What do you want Alewives for?

Aren't they all bones?

Mainelyme

I'd like to have some of those smelts that my father used to net at night in April on the Brewer Banking overlooking Hancock Street.

I'd gut them cut their heads and tails off , roll them in corn meal and fry them in salt pork scraps.

Papa used to get a wash tub full of them.

I can still see the small fires the men would light to keep warm while smelting now

Perley J. Thibodeau

Mainelyme

likely to attrack and feed salmon and stripers (a bass) back into the area

arn't there already alot of alwives in the penobscot? removal of those dams is a good idea.alot of the feeder brooks need dams removed also. none of them have fishways.

I find it hard to believe Patric Kelleher said "Both are filter feeders and do not eat other fish". He knows there have been fisheries and marine biologist that have found fish in stomach samples taken from alewives. Maybe he forgot, or maybe as a scientist he does not believe in the findings of other scientists, or maybe he will stop at nothing to push through an agenda. I would like to hear what former Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, fisheries biologist Paul Johnson thinks about this proposal. We know he is concerned about the trout in the Piscataquis once the dams get removed and the Pike in Pushaw are able to spread through out the watershed. What will happen to the freshwater smelt populations in lakes like Schoodic and Sebec? Smelts also eat plankton. Smelts are key to grow big Landlocked Salmon. Landlocked Salmon are the Maine "State Fish". Landlocked Salmon were only native in just a few lakes, Green Lake/ Union River, West Grand/ St. Croix River, Sebago Lake/ Presumpscot River, and SEBEC LAKE/ Penobscot River. The "State Fish" is truly a rare breed and very geographically specific. Check out http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_57274.htm , it is an interesting theory on how these fish came into existence. I think it would be a travesty to let filter feeding Alewives eat the food base for the forage fish that make our native "State Fish" grow big. If the Alewives are so good how come they only want 6/acre? How will they count them once a spawning population is developed? I do believe we should restore the Penobscot but there has to be a compromise so we do not threaten some things that were native and natural. Biologists can make mistakes, hopefully it does not take 25 to 50 years to realize the mistake, it may take twice that amount of time to recover, if recovery is possible.

I agree with littlejimmy, lets see an article from Paul Johnson. Paul knows, understands and respects the NATURAL freshwater fisheries. I just do not know where Mr. Kelleher got his info "filter feeders". Seems like he may have a hidden agenda. I just do not see why they would think of stocking other fish in our waters, when with budget cuts they can not manage what we have now. The Fisheries Bioligist we have now do an outstanding job. They are working hard to improve our fisheries everyday. Then all of a sudden by a swipe of a pen that work will be gone. The smelts that feed the salmon will be gone and so will the dream of catching the big salmon from Sebec Lake and Schoodic Lake. This is just a slap in the face to our fisheries biologist. So I suggest that this be given more time, becuase the closer it comes to happening more information is being released. This information is not what we want to hear. It is the stuff the know they have to get out, but is given to the public too late for them to react. So Mr. Kelleher if this mess does happen how long before we will have pike in Sebec or Schoodic? Or is that a question that Mr. Paul Johnson should answer in a future article. It just seems fair we heard your side that we get to hear Mr. Johnson's also. I just have a feeling that article will not happen. Just a gut feeling.

I agree with you littlejimmy, leave things alone Schoodic and Sebec are doing just fine.

The state of maine (confusion) hasn't got money for important items, but they can put fish in a river. Oh yea, good move there. This sounds alot like SOS. (Stuck on Stupid)

Oh yeah, god forbid the state put money into natural resources, it would be much better spent on paying for some lazy @$$#$ to sit on the sofa and live off the state. I'd rather my taxes and license fees be used to buy fish than food stamps for someone - at least we get a benefit out of natural resources - more than you can say for many welfare recipients!!

I believe the only reason for alewives, and that is why most in the Penobscot Bay and others want it, is for Lobster Bait. Thanks to the Dept. of Marine Resources. Unbelievable the State and so many of its depts. are for it. Well, actually not seeing who is Gov. Baldacci's, what's her office, Make Maine Green, I think her name is Karin R. Tilberg? something like that. Just look who the Gov. has in some of his depts. and what they support. She was with the Northern Forest Alliance. Also unbelievalbe that the town of Orono is behind this project, possibly less water, more riverfront property for taxing?

