NJ Fishing Advertise Here at New Jersey's Number 1 Fishing Website!


Message Board


Flatbrook Survey - Page 2 - NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey


Message Board Registration       FAQ

Go Back   NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey > NJFishing.com Fresh Water Fishing
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

NJFishing.com Fresh Water Fishing Post all your fresh water topics on this board

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-30-2018, 12:15 PM
Drossi's Avatar
Drossi Drossi is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 303
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:37 PM
Dave B. Dave B. is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 412
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

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.

Last edited by Dave B.; 12-31-2018 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-01-2019, 06:06 PM
thmyorke1's Avatar
thmyorke1 thmyorke1 is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,813
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

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?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:47 PM
Dave B. Dave B. is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 412
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

Quote:
Originally Posted by thmyorke1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:54 AM
Billfish715 Billfish715 is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,326
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:57 AM
Billfish715 Billfish715 is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,326
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-02-2019, 04:16 PM
thmyorke1's Avatar
thmyorke1 thmyorke1 is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,813
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

I see what you're saying,billfish. You're right that most ppl would rather catch the bigger and more plentiful stocked trout, but there will always be that itch on some fanatics like me that also want to catch the wild or native trout. So I believe protecting our wild and native populations is important, but of course we all still need stocked trout, so I see that the state needs to balance what waters are more focused on stocked fish and which are focused on native fish. In this example,the C&r section of the flat brook. Should the state continue stocking lots if trout in there, and satisfy the anglers thst frequent there, or let it turn into a wild trout population only?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:11 AM
Billfish715 Billfish715 is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,326
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

So, here is my confusion. Just what the heck is the goal and mission statement of the Division of Fish and Wildlife in regards to its trout stocking program? Do they want to stock trout so they can replenish the existing trout populations? Do the want to stock fish in every mud puddle and urban pond and silt filled, petroleum infused brook and stream so fishermen can catch them. Do they expect those places to sustain "holdover" trout? Do they want trout to naturally reproduce within the streams? Do they understand just how divided our trout fishermen are toward each other? We have elitists who disparage the lowly bait fishermen and visa versa. We have fishermen who dislike those who kill and eat their trout. We have fly guys who cringe at the sight of a spinning rod and visa versa. It's ridiculous! Stop the hating and imposing of your fishing preferences on others who don't share the same angling techniques.

Most of the wild trout streams have a population of trout that were stocked for many years in those streams and brooks. The wild brown trout are the offspring of those former stocked trout. They do naturally reproduce in some areas but don't reproduce naturally enough to support a fishery in the major water bodies. Why should the state consider a catch and release program in the trout production waters when after over a century of stocking trout, N.J. has no substantial population of wild trout in any of their major waters? It has always been a stock and take fishery. Our streams can not support enough trout for the N.J. fishermen unless there is continued and constant stocking. In many regards, the stocking of those mud puddles and silt-filled brooks is nothing different than the efforts to stock the major, more popular and highly regarded trout streams. Trout need to be stocked if trout are to be present. It's just that simple.

What else confuses me about the goals of the Division for its trout program is why there is so much effort to restore the brook trout in N.J. What is so special about having them make a limited comeback? Is it just me, or does it seem counter productive to remove wild brown trout from Rhinehart's Brook in Hacklebarney State Park just so the wild brook trout can make a comeback? Brown, Brook and Rainbow trout were stocked there for years and years. The brown trout became established and now the state wants them removed. Again, what is the goal? How important is this goal and why is it so important? This is another experiment which, as of yet, has not been adequately explained.

So, we have wild trout streams, trout production areas, no trout production areas, catch and release, catch and kill, artificials only, size limits, bag limits, bait, no bait, closed waters, no closed waters, two month creel limits, ten month creel limits, barbs, barbless, etc. etc. etc. Everyone with a hook in the game seems to be satiated. Does this sound like pandering? If this is an attempt to appease so many different interest groups, then the Division has no goal at all. We're back to what the biologists want or think or imagine and what the division wants, thinks and imagines. The back room discussions must be very interesting and I can see a degree of conflict between the scientists and the politicians.

One last absurd remark............If I could generate enough interest and subscribers who would like to use explosives to harvest trout or other fish, could I get a dedicated body of water in which to fish in a way that would make me feel good? If others can lobby for implementing fishing methods that suit them, can I do the same? I said that it was absurd, but is it?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-03-2019, 07:47 AM
NJSquatch's Avatar
NJSquatch NJSquatch is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Da' Cong
Posts: 1,509
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

Is it pure economics? Would assume that the main goal of the trout stocking is to sell fishing licenses and trout stamps. I know a couple of guys that only fish opening day. Without that revenue we won't get all the other goodies that F&W stocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfish715 View Post
So, we have wild trout streams, trout production areas, no trout production areas, catch and release, catch and kill, artificials only, size limits, bag limits, bait, no bait, closed waters, no closed waters, two month creel limits, ten month creel limits, barbs, barbless, etc. etc. etc.
I agree 110% that the trout rules are the definition of insanity. There is no clear map that shows the limits of all the various zones. The descriptions that are used are only good for seasoned treasure hunters. Pages 20-23 of the digest will make your head spin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfish715 View Post
Everyone with a hook in the game seems to be satiated. Does this sound like pandering? If this is an attempt to appease so many different interest groups, then the Division has no goal at all. We're back to what the biologists want or think or imagine and what the division wants, thinks and imagines. The back room discussions must be very interesting and I can see a degree of conflict between the scientists and the politicians.
No clearer case of pandering than allowing the Private Fishing Clubs Located on Publicly Stocked Waters To Fish During the Three-Week Pre-Season Closure! What makes these people so special? We all pay the same amount for the fishing license to fish publicly stocked waters.
__________________
Practice CPR. Let 'em Go Let 'em Grow

Last edited by NJSquatch; 01-03-2019 at 07:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-03-2019, 08:49 AM
thmyorke1's Avatar
thmyorke1 thmyorke1 is offline
NJFishing.com Old Salt
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,813
Default Re: Flatbrook Survey

Billfish I respect your statement. in terms of the brook trout program, I do think it's important to sustain the sparse brook trout population in the state. Brook trout efforts don't usually interfere with stocked trout efforts as these are usually tiny streams where stocked trout are better dumped further downstream in tailwaters. Future generations would like if we kept brook trout around to be fishable. I don't expect the state to put many resources into brook trou conservationt though.

I agree there isn't a distinct goal, but rather it's a bunch of goals all together. I don't see it as a bad thing as the state does need to cater to all the different trout fishermen. Like NJsquatch said, the goals are shaped by economics, they stock trout to sell licenses. You need a license if you want to fish for stocked trout, wild trout, or native trout. Thats why they give all different types of trout fishing attention.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.