When Does A Stocker Trout....

[laker67]

Yeah, I don't think they can ever be truly wild. But they can begin to act almost totally wild I think, so I its not a big deal to me... A trout stocked a year ago in the Eleven Point is the same to me as a wild trout in the Little Piney. Just my take.

I am not trying to start something here, just using OTF's quote as reference. Some say a "hatchery raised" trout can never truly be wild, but develop some of the instincts of a wild trout. Then you refer to a "wild trout" in the Piney or Crane. Those "wild trout" are the offspring of hatchery raised trout that were stocked in the creek.

[ozark trout fisher]

I am not trying to start something here, just using OTF's quote as reference. Some say a "hatchery raised" trout can never truly be wild, but develop some of the instincts of a wild trout. Then you refer to a "wild trout" in the Piney or Crane. Those "wild trout" are the offspring of hatchery raised trout that were stocked in the creek.

That's true. They're not native, but personally I would call them wild, because they are stream-born. Some don't ever call a hatchery fish wild, and I understand that opinion too. Maybe stream-born, or self-sustaining would be a better way to put it. I don't know.

Like I said earlier, its not that big of a deal to me whether its a resident fish, or a truly wild trout. After a while, a resident fish doesn't look or act like a silver bullet, so it just doesn't matter to me.

[smallmouth61]

I would say never. if something is put there by a man I don't see it as wild. That is only my take though. I think a trout is wild only when it is born in the wild stream itself.

[Al Agnew]

So I'm standing in the middle of the Yellowstone River this evening, catching whitefish after whitefish and thinking about this question after reading it this morning. And I'm thinking that I get the same sense of accomplishment--or lack of accomplishment--catching whitefish out of the Yellowstone as I do catching those dirty silver nubbly-finned soft-sided raw-nosed obvious hatchery trout around Tan Vat. And when I catch a nicely-colored pretty-finned rainbow from the upper Current that actually jumps more than a foot out of the water a couple of times and makes a real run or two instead of just twisting around on the surface like a channel cat before giving up, I just feel like I've caught something worthwhile. And when I caught the two 14 inch rainbows this afternoon amongst all the whitefish--and I knew immediately they were rainbows because there wasn't the throbbing weight on the line but instead when I set the hook the rod tip dipped so quickly I nearly lost my grip and then the fish came three feet out of the water--I felt like I'd REALLY caught something worthwhile.

But...those rainbows, while certainly wild by any definition of the term, are not native to the Yellowstone, and the whitefish are. No trout is native to Missouri, but some were born in the stream, and a few were born of many previous generations that were born in the stream. And others were born in a hatchery but have lived in the river long enough to be adapted beautifully to their surroundings and to have lost all visible traces of their hatchery beginnings.

It's all a continuum. From the fish that was released from the truck yesterday, to the fish whose ancestors have been living in the river for a hundred years, and everything in between. I don't think there's any definition that everybody would agree upon. I think that it's up to you to define "wild" and decide what value you place on the fish you catch.

Here's a somewhat related question...does it disappoint you to catch fish that have obvious fresh hook scars around their mouths? Healed torn-off maxillaries? Sometimes it disappoints me...I guess I'd like to think I was the first one to catch that fish.

And what about the biologists clipping fins? I once fished the Salmon River in Idaho for steelhead. All hatchery raised steelhead in the Salmon have had their adipose fin clipped off. If you catch a steelhead with an intact adipose fin, you know it's a wild fish. (And you must release it--you can keep one or two hatchery fish, or at least that's how it was when I fished it.) Now, the clipped fin fish otherwise looked just like the wild ones, and certainly fought just as hard. But I remember always being disappointed to see that clipped fin.

[eric1978]

Here's a somewhat related question...does it disappoint you to catch fish that have obvious fresh hook scars around their mouths? Healed torn-off maxillaries? Sometimes it disappoints me...I guess I'd like to think I was the first one to catch that fish.

That's a great point. I've caught some big fish that I really didn't appreciate because they weren't a perfect specimen. While I always enjoy the anticipation of holding my prize, it can be quite deflating to land a humpback or a fish with other deformities or scars. The second biggest largemouth I've ever caught was missing its left eye; there was just this empty socket there and I can tell you it was UGLY. That fish doesn't mean nearly as much to me as some of the rather small smallmouth I have caught that were absolutely perfect and beautiful. So you're right, it's all about what you value. I know some guys would say I'm nuts that I'd rather catch a pretty 2 or 3 pound smallmouth than a half-blind 10 pound largemouth.

[Brian K. Shaffer]

You're not nuts eric.. not at all.

I have told many people.. I would rather fool 10 fish that were 10 inches than catch one 20 incher.

Call me crazy. Go ahead. I will be the one with the bent rod in hand.

Al - your insight is fantastic. Thanks for chiming in.

best fishes, Brian

[Greg]

Al - very insightful comments as always. Regarding your question though:

"Here's a somewhat related question...does it disappoint you to catch fish that have obvious fresh hook scars around their mouths? Healed torn-off maxillaries? Sometimes it disappoints me...I guess I'd like to think I was the first one to catch that fish."

I've got a somewhat different take. I actually like to catch those fish with the scars. Although they may not be so pretty I kind of view that fish as a survivor/warrior. Maybe those fish that have a few scars are a bit harder to catch than the perfect ones?

Greg

[ozark trout fisher]

That's a great point. I've caught some big fish that I really didn't appreciate because they weren't a perfect specimen. While I always enjoy the anticipation of holding my prize, it can be quite deflating to land a humpback or a fish with other deformities or scars. The second biggest largemouth I've ever caught was missing its left eye; there was just this empty socket there and I can tell you it was UGLY. That fish doesn't mean nearly as much to me as some of the rather small smallmouth I have caught that were absolutely perfect and beautiful. So you're right, it's all about what you value. I know some guys would say I'm nuts that I'd rather catch a pretty 2 or 3 pound smallmouth than a half-blind 10 pound largemouth.

I agree. Some people wonder why I'd rather catch a really pretty 9" wild brook trout or smallmouth bass, than 3 pound largemouth, and I can't really answer them. Its just how I feel.

[eric1978]

Al - very insightful comments as always. Regarding your question though:

"Here's a somewhat related question...does it disappoint you to catch fish that have obvious fresh hook scars around their mouths? Healed torn-off maxillaries? Sometimes it disappoints me...I guess I'd like to think I was the first one to catch that fish."

I've got a somewhat different take. I actually like to catch those fish with the scars. Although they may not be so pretty I kind of view that fish as a survivor/warrior. Maybe those fish that have a few scars are a bit harder to catch than the perfect ones?

Greg

You are an eternal optimist, sir. Well played.

[superfly]

Brian I can't remember exactly where I saw it although it was posted on the internet somewhere. I did a google search and couldn't relocate it though.

Greg

Greg I read that article too. I think it was in an old issue of fly rod and reel or flyfisherman mag. I think the research was done at a MT university. With the better nutrition they compared the trout to being on crack when hooked up. From my experience the trout in the Big Horn fight 10x harder than any MO trout. Why is that? Nutrition?