Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rodney]

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/contests/index.html

(This contest is now over, result at http://www.fishingwithrod.com/contests/2011-12-species-contest.html)

[Rodney]

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.

[Rodney]

A few hours left for you to be in the contest.

[Rodney]

Mystery fish revealed.

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/contests/2011-12-species-contest.html

[DanJohn]

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.

[milo]

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.

[cohoaaron]

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.

[Every Day]

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 

[bigblockfox]

this is some cause for concern. this species is endangered on one of the busiest rivers in the lower mainland. now i know why.

[cutthroat22]

Try this experiment with some bullet chrome fish and I bet the results are even worse.

[NiceFish]

51% correct? Wow! Clearly a male sockeye before the blink of an eye.

[milo]

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.

[bigblockfox]

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.

[clarki]

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.

[milo]

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.