Columbians "Myth or Fact" & "POST"
- Thread starter Charlie
- Start date
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Yep! I am! Do, you rememmber "Campbell River, I do? Please go on?
Campbell River, is a prime example of what "We" all</u> don't </u> want to repeat! Let's take "the best" fishery in the world... and turn it into "nothing"! Everytime I drive though Campbell River... I think about that!
As far as "poaching" I really don't care if you are U.S., Canadian, Chinese, or whatever... poaching... is poaching!
R
Roadrunner
Guest
There has been a fair chunk of genetic work completed on WCVI chinook stocks. This thread is almost getting silly (Charlie, could you use spell check as it lowers your credibility considerably?)!! Honestly, I do not care about spelling on a fishing forum but if you are going to impersonate someone with Academic integrity it would be a good start.
The data suggest that most of the American fish migrate close to the edge of the shelf and turn the corner prior</u> to Juan De Fuca Straight. Most (not all) of the Canadian fish migrate closer to shore. There are always exceptions,and salmon do stray among watersheds. There are certainly a few Columbia chinook heads sent in each year that were captured in Juan De Fuca and many other locations.
To propose that you can determine the origin of chinook salmon by examining body form or meat colour is laughable and I assume Charlie is just attempting to rile people or he likes talking about issues he clearly does not comprehend.
Spend some time on some tributaries of a larger system. For example, the Fraser (note the spelling) has short, fat, tall, white, red, marbled and a mix of all within its many tributaries. There is both intra- and inter-variation within many tributaries and often it is correlated to run timing but not always.
I would suggest that a more in-depth read of the literature you throw around is necessary. You could also complete a cursory examination of some published primary research to help you propel yourself forward as an expert on this subject.
Cheers
The data suggest that most of the American fish migrate close to the edge of the shelf and turn the corner prior</u> to Juan De Fuca Straight. Most (not all) of the Canadian fish migrate closer to shore. There are always exceptions,and salmon do stray among watersheds. There are certainly a few Columbia chinook heads sent in each year that were captured in Juan De Fuca and many other locations.
To propose that you can determine the origin of chinook salmon by examining body form or meat colour is laughable and I assume Charlie is just attempting to rile people or he likes talking about issues he clearly does not comprehend.
Spend some time on some tributaries of a larger system. For example, the Fraser (note the spelling) has short, fat, tall, white, red, marbled and a mix of all within its many tributaries. There is both intra- and inter-variation within many tributaries and often it is correlated to run timing but not always.
I would suggest that a more in-depth read of the literature you throw around is necessary. You could also complete a cursory examination of some published primary research to help you propel yourself forward as an expert on this subject.
Cheers
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Thank you for worrying about my credibility! I glad some one does, I don't!
There... is that better! I corrected my spelling and am sorry I spelled Fraser wrong, but hey, I am a Yank! If I were a Canuck, that would be un-forgiveable!
Oh, I don't have any "Academic integrity",but I did finish the 8th grade! [:I]
BTW... it is "Strait" not "Straight"!
But, your spell check wouldn't pick that up.
Now this is a little off topic, but isn't most of the WCVI fishery comprised of salmon returning to basically the three Hatcheries located at Conuma, Robertson, Nitinat? Along with U.S. and Fraser (notice the spelling) bound fish? I know there is a wild stock on the WCVI, but it is not very strong and not much of a return? And should not be targeted! Hence, one reason for the closures inside the surf line?
I think, to date the only clear "data" of "Chinook" migration, is they basically travel in the shaded area on the below map? "Most of the Canadian fish migrate closer to shore, first I heard of that? However, I do agree the Canadian bound, kinda have to get a little closer to shore than the U.S. bound fish. That is, if they want to get to their natal stream??[?] I also know, larger fish(both Canadian and U.S.), tend to travel closer to shore and I also know if you ask any of the guides out of Ucluelet or Bamfield, they will tell you they have caught a LOT of U.S. bound fish at Wya, Eagles Nest, Cree and even Swale, right next to shore! As well as a lot of Canadian bound fish on the banks? Did I spell all those names right?
They have Candian fish in the Gulf of Alaska? Along the Continental Shelf and U.S. fish in Howe Sound? Boy, you guys are right, I am confused?
Here is the Chinook migration area, please note this is dated 2007 and is from NOAA, unlike another link sending you to a outdated map posted on a 2004 King County, Washington website, under archives? (Chris?)
And, when this data was compiled, there were "very few" Chinook salmon outside of the shaded area!</u> I am pretty sure they didn't get any count in the "brown areas"! [8D]
Cheers!
There... is that better! I corrected my spelling and am sorry I spelled Fraser wrong, but hey, I am a Yank! If I were a Canuck, that would be un-forgiveable!
