Flatbrook Survey

[Billfish715]

Stocked Trout Movement Study
in the Big Flat Brook / Flat Brook
Catch and Release Area
A two-year trout movement study in the Big Flat Brook Catch and
Release area was initiated in the spring of 2017 to help determine the
cause of a low number of stocked trout found during the summer
months despite heavy stocking, a no harvest regulation along with
adequate temperatures and habitat.
Biologists surgically implanted a tracking transmitter into the body
cavity of 80 trout. The transmitters allowed biologists to track individual stocked trout to determine if they were leaving the catch and release
area. It was revealed that predators play the biggest role in the limited
number of trout. Several transmitters were found among the boney
remnants of partially consumed trout, near dens or animal runs. A
couple of transmitters were tracked back to a great blue heron rookery.

These results are in the new Freshwater Fishing Digest. The results do not reflect all of the answers but do reinforce what many fishermen have known for a long time. The report says nothing about the fish that are consumed by the huge population of cororants that exists throughout the state. There are also active bald eagles and ospreys that feast on freshly stocked trout in many waterways.

So, to say that trout fishing in New Jersey is anything more than put and take would be misleading. The trout are put in and they stay around for awhile and then they are gone or are so spread out as to make it seem they are gone. The results of the survey and the comments and complaints that were made about the low number of trout being caught in the C&R area seem to indicate that. If the catch and release guys aren't catching enough fish, my opinion would be to let everyone try to catch what apparently is not there. Let them use artificials or bait since it doesn't seem to matter given that the trout aren't there anyhow.

There is a fisheries forum coming up this spring before the trout season and I'm sure the results and future plans for the Flatbrook Catch and Release Area will be discussed.

[thmyorke1]

found an article from May on this:
https://www.njherald.com/20180504/states-bureau-of-freshwater-fisheries-in-second-year-of-study-tracking-stocked-fish-in-flat-brook#

Looks like they explain the numbers here more. Very intersting study!

[Billfish715]

A plausible explanation for the increase in predation rates, the 2017 report notes, "could simply be due to the time of year where more predators are spending more time hunting for trout because of the reproductive life cycles."

In other words: "There's hungry mouths at home that need to be fed."

But to reach that conclusion, the report said more study is needed on predation rates in other parts of the state.

The first year's results "answered many key questions on why the Flat Brook "catch and release" area is not holding trout to expected levels," Shramko wrote, "but it also unearthed, as studies often due, more questions about movement and predation rates in the Flat Brook system."

I enjoyed reading the article and think the research is worthwhile, however, I have some reservations about its purpose. Results seem to indicate there is quite a bit of natural predation. So, how will these results affect the Division's future decisions?

"More study is needed" & "expected levels" is administrative jargon to justify a need to continue to find justification to continue the survey and to continue to certify someone's "expectations" that the Flatbrook can sustain more trout stocking. Finding scientific data to support expectations is hardly a scientific approach. It seems there is a pre-conceived notion that the "Brook" can and will (and must) hold an increased trout population if more fish are stocked; and the Division will go to any length to prove its point.

I just think the council members need to re-evaluate the goals of the trout stocking program. They just should not cater to every special interest group that has economic and political support. Everyone pays the same license fees, yet those with political clout and the most vociferous voices get their way. If the state stocks more trout in the C&R stretches then someone, somewhere else is going to be receiving fewer trout. If the C&R stretches can not support a sizeable population of trout unless more and more fish are stocked, then what is the sense of having those designated areas just for the pleasure of a few special interest groups? New Jersey is not Wyoming. The Flatbrook and South Branch are not the Bighorn or Yellowstone.

How far we've come politically.........! We now refer to certain areas as Catch and Release. What ever happened to "No Kill"?

[RichS]

I would also say that the fish that have better survival instincts there concentrate in very snaggy blow downs making them very hard to catch. There’s a particular logjam that requires a perfect drift, but it’s loaded with fish.

[Lard Almighty]

I have always maintained that waters classified as trout production waters should NOT be stocked. Period. The stocked trout compete with the wild trout and keep their population numbers down. By not stocking the TP waters, the number of wild trout will increase due to the lack of competition, until the waterway reaches its carrying capacity for trout. Then the trout that are not placed in that waterway can be stocked at another location. The end result is more trout in NJ waters. Or more bird food, depending on how you look at it.

[Drossi]

One could draw the conclusion then that the c&r section of the BFB must have less than ideal holding water since the predation rate seems to be higher. Stockers concentrated into limited holding water are easy pickings for fisherman and predators alike.

