MDIFW gave out my email!

[Dave]

I'll suspect that Maine's version of the FOIA does not make an exception to keep the email addresses of people communicating with the government (or its employees) from being disclosed. It's entirely likely that disclosing the email addresses might have been required by the FOIA law. That's an issue of Maine law and precisely what Maine law says, so I'll leave the definitive answer to a Maine lawyer.

From a practical point of view, often-times the whole point of an FOIA request is to find out who is talking to the government and what they, and the government employees they are talking to, are talking about. This is especially true when reporters or business competitors are the ones making the FOIA request. They might already have a good idea about what's going on and just want to fill in the blanks.

For what it's worth a lot of the story about the South Carolina governor, who said he was off hiking the Appalachian Trail when he was really in Argentina weeping into his mistress' chest, came out when the SC paper did some FOIA work and put two (from the FOIA) and two (from their other sources) together.

Thus, when communicating with the government, you have to assume that your email address will be available to the whole world. So, if you want to limit that possibility of spamming, set up a separate address through gmail or hotmail (they're free) and use that address when communicating with the government.

[Fishmonger]

You might be interested to know that I to received the same notification from IFW. I clearly saw the point that they resisted sharing this information but state law overrode the descision. I filed a greivence with the Maine Attorney General's office. They were very helpful in providing documentation as to the nature of this request. SAM obviously is behind this, and no doubt, not for a "good reason".
Under Maine's Freedom Act of Information Act, e-mail addresses are not protected. I will be taking the Attorney General's office advise and contacting my state representative about having this law ammended. I suggest you all do the same.
Beyond that, it's not just an E-Mail address and spam. E-Mail addresses are now commonly used as username accounts for many sites. I will refrain from going into too much detail since I don't want anyone getting any ideas but that is 50% of the information needed to be able to log into finanical institutions. I don't like this one bit!
I agree with the fact that I should choose who to share information with and who not to.... and groups such as SAM are not going to get anywhere with tactics such as this, even with the best of intentions.

I find it interesting that neither Harry nor George has chimed in on this topic

[Dave]

Well, one of the surer ways to make sure the deer yards continue to get cut is for the leading sportsmens' organizations to get into a whizzing contest over one using the law to collect information. It's not like we all have infinite time and energy to devote to hunting and fishing; having a nice fight over this would use those up before we got to the deer yards issue.

Moreover, like I said, anyone can easily circumvent this be setting up a gmail or hotmail account (F-R-E-E) and using that to communicate with the government, so when people harvest the information through FOIA requests, it goes to an account which is used for only one purpose. No limit on the number of email accounts you can have, you know....

[Harry Vanderweide]

I find it interesting that neither Harry nor George has chimed in on this topic

Fishmonger:

As I have pointed out previously, George does not monitor this website, having a lot of work and his own website to take care of, so it is unrealistic to expect him to chime in here.

As for why I haven't posted in this thread, until now I had nothing useful to contribute, so kept quiet until I did. You'll notice that now I do have something to say and it is posted in this thread.

I truly appreciate your presence in this forum and the contributions you have made. But please understand this forum is conducted on the highest level of civil discourse. When you make a comment like the one quoted above, you tread next to innuendo, something that is not allowed.
—Harry

[Harry Vanderweide]

I received a message from someone who wondered if the dustup over the email list would affect the working relationship between SAM and DIF&W. My response to his inquiry is below. I include it here because it may promote understanding of the current relationship between the Department and SAM.
—HPV

Regarding SAM's relationship with Dr. Elowe and other professional members of DIF&W's biological staff, I'm certain this will not set back the high level of cooperation that has been achieved.

They are working closely together on multiple initiatives of great mutual interest.Over the 40 years that I have been here, I have never seen a better, more positive spirit of cooperation between SAM and the Department. I don't see that being affected by this side issue, which has nothing to do with protecting and expanding wildlife resources in the state. Both sides recognize they need each other's help to be successful.

If you'd like evidence of what I am saying, consider this: Last Friday SAM held its annual sportsman's congress. Not in attendance were the Department's commissioner and deputy commissioner. In attendance were Dr. Elowe and several other high-ranking department staffers, including the deer biologist. In fact, Dr. Elowe and the rest of his staff were featured panelists and got to make major presentations on a wide variety of wildlife issues. All during the day-long meeting of the leaders in Maine's sportsman community, there were repeated references to the need to work together to solve problems. While the email issue came up, it was only briefly as the group focused on a many issues that directly impact the quality of hunting in the state.

If there is a falling out, it will be with the politically appointed heads of the Department, and that would more-or-less constitute business as usual. Even should a major rift develop, I doubt it will last.

SAM, the Nature Conservancy and Maine Audubon have joined together to seek passage of a constitutional amendment referendum that aims to create stable dedicated funding for the Department through a tiny percentage of the sales tax. That effort is crucially important to DIF&W. The Department currently gets no state tax money and is now running deeply in the red with no way out. In other words, as a matter of simple survival, it is in the Department's best interest to work with SAM because nobody else is offering solutions to solving the Department's serious financial woes.

[PizPorShot]

I received a message from someone who wondered if the dustup over the email list would affect the working relationship between SAM and DIF&W.

Personally I could care less about how this affects DIFW and SAM, that is not the issue. The issue is SAM forcing DIFW to release personal information and I hope those who are trying to get the law changed are successful.

Although I am no longer a member of SAM, I was when SAM first started and spent a lot of time promoting it. I still have a SAM patch on my 40 year old fishing vest. Quite frankly I am enraged SAM is behind this.

[ca1119]

Everyone should really just take a deep breath and relax about this. I would bet that SAM and George will address the reason they did this. If the information was not protected and no laws broken then why get rattled about it. Sportsmen better get behind SAM, because there is truly no one else doing what they do for us. Say what you want, but if you really think about it who else is advocating on our behalf? Some of the other groups do a little but nothing in comparison to the work that George Smith and SAM do.

[Fishmonger]

I find it interesting that neither Harry nor George has chimed in on this topic

Fishmonger:

As I have pointed out previously, George does not monitor this website, having a lot of work and his own website to take care of, so it is unrealistic to expect him to chime in here.

As for why I haven't posted in this thread, until now I had nothing useful to contribute, so kept quiet until I did. You'll notice that now I do have something to say and it is posted in this thread.

I truly appreciate your presence in this forum and the contributions you have made. But please understand this forum is conducted on the highest level of civil discourse. When you make a comment like the one quoted above, you tread next to innuendo, something that is not allowed.
—Harry

There is no innuendo here. You are both very opinionated individuals who, in my experiece, have not been afraid to voice your observations in the past. I thought it was "interesting" that it had not been voiced until now.
I think the discouraging factor is that IFW opted to not share this information upon first request and that SAM elected to pursue this further. No one likes being pushed into something irregardless of the best intentions.
I see your point and will refrain from making any future comments that can be misconstrued on this site. I have other public forums for that I guess.

[K.I. Joe]

I also find it disheartening that Sam would force the release of my e-mail addy, very poor taste as far as I am concerned and this will effect my decision to rejoin