Flatbrook Survey

[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]

Originally Posted by AndyS

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.]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Billfish715]

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.

[Drossi]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

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!