Page 1 of 8 1236 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72
  1. #72
    Senior Member dsa2780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    38.521164, -121.523538
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    Quote Originally Posted by BigUnInDaBoat View Post
    you should of seen the hundreds of fish lost up beaver slough this year on the Moke, it was jaw dropping.

    Shhh, that's where I do my flossing lol. With Beaver, I really believe the fish stray into there due to the way the tide runs inwards on those bends. The deep trough out front is where they'll stage during the outgoing, then they either mess up and make the wrong turn going to the right at the island or get lucky and go up towards the river. The tide gushes into the slough a lot harder, so the fish probably follow the strongest current. When a seal gets back in there, it's over. Friend has actually caught eel river strain steel in there while crappie fishing, which is another thing that just proves how lost migratory fish can become out that way. Shag slough up on the Sac side is loaded with fish as well.

  2. #71
    Senior Member BigUnInDaBoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dem Hillz
    Posts
    2,106
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    Quote Originally Posted by dsa2780 View Post
    Lost salmon are better than no salmon. There are still a lot of fresh fish being caught on the american and various parts of the lower sac and delta. Sure, they're not going to successfully be spawned up on the sac hatcheries, but people are still spending gas money, buying tackle and such to go fishing. As someone who will occasionally make salmon lures to sell, I'm a fool for not making spinners this year and selling them local to the guys in the metro area, because people were slaying fish off the bank all of September and October. The guides that live up north of Verona are pissed, and rightfully so, because the fish probably just scattered into the deep water channel, the moke, the American, the SJ or any of the other 50 possible paths of straying on their journey north. I thought this season was night and day compared to the last few in terms of willing biters and numbers of fish in the river. Not to mention the heat blister deal didn't seem to be too prominent.

    People weren't buying gear or guide trips? Every time I fished metro, I saw countless people dragging cutplugs and dodgers, which aren't cheap and saw lots of clients on James, Big Al or Righthooks boats. Even down at the mouth, people I know who normally don't even bother with salmon were killing chrome and spending money to do so.
    you should of seen the hundreds of fish lost up beaver slough this year on the Moke, it was jaw dropping.

  3. #70
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    I'd be interested to see the rate of straying fish this year compared to a non-trucking year while keeping the flows out of the AR, the FR and the Sac consistent with this year. I think a big factor in straying depends on which rivers are dumping good levels of cold water at the right time, and the AR and FR had good flows in the early part of the season this year. I think that caused straying this year regardless of whether fish were trucked. We've seen it in the past when they weren't trucking and the river with the highest coldest flows seems to get the most strays. I'm all for pulse flows during outmigration of smolts, but until they get that perfected I say truck away because the alternative is much worse.
    "Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." - Henry David Thoreau

  4. #69
    Super Moderator salmonid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9,586
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelyMan View Post
    I don't see any suggestions on his part,,should we just send the smolts down river with warm, low low flows ?
    Do we know how many of the huge Feather return were Sacramento fish ? It seems that the Sac hatchery got enough eggs somehow to come close to normal.....Again i think lost fish are better than dead smolts if that was the probability......was that the probability after 4 years of drought ??? I don't know.

    I don't know if trucking is a good idea or not but i do appreciate those that at least put their time and money into trying to do good for all of us.
    Agree with you, SteelyMan, he was very fair in outlining the "catastrophic disaster" on the Sac river up from Verona this year!

    I am thinking that trucking smolts that get lost vs. dumping smolts into a a warm predator-ridden river are both really crappy options! There is a third way, but it will cost the Bureau of Reclamation some water and some coin. They could time spill from the dam to coincide with smolt releases. Kind of a no brainer as this is done in Oregon and Washington states with good success on the Columbia.

    Sounds like some fishy organizations, the hatchery, and others are also thinking about this option. Maybe we'll spill a little water for our fish in the future?

    Best,
    Here they come!

    <img src=http://fishsniffer.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic27707_1.gif border=0 alt= />

  5. #68
    Senior Member dsa2780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    38.521164, -121.523538
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    Lost salmon are better than no salmon. There are still a lot of fresh fish being caught on the american and various parts of the lower sac and delta. Sure, they're not going to successfully be spawned up on the sac hatcheries, but people are still spending gas money, buying tackle and such to go fishing. As someone who will occasionally make salmon lures to sell, I'm a fool for not making spinners this year and selling them local to the guys in the metro area, because people were slaying fish off the bank all of September and October. The guides that live up north of Verona are pissed, and rightfully so, because the fish probably just scattered into the deep water channel, the moke, the American, the SJ or any of the other 50 possible paths of straying on their journey north. I thought this season was night and day compared to the last few in terms of willing biters and numbers of fish in the river. Not to mention the heat blister deal didn't seem to be too prominent.

