Maine Trappers Association

Wolf Expert Testifies For Plaintiffs In Lynx Lawsuit

The trial to resolve Maine’s lynx related lawsuit began at 8:30 AM on Monday, April 13th. The stakes were high. The outcome would determine what, if any, further concessions Maine trappers would be required to make in an effort to keep lynx out of legally set traps. The plaintiffs in the case, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine and the Animal Welfare Institute, called their first witness. Their immediate goal? To bring an end to land trapping in the northern half of the state. Their ultimate goal? To outlaw all trapping.

Dr. Paul Paquet is no stranger to the witness stand. He has testified as an expert witness in other wildlife related trials and has sided repeatedly with animal protectionists. It took several minutes for him to detail the credentials that qualify him as a wildlife expert. Although he testified about having trapped in his younger days, his terminology was not consistent with someone intimately familiar with traps, and, under cross-examination, his knowledge of modern trapping techniques appeared to be very limited. Based on his testimony, he is strongly opposed to the use of traps for both fur harvesting and research. In spite of his personal bias against trapping, his qualifications are quite impressive.

Dr. Paquet lives in Saskatchewan. He holds a PhD in zoology from the University of Alberta. He worked as a biologist for the Canadian Wildlife Service for many years. He is an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary, where he supervises graduate student research. Dr. Paquet is Senior Ecologist with the Conservation Biology Institute and Raincoast Conservation Foundation. He is a long-time fellow of World Wildlife Fund Canada. He was one of the architects of the World Wide Fund for Nature and the European Union’s Large Carnivore Initiative. Dr. Paquet has written more than 100 scientific articles and reports and published several books on the behavior, ecology, and management of wolves. He appears to be much more knowledgeable about canines than felines.

Dr. Paquet was on the witness stand for one full day and part of another. Much of his testimony focused on the stress related impact of lynx being captured in traps, both cage traps and footholds, by both trappers and researchers. Although acknowledging that stress is very difficult to measure, Dr. Paquet testified that stress related damage to lynx from being caught in traps would negatively impact their ability to hunt, to reproduce and to survive. He also testified that the death of only a few lynx, in a population of more than 500 animals, could negatively impact the entire population’s ability to sustain itself.

Motion Denied, Answer The Question!

The plaintiff’s second and final expert witness was Ms. Camilla Fox. She testified as a representative of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). Under cross-examination, Ms. Fox made it clear that the connection between her and Mr. Dejoy, executive director of WAM, does not include marriage. She described their relationship as “partners”. There had been rumors that the two had “tied the knot” after working closely together in the previous lawsuit where Ms. Fox was employed as an expert witness by the Animal Protection Institute (API).

I’m not sure how Ms. Fox qualifies as an expert witness in this lawsuit. Her expertise is based almost entirely on various studies she has “ferreted out” which support her anti-trapping agenda. Most of her testimony consisted of her reading into the record portions of studies that were conducted by someone else. I wasn’t impressed with her testimony, and I don’t think she said anything that was detrimental to our case. If anything, she may have helped us.

The plaintiffs have insisted from the beginning that this lawsuit is about protecting lynx and not about trying to end trapping. In cross-examining Ms. Fox, Assistant Attorney General Chris Taub asked the following question, “Ms. Fox, isn’t it true that you are opposed to all recreational trapping?” The room went quiet, and the expression of the witness appeared similar to that of “a deer caught in the headlights”. After what seemed like minutes, but was probably only seconds, the plaintiff’s attorney jumped up and objected to the question as being irrelevant. The motion was overruled, and the judge instructed Ms. Fox (more than once) to answer the question. Eventually, after further discussion and a repeat of the question, Ms. Fox testified that if it were up to her, all recreational trapping would be stopped.

Dr. Ken Elowe Testifies On Behalf Of The State

I heard a lot of good witnesses during my law enforcement career, but I can honestly say that I’ve never seen anybody do a better job under very stressful circumstances than the State’s only expert witness, Dr. Ken Elowe. His credentials are very impressive, and he has a tremendous amount of practical experience dealing with wildlife. Dr. Elowe gave direct testimony for the better part of one day and was cross-examined relentlessly for most of another. His knowledge of the Maine lynx situation was far superior to the previous witnesses, and, in my opinion, he discredited much of the testimony given by Dr. Paquet. When testifying about the stress related impacts on lynx from having been held in traps, Dr. Elowe cited case after case where collared lynx trapped in Maine dozens of times, in both cage traps and footholds, as part of the ongoing lynx research project, continued to exhibit good health and produce healthy litters year after year after year. One of these cats has been caught more than four dozen times over a four-year period and has produced four litters of kittens. The animal appeared to be healthy and in good condition each time it was handled.

Time Runs Out – Case Continued!

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had previously assured Judge Woodcock that four days would be more than adequate to complete this trial. Wrong! At the end of business on Thursday, the fourth day, Dr. Elowe was still on the witness stand being “grilled” by the plaintiff’s attorney. We (the MTA and the other interveners) hadn’t even started with our testimony. We were out of time, and the judge’s calendar was full for the next several days. Consequently, we all went home with the understanding that the trial would be continued later in the summer.

We have since been notified that the trial will resume at 8:30 AM on Monday, June 29th, and continue through July 1st, if necessary. As a result, by the time this newsletter reaches you, the trial will probably be over. When we resume, the Plaintiff’s attorney will finish her cross-examination of Dr. Elowe. We (the interveners) will present our case, consisting of direct testimony from Maine trappers and from Dr. Craig McLaughlin, a wildlife biologist who conducted much of the early lynx research in Maine. Our witnesses will be cross-examined, and then both sides will be allowed to call witnesses back to the stand for rebuttal testimony. Attorneys will get one last chance to sway the judge during closing arguments, bringing the trial to an end. It may then be several more days, or possibly several weeks, before Judge Woodcock issues his decision. I’ll give you the “rest of the story” in the October newsletter.

MTA Gets Outstanding Legal Help – USSA, FTA & NTA Come Up Big!

It’s amazing what can be accomplished when we all work together. During the earlier Maine lawsuit that was settled in 2007, the MTA received a tremendous amount of help from our friends who joined us as interveners in that case. In addition to the MTA, interveners included the US Sportsmen’s Alliance, Fur Takers of America, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and the National Trappers Association. The USSA alone spent upward of $200,000. in legal fees. Their attorney, Jim Lister, came to Maine to argue on our behalf and did an outstanding job! In the end, we walked away with a negotiated settlement (Consent Decree) that has allowed us to continue to trap in lynx habitat with most of our existing equipment. Yes, we were forced to make concessions that have negatively impacted some trappers, but it could have been much worse. The reason we fared as well as we did was a direct result of the financial help and legal assistance we received from our friends.

