Conference wahoo::fishing

    Are you going to be on Mooselookmaguntic itself or will you be on Upper
    and Lower Richardson Lakes?  I've fished the Richardsons for
    Landlocks for many years and can provide some assistance.  I've never
    been on Mooselookmaguntic.  My kids and I fish the Richardsons every
    year over Memorial Day weekend.  This year too.
    
    Pete
    

    re .1
    
    We are planning on fishing the Richardson's....we are staying at the
    Southarm Campground.....we are planning on bringing up a 16' canoe as
    well as renting boats from the campground....sounds like we will be
    there at the same time you and the family are.....We could definitely
    use some hints/help as it is our first time in this area of Maine.
    
    Dan
    

    You, sir, are in luck.  I've been fishing on Lower and Upper Richardson
    for almost 20 years.  I'm going to mail you a couple articles I've cut
    from papers, but the best item probably is the depth map I'll mail you. 
    It shows all the depths of both Upper and Lower Richardson.  I'll also
    let you know where on both lakes I've had good luck.  I'll send a
    VAXmail message with lots more info; probably tomorrow.  I think I've
    got a copy of the rules and regs at home too and I'll try to send it as
    well.  Two cautions.  First, make sure you stay within the rules.  The
    wardens are ever-present and do a lot of checking.  Second, respect the
    weather on the lakes.  About 8 years ago we fished three guys out of
    the lake.  They were close to drowning from hypothermia.  Their canoe
    (a 16' Coleman) had capsized when some gusty winds turned the lake from
    calm to 2-3' waves in about 1/2 hour.  They lost all their tackle,
    cameras, etc. and nearly their lives.  If the weather turns windy and
    you can't get on Richardson, I'll give you the names of some other
    smaller, more sheltered places where you can take your canoe.
    
    More later on VAXmail.  Good luck.
    
    Pete
    

re .3

Pete,

You sir, are a Godsend.....there's nothing more important when fishing a new
area, than talking to an experienced veteran.  Looking forward to hearing from
you on VAXmail and possibly seeing you up on these "salmon infested" waters.

thanks again,
DC

    Mailstop?  Corliss?  Buchanan?  Who to and where to should I send the
    stuff?
    

    If it wouldn't be to much to ask could you include myself in this
    information exchange. I just moved up here and live about half an hour 
    from Rangely and am real anxious to fish up there. I tried down in
    Belgrade on Long pond earlier this week with no luck. 
    					Thanks 
    					Gary Curavoo
    					Dneast::Curavoo_Gary
    

    re: .5
    
    Pete,
    
    In case you did not get my vaxmail message.....please send info to:
    
    	Dan Corliss
    	HLO2-3/K7
    	ASDG::CORLISS
    
    thanks again,
    DC
    

    
    
    re -1.......
    
      "Flame on low"
    
      Good for you ..... just stay to home and bash those trucked in stockies
    till their gone....its the Amerikan way... right....you payed for a
    liscence therefore you deserve all the fish you can carry away..
    
      "Flame off, engage brain"
    
      I don't even fish Sebago and I think its a great idea (course I'd
    like to see all motorboat banned on ponds under 15 acres..and 1
    gamefish limits for icefishermen, and more artificial only and FFO
    water and so on and so forth.;7)...BUT..lets get sensible.... Which is 
    better..eh...One four or five or eight pound 26+ incher or two legal 
    yearling stockies.....??????????????????????????????????????????
    
      The Maine Dept of Inland Fisheries is trying very hard to manage a 
    overstressed resource during difficult financial times while preserving 
    some of the original resource and estetic (sp) value of the
    experience..so please pass the word.....1 Fish limit on Sebago....dont
    bother going up thereif you want to fill your trashbag with a limit!
    
      Think about it.
    
       Ed
    
     Who is overjoyed that a one fish limit is having such a dramatic effect.
    ..and slightly vituperative concerning "Maine bashers"

 For some of us who have perhaps one or maybe two days per year that we can
fish for those fish, a 1 fish limit seems excessive.

 FWIW- I have never been a "filler of trash cans" except on a party boat, and
then not a single fish was wasted (I was 13 at the time.)

