TOPIC:

It seems to be that a percentage of Kings that were thought to be naturals are not. How do you know? Well if they check your king and with the wand it shows there is a nose tag, but no fin clip, wouldn't you think it was a natural if the wand was never used?Its happening. Adipose fins can at time regenerate growth. So you would count your king as a natural king but in fact it is a stocked fish. So now the next question is how often or at what percentage is this possibly happening? Recently 2 out of 20 fish that were checked came up this way. 10%. Could the percentage be higher? The fact that this is happening throws out the info on natural kings and the high numbers of them. The finclip machine also needs at times to be adjusted and monitored. Recently the USFWS refused to check fish that did not have finclips, even though they were asked to check all fish. So a group got a wand of their own and found 2 out of 20 kings checked had nose tags but no eveidence of a fin clip. You ask "How does this happen"? The USFWS after seeing this for thereselves then said that there is a thing called adipose fin regeneration. So if they already know about this, how skewed are the natural numbers?

And Hillary is a crook but since she didn't intend to get caught, we'll let her off and probably vote her in....

Methinks they didn't intend to get caught. Us fisher-peeps just need to get over it!

"We are from the government and here to help!"

Lickety-Split wrote:

It seems to be that a percentage of Kings that were thought to be naturals are not. How do you know? Well if they check your king and with the wand it shows there is a nose tag, but no fin clip, wouldn't you think it was a natural if the wand was never used?Its happening. Adipose fins can at time regenerate growth. So you would count your king as a natural king but in fact it is a stocked fish. So now the next question is how often or at what percentage is this possibly happening? Recently 2 out of 20 fish that were checked came up this way. 10%. Could the percentage be higher? The fact that this is happening throws out the info on natural kings and the high numbers of them. The finclip machine also needs at times to be adjusted and monitored. Recently the USFWS refused to check fish that did not have finclips, even though they were asked to check all fish. So a group got a wand of their own and found 2 out of 20 kings checked had nose tags but no eveidence of a fin clip. You ask "How does this happen"? The USFWS after seeing this for thereselves then said that there is a thing called adipose fin regeneration. So if they already know about this, how skewed are the natural numbers?

let me answer your questions by asking some more questions

Why do you think they are wanding the fish? Might it be because this technology has been in use for decades and is pretty well understood?

Do you think that the headhunters are recording the rate at which tagged fish had no clip, which clipped fish had no tag, and so forth?

Do you think it would be a pretty easy mathematical process to account for the rates of these occurrences?

The answer to all these questions is "yes"

Each tag lot of fish has quality checks on the front end (post tagging, pre stocking) to determine the successful rate of clipping and tag retention (it's very high, 96-100%)

Then on the back-end, those rates, in addition to data collected in the field, are used to correct for those issues

So if I caught lets say 12 kings and 7 of them appeared to be natural, but 5 of the 7 were actually stocked fish, postive tested with the wand, I guess I have a bait that just happens to have a catch rate like that????? Its happening. You guys no its happening.

Lickety-Split wrote:

So if I caught lets say 12 kings and 7 of them appeared to be natural, but 5 of the 7 were actually stocked fish, postive tested with the wand, I guess I have a bait that just happens to have a catch rate like that????? Its happening. You guys no its happening.

Did you read his post?? He said it does happen, nothings perfect. It's not happening at nearly the rate your trying to make it out to be however split. I think this tag/clip program has proved invaluable the last 4-6 years, great data captured.

Yes I read it reelfun, and 5 for 7 is a hell of a batting average. ITS happening. Think about it what are the odds that somebody can take 12 kings, 7 look natural and 5 of the 7 are actually stocked fish and caught by one fisherman. Time to go to gambling with those odds.

Where did 5 of 7 come from Ed? From your post it sounds like a hypothetical situation - or was it based on something that happened.

Statistical anomalies occur, even severe ones on both sides of the spectrum. I am sure some stockings are 99% successful with fin clips and other times its 90% etc etc.

I would fully expect the DNR to estimate the amount of failures and factor that into their overall numbers.

Time for others to do there homework, or you can be spoonfed - the options always there for the fishermen. I have done mine.

The information is out there all you have to do is look. I don't believe everything I'm told, so I investigate and much as I can, others can do the same. If fishermen are only going to take in what one side gives you pretty soon you become that spokesman for that side.

lol! About sums it up!