quote:
Originally posted by fishin_magician
quote:Originally posted by Truth
FM, spend some time on some of these waters before you comment on them. It will save you from looking like an idiot
The great hode
That's pretty funny coming from a guy who calls himself "Truth". Yep, there's got to be 50's, 60's and 70's all over the place alright---everyday there's a few dozen bonked in that size range and up every day...not!! However, given the number of anglers and the amount of effort out there, these big fish sure are smart, they don't wind up in Seine Nets, FN Nets or even in Angler's Nets in the Harrison River.
Just to be sure, all the local pros in the Lower Mainland would love to know where all these 50+ lb fish are, because they're not being caught with any regularity. They sure must be smart.
FM, you are the man, at least in the mind of some!
But, you might want to re-read Truth’s post and heed his warning? What "he" is saying, is the "Truth"! [:0]
Who mentioned/brought up the “Fraser”… YOU, and it was regarding 50 pound Chinook, not 70! Who corrected you on your comments – a very well known and respected “local pro” - Profisher! I guess, I will have to go with him on that one! Who, ever stated there were 70 pound fish from the Fraser – NO ONE, but there are Chinook documented in the 60 pound range! What are thinking? [:0]
If I am not mistaken, Truth if referring to fishing the waters off the west coast of California, Oregon, and Washington, not the Fraser? In case you really missed it, that is absolutely the “Truth”, and “It will save you from looking like an idiot.”
You know this is why I wasn’t going to respond… sometimes your comments just make me do nothing but shake my head.
Sometimes roll my eyes.
Sometimes just break out laughing!
Whelp, you got me doing all three with this one!
So, first starting with your opinion/comment - of my post. You probably need to read it a little closer, also? I quote, “In that area? Absolutely anywhere from SEAK to California and anywhere in between, including B.C.! LOL” That didn’t mean anything other than that fish could be from “anywhere”... and just for you I change that,
including the Skeena! Now how and why would you even want to try turning that simple comment into such a ridiculous debate? I totally agree, one is certainly entitled to their own opinions, but your “facts” might be lacking a tad bit?
quote: Really? A fish over 70 caught in Washington, Oregon or California? The stuff legends are made of I tell ya. Even the Fraser....one in very very very many ever make it to 70 lbs from the Fraser or it's tributaries. Northern BC Mainland Coast to AK, maybe, otherwise, it's a unicorn that don't exist elsewhere. Fuhgeddaboudit.
quote: Done my homework there Charlie. There are very very few, if any that size that return anywhere south of the 49th Parallel, and very very few that size north of the 49th as well. The Skeena probably has the most of them, and if there were any significant numbers of these fish, we would see them--and they would turn up in Seine Nets, on the spawning grounds, etc. That picture in that link gets a lot of publicity, and it was only a dead carcass that they found and just one that size. As for the guys in the Haida Gwaii, they're finding some GIGANTIC fish this year, as they always do...so good for them!
I certainly hope you are not confusing our Puget Sound hatchery “cookie cutters”, with the U.S. West Coast and Columbia River tributaries? If you are – you really might want to look a little closer? And, yes I do not hate to inform you Chinook salmon in that class are taken (by sports) in Washington, Oregon, and California – almost every year and have been for years. The reason for the “almost”… if you do check, there has to be an open fishery for a sport to catch them (e.g. Oregon and California)! Now with those particular fisheries showing improvement this year, I am quite sure you are going to be seeing some in that class and many happy faces. Even California is having a Chinook fishery this year… and I would love to catch one of those “unicorns” you refer? LOL
How you brought the Fraser into this is beyond me, but since you did this might be a shock - the Columbia tributaries produce “more” and just as large (if not larger) Chinook salmon than the Fraser. The U.S. West Coast Rivers actually produce just as large if not larger wild Chinook – why do you think we are trying to protect them? And also (not such a good fact) if Canada doesn’t do something fairly quick, I can see the Columbia Sockeye out producing the Fraser Sockeye very soon?
Concerning your 49th parallel thoughts/comment, again there are Chinook salmon that size taken and caught south of the 49th parallel EVERY YEAR! And this may really burst your bubble, but some of the best fishing in BC and on the WCVI for both B.C. and the U.S. Chinook is
BELOW the 49th parallel - check your charts!
I surely do not and am not going to take anything away from the Skeena fishery, but that it is NOT the only system that produces large Chinook… and you better not tell all those boys up in Rivers Inlet those aren’t 70 pound Chinook they are catching, they might disagree, also? LOL
As for finding them in seine nets… You can find them in seine nets frequently… but that would be MORE likely in northern B.C. and SEAK - ever heard of a term "PST"? Why in the world do you think that treaty came about? Check their catch records; yep, they are still catching “OUR” Chinook!
Now, the last time I checked… a dead salmon carcass is the direct result of live salmon dying! I guess they could have flown that carcass in from B.C., but I doubt it! Do you really think they did?