 I think they key here is that people want to catch fish. If you are allowed
to catch but a single fish, what do you do with the first fish of the day if it
isn't a whopper? Toss it out and hope you get another? What if you already have
kept you one fish, and the next one is gut hooked and mortally wounded? Do you
just toss it back, knowing it isn't going to do anyone any good?

 I have no respect for those that are willing to trade today's pleasure for the
future of the resource. On the other hand, there ought to be a sensible balance
between size limits, number limits, and artificial cultivation. 

 If the 1 fish limit is a tool used to build up the stocks back to more
favorable levels, that's one thing. but if it's a substitute for spending the
license money on fish stocking so we can use the money for say, enforcing
a mandatory seatbelt law, I think it blows. Is this a limited time scope
thing or is it open ended?

 The Doctah

    How much does a fishing license cost in ME.?  How much does it cost to
    stock salmon?    Not knowing the answers to these questions it is hard
    to tell what can be considured reasonable in relation to limits.
    
      On a related subject, I do know that it costs between 15 and $20 to
    stock One pheasant in MA.  When you figure the cost of a hunting
    license, it's obvious we have a bargain.
    
    Jeff

re: .10
>> For some of us who have perhaps one or maybe two days per year that we can
>> fish for those fish, a 1 fish limit seems excessive.

Hmmm... excessive, huh?  Would you propose a ZERO fish limit, then?  



only kidding!  I really don't want to get caught in the middle of this one!

    Is the 1 fish limit only on Sebago Lake?  I'll be going to Sebec Lake
    (~20 miles southeast of Greenville/Moosehead Lake) in 3 weeks.
    
    What's the scoop?
    
    Al

re: .9

	I agree with you. A 1 fish limit sounds fine. Then again, I guess
	I'm not a meat fisherman. It amazes me how many people will moan
	about how bad the fishing is and turn around and kill anything
	they manage to catch.

	Someday I'd like to try my hand at catching a landlock - it would
	be nice to know that they still exist in Maine...

				Robert.

    re -.1
    
    You wish Mass would do this with bass? How come?
    
    Just curious...
    
    Ed
    

Just tired of seeing decent fishing holes get destroyed by meat fisherman.

I've seen it happen to 2 good spots already. One of them got wiped clean
 in one season.

	I'll give my current bass fishing spot a few more years - the
	meat fishermen are just starting to show up there. Pretty soon,
	on any given day, there will be at least one meat fisherman out
	there filling his creel - this small pond won't last long with
	that kind of pressure.

				Robert.

    I know what you mean by overzealous "meat" fishermen...
    
    Sometimes I fish at Flint pond in Tyngsborough - there's supposed to be
    some good sized lunkers in there according to an outdoors columnist in
    the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune - but most of the time I've been there
    there always seems to be somebody "meat fishing" - usually with minnows
    - for the bass that are in there. It's discouraging to hear some
    clod tell you about how much luck he's had in there and all the yummy
    bass he's eaten. Last year some goofball told me that he caught a 7lb
    largemouth - which he gave to his buddy because his buddy likes to eat
    bass!! It almost made me ill, except when I asked him how long the fish
    was, he said "14 inches." Hmmm, must have been the fattest lil' bass in
    the world!!
    
    It's a nice little pond, with a launching ramp and LOTS of weeds in the
    summer - and rumored to have tiger muskies. I've only caught a few
    rather small bass - who went right back - but given that most of the
    "fishermen" I've seen there wouldn't know a Rapala from a hole in the
    ground, there may be a few lunkers lurking in the weedy end of the pond
    after all, so I might go back a few more times. Unfortunately, the same
    "sportsmen" that I mentioned before have also turned the accessible
    shoreline into a pretty good imitation of a town dump, judging by the
    beer cans, bait cups, wads of fishing line, paper and cigarette butts
    strewn everywhere. YEEECHH!! Sometimes I get so disgusted I carry some
    of it out with me - especially the discarded line...
    
    Ed
    

Alright! I'm REALLY glad to hear that someone else out there takes out
 MORE junk than they bring in! Keep up the good work - Those little tangles
 of mono line are real killers.

			Made my day,
					Robert.

    
Re: Note 1384.10  Landlocked Salmon in Rangley Lakes Region  WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctah....I gotta disgree with you..I just gotta!

 For some of us who have perhaps one or maybe two days per year that we can
fish for those fish, a 1 fish limit seems excessive.

**** In that case if your desirous of a large return for your fishing 
     time "investment" you should fish waters with less restrictive 
     limits/regulations. 

 FWIW- I have never been a "filler of trash cans" except on a party boat, and
then not a single fish was wasted (I was 13 at the time.)

**** Sorry, didn't mean to slag you...nothing personal...yet!

 "I think they key here is that people want to catch fish. If you are allowed
to catch but a single fish, what do you do with the first fish of the day if it
isn't a whopper? Toss it out and hope you get another?"

***  Course they do...I catch A LOT of fish...I keep and eat VERY few. If you 
     really insist on a whopper then YES...put it back and continue fishing...
     luck of the draw and so forth. Actually the "Whoppers" are the ones 
     that make a difference if put back.

  "What if you already have kept you one fish, and the next one is gut hooked 
and mortally wounded? Do you just toss it back, knowing it isn't going to do 
anyone any good?

*** What do you do when you have your two fish (Salmon limit) and the same 
    thing happens? Gut hooked does not neccessarily mean DOA on return 
    if the fish is handled properly and the line/leader is cut. I would 
    suggest that once you do have the limit if you wish/must continue fishing 
    use a technique which doesn't result in "gut hooked" fish....ie...turn 
    in your bait for a streamer fly or a flatfish...hard to guthook with a 
    flatfish....unless its a REAL whopper...then your SOL!!

 I have no respect for those that are willing to trade today's pleasure for the
future of the resource. On the other hand, there ought to be a sensible balance
between size limits, number limits, and artificial cultivation. 

**** Artificial cultivation only serves to further reduce the end 
     product to a stupid, enemic, lowest common denominator type of 
     fish...best suited for harvest immediately following planting.
     According to the information I have heard/read the limit under 
     discussion for the lake under discussion does represent a sensible 
     balance...

 If the 1 fish limit is a tool used to build up the stocks back to more
favorable levels, that's one thing. but if it's a substitute for spending the
license money on fish stocking so we can use the money for say, enforcing
a mandatory seatbelt law, I think it blows. Is this a limited time scope
thing or is it open ended?

**** The one fish limit is a tool used to try to bring the QUALITY (not 
     neccessarily the quantity) of the existing (and future) stock to a 
     higher level. Dumping more fish into a resource limited by the 
     available forage so more people can eat a larger limit of smaller 
     fish is not, IMHO, the answer anywhere. The regulation as now 
     written is (I beleive) open ended for FY90-91 and shoud stay in 
     effect until the results are validated or not by the biologists.

Tight lines..

   Ed
    

>*** What do you do when you have your two fish (Salmon limit) and the same 
>    thing happens?

 On the surface of it, you could also say the same thing with a 10 fish limit.
The fact is that as the limit increases, the validity of the argument decreases
due to the decreased likelihood that such a condition will be reached.

>**** Artificial cultivation only serves to further reduce the end 
>     product to a stupid, enemic, lowest common denominator type of 
>     fish...best suited for harvest immediately following planting.

 I hear ya. I'm not interested in catching hatchery fish, personally. They
aren't as pretty, they aren't as difficult to catch, they aren't as big, and
they don't taste as good. When everybody else is asking "where have they 
stocked?" I'm asking "where are the holdovers?"

>     According to the information I have heard/read the limit under 
>     discussion for the lake under discussion does represent a sensible 
>     balance...

 I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't sound right to me.

>**** The one fish limit is a tool used to try to bring the QUALITY (not 
>     neccessarily the quantity) of the existing (and future) stock to a 
>     higher level.

 Great. But what's going to happen to the fishery when such a higher level is
attained?

>Dumping more fish into a resource limited by the 
>     available forage so more people can eat a larger limit of smaller 
>     fish is not, IMHO, the answer anywhere. 

 Good. I don't think so either. That's why I contribute to my state's "super
sportsman" fund. It is the fund that matches $3 in federal funds for every $1 
contributed by sportsmen for use in preserving and improving habitat, etc.

 The Doctah

    
    
    Re.-1  Doc...when the higher level of quality is attained, more folks
    will be thankfull for their one very large salmon..and will realize the 
    benefit of more restrictive regulations in very specialized cases such
    as Sebago. I also think that once the biologists have attained the
    larger size goal they may increase the stocking in conjunction with a
    larger size limit/slot limit and possibly go back to a two fish (salmon) 
    limit as everywhere else....I would hope that would be long term goal.
    
