Wednesday, February 28, 2007
from the Kennebec Journal
Many students absent, but most not due to H1N1
Massacre could have been much worse
Nation's jobless rate reaches 10 percent
Attack 'outrageous,' says Augusta soldier stationed at Fort Hood
Old Man Winter: He's still got it
AUGUSTA Up the rails
Mace seeks repeat
Bobcats see similar team in title game
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Kennebec Journal
from the Morning Sentinel
'The luckiest man in the world just left us'
Officials: Swine flu a small part of school absences
Veteran: Military 'gives you strength'
AFTER THE VOTE How to dispense pot to patients?
SUSPECT FOUND IN CLOSET
NEWPORT Police recover two firearms
State cross country titles up for grabs
H.S. GIRLS SOCCER Raiders try to crack West's title reign
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Morning Sentinel
They're so delicate and vulnerable, in fact, that changes in their native habitats can wreak havoc with trout. They don't like development, which can pollute and overheat their waters. Brook trout also don't like pike and smelt and other non-native fish being introduced to the lakes and ponds they call home in Maine. Some of these fish eat brookies, some of them eat the same food as the trout do. Inevitably, in these conditions many brook trout don't thrive or survive.
Other problems occur when people move into the areas where brook trout live. Development means cutting down the trees that provide cooling shade for brook trout waters. Road building and other construction creates runoff that fills trout streams and ponds with silt and pollution. Native brook trout habitats in the intensively developed East have been so seriously degraded that populations of big fish have seriously declined in all but one place: Maine.
Maine is now home to 97 percent of the East's remaining populations of large, native brook trout in lakes and ponds; there are populations of much smaller trout distributed throughout the East's rivers and streams, where they rarely grow to the size seen in lakes and ponds.
That's both an economic opportunity and an ecological challenge for Maine. Economic opportunity because Maine can sell itself to anglers as the best place in the U.S. where they can fish for large, native brook trout; according to a state study issued a decade ago, sportfishing of all types even then brought in $300 million to the state every year. And it's an ecological challenge because maintaining brookie populations in the face of a variety of threats is not easy.
Chief among those threats is competition by non-native fish introductions in Maine's lakes and ponds. That competition can diminish brook trout size and populations; just ask any of the older anglers who remember the days before smelt were introduced to Boundary Pond. That pond used to produce three-pound brook trout; no more. It's a story repeated all over Maine.
The state's chief fish biologist, John Boland -- who works for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife -- said earlier this year that invasive fish in Maine's waters are the single biggest challenge faced by fisheries biologists. After a long and sorry history in which the state itself stocked non-native fish in some of our pristine waters, wrecking many of our famed fisheries, biologists have come around to the understanding that managing for ecological integrity is the right path. That's what led Boland's colleagues to come down so hard on a Freeport Chinese restaurant owner who kept a tank of non-native koi fish: "Maine has stepped up to the plate in recent years," Boland told the Portland Press Herald. "Now it's a $10,000 fine to stock a pond without a permit or to transport live fish without a permit. ... We're taking a hard line on it, whether it's illegal introduction of bass, or non-native or exotic fish species."
That's why it's so hard to understand the opposition of Boland and IF&W to a bill that would outlaw the use of four species of non-native live bait popular with the state's ice fishermen. IF&W has been joined in its opposition by those ice fishermen, as well as bait dealers. The bill is an attempt to keep potentially invasive non-native species out of our lakes and ponds. It closes an exemption that allows ice fishermen to introduce non-native bait fish into our lakes, and reflects state policy against the use of non-natives in our waters. It would allow many other live species to be used as bait, but keeps these alien species out of our waters, where they could wreak ecological havoc. We think the bill is a good idea and merits serious consideration by the Legislature.
A second bill would add stronger protections against the use of live fish as bait on the remaining wild brook trout waters where live bait hasn't already been banned. It also would prevent the state from stocking fish in those lakes. The state has already extended that protection to 305 other lakes and ponds.
