Krysta West

WLZB 2: Amish-backed law creates hunting loophole

SAM Executive Director David Trahan thinks the law creates potential trouble for Maine hunters. He also sees the Amish argument as disingenuous: “What’s the difference between blaze orange and bright red?” he mused.

That’s part of the problem. The law does not define “bright red” where blaze orange worn by hunters can be measured as legal or illegal.

Trahan went on to say that hunters are trained to be on the lookout for orange. He also believes the law didn’t get much notice when passed and there is a potential for danger now that deer season is on.

He points out that any hunter who doesn’t like blaze orange could reject it for the less visible red and say it is for religious reasons.

“I don’t think they made their case,” Trahan said.

Click here to view the full story.

Guns.com: Local officials in Maine reject gun range lease because of NRA affiliation

David Trahan, SAM’s executive director, told Guns.com Wednesday groups often require memberships with other organizations, particularly the NRA, to access grants and other resources necessary to build and operate a safe gun range. He said the alliance doesn’t force a membership clause in exchange for assistance — it was the Standish Fish and Game Club’s decision alone.

“We never asked for it,” he said. “We do have the resources to do it right. A lot of these clubs are run by volunteers … but no other entity comes close to having the resources and support like the NRA.”

Click here to read the full story.

Alert: Second Amendment Supporters Needed for Standish Town Meeting TONIGHT

REMINDER OF MEETING AT STANDISH TOWN HALL ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14TH AT 7PM TO SUPPORT THE STANDISH FISH AND GAME.

 

Please come to the Standish Town Meeting on Tuesday, November 14th at 7pm to show your support for the Standish Fish & Game Club

The Standish Fish and Game Club is trying to lease land from the town of Standish to build shooting ranges and teach people how to safely use firearms.  Everything was going fine until some Standish residents learned that the club requires their members to be members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and the NRA.  They are demanding the club change their by-laws and end this requirement.

This is nothing more than anti-gun zealots trying to force this small private sportsman’s club to stop affiliating with parent organizations that can help them be successful!

Both organization, SAM and NRA are local and national leaders in building, training and supplying firearm consulting services. In addition, since when do non-members of a club get to tell a private club who they can’t associate with, especially since we are legitimate law abiding, non-discriminating organizations? Are they going to tell the Chiefs of Police Association they can no longer have two of their chiefs, Sauschuck and Googins on the Board of Directors of anti-gun groups like the Gun Safety Coalition?  This is nothing more than jabbing a pointed stick in the eye of SAM, the NRA and law-abiding gun owners.

Regardless of views, all shooting sports clubs must undergo a review by the NRA to make sure all firearm safety measures are being followed. In fact, the NRA Range development and operations standards are followed by all clubs nationwide. The following is from the NRA range standards website.

The NRA Range Development & Operations Online Course is designed to educate potential and current range owners and operators in identifying potential problems associated with range development, environmental issues, and safety. A key element for advancement in any profession is continuing education. Today’s shooting range operator needs the savvy of a businessman, the wisdom of a firearms enthusiast, and the knowledge of a health and safety professional.

Participants will receive a multidisciplinary perspective on major topics such as:
  • EPA Lead Standards
  • Grants
  • Construction
  • Sound Abatement
  • Master Planning
  • Range Maintenance
  • Range Safety
  • NRA Programs

Why would any club that’s fundamentally part of our nation’s shooting sports not want its members as part of the NRA or SAM and since when do a few town residents get to block a town land lease for political purposes?

Please come to the town meeting on Tuesday, November 14th at 7pm to show your support for the Standish Fish & Game club and help us get a facility in place where members can enjoy the outdoors and the shooting sports safely without such blatant political interference.

