Maine has a few new law proposals that deal with fishing issues. One such bill, LD163, proposed by Bath democrat, Rep. Thomas Watson, would eliminate the use of four species of fish used as live bait for fishing. Watson claims that these four species are non-native and are classified as “invasive”.

In an article published in the New England Outdoor Voice by Butch Moore, that claim is disputed.

Bill LD 163, requests the statewide banning of so-called non-native “invasive” bait fish species counting emerald shiners, spottail shiners, eastern silvery minnows, and blackchin shiners. Biological data concerning establishment of these particular minnow species is uncertain. It has yet to be proven that emerald shiners are invasive or native to this state.

Many bait dealers claim emerald shiners have been in Maine for over 50 years. Emerald shiners were sold as live bait during the early 1950’s, they say.

Earlier this month, several gathered in Monmouth to have their say and listen to comments and information presented from both sides of the issue. Rep. Watson and co-sponsor Theodore Kauffman (D) Bar Harbor were on hand.

According to Moore, who attended the meeting, Watson said the proposed bill would save Maine’s brook trout.

He said the bill “only” prohibits the use of live fish as bait. He told the audience that they needed to “save” “wild” brook trout and that they needed to take the idea of no live fish as bait to heart in order to achieve that goal.

Watson played the “rich fly fishermen will come to Maine and spend their money” card, and told a story about one of his relatives in Florida who he said “has more money than brains.” He said he is sure this relative and other rich fly fishermen like him will come to Maine to fish for “native” brook trout if we act now to save them.

Watson talked much of “non-native” bait species like Emerald Shiners and how they are spreading in Maine. At the same time however, he also admitted that no one knows the affect this will have, if any.

I talked with Butch Moore early last evening by telephone in an attempt to better understand the forces behind the bill and where others stand is support or opposition. It is Moore’s contention that the bill is part of a bigger plan by individuals and groups looking to put a stop to ice fishing because they don’t do it, don’t like it and think it harms or takes away from their form of fishing.

Moore provided me with a whole list of quotes made by those in support of banning live fish as bait saying these comments further prove his claim that the ultimate goal by groups such as Dud Dean and Trout Unlimited are out to get the ice anglers. Here a just a few of some of his collection of comments.

John Glowa, Wildlife Alliance of Maine, Maine Wolf Coalition

If IFW was truly serious about the stocking of non-native fish species, they would ban the use of live or dead fish as bait and the capture, raising and transportation of baitfish.

Bob Mallard, Outdoor writer, Dud Dean Angling Society Founder, Trout Unlimited

06/29/2006 : 20:11:44
As a fly shop owner, C&R proponent, and sustainable fishing advocate, I am not comfortable with ice fishing for wild salmonids….As such I have trouble teaching kids to ice fish for trout (even stocked ones as it sends the wrong message at an age where they don’t necessarily understand the difference).

01/12/2006 : 17:48:18
While many will rear up against it, I do think that we need to take a serious look at the use of live fish as bait in Maine.

In an email to from Bob Mallard to John Boland of IF&W obtained through FOIA:

…please understand that I have a calling and that callings are stronger than jobs.

I also want you to know that while I will do whatever it takes to attain my goals, I would much prefer to work with you in a more productive manner. … This is at the root of why I play the way I do.

Moore also holds a list of comments made by other fishermen on fishing message boards around Maine. He finds comments like this disturbing.

“i absolutely love the phrase ‘traditional Maine fisherman”…..makes me think of two yahoos in a picture at the local eatery/genral store holding a stringer full of fish”

“the ‘traditional Maine fisherman’ and the ‘traditional’ attitudes of many Maine ‘sportsmen’ are exactly what got us into the mess we’re in?”

“the ‘traditional Maine fisherman’ is EXACTLY what has screwed up the waters of Maine!”

“Bait is to fishing what ATV’s are to recreational vehicles. While not inherently bad, many of the folks that use them are doing bad things.”

“Ice fishermen, IMHO, won’t stick their hands under water to release fish more than once, particularly after a beer or two.”

“If we do not mobilze soon, we will be fishing for splake, stocked fish and watching our waters be “emptied” each fall”

“It’s not like the ice fishermen don’t already have MORE than their fair share of waters open for fishing!”

From what I have been reading, I’m certainly not convinced that LD163 is based on anything other than the dislike of ice fishermen. Moore, whose background in wildlife biology, says none of the four species on this proposed bill carry any scientific proof that they are invasive and harmful to trout populations. According to Moore, Watson admitted such at the Monmouth meeting.

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, said on a recent broadcast of the Maine Public Broadcasting Network, that he does not support this bill because these fish have been around for decades and have posed no real problems for Maine’s trout.

If this is an act such as Butch Moore describes, to promote the interests of one discipline of fishing over another, then we as a society need to stop, catch our breath and take a look at what we are doing. Have we become so self-absorbed that we can only have vision for our own interests and are willing to cast aside the pleasures others get to achieve that self gratification?

The issue is quite simple really. Are these four species of “bait fish” scientifically invasive? Do our fish biologists in Augusta see them as such? It hasn’t seemed to have been a problem up until now, so why all of a sudden?

If someone other than a couple of politicians can provide solid scientific evidence that the use of live fish as bait and more specifically, these four species of fish, poses a credible threat to the survival of our native brook trout, then I think it would be prudent to seek the removal of such fish.

If this is only an attempt by some to further promote their own agenda, it is truly sad.

Butch Moore has created an emailing form letter that anyone who is interested in attaching their name to one and having it sent to the Standing Committee to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, follow this link.

Tom Remington