• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE C73r c. I TABLE CONTENTS Page The Board Reports 1 Planning A Fisheries 5 Fish Hatcheries 8 Wildlife 11 Game Farms 18 Ornithologist's Report 20 District Reports Western District 25 Connecticut Valley District 28 Central District 31 Northeast District 33 Southeast District 35 Information and Education 37 Realty AO Engineering A3 Organizational Chart AA Personnel A5 Legislation A6 Financial Report A8 Publication #1 1 ,2a.8-l48-12£-3-79-CR Approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent. THE BOARD REPORTS Bradlee C. Gage, Chairman Kenneth Burns , Secretary Martin Burns Donald Coughlin George Darey James Baird Philip Stanton As required by law, the Administrative Board of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife met monthly throughout the year, except during February. That meeting was cancelled because of the blizzard. Fiscal 78 marked the first full year of administration by the Division's new director, Matthew B. Connolly, Jr. Division morale is high and, in the Board's opinion, the Division is filling its role as the manager of the Commonwealth's fisheries and wildlife resources in an exemplary manner. New Board Members There were two changes in Board personnel during Fiscal 78. George Darey from Berkshire County and Don Coughlin from Barnstable County re- placed Henry Russell and Roger Williams as appointees on the Board. Both Henry Russell and Roger Williams have served the Commonwealth and the sportsmen well and will be missed. However, the new members are ably qualified and are welcome additions. It is particularly gratifying once again to have a Board member from Berkshire County which is a key hunting and fishing area. Board Concerns Besides its usual review of Division activities and hearings, the Board devoted some time to three specific areas: (1) concern with current salary levels of its professional staff in comparison to Federal and neighboring state salary levels; (2) concern over the status of Division equipment; and (3) non-game management. While the Board recognizes its limitations as far as being able to increase salary levels within the Division, it is concerned that current salary levels are falling behind. While money is not always the key or deciding factor in keeping professionals within the Division, it is an important factor. The Board has always taken a great deal of satisfac- tion in the high qualifications and professionalism of the technicians within the Division and is distressed when salary levels are not competi- tive with similar Federal positions or with neighboring states. The Board certainly recognizes the fiscal restraints necessary with- in the state, yet it is very concerned with the deteriorating quality of Division equipment — from cars to chain saws to boats. To do its job adequately, the Division needs good working equipment and the Board sup- ports fully the efforts of the Director to include new equipment as a priority budget item. 2 The Board is concerned over the long run as to how the Division will be involved in non-game management work. Over the past several decades, by legislative action, the Division has been deeply involved with many areas of non-game management —work it has done willingly and well. However, as the concern in non-game management increases, particularly at the Federal level, it appears that the Division will become more formally involved. The Board feels Division involvement in non-game management should become a legitimate Division function rather than being done outside the Division by Federal efforts or by another state agency. The Board, however, recognizes differences in philosophies and the practical aspects which complicate development of legislation acceptable to all parties. Hearings The Board conducted several hearings on proposed regulatory changes during Fiscal 78. In waterfowl hearings, the split season concept was continued and a season similar to that of the previous year was adopted. The Board recognizes that an ideal compromise between the coastal gunner and the inland waterfowl hunter is still not possible under current Federal guidelines. In dealing with squirrel regulations, the Board established a new concept in statewide regulations, looking at the state from the point of view of zones, recognizing that the urban eastern part of the state might well require different regulations than the rural western section. Division Activities In its role as "overseer" of Division activities the Board, in conjunction with the Director and his staff, monitored aspects of Divi- sion work at its monthly board meetings. Besides considering normal Division activities, the Board followed up its monitoring of monies spent in Canada on projects funded by the Massachusetts waterfowl stamp, explored long-range planning as to possible changes in the MASSACHUSETTS WILDLIFE publication, kept abreast of the anadromous fish restoration efforts in the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers, explored the CETA and YACC programs starting in the Division, and followed closely the Northeast Regional Firearms Educational Marksmanship Center at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. Land Acquisition A strong program of land acquisition continued, backed enthusiasti- cally by the sportsmen, the Director and his staff, and the Board. The Board continued to meet on almost a monthly basis with Floyd Richardson, Chief of Wildlife Lands, to review land acquisition efforts and to for- mally move to expend Division monies for specific tracts of land. While the Board remains committed to land acquisition, it recog- nizes that dwindling funds in the future may force cutbacks from the present level of expenditures. However, the Board's objective remains to ensure that the equivalent of one dollar per license is earmarked for land investment. 3 In summary, the Division continues its strong position, fulfilling its role as manager of the Commonwealth's fisheries and wildlife re- sources. The Board appreciates the continued efforts of the sportsmen, the legislature, and other state agencies in its efforts to move ahead. _ . PLANNING Paul S. Mugford Senior Land Use Planner The Division's commitment to a full-fledged and continuous planning effort, initiated in 1975 with the appointment of a planner to the staff, was intensified by the addition, in August 1977, of two more planners. The appointments of the two assistant planners, John J. Jonasch and Thomas J. Early, created a three-man team and led to the institution of the first fully comprehensive agency planning program. Experienced planning specialists from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are assisting the Division in developing comprehensive planning and ap- propriate Division expenditures which qualify for reimbursement under the federal aid to fish and wildlife programs. Comprehensive fish and wildlife planning can function to assist state wildlife agencies in improving management and decision-making processes. It is a system for more effective management of fish and wildlife resources involving all fish and wildlife activities in partic- ular and all activities which have an impact on natural resources in general. The key elements are (1) it focuses on output and benefits rather than input and activities and sets measurable objectives; (2) it is geared toward decentralization and thus involves key people at all levels; and (3) it evaluates alternative agency actions and selects those that are more cost effective. Following formal acceptance of the Division's comprehensive plan- ning proposal by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an Over- view Committee was established within the Division to guide and monitor the planning effort. The Overview Committee is comprised of the Director and all senior staff members including District Wildlife Managers. During the fiscal year, planners and other Division personnel began to develop a strategic fish and wildlife plan involving (1) a complete review of all fish and wildlife statutes, rules and regulations to re- define and confirm agency authority and responsibility; (2) the develop- ment of an updated statement of the agency's goal; (3) the identifi- cation of the animal species or habitat types that will be the focus for developing measurable program output (benefits); (4) the use of field, telephone and mail surveys for the purpose of assessing current and fu- ture usage, or use opportunities involving fish and wildlife and (5) the identification and assembly of specific resource data to enable fore- casting of both supply and utilization of the state's fish and wildlife resources The Division's decision to enter into comprehensive planning was not made in haste. It was undertaken because of a deep-seated desire to em- ploy the best decision-making methods available and to develop the same degree of performance in fish and wildlife management that is evident in the progressive business community. Peter H. Oatis Chief Aquatic Biologist During Fiscal Year 1978, fisheries programs concentrated on evaluating trout management programs, surveying the Westfield River, evaluating strains of sea-run brown trout as well as assessing selected northern pike and smallmouth bass fisheries. Biologists also initiated projects that solicited the aid of volunteer groups such as Trout Un- limited and the Bass Anglers Sportsmen's Society in attempting to establish a fishery monitoring network. A statewide angler preference survey was conducted and the information gathered from it proved very helpful in the planning efforts of the fisheries staff.

Load more

  110

Copy Link