Maine Fish and Wildlife Magazine, Spring 1992 by Maine State Library

EDITORIAL by William J. Vail

Wrapping It Up

Commissioner Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Five issues ago, Maine Fish and Wildlife magazine embarked on an unprecedented series dealinowith the economic value of recreational uses of Maine's wildlife and fisheries resources. Unlike many previous articles, based on studies of wild animals and fish, these have been based on a ground-breaking study of the people who use and enjoy these resources: who they are ... how they use wildlife, and why ... their likes and dislikes ... and how much money they spend doing whatever it is they do involving Maine's wildlife and fish. The study was conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Maine's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, under contract with the Maine Legislative Commission to Study the Impact of Game and Nongame Species on Maine's Economy. Articles in previous issues have looked at Maine's hunters, anglers and trappers. This one, the las of the series, profiles the so-called nonconsumptive users - people who observe, photograph, or feed wildlife. The study marks the first time any state has focused major attention on nonconsumptive users of wildlife re&,ources. As with study segments dealing with hunters, anglers, and trappers, some of the results confirm what we've believed right along, others conflict with common notions, while other findings provide valuable information in new areas. All of it will help define who nonconsumptive users are, how important wildlife is to them, and how important they are to Maine's economy. I'll lethe article cover the details, but be prepared to learn that they are more than little old ladies who scatter bread crumbs for sparrows! Much more. As I noted when this series began, wildlife managers can benefit from knowing things the study revealed, but bigger benefits come when hard decisions are being made about the impact proposed activities would have on the environment, and on Maine's economy. And they come when hard decisions are being made on the value of programs designed to protect and manage wildlife resource..,. Even as difficult as the current state budget problems have been, I am confident that knowing j ' : how important fish and wildlife resources are has already had a positive impact. The study has do ~mented that a very high percentage of Mainers have an active interest in wildlife, and that alone Âˇ reason for optimism for the future.

~AINE

FISH AND WILDLIFE Gowmor

John R. McKeman, Jr.

SPRING 1992

VOL. 34, NO. 1

Department of Inland Flaherlea and WUdllfe

WOiiam J. Vad, Commissioner Norman E. Trask, Deputy Commissioner Frederick B. Hurley, Jr., Director, BuNau of Re.source Management Charles A Atwater, Director, BuNau of Admlnlstratlue Services Herbert W. Vernon, Director, BuNau of Warden Service

Advlaory Council Dr. Ogden Small, Caribou Chairman John Crabtree, Warren

Vice Chairman

Alanson Noble, Otisfield, Eugene ChurchW, Orland Carroll Cutting, East Sebago Gene Brown, Durham Thomas Jagger, Sanford Gary Cobb, North New Portland Wilmot Robinson, MIiiinocket Joseph Robbins, Machias Maine Fish and Wlldllfe Magazine

W. Thomas Shoener, Editor Thomas J. Chamberlain, Managing Editor Thomas L Carbone, Photo Edi tor Dale S. Clark, Edi torlal Assistant

All photographs In this Issue were made by the Public Information & Education Division unless otherwise Indicated. MAINE f1SH AND WILDUFE OSSN 0360-00SX) Is published quarterly by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State Street, Station 41, Augusta. Maine 04330, IDier Appropriation 010. 09A-0529. Subscription rate: $14.00 per year. No stamps. please. Second class postage paid at Augusta. Maine and at additional malling offices. C Maine Dept of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 1992. Pennlsslon ID reprint text material Is granted, provided proper credit Is given to the author and to MAINE FISH AND WILDUFE. Clearance must be obtained from artists, photographers, and non-staff authors to reproduce credited work.

OiANGE OF ADORf.5S: Send both old and new addresses to Circulation Secllon, MAINE f1SH AND WILDLIFE Magazine, 284State5t., Sta. •41, Augusta ME 04333. Please allow six weeks for changes ID take effect. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Clrculatlon Section, MAINE FISH AND WDDUFE, 284 State St., Sta. •41, Augusta, Maine 04333.

QUESTIONS ABOl.TT YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? Just call toll-free 1-800-288-8387

The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife rec:etws federal funds from lhe U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior. Accordingly, all department programs and actMUes must be operated free from dlsc:rlmlnatlon with regard ID race, color, national origin, age, or handicap.~ person who believes lhatheorshehas been dlscrlmlnated against should write ID The Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Deparbnent of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

Features Nonconsumptlve Users of Wildlife: Who, Where, Why

by Kevin J. Boyle & Alan G. Clark

Fifth and final installment in a series on the ualue of wildlife to Maine

The One That Didn't Get Away Club, 1991

Last season's Junkers - and the anglers who landed 'em!

Our Specialty: Answering Questions

by John Moring

The lowdown on three different Maine Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit studies

Sunkhaze Meadows: Maine's Newest Wildlife Refuge

by Bill Silliker, Jr.

Where the area is, why it's important, and how you can uisit it

How're We Doln?

by Charles S. Allen IV

Operation Game Thief - another year older and deeper in "get."

Protecting Lakes, Directing Development

by Andrea Lapointe

What the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission is doing to protect Maine waters

We've Made Some Changes!

by Lisa J. Kane

The Fish & Wildlife Visitors Center - not just "the Game Farm" anymore!

Depart111ents KID-BITS

FROM THE FLY TYING BENCH: The Daisey Mae

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS

The Front Cover: "Spring Bounty." Canada geese and gosllngs at Otter nowage, Moosehom National Wildlife Refuge. Photo by Bill Sllllker, Jr. of Saco. Printed with vegetable-based in~ on recycled paper

How Valuable, Part V

Nonconsumptive Use Of Maine's Wildlife: by Kevin J. Boyle, Marcia L. Phillips, and Alan G. Clark

n previous issues of Maine Fish and Wildlife, we discussed fishing, hunting, and trapping - the so-called consumptive uses of fish and wildlife resources. We now tum our attention to nonconsumptive uses. Consumptive uses are called that because participants have the opportunity to take wildlife from the wild for their own personal gain. Nonconsumptive uses, on the"Other hand, occur when someone enjoys wildlife in its natural habitat without removing an animal from the wild - bird watching, for example. Consumptive users can also be nonconsumptive users. For example, an angler may enjoy seeing wildlife while fishing, or a hunter or trapper may enjoy seeing species other than the ones they are seeking. Although these types of joint consumptive/ nonconsumptive uses are important, it must be acknowledged that there are many people who are purely nonconsumptive users and do not fish, hunt, or trap. The key feature of nonconsumptive uses from a wildlife management perspective is that one person's use does not necessarily diminish another person's opportunity to enjoy the same wildlife. In contrast, consumptive uses require wildlife managers to balance use opportunities versus the desired populations of game species.

What Is It? Who Participates? Why Do They Do It? Recognizing the importance of purely nonconsumptive uses is one step in beginning to characterize them. The difficult task is collecting the needed data. Historically, many state fish and wildlife agencies were entitled "Department of Fish and Game," reflecting management focused on consumptive uses of game species. But many are now seeing the "game" in their titles replaced by "wildlife" to reflect their relatively new and broader wildlife management missions involving all species. One effect of the historical focus on game management was very little data being collected on nonconsurnptive uses of wildlife. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has collected national data on fishing and hunting at five-year intervals for over two decades. They first collected data on nonconsurnptive uses in 1985, and did again last year. Lacking also have been systematic procedures for collecting comprehensive data on nonconsumptive uses of wildlife resources. Our study represents the first such effort by any state. This pathbreaking effort had a primary focus of trying to characterize nonconsurnptive uses of wildlife in Maine and to begin to understand how people feel about related wildlife management issues. Since this type of research is relatively new, we could not

*This project was financed in part lly the State of Maine, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Appropriation Account Number 15505067 and the Department of Marine Resources, Appropriation Account Number 11403100. Additional funding was provided through the Pittman-Robertson (Wildlife Restoration) and DingellJohnson (Fisheries Restoration) Federal Aid Acts, and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No.1630.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

!en ai >,

.D 0

E c..

go into the level of detail that we did for fishing, trapping and, particularly, hunting. To collect the data needed for an initial look at nonconsumptive uses of Maine's wildlife, we mailed surveys to 2,000 randomly selected heads of households in Maine. Two limitations of this approach should be acknowledged. First, a survey of heads of households does not represent all adults in Maine; men are over-represented and women under-represented. In addition, we did not survey nonresidents who visit Maine. Most would agree that many tourists visit Maine each year with the expectation of seeing wildlife. Surveying them, however, is beyond our means at this time. Within the survey, questions were designed to learn about respondents' participation in nonconsumptive activities during a 12-month period. This was done to make the nonconsumptive survey results comparable to survey results for fishing, hunting and trapping. All surveys were mailed during 1989, and the overall response rate for deliverable surveys was 73 percent.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS The "average" person responding to our survey is 45 years old, has a household size of three {including children), has lived in Maine for 34 years, and had a household income of $33,600 in 1988 (Table 1). The respondents were 70 percent male, a result of the head of household sample mentioned above. This proportion should be kept in mind Author Kevin Boyle is an associate professor of resource economics at the University of Maine. Marcia Phillips is a University of Maine graduate research assistant. Alan Clark is wildlife resources planner for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

"Shooting" a moose---nonconsumptively.

when interpreting survey findings, since heads of households may or may not be the most avid nonconsumptive users of wildlife in their households. Table 1. Characteristics of Survey Respondents Characteristics Socioeconomic: Average Age Sex (Percent Male) Average Education

Average Number of People in Household Average Years a Maine Resident Average 1988 Household Income Wildlife Participation During Past Year: Observed wildlife while not fishing, hunting or trapping Participated in consumptive uses of wildlife (fishing, hunting or trapping) Contributed money to help conserve Maine's wildlife

Heads of Households

45 70% Some training beyond high school 3 34 $33,600

91% 54% 19%

Fully 91 percent of the respondents stated they observed wildlife in Maine during the previous year. More than half of them (54 percent) also fished, hunted, or trapped in Maine during the preceding year. This isn't surprising, since 70 percent of the respondents are male, and our surveys indicate that consumptive users of Maine's wildlife are predominantly male. It is important to note that the nonconsumptive use reported here by anglers, hunters, and trappers occurs while they are not fishing, hunting, or trapping. Only 19 percent of the respondents directly made a contribution to help conserve Maine's wildlife in the previous year, a stark contrast to the 91 percent who said they had observed wildlife in Maine. Three things likely contribute to the difference: â&#x20AC;˘ while many people observe wildlife, some may not enjoy it enough to contribute to its conservation;

Spring 1992

â&#x20AC;˘ many people expect to observe wildlife without having to pay for the opportunity; â&#x20AC;˘ given the diverse nature of nonconsumptive uses of wildlife, creating a user fee system similar to that for hunting and fishing is not feasible. How could you justify requiring a license to watch songbirds? People see birds and other wildlife whether they want to or not. How could you stop them from doing it if they chose not to buy the license if one were required? The consequence of this situation is that nonconsumptive users have no comprehensive means of expressing the values they place on wildlife management in Maine.

