Steelhead or rainbow on the swing?

[Van]

Absolutely a rainbow.

Heres a spent little winter, not as pretty as MD's kids.

I'm not qualified enough to say yes or no either way. My wife doesn't care for it when i disagree with her however. Especially when she has a huge data base of information about the local fisheries she can access, not to mention all her years in the field. lol

Frankly, i dont see much difference between yours and the one i posted. They look about the same size in fact. I'd prefer it was a steelhead, but happy pulling a lunker trout out of the Clack anyways.

 

[the_intimidator03]

My wife doesn't care for it when i disagree with her however.

isn't that always the case? Regardless its a beautiful fish

 

[Van]

Well, surprisingly enough, it is actually a steelhead.

At least according to the people who the state pays to tell them what fish are where. Two Senior level fisheries biologists and one Principal level fisheries biologist from a large local environmental consulting firm say that is definitely a steelhead. There are a number of factors that give them that determination. Also, ODFW claims( through surveys and the like from people the like these) there is not a resident Rainbow population in the main stem of the Clackamas. In its tributaries, yes, but not the main stem.

Not trying to start an argument here, but it is nice info to know. It is kinda a blessing and a curse at the same time. I would almost it rather be a great big Rainbow than a little Steelhead. lol

Well, guess i have officially caught my first steelhead on the swing now. I did catch a 26" one on the John Day last spring on a bass sculpin pattern. That didn't really count though since i wasn't targeting them.

 

[Modest_Man]

So what are the factors then?

 

[Van]

So what are the factors then?

These are the reasons given by a Principal level fisheries biologist(my wife, lol). I edited out the name of the consulting firm at the request of one of the employees.

Reason #1: It was caught in the lower Clackamas mainstem.

Rainbow are not found in the mainstem Clackamas. They are only found several miles upstream in headwater tributaries where the water is cooler and there is large wood and good cover. They live in those tributaries their entire lives. They are born, feed, breed, and die there. The mainstem Clackamas is a warm nasty mud hole in the summer months and Rainbow are very particular about their habitat. Cutthroat will live in a pile of crap if it has a small dribble of water in it. Rainbow will not.

Reason #2: It's not the right color.

Willamette Valley rainbow trout are distinctive. They have bright colors. This fish was muted and had silvered like a fish does when it goes out to see.

Reason #3: It's too big!

That was a fat, 17" long fish. A big rainbow in that system is probably more like 14".

Reason #4: It makes the most logical sense!

At this time of the year you'd expect to find a jack steelhead in that part of the Clackamas River. It's possible that a rainbow could have followed a misguided salmon out of a trib and up river to mow down some salmon eggs, but that's a long shot.

Bottom line, it's an Onchorynchus mykiss. The only way to know definitively whether it is a steelhead or not is to test a scale sample to see if it's hit salt water. That is the only way anyone can ever definitely tell a Steelhead from a Rainbow.

 

[markasd]

It may not add in to their "factor" scale, however that is a rainbow trout. Compare side by side to a steelhead of this size and it, to me, is obvious.

 

[GungasUncle]

Completely out of left field - but why is it that the rainbow-steelhead-trouty-thing's last scientific name is "Mykiss" - did some pervy scientist who was in charge of naming these fish have some sort of creepy sub reptilian fetish that caused him to lock lips with a fish? It's a weird name. Very weird. Kind of like Dick Butkus. Who names their child that?

I propose a simple solution to the "is it a steelhead or is it a trout" delima. New official designation. ANY rainbow/steelhead caught in flowing water that is unimpeded by a dam or impassable water fall shall hence forth be considered "steelhead" regardless of age/size. Any rainbow/steelhead that is caught from a still water or flowing water above a permanent impediment shall be called a rainbow trout, regardless of age or size.

And no matter what ODFW's people say - CUTTHROAT trout are not steelhead, regardless of size. They need to remove that tid bit from the regs, because it's biologically wrong. That's like saying a sea run brown trout is a steelhead... if we go down that road, then "steelhead" should be a generic term for any sea-run salmonid regardless of actual species.

 

[Modest_Man]

Completely out of left field - but why is it that the rainbow-steelhead-trouty-thing's last scientific name is "Mykiss" - did some pervy scientist who was in charge of naming these fish have some sort of creepy sub reptilian fetish that caused him to lock lips with a fish? It's a weird name. Very weird. Kind of like Dick Butkus. Who names their child that?

I propose a simple solution to the "is it a steelhead or is it a trout" delima. New official designation. ANY rainbow/steelhead caught in flowing water that is unimpeded by a dam or impassable water fall shall hence forth be considered "steelhead" regardless of age/size. Any rainbow/steelhead that is caught from a still water or flowing water above a permanent impediment shall be called a rainbow trout, regardless of age or size.

And no matter what ODFW's people say - CUTTHROAT trout are not steelhead, regardless of size. They need to remove that tid bit from the regs, because it's biologically wrong. That's like saying a sea run brown trout is a steelhead... if we go down that road, then "steelhead" should be a generic term for any sea-run salmonid regardless of actual species.

Mykiss derives from the local Kamchatkan name 'mykizha'; all of Walbaum's species names were based on Kamchatkan local names. Johann Julius Walbaum was the one who scientifically identified the fish based on type specimens from Kamchatka in 1972. Richardson named a specimen of this species Salmo gairdneri in 1836, and in 1855, W. P. Gibbons found a population and named it Salmo iridia, later corrected to Salmo irideus, however these names faded once it was determined that Walbaum's type description was conspecific and therefore had precedence (see e.g. Behnke, 1966).

