Post by: Kc_Kracker on September 15, 2013, 10:31:41 PM
thought id share hope you enjoy :tup:
Post by: bowhunterforever on September 15, 2013, 10:38:27 PM
Post by: Mudman on September 15, 2013, 10:40:31 PM
Post by: PolarBear on September 15, 2013, 10:42:19 PM
Post by: Kc_Kracker on September 15, 2013, 10:43:52 PM
Post by: wildweeds on September 15, 2013, 10:46:49 PM
Post by: Smossy on September 15, 2013, 10:55:09 PM
Ill just keep dreaming.
Post by: Fishnclifff on September 15, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
We lost a lot of genetics when they built the dam.
Post by: Kc_Kracker on September 16, 2013, 08:39:54 AM
Post by: Wazukie on September 16, 2013, 09:02:05 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 16, 2013, 09:07:38 AM
imagine the genetics lost :bash: and also one that was from 1932 at 102 lbs :bash:
Why were they lost? Unless those salmon were only-fry. :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: snowpack on September 16, 2013, 09:51:55 AM
In some of the cases it was because the dams allowed all the salmon to mingle. Before the dams there were parts of rivers that had rapids/small waterfalls that only the largest fish of the run could jump. So only the big ones got up to those parts to spawn with other big ones. After those stretches of river were blocked the fish had to spawn in lower parts of the rivers where almost any salmon could get to. So you had little fish spawning with big fish and the average sizes went down a little. That's according to some of the theories I've read about it.imagine the genetics lost :bash: and also one that was from 1932 at 102 lbs :bash:
Why were they lost? Unless those salmon were only-fry. :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: Jonathan_S on September 16, 2013, 09:59:59 AM
Post by: Hunterman on September 16, 2013, 10:05:16 AM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: Fishnclifff on September 16, 2013, 09:55:47 PM
imagine the genetics lost :bash: and also one that was from 1932 at 102 lbs :bash:
Why were they lost? Unless those salmon were only-fry. :dunno: :dunno:
Originally the dam was built with no fish ladders.
Some fish were relocated but the true upriver fish were lost after the dam was built.
Post by: 6x6in6 on September 16, 2013, 10:35:30 PM
I can remember back in the day ( 1960's - 1970's) the commercial fisherman, and gill netters on the Columbia (Illwaco) landed quite a few extra large salmon. Many in the 80 plus pound range. Of course this was LONG before people were concerned about state records, just trying to make a living.My grandfather had a gill netter out of Illwaco that he did for fun from the late '50's until he passed away in '72.
Hunterman(Tony)
I was lucky enough to go out with him a couple times in the late '60's with my Dad and older brother. We had a few over the 70# mark. I don't really remember a whole lot about those trips since I was only 6 when I went for the last time. But I do remember my grandfather saying "son, that isn't anything, I would haul in at least 3 over 90#'s every time when I first started doing this." :yike:
Post by: Angus on September 16, 2013, 10:46:30 PM
I can remember back in the day ( 1960's - 1970's) the commercial fisherman, and gill netters on the Columbia (Illwaco) landed quite a few extra large salmon. Many in the 80 plus pound range. Of course this was LONG before people were concerned about state records, just trying to make a living.
Hunterman(Tony)
Commercial caught fish don't count for the record books.
Post by: Bullkllr on September 16, 2013, 11:01:51 PM
Most experience and data points to smaller and smaller average size all over the whole range of chinook. Most common causes you hear about are:
-(as mentioned) habitat lost to dams, etc.
-gillnetting -over generations- keeps selecting out larger fish
-constant harvest pressure on feeding fish- trolling and sport- fish simply do not live as long- selects for fish returning earlier to spawn
-lower populations of feed/prey herring, krill, etc.
Whatever- its a shame we lost them.
Post by: wildweeds on September 17, 2013, 10:00:08 PM
I can remember back in the day ( 1960's - 1970's) the commercial fisherman, and gill netters on the Columbia (Illwaco) landed quite a few extra large salmon. Many in the 80 plus pound range. Of course this was LONG before people were concerned about state records, just trying to make a living.
Hunterman(Tony)
Commercial caught fish don't count for the record books.
Post by: h2ofowlr on September 17, 2013, 10:15:22 PM
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on September 17, 2013, 10:15:50 PM
Post by: wildweeds on September 17, 2013, 10:24:57 PM
My old skipper when I seined did a study once for Alaska on the survival rate of fish that have been netted and released and apparently most will live once being released within a reasonable amount of time from hitting the deck. :dunno:
Post by: SemperFidelis97 on September 17, 2013, 10:25:57 PM
Post by: Angus on September 18, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
My old skipper when I seined did a study once for Alaska on the survival rate of fish that have been netted and released and apparently most will live once being released within a reasonable amount of time from hitting the deck. :dunno:
Says the skipper of a seine boat. :rolleyes:
Post by: Angus on September 18, 2013, 08:27:45 PM
If you don't get paid for by catch it's a helluva lot better than feeding crab,but then again they were all interloper canadian fish headed to the fraser river so who cares.
Really? I know a lot of people who care.
Post by: wildweeds on September 18, 2013, 09:27:43 PM
If you don't get paid for by catch it's a helluva lot better than feeding crab,but then again they were all interloper canadian fish headed to the fraser river so who cares.
Really? I know a lot of people who care.
Post by: Houndhunter on September 19, 2013, 09:36:29 PM
Post by: MLBowhunting on September 19, 2013, 09:43:45 PM