The Technical Fly Fisherman by Bob Mallard

There were 432 in 1993, 424 in 1996, and 431 in 2001. Now in 2005 we are being told that there are just 296 left (and even that is questionable). Maine and by default the nation has just lost roughly 35% and 30% of its native brook trout (BKT) ponds respectively. By native I mean those ponds that have never been defiled by the stocking truck. If the data is correct, this is an issue of national significance.

To understand the significance of this, you need to recognize that each population of BKT has evolved for thousands of years to the specific set of conditions found in the respective pond. These BKT are genetically unique. This includes what to eat, where to spawn, and a natural immunity to disease. Stocked fish do not live as long as native fish and sometimes introduce diseases into the system (Whirling Disease is a classic example).

In response to a bill (LD 1131) submitted by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s Fishing Initiative Committee (SAM/FIC) and sponsored by Senator Chandler Woodcock (Franklin County), the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (DIF&W) has rebuilt its native BKT pond inventory from the ground up. The bill proposed that BKT be named a “Heritage” fish and that stocking lakes and ponds that contain native BKT be prohibited by law.

The result of this effort, while absolutely necessary and in fact long overdue, was shocking to those of us involved in the project. While everyone anticipated a drop in the number of previously reported native BKT ponds, even the most skeptical could not have been prepared for as much of a drop as we saw. However, to its credit, the DIF&W went public with the revised list before the bill was heard, giving us a basis for discussion.

Unable to nail down an accurate list of native BKT ponds for decades, the DIF&W finally acted. With an important piece of legislation looming, the DIF&W rebuilt its list of native BKT ponds , using criteria never used before. Knowing that people were now paying very close attention, the DIF&W reviewed both state and federal stocking lists, as well as looking at maps to see if incidental stocking may have occurred.

For better or worse we now have a tentative list of these irreplaceable resources that we can work with. Now that it is done, the list should be subjected to the scrutiny of an outside audit to remove any doubt as to its validity. The intention would be to review the list and the data used to create it to ensure that it is as accurate as it can be. If the DIF&W does not submit to this voluntarily, they should be forced to do so legislatively.

One area of concern is the department’s use of turn-of-the-century federal stocking lists to remove certain ponds from the list of native waters. As anyone can imagine, these lists are suspect at best. In addition to the possibilities of administrative problems (we are still making mistakes and we have computers!), most stocking was done using hand-carried un-aerated buckets containing fry which have a very low survival rate even in the best of circumstances.

To remove a pond from the native list simply because it “may” have been compromised by stocking is questionable. Consideration should be given to the distance from the nearest road (or more accurately narrow gauge railroad), the number of times the pond was stocked, the size of the fish stocked, the number of fish stocked, the time of year the fish were stocked, and by default, the likelihood that these fish interbred with the native BKT population.

Ponds were also removed due to the “potential” of in-migration from other stocked waters. If this was implemented consistently, one would assume that if two bodies of water are interconnected, they are both either native or not native. However, we have already found cases where a body of water is listed as native and a connected body of water is not. For example, Sourdnahunk Lake is not listed as native yet Little Sourdnahunk Lake is?

At the initial Joint Standing Committee for Fish & Wildlife (JSC) hearing, I brought up my concerns regarding Sourdnahunk along with several other ponds. The DIF&W admitted at the subsequent JSC “working session” that this was in fact an error. The reason given by the DIF&W was that one pond was in one region and the other pond was in another region. This gives credence to the need to audit the list further (this is far too important to be “almost” right).

In addition we must look at the physical conditions to determine the likelihood that fish could in fact move from the stocked water to the target water. For example, if the native pond was downstream of the stocked water, there is a high likelihood that fish could have migrated between the two (going downstream is easy). However, if the target pond was upstream of the stocked water we must look at potential obstacles to migration such as waterfalls, etc.

In the case of ponds that were stocked by the DIF&W itself, likewise we must verify that the events in question had a high likelihood of compromising the respective BKT population. Like federal stockings we must look at the logistics. As you can see while the list is a step in the right direction, to call it accurate is a bit premature. In fact, the DIF&W has yet to provide a list of the ponds removed from the 2001 native list and why in fact they were removed.

Until the list has been audited, it is imperative that we suspend all stocking activities on any pond that was listed on any of the three known native lists (i.e., 1996, 2001 and 2005). While the DIF&W recently stated in front of the JSC that they already had a policy against stocking over native (and even wild) fish, a quick perusal of the 2004 stocking list showed that 23 ponds that appeared on the 2001 Native BKT list were currently being stocked!

