Every couple of weeks I get an email or letter from a reader asking where I get the “facts” used in my articles.  Let me start by saying that my articles are a mix of detail data, summarized data, miscellaneous facts, assumptions, and of course, opinions.  A list of Remote Ponds is detail data, a number of Remote Ponds is summarized data, saying “Pond A” is a Remote Pond is a fact, saying that a fishery is in decline is an opinion, and saying that the reason for the decline is over-harvest is an assumption.

With that said, let’s assume that those asking the question are referring to what I would call the “data” behind the detail, summaries and facts I write about.  As anyone who does it can tell you, collecting the data necessary to do fact-based articles is not an easy task.  In addition to content (the source does not always have what you want) and technical (the source can’t always get what you want) limitations, there are turf and I assume, policy issues that make getting accurate, complete and timely data difficult at best.       

Most of what I use in my articles comes either directly or indirectly from the DIF&W.  When I decide to cover a subject, I start by sending an email(s) to the department requesting information.  In some cases, the data is forthcoming and I simply go to work.  In other cases, I have to go to the next level to get what I want.  When the data cannot be obtained informally, I utilize a provision under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) that allows private citizens to request public information.

When you want to make a formal request for data from a government agency, you start with a written FOI request to the head of the respective agency.  Once submitted, the agency in question must follow a very specific set of steps and timelines.  In most cases, this gets me what I need.  However, in a recent instance I was refused an electronic copy of a DIF&W database after having been offered to come down to Augusta to look at it or pay a fee for having it printed and mailed to me.

Due to the size of the database and the fact that I wanted to load it into an Excel spreadsheet to do some trend-analysis, a trip to Augusta or a printed copy would not suffice.  After exhausting all of my options, I solicited the help of the Attorney Generals Office.  Upon hearing my grievance and reading the related emails between me and the DIF&W, the Attorney General’s Office decided in my favor and told the department that they had to give me what I had asked for. 

The reason for the favorable decision was that the previous offer to provide the database in printed form negated any claim to sensitive or privileged data.  From there it became an issue of cost.  Under FOI, government agencies are allowed to recoup their costs for providing data to the public.  However, while a provision exists that allows agencies to provide the data free when it is to be used to educate or inform the public, I was told that it would cost $200 (a subject for another time). 

To make a long story short, George Smith stepped up on behalf of SAM and paid for the database (I was told the final figure was $140) so that I could complete my analysis and subsequent paper.  As it turned out, not only was the data not what we expected, we learned later that it was for the most part available online for free!  While nothing has been done to resolve this, I have recommended that SAM request a refund so that the money can be put to better use (the department should have known this).  

While two databases were provided to me (even though I asked for one?), the data I wanted was spread across three databases of which the most important database was not provided.  Unfortunately, the FOI process requires that you not only request existing data (the agency does not have to compile data if they don’t want to), but you must reference the document you want by name (unless the agency is willing to work with you).  Having been unable to obtain a list of what data does exist, this is difficult at best.             

As you can see, getting data from government agencies can be very time consuming and in some cases, very costly.  I still do not have the third database and am working with SAM and Dud Dean Angling Society (DDAS) to try to obtain it.  In this case, data pertaining to our fisheries is spread across what are called the Lake and Pond, Species, and Stocking databases.  These databases together tell the whole story in regard to our lake and pond fisheries and as such are an invaluable resource.

An indirect way to get data is through the internet.  In some cases, the data I use in my articles comes straight off the DIF&W website.  Another invaluable source for information is www.pearl.maine.edu.  This website is maintained by the University of Maine in Orono and was set up as a repository for government data so that private citizens can gain access to it.  This is where we subsequently found what the DIF&W had previously charged us for (and they were the ones who gave it to UMO!).

What we are now trying to do is get as much data onto PEARL as possible.  For starters we would like to see the Lake and Pond, Species, and Stocking databases in their entirety placed in PEARL and updated at least once a year.  Previously, only subsets of the databases have been loaded to PEARL and no updates have been made since 2003.  As such, what started out as a great idea has fallen well short of its potential.  We are now forming a working group to address the issue and make some recommendations. 

As a 20+ year Information Technology professional, I know firsthand how important accurate, complete, and timely data is in regard to managing any business or government agency.  Without a sound data management policy it is all but impossible to perform efficiently.  It is also important that other parties be given access to data so that it can be audited.  More importantly, we taxpayers (and license buyers) pay for the data used by government agencies and as such are entitled to see it when we want to. 

While I may be the loudest, I am clearly not the only one who sees the problem regarding data as it pertains to the DIF&W.  The department has been hit with FOI requests from a number of parties from activists to writers.  This is a result of what I see as a lack of cooperation on the part of the department, and too a degree, a lack of sophistication in regard to data management.  As we move forward, accurate, complete and timely data will be critical in regard to managing our vast natural resources.          

Times are changing and the demands the public are placing on our government agencies are increasing.  Our activists and writers are getting more sophisticated and most have learned that access to data is critical.  The days of keeping government data out of the hands of the public are rapidly coming to end and government agencies need to take notice and respond accordingly.  Rather then wasting everyone’s time and money responding to FOI’s, it is time we made the data available to anyone who is interested.

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.