|
I Fished the coquitlam today i caught one trout or a steelhead I'm not sure it was about one and a half to two pounds i got it on a pink worm. ni was a nice fish it chewded through my ten pound leader after i grabbed it water was down from thursday alot dn coulor was good clearity improved with the day I have been talking to a few people about my fish from the coquitlam and i have decided that i got a jack steelie. it had the charecteristics of a steelhead skinny and very silver no pink stripe i dont know what the bows look like there though so i could be wrong. Casey, the steelies in the COquitlam are slim but long. What part of the river were you fishing. It could have been a big cutty. I have taken them to 4lbs. in the backside of RIverside school. There is still Coho in the system{dark of course}. There is some pics of steelies from the COquitlam in my article section go to Dew Worms. I looked at those pictures. Thats what i caught but it was silver, only the top of the fish was spotted i flipped the fish over and saw some red marks but very short they only ran on the bottom of the mouth just in from the jaw they were unlike the marks i have seen on any other cutties. I was fishing around the bridge behind Jamers on sunday. Casey, some cutties don't have any slashes at all or they are at least very faint. The sure way to tell between a cuttie and a rainbow is by the mouth. If it extends past the eye, it is a cuttie, if it is small (doesn't reach the eye) it is a rainbow. |
|
Casey, I've fished the Coquitlam for quite some time and I have never caught a 'Jack" Steelhead in it before. I'm not saying that it isn't possible though, I would think that you caught a big, bright Cutthroat. Sometimes the slashes are so faint that they are almost non-existant. When Cutties are very bright, the spots can be very hard to see, they look like a rainbow except the mouth extends well past it's eye.I've caught hundreds of Cutthroat so I've seen just about every variation in color, markings, and physical appearance.(also, if it had teeth on it's tongue and the roof of it's mouth, then it was definitely a Cuttie.) Dave.
|
|
Casey, there is some big bows and cutts in the Coquitlam and it is pretty early as the run is later on. Not saying that there aint steelies in there right now. I definetly agree with Dave with the Big Cutts without the stripe. I think you probably got a big cutty. Bring a camera next time. Ian
|
|
Casey...... I have caught those fish of which you speak in the Coq. I believe (strongly) that they are survivors of the fish that were stocked in and around lions park a few years back. MELP put them in, and I believe they were hatchery raised bows, from Steelhead genus. Was it a marked fish ?? Ie no adipose? Im sure even if it wasnt that thats where it came from. All of them I have caught were hatchery marked, super skinny, (almost eel like) but im sure some of them went in unmarked, maybe why yours survived longer than most. Cal
|
|
They stock the Coquitlam every July with hatchery rainbows. All the fish are marked, with the exception of a few which maybe escaped the clipping somehow, but, every rainbow I've caught has been clipped. I believe that this is the only river which receives hatchery rainbows in the lower mainland. The Brunette River used to get them, but the rainbows were competing with the Cutts, juvenile salmon and steelhead for food, so they discontinued this practice. Obviously some of these fish (not many) survive the onslaught of anglers who fish for them in the summer, so it is possible to catch one. They don't seem to get much bigger than 14 or 15 inches though, not 3 lbs. but who knows. Dave.
|
|
Dave, I find what you are saying REALLY hard to believe, not because of your knowledge. I am not questioning you, but who is responsible for this? The LAST thing you want to do is stock rainbows in a STEELHEAD STREAM!!! Cal knows, this, all the Steelhead on the Coquitlam are NOT clipped, so anything you catch must be hatchery rainbow if it is clipped. On the Seymour, Rice Lake is stocked with Sterile Rainbows. Rice Lake is drained by Rice Creek into the Seymour River. Every year upon stocking the Sterile rainbows into Rice Lake, for some reason quite a few of them will migrate downward into the Seymour River. We know this, because at the time we have a smolt trap in operation on the Rice Creek to determine numbers and size of Coho smolts which are migrating to the ocean at that current time and we want to asscess (sp?) survival rates from the fry plants/seeding which was done the previous year to evaluate the success (it seems VERY successful so far,stocking coho into a lake provides good rearing grounds to grow up fast in, the smolts are bigger/longer and prettier than hatchery smolts of the same age!!) of the program. We will get large amounts of the (sterile) rainbows in the trap and this is a BAD thing as they will compete with and probably oust a lot of the Steelhead parr which are in the river. They may also predate the Coho fry which will be hatching at the time as well in Rice Creek. NOt a good thing by all standards, so I really am skeptical about a program to stock hatchery rainbows into a system. Maybe its hypothesized that these rainbows will return as Steelhead some day and by marking them survival rates can be determined, but again, I find that hard to believe. Rainbows and Steelhead, although similar, are genetically different. They are different, just like Summer Steelhead and Winter Steelhead are also genetically different. Scott
|
|
Dave I may be mistaken, but I believe that the stocking program was stopped from outcry from the groups such as RACE and CRWN. This is the same time as the outmigration of Steelhead smolts , and the stocking program puts the wild fish in jeapordy, as Scott described above. The EEL like fish I described above, that Im sure is what Casey caught, were clipped fish, that I caught on a regular basis for 2 years after the original stocking of them. I have a meeting in a week with Pete Caverhill and other MELP officials, I will check to see if this stocking program has been stopped. MELP does not recognise the efforts of the PCHFC hatchery on Steelhead, or that there is still a remaining wild run, which I believe there is. So it is possible that they still stock the river quietly...... I am sure that the fish Casey described was not a Cuttthroat, but one of these gross looking steelhead plants. The largest one of these I caught was 27" long and weighed no more than 2 lbs max. Was maybe 4 inches High and the thickest part of the fish was the head. Ugly as sin...... Cal
|
|
Scott and Cal, phone the Fraser Valley Trout Hatchery in Abbotsford around the last week in June(or anytime, as they stock them for opening day, July first, every year that I've fished it) and ask them if they are going to stock the Coquitlam River with sterile clipped rainbows in July. I know in June, they know their July stocking schedule, I phone it every year to find out if they are going to dump them in there because it's a lot of fun for a few days. I have caught hundreds of them, it gets boring after a while. They stopped stocking the Brunette because of smolt concerns, Sapperton Fish and Game Club was responsible for putting an end to that, which is obviously a good thing. I grew up in Coquitlam and I do know what happens in the Coquitlam and Brunette rivers. There are some clipped Steelhead in the Coquitlam as my brother usually gets one or two a year, he hooks up to 40 Steelies a year in there.He's never gotten ugly, skinny fish in there nor have I, I've gotten beautiful wild fish that were definite picture fish. Scott, you are not telling me anything I don't already know about how stocking rainbows in a steelhead/salmon bearing stream is a bad thing.It happens though every July in the Coquitlam, I wish it would stop too, hopefully they've wisened up and it won't happen this year.Cal, when you see Peter Caverhill, tell him 'StaveDave' says Hi, he'll know who your talking about.Tell him the fishings been good and he'll know where I mean. Dave.
|
|
Will do Dave.... The news of the continual stocking in July is disheartening, but not suprising. My attention is usually on interior lakes that time of year so my ignorance of the facts is understandable to me. Ive also caught Clipped Steelies in the Coquitlam, however not too many. They are presumaly Alouette strays. 2 years ago I landed 60+ Steelhead in the Coquitlam, only one was marked, and in that year I also caught 3 or 4 of them Eel fish(all marked). I fish the river almost daily in Steelhead season, and most fish I catch are beautiful fish,one being 19lbs and perfect. Last year due to water conditions, my fishing was limited to a few outings on less than ideal conditions, thus very few fish. The start of this chat train was what was the fish that Casey caught, I stand by the fact it was a surviving Rainbow plant. Cal
|
|
The Coquitlam has had a few okay runs of steelies in the past. But the run off from gravel pits make for some horrible fishing conditions. The runs have declined every year and I'm sure will continue to decline. I don't think there's much future for the coquitlam river as far as steelhead fishing due to the gravel pits, pollution, and developement on the river.
|
|
Ryan... I appreciate where your opinion is coming from, but I disagree with your prognosis. The steelhead runs are way up over the last few years, mainly due to additional enhancement in habitat, and hatchery additions. Most of the habitat is above the gravel pits, and uneffected by the siltation. I do a ton of work on the Coquitlam in various capacities. We are working hard with the Gravel Operations to try and improve the run off situation. I live on the Coquitlam also so I monitor it daily. This year is the first year I have ever seen that after an extreme rainfall the water still retained some clarity, and was in fact fishable. Last week (thursday) It rained what I would call extremely hard, and usually that would spell 3-4 days of turbid water. friday Morning it was still raining yet the water was fishable. Saying this we are far from there in terms of acceptable siltation, but you have to respect the work that the gravel operations are doing (albiet from extreme pressure)on cleaning up their collective acts. Cewe had recently spent millions on a treatment plant, and Allards have built a very large system of catchment ponds that hold the water so silt can settle off before being returned to the river. Like I said in no means are we there yet, but with possible water increases coming, and the work of groups such as RACE, and The Coquitlam River Watershed Group, and many others, the Coquitlam is far from dead. In fact it may just suprise many in the years to come with its recovery. If factors outside our control (ie outside the watershed)dont interfere, look for increased numbers every year on all species. BTW this year was the first year that Chinook returned to spawn. Things arent always as they appear....... Cal
|
|
Great report Cal.Have you been making any progress improving the water release situation as was done on the Alouette?
|
|
These optomistic reports are putting a smile on my face. Previously, with development being constant and usually having detrimental effects on our GVRD streams, we only had memories and stories of fish living and spawning in them. Let's keep the enhancement coming. Two years ago, I (as an employee of an engineering firm) was involved with the daylighting of Thain Creek in North Vancouver. Hard-heads were saying that the fish-friendly enhancements were a waste of tax-payer's money, since no fish had been seen spawning for over a decade. Last year, they found some dead-spawned coho and more resident trout; this should mean more fish will be returning this year. We can reverse the damage on many more steams with public and municipal commitment.
|
|
I noticed the GVRD and BC Hydro and generally a lot better with respect to fish habitat these days. The coquitlam being only partly contracted by the GVRD is more related to Hydro. The Lower Mainland gets 40/40/20 in that ratio of its water from the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam watersheds respectively. The Coquitlam Resorvoir is more than twice as large as the Seymour and Capilano resorvoirs combined, which to me either suggets they built a really HUGE dam, or the Coquitlam just has a lot more water, I think its the latter. There is a diversion tunnel which runs under the mountains into Buntzen (which is manmade isn't it?) which then runs out of Buntzen and into another generator. That in its own suggets how much water the Coquitlam once had. Same as the Alouette. The alouette runs around 105 cfs now a days (or something like that?) it once had somewhere over 740 cfs. Really a lot of water to be held back (Alouette water is diverted into the Stave watershed is it not, for generation?). With the Seymour, it is a bay style dam with somewhere around 20 bays (I think, not too sure, never took the time to count). It seems that now a days, instead of dropping and raising various bays to control waterflow, the river is controlled by a pipe which shoots water into the river (the pipe is in the lower section of the dam) and any excess water from rains, or run off is let flow over the bays which are set right up their highest level. In my opinion, this allows more natural water flows and more representative of whats going on with mother nature as opposed to playing god with the river and raising and lowering the river with various bays. I think as long as we have good small stream habitat on these systems, they should be ok. With wild coho returns on the Seymour its evident that maybe fish can survive in numbers on a system that is Dammed (pun). There seems to be a lot more talk geared towards the habitat that is above the Damms. This water/riparian zone/area being protected by the GVRD to produce the cleanest water also provides some of the best spawning and rearing grounds for Salmon. Since it has been proven that Salmon can survive spills over most damms with high survival (90 percent plus), Seeding that habitat with salmon for the first time in around 50 years (or in that general vicinity, whenever a dam went up on certain system) with salmon can produce good returns of salmon on these various dammed systems. Right now, there is an effort on one particular system to truck Salmon above the damm to let them spawn naturally. This represents an effort on behalf of the GVRD to work with the community to help the rivers produce salmon once again naturally. I have asked before about building a fish ladder over some of these dams and one of the responses I received was that the water flows varied too much to construct a fish ladder. I think it can be done, it would just take a heck of a lot of money to be done!!! A lot of people question the concept of placing Salmon above a damm saying "we don't want salmon carcasses in our drinking water." Well obviously first off the water is purified (somewhat LOL), and secondly, there have been fish in our resorvoirs for years and years. When they dammed up the watersheds, cutthroat and dolly varden, more nomadic feeders were trapped behind these large dams. They have been living, spawning, and dying for years (and growing to huge sizes). Just look at some of the dolly varden in the Skagit system for example, fish in a system which has pressure. Imagine how large and how the numbers of them are in systems that haven't seen fishing pressure for over 50 years (or again whenver damms were put up). Lots to think about I guess. Maybe the Cap, Seymour, Coquitlam, and Alouette aren't truly Dammed after all? Scott
|
|
Scott, Thanks for the informative post on the lower mainland's water supply and your opinions of each system. In your next post the spelling should be dam and damn. Did you know that the SSBC was involved in some dam deactivation up the coast from you guys? Maybe you could find out something interesting about that project.
|
|
Ralph..... As you know I sit on the Coquitlam-Buntzen Water Use Planning comittee on behalf of the Driftfishers. We are a little over a year into a 2 year process of devoloping a plan for the distrubution of the available water in the Coq. watershed. GVWD has asked to supply the lower mainlands water needs by increasing their allotment of water(year 2040 livable regions plan), the fish people want all the water for the river, Hydro wants water for power generation, industry wants more water for dilution of sediment,First Nations are involved, and on and on it goes. We need about 3x the water to satisfy all needs, so we are developing operating alternatives to best serve all. One thing that however is consistent through all groups is that Fish Habitat is of primary concern, and I am confident that when all is said and done the fish will win out. We ared doing "in flow needs" studies presently to try and establish the best scenario for fish, and habitat creation. Intersting thing I learned when I started on this board was that only around 10% of the water in the Coquitlam river comes from Coquitlam lake. The rest comes from Orr creek and other feeder creeks. Touring the facilities I was shocked to see just how little water was above Orr creek! Just enough to run the Svoboda (sp?) spawning channel. There has even been serious discussion of constructing a fish ladder into Coquitlam Lake to reintroduce sockeye runs! This is outside the scope of the water use planning process, but shows how willing Hydro, and GVWD, are to righting past wrongs. I have found this process extremely intersting, and urge anyone that has an opportunity to get involved in future water use plans that will be happening on any water course that Hydro has a facility on. Stave and Alouette are the only 2 that have been completed so far, and you all can see the results on those 2 rivers. Cheakamus is nearly completed as is Bridge river, but Jones Lake is just starting up for those that live in the Chilliwack-Hope area. If anyone is interested they can Email me off board and I will pass on the contact info..... Cal
|
|
