Can the Maine commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife shut down coyote snaring, or is he locked into running the program?
Plain-English summary
This July 6, 2004, opinion was a clarification of the AG's earlier June 21, 2004, opinion (AG Opinion 2004-06-21). Representative McKee had asked the AG to be more direct: does the commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have power to end coyote snaring, or is he mandated to run the program?
The AG answered yes, the commissioner has that power. Title 12, sections 10001, 10051, 10053(8), and 10105(3) confer discretion to maintain coyote control programs. They do not require a particular snaring program, or any snaring program at all. Section 10051 defines the commissioner's broader responsibility as preserving, protecting, and enhancing inland fisheries and wildlife resources. Section 10001(73) places predator control within wildlife management. The combination of statutes authorizes the commissioner to choose the methods.
This pair of opinions illustrates the distinction between a mandate ("shall maintain a coyote control program") and the design choices within it ("may employ qualified persons"). The Legislature wrote in flexibility; the commissioner is empowered to use it.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Why did Rep. McKee ask for clarification?
A: Because the AG's June 21 letter had said the law "does not legally compel the Department to carry out a particular coyote snaring program." Rep. McKee read that as ambiguous and wanted to know specifically whether the commissioner could end snaring entirely. The July 6 letter said yes.
Q: Could the Legislature force the commissioner to run a snaring program?
A: Yes, by amending the statute to remove discretion. The current language uses "may" verbs for the implementation details. If the Legislature substituted "shall" and specified the methods, the commissioner would be bound. The Legislature retained appropriation and oversight authority.
Q: What's section 10001(73)?
A: A definition section. Subsection 73 confirms that "wildlife management" includes "predator control." This is the structural hook that places coyote control programs within the commissioner's broader wildlife-management responsibilities, but does not specify a methodology.
Q: What about the federal Endangered Species Act issue?
A: That came up in the June 21 opinion, which said any coyote snaring program had to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act. The Department suspended snaring while it sought a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The July 6 clarification did not revisit the ESA piece directly.
Background and statutory framework
12 M.R.S.A. § 10051 is the DIFW mission statement. The commissioner has responsibility "to preserve, protect and enhance the inland fisheries and wildlife resources of the State; to encourage the wise use of these resources; to ensure coordinated planning for the future use and preservation of these resources; and to provide for effective management of these resources."
Section 10001(73) defines wildlife management to include predator control. Section 10105(3) addresses coyote control specifically, with subsection (3)(A) granting discretion over agents and territories, and subsection (3)(B) addressing snaring in unorganized townships during winter, with all activity under departmental direction.
The clarifying opinion explicitly says: "for the reasons set forth in this and my June 21 letter, we do not believe that these statutes require the Commissioner to maintain a coyote snaring program."
Citations and references
Statutes:
- 12 M.R.S.A. § 10001
- 12 M.R.S.A. § 10051
- 12 M.R.S.A. § 10105
Prior AG opinion:
- ME AG Opinion 2004-06-21 (DIFW coyote snaring discretion)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
- Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2004/ag_20040706.pdf
Original opinion text
MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE
The following document is provided by the
LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY
at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library
http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib
Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied
(searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions)
04-4
REGIONAL OFFICES:
84 HARLOW ST., 2ND FLOOR
BANGOR, MAINE 0440 i
TEL: (207) 941-3070
r',.. STEVEN ROWE FAX: (207) 941-3075
ATTORNEY GENERAL
44 OAK STREET, 4TH FLOOR
PORTLAND, MAtNE 0410 I -30 14
TEL: (207) 822-0260
FAX: (207) 822-0259
TDD: (877) 428-8800
STATE OF MAINE
Telephone: (207} 826-8800
OFFICE OF THE A TIORNEY GENERAL 128 SWEDEN ST., STE. 2
ID□: (207) 626-8865
CARIBOU, MAINE 04736
6 STATE HOUSE STATION TEL: (207)496-3792
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0006 FAX'. (207) 496-3291
July 6, 2004
Representative Linda Rogers McKee
Walton Road
RR 1 Box 280
Wayne, Maine 04284
Dear Representative McKee:
This is in response to your letter of June 29, 2004, wherein you requested that I clarify
my opinion letter of June 21, 2004 regarding the State's coyote control law. Specifically, you
asked that I clarify the final sentence in my June 29 letter, in which I stated "[W]e believe that
the law does not legally compel the Department [of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife] to carry out a
particular coyote snaring program." You asked that I more directly address your original
question: "Does the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have the power to end coyote
snaring if he sees fit, or is he mandated by the Legislature to carry out the program by the
Legislature?"
It certainly was not my intent to create any ambiguity inmy June 21 opinion. The
relevant statutes, Title 12 M.R.S.A. §§10001, 10051, 10053(8) and 10105(3), confer upon the
Commissioner discretionary authority to maintain coyote control programs. They do not,
however, require that the Commissioner maintain a particular coyote snaring program, or, for
that matter, any coyote snaring program at all. As I explained in my earlier letter, while
§10105(3) states that "the commissioner shall maintain a coyote control program as follows,"
what then follows is that the "commissioner may employ qualified persons to serve as agents of
the department for purposes of coyote control." The statute further grants to the commissioner
discretion regarding the determination of "where predation by coyotes is posing a threat to deer
or other wildlife_" §10105(3)(A).
As head of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Commissioner has the
responsibility "to preserve, protect and enhance the inland fisheries and wildlife resources of the
State; to encourage the wise use of these resources; to ensure coordinated planning for the future
use and preservation of these resources; and to provide for effective management of these
resources." 12 M.R.S.A. §10051. Wildlife management includes predator control. 12 M.R.S.A.
§10001 (73).
Primed on Recycled Paper
Representative Linda Rogers McKee
July 7, 2004
Page 2
The Legislature has given the Commissioner, as part of his responsibility to manage and protect
wildlife resources, the authority to initiate and maintain wildlife predator control programs,
including the coyote snaring program contemplated by §10 I 05. However, for the reasons set
forth in this and my June 21 letter, we do not believe that these statutes require the
Commissioner to maintain a coyote snaring program.
I hope that this fully and unambiguously answers your question. Thank you for giving me
this opportunity to clarify my earlier response.
G. Steven Rowe
Attorney General
GSR/djp