RESPONDENTS' DEFINITION OF WILDLIFE We also sought to find out which living creatures the public considers to be wildlife. This issue is important in that creatures the public considers to be wildlife may, in fact, be quite different from the creatures wildlife managers deem to be wildlife and therefore under the purview of their management mission. To address this question, which was voiced by wildlife managers, we provided a list of creatures, identified by their common names, and asked respondents to indicate whether they consider each is or is not wildlife. Table a Creatures Respondents Consider to be WIidiife Percent of Respondents Creature Creature Creature is Is not Unknown Willdife Wildlife

Creatures Raccoon Snowshoe Hare (Rabbit) Coyote Deer Eagle Seal Snapping Turtle Trout Sea Gull Tree Frog Bat Garter Snake Puffin Butterfly Crayfish Minnow Starfish Eel Freshwater Clam Pigeon Earth Worm Hornet House Mouse Garden Spider Bloodsucker (Leech) Tick Flea

Maine Fish and Wildlife

100 100 99

0 0 1

99 96

1 4

93 91

6 9

89 88 84 83 81 78 78 78 78 77 71

11 12 16 16

58 58 57 56 51 41 36

41 41 41 43 47 57 62

21 21 20 21 20 27

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 1

2 1 3

2 1 1

1 2 1

2 2 2

Before moving to the findings, note that the creatures listed in the left column of Table 2 are not necessarily individual species. Rather, they are creatures that wildlife managers at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have either deemed to be wildlife and subject to their management, or have questioned whether they are wildlife and possibly subject to their management. Coyotes, deer, and eagles are examples of the former; butterflies, freshwater clams, and garter snakes are examples of the latter. We also included some creatures the public may consider to be pests (for example, blood suckers, house mice and pigeons), as well as aesthetically appealing creatures such as puffins and seals. Only two of the species on the list were considered to be wildlife by 100 percent of the respondents: raccoons and rabbits. Coyotes, deer and eagles followed closely with 99 percent. Seals, snapping turtles, and trout were the only other creatures listed by over 90 percent of respondents. In contrast, fleas and ticks were the only creatures on the list that are considered to be wildlife by less than half of the respondents. Less than 60 percent listed blood suckers, earthworms, garden spiders, hornets, and house mice. These findings indicate that common house pests and insects, with the exception of butterflies, are less likely to be considered wildlife than species that are not considered pests. Common mammals, birds, reptiles and fish appear to be deemed wildlife by the majority of respondents. Finally, it is somewhat surprising that 15 percent of respondents indicated that they did not know whether puffins are wildlife. The difficulty in viewing these birds off Maine's coast, their limited numbers, and the extensive wildlife souvenir market for puffin items may lead to this confusion.

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION For the purpose of the survey we defined nonconsumptive use of wildlife as seeing, hearing or encountering signs of wildlife while not primarily fishing, hunting or trapping. Since one of the objectives of the Legislative Commission that funded our study was to examine the economic impact of recreational uses of Maine's fish and wildlife, the survey focused on active, rather than passive, wildlife observation. Active observation requires actions on the part of the participant that may require spending money to accomplish the desired wildlife observation objective. With this in mind, survey

questions concerning wildlife observation activities focused on: 1) attracting wildlife to one's home or camp, and 2) taking trips to observe wildlife. Wildlife Observation Around Home or Camp. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they observe wildlife around their home or camp, and 55 percent said they actively attempt to attract wildlife by feeding, enhancing habitat with landscaping, or building bird houses (Table 3). Therefore, about 32 percent of respondents passively observe wildlife around their home or camp. Moreover, the six species or species groups people attempt to attract are common throughout Maine. So, although efforts to attract wildlife may enhance opportunities to view wildlife around one's home or camp, one may also be able to view the same species without active efforts. Table 3. Wildlife Observation Around Home or Calll) Observed wildlife around home or camp in previous year Tried to attract wildlife to home or camp Wildlife attempted to attract to home or camp: Birds Squirrels Deer Chipmunks Blue Jays Chickadees

Reported annual expenses averaged $170 for trips to observe wildlife, $100 for related equipment.

87% 55%

29% 11% 9%

6% 5% 5%

guide from an independent party. The second type of trip is one organized by an independent party where the agenda is specified and a guide may be provided; for example, a bird-watching expedition sponsored by the Maine Audubon Society. Thirty-five percent of respondents took personal trips to observe wildlife in Maine during 1989 (Table 4). Interestingly, Penobscot and Cumberland counties were two of the top five destinations. This is probably because these counties are areas of population concentration, and people often take day trips to locations near their homes. Maine's three northern counties - Somerset, Piscataquis, and Aroostook - were also among the top five destinations. These are obvious choices due to

These findings indicate that not only does nearly everyone enjoy the state's wildlife, more than half attempt to enhance their viewing opportunities by doing things to attract various species. It is also interesting to note that 40 percent of the respondents indicate the presence of certain types of wildlife influenced their decision to live in Maine, while only 14 percent said the absence of certain wildlife influenced their decision to live here (Figures 1a and 1b). Figure la. Presence of Thirty-six percent of the responlb. Absence of Certain Certain Wildlife Influenced dents stated the opportunity to obInfluenced Decision Wildlife Decision to Live in Maine serve wildlife around home was to Live in Maine very important or somewhat important in their decision where to live (Figure 1c). Another 36 percent either do not observe wildlife in their day-to-day lives or do not feel they have a choice in deciding where to live. It would seem, then, that Maine's wildlife plays a role with peoples' decisions to move to Maine and affects, to a lesser degree, where people choose to live within Maine. Trips to Observe Wildlife in Maine. Here we examined two types of trips. The first is a personal trip one might take with family or friends to oble. Importance of Opportunity to Observe Wildlife at Home serve wildlife without a pre-specified agenda or a Spring 1992

abundant opportunities to observe wildlife and the availability of access to viewing locations. Hancock County, although not listed in the table, is sixth at 27 percent; this may be due to the presence of Acadia National Park and the large amount of coastal access it provides. The wildlife which people take trips to see are generally high profile species that can be easily observed. The top three - deer, moose and bear are also are Maine's premier big game species. Thus, public interest, at least among Maine's heads of households, focuses on a very small number of species of wildlife for both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. The fact that these three species are so valued for observation purposes further explains why Piscataquis, Somerset and Aroostook counties are among the most visited counties, since these species are abundant there. There are many factors which can contribute to a successful wildlife observation trip, and the survey sought to determine how important some of them are. The top five, according to the percentage of respondents who said the factor is very important, are listed in Table 4. Table 4. Characteristics of Respondents' Trips to Observe Wildlife In Maineâ&#x20AC;˘ Took trips to observe wildlife In Maine 35% Top five counties visited to observe wildlife: Penobscot 42% Piscataquis 37% Cumberland 35% Somerset 29% Aroostook 28% Wildllfe attempted to observe on trips: Deer 20% Moo~ 1~ Bear 7% ~~

Birds Top five "very important" factors contributing to a successful wildlife observation trip: Enjoying experience even if not observe wildlife Learning about wildlife Seeing one of wildlife sought Seeing wildlife not sought Seeing more than one of wildlife sought

6% 70% 58% 49% 44% 35%

"These are trips that people take either alone or with family or friends and are not professionally organized or sponsored.

By a clear margin, the most important factor to the success of a wildlife observation trip is the overall enjoyment of the experience, even if wildlife is not observed. Other attributes of wildlife observation such as hearing or seeing signs of wildlife, but not including viewing wildlife, did not rank among the top five factors contributing to the success of a trip. Finally, only 6 percent of respondents stated that they took organized trips to observe wildlife in the

Maine Fish and Wildlife

previous year. This small participation rate is probably due to the fact that most organized wildlife observation activities cater to select groups of people. For example, Maine Audubon trips are likely to be taken mainly by Maine Audubon members, and Acadia National Park tours often include many nonresident visitors. Economic Impact of Wildlife Observation. Another aspect of nonconsumptive wildlife use about which very little was previously known is its impact on Maine's economy. To help survey respondents report their expenses for wildlife observation, we divided expenses into three categories: costs to attract wildlife to home or camp, costs of wildlife observation trips and costs of equipment purchased to use when observing wildlife. To get at all expenses concerning wildlife, we also included contributions to fish and wildlife conservation organizations, and expenses to control, prevent or repair wildlife damage. Although the latter are not related to wildlife observation, they do constitute part of the economic impact of wildlife on Maine's economy. Respondents reported spending an average of $78 during 1989 to attract wildlife to their home or camp (Table 5). As expected, the largest individual expenditure was for bird food ($44). Annual expenses for wildlife observation trips are more than double the expenses for attracting wildlife, with the largest individual expenses being for gas, food, and beverages. Equipment purchases for wildlife observation averaged $100 per head of household. Typical purchases in this category include binoculars, cameras, and maps. Thus, the average respondent reported annual expenditures of $348 for nonconsumptive uses of Maine's wildlife, for an aggregate economic impact on Maine's economy of $47.8 million. Contributions of $33 per respondent per year to conserve wildlife in Maine probably overstates the amount that is actually spent on Maine wildlife. Some of the money goes to the overhead of these organizations, not directly to wildlife conservation projects. Also, some organizations have missions that go beyond wildlife conservation and/ or their

Over half of people surveyed try to attract wildlife to their homes or camps. Birds are their main interest. Average reported expenses to attract wildlife (bird food, feeders, etc.) were $78.

efforts are not limited to Maine. Given these considerations, we suspect that only a small percentage of the average contribution is actually spent on wildlife and wildlife habitat in Maine. Table 5. Wildlife-Related Expenses In Maine During 1989 Average Annual Aggregate Expense per Head l111>act Category of Household (X $1,000,000) Wild Iife Attraction Expenses $ 78 $14.7 (Bird Food, Wildlife Shelters, Feeders, Landscaping) Expenses for Trips to 170 20.4 Observe Wild Iife (Gas, Food, Land Use Fees, etc.) Equipment Purchases for Wildlife Observation -1U 100 (Binoculars, Cameras, Maps, etc.)* Aggregate Expenditures $47.8 $348 Contributions to Wildlife Conservation 33 2.5 Organizations Expenses to Control, Preven~ or il .ll Repair Wildlife Damage Total Wildlife-Related Expenses $51.3 $428 in Maine During 1989 * Computed by multiplying respondent's stated expense for an item by the percent of use that will be dedicated to nonconsumptive wildlife use. For example, If a respondent purchased binoculars in 1989 for $100 and will use them 25 percent of the time to observe wildlife, $25, or 25 percent of the purchase price is attributed to nonconsumptlve wildliferelated expenses ($100 x .25).

The economic impact of nonconsumptive uses of wildlife in Maine totaled $47.8 million, plus $2.5 million in contributions and $1.0 million for wildlife damage to personal property, for a grand total of $51.3 million in 1989. To put these numbers into perspective, the comparable aggregate economic

impact of resident hunting in Maine during 1988 was $65.0 million. It should be noted that the aggregate economic impact of nonconsumptive uses estimated here, $47.8 million, is conservative in the sense that only heads of households were sampled and their responses may not reflect wildlife observation expenditures by other members of their households. In contrast, the figure of $65 million for hunting represents all resident hunters.

