Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: fishseeker on October 31, 2010, 08:43:59 AM
-
I thought I would take a drive out to the squamish river to see what it was like. Was shocked to see how poor the chum return was compared even to last year. It seems like that system is in serious trouble, anybody know what happened? [I know about the toxic spill some years ago but the chum run appeared to be recovering. Now I am not so sure.]
-
i spent some of last week doing some swiftwater resuce training on the mamquam river, the river appeared to be in fantastic shape however I did not see a single fish anywhere in the 16 hours I was in the water...
-
Wow that is something scary to hear. When I first started this sport some four years ago the Squamish was lined with fishermen at this time of year - now it is utterly deserted. Nice to have the peace and solitude but there isn't much point fishing in dead water.
Incidentally, there were some fish appearing in the Mamquam but very, very few even compared to this time last year. I guess this concern about the Chum fishery isn't overblown after all. I thought the Stave was still fishing well but somewhat reduced compared to last year. The Vedder did not seem to have any shortage of them but I am sure the DFO had good reasons for their decisions about Chum retention on that system too.
-
You're a bit behind the times.
That system has been dead for almost 20 years.....maybe longer depending on who you talk to.
-
I'd be really interested to read some detailed history about this river, I can never seem to find anything, did it ever have a a run close to the fraser in terms of numbers and getting all 5 salmon + steelhead?
-
You're a bit behind the times.
That system has been dead for almost 20 years.....maybe longer depending on who you talk to.
Not in any way true I wonder if the poster as quoted has even fished the Squamish.
FYI-the Squamish has had it's challenges and disasters but 4 years ago huge floods scoured the river bed and this year Chum returns are poor-we knew this from the lack of fish @ Brown's Bay.
Friday I fished the classic time two hours before high tide and saw about 20 fish coming up the river when I normally would have seen a couple hundred-this was near Judd Road.
So there are Chums in the system but just a fraction of last year's run.
Note-I gave up deliberately targeting Coho in rivers long ago so have no info on them.
I'd be really interested to read some detailed history about this river, I can never seem to find anything, did it ever have a a run close to the fraser in terms of numbers and getting all 5 salmon + steelhead?
The Squamish has been badly damaged by rapacious logging practices the evidence is there for all to see.
But Pink, Coho, Chum and even some few Chinook still spawn in the river-Steelhead are scarce.
There are of course no Sockeye if there ever were damming the Cheakamus finished them off.
There is no way the Squamish could carry the kind of numbers the Fraser once did-again conditions are very different.
-
Thanks Dogbreath, your info about the flood four years ago could certainly account for this years poor run. Its too bad because they seemed to be recovering after that toxic spill a number of year back.
-
there were sockeye in the Cheakamus and still may be the odd one. i have pictures of some that i caught there pack in the mid 1970's. The run size was always very small.
-
there were sockeye in the Cheakamus and still may be the odd one. i have pictures of some that i caught there pack in the mid 1970's. The run size was always very small.
That's right rln. I used to fish the Squamish a lot and the sockeye were spawning in the summer in the Chek and Mamquam. They are apparently a unique river-type that rear as juveniles in the estuary and quiet waters of the lower Squamish since there's no lakes available.
-
Actually I'm fairly well versed on the Squamish as I have lived on it's banks for the last 25 years. ::) This river has it's share of problems but there are still populations of salmon in it's waters. Most people have to remember that this is a mountain stream and it can receive huge amounts of rain in a short time ( as I write this we have received about 100 MM of rain in the last 36 hours ) as well as being a geologically young watershed. This helps explain why the watershed has major floods on about a 6 year average and moves around yearly and effects the habitat significantly. As for this years chum, there are a couple of things going against this years return. In 2006, we had a large flood as well as a poor spawning escapement, partically in the upper Squamish. Now we have had low ocean survival on chum for the last few years and it's no surprise that this years return is low. This will make 4 years in a row of less than optimum escapements. The CN Rail spill also had no negative effect on the chum as the adults and juveniles were not in the river at the time of the spill ( Aug 5, 2005). The argument can be made that the CN spill may have in effect benefited a lot of the Cheakamus juveniles as it removed a huge amount of the predators (sculpins) allowing more of the juveniles to survive. That will change as that population recovers as well. Generally speaking, chum were until recently the one bright spot in the watershed.
