This is how peer review worked in the state’s decision to stock Haymock Lake

By Bob Mallard

As a former IT professional, I’m very familiar with peer reviews. Administered properly, they help businesses, agencies and organizations avoid mistakes by providing a platform for others to ask questions, offer ideas and challenge proposals from their peers.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has a peer review process. It gives staff members an opportunity to review proposals from their peers and opine accordingly.  

After DIF&W’s disappointing decision to stock Haymock Lake with lake trout for the first time in 20 years — something I wrote about before and after it was approved — I wanted to understand how a proposal with so many unanswered questions and a low likelihood of success got through. To do so, I requested the respective peer review documents from DIF&W.

Haymock is currently five years away from State Heritage Fish designation. Stocking lake trout would make it ineligible for 25 years. 

Those participating in the peer review process work for the same department. Many are in the same role of regional biologist. Most are similarly educated and trained. While there should be some differences in opinion, you would expect there to be a relatively high level of consistency.   

Input in regard to the Haymock Lake proposal varied radically from one review to the next. It ranged from, “Very well written and you have my full support!” to a thoughtful 521-word response that included the following: 

• “I think we need to view it as an experiment.” 
• “What is our Plan B if this doesn’t work?” “This really has not been addressed.”
• “There is no discussion on encouraging commercial smelters. And we talked about this.”
• “I have concerns about using hatchery LKT (lake trout). The original and likely native LKT [population] was never extirpated. I raise this concern because LKT (native pops) are also a [Species of Greatest Conservation Need] and I don’t think we want to potentially compromise one SGCN for another…especially in a situation where we know the [lake whitefish] population is not native.”
• “It will still take 4-6 years for the stocked [lake trout] to get large enough to start eating smelt. I really think we should be doing some sort of smelt suppression during that time to at least stop them from continuing to increase.”

Out of 13 peer review submissions, roughly half noted concerns with regard to the proposal.  Interestingly, many of these mirrored my own concerns, which I documented in my articles:

• “I would be concerned that stocking lake trout might also affect the whitefish population due to increased predation.”
• “I’m not convinced that [lake trout] predation will not then become a problem for the remaining whitefish.”

There were several references to using triploid, or sterile, lake trout as an alternative to standard hatchery stock. One concern would be that triploids grow faster and larger than fertile fish and could increase predation on whitefish as well as smelt.  

Currently, Maine does not raise triploids. If they did, they could find their way into recreational stocking as hybrid splake have. 

• “This would be a fantastic use of triploid fish, and if this is successful, the availability of triploid fish could open this type of biological control up to other areas.”
• “This proposal would be a good candidate for a triploid stocking program if we had one.”

One submission suggested they try splake. As noted in my second article, a previous attempt to use splake to control smelts in Thissell Pond failed.

Two reviews misrepresented the impact on State Heritage Fish waters. One implied that using triploids would not impact SHF designation, which is incorrect. That DIF&W doesn’t understand the most notable native fish conservation program we have is concerning:    

• “There are no conflicts with Heritage waters in the drainage.” 
• “…but I think triploids would be an added consideration to the wild fisheries in Haymock,  especially as it approaches its heritage listing status.”

Stocking lake trout over wild native lake trout and brook trout in Haymock Lake to suppress introduced smelt to try to bolster introduced lake whitefish sets a bad precedent, especially five  years from State Heritage Fish designation. It is also as likely to fail as it is to succeed.

Some department staff had concerns about the proposal, as well as a lack of understanding of the impacts. Yet these comments were ignored and they are going forward as planned. Like many policies and procedures, DIF&W’s peer review process is not working as intended.         

And for those who don’t believe that writing about things like this has an impact, the comment below shows that the department is paying attention and talking internally:

“It probably came as no huge surprise to see the recent BDN article about this proposal … this kind of public reaction is likely to keep coming up if we rely on stocking [lake trout] as a primary means of control for [smelt].” 

Mallard is the former owner of Kennebec River Outfitters and a Registered Maine Fishing Guide. He is writer, author and executive director for the Native Fish Coalition. Look for Bob’s latest books, Squaretail: The Definitive Guide to Brook Trout and Where to Find Them, Favorite Flies for Maine: 50 Essential Patterns from Local Experts, and Fly Fishing Maine: Local Experts on The State’s Best Waters. Bob can be reached at BobMallard.com or Info@BobMallard.com.