Legislative2

No Changes In Lawsuit Related Trapping Rules

Many trappers recently became aware that the F&W Department is proposing to amend the trapping rules to provide greater protection to lynx. Email messages started flying to trappers in every corner of the state about all the new restrictions that are about to be forced on us. My phone has been “ringing off the hook”! Email may be a quick and easy way to communicate. From my perspective, however, it’s the best device ever invented for spreading rumors. If you haven’t already received the “straight scoop” about the newly proposed trapping rules, here it is: The trapping rule amendments currently being considered will change nothing from what was put in place last fall to comply with the terms of the Consent Decree that settled the API lawsuit. Last October when the lawsuit was settled, the Department adopted rules to implement the restrictions spelled out in the settlement.

The Department didn't have time to go through the regular rule-making process to get those restrictions in place prior to the start of the trapping season, so they adopted the changes as emergency rules. Emergency rules only stay in effect for 90 days. They must then be re-adopted through the regular rule making process. The proposal that started all the rumors is only a housekeeping procedure to re-adopt, through the regular rule-making process, the exact same rules that were adopted last fall through the emergency rule-making process. It will be the same rules in the same WMDs. Nothing is being changed!

A few trappers feel strongly that, during the public comment period on these rules, the MTA should be asking for some modifications. For the most part, they’d like to be able to use their #3s again. That’s understandable. Unfortunately, that cannot happen. The Consent Decree dictates what the rules must be, and the Consent Decree will remain in effect until such time as the state gets an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for lynx from the Feds. As a result, the same identical rules adopted last October must be re-adopted through the regular rule-making process or the Department will be in violation of the Consent Decree, and we'll all be back in the courthouse in front of Judge Woodcock.

ITP For Lynx Must Provide State With Flexibility

If and when the state gets an ITP for lynx from the Feds, the terms of the Consent Decree will no longer apply. It’s possible that an ITP could be issued prior to another trapping season, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Even if an ITP is issued before that time, it will almost certainly contain many (if not all) of the same restrictions that are contained in the Consent Decree. While the MTA hopes to have some input into what restrictions are included in an ITP, I’m quite certain that the Feds will insist on continuing the ban on large footholds in lynx country. Remember, the Feds had been pressuring the state to reduce the size of footholds in WMDs 1 through 11 long before the API lawsuit was even filed.

Probably the best we can expect is an ITP that contains some degree of flexibility (where the Consent Decree does not). The MTA feels very strongly about this and recently sent a letter to the Commissioner conveying our feelings. We urged the Department to insist on an ITP with built-in flexibility, at the state rule-making level, to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, to test new equipment or better techniques and to conduct trapper-assisted studies aimed at restoring traditional trapping methods without threatening lynx. One example of this would be to experiment with ways to keep lynx away from body-grippers set at baited boxes on the ground for marten and fisher.

MTA Petitions For Other Trapping Changes

Aside from the changes mandated by the lawsuit settlement, the MTA has been busy working on several other issues that have been brought to our attention by the membership. I’ll give you a brief rundown of those issues in this article and will provide you with an update in my next report (July).

(1) Fisher and Marten Season

The MTA has asked the Department to take another look at the fisher situation. New rules designed to protect lynx will almost certainly reduce the fisher harvest in northern Maine. The later opening on fisher in southern Maine last fall allowed trappers to target water animals early and then focus on fisher in mid-November. This may have increased the pressure on fisher in areas where the population decline is most noticeable. If the Department still finds it necessary to reduce the harvest, the MTA is recommending a 10-fisher limit instead of a shortened season. The MTA is also asking the Department to consider increasing the marten limit by ten if the Department finds that such an increase is biologically acceptable.

(2) Use of Rat Traps

Last fall there was a lot of controversy about whether it is legal to trap for weasels and red squirrels with plain old rat traps. As with many of you, I was flabbergasted that this had suddenly become an issue. I know trappers that have been using these traps continuously for the past fifty years. I personally used then longer ago than that. These are sometimes the first traps that young trappers are allowed (by their parents) to use on their own, because they don’t cost a lot, are easy to set and pose little chance of injury. These traps don’t exactly fit into the current state definition of killer traps (conibear-type traps), but they got tossed into that category last fall in a last minute attempt to allow their continued use. That approach proved less than satisfactory when the new lynx-related emergency rules inadvertently eliminated the use of rat traps in WMDs 1 through 11. To “fix” these problems, the MTA has asked the Department to place rat traps in a special category of their own (like egg traps and colony traps) and legalize their use statewide for weasels and red squirrels.

