Columbia River, Pacific Ocean salmon

[rogerbum]

Either you've lost weight or that's a big fish.

[TyBoo]

We were out on the windy river yesterday and got three fish in the box. The second one upped the boat record for most salmon in a season. Not a big deal because the record was 35, but good for me because my fishing time has been cut way back in the last few years. That is counting only legal fish, not the released natives or out of season chinook (we let go at least as many as we kept this year). It is nowhere near the 96 in 2001 on the CD22, but that boat fished way better than the CD25 TyBoo. There are likely a batch of silvers outside that have yet to run into the river, so if the weather lets us we might even get a few more.

[TyBoo]

OK - this has been bugging me so I dug up the pictures. A while back Roger posted a picture of an 84 pound salmon caught up in Alaska. I have seen, although not caught myself, several kings in the 50 pound range, and I seemed to recall them looking bigger than the 84 pounder in the pic. Then I caught a good size fish myself - one I admittedly guessed at 35 - that weighed 29 pounds. Here are the two pictures. My question is, why is the Alaska fish nearly three times as heavy as the Oregon fish?

[rogerbum]

Mike - with some image analysis it's possible to estimate the length and height of both fish if we assume the the width of the hand across the knuckles is 3.5 inches for both you and the guy hold the Alaska fish (my hand is 3.5" wide at the knuckles are the base of the fingers).

From that I get the Alaska fish at 44.5" long x 12" tall and your fish at 32.8". If your hands are both 4" wide at the knuckles, I get 50.9" long and 13.7" tall for the Alaska fish and 36.7" x 9.14" for your fish. According to the Queen Charlotte Lodge blog, the Alaskan fish was measured at 51.5" long and 35" in girth. So that length would be close to my estimate assuming a 4" wide hand.

Its hard to convert a height to a girth and I can't really estimate girth easily from a 2D photo. However I can use the QCL girth measurement divided by my estimate if height to get a ratio of 35/13.7 = 2.55. That would give an estimate of 2.55 * 9.14" = 23.3" for the girth of your fish.

Now to estimate the weight, the standard formula for salmon is (length x girth x girth)/800.
For your fish that would give 24.9 lbs.
For the Alaska fish I get (using their measurements) 78.8lbs or (using my estimated length and their girth) 77.9lbs. So while I'm underestimating the weight of your fish by about 4 lbs (or 13%), I'm getting within 6-7 lbs (7%) of their estimate.

This weight calculator uses a slightly different formula and comes up with the 81.4lb estimate that QCL gave for their fish and a 25.7lb estimate for your fish (based on my estimate length/girth). Since your fish is more bent in the photo, I probably under estimated the length a bit. But bottom line, I think their fish does indeed way close to 3x what yours does.

[TyBoo]

That makes perfect sense, Roger. Or it could just be that the Alaska guys are advertising something and I am not.

[B~C]

those lodge scales aren't always the most accurate & I've heard tell of some guides actually stuffing 16oz leads in fish...always good for a chuckle. There is another formula for determining a fish's weight
reported weight= actual bled weight + the square root of the sum of the number of miles from where it was caught + number of months ago it was caught

that 84 pounder is a durn big, chunky fish, girth, it's all about girth

[stevej]

Mike, that is one nice fish you got there. Biggest Chinook I have boated is 26lbs so that is a brute in my book.

The Alaska fish is sooooo big the one guy forgot to smile (actually looks like he may have something up his postierer). I kind of struggle with the concept of a salmon bigger than any halibut ever caught on my boat but that is a big deep fish.

So if I drag Shearwater down your way will you show me how to salmon fish? You look to be having way too much fun and are getting some beautiful fish this year Mike.

stevej

[starcrafttom]

Mike those are all nice fish. what are you using and where? incoming or outgoing tides? details man details.

[TyBoo]

The ocean fish, including the puny little 29 pounder, were caught with whole herring on barbless mooching rigs behind a diver. The river fish were on a red/white/brass spinner. I try to avoid the flashers and the hoochies and the other jewelry. The fish that hit with all the stuff on there would have hit the same lure or bait without the stuff, I always figure, so why deal with the hassle. Although, out of superstition based on the only thing that would get us fish last year, I do use the divers with the fluttery wings.

The ocean fishing doesn't matter too much on the tide times, but the tide does dictate when the smaller boats can go out. A morning incoming tide is always the best bet for a smooth bar, so most of the fish we took from the ocean were on the flood. We did have a couple weeks with real small tide exchanges, so the bar was passable during the ebb. Like I say - the fish hanging around the mouth of the river outside don't care what time it is if they see your bait.

The best time for the river bite this year has been the last hour of the incoming, through the high slack, and an hour or so into the ebb. Right as the ebb starts there is a feeding frenzy at the big Astoria bridge that lasts for a half hour or so if the fish are there.

With the rain last weekend and the gillnetters this week, the river fish have all been driven up river or slaughtered. All those natives I so carefully released that may have been unlucky enough to find the gillnets were likely tossed back for sea lion food.

[TyBoo]

Lovely evening...