Jump to content
IGNORED

42,000 Trout for The Lower Raritan ?


Mink

Recommended Posts

FYI, organizations like the one I am heavily involved with, Trout Unlimited, have little or nothing to do with stocked trout.  In fact, stocked trout cause us far more problems than anything else as they compete with native and wild trout.  So you won't hear TU screaming about stocking surplus trout in non trout water.  Our mission is to protect and restore North America's coldwater resources for trout and salmon.  That said, only Montana has ever been able to kick the stocking habit.  NJ won't in my lifetime because our rivers simply can't provide good enough wild trout fishing given the impairments to our water quality and trout habitat.  So we live with a combination of wild native (brookies), wild invasive (browns and rainbows), and stocked trout (all 3 species) in our waters in NJ. 

 

Funny thing is that the Pequest hatchery often overproduces trout in order to hit their goal, and those surplus fish are most often released into trout maintenance ™ waters like the Musky.  Not sure why they released these into the lower Raritan, but anyone complaining about how the Division "wasted my stamp dollars" doesn't understand that the Pequest hatchery was built to raise 350,000 trout annually.  But the hatchery routinely raises over 600,000 trout each year.  Some years' spawning are better than other years, so they anticipate extra fish and release them accordingly including at times into the Hackettstown warmwater hatchery to feed the muskies and other warmwater fish.  Like I said, not sure why these went to the Raritan versus other TM waters, but with over 600,000 trout raised and stocked each year, you are more than getting your money's worth from your trout stamp.     

Hi Brian,  I thought i would have seen your comment on this "waste of resources" a lot sooner.  As far as TU goes, I'm a member as well but TU does support stocking of trout in streams/rivers that do not have "healthy" populations of native /wild fish or no wild/native fish at all in certain sections. TU adopted a resolution at the NLC in 2012 in Bend oregon basically stating that stocking non-native trout over native trout is discouraged but the policy does not apply to non-native wild trout or salmon/steelhead. The resolution is on the TU webpage.   Here in NJ out of the major streams there are only two that the DFW has documented publicly that have wild trout in them not the tribs, the section of the SB Raritan above lake solitude and the B Flatbrook.  There are 200 smaller streams that have documented wild and native trout but not enough apparently to cease stocking, out of these only 36 are not stocked.  

 

 I should clear some things up or should i say clarify some stuff for people who read this post . This quote came directly from a 2013 article written by Jeff Matthews, the hatchery superintendent  "Designed for a yearly production of 600,000 trout with a total weight of three hundred thousand pounds, Pequest would be strongly positioned to supply trout for anglers statewide. Fish and Wildlife secured more than one million trout eggs of three different species from pathogen-free hatcheries. Rainbow trout eggs were brought in from West Virginia; brook and brown trout eggs came from Massachusets" 

Here is the link to the article. 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2013/peq30yrs.pdf

 

So maybe you missed the point I was attempting to make or I failed to make it.  If the hatchery is designed to raise 600k trout(not 350k),  I'm sure everyone here knows that more than 600k trout will have to be hatched to get to that number with dead eggs, die offs of trout etc.  The point of the hatchery is to produce legal sized trout for fishermen who buy trout stamps and fishing licenses, not just a fishing license, and stock those fish in waters accessible to those fishermen to catch.  Not to feed the fish at Hackettstown.  If the hatchery produces more than the anticipated number of trout like this year, 589,000(19000 extra trout) they stock them in TM waters and the other waters listed for stocking.  To have a 'surplus" of 42,200 fingerling Rainbow Trout stocked in non TM waters is a complete waste of the resource paid for by the people who buy the stamps, there is no getting around it,  and it's not about getting your money's worth or we wouldn't have supported DFW in 2014 when the number were 370k due to the disease. Were they shorting us in 2014? Should we have protested and not bought a license in the future? We thought they would  fix the problem so we had faith. 

 

The hatchery trout don't belong to any other group except the people who pay for the right to fish and catch them so I'm baffled as to why the DFW would just waste 42,200 trout when other options were available.  I don't do business with the DFW so my only interest is in seeing the resource paid for by the trout stamps being used wisely, and it is clear as gin that in this case the DFW screwed up big time. Maybe you have a better explanation or don't feel they botched this, but the majority of trout fishermen who know about this know they screwed up and it makes no sense. 

