Where are the jacks?

[Kodiak1]

I've been watching the Bonneville salmon counts, and almost 350 salmon crossed this past weekend. The interesting thing is that only one was a jack. Last year we had huge numbers of jacks, portending to a big run this year. If these percentages hold up this year, the run for next year is going to be dismal at best. Better make this the year to go salmon fishing in Idaho!! Am I missing something? Mike
[signature]

[STEELHEADKID]

The old jack theory is dust in the wind and not an accurate prediction tool any longer. If it was we would have over a million fish returning to idaho........ At this point I bet we are lucky to see a little over 100,000 over lower granite
[signature]

[pookiebar]

Jacks in the wild are unsuccessful at spawning. Due to their small size they typically run and die without spawning. In the past hatcheries would use their sperm, stupid idea, and now they don't. Hopefully the jacks will all be gone from the system in time, because a high number of jacks actually indicates a system that is under stress.
[signature]

[Mojo1]

[quote pookiebar]Jacks in the wild are unsuccessful at spawning. Due to their small size they typically run and die without spawning. In the past hatcheries would use their sperm, stupid idea, and now they don't. Hopefully the jacks will all be gone from the system in time, because a high number of jacks actually indicates a system that is under stress.[/quote]

Not to be a jerk, but where did you get your data?

I think you have been given some bad information. First, the gene that causes males to come back a year early (as a Jack) is the same gene that causes females to stay an extra year in the ocean. The Idaho Fish and Game has purposly spawned jacks and extra salt females to spread out the run ( [url "http://www.fws.gov/pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview/Reports/snakeriver/DW--008Dworshak%20NFH%20Spring%20Chinook%20HGMP.pdf"]http://www.fws.gov/pacific/fisheries/hatcheryreview/Reports/snakeriver/DW--008Dworshak%20NFH%20Spring%20Chinook%20HGMP.pdf[/url] ). It is a genetic trait that has allowed salmon to fill in the gaps (so to speak) caused by low water/poor survival years and one time natural disasters, such as slides and ash saturation after large fires. This process continues at Dworshack and Rapid River hatcheries.

Additionally, jacks do spawn in the wild. Their viability has been observed to be between 6% and 10%, which parallels ( although a little lower) 4 year old and 5 year old ( 2 and 3 salt) fish.

Jack numbers have nothing to do with stress, but instead is a genetic factor. See the following website...( [url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v89/n4/abs/6800141a.html"]http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v89/n4/abs/6800141a.html[/url] ) Having jacks extirpated from a river system would (in essence) chlorinate the gene pool, and reduce wild salmon's chances of restoration in the long term.
[signature]

[chrome_junky]

get em Mojo1! lol good info it was very informative.
[signature]

[AverysAdventure]

Nice write up Mojo1 - thanks!
[signature]

[Kodiak1]

Great info, Mojo. Furthermore, referring to predictions based on jacks as "dust in the wind" is simply not accurate. Yes, it is not always reliable, but neither is any other indicator. Washington Fish and Wildlife made this year's predictions on several indicators, but their primary source was high jack returns last year, according to their press release. Mike
[signature]

[Mojo1]

In reality using jack numbers as the prime indicator of next years returns is "dust in the wind" for 2 reasons. 1) the IDF&G has been artificially propogating Jacks (and 5 year old or 3 salt hens by the way...) for several years, artificially raising the numbers, but no one really know how much the numbers have gone up. 2) jacks can swim through 4.5" tangle nets that the commercials are using for springers right now. These 2 factors lead to higher jack counts at the dams, and higher estimates for next years runs, if that is the only factor considered.

Back to my other post, one thing I left out was, by wiping out jacks, you would also wipe out those big 3 salt females we all want to catch so badly...
[signature]

[pookiebar]

[url "http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Static/Statewide/regulations/southeast/SEfresh.pdf"]http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Static/Statewide/regulations/southeast/SEfresh.pdf[/url]

Well your information is very well researched, and I am not going to argue with you on it.

I worked in alaska for 5 years as a fishing guide. The regulations there are such that you may either keep all fish under 16 inches, hence a "jack" and it does not count toward you bag limit. Or with the case of King salmon, which you southerners call "Chinook", fish under 20 inches you can keep 10 of them. I volunteered at a hatchery a few times each summer and when I asked the manager why the "jacks" don't count towards your bag limit he gave the explanation I did earlier.

Sorry for no scientific reference. But I will say this, if Idaho opened it up so you could keep more jacks; say 2 jacks equals one regular salmon; I would target the little suckers. Hands down they are twice as tasty as their big brothers and sisters!!
[signature]

[Mojo1]

I agree they eat good. Last season on the Clearwater we could keep 4 salmon, only 1 adult (and when you tagged your adult you were through). If you got 3 jacks and one adult, you were a winner. Some people got 1 adult rifght out of the box and had to sit while watching their friends fish all day. Good times, but lead to heavy beer drinking and threats of getting pitched out of the boat... but I digress. Idaho did let people keep some jacks without tagging them last year. We BBQed a couple for shore lunches, MONEY!
[signature]

[chrome_junky]

mmmmmm.....[]that a boy!
[signature]