Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rodney on December 05, 2011, 03:01:55 PM
-
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/contests/index.html
(This contest is now over, result at http://www.fishingwithrod.com/contests/2011-12-species-contest.html)
-
A few more days for you to submit your answer if you have not done so. :)
So far, out of 230 entries or so, just over 51% of the people have gotten it right! I'm a bit surprised by where some of the wrong answers are coming from considering how vocal they are on the forum when it comes to fish identification. ;D
-
A few hours left for you to be in the contest. ;)
-
Mystery fish revealed. :)
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/contests/2011-12-species-contest.html
-
I was surprised that many folks got it wrong. As you said, for the amount of people that complain about fish ID'ing I thought at least 75% would have gotten it. My initial thought was a Coho because of the red/green, and then I realized the lack of spots. That and then the super forked tail confirmed it for me. Ill admit, I did google afterwards to check and see if I was right. But I guess for each person that complains of lack of ID knowledge, there very well could be 10 who just dont care.
-
The fact that there were so many incorrect entries stating that that sockeye was a pink tells me that neither official government sites nor fishing sites are doing enough in educating anglers on species identification.
Or maybe almost half of the people are simply not smart enough to learn or interested enough to care.
Either way - it's a sad state of affairs.
How can we then expect them to distinguish a wild coho from a spring or a steelehead?
Let alone a cutthroat from a rainbow. :-[
-
hey i said sockeye salmon!!!!!! you can tell by no spots on the tail or body, not a chum either because of it's size and shape.
-
How.... in the hell... were people calling that a pink... Not good.
I could see people answering coho because of the colours... but that thing is so far from a pink it ain't even funny.
And Milo... you can't get them to. Half the people I talk to don't even know how to differentiate a hatchery fish from a wild let alone species ::)
-
this is some cause for concern. this species is endangered on one of the busiest rivers in the lower mainland. now i know why.
-
Try this experiment with some bullet chrome fish and I bet the results are even worse.
-
51% correct? Wow! Clearly a male sockeye before the blink of an eye.
-
And Milo... you can't get them to. Half the people I talk to don't even know how to differentiate a hatchery fish from a wild let alone species ::)
Yes you can. All we need to do is implement a mandatory knowledge test with strong emphasis on fish ID and resource ethics as a prerequisite to getting a fishing license. Just like we do for hunters, boat and vehicle operators, etc...
Some will say just another money grab, but if it can save Cultus sockeye or Thomson steelhead from being bonked, I say it'd be well worth the money.
-
i am not a hunter, how much do licences cost for hunting? i have no problem bucking up a few more bucks to try and make things better, whether stricter testing or more enforcement.
-
I think Rodney should publish the names of those that got the answer wrong and we should have us a good ol' fashion public shaming.
-
I think Rodney should publish the names of those that got the answer wrong and we should have us a good ol' fashion public shaming.
That would be totally counter-productive.
The idea of this is to have those who got it wrong reassess what they (don't) know and tell themselves: "$hit, man, I better brush up on my fish ID skills."
Public shaming would only serve to embarrass them in exchange for a little schadenfreude for the small-minded.
Ethical anglers are better than that.
-
That was said in jest, Milo.
Sometimes, when I'm feeling a little saucy, I like to use jest, sarcasm, hyperbole, irony..or any other figurative language, without an emoticon.
Thanks anyways for the mini-lecture, and drawing the dubious link between ethical anglers and and online communication.
Wait, a minute...that was sarcasm. Here's the emoticon ::)
-
Thanks for clarifying, clarki.
Being the lowest form of wit, sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect when applied liberally online (without emoticons).
-
Not to belabour our conversation, but my initial comment was jest, not sarcasm. Unlike sarcasm, jest is one of highest forms of wit, the hardest to accurately discern, and only used to any success by those skilled in the art of figurative speech. (insert appropriate emoticon here)
-
Not to belabour our conversation, but my initial comment was jest, not sarcasm. Unlike sarcasm, jest is one of highest forms of wit, the hardest to accurately discern, and only used to any success by those skilled in the art of figurative speech. (insert appropriate emoticon here)
Here are the most common and widely accepted definitions of jest and sarcasm:
jest: A thing said or done for amusement; a joke
sarcasm: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt
You said in the post I questioned the following: " I think Rodney should publish the names of those that got the answer wrong and we should have us a good ol' fashion public shaming."
1. The words convey contempt for those who got the answer wrong and you call for their public humiliation.
2. There are no smileys to indicate jest, therefore, words can and are taken at face value.
Thus, if what you said was meant in jest, you should have given your readers the courtesy of a 'winky' smiley or something int those lines. Absolutely no jest transpires in your post the way it is worded and posted - hence my comment.
-
Milo, Clarki. Get a life ::)
-
Milo, Clarki. Get a life ::)
Or start a new thread......... ::)
(hope I used the right emoticon)
-
The extent of misidentification is worrisome as the number of individuals on the board who got a very obvious fish ID question wrong is sufficiently large as to undoubtedly include individuals who partook in the Fraser sockeye fishery. I wonder how many interior coho and Thompson steelhead were killed by this cohort?
As an angler, its your responsibility to ensure you are able to ID fish, particularly if you choose to fish where multiple species are present.
-
It took me a bit to ID the fish. It didn't register immediately what it was. Then again I have never fished for sockeye.