Scott, Just something that I noticed in your post that struck me funny, there is no way that the words TRUCK and SPAWN NATURALLY should occur in the same sentence together. The way I see it is that there is no real possible way to construct a large scale barrier on a water body without some form of negative impact. I watched an interesting movie on one of the largest experiments ever conducted on a river system. The system was dammed, this created interesting problems that you don't really think about. What's the one thing that you notice about unrestricted water flows? That's right several times a year they get big and nasty, altering the amount of sediments that are moved, flushed, relocated to the sides of the river freeing up valuable cleaned gravel. These guys were actually putting radio transmitters in rocks and boulders and recording their movements, and the pressures on them from force of the water. The final numbers from this experiment are still being tallied but it could alter the way water flowing from dams is controlled. It is things like this that are good for natural waterways in certain situations. It is also things like dams that stop this naturally occuring process. Alittle off the original subject but something to think about anyways
|
|
Barry, You have a good point. Apparently the Cheakamus has been Dammed (I really don't care how its spelled right now), and then dyked to the extent that Daisy Lake Dam can NEVER be removed because water flows were so naturally stronger than what they are and the riverbed has been constricted so much (dykes pushing the river in) that it will possibly flood out people who have properites on the river banks. Barry, you have a point. I guess truck and then spawn naturally don't go together well in a sentence, but the thing that really strikes me as something unique is that the spawning habitat above the Dams we are talking about hasn't been utilized by a Salmon (other than say Cutthroat and Dolly Varden) for as long as the Dam has been in place. When there is an effort to ensure that these fish are spawning in areas where they once inhabited for eons upon eons, then we may have a way to naturally produce Salmon on these rivers with little effort from us. BC Hydro has a section on their homepage that talks about all the bad things Dams do to Salmon streams. http://eww.bchydro.bc.ca/ I don't know how successful returns may be by stocking Salmon above Dams, but on the Seymour as an example we have clipped Coho's left ventral fins (is that the right name of these fins?) before we stocked them above the dam in the upper Seymour River and when we do mark and recapture 2.5 years later we will be able to get some idea of how well they survived. Anyways, please understand my enthusiasm. Cal please keep me updated on that Sockeye thing, If an effort to undertake such a project happened, I would well, be really pleased to be honest just knowing an effort is being undertaken to do that kind of thing. I would gladly be available to donate some time to help out too. The Habitat above most dams is semi-untouched and well, still somewhat pristine in some form so if we can get the Salmon up there, by truck, or by some sort of ladder, then this could in theory assist some of our dammed rivers. Scott
|
|
Salmon have only been in rivers for a few thousand years at best. Most of the habitat available now is not utilised to its full potential.
|
|
Of course you're joking when you say that salmon have only been in rivers for a few thousand years. Is this one of those man walking with the dinosaurs type deals?
|
|
Dwayne, Consider ice thousands of meters thick scouring the valleys in which our rivers flow. Consider the available habitat after the glaciers recead. Jesus is probably older than most of our salmon stocks.
|
|
So what you really mean is that salmon may have started using some available river systems after the ice receded. That is quite different from your statement in your previous posting where you claim that "Salmon have only been in rivers for a few thousand years at best". Archeological evidence shows that the aboriginal peoples on the coast have been using salmon as their primary food source for at least ten thousand years.
|
|
Right on Dwayne, the last ice age ended around that time, everything would have been scraped down to bare rock by the ice. It would take a long time for the whole environment we see here now to establish itself..Interesting to research though and really find out when the the salmon arrived
|
|
and Winston is basically saying the same thing.
|
|
Scroll down to the heading, Historical Perspective for a timeline about Salmon in the Pacific North West. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/salmon2.htm
|
|
"Prior to 4,000 years ago, however, the distribution of Pacific salmon was much restricted by the residual effects of the last ice age." (Lackey, 1999) Now I wonder what archeological evidence you are talking about Dwayne? Did they place their totems and long houses on top of the glaciers? Where did they find the trees to build such structures? Only parts of Vancouver Island and QCI were not covered by ice. Peoples from Asia came over about the same time as the glaciers were receeding. Maybe they packed dried fish with them. As Frank states there will be a big lag between when the glaciers retreat and when fish move into the system. Lackey, Robert T. 1999. Salmon policy: Science, society, restoration, and reality. Renewable Resources Journal. 17(2):6-16.
|
|
Winston, do a web search on B.C. archeological sites, specifically the Namu midden and then we can can discuss this further. Look specifically at the approx. dates of inhabitation.
|
|
copied from fishing report board/admin Name: Derek Comments: To Ian Cameron, Casey and others: I fished "your" river on Sunday - the Coquitlam. I hope you don't mind. I caught 3 cutties - 2 wild and 1 hatchery. One was a very nice size - about 16 inches and quite girthy. It was one of the wild ones. Interesting thing was he had a small chunk of his lip missing on the left side right near the tip of his lower jaw bone. Looks like it happened a long time ago. Didn't seem to be bothering him/her too much. I let all 3 go. I'm a real softy (I thing the hatchery one was big enough to keep - over 30cms, right? Anyway, I never bonk trout (much). This was my first time fishing your gorgeous river. I consider myself blessed to have caught anything. I also went all the way up pipeline road to witness the carnage of the gravel mines first hand. What a mess! I didn't leave any garbage, was nice to the folks I met, and gently released all the trout. Can I come back soon? Derek.
|
|
Your welcome there anytime Derek.....It is a pretty river if you get off the beaten path a bit. Park at top and walk downriver to the airplane park fishing all the holes in between. Its a little tough to navigate, and you have to zig zag across river a few times to avoid private property, but well worth the adventure on a young set of legs. The water up there is uneffected by the Gravel mines and the substrate clean. Have fun!!
