Krysta West

Testimony in Support

LD 9, An Act to Prohibit the Creation of a Firearm Owner Registry

LD 350, An Act to Repeal Certain Requirements Concerning the Sale and Purchase of Firearms

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. I am the Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine testifying in support of LD 9, An Act to Prohibit the Creation of a Firearm Owner Registry and LD 350, An Act to Repeal Certain Requirements Concerning the Sale and Purchase of Firearms. First, I would like to begin by thanking Rep. Corey for sponsoring these two SAM bills.

Recently, I was asked whether LD 9 was necessary. The answer to that question is ‘yes’. Most people, legislators included, are unaware that a state database of all firearm owners whose firearms were purchased through federally licensed firearm dealers are retained in a de-facto state firearms owner database. To understand why this bill is relevant and one of the reasons it is before you, I ask you to look at another SAM bill, LD 350, An Act to Repeal Certain Requirements Concerning the Sale and Purchase of Firearms on your public hearing schedule later today.

Current state law, Title 15, Chapter 17, subsection 455, establishes a state gun owner database by requiring Federal Firearm License in Maine to make an additional “state copy” of the Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives form 4473, “see attached” that contains confidential personal information about individuals who purchase firearms. This second “state copy” form 4473 must be stamped “state copy” and kept separately by dealers and produced, without restriction, to law enforcement upon request. There are no protections from potential governmental abuse like those built into the NICS system. In addition, we have reached out to the State Police to inquire why this law is on our books, and to date, have received no good reason.

This “state copy” 4473 process violates the intent of federal laws and rules as it relates to databases and the National Instant Criminal Background Check 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 4473 are housed, not with the 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 the repeal of subsection 455 of Title 15 and urge passage of LD 350.

Back to LD 9. Imagine Mainers response if our organization proposed legislation requiring citizens to register their names with the government before they could exercise their first amendment rights of free speech? If you think such a free speech database would act to chill citizen’s rights of free expression, we agree. 

The right of law-abiding citizens to legally own firearms is an American birthright, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s, Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution. The government has no legitimate purpose for keeping a database or list of law abiding gun owners, just like they shouldn’t keep a list of journalists or any other group who exercise any of their constitutional rights. 

Gun owners have a legitimate reason to want a law like LD 9 that protects them from government surveillance and intimidation, including, firearm confiscation. 

I have shown you that the infrastructure for such a database already exists in state law and for no good reason. I know there are individuals who will fight to stop LD 9 and LD 350 from passing, perhaps because they hope that one day, some, if not all firearms will be illegal and enforcing such laws will be a lot easier if a firearm database, like the one we are trying to repeal, exists. I urge you to pass LD 9 and LD 350 and put this contentious issue to bed.      

Testimony Neither For Nor Against

LD 44, An Act to Lower the Age Requirement to Carry a Concealed Handgun 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 LD 44, An Act to Lower the Age Requirement to Carry a Concealed Handgun. 

Although we believe Maine law should be consistent with our New England neighbors, like New Hampshire who has passed a similar law, we have not polled our entire membership, and given this is a very controversial policy change, we feel it would be inappropriate to take a position until we can do so.   

Testimony in Support

LD 424, An Act to Extend the Big Game Season in Coastal Management Areas Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

March 16, 2017

Senator Cyrway, Representative Duchesne, distinguished a member 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 424, An Act to Extend the Big Game Season in Coastal Management Areas. 

Our organization has consistently supported Sunday hunting as a way to expand hunting opportunities and aid economically depressed areas in rural Maine.  We appreciate the concerns of landowners who want one day a week without hunting, we would gladly give them Wednesday in exchange for Sunday.  Just kidding.  This legislation is drafted to require landowner permission to hunt on Sunday.  Those that don’t like Sunday hunting won’t allow it, those that do, will.

The one component of this bill that we have concerns with is restricting this new opportunity to wildlife management areas A, B and C.  If this policy is passed by the legislature and if your intent is to give this authority to the Commissioner, you shouldn’t put sideboards on his authority.  If you are concerned the Commissioner will not exercise this authority than we recommend amending this bill to establish the seasons you desire. 

You are likely to hear arguments that hunting seasons will have to be shortened because more hunters, particularly working Mainers and non-residents will hunt, thus killing more wildlife.  I would argue that this logic makes the case to support this new opportunity.  In other words, they are confirming the point we keep making that people who work full- time, some who own their own land have very little opportunity to hunt, unlike retirees and those that travel here from out of state.  In a sense this is legislation that supports Maine’s working men and women and brings equality to hunting opportunity.   

