What Fish is this ?

[FisherPotch]

Here are a Laker a Bull and a Brookie I caught just a few weeks ago. BBJ u can shove it up your u know what. I suggest you do! you have been corrected a million times on this site. If you guys call those definitive markings on the dorsal your crazy.

Because I have time to post photos for ppl that probably have no photographic eveidence of there own......................especially you BBJ you never catch anything!!!!! Lets see some pics! anyone of you!! search me and my photo's I've posted. You might think twice. I for one am not convinced by ppl that jump to conclusions on a non conclusive photo.

Laker

Laker


Bull

Bull

Bull



Brookie

Brookie


All those were caught within 5 days of each other all within a month. I would LOVE to see any one of you do the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BBJ if I see you I promise I will be chewing you a new one like you have never heard in your life. I suggest YOU erase that ****ing comment.

The fact that based on a photograph (that could have easily been modified (doubful but part of my point)) is all that it takes to make you all "guarentee" that it is a laker speaks worlds for my argument. There is no guarentee.

[FisherPotch]

FisherPotch is the real Deal. He doesn't just spray BS all over the place. Either way I would have released the damned thing. All three Alberta char in 5 days of eachother on my first fly fishing trip on the forestry trunk road. I've got skills and the photo's to prove it. My argument has reason too it. I see a black dorsal with microfreakingscopic markings at best.

And I'm so freaking insulted by that slob i'll stoop to your low with wit. From a thousand miles up. BBJ you would make a more definitive marking!!!

[Fishfinder]

Originally Posted by brianscott

Not a boilermaker, so, what do you do for a living that elevates you above everyone else?

Oh, and its spelt P-R-O-B-A-B-L-Y

Walking pretty tall for a guy with a dozen posts.

Hey. B nice. We r all here to help one another.

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Originally Posted by FisherPotch

Here are a Laker a Bull and a Brookie I caught just a few weeks ago. BBJ u can shove it up your u know what. I suggest you do! you have been corrected a million times on this site. If you guys call those definitive markings on the dorsal your crazy.

Because I have time to post photos for ppl that probably have no photographic eveidence of there own......................especially you BBJ you never catch anything!!!!! Lets see some pics! anyone of you!! search me and my photo's I've posted. You might think twice. I for one am not convinced by ppl that jump to conclusions on a non conclusive photo.

Laker

All those were caught within 5 days of each other all within a month. I would LOVE to see any one of you do the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BBJ if I see you I promise I will be chewing you a new one like you have never heard in your life. I suggest YOU erase that ****ing comment.

The fact that based on a photograph (that could have easily been modified (doubful but part of my point)) is all that it takes to make you all "guarantee" that it is a laker speaks worlds for my argument. There is no guarentee.

All I simply said was that the fella said if its no black put it back or something along them lines when in fact its , when its black put it back . I was simply showing the difference between a Bull Trout and a Lake trout . I never even thought Brook trout came into the mix but might wanna read further down . Anyway just merely suggesting a outdoors course might be a good thing , who knows he could be a 12 year old kid or a 90 year old man . We don't know do we . No need to ride my ass . When Ive only been corrected about regulation when in turn Ive commented . Its every ones right to have there regulation per everyplace you fish with you and know them . Sometimes we slip up and need a refresher this was my case . No need to be an ass now .And where does me posting or not posting pictures of my catches have anything to do with this . It doesnt .

[gpguy7]

things are getting a little heated, in the end its a fish, there's no use in getting all riled up on here. everyone is just trying to help out Mcleod. We've all seen pictures of BBJ with fish, and now we've seen fisherpotch with fish, you can both catch fish, leave it at that. As far as what kind of fish it is, it's one that Mcleod had a good time catching and thats all that really matters.