WILDLIFE OBSERVED DURING 1989 Survey participants were also given lists of common birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish and asked to indicate which ones they had actually observed in Maine during the previous year. "Observed" was defined as seeing wildlife, hearing wildlife and seeing signs of wildlife - tracks, for example. For respondents not familiar with a species, or for those unsure whether they had observed the species, one answer option was "OON'T KNOW." The attempt, here, was to identify wildlife they may have observed casually, while not actively trying. The lists were provided to prompt respondents to think about species they might not recall, and to help us understand respondent knowledge of common species in Maine. (continued on page 26)

Spring 1992

The One That Didn't Get Away Club-1991 Outstanding freshwater fish caught In Maine last year and entered In The One That Didn't Get Away Club, run by The Maine Sportsman, PO Box 910, Yarmouth, ME 04096-0910. Entries must be certified by a game warden or fisheries biologist of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The Fish Brook Trout (Qualifying Weight 4 pounds)

25 entrl• In 1991

Brown Trout (Qualifying Weight 6 pounds)

20 entrl• In 1991

Lake Trout (Qualifying Weight 15 pounds)

1O entrl• In 1991

Landlocked Salmon (Qualifying Weight 6 pounds) 11 entrl• In 1991

Smallmouth Bass (Qualifying Weight 5 pounds)

7 entries In 1991

Largemouth Bass (Qualifying Weight 7 pounds) 13 entrl• In 1991

Plckerel (Qualifying Weight 4 pounds)

9 entrl• In 1991

White Perch (Qualifying Weight 1 1/2 pounds) 6 entries In 1991

Northern Pike

The Angler

Lbs. l.englh Oz. (In.) Date 6-12 1/2 6-6 6-3 6-3 5-12 5-10 5-9 5-8 5-5

23 23 23 21 24 20 27 23 21 1/4

5/9 1/ 1 6/16 4/13 5/10 1/14 5/17 1/1 1/1

The Forks area Middle Range Pond, Poland Richardson Lake Coffee Pond , Casco B Pond, Upton Parker Pond, Fayette Long Lake, St. Agatha Middle Range Pond , Poland Range Pond, Poland

Weeping Willow live sh iner West River Spoon sewed smelt Grey Ghost streamer live bait Gray Ghost live sh iner li ve shiner

Victor Yeomans, Acton Tim Chick, Acton S. H. Williams, Auburn Verne MacDonald, Sanford Daniel Perry, Portland

13 12-3 12 10-14 10-8

29 30 29 28 1/2 27

4/10 2/9 6/1 5/5 5/25

Square Pond, Acton Hancock Pond, Denmark Square Pond, Acton York County Kennebunk Pond, Lyman

Rapala Shad Rap shiner Mooselook Wobbler bait Mooselook Wobbler

Robert Goodspeed, Cardville Alger Davis, Dexter Phil Qualey, Vassalboro Jerri Ray , Pittsfield Stephen Bowden , Lewiston

19 18 17-8 16-8 16

36 39 1/2 36 37 36

4/30 6/2 3/14 1/26 5/24

Cold Stream Pond, Enfi eld Sebec Lake, Willimantic East Grand Lake Millinocket Lake, Millinocket West Grand Lake

live bait live bait lead fish shiner Flat Fish

Steve Anderson,New Sweden Jay Boisvert, Biddeford Raymond Cote, Lewiston Richard Flood, Woodland Gail Huhtamakl, Ogunquit Joe Graves, Saco Roland Plourde, Saco

8-5 8-5/8 7-4 6-14 6-12 6-11 6-7

271 /2 29 271 /4 251/2 25 24 3/4 30

6/25 4/7 5/11 9/11 9/2 4/16 7/24

Long Lake, Sinclair Ossipee Lake, Waterboro Rangeley Lake Meddybemps Lake, Baileyville Rangeley Lake Sebago Lake Ossipee Lake, Waterboro

sewed shiner Bass Tubes sewed-on bait Rapala Mooselook Wobbler sewed shiner live bait

Zach Davis, Windham Arthur Abbott, Belfast Rodney Bailey, Augusta Bryan Coran, Gray Carolyn Niebling , Colts Neck, N.J.

6-8 5-1 2 5-11 5-6 5-6

21 22 21 1/2 21 1/2 20 3/4

8/13 5/11 8/3 4/19 8/22

Sebago Lake Swan Lake, Belfast Upper Narrows Pond, Wi nthrop Upper Range Pond, Poland Great Pond, Belgrade Lakes

Rapala Manns M-79 Semi Deep Diver Tube Mickey Finn

Peter Locke, Kezar Falls Hank Halterman, Bath George Cooper, Old Orchard Beach Richard Baker, Pennsville, N.J. Douglas Reighley, South Freeport Leon Adjutant, Ossipee, N.H. Douglas Cooper, Old Orchard Beach William Love, Chelsea Jeff Saucier, Lyman

9-2 9 8-71 /2 8-2/3 7-14 7-8 7-8 7-7 7-4

241/2 20 24 23 231 /2 23 21 21 3/4 23

3/17 2/24 6/15 7/29 8/30 5/13 4/30 4/26 3/4

Stanley Pond, Hiram Bath York County Little Cobbossee, E. Winthrop Cobbossee Stream Balch Pond, West Newfield York County Horseshoe Pond, West Gardiner Moose Pond, Bridgton

shiner shiner rubber worm jig-n-pig Buzz Bate rubber worm spinnerbait Brokenback Rebel shiner

Sewell Cole, Oakland Paul Bourassa, Buxton Jeremy Ladd, Lewiston Will iam Stees, Yarmouth Steven Mosley, Bar Harbor Jeremy LeConte, Windham Robert Shufelt, Farmington

5-8 5-8 5-1 4-8 4-5 4-6 1/2 4-61/2

26 27 26 1/2 25 3/4 26 26 27

3/24 1/15 1/27 2/3 2/23 1/19 5/21

McGrath Pond , Oakland Killick Pond, Hollis Androscogg in Lake , Wayne Forest Lake, West Cumberland Great Pond , Franklin Watchic Lake, Standish Crowell Pond, New Sharon

shiner shiner shiner li ve bait live bait shiner Rapala

2-5 2-2 2-1 2 1-13

151/2 15 141/2 14 3/4 141/4

10/16 5/28 5/23 1/6 12/28

Quantabacook Lake, Searsmont Jordan River, Sebago Lake Sebago Lake Meddybemps Lake, Baileyville Lovejoy Pond, Albion

Gray Ghost nightcrawler worm smelt live minnow

Michael Gibbs, Belgrade Lakes

15-15

1/29

Great Pond , Belgrade

li ve minnow

Bill Woodward, Augusta Bill Woodward, Augusta Bob Lang, Raymond Carl Leonard Jr, Sebago Lake Bill Lang, Newington, Conn. Bill Woodward, Augusta

2-11 2-9 2-8 2-7 2-3 2-2

151/2 15 15 3/4 16 151/2 141/2

2/20

Sebago Lake Sebago Lake Sebago Lake Bonnie Eagle Lake, Buxton Sebago Lake Sebago Lake

live bait live bait Crappie Queen plastic worm on Mapps Aglia Mr. Twister (purple) live bait

John Keen, North Anson Michael Espeaignette, Cumberland Roger Kolterman, Falmouth-Foreside Joe Sargent, Casco Marie Witas, Rumford Robert Field, Monmouth David Lundgren, Billerica, Mass. Bertrand Bronn .Scarborough David Small , Cumberland

Robert Potter, Palermo Richard Kosack, Yarmouth William Lang, Newington, Conn. Richard Flood, Woodland Randall Payne, Oakland

(Qualifying Weight 15 pounds)

Black Crappie (Qualifying Weight 2 pounds) 6 entries In 1991

Lure

Where Caught

2/5 5/9 5/16 5/22 2/20

I I

Our Specialty: Answering Questions by John Moring A bass fisherman was quietly working the edges of Great Pond one day in May 1988, when he had a surprise. A seven-pound northern pike took his bass plug, splashed a few times, then headed for deeper water. The angler's rod snapped in two, but he managed to land the fish. Along its back was a strange looking, tube-like radio tag, a device that had been attached 54 days earlier by biologists with the Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Maine. Fisheries biologists of the state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have some questions and concerns about northern pike in the Belgrade Lakes region. Are these illegally-introduced fish competing with the salmon and trout in this popular fishing area? How will they affect the Belgrade Lake's popular bass fisheries and local pickerel populations? And where are the pike spawning? The radio telemetry transmitter on the pike the angler caught is part of the search for answers.

The legislature has directed the Department of Marine Resources to restore sea-run alewives to the species' former range in Maine. But the departments of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Environmen-

When

Maine fisheries biologists have questions like these that can only be answered with field research studies, they often turn to the Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Maine. Unit cooperators are the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Maine, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The following is a summary of three recent Unit studies

tal Protection have concerns that these fish, re-introduced to interior waters, might have a negative impact on freshwater game fish and plankton in lakes. One popular sport fish in these waters is the white perch. Will perch populations decline if alewife populations increase? Other fish species that might be affected include rainbow smelt and black bass. Bass fishing tournaments have been a big sport in other states for many years, and over the last decade or so they've caught on in Maine as well. Even though most fish caught in tournaments are released alive at the end of the day after being weighed, anglers and fisheries biologists have wondered about the impact of tournament fishing on populations of smallmouth and largemouth bass. Studies in southern and western states have indicated a large number of bass are severely stressed from the experience and many die in the first day or two after release. Water temperatures in states where previous bass mortality studies took place are typically higher than Maine's, and stressed fish might be expected to die in warmer waters. What about Maine? Is delayed mortality a factor here, too? and, if so, can it be reduced?

that are helping learn more about the implications of the spread of northern pike, sea-run alewives and bass tournaments in Maine.

Northern Pike

Scott Herke (now with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Massachusetts) investigated northern pike in the Belgrade Lakes and found some interesting results - and some causes for concern.

Pike now occur in five of the six main Belgrade Lakes, and in Messalonskee Stream, but the study focused on the largest body of water, Great Pond. Northern pike were tagged with spaghetti-like "anchor'' tags and radio tags, and their movements were followed day and night. The author is Assistant Leader for Fisheries with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Maine. Spring 1992

A radio-tagged northern pike. Radio telemetry is one of the techniques researchers are using to learn more about the impact of this illegallyintroduced species in the Belgrade lakes.

Several researchers in other states had concluded that pike seldom move at night, but it was not so with fish in Great Pond. One pike traveled nearly two miles overnight, another moved as many as six miles over months, and some covered areas of up to 175 acres. Though they arrived in the Belgrade Lakes illegally and to the concern of fisheries biologists, northern pike are proving to be a popular game fish, and several over 20 pounds have now been caught in Great Pond. Many fish stay in deeper water, but some are also found amongst vegetation in shallow water. Pike feed more often in"' deeper water and seem to prefer soft-rayed fishes, such as golden shiners. Pike are known to eat many things, including waterfowl, in other locales, but only fishes have been encountered in their diet in Great Pond. So far, northern pike are not depleting the salmon and trout of the Belgrade Lakes, probably because the number of pike is still low (about one-tenth the size of the pickerel population) and there is an ample supply of prey fishes available. But, that could change quickly. Biologists in Minnesota found many trout fisheries declined rapidly after northern pike were introduced to the same waters. In other states, pike have displaced landlocked salmon from their normal habitat in lakes.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

There is another concern as well. Populations of chain pickerel, a native species to Maine (though later widely distributed with the help of humans), declined in Virginia after northern pike were introduced. Pike spawn in the spring, just at iceout, chain pickerel slightly later, but the spawning times of the two species overlap. New genetic studies have revealed that 2 percent of the pickerel and pike in Great Pond are now hybrids: the offspring of natural matings of male pike and female pickerel. Great Pond also supports a popular bass fishery. Northern pike use some of the same habitats as bass, and it seems likely that as the pike population increases, bass will become part of their diet and will also have to compete with the larger pike for space. Only time will tell what effect all this will have on the bass populations.

Sea-run Alewives and White Perch

Three state agencies are currently engaged in a nine-year pilot study in Lake George (near Canaan) to determine whether re-introducing alewives will harm game fishes and water quality. Several fish populations, including brook trout, brown trout, smallmouth bass, and rainbow smelt, are being monitored. The results will not be known for a while, but the Unit has been

able to provide information on what might happen to white perch when alewives are present. Leslie Mink (now with the U.S. Forest Service in California) examined food habits of white perch in Lake George and the food habits of perch and alewives where they occur together, in Biscay Pond (near Damariscotta) and North Pond (near Warren). Lake George had no alewives at the time of this study (they since have been introduced there) and white perch fed on a variety of planktonic animals and insects, particularly Cladocera (water fleas), chironomids (midges), and mayflies, but few fishes. However, in the two lakes that contained both white perch and alewives, the diets of the two species became more similar as summer progressed into fall. As white perch and alewives increased in size, both species fed almost exclusively on young alewives. At this stage, it doesn't appear that alewives will have a negative effect on population numbers or growth of white perch. The presence of young alewives is even an advantage to white perch because of the added food supply available to perch. When state agencies complete their nine-year study, we'll know whether the presence of alewives will affect other fish species, or the plankton.

Setting a seine for white perch, which are among the species that may be affected by introductions of sea-run alewives.

Bass Tournaments

3Richard Hartley (now with ENSR, a consulting company in Massachusetts) spent the summer of 1989 investigating tournament-related mortality and delayed mortality in bass following release. Three tournaments, one each in late spring, summer, and fall, were monitored on each of three lakes: Cobbosseecontee Lake (near Winthrop), Androscoggin Lake (Leeds and Wayne), and Norway (Pennesseewassee) Lake (near Norway). At the end of each tournament, when live fish are normally released, up to 50 smallmouth and largemouth bass were placed instead in live cages and held for 48 hours. Dead fish encountered during or after the tournaments were weighed and measured. Initial mortality - that associated with landing, holding, and weighing in the tournament was relatively low. It was zero in all three tournaments on Androscoggin Lake, and ranged from 2 to 7 percent for Cobbosseecontee Lake and 4 to 15 percent for Norway Lake. Delayed mortality ranged from 0 to 9 percent in the nine tournaments. The key factors in mortality seem to be the size of the tournament and the species of bass. Smallmouth and largemouth bass were four times more likely

to die in a large tournament (over 50 fish) than in a small tournament. Smallmouth bass were more likely to die than largemouth bass during the tournament, whereas largemouth were more likely to die during the 48 hours following a tournament. Overall, smallmouth bass were three times more likely to die than largemouth bass in any size tournament. In general, bass tournaments probably do not remove an excessive number of fishes from a lake. Most studies in the United States conclude that bass tournaments probably decrease a fish population annually by only 5-10 percent. But, there are exceptions.

Most bass are released alive after tournament weigh-in. Current study will determine the extent of delayed-mortality.

Two Cobbosseecontee Lake tournaments took over 400 bass each, though most were returned to the lake. Larger tournaments have more fishermen, more delay in getting fish weighed and released, and often more stressinducing steps in the weigh-in process. One other key factor in mortality may be the time that bass spend in boat livewells, which is often hours. Richard Hartley found that if livewell circulations systems are only activated manually or on a 15-minute timer, dissolved oxygen levels drop to marginal or even critically low levels after fish are introduced. Dissolved oxygen levels of the water remain at acceptable levels only when circulators are operated continuously. There are some ways that mortalities can be reduced further, including less handling, protection of smallmouth bass, use of conditioners in the water, and limits on participants. These recommendations have been passed on to fish management biologists and bass clubs. Like most projects conducted by the Unit, these recent studies attempt to blend science with management concerns. We are currently involved with several studies dealing with Atlantic salmon, and over the next few years we will also be initiating studies of brook trout and largemouth and smallrnouth bass. â&#x20AC;˘ Spring 1992

The

Native Americans called it Sunkhaze, and so we do today. It means "See canoe come out; no see' em stream," and it's an apt description of Maine's newest national wildlife refuge. Located in the Penobscot County town of Milford, the Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge officially became part of the national wildlife refuge system in 1988. It totals 9,337 acres and is centered on Sunkhaze Stream, which drains to the west and into the Penobscot River above Old Town. Though some might call it a "swamp," it is more biologically correct to refer to the area as a peat-dominated wetlands complex containing several raised bogs surrounded by thousands of acres of meadows. Six tributaries of Sunkhaze Stream, all Class A waters, crisscross the refuge and often flood the meadows with a foot or two of water. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had Sunkhaze Meadows in its sights for possible acquisition as far back as 1942, primarily to protect it as a productive and diverse wildlife habitat. But there are lots of other places in the state of Maine one could think of that have wildlife habitat deserving of protection by somebody, including many that appear to be much more threatened by development. Why Sunkhaze Meadows? It's not the kind of place that a lot of folks have fond memories of, because most folks don't even know it's there. And it's not particularly easy to get onto, even though bounded on three sides by roads.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

Sunkhaze Meadows

Âˇ . tiiiii1iil

Why, then, did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to go after this isolated, wet sponge of a place in Milford? There are some good answers to that question in the Final Environmental Assessment published by the USFWS in August, 1988. And anyone who's ever hunted or fished the area could probably tell you a lot about the virtues of the place. But I wanted to get the answer from the person the federal government has charged with the responsibility of managing this valuable public resource. So I asked Refuge Manager Mark Sweeny for his thoughts, and I'm glad I did. Mark gave an answer that everyone who is concerned about the protection of Maine's fish and wildlife resources ought to ponder.

He began by listing the resources at Sunkhaze. He talked about the feeding, nesting and breeding habitat for black ducks and other waterfowl. He mentioned the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and how the place fits into its objectives. He told me about the rare plants that grow at Sunkhaze, and about the threatened and endangered species which make use of its habitat. He described the cedar swamps and the deer yards, the beaver dams and the brook trout fishery. But I was looking for something else. "Don't a lot of these resources exist at other places in Maine, Mark? What makes this place so special?" "Well, sure," he said, "but this place had the benefit of some

Maine's Newest National Wildlife Refuge awareness by environmentally concerned people. In the early 1980s, there was a plan to mine the peat here for use as fuel. That eventually fell through, but it made people aware that the place might be developed someday." "So," I concluded, "it the threat of development and the awareness of people that brought in the USFWS, that a place rich in wildlife resources was in need of protection." Mark allowed that it wasn't quite that simple. "A lot of things had to come together for this place to be protected. First, you had to have the resource worth protecting. Then you had to have awareness and support for its protection by people both in and out of Maine. Then you had to have the funding to buy the place. And last, but not least, you had to have a willing seller." Mark's last sentence reminded me of what I'd read in the Environmental Assessment: " .. .in 1985, Diamond placed 4,500 acres of interior peat wetlands (at Sunkhaze Meadows) on the real estate market. The State, lacking funds for purchase, notified the Service of the possible

The author is a freelance writer and nature photographer from Saco.

by Bill Silliker, Jr. Photos by the author

sale. The parent corporation, General Occidental of France, in January 1988 announced intentions to sell 800,000 acres of its land holdings in Maine, including Sunkhaze Meadows. Under new ownership the property would have become subject to residential and commercial development which would significantly diminish its natural resource value. However, in April 1988 a purchase and sale agreement was signed between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Diamond Occidental. .. " Mark said it again. He said it better: "That's what protected this place. A lot of things came together. The resource, the awareness, the local support, the funding, and the willing seller."

everal weeks later, when Mark and I canoed down Sunkhaze Stream, I was glad that everything had come together for this special place. It wasn't just the quiet beauty provided by the mix of alders and red maples and other trees that line some of the stream banks. It wasn't the vastness of the later miles of open meadows. It wasn't the chubby beaver that glared at us for disturbing its peace before it flopped into Sunkhaze Stream. It wasn't the osprey who added to

A red-winged blackbird singing a corner of his territory - a common spring sight at Sunkhaze.

their nest as we, munching on sandwiches, watched from nearby. It wasn't the many black ducks and wood ducks and teal that we spotted. It wasn't the snipe that whistled past overhead, nor the dozens, no, hundreds of tree swallows and yellow-legs and red-winged blackbirds and bobolinks and other Spring 1992

birds that we enjoyed watching as we explored only a small part of the refuge. It was the total place - the ecosystem ail working together that hit me. And I was glad that TNC and the USFWS had been there to protect this special place. For those who don't know, TNC often helps in the protection of such places by buying and holding the property until the government, in this case the federal government, has the funds to pay them back, so that TNC's private dollars can be used to protect other special places. The federal funding to pay for Sunkhaze Meadows came from the Land and Water Conservation Fund - royalties from oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf - not from taxes. It's worth noting that the price paid for all of Sunkhaze Meadows NWR was less than what it cost the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Maine Fish and Wildlife

to protect only a few hundred acres at another special place, the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in southern Maine, two years later! Land costs are obviously lower in the less developed areas of Maine, where many, but not all, of the special places that support our fish and wildlife resources are located.

W hile

the primary objectives of any national wildlife refuge are to preserve and manage resource habitats for the betterment of plant, fish and wildlife species that benefit us all, most, including Sunkhaze Meadows are open to the public for a variety of other traditional and compatible pursuits. For example, hunting is permitted at Sunkhaze Meadows NWR under the applicable Maine and federal laws. The refuge is also available for bird watching, photography, canoeing and wildlife-oriented

research, and it's a great place for cross-country skiing, I'm told. Plans are also being formulated to provide fish and wildlife educational activities at the refuge for school groups and individuals. The staff is currently considering a proposal for trapping on the refuge. Copies of the required Environmental Impact Statement discussing the proposal should be available for public comment by early summer. The fisheries resources of the refuge are also currently being evaluated. Anyone who wants to visit the refuge will find that it is approximately bordered by the Stud Mill Road, a Bangor HydroElectric power line, and the County Road. Several old woods roads enter the property, but anyone walking in is well advised to wear waterproof footwear! The best access is by canoe or small boat, down Sunkhaze

Sunkhaze Stream, looking east across the refuge from the Bangor Hydro-Electric power line (see starred arrow on map on page 12). Note confluence with Baker Brook in distance, just before tree line.

Stream off the Stud Mill Road, or down Baker Brook off the County Road. One can also take a canoe up Su~khaze Stream from Route 2, but that can be a more challenging proposition depending on the water level. The office of the Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is at 1033 South Main Street in Old Town (207•827•6138). Anyone planning a trip to the refuge that might be subject to changing regulations - hunting, for example - should check with the refuge office first. Refuge Manager Mark Sweeny welcomes public comment on decisions affecting the Sunkhaze Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. One of his comments again says it best: "People should look at the long term, not just compare what it was like here yesterday to what it is today. We need to look to the future to know how to plan today to protect the resources that we all enjoy." •

The beaver, ..as hard at work here as anywhere else, is a resident engineer at Sunkhaze, and is of course responsible for some of the prime habitat.

