Where are the brown trout?

[Billfish715]

With talk of trout being caught in the Raritan below Somerville, and the interest in holdover trout in the streams and rivers, I started thinking about the purging of the brown trout from the Pequest Hatchery a few years ago. What information, if any, was ever collected about their effects on the massive stocking. Did any survive? Have any been caught recently in any of the streams into which they were stocked?

I guess what got me started was the discussions about the trout fishing on the Raritan River in places far from the stocking points. Does anyone think there could be a sizeable number of trout that make it down the Raritan to brackish water? Weren't a bunch of browns stocked in the lower Raritan? Does anyone think any of them are now living in the river or its tributaries? If any of them are surviving, what does it say about the disease that affected them?

I'm just wondering about what happened to all of those brown and brook trout after they were put into the streams. Did any survive? If they didn't, was their disease to blame or did they become a food fish for the herons, ospreys, eagles, pike etc.?

If any survived, shouldn't the state revisit their brown and brook trout rearing program? Just curious.

[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.

[JDTuna]

No need to stock them. There are a number of rivers and streams with self-sustaining populations of wild brown trout. Some nice fish in the mix, too.

[AndyS]

There are no trout in the Raritan river below the last stocking point, just ask Mark B.

[thmyorke1]

Im sort of ok with rainbow-stocking only. This way catching browns/brooks are more rewarding.

However it would be cool if they focused more on that idea of "brown-trout enhancement", sort of like only stock browns in specific waters that have potential.

Rainbows are the least successful at maintaining a population in NJ out of the three trout (from what ive read)

Put rainbows in majority of water, but put browns in streams that have the potential to become good holdover streams, or even production streams.

[Billfish715]

To my point.......Yes, the rainbows are easier to raise, but the state did not purge the raceways because the rainbows were diseased. They got rid of thousands of brook and brown trout, however, because they were diseased. Yes, there are "native" brown trout in some places if you know where to look. Those "native" browns are survivors of trout that at one time had to be stocked by someone, somewhere.

But, what happened to all or most or even some of the thousands of purged brooks and browns that were set free? Will their offspring become "native" trout someday? The state released at least a truckload of brown trout in the Rahway River in Rahway in a stretch that was never stocked with trout. Did they swim to the Arthur Kill and become searun trout? Did any make their way up a tributary and try to spawn?

I'm just asking questions to learn if any studies were done to assess what results may have occurred because of the release of the trout in question. Are any of those that may have survived now disease-free?

Finally, if so many trout are released into a stretch of stream ( like the ones into which the diseased trout were let go ) and they are not caught, can we assume they swam off, never to be seen again? That would make me want to know if the biologists have considered just how many trout should be released into a trout conservation area in order for a reasonable amount of trout to remain and perhaps reproduce or also just swim off.

[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.