![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
how much detail should be listed in the Tributaries section? should the Coquihalla River be listed, for example? -- Doviende 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing is mentioned about the yearly flooding, and especially the major flooding concerns today.
70.69.51.111
06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed that a few hours ago and thought maybe I'd better make some comments here; I'm too used to taking liberties with edit comments and putting reasons for stuff there ;-) Lately I've been working with the WPWash and WPOreg folks on Columbia River, which they've got close to, if not at, FA status, and it's a magnum opus or river articles. I'm not in a position to augment the Fraser article from where I am (Halifax) although through discussion I'm able to offer ideas/hithces and all that; there are a few key subarticles:
But back to the main Fraser article; it's sorely lacking, sorry to say; I encourage the regional editors to start adding to/augmenting it....we can do better than this. As in the previous section, separate articles on the Great Fraser Flood of 1894 and Great Fraser Flood of 1948, by whatever titles, are more than worthwhile and there's lots of images for both; maybe once I get finished with the Interior steamboats stuff I'll get back to these floods, but again I don't have a lot of print sources on hand, just personal knowledge that somebody else will ahve to cite for me; also the New Westminster Great Fire has been needing as standalone article for a while; Vancouver's fire has its own, yes? No? Not sure.... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Addition by Pfly:
Uh, the journey down the Fraser doesn't involve penetration of the Coast Mountains, rather the skirting of their southeastern/southern end; the Cascade Range is the left bank (east bank) - the Fraser Canyon does not pass through the Coast Mountains. And, er, at teh time in fact, the CM were still called "the Cascades" (not "Cascade Range"; see the BCGNIS for Coast Mountains about that). The first journey non-indigenous journey I know of through the Coast Mountains after A. Mackenzie in 1793 was Francis Ermatinger and sidekick (can't remember who) on a reconnaissance of what would later become the Lakes Route; I think the year was 1828, maybe 1827; that route transits the Coast Mountains and in a sense "crosses" them by linking Interior and Coast regions; I'm not sure when overland contact on other possible routes was first made, e.g. the Bentinck Arm and Bute Inlet routes; sometime well after 1858 though; Lieut. Mayne's explorations are teh first formal explorations c. 1860, include penetration of the Lillooet-Toba route and a trip from Lillooet to Fort Chilcotin (via the Yalakom River, sounds like, but his journal doesn't describe the trip in any detail) and from there west to the sea; I think at Bentinck Arm. Anyway, what can be said about Simpson is his trip was the first through the Fraser Canyon by a non-indigenous person since Simon F's journey. Gotta compare dates with that Ermatinger trip, though; which was before or after the other.... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
From the Geography section: After 100 kilometres (about 60 mi), it forms a delta... After 100 km from what? From where it exits the Fraser Canyon? The text is unclear here. Pfly ( talk) 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Another comment, especially wrt the above thread about early HBC trips through the Coast Mountains. The article's Geography section currently says: It then issues from the Coast Mountains from a deep canyon (the Fraser Canyon) about 270 km (170 mi) long. Ok, does the Fraser cross the Coast Mountains or not. I think not. This text implies it does though. Pfly ( talk) 04:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Good mornin ya'll
Just wanted 2 point out, the Sumallo River is a tributary of the Skagit River, not the Fraser, so I took it off the tributary list.
Also, whether they were taken off the list or just never added, the tributary list is missing several major tributaries, all of which enter the river near Moose Lake. They are Yellowhead Creek (the outlet stream from Yelowhead Lake), the Moose River, Robson River & Swiftcurrent Creek. So, I thought I'd add them since all of them r significant tributaries.
Have a nice day everyone!
AndrewEnns ( talk) 9:44, 02 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.161.11 ( talk)
Not sure why that is; neither the Pitt nor Coquitlam are displaying; the Coquitlam's not really a major tributary (there are many others considerably larger, e.g. the Stein, Nahatlatch, Anderson and various in the Robson Valley area) so it doesn't ahve to be there; but the Pitt, as the largest-by-volume (I think - gotta be larger than the Thompson or Nechako!) certainly does). Skookum1 ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe the Fraser begins in Yellowhead Pass. It may start near Yellowhead Pass, however, I believe the river's true source is in a small, unnamed lake just west of Fraser Pass. On Google Earth, the little link to the Fraser River Page is on the little lake I'm referring to, which leads me to believe that is the widely accepted, true source of the mighty Fraser.
