Last month I covered the proposed bag/length combinations associated with the Regulations Simplification project. The next issue is in regard to how non-conforming waters will be mapped to the new regulations. In the early stages of the project, some folks involved stressed that they were concerned the department would use this as an opportunity to liberalize regulations. While I too was concerned, I felt that regulations simplification was necessary and as such worth the risk.

While my original proposal included a clause that would prohibit the “liberalization” of any regulations during the mapping phase of the project, unfortunately this was not adopted by the legislators. As a result, those who were concerned up front monitored the project closely as it began to take shape. The department did however publicly state that liberalization of regulations would occur very infrequently:

John Boland – Director of Fisheries: “For about 75 percent, the regulations would be more restrictive and for 25 percent, less restrictive.”

To make sure I knew exactly where we were at, I decided to pose the question to Mr. Boland myself (i.e., “what percentage of waters have been made more strict or less strict as part of the new regulations mapping?”). The answer I received was as follows:

John Boland – Director of Fisheries: “We have not done that analysis yet.”

Hearing that no analysis had actually been done to determine the impact of the mapping, I decided to do the analysis myself with the help of the newly formed Dud Dean Angling Society. The rules established were simple; facts not opinions. Using the mapping document provided by the DIF&W on their website, we reviewed the current and proposed regulations associated with each water being changed, rating the impact on bag limit, length limit and net change.

Regarding bag and length limits, we rated each “More Strict”, “Less Strict” and “No Change”. Next we rated each in regard to the overall impact of the bag and length limit changes. If both the bag and the length limits were more or less strict we rated the net change accordingly. If either the bag or the length limit was more or less strict and the other was unchanged, we rated it based on what changed. If however one was stricter and one was less strict, we refrained from rating it.

What we learned is that while there had been minimal changes in regard to bag limits (the bag limit on 85% of the waters affected by this project remained the same), there had been significant changes in regard to length limits. Specifically, over 95% of the waters affected had length limit changes. Where length limits were changed, over 75% were made LESS restrictive! While some may see this as a coincidence, I am concerned that there is more to it.

As for bag limits, 9.57% were made stricter, 5.26% were made less strict, and 85.17% were unchanged. As for length limits, 15.79% were made stricter, 78.47% were made less strict, and 5.74% were unchanged. The net change was 19.62% stricter, 77.99% less strict, and 2.39 subjective. It is important to note that the statistics above refer only to those bodies of water where the regulations were changed (many waters were not changed as part of this project).

Another thing our analysis pointed out was regional inconsistencies. As stated before, management philosophies vary radically from one region to another. In fact, the same region (G) that lost the most native BKT lakes and ponds has liberalized the regulations on the most bodies of water (93.06% of those changed in the respective region). This is another example of why our Regional approach to fisheries management is flawed and needs to be changed.

Region G (Aroostook County) also accounted for 28 out of 36 instances where slot limits were changed to minimum length limits (that were in fact lower than the lower end of the original slot limit!). That this happened so soon after a failed attempt by a local legislator to abolish slot limits raises some serious questions about the project. Once again, I am concerned that politics not science are driving the decisions regarding this project.

Twenty-six out of the 28 bodies of water in Region G going from slot limits to minimum length limits appear on the current (2005) “Native BKT Pond” list (the last 296 brook trout lakes and ponds that have never been stocked!). In fact, 14 of the 26 are going to 6 inch minimum length limit. Not only does this not protect large fish but potentially not even sexually mature fish. This affects 37% of the remaining native BKT lakes and ponds in that region.

Lastly, 3 lakes (Deboullie, Gardner and Pushineer), or 25% of the state's remaining blueback char waters, are being liberalized under the guise of “simplification”. All three waters are going from open slots (S-26) to a 2-fish; 6" minimum. When you look at what is being proposed for Region G, it validates why some in the outdoor community were afraid of this project (i.e., it would be used as an excuse to liberalize regulations).

The department also stated that while not all lakes and ponds would conform to the new regulations, most would (this implies that there are still going to be exceptions). This was in fact the reason for this project in the first place. If we are ending up with any exceptions, was this driven by science and backed by research or is it simply more politics? This needs to be looked at closely so that we do not end up back where we started.

John Boland – Director of Fisheries: “…roughly 95 percent of brook trout waters would fall within the eight regulatory categories…”

While the majority of BKT lakes and ponds will now adhere to the eight standard regulations, a comparison between the proposed mapping document and the 2005 Open Water Regulations book to ascertain what is not being changed showed that there are still going to be at least 9 exceptions. Added to the 8 formal regulations, that is 17 bag/length combinations applicable to BKT. Considering that we started with 23 this is not what I had hoped for.

Lastly I am concerned that this project was done without adequate input from those who worked the hardest to bring the problem to the table in the first place (this was driven from outside the department). Having personally worked to rejuvenated this project (to their credit SAM/FIC had started this project long ago), I am disappointed that the DIF&W put out a plan before they met with any third-parties or formed any working groups.

While I am pleased that we are finally simplifying our BKT regulations, I feel that the DIF&W plan is not well thought out. There is a level of liberalization that we can ill afford if in fact we are serious about restoring our fishing and protecting our BKT resources for the generations to come. While many feel that ANY change is good, I do not expect that we will get back to the table any time soon and as such would like to see it done right the first time.

Bob Mallard has been a flyfisherman and fly tyer for over 25 years and is the owner of Kennebec River Outfitters on Route 201 in Madison, ME. He can be reached at (207) 474-2500 or www.kennebecriveroutfitters.com.