Edited by stratocaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Brian,  I thought i would have seen your comment on this "waste of resources" a lot sooner.  As far as TU goes, I'm a member as well but TU does support stocking of trout in streams/rivers that do not have "healthy" populations of native /wild fish or no wild/native fish at all in certain sections. TU adopted a resolution at the NLC in 2012 in Bend oregon basically stating that stocking non-native trout over native trout is discouraged but the policy does not apply to non-native wild trout or salmon/steelhead. The resolution is on the TU webpage.   Here in NJ out of the major streams there are only two that the DFW has documented publicly that have wild trout in them not the tribs, the section of the SB Raritan above lake solitude and the B Flatbrook.  There are 200 smaller streams that have documented wild and native trout but not enough apparently to cease stocking, out of these only 36 are not stocked.  

 

 I should clear some things up or should i say clarify some stuff for people who read this post . This quote came directly from a 2013 article written by Jeff Matthews, the hatchery superintendent  "Designed for a yearly production of 600,000 trout with a total weight of three hundred thousand pounds, Pequest would be strongly positioned to supply trout for anglers statewide. Fish and Wildlife secured more than one million trout eggs of three different species from pathogen-free hatcheries. Rainbow trout eggs were brought in from West Virginia; brook and brown trout eggs came from Massachusets" 

Here is the link to the article. 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2013/peq30yrs.pdf

 

So maybe you missed the point I was attempting to make or I failed to make it.  If the hatchery is designed to raise 600k trout(not 350k),  I'm sure everyone here knows that more than 600k trout will have to be hatched to get to that number with dead eggs, die offs of trout etc.  The point of the hatchery is to produce legal sized trout for fishermen who buy trout stamps and fishing licenses, not just a fishing license, and stock those fish in waters accessible to those fishermen to catch.  Not to feed the fish at Hackettstown.  If the hatchery produces more than the anticipated number of trout like this year, 589,000(19000 extra trout) they stock them in TM waters and the other waters listed for stocking.  To have a 'surplus" of 42,200 fingerling Rainbow Trout stocked in non TM waters is a complete waste of the resource paid for by the people who buy the stamps, there is no getting around it,  and it's not about getting your money's worth or we wouldn't have supported DFW in 2014 when the number were 370k due to the disease. Were they shorting us in 2014? Should we have protested and not bought a license in the future? We thought they would  fix the problem so we had faith. 

 

The hatchery trout don't belong to any other group except the people who pay for the right to fish and catch them so I'm baffled as to why the DFW would just waste 42,200 trout when other options were available.  I don't do business with the DFW so my only interest is in seeing the resource paid for by the trout stamps being used wisely, and it is clear as gin that in this case the DFW screwed up big time. Maybe you have a better explanation or don't feel they botched this, but the majority of trout fishermen who know about this know they screwed up and it makes no sense. 

 

I don't believe I opined one way or the other if the Division botched this to use your words although I said "not sure why they released these into the lower Raritan" and nothing more.  The bottom line is that stocked trout are not part of TU's core mission but they are a necessary evil in many states where wild trout just don't thrive enough to satisfy angler interest.  If anyone feels the Division screwed the pooch on this one, by all means you should voice your opinion to the Division.  All I am trying to convey is that you won't see TU take up arms over it because they are stocked trout and not wild trout.  I think NJTU learned its lesson 15+ years ago when they fought with an ally, the Knee Deep Club, on the old NJ Trout forum over the change in stocking allocations for trout.  TU's best interest is to continue to protect and restore wild trout and salmon habitat and let stocked fish be dealt with by the state divisions of fish and wildlife unless any of those states suddenly wants to stock a non native species over a native species of trout knowing all we know today that we didn't 100+ years ago when trout stocking began in our country.  

 

Just to correct you on this statement you made: "There are 200 smaller streams that have documented wild and native trout but not enough apparently to cease stocking, out of these only 36 are not stocked."  The Division does not stock all the other streams of those you mentioned.  The 36 are the "listed Wild Trout Streams"  (WTS) and you are correct in that they are not stocked.  But neither are most of the other roughly 170 streams for the most part with some exceptions.  Also, the NLC resolution passed regarding stocking was an attempt to stop issues like had popped up the year prior where a rogue chapter in one Eastern state put tremendous pressure on their state fisheries people and convinced that state to stock brown trout over a purely native brook trout stream with no other trout in it.  As you might expect, within short time, the browns had begun successfully spawning in that river and started to out compete the native brookies.  That is exceptionally dumb given what we know today about fisheries biology.  That turned into an ugly internal fight between the rogue chapter, the state council from that state, TU national staffers, and other TU people/members from around the country that were angered to learn about the situation.  The TU board of trustees became involved and it got ugly until turned over to the NLC (national leadership council) for resolution.  That one edict became more of a headache than you will ever know, but to this day, the two TU chapters in NJ that once helped stocked the Ken Lockwood Gorge on the South Branch and the No-Kill on the Flatbrook no longer do so as a TU event because of the NLC resolution.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bucknbows thanks for the reply that is what I was fishing for

