The Maine Warden Service refused to answer questions Saturday about allegations that a target of an undercover operation investigating violations of hunting laws made harassing phone calls to a game warden.

On Friday, the Warden Service said it had the Maine State Police deliver a “cease of harassment notice” to Richard Sanborn Sr. of Parsonsfield for allegedly making harassing phone calls to the warden. The warden wasn’t named in the Warden Service’s news release disputing a Portland Press Herald story, but it was an apparent reference to William Livezey, who led the two-year undercover operation that resulted in guilty pleas to game law violations by more than 40 people in York County.

Targets of that investigation, along with two other operations, alleged that Livezey drank heavily with the targets of the investigations, gave alcohol to the hunters and urged them to commit crimes, while also committing some game law offenses himself. One of the cases went to the Maine State Supreme Judicial Court, which found that Livezey’s behavior may have been “repugnant,” but it was “not so outrageous” as to warrant dismissing charges against one of the defendants. The court also noted that Livezey was trying to infiltrate himself with the hunters and that he testified that he tried to avoid committing crimes himself.

Sanborn reported to the York County Jail at 8:30 a.m. Friday to begin serving a 22-day sentence for violation of game laws. The statement Friday evening from Cpl. John MacDonald said the notice was served to Sanborn on Friday afternoon.

On Saturday, MacDonald refused to say where the notice was served, when the allegedly harassing calls were made, whether they were made to the warden’s home or cell phones and how officials believe Sanborn obtained the warden’s phone number.

Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety, said Saturday evening he had no information on the case.

Two articles in the Press Herald over the past week questioned the tactics that the wardens use in undercover operations and whether the violations justified the long investigations that were undertaken. The warden service has reacted strongly to the articles, claiming they represent an attempt to smear the wardens and are one-sided.