Should we keep them?
My brother-in-law was out with me for his "lucky day" and landed a coho in area 13 with a partial fin. I told him that it was a "marked fish" and to bonk it. It didn't have anywhere near an intact fin. More like a strand where the fin should be. Anyone else notice this in the south sound???

I've caught al least one Coho that had a partial fin all the fleshy part was gone with just a little remnent of the base, I released it cause it looked like it had a fin at some point but had lost it naturally.

The fish checker looked at the fish,scanned the head with a wand and said we were good to go.

So does that mean a fish with a healed over nub can be retained?

That's why I asked the question. The way I understand the definition of "wild" to read is that they " have intact adipose fins "???

Heres my .02 on this. A wild fish will have a near perfect adipose fin. A hatchery fish will usually show many signs of being hatchery raised, the dorsil fin will likely be beaten up some from being in the raceways as smolt. A wild fish is usually perfect, maybe net marks or a seal bite, but not damaged fins. I've spent many hours clipping smolts in those trailers, and after standing up for 8 hours, not all your clips are perfect. Lots of "half clips" or "oops didn't get all of that one". I've spent many fall salmon trips hooking and releasing 20+ fresh 8-12lb "not marked hatchery fish". These fish had near perfect adiposes yet damaged dorsils and tails. You would assume they came from a hatchery but without the marking, your just assuming. I would and do keep fish that are missing 75% of their adipose. Trust your judgement, if it's that questionable release it.

Okay, today's fish were better.