Wild Fish? What do you think?

[wildtrout2]

Maurice wrote:
I say stocked and held over more than a year. Perhaps stocked by a club at a very young/small age which is why it developed the eyespot.

The excessive black spots and lack of true red ones leans me toward stocked more than wild. And some of the black spots are taking on redish tones, indicative of stocked trout that have held over. We see this alot in our watershed in the fall. Without the eyespot of course.

Fins are still a little pasty too.

All of the above.

I've never caught a wild brown that didn't have at least some red spots.

 

[csoult]

Good point on the red spots.

 

[3wt7X]

I'm leaning towards wild brown...Nice fish regardless!!! I'd argue it based on the blue spot, red framing on the adipose fin, and I have not seen a stocker to my knowledge with a white tipped anal fin. I don't target stocked fish too often, so I may not be correct about the white tipped anal fin, but that is certainly a trait that many wild browns possess. Also, I've seen plenty of wild trout with an absense of red spots. The 19inch brown that I posted in the photos section was a wild fish. The stream that I took it from has not been stocked with browns for many years, and the last stocking that took place, was a transplant of wild fish from another stream, to supplement the wild population. Some may be familiar with that situation, but I'd prefer not to name that stream.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

wildtrout2 wrote:

Maurice wrote:
I say stocked and held over more than a year. Perhaps stocked by a club at a very young/small age which is why it developed the eyespot.

The excessive black spots and lack of true red ones leans me toward stocked more than wild. And some of the black spots are taking on redish tones, indicative of stocked trout that have held over. We see this alot in our watershed in the fall. Without the eyespot of course.

Fins are still a little pasty too.

All of the above.

I've never caught a wild brown that didn't have at least some red spots.

I have caught a few. Not many but a few.

 

[zerodrag]

I'd say wild

 

[Maurice]

You know I just looked a little closer....that fish is huge! 19"-20"????

Based on the cork of the rod being 7"

I have a more firm belief that its a stockie based on that. A wild fish that big would not display those opaque fins. Its also a female...I believe.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
You know I just looked a little closer....that fish is huge! 19"-20"????

Based on the cork of the rod being 7"

I have a more firm belief that its a stockie based on that. A wild fish that big would not display those opaque fins. Its also a female...I believe.

I would say stocked, but I won't get fooled by the lack of red coloration. There are many wild trout in the Little J w/o red. For a long time I chalked them up to stocked fingerlings. While the fins on that fish are perfect, as Mo says, they are opaque; so that turns the tide for me. There are some wild brown trout in Bowmans, but I don't believe that is one of them. Real nice fish though.

 

[PennKev]

I don't see a problem with the color or opacity of the fins, to be honest. I think if the OP said he caught this fish on Spring or Penns you'd all be gushing about what a great wild fish it is.

 

[pcray1231]

are many wild trout in the Little J w/o red.

LJR fooled me as well, I was humbled a bit on that one. Now that I know they are wild, I still feel they are genetically very similar to the modern PFBC strain of brown trout. Perhaps the population was "seeded" by PFBC fish more recently than in most places.

 

[pcray1231]

I think if the OP said he caught this fish on Spring or Penns you'd all be gushing about what a great wild fish it is.

Quite the opposite. On Spring, especially, I see lots of pictures of supposedly "wild" fish that I suspect are actually hatchery escapees.

 

[tomitrout]

for reference, here's a pic of a big wild brown I caught this summer, from a stream that I've never known to be stocked. She has a great big hole with an undercut bank to call home, shares it with a couple other decent sized browns and a few small brookies.

Very similar appearance to the OP's fish:

 

[PennKev]

pcray1231 wrote:
Quite the opposite. On Spring, especially, I see lots of pictures of supposedly "wild" fish that I suspect are actually hatchery escapees.

My point still stands though, if the OP names the stream in threads like these it influences the opinions of those who respond. Name the stream as an ATW, and you'll get more "stocked" votes. I'm convinced of that. Just as you have your own belief about the fish population in Spring, others have the opinion that wild fish, let alone large wild fish, are very unlikely in ATW's. Thanks to the variables of photography and natural differences in the appearance of fish, the responders can easily see whatever it is they already believe.

Kev

 

[Swattie87]

PennKev wrote:
I think if the OP said he caught this fish on Spring or Penns you'd all be gushing about what a great wild fish it is.

Agreed, but that would be because Spring and Penns have a much stronger wild population than Bowmans, hence the probabilty of running into a large wild fish in Spring or Penns is higher than that on Bowmans.

Conversely, if this same fish was caught in the Wissahickon or some other extremely marginal ATW, there wouldn't be anyone claiming it to be a wild fish.

Where the fish was caught should play a role when discussing whether it is wild or strocked, especially on a visually 50/50 fence sitter fish like this. It is very possible this fish is wild (and I certainly don't know for sure), but the fact that it was caught in a stream with relatively limited (if any) natural repro in its main stem is a piece of evidence that should be considered. Could it be wild, sure...could it have migrated out of a trib, sure...but is that more likely than a stocker holdover? I'm not so sure about that on this creek.

The bottom line is these are fun discussions, but we'll never know for sure in most cases. The misidentification of wilds as fingerlings on the Little J being the prime example...if they're in the stream long enough, they all look wild, and are wild really. It's a great catch either way...either it's wild, or Bowmans had the capability to hold it over to grow to this size and color up to this degree...both scenarios speak well of Bowmans in this regard.

 

[pcray1231]

Very similar appearance to the OP's fish

Fins have much sharper edges, and are more transparant than the OP's fish. While photography may have washed out some of the red spots on the OP's fish, your fish absolutely has red spots. I agree there's more black and less red than usual, but I'd absolutely say your fish is wild without batting an eye. Every indicator says wild.

But the OP's fish, I'm still not sure either way. Has some indicators each way.

My point still stands though, if the OP names the stream in threads like these it influences the opinions of those who respond.

Of course it does, as it should. Some fish are obvious either way without the stream name. But on tweeners, yeah, absolutely the background of the fishery is going to improve your accuracy on such a call. Nobody's claiming to be 100% correct, we're merely taking our best guess. There are all kinds of indicators, but location is DEFINITELY one of them.

In this case, ATW with little or no wild reproduction, but with numerous wild tribs, increases the chances of a few holding over as well as the chances of there being a few wilds. If anything, this is a case where location doesn't tell you much. Add to that the competing indicators, and that's why we're all on the fence.

As Swattie said, it makes no difference in the end, beyond curiosity. It's a nice fish, period.

 

[FarmerDave]

What do I think? I think it'd too bad that it isn't a brook trout.;-)

Nice fish and wild enough for me.

 

[csoult]

Fish with almost exact same characteristics as OP, no spot, but sharper fins. Almost certain it is stocked. Either way I was thrilled to catch him even though he was in a brookie stream.

 

[jayL]

Nice fish. IMO it came from a hatchery.

 

[troutbert]

tomitrout wrote:
for reference, here's a pic of a big wild brown I caught this summer, from a stream that I've never known to be stocked. She has a great big hole with an undercut bank to call home, shares it with a couple other decent sized browns and a few small brookies.

Very similar appearance to the OP's fish:

If I were forced to bet money on it, I'd bet that this fish is wild, and that the one in the OP was stocked.

 

[Chaz]

Curious that Bowmans isn't on the Nat. Repro List, it has wild brookies in several year classes.
As for the fish, it's a beauty, but probably stocked judging by the rough fins.

 

[henrydavid]

I've caught several wild browns in Bowmans, it should be on the Natural Repro List. None of mine have been much over 7-inches.