AndrewEnns ( talk) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When I wrote the above message which you replied to about the river's source, I didn't actually know where Yellowhead Pass was lol. Anyway, I used basemap to find it (I finally took your advice about using basemap) & its located between the headwaters of Yellowhead Creek & the Miette River. So does that basically mean the stream labeled on basemap as Yellowhead Creek I was actually planning on making an article on it) is actually the Fraser River? That seems pretty odd. Now I'm officially confused.
AndrewEnns ( talk) 03:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at the basemap yet? have a look at it, that is where I found out that the river extends all the way up to Fraser Pass. Note, also the BCGNIS page says that Moose Lake is an expansion of the river, not the source. Also, the BCGNIS page for the Moose River says "it flows into the Fraser above Moose Lake, so there is reason to believe that the river extends well above Moose Lake. AS for making articles on the Moose River, [[Yellowhead Creek & Yellowhead Lake, I think I will do that sometime soon. Have a look at the basemap and tell me what you think.
AndrewEnns ( talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL Well its good to get that all fixed up. NEXT TOPIC OF CONFUSION PLZ!!! HAHA! Anyhow, yeah either that little lake just west of Fraser Pass or the joining of all those little streams is the offcial source of the Fraser, you decide. As for other articles, I plan on making Yellowhead Creek & Yellowhead Lake, the Moose River, maybe Moose Lake, the Robson River (I've made a stub for one of its 4 waterfalls - Emperor Falls) & Swiftcurrent Creek. I will also see if I can make Herrick Creek & the Raush River as well. Also, I think I will expand your stubs on the Torpy, McGregor & Milk. To make a long story short, hopefully I will try to look at doing or expanding all the articles mentioned by you here, however, as you can see, thats a fair bit of work, so I guess I just gotta go one article at a time and I should be good.
Thanx for helping me figure this out tho
Gnite
Hello Everyone
Just so everyone knows, the source of the Fraser (coordinates & all) have been changed (now that I finally got around to doing it) finally! Skookum1 & I carefully discussed it & we both agreed it for sure does NOT start at Yellowhead Pass. For it to do that, the creek known as Yellowhead Creek would have to be the Fraser & Yellowhead Lake (I made that stub by the way) would... well... have to be... Fraser Lake? Then what we call the Fraser Lake out near Vanderhoof (the guys who live next door to me are moving there this summer LOL)? Good thing the river was named the way it was!
Anyhow, I'm just letting everyone know of the long needed change!
Peace Everyone
AndrewEnns ( talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the example of the Columbia River article, and others also within BC where the indigenous name is used in the lede somewhere, and in the infobox, the question here is which of the names/spellings might apply. Sto:lo with or without diacriticals is only the Halkomelem name, and I'm not sure as ever whether the diacriticals are appropriate for referring to the whole group, beyond the bounds of the tribal council (the STC) which prefers that way of spelling/orthography; its name in Skwxwu7jkesh or Shishalh doesn't really apply, although those would be good to have of course; but whiel I suspect that in Nlaka'apamux and Shuswap it might be Staulo or Stahlo, which is how it's transcribed in Kamloops Wawa in its Chinook Jargon lexicon. I've seen in early accounts but I wouldn't know in modern Thompson or Shuswap how it should be spelled; in Lillooet I think it's related to Setl or Sat', which is the name of the Bridge River Fishing Grounds and also the basis of the term "St'at'i'mc/Stl'atl'imx (peple of Setl/Sat'" - "people of the Fraser" (originally that term applied only to bands in the area of Lillooet and the Tslalh'mc and N'Quatqu'mx of Seton and D'Arcy were together "the lakes people" (rendered by Edwards as Lexalexamux, but I've seen no modern corroboration of that, i.e. academic/indigenous sources)and the term Lillooet only applied to Lil'wat, and not all of the Lower Lillooet; Teit comments that in Thompson and Shuswap languages/versions, there was no common name for the people west of the Fraser, and that th tertm " Slatlemuk "had no meaning; unless it does mean "river people" in those languages spun off their name for the Frser; I think there was a separate term or qualifier, for lesser streams; but each had a name. Farther upstream in Fraser's journals there's this term Tacoutche Tesse, which was what was thought tobe the name of the Columbia (which is what Fraser hoped the river was), I don't know what language it's in, it may not be Carrier. Names used by the Tshilqot'in and [[Okanagan people}|Okanagan]] would also be good to have, and Lummi, Nooksack, Straits, the Island/Downriver Dialects etc...Languages needed for all present on the river itself are Hunquminum, Halqemeylem (whose spakers were known as the Fraser River Salish or Fraser River Indians (and omsetimes