Resident bow question?

chuck said:

YellowSnow said:

So why are there massive resident bows in the rivers of Alaska which rely upon dead salmon for protein, but the bows in the PNW had to migrate or starve? Wouldn't our? rivers have dead salmon to eat as well?

@MisterEm @chuck @dannarc @dflea ??

I've typed and deleted two long replies to your question and never came close to finishing either. Way too much to try to type out.

It's a function of so many things...geology of the watersheds and real broad scale factors, but also simply the timing, number and density of the salmon runs. We dont get the succession of enormous spawning runs, in a concentrated time frame while feeding and growing conditions for trout are optimal, like coastal Alaskan streams.

Pinks and sockeye are the most numerous there but pinks barely exist in the lower 48.
Almost all of the sockeye go to a couple of isolated places. Spawning in the Columbia system happens in pitiful, warm little streams that can't support large, resident trout in any number (tule chinook) or too late in the year for trout to take direct advantage of all of that food (upper river and snake springers, bright fall chinook, coho and chum). Spawning steelhead are a non factor since they dont mass spawn and dont die on site.

The abundance of early fall chinook does contribute to some nice resident populations in the PNW, just not on the Alaska scale. Dflea can tell you that big trout exist in Puget sound streams like the Skagit as well as on the peninsula where there are some pinks as well. The Deschutes just up the road from me here has decent size trout in good densities and the chinook spawners certainly contribute to that.

TLDR...there are a few thoughts on it...

chuck said:

YellowSnow said:

chuck said:

YellowSnow said:

So why are there massive resident bows in the rivers of Alaska which rely upon dead salmon for protein, but the bows in the PNW had to migrate or starve? Wouldn't our? rivers have dead salmon to eat as well?

@MisterEm @chuck @dannarc @dflea ??

I've typed and deleted two long replies to your question and never came close to finishing either. Way too much to try to type out.

It's a function of so many things...geology of the watersheds and real broad scale factors, but also simply the timing, number and density of the salmon runs. We dont get the succession of enormous spawning runs, in a concentrated time frame while feeding and growing conditions for trout are optimal, like coastal Alaskan streams.

Pinks and sockeye are the most numerous there but pinks barely exist in the lower 48.
Almost all of the sockeye go to a couple of isolated places. Spawning in the Columbia system happens in pitiful, warm little streams that can't support large, resident trout in any number (tule chinook) or too late in the year for trout to take direct advantage of all of that food (upper river and snake springers, bright fall chinook, coho and chum). Spawning steelhead are a non factor since they dont mass spawn and dont die on site.

The abundance of early fall chinook does contribute to some nice resident populations in the PNW, just not on the Alaska scale. Dflea can tell you that big trout exist in Puget sound streams like the Skagit as well as on the peninsula where there are some pinks as well. The Deschutes just up the road from me here has decent size trout in good densities and the chinook spawners certainly contribute to that.

TLDR...there are a few thoughts on it...

There's not a single river on the west side of the Cascades in WA with large resident trout. Event the streams on the East Slope for resident trout pales in comparison to MT, WY or ID. The Yakima could be better but it's basically run an one big irrigation ditch vs blue ribbion trout fishing. I caught an 18" bow in downtown Cle Elum once that must have been the world record for that stretch of the Yakima.

Oh there are big residents in west side rivers We see them all the time, though theres a big drop off at about 16 inches and a gap between the residents and smallest steelhead.

We once shocked a 16.5 inch brook trout in one of the upper spawning tribs in the watershed I work in. This was in mid summer, with maybe 2-3cfs, out of a 3' deep pool with a small root wad in it.

The Lewis above Swift has large rainbow and cutthroat...1-2 big fish per pool. There are also very large, over 10lb, adfluvial bull trout in the Lewis. They dont need to go to the ocean to get big because the reservoir is full of food fish.

The ri er I work on has a 13-16 inch rainbow in just about every large pool in the lower 10 miles. The upper river has them too, just a bit less numerous.

I know these examples are nothing like the Alaska example. There you have huge numbers of spawning salmon in good water quality in the lower reaches of rivers. It's a trout factory. It's nothing like the east side, the upper snake, Yellowstone, or upper Missouri system where bug densities can support high #s of big trout. I'm just saying they are there.

Anadromy is just a more successful strategy on the west side. Theres a biological imperative to get big so you can make more babies. The ones that dont do it get outnumbered quickly. In "my" river ther dont seem to be any female resident bows in the reaches accessible to steelhead. I've had my hands on thousands of ripe male trout over the years ranging from 4" to 18". Others working in the watershed have as well. Nobody that I know of has ever encountered a female.

I'm supposed to be working right now not rambling about this. Damn it.