Thank you,

Greg T. Sirpis
President
Standish Fish and Game Club

David Trahan
Executive Director
Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine – Institute for Legislative Action

Address: Standish Town Hall, 175 Northeast Road, Rt. 35, Standish, ME 04084

Legislative Report: November 2017 Updates

As the Second Session nears, there are still several political issues left to resolve. There is a constitutional resolve, sponsored by Rep. Steve Wood, to establish the “right to hunt, fish, and trap” that was held over until this year.

This is a SAM bill, modeled after the 30 or so states that have adopted this protection.

LD 31, another SAM bill, sponsored by Rep. Espling, would require qualifying signatures for citizen initiatives (referendums) to come from both of Maine’s Congressional Districts. I wrote extensively about this bill in the last SAM News so I won’t rehash the same information, but this bill is essential to restore fairness to rural Maine voters.

Maine Democrats have blocked these two bills from receiving the needed two-thirds (2/3) vote to appear on the ballot for your approval. That is not a partisan statement, it is reality. Not a single Republican has voted against LD 31 in two legislative sessions, or the last three years.

The Right to Hunt legislation also has broad Republican support.

When these two bills are finally resolved, I will report roll calls, both supporters and opposition.

These two bills will be the foundation of our work in the next election.

Other SAM Legislation: Legislature Goes Too Far Banning Mineral Blocks

Last year we testified against LD 767, An Act to Prohibit the Feeding of Deer from August 15 to December 15. The bill is short and sweet, saying, “A person may not place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place, from June 1 to the start of an open hunting season on deer and, if all open hunting seasons on deer are closed before December 15 for that year, from the close of the last open hunting season on deer to December 15.”

LD 767 goes too far; after a long hard winter, deer and other wildlife like moose crave natural minerals like salt to replenish their reserves. In the spring it is common to deer and moose to frequent salt licks along the edges of roads, where plow trucks have sanded to melt ice and snow.

In addition, many people place mineral blocks in their woods to assist these wild animals. These blocks, placed away from the road, draw wildlife away from traffic, making our roads safer.

Banning mineral blocks in June and through the summer makes no sense. There are no hunting seasons, and we saw no proof the blocks spread disease. I have discussed this issue with our consulting deer biologist, Gerry Lavigne, and he agrees that this bill was a solution looking for a problem. The Senate Chair of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife committee, Senator Cyrway, has agreed to introduce a bill to repeal LD 767 on our behalf.  

No Hunting on Public Reserved Marked Hiking Trails

One of our SAM members brought to our attention a law and rule that exists, passed in the 1970s and ‘80s, that we will attempt to repeal and replace because it is outdated and makes no sense.

There are about 500,000 acres of Public Reserved lands owned by the people of Maine, and on those lands are 175 miles of marked hiking trails. Many of the trails are in very remote hard to reach areas of Maine, although some are in more populated areas in the southern part of the state as well.

Many sportsmen and women share these trails to get into prime hunting areas, but a surprise to many was a state law passed in the 1970s that says:

Title 12, Part 2, Chapter 220, subsection 1806, Part F. “Discharges any firearm, bow and arrow, weapon powered by carbon dioxide cartridges or other weapon within 300 feet of any picnic area, designated camping area, parking area, building, shelter or boat launching site, or in violation of park rules or in areas closed to hunting by rule, law or ordinance;”

The problem is not this section, it is with another department rule that was added to this section of law in the 1980s, which reads:

1.12 Firearms. “Except for persons holding a valid Maine concealed weapons permit, loaded firearms are not permitted in campsites, on marked hiking trails, or at boat launches and picnic sites, and should not be discharged within 300 feet of such areas.”

(From Chapter 51, Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry, Bureau of Parks and Public Lands rules, titled, “Use of Public Lands”.)

What this law and rules does is ban hunting on a 600-foot wide swath, (“ … within 300 feet on each side of all marked hiking trails … ) on Public Reserved Land. This is a total of 500,000 acres! It also creates an exception to the recently passed law that allows citizens (who are not prohibited from owning firearms) to carry a concealed firearm without a concealed firearm permit on these same trails.