(3) Killing of Nuisance Beaver by ADC Agents

Budget restraints and policy changes have resulted in dramatic differences in the way nuisance beaver problems are being handled. Trap and transfer has become largely a thing of the past. The MTA understands that the most cost effective way to deal with serious beaver problems is sometimes lethal removal. We can accept that. In recent years, however, the year-round slaughter of beaver has become a standard practice, and that is not acceptable. The beaver is the only wild animal that may not be killed under the state’s animal damage laws. Agents of the Department are the only ones authorized to kill nuisance beaver. Yet, beaver are routinely being killed by foresters, landowners and town officials. If nuisance deer were being killed at the same rate as beaver, the hunting public would be outraged.

Many times in the past, the MTA has complained to the Department about the lethal removal of excessive numbers of nuisance beaver, especially when the removal occurred just prior to the trapping season. Things would improve for a couple of years and then gradually deteriorate. The situation has never been worse than it is right now. This past fall many trappers reported scouting out active flowages in October with plans to go back and set traps on November 1st. When they returned, toting all their trapping equipment, every beaver had been killed. Enough is enough! The MTA is considering taking our case to the legislature. A prohibition on removing beaver within 30 days of the start of the season seems reasonable. We are also considering language in the statutes spelling out when and under what circumstances nuisance beaver can be killed. It’s time to stop classifying beaver as vermin and get back to managing them as a unique and valuable wildlife resource.

(4) Starting Date For Fall Beaver Trapping

Beaver trapping in several WMDs opens each year on November 1st. The regular fall trapping season for most other furbearers begins on the Sunday prior to the start of the deer-hunting season. What all that means is that in several WMDs there are usually two or three days difference between the opening day of the general trapping season and the beaver-trapping season. It’s probably not a big thing for most trappers, but it really doesn’t make a lot of sense either. As a result, the MTA will be asking the Department, in those WMDs where beaver trapping is allowed in November, to open the beaver trapping season on the same day that the general fall trapping season begins.

Permission To Trap Near Occupied Dwelling

This past fall, in the September issue of the newsletter, I indicated that I had been receiving a lot of questions about the laws requiring trappers to obtain permission before setting traps on another person’s land. In an attempt to help trappers better understand this complex issue, I wrote several paragraphs about it. One of the things I discussed was the law that requires trappers (statewide) to have written permission before setting traps within 200 yards of any occupied dwelling. I acknowledged that this particular law has created a lot of confusion, because traps set on one person’s land are sometimes pretty close to another person’s home. Trappers are sometimes unsure about where they need to go to get permission to trap. Do they go to farmer Jones who owns the field where the traps will be set? Do they go to Mr. Smith who owns an adjacent lot and has a home within 200 yards of where some of the sets will be made? Do they need permission from both farmer Jones and Mr. Smith? As I indicated in that previous newsletter, the correct answer is farmer Jones, the owner of the land where the traps are to be set. I went on to say that the law never requires a trapper to obtain permission from an adjacent property owner. Little did I know what a stir that statement would cause!

A handful of trappers let me know that I was wrong and that permission was required from both the landowner and the homeowner. One trapper indicated that he was keeping my article on file in case he had to defend himself in court for trapping without permission. I heard from another trapper who insisted that he had paid a fine for trapping within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling even though he had written permission from the farmer on whose land the traps were set. Finally, I received an email message from a game warden who had discussed my article with a trapper. The warden and the trapper had agreed “that you would need permission from both home owners if you set a trap on the land of one but were within 200 yards of the other's dwelling”

Let me be clear that when I wrote the article in question, I wasn’t giving my personal opinion or my own interpretation. I was explaining what it says in the law. Here is the exact wording that was enacted by the legislature: " 2. Trapping near occupied dwelling without written consent. A person may not trap any wild animal within 200 yards of an occupied dwelling without first obtaining the written consent of the owner or occupant of the land on which the trap is to be set." The law is absolutely clear and doesn’t require any interpretation. However, if you look at the hunting and trapping law book that is published annually by the Department, it’s pretty easy to see why people are confused about this issue. The summary in the law book says that you must “have prior written permission from the landowner before setting traps within 200 yards of any occupied dwelling”. That language could lead a person to believe that the permission must come from the owner of the land where the occupied dwelling is situated. So, let me repeat: You always get permission to trap from the owner or occupant of the land where the trap is to be set. Don’t let anyone tell you different, and feel free to share this article with your local game warden if you think he might see things differently.