called Cowidgins/Cowichans...), Nlaka'pamuctsin, Lillooet/St'at'imcets/, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemctsn, Carrier and Sekani; but any found can be added; the primary one I guess is Sto:lo/Staulo since so many areas use it or a form of it; but then, as I started mentioning, which spelling to use; beucase "Sto:lo" is expressly Halqemeylem, with or without diacriticals; the old anglicization up and down the river as far as I suppose, Williams Lake, was Stalo/Staulo/Stahlo/Stl; above that the Carrier and Sekani terms are probably similar, and related to the Chilcotin one....its Chilcotin form is, just guessing, likely to end in /-ko/ like Chilko and Taseko. There's likely different terms depending on which group of Carrier, too, e.g. the Ulkatchos vs those in Prince George ( Lheidli Tenneh). Skookum1 ( talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't actually participated in the current edit dispute about flow rates. However for all involved I have located the paper being cited as the source for the new numbers: here the /publ/ section of the address was left out so the link in the edit summaries was not linking correctly. -- Kevmin ( talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
you guys will make up any excuse to keep your contributes in play, calling down all others opinions or facts and SKOOKUM1 THe Fraser river is no where near the size or depth or lenth of the Congo River in Africa but obviously you have never been there have you, so what makes you think that your right when your world is so small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfictionary ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've found an authoritative primary source at FedGov - Water Survey Canada but haven't been able to get it to load (timeout errors), i.e. the "Archived Hydrometric Data" link, which goes back to mid-19th C. - see the Fraser River entries under F, in the Station Name Index - here. The station for main flow is "Fraser River at New Westminster", as below that the data is for different channels/arms. Station number for that Archived Hydrometric Data is 08MH025. Seems like the information avaiable will also enable us to make a flow-chart for the Fraser at different points along its length, i.e. above/below each main tributary; might make a nice chart huh? Anyway I can't get that site to load, maybe someone else can, and we can have a resolution to this silly dispute and the childish behaviour about it; an authoritative source is an authoritative source, i.e. the hydrometric data; other reports whether fraserbasin.bc.ca or MoE's flood summary are actually secondary sources, not primary.16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the hydrometric station data will not answer this question. Here's an interesting source: Comprehensive Review of Fraser River at Hope: Flood Hydrology and Flows--Scoping Study, Final Report, October 2008. Prepared for: BC Ministry of Environment. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants (but note it says, "this project was conducted under the guidance of Bill Kuhnke, P.Eng. and Neil Peters, P.Eng. of the BC Ministry of Environment, who together with Ron Henry, P.Eng., also of BC Ministry of Environment, reviewed the draft report and provided valuable comments."--sounds good to me). Some key passages:
Gotta run, more later! Pfly ( talk) 18:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Notes on what you've found out:
That's all for now; I'll probably see something in your items again once I post this but these are all thoughts ensuant upon the flow-rate debate and what else is needed to improve the article. Skookum1 ( talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
NB Fraser Delta isn't just from New West/Queensborough downstream; it's everything up to Rosedale Prairie/ Sea Bird Island, in pockets flanking the river, as defined by BC Gov via Holland's source; I can't remember if it's considered to include Flood- Laidlaw....the Fraser Valley begins at Hope, but does teh Delta?? There's a highways/tourism sign at the crest pull-out of the Agassiz Mountain stretch of Highway 7 (the mountain is actually Mount Woodside) taht says the view marks the beginning of the Delta (though Sea Bird Island would be out of view beyond and as an extension of Agassiz Prairie, to the left/east; Seabir'ds more of a canyon island, though floodplain, though; there is a mountain wall between it and agassiz prairie, but only a short strtch; if it's included in the Detla, then the Detla begins at Ruby Creek, which seems odd to me. as it's a very mountainous neighbourhood right there) And btw I finally figured out a conundrum that has always bothered me; Yale is at the mouth of the canyon. but Hope is where the valley and the canyon meet; what Yale is at the mouth of is the Little Canyon (the Big Canyon or Black Canyon stretching from Spuzzum to Boston Bar...). Hope is at the mouth of the Fraser Canyon, overall, the Canyon, which is also something of a cultural unit, though both Hope and Yale are aligned Coast-wise as far as Interior/Coast goes, though Yale is by definition an "Interior town" as the Valley, part of the Coast, only