Today's Trout Stocking Mtg. in Hackettstown update

[Rusty Spinner]

No surprises today at the annual trout stocking meeting. While I didn't do a headcount, there were more than usual in attendance. The Division staff did a very good job of laying out the issues around furunculosis, and their plans currently and those they will be researching much more closely such as covering the raceways with a roof (birds like blue herons or ospreys or even the bald eagles likely brought in this disease). There were mostly good questions asked and answered. There were only a few semi-unreasonable (IMO) comments, but they were either out of fear (unfounded, again, IMO) of spreading this disease to other fish and wanting all the trout killed or were wanting the Division to somehow "make up" for this year's lost fish into certain waters they were concerned for next year (can't be done, they only raise so many and taking more for one means less for others).

Expect to see mainly rainbows stocked at least for the next 2 or 3 years for several reasons. First, they have shown no outbreak even though exposed. They may still be low level carriers of this disease, but have not shown "break out" (visible and/or pathological testing), however, just to note that. Secondly, they do not compete for habitat of our native (and wild) brook trout anywhere near the way that non-native brown trout do. Thirdly, they will not produce except in a very small percentage of NJ trout streams meaning you know where they will not spawn and push out native brook trout. And lastly, and very importantly to anglers, creel surveys continue to show that stocked rainbows are far more catchable than are the stocked brook trout or the stocked brown trout. There is some old belief that brook trout are the easiest of the trout to fool which may be true of wild fish of the three species, but is not of state stocked brookies, browns and bows. So if the goal of the state hatchery is to raise trout that anglers can catch for fun and/or to eat, then stocking mostly rainbows is better for your angling community than stocking lots of brookies and browns that aren't caught in as high percentages as are the bows.

Stay in contact with the Division's website for continued updated information: http://www.state.nj....ut_policy14.htm

 

[Barleywine]

That's very interesting that stocked rainbows are easier to catch than stocked brook trout. I always assumed that brookies are the easiest, and browns the most difficult.

Nice report Brian.

 

[Bruce Edward Litton]

Was any word discussed on which streams will be stocked and which not prior to Opening Day and weeks beyond? Is the Division going to try and pool rainbows by not stocking some streams and possibly extending rainbow stocking into May in other streams? Anything like this discussed?

 

[lightenup]

That's very interesting that stocked rainbows are easier to catch than stocked brook trout. I always assumed that brookies are the easiest, and browns the most difficult.

Nice report Brian.

I never find one easier to catch than the other....I know I catch mostly browns...I fish a lot of wild trout, but when I hit the stocked places(out of season), it is usually browns too.....during stocking season, I usually catch the type they just stocked...Is this because the browns are just better survivors than the rest, and are more prevalent....
I do notice that I catch fewer brook trout, unless I am on wild brook trout water...

 

[lightenup]

Oh yeah, thanks for the info Mr. Spinner.....I bet the division is doing the best they can with a tough situation.....

 

[FIN-ITE 34]

Was any word discussed on which streams will be stocked and which not prior to Opening Day and weeks beyond? Is the Division going to try and pool rainbows by not stocking some streams and possibly extending rainbow stocking into May in other streams? Anything like this discussed?

Here is a link to the answers to your questions.

NJDEP Division of Fish & Wildlife - Comment on Proposed Trout Policy and 2014 Spring Trout Stocking

 

[MACFLY]

No surprises today at the annual trout stocking meeting. While I didn't do a headcount, there were more than usual in attendance. The Division staff did a very good job of laying out the issues around furunculosis, and their plans currently and those they will be researching much more closely such as covering the raceways with a roof (birds like blue herons or ospreys or even the bald eagles likely brought in this disease). There were mostly good questions asked and answered. There were only a few semi-unreasonable (IMO) comments, but they were either out of fear (unfounded, again, IMO) of spreading this disease to other fish and wanting all the trout killed or were wanting the Division to somehow "make up" for this year's lost fish into certain waters they were concerned for next year (can't be done, they only raise so many and taking more for one means less for others).

