over 25" fish put back

[woodchip]

Noticed in new law book under general law Must release Salmon and trout over 25"       Just another reason to fish for Pike  and Crappies ,Carp.

[Morfishin]

Why,so they can die of old age

[Morfishin]

This state can't seam to manage wildlife or fish

[fishlessman]

pretty sure every salmon ive caught over 25 was a sea run. maybe thats the intent but dont see that being in the general law section

[TwoLightsKid]

As I read it, the rule only applies to LLS and browns in rivers, not lakes.  Makes sense to me as a way to protect the few remaining searun Atlantic salmon.  Anyways, if a brown or LLS has survived long enough to get that big, I want them to keep spawning as long as possible and pass on the good big fish genes.  There’s a lot of evidence out there that harvesting big fish results in the average fish size getting smaller over time.  Big ones taste worse and tend to have a lot of mercury in them anyways. 

[thedirtydirtyfisherman]

TwoLights is exactly right and reproductions are so spot on these days, you only need a picture and some fish specs.  Im all for keeping some bigger fish to eat but the biggest should be put back to save the genetics.  If you want a good read on this, look up population dynamics and size for striped bass over the last 20 years.

[nbourque]

The law is intended so that if you mistakenly catch an Atlantic salmon it has to be released. The state figures a Fish that size is more than likely an Atlantic salmon.

[TightLinesMaine]

I don't post here much anymore but just happened to see this topic; I have a physical copy of the new 2018 lawbook and it looks to me ALL flowing waters (Rivers, Streams, Brooks, etc) have max length limit now of 25" for (atlantic) landlocked salmon and brown trout and I imagine any specific (mostly coastal) lakes & ponds that potentially could have atlantic salmon (overwintering or what not) will still have an S-33 rule (Maximum length on landlocked salmon and brown trout: 25 inches.)

My only gripe with this rule is it punishes anglers who can correctly identify a brown trout using the vomerine teeth I.D. method.

[fishlessman]

I don't post here much anymore but just happened to see this topic; I have a physical copy of the new 2018 lawbook and it looks to me ALL flowing waters (Rivers, Streams, Brooks, etc) have max length limit now of 25" for (atlantic) landlocked salmon and brown trout and I imagine any specific (mostly coastal) lakes & ponds that potentially could have atlantic salmon (overwintering or what not) will still have an S-33 rule (Maximum length on landlocked salmon and brown trout: 25 inches.)

My only gripe with this rule is it punishes anglers who can correctly identify a brown trout using the vomerine teeth I.D. method.

ive seen the men in green misidentify a brown maybe they added that for those folk

[Seamonkey84]

ive seen the men in green misidentify a brown maybe they added that for those folk

I bet that’s partly the case. It does simplify it as it now covers all rivers so no more checking if it’s S-33, then the lakes that can hold Atlantics are the only ones they have to code.

[woodchip]

When I see new laws made for this reason It makes me remember how great the stocking program was 65 years ago. the quality of  the hatcheries   and the numbers of them  .Today they have been reduced in numbers and quality. This state just wants to receive and not spend. If the state had kept up the great program they had back then The State of Maine would have the best fisheries in the country. .All they continue to do is promote catch and release reduce limit numbers and size .   Sad Sad Sad.

[lunkahville]

The 25" rule has been around for awhile now. I can remember it being around 10 years ago or so. It used to be for the grand lakes sebago and a couple others that possibly had searun possibilities

[TwoLightsKid]

Honestly, I wish they would impose a maximum size limit on all gamefish species everywhere.  I keep and eat tons of small to midsize fish of many different species every year, but I just don’t see the need to kill the big ones with how easy it is to capture the memory through digital photos, video, and replica mounts. 

Look at redfish, tarpon, and snook down south for example.  I think the regs down there require all big fish to be released, and the result is a great fishery with tons of big fish despite way more fishing pressure than we have around here. 

[nbourque]

Honestly, I wish they would impose a maximum size limit on all gamefish species everywhere.  I keep and eat tons of small to midsize fish of many different species every year, but I just don’t see the need to kill the big ones with how easy it is to capture the memory through digital photos, video, and replica mounts. 

Look at redfish, tarpon, and snook down south for example.  I think the regs down there require all big fish to be released, and the result is a great fishery with tons of big fish despite way more fishing pressure than we have around here.

couldn’t agree more.

[8orach]

I don’t really find any fault with this regulation, it pertains purely to moving water bodies. In which the possibility that sea run Atlantic Salmon could be caught. They are an endangered species that was on the brink of extinction but through progressive management are slowly returning in numbers. To eliminate the possibility of accidentally killing of a potential sea run salmon that contains the genetics to keep the populations going seems beneficial does it not? Aren’t we as anglers in the same phase conservations deep at heart?

