are copper river kings really better eating than springers or do they just have a better pr person? i have never eaten a copper river and find it hard to believe that they are better than a fresh caught springer.

Cooper river salmon, in my opinion, is just a great marketing program, nothing else.

i have had the copper river sockeye and i think that is the best fish i have ever had. just my opinion.

copper river salmon is kinda like starbucks

I've never had Copper River fish, but I must say that no fish that's been stuffed in a hold and flown for several hours and then sat on a shelf could match the taste of one you've just hauled out of the water yourself and slapped on the BBQ.

IMHO, Copper River salmon are overrated.

maybe they should try to match a dye with the color of copper river salmon!

Increase sales on all those "farm raised FRESH fish"!!!

I think taste wise they are no better than fresh caught prepared the same way, Color and texture is a different ballgame. I have always been curious as to wether other Alaska rivers produce such a perfect colored and texxtured fish. Since I have never been to AK

I've tried it, disliked them just as much as any other salmon. IMHO, overrated.

just herd on the news today that you could be paying up to $30 a lb for copper river kings no fish is worth that much money per lb way over rated.

I've eaten it many times and to me it tastes very good but not nearly as moist and fresh as a Salmon I have caught and cooked. And that doesn't matter if it's a spring or fall run king. The price they get though is outrageous. Good marketing. We should have that kind of PR people lobbying for our fishing rights in this state.

johnny there is a fish that is better then the copper river kings it's the yukon river kings way under rated and it runs about the same as all the other kings on the market per lb

fishstick thats fact about whos selling them they love those prices

In lead throwers book all fish taste nasty.

Every fish I ever bonk goes to family or friends.

Mr. and Mrs. Lead do not eat anything that swims

I've had Copper river Sockeye right out of the Copper and Columbia River springer also fresh from the river. The sockeye's meat is brilliant red and taste phenomenal but the Columbia River Springer is just as good. The taste is a little different but its like comparing apples and oranges to me.

~steelymann~

when I was up in alaska last year we had the same discussion with the guide we were with. He said that Copper river salmon just have great PR. nothing else. I have to say that silvers I catch, bleed, immediately ice, and cook that night, are far better than anything you could buy. They have a catchy name, and lots of recognition.

Copper River Kings and Sockeye are excellent eating fish but no better that other Alaska big river salmon sockeye/kings. The Copper River hype was conjured up by Seattle area restaurants and super-markets a decade or so ago to increase business. The hype has worked.

These fish are the same as the ones you would catch out of any of the AK rivers at this time of year. I am told they are all GILLNET fish.
They are among the first runs and this makes for an great PR opportunity. Glad to see you guys are pretty smart and don't take the bait that the markets and fish houses are offering to catch your wallets.

I have hah fresh sockeye and chinook from at least seven Alaska Rivers. Copper River chinook are no better or worse than any other early run chinook from a big river. It's pure marketing.

IMHO the finest chinook in the world is Columbia River spring chinook. I haven't' had the Yukon fish, but I bet they are excellent. They come in the river prepared for a VERY long journey. I beleive that's what makes the difference.

I think a sockeye is a sockeye is a sockeye. Pretty color, not much fat.

my uncle is a netter up in cordova, so we get free copper river salmon

theyre good, but fresh caught still beats them

i've fished around the copper river before, it's muddier than the nisqually after a flood!

Ive caught many Columbia river springers and there pretty tough to beat a for taste and texture. But in my opinion the white King out of alaska is my favorite, its awsome. I spent 6 weeks in ketchcan last june fishing the mountain pt. fishery and 1for every 5 fish was a white king. I sure wish we had strong runs of them down here.

I catch white kings out of Seiku all the time. They are mainly headed to the Frazier or the Skagit.

First and most importantly-store bought fish will never be as good as freshly caught. It is not comparable. There is a difference in Copper River Salmon and other store bought fish. Copper River Salmon is cleaned and packed on ice within 5-6 hours of catching. Other store bought fish lay in the bellies of boats for days before being dealt with. Sometimes 5-6 days before bled or processed. Blecht!!!!! That is the only difference along with a little PR.

Wernergonefishin:

There are huge runs of white kings in both the Vedder and the Harrison. IThe Vedder Riover whites are not good eating. I havn't tried the Harrison whites.

I do know that in a blindfolded taste test at a big party no one could tell white king from red. I caught both fish in the Qheen Charlottes on the same day. They were cooked iwthout any seasoning and about 25 people tried to tell the diffrence. no one could.

