The Maine Supreme Court is set to consider a case challenging the state’s rules prohibiting most forms of fishing in certain bodies of water, arguing that the prohibitions allegedly violate the state’s constitutional provision protecting the right to food.
Earlier this month, Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy dismissed the lawsuit, but the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal this week.
This is the second time in recent years that Maine’s Right to Food Amendment has been the subject of a lawsuit where it has been pitted against the state’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s mandate to “preserve, protect, and enhance the inland fisheries and wildlife resources.”
In 2024, the Maine Supreme Court found that the state’s Sunday hunting ban is compatible with the Right to Food Amendment.
Despite finding that hunting for food is covered by the clause, the Court identified that it also prohibits procuring food by illicit means, including “poaching.”
[RELATED: Sunday Hunting Ban Upheld by Maine Supreme Court Despite Recently-Enacted Right to Food Amendment]
In 2021, lawmakers in Augusta asked Mainers to weigh in on a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution establishing a right to food that read:
“All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the 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, as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.”
This bill was introduced by Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) and backed by a bipartisan coalition of elected officials.
In November of 2021, more than 60 percent of Maine voters supported amending the state’s constitution to include the first “right to food” amendment in the nation.
The lawsuit currently pending before the court focuses on an alleged conflict between this amendment and the state’s fly fishing only regulations, which require fishermen to use only unbaited artificial flies that are propelled using the weight of the fly line.
As reported by the Maine Morning Star, the family bringing this case has argued that the time and money necessary to purchase and become proficient with fly gear is an unfair barrier.
“If there is a sustainable take available at a waterway, it shouldn’t matter what kind of rod you use,” Jared Bornstein, a spokesperson for the plaintiffs, said Thursday, according to the Portland Press Herald.
Mark Latti, spokesperson for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife told the outlet that the Department could not comment on active litigation.
“Just as the Maine Constitution’s Right to Food does not grant citizens the right to hunt moose with a bazooka, it likewise does not render the State’s fishing regulations optional,” the state argued in its motion to dismiss.
Court documents indicate that 225 of Maine’s roughly 6,000 recognized bodies of water are restricted to fly-fishing only.
Supporting the plaintiffs in this case is the International Order of Theodore Roosevelt, a Wisconsin-based organization described as a “proactive hunting and conservation foundation” that supported the right-to-food amendment and was also involved in the Sunday hunting ban lawsuit.