As for the guys in the Haida Gwaii, finding some GIGANTIC fish this year? You have got to be kidding with that comment? Of course they do… they are right on the migration path for all the salmon migrating from northern BC to California and yes they are apt to catch SEAK Chinook. Do you realize that fish was caught somewhere probably less than 30 miles from SEAK… hence again, the
"one and only comment" I made, “In that area? Absolutely anywhere from SEAK to California and anywhere in between, including B.C.! LOL” And, just for you… including the Skeena! LOL
Now let’s look at all those “unicorns” south of your 49th parallel you refer and have managed to make it in the different State sport catching records over the years:
California - Chinook (King) Salmon 88 lbs 0 oz Sacramento River O.H. Lindberg 11/21/1979
Washington - Chinook (King) Salmon 68 lbs 4.16 oz Elochoman River Mark Salmon 10/5/1992
Chinook (King) Salmon 70 lbs 8 oz Pacific Ocean - Sekiu Chet Gausta 9/6/1964
Alaska - Chinook (King) Salmon 97 lbs 4 oz Kenai River Lester Anderson 1985
Idaho -Chinook (King) Salmon 54 lbs 0 oz Salmon River Merrold Gold 1956
Chinook (King) Salmon 42 lbs 0 oz 41.25" Coeur dAlene Lake Jane Clifford 9/13/1987
Oregon - Chinook (King) Salmon 83 lbs 0 oz Umpqua River Ernie St. Claire 1910
quote: Anyways, there's fact, and then there are unicorns. So far, evidence is that there are just 3 or 4 unicorns on the entire coast this year...all the way from Alaska to California. They all happen to have been caught in BC.
Whelp… yep, there is fact, and then there are “unicorns”… guess you can choose and it is your opinion to determine what is fact and fiction? Me I’ll just go ahead and believe the well documented (not weighed with their “eyeballs”) published records. I wouldn’t suggest trying to tell all those anglers that have been catching them for years that all large Chinook can only be caught in BC? LOL
quote: As for 50+ lb fish in the Harrison etc, I believe it when I see it, and there are no legitimate 50's caught in the lower mainland in the last 3 years---dead ones anyways...so these 50 + lb fish I keep hearing about in the Rivers never wind up dead yet I always hear these stories.....
As for your 50+ lb comment of fish in the Harrison? Might want to go back and read my
"one and only" post, again? I certainly do believe Profisher and his catch comments; however, I never made that statement – YOU DID! And, I do believe Rollie has correctly, corrected you there? I will let you guys argue that one, but good luck there? I believe you will lose that one, too!
quote: People need to stop weighing fish with their eyeballs and tape them out or weigh 'em on a scale before they cut them up if they choose to kill them.
Anyways, just my opinions, and they're not necessarily right..but there's always my side, your side (which you're more than entitled to) and the what the truth really is is unknown. Anyways, from talking to the guys at the lodges I used to work at, there a few guides apparently at the lodges which need to learn how to tape a fish and conveniently weight fish with their eyeballs to suit themselves. To each their own.
Needless to say, it is fantastic that large fish such as these are being released. CONGRATS!
You probably also believe there are only Chinook on the west coast - right? Here let me do some homework, just for YOU. And, just so you know there are a LOT of Chinook south of the 49th (have been for years) - check the dates? You might also want to drop these other states an email advising them they need to correct their state records?
Indiana - Chinook (King) Salmon 38 lbs 0 oz Trail Creek Rich Baker 1980
Illinois - Chinook (King) Salmon 37 lbs 0 oz Lake Michigan Marge Landeen 8/7/1976
Colorado - Chinook (King) Salmon 11 lbs 0 oz 28.5" Williams Fork Reservoir Helen Eaton 1989
Michigan -Chinook (King) Salmon 46 lbs 0.96 oz 43.5" Grand River Ray Es*** 1978
Minnesota - Chinook (King) Salmon 33 lbs 4 oz 44.75" Poplar River Dave Anderson 9/23/1989
Chinook (King) Salmon 33 lbs 4 oz 42.25" Lake Superior Jeffrey Gulbranson 10/12/1989
Montana - Chinook (King) Salmon 31 lbs 2.08 oz 38" Fort Peck Reservoir Carl L. Niles 10/2/1991
Nebraska - Chinook (King) Salmon 2 lbs 8 oz Lewis & Clark Lake Rick Heppner 9/14/1985
New Hampshire - Chinook (King) Salmon 19 lbs 4 oz 37" Exeter River Brian OConnell 11/9/1985
New York - Chinook (King) Salmon 47 lbs 13 oz Salmon River Kurtis L. Killian 9/7/1991
North Dakota - Chinook (King) Salmon 31 lbs 2 oz Garrison Tailrace Tom Schwartz 1986
Ohio - Chinook (King) Salmon 29 lbs 8 oz 42.875" Lake Erie Walter Shumaker 8/4/1989
Chinook Salmon 29 lbs 5 oz 42 7/8" Lake Erie Walter Shumaker 8/4/1989
Pennsylvania - Chinook (King) Salmon 28 lbs 15 oz Lake Erie Gregory Lasko 1990
South Dakota - Chinook (King) Salmon 23 lbs 14 oz Lake Oahe Keith West 8/16/2003
Wisconsin - Chinook (King) Salmon 44 lbs 15 oz Lake Michigan unknown 7/19/1994
http://www.landbigfish.com/staterecords/records.cfm?ID=99
Since my only comment was that fish "COULD BE" headed anywhere... and even though I do find most of your comments amusing and sometimes just amazing, would you mind to go trolling and attacking someone else? [xx(][|)]
Have a great day!
