Third letter to Maryland's DNR secretary re: North Branch Potomac

Dear Secretary Kurtz:

This is the third letter I’ve written to you regarding a Maryland DNR Fisheries Division regulation that allows the use of bait in the specially regulated catch-and-release trout management area in the North Branch Potomac River between Westernport and Pinto. 

Your department has a great opportunity to further develop the North Branch as one of the great wild trout habitats in the East, a real destination fishery. But it won’t happen as long as anglers are allowed to use bait.

As I stated earlier, the use of bait produces trout mortalities several times that produced by the use of artificial flies and lures — the current gear requirement in all other specially regulated catch-and-release trout management areas in Maryland.  And, from what I’ve discerned, that has been the case since the inception of special trout regulations decades ago. 

Moreover, I cannot find another example of a catch-and-release trout management area — with the stated goal of establishing and maintaining wild trout — that permits the use of bait anywhere in the country. During a fishing trip to Montana this summer with my son, three river guides could not believe what we told them about bait being allowed in a catch-and-release stream.

Wild trout management is, or should be, the goal of Maryland’s Fisheries Division for the North Branch Potomac, and it’s happening.  Brown and rainbow trout spawn in the river; we routinely see (and even catch) wild trout on guided float trips, or while wade-fishing. 

Your response to my previous letters states that, based on data from five to seven years ago, DNR staff believe the proportion of trout mortalities resulting from catch-and-release angling with bait is insignificant and “compensated” by natural mortality. That defies science and logic.

The clear national consensus is that bait is inappropriate in catch-and-release trout fisheries. So it seems logical to me that Maryland fishery managers should make every effort to reduce the killing of trout in catch-and-release trout management areas by eliminating bait. 

Unaddressed, or even acknowledged, is the matter of poaching directly enabled by the current regulation. Fishing guides say they routinely observe not only evidence of poaching, but the poachers themselves in plain sight. Two summers ago, my son and I saw a poacher while fishing from a raft. Bait is the preferred method of poachers and the current regulation facilitates it. 

I hope that an angler sitting on a bucket and fishing with worms is not what you, as secretary, envision as appropriate in a catch-and-release trout fishery. It’s definitely not what catch-and-release trout anglers, willing to travel for wild trout, seek when selecting areas to visit and fish. 

Which brings me to the attached petition. 

As I write, 1,087 anglers have voiced opposition to allowing the use of bait in the North Branch catch-and-release trout management area, from Westernport to Pinto. Not all of those anglers have visited the North Branch — and they may never fish it as a result of your bait regulation. 

What is your response to more than 1,000 anglers who oppose the use of bait in a Maryland catch-and-release trout fishery? 

I urge you to propose a regulation for 2027 that would eliminate bait use and better align regulations in the North Branch with all other Maryland catch-and-release trout management areas. 

That regulation proposal would solicit comments and gauge public sentiment for and against. I see no reason to delay that action by your fisheries staff.

I've copied fishing guides, Trout Unlimited officials, conservationists, Maryland outdoor writers and other interested parties on this letter. I encourage those of you who wish to contribute to this discussion to reply all with comments.

Sincerely,

Dan Rodricks