[Billfish715]

I would also say that the fish that have better survival instincts there concentrate in very snaggy blow downs making them very hard to catch. There’s a particular logjam that requires a perfect drift, but it’s loaded with fish.
The blow downs and logjams in the BFB really held the fall-stocked trout this year. It does not mean the stream will support a healthy population of them however, for so many reasons.

[thmyorke1]

Imo any place C+r, especially a trout production water, shouldn't be stocked.

However I understand how these areas attract anglers therefore continued to get stocked. Can't complain about the state stocking fish where they are being put to use and being fished. I wouldnt say it's unfair too when it's public to anyone to fish; a spin fisher like me can still fish it.

I do think tho that the high predatory rates are connected to over-stocking.

[Billfish715]

These survey results need to be discussed at the annual fisheries meeting in the Spring. Somehow, the concept of releasing caught trout so they may be caught again does not seem to have the return that is anticipated by the biologists. If one of the other advantages to catch and release (no kill) is that the released fish will stay in the area and fewer additional stocked trout would be needed, it's only a concept that looks good on paper and theory.

Even trout clubs that subscribe to no kill/artificials only regulations have to stock trout throughout the season to satisfy their members desire to catch fish. They stock fish for the same reason the state stocks more fish. The trout just don't stay put.

Pardon my pun, but based on the Flatbrook tagging project, the C&R program is "for the birds". It's money and natural resources that are being wasted to satisfy the appetites of natural predators at the expense of license buying fishermen. The question to be answered is: "How different would the catch results be if fishermen were able to keep some of the fish they landed?"

[AndyS]

I think many states like Pennsylvania are starting to make the move from stocking TP (Trout Production) waters, it makes sense to me. Stocked fish have terrible genetics, plus why spend the $$$ when you don't have to.
I fish up on the East and West branch of the Delaware river and trout stocking is not allowed. The rivers close in the winter when the fish spawn, which is a good thing. Funny how we are still learning factors when it comes to trout in New Jersey, you would think we would have it all figured out by now. Each day is a new learning experience I guess.

[Drossi]

I think many states like Pennsylvania are starting to make the move from stocking TP (Trout Production) waters.

Not true. PA stocks over wild fish in many of their streams. The politics around stocking are deeply ingrained there. They only seem better than NJ in terms of wild fish opportunities cause they have so many more miles of streams and less population density. Not a in kind comparison.

[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.
You've read both the 2017 and 2018 reports so you now know some of the findings, primarily that it seems most of the fish are succumbing to wildlife predation, primarily furbearers and herons. Cormorants are really not much of an issue on the Flatbrook but herons,and to a lesser degree, eagles and other raptors are having a large impact on the stocked trout particularly throughout the mid to late summer months when water levels are lower.
Performing any study for a period of several consecutive years is necessary to compile an averaging data set while allowing for all of the environmental variables that exist, especially precipitation and temperatures. This is why the Div. staff performed several consecutive years of electro-fishing on the former Fly Only stretch prior to the implementation of the new C&R regs in 2013. That data gave them a baseline to compare the later sampling data to from post reg change sampling. The data comparisons, which indicated a lack of holdover increase that had been anticipated with the reg change, then prompted the telemetry study along with the results of the angler surveys.
The reason for maintaining the same stocking regimen after the reg change as it had been prior to the change was to be able to determine with a degree of accuracy whether the change had a positive impact on holdover. Had they reduced the stocking allocations immediately along with the reg change there would be no way to determine accurately if a negative change or no change in the holdover numbers were due to the stocking reduction or to environmental factors. Trust me, I questioned the stocking issue prior to the reg change taking effect since I would have like to seen some increases in numbers stocked in other stream sections as well as other waters around the state.
Regarding the stockings in the KLG, those numbers were in fact reduced when the earlier TCA regs were implemented there, so that stream section has seen reduced stocking numbers for many years now.
AS for stocking over wild populations, unless those wild pops are NATIVE brook trout I don't see a problem with it. Aside from native fish, no other wild populations would exist without there having been some previous stockings of hatchery fish, so apparently the genetics of hatchery fish must not be all that bad if they've been able adapt and develop self perpetuating populations in so many waters. Even the browns in the upper D and branches both come from, and are supplemented by, annual stockings in numerous tribs including the tens of thousands that go into the Beaverkill every year from NYDEC. About the only upper 'D' fish that could be considered genetically pure are the rainbows since they primarily originated from a single stocking of McCloud strain fish over a century ago.
In terms of the Flatbrook/Big Flatbrook as a viable self-sustaining wild trout stream it's simply not something that could be achieved today. The stream itself cannot sustain a reasonable wild population, and at this point in time even the mountain spring fed tribs are having trouble holding on to their wild/native populations, as evidenced by both a lack of angler success and electro-fishing survey results. A case in point a BFB trib, Parker Brook, that had for a very long time held such strong populations of wild brookies that it was a designated WTS was this past year removed from that list due to a near catastrophic decline in brook trout numbers over the past several years. There is no development in its watershed, just mountain and forest, the flows have remained consistent, but the fish have disappeared. 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.