The stocking noted above was clearly done before the new native BKT list was created and is therefore a direct violation of the departments stated policy. As such, I feel strongly that the only way to get a true suspension of stocking is to force it legislatively. With any luck the legislation will agree that this is necessary to protect these precious resources and amend the pending “Heritage Brook Trout” bill accordingly.

In preparation for the JSC hearing, I performed a thorough analysis of the data available pertaining to native BKT ponds on behalf of the newly formed Dud Dean Angling Society (DDAS) and SAM/FIC. What I learned in regard to how these invaluable resources have been managed over the last 12 years (and I doubt things were any better before this) was a real eye-opener. This data along with testimony from the two groups told a compelling story.

It is clear that the DIF&W has really struggled to nail this list down. The fact that three sets of duplicate ponds survived at least five years and one document update, says a lot about how this list has been administered. Just as concerning is the fact that an inaccurate manual count of the ponds stayed on the books for four years. I would also like to point out that there was one pond that was being actively stocked with splake on both the 1996 and 2001 and lists.

Another key point is that even after the administrative issues were cleared up, the number of native ponds went down in 1996, up in 2001 and down again in 2005. This implies that we “found” some previously unidentified native ponds between 1996 and 2001. While not obvious based solely on the numbers (they went down not up), a detail comparison of the three lists showed that we also added ponds between 2001 and 2005.

My analysis showed that we deleted 158 ponds (one was deleted in 2001 and added back in 2005!) between 2001 and 2005. Just as important is that we added 33 ponds between 2001 and 2005 with the lion’s share being added in 2005. If we “found” 33 ponds since 2001, it makes one wonder how many previously unidentified native ponds were in fact “lost” during this same period. Like the administrative issues noted above this concerns me greatly.

As for how many ponds have actually been classified as “native” since 1996 and how many are classified as native today, here are the facts. There are 454 unique bodies of water that have appeared on either the 1996, 2001, or 2005 native BKT pond lists. As mentioned earlier, there are just 296 native BKT ponds listed today. This represents a loss of 158 native BKT ponds in just nine years (or 35% of the baseline).

Another important part of the puzzle is the number of ponds why the ponds were deleted (state stocking [scheduled, surplus, accidental], federal stocking, in-migration, etc.) Until this is answered we will not know the true reasons behind the wholesale changes made to this list in 2005. Meanwhile we have been left to guess as to how we lost these ponds (to date the DIF&W has placed most of the blame on federal stocking and in-migration).

I have been unable to ascertain this critical information due to delays in regard to getting the data I need in the format I need it. This data exists at the DIF&W in what they call their “ Lake and Pond Inventory”. Under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, they are legally required to give me what they have. When I get the data I will complete my audit and publish the results (folks have the right to know exactly what has happened here).

As for what we lost and where, there were glaring differences between regions which I believe lends credence to the potential dangers of managing our fisheries at the regional level (a subject for another day!). While all regions lost some ponds, some regions lost many. For example, Region G lost 77 out of 148 for a loss of 52%. Region D lost the next highest percent with 42%. Region E fared the best with just 19% lost.

Eighty-three (or 28%) of the remaining waters are designated by LURC as “Remote Ponds”. This is roughly 47% of the total number of Remote Ponds. It is interesting that there appears to be direct correlation between access and our ability to maintain a native BKT fishery. Forty-two (or 14%) are less than 10 acres and therefore not covered by the Great Pond Act. As such, we anglers only have guaranteed access to 254 native BKT ponds.

A large percentage of the remaining native BKT ponds are either very small or very shallow and as such vulnerable to exploitation (over harvest) and issues such as deep freezes, excessive warming, etc. One hundred and forty-seven (50%) are less than 25 acres and 212 (72%) are less than 50 acres. Eighty-nine (30%) are less than 10 feet deep. We will need to monitor what’s left very closely to prevent a further decline in our native BKT resources.

Another interesting set of statistics is in regard to where the remaining native BKT ponds are. Two of the seven regions (A and B) have no native BKT ponds left and one (C) has only six. While Region E (Moosehead) has almost 50% of the remaining ponds, Region D ( Western Mountains) has just over 10%. As for counties, 8 out of 16 have no native BKT ponds left. Senator Woodcock’s own Franklin County has just 10!

I also found it interesting in regard to what percentage of the total water managed for BKT is currently classified as native. At first glance things look fairly stable. However, a closer look raises some real concerns. While 26% of the total number of BKT ponds is classified as “native”, just 5.5% of the total acreage is. This is alarming and shows that we have lost most of our larger lakes and are now down to for what are the most part small ponds.

Another thing that this points out is the importance in regard to giving our wild/non-native ponds the same level of protection that we give our wild/native ponds. Failing to do so puts a whole lot of water at the mercy of the stocking truck. In fact, without the same level of protection granted the native ponds, 55% of the total number of wild ponds and 70% of the total wild acreage is at risk of being genetically compromised.

As for how we are managing what we have left, this is where I found the most disturbing data. In fact, 44% of the remaining native BKT ponds are in imminent danger of being compromised as a result of the legal use of live fish as bait. That’s right, 131 of the remaining native BKT waters allow the use of live fish as bait! This fact shocked many of us who couldn’t have imagined in a million years that things had got this out of hand.

Extracted from the DIF&W’s 2001 Brook Trout Management Plan: "The introduction and spread of competing fish species has had substantial impact on the quantity and quality of Maine's brook trout resource.... The often inadvertent spread of white suckers and a number of minnow species caused still further loss, and remains a chronic problem to this day because of their extensive use as live bait."

While the DIF&W fights an uphill battle with illegal stockings, they themselves are not only stocking over native fish, but they are allowing anglers to do so legally. Recently I read in official DIF&W documents that the introduction of smelt had damaged Thissell Pond’s BKT population and jeopardized the blueback char in Big Reed Pond. In addition, golden shiners were mentioned as the cause of problems at Bald Mt. Pond.

If the DIF&W knows enough to recognize the potential impact of introduced baitfish on a wild BKT fishery, how could they allow the legal use of live fish as bait on 44% of our remaining native BKT lakes and ponds? This raises some serious questions as to what is going on in Augusta and the Regional offices. That this was discovered by people outside the department also says a lot (even the DIF&W was surprised!). What happened to “Peer Reviews”, etc.?

Next I looked at what we were harvesting and what I found was equally as disturbing as that noted above. With 151 ponds managed for a 5-fish daily limit one wonders how any of these ponds have escaped the stocking truck (note the size and depth statistics above). That the highest bag limits allowed in the state are imposed on 51% of our remaining native ponds is questionable at best (has anyone looked to see if these ponds can sustain this?).

The same thing was found in regard to length limits. Specifically, 151 (or 51%) of all remaining native BKT ponds have a 6 inch minimum length limit imposed on them. In many (most?) cases this allows for the harvest of pre-spawn fish putting the whole population at risk. If no (or too few) fish reach sexual maturity there will be limited recruitment of new fish. While this statistic did not have the impact that the use of live fish as bait did, it should have.

Another very interesting set of statistics is in regard to the regional inconsistencies pertaining to regulations. In the case of native ponds where bait is allowed, the regions vary from a low of 39% to a high of 90%. The same thing is true for FFO which varies from a low of 4% to a high of 48%. Like other regional inconsistencies, this strengthens the argument in regard to the dangers of managing our fisheries on a regional basis (there is no continuity).

While the DIF&W has admitted to making “some mistakes” in regard to managing our native BKT ponds, I believe what we have uncovered is far beyond that. Sloppy paperwork combined with suspect regulatory decisions have put this invaluable resource at risk. In fact, even after admitting the new list was inaccurate (Sourdnahunk/Little Sourdnahunk), the DIF&W suggested we move forward with it. When does “accuracy” become a requirement?

What I see here is a complete breakdown of the system and the policies and procedures that govern it. Failure to adhere to policies regarding the stocking over wild fish, failure to restrict the use of live fish as bait on native (or for that matter wild) ponds, and a complete autonomy between regions (as evident by the radically different results) has put the entire native BKT fishery at risk. Worse is that it took the threat of legislation to get anyone to address it.

If we walk away from this thinking that a new name (“Heritage Fish”), a law preventing the stocking of these ponds, and the elimination of live fish as bait is enough to save our remaining native BKT resources, we are missing the whole point. In fact, what we are doing is addressing the symptom and not the cause. The symptom is that we are stocking over wild fish. The cause is that we are responding to complaints from anglers that the respective fishery has declined.

If this is all we do, all we have accomplished is to remove our traditional way of addressing declining fisheries (stocking). What we need to do is to address what we are doing that allows these fisheries to collapse in the first place. In defense of the DIF&W, they are not sitting at the side of these ponds waiting to stock. As I said earlier, they are responding to complaints from anglers and unfortunately taking the easy way out (back up the truck!).

While invasive species and habitat degradation are the battle cry of the day, I know of very few once wild BKT trout ponds which are now stocked because they succumbed to these real but often overused threats. As both are permanent, we do need to watch them closely and do everything that we can do to prevent it. However, over harvest by anglers is in my opinion a far more likely cause for the demise on most of our BKT fisheries.

The good news is that addressed properly (through rational regulations and a reasonable level of law enforcement), this can not only be prevented but it can usually be reversed given a solid plan of action. In most cases, not all of the fish can be harvested from a given pond. However, most of the “catchable” ones can be and this gives the impression that it is “fished-out”. The reality is that there are usually still some levels of fish that if left alone will re-populate.

We see this all the time in regard to fisheries that yield a few fish every spring and then drop off considerably. Most of these are managed for General Law (unrestricted bait, 5-fish, and a 6 inch minimum) and have been hit so hard that they have not been allowed to fully recover. What if we were to put in a temporary FFO/C&R regulation? What if that did not work and we simply closed it to fishing for three years? Would we need to stock and forever change the game?

This is where the next battle needs to be fought; rational regulations and real protection. With just 3 to 13 fish per acre, our wild BKT ponds are by no means inexhaustible. In fact, I challenge any angler reading this article to tell me that they are not aware at least a few wild BKT ponds that are as we all say, “fished-out”. Those in charge of protecting our resources need to step up and start protecting. We cannot wait until the next “list” is just 150 ponds!

In closing I would like to leave you with a few quotes from a two articles regarding the future of Maine’s brook trout. The first come from a recent (2005) publication by Trout Unlimited titled “The New England Brook Trout: Protecting a Fish, Restoring a Region”:

“Even in northern Maine, lakes and ponds holding large brook trout are a rare as the logging roads into such areas are common.”

"In much of New England, population densities of brook trout are low when compared to other fish. Perhaps surprisingly, fisheries managers can address the problem without stocking a single trout.”

“Research in Maine lakes suggests that brook populations can be less than three adult trout per acre.”

The quotes below come from an article titled “Twilight of the Yankee Trout” that was written by conservation writer Ted Williams and published in Trout magazine:

" Maine has the only significant populations of decent-sized wild brook trout remaining in the eastern United States.”

“Four hundred and thirty-two brook trout ponds, or 43 percent of the total, never have been defiled by hatchery truck and therefore contain a priceless reservoir of genes.”

“If they [Mainer’s] did so [looked at stocked trout more closely], they might realize that there are wild trout, and there are ‘rubber trout’ – i.e., those tame and sallow, inbred imitations, mass-produced in hatcheries. And they would realize that they are entrusted with a national treasure every bit as valuable as Alaska’s grizzlies or California’s redwoods.”

“But access is only the facilitator of the problem, not the problem itself. One can, after all, drive a Cadillac to the shore of Yellowstone Lake, populated by Yellowstone cutthroats – arguably the one freshwater game-fish even less selective and more suicidal than brook trout.”

“You want to have wild brook trout, it’s really pretty simple. You can’t kill them. I do not believe a naturally-reproducing brook trout fishery can withstand any significant level of exploitation.”

“…and the trout we did check were runts, the sort you encounter more and more in Maine these days.”

“ Maine’s brook-trout crisis is not primarily habitat related…”

“ Maine’s legendary brook trout streams need every break they can get; and they aren’t getting any.”

“…it [ Maine] hasn’t bothered to find out what is left or what genotypes exist where. Maine hasn’t even seen fit to fund a wild-trout inventory.”

“I have seen Maine’s ponds heal themselves in two seasons when gated off or protected with special regulations.”

“ Maine brook-trout fishermen who won’t change even when there is every good reason to do so, even when they could let the resource recover and grow and make them rich as Montana spring creek owners. Even when, in the long run, they and the rest of us could have more of something most rare and beautiful.”

The sad part in regard to the quotes above is that the article that they were pulled from came out in the summer of 1993. That’s right, we knew that we were in big trouble 12 years ago yet we did nothing about it. Let’s hope that this recent fiasco gets the attention of those in charge and that this time they act accordingly. The whole country is counting on us to save what is left of the nation’s pond-dwelling native brook trout.

