Can you identify this? Finaly with photos

[Lotech Joe]

anglinarcher,
Do we get an answer sometime soon?

[kevinb]

Largemouth trout

[Anglinarcher]

It looks like the fish my father and I caught in Anahim Lake, BC when I was but a high school student in the 80's. The fish up there were mostly hybrid cuttbows, rainbow and cutthroats, though up there they called them cuttheads. The fish pictured looks to have been hatchery raised as the tail fin shows signs of re-growth after being worn down.

Actually the fins were frozen and damaged in the process. The fish was not hatchery raised.

[Anglinarcher]

Can you send me a "hunk" of DNA (one fillet will work just fine... ) Anglinarcher??
Some sort of hybrid is my guess.....tough to tell exactly what though.

It's a nice fish in my book, whatever it is!!

No I can't, sorry, but the angler has sent a small piece to the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks for identification.

[Anglinarcher]

anglinarcher,
Do we get an answer sometime soon?

It has not been that long Joe, but yes, you will tonight. LOL

[Anglinarcher]

OK, here is the story. I am building an experimental wild egg isolation facility for the US Corps of Engineers and the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. While at the new facility in Murray Springs Montana, a taxidermist brought out a fish he wanted to have positively identified.

The taxidermist was convinced that this was a 36" long Cutt, a new possible Montana record. Notice that like the West Slope Cutt, it has a dense pattern of small spots on the tail, with spots above the lateral line. You cannot see it in the photos (not mine) but there is a hint of red along the belly below the red lateral line.

The two hatchery fishery people think that this fish is a plain old Kamaloops rainbow. The fish was caught in Lake Kocanusa formed above Libby Dam. This lake has been stalked with Kamaloops for some years, but the lake also has West Slope Cutts in it that are natives. They are sure that the fish is not a Cutt, mainly due to the light color and bright red stripe along the side. They have seen brood stock that can occasionally get a small orange slash on the jaw, but admit it is darker and larger than normal. They also cannot explain the hint of orange below the lateral line that you cannot see in the photo.

I was the lone objector, claiming it was a Cuttbow.

Note that Donaldsons are not stocked and are not native to this system.

So, in short, until the DNA test is completed, we may not know. Thus the reason I indicated it may be a little tricky. Still, a nice fish.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

unless the top fin is bent over and the fish is at a bad angle in the photo the stubby top fin and short tail practically cry out "tank raised" to me.

[Anglinarcher]

unless the top fin is bent over and the fish is at a bad angle in the photo the stubby top fin and short tail practically cry out "tank raised" to me.

I agree that the picture could make it look that way, but the fin damage was done when the fish was frozen.

The taxidermist had initial pictures (did not give them to me), and he confirmed that he did not protect the fins because he makes a replica fish and the fins are not used in the process.

The fins were the first thing the hatchery guys looked at, and they were OK with the taxidermist's explanation. The top fin was not bent over, the edges were broken off, as was the edges of the tail fin.

[Smalma]

Anglinarcher -
While it can be dicey IDing fish from photos this one looks to be a rainbow to me. I have seen cases with both kamloops and coastal rainbows where there were faint "cutthroat slashes".

Did you by any chance check for hyoid teeth on the fish. As you know hyoid teeth are found at the back of the tongue of the cutthroat subspecies but not rainbows? Cutbows should have at least some weak hyoid teeth even if they are F2 hybrids.

If there were hyoid teeth then I would agree with your cutbow. If not then it would be a rainbow.

Tight lines
Curt

[BassFanatic]

Everyone on here might hate me for saying this but, in my opinion it is a big trout. No matter how it looks. I caught something that looked like that during the mickelson tourney, If it is a salmon or trout I don't care it is a big @ss trout to me no matter what the species it all tastes good and it's a hellava fight to bring him in.

[Bodofish]

Anglinarcher -
While it can be dicey IDing fish from photos this one looks to be a rainbow to me. I have seen cases with both kamloops and coastal rainbows where there were faint "cutthroat slashes".

Did you by any chance check for hyoid teeth on the fish. As you know hyoid teeth are found at the back of the tongue of the cutthroat subspecies but not rainbows? Cutbows should have at least some weak hyoid teeth even if they are F2 hybrids.

If there were hyoid teeth then I would agree with your cutbow. If not then it would be a rainbow.

Tight lines
Curt

I've seen many slashes on rainbows. I can roll with all of it but the Kamloops trout. There is no such thing, they're just plain old rainbows. They were stocked in fish baren lakes in the Kamloops area and as a result had an extremely abundant food supply and grew to huge proportions. They weren't even local BC stock, area native. In order for it to be a specie it must geneticly unique. If you fished there today, chances of catching a monster are rather small as the food supply has dwindled to normal levels over the years. I'm not saying you can't, just probably won't. Here's a little tidbit to get started with, from their home, BC.

Kamloops trout, fact or fiction?

[Anglinarcher]

Anglinarcher -
While it can be dicey IDing fish from photos this one looks to be a rainbow to me. I have seen cases with both kamloops and coastal rainbows where there were faint "cutthroat slashes".