      The whole thing around size/habitate loading is driven (at least in
    this case) off the availability of forage to support X fish of X size
    per acre..and the forage fish tend to run in cycles on the order of
    five to ten years..as well as be influenced by pollution levels..winter
    smelting and so forth...many many variables.
    
      In general the stocking and fish management on these waters is run by
    the biologists rather than the professional polls who admin the F&W
    service funds....I sure trust the Bio guys a lot more than the dubs
    up to the statehouse....
    
      Hang in there....it'll get better if we all pull together.
    
      Tight lines and thanks for the discourse,,
    
       Ed
      
    

    I have an acticle which explains the logic the Maine Fish and Wildlife
    used to reduce the limit on Rangely Lake.  Hopefully this will take
    some of the emotion out of the issue.  I will type in the last three
    paragraphs but will photocopy and sent out the whole article if
    someone would like it.
    
    
    from MAINE Fish and Wildlife  Summer 1989    (without permission)
    
    A Historical Perspective MANAGING THE RANGELEY LAKES
    by Forrest R. Bonney
    
    page 4 fifth paragraph:
    
    "....it was not until 1979 that estimates of angler use could be
    made for rangeley lake.  Aerial angler counts, conducted several
    times a week throughout the season, were supplemented by information
    gathered by a clerk who checked returning fisherman.  That first
    season-long survey yielded an estimated use of 8,890 angler days,
    or 1.5 anglers per acre.  The same method was employed at
    Mooselookmeguntic Lake in 1981, yielding a use estimate of 10,125
    anglers (0.6 anglers per acre).
         Five years after the fisrt Rangeley survey was made , another
    was done(in 1985).  Surprisingly, use had more than doubled!- an
    estimated 22,574 anglers (3.8 angler per acre) fished the lake that
    year.  This significant increase in angler use, coupled with subsequent
    fall trapnetting which indicated a loss of older-age fish from the
    population., prompted a recommendation to reduce the salmon bag
    limit from two to one salmon.  That recommendation was accepted
    by the Advisory Council, and went into effect in the spring of 1988.
         Anothe season-long estimate of angler use conducted at
    Mooselookmeguntic Lake in 1986 indicated that use there is remaining
    steady, with no immediate danger of over exploitation.  The Richardson
    lakes were also surveyed for the first time in 1986; estimated angler
    use was 4,750 man days, or 0.7 anglers per acre per year.  A seperate
    fishery exists a Upper Dam Pool, between Mooselookmeguntic Lake
    and Upper Richardson Lake.  This is a fly-fishing-only fishery,
    primarily for salmon.  More that 3,600 angler trips were spent at
    this site alone in 1987, but voluntary release of live fish resulted
    in an estimated harvest of only 40 salmon and 10 brook trout.
      Season-long angler counts , coupled with ground clerk surveys,
    are proving to be an invaluable tool for determining angler use
    and harvest of salmonids from the Rangeleys; they will be repeated
    on a five year basis to monitor changes in the fishery.  These periodic
    updates of angler activity and performance of the fishery, combined
    with the background information project, form the babsis for a
    managementpolicy intended to maintain a balance between growth and
    harvest. ........"
    
    While this article deals exclusively with the Rangeleys, I am sure
    that is the same type of research which lead to the reduction of
    the bag limit on Segago Lake.        
    
    regards...john
    

    I am seeing alot towards managing the landlock salmon but what is
    happening to the smelt populations and their enforcement.
    
    When I go to Maine I hear alot about the illegal fishing for the smelt
    
    lets face it no food no fish,
    
    ED

    
    	I support the limit, and I also support more in the way of size
    restrictions or slot limits.  To me, "quality fishing" is having a 
    chance at a true lunker, meanwhile catching a few smaller fish to
    keep the interest.  I do fish a lot with bait and have no problems
    cutting leaders if necessary.  As a matter of fact, I've caught fish
    that were caught before and the line was cut.  They were doing fine
    when I re-released them (trout).
    	BTW, if you really want to protect a fishing spot... LIE like hell
    and tell them all they came "from somewhere else".  Or just don't
    say at all.  If someone enjoys fishing enough and is willing to exper-
    iment with different places, they're probably going to find the spot
    anyway.   All fisherman are liars except you and me, and I'm not so
    sure about you...
    
