North Sound surprise

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by bwillroll, Apr 14, 2014.

  1. Fished a north sound beach this morning, and was rewarded with a healthy Dolly Varden of about 24". Add in the beautiful morning, wildlife, and solitude, and its been an absolutely wonderful start to the week.
  2. What pattern did you catch the fish on?
  3. Clouser Minnow. white and chartreuse.
  4. Nice job Brent! I bet I know where you were. :)

    Still have not been seeing tons of fry along the North Sound beaches, but there've been a few here and there, predominantly pink fry. I found a couple of nice fish off the beach this week as well.

    bwillroll likes this.
  5. Is this the Scott who I think it is! Thanks man. I didn't notice any fry in the water either. Fished for about thirty minutes and was going to reel it in when I noticed some action a little further out. Waded out, and after a few on. I'll be out again on Saturday hitting the receding tide in the am.
  6. By the way; bull trout, not Dolly Varden.

  7. Actually Preston there are both Dolly Varden and Bull Trout in Puget it very well could have been a Dolly
  8. Bagman likes this.
  9. The WDFW article is out of date and a little ambiguous. Most of the gear fishermen and fly fishermen that I know still call them Dolly Varden, but the anadromous char in puget sound are indeed bull trout. The current science is just taking a while to get disseminated.

    Read the replies that are linked to the article I posted. Curt talks about the genetic studies and the fact that Dollies only inhabit a few headwater streams in western Washington.
    Gary Knowels likes this.
  10. Patrick Gould likes this.
  11. As I have said more than once before: please read Curt's excellent essay in the articles section of this website. Yes, WDFW is behind the curve where definitions are concerned. All of Puget Sound's and the coastal rivers' anadromous char are Salvelinus confluentus (bull trout) and not S. malma (Dolly Varden).
  12. There are a few folks I choose not to argue with on certain topics. Preston, under the topic of fish id, is most definitely one of those such folks. But thats just me
    Gary Knowels and Bagman like this.
  13. I'm curious what high horse the bull trout crowd is riding on....As soon as someone tells me they're an expert, I get skeptical. The one thing I've learned in life is there are no experts. I would like to see the science

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    WT likes this.
  14. Oh yes there are. An expert is the guy that carries an attaché and are at least 50 miles away from their home. No that's a consultant sorry.
  15. pbunbury-
    Not sure that anyone is claiming to be an expert.

    However this site is populated by a lot of folks like Preston who have a significant amount of experience (old farts?) and try to stay current with emerging science and information. Those same folks attempt to share on what little they may know or have learned with others here. You can certainly ignore them if you wish but experience has taught most of us to do so will be at our loss.

    BTW -
    The WDFW char article that you provided the link to referred to the recent discovery of bull trout going to the salt and recent regulation changes. Both of those events occurred in the early 1990s. In the 20 years since that time through tagging (both floy and radio) efforts, genetic studies, and other life history work much has been learn about the region's native char in the last 20 years; it is some of the information that Preston was attempting to pass along.
    Stonefish and Bagman like this.
  16. Even old farts like me that have fished here for over 50 years still find some aspects of our fishing and fish to be a puzzle.
    I can't say I've ever seen Preston, Smalma, Salmo g or the likes call themselves experts.
    What they do have is extensive knowledge of our fisheries that I find very interesting and helpful and I'm glad they are willing to share it with us.

  17. I was merely pointing out that "experts" have differing opinions on the matter. I would love to see some pictures and an in depth explanation of the differences between the two. Maybe some of this scientific evidence people keep claiming as well.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  18. Wikipedia states.The back and sides are olive green or muddy gray, shading to white on the belly. The body has scattered pale yellow or pinkish-yellow spots. There are no black spots or wavy lines on the body or fins. Small red spots are present on the lower sides. These are frequently indistinct. The fins are plain and unmarked except for a few light spots on the base of the caudal fin rays. S. malma is extremely similar in appearance to the bull trout (S. confluentus) and arctic char (S. alpinus), so much so that they are sometimes referred to as "native char" without a distinction. (Dolly Varden)
    Hope this helps?
  19. I don't think it's that simple. Here's a photo of a friend with a bull trout that doesn't exactly fit your cookie cutter description ImageUploadedByTapatalk1397921497.463517.jpg

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share This Page