Maine Lawsuit Threatens Fly‑Fishing‑Only Protections

Affiliate Disclosure: This page contains affiliate links. We earn from qualifying purchases.

---

When I read that Maine's Joe and Samantha Legendre were suing Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to remove fly fishing only restrictions from the state’s waters, I wasn’t surprised. An ill-advised law passed by Maine residents four years ago opened the door to such legal challenges.

In 2021, Maine passed a vague "Right to Food" law. This constitutional amendment recognizes people’s right to grow, raise, harvest, produce, and consume their own food and was sold as a way to promote food sovereignty, local businesses, and autonomy. In 2025, the law was amended to address what was called “historical inequities in food access,” giving priority to “marginalized” groups, which added additional ambiguity.

The law states: “All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being."

When a law is passed that doesn’t address any real issue, as was the case regarding Maine’s Right to Food law, I always worry how it will be used up the road. In this case, the first thing that came to mind was fishing and hunting. Unfortunately, my concerns proved correct as the law has now been used twice to try to undermine Maine’s hunting and fishing laws. And if it is not abolished or amended to provide absolute clarity, it will inevitably be used again. 

This is not the first time Maine's Right to Food law has been used to challenge hunting and fishing laws. In 2022, a suit was filed to overturn Maine’s nearly 150-year-old prohibition on Sunday hunting using the same position that it infringed on the right to food. In 2024, the suit was dismissed by Maine’s court. The court took the position that the Right to Food law doesn’t supersede existing laws. 

If the Legendre’s were to win their lawsuit, it would put many of the last pond‑ and river‑dwelling wild native brook trout at risk of angler exploitation and could open the door to future lawsuits that further erode fish and wildlife protections

“I hope the court sees this lawsuit for what it is and dispenses with it swiftly," David Trahan, Executive Director for Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), told me. "It is the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit." SAM is the state's largest sporting lobby representing sportsmen from all walks of life and all types of traditional outdoor pursuits.

The Legendre’s lawsuit is rooted in class warfare. They and their sponsors, the International Order of Theodore Roosevelt (IOTR), state that fly fishing is only accessible to the wealthy, and discriminates against working-class people by requiring “expensive” equipment as well as a learning curve that interferes with their right to fish. And the underlying message appears to be harvesting fish wherever they want, hence the connection to the Right to Food law. 

I owned and operated a fly shop in Somerset County, Maine, for 15 years. With a median household income of barely over $50,000, Somerset is one of the poorest counties in Maine. However, at one time there were four fly shops within 20 miles of my business, challenging the presumption that only the rich can afford to fly fish. 

My fly shop customers were mostly working-class people, and certainly not what you would call wealthy. They worked in the woods, trades, retail, services, and the two local paper mills. Many were self employed. They fly fished because they enjoyed it. And most ice fished during the long Maine winter, while many did at least some level of spin fishing. 

My best-selling fly outfit cost roughly $150, less than most bass and ice fishers pay for their tackle. And Walmart a few miles down the road sold ready-to-fish fly-fishing outfits for under $50, and still do today. Many of my customers tied their own flies to save money, and because they enjoyed doing so. I taught fly tying at Adult Ed in two local schools and at my shop. 

I spend a lot of time on the water in Maine. The people I encounter are working class, not wealthy so-called elites. They are more likely to wear a Boston Red Sox hat than one promoting a fly-fishing brand. T-shirts, jeans, and sneakers far outnumber expensive sun-blocking shirts and pants and Gore-Tex hiking boots. 

Many Mainers fly fish from old canoes and rowboats carried or dragged into the woods behind a snowmobile and chained to a tree. There are no expensive bass boats or flats boats. Even fly-fishing centric drift boats are scarce in Maine. And American made pickup trucks with plow frames and toolboxes are far more common than SUVs. 

Fly-fishing-only regulations are imposed sparingly in Maine. Out of over 6,000 lakes and ponds, just 225 or so have such regulations. When you narrow it down to what are called “Principal Brook Trout Fisheries,” roughly 1,200 lakes and ponds, only 200 or so, or 16 percent are fly-fishing only. As for Maine’s heralded State Heritage Fish waters, roughly 585 never stocked or not stocked in 25 years or more lakes and ponds, only roughly 160, or less than 1 out 3, are fly fishing only. 

