A family of anglers is asking the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to strike down a rule that prohibits fishing methods other than fly-fishing in certain waters.

The case is the second one in which plaintiffs have argued that Maine’s right-to-food amendment should negate regulations on hunting or fishing.

Last year, three Mainers sued the state, arguing that the amendment should prohibit the state from designating certain freshwater bodies as fly-fishing only. This month, Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy sided with the state and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal this week.

“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 in an interview Thursday.

Spokesperson Mark Latti said the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife could not comment on active litigation.

Roughly 225 of Maine’s 6,000 rivers, lakes and ponds — less than 4% — are restricted to fly-fishing, according to court documents.

“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’s motion to dismiss said.

In 2021, Maine voters approved a constitutional amendment that established a “right to food.”

The amendment says that “all individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being.”

It also says individuals should not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property, public lands or natural resources.

In 2022, a Readfield couple sued the state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife over a ban on hunting on Sundays. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the ban and cited that language about poaching in its order.

The plaintiffs in the case challenging the fishing restrictions are Joe and Samantha Legendre, a married couple who live in Waterville with their young son; and Justin Legendre, Joe Legendre’s brother who lives in Mt. Vernon. They would like to fish in waters designated for fly-fishing only, such as the Rapid River, the complaint says.

“The constitutional right to food applies equally to everyone, whether or not they have the time and money to become a fly fisherman,” the complaint said. “Joe, Samantha, and Justin should not have their right to harvest fish restricted to the point that hundreds of Maine waterbodies are effectively off limits to them just because they do not fly fish.”

The state argued that these regulations help reduce mortality and manage the populations of brook trout and landlocked salmon.

“In ratifying the Amendment, Maine voters did not cede overnight their sovereignty to decide when and how the State’s wildlife may be taken,” the state’s motion to dismiss said. “Nor were they voting to constitutionalize every potential hook, worm, or sinker that could be strung onto a fishing rod.”

The plaintiffs are backed by the International Order of Theodore Roosevelt, a foundation based in Wisconsin that supported the right-to-food amendment and was also involved in the challenge to the Sunday hunting ban.

Bornstein said the dismissal wasn’t discouraging to the plaintiffs, and he feels optimistic about the next step.