[quote]Just for posterity I'll ask the question of JimP again, if you believe (as I do) that the regulatory decisions to manage our fish and wildlife resources should be governed by the biologists rather than the legislature how do you defend your article where you stated that DIF&W are not to be trusted because they are influenced by political considerations?[/quote]
I agree with you that at the end of the day that the biologist's should be the final authority on matters such as this. Having said that I think that if you view the science about Pike management you can see that pike should be managed as a trophy fishery to lessen the impact of pike on wild and native species.
So JimP, should the biologists be given the tools or are they not to be trusted for political influence? Do you think they can manage pike properly for fisheries goals or do you need to set them straight and will there be future legislation to promote a pike fishery because the biologists are under political influence?
My actual question is, "Do you think that DIF&W biologists can be entrusted to manage both splake and pike or only splake"? You were pretty harsh with the biologists about "dropping" the pike management plan and that is why I ask.
Thanks for answering the question.
Yes I trust them to manage all our fisheries.
With regard to Pike, did you read the management plan that was written by IF&W? The one we scrapped half way into it. The other thing it is important to keep in mind is that my critique of the "no plan pike plan" was just my opinion. When I disagreed I did not ask my representative to have the Legislature overrule IF&W with a law to impose my opinion like we seen now. That is a huge distinction. I never said that folks shouldn't have opinions, I just think we need to be careful when we run to the legislature to pass laws that amount to setting personal preferences as a matter of law.
Thanks Jim, I agree with most of your points. So if you trust them to manage the splake program do you now have faith in their "no pike policy" plan?
I'm going to jump in with my viewpoint. Biologists exist to do what policy makers tell them to do. If policy makers decide that, for instance, pike should be stocked in Moosehead, then that's what biologists should do. We hire them to carry out policy objectives. Having said that, once policy makers decide that Moosehead should be managed for pike, we should let them determine the best way to do that, i.e set seasons, limits, etc. Again, if the primary policy objective is to create a winter fishery for pike, biologists should find a way to accomplish that.
The only reason policy makers argue about protecting trout waters is that people value native trout. If the people and the policy makers decided that those waters should be managed for bass instead, that's what biologists should do.
Biologists work for us.
Yes I have faith that IF&W will eventually get it right with regard to pike management. I personally am of the opinion that we are not there yet. I think that to date we have acted emotionally and not scientifically. As they gather data I think they will end up concluding that we don't make major management decisions just to send a message. The "don't reward the people spreading pike" guy and by association the fisherman that found they liked fishing for them. I believe that message may cause the other side to feel the need to send another message. That is why I say we are dealing with the pike issue emotionally not intellectually. You cannot un-pike, once piked, it is impossible. There is information out there, all this stuff we are doing has been done before. I think it is Lake Davis in California. I think I recently read that they are going to take the step now to poison an entire lake drainage to try and de-pike. Bad outcomes for years now trying to fish them out.
I think we need to look at the Canada and New York model for pike. They manage to have both fisheries. I do understand the "they need to evolve together" argument. I totally accept it, but since fish only live a relatively short life evolve doesn't have to be a million years does it, maybe it could show signs of working in 10-20. I think the species will reach equilibrium and learn to co-exist. What I admit I don't know is how long it takes but it would certainly be better than repeating the mistakes of others. It really has been done before. like I said I have heard the Belgrades are fishing better than they have in years. It will be worth watching.
You seem to think that if 3 out of 5 people agree that something is a good idea then why lets do it. Would you have no limits? No right and wrong just what is possible? You attitude is a recipe for disaster, wait... democrats have been giving us disaster after disaster for years. :lol:
Had a 17 fish day on Sebago today, 15 salmon 2 togue. no pike :shock:
[quote]...since fish only live a relatively short life evolve doesn't have to be a million years does it, maybe it could show signs of working in 10-20.[/quote]
If we go by the new definition of wild, it only takes 20-25 years for them all to be "wild" again, even if they're stocked. ;)
Did you take your boat out, or did you go with Mr. Superfisherman?
Biologists work for us.[/quote]
You have got to be kidding me. Biologists work for themselves. They are egotistical, high horse riders period!!!
Both actually 8) First fish in the new boat was a nice fat male salmon that his boy caught. :)
The vote yesterday was 9-2 "ought not to pass" (against the bill). Thank you to all who supported the MIAA and IF&W on this one.