This obscure law and rule causes many problems for sportsmen and women. I will get to that in a moment, but first, the biggest issue is whether SAM should continue promoting programs like Land for Maine’s Future (LMF), which claims to buy land to preserve traditional uses like hunting, fishing and farming, when we now know that large swaths of LMF land are designated no hunting, just because a hiking trail becomes “marked”, not because a ban on hunting is warranted.

In other words, one user group (non-consumptive hikers) can ban another traditional land user group (hunters) by simply “marking” existing paths and trails on public reserved land. We are not comfortable continuing to promote buying public land while this hunting ban exists.

We understand that some hiking trails experience high traffic use in populated areas, particularly in suburban areas. We also understand that hunting is not always appropriate in some areas.

Unfortunately, the way the law was written, there is no flexibility to allow hunting on “marked hunting trails” where appropriate; in addition, it appears the majority of hikers are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-protection, or to ward off unfriendly animals, like bears and moose. As a result, SAM has asked Senate President Mike Thibideau to introduce legislation on our behalf, to change the current statute and rule to allow some marked hiking trails, “determined by use and threat to public safety” to be designated “no hunting”, and open up the rest to allow hunting.

The SAM bill would also allow future, unbuilt marked hiking trails to be open to hunting. It allows that a trail can be designated “no-hunting”, but this must be done through public rule making, where we sportsmen would have a voice, and it must be based on a public safety standard.

PPH: Five-year-old’s death renews Maine debate over gun safety

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, said he does not favor a state law requiring firearms to be locked in a home when not in use.

“Firearms in the home are for personal protection,” Trahan said. “If it’s locked up in a gun cabinet at 2 in the morning, you’ve placed a barrier to getting access to that firearm.”

Trahan is also critical of gun locks, which he said can be knocked off a firearm and are less safe than lock boxes or gun safes.

Trahan has advocated for a state-sponsored tax credit to help Maine residents pay for gun safes, which he said is a more feasible option than mandating locking firearms, which he said would be unwieldy and difficult to enforce.

“We’re not ready to go down that road,” Trahan said. “I think it would be extremely expensive; it would be a huge mandate. It’s too far over the top, particularly when you can do this through public education and incentives.”

Click here to read the full story.

Legislative Report: September 2017 Updates

The legislature finally finished their work on August 2. The last piece of SAM legislation to pass and become law is LD 1323 (see below).

In the last referendum cycle, 38,000 signatures were deemed invalid by the Secretary of State because of problems with Notaries; in addition, during our testimony to the Veteran’s and Legal Affairs committee we revealed how paid signature collection companies were hiring petitioners, then using their own staff to notarize their petitions. This “fox guarding the henhouse” scenario is typical of these out-of-state, money driven campaigns.

A key provision in this new law states that a person cannot be hired by a campaign and also notarize petitions. Other sections give more authority and power to invalidate petitions for sloppy notary work. The law also creates a way to report potential fraud.

Senator Chipman notarizes the signatures of his own referendum signature-gathering employees for a living. Ironically, he tried to amend the bill to gut important provisions through an amendment in the Senate, including those affecting his notary business.

He knew it would look self-serving if he sponsored the amendment himself, so he asked fellow Sen. Jackson to sponsor it for him. I discussed this conflict with Sen. Jackson and talked with members of his Democratic caucus, and they decided not to submit the amendment.

Sen. Chipman’s financial bottom line is directly impacted by the changes proposed in LD 1323, and he would likely lose money if it passed. He should have disclosed this fact and recused himself from the vote, but, not surprisingly, he did not.

Some key points of the new law:

  • The referendum reform bill would give more authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a Notary’s commission for allowing another to use it.
  • The Notary must notarize the petition in the presence of the circulator.
  • A Notary cannot be employed by a referendum campaign in any capacity except as a Notary.
  • Τhe Secretary of State may invalidate a petition if the Secretary of State is unable to verify the notarization of that petition.
  • The bill directs the Secretary of State to establish a method to facilitate the acceptance of reports from members of the public regarding suspected fraudulent or illegal signature gathering practices for direct initiative and people’s veto petitions.

