Clipped or Not

[OneLastCast]

Last weekend we were fishing out of Garibaldi for those fine ocean silvers and chinooks. We caught two silvers that still had a portion of the adipose left. It was obvious that the fin had been clipped but only the front two thirds. Rather than take a chance with the game wardens we let both go. Luckily we didn't need them.
Could we have kept them? Does any portion of the adipose remaining mean a ticket?

OneLastCast

[Lo-Pro16]

OneLastCast

I had the exact same problem while fishing for the springers below bonneville. Everyone I asked along the bank had different answers. I personally went to the Washington Game Departments regional office on Grand Blvd to get the facts. I told them that I had caught a couple of springers with over 1/2 the adipose fin removed (smooth and healed over) with just a little tip of it remaining, and I even drew them a picture. Their response was that these were bad finned clip fish, but still finned clipped and legal. By the way, like you I had released them. I had to be sure though.

[24 on/ 48 off]

That was very sportsman-like of both of you. Why take chances? I think y'all did the right thing.

--spud-- :smile:

[Hawgwash]

I agree you all made the right move as did I last week. I asked the ODFW guy at the Hammonds boat ramp last week about this and he stated that the entire fin must be gone or its a violation. He told me to read the regs, so here it is on page 7.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Regulations/2002_General.pdf

With so many fish available why take a chance!?

:smile:

[OneLastCast]

Thanks Hawgwash:

I think the key words on page 7 are "...in its entirety"

OneLastCast

[NEUTRON]

Hey spud, what's your bosses #?

[24 on/ 48 off]

hehe.

--spud-- :cool:

[Hogmaster]

Interesting that it appears Or and WA don't show consistency on this point.

We too, caught a really nice silver last Sunday that had a partial and obviously healed adipose. I had read somewhere and understood that the rule was that there could be no semblence of an adipose. So we tossed it back.

Now here's something to ponder - We launched in Chinook WA, but used our Oregon tags. If we had bought WA tags it sounds like we could have retained that fish. But with Oregon tags but landing in WA (which ordinarily is legal) what would happen in this situation?

If we were out, retained the fish and then got checked in the ocean by OSP would we have been illegal even though we launched in WA?

Sure, there were tons of fish so it didn't really matter for that trip. But it is too bad the two states can't agree on a fundamental issue of what is a fin clipped salmon... :depressed:

[ 07-12-2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[Hogmaster]

Lo-Pro -

Did you get the names of the folks you talked to in WA? Might be worth it to get a WA license for the Columbia if the rule is different.

After all, they ARE hatchery fish and they SHOULD be taken.

Seems that Oregon is trying to take the easy way out because they think there may be some subjectivity involved. WA seems to be applying the reasonable logic to the issue.

It was pretty obvious on the partial that we had that it was a hatchery "miss".

[Lo-Pro16]

Hogmaster

I'm sorry I did not think to get the ladys name, but I will e-mail the Washington State Game Dept. with this question and post their response to it as soon as they reply. The Washington regs state that "Wild coho may not be kept. Hatchery coho are identified by a missing adipose or ventral fin and a healed scar in the location of the missing fin."

As you can see the Wa. regs are not quite as cut and dry like the Ore. regs with the in its entirety language. It might take a couple of days but I will get us an answer, we deserve to know.

[Oncorhynchus]

This may be too late but I have talked to a number of OSP troopers and asked them this question and their basic answer was its a judgement call. They advised me to release the fish, but if it was an obvious misclip I would not be cited. I can understand why Oregon's regs read the way they do, I'm sure there's a few people out there who could easily take advantage of the situation. With all the fish available I guess its just safer to release the fish and get a bigger one!

[Hogmaster]

Not too late, but if you read the reports from the last few days, suddenly finding lots of fish HAS been an issue, and if WA truly does interpet things differently it might be good to know. WA salmon tags aren't real expensive after all.

Again, I am not suggesting that it is appropriate to in any way alter an adipose. That would be obvious anyway. But in the case of a partial clip where it is obviously a hatchery fish, we should be "taking" those fish, shouldn't we?

Lo-Pro, still waiting for the results of your research...

[ 07-16-2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[Lo-Pro16]

Hogmaster

I wrote the WDFW and am still waiting for an answer, will post as soon as they reply. I agree that there are plenty of Coho, but I sure hate to release a Springer, which are very hard to come by, if I don't have to.

[Pitch Pocket]

If an adipose fin is clipped at all and completely healed, I'm keeping it.

I think it is a ridiculous point as to whether the thing has to be completely gone. Clipping a fin on a fingerling is not brain surgery, it is done quickly and enmass. If they leave a tag, it is still a hatchery fish and still clipped.

If a mountie wants to get snotty about it, then he was probably in a bad mood anyway. If a partially clipped adipose fin case got to court, I can't imagine it being upheld, even if you mail in your plea.

I say keep it, and be respectful but assertive with the fish cop if he gives you guff about it. Logic, rather than surgical aptitude of a volunteer fin clipper, should prevail.

[Lo-Pro16]

Ifish Community,

I sent e-mails to both the Washington State Departments of Program Fish Management and Enforcement Offices on clipped vs wild salmon identification and they both replied back to me. Here is the text of my e-mail and their responses.

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

I am a Washington resident and licensed angler. I have a question about distinguishing wild versus hatchery salmon. Earlier this year while fishing for spring Chinook salmon below Bonneville Dam on the Washington side of the river, I hooked two spring salmon that I released that appeared to be hatchery fish. Both had over ½ the adipose fin removed with a healed over scar, but had a little tip or nub left. Everyone on the bank I talked to did not know what the law was. I hooked one of the Springer's while there was a fish checker present, but he would not give me a ruling either way and said I would have to make the determination. I know what the law states in the fishing pamphlet "Wild Coho may not be kept. Hatchery Coho are identified by a missing adipose or ventral fin and a healed scar in the location of the missing fin." The next day I decided to go to the Regional office on Grand Blvd. and get the facts. The first lady behind the desk didn't know so she got another lady who was the so called expert. She was very nice and I explained and also drew her a picture of what I was talking about. She said that what I told her were examples of bad fin clips at the hatchery and they were hatchery fish and legal. My question is? Does the adipose fin have to be missing in its entirety, like the ODW pamphlet reads, or is it a legal fish (hatchery) when ½ or more of the fin is missing with a healed over scar. Which is a bad finned clipped like the lady at the game department told me.

Thank you,
Sonny Elkinton


Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Enforcement Program.

Actually, there is no rule regarding the half-clipped adipose fin scenario you experienced. Unfortunately, what may appear as hatchery fish, could possibly be a wild fish with a bad injury. If there's any doubt, I would put the fish back. I would always border on the safe side.

Of course, the reality of this happening again is remote. Very seldom are those fish caught. Considering the thousands of fish clipped, bad fin-clipped fish are a very low percentage (maybe 3%). In the case where you caught those two spring Chinook with the missing adipose and healed scar, those were legal. The small "nip" as you describe, is the crest, or peak, of the actual hatchery cut when the fin was removed. What the lady at the regional office explained is correct.

I know it's hard to make that the determination. I was placed in the same scenario a long time ago and I put the fish back as well.

If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate and send us another e-mail.

Enforcement Program
7/26/02

Dear Mr. Elkington:

Thnak you for your inquiry correspondence to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Program, regarding identification of hatchery fish.

The rule states a missing fin with a healed scar. Although this technically means the entire fin is missing, an Officer has the latitude to determine if the fish is a hatchery fish with a poorly clipped fin (I am sure a "nub" would be deemed to be a hatchery fish; Oregon's "one-half or more" simply changes the discretion level, and does not add much to the question of how poorly the fin was clipped). As always, we cannot evaluate a field identification from a desk in Olympia, but I hope this is of some help.

Sincerely,
Evan Jacoby, Counsel
Fish and Wildlife Legal Services
(360) 902-2930

[Hogmaster]

Thanks, Lo-Pro, for the feedback from the state officials.

Unfortunately, it leaves things somewhat unclear yet. In Oregon it seems those fish must go back. In Washington, they may or may not have to go back.

And my question still remains - the states are supposed to be sharing cooperative regs on the Columbia. If I buy a Washington tag but am an Oregon resident and get checked by an OSP game officer with a partially clipped fish on that Washington tag, will he cite me anyway? Sheesh!

And for them to suggest it is a "rare" event and then admit that 3% have bad clips is kinda' ridiculous. That is 3 fish for every 100, or at Buoy 10, 30 fish for every 1000. That is the potential for 30 tickets on every day in August I'd say.

Jenn - Maybe this needs to be added to the fish economics issue!

[ 07-28-2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[wetaline]

I'll call BS on the 3% statistic.... I bet we've had 5 mis-clipped fish for our boat alone between spring and summer fish already. Doing a little math that means i should have close to 166 nooki's and steeli's to the boat this year so far - which I'd estimate to be close to double the actual number (80 or so). Which means our boats mis-clip ratio is closer to 6% or double what they've estimated...

Either way they need make a decision on mis-clipps... and to say it was some freak accident that only affected part of one fin in the wild is ridiculous.

We’ve always kept mis-clipps and have never been had any trouble w/ the checkers.

[wetaline]

OK after further thought - my numbers would include wild fish and hatchery fish in the sample... so I imagine the 3% would be for Hatchery fish only - which means the equation gets somewhat more complicated than i want to deal with at the moment... but for quick thought, if half of the fish we caught were natives then you can again double the figure... meaning 12% of the hatchery fish we've caught so far this year have had mis-clipped fins.

[Hogmaster]

I suspect you're right, wetaline. It seems I have seen a fair number more (and heard of more) misclips than 3%.

Have you been checked in Oregon? By just checkers or has an OSP officer ever done the checking?

I still see it as a shame that we are returning fish designated for harvest. An adipose fin deformity on a wild fish? I don't think so...

Even if there was, it should be removed from the gene pool anyway!

[ 07-29-2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]