FFIM

FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently May 24th, 2017, 9:04 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 2:08 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 5284
Location: Windham
tim_s wrote:
yeah, those broad brush websites tend to get to me, too

i know of a few :wink:


Like this one?

http://www.conspiracy-theories.net/

_________________
"If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese. " Uncle Ted


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 2:27 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: October 13th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 3280
Location: Sidney, Me
Matt, I really don't get how you would have thought I was referring to FFIM. That explains the defensive comments, I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 4:45 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 19th, 2003, 1:00 am
Posts: 237
Location: Brunswick, ME
For years Maine anglers have been told to put the small fish back and keep the big ones. Now, on some waters, the bios are asking us to do the opposite. It will take time for some to adjust... especially us dimwitted, retarded flyfishers. :?

Kevin O


Last edited by dropper on March 30th, 2010, 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 6:24 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 30th, 2010, 5:46 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Sylvania, Ohio
There is a question on the forum about Kwagama Lake. I might be able to shed some light on it since I have been there 5 times.

The lake is 130 feet deep and is 1 mile by 3.5 miles ( about 2400 acres). The lake is at the top of the watershed and the only inflow is from runoff streams coming down off the mountains. No rivers flow into the lake so the fishery has remained pure...only wild brook trout...no other species in the lake. The lake bottom is sand, gravel and boulders typical of many Canadian Shield lakes. Fish spawn in the lake with a few traveling down a 100 foot rapids into a smaller portage lake.

On my first trip to Kwagama I was taken aback by the fish harvest...I kept my mouth shut and listened to what others were saying. I started to ask some questions about the lake. The word is that the lodge opened in 1935 and they have been harvesting fish since then. The lodge is the only camp on the lake. I am not the worlds best fisherman so I am not bragging but until last year I had never caught a fish less than 13.5 inches. Last year I caught my littlest fish yet, a 12 inch fish. Of course the babies and the brutes get released

I also found out that the season is really short...about 130 days and the owners limit the camp to no more than 150 rods per season. There are only about 500 fish harvested each years.

They say that knowledge is power and my knowledge of Kwagama gave me the power to place one of these beautiful fish on the stringer and enjoy it for dinner. Kwagama is the only waters that I have harvest trout from with the exception of an occasional stocker from Pennsylvania. Kwagama's Brookies have flesh as dark red as Sockeye Salmon and they sure taste good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Kwagama lake Lodge
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 6:30 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 30th, 2010, 5:46 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Sylvania, Ohio
There is a question on the forum about Kwagama Lake. I might be able to shed some light on it since I have been there 5 times.

The lake is 130 feet deep and is 1 mile by 3.5 miles ( about 2400 acres). The lake is at the top of the watershed and the only inflow is from runoff streams coming down off the mountains. No rivers flow into the lake so the fishery has remained pure...only wild brook trout...no other species in the lake. The lake bottom is sand, gravel and boulders typical of many Canadian Shield lakes. Fish spawn in the lake with a few traveling down a 100 foot rapids into a smaller portage lake.

On my first trip to Kwagama I was taken aback by the fish harvest...I kept my mouth shut and listened to what others were saying. I started to ask some questions about the lake. The word is that the lodge opened in 1935 and they have been harvesting fish since then. The lodge is the only camp on the lake. I am not the worlds best fisherman so I am not bragging but until last year I had never caught a fish less than 13.5 inches. Last year I caught my littlest fish yet, a 12 inch fish. Of course the babies and the brutes get released

I also found out that the season is really short...about 130 days and the owners limit the camp to no more than 150 rods per season. There are only about 500 fish harvested each years.

They say that knowledge is power and my knowledge of Kwagama gave me the power to place one of these beautiful fish on the stringer and enjoy it for dinner. Kwagama is the only waters that I have harvest trout from with the exception of an occasional stocker from Pennsylvania. Kwagama's Brookies have flesh as dark red as Sockeye Salmon and they sure taste good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 7:35 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: April 30th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 2516
Location: Pownal
Rory wrote:
Matt, I really don't get how you would have thought I was referring to FFIM. That explains the defensive comments, I guess.


Indeed, I thought you were talking about FFIM. It's not like you don't use your pointy stick on this site at times. Just thought I'd get mine out and return the favor.

