Angler Harvest... Saying so Doesn't...

A larege wild native brook trout from a New Hampshire river...

Bob Mallard - Executive Director, Native Fish Coalition

I believe it’s fair to say that New Hampshire has a problem with regard to angler exploitation. Many waters that were once home to wild native brook trout are now propped up almost solely through stocking. In many cases even holdover stocked fish are scarce. This is especially true in the White Mountains region where rivers such as the Saco, Ellis, lower Wildcat, Swift, Peabody, Pemigewasset, Ammonoosuc, Israel, Zealand, Gale, Mad, Upper Ammonoosuc, etc., are now managed as primarily put-and-take fisheries.

While many of the waters noted above are now being negatively impacted by longer and hotter summers, warming water, droughts, and floods and the habitat degradation they cause, most stocking programs and the decline of the resident wild native fish populations started long before the environmental situation got to where it is today. Most of these waters are currently managed under general law regulations: Unrestricted tackle, a 5-fish daily limit, and no length limit, and have been for generations.

Rather than address angler exploitation, both incidental mortality and deliberate harvest, NH Fish and Game (NHFG) turned to stocking to try to mask the problem with regard to declining fisheries. This in turn put pressure on the remaining resident wild native brook trout due to competition for food and space, predation, and in some cases a loss of genetic diversity that reduced natural reproduction. In the end the wild native brook trout populations were notably compromised.

Over the years, NHFG has suspended stocking on certain waters that had been stocked for years and even decades. In most cases these waters are now self-sustaining brook trout fisheries. Some waters were changed under the badly stalled out and at-risk of going away Wild Trout Management (WTM) program. WTM waters have an artificial lures restriction and are managed for catch and release. Would these waters be what they are without the angling restrictions? In many cases, I would say no.

Stocking was recently suspended on a second group of waters to address problems in the hatchery system that have resulted in fewer fish to go around. None of these waters received stricter regulations. Will the suspension of stocking alone address the problem? Will these waters hold up as well as the WTM waters have? While the more remote sections will likely be OK, what will happen to the easy access sections without stocking or protective regulations?

NHFG Director of Fisheries Dianne Timmins regularly, and publicly, states that she does not believe that angler harvest is a limiting factor. She says that habitat, sterile water, and a weak forage base, or “tiny bugs” as she stated at a recent public hearing, are the limiting factors in regard to both fish numbers and age/size distribution. While this is true to some degree, it’s just not that simple...

In response to a question as to why she continues to stock the lower Wildcat River in Jackson, an easy to access unregulated section of stream with a viable wild native brook trout population, Ms. Timmins told NFC that it was to address “heavy angling pressure.” Her response as to why she stocks Echo Lake in Franconia, another water with a strong wild brook trout population, was the same.

In all but very extreme cases, angling in and of itself does not hurt fisheries, at least to the degree that the population is notably affected. Conversely, harvest alters the population in regard to both abundance and age/size distribution. In Maine there is a saying used to describe compromised fisheries, “fished out.” It’s interesting that anglers understand the impact of our actions, yet fisheries managers don’t. And how else can you explain why most of our best fisheries are managed under restricted tackle and harvest?

At a legislative hearing in winter 2023 where folks tried unsuccessfully to codify, or put into law, NH’s badly stalled out WTM program, a spokesperson for New Hampshire Trout Unlimited echoed Ms. Timmins’ position in regard to harvest. And they went a step further by saying that the harvest of trout doesn’t happen…

“YOU’D BE VERY HARD-PRESSED TO SHOW ME A WATER WHERE TROUT FISHING HAS GONE DOWN BECAUSE OF ANGLER PRESSURE...”

“Anglers just don’t even kill fish anymore...”

Ms. Timmins and NHTU are wrong about angler harvest, it can and does do harm to fisheries. Harvest lowers natural abundance and alters age/size distribution. It can also create genetic bottlenecks and compromise natural reproduction by reducing genetic diversity. Low abundance can make a population more vulnerable to warm water, droughts, floods, predation, and other things outside our control as well.

New Hampshire’s wild native trout are up against a lot these days, we shouldn’t make matters worse by allowing unchecked harvest and high-impact tackle where it is negatively impacting the population. Protecting fish from angler exploitation is one of the few things we can control in regard to maintaining healthy wild native fish populations, and we should do so.

Like many state fish and game agencies, NHFG apparently believes that limiting “opportunity” by imposing tackle and bag restrictions results in lost license sales. But revenue is just part of the equation. Expenses are equally as important and when anglers consume more resources than their license pays for it is a net loss. Liberalizing tackle restrictions and increasing daily limits when costs are going up will just make matters worse.

You could argue that poor fishing is a deterrent to license sales, at least non-residents as they have other options. Further taxing both stocked and wild fisheries by liberalizing tackle and bag restrictions will likely result in degraded fishing, especially when there are fewer stocked fish available than before. Several non-resident anglers who wrote in opposition of the recent regulations change proposal stated that they would stop fishing in New Hampshire if the changes went through.

While angler harvest hurts, saying so doesn’t. Rather than supporting scientifically flawed positions from the powers that be, as responsible anglers who are directly impacted by these decisions, we should challenge them. When it comes to wild native brook trout in NH, we haven’t done that to the degree necessary to influence any real change. In doing so we have opened the door for further erosion as we just saw with regard to the recent regulations change proposal from NHFG.

Interestingly, the recent regulations proposal which included a provision to all but eliminate fly fishing only on stocked waters in NH was soundly challenged by some of the same people and groups that opposed codifying WTM and stating their unwavering support for NHFG. Some opposed to the removal of FFO regulations cited increased pressure as a concern, while others went as far as to say said it would “decimate” the fishery. If not harvest, what exactly are they concerned with?