Rough fish (or the slangtrash fish ordirt fish) is a term used by some United States state agencies andanglers to describe fish that are less desirable tosport anglers within a defined region. The term usually refers to largergame fish species that are not commonly eaten, are too rare to be commonly encountered, or are not favorably sought by anglers for sporting purposes. Many of these species are actually very important in thecommercial fishing industry, where they make up the bulk of commercialfood fish catches in inlandfreshwaterbodies.[1]
The first reference to the term "rough" as applied to fish species is in the historical workA History of Fish and Fishing on the Upper Mississippi River by Carlander. To summarize: In the mid- to late 19th century, commercial fishermen in the Central United States, particularly in theMississippi River, often netted andprocessed large quantities of river fish in theirboats, and would then travel many miles up or down river to deliver these fish to markets for sale. In hot summer weather, the slow, heavily loaded boats often had to be lightened quickly to ensure that the entire catch did not become spoiled before reaching the markets. The common practice of the time was to save the fully processed fish, since these commanded a higher price at market. Rough-dressed fish (or fish sold "in the rough" — which means they had theinternal organs removed but were not yet filleted) were discarded by dumping the carcasses into the river to lighten the boat. Thus, originally a "rough fish" was a fish of any species that had been only partly processed and which could not be sold for full price. The term subsequently evolved into a derogatory term for any fish that was undesirable or unpopular.[1]
The term "coarse fish" is used in the United Kingdom to describe all fishes besidestrout andsalmon, but it is not a derogatory term.[2]
TheMinnesota Department of Natural Resources has made preliminary efforts to replace the term "rough fish" with "underused fish",[3] like some other state agencies have actually done,[4] but this has remained an incomplete effort inMinnesota.[5]
There is no standard list of rough fishes. A fish that is considered "rough" in one region may be considered a desirable game and food fish in another, often due to cultural differences or simply regional tradition. For example, thecommon carp is considered an undesirable rough fish in the United States and Australia, but is the premier game fish ofcontinental Europe[citation needed] and the single most important food fish across most of Asia[citation needed]. Further, some rough fish become game fish (and vice versa) over time,[5] as different angling methods, sporting opportunities (e.g. modernizedbowfishing[4]) and new ways to prepare, cook and consume the fish evolve. In the U.S., thelongnose gar is considered a rough fish and undesirablenuisance inOhio, but inLouisiana it is considered a desirable food fish. Due to the many small bones, it is rarelyfilleted; instead, the meat is usuallyminced and rolled withseasonings into "gar balls" to be fried asmeatballs.[6]
Many US state agencies use "rough fish" as acatch-all term to combine both unappreciated native fish species with problematicinvasive species.[4][7] This creates confusion about theendemism of species native to North America.[4] For example, some "rough fishes" are exotic species that have beenintroduced into North American waters from other continents either intentionally or unintentionally (e.g. thecommon carp,bighead carp,silver carp,grass carp,snakehead), that have establishednaturalized foothold in the new habitats. Other "rough fishes" are native species that can be confused withAsian carps because they look superficially similar (bigmouth buffalo,smallmouth buffalo andsuckers). Because in many states all of these native fish are lumped together as "rough" along with invasive species, the public is quick to label and treat them all as invasive "carp". Still other rough fishes are native fishes completely unlike carp, but are categorized as such because they are underused or unpopular.[2] In North America native "rough fish" such as suckers have historically been scapegoated for human environmental destruction and its impacts on popular fish species such asPacific salmon andsmallmouth bass. They have also been seen by some fisheries managers as inferior to introduced species such asbrown trout for aesthetic reasons.[8]
Many rough fish species are federally recognized as endangered, threatened, candidate or species of concern. Because these native American fishes have limited and declining populations and are at risk of extinction, they are listed under theEndangered Species Act.[9] Some rough fishes listed by theUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service are:
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)| Aboutfish |  | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anatomy and physiology | |||||
| Sensory systems | |||||
| Reproduction | |||||
| Locomotion | |||||
| Other behaviour | |||||
| Byhabitat | |||||
| Other types | |||||
| Commerce |
| ||||
| Major groups | |||||
| Lists | |||||
