Talk:Chinook salmon

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fishes High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alaska High‑importance Oregon Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Can someone find citeable info on "ivory salmon" to include in the article? --64.71.8.194 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Salmon refers to more than just a smaller Chinook salmon. It's a common item on restaurant menus in the midwest and it either refers to walleye or any number of fish known as whitings that are appetizing when fried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.166.173 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no distinction made between red fleshed and white fleshed chinook salmon in this article? --96.48.80.74 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered the same species and genus. The difference being ability or inability to metabolize carotenoids. See substrain Harrison Chinook, aka "nutcase". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.118.161 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

odd to me that Canada is hardly even mentioned here. Pretty important fish in BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a

New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Valfontis (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The statement in that there is no commercial aquaculture production of chinook in the US seems absurd. A quick google search turns up numerous links that say this is not true: http://www.cityfish.com/tips http://www.harborfish.com/products/product-detail.php?id=50 Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why someone in the US shouldn't farm Chinook, and at some stage it will probably happen. But I'm not sure it's happening yet. The links you offer are just marketing links, probably for farmed Chinook imported from New Zealand. The main NOAA link on Chinook salmon makes no mention of farming in the US, and I would have thought that if was happening they would mention it there. Can you find a reliable source? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting those sources forward as reliable sources for citations in the article, but rather as evidence that the unsourced statement there appears to be false. The point is, if we don't have any sources backing up the statement in the article, it should come out - especially since it appears to be false. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your links do not offer any "evidence that the unsourced statement there appears to be false" at all, and I'm surprised you would think that. But just delete the statement if it bothers you; it's too minor issue to spend time debating or even looking for a source. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/greatsalmonrun/SalmonReport_Ch_5.pdf page 64 if you please. The article was factually inaccurate as I suspected. I have removed the unsourced fabrication. Toddst1 (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your source properly. It mentions historical ventures in Canada and the US which ultimately failed (as indeed does the Wikipedia article itself), but nowhere does it state that chinook salmon is currently farmed in the US. The nearest would be the genetically modified salmon promoted by AquaBounty Technologies. This engineered salmon contains a gene construct which includes a Chinook salmon gene sequence to stimulate a growth hormone. As far as I know, it is not yet a commercial operation, and even if it were you could hardly call it Chinook farming. At some stage, could be anytime, someone will no doubt start successfully farming Chinook in the US. If Chinook farming is in fact taking place in the US, then it should be easy to find the actual site, and perhaps a web page published by the producer. If you are having trouble doing this, then it is probably because there are none to find.

You are perfectly entitled to remove a statement someone added without a source. However, the statement was added by Kraw005 as part of a series of generally knowledgeable and well sourced additions. You should not accuse him of making a "fabrication". --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there are 2 lifecycle sections. We need to merge them. There's a lot there to merge. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the graph showing trends in annual aquaculture production of farmed salmon shows that Canada used to be the major producer and production ended very abruptly in 2004. Either the data being graphed is bogus or incomplete, or the aquaculture of this species collapsed dramatically in Canada around 2004, which should be worth mentioning the reason of.Eregli bob (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is unacceptable language to throw around, bogus graph. Even if the graph had an error in it, to call it bogus is bordering on defamatory. In fact the graph faithfully charts the data reported by the

FAO, the definitive authority on these matters. Check it yourself on their data base. Then go and tell them that they are bogus. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, Statistics Canada is the definitive statistical authority. Organisations such as the FAO only collect information from national statistical agencies.Eregli bob (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, so there was a catastrophic collapse of the Canadian chinook salmon aquaculture industry then ? Care to explain why ? Eregli bob (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't find a reference to it. It's not appropriate to call it "catastrophic". We're talking about only 10 to 15,000 tonnes a year, which might be catastrophic to a fish farm, but globally is a very small amount. Maybe pathogens cleaned them out. That easily happens with farmed fish. Look around and you might find some references yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK at the graph which you claim is definitive! It shows the aquaculture production of Canada going from the largest in the world, to zero, in one year, and staying at zero. This did not happen ! Perhaps the right wing Canadian government declined to send in their statistic report to the FAO, who knows, but that FAO graph is BOGUS. Statistics Canada's report show NO decline in the quantity or value of farmed salmon in Canada through to 2009. FAO stupid, bogus and incorrect graph stands out like a sore thumb. It fails the basic credibility test, and should be replaced.Eregli bob (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you fail the basic credibility test talking in such shrill and immoderate ways. You should consider some other hobby. There are other species of salmon that are farmed in much greater quantities, which explains those statistics. Look at the other Wikipedia articles on salmon to get a feel for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The range map doesn't appear to be entirely accurate. If it is correct, then the salmon's range goes deep into the Great Basin, which is somewhat impossible due to a lack of outlets to the ocean. It also seems to ignore important spawning habitats like the Columbia River and historical spawning habitats like the Snake River and its tributaries.

I think it would be a good idea to find a better source for information about its range. - Bardbom (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• These seem like valid points. The map is based on the FAO range map, which is generally a reliable and definitive source of information on fish ranges. But this particular range map does seem a little odd. Another source, about equally reliable, would be this range map from
  Fishbase (click to enlarge). This second map makes more sense to me. I drew the original map, so perhaps you might be willing to have a go at the second map? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

On second thoughts, I think the original map is fairly accurate. The fishbase map is for wild salmon. The FAO map is for wild and farmed salmon. The penetration into the Great Basin is due to the presence of aquaculture installations. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the Great Basin. To my knowledge, there are no salmon aquaculture installations there, and it would be extremely odd for there to be any. The only ones that I know of are dedicated to trout and other fish native in that area. If you can find any, I'll concede the point, but it's a really poor area for it, given the general lack of water (it is the driest region in the United States), so I have my doubts. It also doesn't explain the complete lack of range markings along the Columbia and its tributaries, many of which have plenty of wild salmon, as well as several aquaculture installations dedicated to them.

The Fishbase.com map seems more accurate, but the lack of zoom capability would make it hard to derive a map from it.- Bardbom (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no current aquaculture in the Great Basin according to the FAO's own data. And Fishbase shows no sign of salmon along the Columbia. We cannot really start making a map of our own without reliable sources, even if we agree with how it should look. For that reason, I've removed the range map. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching around, and I've found a couple of maps that I think are more authoritative on this subject. The first is from the USGS, and shows the native habitat range of the species in the Western United States as well as records of collected specimens. Only a handful of salmon have been collected in the Great Basin; all of them were stocked in the late 1800s for sport fishing in only two locations, and the last recorded specimen was collected in 1910. I do not believe this warrants inclusion on the map; it is neither a historic native range, nor is it a current range, native or otherwise.

The other two maps are from the NOAA, and show the native range in the Northern Pacific area as well as a more detailed look on its current status detailed map of designated critical habitat areas in the Western US. These along with the USGS maps would probably be better to use as a basis for the range map in these areas (I'm assuming that the current map is accurate for the southern Pacific).

Another question would be whether or not to include the introduced range as well, which extends into the Great Lakes and Atlantic seaboard area. - Bardbom (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these seem more useful, particularly for the Western United States. The original range maps clearly refer to the freshwater or spawning phase only, and don't address the ocean phase. The map for New Zealand is also over simplified, and refers mainly to aquaculture. I suppose we could produce a sort of hybrid map from your sources for wild salmon, and leave the aquaculture out of it. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was reviewing this article and I noticed the most recent information in the article seems to be from 2010. Is there updated information on the populations more current to today? Sarah.Logan55 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarah.Logan55 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ENVSstudent104.

Bibliography I have started on for research to add to articleSarah.Logan55 (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC):[reply]

Ohlberger, Jan; Ward, Eric J; Schindler, Daniel E; Lewis, Bert (2018-02-27). "Demographic changes in Chinook salmon across the Northeast Pacific Ocean". Fish and Fisheries. 19 (3): 533–546. doi:10.1111/faf.12272. ISSN 1467-2960.

^ Singer, Gabriel P.; Chapman, Eric D.; Ammann, Arnold J.; Klimley, A. Peter; Rypel, Andrew L.; Fangue, Nann A. (2020-05-01). "Historic drought influences outmigration dynamics of juvenile fall and spring-run Chinook Salmon". Environmental Biology of Fishes. 103 (5): 543–559. doi:10.1007/s10641-020-00975-8. ISSN 1573-5133. ^ Johnson, Bobbi M.; Kemp, Brian M.; Thorgaard, Gary H. (2018-01-10). "Increased mitochondrial DNA diversity in ancient Columbia River basin Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha". PLOS ONE. 13 (1): e0190059. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190059. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5761847. PMID 29320518. ^ Hamilton, John B.; Rondorf, Dennis W.; Tinniswood, William R.; Leary, Ryan J.; Mayer, Tim; Gavette, Charleen; Casal, Lynne A. (2016-09-22). "The Persistence and Characteristics of Chinook Salmon Migrations to the Upper Klamath River Prior to Exclusion by Dams". Oregon Historical Quarterly. 117 (3): 326–378.

Basic information to add to this article: the etymology of the word "Tyee." 76.190.213.189 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebecca Beecham Gotzl:, since it was added, the conservation status had been sourced to natureserve.org, which maintains a different status system than iucnredlist.org. IUCN does not have a status assessment for this species. I would prefer to give an IUCN status, if one existed, but the only sourceable status is TNC/NatureServe. Plantdrew (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I see back and forth about the two systems, possibly based on nationality, and wonder whether Wikipedia has guidelines about their use. Moreover, Chinook conservation is a very political topic in the northeast Pacific, and the article is badly out of date—not that I am the person who can fix it. Rebecca Beecham Gotzl (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcophone (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rcophone (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]