Testimony in Opposition

LD 279, An Act to Give Veterans Priority in the issuance of Antlerless Deer Permits
LD 427, An Act to Give Certain Landowners First Priority for Antlerless Deer Permits
LD 555, An Act to Allow Owners of 25 Acres or More Land that is Open to the Public for Hunting to Take any Deer without a Special Permit.
LD 509, An Act to Allocate at Least 10 Percent of Antlerless Deer Permits Available in Each Wildlife Management District to Hunters 70 Years of Age and Older
LD 325, An Act to Amend the Process for Distributing Any Deer Permits
LD 340, An Act to Provide 100 Percent Disabled Veterans Antlerless Deer Permits in the Zone of Their Choice

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

March 2, 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 opposition to six bills that affect our doe permit system. 

The purpose of the doe permit system is as a conservation tool to protect and maintain healthy deer populations.  In recent years the number of legislative bills to carve out special doe permit drawings and put politically attractive constituencies at the front of the line as it relates to being drawn for a doe permit continues to concern our organization.  The wildlife of Maine belongs to all Mainers equally.  When creating special exceptions that allow one group greater access to a resource, that policy change should have a conservation based purpose, in all cases, except one, we feel these bills do nothing to manage wildlife, instead, give special treatment to one class of people. 

At some point, if this trend continues the average hunter could lose all access to hunt wildlife, while a select few have their pick of the litter.  The only exception we see that is acceptable would be to give the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife the authority to issue a doe permit on a case by case basis when a person’s disability reaches the 100 percent level.  We already have a system that allows the commissioner to use his judgement and issue a special permit allowing disabled individuals to, for example, hunt from a vehicle when their disability makes it impossible to hunt in the field. 

If the committee wants to entertain the idea of granting such authority, we believe the choice of a WMD should be the Commissioners, not the hunters.  Finally, a policy change like this should be for all 100 percent disabled hunters, not a select group and one of the deciding factors when issuing such a permit should be that a person’s disability does not allow them fair and equal opportunity to harvest a doe.

For these reasons, we oppose all of these bills:

• LD 279, An Act to Give Veterans Priority in the issuance of Antlerless Deer Permits
• LD 427, An Act to Give Certain Landowners First Priority for Antlerless Deer Permits
• LD 555, An Act to Allow Owners of 25 Acres or More Land that is Open to the Public for Hunting to Take any Deer without a Special Permit
• LD 509, An Act to Allocate at Least 10 Percent of Antlerless Deer Permits Available in Each Wildlife Management District to Hunters 70 Years of Age and Older
• LD 325, An Act to Amend the Process for Distributing Any Deer Permits

We testify in opposition to LD 340, An Act to Provide 100 Percent Disabled Veterans Antlerless Deer Permits in the Zone of Their Choice as written.  If the committee wants to entertain the exception outlined in my previous testimony to expand the Commissioner’s authority to issue doe permits on a case by case basis, LD 340 could act as a vehicle to accomplish that statutory change.    

Testimony in Opposition

LD 342, An Act to Require the Use of Personal Flotation Devices in Canoes

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

February 28, 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 opposition to LD 342, An Act to Require the Use of Personal Flotation Devices in Canoes.

Although boating safety is always a priority, we believe existing law requiring certified PFD’s for all canoe passengers is already law, forcing each person to wear them is not appropriate.  If this committee feels a need to strengthen the law or take an action, a better solution might be to propose a statewide education campaign that includes areas like overall boating safety. 

If access to a flotation device is the purpose behind LD 342 a better approach might be to reach out to manufacturers and inquire about the potential to produce PFD’s with a parachute cord style attachment that would allow the canoeist to attach a cord to themselves and the PFD.  If such a device was used and a canoe capsized the PFD would be attached to the individual and would be readily accessible.  When in a canoe I choose to wear my flotation device, but, on the rare occasion I don’t, I sit on my PFD.  If such an attachment came with the PFD and I had the lifeline option, I know I would use it.    

Testimony in Opposition

LD 732, An Act To Protect Young Bucks in Northern, Eastern and Western Maine
LD 767, An Act To Prohibit the Feeding of Deer from August 15th to December 15th
LD 1020, An Act To Minimize Crop Damage by Deer by Amending Certain Laws Governing Hunting
LD 1038, An Act To Allow Junior Hunters To Take an Antlered or Antlerless Deer in Any Wildlife Management District on Youth Deer Hunting Day
LD 1041, An Act Regarding the Safe Discharge of Firearms during Deer Hunting Season
LD 1083, An Act To Increase the Penalties for Hunting Deer over Bait.
LD 1065, An Act To Dedicate All Money Raised from the Moose Lottery and Permits to Research and Management of Moose.

