Open Water Fishing Regulations: Do they have to be this complicated?
(As appeared in "The Technical Fly Fisherman", March 2004 issue of Northwoods Sporting Journal)
By Bob Mallard
|
At over 75 pages, Maine's "Open Water Fishing Regulations" book is cumbersome at best. In fact, as many anglers have stated, it is downright complicated and often damn near impossible to understand! Some anglers have even said that they have stopped fishing because it has become so complicated. Worse is that with all these regulations we provide little "real" protection for our fisheries (we rarely manage for maximum return). At the suggestion of George Smith (Executive Director SAM), I decided to do a little research to try to understand why our regulations were so complicated. When compared to New Hampshire whose regulation book is eighty-four 5"x4" pages (including advertisements), our book at seventy-eight 8"x5" pages looks huge. More interesting is that the Yellowstone Park fishing regulations book is only fourteen 8"x5" pages! In defense of the DIF&W, with six species of salmonids, ten or so other "game" fish, miles of rivers and streams and countless lakes and ponds, regulating our fisheries is by default "complex". However, the fact that the regulations are "complicated" is not necessarily a byproduct of our logistical situation and is somewhat influenced by what I feel to be administrative and policy shortcomings. After a couple of hours of plowing through the book, I realized that in order to fully understand what we had and how we got there would be a huge task. However, having now stirred my interest I decided to go forward with what turned out to be a multiple-day effort. The result was a 60-page report that was forwarded to both SAM/FIC (Fishing Initiative Committee) and the DIF&W (I personally handed a copy to Mr. Martin). What if anything will be done with this information from here, I have no idea. However, we do plan to discuss it at a future SAM/FIC meeting. On my part, I feel that I learned a whole lot in regard to how we view our fisheries and how the DIF&W operates from both an administrative and to a degree policy standpoint. What I did learn is that with a little work we could reduce both the complexity and complication. I have highlighted some of my more interesting findings along with what I feel we can learn from them. In some cases, there are obvious steps we could take to standardize, categorize and formalize the data to make it easier to understand while also reducing the amount of space required. After I have had a chance to discuss it with SAM/FIC, I may decide to post the document in its entirety on my website (www.kennebecriveroutfitters.com). Key Findings There are a total of 185 unique rules pertaining to salmonids. Of these, eight fall under the General Law, fifteen are formal "S-Codes", and 162 are uniquely worded "Exceptions" (neither a General Law nor an S-Code). Of these, a given rule may be applied as few as one time (in all cases an Exception) and in the cases of some S-Codes, literally hundreds of times. In regard to Exceptions, the frequency of use is as follows: · 1 Time: 97 What this tells us is that 97 of the unique Exceptions are in fact "Water Specific" regulations. While valid in theory, is this practical, and in fact necessary in order to effectively manage our resources? More importantly, what effect does this have on the overall complexity of the Regulations book? To me, this is a sign that we are trying to manage to the nth degree and that this is being done without a full understanding of the cost vs. benefit. A good example of the degree of detail we are currently managing for can be seen in regard to the number of length limits applicable to brook trout (9 variations): · Minimum length limit on
brook trout: 6 inches (Exception and General Law). In addition, there are a number
of length limits that although applicable to "trout" (see
below) have been applied primarily to brook trout waters (4 variations): This means that there are thirteen different length limits applicable to brook trout (13 ways to slice a brookie - literally!). The same situation exists for length limits regarding salmon (10 variations), togue (6+ variations), etc. In addition, there are a large number of variations in regard to bag limits (5 for togue, etc.), that have a similar effect on the complexity of the rules. Could we not accomplish "roughly" the same thing with far less confusion for the angler, and in my opinion, far better protection for our fish, by implementing something like what I have noted below? This would eliminate 9 of the current length limits associated with brookies. · Minimum length limit on
brook trout: 8 inches Now add a standard bag limit to each of these length limits (2, 2, 1 and 1 respectively) and you have only four regulations pertaining to brookies. In addition to eliminating 9 length limits, this eliminates numerous combinations of bag/length limits that exist today. In regard to the general organization of the document, there are a number of issues that I feel contribute to the complexity that if addressed would make it more user-friendly. · There are numerous references to "Atlantic salmon regulations" throughout the book. Only after searching was I able to find this. Considering the recent changes, it would be beneficial to add an entry to the Table-of-Contents under "V. Warnings and Advisories". · There is no mention of Atlantic salmon under the "Anadromous Fish Species Regulations" in the General Law section. Adding a reference to the "Atlantic salmon regulations" would help. · The term "Artificial Lure" is used throughout the book. It is