Supporting Data:

The Numbers

Reported in 1993: 432 (Autumn Edition of Trout Magazine)
Reported in 1996: 424 (MDIF&W Native Salmonid Management Policy)
Actual in 1996: 421 (less 3 sets of duplicates found during the analysis)
Reported in 2001: 431 (MDIF&W “Not Directly Stocked” List)
Actual in 1996: 427 (less same 3 sets of duplicates plus an inaccurate count)
Reported in 2005: 296 (MDIF&W “Never Stocked” List)

Changes between 2001 and 2005

Changes between the 1996 and 2001 Lists
Added: 8 Ponds
Deleted: 2 Ponds
Changes between the 2001 and 2005 Lists
Added: 25 Ponds
Deleted: 157 Ponds

Gross Variance from 1996 to 2005

Baseline: 454 Ponds (Unique ponds from 1996, 2001 and 2005 lists)
Current: 296 Ponds (65% of Baseline)
Lost: 158 Ponds (35% of Baseline)

REGION	BASELINE	REMAINING	DELETED	% LOST
C	8	6	2	25%
D	57	33	24	42%
E	171	139	32	19%
F	70	47	23	33%
G	148	71	77	52%

Size/Depth Statistics

Total Acres: 23,562 (I am missing the size data for one pond)
Average Size: 80 Acres
1-9 Acres: 42 (14% of the total)
10-24 Acres: 105 (35% of the total)
25-49 Acres: 65 (22% of the total)
50-99 Acres: 39 (13% of the total)
> 99 Acres: 44 (15% of the total)
< 25 Acres: 147 (50% of the total)
< 50 Acres: 212 (72% of the total)
Average Max. Depth: 23 Feet (I am missing the depth data for 69 ponds)
< 10 Feet: 89 (30% of the total)
< 20 Feet: 137 (46% of the total)

Number of Ponds by Region

Region A: N/A
Region B: N/A
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)

Number of Ponds by County

Androscoggin : N/A
Aroostook : 49 (17% of Total)
Cumberland : N/A
Franklin : 10 (3% of Total)
Hancock: 3 (1% of Total)
Kennebec : N/A
Knox: N/A
Lincoln : N/A
Oxford : 11 (4% of Total)
Penobscot: 5 (2% of Total)
Piscataquis: 139 (47% of Total)
Sagadahoc: N/A
Somerset : 75 (25% of Total)
Waldo: N/A
Washington : 4 (1% of Total)
York : N/A

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)

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)

Note: The sum of the wild and stocked acreage does not equal the total acreage due to conflicting data received from the MDIF&W (the total acreage came from one source and the stocked and wild subtotals came from another source). We are working to verify what numbers are correct but assume them to be reasonably accurate as they appear in this document.

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)

Bag Limits

0-Fish: 1 (Less than one half of one 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)

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
14 Inches (Minimum): 1
18 Inches Minimum): 4 (1% of Total)
0-14 Inches, None Over (Maximum): 1
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)

DESCRIPTION	REGION
	C	D	E	F	G
UNRESTRICTED BAIT (INCLUDES LIVE FISH)	67%	30%	39%	64%	46%
RESTRICTED BAIT (EXCLUDES LIVE FISH)	N/A	9%	4%	26%	21%
TOTAL BAIT (UNRESTRICTED/RESTRICTED)	67%	39%	43%	90%	67%
ARTIFICIAL LURES ONLY	33%	12%	37%	6%	11%
FLY FISHING ONLY	N/A	48%	19%	4%	21%
0-FISH (CATCH-AND-RELEASE)	N/A	N/A	1%	N/A	N/A
1-FISH	17%	N/A	2%	N/A	4%
2-FISH	50%	67%	47%	19%	52%
5-FISH	33%	33%	50%	81%	44%
6 INCH MINIMUM	33%	33%	50%	81%	44%
8 INCH MINIMUM	N/A	39%	N/A	2%	15%
10 INCH MINIMUM	N/A	N/A	2%	N/A	N/A
12 INCH MINIMUM	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1%
14 INCH MINIMUM	17%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
16 INCH MINIMUM	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
18 INCH MINIMUM	N/A	N/A	1%	N/A	3%
14 INCH MAXIMUM	N/A	N/A	1%	N/A	N/A
8 INCH MINIMUM, ONLY ONE MAY EXCEED 12 "	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	18%
10 INCH MINIMUM, ONLY ONE MAY EXCEED 12 "	33%	24%	37%	17%	14%
12 INCH MINIMUM, ONLY ONE MAY EXCEED 14 "	17%	3%	8%	N/A	4%
TOTAL NUMBER OF PONDS	6	33	139	47	71