Fish ID Quiz for prizes

February 10, 2010 53d Comments

Ok folks, it’s time to test your fishing knowledge with a ‘Pop Quiz’ to correctly identify the fish species in the below photograph.

 
There are two answers I will accept, but one is more correct than the other (& will garner a larger prize package)

 

This question ties-in with an article feature I wrote for Outdoor Canada Magazine, to appear in their spring issue.

 

The first person to send me the correct identification of this fish will win a selection of fishing tackle courtesy of Brecks – makers of the famous Williams and Mooselook wobblers!

 

Now, I am not expecting the scientific name, but will accept it. It is the common name I am looking for, and will allow one guess per person in my comment section.

 

 

Good luck and good fishing!

 

Outdoorsguy

Blogfish

53 thoughts on “Fish ID Quiz for prizes”

  1. The most common name for this beauty would be a brook trout or speckled trout . nice one !

  3. Hey Paul, I remember you well but thought you only fished muskie?

    I am sorry to tell you, though, you are incorrect.

    Outdoorsguy

  4. Oh well i don’t fish for that type trout or any as a matter of fact , i think i’ll stick to pickerel or muskie ,but thanks for the excellent reading .

  5. The fish in the photo is a brook trout. I hope I am the first entry because I could use some fishing tackle!! 🙂

    Thank you.

  6. Sorry Amanda, we’ve had that guess already and it is wrong..

    You don’t think I would make it that easy, do you?

    Thanks for reading!

    Outdoorsguy

  9. Gid’ay Mr. Morrison,
    First of all love your articles. Secondly I do believe you are holding a Coaster Brook Trout. Hop it is right, can always use new tackle.

    Cheers
    Gary

  10. Hey Gary, thanks for the kind words.

    What a great answer btw, I’m sure not many people know what that is….but I’m sorry that is not right.

    Regards,

    Outdoorsguy

  19. Chessy, great use of the scientific terms..you sound like a real University student..but sorry, its NOT a splake!

    Outdoorsguy

  21. GPG, you only get one try, although, your second guess was pretty good!

    Still wrong though!

    Outdoorsguy

  22. You said:
    Chessy, great use of the scientific terms..you sound like a real University student..but sorry, its NOT a splake!

    Outdoorsguy

    I thought my name was Alain. Did Chessy guess Splake before me . Sorry i didn’t see it in the answers.

    Does this mean I get another guess….Just kidding! Nicelooking trout btw.
    it was fun playing!

  23. Ah well, I guess I should have read the comments before posting a Brook. I did find a number of new web sites with good fishing info with the quick web research though. Thanks!

  24. although only one guess.. you must have taken that in alaska…. is it a dolly varden….. not to many trout left to choose from ….

  28. Bob, not one person has answered this correctly..I will give it till noon and if noone gets it,
    I will provide a hint or two, and allow everyone a second kick at the can!

    Outdoorsguy

  30. HOLY CRAP..Iggy has it right!!!

    Congratulations Iggy, you are the first person to correctly identify the Quebec Red Trout…which, as of 1974, was for scientific simplicity categorized along with the Arctic Char…however, remains a distinct and completely ‘land-locked’ species of char/trout. There are still found in a handful of NW, Central and NE Quebec lakes.

    My first clue was going to be that the fish was caught in NW Quebec..

    Although they are very difficult to tell apart from the brook trout, QC reds have a slightly forked tail..less of a black leading edge along the anal and pelvic fins..and have spots with no distinct ‘blue halo’ as with the brookie.

    They have been called by many as the hard-fighting fish – pound for pound – in North America..and I would agree!

    Congrats Iggy..you win the Brecks prize package!

    Thanks to everyone who participated

    Outdoorsguy

  34. Probably the closest answer before Iggy was Gary with Coaster trout…a type of migratory brook trout of Lake Superior. The QC Red Trout on the other hand, although a remnant population of Arctic Char are no longer anadromous and do not migrate to spawn

    There are still lakes in the province of Quebec with populations of both brook trout and QC red trout.

    Outdoorsguy

  37. No, actually the Aurora I believe is a recognized subspecies of the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis timagamiensis)..found in various parts of the province..

    The QC Red is more closely related to the Arctic Char..salvelinus alpinus

    Outdoorsguy

  39. HA ! does fish count ! this was a great contest !, now lets have one that we can do some fishing in .

  41. To bad I did not see this earlier. I seem to remember seeing that photo some where. It was in relation to a fishing trip you made. It mentioned the great Red Trout fishing and the ad in the magazine.

