Officials are poisoning waterways in order to kill massive numbers of Asian carp, an invasive species that threatens the multi-billion dollar Great Lakes fishing industry. The poisoning also collaterally kills thousands of other fish species. Critics want to know if this is the right thing to be doing?

Tom Remington

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is asking anglers to give us their opinions on Maine’s wild brook trout fishing opportunities.

Maine’s native and wild brook trout populations represent a unique, valuable and irreplaceable resource. The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture recently proclaimed Maine the last true stronghold for wild brook trout in the eastern United States, with more than twice the number of intact watersheds as the other 16 states in the eastern range combined.

MDIFW has partnered with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension to produce a questionnaire that is being sent via e-mail to tens of thousands of anglers throughout Maine and the United States to get their opinions about wild brook trout fishing. The questionnaire is part of the Wild Brook Trout Initiative, a three-tiered effort to promote the conservation of wild brook trout, to improve communications with anglers and outdoors groups, and to market Maine’s unique wild brook trout resources.

Among the topics covered in the questionnaire are: Do you like fishing ponds or streams? Do you prefer remote or drive-to waters? Fly-fishing with lures or bait? Would you like to hire a registered guide? Do you camp out or stay in a lodge when out fishing?

Maine residents and non-residents each have a separate questionnaire they may answer. To take part in the survey, please go to www.mefishwildlife.com and click on the “Wild Brook Trout Initiative Questionnaire.”

“Anglers’ preferences will help MDIFW guide the future management of our brook trout resources. The goal is to help anglers enjoy Maine’s unique gift of wild brook trout waters in a responsible and sustainable manner while connecting them with fishing services from sporting camps to fly shops,” according to John Boland, Director of Fisheries Operations. “We’re hopeful that the anglers who fish Maine’s wild brook trout waters will develop a vested interest in protecting these resources.”

Recently, the Department’s Wild Brook Trout Initiative received two grants for the development of the web site and to fund other aspects of this endeavor. The Betterment Fund, created by the will of the late William Bingham 2nd of Bethel, awarded $5,000 to the project, and retailer L.L. Bean of Freeport contributed $3,000.

“The Department has received enthusiastic support from around Maine with respect to this Wild Brook Trout Initiative,” Boland said. “These donations are greatly appreciated and hopefully will pave the way for a productive working relationship with the various groups connected to trout fishing in Maine.”

AUGUSTA – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection have partnered with Fly Fishing in Maine (FFIM), a group dedicated to protecting Maine’s fisheries, to place three washing stations at popular Maine fisheries in an attempt to prevent the spreading of “didymo” — an invasive species of algae — to Maine’s rivers.

Two of the sites are on the Rapid River in western Maine, and the third is at the Route 35 bridge in Windham on the Presumpscot River.

“Perhaps the most serious threat to Maine’s fragile aquatic natural resources is the introduction of invasive fish, plants or other organisms. It’s imperative that we make every effort to prevent these intoductions from occurring,” says John Boland, Fisheries Division Director for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “Fly Fishing in Maine deserves credit for facilitating this effort.”

“Didymo” – Didymosphenia geminata and commonly called “rock snot” – is a type of algae known as a diatom. The single-celled organism can “bloom” or spread, creating mats of brown material on rocks or riverbeds that could interfere with the life cycles of insects and fish. Presently, didymo has not been found in Maine, but it was confirmed in New York and Quebec in 2006, and in New Hampshire and Vermont in 2007. Didymo is native to far northern and mountainous reaches of the globe, but is expanding its range, commonly to waters frequented by anglers.

“There is no one answer to solving the problem but between a public education awareness program and the first of what we hope to be many public washing stations, there is a chance that we can limit the spread of this stuff,” said Ken Beaulieu of Fly Fishing in Maine.

This program is made possible by a generous grant from L.L. Bean. The grant will cover the costs of building the pilot washing stations, signage and the washing solution. Other partners in this effort include landowners, the Maine Department of Transportation (Presumpcot River site), Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust (Rapid River-Lower Dam), and Nextera Energy (formerly Florida Power and Light) (Rapid River-Middle Dam).

The stations will be maintained by volunteer “station keepers” who will monitor the stations and refresh them with a 5% salt-based solution. To be effective, anglers will need to remove plant and other debris from boots and then soak their boots, nets and other gear for 3 minutes before proceeding into and when exiting the water, according to John McPhedran, a land and water quality biologist at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Anglers also are asked to clean equipment again at home and then dry completely, ideally for 48 hours.

“This is a reasonable start to ensuring that anglers are not contributing to the spread of didymo into Maine’s waters,” Boland said.

For more information on Fly Fishing in Maine, visit its website at www.flyfishinginmaine.org.

Posted by Tom Remington

AUGUSTA – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) is strongly encouraging anglers to protect Maine’s fish by changing from soft plastic lures to biodegradable ones.

Maine fisheries biologists are reporting increasing numbers of angled trout and salmon with indigestible soft plastic lures in their stomachs, according to John Boland, IF&W Fisheries Division Director. A discarded soft plastic lure consumed innocently by a brook trout from the bottom of a freshwater shoal likely remains in that fish’s stomach for the rest of its life and may cause health issues such as ulcers and weight loss.

