I made my apologies with my 2nd last post. I let the situation get the better of me and I stated it admittedly. I admit this got off track and it’s my fault for the hijack.
I'd like to know what I stated incorrectly. That way I don't make the mistake again. Feel free to criticize as you please I'm trying to learn here. No one has tried to correct a single one of my points other than that they see dorsal markings. Other than that I need to know what I stated incorrectly so that I know for the future, wouldn't you agree? The point of forums and threads just as this should be education. So educate me I'm not sure what I stated incorrectly.
As far as I can see the only discrepancy is the dorsal markings. I just don't see them. For that I'll apologize too.
Everyone just says it's a laker without getting into detail. I made a buffoon of myself by defending my argument but at least I did it with detail and described where I based my argument.
No one made a comment on why the cartoon images BBJ posted had the bull trout dorsal being much more similar to the fish in question than the laker cartoon image. Am I the only one that see's it that way too? Because I swear that the dorsal of the cartoon bull is VERY similar to the fish in question, in color and shape!! Please take another look for yourself.
I'm not arguing the fact of if it’s a laker or not. I'll take all of your word for it. But for the sake of education I'd like to be convinced with info and detail not just an opinion.
I stated after first and second glance it looks like a laker long ago. But there has to be some room for argument or I wouldn't think this photo would have ever been posted. If it's so cut and dry why post it???!!! If no one else noticed the 8th post said "no black put it back" the guy got jumped on so fast of course he wouldn't defend his argument. I'm not that bashful, that’s what I have programmed into my head "no black put it back" so it's my first instinct to look at the dorsal. Sorry.
Post 34 fishman states in some lakes it's difficult to tell the Lakers form the bulls. Is this true?
Post 35 sys it looks like a dolly
Post 37 says it looks like a laker bull cross says he caught one at minny some years ago!
Post 44 makes reference to possibility that poster of photo is from minny area, also making reference to why the area hasn't been listed
In 53 and 55 the poster makes reference to not being able to be 100% without being present but supports that it is a laker and see's markings on dorsal in his opinion.
I beg of the users on this board that have made up there minds on me to re read my first post #51. PLEASE. There is no high and mighty there!! I'm trying to get my head wrapped around this. I say things like "I am no expert" "id never put a 100%" I make many references to the key points in ID such as the dorsal and the fork tail and attempt to provide detail for why I wasn't convinced that its a laker.
In post 52 I question why it is definitely not a bull. AND get no reply.
Post 54 I say I don't deny that it is a laker. And that I'm just not seeing the dorsal markings.
Here is where I get upset. For the record BBJ and I have known each other longer than either of us have been on the forum and for someone I considered a friend to make a comment such as
"Thats so far from a bull trout that’s not even funny" and then
"If you cant tell the difference I might suggest taking an outdoor education training course" ANYONE of you might find it offensive! And up to this point I feel I had been politically correct with my argument and my search for detail and a learning experience.
Then post 58.
No signs of bull trout!! Please back me someone because it’s ridiculous for not one person to step in and say that the white marks on the fins are a bull trout marking. Not one person backed this point everyone just bashed. Earlier some people stated in there posts they saw some bull/laker cross possibilities and even dolly varden possibilities (very close to bull from my understanding) but why would they get involved in the debate when I'm getting two handed from all directions just for trying to have a logical debate. So for no one to back me on my point and everyone bash me without detail seems quite unfair and biased, I got frustrated and let it get the better of me. Again I'll apologize but please try to understand how this got the better of me.
This is where I went off on a tangent I'm afraid I cannot take back.
Post 61 I post photo's from a recent trip where I catch all three types of char and photograph markings as documentation. I made the mistake of making a verbal attack on BBJ but as stated b4 we have a history and I was highly offended by someone I took to be a friend insulting me on the World Wide Web.
Post 62 was rude and completely unnecessary. But so many people talk the talk, I just post the proof. At this point It's obvious how frustrated I am and I'm trying to defend my credibility, I'm not trying to be cocky I'm trying to once again provide reason for my argument and my confidence. But the main fact of the matter I want to get across now is that I'm sorry John for posting in this manner. Please try to understand how seriously I take fishing and I had been insulted in the very worst of ways, especially when I started my debate/argument as politically correct as I did in my original post.