Heading into the current lawsuit, the MTA decided that we were done trying to negotiate with these fanatics and would go to trial. The US Sportsmen’s Alliance came through again and sent Jim Lister back to Maine to continue providing us with top-notch legal representation. The terms of our agreement with the USSA was that the MTA would pay all the costs of our local attorneys. The length of the trial has made it an expensive proposition for us, and the MTA has already spent more than 16 thousand dollars in legal fees. The USSA is again taking on substantial costs, and Fur Takers of America continues to support us every step of the way.

In addition, the National Trappers Association has come through for us in a big way during this lawsuit. Their attorney, Gary Leistico, did a lot of the legal work getting us ready to go to trial, and the NTA flew him to Maine to participate. Gary is from Minnesota. He is a trapper and a member of the Minnesota Trappers Association. He and Jim Lister worked together on a similar lawsuit in Minnesota that was resolved last year. Gary and Jim have now joined forces here in Maine to continue to fight for the rights of trappers. The MTA, USSA, FTA and NTA, all working together, are a formidable force. Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit, I don’t know of any more we could have done or how we could have done it any better. Trappers in Maine and across the nation have every reason to feel proud. Please support your state trapping associations and the three national associations that stand ready to come to the assistance of trappers whenever and wherever we need them!

Legislative Session Ends – Little Impact On Trappers

The First Regular Session of the 124th Maine Legislature came to an end in the early morning hours of Saturday, June 13th. There were few bills submitted this session that would have directly impacted trappers. The biggest hurdle was a bill submitted by Senator Nutting (LD 457) that would have given towns the authority to shoot beaver found in the act of plugging culverts and flooding roads. The MTA strongly opposed this bill. We were successful in getting a unanimous “ought not to pass” committee vote on this legislation, killing it immediately. We may not be as fortunate the next time around – read more about nuisance beaver problems later in this article.

A bill dealing with the placement of coyote bait (LD # 138), as originally written, would have been a nightmare for trappers. However, as I reported in the April newsletter, we were able to get the objectionable language removed, and trapping will not be affected. The amendment language that replaced the original bill was enacted and signed into law. For those of you who hunt coyotes over bait, this is how the new law is worded:

"Bait site" means the place where the bait has been placed and the immediate surrounding area.

"Bait" means an animal or plant or a part of an animal or plant used to attract wild animals for the purpose of hunting. "Bait" does not include a derivative of an animal or plant in a liquid or paste form, including but not limited to urine or commercially prepared lures or scents.

A person may not place bait unless the bait site is plainly labeled with a 2-inch-by-4-inch tag identifying the name and address of the person establishing the bait site.

A person may not hunt at a bait site established by another person unless that person has permission from the person that established the bait site.

A person placing bait may not leave the bait or bait label at the bait site and must clean up the bait site immediately after the landowner requests the removal of that bait or, if not requested by the landowner, within 20 days from the last day the bait site was hunted over by the person that established the bait site.

(Note: The above requirements do not apply to the placement of bait on the ice of inland waters and do not apply to bear baiting. Bear baiting is already highly regulated and the bear baiting laws did not change.)

Also for you coyote hunters, another bill was enacted to provide additional opportunity to hunt coyotes at night. LD # 54 was sponsored by Representative Howard McFadden of Dennysville and was signed into law on April 21st (Public Law, Chapter 46). Effective this year, the night hunting season for coyotes will open on December 16th (previously January 1st).

LD # 164 would have required the operator and passengers in any type of watercraft to wear a Coast Guard approved Type I, Type II or Type III personal flotation device. The MTA strongly opposed this bill. The bill died in committee when it received a unanimous “ought not to pass” committee vote.

Fees Increase Substantially – Resident Trapping Unchanged

Heading into this legislative session, it appeared that the Fish and Wildlife Department might have to lay off nearly three-dozen employees, including wardens and biologists. In an attempt to avoid most of these lay offs, the budget submitted by the Governor for the two-year period (beginning July 1, 2009) contained an increase in fees for all licenses and permits issued by Fish and Wildlife. The increase would have applied equally to residents and nonresident - a $2.50 increase in 2010 and another $1 in 2011.

The Fish and Wildlife Committee didn’t like that formula, so they put together their own budget for the Department. The fee increases they proposed included a $2 hike on resident hunting, fishing, archery and combination licenses (other resident licenses and permits would have stayed the same), a $6 increase on nonresident hunting, fishing, archery and combination licenses and a $2 increase on all other nonresident licenses and permits.

The Appropriations Committee has the final say on what goes into the budget. They liked the concept used by the F&W Committee, but they felt that additional revenue was needed to keep the Department operating efficiently. As a result, they further increased the fees. Those increases have now been enacted into law as part of the state budget and will go into effect on January 1st of 2010. The increases, which will allow the Department to operate without any lay offs, are as follows: (a) resident hunting, fishing, archery and combination license fees will go up $4; (b) all other resident licenses and permits (including trapping licenses) will remained unchanged; (c) nonresident hunting, fishing, archery and combination license fees will increase by $12; and (4) all other nonresident licenses and permits will go up $7. In addition, registrations for all motorized watercraft will increase by $5, with the entire increase going to the Fish and Wildlife Department. Snowmobile registrations for residents will also go up by $5, all of which will go to the Department of Conservation for maintaining snowmobile trails. Finally, beginning this fall, the fee for tagging a moose, deer, bear or turkey will increase to $5. (Fur tagging fees remain unchanged.)

Governor’s Super Agency Goes Down In Flames!

In 2006, when seeking re-election, the Governor told us that he was opposed to merging the Fish and Wildlife Department into a large natural resource agency. His words at the time were, “I have said repeatedly over the past four years that departments like Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may be small by comparison to other state agencies, but they serve large and distinct constituencies that deserve, and have reason to expect, that they will have an agency whose focus is on their interests and needs”.

Two years later, we listened in disbelief as the Governor announced, in his televised State of the State speech, that the supplemental budget he was about to submit would include a directive that the four natural resource agencies be merged into “not more than two” larger departments.

The MTA worked with the other members of the Natural Resources Network to defeat that merger. In the spirit of compromise, however, we agreed to support the creation of a Governor’s Task Force to look at all the natural resource agencies and develop recommendations for improving the services that these agencies provide. Many of us even agreed to serve on this Task Force with the hope that we could help bring about some changes that would benefit Maine people. In the end, after a tremendous amount of work by a lot of dedicated people, our efforts failed. The Task Force was unable to reach consensus on a major restructuring plan. The one thing that most of us did agree on was that throwing all the natural resource agencies into one big pot was a bad idea.

Contrary to what you might think, the story doesn’t end there. More than halfway through the session (in mid-April), the Governor submitted emergency legislation to merge the four natural resource agencies into one super agency. His bill (LD # 1453) would have combined the Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation, Agriculture and Marine resources into the Department of Natural Resources. The effective date of this proposed merger was July 1, 2009. Unbelievable!

