Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Byronnn]

So while thinking about bar fishing from Mission to Hope I've been trying to wrap my head around the concept of Chinook travel lanes on the Fraser.

I've made a few pictures of different scenarios and I'm wondering if anyone here has input on which one might be the closest to reality. The diagrams don't show that fish move up river in schools and not a continuous stream, but you get the idea.

Scenario 1: Nearly all fish follow one path up the river, trying to minimize distance travelled.



Scenario 2: Fish are basically everywhere in similar amounts.



Scenario 3: Most fish follow 1 or 2 specific paths but there are a few of them everywhere.



Scenario 4: Different schools follow different paths but they mostly stick to edges.



Scenario 5: Fish usually follow the same edges or shallow areas.



I'm also wondering if it makes a lot of sense to try to specifically bar fish below the Harrison confluence. I know a lot of fish go up the Harrison river so it seems reasonable to fish below it to have a chance at those fish too. What about below the Vedder? There's lots of good shore gravel bars around Hope but it seems like there'd be less fish up that way, is that the case?

And if anyone knows the state of the Old Orchard Bar, Slaughterhouse bar, Mcdonald Road bar, or the bar near the Cannor road log sort you could potentially save me a lot of time by messaging me the approximate conditions! I don't have a boat 

[milo]

Most salmon have many miles to travel before they reach their spawning grounds. That involves saving energy. You want to look at travelling lanes with weaker currents and lots of convenient and safe resting places.

Scenario 4 looks reasonably accurate.

[CHaddon]

I don't have a lot of experience Chinook fishing(yet) but I've been doing a lot of reading regarding their behavior and migrating habits.

I would guess that scenario 3 is probably the most accurate for Chinook. They prefer deep water and tend to sit on the bottom. If you look at the physics of a river system, the natural debris and obstacles on the bottom of the river act as a brake for the current so the water actually travels slower right at the bottom especially in the wide, deep river expanses.

Things change a bit when you get into the rocky smaller waters but you're asking about the Fraser.

Taking this information, if you read about bar fishing techniques and watch any bar fishing video, the over-arching theme is to get the bait as far and deep as possible. This theme would substantiate my hypothesis but of course, they don't travel single file and the smaller fish with less energy reserves will stick to the even slower parts of the river nearer to the banks.

Examples of this are Pink salmon where you can find great success shore fishing with a lure on the lower Fraser but Chinook won't even be in sight range. If you're fishing closer to shore and do hook up with a Chinook, it's more likely to be in the small-medium range instead of the 30 lb monsters you see people pull out while bar fishing.

[Fish or cut bait.]

I have to go with 3 as well.
More breaks in current and as far as accessibility, you can't cast to the middle of the river which is primarily mud with few breaks with the exception of a few sunken trees and pilings.
Although your theory is correct...
The bottom structure (rocks and boulders and...) Will affect the flow/speed of the water, and there are areas that might be conducive to the shorter swim, fish are lazy and need oxygen.
A rough patch creating turbulance moves and aerates the water.

[Noahs Arc]

CHaddon, when barfing the Fraser quite often all that is needed is about 4-5ft of water to have a good Chinook lane.

[CHaddon]

That's absolutely possible. I was just speaking from a "general theme" standpoint.

We all know it's chaos out there