21# Wilson broodstock Fish taken

Fishin Magician · 12-03-2000, 01:57 PM

I saw a picture yesterday of a 21# broodstock fish taken below mills bridge on Monday. Congratulations to the dude that caught it but it sort of saddened me to see it taken out of the river. The fish in my eyes was a true native except it was missing a fin or two. My first thought when I saw the picture was what a beautiful fish then I thought why did that fish have to be taken?????? What are you're opinions on this matter ladies and gentleman?? I cannot understand why these fish have to be clipped. Why not run the program as it has been working but instead of clipping the smolts before release leave them intact. Are we creating a loophole in the law by clipping natives so they can be caught and kept or is there another reason??? I would like to see tons of "natives" in our rivers and I wouldn't mind having to release every one of them. Please bring on the comments I want to hear if I am the only one who feels this way- John

newt · 12-03-2000, 02:38 PM

I here what your saying but I believe the reason for the fin clips is to have an identifiable way to see if the program is working. A lot of work goes into broodstock programs not just on the Wilson but other rivers too.

Fin clipping, short of trapping and checking evry fish in the river, is the only viable way to see results. And results are necessary for a program to continue.

Make sense?

RichH · 12-03-2000, 03:51 PM

I guess it depends on your opinion as to why have such a program in the first place. If the idea is to create a "hatchery"program using native stock, catch and kill. If you want to supplement the wild fish only, c & r.
I kind of like the idea of replacing existing hatchery stock with native stock so we can eliminate the majority of the arguments against hatchery activities. This seems mighty early for a broodstock fish. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

------------------
Rich H

12-03-2000, 04:09 PM

I understand your above sentiment John but I have to point out a contradiction you have made here (no big deal though). When we had a debate some time ago about the broodstock program you posted they should have enough of them clipped so as to be able to harvest a percentage of them. I replied under that post thread that I agreed with you that a viable % should be adipose clipped for harvest availability and a proper % either left unclipped or ventral clipped, for program acct. purposes, leaving the adipose in place for C&R only as with the nates. That will serve both purposes of enabling us to keep fishing with minmal harvest (I believe in a 1 fish limit in that scenario) and to give a valuable kick start to native recovery; which these fish will be genetically, with ability to spawn naturally upon return to the river.

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

Amerman · 12-03-2000, 05:39 PM

I would love to believe the story is true, but I find it hard to believe we could possibly have a returning broodstock fish already get to 21#. The fish that are returning to the Wilson this year from the broodstock program will be a maximum of 3 years old, and I do not believe that a fish could get to that size in that short of time. It is more likely an attempt by the sporting good stores to get people excited about fishing.
Let me say that these returning broodstock fish are not native fish that have had their fins cut off. These fish are born and raised in a hatchery ( true their parents were native fish). They were planted in the river to give people the opportunity to catch them. Hopefully once they have proven they can return and that the program works, we can replace the current hatchery stock with this one. But like all hatchery fish, there is no proof that these fish will spawn in the wild. Also, if we did not clip there fins, there would be no way of telling if a returning fish was a wild fish or one of these hatchery fish.

I think where people are getting confused is by thinking we are doing this program to save the wild fish. We are doing this program to get a better genetic stock of hatchery fish. Hopefully these fish will not interfere with the current native stock and possibly enhance it.

Fishin Magician · 12-03-2000, 06:44 PM

Steve- You are right as to my opinion on the percentage of fish that would be clipped down the road once runs were confirmed to have increased,What I didnt clarify is that to see a Broodstock fish taken "now" was upsetting.

Scott-Stop in to see Keith, it was a LV clip, so unless it was a stray from another river I would have to believe the picture. They are LV clipped...Right? Last year I got a 17# LV clipped buck below Donaldsons in January. I am in favor of the program but I tend to be conservative when dealing with native strain fish,I want to see the right thing done.
Thanks guys_John

[This message has been edited by Fishin Magician (edited 12-03-2000).]

Mike H · 12-03-2000, 09:11 PM

Right on Amerman! I agree with 100% of your post. I couldn't have said it better. Keep up the great posts!

Mike H

fishon · 12-03-2000, 10:13 PM

Can somebody please tell me what broodstock steelhead are? Thanks.

Sand Shrimp · 12-03-2000, 10:28 PM

I have seen steelhead caught in the fall that have the same fin clip as the broodstock fish and I have talked to other fisherman who have said they have seen the same thing for years. I don't know where these fish come from, maybe they are strays from another river but from what I've heard they show up consistantly around the same time of year.I was with Wog when he caught one last September. Has anyone else seen these fish? Even if that 21lb steelhead was a native broodstock fish I don't see anything wrong with keeping a fish that is fin clipped and raised in a hatchery , 20lb hatchery fish are rare and I think most people on this board would have kept that fish also.