I found it very troubling that this Administration insisted on trying to merge the natural resource agencies even after it became abundantly clear that the people who would be most affected do not want it. The Administration preaches about the need to protect the things that make Maine unique and, at the same time, appears obsessed with discarding four unique state agencies that are extremely import to Maine people. It’s pretty unique for a trapper and his son to be able to walk into the office of the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and discuss trapping issues.

Long story short – the MTA and the other members of the Natural Resources Network turned out in force to oppose this merger. Our Network consists of fourteen organizations that rely on Maine’s land and water resources for both business and recreation. Our interests cover a broad array of pursuits from trapping, guiding and snowmobiling, to hunting and fishing, to growing salmon, potatoes and blueberries, to harvesting forest products and lobsters to producing fruits, vegetables and dairy products. We have a combined membership of more than 65,000 people and enjoy a lot of political clout. We opposed the Governor’s plan, and Maine lawmakers listened. For the second year in a row, efforts to merge the natural resource agencies have been soundly defeated.

Debate Continues About Removal Of Nuisance Beaver

Unfortunately, the debate about who should be allowed to remove nuisance beaver is far from over. Several large landowners came very close to submitting a bill this past session to allow landowners to shoot nuisance beaver in situations where significant damage to a company road is imminent. However, because of the positive relationship between the MTA and the forest landowners, we were able to keep the issue out of the political arena, at least for now.

The MTA worked with landowners, the Forest Products Council and the Fish and Wildlife Department in hopes of collectively resolving most of the “emergency” beaver problems along company roads. The proposed solution is a liberalization of the Department’s depredation policy regarding beaver and increased assistance from MTA members in targeting problem beaver through more lenient trapping rules. We still have a ways to go to get everything in place. However, if things go as discussed, beaver trapping season in a handful of WMDs, those with the most problems, would open at the same time as the early canine season (about two weeks earlier than in the past). In addition, the setback distance from houses and dams in those areas would be liberalized or eliminated. At the same time, foresters would be given depredation permits to remove beaver that are posing an immediate threat to the integrity of a company road.

There will obviously be some objections to these changes. Some trappers won’t think they are necessary, and some regional wildlife biologists have already voiced their concerns. The bottom line is this – if these measures are not implemented, there will be another bill submitted to the Legislature next winter. It will force a public fight between trappers and landowners, something that, in my opinion, should be avoided at all costs. If a bill is submitted, it will be a tough for us to defeat it. Remember, beaver is the only animal in the state that cannot be killed when found doing damage to property. If we force this battle, not only will we jeopardize our positive relationship with some of the landowners, but, if we lose, beaver will be fair game to anyone with a shotgun who doesn’t want their woodlot flooded or their maple trees chewed down. To me, this is a “no brainer”! The Department needs to get these changes in place as soon as possible.

Have an enjoyable summer! - Skip ó

OCTOBER 2009

MTA Rendezvous A Big Success

The 2009 Rendezvous went well. The Capital Area Chapter of the MTA is to be commended for pulling everything together. Although a bit chillier than in past years, the weather cooperated, trappers showed up in good numbers and vendors seemed to be selling lots of supplies. For those of you who missed it, you missed a really good time! Be sure to mark your calendar for next year’s event. It will be held at the same location – the Silver Spur Riding Club in Sidney. This great location is easy to find, is just a couple of miles from the Interstate and has lots of room for expansion. If it were my call, I’d hold the Rendezvous at this same location for the foreseeable future, although I expect trappers living in other parts of the state might disagree. It has long been my theory that holding the Rendezvous on the same weekend and at the same location year after year will eventually result in much better attendance. My theory is based, in large part, on what has happened at Neil Olson’s in Bethel. I don’t think I’ve missed one of his Trapper Weekends in all the years he’s been holding them, and his attendance just seems to keep getting better every year regardless of fur market conditions.

Lots Of Questions About The Lynx Lawsuit

Trappers that attended this year’s Rendezvous were all asking the same questions. What’s happening with the lawsuit and are our trapping privileges going to be further eroded because of lynx? Unfortunately, the lawsuit has still not been decided, and everyone is still “in the dark” about whether the judge will order the State to take additional steps to protect lynx. Judge Woodcock understands that the State needs a certain amount of time to impose new trapping restrictions and to notify trappers about any changes. He is also aware that our early canine season is scheduled to start in less than three weeks and that the handful of lynx taken incidentally in foothold traps each year are most likely to be taken during this early season. Based on the judge’s comments at the end of the trial, we were expecting a decision sometime around the end of August. I’m completing this article on September 30th, and we still haven’t heard a word from the court. (I got approval to submit my article later than the normal deadline in hopes of being able to tell you about the judge’s decision. I can’t wait any longer. However, if we receive the decision before the newsletter actually goes to the printer, we’ll try to add a few extra lines to at least give you the highlights. Otherwise, we’ll get out an “alert” on the MTA website the minute we get any new information.)

Our Experts “Did Us Proud” On the Witness Stand

As you all know, the trial to settle the lawsuit started on Monday, April 13th, at the Federal Courthouse in Bangor. Four days had been set aside for the trial. At the close of business on day four, however, the State’s only expert witness (Dr. Ken Elowe) was still on the witness stand being “grilled” by the plaintiff’s attorney. We (the MTA and the other interveners) hadn’t even started with our testimony. Time had run out, and the judge’s calendar was full for the next several days. Consequently, we all went home. We were later notified that the trial would resume on Monday, June 29th.

The trial finally ended late in the day on Tuesday, June 30th, after a total of six full days. We (the interveners) called two expert witnesses to the stand. First was Dr. Craig McLaughlin, a wildlife biologist that we flew in from Utah. Craig previously worked for the Maine Fish and Wildlife Department and was involved with developing and implementing the lynx studies in Maine that are still in progress. He did a great job on the witness stand. Not only did he corroborate (agree with) testimony already given by Dr. Elowe that contradicted testimony given by the plaintiffs, but he also did an outstanding job in explaining how the removal of other predators from lynx habitat by trappers is more beneficial to lynx than what little harm might be done from incidentally catching a few lynx in foothold traps and releasing them. He cited numerous instances where fisher have killed lynx in Maine, and he also referred to several studies showing that fisher, coyotes, bobcats and other predators compete directly with lynx for snowshoe hare. In short, trappers are helping lynx by removing some of the competition.

MTA President Dana Johnson then took the witness stand on behalf of Maine trappers. Dana did an outstanding job contradicting plaintiff’s testimony that Maine’s trapping rules are too complicated for trappers to understand and comply with. He made it clear that trapping is extremely important to many Maine people for a lot of different reasons. He explained that many trappers rely on the sale of fur to supplement their incomes, but he also highlighted the importance of trapping to many small businesses, such as fur buyers, taxidermists, trapping supply dealers, farmers and others. Dana made it clear that a twenty-four hour tending requirement on body-grippers (which, among other things, the plaintiffs have requested) would spell the end of trapping in remote areas. He left no doubt that many Maine people would be harmed in one way or another if trapping were banned in areas frequented by lynx. Dana warned us ahead of time that this would be his first time on the witness stand and that he was really nervous. You never would have known it. He handled it like a pro!

I won’t try to predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Suffice it to say that I feel really good about how things went during the trial. We were well organized, we put on a really good defense and, in my opinion, the evidence we presented tipped the “scales of justice” in our favor. We’ll soon find out if Judge Woodcock agrees. The legal representation we received from Attorney Jim Lister with the US Sportsmen’s Alliance and Attorney Gary Leistico with the National Trappers Association could not have been better. These two guys, working closely with our local attorneys at Rudman and Winchell Law Firm in Bangor, were absolutely outstanding. To date, this lawsuit has cost the MTA just over $20,000.00 in legal fees, and I’m guessing that the USSA and the NTA, combined, have spent at least ten times that amount on our behalf.

Some Trappers Grumbling About Lost Opportunity

I sometimes hear trappers grumbling about what Maine trappers have lost over the past few years. Most of the grumbling involves the new trapping restrictions designed to prevent the incidental take of Canada lynx. I fully understand the frustration of trappers who have been forced to change their trapping methods to avoid catching a federally threatened species that, at least in the State of Maine, is not threatened at all. Our current lynx population is at an unsustainably high level. Testimony during the trial by the plaintiffs that the population is declining may or may not be accurate. Nobody really knows. One thing is certain, however. The Maine lynx population recently skyrocketed to levels never before seen in this State, and Mother Nature will eventually reduce those numbers to more historical levels. Right now, the F&W Department has no evidence that the population is in decline, and lynx are still pioneering into areas of the State where they haven’t been seen in at least fifty years and probably a lot longer.

When I started talking about lost trapping opportunity, I didn’t intend to get into a tirade about lynx. I guess I’ve just spent too much time in federal court over the past four years fighting to keep our trapping privileges from being washed away by lynx related lawsuits. In truth, the lynx isn’t to blame. The real culprits are (1) a federal bureaucracy that, in my opinion, made a huge mistake in listing the lynx as a threatened species in the first place and (2) the animal fanatics who have misused this bogus listing to further their own misguided agenda. Their obvious goal, as evidenced by the testimony of one of their expert witnesses, is to bring an end to trapping. The feds, in listing the lynx, paved the way for the animal rightists to file these lawsuits.

Trapping Opportunity In Maine Still Extensive

In spite of some recent restrictions that have inconvenienced trappers, trappers in Maine are still doing remarkably well when it comes to opportunity. For some reason, people tend to remember, or at least focus on, the negatives more than on the positives. Perhaps we’ve been “brainwashed” into thinking that way by listening to daily newscasts on television and reading the newspapers – mostly doom and gloom. The threat of the recent lawsuits seems to have overshadowed all the gains that the MTA has made over the past couple of dozen years. The trapping privileges that we enjoy today are “light years” ahead of what we had when I started trapping.

Citing from memory, here are some of the things we’ve accomplished over the past twenty-five years that have increased opportunity for Maine trappers:

Established a three day tend on body-grippers in organized towns (prior to that, dating back to the early nineteen hundreds, all traps in organized towns, except under-ice beaver sets, had to be checked every day).

Established a special two-week season on fox and coyote prior to the regular fall trapping season.

Established a special one-week muskrat season in northern Maine prior to the regular fall trapping season.

Legalized the underwater use of snares for trapping beaver.

Established beaver (and muskrat) trapping seasons that last for up to six months in some areas.

Eliminated the need for written permission when using drowning sets on navigable waters, state owned lands and public rights of way.

Legalized the setting of traps on abandoned beaver dams.

I’m sure I could add to this list by going back through my records, but I think you get the idea. We’ve lost some things, but we’ve also gained a heck of a lot during a period when trapping was being banned in other states, such as Colorado, Arizona, California, Washington, and Massachusetts. And we’re still gaining opportunity, as evidenced by the earlier beaver trapping season in remote areas of northern Maine this fall.

MTA Supports Earlier Beaver Season

November 1st has issued in the start of the beaver trapping season in northern Maine for a number of years. Historically, the MTA opposed the trapping of beaver at the start of the general fall trapping season (November), because the “early” pelts brought considerably lower prices than the heavier pelts of mid to late winter. That trend has changed somewhat in recent years, however, and the earlier, lighter pelts currently bring nearly as much as fully prime skins. This is especially true in northern Maine where pelts “prime up” a bit sooner than in our southern counties. It is almost a certainty, however, that the trapping of beaver in November would never have been legalized except for the damage that beaver were causing.

Problem beaver along paper company roads had to be removed one way or another, and it made sense to allow fur trappers to harvest as many of these surplus animals as possible when their pelts were saleable. Otherwise, either the state or the landowner would be paying someone to remove these animals at times of the year when the fur was worthless. As a result, the State opened the beaver season in high damage areas to coincide with the start of the regular fall trapping season. The goal was for fur trappers to reduce the beaver population and alleviate damage. In most cases the desired results were never achieved. However, until quite recently, a combination of fur trapping (in season) and ADC efforts (outside the season) made things tolerable for most landowners.

Now a depressed fur market, along with soaring gas prices, has dramatically reduced trapper effort in the more remote areas of the State. Beaver numbers are not being controlled in those areas and beaver problems are escalating. To help improve the situation, the Department proposed opening the beaver season in mid-October in these areas to coincide with the start of the special canine season. In theory, fox and coyote trappers running their lines along paper company roads would harvest many of the roadside beaver if the beaver trapping season was also open. To make it easier to catch these problem beaver, the Department also proposed eliminating (in these WMDs) the rule that’s been in place for ages requiring that traps be set at least five feet away from active beaver dams.

Written comments I submitted to the Department in response to these proposals included the following paragraph: “Trapping for beaver in mid-October runs counter to the MTA’s long-standing opposition to harvesting un-prime fur. However, the significant increase in nuisance beaver problems in remote areas of northern Maine, exacerbated by dwindling trapper effort, is cause for what we consider to be extreme measures. As a result, the MTA would support an opening date for beaver trapping that coincides with the two-week canine season in remote areas where beaver trapping pressure, in recent years, has been extremely low. We believe that if these were the only areas open to beaver trapping at that time of year, more trappers might be enticed to go there. To make things easier for trappers to reduce beaver populations in these areas, we would also support removal of the five-foot setback distance from active beaver dams.”

IF & W Adopts 2009/2010 Beaver Trapping Rules

After some give and take between the Department and the MTA on which WMDs would be opened early, the Department adopted the following season dates and set-back changes for the upcoming beaver season:

WMDs 1, 2, 4………………..October 18 – April 30

WMDs 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11....November 1 – April 30

WMDs 18, 19, 28……… …November 1 – April 15

WMDs 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29….Dec 1 – March 31

In addition, the 5-foot setback from active beaver dams has been eliminated in WMDs 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 for at least the 2009/10 and 2010/11 beaver seasons. You will note that removal of the setback requirements will apply in three WMDs that don’t open until November 1st. These three WMDs receive considerable trapping pressure, and the Department will use the harvest figures from these Districts to help determine if removal of the setback requirement will significantly impact the otter harvest. Depending on the outcome, we may soon be able to set traps on active beaver dams throughout the state. To me, this is a pretty big deal when you consider how long it took us to legalize the setting of traps on abandoned dams.