Oh, I don't have any "Academic integrity",but I did finish the 8th grade! [:I]
BTW... it is "Strait" not "Straight"!
But, your spell check wouldn't pick that up.
Do you really mean "genetic work"? or " geneitic study"?? And why would there be either of "WCVI" salmon "stock", unless you are referring to the "Wild" stock, which is almost extinct? This is a question... not a statement!
Now this is a little off topic, but isn't most of the WCVI fishery comprised of salmon returning to basically the three Hatcheries located at Conuma, Robertson, Nitinat? Along with U.S. and Fraser (notice the spelling) bound fish? I know there is a wild stock on the WCVI, but it is not very strong and not much of a return? And should not be targeted! Hence, one reason for the closures inside the surf line?
What "corner" prior to Juan de Fuca Strait (notice the spelling) are you referring to?
I think, to date the only clear "data" of "Chinook" migration, is they basically travel in the shaded area on the below map? "Most of the Canadian fish migrate closer to shore, first I heard of that? However, I do agree the Canadian bound, kinda have to get a little closer to shore than the U.S. bound fish. That is, if they want to get to their natal stream??[?] I also know, larger fish(both Canadian and U.S.), tend to travel closer to shore and I also know if you ask any of the guides out of Ucluelet or Bamfield, they will tell you they have caught a LOT of U.S. bound fish at Wya, Eagles Nest, Cree and even Swale, right next to shore! As well as a lot of Canadian bound fish on the banks? Did I spell all those names right?
They have Candian fish in the Gulf of Alaska? Along the Continental Shelf and U.S. fish in Howe Sound? Boy, you guys are right, I am confused?
Here is the Chinook migration area, please note this is dated 2007 and is from NOAA, unlike another link sending you to a outdated map posted on a 2004 King County, Washington website, under archives? (Chris?)
And, when this data was compiled, there were "very few" Chinook salmon outside of the shaded area!</u> I am pretty sure they didn't get any count in the "brown areas"! [8D]
Cheers!
Charlie
Well-Known Member
That's MY Point!
And, for someone to state there are no </u> Columbia fish in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (which was made), is asinine! [
]Is it a large run of 100k fish, no. But, they do migrate through the Strait and if there is a 40 pound Spring caught (which is what brought this up), it does not have to come from the Fraser (notice the spelling), due to some miss belief of - there are no migration of "Columbia" fish through the Strait (notice the spelling)!
Oh, I comprehend!
Well, I agree if is red, it can be Canadian or U.S., but most of the "Whites", do come from the Fraser (notice the spelling) Fishery! There is always the exception, but when I catch a white I usually assume it is a Fraser fish! And, based on the time of year, location, and yes shape most experienced anglers will have a very good idea of the origin!
I have never seen or even heard of a "live" salmon straying from one watershed to another watershed! How do they do that? I have seen a lot of spawning in watershed rivers and streams, but isn't it a little hard for them live outside of a stream or river? I guess you know of a strain of Frasers I am unaware of! Sorry, I know what you mean, but I just couldn't resist!
I am okay, if you do not want to read any of the information "I throw around"! That is completely up to you! [:0]
I have never, nor do I claim to be an expert on anything!
But, I do know a little about Chinook salmon fishing on the WCVI!
Little Hawk
Active Member
Thanks for sharing this stuff with us Charlie and good on you for taking the criticism in stryde (note spelling). Your passion for fishing and conservation issues is more than evident and that, my American friend, is what really counts.
Regardless of river-of-origin and interception issues that will likely be around for years to come, we can and should follow each others lead on new and more effective conservation initiatives to ensure there are enough fish around for all of us for decades to come. Frankly, it seems to me the Yanks are taking the lead on this front of late.
By the way, you guy's are ALL WRONG! The only way to tell if a fish is a Columbian is by counting the number of 'Bonks' it takes to kill it...
One-bonk: it's a bonerfide (check spelling) Colmubian.
12-bonks: it's a Canucker!
I digress...
Regardless of river-of-origin and interception issues that will likely be around for years to come, we can and should follow each others lead on new and more effective conservation initiatives to ensure there are enough fish around for all of us for decades to come. Frankly, it seems to me the Yanks are taking the lead on this front of late.
By the way, you guy's are ALL WRONG! The only way to tell if a fish is a Columbian is by counting the number of 'Bonks' it takes to kill it...
One-bonk: it's a bonerfide (check spelling) Colmubian.
12-bonks: it's a Canucker!
I digress...
R
Roadrunner
Guest
http://www.psmfc.org/files/2008_Annual_Meeting_Documents/Anderson.pdf
note: Juan de Fuca Strait is not considered West Coast Vancouver Island.