Wonder who is actually thinking of these things. Now we see the Lynx are more protected. I think Maine has one of the highest populations of them? Unfortuante so much green has infiltrated the State of Maine. Maine use to be more independant thinkers, now they let others do it for them, and seems exterme liberals?

And yes, BDN what has happend to Paul Johnson's oped? Wonder if this has to do more with what the owner of the paper may support, rather than being independant of certain groups?

To get rid of the best natural resource for energy, and yes it will be reduced. What is the next dam on there agenda? Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

I doubt in time you will have to be concerned with salmon in Schoodic or any other lake, just look at the Belgrade Lake Chain? You won't have to do a mutil-species check, may end up with just Northern Pike. Hard to believe the trout assoc. is for this, surprise, surprise.

IF the commission gives its approval? Are you trying to say their is a FAINT chance that they won't?

Let get this right, Patrick Keliher, director of sea-run fisheries and habitat at the Department of Marine Resources says "When these fish die, nutrients are released which benefit bodies of water. In addition these fish, in warmer waters, will eat zooplankton, organisms that float on water. There is a high level of algae which turns the water green when there is too much zooplankton in a body of water, according to the state official." Now we're told that we need more nutrients in our water bodies. Hasn't the Department of Environmental Protection been harping on us to REDUCE the amount of nutrients going into the water? What goes here? Then he states that it is because of too much zooplankton that our lakes turn green! We in lake associations have been told for years that it is the phytoplankton that is the problem with blooms, and that zooplankton feeds on phtoplankton. So if Keliher is correct, the alewives eat zooplankton and that will help keep our lakes clear! I don't think so. Mr. Keliher need to go back to school for some basic ecology? Pitiful!

I think we should all remember way back when oil was $4.00 a gallon..... don't these dams make renewable power that everyone loves??? I need it explained to me how a bunch of dead fish in a lake will help the water quality..... Let's stock some trout and salmon and leave these lakes alone....

FYI,

Alewives in many mid-coast watersheds return, spawn, nursery millions of fall fingerlings and do not upset the local eco-systems. Newly hatched alewife fry may compete with other fish fry for initial food items but they soon become prey for upper end predatores and take the presure off the local food web fishes during the summer. When the alewives leave in the late summer and early fall they leave behind a healthy forage base for upper end predator fish to utiluize during the winter months. In an open watershed, alewives have an overall positive ecological impact. Reintroduction of alewives may upset an existing food web in a new water body for a while but given time all the aspects of the new food web will come to terms with each other.

DEPLEATED ANADROMOUS FISH POPULATIONS LEAD TO LOW WATERSHED PRODUCTIVITY

On the River Bran in Northern Scotland, Nislow and Armstrong (in review) found that large stocking rates and low adult returns of Atlantic salmon caused a drain on the net phosphorous budget of the river and decreased primary production due to loss of marine-derived nutrients likely effects the entire ecosystem. Over time, the reduction of these marine-derived inputs may have the potential of creating a negative feedback loop, gradually depriving the system of its nutrients, and resulting in an overall decrease in stream productivity (Wipfli et al., 1998).

http://www.krisweb.com/krissheepscot/krisdb/html/krisweb/analysis/hypoth_4_dams_sheep.htm

EFFECTS OF THE SPAWNING MIGRATION OF THE ALEWIFE (Alosa pseudoheaengus) ON FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS

The influx of large numbers of alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, into relatively small freshwater systems may have a considerable impact upon pre-established food chains and nutrient cycles. We estimate the total nutrient input to Pausacaco Pond, Rhode Island, USA, from alewives amounted to 0.43 g P, 2.7 g N, and 16.8 g/Cm^2 over a 2-mo period. This is largely through mortality of the spawning fish, and to a lesser extent through excretion. These inputs were much greater than the eventual nutrient loss to the system through emigration of juvenile fish. In tank experiments using pond microcosms, the initial response to the addition of the fish was a large phytoplankton bloom and an increase in litter respiration. The phytoplankton bloom was short-lived, and the most lasting effort was an increase in production and respiration in the leaf litter. This increased production in the litter community would support a long lasting supply of insect and benthic invertebrate food for young fish. The respiration rate of autumn leaves incubated in alewife streams during the migration was significantly higher than that of leaves incubated simultaneously in a stream which had no alewife run. Respiration rates of leaves incubated in the same streams before the arrival of alewives did not differ significantly. The increase in litter respiration, an indication of microbial and invertebrate activity on the leaf surface, was attributed to the additional nutrients supplied by the fish.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658%28197902%2960%3A1%3C8%3AEOTSMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage#abstract

DEPLEATED ANADROMOUS FISH POPULATIONS LEAD TO LOW WATERSHED PRODUCTIVITY

On the River Bran in Northern Scotland, Nislow and Armstrong (in review) found that large stocking rates and low adult returns of Atlantic salmon caused a drain on the net phosphorous budget of the river and decreased primary production due to loss of marine-derived nutrients likely effects the entire ecosystem. Over time, the reduction of these marine-derived inputs may have the potential of creating a negative feedback loop, gradually depriving the system of its nutrients, and resulting in an overall decrease in stream productivity (Wipfli et al., 1998).

http://www.krisweb.com/krissheepscot/krisdb/html/krisweb/analysis/hypoth_4_dams_sheep.htm

SMALLMOUTH BASS RESPOND TO RE-INTRODUCTION OF SHAD

Type of Document Master's Thesis

Author Hopler, David A.

URN etd-02072008-182412

Title Diet and Growth of Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus Dolomieu) Following Reintroduction of American Shad (Alosa Sapidissima) in the James River, Virginia

Degree Master of Science

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) were collected from a reach of the James River, Virginia undergoing American shad (Alosa sapidissima) restoration and fish passage projects. Diet and growth of these specimens were compared to specimens collected prior (1987-1990) to American shad restoration and fish passage. The Piedmont James River was stocked with >5 million American shad larvae annually since 1995 and was re-opened to migratory fish in 1999. Mean lengths-at-age (ages 1-4) were back-calculated from scales and compared using the Mann-Whitney Test. Smallmouth bass collected in 2002 had a significantly lower mean length-at-age for age 2 specimens compared to 1987-1989 smallmouth bass (P=0.04). Stomach contents were placed into four major categories (fish, crayfish, aquatic insects, terrestrial insects) and compared using Schoener's Diet Overlap Index. Schoener's Index produced a score of 0.94; indicating very high diet overlap. In 2002, Centrachidae was the dominant fish prey family and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) was the dominant species. American shad was not observed in stomach samples during 1987-1990, but was the second most common fish species prey species identified in 2002. Recovery of American shad from smallmouth bass indicates smallmouth bass are utilizing forage produced by restoration stockings. No semi-migratory fish species using new fish passage structures were recovered fiom smallmouth bass stomachs. Fish prey was measured by weight, number of items, and by occurrence; and placed in six family categories for comparison. Schoener's Index produced scores ranging from 0.26 for prey weight to 0.40 for prey occurrence, indicating low fish prey diet overlap. These data indicate that smallmouth bass are utilizing new forage resulting from restoration activities, but growth rates have not changed significantly. Smallmouth bass may not be forage-limited in the study area.

A. Alewives contribute to and maintain the well being of the environment they occupy.

1. Alewives enhance food webs and help reduce lake sediment buildup

"A restored herring population would bring a number of other benefits, although they are harder to quantify. More herring would mean more forage for predators in the rivers and the Bay. Research has shown that the large numbers of river herring that once glutted headwater streams were an important source of nutrients in those areas. This provided other ecological benefits as well. One study, for instance, found that the deaths of migrating alewife reduced sedimentation rates in lakes by furnishing nitrogen and phosphorus, which stimulated the growth of organisms that devoured leaf litter."

http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1330

2. Small ALEWIVES important in 1 month old SMALLMOUTH BASS diet.

"Alewives were consumed by smallmouth bass in their first month after hatching"

Data suggests that alewives comprise a large portion of smallmouth bass diet over the summer.

http://www.unb.ca/cri/documents/NBCFWRU_Report_02_04.pdf

3. Big smallmouth bass feed well - grow large on alewives.

I consider anything over 20 plus to be a trophy fish. My personal biggest is a 21 incher that i caught in the mouth of the Menominee river/Lake Michigan. My brother and I were hammering them that morning, trolling big 4 inch walley plugs into the bay and back into the river. They were gorging on the alweife (sp?), one of the fish we brought in gagged out a half digested alewife. Man, was that one for the memories, not a fish under 17 inches

http://fishingminnesota.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=127279

“ We examined the temporal patterns of diet and isotopes of carbon and nitrogen for age-0 alewives and smallmouth bass in a natural lake and a reservoir where alewife escapement is managed. Multiple alewife spawnings occurred in the lake, and small-bodied alewives were abundant throughout the summer. There was minimal diet overlap, age-0 alewives became a significant component of the age-0 smallmouth bass diet, and age-0 bass grew larger in this system. In the reservoir, escapement of alewife spawners was truncated, and a single-size age-0 cohort was observed.”

http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1577%2FT03-067.1

5. Alewives fuel multi-billion fishery in Great Lakes and temper thiaminase concerns.

“ Because of their importance as a forage base for the Salmoine sport fishery, they are no longer viewed as a nuisance by some managers (Kocik and Jones 1999).”

http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC%202004/Tagged%20PDFs/SOGL%202005%20Report/English%20Version/Individual%20Indicators/0008_Salmon_and_Trout.pdf

“ …. the alewife has become….. the most beloved of all the invasives…. because it’s food for the most popular sport fish in the Great Lakes.”

“ Anglers caught eight million pounds of salmon in Lake Michigan last year. “

“ A healthy alewife population is seen as a good thing by the states that benefit economically from the recreational fishing, and the millions of anglers that now can fish the big lakes because there's something that swims there and there is a forage base to support this cash engine. “

“…..when alewives are abundant, the salmon population thrives, and everybody benefits from the multi-billion dollar recreation industry.”

http://www.great-lakes.org/Wkly_news/10-24-05.html

“ When such forage is abundant, the growth rates of resident game fishes are improved.”

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/zone/underwater_sous-marin/gasparea/alewife-gaspareau_e.htm

So......... It is not all doom and gloom concerning the repopulation of the river herring and shad in the Penobscot River. There is a wealth of scientific information available if you take the time to look for it. Beware of opinions that are charged with emotion and not backed up by research and data. Who has an agenda or personal ax to grind on this issue? Look both ways when crossing this street.

Regards,

Samchap

Alewives have fundamentally altered the Great Lakes ecosystem. Since their invasion, all trophic levels have been effected by their extensive predation of zooplankton. This ecosystem now, in some places, significantly revolves around the alewife. Native zooplanktonivores have been out-competed. Zooplankton are fed upon extensively, clarifying the water but also allowing for algal blooms. Any potential damage from the alewife has already been done, as integration into the ecosystem seems to have come to completion, at least if temperatures in the lake remain stable. Warming in Lake Superior may cause an increase in alewife populations, leading to greater changes in the ecosystem.

The large presence of alewife in an area has been shown to directly affect the biodiversity of that area, even during annual lows in the population size. In some places in the Great Lakes, fish populations have been shown to consist of nearly 75% alewife. Weinstein and Logan show clearly in their paper that a species with that amount of dominance drastically effects local diversity of an ecosystem. In particular, alewife feed on eggs and larvae of other fish species, a major method in which they outcompete other zooplanktivores.

There has been some suggestion that alewife carry the virus VEN, or viral erythrocytic necrosis, however this does not seem to be a particular threat, as VEN has not shown to be fatal. Species that feed on landlock alewife have shown to be thiamin deficient. As alewife dominate local communities, this may be an issue for predators that can find little else to feed on. Alewife have been shown to cause both early mortality syndrome (EMS) and Cayuga syndrome in lake trout and Atlantic salmon populations, and thiamin deficiency may be to blame.

Finally, mass die-offs in alewife populations occur periodically, and this can cause both aeshetic and hygenic problems for humans in the area as hundreds or thousands of alewife decay on the beaches. This, of course, also places economic strains on local economies that must pay to remove the fish, often by bulldozing them.

Dr. James A. Danoff-Burg

Columbia University

Hell, if we are going to stock alewife, why not stock zebra mussles too. If you are going to screw things up you should go all the way. Forget about the dams the power they produce and what the SPORTMEN AND WOMEN want and do what you THINK IS RIGHT.