|
|
Cal, What can you tell me about the Habitat (if any) work that has gone on near River Springs? Was in the area today and saw some nice back channels and ponds which look like excellent juvenile coho and possible juvenile Steelhead Habitat. Scott
|
|
I GREW UP OMN THE COQUITLAM RIVER.I CAN REMEMBER WHEN YOU COULD CATCH 30 STEELIES A DAY NO PROBLEM.ONE TIME I EVEN HIKED IN TO THE WATER SHED AND FISHED ORE CREEK.THE FISHING WAS UNREAL YOU SHOULD TRY IT SOME TIME JUST DONT GET CAUGHT UP THERE OR YOU WILL BE IN BIG TROUBLE.IS THE STEELIE FISHING IN THE COQUITLAM ANY GOOD THEESE DAYS?????THE COQUITLAM USE TO BE ONE OF THE BEST STEELHEAD RIVERS IN NORTH AMERICA AT ONE TIME THAT IS TILL CEWE RUINED IT ALL.
|
|
Moved from Fishing Report Board/admin Name: Casey Good job at least someone caught some fish there this weekend =)
|
|
What people are forgetting about the last ice age is that there was also the very strong possibility of not only an ice bridge between Siberia and Alaska but that it was a very diverse ecosystem spanning at least 1000 miles from north to south with rivers, forests and open plains. This mini-continent called Berringea could possibly have maintained salmon streams from the south which would have been the north pacific. Also there have been archeological theories that the west coast of the continent de-iced long before the rest did so the the continental shelf in the pacific would have been similar to the way the coast of BC is now but it is currently flooded due to the water being released from the ice. I have not done any current reading on the topic this is all from University a long time ago but it does offer some other ideas on the topic.
|
|
PreHistory of Salmon on the Coast: Salmon have been present on the coast for much longer than 4,000 years. The last Ice Age terminated about 12,000 years ago. Sea Level did not stablize for sometime after that ( a millenium or two) but archaeolgical sites in the Fraser canyon contained huge amounts of salmon bones. Natives were there and catching salmon migrating up the river about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Not well known is that during the Ice Age the BC Coast was more like parts of Greenland than say Antartica - there were substantial areas that were unglaciated coastal plain (the Charlottes have not been glaciated for hundreds of thousand of years). Most of these areas are now inundated (think of the Bering Land Bridge) but surely this landscape included rivers and salmon may have utilized them. Certainly the rapidity that various plant and animal species colonized the land exposed as the glaciers receeded is one of the most astonishing facts of prehistory. Salmon were likley there as well.
|
|
The Habitat work in River Springs was a co effort of DFO and the River Springs Salmon Enhancement Society. I live in River Springs, and My wife is president of the River Springs Strata Council. The man that motivated most of the work was John Jakse, he still runs the hatchery that we have operating now in RS. Matt Foy, and Maurice Castineau (sp?) from DFO were the people from DFO that made it happen. River Springs Strata Council donated a lot of the money, and DFO paid through the SES fund. River Springs has budgeted every year for this since and will continue to do so.I think the original cost was around 30,000. Much more has been spent since. I was involved in the planning and implementation of the work. What happens is that river water is diverted from the river, above oxbow lake, and is channeled into a settling pond. Flow is regulated through a gate before entering oxbow lake. Water travels through Oxbow lake and out the outlet creek. It meanders through 2.5 kms of side channels, beaver ponds, swamp, etc, and enters the river again near the Pedestrian Overpass south of Lincoln ave. In Oxbow lake spawning gravel was introduced, and last year saw our first return of adults (coho) to the spawning gravel, where they naturally spawned. The fry rear in Oxbow and leave it when they are ready. What the Coquitlam lacked big time was rearing areas for fry. River springs was the first rearing area introduced to the Coquitlam. Since then a major rearing/spawning area has been built at the Upper Coq river Park(airplane park)And also Svaboda channel in the GVWD protected area. We have had fry leave the river and enter oxbow lake almost immediatly after opening the channel so we know it was a major success. John raises coho, chum, and I think he has some chinook fry also this year. He doesnt do Steelhead at this point. (melp bull) Plans are in the future to integrate the River Springs hatchery, into the curriculum of the Coquitlam River elementary school. Poco Rod and Gun does Steelhead against the wishes of MELP but very few. Any other questions?
|
|
Cal, Thats awesome. Any more habitat projects coming up in the future for the area? That small stream habitat will probably help the Coho on the system out a lot. Is the hatchery doing any seeding of this habitat/the lake with fry? Or are you hoping that the coho will naturally colonize the area? I saw a lot of habitat there and it looks as if it could sustain a lot of coho fry/parr. Have you guys tryed placing a smolt trap on the outlet of this habitat to see numbers/timing of coho downward smolt migration? What are the chances that Hydro/GVRD will put a fish ladder to over the dam sometime soon? Mega cash, but it sure would give them great publicity. Scott
|
|
Cal, what were the numbers of coho and chum returning this year. Also how many springs were counted in the river. Where were they seen. I think I hook into one this fall. Ian
|
|
Ian, Have you ever directly gone up to a girl and asked what size her bra was?? Because thats similar in respect to what you're asking Cal, only in this case, Cal wouldn't know his bra size exactly as I would imagine that would be a tough thing to pinpoint. Even on the Seymour we can only guess how big the coho and Chum runs are. Enumeration studies were done on the Chum, but they take a lot of time and effort on behalf of staff and volunteers. Carcass recoveries, mark and recapture projects, all very valuable ways of indicating run size. Its too bad resistivity counters weren't cheaper, we could place them on every river. Maybe we can work out a wholesale rate for every river on BC and get a deal! LOL.
