porterskill
New member
are they considering the discontinuence of stocking all streams in nj that support wild trout without stocking?
Give us a try!
Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!
nj wild trout
- Thread starter porterskill
- Start date
Rusty Spinner
Active member
No, at least not currently. The state has been reducing stocking into some of the streams that hold good wild trout populations, but they still have a lot more work to do IMO.
Mark S.
Fly & Spin Fisherman
although I would love to see that, the truth is less stocked waters means a few things:
- those places that will continue to be stocked will see far more anglers but will see more trout as well. IOW, you'll deal with more guys fishing but more trout should be available to be caught.
- those places that were stocked and were only open to the public because they were stocked w/ landowners permission, may no longer be open to the public.
that last one is a slippery slope because although I prefer to fish for wild trout, if access is only available because its stocked, i'll take it. a little open water is better than nothing. i know the NJDFGW has this on their minds as one of a factors when dealing with what streams to remove and which ones not to. another factor is popularity. the SBRR in KLG is high quality wild trout water in that section yet it will never be removed from the stocking list simply because of the enormous crowds its draws. a stream like Pohatcong Creek - a fair wild trout stream at best - is nearly 100% private but has many stocking points mostly because of the courtesy of landowners. it gets pounded early season (and beyond) by the C&K crowds - which the NJDFGW likes to see - so its removal would not likely happen. popularity = more anglers = more license sales = $ and $ is what always wins out in the end. its always about what you lose vs what you gain and in a more wild trout vs more $$$, wild trout lose in a first round KO.
- those places that will continue to be stocked will see far more anglers but will see more trout as well. IOW, you'll deal with more guys fishing but more trout should be available to be caught.
- those places that were stocked and were only open to the public because they were stocked w/ landowners permission, may no longer be open to the public.
that last one is a slippery slope because although I prefer to fish for wild trout, if access is only available because its stocked, i'll take it. a little open water is better than nothing. i know the NJDFGW has this on their minds as one of a factors when dealing with what streams to remove and which ones not to. another factor is popularity. the SBRR in KLG is high quality wild trout water in that section yet it will never be removed from the stocking list simply because of the enormous crowds its draws. a stream like Pohatcong Creek - a fair wild trout stream at best - is nearly 100% private but has many stocking points mostly because of the courtesy of landowners. it gets pounded early season (and beyond) by the C&K crowds - which the NJDFGW likes to see - so its removal would not likely happen. popularity = more anglers = more license sales = $ and $ is what always wins out in the end. its always about what you lose vs what you gain and in a more wild trout vs more $$$, wild trout lose in a first round KO.
Eagle Claw
Trout Hunter
It may not mean more trout in stocked waters, it may mean a cutback on
production, layoffs or elimination of personal in Fish and Game to save on the budget. Less need = less personal including enforcement.
production, layoffs or elimination of personal in Fish and Game to save on the budget. Less need = less personal including enforcement.
Mark S.
Fly & Spin Fisherman
Not to sound uncaring but most of us are in the same boat as far as layoffs so I can't worry about their jobs when mines at risk every day too(mostly from being online too much ;-) ).
As for the trout, I always thought they produced/stocked more trout then they really needed anyways - at least in the smaller streams . i see pods of stocked fish in 8' wide creeks well into july and even august that were never caught which means either too many are being stocked or not enough people are fishing for them. in any case. its a waste of a resource & $. Some places only see 5-6 anglers on opening day and receive 350 pre-season trout. I mean do the math: 60-70 trout per angler??? yikes. they need to either stock less or charge more for catching them because they're losing money otherwise.
6 anglers = $63( trout stamp)
Cost to raise/stock 1 trout = $2.25(est.)
350 trout x $2.25 = $1034
so basically they're investing $1034 with a return of $63. to make matters worst, they're stocking two more times during a time when angler usage drops dramatically. in all honesty they should be charging a helluva a lot more(or stocking a helluva lot less) because we're are fleecing them. think about it: $10.50 per year and one person who trout fishes say 10 times per year and takes home their limit is taking home $135 worth of trout. $135-$10.50 = -$124.50. wild trout cost nothing so why not try to promote/enhance wild trout pops enough so that anglers interest(and license sales) remains high?
loss of enforcement? yeah, right. i've had my license checked maybe 7 or 8 times since 1981 so if they cut back on them then my license gets checked once every 6 years instead of 3? i've fished some places 100 times or more in my lifetime and never seen a park ranger or WCO. i've spent thousands of hrs along special regs streams in NJ and once in 30 years was my gear checked. I'm not saying they aren't needed (quite the contrary; we need more) just there are so few out there already a loss would barely be noticeable.
Last edited:
Eagle Claw
Trout Hunter
Well that is about 20 steps backwards in a state where we can finally say
we have some great fishing. Nice proposal: less enforcement is ok, less
trout is ok and raise the price. Do you work in the state assembly or are you a PITA member ?
we have some great fishing. Nice proposal: less enforcement is ok, less
trout is ok and raise the price. Do you work in the state assembly or are you a PITA member ?
Last edited:
Mark S.
Fly & Spin Fisherman
i didn't say law enforcement wasn't needed.
quote: 'quite the contrary; we need more'
your original point implied that would be one downside related to less trout. my point is there are so few already, cutting them wouldn't make much difference so why not just keep them? i'm pretty sure their salaries aren't from trout stamp/license sales either since they are law enforcement. my guess is they get paid from state taxes.
less trout is okay when I think too many are already being stocked which i think many would argue is true. a high % die of suffocation by July because they were stocked in catfish ponds - thats 20 steps forward?
and yes we get off cheap as far as fishing is concerned - you can't even begin to debate that. fishing with a license and trout stamp costs you 9 cents a day. please...
Last edited:
porterskill
New member
there is not enough personel to enforce any of the current fish and game laws now.
NJAngler
Daily trifecta - brookies, browns and rainbows.
true thats why they need your help. don't confront people but make damn sure your report them if you suspect they're doing something wrong like fishing w/o a license, poaching, littering, starting fires, drinking alcohol, et al
Last edited:
Rusty Spinner
Active member
For what it's worth, the NJ division of F&W has no plans to cut any more staff. This began as a thread on discontinuing stocking over wild populations. Don't know why we're speculating on a reduced staff as that is not in the cards. The division has been cut to the bone and beyond. They have funding to hire for many key positions because they do NOT have to rely heavily on general funding from Trenton, yet the current Governor had issued a hiring freeze on all state employees and that has actually caused the division to lose federal matching funds. If allowed to hire back some staff to cover recent retirees, the division could actually do the work federally mandated to receive matching funds and could have/could be rebuilding their financial coffers. This is one of the many reasons hunters and anglers have been so angry at Corzine...
sheisty
New member
Corzine's administration didn't care too much about federal mandates. I can confirm what you said about the hiring freeze as well even though your not "State funded". The problem for many divisions is that they have the money but they can't replace whats been lost because of said and a like freezes that started his first year in office. Simply terrible.....
PAflyguy
tight lines
PA tried cutting back stocking on several class B wild trout streams a few yrs ago thinking that without competition from stockers the wild population would take off and be self sustaining. It didn't go very well or last very long. People who had camps next to the stream/s complained too loudly that they weren't catching anything, and when you're used to catching 12 inch stocked rainbows a 4 inch wild brookie doesn't put up much of a fight. Wild trout reproduction suffers through bad years sometimes and the very limited time they tried not stocking just didn't allow for the population to grow. I think i read that we're trying it again in pa, so we'll see how it goes this time...
porterskill
New member
new jersey does not have any camps that would be affected if the state did not stock trout in a stream that could support wild trout.
NJAngler
Daily trifecta - brookies, browns and rainbows.
Most if not Class "A" streams over there fall below Class "A" status from time to time - sometimes way below. floods and droughts can really impact a stream for a year or two. acid snow runoff can also zap a year class of trout as well.
Another issue Pa has is the same as NJ's: certain streams are only open because landowners allow it. they allow it only as long as the stream is stocked so the stock/not to stock dilemma is a headache for the PFBC as well.
Mark
Another issue Pa has is the same as NJ's: certain streams are only open because landowners allow it. they allow it only as long as the stream is stocked so the stock/not to stock dilemma is a headache for the PFBC as well.
Mark
As far as I know the program is still going (they are still soliciting for candidate Class B streams), and only started maybe in 2008? I agree that it takes more time than just one or two seasons in order to evaluate a management change on a particular stream.
Did you happen to see numbers that prove that out? I don't know that I'd say "most" at all. Mark, I don't buy into the landowners only allow fishing because it is stocked argument, it's a very dated argument, since the #1 stated reason for loss of fishing area's from private landowners is angler behavior (ie. litter; blocking driveways, farm lanes, & cattleways; & parking on lawns, etc.) The landowners that keep property open to public fishing ONLY because the stream is stocked are few in Pennsylvania.
Mark S.
Fly & Spin Fisherman
My stats and personal experience are enough but common sense should tell you a freestone stream can change dramatically from year to year. I've seen it first hand on many Pa streams. Limestoners seem to fluctuate less. If you want actual data, there are plenty of PFBC biologist reports to peruse through that show both minimal drops in pops and tremendous drops in numbers. I can cite one stream dropping by 64%(1533 trout per mile to 555) in one year. young of year(1 to 3" fish) dropped by a an astonishing 96%(675 to 25). why? january flood which i'm guessing washed away most of the trout eggs. this is one dramatic example but since every stream cannot be surveyed every year. I cannot prove it occurs on most but logic suggests it does. Conversely, "B", "C" and even "D" streams may on occasion reach "A" levels. I won't say most but it does occur enough to merit investigation as to why - or why not - this happens
my second point is that it is a concern albeit a small one. more of an issue in NJ. Once stocking is stopped and the state stocking signs - the ones that say its okay to fish courtesy of landowner - disappear, in all honesty i'm not sure whether i can continue fish there or not especially if posted signs have always been there(many places have stocking signs right below a posted sign which just adds to the confusion). At least with those signs there i know its okay.
the fact is, outside of public lands, fishing access is a guessing game with no easy answer. stocking a stream - at least as i see it - is one way to remove the guesswork as to whether one can fish there or not.
Mark
I understand there can be dramatic changes from year to year but I just wondered if you actually saw in the PFBC reports where the majority of streams fluctated below the Class A threshold. The stream you site dropping from 1533 to 555 trout/mile is significant change but still not below the Class A threshold.
I agree more of a problem in NJ, but another NJ problem with stocking signs and private property is the # of property owners that allow the state to stock their property only to remove the signs after stocking(s) and not allow the public access. As far as not knowing whether or not you can fish a stream if there is no sign, taking time to knock on a nearby door can really help remove that doubt one way or the other.
