Ocean Salmon ID Guide

Chum King · 12-20-2002, 01:24 PM

For your information, we have just completed a new web page on our ocean salmon updates site. The web page gives hints and guidance on correctly identifying ocean salmon. Not that I am suggesting that any of the "salty dogs" are remiss, but you can check it out at Ocean Salmon ID Guide

Enjoy and have a safe holiday season. :smile:

lost_sailor · 12-20-2002, 04:18 PM

Very nice

Orca · 12-20-2002, 08:45 PM

This is great! I hope everyone that fishes Salmon gets a copy. This should clear up a lot of misconceptions for folks. For Salmon ID, it's "Look at the jaw, look at the jaw, look at the jaw."

I feel sorry for some guys at the dock talking to OSP: "It has spots on the tail" - "Its tail isn't in the V shape" - "But, it has a large flat adipose fin" - "But it's not all silver on the back" - "But, but, but". When you walk by the fish in question and look in it's mouth you see the white jaw and know the guy is going home with a ticket instead of a fish.

Joe Schwab · 12-22-2002, 04:40 PM

Do not, Do not, do not rely on the mouth to ID salmon. I have seen Coho with totally black mouths and Chinook with white gum lines. Learn at least three identifiers and then if you are still not sure return it. :whazzup:

[ 12-22-2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

Miss B Haven · 12-22-2002, 05:44 PM

Captn Hook - This is bad info for folks unless something has just changed. The people who write the tickets ($299 at last count) ONLY go by the gum line.
I have never seen a Chinook with any white around the base of the teeth. Coho may have partial black lines on the gums, but if so will still have white right around the base of the teeth. Not so with a Chinook. The black will go all the way to the tooth.
DO NOT go by any other identifier if you want to avoid a ticket. If you don't believe me ask UG or two folks I know. Check the thread UG posted early this fall. I think it was entitled "Chinook or Coho?".
PS - If the checkers/OSP or Sheriffs are changing the way they identify I'd sure like to see them come out and say it both here and everywhere else.

[ 12-22-2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Miss B Haven ]

Point-of-Sale Clerk · 12-22-2002, 07:54 PM

Eric

Why did you, in the photo of all the different ocean caught salmon, picture the chum as the largest? Wouldn�t the average fishermen have a hard time seeing the difference from a grainy photo like this?

How about some poster sized displayed like these for us *** outlets?
How about some flyers to give out in conjunction with the posters?

*** Clerk

Chum King · 12-22-2002, 08:52 PM

***,

The picture of all six salmon species was taken a long time ago by another ODFW employee (actually I believe it was pre-ODFW i.e. back in the Oregon Fish Commission days). As I understand it, all of these fish came off of a single commercial troller (that further dates the photo since steelhead have been prohibited in the commercial fishery since sometime in the 1970's). I do look at this photo as good example of how subtle the characteristics of the individual salmon species can be. However, this is not a picture to use to identify salmon. The gumlines and other features are not clear enough.

As to why the chum was the largest of the salmon in the picture, it was likely the only chum on the boat. Chum salmon simply do not show up in the ocean fishery very frequently, probably less than 200 chum salmon were landed this past ocean season off Oregon for the recreational and commercial ocean seasons combined. That is compared to 364,700 chinook and 37,600 coho. In addition, almost every chum salmon that I have seen or heard taken in the ocean hook and line fisheries off Oregon have been larger than 10 pounds. I suspect that it has to do with a change in eating habits related to the size of the fish i.e. moving from just plankton to a diet that includes fish. I don't think that the photographer was taking the picture with fish ID in mind, rather this was a "Ripley's" type of event as steelhead, chum, and sockeye all are essentially rare interceptions in Oregon's ocean fisheries.

As to creating posters and pamphlets. There have been a number of different products produced by ODFW over the years. Some have been better than others at conveying to anglers the important features to look for in identifying salmon. In the web site guide, I have tried to provide some general guidance to steer people in the right direction, used language that would identify the variable nature of some of the characteristics, and stayed away from other features that only add confusion.

Over the past couple of years, ODFW has included a copy of the coho/chinook ID poster in the Ocean Salmon Regulation Pamphlet (page 8) and the Oregon Sportfishing Regulations (page 52, 2002 edition). As a *** agent, you should have also received some selective fishery fliers that also included this same information.

At this point, I don't know what (if any) additional materials will be provided for this coming ocean season. Back in about 1993, I put together a half sheet Rite in the Rain card with some ID characteristics for coho, chinook, and steelhead, and the line drawings of chinook and coho lower jaws. I had our ODFW "fish checkers" hand these out to anglers on the docks and we distributed these to coastal license agents as well. If you would like a copy of that old flier, email me with your address and I can send one to you.

Capt'n Hook,
I respect your comments, but for the ocean fisheries I still would have to say that the lower gumline is the single best characteristic to use in separating out the salmon species - especially coho from chinook. Based on my experiences when either myself, the ODFW "fish checkers", or an OSP game officer has run across an individual with a coho claiming it is a chinook based on the color of the mouth, they have been using the wrong part of the mouth to identify the salmon. If you use the gumline on the lower jaw you shouldn't go wrong on an ocean caught salmon.

