Public Meeting on Trout Stocking Program Feb 25

[Dave B.]

The text from the Div. website...

"February 16, 2017

The NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife will be holding its annual trout stocking public meeting at the Pequest Trout Hatchery on Saturday, February 25, at 10:00 a.m. This important meeting provides an excellent opportunity for anglers to ask questions, voice their opinions, and give suggestions regarding New Jersey's trout stocking program.

The Division will present information on trout production at the hatchery, and allocations for individual waters including selection of this year's Bonus Broodstock lakes. In addition, fisheries biologists will be presenting potential regulations pertaining to New Jersey's Wild Trout Resources.

A comment period at the end of the program will be held so everyone in attendance has the chance to engage in meaningful discussion and ask questions of the biologists and fish culture staff present. A handout of this year's weekly allocation schedule will be provided to all attendees.

Division of Fish and Wildlife biologists take public comment seriously and do report meeting outcomes to the Fish and Game Council, so don't miss this chance to have your voice heard and be a part of fisheries management in New Jersey!

The Pequest Trout Hatchery is located on Rt. 46 approximately nine miles west of Hackettstown in Warren County."

Any trout anglers here should really try to make this one. There are going to be a number of proposed changes to the Trout regs rolled out at this meeting. Some only pertain to the Wild Trout Stream program but others could affect the regs on some of the most popular trout streams we have such as the Flatbrook.

This is your best chance to have your voices heard and your thoughts and opinions given due consideration by both the folks who propose the rules and regs and those who vote on said proposals as a number of the F&G council members are always in attendance at this meeting.

[Capt. Lou]

Dave ,
Check ur PM's !

[AndyS]

Very important meeting !

[baetis]

Stock brown trout in lakes.

[trout taco]

Originally Posted by baetis

Stock brown trout in lakes.

Be nice to see them stock browns in non trout production water also. When I was younger the spring browns in the manasquan river were great and we would catch them in the fall/winter. Shame that place isn't a 3 season fishery anymore.

[Dave B.]

Originally Posted by trout taco

Be nice to see them stock browns in non trout production water also. When I was younger the spring browns in the manasquan river were great and we would catch them in the fall/winter. Shame that place isn't a 3 season fishery anymore.

Personally I'd like to see a return of browns too. Unfortunately in order for the Div to stock browns anywhere they would first have to get back into raising them, which sadly isn't going to happen for a number of years yet.

Once the raceways are covered and the solar panels installed the plan is to return to at least a 2 species rearing program of 'bows and browns. The engineering is done and permitting is ready to move forward just as soon as the funding can be acquired. The Div is pursuing a number of funding avenues at this time, but unlike a private/non-profit org the state agency can't legally accept charitable grants, etc, so funding sources are much more limited than they are for orgs such as T.U., URWA, MWA, and so on. It will happen, just not nearly soon enough to keep us all happy!

[AndyS]

I had to work, did anyone go to the meeting ?

[Mark B.]

http://gardenstatetrout.com/forum/ph...fc4888f7e47d48

[NJSquatch]

Sounds sensible for protecting our wild trout

[Dave B.]

I am for the most part in agreement with the proposals. There are only 2 issues I have trouble with. First, since there is zero solid science supporting or indicating any real benefit to barbless vs barbed I see no need for the barbless clause. Just because a minority of anglers are in favor of it, the largest percentage of license buyers are generally not. Second, and to me more important, there is absolutely no mention of acquiring or guaranteeing any degree of public access to the listed WTS's. This is an issue that has been brought up repeatedly at the public forums yet there is no mention of it in these proposals. What is the sense of designating a WTS if no one can access it to fish it?