Table of Contents

• What is a “Native” Brook Trout Pond?
• Why We Should be Concerned
• Chronic Problems with the Data
• What Has Changed Since 1996?
• Ponds Deleted Since 2001 by Reason
• Ponds Deleted by Region
• What We Have Left
• Where They Are
• Brook Trout Pond Summary
• How We Are Managing What’s Left
• What We Are Harvesting
• Regional Inconsistencies
• Protection From Stocking
• Protection From Angling
• Raising Awareness
• Raising Money
• What a “Native” BKT Plan Should Look Like
• A Final and Important Note

What is a “Native” Brook Trout Pond?

 The term “native” when used in conjunction with a brook trout (BKT) pond by the Maine DIF&W implies that the body of water has never been stocked. There may however be other species of fish present.

What this means is that the BKT that reside in these bodies of water are genetically pure and not impacted by hatchery stock. These ponds carry what remains of Maine’s once vast native BKT population.

To protect this population from further degradation, everything possible should be done to avoid future stockings, over harvest by anglers, and the deliberate or accidental introduction of competing fish species.

Why We Should Be Concerned

• With the swipe of a pen the state of Maine (and arguably the nation) just lost roughly 35% of our “native” brook trout ponds. Specifically, 158 of the 454 ponds listed as “native” since 1996 are no longer classified as such by the DIF&W.
• It took the threat of legislative action to finally get an accurate list of these irreplaceable natural resources from those in charge of protecting them. This has been a moving target since at least 1993. How can we protect what we cannot properly identify?

Chronic Problems with the Data

The Numbers

• Reported in 1993: 432 (Trout magazine)
• Reported in 1996: 424 (DIF&W)
  • Actual in 1996: 421 (less duplicates)
• Reported in 2001: 431 (DIF&W)
  • Actual in 1996: 427 (less duplicates and over count)
• Reported in 2005: 296 (DIF&W)

Data Integrity

• 1996: There were 3 sets of duplicates listed (2478, 0620, 2974)
• 1996: There was an actively stocked splake pond listed (0632)
• 2001: The total count listed was off by 1 (N=431, Actual 430)
• 2001: There were 3 sets of duplicates listed (same as 1996)
• 2001: There was an actively stocked splake pond listed (0632)

What Has Changed Since 1996?

Adds and Deletes Between 2001 and 2005

• 1996 to 2001 DIF&W Lists
  • Added: 8 Ponds
  • Deleted: 2 Ponds
• 2001 to 2005 DIF&W Lists
  • Added: 25 Ponds
  • Deleted: 157 Ponds

Gross Variance From 1996 and 2005

• Baseline: 454 Ponds (Ponds listed in 1996, 2001 and 2005)
• Current: 296 ponds (65% of Baseline)
• Lost: 158 ponds (35% of Baseline)
• One pond was deleted in 2001 and added back in 2005

Ponds Deleted Since 2001 by Reason

1. <<Unavailable at this time>>
2. <<Unavailable at this time>>
3. <<Unavailable at this time>>
4. <<Unavailable at this time>>
5. <<Unavailable at this time>>
6. <<Unavailable at this time>>
7. <<Unavailable at this time>>

Ponds Deleted by Region

• Highest Number Lost: Region G (77)
• Highest Percentage Lost: Region G (52%)
• Lowest Number Lost: Region C (2)
• Lowest Percentage Lost: Region E (19%)

What We Have Left

1. Number of Ponds: 296

• LURC Remote Ponds: 83 (28% of total

2. Size/Depth

• Total Acres: 23,562 (Incomplete due to lack of data)
• Average Size: 80 Acres
  • 1-9 Acres: 42 (14% of Total)
  • 10-24 Acres: 105 (35% of Total)
  • 25-49 Acres: 65 (22% of Total)
  • 50-99 Acres: 39 (13% of Total)
  • >99 Acres: 44 (15% of Total)
  • < 25 Acres: 147 (50% of Total)
  • < 50 Acres: 212 (72% of Total)
• Average Maximum Depth: 23 Feet
  • < 10 Feet: 89 (30% of Total)
  • < 20 Feet: 137 (46% of Total)

Where They Are

1. Number of Ponds by Region

• Region A: 0
• Region B: 0
• Region C: 6 (2% of Total)
• Region D: 33 (11% of Total)
• Region E: 139 (47% of Total)
• Region F: 47 (16% of Total)
• Region G: 71 (24% of Total)

2. Number of Ponds by County

• Aroostook : 49 (17% of Total)
• Franklin : 10 (3% of Total)
• Hancock: 3 (1% of Total)
• Oxford : 11 (4% of Total)
• Penobscot: 5 (2% of Total)
• Piscataquis: 139 (47% of Total)
• Somerset : 75 (25% of Total)
• Washington : 4 (1% of Total)

Brook Trout Pond Summary

1. Number

• Total: 1,135
• Stocked: 476 (42% of Total)
• Wild: 659 (58% of Total)
  • Non-Native: 363 (32% of total / 55% of wild)
  • Native: 296 (26% of Total / 45% of wild)

2. Acres

• Total: 403,396
• Stocked: 100,992 (25%)
• Wild: 307,097 (75%)
  • Non-Native: 283,535 (70% of Total / 92% of Wild)
  • Native: 23,562 (5.5% of Total / 7.7% of Wild)

How We Are Managing What’s Left

• Tackle Restrictions
• Bait/Unrestricted (Includes Live Fish): 131 (44% of Total)
• Bait/Restricted (Excludes Live Fish): 35 (12% of Total)
  • Bait/Total (Unrestricted/Restricted): 166 (56% of Total)
• Artificial Lures Only (ALO): 69 (23% of Total)
• Fly Fishing Only (FFO): 60 (20% of Total)

Important Notes:

• The use of live fish as bait on 131 (44%) of the remaining “native” BKT ponds poses a serious threat to these waters as this is often how competing species are introduced. This needs to be stopped ASAP.

• The use of bait (worms) on 166 (56%) of the remaining “native” BKT ponds raises some serious questions in regard to how we view these resources. This should be reviewed ASAP to make sure that these ponds can withstand the level of harvest being allowed.

What We Are Harvesting

1. Bag Limits

• 0-Fish: 1 (Less than one half of a percent of the total)
• 1-Fish: 7 (Less than 2.5% of the total)
• 2-Fish: 136 (46% of Total)
• 5-Fish: 151 (51% of Total)

2. Length Limits

• 6 Inches (Minimum): 151 (51% of Total)
• 8 Inches (Minimum): 25 (8% of Total)
• 10 Inches (Minimum): 3 (1% of Total)
• 12 Inches (Minimum): 1 (0.34% of Total)
• 14 Inches (Minimum): 1 (0.34% of Total)
• 18 Inches Minimum): 4 (1.35% of Total)
• 0-14 Inches, None Over (Maximum): 1 (0.34% of Total)
• 8-12 Inches, 1 Over (Open Slot): 13 (4% of Total)
• 10-12 Inches, 1 Over (Open Slot): 79 (27% of Total)
• 12-14 Inches, 1 Over (Open Slot): 16 (5% of Total)

Regional Inconsistencies
(Regulations by Percent of Total)

Protection from Stocking

While a policy requiring legislative approval to stock a “native” BKT pond is a step in the right direction, it will not be enough to ensure the survival of the remaining native BKT. In order to protect the “native” BKT ponds we have left, we must have an all encompassing plan that ensures that all appropriate steps are taken to eliminate the “need” to stock.

• The remaining “native” BKT ponds should be surveyed at least every three years.
  
• Only the Regional Biologist in charge of the pond should be able to make a request to stock a “native” pond (no local legislative action should be allowed).
  
• Before a Regional Biologist can request to stock a “native” pond they should go through the following steps and provide data showing that they have done so:
  • Reduce bag limits (e.g., from 2 to 1) and increase length limits (or impose a slot)
  • Change the tackle restrictions (e.g., from ALO to FFO, etc.)
  • Impose Catch-and-Release (for at least 3 years)
  • Close the pond to fishing (for at least 3 years)
    
• In addition to requiring legislative approval to stock a “native” BKT pond, we need to protect these ponds from the out-migration of stocked fish from other ponds, rivers and streams within the watershed.
  
• The ban on stocking “native” BKT ponds must cover all species including splake.

Protection from Angling

While stocking (both legal and illegal) may in fact be the biggest threat to our remaining “native” BKT ponds (i.e., it cannot be reversed), over harvest, accidental introduction of bait fish, and incidental mortality resulting from angling is a close second. As such, the proposed legislation may be addressing the symptom (i.e., we are stocking once wild BKT ponds) while failing to address the cause. The reason we are stocking in the first place is our inability to maintain a “viable fishery” under the current management philosophies.

• A ban on the use of live fish as bait should be imposed on all “native” BKT ponds ASAP to prevent the accidental introduction of non-native fish. This should include the ice fishing season as well as the open water season.
  
• A ban on bait (including worms) on ponds smaller than 50 acres should be imposed to minimize incidental mortality and control harvest. The incidental mortality associated with the use of bait is unacceptably high and as such a risk to the resource.
  
• All flies and lures should be limited to one hook (no tandem flies or double hook lures) with one point (no treble hooks) to minimize incidental mortality. The incidental mortality associated with tandem and treble hooks is unacceptably high and as such a risk to the resource.
  

Raising Awareness

• Add a section to the Open Water rule book that explains what the “native” BKT ponds are, why they are so important, and what is expected of you (i.e., the rules). This section should include a conservation message encouraging anglers to release their fish.
  
• Create a code (“N”) for “native” BKT ponds which refers to the section noted above and identify each applicable pond in the county exception section of the Open Water Fishing Regulations book.
  
• Create a standard sign for “native” BKT ponds which tells the angler that the fish in that water are pure strain. This should include a conservation message encouraging anglers to release their fish.
  
• Impose “double fines” for all fishing violations associated with “native” BKT ponds (using live fish as bait should be treated the same as deliberately stocking an invasive species).

Raising Money

In order to effectively manage our remaining “native” BKT ponds, the DIF&W will need funding for pond surveys, habitat restoration, signage, law enforcement, etc. Here are some ways we could raise money:

• Create a “Brook Trout” license plate with the proceeds targeted for “native” (or “wild”) BKT management.

  Note: Massachusetts has a brook trout license plate.

• Create a “Wild Trout” stamp that entitles the angler to fish in waters designated as “native” BKT water. The stamp should cost $10 with the proceeds targeted for wild BKT management.

Note: This is not unusual; many states now have a wild trout stamp.

• Develop a marketing campaign around the “native” BKT program which includes a book listing the waters, hats, t-shirts, decals, etc.

• While not a way to raise money per say, the DIF&W needs to develop a program by which volunteers can help in the management of our resources. As any who have tried can attest to, this has been extremely difficult.

What a “Native” BKT Plan Should Look Like

It is time that Maine adopts a “native” BKT plan similar to those used in neighboring New Hampshire, Yellowstone Park, etc. This plan should be consistently implemented across all applicable waters and within a very finite set of rules:

1. Tackle Restrictions

• Eliminate the use of live fish as bait on all ponds
• Greatly restrict or eliminate the use of bait
• Require single-hook barbless lures and flies

2. Bag Limits

• In no case should the bag limit exceed 2 fish
• In most cases the bag limit should be restricted to 1 fish
• All ponds under 50 acres should be catch-and-release (C&R)

3. Length Limits

• All ponds that are not C&R should have a true slot limit

 A Final and Important Note

While our “native” BKT ponds may be a unique and valuable natural resource, our small streams and large rivers with native BKT populations are equally as valuable. In addition, it should be obvious to all that fly fishermen are now the primary user of many of our salmonid resources.

As any fly fishing publication will show, fly fishermen are far more likely to pursue their activity on moving water than they are on Stillwater. In fact, less than 10% of the typical fly fishing publication is dedicated to angling in ponds and lakes. As such, any plan that excludes moving water is in my opinion flawed.

In addition to limiting the financial value of our inland salmonid resources by not targeting moving water, we are in fact jeopardizing many native populations of BKT by allowing a high amount of harvest on most of our small streams and rivers. In many cases these are in fact our BKT spawning and rearing habitat.

Like our neighbor to the west (NH), our “native” BKT policy must include small streams and rivers where remnant populations of “native” brook trout still exist. Failure to address this could put the whole project at risk environmentally and financially (we need to sell licenses to raise money!).