Chalk it up as another disappointing year on the Connecticut River
anadromous-fish front.
With the Holyoke fish-lift closed for the 2009 season, a total of 76 Atlantic
salmon and 162,067 American shad were counted in the river. Add to that
the fact that blueback herring have virtually disappeared and it’s
starting to look very bleak. This year the herring total was 39. Is it really
worth counting anymore?
Sixty of the 76 salmon were captured in Holyoke. A breakdown of the
other 16 captured fish shows two taken at the Leesville Dam
on Connecticut’s Salmon River, 12 at the Rainbow Dam on Connecticut’s
Farmington River, and two at the Springfield Project on our Westfield
River. A straggler of two could still show up, but so what? The run’s
over. Why spin?
Ten free-swimmers were left in the river system above Holyoke, nine of
them were tagged for monitoring purposes, and seven are known to be residing
above Vernon, Vt. That leaves 66 at the Cronin National Salmon Station in Sunderland, where survivors will be nursed to optimal health for artificial fall spawning. The progeny from that spawning will ultimately be released into small streams in the Connecticut River system with little chance of ever reaching saltwater, never mind returning as adults to spawn in three to five years. Meanwhile, devoted Eastern Brook Trout anglers continue to carp about immature salmon competing with the native trout in their favorite
streams for a finite natural-food supply. They also complain about the
voracious little salmon disrupting their fishing experience by taking
their bait and alerting native brookies of their presence.
Friends of Atlantic-salmon restoration here in the Happy Valley
are dwindling with the salmon, shad and herring. Sad but true;
inevitable when numbers lay it out in bold black and white.
I guess the question is: Are a few better than none? Although I lean in
that direction, I would guess I’m in the minority.

The prevailing attitude has changed dramatically over the last decade.

A column about declining Eastern brook trout populations throughout the Northeast prompted a response from West County sportsman Bill Meyers, who identified a problem not mentioned in “Eastern Brook Trout: Status and Threats,” published by Trout Unlimited for the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture.
Meyers’ point is sure to ruffle feathers, which should come as no shock, given the source; Meyers is no shrinking violet when it comes to sportsmen’s issues.

The Meyers issue confronting West County “squaretails?” Well, try this one on for size: the immature Atlantic salmon being stocked annually into feeder streams of the Deerfield/Connecticut River system.

Hmmmm?

“A group of us who fish for native brookies has had a problem for years,” wrote Meyers in an e-mail. “The invasion of fingerling salmon into our native brookie habitat is the most serious problem confronting anglers today.”

Meyers says he’s mentioned this problem several times to state fisheries officials who offer deaf ears.

“Ask any native-brookie fisherman and they’ll tell you all they catch in the traditional mountain streams are aggressive salmon that have taken residence where they used to catch a lot of natives,” Meyers added. “It’s disappointing to see fry stocked in feeder streams where they have virtually a zero probability of achieving successful downstream passage once they mature, not to mention reaching returning to spawn as adults.

Meyers challenges locals to take a walk along the West County streams he’s referring to and assess the habitat, which he says is ideal to support a burgeoning brookie population. The problem, according to him, is that “the natives have been pushed out by someone who believes that by introducing all this salmon garbage into our mountain streams some act of God is going to happen. They’re barking up the wrong tree.”

An obviously irritated Meyers went on to criticize the Joint Venture, a brookie watchdog group made up of state and federal conservation groups, as a bureaucratic monstrosity that’ll ultimately prove ineffective. “This group will accomplish absolutely nothing other than establishing the brookie as threatened and trying to get federal/state monies to re-establish the population. Does this sound familiar, like a similar unsuccessful effort with another fish? They already destroyed a fishery that once offered exciting opportunities for fishermen. Hopefully some of the old-time native fishermen will speak up.”

I must admit Meyers is not the first local brook angler who’s complained to me loudly about pesky, stocked immature Atlantic salmon interfering with their trout-fishing. It’s a common complaint from people who fish some of my favorite old trout streams, such as West Brook in West Whately, the Bear and South rivers and Poland Brook in Conway, and Dragon Brook in Shelburne; and a good friend of mine has been wailing about the salmon in Clesson Brook for some time. The complaint is that the tiny voracious salmon attack any bait offered, live or artificial, and ultimately telegraph the angler’s presence, costing the angler trout he or she came to catch.