Tougher Laws for Hunting over Bait

There is a new law that toughens the penalty for hunting over bait. Representative Will Tuell of Washington County sponsored the bill, and it was amended to affect a person who is convicted of hunting over bait during an open season on deer. The new penalty is license revocation for one year. A second offense requires revocation for two years. Fines are left up to the Judge.

Tougher Licensing Rules for Guides

Senator Paul Davis sponsored a bill on behalf of DIFW that “authorizes the Commission of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to revoke, suspend, refuse to issue, or refuse to renew a guide license, if the license holder has been convicted of committing a crime punishable by imprisonment for one year or more, or is found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity of committing a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year.”

Guides affected by this provision can request a hearing to appeal the revocation, suspension, or denial. It also requires the applicant or holder of a guide’s license to notify DIF&W of any conviction.

Law Changed to Clarify Hunting from a Vehicle

The law prohibiting shooting a gun that’s resting on a motor vehicle has been clarified. What was once against the law, “resting the gun up against a motor vehicle” has been amended to make it acceptable to rest a loaded firearm on a vehicle. Representative Joel Stetkis, with the urging of our friend Jeff Zimba, introduced the bill. Both deserve a thank you!

Rep. Stetkis said, “I would like to eliminate the possibility of someone mistakenly breaking the law by simply setting a loaded firearm on the tailgate of their truck, leaning their shotgun against the tire of their vehicle, or setting their hunting rifle in the back seat of their car so they can tie their boots, take off a jacket, or go check their targets.”

The change allows a hunter to rest a loaded firearm or crossbow on a motor vehicle that is not an ATV or snowmobile. It also allows you to shoot from the vehicle at a fixed target (such as at a shooting range) as long as you are not within the enclosed area or passenger compartment of a motor vehicle. Some of the excerpts above came from George Smith’s blog.

Legislative Report: July 2017 Updates

SAM Bill LD 9 – to Ban State of Government Agencies from Creating Gun Owner Registry Passed by Criminal Justice Committee

SAM bill LD 9, “An Act to Prohibit the Creation of a Firearm Owner Registry”, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Corey, is still sitting on the unfinished business calendar in the House of Representatives.

This quote from the last SAM News accurately sums up this important SAM bill: “The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures, like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce.

Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns, and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.”

LD 9 remains tabled. In the next SAM News we will report in detail who voted for and who against this legislation.  It is always good to know who your friends are.

Below is the text of LD 9

Sec. 1. 25 MRSA §2014 is enacted to read:

§2014. Government firearm or firearm owner registry prohibited Notwithstanding and other provision of law to the contrary, a government agency of this

State or a political subdivision of this State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction.

SUMMARY

This amendment, which is the majority report of the committee, replaces the bill and provides that a government agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction.

SAM Bill LD 350 – “An Act to Repeal Certain Requirements Concerning the Sale and Purchase of Firearms.” (Update – Passed and now law.)

Sponsored by Rep. Harvell, LD 350 is a SAM sister bill to LD 9. Current state law (Title 15, Chapter 17, subsection 455) establishes a current “de-facto” state gun owner database by requiring Federal Firearm License (FFL) dealers in Maine to make an additional “state copy” of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473 that contains confidential personal information about individuals who purchase firearms.

This second “state copy” Form 4473 must be stamped “state copy” and be kept separately by FFL dealers, and produced, without restriction, to law enforcement upon request. There are no protections from potential governmental abuse, like those built into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) system.

This “state copy” Form 4473 process violates the intent of federal laws and rules as it relates to databases and the NICS system. Gun owners readily accept FBI background checks for firearm sales because we know federal law prohibits the establishment of federal databases containing information about law-abiding gun owners; in addition, we understand documents like the Form 4473 are housed, not with the federal government, but with the licensed FFL dealers, and are only accessible by the federal government when there is an active investigation of a specific crime and firearm.

