Columbia River Shad?

Alosa

Active Member
#20
They are not native to the NW rivers but I've never read that they are causing harm to the native fish. Which is a good thing.
Craig Haskell (USGS) just published a paper in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society which demonstrated that the feeding of abudant juvenile shad in the John Day Reservoir is responsible for the seasonal decline of both the size and number of Daphnia, which are an important dietary component of sub-yearling chinook.

They were originally planted in the Sacramento River by a guy who brought them from the East Coast via rail.
Yeah Seth Green introduced them to the Sacramento River in 1871, and they were first observed in the Columbia by 1876. I wrote a couple articles on this, so if any wants them PM me with your email address and I'll pass them along.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#21
Craig Haskell (USGS) just published a paper in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society which demonstrated that the feeding of abudant juvenile shad in the John Day Reservoir is responsible for the seasonal decline of both the size and number of Daphnia, which are an important dietary component of sub-yearling chinook.
Interesting, I'm not aware of much chinook spawning in the John Day Pool/Reservoir so I wouldn't consider it rearing habitat. Wouldn't most juvenile chinook in this area be passing through as smolts? Are juvenile shad consuming enough Daphnia to reduce chinook smolt survival? If so shad, as an invasive species, should be eradicated...though I'd like to catch a few before eradication commences.
 
#24
People keep them for sturgeon bait as well. We pickled them and they were decent. I probably wouldnt keep them again, they were alot of work to descale and such. But they sure are fun on a fly. Its a early morning game.
 

Luke77

I hope she likes whitefish
#26
We smoke them, pressure cook, and can them so you don't have to worry about the bones. Then we make a smoked fish cracker dip out of them.

You wouldn't even know it was shad.
 

Shad

Active Member
#29
Haven't eaten any of my namesake, but I can tell you that you'll not find a better bait fish. Once or twice a season, I whore a ride with a friend to fish Grays Harbor during the salmon opener. Sometimes, we incidentally catch shad that are barely larger than the herring we troll. Each time, a cut plug rigging of one of those has been converted into a (carefully released) chinook in short order. Same deal at Buoy 10 (although those URBs are released into the fish box).

"Poor man's tarpon" is an apt name for shad. Their sides are adorned with the biggest, shiniest scales you'll find, and I think that's what makes them so effective. An added bonus (if you're like me and hate re-baiting herring all the time) is the hard bone that runs along their bellies. It keeps them intact through the many bumps along the bottom that occur when you're fishing right.
 

Alosa

Active Member
#30
If so shad, as an invasive species, should be eradicated...though I'd like to catch a few before eradication commences.

You're a funny guy. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the shad spawning run on the Columbia? Think MILLIONS, and that's just what gets counted at Bonneville. Preliminary tagging data suggests that only about one half of the spawning run actually ascends Bonneville Dam to continue upriver. The other half find suitable spawning habitat below. Eradication would be a huge waste of money...it rarely ever works.
 

Latest posts