Krysta West

Testimony in Support

LD 276, An Act To Require a Game Warden’s Certificate To Kill Wild Animals Causing Damage to Crops or Orchards and Notification to Nearby Residents

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 in support of LD 276, An Act To Require a Game Warden’s Certificate To Kill Wild Animals Causing Damage to Crops or Orchards and Notification to Nearby Residents

The permitting system for landowners to kill nuisance animals needs reform. Our organization believes the systems needs to be accountable for several reasons.  Getting information about how many animals and what type are being killed each year is very difficult. In addition, the leasing of fields and crop lands by farmers is expanding, many of the land owners particularly from out of state don’t understand that when they give permission for their land to be farmed that these same farmers are killing deer, turkeys and other wildlife on their property.  I have personally witnessed people bragging about shooting deer and killing turkeys on farmer’s land with these special permits.  Just recently I reported a complaint to Inland Fisheries and Wildlife about an individual bragging about shooting two deer with one shot in a farmer’s orchard.  The problem in that situation is it was in late December, long after the harvest season.

Last year the legislature passed a law clarifying that hunting and trapping were the preferred methods of managing consumptive wildlife.  The same language should apply when dealing with nuisance animals and right now we don’t believe there is a system in place that ensures all management tools using hunters and trappers are used prior to issuing permits.  We would like to see the committee take a comprehensive look at the Department’s program that allows farmers to kill unlimited wildlife.  You could start by asking for the department to supply the committee with data going back a couple years on the number of animals killed, where they were, and how many people have permission to kill animals on farmer’s property.  The last piece of information would be whether that land is open to hunting and trapping? If not, why?

Testimony in Opposition

LD 39, An Act To Clarify Landowners’ Liability Regarding Public Access

Senator Keim, Representative Moonen, distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is David Trahan and I am representing the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine testifying in opposition to LD 39, An Act To Clarify Landowners’ Liability Regarding Public Access.

Although expanding liability protections for landowners as it relates to recreational activities is something our organization supports, we cannot support LD 39 because of the unintended consequences that could occur if this legislation passes. Expanding liability exemptions beyond landowners and their agents to lease, sub-lease and easement holders creates dozens of different scenarios in which landowners can expand “pay-to-play” situations that could completely restructure the way in which Maine people recreate on private land.

For example, one landowner in the Bingham area recently gated thousands of acres of land and leased all of their bait sites to one guide. The only person allowed to bait bears on the land was the lease holder who happened to be a guide and their clients. Guides are required to have liability insurance because they are a business. Do we want to reward landowners and leaseholders by voiding them of all liability and responsibility for shutting their land to recreational access?

I know the sponsor of this legislation and the co-sponsors do not support “pay-to-play” and did not understand this legislation could allow such a situation to happen. This is a stereotypical situation where a bill leads to unintended consequences. It is becoming the trend around the state for large landowners to lease out hunting opportunities, particularly bear baiting sites, and give exclusive access to one guide and their clients. This trend concerns us.

Our organization does not support expanding this type of activity to other types of hunting, which this bill could do. I have attached a lengthy analysis by Kelly and Chapman, Esq. confirming what our concerns are and I encourage you to read the analysis particularly the conclusion portion. Quote: “What are the practical applications? The changes facilitate a middle man being involved, while maintaining protection for the land owner. This might expand hunting opportunities, where land owners might otherwise be disinclined to provide access. On the other hand, it makes land owners more capable of granting “pay-for-play access” to the public, generally, because they, or their agent, don’t need to be directly involved.”

For this reason we ask you to vote ought not to pass.

Testimony in Opposition

LD 60, An Act to Allow Senior Hunters to Shoot Antlerless Deer

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

February 7, 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 60, An Act to Allow Senior Hunters to Shoot Antlerless Deer.

Our organization tries to support the fair and responsible management of natural resources. We are growing concerned that the doe permit system is being piecemealed to the point where the average hunter has significantly less access to harvest white tailed deer than other user groups, like landowners, youth, veterans, etc. Doe permits are a management tool, not a resource to be manipulated in the political process. For that reason we oppose LD 60.

