FFIM

FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently May 24th, 2019, 11:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 1st, 2019, 9:28 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: April 13th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 238
I've heard rumblings of DIFW doing away with the game warden district that includes the Rangeley area. For the department to even consider doing this is asinine. The best wild brook trout fishing in the country and they think reducing enforcement is a good idea ? This is a high use area and having enforcement of our fish and game laws only makes sense. If they combine districts with Parmachene it will be over 1000 square miles. I urge everyone to contact the commissioner of DIFW at the following e-mail. Judy.Camuso@maine.gov
Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2019, 5:08 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: April 13th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 238
131 views and zero comments. I must say I'm surprised knowing how many recreate in the area. Surely some of you don't believe one warden can effectively cover 1000 square miles of remote country with little to no help ? Why not pull from an area like southern Maine where I live and all/most the waters are stocked ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2019, 7:18 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: April 1st, 2010, 10:35 am
Posts: 324
Location: flatland and Vienna Me.
There was a bar I use to frequent in Midrid called "Poachers Paradise" (great times). That's would sum up that area if they did something like that !!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2019, 10:52 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: May 12th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 26
I agree 100% with Salmo. Its my understanding the Dept wants to do away with Parmachene patrol and have those townships absorbed by Rangeley district At least most of them. The money will go toward creating another position in Gray. I'll give you brief description. Always has been 2 district wardens, Parmachene patrol and Rangeley. Rangeley had following towns; Dallas plt, Rangeley plt., Langtown, Rangeley, Davistown, Stetsontown, Seven Ponds and Redington. Roughy 400 square miles. Parmachene district had following towns; Lincoln Plt., Adamstown, Parkertown, Upper Cupsuptic, Lower cupsuptic, Parkertown, lynchtown, Parmachene, Oxbow, and Bowmantown. A short time ago the Andover warden was taken out of the section. In doing this, the Parmachene warden picked up Magalloway and Richardsontown. Look at your atlases. Huge geographic area. The Rangeley area certainly is one of the most utilized recreational areas of the great State of Maine. It offers some of the best native brook trout fishing in the continental US, spectacular snowmobiling, wonderful big and small game hunting, ATVing, boating, hiking (Appalachian trail) in a very scenic part of the state. It certainly needs protection and a visible presence. This goes a long way toward the voluntary compliance. The ultimate goal (which, unfortunately, will never be achieved 100%). Involvement with Jr Maine guide program, Ecoventure, RRG&S and other groups goes a long way toward providing the education and understanding that help sporting people comply with todays' rules and laws. In a time when you need more presence in high use, high resource areas, to take a position away makes no sense. The dept. will put their spin on it about how its a low complaint area, or too many gates, or how they're just aligning it like other areas of the state. Don't buy it. They'll always have reason. It's very disappointing to me to see, what is supposed to be the ultimate goal of the dept, protection and conservation of fish and game, being overlooked. Please speak out and let your thoughts be know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2019, 11:50 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5463
Location: Near the tying bench
I’ve always thought of the greater Rangeley area as a fairly law-abiding place, at least compared to other regions of the state. I guess I’d like to know more about the number of complaints/reports/infractions in the Rangeley/Parmachene area as compared to where ever the service may be considering adding a position.

But- with that said- I can’t imagine trying to staff that much acreage with a single warden. That’s getting down to DMR marine warden thinness.

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2019, 9:53 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: April 27th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 780
Even without the proposed change that district was a lot to cover and easy abused. Carry a smart phone and take pictures of crimes you observe committed. Get a photo of them and their license plate if you see a vehicle. Call the Wardens. If they are not around, there is no reason we can't aft as their eyes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 4th, 2019, 9:22 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: May 12th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 26
Regarding your post Hunter just a little something to think about. High population areas=more complaints. More complaints=more summons. The rural patrols do not get the complaints that urban areas to. An example might be a distempered raccoon in Saco generates 3 calls and some time by wardens dealing with it. Same situation in northern Oxford county generates 0 calls because the person dispatches raccoon and buries it without calling anyone. My point is, and just my opinion, resource protection should be a priority. Hard to judge area by number of complaints and/or tickets written. Individual wardens play factor too. Rangeley area is such a high use recreational area, it seems you should at least maintain status quo up there regarding enforcement. Just being visible goes along way toward voluntary compliance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 4th, 2019, 1:29 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5463
Location: Near the tying bench
teaser wrote:
Regarding your post Hunter just a little something to think about. High population areas=more complaints. More complaints=more summons. The rural patrols do not get the complaints that urban areas to. An example might be a distempered raccoon in Saco generates 3 calls and some time by wardens dealing with it. Same situation in northern Oxford county generates 0 calls because the person dispatches raccoon and buries it without calling anyone. My point is, and just my opinion, resource protection should be a priority. Hard to judge area by number of complaints and/or tickets written. Individual wardens play factor too. Rangeley area is such a high use recreational area, it seems you should at least maintain status quo up there regarding enforcement. Just being visible goes along way toward voluntary compliance.


That illustrates the point that perhaps more wardens are needed in more populated areas. That's not saying the Rangeley to Parmachene area doesn't deserve protection. But resources need to be allocated where 1) they're needed and 2) where they're going to be most effective. A warden can cover a lot of territory effectively if he's got eyes in the sky.

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 4th, 2019, 2:29 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: May 12th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 26
Not really sure what that means, eyes in the sky?? Are you saying spinning raccoons, trespass issues, illegal dumping, ATV, boating complaints, etc... in areas that have quite a bit of law enforcement, should take priority over resource protection? I think we differ on opinions on what constitutes effectiveness. Most people I know would rather have warden walking up and down Crooked River or Kennebago River in Sept/Oct than checking ATVs in Saco. Both need to get done but one seems more important to me. Maybe not?? I appreciate hearing your opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 4th, 2019, 4:38 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5463
Location: Near the tying bench
teaser wrote:
Not really sure what that means, eyes in the sky?? Are you saying spinning raccoons, trespass issues, illegal dumping, ATV, boating complaints, etc... in areas that have quite a bit of law enforcement, should take priority over resource protection? I think we differ on opinions on what constitutes effectiveness. Most people I know would rather have warden walking up and down Crooked River or Kennebago River in Sept/Oct than checking ATVs in Saco. Both need to get done but one seems more important to me. Maybe not?? I appreciate hearing your opinion.


Which one results in more significant infractions in a given year? How about deaths? Yes- resource issues are important, but so is public safety. And how many visits to the Crooked or Kennebago during September/October does it take for the warden service to have perception of a presence? The warden service has many issues to contend with- and they generally seem to balance those issues well from my perspective.

And regarding 'eyes in the sky'- think 'bear in the air'.

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 4th, 2019, 8:40 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 799
Location: Vermont/Rangeley
Resource SHOULD be priority #1. I know that is not the way it works, but it should be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 6th, 2019, 2:50 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 21st, 2006, 1:00 am
Posts: 131
Location: Hudson, WI
As annual non resident coming back home and property owner, raise license fees or what ever it would take to keep a Warden in the region, raise fines, it blew my mind how light some of the fines handed out during Northwood's Law series were, frequent violators got away with murder, and repeatedly abused the system. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul will do nothing for the law abiding fishermen, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts. Keep the Warden Service strong viable and capable of protecting one of Vacationland's strongest assets. Or it won't be Vacationland for the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rangeley area
PostPosted: March 12th, 2019, 9:09 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: October 22nd, 2016, 11:57 am
Posts: 12
The state decided against this decision. Thank you to all that took action and believe in protecting the resources in region.

Conservation decisions cannot be rationalized solely on revenue and population data....that is a short sighted perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group