Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Post any useful information here.

Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Rusty Spinner on February 26th, 2017, 1:12 pm

The Division biologists yesterday outlined their proposal to better protect our wild trout with an obvious emphasis on native brook trout, our only native salmonid to NJ. But it also offers significant protections for wild rainbows and browns where those species are well established with naturally reproducing populations. See photos below.

Scan of Division proposed wild trout reg changes.jpg
Scan of Division proposed wild trout reg changes.jpg (669.83 KiB) Viewed 2691 times


Scan of proposed wild trout zone.jpg
Scan of proposed wild trout zone.jpg (362.84 KiB) Viewed 2689 times


In other news, Pequest awaits the NJ Treasury Dept. to get their bid out to build solar roofs over the raceways so that they can finally begin to raise brown trout and possibly brook trout in the future. Brookies and browns raised at Pequest would likely not be stocked in all of the same waters they have been the last 100+ years based on proposed changes outlined above. Anglers are asked to weigh in - pro or con - on the proposed changes I put pictures of above. TU will likely fully support them. As for barbed and barbless, I don't have the slides or notes to go greatly into depth here, but suffice to say the Division showed evidence that trebles and barbs don't have significant impacts on trout mortality, but because anglers feel so strongly about this issue, they are making proposed changes as outlined on the photo above.
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Aldo Leopold
User avatar
Rusty Spinner
 
Posts: 6223
Joined: September 10th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby barkeater on February 26th, 2017, 3:24 pm

Glad to hear about going barbless and Brookies. :D I think even those fishermen who don't like crimped barbs would agree on the Brookies. It seems odd that all of the TCA's in the change area were not included in barbless but I assume this has to do with their being stocked ( examples:Point Mountain and KLG)
User avatar
barkeater
 
Posts: 180
Joined: November 3rd, 2013, 6:33 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby martalus on February 27th, 2017, 9:50 am

It sounds like pretty sensible regulations. Basically, lets protect wild brook trout where we have them, and protect wild browns so they can grow up in streams where there are brown trout but not wild brook trout.
martalus
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: September 11th, 2008, 11:47 am

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Rusty Spinner on February 27th, 2017, 11:26 am

I'll post a link once it's available for anglers to send in their comments to the Division. These proposals and others would go into effect on 1/1/2018 if passed. I do know that they are working on allowing clubs to remain open during the closed spring dates for stocking so that we put less pressure on our No-Kill and TCA sections which are the only larger bodies of water open during those few weeks and when many of our hatches like the Hendricksons have started, the days are warming, and anglers want to be out fishing. I do know the Division needs to determine a legal definition for a club so not every river front owner calls himself/herself a "club". I know TU also requested that Point Mountain TCA and Pequest TCA be converted to No-Kill stretches. We also asked that of the Claremont TCA, but that will now fall under special regs on the upper SBR for wild trout, so we would back off that request. It was nice to see them drop Beaver Brook from the stocked waters list and add it to the WTS list as well as them dropping Parker Brook from the WTS list, both TU requests made by our Trout Regulations Committee and passed unanimously by our State Council last year.
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Aldo Leopold
User avatar
Rusty Spinner
 
Posts: 6223
Joined: September 10th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Rusty Spinner on March 2nd, 2017, 9:30 am

Guess I'm a bit surprised that the Division has proposed the most important regulation changes ever in our state (and many other states where brook trout are native) and only 2 people have commented. Support? No support? Would love to hear what others are thinking. I know the Division really wants to hear from anglers one way or the other and will be directly soliciting comments in the future.
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Aldo Leopold
User avatar
Rusty Spinner
 
Posts: 6223
Joined: September 10th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Pete on March 2nd, 2017, 12:17 pm

Rusty Spinner wrote:Guess I'm a bit surprised that the Division has proposed the most important regulation changes ever in our state (and many other states where brook trout are native) and only 2 people have commented. Support? No support? Would love to hear what others are thinking. I know the Division really wants to hear from anglers one way or the other and will be directly soliciting comments in the future.

There's a brook in my area that's known to have "heritage strain" brook trout, this doesn't protect them.

OK, If I were King...

    1. I'd get rid of that "9 hook point" allowance for any water-body inhabited by trout, char, or salmon. If you must use a treble, one is enough.

    2. "Catch and release all Brook Trout" applied to all streams, not just the ones on a list. If they eventually start stocking Brook Trout again, they could have a list of streams where Brook Trout may be kept (with appropriate size & bag limits).
Pete
 
Posts: 344
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Rusty Spinner on March 2nd, 2017, 12:39 pm

Pete wrote:
Rusty Spinner wrote:Guess I'm a bit surprised that the Division has proposed the most important regulation changes ever in our state (and many other states where brook trout are native) and only 2 people have commented. Support? No support? Would love to hear what others are thinking. I know the Division really wants to hear from anglers one way or the other and will be directly soliciting comments in the future.

There's a brook in my area that's known to have "heritage strain" brook trout, this doesn't protect them.

OK, If I were King...

    1. I'd get rid of that "9 hook point" allowance for any water-body inhabited by trout, char, or salmon. If you must use a treble, one is enough.

    2. "Catch and release all Brook Trout" applied to all streams, not just the ones on a list. If they eventually start stocking Brook Trout again, they could have a list of streams where Brook Trout may be kept (with appropriate size & bag limits).



I think the Fish Committee chair would agree with you, at least on protecting all native brook trout and not just in the "Wild Trout Zone". My NJTU Trout Committee will be meeting to discuss our recommendations from here as we met diligently last year and offered many of the suggestions we see in the proposed regs changes. We plan to meet and offer our recommendations to the state council at the April meeting and then going to the Division with anything we may come up with.
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Aldo Leopold
User avatar
Rusty Spinner
 
Posts: 6223
Joined: September 10th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby barkeater on March 2nd, 2017, 3:43 pm

Fish and Game is trying to arrange presentations on the proposed changes to all the state TU chapters at their chapter meetings. These meetings will give you the opportunity to add your comments and opinions. Check with your local chapter. Jersey Shore Chapter is having their presentation by State Biologist Scott Collenburg with Lisa Barno Chief of Freshwater Fisheries also scheduled to be in attendance. This is in addition to Rich Thomas, State TU Chair who was our scheduled speaker. Our meeting is March 21 7pm at the Firemans Field House in Oakhurst if you live in the area. See our web site for directions (JSTU.org)
User avatar
barkeater
 
Posts: 180
Joined: November 3rd, 2013, 6:33 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Pete on March 2nd, 2017, 6:30 pm

BTW: Re think that map (the DFW has been map challenged before).

If you're going to use Route 287 as an eastern limit.... AND include the Saddle River... you're either going to have to move a river or a highway. :evil:
Pete
 
Posts: 344
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 10:52 am

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Paul N Skill on March 6th, 2017, 12:59 pm

Northern NJ TU has a meeting with members from F&G to discuss this proposal on Wednesday, May 17 at the VFW Hall in Sparta. Meeting starts at 7:30 and the public is welcome to attend.
Trout Bum Wanna Be
User avatar
Paul N Skill
 
Posts: 93
Joined: October 13th, 2008, 4:52 pm
Location: Fredon Twp. Sussex

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby NJAngler on March 8th, 2017, 4:29 pm

Step in the right direction BUT nothing here guarantees access and to me thats a bigger issue. Best guess is that at least 85% of waters listed are on private property. This is something they should work on although Im not sure what can be done to make landowners open their lands to us slob.

Who uses nine hooks for trout???

.
2017 trout total: 53
User avatar
NJAngler
 
Posts: 4335
Joined: September 10th, 2008, 9:50 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Kapfish on March 8th, 2017, 6:02 pm

It all sounds great unfortunately as far as I've seen enforcement is key. It seems like the only people who will take the time to understand and follow these rules are the anglers who most likely already release most trout and hopefully all natives. I always hear how there's only a few CO'S to enforce the rules maybe more money should go to hiring them and less to all the folks that decide which rules won't be enforced.
Shattering the stigma that fly fishing is a gentleman's sport.
Kapfish
 
Posts: 142
Joined: September 12th, 2010, 6:59 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Rusty Spinner on March 8th, 2017, 9:57 pm

Kapfish wrote:It all sounds great unfortunately as far as I've seen enforcement is key. It seems like the only people who will take the time to understand and follow these rules are the anglers who most likely already release most trout and hopefully all natives. I always hear how there's only a few CO'S to enforce the rules maybe more money should go to hiring them and less to all the folks that decide which rules won't be enforced.


The Division hired something like 15 new COs and the first batch are about to come out of the Academy. It takes a few years to hire all of them, get them through the State Police Academy, train them as COs, and then turn them loose in their territories. But at least they can hire now and have already begun the process.
Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Aldo Leopold
User avatar
Rusty Spinner
 
Posts: 6223
Joined: September 10th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: Major wild trout proposed regulations changes

Postby Drossi on March 21st, 2017, 3:59 pm

I love it! I hope it gains enough steam to get passed. I'd be nice to see some additional "names" added to WTS list of protective regulations.
Resident GST a-hole...
"If that amounts to living in a fools paradise..well then don't tell the fool"
D
User avatar
Drossi
 
Posts: 1421
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:20 pm


Return to Issues/Activities/Conservation/TU

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests