Most cite increased video game use and other indoor activities as the reason kids just don’t seem to be getting outdoors as much as they did in the past.  In addition, people are working more in order to maintain desirable lifestyles and thus spend less time participating in outdoor leisure activities.  Whatever the causes, it’s no secret that fewer people are fishing and hunting now than just a decade or two ago, and a recent AP article reveals some stunning numbers that confirm this notion.

Sales of Vermont hunting and fishing licenses have dropped more than 20 percent over the last 20 years, leaving the Fish and Wildlife Department pleading with lawmakers for extra funding.

Arkansas hunting license sales dropped from about 345,000 in 1999 to about 319,000 in 2003.Pennsylvania sold about 946,000 hunting licenses in 2006, down from just over a million in 1999, and a peak of 1.3 million in 1981.

Oregon had 100,000 fewer licensed anglers last year than in 1987, and 70,000 fewer licensed hunters.

West Virginia sold 154,763 resident hunting permits in 2006, a 17 percent decrease from 1997.

There’s no question these aren’t the only states that have experienced such declines.  When comparing results from creel surveys I conducted in northern Maine to numbers from a decade before, it appeared that people simply weren’t fishing as much.  Older folks were dying out and weren’t being replaced by the next generation.  Growing up I’d heard about the congregations of anglers that would once crowd in front of the inlets of local lakes to fish for smelts.  The smelts are still there, but in many areas, the crowds aren’t.

Fewer people participating in outdoor activities ultimately means that fewer licenses dollars are available to fund state fish and wildlife agencies, which rely on license proceeds for a good portion of their budgets.

Many states are beginning to take extra steps to introduce youngsters to the outdoors in hopes that they will become regular participants in these activities and support fish and wildlife management in the coming years.

All indicators seem to point to a banner season for ice fishing in the state of Maine this winter.  In fact, with the exception of some waters, ice fishing in the state seems to have been improving steadily over the past few years.  Improvements like this certainly didn’t happen by accident. 

I’m confident that the quality fishing we’re seeing today is the result of a smart investment made by people in the state of Maine, and further investment in our fishery resources could result in far better fisheries than we see today.

In 2002, the people of the state of Maine voted by a hefty margin to pass a $7 million bond issue to improve and revamp the aging infrastructure of the state’s fish hatcheries.  As a result, many more fish are stocked, and are stocked at a larger size in Maine waters today than any time in the recent past. 

I was working as a creel census clerk for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife during the years that the bond issue results began to take effect, and fall yearling brook trout were stocked for the first time on a local lake that supports a popular fishery for salmon and lake trout.  The new fall yearling experiment proved extremely successful, and the number of people we documented fishing for trout on the lake increased astronomically.  Such increases weren’t limited to local lakes, however, and new stocking practices have resulted in much better fishing conditions statewide.  

Investment in our fishery resources should not be limited only to fish production and stocking.  Much of Maine’s fisheries are driven by wild and native fish populations, which are very difficult to manage with the limited staff within the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s Fishery Division.  Maine employs somewhere around 30 fisheries biologists statewide, less than 10% of the fisheries staff in states like Minnesota.  Investing in the hiring of more fisheries biologists and field sampling equipment would allow Maine’s fisheries resources to be managed such that they provide a much better return to the angler, increase fishing opportunities, and drive more tourism and fishing activity in the state. 

I’ve never been a fan of big government spending.  However, I think there’s a big difference between dumping money into government programs that provide few public benefits, and investing in proper management of our resources that should provide a positive return to the public and bolster the economy.  I may be wrong, but I believe that investing more money in fishery resources would be a wise decision for any state interested in promoting its outdoor resources.       

As part of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s effort to involve the public in management of the state’s fisheries, Bob Frye of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review sought input from six local anglers.  Participants come from a variety of backgrounds and offered some unique and interesting viewpoints and suggestions regarding trout management.