Most people in the U.S. (not alaska, washington or oregon) dont know the difference between a humpy and a king. I went to Cleveland and asked about the "fresh salmon" on the menu, and no one in the restaraunt including the chef could tell me what kind of salmon it was. People in the rest of the country don't really like salmon because they usually end up with a canned pink or a farm raised atlantic. Copper River King or Sockeye is a Brand Name. People pay big bucks for it because they know its good. But really very few people could tell the difference between a Copper River King and a Cowlitz River King. I see Farm raised atlantic being sold as fresh King all the time. Even some high end seafood resaraunts on the Seattle waterfront have generic "Salmon" on the menu. Mostly it is farm raised atlantic that has been over-cooked, has a lot of dill and sticks to your teeth. But if you order the Copper River you usually get a quality meal. We should all feel lucky that we have the opportunity to enjoy and understand this resource. Please release the unmarked fish! IMHO

Freshly caught spring chinook in the Northwest is the best tasting salmon in the world! Don't fall for the PR. End of discussion.

The Copper River Salmon hype was dreamed up some years back by the marketing director for the Alaska commercial fishermans association. I may not have the name of the group quite right. Basically, the Copper River salmon hype was designed to increase the price paid to the fisherman, by increasing demand. It worked. The Copper River run was targeted because it's one of the larger and earlier runs, so if the price is raised, the price would hopefully stay higher, for more fishermen, for longer.

It's BS. It's salmon. Good salmon, but just salmon. I think Columbia River springers are better.

I think Copper River salmon is an great marketing plan. With that said, the Copper River sockeye I've had has been the best salmon I've ever eaten. Columbia River springers are a close second.

However, IMHO not all salmon are created equal as table fare so a comparison between sockeye and chinook is inappropriate. My order of preference is; Sockeye, Silver, King, Pink, Chum. Also keep in mind fish that are well take care of and fresh from the salt will taste better too.

Larry,

Sometimes, no, and yes.

I am a salmon snob. I like my salmon perfect, or even better. I can taste the difference in salmon that has been frozen 2 weeks, and I don't keep frozen fish more than 2 months, max - UNLESS it was flash frozen and vacuum packed. Actually, I try not to eat much frozen fish.

Copper River is both a high quality product and some marketing hype. The label usually applies to the Cook Inlet catch, where the Copper River is the major tributary, I'm told. Kings caught around Sitka in the early season, wherever they're bound for, are of equivalent quality in my opinion. The consistency of quality is impressive to me. I would think that any early season king bound for a major Alaskan River system would be of comparable quality, but I cannot say so from experience.

Those who think all kings are the same are certainly entitled to their opinions, but it seems likely to me that they're treating all their salmon uniformly badly or haven't developed their sense of taste very much. Poor treatment and cooking can turn the best piece of salmon into junk. And the best care cannot make a lot of fall tule salmon worth eating. I try to avoid them because the quality is so inconsistent. Some are excellent, but most are not. Yet, they are mixed in with the up river brights, which from my limited experience are consistently good. Consequently, I try to avoid the coastal troll chinook catch because of the high chance of getting a tule that is lacking in flavor. They are not all the same.

Copper River sockeye are of high quality, but so are those from Bristol Bay, the Kenai, the Fraser, Lake Washington, and Quinault. I haven't been able to detect any difference among these stocks of sockeye - altho there may be a slight difference between the early and late Fraser runs, due to variation in lipid (fat) content.

I had never had Columbia River springer until last year. I haven't sampled many yet, but it was every bit as good as any Copper River or other SE Alaska king. I had to tend the BBQ every second as the fat melted off the fillets onto the coals. The CR springers are a connesoir's fish. If the fishery was consistent, and the hatchery fish could be targeted without harming the ESA springers, and the commercial fleet cared for the catch (bleeding fish when landed, etc.), a marketing appelation could be created for CR springers, I believe.

Your question is primarily subjective, so this is intended only to help you gage my opinion. I do like coho salmon, but wouldn't freeze it for more than 2 or 3 weeks. I'll eat a fresh pink, and have BBQd a fresh salt-water caught chum once - it was good (not to be confused with excellent, perfect, or to-die-for). I only buy king and sockeye, eat silvers when I catch them, and try to eat steelhead as fast as I can, since I won't freeze it more than 2 months. Halibut freezes well, and I'll eat it fresh or frozen. Ling cod and rockfish don't freeze well enough even for short periods for me to ever try it again, altho they are excellent when fresh. Yeah, and I'm very picky about cooking fish. I'd rather under-cook by 2 minutes than to over-cook by 1 minute any time. I realize tastes and opinions vary, and I'm just trying to help you understand mine.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Copper River kings and Columbia River springers are the same basic animal: early-run chinook with with a high stored fat content. Both are superior eating. The difference is the Copper River kings have been hyped, the springers have not. White kings also are very fatty and great eating. If you catch a Columbia River springer - and the upriver fish are better than those from the lower river tribs -- bleed it immediately and clean it within an hour or two, you'll have the best eating fish on the planet. The earlier in the season you catch them the better, since they do use that fat once they enter freshwater and lose their quality over time.

