Having recently been referred to in this very publication as a "small but vocal group", it looks to me like Maine's Catch-and-Release (C&R) constituency is suffering from a real identity crisis! While apparently viewed as an accurate statement by some, in my opinion this description of Maine's C&R constituency couldn't be further from the truth. While admittedly a relatively new movement, this group of sportsmen is gaining in size at a very impressive rate.

If one chooses to believe the recent surveys, many anglers in Maine (62% of those polled) would like to see more waters managed for C&R. It is also interesting that the surveys in question were taken by a publication representing factions of Maine's Outdoor community that cannot be labeled as "extremist" or "elitist". Add group's such as Trout Unlimited (TU) whom are overwhelmingly in favor of C&R, and the number of C&R supporters sure does not look "small" to me.

As for being vocal, once again, I couldn't disagree more. While there are certainly some C&R advocates (including yours truly!) whom are every bit as passionate and vocal in regard to their beliefs as any other users of our resources, the typical C&R supporter is not very vocal. In many cases, C&R supporters are also fly fishers whom for years have been notoriously silent (hence the term used by Fly Fisherman magazine - "The Quiet Sport").

If you don't believe me ask George Smith of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine (Maine's largest Outdoor lobby) about anglers and advocacy - we are a tough lot to organize. It is also important to note that for C&R to exist, certain anglers will have to stop harvesting fish. As such, while it is human nature to rise up loudly when someone is taking something away from you, passive resistance is often the approach used by those trying to gain something.

In regards to whether the current management strategy is working, one need only refer to a statement made in the aforementioned article that reads, "When those lakes slowed down, another two or three lakes would blossom into fantastic fishing." Specifically, it is the lack of regulations such as C&R that has caused this "Yo-Yo" effect where our waters routinely go through cycles of good and bad fishing based primarily on angler harvest.

As to whether C&R and other restrictive regulations such as true slot limits work, that all depends on what you deem as "successful". While there have been cases in Maine recently where strict regulations have failed to achieve the "desired" results, in many cases the regulations did in fact result in a substantial improvement in the fishery. Specifically, there can be no doubt as to the effectiveness of C&R on waters such as the Rapid and Roach Rivers.

Conversely, on one pond that I fish, the 18" minimum imposed failed to result in 18" fish. However, the average fish went from 10 inches to 12+ inches in just a couple of years - is this a success or a failure? On another pond that I fish on a regular basis, the 18" minimum has resulted in a literal rebirth of the fishery with a healthy number of 16-18" fish thus leaving many of us to wonder what could be accomplished with a C&R regulation?

As such, one must question the water chosen as much as the regulation itself. Applying the right regulations (C&R) to the wrong water (very small or overly fertile ponds) is every bit as ineffective as applying the wrong regulation (12" minimum) to the right water (large rivers, etc.) - the results simply will not warrant the inconvenience. Another point is the time we allow for these regulations to yield the desired results - it took 20 years to screw it up yet we allow only 3 years to fix it?

Currently, there are only 12 C&R waters in the state of Maine. For example, with approximately 2,000 lakes and ponds managed for brook trout, only 5 are designated C&R. This represents only ¼ of a percent of the total! If our waters are truly being managed based on the size of the various constituencies, this implies that only 500 of the roughly 200,000 licensed anglers in the state are strict C&R supporters (never mind the group that believes in some level of C&R waters).

As for the waters currently affected, 2 of the 7 rivers managed for C&R are recognized both locally and regionally as some of the absolute finest in the state (Roach and Rapid). In two cases, the section of river being managed is only ¼ mile and 500 yards long and as such, not very effective. As for the C&R ponds, I have experienced 3 of the 5 personally and can assure you that you would need to look real hard to find any better ones (3# bookies are not uncommon).

The bottom line is that when applied appropriately, C&R absolutely does work. One need only look at the Yellowstone River where after a few years of C&R the average cutthroat has gone from 12" to 16". However, to assume that C&R will make a historically marginal fishery "world class" is simply foolish (fish will only grow to the size that the habitat will support). Yet when applied to a body of water that once had quality fishing for large fish, good things usually happen!

The number one misconception in regard to C&R is that it causes "stunting". If harvesting fish was necessary to maintain a healthy fish population, then why were all of our fish not "stunted" before we arrived on the scene to "help them out"? Stunting (i.e., small adult fish) is the result of overpopulation caused by the introduction of a non-native species or in some cases where native fish are affected, overly productive spawning habitat.

So, without our "help", a given body of water is what it is - good or bad. When we try to "help" the resource by stocking and/or harvesting fish, we change the outcome. Can one make a "trophy" fishery out of a "marginal" one, possibly if we harvest enough "small" fish to allow those that remain to attain trophy size (and this is no guarantee of success)? As for making a "trophy" fishery into a "marginal" fishery, well that's a no-brainer - we do it all the time!

The very fact that we fish means that we by default impact the resource (even C&R anglers kill fish - up to 3% of all caught). As such, in cases were we want to allow a natural fishery to reach its potential, the best bet is to reduce angler-induced mortality and let Mother Nature do her job. As for a non-native or stocked fishery, the number of fish we stock and harvest has a lot to do with it. If we are not careful, we can create a problem by under or over stocking and harvesting.

Another misconception is that C&R proponents are morally opposed to harvesting wild game and/or have some dislike for the taste of salmonids. In most cases I am aware of (myself included), those whom practice C&R for salmonids today were once "harvesters" and many still hunt, or harvest other species of fish that are not as delicate. However, at some point they voluntarily chose to forgo harvesting salmonids in a sincere attempt to improve the fishing.

In most cases, C&R anglers have decided that eating, mounting, or otherwise killing salmonids was detrimental to the fishery and in fact, "fishing" (not harvesting) is why they are out there in the first place. By doing this, C&R anglers have given other sportsmen the opportunity to enjoy catching the very same fish that they previously caught and released. So, while you may not agree with their position, you must respect their reasons for practicing C&R.

It is also important to note that the "trophy" fishery referred to in the aforementioned article is in fact a "manufactured" fishery and of little biological value - stocked non-native game fish (rainbows) and introduced forage fish (smelt and alewives). It is also a suburban fishery that while attractive to some, has limited economic value to the state or local economies. As such, managing this water for liberal harvest is not a concern - this is the market for that resource!

However, where wild fisheries are concerned this is not the case. These fisheries have significant biological and economic value. In addition, stocked fisheries (particularly rivers and streams) that are attractive to "tourist" anglers are of huge economic value to the state and local economies and as such should be managed accordingly. In the end, there is a need and room for all types of management. However, C&R is clearly not getting the support it deserves.

Until the DIF&W accurately assesses the size of the C&R constituency, we will be left to guess as to whether we are getting our fair share (or if in fact C&R works). Meanwhile, this lack of supporting data (who's who and as such, who deserves what?) has pit angler against angler and helps further divide the outdoor community. When one group does not feel that they are getting their fair share, they are unlikely to support those whom they feel are fighting them.

In the end, does C&R represent a step forward or as some imply, a step backward. Since many have gone from harvesting to C&R and I know of few if any who have gone the other way, it sure looks like progress to me. As far as being "exclusionary", all are welcome to fish C&R waters; just not welcome to harvest fish. Conversely, when non C&R types harvest fish, they are preventing others from catching that very fish. So, what is fair - compromise or the status quo?

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.