MTA Encourages IF & W To Resume Furbearer Studies

When submitting comments on the Department’s beaver trapping proposal, we also urged the Department to get back on track with various furbearer studies. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a full-time furbearer biologist, and, as a result, we no longer have a good handle on what’s happening with many of our furbearer populations. Here is some of what we said in our comments: “The MTA wishes to thank the Department for eventually finding a way to hire a full-time furbearer biologist. In just the short time that he has filled this position, John Depue has developed a good working relationship with Maine trappers. He attends meetings of the MTA Board of Directors on a regular basis, and his input has been very well received. Having gone nearly a decade without a full-time furbearer biologist, we believe that the State has a lot of catching up to do in the area of furbearer management. For example, the Department’s growing concern about the status of our fisher population has led to trapping restrictions that may or may not be warranted. We desperately need to update our fisher population estimate. Now that we have a furbearer biologist in place, we strongly encourage you to find the time and money to ensure that Maine’s furbearer management program remains among the best in the nation. A fisher population study would be a great start. The MTA stands ready to assist in any way possible, including volunteer help, in updating Maine’s fisher population estimate as well as compiling up-to-date information on other important furbearer species that have been neglected for too long.”

Questions and Answers – Permission to Set traps

Earlier this year, at Neil Olson’s Trapper Weekend, MTA member Richard Perry from the Katahdin Chapter came up and asked me if he needed written permission to make drowning sets along a public right of way within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling. I didn’t have my laws with me at the time, and, not remembering exactly how that particular law is worded, I told him I’d check it out when I got home and get back to him. The question Richard asked is similar to lots of questions I get about written permission requirements. That’s one area of the law that continually confuses trappers and wardens alike. As a result, I thought it might be worthwhile to go beyond Richard’s specific question and try to explain the whole “written permission” thing. This entire issue is especially confusing, because it involves two different laws. The first deals with setting traps on the land of another person. The second addresses the setting of traps within 200 yards of any occupied dwelling.

Permission To Trap On Another Person’s Land

The first law states that a person may not set traps on the land of another in any organized town without first obtaining written permission from the owner or occupant of the land where the traps are to be set.

The same requirement applies on cultivated or pastureland in any unorganized township if there is an occupied dwelling on that land.

There are three exceptions to this first law. Permission is not required by this law:

When trapping for beaver;

When trapping with the use of drowning sets on state-owned land and on public rights-of-way, and

When trapping with the use of drowning sets in navigable rivers and streams

Permission To Trap Near Occupied Dwelling

The second law requires that trappers have written permission before setting traps within 200 yards of any occupied dwelling.

There are two exceptions to this law. Permission is not required by this law:

When trapping for beaver; and

When trapping with the use of drowning sets on state-owned land and on public rights-of-way. (This answers Richard’s question – permission is not required!)

Trapping within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling along privately owned sections of navigable rivers and streams does require landowner permission.

This second law has created much of the confusion. Although traps may be set on one person’s land, those traps are sometimes within 200 yards of a neighbor’s house. So, where do you go to get permission to trap? You always get permission to trap from the owner or occupant of the land where the traps are to be set. The law never requires you to get permission to trap from an adjacent property owner.

Trapping Never Allowed If Landowner Objects

Because there are some situations where trappers are not required to obtain landowner permission, such as when trapping for beaver, some trappers assume that they have a right to go on another person’s land to set beaver traps even if the landowner doesn’t want them there. That assumption is wrong! The law may not always require you to have prior written permission to set traps, but the law always prohibits you from setting traps if the landowner says “no”. That “no” from the landowner can be given either verbally or by posting the property. That is why the MTA recommends that trappers always try to contact the landowner and get the landowner’s approval before setting traps even in situations where the law doesn’t require it. It’s a lot better finding out ahead of time that the landowner doesn’t want you there. Otherwise, you may spend a day setting traps, receive a call that night from a warden or irate landowner and spend the next day pulling those traps.

In addition, if you are going to be setting traps anywhere near an occupied dwelling, even if you are not required by law to obtain permission, the MTA strongly encourages you to touch bases with whoever lives there and let them know what you are doing. The law tells us where we can’t set traps. Common sense tells us where we shouldn’t be setting them. Trap responsibly – the future of trapping depends on it!

Trappers Win Big In Lawsuit Decision!

The lawsuit threatening to ban on many of our trapping privileges is over! The results couldn’t be better. In mid-November, Judge Woodcock handed down his long awaited decision. He ruled in favor of the defendant and defendant interveners and against the plaintiffs. The six-day trial ended in late June. More than four months later, after the judge was able to allocate the time necessary to thoroughly review and consider what he termed the “exhaustive testimonial and documentary evidence” presented during trial, he issued his 28-page ruling. In a nutshell, he found that the small number of lynx taken incidentally by trappers does not pose a threat to the lynx population.

Obsessive Behavior Displayed By Activists

To those of us who work hard to protect our trapping heritage, it’s no secret that many of the animal rightists are obsessed with destroying the lifestyle that we love. If I didn’t detest what they are trying to do, I might even feel sorry for them. It’s interesting just to sit back and observe them. They seldom smile. Whenever they speak in public, just about everything they say focuses on the negative. I find it impossible to relate to people whose only satisfaction in life comes from making others angry or unhappy. It must be a terrible way to live! Their obsession to put trappers out of business came through load and clear during this lawsuit. Did it help us win? Probably not. I believe that the judge made his decision strictly on the basis of the evidence that was presented. He also went the extra mile to make sure that his decision would be upheld in an appeal. At the same time, I think the judge liked us a lot better than he did those who were trying to destroy us. It’s easy to see why!

When the trial ended in late June, the judge indicated that he hoped to have a decision in the case by early September. Our fox and coyote season was scheduled to open on October 18th. As that date approached, and no decision had been issued, the plaintiffs couldn’t stand it! On October 14th, they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop the canine season. On October 19th, when they hadn’t received a response from the court on their earlier motion, they filed another one. The second motion was for a temporary restraining order seeking to immediately stop the canine season and to halt the start of the regular fall trapping season.

I’m sure that Judge Woodcock was more than a bit miffed at having these additional motions thrown onto his already full plate. The trial was over. There was no new evidence. Yet the plaintiffs continued to hassle the judge with motions that had no merit. On October 20th, Judge Woodcock denied both motions. I’ve included below (in italics) several paragraphs from his 5-page denial – not only does it help explain how things progressed during this lengthy lawsuit, but it also, in my opinion, gives clear indication that the judge was as frustrated with the plaintiffs as they were with him:

Judge’s Denial Of October Motions

“This exhaustively litigated case is in order for decision. Frustrated by the Court’s failure to issue a ruling on the pending motion for preliminary injunction before the commencement of the early coyote and fox trapping season in the state of Maine, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for temporary restraining order. The Court denies each motion.”

