Brook trout in Quebec: a necessary plan, but where is the biological assessment?

Management Plan 2020-2028 — Analysis of the plan, its summary and the 2026 assessment

In 2020, Quebec launched its first Brook Trout Management Plan 2020-2028 with a finding that should have sounded the alarm throughout the province: more than half of the brook trout populations in lakes were considered to be in a situation of overexploitation.

The detailed portrait was even more disturbing.

According to the diagnosis presented in the full plan, only 21% of the assessed populations were considered to be in equilibrium . The others were distributed between 17% in recent overexploitation, 34% in advanced overexploitation and 28% in recovery [1].

In other words, at the time the plan was put in place, barely one in five populations could be considered in balance .

Therefore, the situation did not require a minor regulatory adjustment. Quebec was facing a much deeper problem concerning exploitation, habitat productivity, population quality, and their capacity for renewal.

The Ministry itself acknowledged that despite a general decrease in fishing pressure between 1980 and 2010, fishing yield and success had decreased, and more than 50% of the populations analyzed were in a situation of overexploitation [2].

Six years later, the 2026 Assessment finally allows us to see what has been done.

And it must be said: a lot has been done.

But we must also ask the uncomfortable question:

Are brook trout populations actually doing better?

Upon reviewing the 2026 report, the answer essentially remains:

We don't know yet.

A problem that had already been clearly identified

The 2020-2028 plan was based on a relatively solid scientific foundation.

More than 180 lake inventories were analyzed to establish the overall picture. The assessment showed that mortality exceeded the renewal capacity in more than half of the populations studied. The Ministry also emphasized that the situation remained concerning in both structured wildlife territories and open territories [2].

But above all, the plan provided an extremely important explanation: the overexploitation of brook trout can be difficult to perceive at first.

A population experiencing high mortality can temporarily compensate. The growth or abundance of certain fish species can even give the impression that the situation remains acceptable.

But if this exploitation continues, the consequences gradually become visible: fewer large fish, decreased abundance and, ultimately, a reduction in the number of mature females and reproductive potential [2].

This is probably one of the most important findings of the entire plan.

A good day of fishing is not automatically proof that a population is healthy.

And waiting for fishing success to collapse before intervening sometimes means waiting until the problem is already well established.

FIGURE 1 — Status of populations at initial diagnosis

Distribution of brook trout populations in lakes according to the diagnosis presented in Figure 13 of the complete plan [1]:

• 21% — Balance

• 17% — Recent overexploitation

• 34% — Advanced overexploitation

• 28% — Recovery

  
  

The figure that should stay in mind is simple:

only 21% were classified as balanced.

And 51% were directly in the two categories of overexploitation.

A plan that is much broader than regulation

One of the merits of the 2020-2028 Management Plan is that it did not reduce the problem to the sole daily limit on catches.

The plan includes approximately 70 measures affecting exploitation, quotas, habitats, allopatric populations, introduced species, seeding, awareness-raising and knowledge acquisition [2].

That was the right approach.

Because you cannot sustainably protect a population simply by reducing the harvest if, at the same time, its spawning grounds are degraded, its waterways are fragmented, competing species are introduced, the water temperature increases or its natural productivity decreases.

The plan explicitly recognizes habitat degradation, loss of allopatry and climate change as factors that may contribute to population decline [2].

Based on the diagnosis, Quebec had therefore correctly identified the problem.

The question then becomes:

Have we transformed this diagnosis into measurable results?

What has actually been achieved since 2020

It would be unfair to claim that nothing has been done.

The 2026 report, on the contrary, demonstrates several concrete advances.

The daily catch limit has been reduced in 10 areas or parts of areas , while some fishing periods have been harmonized [3].

Work continues to revise annual quotas in structured wildlife territories so that harvests correspond more closely to the natural productivity of water bodies [3].

The Ministry has also developed or improved seeding plans, administrative tools, diagnostic methods and various awareness-raising measures.

But two achievements stand out in particular.

125 lakes: probably the most important scientific investment in the plan

Since 2020, Quebec has structured a provincial monitoring network of approximately 125 lakes .

These bodies of water, distributed in the different fishing areas and as much in free territory as in structured wildlife territories, must be inventoried according to cycles of five or ten years [3].

In my opinion, this is probably the most important tool created in the entire plan .

For what?

Because it will finally allow us to track the same populations over time with a comparable methodology.

We could potentially ask a genuine scientific question:

Before the measures were implemented, what was the state of this population?

Then :

Five or ten years later, is it better, stable or worse? This is exactly what was missing from the previous picture. In the initial plan, only two bodies of water had been sampled twice over a long period, which practically prevented any real provincial temporal analysis [1].

The network of 125 lakes can therefore completely change our ability to track brook trout.

But in 2026, let's be clear:

The network exists; its long-term results, however, are not yet available.

Allopatry: a true priority that is beginning to be taken seriously

The case of allopatric populations is particularly important.

These lakes, where brook trout are naturally the only fish species, constitute a unique biological heritage of Quebec.

However, about 70% of the areas formerly in allopatry have lost this characteristic , mainly as a result of the voluntary or accidental introduction of other species [2].

