Where are the brown trout?

[Dave B.]

Originally Posted by Drossi

Rainbows are easier to raise(I.e. Cheaper). Only stocker brooks and Browns will be from private stockings. PA doesn't seem to have the same issue raising them though.

Rainbows are no more or less costly to rear than the other 2 species. They're simply far more resistant to many pathogens than brooks, and to a bit lesser degree browns, are susceptible to. One of the few exceptions to this is 'whirling disease' which seems to primarily effect rainbows.

As far as PA not having issue, actually they have Furunculosis outbreaks at many of their hatcheries every year. They treat and stock the fish with little regard for the potential impacts on either existing wild pops or other species since furunculosis is not just a salmonid disease. There have been many outbreaks in other states that involved everything from smallmouth to sunnies.

[Billfish715]

Originally Posted by Dave B.

Rainbows are no more or less costly to rear than the other 2 species. They're simply far more resistant to many pathogens that brooks, and to a bit lesser degree browns, are susceptible to. One of the few exceptions to this is 'whirling disease' which seems to primarily effect rainbows.

As far as PA not having issue, actually they have Furunculosis outbreaks at many of their hatcheries every year. They treat and stock the fish with little regard for the potential impacts on either existing wild pops or other species since furunculosis is not just a salmonid disease. There have been many outbreaks in other states that involved everything from smallmouth to sunnies.

And yet, we never hear about any drastic affects to stocking furunculosis riddled brown trout into Pa's waters. With all of the diseased brooks and browns that NJ unloaded into many non trout production waters, there has been no report,of which I am aware, of the effects of those infected trout on other fish species within those waters.

Let's just keep dumping thousands of rainbows into all of the streams and hope they don't affect the existing "native" browns and brookies. With all of those rainbows being stocked, shouldn't they present incredible competition with the other two naturally producing species? Shouldn't they be the ones, by now, that are naturally spawning and reproducing on a wider scale? I'm waiting for someone to be "salmonidically correct" and demand sections of streams to be protected for wild rainbow trout production just like the ones for brooks and browns. If browns and brookies are the ones that naturally reproduce in the streams, then start stocking them again and cut back on the rainbows.

[thmyorke1]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

And yet, we never hear about any drastic affects to stocking furunculosis riddled brown trout into Pa's waters. With all of the diseased brooks and browns that NJ unloaded into many non trout production waters, there has been no report,of which I am aware, of the effects of those infected trout on other fish species within those waters.

Let's just keep dumping thousands of rainbows into all of the streams and hope they don't affect the existing "native" browns and brookies. With all of those rainbows being stocked, shouldn't they present incredible competition with the other two naturally producing species? Shouldn't they be the ones, by now, that are naturally spawning and reproducing on a wider scale? I'm waiting for someone to be "salmonidically correct" and demand sections of streams to be protected for wild rainbow trout production just like the ones for brooks and browns. If browns and brookies are the ones that naturally reproduce in the streams, then start stocking them again and cut back on the rainbows.

I think the majority of wild populations arent in the same stretches as stocked trout. Maybe if the stocking points were lowered downstream, maybe some wild populations could have the chance of extending downstream too?

Browns and Brooks are just better at holding over and reproducing than rainbows for NJ's waters
(from my knowledge: Every stream that has wild rainbows also has the other two trout species, but never the other way around where it's exclusively rainbows.)
So just because there are now more rainbows being stocked doesnt necessarily mean there's going to be new streams supporting rainbow populations.

I am a bit in favor of that idea of stocking less where wild browns/brooks are. Some downstream sections of WTS do receive stockings, where I think wild trout could be swimming around fine instead.

[Drossi]

Originally Posted by thmyorke1

I think the majority of wild populations arent in the same stretches as stocked trout. Maybe if the stocking points were lowered downstream, maybe some wild populations could have the chance of extending downstream too?

Browns and Brooks are just better at holding over and reproducing than rainbows for NJ's waters
(from my knowledge: Every stream that has wild rainbows also has the other two trout species, but never the other way around where it's exclusively rainbows.)
So just because there are now more rainbows being stocked doesnt necessarily mean there's going to be new streams supporting rainbow populations.

I am a bit in favor of that idea of stocking less where wild browns/brooks are. Some downstream sections of WTS do receive stockings, where I think wild trout could be swimming around fine instead.

I think it has something to do with the Ph composition in NJ streams. The Ph is good for brown/brookie reproduction but not optimal for rainbows except for a few select streams.

[Skunk City]

But where did all those trout go? They stocked a ton in the Passaic and Hackensack that year as well. We caught some in the weeks after but never saw any again.

[fishingbuddies]

Pike food.

[Dave B.]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

And yet, we never hear about any drastic affects to stocking furunculosis riddled brown trout into Pa's waters. With all of the diseased brooks and browns that NJ unloaded into many non trout production waters, there has been no report,of which I am aware, of the effects of those infected trout on other fish species within those waters.

Let's just keep dumping thousands of rainbows into all of the streams and hope they don't affect the existing "native" browns and brookies. With all of those rainbows being stocked, shouldn't they present incredible competition with the other two naturally producing species? Shouldn't they be the ones, by now, that are naturally spawning and reproducing on a wider scale? I'm waiting for someone to be "salmonidically correct" and demand sections of streams to be protected for wild rainbow trout production just like the ones for brooks and browns. If browns and brookies are the ones that naturally reproduce in the streams, then start stocking them again and cut back on the rainbows.

My apologies for the delayed reply, I haven't been able to get online for several days.
To your first point regarding not hearing of any drastic outbreaks in PA waters, first not all disease events are reported, as well many are not large enough to be noticed. Secondly, even if no outbreaks are occurring does that mean it's acceptable to just keep dumping disease carrying fish into a water body until an outbreak occurs and then say 'Gee, maybe we shouldn't have done that."?

In 2014 seven (7) of PA's 14 state hatchery had furunculosis outbreaks. They have a quite serious problem on their hands. They've (PA) been approached by the Great Lakes Fish Health Advisory Committee to address these issues and have been prevented from stocking any fish from their contaminated hatcheries into any Lake Erie tribs in PA. Frankly I see no problem with erring on the side of caution. Anyone who feels otherwise I would speculate has never had any vaccinations of their own nor their children I would imagine. Why bother trying to prevent something that's not occurring, right?

As for ''dumping thousands of rainbows into all of the streams and hope they don't affect the existing "native" browns and brookies", there are no native browns and many of the wild brookie populations we have are from introduced populations. That aside the vast majority of the stocked streams have little to no wild populations, and those few that do have been shown to be unable to support an adequate wild population to warrant 'special' designation status.

Speaking to your thoughts on the stocked fish presenting competition for the wild populations in those areas where both exist, most certainly there is some competition for food for a time but angler mortality both kept and post-release as well as natural predator mortality very quickly diminishes the vast majority of such competition, especially given the fact that the stocked fish are much easier to catch as we all know.

Regarding 'sections of streams to be protected for wild rainbow trout production' that already exists. Check the list of designated WTS's, several of them have rainbows, one has almost exclusively wild rainbows.

Finally to this statement, "If browns and brookies are the ones that naturally reproduce in the streams, then start stocking them again..." Why would you want to stock hatchery brookies over wild, possibly 'Heritage' strain brook trout? This would be potentially detrimental to the indigenous brookies. As for browns, they've been stocked in every viable waterway in this state for over a century. If there were some piece of habitat where they could establish a new self-sustaining population it very likely would have happened long before now so stocking them at this point would only be a measure of providing variety to the angling public rather than attempting to establish some new wild population somewhere.

All of that being said believe me when I tell you that I am personally no fan of the 'rainbows only' situation we currently have. That's a part of the reason myself and a few friends pool our resources each year and purchase a 100 or so trout of various species to stock into a 2+ mile section of public waterway that has great holdover capabilities. We stock mainly browns and tigers with a few goldens in the mix for kicks, and I get reports every year of our fish being caught both in the section we stock as well as many miles both up and down stream from 'our' area, and at all times of year.