|
|
Scott, I am very good with visuals. I dont ask I usually know bra size. I just wondered if he had the numbers. he seem to answer a couple of other tought questions about the Coquitlam for me. Ian
|
|
Ian...... No Numbers here sorry, all I know is that so far everyone is happy with returns. As for chinook I know that carcass counts is all they go by. There were 4 or 5 carcasses in Svoboda Channel, and a few more down stream. Remember the Coquitlam has a very late run of Coho, that are probably still in system now. A lot of long line release steelhead this time of year Im sure are Coho, as they can still be silver in January. I once caught 5 dark coho in the first big run downstream of the Hatchery in late March! The springs seem to migrate as far as they can go north, ie Svoboda Channel, but on a river walk we seen a carcass under the red bridge. Scott as for seeding the lake, John Jakse releases fry to our lake yes. There is also currently coho in there naturally spawning. We have a net pen in the lake where John keeps his brood fish, maybe you noticed it on your tour of river springs. The enhancement projects are on going as monies allow Scott. John could use a fair amount of new higher tech equipment for his hatchery, and as DFO comes up with SEP money, further work is to be done on the side channels I believe. Of course all this pales to the effort that POCO Rod and Gun has put into this river, and they are the true champions of the Coquitlam. The Late great Al Grist was truely a saviour to this river, and his efforts have made all other enhancement efforts viable and or possible. Without his efforts the post above from Ryan would be more than accurate.
|
|
Cal, It was weird when I found out Al Grist died as I remember talking to him about 10 or so monthes ago when I was looking for a place to regularly volunteer. At the time, Al wasn't in dire need for volunteers so I found the Seymour and have been going there once a week for the past 10 monthes to volunteer. I guess it seems sudden to me because it seems like yesterday I just talked to him on the phone and I even remembered a message he left on my answering machine asking if I wanted to come up to the hatchery with him to check the STeelhead for ripeness. I didn't have time at the time but wish I could have. I'm sure Mr. Al Grist is looking down on the river right now with a smile on this face and will continue to cast his presence on the Coquitlam and its fish. Its up to us to coninue on with his vision on what is considered an endangered river. Some say the Coquitlam is doomed, but if you look at returns elsewhere, you can find out its still possible to have fish return on systems that are dammed. Scott
|
|
I'm with Ralph on this one. Within the last million years, the vast majority of Canada and large parts of the United States have been completely covered by glaciers on 4 seperate occassions(Pleistocene Glaciation)with the last ice age of the Wisconsin Glaciation retreating just 10-15000 years before present in most of Canada. While the majority of Canada was covered, fish survived both in the north and in the south in unglaciated areas or refugia. Seperate refugia (Pacific Refugium, the Mississippi-Missouri Refugium, and the Atlantic Refugium)were created south of the ice sheets by physical features(mountains) which resulted in seperate watersheds. In the north the Bearing Refugium and the Nahanni Refugium. Large areas remained free of ice, this is where species are thought to have dispersed from. Here's an interesting tidbit, the fish( some species) in the upper Frazer are more closely related to fish from the Columbia River. This was thought to have occured because of an ice dam on the Frazer altering its flow around into the Columbia. It was in this way that the fish moveds into the upper Frazer. There is evidence of the genus Oncorhynchus dating back 6 million years. Something to think about.
|
|
Barry, Hey I read about that in one of the previous issues of BC Outdoors. Didn't it have something to do with the Sturgeon and how the Sturgeon in the Upper Fraser have pointed noses like the ones in the Columbia, where as the Lower Fraser Sturgeon have more rounded noses (or something like that, could be vice versa). They said where the Fraser Canyon is now, it used to be completely glaciated and the Upper Fraser actually flowed down through the Kootneys into the Upper Columbia. Thats pretty wild. Another thing that is often regarded by Scientists, is that all Salmon species came from a common ancestor. They say this ancestor evolved into the many species we have today. Species such as Chum, Sockeye, Pinks are regarded as highly evolved because they have very specialized rearing habits (and they must be very specialized, they return in the strong abundances) where as Coho, Steelhead, Chinook and Cutthroat are lower down the ladder in evolution because their rearing/spawning habits are considered less specialized. There sure are a lot of interesting theories out there I guess. In Pacific Salmon Life histories, there is even an argument which calls for two different species of Chinook. Ocean type fish and Stream type fish (Not Red and White, although I wonder how much correlation there is between Reds being more stream type and whites being more ocean type??). Scott
|
|
Just as a point of interest, there was also a time when the Fraser flowed into the Arctic Ocean due to glacial activity. Don't ask me for dates. An excellent history of the Fraser and it's tributaries then and now, is the 1997 book "Mighty River" by Richard C. Booking, very enlightening. Thanks to the friend that lent it to me who hasn't yet read it himself.
