Hatchery or wild?

LBC

nymphing beads with a spey pole.
#18
100% a bonkable fish. If the dorsal fin looks all curled over and f'd up and a partial clipped adipose.. I would definitely club it.
 

Smalma

Active Member
#19
The conditionof the dorsal fin can be a pretty reliable indicator of whether a fish is a hatchery fish or not - though even with a completely missing dorsal fin if it is not missing that adipose or ventral fin legally for the angler it is not considered a hatchery fish (by fishing rule definition).

Those deformed are caused by nipping by their mat. Hatchery fish that raised in concrete raceways (with high fish density) generally have pretty messed up dorsal fins and pretty easy to identify. The mount of deformity will range from fins that are completely missing to fins that are obviously deformed to fins that have bend fin rays to fins, etc. The fish raised in large ponds with their lower fish densities tend to have better looking fins. But even there the degree of deformity is often noticable.

For those that interested in this topic the next time you get a chance to look at some wild fish take a close look at the dorsal fin and notice how straight the fin rays look and the over all "cleaness" of overall appearance. Finally take a close look at the very back edge of the fin and note how the insert of the last fin ray looks as it enters the body of the fish. It will enter with a nice clean angle. A hatchery dorsal fins that otherwise prefect looking dorsal fin that last fin ray insert will rounded. Pretty common for the hatchery fish to missing the last fin ray or two. The result is that there will be a small bump where that fin was giving it that rounded appearance at that posterior dorsal fin insert - this is a very good hatchery "tell".

curt
 

Cruik

Active Member
#25
Finally take a close look at the very back edge of the fin and note how the insert of the last fin ray looks as it enters the body of the fish. It will enter with a nice clean angle. A hatchery dorsal fins that otherwise prefect looking dorsal fin that last fin ray insert will rounded. Pretty common for the hatchery fish to missing the last fin ray or two. The result is that there will be a small bump where that fin was giving it that rounded appearance at that posterior dorsal fin insert - this is a very good hatchery "tell".

curt
Woah. I didn't realize this part. Now that I look back on my pictures of wild vs. hatchery, you're totally right. I had always noticed that towards the end of the fin, even the most intact hatchery dorsals were bent, but I didn't look at the base of the fin. Do you happen to know if this holds true for the Quinalt or Queets hatchery fish that don't have the adipose clipped?
 

Smalma

Active Member
#26
Cruik -
I have not looked at either the Quinault or Queets fish but it has held on every run of hatchery fish that I have looked at here in Puget Sound.

While it is possible that a hatchery fish would not have that "rounded" insert it is extremely unlikely that a wild fish would have such an insert.

curt
 

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#28
Not much of a singer or a churchgoer. I do however like to make decisions based on science when possible. Science is clear on this one. If it were a church it'd be faith based by definition, so your little shot at me falls flat on it's face again.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#29
There isn't a good reason to release a hatchery fish. There are plenty of misguided/bad reasons.

Charles is right. If you can positivley ID it--Kill it. Every time.
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#30
Not much of a singer or a churchgoer. I do however like to make decisions based on science when possible. Science is clear on this one. If it were a church it'd be faith based by definition, so your little shot at me falls flat on it's face again.

Go Sox,
cds
You guys crack me up. You act as if you invented this argument and the science behind your cause is as sound as Newtons Laws. Well, I hate to shatter your day, but there are plenty of us who have been involved with the save the wild fish for a good long time -- and many of the current arguments being made have fallen flat. I have discussed my specific involvement in this subject in prior threads, in case you care to look. And, as someone who's profession is in the sciences, has seen plenty of contradicting data on this subject over the years, and chooses not to simply discount the significant, poorly understood variables that will no doubt effect how this will play out, rest assured it is not as sound as Newtons Laws.

Utopia would be to end all hatcheries and have rivers flush with wild stock...most, I think, agree. But to simply say stop hatcheries, kill off all remaining remnants of non-wild fish, perhaps stop fishing altogether, and assume the stocks will rebuild is naive at best. Remember, the same poorly understood variables (migratory routes, high seas catch, cyclic weather events, habitat) that have contributed to the lack of success attaining the goal are still there...and worse yet, dynamic.

I'm in favor of selecting several of our rivers as pilot projects, that have the best returning number of wild stock, and stopping hatchery production, stopping tribal netting, and closing the river to fishing for a long enough period of time to see if stocks will rebuild.

Since politics and people (some could argue still poorly understood) are yet another pair of variables in this discussion, finding some compromise a majority can get behind is likely to get more traction than the "stop all hatcheries and kill off all hatchery fish" approach.