[TightLinesMaine]

ive seen the men in green misidentify a brown maybe they added that for those folk

A warden misidentifying a fish doesn't surprise me at all (especially from just a photo, anyone can make that mistake) but a biologist should have no issue at all.  Correct me if i'm wrong but the vomerine teeth i.d. method is foolproof (in identifying a salmon vs a brown trout).

Honestly, I wish they would impose a maximum size limit on all gamefish species everywhere.  I keep and eat tons of small to midsize fish of many different species every year, but I just don’t see the need to kill the big ones with how easy it is to capture the memory through digital photos, video, and replica mounts. 

Look at redfish, tarpon, and snook down south for example.  I think the regs down there require all big fish to be released, and the result is a great fishery with tons of big fish despite way more fishing pressure than we have around here. 

While i agree with you completely on your sentiment that killing big fish is unnecessary (especially now in the age of reproduction mounts), I don't think it's right that if an angler were to catch a big a** brown trout (i.e. over 25") in a river and they wanted to keep it for whatever reason, they legally can't and are being punished for others' innability (or ignorance) in proper fish identification.  I totally get why they're doing it though (applying S-33 to all flowing waters in the state), mainly for law book simplification and a lot of people struggle with fish identification.

[porkpiehat]

When I see new laws made for this reason It makes me remember how great the stocking program was 65 years ago. the quality of  the hatcheries   and the numbers of them  .Today they have been reduced in numbers and quality. This state just wants to receive and not spend. If the state had kept up the great program they had back then The State of Maine would have the best fisheries in the country. .All they continue to do is promote catch and release reduce limit numbers and size .   Sad Sad Sad.

what was the difference back then? did they just stock more fish?

[JDK]

So, for the West Branch between Rip Dam and the Telos Road, the minimum size limit on salmon is 26 inches.  Which rule applies?  Seems to contradict the argument about protecting the precious sea run salmon.

And many of the flowing water bodies here still have a 12 inch 3 fish bag limit.  The funny part is that the state wants salmon out of these waters yet, and they are there, if you catch a 25 incher you have to let it go.  Never has been a sea run fish there.

 

[woodchip]

Maine once had 50 fish hatcheries or feeding stations ...
https://georgesoutdoornews.bangordailynews.com/2016/08/03/fishing/...

The latest edition of the newsletter of the Maine Historical Society contained a link to a very interesting story detailing the history of fish hatcheries in Maine. I ...

[woodchip]

Currently     Hatcheries: Fish & Wildlife: Maine Dept of Inland ...
https://www.maine.gov/ifw/fish-wildlife/hatcheries/index.html

Hatcheries. Maine's fish hatchery program was first established in 1895 and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife currently operates 8 fish culture stations ...

[joefishmore]

what was the difference back then? did they just stock more fish?

The Brook trout were 5-6 inches long and green colored from the bile in the liver they were fed.

[fishlessman]

A warden misidentifying a fish doesn't surprise me at all (especially from just a photo, anyone can make that mistake) but a biologist should have no issue at all.  Correct me if i'm wrong but the vomerine teeth i.d. method is foolproof (in identifying a salmon vs a brown trout).
While i agree with you completely on your sentiment that killing big fish is unnecessary (especially now in the age of reproduction mounts), I don't think it's right that if an angler were to catch a big a** brown trout (i.e. over 25") in a river and they wanted to keep it for whatever reason, they legally can't and are being punished for others' innability (or ignorance) in proper fish identification.  I totally get why they're doing it though (applying S-33 to all flowing waters in the state), mainly for law book simplification and a lot of people struggle with fish identification.

id is easy, the top center shaft on a bruiser brown is covered with teeth, the salmon just has a single row.  browns are mostly put and take fish, i see no reason a big stocked brown shouldnt be taken. these fish battle it out aggressively when they get big, thin them out a little and they get bigger.

[Seamonkey84]

So, for the West Branch between Rip Dam and the Telos Road, the minimum size limit on salmon is 26 inches.  Which rule applies?  Seems to contradict the argument about protecting the precious sea run salmon.

Same with the Crooked, FFO and minimum length for LL Salmon is 26”, since there is no chance of a sea run salmon there, it wouldn’t be an issue.  The new rule is “general law” unless otherwise stated for a specific body of water. As usual, it’s up to the angler to look up the regs for anywhere they decide to fish. Now if they actually get fish ladders installed in all the dams, that rule would actually make sense in more rivers.

[9huskies]

When the state operated 50 hatcheries they raised and stocked 300,000 fish per year. A lot has been learned about how to successfully raise fish since then. Today's hatcheries stock over 1 million fish in Maine waters every year.

