The word these days around the DIF&W in regard to managing our resources is "Social Engineering". While I am not sure who coined the phrase, it has become the battle cry of Director of Fisheries John Boland and several other high ranking staff members. In a nutshell, this means that the department will leave decision making in the hands of the sporting public. As I see it, this is just another version of the same flawed policy that got us where we are today; just formalized!

In fact, at a recent meeting in Augusta where I was representing SAM's Fishing Initiative Committee (SAM/FIC) with George Smith, DIF&W Commissioner Martin reiterated the importance of "Public Input" several times (all the while questioning whether I was representing myself of SAM/FIC?). I found it disturbing that in this case "Public" apparently meant "SAM" and if I had in fact been representing "Bob Mallard" my opinions would have been much less important.

While sound and fair on the face (i.e., do what the public wants), this is a very dangerous policy as it has no formal rules (no one wins in a game without rules!) Worse is that the definition of "Public" is unclear and often contradicts stated department policy where "all Mainer's are created equal". It is also unclear to me how the department could implement a policy by which the public dictates the outcome when they have no idea who the public is?

While sometimes it seems that "Public" means "Locals" (recent rash of "Informational Meetings", etc.), other times it seems that "Public" means "Regional Biologists" (recent Kennebec Regulations, etc.). Sometimes a petition is counted as "one", other times it is counted as "many"? Then there are the times that Special Interest Groups get something simply because they ask (last years "Emergency Smelt Openings", Long Pond ice fishing, etc.)

What irks me most is that I do not believe that the DIF&W has any idea what the public really wants these days (where is the data?). Case in point, just look at the splake program; it must be supported by the "Public" or under a policy of "Social Engineering" it would stop wouldn't it? With both SAM and TU having stepped up against this program (along with countless anglers), why does it continue and how is this justified under "Social Engineering"?

Moving onto Catch-and-Release (C&R), surveys conducted by both the Maine Sportsman and SAM indicate that better than 50% of the respondents want more of it. Take that same survey to TU and I'll bet the response would be much higher (try 90% or better!). However, as I have stated before, less than ¼% of "managed" brook trout waters are C&R. Worse is that 2005 is going by with no additions in regard to C&R (the one proposal failed due to "Social Engineering").

As I see it, "Social Engineering" is nothing more than another way to stack the deck in favor of the status quo. With no firm rules, the department can side with whomever they want (loudest, most connected, local, or simply those that they agree with). What are the chances that other state agencies would use "Social Engineering" to determine the outcome of issues. Guess we'll have 100 mile an hour speed limits because the "Public" doesn't like speeding tickets!

Not only does "Social Engineering" unfairly stack the deck against sportsmen who want more from our resources, it puts the resource itself at risk by allowing those with ulterior motives to dictate the rules. If we sportsmen could be trusted to do the right thing, we wouldn't need fish and game laws at all! However, we all know that wouldn't work so we wouldn't even try. That is exactly what is happening under "Social Engineering" - too little protection for the resource!

What is needed at the DIF&W are policies that are based on science (what is best for the resource is best for us!), data (what the public really wants - not what the DIF&W thinks the public wants), and fair play (equal support for all types of sportsmen); not "Social Engineering". Only this will ensure that our resources are managed to their fullest potential, the future of our resources is secure, and that all sportsmen get their fair share of the pie.

"Social Engineering" lacks the checks-and-balances, goals, success criteria, and accountability that is required to ensure that our fish and game resources prosper. In addition, the lack of formal rules all but ensures that if you are not part of what the DIF&W considers the "Public", you will be left out in the cold in regard to any portion of our resources being managed up to your expectation. As I said, while it looks good on paper, it doesn't even pass the straight face test.

On a Similar Note...

I recently read where SAM Executive Director George Smith stated that "I would like to see a constitutional amendment that eliminates wildlife management issues from the citizen's initiative process." If passed, this would in affect lessen the effectiveness of "Public Input". The problem is that while I am sure George is concerned with the non-sporting public (HSUS, etc.), what would happen if the wind changed and the powers that be started ignoring we sportsmen?

Like "Social Engineering", this is a very bad idea. While it may prevent another "Bear Referendum", it would leave us at the mercy of the bureaucrats in Augusta (a place I do NOT want to be!) Considering that less than ¼% of all our salmonid waters are currently managed up to my standards, I am not willing to give up my right to challenge the status quo. What is really needed is fair and rational management not "buzz" words and Constitutional Amendments.

Regulations Update:

For those who read my previous article in regard to "Simplifying Fishing Regulations", we have made some progress that I would like to report. The Sportsman's Alliance of Maine's Fishing Initiative Committee (SAM/FIC) has adopted the concept as a formal project. After forming a sub-committee to review my study and subsequent recommendations, the group "tweaked" my proposal and presented the results to the rest of the group for approval.

In addition, as mentioned earlier George Smith and I recently went to Augusta to present our vision to the DIF&W. This was done in a sincere attempt to create a cooperative effort between SAM/FIC and the department to come up with a proposal for simplifying the rules that worked for all involved. If this does not pan out, George has made it clear that he would take it to the legislators for support. This is step one in what I expect to be a very long process.

With 13 length limits and 22 unique bag/length limit combinations applicable to brook trout alone, how could any rational person argue that things haven't got a bit out of hand? Wouldn't it be great to see this knocked down to a half a dozen or less with each one being a formal "S-Code"? Well, this is exactly what many of us would like to see and we hope that with support from the DIF&W and the angling community it could become a reality.