Fished one of the Big C tribs recently with Stlhdr1. It was an OK day on the river.

There were plenty of shiny cohos splashing about, and we even managed to get a few to bite.



We were not out for yoyo's, but for nooks. Fortunately, we found a few of those, too!

I'm not too sure this photo does this fish any justice, but I am pretty sure this was THE CHROMEST river nook that I've ever seen landed. This beauty probably came over the bar no more than 2 days ago, as you can still see some sea lice on it.



Although not as large, still a nice CHROMER nook for any river. I like to consider this a "good BBQ'ing sized fish".



And it just wouldn't be "fishing" without the Babes and some Nooky, especially when the Nooky is dang near as large as the Babe!

Ooohhhh, nice chromes! parker.

Yet another Owner advocate. Ya gotta love those hooks.

nice lookin chromies

Now that I have no affiliation with Vision (whatsoever), and I no longer get any free hooks out of them, A-MEN to that, brotha!

Owner Cutting and Needle Points all the way! Just wish I could get those for free.....

Actually, I was split between using Visions and Owners on this trip. I didn't miss any fish on either, none of them bent out, or broke, so I really can't and don't complain about Visions. I still like the #1's to 4/0's. Good range of hooks for steelhead and salmon. I will gladly continue to use up my existing stocks of Visions. I've got enough to last me a while....

Man Parker.....BLING-BLING!!!!!!

Wow, that chick is hot!

Nice fish too

oww!! ok, got the shades on now, that's better...

Parker- I don't mean to take exception with you but that second fish sure looks like a coho. Smaller spots, white gum line are you sure it's just not an exceptional hoho!!
CM

My sentiments exactly, Canyon Man.

Look at the light gumline on the upper jaw extending right into the bulbous kype.... this yoyo votes coho!

Always risky to make a call just on a photo however here is my stab/guess -

While the reflected light makes the coho/chinook call tough on the head/jaw the defined wrist in front of the tail and the size and shape of the anal fin as well as the body shape all say a hen chinook.

Tight lines
S malma

Nice fish Parker, I was thinking the same thing as FNP and Canyon, but I had to say to myself, "Parker has caught enough fish in his life to know the difference. Must be the lighting of the picture is all I can say.

Regardless, Nice fish, time for me to turn to the fresh water myself.

Now I really miss my sled.
Steve

Did the little gal take her lucky cat with her? What was in the pet carrier?

I'm thinkin that Parker, was right. It is hard to judge from just a photo.

Dandy Chrome! (I wouldn't even consider questioning Parker's statements on the fish he boats.....if he says King, you can bet it's a King.)
I noticed the "flip-flops" on the gal...pretty brave shoeware considering the potential for a toe hook-up. That would hurt!

That is one big hooknosed coho. It makes the catch even more remarkable. My bet is that it was so big Parker didn't even consider it to be a coho. C'mon Parker tell us it's so.

Ya know, if half of you actually just went out fishing and *actually* caught something, you too might know the difference between a coho and a king.

A coho. You guys sleigh me!

Actually, I think it was a chum. That makes just about as much sense. :rolleyes:

Stlhdr1 has a new chocolate lab pub - Allie. She was in the dog carrier.

PS. I'll bet ya my degree in fisheries that fish #2 was *NOT* a coho.

Thank goodness there is at least one smart person on this board!

Close, Smalma. It was a buck nook. THE brightest nook I've seen come out of a river (Columbia excluded). That fish even did some tail walking / jumping. Put up a heck of a good fight. The only thing that could have made that fish better was if *I* had caught it. Was still neat to witness, though.

Actually Parker, I think that one is still a tough call. From the dorsal forward, it sure looks like a coho... especially the cardinal sign of having a light gumline. Kings should have black lips/gums. The spots are also uncharacteristically small for a king.

I will agree with smalma that the wrist looks a little skinny for a silver that size. The anal fin margin also looks too broad for a silver, and it lacks the coho's characteristic "point" from the leading edge of the anal fin. So from the dorsal back, I'll concede it looks more like a chinook.

(Damn, with all that double-speak, I'm starting to sound like John Kerry.... quick, somebody shoot me!)

There's probably a good reason that you have never seen a tributary "king" that was so chrome in all your years of fishing. It could well be a hybrid co-nook (or is that chilver?)... these crosses have been well documented. You might recall a huge 30-plus "coho" caught in SW WA last fall (may have actually been the Lewis) that's still sitting in a WDFW freezer waiting for a definitive DNA analysis on whether it is really a king or a silver.

Parker-
I wasn't trying to say that you don't know a king from a silver...I just thought when you posted maybe you got the pictures reversed or something! If you say it's a nook I believe it is a nook. FNP does bring up an interesting point about the hybrid possibility. Does the lewis have any documentation of having these hybrids? Nomatter what it is a beautiful fish!
CM

Looks like picture #2 will be the mystery of the season. Just wanted to say those are some great photos. Thank you.

Here's the link to the Seattle Times story on last year's giant Lewis River "co-nook"

Lewis River pig

Mark Yuasa contacted biologists for me last week to get some follow-up on this mystery fish, but under limited WDFW funding, this is obviously not a priority item. Like I said, the fish is still sitting in a freezer waiting to be analyzed.

Someone with a fisheries degree being mistaken! How could that happen? You don't need to look any further than Olympia to find a few busloads with fishery degrees who have been mistaken about our fish a few times. I'll bet my worthless Health Information degree that #2 is not a Chinook.

I don't have a degree, but I have spent many years in AK working for a lodge and i have seen thousands of salmon. FROM THE VIEW OF THE PICTURE i say COHO all the way.

i boated a 21#er on the bogie a few years back that made me do a double take. We had been hitting kings all day and then land this big chrome slab, the boat next to says hey nice king i say thanks looked down and saw it was a silver they had to row over to take a closer look because they thought i was pullin their leg.

Bottom line NICE FISH Parker

Wait, wait, wait..... I don't get it here. I caught the darn nookie... Trust me of the couple 1000 fall chinook I've landed in the lewis and couple thousand silvers in the lewis in my time, you can at least trust my word....

IT IS A CHINOOK.. Most of you are used to seeing the typical tule chinook, we have those too. But we have a strain of true native fall chinook in our trib that are all mint bright when they show up, almost like a upriver bright in the columbia....

The only question on that fish is the fact that it is so fresh it's head looks to be a hen. Besides how many 20+ pound silvers have you seen that bright that haven't tossed a few scales between the netting action and being on the bottom of the boat? It is 110% chinookie...

Besides any silvers we have in our system that are over 16lbs then to be bucks and have some bit of a hooked nose....

There's no doubt when Parker says "nookie" it's a nookie...

Keith

The "bit of a hook nose" is one reason I am saying it is a silver. I noticed that before I even scrolled down and saw the rest of these posts.

Hybird, perhaps, I have caught a few that show traits of both.

Bottom line, that picture just reeks of silver!

I guess the moral of this story is to never trust a picture. I took 3 shots of the fish, at different camera settings. Unfortunately, all at the same angle, so you can't see the spots on the fin, let alone the fact that it's tail didn't collapse when holding the fish.

One shot did show a different story on the gums, though. Those don't look "white" to me. Than again, what do I know, really? Maybe all those years handling cohos and kings in the UW Fish Pond were all for nothing.



Heck, I *should* have just said it was a 20+ pound coho.

I don't care if that thing is a gawddamn sturgeon instead of a chinook. All I want to know is WHO IS THAT BABE!

Black gumlines define a chinook per WDFW regs. I don't see black gums on that fish....I see grey. I'm willing to admit it could be a picture angle/lighting issue that is somehow making black appear grey.

And STILL the argument continues.

parker, next time we'll expect an IN-THE-MOUTH shot so as to avoid all the speculation from people who weren't within 50 miles of the fish.

Good grief people, parker's right, you're wrong.............move on.

I thought we were talking about Parker boats. My bad.

Not to beat a dead horse, Parker but in this picture:


the teeth CLEARLY emerge from a light (not necessarily white) gumline. Make no mistake about it, this photo is a superb headshot of a coho!

Still not ruling out the possibility of a hybrid, but I can say with confidence that no self-respecting purebred chinook would be sporting lips that pale. They don't call them "blackmouth" for nothing:



And yes, like others have said.... damn nice fish!
Is it safe to assume that UEC had anything to do with its demise?

Of course, you're taking into account that you're looking straight down into that fish's mouth, while parker's pic is taken from below and behind the fish, right Doc?

Hey, there IS this eye doctor that hangs out here who might be able to help you with..........uh, never mind. KIDDING.

If you knew keith and parker, you'd buy into the bad camera angle thing before you'd buy into them not knowing the difference between a silver and a king.

Looking at the original photo I thought coho also. The sun is shining hard on the head of the fish so could be wrong. But the enlarged photo is not convincing of it being a King. I agree with fishNphysician. I see a light gumline. I don't think anyone can argue parker and stlhdr1 are great fishermen. But it is going to be very difficult to convince people from that photo, that's a king. All great looking fish though. fishNphysician has a great photo of a king. I see no light coloring at all. Next time I land a king I will take a closer look.

Any shots that show the tail?

I mean a bad angle on the gums and no tail view is NOT the way to convince the guy that took the pic he's misidentified the fish.

Gotta admit the hooknose is interesting, though. Re: hybrids, the only example I've ever seen is a chumpy.

No. It's never safe to assume anything. Especially when I'm involved!

My last big batch of UEC from Perfect Drift has too much dye in it. The eggs are coming our painfully red. I'm sure they still fish OK, but it's got me freaked out a little. It's that confidence with the egg thing.

Anyways, I tried a batch of the the latest UEC and some of my go-to cure (Stlhdr1 cure). The fish did not want the UEC eggs. They went for the old go-to (Stlhdr 1) cure.

Fall fish are like that. Some days they like cure X and some days the like cure Y. That's why I always try to take at least two batches of differently cured eggs when fall fishing.

Oh, and fish #2 was a nook, not a coho. I think I've mentioned this before.....

PS Sky-Guy - I have 3-4 jars of eggs for you. If you're ever in Seattle, you can stop by and pick them up. Or, I can attempt to mooch a spot in your boat out in the salt and just bring the eggs with me.

And to think I thought that was a Steelhead, dang I'm all messed up. :p

Parker:

As always, your posts inspire one to seek higher edumacation.. (and class appears to be open on this thread). Now I'm totally confused.. :rolleyes:

My thoughts are that it is a damn nice fishy..and if it was legal to keep either Kings or Coho then all the better.

BTW, you said the Stlhdr1 cure was better. Is that one available for public dissemination?

Mike

I think most of "this class" just failed Fish 101. Or, maybe they just failed "Internet 101".

The moral of the story is to never trust what you see on the internet.

The fish is a king. Unfortunately, the only shots I took DO NOT show spots on the tail, and radically illuminate an artificial "white" or "pale" gum line.

As Glub as my witness, it was a king.

Based on the photo, it dang near looks like a coho, and I could see how people think it is a coho. It is not. Just looks like one in that photo - only because they can't see the other necessary (or convincing) evidence. Naturally, having a degree in fisheries and have personally caught and/or handled thousands up thousands of chinooks and coho, means nothing to this rowdy crowd. Oh yeah, and I thought I'd posted somewhere that I'd never seen any clipped kings on the Lewis. Damn that Photoshop.

Yes. One of the nicest trib kings I've ever seen. You can keep two salmon on the Lewis. Either clipped cohos or unclipped kingers. Can *not* keep unclipped cohos.

I said Stlhdr1's cure was better for that particular day. I heard from Perfect Drift that the cure he gave me has been just decimating the fish in different sections of the river on different days.

Welcome to fishing for fall fish. What they like yesterday isn't necessarily what they will like tomorrow, or today.

That's why Stlhdr1 and I ususally have 4-5 different cured eggs with us, and a massive pile of scent (all homemade) bottles. You just gotta find the right combination of cured eggs and scents.

Sorry, that cure is not public information. If Stlhdr1 wants to hand it out, that is fine. But I swore my 1st and 2nd born children that I would not give that information up. Same goes for the scents. You are welcome to sniff the bottles and take a guess at what is in them, but the recipes will remain a mystery.

Well, lemme tell you a little about how this game is played.


"Smells like shrimp with maybe a little Anise"

"Yep"

"Smells like some alcohol in there"

"Yep"

"Smells like some extract of Taiwanese Hooker in there"

"Yep"

"Smells like Keith pissed in it after a night of hard drinking"

"Yep"

So, I guess those guys put all kinds of stuff in those bottles.

Parker and co -

Even for an expert, it ain't always easy to tell what you've just landed.

Case in point - Last Friday (9/10) I was out on the Columbia with two fish bio friends, plus me makes three professional fish biologists with a combined experience of something close to 80+ years. We landed a 10lb salmon (trolling off Frenchman's Bar on a silver Brad's Wobbler). It took us the better part of five minutes to determine what we had just landed. Was it an average size coho or was it a small upriver bright Chinook? We honestly could not tell, even with the fish in our hand and a collective 80 years of fish bio experience.

Before we could make a final determination, the fish died. Since it wasn't clipped, we were "forced" to decide it was a Chinook, and therefore legal to keep. That's not the best method of determing the correct identification but that's what we did. I'm sure I'll get flamed for admitting that.......

My point is that making a positive ID can be difficult, even with a fish in your hand. Trying to make a correct ID from just a picture can be just about impossible. But since your fish is clipped, I'm not sure it really matters whether it was a coho or a Chinook. If it was unclipped, it would be a legal issue. I won't go there.

I agree with your statement.

In this case, making the positive ID was easy and was correct.

Convincing people on the internet that you are not a looney and really what they see in the photo is not a coho has not been easy. Not that I care, but it's been fun any ways.

It's just a photo, guys. You are not seeing enough evidence to make a valid conclusion. The evidence you do see can be altered by camera settings, light, chromatic abberations, digital abberations, CCD flaws, glare, relfection, how the subject was held and presented, EXTREME CHROMAGE, etc.

Turn the subject around 180 degrees in the boat, and the photo would have been completely different.

I will be the first to admit that I am not a good photographer.

Parker,

This actually has little to do with your skills. If you took this photo with a digital camera there is no way you would have been able to get a good picture of the head in this light. The digital camera just doesn't have enough range to cover the bright jaw to the black mouth. So what it does is turn the black to grey. I copied the picture to my machine and then adjusted the contrast and birghtness a bit and the mouth is definitely BLACK.

If however this was scanned from a slide that would be a totally different story.

No matter what that is a great fish that I would love to have caught!

Yeah, it was from my older Canon PowerShot G1 digital camera.

Yeah, I free admit I'm lacking in skills when it comes to photography, of any kind.

I just do it for the Grip N Grins.

Thanks for the info!

To me this is a no brainer,Chinook !!! Nice batch of fall fish boys I'm in awe!!!PEACE!!!

As a guy who has caught easily 1 salmon for every 1,000 Parker has, I can attest that that is indeed a Chinook..... I think.

Parker, you make great posts, and I enjoy them. Keep up the good work.