Expect to see mainly rainbows stocked at least for the next 2 or 3 years for several reasons. First, they have shown no outbreak even though exposed. They may still be low level carriers of this disease, but have not shown "break out" (visible and/or pathological testing), however, just to note that. Secondly, they do not compete for habitat of our native (and wild) brook trout anywhere near the way that non-native brown trout do. Thirdly, they will not produce except in a very small percentage of NJ trout streams meaning you know where they will not spawn and push out native brook trout. And lastly, and very importantly to anglers, creel surveys continue to show that stocked rainbows are far more catchable than are the stocked brook trout or the stocked brown trout. There is some old belief that brook trout are the easiest of the trout to fool which may be true of wild fish of the three species, but is not of state stocked brookies, browns and bows. So if the goal of the state hatchery is to raise trout that anglers can catch for fun and/or to eat, then stocking mostly rainbows is better for your angling community than stocking lots of brookies and browns that aren't caught in as high percentages as are the bows.

Stay in contact with the Division's website for continued updated information: http://www.state.nj....ut_policy14.htm

Man I always loved whend the division stopped stocking the rainbows and started putting in the browns usually late april or early may. Well i think they still stocked rainbows but mixed the browns around the 3rd or 4th week. Rusty from your post it sounds like this is a multi year issue to be resolved. Any idea what the impacts are for next year and beyond in terms of trout numbers and stocking plans. Should we all plan to form our circl at Patterson falls for the next few opening days

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Man I always loved whend the division stopped stocking the rainbows and started putting in the browns usually late april or early may. Well i think they still stocked rainbows but mixed the browns around the 3rd or 4th week. Rusty from your post it sounds like this is a multi year issue to be resolved. Any idea what the impacts are for next year and beyond in terms of trout numbers and stocking plans. Should we all plan to form our circl at Patterson falls for the next few opening days

The numbers of trout stocked next year will still be 570,000+ trout, but they will be almost all rainbows. What we won't see for a year or two are large brood stock fish stocked and the fall trout may not be the larger 2 year olds. But the numbers won't change. It's going to take them a few years to spread new, disease-resistant genetics through their browns and brook trout as they get eggs from the Rome, NY hatchery which has already genetically selected disease free trout many years ago.

The other thing to remember is that when Hackettstown was the only hatchery and was rearing our state's trout, it was full of this same disease. They treated for it and stocked those trout for decades. That means that furunculosis is already in at least the Musconetcong and probably other rivers. Hopefully that means our wild fish have become resistant to this disease over time and even if somehow exposed now, they won't break out with it.

 

[NJpatbee]

A very tough situation for the DFW, but IMO they are handling it well and with the resource in mind. The silver lining will be the elimination or reduction of stocking brookies and browns on top of wild populations of these 2 trout.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

A very tough situation for the DFW, but IMO they are handling it well and with the resource in mind. The silver lining will be the elimination or reduction of stocking brookies and browns on top of wild populations of these 2 trout.

That's just how I see it, Pat.

 

[tomfly]

No surprises today at the annual trout stocking meeting. While I didn't do a headcount, there were more than usual in attendance. The Division staff did a very good job of laying out the issues around furunculosis, and their plans currently and those they will be researching much more closely such as covering the raceways with a roof (birds like blue herons or ospreys or even the bald eagles likely brought in this disease). There were mostly good questions asked and answered. There were only a few semi-unreasonable (IMO) comments, but they were either out of fear (unfounded, again, IMO) of spreading this disease to other fish and wanting all the trout killed or were wanting the Division to somehow "make up" for this year's lost fish into certain waters they were concerned for next year (can't be done, they only raise so many and taking more for one means less for others).

Expect to see mainly rainbows stocked at least for the next 2 or 3 years for several reasons. First, they have shown no outbreak even though exposed. They may still be low level carriers of this disease, but have not shown "break out" (visible and/or pathological testing), however, just to note that. Secondly, they do not compete for habitat of our native (and wild) brook trout anywhere near the way that non-native brown trout do. Thirdly, they will not produce except in a very small percentage of NJ trout streams meaning you know where they will not spawn and push out native brook trout. And lastly, and very importantly to anglers, creel surveys continue to show that stocked rainbows are far more catchable than are the stocked brook trout or the stocked brown trout. There is some old belief that brook trout are the easiest of the trout to fool which may be true of wild fish of the three species, but is not of state stocked brookies, browns and bows. So if the goal of the state hatchery is to raise trout that anglers can catch for fun and/or to eat, then stocking mostly rainbows is better for your angling community than stocking lots of brookies and browns that aren't caught in as high percentages as are the bows.

Stay in contact with the Division's website for continued updated information: http://www.state.nj....ut_policy14.htm

Rusty,
This not directed at you.
I don't get the state. We all know that Fish and Game canceled stocking on the South Branch North of Solitude supposable “due to the disease in the hatchery”. What a crock. What I find to be ludicrous is the state does not stock Browns North of Califon. Maybe I think too much but in you post, the state conveyed that the Rainbows show no effects of the illness. So the whole we are not going to stock the Northern South Branch due to the disease argument holds no weight. They contradicted themselves by saying the rainbows are good. So what is the real truth Why the SBR gets no fish?

 

[JeffK]

One issue is easy, the state doesn't stock browns in the upper SBR so they don't screw up the gene pool of the thriving wild brown population upstream. Current hatchery browns are far removed from wild fish (more like domestic animals bred to grow well in crowded hatcheries) and interbreeding with wild browns makes the wild population less wild. The upper SBR has a wild brown population that has proven it can survive the conditions there - they don't want to mess with it.

There seems to be all sorts of strange decisions and I can only address a few background reasons that I sensed. The upper SBR has the best wild trout population of a larger stream in the state and they felt it could support not getting stocked. They are also putting trout never exposed in TP streams and there are only so many to go around, so they went with leaving streams with good wild pops alone while keeping the other streams at past stocking levels rather than reducing all of them. The one stream I questioned was the Whippany. Yes, it is a wild trout stream in the upper reaches, but below the dams in Morristown it is non-trout water and they could stock a bunch of the treated fish there.

basically they have four status categories of fish:
Never exposed: can stock anywhere
Exposed and show negative: can stock in Trout Maintenance
Exposed and Treated: can stock in non trout water
Positive: can't stock anywhere

The shortened stocking season is so that they can empty the hatchery and sterilize it and still maintain the schedule for stocking next spring. They aren't going to extend any stockings this spring.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

the state conveyed that the Rainbows show no effects of the illness. So the whole we are not going to stock the Northern South Branch due to the disease argument holds no weight. They contradicted themselves by saying the rainbows are good. So what is the real truth Why the SBR gets no fish?

Jeff K pretty well covered it, but just because the state's rainbows have not broken out in disease, they could still be carriers of the disease and there are no ways to test with 100% accuracy if that is the case, so the Division is taking a very cautious approach to this. In peer-reviews of the state's plans, other states and agencies told them they were being overly cautious which, in my opinion, is a good thing. And like Jeff K mentioned, this is a great experiment on the upper SBR because it does already have strong wild populations of all three species. I would think most fly anglers understand better than most spin anglers that wild fish are what trout fishing should be all about and not the stubby finned mutants the states jams into our waterways each year.

I might be one of the few, but my plans are to fish the SBR a lot more this year because it is not stocked. And I'd be very happy to see them not stock it again and lower the creek limit permanently on that stretch between Budd Lake and the Solitude Dam in High Bridge. Let's have some larger wild trout streams not get stocked and protect those wild fish, regardless of species.

 

[tomfly]

Jeff K pretty well covered it, but just because the state's rainbows have not broken out in disease, they could still be carriers of the disease and there are no ways to test with 100% accuracy if that is the case, so the Division is taking a very cautious approach to this. In peer-reviews of the state's plans, other states and agencies told them they were being overly cautious which, in my opinion, is a good thing. And like Jeff K mentioned, this is a great experiment on the upper SBR because it does already have strong wild populations of all three species. I would think most fly anglers understand better than most spin anglers that wild fish are what trout fishing should be all about and not the stubby finned mutants the states jams into our waterways each year.

I might be one of the few, but my plans are to fish the SBR a lot more this year because it is not stocked. And I'd be very happy to see them not stock it again and lower the creek limit permanently on that stretch between Budd Lake and the Solitude Dam in High Bridge. Let's have some larger wild trout streams not get stocked and protect those wild fish, regardless of species.

I am too. I just hope you guys are correct in your assumption that the meat guys are bypass the SRB and find more favorable waters to fish.