    People weren't buying gear or guide trips? Every time I fished metro, I saw countless people dragging cutplugs and dodgers, which aren't cheap and saw lots of clients on James, Big Al or Righthooks boats. Even down at the mouth, people I know who normally don't even bother with salmon were killing chrome and spending money to do so.
    Last edited by dsa2780; 11-27-2016 at 08:19 PM.

  6. Likes BigUnInDaBoat liked this post
  7. #67
    Super Moderator salmonid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9,586
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    Quote Originally Posted by BigUnInDaBoat View Post
    can I share those pics on my FB Sal?
    Feel free!
    Here they come!

    <img src=http://fishsniffer.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic27707_1.gif border=0 alt= />

  8. Likes BigUnInDaBoat liked this post
  9. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    687
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    I don't see any suggestions on his part,,should we just send the smolts down river with warm, low low flows ?
    Do we know how many of the huge Feather return were Sacramento fish ? It seems that the Sac hatchery got enough eggs somehow to come close to normal.....Again i think lost fish are better than dead smolts if that was the probability......was that the probability after 4 years of drought ??? I don't know.

    I don't know if trucking is a good idea or not but i do appreciate those that at least put their time and money into trying to do good for all of us.

  10. Likes dsa2780, Chrome Seeker liked this post
  11. #65
    Senior Member BigUnInDaBoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dem Hillz
    Posts
    2,106
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    can I share those pics on my FB Sal?

  12. #64
    Super Moderator salmonid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9,586
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    Saw this from Mike Rasmussen a Northern California fishing guide on the Sacramento River. Pretty much in agreement with him, but I will correct him in that CDFW didn't govern trucking of Coleman salmon smolts as Coleman is a federal facility independent of CDFW.

    The trucking program used by the Department Of Fish and Wildlife for the much numerically larger run of King Salmon on the Sacramento River was a complete disaster from the standpoint of the In river salmon fishing guides and recreation enthusiast a like. "The trucking program cost most salmon fishing guides on the Sacramento River thousands of dollars in lost revenue and potentially tens of thousands in future revenue losses as yearly returning clients get fed up with the lack of salmon on the Sacramento River returning for them to catch." Rasmussen explains reluctantly.

    Rasmussen went on to explain that he himself was not trying to necessarily place place blame on the Department because as previously explain in a prior fish report that if the trucking program hadn't existed salmon season would most likely not have existed at all this 2016 season. But the fact remains that the trucking of juvenile Chinook Salmon on the Sacramento River was a complete and catastrophic disaster according to the statistics that are rumored to be complete from Coleman National Fish Hatchery. Thus, putting only one single three year old chinook salmon from the trucking program back at Coleman Hatchery to spawn.

    While the American and Feather rivers which sustained a higher flow of out going water during the peak migration from the Pacific Ocean. Not to mention the American River (which was rumored to have the biggest percentage of the lost Sacramento River Fall Run Chinooks at their hatchery gates) is geographically the first major river the lost kings ran into on their way up the old Sacramento River Channel. The certainty of King Salmon on the Sacramento River in Northern California has never been in such a non existent situation and the river was literally empty this 2016 season.
    Just a snip, the whole article is here: http://www.salmonsacriver.com/fishin...vember-24-2016
    Here they come!

    <img src=http://fishsniffer.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic27707_1.gif border=0 alt= />

  13. Likes BigUnInDaBoat, Chrome Seeker liked this post
  14. #63
    Super Moderator salmonid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9,586
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discussion about 2016 Sac river salmon upstream of Verona

    An update to the thread. Coleman National fish hatchery got close to their egg take goal for fall run salmon by using some innovative techniques this season. Some pics of their hard work.. The trays contain about 15 million fertilized salmon eggs.



    Here they come!

    <img src=http://fishsniffer.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic27707_1.gif border=0 alt= />

Page 1 of 8 1236 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •