Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Fall 1991 by Maine State Library

,/1

I .

p /

1991 MAINE HUNTING SEASONS EFFECTIVE THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992

This is not a legal presentation. See hunting law booklet for full details. BASIC LIMITS

DEER

Firearms season .. .. .. .. ..... ........................................... ..

FIRST DAY

LAST DAY

Nov. 4

Nov. 30

DAILY

POSSESSION

ONE DEER PER YEAR regardless of season or method. Only deer with antlers at least three inches long may be taken from Nov. 2 - Dec. 7, except that any deer may be taken in designated deer management districts by hunters with any-deer permits. Permit application period: mid-June to Aug. 15, annually.

Maine-resident-only day ........ .................................... ..

Nov. 2

Archery .... .... ... ..... ..... ............................................... .

Oct. 1

Nov. 1

Muzzleloader................. .. ...... .................................. ..

Dec. 2 Sep. 2 Nov. 2

Sep. 28 Nov. 30

Hunting with dogs allowed .................................... .

Sep. 16

Nov. 1

Hunting ONLY with dogs ..................................... ..

Sep. 30

Nov. 1

MOOSE (by permit only) ...... ..... .............. .. .............................. .

Oct. 7

Oct. 12

RUFFED GROUSE (Wildlife Management Units 1 & 2) ...... .. ..... .

Oct. 1

Nov. 30

(Wildlife Management Units 3 - 8) .............. .

Oct. 1

Dec. 10

PHEASANT (Wildlife Management Units 1 & 2) ...... .. ................ .

Oct.1

Nov. 30

(Wildlife Management Units 3 - 8) ........................ .

Oct.1

Dec. 10

WILD TURKEY (by permit only) .... .... ...................................... .

Mays

May 28

WOODCOCK ................................................................. ....... .

Oct. 1

Nov. 14

COMMON SNIPE ................................................................. ..

Sep. 2

Dec. 16

BEAR* General hunting seasons .. .. ................................. ..

DUCKS, GEESE, SEA DUCKS (scoter, eider, old squaw) ...... ..

Dec. 7

ONE BEAR OF EITHER SEX

Permit application period: mid-Jan. to Apr. 30.

Permit application period: mid-Dec. to Feb. 1.

Seasons set early in September. Regulations available mid-September from license agents, game wardens and Fish and Wildlife Dept. offices.

RAILS (Sora and irginia) .. .. ... .................. ...... .. ............................. .

Sep. 2

Nov. 9

GALLINULES .. .................. ............ ...................................... ..

Sep. 2

Nov. 9

Mar. 14

Apr. 30

July 16

Sep. 29

BOBCAT............................................ .... ............................... .

Dec. 1

Jan. 31

FOX .............................................. ................. ....................... ..

Oct. 28

Feb.29

GRAY SQUIRREL ....................... ........................................ ..

Oct.1

Nov. 30

RABBIT(Cottontail) and HARE (Snowshoe) ** ...................... ..

Oct.1

Mar. 31

RACCOON, SKUNK, OPOSSUM ...................................... ..

Oct. 28

Dec. 31

CROW .... .................................................... .. ........................ ..

COYOTE, WOODCHUCK, PORCUPINE, RED SQUIRREL

NO CLOSED SEASON FOR HUNTING

ANY SPECIES NOT LISTED ABOVE .................................. .

NO OPEN SEASON FOR HUNTING

*sear permit required (resident, $2; nonresident, $10) in addition to hunting license between Sept. 2 and Nov. 1. See law booklet for other recent changes . **unlawful to hunt rabbits with dogs during any open firearms season on deer in Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Waldo, and Washington counties .

SUNDAY HUNTING: Illegal in Maine. HUNTER ORANGE CLOTHING: Two articles now required for hunting with a firearm during any firearms season on deer. See law booklet for details . LEGAL HUNTING HOURS: On animals, 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset except during any firearms season on deer, when hunting closes at sunset for all species except raccoon . On game birds, shooting hours are 1/2 hour before sunrise to sunset. See law booklet for details on special night hunting season on coyo es LICENSES : Hunting license is required . Archery license authorizes hunting with bow and arrow only during any open season on that species. Regular hunting license allows hunting with bow and arrow, except during special archery season on deer. Special license-stamp required to hunt during muzzleloader season on deer. STAMPS: State and federal duck stamps requ ired for waterfowl hunters age 16 and over. Pheasant stamp no longer required .

OPERATION GAME THIEF: Call 1-800-ALERT US (253-7887) to report game law violations. Rewards paid. Caller identification protected. Poachers are thieves - help us stop them. Published under Appropriation 010 09A 5080 by the Division of Public Information and Education, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

~AINE

FISH AND WILDLIFE Governor John R. McKeman, Jr.

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife William J. Vail, Commissioner Norman E. Trask, Deputy Commissioner Frederick B. Hurley, Jr., Director, Bureau of Resource Management Charles A. Atwater, Director, Bureau of Administrative Services Herbert W. Vernon, Director, Bureau of Warden Service Advisory Council Dr. Ogden Small , Caribou Chairman John Crabtree, Warren Vice Chairman Dale Speed, Princeton Alanson Noble, Otisfield, Eugene Churchill, Orland Carroll Cutting, East Sebago Gene Brown, Durham Thomas Jagger, Sanford Gary Cobb, North New Portland Wilmot Robinson, Millinocket Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine W. Thomas Shoener, Editor Thomas J. Chamberlain, Managing Editor Thomas L. Carbone , Photo Editor Dale S . Clark, Editorial Assistant All photographs in this issue were made by the Public Information & Education Division unless otherwise indicated. MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE (ISSN 0360-00SX) is published quarterly by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State Street. Station 41, Augusta, Maine 04330, under Appropriation 01009A-0529. Subscription rate: $14.00 per year. No stamps, please. Second class postage paid at Augusta, Maine and at additional mailing offices. ÂŠ Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1991. Permission to reprint text material is granted, provided proper credit is given to the author and to MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE. Clearance must be obtained from artists, photographers, and non-staff authors to reproduce credited work. CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Send both old and new addresses to Circulation Section, MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, 284 State St., Sta. #41, Augusta ME 04333. Please allow six weeks for changes to take effect. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Circulation Section, MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE, 284 State St., Sta . #41, Augusta, Maine 04333 . QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? Just call toll-free 1-800-288-8387 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 with 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 . Printed with vegetable-based inks on recycled paper

FALL 1991

VOL. 33, NO. 3

Features SPECIAL SECTION: HUNTING STUDY RESULTS 1. About Hunters 2. About Bear Baiting 3. About Deer &.. Moose 4. About Seasons

3 7 10 13

by Kevin J. Boyle, Mario Teisl, Stephen D. Reiling, James E. Anderson, & Alan G. Clark

Third in a five-part series on the value of wildlife to Maine

BIGGEST BUCKS 1990

The roundup of the top-of-the-line bucks from last season

The 1991 ENVIROTHON

byLisaJ. Kane

Participants find out just how environmentally aware they are

The Maine Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

A fitting tribute to law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty

What's New At The Visitors Center!

Our Game Farm & Visitors Center gets some well-deserved improvements

Depart1nents KID-BITS

THE FLY TYING BENCH: Perkins Smelt

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS

The Front Cover: "Tracking Snow" - from the original acrylic by Bernard Hunt of Roque Bluffs. Limited edition prints (18" x 24"), signed by the artist, are available from Artworks East, Box 37, East Machias, Maine 04630.

How Valuable, Part III

A SPECIAL SECTION ON NTING 1. ABOUT THE HUNTERS ... by Kevin J. Boyle, Mario F. Teisl, & Stephen D. Reiling

2. BAITING BEARS ... by Stephen D. Reiling, Mario F. Teisl, & Kevin J. Boyle

3. DEER

MOOSE TRADEOFFS ...

by James E. Anderson, Kevin J. Boyle, & Alan G. Clark

4. ABOUT HUNTING SEASONS ... by Mario F. Teisl, Alan G. Clark, & Kevin J. Boyle

In the Spring 1991 issue of Maine Fish and Wildlife, we introduced a three-year study conducted for the Maine Legislative Commission to Study the Impact of Game and Non game Species on Maine's Economy. In the Summer 1991 issue, we reported on the inland fishing component of our study. In the current issue, we report selected findings from the hunting component. The first article provides a general discussion of hunting in Maine. The three articles which follow discuss survey findings concerning three important wildlife management issues that can affect the quality of future hunting opportunities for deer, bear, moose, and other game species in Maine.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Kevin J. Boyle, Mario F. Teisl, Stephen D. Reiling, & James E. Anderson are, respectively, associate professor, assistant scientist, professor, and graduate assistant in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maine. Alan G. Clark is the wildlife resources planner in the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. This project was financed in part by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Appropriation Account No.1550.6067) and the Department of Marine Resources (Appropriation Account No.1140.3100). Additional funding was provided through the Pittman-Robertson (Wildlife Restoration) and Dingell-Johnson (Fisheries Restoration) Federal Aid Acts, and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

HUNTING FOR HUNTER FACTS

by Kevin J. Boyle, Mario F. Teisl, & Stephen D. Reiling MAES Publication No.1574

To develop a "picture" of Maine hunters - including personal profiles, hunting interests and how much money they spend to hunt in Maine - we surveyed samples of licensed hunters in 1988 and again in 1989. In 1988, 3,000 randomlyselected individuals (2,000 Maine residents and 1,000 nonresidents) who held a 1987 hunting license were asked in a mail survey about their hunting effort in Maine in 1987. The survey was repeated in 1989, when 2,000 Maine residents and 2,000 nonresidents were surveyed about their 1988 hunting effort. We received responses from 79 percent and 82 percent, respectively, of the 1987 and 1988 hunters surveyed. Since the survey questionnaire was essentially unchanged between the two years, this article will focus on the most recent information, responses to the 1989 survey of 1988 hunting effort.

Characteristics of Licensed Maine Hunters As shown in Table 1, characteristics of resident and nonresident hunters show some interesting differences. Nonresident hunters, on average, are slightly older, somewhat more likely to be male, have more education

and have a substantially higher level of income. As you might also expect, the average resident hunter has hunted in Maine longer than the average nonresident hunter, and residents hunt in Maine on a more frequent basis. In fact, survey results indicate the average resident hunter first hunted in Maine at the age of 15, while the average nonresident first hunted in Maine at age 30. Thus, for residents, hunting in Maine is a lifelong hobby, beginning in the mid-teens and continuing through adult life. Maine residents are also more likely to participate in other consumptive uses of Maine's fish and wildlife resources. Three out of four resident hunters also

The economic impact of hunting on Maine's economy totalled $185 million in 1988. ..

open water fished in Maine in 1988, while less than one third of nonresident hunters fished here that year. Three percent of residents also trapped in Maine in 1988, but no nonresident hunters reported trapping in Maine.

TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF LICENSED MAINE HUNTERS DURING 1988 Characteristics

Residents

Nonresidents

All Hunters

Socioeconomic: Average Age Sex (Percent Male) Average Education

40 93% High School

42 99% Some Training Beyond High School $44,400

40 94% Some Training Beyond High School $32,600

Average Household Income (1988) $29,700 Hunting Experience in Maine: Average Year First Hunted in Maine 1963 1976 Percent Hunting More Than Half the Years 85% 68% Participation in Other Wildlife-Related Activities in Maine During 1988: 75% 28% Open Water Fished 42% 6% Ice Fished 30% 7% Marine (Saltwater) Fished 3% 0% Trapped

1965 82% 66% 35% 26% 2%

Fall 1991

Participation by Type of Game Sought An important purpose of our study was to develop estimates of the number of hunters seeking certain species of game. This is important for wildlife managers to know but impossible to find out from license sale figures because a Maine hunting license, with three exceptions, allows a person to freely hunt any legal game species during the open season. The exceptions are moose, turkey and deer hunting. Moose hunting is limited to 1,000 permit holders annually, 100 of them nonresidents. Each permit holder may designate one sub-permittee. Turkey hunting is also by permit: 500 permits are issued each year, including 50 permits available to nonresidents. The limitations on deer hunting are a little different. Each year a specified number of any-deer permits are issued for each deer management district, the number set to manage the size of the deer herd in each district via the harvest of does. A permit allows a hunter to take a deer of either sex in a specified district or an adult buck anywhere in the state, while hunters without permits can only take an adult buck. Thus, the absolute number of deer hunters is not limited, the limitation being on the sex of the deer a hunter may take. The number of hunters seeking various species of game is an important issue for wildlife managers. One way they monitor populations of game species is to record annual harvest rates. For example, a hunter may take only one deer and one bear in Maine each year, and the harvested animals must be registered at a

Maine Fish and Wildlife

game registration station. One of the things wildlife biologists learn from registration information is whether annual harvest rates are increasing, constant or decreasing over time. If the harvest rates for a certain species change over time, the question becomes one of determining whether its population is changing or whether hunting effort for this species or other factors are changing. Monitoring the numbers of hunters and their hunting effort is one procedure for beginning to identify the source of any increase or decrease in the harvest rate. As noted earlier, the number of moose and turkey hunters is fixed by the maximum numbers of permits that can be issued each year. A question may still remain regarding the actual hunting effort expended by the permit holders. To address this issue, all permit holders are required to complete a mail survey after their hunts. Using the results of these surveys, wildlife biologists can monitor actual hunting effort for moose and turkey each year. Systems to monitor hunter effort for other types of game do not currently exist, although the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is currently developing an annual survey of bear hunters to monitor bear hunting effort. Before moving to the discussion of what the survey revealed about hunter participation by the type of game hunted, it is important to recognize that not all individuals legally licensed to hunt in Maine actually do so. For example, a person might buy a combination hunting/ fishing license and only use it to fish. Others may buy a hunting license and not hunt due to an illness or

a lack of free time. In 1988, 86 percent of resident license holders and 98 percent of nonresident license holders actually hunted in Maine. In reporting hunter participation rates below, we will be discussing only hunters who actually used their licenses to hunt in Maine in 1988. Big game hunting is the most popular type of hunting in Maine (see Table 2). Nearly 90 percent of hunters (residents and nonresidents alike) hunt deer in Maine (80 percent during 1988), but no other species is hunted by more than 40 percent. The top five species, in terms ofresident hunter participation, are deer (90 percent), ruffed grouse (46 percent), rabbits (28 percent), coyotes (22 percent), and squirrel (13 percent). Interestingly, four of the five species of game hunted by the largest numbers of nonresident hunters are exactly the same, but the relative ranking of these five species is considerably different. Deer still ranks first (81 percent), but bear hunting is second (16 percent), followed by ruffed grouse (13 percent), coyotes (9 percent) and rabbits (4 percent). Another interesting finding is that the percentages of resident hunters seeking each species exceeds or equals the comparable percentages for nonresident hunters in all cases except bear hunting. These findings serve two purposes. First, they characterize hunter participation by type of game sought during 1988. Second, they establish baseline participation rates for all types of game that can be hunted in Maine. This baseline information can be used with results from future surveys of hunters to identify trends in hunter partici-

TABLE 2. HUNTER PARTICIPATION BY TYPE OF GAME HUNTED DURING 1988

Type of Game Big Game Deer Bear Moosea Turkeyb Small Game Grouse RabbitC Coyote Squirrel Pheasant Woodcock Inland Ducks Raccoon Red Fox Sea Ducksd Canada Geese Bobcat

Resident No. %of of Active Hunters Hunters

All Hunters % of No.

Nonresident o/o of No. Active of Hunters Hunters

Active Hunters

of Hunters

90.0 9.1 0.6 0.2

141,668 14,321 895 214

81.3 16.5 0.3 0.0

31,340 6,355 99 6

88.3 10.6 0.5 0.1

173,028 20,676 994 220

45.7 28.4 21.8 12.6 9.7 9.4 6.1 5.2 5.1 3.0 2.3 2.1

71,978 44,693 34,306 19,828 15,265 14,800 19,668 8,183 8,026 4,646 3,676 3,305

13.1 4.0 8.6 2.4 1.3 3.7 1.6 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.3 1.6

5,064 154 3,315 925 501 1,426 611 347 540 270 110 617

39.3 22.9 19.2 10.6 8.0 8.3 5.2 4.4 4.4 2.5 1.9 2.0

77,042 44,847 37,621 20,753 15,766 16,226 10,279 8,530 8,566 4,916 3,786 3,922

a Moose hunters numbers are less than 900 residents and 100 nonresident permit holders. This occurs because permits are issued in the spring and the hunt occurs in the fall, and permit holders may not hunt due to illness, inability to get time off from work, etc. b Turkey hunters numbers are less than 450 residents and 50 nonresidents because all 500 permits are not issued. This is probably due to the low success rates for turkey hunters, less than 3 percent bag a turkey each year. C Includes snowshoe hares and cottontail rabbits. d Includes eiders, old squaws and scoters.

pation rates. Comparing participation rates with harvest records can help wildlife biologists establish whether populations of game species are increasing, stable or decreasing.

The Economic Value of Hunting Hunting, like all other recreational activities has a value to the individuals who participate and, therefore, a value to society as a whole. Participation rates are one component of the economic concept of the value to society of hunting. The other two components are expenditures and surplus values. Take deer hunting as an example: In order to hunt deer in Maine one must first buy a hunting license. Of course, this expenditure does not represent the full cost of a hunting trip. The hunter

is also likely to buy gasoline, ammunition, and, perhaps, food and beverages consumed while on the hunting trip. If the trip lasts more than one day, the hunter may also spend money for a motel room, camp or campsite. Nonresident hunters may employ a Maine guide. Successful hunters may incur expenses for meat cutting and taxidermy services. All of these expenditures comprise the implicit cost of hunting deer. Deer hunting, therefore, is unlike many goods and services we go to the store to buy for a fixed price. Rather, deer hunters use their own ingenuity to purchase a number of inputs which they use in combination to produce an experience called a deer hunting trip. A guided deer hunting trip, where the guide provides a complete hunting package for the client, is the type

of deer hunting experience that most closely resembles the products and services we all purchase in our daily lives. Even with a guided trip, though, a hunter must still make expenditures of time and money to locate and reserve a guide's time, and must also make expenditures to travel to the site where the guide will be met. The amount of money a deer hunter spends to hunt is called the direct economic impact of hunting. The amount of money the deer hunter actually spends in Maine is the direct economic impact on Maine's economy. Expenditures made within Maine by both resident and nonresident hunters are considered direct economic impacts, but trip-related expenditures made by nonresidents before they arrive in Maine are not counted. The concept of the surplus value of deer hunting is a little more difficult to understand. Surplus value is an economic measure of the amount of satisfaction an individual derives from deer hunting. Consider for a moment a change in the price of gasoline. If the price of gasoline increased by one penny per gallon, most deer hunters would probably continue to hunt deer in Maine without changing their plans. But if the price increased to $2.50 per gallon, some nonresident deer hunters may decide not to hunt in Maine, while some residents may take fewer deer hunting trips and/ or hunt closer to home. This example demonstrates that most Maine deer hunters would actually pay more if they were forced to, but each one faces a maximum cost at which he or she would decide not to hunt deer in Maine anymore. Fall 1991

The maximum amount an individual would pay to hunt deer in Maine is the total value placed on this activity. The difference between an individual's total value and the cost of participation (direct economic impact) is surplus value. Surplus value is the amount of an individual's total value that is retained or remains after all expenditures have been made to hunt deer. Overall, we found that resident hunters spent an average of $946 to hunt in Maine during 1988. The comparable figure for a nonresident hunter was $928 (see Table 3). These expenditures represent the average expenditures by hunters for all types of game. We did not break out expenditures by the species of game hunted because some expenditures are made to hunt more than one type of game and we wanted to avoid counting these expenditures more than once in the analysis. The three categories of expenditures reported in Table 3 were used to help hunters respond to the survey questions and to aid our analysis of the data. Triprelated expenditures include day-to-day hunting expenses for items such as gasoline, food, beverages, ammunition, etc.

These items, once consumed, can not be reused on future hunting trips. Hunting-specific expenditures are made for items used only for hunting, such as guns, and can be reused over a number of hunting trips. These items can

TABLE 3. AVERAGE EXPENDITURES PER HUNTER IN MAINE DURING 1988 (FOURTH QUARTER 1988 DOLLARS) Expenses

Residents

Nonresidents

All Hunters

Trip-related Hunting-specific Hunting-relateda

$152 246 548

$272 193 463

$175 235 532

Total

$946

$928

$942

a Computed by multiplying respondent's stated expenses for an item by the percent of use that will be dedicated to hunting. For example, ~ a hunter purchased an ATV for $2,000 and will use it one hatt of the time for hunting then $1 ,000, or 50 percent of the purchase price, is recorded as a hunting expenditure.

also be used to hunt a number of types of game. Finally, huntingrelated expenses are incurred when items are purchased that can be used for hunting and for other recreational activities. The purchases of an ATV or camping equipment are examples of this type of expenditure. The total amount spent by all hunters in Maine represents the annual, direct economic impact of hunting on Maine's economy. This figure was $185 million during 1988. Nonresident expenditures, which represent new dol-

TABLE 4. HUNTER SURPLUS VALUES FOR SELECTED TYPES OF GAME (FOURTH QUARTER 1988 DOLLARS) Type of Game Big Game Moose Deer Turkey Bear Small Game Migratory Waterfowla Upland Birds (ruffed grouse & woodcock) Rabbitb

lars in Maine's economy, amounted to 19 percent ($36 million) of the total. The resident expenditures ($149 million) are not considered new money in Maine's economy because resident hunters would likely spend

Average Annual Surplus Values Per Hunter Residents Nonresidents All Hunters $788 283 272 135 531 261 33

$1 ,176 429 317

$827 309 272 191

375

531 269

a Includes inland and coastal ducks, sea ducks (eiders, old squaws and scoters), and Canada geese. b Includes snowshoe hares and cottontail rabbits. C A dash indicates a sample size that is not sufficient to report an average surplus value.

it on something else in Maine if they didn't spend it on hunting. On the other hand, very few of the nonresident hunters' dollars would enter the Maine economy if not for hunting. Unlike hunter expenditures, we did estimate hunter surplus values for selected types of game (Table 4). The highest surplus value for both resident and nonresident hunters occurs for moose, $788 and $1,176, respectively. These are average figures per hunter and represent the surplus value above and beyond the annual cost of participating in the moose hunt. There are several reasons moose hunting has such a substantial surplus value: The limited number of permits issued and the scarcity of moose hunting opportunities throughout the United States makes participation in the hunt a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for most people. Another factor is that over 90 percent of the hunters are able to bag a moose. Finally, the moose's trophy sta-

(continued on page 20) 6

Maine Fish and Wildlife

J::J) BAITING MAINE BEARS: ~ HO HUNTERS FEEL by Stephen D. Reiling, Mario F. Teisl, & Kevin ]. Boyle MAES Publication No.1575

Bears, along with deer and moose, are among the most popular of Maine's big game species. Based on the results of surveys discussed in the first article in this issue, we estimate that over 14,000 residents and 6,000 nonresidents hunted bears in Maine in 1988. A survey of a random sample of 200 of these hunters (100 residents and 100 nonresidents) was conducted in 1990 to learn more about them and about their bear hunting activities in Maine. The survey also asked for their opinions on selected management issues related to bear hunting. One of these important issues is the use of "artificial bait" - often spoiled human food - as a technique to hunt bears. Artificial

bait is often set out by guides and hunters to attract bears to a specific location where they later hunt, often from tree stands. Though its use is regulated by law, the term "artificial bait" does not appear in the law but was used in this survey to distinguish it from naturally-occurring baits that also attract bears, such as beech nuts, apples and berries. Current law allow hunters to begin setting out artificial bait 30 days before the bear hunting season, which currently begins early in September and ends in late November. Hunters can continue to set out artificial bait until October 31, and baited areas must be cleaned up and the bait removed by November 10. Consequently, artificial bait cannot be used during the last two or three weeks of the bear hunting season.

Study shows that bear hunters generally favor Maine's present laws on baiting. Artificial baiting is used widely as a bear hunting technique in Maine. For example, about 46 percent of the surveyed bear hunters reported hunting over bait set out during the 1988 season, and 38 percent hunted over bait set out before the 1988 season. The popularity of artificial bait is due in part to the general belief that its use increases the chances of seeing and bagging a bear. This belief is supported by the results of our survey: the success rate (percent of hunters who bagged a bear) for hunters who hunted over artificial bait was about 22 percent compared to only about 10 percent for hunters who did not use artificial bait. Fall 1991

Laws regulate when and how bear bait is used and require baited areas to be cleaned up.

Results

<( C

~ >,

.D 0

_g c..

While the use of artificial bait is a proven and widely used technique, it is also controversial. Some people believe that the hunting advantage it provides is contrary to good sportsmanship. Its effect on the bear population through greater hunter success is also a concern. High harvest rates by bear hunters during the late 1980s raised questions of whether these rates could be sustained in the future without jeopardizing Maine's bear population. Because of its controversial nature, we were interested in determining bear hunters' opinions about the use of artificial bait and the laws that govern its use. This was accomplished in the bear hunting survey by asking hunters to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with five alternative artificial bait laws that could be implemented. The survey questionnaire we used is shown on page 7.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

Hunters' responses to our questions are reported in Table 1. Responses are reported separately for resident, nonresident and all (resident and nonresident combined) bear hunters answering the survey. Perhaps the best way to examine the opinions expressed by respondents is to focus on the mean or average score for each of the five statements, which is reported in the last column of the table. The mean score for each statement was computed using the following scale: a score of "one" was assigned if the respondent strongly agreed with the statement; a score of "two" was assigned if the respondent somewhat agreed with the statement; similarly, scores of "three" and "four'' were assigned if the

respondent somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. A mean score was then calculated for each potential law statement using the response scores of all survey respondents. The score, therefore, reflects the degree to which respondents, as a group, agree or disagree with each statement. A low score signified a higher level of agreement. For example, a mean score of less than 2.5 suggests that, in aggregate, respondents agree with the statement; a score greater than 2.5 indicates that, overall, they disagree with it. Applying this rule to each statement indicates that the only one with which hunters (residents and nonresidents combined) agreed is that current laws on artificial baiting should be continued - with a mean score of 1.88. All other stated laws have a mean score greater

(continued on page 21)

TABLE 1. BEAR HUNTERS' OPINIONS ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL BAIT IN MAINE

Policy Statement

- - - - - - - Percent of Hunters------Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Strongly Mean Agree (2) Disagree (3) Disagree (4) Agree (1)

Use of baits should continue as in the past; All Hunters 49.6 24.7 14.5 11.3 1.88 Resident Hunters 48.1 25.9 13.0 13.0 1.91 Nonresident Hunters 52.4 22.2 17.5 7.9 1.81 Use of baits before the season should not be allowed; All Hunters 26.0 12.7 21.5 39.8 2.75 Resident Hunters 31.5 13.0 16.7 13.9 2.63 Nonresident Hunters 15.4 12.3 30.8 41.5 2.90 Use of baits should be allowed in areas where the are too many bears, but not in other areas; All Hunters 14.8 18.3 24.7 42.2 2.94 Resident Hunters 16.7 14.8 25.9 42.6 2.94 Nonresident Hunters 11.1 25.4 22.2 41.3 2.94 Use of baits before and during the season should not be allowed; 55.6 3.18 All Hunters 15.3 7.4 21.8 3.15 Resident Hunters 16.7 5.6 24.1 53.7 Nonresident Hunters 12.5 10.9 17.2 59.4 3.23 Use of baits during the season should not be allowed; 60.2 All Hunters 15.5 5.1 19.2 3.24 Resident Hunters 14.8 3.7 20.4 61.1 3.28 Nonresident hunters 16.9 7.7 16.9 58.5 3.17

PUBLIC OPINION: DEER/MOOSE QJ MANAGEMENT TRADEOFFS by James E. Anderson, Kevin J. Boyle, & Alan G. Clark MAES Publication No.1576 .,,

Management of deer and moose in Maine has traditionally been based on the individual biological needs of both species considered along with the desires of the people who hunt them. Management efforts generally have not taken into account the effects moose might have on the state's deer herd, nor have the effects of deer management been considered in terms of Maine's moose herd. In 1986, though, biological issues and concerns expressed in public working groups focused attention on the need for management plans that account for biological The authors wish to thank Rich Dressler of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for his helpful discussions.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

interactions between deer and moose, and also incorporate public preferences regarding various management alternatives. The public working groups consisted of interested citizens who worked with professionals at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to develop goals and objectives for managing Maine's wildlife resources. According to IF&W Biologist Gerald Lavigne, the 1986 working group did consider the impact of deer management objectives on the moose herd, but assumed the target deer population would not affect the moose herd. Although there is no evidence of either deer or moose having an impact on the population or habitat of the other, there are two factors that must be considered if an increase in the population of one or both of these species is desired. One potential biological issue for deer/ moose

management is the incidence of brainworrn (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) in deer - a potentially lethal parasite for moose. This parasite, which is common in white-tailed deer but rarely causes them problems, is transmitted to moose by way of intermediate hosts, snails and slugs, which are accidentally ingested by the moose. Moose may be more likely to acquire brainworrn as the density of the deer population increases. A second issue, primarily a problem in northern Maine, is that moose and deer eat many of the same foods. This inter-species competition is most likely to occur if moose feed in areas adjacent to softwood cover occupied by deer in the winter. In developing policies to address these types of issues, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife periodically formulates species management plans. For the period of 1986-1991, the deer management goal was to

increase both the deer population and the harvest statewide. In addition to developing management strategies to protect deer wintering areas, IF&W is regulating the number of any-deer hunting permits issued each year to meet this goal. Regulating the number of these permits controls the number of does in the herd and, thus, the ability of the herd to grow. The moose management goals were to maintain the moose population at 1985 levels, increase the harvest and maintain moose viewing opportunities. Thus, to meet this goal, IF& W needed to increase the number of moose hunting permits to regulate an increasing moose population. This increase is due to timber harvesting practices over the past two decades that have enhanced moose habitat. The number of moose in Maine continues to increase even with 1,000 moose hunting permits being issued annually and over 90 percent of the hunters getting a moose. In the last five years the deer population has continued to increase statewide; however, severe winters in northern and central Maine and a lack of sufficient deer wintering areas have slowed increases in these areas. The moose herd has also been generally increasing statewide. This can be attributed, in part, to the reluctance of the state legislature to increase the number of moose

hunting permits issued each year, and to the continuance of timber harvesting practices that enhance moose habitat. In the planning process for the 1991-96 planning period, IF&W is continuing to implement the management goals for the 1986-1991 planning period. As future deer and moose management plans are developed, IF&W will consider the interactions between the deer and moose herds. As was done in developing the 1986-1991 plan, the planning process will incorporate public opinions through public working groups. Members of working groups become very knowledgeable about the species for which management plans are being developed, but working groups are limited in their effectiveness because memberships are necessarily small and limited to volunteers. Wildlife managers might want to know, for example, how all Maine residents feel on a number of issues related to deer/ moose management, but they couldn't be sure of getting a true indication of public opinion through a working group. Conducting surveys of representative samples of deer hunters, moose hunters, and all Maine residents can provide public opinion data representative of all user groups. The limitation is that survey respondents have

FIGURE 1. DEER/MOOSE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS Moose and deer often compete for the same habitat, and it is not possible to manage for the largest populations of both deer and moose in the same area. Therefore, it is necessary to choose between managing an area to have the largest possible deer herd or managing an area to have the largest possible moose herd. How would you rate the following management options for deer and moose? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH MANAGEMENT OPTION)

OPTION #1: Increase the size of the deer herd statewide, even if the size of the moose herd decreases OPTION #2: Increase the size of the moose herd statewide, even if the size of the deer herd decreases OPTION #3: Increase the size of the deer herd in some areas of the state and increase the size of the moose herds in other areas of the state OPTION #4: Manage the numbers to increase both deer and moose statewide, regardless of which herd is the largest.

lower levels of knowledge about the species than do members of public working groups. As part of an effort to better understand public opinions on the management of Maine's deer and moose herds, we collected information on the opinions of deer hunters, moose hunters and Maine heads of household regarding various management options. This information, along with biological data, will be provided to public working groups in the development of future deer and moose management plans. These plans, therefore, will represent another step by IF& W to consider inter-species competition and public opinion in it's management process.

Process for Collecting Public Opinions To collect information on Maine residents' opinions on deer and moose management, mail surveys were sent to samples of deer hunters, moose hunters and Maine heads of households. The moose hunters were the easiest to sample since law requires them to complete a questionnaire after their hunt. All of the 900 Maine residents who held a 1989 moose hunting permit were surveyed; 94 percent of the surveys were returned. Sample selection for the deer hunter group consisted of two parts: First, as noted in the first article in this issue's special hunting section (beginning on page 3), a general hunting survey was sent to 2,000 residents who purchased a 1988 Maine hunting license. Two hundred of the respondents to that survey who said they hunted deer in Fall 1991

1988 received a second survey in which they were asked about their deer hunting in Maine; 88 percent of these surveys were completed and returned. For the Maine heads of household group, a random sample of 500 Maine heads of households was selected. Each of these households received a mail survey asking them questions about their use of Maine's wildlife resources; responses were received from 76 percent of them. The surveys of deer hunters, moose hunters and heads of households all contained the same questions concerning deer and moose management (see Figure 1). They were asked to

the same area." This is due to the potential effects of brainworrn on moose and moose competition with deer for forage around deer wintering habitat. Using respondents' evaluations of these management options, we are able to learn how resident deer and moose hunters, and Maine heads of households feel, as a whole, about each of the four options.