“On August 11, 2008, Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine (Plaintiffs) filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner (DIFW), claiming that the Commissioner had violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by authorizing and allowing trapping activities that “take” Canada lynx, a threatened species. Subsequently, the Court allowed a number of interveners to participate in this litigation.”

“This was not the first time the Court has struggled with an ESA claim involving the lynx. In 2006, the Animal Protection Institute (API) filed suit in this Court, alleging that the then existing trapping regulations had resulted in incidental takes of lynx. The API litigation resulted in the issuance of a Consent Decree on October 4, 2007, which committed the state of Maine to tightening its trapping rules to avoid takes of lynx.”

“The Plaintiffs in this case, however, were not bound by the terms of the Consent Decree, and they filed the instant lawsuit because there was continuing evidence that, even with the more stringent DIFW trapping regulations, lynx were still subject to incidental takes in Maine. On September 23, 2008, the Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and on November 26, 2009, the Court issued a sixty-four page opinion, granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The Court concluded that there was a regulatory gap in the DIFW regulations and ordered the state of Maine to take immediate action, but the Court also concluded that, apart from that gap, the Plaintiffs had not proven their entitlement to relief.”

“On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, urging the Court to require a 24-hour trap check time for all Conibear traps. The Court denied the motion on December 16, 2008.”

“The Plaintiffs proceeded with their motion for permanent injunction and in April and June, the parties presented extensive testimony and documents in six days of contested hearings. The parties filed post-hearing briefs, the last of which was filed on August 7, 2009.”

“On October 10, 2009, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction and on October 19, 2009 for temporary restraining order.”

“The Plaintiffs claim that failing to eliminate the fourteen-day early fox and coyote trapping season will cause irreparable harm, since it will likely result in takes of lynx and eliminating the fourteen-day season will ‘have no impact on the Defendant and will have minimal impact on the trapper-intervenors’.”

“The record in this and the predecessor case should confirm that the Court has conscientiously attempted to give careful and thorough attention to the issues the parties have raised. Just last December, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction following the DIFW’s court-ordered tightening of its trapping regulations. The circumstances that led the Court to deny the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order have not changed. The regulations remain as they did in December and, as there has been no trapping, the facts on the ground are the same.”

“The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to provide a justification for revisiting the December 16, 2008 Order. Although the Court can appreciate Plaintiffs’ frustration, the issues before the Court are unusually complex, require shifting through a voluminous record, and applying nuanced, intricate and contested principles of law. The Court assures counsel for the Plaintiffs that it is acutely aware of their desire for a speedy decision, but has opted for a considered, rather than an immediate opinion. At the same time, the Court reminds counsel for the Plaintiffs that their case is not the only one the Court has pending before it.”

Lawsuit Decision Devastating To Animal Rightists

Three weeks after denying the two motions filed by the plaintiffs in October, Judge Woodcock issued his decision in the lawsuit. The decision is devastating to animal rights groups. Not only did the ruling go against them, language contained in the ruling sets a precedent that will make it much harder for these fanatics to misuse the federal Endangered Species Act in the future to attack trapping, hunting, fishing or any other activity with which they don’t agree.

Included below (in italics) are several particularly relevant sections taken directly from Judge Woodcock’s 28-page decision. I hope this information will give you some idea of the tremendous effort we (the interveners) made on behalf of Maine trappers in fighting this lawsuit, the outstanding work done by the Sate to protect the future of trapping and the extent to which our adversaries are willing to go to try to take it all away from us:

Conibear Traps

“According to IF&W records, since 1999, six lynx have been captured in Conibear traps. Four of these lynx were captured in Conibear traps between 1999 and June 2007 when IF&W promulgated new Conibear trap regulations. Dr. Elowe testified that none of these traps was set in compliance with current Conibear trap regulations. Two lynx were captured and died in Conibear traps in 2008. Dr. Elowe testified that neither of these traps was legally set. Since the State’s emergency promulgation of more restrictive Conibear trap regulations, there have been no reports of incidental takes of Canada lynx from legally-set Conibear traps. AWI itself admits that ‘[n]o lynx have been reported trapped in killer-type traps (also called Conibear traps) since December 2008, when the DIFW amended its regulations governing their use’.”

“After evaluating the evidence, the Court finds that AWI has not demonstrated that Maine’s current Conibear trap regulatory scheme is likely to cause incidental takes of Canada lynx.”

Multiple Areas of Factual Disagreement

“The parties fully aired their differences during the six-days of evidentiary hearing. AWI relied upon the expert testimony of Dr. Paul Paquet and Camilla Fox; IF&W relied on the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Elowe; the Trappers called Dr. Craig McLaughlin and Dana Johnson, President of the Maine Trappers Association. The parties introduced thousands of pages of documents, and vigorously controverted an array of factual issues, some simple, others complex, including:

1) The current size of the Canada lynx population in the state of Maine;

2) The interrelationship between the Canada lynx population in Maine and the neighboring lynx population in Canada;

3) The cyclical nature of the lynx population in Maine;

4) The cyclical nature of the snowshoe hare population in Maine and its implications on the lynx population in Maine;

5) The impact of forestry practices in Maine, including clear cutting, on the lynx population;

6) The extent of competitive species, such as fisher and coyote, predation on lynx;

7) The carrying capacity of the lynx population in Maine;

8) Whether the lynx population in Maine has sufficient genetic diversity;

9) The validity of lynx population modeling performed by IF&W;

10) Whether lynx are attracted to blind Conibear sets where scat or urine are used as attractants;

11) The extent to which leghold traps cause physical injuries to lynx;

12) The extent to which different types of leghold traps, such as “Soft Catch” traps, minimize physical injuries;

13) The impact of physical injuries to lynx on the survivability of the trapped animal;

14) Whether staked leghold traps or leghold traps with drags cause fewer significant injuries;

15) The extent to which an animal which has been trapped sustains stress-related and behavioral injuries, which affect its ability to survive; and,

16) The extent to which the Court should take into account the likelihood of unreported takes of lynx.”

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Among Canada Lynx

“The Court does not find persuasive AWI’s position on the question of stress-induced or behavioral injuries from trapping. This was a major point of contention, since AWI argued that incidental takes have caused not only physical injuries to the lynx, but also ‘psychological, similar to post-traumatic shock in humans’. To sustain its burden on the motion for permanent injunction, AWI added together the physical and psychological injuries to the lynx from trapping to demonstrate irreparable harm to the species.”