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by BIGBADJOHN

All I simply said was that the fella said if its no black put it back or something along them lines when in fact its , when its black put it back . I was simply showing the difference between a Bull Trout and a Lake trout . I never even thought Brook trout came into the mix but might wanna read further down . Anyway just merely suggesting a outdoors course might be a good thing , who knows he could be a 12 year old kid or a 90 year old man . We don't know do we . No need to ride my ass . When Ive only been corrected about regulation when in turn Ive commented . Its every ones right to have there regulation per everyplace you fish with you and know them . Sometimes we slip up and need a refresher this was my case . No need to be an ass now .And where does me posting or not posting pictures of my catches have anything to do with this . It doesnt .

I've made the best sense out of this I could. Fact is no black put it back. You know exactly why I was giving you the gears. Suggest a trout ID course to me! But in fact without the internet on hand or regulations I bet i'd smoke 90 % of you on an exam. Hell I'm in the top 1 percentile on IQ tests let alone a test on a topic I love such as fishing. Especially if they are posting cartoon pictures that are that obvious. Yet I was the one that wouldn't give a 100% on species. Hell the one guy was getting into scientific names!! Genus and species and was way out to lunch. The phrase is "no black put it back" and there is a serious lack of black spots there. Comments like "i don't see any bull trout markings" (not bbj quote) Its a freaking char!! its got allot of char markings if you have a clue what you are talking about (again not directed to bbj).

Point is I saw many things falsely put in this thread. As far as I can re read I've got my facts straight without typos but it's late and we all make mistakes. Only debate was if there are spots on that dorsal or not. How many of you have glases? My vision is a as good as it gets and thats a quote straight from an optomatrist.

If McLeod would atleast list species present in the fishery it would help. It's that specific lack of info that makes me think that there is something FISHY going on here. What could seriously be the purpose of witholding that info? If it's the fisheries name I understand protecting it. But the avoidance of listing species present? Come on!! If your not going to tell us. Or your not going to tell us why? Then I feel quite confident in my assumption that there is a deeped darker reason for witholding that info. Go ahead McLeod, prove me wrong

Still would love too know why its definitely not a bull. If you pinch a bulls tail it still makes a fork folks. I'm not going to deny that at first glance it looks just like a laker, hell even after second glance, its just that dorsal. All the lakers I have caught have had a more yellowish color to their dorsal, hell look at that cartoon image of a laker BBJ posted It's doral looks nothing like the fish in question. Now compair the dorsal of the cartoon bull to the fish in question!! Still so confident?? But that lack of black spots would have me ****ing myself if I were to be pulled over by a co.

Copyed and pasted from online regs.


Trout (true trout and char) - rayless fleshy lope on back
behind dorsal fin (adipose fin) and small scales on body
TROUT - BLACK SPOTS ON SIDES

Brown Trout
- pale haloes around black spots

Cuthroat Trout
- no haloes around black
spots and a red-orange
slash under the jaw

Rainbow Trout*
- no haloes around black
spots and no red-orange
slash under the jaw

CHAR - NO BLACK SPOTS ON SIDES
Bull Trout
- no spots or markings
on dorsal fin

Lake Trout
- pale spots on dorsal fin
and tail deeply forked

Brook Trout
- black markings on dorsal fin
and tail not deeply forked
*Golden trout - resemble rainbow trout, but black spots on sides mainly near tail
(only occurs in a few high mountain lakes).

I highlighted the part about not deeply forked on Brookie. Notice the lack of a comment on the deep fork for the Bull trout? Today was the first I noticed. I've heard the deep fork as being the method of ID for lakers for years. But I'm seriously beginning to wonder how reliable it is for that 100% guarentee. And sooner than later I'll be looking into Arctic Char and Dolly Varden markings just to create more confusion.

Sorry for the rant folks and BBJ I may owe you more than just an appology. But to get a hoard of people saying something without backing it while I'm here debating and providing plenty reason for my argument is very frustrating to say the least. I'm known for my rants I'm sure. That and posting pics when I get a chance. And the posting of pictures provides credibility. This is fishing and with fishing comes allot of fishy stories. If you have fished as much as I, you would already know this. I believe it when I see it. Once again sorry for the rant. Tight lines.