Because copies of the 4473 forms are retained by non-governmental FFL dealers, they act as a reasonable firewall between gun owners and the potential abuses of government. For this reason, we support repeal of subsection 455 of Title 15, Chapter 17.

The LD 350 language is below:

An Act To Repeal Certain Requirements Concerning the Sale and Purchase of Firearms

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 15 MRSA §455, as repealed and replaced by PL 2003, c. 452, Pt. H, §1 and affected by Pt. X, §2, is amended to read:

§ 455.Record of sales of firearms

 1.  Forms.     A dealer may not:

 A.  Sell, let or loan a firearm to a person without making a copy of the form a dealer must keep as prescribed by 18 United States Code, Section 923. The copy must be made and marked as “STATE COPY” before the firearm is delivered; or

 B.  Refuse to show or refuse to allow inspection of a copy of the form described in paragraph A to a sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, constable, game warden or prosecuting attorney.

A person who violates this subsection commits a civil violation for which a fine of $50 may be adjudged.

1-A.  Form. A firearms dealer may not refuse to show or refuse to allow inspection of the form a dealer must keep as prescribed by 18 United States Code, Section 923 to a law enforcement officer as defined in Title 17-A, section 2, subsection 17 upon presentation of a formal written request for inspection stating that the form relates to an active criminal investigation.

A person who violates this subsection commits a civil violation for which a fine of $50 may be adjudged.

2. False or fictitious name. A person may not give a false or fictitious name to a firearms dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a civil violation for which a fine of $50 may be adjudged.

3. Exception. This section does not apply to a firearms wholesaler who sells only to other firearms dealers or to a firearms manufacturer who sells only at wholesale.

Effective 90 days following adjournment of the 128th Legislature, First Regular Session, unless otherwise indicated.

Two SAM Constitutional Amendments Still in Committee

Two important SAM Constitutional Amendments are still in committee. LD 31, a Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine to Require that Signatures on a Direct Initiative Come from Each Congressional District.

Update – This bill was voted Ought-to-Pass with 11 Veteran and Legal Affairs Committee members voting in support and 2 voting against. This is a strong committee vote and the bill now will go to the House for further votes. A 2/3 vote of both chambers is required, and if that occurs, it will then go out to the voters on a fall referendum for a vote by the citizens of Maine.

Update – Another SAM bill sponsored by Rep. Wood to make hunting, fishing, and trapping a right has been carried over until next session. The bill remains alive and we will push for it next year.

Moose/Youth Hunting Issue Fixed – LD 222, Combined with Rep. Hilliard’s Legislation Is Now Law

The last SAM bill to receive a hearing and action is LD 222, “An Act Regarding Maine’s Moose Lottery.” This SAM bill was designed to fix a problem created two years ago when the legal age to hunt was changed from a minimum of 10 to no age requirement at all. At the time, James Cote, lobbyist for the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance, was advocating strongly to eliminate the age altogether. SAM’s position at the time was reduce the age to 8 and allow 8-10 year-olds to shoot small game only, and smaller caliber firearms.

At the time we pointed out that children as young as 1 could apply for a moose permit, and give parents an extra chance.

Update: Rep. Hilliard, the original sponsor of this legislation, also, with SAM’s support, submitted legislation to fix the problem. The committee decided to combine the two bills. The final amendment raised the age to 10 to shoot a moose, but allowed kids to submit applications after birth and collect bonus points until they are finally drawn. The committee put an emergency preamble on the bill so it would take effect this year.

Turkey Hunting Laws Amended Slightly to Allow more Opportunity

LD 98, sponsored by SAM Board member Senator Paul Davis, was amended to give the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife the authority to set bag limits and seasons; in addition, to schedule special hunts in areas where turkey-related complaints are a problem. This power is new, as these management tools were always set by law.

Landowner Liability Laws and Legislation Requiring Written Permission to Forage for Wild Plants – (Update – Killed)

Two bills that would have expanded waivers of liability for landowners and their agents, when they allow recreational use of their land, (current law) to include lease holders, sub-leases and easement holders, were killed by the Judiciary Committee.

These changes would have likely meant more “Pay to Play” for sportsmen. We are very sympathetic to needs of landowners as access to land is crucial for sportsmen, but these two proposed changes would have opened up a huge can of worms and ultimately were voted down by the committee.

Very controversial legislation, LD 128, An Act to Prohibit Foraging on Private Land without Permission”, sponsored by Senator Thomas Saviello, was killed by the Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry committee after they learned there were already laws on the books that addressed the taking of private property without permission.  

     

 

Testimony in Support of LD 1271 and LD 1323

Testimony in Support

LD 1271, An Act Regarding the Certification Process for Direct Initiatives and People’s Veto Referenda
LD 1323, An Act to Amend the Direct Initiative Signature Gathering Process.

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Veteran and Legal Affairs  

Written by David Trahan, Executive Director, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

April 18, 2017

Senator Mason, Representative Luchini, distinguished members of the Veteran and Legal Affairs Committee, my name is David Trahan, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine in testifying in Support of LD 1271, An Act Regarding the Certification Process for Direct Initiatives and People’s Veto Referenda and LD 1323, An Act to Amend the Direct Initiative Signature Gathering Process.

I would like to thank Representative Kinney and Representative Luchini for sponsoring legislation that reforms Maine’s initiative process.  Although our organization had some input in each of these bills, some of the provisions, particularly in LD 1271, need amending.  It is our hope that the committee will take the two bills and combine them in work session and amend the bills in a way the whole committee can support.

Some might ask why this bill is needed; I will answer that question and speak to the sections of each of the bills that are in my opinion a high priority.

First and foremost, no set of laws or rules are worth the paper they are written on without a way to enforce them.  Both bills have a provision to establish an on-line reporting system for potential petition violations.  Currently, when rules that govern signature collection are violated by petitioners in the field, they are not actionable until petitions are notarized and turned in for certification. 

Because certification deadlines are set in stone and investigations can be a lengthy process conducted over months, the likelihood of prosecution is nearly zero.  For example, if I complained a person was collecting signatures without witnessing them, I would have to conduct a citizen investigation.  It is not a crime to violate the signature collection laws until a circulator swears, under oath, they followed the rules.  Even if they have their petition notarized, until they turn it in for certification, they have done nothing wrong. 

Documenting fraudulent behavior and tracking this type of investigation is almost impossible and shady circulators know it.  The only way to hold circulators accountable is to have a system to report fraudulent activity while it is occurring and then when petitions are turned in for certification, determine whether the fraudulent petitions were sworn and turned in, if they were, it is fraud.  An on-line fraud hotline would not bother the honest petitioner, but for those that break the rules, they will always wonder whether their dishonest activity was caught on camera.  What better deterrent?

Second, reforming the Notary statutes and building independence into the important function of Notaries is critical to preserving the voter’s rights to petition their government.  In the recently passed referendum cycle for instance, the signatures of 76,983 Maine voters were disqualified by the Secretary of State in four different campaigns because of Notary discrepancies:

Casinos-32,526

Marijuana-31,526

K-12 Education-7,519

Background Checks-5,600

Not all Notaries are a problem, but some are.  I will put them into two categories. Notaries who notarize occasional legal documents are not a problem.  Some notaries that participate in referendum campaigns and are also paid to organize referendum campaigns are a problem.  

At least two Maine signature collection companies and their leaders are paid to organize referendums then use their spouses, relatives and friends, sometimes paid, to notarize petitions on the same referendum they work; in addition, these petition organizers are also notaries that notarize circulator petitions for the hired and volunteer collectors.  Although this is not illegal it stinks of conflict of interest and should be.

