It’s deja vu for salmon problem

In the interest of illustrating how far we’ve come – and sadly, in some cases, how little progress we’ve made at all – please consider this newspaper clipping that crossed my desk last week.

The topic: Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River, and why traditional salmon runs have dwindled.

Here’s what the reporter had to say:

“Another destructive enemy of the Penobscot salmon is the black bass,” the reporter wrote. “Many years ago some misguided sportsmen caused Pushaw Lake, near Bangor, to be stocked with black bass. These piratical fishes killed off all the perch and pickerel in the lake, and then, seeking new worlds to conquer, they ascended the brooks and streams to the upper Penobscot waters, where, every spring since then, they have feasted upon the salmon fry planted by the state and United States governments.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Invasive species were being blamed for the disruption of an ecosystem. Folks were looking for an answer to the million-dollar salmon question.

Now, consider this: The clipping came from the Bangor Daily News … and the story was published 100 years ago, in April 1904.

It’s easy to assume the problems that biologists and conservationists face nowadays are new, and that the pressure of increased population, pollution and other environmental factors is creating a situation Mainers have never seen before.

Unfortunately, that’s not entirely true.

Yes, acid rain, mercury contamination, urban sprawl, dams and habitat degradation are among the key factors that stand in the way of river restoration nowadays.

But a glance at a news report published 100 years ago shows that many of the problems that existed then were similar. It also shows that while we have successfully addressed some of the problems plaguing the river a century ago, other factors remain a threat.

More than 100 years ago, the reporter lamented black bass being introduced into Pushaw. Last year, reporters lamented the introduction of northern pike into the same lake.

Some of that 1904 reporter’s observations may also be of interest to the anglers, conservationists, and biologists of today.

Here, then, are a few of the high points:

. On the lack of salmon in the river during fishing season: “Hundreds of salmon were in those days taken with the fly from these pools, and thousands were taken in the weirs along the river below Bangor. Now, the salmon is so rare in these waters that the taking of a single fish is an event of such interest as to call for mention in the newspapers. The open season for salmon begins on April 1, and in the first three weeks this year just three fish were taken. One was caught with the fly in Bangor pools, one was hooked and then shot, while the other was caught in a down-river weir.”

According to the reporter, two principal causes are blamed for the disappearance of Atlantic salmon. First, the pulp mills. Second, the weirs.

. On salmon and how they deal with the discharge from pulp mills: “The Penobscot salmon, big and strong as he is, is the daintiest of fishes, very particular about his food and shunning all polluted waters. Thomas F. Allen, the most expert of all Penobscot salmon fishermen, says that, notwithstanding its strong homing instinct, the salmon will not ascend to the spawning beds through waters polluted by pulp mill waste, while they are also discouraged by the numerous dams and other obstacles that have lately been erected in the Penobscot and other Maine rivers.”

. At the time, salmon stocks were reportedly also being decimated by a practice that is no longer common … though not unheard of: “Still another enemy has the salmon: The lawless dynamiter,” the reporter wrote, pointing out that in the upper reaches of the Penobscot hundreds of fish were slaughtered each year by men who threw dynamite into the water.

“In that region, a salmon is not worth much, although in Bangor it would bring a good price, in New York, much more,” the reporter wrote. “Some of the dynamited fishes are used as food, while many are thrown away.”

. In conclusion, the reporter said that “weirmen,” in their quest to catch as many salmon as possible in order to sell them at market, “have killed the golden goose in their greed for money.”

Sawmill waste, bass, dams and “dynamiters” all took a toll, the reporter said, but the acids discharged by pulp mills deserved most of the blame, in his view.

“… Says an old fisherman, ‘If human beings, who can stand Maine whiskey, won’t drink the water, it is no wonder that the salmon, the fussiest and cleanest fish that swims, won’t live in it!'”

One hundred years ago, salmon were a hot topic around Bangor. They still are.

So, too, were the environment, and other varied factors that stood in the way of salmon restoration.

Here’s hoping that in another 100 years, we’ll have come up with some real answers to the questions Mainers have been asking for more than a century.

Chief among those: Where did the salmon go? And how can we get them back?

John Holyoke can be reached at jholyoke@bangordailynews.net or by calling 990-8214 or 1-800-310-8600.