The Technical Fly Fisherman by Bob Mallard

Invasive Species: The Number One Threat to Maine's Salmonid Heritage
(As appeared in "The Technical Fly Fisherman", May 2004 issue of Northwoods Sporting Journal)
By Bob Mallard

Given the option, how many states do you think would voluntarily trade a coldwater fishery for a warmwater fishery? While the question might seem absurd to some from where I stand that is exactly what Maine is doing today. Rarely does a week go by where we do not hear about another body of water being infected by an illegally introduced species of fish. Left unchecked, this will forever change the face of Maine.

Although Maine is one of just a handful of states with viable coldwater fisheries, there are a disturbing number of anglers who feel that warmwater species such as perch, pike and bass are "better" than Maine's native (and legally introduced) coldwater species. This group of "environmental terrorists" has made an all out assault on OUR salmonid waters so that THEY can catch the fish THEY choose to wherever and whenever THEY want to.

By doing this, this group of selfish so-called "sportsmen" is depriving all of us of some of the things that make Maine so special - wild salmonids and quality coldwater fisheries! As such, all rational and responsible "sportsmen" (this is not simply a fishing issue) should be absolutely outraged. Anyone who would do such a thing has no right to call themselves a "sportsmen" and I do not consider them my peers (nor should anyone else).

While it may in fact be just a handful of people who are directly responsible for this mess (i.e., those doing the actual illegal stocking), those who are "enabling" them are many. As I look around the outdoor community, I see many folks whom while they may not realize it, are in fact making it easier for these people to destroy our coldwater fisheries. Specifically, OUR actions and inaction do in fact influence what folks do.

Starting with my fellow outdoor writers, every time a "positive" article is written about pike or bass that have been illegally introduced, we downplay the impact of the deed by giving the appearance that we in fact support it. While we may forget it from time to time, many sportsmen look to outdoor writers for their opinions in regard to what is right and wrong. As such, we all need to be real careful when we write about species that are being illegally introduced.

As for the editors of our local publications, I feel strongly that it is their job to see that what is printed is responsible, accurate and appropriate. When we print pictures of pike that have been caught from a body of water that was illegally stocked are we not in fact "promoting" it? The same goes for articles where the writer ignores science or fails to mention the difference between legal and illegal stocking and why the latter is a bad thing.

I am also concerned that the actions and inaction of the DIF&W may be encouraging (or at least not deterring) some of these activities. When we "manage" an illegally introduced species, what kind of message are we sending? In addition, we should use all available science and technology to eradicate these fish when they are encountered so as to make it clear that it is a losing battle (you stock them, we'll kill them).

Sportsmen's groups need to step up in regard to this matter and make sure that their constituency is part of the solution not part of the problem. While groups such as SAM and TU have stepped up with a loud and clear message against this issue, others that I will refrain from naming have not. Take a look at those groups that you belong to and decide for yourself if their position in this matter is clear and sound.

Lastly, we sportsmen must stand up against any and all who may be part of, or are even aware of, this dangerous practice. Talk to your fellow sportsmen, report any and all suspicious activities, and kill (where the law allows you to) and/or report all illegal fish encountered to the DIF&W immediately. It is we sportsmen that have the most to lose. As such, it is we who should assume the lions share of the responsibility for dealing with it.

Make no mistake about it, illegally introduced are the ABSOLUTE number one threat to our fishing heritage. While it is clear that we can make bass water out of trout water, the converse is not true. In addition, even in Maine it is only a small percent of our waters that are capable of supporting viable coldwater sport fisheries. As such, contrary to what some may say, these waters are "precious" and they cannot be replaced.

The following are some facts that each and every sportsman should know in regard to the seriousness of what we are ALL up against and how far it has gotten out of hand:

The entire Kennebec River from Moosehead Lake to the ocean now contains bass.

Crappie have been discovered in the Kennebec below Skowhegan.

Bass are now present in Moosehead Lake and as such the lower Moose River and Roach Lakes are now at risk.

The Dead River from Grand Falls to the confluence of the Kennebec now contains bass and as such Spencer Lake and some parts of the Enchanted watershed are now at risk.

Bass have been found in the West Branch - our finest landlocked salmon river.

Bass are now present and taking hold in the Rapid River putting what is our finest river fishery for brook trout at risk.

Pike have been found in Sebago Lake - one of the original landlocked salmon waters.

Pike are now found in most of not all of the Belgrade Lakes.

In addition, here are some facts that might shed some light in regard to who is doing what and to what degree ("we have met the enemy and it is us"…):

In a recent national poll taken by B.A.S.S., 54% of those responding to the survey admitted to having moved live fish from one body of water to another. Worse is that 28% of those responding said they would continue to do so. With over 3,000 B.A.S.S. members in Maine, if they are representative of the national polling results, this means that over 1,500 anglers have moved fish from one body of water to another here in Maine. Also, if these statistics are accurate, over 750 plan to keep doing so!

