Trolling lower Fraser
- Thread starter Eastmon
- Start date
Could be the level of turbidity. Being silty
as they first enter the river causing them
to be very tight lipped. this is why
alternative methods are employed
to harvest salmon in the lower reaches.
Not to say they will not bite especially
off in the slack water back eddy bars
where visibility becomes only slightly
better . it is possible just not easy
or very productive.
as they first enter the river causing them
to be very tight lipped. this is why
alternative methods are employed
to harvest salmon in the lower reaches.
Not to say they will not bite especially
off in the slack water back eddy bars
where visibility becomes only slightly
better . it is possible just not easy
or very productive.
I'd love to spend some time doing it.
But in my short time on this earth Ive come to realize that in situations like this, people have tried my idea and it was ****, for whatever reason, so they don't do it.
Are the lower Columbia and the lower Fraser different in anyway? Water clarity, current? I've never been on the Columbia. Anyone who has spent some time down there might be able to tell me
Fair call, makes sense. Only thing is I can't see the Columbia being much different, but I haven't been
happy hooker
Crew Member
the clarity of the Columbia is far better than the Fraser. The fish cant see your gear in the lower Fraser would be my guess.
dmurph
Well-Known Member
Interesting, I always thought the fraser was the largest salmon producing river. Wish our government would invest more to get the results tge US has then
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
While the Columbia would have been more productive historically, due to the dams the Fraser is the more productive salmon river currently. Remember that while us sports focus on chinook and coho, sockeye, pink and chum spawning populations are typically much larger in numbers than chinook and coho runs. For example the Columbia chinook run is considered a banner year when chinook from all groupings combined exceed a million fish. On their peak spawning cycle there are many Sockeye populations in the Fraser that number in the millions.
Columbia dams wiped out the majority of wild Columbia salmon production and now the US relies on very expensive hatchery programs to maintain chinook and coho runs to support FN and sport fisheries (and limited commercial). As sockeye are much harder to produce in hatcheries they aren't enhanced on the Columbia outside of the Okanagan system in Canada, at least not that I'm aware of. There have been extensive studies on the Columbia salmon and steelhead stocks and the effects/impacts of hatchery programs with the bulk of the science suggesting the hatchery programs are harmful to wild stocks. There is currently much debate, as well as a number of lawsuits from groups like the Wild Salmon Coalition, on the Columbia as user groups are divided between expensive investment in hatcheries to maintain returning fish for fisheries exploitation in the present vs moving away from hatcheries, which will cause a lot of short term pain, and focussing on recovering wild production to be self-sustaining into the future.
On the Fraser, things are far from perfect (over exploitation of some stocks, habitat destruction, mismanagement of water, etc, etc) but wild production is still responsible for the lion's share of returning salmon of all five salmon species which continue to support a diverse Canadian fishery. I for one applaud our government for not throwing in the towel on wild salmon and going the hatchery route that other jurisdictions have taken.
Cheers!
Ukee
Columbia dams wiped out the majority of wild Columbia salmon production and now the US relies on very expensive hatchery programs to maintain chinook and coho runs to support FN and sport fisheries (and limited commercial). As sockeye are much harder to produce in hatcheries they aren't enhanced on the Columbia outside of the Okanagan system in Canada, at least not that I'm aware of. There have been extensive studies on the Columbia salmon and steelhead stocks and the effects/impacts of hatchery programs with the bulk of the science suggesting the hatchery programs are harmful to wild stocks. There is currently much debate, as well as a number of lawsuits from groups like the Wild Salmon Coalition, on the Columbia as user groups are divided between expensive investment in hatcheries to maintain returning fish for fisheries exploitation in the present vs moving away from hatcheries, which will cause a lot of short term pain, and focussing on recovering wild production to be self-sustaining into the future.
On the Fraser, things are far from perfect (over exploitation of some stocks, habitat destruction, mismanagement of water, etc, etc) but wild production is still responsible for the lion's share of returning salmon of all five salmon species which continue to support a diverse Canadian fishery. I for one applaud our government for not throwing in the towel on wild salmon and going the hatchery route that other jurisdictions have taken.
Cheers!
Ukee
Daveroo
Active Member
I can think of a couple of other reasons why you would not want to troll the Fraser River.
First the current is frequently very fast. Much faster then what you see out in the Strait. I can see a lot of problems trying to do turns on a very fast current with the downriggers in the water.
A lot of the Fraser is relatively narrow and is filled with commercial traffic: tugboats, car carriers, dredging barges, trawlers, etc. Sometimes it's bad enough at the Sandheads with the traffic coming into the river when the sports fishers are trolling in the commercial lanes. Imagine the gong show if the sporties start trolling in the narrow river channel with that commercial traffic passing through constantly. You think the Cap River problem with the Port Authority is a problem...
I am not very familiar with the Columbia River, but when I drove over the bridge by the gorge area it seemed to be pretty wide and the current didn't seemas fast. Maybe I'm wrong. But I did see a number of fishing boats in the river but no commercial traffic. Don't know if the rest of the river is like that.
First the current is frequently very fast. Much faster then what you see out in the Strait. I can see a lot of problems trying to do turns on a very fast current with the downriggers in the water.
A lot of the Fraser is relatively narrow and is filled with commercial traffic: tugboats, car carriers, dredging barges, trawlers, etc. Sometimes it's bad enough at the Sandheads with the traffic coming into the river when the sports fishers are trolling in the commercial lanes. Imagine the gong show if the sporties start trolling in the narrow river channel with that commercial traffic passing through constantly. You think the Cap River problem with the Port Authority is a problem...
