Trout Returns By The Numbers

[Billfish715]

After reading the post about the stocking numbers and the subsequent comments, it reignited my curiosity concerning just how many of the stocked trout are ever caught. I ran into Mark B on opening day last year when he was doing a survey of anglers' catches. Very few trout were caught in that pond, including any breeders during the opening hours.

Considering how many trout are stocked and where they are stocked, what might be a "guesstimate" of how many trout NEVER end up being caught? I'm guessing that the same number of trout are stocked in the same locations year after year because that is where the fishermen like to go and therefore where the fish are caught. But, how many trout never feel the sting of steel?

There are many places where trout are "wasted" by being stocked. But, there can be no stocking or production of trout without people who fish for them and who finance the trout program with their license fees. Fishermen will fish anywhere if there are fish to be caught. Everyone has his own idea of just what fishing is all about and about the methods and locations that suit their fancy. So, lots of trout are stocked in lots of places including duck ponds and major rivers.

Trout production is a business and must be a cost-effective entity. With any business, there is going to be a certain amount of waste. If that waste generates a loss of revenue, the business will close or will have to make some adjustments in order to stay solvent. The N.J. trout stocking program is still operational so, whatever they are doing, it is still working. Don't expect any major changes in stocking or production. They must have "waste" figured into their equation. I'm sure there can be a more equitable method to distribute the trout, but that might require an accounting of how many are caught and in which locations and how many anglers access those spots.

[AndyS]

Cormorants.

[RWole]

Park ponds should be removed from the stocking list. I know the commission is trying to pull off that urban/get people interested thing, but with limited conservation officers all this does is give adults in these areas an opportunity to take the trout before opening day and/or fish without a license.
I have witnessed this a few times over the years at public park ponds. Yes I
have reported this but its nearly impossible for a conservation officer to catch these people .

[thmyorke1]

Interesting question. As Andy pointed out some fall to predation.

It would be cool if we had some pie-chart that shows all the outcomes for stocked trout- then even get these pie-charts separate by type of water to see how ponds vs small streams vs bigger rivers vs etc compare.

Completely nerd out on Data unfortunately it's super difficult to gather that data in mass. Look at that flatbrook study, just a small sample took a lot of effort. I guess they use those studies to predict how trout do all across the state then apply that knowledge to their work.

[Billfish715]

I feel that most anglers who fish at the park ponds don't pay much attention to the number of trout that are stocked in those ponds as long as trout are stocked. As for those who fish on some of the roadside "cricks", I don't think they care much about numbers either for the same reason. I'm sure that with some creative thinking, thousands of trout can be eliminated from the allotted stocking numbers at some waterways and added to the controversial trout conservation areas for example. Maybe Andy can even get some for the Raritan.

[Lard Almighty]

The Pequest hatchery's goal is to raise and stock ~600,000 trout per year. They have no control over what happens once those fish hit the ponds/rivers. Sure, poachers and fish-eating birds area problem, but dealing with them is outside the scope of the trout stocking program.

[AndyS]

It's a put and take fishery anyway.

[Dave B.]

Originally Posted by Billfish715

After reading the post about the stocking numbers and the subsequent comments, it reignited my curiosity concerning just how many of the stocked trout are ever caught. I ran into Mark B on opening day last year when he was doing a survey of anglers' catches. Very few trout were caught in that pond, including any breeders during the opening hours.

Considering how many trout are stocked and where they are stocked, what might be a "guesstimate" of how many trout NEVER end up being caught? I'm guessing that the same number of trout are stocked in the same locations year after year because that is where the fishermen like to go and therefore where the fish are caught. But, how many trout never feel the sting of steel?

There are many places where trout are "wasted" by being stocked. But, there can be no stocking or production of trout without people who fish for them and who finance the trout program with their license fees. Fishermen will fish anywhere if there are fish to be caught. Everyone has his own idea of just what fishing is all about and about the methods and locations that suit their fancy. So, lots of trout are stocked in lots of places including duck ponds and major rivers.

Trout production is a business and must be a cost-effective entity. With any business, there is going to be a certain amount of waste. If that waste generates a loss of revenue, the business will close or will have to make some adjustments in order to stay solvent. The N.J. trout stocking program is still operational so, whatever they are doing, it is still working. Don't expect any major changes in stocking or production. They must have "waste" figured into their equation. I'm sure there can be a more equitable method to distribute the trout, but that might require an accounting of how many are caught and in which locations and how many anglers access those spots.

A very lucid and well though out set of comments Bill! You ask and then answer many of your own questions with logic and reason, very refreshing to see!

There are always some slight variations in the stocking numbers from year to year on just about every waterbody that gets stocked, whether pond, lake, creek or river, and occasionally there are some rather major changes as occurred last year with the removal of several streams from the stocking list. These additions and deletions are driven in large part by the amount of angler utilization but naturally there are many other factors involved. The same holds true for water allocations. Angler usage, public access, distance to the next nearest trout fishing location, water quality, water body size, all of these and several other aspects go into figuring out the stocking locations and allocations.

As for the degree of angler success, a part of trying to get a read on that aspect is the on-going Opening Day Angler Survey program the Freshwater Fisheries Bureau has been maintaining for around 15 years now. They try to determine what waters are being utilized, what levels of success are being realized, even what impact cormorants and other birds of prey are having. These surveys do also take into account the weather conditions as well.

Of course the trout program has to by the very nature of it be run like a business. What many guys don't seem to get is that those folks who only fish the first few weeks of the season yet are still buying their licenses and stamps are making it possible for those of us who trout fish year 'round to be able to do so. The money isn't just about the stocking program, it also entails all of the biologists' work on water quality monitoring, stream sampling particularly on WTS's, all of the lab work both of those tasks require, as well as habitat protection and much more. Take away the Opening Day alchoholics, the 4 Weekend warriors, etc. and the trout program would suffer greatly. The majority of license and stamp buyers are not the 'hard core' trout anglers who regularly post pics from every month of the year.

On the subject of loss percentages, that's really a very subjective issue and is deeply dependant on each individual water, how much and how well it's utilized, how much C&R vs C&K occurs, the impact of all the various predators, etc. some waters could easily have a 70% return on numbers stocked while others may only be able to show an 18% return, and every number in between. How would you classify the return on a water where 75% of the anglers safely release 85-90% of their catch? Is that a low return or a high return? How could we account for 1 or more year holdover fish in these calculations? Lots of variables involved clearly. And all of that is without taking into account both seasonal and multi-year weather patterns, isolated weather events, man-made catastrophes and so on.

It's definitely an interesting set of questions you raise and the possible answers seem nearly endless in their variability. In general I would definitely agree that there are a number of presently stocked waters around NJ that could stand to see fewer fish or in some limited case be removed completely from the stocking roles. Likewise I can think of a few that could stand to see greater numbers of fish, as in the case of the upper mainstem Raritan. While I may not agree with Andy's choice of methods for pursuing that proposal I do indeed agree with him on the subject. Likewise the push to add the upper mainstem to the fall stocking list. As anglers we don't necessarily have to fight the battles the same way just as we don't have to all fish the same way. What matters is that we pursue the same goals as a group. Very often a multi-faceted approach to a problem or situation will achieve success where a singular drive may not fare as well.

Sorry for the long post, but my thanks for your thought provoking comments!

[thmyorke1]

Good read , Dave. Stop apologizing for long post

[Ike8120]

Someone may think I am fishing without a license, but I have reach the free license age of 70. But I have seen many people fish without a license, take everything they catch and trash the place. There just aren't enough officers to enforce the rules. If you say something to the individual's IMO you can be taking your life in yours hands. People are just crazy these days.