Thanks JimP, I knew if we could get past the name calling there could be an intelligent dialogue in this thread and that you could clarify your position. You make a good point about the emotions surrounding pike. And I will admit my bias is emotional, that is why I would prefer to remove the politics from this and ask the biologists to manage the waters for all of the fisherman. I promise not to try and take away someone's pike fishing from Sabbattus as long as they don't try to force me to accept them in the Rapid River :)
I'm also pleased with the "ought not to pass" resolution. Most of the news coming from Augusta is depressing, glad to hear some small amount fo good news.
I would never want to see pike in the Rapid or anywhere else. I am perfectly willing to go to NY to fish for them. Having said that I am just trying to look at the situation logically.
I wish that more were like you, there are some fisherman that think they can fish the pike out of a lake and the data I have seen refutes that. They are trading one problem for a worse problem in my opinion...
I admit, I am glad this legislative session is coming to an end for fisheries initiatives. Now we can get on to doing some fishing. :D
Butch, as you know IFW has agreed to stop stocking splake in Sturtevant Pond. If Sturtevant was open to ice fishing, would the MIAA fought to continue stocking splake there?
Butch, a poster on another forum , disappointed with the discontinued stocking of splake in Sturtevant, made the observation that if Sturtevant was an ice fishing water enough political pressure would have been applied to IFW to continue the splake stocking.
Iâ€™ll try againâ€¦ If Sturtevant had been open to ice fishing, would the MIAA fought to continue stocking splake there?
Had the pond been opened to ice fishing, chances are there would have been less Splake to wonder. The other question one could ask: If the few fly fishermen had not whined, would Splake still be stocked there? Since the folks on the pond wanted a coldwater fishery and all others had failed, Splake filed the void. Now they got nothing! The possibilities of someone creating their own stocking program loom on the horizon and could spell trouble far worst than Splake.
I hope Butch continues to ignore your question. It is the same what-if value as the one I have raised. I think Sturtevant should be opened to ice fishing and speed up the removal of the Splake from the pond. $.02
[quote]If the few fly fishermen had not whined, would Splake still be stocked there? [/quote]
I think youâ€™re confused â€œandyZâ€, you should be addressing that question to IFW, they know the answer.
[quote]Now they got nothing![/quote]
Not true! IFW acknowledges a significant wild brook trout fishery in Sturtevant. The problem is, apparently, not significant enough, therefore splake stocking. Perhaps the time has come for IFW to work with the folks that want that cold water fishery. IFW could investigate what habitat improvements are necessary, such as improving existing spawning areas, or possibly creating new ones. Regulations also could be a tool to give an edge to the brook troutâ€¦ALO, protecting spawning areas, no length or number limit on undesirable species such as bass, perhaps catch and release on the brook trout for a couple of years, etc. Itâ€™s worth a try. Donâ€™t you agree?
You think ice fishing should be used to clean out splake? Why put all that additional pressure on what wild brook trout are there? I say let the splake petter out on there own, like IFW has with Thissell, while attempting to improve the wild brook trout conditions in Sturtevant.
[quote]The possibilities of someone creating their own stocking program loom on the horizon and could spell trouble far worst than Splake. [/quote]
That comment reminds me of one that a bait dealer was purported to have made during a public meeting on LD 163. Something to the effect that if emerald shiners were no longer allowed as legal bait fish, pike would be moving north. Rather reminiscent of days gone by when wardens would be threatened with having their houses burned if they enforced certain fish and game laws. In my opinion there should be zero tolerance for such inflammatory statements. No #*#&â€™n way should insidious threats like these be a cautionary factor in fish and game enforcement or managementâ€¦ I can only wish that you agree.
[quote]I hope Butch continues to ignore your question.[/quote]
Given MIAAâ€™s intense interest in the splake program my straight forward question is very reasonable and should by no means frighten you or Butch.
[quote]If Sturtevant had been open to ice fishing, would the MIAA fought to continue stocking splake there?[/quote]
All I can tell you is that the if the MIAA thought the issue was worth taking a position on, there would have been a meeting of the board of directors, a position would have decided upon, and the MIAA would have acted accordingly. I'm not going guess on what that position would have been because it didn't happen, and I wasn't on the board then anyway.
