Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Fish ID

Started by Guest_Abrams96_* , Nov 10 2012 04:21 PM

This topic is locked

16 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

Hi everyone. I'm not sure where to post this topic as the assistance page says no aquarium pictures so this may get moved but anyway.
I have about 6 of these guys in my 55 with my dace. All along I thought they were young creek Chubs but the more I look at them I think they are not. I netted them in the Ganaraska river in south eastern Ontario. Pictures aren't that great but they have reddish orange fins and no spot on the dorsal fin like all the young Chubs I've had before, plus they have not grown rapidly like my Chubs did. They are all about 1-1.5 inches and I've had them for months. Any help would be great as I can't id them through my petersen guide.

20121109_191150.jpg 123.14KB 0 downloads

20121109_191225.jpg 141.2KB 2 downloads

Back to top

#2 Guest_smilingfrog_*

Guests

Posted 11 November 2012 - 12:05 AM

They look very much like the redtail chubs in the Peterson field guide, but those aren't in your area. I would venture a guess that they may be young hornyhead or river chubs.

Edited by smilingfrog, 11 November 2012 - 12:09 AM.

Back to top

#3 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:57 AM

They are very tough to ID. You may be right on the Hornyheads. The colour and head shape kind of steer me away from river Chubs. Only thing that throws me is that they aren't growing like other Chubs that I've had. Maybe I'm wrong. Thank you for the reply.

Back to top

#4 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:17 AM

I'm not trying to be a jerk but.....identifying fish from a home aquarium is bad for the entire organization. Perhaps your fish is critically imperiled? Perhaps it's endangered in your area?
This topic belongs in the ID forum and at the top of that forum it reads:
Rules of ID Section ID requests from home aquaria will not be accepted and topics will be removed. Please take the time to catch, photo and release unidentified fish streamside.

Location, at least general location (state, major drainage, etc) is required for any posts in this section. Posts without location will be removed without question.

Back to top

#5 Guest_panfisherteen_*

Guests

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

Hornyhead Chub for sure, black dot on the caudal peduncle tells them apart from River Chub and Creek Chub. They are a listed legal baitfish so it is fine. You should pick up the ROM Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of Ontario, it's a handy little book and deals only with species found in Ontario (with exception to species that have been found in Ontario such as aquarium released fish, and species that are close to Ontario waters that may eventually find their way into our waters).

Back to top

#6 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:58 PM

Uland- I didn't post this here. Because I did read the heading. It was moved here by the moderators. I am very aware of the fish that aren't legal to keep in my area and I ruled them out. And if you had read my post you'd see I believed they were Chubs when I collected them. So in short, yes you do sound like a jerk, maybe ask me before jumping to conclusions. Thanks.

Panfish- Thank you for the tip, I have been unable to find that publication around here. I have the second edition of petersons and the bait fish primer thinking is be able to get a positive id but I still questioned it so I came here. Hornyhead I believe is right aswell. Thank you for clarifying.

Back to top

#7 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:19 AM

Abrams,
I'm sorry for any bad feelings. I have none for you.
I did read the post but I hope you can understand not only why such a forum has these rules but also why they must be enforced.
It can be very uncomfortable for guests and moderators when fellow fish enthusiasts bend the rules, but slight discomfort is far better than sweeping new legislation.

Back to top

#8 Guest_daveneely_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:21 AM

Don't blame Uland, this policy is one the membership of the society has agreed on and actively enforces. It's not for <your> safety, it's for ours.

Perhaps I can sound like more of a jerk -- if you don't know what they are, DON'T TAKE THEM HOME. Period. Get out in the field with someone that knows their fish, or take the time to learn them streamside.

This isn't up for discussion.

Uland- I didn't post this here. Because I did read the heading. It was moved here by the moderators. I am very aware of the fish that aren't legal to keep in my area and I ruled them out. And if you had read my post you'd see I believed they were Chubs when I collected them. So in short, yes you do sound like a jerk, maybe ask me before jumping to conclusions. Thanks.

Panfish- Thank you for the tip, I have been unable to find that publication around here. I have the second edition of petersons and the bait fish primer thinking is be able to get a positive id but I still questioned it so I came here. Hornyhead I believe is right aswell. Thank you for clarifying.

Back to top

#9 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:06 AM

I understand the policies and the reason for them. And I am probably one of the last people who would ever do anything to harm or disturb the ecosystem and always do my research before attempting to keep anything, as I'm sure most are or do on here. And I'm happy that there are people here to set people straight when causing harm. I'm not new to fish keeping by any means and have in the hobby for nearly 20 years. I just don't like being spoke to as if I'm a child. But I appreciate the concern. And like I said before I was certain they were Chubs when I collected them. Just recently I started to doubt myself, so I asked on here. I'm starting to regret bringing it up now and I apologize.

