I'd hate for you to be the judge of a beauty contest with the way you put down some gorgeous fish. Most days it's about the tug, not what they look like, but others, it's about the beauty, like colored up greenbacks.

The Big Minnow(carp), can save a trip, not ugly, just not appealing. Gar, another day saver, the ones I have caught had tarpon blood, as the air show was impressive(watch them teeth). A big bronzeback redeyed Smallmouth nice looking fish as is pike, pickerel, great lakes musky(spotted devil). Da-med fillets on a walleye are the only thing that make me think this isn't the ugliest(fresh water)fish, even its cousin the perch looks better.

I for one, think the pike family are very good looking fish. By the way, trout aren't all that smart either.

While it does have something to do about the appearance of the fish itself, for me it is more about the place that I catch the fish. Give me a cold clear freestone trout stream or river over a muddy bass or carp hole anyday.

One of my absolute, all-time favorite fish to catch is the cobia, and they wouldn't even qualify to clean out the concession stand after the beauty contest, but a fifty-pounder is a beautiful thing to my eyes. Even prettier when she's on a plate with baked beans and hush puppies on the side.

And I get a kick out of all the pictures with folks wearing gloves so they don't have to touch said beauties. Ugliest fish ever, the mirror carp does look like it was beaten with a sack of hot nickels.

I guess in terms of beauty, the brook trout would be the dainty little princess and the carp would be the East German female body builder on steroids named Olga. Hey, some dude's like the Olga types.

As an old man, I have to mention that carp didn't used to be called a game fish. They were a invasive species and fought by the Fish and Game Dept back in the day. I like all fish, but there is something special about big steelhead and silvers!

There's a cable show where they fly fish for everything. I watched these folks fishing for GAR.....skinny, snake like critters with the loooooooong narrow jaws. Many were around 3ft. long, and would have slid through a mesh landing net . You could watch these things in the grass streak out, and attack their minnow imitations. Not all that much fight as they snaked around the line lure like a rattlesnake pinned down by a forked stick. But I'm sure there is some one on here that would have skinned them, and then shish-ka-bobbed them over the barbeque, and recommended a great sauce to eat them with.

I would and Santa gave me his gar pattie recipe. Yet to try it out as I haven't been able to land one yet this summer.

This applies not just to fish, but to all animals. You don't see campaigns with commercials asking for donations to save endangered snakes or lizards etc, but you do to save anything cute and furry. You also see these same mental blocks surface in many people when it comes to what animals they will and will not eat. For me personally when it comes to fishing, the fish I choose to target or not has nothing at all to do with looks. My decision is based only on what I find enjoyable and what I don't. I'd prefer an afternoon of casting big baits for large, "ugly", dumb bass than a day trying to softly land small flies in front of small, "beautiful" (and very wary) trout on a small stream. Many people would say the opposite of that and that's one of the great things about fishing. There's something for everyone.

I guess first I'll give my take on the "ugly" question.

I fish for two reasons 1) relaxation 2) food on the table

I fly fish, I use artificials, I use live bait - all depending on where I'm fishing and what I'm targeting. I can be perfectly happy not catching anything, because time on or in the water relaxes me, but any fish that decides it wants to put a bend in my rod is a beautiful thing. So if it happens to be a carp making my drag scream or a steelhead putting on a aerobatic show, or a smallmouth tail-dancing and doing a vicious head shake, there is nothing ugly about them. If it is a species that I find tasty, bonus! How about fly fishing for panfish - bluegill and crappie are great table fare. it's a lot of fun and makes for a great meal.

To Sayfu... Dude, you need to spend more time outside your little group of holier-than-thou C&R fanatics. Fishing has a history that goes back to the earliest humans on the planet, and didn't evolve around putting food back in the water. Yes, it is a good thing to let some fish go and to only keep what you'll eat, but to make broad-based comments like yours, is naive, to say the least. If you prefer to release everything you catch, that is your prerogative, and more power to you. If I decide that I want to put a couple steelhead fillets in the smoker, or beerbatter and deep fry some crappie fillets, that is my prerogative (and right). What it boils down to is there are creel limits and length regulations in place to help manage fisheries. If a species becomes too abundant, competition for food will cause stunting - that is a fact. Harvesting fish is part of managing the fisheries. If you want to continue catching trout with any size to them, don't knock the guys who thin the population so that there are big fish for you to catch.

I don't think fish are pretty, I think women are. But I think catching fish is better than talking to women.

looks don't matter to me, when it comes to fish. Actually, I'd rather catch a 20 pound trophy carp than a ten inch 'trophy' brook trout (thats all we get in vt for natives) I think the bigger and uglier it is the cooler it is to catch. However I'm not picky when comes to fish. I just like to catch em'. Heck, sometimes I go after 5 in. minnows with my 7 wt.

I did not know that about baked carp, sounds awful to me but I'd be willing to give it a try. At any rate, they still aren't known for being palatable, just sayin'.

huntnow...Hope you don't "justsayin" to a Jewish person. They like baked carp. And fly anglers let most of their catch go, "catch and release" Matter of fact I fish on one of the heaviest fish waters in the lower USA, and I haven't seen a fly angler kill a fish in years.

should have been rainbows/steelhead. I didn't edit this post.

i would put all trout and salmon on the "pretty" list. also northern pike and yellow perch

The fish could be as ugly as home made sin, but if it serves up well on a platter with fries and hush puppies it is a beautiful fish to me.

@sgtsly you had be laughing with your beaten with a sack of hot nickels comment. I couldn't give a damn about catching carp, but I won't knock anyone who goes after them. I do have to give some respect to the bigger suckers in my local trout streams (we call 'em horny heads). I've caught plenty of the small ones and they're mostly an annoyance but I've tried to catch some of the huge ones I've seen and never gotten so much as a second look from them.

I think it's a two edged sword, if it is big it doesn't matter how pretty it is, if it is pretty it doesn't matter how big it is. If the fish is both, GREAT but if it's small and ugly the only thing going for would be if it is uncommon. But everyone has their own opinion of what's "pretty" to them and I can appreciated that.

only trout i catch are from the finger lakes and the lampreys have done a number on em,I personally think the tiger muskie hybrid is possibly the most beautiful fish.

Hey sayfu rainbow trout aren't a true trout either. The 'true' trout genus is Salmo. Rainbows are more closely related to western salmon, right. And char are just trout with fine scales.

Mr Northern Flyman said it best. And I find the beauty in all things...even the bottom feeders.

Everyone loves to take a picture with a pretty fish, but I am as much in it for the fun of the fight as the taste of it when it comes off the grill. Looks don't really faze me. Do the pretty fish get preference? That's like asking do the pretty girls get asked to prom first? I think people covet the pretty fish, but I bet you that if your neighbor showed you a picture with a 50lbs catfish you would still be pretty darn jealous, AND HUNGRY!!!

This is a fly fishing blog jbell. Eating the catch is not our primary reason to fly fish..far down the priority list. But to take to bed?..But I did have a fish mounted one time, for a little while at least, and then I slipped off the slimy critter.

Mr. Northern...NO, rainbows are true trout, and a salmonid. The Feds provided the Indians the liberal interpretation of Rainbows?steelhead classifying steelhead they were commercially netting, and should never have been allowed to commerically net...allowed them the new classification as "Summer-salmon!" ..so they could sell them in the foodMarts across the country. Women who do most of the shopping would be better served thinking they were buying salmon then steelhead. Salmon, and steelhead are salmo's but there is a definite distinction. Chars are not true trout...they include the Bull-trout, char, dolly vardon, brook trout...all closely related. That's why when you run into a liberal please tell them their policies don't pass the smell test. Steelheaders, especially fly angling steelheaders release ALL wild fish, and steelhead unharmed if the can. Indians?...net the bejesus out of big, native steelhead during their time to run up rivers to spawn.

jbell...You live in a vacuum. Not even the lure/bait guys, a high percentage anyway, kill their catch. I think it has been quoted as 70 % release for the bait guy now. Much cooler to let them swim away, and live to fight on someone else's line. Telling folks you have to be a food gatherer is rather degrading. And I would place a bet if I could watch the fly anglers that catch and kill a high percentage of the time, I think the conclusion would be...they aren't very good fly fisherman. And I don't know the fishery either. Could be a hatchery plant fishery. All wild fish should be released. That is a concensus of all anglers, bait fisherman included.