Perhaps it is just the evolved political process that some important players decide to sit quietly on the sidelines during the initial part of a debate before stepping forward to make a statement and take a stand. In most states, the legal and political process of creating legislation begins when either a citizen’s initiative is formulated or a lawmaker(s) introduces a bill. That proposed piece of legislation is brought to a legislative committee where it is discussed, debated and members listen to and read comments from concerned citizens. It is the committee’s responsibility to vote on such bills before they will make it to the full vote of the Congress.

Many times I have watched as slick politicians stealthily lurk in the shadows of tall trees and hide in the heavy underbrush waiting to see where they should stand on an issue in order to retain support, win votes and prolong their careers as politicians. This is nothing new.

But what about the supposed “non-political” or “non-partisan” organizations that citizens rely on for leadership and direction? When do they step up to the plate and take a turn at bat?

LD163 is a piece of proposed legislation that would ban four species of fish that is currently being used as live bait in the state of Maine. Nobody seems to know much of the history about these fish but many will agree they’ve been around longer than most politicians have and even wildlife biologists. The intent of the bill by its sponsor Rep. Thomas Watson of Bath, is to protect the native species of fish in Maine, specifically brook trout, by disallowing the use of non-native fish as bait. The theory is that anything non-native is bad.

I think most would agree that protection of our fishing ecosystem and industry needs continued oversight. What most do not agree with is what measures need to be taken to achieve that end result.

With so many uncertainties about the four named “black baits”, eastern silvery minnow, emerald shiner, spottail shiner and blackchin shiner, it makes for interesting debate to say the least. One side is claiming that these fish will destroy the native population, while another states that these fish have been in Maine waters for a long time and have had virtually no affect on Maine’s native fish. Some even claim that some of the four bait species are in fact native to the state.

The real downside to this debate, as is the result of many heated discussions, division among the ranks rears an ugly head. Ice fishermen who use these baits regularly are feeling ganged up on. Some even believe that the intent of LD163 is to put a stop to ice fishing because ice anglers take too many fish leaving fewer for the fly-fishermen. On the flip side, some fly-fishermen think that with ice fishermen being allowed to use these baits will destroy their opportunities for fishing. Non of this is good.

Groups are taking sides and the debate continues. My question is, where is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? What reason do they have to be taking a somewhat silent approach to this debate? Have they been told to butt out and let the legislative process take its course?

I’m not saying that MDIFW hasn’t had something to say on the issue of LD163 but this department was created by the taxpayers of Maine for the purpose of managing our wildlife and this includes fish. Why? The answer I think is simple enough. Citizens decided that someone who goes to school and learns about wildlife biology better understands what needs to be done to provide for what the citizens ask for – opportunities to be able to hunt, fish and trap. It is the duty of fish and game to manage our game species for that purpose.

With that being said, doesn’t it stand to reason that MDIFW should have a position on LD163 and specifically eastern silvery minnow, emerald shiner, spottail shiner and blackchin shiner? They are, after all, biologists, professionals in the business, the ones we pay and rely on to lead the way.

It would only make sense that within the ranks there would be differing opinions about the use of these fish as bait. I also am well aware of the fact that scientists can only make conclusions based on the quality and quantity of the information they have available to them.

The point is, why doesn’t MDIFW issue a strong public statement that fully explains to the people of Maine, what they know about the fish, what affects these fish have had to date on the native fish and what steps they believe would be necessary and are being taken to protect Maine’s native fish species? Are they so uninformed that they don’t know or can’t derive any conclusions? Are they being strong-armed by politics? Are they being told to back off and let the legislative process evolve? Are they afraid of the sponsors and supporters of the bill? Is this approach just plain department policy?

When someone takes a mum or wishy, washy approach to issues such as this, all that you and I are left doing is asking questions and getting no answers.

I have always been a strong supporter of the MDIFW and just about every other fish and game department nationwide because I believe that, although not perfect, these organizations are better equipped to make scientific conclusions than I am. I look to their leadership. I depend on them to make the call. I may not always agree but it’s a starting point with wildlife issues that certainly has more teeth than what we get from politicians.

Science and politics are like oil and water. Science is exact while politics is…….well, I think we all know what it is!

Tom Remington