I would appreciate any feedback on my question. I just started fishing for the first time on the Milwaukee River as the Chinooks come in from Lake Michigan and I get all kinds of mixed answers from other fisherman at the river. I see people taking some, but.... If you can eat them is there a way to "test", or a "time table"? Also, a dumb question, but I saw someone cleaning one and the meat was white...I always thought it was supposed to be redish in color. Thanks for any input.

look at the fishes belly. That's the quickest way to tell. If it white it's good if it's just a little gray it's probablly good if it's a buck, iffy if it's a hen. if it's dark gray or black, let it go.

I've seen people eat chinooks in some pretty advanced states of coloration. However, I think the brighter the better should be the rule. The coloration of a salmon's flesh depends on his diet; The red coloration comes from the carotene in the euphausids and shrimp that the salmon have been dining on. Not knowing a lot about Great lakes salmon, I would assume that most would lack the bright red color typical of many, but not all, of our coastal fish. There are some races of coastal chinook (white kings)that seem to lack this color entirely. There was a discussion on this site a while back on the subject of these fish with a good deal of disagreement on whether they were better/same as/worse flavored than their more conventionally colored cousins.

It's one of those thing's that takes a little time and experiance to decide whether the fish is still in good enough condition to harvest.Like the other post replied,white belly is great,grayish is ok or so so,dark grayish is no way and then there is the total boot that is definatly a no go.After trial and error for a few season's you'll be a pro at deciding whether to keep or not to keep returning salmon.Even at that it still end's up being a 50/50 deal.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

Couldn't some of that fish be smoked if it's questionable...although I don't mean the really really dark ones. I have 2 SUPER recipes for salmon which turned us into "Oh we'll take it". One's covered with sesame seeds. I'll try to get it into Bob's receipe section shortly.....

If you have a really good smoking recipe, then even a dark fish will turn out OK. I've smoked some disgusting looking fish and I didn't like it but others said it was excellent. I guess it depends on what you are used to. If it is ugly I will use lots of brown sugar and lots of smoke and share it with people who don't fish.

whatabout silvers? I saw some people throw back a silver with (no fungus) a light red color ( over entire body ). What is the consensus with silvers?

In general a salmon's flesh is dependany upon its diet, the higher amount of shrimp and similar crustaceans the redder the meat is going to be. Keoterne or however its spelled is present in crustaceans and is transfered to the flesh of fish when they are consumed.
There are exceptions for example the white kings of the Fraser that are unable to transfer this pigment to their flesh.
The reason why a salmon's flesh will be white as it matures is because the these pigments are transfered into the eggs and the skin.
Ever notice the redness of sockeyes and silvers and some runs of kings. The pigment that was present in their flesh has now been transfered to their skin for various reasons, particulary mate selection.

Silver's will hold their meat color and flesh alot longer then a king,Some silver's will remain good even when the head is green and the body is red.But any salmon or steelhead that I catch with color goes to the smoker and the rest will end up on the table.It's one of those preferance thing's,that you figure out over time.Useully I fill the freezer with top quality meat early on in the season,so by the time fall fishing is here I can be a little more choosie when it comes to making these kind's of decision's.Thank god for a great sockeye season this year and an awsome ocean season.Good luck, STRIKE ZONE

Most of the posts so far deal with the quality of meat, but in the Great Lakes you also have to be aware of health advisories restricting the consumption of fish due to contaminants in tissues. On the Milwaukee River it is recommended that you only eat 1 meal/month of chinook <30" long and 1 meal every 2 mo of chinook >30". I think the contaminant of concern in the Milwaukee River and Lk. Michigan is PCBs.

Check out the following web-site (Wisconsin DNR) for more information.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/advisories/tables.PDF

scary!!!!

Hey Obssesed, now your tromping in my turf. I fish the Milwaukee alot, and that warning is a bunch of garbage. There is nothing wrong with fish that glow in the dark. They are great fighters, last forever, and are easy to sight fish. PCB's and flourocarbons could also be miracle cures for many ailments. Like living. LOL. You're right, there are actually warnings on a lot of the Lake Michigan tribs that say you shouldn't consume more than one fish per month. The worst part is the belly fat on the fish. Most guys take nothing but meat from the rib cage and higher. In all seriousness, the quality of the fish, and the water in the lake has improved dramatically in the last 10 years.

You guys always debate catch and release, and it's effectiveness. It works. If everyone in Washington was afraid of getting cancer from eating salmon and steelhead, they would release the fish, the Indians wouldn't net them, and you would be up to your sphincters in fighting fish just like us. Sounds like it's time for a fish consumption scare in Washington.

Gotta go now, as I am headed to the Milwaukee tomorrow to catch those nuclear savages. Should be a 50 plus fish day tomorrow without a problem. Long live the fish scare. Ouch, I'm glowing.

Hey Hawk

Didn't mean to diss the Great Lakes, just did a little work for Wisconsin DNR a couple of years back. Bottom line its a question of water volume and area, not pollution. The Great Lakes are big, but there's no where for the water to go. Over here the water gets flushed by the Pacific Ocean (just a little bigger) such that tinkling over your boat eventually winds up in the Phillipines or whereever. And the salmon also do this thing around much of the Pacific rim as well. I can't imagine any less pollution in some of our wonderful urban bays.

I think drone urine is loaded with PCB's. Seriously, you guys ought to create a panic about your fish being unsafe to eat. That should dry up the market for fish caught by nets, and create a wonderland for the sporties. I'm sure PETA would help.

You are right. Although they are large in size, the Great Lakes, are like a closed eco-system. One giant pond. The water level in all of the lakes is close to three feet below normal.

We do love those PCB laced salmonids. Not many ather places you can go and bang three or four dozen fish in a good day.

Take care

Bug eyed glowing savages,sounds like fun.Most of the pcb's in Salmon collect in that mushy grey stuff were the lateral line is.Tough call on Salmon when you go by skin color for example the Kings that go up the lower Puget Sound rivs are from the Kalama River fall Chinook and by the time they hit the terminal fishing areas are already dark in color.Don't know about the Great Lakes fish but it might be the same.

Hawk, you never cease to amaze me! Seriously, man, and I'm not being sarcastic either. That idea about causing panic by spreading word about contaminated salmonids here in the NW is a good one.

It would ruin the commercials as they would only be able to sell fish to fertilizer dealers for pennies a fish and it would create a tremendous demand for farm-raised fish(which all commercially sold fish should be anyway) and the increased revenues from farmed fish sales would allow for the construction of new fish farms. As the supply of farmed fish increases, the Commercials will not be able to compete with falling prices of farmed fish and soon the commercials would be all washed up(sorry, bad pun). Good thinking, Hawk. Now, guys, how do we get this to fly?

Justin
CEO, Sauk River Steelhead Ranch