The Technical Fly Fisherman by Bob Mallard

Remote Ponds: Protecting Maine's Last Walk-In Trout
(As appeared in "The Technical Fly Fisherman", September 2004 issue of Northwoods Sporting Journal)
By Bob Mallard

After getting tired of watching helplessly while the few remaining remote ponds in the area I fish fall victim to chronic and blatant illegal ATV access and related abuses, I decided to take matters into my own hands. After contacting LURC, the landowner, the Regional Biologist, and the Warden Service, what I learned was both disappointing and encouraging. That this was a surprise to no one was a real disappointment (everyone was aware of what was going on and how long it has been happening). However, there did seem to be willingness on all sides to attempt to address the issue.

For those who are not aware, LURC (Land Use Regulation Commission) has a series of rules applicable to "Remote Ponds" (refer to "Recreational Protection Subdistrict [P-RR]"). These rules were designed to help maintain the "remote" qualities of these unique and fragile resources by restricting motorized access, logging, development, etc. According to Regional Biologist Paul Johnson, the "Remote Pond" project was initiated by the DIF&W Fishery Division in the early 1970's in response to increasing road access to many of our waters - a timely and wise decision.

Based on data received from the DIF&W, there are roughly only 175 waters in the state that fall into the "Remote" category. While the majority of these ponds are located in Piscataquis and Somerset counties, they exist in almost all counties across the state. That so few exist should concern the angling and outdoor community as a whole. Whether you are a hiker, bird watcher, hunter or fisherman, these are the last "wild" places we have left in the state. Worse is that with more land being sold off each month, many of these ponds will become inaccessible to the average person in the future.

I also learned that there are a number of ponds in our area that while not on the LURC "Remote Pond" list they clearly should be. Worse is that in some cases, I and others have always thought that they were. With so few remote waters left and so much cutting, road building and developing going on today, it is critical that we address situations where for whatever reason (politics, etc.), ponds that technically qualify for "Remote" status were left off the list. If this is not done soon, we will lose these special places just like we have lost so many others. It is clearly time to review the policy and audit the list.

Without some form of true protection, we stand to lose some of what makes Maine so special - hike-in, undeveloped, brook trout ponds! In fact, this type of water exists in few other spots in the northeast. As such, this project is critical in regard to keeping some level of remoteness in our woods. Unfortunately however, there are some gaping holes pertaining to deterring illegal access, enforcing illegal activities, and notifying the general public in regard to what is expected from them. Worse is that while all queried acknowledged that they were aware of the abuse, no one seemed to be doing anything about it.

After visiting several sites and taking some pictures of the abuse, I contacted the landowner which in this case was Plum Creek. Plum Creek in my opinion has fallen victim to their own noble attempt to support we sportsmen. Their "Open Access" policy which allows ATV's to use their lands has in my opinion backfired on not only them, but the responsible sporting community as a whole. Specifically, their tolerance of ATV's and open camping policy has made some of their lands havens for ATV use. With this comes a much higher level of abuse than that found in areas that prohibit ATV use.

After discussions with both the Unit and Regional managers, I was given a tentative commitment that the access to two ponds in question would be blocked to keep out ATV's. I was also made aware of some pending changes in regard to ATV access resulting from the new ATV legislation that may in fact provide some level of relief. Additionally, while Plum Creek was receptive to addressing instances where rocks blocking motorized vehicles have been moved, they insisted that without adequate law enforcement it would be a tough if not impossible task to keep up with.

The most encouraging news I heard from Plum Creek was that they were in the process of redefining their ATV access policy. The objective is to establish a more formal trail network in order to control access. To address this they will be meeting with local ATV organizations and state agencies. However, I am concerned that without input from the non-ATV sporting community the trails will not be located far enough away from delicate areas of concern to us anglers. As such, I have submitted a formal letter to Plum Creek requesting that SAM/FIC, TU and other fishing interests be invited to the meetings.

Plum Creek has a serious ATV problem on their lands and it needs to be addressed. A quick tour through the Spencer, Cold Stream, and 10,000 Acre Tract areas will show a huge amount of damage done to riparian areas and remote ponds by careless ATV use. In some cases, campsites once popular with anglers have now been virtually taken over by ATV users. Worse is that some of these campsites are located right in the middle of prime fishing. If "ATV Recreation" (as opposed to "ATV Access") is the objective, the campsites do not need to be located in this type of area.

I then contacted the Warden Service. I spoke to two wardens whom both stated that there was no Fish & Game law that they could reference in order to enforce the LURC rules pertaining to motorized vehicles in remote ponds and/or penalize the violators. With that said both parties unofficially agreed that a law on the books would be a good idea and would in fact help them to address the problem (they don't like it anymore than we do). However, in this day of budgetary shortfalls, etc., at the DIF&W, it may be difficult to get the department to accept any additional responsibilities.

