Fin Clips in the Evaluation of Stocking Programs for Muskellunge, Esox masquinongy

Abstract

During laboratory and field experiments in Ontario, with hatchery muskellunge 90–235 mm in total length, total removal of a fin did not add to the immediate mortality caused by seining the fish from ponds. The use of an anesthetic during surgery (MS‐222) did not affect subsequent survival of marked, stocked fish. Removal of any single paired fin was equally detrimental to short‐term (3 months) survival. In contrast, over long periods (10 months) the loss of a pectoral fin was more detrimental than loss of a pelvic fin. Removal of both fins of a pair may cause higher mortality than the removal of one fin. Neither the fin removed nor the anesthetic significantly affected short‐term or long‐term growth. Within 1 year of marking regeneration of amputated fins was such that recognition of marked fish was difficult and the degree of difficulty increased with time. Estimates based on marked 2‐year‐old or older individuals could result in substantial underestimates of survival.

Survival and Cost-Effectiveness of Stocked Fall Fingerling and Spring Yearling Muskellunge in Wisconsin

“…All muskeliunge had one of their paired fins clipped before they were stocked. It was assumed that fin clipping did not alter survival of stocked fish (McNeil and Crossman 1979). Muskeliunge were transported in aerated water containing a 3% salt solution.…”

Review of Marking Methods and Release-Recapture Designs for Estimating the Survival of Very Small Fish: Examples from the Assessment of Salmonid Fry Survival

“…Currently, hatchery salmon smolts are commonly marked with an adipose fin clip to distinguish them from wild fish in mark-selective fishing. Coble (1967) and McNeil and Crossman (1979) have addressed the techniques of fin excision and clipping, while Armstrong (1949), Shetter (1951), Johnson and Ugedal (1988), and Coombs et al (1990) have all addressed fin regeneration among salmonids. Several types of dye marking techniques have been used with varying degrees of success with brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Atlantic salmon (Moffett et al, 1977;Dussault and Rodriguez, 1997), migrating sockeye salmon (O. nerka; Carlson et al, 1998), and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) fry (mean fork length = 57.5 mm; Gaines and Martin, 2004).…”

Identification of stocked muskellunge and potential for distinguishing hatchery‐origin and wild fish using pelvic fin ray microchemistry

“…Knowledge of stocking efficacy can help fisheries professionals further understand the cost-effectiveness of stocking individuals to enhance or supplement fisheries (Halvorson 2008). fin clips and freeze branding; McNeil & Crossman 1979;Johnson & Margenau 1993;Conover & Sheehan 1999), external and internal tagging (e.g. Typical methods available to differentiate wild from hatchery-reared fish include physical mutilation marks (e.g.…”

“…fin clips and freeze branding; McNeil & Crossman 1979;Johnson & Margenau 1993;Conover & Sheehan 1999), external and internal tagging (e.g. Physical mutilation marks are relatively inexpensive and tend to work well in short-term studies (McNeil & Crossman 1979). oxytetracycline; OTC, and calcein; Brooks et al 1994;Conover & Sheehan 1999;Farrell & Werner 1999;Mohler 2003).…”

“…T-bar anchor and passive integrated transponder [PIT]; Younk et al 2010;Rude et al 2011), and fluorescent marks in hardpart structures (e.g. However, clipped fins and freeze brands may regenerate, resulting in loss of the mark or a decreased confidence in identification (McNeil & Crossman 1979), and anglers tend to view missing or mutilated fins or burn marks as undesirable (Nielson 1992). Physical mutilation marks are relatively inexpensive and tend to work well in short-term studies (McNeil & Crossman 1979).…”