 

[Oliver10]

I think that it is clear that there are less never exposed fish to be stocked this year. Given the limited number of never exposed fish available to be stocked, I believe it would have been impossible for the SBR above Lake Solitude to have been fully stocked. We all know there are a ton of wild/native fish in the SBR. I think less harm comes to those fish if it common knowledge and posted that no fish were stocked this year. The catch and kill crowd will choose to fish elsewhere. If the DFW were to thin the stocking of the SBR I think you would still have a lot of catch and kill folks trying their luck for the few stocked fish and in the process they would catch many of the wild/native fish, even though these fish are mostly under the 9inch keep threshold not many trout survive a deeply hooked worm.
The key to making this work in my opinion is getting the word out that the SBR was not stocked this year.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I think that it is clear that there are less never exposed fish to be stocked this year. Given the limited number of never exposed fish available to be stocked, I believe it would have been impossible for the SBR above Lake Solitude to have been fully stocked. We all know there are a ton of wild/native fish in the SBR. I think less harm comes to those fish if it common knowledge and posted that no fish were stocked this year. The catch and kill crowd will choose to fish elsewhere. If the DFW were to thin the stocking of the SBR I think you would still have a lot of catch and kill folks trying their luck for the few stocked fish and in the process they would catch many of the wild/native fish, even though these fish are mostly under the 9inch keep threshold not many trout survive a deeply hooked worm.
The key to making this work in my opinion is getting the word out that the SBR was not stocked this year.

You nailed it right on the head. And the Division is working on making signs that indicate the upper SBR was NOT stocked this year so that the catch and keep anglers head elsewhere. I have already volunteered TU to tack up those signs. If they take me up on it and I think they might, I'll solicit volunteers here as well as through our chapters.

 

[mtthwnvk]

You nailed it right on the head. And the Division is working on making signs that indicate the upper SBR was NOT stocked this year so that the catch and keep anglers head elsewhere. I have already volunteered TU to tack up those signs. If they take me up on it and I think they might, I'll solicit volunteers here as well as through our chapters.

Make sure you post on here too. I'm not a TU member but if there's info a few days ahead of time I'll come hang signs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Flyzlo]

Was any word discussed on which streams will be stocked and which not prior to Opening Day and weeks beyond? Is the Division going to try and pool rainbows by not stocking some streams and possibly extending rainbow stocking into May in other streams? Anything like this discussed?

Here is a link to the 2014 proposed stocking chart. It shows all stocked waters and those that won't be stocked at all. It's pretty clear they're avoiding many natural reproduction areas and further dumping "excess" fish far downstream in larger rivers. I don't know if the schedule will change, but I drove around Hunterdon County looking for stocking notices and they appear aligned with this chart. Opening Day could be a real circus (worse than usual) if everybody shows up. As far as I'm concerned, NJ DF&W seems to be doing everything they can to protect the fishery for the long term and still provide what they can for 2014. Like anything else worth having - sometimes it takes a little sacrifice. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2014/trout_allocation14-sched.pdf

 

[jholland]

I was for not stocking potentially infected fish into the upper South Branch given the population of wild fish where there could be a potential to harm the existing resource. I will say that Shannon's is in the process of organizing a stocking or set of stockings for the upper South Branch. Yes, we are in a fishing business. That said we serve our community and customers who fish the streams of western New Jersey. We are very active in conservation as some of you know and I have learned a few things in our ten years in business out here.

1) I love to fly fish and I address my fishing in that fashion. I practice catch and release and love wild trout.
2) Many fisherman enjoy eating trout, most of the fish they catch are hatchery fish.
3) I share the resource with these folks and they patronize our business primarily in the spring.

OK now for the less obvious stuff:
1) Most of us started out as bait fishermen and eventually made a decision to fly fish. I like to think that others will be able to have the freedom that we've enjoyed to make their own choices.
2) Usually the state stocks enough fish so that it doesn't really matter if some fish are caught and creeled. I also have many days on the water and places I can go where they can't ie. Gorge, Claremont, Point Mountain etc.
3) Even though we may think we know all about our resource we have to avoid being patronizing. The best we can do is show people how much fun fly fishing is which is why I think most of us prefer it.
4) I don't know which of those kids with a spinning rod is going to be the next great fly fisherman. I like seeing parents and families out fishing because it means they are spending time together.
5) Of the 15 or more miles of the upper South Branch a rather limited area is stocked and subject to the hordes. This leaves many more miles open to those of us who would choose to explore them for wild fish.
6) In this age of stream restoration and dam removals we need to be community builders and not be divisive. I want to see more work done and the more voices we have on our side the more productive water we will have for everyone.

