Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing Reports => Members' Fishing Reports => Topic started by: scales on September 22, 2009, 04:59:16 PM

Title: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: scales on September 22, 2009, 04:59:16 PM: Decided to hit the honey hole again today for some springs action but instead was into pinks and coho,yes COHO! There was very little pressure throughout the system, really enjoyable and meeting nice people I must say. Managed to land few few for the Bbq after about 6 coho hook ups, and they are big this year.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2432/3946287618_c9dd9da56f_b.jpg)
Title: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: BCfisherman97 on September 22, 2009, 09:28:41 PM: Great job Scales, keep em' comming. :);D
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: mr.p on September 22, 2009, 11:30:53 PM: Very NICE!

Thats enough to get me out there tomorrow. I have had no luck with hatch hos this year. 2 weeks, 12lbs of roe. Nothing to show but mostly jack springs and jack coho. A couple wild bucks around 4-5#.
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: mattyo on September 23, 2009, 06:16:03 AM: Nicely done Scales :o. That ho on top looks like Gonzo!!!
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: dennisK on September 23, 2009, 07:10:44 AM: hey scales, nice photo. were you using blades or roe for the coho?
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: Steelhawk on September 23, 2009, 12:41:57 PM: Great looking hooknoses. Congrats Scales. Time to head out this weekend. Expecting a zoo after this report though. ;D
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: Fisherama on September 23, 2009, 04:08:05 PM: Wow! I'm so jealous. I put in a good day yesterday as well with a friend (a newb) but some how managed to get skunked... We spent all day tossing roe and blades into deepish choppy water in the upper, all of my usual spots which have produced well for springs in the past but only managed a few accidental pinks. Not sure what was up, perhaps the low low water conditions, but it was a great day regardless.
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: coho killer on September 23, 2009, 11:25:52 PM: My buddy landed a 45 inch spring tuesday, anyone know how big that is?
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: scales on September 23, 2009, 11:40:28 PM: Quote from: coho killer on September 23, 2009, 11:25:52 PM
My buddy landed a 45 inch spring tuesday, anyone know how big that is?
Did he measure the thickness? 45" that one big fish, maybe 38#
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: scales on September 23, 2009, 11:43:23 PM: Quote from: dennisK on September 23, 2009, 07:10:44 AM
hey scales, nice photo. were you using blades or roe for the coho?
Thanks, blades were not effective this time. Organic pink roe and peach wool soaked in pink roe pulp the weapon! ;D
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: doja on September 25, 2009, 09:26:13 AM: Quote from: scales on September 23, 2009, 11:40:28 PM
Did he measure the thickness? 45" that one big fish, maybe 38#

My last fish that was 1 meter exactly weight about #37 so 45" could be over #40.

Still a nice "tyee"
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: Tex on September 25, 2009, 10:20:20 AM: Quote from: coho killer on September 23, 2009, 11:25:52 PM
My buddy landed a 45 inch spring tuesday, anyone know how big that is?

Impossible to get an accurate estimation without knowing the girth of the fish (measured around the stomach and over the back of the fish, just in front of the dorsal fin typically).

The formula is generally accepted (length x girthsquared)/750. Some people use the figure of 800, depending on the size of the fish. A "typical" chinook in the ocean will have a girth that is 2/3 of the length, which would give a 45" fish a 30" girth. Using the formula, that would put it at approximately 50 pounds or so.

HOWEVER, that is for an ocean chinook. In the rivers, they will typically have lost a fair amount of girth, and density or mass. So without knowing the girth of this fish (which can vary wildly depending on the actual chinook itself), we'd have to give it a reduced girth in estimation - say 27" or so? I'd put that fish at somewhere just north of 40 pounds... maybe 42 or 43 pounds?

Regardless, beautiful fish!
:D
Tex - landed one he estimated just shy of 50 pounds on the Vedder in 2007, so knows the bigs boys are in there.
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: bentrod on September 25, 2009, 05:38:12 PM: piscatoral pursuits has a decent size estimator.
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: Tex on September 26, 2009, 05:33:18 AM: Quote from: bentrod on September 25, 2009, 05:38:12 PM
piscatoral pursuits has a decent size estimator.

I can't imagine it's any better than the info I just gave, and without girth, the estimation will be VERY estimated at best.
Title: Re: Chilliwack River, September 22nd 2009
Post by: bentrod on September 26, 2009, 08:16:00 AM: Tex, use then find out for sure. It probably is a better formula than yours because they also take into account type of fish. This should adjust for differences in bone mass etc.