Print

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

[fishseeker]

I am thinkiing of going after bulls or cutties on the squamish and/or the Cheakumus rivers this weekend - any thoughts on what patterns might be working well right now?

I a previous post I enquired about leader lenghts and I can see some of you go quite heavy for bull trouts (12 - 15 lbs).  Do bulls really get that big or is just to handle the possibility of steelhead hookups?

I would prefer to go light if possible but I will bring out my 9wt with heavier leaders if there is a significant chance of hooking into larger fish.

[Rodney]

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=17587.0

[living_blind]

As the other thread mentioned, its time for fry patterns. Small, silver, with some green works extremely well.

You will very rarely need 12 - 15 lb for the dollies, thats all about the chance of hooking a steelhead as you inferred. The MAJORITY of the bull trout are less than three pounds, and a 6# pounder is a very good catch.

Six weight rod will suffice, but watch the hydrograph, as river levels have risen and the visibility has decreased considerably. After a warm stretch, the river can become virtually unfishable except at clear creek mouths.

[fishseeker]

Damn! I should have spotted that thread - I can see there is plenty of useful information there.

Thanks for the info living_blind.  I definitely prefer to go with my 6wt for this.

Thank you.

[ffonly]

6wt should work fine but there are chances you can hook into some bigger 8lb or so bulls so just keep it in mind. Also, if you are swinging flies there is a good chance you could hook into a steelhead and a 6wt is probably going to be stressing the fish if you try and fight it. Personally I'd just bring the 9wt and fish like you would fish for steelhead and see what you get , bulls arn't very shy and most patterns will get both species.

Like others said Fry should work great now and Sculpins always work pretty well.

[fishseeker]

Gotcha.  Thanks ffonly.  From all the reports I have been reading I can't say I'm expecting much given the poor Chum season last year and the possibility the water clarity is low.  It will be good just to get out - hoping the weather will be half decent.

To be honest I am still at an early learning phase and I have not caught a wild trout out of a river yet so anything at all, even a tug on the line, would be a real thrill.

[living_blind]

Don't worry about the low chum numbers, just means the dollies are even hungrier

With this cooler weather we've had the rivers dropped considerably. Now would be a good time to go. If you cover teh slower water well, your chances are good.

[living_blind]

Which reminds me, question for Rodney.

Are there any ways to find out the 'official' numbers of returning to salmon to the Squamish/rivers in general? Is there a site out there that posts that kind of information?

The salmon sure did seem extremely scarce this year on that system.

[mykisscrazy]

If memory serves me correctly - DFO realy hasn't done any chum enumeration in the squamish watershed since 1996...There is scads of data from 1947 to 1996. Here in Southern BC there are two management units for Chum - Inner South Coast (ISC). and West Coast of Vancaouver Island (WCVI). Squamish watershed is in the ISC unit. This unit includes from Seymour inlet, Sunshine Coast, Howe Sound, Burrard Inlet, Fraser River, and Boundary Bay.....Needless to say DFO really doesn't have a handle on things other than the population is highly variable....I'm not sure but since the CP derailment, ther may be some enumeration work in the Chekamus (at least to what is returning to the groundwater channels in the outdoor school...

[fishseeker]

Thanks living_blind.  

As I mentioned earlier my level of experience is low so I still have a lot to learn but your answer is interesting.  I have read that the fishing in the squamish has been slow because the Salmon fry numbers are low among other factors like water clarity etc. - I can only assume from your answer that the bulls stay in the system even if they are hungry.  It seems like there are different opinions on this one.

All the same, your answesr are closer to what I want to hear - I would like to think I am up there with reasonable odds.

 

[living_blind]

Thx for the info mkc. Hopefully this year will look a little better than the last.

Fishseeker, send me an email and I can point you in the right direction and help get yuo started.

[bkk]

mykisscrazy: Just a  update as to what is happening on the Cheakamus. There was some work done on the Cheakamus last fall with radio tagging chum for residence timming studies but this was done under the BC Hydro water use plan. There has been no CN Rail funded chum work as they were not effected by the caustic soda spill ( unlike coho, chinook and steelhead). I have worked on the Cheakamus for 20+ years, I can say that without a doubt, the 2007 chum escapement was the worst I have seen. There was only one area on the Cheakamus that had what I would consider "normal" chum spawners. That was the area known as "Moddies", just around the corner from the Cheekeye. In all of the other areas, the spawner numbers were low. This includes the groundwater channels at the Outdoor school as well as Tenderfoot Creek (lake). Tenderfoot Creek escapement was less than 10 % of the broodyear. That info is solid as the Tenderfoot fish have to pass through a counting fence that has been in operation since 1982. The 2003 brood year was over 13000 spawners while the 2007 return was only 1200 fish of which only 300 were females. That appeared to be fairly consistent of what was observed in the rest of the Squamish watershed. A side note is that these are wild fish. The big speculation as to why the return was so low has to do with more with what happened in the ocean as compared to the river. Many other South Coast returns in 2007 were also poor, as were many sockeye and chinook stocks. Hope this helps.

[living_blind]

Yeah, it was a ghost town on the Squamish watershed in many areas that I'm used to seeing lots of salmon. Hopefully this cycle can rebound and make a recovery.

Bkk, how were the coho numbers on the Cheakamus?

[bkk]

Coho numbers were better than in 2006 but still what I would only consider "average". I have seen better and worse returns that what was observed last fall. Cheakamus River proper returns were poor, as should be expected as they were the brood year effected by the spill. The trib. returns were average.

[living_blind]

Thx for the info bkk.