A couple of years ago, I watched a show on Evening Magazine about the Copper River Salmon. If I recall right, It is a marketing thing that a couple of guy in Alaska came up with.
Their idea was how to get fresh Salmon down to the Seattle area within a few hours of harvest. I think they started out suppling one of the markets up on Queen Ann and it just spread from there.
I personally wouldn't waste my money on it.
Sol Duc Springers are number one in my book.
I love the salt smell of one that ya catch down low on the river. Gives me a chubby!!!
I can't believe some poeple think they stink!! What's up with that?
Craig

Charr

We should open a business and start our own marketing thing.

Get you fresh Pen Raised Salmon. These fish have been raised in cleaner water then those in the Ocean so they taste better. We also add coloring for an extra special sweetness.

Salmo G.

As a real salmon lover, I wondered what is your favorite part of a salmon. I love chinook bellies - full of fat and sooo tasty

surecatch,

I can't limit myself to chinook bellies - too too rich! I like a cross-section fillet, from belly to back, so I can savor the range in texture and flavor. I do prefer the middle section of an average size fish; with really big ones, even the tail section is very good. Fortunately, those omega-3 fatty acids are good for me.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Actually Salmo, the Copper feeds into Prince William Sound and not Cook Inlet

Basically, it's marketing. Really, there's not much difference between Copper kings and reds with the first-run kings that come back to a number of southcentral Alaska streams or reds that come back later in the summer to these other streams.

Why many regard them so highly is the fact that in most seasons, they are the first fresh salmon to hit the market ... and they are nice fish, so they get pretty hyped up.

Bob,

My bad! You'd think my geography would be better than that. I agree with you, tho. Most any early run king from that general area, plus the Bristol Bay region as well, should be very firm and fat, which seems to be key to their flavor.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Just had to grab hold of that rare opportunity to correct you Salmo ... we all knew you knew better

Aunty M

You tell'm girl............they eat those hatchery fish don't they.


Well they eat the damn gillnetted fish from Alaska as well. Sure would have thought there were more guys who wouldn't support gillnetted product on this board.

sorry, i cant tell you what copper river salmon or any other commercial caught salmon tastes like because i dont buy it, never have and never will.

I'm with boater. I've never bought fish and if I ever do, it will be pen raised.

i allways buy copper sockeye immediatly when available. this year could buy day before icycle river opend. bbq on the beach, late harvest wine is yrly thing. absolutly none better. bar none. did pay 29.99 lb ( bought 1-1/2 pound and would do again, difinate overpriced) cost more then lobster tail. picknic on the beach worth it everytime.

Anyone concerned about our fisheries should not buy commercially caught fish.

i agree 100 percent.

I can verify Salmo's take on the early Sitka Kings, absolutely delicious! Was up there last week and came home with some nice fillets. BBQ'd some up for the family over the weekend.

It was the best fresh king I've tasted in the past couple of years and I guess that's because I haven't caught a Columbia Springer in a couple of years.

BD

Stilly bum,

I disagree with you. Your absolute: "Anyone concerned about our fisheries should not buy commercially caught fish." implies that any and all commercial fishing, anywhere, anytime, is inherently bad for any fish population. In that context, I'd have to conclude that any and all consumptive recreational fishing is inherently bad for any fish population as well.

No fish ever benefited from being caught. And it is just as dead whether caught commercially or by hook and line. What counts is whether the fishery is managed so as to avoid over-fishing, which is known to reduce productivity of a fish population. I don't have a problem with buying commercially caught fish, just as I don't have a problem with taking home a sport caught fish, when it is from a population that is managed so as to achieve spawning escapement goals that sustain the productivity of the run.

I do agree that regulatory managers should give sport fishing a preference over commercial fishing because sport fishing spreads the resource opportunity among a greater proportion of the resource owners. There are many healthy salmon populations, especailly in Alaska, that can support fish harvests greater than what the recreational fishery can impose. What, then, is the problem with a well-regulated commercial fishery that extends that resource benefit to commercial fishermen and their customers, who are also the resource owners (limited to U.S. citizens, actually)?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I dunno Salmo G,

I think I'm with Stilly bum on this one.

Commercial fishing is the commercialization of wild animals.

If you look at the precedent set by commerical harvest of wild game and birds, it doesn't look good for wild fish.

For instance what happened to the carolina parakeet, passenger pigeon, whales, american bison, ducks, geese, deer, elk, and turkey populations in this country?

They were hunted to extinction, or near extinction until market hunting was banned.

Those that survived the market hunters have recovered nicely since market hunting was banned.

Don't think fishing and hunting are the same?
I disagree a dead animals is still dead whether killed by a hunter or fisher.

harvest is harvest.

If you want a fish example, look at Stiped Bass on the East Coast. The population was decimated by overharvest, mainly commmerical. They banned commercial fishing and the population has since rebounded.

I'm sure if commercial harvest of salmon was banned, salmon too would recover to a great extent wherever enough habitat remains.

Just to be clear, by banning commerical I mean no more catching salmon to sell. I recognize that the tribes will never reliquish their right to commercially harvest salmon, I'm speaking in hypothetical terms here.

Geoduck,

I think I share your concern. However, the thing about market hunting leading to depletions and extinctions is that it wasn't regulated. Banning a practice is one form of regulation. Limiting harvests to a level that can be sustained by a population is a restrictive form of regulation, just not as restrictive as a ban.

Do you really believe that the healthy runs of pink, chum, and sockeye salmon cannot support a harvest? Can a fish population support a sport harvest but not a commercial harvest. Many of us appear to have a pre-conceived notion that sport harvests are lower, and therefore, not harmful to a population, whereas commercial harvests are much larger, and therefore very detrimental to a population, leading to depletion and extinction. This simply isn't true. Overharvest, whatever the method, is just that, overharvest.

If you consider steelhead for a moment, we may have a useful example. I know it's not popular here, and I don't support the idea myself - for other reasons, but the healthiest populations of wild steelhead in WA state on on the coast, and they are subjected to both sport and commercial harvest. OK, but why are wild steelhead populations in SW WA in the tank? No commercial harvest of significance there (excepting the late winters that get whacked by the re-emerging spring chinook gillnet fishery). But SW wild steelhead have been depressed since the early 1990s if not longer. We might say that habitat is degraded, but that's not news; habitat degradation is rampant throughout the state. Besides, you can produce wild salmon and steelhead even from fairly poor habitat, just not as many of them - with fewer or no harvestable surplus, of course.

Try this example: recent recreational ocean harvests off the WA coast have been higher than the commercial harvests. If so, how is it that commercial fishing is inherently worse for those salmon populations than recreational fishing. This seems to support my contention, that the amount of harvest, not the harvest method, is the real issue affecting the health of a fish population.

My point here is that harvest, regardless of whether it is sport or commercial, needs to be regulated so as to achieve necessary spawning escapements. In which case a dead fish IS just as dead whether it is caught commercially or recreationally, and therefore, it is not available to the spawning population.

One last hypothetical example. Fish population X averages a run size of 10,000 fish. We have years of data that indicates a healthy, conservative spawning escapement should number 6,000 fish. That leaves 4,000 fish to be harvested, or not. It's a social and environmental choice, really. If the 4,000 fish are harvested commercially, how is that any more harmful to the population than if the are caught recreationally by hook and line? I can think of "but ifs", however, there should be no functional difference to the sustainability of the population.

Many of us believe in our hearts that commercial fishing, as contrasted to recreational fishing is more detrimental to fish populations, without knowing just what factors are affecting the populations. What you know in your heart is not debatable, but that doesn't make your knowledge right. It's critical thinking, and what you can know in your head, that permits us to understand how systems, like ecosystems, and population dynamics work.

As a personal note, I am picky about what commercially caught salmon I buy, avoiding any that I don't think should be targeted for harvest.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I suppose if you're limiting this discussion to commericially harvested salmon, then I would agree with Salmo's line of thought. I have worked on a catcher processor (between college) that drag's the bottom for cod. Those things drug up everything on the bottom, bicatch was huge and it was utterly disgusting. While the gill netters may be able to target species more so than purse-seigners and definitely more that the dragging fleet, they still must get bicatch (haven't worked a commercial salmon boat).

The thing that differentiates a comercial harvests from sports harvest is that when somebodies livelihood is depending on maximizing the harvest, they are very resistant to any sort of reduction in opportunity even when the evidence clearly supports such regulation.

Sports fishers are much more receptive to regulation for the fishes sake (it only a hobby, not their livelihood).

Commericialization of a public resource in general doesn't lead to good managment of the resource. Look at public forests, mineral deposits, and fish. Thankfully large wild animals are now spared from overt commerical harvest.

Salmo G,
I'm sure you are well aware of the political pressures brought to bear by commericial fishers on fisheries managment agencies. Many managment decisions are made based on politics, not what is best for the fish.

The simple political ineptitude of sportsfishers makes them easier on fish populations!
This is because fisheries managers can regulate sports catches more easily, without as much political interference from the sportsfishers. However, I think this is starting to change.

My $.02

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you Geoduck, but there's a plethora of lengthy threads here concerning Washington Trout that could lead one to believe otherwise...