The above is a nice short presentation that illustrates stock composition and migration patterns for Chinook salmon stocks. I simply provided this for interest - I have no interest in debating about anecdotal inferences on population origin using visual morphological estimation.
note: Juan de Fuca Strait is not considered West Coast Vancouver Island.
The above is a nice short presentation that illustrates stock composition and migration patterns for Chinook salmon stocks. I simply provided this for interest - I have no interest in debating about anecdotal inferences on population origin using visual morphological estimation.
Columbian chinooks in the JDF are << 1% of all chinooks in the JDF. If you think you can catch more than a few of them over the years you should play the lottery instead.
BTW, a tiny percentage of salmon does stray into other watersheds. That's why it is possible that nature if left alone can repopulate a blank watershed - let's say after a catastrophic event. To reinstate a selfsustaining population however would take quite some time.
BTW, a tiny percentage of salmon does stray into other watersheds. That's why it is possible that nature if left alone can repopulate a blank watershed - let's say after a catastrophic event. To reinstate a selfsustaining population however would take quite some time.
chris73, i was interested to learn that 'some limited wire tagging' has been done. unfortunately, with the 'science' of fisheries, the numbers of returning fish are so low, as compared to the numbers smolted, that statistics can quickly tell major lies. i would guess that unless each and every smolt was wire tagged, much like the omnibus fin clipping now underway down here, there is really no way to understand which fish came from where.
the studies i have read tend to support the idea that wild fish returns are about 2% of smolts that head out to sea while hatchery zombies return are 1-1.5% of released fish. so once you take a small sample of wire tagged fish and try to extrapolate that data, you are really skating on statistical thin ice. i would guess the ice is so thin that studies of this sort are only done in order to gain publication credit for the authors.
with so very little hard information, it is no wonder that 'managing' fish stocks is in the toilet. it only worked in past decades because there were so many more fish out there masking what was actually going on. in those past years, any one here, could have made statements and backed them up with some sort of 'evidence.' but in today's world, the fish are in deep trouble for a variety of reasons and no one out there actually has much hard information regarding just what to do about recovery.
and yes, of course, fish stray into adjacent watersheds. they are called 'pioneer fish' and this tendency has kept salmon alive through all sorts of natural disasters. unfortunately, salmon have not adapted to disasters created by you and me.
the studies i have read tend to support the idea that wild fish returns are about 2% of smolts that head out to sea while hatchery zombies return are 1-1.5% of released fish. so once you take a small sample of wire tagged fish and try to extrapolate that data, you are really skating on statistical thin ice. i would guess the ice is so thin that studies of this sort are only done in order to gain publication credit for the authors.
with so very little hard information, it is no wonder that 'managing' fish stocks is in the toilet. it only worked in past decades because there were so many more fish out there masking what was actually going on. in those past years, any one here, could have made statements and backed them up with some sort of 'evidence.' but in today's world, the fish are in deep trouble for a variety of reasons and no one out there actually has much hard information regarding just what to do about recovery.
and yes, of course, fish stray into adjacent watersheds. they are called 'pioneer fish' and this tendency has kept salmon alive through all sorts of natural disasters. unfortunately, salmon have not adapted to disasters created by you and me.
Agreed reelfast. Data is far from being perfect. Especially the open-ocean migration routes and varying migration routes due to changing conditions are little understood and with current tools available will remain a mystery for a while. The low percentage of wire tags however applies to all stocks - e.g. the Fraser chinooks as well as the Columbia chinooks so that the probability of intercepting one of them is sort of equal. In a confined water such as the JDF those results do lead to some conclusive information. And the numbers for repeated years of analyses paint a very clear picture which is there are very few - probably lost - adult Columbia chinooks in the JDF.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Wow... how long did it take you to come up with that? [B)]
Great Post! Thanks for the info! I have not seen "that presentation". But, IMHO, it actually illustrates the basic migration patterns of the Pacific salmon stocks</u>... "NOT Chinook" salmon stocks" and again, does apprear to be a basic llustration?
Note: This thread was started addressing "Chinook", in the Strait of Juan de Fuca!
But, I am okay with it wondering over to the WCVI!
Hey, I am starting to get this "Arm Chair" fishing down pat! [:0][B)]
Boy, do I need to go fishing, and catch a fish!!![8D][8D]
Charlie
Well-Known Member
That is probably the "closest" to a correct statement you have made, especially if one does not fish for them, because you say, they don't exist!
Oh, BTW if you do "win" the "lottery", I will take 1% of your total! That could equate to a "LOT" of money and/or "Fish"! [8D]
That was a "joke"! The use of the word "tributaries" would have probably been better! [}
]I also, graduated from the 9th grade! [:I]
A watershed is "the area of land" where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place.</u>
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I keep trying to tell you... They are NOT lost! And I do agree with Reelfast as he points out, "once you take a small sample of wire tagged fish and try to extrapolate that data, you are really skating on statistical thin ice.."
Check this one out! IMHO you can't get much farther in the Strait... and still be in the Strait!
"Fifty-eight juvenile Chinook salmon were collected from nearshore areas of the central and western Strait of Juan de Fuca, west of the Elwha River, between June and September 2007. Genetic analysis documented that 43% of these fish were Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Elwha/Dungeness reporting group), with 48% representing various Columbia River populations. The remaining 9% of the Chinook salmon observed were contributed by Washington Coastal and the Klamath Falls systems." Here is the link to this:
http://www.clallam.net/ccmrc/cllallam 7-07/habitatgeneticthirddraft.pdf
Charlie
Well-Known Member
"conservation issues is more than evident and that my American friend, is what really counts" Thank you, it should be, "all about conservation"!
I really don't think people understand that 80% of our current fishery is from hatcheries and they don't realize, "When the Columbia and Fraser go down (which they are doing!)... our fishing for salmon is basically done!
Thanks... I love it! I'll remember, if I have to bonk it more than once... it is probably a Canuck! Referring to fish, of course!
[^]
Striper Sniper
Well-Known Member
Hey Charlie, very informative post (no pun intended)... You need to get that Whaler out fishin...... and you are not alone! 
Thanks for all the great information SS
ps I did a spell check as well............
You need to get that Whaler out fishin...... and you are not alone! Thanks for all the great information SSps I did a spell check as well............
Charlie: the colours in your first map are not species but places of origin from what I can see. Probably all salmon lumped together...?
What I said is there is no Columbia run in the JDF. Nobody will speak of a run if there is the odd fish... Chances to catch an adult Columbia chinook in the JDF are near 0. The stubby short-nosed fish that come through right now and get caught in the JDF are ET Fraser fish - not Columbians as they were used to be called. That's what I said. Don't try to twist my words because you can't find a backup for your statements. That there are a number of juvenile Columbia chinooks hanging out in the JDF is no proof that there is an adult run coming through here. Adult salmon do not need to go the same route back. As a matter of fact probably very few do because they mostly migrate in a big circle as the map you posted would suggest too.
What I said is there is no Columbia run in the JDF. Nobody will speak of a run if there is the odd fish... Chances to catch an adult Columbia chinook in the JDF are near 0. The stubby short-nosed fish that come through right now and get caught in the JDF are ET Fraser fish - not Columbians as they were used to be called. That's what I said. Don't try to twist my words because you can't find a backup for your statements. That there are a number of juvenile Columbia chinooks hanging out in the JDF is no proof that there is an adult run coming through here. Adult salmon do not need to go the same route back. As a matter of fact probably very few do because they mostly migrate in a big circle as the map you posted would suggest too.
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
Two questions.
Do any of the West Coast salmon start in California?
How many of the Columbia River salmon actually start life in Canada?
Remember, it's called "fishing," not "catching."
Do any of the West Coast salmon start in California?
How many of the Columbia River salmon actually start life in Canada?
Remember, it's called "fishing," not "catching."
B
Brisco
Guest
Few people are aware of the juvenile fish trafficking that is taking place in Canada. Columbians are swimming over and hooking our fish on pellets then taking them back. [:0]
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Not my map... that would be "Roadrunner's" and I agree with you on the map, like I have all ready stated, is a basic map!
Really, I guess I have done the impossible! [:I]
Again, not my map! And, you really believe "Chinook" migrate in a "big circle"?? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You need to consult your "up to date" marine biologists! [8][8][8] And take a look at the map labeled "Chinook Salmon Range"!
Chris, if want to beleive Columbia Fish do not migrate through the Strait of Juan de Fuca... I am okay with that!
If YOU want to beleive, all "The stubby short-nosed fish that come through right now and get caught in the JDF are ET Fraser fish - not Columbians as they were used to be called."... I am okay with that, too! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion! But, I am here to tell you, some very well be the those nonexistent "Columbians", you keep talking about!
I am not trying to "twist"anyone's words, but if you ever do catch a tagged fish in the Strait and find out it is "Columbian", don't be surprised... they DO migrate through the Strait!!
BTW... you you mind looking up the definition of a "salmon run"?
You might be surprised!
Charlie
Well-Known Member
quote:Originally posted by Striper Sniper
Hey Charlie, very informative post (no pun intended)...
ps I did a spell check as well............
Boy, you are right there... but my little Whaler, needs to see the "Whaler" doctor! I think she might be confined to "bed rest" for a couple of weeks!
Similar threads
