FYI - wild trout ID

Dear Maurice,

I can't figure out what is so hard for people to understand about this topic?

If they really believe that trout can regrow fins that were reduced to tadpole like nubbins while rubbing in a concrete raceway then maybe they need to do some investigating the regrowth of limbs after industrial accidents? There are lots of success stories there!

A ripped or similarly damaged fin may, and I repeat, may grow back. But a fin that was reduced to rubble will forever remain rubble.

Big John you killed and ate a lot of wild trout coming up, that's the only fair way to put it. I don't blame you for it and I won't chastize you for it either, but you have to admit to what you did. :-D

Regards,
Tim Murphy :)
 
Tim

I believe that most "crippled" fins are the result of birth defects rather than from raceway rearing. Numerous fish at the fingerling age when we get them have mangled pectoral fins. Conversely, the vast majority have perfect fins in shape but the opacity from genetics and nutrition are opaque.

Now raggedness and honed caudal fins are typical of large fish raised in concrete raceways. We have a handful of near 2 year old brookies that have perfet fins and tremendous color this fall. They are 14"- 16" and near 2 lbs. One has a pectoral fin that is completely gone. Just a nub the size of a pea. We've had that fish for over a year...no regrowth. All the other fins are perfect in form but opaque. Red or orange but opaque. Its weird, one fish has pink underflanks and one had bright orange. Definitely pretty fish.
 
Check out the Photos sections of this site for wild trout ID:

Go to "photos" > "fish" > "Page 5"

Dave Kile "various fish"
# 11 - Stocked
# 12 - Stocked
> Page 6
# 13 - Wild (red spots & blue eye spot)
# 14 - Wild "
# 16 - Wild "

What do you think?
 
The two passes for the stream survey and the fin clipping on the first pass allow the commission to use the capture-recapture statistical technique to estimate the true population of trout in the stream.

Lets say you capture and mark (fin clip) 100 fish on the first pass, the next day you do a second pass and capture 80 fish. You find that 30 of the 80 have the fresh fin clip from the day before. So the marked fish represent 37.5% of the total population (30/80), and the estimate of the total population is 100 (the # of marked fish) divided by 0.375 (the fraction of fish found marked in the second survey) equals 267 fish on this section of stream.

One can add some more sophisticated modeling to account for departures from certain assumptions of the methodology, but that is the basic technique.
 
albatross wrote:
.... Lets say you capture and mark (fin clip) 100 fish on the first pass, the next day you do a second pass and capture 80 fish. You find that 30 of the 80 have the fresh fin clip from the day before. So the marked fish represent 37.5% of the total population (30/80), and the estimate of the total population is 100 (the # of marked fish) divided by 0.375 (the fraction of fish found marked in the second survey) equals 267 fish on this section of stream.
Click to expand...

No offense, but-- huh? :-(
 
Fishinado....I agree.

BTW, I think we need to find an avatar for you of a trout standing with a James Brown haircut...

Ooouuwwll! I feel guuud.....
 
No offense taken...

I'm a practicing statistician and I just couldn't resist explaining why they do the two pass survey and mark the fish on the first pass.
 
Jack,

I agree with a resounding huh? I would gather that 150 different fish were captured in the two day survey. But I guess there is some statistical mumbo-jumbo about the reduced presence of fish and why the new fish were not there the first day.

Is that correct?

Math-challenged Moe. :lol:
 
The capture-recapture method allows one to estimate the total population of fish in a stream section. It wouldn't be necessary if there were a reliable method of counting every fish in the section. Since even electro-shock methods don't get every fish (just a sample of the fish present), it is necessary to use the capture-recapture method.
 
Well I hardly ever kept a brownie...about 99% of them were rainbows. Yes there are wild trout all through Fishing Creek but the water quality from the first bridge in Mill Hall down to Bald Eagle Creek is not the best quality of water for wild browns. There just are not that many wild ones through that portion of the stream but I know there are some and there are tons of stockies left. You still have a 50/50 chance of catching a rainbow or a brown and if you people are going by the color of the fish then probably 80% of the ones below the first bridge in Mill Hall look like a stockie in color. They will lack the yellow for the most part and be a pale white but that does not mean necessarily they are a stocked trout. When have they ever electroshocked in Mill Hall? I know they have around the environmental center in Mackeyville but thats all wild trout out there. If they ever do I'd love to go along and help/watch. Fishing Creek wouldn't have to be stocked if it wouldn't be for stupid people who complain that there would be no fish if they didn't. Its all the opening day catch your limit and leave type of people that keep that stream being stocked. Around the Mill Hall area there are a lot of catch and takers not catch and releasers. They talk every year about cutting the one portion out of the stocking program and the amount they now stock in that portion is a joke but due to fishing pressure Fishing Creek continues to get stocked year after year after year...it wouldn't have to be if managed right but oh well what can ya do?
 
I caught these trout in a waterway that is unstocked. Really I just wanted to post my pics of stream bred fish.
 
South paw....Nice fat fish.

Maurice
 
Albatros,
I understand your explanation but This also illustrates the problem with using the capture re-capture method. The way it is used allows fish to move into the survey section when the captured fish move out, and they do move out. I think that a better way to estimate fish populations is needed , but I don't know what that might be.
 
Trout number 1 is a wild one by my estimate, note blue eye spot, red edge of adipose fin, and overall body shape and fin condition.

Trout number 2 is most definitely a stocker(chubby and fin damaged), but a fairly rare one, a tiger trout. A cross between a Brook and Brown.
 
this guy is def wild ----- saucon brown, noticeable "blue dot" behind eye.


WildBrown-SauconCreek.jpg
 
Flyman,
What trout are you looking at?

They were talking about trout 11 thru 16 minus 15 ( which is a rainbow) Now i'm confused. There were no tigers in that lot.
What (or where) are:

"trout number 1"
and
"trout number 2" ?
 
tomgamber wrote:
Flyman,
What trout are you looking at?

They were talking about trout 11 thru 16 minus 15 ( which is a rainbow) Now i'm confused. There were no tigers in that lot.
What (or where) are:

"trout number 1"
and
"trout number 2" ?
Click to expand...

Tom,

Post # 6 of Page one of this thread posted by Heritage-Angler....it was a while ago.
 
I have been reading this with extreme interest (trout biology&habitat is so interesting) fishing the Yellow breeches regularly and also helping stock alot i have been finding a large number of trout that were def not club stocked young and perfect fins now we had an extremely low water summer with poor conditions temperature wise how is this possible !?I caught a 18 inch brownie saturday that i can almost swear to was streambred does anyone have any info on this subject regarding the yellow breeches!?

S,
 
Salvi1
It's possible the fish you're seeing in the Breeches are wild but I think it's very unlikely. I will confess that I rarely fish the upper Breeches where I think the chances are better for wild fish. Down around the special reg area near Boiling Springs all the fish are stocked to my knowledge. Ive been fishing that section for over 25 years and have never caught what I thought was a wild fish. In the Letort and Falling Springs where wild fish predominate, I get lots of small fish - under 6 inches. I never get those in YB. The fish in YB can and do hold over and the browns look pretty good with good fins and nice color in the fall. I'm convinced they're all stockies though.
 
Salvi,

I've caught wild trout in the golden mile. not many, two to be exact. Both below the Allenberry.

I believe the likely hood the fish you are catching under 7" being wildies is pretty good. The year I caught the two I got was the first year after they stopped the state stocking at the C&R area. The trout pops dropped and so did the water. Wild trout will demonstrate a survival instinct than stocked trout when the going get tough. Plus the small ones can get away with it better because of their size.

I'd like to see a picture of the 18"er before I'd say that one is wild. As they say..."that'd be a trout of a different color"

Maurice

Here is a trout I caught in the Golden Mile last week...Wild or stocked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top