Identify this fish.

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Gregg H, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,097
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +563 / 0
    Compare a couple of attached web pics....
  2. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,398
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,356 / 9
    Let's just say it is a fine looking salmon, bycatch bonus of the day. Nice fish.
  3. Ray Member

    Posts: 340
    Post Falls, ID
    Ratings: +21 / 0
    Well, it's not a carp.
  4. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,097
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +563 / 0 would be surprised what someone will try to tell you on here... :D
  5. BDD Active Member

    Posts: 2,227
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +216 / 2
    Looks to me like in your first quote, you mention you can ID it by looking at the tail underwater, then in the second quote, you dismiss another opinion because of looking at the fish underwater.

  6. Keith Hixson Active Member

    Posts: 1,500
    College Place, Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    Its a King with white lipstick. :) rolf
  7. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,097
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +563 / 0
    :rofl::rofl: Good one Keith! Like I said, you would be surprised what some people will try to tell others on here! Crack me up. :)
  8. hap Member

    Posts: 309
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Obviously you have not spent much time looking for cohos in schools of humpies or reds, particularly in marginal viewing conditions. Coho tails are very dark at the trailing edge. They disappear. If the trailing edge is light you are not looking at a coho.

    There is absolute proof in the first photos the fish is an Atlantic, period. The tail is just a lagniappe that eliminates coho... The gums eliminated chinook, but neither is needed to prove it is an Atlantic.

    It IS an Atlantic, period. Oh, I have sport and commercial fished and guided in AK for over 40 years... But that makes zero difference.
  9. fishbadger Member

    Posts: 196
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    looks like a king to me,

  10. hap Member

    Posts: 309
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    You are not alone among the uninformed...
  11. g_smolt Recreational User

    Posts: 916
    58°19'59 N, 134°29'49 W
    Ratings: +161 / 0

    Yet another testament to your ignorance and willingness to prove the same.
  12. Jake Dogfish New Member

    Posts: 26
    Des Moines
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Chinook. I think some like to over think things. Oddly enough, the fish is what it looks like. I have seen the gum argument proven wrong many times.
  13. hap Member

    Posts: 309
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    So are you saying Mecklenburg is wrong, or my interpretation of same is wrong?
  14. alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Posts: 3,891
    Hiding in your closet
    Ratings: +68 / 0
    This whole thread is comedy.
  15. JesseC Active Member

    Posts: 1,966
    seattle, wa
    Ratings: +726 / 0
    I'm pretty damn certain that's a Striper. yeaaaah, that's the ticket. It's a striper/rockfish that somehow escaped. Damned thing probably came up off of someone's dirty felt shoes! Wash your damn felt people or you're gonna have parasitic intrusions like this to deal with.

    How do I know it's a Striper? Well, because I grew up fishing for em, 20 something years! I know one when I see one! And, yeah, I checked with this biologist friend of mine. He said for sure, Striper! You can tell from the smell!

    Then I checked an encyclopedia on the interwebs - yeah, that's it. Wikipedia!
  16. NomDeTrout Fly Guy Eat Pie

    Posts: 472
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    squawfish. when it doubt, just call it squawfish.

    in all seriousness, are we really arguing about identifying a fish that we can't thoroughly even see? Its a damn picture and logically speaking, nobody knows for damn sure so to keep stating that its a "_______ salmon. PERIOD" is foolish.

    we're all just speculating here.
  17. Nate Dutton I'm a teacher, I fish to eat!

    Posts: 790
    Kiana, AK
    Ratings: +2 / 0
    well if speculation is the name of the game count me in...I would say the fish in questions is approximately 32 inches long...with a girth of 18 inches and by my weight calculation it would be a 13.378064516128033 pound beautifully fresh King Salmon who has brushed her teeth very well... Give her a week and she will be just another chubby black gummed fav! But i would go with king because nothing else makes sense imho.
  18. g_smolt Recreational User

    Posts: 916
    58°19'59 N, 134°29'49 W
    Ratings: +161 / 0
    Citing a single reference not germane to the geographical area is wrong.

    Claiming species ID without verified classic characteristics (Fin ray count, gill raker count, Lateral line scale count, etc) in cases of obscured or absent evidence is a rookie mistake, something that anyone with any formal ichthyological training has had drilled into them from day one to avoid.

    As my late Ichthyology Prof used to say all the time (though not, thankfully, to me)..."That's just dumb."

  19. TexBC Fly Addict

    Posts: 51
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Ratings: +9 / 0
    This is a great example of why we shouldn't be so quick to jump all over those who are unsure what type of fish they caught. LOL

    My opinion? Body and head scream "Chinook" to me, but the gums really throw me off and hint at "Coho". I have no personal familiarity with Atlantics, having never caught one, but from pictures I've studied in the past, the spots are typically right up onto their cheeks, aren't they?

    Anyhow, it's a beauty fish. Congrats on the catch.
  20. WaFlyCaster Tricoptera

    Posts: 464
    Fife, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    its a chinook with photoshopped gums. :thumb: