Mis-Clipped or Partially Clipped Fish: Would you bonk?

[gfakkema]

...

[Amx]

where did you catch it?

[gfakkema]

...

[Toni]

Yes we did a couple of years ago. It was a nice size summer king. We let it go for the same reason. The fish checker said we could have kept it as it happens, misclips.

[salmonbarry]

Personally I would have kept it as a native will have a pretty distinct adipose fin intact and think the WDFW would have let you keep it without a problem. But on the other hand, sometimes better safe then sorry!

[Sixgill]

That fish goes home every time on my boat. There's a bit of fin there, but also a distinctly healed scar. With as strict fishing game rules are, I would never hold it against anyone that directed me to release that fish on their boat.

[gfakkema]

...

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

I... What I'd really like is something either in the regs, or in writing, that states that mis-clipped fish are still HATCHERY FISH. My biggest problem is that a mis-clipped fish is kind of both hatchery and wild fish because it has both a scar, but more importantly, AN ADIPOSE FIN (even though small, it's still there). I don't think that any of us will argue the fact that this fish is of hatchery origin, but will WDFW and enforcement view it the same way? I guess what I'm getting at is this...
Has anyone heard it directly from a gamie directly or know where to get this info in writing? I guess I'll have to contact WDFW about it...

The current WA regs do not explicitly use the word "misclip". The definition of hatchery steelhead/salmon is a fish with a "clipped" fin and a healed scar. A "clipped" fin is intended to encompass full clips and partial clips (misclips) as legally harvestable fish.


The WDFW almost encourages the retention of misclips. Here's a snippet of something I've posted previously on other boards when this topic has come up in prior threads.

Here is an excerpt from the PDF version of the WDFW 2006-2007 Concise Explanatory Statement (CES) on page 4, with regards to the change in the rule in 2006 of the definition for "hatchery steelhead" from "missing" fin to "clipped" fin. This change went into effect in 2006. This CES pertains specifically to steelhead, and also note the other underlined language below that discusses/mentions the "clipped fin" with regards to salmon as already adopted under the North of Falcon process.




#4. Definition of a Hatchery Steelhead or Cutthroat Trout

Proposal:

The current definition of a hatchery steelhead or trout is a fish missing an

adipose fin or a ventral fin with a healed scar at the location of the missing fin. This proposal would make the definition a steelhead or cutthroat with a clipped adipose or ventral fin, and a healed scar at the location of the fin.


Explanation:



This proposal is intended to address the problem anglers face when they encounter a fish with a partially clipped fin. Under the current definition (missing fin), it is not legal for anglers to retain these fish, even though they really are hatchery fish intended for harvest. This change, which has already been adopted for salmon through the North of Falcon process, should make the rule clearer and also make more hatchery fish available to anglers.


...

Staff Recommendation:


Adopt as proposed.

Commission Action:

Adopted as proposed.

[gfakkema]

...

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

This is probably the most you'll find in the regs:

Hatchery Salmon Means a Chinook or coho
with a clipped adipose fin and having a healed
scar at the location of the fin.

The legality of retaining misclipped salmon existed prior to 2006 (i.e., "clipped" fin being the definition of hatchery salmon).


What I do know is that at one point in the evolution of the regs, hatchery steelhead were defined as having a "missing fin", which was a definition that made misclips illegal to retain. The "missing fin" of hatchery steelhead was subsequently changed (per my snippet above) in 2006/2007 to "clipped" fin, in order to make hatchery steelhead legal to retain. This rule for hatchery steelhead also harmonized (made consistent) the definition of "hatchery steelhead" with the definition of "hatchery salmon"--I.e. both species now say "clipped" fin for hatchery fish, whereas prior to 2006/2007 hatchery salmon were defined as "clipped fin" and "hatchery steelhead were defined as "missing fin" (see here on page 20: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00211/wdfw00211.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

here's some additional stuff from the 2005 WAC, referencing the NOF and salmon (and also showing the difference that existed at that time between the definitions hatchery steelhead and hatchery salmon). Again, no specific use of the term "misclip" but talks about "missing" versus "clipped" and "intact" fins. The WAC provisions below were subsequently superceded in the 2006/2007 regs, where the definition of hatchery steelhead was revised to "clipped" versus "missing"


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/laws/w ... 18-009.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NEW SECTION
WAC 220-16-47000D Wild -- 2005 North of Falcon. Effective immediately until further notice: "Wild" when used to describe the difference between a hatchery fish and a nonhatchery fish, except salmon, means a fish with all fins intact. A fish missing an adipose or ventral fin with a healed scar at the site is not a wild fish. When "wild" is used to describe a salmon, "wild" means a salmon with an unclipped adipose fin, regardless of whether the fish is ventral fin clipped. A salmon with a clipped adipose fin and having a healed scar at the site is not a wild fish.


NEW SECTION
WAC 220-56-10000E Definitions -- Personal-use fishing -- 2005 North of Falcon. Effective immediately until further notice, the following definition applies to personal use fishing in Titles 220 and 232 WAC:
(1) "Hatchery" when used to describe the difference between a hatchery fish and a nonhatchery fish, except salmon, means a fish missing an adipose fin or a ventral fin with a healed scar at the location of the missing fin. When "hatchery" is used to describe a salmon, "hatchery" means a salmon with a clipped adipose fin and having a healed scar at the location of the clipped fin.

[Steelheadin360]

Thats a visibly clipped fin. BONK

[kodacachers]

Based on the language above, in particular the quite clear CES statement, you are on solid ground if it ever went to court. However, fighting in court is different that fighting with the game warden who's giving you a ticket and hasn't read the 2006 CES statement. You'd likely get the ticket overturned, but its time and effort. I'd say if its the only fish of the day or is hooked in a way it would likely die, I'd take the chance on the game warden and fight the ticket if necessary.

[DavidA]

I did have exactly this happen to me last year with a huge coho. It was my only coho during a trip in a friend's boat out to CQ. I didn't take a photo because we kept it in the net over the side of the boat and wanted to handle it minimally. I was spared making the call because it was a friend's very nice boat and he had the most at risk. He said he thought we should release it and I didn't argue in the least. I think we would have been in the right keeping it and he has since told me that in hind sight he thinks so too, but I can't fault him. As Kodacachers says, in the end, you'd likely win a case, but officers are human and could have you regret making that choice anyway.

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

A relatively simple solution is to send an email to WDFW enforcement with the question (email to fishregs@dfw.wa.gov ). Then print out their reply and keep it in your wallet, so that you can show it to the enforcement officer (if in the unlikely event that he raises a question about a fish that is clearly misclipped).

This is what I have done when I've had other questions about the regs.

[natetreat]

Healed scar. Bonk.

[Bay wolf]

Keep it and take several pictures or better yet, a video of the encounter with WDFW. If they threaten you with a ticket, tell them you are going to court to fight the ticket. They are required to keep the fish and present it as evidence at the court. There is a good chance they won't bother, but if they push it and do give you a ticket. In a lot of cases, they either won't show at all, or won't show with the fish. In either case you win. On the outside chance they do show with the frozen fish in hand, you can then let the judge make a decision. After you win the case, ask them for your fish back!

[Matt]

That fish is dead 100% of the time on my boat

[BARCHASER10]

Bonk!! The WDFW fact sheet for mass marking sez "A wild fish..has an intact adipose fin". That fin shown is typical of a misclip and it is not intact. It is not a wild fish. You know bureaucrats that is about as specific as they ever get. The fact sheet does say that the WDFW is concerned about continued federal funding for mass marking and that is a concern. I'm sure some of the budget cutting politicians would like to cut the mass marking money. If that ever happens, we'll have a real ESA sport fishing problem. Sport fishing for salmon is all based on mass marking. Without it we are screwed..



A wild fish, below, has an intact adipose fin;
the adipose fin has been removed from a marked fish, above.

For the past two decades, federal agencies have worked closely with states and treaty tribes in the Pacific Northwest to reverse the decline of native salmon populations. As partners in this effort, they have restructured fisheries, updated hatchery practices, and allocated funding to restore wild, naturally spawning stocks listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

However, federal support for the basic work of mass-marking hatchery fish appears to be uncertain in fiscal year 2014. Under current proposals, Washington state could lose millions of dollars in federal funding for this essential tool in the ongoing effort to recover wild, naturally spawning salmon populations.

Mass-marking salmon in Washington state


Salmon hatcheries in Washington •State - 83
•Tribal - 51
•Federal - 12



The state of Washington has the largest system of salmon hatcheries in the world, raising more than 200 million juvenile fish at 128 state, federal, and tribal facilities each year. These hatcheries produce the majority of all salmon caught in Washington waters, contributing to the statewide economy. According to one economic analysis, the 83 stateoperated hatcheries, alone, generate nearly $70 million in personal income from fishing each year.

Mass-marking has played a vital role in salmon management since the mid-1990s, when concerns about the decline of wild salmon populations became increasingly acute. In response, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) launched a pioneering effort to visibly mark hatchery-raised salmon so they can be readily distinguished from wild fish in Northwest waters.

Today, virtually all coho and Chinook salmon produced in Washington hatcheries – including those raised in federal and tribal facilities – are mass-marked by clipping the small adipose fin near their tail. This strategy has revolutionized salmon management and provided an indispensable tool in the broad-based effort to recover wild salmon stocks throughout the region.

Sustainable fisheries

Prior to mass-marking, restrictions imposed by new ESA listings threatened to close – or greatly curtail – historic salmon fisheries throughout the region. In addition to the recreational and cultural values involved, the potential loss of fishing opportunities presented a severe economic threat to fishing families and entire communities, especially in rural areas of the Northwest.

Once mass-marking was established, fishery managers were able to mitigate that situation by creating a growing number of "mark-selective fisheries," which require fishers to release any unmarked – presumably wild – salmon or steelhead they encounter. These rules protect wild salmon, while permitting fishers to retain hatchery fish produced for harvest.

WDFW employs mark-selective rules in recreational fisheries throughout the state, and is expanding their application in commercial fisheries on the Columbia River under a broad-based reform measure jointly approved by Oregon early this year. The impacts of these fisheries are closely monitored and subject to strict federal limits.