Quote:
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.