Soft plastic lures are most commonly used by bass anglers, often in waters shared with trout and salmon. IF&W is cooperating in studies on the effects of soft plastic lure ingestion by trout and salmon, including one recent experiment at Unity College, which was conducted by IF&W Pathologist Dr. Russ Danner, Unity College Professor Jim Chacko, PhD., and IF&W Fisheries Biologist Francis Brautigam, and in another study currently underway at Southern Maine Community College.

The study conducted at Unity College found that 65 percent of brook trout voluntarily consumed soft plastic lures if they simply were dropped into water.

“We found that fish retained the lures in their stomachs for 13 weeks without regurgitating them,” according to Dr. Danner. “They also began to act anorexic and lost weight within 90 days of eating a soft plastic lure.”

Without regard to the chemical toxicity of ingested soft plastics, the fact that these lures are occupying space in a trout’s stomach limits the amount of space available for natural food. There is a lot of veterinary medical evidence that foreign bodies in the digestive tract cause ulcers, weight loss, and anorexia.

“We strongly encourage anglers to voluntarily purchase biodegradable and food-based lures rather than soft plastic ones,” Dr. Danner said. “Also, we are asking anglers not to discard plastic lures into any waters, and also to attempt to retrieve any soft plastic lures that have become unhooked”.

For millennia, trout and salmon have foraged the waters of Maine for nutritious natural forage such as small fishes, insects and other invertebrates. In the last 20 years, food mimics made of soft plastic has begun to compete with these nutritious natural forage items. The effects of soft plastic lure pollution on freshwater ecosystems are not well understood yet, but it is unlikely that eating soft plastic lures will be found to be a good thing.

“The wide assortment of soft plastic fishing lures is staggering,” Dr. Danner said. “Soft plastic lures come in every color, a myriad of sizes, and resembling every swimming, crawling, and flying creature a fish could imagine eating. Large fish searching the waters of Maine are bound to come upon brightly colored soft plastic lures lost or discarded by anglers and consume these imitators of natural food items.”

There are estimates that as much as 20 million pounds of soft plastic are being lost in freshwater lakes and streams annually in the U.S. The average life expectancy for these soft plastic lures is more than 200 years.

“We need all anglers to do their part to protect Maine’s valuable fisheries from this serious threat,” Dr. Danner said. “Natural lure alternatives are available at many retailers and online, and should become the choice of people who love to fish Maine’s waters”.

If you wish to learn more about the experiment conducted at Unity College a report on the project was published in the Northern American Journal of Fisheries Management. It is available at http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1577%2FM08-085.1.

Posted by Tom Remington

Restoration projects don’t always result in desired outcomes. Maine’s Penobscot River once provided a bounty of resources; a multitude of fish species, nutrients to care for the fish and other aquatic plant life, along with numerous opportunities that benefited the natives and residents within the river watershed. Then progress got in the way, so to speak.

Several dams were built along the river stretching from near Ellsworth north toward the Millinocket region. These dams, all a part of progress, were built mostly for producing electricity and water control. The result played a pivotal role in the destruction of a natural fishery that included several species of sea-run fish.

Man has been the culprit of many things but man being an intelligent creature with instincts for survival, learns from the mistakes and over time works to correct them. Efforts are currently underway to remove some more of the dams and construct fish ladders, fish lifts or fish ways as they are commonly called. The dream is to restore the Penobscot River to what it used to be.

Even though man is all too often blamed for every bad thing that happens to the environment, there is one thing that is certain and yet is overlooked. Man is still here. Man isn’t going away anytime soon, we hope. And with this knowledge, man must also become a part of the equation to solving our environmental problems.

While it certainly is a commendable dream to want to restore the Penobscot River to or near its original condition, we have to ask if it’s feasible, practical and the right thing to do both biologically and socially.

The Penobscot River Restoration Project is lead by the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. The Trust is comprised of the following organizations: 1) the Penobscot Indian Nation, 2) American Rivers, 3) Atlantic Salmon Federation, 4) Maine Audubon, 5) Natural Resources Council of Maine, 6) Trout Unlimited, and 7) The Nature Conservancy. These groups are working with the U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service), the State of Maine and PPL Maine Corporation, the company that owns the dams.

All of these groups have worked together in forming an agreement that aims to accomplish certain things, as are listed on their website.

# Restore self sustaining populations of native sea-run fish, such as the endangered Atlantic salmon, through improved access to nearly 1,000 miles of historic habitat;
# Renew opportunities for the Penobscot Indian Nation to exercise sustenance fishing rights;
# Create new opportunities for tourism, business and communities;
# Resolve longstanding disputes and avoid future uncertainties over the regulation of the river.

The agreement also will provide for the following:

* The Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT) the option to purchase three dams from PPL Corporation, and subsequently remove the two lowermost dams on the river: Veazie and Great Works;
* The PRRT, after obtaining the approval of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, to decommission and pursue construction of a state-of-the-art fish bypass around the third dam, Howland, that will, if found feasible maintain the impoundment;
* PPL Corporation the opportunity to increase generation at six existing dams, which would result in maintaining essentially all of the current energy generation;
* PPL Corporation to improve fish passage at four additional dams.

