Observation / Question

My experiences would not support the observation but it is a very interesting one just the same. In my opinion, the raised hackles are just a sign that the fish is very uncomfortable with what you're doing to it. I have pictures of fish laying in the shore weeds next to my rod that look perfectly comfortable, fin at rest, just before rocketing off leaving a rooster tail. Since I am working on scanning photos as I look thru the pile I can't say I can make a correlation between the fin position and the state of the fish, I think it's more an indication of the fish's demeanor during the photo session and although there can be a direct link between a dead fish and a raised fin, I don't think a relaxed fin indicates a "dead" fish. In other words, a fish whose fin is at rest would instantly raise the hackles if you started to iritate it or hold it like a sausage in the middle for instance... hence the nice punctures we get if we were dumb enough to try that.

My pet theory is that I think stripers loose their sheen and look pale around the head (not blonde but a color inconsistent with their body) when they are not well. The only bass I retained all season (and many seasons before) was a 36" that was looking real pale after a long fight with multiple screaming runs. I can honestly say it was the only one that raised concern all season, in fact I don't remember feeling like I needed to keep a fish since my bait fishing days almost 20 years ago (swallowed hooks).

All that being said the 36" fish in the 'dreamin' picture took off like a rocket. It had high fins and never lost it's sheen and color. I hope they are all like that!

The eye thing is a common sign among steelhead and salmon anglers, and is invariably true for salmonids including trout - usually even when held upright.

I can't say that this generalization applies to all species in my experiences. I just hours over the weekend staring closely at pictures of stripers, blues, albies, bonito, etc. When held up as they are for pictures the eyes can be in a straight out stare although the fish is ready to leap from the hands. The eye trick for stripers does seem to hold true much more often when the fish is laying down in the water or surfline as images will support once again.

My guess is that to say a striper being held up with a straight stare is not necessarily dead or even worn out, you'll see a bunch of photos that allude to this once I get the journals done. On the other hand every steelhead picture I have has a down-looking eye except for those hatchery fish I retained (dead).

IMHO - This eye position trick for stripers is more of a guideline than a rule, common for stripers on their sides but not conclusive for those held upright.

.02

Juro

Fascinating the observations that come from an eclectic group of fly fishers. Never gave it much thought about fish eye and/or dorsal fin position while releasing or holding fish.

At first, I thought, let me hear other responses in this matter before I voice mine. As usual your summations are always true and correct. Like all animal behavior, the same correlation cannot be true each time. Aspects like the behavior of the fish, how it was fought, length of fight, time of year, condition of the fish and how it was held all contributed to the fish's factor how it might behave.

Knowing this much, and having some holiday time, I searched the scientific community for some knowledgeable answers. Talked to experience fisherman, fish biologist, conservation officers, American Littoral Society and a bunch more. Spent hours compiling their opinions and information.

Lastly I did some field testing of my own in the Seekonk River that proved more beneficial.
During a three hour tide I caught and released four schoolies in the 16 - 22 in range. Fought them at various interval and duration's. Held them in various positions both vertical and horizontal. Held them in my hands in different ways. My findings was astonishing and I mean no disrespect to anyone who holds a fish.

I know these test were not conducted under any scientific guidelines. Yes, I could have called GregO at MIT, but I didn't. He was already involved in the question and I felt it would taint the results. Yes, I could have been in touch with Juro, after all, who has fished in more elements than he has. Yes, I could have called Sully, the founder of the question, but I didn't. And Roop and Matt for their impute before I made my hypothesis. But once again I didn't. I didn't want to shock their world.

My fact finding mission proved without a doubt, - ALL THESE FISH WERE FONDLED BEFORE RELEASE IN EACH PHOTO. Yes , the results are quite shocking. We do have some sick fisher's out there.

For now on, all my fish will be release in a dignified manner. Your rebuttle, if you have one is appreciated.

That reminds me of the days when you could launch from Washington's Olympic Peninsula shoreline and fish British Columbia waters (Canada). The limit was twice the US limit, so some folks would motor past the imaginary border, come back with twice the salmon without touching Canadian soil.

One day the warden had enough. A young man came motoring in brandishing four fat salmon so he ran over to stop the man.

"You've got too many fish there, buddy!" sez the warden.

"These two are Canadian" said the angler.

"We'll see about that!" grunts the warden as he inserts an index finger into the salmon's anus and probes around. In a few seconds, he puts the fish on the dock and grabs another. He ends up sorting them 3 on one side and 1 on the other, wiping his finger.

With an agitated look on his face he says "these three coho are US fish, you're under arrest boy! What's your name and address?"

The angler pulls his helly hansons down to his knees, turns around, bends over and replies "you tell me".