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Presented by David Trahan, Executive Director, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine
February 28, 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 opposition to LD 732, “An Act To Protect Young Bucks in Northern, Eastern and Western Maine”, LD 767, “An Act To Prohibit the Feeding of Deer from August 15th to December 15th”, LD 1020, “An Act To Minimize Crop Damage by Deer by Amending Certain Laws Governing Hunting”, LD 1038, “An Act To Allow Junior Hunters To Take an Antlered or Antlerless Deer in Any Wildlife Management District on Youth Deer Hunting Day”, LD 1041, “An Act Regarding the Safe Discharge of Firearms during Deer Hunting Season” and LD 1083, “An Act To Increase the Penalties for Hunting Deer over Bait.”

In addition, we oppose LD 1065, “An Act To Dedicate All Money Raised from the Moose Lottery and Permits to Research and Management of Moose.”   

In a recent discussion with our consulting biologist, Gerry Lavigne, our organization decided to oppose all of the legislation on today’s schedule.  Other than the moose bill, most of the remaining legislation appears to be an attempt by members of the general public to manage the deer population to either protect deer or alter DIF&W management policy.  We are concerned with the growing number of bills introduced each year by disgruntled sportsmen concerned with struggling deer populations; in addition, we believe ignoring this public frustration is dangerous to the department and wildlife management.

To that point, our organization would like to propose a new course of action in certain regions of the state where white tailed deer populations are struggling like, Washington County.  As a pilot, we propose holding at least one, if not two public hearings, starting in Washington County, including participation from IF&W committee members, staff and interested parties with a goal of establishing a more comprehensive regional approach to restoring deer populations. 

A more comprehensive approach would include ideas to protecting deer wintering habitats, expanding protection and management of deer yards local land trusts, LMF, deer yard mapping, etc.  In addition, the meetings would seek local feedback from sportsmen and women and other interested parties on acceptable funding sources to further protect deer habitat.  Additional subject areas could be alternatives to depredation permits, ideas to reduce deer predation and poaching, etc.

As part of this public hearing process we also suggest educational panel discussions and debates with experts in deer management and public policy as well as participation by local advocates.  These meetings could be held prior to the public hearings.

Our organization recognizes that there is a growing frustration among the locals related to the loss of white tailed deer populations, the corresponding jobs, economic losses and the erosion of the white tailed deer hunting culture and traditions. 

We cannot ignore the fact that sportsmen and women in some parts of the state want a more active role in restoring deer populations in their communities.  Our organization would be willing to work with the department and our outdoor partners to either sponsor or help plan these meetings.  If the committee would like to entertain this concept, we suggest Washington County would be a good place to start.  When I was a State Senator and served on this committee, we established an IF&W sub-committee with a specific goal of strengthening IF&W policies related to restoring white tailed deer populations in some parts of the state.  As a result of those meetings, several important policy changes emerged, including changing the Land for Maine’s Future Program to buy deer wintering areas.  Now thousands of acres of critical deer wintering areas in vulnerable parts of Maine are in state ownership and protection.

Maine was once a national destination for white tailed deer hunting.  Our deer population was healthy and thriving.  It is our opinion, if sportsmen, the state, IF&W and other stakeholders are serious about restoring Maine’s deer population to a shadow of what it once was, we need more resources and a comprehensive approach that includes new ideas and local input and support.               

Testimony in Opposition

LD 425, An Act to Extend Fall Fishing Opportunities

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

February 28, 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 opposition to LD 425, An Act to Extend Fall Fishing Opportunities.

We appreciate the intent to extend fishing opportunities in the fall, but the change being proposed in LD 425 would allow fishermen to catch and release spawning fish.  Catch and release fishing studies show a mortality rate that ranges between 5 and 25 percent depending on the type of tackle used; in addition, spawning fish congregates fish species in areas that can be predictable and easily accessed putting intense pressure on spawn filled fish.  For those reasons, we oppose LD 425.

Testimony in Support

LD 31, Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine to Require that Signatures on a Direct Initiative Come from Each Congressional District

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 and I am testifying in support of LD 31, Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine to Require that Signatures on a Direct Initiative Come from Each Congressional District.  First, I would like to thank Rep. Espling for sponsoring this important SAM bill.