In 1980, there were 413 waters that contained bass in Maine. In 1999, there were 617 waters with bass. This represents an increase of roughly 50% in just 20 years.

Of the 203 introductions of bass in the last 20 years, the vast majority was the result of human intervention (you can't blame the birds for this mess).

Pike have been introduced to 32 salmonid waters in the past 25 years.

As for what we are doing and not doing in regard to dealing with these illegal species, here are some facts that you might find interesting:

The DIF&W has imposed a 2-fish / 24" minimum length limit on illegally introduced pike in Great Pond in the Belgrade Lakes Region.

While Moosehead Lake, the Kennebec River from Harris Dam to Carratunk Falls, and the Dead River from Grand Falls to the confluence of the Kennebec all have an S-13 designation (no length or bag limit on bass), the East and West Outlet's and Indian Pond do not. In fact, the DIF&W imposed a 12" minimum on bass and issues permits for bass tournaments on Indian Pond.

Last spring, the DIF&W used department biologists, trucks, and boats to angle for bass and move them from Meddybemps Lake to one of the Machias Lakes in violation of a Memorandum of Understand between them and the Atlantic Salmon Commission.

While the best protective slot limit I could find in regard to trout topped out at 20", the slot in effect for bass on Cobbosseecontee Lake tops out at 23".

The bag limit for bass under the General Law is reduced from 3 to 1 during the spawning season for bass. There is no such provision for trout until after September.

Here are some things that I believe we could do to try to get a better hold on the situation. If you agree with any of them or feel that you have other potentially beneficial ideas, be sure to forward them to the appropriate parties:

Give the DIF&W the authority (mandate) to impose an immediate "Mandatory Kill" regulation on any illegal species discovered (S-13 is simply NOT enough).

Enact legislation that prohibits the DIF&W from "managing" any illegal introduction as a game species (no length or bag limits, no tournament permits, etc.)

Enact legislation that requires the DIF&W to impose an immediate "No Kill" regulation on all legal species impacted by an illegal stocking (the worse thing we can do is kill the desired species which only makes room for the undesired species).

Enact legislation that allows for the closure of all fishing on any water where illegal species are discovered (this would take away the incentive - you stock, you won't be able to fish!)

Double the fines associated with these acts (the last increase was NOT enough).

Double the rewards associated with turning in the perpetrators of these acts (money talks!)

It is too easy to blame the DIF&W for allowing our fisheries to decline to a point where some sportsmen feel the need to take matters into their own hands. Likewise for those who say that the departments failure to address a "demand" for these fish is at fault (there is a "demand" for wild boar but that doesn't mean they should stock them). The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those that do the stocking and us for allowing it.

If we are ever to bring this situation under control, everyone must be willing to pull together under a common cause. This would need to include an aggressive "Public Awareness" campaign by the DIF&W and sporting groups with the "help" of our outdoor writers. In addition, sporting groups would need to step up with severe penalties (lifetime bans, etc.) for members caught in the act and large rewards for those who turn them in.

Equally as important is that sportsmen become the eyes and ears of the DIF&W and report any and all suspicious activity immediately. We need to do our part to stop this dangerous practice or our legacy will be one of having ruined Maines' salmonid heritage. If we act accordingly, our legacy could be one of saving Maines' salmonid heritage. It's our choice and the ball is in our court. Will it be warmwater or coldwater fisheries that we leave the next generation?

Monthly Tackle Tip: While there is clearly room for debate in regard to the use of barbless hooks, as a lifelong angler with a considerable amount of field experience I feel strongly that they are a good idea. While penetration may increase with barbless hooks, handling decreases and this in my opinion is far more of an issue. If there is any clear exception, that may be in regard to "Clouser" style streamers which swim upside down and often hook fish in the top of the mouth where it is most likely to harm them. So, bend them down and accept the fact that it is not perfect. Also except the fact that you will a few fish!

Bob Mallard has been a flyfisherman and fly tyer for over 25 years and is the owner of Kennebec River Outfitters on Route 201 in Madison, ME. He can be reached at (207) 474-2500 or www.kennebecriveroutfitters.com.

Monthly Tackle Tip: While there is clearly room for debate in regard to the use of barbless hooks, as a lifelong angler with a considerable amount of field experience I feel strongly that they are a good idea. While penetration may increase with barbless hooks, handling decreases and this in my opinion is far more of an issue. If there is any clear exception, that may be in regard to "Clouser" style streamers which swim upside down and often hook fish in the top of the mouth where it is most likely to harm them. So, bend them down and accept the fact that it is not perfect. Also except the fact that you will a few fish!