Wardens Need More In-Service Training On Trapping Laws

I responded to the message I received from the warden referred to earlier in this article. In my response I included a copy of the law. He got back to me immediately, and this is part of what he said, “I appreciate your last e-mail and the explanation on the statute of trapping near an occupied dwelling without written consent. That will help me better explain the law to trappers who ask. I was incorrect in my interpretation. I'd be willing to bet I am not the only warden that didn't have a handle on this law. I've been a warden nearly 14 years and have trapped a little myself in the past. I think a trapping law class at the next in-service training might be quite valuable to help refresh wardens with the definitions, intent, changes, updates, etc.”

I don’t want to embarrass the warden, so I won’t mention his name. Let me just say that he has an outstanding reputation, and I’ve always believed him to be one of the best wardens out there. The manner in which he responded to my message just reinforces that belief and increases my respect for this man. He is absolutely right about the need for wardens to receive more in-service training about the trapping laws. Trapping is the most regulated activity that wardens oversee. At the same time, most wardens spend such a small amount of their time enforcing trapping laws that they almost never have a real good understanding of those laws unless they are trappers. The MTA will be encouraging the Warden Service to place greater emphasis on trapping during their in-service training sessions and will even be offering to provide the necessary instruction.

Notification To Home Owners About Trapping Activity

Whenever I explain the laws about getting permission to trap on someone else’s land, I always try to talk a little bit about the need for trappers to use “common sense”. In today’s world, complying with the law is often not enough. Trappers need to understand that even though they are doing things legally, they could also be doing things that threaten the future of trapping. For example, if you are going to be setting traps anywhere near an occupied dwelling, even though you may not be required by law to obtain written permission from the occupant, the MTA strongly encourages you to at least touch bases with the people living there and let them know what you are doing. As responsible trappers, we need to do everything possible to avoid doing things that will turn people against us. We need to avoid catching people’s pets. If Rover accidentally gets into one of your traps, even though he is released unharmed, there’s a pretty good chance that Rover’s owner will always harbor bad feelings about trapping. That’s human nature. Although not required by law, notifying nearby homeowners that you are trapping in the area is a courtesy that will keep lots of people on our side as we continue to battle the animal rightists.

Bear Trapping Permit

Recently I’ve been getting a lot of heat about the new bear-trapping permit. This permit, in addition to a trapping license, will be required of all bear trappers, both resident and nonresident. It’s the same type of permit that has been required for years by those hunting for bear over bait and with hounds. This new permit was created by the Legislature early in 2007 and becomes effective with the 2008 season. A few trappers have indicated that they had never heard anything about this permit and wondered how it could have possibly happened.

The idea of a bear-trapping permit is not new. It drew a lot of discussion among members of the Bear Working Group back in 2005. The Working Group didn’t make any official recommendation about a permit, because our only job was to discuss ways to improve bear harvesting methods. However, members of the group expressed great concern at the lack of available information about bear trapping in this state. The Working Group did recommend to the Department that they find a way to collect more information about the number of bear trappers, how much bear trapping takes place and the methods that are being used. That recommendation was endorsed both by the Department and by the Legislative Fish and Wildlife Committee in 2006. The problem, of course, was funding.

When legislation that included a bear-trapping permit was brought before the Legislature in 2007, it was greatly overshadowed by another bill – a bill to ban all bear trapping. There was quite a bit of publicity about the proposed permit, and I received several calls from bear trappers. After I explained what was happening, they all agreed that buying a permit would be far better than no bear trapping at all. The issue was also discussed by members of the Board. My feeling was that we were in a catch-22 situation. We were involved in a very tough battle to save bear trapping, and it would have been disastrous to oppose the permit while that battle was taking place. The Legislative F&W Committee was already looking for a way to finance the studies and data collection needed to help defend bear trapping in the future - information we had been asking for years for the Department to collect. The bear-trapping permit provided the mechanism for raising that money.

As it turned out, the bear-trapping permit was probably the final deciding factor in the defeat of LD #1635, An Act to Prohibit Recreational Bear Trapping. The bear-trapping permit was unanimously endorsed by the Legislative Fish and Wildlife Committee and enacted into law prior to the big debate on the Floor of the House on the bill to ban bear trapping. The newly created bear-trapping permit was one of the arguments we were able to use in our intense lobbying efforts to kill this bill. Having this permit in place swung enough votes our way to preserve bear trapping in Maine.

