Coyote snaring on hold; feds rebuff state proposals

loading...

Another winter is waning, and Maine’s coyote snaring program remains in limbo.

Trappers contracted by the state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife had killed coyotes with wire loop traps, called snares, in rural Maine for more than 20 years, with the goal of protecting struggling deer herds from predation in parts of the state where forestry patterns have reduced winter food and shelter.

The program has been on hold since 2003, however, because of concerns that the snares could pose a risk to federally protected wolves, Canada lynx and bald eagles.

The practice has faced fire in recent years, both for its cost during lean budget years and in response to data suggesting that coyotes and other wildlife that stumble into the snares suffer slow, painful deaths.

Whether Maine has a coyote control program at all in coming years is up in the air, according to Ken Elowe, head of DIF&W’s Bureau of Resource Management.

“Is snaring ever going to happen again? … I don’t know,” he said last week.

Acting on the recommendation of Attorney General Steven Rowe, DIF&W has spent the past two years pursuing an “incidental take permit,” a federal document stating that Maine has done everything possible to ensure the safety of protected species and thus would not be held liable under the Endangered Species Act if a small number of protected animals were killed.

Initially, the DIF&W staff was optimistic, predicting that snares could be back in some deer yards as early as this winter. Now, with several unofficial drafts of the state’s plan sent to federal biologists by DIF&W and extensive critiques sent back, no one knows how long snaring will be on hiatus. In a June 2004 letter, responding to DIF&W’s second effort at writing a permit application, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told state biologists that significant work remained.

Elowe would not discuss specifics of the state’s proposals, referring to them as “lists of ideas” that are subject to change at any time.

Ideally, he said, DIF&W would like to produce a plan for handling coyote snaring that convinces federal biologists that the practice poses no risk to Canada lynx or bald eagles. The plan need not formally address wolves, as the official state position is that they do not live in Maine, he said.

DIF&W argued in an application draft that snaring poses negligible risk, particularly with Maine policies against snaring in areas of frequent lynx sightings, requiring bait in places where it could attract eagles, and providing training and inspection programs for snarers.

If it’s harmless, no incidental take permit would be necessary, Elowe said.

“That would be absolutely the best scenario for everyone – including the resource,” he said.

Such an informal agreement with the federal agency also would guarantee that DIF&W need not conduct a formal public hearing on the controversial snaring program – a requirement of the incidental take permit process.

But first, DIF&W would have to convince federal biologists that snaring is safe.

In the past, snares have killed at least two eagles and one lynx, and critics of the program estimate that figure to be much higher.

The state contended in an early application draft that the modern snaring program is “tightly structured, selective, highly controlled and monitored,” arguing that snarers are deployed in rural areas only when a lack of deer habitat, evidence of predation and winter severity justify their need.

Federal biologists, however, pointed out in a summer 2004 response letter that the state department’s threshold is so liberal that most of the deer habitat in northern Maine could meet the snaring standard every winter.

“We assume this means that coyote snarers will always be deployed,” reads the USFWS letter. “This is somewhat troubling and appears disingenuous.”

Federal biologists also asked the state for scientific evidence of the negative impact coyotes have on deer populations in Maine and for data indicating the success of localized winter snaring to solve the problem.

Asked last week whether such data exist, Elowe said common sense and anecdotal information prove that localized coyote control works, he said. “This is like a sheep pasture,” he said. “If you take coyotes away, those sheep are going to live longer.”

George Smith, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and a defender of the program, agreed.

“It’s absolutely essential,” he said. “I think the loss of the program has probably set back the effort of rebuilding the herd – substantially.”

State deer biologist Gerry Lavigne has said previously that biological data support his belief that deer in places such as Washington County, where habitat is limited, suffer when coyotes aren’t snared. Lavigne was not permitted to comment on the impact of the two-winter hiatus for this story.

Instead, Elowe contended that Maine did not need to justify snaring, only to prove that it posed minimal harm to protected species.

“Whether coyote snaring is needed is not part of the discussion,” he said.

Pat Parenteau, an attorney on the faculty of Vermont Law School who specializes in endangered species law, said that incidental take permits must contain explanations supported by scientific evidence of why other alternatives would not work. Typically, ceasing the action that poses a risk (in this case, localized coyote control) must be one of those alternatives, he said.

In its early application drafts, DIF&W argues that permanent cessation of snaring just isn’t possible because the practice is “legislatively mandated” by the statute that legalized the snaring program.

In 2003, a state legislator asked the Attorney General’s Office to weigh in on that question and learned only that the specific snaring program then being used wasn’t mandated. The attorney general did not address whether the coyote control program in general was mandated – which DIF&W has interpreted to mean it has the authority to determine if, when and how to snare, Elowe said.

DIF&W also argued that Maine must snare in some areas to meet publicly determined deer population goals – a belief that held little sway with federal biologists.

“The public will always demand more deer – especially the hunting public,” said USFWS staff members in their response, adding that they found the state’s mandate “ambiguous.”

Other alternatives, such as snaring only in areas where protected species have not been observed, pursuing coyotes with dogs, using other types of traps, or relying on recreational coyote hunters to control “problem” populations were dismissed by DIF&W in its draft applications as ineffective and too difficult.

“The state has offered no support for its contentions that many of the proposed alternatives are unworkable or unwarranted,” replied federal biologists.

Whether snares ever return to Maine’s North Woods depends on the eventual resolution of these and many other technical issues.

At this point, everything’s on the table, Elowe said.