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by gpguy7

We've all seen pictures of BBJ with fish,

Originally Posted by gpguy7

and now we've seen fisherpotch with fish,

If this is the case things are very different then they were last I was a regular here. If you just NOW seen me with fish you havn't been looking long. I'd be surprized if there has been anyone on this site since May 2007 (when they fired up the new board) that has posted more fishing photo's than I. If there is someone..........I'd bet they are a guide.

[McLeod]

Sorry for this to get a little out of hand. I am not trying to fool anyone and no the picture was not manipulated in anyway.
I just wanted a second opinion.
I have been around for along time and have a B SC in Zoology and have study fish extensively.
My though process on posting this was that when I caught this fish and released it was that it was a lake trout . Lake trout are one species I have had little experience with. My thinking was if I posted the picture someone might be able to say I have caught one just like that and it was a .....
I appreciate everyone's opinion... I am going to stick with my gut that this is a Laker but with some possible other influence which maybe enviromental.
I see bulls being no part of this equation but have looked strongly for brookie
influence but can't see it.
I will try and get another one this year but timing is tight.
Thanks again and If I head out again I might post for some volunteers to come with me .

[Fishfinder]

Originally Posted by FisherPotch

I've made the best sense out of this I could. Fact is no black put it back. You know exactly why I was giving you the gears. Suggest a trout ID course to me! But in fact without the internet on hand or regulations I bet i'd smoke 90 % of you on an exam. Hell I'm in the top 1 percentile on IQ tests let alone a test on a topic I love such as fishing. Especially if they are posting cartoon pictures that are that obvious. Yet I was the one that wouldn't give a 100% on species. Hell the one guy was getting into scientific names!! Genus and species and was way out to lunch. The phrase is "no black put it back" and there is a serious lack of black spots there. Comments like "i don't see any bull trout markings" (not bbj quote) Its a freaking char!! its got allot of char markings if you have a clue what you are talking about (again not directed to bbj).

Point is I saw many things falsely put in this thread. As far as I can re read I've got my facts straight without typos but it's late and we all make mistakes. Only debate was if there are spots on that dorsal or not. How many of you have glases? My vision is a as good as it gets and thats a quote straight from an optomatrist.

If McLeod would atleast list species present in the fishery it would help. It's that specific lack of info that makes me think that there is something FISHY going on here. What could seriously be the purpose of witholding that info? If it's the fisheries name I understand protecting it. But the avoidance of listing species present? Come on!! If your not going to tell us. Or your not going to tell us why? Then I feel quite confident in my assumption that there is a deeped darker reason for witholding that info. Go ahead McLeod, prove me wrong

Still would love too know why its definitely not a bull. If you pinch a bulls tail it still makes a fork folks. I'm not going to deny that at first glance it looks just like a laker, hell even after second glance, its just that dorsal. All the lakers I have caught have had a more yellowish color to their dorsal, hell look at that cartoon image of a laker BBJ posted It's doral looks nothing like the fish in question. Now compair the dorsal of the cartoon bull to the fish in question!! Still so confident?? But that lack of black spots would have me ****ing myself if I were to be pulled over by a co.

Copyed and pasted from online regs.


Trout (true trout and char) - rayless fleshy lope on back
behind dorsal fin (adipose fin) and small scales on body
TROUT - BLACK SPOTS ON SIDES

Brown Trout
- pale haloes around black spots

Cuthroat Trout
- no haloes around black
spots and a red-orange
slash under the jaw

Rainbow Trout*
- no haloes around black
spots and no red-orange
slash under the jaw

CHAR - NO BLACK SPOTS ON SIDES
Bull Trout
- no spots or markings
on dorsal fin

Lake Trout
- pale spots on dorsal fin
and tail deeply forked

Brook Trout
- black markings on dorsal fin
and tail not deeply forked
*Golden trout - resemble rainbow trout, but black spots on sides mainly near tail
(only occurs in a few high mountain lakes).

I highlighted the part about not deeply forked on Brookie. Notice the lack of a comment on the deep fork for the Bull trout? Today was the first I noticed. I've heard the deep fork as being the method of ID for lakers for years. But I'm seriously beginning to wonder how reliable it is for that 100% guarentee. And sooner than later I'll be looking into Arctic Char and Dolly Varden markings just to create more confusion.

Sorry for the rant folks and BBJ I may owe you more than just an appology. But to get a hoard of people saying something without backing it while I'm here debating and providing plenty reason for my argument is very frustrating to say the least. I'm known for my rants I'm sure. That and posting pics when I get a chance. And the posting of pictures provides credibility. This is fishing and with fishing comes allot of fishy stories. If you have fished as much as I, you would already know this. I believe it when I see it. Once again sorry for the rant. Tight lines.

Wow! Stopped reading after ur 5th incorrect sentence Mr. large IQ Bashing everyone now?? I'll take the pepsi challenge any day of the week with u....as far as fishing goes. The more u talk, the sillier u sound. If I see u BBJ - what is that??? Ur a moron dude

[steelhead]

BBJ was right the whole time.


fisherpotch.........WRONG!




yer hillarious!



STEELHEAD

[baitfisher83]

Fisherpotch, get the hell over yourself, there's nothing more disgusting than an angler who brags about themself on a regular basis, this thread may have been better as a poll but i'm sure you still would have been sitting way up on your high horse. You seem like quite the spoiled little brat to me, having the dellusion that you're gods gift to fishing doesn't give you the right to put others down. This is definitely not a fish to easily identify, there's alot of crossbreeding happening now with all the breeds entering the alberta waters....
Any chance your name is Kyle???

Originally Posted by baitfisher83

Fisherpotch, get the hell over yourself, there's nothing more disgusting than an angler who brags about themself on a regular basis, this thread may have been better as a poll but i'm sure you still would have been sitting way up on your high horse. You seem like quite the spoiled little brat to me, having the dellusion that you're gods gift to fishing doesn't give you the right to put others down. This is definitely not a fish to easily identify, there's alot of crossbreeding happening now with all the breeds entering the alberta waters....
Any chance your name is Kyle???

x2
Fisherpotch, do you have a magic mirror that tells you everyday how great you are??! GET OVER YOURSELF

[JohninAB]

fisherpotch, pretty high opinion of yourself.

[DLP]

Lake Trout

[bobbypetrolia]

I can't believe this thread has got 3 pages now, and yet I am adding to it.......
ITS A LAKE TROUT!
Not even close to anything else.

[marlin1]

that was my first and last thought as well . this thread really got out of hand it seems , lots of spouting off . I think there is splake in alberta to whoever said there wasn't . I know of them being caught in Minny. I am not a scientist or univercity educated person just good old common knowledge and experience . Never caught one personally just going from what some older gentlemen told me so don't jump all over it .

Originally Posted by marlin1

that was my first and last thought as well . this thread really got out of hand it seems , lots of spouting off . I think there is splake in alberta to whoever said there wasn't . I know of them being caught in Minny. I am not a scientist or univercity educated person just good old common knowledge and experience . Never caught one personally just going from what some older gentlemen told me so don't jump all over it .

Splake have been stocked in many Alberta lakes, including Minnewanka but if any still remain is doubtful.

[marlin1]

this was 20 years ago so you could be right , not too many left by now

[wind drift]

Purely and simply a lake trout.

Not sure why the mystery around where it was caught is being maintained. Lake trout occur in relatively few Alberta waters, mostly lakes but also recorded in rivers. If it was caught in a place known to contain lakers, then why the conundrum? If caught in waters not already known to contain lakers, I suggest contacting Fish and Wildlife and passing along the info.

This should be an informative thread, but it got off track.

[McLeod]

The Lake does not contain Lakers. At least until now.
Again thanks to everyone for their input.

[rem338win]

Lake Trout.

