Talk:Chinook salmon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| B | This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Top | This article is rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Sanitary issues?
I've moved the following edit, Some counties have raised awareness of the sanitary issues reguarding the reproduction of the salmon in the rivers that flow through them, to here because I am not at all clear what is meant. -- Donald Albury 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] chum or chinook
The picture on the article says it's a chinook, but the text from the pic says it's a Chum salmon.85.148.64.80 20:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- fixed. Rmhermen 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ecology section
The Ecology section here seems rather strange, as it states some things that are basic biology and don't belong here (e.g., salmon need other salmon to reproduce) and has some factual errors (salmon need seaweed, particularly eel grass, to spawn). One typically does not see much eel grass anywhere near where chinooks spawn. I would be good if someone with more biology background were to review this section. It also needs some languaging: the style is rather informal for an encyclopedia. I'll watch it for a while, and if no one else takes it on, I'll take a stab at cleaning it up. +Fenevad 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just realized that eelgrass is ambiguous. I knew only the marine sort, and I believe it is the more common referent. The statment may be more accurate than I thought, but properly plants in fresh water are not seaweed. +Fenevad 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ecology sections
Salmon do not need eel grass or seaweed in order to spawn. Their fry and smolt need it estuaries for camouflage purposes from predators. It is a long standing fact that all species of Salmonid spawn in cool, silt free, gravel beds in rivers and streams. 24.19.125.139 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)joecr250r24.19.125.139 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fact or Myth?
As a lifelong Alaska resident, I have often been told that King Salmon from the Copper River are, in reality, not superior to those found in surrounding bodies of water in any way, but simply in reputation. Under "Miscellany," the Copper River is mentioned as having superior salmon, and, as this has no cited reference, I think it should be removed. If someone can find a trusted reference (i.e. not a menu from an upscale local restaurant) with evidence of their superior quality, please provide a link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.237.195.219 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fraser River
- Fresh water populations have also been introduced into the Great Lakes of North America. The most significant spawning runs are in the Columbia River, Rogue River, and Puget Sound. Within this range there are probably more than 1,000 spawning populations, yet the species is the least abundant salmon in North America.
That got me wondering why the Fraser isn't mentioned....is the Columbia's run really bigger than the Fraser's? For chinook salmon maybe, I guess; but on the Fraser they're the mainstay of the Interior salmon fishery above the Canyon - spring salmon, as they're called there, being traditionally preferable in those parts over sockeye (ie. in indigenous cultures) as they're easier to wind-dry, which is one of the methods of preparation there. The run is huge and at times in the past attracted over 10,000 from all over the Interior to fish just at one spot (the Bridge River Rapids, aka "the Fountains") which like the Dalles is lined with fishing platforms, althogh the gorge is much narrower and it's more of a chute than a waterfall....anyway, I don't know enough about the fishery to make the change here; if Puget Sound fishermen have a large run, is that because they're intercepting the Fraser run (as they do with sockeye and others) or does that mean "rivers in Puget Sound"?? The further reason for this last question is because the US (in WA/OR/ID/AK anyway) doesn't spend anywhere near as much on salmong habitat remediation and fishery enhancement programs as does BC, so it strikes me that it would be unusual that the Puget Sound run of chinooks/springs would be larger than the Fraser's....especially because of the paucity of undisturbed spawning streams in the very small rivers which converge on Puget Sound, vs. the vast region of the Fraser basin and its many tributaries....Skookum1 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism, April 2007
I just reverted a string of about eight edits that were subtle vandalism and, in some cases, outright garbage edits. If someone wants to go through them and see if there was any wheat amidst the chaffe, please do so. +Fenevad 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World Record
Was Anderson's world record caught in Kenai or Soldotna (or elsewhere)? I know it was in the Kenai River but that's more than just the city of Kenai. User7145 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misidentified picture?
An anon editor said that the picture on this page is a Coho salmon. Checking both pages, I see that despite the pictures being different, the exact same fish is shown (the spots all match up) so one of them is misidentified. From reading this[1] it would appear that this one is correctly identified as chinook (spots on both lobes as caudal fin) and the other is misidentified. It needs expert attention though, and thats not me. I'll leave a note on the other page too. --Bazzargh (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistency in years in the ocean
This article originally states that Chinook will spend 1-8 (with an average of 3-4) years in the ocean. It later talks about extended life histories, with some salmon living in the ocean for up to five years, making them a total of eight years old (when they die?). Anyone know which of these stats is correct? None of them are cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.119.92 (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