 

Bill43 As far the Manasquan Sea run Browns go they are stocked at its headwaters Brackish. and not so Fingerling as The AHs try catching them for Bait.

It is probably one of The Most Kept Secrets as those fishing for the returns keep it all to them selfs. Some have been caught in the inlet and river proper. it is a fall fishery I was invited to join in a Fly fishing trip along a section of the Manasquan I will just Say Between Hospital RD and The GSP. It was Catch and Release. This took place like 7 years ago Have not been able to go again. In my Kayak days, we would float from The Golf course just east of RT 9 to Lightning Jacks for the take out The Dam and Strainers made it an adventure add the Muddy Bottom and banks made for hard going. But Not as Bad as The Toms River never did do the whole river.

But from what I am told The Sea run Browns are there and Healthy in The Manasquan but you will pay your dues.

So the program is still going? I thought it was stopped for the lack of return info. I used to fish the manasquan a lot, years ago. Back before the intake pipe was put in for resovior. I always wanted to get back there and try for them but never had the time. Would have to say, landing a 5 plus pound trout that has spent its life in the ocean, in the upper manasquan would be quite a feat

 

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Edited by bill43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I opined one way or the other if the Division botched this to use your words although I said "not sure why they released these into the lower Raritan" and nothing more.  The bottom line is that stocked trout are not part of TU's core mission but they are a necessary evil in many states where wild trout just don't thrive enough to satisfy angler interest.  If anyone feels the Division screwed the pooch on this one, by all means you should voice your opinion to the Division.  All I am trying to convey is that you won't see TU take up arms over it because they are stocked trout and not wild trout.  I think NJTU learned its lesson 15+ years ago when they fought with an ally, the Knee Deep Club, on the old NJ Trout forum over the change in stocking allocations for trout.  TU's best interest is to continue to protect and restore wild trout and salmon habitat and let stocked fish be dealt with by the state divisions of fish and wildlife unless any of those states suddenly wants to stock a non native species over a native species of trout knowing all we know today that we didn't 100+ years ago when trout stocking began in our country.  

 

Just to correct you on this statement you made: "There are 200 smaller streams that have documented wild and native trout but not enough apparently to cease stocking, out of these only 36 are not stocked."  The Division does not stock all the other streams of those you mentioned.  The 36 are the "listed Wild Trout Streams"  (WTS) and you are correct in that they are not stocked.  But neither are most of the other roughly 170 streams for the most part with some exceptions.  Also, the NLC resolution passed regarding stocking was an attempt to stop issues like had popped up the year prior where a rogue chapter in one Eastern state put tremendous pressure on their state fisheries people and convinced that state to stock brown trout over a purely native brook trout stream with no other trout in it.  As you might expect, within short time, the browns had begun successfully spawning in that river and started to out compete the native brookies.  That is exceptionally dumb given what we know today about fisheries biology.  That turned into an ugly internal fight between the rogue chapter, the state council from that state, TU national staffers, and other TU people/members from around the country that were angered to learn about the situation.  The TU board of trustees became involved and it got ugly until turned over to the NLC (national leadership council) for resolution.  That one edict became more of a headache than you will ever know, but to this day, the two TU chapters in NJ that once helped stocked the Ken Lockwood Gorge on the South Branch and the No-Kill on the Flatbrook no longer do so as a TU event because of the NLC resolution.  

You are correct that of the 200 streams some are not stocked in addition to the 36 and some are.  I looked all the way back to 1998 to see which ones had WT and were not stocked and then another year WT were not found and it was stocked, odd to say the least but interesting.  

I remember that incident with the TU chapter along with another incident in western NC where the whole stream had to be treated to remove RT to re-establish BT.  It is intended to protect or re-establish native fish so the aim makes sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown to me if they still Plant the Browns but I know 3 Guys who are regulars at it and do ok. 

