Maude LeMaster is one tenacious mountain woman. Living just a long cast from the Savage River that she loves, Maude will not go quietly into the night when it comes to the regulation imposed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources that makes it illegal to use bait in that river drainage or to keep a brook trout. Good for you, Maude.

Though not a lone voice in dissent of the regulation, Maude is the most persistent. She has originated petitions against the regulation. She has traveled on her own to a public hearing in Annapolis about the matter and then to Sandy Point where she bent Gov. Martin O’Malley’s ear. She has written numerous letters, some of which have been published on the Outdoors page. The most recent such letter was printed here one week ago.

I side with Maude and with all who believe that this regulation, which became law Jan. 1, 2007 and will continue as such for at least five years from that date, is a world class scam job pulled off on Maryland’s bait anglers.

Via a joint venture, a number natural resources agencies from eastern states are attempting to improve the lot of native brook trout. To my knowledge, though, Maryland’s Inland Fisheries Division stands alone in telling fishermen they can’t use bait or keep brookies.

In fact, in a report jointly put out by these states, recreational fishing is not mentioned as a threat to brook trout, though many other negative environmental realities are listed.

Recently, John Griffin, Maryland’s secretary of natural resources, sent the Times-News a letter, which we published on the Outdoors page. In the letter, Griffin defends the brook trout regulation, saying it is based on good science.

Wrong!!

Griffin, of course, is simply repeating what his fisheries people are telling him, that the science shows that anglers must not use bait or keep brookies.

The science is so weak in this regard that during a public hearing on the matter in 2006 at Allegany College of Maryland the agency attempted to prove its point by using data from a summer stream survey that took place months after the restrictive regulation was proposed.

The way good science works is that you do the field work before you make the decision. The way good science works is that you know how many bait anglers are fishing in the drainage and you know how many brookies they are catching and keeping.

The agency admits that the amount of fishing pressure was not known. Biologists say they don’t have the manpower or the money to conduct creel census surveys that would have provided that knowledge.

Recently, I asked Sgt. Ken Turner of the Maryland Natural Resources Police how many citations officers have written for anglers who are violating the new rules in the drainage.

Turner wasn’t able to get that kind of specific information by going to his computer programs so he did something even better. He called the officers who work that area.

Turner found out that, during this past March, officers made 44 patrol checks through the drainage. In April there were 43 such checks. In May, the check count rose to 69. The numbers soared to 103 in June and 86 in July, though those two months often found officers already in the area for complaints about illegal use of all-terrain vehicles.

So, you can see that our wildlife constables have been very present there. Consequently, anybody fishing with bait or keeping a brook trout would have been running the risk of a violation with a $250 prepay. Go to court and the judge could reduce the amount or increase it up to $500.

Back to the original question. How many citations have been issued. Turner’s answer: None. Zero. Nada.

Turner said NRP Officer Walt May told him there is hardly anybody fishing there. Here is where you do your best impersonation of Jim Nabors and say “Surprise, surprise.”

Here’s a thought. Is there hardly anybody fishing there because the bait anglers have been forced elsewhere?

Ray Morgan, a respected fishery biologist with the Appalachian Laboratory in Frostburg, knows brook trout inside and out. He can separate a Crabtree Run brookie from a Blue Lick brookie by checking its genetics.

Morgan told me, and I reported it on this page in 2006, that he would prefer that there be no fishing in the portion of the Savage River drainage that is now specially regulated.

He may have gotten his wish in a de facto way.

Before the public hearing at Allegany College of Maryland, I had written numerous columns about the matter, pointing out reasons why the proposal could not be supported.

The agency folks must have read those columns because they had a list of what they called fallacies they put on the screen and that list contained my objections.

In the Great Smoky Mountains, fisheries biologists for years had segments of streams where brookies could not be kept. After some time went by, they compared the brookies there with brookies in the streams where fishing was allowed.

Viola. There was no major difference in the general makeup of the brookies from the differently regulated streams, including average size. Decision? Anglers aren’t hurting brook trout so let them fish. This information was available to Maryland fish managers before they proposed the new restrictions.

Jim Ritchie, a pharmacist in the George’s Creek Valley and a former member of the Maryland Sportfish Advisory Commission, offered the approach that would have satisfied everybody and allowed us to find out the real answers to brookie population dynamics.

Ritchie suggested that only a portion of the 111 miles of drainage be assessed the new regulations, perhaps Big Run, which is easily accessible. That way, after a while we could compare the impact of the new, more restrictive regulations and the existing regulations.

It appears to me that Ritchie was basically ignored. Don’t be surprised if at some future fisheries regulation meeting the DNR wants to attach similar regulations to other native brookie streams, perhaps the ones on Dan’s Mountain.

The regulations now in place for much of the Savage River drainage were wrong when they began on Jan. 1, 2007, they are wrong now and they will be wrong on Dec. 31, 2111, when DNR is supposed to determine whether or not they continue.

The correct thing for DNR to do now would be to eliminate the regulation. Consider this a request for that to take place.

Maude isn’t going to go away.

Contact Michael A. Sawyers at msawyers@times-news.com.