The 2026 report shows much more concrete work in this area.

Allopatry has notably been verified by environmental DNA in 110 lakes distributed across six regions , in parallel with the construction of a more detailed provincial map [3].

A guide on the use of rotenone has also been produced to frame certain restorations of lakes invaded by undesirable species [3].

This is a real step forward.

Here, we are not just talking about raising awareness: we are improving our knowledge of the territory and our intervention capabilities.

Housing: money and projects, but now we need to measure the results

The report also indicates that more than $1.8 million has been invested in projects related in particular to the protection of allopatry, restoration, connectivity of habitats and improvement of management practices [3].

Work is also being carried out to better understand the importance of small forest streams, to improve the estimation of natural productivity and to identify culverts that may prevent the free movement of fish [3].

Once again: very good management.

But eventually, a proper assessment should be able to answer this with simple figures:

• How many problematic culverts have been corrected?

• How many kilometers of habitat have been reconnected?

• How many spawning grounds have been restored?

• How many populations have demonstrated a measurable increase in productivity after intervention?

  
  

Investing $1.8 million is a measure of the effort.

This is not yet a measure of the biological outcome. And this distinction is fundamental.

TABLE — Where are we really in 2026?

Stake	Situation or objective	2026 Review	What's still missing
Population status	More than 50% overexploited at diagnosis	No new provincial percentage	New biological profile comparable to 2020
Populations in balance	Only 21% in the initial portrait	No new proportion published	Measuring the evolution of the 21%
Grip limits	Reduce fishing mortality	Discounts in 10 zones or parts of zones	Measured biological effect of these reductions
TFS quotas	Adapting the harvest to productivity	Revision still in progress	Number of lakes revised and population response
Scientific network	Improve long-term monitoring	Approximately 125 lakes monitored	Results of the second inventories
Allopatry	Protecting unique populations	110 lakes validated by DNAe	Protected area and number of restored populations
Habitat	Improve productivity and connectivity	Over $1.8 million invested	Quantified biological results
Culverts	Identify the obstacles	LiDAR project and protocol under development	Corrected number and reconnected habitat
Back in the water	Reduce mortality	Awareness tools	Actual measurement of mortality and practices
Climate change	Recognized as a limiting factor	Few climate indicators are presented in the report	Temperature, thermal refuges, regional vulnerability
Sea trout	Anadromous populations of concern	Outside the Main Plan	Separate and updated assessment of anadromous populations
70 measures of the Plan	Implementation 2020-2028	Summary of "main actions"	Comprehensive table: completed/in progress/not completed

Release back into the water: a figure that should give us pause

There was also one particularly striking element in the original synthesis.

Approximately 25% of catches were released , and the Department estimated that post-release mortality could reach 35 to 50% when natural bait was used .

At the scale of the fishery assessed at that time, the document estimated that this mortality could represent approximately 1.6 million fish annually [2].

This is not insignificant.

The 2026 report now mentions posters, leaflets and videos dedicated to good practices for releasing fish back into the water [3].

It's necessary.

But after six years of management planning, it would also be useful to know:

Has this estimated mortality rate decreased?

Do fishermen use natural baits less often when they plan to release their catches back into the water?

Have manipulation practices changed?

Once again, we know the action taken.

We know much less about its actual effectiveness.

The major omission: climate change

The original plan recognizes climate change among the factors likely to affect the natural productivity of brook trout [2].

And that makes perfect sense.

We are talking about a cold-water fish.

Temperature directly influences the amount of habitat available, oxygen requirements, food, metabolism, movement, and potentially survival.

However, when I look at the 2026 assessment, I find that the climate dimension remains far too discreet compared to the importance it is likely to take on in the coming decades.

I would have liked to see a proper provincial chart showing, in particular:

• The most vulnerable lakes and watersheds;

• The evolution of summer temperatures;

• The availability of thermal shelters;

• Areas where thermal housing is at risk of contracting;

• Populations located near their physiological limits;

• The management adjustments under consideration.

  
  

A management plan for a cold water species that extends beyond 2028 will no longer be able to treat climate adaptation as a secondary issue.

And what about the North Shore? The sea trout issue remains a special case.

Finally, there is one major element that we must not forget when we talk about the North Shore: the anadromous brook trout, our sea trout.

The summary document already recognized that sport catch data and scientific monitoring available since the 1980s indicated a decline in the abundance and size of catches in several well-known populations [2].

However, these populations were deliberately not included in the 2020-2028 Management Plan , as their ecology is sufficiently different from that of the resident populations.

The Ministry had instead developed an Action Plan 2019-2022 which was intended in particular to establish a specific monitoring network for the anadromous char and to improve knowledge of its habitats [2].

This means something important:

The famous figure of more than 50% of overexploited populations does not constitute a complete picture of the situation of sea trout on the North Shore.

That's another matter.

And since the decline of several anadromous populations was already recognized in government documents before 2020, we now need a truly updated assessment of this 2019-2022 Action Plan.

• What is the current situation for the population?

• Has the specific monitoring network actually been implemented?

• Which populations are being monitored?

• What is the evolution of abundance?

• What is the trend in fish size?