They don't have browns anymore due to the disease outbreak.  There was some guy in ocean grove or neptune that caught a few big ones, seven or nine pounds.  All on egg sacks or nightcrawlers I think.  I fished 20-30 times and got zip.  They are tough buggers to catch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have browns anymore due to the disease outbreak.  There was some guy in ocean grove or neptune that caught a few big ones, seven or nine pounds.  All on egg sacks or nightcrawlers I think.  I fished 20-30 times and got zip.  They are tough buggers to catch. 

 Killies- Purple Large Egg sucking leeches ( Flys ) are popular. In those 20-30 times, what did you catch?   

animated-American-flag-white-background-2018.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state fattened up that wintering harbor seal w all those "hoped to be sea run" Brown trout. Haven't seen that seal since they stopped the program. At least their tried it tho, conducted a scientific experiment like the scientists they r supposed to be. They had a hypothesis, conducted an experiment, observed results, drew the conclusion. The only friggen conclusion of this recent waste of 42,000 trout experiment is that 90% will die by mid-summer n become smelly maggot food!!! They should have just dumped em in some bass fishing lakes as forage. Oh well, they will b eventually back in the ecosystem!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state fattened up that wintering harbor seal w all those "hoped to be sea run" Brown trout. Haven't seen that seal since they stopped the program. At least their tried it tho, conducted a scientific experiment like the scientists they r supposed to be. They had a hypothesis, conducted an experiment, observed results, drew the conclusion. The only friggen conclusion of this recent waste of 42,000 trout experiment is that 90% will die by mid-summer n become smelly maggot food!!! They should have just dumped em in some bass fishing lakes as forage. Oh well, they will b eventually back in the ecosystem!!

 

One thing fisheries biologist most often agree upon is that if you want to create a sea run trout fishery, you need to start with sea run stock and not just any old hatchery stock as NJ did.  Sure, we know a tiny fraction of those brown trout moved into brackish water at some point, but the returns were dismal to say the least.  Since our state has no sea run trout of any species, the best bet would be to find some other stock of sea run trout, but they don't exist in a way the Division could use that stock and we stuck with our regular brown trout out of Pequest until furunculosis wiped them out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing fisheries biologist most often agree upon is that if you want to create a sea run trout fishery, you need to start with sea run stock and not just any old hatchery stock as NJ did.  Sure, we know a tiny fraction of those brown trout moved into brackish water at some point, but the returns were dismal to say the least.  Since our state has no sea run trout of any species, the best bet would be to find some other stock of sea run trout, but they don't exist in a way the Division could use that stock and we stuck with our regular brown trout out of Pequest until furunculosis wiped them out.  

Yes, you are right on point Brian.

 I started fishing(not catching) for these sea run fish 1 year after they started the program but no luck.   Reports that I cannot confirm indicate one guy caught a 13 plus pound fish somewhere above the marina in the brackish water.  There was a picture of another guy with one that he caught way down river about 1/4 mile from the ocean, about 16inches and definitely had the silvery color of a sea run.  I spoke to Mark Boriek a few times about getting wild sea run brown eggs from Iceland which has a tremendous sea run trout population among some other countries that were willing to ship some eggs over but he said he was constrained by the folks above him and couldn't do it.  The nearest sea run fishery that is viable is in New Foundland Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like they put them where they wouldn't infect I mean affect other trout!

 

Same rainbows they have been stocking since the outbreak of furunculosis, so that doesn't make sense (although the same thought crossed my mind).  Our rainbows raised at Pequest are carriers of the disease for sure, but don't show outbreak which is why they are still being stocked.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even The Paterson Falls would have been an option. not the best but still an option The one photo shows the area where the Bucket sitters fish from, but in one from today show some work to the Beach Edge our Federal Dollars at work  :happywave:

Wonder what the are fishing for Carp - Suckers - Catfish - maybe waiting for the Salmon Run  :hmmmer:

1496596710161_51.jpg

1495986510999_70.jpg

animated-American-flag-white-background-2018.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know....but nothing here makes sense!

 

Lots of strange stuff here.  They have released surplus trout in many different waters over the years including as I mentioned earlier the Hackettstown hatchery ponds, but they have never before that I recall issued a press release about it.  And where they put them also makes my scratch my head a bit.  Why not the P-Kill, Pequest, Musky, etc.?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...