 

[LostnLovinIt]

I was for not stocking potentially infected fish into the upper South Branch given the population of wild fish where there could be a potential to harm the existing resource. I will say that Shannon's is in the process of organizing a stocking or set of stockings for the upper South Branch. Yes, we are in a fishing business. That said we serve our community and customers who fish the streams of western New Jersey. We are very active in conservation as some of you know and I have learned a few things in our ten years in business out here.

1) I love to fly fish and I address my fishing in that fashion. I practice catch and release and love wild trout.
2) Many fisherman enjoy eating trout, most of the fish they catch are hatchery fish.
3) I share the resource with these folks and they patronize our business primarily in the spring.

OK now for the less obvious stuff:
1) Most of us started out as bait fishermen and eventually made a decision to fly fish. I like to think that others will be able to have the freedom that we've enjoyed to make their own choices.
2) Usually the state stocks enough fish so that it doesn't really matter if some fish are caught and creeled. I also have many days on the water and places I can go where they can't ie. Gorge, Claremont, Point Mountain etc.
3) Even though we may think we know all about our resource we have to avoid being patronizing. The best we can do is show people how much fun fly fishing is which is why I think most of us prefer it.
4) I don't know which of those kids with a spinning rod is going to be the next great fly fisherman. I like seeing parents and families out fishing because it means they are spending time together.
5) Of the 15 or more miles of the upper South Branch a rather limited area is stocked and subject to the hordes. This leaves many more miles open to those of us who would choose to explore them for wild fish.
6) In this age of stream restoration and dam removals we need to be community builders and not be divisive. I want to see more work done and the more voices we have on our side the more productive water we will have for everyone.

Aww... I just got the warm fuzzies!!
Well said though...

 

[Jersey Devil]

I trout fish one or two days of the year. I fly fish for both fresh and salt water species. I fish the entire state, from Sussix to Cape May Co. and everywhere in between. I was present at the public meeting on infected trout and raised concerns about the chances of infestation to other species. Other attendees also raised similar questions and we were told this... that the state COULD NOT rule out the dangers to other species. The DOD Lake, Farrington, and the main stem of the Raritan are all doing fine without any trout stockings necessary. They do not rely on trout stockings or trout stamp monies. I always buy a trout stamp out of respect for the program in case I fish trout stocked waters. I am saddened that the respect for the sweetwater fishery is not being respected in turn by the trout community. Rusty, you stated that you thought our fears were unfounded. THEY ARE NOT. Unfortunately the effect on furunculosis on species was only discovered as little as 10 years ago. It started in carp, then Pike and Smallies, and now Perch and Baitfish. Sir, how would you feel if I "accidentally" ..."dropped"... an infected Smallmouth Bass in the Clairmont section of the So. Branch? Scarey huh? Point is this... It is IMO the upmost importance to protect MY FISHERY regardless of how many trout stamps your community wishes to sell. I am doing my best to bring this issue up to the bass community. If we have an "unexplained" drop in smallmouth populations similar to the Shenendoah and Susky then we won't have far to look. It's simple...the knowledge on the disease is still coming in so WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE TAKE THE CHANCE, when even hatchery officials can't ally our fears. If they can't, how can you. Bottom line YOU RAISED 'EM....YOU TAKE CARE OF 'EM Don't throw your garbage in my back yard....or I may just throw it back over the fence into yours

 

[Rusty Spinner]

You were the guy that got quoted by some of the papers, "don't throw your junk in my back yard"

Does the fact that the Hackettstown hatchery which raised 100% of NJ's stocked trout until Pequest came online 31 years ago was infected with this disease and all they did each year was feed them medicated feed and stocked them into all the NJ rivers make you feel any differently about this disease? How about the fact that at least 50% of PA's state-owned trout hatcheries have furunculosis in them? That state has all the fish we have in their warm and coldwater habitats, yet can you point me to outbreaks in that state with any fish, trout or otherwise? PA simply did years ago what NJ will begin this coming fall which is to introduce eggs from the Rome, NY hatchery where that hatchery has been raising furunculosis resistant trout of all three species.