Opinions varied, and included the following:

1) Stop stocking hatchery fish on top of populations of wild trout

2) Stock the best fish in waters where they will provide the most benefit

3) Spend more time on habitat restoration

4) Work on fishing access issues

5) Add an extended, catch and release season prior to the general trout opener

6)  Recruit more fishermen, who will fish later into the season

For a more detailed account of these viewpoints, read the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article here.

Wild populations of native brook trout have been on the decline in many parts of the eastern United States for decades.  While some strongholds for the species exist, particularly in northern Maine, and restoration efforts such as those in the Smoky Mountains have been successful, wild brook trout remain imperiled or even nonexistent in many parts of their native range.

Because of the rarity of native brook trout waters in much of the East, state conservation programs have been working hard at restoring the species and protecting habitat in special wild trout waters.

One such water has been known to Pennsylvania angler Mark Rinehamer for decades, but his recent concerns for one of the area’s few remaining wild brook trout creeks caused him to contact Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists to take a look at the creek.

And it turns out that the Commission biologists took an interest in this creek, and plan to make it part of their Cooperative Habitat Improvement Program. 

Check out the story here. 

And if you know of a particular area that may be important for fish conservation, or looks like it might be impaired, be sure to contact your local fisheries biologist.  These guys often have so much water to keep track of, and this results in some waters being overlooked at times.  Good communication between anglers and fisheries professionals is often key to preserving our valuable fish resources.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is considering allowing anglers to harvest a limited number of bull trout in Lake Pend O’Reille, the northern Idaho lake where bull trout, as well as the popular kokanee salmon, have been threatened by the introduction of nonnative lake trout.  Bull trout are a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, but may be harvested under special circumstances with permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  It sounds like Fish and Game biologists are trying to balance numbers of bull trout and kokanee in the presence of lake trout, which can often be very tough.  The Department is seeking public comment on the proposed decision.

See the details here

Recent flooding in the Midwest hasn’t just impacted homes and businesses.  At a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources fish hatchery near Altura, MN, flood waters washed away and killed thousands of juvenile lake trout, which were destined to be stocked in Lake Superior this year.  The trout would have accounted for an estimated 30% of this year’s juvenile lake trout production in the portion of Lake Superior where they were supposed to be stocked.  About 40% of the hatchery’s splake, (a cross between brook trout and lake trout) were lost as well.  No juvenile brook trout were lost, as they had already been stocked earlier this year.

Full story here 

Silver Creek, located in south central Idaho, has long been known as a very popular sport fishery for rainbow and brown trout.  The creek provides anglers from all around the country with the opportunity to flyfish for large trout with fair success throughout the summer.  Recently, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game proposed regulation changes to allow for a daily harvest of 6 brown trout, with catch and release fishing required for rainbow trout, and to allow anglers to fish in the creek using boats.  

A number of anglers have voiced opposition to the regulation changes, many of which are flyfishing guides.  Because of the lack of readily available information on the regulation change proposal, I decided to contact Doug Megargle, Regional Fishery Manager, Idaho Department of Fish and Game.  The following is a brief interview with Mr. Megargle that summarizes the reasoning behind the proposed changes.

FishGeek: Hello Doug.  I have a few questions about the proposed regulation changes in Silver Creek.  First off, why is IDFG proposing these changes?

Fisheries Biologist Doug Megargle:  IDFG proposes regulations based on biological and social considerations.  In some cases regulations are either socially based, biological based or both.  The rules process first seeks interaction with anglers to identify specific rules, management goals, or issues related to overall fishing opportunities.  Public proposals are reviewed to assure they are feasible, not biologically detrimental, and socially desirable and then submitted to our commission for consideration.  The commission then orders the Department to seek comments on approved regulation changes and to provide them a summary of public comments and regional recommendations.  The commission then either adopts of rejects the proposals.  From the Department’s perspective, neither trout species is native to the drainage therefore there is not imperative to emphasize management of one species over the other.  The Department was responding to the perceived public demand to adjust the existing socially-based regulations.  Additionally, the commission charged the Department to evaluate existing special regulations to assure they are needed and functional AND to simplify regulations where possible.