Back to top

#10 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:11 PM

We had a similar discussion in June 2012 (link below), including some ideas for modifying the policy to allow identification help for:

1) fish that the collector is not certain what it IS, but he/she has considered all the potential rare/protected species and is certain that it is not a protected species and was taken legally

2) fish obtained from a pet shop feeder tank or other commercial source where the ID was unknown or erroneous.

I agree with Dave, Uland and others that NANFA needs a no-tolerance policy on indiscriminate taking of unknown species, both because conservation of rare species is a BIG part of NANFA's mission, and to protect NANFA as a reputable organization that biologists in regulatory & conservation agencies are willing to work with.

Given who we are, and our other important mission of spreading fish biology and conservation info to "the masses" I think some tweaks to our current policy of "ID help on field photos only" could be useful to NANFA's multiple missions.

http://forum.nanfa.o...on/#entry100279

Back to top

#11 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

Very well said Gerald.

And this was the case, they were taken legally. I had ruled out all protected species in my area. I was sure they were Chubs which are the most commonly sold bait fish in my area. I was unsure which species of Chub they were. So I decided to ask the Nanfa members to help me out as I couldn't pin point it from the sources I had. I understand thecode of ethics and hadn't realized it would cause such a heated discussion. I have read plenty of other posts on here that IMO are much more unethical then what I'm guilty of such as large species of game fish being kept in small tanks for one, that go unnoticed. So again I apologize to uland forbeing short. I just didn't like the "the rules" being thrown in my face. That's all.

Back to top

#12 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 05:13 PM

Again to agree with Uland, and Dave. This rule is not to degrade you, this is to protect NANFA. Obviously some special consideration of your circumstances has already taken place, or the topic would have been locked. So Gerald's ideas are already in effect, though not formally. We do as administrators, and moderators try to differentiate the obvious offenders versus the innocent offenders. I understand that you thought you knew what you had collected, and as the juvenile fish grew you had a question. I am glad that you found your answer, and no harm was done. But now that you know how seriously we have to take this, I am certain that you will not make the same mistake again. A good photo tank is your answer. Photo streamside. Our interest and ability to sample native fish is just an inch away from legislation that makes it illegal. The thing that bothers me most about this situation is the more you are educated, the more jeopardy you are in. An average fisherman catching bait, who may catch an endangered fish is less likely to cause a ruckus than someone who is more informed.Who is doing more damage? I am not sure, but we have to differentiate ourselves, and hold to a higher standard. I am sure you would agree.

Back to top

#13 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

I'm glad that it was taken seriously. Don't get me wrong. I just didn't like the way I was approached about the topic. Thats why I got a little frustrated.
I don't have any hard feelings toward any of the above posters. And I'm relieved it was sorted out. I know it sounds like a broken record but I have done loads of research and believed I had a positive ID. They weren't taken due to ignorance. But anyways. I think I'll stick to just reading the forums and stay away from posting from now on. Cheers

Back to top

#14 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:05 PM

I'm glad that it was taken seriously. Don't get me wrong. I just didn't like the way I was approached about the topic. Thats why I got a little frustrated.
I don't have any hard feelings toward any of the above posters. And I'm relieved it was sorted out. I know it sounds like a broken record but I have done loads of research and believed I had a positive ID. They weren't taken due to ignorance. But anyways. I think I'll stick to just reading the forums and stay away from posting from now on. Cheers

No we want your input. Please do not refrain from posting. If I were so inclined, I could provide you with a list of my own questionable posts. We are all learning here.

Back to top

#15 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:53 PM

Uland was actually quite nice about it as I see it, you knew the rule as you mentioned in your initial post. Why would you not be able to post it in the forum it belongs in per the rules yet post it in another forum where it does'nt belong to circumvent the rule? That makes no sense. He said up front he was not trying to be a jerk and simply reinforced the rule.

At that point I don't think anyone thought there was a huge offence you had created, a simple oh, I'm sorry won't happen again, thanks Uland. You could then have pm'd someone and explained your situation and most likely would have gotten some individual private assistance.

Actually I was more surprised your post wasn't simply removed with a pm explaining why. But either way a thicker skin might be in order you made a mistake it was pointed out no big deal.

And yes I'm not the most diplomatic person at times but come on you knew you shouldn't have posted it or certainly should have.

Back to top

#16 Guest_Abrams96_*

Guests

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:21 PM

Keepnatives
The rule I thought was meant for this specific board, not the entire forum.

I have apologized Uland. And it won't happen again. I feel as though I've explained myself enough and don't need to further explain it you as I'm tired of it.

Skipjack
Thanks, and yes we can always learn more. And I aswell have seen a fair share of questionable posts on here that make me scratch my head. I just leave well enough alone.