I appreciated the editorial analysis of the Brookings report (Feb. 4). I take exception to the assertion that “Maine’s natural resources merger has serious merit.” As evidence for that, New Hampshire and Rhode Island were cited as states with combined management of their natural resources.

What would you expect? New Hampshire’s marine resources are under its fish and game division because New Hampshire’s 13-mile boutique coastline is not much bigger than a Disneyland attraction. What’s to manage? Maine’s coastline covers about 3,500 miles, with island coastlines adding another 5,000 miles. Along it, lobster, shrimp, flounder, bloodworms, sandworms, scallops, clams, codfish, dogfish, sea cucumbers, mackerel, mussels, urchins, crabs, halibut, hake, haddock, herring, periwinkles and oysters are harvested. Almost every one has its own management plan.

Rhode Island may well be able to have “one agency for all” since the entire state is just about the size of Hancock County and would fit into any one of seven other Maine counties (Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscatiquis, Somerset and Washington). Maine is almost 23 times bigger than Rhode Island, making the management comparison absurd.

Merging natural resources management might achieve a slight reduction in the size of state government, but at what cost? Maine’s farmers, fishermen and sportsmen are having enough trouble keeping up with changes in their industries as it is.

To model Maine’s natural resource management after two states that together equal less than a third the size of Maine is an exercise in futility.

Jill Goldthwait, Bar Harbor