Debate over Penobscot has plenty of angles

loading...

Atlantic salmon anglers in the Penobscot River Valley are a passionate, concerned bunch. When their home river was closed to fishing in 1999, they continued to soldier on, holding fund-raising activities and meetings and breakfasts and participating in programs designed to teach area schoolchildren more about a magnificent fish.

Unfortunately, they haven’t been allowed to fish the Penobscot during the spring months since 1999.

And unfortunately, it’s not likely to happen this year, either.

That became apparent – at least to me – on Thursday night, when the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission held a public hearing on a proposal that would reopen the river to salmon fishing in May.

About 20 interested citizens showed up for the event and shared their views about the proposal.

Some spoke in favor of the season. Some – including me – spoke up, but took a position neither for nor against the season.

And then there was Gayle Zydlewski.

Zydlewski was the only person to stand up and speak against the proposal, although it’s important to note that others, including at least one federal agency, have made their concerns known to the ASC by submitting written comments.

Zydlewski spoke first.

She spoke calmly, authoritatively and briefly.

And she made perfect sense.

Zydlewski is a fisheries biologist who works at the University of Maine. She succinctly summed up the situation on the Penobscot. And told the commission that the ASC should not consider opening a season on salmon when international benchmarks for river restoration (quantified by the return of adult fish) are not close to being reached.

“What good is a cultivated culture of fishermen in the absence of a healthy population of fish?” Zydlewski asked, explaining that the 2007 report of the U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee said nearly 7,000 adult fish needed to return to the Penobscot in order to meet a “conservation” limit.

Other international salmon organizations have discouraged salmon fishing in situations where that conservation requirement hasn’t been reached.

This year, fewer than 1,000 adult salmon were caught in the fish trap at the Veazie Dam.

After watching plenty of hearings and meetings over the past five years, I’ve come to realize that those on either side of this salmon debate end up speaking different languages.

Those who say that the state shouldn’t reopen the Penobscot base their arguments on science and data.

And many Penobscot River anglers fall into a trap when they begin talking about the possibility of a spring season many would love to see.

They combat science with emotion, memories and tradition.

And science inevitably trumps that emotion.

“The question before us is not complex. It is maddeningly simple,” Zydlewski said during the hearing. “Do we risk the future for our present desire for the past?”

Some anglers do use science in their arguments. Some maintain that the Penobscot River is no longer a natural habitat for wild Atlantic salmon. They point at statistics that show that most of the returning adult salmon are not wild at all, but are hatchery fish returning to the river where they were released.

That point has merit.

At meeting and hearings, you hear a lot about “hooking mortality,” defined as that percentage of fish that will die after being caught and released.

It’s the big sticking point here.

If no salmon would be harmed by fishing for them, few would likely complain.

But that’s not the case, and Department of Marine Resources staffers have built statistical models in order to figure out how many fish will die during certain specific seasons, depending on angler effort and water temperature.

The result: Not many fish would die. Maybe none. Probably one or two. Maybe as many as four or five.

Many would hold that losing any fish when the returns are so low is a catastrophe.

I can’t say I disagree.

My problem, which I explained during the hearing, is that it’s not as simple as that, and nobody seems to care.

Anglers are not just fish-catching machines, you see. They also provide a presence, on the water, when a presence is sorely needed.

Isn’t it possible, I asked the ASC, that having anglers on the river could actually decrease the net loss of fish … even if a few die of hooking mortality?

How? I’ve got a few ways.

I often hear anecdotal reports of fishermen who are not targeting Atlantic salmon but happen to hook one while fishing for other species.

What they do with that fish, and how they treat it, is important. Some, I’ve been told, end up in freezers. Others are dragged onto rocks.

Why? Because there’s nobody there to catch the culprits.

Think that kind of conduct costs us more than two, or four, or five salmon a year? I do. And if salmon anglers were nearby, it seems reasonable that the number would shrink.

Or how about when man-made problems are compounded by weather woes?

In September, sediment that had been flowing from Meadow Brook ended up forming a pool in the Penobscot River.

During high water, it was an attractive place for salmon to rest. And when the tide dropped, those fish were stranded. Some didn’t fare too well.

The official tally: Nine adult Atlantic salmon died. But ASC officials aren’t exactly sure how many didn’t make it, as the conditions had existed for awhile before someone saw a dead salmon and reported the problem.

If salmon anglers had been on the river at that time, I can guarantee you that more fish would have lived.

And if just those nine we know died had lived, that would account for at least a couple years’ worth of fish that might succumb to hooking mortality.

In that case, having anglers on the river would have had a major impact on offsetting any hooking mortality that may have occurred and would have led to a net increase of returning salmon.

Not that I’m advocating for a September season, mind you.

I’m just saying this: Having anglers on the water can bring benefits that science doesn’t account for.

And it can have benefits that tradition and emotion tend to ignore as well.

Special Olympians at Sugarloaf

More than 500 athletes will converge on Sugarloaf/USA on Sunday for what is always a highlight of their year.

The 38th annual Special Olympics Maine Winter Games are on tap with a variety of athletic and social events scheduled through Tuesday.

The Games kick off with registration and a community supper on Sunday evening. Late that night, some athletes will take advantage of free skating and sing-along entertainment that is being offered.

On Monday, the competition begins in earnest, with preliminary heats in a variety of disciplines. Among those events: Nordic and alpine skiing, snowshoeing and speed skating.

Maine is credited with staging the world’s first Special Olympics winter games, back in 1970.

A banquet of champions and victory dance cap off Monday’s slate of activities, and the athletes return to their respective venues on Tuesday for the finals.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting dozens of Special Olympics athletes over the years and will return to Sugarloaf on Monday to cover the action.

The Special Olympics are always unpredictable, but I feel confident in guaranteeing one thing: In Tuesday’s editions I’ll introduce you to some courageous folks who will show you the true meaning of athletic competition.

Stay tuned.

jholyoke@bangordailynews.net

990-8214