Ice fishing derbies are often frowned upon because of the large number of fish that are killed in order to be weighed in, regardless of whether they have a chance to win a top prize.  While this isn’t always an issue, sometimes it can have negative effects on a lake’s fishery.  Luckily, many anglers, derby organizers and fish biologists are recognizing the need for additional conservation measures to reduce unneccesary harvest.

For instance, this from Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife fisheries biologist Gordon Kramer:

The annual Schoodic Lake Ice Fishing Derby is coming up on the weekend of Feb. 16 and 17. This year there will be a change in the way lake trout and salmon are entered in the derby. At our request, the Milo Fire Department will not register any lake trout or salmon less than 22 inches. It is still legal to keep those fish, but in the interest of maintaining a high quality cold-water fishery at Schoodic, fish less than 22 inches will not be eligible for a prize. Kudos to the Milo Fire Department for their conservation minded change in the derby rules. More information can be obtained at: http://www.trcmaine.org/fishingderby/

And this from a Massachusetts bass fishing derby:

Anyone who catches a bass weighing 2 pounds or more and brings it live to the derby weighing table wins a $10 gift certificate to Taft’s Tackle Shop. Once weighed in, the bass must be released live into a nearby hole which has been cut into the ice. If the bass cannot be released alive, then the deal is off.

This is a win-win situation for all. The angler receives the $10 certificate even though he may not have won the contest; the contest winner who caught the largest bass gets the certificate, the first place prize and bragging rights; and the fish is allowed to live and free to spawn in June and maybe fight a lucky fisherman next summer.

These are just a couple of ideas that can be implemented to reduce the potential negative affects of fishing derbies and keep them going without hurting the fishery.

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission heard comments this week regarding a management plan for the Bull Shoals and Norfork tailwaters, two of the most important tailwater fisheries in the state.  The rivers are strongly influenced by water releases from reservoirs, and therefore can be managed for quality fisheries through proper water control measures. 

Fisheries managers were seeking public input on the plan, which would combine a water release regime with other changes such as restrictive fishing regulations to improve the fishing.

Goals in the plan include maximizing angler access, improving water quality and fish habitat, providing an enjoyable fishing experience and maintaining satisfactory catch rates.

The plan includes the potential for catch and release fishing regulations, but only if they prove to be effective, which is being determined through a University of Arkansas study that’s underway.

The draft retains all catchand-release areas pending the completion of a multiyear study of the tail waters by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Research Unit.

Arkansas Chapter of Trout Unlimited president Bruce Ritter had this to add:

“The ultimate decision whether to manage our resource with slot limits or a system of catchand-release areas is a significant one. Changes to the current system should only be made if those changes are supported by meaningful data,” Ritter said.

While the management plan has garnered plenty of support, some people do have issues with parts of it. 

Several participants, including Julie Raines of His Place Resort at Cotter, objected to future bait restrictions. Raines said the restrictions could drive away a large segment of anglers who don’t or can’t fly fish — such as children, the elderly and the disabled.

Regulators should be encouraging children to take up the sport of fishing, not discouraging them by restricting bait fishing, said Mike Seftar, manager of Nabatak Inc. in Midway, a wholesale distributor of live and artificial fishing bait.

As in every fish management plan, the best outcome will likely be one where the fishery is improved with support from all sides.  And I sure hope it works.  I’d love to get the chance to catch a monster brown trout in an Arkansas tailwater someday!

Title: Squaretails, Biology and Management of Maine’s Brook Trout

Author: Forrest Bonney

Copyright Date: 2007

Price: $10 at http://www10.informe.org/webshop_ifw/index.php?p=1859&c=12&storeID=2

ISBN-13: 978-0-9794363-0-7

Maine anglers and those who travel to the Pine Tree State in pursuit of trout have long been aware of the value of the brook trout fishery it provides.  Not until recently, however, has the unique worth of Maine’s wild and native brook trout populations been widely exposed.

Forrest Bonney’s new book, Squaretails, Biology and Management of Maine’s Brook Trout, comes at the heels of the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, a collaborative project evaluating brook trout populations throughout their native range in the United States.  Preliminary results from the Joint Venture are showing that Maine represents the last stronghold for native brook trout, containing more brookies in their historic range than any other state.  A heightened focus on brook trout in Maine sets a perfect stage for Squaretails, where Bonney attempts to provide a compilation of brook trout history, biology, and current status in the state from the perspective of both angler and fisheries manager.  