There are two issues with this effort that may not be getting the attention and the scrutiny that they should. One is the replacement of the lost electricity from removal of two dams and the closing of a third. The other issue is that of accounting for the spread of other invasive species now living below the dams that were not there back in the days of which the PRRT dreams of restoring the river to.

There are presently two organizations that I am aware of that have come out publicly in opposition to both the loss of electricity and the opening of the waterway to invasive species, namely the northern pike – The Millinocket Fin and Feather Club and the Town of Millinocket.

The Millinocket Fin and Feather Club recently drafted a letter of opposition to the dam removals and sent it to the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. (View a copy of the complete letter here.) FERC controls the licensing of the operation of the dams for the purpose of generating electricity. It is my understanding that the reason the letter went to FERC is because the next step in the PRRT restoration project is for PPL Maine to turn over their licensing in order that the dams can be purchased and removed. These groups want to stop that process.

The Town of Millinocket has also drafted a letter that has been sent to FERC with copies mailed to the Maine Governor, U.S. Congressmen and Women, state representatives, several towns along the river and other key players. Both letters essentially address the same two issues. (Read the Town of Millinocket letter here.)

The issue of invasive species should raise a pretty big debate. According to the Bangor Daily News, PRRT concurs that pike are present in the Penobscot.

Laura Rose Day, the river restoration trust’s executive director, said the trust shares the councilors’ concerns. Pike have been in the Pushaw Lake area of the lower Penobscot since at least 2003, state biologists said.

“We have been aware that pike are in the drainage of the river, and that’s why we had a team of experts that looked at that issue,” Day said Tuesday. “There is a risk, but it’s one factor among many.”

The real argument comes in whether or not northern pike, a known vicious predator of most fish species, including trout and salmon, would find its way north through the Penobscot watershed and into the many tributaries that have some of Maine’s finest trout and salmon fisheries. If this should happen the results could be devastating.

We need to go back for a moment and revisit what I said earlier in this article about the presence of man. The reason that pike are present in the Penobscot River below these dams is said to be the results of man’s illegal introduction of the fish into Maine waters. We can curse and throw worms to show our frustration but it doesn’t change the fact that this deed was done and now we have to live with it. It now becomes part of the restoration equation.

The Town of Millinocket and the Fin and Feather Club raise some serious questions about the spread of invasive species after the dams are removed. Ray Campbell, Jr., President of the Millinocket Fin and Feather Club, explains the possible watershed contamination.

If the surrender of license is to take place as planned, it would introduce invasive species, never there before, into the pristine Piscataquis River, plus giving northern pike, already in the Penobscot River below these dams, access into the Piscataquis River. The northern pike will not only destroy the fishery in the Piscataquis, but recent studies show that they, in all probability, will gain access from the East Branch of the Pleasant River (which flows into the Piscataquis) into upper Jo-Mary Lake, and from there into the West Branch of the Penobscot. This will essentially destroy the entire fishery downstream of
Ripogenus Dam.

Would opening the Penboscot River waterway threaten the existing fisheries? It appears nobody wants or has the ability to answer that question factually. There aren’t an abundance of studies available on northern pike migration. The fish is considered a sedentary species but that certainly doesn’t mean it doesn’t migrate at all.

The northern pike is commonly referred to as the wolf fish because of its notorious feeding habits and pronounced teeth. Essentially it will feed on most any fish species along with other aquatic animals including ducks. Fear runs rampant in trout and salmon fishermen when they hear of pike being found in their favorite fishing hole as the fish are known to destroy existing fisheries by both eating the fish and the fish the fish eat, like smelts.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s Northern Pike Management Plan (2001), fully recognizes the existence of the fish in several of Maine’s waters. The plan calls for managing the fish to provide opportunities for fishermen but recognizes that every effort needs to be made to prevent the fish from getting into undesirable waters. The plan offers very little insight into the migration and distribution of the fish.

A study conducted in the mid 1990s in Alaska (Seasonal Movements, Age and Size Statistics, and Food Habits of Northern Pike in Upper Cook Inlet during 1994 and 1995, David S. Rutz) lends us some knowledge of the habits of northern pike.

The Cook Inlet Study in part looks at the migration of pike from the inlet into rivers and other tributaries that feed the inlet. One tracked fish traveled a distance of 13 km (just under 8 miles).

Another study done in Germany (Long range seasonal movements of northern pike (Esox lucius L.) in the barbel zone of the River Ourthe (River Meuse basin, Belgium), M. Ovidio and J. C. Philippart, 2003) also shows us that northern pike can travel a substantial distance during normal migration periods.

In this study, pike were tracked through their migration periods up and down the river. Again, one fish traveled a distance of 15.7 km (9.75 miles). Of note was the fact that tracking of fish downstream was stopped due to what the study calls a weir (obstruction, possibly a dam. It doesn’t say.)

I think we can safely conclude that pike will migrate to distances far enough that other waters north of the dams could face fisheries problems. The question becomes how proliferate will the pike become and what kind of damage will they cause?

Even though Richard Dill, regional fisheries biologist for Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is hesitant to officially state that pike are in the main portion of the Penobscot, few will argue it’s only a matter of time.

As much as the Penobscot River Restoration Trust would like to bring the river back to its glory days, it would be irresponsible to not fully explore the dangers that exist. Yes, these pike are here because of the ignorance of man but ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

The BDN story says this about whether pike could find their way all the way to West Branch and beyond.

But biologists have not determined whether the connective waters — Upper Ebeemee Lake, Wangan Brook and Sanborn Pond — are deep enough to allow that, Dill said. Their studies are ongoing.

This presents another problem in trying to make a determination. The MDIFW Northern Pike Management Plan I referred to earlier, states some of the difficulties in trying to stop the proliferation of pike. It points out that when pike spawn they move into weedy areas. Biologists would like then to lower water levels to sharply reduce the survival of the northern pike. The problem is that the spawning period, also the period when pike migrate the farthest, coincides with spring when water is at it’s highest. This fact alone can aid in the further spread of the invasive pike.

What we know about the northern pike may not be enough to accurately assess the complete potential danger that exists should the dams be removed. One thing is for sure. It would seem that rushing into the removal could be a huge mistake. I know this may not seem like rushing for the PRRT. Perhaps the millions of dollars that are going to be spent to purchase these dams and tear them down, could be better spent trying to determine what might happen once they are removed; at least enough to satisfy everyone.

I would love to see the Penobscot returned to as close to what it used to be but not if it means ignoring the problems man has created that could destroy a healthy fishery now. That makes little sense.