As for which site you were actually talking about . . . a mystery it shall remain, lol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 7:36 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: January 24th, 2002, 1:00 am
Posts: 2290
Location: Lyons, CO
A max limit makes sense when you have lots of recruitment without a ton of pressure. I'm sure there are some other places with plenty of wild fish in the small size range and fewer larger ones. Deboullie was that way when I last visited in the late 90s. The max limit needs to be low enough and/or small enough to allow plenty of fish a chance to make it to maturity, but high enough to allow enough harvest of smaller fish to put a dent in the population. That magic number is going to vary from place to place, but it's a great problem for a bio to have, rather than the usual, low recruitment, low productivity oligotrophic lakes that we have.

What I favor is a kind of statewide limit on harvest of larger brookies, i.e. you have to tag larger fish and you only get a very small number of big fish tags and maybe 1 "trophy tag" per year. Let's say you could only keep 2 brookies over 12 and only 1 over 16 per year and they had to be tagged immediately. You could do the same thing with salmon, only allowing 2 over 16 and 1 over 20 per year. And togue, only 2 over 18 and 1 over 22. I think it's pretty easy for people to understand that we've got to keep our big breeders swimming, plus this gives more anglers a chance to take home a trophy.

It's interesting to me that the way the regs are defined is that we first give all waters a standard set of fairly lenient regulations, and then apply special regulations to some waters to decrease harvest. It might be nice to do the opposite, where we make general law fairly strict, and then have special regulations for any of the lakes/ponds that can handle additional harvest. Then the department could really publicize these. Recent examples included Chesuncock for short salmon and Moosehead for small togue, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 8:14 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: October 13th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 3280
Location: Sidney, Me
Quote:
It might be nice to do the opposite, where we make general law fairly strict, and then have special regulations for any of the lakes/ponds that can handle additional harvest.


You do realize you're talking about the state with the strictest general law bag limits in the country on salmonids, correct?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 9:32 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 19th, 2003, 1:00 am
Posts: 237
Location: Brunswick, ME
Rory,

You do realize IF&W just increased the general bag limit on salmonids to 8 fish. You can't keep 8 fish of one species, but you can now keep a total of 8 salmonids a day.

We may have (or have had) the lowest general law bag limits in the country (I'm not sure of this as I've never seen a study or survey sited to confirm that statement), but I would be willing to bet we do have the highest (or among the highest) percentage of native & wild salmonid waters managed with general law (5 fish) bag limits in the country.

I would also say you should compare the general bag limits for the native species of the respective states to get a more apples to apples comparison. MT or CO may have a higher general law bag limit on brook trout than we do, but brook trout are non-native to those states and compete with some of the native species.

Many states have more fertile water than we do in Maine, have more fish per acre or mile than we do, and more harvest is tolerated by the fishery than here. Some states stock over wild salmonids (PA) so a higher level of harvest can be maintained.

Maine's fish managers didn't put our "strict" general law bag limits in place just to do it. They were put in place in response to the decline of our salmonid fisheries. A good part of the decline was due to over-harvest. I don't consider having the strictest general law beg limits an accomplishment or something to crow about. It is proof positive that historically Maine salmonid anglers have been a consumptive lot.

To say we have the strictest general law bag limit in the country is too simplistic. There are several other factors involved and to rely on just the number of fish that can be kept is not an accurate way to measure our rules against those of other states.


Kevin O


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Kwagama Lake Lodge
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 9:51 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 30th, 2010, 5:46 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Sylvania, Ohio
Kevin and Rory, I don't know much about bag limits around the country but where I fish...Ontario and Pennsylvania (Erie steelhead) the bag limits seem way low compared to 8 fish.

At Kwagama Lake in Ontario you can pay $25 for a Conservation License which allows 2 fish per day. With a $50 license the limit is 5. Those are also the possession limits if you bring fish home.

In PA, I fish a 48 mile shoreline with about 10 streams that receive 1.2 million steelhead smolt every year. Bag limit is 3 per day.

Maine seems generous if you are into keeping lots of fish


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 10:16 pm 
Offline
FFIM-aholic

Joined: June 20th, 2006, 12:00 am
Posts: 1743
Maine has the most conservative bag limits?? I cant see this as being the case. Where did this information come from?? I personally think that we harvest way to many now...What could our fishing really be like? How many of you say the fishing was better years ago?? Why?? Increased access you say?? Increased access means increased harvest

_________________
God does not deduct from ones life the time spent fishing


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 30th, 2010, 11:43 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 19th, 2003, 1:00 am
Posts: 237
Location: Brunswick, ME
Here is a quick review of the general law bag limits from several states I just reviewed:

CO- 4 trout (rainbows, browns, cuttbows) brook trout-10; cutthroat- 0

MT- Western-3 trout, can include 3 cutthroat on lakes or; can include 3 cutthroat on rivers/streams, 0 over 10"; 20 brookies. Central- 5 trout including cutthroat, 20 brookies; Eastern- 5 trout, including cutthroat on lakes; C&R on cutthroats in rivers/streams

UT-4 trout no min.

WY- 6 trout, only one over 20"; brookies-16, only 6 over 8"

PA- 5 trout 7"min.

None of these states have larger general law bag limits than Maine for the salmonids they wish to protect. Several western states have sizable bag limits for brook trout and lake trout because they are trying to control those species from competing with the salmonids they are trying to protect. In some states, if a water has a lower bag limit than the general law bag limit and you limit out you are done fishing for the day. You can't go to another water and catch more fish to up the general bag limit. In Maine you can go from water to water until you catch 8 salmonids in the combination allowed.

Kevin O


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 31st, 2010, 7:58 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: October 13th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 3280
Location: Sidney, Me
Quote:
None of these states have larger general law bag limits than Maine for the salmonids they wish to protect.


Are you running for politics or something? That's quite the wordsmithing. Now, Montana does general bag by region, not statewide, but the Western district seems to have most of the blue ribbon stuff. Are you saying they don't wish to protect browns and rainbows, with the 5 fish a day bag, compared to 2 per species in Maine? Yes, cutthroat limits are low throughout the West, as they have practically been extirpated from most of their original haunts. I'm sure you'll excuse the 20 and 25 per day limits on brookies out West as an attempt to eliminate an invasive species, but if that's what it's about, why limit them at all? If we look closer to home at areas with wild brook trout, we see a daily bag of 10 in Vermont, and what, 25 in Quebec? Next door in New Hampshire, browns and brookies lump together at 5, so a person fishing a brown trout water could take 5 browns, where he wouldn't be allowed more than 2 in Maine. Perhaps they don't wish to "protect" the browns and rainbows they spend so much money stocking, eh?

I could go on and on, but I know it's no use to folks that are intent upon seeing things a certain way.

Oh, and those 3 fish you're allowed from Great Lakes tribs, they average what, 8 - 20 lbs apiece? That's a far cry from 5 brookies averaging around a quarter pound.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 31st, 2010, 8:11 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5007
Location: Near the tying bench
Rory wrote:
Quote:
None of these states have larger general law bag limits than Maine for the salmonids they wish to protect.


Are you running for politics or something? That's quite the wordsmithing. Now, Montana does general bag by region, not statewide, but the Western district seems to have most of the blue ribbon stuff. Are you saying they don't wish to protect browns and rainbows, with the 5 fish a day bag, compared to 2 per species in Maine? Yes, cutthroat limits are low throughout the West, as they have practically been extirpated from most of their original haunts. I'm sure you'll excuse the 20 and 25 per day limits on brookies out West as an attempt to eliminate an invasive species, but if that's what it's about, why limit them at all? If we look closer to home at areas with wild brook trout, we see a daily bag of 10 in Vermont, and what, 25 in Quebec? Next door in New Hampshire, browns and brookies lump together at 5, so a person fishing a brown trout water could take 5 browns, where he wouldn't be allowed more than 2 in Maine. Perhaps they don't wish to "protect" the browns and rainbows they spend so much money stocking, eh?

I could go on and on, but I know it's no use to folks that are intent upon seeing things a certain way.

Oh, and those 3 fish you're allowed from Great Lakes tribs, they average what, 8 - 20 lbs apiece? That's a far cry from 5 brookies averaging around a quarter pound.


Vermont as a destination brook trout fishery. Who knew?

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 31st, 2010, 8:56 am 
Offline
FFIM Addict

Joined: October 13th, 2002, 12:00 am
Posts: 3280
Location: Sidney, Me
Quote:
Vermont as a destination brook trout fishery. Who knew?


Trying hard to get an insult in, eh Hunter? I didn't realize the discussion was limited to "destination" fisheries, but I suspect Vermont draws a fair number of anglers from surrounding states. If you'd rather look at New York, it's 5 brookies, no size minimum, and the daily bag on togue and landlocked salmon is 3 per - if we want to have fun with numbers, we can express it as 50% higher than Maine.

I am surprised to hear about a new 8 fish combined bag, but I think as a practical matter it's effect will be practically nil.

Let's not forget that the daily brook trout limit is 2 on lakes and ponds in 13 of our 16 counties, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TMarchetti and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group