If any of you other Ifishers have additional comments or recommendations regarding the Ocean Salmon ID webpage, please feel free to email me at mailto:eric.schindler@oregonstate.edu.

[ 12-23-2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Chum King ]

Orca · 12-23-2002, 07:06 AM

You encounter OSP, gums don't match, you get a $300 ticket. You will be telling your story about the other 2 identifying features to the judge.

[ 12-23-2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Orca ]

Joe Schwab · 12-23-2002, 07:11 AM

I' have spent some time in the checking business. Not all fish checkers are up to snuff on positive ID. I showed a checker on the Kenai a Chinook with white gumlines and he had never seen one before. On the Kenai, coho do not have to be tagged. His first reaction was that the fish did not have to be tagged. I have also checked coho coming in off the ocean with black gums. What I am saying is learn to differentiate on indicators other than the gumline.
I had to correct a checker several years ago who was going to seize a chinook from an angler on the Nehalem because it had a white mouth. The angler was going by the shape of the fish and had little other knowledge to go on. The checker was going by the mouth and had little other knowledge to go on. So who would have won if I had not come along?

I had a boatload of clients on the ocean last summer. Coho was closed. We had caught nothing but Chinook all morning till one coho came alongside. Guess what? It had a totallly black mouth. They thought I was nuts for returning it. What I'm saying again is I will continue to go with positive ID. Spots, color, tail configuration and mouth.

[ 12-23-2002, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

fish assassin · 12-23-2002, 07:13 AM

Agree with Orca ... Been there, done that, didn't much
like the outcome!

-assAssin-

GutshotApe · 12-23-2002, 07:19 AM

Well, one way to be safe would be to throw back any salmon that weighs less than 30 pounds.

Miss B Haven · 12-23-2002, 08:53 AM

Captn Hook - It's your right and privilage to use any identifying feature you want. The point is that the ticket writers only use one and I have heard them tell folks (as they were writing the ticket) exactly that ( be it right, wrong or indifferent). Maybe in your case since you have professional backround they listened to you (or you just found an unusual one). Not the case for most of the rest of us. Ticket now, court later if you please! :shocked:
Not worth going to court over even IF you were to win it (do they bring those dead fish into court? Do they have a freezer ful lof those fish?). So..... unless I see the enforcement agencies publish a new criteria I will go by the gumlines just like they do. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]
PS - I can tell an Ocean Silver from an Ocean Chinook before they ever get in the net. The coloration when in the water is very different. It is normally easier to tell species than it is to see whether the adipose is clipped. The coloration can be seen when the fish is still deeper in the water. The fish has to be very close to the surface to see the fin (or not).
I still check the gums before bonking, but have yet to be wrong! Saves a lot of net abuse on released fish to be able to do this. I would hope that most folks out there do NOT need to net a fish to do this (in 99% of the cases). Unfortunatley from what I see on the water, way to many fish go in the net before any attempt at id ocurrs.

I would rather see them write tickets for this than give somebody who makes an HONEST mistake a ticket. Too many folks out there who really don't care about a fish they have to release anyway! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]
Good fishing to ya!

Point-of-Sale Clerk · 12-23-2002, 09:21 AM

Eric

I did receive one Adipose fin clip poster nearly 2 years ago. But that was in response to my complaints regarding their being no adipose information in the 2000 regs (the synopsis indicated see illustration below but the illustration was left out

) It was a very nice poster but they only last 8 to 10 months before they get trashed. ODFW must realize that they have to do this every year in an effort to educate all anglers both experienced and inexperienced. Education is an ongoing process and not a one time shot. Every *** agent should have large, clear posters of both adipose fin clips as well as gum line identification of Chinook and Coho. Every *** outlet should receive new posters at least once a year or be proved laminated posters.

We have seen so many new angler start salmon fishing with the increase in the salmon runs in the last few years. Asking *** agents to try to educate everyone without help from ODFW simply will not work...

*** Clerk

Chum King · 12-23-2002, 11:19 PM

***,

I don't think that anyone in ODFW is expecting *** agents to provide training sessions to anglers on how to identify fish species. The most that ODFW can expect is to have *** locations act as a distribution site for some material handouts to the public and possibly display of posters. Anglers have a responsibility to educate themselves in fish identification. When we can, we try to provide materials that will assist anglers to reach that goal.

I am down to my last 20 or so laminated Coho/Chinook ID posters and about 30 of the selective fisheries posters. That isn't even enough to cover one round of postings at the major launch sites in the coastal ports. Unfortunately, the weather is very hard on those posters, the colors fade within a relatively short time, and posters last less than one season.

Hopefully we can get a new round of posters and pamphlets printed before this season starts. I would like to get them out to at least the coastal *** locations and bait shops. In the interim, there is already a color coho, chinook, and adipose fin clip recognition mini-poster on page 67 of the 2003 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations.

I'll see what I can do as far as creating a new poster and handout that incorporates the gist of the information on the webpage for distribution this season.

As for distributing to every *** location in the state, it is probably not practical. How likely is it that a *** in Burns or Ontario would even want to post a coho/chinook ID poster? They have a different set of issues in that part of the state like correct ID of bull trout (prohibited) versus brook trout (allowed).