Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by BruceAC, Jan 15, 2010.
grilling a guy for asking a honest question is just stupid nuff said.............
And: LOL Ed. I'm done with this thread. So you won't see me post again on this thread. Except maybe to park or ban someone.
So I am to understand you are threatening to ban me because you cannot come up with a valid argument? " 'cause I know" is not being accepted and that is what you have?
Looking back at your statements you have not addressed my comments and issues. were I clueless as you contend you should be able to explain every one of them easily.
We agree the fish is pre-spawn, been in the river a while, and has a relatively advanced kype.
If it were male as you contend how do you explain the total lack of hump? You do agree coho males develop humps, don't you?
If it were male as you contend, don't you find it unusually gray?
You made several comments indicating you think it is farther along then I do and suggested it may have already spawned some... Shouldn't the changes be more pronounced based on that?
You claimed a magic ID trick, but never told anyone what it is.
If this was a male my expectations would be more kype, a distinct hump and more red. I would also expect to see more teeth.
Thinking you could look at the archives and find more than a few pictures I posted if you foolishly believe I do not fish. There may even be a few easily verified tidbits about me. After the attacks from so many over a post about Heller, the Atlantic salmon, and this I get the feeling you guys really do not want to play nice...
I vote for the wooden stake through the heard of this thread. There is no way to truly know now that the fish is only a photograph. No one in the field identified its gender. It is all speculation and guesswork at this point. One of the coolest things about nature is that it follows guidelines but does not adhere to such rigid rules. Big kype, small kype, more grey, less grey, mature, immature, big hump, little hump, prespawn, postspawn, can any of those things really be seen for gosh darn sure in that one photograph? If someone says they can answer all those and more, as truly needed to id the mystery early return prespawn male coho then I call BS. It is all postulation and one CV is more storied than another CV. Five pages on one fish ID, really?
I second your vote Mumbles. I have to say I am quite dismayed at the direction this thread has gone. It went from a simple question.."Is this a salmon or a steelhead" to an over blown testosterone laden my dad is bigger than your dad pi**ing match. The answer is simple. It is a salmon Bruce. Gender doesn't change genus. But wait.........steelhead are genus Oncorhynchus as well...........
Haven't been here long have you?
i agree, this thread reads like a bunch of drunk guys around a camp fire in a pissin match after 4 days of fishin without catching a fish, too bad no ones drunk, there's no fire, and i hope no ones on day 4 of a fishing trip without a fish to hand. sorry fellows but this is not positive and has went the wrong way. i was let down after reading this thread from the last time i left off. If we care such much for our resources (fish) then turn on each other in anger over the stupid sexing of a fish then we definately ain't gonna get to far with banding together to help sustain what we've got.
by the way...wasn't the original question about simply what type of fish it was, and not its sex?
Been gone for a couple days so late getting back to the party but I wanted to officially state that I apologize if anything I wrote regarding the male vs. female discussion bothered anyone. That was certainly not my intention as I tried to be respectful and cordial throughout my responses to this thread. I realized all along that there was considerable drift from the original question but I hoped there was some educational information being presented as well. And I like ribbing Hap.
Yeah, I think this thread is done. Hap, if you want to speak to me, do it via PM. Sorry, not taking your trolling bait.