Flatbrook YRTCA

[NJpatbee]

We have discussed a number of times the idea of a Year Round Trout Conservation Area on the Flatbrook. The Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter Trout Unlimited in its Feb. 2009 has a questionnare for its members regarding several options regarding a 1.0 - 1.5 mile YRTCA on the lower portion of the current FFO area. These are the same regulations that are currently applied to the Ken Lockwood Gorge, Claremont Stretch of the South Branch, and portions of the Paulinskill and Toms River.
As a reminder the NJ YRTCA regulations are as follows:

1) Only artificial lures may be used.
2) Possession or use of bait (live or preserved) or any substance (natural or synthetic) that contains a concentration of bait scent is prohibited.
3) Fishing is permitted during the in-season closures which apply to the river. All trout caught during these periods must be released immediately.
4) The creel limit is one trout per day and the size limit is 15 inches or greater


The questionnare requests that the member select all that apply from the options listed with a "1" on the selction that the respondent supports the most if more than 1 option is selected.
The options are:

___I would support a YRTCA on the Flat Brook from the top of the Blewett Tract to the Roy Bridge (approximately 1.5 miles) with the standard YRTCA regulations listed above

___I would support a YRTCA on the Flat Brook from the top of the Blewett Tract to the Roy Bridge (approximately 1.5 miles) with the standard YRTCA regulations listed above applying from the end of the Blewitt Tract to the Roy Bridge, but with fly fishing only on the Blewett Tract

___I would support a YRTCA on the Flat Brook from the end of the Blewett Tract to the Roy Bridge (approximately 1.0 miles) with the standard YRTCA regulations listed above

___None of the above

The response must be returned by mail by March 1,2009.

If you are a FSBNJTU member please let your voice be heard and respond to the questionnnare.
If you are a TU member but not in the FSBNJ Chapter, please let your local chapter leadership know of your opinion.

 

[tkhour]

Here is my vote.



__x_I would support a YRTCA on the Flat Brook from the top of the Blewett Tract to the Roy Bridge (approximately 1.5 miles) with the standard YRTCA regulations listed above applying from the end of the Blewitt Tract to the Roy Bridge, but with fly fishing only on the Blewett Tract

 

[Corndog]

NJPB,

Was the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter asked to conduct this questionaire? If so, by whom?

and

What will they do with the results of this questionaire?

Curiousdog

 

[Rusty Spinner]

NJPB,

Was the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter asked to conduct this questionaire? If so, by whom?

and

What will they do with the results of this questionaire?

Curiousdog

CDog - yes, the FSB/North chapter considers the Flatbrook its home river. Our state council chair, Rick Axt, asked that chapter (which happens to be my chapter) to poll its membership to determine the level of support for each proposal and make that info known to council. Once that is done, council will consider its support. We will solicit additional comments from our other chapter members, and I think it is beneficial to Pat to know what non-TU members think as well.

 

[NJpatbee]

NJPB,

Was the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter asked to conduct this questionaire? If so, by whom?

and

What will they do with the results of this questionaire?

Curiousdog

The concept was first presented to the NJ TU State Council, and among other things I was directed to seek the sponsorship and support of the FSBNJ Chapter since the Flatbrook is in its "area". I met with the NJDF&W to get their opinions, performed some additional research, and presented to the FSBNJ Chapter in June 2008. After a lengthy discussion, it was determined that a binding vote would not be taken at the meeting, but instead a questionnare to the entire Chapter membership would distributed instead.

The results of the questionnare will be used to determine if FSBNJTU has the support to sponsor the BFB YRTCA concept, and if so, what variation is most supported. The NJTU would then take the decision of the FSBNJ Chapter, and take it into consideration when determining whether or not to formally present the proposal to the NJDF&W and subsequently the F&G Council for inclusion onto the F&G Code.

If pursued, there is a fair amount of work to be done including meeting with the Sussex & Morris County Federation of Sportsmen, members of the F&G Council, NJDF&W, community leaders in Sandyston, NPS, and the NJ press. I have stated that I would spearhead this and I know there are a couple of other TU volunteers that would participate. Having the support of the local TU Chapter would make this easier, but all NJ TU Chapters will have a say at the State Council level.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Pat,

The survey is in the new newsletter which should be online shortly as well as being mailed (last snail mail newsletter, BTW before our chapter goes online 100%). Check your regular email - I'll send it now.

Rusty

 

[Corndog]

Thanks for the responses Rusty and Pat.

So, does this mean that Sussex County fishermen have no say in this matter unless we belong to a club? Do I have to join a club which I have a problem with their leadership to have a say about the BFB?