-
Out of 309 entries, 159 contest participants (51%) submitted the correct answer. The most common incorrect answer (42% of all entries) is pink salmon, or male pink salmon. While a male pink salmon has a hump back like this fish, pink salmon have large oval spots along their back and across their tail.
I think it's important to look at why people ID'd it wrong.
I'm guessing pink salmon was a high choice because it's been a pink year and the little hump.
I would guess the other 7% ID'd it as a coho (hooked jaw) or steelhead (red line).
I would like to see more of these contest/polls! I think they are a pretty effective way to learn.
-
Milo, Clarki. Get a life ::)
LOL! Someone's cranky today...where's those fresh steelhead when you need them?
Cabin fever slowly settling in... :D
-
I would like to see more of these contest/polls! I think they are a pretty effective way to learn.
X2 Well done Rod ;)
-
LOL! Someone's cranky today...where's those fresh steelhead when you need them?
Cabin fever slowly settling in... :D
Need only look to the fish porn thread. LOL
-
Need only look to the fish porn thread. LOL
you take this too serious. i believe half of respondents just put something for fun. ;)
-
I was one who got it wrong, but I have to admit I did not take more than a glance at the photo (it was right before the deadline). I remembering thinking the fish looked odd (not surprising, since I only fly fish and I have never caught a sockeye), and upon a second look I realize it was the absence of spots that was weird. I do apologize for not taking a good look it (not like if I was holding the fish and deciding whether or not to bonk it), since it was only an id from a photo for a contest. I went with pink since Rod was so gung-ho over pinks this year and the shape was right and I wanted to get the guess in before he pulled the plug. Bottom line is I guess I need to take these contests more seriously... ::)
-
Glad that I was able to trick so many people. ;D
I'll C&P what I commented on our Facebook page the other day:
"The point of this and future contests is to develop a fun way of this learning process. You get it right, you might win a prize. You get it wrong, you learn the mistakes and do better next time."
You cannot conclude that there is a huge percentage of anglers cannot tell the difference between a pink and sockeye salmon from this contest. While there are definitely many who cannot do so, because they are new anglers who still have lots to learn (we all do!), I think many simply only glanced at the photo and entered it quickly because it's just a small contest, the prize is not that big. ;)
On a more positive note, 130 more people should be able to tell the difference between a pink and a sockeye salmon now that the contest is over. ;D
Cutthroat22 is right, the third most common answer was coho salmon. There were the odd chinook and chum salmon. No one answered steelhead.
Since there were so many entries (I was blown away by 309 entries in one week), we will be doing this hopefully on a monthly basis in 2012. It's a good way for everyone to practice. :)
-
Here are the most common and widely accepted definitions of jest and sarcasm:
jest: A thing said or done for amusement; a joke
sarcasm: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt
You said in the post I questioned the following: " I think Rodney should publish the names of those that got the answer wrong and we should have us a good ol' fashion public shaming."
1. The words convey contempt for those who got the answer wrong and you call for their public humiliation.
2. There are no smileys to indicate jest, therefore, words can and are taken at face value.
Thus, if what you said was meant in jest, you should have given your readers the courtesy of a 'winky' smiley or something int those lines. Absolutely no jest transpires in your post the way it is worded and posted - hence my comment.
Dear Mr. Milo
Then we shall have to agree to disagree. Merry Christmas.
Regards, Mr. clarki
-
Mystery fish? Mystery Month!
"December 2012 Mystery Fish Contest"
That's a LONG way from now. :D
-
Milo considering your profession it is not really fair to argue the meaning of language with us mere mortals :D.For myself I was sure of that fishes I.D. but once I googled salmon identification I found a whole bunch of online info I did not know was available.As I went thru the inf I began to think maybe this was not so much a contest as a sneaky way to get a lot of anglers to better educate themselves.In my case it worked because I picked up on some subtleties I did not know before.Two thumbs up for this.
-
Even at first glance, you can see the absence of spots, eliminating most.
Should be easy at that point.
-
Even at first glance, you can see the absence of spots, eliminating most.
Should be easy at that point.
I am sure it was quite easy for the hundreds that fish for sockeye every year.
-
Even at first glance, you can see the absence of spots, eliminating most.
Should be easy at that point.
Exactly Canso ;) Years ago during my AFS days with DFO I taught FN people basic salmonid biology and fish identification was a component. At the time I was shocked that these people could not differentiate between different species – to them, mainly upper Fraser and Skeena watershed bands, they were just salmon.
Frustrated, I tried using the process of elimination of species ie. no spots eliminates coho, pink, chinook, steelhead and other trout/char, leaving just 2. As there are virtually no chums in these upper watersheds it became easy.
I also found the spotting on tails to be another easy way to eliminate species and when adding this information to species distribution, size and coloration, general run timing and life histories and it all came together.
-
I am sure it was quite easy for the hundreds that fish for sockeye every year.
When a fish does the first swim by, what exactly are you looking for?
I tend to notice spots, adipose, and mouth in that order, depending on time of the year.
Yes I catch sockeye but in the ocean they don't look like that, rarely have I seen one from the river.
-
When a fish does the first swim by, what exactly are you looking for?
I tend to notice spots, adipose, and mouth in that order, depending on time of the year.
Yes I catch sockeye but in the ocean they don't look like that, rarely have I seen one from the river.
Personally, I notice the hook first. Where is it? Is it hooked well? Yes? Then I can breathe again.