Code of Massachusetts Regulations 325 CMR - CONNECTICUT RIVER ATLANTIC SALMON COMMISSION
I. Legal Nature of 325 CMR and the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission
A. Interstate Compact Authority
The Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission (CRASC) exists under an interstate compact agreed to by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and approved by Congress. Once approved by Congress, an interstate compact has the status of federal law, while still operating through state agencies.
This legal structure is important because:
Regulations like 325 CMR 2.00 are not ordinary agency rules
They derive authority from both state law and federal consent
States are legally bound to enforce compact regulations
II. Purpose and Scope (325 CMR § 2.01)
A. Conservation as a Legitimate Government Interest
The regulation’s stated purpose is conservation and restoration of Atlantic salmon, a species historically extirpated from the Connecticut River.
Courts have consistently held that:
Wildlife conservation is a legitimate and compelling state interest
States may impose strict limitations on fishing and hunting to protect species
Relevant Case Law
Geer v. Connecticut (1896)
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that states hold wildlife in trust for the public and may regulate or prohibit its taking.
Although later modified, the public trust doctrine remains central to wildlife regulation.
Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)
The Court reaffirmed that while wildlife is not “owned” by the state, states retain broad police power to regulate wildlife for conservation purposes.
➡ Applied here: 325 CMR’s restrictive approach (licenses, seasons, methods) is constitutionally valid.
III. Definitions (325 CMR § 2.02)
A. Importance of Narrow Definitions
Terms like “take,” “snagging,” and “fly fishing” are defined narrowly to:
Prevent regulatory loopholes
Ensure enforceability
Provide fair notice to anglers
Relevant Case Law
Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972)
A regulation must be clear enough that an ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited.
➡ The detailed definitions in 325 CMR help avoid claims of vagueness under due process principles.
IV. Licensing Requirements (325 CMR § 2.03)
A. Dual Licensing Structure
Requiring both:
A Massachusetts freshwater fishing license, and
A Connecticut River Basin Atlantic Salmon License
is legally permissible because Atlantic salmon are:
A highly regulated species
Managed under an interstate conservation framework
Relevant Case Law
Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc. (1977)
The Court upheld state licensing schemes for fisheries, recognizing states’ authority to impose reasonable conditions on access to fishery resources.
➡ The salmon-specific license is justified due to scarcity and conservation needs.
V. Seasons, Methods, and Limits (325 CMR § 2.04)
A. Closed Seasons and Conditional Openings
The default rule is complete prohibition, with fishing allowed only when:
The Commission affirmatively declares an open season
Biological data supports limited harvest
Courts have consistently upheld:
Complete bans
Conditional permissions
Emergency closures
Relevant Case Law
New Jersey v. New York (1931)
The Court recognized that interstate water and fishery management requires flexible regulatory control based on changing conditions.
B. Method Restrictions (Fly Fishing Only)
Limiting fishing to fly fishing:
Reduces injury and mortality
Allows selective harvesting
Is a scientifically supported conservation tool
Relevant Case Law
State v. McHugh (Vermont Supreme Court)
Method-based fishing restrictions were upheld as rationally related to conservation goals.
➡ Fly-fishing-only rules easily pass the rational basis test.
C. Size Limits, Tags, and Inspection
Requirements such as:
Minimum length
Mandatory tagging
Inspection within 48 hours
serve enforcement and data-collection purposes.
Relevant Case Law
People v. Truckee Lumber Co. (California)
The court upheld tagging and reporting requirements as valid exercises of the state’s police power.
➡ These rules are administrative, not punitive, and constitutionally sound.
VI. Prohibited Conduct (Snagging, Gaffs, Dams, Artificial Light)
These prohibitions reflect:
Anti-poaching measures
Ethical fishing standards
Protection of spawning and migrating fish
Relevant Case Law
United States v. Dion (1986)
The Court emphasized that wildlife regulations may prohibit otherwise traditional methods when necessary for conservation.
➡ Even culturally accepted methods can be banned if conservation demands it.
VII. Scientific and Propagation Exceptions (325 CMR § 2.05)
A. Limited Exceptions Are Lawful
Allowing take for scientific purposes does not violate equal protection because:
Scientists are not similarly situated to recreational anglers
The purpose is conservation, not consumption
Relevant Case Law
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. (1981)
Regulatory classifications are valid if reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.
VIII. Penalties and Enforcement (325 CMR § 2.06)
A. Civil and Criminal Penalties
Violations may result in:
Fines
License suspension
Confiscation of equipment
Relevant Case Law
Hudson v. United States (1997)
Civil penalties tied to regulatory schemes do not violate double jeopardy if they are remedial.
➡ Fish and wildlife penalties are considered regulatory, not punitive.
IX. Constitutional Summary
325 CMR is legally sound because it:
Serves a compelling conservation interest
Operates under a congressionally approved interstate compact
Uses clear, narrowly tailored rules
Applies equally to all anglers
Is supported by long-standing wildlife jurisprudence
X. Practical Legal Effect
In practice, 325 CMR means:
Atlantic salmon fishing is a privilege, not a right
The Commission has near-total discretion to close or limit fishing
Courts will defer heavily to scientific judgment
Challenges face a very high legal bar
RELATED Blog
comments