NlAIN E
FISH AND WILDLIFE
WINTER 1983-84
$1.50
Support the
Endangered Spedes and Non-Game Wildlife Fund
MAINE Governor Joseph E. Brennan Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
FISH AND WILDLIFE VOL. 25, NO. 4
WINTER 1983-84
Glenn H . Manuel, Commissioner Norman E. Trask, Deputy Commissioner
Features
Administrative Staff Dennis Levandoski, Staff Attorney Kenneth H. Anderson , Direc tor Program Development and Co-ordination David 0 . Locke, Superintendent of Hatcheries John F. Marsh, Chief Warden Robert E. Foye, Director, Fishery Division Peter C. Brazier, Business Manager Robert W . Boettger, Director, Wildlife Division W . Thomas Shoener, Direc tor, Public Information G . Donald Taylor, Director, Land Acquisition and Development Michael E. Barrett, Director, Licensing Division
Bear Problems
The Origin Of Maine Game laws by William S. Warner by fohn A. Litvaitis and fames Sherburne
Nathan Cohen, Chairman , Eastport Alva S. Appleby, Vice Chairman , Skowhegan Rodney W. Ross , Brownville Francis D. Dunn, Patten Marc Plourde, Eagle Lake Carroll York, West Forks Lawrence Hawkes, Lincoln F. Paul Frinsko, Portland
8
Woodsman, Spare That Tree! by Douglas L. Marston
10
A Biologist Needs A Computer?
15
Trappers In Maine: The Study by Alan G .
Clark
What's A Splake?
Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine
by Philip S. Andrews
W . Thomas Shoener, Editor
Atlantic Salmon Facts of Life
Thomas J. Chamberlain, Managing Editor Thomas L. Carbone, Photo Editor Patricia J. Hogan, Editorial Assistant
by Edward T . Baum
All photographs in this issue were made by the Public Information Division unless otherwise indicated .
Fishing Regulations: Why So Complicated? by fohn R. Moring
MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE (ISSN 0360-00SX) is published quarterly by the Maine Dept . of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 248 State St., Station 41 , Augusta, ME 04333, under Appropriation 4550 . Subscription rate: $6.00 per year. No stamps, please. Second class postage paid at Au$usta, ME 04330 . Š Maine Dept . of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1983. Permission to reprint text material is granted, provided proper credit is given to the author and to the MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE . Clearance must be obtained from artists, photographers, and non-staff authors to reproduce credited work .
The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife receives federal funds from the U.S. Department of the Interior . Accordingly, all department programs and activities must be operated free from discrimination in regard to race, color, national origin, age, or handicap . Any person who believes that he or she has been discriminated against should write to The Office of Equal Opportunity, U .S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D .C . 20240.
4
The Snowshoe Hare
Advisory Council
CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Send both old and new addresses to Circulation Section, MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, 284 State St., Sta . #4 1, Augusta, ME 04333 . Please allow six weeks for change to take effect . your post office cannot forward copies unless you provide forwarding postage. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Circulation Section, MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, 284 State St. , Sta . #41, Augusta, ME 04333 .
1
by Henry Hilton
Income Tax Checkoff by fane Arbuckle
16 20 21 24
27
Departments COVERS Front : Winter squirrel by Scott Nielsen . Back: Winter scene by Eric Lindholm .
18\\
'&I
KID-BITS
12
FROM THE FLY TYING BENCH: The Pink Lady Palmer
29
FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS
31
Pro jects discussed in articles beginning on pages 8, 10, 12, and 20 are fi nanced in part by m onies received under the Federal Fish and Wildlife Res toration Act .
1
PROBLEMS by Henry Hilton
The Animals
, i•~
The value of bears, and the problems they ,. represent; result in the dilemma of conflicting management objectives. Their abundance from a recreational hunting standpoint and nuisance from a damage standpoint present a '' sweet and sour' 1 prospect: the luxury of having enough bears to be commonly observed and taken for sport, yet the liability that can result in the des truction of valuable property. The sport of bear hunting draws several million dollars directly into
Part II of a four-part series dealing with animal damage problems, and their solutions.
~
2
the tourist and vacation economy of the state. From a wildlife management standpoint, it is important to avoid sharp declines in bear numbers; although they are long-lived, they reproduce slowly . Females do not breed until the fourth or fifth year, and then only every other year; the average litter size is about two. The result is relatively small annual recruitment. They are very slow to pioneer into areas where the
population has been severely disturbed. Hunting is the major cause of mortality . Bears are omnivores - they eat both vegetation and meat, and move from one food source to another as it becomes available . Upon emerging from winter hibernation, bears will eat grasses and other vegetation and scavenge on winter-kill carcasses, dump refuse, insects, and any other conceivable source of food. As summer progresses, honey is eaten - and in late summer, they make use of ripe raspberries, blueberries, corn, and other agricultural crops. Their diet in the fall switches to acorns, beechnuts, and apples . Supplies of fall foods are quite variable from year to year. During years when fall foods are scarce, bears den up early to conserve fat supplies. In times past, hunting began in the spring and continued through the end of November. Bears were in most areas pursued by hunters and their dogs, making them relatively fearful of man. Now, with no hunting until fall, more bears are congregating at dumps and other locations where food is readily available, thereby causing more frequent damage and nuisance problems . The open hunting season begins in early fall . By midNovember, most bears go into hibernation and safety. In the spring, the new mothers and their cubs emerge to start the cycle anew. Population levels of bears vary according to the birth rate and survival of cubs; this is tied directly to food production . it is not uncommon for high numbers of bears in one year to be followed by lower than normal numbers in subsequent years. But if the production segment of the population (the adult females) is drastically lowered by hunting, drastic declines can occur over a four- or The author is a wildlife biologist with the department's Planning Division. He is coordinator of Maine's Animal Damage Control Program.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
five-year period until a new reproducing segment matures and can be providing more cubs once again . Bear management, and specific harvest objectives, are designed to assure the viability of the reproducing segment of the population.
the frames, and eating the bee larvae and honey. Honey is valued at about $1.50 per pound retail. This bear intrusion could cost the beekeeper $5,000 or more in equipment, honey, and lost rental revenue!
Corn Damage. Field corn is grown commercially in 10- to 30-acre fields throughout central The Damage and western Maine, principally as Bears are strong, im· · \.A; I food silage for dairy cattle. Lesser r, \ . pulsive, intimidating, quantities of sweet corn for the and capable of causing table market are also grown. Both a lot of damage in a crops are susceptible to animal ..) '~;;;V'•..-,:.. short period of time. damage - bears are often the maOf course, most bears never cause jor culprit. They gorge on the corn, problems. But two particular probbut do even worse damage by lems addressed by the department knocking down whole sections of are the destruction of commercial the field of corn stocks, making it bee hives and the destruction of difficult for mechanical harvesters standing field corn. Other situato do their job. In many cases, tions involve the damage they these fields are in remote sections cause camps, and the potential (the ''back forty'' J, surrounded by hazard to onlookers when bears forests - excellent bear habitat! congregate at garbage dumps. Property damage and personal inBee hives. Apple, blueberry, and other fruit producers depend on jury. Bears sometimes emerge from their dens early in the spring, bees to pollinate the blossoms for looking for food before the natural fruit production. Commercial beefood production has really started. keepers transport thousands of colonies of bees on semi-trailer trucks This can lead to a high incidence from crop to crop as they blossom of problems at camps and farms in the spring. Some of these operaand around garbage dumps . At camps, the animals often sense the tions begin in the southern states and work northward as the season presence of food from lingering progresses. Some growers, especialcooking odors or leftover garbage. ly orchardists, keep their own bee A bear, once successfully locating food in a camp, may associate the colonies for local pollination. But two and repeatedly break into Maine has thousands of acres of wild raspberries and blueberries, dwellings in search of more even when none exists. The damage can which provide nectar for a range from a broken shingle or lucrative commercial honey market. porch screen door to wholesale destruction of a camp kitchen. An estimated 10,000 to 13,000 Grain supplies and silage at bee colonies are distributed farms sometimes lure bears in the throughout Maine's wildlands for spring, and a sheep or calf may be this purpose. A hive is valued at killed on occasion if the opporabout $100, plus $20 to $30 in tunity exists . Predation of this sort rental revenue. With the vast wild is not considered a major problem supply of nectar for the bees, the hives fill rapidly with up to 60 in Maine . Around garbage dumps left uncovered for long periods of pounds of honey. And bears, as we time, however, bears present a difall know, love honey! A bear with ferent problem. Finding such a honey on its mind may destroy 25 dependable food source, they will or more hives in a colony by congregate in the evening to feed, knocking them down, pulling out
?'i
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
drawing attention from local onlookers. This continued presence of people watching the scavenging makes bears more docile. This leads to more onlookers and closer encounters - children even try sometimes to feed the animals out of hand. Signs warning of the hazards and prohibiting feeding, rather than alleviating the problem, actually draw more attention to the bear-viewing opportunity. The actual damage caused is generally small, but the potential for injury to people cannot be overlooked.
The Control Program ~\/~ ~
The best way to con~~~ trol bear damage is to ~~_,5; prevent it from happening in the first ONr\lO'V place. Obviously, this is not so easily done as said. But by understanding bear habits and needs, and by removing conditions and avoiding situations which tend to draw bears, many incidences of bear damage can be eliminated or significantly reduced. Lethal bear control should be used only as a last resort, and depends on the good judgement of game wardens, wildlife managers, and the property owners . Once a bear has learned that there is honey or corn behind an electric fence or in that out-of-the-way location, it may be impossible to dissuade him - he must then be moved or destroyed. Beekeepers should locate bee hives away from natural travel lanes used by bears. Stream bottoms, brushy areas, and good cover make natural travel routes for bears. Hives located out in the open and on high ground would be less apt to attract bears . Bears are unusually predictable, and patterns of activity soon become evident . If a beekeeper or corn grower perceives such a pattern or observes sites that are repeatedly damaged, cable snares
~;'·•Jr.,,J?
(continued on page 23) 3
The Origins ERE THE ORIGINS OF MAINE'S GAME LAWS for the benefit of wildlife or for the benefit of the sportsman? This question has been argued for more than a hundred years. Yet history shows that game laws in the nineteenth century were not so much concerned with conservation of wildlife as with preserving hunting as a ruling class privilege. If we were to select one word to explain the development of Maine's game laws, the word would be sportsman. Although we first see the emergence of the American sportsman in the 1830s, the gilded age of field sport did not flourish until the 1860s. By the end of the Civil War, the word sportsman served to define acertain kind of gentleman - one who took his leisure with rod and gun. And it was the sportsmen, those who hunted and fished for pleasure, that were the real spearheads of conservation.
W
0
The author is public affairs director at the Montshire Museum of Science in Hanover, NH. At the time he wrote this article, he was in the process of finishing work on his doctorate in forest resources at the University of Maine at Orono.
4
e5GameLaws by William S. Warner
For the most part, these sportsmen were the urban elite; their primary target was the body of complex, often inadequate, state fish and game laws. From the early seventeenth century, Colonial legislators had been concerned with predator control, deer populations, and (to a limited extent) methods of taking waterfowl. But it was the sportsmen who addressed the issue of human threats to the survival of wildlife: the poachers, pot hunters (those who took game for subsistence), and commercial meat hunters. Maine game legislation in the nineteenth century was aimed primarily at controlling these human threats. And no animal was more "threatened" - or at least perceived as such - than the white-tailed deer. If hunting control is examined chronologically, one sees the majority of laws (i .e., regulations controlling the hunting of deer) skewed toward the last quarter of the century. The earliest game legislation dealt with the hunting season. In 1790, 30 years before Maine became a state, no one was permitted to kill a deer between January 1 and August 1, under a penalty of $10. It is difficult to determine how strongly this law was enforced - if it was enforced at all. Forty years later, a similar law was passed, extending the closed season through August and raising the fine to $15; half went to the county and the other half to the person filing the complaint. Determining who persuaded passage of such legislation is difficult because the State Document of
Legislature did not begin until 1838, and the house and senate journals were not published until 1854. Yet it shouldn't come as a surprise to see the state become a guardian of deer, for by the time the 1830 law was authorized, the state had some control over nearly every product leaving Maine, including lumber, beef, pork, butter, lard, fish, hops, and flax seed. In 1852 and 1853, there were some major changes. In 1852, the governor appointed "moose wardens" for every county; each of these wardens appointed two deputies: the wardens were unsalaried, only paid by a portion of the fines they collected. Another 1852 law prohibited Indians and Canadians from killing deer in Maine. An even stricter law passed in 1853 allowed only Maine residents to hunt! Fines were increased to $20 and each town appointed its own warden; possession of even a deer hide during closed season was prohibited unless the owner could prove that the deer was taken legally. Also, anyone was empowered to kill a dog hunting deer within closed season.