    		- Rob
    

    We wouldn't need all these restrictive measures if most fishermen
    practiced restraint, as in catch and release more often than catch 
    and keep. But as long as there are goofballs that feel entitled to 
    take everything they can get hold of - legal or illegal - then there 
    will be rules, limits, laws, enforcement (hopefully), and all that 
    goes with it.
    
    And those boobs are probably the same bunch that think the world is
    their trash can...
    
    Ed (Don't-get-me-going)

    I am glad that Maine is working on preserving the Sebago salmon
    fishery. I like an occasional friewd salmon but I also enjoy
    the thought that there is a lunker down there somewhere.
    Even today, Sebago has some of the best salmon in terms
    of quality. I have fished Winnipesaukee and Sebago each once this
    year so far. We caught and released 6 small "hatchery" salmon
    and had as many more strikes on the Winne trip. The largest was
    about 14 inches. You have to work at catching something that small
    in Sebago. We got 2, 3 1/2 and 4 Lb salmon at Sebago. These fish
    were veterans and fought like hell. The ride up there is long,
    especially for a day trip, but the quality is worth it. Last fall
    I caught a pair of salmon in Winni that were 19" and 22" long
    but were so skinny and emaciated that it was pathetic.
    There is no comparison between quality of salmon in Sebago and Winni
    or most other places. New Hampshire used to over stock Winni and
    finally figured out that the salmon were starving because
    they were depleting the smelt population. At least NH prohibits
    taking them through the ice. The fishing pressure there is incredible
    in the spring.
    If these kinds of programs are not undertaken now, you may as
    well start acquiring a taste for liver and grain or look for
    a different pastime. I and I am sure most of you have seen the
    fishing deteriorate and I hate to think what it will be like
    in ten or twenty years.
     
John
        

    Yeah, I heard that they don't try very hard to restrict the smelt
    fishing in New Hampshire - let 'em take 'em out by the truckload.
    
    Somebody please tell me I heard wrong...
    
    Ed
    

 I think you're only allowed two quarts of freshwater smelt.

 The Doctah

    
    re: .23 (the food chain)
     Exactly.....and you can go even deeper.....what do smelt feed on?
    Is their food being depleted in some way?.....spruce budworm
    pesticides?
    
    steve
    

> I think you're only allowed two quarts of freshwater smelt.

    Doctah,
    
    I hope you're right. My source was someone who told me that Lake
    Waukewan was being depleted of smelt (least I think it was smelt) at 
    an alarming rate by ice fishermen every winter, and thus having a
    negative impact on the food chain and sportfishing. His lament was 
    that the F&G authorities in NH were very shortsighted and tend to 
    overlook problems till they get out of hand, then respond with some 
    overkill solution.
    
    All my info has been second hand so far, because I'm still a beginner
    outdoorsman, but I get bummed whenever I see or hear about either gross
    misuse and abuse of our resources, and inept management of same.
    
    Ed
    

    	The limit on smelt (from 89 N.H. guide) is -
    
    		4 qts. fresh water
    		10 qts. salt water
    
    	A dip net not over 18" may be used except in trout ponds and lake
    trout lakes and their tributaries which is hook and line only.
    
    	RAYJ
    		

    Someone somewhere back asked about Sebec Lake, up near Mooshead..
    
    Sebec is general regs....5 fish in the aggregate not to include more
    than:
    
    	Salmon		2
    	Togue		2
    	Brown Trout	2
    	Rainbow Trout	2
    	Brook Trout	5
    	Other Trout	5
    
    Have fun....Remember to release a few...
    
    Jim
    

    re.-.1
    
    I asked about Sebec.  Spent last Thur/Fri/Sat fishin out of Packard's
    Camps.  I got skunked for Salmon and Togue but did manage to get a few
    large White Perch (~ 12-14").
    
    As a group (12) though, we did manage a total of 16 Salmon (cooked 'em
    up Saturday night).
    
    All Salmon were caught using night crawlers by the mouths of feeder
    streams.
    
    Looking forward to next year's venture north (hopefully sooner).
    
    Al