|
|
Update on Topic I promised to Bring up at Steelhead conservation workshop. Dave and all.... Brought up stocking of sterile rainbows on the Coquitlam as an issue at Todays workshop. I was suprised and pleased that Pete Caverhill agreed it wasnt a good idea and said they would look at the issue, and feeling I got was they would suspend it. This thread started related to this topic, and to save scrolling time, the issue was Steelhead smolt in the coquitlam, were being taken as bycatch in an attempt to provide angling opportunities in the GVRD. A lot of people targeting these fish wouldnt know an adipose fin from a dorsal fin, much less notice if its missing. I had agreement from most of the participants that this shouldnt be allowed to continue especially in light of the crisis situation of Georgia basin Steelhead. Cal
|
|
WOW! I had no idea that this was going on. It sounds like the fish i caught was a cuttie at first i thought it was a cuttbow (a hybrid rainbow\cuttie) The fish I caught had an adipose it was not clipped! I saw faint red markings on the fishes chin but thought it might of been a stellie colouring up a bit but it was silver fish Very bright It was spotted on the top not along the sides at all and no pink lateral stripe. I was wondering if anyone knows if the coquitlams chum numbers were good this year Because At Mossom creek ( where my school Centenial helps run a salmon hatchery) Our chum levals were very very low we had to depend on Indian river chum for eggs fo our hatchery. I heard that rivers that where tributarys wern't having the same problem. Just curious Thanks for all the information you guys Casey
|
|
Casey, on the chin there was a faint red stripe...............hmmmmmmmmmmmm:CUTTY!!!!!!!!!!! Oh yeah what school dod you go to?
|
|
Casey, in light of your inquiring if Chum numbers were down in other systems, the Stave River, Squamish, Mamquam, Chehalis, and Harrison rivers all saw depressed returns of Chum, this past fall salmon season(Sept-Dec). Some people I've talked with about this subject(Inch Creek Hatchery, Chehalis Hatchery)believe it was a low cycle year, possibly due to a high water event and there was an aggresive commercial opening(in the ocean and Fraser gilnet fisheries)but the gilnet fishery wouldn't affect your creek, as it doesn't connect with the Fraser River.I'm no biologist, but I think a few high water events, a few years back might have accounted for a silting of the redds, which smothered the eggs. The Stave River only got approximately 100,000 chum return in fall of 2000, when in a normal year it receives around 500,000. In 1999, Inch Creek Hatchery estimated a return of 800,000 chum, that's a lot of dogs! We'll have to see what next year brings, chums are a neccesary evil, they are a much needed nutrient boost the Fraser Basin relies on for the overall productivity of the system. Dave.
|
|
Much of what is to blame is Poor Ocean survival. Not just the Fraser watershed, but many other watersheds had poor returns. Seymour, Squamish, even the Indian wasn't up to its usual capacity. Dave, Does the Stave really get 500,000 chums, because what I've read, 200,000 seems more resonable and 300,000 is as high as I've heard, although I'd be hard pressed to believe that. Even the Indian which is usually choked full of Wild chums every year (thanks to good spawning habitat/good estuary for its young) gets around 80,000 chums. Scott
|
|
Where do people fish in Coquitlam? What kind of fish is there? Thanks
|
|
scott 500,000 is the right count on a high year I was working with D.F.O and hydro on the shared use plan and that was the number when we were talking about fertalaztion of the upper stave river and why we couldn't put some of those fish up there.
|
|
Ken, if thats the case thats awesome. Thats a TON of chums!!!! I think if you had a truck, or road up there (is there one?) you could probably truck some Chum adults above the dam into the Upper River. I dont' think they'd be missed in the lower river, hehe.. The only problem with that, is they'd have to go through the turbines of the dams to downward migrate. Was that what you're talking about?? If so, what about a fish ladder???? Scott
|
|
Back in the late 60's I saw a DFO estimate for escapement of the 5 commercial species of salmon in the Fraser watershed. Chum were estimated at around 250,000 at that time. Any one know what the number is now? Must be in the millions in a good year .Seems to be the one undeniable success of the salmonid enhancement program.
|
|
Scott, my information on Chum estimates(for the Stave) came from Stu, operations manager @ (Inch Creek Hatchery). There is no way of getting an exact figure, but in 1999 they estimated 750-800,000 chum returned to the Stave. That's what he(Stu) told me. Also, in 1999 there was a record return of Coho on the Stave. They estimated 10,000 fish returned and I know first hand about that one, as it was excellent fly fishing for big Coho(for me anyways). All I know is that in 1999, I could have literally walked across the widest part of the river, on their(Chum) backs. It was like that from the dam to river mouth, and they were stacked there as well. I was seeing chum, still alive, after Christmas last year. Close proximity to the river also helps with day to day field observations. This year( fall 2000) the chum were confined to the upper river, there were a few in the mid and lower river, but nothing like the 2 previous years. Stu also told me that they have stopped Chum production at Inch Creek, they want to see if they can hold their own, so we'll see how that pans out. I'm no expert, everything I've mentioned in the post is info passed on from Inch Creek staff.
