What's the point of WTS designation if...

[mtthwnvk]

What's the point of WTS designation if you're only doing it on a portion of a stream?

I understand if the state designates a portion of a stream if there are impoundments but I fish on a WTS section of a stream that directly connects to a section that is not WTS and gets stocked.

I'm not complaining, but I guess it just doesn't make sense if you're stock half a river that has access to the other half aren't you kind voiding the WTS aspect of it?

 

[flyI4]

I've always wondered that myself. I don't think the protections of the WTS designation are so much the fishing regs though as much as it is the classification which I'm sure impacts development/zoning in the area and helps limit human interference with the stream. Even if some of the stocked fish get mixed in with the wilds its not as big of a deal as some make it out to be- there are plenty of streams that have mixed populations to prove they can coexist.

 

[Pete]

Bear Swamp Brook (a WTS), is a tributary to the NJ portion of the Ramapo River (currently NT).

Bear Swamp Brook supports a (non-heritage) population of wild brook trout (it was stocked in the 1950s).
The Ramapo is stocked heavily for spring and autumn/winter fishing, and has been for decades.

Although there is some anecdotal evidence that stockies enter the brook, the conditions are not suitable for rainbows and browns to reproduce.

Should we stop stocking the Ramapo, or stop protecting the wild population, because there's a chance that one of them might have an affair with a stocked brookie?

Similarly, the headwaters of the Saddle River, support trout reproduction, and are protected by WTS regulations.
The lower river gets too warm to support trout year-round, but is stocked seasonally.
Again, do we want to stop protecting the wild trout, just because some horny stockies might swim upstream?

I suspect that the "wild" population in the Wanaque tailwater, are nearly 100% descended from stockies... Natural selection weeded out the weaklings. Should we stop protecting them, because points downstream are stocked... or let natural selection continue to do it's thing?

 

[Barleywine]

I don't think the protections of the WTS designation are so much the fishing regs though as much as it is the classification which I'm sure impacts development/zoning in the area and helps limit human interference with the stream.

As long as a stream has C1 designation, then it is afforded the same protections in terms of development that you're referring to, even if it is not designated as a WTS. The WTS also gives stricter creel limits, restricts the season that any fish can be harvested, and prohibits fishing with bait. Otherwise, we have many C1 trout production waters that are fished under the general regulations with no gear restrictions and creel limits of 6 fish in season, and 4 fish most of the year. So there is absolutely a benefit to having the WTS designation.

Based on the pictures you posted a couple of weeks earlier mtthwnvk, I'm pretty sure that you're talking about a stream that I also fish often. If it is the same stream, then several years ago, the regs were going to be changed to eliminate the WTS designation and return to stocking and general regs for that part of stream. Myself and several others spoke out against this at the public meeting held at the Pequest hatchery. I'm glad that there is still a WTS designation there. Could several more miles of that river support wild trout and be a WTS? Of course it could, and last year the suspended stocking proved that. For now, I'm happy with the "half a loaf is better than none" view, and be partially satisfied that some of the river has extra protection.

 

[mtthwnvk]

Again, do we want to stop protecting the wild trout, just because some horny stockies might swim upstream?

?

Really I wasn't trying to make a stink about wild fish v. stockies or interbreeding, it was really a more curious question. If a stream is a trib it makes sense that it could have that designation but flow into a stocked water, it just doesn't sense that someone arbitrarily decides on the same river, at bridge x this is a WTS and two feet downstream of that point is not. BUT having read the other posts it makes more sense now that it could serve as a way to protect wild fish, but also stock a section downstream that may not hold trout year-round

 

[Ryan_Reidemeister]

I was thinking about buying the Sage Bass II Fly Rod and I am not sure which reel should be bought with it. Does anyone know about this rod? And any general information about it would be helpful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Thursthouse]

I was thinking about buying the Sage Bass II Fly Rod and I am not sure which reel should be bought with it. Does anyone know about this rod? And any general information about it would be helpful.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think it would pair nicely with one of these...



Excellent for these WTS that are being discussed

 

[JeffK]

Ah, I get to play the old man again. The WTS was a product of the early 70's when Bob Solwedel (freshwater fisheries chief before Lisa Barno) wanted more awareness of wild trout in NJ. As a young biologist he found a number of good wild populations while sampling and set about to stop stocking a few and highlight them to start the long process of getting more fishermen interested in the wild side. At least that's what I remember.

Now for another ancient debate; what matters more for wild trout populations - regulations or water quality. Just for the record I am firmly in the water quality side, but this debate can get long winded very quickly and almost take on a religious tone.

 

[mtthwnvk]

Now for another ancient debate; what matters more for wild trout populations - regulations or water quality. Just for the record I am firmly in the water quality side, but this debate can get long winded very quickly and almost take on a religious tone.

Seems like its one of those "both-and" answers probably. Thanks for being the old man, I enjoyed the brief history lesson.

 

[tomfly]

Jeff.
You nailed it. With water quality there is always potential. An entire population could be decimated. If the conditions of the environment have sustainability. The population will rebound.

 

[NJpatbee]

The WTS designation in NJ has greatly reduced harvest restrictions and in some cases a 12 inch limit on brown trout. NJ did raise the trout size limit to 9" a few years ago to reduce the harvest of wild trout on general regulation waters which was certainly a help. I have seen anglers harvesting 6-7" brookies on the Flatbrook before the size limit change. I would prefer to see C&R regs on the WTS waters, but some of the waters have some good sized trout. I do not know of any meat hunters that target the WTS waters since most of them are looking for stockers in the 11' - 16" range which are plentiful in many of the stocked general regulation waters.

Some well-intentioned people have complained that the 35 or so designated WTS waters attracts anglers and put the trout population at risk. I suspect that the 35 were chosen since there is at least some public access - many great wild trout waters in NJ have little or no public access. I have spent may days scouting trout production waters and normally have to scratch them off the list due to lack of access. Also, I have never seen anyone kill a fish on any of the WTS designated waters I have fished. The downside is that you may get to one of your favorite locations and find a car already parked there - always have a few WTS waters in mind!

 

[Trouser Trout]

one must believe that a donut with no hole is in fact a danish.