I caught a tagged trout today

[SPEARFISH]

Send the tag in and they will send you a patch.  My son has one on his vest that he caught many years ago.

[1957Buck]

5 hours ago, Bucksnbows said:

NJ Fisheries biologists are on the cutting edge when it comes to both native and wild trout studies and regulations that protect our wild trout, and namely our native brookies. 

Guess you forgot about The Black Stunted disfigured Trout that EVERYONE was Catching from the Winter stocking at Topohemous lake in Freehold.  and the Many Photos I posted showing them and people just trashing them. And the BS excuses they came up with.   where Later with a Conversation with a Guy on The Stocking Truck gave a good accounting of what was wrong with them and How they were Dumped off.      

[Bucksnbows]

2 minutes ago, 1957Buck said:

Guess you forgot about The Black Stunted disfigured Trout that EVERYONE was Catching from the Winter stocking at Topohemous lake in Freehold.  and the Many Photos I posted showing them and people just trashing them. And the BS excuses they came up with.   where Later with a Conversation with a Guy on The Stocking Truck gave a good accounting of what was wrong with them and How they were Dumped off.      

Different biologists.  I am referring to the field biologists, not the inside hatchery biologists that raise our rainbow trout.  They are different players.  And I'm not sure how any of that has to do with the OP's post about catching a jaw tagged trout?

[stratocaster]

6 hours ago, Bucksnbows said:

NJ Fisheries biologists are on the cutting edge when it comes to both native and wild trout studies and regulations that protect our wild trout, and namely our native brookies. 

Actually you may want to believe they are on the cutting edge but in reality they are not.  They actually use techniques and methods already in use and have not done any groundbreaking work including the work on the  Genetic Diversity of wild brook trout and Conserving the Eastern Brook trout.  Both of which I read in their entirety including other thesis works by biologists who were studying native brook trout long before any NJ biologists were.   It doesn't make the authors bad people but to say they are on the cutting edge is hyperbole.  

 

[1957Buck]

3 hours ago, Bucksnbows said:

Different biologists.  I am referring to the field biologists, not the inside hatchery biologists that raise our rainbow trout.  They are different players.  And I'm not sure how any of that has to do with the OP's post about catching a jaw tagged trout?

 

Your reference says  NJ Biologists, not divisions and still they are not cutting edge compared to the Many Other States that operate on a Much Bigger Scale with all Species of Trout and Other fish. Not the Failures of NJ.  Now we are in the Spin Zone of Protectionism.  MY post to the OP is relevant to the Jaw Tag when it became part of the discussion.    Stratocaster makes the same point as I do,  Now exposed how many biologists are necessary for NJ  Is their ones for Rabbits too Turkeys, No wonder they need more Fees to Run The Divisions.                                           It must be The NJ Swamp  Divisions, Agencies, Sectors.  Offices.   

[Dave B.]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 5:32 PM, Lunatic said:

Sometimes when I see this type of tagging I wonder WTF are they doing. Just look at the size of this ring. Just imagine having something like this in your lip. BS in the name of science.

This tag has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's for the 'Hook-A-Winner' program the state enacted 20 years ago. Every spring they jaw-tag 1,000 trout that are stocked all over the state during the pre-season stockings. The info on the program is available in the Freshwater Digest for anyone who actually reads it. It's also right on the Div. website should anyone take the 'tremendous effort' required to visit it and go to the 'Fishing' section. Here's the brief description from the Div. website...

                                                                                                                             "Hook-A-Winner" Program

 Since 1998 the Division of Fish and Wildlife has jaw tagged more than 1,000 trout for the "Hook-A-Winner" Program. These tagged fish are distributed as part of the spring trout stocking program for the enjoyment of the state's trout anglers. The fish are stocked throughout the state and available beginning opening day.

If you are a lucky angler who lands one of these fish, send your name, address, fish tag number (anglers should NOT send the actual jaw tag, just the number) and location of catch to:

Hook a Winner Program
Pequest Trout Hatchery
605 Pequest Road
Oxford, NJ 07863

In recognition of your catch you will be mailed a certificate and award patch.

[Dave B.]

4 hours ago, stratocaster said:

Actually you may want to believe they are on the cutting edge but in reality they are not.  They actually use techniques and methods already in use and have not done any groundbreaking work including the work on the  Genetic Diversity of wild brook trout and Conserving the Eastern Brook trout.  Both of which I read in their entirety including other thesis works by biologists who were studying native brook trout long before any NJ biologists were.   It doesn't make the authors bad people but to say they are on the cutting edge is hyperbole.  

 

Strat, I would agree with you that saying 'the cutting edge' is not accurate, nor would be the term 'groundbreaking'. However simply because no one from the Div. had a published paper regarding wild trout and/or brookies in particular prior to Pat H's genetics study in no way means there was not a great deal of work going on here in NJ LOONNG before she completed her study. Our biologists are however doing their part to fill in the blanks in the overall native brook trout picture as it applies to their indigenous  Appalachian mountain chain home, and the techniques they're using are, as I'm sure you know, the present 'tried and true' methods for being able to satisfactorily compare data from differing states/locations, etc.

 Former bureau chief Bob Soldwedel was a big proponent of wild trout protection and was the driving force behind our present WTS program. Before he made it to Chief he worked with and under a gent named Bruce Pyle who also had an affinity for wild trout.  These men along with many other both former and current biologists within the Div. spent a great deal of time doing both field and lab work pertinent to our wild trout populations.

 Our current Bureau Chief Lisa Barno is also a tremendous proponent for the protection of our remaining wild trout populations as are most of the Freshwater Fisheries biologists currently working in the Freshwater Fisheries Bureau.

Of course none of this applies to Franks' initial post about his 'Hook-A-Winner' tagged fish.

[stratocaster]

2 hours ago, Dave B. said:

Strat, I would agree with you that saying 'the cutting edge' is not accurate, nor would be the term 'groundbreaking'. However simply because no one from the Div. had a published paper regarding wild trout and/or brookies in particular prior to Pat H's genetics study in no way means there was not a great deal of work going on here in NJ LOONNG before she completed her study. Our biologists are however doing their part to fill in the blanks in the overall native brook trout picture as it applies to their indigenous  Appalachian mountain chain home, and the techniques they're using are, as I'm sure you know, the present 'tried and true' methods for being able to satisfactorily compare data from differing states/locations, etc.

 Former bureau chief Bob Soldwedel was a big proponent of wild trout protection and was the driving force behind our present WTS program. Before he made it to Chief he worked with and under a gent named Bruce Pyle who also had an affinity for wild trout.  These men along with many other both former and current biologists within the Div. spent a great deal of time doing both field and lab work pertinent to our wild trout populations.

 Our current Bureau Chief Lisa Barno is also a tremendous proponent for the protection of our remaining wild trout populations as are most of the Freshwater Fisheries biologists currently working in the Freshwater Fisheries Bureau.

Of course none of this applies to Franks' initial post about his 'Hook-A-Winner' tagged fish.

I met and talked at length to both of those men about our small but thriving wild trout resource.  That era seems so long ago and IMO the trout fishing in general was better than it is now but as I said it's only my opinion. 

[1957Buck]

9 hours ago, Dave B. said:

 

Of course none of this applies to Franks' initial post about his 'Hook-A-Winner' tagged fish.

 

The Archaic method of the metal Jaw tag mentioned is why the post got sidetracked.     The rest followed.

[Bucksnbows]

20 hours ago, stratocaster said:

Actually you may want to believe they are on the cutting edge but in reality they are not.  They actually use techniques and methods already in use and have not done any groundbreaking work including the work on the  Genetic Diversity of wild brook trout and Conserving the Eastern Brook trout.  Both of which I read in their entirety including other thesis works by biologists who were studying native brook trout long before any NJ biologists were.   It doesn't make the authors bad people but to say they are on the cutting edge is hyperbole.  

 

I disagree.  While their methodology may not be cutting edge but rather boilerplate, they are applying it to far more wild trout water as a percentage than any of the 17 Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture states.  And our new regulations protecting our native brook trout are the most stringent in the 17 state region where brook trout are native.  Conservationists are using NJ's new regs to bludgeon states like Maine which have a horrific track record protecting native fisheries while promoting non-native fisheries.  It's way too early to see what other states will follow, but NJ is the cutting edge and that is not deniable.  Zero kill, barbless only for the Brook Trout Conservation Area.  For example, Maine allows the taking of 5 brook trout/day in rivers and streams with a minimum of 6" length.  But only 2 brown trout can be kept and they need to be a min. of 14".  And rainbow trout can only have 2 fish/day with a 12" limit.  Why protect the non-natives and have generous creel limits for the native species?  

But it's okay, because I know and respect Dave B and he did the same.  Neither of you commented on the regs, and those were more of where I was going than if they use PIT tags, creel surveys, online surveys, electro fishing, or other methods to study wild trout.  And NJ uses all of those things which are, in fact, boilerplate.   

[Dave B.]

Regarding the new regs I would absolutely agree with you Brian! NJ has most assuredly taken the lead with respect to taking steps to protect and hopefully enhance our remaining wild/native brook trout populations from a regulatory perspective. I'm not as familiar as you are with the regs in the various other EBTJV states but I didn't know that the example you gave of Maine exhibits a most egregious disregard for eastern North America's only indigenous freshwater salmonid.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Dave B.

[Kype]

I caught a tagged trout about 5 years ago. my tag wasn't nearly as big. in fact mine was only the size of its lip, and was crimped over nicely. not bulging out like that one. 

[stratocaster]

10 hours ago, Bucksnbows said:

I disagree.  While their methodology may not be cutting edge but rather boilerplate, they are applying it to far more wild trout water as a percentage than any of the 17 Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture states.  And our new regulations protecting our native brook trout are the most stringent in the 17 state region where brook trout are native.  Conservationists are using NJ's new regs to bludgeon states like Maine which have a horrific track record protecting native fisheries while promoting non-native fisheries.  It's way too early to see what other states will follow, but NJ is the cutting edge and that is not deniable.  Zero kill, barbless only for the Brook Trout Conservation Area.  For example, Maine allows the taking of 5 brook trout/day in rivers and streams with a minimum of 6" length.  But only 2 brown trout can be kept and they need to be a min. of 14".  And rainbow trout can only have 2 fish/day with a 12" limit.  Why protect the non-natives and have generous creel limits for the native species?  

But it's okay, because I know and respect Dave B and he did the same.  Neither of you commented on the regs, and those were more of where I was going than if they use PIT tags, creel surveys, online surveys, electro fishing, or other methods to study wild trout.  And NJ uses all of those things which are, in fact, boilerplate.   

It's interesting that you cite Maine as having a horrific track record when Maine boasts more than 2x the number of intact subwatersheds for brook trout populations than the other 16 states combined and that claim is right out of the EBTJV.  So it's more likely the fact that Maine has more than enough brook trout to sustain a 5 fish/day limit but you don't trust the biologists who back those regs but trust the ones in NJ.   Threats from non-native fish appear to be less common than in many other states, with impacts focused in the St. John’s, Kennebec, Rapid and Penobscot River drainages, and that claim is also out of the EBTJV study as well.  Maine and NJ are very different states.

  So to blithely claim that Maine is protecting non-native fish over native fish is a total false narrative according to the study pushed by TU and EBTJV.  Maine is plainly saying we are not "stronger together" we know what we're doing and stay out of our business. 

 What you, TU and others are attempting is to "bludgeon" an agenda from one state, NJ, onto other states that are not experiencing the same effects and when a state like Maine or any other state says "we don't need to follow your suggestion for more stringent regs because we are in good shape" people start making false claims to undermine them by saying they "have a horrific track record".   

[1957Buck]

Bucksanbows why the disagree reaction or it does not fit the OP original Line.   Keep in mind Nj water Ways are in Essence Sewer Runoffs form the highways and Developments.   The few Streams that may be pristine have other issues. For the Very limited opportunities for a few, it is a waste of Time and Funds to be used in other areas of Management.    And Stream and River restorations are another area where it all can be wiped out by Mother Nature in one Flood or Spill.  And since a lot wind up in the Raritan it causes untold problems.  Sorry, i don't have a Ph.D.-  DR, In biology and Sciences It is just the Years of seeing the Failures of  NJ water Ways and Lands.   The Failures are evident with Consumption Advisories. and Closings.  Paint it as you will it is Still NJ The Dumping ground for NY & PA.  If it was Private Funds being used Failures would be no problem but It is Licenses and Tax Dollars being wasted to forestall the obvious.               

Edited May 9, 2018 by 1957Buck

[Bucksnbows]

7 hours ago, stratocaster said:

It's interesting that you cite Maine as having a horrific track record when Maine boasts more than 2x the number of intact subwatersheds for brook trout populations than the other 16 states combined and that claim is right out of the EBTJV.  So it's more likely the fact that Maine has more than enough brook trout to sustain a 5 fish/day limit but you don't trust the biologists who back those regs but trust the ones in NJ.   Threats from non-native fish appear to be less common than in many other states, with impacts focused in the St. John’s, Kennebec, Rapid and Penobscot River drainages, and that claim is also out of the EBTJV study as well.  Maine and NJ are very different states.

  So to blithely claim that Maine is protecting non-native fish over native fish is a total false narrative according to the study pushed by TU and EBTJV.  Maine is plainly saying we are not "stronger together" we know what we're doing and stay out of our business. 

 What you, TU and others are attempting is to "bludgeon" an agenda from one state, NJ, onto other states that are not experiencing the same effects and when a state like Maine or any other state says "we don't need to follow your suggestion for more stringent regs because we are in good shape" people start making false claims to undermine them by saying they "have a horrific track record".   

You give me far too much credit.  I highly doubt the powers that make regulatory changes in Maine know who I am or read my posts on NJ W&W.  And I honestly have no idea what Maine TUers are doing regarding this, so saying I am part of an "attempt to bludgeon an agenda from one state to another" is completely false.  Maine has a horrific track record of protecting not only native fish, but federally endangered fish such as Atlantic salmon and a population of Arctic char native to that state to name just two.  I don't have the time to go into all of Maine's mistakes, but their management of brown trout in coastal waters is a huge issue for native Atlantic salmon smolts trying to survive and get to the ocean to feed and grow for future spawning runs into Maine rivers.  Educate yourself before you pick a snippet up from the EBTJV website to support your claims.