Since 2003, the DIF&W has managed the Androscoggin River below NH under a convoluted (and twice changed) set of seasons, bag and length limits that in my opinion does little to enhance the fishery. In fact, the regulations that have been in place since 2003 are so confusing that I am not sure if anyone inside or outside the DIF&W actually understands them:

• From the Maine-New Hampshire Border, Gilead, downriver to Route 232 Bridge, Rumford Point: April 1 August 15: S-6, daily bag limit on trout: 1 fish, minimum length limit on salmon, rainbow trout, and brown trout: 12 inches. All trout between 16 and 20 inches must be released alive at once. From August 16 – November 30: S-6; all trout, salmon, togue, and bass must be released alive at once. From December 1-31: Bass must be released at once. From January 1 – March 31: Daily bag limit on bass: 1 fish between 12 and 15 inches.

In addition to the fact that the regulations change four times during the season, it is unclear to me whether one can legally fish for trout before April 1st or after November 30th. The fact that you must release bass in December and keep only one bass between January and March implies that you can fish. However, the lack of regulations applicable to trout implies that you cannot fish. How can a body of water be open to fishing for one species and closed to fishing for another?

The term “trout” used in conjunction with the daily bag limit applies to brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout but not salmon (refer to page 10 of the Maine Open Water Fishing rule book). As such, while an angler can keep only one trout, they can keep up to two salmon (if the law is interpreted literally). As for the minimum length limits, salmon, rainbow trout, and brown trout must be greater than 12 inches. However, brook trout can be harvested at just 6 inches (if the law is interpreted literally). Anglers must then adhere to a “slot limit” that prohibits the harvest of trout but not salmon between 16 and 20 inches (if the law is interpreted literally).

With three species of trout as well as salmon found in this stretch of river, and a poorly defined set of regulations, the opportunity for error or deliberate abuse is high. Worse is that even after reporting this to the DIF&W two years ago, although the wording of the regulations changed in 2006 the meaning did not. What we have in place today is bad for the resource, bad for those who utilize it, and bad for those who depend on it for their living.

The DIF&W has proposed a new set of regulations for 2007. There is good news and bad news. Specifically, the proposal clears up some areas of confusion but fails to address other areas. While better than what is in place today, the proposed regulations fall well short of what is needed socially (a clear set of regulations) and economically (a “destination” fishery). With fish consumption advisories in effect, cooperation from a neighboring F&G department (NH), and support from local businesses, if we cannot step up here we cannot step up anywhere:

• Androscoggin River from the Maine-New Hampshire Border to tidewater. Open to open water fishing from January 1 to December 31.
  
• From Maine-New Hampshire border downriver to the bridge crossing in Gilead: Single hook artificial lures only; all fish caught must be released alive at once.
  
• From the bridge crossing in Gilead to the Route 232 Bridge, Rumford Point: April 1 – September 30: S-6; daily bag limit on trout: 1 fish; minimum length limit on salmon, rainbow trout and brown trout: 12 inches. All trout between 16 and 20 inches must be released alive at once. From October 1 – March 31: S-6; all trout and salmon must be released at once.

While the year-round fishing is a welcome change (or clarification?), anglers must still sort out two seasonal sets of bag and length limits. In addition, nothing has been done about the convoluted species-specific bag and length limits. Lastly, with just a couple of miles of river in Maine affected, the impact on the fisheries above and below the NH/ME border will be negligible. This is simply not enough to make any real difference as the fish inevitably move up and down the system and will be subject to harvest when they drop below the Gilead Bridge.

Like they did on the Kennebec several years ago, the DIF&W is imposing what are perceived to be stricter regulations that will not result in a noticeable improvement to the fishery. Each time the DIF&W does this anglers are asked to adjust their behavior but are not rewarded with noticeably better fishing. This more than anything else causes anglers to lose faith in modern fisheries management.

In 2003 the New Hampshire Fish and Game department took a bold and unprecedented step toward developing a true quality trout fishing destination on the Androscoggin River above the Maine border. Specifically, New Hampshire designated approximately 20 miles of the Androscoggin River beginning in Berlin and ending at the Maine border as follows:

• From Sawmill Dam to the ME/NH border: there is no closed season for all species; all fish shall be released unharmed to the water; only single hook artificial lures and flies shall be used and all hooks shall be barbless or have all barbs pinched; the taking of brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and salmon between 2 hours after sunset and one hour before sunrise is prohibited.

Not only did NH provide the fish with the absolute highest level of protection (C&R, ALO, barbless hooks), they provided anglers with the maximum level of opportunity by opening the river to year-round fishing. In addition, at approximately 20 miles the quality management section of the Androscoggin River in New Hampshire is as long as all similarly managed water in Maine in aggregate.
With 20 miles of upstream year-round C&R water ending at our border one would assume that the DIF&W would seize the opportunity to develop a rare and invaluable inter-state quality-fishing destination. Well, after 3 full years of waiting what has been done to date and is now being proposed for 2007 is under whelming at best.

In fact, I believe that the new regulations being proposed by the DIF&W will help New Hampshire more than it will help Maine. Specifically, New Hampshire anglers can now float from the last bridge in NH to the first bridge in ME and never leave C&R water. Conversely, Maine anglers launching at the first bridge in ME will be out of C&R water in just 100 or so yards. There are also rumors that NH and ME are considering reciprocal fishing and guiding licenses between the last bridge in NH and the first bridge in ME. If this happens where do you think anglers and guides will go?

For some reason the DIF&W has failed to step up and take advantage of the unique situation found on the Androscoggin. If anyone thinks that this can be “adjusted” after the fact they are being naïve. Any subsequent attempt to get more restrictive regulations in place after the fact will be met with resistance from anglers due to the feeling that they already had to concede ground once. What is needed here is a plan that will ensure that the fishery meets its potential. What we have is another “feel good” set of regulations that will not meet that goal.

Instead of trying to make everyone happy and in the end making no one happy, the DIFW should step up with a plan that gives something to the quality-angling crowd (and local economy) and something to the traditional angling crowd. The plan that would make the most sense is to impose the proposed regulations from the NH border down the West Bethel boat launch. This would have a much more significant effect on the fishery. I would then propose a more liberal set of regulations from West Bethel down. This is the only way that we will maximize the potential of the upper river and provide adequate opportunity for the traditional angler.
Let’s not do what we did on the Kennebec. Three years after imposing stricter regulations the fishery has not improved to the level it could have. The likelihood that we will be able to address this anytime soon is slim. In fact there are rumors of a petition calling for a return to the old regulations. What are the chances that we would be faced with a petition if the fishery had improved significantly? Folks are willing to concede ground if they are rewarded accordingly. To concede ground and not see a noticeable improvement does not sit will with anglers.

I highly recommend that anglers seeking a true quality angling experience and the businesses who are affected by the river step up and demand to be heard. The plan being proposed does not make sense. The end result will be a marginal improvement in the fishery and related recreational economy. The upper Androscoggin is a very large river with marginal spawning habitat, an insufficient stocking program, and tough summer conditions. As such the river cannot afford to lose any fish if it is to become a true destination fishery.

Let’s not repeat the mistakes we made on the Kennebec. Maine has only two year-round floatable traditional trout fisheries and the Androscoggin is one of them. A strong fishery on the upper Androscoggin is good for anglers, good for guides, good for local businesses, and good for Maine. When the public hearings come around all involved should step up and demand to be heard. The DIF&W’s proposal lacks vision and beckons the question; “what are we afraid of?”