Flatbrook Survey

[Mark B.]

Please read:

https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/cwfmp.htm

[Drossi]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

So, we have wild trout streams, trout production areas, no trout production areas, catch and release, catch and kill, artificials only, size limits, bag limits, bait, no bait, closed waters, no closed waters, two month creel limits, ten month creel limits, barbs, barbless, etc. etc. etc. Everyone with a hook in the game seems to be satiated. Does this sound like pandering?

Nope, sounds like comprehensive management in a state with limited stream miles/resources and varying types of anglers. I don't see the issue honestly. Unless the issue is bitching about it for bitching about its sake. In that case there's no cure cause there'll never be any satisfaction. Every attempt to pander to the bitcher will be met with another round of bitching.

[TogRipper]

Until the Cormorant issue is resolved the stocking of trout in my opinion is a huge waste of our money.
These birds eat trout year long. The most disturbing part is that two weeks prior to the Spring Opener these birds have already eaten a huge percent of the trout stocked. Once they trout have been decimated they move on to another lake and continue the cycle. It seems they know when to come for their easy meal each Spring.
You can go to any lake in the state and see these predators at work.
I don't mind losing fish to Ospreys, Eagles, otters etc.
Every year it seems these birds grow in population. I don't remember them in the 80's or 90's.

[Billfish715]

Originally Posted by Dave B.

The Flatbrook telemetry studies were primarily initiated to try to determine why both anglers and the state biologists were not seeing the increase in holdover numbers that was anticipated with the implementation of the 'No-Kill' regs. This was after several years of poor returns on both electro-fishing surveys and angler surveys during the summer months.


So saying that stopping stocking and allowing the wild pops to stabilize on their own would create a solid, viable fishery in the Flatbrook is quite honestly a pipe dream at best. This simply will not happen due to some environmental factors we have yet to figure out. From the standpoint of flows, stream temps and stream size one would believe the Flatbrook should be a great fishery for both holdover and wild trout, but for whatever reason the fish simply don't seem to utilize certain areas of the streambed the way they do in other waters.

Getting back to the original topic, (sorry for the long post!), I would like to see the telemetry study performed on other sections of the Flatbrook as well as some other waters in the state that on the surface appear to be good holdover waters but for unknown reasons don't seem to hold the fish.
Just my $0.02, your mileage may vary.

Dave, I respect your intimate knowledge of all things biological as they affect the fishery programs in New Jersey. It is to that knowledge and experience that I subscribe to your cogent observations and remarks. Continuing and expanding the telemetry study to include more areas of the state has my 100% support. The results of those studies would certainly give legitimacy to any further efforts to regulate or deregulate the trout streams in our state. If certain streams or portions of them do not hold trout as they were intended then any regulations that are designed to extend the holdover possibilities of those steams should be eliminated or revamped.

Science is based on facts and not conjecture, therefore, areas that might have been designated as "catch and release" or "no kill" or "delayed harvest" or, whatever, should be scientifically examined and evaluated periodically. Using telemetry to study portions of the Musky and South Branch, Pequest and Paulinskill where those regulations are currently in effect makes perfect sense. I hope someone with influence reads these comments and brings them to the attention of the decision makers on the Council and at the Division.

Stocking trout in areas where they don't holdover or reproduce in any significant numbers, as it was intended, is a waste of our license fees and a waste of a valuable resource.........unless you are a heron, mink, merganser, osprey, eagle, otter or some other fish-eating bird or mammal.

As fishermen, we may never totally agree with how we choose to fish, or where or when. We may disagree over keeping trout for the table or releasing them to fight another day. One thing we all agree upon is how our license fees are being spent. Let's see where the science leads us.

[Drossi]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

One thing we all agree upon is how our license fees are being spent. Let's see where the science leads us.

I agree (as I have for the last 30+ years) with how my license fees get spent. No issues here with the few special regs zones on the Pequest, SBR, BFB, or Musky. Or the wild trout regs. I think I fish general regs water 98% of the time I go out.

Again I don't see wtf the fuss is about other than it be a veiled vendetta against those people who enjoy the special regs zones. That's ludicrous, like it would be for me to bitch about stockings of lakes. Just cause I don't own a boat to effectively lake fish doesn't mean I should get on a soap box about stocking lakes. That'd be asinine.

[Billfish715]

[QUOTE=Drossi;523031]I agree (as I have for the last 30+ years) with how my license fees get spent. No issues here with the few special regs zones on the Pequest, SBR, BFB, or Musky. Or the wild trout regs. I think I fish general regs water 98% of the time I go out.

If you fish 99% of the time in general regulation areas, then I guess you catch stocked trout 99% of the time as well. I'm sure the number of holdover trout you catch in those general regulation waters is minimal at best. It's why you fish 1% of the time in wild trout or special regulation waters. Why is that?

The discussion has been about fishing in catch and release areas for trout that don't seem to survive despite what seem to be very suitable conditions. If the purpose of these areas is to ultimately allow more trout to "holdover" and the results show that the results are not fulfilled, then the program should be revisited and reevaluated. The streams that are now C&R are not and have not produced enough "wild trout" to be added to the wild trout stream list despite the stocking of those streams for over a century.

The streams have to be stocked or what fishing we know of today will be lost and forgotten and the fishermen with it.

Vendetta? Hardly! Scientific research? Definitely!

[Drossi]

[QUOTE=Billfish715;523045]

Originally Posted by Drossi

If you fish 99% of the time in general regulation areas, then I guess you catch stocked trout 99% of the time as well. I'm sure the number of holdover trout you catch in those general regulation waters is minimal at best. It's why you fish 1% of the time in wild trout or special regulation waters. Why is that?

The discussion has been about fishing in catch and release areas for trout that don't seem to survive despite what seem to be very suitable conditions. If the purpose of these areas is to ultimately allow more trout to "holdover" and the results show that the results are not fulfilled, then the program should be revisited and reevaluated. The streams that are now C&R are not and have not produced enough "wild trout" to be added to the wild trout stream list despite the stocking of those streams for over a century.

The streams have to be stocked or what fishing we know of today will be lost and forgotten and the fishermen with it.

Vendetta? Hardly! Scientific research? Definitely!

No I fish 99% in general regs water because it the closest to my house and I've been fishing it for 40 years (I have limited time and I'm nostalgic). And contrary to your "belief" I can usually find holdover fish just about any time I go and a wild brown on occasion. Hell I usually pick one off in March right before the season closes cause after 6 months in the river they taste a hell of a lot better than when they are stocked.

Just cause a special regs section of BFB doesn't holdover fish or produce many wilds doesn't mean other streams don't. Even streams that aren't on any special regs list. Just look at this board, more than one member posts pics of trout that are either A) holdover stockies or B) wild fish, or do you contend they are fakes?

Besides your all wound up over stockies, they'll just make more of them next year! And who cares if the birds get them, they have to eat too. Plus I don't here any mention of the feeding frenzies that go on in the stocked lakes when the trout are released among stripers, pike, pickerel, muskies all lurking below for the dinner bell.

I stand by vendetta.

[thmyorke1]

Sorry if im reading this wrong; bill are you trying to say why the C&R section of the flatbrook has those C&R only regulations if it isn't showing great holdover capabilities?

If that's the case, ill defend it remaining a C&R section for a few reasons:
-Just because the holdover rates there are poor, there still is a decent population of trout holding over (from what I recall from the article). Because it's stocked frequently, spring and fall I assume, the trout stocked only need to holdover a short time until reinforcements arrive in order for the stream to be productive year round.

-Special regs like C&R attract anglers. Yes in reality just because a place is C&R it doesn't mean it's a better stream to fish compared to a general regulation area, but some anglers are attracted by the thought.

-The C&R regulation isn't that evil; only a handful of stretches of streams have this regulation. And as mentioned, these aren't exactly top quality trout spots compared to general regulation areas. I think maintaining a few around the state acts as a message to the public that yes, fishing is a sport not just a way to eat.

And yes to agree with Drossi, plenty of holdover or wild fish can be caught within general regulation areas.

[Dave B.]

My apologies for being a bit behind following up on this topic.

First I'd like to address this statement from Billfishes post,..."Stocking trout in areas where they don't holdover or reproduce in any significant numbers, as it was intended, is a waste of our license fees and a waste of a valuable resource.........unless you are a heron, mink, merganser, osprey, eagle, otter or some other fish-eating bird or mammal."