Permit Fees Will Protect The Future Of Bear Trapping

The bear-trapping permit will generate about $20,000. annually. Every bit of that money will go into a dedicated, non-lapsing account that can only be used for the types of studies and data collection that the MTA has been demanding. That money will pay for the collection of information that has long been missing about bear trappers and bear trapping techniques. It will place us in a much better position to defend bear trapping the next time the animal fanatics come after us – and they will! Nobody likes to see their fees increase. By the same token, a lot of us that are not bear trappers donated a lot of money during the 2004 referendum specifically to save bear trapping. I like to view the bear-trapping permit as an ongoing investment by trappers to help keep bear trapping legal for many years to come. Even though I’m not a bear trapper, I plan to do my part to preserve this activity for future generations to enjoy. I plan to buy a permit and “donate” my $27 to what I consider a very worthwhile cause.

Another Lynx Related Lawsuit On The Horizon

The ink is hardly dry on the Consent Decree that settled the API trapping lawsuit and already some of the same animal fanatics are threatening to go to court again. Last October the MTA was a major player in negotiating the terms of a settlement that ended the lawsuit brought against the Fish and Wildlife Department by the Animal Protection Institute (API) for alleged violations of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). That lawsuit, settled just a few days prior to the start of the fall trapping seasons, had threatened to shut down all land trapping in areas frequented by the federally threatened lynx. Maine trappers made significant concessions to put that lawsuit behind us and allow most trapping activities to continue.

To the best of my knowledge, eight lynx were restrained in footholds during the 2008 season. Two of those animals were restrained outside the area affected by the terms of the Consent Decree. Each of those eight lynx was released alive and unharmed, but the animal rights groups aren’t satisfied. They want more concessions from trappers – concessions that will guarantee no incidental catching of lynx. That these people are prepared to go back to court so quickly should come as no surprise. This isn’t about lynx; it’s about trying to take our traps! Ever since lynx were inappropriately listed as threatened eight years ago, we’ve said time and again that the animal fanatics would use the unwarranted listing to try to ban trapping. This latest threat is yet another example of how these people abuse the ESA to try to further their political agendas.

WAM Officially Linked To Rabid National Animal Rights Group

The animal rights organizations threatening to take the Department back to court over the incidental trapping of lynx are the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), a national animal rights group out of Washington DC, and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine (WAM). Although the names of the organizations now threatening to file suit are different than in the previous lawsuit, some of the primary participants are the same. Daryl DeJoy is the executive director of WAM, a small, relatively new, animal activist group based in Bangor. Mr. DeJoy was an active participant in the API lawsuit and provided much of the information (misinformation) used by API throughout the litigation. His partner in the latest threat to file suit is none other than Ms. Camilla Fox, the only expert witness used by API in their lawsuit efforts. Ms. Fox, a previous employee of API, is now affiliated with AWI. If this is beginning to sound like a soap opera, it gets better. Sometime after the API lawsuit was settled, Mr. DeJoy and Ms. Fox journeyed to some exotic place and got married. They should make quite a team. Perhaps now, some of the more moderate in-state supporters of WAM will fully understand where this organization is headed and give up their memberships.

Notice Of Intent To File Suit

On May 28, 2008, the F&W Department received official notification from WAM and AWI indicating their intent to file another lawsuit against the Department unless the Department takes additional steps to protect lynx. The letter was prepared by their attorney, Judith M. Brawer, from Boise, Idaho. To me, the letter is poorly done and pretty vague about what steps WAM and AWI expect the Department to take. The suggested remedy is an injunction. However, an injunction is simply a court order, and the letter doesn’t specify what they’d like the order to include. My guess is that they want the trapping season shut down, and I’m not sure why they just didn’t come right out and say so. Here’s some of what was included in the letter:

“We are writing to request that you take immediate action to remedy the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (DIFW) ongoing violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In particular, by authorizing a trapping program that directly results in the “take” of Canada lynx, a federally listed threatened species, DIFW is violating Section 9 of the ESA’s prohibition of the take of listed species. This letter serves as an official 60-day notice from the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine of intent to sue Commissioner Roland Martin over these violations, as required under the ESA’s citizen suit provision.”

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed Canada lynx as a threatened species in 2000. The lynx is also listed as a state Species of Special Concern in Maine. Maine’s resident lynx population is estimated at only 200-500 individuals. However, according to the FWS, recent evidence indicates that Canada lynx populations may be on the decline in Maine. One of the reasons for the lynx’s threatened status is trapping, which continues to be a significant source of lynx take throughout the country, including in Maine where lynx are taken in traps set for other animals. Thus, DIFW’s authorized trapping program continues to result in the take of Canada lynx in violation of Section 9 of the ESA.”

“During the 2007 trapping season, between the dates of October 15, 2007 through November 13, 2007, at least eight (8) lynx were caught in leghold traps authorized by DIFW’s trapping program. Six of them were caught in leghold traps of 5 3/8 inches or less – under the consent decree’s size requirement. In addition, one lynx was caught in WMD 18 and another in WMD 7, neither of which are included in the area covered by the consent decree. There is no data confirming the animals’ survival post release. Nor do these numbers account for additional numbers of lynx that were likely trapped but not reported.”

“Hence, the trap restrictions included in the consent decree have failed to protect lynx from traps set for other species in Maine. By continuing to permit and regulate trapping that results in the illegal take of the threatened lynx, DIFW is guilty of violating the ESA. See API v. Holsten, holding that the state agency’s licensure of trapping and the regulations concerning trap use directly resulted in the take of lynx and that additional takes were likely to continue in the future, in violation of Section 9 of the ESA.”

“The limits established by the consent decree have not worked to protect lynx from traps. Lynx are still being taken illegally in traps set for other animals, in traps smaller then those covered by the consent decree, and in areas not covered by the consent decree. If DIFW refuses to take immediate action to protect lynx from traps more lynx will be illegally taken, further violating the ESA, and thus we will be forced to pursue legal action before the start of the upcoming trapping season. An injunction is an appropriate remedy in this instance because any threatened harm to a listed species is “per se irreparable harm,” and in such cases the public interest always favors the imposition of an injunction.”

How Serious Is the WAM-AWI Lawsuit Threat?

Whenever an animal rights organization threatens a lawsuit against a state agency for alleged violations of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the threat has to be taken very seriously. The ESA was put in place to try to ensure that threatened or endangered species receive the protection necessary to maintain or enhance their numbers. The intent behind the ESA was good. However, it is written so tightly that animal extremists have been able to use it to further their fanatic agendas. It’s pretty easy to be found guilty of violating the provisions of the ESA even though the “violation” is having absolutely no impact on the species that’s supposedly at risk.

Everything considered, Maine trappers walked away from the API lawsuit in remarkably good shape compared to what might have been if the judge had issued the verdict. Trappers didn’t fare as well recently in Minnesota where a lynx related lawsuit, almost identical to the Maine lawsuit, was decided by a federal judge in favor of the plaintiffs. In the Minnesota case, the judge found that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had violated the provisions of the ESA by allowing trapping practices that resulted in the incidental catching of lynx. The question now is what type of remedy will be imposed and how many concessions will Minnesota trappers have to make in order to keep trapping? The whole thing is pretty scary.

The good news in Maine is that the API lawsuit was settled with no finding of wrongdoing on the part of the F&W Department, and the Department has since filed an application with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (the Feds) for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for lynx. Once it has been issued, the ITP will supersede (take the place of) the current Consent Decree, although the ITP will almost certainly contain many of the same trapping restrictions as the Consent Decree. Possession of an ITP by the F&W Department will also negate the new threat currently being pursued by WAM and AWI.

Unfortunately, it’s not very likely that the ITP will be issued prior to the start of the 2008 trapping season. As a result, if the anti-trapping team of WAM and AWI actually follow through on their threat to file another lawsuit, the status of the upcoming trapping season in any area frequented by lynx may remain in “limbo” right up until opening day.

I’ll give you an update in the September newsletter about the status of this potential lawsuit.

Fisher and Marten Season Extended --- Ten Fisher Limit

Last year the Department shortened the marten and fisher season to one month with an opening date of November 15th. They would have preferred to go to a limit on fisher rather than a shorter season on both species, but they opted for the shorter season because that’s what a majority of trappers wanted. However, heavy snows in mid-November kept many marten and fisher trappers out of the big woods, and a majority of them started thinking that a limit on fisher might be a better option. That’s the same message that the MTA received from many of our members. As a result, I was directed to petition the Department asking for this change. The Department was receptive to our petition, and the new rule should be in place by the time you receive this newsletter. For the upcoming season, the dates for fisher and marten trapping will be the same as for most other furbearers – November 2nd through December 31st. The limit on fisher will be ten, and the marten limit will remain at twenty-five. Ten temporary fisher tags will be issued to each trapper and the rules for the use of those tags will be the same as have been in effect for marten for several years.

Removal Of Nuisance Beaver By ADC Agents

In the April newsletter I had quite a bit to say about the excessive number of nuisance beaver being killed by ADC agents at times of the year when the fur is worthless. The minute the newsletter showed up in people’s mailboxes, my phone started to ring. I received several calls, and every one of them was about nuisance beaver. Several ADC agents assured me that they weren’t the problem – they were just carrying out instructions. A call from a representative of one of Maine’s largest corporate landowners indicated concern that the MTA might be considering changes that would make it more difficult for landowners to protect their property from damage by beavers. I took quite a bit of heat in a short time. At least it was rewarding to learn that so many people out there are actually reading my articles!

Frankly, my article accomplished exactly what I intended. It focused a lot of attention on an issue that needs to be addressed. It seems to have convinced the various stakeholders that some changes are in order. The Department, landowner representatives and trappers are preparing to sit down together to discuss the pros and cons of the current policies for dealing with nuisance beaver and, hopefully, to make some improvements. There is no question that landowners have very serious problems with beaver, and there has to be an effective mechanism for dealing with those problems. At the same time, it makes absolutely no sense for agents of the Department to be shooting nuisance beaver within a month of the start of the trapping season, except in emergency situations. One ADC person indicated that it’s not Department agents that are removing these beaver. If that’s the case, these folks are breaking the law. Beaver may not be killed under the state’s regular animal damage laws. The only people allowed to kill nuisance beaver in Maine, outside the open trapping season, are agents of the Department.

Committee To Review And Help Update Nuisance Beaver Policies

A committee has already been formed to take a look at the whole nuisance beaver issue. It is being chaired by MTA Board member Joe Powers, and I’ve agreed to assist him. Representatives of three large landowners have agreed to serve on the committee along with wildlife officials. A few other members may be added before our first meeting scheduled for mid-July. I, for one, am very pleased with the way this is working out. I’m now confident that MTA concerns about the removal of nuisance beaver will be satisfactorily addressed without the need for law changes. As your Legislative Liaison, I can assure you that it is much better to resolve this issue outside the legislative arena. It also makes my life a lot easier! I’ll keep you posted on committee progress in future newsletter articles.

MTA To Request May Beaver Season In WMDs 1 through 4

On a related issue, the MTA Board of Directors has decided to support a request from several of our members who have expressed an interest in a longer spring beaver season in Wildlife Management Districts 1 through 4. We’ll be asking the Department to consider extending the season through May 15th in these areas. While some may argue that May is too late to be trapping beaver, you have to remember that we’ve been doing a lot of complaining about the large number of nuisance beaver that are being killed and wasted each year during the summer months. Many two-year old beaver are looking for new territory about the time of spring breakup and often start plugging culverts along paper company roads shortly after that. Beaver, along with muskrats, are about the only furbearers that continue to produce quality pelts at that time of year. In a nutshell, it makes a lot of sense to allow fur trappers to harvest as many of these surplus animals as possible in the spring of the year and take the skins to market. Otherwise, either the state or the landowner will wind up paying someone to remove many of these same animals during the summer months when the fur is worthless. Let’s extend the season for a couple of weeks in these areas and see how it works out! If the Department responds favorably to our request, the extended season will be in effect in the spring of 2009.

Rat Traps Still Illegal in WMDs 1 Through 11

Last year, as you may recall, the question was raised about whether or not regular old wooden-base rat traps are a legal device for taking weasels and red squirrels. This really took a lot of us by surprise. Maine trappers have been using these traps continuously for at least the past fifty years. These are sometimes the first traps that young trappers are allowed (by their parents) to use on their own, because they don’t cost a lot, are easy to set and pose little chance of injury. During my years as a game warden (1960s and 1970s), it wasn’t unusual for wardens to come across rat traps set for weasels and red squirrels, and we always considered these sets to be perfectly legal.

Interestingly, at the same time this controversy was taking place, trapper education courses being taught in Maine were promoting the use of rat traps. Our Trapper Education Manual, developed in conjunction with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, lists the Victor rat trap as one of the preferred traps for taking weasels. The MTA was able to use that information to our advantage when we pleaded our case to the Department, and the Department agreed that rat traps would be treated the same as other killer-type traps having a jaw-spread no greater than 5 inches.

