Ashland Meeting Reports/Opinions? ~ MDIFW Strategies Brook Trout and A. Char

[Anomaly]

MDIFW Exploring Strategies To Enhance Protections For Brook Trout and Arctic Charr While Preserving Traditional Fishing Methods And Fishing Economies
Maine's native and wild brook trout lakes, ponds, and flowing waters represent a unique and abundant resource, uncommon anywhere else in the United States.  Maine supports the most extensive distribution and abundance of wild brook trout and Arctic charr in their native US range, and the Department places a high priority on the conservation of these important resources.

The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is exploring a strategy to maintain fishing opportunities and enhance protections for Maine’s wild brook trout populations within the state’s northern half, which contains our most significant wild trout populations and 95% of Maine’s heritage fish waters.  Maine’s heritage fish waters contain self-sustaining populations of wild brook trout, Arctic charr or both; and either have never been stocked, or have not been stocked for at least 25 years. The 128th Fish and Wildlife Legislative Committee requested we enhance protections on this important resource. 
 
The Department and a group of public partners have formed a heritage working group and are developing and examining concepts that are focused on reducing unintended introductions of baitfish and other fish that compete with native trout, while continuing to maintain current trout fishing opportunities. This includes maintaining opportunities to use live fish as bait where such practices are prevalent, minimizing economic impacts to Maine’s bait industry, and not complicating the fishing law book.
 
Under the idea currently being discussed, all waters in the northern zone (Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Aroostook, and northern portions of Oxford and Penobscot Counties) that are currently open to ice fishing, where live fish may be used at bait, would remain unchanged. Live fish as bait would continue to be allowed on those same waters during the open water fishing season. Additional waters where there is a tradition of fishing with live fish as bait would also remain open to fishing with live bait.  If advanced as a rule, the Department could add waters where use of live fish as bait would be permitted in support of future fishery management needs.
 
The strategy, if fully developed and advanced, would result in a change to the general law in the northern zone that would prohibit use of live fish as bait, except where designated by special rule.  For example, under this approach, waters currently open to ice fishing and use of live fish as bait would be assigned a special regulation that would allow use of live fish as bait.  A change to General Law will be easy to understand by the public and should increase compliance.  This change also eliminates most of the “no live fish as bait” special s-code listings currently applied to waters in the northern zone.   
 
This strategy would further reduce new introductions of baitfish and other fish in the vast majority of flowing waters, including dead-waters, small ponds, as well as tributaries and outlets of heritage ponds, while preserving meaningful opportunities to fish with traditional live bait methods in northern Maine.
 
The Department is striving to balance public use opportunities and concerns regarding new fish introductions that threaten Maine’s unique wild brook trout resources. Maine’s native brook trout already have been severely impacted from introductions and habitat degradation throughout the remainder of their range, including southern coastal Maine. 
 
The Department is planning to hold public informational meetings in the next few months and would welcome your input on the proposal.  The dates and locations have not yet been determined, but will be posted on the Department’s website at www.mefishwildlife.com as soon as the dates are determined.

[MarkNFish]

Thank you for sharing this Clamfarmer.  I  believe this represents a fundamental shift in how regulations around NLFB will be administered.  If I understand it correctly (and it is possible that I don't), rather than live bait being allowed generally, and only prohibited by exception; now the opposite will be true, with live bait being prohibited unless allowed by exception.  Additionally, please be aware of the efforts of the Native Fish Coalition, which does not think the proposal goes far enough, and which seeks to add more restrictions on the use of live fish as bait. 

Whether you agree or not with limitations on the use of live fish as bait, please do not underestimate the potential significance of this change.

[Kevin in maine]

Sounds like the TU snobs are at it again.

[Butch Moore]

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MEDIFW/bulletins/21cd715

[cap]

This rule change is total garbage...you boys in the northern section are about to get shived by the southern boiz while your backs are turned....

[Anomaly]

Finally got download the new rule book. Lots of closed water in the Northern part of the state. I did see some open areas.

Is there a way to just see what IS open to ice fishing up there? Seems like a harsh edict.

[MarkNFish]

Sounds like the TU snobs are at it again.

I would have to agree.

[cap]

Public informational meeting dates and locations are provided below:

December 12, from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM, at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine office at 205 Church Hill Road in Augusta
December 19, from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM, at the MDIFW’s Ashland Regional Headquarters at 63 Station Street in Ashland

Anyone who can make the Ashland meeting should try to go, I heard the Augusta meeting was full of TU and NFC people flapping their yaps about the "dangers' of ice fishing...

BTW the folks promoting this are saying there is no net loss or gain in waters because the rule change is to remove the current NLFAB S-code on the few specified waters and replacing that with NLFAB as General Law , but there will be a new S-Code that allows for bait fishing on "certain waters" that traditionally allow ice fishing and bait use...of course this means that everyplace that was general law before and allowed bait fishing will now not allow bait fishing...it is back door attempt to screw us again...they tried this 10 years ago But the Maine Ice Anglers stopped it.  This is garbage mates...it is just another one of those times were folks in Southern Maine know what's best for the Rubes up north!  This will kill a lot of ice fishing...and it we'll eventually lose the Allagash and a whole lot more. There are like a bazillion waters that currently are general law and allow bait use...they'll be gone if this rule change happens.

[jacksmelt71]

my brother, his father in law, and myself are going to the ashland one. they are both maine guides on the FRC.