There are 24 states that have citizen initiated referendum systems. Of the 24, 12 have geographical requirements to qualify for the ballot. LD 31, is identical to Nevada’s law that requires at least l0 percent valid signatures of those that voted in the previous election for Governor in each Congressional District to qualify for the ballot. In Nevada, the Congressional geographical requirement in LD 31 was tested in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Angle v. Miller, on September 1, 2011. In upholding the law, the Federal Court said:

• All Districts Rule did not dilute political power in violation of the Equal Protection Clause;
• All Districts Rule did not discriminate against an identifiable class in violation of the Equal Protection Clause;
• All Districts Rule did not impose severe burden on communication between petition circulators and voters, as would trigger strict scrutiny under First Amendment;
• There was no evidence that All Districts Rule significantly inhibited ability of proponents to place initiatives on ballot, as would trigger strict scrutiny under First Amendment; and
• In a matter of first impression, Nevada had legitimate interest in making sure any initiative had grassroots support that was distributed throughout the state.

Why is LD 31 important?

It is no secret that wealthy groups from out of state are hijacking the petition signature collection process. In the recently completed referendum cycle, one slick professional signature collection company, Fieldworks of Washington, D.C., was hired to circulate petitions for three separate campaigns at the same time, collecting triplet fees. Just one campaign paid $560,000 to Fieldworks to get on the ballot. 

Companies like Fieldworks are not grassroots Mainers seeking social justice; instead, they are professional companies driven only by profit and hidden under the cloak of democracy. They feed the divisions between urban and rural Maine by targeting populated areas because more traffic means more signatures and more money. If a campaign had grassroots statewide support, collectors would spring from communities across urban and rural landscapes; they do not. For instance, in the 2013 bear referendum, the Humane Society of the United States hired a California company named PCI Consulting and paid them $230,000 to collect their signatures. In that effort, 74 percent of certified signatures came from the First Congressional District (analysis attached). 

Fieldworks of Washington, D.C., another professional signature collection company, worked for three of the initiative campaigns that appeared on the ballot in 2016. They were paid $560,000 by Bloomberg alone for Question 3, likely well over a million in total for the three. Seventy percent of the certified signatures for Question 3, and likely the two other initiatives in which Fieldworks was hired, came from the First District.

Professional signature collection companies don’t target the First District because voters are a diverse political sampling of Maine voters, but because towns are heavily populated and the professional petitioners can make a quick buck. 

As our population migrates further south toward Massachusetts, the distance between urban and rural Maine is growing. According to MapQuest, it takes six hours to travel from Kittery, Maine to Fort Kent, Maine. It takes just four and a half hours to travel from Kittery, Maine to New York City, NY. As a result, political opinions between the “two Maines” are diverse. As it relates to elected representation, this is not an issue. For citizen initiated referendums, where some level of statewide grassroots support should be demonstrated, voters in the Second District are mostly ignored because petitioners are targeting populated areas in the extreme southern portion of Maine. Half of the states with referendum systems have recognized this discriminatory flaw and have corrected it with geographical requirements proposed in LD 31.    

I urge you to pass LD 31. It will finally bring geographical fairness to state ballot initiatives. This bill will not impede debate or suppress voters; on the contrary, it will insure that ballot initiative signatures represent a diverse and more accurate geographical sampling of Maine voters.

Testimony Neither for Nor Against

LD 187, Resolve, To Establish a Commission To Simplify Maine’s Fishing Rules

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

February 14, 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 neither for nor against LD 187, Resolve, To Establish a Commission To Simplify Maine’s Fishing Rules

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine supports the simplification of Maine’s fishing rules.   The fishing rule book has been complicated and confusing for many years and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has begun the process of simplifying the book which is much different than simplifying rules.  

I caution the committee that attacking rules, through a separate newly established committee, is dangerous territory as each rule has been established for a purpose and when changed or repealed can trigger political backlash.  

We commend the sponsor of the bill and the person who brought it forward as this is an important issue to our membership and the general fishing public. The only reason we are testifying neither for nor against, instead of in favor, is because we want the committee to understand that the rules in place were established by previous legislative authority and we feel any changes in the rules should be clearly understood by the entire IFW Committee.

We do appreciate the work that the Department has done to improve the rule book and understand their undertaking simplification of the rules and encourage the committee to work with the Department on a process going forward that dovetails with their efforts.