Did you by any chance check for hyoid teeth on the fish. As you know hyoid teeth are found at the back of the tongue of the cutthroat subspecies but not rainbows? Cutbows should have at least some weak hyoid teeth even if they are F2 hybrids.

If there were hyoid teeth then I would agree with your cutbow. If not then it would be a rainbow.

Tight lines
Curt

I wish I could say we did. The head was pretty much frozen and the taxidermist wanted to make a mold of it before we did anything with it. I tried to put a finger in the mouth, but, well, I was stopped pretty fast (LOL).

I agree with the "faint" slashes, but the slashes were not faint at all, but very evident. I'll post the picture at the end.

[Anglinarcher]

Everyone on here might hate me for saying this but, in my opinion it is a big trout. No matter how it looks. I caught something that looked like that during the mickelson tourney, If it is a salmon or trout I don't care it is a big @ss trout to me no matter what the species it all tastes good and it's a hellava fight to bring him in.

I don't question your taste buds, just your lack of curiosity (LOL).

[Anglinarcher]

Anglinarcher -
While it can be dicey IDing fish from photos this one looks to be a rainbow to me. I have seen cases with both kamloops and coastal rainbows where there were faint "cutthroat slashes".

Did you by any chance check for hyoid teeth on the fish. As you know hyoid teeth are found at the back of the tongue of the cutthroat subspecies but not rainbows? Cutbows should have at least some weak hyoid teeth even if they are F2 hybrids.

If there were hyoid teeth then I would agree with your cutbow. If not then it would be a rainbow.

Tight lines
Curt

I've seen many slashes on rainbows. I can roll with all of it but the Kamloops trout. There is no such thing, they're just plain old rainbows. They were stocked in fish baren lakes in the Kamloops area and as a result had an extremely abundant food supply and grew to huge proportions. They weren't even local BC stock, area native. In order for it to be a specie it must genetically unique. If you fished there today, chances of catching a monster are rather small as the food supply has dwindled to normal levels over the years. I'm not saying you can't, just probably won't. Here's a little tidbit to get started with, from their home, BC.

Kamloops trout, fact or fiction?

You are of course correct, to a point. This is the same theory that there is no difference between a Redband, either Columbia River Drainage or East Oregon strains, or a coastal rainbow, or a Gerard, or a Donaldson.

To a point, just as all humans share common DNA, we are just like the trout you discuss, all the same. But, if we dig deep enough we can differentiate between different races, different families, and yes, even different individuals.

It is common to name blood lines by the Hatchery they were developed at, although this is loosing some of it's favor. Examples include the Donaldsons and the McConahay. These hatchery strains were often the result of breading fish with certain traits to similar fish to enhance a trait. Such as heat tolerance in the McConahays. It is common to differentiate between regions that fish "evolved" in, such as Gerards and the Redbands, and if you account for man's introduction of Hatchery fish into the Kamloops area and the fish that survived.

Now for the claim that the Kams are no different. That is simply not true. I have seen the comparisons in the hatchery environment. The Kams grow at the same rate as other "Rainbow" groups, right up until after their 3rd year. At the 4th year, they get a sustained growth spurt, and normally they mature, or spawn, at least one, sometimes two, years later than other "plain old rainbows". This difference gives them a size boost over most hatchery strains. Still, as you have indicated, they are just "plain old rainbows", unless you did deeper.

The Gerards seem to have similar traits, and surprisingly enough, the Redbands found in Northwestern Montana will do much better than many of the older "hatchery" strains. Still, the Jury is still out on the Redbands from Montana.

So, from a perspective you share with the article, the Kams are just plain old rainbow. But, I am just a plain old Human.

[Bodofish]

Oh so true but when those fish were introduced in the late 1880's and early 1900's, I'm guessing there wasn't much of a breeding program going. Get the eggs from the brood stock, juice them up and put 'em in the pond.

[Anglinarcher]

Oh so true but when those fish were introduced in the late 1880's and early 1900's, I'm guessing there wasn't much of a breeding program going. Get the eggs from the brood stock, juice them up and put 'em in the pond.

Agreed, and the strongest survived in that water, the weaker died or were eaten. In 100+ years the fish "evolved" into what they are today. Granted, they evolved faster than most, but conditions were right.

There are other examples of this in nature. Consider for example the moth in London, England. The moth was a normal white, then the industrial revolution, and associated coal dust, favored the dark variant. The moths went black in this time. With the reduction in pollution, the moths are again changing back to white.

[Smalma]

Anglinarcher -
Thanks for the close-up picture - that throws some more light on the potential origin of the fish.

Take a close look at the pectoral fin in the close-up of the fish's head. You will notice that the fin rays are bent (have a wave in them). This is commonly seen after the fin has been damaged and the rays grow back out. That sort of damage is most commonly the result of a rearing history in the hatchery. That does not mean that the fish was a brood stock but rather a fish that had spend some siginificant time in a hatchery. I am not surprised to see that sort of "rearing mark" in fish that had been planted at size of 20/# or 4 or 5 inches long.


I thought the other fins also should some of the same deformity though given the partial frozen state of the fish it was impossible to know for sure. If indeed there are similar fin ray waves and deformities then the fish almost certinaly came from a hatchery and it should be just a matter of looking at the records to see if hybrids had been planted.

Tight lines
Curt