|
|
Date
Completed: __3/27/04____ Revised 4/13/04, D. McNeish Name of Water: _Kezar Lake_________________________________ Fishery Region: _A_ Town: _____Lovell________________________ County:_____Oxford_________________ Source of LLS Stock (indicate source with an X): Native_Wild ___ Introduced_Wild ___ Stocked _X__ Mix (stocked + wild) ___ Smelt [Indicate predator/prey (LLS/SLT) ratio re growth & condition of LLS by placing an X opposite the appropriate category]: Excellent: ___ Sufficient: ___ Poor: _X__ Other forage (indicate species & importance): ___LLA – provide a seasonally important forage base for both salmon and lake trout. Together, these two populations of forage are currently providing fair growth, but improvement is needed to create a quality salmon fishery. Competition (List significant competitors (use 3-letter spp code) in appropriate blank based on importance. Place an X opposite None if no significant competitors are present: High: ___________________________ Moderate: __LKT, SMB_____________ Low: _____________________________ None: ___
Predation: (List significant predators (use 3-letter spp code) in appropriate blank based on importance. Place an X opposite None if no significant predators are present): High: ___________________________ Moderate: __SMB, avian predators____ Low: ____________________________ None: ___
Habitat Considerations: (describe pertinent habitat pluses, deficiencies, etc.) Kezar Lake has two sizable tributaries, Great Brook and Boulder Brook, which landlocked salmon utilize for spawning. MDIFW has documented juvenile LLS in both tributaries, but their contribution to the lake fishery is largely insignificant. Kezar Lake has a surface area of 2,510 acres; however, only the uppermost basin is suitable for coldwater (LLS & LKT) fishery management. The upper basin is approximately 1,500 acres in size, with a maximum depth of 156 feet. The moderate size of this basin limits the number of LLS and/or LKT this water can produce. Water quality in the upper basin is excellent, and well suited for coldwater fisheries management. However, the oligotrophic nature of the basin equates to a very unproductive system, which further affects the number and growth of salmonids. Despite its limitations, Kezar Lake is probably the best-suited lake in the region for a new quality LLS fishery initiative and this program is consistent with our current attempts to improve the fishery.
Other Considerations: (historical
significant population/fishery, genetically important population,
social/traditional, etc.) Historically, Kezar Lake failed to provide many legal-sized salmon for at least two decades (mid 1960’s-mid 1980’s), and the salmon fishery was reportedly slower after lake trout were introduced in 1967. A review of historical information suggests a limited smelt forage base was the primary cause for the slow fishing and poor salmonid growth. Although the annual smelt run seems fairly consistent from year-to-year, Kezar Lake has always had difficulty maintaining any abundance of smelt. In the past, MDIFW has tried a variety of tactics (i.e. closure of tributaries to dipping, suspension of salmonid stocking programs) to increase smelt abundance without any noticeable success. In addition, Kezar Lake has traditionally produced very large “Jack” smelt, which may be a contributing factor. It is believed that larger-sized smelt are typically not preferred by LLS, particularly juveniles. Large smelt also effectively compete with other salmonids via cannibalism on smaller smelt. Landlocked alewives were introduced in 1983-84 in an attempt to improve forage conditions. By the late 1980’s, landlocked alewives were well established and the salmonid fishery improved substantially. Anglers were catching more legal-sized LKT and LLS, and quality-sized salmon in the 3-6 pound range were not uncommon. However, MDIFW’s data suggests growth and returns began leveling off in the early 1990’s, and by the mid-late 1990’s the return rate of legal-sized salmon was again very poor. Lake trout growth was fairly good in the late 1990’s, but evidence of declining LKT growth became evident in the early 2000’s. Lake trout stocking was reduced, and then temporarily discontinued in 2001. In addition, MDIFW continues to monitor and remove lake trout from the fishery each season in an effort to evaluate and improve the salmon fishery. Anglers have reported an increasing occurrence of loons (Audobon Loon counts indicate 20 plus adults in the early 2000’s) on the lake and many have witnessed what they believe to be predation on recently stocked, juvenile LLS. Anglers have also reported greater catches of large-sized smallmouth bass in the 2.5 to 5 pound class in the last 10 years or so, which may also be impacting recently stocked salmonids via competition and predation. Kezar Lake has traditionally supported a winter fishery for both lake trout and landlocked salmon, and more restrictive regulations or other management changes to the contrary may meet with some resistance. Current Regulations (list applicable regulations): Open water regulations: minimum length limit on LKT & LLS 16”; general law bag limit; S2, and