Taken from Wikipedia.

 

[Van]

It may not add in to their "factor" scale, however that is a rainbow trout. Compare side by side to a steelhead of this size and it, to me, is obvious.

I suppose you could look at it that way since they are basically one in the same anyway. However, because you say/think it is, doesn't make it so. All i know is our tax dollars go to these people to know their business well enough to inform the State of what kind of fish they are and where they are at. These folks have a lot of experience doing this kind of work. It is their jobs to know the difference. I come down on their side. They say it is obvious that it is a steelhead.

 

[markasd]

I have no problem with you taking their word for it though.

It is clear to me from just that on pic that it is a rainbow - look at a few more pics to compare em to, catch a few more of each and make your own determination.

Nice fish none the less!

 

[Van]

It is clear to me from just that on pic that it is a rainbow - look at a few more pics to compare em to, catch a few more of each and make your own determination.

Nice fish none the less!

I am curious as to why and how you dismiss the professional opinions of three very senior fisheries biologists? Do you think i am lying? One can only assume that you yourself have some formal training in the same field that leads you to that conclusion.

After being around scientists like these for 12+ years i have come to learn that we fishermen have a lot of preconceived ideas of what we think is correct. The same is true for those who work and play in the areas where animals like the Spotted Owl or the Marbled Murrelet live. People dont like it when someone tells them their information is incorrect.

Thanks though, it was one of the larger fish i caught this summer/fall.

 

[chris61182]

And no matter what ODFW's people say - CUTTHROAT trout are not steelhead, regardless of size. They need to remove that tid bit from the regs, because it's biologically wrong. That's like saying a sea run brown trout is a steelhead... if we go down that road, then "steelhead" should be a generic term for any sea-run salmonid regardless of actual species.

That's a new one to me, the regulations clearly say a steelhead is a rainbow trout over the 20" except in the nw and sw zones where it's 16".

 

[GungasUncle]

That's a new one to me, the regulations clearly say a steelhead is a rainbow trout over the 20" except in the nw and sw zones where it's 16".

some coastal rivers include cutts over a certain size as steelhead.

 

[the_intimidator03]

Hmm all this back and forth about steelhead, rainbow trout is making me want to research this a little bit and see what i can come up with here at school.

 

[Mad dog]

some coastal rivers include cutts over a certain size as steelhead.

Are you suggesting that on some rivers a Cutthroat over 16" or 20" has to be recorded on a harvest card? Wow!!! Where in the hell would you come up with that? :think:

Dude who caught the fish wants it to be a steelhead because he has never caught one! He asked for opinion's correct? He was given some and that just seemed to make him unhappy!

The fish in the pic that he posted....call it what you want! I'll tell you one thing, that fish has never been to the salt!

 

[Mad dog]

I am curious as to why and how you dismiss the professional opinions of three very senior fisheries biologists? Do you think i am lying? One can only assume that you yourself have some formal training in the same field that leads you to that conclusion.

After being around scientists like these for 12+ years i have come to learn that we fishermen have a lot of preconceived ideas of what we think is correct. The same is true for those who work and play in the areas where animals like the Spotted Owl or the Marbled Murrelet live. People dont like it when someone tells them their information is incorrect.

Thanks though, it was one of the larger fish i caught this summer/fall.

It's very important for you to be right....isn't it?

Whatever dude!

 

[JeannaJigs]

don't post asking for an answer, if you don't want to hear the answer given.

 

[Van]

It's very important for you to be right....isn't it?

Actually, i am perfectly fine being wrong. It seems obvious to me that considering the information provided, a few others here are not. If the sources that gave me this information would have said something else, i would have reported it. Just because someone catches a lot of fish it doesn't mean their opinions are correct every time. That is what professionals are for. I am just curious as to why everyone here seems so set on ignoring professional opinions? Would you do that to your lawyer? Accountant? Seems odd to me....

 

[RunWithSasquatch]

Actually, i am perfectly fine being wrong. It seems obvious to me that considering the information provided, a few others here are not. If the sources that gave me this information would have said something else, i would have reported it. Just because someone catches a lot of fish it doesn't mean their opinions are correct every time. That is what professionals are for. I am just curious as to why everyone here seems so set on ignoring professional opinions? Would you do that to your lawyer? Accountant? Seems odd to me....

Been pretty clear to me through out my life, in all aspects, including jobs situations. The "professionals" are not always right. They more than other "non-professionals" dont seem to think out side of what the book says.

The opinions that all swung your way are people that tallied up hundreds of years of experience all combined. Hands on experience.

 

[Mad dog]

Actually, i am perfectly fine being wrong. It seems obvious to me that considering the information provided, a few others here are not. If the sources that gave me this information would have said something else, i would have reported it. Just because someone catches a lot of fish it doesn't mean their opinions are correct every time. That is what professionals are for. I am just curious as to why everyone here seems so set on ignoring professional opinions? Would you do that to your lawyer? Accountant? Seems odd to me....

Well...if your wife says it's a steelhead....it must be a steelhead! :lol:

Considering the information provided....the experts and Biologist's say that a rainbow under 20" is a trout! :lol: