former Governor James B. Longley. Noel was an ardent hunter and fisherman and an active member of several sportsmens' organizations. In his associations with the Fish and Wildlife Department, he was known for his thoughtful consideration of issues and as a spokesman for sportsmens' rights.

1982 LICENSE FEES*

TRAVELING TOGUE Fishery biologists Stuart DeRoche had an interesting encounter with a determined Sebago Lake togue (lake trout) this fall. He first handled the fish at the Bolsters Mills fishway trap on the Crooked River, an important salmon

RESIDENT Hunting (16 and older) Fishing (16 and older) Combination Hunting and Fishing (16 and older) Junior Hunting (10 to JS years lnclusln) Combination Fishing and Archery Hunting (16 and older) Serviceman (resident) Combination Hunting and Fishing Archery Huntln1 (16 and older) Muzzle-loading (required, with bunting lken11e, for special deer seuon) Trapping (16 and older) Junior Trapping (10 lo 15 years lndusln) Guide (lhnd older)

S 9.00 9.00 16.00 J.00 16.00 5.00 9.00 7.00 25.00 5.00 34.00

NONRESIDENT CITIZEN Bi& Game Hunting (10 yean and older) Season Fishing (16and older) Junior Season Flslilng (12 to JS Incl.) JS-day Fishing 7-day Fishing 3-day Fishing Combination Hunting and Fishing (16 and older) Small Game Hunting (16 and older) Junior Small Game Hunting (10 10 JS yean lndusln) Archery Hunting (16 and older) Muzzle-loading (required, with big game hunting license, for special deer season) Gulde (JI and older) Trapping (any age)

65.00 J0.00 3.50 20.00 17.00 9.00 17 :00 35.00 15.00 35.00 J0.00 JJ0.00 300.00

NONRESIDENT ALIEN Bi& Game Hunting (10 and older) Season Fishing Combination Hunting and Fishing (JO and older) Small Game Hunting (10 and older) Archery Hunting (16 and older) Muzzle-loading (required, with big game hunting lken11e, for spKial deer seuon) Gulde (II and older) â&#x20AC;˘Not including issuing agent fee of SJ.

105.00 50.00 140.00 50.00 50.00 45.00 155.00

Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter-1981

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

284 State St.,

Sta. #41

Augusta, Maine 04333