Between the Trout Unlimited Eastern Brook Trout study and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Fishing Initiative Committee Regulations Simplification, Remote Pond, and Native Brook Trout projects, there has been more activity regarding brook trout this year than any year since Bucky Owen’s Quality Fishing Initiative.

As the result of a first ever fishing-related “Resolve” in the legislature, Maine anglers got a moratorium (but not an outright ban) on stocking, and an outright ban on the use of live fish as bait, on lakes and ponds (but not rivers and streams) with native brook trout populations.  This was done as part of SAM’s Native Brook Trout project or LD 1131; the Heritage Brook Trout Bill.    

If I have learned nothing else, while well-intentioned, projects like these get watered down as a result of special interests, state bureaucrats, a general reluctance to embrace change, and a seriously flawed process that stacks the deck against those trying to get more protection for our natural resources.  Unfortunately, the Native Brook Trout project is no different; we are falling well short of what is needed.

Having addressed native brook trout, we are now moving on to “wild” brook trout.  Under the bill, the DIF&W was asked to look at the wild brook trout lakes and ponds and determine what is appropriate.  While vague, recent discussions imply that the goal is to determine what wild populations of brook trout should get the same level of protection granted to our native populations.    

I am concerned that this project is moving way too fast.  Specifically, we have not done nearly enough to ensure the long-term security of our native brook trout, yet we are moving on to wild brook trout.  Worse is that the level of protection provided to native brook trout will set a precedent in regard to what we will do for wild brook trout (and you can be sure that it will not be more!).     

The DIF&W has created a working group to address wild brook trout.  To date, only one member each from Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and Maine Trout Unlimited, and two members each from the Joint Standing Committee for Fish & Wildlife and the DIF&W have been invited to participate. 

While I did much of the research in support of the bill, and was the first to testify in front of the legislature, I was denied a place in the working group by the DIF&W.  In addition, although they accounted for a large number of people testifying in favor of the bill, the Dud Dean Angling Society was also denied a seat at the table. 

In my opinion, the group should have been much broader.  Interested parties such as Audubon, National TU, Isaac Walton League, DDAS, and anyone else, who represents a valid constituency and/or worked on the project, should have been invited to participate.  However, under the guise of “keeping the group small” we will be represented by just two groups of which many anglers do not belong. 

Since I have been precluded from participating in the working group, I have noted what I believe needs to be done next to ensure that our native and wild brook trout get the protection they deserve.  With any luck, the DIF&W and those involved will step up and insist that we do the right thing for one of Maine’s most important natural resources:         
     

1. Clearly define the terms “native” and “wild” to ensure that there is no room for interpretation.

• Native:  A population of brook trout that has never been genetically compromised by the deliberate or accidental introduction of hatchery raised fish.  While the introduction of stocked fish into the system is not a guarantee that the resident fish were genetically compromised, it is the only test we have short of costly DNA studies.  Although this would result in the fewest number of native waters, it would create the most accurate list possible.  The intention of this classification is to identify our most genetically pure strains of brook trout so that they can receive the highest level of protection possible.     
  
  
• Wild:  A population of brook trout that while previously stocked over, has not been stocked over for 5 years.  Although the DIF&W has used 20 years as the baseline for this project, their data shows that stocked brook trout rarely live 3 years and almost never live 5 years.  The intention of this classification is to identify populations of brook trout that could provide angling opportunities at no cost to the public.  This is more of an economic issue than an environmental issue.  Addressed properly, this would allow the DIF&W to redirect stocking efforts so as to “create” fisheries where they cannot exist naturally as opposed to “supplementing” fisheries that if managed properly could be self-sustaining (free is good!).     

2. Validate and publish the list of native brook trout lakes and ponds.

• As stated previously, the current list of native brook trout lakes and ponds is not 100% accurate (under anyone’s definition).  In at least two cases there are connected waters that while one is not listed due to one or more stocking events, the other is.  If we are going to remove some waters from the list due to the “potential” of in-migration of stocked fish from a connected body of water, we need to be consistent and remove all of them.  Moving forward without this exercise would be a real disservice to those counting on us to do the right thing. 
  
  
• Where in-migration is the sole reason a body of water is not on the native list, it needs to be reviewed.  Specifically, we need to confirm that it is physically possible for the fish to move between the respective bodies of water.  Consideration must be given to natural and manmade barriers such as dams and waterfalls.  Any bodies of water that while connected to a stocked body of water are deemed to be absolutely safe from in-migration should be added to the native list.