The history of fisheries management is rooted in the attempt to reverse declines in popular fisheries and maintain fishing quality over time.  While most people can easily relate to this concept, further understanding of the practice of fish management is often lacking.  Bonney attempts to bridge this gap in understanding between biologists and the public by describing in detail the research and data collection practices undergone in the fisheries field and why biologists do certain things.

In the book, Bonney, who has been a fisheries biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for 34 years, illustrates perhaps the best case yet for responsible stewardship of Maine’s brook trout resources.  He describes the long history and current status of brook trout fishing in Maine, including historical accounts of trophy squaretails caught in the state, and changes in the fishery over time resulting from the decline of brook trout populations in many waters. 

Forrest Bonney not only thoroughly describes the biology of brook trout in Squaretails; he also documents a fairly complete history of research and management practices that relate to brook trout in the state of Maine.  He explains the current threats to brook trout populations, as well as the future research needs to allow for proper stewardship of this valuable resource well into the future. 

Mark McCollough provides captivating cover art and other illustrations, and Ethan Nadeau and others provide excellent photography and illustrations, adding a valuable artistic element to the book.    

Squaretails is the most complete resource on Maine brook trout currently available and is a must read for Maine anglers and brook trout enthusiasts everywhere.  This book, as well as a more technical version of the same content are published by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and can be purchased at http://www10.informe.org/webshop_ifw/index.php?p=1859&c=12&storeID=2 . 

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.

A recent survey of anglers undertaken by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shows that the majority of anglers still prefer to fish for trout and salmon as opposed to warmwater fish.  The results show that 64% of respondents considered themselves coldwater anglers, compared to 18% warmwater anglers. 

While warmwater fishing for species like perch and bass has become very popular in recent years, this survey highlights the fact that a majority of people still prefer salmon and trout fishing, and the department should maintain a focus on managing for coldwater fisheries wherever possible. 

I’m reminded of an area in central Maine where I conducted a winter creel survey of ice fishermen.  My job was to ride around on snowmobile and talk to all of the fishermen on the lake, collecting their trip information and fish data.  I surveyed two adjacent lakes.  One was a warmwater lake that contained perch, pickerel and bass.  The other lake contained an average population of stocked brook trout and landlocked Atlantic salmon.  The trout and salmon lake was fished over 10 times as heavily as the warmwater lake, even though the warmwater lake was much larger in size.

The point I’m trying to get across is that while warmwater fishing is getting more popular, a majority of anglers in many places still prefer to fish for trout and salmon, which is encouraging news for a trout geek like myself!  Maybe this information will provide more incentive for managers to work to restore quality trout and salmon fishing in Oregon and beyond.

If you’ve been following the Fish Geek blog regularly, you might remember a post I put together about proposed regulation changes in Idaho’s Silver Creek.  I interviewed Magic Valley fishery manager Doug Megargle about the proposed changes.The controversial regulations would have allowed anglers to keep brown trout in this popular fly fishing destination and change the way fishermen could access the river.  Below is an email I received regarding the update on the public process and the decisions recommended by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.  The region has recommended that the changes in Silver Creek not go forward, mainly because of the division in public opinion and the lack of strong public support for the changes.

California anglers will now be able to fish year-round in three popular fishing waters, a great new opportunity……one which met with opposition just like every other new regulation proposal.

I enjoyed reading Jim Matthews’ San Bernardino Sun column about opposition to the new changes.  California Department of Fish and Game biologists were confident that the changes would have little to no negative effect on the fishery, but opposition to change, with little or no logical reason, is inevitable.

The new extended season on these three waters will provide more angling opportunity, take away pressure from other waters, and provide economic benefit to a few local communities.  But any time change comes along, you’ll have opposition.   

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

Starting in January, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources imposed restrictive fishing regulations in the Upper Savage River system to protect brook trout populations.  The regulations included restricting the use of bait, and prohibiting the taking of brook trout.  While the regulations were probably well intentioned, they met a ton of opposition from local anglers and sporting groups, resulting in a petition with about 1,000 signatures handed over to the DNR. 

State senator George Edwards has voiced his opposition to the regulations quite clearly, but with little or no response from the DNR.  Edwards insists that some type of compromise could be made where some of the waters would be open to bait fishing, while local groups are further petitioning to completely overturn the regulations. 

Should local groups quit whining and conform to the regulations, or did the DNR bite off more than they could chew?  I think a compromise might be the best solution for both the DNR and anglers, but I can only hope…….

Read more here