There are all 5 species present in the watershed but the sockeye is the smallest poulation numbering only a couple of hundread in a good year. This was not a good year but I did see a few. They primarly spawn in the Mamquam and Cheakamus Rivers and are creek sockeye. These adults are small and the juveniles most likely rear in the estuary. There have been no studies done on these fish that I'm aware of. As a point of interest, the dam on the Cheakamus had no effect on these fish as the dam is above the anadromus section of river. Pinks have been good the last couple of cycles but are very heavily effected by the early fall floods ( in 2003 they had an estimated 0.5% egg survival). You just don't know with the pinks. The other species are poor and steelhead in the upper Squamish are in critically poor shape.
The watershed is a very pretty place but as a fishing destination it has seen better days.
-
Excellent post bkk. So sad for such an awesome watershed .... when I was a lot younger I fished the Cheakamus with Cal Woods - great times, then.
-
I guess if you piece it all together it makes sense, I knew about the often flooding and the fact that the river seems to change it's course yearly which makes it impossible to keep any "sweet spots" (at least in the upper river). I haven't fished the squamish area is a few years and it was never a day fishing where I caught a ton of fish, but it was always enjoyable given the beauty of the area
-
sockeye is the smallest population numbering only a couple of hundred in a good year. This was not a good year but I did see a few. They primarily spawn in the Mamquam and Cheakamus Rivers and are creek sockeye. These adults are small and the juveniles most likely rear in the estuary. There have been no studies done on these fish that I'm aware of. As a point of interest, the dam on the Cheakamus had no effect on these fish as the dam is above the anadromous section of river
.
Thanks for the info-great post!
-
thanks for the post bkk, nice bit of local info 8)
sad to hear the rivers in such a poor state... it is a pretty river :)
-
the squamish has lots of cohos and some # of chums but they are in a lot of the little back pools but my dad caught a 40 pound chum yesterday and lot more before that and some coho but no pinks yet ??? and the system is still in afect from the chemical spill though its on the upcline still some more years before its better
tight lines coho :)
-
the squamish has lots of cohos and some # of chums but they are in a lot of the little back pools but my dad caught a 40 pound chum yesterday and lot more before that and some coho but no pinks yet ??? and the system is still in afect from the chemical spill though its on the upcline still some more years before its better
tight lines coho :)
coho13....not to be nitpicky or anything, but 40 lb chum would be the new world record...from what I can tell world record is 35-37 lbs. that's mindblowingly huge.
-
the squamish has lots of cohos and some # of chums but they are in a lot of the little back pools but my dad caught a 40 pound chum yesterday and lot more before that and some coho but no pinks yet ??? and the system is still in afect from the chemical spill though its on the upcline still some more years before its better
tight lines coho :)
hahahahahha
-
the squamish has lots of cohos and some # of chums but they are in a lot of the little back pools but my dad caught a 40 pound chum yesterday.
Since the largest Chum ever weighed was only 36 and with almost 20 years experience fishing that system I've never seen one over 20 I call Bee Ess.
I was on the Squamish all day today-maybe 10% of the normal Chum numbers for prime time.
-
but my dad caught a 40 pound chum yesterday
Oh really??? ;D
-
Interestingly enough, the largest known fish seem to be caught in Thailand and China. The largest catfish ever recorded, and very likely one of the largest freshwater fish ever known, was a female Giant Mekong (she was laden with eggs), caught in May of 2005. She came in at an unbelievable mass of 646lbs, and measured a full 9 feet. (Mekong are recorded as known man-eaters. Certainly makes one ponder just what she might have been feeding on to get her to such a gross size.) Such a fish took several men hours to land.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_largest_size_of_salmon_recorded
-
possibly a typo? Maybe he meant 4lbs? ...'cause 40 is insane!
-
a 40 lb chum ??? hmmmm??? one has to wonder ::)
-
maybe he caught 3 or 4 chum, that'd be about 40 pounds worth
-
sorry wasent looking at the key bord while typing ment 20 lb chum :-[
tight lines