Having lived, worked and fished all over the country, I now choose to reside, recreate, and make my living on the middle Kennebec River. After a significant amount of research, I made this decision based on the undeniable "potential" of the watershed, the feasibility of opening a fly shop in the area (a lifelong dream), and the sincere belief that the Maine DIF&W would eventually figure out what an untapped and potentially invaluable diamond-in-the-rough they had.

Having experienced hundreds of coldwater fisheries across the country, I can state that few if any with this level of potential are as under-managed as the Kennebec. Long treated as a dump, sewer, and highway for logs, the Kennebec is experiencing a re-birth as a result of dam removal, improvements in municipal and private sector wastewater releases, and Mother Nature's inherent resilience. As such, the Kennebec is cleaner today than it has been in generations.

While many (municipalities, etc.) are doing their part to restore this resource to its former glory, the DIF&W has failed to do their part to ensure that the fishery improves at the same rate as the habitat. Long after others had figured out what we had, the DIF&W continued to manage the fishery under "General Law" with far too liberal length and creel limits, ineffective stocking practices, virtually no protection for the resident wild salmonids, and no plan for controlling the increasing threat posed by invasive species.

Early this spring, a group of concerned anglers took matters into their own hands and went to the DIF&W with a series of ideas for improving the fisheries in the middle and upper river. Starting with a plan for "Scatter Stocking" where fish would be spread throughout the system as opposed to being dumped in a handful of easy to access places, they were met with immediate resistance and poor coordination on the part of the DIF&W. In more than one case, these plans failed to materialize and the status quo prevailed.

The logic was that with only a couple of thousand fish being stocked in any given section of river, anything that could be done to reduce initial mortality would improve the fishery. Under the existing plan, hundreds of fish are released in one spot. As a result, these fish "school" for several days making them easy prey for cormorants, loons, otters and anglers. In just a few short days, as many as half of the fish released may be harvested or worse, eaten by predators, leaving far too few to sustain a solid year-round fishery.

Initially, the group proposed "Float Stocking" where fish would be hand-released throughout the river by volunteers using canoes and custom in-water transports. At the first meeting to discuss this proposal, the department refused to embrace the idea citing a lack of supporting data and the belief that the existing methods were sufficient. With approximately twelve miles of river being stocked from just two locations, one must question this logic. More importantly, float stocking is standard procedure in many other states.

Since then, this project has been on and off the table as much as my favorite coffee cup! After a commitment from the department to move forward with the project, the group documented their plan, mapped the river, designed transports and purchased materials. However, the department backed out of their earlier commitment offering the possibility of aerial stocking in favor of float stocking. I guess they think that it is better to use taxpayer money to launch fish out of a plane rather then let volunteers gently place them in the water?

After initially refusing to float stock, a compromise was offered where the DIF&W would add additional shore stocking sites (to solve a problem that they just told us we didn't have?). After working hard to identify a series of possible stocking sites and obtaining written landowners permission to utilize these sites, the group toured a representative of the department to evaluate the options. Amazingly enough, at the exact moment the group was touring the sites, the stocking trucks were right behind them using the existing sites!

The next missed opportunity was in regard to establishing a meaningful set of regulations that would allow the fishery to prosper. After literally being run out of town ten years earlier when they tried to impose stricter regulations on the river, the DIF&W now had two Trout Unlimited chapters, several local businesses, and a large number of anglers behind them. After a number of public meetings, the department presented a proposal to the local coalition. While the general concept was sound, there were some serious flaws.

The basis of the proposal was to divide each section of river into "Tailwaters" (from below a dam to the end of the moving water) and "Impoundments" (from the end of the moving water to the top of the next dam). Under this strategy, tailwaters would be managed for Artificial Lures Only (ALO) and impoundments would be managed for bait angling. However, when the details were released the proposal was referred to by local outdoor writers as "gutless" (Ken Allen) and "too complicated" (Dwayne Rioux).

First is that the department proposed treating the Skowhegan tailwater different than the other tailwaters (bait would be allowed in this and only this tailwater?) Next is that while the tailwaters would be regulated for 1-fish / 16", the impoundments would be 2-fish / 12" (would you draw a line across a lake and set a 12" minimum on the south side and a 16" minimum on the north side?). Add an unprecedented "Senior's" exclusion for one of the areas designated for kids fishing and few if any could get behind the proposal as presented.

After countless attempts (letters, articles, hearings, etc.) to get the DIF&W to rethink their position, while they did back off of some of the more indefensible positions (Skowhegan Gorge and the Seniors Exclusion), they refused to budge on the most important component in regard to understandability, enforceability, and biology, i.e., the split length and creel limits. Even though this component had almost unanimous support amongst those in favor of any regulations beyond the status quo, this key component was ignored.

As a result, we have inconvenienced folks by restricting their angling with the risk that we will not see any real long-term improvement in the fishery. Much like our failed attempt to grow "trophy' brook trout via a "modified slot limit" (one between and one over), these regulations will only protect some large fish from some anglers some of the time. No large fish will be protected from all anglers all of the time. As such, while it will slow down the harvesting of large fish, it will not stop it. In the end, this loophole will catch up with us and our goals will not be recognized.

Had the department been serious about capitalizing on this resource, they would have gone forward with a 1-fish / 16" minimum through the entire watershed (or better yet a 14-16" true slot limit!). This would have allowed all fish to grow to at least 16", which would ensure that both the wild and stocked salmonids were allowed to reach sexual maturity. This could in turn have lessened the need for stocking in the future ($$$). As I see it, we have missed a huge opportunity to finally develop this unique and valuable fishery.

Bob Mallard has been a flyfisherman and fly tyer for over 25 years and is the owner of Kennebec River Outfitters on Route 201 in Madison, ME. He can be reached at (207) 474-2500 or www.kennebecriveroutfitters.com.