not implicitly stated as to how many and what types of hooks are allowed under this tackle restriction. As such, adding some verbiage under the "Definitions" section would help. · The term "Fish" is used throughout the book. While ambiguous at best and as such a good candidate for removal, if this term is going to be used it should be clearly explained under the "Definitions" section. · The term "Brook Trout" has the potential to confuse readers (as it includes splake) and as such should be included in the "Definitions" section (see additional concerns below). · The term "Trout" has the potential to confuse readers (as it includes brook, brown, rainbow, sunapee, blueback, and splake) and as such should be included in the "Definitions" section (see additional concerns below). Note that although the definition for salmon is in the "Definitions" section, the definition for trout (as well as smelt and black bass) is in the "General Law" section, and the definition for brook trout is simply a footnote within the General Law table. There are a number of cases where an Exception (or part of one) is in fact an existing S-Code. In addition to making the document difficult to understand (consistency is important), this unnecessarily increases the overall word-count of the document. This also increases the overall number of Exceptions making them tough to catalog and effectively manage in the future. · There are references to "Fly Fishing Only" throughout the document. Considering that there is an S-Code for FFO (S-5), all references to "Fly Fishing Only" at the County Exception level should be changed to S-5. · There are references to "Artificial Lures Only" throughout the document. Considering that there is an S-Code for ALO (S-6), all references to "Artificial Lures Only" at the County Exception level should be changed to S-6. There are also random cases in the County Exception section where verbiage is used to explain a regulation (or a part of a regulation) that is in fact a current "S-Code". Changing these would reduce the overall word-count of the book: · Exceptions Involved: 20 Note that based on an average of 13 words per exception, replacing the effected Exceptions with S-Codes would reduce the overall word-count by 660 words ((55x13)-55). There are a large number of cases that while worded differently, there are two or more Exceptions that have the exact same technical impact. This unnecessarily adds to the total number of unique exceptions and while it may seem minor to some, the fact that they are allowed to exist brings up some general concerns, e.g., how close is anyone watching this, can this confuse the reader, etc.: · Exceptions Involved: 74 By eliminating all of the duplicates, we could recognize a significant reduction of the overall number of unique Exceptions. The actual impact would be as follows: · Total Number of Exceptions
Involved: 74 Note that of the original 162 Exceptions, 20 could be eliminated by applying an existing S-Code and 45 could be eliminated by removing duplicates. This would represent the elimination of 65 of the total 162 Exceptions that exist today (a reduction of approximately 41%). There are cases where while worded similarly, the general format used for a set of Watershed specific regulations (i.e., a river where the various sections are managed differently) are not consistent. While not a big concern, it might help to define a standard format and implement it consistently across all similar waters: Any River I found a number of cases where while worded simply; the intended meaning of a given Exception are tough to ascertain or potentially confusing. In order to remove any doubt on the part of the reader (or those charged with enforcement of the respective regulation), these could be reworded. Here are a few examples: · Casting and trolling with
artificial flies only - "Artificial" is implied in regard
to flies and has the potential to be confused with the term "Artificial
Lures". I also found one case where a combination of regulations appears to be unusually complicated and potentially not what was intended. As such, it could be tough if not impossible to understand and/or enforce: Androscoggin River (Androscoggin County) Definition extracted from the Regulations Book: "…S-8; 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." Notes: · "S-8" (Daily bag limit on trout: 1 fish) applies to brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout but not salmon (all of which are found in this section of river). As such, is the reader to assume that they are allowed to keep one "trout" and two salmon as the General Law allows? · The use of the term "salmon, rainbow trout and brown trout" in regard to the minimum length limit implies that the minimum length limit for brook trout (which are in fact found in this section of river) is governed by the General Law (i.e., 6"). · The use of the term "trout" in the definition of the "reverse slot limit" (16-20") implies brook trout, rainbow trout and brown trout but not salmon. As such, is the reader to assume that they are allowed to keep salmon (which are in fact found in this section of river) that fall within the slot? The literal interpretation of the regulation noted above as written is as follows: · Bag Limit / Trout (brook
trout, rainbow trout and brown trout): 1 fish. How would you like to be the warden
who has to enforce this (or the angler who has to figure it out)? Also
of interest is how New Hampshire regulates the section of Androscoggin
that ends immediately upstream of the section mentioned above. In NH's
case, they have designated the 20 miles upstream of Maine as ALO, catch-and-release.
Considering the consumption advisories in this area it makes one wonder
what we are doing? By changing the definitions of some of the existing terms, we might be able to reduce the overall number of exceptions and complexity associated with multi-species rules: · Brook Trout (brook, sunapee,
blueback and splake) Lastly is how the document is sorted. While it may be obvious to some, the "County" sort is virtually meaningless to someone from outside the state. In fact, although I have fished extensively throughout Maine since the late 1970's, if it were not for my DeLorme Gazetteer, I often would not know what county I was in. With that said, it is time to consider a primary sort of "Rivers/Streams" vs. "Lakes/Ponds" with secondary sorts of name and location. While I could go on and on, I am sure that you get the picture! My feeling is that we have let the process for establishing regulations get out of hand and the end result is a regulation book that is both tough to understand and unnecessarily complicated. This is a sign that not only are our biologists managing too low a level of detail, but also our administrators are not stopping them. Worse is that while we constantly add it seems that we rarely go back and clean up. As I see it, using "S-Codes" in place of verbiage is fundamentally a good idea. However, the inconsistent use of them (and the random use of Exceptions) and too a degree how they are coded (no meaningful order, compound vs. singular rules, tackle vs. bag/creel restrictions, etc.) makes it somewhat tough to understand. More important is that huge number of Exceptions makes the coding system look more complicated than it actually is. Here are some things the department could do to help get control of the situation: · Maintain a library of all valid Exceptions including the date imposed and the waters where they are currently imposed. · Age and review Exceptions periodically (every six months) to see if they are still necessary. · Any Exception that is used more than four times should become a formal "S-Code" at the first opportunity. This would set a standard where Exceptions could not become the norm and as such, overwhelm the system as they have today. · The Advisory Panel should be encouraged not to accept regulations defined by an Exception unless both the situation faced and the regulation proposed are clearly unique. The concern is that we are managing for "100%" with the last "5%" resulting in "50%" of the complexity. · Before accepting any new Exceptions, the Advisory Panel should review the existing S-Codes and Exceptions to ensure that a similar regulation does not already exist. In the event that a regulation exists with a slightly different meaning, the biologist should be asked to defend why they are not recommending the existing regulation. What I see is a situation where our biologists are acting as "decision-maker's" and our decision-makers as "rubber-stampers". I could almost understand the level of complexity if in fact we were providing our fish with some unusually high level of protection. However, this is not the case and we are not only negatively impacting our anglers and law enforcement personnel, we are not seeing enough of a return to warrant the inconvenience. When you consider how few of our
waters are managed for "maximum return", it is astounding
that we have ended up with so many rules and regulations. We need to
get back to a system where we have a reasonable number of "effective"
regulations that while easy for sportsmen to understand provide a high
level of protection for our resources. So, when someone asks if the
current regulations could be streamlined, the answer is ABSOLUTELY!
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. |