First, it must be pointed out that the existing regulations on Silver Creek are socially based given that the existing trout population can certainly sustain increased harvest.  Socially, however, anglers prefer a traditional fly fishing experience.  Over the past 3-5 years we have heard from anglers who want IDFG to do something about the increased numbers of brown trout.  Concerns range from: 1) conversion of biomass from a mixed fishery to one dominated by large brown trout, 2) the concern that people don’t fly across the country to nymph or streamer fish for brown trout – it’s the spring creek dry fly opportunity, 3) brown trout are blamed for cyclic rainbow trout recruitment, 4) brown trout, although they provide trophy opportunities, provide only a crepuscular fishing opportunity. 

The other rule change is our attempt to fix an antiquated rule restricting boats but allowing float tubes.  Given the abundance of single occupancy craft options available, it becomes difficult to rationalize to anglers why they can use a float tube (defined in Idaho as a device that results in the angler’s body being submerged from the waist down) but not a pontoon boat propelled by fins.

The rules scoping process is designed to seek out and compile public sentiment regarding desired rule changes and responses to IDFG proposals.  That’s exactly what is happening. 

Fish Geek:  Is the only proposed change a move to a six fish bag limit on brown trout?

Doug:  Yes and no.  In its current form, the proposal seeks to set a standard bag limit of 6 brown trout and 0 rainbow trout.  All existing method of take and terminal tackle rules will still apply.  The other proposal is to eliminate the “no boats, float tubes allowed” exception.

Fish Geek:  How do you think the new regulation would change the fish community? (i.e. better brown trout growth, fewer brown trout, different catch rates, better rainbow trout fishing, fewer brown trout more rainbows, etc.) 

Doug:  Despite some misquotes and rumors, we do not believe the proposal will have any major affect upon the number of rainbow or brown trout; however, past experience leads us to believe there might be a slight decrease in average brown trout lengths.  Anglers often harvest the largest fish.  A reduction in large brown trout may decrease some predation upon forage (currently rainbow trout, sculpin, and some redside shiners).  The proposal seeks to provide anglers a new harvest opportunity that is biologically feasible – but social acceptance is still being evaluated. 

Fish Geek:  In general, has the department received support or opposition from the public regarding this issue and why?

Doug:  To date, most comments and feedback is opposed to any changes.  Rationale ranges from 1) concern that boats would destroy the existing experience by overcrowding, spooking fish, 2) a harvest fishery would result in trash and shoreline destruction, 3) overall appreciation for both brown trout and rainbow trout, 4) “if it aint broke don’t fix it”, 5) Any harvest is detrimental to the Silver Creek fishery, 6) Rules aren’t that complicated and don’t need to be simplified, 7) Fish identification would be problematic in a species specific harvest, 8.) many other personal feelings against change.

Support rationale includes: 1) Appreciation for the harvest opportunity given the increased trend toward no harvest, 2) belief that the fishery will ultimately be dominated by relatively few brown trout with the near elimination of rainbow trout, 3) want to be able to use other floatation devices than the traditional float tube.

Fish Geek:  What opportunity does the public have to get involved in this decision making process? 

Doug:  See above review of the rules scoping process. Also, public comment is sought via internet email, statewide mail survey, public meetings statewide and regional specific, telephone, and visiting the regional office.  Anglers can email comments to me directly at MVFishery@idfg.idaho.gov.  I would encourage folks to confirm rumors before responding since many comments I’ve received are in regards to misinformation.

Fish Geek:  Thanks a lot for taking time out of your busy schedule, Doug.  You have provided our readers with very valuable insight on the issue and I appreciate your help and concern for the fishery.   

Readers, what are your thoughts?  Feel free to post them in the comments section below.