|
|
Scott the reason for so many is they were trying to bost the commersal numbers. But it seames that coho come into the systems at the same time duh.So theres to many Chum in this system to move 200,000. over the dam and let them make there way to the upper stave on there own is fine if the fry dont make it back it not big deal they would become part of the fertalization
|
|
The dams(2) are both not passable by fish it would be necessary to transport them above Stave Falls. It's hard to see what would be acheived. There is certainly no need for more chum. As Stave Lake was never accessible to salmon in historic times there's no great sense in putting chum (how would they know where to go anyway? Isn't likely they'd simply go back over the dams into the lower river? Seems to me a safer bet is fertilize the lake in the same manner Alouette Lake is being fertilized - could be cheaper as well.
|
|
Alexei, There are Rainbows cutthroat dolly steelhead chum coho In the coquitlam the salmon are done if there are any in the system they are probably very dark. I usually fish from the bridge behind Jamer's fishing store and work my way up or down stream. Casey
|
|
Ralph historicly Im not sure thats true as sturgeon are a sea run fish and originated there how did they get in the stave lake. Just a thought!!!
|
|
Ken, what is the address to your webpage, I have done a couple of searches. Tight Lines Ian
|
|
Ken: like Kootenay Lake it may have been accessible to anadromous fish sometime in the last few hundred years(hence the strong population of kokanee in kootenay - Sturgeon are there as well). The few references I've seen to Stave Lake indicate there were no runs of salmon above Stave Falls anytime in the last 120 years or so.
|
|
Hey Ian, I go to Centennial Casey
|
|
On my last post I said, " they have stopped chum production at Inch Creek". That was a misprint, what I meant to type was, Inch Creek hatchery has stopped chum production on the Stave.They want to see if the chum can spawn naturally and keep their numbers consistent.
|
|
Dave, I don't think that should be a problem, LOL!!! I think Chum are often a good indicator of ocean survival for many species, since the impact the stream has on them is minimal. They use the stream for running up a small percentage of time, spawning, and primarily incubation with a very small amount of rearing (month max in streams). If chums are returning in poor numbers it probably means your estuary sucks, and ocean survival was crappy, or a combination of both. I know the Chehalis has cut down their chum production drastically which is a positive thing I think. Regarding putting Chums above the Stave Dams, I think I agree with Ralph. In fact maybe it might be better to look at the Valley as a whole now after we have obviously established Chum significantly in Inch, Alouette, Coquitlam, Stave, Chehalis, Vedder, and many others, and concentrate on chum runs which are deprived in various creeks and other tributaries of the lower Fraser. I think maybe those systems should be supplemented, what do you think? From what I've read about Chum salmon, they are the third most abundant species of all Salmon, but what stands out in my mind, is they are regarded as having the widest distribution amongst Salmon producing streams, which to me means its probably a good thing to have them returning to as many streams as possible in good numbers and maybe we should look at some of the smaller streams, like Silverhope and Ruby Creek and various sloughs (these are just examples) and releasing Chum in the lower sections of these streams. Any opinions regarding this? Just an idea... Scott
|
|
'means your estuary sucks,'? Scott I expected you to have read a bit mor a bout the juvenile life oa chum salmon. They head straight to the ocean and dont realy stick around at the estuary? Though they do spend more time in fresh than pink salmon do. I am sure that Dave can tell you that they will move out of the Stave quickly too. Tight Lines Ian PS: what are ya doin next week? Wanna head out?
|
|
Estuaries play a large part in the rearing and life history of most races of Chum Salmon when they are juveniles. If your Estuary sucks, you will probably not have very good returns. I know it sounds savage to say it like that, but its true.
|
|
Scott the estuaries play a large roll in the juveniles of Coho,Springs,steelhead,cutthrout,dollies and in a small way sokeye.But the pinks and chum spend very little time in the estuaries and head straight out to the ocean so ocean pradation will play a larger roll in any decline in chum and pink numbers then will problems with and estuary.
|
|
Since all anadromous fish have to aclimatize their metabolisms to the saline water of the ocean environment all spend some time in estuaries. I believe most observations indicate chum and pink fry spend at least a few weeks in the estuarine environment before heading out to sea.
|
|
Ralph that is true but all I was saying is that they spend a lot less time in the systems and there for less affected by them.
|
|
Back to the fertilizing of Stave Lake, since Alouette Lake is fertilized, and is mostly diverted to Stave Lake, I would expect that this nutrient boost would have already had some impact on Stave Lake, since definite results have been seen in Alouette already in the kokanee and cutties. I would think that the costs of transporting live chum up above both dams would outweigh the potential benefits, unless it is shown once Inch Creek stops planting chum fry that the habitat on the Lower Stave in insufficient. I think possibly some additional fertilization of Stave, along with continued fertilization of Alouette, would be the most effective, and likely cheaper than fish transport.
|
|
If were talking money cemicial fertilation is not cheap.For the alouette if fish could get back over the dam they would not have to fertilize it.the Stave recieves some benifit from the program in the alouette but only half way down the lake it would be better if the upper stave river could be fertilized in some way making the whole system more produtive. But I have big dreams for this valley. And some day maybe people in the valley will stop saying WE CANT DO THAT!
|
|
It's true that some benefit is expected for the Stave from the Alouette Lake water that is diverted there
|
|
I saw something in one of my magazines where they are taking dead salmon from hatcheries i think and compressing them in to fish cakes and distributing them along the river to fertilize the rivers I was wondering if any one had any info on that.
|
Back to Articles page