I do know that I've been told that one of the reasons IF&W has given for ending the splake program in Sturtevant was because of complaining trout fishermen on the Magalloway. Were you one of them?
Butch, I wasn't one of the complaining fly fisherman but now I have questions.
We have enough trouble in the Rapid and the Magalloway from the bass that the bucket biologists dropped in Umbagog. Is it possible for Splake to get to the Magalloway as well from Sturtevant?
[quote]...I wasn't one of the complaining fly fisherman...[/quote]
I said trout fishermen. Do you know something I don't?
[quote]Is it possible for Splake to get to the Magalloway as well from Sturtevant?[/quote]
Why would I be worried about it if they do?***
*** I asked essentially the same question on page 2, and the only answer it got in this entire thread was: "I just don't want to find splake in wild or native brook trout water."
Since there is a local example of bass arriving in the Rapid by some means yet undetermined, you would be mistaken to not give some [quote]#*#&â€™n [/quote]consideration of a repeat. Only a [quote]#*#&â€™n [/quote]nitwit would bury their head in the sand and not consider the thought that was presented at the 163 hearing. As proof positive that many have finally come to understand what was going on, the SAM/FIC, DDAS, TU legislation took a hit this year. Lots of folks out there are feed up with the [quote]#*#&â€™n[/quote] noise from those folks. :wink:
[quote]I said trout fishermen. Do you know something I don't? [/quote]
Appherently I do, the Magalloway is FFO. It's the only way a trout fisherman could fish that river :)
Give me a break Butch, I didn't make any statements of opinion I just asked a question. I thought I was being polite but no matter what is said you need to jump down my throat?
You may not be worried if splake entered the Magalloway but I would be, the bass and the salmon are already hurting the population of a unique strain of brookies through competition for feed. The brook trout from the Rapid, Cupsuptic and Magalloway have been shown by the work of our biologists to be a distinct strain that can grow to large sizes. They are now using fish from this area as breeders for stocking.
â€œandyZâ€, obviously you and I have a completely different view of bulliesâ€¦. I wonder why? Evidently youâ€™re one of those â€œyou better give in to the terrorists demands or they might do something badâ€ guys. I say SCREW! Formulate sound scientific management policies and follow them without being intimated. Make the bucket stockers aware if they are caught they will pay the entire 10 grand as well as pay for any environmental damage! I mean really, following your logic, if the DIF&W Commissioner has to make an important fishery policy decision and is told pike could move into â€œhisâ€ lakeâ€¦ he had better consider backing off. Youâ€™re unwittingly making an argument for the Legislature being involved in fishery policy.
[quote]I do know that I've been told that one of the reasons IF&W has given for ending the splake program in Sturtevant was because of complaining trout fishermen on the Magalloway. Were you one of them?[/quote]
No Butch, I have only fished Magalloway a couple of times, didn't catch a splake. Apparently others have caught quite a few, all supposedly drop downs from Sturtevant.
[/quote]Why would I be worried about it if they do?***[/quote]
Apparently, you wouldnâ€™t care if splake were in the Magalloway, the Rapid or anywhere else for that matter. I know, I know, a fish is a fish. If you were a biologist working for me Iâ€™d fire you.
All this time Iâ€™ve been under the impression that IFW halted the splake program in Sturtevant because of biologistsâ€™ rightful concern for the wild brook trout in teh Magalloway and the Rapid, arguably the two best wild brook trout rivers in the country. Now, Butch is implying that itâ€™s all about aestheticsâ€¦a few fly fishermen complaining. Intriguing. I just read IFWâ€™s Splake Management Plan and one of the â€œSplake Management Problemsâ€ listed is â€œStocking splake may have an adverse affect on hatchery based fisheries for salmon and brook trout.â€ Think about that for a second â€¦ â€œhatchery based fisheriesâ€!
So Iâ€™m expected to believe there are NO â€œadverse affectsâ€ from splake on wild brook trout fisheries? Sorry Butch, doesnâ€™t pass the straight face test.
[quote]Apparently, you wouldnâ€™t care if splake were in the Magalloway...blah blah blah[/quote]
You still haven't answered the question: "Why would I be worried about it if they do?" A few splake migrating around aren't going to destroy a population of brook trout, period. All there is left is the answer I got before: "I just don't want to find splake in wild or native brook trout water."