    And knowing you as well as I do it would have been a no brainer to guess Red Trout even if I had not seen the picture before.

    Next time keep one for mounting or I could do a replica mount of one from the picture for you if you eat them.

  43. Hey Rick…I might just do that, it would look nice right beside my big buck.

    I will give you the heads-up next time there is a contest. Perhaps I’ll make it about wildlife this time, of course
    that wouldn’t be fair to the rest, as we all know you would win!

    Hey Iggy, where should I send that lure?

    Outdoorsguy

  44. I think this trout is actually a brook trout. Maybe it was caught in a lake with red’s in it but the red trout characteristics would show much greater than in that pic. Red trout are known to be “colourful with a red belly”. I’ve caught brookies that were more red that the one shown.

    Congrats Iggy, but what will you do with fishing gear, you’ve never fished a day in your life.

  45. Mag, the characteristic red colour of the Quebec red trout only occurs during the fall spawn..that’s when they really turn on the colours!

    How come you never participated?

    Outdoorsuy

  46. Mag, I’ve caught more fish than you’ve eaten
    Jeff, you could send it to my house if you want, I can PM you the address if you want
    if you look carefully at the tail, you can tell it’s a bit different than a speckle trout.
    Mag didn’t participate because he was asleep in his office

  47. Actually Jeff, I’d be surprised if it were a Quebec Red (landlocked Arctic char). Besides which, the furthest west they occur naturally is in the Outouais north of Ottawa according to “Freshwater fishes of Canada”. Lots of Quebec outfitters stock with Brook trout and splake and call them Quebec reds. They just get more tourism for the buck that way. Have you counted the pyloric caeca? 25-34 for Brook trout. 33-46 for Quebec reds. No other way to tell really. Get back to us on that. Looks like a splake to me.

    And actually Paul, Reds were recognised as Arctic char WAY before 1974. Linnaeus called it Salmo alpinus in 1758!

  48. Hello Grant..thanks for contributing and for the information.

    I am quite confident that it is a Quebec Red.. although I never did say the exact location, they are not any further west than the Outaouais, north of Ottawa. The waters we fish are also not part of any Outfitting operation, and are location on Crown Land (terrritoire libre)

    The 1974 reference was me, actually, as my research uncovered that, prior to that date they were classified with a distinct scientific name Salvelinus Marstoni and after that date were lumped-in with the Arctic Char or Salvelinus alpinus.

    I will check the pylotic caeca though, thanks for that hint. I suppose it is something like checking the submandibular pores on Northern Pike (Esox lucius) to differentiate from muskie (Esox maskinonge) Pike have 10 pores, while muskie usually have 12-14

    Thanks again and I will check that this spring when I’m up there again. I can tell you that these fish are, for sure, not splake and I am quite confident that are not brookies(salvelinis fontinalis) either as they are very diff in appearance and behaviour than brook trout found in the surrounding bodies of water.

    Regards

    Outdoorsguy

  49. Jeff.

    Thanks for supplying your info on this. I am kind of a crusader about Quebec Reds. Just love the fish and it’s history.

    The 1758 date of the type collection by Linnaeus was from Lapland. Landlocked Arctic char are circumpolar in distribution, and are much more abundant in the Old World than here, then and now. In old nomenclature, when world-wide comparisons were extremely difficult, taxonomic names were applied with relative abandon and very little merit. So there were over 18 scientifically published names for Arctic char before 1887. It was in 1896 that they were first called Salvelinus alpinus, the current official name, including those landlocked in Quebec. The Russian taxonomist Vladykov mistakenly applied the name Salvelinus Marstonii to Quebec Reds in 1954, although most of the scientific world was not in agreement, and continued with the alpinus specific label. Yes there are politics in science too. It has been used to denote it’s distinctness as a species. What you are referring to in 1974 may be a denouncement by the International Committee on Nomenclature of Fishes, of the specific Marstonii appellation only, not the nomenclature. Quebec Reds were always Arctic char. Common history through the early 20th century documents it well. PS. Native Quebec reds in western Quebec go north of Ottawa ONLY as far as Val des Monts/Denholm.

    1. Hey Grant…thanks for the backgrounder..I agree, they are indeed an interesting fish with an even more distinguished history than I had imagined…

      See, I face a double edged sword here..since the lake we catch these mysterious reds in is certainly north of Val des Monts..I could examine them more closely this spring and document the features which I believe will prove to be arctic char in origin..but on the other hand, it is a lake that only we fish year after year…as I am convinced that no one else ever casts a line into it besides us…so do I really want to bring undue attention to our ‘Lac Perdue’..the pet name for the special body of water we never talk about…I’m sure you understand..