• What critical habitats have been identified?

• What conservation measures have been taken?

• 
  

For the North Shore, these answers are essential.

The biggest problem with the 2026 balance sheet

This is ultimately what bothers me the most.

The document published in 2026 is presented as a review of the first five years, but the Ministry itself specifies that it is a portrait of the main actions carried out [3].

The plan contains approximately 70 measures .

I would have liked to find a much simpler accountability table:

Measure 1: completed.

Measure 2: in progress.

Measure 3: not implemented.

Measure 4: postponed.

And so on up to measure 70.

Each one contains:

a schedule;

a manager;

an indicator;

the expected result;

the result obtained;

and, where possible, the observed biological effect.

This table is not present.

Consequence:

We are not actually able to say what percentage of the Management Plan has been implemented.

40%?

60%?

80%?

We don't know from this assessment.

Most importantly, we still don't know the new biological profile

That's the heart of the problem.

In 2020:

21% at equilibrium. 17% in recent overexploitation. 34% in advanced overexploitation. 28% in recovery.

And in 2026?

We don't have a comparable new provincial picture. That's where I draw a very important line. I wouldn't say the Management Plan is a failure. That would be unfair and scientifically premature.

Important tools have been created. Boundaries have been reduced. Quotas are being revised. Habitats are being studied. Projects are being funded. Environmental DNA is being used. A network of 125 lakes is now in place.

All of this matters.

But I would also not say that the 2026 assessment demonstrates that the Plan is working biologically.

It demonstrates that actions have been taken .

It does not yet demonstrate that the populations have recovered .

This distinction must be understood.

One sentence from the 2026 report says a lot

The Ministry itself indicates that despite the actions undertaken since 2020, more than five years of additional efforts will be needed before a significant improvement in the condition of the populations can be observed [3].

The year is 2026.

Five more years will take us to at least 2031. However, the current Plan ends in 2028 .

Therefore, there is a logical conclusion to be drawn:

2028 will probably not be the end of the work.

This will be more like the end of the first phase.

The next plan must ensure the continuity of the monitoring network and begin to produce what we have been waiting for from the start: measurable biological trends.

What Quebec should publish in 2028

In my opinion, the final report should contain at least:

1. A new provincial portrait of the state of the populations , with exactly the same categories as the initial portrait in order to allow a direct comparison.

2. The percentage of populations now considered to be in equilibrium.

Is it still 21%? 25%? or 35%?

This is probably the simplest indicator to know if we are making progress.

3. The evolution of the biomass of mature females and reproductive potential.

4. The evolution of abundance and age structure.

5. The biological results of changes in quotas and catch limits.

6. The number of allopatric populations protected, restored or lost since 2020.

7. Kilometers of habitat reconnected and the number of culverts actually corrected.

8. An assessment of the effects of climate change and water temperature.

9. A complete table of the approximately 70 measures of the Plan: completed, in progress, delayed or abandoned.

10. A separate and comprehensive assessment of the anadromous brook trout.

Conclusion — managing is not just about taking action, it's about demonstrating that our actions work

The Brook Trout Management Plan 2020-2028 was necessary.

The diagnosis was concerning, and several of the measures taken were going in the right direction.

The 2026 report also demonstrates that the issue has not been abandoned. The scientific network is improving, projects are being funded, tools are being developed, and several interventions are underway.

These advances must be acknowledged. But protecting a species is not just about producing guides, funding projects, changing regulations or creating platforms.

The real result is in the water.

• How many populations are now healthy?

• How many have recovered?

• How many continue to decline?

• How many breeding animals have we protected?

• How many habitats have we actually recovered?

• 
  

And most importantly:

Are we still at 21% of populations in equilibrium, or have we truly succeeded in moving the needle?

That is the question the next assessment will have to answer.

Because in 2020, we already knew that more than half of the assessed populations were overexploited.

By 2026, we will know much better what has been done .

Now, we need to know if it works .

And if the Ministry itself believes that it will take more than five years to see a significant improvement, then we must start preparing for the post-2028 period today.

Not by starting from scratch.

But by using the tools that have been built to finally move from an action review to a true assessment of the state of the resource .

Because ultimately, it is not our intentions, our programs, or our documents that will determine the future of the brook trout.

These will be the fish that will still be present in our lakes and rivers to reproduce tomorrow.

Sources

[1] Government of Quebec — Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks. Quebec Brook Trout Management Plan 2020-2028 — full document. See in particular the section “Status of Populations”, Figure 13: 21% at equilibrium, 17% recently overexploited, 34% in advanced overexploitation and 28% in recovery.

[2] Government of Quebec — Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks. Brook Trout Management Plan for Quebec 2020-2028 — Summary Document , 2019. Diagnosis of populations, overexploitation, mortality on release, allopatry, 70 measures and status of anadromous brook trout.

[3] Government of Quebec — Ministry of the Environment, the Fight Against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks. Brook Trout Management Plan 2020 — 2026 Review , 2026. Reduction of limits in 10 zones or parts of zones, DNAe in 110 lakes, provincial network of approximately 125 lakes, investments of over $1.8 million, habitat projects and conclusion on additional efforts required.