FSBNJ is only a small portion of Sussex County fishermen. Why do they get to hold the future of the BFB in their hands alone? Why not make this questionaire available to all fishermen? The state has all our mailing addresses in their fishing license database. Someone could do a mass mailing or at least make the questionaire available online and at the local sportshops.

Confusedog

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Corndog - see below:

Thanks for the responses Rusty and Pat.

So, does this mean that Sussex County fishermen have no say in this matter unless we belong to a club? Do I have to join a club which I have a problem with their leadership to have a say about the BFB? Uh, no. Anyone and everyone can have a say if the division of F&W considers it after TU (or anyone else for that matter) presents it to the division for consideration. Even if they don't fish! And we have not yet presented this to the division - Pat's just asked the division for advice and input as he completes his research.

FSBNJ is only a small portion of Sussex County fishermen. Why do they get to hold the future of the BFB in their hands alone? How in God's name did you read that into any post??? FSB/North gets to make the initial recommendations - for OR against - to the state council for council's consideration for reasons already explained (local water that this chapter works on regularly). You can make the same recommendation if you agree a TCA is a good idea. TU has no "special privileges". Why not make this questionaire available to all fishermen? I think by posting this here and on GST he is reaching out to other fishermen. The state has all our mailing addresses in their fishing license database. Someone could do a mass mailing or at least make the questionaire available online and at the local sportshops. This is not a state initiative, it is a TU initiative so we will poll our members. Feedback Pat gets here or on other sites or sources will be considered if we decide to approach the division to ask for a new TCA. If that happens, lots and lots of others from individuals to clubs will have thier own say in this matter. Or you could simply trump NJPatbee and send something to the division in writing stating you suggest a YRTCA for the Flatbrook although we've publicly stated to the division that we are researching it. Hope this clears up any confusion!

Confusedog

 

[kindanewbie77]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:



I have no issue with TU or any other " conservation" group, but as a person who fishes the BFB sometimes daily, why, as C-dog said, is MY opinion not considered, or even asked for? I found that rather curious, is it because as a collective the chapters of TU have more pull than just regular old Joe Flyfisherman? I apologize for my ignorance, but I felt I had to chime in as well.

 

[kindanewbie77]

Sorry RS, didn't see your post.....that clears some things up for sure!

 

[Rusty Spinner]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:



I have no issue with TU or any other " conservation" group, but as a person who fishes the BFB sometimes daily, why, as C-dog said, is MY opinion not considered, or even asked for? I found that rather curious, is it because as a collective the chapters of TU have more pull than just regular old Joe Flyfisherman? I apologize for my ignorance, but I felt I had to chime in as well.

I think my last post addresses this. First TU or anyone else in the whole entire planet suggests to the division they want to see X or Y change to the fish code (same goes for hunting). Then the division staffers discuss the proposal and make a written recommendation to the (in this case) Fish Committee of the F&G Council. The committee then vets it for consideration and other groups and individuals then have their say in the matter. This is a public agency and they hold their meetings as such. I highly recommend to all sportsmen that you attend at least one council mtg. so you can understand the process.

Now getting to the sticky issue that lots of individuals have when it comes to not being involved with conservation organizations like TU or the Ruffed Grouse Society, Ducks Unlimited, the Knee Deep Club, etc. Are you actually of the opinion that your one voice carries the same weight as thousand of voices from respected conservation organizations? I always suggest to hunters and anglers that they get involved with some organization - doesn't have to be TU, just get involved with the one that closest resembles your feelings. And if you find problems within that organization, then get involved in changing that organization. But I think one would be naive to think their one voice is = to thousands.

With regard to this proposal, TU may very well find that our own members do not support it. This is far from a forgone conclusion! I hope that I am educating some in the process? And not sounding like a blow-hard?. My aim is to educate, I just hope I come across that way!

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Sorry RS, didn't see your post.....that clears some things up for sure!

Ooops, our posts just crossed paths

Again - not taking on any of you, these are all good concerns and questions. I am just hoping to educate some on the process of getting changes at NJ F&W. It may not be a perfect process, but it is ours for now...

 

[Corndog]

Rusty,

My concern is that the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter may vote against what Pat is trying to accomplish. Lets say they do, is the whole idea in the crapper or are there other options? I applaud Pat for his efforts and don't want to see a small number of fishermen making the rules for the rest of us.

Cdog

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Rusty,

My concern is that the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter may vote against what Pat is trying to accomplish. Lets say they do, is the whole idea in the crapper or are there other options? I applaud Pat for his efforts and don't want to see a small number of fishermen making the rules for the rest of us.

Cdog

I don't think his efforts would wind up in the crapper, but that type of vote might negatively influence the state leaders (state council). As the VP of the FSB/North chapter, my job is to support Pat's efforts at the chapter level. I personally am in favor of a YRTCA with keeping the Blewett tract as FF only, but that's just my opinion. I no longer serve on council because I work for national, but I do act in an advisory capacity to our officers. I love my chapter and the tremendous support they've given me with all my efforts with TIC, chapter education, conservation, then council vice chair and now as national staffer that I feel obliged to continue in a leadership role with them. But I feel becoming the chapter president is a personal conflict, so I remain as VP to support our new president until he gets his waders underneath him. But you didn't ask me any of that, did you?

When TU pushed for a TCA for the KL Gorge, many of our members were furious with the state council. The "elitists" that only feel a trout should be caught by fly rod told council that a TCA "would end trout fishing in the Gorge forever" because spin gear is allowed (remember that the gorge was FF only once upon a time). Now that the KLG is a YRTCA, TU gets hammered because we don't do enough to protect the best fishery in the state. Only proving you can never win:dizzy:

Anyway, thanks for the questions and replies and please continue to let Pat know your personal feelings. And if you are reading this and are a FSB/North member, please fill out the questionaire and get it back as soon as it arrives at your mailbox. Thanks all!

 

[Corndog]

Thanks Rusty, That's what I was getting at in a round about way. I hope that the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter supports Pat and what could be a great improvement on the BFB IMO.

Are there any Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter members here? I would like to hear your opinions.

Cdog

 

[NJpatbee]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:



I have no issue with TU or any other " conservation" group, but as a person who fishes the BFB sometimes daily, why, as C-dog said, is MY opinion not considered, or even asked for? I found that rather curious, is it because as a collective the chapters of TU have more pull than just regular old Joe Flyfisherman? I apologize for my ignorance, but I felt I had to chime in as well.

You can make your opinion known at any time by writing to the NJDF&W or you can present your own proposals to them. There is a big advantage that NJTU has over 5,000 members as Rusty has stated, and we are part of a very large National coldwater conservation organization. We are also vocal, attend F&W, NJ Federation of Sportsmen Clubs, and F&G Council meetings. There are also other fine sportsmen's groups, but as our name implies, trout and coldwater fishing is our concern.

 

[Stonefly]

Rusty,

My concern is that the Fred S. Burroughs/North Jersey Chapter may vote against what Pat is trying to accomplish. Lets say they do, is the whole idea in the crapper or are there other options? I applaud Pat for his efforts and don't want to see a small number of fishermen making the rules for the rest of us.

Cdog

I sometimes get amazed at what folks read into a post. As Brian said TU just like anyone less can make a proposal to the Fish & Game Council, so should the membership of FSB/NJTU vote no, or vote for a different set of proposals/changes at their meeting, their postion then goes to the TU State Council. Which inturns asks for input from all the chapters at its council meeting.

If they vote not to make an proposal to the State Council, anyone can make a proposal to the Fish & Game Council on their own whether or not a member of TU, a club or just a private citizen.

TU has in the past done research into river sections that have resulted in TCA's, the Claremont, Point Mountain and the Gorge. Once a Chapter makes a proposal and it get support from the Council we have always gone to both the County Federation and the general angling public asking for support. A good example was the Claremont, also put forward by North Jersey and supported by the Morris County Federation and the State Federation. A public meeting on the matter was then held by the Fish Committee of the Fish & Game Council with input from the biologist for division.

 

[Corndog]

I sometimes get amazed at what folks read into a post. As Brian said TU just like anyone less can make a proposal to the Fish & Game Council, so should the membership of FSB/NJTU vote no, or vote for a different set of proposals/changes at their meeting, their postion then goes to the TU State Council. Which inturns asks for input from all the chapters at its council meeting.

If they vote not to make an proposal to the State Council, anyone can make a proposal to the Fish & Game Council on their own whether or not a member of TU, a club or just a private citizen.

TU has in the past done research into river sections that have resulted in TCA's, the Claremont, Point Mountain and the Gorge. Once a Chapter makes a proposal and it get support from the Council we have always gone to both the County Federation and the general angling public asking for support. A good example was the Claremont, also put forward by North Jersey and supported by the Morris County Federation and the State Federation. A public meeting on the matter was then held by the Fish Committee of the Fish & Game Council with input from the biologist for division.

Rick,

So I don't read into your post...what is it that you are saying?