[quote]You may not be worried if splake entered the Magalloway but I would be, the bass and the salmon are already hurting the population of a unique strain of brookies through competition for feed.[/quote]
1. You didn't answer the question either, though I have to say you came closer than tom mix. According to someone who was at the LD 1081 work session, IF&W told the JSC that, "[o]ut migrating Splake are not viewed as a problem or of any competitive value against brook trout."
2. What is a "unique strain" of brookie?
The competition arguement is the same one that JimP used in his pike article. Does the fish per bio-mass arguement only hold true for pike? More fish = smaller fish?
As to the second question, read the PDF I posted. DIF&W with cooperation from a geneticist at Laval University in Quebec were able to show that there is a unique strain to that particular watershed distinct and different from the Kennebec Watershed. These fish tend to grow larger and faster than other strains in the state.
Are you saying that they are some sort of "river-specific" brook trout or something? If so, here comes the ESA... :roll:
Beware the Ides of March, and the "unique strain" designation. :shock:
Please tell me you're not one of those people who thinks they can fly fish for endangered brook trout after an ESA listing. Don't laugh, I've actually read that sort of comment on some of the fly fishing sites - no joke.
Back to competition - IF&W says it's not a problem for with what few strays there have been.
Are you denying the credibility of the same biologists that you want to have complete control of managing the waters? Don't get me wrong, I would hate to see an endangered species designation. Having caught 3 of these 5+ lb fish in one day I kinda need to ackowledge they are hefty and unique and a real treasure to lose. Irregardless, it is off topic:
My only question above was to ask if it is possible for the splake to leave Sturtevant and enter the Magalloway, I haven't seen a straight answer to the question but I can infer from your comments Butch the answer to be yes. Thanks.
Kennebec, a poster on another site quoted DIFW as saying that 4% of fish surveyed in the Magalloway were splake. That's a pretty high percentage for a fish that isn't intended to be there.
The same post stated that biologists stopped stocking splake in Sturtevant because of "complaining trout fishermen," and that splake pose no competitive threat to brook trout--which sounds odd, given that DIFW claims it does not intentionally stock splake over wild/native populations. This seems contradictory to me. If splake pose no threat, why not stock them anywhere a fishery could use a boost?
The IF&W biologists also testified for the official record that:
[quote]1. Natural reproduction of Splake has never been documented in Maine. All of the source information noted by the Anti-splake crowd is junk, no peer review and no published documents.
2. [b]Out migrating Splake are not viewed as a problem or of any competitive value against brook trout.[/b]
3. They can revitilize cold water fisheries in places where competitive species have reduced/eliminated brooktrout/salmon fisheries.
4. The "willie-nilly" stocking of Splake, as stated by George Smith, isn't happening.
5. NO Splake have been found in the "RAPID", contry to what has been said!
6. Less than 4% of the fish surveyed in the Magalloway have been Splake.
7. Stocking of Splake at Sturtevant has ended because of complaining trout fishermen on the Magalloway. [/quote]
Emphasis added by me..
No matter what is said at the end of the day IF&W has the problem well in hand. What they are doing seems logical to me. Oh and if 4% seems like a high percentage to you then it will be alright if your next pay check is 4% of the regular amount right. 4 out of every 100 fish is not a huge amount.
Face it, you just hate splake JohnRoss 1876.
Jimp, I'm really not trying to get in a match here, but that is some awful logic. I suppose you're all for an "accidental" tax increase of 4%! :wink: (I'm sure that AMG thread would get a rousing reception, lol) or wouldn't mind going to a surgeon who has 4% of his patients die (due to what goes on in the operating room next door!). :P I'm just trying to understand why fish and game would have a policy against stocking splake over wild brook trout if the bottom line is splake pose no threat to brook trout. Splake are said to be voracious feeders and grow big. They have been used to weed out smelt. How can they pose no competitive value in Maine's relatively sterile river systems? Maybe it's the ambiguous wording "not a problem" or "competitive value." Or just numbers? Five hundred splake would be a problem, but twenty five aren't?
[quote]I'm just trying to understand why fish and game would have a policy against stocking splake over wild brook trout if the bottom line is splake pose no threat to brook trout.[/quote]
Asked and answered:
[quote]7. Stocking of Splake at Sturtevant has ended because of complaining trout fishermen on the Magalloway.[/quote]
As Uncle Ted would say, "NEXT!"