Atlantic-salmon-restoration true believers, even those who are Trout Unlimited members, have little sympathy for squeaky wheels like Meyers. It’s a greater-good issue to them, and thus trout fishermen are going to have to learn to deal with their “perceived” problem. It’s all about salmon with them, the glory fish that supersedes all others; and they’ll support this restoration effort against all odds, even impossible.

But how can these people justify turning their backs on the real native New England salmonoid, our Eastern brook trout, to many North America’s most beautiful freshwater fish?

A development in July 2006 gave hope for downstream spawning in the Connecticut River basin.

The last three salmon captured that summer were seined in Connecticut’s Salmon River, suggesting that the fish had taken residence there long ago, perhaps due to recurring heavy river-flow that prevented upstream migration well into June. Salmon start entering the river at Long Island Sound in April, seeking suitable spawning habitat in the upper reaches of the basin. However, when spring rains flood the lower valley, fish-passage facilities are temporarily shut down, delaying migration. Apparently, when flooding persists and keeps salmon trapped below Holyoke until the rivers reach to 70-degree range, those stragglers find suitable habitat well below their desired upriver destinations, in southern rivers like the Salmon and Farmington in Connecticut, and the Westfield River, where salmon activity in recent years has been encouraging. Were it not for manmade obstacles in Holyoke, Turners Falls, Vermont, Vt., and Bellows Falls, Vt., these fish would more likely be found in northern destinations like the Deerfield and Millers in Massachusetts, not to mention Vermont waterways like the West and White rivers.

While salmon-restoration officials would undoubtedly prefer the free-swimming fish to make it to their historic spawning grounds in Franklin County, MA., and above, they’ll take what they get pertaining to their struggling program. Thus the initiative on the Westfield River, where salmon are released annually above the DSI Dam to spawn naturally in the landlocked river system above that point. In 2006, two of 34 salmon captured on the Westfield were tagged and released to spawn in the river. The other 32 went to the Cronin National Salmon Station in Sunderland, where they’ll be nursed to optimal health prior to controlled fall spawning.

Colrain sportsman Billy Meyers chimed in about a perceived relationship between immature Atlantic salmon stocking and declining Eastern brook trout populations in their native western Franklin County hilltown streams.

He was responding to a one-source tirade against salmon stocking by Leyden octogenarian Edward M. Wells, who spent time on his grandparents’ Buckland farm as a boy and has more than a half-century of personal observation on which to base his opinion. To summarize his complaint, one which he composed in a stinging letter to MassWildlife last year, the immature salmon stocked into our native streams are competing for food and territory with the indigenous brook trout and thus pushing the rightful residents out. Meyers agrees, and voiced that opinion earlier in response to a column about a multifaceted, 17-state conservation initiative called the Eastern Brook Trout Venture. If anything, Meyers’ anti-salmon-stocking position has hardened since then, and shows no sings of softening anytime soon.

“Please keep this issue alive,” he wrote. “Last time it only lasted one column.”

Other hilltown trout anglers who chase tasty squaretail fingerlings for their black, piping-hot skillets concur. They view it as a mortal sin to “pollute” their native brookie streams with hatchery-raised salmon that 40-years-worth of data tells us have little chance of ever making it to Long Island Sound, never mind back again to spawn in the Connecticut River basin. The tragic victims, in their opinion, are not the salmon that fail to return, but rather the brookies displaced by the ravenous foreign fingerlings.

“Not only are the feeder streams being ruined, but the youth for the next generation is being totally deceived,” wrote Meyers, who pulled in the Iraq debacle to make a point about salmon-stocking programs introduced to the local elementary schools in recent years.

“Telling these kids their salmon are coming back is like strapping an explosive vest on 8- to 10-year-old Iraqis and telling them to go visit the U.S. troops for recess and return for lunch,” he wrote. “I am disgusted with this issue. The liberal flyfishing catch-and-releasers still believe they can win the war for the return of this doomed species.”

A respected New England fisheries insider who’s been skeptical about Connecticut River salmon restoration since Day 1 calls these disillusioned folks “true-believers” in the pejorative, comparing them to the Christian zealots who chase Virgin Mary sightings worldwide.

The point is that it’s impossible to reason with people whose beliefs are based on faith, not fact.