HY PASS SUCH DRASTIC HUNTING LAWS? It was probably due to several factors. The deer population was diminishing - though this decline was probably a result of habitat change resulting from earlier logging operations - and the human population was increasing. Many transient woodsmen were Canadian, hence the restrictions on aliens . But more importantly, Maine started attracting sportsmen - and with these gentlemen hunters came their code of hunting etiquette. By 1870, Maine had even more stringent control of deer hunting. The fine on dogging deer increased to $40. This legislative action was a reaction not so much to the number of deer as to the number of sportsmen. For although the deer population was growing (after a 40-year decline), sportsmen still deplored the practice of dogging deer, as seen in an editorial by the Washington County Game Association in the Machias Union (April 4, 1876): Now we appeal for the co-operation to every lover of gun and rod, to every man who recognizes the distinction between reckless butchery and fair matching of '' skill against skill'', between the wholesale slaughter of deer, with dogs and during unreasonable months, and the occasional shooting of a single deer,
W
5
within the few weeks, which natural and civil laws designate as "proper season"; between the "pot hunter" who greedily "bags his pound of flesh" and the man who delights in the healthgiving air of wooded hill. During the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the deer population grew considerably. Regeneration from large areas of cut-over spruce and abandoned farms created ideal habitat, and the deer population soared. Despite the increase in deer, new game laws continued to be legislated. By 1883, the commissioners were enforcing a number of new and stringent laws, literally termed ''war measures," against the poachers and market hunters. Indeed, deer populations were not the cause of new game laws. The spark that set the legislature afire was the conflict between the sportsmen and their enemies: the poacher, the pot hunter, and the commercial meat hunter. One does not need to look very far in newspaper editorials, sporting weeklies, and annual reports from the commissioners to see that war had indeed been declared on the poachers and market hunters. In 1880, for example, there were only nine recorded game violations; three years later, the number of prosecuted violations rose to 3 7. Just how did the commissioners declare war? Until 1883, a hunter was free to take as many deer as he pleased; but in that year, the limit was set at three, and the fine for killing more was $100-plus $40 for every deer in excess of three! In addition, all local law enforcement officers were given the powers of game wardens; Sunday hunting was made illegal; and it was illegal to own (or even have in possession) dogs "for the purpose of hunting deer.'' One can see how such a law would affect poachers and meat hunters, but how did it affect sportsmen? Until 1883, money received from fines was distributed equally between the warden and the county or town in which the crime was committed. But the 1883 law provided that the fine be divided equally between the warden and any sportsmen's association located in the county where the fine was recovered. No doubt, sportsmen benefited! As if the legislation wasn't tough enough, the commissioner's report for 1883 added the following comment:
If our sportsmen in this or our sister states think our law too exclusive, let them consider the class with which we have to deal and against whom we have to legislate ... They personate lawlessness in everything. They are ready to shoot the mother duck or partridge from her callow brood, cut the throat of a gravid doe in March, steal knees and 6
sled-crooks from other men's timber, set fire to pine lands and rob lumbermen's camp, thinking and boasting 11 that the law cannot reach them in the woods.'' There appeared also to be widespread resentment between the locals and the out-of-staters - as much as there was between the sportsmen and the poachers. This polarization in the latter part of the nineteenth century involved considerable controversy over who was violating the laws and established a bittersweet relationship between locals and out-of-staters.
$100 .... - - - - - - - - - - - -
$15
25,....
10,...
•
~-
$20
,
~~
$40
~·f/>
· · · · · - -$5 '!l>f/> ------------------A A A A
•
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
Deer population trend (Stanton, 1963, p.54) Fines for killing deer illegally • • • Although some sportsmen broke the laws - which caused resentment - all sportsmen spent money. By the 1890s, guiding was a regular occupation, earning for a large number of Maine residents three dollars per day . Hunting camps were becoming more popular, and proprietors were advertising for additional sportsmen to visit Maine. In 1896, an estimated 50,000 sportsmen visited the Maine woods. By 1898, deer hunting had become big business. Besides providing income for guides, 150 steamers were operated for sportsmen (five years earlier there were only 87 steamers!, and 204 hotels or camps were run for the sole purpose of entertaining sportsmen. The sportsmen may have created controversy by breaking the game laws, but the fact remains that the sportsmen were significantly supporting Maine's economy, as the 1898 commissioners' report points out : It is an industry Maine can ill afford to lose. Business prudence and foresight demand that every means in our power be employed to retain it. This can only be done by propagating our fish and protecting our game. Enforcing the protection of game still remained a serious problem for the commissioners - sportsmen Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
helped to solve that problem as well. By 1896 there were 48 game wardens, 20 of whom were earning two dollars a day. The commissioners confessed, ''In order to get the best (wardens), we must pay as much, at least as is paid for guiding." To generate more income, a law was enacted the following year requiring guides to pay a one dollar registration fee and account for the number of sportsmen they served (Table 1). Table 1. Sportsmen that hired registered guides Residents Nonresidents
L
1897 3,384 7,123
1898 5,820 7,366
IKE THE COMMISSION, the railroads had a
mutually beneficial relationship with the sportsmen. The sportsmen had easy access to their recreation areas and the railroad had captive customers. Each helped the other. During the '80s and '90s, most sportsmen travelled by railroad, and their deer were shipped home by rail; the records begin to indicate trends. For example, in 1882, 408 deer were shipped. Twelve years later, the rail shipped 4,000! And for the next five years, the number of deer shipped averaged around 9,000. The actual kill in 1898, however, was estimated at 20,000 . Not all of these deer were being shipped by sportsmen, and authorities made a concerted effort to control market hunting by regulating the transportation of wild game. An 1891 law stated that no person could transport deer unless accompanied by the owner, under penalty of $40. One can see how a market hunter would quickly go out of business! The sportsmen, however, could feel at ease travelling home with his game, as he had always done in the past. The '90s witnessed additional legislation favoring the sportsmen. In 1895, a law prohibited unsportsmanlike hunting: Whoever hunts, catches, kills or destroys with dogs, jacklights, so called snares, or traps, any deer or caribou forfeits forty dollars for every deer or caribou so hunted, caught, killed, or destroyed, and be subject to imprisonment thirty days .. . Two years later, the laws spelled out that even possession of a jacklight in a camp was prima facie evidence. So much for night hunting. And the final blow from the 1897 legislature was a statute declaring that a Maine resident selling or giving away any deer beyond the state boundary would be fined $100. Controlling the transportation of game in Maine did not come as a surprise, for during the last two decades of the nineteenth century, sportsmen throughout the Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
United States worked to restrict the marketing of wildlife. Maine was just a part of the nationwide movement that led up to the final coup for the sportsman: the Lacey Act of 1900. In essence, the Lacey Act regulated the interstate and foreign commerce of wild animals by making the transport of illegal game across state lines a federal crime. One can clearly see what was building up in Maine prior to the Lacey Act. Maine was no longer an island of wilderness isolated from the rest of the nation rather, it was the pleasure ground for well-organized, influential groups of sportsmen. And many of the game clubs and associations in Maine were spokes of the large wheel rolling out legislation to control hunting activities. Generalizations are as dangerous as they are helpful in viewing history. Generalizations help us classify and clarify complex issues, but they also fail to show the importance of exceptions. For example, there are three assumptions to approach with care. First, it is generally assumed that the war over the white-tailed deer was a battle between residents and out-of-staters. The locals were perceived as poachers, pot hunters, and meat hunters; the urban, out-of-staters were stereotyped as ''sportsmen.'' Yet almost half of Maine's sportsmen that hired guides in 1898 were residents (Table 1). Second, one is likely to assume that the sportsmen's only organizational purpose was to regulate hunting. Actually, many sportsmen were active in other programs such as restocking game, as in the case of the Maine Protective Association attempting to introduce game from Scandinavia. And third, many assume that sportsmen controlled the media. Although sportsmen had numerous weeklies (e .g., Field and Stream, Forest and Stream, and Carleton's State of Maine Sportsman's Journal), those who opposed the sportsman's point of view also took pen in hand, and newspapers frequently voiced the opinion of those opposing the sportsman.
P
ERHAPS IT IS BEST TO DESCRIBE Maine's nineteenth century game laws as an evolution of wildlife values. The sportsman, poacher, pot hunter, and commercial meat hunter were parts of the human ecology that developed the laws . But it appears that, more than any other group, it was the sportsmen - and their hunting ethic - that precipitated legislation . The sportsman's code of ethics was first developed by an elite, homogeneous group traced from an aristocratic minority. Deer in Maine were also few in number at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But as the population of deer grew, so did the number of sportsmen, and both saturated Maine's fields and forests. It appears that, in this growth, the sportsman's ethic was diluted what emerged were laws to control not so much the dwindling wildlife, but the hunting ethic itself. •
7
The Snowshoe Hare in Maine:
AN IMPORTANT ANIMAL by John A. Litvaitis and James Sherburne
T
HE SNOWSHOE HARE is one of the most
common, yet least understood, forest animals in Maine. This member of the family Leporidae (hare and rabbits) ranges from as far south as North Carolina northward throughout New England, across Canada, and into Alaska. In Maine, we also have eastern cottontail and New England cottontail rabbits, but only as far north as Androscoggin County . The large hind feet of the snowshoe hare, as its name implies, allow it to travel on top of snow, enabling the species to survive throughout the state, much further north than the cottontail rabbit's habitat. The hunting season for snowshoe hare in Maine occurs from early October through March, the longest of any game species. Each year, about one-quarter million hare are bagged by Maine hunters, making it one of the most popular game animals. More importantly, the showshoe hare is an integral component of Maine's forest ecosystem . Dr. Malcolm Coulter (now retired) of the University of Maine refers to the showshoe hare as 1 1 the major converter in the northern forests." Dr. Coulter indicates that the snowshoe hare, as an herbivore, converts plant material into animal matter. Since they are so abundant, snowshoes are the prey of many carnivores, including bobcat, coyote, fisher, fox, and several species of hawks and owls. Because of the hare's vital role in predator-prey systems, biologists of the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Maine are conducting an extensive study of the animals to determine their movements, habitat use, diet, and density. This study, part of a long-term study of Maine furbearers and the factors that influence their abundance, is being conducted with support from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the University of Maine. We have established two study areas in which to conduct research on fur bearers and their prey (see MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, Winter 1981 and Winter 1982). One area is the Down East region of the state, including eastern Hancock and western Washington counties. The other area encompasses the western mountains of Somerset County. These areas are quite different from one another in climate, vegetation, and land use. Such differences will allow us to evaluate the effects of these factors on hare populations and their predators. 8
We are obtaining information on hare movements by using small radio transmitters and receivers. Nine hare have been equipped with these transmitters, which weigh about an ounce. Hare are located several times each week, and our data indicate that the ranges of hare vary from 6 to 30 acres. Though male hare tend to be smaller than females, they occupy larger home ranges. Males may cover these longer distances to overlap the ranges of several females, especially during the breeding season.
S
EVERAL DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES are
being used to study hare habitat use, including fecal pellet counts, snow track counts, and box trapping. All of these methods indicate that snowshoe hare prefer areas with a very dense understory. Stands with stem densities of 15,000 or more per acre seem to be the most favored. These areas provide abundant food and cover, and hares seldom venture into the open. Seasonally, stands of young spruce and fir may be used more often during winter, while young hardwood areas are used more in the summer . During winter, softwood areas provide dense cover from predators and from climate extremes. In summer, hardwood areas have an abundance of grasses, herbs, and leaves, all of which are summer foods of snowshoe hare. These two cover types are not always next to one another; an individual hare may spend its entire life in one cover type, traveling no more than three or four hundred yards . Fall and winter food habits of hare are also being investigated. We have identified and measured over 10,000 woody twigs (browse) that have been clipped by hare some patterns are now evident. In the Down East area, lowbush blueberry, azalea, red maple, beaked hazelnut, and witherod are the most frequently used woody plants; red maple, white birch, striped maple, red spruce, and yellow birch are most often used by hare in western Maine . Though balsam fir is very abundant in western Maine, hare consume very little .
John A. Litvaitis is graduate research assistant with the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research unit. His co-author, James A. Sherburne, is the former unit leader. This research group is cooperatively supported by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the University of Maine.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Small radio transmitters and receivers are used to collect information on hare movements.
Throughout Canada and Alaska, hare populations vary considerably with time. This variation seems to follow about a 10-year cycle . Populations change in some areas from as low as 30 hares to 3,000 hare per square mile during the peak of the cycle . This phenomenon has been studied by biologists for many years and a variety of ideas, ranging from disease outbreaks to sunspots, have been suggested to explain it . The most likely explanation, one proposed by several researchers, seems to be that hare populations increase to a level that causes an overutilization of food resources . After the food supply drops, the hare population declines . Predation on hare by lynx, coyotes, foxes and hawks further reduces the population. Within several years the habitat begins to recover and hare numbers begin to build again. Since the forest habitat of the north is relatively continuous, not broken into small patches, populations of hare rise and fall at about the same time . Do hare populations cycle in Maine? Talking with residents in both study areas, we have heard that hare numbers have varied considerably in these areas . Our data also indicate that hare abundance does vary between and within the study areas. In western Maine, dense stands of young spruce and fir have the highest Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
densities we have observed, about 675 animals per square mile. In eastern Maine, dense stands of young hardwoods contain hare populations of about 285 per square mile . However, we have observed few hare in mature woods immediately next to these young stands. We suggest that hare abundance in Maine varies locally, and that it is a result of habitat composition. Such activities as logging and forest fires may result in very productive patches of hare habitat seveal years after the disturbance. As the stand or patch matures, the understory thins, and hare numbers decline . Though some years are more productive than others because of mild winters and lush summers, overall hare abundance in Maine is probably a result of habitat changes .
continues, we will examine what effects hare A numbers may have on predator populations . The abunS OUR STUDY OF SNOWSHOE HARE
dance and distribution of hare may greatly influence the abundance of other forest animals. So, the next time you come upon a snowshoe hare, remember how important this little animal really is. • 9
WOODSMAN SAVE THAT TREE! by Douglas L. Marston
IREWOOD HARVESTERS, small woodlot owners, even professional woodsmen - we all may be guilty of destroying important wildlife habitat in our Maine woods. The Fish and Wildlife Department is aware of several recent instances of unintentional destruction of den trees. These trees, frequently the largest and oldest trees in an area and thus among the first to be cut, are homes for a wide range of wildlife species, including birds and mammals. If you are one of the many, many Maine people who cut wood for one reason or another, this article is for you. You ask the questions.
F
How do I recognize a tree which might be used as a den site? The best time of the year to identify den trees, or potential ones, is in the fall or winter, after the leaves have fallen. Look for large trees with broken tops or dead branch stubs. The cavities themselves are often high up and not visible from the ground. Old wounds or scars, and the presence of fungal conks, are other indicators of existing or potential den trees . Oak, maple, and basswood make excellent cavity trees, but pine, birch, ash, elm, cedar, fir, and aspen are also important as dens for many species. Trees along property lines and roadsides, which have been left to themselves for long periods of 10
time, are very likely to be den trees . Trees along streams or other water bodies are valuable to some species, particularly ducks and raccoons .
How big must a tree be to prove useful as a den tree? This, of course, varies greatly depending on which species is using the tree. Generally speaking, trees should be eight inches in diameter or larger, although some small birds (like chickadees) occasionally use trees as small as four inches in diameter. Downy woodpeckers, wrens, and bluebirds use trees about eight inches in diameter, but most other treenesting species of birds need 12-inch trees for cavity nests. Some larger birds (ducks, owls, etc . J and most tree-nesting mammals spend their time in trees in excess of 20 inches in diameter .
What birds and animals use den trees? We could break these treedenners down into two groups: the cavity excavators and the cavity dwellers. The excavators -
woodpeckers, for example - are those species capable of digging their own nesting cavities . Much of this "foundation work" is actually accomplished incidental to a search for food; as a result, they create many cavities for use by other species not so well adapted to drilling or digging. Tree cavities provide homes and / or shelter for a great variety of wildlife: the very small - wrens, chickadees, nuthatches, flycatchers, and white-footed mice; the medium - woodpeckers, kestrels, owls, and squirrels; the large ducks, marten, fisher, raccoon, and porcupine; and the extra large bobcat and black bear .
How are the cavities formed in the trees? Other than those formed by the excavating species, a cavity usually starts from some injury caused by ice, windstorms, lightning, natural pruning, insect attacks, fire, or a mechanical injury . The initial injury is followed by fungus infection, and the decayed wood resulting from this process is what is removed to create the cavity. Natural pruning, such as the breakage of a limb, is the most
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
common beginning for the cavityforming process. It may take as long as 55 to 70 years to produce trees with dead limbs large enough to start the cavity forming process - and another 15 to 20 years before the cavities are actually formed and useful to wildlife!
of wildlife . The majority of these should be between six and 16 inches in diameter, with at least one very large cavity tree (over 18 inches in diameter) for each two acres of woodland . This is only a rule of thumb, however.
How many such den trees do Maine's wildlife need?
How do I go about saving den trees? Should I mark them?
Most of the primary excavators use cavities for nesting, but they also use dead or dying trees as feeding sites. Obviously, the great variety in size and number of species which use den trees makes this question very difficult to answer, but some research has been done on this subject. Studies indicate that a minimum of 5 to 6 cavity trees per acre should be available to satisfy the nesting and denning requirements
If you are locating these trees on land which you own, or on which you are conducting logging operations, there is probably no reason for doing anything except deciding not to cut the trees down! If there is a chance that someone else may be cutting timber on the lafld, for whatever reason, you might want to ask the owner's permission to mark these trees, on the butt, with a circle of bright paint (to distinguish this from the typical marks used to designate trees to be cut. What we are attempting to do is to let landowners know about this problem, in the hopes that they will seek out and save such trees on woodlands under their jurisdiction. We cannot, nor do we want to, force any landowner to leave a den tree standing.
If there aren't any den trees on my land, but I want to help, what can I do? When natural cavities are scarce, or non-existent, artificial nesting structures may be provided to meet wildlife needs in your area. The Fish and Wildlife Department headquarters in Augusta has some plans for bird houses and duck nesting boxes you can build, and your local library undoubtedly has further information on this subject.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
* * * * *
W
HEN YOU CONSIDER
that it took nature a century or more to create these natural "homes for wildlife, it makes you think twice before cutting them down. Or so we hope! 11
The author is a wildlife biologist in the department's Wildlife Division. He supervises wildlife habitat management programs statewide.
11
NATURE'S
HARD HEADS Imagine banging your head against a tree up to 120 times a minute without scrambling your brains! Well, the woodpecker can do just that. The woodpecker has a very strong bill and neck muscles for cutting into both live and dead timber. A thick skull and protective membrane insulate the brain from shock caused by the repeated pounding. As the woodpecker burrows into a tree, bristly feathers around his bill will protect his nostrils.
Another important feature of the woodpecker are his tailfeathers. The next time you see any woodpecker clinging to the side of a tree, look closely and you 1 ll see that it uses its tail to prop itself. These feathers are so important that when the woodpecker molts, the old feathers are not shed until the new ones have grown in. In most woodpecker species, the foot has four toes; two toes forward and two toes backward. This helps to stabilize the bird as it clings to the tree when digging. The tongue is probably one of the most interesting parts of a woodpecker. it is very long, and can be extended way beyond the tip of the bill. This may not seem unusual to you, but only the woodpecker and the hummingbird are so equipped. The woodpecker 1 s tongue goes under and over the top of the head, and is anchored in the right nostril, leaving the left nostril for breathing (see sketch). The tongues of most birds are attached to the bottom of their skulls .
~--=:::::::---Woodpeckers are beneficial to man - they eat large quantities of insects each year. Its tongue, like a barbed spear, can snare woodMaine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Letters should be sent to: Patricia Hogan, KID-BITS Editor Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine 284 State Street, Sta. #41 Augusta, ME 04333
boaring insects and withdraw them from their hidden tunnels. Woodpeckers communicate with each other by drumming. This drumming is used as a warning to territorial trespassers, and also to attract a mate. The woodpecker's chiseling is also done when preparing a site for nesting. It is interesting to note that the woodpecker's eggs are white and unmarked. The reason for this is that the eggs are hidden from view because of the depth of the cavity and therefore don't need camouflage. Both parents help in feeding the young, providing predigested food for them until they are able to forage for themselves. As the young approach fledging, they get very noisy whenever a parent nears the nest. A walk through the woods during the nesting season can be rather noisy! The next time you hear a woodpecker's hammerlike blows, you'll know it's the woodlands carpenter hard at work!
The words listed below are hidden in this puzzle. Can you find all of them? They can be formed forward, backward, up or down, diagonally. Good luck!
AEGIKCLNMRUVWZZPTMLKG JTKKAAWHBMGKANZSVBIDH KOJKBVXJDNHLBWECWDNBE MNEFDIZLEOIMDNVSZSSAD NGCDBTTMHQKEEVWUXREGB GUDECYSNKRSNEWYPZQCHA HELWEHQRLSTOGRKROQTKC DEWXOINTAILFEATHERSME GDYZGOOAMTUPHVVMMHKQZ HCSTHKDCNUWRIZWXKILIV I AV L I LR PP TX SK HS PL L J KW KCWLKMSDESZTLILMGNMGV LDVILOUARCWNMKMKIOLES REVBMPWCCRKONHGHHSKDQ QGTUNRXAOQUEOEABOTNAP OIQQOSVCLNTPRGGHKRPCM NK PQPTWDKMSRR I KIE I QNL MLRSEOTEGLRSTLEWVRPOK Toes, bill, woodpecker, tongue, cavity, tree, nest, tailfeathers, insects, nostril.
POSTER CONTEST This year, Mainers will have the opportunity to donate any amount of their tax return for the benefit of non-game species. Money donated through this tax check-off will help support research and management of species in Maine that are not hunted, trapped or considered game. Examples of these would be songbirds, birds of prey, reptiles and amphibians. Among supporters of the nongame check-off are the Maine
Audubon Society, Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the UMO Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the Natural Resources Council of Maine . To help educate Maine's youth about the value of non-game wildlife, these organizations are sponsoring a state-wide poster contest. The contest will be open to students in grades 3 through 10. Guidelines will be given in the various schools, and entries will be
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
submitted to the Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society. All winning posters will be displayed in the state capital in Augusta. Some of the prizes to be awarded include hand lenses, bird boxes, field packs, bird books, binoculars, whale watching trips, spotting scopes, camping trips and other gifts which they hope will encourage the sound use and appreciation of Maine's nongame wildlife. 13
THE SCIENCE OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT:
The Future of ourWddlife Upends onlt Species Restoration As recently as the turn of the century, little, if anything, could be done to ensure the survival of any species of North American wildlife. Other than a few protective measures, there was simply no known cure to reverse the serious decline in numbers of many native wildlife species. Indeed, by the early 1900s, a variety of once,abundant species faced bleak and uncertain futures. The growth of the modern science of wildlife manage, ment in the 1930s provided a dramatic breakthrough for the future well,being of all wildlife. Built on a new understanding of the relationship between habitat and wildlife, the science of wildlife management provided, for the first time, the practical steps necessary to restore and maintain healthy wild animal populations.
14
Live trapping and transplant programs have played a major role in restoring a variety of species to their historic ranges and, in some cases, to new areas. Large,scale restocking efforts, for example, helped the white,tailed deer make a dramatic comeback. From a low of some 500,000 at the turn of the century, there are now some 12 million whitetails nationwide. Populations in most all areas are at or above the carrying capacity of available habitat. Over the years, it has been the American hunter who, through license fees and excise taxes, has provided the lion's share of the funds necessary for these conservation programs. NSSF -
Na tional Shooting Spo rts Foundation 1075 Pose Road Rivcrsid~. Conn . 06878
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
A Biologist Needs A Computer?
W
HY DOES a fishery bio-
logist need a computer? That was a familiar question Fishery Biologist Sonny Pierce heard as he went to various southern Maine sportsmen's organizations last year to explain his need for a computer - and to solicit funds to buy one. As he told the sportsmen, today's heavy demands on local fishery resources make the job of a fishery manager an overwhelming responsibility that demands quick answers and intelligent decisions. In Region A, Pierce's southern Maine area of responsibility, fishermen currently participate in about 370,000 fishing trips annually, and they catch over 400,000 fish. But change is the rule in fishermen's habits and in fish populations, and it's the task of a biologist to monitor these changes and make adjustments in management programs that will result in the best possible fishery in each body of water . In Region A, that means checking up on over 250
lakes and ponds, including Sebago Lake, and nearly 3,700 miles of streams and rivers . The amount of information gathered over the years from these resources is awesome, and after a while is far beyond what is feasible to sort through by hand . Pierce made his point well with the sporting groups, and they came through in a big way with enough financial support to install a computer in his regional office in Gray. In total, they contributed nearly $2,800. Three groups giving very generous donations were : Sokokis Chapter of Trout Unlimited Sebago Chapter of Trout Unlimited Merrymeeting Bay Chapter of Trout Unlimited.
Also giving generous contributions were (in alphabetical order) : Associated Sportsman's Clubs of Cumberland County Associated Sportsman's Clubs of York County Bass Anglers Sebago Region Berwick Sportsman Association Falmouth Rod and Gun Club Forest City Rod and Gun Club Fryeburg Fish and Game Association North Berwick Rod and Gun Club, Inc.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Norway-Paris Fish and Game Association Pine Tree Bass Casters Saco Valley Rod and Gun Club Sanford-Springvale Fish and Game Protective Association Seacoast Bassmasters of Southern Maine Seacoast Sportsman's Club Sha-Goie Watha Sportsman's Club, Inc. South Berwick Rod and Gun Association Southern Maine Fish and Game Spurwink Rod and Gun Club Westbrook Rod and Gun Club Windham-Gorham Rod and Gun Club York County Fish and Game Association
All of these groups, representing hundreds of sportsmen, are to be commended for supporting and working together with the Fish and Wildlife Department. A small example of how the new computer will help Pierce occurred recently when he was calculating flows for various streams in his region . He was working on information from 119 stream sections, involving a total of 1,547 different mathematical calculations. It would have taken him over 30 hours to complete the work with a small hand calculator, at a cost of over $300 . The computer did the job in a little over two minutes at a cost of 58 cents! • 15
(In the first part of this series, the problems encountered in managing furbearers in the 1970s were discussed. These problems centered on rapidly increasing pelt values, new state, national, and international laws, a large increase in the number of licensed trappers, and our ignorance of who trappers are and how they respond to new regulations. To learn more about Maine trappers, we sent out a mail questionnaire and initiated a study of license records . In this article, we will look at results gained from both efforts.
RE TRAPPERS more like muskrats or elephants? This may seem unusual, but I have tried to answer this question over the last few years. Biologists commonly study animal populations to determine birth rate, mortality rate, structure, and status (increasing, decreasing, or stable) in order to best manage the population. This information has been gathered on a number of furbearers in Maine, as well as on big game and waterfowl species, but seldom have the same techniques been used to study those sportsmen harvesting these animals . In this study, I used trapping license sales from 1976 16
through 1980 were to determine the population characteristics of trappers. Sales of regular trapping licenses increased each year, from 3,307 in 1976 to 5,140 in 1980, a total increase of 1,833 (Table 1) . While we know the population increased over this time, this still does not tell us anything about the individuals in the population. If trappers are like muskrats, the 5,100-plus license holders in 1980 would be different individuals from the 3,300 in 1976, as muskrats are short-lived and have a rapid rate of turnover. But if trappers are like elephants, most of the 1980 license holders would be the same individuals, as elephants are longlived and have a slow turnover rate. To answer this question required a more complicated analysis. First we have to examine this population of trappers as if it were an animal population. The year a person first held a trapping license is considered the year of their "birth" as a trapper . The year an individual stopped buying a license
is the year of their " death" as a trapper. Trappers, being different from the animals harvested, do have the ability to "come back to life" if they once again bought a license after missing a year, or years, so this trait had to be included in our population analysis. The results were a surprise; we found trappers to be a dynamic population, much like fox or coyote. During this five-year period, a total of 8,232 different individuals held resident trapping licenses. Of the 3,307 trappers in 1976, only 2,017 were still buying a license in 1980, and only 1,516 of these bought a license every year. This changing make-up of the population can be seen by looking closer at the increases in Table l. The trapper increase of 580 in 1977 does not represent 580 individuals added to the 1976 sales, but was rather the result of
The author is a wildlife biologist in the department's Wildlife Division. He is assistant leader of the small game and furbearer research project.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
1,343 "births" (new license buyers) minus 763 "deaths". This same pattern held for each year of the study (Table 1 J. Table 1. Scales of Trapping Licenses, Trapper Population Changes, Births (Started Buying License) , and Deaths (Stopped Buying License), 1976-80. Year
License Sales
Change
Births
Deaths
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
3,307 3,887 4,159 4,777 5,140
+ 580 + 272 + 618 + 363
1,343 1,092 1,246 1,223
763 820 628 860
Finally, does the number of years a license is held affect the likelihood that a trapper will continue? Going back to our example of a population, we know from looking at the age structure of a harvest that most of the animals are in their first year, some are one year old, and very few are adults (two years and older), but once they reach adulthood, they live a long time. Trappers showed a similar pattern. Trappers who bought their first license the previous year made up the majority of the deaths each year. Forty percent of the individuals buying their first license during this study did not buy one again. Trappers are not elephants or muskrats, it seems, but turnover in trappers is as dynamic as in any animal population.
T
HE MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE sent to 1,500
trappers in December of 1980 provided many times the information that could be reported even if this entire magazine were devoted to the topic. More than 275 different pieces of information were obtained from each properly completed questionnaire; more than 1,230 individuals returned them! Many of the questions will only gain significance when repeated in a couple of years to detect change. Therefore, this discussion of
results will be limited to a few key areas. In the first part of this series, I pointed out that many studies have described an average trapper, an individual who does not exist. In order to avoid this problem with our study, several characteristics of trappers were used to identify subgroups. These characteristics included type of trapper (selfdescribed), type of trapping done, and place of residence. One of the easiest ways to categorize people is to ask them to categorize themselves. Trappers were asked to classify themselves as one of four types (professional, semi-professional, part-time, or recreational). These types were intended to allow trappers to express their overall approach to trapping. The results were somewhat surprising - only 35 (three percent) of those responding considered themselves professionals, even with current high fur prices. Recreational trappers were the most abundant (45 percent), followed by part time (38 percent), and semi-professional (14 percent). A second grouping of trappers was based upon the type of trapping done. Categories listed were fall land, fall water, and beaver. Not surprisingly, land trapping was the most common type (71 percent), followed by the fall water (57 percent), and beaver (35 percent). Eleven percent of the trappers responding said they did not set a trap during 1980. These last two percentages are noteworthy. The number of beaver trappers was expected to be higher, as the 1979-80 harvest was the highest on record (19,209). The number of individuals who bought licenses without trapping was not anticipated. A more detailed breakdown of the participation by type is shown in Figure 2. Maine is a large state with a great variation in climate, geography, land use, animal distribution and abundance, and human population. From election
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
returns and other surveys, the opinions and attitudes of the Table 2. Trapper participation in combinations of trapping types in 1980.
Type of Trapping
%
Estimated Number
Beaver only Fall land only Fall water only Beaver, fall land Beaver, fall water Fall land, fall water Beaver, fall land, fall water Do not trap
8 19 7 4 2 28 20 12
411 977 360 205 103 1439 1028 617
people vary throughout the state as well. With this in mind, the last factor used to classify individuals was residence. Individuals were grouped into one of four geographic regions of residence by using wildlife management unit boundaries. The four regions are North and West (Units 1, 2, and 3), Central (Unit 4), East (Units 5 and 6), and South (Units 7 and 8). As we discuss other topics from the questionnaire, subgroups of trappers will be used to demonstrate how grouping assists in explaining differences between trappers.
O
NE OF THE FIRST AREAS looked at with
the questionnaire was why individuals trap. Trappers responding to this question were given 10 possible reasons why they trap, and were asked to mark all which apply. Table 3 contains a breakdown of the percentage which selected each response by geographic region. Many of the reasons were selected nearly equally over the regions but a few differ significantly (recreation, make money, and challenge against the animal). While money is viewed as the motivation behind trapping by many wildlife managers, this reason was selected by less than half of the trappers in all regions of the state. 17
Table 3. Trapper Reason For Participation (% ) By Region of Residence . Reason Champion ship Recreation Earn Money Enjoy Nature Teach Others Challenge Solitude Escape Daily Routine Compete With Other Trappers Control Animal Populations
Region N ,W Cent.
E
s
22 46 43 52 14 52 28 41
18 60 40 54 19 62 35 42
19 55 39 48 14 60 28 44
18 58 33 54 18 61 33 46
7
11
13
11
19
25
19
26
A second area of interest is the public hearing process and who attends. Two questions dealt with this area : trappers were asked if they ever attended a public hearing on furbearer regulations, and if they attended regularly. Of those individuals responding to this question, nearly 80 percent of the trappers have never attended public hearings while only one in ten attends regularly. When we looked at hearing attendance based on the trapper types described earlier, a definite difference is apparent. While only 30 percent of the professional trappers have never attended a hearing, the percentage increases through the types to more than 80 percent for the recreational. Although those who consider themselves professional and semi-professional comprise only 17 percent of the trappers in the state, they make up nearly 40 percent of those who regularly attend hearings .
A third area which was explored through the questionnaire was trapper preference for types of trapping. Trappers were asked to choose their first, second, and third choices. Points were assigned on the basis of 3 for a first choice, 2 for a second choice and 1 for a third choice . The types of trapping ranked in the order suspected, based on participation described earlier (land trapping was first, fall water second, and beaver third). The same ranking occurred when trappers were divided into the regions where they live, but the scores varied considerably. In the north, west and east regions, beaver trapping scored well - in the south, beaver trapping scored very low . Fall water trapping received a low score in the north and west, while nearly tying land trapping in the east region . When asked to rank land animals (bobcat, coyote, fisher, fox, marten, raccoon, skunk and weasel), fox was the high scorer statewide - and in each region. The remaining animals ranked as follows: fisher, raccoon, coyote, bobcat, and marten. Not surprisingly, skunk and weasel received little support. There were considerable differences in animal ranks when looking at individual regions . Coyote moved up to third in the north and west and east zones,
while raccon moved to second in the east zone - fisher finished fifth, probably due to low populations . There are some obvious differences between ranks and pelt price . Coyote would not be nearly as high if money were the only consideration. With the water species (beaver, mink, otter, and muskrat), muskrat was the most preferred overall and in each region, with beaver and mink finishing in a virtual tie and otter coming in last . Once again there were regional differences in preference. Mink scored higher than beaver in the north, west, and south regions, while beaver was higher in the other two. Beaver scored very consistently in all regions except the south, where the score was significantly lower. The final area we will examine is one of particular importance to wildlife managers and concerns trapper input into problems (what's wrong), objectives (what are we managing for), and regulations (how do we accomplish the objectives). One of the most difficult jobs of a wildlife manager is to anticipate problems before they arise. Some types of problems are obvious to the users long before the mangers are aware of them. Therefore, trappers were asked to rate 17 possible problems facing trapping, on whether they agreed the problem occurred in Maine. The agreement responses were converted to a numeric scale from + 10 (strongly agrees that this is a_ problem) to -10 (strongly disagrees that this is a problem) . The results are recorded in Table 4 in order of importance. Although problems covered many areas, the three highest-rated problems, and four out of the top five, are people-related. Coyotes are the only animal-related problem in the top five, and loss of habitat was ranked eighth. Once again, regional differences occurA trapper tends to one of his traps on a cold winter day.
Table 4. Trapper Rating of Possible Problems, Scale of -10 to + 10. Problem Trap Theft Increased Trapper Numbers Trapper Ethics Coyote Population Law Violations Federal Ban of Leghold Trap Land Posting Habitat Loss Raccoon and Bobcat Huntes State Ban of Leghold Trap High Fur Prices Deer Hunters Pesticide/Herbicide Spraying Bird Hunters Declining Animal Populations Disease Conibear Traps
Rating +6.0 +5.0 +4.4 +4 .4 +2.8 +2 .3 +2.2 +2.1 + 1.7 + 1.5 + 1.3 + 0.8 +0.7 +0.7 + 0 .1 -0.5 -2.7
red. Coyotes moved up to second place in the north and west zone where people problems were rated lower. Land posting and habitat loss were much more important to southern Maine trappers than in other regions. In the area of objectives, trappers were given a list of 12 and asked to rate them on an importance scale of O (not important) to 10 (very important). The mean overall scores are contained in Table 5, Table 5. Trapper Rating of Objectives, Scale of Oto 10. Objective Protect Animal Populations Highest Pelt Primeness Reduce Over-populated or Damage-causing Species Most Season Days Before Freeze-up Distribute Trapping Pressure More Evenly Equal Trapping Days Statewide Most Season Days Before Deer Season Minimize Conflicts With Deer Hunters Maximize Net Income For Trappers Minimize Movement of Trappers Between Units Longest Possible Season Minimize Conflicts With Bird Hunters
Rating 8.5 8.0
7.7 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.0 5.6 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.7
and reflect the basic concern trappers have for the resource. Two of the first three deal with maintaining animal populations at their proper level. Another interesting observation is that several of the top-rated objectives conflict with each other. While trappers want to maximize pelt primeness (which requires later seasons J, they also want the most possible trapping
These are an example of the various traps used by trappers .
days before freeze-up and deer season . Objectives were also examined on a regional basis; differences did occur, but objectives appeared to be more consistent than other areas we have examined. The final area which we will review in this part of the series is trapper response to possible regulations . Since I've been involved in the regulations process, two characteristics of public hearings have become apparent. First we generally see distinct differences in the participants' views on a particular regulation, depending on where the hearing is held. In addition, it appears that hearings are better at attracting opponents to regulations than those in favor -
and the opponents always have a better idea. Trappers were asked to evaluate 14 regulations which might be used to reduce animal harvests in the same way the possible problems were handled (strongly agree to disagree). The surprising results are contained in Table 6) . Once again, trappers showed their concern for the resource by favoring a closure if the status of a population is declining. The most surprising response was the positive rating given to a trapper season limit, as this regulation has attracted negative comments at almost all public hearings. Regulations new to Maine which would restrict activities or limit trapping opportunity (limit licenses
Table 6. Trapper rating of Possible Regulations to Reduce harvests, Scale of -10 to + 10. North &. West Close Season Fur Hunter's License Trapper Season Limit Test New Trappers Mandatory Training Statewide Season Limit Professional Trapper License Shorter Season Limit Number of Traps Registered Traplines Raise License Fee Limit Number of Licenses Limit License by Type Restrict Types of Traps &. Sets
#4.9 #4.0 #2.0 0.0 -0.2 -2.1 -1.9 -3.6 -5.0 -3.8 -4.5 -4.6 -6.2 -6.0
sold, registered trap lines, etc. J were opposed, as was a shortening of the trapping season. Regional opinions of regulations varied widely, reflecting the differences seen between hearings. Overall, only five regulations from the list
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Regions Central
East
South
#5.7 #3.1 #2.7 #1.1 #1.2 -1.3 -1.8 -2.6 -3.6 -4.0 -4.4 -4.3 -5.7 -6.0
#5.4 #3.4 #1.4 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -1.2 -3.7 -3.5 -4.5 -4.3 -4.1 -5.4 -5.6
#5.3 #1.1 #2.5 #1.1 #1.1 -1.1 -1.6 -2.8 -3. 7 -4.3 -3.8 -3.9 -5.1 -5 .9
Statewide Total #5.4 #2.4 #2.3 #0.9 #0.8 -1.3 -1.6 -3.0 -3.8 -4.1 -4.2 -4.2 -5.6 -5.9
were agreed to by trappers. In the final part of this series, the use the manager makes of this information, and suggestions on where we should be going with furbearer management, will be discussed. • 19
WHAT'S A SPLAKE? by Philip S. Andrews
H
ISTORICALLY, humans
have shown a consistent inclination to try improving on nature, usually with mixed success. One important area of interest has been genetics, especially the creation of hybrid forms to benefit mankind. We 1 re all familiar with hybrid plants such as corn and tomatoes, and with hybrid livestock. Even our domestic pets result from crossing varieties of the same species to produce various types of dogs and cats . Rarely, two different species can even be crossed to produce a hybrid type. A well-known example is the mating of a horse and a donkey to produce a mule. In fisheries management, this interesting aspect of science has resulted in a wide variety of hybrid fish species. One of the most notable is the splake, which results from artificially pairing lake trout (togue) with brook trout. Offspring from these matings may show characteristics of either or both parents and, most
I
I
//
f
//
V
o
importantly, usually show a phenomenon called ''hybrid vigor 11 in the first generation. This can result in a fish which, for example, grows faster or survives longer than either of its parents. In the case of the splake, we can also produce a fish which may be able to tolerate different environmental conditions than brook trout or lake trout alone, or that may be able to utilize available food more effectively in some situations. Splake hybrids have been utilized in fisheries management since about 1870, and became particularly popular in some areas during the 1950s. A few stockings were made in Maine in the early 1960s, at least one of which seems to have been very successful. Problems occurred with high hatchery mortalities in early development, however, and there was concern that the hybrid might displace some of our native species in some waters. For these and other reasons, the splake ' 'fad,, soon passed, and they were no longer
used in Maine. Canadian biologists continued to work with the hybrid, however, and found that in some situations the splake could provide the excellent fisheries. This work, and other new knowledge about this hybrid, led us to re-examine the splake as a possible management option in some Maine trout waters. Currently, we are evaluating splake, on a strictly experimental basis, in four Maine ponds where brook trout stocking has not been especially successful. Several years will be required to fully evaluate the worth of this hybrid, and problems still exist with unpredictable mortalities in the hatchery. At best, the splake would only be stocked on a 11 put-grow-take 11 basis, and then only in waters where brook trout have not produced acceptable fisheries. Thus, splake would not replace our standard brook trout stocking program, but rather would be an additional option available for use in special circumstances. Should you happen to catch a splake, you might not know it. Most of the splake produced so far bear a strong resemblance to brook trout, with only minor variations in head and tail shape. The only way to determine identity for sure is to make counts of certain internal organs near the stomach. No matter - just treat it like any brook trout. Regulations on splake are the same as those for brook trout in those waters where both exist. Hopefully, Maine anglers may have an opportunity in the future to catch this interesting fish in some waters where trout fishing was not previously available. Time will tell. •
ATLANTIC by Edward T. Baum
TLANTIC SALMON we~e
once so numerous 1n New England rivers _that Colonial farmers reportedly used them for fertilizer . In Maine alone, 35 rivers and streams once contained sizable populations of sea salmon. Today, however, that number has dwindled to eight rivers although a few smaller streams support remnant populations. Until only recently, Maine was the only state in this country where this historic species could be found. The principle causes for the decline of Salmo salar were man-made obstructions to migration, water pollution, over-fishing, and introductions of other species of fish. The Atlantic salmon is an anadromous fish, which means that it spends most of its adult life in the ocean but returns to fresh water to spawn. Most adult salmon enter Maine rivers during the spring and early summer; however, fresh run or bright fish are common through the month of October. Unlike some salmon populations where there are distinct spring and fall runs, Maine rivers experience one peak migration period. This usually occurs during the period from late May through early July. Although most salmon enter the river during the summer, about one-quarter of the annual run occurs after August 1, making angling for them in the late summer and early fall a worthwhile effort. During summers of extremely low water flow and high temperatures, salmon often con-
gregate in the river estuaries and wait for improved water conditions to occur before entering the river in the fall. Under these circumstances, it would appear that a fall run of salmon occurs. Indeed, in very poor water years, up to 50 per cent of the salmon run may be delayed until fall .
B
RIGHT SALMON ARE VERY SILVERY, with
light blue-brownish backs . They often have sea lice attached to their bodies, but these are usually harmless, dropping off within 48 hours after the fish have entered fresh water. As the fish mature sexually in the river, they become darker colored and mottled. By fall, they are almost bronze colored and often have large reddish spots on the head and body. Male salmon acquire the characteristic hook, or kype, on the tip of the lower jaw.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Spawning takes place from midOctober to early November, depending upon water flow and temperature. Since early migrants spend up to five months in the river, deep, cool, well-shaded resting pools are needed to protect the salmon until they spawn in the fall . Suitable spawning areas consist of coarse gravel or rubble in moving water so that sufficient oxygen is provided to incubating eggs. Salmon spawning areas are called redds, and each redd consists of several egg pits. The female digs each egg pit by turning on her side and vigorously flapping her tail. The digging is accomplished by the water currents produced, rather
The author is a fishery biologist with the Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission.
21
than by actual body contact with the gravel. Frequent rest periods are taken between digging activities. The male, who often mates with more than one female, spends his time courting the female or driving off other males . When the egg pit is completed, the female settles into the depression, the male swims into position beside her, and some of the eggs and milt are deposited. Water currents in the egg pit mix the sperm and eggs to ensure efficient fertilization and hold the eggs in the depression until the female can cover them with gravel. Frequently, young male salmon (four to six inches long) are sexually mature and participate in the spawning act. Experiments have shown that these fish are just as capable of fertilizing eggs as adult salmon . When spawning is completed in the first egg pit, the female moves upstream to dig another, and another, and so on, until all her eggs have been deposited. As each successive egg pit is made, the displaced gravel carries downstream to cover eggs in the pit below . Recent studies in Maine have shown that the eggs are usually buried to a depth of 9 inches but may be found as deep as 14 inches . When completed, the
22
salmon redd may be up to 20 feet long and 20 feet wide, containing numerous egg pits . The number of eggs deposited by any female will, of course, depend upon her size . During a recent study involving salmon from the Machias and Narraguagus rivers, egg number per female ranged from 3,500 to nearly 19,000. Each female produced an average of about 800 eggs per pound of body weight, but this figure varied considerably with the individual fish . A IO-pound female, therefore, could be expected to produce about 8,000 eggs.
