Recent NH Trout Legislation: The Facts...

The NH legislature recently voted to remove the current definition of “brook trout” from statute. This is the culmination of a lot of hard work by State Representative and F&G legislative committee member Ellen Read, as well as NH NFC which has been involved from the start. While the direct benefits of the removal are minimal, the indirect benefits are notable, as it’s a critical first step in what we hope will be an overhaul of how NH views and manages its wild native brook trout.

A year or so ago, NH NFC was asked by a then board member to support a bill that would have redefined the definition of “brook trout” to be species-specific, not a multi-species catch-all as it is now, as well codifying the critically important Wild Trout Management (WTM) program, the only formal wild trout management program in the state.

The intent of the bill was to highlight native brook trout, NH’s official Freshwater Fish, as a unique species, not as a part of an aggregation of unrelated species, including nonnatives and hatchery hybrids, as well as to try to save and ideally expand the faltering WTM program by making it a law not a policy, as is the case with regard to Maine’s heralded State Heritage Fish program.

To be clear, there are only 16 WTM waters statewide, no waters have been added to the program in 15 years, and there are no WTM streams in the wild-trout-rich White Mountain National Forest and no WTM waters at all in Pittsburg NH. And based on discussions with NH Fish and Game (NH F&G), it’s very likely that the program will be replaced with a far less protective and effective one.

While NFC saw merit in the concerns presented, the general concept, and the idea of going to the legislature to get done what NH F&G did not seem to be willing to do on their own, we did not believe that the approach as then documented was winnable, or even the best way to do it. And there were questions as to what could and could not be done legislatively.

Specifically, NFC did not believe that mixing species (brook trout) and status (wild) in a single definition, or mixing species definitions and special programs (WTM) in a single bill was a good idea, as it was too complicated and potentially confusing, and therefore very likely to fail, or worse, work against wild native brook trout in NH.

NFC requested that the bill be broken into several workable pieces, one of which would be to change the current multi-species definition of “brook trout” to “trout,” the opposite of what was being proposed, while also addressing issues pertaining to the confusing and redundant inclusion of Loch Leven trout (a strain of brown trout) and golden trout (likely meant to denote locally extirpated Arctic charr) in the multi-species definition. See below…

Changing “brook trout” to “trout” in the current definition would be more biologically accurate, easier for anglers and others to understand, and more enforceable. It would be easy to implement, as it could be done as a global change in the rule book. NFC also wanted to address WTM separately, and very carefully.

Unable to gain any concessions, NFC declined to support the bill. But we did not actively oppose it either as we saw value in getting the issue out in the open. We notified NH F&G as to our position and why we were not in support of the bill. NFC also told F&G that if it passed as written, which looked like a possibility at the time, it would invalidate most brown trout and rainbow trout special regulations which would create enforcement issues as well as an administrative nightmare.

The bill as originally written was heard at the legislature, and while it was not killed or passed, it was held over to be reworked. At this time State Representative and Fish & Game Committee member Ellen Read took the bill over and reached out to NFC for help in defining something that would be beneficial to wild native brook trout as well as implementable. Without Representative Read’s hard work, nothing would have happened.

It soon became evident that nothing could be done at the F&G rule level until the brook trout definition was changed in statute, as you can’t have a rule that contradicts a law. As “brook trout” was the only trout definition in statute, or fish definition for that matter, rather than change it, it was easiest to simply remove it, which would pave the way for F&G to address it on their end if they would agree to do so.

CLICK HERE TO READ NFC's PROPOSAL

While referred to on the www as “frivolous” by a local business, the bill that was killed had merit. Unfortunately, it was doomed to fail as it was poorly defined. Fortunately, however, the bill resulted in the removal of a definition in statute that lumped native brook trout in with nonnative brown (including a strain by name) and rainbow trout, locally extirpated golden trout, and hatchery hybrids.

Like many citizen initiated bills, most notably the recent failed legislation that led to Maine’s game-changing region-wide prohibition on the use of live fish as bait in the critically important North Zone, you sometimes win by losing, and this is one of those cases… Had the bill not been submitted, the issue would never had made it to the legislature, and the multi-species definition of brook trout would still be in statute.

While there is some confusing and inaccurate information online, there will no longer be any definition of “brook trout” in statute, and there never was one for “trout,” and this will not change as far as we know. And contrary to what was said online, nothing has been done through rule-making on the F&G end to date, but this is the goal of those involved.

There was however an informal request from the legislative committee that instructed the department to update their definitions, as well as come up with a comprehensive plan for managing wild native brook trout, things that NH F&G has been unwilling to do on their own in the past.

While “putting trout management in the hands of the professionals and out of the hands of politicians” as noted online looks good on paper, without the support of the legislature, this would not have happened. The legislators should be congratulated for stepping up and nudging things in the right direction when the professionals had failed to do so.

And the assertion that it would require “400” changes to support a new definition for “trout” in the rule book is grossly overstated. It is actually closer to 50 changes as NFC did an extensive analysis of the rule book to determine the potential impact on NH F&G early on it the process. And as noted earlier, it could be done as a global change with a couple of exceptions that would have to be addressed separately.

The needle moves very slowly in NH in regard to fisheries management, and not always in the right direction. Without efforts like what just happened, it would move a lot slower, and in some cases, not at all. The flawed definition of “brook trout” in statute and rule has sat unchallenged for years. It should not have taken outside intervention to get it changed, and all of those who put in the effort to get it changed should be commended, not condemned.