Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Gregg H, Nov 30, 2009.
:rofl: Nice! :beer2:
King - My opinion based on several decades of professional and personal experience in fish identification and research on salmon. I would never rely 100% on a single general coloration patten to identify a fish to species such a gumline color or spotting to identify fish to species when there is a reasonable doubt as to the answer based on the sum of all other information.
Based on a relatively poor photo: King because of the relatively small eye. King because of the spotting that is small groups of checkerboard rather than round spots. King because of the shape and heavy shoulders. I wish I could see the peduncle better, but it looks thick and heavy like a king. King because of the anal fin shape and color.
Atlantics tend to have large round spots on the cheek. Different build. Different MoJo.
My opinion. I could be wrong.
With that new shot of the gums, I'm gonna say Chinook. Final answer.
Also, as a side note: AAAAGGGGHH! The Cougs coug'd the Gonzaga game.
hap, in all genuine curiosity, i am wondering what exactly are the points of evidence that shows it is an atlantic salmon? I see that in previous comments, you've illiminated chinook and coho by the lack of specific features but have not identified features that indicates atlantic salmon.
as someone who does not have any experience with Atlantic salmon, what are the indicators of atlantic salmon?
haha ethen, my cousin and along with half of my highschool after they graduated ended up at the zoo, i was told when i go to a game, 1) get hammered 2) prepare to see them lose, if they win go party and the same goes for losing hahaha
Win or lose, Cougars booze.
7 pages with 96 post. cabin fever must be startin up out there eh?
Swine fricken flu and finally upright,,,,,,
ah yea there's the tail looks like it could be shiney and full of spots, can you say fresh KING SALMON, Chinook, whatever name you what to call them :thumb:
Yep. Even when you can go fishing, it's dark. Back to tying up articulated flies every night and drinking to the "good old days" (aka last month).
I am not questioning your 40 years of sport, commercial, and guiding in Alaska. Since you don't know me or anything I have done, I find it a little unassuming that you would know how much or how little time I have spent looking at schools of fish.
You base your decision on two photos, neither which provide any really good insight of the key areas for positive ID. I can assume your experience comes from looking at live fish, and their behavior. A photo is much different, as factors such as light, angle, water, shadow, and most of all, without a really good view of the dorsal and caudal fins, it can be confusing.
Let's look at this a little more objectively. California is much farther south than the historical range of Atlantic salmon. I would be very surprised to see an escapee travel that far south in the warmer ocean current. The likelihood of them reproducing on their own and returning to central California is pretty remote as well.
My experience with Atlantic salmon is limited but we did catch them regularly in SE Alaska while purse-seining. I would put them in a plastic garbage bag and ride my bike into Ketchikan to deliver them to the ADFG office. And Daryle can confirm that. :thumb: They had a couple things in common; their fins and body were worn down from spending considerable time in the net pens before escaping and they were relatively skinny, almost like they had trouble feeding once they escaped. The fish in question appears natural in origin; I don't detect any fin wear that you would associate with being a net pen escapee. And it doesn't look like it has missed too many meals.
I find it hard to believe that you are so sure of species despite the fact that the pictures did not show any defining characteristics, the one picture shows the fish mostly underwater (already discussed the problems with that photo for ID purposes), a majority of the folks on here thought differently (some even fishery-trained), you used conflicting arguments for your rationale, and finally, you posted some rather vague references that you thought proved your point which didn't prove anything.
Not trying to get into a pissing match here. I'm sure that you, I, and a majority of the folks on here could ID the fish in a heartbeat if the fish were in our hands. But it is a little more difficult with photos that don't clearly show the important details of the fish. By looking at the biological information and the fact that it doesn't look like a salar , I'd wager it is not an AS. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. :rofl:
Otherwise this has been a pretty cool thread. I like the "ID this fish" threads.
Attached are a few pics of Atlantic salmon we caught near Ketchikan, probably mid 90s. Not very good quality but better than nothing I guess. Good memories huh, Daryle?
Don't know if it's been mentioned as this thread is way too long...but since brown trout are present in California, it could well be a sea run brown. The seatrout of Europe bears some resemblance. I wish now that I'd taken some pix...
My first thought was chinook looking at the head, but the gumline is a giveaway there. I don't think I've ever seen a king or blackmouth with a gumline that white. It doesn't look like a coho head; it just screams nook.
I mentioned it earlier...I don't think anyone's buying it
Considering Kings are a relatively common catch in that location, rarity(if at all) of Coho, and all the other info pointing to a King, i'd say it's a char.
White King Salmon? I was stuck on coho until I saw the spots on the lower portion of the tail...