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.       

James Phillips, avid angler and active member of a local Indiana chapter of Trout Unlimited, wrote an article reflecting on the first ever catch and release fishing regulations in sections of three Indiana streams. 

A flyfisherman who strongly supports catch and release, Phillips seemed very satisfied with the new regulations, and noted high catch rates and the lack of other anglers in the catch and release sections.  He and others kept personal fishing logs to evaluate their success.

I cannot recall anyone predicting in meaningful detail in advance of the season what effect catch-and-release regulations might have on fishing on the Little Elkhart River, our most hallowed and historically important trout stream. Nor do I recall anyone defining what might constitute success.
But within a few weeks, everyone agreed the fishery exceeded the most optimistic expectations. Crowds of anglers on the catch-and-release waters were nonexistent.

So was catch and release better for the fishery in these stretches of Indiana streams?  Phillips believes that catch rates were higher and that these stretches were fished less often, making the experience more valuable for those who chose to fish the C&R waters.

Determining whether fishing regulations are successful depends on how the value of a fishery is measured.  Is the goal to provide the most number of fish caught for the most people?  Is it to extend a fishing season so that anglers can fish for a longer period of time?  And does it include the value of an individual’s personal experience, which can be affected by the number of other anglers around? 

In Mr. Phillips’ case, the value of a fishery is measured by the ability to catch consistent numbers of fish over a relatively long period of time with few other anglers around.  This position is shared by many other anglers, but not all.  In other cases, the value of a fishery may be measured by the ability to take the family fishing for a couple of weekends, toss in a gob of worms and catch a nice mess of trout to take home.  Catch and release regulations may affect the ability for some to have such an experience. 

So overall, we can surmise that restrictive fishing regulations are beneficial to some at the cost of others.  I’m not familiar enough with the details of the Indiana regs to make more specific comments, but I do know that imposing restrictive regulations involves an important balancing act to provide unique fishing opportunities while ensuring that the values of all anglers are taken into account. 

Happy New Year, everyone!  Yesterday marked the ice fishing opener for most lakes and ponds in northern Maine, and it was the first time in many years that I wasn’t out drilling holes before daylight on St. Froid Lake.  Instead, I was 3,000 miles away in northern Utah, thinking back on memories of opening day ice fishing over the years. 

In the spirit of opening day, I took the time to dig out a few old ice fishing pics from a past opener and post them here.

Now it’s off to see if I can’t scare up a few trout around here!

According to Peter Rolfe of the Australian Herald Sun, some in the Australian government are pushing to eradicate trout from some of the continent’s waters in hopes of restoring native species.  But such an idea doesn’t sit well at all with Aussie anglers.

Commission chief Wendy Craik conceded the removal of trout was a sensitive issue.

“I can understand that fishing people might be upset about this but we need to look at what is best for our rivers and native fish,” she said.

Trout were introduced to Australia beginning in the 1870’s, and the popularity of trout fishing has grown over time to the point where it provides an annual industry worth about $1.3 billion, much of that money brought in via fishing-related tourism.

Anglers and local residents are outraged, and argue that removing trout will be devastating to local economies.  In addition to removing trout, other fish species such as carp are expected to be targets for removal.  Many anglers do not oppose the removal of less desirable fish, but draw the line at trout.

In the Western United States native fish are plagued by nonnative trout introductions as well, but removing nonnative trout often opens the door for better opportunities to catch native trout species, which can be equally enjoyable to pursue.  Australians aren’t so lucky.  Removing trout from their waters would likely cause much more devastating impacts to recreational fishing because Australia lacks native trout. 

So will it be ’out with the trout’ in Australian waters?  Time and politics will tell.

It’s ice fishing time, and for many in the state of Maine, that means hook-and-lining it for smelts in the ice shack.  The rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) is native to many coastal waters in Maine, and has been extensively introduced to inland lakes.  The smelt is a thin, silvery fish that ranges in size between a couple of inches and nearly a foot in some areas.  Smelts are an important forage fish in both inland and coastal waters in the state.  In fact, smelts can often constitute over 90% of the diet of landlocked salmon in Maine lakes. 

Aside from being forage for other game fishes, though, smelts also directly provide an important sport fishery for many Maine anglers.  Fishermen set up fishing cabins, or ‘ice shacks’ on lakes to provide shelter while they jig for smelts, using small hooks tipped with little chunks of bait.  The bite can be fast and furious at times, and smelt fishing typically provides steadier action than targeting other species.  There’s nothing quite like spending a quiet day out at the cabin pulling in smelt after smelt.    

