Sturgeon Question – Pelagic Versus Homeboys?

[garyk]

Wondering if you sturgeon pro’s have any tips for distinguishing the migratory sturgeon coming in from the ocean from those that have spent their lives in the dirty ‘ol waters of Kelly Point and St. Helens? Do they differ in appearance somehow?

I’d like to keep a single sturgeon this year, but only if it’s a clean one!

[Pickles]

Homeboys are usually pretty worn on the skutes where the Sturgeon fresh from the ocean have very sharp skutes, and if you don't watch it a tail slap from one can give you a pretty nice cut!

[Flatfish]

I am color blind, so for me to describe what I see tends to be a moot point.

But I do have your answer... Astoria in May.

Hows that for prompt service! :smile:

Mark and the dog.

[greenbuttskunk]

I bet STGrule can tell you the sturgie facts.

[STGRule]

Okay, here is the absolute definitive answer, it depends. The longer the fish is in fresh water the darker the skin color and the duller the scutes. Some fish are homeboys, some are travelers. Some are homeboys for awhile and then become travelers. Some are travelers that become homeboys. So you could have a fresh looking fish that may have spent the first 10 years in downtown Portland and then you catch it as it comes back from a year in the salt. No guarantees. Just better odds with a light colored, sharp scuted fish.

[fishingfirst]

Stgrule,

Have you noticed water color having any infuence? The fish we caught in the muddy water of the Willamette seem to be whiter and paler than the fish out of the clear and faster Columbia.

Scott

[Tacklebuster]

Ger your eater from the estuary this year when the anchovies and herring are in full force in the bay.

[STGRule]

Fishingfirst, it has to do with light penetration. Fish that live in clear, shallow water are much darker than fish that stay in deep or murky water. The color will change on an individual fish that moves.

[Pitch Pocket]

STG, have there been any tests done on sturgeon flesh collected from the Willamette and compared to the estuary fish? I'm thinking PCB's, heavy metals......that sort of thing.

Like Tacklebuster, I avoid keeping what I call "Superfund Fish" from the Willamette and fill my sturgeon shopping list in May/June from the estuary. Are we being overcautious or what?

[Boat Monkey]

I agree completely with your concern there Pitch Pocket. I've read a little about organophosphates, PCB's, vinyls and nitrogen saturation -- very scary. There was a study a while ago (though i can't seem to find the Yahoo article now) where they exposed California trout eggs to Willamette water for 2 weeks in early development--25% ended up with deformities! Remember this the next time you see people out on their wave riders and skidoos...

[fishingfirst]

Stgrule,

Any idea how long it takes for the fish to change colors? It was actually pretty cool catching the different fish, and what a difference 1/2 a mile of muddy water makes. They all were great fighters, only the fish in the Columbia sure looked better.

Thanks for the info.
Scott

[ 01-12-2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: fishingfirst ]

[STGRule]

To go from light to dark just takes a few days (less than a week) to notice color change. I've not seen it the other way so I don't know. We've moved fish into shallow places to hold them and so that part I've seen. I would guess it would be the same the other way around but I don't know. There has been an effort to collect sturgeon from the superfund sites in the Willamette. The problem is that we have no way of knowing how long they have been there and so there is no way to attribute any contamination to a specific area so the funding is not likely right now. We would have to do a long-term telemetry study to know exactly where they hang out and for how long. From regular tagging studies we have found patterns of movement in recaptured fish. For instance some fish are apt to be recaptured in the same place at the same time of year, yet are apparently not in that same area at a different time of year. I tagged a fish in The Dalles reservoir that was caught at the mouth of the Rogue or the Umpqua (can't remember which one) just a few weeks later.

[garyk]

Alright, got both the phoneline and 'lectricity working again, so it's back to the top for any other thoughts/input on this question. STGrule?

[fishingfirst]

STGRule,

Thanks for the info. Does the public have access to the tracking results? These are amazing fish, and I like hearing about where they go and what they do. Back in my school days (way back) I studied salmon, but they are a little easier to track than the meanderings of a sturgeon.

I am interested in more info, if more is available, send me an e-mail please.


Thanks, Scott

[Freakwater]

Another one for the "pick STGrule's brain" thread...

Regardless when and where a sturgeon is caught in the Columbia River system, have sturgeon been shown to contain more contaminates than salmon and steelhead, or even tuna? If so to what, to what degree?

Thanks,
Freak

[STGRule]

Here is EPA contaminant information. EPA

There are no tracking results that are published as such. There is usually movement summarized in our annual reports for sturgeon above Bonneville Dam but I don’t know of anything for below. I have a little for green sturgeon movement in our annual reports. I only know about the long distance fish I tagged because the person who caught it turned in the tags.

White sturgeon research

Green sturgeon research

My background is fisheries research for 18 years. White sturgeon research for about 13 of those years and green sturgeon for the last 4 years along with white. I am with research, not management so most of the regulation are as much a surprise to me as they are to you.

[Freakwater]

STGrule,

Thanks for the links. That EPA study is a lot to digest. Think I'll read it before I digest some sturgeon.

Thanks,
Freak

[fishingfirst]

Thanks STGRule,

Lots of reading for me now!

Thanks again,
Scott

[TillamookChinook]

Very interesting thread!

Some of us don't know how STGrule is connected to the sturgeon fishery. A little background would be informative.

Thanks!

TC

[farm5]

Are we going to have any comments from those who read the EPA study? Are you still going to eat your fill?

[blacktail519]

Just keepin one HUH? I dont blame ya, Theyre not that good of eatin anyway [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[garyk]

Hello Blacktail519,

check your Profile for a private message I sent to you back on the 5th.

[Pitch Pocket]

The question hasn't been answered as to whether the estuary sturgeon from the ocean are higher or lower in contaminants than the Portland harbor fish. They did not directly compare the fish from the two areas and lumped all sturgeon together. I for one don't catch and eat Portland Harbor (superfund site) sturgeon. I still wonder whether the estuary fish are as high in contaminants. I guess we need another user fee to find the answer to that one.

[garyk]

I've always been concerned about contaminents in sturgeon since I believe they're considered to be bio-accumulators, and live the longest before being harvested as compared to commonly kept salmonids.

In other words, they have greater time to pick up contaminents from their surroundings and food.

I just noticed this on P14 of the new 2004 ODFW regs:

"Crayfish harvested within 1000' of the property lines of the former McCormick & Baxter site located south of the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge in Portland Harbor should not be eaten."

Our local sturgeon swim through this area, are exposed to the same pollutants, and no doubt munch on some of these superfund crawdads. :depressed:

[farm5]

I would be willing to place a significant wager on the fact that most all sturgeon are loaded with toxic substances. It's not totaly dependant on where they are caught. The Columbia,Willamette, the bays and the ocean are one large watershed. The concentrations of toxins in sturgeon has more to do with with the strata of the waterways in which they choose to exist. Stirring up the bottom of every waterway they travel and the length of time they spend in that environment to reach a legal size all adds to their uptake of toxins. The bottom of no waterway is free any longer of the chemicals we've dumped in our waterways. It is a very sad state of affairs.

We do not need to spend money to prove that sturgeon are loaded with toxins. Isn't it really only natural and good common sense to assume they are?