[Anomaly]

Public informational meeting dates and locations are provided below:

December 19, from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM, at the MDIFW’s Ashland Regional Headquarters at 63 Station Street in Ashland

Anyone who can make the Ashland meeting should try to go, I heard the Augusta meeting was full of TU and NFC people flapping their yaps about the "dangers' of ice fishing...

I can’t say I normally agree with cap. (Which makes me skeptical of his piece here.  ) I do, on this point, to the degree I understand the proposal. the proposal seems unduly complex and far-reaching. While I agree and believe it is reasonable to acknowledge some waters have significant native trout populations that could well be in danger of overfishing and or mortality due to mishandling of fish,  this rule proposal seems to screw over a lot of fisherman and waters in the North Region. I don’t know these many ponds and lakes or people affected. I do know many of these waters are hard to get to and are not frequented by any but the most ardent and conscious anglers. For myself, I have largely stopped fishing for native wild brook trout. I know I killed some unintentionally. I fish largely for food couples with a degree challenge in learning to consistently ice menu items. At the same time, I appreciate and hail the chance to fish a remote pond with the chance of icing a trophy brookie, even as I would likely release it. I have to say, I would need to know more about it to have a really informed opinion that alignes better with reality here.

This proposal seems unnecessary at best.

However, If rules and laws governing things like coal burning resulting in acid rain, elevated mercury levels in our waters and warmer conditions moving north,  are abandoned or generally gutted by our current “‘leadership”; the more protection and cognizant management of all our outdoor resource is indicated.

[JDK]

I plan to go.

[Anomaly]

I plan to go.

A couple of us Made the trip to Augusta to testify against the Wild Harvesting bill. It was defeated and those that attended and testified at the hearing made the difference. I’ll try to make it as well. Depends on time of tide ..... In any case I will send my written opinion. I’ll be reading up on it some today as I am stuck here doing aquaculture paperwork in front of this machine.

[9huskies]

This proposal as written now doesn't change the rules on any body of water. It makes no live baitfish the general law for the northern half of the state and creates a new S-Code allowing live bait on waters that are currently general law. All that does is make the lawbook more complicated. The important question is if these changes will make it easier for IFW to impose more restrictions on us in the future. As Clamfarmer said the change in the way the rules are worded seems unnecessary.

[cap]

You should agree with me more often Clammy because I am more often correct about this stuff than you are. LOL

The proponents claim the change in the law is to prevent accidental (incidental) introduction of exotic bait species into ponds that don't have those species present.  The veiled science is to protect heritage trout and charr waters.  Most of those waters are already protected with NLFAB S-codes at the present time or selected ice fishing regulations.   The switch to NLFAB in general law would effect even waters that do not hold heritage fish. It has nothing to do with over harvest. There are exactly 12 waters with charr all are currently protected by some sort of S code. All sorts of A nd B heritage ponds are also protected. But there are still bazillions of smaller waters, beaver ponds, swales, ditches, etc with wild trout but also stocked waters and waters that hold warm water species. 

The proponents are disingenuous. For instance they claim that Bald Mountain Pond had an inadvertent baitfish introduction which could negatively effect the charr population. This is true. They also claim that this rule will prevent similar from occurring in the future. However the pooching of Bald Mountain Pond happened before IFAW had introduced the S codes and also started to educate anglers on not dumping baitfish etc. Not only that IFAW had proposed to transfer all the Charr in Bald Mt into another pond, Henderson Pond, so as to establish a population of charr there. But the same pushing for this change put the kibosh on that idea as well. So they weren't really interested in protecting the charr in BMP they are more interested in punishing ice fishermen and bait fishermen.

There are valid reasons to not want "illegal" introductions of baitfish or other species. It is already illegal to do so. Since one pond out of 1000's of ponds got pooched, or even if one person committed the crime, it doesn't mean that all the rest of licensed fisherman (ie ice fishermen) should suffer the consequences. It is like gun control advocacy...IMHO it is wrong tp punish millions of law abiding gun owners because one madmen with a gun committed a brutal crime with one, when millions of gun owners never have, and never will commit a crime, with a gun. 

This change is punishing the 1000s of ice anglers (licensed fishermen) who follow the law and would not, have not, and never will introduce an illegal baitfish, just because someone might at sometime commit an illegal act in the future!

I fish a pond that currently allows ice fishing and the use of live bait with traps.  IT is not a heritage water...it also has no s codes or ice fishing codes associated with it.   If this rule change happened it would basically be off limits to ice fishing with bait and traps...there are literally 1000s of similar waters in the northern tier of the state where this rule change is slated to be enacted.

The proponents of this rule change have been the same crew of fisheries advocates that have been trying to ban bait use since the 90's, most are FFO catch and release zealots.

the other thing about this change is that it stems and starts in THE LEGISLATURE just as the Heritage legislation and designation did. This is not something fomented by fisheries scientists, but rather by lobbying efforts and their influence on politicians in Augusta.

Aloha

[Anomaly]

You should agree with me more often Clammy because I am more often correct about this stuff than you are. LOL

Well, you ARE often more sanctimonious than I. 

[fishless12]

"Under the idea currently being discussed, all waters in the northern zone (Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Aroostook, and northern portions of Oxford and Penobscot Counties) that are currently open to ice fishing, where live fish may be used at bait, would remain unchanged."

So what's the problem?

The way I'm reading this, nothing changes, it's the way the rules are written.

[Anomaly]

Did you go???

How’d it go and what are your thoughts.

Too far for me... Had to dig clams and go to a meeting down here.

[MarkNFish]

I didn't make it to the meeting.  Had to get the house ready for the winter monsoon.