U
NLIKE THE FIVE
SPECIES OF Pacific salmon, the Atlantic does not necessarily die following spawning . The post-spawners, or kelts , may return to the sea in the fall, but many over-winter in the river and return to the ocean the following April or May. Having lost an average of 25 to 30 percent of their body weight due to starvation (adult salmon do not normally feed in fresh water) and the rigors of migration and spawning, these thin, dark fish are called black salmon or racers when caught by anglers in the spring. Most salmon
that live to repeat the spawning cycle will spend 12 to 15 months in the ocean before returning to the river to spawn again although a few will re-enter the river in the fall after only three to five months in the ocean. Occasionally, a salmon will survive long enough to spawn three or four times and live to be eight to ten years old. The eggs deposited in the fall hatch during March and April . The sac-fry, or alevins as they are called, are about one-half inch in length and have a large yolk sac protruding from their bellies. When the yolk sac is almost completely absorbed (about six weeks), the young fry swim out of the gravel and begin feeding in the river. Salmon first feed on plankton microscopic plants and animals but as they grow in size, their diet changes to insect larvae and insects . They also occasionally eat small fish such as alewives or min nows. As growth continues, the small salmon are called parr because of the eight to eleven dark, vertical bands on their sides. Salmon parr closely resemble small trout; however, unlike trout, they have black as well as red spots and a well-forked tail. About 80 percent of the parr in Maine streams remain in fresh water for two years, while the other 20 percent stay an additional year. Obviously, a salmon stream must provide extensive nursery areas where the young salmon can find sufficient food and protection from predators during this stage of its life history, since three yearclasses of young salmon may occupy nursery areas at the same time . Following two or three years of stream life, the time to leave fresh water approaches, and salmon parr undergo several changes. Outwardly, the fish become thinner and the tail elongated and more deeply forked; the parr marks disappear as the fish turn very silvery. Inwardly, drastic changes occur to enable
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
them to adapt to life in the sea. The salmon is now termed a smolt, ranges from five to ten inches in length, and migrates downstream to the ocean during May and June.
S WITH ALL FORMS OF LIFE,
the Atlantic A salmon is subjected to various
natural enemies . Fish that prey on young salmon include pickerel, perch, eels, and even brook trout, w bile birds such as mergansers, kingfishers, cormorants, gulls, and ¡ ospreys take their toll. While in the ocean, salmon are subject to attack from seals, porpoises, and larger species of fish . Maine salmon are commonly caught by commercial as well as sport fisherm en , too. The mortality rate during life at sea is extremely high; for every 100 smolts that leave the river, an average of only two or three survive to return as adults . Once in the ocean, salmon begin to feed voraciously on other fish and crustaceans. Primary foods include herring, sand launce, capelin, and shrimp. As the
Bear Problems (continued from page 3) may be set to capture the troublesome bear . If the level of damage is severe enough (this varies from one operator to another), electric fence can be installed . Modern high voltage (6,000 to 7,000 volts) electric fence has proven effective in reducing bear and deer damage to gardens and orchards, and coyote / dog predation on sheep. Electric fence represents an added cost to the operator; but it is often less expensive in the long run than other measures and may reduce his losses considerably. Property owners may take any necessary force to stop a bear in the act of destroying his property. Furthermore, wardens may issue permits to property owners, bee-
salmon mature in the ocean, the life cycle is completed by a spawning migration back to fresh water . Most salmon return to the river where they were spawned and reared; however, a few occasionally stray into other rivers. Adult salmon spend varying lengths of time in the ocean . Fish that spend one winter at sea are called grilse, while older salmon are simply called salmon . Scale samples from more than 2,000 native Narraguagus River salmon examined since 1962 have shown that in any given year, grilse comprise 1 to 2 percent of the spawning run, two sea-winter salmon 80 to 90 percent, three sea-winter salmon 3 to 5 percent and salmon which have previously spawned 5 to 10 percent. Similar data from other rivers have shown that this age structure is typical for Maine salmon runs . The average adult salmon is from 28 to 32 inches long and weighs from 8 to 12 pounds . The largest Atlantic salmon caught in recent years on rod and reel in Maine weighed more than 26 pounds; however, fish larger than 20 pounds are uncommon.
HERE DO SALMON GO during their years at sea? Tagging experiments, involving adults and hatchery-reared smolts, have taken some of the mystery out of the ocean life of salmon . Tag returns annually come from commercial fishermen in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Greenland - more than 2,000 miles from Maine! From tag returns to date, it appears that, except for grilse, many Maine salmon go to Greenland. The Greenland area has been proven to be a common feeding ground for many European as well as North American salmon. Using the length of time at sea between the time of release and time of recapture, movements of 10 to 15 miles per day have been calculated for Maine salmon - assuming straight line migration. Faster daily rates of migration probably occur, as random wandering must take place. Greenland tag returns from adult fish tagged in the river on their first spawning migration show that some Maine salmon apparently make the 2,000 mile journey to Greenland more than once. •
keepers, and other operators to trap depredating bears outside of the regular open season. When necessary, animal damage control agents working for the department or cooperating in the ADC Program can be assigned to trap or shoot damage causing bears . The objective of the Animal Damage Control program, as the title suggests, is to reduce or eliminate the damage, not necessarily the animal. The department is continually seeking new ways to help the crop growers, beekeepers, and other operators deal with damage caused by wildlife, while still upholding its responsibility to manage the species for the benefit of all people . Toward that end, the special agents cooperating with the depart-
ment are enlisted to assist property owners. Aldrich cable snares are used to trap bears at damage sites. These bears can be removed to an area where damage is less likely to be a problem. Further, the ADC coordinator serves as a clearinghouse for information relating to bear damage. This enables property owners, as well as the department, to obtain and use the best information available to reduce depredation problems . Training sessions will be provided in the use of cable snares, electric fences, etc. as time goes on . In the next issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife, we will discuss specific animal damage control policies as they relate to crop damage, particularly by deer and raccoons.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
W
•
23
Y
OU MAY THINK, and many agree, that
the hundreds of Maine fishing regulations are confusing - but anglers in other states have it even worse! ''No fishing downstream from the old Fletcher Bridge'' may be perfectly clear to a local resident, but not to most visiting anglers. And try to wade through this regulation for the Columbia River:
24
"Zone 10 waters are closed to all angling ... [from] McNary Dam downstream to a line across the river from the red and white marker on the Oregon shore to the yellow and white marker on the Washington shore on a line that intersects the downstream end of the wing wall of the boat lock near the Washington shore, except that bank angling is permitted from the Oregon shore upstream to a marker at the Corps of Engineers Park.''
Is that clear? Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Not all fishing regulations have a strictly biological basis. Some, such as the prohibition of night fishing in some parts of the country, are designed as an aid to enforcement. Other regulations, such as those regulating fishing in dangerous areas, are for the protection of fishermen. Others are enacted in an attempt to standardize laws throughout a state, or body of water. The usual pattern of regulation on a fish stock or body of water develops in three stages: (1) an initial period without restrictions; (2) a period of increasing regulations, until a maximum number are imposed; and (3) a decrease or removal of regulations. As we obtain more and more information from biological surveys and research, we find that many regulations are ineffective in both commercial and sport fisheries . In theory, it would be best to have individual regula. tions for each species, each body of water, and each season. In practice, however, many regulations are often standardized to make them easier to understand. To the angler, fishing is more enjoyable if the regulations are simple and understandable, so that there is no need to worry about whether the law is being violated . Some fishes are difficult to identify, and it makes sense to have regulations covering only the easily recognizable species or the important game fishes.
W
E CAN CLASSIFY most of the commercial
and sport fishing regulations into seven groups - these seven "pigeonholes" include essentially every type of regulation: (1) gear; (2) area; (3) habitat protection; (4) catch; (SJ season; (6) conditions; and (7) enforcement and safety. Several of these types of regulations actually have little to do with fishes or actual fishing.
l Gear I Gear regulations are generally applied to ration the catch for both commercial and sport fishermen. However, the catch is often rationed by reducing the efficiency of the gear - that is, by prohibiting the more efficient types of gear. For example, it would be very efficient to catch Atlantic salmon by stretching a gill net across the mouth of the Machias River. But, of course, the run would soon disappear . In certain ocean waters near cities in other states, and on most inland waters, anglers are limited to one rod or one hook. Ice fishing anglers in Maine are limited to five tip-ups per person. Hook size and number of points are often restricted as well. Other types of gear regulations allow only fly fishing, prohibit live bait, limit use and placement of sinkers, and forbid or limit baited traps, nets, bowfishing, dynamite, and other illegal or dubious gear. All gear regulations are designed to restrict efficiency, prevent overfishing, or distribute the catch. Commercial fishermen, too, have limitations on types of nets, mesh sizes, or net material - restrictions again designed to decrease efficiency of the gear and aid in proMaine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
tecting fish stocks. Increasing the mesh size helps to protect the young of commercial species by allowing them to pass through nets. Area regulations are designed to protect fish in locations where they may be overly vulnerable to capture . One such area is at the base of falls on salmon streams, where salmon congregate and would be easy prey to anglers (some states do not have jigging or snagging regulations) . As a consequence, these areas must be closed or otherwise protected. Other areas where fish may be overly vulnerable to capture include waters just below or above dams and weirs, spawning grounds, and nursery grounds (such as those used by some commercially important marine fishes.) If logging, road construction, or agricultural practices, were unrestricted., turbidity, water temperature, sedimentation, and pollution in streams could be high. Regulations, though not strictly applying to fishermen, are essential to protect fish habitat. Included in this category are laws that regulate fishing and other water-oriented activities, such as water skiing and swimming, in reservoirs, lakes, and ponds. Regulations governing water diversion, discharge, and minimum flow all protect fish habitat . Minimum flow regulations are critically important to fishes. If water were released from a dam at a trickle for the first two hours, and at twice the necessary flow for the second two hours, the average flow for the period would be adequate. But the fish wouldn't be around long because the minimum flow wasn't maintained.
3
Habitat Protection
Catch restrictions are perhaps the most familiar type of fishing regulation. Included here are length and weight regulations, size limits, bag limits, and possession limits. For anglers, bag limits and possession limits are intended to help provide an even distribution of the catch; such limits are not particularly effective for overabundant fishes (such as panfish) or nongame fishes. Instead of bag limits, commercial fishermen have catch limits. Sometimes catches are restricted by quotas, as they are for Pacific halibut and the world's whale fisheries. Occasionally, an industry may impose catch restrictions on itself; during peak periods of the sockeye salmon run in Alaska, the salmon canneries
The author is assistant leader of the Maine Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, a research group jointly supported by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the University of Maine at Orono.
25
often set a catch or weight limit for each boat. Size limits are important to commercial fisheries to ensure that young fish will be available to grow and replenish the population. For many freshwater fishes, the intent is similar. In the cold waters of Maine, growth is usually slow. If large numbes of fish are caught before they are mature, populations would go downhill fast. The length limits for togue (lake trout), or other trout, bass, and salmon are intended to protect fish from angling until they have had an opportunity to spawn. Size limits are also good in heavily fished waters or for heavily fished species, because such regulations protect and distribute the catch.
7
The final group of fishing regulations
Enforcement . . . And Safety has nothmg to do with b10logy of
fisheries management. These regulations are enacted to aid in law enforcement or to protect the public safety. Some regulations prohibit fishing in dangerous areas; these may be certain dangerous areas along the coast, rocky gorges with unstable footing, or certain swampy areas . These regulations are simply for the protection of the fisherman. And, in other areas of the country, night fishing is restricted or prohibited as an enforcement measure.
ISHERY REGULATIONS have generally
Seasonal restrictions apply to both commercial and sport fisheries. They are especially useful where fishing pressure is high or productivity is low. Often, these regulations involve closures during periods of vulnerability of fishes. Examples: sport fishing closures during spawning seasons of Atlantic salmon or brook trout, or commercial fishing closures during certain periods of salmon migration to rivers . Such commercial fishing restrictions ensure adequate escapement of salmon (Atlantic or Pacific) to the spawning grounds, past the heavy coastal fisheries along some states or Canadian provinces . Sometimes, seasonal restrictions are combined with area regulations, so that a sport or commercial fisherman may take only a specified number or weight of fish from a particular area during a given time period.
Certain species of fishes, particularly shellfish, are health hazards at certain times of the year. In many coastal areas, the harvesting of mussels or clams is prohibited during certain periods to help prevent outbreaks of paralytic shellfish poisoning. During ''red tide,'' a yearly condition when large quantities of small animals known as dinoflagellates accumulate in certain molluscs, eating shellfish can cause illness and even death in humans . This closure is a regulation for public health and safety, rather than for management. The Great Lakes have long been cisterns for heavy metals, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals, many of which end up in the flesh of fishes . At certain times and locations, the fish may become too "hot," and a regulation is necessary to prevent fishermen from catching or eating too many of these contaminated fishes. it is disconcerting to read Wisconsin's fishing regulations and see how PCB levels influence bag and size limits. Anglers are warned not to eat more than one meal per week of fish from certain areas . New York imposed an upper size limit on salmon in Lake Ontario because the largest fish are the ones bearing the highest concentrations of toxic substances.
6
26
Conditions
F
been enacted both to protect stocks of fishes and to restrict the activities of man. The stocks of fishes have generally been regulated to protect against overexploitation. Man has been regulated in an attempt to provide a somewhat fair distribution of the catch. As human populations increase, demands placed on fish resources for commercial and sport fishing will also increase. Fish stocks are exhaustible, and overfishing decreases fish populations - especially in small bodies of water. With these points in mind, fishery regulations must attempt to ensure the best use of fish populations. Managers of commercial fisheries must first consider the problem of whether maximum economic gain or maximum sustained yield is to be achieved. Regulations for maximum economic gain would permit full use of a fish stock to obtain the maximum tonnage possible. Regulations for maximum sustained yield allow use of a fish stock only to a point where the population will be able to replenish and maintain itself, thereby providing continuing catches for years to come . If the maximum sustained yield alternative is desired, additional regulations are required. These may take form of quotas, gear restrictions, closed seasons, and closed areas. Sport fishing regulations are generally designed to provide a maximum number of successful fishing trips and a fair distribution of the fish resources. Laws have often been enacted or accepted after the problem has climazed- like shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped. This is why, for example, the ¡ Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been taking a long look at Maine's black bass populations. Is the fishing pressure on these previously underutilized species now at a point where more restriction regulations must be imposed? Or is that time far in the future? The main problem with new regulations is gaining public acceptance of the need for the change. In the past, a local closure may have been due more to political influence from a state legislator than to biological concerns. Today, however, considerable research and surveys, hearings, and discussions influence fishery regulations. Believe it or not, the intent is to make regulations simple and easy to understand. • Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
INCOME TAX CHECKOFF: Supporting the Management of Nongame Wildlife by Jane K. Arbuckle LUEBIRDS, during the first half of this century were common ¡ throughout New England. In those days they nested alongside the meadows of a largely rural agricultural society . Today, they still nest in Maine, but for most people, it's a pleasurable surprise to see these blue and red songbirds, and a real treat to find them nesting near one's home . The population has plummeted, largely because human use of the land has changed the habitat from open fields to forests, but with assistance, the bluebird can be encouraged to nest in other open spaces. What has been done about this well-known situation? Virtually nothing: no population surveys, no research, no management plan. In the 1960's, sharp declines in the populations of several raptor species occurred, primarily due to the use of the pesticide DDT and other hydrocarbon chemicals . The poisons were concentrated first in the bodies of the raptors' prey, then accumulated at greater levels within the predators themselves. The calcium metabolism within females was disrupted, and the resultant thin-shelled eggs broke as they were being incubated . Although Maine was not as drastically affected as other parts
B
The author is the wildlife director of the Maine Audubon Society. Her article is reprinted , with permission, from HABITAT: Journal of the Maine Audubon Society, October /November issue.
of the country, raptor populations did suffer. Some of these species (eagles, osprey, and Cooper's hawks) are on the road to recovery . Others, such as peregrine falcons, are not . Were research and management programs initiated to help these populations? Until this year, only the bald eagle, which is listed as a federally endangered species, received any attention. Piping plovers were described by Palmer (in Maine Birds, 1949) as common on sandy beaches from Kittery, York County to Cape Elizabeth, on beaches in Phippsburg and Georgetown in Sagadahoc County ... " They nested on many beaches in Maine, and were seen in large enough numbers to be shot for sport and food . This year, a statewide survey indicated that only seven pairs of piping plover nested in Maine. A common species has almost disappeared, likely due to loss of nesting habitat, human harrassment, and attendant problems, 11
such as domestic dogs. Has anything been done to change this situation? Until the past three years. Virtually nothing; even now, there is no state management plan . At the turn of the century, no black-backed gulls nested in Maine, yet by 1979, the estimated number was 9,847 pairs . Nesting on islands off the coast, these beautiful and aggressive birds have quickly usurped the nesting areas of several other avian species, including common and Arctic terns. What has been done to manage this lopsided situation? Again, virtually nothing. LL OF THESE SPECIES
A are considered to be nongame wildlife, and funds for
nongame management have simply not existed within state coffers . The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife currently spends only about 10 percent of its research and management budget
The osprey will be one of the many nongame species to benefit from the income tax checkoff.
on nongame wildlife - and with good reason. Most of that money is acquired through hunting, fishing and trapping license fees and other hunting-related items. This money is, logically, used to manage those varieties of wildlife which are hunted. If the deer population declines, as it recently has, management strategies, such as bucks only season in certain zones, are quickly implemented to improve the situation. When the wood duck population declined, an active management program involving a closed hunting season and the setting out of thousands of wood duck nesting boxes was implemented. The program was a tremendous success . Yet, when gulls invade tern and petrel nesting colonies, dumps, and lakes, no action is taken . As acid rain destroys the habitat of nongame as well as game species, funds exist mainly to study the effects on the latter species. But are game species really more important and more valuable? Realistically, game species have a constituency which is vitally interested in seeing the continued existence of the species, i.e. 28
hunters want to keep hunting. Hunters have been willing to put their money up front to insure that big game, waterfowl, and upland game birds will be protected and managed to exist in numbers sufficient enough to hunt. Direct protection for nongame species has histori(:ally occurred as a result of passive non-intervention by humans. In 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act made it illegal to take, kill, or possess migratory birds unless state regulations opened specified hunting seasons. And Maine laws state that it is illegal to harm any birds or mammals unless there is a prescribed hunting season on a given species . Unfortunately, as the twentieth century has progressed, and habitat loss has increased, many species need active management of their populations rather than passive protection of individuals .
W
HILE THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED Species
Act has actively benefited certain species, the Maine endangered¡ species statute (which states : ''it is the policy of the State to conserve, by according such protection as is
necessary to maintain their numbers, all species of fish or wildlife found in the State, as well as the ecosystems upon which they depend") has no funds behind it to actively do anything. Some work has been accomplished by private groups and university researchers, but in general, there has been no mechanism for public support of nongame management. Wildlife managers need the resources to be able to manage all wildlife in an integrated manner . All wildlife species are part of an interdependent biological system. Some nongame wildlife feed on game species and vice versa; loons and eagles eat fish, and coyotes feast on mice. Humans are obviously a part of this system, but we have, in many cases, so totally disrupted it that the system is out of balance and can't manage itself . When we destroy habitat, predators, or food sources, we are destroying wildlife. Yet both game and nongame wildlife provide us with economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits, and are important in maintaining our quality of life . The cry of a loon has a value. You may not be able to hang it on the wall like the rack of a whitetailed deer, but that does not make it less valuable in the realm of human experience. Nongame management is a necessity, and a responsibility. With responsible political management and citizen support, it will become a reality. This year, the Legislature passed an income tax checkoff which will allow all residents to donate funds to an Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Fund on the state income tax form. This is a system that has worked well in many other states and should be successful in Maine as well . The future of Maine's wildlife is now up to us . •
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
the Fly Tying Bench
0
PINK LADY PALMER
ATLANTIC SALMON FLY #2
by Peter G. Walker
It can be difficult to make an oversize dry fly float properly . To compensate for weight and balance problems in Atlantic salmon dries, fly tyers through the years have developed patterns that employ such features as foreand-aft hackles, parachute hackles, and palmer hackles . Our featured fly here is of the latter type. The Pink Lady Palmer is a high-floating aristocrat long prized by salmon anglers on both sides of the Atlantic .
ABOUT THE FLY
The development of dry flies for Atlantic salmon fishing followed by the emergence of trout dry flies by a few decades. The very first use of dry flies on salmon probably took place early in this century. By the 1920s, dry flies were firmly established as legitimate tools. Most Atlantic salmon dry flies are simply scaled-up versions of trout dry flies. The object of Atlantic salmon fishing, however, is to arouse some mysterious impulse, perhaps curiosity or just reflex, in an otherwise fasting fish. Salmon flies are big and bright, therefore, not like the subtle, somewhat dull, trout flies intended to simulate food. Salmon dry fly hooks are among the finest (and most expensive!) in all angling. Since salmon flies are generally much larger than trout flies, the fly tyer must make certain adjustments in materials and techniques to produce a fly that floats properly. Dry fly neck hackles large enough for salmon flies are hard to find; high-grade saddle hackles fit the bill nicely, however .
THE PATTERN
HOOK: Atlantic salmon dry flat (turned-up eye, medium-light wire, enamel finish) in sizes #2-#8 THREAD: black TAIL: several stiff ginger hackle fibers at least half as long as the hook shank RIBBING: flat gold tinsel BODY: pink floss PALMER HACKLE: a long ginger saddle hackle possessing stiff, webbing-free fibers HACKLES: four ginger saddle hackles of the same quality, behind two yellow saddle hackles
0
1 Attach body and ribbing materials in the op¡p osite order from the way they will be laid down on the shank. To make an even body without a bulge near the tail , lay the materials along the entire shank and lash forward to the front of the intended body and back again, so that an even foundation is laid.
2
3 Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Start the tying thread with a few overlapping winds near the rear of the shank. Lash down a small bunch of selected hackle fibers to make the tail; secure with a half hitch and a drop of thin lacquer or cement.
Attach first the floss , then the tinsel. Next, attach the palmer hackle at the base of the tail. This hackle should first be prepared by removing the fluffy base, then rubbing the fibers the wrong way with thumb and forefinger to free them from each other. So that the finished hackle will taper from back to front, attach the tip to the shank as shown , then bring the tying thread forward towards the eye.
29
4
Wind the floss evenly over the body area; be sure to use only about two-thirds of the shank, leaving the forward portion for the six additional saddle hackles in this pattern . Tie down the body floss with a couple of wraps of thread , then lay the ribbing tinsel down in even wraps and secure. Again , it is a good practice to end each step with a half hitch and a drop of thin lacquer.
I Attach hackle pliers to the free end of the palmer hackle and wind the thread forward over the body; the fibers will splay out as pictured. Secure the center fiber to the shank at the front of the body; trim off extra material.
5
6
With hackle pliers attached to the tips , wrap each hackle (one at a time) around the shank to produce a thick collar of fibers . Use about two-thirds of the remaining hook shank for this step, leaving a small portion free for the final two hackles .
30
Select four more ginger hackles and prepare them as before . Attach the bases to the shank just ahead of the body, then bring the tying thread forward towards the eye.
7
8 After winding the two yellow hackles ahead of the ginger ones , make a small head with a few winds of tying thread . Tie the thread with a finish knot , trim , and lacquer. If tied with highquality materials , your finished Pink Lady Palmer will be both high -floating and durable.
i
After securing the last ginger hackle , select and prepare , in the same fashion , two yellow hackles (some anglers prefer chartreuse) and attach to the remaining portion of the hook shank .
