Fishing Legislation

            If you are not fishing this month, you ought to be thinking about fishing.  Lots of sportsmen are.  In fact, from the legislature to bait shops, fishing issues are the hot topics this year.

            An unprecedented number of legislative bills were introduced on fishing topics, and they were among the most contentious and debated bills submitted by sportsmen this session.  In fact, some of the fishing bills did not get final action until the last two weeks of the session, and one was carried over to next year for further legislative consideration.

            First, let’s talk about what the legislature did not do.  A salt water fishing license was not enacted.  Driven by federal action to create a registry of saltwater anglers in 2009 with the option of charging anglers for that registration in 2011, Maine’s Department of Marine Resources tried to get a jump on the feds by creating a Maine salt water fishing license.  The federal registration won’t be required in states with their own salt water licenses.

            DMR offered the argument that if Mainers have to pay, the money ought to be kept in Maine.  That didn’t cut it with many anglers, and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine led the charge against the license, which was defeated.

            License advocates tried to keep the idea alive, however, by turning the bill into a resolve calling for DMR to continue studying the issue, including learning more about what the feds intend to do, and report back to the legislature in either 2008 or 2009, when the debate will once again be on.  The resolve was defeated in the Senate.

            The license issue is unlikely now to be offered again until 2009.  But the Coastal Conservation Association’s Maine Chapter vows to keep the issue alive.  In a June 29 emailed newsletter, CCA Maine’s executive director Ian Burnes reported, “CCA Maine will keep working on keeping our Maine saltwater license funds in the state, invested in the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the marine resources.

If you want to weigh in on the issue, send comments to DMR Commissioner George  Lapointe,  21 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333.

Bait

A bill to ban the use of four nonnative species for bait, sponsored by Rep. Thom Watson for the Dud Deane Society, drew an angry group of bait dealers to the legislature in March, but the bill was a nonstarter, opposed by groups including SAM and the Maine Aquaculture Association, as well as the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The debate was healthy, because the impact of nonnative species cannot be ignored.  From fishing rules to enforcement, Maine has fallen short of protecting its most precious native species.  This was one of several bills addressing the problem.

Sebastian Belle of the Maine Aquaculture Association presented a strong argument against the proposed ban, reporting “the species that this bill targets have been used within the State for almost 30 years and area already introduced into many waters.”

Belle suggested an intriguing solution, telling the Fish and Wildlife Committee that, “the most effective way to limit the impacts of the species being removed from the list is to prohibit any commercial or private bait harvests from waters in which these species have been introduced.”

After testifying that “we’re not convinced that these four species pose any greater threat than our native minnows,” DIF&W’s Fisheries Division Director John Boland suggested that one of the four species, blackchin shiners, be banned because “there are no known populations of blackchin shiners in Maine and we’re not sure how or why this species was included on the list” of allowed bait.

The committee chose to do that, amending the bill so that it removed the blackchin shiner from the list of allowed bait species.  Although supporters of the original bill mounted an interesting challenge and debate in the House, the amended version was enacted into law.

Fall Fishing

            Maine anglers won’t have any new fall fishing opportunities after the legislature turned thumbs down on SAM’s bill to open all stocking moving water to catch-and-release fishing in October and November.

            Led by Maine guide Gary Corson, SAM’s Fishing Initiative Committee has long championed fall and even year-round fishing, and through the years has had a lot of success in getting Maine waters opened for the months of October and November.

            But DIF&W continues to resist the group’s effort to open all stockedmoving water, so SAM submitted this bill to find out if the legislature would take up the cause.

            Reporting that he hadn’t heard any requests for more fall fishing opportunities at DIF&W’s regional forums, Fisheries Director Boland claimed his department “has a plan to create a lot more fall fishing opportunities,” and invited SAM and anyone else to submit suggestions for moving water they would like to have opened.

            Some found Boland’s plan a bit short of his promise, after he announced that DIF&W would propose a grand total of nine streams, ponds, and sections of river for fall fishing in 2008.

            His principle reason for opposing SAM’s bill seemed to be that it would create too much work for his division and add too many pages to the fishing rule book.  “This bill would unnecessarily add dozens and dozens of new special regulations to or lawbook,” testified Boland.  “This would complicate regulations even further. As written, this LD would require additional administrative oversight and rulemaking,” said Boland.

            Even though its bill was defeated, SAM achieved its goal by moving Boland and DIF&W toward more fall fishing opportunities, and winning a commitment to consider any suggestions that are submitted for specific waters – including the stocked moving waters that SAM is now working to open.

            If you would like to submit suggestions for waters that ought to be open in the fall, send them to John Boland, Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 41 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04330.

Wild Brookies

            SAM’s bill to designate wild brook trout waters for recognition and protection, sponsored by Rep. Ted Koffman, found a lot of rough water this session.  The bill was modeled on the SAM’s successful legislation – enacted last session - that designated the native brook trout as a state “Heritage Fish” and protected them by banning stocking of any species in a water that has native brook trout and has never been stocked, and prohibiting the use of live fish as bait in those waters.

            In the case of wild brook trout, SAM’s bill called for no stocking or live-fish-as-bait in waters where wild brook trout were the principle species and no species had been stocked in at least 25 years.

            Many bait dealers turned out in opposition to SAM’s bill, augmented by members of the fledgling Maine Ice Anglers Association.  They were joined in opposition by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

            A lot of incorrect information was distributed about SAM’s bill, including by some fisheries biologists at DIF&W, causing a great deal of public concern and debate.

            Koffman eventually withdrew the bill without a public hearing after the Fish and Wildlife Committee agreed to send a letter to DIF&W asking the department to pursue the goals of the bill.

            Boland agreed to do that by taking the issue to a brook trout working group that he organized last fall.  Gary Corson of New Sharon represents SAM on the working group, and Rep. Koffman was informed that he would be added to the group.   Action on this issue is expected before the end of 2007, with a report back to the legislature in January.

Arctic Char

            Rep. Watson was luckier with another Dud Deane Society bill to establish the arctic charr as a new “Heritage Fish.”  Known in Maine as the blueback charr, these fish are descendents of anadromous or sea-run arctic charr that remain in only a few of the state’s waters.

            “Over-fishing, habitat degradation, hybridization with other charr, and competition and predation by introduced fishes has been cited as reasons for the known extinctions,” testified Watson.  “For instance, Maine lost populations of charr in the Rangeley Lakes area when introductions of landlocked salmon and rainbow smelt hastened the demise of the already exploited charr populations.”

            Watson offered a compelling reason for his bill when he reported, “Maine is the last state in the U.S. to support natural populations of this subspecies.”

            Watson’s bill banned stocking of any species and the use of live fish as bait in charr waters.  DIF&W supported the bill, but asked that the 14 waters proposed be reduced to 10, reporting that the other four have been stocked for many years.  DIF&W also reported that although it does not currently have a length or bag limit on charr, it plans to do so during the next round of rule-making.  The bill was enacted and applied to the 10 waters supported by DIF&W.

Splake

            No fishing bill sparked the interest of more legislators than SAM’s bill on splake.  After the Fish and Wildlife Committee voted 10 to 2 against the bill, it won an amazing resurrection on the House floor where, by a vote of 83 to 59, House members rejected the committee’s negative vote and endorsed the legislation, sending it to the Senate where it also won favor after a 20 to 14 vote against the committee’s recommendation.

            House members Ted Koffman, sponsor of SAM’s bill, Thom Watson, former chair of the Fish and Wildlife Committee, and current committee members Tom Saviello and Jane Eberle, led the charge to overturn the committee’s negative vote.  Saviello and Eberle were the two committee members who supported the bill in committee.

The debate and vote demonstrated a significant understanding of the importance of  Maine’s native brook trout, to the credit of the House members who supported and spoke for this bill.

            Koffman was particularly eloquent, saying that “splake are the McDonald’s burger – they can be supersized, they’re everywhere – crowding out local restaurants.”

            At the public hearing, DIF&W’s Fisheries Director John Boland offered the department’s testimony in opposition to SAM’s bill, saying they didn’t understand it, contending that “we are unaware of any stocked splake that have migrated into Maine’s Heritage Brook Trout waters.” 

            Boland did concede, “It is true that a limited number of splake occasionally migrate to other waters that may contain wild trout.”  Urging the committee to reject the bill, Boland said, “You can trust us.”

            SAM countered Boland’s testimony, telling legislators, “Splake are a hybrid hatchery-produced fish that threaten our native and wild brook trout and is favored by few anglers.”

            Fisheries biologists have made serious mistakes in the past:  lake trout in Sebago Lake, shrimp in Moosehead Lake, smelts in northern Maine brook trout ponds.  These introductions, by DIF&W, negatively impacted native fisheries and changed forever the ecology of Maine’s two largest freshwater lakes and too many of our native brook trout waters.

            These introductions were made with the very best of intentions – but without the forethought or research necessary to predict the negative impacts that have occurred. 

            Yet DIF&W continues to deny there is a problem, and strongly opposed SAM’s bill. 

            Splake are being spread willy nilly without the knowledge needed to prevent more serious mistakes.  They are migrating to native and wild trout and salmon waters, threatening the kinds of changes that northern pike and muskies have brought to so many Maine lakes and rivers.  DIF&W is infatuated with this fish, with no thought to the consequences.

As reported by Central Maine Newspaper outdoor columnist Dave Sherwood last April, “the splake debate reached near-epic fervor with the opening of Maine’s open water fishing season this April, when guides, lodge owners, and fishermen began catching splake in some of Maine’s most storied wild and native trout waters:  The Rapid and Magalloway Rivers near Rangeley, the Kennebec River in Bingham, the West Branch of the Penobscot and Munsungan and Millinocket lakes in Maine’s north woods.”

            There is a place in Maine for splake – a fish particularly well suited for ice fishing. But caution must be the watch word, lest we end up with more environmental disasters.

            SAM’s surveys of its members have found little interest in splake.  40 percent favored eliminating them entirely.  86 percent favored rainbow trout over splake.  A DIF&W survey of anglers ranked splake eleventh behind all other salmonids, bass, and even white perch. 

            The Hatchery Commission, co-chaired by Senator Bruce Bryant, issued a unanimous recommendation “that current splake production should be dramatically reduced;  however, a majority of Commission members recommended that existing splake production be reduced from 2000 levels of 9,517 pounds/year to 5,600 pounds/year while a minority of the Commission recommended removal of the splake stocking program.”

            In 2006, DIF&W stocked 43,910 splake totaling 14,821 pounds.  The Hatchery Commission recommendation, issued in November of 2002, has been ignored.

            SAM sought to accomplish two things with its bill:  first, to direct DIF&W to create a list of waters that are suitable for splake to find out where they are going with this program;  and second, to forbid DIF&W from stocking splake where they can spread to native and wild brook trout waters. 

            As the legislative session wound down in late June, the Senate and House had adopted different versions of the bill and the Senate refused to work out a compromise with their counterparts in the House, so the bill died.   But SAM’s point was made, and we’re hopeful that DIF&W will now respond to our concerns.  

These weren’t all the fisheries bills, indicating a growing interest in legislators about fishing issues.  Fisheries bills were rare ten years ago and today they often dominate the agenda of the legislature’s Fish and Wildlife committee and provide some of the liveliest debates.