Killing Fish Just to Prove They're There

“While much of what pops up on my Facebook feed is of marginal interest, or worse, no interest at all, the “See Your Memories” posts are often useful as they help put things in perspective after the fact. I posted the following 4 years ago, and prior to the formation of NFC. -Bob Mallard”

Prior to the formation of NFC, Emily Bastian was working for Maine Audubon and heading up the joint Maine Audubon, Maine TU, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) brook trout survey project. Emily did a great job during her five years heading up the project, and had she been allowed to run it the way she wanted to, the results would have been much better.

Emily reached out to NFC National Chair Ted Williams and I to join her on a coastal stream survey in Downeast Maine. The intent was to document, or confirm, populations of sea-run brook trout, many of which overlapped with federally endangered Atlantic salmon. This trip is what got me interested in sea-run brook trout, while also refueling my interest in imperiled Atlantic salmon.

NFC founding members and current Executive Director and National Chair, Bob Mallard and Ted Williams in Downeast Maine.

I had recently pointed out to ME Audubon and ME TU that their stated goal, since removed, of getting waters added to Maine’s State Heritage Fish (SHF) list, was moot in regard to coastal streams, as the law only applies to lakes and ponds. This in turn led to a deeper analysis which showed that even at the pond level, waters where brook trout were caught by volunteers and confirmed by MDIFW, were only being added to the SHF list at a rate of approximately 35%.

It was also made clear to us that the MDIFW biologist working with the group was not going to use the data collected by the volunteers due to the fact that it was at the “water level” and they were working at the “watershed level.” That raised red flags as you can’t understand what is going on at the watershed level if you don’t first understand what’s going on at the water level. Plus while good science, watershed-level management is rarely practiced as evident by varying regulations on various waters in the same watershed, which is the rule not the exception.

NFC National Vice Chair Emily Bastian and National Chair Ted Williams taking a break after surveying some coastal streams in Downeast Maine.

This 4-year-old post fits well, and in a several ways, with a recent piece I wrote about “data” in MidCurrent. First is the lack of clear, concise, and meaningful goals as noted in the article:

“The information collected through the Brook Trout Survey by volunteer anglers – verified by biologists – will help inform future fisheries management decisions. This data will be used to set policy and implement effective conservation strategies to protect, restore, and enhance native Eastern Brook Trout populations in Maine”

Second is the failure to deliver on the promises made to volunteers, members, donors, and supporters. In the case of the coastal stream component of the Maine brook trout survey project, no changes have been made that I am aware of, and after five years of surveying streams.

Lastly, is that we are killing fish, albeit mostly inadvertently through incidental mortality, just to prove they are there. With minimal chance of getting any real reform, and no concessions made to date, should we really be angling with worms for rare fish under the guise of a survey intended to “implement effective conservation strategies”?

A volunteer and project coordinator using worms to catch sea-run brook trout from a coastal stream in Downeast Maine.

As it turned out, one volunteer, a project partner, posted a picture of a salmon on dry land and bleeding from the mouth on Facebook. The fish had been caught by one of the project coordinators. When I challenged it, the picture was pulled down. Upon investigation, due to the lack of any fin clip, it was likely a federally endangered Atlantic salmon not a landlocked salmon, and possibly a wild one.

The conservation community needs to do better here. We must lead by example, and not perpetuate studies and surveys with no clear goals, and that put fish at risk. We must raise, not lower, the bar. And if we expect to be taken seriously, we must stop killing fish just to prove they are there. While we can’t stop state fish and game agencies from doing this, we should not enable them.