Sensible Stocking - Getting the Most out of our Hatchery Dollars
(As appeared in "The Technical Fly Fisherman", August 203 issue of Northwoods Sporting Journal)
By Bob Mallard
| With the potential Maine has for self-sustaining salmonid fisheries, I am disappointed that we have become so reliant on stocking (a subject for another day!). However, for better or worse we are reliant on hatchery-raised fish for much of our angling. As such, if we are going to invest a large percentage of our fisheries budget to stock salmonids, let's get the most benefit possible. To put the cost of Maine's hatchery program into perspective, the total DIF&W fisheries budget is $4,400,000 and of that, $2,200,000 is spent on our hatcheries. The same holds true in regard to personnel, there are 31 positions associated with our hatcheries. Considering the resources being tied-up, imagine what a 50% increase in efficiency or reduction in expenses could mean to the angling community. Specifically, these resources could be directed toward land acquisition, habitat restoration, invasives management, etc., which are permanent vs. temporary solutions. Assuming that stocking is necessary (and in some cases it absolutely is), we need to focus on the "what", "where's" and "how's" and devise a plan that will yield the best results with the resources we have available. Under the current plan, we raise just over 1 million fish in nine state-run hatcheries at the approximate cost of $1.00 - $3.50 per fish:
What we stock... In regard to "what" we stock, I would start by re-assessing the value of the splake program. From where I stand, this is "bad science" and just because we can doesn't mean we should! Raising a fish incapable of reproducing just doesn't make sense to me. In addition, I don't believe for a minute that anyone comes to Maine to fish for a hybrid. Even those whom defend splake usually go quiet when I ask them if they would trade the splake for brookies, salmon, browns or rainbows. As a fly shop owner, I am around many fishermen from all walks of life. Rarely if ever do I hear anyone speak positively about splake. Conversely, most of what I hear is negative. As a matter of fact, both George Smith (SAM) and Jeff Reardon (TU) have told me personally that they are against the splake program. So, if it were my call we would get back to basics and focus on naturally occurring salmonids. Next is the experimental rainbow program. While viewed as new by many anglers, Maine did in fact have a rainbow-stocking program in the 70's that while considered a failure at the time resulted in self-sustaining fisheries in the Kennebec that still exists today. Will rainbows work in Maine - absolutely! Once we finish the experimental phase, my guess (and hope) is that rainbows will become a major part of our overall stocking strategy. Last is the existing brown trout program. While viewed by some as "too difficult to catch", browns are THE best fish for certain waters. The west was won with browns (Bighorn, Missouri, Beaverhead, etc.) and the most successful stocked salmonid fisheries in the northeast (West Branch Delaware, Farmington, Housatonic, etc.) are in fact brown trout fisheries. We would be best served by a strategy that utilizes browns and rainbows with preference going to the species that does best in the respective water. Where we stock... In regard to "where" we stock, my concerns are twofold, i.e., where we stock that we shouldn't and where we don't stock that we should. First is that in my opinion there are some waters currently receiving salmonid stockings that due to changes in the habitat should no longer receive fish. Specifically, now that large schools of predatory striped bass are migrating upriver past the now defunct Edwards Dam on the Kennebec, does it still make sense to stock salmonids? Conversely, the Kennebec above Wyman Lake receives no salmonid stocking due to its supposed "wild" status. With a burgeoning illegally introduced smallmouth bass population, stocked splake migrating up from Wyman Lake, stocked brookies and salmon dropping down from the upper Dead, and a history of stocking, how "wild" is this. With salmonid stocks at a dangerously low level, a maintenance stocking is both warranted and long overdue. Lastly
is stocking the right water with the wrong fish. There is currently a debate regarding
the stocking brook trout in the middle Kennebec. Although, prime brown and rainbow
habitat, the river is too large, too warm and too infested with predators to be
decent brook trout habitat. Even with input from local anglers whom know the resource
well, the DIF&W is still considering it. This is not the only case where brookies
are in theory being "wasted". In regard to "how" we stock fish, we are still far too reliant on "bridge stocking" even though better alternatives now exist. Under the current strategy, fish are for the most part dumped into easy to access spots where they school up and are at the mercy of loons, mergansers, cormorants, otters and anglers. This results in a very high initial mortality (first few days) that in turn negatively impacts the fishing for the rest of the season. As standard policy, the DIF&W should work with volunteers (TU, F&G clubs, Boy Scouts, etc.) to "scatter stock" using boats with live wells on lakes and ponds and canoes with in-water transports for rivers and streams. Using this approach, fish can be spread out through the watershed creating a far better disbursement while greatly reducing initial mortality by preventing schooling in vulnerable places. Miscellaneous... · While fishing a small stocked brook trout pond recently, we caught a salmon. As this is the second one I have heard of, I contacted a friend and asked him to look into it for me. The answer he received back from the DIF&W was that salmon are sometimes raised in the same hatchery as brookies and occasionally jump the tank and end up with the brookies. While insignificant to some, with all of the problems we are having with "invasives", we need to be far more careful to ensure that only what we intend to stock actually gets stocked. The answer here is "species specific" hatcheries. · While at camp on Chesuncook, I have watched the DIF&W load float planes with fish for stocking in area ponds. While apparently innocent enough, I was shocked at the number of fish lost during loading (and sometimes take-off) that remained around the staging area for days to come. In each case, they were species that the lake was not currently managed for (brookies and splake). Once again, we need to be more careful so that we do not harm one fishery trying to help another. · I have recently been in contact with the DIF&W in regard to what they call "Surplus Fish" (wow, that is a tough pill to swallow!). The department wisely raises more fish than requested by area biologists to protect from shortfalls. After all allocations have been satisfied, the excess fish are dumped into waters such as the Androscoggin below Lewiston or heavily fished Put-and-Take waters in southern Maine. When asked why they did not go into waters where they had a better chance at survival and could provide better sport, I was told that they did not want to "jeopardize managed waters". This implies that all of our managed waters are at capacity, which is simply not the case. If we have extra fish, let's use them smartly. With the new leadership in the DIF&W, the pending Hatchery Bond, and a new cooperative agreement between anglers and the department (as a result of the independent study sponsored by SAM), the time is right for a complete revaluation of our stocking policies. If the DIF&W is willing to think out of the box and accept the input and help of the angling community, we could get a far better return on our stocking dollars - think about it.
|