I would be more proud to said i catch a nice big fat wild trout (pretty hard to catch one at the lower river)than saying a got a skinny little baby steelhead!!!
I agree. In fact i already said that in this very thread about page 3.
You missed the entire meaning of my post.
You said that the term "Jack " only
applies to Salmon. I proved that isn't so.
Mad dog said:
What completely pissed me off is that you asked for an opinion, then totally disregarded anyones input before you heard it! Why did you even ask? :think:
Learning quite a bit about you as well Van!
We all know you caught a steelhead on a bass lure....but that wasn't a real steelhead because you caught it on a bass lure and were not targeting steelhead. But...because you caught this particular fish using a proven steelhead catching technique so this fish becomes a steelhead? Would it have been more of a trout if you would have been nymphing with an indicator and a 5wt.? :lol: Is that what this is really about? Did you want someone to praise you for catching the fish on the swing? Or the fly? a lot of this seems to be coming back to the method of the catch in your posts! :think:
Nice job Van!!! Put one over on those gear tossers!
And this just proves that you really havent been paying attention to what i have been posting. Huge surprise there. My 2nd, 3rd and 4th posts in this thread plainly show me agreeing with the opinions of some OFF posters.
It wasn't until i was informed of the science and data of that particular fishery that i changed my opinion. Which i might add that no single responder to this thread gave any type of credence to. Why the hell do we have fisheries biologists anyways? It seems lots of folks here have all the answers somehow, without doing any of the research beyond tossing a line in the water.
I caught my first steelhead in the winter of '91, and an awful lot in the years since. I dont need praise from anyone on catching fish. I can toss bait with the best of them. Just because i only have 100 odd posts doesn't mean i am new to fishing. Frankly i would rather it was just a huge Rainbow than a tiny little Steelhead. The science is what it is though. It might be a small technicality but i dont write the guide lines. I just live with someone who does.
I am new to swinging a fly for steelhead and that is why i was curious as to the fish. It wanst i that started the thread derailment. That matza ball lands right in your lap.
If you are pissed it is your own fault for not paying closer attention. You didn't waste any time taking a jab at me or my wife. Real mature. What this all comes down to is when confronted with data about a fish or fishery that doesn't fit what you thought you know you have to discredit it somehow. Even now you are still at it, trying to tag me as an elitist.
well you are getting views from a scientific viewpoint and a legal viewpoint... which not suprisingly are a bit different than each other. what science deems as a steelhead versus what the law determines a steelhead has two completely different purposes. by legal definition since the clack is in the willamette zone that is a trout. scientifically it COULD be a steelhead but without testing for the presence of salt. who knows... just pure speculation
now i wouldnt judge anyone because of this topic and the way it went. you asked a question without regard to which definition. like i said before legally it is not a steelhead but scientifically it could be. a lot of people answered it by legal definition.
Now to end this on a not so jackassery note. Regardless its a nice beautiful fish. enjoy the catch.
An excellent point and one i can completely agree with. I am not sure how the other half would take it though. She is unused to 'net forums and frankly this thread has gotten her pretty riled up.
Thanks though, big trout or little steelhead it was a nice fish.
1020+ views! lol