S3. Lower basin is upon under S24 regulation. Ice fishing regulations: Group B; general law bag limit; minimum length limit on LLS and LKT 16”; and S5. Proposed Regulations: Although the current size quality of salmon is poor, the existing regulations have historically produced a good LLS fishery during the late 1980’s. MDIFW does not believe over harvest under the existing regulation scheme has occurred; angler use at Kezar has actually declined substantially since that period of time. We suspect there are underlying causes responsible for the decline in the salmon fishery at Kezar that regulations alone will not correct. The most appropriate course of action is to restore salmon survival and growth before proceeding with more aggressive regulation changes. Following are a list of “potential” regulations (in order of least-most effective) that could be implemented to improve salmon size quality: · night-time and/or day-time hook-and-line smelt fishery could be closed. Kezar historically produced a hook-and-line smelt fishery, but currently there is little to no hook-and-line smelt fishing. Hook-and-line likely has little impact on the smelt population; however, closure is more consistent with our efforts to try and maximize forage for LLS. · reduce the bag limit to spread out the catch and provide additional escapement; · close the lake to the harvest of LLS in the winter; · consider new size limit restrictions to protect larger sized individuals such as minimum length, maximum length, or slot limits; · close the lake to the harvest of salmon in the summer and winter, i.e. promulgate catch & release regulations. Some of the above regulations could be used in various combinations, and more specific regulations would be developed as the fishery evolves throughout this process. Identify Individuals/Group(s) to Contact for Input and/or Support: Charles Sullivan Leon Truman Kezar Falls Rod & Gun 148 Belleview Ave Norway-Paris Fish and Game Club P.O. Box 216 Melrose, MA Box 123 Kezar Falls, ME 04047 02176-2818 Norway, ME 04628 Action Plan: Use the next page to: 1. Identify and prioritize up to 5 management strategies. 2. Among these strategies identify those you feel most need to be worked on now, etc. and 3. Identify how SAM_FIC can help in implementation. ACTION PLAN (1)Continue to monitor and reduce lake trout abundance through alternative control methods to create less competition among LLS and LKT. Once the LKT population is sufficiently reduced, consider restocking at significantly lower rates, perhaps even on an alternative year(s) year basis. LKT stocking could even be discontinued if there is strong support to do so; however, based on historical information a complete suspension may not be necessary to create a quality salmon fishery. Continue to monitor LLS age and growth in response to LKT reduction. (2)Predation is suspected to be partially responsible for poor salmon survival and limited returns of legal-sized fish. If LLS respond to LKT reductions with improved growth, but still demonstrate poor or limited survival to legal sizes then the predation issue should be further investigated. Perhaps, the best way to address a predation issue at Kezar Lake would be to stock larger sized FY salmon in the fall when avian predators have left the lake and warmwater fish predators’ have reduced their feeding activity. This is a good opportunity to learn if FY stocking would improve survival, and I would recommend an experimental stocking of equal numbers of SY and FY LLS to evaluate survival of both age classes. Another potential option would be to stock salmon at a higher rate to compensate for those lost to predation, thus increasing overall returns to the angler. Regardless of this issue, MDIFW staff should collect baseline information to access the abundance and size structure of the bass population, which is also consistent with the Statewide species planning efforts for this species. (3)If growth and survival improve to historical levels similar to those observed in late 1980’s, we could then consider more restrictive regulations as needed (see above) to further improve size quality. We will need to exercise caution that such restrictive regulations do not overtax what already appears to be a fragile forage relationship at Kezar Lake. It is likely that stocking rates on LLS will need to be reduced with more limited harvest. In addition, this type of management will require fairly intensive monitoring of the LLS population consisting of at least annual trapnetting and probably some creel survey work. (4)Continue to work with lake association and UMO with their efforts to characterize the plankton community. This study may provide a basis to assess lake productivity and its ability to support a forage base. (5)Continue to support WMNF habitat restoration efforts in the Great Brook watershed. These efforts will likely benefit wild salmonids including both salmon and brook trout.
SAM/FICSAM/FIC’s major involvement in this process would be the solicitation of public support for the quality LLS program, as well as, developing support for what are likely to be controversial regulation changes. |
|
|