Stocking trout in areas where they have zero chance of reproducing and little to no chance of holding over has long been a part of the overall trout program in NJ. The Div. has an obligation to provide trout fishing opportunities to all trout stamp purchasers within a reasonable distance from their homes. The Div has always understood that by and large the trout stocking program in this most densely populated state is a 'Put & Take' fishery and that along with that comes a certain amount of wild predator loss. Obviously the greatest amount of such loss occurs in ponds and lakes, followed by small streams. This knowledge is why the presence, absence and abundance of predators, particularly cormorants, is always required to be documented by those who conduct the Opening Day Trout Surveys each year. I myself have seen ponds where the ospreys and bald eagles were doing far more damage to the stockies than cormorants, for example Tuckahoe Lake in northern Cape May County. Then again I've done Opening Day Surveys on lakes where there were no cormorants or other birds of prey at all, so it's a very site specific problem that simply cannot be addressed by generalizing all impoundments as having avian predator issues.

Likewise those same surveys are documenting the amount of angler utilization of the various water bodies as well as angler success. All of this info along with the population densities and locations of license/stamp sales, public access to a given water body, distance to the next nearest trout fishing opportunity and much more data goes into compiling the statewide stocking plan for each year, including determining what water bodies, the number of stockings, numbers of fish per stocking, etc. This is why we see changes from time to time in water bodies, locations on streams, number of fish, frequency of stockings and so on.

Getting back to the Flatbrook C&R section, I have to admit I am in a small way partly responsible for the reg change there. I had actually proposed a change back in 2002 that stipulated making it a typical Year-round TCA, and in my proposal the special regs would have extended clear down to the Walpack bridge, an additional 2.25 miles. That proposal however went basically nowhere despite my creating a nice 3 page written proposal that was handed to each council member as well as Lisa Barno and Pat Hamilton personally. Being an un-affiliated, lone angler I simply didn't represent a large enough group of 'interested parties' for the proposal to be taken under consideration by the F&G Council even though it had the support of both Lisa and Pat. There was no angler survey behind it, no scientific data to support it, and the stream section in question had such a large following of avid anglers that without that support there was simply no way that change would be passed. However I did connect with a gent who is local to the stream, was an avid supporter of the idea, and had the free time needed to take on the challenge. He spent many years, a great deal of his own free time, a fair amount of many composing, printing and distributing surveys, and compiling whatever data and angler support he could, all the while working with the state biologists to determine if the proposal was viable from a waterway position as far as quality, flows, habitat and stream temps. All in all it took nearly 10 years and a tremendous amount of work all around for that reg change to be passed. Now, it has taken another 5 years of follow-up work by the biologists to try to determine if the change was a good move, and frankly I'm not seeing much data to support continuing the current C&R regs there. Between 3 years of electro-fishing surveys and now 2 years of telemetry studies, the data to date simply doesn't support the present regulatory restrictions in my humble opinion. Perhaps the C&R regs section could be shortened to only include the area from the top of Blewitt down to the Roy bridge, while returning the area from 206 down to Blewitt to the former FFO regs. I say this because the data seems to indicate that the upper section I outlined has shown little to no improvement in holdover or wild pops, while the Blewitt to Roy section has shown better holdover generally speaking, although not much in the way of wild trout numbers improving.

Again my apologies for the long post, I just saw so many different points that I felt I could voice my opinion upon. BTW, those wild brook and the brown that I posted the pics of from last weekend all came from a fairly heavily stocked stream. I did catch 1 holdover rainbow that day but the vast majority of the trout were wild brookies. Again, there is no single solution or resolution to the quandary of stocking over wild pops and what negative or positive impacts this may have.

If you were to read Pat Hamilton's Wild Brook Trout Genetics Study you'll see that even in wild brookie waters that had been stocked with hatchery strains of brookies for many decades, the 2 strains have somehow managed to remain, in many of her survey waters, genetically distinct. There are a number of theories as to how this could occur, the bottom line is that just because a waterway is stocked it clearly does not mean an existing wild population would be genetically polluted or otherwise negatively impacted.

Finally, take the time to peruse the 'Coldwater Fisheries Management Plan", the link to which was posted by Mark B. above and I'll re-post it here. Tremendous amounts of both data and information to be gleaned there, many items that may give some ideas for program and/or regulatory proposals to offer the Freshwater Fisheries Bureau staff for consideration. The link... https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/cwfmp.htm

Okay, 'nuff of my ramblings!