I retired in April, 2006 completing a 35-yr career as a Downeast fishery biologist with the Maine Dept. of Inland Fish and Wildlife. For the last 25 years, as the Reg. C regional fishery biologist, my area of management responsibility included West Grand Lake, Big Lake, and Grand Falls Flowage. Accordingly, I learned a great deal about the fisheries and fish populations of these important waters.
I wish to commend the authors of the plan on a job well done. I am generally satisfied with the "go slow, proceed with caution" approach in building up alewife abundance. I remain convinced that a sufficient body of biological information exists which strongly suggests this approach is more prudent than an aggressive, full speed ahead one. The plan gives adequate and proper consideration to the high value smallmouth bass sport fisheries. Clearly, this species is number one in Big Lake and the Flowage in terms of value to the local economy. Non-residents and locals spend considerable dollars each year in pursuit of smallmouths. Historically, the fisheries have been good enough to be not only of statewide significance, but also of significance throughout New England. Every effort should be made to maintain this noteworthy attribute , and I believe the plan poses an acceptably low risk level to these outstanding fisheries. However, the potential for substantial adverse impacts on recruitment of young of the year smallmouths will still exist down the road when and if alewife abundance greatly increases. Based on the findings at Spednic, large numbers of alewives entering the Flowage and Big Lake for several consecutive springs could threaten survival of young of the year bass. Here's the scary scenario....keep in mind that these two waters already support quite a few landlocked alewives through an illegal up-drainage introduction....hordes of young of the year anadromous alewives outcompete young of the year smallmouths for critically important plankton forage causing large scale mortalities. Under such a scenario, the fishery for 10-14 inch bass could nosedive within 3-5 years. Of course, the key to preventing such an undesirable outcome is to insure that alewife abundance is not permitted to reach such a threatening level. Unfortunately, no one knows what this level is. The annual monitoring of relative abundance of fall-sampled young of the year smallmouth should help prevent such an unwanted occurrence.
My primary objection to the plan is that nary a word is devoted to potential adverse impacts on the Big Lake smelt population. Granted, the concern over potential harm to the Big Lake smallmouth population easily eclipses concern over the tiny smelt. However, this forage fish is the key to fishing quality for landlocked salmon. In years when smelt were relatively abundant, the salmon fishery was reasonably good for nicely shaped 16-18 inch fish. At such times, a not inconsequential percentage of angler use during May and June was comprised of SALMON anglers. Working under cool, windy, cloudy conditions, quite a few guides would switch their clients over from smallmouths to salmon. Although clearly of secondary importance vis a vis bass, the salmon fishery was enjoyed by hundreds of anglers in the spring. When it was good, guides had a good alternative to offer bass anglers...when it was poor, they could not.
Thus, smelt is another species of importance in Big Lake. And relative abundance of juvenile smelt is frequently impacted by relative abundance of juvenile anadromous alewives. On numerous Downeast waters in addition to Big Lake, I noted over the years that there seemed to be a correlation between relative alewife abundance and smelt abundance......in years of heavy alewive runs which produced lots of juveniles, declines in smelt abundance were noted within a year or two. Such declines were observed in decreased salmon growth and condition. The Big Lake smelt population is already "under the gun" via substantial competition from landlocked alewives. Adding to this mix greatly increased numbers of juvenile anadromous alewives in the years ahead will only add to the pressure on smelt thereby facilitating a further decline in the salmon fishery. Sadly, this is the outcome I foresee under the plan.
The plan, with its focus on alewife and smallmouth, unfortunately overlooks the important alewife vs. smelt consideration. I admit that there is no feasible way to estimate smelt density in Big Lake as there is for young of the year smallmouth, and I have no possibly ameliorative action to suggest. Suffice it to say that my concern over the future fate of the Big Lake salmon fishery is yet another biologically based reason for the plan to proceed slowly . An occasional nod into the welfare of Big Lake smelt as well as smallmouth would be greatly appreciated. I urge the authors to maintain their proposed measured pace , and to firmly resist likely future calls to "speed things up" from alewife advocates. There's a lot at stake here....numerous alewife advocates from away don't realize this.....but the authors do. Stay with the conservative approach, and with some luck, the Big Lake and Grand Falls Flowage sport fisheries for smallmouth bass will remain a destination for thousands of anglers.
I retired in April, 2006 completing a 35-yr career as a Downeast fishery biologist with the Maine Dept. of Inland Fish and Wildlife. For the last 25 years, as the Reg. C regional fishery biologist, my area of management responsibility included West Grand Lake, Big Lake, and Grand Falls Flowage. Accordingly, I learned a great deal about the fisheries and fish populations of these important waters.
I wish to commend the authors of the plan on a job well done. I am generally satisfied with the "go slow, proceed with caution" approach in building up alewife abundance. I remain convinced that a sufficient body of biological information exists which strongly suggests this approach is more prudent than an aggressive, full speed ahead one. The plan gives adequate and proper consideration to the high value smallmouth bass sport fisheries. Clearly, this species is number one in Big Lake and the Flowage in terms of value to the local economy. Non-residents and locals spend considerable dollars each year in pursuit of smallmouths. Historically, the fisheries have been good enough to be not only of statewide significance, but also of significance throughout New England. Every effort should be made to maintain this noteworthy attribute , and I believe the plan poses an acceptably low risk level to these outstanding fisheries. However, the potential for substantial adverse impacts on recruitment of young of the year smallmouths will still exist down the road when and if alewife abundance greatly increases. Based on the findings at Spednic, large numbers of alewives entering the Flowage and Big Lake for several consecutive springs could threaten survival of young of the year bass. Here's the scary scenario....keep in mind that these two waters already support quite a few landlocked alewives through an illegal up-drainage introduction....hordes of young of the year anadromous alewives outcompete young of the year smallmouths for critically important plankton forage causing large scale mortalities. Under such a scenario, the fishery for 10-14 inch bass could nosedive within 3-5 years. Of course, the key to preventing such an undesirable outcome is to insure that alewife abundance is not permitted to reach such a threatening level. Unfortunately, no one knows what this level is. The annual monitoring of relative abundance of fall-sampled young of the year smallmouth should help prevent such an unwanted occurrence.
My primary objection to the plan is that nary a word is devoted to potential adverse impacts on the Big Lake smelt population. Granted, the concern over potential harm to the Big Lake smallmouth population easily eclipses concern over the tiny smelt. However, this forage fish is the key to fishing quality for landlocked salmon. In years when smelt were relatively abundant, the salmon fishery was reasonably good for nicely shaped 16-18 inch fish. At such times, a not inconsequential percentage of angler use during May and June was comprised of SALMON anglers. Working under cool, windy, cloudy conditions, quite a few guides would switch their clients over from smallmouths to salmon. Although clearly of secondary importance vis a vis bass, the salmon fishery was enjoyed by hundreds of anglers in the spring. When it was good, guides had a good alternative to offer bass anglers...when it was poor, they could not.
Thus, smelt is another species of importance in Big Lake. And relative abundance of juvenile smelt is frequently impacted by relative abundance of juvenile anadromous alewives. On numerous Downeast waters in addition to Big Lake, I noted over the years that there seemed to be a correlation between relative alewife abundance and smelt abundance......in years of heavy alewive runs which produced lots of juveniles, declines in smelt abundance were noted within a year or two. Such declines were observed in decreased salmon growth and condition. The Big Lake smelt population is already "under the gun" via substantial competition from landlocked alewives. Adding to this mix greatly increased numbers of juvenile anadromous alewives in the years ahead will only add to the pressure on smelt thereby facilitating a further decline in the salmon fishery. Sadly, this is the outcome I foresee under the plan.
The plan, with its focus on alewife and smallmouth, unfortunately overlooks the important alewife vs. smelt consideration. I admit that there is no feasible way to estimate smelt density in Big Lake as there is for young of the year smallmouth, and I have no possibly ameliorative action to suggest. Suffice it to say that my concern over the future fate of the Big Lake salmon fishery is yet another biologically based reason for the plan to proceed slowly . An occasional nod into the welfare of Big Lake smelt as well as smallmouth would be greatly appreciated. I urge the authors to maintain their proposed measured pace , and to firmly resist likely future calls to "speed things up" from alewife advocates. There's a lot at stake here....numerous alewife advocates from away don't realize this.....but the authors do. Stay with the conservative approach, and with some luck, the Big Lake and Grand Falls Flowage sport fisheries for smallmouth bass will remain a destination for thousands of anglers.