Testimony Neither For Nor Against

LD 128, An Act to Prohibit Foraging on Private Land without Permission

Before the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

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

January 31, 2017

Senator Davis, Representative Dunphy, distinguished members of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, my name is David Trahan and I am representing the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine testifying neither for nor against LD 128, An Act to Prohibit Foraging on Private Land without Permission.

The relationship between landowner and user has matured into a delicate balance of landowner tolerance and user respect.  At times, user abuse, whether dumping trash, tearing up fields or complete disregard has led to new laws or more “Posted” signs.  Because this relationship is so important and is vital to user groups like ours, we handle proposed laws like LD 128 very carefully.

If LD 128 passes, foraging for wild raspberries, blackberries, dandelion greens, wild cranberries and countless other wild edibles will change dramatically.  The provisions of LD 128 would require written landowner permission or a bill of sale to forage or transport any wild food in any amount.  Punishment for violating this new provision is a class E crime punishable by a $1000.00 fine and up to 6 months in jail.  Penalties increase significantly as the value of the wild edible increases.  We have concerns that if this law passes and someone possessing any outdoor edible in any situation they face inspection, search and possible prosecution for not providing a bill of sale or written permission, instead of the crime of theft.

In all cases, if you have a firearm or dangerous weapon while foraging or transporting without written permission or a bill of sale the penalty automatically jumps to a felony.  This provision is not practical and extreme, at best.

Maine law facilitates the public use of private land. If land is not posted, it is assumed that the public has a right to use it under the doctrine of “implied access”, it doesn’t mean you have the right to harvest plants like outdoor edibles that the courts have deemed the property of the landowner; as a result, the unauthorized taking of any private property is already against the law and can be prosecuted as theft under Title 17 A, Chapter 15, Subsection 353.  Recognizing that it is difficult for law enforcement to prove theft of wild trees and their parts when there are no witnesses, they made it easier for enforcement by adding a requirement that anyone possessing or transporting these natural resources carry proof of origin in the form of a bill of sale or written landowner permission.  This change created a new crime, not of theft, but, being in possession of a naturally growing resource without “proper documentation”.  All edibles would be added to this mandatory documentation requirement

The proposed new law specifically says “State Police, County Sheriffs, municipal law enforcement officers, State Forest Rangers and Game Wardens are authorized to make inspections, investigations and arrests.”  I will explain why this provision is one every sportsman and woman should care about.

First, this bill is coming from the agriculture and landowner community and is under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, yet this group has no effective enforcement branch for such a law.  Forest rangers do not have law enforcement training and are not armed like Game Wardens. When enforcing laws that include crimes like class B felonies, dangerous and sometimes violent encounters will happen. Because Game Wardens are those most likely to encounter land users in the woods as they protect our wildlife, and are specially trained for such potentially dangerous situations, they will likely be tasked with the lion’s share of the new “outdoor edible” enforcement. 

The bigger and more dramatic policy change being proposed by LD 128 is, do Maine people want to add enforcement and management of all the wild edible plants to the already resource strapped Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; and further, do sportsmen and women want to pay for it with hunting and fishing license fees?

We have nearly a million acres of unposted public land, federal land, countless non-resident landowners and land management companies with out of state addresses and no phone numbers.  We don’t believe a bill of sale or written permission is practical in any of these cases, so the net result if this law passes is millions of acres of land once foraged without incident will now be off limits for that purpose. 

Proponents of LD 128 say they are more concerned with the commercial harvest of fiddleheads and mushrooms.  Fiddleheads can be harvested for about three weeks in May, wouldn’t it make more sense for the landowners who don’t want pickers on their property to temporarily post, “Foraging by Permission only” or for the committee to craft a policy that targets commercial outdoor edible sales. 

If a new law is needed to address the concerns of landowners we believe it should be narrowly written addressing the commercial harvesting of wild edibles.  In the case of all other outdoor edibles, landowners can use existing theft laws to file complaints on a case by case basis.  The real lesson here is, this is an educational opportunity.  The lesson-as a land user it is important to ask permission first and for the landowner to make it clear what types of activities they allow and which they don’t.  The advice I will give my members-written permission is best.

Thank you