Wild Fish? What do you think?

[afishinado]

There are wild browns in the lower sections and wild brookies in the upper. The flood last month was epic, though. I'm sure the fish survived, but I wouldn't be surprised if the population took a big hit. Here are some photos of the area near the headwaters.

 

[afishinado]

Chaz wrote:
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.

FYI, I checked, Bowman's IS on the nat repro list, headwaters to mouth (as it should be).

 

[pcray1231]

ok, sorry about that, I missed it on my scan through. Afish, that pic is a little scary, that bank doesn't look stable enough to have a car on it!

 

[Chaz]

There are plenty of wild browns around that don't have red spots, the Loch Leven Browns are a good example.

 

[BowmansBum]

Original poster here. Thanks for the lively dialogue, this is a great conversation. I live near Bowmans and have not been up in the game lands toward the headwaters since the flooding. Afish's photos are unreal, the lower fly section was hit really bad but the blowout up top looks horrible. I'm assuming the photos were taken up along the railroad grade. The creek was never one to get really turbid when it rains but not it seems any rain now turns in muddy quick. Any ideas on how long it takes to get back to normal, if ever?

 

[wildtrout2]

Chaz wrote:
There are plenty of wild browns around that don't have red spots, the Loch Leven Browns are a good example.

Do you have any pics of said trout to share with us? I've gone through my albums of wild trout pics (many) and can't find a single brown without some kind of red spots.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Do you have any pics of said trout to share with us? I've gone through my albums of wild trout pics (many) and can't find a single brown without some kind of red spots.

Red on tail and adipose but no spots

 

[wildtrout2]

Stocker! I kid. lol Thanks for the pic.

 

[jayL]

wildtrout2 wrote:

Chaz wrote:
There are plenty of wild browns around that don't have red spots, the Loch Leven Browns are a good example.

Do you have any pics of said trout to share with us? I've gone through my albums of wild trout pics (many) and can't find a single brown without some kind of red spots.

Here's a bunch of loch levens with no red spots. All wild.

I see far fewer of these in PA, but they do exist.

http://www.headhuntersflyshop.com/fishreport.php/report/?paged=18

 

[pcray1231]

I catch a few wilds with no red.

It's an indicator, as most stockers don't and most wild fish have some red. But it's far from being telling evidence, there are numerous exceptions on both sides.

Same is true of all of the other indicators. Red adipose, eye spot, sharp vs. frayed fins, clarity of the fins, etc. Even location. None of them are slam dunks on their own, but they're all valid indicators. The best you can do is take them all into account. If they all say stocked, or even almost all of them, well, 99% of the time the fish is gonna be stocked. If they all say wild, 99% of the time that fish is wild. But you're still left with a few odd balls who have some indicators each way, and you can still guess, but you're going to be less sure of your guess. That's where I'm at with the OP's fish.

Spot pattern, opague fins, and frayed fins of a stocker. Blue eye spot, red adipose, deep gold color of a wild. Location doesn't help either way, both are possible in the water.

My call is still holdover, but I'm not real sure of it.

 

[Troutbum82]

Id say its a long time hold over ... I have spent years upon years chasing browns and alot of the longtime hold overs are almost impossible to tell apart from wild fish. Sometimes the fish commission has to resort to dna test to determine origin of browns. I say hold over because i have caught several hold overs that look identical to that. As pcray pointed out the lack of red and the small imperfections of the fins point towards hold over but then again every fish is its own individual. Regardless of origin its a beautiful fish. Congrats

 

[Chaz]

WT2, I'm sure I do, but I don't make a habit of taking pictures of browns unless they are special. On the other hand if you were to fish in the Perkiomen Drainage, you'll find to very different looking strains(?) of wild browns, one your typical buttery belly brown with dark lines on the fins and red spots, the other with very large black spots, that are very silvery, and have no red spots. The silvery fish are uncommon but they are there.
If any of the Loch Leven fish are still in the LeTort you'll find large spotted rbowns with no red spots there.

 

[wildtrout2]

Thanks guys, I'm a believer.

 

[Chaz]

One explanation of the various colorations of fish caught can be explained by human meddling in the genetics of fish. When you breed fish for certain characteristics other characteristics are brought forth. For instance if you want trout to grow fast in a hatchery environment you start selecting for that by finding the fish that are the biggest every year and start breeding them.
After only a few generations other characteristics start coming out along with the fast growth. It may be large spots, or no red spots, maybe no lines on the fins, or a more silvery appearance. Along with that over the years, many different browns were imported to enhance the hatchery product. So even in wild populations some of those fishes characteristics will be brought out. That’s why, in a short explanation, why we have such a wild spectrum of the appearance of wild and stocked browns in PA and the US.

 

[stevehalupka]

far away fingerling... nice fish, I would consider "wild". no arbitrary line when it comes to a fish feeding on natural aquatic species.

 

[mutzinbaugh]

my vote would be wild. it looks right like the wild ones we pick up on the penns creek.