The problem, of course, was that small body-grippers could not be set on the ground in WMDs 1 through 11 because of the Consent Decree that settled the lynx lawsuit. Although rat traps pose no threat to lynx, the Consent Decree mandates that no killer traps may be set on the ground in those WMDs, except at blind sets. We’ve been working to find a way to immediately legalize the use of these traps statewide, and I thought we had a solution. Rat traps don’t exactly fall within the current state definition of killer-type trap, so we asked the Department to consider a rule change placing rat traps in a special category of their own (like egg traps and colony traps) and legalizing their use for weasels and red squirrels. We suggested the following language: “ It shall be lawful to trap for weasels and red squirrels with commercially manufactured wooden-base rat traps, such as the so-called Victor rat trap and other traps of similar size and design.”

Although the Department was willing to make the change for us, their legal minds were of the opinion that it wouldn’t solve our problem. Even if they had their own special category, rat traps are still technically a killer-type trap, and the Consent Decree doesn’t offer any “wiggle room”. I’ve been promised by the Department that this issue can be, and will be, resolved the minute an Incidental Take Permit is issued. Until that time, we’re stuck with the same ruling on rat traps that we had last fall.

MTA Seeking To Legalize “Covered Floats” For Muskrats

The spring muskrat trapping season was eliminated in Maine more than twenty years ago. The season was shut down, in large part, to protect waterfowl that were allegedly being caught in foothold traps placed on floats. Frankly, I trapped muskrats on floats in the spring for a number of years and never had much problem with ducks bothering my sets. At any rate, the muskrat trapping season now officially ends on December 31st of each year.

However, there has been a Department rule in place for a number of years allowing muskrats to be trapped after the end of December in any area that is open to the trapping of beaver. This rule served two purposes – it covered the substantial number of muskrats taken incidentally in under-ice beaver sets each year and it also removed the need for wardens to try to determine if a person was intentionally trying to trap muskrats. Of course when the rule was first put in place, the beaver trapping season didn’t extend beyond the time that most waters were still covered with ice, and the use of floats for muskrats wasn’t an issue.

A few years ago, however, beaver trapping seasons were extended into the month of April in some areas as a partial answer to an increase in nuisance beaver problems. As a result, those areas remained open to the taking of muskrats after the ice had pretty much melted, and trappers were again able to use floats to take those heavily furred spring ‘rats. That practice quickly came to an end, however, and this time around it was concern about federally threatened eagles that forced the issue.

In the fall of 2006, when the Department was finalizing the dates for the 2006/07 beaver trapping season, they also proposed a rule change that would have eliminated the trapping of muskrats after the end of March even though the beaver season might continue later into the spring. This proposed change would have completely eliminated any opportunity to trap spring ‘rats under open water conditions. The MTA objected loudly to this proposal.

In the comments that I sent to the Department on behalf of the MTA opposing this change, I wrote, “It is our understanding that you proposed the elimination of April muskrat trapping out of concern for eagles. The MTA is strongly opposed to this action. There is no evidence to even suggest that the setting of muskrat traps during the month of April poses any threat to Maine’s thriving eagle population. This type of action leads us to wonder what other restrictions will be placed on trapping in the future in an attempt to appease those who rely on the threat of lawsuits to further their protectionist agendas. The MTA urges you to reconsider your decision and allow April muskrat trapping to continue in areas that are open to beaver trapping. If you are unwilling to do that, we request, at the very least, that you allow muskrats in these areas to be trapped underwater with the use of killer-type traps and colony traps.”

Although we were able to salvage some opportunity to continue to trap ‘rats in the spring in these areas, floats and other sets using footholds and above-water body grippers were taken away. Anyone who has ever done much ‘rat trapping in the spring knows that floats are by far the best and easiest way to trap ‘rats during the breeding season. So, after some encouragement from several of our Washington County members, your Board of Directors has decided to go back to the drawing board and try again to legalize floats for ‘rats in the spring in areas that remain open to beaver trapping. We’ll be asking the Department to allow the use of covered floats only.

We’re still working on the definition, but it is likely we’ll recommend that a “covered float” be defined as a float completely covered on the sides and top with hardware cloth or other similar material having a limited mesh size. Access to the float would be at the ends and the height of the openings would probably be restricted, perhaps to about 10 inches. We’re still trying to determine if the width of the opening needs to be restricted. I’ve seen a couple of these floats that were assembled by down-east trappers, and I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t work well. In fact, it is my understanding that some of the Passamaquoddy trappers down at Indian Township have been using covered floats for some time with much better results than with floats that were not covered. Muskrats prefer to be under some type of protective cover when out of the water, be it an overhanging bank, a clump of bushes, tall grass or a leaning tree, so it makes sense that they’d be attracted to a float that provides overhead protection. One thing is certain, covered floats wouldn’t pose a threat to eagles or ducks. I’ll let you know how the Department responds.

