Fish ID
#1 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:21 PM
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
#2 Guest_smilingfrog_*
Posted 11 November 2012 - 12:05 AM
Edited by smilingfrog, 11 November 2012 - 12:09 AM.
#3 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:57 AM
#4 Guest_Uland_*
Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:17 AM
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.
#5 Guest_panfisherteen_*
Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:57 PM
#6 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:58 PM
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.
#7 Guest_Uland_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:19 AM
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.
#8 Guest_daveneely_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:21 AM
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.
#9 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:06 AM
#10 Guest_gerald_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:11 PM
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
#11 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:29 PM
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.
#12 Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 05:13 PM
#13 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:48 PM
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
#14 Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:05 PM
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.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
#15 Guest_keepnatives_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:53 PM
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.
#16 Guest_Abrams96_*
Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:21 PM
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.
#17 Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:57 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users