Tom Remington

Check out some gift ideas at the Oregon Knife Shop

~~~~~

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), combined with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC) and Department of Interior (DOI), is proposing to create a new Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon that, if allowed, will entail nearly two-thirds of the state of Maine, when combined with the existing DPS.

In November of 2000, the feds created a DPS for Atlantic salmon that involved basically eight rivers of eastern Maine and much of its watershed.

The GOM DPS was defined as all naturally reproducing wild populations and those river-specific hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon having historical, river-specific characteristics found north of and including tributaries of the lower Kennebec River to, but not including, the mouth of the St. Croix River at the U.S.-Canada border. In the final rule listing the GOM DPS, we did not include fish that inhabit the mainstem and tributaries of the Penobscot River above the site of the former Bangor Dam, the upper Kennebec River, or the Androscoggin River within the GOM DPS (65 FR 69469; November 17, 2000).

The new proposal intends to create another new DPS which will include the three main rivers of the state – the Kennebec, the Penobscot and the Androscoggin – and all of their tributaries and watersheds. (see included map)

Before getting into the affects this proposal may have on Maine’s economy and the Atlantic salmon, lets first address an issue that, from what I can see, is not even being discussed but could come back and derail the entire process once lawsuits begin gathering at the doorstep of the Department of Interior. This involves Distinct Population Segments.

Back this past September, Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, made a ruling that involved returning gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region back to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. What’s that got to do with Atlantic salmon? Good question. (You can read the complete ruling of Judge Paul Friedman here.)

Friedman’s ruling, considered by some as “shameful“, may have created a conundrum that few, if any, will see until it’s too late.

Friedman ruled that the reason the wolves had to be placed back on the Endangered Species List was because the USFWS cannot create a Distinct Population Segment within a Distinct Population Segment. Essentially what he ruled was that because in 1978 the USFWS declared wolves endangered or threatened in all 48 lower states, they couldn’t now create a DPS out of that, in other words the Western Great Lakes wolf population.

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment,” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

His reasoning, as I understand if from his ruling, is because the Endangered Species Act does not provide a definition of what a DPS is. Oddly and confusingly enough, Friedman, in his very own ruling seemed to contradict himself by saying the USFWS had the authority to create Distinct Population Segments, but in this case they couldn’t.

In another unusual move, he remanded the case back to the USFWS for a definition. In consulting a lawyer, I was told that this move was unusual because to remand a case usually involves sending the case back to a lower court. There was none in this case.

In any case, I have been told by some, including legal council, that although Friedman’s ruling doesn’t come right out and say it, he may have created a mess. Some feel that his ruling now makes it impossible for the USFWS to create any Distinct Population Segments. If this is the case, we now have to ask the questions as to whether or not the USFWS and the NMFS has the legal authority to create a new DPS of Atlantic salmon in Maine. One would think this could at least be challenged in court.

But as I said, this mess may not even rear its ugly head until long after the feds have decided whether to strap the state of Maine by essentially locking up two-thirds of the state in order to protect the habitat of the Atlantic salmon.

It has been 8 years since the feds declared rivers and watersheds in Eastern Maine off limits in order to allow the Atlantic salmon to grow. Since that time minimal change in the number of salmon in the rivers has occurred. Of course we have to wonder if declaring more waters critical habitat will do anything more for the Salmon or even if the effort will destroy the fragile and struggling Maine economy.

Many have argued this point. I read one article where someone said that back in 2000 the argument was used that listing the Downeast region critical Atlantic salmon habitat would destroy the economy there. They now show proof as the Downeast economy as remaining unchanged.

I offer a few things in rebuttal to that. Without meaning any offense to anyone Downeast, it’s hard to destroy an economy that doesn’t exist. The other argument that can be made is that when considering the geography and population densities of Washington County and Eastern Maine, compared with the areas surrounding the Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin rivers and their watersheds, there are astounding differences. And, we can’t lose sight of the fact we are in the middle of an economic crisis of which we have to wonder if this piling on of listing the Atlantic salmon would be too much for Maine or the federal government to handle?

I know of no one who does not want to see a return to Maine of Atlantic salmon. The question has to be, at what expense compared to the results of the effort? It would seem to me that much of the effort that has taken place all across Maine has contributed to the minimal successes we have seen for the Atlantic salmon. With continued efforts, that would include the anticipated removal of some dams in these rivers and construction of fish ladders at others, we can continue moving forward with that progress without the interference and numbing, crippling restrictions of the federal government and administrating the Endangered Species Act.

I did a bit more asking around and gathering information on areas this listing would affect that maybe many of you haven’t even considered. I received information from an anonymous source about one aspect of how a listing would affect us all. Below is a map of Maine that shows the regions that would be effected by an Atlantic salmon listing. Areas in red show the existing area of critical Atlantic salmon habitat. The green and gray encompass the area that will be affected by the new proposal.

As you can see, the creation of this area as critical and protected Atlantic salmon habitat is enormous when compared to the entire geographical scope of the state. What this would mean to each and every citizen is actually unclear as is always the case in dealing with the Endangered Species Act and especially when specific cases end up in our courts which have historically disregarded science, the Commerce Clause and the intent of the ESA.

One area that has already had a broad sweeping affect on Maine residents has been the Department of Transportation. The MDOT has opted to take the position that assumes the listing will occur. A memo was sent out to supervisors of DOT that will be affected by an ESA listing.

Almost all instream work will need to be reviewed under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Although these changes have not been finalized (there is still time period for public hearings) we will have to treat them as if they have. The reason for this is pretty simple. If the habitat is designated when we are halfway through a project, all stream work will have to cease until consultation can be completed. When habitat is proposed, rather than designated, the process is referred to as a conference rather than a consult, but otherwise the process is the same. I will have to send a scope of work and a map to Dan Tierney, a biologist in our Environmental office in Augusta. Dan will do a screening which can take a few days. That said, there is a potential for formal conferencing, which can take six months or longer to process. Plus I will also have to have John Perry, a fish biologist out of our Environmental office, conduct a habitat assessment before Dan can get the ball rolling on the conference. Once the habitat is listed John may not be able to shock streams in the habitat without a USFWS or NOAA biologist on the scene which will take even more time. So what does all this mean to you? It is even more important that you get me scopes of work on instream work as soon as you can. It is never too early to get me that information. I will need to know existing conditions such as the existing length and existing diameter. I will also need to know the proposed length and diameter of what you want to put back. If you know of any instream work for next summer let me know now so I can get the ball rolling.

For those who don’t have a copy and/or would like to read the amended Endangered Species Act of 1973, can do so by clicking this link. Below I’ve provided only a portion of Section 7 of the Act, as was mentioned above as a necessary step before any work can be done by the MDOT in AS designated habitat areas.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee
pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the
prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementation of such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection
(d)

What does all this mean? As I said before, it’s really hard to say precisely but there are some things that are revealed through this memo that definitely will happen and that’s the slowdown of all work within the DOT that might affect critical habitat of the Atlantic salmon. That slowdown will cost money, so you can expect your taxes to increase to pay for the added time and expense of administering the Act.

That culvert repair or replacement at the end of your driveway, may not happen this year or next or perhaps not at all. Bridge construction statewide in areas of Atlantic salmon habitat will be slowed or postponed. It may be cheaper to try to put off construction than deal with added expenses.

General road repair may be affected, resurfacing and new road construction will be slowed and costs go up. Where is the end to this? And this is only an issue with the Department of Transportation. How will this affect businesses within the habitat area and the general population?

The truth is we really don’t know for sure but all this needs consideration before jumping to create another Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon that might not reward us with any more salmon than utilizing of the efforts we have in place.

Another aspect to consider is the length of time this listing will remain in effect. For those who don’t know, in order for a listing to happen, certain criteria of the Endangered Species Act must be present.

SEC. 4. ø16 U.S.C. 1533¿ (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
Q:\COMP\WILDLIFE\ESA73
January 24, 2002
225 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 Sec. 4
(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Notice the Act doesn’t say all of these conditions, only one needs be proven before any species can be considered for listing. In the reverse of this action, in order for the USFWS and NMFS to remove the Atlantic salmon from protection, it has to be proven that the criteria that listed it has been met and that none of the other listed reasons exist.

This doesn’t mean that Maine can try a listing for a couple of years to see how it goes and then if it appears its not working well, bailout.

History has shown us that once a species is listed, rarely is federal protection removed. This costs all taxpayers money, strips management powers away from the state to care for its own populations of Atlantic salmon and seldom, if ever, protects local businesses, municipalities and the citizenry in general.

Me mustn’t lose sight of the fact that when listing critical habitat for a species, it affects all activities within that designated area including other species. What will this mean for recreational and commercial fishing in the area, home gardening, the farm that produces the milk next to the river, etc., etc.?

Even without the looming concerns of what’s going to happen to our economy, it is my opinion that the state of Maine and the efforts already exemplified can continue to work toward improvement of the waterways, removal of dams and construction of fishways and restoration of habitat, that will provide as much benefit as anything an ESA listing will accomplish. It may even provide a better outcome.

It should be up to the people of Maine and what they are willing and prepared to do to address this issue.

Tom Remington

Down under in New Zealand, officials are seriously considering a ban on felt-soled waders in fresh water in order to help stop the spread of didymo. VOXY covers the story.

Tom Remington

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s Fisheries Division is planning two informational meetings on a set of proposed regulation changes that are the result of our efforts to consolidate the Ice Fishing and Open Water Fishing law books.

The first meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday, June 23 at the Gray Regional Office, 358 Shaker Road in Gray, and the second will be on at 7 p.m. Wednesday, June 25 at the Sidney Regional Office, 270 Lyons Road, in Sidney.

If passed, the proposed regulation changes will take effect in April 2010 when the Department combines the two law books into a two-year booklet.

“These proposals will help east the process for a much broader rulemaking effort in 2009,” said John Boland, director of IF&W’s Fisheries Division.

The public is invited to provide comments either in writing or at one of the public informational meetings. Written comments may be sent to John.Boland@maine.gov or mailed to Mr. Boland’s attention at 284 State St., Station 41, Augusta, ME 04333.

Most of the proposed changes will affect southern and central Maine. The Department’s objective is to increase angling opportunities where possible, further simplify the law book, and save time and financial resources that instead can be used to continue protecting the inland fisheries resource, Boland said.

The following general fishing rules are being proposed for lakes and ponds in Cumberland, York, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and Waldo counties, although special restrictions may apply for specific waters:

Proposal Number 1: Lakes and ponds will be open to open water fishing year round. (Note: Two lines per angler, general law.)

* Lakes and ponds will be open to ice fishing from Dec 1 through April 30. (Note: We provided this liberal time frame in order to account for years when ice forms early on waters and/or for years when ice remains later on waters. A time period was decided rather stating “presence of ice or safe ice” given the “fuzzy” nature of such terms.)

* Lakes and ponds will be Catch and Release for all salmonids from Oct. 1 thru Dec. 31. (Note: General law for all other species would apply during this time period. Special regulations, more liberal or conservative, can be provided on specific waters as appropriate.) The term salmonids includes the following Maine fish species — Arctic charr, brook trout, brown trout, landlocked salmon, rainbow trout, splake, and togue.

* For lakes and ponds, the general law bag and length limits for salmonids apply from January 1 thru September 30. (Note – Special regulations, more liberal or conservative, can be provided on specific waters as appropriate.)

Also, under the proposed general rule fishing regulations, both ice anglers and open water anglers could fish lakes and ponds in December, but could not harvest salmonids, unless provided by special regulation. From Jan. 1 thru April 30, both groups of anglers could fish lakes and ponds and harvest salmonids under respective bag and length limits.

