OK, we've all seen the thread on 2-salt brats coming in as your 5-7# cookie cutter dink, and 3-salt mega-brats coming in as 10-12 pounders.

What are the common weights for 2-salt natives? 3-salt? 4-salt? What would be age-class of Bob's Christmas steelhead (top of this page)?

i would say bob's christmas fish above is 4 salt fish!

probably goes about like so, 2 salt is 6-10lbs, 3 salt fish would be 10-14 lb, 3 salt fish 15-18lb., 4 salt 18-22lb, and 5 salt 22 +, just a guess, what does Bob say bout this, how bout a thought from the pro!

Hey Buddy

Maybe you've been sipping on Grandpa's gin/tonic... BUT..... you put 3-salts in there twice.

Adult steelhead weight varies both by age at maturity and by the feeding conditions encountered in marine waters. I used to read steelhead scales to age them, and the majority were hatchery fish. Wild steelhead, 2-salt have ranged from about 6 to 11 or 12 pounds. 3-salt are usually 12 pounds and up, but do over-lap with the larger 2-salt fish. A 3-salt fish can go over 20 pounds, but I haven't had a large enough sample size to narrow the range. I think most steelhead at about 22 pounds or so, and upwards, are 4-salt fish. And the sample size in that range is extremely small.

Smalma should have access to more age and size data, and maybe he'll help out on this.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I think it is hard to judge the "saltness" of a fish by its weight, as there are so many other variables that can come into play. It's probably easier with hatchery fish, but any difficulties are magnified with wild fish, in addition to some difficulties that are probably more exclusive to wild fish than hatchery fish.

Fast growth, due to exceptional marine conditions, may manifest itself more in girth than length.

For example, I caught a clipped winter run a couple of years ago on the Skykomish that was twelve pounds and a couple of ounces.

That sounds like a typical three salt fish, to me.

However, that fish was 28.5" long...and shaped like a football.

Your average 28.5" fish would probably weigh eight, eight and a half pounds...which sounds an awful lot like a two salt fish.

My unscientific analysis makes that fish a really fat two salt, as one that spends three years in the salt ought to be several inches longer than that.

I'm thinking that if ocean conditions were poor, then a snaky two salt might weigh six pounds, and if the conditions were optimal, the same fish might weigh...well, as much as twelve pounds (like the fish above).

Who knows? Maybe the fish was just a mutant...

Hatchery fish, of course, don't have nearly the genetic drive to come back in various shapes and sizes...there's not really a size or shape that works better to have some dude in a hatchery hold them by the gills and slit their bellies open!

Plus, the random mixing of milt and eggs will lead to fish that are more homogenous within an age class...hence the "cookie cutter" phenomenon.

For wild fish, a three salt that enters the river in January and spawns on the Skagit up in Bacon Creek might only weigh ten pounds, as it is genetically geared to spawn well up in a small creek.

A three salt fish that enters the Skagit in mid-April, on the other hand, might weigh 15 or 16 pounds, as it is genetically geared to spawn in the mainstem Skagit or mainstem lower Sauk, where larger size is preferred.

I think some gross generalizations could be made, as a four or five pound fish is probably always a two-salt (or a one salt), while a twenty five pound fish is probably always a big four salt, or a five salt.

It's the middle ranges that would get a little sloppy. I'll try it here...

Two salt:

A fish that enters the river early and spawns in a small tributary...four to nine pounds.

A fish that enters the river late and spawns in the main channel, or side channel, or larger tributary...seven to ten pounds.

Three salt:

A fish that enters the river early and spawns in a small tributary...seven to twelve pounds.

A fish that enters the river later and spawns in the main channel, side channel, or larger tributary...ten to seventeen pounds.

Four salt:

Not likely to spawn in small tribs...too big.

Enters late, main channel spawner...fifteen to twenty four or twenty five pounds.

Five salt:

Not likely to spawn in small tribs...too big.

Enters early or late, main channel spawner...fifteen to thirty pounds.

Repeat spawners?

Repeat spawning fish are almost always female, and if they weigh any more than they did the first time, it is very little, and is attributed to greater egg production rather than to greater overall size. They don't grow any bigger because they utilize the entire growing season to replace all the weight loss due to growing last year's eggs.

The very rare repeat spawning male, on the other hand, can continue to grow larger for the second trip. For example, the broodstock fish caught on the Coquille a few years ago (clipped fish...27#) was shown through scale samples to have intially been a three salt fish, probably weighing in around twelve or thirteen pounds.

By the time he was bonked, he was on his third trip up the river, was now seven years old, and had obviously grown larger each trip out to the salt.

Salmo, could you do your own scale anaylsis with just a magnifying glass, or do you need a microscope? Any pictures, or hand drawings, by any chance? Any resources to look at so that I could figure out what it is that I am seeing?

I've thought about informally doing it myself just to see what I could see with the fish I catch.

Fish on...

Todd

A guide friend of mine from the Oregon coast recently had a discussion with one of the ODFW biologist about this very thing. Evidently the idea that came out of it was after steelhead get to be two salt fish, time spent in the ocean isn't a good indicator of weight.

When you think about this, it makes logical sense (which may not necessarily apply to fish biology!). But once a steelhead reaches two salt status, it has reached 'maturity' and is ready to begin the spawning process if so disposed. Does this mean that he'll be the same size as all his buddies? Of course not! Think about it in human terms. Just because someone's reached 18 doesn't mean they're all going to weigh 175lbs. Some are going to skinny weaklings and some are going to be big, tough SOB's. Same thing when they're another ten years older.

It doesn't seem like just because they're out in the ocean an extra year (3-salt)they have to put on an extra 5 pounds, which would be nearly a 50% addition in weight, or another 5 pounds in the 4th salt year. Can you imagine if you doubled in weight from the time you turned 18 until you turned 50? Well, some of you probably can!!

If you need a fishy example of the skinny weakling vs big tough SOB, coho win hands down.

Here's a beast that leaves the river in the spring as a 4-6 inch minnow that doesn't even weigh an ounce. He goes grazing in the ocean for the next 16-18 months and that eating machine returns to the river weighing anywhere from 6-20#.... talk about phenomenal growth rate.

In Alaska, virtually all the coho are 2-salts (actually 16-18 mo). Are the giant 20+ coho in the OP streams and the Satsop 3-salts?

Todd,

You can use a dissecting microscope, but I found the microfiche reader at the public library was the easiest to use.

Also, I’ve done a lot of spawning surveys on Skagit tributaries and the mainstem. I don’t think there is much of a size correlation with size of water body for spawning. That is, I’ve observed some big fish in tributaries, even fairly small streams, and lots and lots of 8 to 12 pound size fish are out spawning in the mainstem Skagit and Sauk. If there is any tendency, it seems like more large steelhead spawn in the Sauk and its tributaries than in the Skagit and its tributaries. However, even that is a pretty gross generalization.

Your point about girth relating more to ocean grazing conditions is probably on target, although I think genetics plays some role there as well. Your 12 pound 28.5" example seems pretty unusual.

FNP,

All salmon and steelhead are phenomenal eating and growth machines. Think of a pitiful pink salmon fry leaving his river at 1/1200th of a pound,only to return 16 months later at 5 pounds, with the occasional oddball reaching 10 to 12 pounds.

Most of our coho are 2-salt fish, but occasionally 3-salt scales are read. There might be more of them, but since we "know" that coho are 2-salt fish, very few coho scales are ever collecting for aging. I've heard hearsay that 3-salt coho are common in some Alaskan waters, but I don't have any documentation to reference.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo

I have one of those fiche-readers in my office. OK another "fiche-ey" distraction.

Do you have to prepare the scales in a special way to make the rings easier to read?

The size of our wild steelhead can vary

The size of our wild steelhead can vary quite a bit dependent on a number of factors including time at sea (2 salt, 3 salt, etc), previous spawning history, age at smolting, growing conditions in the ocean, run timing in relation to spawn timing and local gentics (some river produce larger fish - typcially due so selection by the local habitats/environment). The sex of the fish also can play a role.

For the north Puget Sound area a "typcial 2 salt might be 8 #s or so but can easily vary several pounds to either side. The longer the fish are out to sea the more size overlap we see the other ages. The 3 salts typciall would be in the lower teens though once again there can be a large range. The vast majority of the 20 -22# fish that I have looked were fast growing 3-salt males. The 4-salts tend to top out in the mid to upper 20s and those rare 5-salts are the true giants that may be more than 42 inches long and exceed 30#.

Todd - I agree with Salmo in that large fish can be found in both smaller tribs and the larger stems. First Bacon Creek is difinitely not a small creek. In May the typcial daily flow is more than 700 cfs. That puts in the same size range as the Tolt, Sultan, Cedar and Calawah.

I have seen exceptional fish in a couple "small" Skagit Tribs. Seen fish that would have approached or exceed 30# in Jordan Creek - the Cascade River trib just downstream of the hatcery and Murphy Creek a Sauk river trib. Often what we see is there is fair amount of "exchange" between main stem spawners and the trib spawners. On high flow year see more fish using the tribs and on low flow fewer. The result I believe is that the population as a whole tend to reflect the selection factors exerted by the main river.

Doc -
While we see some 4 year coho down here in Washington they are nearly all fish that had spend an extra year in freshwater before smolting. Most often see those fish in colder tribs/rearing areas - for example on study found that 8% of the coho returning to Sunset Falls on the South Fork Skykomish had been 2 year smolts.

I believe that those exceptional coho found in Satsop are more likely larger than normal due to their late river entery timing. They tend to be much later running than most Washington population. As you know that last year the coho are at sea the grow at remarkable rates and a couple extra months of feeding could easily mean 3 to 5 extra pounds.

For reading seconds a micro fiche readrer works just find - in fact I have acquired several that were surplused by Western University just for that purpose, have read lots of steelhead, sea-run and Dollies scales with them. Prep of the scale is nothing special. You should attempt to take the scale below the dorsal fin and about mid-way between the fin and the lateral line. The reason for this is that at the time of hatching the steelhead fry don't have scales and the first location where scales form is in that region.

I like to take 6 to 8 scales and slip them in a folded piece of wax paper that I place in a "coin" envelope upon which I record such information as date, water, size etc. To read the scales separate the scales and place between the glass pieces on the reader. If the scales have dried slime, skin or grim they may need cleaning so that they can be read. I like to blot them with damp paper towels for this cleaning (dipping in water works as well). If you dip or soak them in water it is easy to lose track of them - it helps to use a clear glass container over a dark background. A fine pointed twister adn /or a knife point helps with the handing the scales.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you tight lines

S malma

Thanks for the good info, guys!

Fish on...

Todd

FNP, funny at top of the page lol! Maybe so oops, anyway, we get the idea lol, lil booze never hurt lol!

Is that it?

I was gonna post some smart a$$ remark about how I've never seen smalma post anything short of a novel, but then I got to thinking.... what if the guy had a stroke mid-post before finishing his reply. Then I'd really feel bad.

Not to worry when I saw the "novel" the next post down. :p

So do you prefer the "Cliff Notes" or the "whole meal deal"?

S malma

Just ribbin'ya smalma... I'll take the full meal deal each and every time. I'm not exactly known for the shortest posts either.

And thanks for the scale prep hints. Now I need a primer in deciphering what the heck I'm lookin' at. I presume each band of compressed rings represents one winter of diminished feed/growth. How can you tell when to start counting salt yrs?

Definitely the whole meal deal! Great reading! Thanks guys.

FNP,

The marine growth bands are huge in width relative to freshwater growth, kind of in proportion to the fish's respective size during the juvenile freshwater phase and sub-adult growing period in salt water.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo

Here's a scale I picked off a "Google salmon"



Tell me if you agree with my analysis.

The middle 1/5th across the horizontal diameter of the scale represents the freshwater stage. The rings all seem so close together, but I'll venture a guess that this critter only spent one year in the river. If I use my imagination, I think I can talk myself into a second winter band in the river.

Beyond that is a HUGE band of summer growth, followed by a band perhaps half as wide (at the 12:00 meridian) of winter growth. End of salt year one.

Beyond that is another HUGE band of summer growth extending out to the free edge of the scale.

So I would call this a 1.2.... OR.... if stretching my imagination, a 2.2.

How did I do?

FNP,

At this resolution it looks like 1.2 to me as well. I think I can see how you might get a 2.2 out of it, but I'd need a clearer picture before I could make that distinction.

Have fun with this added element to your hobby/obsession of fishing!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

FNP -
The accepted age designation for that chinook scale would be 3.2. That is fish that is 3 years old and migrated from freshwater during its 2nd spring. If it had migrated the year it hatched it would have been a 3.1. I know for those of us used dealing with steelhead it doesn't made sense but there it is.

One thing that I found helps in learning to read scales was to have "known age" samples to look at. I recommend that you pull some scales from the typical Chamber's hatchery 2-salt (means you need to get out and "bonk" a couple in the intrest of science - it would good to practice pulling scales from a dead fish). You will know that there is 1 freshwater check and 1+ salt. The marks we are counting are those places where the growth rings are laid particularly on top of each other (slow growth assocaited with winter). The typical hatchery 2-salt would be a 1.1+ - that is one year in fresh water, one full year in the salt and returning prior to the formation of the 2nd winter check.

Good luck and enjoy!

S malma

Smalma:

OK now you've got me confused???

I thought the convention was "fresh yrs-DOT-salt yrs" for all salmonids. Is the notation for salmon different than steelies?

Correct me now, but if I understand you right the age of a chinook 3.2 would be the same as a steelhead 1.2?

Let's start with a simple fall chinook example. Spawners drop eggs/milt in fall 2004. Fry emerges spring 2005. Smolt heads out to sea spring 2006. Returning adult heads back upriver fall 2008 to spawn.

Scale sample would show initial growth core, one riverine winter check, a first broad ocean growth band, a first ocean winter check, a second even wider ocean growth band, a second ocean winter check, and finally a third ocean growth band.

Based on what I learned in Alaska, this is a 4 year old fish designated as 1.2 age class. One year fresh, 2 years salt, and returning in its 4th year of life to spawn. Based on your convention, what is the proper numeric notation for this virtual chinook? Would fish managers in WA call this a 3-yr old or a 4 yr-old salmon on its upriver journey?

FNP -
Based on the convention I was using the chinook age should have been a 4.2 - a fish at the end of its 4th with a freshwater history; my bad -sorry.

I have no idea why a different system is used for chinook than steelhead, unless it is because of both zge zero and yearling smolts chinook are typically found (even some older smolts).

Tight lines
S malma

I understand what you mean by zero-fresh... Lichatowich mentioned the Columbia River having "ocean-type" chinook vs "river-type" chinook in his book. The ocean type juveniles migrate out to sea shortly after hatching ("zero" fresh) while the river type spend a year or two (in rare cases more) rearing in freshwater before smolting up.

I understand that hatchery kings raised by WDFW are only held for 4 months before release. Guess that's the hatchery version of ocean-type chinook.

There sure is a wide diversity of juvenile life histories for PNW chinook. Virtually all the Alaska kings spend a full year in the river before heading out to sea.