State of Maine 2003
Open Water Fishing Regulations
Analysis & Proposal for
Simplification
Notice of Confidentiality
The
information and ideas contained in this document that are not in the “Public
Domain” (i.e., that which comes from the “State of Maine Open Water Fishing –
2003 Regulations”) are the sole property of Robert L. Mallard, Jr., residing at
151 East Ridge Road in the town of Skowhegan, Maine. As such, any use, reuse or dissemination of this information
without the expressed written consent of Robert L. Mallard, Jr. is strictly
prohibited.
Table of Contents
|
Description |
Pages |
|
|
|
|
I. Introduction |
1 |
|
II. Executive Summary |
2-3 |
|
III. Current
Situation |
4 |
|
IV. Specific
Recommendations / Administrative |
5-9 |
|
1.
Document Organization |
5 |
|
2.
Inconsistent Use of S-Codes |
6-7 |
|
3.
Inconsistent Verbiage for S-Codes |
7 |
|
4.
Inconsistent Verbiage for Exceptions |
7-8 |
|
5.
Inconsistent Format for Multi-Section Watershed Regulations |
8 |
|
6.
Vague or Confusing Exceptions |
9 |
|
7.
Overly Complicated Water-Specific Regulation |
9 |
|
V. Specific Recommendations / Policy |
10-13 |
|
1. General Law |
10 |
|
2.
Use of S-Codes vs. Exceptions |
10-11 |
|
3.
Definition of “Brook Trout” |
11 |
|
4.
Definition of “Trout” |
11 |
|
5.
Definition of “Salmon, Trout & Togue” |
12 |
|
6.
Use of “No Length or Bag Limit” |
13 |
|
7.
Use of “Catch-and-Release” |
13 |
|
8.
Extended Seasons |
13 |
|
VI. Option #1 –
S-Codes and Frequently Used Exceptions Only |
14-15 |
|
VII. Option #2 –
Infrequently Used Exceptions |
16 |
|
VIII. Option #3 – General Organization (County
Sort) |
17 |
|
Attachments |
18-65 |
The
intention of this paper is to identify areas where the annual State of Maine
“Open Water Fishing Regulations” book put out by the Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife (DIF&W) could be modified so as to be smaller,
easier to understand and easier to use.
Recommendations include proposed changes to the way and where the
material is presented, consolidation of “like” material, consistent use of
“S-Codes” (or some other alternative), and some policy changes regarding how
regulations are established.
Notes:
·
No attempt has been made to ascertain the validity and
necessity of the respective regulations.
However, due to the large number of single-occurrence Exceptions there
is a clear need to evaluate the rules at a later date to determine if they are
all needed. This would be much easier
to accomplish after the current situation has been addressed (i.e., the
document has been streamlined).
·
Due to the fact that they represent the bulk of the material
presented in the book, only regulations effecting salmonids were
evaluated. Issues similar to those
found regarding salmonids can be found for bass, pike, perch and smelt. This can and should be addressed at a later
date.
It
is my opinion that there is nothing inherently wrong with the “S-Code”
system. In fact, coding is a common
practice in printed materials such as catalogs, etc., when the objective is to
make the respective document streamlined and consistent. As such, I in no way recommend that the
concept of coding be abandoned. It is
also important to note that considering the large number of waters involved and
the variety of species found in Maine, even in a perfect world it would require
a high number of codes to effectively manage the resource.
With
that said, I do believe that there is room for significant improvements
especially in regard to how “Exceptions” are handled. With over 160 exceptions, it is my opinion that what may have
been a necessary management tool for addressing unique situations at the time
has since become the “rule”. As such,
one of the primary focuses of this paper will be in regard to consolidation and
simplification will be the exceptions:
·
In a number of cases
(55+), Exceptions are used where an S-Code already exists.
·
There are multiple
Exceptions with the same meanings (up to 5 in some cases).
·
Certain Exceptions
occur more frequently than some S-Codes (S-8).
·
There are some cases
where there are an S-Code and an Exception that have the same meaning except
for the number of fish allowed (S-11 and “…1 fish…”).
I
have also made some recommendations for streamlining the coding system in an
attempt to provide a higher level of understanding, inherent meaning,
consistency and room for future expansion.
Lastly, I have made some recommendations in regard to the process
(definition, approval, formalization) by which regulations are established that
could be implemented voluntarily or legislatively to prevent this (i.e., the
current situation in regard to Exceptions) from happening again in the
future.
It
is also important to note that I have not addressed the effectiveness and
necessity in regard to specific regulations.
However, it is my personal opinion that there are far too many
variations and that many are indicative of biologists trying to manage the
resources to the “nth degree” in an attempt to please too many people and/or
trying to attain the perfect level of management. In this regard, a “90% Rule” by which we impose regulations that
reflect 90% of what we are trying to accomplish would go a long way toward
streamlining the regulations.
As
such, I recommend a second phase to this project (after cleaning up what is
there) where by we would look into ways to lessen the number of overall
regulations. In this phase, a “Work
Group” would be put together to discuss and evaluate ways to consolidate the
regulations into a series of easier to understand items. A possibility would be to consider “Species
Specific” regulations such as BKT1, BKT2, etc., that would regulate both bag
and creel limits.
In
closing, let me state that while it is certainly a worthwhile goal, the shear
number of lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and brooks found in Maine makes it
virtually impossible to make the rule book as small as that found in
neighboring states such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. However, while the number of waters cannot
be reduced, the amount to space required to define them could be significantly
reduced by utilizing some form of coding for what are currently defined as
“Exceptions”.
Potential Gains
·
The document (and management of such) can be greatly
simplified by the elimination of 83 unique Exceptions (from 162 to 79)
resulting from the removal of duplicate Exceptions
and Exceptions where S-Codes exist, and conversion of frequently occurring
Exceptions to formal codes. Note
however that a large number of the Exceptions in question will be mapped to
other Exceptions resulting in no decrease in the size of the document.
·
The current word-count for documenting
Exceptions can be reduced from approximately 4,750 (162 Exceptions occurring
365 times x 13 words per occurrence) to roughly 1,770 (79 Exceptions occurring
136 times x 13 words per) by eliminating duplicate Exceptions, eliminating
Exceptions where S-Codes exist, and converting frequently occurring Exceptions
into formal codes.
·
The size of the document can be significantly reduced by the
use of sub-codes in the remaining 79 Exceptions. At 13 characters per Exception (less the sub-codes) times the
number of occurrences (136+), this is a reduction of roughly 1,400 words.
·
While not the focus of this exercise, even after the
consolidation and formalization of Exceptions, there will be a large number of
remaining rules. This is indicative of
a secondary problem where I believe that biologists are trying to manage waters
to too high a level of detail. For example, the following are the current (and
remaining after this exercise) length limits applicable specifically to brook
trout (9 variations):
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 6 inches (Exception).
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 8 inches (Exception and
S-18).
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 10 inches (Exception).
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 12 inches (Exception).
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 14 inches (Exception).
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 16 inches (Exception).
Ž
Minimum length limit on brook trout: 18 inches (Exception).
Ž
…minimum length limit: 10 inches, only one may exceed 12
inches (S-17).
Ž
…minimum length limit: 12 inches, only one may exceed 14
inches (S-16).
In addition, there are a number of length limits that although defined
for “trout” have been applied primarily to brook trout waters (4 variations):
Ž
…minimum length limit: 8 inches, only one may exceed 12
inches. (S-26).
Ž
…less than 8 inches and longer than 10 inches must be
released… (Exception)
Ž
…less than 8 inches and longer than 12 inches must be
released… (Exception)
Ž
…minimum length limit 6 inches, only one may exceed 12
inches. (Exception).
This means that there are in effect 13 different length limits
applicable to brook trout. The same
situation exists for length limits regarding salmon (10 variations), togue
(6+), etc. In addition, there is a
number of variations in regard to bag limits (5 for togue), etc., that should
be looked at in the future.
After
a thorough review of the rulebook, the number of regulations applicable to
salmonids under the General Law, S-Code and Exception categories is as follows:
·
General Laws: 8
·
S-Codes: 15
·
Exceptions: 162
·
Total: 185
Note: Refer to
attachments “A”, “B” and “C” for the breakdown of General Laws, S-Codes and
Exceptions respectively.
As
you can see, the Exceptions far outnumber the rules and this is the crux of the
problem. In addition, there is no
consistency in regard to what is or what is not an S-Code or Exception (i.e.,
there are S-Codes and Exceptions that are identical except for the numbers of
fish or length limits). It is also
important to note that there are as many as five Exceptions that have the exact
same meaning, only different verbiage (refer to section VII). The number of times a given Exception is
used is as follows:
·
1 Time: 97
·
2-3 Times: 40
·
4-5 Times: 13
·
6-9 Times: 10
·
>9 Times: 2
·
Total: 162
As
you can see, 137 of the Exceptions are imposed only one to three times. As such, these represent cases where a biologist
has chosen to implement what is basically a “Water Specific” regulation. In the 12 cases where a given Exception is
imposed more than five times, two are already S-Codes and the remaining ten
most likely should be consolidated and made into S-Codes (or some other form of
coding).
The
following are items that in my opinion would make the document easier to use
and understand. In no case do any of
the recommendations made change the meaning or intent of any information
currently presented in the document. As
such, these should be viewed as “Administrative” changes only.
Table of Contents (Page 1)
·
There are references
to “Atlantic salmon regulations” on page 30, 47 (the only one of which has a
page reference to the respective regulations) 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52. Only after scanning the entire book was I
able to find this information (page 66-67).
Considering the major changes in effect in regard to Atlantic salmon
(ESA listing, closures, etc.), this section should be added to the
Table-of-Contents under “V. Warnings and Advisories”.
Note: I would also
recommend referencing the page where the regulation can be found in all cases.
Definitions (Page 3)
·
The term “Artificial
Lure” is used throughout the book (e.g., “Artificial lures only”, etc.). It is not implicitly stated as to how many
and what types of hooks are allowed under this definition. As such, I recommend adding some verbiage
such as that noted below:
Ž “Unless otherwise stated, an Artificial Lure may have up to
two hooks either or both of which may be single or treble hooks.”
·
Under the definition
for “Artificial Lure”, it is not clear to me where synthetic baits such as
“Power Bait”, etc., would be excluded.
If excluding this type of bait is the intention of this rule (which I
believe is the case), the verbiage should be changed as follows:
Ž “An artificial lures only rule prohibits the use of any
live, dead or chemically preserved natural or synthetic bait or food.”
Note: The term “Organic”
has been removed due to the fact that it is a redundancy of the term
“Natural”.
·
The term “Fish” is
used throughout the book (e.g., “daily limit: 1 fish”, etc.). While ambiguous at best and as such a
candidate for removal, if this term is going to be used it should be clearly
explained under “Definitions”.
·
The term “Brook
Trout” has the potential to confuse readers and as such should be included in
the “Definitions” section. Note that
“Brook Trout” is referred to in a footnote associated with “Trout” under the
“General Law” section (page 5).
·
The term “Trout” has
the potential to confuse readers and as such should be included in the
“Definitions” section. Note that
although referred to as a “term”, the definition for trout is found under the
“General Law” section (page 5). Also
note that the definition for “Salmon” is found in the “Definition”
section.
·
The term “Bass” has
the potential to confuse readers and as such should be included in the
“Definitions” section. Note that
although referred to as a “term”, the definition for bass is found under the
“General Law” section (page 5). Also
note that the definition for “Salmon” is found in the “Definition” section.
General Law (Page 5)
·
A reference should be
made to the “Atlantic salmon regulations” under the “Anadromous Fish Species
Regulations”.
· <