[8orach]

The Enfield hatchery supplies over 1.5 million domesticated and Kennebago strand brook trout to the state and surrounding states annually by itself. With a close to 80% survival rate for domesticated strands and 16% for Kennebago (wild) strands. Technology and efficiency has improved drastically since when Maine first had hatcheries. Yes, reducing the amount of hatcheries puts more pressure on the remaining ones to keep up production but they have the systems to do so. Considering the only money that keeps them running comes from the purchasing of fishing equipment/licenses there’s only so much they can do. Another thing, we remain one of the only states that hatches based off high success rates and not to compensate for death rates and low survival rates of hatchlings. We supply other states with hatchlings cause their hatcheries are based off accounting for low success rates. We don’t have that issue.

[woodchip]

Just imagine if they had improved half of the fifty hatcheries What a tremendous  Fishery we would have here in Maine.   with closer to 10 million fish  stocked.

[WolfPack1]

Interesting read, not from Maine, but thought I could chime in on a fisheries biology perspective.

So, it sounds like the fishery was much better back then than now. And now, there are more fish being stocked. So theoretically the fishery should have gotten better, but it hasn’t. That must mean that there’s a different problem. Water quality can have a detrimental effect to cold water species such as trout and salmon. It also can effect the food chain from simply reducing the invertebrates they feed on, which in many cases require high quality water, and are very sensitive to water quality. Possibly that and the possibility that more people are fishing (population growth), would cause more stress on the system as a whole. In my opinion, one can only dump in so many stocked fish before something needs to be done about the habitat, food sources, etc. Even the fact that the populations need to be sustained by stocking shows there’s a much larger issue with the system as a whole. As well as some systems can only sustain so much growth and production. Money in these cases is a lot of times the issue. For example, here in Wisconsin, only so much can be done with the current budgets. Everyone wants a quality and productive fishery, but not many want to pay for it. Therefore, limits are reduced, size restrictions are enacted, etc. There’s only so much these programs can do, and the people utilizing the fisheries need to pitch in too. Select lakes around here now have a size restriction on bluegill. 7” is the cutoff in most cases. Think about that for a second; the fishery has been depleted so far, that the ever so productive panfish populations have size restrictions? It’s crazy, yes, but I’m all for it. Save what we have, and build back up so the lakes can continue to produce with the increasing strain. So many many people think it’s ridiculous, but then they also complain that’s there’s no fish, and say the lake can’t be fished out. But the simple question is: where’d the fish go? There are just simply not as many.

So in the case with you all in Maine, there’s only so much the state can do. It sounds like many people are confused by fish ID, and that may have impacted the law. But interestingly enough, whatever the state will do, will probably not be enough. The fishing community as a whole needs to step up and see what can be done, and do it, if it’ll ever improve. Easy to say and write, but extremely hard to put forward. As what’s happening here in WI.

[Alex Delarge]

On Long lake in the FRC the law book states that the max length limit on landlocked salmon does not apply. It mentions nothing about it on the other lakes in the chain so I would assume that max length limit does apply on Square. But chances are that the dept did not update the wording in the special laws... cause yea there are no sea run up here.
The other thing that makes me wonder is, are sea run salmon "born" at 25 inches? I doubt it. Why can you keep a 24" sea run? If they want to protect the species.

[Moosekill]

Ok, here we go.  I will post the law, it took me 15 seconds to look up, on line, so there isn't any question.

Brown trout caught in Rivers and streams and brooks minimum 6" maximum 25"
Land Locked Salmon caught in rivers and streams and brooks minimum 14" maximum 25"

Nothing to do with lakes or ponds, nothing to do with brook trout.

It is simply put in to make sure someone who catches a 30" atlantic salmon but doesn't realize it is an atlantic salmon, which it almost certainly is, will release it. 

The last post about Long Lake, states in the flowage out of the lake and the rest of the flowage between all the other lakes, the maximum length limit doesn't apply.  I will add, because there aren't any atlantic salmon there.  Once again, Long Lake is a lake and not a river or stream so the length limit doesn't apply.  They are talking about the river out of it.

Take a few minutes and read the rules before you go fishing.  It is your responsibility as sportsmen to do that.  Before you post try and make sure you aren't passing along bad information.

[JDK]

In my humble opinion, this regulation makes sense for river segments that fall under the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment designation (of which the West Branch does fall under but not listed as Critical Habitat).  In my other humbler opinion, why even list it under general regulations and cloudy the water when there are also a slew of special regulations in place.  List the maximum size under the specific water body and move on.

As said above, this regulation has been in place for several years (or more) downeast and other??? places.