By the time you read this, for better or worse, decisions pertaining to the simplification of our brook trout regulations may have already been made. Initially slated for legislative action (via SAM), a last minute deal between George Smith and the DIF&W put the responsibility for coming up with a plan to address the problem back in the hands of those who let it get out of hand in the first place. Only time will tell if this was a wise decision.

As many of you are aware, I have been working for some time now to try to get some "Regulations Reform" in regard to our Open Water fishing for salmonids. I started this project after hearing numerous complaints from customers and anglers in regard to how complicated our Open Water salmonid regulations had got. The number (23 and growing!) of unique regulations applicable to brook trout is astounding (see below). As for salmonids as a group, try 162!

Current Regulations Applicable to Brook Trout

Notes:

While a casual interest at first, after being intimately involved in the new Kennebec River regulations and seeing firsthand what the DIF&W did with them, I became all the more determined (it takes two pages just to document the Kennebec regulations!) Next I found myself fishing over on the Androscoggin in New Hampshire and Maine and while the NH regulations are simple, the Maine regulations would take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand (see below)!

Androscoggin River

(Maine Border to Bethel)

Note: Highlighted Areas Represent "Legal" Length Limits

I feel strongly that the DIF&W must completely reform its policies if we are ever going to return Maine's salmonid fisheries to their former glory. With the situation as it now stands in regards to regulations, how could anyone even begin to understand where we are or more importantly, where we need to go? As such, I see this as a very important first step by which we "clean off our desk" before getting to work (you can't work efficiently with a cluttered desk!).

I also cannot take all the credit for bringing this to the forefront. The department itself tried to do this in the mid 1990's and a 2001 internal document states that it is still a goal of the fisheries division to address this matter (the text below is pulled straight from a DIF&W publication!). As such, those who support the concept (SAM/FIC, etc.) are simply asking the department to do what they have stated they were going to do anyway:

When you consider that we are simply asking the department to do what they have stated they were going to do anyway, it surprises me that this has been met with such resistance. Going back a year ago to the Sportsman's Congress, I personally handed Commissioner Martin a copy of a 60-page study I had done that showed how bad things had got. It wasn't until roughly ten months later that I even got a chance to plead my case in person.

Worse is that the invite to Augusta occurred only after I stated on a radio show with DIF&W biologist Paul Johnson and our very own V. Paul Reynolds that George Smith (SAM) was considering legislative action. Even then, anyone who saw John Boland (Director of Fisheries) on a recent Wildfire show can see the level of resistance there is within the department to address what he referred to as "one person's idea" (how did their idea become my idea?)

According to their own internal documents, the department already has four categories that it uses to define their brook trout management strategy (see below). However, this plan is outdated as it lacks "placeholders" for proven effective management practices such as true slot limits (between "x" and "y") and catch-and-release. Worse is that there are several existing regulations that are more restrictive than any of the four categories noted (what would happen to these?)

As such, if implemented as previously defined by the department, it would all but ensure that things would get out of hand again real quickly (we would be forced to add more categories or exceptions in order to deal with the fall-out from not having any room for progressive regulations). Even the most entrenched "status quo" types must admit that "2 fish; 12 inch minimum, only 1 fish may be greater than 14 inches" cannot be our most strict regulation.

While the primary goal of the project is admittedly "simplification", it should not be done without consideration for the long-term impact on our fisheries and the angling community. Specifically, we need to define a finite set of regulations that will satisfy the requirement for simplification, address the variable conditions, provide all types of anglers with some level of water that is managed up to their expectations, and allow our fisheries to prosper.

If it were my call, there would be a standard General Law with a liberal but reasonable length and bag limit (and I do not think that the current "5-fish; 6 inch minimum" is sustainable any longer), two "open" slot limits (2 fish with a "trophy clause"), one "true" slot limit (1 fish with no "trophy clause"), and catch-and-release. I sincerely believe that a scenario such as this would be simple to understand, fair for all anglers, and good for our fisheries.

While it is clear that there are those in the sporting community and the DIF&W who are not ready to embrace progressive regulations such as true slot limits or C&R, providing these rules with a "placeholder" (i.e., a formal regulation) does not mean that there will be any fewer opportunities to harvest fish. However, failure to do this all but guarantees that we will back to the table sooner than later (or worse, forced to add more regulations or exceptions).

Specifically, C&R exists today; anglers are requesting more of it, and as attitudes change in regard to how we view our fisheries, it is an invaluable tool for managing for "Absolute Quality". The same situation exists for true slot limits. While still uncommon in Maine, this type of regulation is recognized nationally as a way to create "Quality" fisheries while still allowing some level of harvest. As such, it deserves a place in our overall management plan.

Having stated in our Augusta meeting that he needed to "digest the proposal to make sure it was not a back-door plan to promote my C&R agenda", Commissioner Martin needs to look beyond the specific task at hand (i.e., "simplification") and implement a strategy that satisfies that goal while allowing room for future expansion of quality fishing initiatives. Anything less would be shortsighted at best and I believe a disservice to the angling community as a whole.

When you consider what the department has stated in their own studies (see below), it seems ludicrous that we are debating the validity of restrictive regulations or their place in regard to our long-term fisheries management plans. While the "intent" of this project is not to create more restrictive regulations, the "possibility" should not be ignored. As such, it is time to stop worrying about "ulterior motives" and implement something that meets our long-term goals:

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.