80 lb. Salmon caught!

[Bobber Down]

When you hear of a fish like this, you want to drop everything and hit the water to see if that fish has a partner. I did not see this fish, but I heard about it and where it was caught. I was told that it was caught at the mouth of the Cowlitz. There is going to be a picture of it at Bob's sporting goods in Longview Wash. I called Bob's to comfirm this fish and the guy that I talked to said that it was hung on the scale and it did hit the aprox. 80LB mark. Now that's a big boy, or girl! It must of been caught the day I wasn't fishing (I'm jealous) jk. It is great to hear that we have in our river a fish of that size. "Congrat's" to the fisherman that caught it. I hope we hear a little more about how it was caught. "Good going to you".........Bobber Down

[Jennie@ifish]

Could you e mail me the number for the store?
Thanks,
Jen

We heard that from some guys on the Rainier dock today; and that it was weighed on 2 different scales for verification, at 80 1/4 lbs.! The biggest I've heard for Col. fall 'nooks for quite a while was 56 lbs. This one must have decided to stay out in the ocean an extra year. Think about this: there used to be a lot of 'nooks in the Col. that big and bigger many decades ago. That's so big for a Col. fish now I hope it's not a hoax, and Jen can gat a picture of it to post here. Then all the Columbia guides can change their brosures to "Come Fish For Columbia Chinook Salmon Up To 80 lbs.!". Kinda like the Kenai guides do for the 97 lb.'er. - RT

[MPT]

I bet that gilnetters catch salmon of that size all of the time in the Columbia!!

Wow my lifetime is 60 in Wilson tidewater.
I can't imagine, although we had a huge
one on this year up there and lost it in
the boat anchor and lines behind us. wah.

Caught alot of steelhead above the fishery
and the majority have been real fat and
healthy too. Salmon have been fat as well.

Good sign for the food chain out there!

[Quick Fish]

Looked up the state record on the ODWF web site. 83 lbs in 1910 on the Umpqua.

Perhaps the 550 lb chinook exist and this is just an early jack!

QF

[smilesforu]

Congrats to the fishermen, but I wish there was a way to preserve the genetics of the fish that size. So few around it would be nice to see them survive another day to spawn. Nobody would believe you if you told them you caught one that big now would they . Hopefully somebody will realize the impact of removing the genetics of this size fish and release one with his kids by his side.
Tight Lines

[Steve]

It is nice to hear of an 80+ # Chinook, but I wouldn't be hasty to talk genetics...usually these large specimens are Triploid (sexless) or have had some damage to their pituitary gland..which slowed their spawning response. In the early recorded history (Lewis & Clark) big Chinook were common...but with nets, dams, and high pressure from all fisheries the larger fish couldn't compete and the smaller fish dominated the spawning beds...and a 2 hundred years later we are seeing the results. Heck I would like to just catch 1 30# would call it a season...

[garyk]

Steve --

You're right about 'seeing the results', however the extinction of the Columbia's 'June Hogs' is a much more recent occurance and caused entirely by one of the mainstem dams, which when it was put in had no fish-passage facilities. I can almost recall the quote from a book in which a dam worker looked down, after the dam was closed, and watched the huge June Hogs smashing themselves against the footings -- and sadly realizing what he had just helped to end. The story of the June Hogs is very well documented in the various books about the Columbia (which I don't have at fingertips here at work). Also, I believe ODFW's Umpqua record is for 'sport caught' chinook. I'm quite certain the books contain reports from this century of June Hogs topping 90 and perhaps 100 pounds.

I too wonder about removing the genetics of that 80 pound fish.....

Last year we released a matched pair (hen & buck) of 30-pounders on the N.Fk.Nehalem by the hatchery. Even though they were bright beauties we felt they were close enough to their spawning beds and deserved to get there -- maybe in two or three years we'll get hookups from their progeny?

I saw a 66 pounder caught on the Trask several years ago and it was monstrous but my God!!! 80 lbs !!!!!

[smilesforu]

Steve
We are in the recovery process of many runs around the Northwest. I have no problem harvesting fish from a healthy run of fish. But after reading the posts about never seeing a fish that large. Fish that large are rare and (may?) need some help in their recovery. What if its not a triploid? Hopefully it has some sisters and brothers still making it home. Someday I would like to tell my grandchildren of what we did to make things better instead of telling them how it use to be..... Thats my two pennies
Tight Lines

------------------
Marty M
Steelheader.net

[Mr. Fisherman]

Jen,

Did ya ever get a copy of the picture?

I'd love to see it posted here!

Tight lines, stretched to the limit...

------------------
Live to Fish
Fish to Live