• I presented a list of all waters removed from native status since 1996.  The DIF&W has yet to provide the reason why each body of water was removed.  By doing so the department will not only give us a tool to work with (this information is invaluable), they will explain to the public how we lost 150+ native waters in just 10 years.  How can we be sure that history will not repeat itself when we do not know what happened in the first place?              

• The finished list should be subject to outside scrutiny.  The list along with any pertinent data should be made available to any group interested at no cost (a story for another day!).  In addition, the department should either contract with an outside firm to do a complete audit of the list or create a working group consisting of experts and professionals from outside the department to do so.  Absolute accuracy is a must here.     

• Going forward, additional waters (small ponds, flowages, streams and rivers) that are found to meet the criteria for “native” classification should be automatically added to the list. 

3. Establish a standard set of regulations that defines the minimum level of protection granted to native brook trout waters.  While some argue that the conditions vary too much from one body of water to the next, Yellowstone Park has done it for its native salmonids and neighboring New Hampshire has done it for its wild salmonids.  With fewer than 300 native brook trout lakes and ponds left statewide, how could anyone debate the validity of imposing a high level of protection?

• Impose a minimum tackle restriction of single-hook barbless ALO with no trolling allowed (require barbless hooks on FFO waters).
  
• Impose a maximum 1-fish bag limit (leave C&R waters as they are).
  
• Impose a true slot limit; between “x” and “y” with none over (leave C&R waters as they are and move all length limits over 12 inches to C&R).

4. Immediately extend the level of protection provided to native brook trout lakes and ponds to any tributary of a native brook trout lake or pond that is not isolated from the respective body of water by a manmade or natural barrier (this should be done regardless of any future projects designed to identify native brook trout streams and rivers).

5. Create a list of wild brook trout waters.

• We need to create a list of brook trout waters that while not classified as native, have not been stocked in five years.  In this case, in-migration (drop down of stocked fish from another body of water) should not be enough to keep a body of water off the list unless the water in question would not have brook trout without the in-migration.    

• Going forward, a report should be run annually mapping BKT waters to stocking data (last-year stocked).  If a body of water has gone 5 years without stocking and a population of BKT still exists, a “wild” classification should be automatically assigned.    

6. Immediately extend the protection (no stocking and no live fish as bait) recently granted to native BKT lakes and ponds to wild BKT lakes and ponds.

7. Establish a standard set of regulations that defines the minimum level of protection granted to a wild BKT water:

• Impose a minimum tackle restriction of ALO with trolling allowed on all wild BKT waters (leave FFO waters as they are).
  
• Impose a 2-fish bag limit on all wild BKT waters (leave 1-Fish and C&R waters as they are).
  
• Impose a slot limit (harvest, protected, or open) on all native BKT waters (leave C&R waters as they are and move all 1-fish minimum length limits over 16 inches to C&R).   

8. Begin immediately to survey rivers and streams to determine their status.  When the exercise is complete, update the respective native and wild lists accordingly.  In addition to being environmentally important (this is where many of our BKT are spawned and reared), moving water is critical from an economic standpoint (the movie was called “A River Runs Through It” for a reason; it is what today’s anglers want).  Without a solid plan for managing our moving water salmonid resources, we will never raise the money needed to properly manage any of our salmonid resources.   

9. Impose double fines for any violations (tackle restrictions, bag and length restrictions, litter, boat motor restrictions, access restrictions, etc.) on any native or wild BKT water. 

10. Create special signs for native and wild waters informing anglers what is expected of them.

11. Create a BKT license plate with the proceeds earmarked for wild (which in this case includes native) BKT management.

 

Rather than doing what will be met with the least resistance, now is the time to step beyond “feel good legislation” and implement some real protection for something that is found in only a few places in the country; native and wild salmonids.  Failure to do so will all but ensure that we are back at the table again in a few years and under a far worse set of circumstances (things will get worse before they get better unless we do something significant now).    

We are counting on folks like SAM Executive Director George Smith, TU Regional Director Jeff Reardon, and the Joint Standing Committee for Fish & Wildlife to step up and insist that we do not drop the ball short of the goal line this time.  Let them know that we expect more from our leaders.  With so many of us on the outside looking in, we are counting on these people to step up and propose some real change that will make a real difference.  

Bob Mallard has been a flyfisherman and fly tyer for over 25 years and is the owner of Kennebec River Outfitters on Route 201 in Madison, ME. He can be reached at (207) 474-2500 or www.kennebecriveroutfitters.com.