Proposal Number 2: Unless otherwise provided by rule, the number of lines an angler may fish at any one time will be limited to two lines while open water fishing and five lines while ice fishing. At no time can an angler fish more than five lines. (Note: This modification in wording for the number of lines that can be fished by an angler at any one time is being made to address the potential for anglers to simultaneously ice fish and open water fish in lakes and ponds in the eight southern counties of Cumberland, York, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and Waldo.)

Proposal Number 3: The current statewide aggregate bag limit for salmonids of five fish will be removed. (Note: IF&W management decisions regarding bag limits, length limits, open seasons, etc. for salmonids are already focused at the species level and the removal of this regulation would not impact current management strategies.) Again, the term salmonids includes the following Maine fish species – Arctic charr, brook trout, brown trout, landlocked salmon, rainbow trout, splake, and togue.

Posted by Tom Remington

Oh, my! For as long as man has taken to the woods, he has searched and searched for that magic “formula” that will keep biting insects away. For as long as man has searched for the secret there have been too-numerous-to-count “wives tales” formulas that “really do work”.

Take for example the blog I posted back in March about the use of Listerine mouth wash as an insect repellent. There have been over 30 comments from people who swear by it and those who will laugh in your face should you mention it.

The things that man has tried to beat off the swarming mosquitoes, black flies, chiggers, etc. could leave the most knowledgeable research scientist scratching his head. Some of those concocted formulas could kill or repel bigger things than tiny insects I’m sure but our quest remains undaunted. The search must go on.

One of the best known killers of insects, DDT – Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane – is banned from use here in the U.S. Growing up in rural Maine in the 50s and 60s, my small home town budgeted money each year in order to hire a spray plane to criss-cross the village air space spraying DDT to kill unwanted bugs. I can honestly say it worked. It was a rare occasion to be playing baseball on the town’s Little League field and find a biting insect. Of course there were no songbirds and the like either but we didn’t get bitten.

Some of my growing up buddies and I laugh even today as we relive the days when the spray plane arrived so we could run outside, look up toward the clouds and wait to feel the mist of DDT fall gently on our faces. All that and there’s nothing wrong with me….wrong with me……wrong with me……wrong with me……wrong with me……

Sorry, I don’t know what happened.

Later came the development of DEET – N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide. DEET has been used for several years now as a repellent, whereas DDT was a kill-em-dead-on-contact pesticide. DEET has been relatively effective but isn’t recommended to be used on your skin, especially on kids.

DEET seemed to work best on mosquitoes to repel them but scientists really didn’t know why until recently a study seemed to indicate that it makes human scent “invisible” to those biting, vicious and hungry insects. With that to work on, could it be that someday someone will discover a different “chemical” that will even be more effective than DEET with no residual side affects – unlike what has happened to me?

Black Bear Blog reader “jes” sent me an email yesterday with a link to a National Public Radio story about just such a thing. You can read or listen to it for yourself but here’s an interesting tidbit from the story.

“And we’re finding lots of interesting things that look nothing like DEET that are much more potent, at least in the lab,”

Is it really that simple? Could it be that once someone seemingly discovers how DEET works, researchers have been able to “model” other things that will work as good or better? If so, why has it taken so long?

Kelli Miller Staci for WebMD has a bit more information on the work done by researchers at the University of Florida on insect repellents. The article goes a bit further than that of NPR in actually telling us what these “magic” chemicals are that work better than DEET.

Alan Katritzky of the University of Florida and colleagues used artificial neural networking software to predict how certain compounds called N-acylpiperidines would keep mosquitoes from feeding on human flesh. N-acylpiperidines are related to the active ingredient in pepper. The researchers identified 23 strong candidates, which they expected to be as effective as DEET.

So, there you have it. The newest information on how to repel insects. Simply douse yourself in pepper and head outdoors. Maybe not so fast. I think there might be more to this.

What I do find interesting though is that “under laboratory conditions” DEET is said to be able to repel mosquitoes for an average of 17.5 days and these new pepper-based ingredients will last up to 73 days. I can tell you from experience that DEET products in the “deep woods” will not repel mosquitoes for 17.5 days. Perhaps 17.5 minutes before the next dose needs administering.

And do we really want to repel those dastardly bugs anyway? Don’t those biting, unrelenting insects work as a repellent of their own? I had a short exchange of emails with the same reader, “jes” and he brought up an interesting question or two.

But I wonder if “the bugs” (especially in FL) don’t determine two important aspects: one how long or if we spend any time at all in the woods, hunting, etc. and how comfortable we are there. And two, how many woods will be left for wildlife if the bugs are gone…(it seems to slow development), in FL, at least!

Never fear “jes”! There just might be protection for those biting insects and their natural human repellent might just be able to do the trick. Many of you might recall last October I told you about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issuing the “Draft Mosquito Management Plan“.

I didn’t read anything in that plan that would call for the control of insect repellents, only pesticides but you can be sure that in this day of animal rights extremists and their undaunting affection with the courts, they will find a way to stop us humans from repelling biting insects.

The good news in all this seems to be that there may be hope on the horizon that we can get relief from biting insects with something that may not be as harmful as DEET. I would suppose that for those with allergies to pepper, you’ll need to hope for something else.

AAHHH CHEEEEEEWWWW!

Tom Remington

PORTLAND, Maine— Today the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay, and a Maine river activist filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Division over the agencies’ failure to take action on a petition to protect the dwindling Kennebec River population of Atlantic salmon under the federal Endangered Species Act.

“The Kennebec River salmon are on the verge of extinction, yet the agencies continue to stall,” said Ed Friedman, chair of Friends of Merrymeeting Bay. “The salmon runs on the Kennebec were once the stuff of legend, but today only a few fish make it up the river. Will the government simply wait until even these survivors have disappeared?”

In 2000, responding to pressure from conservation groups, the federal government protected salmon runs on several small rivers in coastal Maine under the Endangered Species Act. However, the government refused protection for salmon inhabiting larger rivers in the more heavily developed regions of the central coast and western Maine.

In May 2005, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay, Maine Toxics Action Coalition, and Douglas Watts submitted a petition to list the Kennebec River salmon population as endangered. Despite an agency finding in 2006 that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating protection may be warranted, and a subsequent scientific report supporting the concerns of the petitioners, the agencies have failed to act.

“Atlantic salmon are as much a part of the natural and cultural heritage of New England as Pacific coast salmon have been a part of the history and character of the Northwest,” declared Mollie Matteson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we lose an iconic species like the salmon, it will be a tragic blow to our unique identity as a people and as a region, not simply an ecological loss.”

Since the eighteenth century, Atlantic salmon populations have declined precipitously throughout most of their range, both from severe water pollution and from dams blocking access to spawning grounds. Conservationists hope protecting the salmon under the Endangered Species Act will allow these and other threats to be addressed in time to save the salmon and other native migratory fish species from extinction.

Douglas Watts, author of the salmon petition, noted: “A decision on listing is nearly three years overdue. The Gulf of Maine fishery is in deep trouble; further delay on a listing decision is biologically and legally inexcusable.”

Posted by Tom Remington

A federal judge this past week told the Department of Interior it had until May 15, 2008 to make a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. And the environmentalists went wild!!!

If you follow the link category to the right under “Endangered Species“, you’ll find plenty of articles and links to the ongoing debate about whether the polar bear is in danger, whether the world is in danger and if it’s all caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming from carbon dioxide.

I laughed out loud a few days ago, when Al Gore, during an interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes said that those of us who won’t jump on his flim-flam bandwagon, were like the Flat Earth Society people and that we believe the lunar landing was staged on a lot in Hollywood. What was hilarious about it was that the Flat Earth Society was made up of people like Al Gore, who refused to listen to any kind of reasoning whether logical or scientific, that showed the earth wasn’t flat. I know of hundreds of people personally that are not sold on Al Gore’s theory of man-made global warming but are open to listening to debate on both sides of the issue. So who’s a Flat Earther?

Without debate, media, politicians and American citizens are blindly plowing ahead, often times willy-nilly, to save the planet – in this case the polar bear. Yesterday, the Houston Chronicle provided readers with an editorial about the plight of the polar bear. 100% of the piece (and yes I realize it’s an editorial) was presented as fact that ice is melting everywhere in the arctic, that this is caused by man and that the polar bear is dying off. They even repeated projections from recently discovered to be faulty models that said the bears would be extinct by the year 2050. There is just as much scientific evidence, particularly the newest data, to refute everything the Chronicle repeats as climate change facts.

But what I find as the most disturbing part of the editorial is their position on what they deem to be more important to the American people; affordable energy and a healthy economy or swallowing a politician’s theory on global warming.

It’s unlikely that in its final year in office, the administration will reverse its policy of protecting business interests instead of the environment and endangered species. The courts should not have to tell the administration to enforce environmental statutes rather than undermine or ignore them.

Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act isn’t a simple matter of adding it to a list and then we hope it gets better. There has to be intelligent discourse among sane people in order to realistically determine the all-encompassing affects of making such a move.

I have worked some in my past articles that I hoped would, if nothing else, get readers to ask questions and think more about this issue other than how it is going to affect next Christmas’ Coke commercials. Huge Hewitt of Townhall has also covered more in depth as to what actually can happen to our economy, through the federal permitting process for growth and development. He offers more thoughts on that today.

The short version: If the polar bear is listed, every activity that emits a greenhouse gas of any sort in the lower 48 AND which receives a federal permit or requires federal agency action of any sort –even if that permit or action is unrelated to the emission of the gases– those activities will be subject to new review by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approval may not be forthcoming, will certainly at least be delayed, and will almost certainly come with massive new costs attached.

Thus coastal building programs that require federal flood insurance or Army Corps of Engineers permits, highway construction that gets FHA funding, or joint NASA-private industry initiatives that result in launchings, all these and hundreds of thousands of additional federal permits and actions get gathered in under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Hewitt practiced Endangered Species Act law for two decades and should have a pretty good understanding on how administering the Act works. In several of his articles about the polar bear listing, he refers to Section 7 of the ESA(pdf – scroll down to find Section 7) often. The first part of Section 7 I believe spells out quite clearly, even to those of us without a law degree.

SEC. 7. ø16 U.S.C. 1536¿ (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
(2) Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an ‘‘agency action’’) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.
(3) Subject to such guidelines as the Secretary may establish, a Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary on any prospective agency action at the request of, and in cooperation with, the prospective permit or license applicant if the applicant has reason to believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be present in the area affected by his project and that implementationof such action will likely affect such species.
(4) Each Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species proposed to be listed under section 4 or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. This paragraph does not require a limitation on the commitment of resources as described in subsection (d).

The two biggest remaining questions which may never get answered are; Is the polar bear really threatened and to what degree should we as a society carry out the protection of an animal species while putting our own well being at risk?

I know of nobody who wants to see the polar bear disappear. Many scientists don’t believe it will nor that it is threatened. What the Houston Chronicle failed to reveal, as has many other media sources, is that only two areas of polar bear populations are decreasing somewhat in size. The remainder are holding steady or growing. It is my opinion that we have as yet to scientifically determine whether the bear is in danger.

Remember that should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to list the bear, it will be because they think man-made climate change will destroy the bear down the road somewhere. This has never been done before. Hewitt, from a perspective of having been there and done that, clearly points out that we don’t know what we are in for. The courts can only make rulings that are based on the content of the Endangered Species Act.

Do we really know what we are doing?

Tom Remington

This link takes you to a short story about the history of didymo or rock snot and some are asking if this new outbreak of the alga is some kind of more resilient hybrid form.

Tom Remington