This came from post 64 by BBJ "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'd like to know why he can type a mistake like that and I get no back up. Still waiting for someone to correct me on my details and info.........
Also brookies come into it cause they are another char, I knew this did you? As someone else stated the lack of worm markings would lead one to discredit any brookie possibilities. Typicaly if a person catches a fish that isn't listed for a body of water they try to document it and alert fish and game, let me guess you did neither.............
Post 66 I talk myself up in an attempt to boost credibility. Still waiting for a correction on any of the points I raised in any of my posts. Again I bring up the post about no bull markings. And why the lake name can't be provided! That’s withholding valuable info in a debate such as this. I don't understand why and many others also ponder the same thought, including the most credible person on this forum! I make reference to dorsal similarities in the cartoon bull and fish in question. I also post from the regs a very valid point......why is it they make reference to no fork on the brookie but they say nothing about a lack of a tail fork on the bull? It's a very valid point and provides support for my argument. Why no comments? I also make reference to the fact that dolly's and arctic char could come into the mix but I know nothing of there markings. To cap it off I apologize for my rant and try to explain myself, and I question why there are no others getting into detail and just skipping straight to a conclusion without at least looking at things from both sides the argument. Not one of my points gets argued, just the markings on the dorsal.
In 67 I post my confusion with what was post 65. I actually recall a thread before that got heated between two people on my friends list, one of them arguing that the other talks like he know everything yet has only provided proof for some small pike some small walleye and some guided cat fish. Yet claims so much more and most just eat it up what some see as obvious BS, sorry but this is where I was going with the spraying of BS all over the place. I've heard it from the mouths of people on his friends list too!!! I'm not the only one who sees it that way folks. So for me to get frustrated when said person suggests I take a fish ID course should be slightly more understandable when you know the WHOLE story. And it's not that far from a bull at all.
McLeod no need for you to apologize it’s MY fault that this got out of hand. Sorry that in my attempt to get my head wrapped around this that I have mislead this thread. Still wouldn't bother me to know where it was caught, from my understanding there are waters with dollys and arctic char in AB and I'd like to discredit those possibilities.
Fishfinder I'm still waiting for you to correct me on one sentence!!! What is that?? You have no clue of the story that’s what that is! I'd love for you to provide detail as to where I got silly! I'm just holding a debate by defending my side with detail. And I got peeved at someone and it was not necessary but there is a serious lack of detail from you for me to think you would provide any challenge. Correct me please, honestly I would appreciate it. We are all here to learn.
Steelhead I provided a point as to where BBJ was wrong, what say you now? Remember the part where I don’t deny that it's a laker?? At no point do I say that it's 100% a bull. I fail to see where I have been wrong other than my rant on BBJ and some other stupid comments. I'm waiting for a correction, please educate me. Please show me where I was wrong..........
It no point do I say I'm a god or that I have a high horse. But in my first post I say I am no expert! Maybe you should try reading the original detail and realize that it was two comments that lead to my frustrations. I am spoiled! I wont deny that I have it good but I have worked for that, educated with a good occupation a roof over my head, food to eat and some fishing gear. I've worked for it all other than what god gave me of course and for that I'm grateful. I will thank you for the part about the fish not being easily identifiable. Other than that your post was just insulting and quite a joke. What gives you the right to put others down I might ask? Never even caught one I remember that line! At least I appologize for my mistakes.
I'd like to know where the high opinion remarks come from. All I do is provide factoids about my self. Not my opinion, facts.
Once again I think it is an informative thread, and I went off on a tangent when I was upset. Any of you would have been upset too. Please I beg of you if there is any misleading info on this thread I'd like to be up to speed as to avoid making any mistakes in the future.
THE LAKE DOES NOT CONTAIN LAKERS! Now that’s a point that should be considered. Wouldn't you think?????? I KNOW I would.
