spots on trout?

[Col. Trautman]

Hi All,

I have a question, I caught a very nice trout on the Farmie & the spots on this brownie were very far apart. Does this mean it was an older fish and the spots moved apart over time? Or is it just a variation in the pattern?

I figured someone on this site will know.

Thanks in advance!

The Col.

PS, I did it on 5x and it was over 20"

[Todd K]

Any photos? Could have been wild. Usually wild fish have few spots and are pretty spread out. Did the spots have halo's? There a few different strands in the river so no telling without a photo. Look in the photo gallery and see if you can find a fish that compares.

[Jon]

Col.

As far as I know the number and size of spots are not related to age, whereas the colour may be linked to environmental factors (for example there's a strain of trout in Scotland that have consistently more red spots and this is thought to be linked to feeding, in this case gammus (shrimp) being abundant. Other lochs are very peat stained and the fish are very dark). I studied fluctuating asymetry as part of an under-grad study (the theory being that harsher habitat might lead to less than the perfect symetric shape of fish). I counted fish spots along the lateral lines of 100 brown trout from four distinct highland lochs (though this wasn't the main indicator for the study). There seemed to be no correlation in fish age/environment and number of spots. But it's an interesting question (to me at least!)

Kv

[Todd K]

Sorry, I was assuming this was the Farmington River Forum.

[The Fisherman]

Kirkaig certainly speaks from far more scientific experience than I can offer. But, I fish a lot of different streams, and the one thing I've consistently noticed on wild browns is that they tend to have far fewer spots than stocked fish.

Here is a photo of a classic wild brown. Fewer spots, more spacing, and (frequently with sub 10" fish) parr marks:
http://www.flyaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2552

What you may have landed was a fish that was born and bred in the Farmington (very exciting, if that's the case!). Or, it may have come in as a little stockee and grown in the "wild" to it's present state.

So, to answer your question, I don't think so, but I don't really know. :-)

[Jon]

It goes to show the diversity between anglers - my expereince is the opposite! One thing's for sure, I love the fact that no two browns look the same. Sometimes they look like different species! Some bright gold, others almost black, some with huge bright red spots, others with none - surely one of the most beautiful creates on earth. Rainbows just don't compare, in my deeply humble view....[though I'd like to catch a wild one]




K

[The Patriot]

I have to disagree with Steve too..... I have caught and seen fish caught with few spots that were definitely stocked fish. I have also caught fish that displayed numerous wild charcteristics, hard bodies, full fins, large heads, smooth scales, that had numerous large spots.

Personally, I don't think there's any correlation between size or number of spots and wether or not a fish is wild or stocked.

[The Fisherman]

Well, let me say this: I'm loathe to consider myself an expert on anything, but I do know a thing or two about wild fish, and have caught my fair share of wild browns. In my experience, they look nothing like the fish you'll catch on the Farmington or Salmon. Even wild brookies look dramatically different from the stocked brookies. So, I'm not not saying you guys are wrong, just that I fish both sides of the fence and that's what I've observed. :-)

"I'm not a master, but I play one on TV."

;-)

[Jon]

I think you're right Steve. We could all post pics that contradict our observations. In Scotland, my expereince catching brownies (probably well over a thousand, all wild) was that they were heavily spotted, but there was always the exception to this 'rule'. Of course, the wild browns in Scotland will be different (and subject to different factors) than wild US browns. For me, it is these environmental factors which most determine the look and colour of fish. I'm less sure that stocked/wild exhibit that level of difference (other than in the overall quality of the latter).

Again, I just adore the individuality of brown trout!

Gee, I sure would like to go catch one....

K

[Eric L]

With a few notable exceptions (the piscivorous lake strain -- I forget the name, seaforllen??, and searun strain) all brown trout in CT and pretty much everywhere else in the US are the fish equivilant to mutts.

In Europe and Asia where brown trout are native there are literally dozens of distinct populations/subspecies. The situation is analogous to the 14 subspecies of cutthroat trout in the US, but there are even more subspecies of brown trout. What we have here are hybrids of these subspecies. This makes them highly variable in spotting density, spot size and spot colour. This variabilty holds for both hatchery fish and wild fish. In other words you cannot identify a brown trout as hatchery or wild based on spotting patterns alone. Intensity of coloration and, especially, fin morphology are much better indicators of wild versus hatchery origin.

BTW: the "worn" fins of hatchery fish are due to poor diet (nutritional deficiency) not rubbing on concrete tanks. Think about it. Is the surface of a hatchery tank any more abrasive than the bottom of the Farmington river? Good trout diets are expensive. The state feeds the cheapest stuff they can get away with that still promotes good growth and high survivorship. There are more expensive feeds used by private hatcheries that produce fish that look like they are wild -- inside and out.

Regards,

Eric

[Col. Trautman]

Thanks for the responses thus far.

There is a cell phone picture but my pc says I cant make attachments, besides it does not do the fish justice. The spots were a bright red with haloing if I remember correctly.

Just so you all don't think this is a fish tale, I did borrow some landing gear from a real nice guy who said it "hardly fits in the net!" Orginally we were dry flying the same rocks for 20 mins, he went to another spot, I changed flies and bam!. In my excitment I said to him "you think this is a holdover?" He responded by saying" I think it owns those rocks". He had a blue cooler and also gave me a beer, thanks buddy.

I believe it was wild by the way it fought (had to palm my drag twice) but who knows. It had shoulders bigger than Hulk Hogan and the tail was strong.

Also it tasted great! Just kidding, released unharmed.

The Col.

[Kierran]

Also it tasted great! Just kidding, released unharmed.

The Col.


That line was funny. Nice work on the trout.

[The Patriot]

In other words you cannot identify a brown trout as hatchery or wild based on spotting patterns alone. Intensity of coloration and, especially, fin morphology are much better indicators of wild versus hatchery origin.

That's basically what I was trying to say....

I don't dispute that the wild fish that Steve catches in those WTMA's tend to have smaller and/or fewer spots.... just that that is not necessarily an indication of a wild fish in the Farmington, or an indication that all trout with smaller/fewer spots are wild, or that all wild trout have smaller/fewer spots. It may be a product of environment, or genetics.

Other characteristics that I was told to look for in identifying wild fish by Bob O an Neal from the DEP are larger head size in relation to body size (hatchery fish grow faster than wild fish, so their heads are smaller in relation to their bodies; wild fish grow slower, so their heads are bigger in relation to their bodies), fin morphology, as pointed out by Eric, smoother scales vs. coarser scales, and firmer and slimier bodies.

Eric, regarding fins, I don't dispute or disagree with your post at all, but how do we account for fish coming out of the same hatchery, presumably eating the same diet, but some have "worn" or deficient fins, and some have full and colorful fins? And why does it seem that it's often the caudal and anal fins that seem to show the most "wear"?

[Jon]

I think the only true way to know that you are fishing for wild browns is to know with certainty that the river/loch contains them.

Here are a few pics that prove absolutely nothing at all. The top fish is most probably a stockie (from the Pootatuck in CT); the second is wild from a fertile Scottish loch (not my handling error); the third is wild from a dark/peaty Scottish loch, the forth is wild, caught in a river in Dorset, England.

The only thing I know with anything approching certainty is that they are all beautiful creatures.


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c85/Kirkaig/IMG_8129_1_1_1.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c85/Kirkaig/Lochvalleyandnarroch019-1.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c85/Kirkaig/ScourieTrip004.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c85/Kirkaig/IMG_4835a.jpg

[The Fisherman]

Amazing photos, Jon! Reminds me a a James Prozek book.

[Andrew]

BTW: the "worn" fins of hatchery fish are due to poor diet (nutritional deficiency) not rubbing on concrete tanks. Think about it. Is the surface of a hatchery tank any more abrasive than the bottom of the Farmington river? Good trout diets are expensive. The state feeds the cheapest stuff they can get away with that still promotes good growth and high survivorship. There are more expensive feeds used by private hatcheries that produce fish that look like they are wild -- inside and out.

Regards,

Eric

I'm curious as to how you know this. I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I've never seen a hatchery trout up close (I don't really fish for trout). But I do know that with other animals, fish included, the reason that they get so much wear and tear from captivity is not because the cages (or tanks) are more abrasive than their wild environments, but because of how much rubbing they (the fish) do on the sides, bottoms, corners, etc. Afterall, you can buff scratches out of solid silver with a soft cloth, if you rub long enough. A fish in a river will behave differently than the same fish in a tank.

Andrew

[MuddlerMinnow]

Andrew, there was a terrific article on this in either American Angler or Fly Fisherman about a month ago-- I get both and I can't remember which is was. Apparently some guy a couple decades ago decided to experiment with adding micronutrients into hatchery food to try to imitate the micronutrients river insects would add to a wild trout's diet. His trout were indistinguishable from the wild ones. Either due to cost or a lack of interest it never took off.

[Eric L]

I'm curious as to how you know this. I'm not saying you're wrong, especially since I've never seen a hatchery trout up close (I don't really fish for trout). But I do know that with other animals, fish included, the reason that they get so much wear and tear from captivity is not because the cages (or tanks) are more abrasive than their wild environments, but because of how much rubbing they (the fish) do on the sides, bottoms, corners, etc.
Andrew

First off, look carefully at the dorsal fin rays of a typical hatchery trout. They are not so much worn, as they are bent/deformed and rounded. Compare the hatchery brown image in this thread to the second image of a wild fish.

Second: Why would hatchery conditions have any more abrasive surfaces than a trout stream? Many tanks are painted or plastic lined. A lot of growout is even done in ponds, not raceways. Heck, female trout dig holes in gravel with their tails every year, so why don't their tails look worn?

The fact is that some components of trout chows are expensive. Fish oils containing omega-3 fatty acids and certain amino acids like lysine cost a lot of money. If you add just a small amount of these components to the diet you can still get good growth, but at a fraction of the cost of a higher quality diet. That is, the fish will grow OK, but some will start to exhibit signs of nutritional deficiency. Private growers can justify using "better" feeds, but state (trout) and the Feds (broodstock salmon) are forced to try and save money where they can and cheaper feed is one obvious place to do it.

Regards,

Eric

[Andrew]

First off, look carefully at the dorsal fin rays of a typical hatchery trout. They are not so much worn, as they are bent/deformed and rounded. Compare the hatchery brown image in this thread to the second image of a wild fish.

Second: Why would hatchery conditions have any more abrasive surfaces than a trout stream? Many tanks are painted or plastic lined. A lot of growout is even done in ponds, not raceways. Heck, female trout dig holes in gravel with their tails every year, so why don't their tails look worn?


The point about the dorsal fins is convincing, and the points about the diet deficiencies make sense as well. And, if close inspection reveals that the fins are in fact not worn but just shaped differently, then that too is convincing.

As I said before, I wasn't suggesting that the hatchery tanks are more abrasive than the river - what I said was that if you constantly rub a hatchery tank surface, even if it is relatively smooth, you would expect some wear.

But, I believe you. I just wanted more evidence!

[The Patriot]

Hey! What about my question?

Eric, regarding fins, I don't dispute or disagree with your post at all, but how do we account for fish coming out of the same hatchery, presumably eating the same diet, but some have "worn" or deficient fins, and some have full and colorful fins? And why does it seem that it's often the caudal and anal fins that seem to show the most "wear"?

;):D