Flatbrook Survey

[RichS]

I would also say that the fish that have better survival instincts there concentrate in very snaggy blow downs making them very hard to catch. There’s a particular logjam that requires a perfect drift, but it’s loaded with fish.

[Lard Almighty]

I have always maintained that waters classified as trout production waters should NOT be stocked. Period. The stocked trout compete with the wild trout and keep their population numbers down. By not stocking the TP waters, the number of wild trout will increase due to the lack of competition, until the waterway reaches its carrying capacity for trout. Then the trout that are not placed in that waterway can be stocked at another location. The end result is more trout in NJ waters. Or more bird food, depending on how you look at it.

[Drossi]

One could draw the conclusion then that the c&r section of the BFB must have less than ideal holding water since the predation rate seems to be higher. Stockers concentrated into limited holding water are easy pickings for fisherman and predators alike.

[thmyorke1]

Imo any place C+r, especially a trout production water, shouldn't be stocked.

However I understand how these areas attract anglers therefore continued to get stocked. Can't complain about the state stocking fish where they are being put to use and being fished. I wouldnt say it's unfair too when it's public to anyone to fish; a spin fisher like me can still fish it.

I do think tho that the high predatory rates are connected to over-stocking.

[Billfish715]

These survey results need to be discussed at the annual fisheries meeting in the Spring. Somehow, the concept of releasing caught trout so they may be caught again does not seem to have the return that is anticipated by the biologists. If one of the other advantages to catch and release (no kill) is that the released fish will stay in the area and fewer additional stocked trout would be needed, it's only a concept that looks good on paper and theory.

Even trout clubs that subscribe to no kill/artificials only regulations have to stock trout throughout the season to satisfy their members desire to catch fish. They stock fish for the same reason the state stocks more fish. The trout just don't stay put.

Pardon my pun, but based on the Flatbrook tagging project, the C&R program is "for the birds". It's money and natural resources that are being wasted to satisfy the appetites of natural predators at the expense of license buying fishermen. The question to be answered is: "How different would the catch results be if fishermen were able to keep some of the fish they landed?"

[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.

[Billfish715]

Originally Posted by RichS

I would also say that the fish that have better survival instincts there concentrate in very snaggy blow downs making them very hard to catch. There’s a particular logjam that requires a perfect drift, but it’s loaded with fish.

The blow downs and logjams in the BFB really held the fall-stocked trout this year. It does not mean the stream will support a healthy population of them however, for so many reasons.