When looked at from an acreage standpoint, only roughly 2.5 percent of Maine’s Principal Brook Trout Fisheries are fly fishing only. Just 13 percent or so of the acreage of Maine’s State Heritage Fish waters is fly fishing only. As for all Maine waters and that number drops to well under 1 percent. And the situation with respect to rivers and streams is notably lower than it is for lakes and ponds in regard to both number of waters and total miles. 

Fly fishing only is not a social issue; it’s a conservation issue. It’s not about keeping anyone off the water; it’s about protecting the resource. Maine is the last stronghold for lake-, pond-, and river-dwelling wild native brook trout in the country. Most states have lost their lake, pond, and river wild brook trout, leaving only small streams where fish rarely exceed 10 inches. And Maine has experienced significant losses as well.

Fly fishing provides the highest level of protection for the resource short of shutting down fishing. Single point, single hook flies do the least tissue damage of any other terminal tackle, lessen handling time, and reduce incidental mortality. If the compromise position is artificial lures only it will open these delicate fisheries to treble hooks and multiple hook lures which increase tissue damage and handling. If it is bait, incidental mortality jumps from 3 percent to 30 percent.

The best fisheries in Maine are not fly fishing only because they are the best, they are the best because they are fly fishing only. Maine’s fly-fishing-only waters hold up to angling pressure from one year to the next and have for decades. Conversely, most other waters in the state offer marginal fishing unless they are large or difficult to access. 

It’s unclear what the lawsuit looks to do. Would fly-fishing-only waters become artificial-lures only? No live fish as bait? Or are the Legendre’s looking to open all Maine waters to unrestricted bait, including the dangerous use of live minnows? What about daily bag and possession limits–do they see these as impediments to their right to harvest fish as well? Length limits? Closed seasons? 

The Wisconsin-based IOTR lists “Sponsors”  including exclusive safaris, game ranches, and sporting businesses such as Canada North Outfitting, Adam Clements Safaris, Shikar Safaris, Fernando Saiz Spain, Venator, Prophet Muskwa, Blixt & Co., Champion Ranch, Brush Country Studios, and Pascoe & Company, a business specializing in African theme art that sells for as much as $20,000. 

The home page for the IOTR shows a picture of board members with Tucker Carlson, a fly fisherman who owns property in western Maine. Does Mr. Carlson support the move to abolish fly-fishing-only rules in Maine? And while the IOTR claims to be protecting hunting and fishing, neither is threatened in Maine, one of the most pro hunting and fishing states in the East. 

If the lawsuit is successful, it will impact fish and wildlife management throughout Maine and potentially across the nation. In addition to the regulations noted above, would lead-weight restrictions that protect wildlife and humans be considered a hindrance to harvest? Do prohibitions on netting and trapping fish infringe on one’s right to harvest food? 

What about hunting? You could say the same thing about archery and black powder restrictions as those behind the lawsuit are saying about fly fishing only. Gauge restrictions, capacity limits, and steel shot are all impediments to harvesting wildlife for food. Do we lift restrictions on baiting, driving, hounding, and night hunting? How long would our game animals hold up if this were to happen?

If this is about protecting fishing and hunting, there are far better places for the IOTR to put their efforts than fly-fishing-only regulations. While some see restrictions as the number-one threat to hunting and fishing, poor hunting and fishing are a far bigger threat, and this is exactly what this lawsuit would create if it succeeded. 

---

Bob Mallard is the former owner of Kennebec River Outfitters in central Maine and a Registered Maine Fishing Guide. He is writer, author, fly designer, and Executive Director for the Native Fish Coalition. Look for Bob’s books, Fly Fishing Maine: Local Experts on the State’s Best Waters, Favorite Flies for Maine: 50 Essential Patterns from Local Experts, Squaretail: The Definitive Guide to Brook Trout and Where to Find Them, 25 Best Towns to Fly Fish, and 50 Best Places: Fly Fishing the Northeast. Bob can be reached at bobmallard.com or info@bobmallard.com.

---