Identify this fish.

#91
One-third of the guys on here are 100% sure it's a coho.
One-third of the guys on here are 100% sure it's a Chinook.
One-third of the guys on here are 100% sure it's an Atlantic netpen escapee.
A statistically insignificant number of guys think it's something else more interesting.

The only thing this thread really tells us is that 66.67% of the posters are 100% convinced about being 100% wrong.:rofl:
:rofl: Nice! :beer2:
 

Milt Roe

Active Member
#92
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.
 

Ethan G.

I do science.. on fish..
#93
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.
-Ethan
 

NomDeTrout

Fly Guy Eat Pie
#94
Just received emails from three different folks with letters following their names and Icthys specialization. I invited each to sign up to respond... Maybe they will.

Without coaching two said 100% Atlantic and for the reason I believe it is an Atlantic. The third is leaning heavy to Atlantic, but thinks it could conceivably be a chinook. All three said no on coho.

I refrained from guessing on the test photo because most of my texts include pyloric caeca as keying steps and I have difficulty counting them from the photo... I certainly think I know what it is, but am not in a guessing mood.
art
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?
 
#95
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
 

Ethan G.

I do science.. on fish..
#96
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.
-Ethan
 

Brazda

Fly Fishing guide "The Bogy House" Lodge
#98
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:
 

BDD

Active Member
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.
art
Art,

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.
 

jasmillo

Active Member
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. :rolleyes:

briansII
 

Latest posts