[Jayball]

Originally Posted by McLeod

The Lake does not contain Lakers. At least until now.
Again thanks to everyone for their input.

To all: I have been following this post for some time now... with great interest as i have learned a great deal from many of you. So thx very much! I am a bit suprised at some the recent posts (no real need to call eacthother out is there??)... but then again I am new to the forum.

So... my question to McLeod: From a science perspective... if the lake does not contain lake trout... how can this fish come from it? Can a new species be introduced and go unnoticed for a long time? It doesnt look like very young... so can it be that it has been in the lake and no-one has seen it before? I think you said had a science background... what are your thougths?

I wont even pretend to guess the species as i dont know much about trout... plus if i am wrong... the wrath of some these posters may get the better of me!

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

[QUOTE=FisherPotch;357257]I've made the best sense out of this I could. Fact is no black put it back. You know exactly why I was giving you the gears. Suggest a trout ID course to me! QUOTE]

My original comment was never directed to you .

I was com,menting to a newer poster saying something of no black throw it back. You mr fisher potch never said that. CALM DOWN TAKE A DEEP BREATHE AND TAKE IT EASY.

[wind drift]

PM sent

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Originally Posted by Jayball

To all: I have been following this post for some time now... with great interest as i have learned a great deal from many of you. So thx very much! I am a bit suprised at some the recent posts (no real need to call eacthother out is there??)... but then again I am new to the forum.

So... my question to McLeod: From a science perspective... if the lake does not contain lake trout... how can this fish come from it? Can a new species be introduced and go unnoticed for a long time? It doesnt look like very young... so can it be that it has been in the lake and no-one has seen it before? I think you said had a science background... what are your thougths?

I wont even pretend to guess the species as i dont know much about trout... plus if i am wrong... the wrath of some these posters may get the better of me!

First off not trying to start anything here , But just because a particular species isn't listed doesn't mean they aren't there . Ive seen it a few times mainly with stocked body's of water.

[marlin1]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Purely and simply a lake trout.

Not sure why the mystery around where it was caught is being maintained. Lake trout occur in relatively few Alberta waters, mostly lakes but also recorded in rivers. If it was caught in a place known to contain lakers, then why the conundrum? If caught in waters not already known to contain lakers, I suggest contacting Fish and Wildlife and passing along the info.

This should be an informative thread, but it got off track.

years ago I saw one come from the bearspaw dam. Below the dam when the water was high . I assumed it came from the reservior , believe it or not I also saw a 3 pound brook trout caught there .

[Jayball]

Originally Posted by BIGBADJOHN

First off not trying to start anything here , But just because a particular species isn't listed doesn't mean they aren't there . Ive seen it a few times mainly with stocked body's of water.

Ok... thx for that. I just didnt even know if that was possible. I am just a simple pike hunter.

oh...bbj... by the way... was out at pigeon this weekend just hammerin wallys with my flyrod... you would have been proud!

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Originally Posted by Jayball

Ok... thx for that. I just didnt even know if that was possible. I am just a simple pike hunter.

oh...bbj... by the way... was out at pigeon this weekend just hammerin wallys with my flyrod... you would have been proud!

Nupe I was dressed up and sucked in .

[Pierre]

This is what Kyle McNeilly posted on the old flyfishalberta forum back in 2005

"One oddity of Splake pops is, the longer the pop reproduces, the more they look like lakers. Some theorize there are more allelles controlling colour/appearance in Lakers, so the Brookie characteristics sort of melt away over time." end quote.

[fishman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is what Kyle McNeilly posted on the old flyfishalberta forum back in 2005

"One oddity of Splake pops is, the longer the pop reproduces, the more they look like lakers. Some theorize there are more allelles controlling colour/appearance in Lakers, so the Brookie characteristics sort of melt away over time." end quote.

Pierre

My understanding that when they cross the lakers with the brookies they become sterile so there is no reproduction...............on another note Pierre don't you hear Gem lake calling, i hear it calling me........hummmmm i think i better go there tommorow or the next day.....r u up to it bud