Massive Kispiox Steelhead

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Itchy Dog, Jan 29, 2009.

  1. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Amen, brother./

    ...Bob out.
  2. Sageman

    Sageman Member

    In regards to the 67 pictures, they don't tell you when they started taking them. The first time I landed a steelhead over 20# was on the N Fork Stilly in the mid-90's during the spring C&R season. I knew the minute I hooked it that I had a beast and had my friend start snapping pictures. I shot over 30 until the film ran out (remember those days, of film?!), but only had the fish in hand for a minute or so while I extracted the hook and got a couple of good pix while I had it tailed in the shallows.

    Depending on the camera and its setting, you may be able to take 67 pix relatively quickly. My digital SLR can probably do it in 30-40 seconds if you lay the hammer down.

    I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
  3. Jim Speaker

    Jim Speaker Active Member

    Kinda what I was thinkin' on the photo count thing. If my buddy had a big fish on I'd take a ton of pictures hoping for a few good ones... but sh*t, what are the chances of that happening? :rofl:
  4. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    my camera can take 6.5 frames per second, perhaps his could too...

    Thats a hog of a fish I'll give it 35# although I'm used to guessing chinook weights and they are built differently. I bet that thing was 45 in the salt.
  5. Brian Thomas

    Brian Thomas Active Member

  6. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    I am sure it was extremely exciting but I have to agree with Rob, based on those last photos from Golden Trout, I don't agree with the handling of a native fish like that.
  7. Citori

    Citori Piscatorial Engineer

    "...the question would be was it intentionally or unintentionally killed? God knows we wouldn't want a fish like that mucking up the gene pool."

    Let's all take a lesson, and accept a measure of personal accountability - there is one thing better than a big fish, and that is more of them.
  8. chattmr

    chattmr has never caught a steelhead... (its sad, I know)

    Perhpas she has a fast camera?
  9. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    She might have taken the pictures quickly, but look at the picture of him measuring the buck, completely out of the water. How long did that take? Add the measuring time to the picture time, etc.
  10. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    I'm sure that fish has passed on its genetics a few times before... I can't believe a buck that big
  11. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    I just found the article in the January issue of Salmon, Trout, Steelhead of a UK gentleman who whooked a steelhead in B.C. they estimate was 34.8 to 35.8 pounds.

    The bucks measurements were 41.5" by 25.5".
  12. Jim Speaker

    Jim Speaker Active Member

    Oh, that last picture... ouch. :beathead:
  13. Runejl

    Runejl Josh

    Is it just me or does that guy look like Screech from Saved by The Bell?
  14. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    now this isn't a diss, please don't take it the wrong way ak_

    but the biggest Kispiox Bucks (40"+) are the ones who spend 4+ years at sea before coming in. Likely this fish was on his way to spawn for the first time. I don't know shyte about it personally, but that's what the Trey Combs book says. My heart sank when I read it.
    I just hope he got away with his libido intact.
  15. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    Strange... I wonder why more fish don't do that
  16. Itchy Dog

    Itchy Dog Some call me Kirk Werner

    I'm not hear to defend or criticize the guy's actions, or speculate whether the fish lived to spawn and pass along his impressive genes or not. But I can tell you that if I had been the one to catch that fish, and my girlfriend was taking photos, I'm pretty sure my waders would have been around my ankles and I'd have been making an involuntary Mingo face. That guy caught a lifetime fish. He was stoked. Bummer if the fish suffered.
  17. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    hell 20 years ago that fish would be over a mantle
  18. Jim Speaker

    Jim Speaker Active Member

    I've heard of this behavior from salmon species as well, staying out an extra year or two before running. Just one of those biological safeguards, a variation... so indeed if that's the case with this fish and it is not "just a multiple run fish," the genetics bear protecting even more.
  19. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    A key attributes of most wild steelhead populations is their variable life histories. They may stay resident instead of being anadromous. They can spend one to four, and sometimes more, years in freshwater before smolting, and they can spend one to four years in the ocean before returning to spawn.

    Steelhead with longer freshwater life histories tend to spend longer at sea. This is why the rivers of the northern BC interior, and the Thompson, where smolts are older when they migrate to the ocean, have a larger percentage of the adult population consisting of 3 and 4-ocean fish. A common misunderstanding is the thought that large steelhead must be on their second or third spawning run. That is not often the case. Steelhead seldom return at a larger size on subsequent spawning runs because after spawning, they lose so much weight, that all the next year's nourishment goes into replacing the weight lost. If a steelhead spawns and then returns again two years later instead of one, then it will have grown to a larger size, but that is infrequently the case based on aging large number of scale samples.

    Lastly, there are exceptions to everything. There are some large steelhead in CA and some small steelhead in northern BC. It keeps the study of fish interesting.

  20. Coach Duff

    Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    "Bummer if the fish suffered". I guess the whole process of ramming a shapened spike (hook) into the fish's mouth, tongue and sometimes gills and then igniting it's fight or flight and self preservation mechanisms until lactic acid overload becomes complete and it can't resist anymore so we can get our quick picture and then revive the fish so it has a chance to survive under complete oxygen depletion and fatigue (and yes some of those fish you revive so well do go belly up down river and die fly anglers) doesn't cause any suffering does it? Flyfishing is a blood sport and to bullshit yourself that the fish only suffers when it is handled improperly as you judgemental characters constantly do, is comical at very best. In fact this post has been one of my best laughs in a long time. And I am sure that any one of us after landing a 40 pound steelhead would not fill up the picture databank on the digital camera! No, not us! I know for a fact I would want numerous pics of that once in a lifetime fish. I would work as fast as possible, and I would keep water moving through the gills constantly, but the camera would be clicking. Reality seems to escape fly anglers fast talking shit on forums doesn't it? If you haven't been there (in this case landing a 40 pound native Kispiox steelhead) than your judgments are nonsense. I haven't been there so I'm going to judge this guy either.

    What an amazing animal. And congrats to the angler. Coach