Pierre I appreciate the PM thanks
As for the high and mighty pedestal thing. Then comments such as the slime off my hands thing, so cool, buffoon, they speak wonders of your own character considering I didn't make any insulting comments towards you. I know you have been here longer than I walleyes. The first post I made was on the old board about the pyra's and the poached sheep. I do believe you were one of the users posting in that thread. I also recall being on the same page as you on the "not in my back yard" thing so please don't think that we are that different in all aspects. Minnows and bait eh? That is just so far from the truth it's ridiculous. Your name is walleyes and I'd gladly have a post off at who has caught the most big walleye and the pics to prove it. I may just be a pup but I think I could give you a run. I don't post pics of small guys cuz we don't take pics of the small guys. Need I start a thread full of 26-30 inch walleye? I don't even take pictures anymore unless they break 23. I am not big on pike but I have my share of 3 footers and recently got a 40 incher on the fly rod. Ya a 40 incher pike on 6lb vanish tippet on a 6 wt rod. My first pike EVER on the fly. Caught and released! Now I am bragging! Damn proud of that fish. I have the pic check my FTR thread. Also 30 inch burbs, 14 inch perch, 48 inch geon.......your post was a direct attempt to insult me and like so many others instead of getting into details you just stated
Quote walleyes "As far as this fish goes,, its a laker trust me on this one and you know what if its not who cares I would like to see the evidence its not.. trust me I could fill 2 pages of laker photo's on here that would prove this fish a laker.. This coming from someone who you can believe has wiped more fish slime off my hands than you have walked by in a stream,,, PUP...
I'm afraid you provided zero evidence that it is a laker walleyes, you just got all hi and mighty because you have been here longer. I never called myself a hero I just legitimatly backed my side the debate. I crossed the line insulting john and I've admited that, and I certainly did NOT deny the amount of knowlege available through the many veterans on this site. Take it easy grampa (you called me son and pup please understand this is just my retaliation to YOUR initial insult so please don't think you are better than I) in your post you just stooped to the same low that I'm appologizing for in this very post. At no point did I have to say "trust me" I let the info I provide do the real talking and no one has corrected one statment. NOT yet atleast.
I don't want to start anything but so many of these posts were direct attacks meant to insult me. Which is fine I'm used to haters and I'll say "don't hate the playa hate the game" to that! I get spaded for my insults on someone whom insulted me first. I personaly believe that the argument I presented is a good one, at least mine had supporting details not just a subjective opinion. I provide legit reason for my questioning.
Sorry for the rant again. It is in my nature to defend myself. Please correct me on my mistakes so I can learn from them. It would be greatly appreciated.
But as stated I am still waiting to be corrected on any one thing that I have stated.
I've tried to be politicaly correct and with this post I think I have raised many valid points that support my argument and raise at least some doubt on the opposite side. I'm not saying it is not a laker, but I am saying that there is no proof that it is 100% a laker.
Once again BBJ I'm sorry for the out of line comment. But next time your SO sure that it is SO far from a bull trout please provide detail as to why you would think that because the cartoons didn't prove anything IMHO. And then go as far as to tell me to get learned up on the topic. I'd gladly put my knowlege against yours anyday!
I'm not being cocky! I'm confident because I know this guy and several of the people he fishes with. He is a sham IMHO, thats my opinion and I'm entitled to it. And unlike many here I've been backing my opinion with details. Considering bull trout and lakers are both char I find the "SO FAR" part very humorous. I provided details that support my argument. If your all so sure it is a laker why is it so many of you didn't? Most just said I've caught lots of lakers and thats a laker! Please understand how subjective it becomes when you provide an opinion with no supporting details. Or atleast make an attempt to disprove the points that I brought forward, thats part of how a debate works. Personaly I like a good debate.
Tight lines
. Try this, cover up the whole picture except for the head. That is definately the head of a laker!. Worst case scenario is a Laker/bull cross & there's not a CO alive that would force you to go to court to prove that fish was a pure strain bull trout so I wouldn't worry about keeping one or two if you were inclined (provided it's legal size & quantity for the region).
Linear Mode