I am not very familiar with the Columbia River, but when I drove over the bridge by the gorge area it seemed to be pretty wide and the current didn't seemas fast. Maybe I'm wrong. But I did see a number of fishing boats in the river but no commercial traffic. Don't know if the rest of the river is like that.
wishiniwasfishin1
Well-Known Member
double post
Last edited:
wishiniwasfishin1
Well-Known Member
I trolled the Kenai years ago and it was very effective. Its not like trolling in the salt, its more 'back trolling' where you put the bow into the current and try to remain more or less stationary.
We used giant globs of milky roe (scent helps when water clarity is low). We also used kwikfish with sardine or herring attached with spider wire. The idea is to find moving fish, or a deeper trough where they may be resting.
Guys bar fish all up and down the Fraser and do well. Cast out a heavy weight and let their presentation flop around just off bottom - usually some kind of spin n glow / roe combo.
We used giant globs of milky roe (scent helps when water clarity is low). We also used kwikfish with sardine or herring attached with spider wire. The idea is to find moving fish, or a deeper trough where they may be resting.
Guys bar fish all up and down the Fraser and do well. Cast out a heavy weight and let their presentation flop around just off bottom - usually some kind of spin n glow / roe combo.
I have tried back trolling just below the Alex Fraser and up by crescent island with kiwi fish and was successful 3 times out of many.
You have to troll very slow on an incoming or high slack tide. Your rod tip should be tapping steady but not vibrating That was when I got lucky all other tides nothing. I'm going to try a method from the Columbia up here been scouting spots and I'll keep you posted either way. I think up by crescent this might work.
You have to troll very slow on an incoming or high slack tide. Your rod tip should be tapping steady but not vibrating That was when I got lucky all other tides nothing. I'm going to try a method from the Columbia up here been scouting spots and I'll keep you posted either way. I think up by crescent this might work.
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
We have a bait ban in effect on the Fraser right now if I'm not mistaken. So, using scent to help overcome the clarity issue isn't an option. No sardine wrapped quick fish, or big spin'n glows with roe allowed to entice them to your lure. That's a bit of a handicap, compared to using those type of lures with bait for an attractant.
I think if it was that easy on the Fraser a whole bunch of guys would be doing it.
I think if it was that easy on the Fraser a whole bunch of guys would be doing it.
That is correct. Bait ban and no coho retention until 2nd week of October. Another method that has been successful for me during the bait ban period (when we had a descent run 3-4 years ago) was to troll a large KOHO spoon behind a Gibbs mini flasher. This was only successful on an incoming tide in areas above the Pitt River. I guess clarity had something to do with it. Had to troll real slow and watch the rod tip as the bites were too swift.
sly_karma
Crew Member
The takeaway I get from my conversations with biologists and fisheries guys in the Okanagan is that a lot of hatchery programs in Washington and Oregon are now viewed as life support for certain runs until habitat and fish passage issues can be resolved. Their hatcheries are capable for rearing plenty of fish - even sockeye - but lakes with clean, cold water for fry development are in short supply. The Okanagan sockeye program has been successful because we have good habitat here, and they have healthy wild return numbers as a result; the hatchery is more of a booster to accelerate the return to historic numbers. It will be needed once the province grants permission to reopen passage into Okanagan Lake, fry will be 'seeded' into the creeks with the best spawning habitat. Already they can see the day when the sockeye returns are sufficiently large that they can turn the hatchery to producing fry for the restoration of other species historically found in the Okanagan system - summer chinooks and steelhead. That will likely be a couple of decades but things are certainly encouraging.
UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Not to hijack but your info on the Okanagan is far from complete. MANY issues with reintroduction, not the least of which is the historical Phosphorus traps caused by all the irrigation impoundments on every trib of the Okanagan which impacts lake productivity compounded by introduction of mysid shrimp to the system. Net result has been reduction in size and numbers of resident kokanee, an indicator that certainly isn't favourable to introduction of large quantities of sockeye fry. Also the Fish Water Mgmt Tool that now guides Okanagan dam releases and flow curves has eliminated the summer oxygen squeeze in Osoyoos lk and the annual late winter spawning bed scour and accounts for the recovery of the populations numbers. Unless something new has recently been released there is no evidence that hatchery supplementation has any measurable population effect.
As for US Columbia hatcheries having capacity for sockeye, its disease protocols that are the issue, not capacity and typically you can't raise sockeye with any other spp. Dams may be generally bad but the certainly make for lots of deep lake habitat that would serve for sockeye fry rearing if there was stock and recruitment, so no shortage of supply of rearing habitats south of the border, it is an extinction issue caused by the dams.
Cheers!
Ukee
As for US Columbia hatcheries having capacity for sockeye, its disease protocols that are the issue, not capacity and typically you can't raise sockeye with any other spp. Dams may be generally bad but the certainly make for lots of deep lake habitat that would serve for sockeye fry rearing if there was stock and recruitment, so no shortage of supply of rearing habitats south of the border, it is an extinction issue caused by the dams.
Cheers!
Ukee
sly_karma
Crew Member
I know there are great hopes for Shingle Creek west of Penticton, it was inaccessible to fish until 2 years ago when a small irrigation weir was removed. The creek banks are undeveloped for most of its length and still has native vegetation. Lengthy stretches of clean gravel and considered to be prime spawning stream. And you're right, I only know a little about the Okanagan system and its fish bearing potential. In the course of my work on the sockeye hatchery I spent a fair amount of time with folks from the ONA and their funding partners (American public hydro utilities), who gave me some background. I'm sure any errors are mine. We should get together for a beer sometime as I'd like to learn more about this stuff.
:thread derail over:
:thread derail over:
Similar threads
