While I recently
wrote about the DIF&W's failure to embrace Catch-and-Release regulations
for developing quality fisheries, this is only part of the story.
As I see it, this is just one piece of an overall lack of commitment
and vision in regard to creating trophy salmonid fishing in Maine.
In fact as I have pointed out before, a quick perusal of our fishing
regulations book will show that bass often receive better protection
than salmonids today. This however is due to strong advocacy on the
part of bass angling community as much as anything else.
As an avid fly fisherman I am
very disappointed in regard to how our salmonid fisheries are being
managed and I would like to see it change. With everything we have
learned over the years in regard to fisheries management it astounds
me that we continue to embrace turn-of-the-century management techniques
(stocking, minimum length limits, etc.) as opposed to modern management
practices (C&R, slot limits, etc.) This philosophy of "Managing
for Mediocrity" has endangered Maine's coldwater fisheries while
all but guaranteeing that true quality fishing will be the exception
and not the rule.
As I have stated before, Maine
has just a handful of Catch-and-Release waters. In addition, we have
only a few true "slot limits" (between "x" and
"y"). I could also only find one "maximum" length
limit applicable to salmonids. In regard to the maximum length limit
in question, while applicable to brown trout and salmon, it appears
to have been imposed to protect Atlantic salmon. With all we know
in regard to the impact of sound regulations on fishing quality it
makes one wonder what our goals are. Here are some examples of places
where in my opinion we have failed to do the right thing:
-
The Androscoggin
River has approximately 20 miles of ALO/C&R regulations that
extend from Berlin NH to the Maine border. When it crosses the border
into Maine, the DIF&W has imposed an ALO restriction with a
convoluted set of "protective slots" (the opposite of
what is used in many progressive states - you are not allowed to
keep fish between "x" and "y") and minimum length
limits. In fact as I interpret it, an angler can harvest up to 3
fish per day (1 "trout" and 2 salmon). In addition, in
no case are salmonids over 20" protected. When you consider
that this is one of our top two large "trout" (brown and
rainbow) rivers and that there are serious health concerns regarding
fish consumption, it makes one wonder what the DIF&W is thinking.
Additionally, this is a case where a cooperative effort between
NH and Maine could result in one of the finest fisheries in the
northeast. However, while NH has imposed regulations designed to
create a trophy fishery, Maine has not. In addition, while NH has
an aggressive stocking program, they are subject to harvested if
they drop into Maine. The correct thing to do here would be to emulate
NH's regulations, anything less is shortsighted at best.
-
As most anglers
now know, the Kennebec River is now subject to the most complicated
and I believe ineffective regulations found anywhere. By splitting
each dam-to-dam section into "Impoundments" and "Tailwaters"
with conflicting regulations, the DIF&W has missed a huge opportunity
to make the middle Kennebec the premier salmonid fishery in the
northeast. Specifically, while the regulations in the tailwaters
are 1 fish 16 inches (12" for brook trout), the regulations
in the impoundments are 2 fish 12 inches. As fish routinely migrate
between the two sections, this provides no real protection for any
fish over 12 inches. In fact, while a 12 inch minimum is in my opinion
reckless (it does not even protect pre-spawn fish), I would argue
that 16 inches is not enough to develop a "Quality" fishery.
At a minimum, the responsible thing to do would be to establish
a consistent set of regulations (with the possible exception of
the bait/ALO split) that ensures that we attain our goal of developing
a quality fishery (1 fish with a 14-16" true slot limit would
be a good start).
-
Excluding
the approximately 12 C&R waters (of which at least two are stocked),
the best protection I can find for wild brook trout is the roughly
10-12 ponds with an 18" minimum length limit. My question to
you is "is a 17 inch brook trout a trophy?" If not (which
I feel is a correct assessment), why not move these waters to C&R
and allow them to reach the next level. Once again, these regulations
strive for mediocrity not true quality. Considering that these types
of wild/native brook trout ponds exist in very few other places,
would it not be wise to manage a reasonable percentage of them for
maximum quality?
-
As part of
Bucky Owen's "Quality Fishery Initiative" implemented
in the early 1990's, many of our brook trout ponds went to the new
S-16 and S-17 regulations. In both cases, these regulations allowed
for the harvest of 2 fish and established a "slot limit"
(12"-14" and 10"-12" respectively) for protecting
larger fish. However, the rules allow for the harvest of one fish
over the upper end of the slot. While this does in fact slow down
the harvest of large fish, it does not stop it. As a result, while
fishing improved noticeably during the first 5 years, things seem
to have leveled off lately. In my opinion, this is because the "one
over" clause has caught up with us and we are now basically
back where we started in regard to the numbers of larger fish harvested.
This is in my opinion due to increased access, better anglers, and
less law enforcement. While clearly voluntary C&R has gone way
up, the constant handling of large fish by well-meaning anglers
can in fact take its toll. Additionally, while many have adopted
a philosophy of voluntary C&R some still have not. As a result,
I feel that the deliberate harvest of large fish in conjunction
with the incidental kill is more than many waters can take. In the
end, I think that while these regulations served us well in regard
to saving our brook trout fisheries they are no longer enough. As
such, it is now time to embrace true slot limits that ensure the
protection of larger fish and allow these fisheries to reach the
next level.
-
As pointed
out in a prior article and subsequent letters to the editor on the
same subject, the West Branch above Telos Bridge has a 26"
minimum on salmon. As noted by fellow writer Wiggie Robinson, this
is for the most part "de facto C&R". While the actual
impact of this clause is negligible (there are not that many 26
inch salmon running around up there), it once again shows reluctance
on the part of the DIF&W to impose strict regulations that prohibit
the harvest of large fish. If even one of these fish is harvested,
this represents a huge loss to the angling community by removing
from the system the very fish that we all dream about catching.
Once again it is time to step up and fill the hole - C&R would
be the appropriate regulation for this water.
-
Below Telos
Bridge on the West Branch is managed for an 18 inch minimum. Like
the Kennebec, these fish routinely migrate up and down the river
and any fish that attains a length of 18"-26" in the upper
river is subject to harvest when it drops below the bridge. As this
is a truly unique fishery (arguably the finest year-round river
landlocked salmon fishery in the country), it deserves far better
protection than it is getting. If harvest is to be allowed (which
I don't think it should be), it should be based on a slot limit
that protects trophy fish (1 fish 18-20 inches).
-
While not
a problem in and of itself, smelting (both recreational and commercial)
can have a significant negative effect on sport fisheries. As such,
when the goal is to create a trophy fishery (typically salmon) the
harvest of smelt in any form should not be allowed in the respective
water. I can think of no situation more obvious than that which
we now see at Chesuncook Lake. Even with the acknowledgement that
smelt populations are down, the DIF&W continues to allow smelting
in the tributaries. In fact, one of the streams is smelted as hard
as anywhere else I have ever seen. With the noticeable decline in
the salmon fishery in the lakes, smelting should be looked at closely
and in my opinion stopped (it has worked in regard to rebuilding
other fisheries).
-
Another emotional
issue is in regard to ice fishing and any call to curtail it is
met with loud resistance from those who practice it. As exclusively
an open-water angler, I have very few options available to me after
October. However, ice anglers have many. Does this make any sense
at all or is this simply a refusal on the part of the DIF&W
to accept the reality of ice fishing and its effect on fisheries.
Additionally, why restrict the less harmful of the two? While we
all know what ice fishing can and does do to a fishery (it is a
high impact activity), C&R fly fishing in the winter would have
a minimal negative impact on the resource yet it is all but ignored
by the department. While ice fishing clearly has its place and it
should in fact be allowed in certain cases, we need to look at how
we are managing important and delicate wild fisheries such as those
found on Chesuncook, Eagle (Allagash), etc. With all the opportunities
we have to ice fish, it is time to restrict the activity on certain
critical waters that could provide trophy open-water fishing.
-
One of the
most serious issues regarding the creation of trophy fisheries is
how we manage our stocking. In a number of cases the DIF&W has
introduced hatchery fish that have endangered important populations
of wild fish. One need to look no further than Wyman Lake where
the huge influx of DIF&W sponsored splake (170,000+ in the last
5 years) have damaged the smelt population (along with the illegal
bass) and migrated both up and down river and on top of wild brookies,
salmon and rainbows. Considering the hurdles now faced on the Kennebec
with bass, perch, etc., the last thing we need is another "predator".
While the department has an informal policy of not stocking over
wild fish, although they acknowledge that there are wild salmonids
both above and below Wyman Lake they do not see this as a violation
of their policy (as if the lake was somehow an entity in and of
itself?). However, when confronted with this issue by concerned
anglers they agreed to cut the splake stocking in half (I guess
they feel that they were only half wrong?). The appropriate thing
to do is to manage the wild fish that are there and stop all splake
stocking in Wyman period.
-
On that same
note, the unwise and I feel reckless stocking of splake in Ragged
Lake, and Deer and Chesuncook ponds is now negatively impacting
the Chesuncook Lake system as a result of "drop-downs".
With the smelt population down (according to the Regional Biologist's
own words) and a lack of large wild salmon (ditto), is it really
a good idea to introduce another species that will in fact compete
with the wild salmonid population for food as well as prey on the
young salmonids? Considering that Chesuncook Lake was once one of
our best (if not our best) wild salmon fisheries, this shows a real
lack of vision on the part of the DIF&W. Once again, this program
needs to be looked at and in my opinion stopped immediately.
While I could go on and on, I
am sure you see my point. It is a rare event when we manage for absolute
quality and "mediocrity" seems to be the goal. While this
may be the easy way out (no public opposition from those who believe
they should be able to harvest "trophy" fish wherever they
are found), it is risky at best. Not only are we putting our fisheries
at risk, but we are spending far too much money to maintain marginal
"stocked" fisheries. In addition to now stocking approximately
1.4 million fish, many of those fish are now going to waters north
of Moosehead Lake which once contained wild fisheries.
While states like NH, MT, NY,
ID, WY, CO, etc., are stepping up in regard to developing quality
fisheries we continue to lag behind. In addition to potentially losing
fishing tourism revenues to other states (including much needed license
sales), we are now seeing Maine residents routinely traveling to Canada,
New York, New Hapmshire and even the Rocky Mountain states to fish.
When anglers have to leave a state like Maine to find "quality"
fishing something is very wrong. While we anglers can do our part
by conserving, the ball is now in the DIF&W's court - only they
can take our fishing to the next level.
|
