Its a muskie wearing a trout costume

Largemouth trout

---

Fun with Dwight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLeI-V9h6EY&feature=related


You like muskie fishing?
http://www.muskylink.com/

How about bass?
http://bigbasslink.ning.com/

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

---

Too much water, too many fish, too little time.

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.

---

Too much water, too many fish, too little time.

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.

---

Too much water, too many fish, too little time.

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.

---

"You won't know it, until you throw it!!!"

"When all else fails,......Go for what you know........BREAD AND BUTTER!!!!!"

"WELCOME............. TO THE DARKSIDE"

TEAM GRIPPIN' LIPPS

"WHO DOES THAT!!!"

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 attached the following image(s):

---

Too much water, too many fish, too little time.

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.

---

Too much water, too many fish, too little time.

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.

---

Too much water, too many fish, too little time.