No person, program, private company or government agency is perfect, however despite the occasional' hiccup' in things I strongly feel our NJF&W Freshwater Fisheries staff do an incredible job of providing us all a great deal of tremendous angling opportunities, especially for such a small yet intensely over-crowded state. When I dis-agree with them I let them know, likewise I give them credit where I feel credit is due.

Oh BTW, Drossi I agree with you on the 'Ph' issue 100%. IMHO that is the primary limiting factor against the ability of rainbows to reproduce here in NJ. I also believe that very low Ph levels are what have prevented the wild browns from occupying areas of the Flatbrook further upstream than they presently do. The only section of the BFB that has consistently shown brown trout reproduction is basically from the top of Blewitt down to about Walpack. Above Blewitt it's the realm of wild brookies without question as has been repeatedly documented, below Walpack the thermal conditions relegate the stream to a 'trout maintenance' designation.

Consider the topography, geology and stream bed substrate compositions in the various areas along with the nature of the tribs. Above Blewitt the BFB is a high gradient, rock boulder bedded, very poor acidic soil waterway. From Blewitt to Walpack it changes a great deal to a lower gradient, mainly sand and gravel bed stream with both the LFB and a couple of limestone influenced tribs entering in. This both slightly warms and 'sweetens' the water as well as the different substrate being a factor. IMHO the segregation between the 2 species' established wild pops is pretty easy to understand. Considering the state has stocked all three species throughout the entire watershed for about a century, if browns were going to establish a wild population elsewhere it would have already occurred, and if rainbows were going to establish at all it likewise would have long since happened.

Finally, to THMYorke, sorry I didn't get to answer you on the other thread before it was closed. No word yet on the results of the Flatbrook telemetry study. The only thing I can say for certain is that it will almost definitely be repeated this year, hopefully with more effective results than my preliminary 'gossip' has indicated from last year.

My apologies to all who take the time to read this entire diatribe, I hope I haven't bored anyone too badly.

[Capt. Lou]

I fully concur with Dave B’s assement of NJ trout programs .
I spend over 75 days a year on NJ’s trout waters and probably another 20 on PA. ‘S waters !
All these native browns that appear on this site are not native but just stocked fish period .
Many I’m sure come from privately stocked waters , I’ve personally only caught 3 browns in public waters in the past several seasons while hundreds of bows to 9#’s
If there were a solid holdover or native browns all the water I cover I would get more than 3 !
When a buddy invites me to fish club water then it produces whatever they stock
be it browns , bows ,brooks or occasionally tigers etc .
I never intentionally target native brokkies that live in specific trout streams too fragile u end up killing them !

[JDTuna]

Originally Posted by Capt. Lou

All these native browns that appear on this site are not native but just stocked fish period .
Many I’m sure come from privately stocked waters , I’ve personally only caught 3 browns in public waters in the past several seasons while hundreds of bows to 9#’s
If there were a solid holdover or native browns all the water I cover I would get more than 3 !

That is completely false. A number of public rivers/streams in NJ have well-documented, self-sustaining populations of wild brown trout. Some very nice fish, too. Not sure where you are fishing but I target them and catch wild browns on most of my trips in NJ.

[Billfish715]

Dave, I, for one appreciate and respect your reports. The more we know about why things happen, the more we can understand what we didn't understand. It's why questions should be asked and why they should be answered openly.

Over the many, many years I've been fishing for trout in NJ, I've seen different strains of browns introduced into the streams. The " native" brown trout are certainly not "native" just as you intimated. Some may naturally reproduce, but relatively few ever grow to jumbo proportions ( tributaries to major rivers not withstanding).

It should be obvious to everyone (even though you didn't say it) that NJ must continue to aggressively stock trout if we have any wish to catch them. There is not enough natural reproduction to sustain a large holdover population in most waters......some, yes, most, no. It is also obvious that given the thousands of stocked trout most of the trout are harvested or swim off or just perish since the streams only have a limited carrying capacity.

Dave, please keep us informed with any information you wish to share. Other than social media reports or press releases, fishermen have no more ways to find out about what is going on. Howard Brandt was the last reporter who was a voice for the sportsmen and women. Now we are left with rumors, inuendos, suspicion, and divisiveness among ourselves because we are left in ignorance.

Thanks for your candid responses and please excuse my diatribes.