Notaries are designed to be independent and act as an important accountability function.  They serve under the auspices and a function of the Secretary of State; consequently, the Notaries integrity should appear beyond reproach. Subsection 903-D, section B. and D. of LD 1271 could be amended to ban the hiring of relatives as Notaries in which their significant other is employed.  Section B. should be amended to read “petition”, instead of paid by signature, that was the original intent when the bill was drafted. 

Also, campaign organizers should be banned from notarizing petitions on the campaigns they work. 

Finally, if the suggested changes to LD 1271 are adopted by the committee, I don’t think section 2 related to seals and identifying numbers is needed.  I also encourage you to adjust the current Notary fees to pay for any fiscal note that may be attached to the bill to pay for the on-line reporting hotline.  If it is the will of the committee I will work with the sponsors of these two bills to prepare an amendment for work session.  We support all of the changes proposed in LD 1323.         

Testimony in Support of LD 22 and LD 558

Testimony in Support

LD 22, An Act Regarding Maine’s Moose Lottery

LD 558, An Act to Improve Moose Hunting

March 23, 2017

Senator Cyrway, Representative Duchesne, distinguished members of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, my name is David Trahan and I am representing the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine testifying in support of LD 222, An Act Regarding Maine’s Moose Lottery and LD 558, An Act to Improve Moose Hunting. 

We would first like to thank Senator Davis for sponsoring SAM bill, LD 222 and Rep. Hilliard, the original sponsor of legislation to reduce the hunting age, for introducing these two bills. Both LD 222 and 558 accomplish our main objective of increasing the age in which a child can apply to harvest a moose to 8 years old. 

When the original legislation to lower the age to hunt in Maine was proposed, our organization testified that our preference would be to allow 8 year olds to hunt for small game with firearms that are more suitable to younger age classes. 

Although that was not the final legislation, we did support the version that passed the last legislature and believe this change should be closely monitored. Because we did support the change, we feel some responsibility to fix the law. We did bring to the attention of bill supporters, including James Cote and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, that elimination of the age requirement to hunt would create problems with the moose hunt and lottery system. We were told it would be fixed, but obviously, it wasn’t. 

Allowing a child still in diapers to apply for a moose permit is unacceptable. In reality, the change went much further. In addition to allowing parents to have more chances to be drawn for a moose permit, the change also allowed both parents of the same child a second chance to kill a moose as a sub-permittee and an individual lottery winner.

Current law doesn’t allow a person to shoot two moose as a lottery winner and a sub-permittee, but there is nothing stopping a person from shooting their child’s moose as a sub-permittee and then also being drawn as a permit winner and have a sub-permittee on their permit shoot another moose.

For that reason, and many others, we believe this law gives unfair advantage to parents with children and one of these bills should be passed to fix this problem. We do encourage the committee to make this an emergency bill and pass it so it can be in effect this upcoming season.

 

Testimony Neither For Nor Against LD 343

Testimony Neither For Nor Against

LD 343, An Act to Prohibit the Discharge of a Firearm within 300 Feet of a State-Owned Boat Launching Ramp

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Written by David Trahan, Executive Director, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

March 17, 2017

Senator Rosen, Representative Warren, distinguished members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee my name is David Trahan and I am representing the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine testifying Neither For-Nor-Against to  LD 343, An Act to Prohibit the Discharge of a Firearm within 300 Feet of a State-Owned Boat Launching Ramp.

The reason our organization is not testifying in support of this legislation is because we believe the bill is too broad.  There are some very remote and rural primitive boat launches where this blanket policy could be a problem.  Giving authority to agencies to apply this discharge policy on a case by case basis makes more sense.  In addition to expanding this authority we recommend defining more clearly boat launch boundaries so the public understands where the 300 feet begins and ends, otherwise this law could be an enforcement nightmare.