Confusedog

 

[Kronk]

I am not opposed to a year round conservation area. I think the current fly fishing only area of the Flat should be left alone.Designate another area of the stream for the YRTCA. I know the response will be that this area is the coldest most suitable water.This section of river should be left alone.This is the only fly fishing only designated area in the state.Without going into specific areas numerous parts of this river are under utilized,think about using them. KRONK

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Rick,

So I don't read into your post...what is it that you are saying?

Confusedog

I think Rick and I are both on the defensive with the KLG Road stuff. Please take no offense if we were playing defense

I just love working my a$$ off to better trout habitat in NJ only to read stuff like "TU sucks!" on other threads. My skin is only so thick

Good to see you are in support! And thank you for that support!!

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I am not opposed to a year round conservation area. I think the current fly fishing only area of the Flat should be left alone.Designate another area of the stream for the YRTCA. I know the response will be that this area is the coldest most suitable water.This section of river should be left alone.This is the only fly fishing only designated area in the state.Without going into specific areas numerous parts of this river are under utilized,think about using them. KRONK

Kronk,

Would you support a year round TCA on the Flatbrook to include the Blewett tract if that section of the TCA remained FF only? That is one option if you read Pat's survey.

 

[Kronk]

I would lIke to see the entire section from Rt#206 to the Roy Bridge remain as it is.Ideally without the first 9 days of bait fishing.
I like the idea of a YRTCA but in another section of the Big Flat.We all know there are big sections of this river that are under utilized.
Access could be made to one of these sections and it would be a win win situation for all to enjoy. Kronk

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I would lIke to see the entire section from Rt#206 to the Roy Bridge remain as it is.Ideally without the first 9 days of bait fishing.
I like the idea of a YRTCA but in another section of the Big Flat.We all know there are big sections of this river that are under utilized.
Access could be made to one of these sections and it would be a win win situation for all to enjoy. Kronk

Thanks, that's the kind of constructive dialogue Pat and TU needs!

 

[kindanewbie77]

I would lIke to see the entire section from Rt#206 to the Roy Bridge remain as it is.Ideally without the first 9 days of bait fishing.
I like the idea of a YRTCA but in another section of the Big Flat.We all know there are big sections of this river that are under utilized.
Access could be made to one of these sections and it would be a win win situation for all to enjoy. Kronk

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:especially about the bait thing!!!! Those 9 days is all it takes to trash the length of the stream banks with worm containers and empty power bait jars!

 

[Corndog]

Kronk...good points. I like your way of thinking. Are you a member of TU?

Kindawannabe...don't worry about the bait containers and beer cans. I'll clean them up as usual.

Does anybody remember back when someone would put newspaper in the water all over the fly stretch before opening day?

Cdog

 

[Hllywd76]

I'm all for calling the warden on anyone who breaks the fishing laws in a fly only section orany section. The next time I see this person I will surely call and drop the tip he's there. Fly rod with a full load on mono and a lure.

I also have a video of him. Next time I will walk right up and take his picture up close.




Hllywd

 

[Corndog]

I'm all for calling the warden on anyone who breaks the fishing laws in a fly only section orany section. The next time I see this person I will surely call and drop the tip he's there. Fly rod with a full load on mono and a lure.

I also have a video of him. Next time I will walk right up and take his picture up close.




Hllywd

lol That guy and his overweight son are there alot. Sometimes they don't even bother bringing their mono-lined fly rods. Usually, all you gotta do is slam your door in the parking lot and they will come running up the hill with spinning gear in hand. What's next...centerpinning? lol

Cdog

 

[kindanewbie77]

lol That guy and his overweight son are there alot. Sometimes they don't even bother bringing their mono-lined fly rods. Usually, all you gotta do is slam your door in the parking lot and they will come running up the hill with spinning gear in hand. What's next...centerpinning? lol

Cdog

That is funny I just had a discussion with another guy about those two clowns on monday......they must be quite the fixture on that side of the river! You aren't the only one that pics up stream side trash, Garbage Picker Dog!

 

[Corndog]

That is funny I just had a discussion with another guy about those two clowns on monday......they must be quite the fixture on that side of the river! You aren't the only one that pics up stream side trash, Garbage Picker Dog!

Kindawannabe,

I think they live down the road.

Hey, another mans trash is...well...my trash too.

Thanks for doing your part.

All this talk about the flatbrook makes me wanna go fishin.

Cdog

 

[kindanewbie77]

I am going to tie up a few soft hackles, and head out. I have had decent luck with them this week! I am going to be out there earlier than I would like but o well! It is still fishin!