9 Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS MOOSE HUNT UPDATE Maine voters opted November 8 to retain the annual moose hunting season, climaxing a long and divisive political battle that pitted the logic of scientific game management against emotional arguments raised by hunt opponents. In an unusually heavy turnout for an off-year election, about 60 percent of the voters rejected an initiative seeking repeal of the three-year-old law authorizing limited, annual, one-week moose hunts in northern Maine. Leading the effort to end the hunt was a group known as SMOOSA (Save Maine's Only Official State Animal). The successful campaign to re-
tain the moose season was led by the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine and its Council for Sensible Game Management - supported by a number of conservation organizations, sportsman's clubs and individuals, in Maine and nationally. Voters in all counties favored continuing the moose hunt . Although only one city - Portland - voted to repeal it, the urban vote generally was much closer than the margins that prevailed in rural areas and in northern Maine. With continuation of the moose hunt assured, the Fish and Wildlife Department proceeded with plans for the 1984 season, which will run from October 8-13
- two weeks later than previous seasons. Another change this year allows other hunting seasons to remain open during the moose hunt. One thousand moose hunting permits will be issued in 1984 100 of them to nonresident sportsmen. For more information and a permit application, send a selfaddressed envelope to: Moose Application, Maine Fish and Wildlife Dept., Sta . 41, Augusta, ME 04333. Maine residents can also obtain blanks from resident license agents . The application deadline is April 30. Permit recipients will be determined at a public drawing in June.
Commentary "Shall Maine Repeal the Hunting Season on Moose? By a three-to-two margin, Maine voters said ''NO'' to that question November 8 - hopefully settling not only the question of whether hunting of moose should be allowed, but also the larger questions about the kind of information wildlife management decisions should be based on, and who should make those decisions. I'm both pleased and a little frightened by the results of this first-anywhere attempt at eliminating a big game hunting season by a vote of the people. I can also be upset that it ever took place. Maine voters have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to sort out important facts and make intelligent decisions. My bet right along was that the majority would disregard the emotional arguments against the moose hunt and conclude that limited hunting represents a good use of an abundant and renewable natural resource. Sixty percent of those voting on November 8 favored retaining the moose season - a decisive victory for sportsmen, and for continuation of our system of wildlife management by knowledgable professionals and based on scientific information.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
The frightening part, though, is that 40 percent of the voters in this state, where hunting is such an important part of our outdoor heritage, saw reason to eliminate part of that heritage . With a swing of little more than 10 percent of the votes, a big game hunting season would have been lost. That's too close not to be part of the thinking of anyone concerned about what tomorrow will be like. And that brings me to the biggest problem I have with the anti-moose-hunt effort and similar maneuvers: they are a waste of the time, money, and energies of a lot of people who care about wildlife. Many workers on both sides of the moose hunting issue spent over two years and nearly a half million dollars fighting over a very conservative hunting season on an abundant species. Think of what could have been accomplished had that effort been expended on legitimate wildlife problems . People actively concerned about the future of natural resources must spend less time bickering and use their time, money, and energy resources more wisely. -Glenn Manuel Commissioner
31
DEER KILL DOWN, BEAR UP Preliminary figures for the 1983 hunting season reveal a 17 percent decline in the deer kill and a 10 percent increase in the number of bears taken in Maine . Considering the weather during the deer season, and that about half of the southern zone was newly restricted to ' 'bucks-only,'' the kill reduction surprised no one. Hunting pressure and success on most big hunting days Saturdays and holidays - were greatly affected by heavy rains or wind. Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Glenn Manuel, pleased with the outcome, said the objectives of conserving deer in the two new bucks-only districts and spreading some hunting pressure to the more lightly hunted northern zone had been achieved. The preliminary deer kill in the northern zone was 7,840, the second highest in the last 10 years and 16 percent above the 1982 total. 1984 LICENSE FEES RESIDENT Hunting ( 16 and older) $ 11.00 Fishing (16 and older/ 11.00 Combination Hunting and Fishing 20.00 (16 and older/ Supersport 30.00 3.00 Junior Hunting (10 to 15 years inclusive) Combination Fishing and Archery Hunting 20.00 (16 and older) Serviceman (resident ) Combination Hunting 7.00 and Fishing Archery Hunt ing (16 and older) 11.00 Trapping (16 and older) 25 .00 Junior Trapping (10 to 15 years inclusive) 5.00 Guide (18 and older) 36.00
NONRESIDENT CITIZEN Big Game Hunting (10 and older/ Season Fishing (16 and older/ Junior Season Fishing (12 to 15 incl. ) 15-day Fishing 7-day Fishing 3-day Fishing Combinat ion Hunting and Fishing (16 and older) Small Game Hunting (16 and older) Junior Small Game Hunting (10 to 15 years inclusive ) Archery Hunting (16 and older) Guide (18 and older) Trapping (any age)
73.00 38.00 5.00 26.00 22.00 11.00 99.00 43 .00 23.00 43.00 138.00 300.00
NONRESIDENT ALIEN Big Game Hunting (10 and older) Season Fishing Combination Hunting and Fishing (10 and older) Small Game Hunting (10 and older Archery Hunting (16 and older) Guide (18 and older)
32
113.00 58.00 152.00 58.00 58.00 163.00
In the central portion of the southern zone, where deer of either sex could be taken, the registered kill was 13,762, or about five percent below the 1982 level. As expected, the sharpest drops occurred in the eastern and western Maine areas where, for the first time in many years, hunters were limited to shooting only adult bucks. The western bucks-only district had a kill of 1,415, while 777 bucks were tagged in the eastern district. Deer Research Leader Gerald Lavigne estimated that the bucksonly rule spared about 5,000 does and fawns, which will be the foundation of the effort to rebuild the deer herd in the two areas . It also resulted in fewer legal bucks being taken. Contrary to fears expressed earlier, the Warden Service found little evidence of does and fawns shot and left in the woods. Commissioner Manuel praised the excellent cooperation we have received from the hunters . We had a lot of confidence that they would help us make this work, and they certainly did." 11
BUSY FALL FOR WARDENS Maine's game wardens had an active and successful fall, issuing 598 summonses for illegal hunting and trapping, and obtaining a conviction in court in 94 percent of the cases . Compared with 1982 figures (in parenthesis), they issued summonses in 1983 for the following types of violations : waterfowl, 76 (32); illuminating wild animals, 151 (166); night hunting, 105 (106) ; illegal possession of venison, 32 (24); illegal moose, 49 (36); trapping, 68 (100). Also, under the new "bucksonly" rules, wardens issued 38 summonses for killing doe deer, and reported a known total of 79 antler less deer killed illegally.
PERSONNEL NEWS Among the recent personnel news from the Fish and Wildlife Department is the retirement of veteran southern Maine game warden Robert L. Rondeau. Following duty at Sinclair and Augusta, Rondeau spent most of his career assigned to the Springvale district in York County. He retired in January with more than 20 years of service . Also retiring, from the Wildlife Division, was Robert C . Whitman - for the past ten years wellknown to visitors to Swan Island as the custodian and farmer at the Steve Powell Wildlife Management Area. Also in the Wildlife Division, Craig R. McLaughlin was promoted and named leader of bear studies. Recently elected vice-chairman of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council was Dr. Alva S. Appleby of Skowhegan. Appointed by Governor Joseph E. Brennan to three-year terms on the council were F. Paul Frinsko, a Portland attorney, and Lawrence Hawkes of Lincoln, a selfemployed carpenter. On the council, they represent Wildlife Management Units 8 and 5, respectively.
NEW FEDERAL AID
LOGO
Many people are aware that primary funding of the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department comes from the sale of various licenses to pursue fish and game. They are less aware, though, that much of the funding for the department's fish, wildlife, and hunter safety programs is derived from excise taxes on sporting equipment.
Maine Fish and Wildlife-Winter 1983-84
Collected by the federal government, these taxes are deposited in a special fund, to be apportioned to state fish and wildlife agencies for eligible projects on a matching basis of three federal dollars for every state dollar. The logo shown on page 32 has be en adopted to represent these Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration programs. Whenever it appears, it means tha t sportsmen's excise tax and license dollars are together for the be tterment of fish and wildlife . RECORD YEAR FOR HUNTER SAFETY
Maine hunters ended 1983 with he best safety record ever, espite three fatal accidents during the deer season . Safety Officer Gary Anderson reports there were 20 accidents otal for the year, including the hree fatalities - quite an imro vement over 1953, for examle, when there were 19 fatalities and a total of 70 accidents just uring the fall hunting season. Anderson also points out that he number of hunters has increased since 1953, from about 1 0,000 to about 230,000 - making the steadily improving safety record even more impressive. He attributes much of the sue-
cess to the acceptance of fluorescent orange clothing by hunters, and to the fact that hunters are now more aware and better educated in hunter safety. Nearly 70,000 people have taken Maine's hunter safety course, which is now in its 25th year and was the recent recipient of an award of merit from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies . SALMON COUNCIL NAMED
Commissioner Glenn Manuel, who also serves as chairman of the Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, has announced the formation of an Atlantic salmon advisory council. The council will meet periodically with the three-member commission, to advise them, without official vote, on Atlantic salmon management and fishing regulations . Council members represent each of the seven Maine counties with active Atlantic salmon rivers, plus one representing the Penobscot Indian Nation. At its first meeting, the council elected State Representative Donald Carter of Winslow as its first chairman. Other members are: Dr.
1 lb. butter or Qleo 1 :,_ c.up lem"" , ·
William Gould, Calais; Charles Kelley, Jr., Ellsworth; Paul Wagstaff, Damariscotta; Richard Ruhlin, Brewer; Philip Peterson, Caribou; John Blunt, Saco; and Timothy Lukas, Old- Town. LEAST TERN ENDANGERED
The least tern has been added to Maine s list of endangered species . Designation of the small, graceful shorebird as an endangered species was made recently by Commissioner Glenn Manuel and the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council. Least tern habitat - sandy coastal beaches near estuarine inlets - is being destroyed or modified by human housing development and increased recreational use. The Maine Audubon Society, which petitioned the commissioner to establish endangered species status for the least tern, reports that · their breeding population in Maine has declined to only 39 pairs. In the past year, permits to build houses adjacent to least tern nesting areas have been granted on two occasions. Under the Maine Endangered Species statute, the state accords such protection as is necessary to maintain the numbers of any endangered species of fish or wildlife found in the state, as well as the ecosystems upon which they depend . I
4 medium trout (cleanea1 ·•It. pepper, flour '· ·•tter
THE MAINE WAY a collection of Maine fish and game recipes wooococK ourooc
ROAST BEAR Remove ALL (at Crom with a handful o.( table in cold water. w,.th a sl place& and to v•'"' punct••··
~ s<t£.'11 ~£.~\SO
.
~:~:o~
-oaco" 4 s\t'~e"'so"d \ \~·.n ot'J t~, -
.,nt\e
T'IH'1TT J;'TJ .T F.'N
ct\S
Published by the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department, this 100-page cookbook is entirely devoted to those types of game and fresh-water fish that a Maine sportsman might take. The recipes in THE MAINE WAYcollected by two game wardens' wives-are practical, time-proven, and call for nothing but ingredients, equipment, and know-how native to a Maine kitchen. Covers everything from deer and bear to eels and snapping turtles . Paperback . Convenient loose-leaf binding. Total mail order price-$4 .95 Make check or money order in U.S. funds payable to "Treasurer, State of Maine." Send order to COOKBOOK, Maine Fish and Wildlife Department, State House Station 41 , Augusta, ME 04333.
i:art?
birc:fs, splitting bre or chicken. Fry slow
e
FOR COOKINa ound the h psen edges ead and fasten ength of cut ski to an, .. •L of the bodv. ~-a~d Quick; ")Ve the. is runn n bot>: ut(Cing , same as for ::ut pieces of foil large •r With ~ffed , breast side up. rd . Seal the partridge Ind P.J just enough water in ack and touch h; ·-' \SC
mi
i - -
~ of ~E~
.
----...'l'l'r."'Pr.l:'l~~---,,.,...,""""'e:':'!Tr"":H~----------------~No uEAlt bo .•.. 'ruo1em is pe I ., reJ e is all \JE tu• ~ · ~~
fav~~r~ Here is a sim~Je o:a e. don't kno~ how t:e coy a very delicious . e fish recin.. r, .. . ) to pre oar... _, _, _Pe with hi., ""·-··
•L
co ~o~G
n1r.KL1,,
.
. .., unt1\ t
\ cut .\t\ ' e"der. coo . ,ck\e c ~A.lc.e a P ~f
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife
284 State St.
Sta. #41
Augusta, Maine 04333