I am responding to a letter to the editor which appeared in the May edition of the NSJ.  The letter in question was written by John Boland and Tim Obrey of the DIF&W and appeared under the title The Splake Debate.  As the author of the article referred to in the letter, I feel that it is only fair that I get a chance to tell my side of the story.  I would also like to challenge the propriety of rebutting an article in this paper that was in fact published in another paper.  To draw into question the accuracy of an article that readers of this publication may not have had the opportunity to read for themselves is simply not appropriate.

Based on the immediate and sweeping response that the aforementioned article has generated from the DIF&W (i.e., rebuttals in two papers and the DIF&W website), it is clear that I have hit a sore spot.  The fact is however that splake stocking is unquestionably a controversial program.  What the DIF&W does not like is that it is being challenged publicly for the first time.  As a result, the department now feels the need to defend their policies.  In the interest of fair play, I deserve a chance to defend my position and concerns.

For those who have not read the article in question, it was a subset of a much larger document written by the Dud Dean Angling Society (DDAS), of which I am a member, titled History/Analysis of Maine’s Splake Stocking Program.  The documentcan be obtained by contacting me directly or online at www.flyfishinginmaine.com.  The document and related article were a summary of the DIF&W’s own data pertaining to splake obtained through Freedom of Access (FOA) and information from other sources around the country and Canada which were mined from the internet.  The basis of the report and related article was quotes, facts, and trends.

While the DIF&W insists that splake are not threatening some of Maine’s finest wild salmonid waters, the mere fact that they can now be found in Chesuncook Lake over wild salmon, the Rapid and Magalloway rivers over wild brook trout, the Kennebec River over wild rainbow trout, and a number of other waters with wild salmonid populations in my opinion validates our assertion that they are.  There can be no denying that splake compete with other salmonids for food and habitat.  In addition, the documentation pertaining to splake preying on juvenile salmonids is clear; Colorado uses them to control stunted non-native brook trout populations.  In fact, the DIF&W’s own archives yielded a letter from a staff biologist who admitted finding a juvenile Atlantic salmon in the stomach contents from a splake!

While it could be argued that splake are not stocked in water where the genetic integrity of wild salmonids is an issue, they arestocked in a number of waters that drain into other waters where genetic integrity is an issue.  Look no further than the Chesuncook system where at least three tributary waters are now stocked with splake (Ragged Lake, Deer Pond and Chesuncook Pond).  The same can be said for Sturtevant Pond which drains into Umbagog Lake which both the Rapid and Magalloway rivers drain into.  Echo and Millinocket lakes in the Allagash region are other waters of concern.  What about Wyman Lake which is in fact part of the Kennebec River and has wild trout and salmon both upstream and downstream of it?

To say that a limited number of splake have occasionally migrated to other waters that may contain wild trout is misleading at best.  One need look no further than the Wyman tailwater on the Kennebec River which now contains a significant population of splake that in fact originated in the lake above.  On any trip to the mouth of Ragged Stream on Caribou Lake you are as likely to catch a splake as anything else.  As far as the statement that these cases are reviewed individually to determine if a management change is needed, at Wyman Lake this has resulted in the DIF&W stocking fewer fish one year, smaller fish the next year, and bigger fish the next year!  After three management changes at Wyman Lake the problem in the river is arguably worse than ever.  In the case of Caribou Lake where splake had been reported to be dropping down from Deer Pond for several years, the DIF&W’s response was to stock splake in Ragged Lake, which has in fact made the problem far worse.

If there is any debatable point in the article, it is whether or not splake can and do reproduce in the wild.  That they can reproduce in the wild is not debatable as every expert quoted (including those from the DIF&W) refers to splake as a fertile hybrid.   That they do reproduce in the wild depends on what you read and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  Our intent was simply to show that experts from other states and Canada do feel that splake can and in some cases actually do reproduce in the wild.  Cases where splake have apparently backcrossed with brook trout are also a growing concern elsewhere in the country and Canada.  To simply ignore this data is dangerous at best and reeks of turf protection and scientific snobbery.

Rather than rehashing what was covered in the article in question, I encourage each and every one of you to either read the report mentioned above, or better yet do your own research on splake using the Internet.  A search for “splake” will yield some very interesting results not the least of which is the fact that Maine now dominates the issue even though splake are a relative new addition to our overall management strategy.  Pay close attention to what has happened in New York where they will no longer recognize a brook trout record caught in a body of water that has been stocked with splake.   Read about what is going on as we speak in the Great Lakes pertaining to coaster brook trout restoration (Fly Rod & Reel published an interesting article).  Try searching for “Lake Agnes”; you may be surprised what you find.

Whether splake are good or bad for anglers depends on what you expect from your fisheries.  Whether splake pose a threat to wild salmonids however is in my opinion not a debatable issue; how could they (or any introduced fish for the matter) not be?  Expert after expert recommends that splake not be stocked where they can interfere with wild salmonids.  To quote foremost internationally known salmonid biologist Dr. Robert J. Behnke in his acclaimed book Trout and Salmon of North America (ISBN 0-7432-2220-2 / Page 279), “One such cross is the brook trout and the lake trout, which are called splake. These fish are fertile and may reproduce in nature.”  While not saying that natural reproduction of splake has occurred, Dr. Behnke clearly leaves room for the possibility that it could occur.  Is this a risk that we can afford to take?

What is clear about splake is that we do not know everything we need to know about them.  The mere fact that any debate exists at all in regard to the potential that splake could establish a self-sustaining population or backcross to one of the parent species should dictate the utmost caution.  All we were trying to do was to point out that experts from other states and Canada were saying things about splake that did not coincide with what we in Maine are being told by our DIF&W.  Rather than scolding us for the research we did and publicly attacking our credibility, would it not have been more prudent to use the data to our advantage and possibly prevent us from making a mistake that could compromise one or more of our wild salmonid fisheries?

The fact is that history has shown us time and time again that the experts are not always right.  It was experts that gave us togue in Sebago which destroyed a world class salmon fishery.  It was experts that gave us rainbows and browns out west decimating the native cutthroat population.  It was experts that gave us smelts in Rangeley leading to the demise of the once prolific blueback fishery.  It was experts that gave us browns and rainbows throughout the eastern seaboard that all but eliminated native brook trout in some areas.  It was experts that knowingly stocked fish infected with whirling disease in Montana and Colorado destroying a number of world-class rainbow fisheries.  Experts are not above making mistakes.

What I/we did was to take the time (our personal time) to seek out the truth about splake.  What I/we did was to disseminate that information so the public (and hopefully the DIF&W and our wild salmonid resources) could benefit by what we learned.  What I/we did was to try to expose the growth and expansion of the program at a time when the Hatchery Commission had recommended that it get cut back.  What I/we did is what any good sportsmen would do; learn everything we could about a potential threat to our wild and native coldwater fisheries resources.  Apparently the DIF&W sees that as a problem?