[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.