Survey Findings Average scores for each group of respondents were recorded for the four management op-

Figure 2. Deer Hunter and Moose Hunter Evaluations of Deer and Moose Management Options

11111 Very Desir able

Somewhat Desirable

3.0

Somewhat Undesirable

Very Undesirable

1.0 Option #I

Option #2

evaluate four alternative deer and moose management policies on a four point scale ranging from very undesirable (1) to very desirable (4). The four management options were developed in consultation with IF&W biologists and are considered biologically feasible from a wildlife management perspective. The question wording reflects the underlying biology of deer/ moose management as it states "it is not possible to manage for the largest populations of both deer and moose in

Deer Hunters

~ Moose Hunters

4.0

Maine Fish and Wildlife

Option #3

Option #4

tions (very desirable= 4, moderately desirable= 3, moderately undesirable = 2, very undesirable = 1). An average score greater than 2.5 indicates that a group of respondents, on average, rates the option as desirable; less than 2.5 indicates an undesirable rating. Interestingly, deer hunters, moose hunters, and Maine heads of household all rated options 3 and 4 as desirable, while options 1 and 2, on average, were rated as undesirable. Thus, options that increase the deer and moose

herds simultaneously are rated as desirable, while management options to increase either the deer herd or the moose herd at the expense of the other species are rated as undesirable. Thus the 1986-1991 management goals, to maintain the moose population and increase the deer population, would be rated as undesirable. The actual statewide increases in the populations of both deer and moose from 1986 through 1991 would be rated as desirable. Overall, the preferred management option is to increase deer and moose populations in separate areas of the state (option #3). All groups surveyed gave this management option a rating of moderately desirable. All groups gave option #1 (increasing the deer herd) an average score of somewhat undesirable. However, if respondents were forced to choose between either increasing only the deer herd or increasing only the moose herd, we predict they would choose to increase the deer herd (option #1). To develop additional insights, we can compare the responses of selected groups of respondents. The first comparison is between deer hunters and moose hunters. As noted above, deer hunters and moose hunters prefer increasing the populations of both deer and moose to increasing the population of only one of these species (Figure 2), but if forced to choose one option over the other, both groups prefer increasing only the deer herd. Moose hunters preferred an increase in both deer and moose statewide (option #4), and their average response of 3.3 is greater than the average of 2.6 for deer

(continued on page 23)

by Mario F. Teisl, Alan G. Clark, & Kevin J. Boyle MAES Publication No. 1577

After December 25, the most important date on the calendar for many hunters is the opening day of the deer season. The next most important date is when it ends. Others have the first and last days for small game, bear, ducks and other favorite species circled on their calendars. Clearly, when Maine's hunting seasons occur and their lengths are of intense interest to hunters, if only for reasons of staying on the right side of the law. Many, though, are interested in season timing and length for other reasons, such as the weather, the rut, edibility of the game, and how various open seasons interact with each other. All Maine hunting seasons are established by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and their timing and length often reflect both biological and social concerns. From a biological perspective, harvest objectives for many game species could be accomplished at any time during a relatively long period of the year, so it's appropriate that hunters' preferences be taken into consideration in the selection of a specific time for a hunt. Public input into the seasonsetting process in Maine is somewhat limited by state law which specifies when and how the public may comment on a proposal. Public participation at rule-making hearings is also limited to those who voluntarily choose to

Ml SEASON TIMING: ~ WHEN TO HUNT

Hunters' preferences are among several important considerations when hunting seasons are set. Study shows preference for current seasons on some species, desire for change with others. be heard, and they may or may not be representative of the entire hunting public. In an attempt to give public officials and wildlife managers a better feeling for hunter opinions on the timing of Maine's hunting seasons, the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maine has surveyed licensed resident and nonresident hunters to determine their open-season preferences for several game species. Because the seasons for individual species overlap, and hunters may hunt more than one

type of game, hunters' opinions on season timing for any specific species are likely to depend on the number and types of game they hunt. That makes it necessary to develop representative samples of hunters who hunt each species of game for which a change in the season timing is being evaluated. For this reason, we sent surveys to random samples of hunters who hunted either deer, grouse, bear, or inland ducks. Surveys were also sent to individuals holding permits to hunt moose or turkey in 1989. Fall 1991

Sample Selection With the exception of the moose and turkey hunts, the only records of Maine hunters are the annual hunting license files of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W). The problem with the latter is they tell us only the name and address of the individual license holder, not the species of game he or she hunts.

were sent to those who stated in their responses that they hunted either deer, bear, upland birds or migratory waterfowl. These Phase II surveys included questions seeking hunters' opinions on hunting season(s) timing. The Phase I survey, conducted in the spring of 1989, consisted of surveying random samples of 2,000 each of the residents and nonresidents (Table 1). In turn, we received responses

TABLE 1. SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS Residents Phase I Survey 1989 Hunter Survey Number Sent Response Rate Phase II Surveys Deer Survey Number Sent Response Rate Bear Survey Number Sent Response Rate Upland Survey Number Sent Response Rate Migrate~ Waterfowl Survey Number Sent Response Rate Other Hunting Surveys Moose Survey Number Sent Response Rate Turkey Survey Number Sent Response Rate

To develop representative samples of deer, bear, upland bird, and migratory waterfowl hunters, we conducted surveys of hunters in two phases. Phase I involved surveying samples of residents and nonresidents who purchased Maine hunting licenses in 1988. In this survey, they were asked to provide information about the species they hunt in Maine that year. Then, to collect detailed information about the hunting of individual species, species-specific surveys

Maine Fish and Wildlife

Nonresidents

2000

81%

83%

200

88%

89%

100 71%

85%

100

87%

88%

100 82%

NIA NIA

900

100

94%

95%

434 95%

9 100%

from 80 percent of the residents and 83 percent of the nonresidents. In 1990, we sent Phase II surveys to samples of residents and nonresidents who indicated they hunt deer, bear, or upland birds, and to a random sample of residents who hunt migratory waterfowl. Nonresident waterfowlers were left out of Phase II because only 59 of them were identified in Phase I, not enough to draw any valid conclusions from further survey work. Except for the resi-

dent bear survey, all of the Phase II surveys had response rates of at least 80 percent. There was no need for moose and wild turkey hunters to receive two surveys since the law requires them to complete a questionnaire after their hunt. Questions on season timing were included in questionnaires sent in 1989 to all 900 resident and 100 nonresident moose hunting permit holders and to the 443 hunters who held turkey hunting permits. To develop a perspective for interpreting the season timing question(s) for each species, we used the Phase I survey results to estimate the total number of people hunting each species during 1988. A total of 222,322 individuals held a Maine hunting license in 1988 -182,987 residents and 39,335 nonresidents. Among these hunters, deer are the most popular species in Maine, with 173,028 participants in 1988 (Table 2). The law on wild turkey hunting sets an upper limit of 500 turkey hunting permits each year, but only 220 people who held permits in 1988 actually went turkey hunting. It is obvious from these numbers that any move to change the timing of Maine's deer hunt would be of interest to a very large number of hunters, while a change in the timing of the turkey hunt would concern relatively few.

Hunter Options Regarding Season Timing Because hunting seasons are generally set on a species-byspecies basis and the issues surrounding the timing of the hunts differ for each species, the ques-

TABLE 2. HUNTER PARTICIPATION IN MAINE DURING 1988

Estimated Number of Hunters Deer Grouse Bear Inland Duck Moose Turkey

Residents 141,688 71,978 14,321 9,668 895 214

tions used to learn hunter opinions on the timing of hunting seasons varied from species to species. For example, in the late 1980s, Maine's bear population was declining somewhat due to increasing harvests by hunters (a situation which has since been reversed), and the survey question used to determine hunter opinions on the timing of the bear season assumes the length of the season must be decreased. In contrast, the length of Maine's moose hunt is set by law at six days, and the only question is when the six-day hunt should occur within a two to three month period deemed acceptable by the wildlife biologists who manage Maine's moose herd.

All

Nonresidents

173,028 77,042 20,676 10,279 994 220

31,340 5,064 6,355 611 99 6

In reporting hunter opinions on season timing issues we will start with deer, the most popular game species in Maine, and progress in the order which the species are listed in Table 2.

feel about the deer season did not propose a change in its length, only in the timing. The 1988 firearms season on deer ran from October 29 to November 26. The survey asked deer hunters their opinions on four options: 1) the deer hunt should occur one week earlier; 2) the current timing of the hunt is okay; 3) the hunt should occur one week later; and 4) the hunt should always begin on November 1. Most deer hunters (60 percent of residents and 48 percent of

Figure I. Deer Hunters Opinions on Timing of Deer Hunting Season With No Change in Season Length IOOo/o -

i}jj Residents

Ill Nonreside"nts

â&#x20AC;˘

A.II Deer Hunters

50%-

Start week earlier

Current season

Deer Due to relatively mild winters and a substantial reduction in the harvest of does and fawns, Maine's deer herd is increasing but is still below the desired population level in all deer management districts. To continue the increase, harvest levels are managed by the number of "anydeer" permits issued each year. The length of the hunt is being maintained at a four-week firearm deer season. Thus, the question used to learn how hunters

Start week later

Start Nov.I

nonresidents) preferred option 2, the status quo. (Figure 1). Among those who wanted a change, most residents (26 percent) and nonresidents (39 percent) prefer that the hunt occur one week later.

Grouse Biologists at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife feel there is an abundant grouse population in Maine, so the question used to elicit opinions on (continued on page 24) Fall 1991

O DO DON'T

O DO

5 O DON'T 2

O DO O DON'T Artwork by Bill Wyman

Letters can be sent to: Lisa Kane or Denise Moore, KID-BITS Editors MAINE FISH AND WILDLIFE magazine 284 State Street, Station #41 Augusta, ME 04333

O DO DON'T

90 0 DO DON'T

0 DO

So DON'T

BIGGEST BUCKS IN MAINE, 1990

'/'

Name

Address

Date Killed

Where Killed

Dawn Burke Eugene J. Levesque Robin J. Roystan Jeffrey 5'..vallow Gary R. Baker David Frost Thomas W. Mullen Craig A. Pomelow Lloyd N . Carson, Jr. Bernard M. Bishop Ken Mowerson Dominic R. Falzo Leo R. Dumont William E. Sandberg Jason 5'..vett William Tucker Daniel Wallace, Sr. Andrew J. Telesz Richard A. Bernier Richard J. Smutek Angelo D. Bourlos Byron M. Charles, Sr. William C. Damon Daniel Kosak Paul H . Morin, Jr. Thomas E. Slattery Raymond E. Spooner Allan Clark Edmond A. Bouley Joseph Belanger Natan J. Hill Dale L. Barton George R. Benson Bennie Bowie, Sr. Travis Bristol Walter Kirby Scott M. Maynard Michael G. Michaud Terry L. Sawyer Marvin E. &..vain Paul L. Dwlnal Ralph Luce William G. O'Neill Mike Rebar, Jr. Richard Beebe Lew A. Badershall Burnham W. White Jon N. Demeritt John E. Duby, Sr. Jeffrey D. Anderson Clifford A. Braley, Sr. Lucien Dudley John Gilley Raymond H . Greene Melvin W. Lonergan Albert R. Perry, Jr. Lloyd E. Wandwell, Sr. Kim L. Crawford Robert P. McMahon Andrew Mosher Herman Pelletier Patrick Gregoire Dave Wemette Dean G. James Brian Berry Dennis Marshall Anthony Repole Raymond J. Bernier Dewey S. Brown Linnie Goodwin Weston Griffith, Sr. Mark Guiou Corydon Hardy Manley Hunt Malcolm Jeffrey Francis R. Johnson Richard Nightingale Douglas A. Orde Stuart Poland Richard Rackleff

Newport, ME Van Buren, ME Wells River, Vf So. Paris, ME Dryden, ME Norridgewock, ME Haverhill, MA North Anson, ME Augusta, ME North Anson, ME Allendale, NJ So. Royalton, Vf Augusta, ME Garland, ME Dixfield, ME Monroe, CT Bath, ME Olyphant, PA Windham, ME Alpha, NJ Allagash, ME W. Springfield, NH Cumberland Ctr., ME Goshen, CT Westminster, MA Pittsfield, ME Anson, ME Auburn, ME Hudson, MA Alfred, ME Thetford Ctr., Vf Brownfield, ME Presque Isle, ME Dixfield, ME Williamsville, Vf Mt. Holly, NJ Moretown, Vf Skowhegan, ME Belgrade, ME York Village, ME Lewiston, ME Strong, ME Stratton, ME Monroe, CT Mitton, Vf Strong, ME Rangeley, ME Winooski, Vf Lenoxdale, MA New 5'..veden, ME Ashland, ME Kingfield, ME Skowhegan, ME Seymour, CT Hamburg, PA Wallingford, Vf Mapleton, ME Stillwater, NY Wallingford, Vf Fairfield, ME Caribou, ME Enosburg Falls, Vf Middlebury, Vf W. Leighton, PA Millinocket, ME Calais, ME Medford, MA Ware, MA Dixfield, ME Lisbon, ME Littleton, NH Fort Fairfield, ME Phillips, ME Clinton, ME Stratford, CT Middletown, NJ Mapleton, ME Hollis, NH New Harbor, ME Oakland, ME

10/27/90 11/8/90 11/12/90 11/2/90 11/2/90 10/29/90 10/30/90 11/20/90 10/27/90 11/8/90 11/6/90 11/2/90 11/21/90 10/31/90 10/27/90 10/31/90 11/2/90 11/16/90 11/17/90 11/1/90 11/5/90 10/31/90 11/14/90 11/13/90 11/8/90 11/3/90 10/30/90 11/12/90 11/12/90 11/17/90 11/20/90 11/3/90 11/12/90 11/22/90 11/13/90 11/15/90 11/1/90 10/27/90 11/10/90 11/13/90 11/10/90 11/14/90 11/11/90 11/3/90 11/22/90 11/10/90 11/2/90 11/2/90 11/1/90 11/12/90 10/31/90 10/27/90 11/5/90 11/5/90 10/29/90 11/9/90 10/27/90 11/20/90 10/30/90 11/3/90 11/17/90 11/14/90 11/1/90 10/29/90 11/17/90 11/12/90 11/22/90 11/6/90 11/12/90 10/27/90 11/17/90 11/19/90 11/20/90 10/27/90 11/8/90 11/5/90 10/30/90 11/14/90 11/12/90 10/27/90

St. Albans Van Buren Dole Brook Northeast Carry TlRl Norridgewock Portage North Anson Sidney Embden Ashland Shirley Seboeis Plantation Garland Carthage T4R17 East Moxie Fish Lake T5R18 Rockwood T17R10 Dexter Pittston

Jackman Hartland Moscow New Auburn Allagash Dexter T18R12 East Stoneham Tl1R4 Weld Kennebago West Forks Rangeley W. Athens West Forks Plantation Elllotsville Twp. Weld Strong Coplin Pit. Harmony T18R12 Salem Rangeley Aroostook County T15R10 New 5'..veden Ashland Freeman Twp. Fairfield Rockwood Mt. Chase Seboomook Portage Lake Lily Bay Glenwood Shawmut Beaver Brook Rd . Rockwood T10,R14 Allagash Moxie Calais Wilson Mills Moxie Gore Dixfield Durham Elm Stream Tll,Rl3 Phillips Clinton Shirley Squaretown Mapleton Crystal Union Rome

Firearm

Dressed Weight

.22-250 .30-06 .270 .308 .30-06 .30-06 .308 .30-06 Ruger .44 Mag. .35 Rem. .30-06 7mm. .223 .30-30 .280Rem. .308 .30-06 .30-06 .870 .284 .30-06 .30-06 .30-06 .30-06 .30-06 .35Cal. .30-30 Win. .44 Mag. .308 .30-06 .270 .32 Spec. Win. .30Cal. .444 Marlin .35 Marlin .308Savage .300 Savage .30-06 12 gauge .308 .308 .30-06 .30-30 Cal. .308 .30-06 .300 Savage .256 Mag. Bir.308 .300 35 Cal. Rem. .30-06 Rem. .30-30 .30-06 .308 .30-06 Rem. .270 Win. .308 Rifle .270 .270 .30-06 Rem. .308 .270 .270 .30-06 .30-06 .32 special .30-30 .35 .30-30 .35 Rem. .308 .30-06 .308 .30-06 .308 .308 .30-06 7mm . Mag. 7mm.-.08 .30-06

283 275 273 272 270 270 269 268 266 266 263 261 260 260 260 260 260 257 257 257 256 255 255 255 255 255 253 252 252 251 251 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 249 248 248 247 247 246 246 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 244 244 244 243 242 242 242 241 241 241 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240

, Live Weight 340 330 327 326 324 324 323 322 319 319 316 313 312 312 312 312 312 308 308 308 307 306 306 306 306 306 304 302 302 301 301 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 299 297 297 296 296 295 295 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 293 293 293 292 290 290 290 289 289 289 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288

This list was compiled from Biggest Bucks in Maine Club membership cards (807 in 1990). Membership requires a 200-pound deer (dressed weight, without heart and liver); $3 application fee . The Club is maintained by The Maine Sportsman, PO Box 910, Yarmouth, ME 04096-0910. Live weight estimates= dressed weight+ 20% .

Maine Fish and Wildlife

The 1991 ENVIROTHON

Testing Environmental Expertise!! by Lisa Kane Photos by Dottie Laber ENVIROTHON is a competitive learning event for high school students, testing their knowledge of environmental resources, including soils, water, forestry, wildlife and current environmental issues. It builds awareness, and it helps show tomorrow's leaders the positive and negative effects that individual actions can have on the environment. Youth who take part in ENVIROTHON understand the differences between renewable and nonrenewable resources, realize environmental interactions and interdependencies, and know who to tum to for information concerning environmental matters. High school teams of five student compete in ENVIROTHON by studying resource "Can we identify this bird?" the proporproblems and answering ty that refers to ihe soil proper d clay is called: enable them to become aware, action-oriented 1. quesd silt an tions in f1on of san ' adults. c. plasticity each of Three regional ENVIROTHON competitions a structure d. texture the five were held in Maine this year - in southern, cenb·. permeability topic areas tral, and northern Maine - with 31 high schools participating. Three winning teams from each relisted above. Before the competition, students spend research time 2. The gion went to the state finals at runoff ;utrient that is . Hirundo Wildlife Sanctuary with their ad visors to develop a tiaJ lana/111 agricuJtur~significant p in West Old Town. greater understanding of the inter11 'urban, and ;e ~tant in Maine then hosted the action between humans and the sidenfour-day national comenvironment. ba. nitrogen At the ENVIROTHON competi· Phos,,ho d. caJci\ .. petition in August at the c. c b r rus "'~, e. PCB Baptist Park facility in Mapleton, tion, student teams test their ar illllate with 50 students from nine states knowledge under the supervision and Nova Scotia attending. The team from Pennof environmental professionals, including forestsylvania won the national competition, with the ers, aquatic and wildlife biologists, and soil scienMaine team, from Presque Isle, corning in a close tists. Students are challenged to use teamwork to second. However, all teams that participated at the develop creative solutions to environmental probstate and national levels lems. The competition provides students with experiences in environmentally oriented activities, to ment includes the h-o

3 Multiple-use forest manage t· f ~llowing uses of forest lands excep .

The author, the department's natural science educator, provided technical assistance for the state and national ENVIROTHON.

d cts d mining a. woo d p_ro u . atershed protection b. recreation e. w c. grazing by animals Fall 1991

were winners, and were recognized for their efforts and interest in "'"'\ \s t\\e. 01-'1 vH~~ at'our natural resources. ti'e'-'\, ese~ 1 Started in . te 11.'at'a~:\ot' al-'0 t> t vJ\\3.\'\ c.ot'se~a Pennsylva11.'s o eel-' . . 1984 \t' \et \',etvJ ma m , L\aittetet'c.e ENVIROTHON is sponsored by soil and water conservation districts across the country. In Maine, the Maine Association of Conservation Districts and the Central Aroostook Soil 5. In Maine and Water c0 , Wetland h nstructed for the s ave been Conservation District were the priPurpose of: mary organizers of the state compe~ J?roviding more d tition. In addition, the U.S. Soil · improving st uck habitat Conservation Service, the state dedeveloping onn drainage f · areas s h rom partments of Inland Fisheries industrial Parks uc as Illalls and and Wildlife, Conservation, Enc. off sett. Ing Wetland Io vironmental Protection, and urban devefo sses caused b road build' Pillent, agricultu Y Agriculture; University of d. all of the a~:g re, and Maine, and other agencies and ve businesses contributed technical expertise, personnel, and support throughout state and national competitions. For more information about ENVIROTHON, contact your local soil and water conservation district. •

HUNTER FACTS ~

(continued from page 6) tus and its size make the moose a highly valued big game species. The fact of the matter is, in economic terms, the Maine moose hunt is one of the truly great hunting opportunities in the U.S. In terms of surplus values for resident hunters, moose hunting is followed by migratory waterfowl hunting ($531), deer hunting ($283), turkey hunting ($272) and upland bird hunting ($261). For nonresidents, moose hunting is followed by deer hunting ($429), upland bird hunting ($375) and bear hunting ($317). It is interesting to note that the nonresident surplus values exceed the resident surplus values for all types of game surveyed. This may suggest that Maine offers deer, upland bird and bear hunting opportunities that are more desirable than nonresident hunters find in their home states. The total surplus value of hunting in Maine is $95 million annually, $77 million for resident hunters and $18 million for nonresident hunters. The resident figure is larger due to the much larger

Maine Fis.Ii and Wildlife

A final review of the wildlife test. "Does everyone agree on the answers?"

ANSWERS TO ENVIROTHON SAMPLE QUESTIONS: 1. d; 2. b; 3. d; 4. Conservation means the wise use of resources. Preservation means non-use. 5. d ,,j

number of resident hunters seeking all game species in Maine. The $95 million dollars represents the net value of hunting in Maine. If all hunting were closed in Maine for one year, an economist would interpret this figure as the loss to hunters from this closure.

Closing Comments Our survey results present a number of broad implications. For example, roughly one out of every five adults hunts in Maine, and nearly all of them hunt deer. Interestingly, relatively small numbers of residents hunt turkey and migratory waterfowl, but the surplus values for these species indicate hunters do derive considerable satisfaction from hunting these species. In addition, hunting opportunities draw nearly 40,000 nonresident hunters to Maine each year, and these individuals spend $37 million dollars in Maine's economy annually. Finally, this survey work is the first comprehensive effort by any state wildlife management agency to begin to collect systematic data on the users of the resource which it manages and to use this information with biological data when developing management plans. •

BAITING BEARS (continued from page 8) than 2.5, indicating hunters generally disagree with the policy proposed by the statements. Note that the law statements in Table 1 are arranged in descending order of the mean score for all hunters. In other words, hunters expressed the highest level of agreement with the first statement and the lowest level with the last statement. In relative terms, hunters are more willing to discontinue the use of artificial bait before the season than to discontinue the use of artificial bait during the season. That is, the statement disallowing the use of artificial bait before the season has a lower mean score (2.75) than the statement disallowing the use of artificial bait during the season (3.24). Hunters are also more willing to limit the use of artificial bait to areas where there are too many bears (mean score of 2.94) than they are to eliminate the use of artificial bait during the season (3.24). In fact, eliminating the use of artificial bait during the season has the highest score (3.24) of all statements and is, therefore, the least acceptable of the five potential laws evaluated by hunters. Based on these results, if hunters were forced to give up one type of artificial baiting, we believe they would choose to eliminate the use of artificial bait before the season rather than eliminate the use of artificial bait during the season. Although in aggregate, hunters generally do not favor greater restrictions on the use of artificial bait, the survey results also illustrate that hunters hold divergent opinions on the topic. For example, although most of the surveyed hunters favor continuation of current artificial baiting practices, 25 percent disagree with them. Similarly, almost 23 percent of all hunters agreed with the statement to eliminate the use of artificial bait both before and during the season, and almost 39 percent expressed agreement with the statement to eliminate the use of artificial bait before the bear hunting season. Additional analyses of hunters' opinions on artificial baiting were performed to identify some of the factors contributing to the diversity of opinions. As expected, hunters who hunted over artificial bait during the 1988 or 1989 seasons more strongly agreed with the statement to continue current baiting regulations, and more strongly

disagreed with all statements that restrict the use of artificial baits, than did hunters who did not hunt over artificial bait during the 1988 or 1989 seasons. Interestingly, the responses of hunters who bagged a bear in 1988 or 1989 are about the same as the responses of hunters who did not bag a bear. A more complex pattern exists, however, with respect to those hunters who did or did not hire a guide during 1988 or 1989. Hunters who hired guides more strongly disagree with the statements to eliminate the use of artificial bait before the season, and to eliminate the use of artificial bait before and during the season, than their counterparts who did not hire guides. Responses to the other statements by hunters who did or did not hire a guide do not differ. Hence, the hunters who hire guides seem to be more supportive of continuing to allow the use of artificial bait before the season begins than are hunters who do not hire guides.

Summary and Conclusions The survey results indicate that, as a group, bear hunters favor the status quo on the use of artificial bait for bear hunting. They generally support the current laws on baiting and disagree with policy statements that would restrict the use of bait. Hunters who use artificial bait view it as a viable hunting technique that should be allowed to continue. Hunters who don't use it are generally more likely to agree with statements that place greater restrictions on its use. Hunters are also more willing to eliminate the use of artificial bait before the season than to eliminate its use during the season. It seems clear that use of artificial bait for bear hunting will continue to be a source of controversy in the future, and the legislature and wildlife managers would encounter both support and opposition from bear hunters for any action they might propose on its use. In fact, doing nothing, and thereby maintain current laws, is controversial. Wildlife managers should continue to monitor hunters' opinions on the topic to determine whether their opinions change over time. â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 1991

Twelve game wardens are among 66 officers who have given their lives in the line of duty and are now honored on the Maine Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Augusta. The roll also includes seven state troopers, a border patrol officer, a Baxter State "' Park ranger, several county sheriffs, and a number of municipal police officers. Situated on the State House grounds, the granite memorial wall was a project of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association and was funded through donations. Rodney Myrick, chief of the Hallowell Police Department, designed the memorial, which was crafted by sculptor Glenn H. Hines of Houlton. 22

Maine Fish and Wildlife

The Maine Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Game wardens honored on the memorial are: • Lyman 0. Hill and Charles W. Niles, who were shot November 8, 1886 near the Machias

River in a dispute over the use of dogs for chasing deer. Hill, who lost an arm in the Civil War, is buried in Whiting. His gravestone notes that he gave his arm for his country and his life for his state. • Arthur G. Deag. In July, 1921, Deag was canoeing on the West Branch of the Penobscot River and capsized attempting to run Pockwockamus Falls. He was swept downriver and drowned. • Leslie Robinson. Robinson was killed three months later in a car wreck during a snowstorm in the Ripogenus area, Township 2, Range 13.

• David F. Brown and Mertley E. Johnston. Tragedy struck again

a year later when Brown and Johnston disappeared in November, 1922 while investigating illegal beaver trapping at Loon Stream near Big Bog on the Canadian boundary. It was suspected that they were shot and put under the ice by a Canadian that they happened onto. Their bodies were recovered the following spring. • Jean Baptiste Jalbert drowned May 13, 1933, on the St. Francis River. He had been proceeding upriver in his canoe when he struck a log, upsetting the canoe.

• Warden Supervisor Robert L. Moore was killed October 22,

1935, in an old car that had been converted to run on railroad tracks. He was proceeding south on an abandoned line of the Somerset Railroad when he was struck by another vehicle at a road crossing in Moscow. • Randall E. Shelley died June 3, 1943. He was working with another warden when their vehicle became stuck and he got out to push. He suffered a heart attack and died at the scene.

• Warden Pilot George E. Townsend died in his brand new plane on August 27, 1956. He and Nathaniel Fellows, a department wildlife biologist, had just taken off from Maranacook Lake in Winthrop when the plane stalled and crashed, killing both men. • R. Lyle Frost, Jr. was killed July 1, 1968 in Franklin. He had been working on nuisance beaver dams along a railroad bed and had successfully dynamited one

DEER&MOOSE (continued from page 12)

dam. He was preparing to blow up a second dam, but a problem developed. When he went to check the charge, it detonated, killing him. • Warden Pilot Richard E. Varney drowned September 27, 1972, after the engine on his helicopter failed, dropping the craft into Maranacook Lake. He managed to get out of the helicopter but drowned before help arr~ed. •

the number of deer in all parts of the state and the maintenance of moose populations at 1985 levels. Given the preferences of all groups of survey respondents for increases in both the deer and moose populations, the 1985-1990 goal for managing moose is not consistent with the preferences of either hunter or nonhunters. In formulating management goals for future moose managem~nt plans, a

hunters. Reasons for the moose hunters' preference for option #4 are that they have already hunted moose, with over 90 percent of them successfully bagging a moose, and the odds Figure 3. Maine Heads of Households Evaluations of Deer and Moose against being selected again in the Management Options moose permit lottery suggest that they are unlikely to hunt moose Very 1111 Hunters 4.0 Desirable ~ Nonhunters again in Maine in the near future. In addition, most moose hunters Somewhat are also deer hunters. Desirable 3.0 The second comparison can be made between the hunter and 2.5 nonhunter respondents in the head Somewhat of household sample. Surprisingly, Undesirable 2.0 we did not find any significant differences in their responses to any of the four management options, and Very Undesirable 1.0 both the hunter and nonhunter Option #I Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 groups prefer management option #3 (Figure 3). These comparable average scores goal that should be considered is to allow the may be due to nonhunters having an interest in moose population to increase. Given current habiviewing both deer and moose. Option 3 is clearly tat condition and the limitation of 1,000 moose preferred by hunters and nonhunters alike. If hunting permits being issued annually, it is likely forced to choose between increasing the deer herd that Maine's moose herd will continue to increase. or increasing the moose herd, both groups would Also, if competition between deer and moose does favor deer over moose. arise in some parts of the state, a socially desirable management goal may be to manage for deer at the expense of moose in the area. Our results, however, Implications simply represent one piece of the complex puzzle As previously stated, the IF&W deer manageof managing Maine's deer and moose populations ment plan for 1986-1990 called for an increase in to meet social and biological objectives. • Fall 1991

SEASONS (continued from page 15) hunting season timing asked grouse hunters to assume that the length of the season could be lengthened. The 1988 grouse season ran from October 2 to November 30 in the northern

Figure 2. Maine ll'ildlife Management Units part of the state (Wildlife Management Units 1 & 2), and from October 2 to December 10 elsewhere (Wildlife Management Units 3 - 8, see Figure 2). Grouse hunters were asked to choose from among six possible options affecting the length of the grouse season (Table 3). Of those who hunt grouse in Wildlife Management Units 1 and 2, 40 percent of residents and 44 percent of nonresidents feel that the timing of the current season in units 1 and 2 is okay. Among those who prefer a change, resident grouse hunters (18 percent) feel the season should start earlier, in September, and close

Maine Fish and Wildlife

later, in December. In contrast, nonresident grouse hunters (20 percent) would prefer that the hunt open earlier, in September, but close on the current date, November 30. Of the grouse hunters who hunted the southern part of the state (Wildlife Management Units 3 through 8), the largest percentages (35 percent of residents and 49 percent of nonresidents) feel the timing of the current grouse hunting season in Units 3 though 8 is okay. Among those who prefer a change, resident grouse hunters appear to be fairly evenly split among the alternative choices. Nonresidents (17 percent), once again, prefer

that the grouse season open earlier but close on the current closing date of December 10. Although the largest percentages of grouse hunters prefer the current seasons in all wildlife management units, nearly equal numbers prefer a change in the season timing. Thus, we would predict that any option, even maintaining the status quo, is likely to be controversial when setting the time and length of Maine's grouse hunt.

Bear In 1988 and 1989, Maine's bear kill exceeded the upper limit set by wildlife biologists at IF&W, resulting in a reduction in the bear population to slightly below the objective level of 21,000. Consequently, the survey question on season timing for the bear hunt asked hunters when they preferred the bear hunt to occur assuming that the season length needed to be shortened. The 1988 bear hunt lasted 14 weeks, beginning on the last Monday in August and ending November 30.

TABLE 3. GROUSE HUNTER OPINIONS ON TIMING OF THE GROUSE HUNTING SEASON ASSUMING POSSIBLE INCREASE IN SEASON LENGTH Residents(%) Grouse Season in Management Units 1 & 2 Should: Open Earlier, in Sept. Open Earlier, in Sept. and Close Later, In Dec. Open in Beginning of Oct. and Close Later, in Dec. Current Season is O.K. Current Season is Too Long No Opinion Units 3 Through 8 Should: Open Earlier, in Sept. Open Earlier, in Sept. and Close Later, in Dec. Open In Beginning of Oct. and Close Later, in Dec. Current Season is O.K. Current Season is Too Long No Opinion

Nonresidents (%) All

11 18 13 40 7 11

20 12 12 44 7 5

12 15 16 35 15 7

17 10 11 49 7 6

17 13 40 7 11 12 14 16 36 14 7

The question format used to elicit opinions from bear hunters was different than the approach used for deer and grouse hunters, who were asked only to chose one of several possible options on season timing. With the bear hunters, we also sought to determine how strongly they

TABLE 4. MEAN SCORES OF BEAR HUNTER'S RATINGS OF SELECTED SEASON TIMING OPTIONS FOR THE BEAR HUNTING SEASON ASSUMING A SHORTENED SEASON-

Bear Season Should: Begin later, on Sept. 15 Begin Later, on Oct. 1 Close Bear Season During Regular Firearm Deer Season Begin Later, on Sept. 15 and Close Bear Season During Regular Firearm Deer Season Close Bear Season During October Replace Fall Bear Season With a Spring Bear Season

Residents

Nonresidents

All

0.42 -0.46 -0.42

0.63 -0.20 -0.24

0.48 -0.39 -0.37

-0.42 -0.81 -0.97

-0.35 -0.71 -1.20

-0.40 -0.78 -1.04

a Mean scores were computed using the following scale: very acceptable = +2, somewhat acceptable = +1, somewhat unacceptable = -1, and very unacceptable = -2

felt about the various season options by asking them to rate them as "very acceptable," "somewhat acceptable," "somewhat unacceptable," or "very unacceptable." The only season timing option that received a positive rating by resident or nonresident bear hunters is to open the season later, on September 15 (Table 4). Although all other season timing options were given negative ratings, some options were more undesirable than others. The least desirable options are to replace the fall bear hunt with a spring hunt, or to not allow bear hunting during October.

Inland Duck The overall numbers of several popular species of ducks have been declining over a long period of time, and state and federal efforts are attempting to increase duck population by

reducing the harvest throughout the Atlantic Flyway, including Maine, through reductions in the hunting season length and by instituting steel shot requirements to reduce waterfowl losses caused by lead shot ingestion. Stepped-up efforts are also being made in Maine and elsewhere to protect and enhance wetland habitats for ducks. Due to the success of these programs, and federal regulations that govern the outside dates and length of the duck hunting season, the questions used to learn hunter opinions on the timing of the duck hunting season did not seek a change in the length of the season. They simply focused on when the duck hunts should occur.

