The Technical Fly Fisherman by Bob Mallard

As I had hoped, my recent article on Remote Ponds has got the attention of some folks who can make a difference (and have done so in the past). Initially accepted as a formal project by SAM’s Fishing Initiative Committee (FIC), the effort has attracted the support of former DIF&W Commissioner Ray “Bucky” Owen, a few DIF&W Regional Biologists, a member of the Warden Service, Roger (first Moosehead Region Biologist) and Suzanne AuClair who were involved in the original project and a newly formed group called the Dud Dean Angling Society (DDAS).

For those who have not followed this issue, LURC (Land Use Regulation Commission) has a set of standards applicable to ponds that are classified as “Remote”. The remote designation is based primarily on the distance from the nearest road. The bottom line is that these are what we sportsmen know as “walk-in” ponds. With only 176 of these in the whole state (and last I checked they were not making any more!), we need to treat them with the respect that they deserve. Below is the intention of the Remote Pond designation is LURC’s own words:

“The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide protection from development and intensive recreational uses to those areas that currently support, or have opportunities for, unusually significant primitive recreation activities. By doing so, the natural environment that is essential to the primitive recreational experience will be conserved.”

Having had just a few formal meetings, the group is primarily in “fact finding” mode (we are learning everything we can about these waters). In addition to gathering and analyzing data, the group will go right to work to try to make sure that we are enforcing the rules and policies that are already in place. Specifically, motorized vehicles are already prohibited, there are rules pertaining to blocking access, there is a policy in place for posting signs, etc. Just getting a hold of what we are already supposed to be doing will be a big help.

Protection – “In the case of Management Class 6 Lakes (Remote Ponds), the Protection District shall extend ½ mile out from and around the body of water;”
Motorized Vehicle Traffic – “Such traffic is allowed only in connection with forest or agricultural management activities or in conjunction with access to and use of existing remote camps; but snowmobiling shall be allowed in such subdistrict;”
Roads – “If in P-RR Protection Subdistricts around a body of standing water, shall be located no closer than 1,000 feet from the normal high water mark of the body of water so zoned.”
Access – “The road shall be discontinued, gated, obstructed, or otherwise made impassable to two wheel drive vehicles within three years of construction of the road,”

As we learn more about where we are and what has changed since the program was first started, the group will look for areas that can be improved on. With any luck, maybe we can even find a few more of these waters that for whatever reason did not make the cut last time. I also believe that attitudes pertaining to conservation have changed considerably since the project was first started. Having lost a significant amount of that which is important to us, we sportsmen are much more likely to embrace measures aimed at saving traditional use these days.

In regards to the data collection effort, with the help of several members of DDAS we have created an inventory of Remote Ponds. By merging data from LURC (name, location, size, etc.) with pertinent information from the DIF&W (regulations, stocking, surveys, etc.), I believe we now have a very good idea of what we have and how we are currently managing it. Below I have provided some summary information and statistics in regard to what we have found so far. Quite frankly, I was somewhat disappointed with some of what we found.

Disclaimer: The data used to create the statistics provided below were pulled from documents provided by LURC and the DIF&W. Data inconsistencies between the two groups and within groups have been found. As such, while I am confident that the data has a very high level of accuracy, it is not perfect.

Summary Data

Number of Remote Ponds: 176
Total Acreage: 5,683
1-9 Acres: 32 (19%)
10-24 Acres: 74 (42%)
25-49 Acres: 43 (24%)
50-99 Acres: 18 (10%)
>99 Acres: 9 (5%)
Average Size (Acres): 32.29
Less than 25 Acres: 106 (60%)
Less than 50 Acres: 149 (85%)

Number of Remote Ponds by Region

Region A: 1 (0.5%)
Region B: 0 (N/A)
Region C: 3 (2%)
Region D: 14 (8%)
Region E: 120 (68%)
Region F: 27 (15%)
Region G: 11 (6%)

Number of Remote Ponds by County

Aroostook: 7 (4%)
Franklin: 12 (7%)
Hancock: 4 (2%)
Oxford: 4 (2%)
Penobscot: 9 (5%)
Piscataquis: 83 (47%)
Somerset: 56 (32%)
Washington: 1 (0.5%)

Types of Fisheries

Wild*: 143 (81%)
Native*: 83 (47%)
Stocked*: 33 (19%)

Notes:

“Wild” implies that the pond is not being actively stocked and contains a population of brook trout (based on the last three years of DIF&W stocking reports). Some ponds may have other self-sustaining populations such as landlocked salmon, togue or blueback char.
“Native” implies that the pond has never been stocked and contains a population of brook trout (based on a 1996 DIF&W document). Some ponds have other uncompromised populations such as landlocked salmon (1) or blueback char (2).
“Stocked” implies that the pond has been stocked with either brook trout (30) or splake (3) in at least one of the last three years with 29 ponds stocked in 2004 (we will be adding two more years of stocking data for a total of five – the approximate life of a stocked brook trout).
There are two ponds that are listed as “Native” which have been stocked in the last three years (they are counted in both categories until we can resolve this issue).

Tackle Restrictions

Unrestricted Bait (Includes Live Fish): 68 (39%)
Restricted Bait (Excludes Live Fish): 31 (18%)

Total Bait (Unrestricted/Restricted): 99 (56%)

Artificial Lures Only (ALO): 39 (22%)
Fly Fishing Only (FFO): 37 (21%)

Bag Limits

0-Fish (C&R): 1 (0.5%)
1-Fish: 5 (3%)
2-Fish: 76 (43%)
5-Fish: 93 (53%)

Length Limits

6 Inches: 91 (52%)
8 Inches: 11 (6%)
10 Inches: 5 (3%)
12 Inches: 1 (0.5%)
14 Inches: 0
16 Inches: 0
18 Inches: 4 (2%)
8-12 Inches, One Over: 4 (2%)
10-12 Inches, One Over: 45 (26%)
12-14 Inches, One Over: 13 (7%)

Miscellaneous

Open to Ice Fishing: 9 (5%)
Boat Motor Restrictions: 0 (no default regulation on boat motors)

When I look at the statistics above, I have some real concerns. While the focus has always been on development and access, it appears that we have lost site of the fisheries themselves (isn’t that why most of us visit these ponds?). I see far too many small waters being managed under dangerously liberal regulations. I also see us jeopardizing our Tier-1 ponds (those that have never been stocked) by allowing live fish as bait (we all know far to well what effect introduced species can have on a water). Lastly there is far too little protection for large fish.

As you can see we have already learned a lot about how we are treating some of our most valuable resources. As I see it, these ponds are part of what makes Maine special. In fact, is there anything more “ Maine” than a remote walk-in pond with a self-sustaining native brook trout population? We all need to accept that these waters are special and support any efforts made to protect them. With land being sold off at an alarming rate and development looming, it’s now or never if we are going to save some of what makes Maine unique.

Once again I call on the DIF&W to think out of the box and recognize that these waters are some of our most important ones. As such they need a far higher level of protection than they are getting today. If we act now, we can avoid the need to stock, shut-down or significantly restrict opportunity on these waters as a result of over harvest (how much can a 20 acre pond take?) Truth be told, I was shocked to see how many of these gems were being managed for General Law fishing (better than half). Can’t we save something for the next generation?

Final Note: The opinions expressed in this article are mine and mine only. I do not speak for the newly formed Remote Pond group or for that matter anyone participating in it. Whether the group does or does not agree with me in this regard is yet to be determined.