[thmyorke1]

Dave, I always appreciate your informative post. Im interested in Parker brook and how it went from a great wild trout fishery to a poor one, got more info on that?

[Dave B.]

Dave, I always appreciate your informative post. Im interested in Parker brook and how it went from a great wild trout fishery to a poor one, got more info on that?

Sorry, but no I don't have any more info on Parker. I only know that it along with most of the brooks in the Flatbrook watershed have been experiencing steady declines in the wild trout populations for the past 5-10 years at least. Even the biologists are puzzled by this ongoing decline as they so far have
been unable to discern any biological reason for it.
Here's an excerpt from a post on the Garden State Trout forum by a gent who has long been an avid wild trout angler. As you'll see his experiences have upheld all the other data showing the wild pops declines...

"by NJAngler » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:25 pm

Tuttle Corner Brook has produced fair number of wild browns for me over the years but its been in the decline for years. Its one of the few streams where stocking was discontinued but wild trout numbers dropped. I did not fish it the last two years so can't tell you what its like now."

Tuttles Corner Brook flows into the Flatbrook right by the Rt 206 bridge. It begins as the outflow from Lake Kittatinny further south along 206 and flows north, picking up springs along the way. There has been no new development along its course, no fuel spills or other types of serious contamination, and no documented change in water quality or chemistry, so the reason(s) for the decline remain a mystery at this time. Same story with Parker Brook, Forked Brook, and most of the named and un-named tribs to the BFB. Also take note that even with the cessation of stocking in Tuttles Corner the wild numbers continued to decline. Yet another case against the belief that ceasing stocking will cause an increase, substantial or slight, in wild trout numbers. While that situation does sometimes occur, as with all things in the natural realm there are always far too many variables, both known and unknown, to assume that a certain action will automatically produce a specific result.

[Billfish715]

The variables involved in maintaining and improving a viable trout program are truly a monumental task. One of the variables that is not mentioned is political pressure. With so many interest groups all vying for attention, satisfying all of the whims on the " most wanted" lists of these groups has to be frustrating from a scientific point of view. Everyone seems to be a couch biologist or amateur trout improvement specialist. Some want streams to be stocked; some want only a limited amount of stocking. Some want "no kill", flies only, artificial only, size limit only, yada, yada, yada. It has already become ridiculous.

It is also extremely important to an increasing group of anglers to want more
"wild" trout streams or streams that are managed to encourage more natural trout reproduction. The trout management program is trying to entertain the yearning of everyone and I think it is a mistake. Let's come to grips with what the goal is. First, let's all be aware of what that goal is. Is it so important to have more and more "native" trout in our streams? Since brook trout are the only "native" trout (which are not trout) in N.J., is why is there so much consideration being given to keeping it that way.

From a scientific point of view, is it that important to encourage more wild trout production? Or, is it more of an emotional, non scientific, feel-good effort. If given the chance to catch a nine inch wild brown or rainbow trout or a state-stocked 15 inch fish of the same variety, I'm sure most fishermen would rather catch the 15" stocker despite the worn fins and raceway scars. Other than to say that you caught a "holdover" fish, the only different pleasure from catching one is that it makes you feel good. And, for all of that, the state shapes its decisions for how, when, and where the rest of us will be allowed to fish. The Flatbrook study is just one of many programs that has me wondering about the politics of trout stocking in New Jersey.

[Billfish715]

Dave, I failed to mention how much I do admire the work being done by the biologists and fisheries' workers. I do feel for you when you are being spueezed by those whose hands never get wet.

[thmyorke1]

I see what you're saying,billfish. You're right that most ppl would rather catch the bigger and more plentiful stocked trout, but there will always be that itch on some fanatics like me that also want to catch the wild or native trout. So I believe protecting our wild and native populations is important, but of course we all still need stocked trout, so I see that the state needs to balance what waters are more focused on stocked fish and which are focused on native fish. In this example,the C&r section of the flat brook. Should the state continue stocking lots if trout in there, and satisfy the anglers thst frequent there, or let it turn into a wild trout population only?

[Billfish715]

So, here is my confusion. Just what the heck is the goal and mission statement of the Division of Fish and Wildlife in regards to its trout stocking program? Do they want to stock trout so they can replenish the existing trout populations? Do the want to stock fish in every mud puddle and urban pond and silt filled, petroleum infused brook and stream so fishermen can catch them. Do they expect those places to sustain "holdover" trout? Do they want trout to naturally reproduce within the streams? Do they understand just how divided our trout fishermen are toward each other? We have elitists who disparage the lowly bait fishermen and visa versa. We have fishermen who dislike those who kill and eat their trout. We have fly guys who cringe at the sight of a spinning rod and visa versa. It's ridiculous! Stop the hating and imposing of your fishing preferences on others who don't share the same angling techniques.

Most of the wild trout streams have a population of trout that were stocked for many years in those streams and brooks. The wild brown trout are the offspring of those former stocked trout. They do naturally reproduce in some areas but don't reproduce naturally enough to support a fishery in the major water bodies. Why should the state consider a catch and release program in the trout production waters when after over a century of stocking trout, N.J. has no substantial population of wild trout in any of their major waters? It has always been a stock and take fishery. Our streams can not support enough trout for the N.J. fishermen unless there is continued and constant stocking. In many regards, the stocking of those mud puddles and silt-filled brooks is nothing different than the efforts to stock the major, more popular and highly regarded trout streams. Trout need to be stocked if trout are to be present. It's just that simple.

What else confuses me about the goals of the Division for its trout program is why there is so much effort to restore the brook trout in N.J. What is so special about having them make a limited comeback? Is it just me, or does it seem counter productive to remove wild brown trout from Rhinehart's Brook in Hacklebarney State Park just so the wild brook trout can make a comeback? Brown, Brook and Rainbow trout were stocked there for years and years. The brown trout became established and now the state wants them removed. Again, what is the goal? How important is this goal and why is it so important? This is another experiment which, as of yet, has not been adequately explained.

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? If this is an attempt to appease so many different interest groups, then the Division has no goal at all. We're back to what the biologists want or think or imagine and what the division wants, thinks and imagines. The back room discussions must be very interesting and I can see a degree of conflict between the scientists and the politicians.

One last absurd remark............If I could generate enough interest and subscribers who would like to use explosives to harvest trout or other fish, could I get a dedicated body of water in which to fish in a way that would make me feel good? If others can lobby for implementing fishing methods that suit them, can I do the same? I said that it was absurd, but is it?

[NJSquatch]

Is it pure economics? Would assume that the main goal of the trout stocking is to sell fishing licenses and trout stamps. I know a couple of guys that only fish opening day. Without that revenue we won't get all the other goodies that F&W stocks.

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.

I agree 110% that the trout rules are the definition of insanity. There is no clear map that shows the limits of all the various zones. The descriptions that are used are only good for seasoned treasure hunters. Pages 20-23 of the digest (https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2018/digfsh18.pdf)will make your head spin.


Everyone with a hook in the game seems to be satiated. Does this sound like pandering? If this is an attempt to appease so many different interest groups, then the Division has no goal at all. We're back to what the biologists want or think or imagine and what the division wants, thinks and imagines. The back room discussions must be very interesting and I can see a degree of conflict between the scientists and the politicians.

No clearer case of pandering than allowing the Private Fishing Clubs Located on Publicly Stocked Waters To Fish During the Three-Week Pre-Season Closure! What makes these people so special? We all pay the same amount for the fishing license to fish publicly stocked waters.

[thmyorke1]

Billfish I respect your statement. in terms of the brook trout program, I do think it's important to sustain the sparse brook trout population in the state. Brook trout efforts don't usually interfere with stocked trout efforts as these are usually tiny streams where stocked trout are better dumped further downstream in tailwaters. Future generations would like if we kept brook trout around to be fishable. I don't expect the state to put many resources into brook trou conservationt though.

I agree there isn't a distinct goal, but rather it's a bunch of goals all together. I don't see it as a bad thing as the state does need to cater to all the different trout fishermen. Like NJsquatch said, the goals are shaped by economics, they stock trout to sell licenses. You need a license if you want to fish for stocked trout, wild trout, or native trout. Thats why they give all different types of trout fishing attention.

[Mark B.]

Please read:

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

[Drossi]

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]

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]

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=Drossi;523031]
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!