This is an endemic disease. That means it is a naturally occurring disease in our area. The idea that it is currently only located in the Pequest hatchery is not only false, but foolish to believe. The Division biologists and staff have electro fished the Pequest below the hatchery and killed trout for pathology testing and have so far turned up no positive tests. This is a problem disease inside hatcheries, but not typically in the wild where fish are not stacked on top of each other and stressed out like hatcheries do to fish of any species.

But I encourage you to read up on this and make your own determination. Knee-jerk statements are fine, but careful deliberation is, IMO, a better route to take. BTW, I am not speaking for TU but rather for myself. If nothing else, the lack of outrage from the angling community should make you think to some degree why others aren't in the panic you seem to find yourself in. Not sure why you feel little is known about this disease? You mentioned 10 years, but I know that is wrong. Again, Hackettstown hatchery dealt with it and understood this issue more than 31 years ago. The Rome, NY hatchery was nearly wiped out by it decades ago and they found that the fish that survived had developed resistance to it. When it caused issues for many PA trout hatcheries, that state began to introduce the Rome genetics 27 years ago and again about 15 years ago. So you're getting some bad info on this.

Is the risk to all fish species by stocking these trout zero? No. Will this wipe out other fish species in NJ? No, this disease already is in some of our waterbodies and always has been, hence endemic. Believe me, if I were worried about our native brook trout, I would be shouting it from the rooftop! Instead, I'm tying flies for the spring's trout fishing.

 

[Jersey Devil]

Sir, the fact is simply this. Until 10 years ago we had no idea what caused some problems with this . Now it HAS been documented that first Carp then baitfish, then Smallies are suspect. I am not asking for any favors from you or the state. No monies, no programs, etc. Just this ... Why do it if there is a remote chance. What is the advantage to stocking a water that has never been trout stocked before? Just leave it be. It was a trout meeting and not advertised as anything of a concern for bass fisherman, and so there was little participation from that community. I hope you are right and sir, I believe you probably are. If you can't understand my concerns them I am sorry

 

[Jersey Devil]

Aeromonas salmonicida has been recognized as a pathogen of fish for over 100 years. Emmerich and Weibel (1894) made the first authentic report of its isolation during a disease outbreak at a Bavarian brown trout hatchery, the manifestations of the disease including furuncle-like swelling and, at a later stage, ulcerative lesions on infected trout. Since that time a number of subspecies of A. salmonicida have been recognized, although the taxonomy of the species is far from settled. Aeromonas salmonicida is one of the most studied fish pathogens, because of its widespread distribution, diverse host range and economically devastating impact on cultivated fish, particularly the Salmonids.Furunculosis, caused by the bacterium Aeromonas salmonicida subsp. salmonicida (A. salm), is one of the most serious infectious diseases of wild and farmed salmonids throughout the world, except South America (Ellis, 1997). Furunculosis was, for a long time, regarded as a disease occurring exclusively in salmonids. However, during the last decade several cases of A. salm infections have been reported in non-salmonids. In most cases these non-salmonids had some form of contact to salmonid populations with clinical outbreaks or as latent carrier of the causative agent (Bernoth, 1997). Furunculosis is an acute to chronic condition, with a variety of clinical signs (Hastings, 1988). The disease generally appears to develop as a septicaemia and is often fatal. Affected fish often show darkening of skin, lethargy and inappetence. Haemorrhages may occur at the bases of fins and the abdominal walls, heart and liver. Enlargement of the spleen and inflammation of the lower intestine are common features of chronic infections, but in acute outbreaks fish may die rapidly with few signs. The disease is named after the raised liquefactive muscle lesions (furuncles) which sometimes occur in chronically infected fish (Munro & Hastings, 1993).

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Sir, the fact is simply this. Until 10 years ago we had no idea what caused some problems with this . Now it HAS been documented that first Carp then baitfish, then Smallies are suspect. I am not asking for any favors from you or the state. No monies, no programs, etc. Just this ... Why do it if there is a remote chance. What is the advantage to stocking a water that has never been trout stocked before? Just leave it be. It was a trout meeting and not advertised as anything of a concern for bass fisherman, and so there was little participation from that community. I hope you are right and sir, I believe you probably are. If you can't understand my concerns them I am sorry

I do understand your concerns and I don't want to belittle them. I shared them until I took the time to discuss this with fisheries biologists in our organization, in our own Division's staff, on the federal level, and some that have backgrounds in this area not currently working for a state or federal agency. Here's one thing for all of us to ponder: this disease was introduced into the raceways by (most likely) one of three birds, ospreys, great blue herons or bald eagles. The bird that did introduce it killed a fish from in the natural world where this disease exists and it then infected the Pequest facility with disease from a fish it caught in the wild. If this disease is so horrific as to thwart 100% of the stocking of our trout, why no outcries to locate it and isolate it and to vaccinate all fish of any species where this disease is located throughout the Northeast?

I think you can see where I'm going with this. The disease is here, has always been here, will always be here, and primarily infects salmonids far more than any other species. It is found in nature here in the US; it was not suddenly introduced from some foreign country. It was prevalent in the Musconetcong River or at least in Trout Brook which is the main water supply (at the time) for the Hackettstown hatchery when that hatchery reared 100% of our trout and when furunculosis was a yearly issue that required medicated feed. It wasn't until whirling disease broke out in Hackettstown that the Division decided to build a new, state of the art for its time hatchery on the Pequest River. If the Division did one thing wrong with Pequest, it was an overly optimistic reliance on ground water supply for that facility over a river supply like Hackettstown or most hatcheries in states like PA as I mentioned previously.

Also, if you or anyone else reading this still feel a strong concern at this point, the Division has made their recommendations to the NJ Fish & Game Council which voted to approve them last Tuesday. That leaves this solely in the hands of NJ DEP Commissioner Bob Martin at this point. He alone holds the fate of these trout in his hands, and will either rubber stamp the Council's vote or toss it out the window and order all trout destroyed. The public comment period for the Division and for our F&G Council ended on the 10th, so if you do want to share any concerns, folks should contact the DEP Commissioner's office in Trenton.

 

[Jersey Devil]

Can other fish get the disease buy eating infected trout.
Yes, although the list of non-native salmonids that are susceptible is small. There is a documented case down south (can't recall if the Carolinas or Virginias) where smallmouth bass got it from infected trout and it has been documented in American eels and even in flounder in saltwater. It may impact other species as well, but again, it has not been highly destructive in the natural world but rather in hatchery settings.


This , my friend is a quote from you yourself to a past post It has always been here true... but we haven't always stocked them in sweetwater like the Raritan, have we? I don,t want to belabor this subject,but, Rusty, I am concerned and I'd rather be safe than sorry.. You are concerned with your trout stocking program and I respect you for it. I am concerned with other species and the fact that a lot of fish kills in Pa. and other states are still a mystery. I hope you in turn would be respectful of my concerns. Yes, I am "THAT GUY"

 

[Rusty Spinner]

You are concerned with your trout stocking program

That would be incorrect, just for the record. In my perfect world, we'd focus on Habitat, not Hatchery! IMO, only Montana has gotten this correct so far. And I'm not a trout purist, never have been and never will be. I care about native fish of all species first, wild but introduced species next (large and smallmouth bass, brown and rainbow trout, etc. but excluding certain highly invasive species like snakeheads and flatheads but not brown trout which makes me somewhat a hypocrite), and stocked fish of any and all species last.

I too, care about the overall health of any and all fish from furunculosis: game fish and non-game fish alike. I have personally come to the conclusion that the threat here is negligible. But I encourage others like yourself to seek out your own answers. I think this is all good debate and should encourage others to do more research until each of you are satisfied you have the answers you need.

 

[Jersey Devil]

Don't know if this is true or rumor,but...the naturalist at Mercer Lake REFUSED the 8,000 trout allocated to them because of this condition. If it is true, I praise the concern she has , just as much as the State has concerns for wild trout streams. Hope her insight spreads....and fast

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Don't know if this is true or rumor,but...the naturalist at Mercer Lake REFUSED the 8,000 trout allocated to them because of this condition. If it is true, I praise the concern she has , just as much as the State has concerns for wild trout streams. Hope her insight spreads....and fast

Nearly all waterbodies to be stocked are state open waters, so there won't be many who can refuse stockings. The state will simply place them elsewhere.

 

[Jersey Devil]

Not the point.... point is I'm not alone in this argument. Concerned officials take a sober point of view also. County Official sees the threat??