A trip to Sunkhaze Meadows NWR will likely afford the patient watcher with magnificent wildlife views like this great blue heron just skimming the treetops. Spring 1992

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

Until teeth were invented, animals were limited to a menu of things that could just fit into their mouths. Teeth made it possible for small things to dine on larger things. Mammals have developed an amazing array of teeth. Each creature has evolved a mouthful of tools best suited to its special life style. Have you ever heard the expression, "you are what you eat"? There's no place where it's truer than inside your mouth. The question of how an animal makes its living is an 'open and shut case'. Have a look at it's mouth, or more precisely, at the teeth inside. An animal that eats meat will have a lot of pointy teeth for ripping and tearing. This kind of animal is called a carnivore. An animal that eats only plants will have mostly flat teeth for grinding. This sort of animal is called an herbivore. An animal that eats both kinds of food, meat and plants, has an assorted set of teeth. This kind of animal is called an omnivore.

t'~b,~~ ~lm'Qfo(.'VOr9' ar~.¥9Yi~~\,

You can get a fairly good look at your teeth with mirrors. Compare what you see in your . . . with some of the skulls shown · on these pages. In your mouth, in front, you have big, flat, wedge-shaped teeth calle .ftJfi~'§t.JS hey work much like scissors. The upper and lower teeth fit closely together like two blades. Open them up an · ose them around a bit of food. They nip out neat bites. or dog teeth. If you have ever hewed meat off a bone, you know

Raccoons are omnivores and will eat almost anything edible. Typical 'coon foods include animal food, fruits, seeds, crayfish, worms, insects, carrion, tender buds and grass, and garbage.

Moose are herbivores, feeding on all kinds of vegetation, depending upon the season. Their '--"~-~-summer diet includes tender leaves, twigs and bark of hardwood trees, and semi-aquatic and aquatic plants. Moose also like to graze on grasses, lichens, mosses and mushrooms. Winter diet is limited to evergreens, especially balsam fir, and woody twigs.

River otters are primarily aquatic mammals, and feed on fish, frogs, crayfish, and turtles, as well as small birds, mammals, earthworms and insects. This puts them in the carnivore catagory! ~

/'_

The Virginia opossum is moving north! Originally found in the southern and mid - Atlantic states, the 'possum' now lives in the southern parts of Maine, eating just about anything edible! This adaptable omnivore eats insects, worms, fruits, nuts, garbage - or most vegetable or animal food. Maine's eight resident species of bats are Insectivores, a kind of carnivore, eating insects such as moths, beetles, midges, flies and mosquitoes.

Porcupines eat large amounts of grasses, leaves, twigs, buds, nuts, and bark. Hemlock is a major winter food here in Maine, and herbivorous 'porky' may cause damage to commercially grown trees.

3.'

4.1

answers on page 32

After Three Years

How're We Doin'? M

by Charles S. Allen IV

aine's Operation Game Thief (OCT), modeled after a very successful New Mexico program some two decades old , has again proved its worthiness in 1991. The apprehension of poachers, incidental as well as hard-core, is the primary goal of Maine's program, which will turn three years old in May. Using reward incentives and a statewide toll-free number, and fostering a better public understanding of the negative effects of poaching on our fish and wildlife resources, OGT hopes to expose and catch these thieves. Responsible sportsmen and women abide by laws designed to protect and conserve fish and wildlife. The poacher is a thief-bent on destroying our resources for purely selfish reasons. The key to the success of OGT is citizen involvement. Maine game wardens desperately need the "eyes" and "ears" of concerned citizens. With only 83 wardens now patrolling in Maine, it is more important than ever that responsible citizens be aware of and report any signs of poaching. Thanks to tollfree phone service, violations can easily be reported by calling 1-800-ALERT-US. Apprehending poachers is not only difficult-it is dangerous. The better the information gathered and communicated to us, the quicker and more safely an apprehension can be made. Let's look at how well Maine citizens did during 1991 in reporting poachers through Operation Game Thief (Table 1). TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF OGT ACTIVITIES FOR 1991 Complaints of Poaching Total Number of Arrests Made Number of $1,000 Violationsâ&#x20AC;˘

635 112

Wishing To Remain Anonymous

38 434

Requesting a Reward

197

Amount Approved for Awards

$7,150

â&#x20AC;˘ Maine statutes call for a mandatory penalty of a $1,000 fine and a minimum of three days in jail for major violations such as nighthunting, possession of deer, moose and bear in closed season, etc.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

It should be noted that 42 percent of all those qualifying for a reward donated the money back to the program- their satisfaction obviously came from just knowing that the poachers were caught! The types and numbers of poaching complaints received by OGT gives us an insight into the extent of poaching and its negative impact on the resources. Table 2 presents the most common types of poaching complaints reported during 1991. TABLE 2. MOST COMMON OGT COMPLAINTS FOR 1991 Night Hunting Illegally Hunt Deer Unlawful Illumination of Wildlife Exceeding Bag Limit on Deer Illegal Possession of Deer Deer Tagging Violations Illegal Fishing Illegal Hunting Moose Illegal Possession of Moose Killing Doe Deer W/0 Permit

175 108 42 35 28 23 21 17 14 12

Some disturbing facts emerged when this year's calls were compared to last year's. Increases in these several categories of poaching were observed: illegally hunting deer, a 48 percent increase; unlawful illumination of wildlife, a 28 percent increase; nighthunting, a 17 percent increase; and illegal moose hunting, a 13 percent increase. When a month-by-month examination of OGT complaints was conducted, a most disturbing situation became evident-poaching is a year-round problem, and it is increasing! If our children are to enjoy Maine's fish and wildlife, the poaching of our resources cannot continue at this rate. Table 3 illustrates this problem. The author, a district warden in Division C in Bangor, is also statewide coordinator for Operation Game Thief.

-·----

.. TABLE 3. MAJOR WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS AND THE NUMBER OF MONTHS VIOLATIONS OCCURRED Violation Illegally Hunt Deer

# of Months Violation Occurred

Illegally Hunt Moose

6·

Illegal Possession of Moose

6 6

Illegal Possession of Deer Night Hunting

Because of concerned citizens, Maine game wardens were able to make numerous arrests for violations of fish and wildlife laws. Table 4 summarizes the arrests made for $1000 violations during 1991. TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF OGT ARRESTS FOR $1000 VIOLATIONS MADE DURING 1991 Illegal Possession of Deer Illegal Possession of Moose

Killing Moose in Closed Season Hunting Moose in Closed Season

Killing Deer in Closed Season

Night Hunting Exceed Bag Limit/Deer

10 2

Hunting Deer After Killing One Total $1000 violations

In addition to these 38 arrests for major violations, wardens made 74 arrests for other violations-the total: 112 OCT-originated arrests for violations of fish and wildlife laws. Among these arrests were 27 for possession/killing of antlerless deer, 16 deer registration violations, some for unlawful illumination of wildlife and/ or fishing in closed season, and many others. The important thing to remember is that these poachers would never have been apprehended were it not for concerned citizens reporting illegal activities. Just imagine the effect if most known or observed violations were reported! Since its inception in 1989, Operation Game Thief has resulted in a total of 405 arrests, 171 of which were for $1000 violations! A total of 2,058 calls have been received since 1989, and for information leading to arrests, $21,920 in rewards have been paid. It should be clear that game wardens cannot do the job alone-we need your help! These OGT arrests were possible only because concerned citizens were willing to become involved. It seems that we should consider a two-pronged approach to deal with the issue of poaching . First, we must put pressure on our friends and acquaintances "to help them understand that poaching is unacceptable behavior and cannot be tolerated. Second, we must lend our wardens, prosecutors, and judges a helping hand. After all, aren't we all stockholders of our fish and wildlife?

aine' s fish and wildlife belongs to everyone. The poacher, bent on stealing these precious resources, is nothing but a thief and needs to be caught. Won't you help make a difference? If you know of poaching or other illegal fish and wildlife activities, please call 1-800-ALERT-US. You may remain completely anonymous if you wish, and collect a cash reward of up to $1000. As a final note, no Fish and Wildlife Department monies are expended in this program, except for the cost of the toll-free line. Financial support comes from sportsmen's groups, civic organizations, and concerned citizens. This support for Operation Game Thief is an investment in our fish and wildlife resources. • Editors note: The author is willing to travel anywhere in the state to speak to any group, at no cost, to more fully promote Operation Game Thief. He may be contacted at Division C headquarters in Bangor at 1-800-322-2033. Spring 1992

L.U.R.C.'s Lake Management Program

I'D RATHER BE FISHING! As I inched along in a line of traffic, my trance was broken by the bumper sticker on the truck ahead of me. I'd been thinking about the article I was soon to write about Maine's Lakes Management Program, and I knew the readers would include many fishermen. As I stared at the face reflected in the truck's sideview mirror I thought: "This is the type of person I am writing for." I studied the lines on the driver's face, as though they d give me a clue on how to begin the article in a way that would attract his attention. Do I start out by telling him that the program is good for him because it will preserve wilderness experiences and enhance fishing quality? Do I start out by connecting the subject to a timely issue such as the budget? Or do I just start by saying that the purposes of the program are to protect important lakes and to direct development toward those lakes best suited to accommodate new development? Writing an article on the Lakes Management Program, a dry but important topic, is no easy task. It's not about a new way to tie The author is a research and policy associate for the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

Protecting Lakes, Directing Development by Andrea M. Lapointe flies, an explanation of legalese on ATV regulations, or a new recipe for roasting wild turkey. Rather, it's about a broad planning program of a state agency with intangible and indirect benefits to Maine residents and visitors alike. The Lakes Management Program was adopted in June of 1990 by the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, the state agency that provides land use services for the 10.5 million acres of Maine's unorganized areas, plantations and some coastal islands. It was developed by a Lakes Policy Committee, which included representatives from major landowners, the University of Maine, the commission, and statewide environmental and sportsman's organizations, such as the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine and the Maine Council of Trout Unlimited. The five components of the Lakes Management Program are: a statement of goals and objectives, a set of criteria for reviewing shoreland applications, a computer file of lake information, a classification system for sorting lakes, and strategies for implementing the program. Highlights of the five components follow:

â&#x20AC;˘ Goals and Objectives The program's statement on lake use policies and program objectives serves as a barometer to gauge program effectiveness. Achieving the objectives of the lakes management program may maintain or improve water quality essential to fish and wildlife resources. Early evidence of the program's success became apparent during the public meetings held around the state prior to its adoption. Most guides, anglers and other recreationists at the public meetings agreed that most of the lakes worthy of special protection had been identified. The program was soon recognized by other state agencies as an effective means to guide development around lakes, another early indication of the program's success. In particular, the State Planning Office mirrored many of its aspects for the organized areas of the state.

â&#x20AC;˘ Shoreland Permit Decision Criteria As part of the lake program, decision criteria used by the commission in reviewing shoreland permit applications were identified. These criteria

Looking eastward over Moosehead Lake from Big Squaw Mtn.

are used to determine whether a landowner's proposed activity meets statutory criteria set by the legislature. They are designed to protect natural resource values and the public health, safety and welfare. Identifying the decision criteria not only guides development, but provides greater predictability to the landowner. Consideration of these decision criteria is designed to ensure that natural and cultural values will be protected, water quality will not be impaired,

traditional uses will not be unduly affected, regional diversity will be preserved, natural character will be maintained, actions will be consistent with lake management goals, and landowners will be treated equitably. Thinking back to the gentleman in the truck, good decisions about shoreland development should result in the protection of his favorite fishing holes and hunting places. If the process doesn't interest him, at least the end result should.

â&#x20AC;˘ Computer File of Lake Information The computerized lake information system is a collection of natural resource and land use information on all lakes with a surface area of 10 acres or larger located within the commission's area of jurisdiction. Approximately 1,500 lakes are listed in the computer system, including some smaller lakes with significant natural resource values. This file contains information on known fishing pressure on lakes, opportunities for wildlife viewing, trapping importance, the presence of unusual species and many other lake-related characteristics. "The file of information on lakes is not solely the product of office staff in Augusta," says Fred Todd, division l11anager for the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission. In fact, much of the resource information came from landowners, guides, and many others who depend on lakes either for their livelihood or for their recreation. Many of them disclosed intimate knowledge of the lake resources not formerly available to commission staff. Within the file, each lake has seven resource categories rated as significant, outstanding, present or missing. Those categories are fish, scenic quality, botanical features, physical resources, wildlife, shoreline character, and cultural resources. Outstanding and significant ratings for the fish category were determined by evaluating specific factors on fish species diversity, rarity, reproduction, water quality, physical factors, economic importance, fishing quality and fishing pressure. Factors used to evaluate the wildlife resource category included abunSpring 1992

dance, diversity, presence of listed critical species, wetlands, habitat diversity, uplands, hunting, trapping and wildlife viewing.

Lake Classification System Under the lake classification system each lake was placed in one of four resource classes, depending upon the number of significant or outstanding ratings for resource categories. Resource classes are defined as follows: Resource Class 1A. Lakes of statewide significance with two or more outstanding ratings Resource Class 1B. Lakes of statewide significance with a single outstanding rating Resource Class 2. Lakes of regional significance with no outstanding ratings but at least one significant rating, or Resource Class 3. Lakes of local or unknown significance, which either had no significant or outstanding ratings, or for which information was inadequate to make a determination. Given the resource class, lakes were placed into seven management classes that range from inaccessible lakes to highly developed lakes. The management class of a lake depends upon both its resource class and its accessibility and current level of development. Classifying the lakes under this system has lead to the designation of 60 lakes as "high value, relatively undeveloped." The other lakes vary in the extent of allowed development depending upon their sensitivity and suitability. The seven lake management classes are defined as follows: Management Class 1: Lakes which are inaccessible to within 1 / 4 mile by two-wheel-drive vehicles, undeveloped, and possess at least one outstanding resource

Maine Fish and Wildlife

rating. The commission will maintain these pristine lakes in their natural state. Timber harvesting, primitive recreation, and similar uses are permitted around these lakes. The provisions for Management Class 1 lakes are essentially the same as for Remote Ponds (Management Class 6 lakes) save that the width of the zone is 1/ 4 mile, not 1 /2 mile. Management Class 2: Lakes which are accessible to within 1 I 4 mile by two-wheel-drive vehicles, with less than one development unit per mile (relatively undeveloped), taken as an average over the entire lake and have especially high resource values. A development unit is defined as a single residence, small sporting camp cluster, or similar development. The commission protects the special values of these lakes by limiting the density of development to one development unit per mile of shorefront, while timber harvesting, primitive recreation, and similar uses are permitted. Management Class 2 lakes have at least two outstanding resources ratings in the Wildland Lake Assessment database for either fishery, wildlife, scenic quality, or shore character. In the case of wildlife, the lakes possess either a high concentration of wildlife or an exceptional diversity of wildlife species. Management Class 3: Lakes which are potentially suitable for development. The commission recognizes the demand for lakeshore development, and has created this classification in order to direct development toward those lakes best suited to accommodate additional development. The commission supports responsible shoreland de-

velopment where it can be shown, among other things, that soils are suitable, water quality will not be impaired, and taking care to ensure that significant natural resource values will be conserved. Management Class 4: Lakes with high resource values and with more than one development unit per shore mile. The commission allows shorela.n d development on these lakes, but seeks to conserve their high natural values and retain some undeveloped shoreland by requiring new subdivisions to be clustered. The objective of this class is to provide for an acceptable level of residential and recreational development while conserving natural resource values and maintaining some undeveloped shoreland areas. These lakes contain two or more "outstanding" resource values as identified in the Wildland Lake Assessment, accessible to within 1 I 4 mile by two-wheel-drive vehicles, and with more than one development unit per mile. Management Class 5: Lakes with shoreland that are already heavily developed with more than one dwelling per 400 feet of shoreline or one dwelling per 10 acres of surface water. The commission seeks to ensure that natural qualities and scenic values associated with these heavily developed lakes are maintained, and some portion of undeveloped shoreline retained by requiring subdivisions to be clustered. Management Class 6: Remote ponds - lakes that are undeveloped, inaccessible to within 1 /2 mile by two-wheel-drive vehicles, and support a coldwater game fishery. The lakes will be maintained in an undeveloped

Lake concept plans, once approved by the commission, provide a blueprint for development and conservation activity for an area over the life of the plan. The commission encourages landowners to prepare plans by relaxing certain standards and expediting the permitting of approved components of the plan.

state without permanent vehicular access, but timber harvesting, primitive recreation, and similar uses are permitted. The objective of this management class is to protect the primitive recreational experience associated with lake fisheries in remote settings. Management Class 7: Lakes not otherwise included in one of the six other classifications. Lakes in Management Class 7 are managed for multiple use, including resource conservation, recreation, and timber production. The following chart shows the number of lakes within each management class and the relative extent of each classification in terms of acreage and shore frontage, expressed as a percentage of all lakes in the commission's jurisdiction. The foremost strategy presented by the Lakes Management Program is the development of lake concept plans. Lake concept plans are long-range plans (for a minimum of 10 years), prepared voluntarily by landowners with assistance from the commission, which outline the development and conservation plans for large areas of shorefront on a lake or group of lakes.

Management Class 1. High Value, Least Accessible, Undeveloped 2. Especially High Value, Accessible, Undeveloped 3. Potentially Suitable For Development 4. High Value, Developed 5. Heavily Developed 6. Remote Ponds 7. All Other TOTALS

Both the commission and the applicant benefit from the predictability created by an approved concept plan. An alternative to traditional shoreland zoning, a lake concept plan giyes landowners greater latitude in planning future development in exchange for conservation of resources important to the public. â&#x20AC;˘

iE E

Aziscohos Lake, Oxford County.

#of lakes

% Of Total

lakes

For More Information

% Of Total

% Of Total acreage shorefrontage

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

1.1%

13.3%

9.3%

36 22 45 177 2,657

1.2% 0.7% 1.5% 5.7% 88.8%

14.9% 5.3% 3.7% 0.8% 60.5%

10.2% 4.6% 2.9% 3.0% 68.0%

3,000

100%

A full description of the Lakes Management Program is contained in the document, Amendment of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Regarding the Development and Conservation of Lakes in Maine's Unorganized Areas, dated June 7, 1990. This publication contains a complete list of lakes within management classes 1 through 6. All other lakes not otherwise designated fall into management class 7. Appendix C of Chapter 10 of the Commission's standards contains an alphabetical list of lakes showing the ratings for each resource category and also indicates the resource class for each lake. Both of the above publications are available from the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, State House Station 22, Augusta, ME 04333.

Spring 1992

At The Fish and Wildlife Visitors Center ...

We've Made Some Changes! A lot can happen in one day. .. far left is what they started with, left is the job in progress, and part of the finished job is shown below. Total elapsed time: four hours!!

major addition to the

department's Game Farm and Visitors Center in Gray is ready for use when the facility opens for the season in April. A "demonstration wildlife garden" was planted last fall as a "backyard" for the Visitors Center building, which itself was new last summer (see MF&W Fall 1991). It features plantings and other things homeowners can do to attract wildlife to their property. The garden was designed and installed by the Maine Landscape and Nursery Association as the professional groups' annual volunteer project, in cooperation with landscape architecture students at Southern Maine Vocational Technical Institute. On one sunny September afternoon some 80 arborists, landscapers and student volunteers transformed a 5,000 square foot area of scrub oak and blackberry bushes into a garden that shows how native perennial flowers, 24

Maine Fish and Wildlife

shrubs, and trees can be used to beautify an area as well as provide food, cover and nesting sites for many of Maine's songbirds, upland game birds, furbearers, and hoofed mammals. Each tree, shrub or flower will be identified with individual signs, including information about the kinds of wildlife that use the plant, and the type of climate and soil conditions the plant requires to thrive. We also The author is the department's natural science educator and statewide coordinator for Project WILD.

plan to add a variety of nest boxes for songbirds, raptors, and small mammals, even bats! Most Mainers are well acquainted with feeding birds using plastic bird feeders and sunflower seeds, but planting native shrubs and trees that offer shelter, food, and a place to raise young tends to attract and keep a variety of native wildlife in the vicinity year round! This kind of "gardening for wildlife" is convenient, because it is much less labor-intensive than maintaining the carefully groomed lawns and straight bor-

by Lisa J. Kane Photos by

Philip A. Bozenhard ders so popular in today's residential communities. Homeowners with large lots can diversify their habitat by limiting the traditional, closelycropped carpet of grass to the immediate vicinity of their home while planting the remainder of the yard with attractive clumps of conifers for cover, woody berrying shrubs for food, and thick hedges for nesting sites. Allowing native grasses and wildflowers to grow up between tree and shrub plantings provides a variety of seed and shelter. These mini-meadow areas can be maintained by mowing once every ./ ~ - . ; ; . ~)-,"' /f1 p::i~),,l\ ,~ .f""c) Year or two. We hope visitors to the dem···' onstration wildlife garden will A. Flowering Crabapple learn that planting hardy, native B. White ~ine fruit and seed-bearing plants, C. Canadian_Hemlock and providing nest boxes for D. Balsam Far raising young, both enhances the E. Shadblow Serviceberry d db f" ildlif F. Red Chokeberry I 1an scape, an ene its w e. G. Highbush Blueberry

FISH AND WILDLIFE VISITORS CENTER 1992 SCHEDULE SEASON: HOURS:

FEES:

April 1-November 11 Open at 9:30 a.m. dally, May - July; open at 10 a.m. dally August-November. Gate closes at 4 p.m. daily; all visitors are expected to leave the facility by 5:30. 4 & under •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• free ages 5·12 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• $1.50 ages 13 & up •••.••••••.••••••••••••••...•••.•••••• $2.50 Senior citizens (over 60) .................... $2.00 Groups (15 or more, per person) ....... $1.00 Season Passes Individual ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• $10.00 l='amily •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• $25.00

courtesy Maine Landscape & Nursery Association

H. I. J. K. L. M.

Rugosa Rose Dwarf European Cranberry European Cranberry American Cranberry Winterberry Arnold's Red Honeysuckle N. Autumn Olive O. Red-osier Dogwood P. Savin Juniper Q. Bar Harbor Juniper R. European White Birch s.. Russet Buffaloberry T. Sea Green Juniper U. P.J.M. Rhododendron V. Butterfly Weed W. Daylily X. Purple Coneflower Y. Sweet Woodruff z. Canada Lily AA. Orange Coneflower, Black-Eyed Susan BB. Tickseed CC. New England Aster DD. Cranesbill EE. Siberian Iris FF. Wild Sweet William

Spring 1992

Nonconsumptive

OPINIONS ON WILDLIFE POPULATIONS

(continued from page 7)

Sixty-six percent of the survey respondents said the opportunity to observe wildlife in Maine is very important to them; 80 percent said the presence of wildlife in Maine is very important to them even if they cannot observe it (Figure 2a and 2b). Only 2 percent said the presence of wildlife in Maine is not important. When asked whether any wildlife populations should be increased in Maine, 35 percent of respondents indicated certain populations should be increased (Table 7). Interestingly, three of the top five species here were also listed among the top five species sought on trips to observe wildlife: deer, moose, and eagles.

The survey results revealed that the species observed most often are common ones like robins, deer, and squirrels, which people are likely to see around home or in their day-to-day activities (Table 6). Species observed least often tend to have smaller populations, occur in limited geographic regions and/ or are secretive in their behavior bobcats are a prime example. Species that people took trips to see, like bald eagles and moose, were observed by 47 and 70 percent of respondents, respectively. Other common species, which fit in this middle category of observation are: chickadees, blue herons, evening grosbeaks, coyotes, ground hogs, red foxes, and beaver. It appears that both casual and directed observation of wildlife focus on a small number of common species that are relatively abundant across the state. Table 6. Wildlife Observed During 1989 Percent of Respondents Did Did Not Don't Know Observe Observe

Species Wildlife Observed Most Often: Blue Jays Robins Gray Squirrels Chipmunks .., Deer Skunks Rabbits Green Frogs (Bull Frogs) Common Loons Raccoons Red Squirrels Ruffed Grouse (Partridge) Mourning Doves Wildlife Observed Least Often Semi-palmated Sandpipers Belted Kingfishers Shorttail Shrews Red-backed Voles Barred Owls Alewives Black Bears Bluefish Atlantic Salmon Brown Water Snakes

Bobcats

97 97

3 3 4 5

17 18 18 15

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 5

28 24 12 3 18 22 29 26 24 14 8

39 47 50 50 61 68 71 72 75 80 90

33 29 38 47 21 10 0 2 1 6 2

96 95

94 93 87 84 83 83 81 81

6 7 13 15 15

Table 7. Wildlife Respondents Think Should be Increased or Decreased in Maine Any wildlife populations which should be increased in Maine? Deer ~~

Moo~ Eagles Fish Any wildlife populations which should be decreased in Maine? Coyotes Mosquitoes Moo~ Black Flies Deer

35% 39% 1~

1~ 12% 11% 26% 48% 13% 1~ 8% 6%

The most common reason given for increasing the deer herd was so there would be more to hunt not surprising since fully 30 percent of the respondents said they hunted in Maine during the past year, and we also know that over 90 percent of licensed resident hunters hunt deer. The next four reasons for increasing the deer herd relate to nonconsumptive use: to increase numbers, to offset hunting, for their beauty and dignity, and to observe.

_g a.

The blue jay-topping the list of wildlife watched most often in Maine.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

"'"'0

()

iii

2a. How Important Is It To You To Observe Wildlife in Maine?

2b. How Important Is Maine's Wildlife To You Even If You Cannot Observe It?

The primary reasons to increase caribou simply were to "increase their numbers," "to observe," and "it represents a good project." We suspect that respondents listing caribou were influenced by widespread media coverage of the Maine Caribou Reintroduction Project, which was ongoing at the time of the survey. In addition, the survey was conducted before the caribou project experienced significant setbacks and faltering public support. Twenty-six percent of respondents indicated that the populations of certain species should be decreased. The top five species listed here are coyotes, mosquitoes, moose, black flies, and deer. The main reason coyotes were cited for reduction is their predation on other animals. Mosquitoes and black flies were also marked for reductions because they are a nuisance and cause human discomfort. Although insect management is not part of the mandate of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, except for insects which are classified as endangered, it appears that some members of the public do consider insects to be wildlife. Interestingly, deer and moose are marked for both an increase and a decrease, indicating that public opinion is mixed for these species. Moose were cited for Âˇreduction because they are a road hazard, and some people feel the current moose herd is too large. Deer were cited for the same reasons, in addition to being garden pests.

KNOWLEDGE OF MAINE'S NONGAME AND ENDANGERED SPECIES A significant portion of the funding for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife comes from the sale of licenses for consumptive uses of wildlife, and from federal matching funds derived from taxes on the sale of hunting and fishing gear. These funds are primarily spent on the management of game species, which concurrently provides nonconsumptive use opportunities for species such as deer, bear and moose. Funding for nongame and endangered species is more limited. Given that fact, it was important to determine the public's knowledge of non game and endangered species, and their knowledge of the management of these species in Maine. A modest but important funding source is the Maine Endangered and Nongame Wildlife Checkoff (Chickadee CheckofO on the Maine individual income tax return. Until 1990, the checkoff was the only means by which individuals who pay taxes in Maine could direct a monetary contribution to management of the state's nongame and endangered species. Only 48 percent of the survey respondents knew about the Chickadee Checkoff, and only four per- . cent felt they knew of any wildlife species on which this money is spent. These results are interesting from two perspectives. First, almost half of the respondents do not know about the Chickadee Checkoff despite the fact that they are heads of households who have resided in Maine for an average of 34 years and are likely to have completed a Maine income tax return in recent years. Second, despite public interest in bald eagles, the public does not know that Chickadee Checkoff monies are spent on eagles, or on other lesser-known species. Respondents' opinions on funding allocations for endangered species management in Maine indicated that, given the opportunity, the majority (68 percent) would set priorities but would spend some money to protect all species (Table 8). Eighteen percent of respondents said they would spend an equal amount of money to protect all species. Eleven percent said they would set priorities and allocate their money to selected endangered species. Only 3 percent would not spend any money to protect endangered species. In general, then, nearly all respondents feel it is important to spend money on endangered species, and over 80 percent would spend some money on all endangered species. Spring 1992

Table 8. Allocation of Funds for Maine's Endangered Species Funding Option Percent I would set priorities and spend some money to protect all species, 68 but the amount spent would vary for different species I would spend an equal amount to protect all species 18 I would set priorities and spend money to protect only some 11 endangered species I would not spend any money to protect endangered species 3

Despite this widespread support for endangered species management, respondents' knowledge of endangered species is quite limited. Forty-five percent said they knew of endangered species in Maine, and the species they identified most frequently as being endangered were eagles, caribou, puffins, loons, osprey, coyotes, peregrine falcons, moose, hawks, whales, terns, and wolves. Of these, the only ones officially listed as endangered in Maine are eagles (bald and golden), peregrine falcons, terns (least and roseate), and whales (humpback, finback, right sperm and Sei). Although some of the other species listed by respondents may be endangered elsewhere, they are not endangered in Maine. Two of them, caribou and wolves, are extinct in Maine, and although puffins and certain hawks are identified for population monitoring, they currently don't warrant special attention. Loons, osprey, coyotes, and moose do not have any special designation concerning their populations in Maine. Although respondents' knowledge of specific endangered species is sketchy, they do appear to support endangered species management. Rather than a lack of interest, their lack of knowledge may be symptomatic of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife not fully communicating their ongoing management efforts to the general public.

IMPLICATIONS FOR WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN MAINE The survey results reported here indicate that wildlife is very important to nearly all Maine citizens, and most citizens participate in nonconsumptive wildlife activities. This participation contributes substantially to Maine's economy. We would suggest, however, that our results may only represent the tip of the iceberg on these activities. Future research, using these initial results, can develop the full extent of nonconsumptive uses of Maine's wildlife resources. Several policy implications also arise regarding the management of Maine's wildlife. First, management of game species, specifically big game, should include considerations for nonconsumptive uses of

Maine Fish and Wildlife

these species. This is already being done to a limited extent for species such as deer and moose. A second implication suggests that public knowledge of Maine's wildlife and it's management is limited at best. Given the widespread interest in Maine's wildlife, significant efforts may be warranted to educate the public about wildlife and wildlife management in Maine. The final implication relates to the funding of management efforts. Our study suggests that nearly all Maine residents enjoy the state's wildlife. In contrast, most of the funding for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is derived from the sale of fishing, hunting and trapping licenses. This suggests that consumptive users may, perhaps, be footing an unfair share of the funding burden, and that nonconsumptive users, despite their interest, do not have an opportunity to become stake holders in the management of Maine's wildlife. This inequity in funding can only be corrected by providing general funding for wildlife management. This recommendation is warranted, despite the current budgetary problems, because wildlife enhances the quality of life for nearly all Mainers, and user expenditures, both consumptive and nonconsumptive, contribute substantially to Maine's economy. These justifications are true regardless of whether we're talking about the young or old, the rich or poor, or any other segment of Maine's population. •

PROBLEMS WITH YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? JUST CALL, TOLL-FREE

~ o@@@o~@®o®~®1

DAISEY MAE the Fly Tying Bench

by Butch Carey

THE PATTERN

HOOK: Size 6, #94720, ax THREAD: Fluorescent red flat, waxed BODY: Red saddle hackle feathers; silver mylar piping WING: Two yellow saddle hackles, over which are tied two brown saddle hackles (extending to end of tail) CHEEK: Two ring-necked pheasant breast feathers

Cast on back of hook with flat waxed thread (fluorescent red) even with the barb.

Cut sliver mylar piping to fit from rear of eye to a point over the barb (see tips on page 30) slide tubing over hook shank.

Attach a few barbules (tail) of red saddle hackle. Extend beyond the bend a distance equal to the gap of the hook.

Tie down frayed ends of tubing, front and rear. Cement. In front, tie back a bit from eye so head doesn't obscure red thread. Cement entire body with two coats.

Spring 1992

Select a matched pair (left and right) of yellow and a matched pair of brown saddle hackles (arranged brown over yellow, curved sides In). Match up tips of feathers, then tie on with black monocord at front of tubing so that hackles extend to tip of tail

For the cheeks, select a matched pair (left and right) of brown ringneck breast feathers, curved side in (note black tips). Tie In on either side of hook Just ahead of tubing. Tie on head with black monocord. Apply two coats of cement and your Daisey Mae is complete!

BRAIDED MYLAR TUBING -~

Trim excess. For the throat, attach a small bunch of white bucktail under the shank, the same length as wing. Then add a small bunch of yellow calftail 3/4 the length of the white. Cement.

This material makes a solid fly body; it -'-6. looks and flashes like fish scales, comes in three sizes in silver, gold, pearl, red, yellow, orange, and green. The tubing has a cotton thread center which must be pulled out before cutting to fit the hook. I usually dab a little cement on each end when I cut them to keep the ends from fraying.

TO INSTALL MYLAR TUBING ... -.::J. Cut to fit size of hook. Cement both ends. -'-A Tie in thread at rear of hook. Stop at bend and cement. Slide tubing over eye of hook, push to back where thread is and tie tubing down covering loose ends and cement. (NOTE: If there is a tail on the fly, tie that in first before the tubing, then bring tubing over butt of tail, tie down loose ends.)

_.-J. Move thread up front after half-hitching. Âˇ-'-A Tie front of piping down leaving space for wing up front. After cementing the tubing on

7 30

Tie on four strands of peacock her/ the same length as wing. Trim and cement.

Maine Fish and Wildlife

both ends, put two coats of cement over the entire body. (NOTE: For a red tip near the tail and the throat, I use fluorescent red thread to tie the tubing down instead of black.}

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRIEFS New Fishing Regulations Anglers looking forward to the open water season should also be looking for a copy of the new fishing law booklet. The two-year booklets, which are now available, contain a number of new regulations that will affect everyone, regardless of where they fish or what they catch. Many of them concern only individual bodies of water, but several affect groups of counties or have statewide impact. Among the latter are: • In rivers, streams and brooks statewide, the daily limit on brook trout is now five fish. • In lakes and ponds in York, Cumberland, Androscoggin, Oxford, Kennebec, Sagadahoc, Knox, Lincoln,

and Waldo counties, the daily limit on brook trout is now two fish. • The minimum length limit on brook trout has been increased on a number of ponds and lakes to either 10 or 12 inches. • There are new general law size and bag limits on black bass (smallmouth and largemouth). Before June 21, the daily limit is one bass, and general law and special county length limits apply; from June 21 through the remainder of the season, the daily limit is three bass, only one of which may exceed 14 inches in length. • In Washington, Hancock, Piscataquis, and Aroostook counties the minimum length limit on bass has been lowered to 10 inches.

