Screen debate a battle between lake and stream fishermen

As Maine anglers await word of ice out on their favorite fishing grounds, the controversy regarding LD 384, a bill proposing installation of screens at the West Grand Lake Dam, continues. Back along, I reported that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and many anglers were opposed to the bill because of impacts it would have on the Grand Lake Stream landlocked salmon fishery. You may know the stream is regarded as one of Maine’s top five landlocked salmon stream fisheries.

Conversely, the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association and many West Grand Lake anglers favor the installation of screens to prevent salmon from leaving the lake and entering the stream. The association contends that West Grand’s once productive landlocked salmon fishing, which hooked anglers from far and wide, resulted from legislative action that approved screening the dam in the early 1920s. According to the association, the decline of the West Grand fishery began when a new dam, including a fishway, was built in 1973 and the screens were removed. The contention now is that most of the salmon leaving West Grand to spawn in Grand Lake Stream aren’t returning to the lake.

There you have it, Sport. I don’t know what you call it but, frankly, it looks to me like a contest between lake fishermen and stream fishermen – and that’s unfortunate. But because trolling a smelt or streamer or casting a dry fly or a nymph is a matter of personal preference, it’s only fair to present casts from each side of this controversial pool.

In a letter dated March 27, Ron Brokaw, regional biologist at Region C headquarters in Machias, informed me that the Legislature’s Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, after a public hearing, voted to table LD 384 for 30 days. “Thus,” wrote Brokaw, “anglers with an interest in the Grand Lake Stream fishery have until April 20 to submit their comments. Anglers who want their support or opposition to be known by committee members are urged to contact the committee in the near future.”

After publishing the information, including the names, contact addresses and phone numbers of members of the Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, I received a phone call from Lou Cataldo of the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association. He told me the information I received regarding the tabling of LD 3told me the information I received regarding the tabling of LD 384 wasn’t accurate. After talking about the bill and the lake’s and stream’s fisheries, I asked the guide to provide me with a written rebuttal to the information I published.

Two days later, I received a letter from Chris Wheaton, secretary of the GLSGA. Regarding the 30-day tabling of LD 384, Wheaton wrote: “The Fish and Wildlife Committee listened to the facts from both sides and used common sense when they voted unanimously to reinstall the fish screens. The only reason they tabled the bill for 30 days was to give the Fish and Game (DIFW) time to write a letter of agreement to cooperate fully with this project.

“After the letter is seen and agreed upon by all parties, the screens will be permitted to go in. I hope this will set the record straight. The screens in this situation will help Inland Fisheries and Wildlife manage our fisheries separately. At Rangeley Lake and Sebago Lake the screens have been a success story. I am sure it will be the same here.”

During our telephone conversation, Lou Cataldo allowed it wasn’t anyone’s intention to diminish the Grand Lake Stream fishery by installing screens. “I fish the stream more than the people who fish it regularly,” he said. “All we want to do is restore the lake’s fishery, which up until the 1970s was fantastic.” Cataldo said West Grand Lake currently has a good smelt population and the growth rate of fish is excellent.

You may know that former DIFW Commissioner Bill Vail also opposed installation of screens in the Grand Lake Stream Dam. But after meetings between fisheries biologists and the Guides Association, an agreement was reached regarding proposals for the management of West Grand Lake’s fishery. My understanding is the agreement was practiced for one year, but got off the hook, so to speak, when Vail resigned.

Currently, the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association has a proposal titled: “Management Goals for West Grand Lake and Grand Lake Stream.” It includes a committee of guides, biologists, anglers, and camp owners that would meet annually to discuss management policies for the two fisheries. Participation by interested parties also would be encouraged.

Calling a spade a spade, I don’t think any of Maine’s inland fisheries can be restored to what they were in, say, the 1960s. Why? Because fishing pressure and environmental degradation are increasing constantly and the resource no longer can absorb either factor. But I do believe Maine has fisheries that can be managed to produce fish that will bend a rod and run a reel – and I believe West Grand Lake and Grand Lake Stream are classic examples. To accomplish that, however, two things are necessary: cooperative efforts between anglers and the DIFW, and angler commitment to the catch-and-release ethic.

Otherwise, it won’t make a damn bit of difference whether you prefer casting or trolling a streamer.