For the next few weeks, fish size and bag limits cease to exist in Colorado’s Summit Reservoir.  The Colorado Division of Wildlife is planning to reclaim the reservoir using rotenone, which kills all fish in the water by removing the dissolved oxygen it contains. 

The reclamation project is targeted at eliminating nonnative white suckers, which are present in large numbers and compete with native fish. 

Since they plan on killing all of the fish to cleanse the reservoir (and later re-stock it with desirable species), it is standard practice for the DOW to lift size and bag limits before the reclamation, allowing anglers to capitalize on what could just be a golden opportunity.  So if you’re in the area, get out there and hit ‘em hard!

See the story here 

Tom Remington recently wrote a blog entry on sterile fish and their potential to grow faster and perform better than fertile hatchery fish, which allocate a portion of their growth potential toward reproduction.  The topic is a very interesting one, especially since sterile hatchery fish do not threaten wild populations with the potential for interbreeding and compromising genetic integrity.

Many state fish and wildlife agencies will tell you that they do not stock fish with the intent of seeing them reproduce.  The vast majority of stocking programs are either put-and-take, or put-grow-and-take, where fish are stocked with the intention of becoming part of an angler’s bag limit.  Furthermore, most waters are stocked because they cannot provide a fishery through natural reproduction.  Most agencies use regulations as a first resort to protect a fishery.  If natural reproduction simply can not keep up with angling pressure regardless of regulations, a stocking program is usually implemented.  This lack in natural reproduction is often due to lack of spawning habitat, but can result from other causes as well.

The bottom line is this: if most fish are stocked without the intent of reproducing, what drawbacks are there to a sterile fish that has the potential to grow faster?  I don’t see many.  Convincing the public that it’s a good idea to stock sterile fish might be a tough sell, simply because most people still don’t quite understand why a department would stock fish without expecting them to reproduce.

One of the greatest benefits to a stocking sterile fish, in my opinion, is the ability to stock these fish in waters that contain native fish that might otherwise be threatened with interbreeding or hybridization.  This means that states can stock wild trout waters with hatchery trout, knowing that they are not compromising the genetics of wild fish. 

Granted, you can’t just go willy nilly stocking on top of native fish everywhere you go.  There are issues in some areas where hatchery fish could potentially outcompete wild fish.  There are some areas where stocking is not necessary and might hinder a wild fishery in recovery.  Also, the method of sterilization, while significantly developed in some areas, is not yet foolproof.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has been working on producing sterile triploid hatchery fish for years, and to date, every rainbow trout stocked in the state of Idaho is sterile.  Therefore, the department has the freedom to stock in areas where they might otherwise have to worry about hatchery rainbows interbreeding with wild rainbows and hybridizing cutthroat trout populations. 

Sterilization of hatchery fish is an advancement led by state fish and wildlife agencies primarily in the West.  Idaho Fish and Game fisheries biologist Joe Kozfkay and others completed a survey of state fish and wildlife agencies throughout the U.S., and found that 10 other states have current sterilization programs, and most are in the West.  Only 2 states with fish sterilization programs lie east of the Mississippi River.

While there are some hurdles to overcome, primarily the logistics of developing a sterilization program and having state agency and public support, I believe that the future is promising and many developments lie ahead.  Because of the ever-increasing concern over the protection of native and wild fish, it is imperative that state agencies at least consider the development of a sterilization program.  Aside from it likely being mandated in the future, such a program would vastly increase the options that state fish and wildlife agencies have in relation to where they stock fish.

A recent electrofishing survey completed by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department shows that stream habitat improvements in Vermont’s Batten Kill River appear to be the cause of increased fish numbers.  The project was funded by Orvis, the Green Mountain National Forest, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.  The project provided increased shelter and foraging areas for trout in a river that lacks such habitat due to development that has removed shoreline structure.  Such habitat projects are common, and usually appear to be successful, but most go unmonitored.  Hopefully Vermont Fish and Wildlife continues to monitor this project to determine if similar stream improvement provide benefits equal to or greater than their cost. 

See the story here