Maybe 63" and 69" was meant to be the weight??????

Typo there - 63" and 2nd best of 59" (not 69) The big boy stretched from by adams apple to the ground. Both the same year ('88) beneath Bonneville dam. Both bucks. Layers of meat at least 1/4" thick between layers of fat. Had no concept of conservation back then and grilled up platter-sized steaks.

Those were some serious gene-pool boys from way back. Caught in October beneath Bonneville but they didn't match up with anything I know about lower-river tules. And, if they were still under bonneville in Oct doesn't seem they would be upriver fish. We were mostly fishing for silvers. Anybody know of a lower-river fish strain of that size? I've got several prints of the big one along with others in the 40-50 lb range we caught that same day. I'll have to dig 'em out of my picture box in storage on a rained-out weekend and post em. Had a little color to it towards the tail - not unlike Kenai fish. Meat cut bright red with plenty of fat still layered in there like an upriver fish not like a tule. Caught a lot of big fish in the big river since but never any others significantly above the 45# range.

PS I guestimated the weight of the fish at that time to be 60 lbs - never weighed it but did put the tape to it. Once I get the pic posted maybe someone in the know can estimate it's weight and tell me what I caught.

Big kings gain their weight in girth, not length. Heck, my Dad's 59 pound king was only 50 inches.

As Bob stated, Less's 98 pound Kenai king is under 60".

50# Chinook - Kenai with Doc
20# Coho - Hoh, Satsop, or Duc
20# Steelie - Quinault, Hoh, Sauk, Duc

As Strike Zone says...Good Luck!

Ike

Quinault, Raft, Quinault.