      We have caught many reds there over 5 pounds, but only take out a handful of fish each year..you could say we manage it for our own long-term benefit..

      Thanks again and tight lines from one trout nut to another!

      Outdoorsguy

  50. Good luck on your ‘Lac Perdue” Jeff. Don’t need yours anyhow, I have my own, but keep yours a closely guarded secret. It’s precious! I’d like to continue with topic with you off-blog, but can’t locate your e-mail address.

    You know, many lakes in Quebec are stocked consistantly by locals. Every pot hole and beaver pond is seeded with fry. So many “secret” lakes never reveal their true fish origins. Fish hatcheries are like depanneurs there. Little trout are sold by the bucket-full. And nobody tells anybody. It’s secret.

    I know you WANT to believe you are catching Quebec reds, and it’s hard to convince people otherwise after all those years of believing, but do have a look at the resources at hand. 99% of people are under the false impression that those reddish specs are Quebec reds, just because it’s like ‘Wow, a Quebec red, how special’…..everybody wants it to be a Quebec red, and calls it such, but, alas, they’re not. I’ve seen it hundreds of times. And the myth perpetuates.
    This is what I do whenever I have the chance. Relay the facts. Vermicualtion on back? If so,it’s not a red. Vermiculation or spots on dorsal fin? If so, it’s not a red. Black on pectoral fins? If so, it’s not a red…..now, look at your fish……looks much like a Kenauk speck.

    Here’s a link to the Quebec govt’s Quebes red trout info. Look at the features of reds. Not what 99.9% of people think reds look like. Many differences. Most fishers including Bill Saiff II and local ‘expert fishermen’ have been mistakenly prolonging the deception. You can make a difference Jeff!!! Tell it like it is.

    http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/peche/poissons/omble-chevalier.jsp

    Also here’s a link to a previous discussion on the topic.

    http://www.fish-hawk.net/hawktalk/viewtopic.php?t=34151&highlight=

    You can look at W.B Scott and E.J. Crossman, Freshwater Fishes of Canada, Bull.184 Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, 1973, for detailed descriptions of Arctic char and Brook trout. Or D.EE McAlliter and B.W.Coad’s Fishes of Canada’s National Region 1974. Or any of the other scientific systemmatic research done since.

    Also, if you can get your hands on a copy of “Chasse & Peche” 2008 vol. 16 no.4. There is an excellent article on Quebec Reds. It will all educate you. And you’ll need more than the pyloric caeca numbers, there are regional differences, apparently.

    Lake trout 93 – 208 pyloric caeca
    Splake 65 – 85
    Speckles 23 – 55
    Arctic char (=Quebec reds) 36 – 53 in Eastern populations, so it overlaps with speckles. Too bad.

    And if you are at the fish counter in your supermarket, and they have Arctic char for sale, have a look. Notice the difference. Quebec reds. Arctic char. Same thing. VERY different from speckles.

    Trout forever, Grant B.

    1. Grant, I actually sent you two PM’s yesterday…hoping to continue this in private..but you have yet to respond…perhaps you have another email addy other than the windymaples one?

      As I mentioned in those messages, I will be counting phyloric caeca this spring and documenting the features more closely…as far as looking like stocked trout, these fish certainly do NOT..many of the trout I’ve pulled from Kenauk are typical of stocked fish..not to take anything away from them..but they do show signs of life in a concrete holding tank..caudal and anal fins being warn down by swimming in the tanks and even some had been fin-clipped. The native trout do not look the same..

      Once I have investigated the fish this spring more closely, if they do turn out to be brook trout, I will be the first to admit it..

      My email address is and I would appreciate it if you could contact me there, as I had another issue I’d like to discuss..

      Outdoorsguy

    2. Grant, have you ever considered the existence of remnant populations of QC Red-Brook trout hybrids? As you well know, unlike hatchery produced F1 splake, neither the brookie nor the red trout are sterile..so why couldn’t a somewhat naturally occurring hybrid of the two species exist in the wild?

      From what I can recall of the biology and behaviour of both species..they are both fall spawners and we already know that they can and have cohabitated…so the possibility is there.

      I know specks usually travel to small stream tribs and prefer spring upwellings to spawn, but perhaps along the way somewhere a QC red male dropped in for a visit..throwing a proverbial wrench (& some milt) into both natural strains….hehe

      It would be a good question for Dr. Crossman. I remember going to one of his lectures….a very wise man when it comes to fish!

      Outdoorsguy

Comments are closed.