“In essence, AWI contends that when trapped, a lynx can suffer from “nonphysical injuries,” which Dr. Paquet described as ‘[n]ot dissimilar from what we see in humans, an example being posttraumatic shock, for example, would be a traumatic injury that has repercussions.’ The Court does not discount Dr. Paquet’s testimony that a lynx caught in a trap could experience heightened physical symptoms, such as a ‘rapid rate of breathing’ or ‘elevated temperature – body temperature, rather than a lowered body temperature or normal’.”

“But, Dr. Paquet went far beyond the rather commonsense contention that being trapped could cause an animal stress, which is expressed physically. He testified that an initial trapping can lead to capture myopathy and death.”

“The Court is not convinced. AWI’s position anthropomorphizes the lynx. It is not beyond the realm of imagination that the Canada lynx possesses human-like sensitivities and horrible memories about traumatic events in the past, which cause systemic deterioration, leading to debilitation and death. But, the daily life of a mid-size predator in the woods of Maine is inherently stressful, one most humans would find overwhelmingly so, including the imperative to catch and eat elusive prey, the risk of being caught and eaten by more powerful, aggressive predators, and the exposure to harsh elements. Where along the lynx stress scale being trapped and released by a human would compare to being chased and nearly caught, killed and eaten by a fisher or coyote is speculative, but if such stressful events caused a “cascade of deterioration,” leading to death, it is a wonder the species has survived.”

“Further, the evidence reveals that some lynx, usually those who are aged, can become “trap happy,” a circumstance that occurs with many animals. Dr. Elowe explained that the animal comes to realize that the benefit of easy food in the trap is worth the drawback of being trapped, and they are repeatedly found in traps. It is difficult to square AWI’s contentions about stress-induced or behavioral injuries from trapping with the same animal that can become trap happy.”

“From the evidence AWI has amassed, the Court does not find it is more likely than not that trapping as regulated in Maine causes stress-induced or behavioral injuries in Canada lynx.”

A Failure of Proof

“To the extent AWI presented affirmative evidence, it consists largely of generalized studies and expert opinions arrayed against IF&W’s Maine-based and lynx-specific data and experts.”

“This is not to say that AWI relied exclusively on marginally relevant studies, but it is true that on crucial factual issues running to the heart of its most decisive contentions, AWI’s case contained a notable absence of Maine-generated, lynx-specific studies. It relied instead on extrapolations from studies about other animals in different regions to prove contentions about the lynx in Maine.”

“The same general point applies to Dr. Paquet and Ms. Fox. Dr. Paquet is certainly an expert, but he acknowledged that most of his work has been with coyotes and wolves, with bears, and with lynx in descending order. He has had limited direct contact with the state of Maine, and with lynx in the State. Although Ms. Fox has had some direct experience in Maine as a participant in the Maine Wolf Inquiry Project in the summer and fall of 2008, the Court has a sense of disquiet about the extent to which Ms. Fox was testifying as an objective expert as opposed to an educated advocate. But, neither Dr. Paquet nor Ms. Fox’s level of expertise about Canada lynx in Maine compares favorably with Dr. Elowe’s long term, in depth, professional knowledge of wildlife in the state of Maine, including lynx. Dr. Elowe has been employed by IF&W since 1988, and has been responsible for all mammals since 1990. To the extent the case has been a battle of the experts, the Court has relied on Dr. Elowe’s testimony over the testimony of both Dr. Paquet and Ms. Fox.

Footnote Regarding Ms Camilla Fox

“The Court respects Ms. Fox’s intelligence and commitment, but is concerned that her opinions as an expert were colored by her strongly held personal views. Ms. Fox was involved in the decision to initiate API’s 2006 litigation. When she testified in this case, the Court was forced to repeatedly admonish Ms. Fox to answer the questions asked, not to advocate. At times while testifying, Ms. Fox seemed more like an attorney, presenting an under oath closing argument for AWI’s side.”

Lawsuit Decision Headed For US Court Of Appeals

On December 3rd, AWI and WAM filed notice with the court that they are appealing Judge Woodcock’s decision. That means this case is now headed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. The Court of Appeals consists of a panel of judges that has appellate jurisdiction over the lower courts, meaning that it has the power to review decisions and change outcomes. The attorney from Idaho who represented the plaintiffs in District Court has moved on to other things. The plaintiffs have apparently hired a new law firm from Washington DC to handle their appeal. While you can never predict the outcome of an appeal, our attorneys feel quite confident that Judge Woodcock’s decision will be upheld. The appeal process is usually quite slow, and it may be a year or more before the Court of Appeals reviews this case.

“In Unity There Is Strength”

Our success in winning this lawsuit at the District Court level was greatly enhanced by the help we received from our friends throughout the country, from individual trappers to state trapping associations to dedicated national organizations. The financial and legal assistance we received from the US Sportsmen’s Alliance, Fur Takers of America and the National Trappers Association was remarkable and far exceeded our expectations. Although many of our friends, too numerous to mention here, made significant contributions on our behalf, three individuals played key roles in helping deliver the knock-out punch.

At a time when most organizations were experiencing funding shortfalls because of a sour economy, Rob Sexton (USSA Vice President for Government Affairs) pulled the strings that gave us the additional resources necessary to battle the animal fanatics here in Maine. Those resources, and the legal expertise that accompanied them, made a world of difference. The MTA paid more than twenty thousand dollars in legal fees during this lawsuit, but, while I don’t have exact figures, I’m sure that the combined contributions from the USSA, FTA and NTA was at least ten times that amount.

USSA attorney Jim Lister, from Washington DC, was our primary litigator throughout this lawsuit, filing for intervener status on our behalf and responding brilliantly to every motion filed by the plaintiffs during this fifteen month ordeal. He was soon joined by NTA attorney Gary Leistico, from Minnesota, and these two men worked with the MTA to mastermind a defense that could not have played out any better. During six days of trial these two attorneys exhibited a tag-team approach to soliciting powerful testimony from our own expert witnesses and shooting holes in the testimony offered by the plaintiffs. Several times during the trial, our local counsel pulled us aside and commented on the outstanding legal representation we were receiving from these men.

I have been assured that we will continue to receive the best legal assistance possible during the appeal process. In a recent USSA press release, Rob Sexton was quoted as saying, “We fully expect to win the appeal and are dedicated to winning this fight no matter how far the anti’s decide to take it. A sportsmen win here will make it increasingly difficult for the anti’s to manipulate the Endangered Species Act in order to ban hunting, fishing and trapping across the country.”

Use Of Rat Traps For Weasels

After Judge Woodcock issued his decision on the lawsuit, I started getting questions from some of our members about the possibility of making changes in the trapping rules. For example, a couple folks have asked me if we can now ask the Department to restore the use of wooden rat traps for taking weasels in lynx habitat. Some of you are apparently under the assumption that this latest lawsuit was the key to getting back some of the trapping privileges that were lost three years ago under the terms of the Consent Decree that settled the earlier lawsuit. That’s understandable! This whole lynx thing has gotten extremely complicated. I’ll try to explain.

The 2007 Consent Decree resulted in trapping restrictions in WMDs 1 through 6 and 8 through 11 to help protect lynx. Those restrictions included such things as limiting the size of footholds, eliminating the use of baited body-grippers on the ground, eliminating the use of large live traps, etc. Although unintentional, those changes also eliminated the use of rat traps on the ground for weasels.

In a nutshell, the lawsuit that we won this past November has nothing to do with the Consent Decree that settled the previous lawsuit. The terms of that Consent Decree are still in effect and will remain so until the feds issue an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for lynx. If and when an ITP is issued, the Consent Decree goes out the window. When that happens, any restriction previously imposed by the Consent Decree (that are not also imposed by the ITP) will again be open to negotiations. The use of rat traps on the ground for weasels is one example of something we should easily be able to get back after the Consent Decree is gone. It’s hard to guess when that might happen.

Will Maine Ever Get An ITP For Lynx?

The two lynx related lawsuits that we’ve been forced to endure, at tremendous cost to the MTA, could and should have been avoided. If the US Fish and Wildlife Service had kept the promise they made back in 2000, when they first listed the lynx as threatened, things would be looking good. Unfortunately, they never followed through on their promise to adopt a rule to protect individual trappers and the state from liability when lynx are taken incidentally. They have, so far, been equally reluctant to issue an ITP which, basically, would serve the same purpose.

There are, in my opinion, several reasons why the feds have been dragging their feet on the issuance of an ITP. First of all, the feds have never issued an ITP for trapping related “takings” of a threatened species, and they are concerned about the lawsuits that will almost certainly follow their issuance of such a permit. Secondly, some of the federal biologists who have been working on the ITP application appear to be more philosophically aligned with members of WAM than with members of the MTA when it comes to trapping. Each time the state appears to be on the verge of satisfying the federal requirements for obtaining an ITP for lynx, those requirements get changed. Dr. Elowe explained it very nicely when testifying at the trial – as we continue through the application process, the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher (or words to that effect). It certainly appears that at least some of the federal wildlife people either don’t want us to have an ITP or, if an ITP is issued, they want it to contain trapping restrictions that go well beyond what we have right now. The state filed its latest draft of the ITP application in August of 2008. Mark McCollough, an endangered species biologist at the USFWS office in Orono, was recently quoted in the Bangor Daily News as saying that he hopes his agency will make a decision on the permit sometime next year. I’m not sure what they’ve been doing for the past year and a half, but the term “sitting on their hands” comes to mind!

Trappers Denied Use Of Floats For Spring Rats

The muskrat season in Maine is tied directly to the beaver season. Not only are we allowed to trap muskrats during the regular fall trapping season, but after the general season ends, we can continue to trap for ‘rats in any area of the state that is open to beaver trapping. During the past few years, beaver trapping seasons have been extended into the spring in many areas as a partial answer to an increase in nuisance beaver problems. This has allowed some opportunity to trap for muskrats in the spring after the ice had melted. Initially, trappers were allowed to set foothold traps on “floats” to take those heavily furred spring ‘rats. That practice quickly came to an end in 2006, when the Department, out of concern for eagles, limited spring muskrat trappers to the underwater use of killer-type traps and colony traps.

For each of the past two years, the MTA has petitioned the Department for a rule change that would allow the use of covered floats for taking ‘rats in the spring. We suggested that a “covered float” be defined as a float completely covered on the sides and top with hardware cloth, screen, or other similar material having a mesh size no greater than 2 inches square. Access would be limited to openings at the extreme ends of the float and the openings could not exceed 10 inches in height. Trappers at Indian Township in Washington County have been using these types of floats for years with excellent results, and “covered floats” pose no threat to eagles or waterfowl.

We almost succeeded in getting covered floats legalized this year. We received support from several Advisory Council members, and I was still hopeful right into September that it was going to happen. I’ve included below (in italics) parts of an email message from the Department to the Advisory Council that explains how things finally played out:

Advisory Council members,

At the August 20th Advisory Council meeting, the Commissioner requested that the Wildlife Division, MTA, and several Advisory Council members participate in a telephone conference call to discuss the + and – of allowing covered float sets for spring muskrat trapping.

This call occurred on the afternoon of Thursday, September 10. Participants included: Skip Trask, John Simko, Cathy DeMerchant, Steve Philbrick, Mike Witte, and Al Goodwin.

A wide-ranging discussion occurred around what a covered float set is; the status of muskrats in Maine and the northeast, the potential impact (if any) to Maine’s muskrat population; the fact that the Penobscot Indian Nation allows the use of this set on its lands; and that currently Maine muskrat trappers have two sets [colony traps and killer traps] available for use during the closing weeks of the beaver / muskrat season.

At the close of the call, participants requested that MDIFW contact neighboring jurisdictions to determine the status of muskrats and any modifications to muskrat trapping that they may have implemented. John DePue has completed this assessment and it is attached herein.

The Wildlife Division is recommending to the Council that it not incorporate covered float sets for spring muskrat trapping into the 2009-2010 furbearer trapping rule for the following reasons:

The decline of muskrat populations continues to be a concern of biologists in the northeast region.

Several northeast jurisdictions have experienced significant declines in their muskrat harvest over the past several years when compared to 5 and 10 years averages.

At this time, northeast jurisdictions are not shortening the muskrat season or taking measures to regulate the muskrat harvest. However, northeast jurisdictions are not increasing opportunity for the harvest of muskrat at this time.

Contrary to other northeast states, Maine has increased the opportunity to harvest muskrats for the 2009-2010 season by expanding the beaver season in several WMDs.

Maine muskrat trappers have two sets [colony traps and killer traps] available for use during the closing weeks of the beaver / muskrat season.

Needless to say, we are still not allowed to use covered floats for rats in the spring! Neither do we intend to stop trying! As I’m sure many of you recall, it took us several years of hard work to finally be allowed to set traps on abandoned beaver dams. There was great concern that setting traps on abandoned beaver dams would devastate the otter population. That didn’t happen. Neither will the use of covered floats impact the muskrat population, and we’ll eventually get these things legalized.

While I certainly agree that more work needs to be done to determine the status of Maine’s muskrat population, I do not believe for one minute that allowing a few trappers to put out a few floats for a couple of weeks in the spring is going to make one iota of difference. There are a lot more trappers out there in the fall than in the spring, and floats are legal at that time of year. What I do believe is that there is no better way to get kids interested in trapping than helping them build a few floats in the basement during the winter and then helping them set out those floats in the spring of the year when the weather is good and it’s fun to be outside. I’ll never forget, as a kid, the excitement of looking downstream to the next little cove where another of my muskrat floats was waiting. Had I made a catch? When I was a kid I trapped numerous species of furbearers throughout the season. Looking back, however, I’m convinced that building muskrat floats and setting them out in the spring of the year not only helped me earn a little spending money but instilled in me a love of trapping that will last a lifetime. 