FFIM

FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently August 22nd, 2019, 11:39 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2019, 4:28 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 12:00 am
Posts: 88
Location: Plymouth, ME
I discovered the new Maine Fishing rule book is available in PDF form that you can download to your phone. This allows you to access the info on your device even if you are without cell service or wi-fi. You first need to download the Acrobat Reader App and once you've accessed the PDF on the IF&W website, you can save it to the Acrobat App so you can carry it around in digital form. Which I like but may not be for everybody. For those of you who might be interested, you can get started here: https://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing-boati ... index.html

This year's book outlines the North/South division of general law and explains the reasoning behind it. It describes the North has having a wild Brook Trout population and the South region as being more warm water and stocked fish. But here's my question (with apologies if I'm late to this party and it has already been explained and argued to death):

Why, if the North has a wild Brook Trout population that needs to be protected is the daily bag limit 5 fish when it's only 2 fish in the south region? I never look at bag limits since I haven't kept fish for decades, maybe this is old news. I guess it seems backwards to me. What's the reasoning here?

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2019, 5:08 pm 
Offline
FFIM-aholic

Joined: May 21st, 2004, 12:00 am
Posts: 1066
Location: Westbrook, ME
X2 - I'd love to understand this as well.

_________________
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2019, 5:15 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: January 24th, 2002, 1:00 am
Posts: 2375
Location: Lyons, CO
I think the best argument I've heard for the 6 inch minimum size and 5 trout bag limit in northern Maine is that there are a lot of folks who like going brook fishing and plenty of these brooks have a ton of little trout, with a 6-8 inch trout being a big one.
In the rural areas of the state, the argument continues, there isn't enough fishing pressure to hurt these brooks too much, so we should let folks keep enough for a meal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2019, 11:31 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 12:00 am
Posts: 88
Location: Plymouth, ME
pushaw wrote:
...

In the rural areas of the state, the argument continues, there isn't enough fishing pressure to hurt these brooks too much, so we should let folks keep enough for a meal.


It's true that a couple 6-8" trout are not much of a meal. So I can see the logic there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 24th, 2019, 4:46 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: July 1st, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 677
tinsnip ..kind of similar to your point is this ..I live in so. Maine just outside of Portland and I have a trout stream not far from my house ..a wild trout stream at that really just a brook ..in fact its on the list on the IFW site of wild trout streams in so, Maine ..what I don't understand is this ..that southern. Maine stream is 5 trout 6" general law ,the exact same law that applies to ,now this stream is no secret so Prestile stream in central Aroostook county same general law ..so I think anyone that is familiar with Prestile knows that these are apples to oranges in comparison of fish population ..not even close..in fact you could probably make Prestile 10 trout max 9" and that fishery would take off its infested with 5-8" trout ..yet this so .Maine stream is same regulation ,I don't get it .

I have said this before CT, protects its little blue lines that still contain wild brook trout ,same with NJ ,Mass, RI ..why because they know how valuable the resource is... Maine yea not so much ..not very well protected in Southern Maine in my opinion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 24th, 2019, 9:45 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 12:00 am
Posts: 88
Location: Plymouth, ME
cdc wrote:
...

I have said this before CT, protects its little blue lines that still contain wild brook trout ,same with NJ ,Mass, RI ..why because they know how valuable the resource is... Maine yea not so much ..not very well protected in Southern Maine in my opinion


I tend to agree but think I need more information. Since my study of the rule books has always been pretty cursory in the past, I wonder if the special regulations for specific bodies of water aren't supposed to override the general law for more sensitive populations. But I don't know, that's a guess. Otherwise, the existing bag limits for North and South seem backwards to me and send a funny message if, like me, you don't look any deeper at the special regs.

I have been in states that show more "value" for the resource by influencing perceptions. For instance, on our honeymoon back in the Bronze Age, we went to Montana. During our two week stay, I was asked for a license 3 times by wardens. In the entire lifetime of fishing in Maine, I've never been asked. I left Montana feeling as though they take their fishing resource very seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 24th, 2019, 10:59 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5495
Location: Near the tying bench
The issue of North vs. South is one of people. While you may look at it from the perspective of one angler, one bag limit; the Department looks at it as the cumulative affect of all anglers vs. heir potential bag limits. There are a LOT more anglers in southern Maine than there are in the North. If they all took their 2 fish bag limit from waters in the South, it likely would have a greater impact than if all of the anglers in the North kept their 5 fish limit from waters in the North. Of note- if anglers were all targeting the same water- it would decimate that water (so it's probably good to not advertise fishing holes online, or elsewhere). The general law regs are, by design, regional in nature with regard to how they're applied though, so it is assumed the fishing pressure follows where the fish are located, spreading the pressure around.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 24th, 2019, 11:19 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 12:00 am
Posts: 88
Location: Plymouth, ME
That makes sense. I’d never considered it that way. It can’t be easy to make rules that allow for everyone’s wants plus balance the equation to protect the resource. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 25th, 2019, 5:00 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 803
Location: Vermont/Rangeley
I’ve just returned from several days in Baxter, where the regulation on the ponds I fish changed from (2) fish between 10 and 12”, only (1) can exceed 12” to (5) fish, any length, only (1) can exceed 14”. Reasoning being over population producing too many trout with a reduction in size. Historical data and the fact that the principal biologist support that decision leads me to be more accepting of the change. The new regulation has been in place for (2) years and the results are starting to show with an increase in size. My only remaining question, is it sustainable? If so, then I would say smart move. If not, can the clock be turned back? I did whack (2) on my last night there and will readily admit, there is no better eating than fresh brook trout.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 26th, 2019, 10:22 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: April 11th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 102
Vermonter wrote:
I’ve just returned from several days in Baxter, where the regulation on the ponds I fish changed from (2) fish between 10 and 12”, only (1) can exceed 12” to (5) fish, any length, only (1) can exceed 14”. Reasoning being over population producing too many trout with a reduction in size. Historical data and the fact that the principal biologist support that decision leads me to be more accepting of the change. The new regulation has been in place for (2) years and the results are starting to show with an increase in size. My only remaining question, is it sustainable? If so, then I would say smart move. If not, can the clock be turned back? I did whack (2) on my last night there and will readily admit, there is no better eating than fresh brook trout.


. . .with the possible exception of fresh Arctic charr.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 26th, 2019, 11:36 am 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 803
Location: Vermont/Rangeley
You got me there, tough choice!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 26th, 2019, 12:13 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: September 28th, 2003, 12:00 am
Posts: 2721
Crossroads
Is the ice out to open camp yet
Ron

_________________
The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of something that is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope.

Sir John Buchan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 3rd, 2019, 11:11 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: June 12th, 2014, 10:38 am
Posts: 136
Yeah, Montana take it very serious. ME does to relative to most other states. WA is just open season for the natural resource pimps.

_________________
Don't die over ridiculousness that doesn't involve landlocks. - S. Ratten


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: Google [Bot] and 6 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group