• A wording change in an existing rule makes it illegal to alter (cut) the length of any trout, salmon, togue, or bass unless it is being prepared for immediate cooking.

Fish and Wildlife School Programs In response to requests from Maine schools for fisheries and wildlife education programs, the department is scheduling a series of presentations this spring at the Fish and Wildlife Visitors Center at Gray. The hour-long programs, to be presented twice each day, will deal with endangered and threatened species (May 6 and 13), woods survival/search and rescue (May 20), ''Fun with Habitats" (May 27), "If You Care, Leave Them There" (June 3), the Maine Warden Service (June 10), and "Fishy Facts" (June 17). The programs will be presented by staff from the department and from the Maine Conservation School. The Fish and Wildlife Visitor's Center, also known as the "game farm," is located off Route 26 in Gray. Lisa Kane, the department's natural science educator and coordinator of the pilot program says: "If we get a positive response to this initiative, we will offer additional programs, in the same way, next fall." She says classes will be signed up on a first-come, first-served basis and urges teachers to make reservations by calling 289-2871. She adds that the only cost to school groups will be the normal admission fee (see page 25).

Big Game Seasons Set Three new boat access sites developed by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife feature displays providing Information on boating laws and safety and current fisheries, wlldllfe and environmental Issues. Funded In part by the federal Sport Fish Restoration Act, boat ramps at East Pond, Cathance Lake and Damariscotta Lake (under construction) now have the 3-panel displays, each with additional Information about that lake. Simllar displays w/11 be considered at all new boat ramp sites the department develops. In addition, lake associations or other Interested organizations may purchase a sign specific to their lake for placement at an existing boat access site. For further Information contact Lisa Kane at 289-3303.

Maine's 1992 hunting season dates for deer, bear and moose are all set, and all are similar to last year's. The regular firearms season on deer will run November 2-28, preceded by the Maine-residents-only day, October 31. Special seasons: archery, October 1-30; muzzleloader, November 30-December 5. Details on any-deer permit allocations will be announced in the spring, and the application period will run from midJune to August 15. The general bear hunting seasons are August 31 to September 26 and October

Spring 1992

31 to November 28. Bear hunting with dogs will be legal from September 14 to October 30. Moose hunting will be legal October 5-10 for 900 Maine residents and 100 nonresidents who win a coveted Maine moose hunting permit. Moose permit applications are now available from license agents or from the Fish and Wildlife Department. The deadline for applying is April 30.

Tips On Releasing Fish Among the easiest and most effective things you can do to help make fishing better in the future are obeying the size and bag limit rules and properly releasing any fish you don't wish to keep. The odds that a released fish will live are greatly increased if you follow these tips: fl' Play and release the fish as quickly and carefully as possible. An exhausted fish may be too weak to recover. fl' Keep the fish in the water as much as possible. A fish out of water is suffocating and may become injured. fl' Be gentle. Don't touch the gills or squeeze the fish. Hold a small fish gently around the middle. Larger fish may be held by the tail and the bottom jaw area. If a net is used, be sure it is fine meshed to avoid injury to the gills and eyes. fl' Remove the hook with small pliers, or use your thumb and forefinger to shake it loose. If the hook cannot be removed easily, cut the leader; the hook will rust out rapidly. If the fish is bleeding profusely or injured in any way, it may not survive. fl' To revive the fish, hold it in a swimming position in the water and move it back and forth gently until it is able to swim away. fl' Lake trout (togue) often have expanded air bladders after being pulled up rapidly from deep water. If the belly

"':,:::;::::-·.:,. f=:··

What'•new ... what to do .•. how to atay legal in the Maine outdoors

Q. Is it legal to fish at night in Maine? A. Fishing at night is legal during the open water fishing season except in a few waters where prohibited by special regulations. The opposite is true for ice fishing, where it is generally illegal to fish between 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before sunrise; there are exceptions allowing fishing at night for cusk and smelts. As usual, the best advice is to check the current law booklet for full details.

appears expanded, gently press your thumb along the stomach near the paired belly fins and move your thumb forward a couple of times to remove air from the bladder, then revive the fish as described above.

Turkey Applications Set New Record It's not to be confused with the moose or any-deer permit drawings, where applicants number in the tens of thousands, but at least this year there was some real competition for a Maine wild turkey hunting permit. A record 886 would-be turkey hunters applied for the 500 permits the department will issue to participate in the May 4-30 turkey hunt. The old record of 605 occurred in 1986, the first year turkey hunting became legal in Maine. Several years since then there have been more permits available than applicants.

KID-BITS ANSWERS 1. The opossum Is an omnivore, with 50 assorted teeth! 2. The porcupine Is an herbivore; note the long Incisors and flat molars. 3. The river otter Is a carnivore with sharp, pointed teeth for tearing flesh. 4. The bat Is an Insectivore, with tiny, sharp teeth for capturing flying Insects. 5. The moose Is an herbavore with lots of huge flat molars, and no upper Incisors!

Maine Fish and Wildlife

The increased interest this year is likely do to an expansion of the area open to hunting. Turkey hunting will be legal for the first time in all of York County, much of Cumberland County and small portions of southern Androscoggin and Sagadahoc counties. It had previously been limited to most of York County. The expanded turkey hunting zone more than doubles the previous legal area. The applicant total included 19 nonresident hunters. Permit winners were determined by a computer drawing in February. Maine's successful wild turkey reintroduction program was initiated by the department in York County in the 1970s, using turkeys trapped from wild flocks in Vermont. New flocks in southern-coastal counties originated from wild turkeys later re-located from York County and Connecticut. The highest turkey kill occurred in 1991, when hunters took 21 of the big, elusive game birds.

Save Those Law Booklets Maine anglers are reminded to save their new open water and ice fishing law booklets for use again next year. Both booklets are published every other year, which means fewer rule changes and potentially lower printing bills ...but only if the booklets are saved and used the second year.

Winter Waterfowl Count Department wildlife biologists completed their annual winter waterfowl survey along Maine's coast in January, recording about 62,000 ducks and geese. Biologists Brad Allen, Lindsay Tudor and Pat Corr, logged nearly 30 hours of low-level flying, counting waterfowl from Kittery to Eastport. They said a scarcity of ice on the main rivers and coastal wetlands, due to the mild weather, allowed the waterfowl to be widely scattered. Common eiders were again the most frequently tallied duck. Nearly 29,000 eiders were recorded, close to the longterm average but well below last year's exceptional count of 47,000. Black duck numbers were reported as "good" by the biologists, as approximately 15,000 were counted, which is down slightly from 1991 but much improved over the 10-year average of 10,200 recorded in the 1980s. Other numerous species included common goldeneye (6,136), scoters

3,277), bufflehead (3,021), mergansers 2,720), old squaw (1,651), and Canada eese (1,121). These figures have been forwarded w the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rhere it will be added to figures gathered at the same time in other Atlantic Flyway states. The annual assessment of 'lintering waterfowl populations is part of a program of cooperative monitoring of migratory gamebird species involving _tates, provinces and the federal govern::tents of the United States and Canada.

111~l1~~ ~bl''.billl t1,~:r:s1~tl!IJli,;t~J!ll1ltil '.!i~ 1 :,;:_:_'.,:,,.!_, i: .:,,,:;!,:,l_diJ:_ :/

safe;

!'flt:~Jtt~s~~!~?d;;1ili;

e;_;:_' .I n'.:'._-:'._:1_.t:_t_s::_i :'.:___,n'_. :,_:;a:_t_ ::_;_mr~ .--:,.e:_::_::g_/ri_:_:_•e :a c ~_,'.o·_ ar_'dd .:ig_ts _:_;':_:_:~n::\ _>•a:_r_:_::_;__:_ ~_c· a·.'.:::c.'e} Tn/ _::_dl_i_1(_::_iaii:l!lr:-:.:l_,'.:.: :•:-:·:=:'.;:-:_: !;=='.· '·; ·.:

s i :f b fP1fas

,'sfei a d /b ~

ome

···::-;:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR I want to express my disgust at your winter e article on trapping. Trapping is a cruel -d archaic ''business" or "hobby'' or "sport." · hould not be promoted in any way, espey in a magazine which reaches many -:.mg people in school libraries. Jane Frizzell Cumberland

• Everyone is entitled to an opinion on trapping, -.Jt the issue here is whether Maine Fish and \!ildlife should ever contain an article dealing ith it. The magazine is devoted to informing and d ucating people on issues related to Maine ildlife and inland fish, their habitat, use, value, d what the department is doing to protect and ""Ulnage them. Trapping is a traditional and important use of ildlife, with recreational, economic and wildlife ""Ulnagement values. The department monitors .:..trbearer populations and manages them, in part, ...., setting and enforcing open seasons and other "tgulations. We also monitor and protect furbearer ~ ital, which is also the habitat for many other &mie and nongame species of wi1dlife. All of these .. e reasons we could hardly ignore trapping in the "'Ulgazine. Complimentary copies of Maine Fish and \!ildlife are sent to all Maine school libraries. . 'ot to expose young people to material such as this ~ uld force them to make their individual judg-.ents on controversial topics with less than com-::!ete knowledge - not a nice thing to do. Your winter issue contained an article on recycling, which I read aloud at a town eeting where the appropriation of money to • urchase a waste oil incinerator was being considered. The proposal was solidly defeated. Proponents of the incinerator are now doing research to prove the article's contentions wrong and ultimately purchase an incinerator. At the next meeting, to support my opposition to the burning of used motor oil, I plan to have copies of the reports the article mentioned-from the Izaak Walton League of America and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (Name withheld by request) Massachusetts

Paid Advertising Coming A policy of long standing is about to change in the content of Maine Fish and WIidiife magazine. Beginning with the next issue we will be accepting paid advertisements. The decision to do so is one small result of the budget problems currently affecting Maine state government. While the magazine may look a little different in the future, we remain committed to giving subscribers all they have paid for and are accustomed to in the way of editorial content. Potential advertisers are urged to contact the editorial staff for rates and other details.

.:.)::

ht.m~¢r.safety co\if.$e,.) v hich_the::

·=

f illiiii ; ; ~ ( i : rs-A1¥Rf}l21~iii.:tt~Nife~~~ir

111~t111t t:iir11~;:

-~:t ·

J1!:ilf;l!f?_.:'>$;~Ri11a~I~fm;;i~-~~~i1f~~

--:: :\ · '<:ii~iftconterµpJF1J1qs~:~ h0Jte1p

$ .ti:<infote safe a:na responsible

·•i,1ftilZltt\t}:~li.

t!1 .

··_: :L .~ .f "Y~:\ \~fer,~~_ p_;:_;_r_;=l_ _:_?'._i_-: · ·· ··, ·· ··-. ~'-~~~~~~~~~---·· :-:i\::-·::i:)\,/:}::\:,\t/::,/}/:-::-:·:::::::::::::::;.:::::::::):ltt\l{\}}f/=i.\