MTA Members Working To Get Marten Traps Back On The Ground

One of the biggest concessions made by trappers to avoid the incidental killing of lynx was the elimination of small body-grippers on the ground at baited boxes in WMDs 1 through 11. This affected both fisher and marten trappers, but was especially tough on those marten trappers who had been relying heavily on baited boxes to take their limit of marten. Thousands of these boxes are now setting idle in fur sheds, barns and garages. Sure, it’s still legal to hang these boxes at least four feet off the ground, but that’s not very practical or very effective.

One of our Aroostook County members recently said to me, “Sure, a marten will go up into a tree, but they don’t live in the trees. They prefer to hunt on the ground. They are much easier to catch on the ground, and that’s where we should be trapping for them.” Others trappers may argue that they prefer to trap for marten in the trees, but that’s not the point. The point is that a marten box can be easily modified to ensure that a lynx cannot possibly get a paw into it, and we should be able to use modified boxes on the ground. The trapper I referred to earlier loaned me a modified marten box in hopes I’d eventually be able to convince the Department to legalize them. This particular box has a round marten-sized hole in one end. At the other end is a Canadian-made single-jawed body-gripper that looks something like an over-sized rat trap. There is no question that this box would work great for marten (as well as mink and weasels), and there is no possible way that a lynx could get into it.

MTA president Dana Johnson has been experimenting with some of his old marten boxes in hopes of convincing the “powers that be” that modified boxes can be set on the ground without posing a threat to lynx. Dana has placed a cage-wire extension on the front of the wooden box, extending out about 16 inches from where the trap will set. There is a 4-inch opening in the side of the extension at the end furthest from the trap with a “baffle”, made of the same material, mounted just inside and parallel with the opening. The baffle continues about halfway across the extension, making it absolutely impossible for any animal to reach in and around it. With or without the baffle, there is no way a lynx could get a paw anywhere near the trap

These are just a couple examples of the innovative ideas that trappers are working on in an attempt to get our marten boxes back on the ground. As I stated earlier, that cannot happen under the terms of the Consent Decree. Once the F&W Department receives an ITP, however, the MTA will be working hard to get these modified boxes legalized.

Permission To Trap Along Navigable Waters

In my newsletter articles I often try to address trapping related issues that sometimes raise questions or cause confusion among our members. Obtaining permission to set traps is a subject I’ve discussed several times in attempting to explain when a trapper needs this permission and who gives it. A relatively new law, included in an MTA bill a few years back, removed the written permission requirement when trapping with drowning sets in navigable rivers and streams as long as those sets are located at least 200 yards from an occupied dwelling. This law, now five years old, appeared to be working well, but very recently it has generated questions from both wardens and trappers about what it takes for a river or stream to be considered “navigable”. That’s a legitimate question, and I’m not sure that there is an easy answer.

The fish and wildlife laws don’t include a definition of “navigable river or stream”. In hindsight, I should have included a definition when I drafted this bill, but I mistakenly assumed that navigable meant that a person would be able to travel along that river or stream in a boat or canoe. In other words, a trapper would be able to, although not required to, check those traps out of a watercraft. That was certainly the intent when the law was enacted.

However, some things have come to light that complicate the obvious intent of this law. There are references throughout colonial laws and older Maine statutes (although not in the fish and wildlife laws) to both “navigable” and “floatable” waters of the state. Some references imply that navigable waters only include waters affected by the tide. Other references indicate that a waterway is floatable if it is capable of floating a saw log at any time during the year. Neither of those definitions is consistent with the intent of the Legislature when enacting our proposal to address the setting traps along “navigable rivers and streams”. At some point, we should probably think about amending the fish and wildlife laws to spell out exactly what this term was intended to mean. Until then, I feel pretty comfortable telling trappers that they don’t need written permission when trapping along a river or stream as long as:

the traps are set at least 200 yards from a house;

the trapper uses only drowning sets as defined below; and

the trapper would be able to get to his or her sets with a canoe or other watercraft.

A drowning set is defined in the fish and wildlife laws as a trap set completely underwater and rigged in such a way as to reasonably ensure the drowning of any species of trapped furbearer that would reasonably be expected to visit the set location and be held in the type of trap used at the set.

As with any other trapping law, however, please remember to use common sense. If a landowner tells you not to set traps along what you considerer to be a navigable stream, don’t argue about whether you have some legal right to be there. You don’t! Just because you don’t need written permission to trap there does not mean you have any right to be there against the wishes of the landowner.

Have a great summer!