State of Maine 2003

Open Water Fishing Regulations

Analysis & Proposal for Simplification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 18, 2003                               Robert L. Mallard, Jr.

 


 

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

 


I.                    Introduction

 

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.

 


II.                  Executive Summary

   

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.

 

Remaining Issues

 

·         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.


III.                Current Situation

 

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). 

 


IV.               Specific Recommendations / Administrative

 

1.      Document Organization

 

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”.

 

·         <