After speaking with the Wardens Service, I contacted LURC to verify what I had been told. What I was told by LURC contradicted the assertions of the Warden Service. In fact, the LURC contact stated that the LURC Statute is already in Title 12 and as such enforceable by the DIF&W. Additionally, LURC stated that while they do have an enforcement arm, they are too busy to police the situation. Totally confused I decided to contact George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. Like LURC, Mr. Smith's understanding was that the Warden Service does have authority to act.

In a final attempt to understand who in fact has authority to enforce the LURC Remote Pond rules I contacted Paul Jaques, Deputy Commissioner of the DIF&W. The answer I got from Mr. Jacques was somewhere in between what I had heard from the Warden Service and LURC. Paul stated that while the LURC Statute is in Title 12, the wording is suspect and as such potentially unenforceable. However, Paul did ensure me that they were actively working on this and that changes were in the making. With all the confusion it is no wonder that everyone seems to have dropped the ball.

It seems that the perceived loophole may be in regard to a clause in the LURC rule that states that the affected ponds most be closed off to "2-wheel drive vehicles". Considering that the rules were written almost 30 years ago (and long before ATV's existed), I am sure that they made sense at the time. Under this interpretation it would imply that while 2-wheel drive vehicles are excluded from LURC Remote Ponds, 4-wheel drive vehicles are not. I do not however agree with this position. Under the "Uses Allowed Without a Permit" section of the LURC rules it states the following:

The following uses shall be allowed without a permit from the Commission within P-RR subdistricts:

(1) Motorized vehicular traffic and snowmobiling with the following exceptions:
(a) within any P-RR subdistrict surrounding a body of standing water, such traffic is allowed only in connection with forest or agricultural management activities or in connection with access to and use of existing remote camps; but snowmobiling shall be allowed in such subdistrict;

Lastly I went to the Regional Biologist responsible for one of the ponds effected who were gracious enough to meet me at the trailhead for a firsthand look. After walking into the pond with me and fellow outdoor writer Ken Allen, biologist Paul Johnson agreed that there was a serious problem and that something should be done about it. In addition, prior to meeting, Paul visited another site that we had discussed earlier and found the same thing - blatant and chronic illegal ATV access. Like everyone else involved, Paul was not surprised at what he saw.

With all parties in agreement in regard to the problem and aware of how long it has been going on, it makes one wonder why nothing has been done? Like much else we face today in regard to protecting our woods and waters from outlaw so-called sportsmen, it seems that those involved have thrown in the towel. Whether due to a lack of resources (manpower), a lack of tools (laws, etc.), or a feeling that the battle cannot be won, for whatever reason we seem to have turned a blind eye to what I see as one of the more significant issues facing our outdoor heritage today.

Like anything else, if folks care enough we can in fact correct it. If however we all refuse to address it, like invasive species, poaching, and land grabs, etc., our outdoor heritage will be forever changed and we will lose something that is one of the things that makes Maine so special. Refusing to give up on something so important, I am going to propose some changes that I believe would help. With any luck, maybe I can get my peers in SAM/FIC (Sportsman's Alliance of Maine - Fishing Initiative Committee) and/or TU (Trout Unlimited) to adopt the cause and help force change.

Lastly, while some action has been taken recently in regard to cracking down on abusive ATV use, it is not nearly enough. While the new law requiring explicit permission to access private property with ATV's will help, if major land owners such as Plum Creek and the state itself does not crack down hard, nothing will change. While done under the guise of "Shared Use", it seems that whenever we allow ATV's in a given area (trails, State Preserve land, Paper Company land, etc.) everyone else loses. While there is a place for ATV's, it must be much more restricted than it is today.

Here are some things that I feel we sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts can do to help get control of the situation. If you agree with what I am proposing, please write LURC, the applicable landowners (Plum Creek in particular), the DIF&W, SAM, TU, etc., and request that they act on your behalf. From where I stand, this is far too important to simply ignore:

First and foremost we need to inform the public in regard to what the LURC rules pertaining to Remote Ponds are and what bodies of water are affected. After viewing a number of designated waters, many did not have adequate (or any) signage. In addition, the only way to get a list of waters is to go to the LURC website or contact the DIF&W. As we all know, with ignorance comes abuse and I do not feel we have done nearly enough to educate the public in this regard.

Metal signs with fixed metal posts should replace the standard cardboard signs used today to designate remote ponds. These signs should be placed immediately at all applicable trailheads using volunteers from SAM, TU and the various F&G clubs around the state. It is my understanding that both Plum Creek and the DIF&W are doing some work in this regard. If so, I hope that all parties are working together to come up with a consistent and effective plan.

A description of the LURC "Remote Pond" program should be included in the State of Maine Open Water Fishing Regulations book. This would explain to sportsmen (and yes, we are the problem here) what is expected of them and why. Dedicating a full page to this would be a good idea and considering what else is being covered in the book (e.g., Illegal Fish Introduction, Invasive Species, Taxidermy, Kids Fishing, etc.), fair play. In addition to the public awareness benefits of the notice, this would be a great marketing tool for letting both residents and non-residents know exactly what we have to offer.

A new "S-Code" should be created for Remote Ponds (i.e., "S-50: LURC Remote Pond, No motorized vehicles allowed.") This code would be associated with all applicable waters and included in the County Exception section of the fishing rule book. With signs, a full page notice, and water specific regulations we will have covered all of the bases while allowing little room for excuses (unlike today, "I did not know" would be a tough sell!).

Without a full understanding of who can and cannot enforce the LURC rules, enforcement of the motorized vehicle restriction on remote ponds is all but impossible. As such, we need to immediately petition LURC, the DIF&W, legislators, or whoever necessary to adopt a clear position that allows/requires the Warden Service to stop any violators and fine the perpetrators where applicable. In this case, the fines should be substantial enough to deter the act ($500 would be a good start).

Once we have a clear law to enforce, regional Game Wardens should be required to visit each of these waters as part of their normal weekly routine (they are too important to ignore). In addition to having a "presence", this would allow them to check on the status of the signs and barriers and report any problems to the appropriate party for action (landowner, etc.)

Another major tool in regard to enforcement of the remote pond rules would be to do routine flights over the respective waters looking for illegally parked ATV's, trucks (ATV's are not the only violators), etc. Once spotted, pilots could radio the ground for help in regard to investigating the situation.

In some cases (Little Enchanted Pond comes to mind), new and potentially illegal trails have been cut into ponds designated as "Remote". While they may be on private land (and even possibly created by the landowners themselves), these trails need to be addressed and closed if in violation of any LURC rules.

It also appears that while "vehicles" and snowmobiles are restricted from these waters, float planes are not. If correct, this is an exception that should no longer exist. If the goal is to control access by limiting it to foot traffic only, why should planes be treated any differently? If this is being done to protect commercial interests, it shows preferential treatment to one group over another (I am a "Commercial Interest" and my 4x4 is not allowed!) and creates an unfair advantage for those who own or operate a float plane.

In my opinion there is a flaw in the LURC rules in regard to how access to these waters should be restricted. The rules read that any new roads must be "discontinued, gated, obstructed, or otherwise made impassable to two wheel drive vehicles within three years of construction". A far better position would be to require that the roads be blocked to "four wheel drive vehicles (including ATV's)". This would require that the landowner put more effective barriers in place than many do today. For this to happen, we would need to request a change to the rules from LURC. If that request is denied, a petition would be required. If that does not work, legislation is our only option. Regardless of what avenue would be required to close this loophole, it should be done.

On the subject of barriers, while some large commercial landowners claim that nothing can be built that will stop all illegal access, private landowners such as Mr. Malone (Spencer Lake area) have done exactly that with well designed gates, posts, boulders, ditches, mounds, etc. In addition, the effectiveness of these barriers on commercial land varies considerably from owner to owner and water to water. While it may cost a little more up front, a well-designed barrier will prevent the landowner from having to maintain a given barrier every time it is breached.

As we all know, new roads are being built in our woods all the time. In some cases these roads come dangerously close to ponds that have been historically difficult to access. While there is a provision for gating new roads after the owner is done cutting, these roads are often left open while they are actively logging. In order to protect these waters during these periods of improved access, the DIF&W should be authorized to place emergency regulations (up to and including closure) on any effected water until the road is permanently gated.

While not related to illegal access per say, I do not feel that our remote ponds are receiving a high enough level of protection in regard to the harvest of salmonids. In fact, I have already found at least one case where a "Remote" pond with a wild trout population is managed for General Law. With so few such waters left, it would make sense to create a standard set of regulations (tackle, bag, length) for all designated remote waters (ALO/C&R would be a good start). In addition, this could be bundled into a standard "S-Code" along with the access restrictions and applied to all applicable waters.

As you can see, while well intentioned the LURC rules are not working to the degree they could be. While it is easy to blame the various parties for failure to do their part, we sportsmen are every bit as much to blame. When we see a violation, we need to report it. When we encounter individuals who are violating the rules, we need to make sure they are aware of what they are doing. Without the cooperation of sportsmen this problem will not go away. Please do you part to help preserve one of Maine's oldest and most important traditions - remote trout ponds.