Maine has more than 7,000 lakes and ponds ("stillwaters" in fishing jargon) where live bait use would still be allowed; this proposal, which would probably add a couple hundred more lakes, hardly seems an unreasonable threat to live-bait fisherman or bait dealers. Rather, it's a prudent move to protect a unique Maine resource -- a move that will protect the ecological integrity of our native trout populations, as well as the economic value they represent.

Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
AquaMaps | Point map
Order: Salmoniformes (salmons)
Class: Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes)
FishBase name: Brook trout
Max. size: 86.0 cm SL (male/unsexed; Ref. 7248); max. published weight: 9,390 g (Ref. 4699); max. reported age: 7 years
Environment: demersal; anadromous (Ref. 51243); freshwater; brackish; marine; depth range 15 – 27 m
Climate: temperate; 0 – 25°C; 65°N - 57°s, 127°w - 151°e
Importance: fisheries: minor commercial; aquaculture: commercial; gamefish: yes; aquarium: public aquariums
Resilience: Medium, minimum population doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years (tm=1-3; tmax=7)
Distribution:
Gazetteer North America: most of eastern Canada from Newfoundland to western side of Hudson Bay; south in Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River basins to Minnesota and northern Georgia in USA. Widely introduced in temperate regions of other continents. Several countries report adverse ecological impact after introduction.
Morphology: Dorsal spines (total): 3 - 4; Dorsal soft rays (total): 8 - 14; Anal spines: 3 – 4; Anal soft rays: 8 – 14; Vertebrae: 58 – 62. Distinguished by the combination of dark green marbling on its back and dorsal fin and by the red spots with blue halos on its sides (Ref. 27547). Pelvic fins with axillary process; caudal nearly straight or with a shallow indentation (Ref. 27547). Color varies, but generally rather green to brownish on back, marked with paler vermiculations or marbling that extend onto the dorsal fin and sometimes the caudal; sides lighter than back, marked with numerous pale spots and some red spots, each of the latter surrounded by a blue halo; anal, pelvic and pectoral fins with a white leading edge followed by a dark stripe, the rest of the fins reddish (Ref. 27547). In spawning fish the lower sides and fins become red (Ref. 27547). Sea-run fish are dark green above with silvery sides, white bellies and very pale pink spots (Ref. 27547). Caudal fin with 19 rays (Ref. 2196).
Biology: Occurs in clear, cool, well-oxygenated creeks, small to medium rivers, and lakes (Ref. 5723, 44894). In its native range, general upstream movements have been observed in early spring, summer and late fall; downstream movements, in late spring and fall (Ref. 28546, 28548, 28549, 28550). Some fish, popularly known as salters, run to the sea in the spring as stream temperatures rises, but never venture more than a few kilometers from river mouths. They may remain at sea for up to three months (Ref. 28546, 28549, 28551). Feeds on a wide range of organisms including worms, leeches, crustaceans, insects, mollusks, fishes and amphibians (Ref. 3348); also small mammals (Ref. 1998). Stomachs of some individuals contained traces of plant remains (Ref. 1998). There are reports of introduced fish reaching 15 years of age in California, USA (Ref. 28545). Cultured for food and for stocking (Ref. 27547). Extensively used as an experimental animal (Ref. 1998). Marketed fresh and smoked; eaten fried, broiled, boiled, microwaved, and baked (Ref. 9988).
Red List Status: Not in IUCN Red List (Ref. 53964)
Dangerous: potential pest
Coordinator:
Main Ref: Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. (Ref. 5723)
report abuse
As I pointed out in my testimony, MDIF&W research biologist Fred Kircheis stated in 1979 that emerald shiners were not native to Maine. Kircheis is the one Maine biologist who has actually studied the emerald shiner. The USGS, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, ME DEP and the American Fisheries Society all have the 4 species listed as non-native to Maine. John Boland stated an opinion he cannot back up with facts. We have noted several instances where the current IF&W administration has ignored their own biologists' findings if those findings conflict with a position the admin has taken on an issue. One only has to look at IF&W's own strategic management plans for several examples. If they had followed their own baitfish policy from the start, we would not even be having this debate.
report abuse
Perhaps if the KJ/MS had actually sent someone to the hearing, you would know this?report abuse
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.