[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?