Many of Maine’s coastal rivers experience vast runs of smelts, which ascend into freshwater in preparation for spawning.  When the ice is thick enough, some establishments place dozens of shacks out on the ice for fishermen to rent.  I’ve spent my fair share of time in some of those shacks, and the fishing can be incredible.  It’s not rare to come home with a few hundred smelts, and a ’smelting’ trip with friends or family is always worth the few bucks paid to rent a shack.       

In addition to the direct recreational benefit smelts provide, smelts are a very popular food item, and are absolutely essential to the baitfishing market.  Many anglers will fry up a mess of battered smelts, but others save their catch to use as bait.  The vast majority of Maine ice fishermen use tip-ups rigged with live bait to catch salmon and trout, and smelts are far and away their top choice of bait.  These baitfish can cost upwards of $10/dozen, so it’s no surprise that many anglers take the opportunity to catch their own bait!

Smelts play a vital role in Maine’s fisheries.  They provide a crucial forage base for gamefish and are popular sportfish in their own right.  Smelts are also excellent table fare and are a very important part of Maine’s live bait industry.  If you haven’t been out smelt fishing, you may be missing out on one heck of a time! 

Here’s a great article about smelt fishing Maine’s coastal rivers

Click here for places to rent smelt shacks.  I’ve been to James Eddy’s and Jim Worthing’s smelt shacks.  Both provide good cabins for a decent price.

Here’s an article on smelts in Maine written by fisheries biologist Jim Pellerin, who is considered the smelt expert within the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Wildlife photographer Dennis Bright recently caught this amazing image of trout attempting to escape from an English fish farm via the water supply pipe.  The farm’s owner doesn’t believe that many fish are actually escaping via the pipe, but still, a screen might be in order! 

Full Article

After being introduced to Colorado waters in the 1980’s via fish transport from a private hatchery, whirling disease has had substantial impacts on the state’s rainbow trout populations.  Whirling disease causes nerve damage and skeletal deformities in juvenile trout, and can cause very high juvenile mortality rates.  Many waters have seen major trout declines since the disease hit the West, but Colorado researchers are now predicting a huge comeback in rainbow trout populations. 

Through experimental breeding and stocking programs, the Colorado Division of Wildlife biologists believe that they can rebuild rainbow trout populations with a strain of fish that is generally resistant to the disease.  The strain was developed by crossing Colorado rainbows with a resistant strain of rainbows from Germany.  This new strain of trout will be heavily stocked next year.

 Read the full story here 

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!! 

Hope you and your family enjoy a great Holiday Season!

There’s nothing like a little habitat destruction to ruin an otherwise great day of stream fishing. 

Pictured above is what’s left of a section of stream that I caught dozens of fish in this past year.  Now, it’s nothing but a wide, shallow run with no cover or other fish habitat remaining.  The landowner took a bulldozer in the stream and completely obliterated this stretch, pushing all of the stream material into large banks at the stream’s edge.

I’m assuming that whoever decided to do this to the stream intended to prevent bank erosion in a camping area, and may not have realized the damage they were doing to the stream by destroying trout habitat.  This stretch once had contained undercut banks, a nice deep pool, and numerous rocks and trees used for cover and holding habitat by trout. 

It’s now just a wide, shallow stretch of gravel, and I was unable to locate any fish in the area.

It’s hard to believe that activities like this are still going on in the 21st century.  We should know better.  We’re spending millions of dollars to work on stream restoration and some yahoo can go into a stream with a dozer for a couple of hours and completely ruin a great stretch of trout stream. 

I spoke to a local biologist about the situation, and it sounds like Utah state law doesn’t give them much leverage to stop things like this from happening.  Still, I think there should be better communication between landowners and biologists concerning fish habitat.

I’d like to think that if the landowners were aware of the damage they were doing, they would voluntarily take measures to preserve trout habitat, but that remains to be seen. 

Results from a recent genetic study in the state of New Jersey appear to indicate that some populations of brook trout in the state still contain the genes of the native strains that existed long before humans occupied the area.  The results come from research conducted by fisheries biologist Pat Hamilton, in conjunction with East Stroudsburg University. 

For many anglers, this is great news.  The idea of catching a native strain of trout holds great value for some.  Others, on the other hand, just want to catch fish, and may be dismayed by the idea that having native strains of trout may cause more restrictive fishing regulations.

The release of these findings come on the heels of a proposal to change the minimum length limit for trout in New Jersey from 7″ to 9″, among other proposed changes.

Read more about the genetic study here