Regulations Reform: Mid-Term Report Card
(As appeared in "The Technical Fly Fisherman", September 2005 issue
of Northwoods Sporting Journal)
By Bob Mallard - “The Coldwater Conservationist”
Regulations Reform: Mid-Term Report Card
(As appeared in "The Technical Fly Fisherman", September 2005 issue
of Northwoods Sporting Journal)
By Bob Mallard - “The Coldwater Conservationist”
|
As I stated the last time I wrote on the subject, the wheels are now turning in regard to simplifying our overly complicated open water salmonid regulations. Under orders by the legislation to do so, the DIF&W have started by published their initial proposal for a new set of brook trout (BKT) regulations (other species will follow). With at least 23 bag/length limit combinations currently applicable to brook trout (see below), anything would be an improvement. Current BKT Regulations
Having presented the issue to the Joint Standing Committee for Fish & Wildlife (JSC), the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s Fishing Initiative Committee (SAM/FIC) and others involved in the project won a victory for anglers in the form of a “Resolve” instructing the DIF&W to fix the problem. Just short of a formal law, this opened the door for some long overdue reform. Now that we are going to go through this exercise lets try to get the most possible out of it. In a recent document published on the DIF&W website, Director of Fisheries John Boland has outlined the proposed new BKT regulations (see below). While they proposed more options than we had hoped for, on the face it does represent a significant decrease in the number of unique regulations. However, there are some issues that I think need to be addressed. With any luck, we will be able to influence the department in regard to rethinking their current position. Proposed BKT Regulations (DIF&W)
Note: There is conflicting verbiage on the DIF&W website describing item #7 as a maximum length limit (“All fish over twelve inches must be released”) in one document and a harvest slot limit (as defined above) in another. It took several emails to the department to resolve this issue. While it appears that we are getting a slot limit, I had heard from a biologist prior to the document being posted that we would be getting a maximum length limit. As such, I am somewhat concerned that the administrative arm of the department may be out of synch with the scientific arm of the department. Regardless, until I hear otherwise it is a slot limit! While the department has proposed going forward with 8 bag/length combinations (and some level of exceptions), SAM/FIC had proposed just 4 combinations. I on the other hand had my own set of 5 combinations which I proposed to both SAM/FIC and the DIF&W. I believe that my recommendations would have addressed the issue of consolidation while also providing us with the necessary tools to manage our waters more effectively in the future (see below). Proposed BKT Regulations (Bob Mallard)
My first concern with the new proposal is in regard the General Law pertaining to BKT. As most anglers are aware, we currently have two General Laws applicable to BKT. The first is the standard 5-fish, 6 inches. In addition, we have the 2-fish, 8 inches “ County Exception”. I personally feel that this should have been addressed as part of this effort (what’s simple about “county exceptions” and why do we need them?). In addition to adding a level of confusion (what county am I in?), the more liberal of the two regulations (5-fish, 6 inches) is imposed in the counties that contain the most wild fish. Conversely, the more conservative regulation (2-fish, 8 inches) is applied to what are mostly stocked waters. This tells me that the department places a higher value on stocked fish than it does wild fish. Since stocked fish are raised primarily for put-and-take, this makes little sense. My feeling is that it is time to consolidate the two General Laws under one category. In addition, I think it is time that we started providing a higher level of protection to wild fish and a more liberal level of protection to stocked fish (at least where “put-and-take” is the goal). To accomplish this I had proposed that a single regulation of 3-fish, 8 inches be instituted state wide as the General Law. However, the department insists on keeping two different regulations. My next concern is in regard to the two proposed minimum length limits. Study after study (including the DIF&W’s own!) shows that when you manage fisheries using minimum length limits you get exactly that; fish that are just below the minimum! With the option of using slot limits (open, harvest or protective), it makes little sense to move forward with minimums for anything other than the General Law (what are we trying to accomplish here?). In addition, the proposed 1-fish, 14 inch minimum is in my opinion nothing more than what we will get with S-16 (2-fish; minimum length limit 12 inches, only one may exceed 14 inches). I also have an issue in regard to the proposed 1-fish 18 inch minimum. If this is as the DIF&W says, “de facto catch-and-release”, why can’t we simply move forward with true catch-and-release? What I see here is an absolute refusal on the part of the department to protect large fish. To defend maintaining the two minimum length limits as being “scientifically necessary” is simply not accurate. What we have here is a melding of politics (local pressure and department preferences) and science which in the end does nothing for simplification or improving our fisheries. In the case of the 1-fish, 14 inch waters, make them S-16 or if the 2-fish limit is an issue, go to a 1-fish harvest slot (see item #4 above). This is a huge oversight. Lastly is that if I am correct that the “experimental” category is in fact a “harvest” slot limit (all fish less than 6” and greater than 12” must be released), I am concerned that the parameters are not well thought out. By most definitions, the intention of a slot limit is to ensure a safe level of recruitment (new fish) while allowing some percent of fish to reach trophy size. As such, the lower end of the slot and the size of the slot itself are critical. Specifically, the lower end of a slot should be set to ensure that all fish get to spawn at least once. In many BKT lakes and ponds, fish do not spawn until they reach 10 inches. Under these circumstances when the lower end of the slot is set to 6 inches, there is no guarantee that any fish will reach sexual maturity. In my opinion, 6 inches is dangerously low and could jeopardize the entire experiment (would you feel safe with a 6” minimum length limit?) As far as the size of the slot, as stated above, the intention is for some reasonable number of fish to grow to trophy size (and in fact die of old age versus angler mortality!). For this to happen, fish must reach a length that exceeds the upper end of the slot before getting harvested. By default, the longer the slot is the less likely a fish is to survive long enough to become protected (think “running the gauntlet”!). Under the proposed 6 inch slot (6-12”), this will be tough at best. Lastly, I am concerned in regard to the bag limit associated with the experimental slot limit. If the intention is to limit harvest and protect large fish, then one would assume that the bag limit would be conservative. While 2-fish may be fine for the two open (one over) slots defined under the “Quality” component of the proposal, I feel it is too high for the experimental slot. This regulation would be far more effective with a 1-fish limit and as such should be reconsidered. The correct thing to do in regard to our only true slot limit would have been to use a shorter slot, a higher minimum length limit, and a lower bag limit. The higher minimum would have provided more protection for pre-spawn fish thereby ensuring that we have a safe level of recruitment. The shorter slot would allow more fish to survive and die of old age. Considering the proven results concerning slots, it is a shame that the department has not given this more thought. The next issue is in regard to how the waters will be mapped to the new regulations. My original proposal included a clause that would prohibit the department from “liberalizing” any regulations during the mapping phase of the project. This was not clearly defined at the hearing and while it was noted, there was no provision to guarantee it. The department however did state that this (i.e., liberalization of regulations) would occur very infrequently: John Boland – Director of Fisheries: “For about 75 percent, the regulations would be more restrictive and for 25 percent, less restrictive.” While the statement above was made to a roomful of people at a recent DIF&W Advisory Council meeting, a subsequent email that I sent to Mr. Boland to clarify this issue (i.e., “what percentage of waters have been made more strict or less strict as part of the new regulations mapping?”) was answered as follows. I am sure that the answer provided by Mr. Boland surprised those on the email distribution list as much as it did me: John Boland – Director of Fisheries: “We have not done that analysis yet.” What I see here is another example of the department either deliberately trying to mislead us or simply unaware of what is really going on. Not unlike what went on in the Native Pond project (incomplete and conflicting data); statements are getting tossed around that are misleading at best and downright inaccurate at worse. At some point accuracy has to become a requirement. We are making important decisions here and as such we need the facts. In order to clarify the issue once and for all, I decided to do the analysis myself with the help of members of the newly formed Dud Dean Angling Society. The rules we established were simple; facts not opinions. Using the mapping document provided by the DIF&W on their website, we reviewed the current and proposed regulations associated with the water being changed. Specifically, we rated the impact on bag limit, length limit and net change. In regard to bag and length limits, we rated each water “More Strict”, “Less Strict” and “No Change”. Next we rated each water in regard to the net change. If both the bag and the length limits were more or less strict we rated the net change accordingly. If either the bag or the length limit was more or less strict and the other was unchanged, we rated it based on what changed. If however one was more strict and one was less strict, we refrained from rating it. Bag Limit Summary
Length Limit Summary
Net Change Summary
It looks to me as though Mr. Boland has his numbers reversed. While there has been minimal change in regard to bag limits (the bag limit on 85% of the waters affected by this project remained the same), there have been some fairly significant changes in regard to length limits. In fact, over 95% of the waters affected had length limit changes. Where length limits were changed, over 75% were made LESS restrictive! Here is what we found:
Note: It is important to note that many waters will by default remain as they were prior to the start of this exercise. Specifically, any water previously classified as 5-fish 6 inches, S-16, S-17, 18 inches or C&R will not be affected unless the Regional Biologist made a change that was not related to the regulations simplification project. In addition, very few rivers or streams were addressed under this project. As such, the number of waters that will actually get regulation changes that are the result of this effort will be far lower than the total number of waters managed for BKT (less than 250 out of over 1,000 are even mentioned and some are not related to this project). What this means is that well over 75% of the lakes and ponds (and the majority of the rivers and streams) managed for BKT was not changed at all. Another concern I have is in regard to regional inconsistencies. As pointed out in my previous “Native BKT Pond” articles, management philosophies vary radically from one region to another. In fact, the same region (G) that lost the most (and highest percentage) of native BKT ponds has liberalized the regulations on the most bodies of water. This is another example of why our Regional approach to fisheries management is flawed and needs to be changed. I also found it disturbing that Region G (Aroostook County) accounted for 28 out of 36 instances where slot limits (primarily S-26 but one each S-16 and S-17) were changed to minimum length limits (that were in fact lower than the lower end of the original slot limit!). That this happened so soon after a failed attempt by local legislator Troy Jackson to abolish slot limits in that county raises some serious questions about the project. It is also important to point out that 26 of the 28 waters in Region G that are going from slot limits to minimum length limits appear on the current (2005) “Native BKT Pond” list (the 296 waters that have never been stocked!). In fact, 14 of the 26 being changed are going to a 2-fish, 6 inch minimum length limit. This means that half of the native BKT waters being changed are going to a “General Law” rule. This affects 37% of the remaining native BKT in that region. Lastly, 3 waters in Region G (Deboullie, Gardner and Pushineer), or 25% of the state's total remaining native blueback char waters, are being liberalized under the guise of “simplification”. All three waters are going from open slots (S-26) to a 2-fish; 6" minimum. When you look at what is being proposed for Region G, it validates why some in the outdoor community were afraid of this project (i.e., it would be used as an excuse to liberalize regulations).
Note: The table above reflects the net change for the respective lakes and ponds as opposed to the affect of bag and/or length limit changes alone. As noted above, the bulk of the changes were made to length limits but there were some bag limit changes. The department also stated that while not all waters would conform to the new regulations, most would (this implied that there were still going to be exceptions): John Boland – Director of Fisheries: “…roughly 95 percent of brook trout waters would fall within the eight regulatory categories…” While Mr. Boland may be correct that most BKT waters will now adhere to the eight standard regulations, a comparison between the proposed mapping document (what is being changed) and the 2005 Open Water Regulations book (what is not being changed) shows that there are still going to be at least 9 exceptions (see below). Added to the 8 formal regulations, that is 17 bag/length combinations. Considering that we started with 23 this is not what I had hoped for. Remaining Exceptions
Lastly, while the legislators (and SAM) clearly recommended that this long overdue project be addressed without the burden of public hearings (this could bog down the whole thing), DIF&W Commissioner Dan Martin opted to instead open it up for public input. This will by default provide opportunity for local opposition against water-specific regulation changes creating the potential for more of what we have today; i.e., “political” versus “science” based regulations. I am also concerned that this is moving forward without adequate input from those who worked the hardest to bring the problem to the table in the first place. Having personally put together the report that rejuvenated this project (to their credit SAM had started this long ago), I am disappointed that the DIF&W put out a plan before they met with any third-parties or formed any working groups. This should not be done without the input of those who brought it to the table. While I am pleased that we are moving forward with regard to BKT regulations, I feel that the plan presented by the DIF&W is not well thought out. In addition, there has been some level of liberalization we can ill afford. While many feel that ANY change is good, I do not expect that we will get back to the table any time soon and as such would like to see it done right the first time. In short, I would like to see much more discussion before this becomes official. In closing, I see another issue whereby the legislators (Joint Standing Committee for Fish & Wildlife) opted to “trust” the DIF&W to do the right thing as opposed to passing legislation to ensure that they did the right thing. Based on what I have seen over the past several years, I see this as risky at best and hope that the JSC members will reconsider their position in the future. We always seem to fall short; it is time to change the game.
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||