Testimony

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

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, 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.

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.