Similar to the grouse hunt, the timing of the inland duck hunting season in Maine is different for two different zones, the north zone and the south zone (see Figure 2 on page 24; the north zone is units 1 - 5, the south zone is units 6 - 8). The split season permits duck hunters from different areas of the state to benefit from different stages of the duck migration and the time of open water freezing. In addition, the inland duck seasons are split into early and late seasons. The 1988 Maine inland duck hunting seasons in the north zone ran from October 9 to October 28, and from November 9 to November 18. The duck hunting season in the south zone ran from October 9 to October 21,

TABLE 5. INLAND DUCK HUNTER OPINIONS ON THE INLAND DUCK HUNTING SEASON WITH NO CHANGE IN THE SEASON LENGTH % of Residents Hunter Opinions about the Split Inland Duck Season in the North Zone Split Season is O.K. 46 Prefer No Spl~ in Season 35 No Opinion 9 Prefer the Late Season for Inland Ducks in South Zone to be Held During: December 43 November 40 No Opinion 17 With Concurrent Seasons, Where Would You Hunt Only in the North Zone 3 Only in the South Zone 40 Mostly in the North Zone 12 Mostly in the South Zone 22 Hunt Both Zones Equally 24

Fall 1991

and from November 30 to December 16. Inland duck hunters in the north zone were asked if they prefer to continue with the split season or if they would like one continuous season (Table 5). Fully 46 percent of resident inland duck hunters who hunted in the north zone felt the split season is okay; 35 percent would prefer a season that is not split into early and late hunts. South zone duck hunters were asked only their opinions on the timing of the late season; 43 percent of them said they prefer it to continue to be held in December, while 40 percent would prefer a late season hunt in November. Again, only Maine resident waterfowlers were surveyed. Finally, when inland duck hunters were asked where they would hunt if the seasons for the north and south zones were at the same time, the largest percentages (40 percent) stated that they would hunt only in the south zone. An additional 22 percent indicated they would hunt mostly in the south zone, while 24 percent said they would hunt equally in both zones. Inland duck hunters expressed a slight preference for the current timing of the hunts in

Maine Fist. and Wildlife

the north and south zones. However, large percentages of respondents prefer a change, but none of the season timings considered was clearly preferred by a majority. Furthermore, given that the largest amount of inland duck hunting effort is focused on the south zone, and that the current late season is preferred by a margin of only 3 percent, and that 17 percent of the respondents did not provide an opinion, the timing of the inland duck season has the potential to be an extremely contentious issue among duck hunters and wildlife managers.

Others may favor the mid-October season because the weather is cooler, making it easier to care Moose for the meat, the bird hunting season is open and the leaves are The Maine moose hunt is set off the trees, making it easier to by law at a maximum of six days. see moose. We asked moose hunters their The 1988 Maine moose hunt opinions on when the six-day ran from October 15 to October hunt should be held. Previous 20.Afterthatseason,moose moose hunts have been in late hunters were asked to choose September (early in the rut) or in among three possible season timmid-October (late in the rut), and ings: 1) the moose hunt should the timing of the moose hunt can occur during late September; 2) alter the quality of the hunt. the current hunt in mid-October Some hunters may prefer the is okay; and 3) the hunt should September season because bulls occur in early December. Most moose hunters (77 perare heavier, in better condition cent of both residents and nonand respond readily to a call. residents) preferred option 2, the status quo Figure 3. Moose Hunter Opinions on 'llming (Figure 3). of the Moose Hunting Season with No Change Among those in the Season Length who prefer a change, most residents (19 percent) and Early nonresidents December (16 percent) 4o/o - said they would like the hunt in late September; very few want a hunt in early All Moose Hunters December.

Turkey

Implications

Although turkeys are native to Maine, they were extinct here for many years. In response to requests from hunters, IF&W began a wild turkey reintroduction program during the winter of 1976/77. That effort was successful enough to allow a limited hunting season beginning in 1986. Although the population of turkeys is still increasing, it is well below the maximum supportable population. Therefore, the question regarding the season timing of Maine's turkey hunt focused on a change in the season timing and did not consider a change in the length of the season. The 1988 turkey hunt lasted three weeks, running from May 8 to May 28. Turkey hunters were asked their opinion on three possible season timings: 1) the hunt should start earlier in May, 2); the timing of current hunt is okay; and 3) the hunt should start later in May. Most slight majority of resident turkey hunters (51 percent) feel that the turkey hunt should start earlier in May (Figure 4); 46 percent feel that the current season timing is okay, and very few prefer a hunt that starts later in May.

The information provided by this study allows wildlife managers to consider hunter opinions on a variety of season timing proposals. In contrast, the formal rule-making process currently

change to an earlier season. The majority of bear hunters, when forced to choose a shorter season, chose a later opening date, on September 15. Deer and moose hunters clearly prefer to maintain the current hunts in November and mid-October, respectively.

Figure 4. Resident Turkey Hunter Opinions on 'fiming of the Turkey Hunting Season \Vith No Change in the Season Length

Current Season OK 46%

Start Late in May 3%

allows for only one proposal to be brought forward for public review. Further, the survey process allows the evaluation of opinions from representative samples of all hunters who hunt a specific type of game. Thus wildlife managers are able to identify season timing alternatives that are clearly preferred by hunters. In the absence of a clear preference by a majority of hunters, managers are able to identify potentially controversial proposals and use this information as an opportunity to revise their proposal or to draw upon other management information that might reduce the level of controversy. Summarizing what we learned: a majority of deer, bear, moose and turkey hunters prefer a specific season timing option. Turkey hunters would like a

Grouse and inland duck hunters did not provide a clear majority favoring a specific season timing option. Given this finding, we would speculate that any proposal on season timing, even maintaining the status quo, has the potential to be quite controversial among grouse and duck hunters. Finally, the results indicate that, in most cases, opinions on season timing are quite similar between resident and nonresident hunters. Although the relative rankings of specific alternatives do change between resident and nonresident hunters, there is a remarkable consistency of opinions between the two groups. Thus, we would conclude that by setting the timing of the hunting seasons to satisfy resident hunters, it is possible to go a long way toward satisfying nonresident â&#x20AC;˘ hunters. Fall 1991

What's New At The Visitors Center!! Future guests at the Fisheries and Wildlife Visitors Center in Gray will notice several new educational features at the popular facility. A new interpretive building houses eight interactive, hands-on exhibits for children, their parents and teachers, to discover "what they know, and don't know, about wildlife, habitats and conservation in Maine," says IF&W natural science educator Lisa Kane, who supervised preparation of the exhibits. Behind the log-cabin style building a major step was taken recently to create a ''backyard wildlife habitat." In one intensive afternoon of donated labor and materials, the Maine Nurseryman's Association installed a small pond and sod lawn and planted about $2,500 worth of specimens of over 30 trees, shrubs and perennial plants that anyone can plant in their own backyard to attract a variety of wildlife species. Future plans include descriptive signs, bird houses and feeders and other things people can do to bring wildlife to their backyards. In addition to being handicapped accessible, the interpretive building contains a "Please Touch" exhibit of Maine furbearer pelts that can be enjoyed by blind and visually impaired visitors. Sponsored in part by the Maine Trappers Association, this display features Braille signs with information about each furbearer's life history. A grant frnm the Hunter Education Association also funded the new Braille signs at several of the Visitors Center's wildlife enclosures, where a number of species of Maine wildlife, mainly animals which have been injured or orphaned and are unable to be returned to the wild, are on display. Located off Route 26 in Gray, the Visitors Center is open 7 days a week, April through November, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 1

1. DON'T cut down trees for firewood, or anything else, in the areas around your campsite. Use firewood provided by the state or national park, or bring your own. 2. DO use CAMERA or BINOCULARS to watch wildlife, instead of trying to get too close to birds or animals. 3. DON'T LITTER! Put all trash into appropriate containers; if there's a carry-in, carry-out policy, obey the law! 4. DON'T motor faster than headway speed when closer than 200 feet from shore. The WAKES from fast-moving motor boats erode shorelines and disturb wildlife and people . 5. DO completely extinguish your CAMPFIRE when you leave it unattended. 6. DON'T use all-terrain or four-wheel drive vehicles in muddy conditions, or to cross streams . It destroys wildlife habitat for fish and animals, and makes dirt roads impassable . DO stay on marked trails to avoid harming animals or plants. 7. DO ASK PERMISSION from landowners before you recreate on their property. 8. DON'T carve anything into the bark of living trees. This damages the protective barrier which keeps insects and disease from the heart of the tree. 9. DON'T CANOE without one personal flotation device for each person aboard. A PFD will save your life, and it's the law!

Maine Fish and Wildlife

PERKINS SMELT the Fly Tying Bench

by Butch Carey

THE PATTERN HOOK: Size 6, #9672 THREAD: Black monocord BODY: Silver mylar, double wrapped WING: Bright green mallard on top of black squirrel on top of white bucktail or calftail EVES: Black dot on white dot HEAD: Black

Place hook in vise. Cast on hook with black nylon thread (I use monocord). Lay an even double layer of thread on the hook, from eye to bend to eye; cement

-~~'~ Double wrap with silver tinsel from eye to bend to eye. Cement.

Attach a sparse bunch of white bucktail or calftail for underwing. Tie in Just behind the eye.

Summer 1991

Tips For Painting Eyes To paint the iris, stick a small flathead nail or tack into a pencil eraser, dip it in a light-colored lacquer, and simply stamp a round dot on each side of the head.

Add black squirrel over calttail (the same length as calftail). Tie in just behind eye.

After allowing the iris to dry for a few hours, place a common pin in a pencil eraser and use it to stamp a smaller dot of darker-colored lacquer in the middle of each iris. If you wish to make more durable "eye tools," choose small nails with the proper size heads and mount them in small holes drilled in the ends of dowels. The sizes are up to you. Remember, part of the fun in fly tying is experimentation!!

Add matched pair of green mallard wings curved side (dull side) in (tent style).

When cutting materials from bucktail -'-A or calf tail, always use the large scissors to cut with. When cutting, always cut close to the skin so as not to waste good material.

:.~

If tying a feather (bucktail, peacock,

-'- A marabou) tie wing on top lightly with

6 30

Wind on head with black monocord. Cement twice. Finished fly. See box above right tor a quick method for painting eyes. Maine Fish and Wildlife

two or three turns of the thread. Then look at the length of the fly and how far it extends beyond the hook. If too long, put thumb nail under stems by eye of hook and brace the thumbnail against hook eye to get an even pull on wing.

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS New Warden Service Chiefs Fish and Wildlife Commissioner William Vail has appointed Herbert W. "Bill" Vernon of Brewer to be chief of the Maine Warden Service, and Parker K. Tripp of Vassalboro has replaced him as deputy chief warden. Vernon, 56, is a veteran of 32 years in the Maine Warden Service. His new position includes promotion to the rank of game warden colonel and director of the department's Bureau of Law Enforcement. Tripp, 43, had held the rank of game warden lieutenant since 1988, and has most recently been assigned to the department's Planning Division. His new position carries the rank of major. Col. Vernon, who served as deputy chief warden since 1988, replaces the late Larry S. Cummings, who had retired in April. Before becoming deputy chief warden, Vernon had long service as a lieutenant in charge of warden divisions C (Bangor headquarters) and E (Ashland). A native of Vanceboro, he became a fulltime district game warden in April 1959, assigned first to Daaquam and then the Sinclair warden district. He was promoted to game warden inspector (now sergeant) in 1962 and supervisor (now lieutenant) in 1972. Major Tripp became a game warden in 1975 and was assigned to the Waite district. He was promoted. to warden sergeant in Division D, Greenville, in 1985. He has also been the training coordinator for the Maine Warden Service Academy, a member of the Warden Service Search and Rescue Overhead Team, and has served on the Guides License Examination Board.

1991 Deer Season Prospects: More Bucks If normal weather conditions prevail this fall, Maine deer hunters should harvest about 27,000 white-tails. That's the prediction of department deer biologist Gerald Lavigne, and it's based on factors such as last winter's deer losses, quality of deer habitat and the number of any-deer permits allocated for this season. Last year's total deer kill by hunters was 25,977. Lavigne predicts that the 42,000 anydeer permits the department is issuing this year will result in a harvest of nearly 6,400 adult does and 3,800 fawns. "Increases should be noted in the harvest of both yearling bucks and trophy-aged bucks in 1991. We anticipate a statewide buck kill of roughly 16,500, higher than 1990." Statewide, about 10 percent fewer any-deer permits are being issued this year, though permit allocations were increased slightly in several. "The more conservative approach taken this year toward antlerless deer harvests was prompted by several factors," according to Lavigne. "First, population objectives have not been met for any DMD, although we are nearing desired population levels in some central and southern DMDs. Consequently, in all DMDs doe harvest quotas remain sufficiently conservative to allow continued herd growth. "Second, we have reduced doe quotas in DMDs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15, in which herd growth during the past five years did not meet expectations. "Third, we are compensating for above-average winter losses in DMDs 1,

Help Us Stop Maine's

2 and 3 in which deer have been subjected to two consecutive severe winters. "Fourth, although the 1990-91 winter was mild for deer elsewhere in the state, we will maintain conservative doe harvests in the second season following the severe 1989-90 winter. In DMDs 1-12, 16 and 17, the 1989-90 winter inflicted above-average losses on the herd; conservative harvests in 1991 will facilitate prompt recovery of these populations. "Finally, we reduced permits in those DMDs (1-6) in which the doe harvest in 1990 exceeded quotas by more than 10 percent. This should keep doe losses low enough to allow for desired herd

Trout Spawning Box Department biologists and members of the Piscataquis River Chapter of Trout Unlimited are working together to improve trout spawning habitat on a pond in Elliotsville, near Moosehead Lake. Regional Fisheries Biologist Paul Johnson headed a group of biologists and sportsmen who designed, built and installed a "shoreline spawning box" in shallow water near the shore of North Pond. The structure is intended to encourage brook trout to spawn and enhance the chances of the eggs successfully hatching. The box, measuring 8 feet by 8 feet, and 12 inches deep, contains a loop of submerged perforated plastic pipe connected to a spring on the shore and covered by a layer of gravel. Water flowing from the spring through the perforated pipe percolates through the gravel, providing conditions highly attractive to spawning trout. North Pond is a 58-acre, spring fed body of water with no tributaries to

Fish 8 Wildlife Law Violators Fall 1991

provide spawning sites for brook trout, which must rely on gravel areas near the shoreline to deposit their eggs. The department "reclaimed" North Pond in 1965, removing all of its fish including a large population of suckers which competed with the trout for food. Two years later, the pond was re-stocked with wild brook trout from a similar pond where the trout were shoreline spawners. The trout population has sustained itself with no further stocking. The shoreline spawning box technology has been employed successfully by biologists in the Adirondack mountains of New York state. A former camp owner on North Pond, the late Lyman Mudge of Monson, had constructed a similar but smaller spawning box a number of years ago, which was successfully used by the trout. Following his death, Mudge's box was neglected and had deteriorated. The new, larger spawning box replaces it at the same site. Four department fisheries biologists and seven TU members, led by chapter president Brian Campbell, built and installed the spawning box. Because it is considered a shoreline alteration, the project required a permit from the Land Use Regulation Commission.

purchase, raise and release pheasants, which will be legal game during the hunting season for anyone with a valid license. Natural reproduction of pheasants very limited in Maine due primarily to lack of winter feed - is not sufficient to support a hunting season. For many years, the department raised and released pheasants in what was primarily a "put and take" venture. Through the 1950s and '60s, the program's peak years, the state raised and stocked over 30,000 birds annually. Additional pheasants were reared by cooperators, who were given chicks hatched at the department's game farm in Gray. Increasing costs in the early 1970s, primarily skyrocketing grain prices, forced cut-backs in the number of birds the state and cooperators could raise, and in the success of hunters.

What's new .. . what to do .. . how to stay legal in the Maine outdoors

Stamp Requirement Repealed

Q. I've heard there's been a change in the blaze orange law. Rumor or fact?

Unlike most fees charged by the state, licenses to hunt and fish in Maine remain the same prices they've been for the past five years. In fact, the cost of hunting pheasants is going down! The recent session of the legislature repealed the requirement that pheasant hunters buy a $5.25 stamp in addition to their regular hunting license, a move supported by the department. Sales of pheasant stamps had been declining steadily since 1978, when 8,455 were issued. Only 1,862 were sold in 1990. Under a legislative mandate to spend no more on the pheasant program than is raised through stamp sales, the department last year was able to purchase only 1, 934 six-week-old pheasants, which it distributed to private cooperators, mostly fish and game clubs, who raised them at their own expense and released them into the wild under the department's direction. The department will no longer be helping cooperators by providing young pheasants, but they will still be able to

A. Fact. Actually, the last session of the Maine legislature made two changes in the statute that requires hunters to wear hunter orange clothing. The major one now requires anyone hunting with firearms during any open firearms season on deer to wear two articles of solid-colored hunter orange clothing. One of the articles must be a hat, the other can be a jacket, vest, coat, poncho or similar garment provided it covers a major portion of the torso. The other change clarifies a question that came up after the law was amended several years ago to specify that hunter orange clothing be solid-colored. The statute now states that the presence of a decal does not disqualify an article of clothing that otherwise satisfies the law. Unchanged are the provisions requiring that the articles of clothing be in good and serviceable condition and visible from all sides. The only ones exempt from the hunter orange requirements are hunters pursuing waterfowl from a boat, blind or with decoys.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

The pheasant stamp requirement, initiated in 1977, was followed by a legislative directive that the pheasant program be funded solely by revenues from stamp sales, causing the department to discontinue raising pheasants to maturity and spend all stamp funds on commercially-raised chicks, which it made available to cooperators. ContinuedÂˇrising costs forced a downward spiral of the number pheasants available and, consequently, in hunter interest, stamp sales and revenue to fund the program.

New Regional Office Regional staffs from the Fish and Wildlife Department's Warden Service and Fisheries and Wildlife divisions have recently moved into a new headquarters in Sidney. The new headquarters building, completed this summer, is located on the Lyons Road, approximately onefourth mile west of Interstate 95, Exit 32. It will serve as regional headquarters and radio dispatch center for personnel from Warden Division B, which covers the area of Maine from the Canadian border north of Rangeley to Camden on the coast, and east to west from Pittsfield to Lewiston. Warden personnel located there include the lieutenant, three sergeants and a dispatcher. They provide supervision and support for 22 district game wardens. Also working out of the new headquarters are three regional fisheries biologists and three regional wildlife biologists. The three staffs previously were housed in a cramped office on Federal Street in Augusta. The new Sidney telephone numbers: Warden Service: 547-4145 or 1-800-322-3606 (in Maine) Fisheries Division: 547-4161 Wildlife Division: 547-4165

Maine to Host OWAA Maine has been selected as the site of the 1994 annual conference of the Outdoors Writers Association of America (OWAA). The conference is held in a different part of the country each spring and draws up to 1,000 of the country's leading professional outdoor writers, editors and broadcasters. The June 1994 conference will be centered at the University of Maine campus in Orono.

In addition to substantial spending by OW AA members during the conference -and on fishing, camping, wildlife watching and other outdoor-oriented trips before and after the conference - it is estimated that an OWAA conference results in millions of dollars of free promotion to the host state as members return home and write stories abo ut their visit. The idea of trying to attract the 0 AA conference to Maine originated e eral years ago with the Fish and ildlife Department's media coordinaor, Paul Fournier, who works regularly ith outdoor writers and is a member of OW AA. A consortium of Maine businesses, state agencies, and private organizations and individuals, chaired by Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commisioner Bill Vail, planned and presented Maine's successful bid.

Boone & Crockett Trophies Several big game animals - a bear and three deer - bagged in Maine in 1990 have qualified for the prestigious Boone and Crockett Club. Dick Arsenault, a department fisheries biologist who is also a scorer for the club, ays it is very unusual for a state to have that many Boone and Crockett entries in a single year. Most big game hunting tates don't qualify even one per year. "Maine is very fortunate because it usually produces at least one deer, and also occasionally produces a Boone and Crockett size bull moose or black bear," ays Arsenault. The qualifiers from Maine's 1990 hunting season: • John S. Drost of Washburn took a bear in Aroostook County on Aug. 28 that dressed 320 pounds and scored 21 4/16. (The club minimum for bear is 21.) • Real Boulanger of Lac Megan tic, Quebec, took a 240-pound (dressed weight) buck on Nov. 17 in Franklin County that scored 183 3/8. (Club minimum: 170.) • William T. Ward, Delhi, N.Y., took a 200 pound, 10 point buck on Nov. 15 in Somerset County that scored 1831/8. • Phillip Dobbins of Addison took a 225 pound, 9 point buck in Washington County that scored 170 2/8. Arsenault says it is possible that the two deer that score over 180 will rank in the top 20 taken in North America in 1990. Most Boone and Crockett bucks score from 170 to 180 points. Those that exceed 180 are considered quite large.

ATV Warning A record number of deaths and injuries to young people operating all-terrain vehicles has prompted a warning from the Fish and Wildlife Department. Parents of youthful ATV operators are reminded that children up to 16 years of age must complete an ATV safety course before operating off their own property. It's the law that operators under age 18 must wear helmets. During a four week period in July and August, five young people died in Maine from ATV crashes - exceeding the number of deaths in entire previous years since records began in 1984. None of the victims wore a helmet. In addition, 1991 has seen numerous personal injury accidents involving ATVs. The department is especially concerned with the growing rate of accidents in view of the fact that the number ofregistered ATVs has dropped by approximately one third since 1985, when there were 25,500. Information on the availability of safety courses may be obtained from local ATV dealers, or by calling the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Safety Office, at 289-5229.

In Other Words, Be Sure Of Your Target Of all the lessons a new hunter should learn and an experienced one should practice, one of the most important is to make positive identification of the target before taking aim. Prompted by events of the past few years, the Maine legislature now has cast those few words into a legal statement intended both as guidance for hunters and guidelines for juries in determining guilt or innocence in cases of hunters shooting other human beings. On the matter of target identification, here is how "reasonable and prudent" hunters are now legally expected to perform:

"While hunting, a hunter may not shoot at a target without, at that point in time, being certain that it is the wild animal or wild bird sought. The targetdetermining process to be utilized is that which a reasonable and prudent hunter would observe in the same situation. A reasonable and prudent hunter always bears the risk of loss of legitimate prey to avoid the risk of the destruction of human life. A reasonable and prudent hunter neither disregards

the risk of causing the death of another human being nor fails to be aware of that risk as a consequence of misidentification. A reasonable and prudent hunter never bases identification upon sound alone or even upon sound in combination with what appears to be an appendage of the wild animal or wild bird sought. A reasonable and prudent hunter, independent of these target-determining factors, bases identification upon obtaining an essentially unobstructed view of the head and torso of the potential target. This visual sighting is the most critical target determining factor. Visual sighting of the head and torso may present itself intermittently or continuously. If presented intermittently, a reasonable and prudent hunter does not make a targetidentification decision until this visual sighting exists at the point in time the hunter takes aim and is making final preparation to shoot. A reasonable and prudent hunter additionally recognizes that these sound and sight target-determining factors are affected by a number of other considerations, including, but not limited to, the distance to the target, surrounding or intervening terrain and cover, lighting and weather conditions, the hunter's own ability to hear and see, the hunter's own experience and the proximity of other persons in the hunter's immediate vicinity."

In Other Words, Be Sure Of Your Target

LETTER TO THE EDITOR WRONG BIRD As a "misplaced" Maine native and old U. of M., Orono, wildlife management graduate, I eagerly await each copy of your excellent magazine to keep up on the wildlife of Maine. With the risk of appearing "too observing," I write.with the observation/ correction that the bird pictured on page 23 of the summer 1991 issue and identified as a great blue heron is, in fact, a Louisiana heron. This bird, also known as the tricolored heron has recently been expanding its range northward and perhaps would be more closely associated with the west coastal islands south of Portland than with Maine's inland wetlands. Ed Briggs, Naturalist Flanders Nature Center Woodbury, Connecticut

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife â&#x20AC;˘ 284 State Street â&#x20AC;˘ Augusta ME 04330

"Mt. Katahdin - Black Bear" From the original oil painting by Adriano Manocchia. limited edition prints available from the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. Phone (207) 622-5503 for details.