begins at Hope; it's because of its old role as a port town and at one time the biggest industrial camp in BC (CPR construction base) that, though in the Interior, culturally/historically it's part of the Coast; similarly it and Spuzzum and the end of the coastal climate area (though even Spuzzum can be dry when it's been raining in Yale for days....) not incidentally, it's also where Sto:lo territory ends; Spuzzum is Nlaka'pamux, so there's an "ethnographic fit" to the Coast inclusion; just a side issue but relevant to any later discussions about what begins where in terms of the Fraser's geography, i.e .as the article grows. Hope, on the other hand, has always related up-canyon and it's something of a commercial centre for people from the Canyon towns, as it has more services and commercial/retail offerings, and at least south of Lytton is a lot of an easier drive than up to Cache Creek/Ashcroft; some Lyttonites will shop in Lillooet for similar reasons. Geography of the Fraser River or Geography of the Fraser River basin might be a title for a core article, given all the landforms within the basin etc; we might think about or just start List of Fraser River-related topics though in a way that's already the disambiguation page isn't it? Skookum1 ( talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What I found useful, also, on that table, was the size of teh drainage basin for each river, at least above any given measuring station. In the case of the Klinaklini it would make sense to combine the two channels, since there's no common figure for the combined - or is that OR? As for the Squamish at Brackendale, hmmm that excludes the flow of the Mamquam which is quite large but I guess they have no measuring gauge below that (possibly because the course of the river below there is nearly all in Indian Reserve - ??) Skookum1 ( talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
this is a draft list, ensuant from revisions to List of islands of Canada#British Columbia and Lower Mainland articles; not ready to make a full list, but starting it here, partly from memory and otherwise from map reference; my estimate is there are about a hundred islands between Hope and the Strait of Georgia, not including minor sandbars...there may be a few above Hope, including Lady Franklin Rock and Saddle Rock (British Columbia). "Banks" e.g. Roberts Bank and the Sand Heads, should probably not be included....partly because they're not really in the Fraser River...rather offshore from it. I've included, potentially, "the Fraser River [and its tributaries] so Hatzic Island (in Hatzic Lake), Hullah's Island (in the lower Stave delta/oxbow adjacent to Silvermere Lake and Echo and Long Islands (in Harrison Lake) can be included.
That's in rough upstream order, obviously not alphabetical, and is a list of officially gazetted/named islands only. I haven't included sandbars, though maybe notable ones like Hill's Bar and Maria Bar should be so included; but some bars are not islands e.g. Yale Bar, Hope Bar (though Hill's and Maria are...or were though siltation may have changed that...). The note on Lower Mainland that there are almost a hundred islands in the Fraser is from either the Dept of Highways info sign on Highway 7 for "Fraser Delta", which is on Agassiz Mountain, overlooking Rosedale Prairie, or is in S. Holland's "Landforms of British Columbia". There are other smaller islands up the Fraser, some of them named; I may get to that later. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A huge white sturgeon weighing an estimated 0.91 kg (2 lb) and measuring 3.76 m (12 ft 4 in) was caught and released on the Fraser River in July 2012.
This would had to have been a very thin fish at 2 pounds....
Here's the correct info from ( http://greatriverfishing.com/world-record-sturgeon-fraser-river/)
It measured an astounding 12 feet and four inches, and while it was impossible to weigh it, charts indicate that its weight is about 1,100 pounds. It had a 53 inch girth measured below the pectoral fins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.69.113 ( talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the list I built here to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia#Sloughs list as it's not just Fraser sloughs or Lower Mainland sloughs. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I made a new, rather detailed map and added to the page. Let me know if there are any mistakes or problems. I based it on this nice map of the Rhine. It is obviously meant to be viewed at larger than thumbnail size. In time I'd like to add an inset (or separate map) of the Lower Mainland region, but that will have to wait. Pfly ( talk) 19:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking for a better source for the annual mean, minimum, and maximum discharges that is published but have not found one yet. Having a source on discharge from 1985 is seriously out-of-date. That's missing almost 30 years of data when that data does actually exist at multiple gauges (Hope and Mission?) along the river. I think this needs to be addressed if anyone can find a more authoritative source. Perhaps an actually published peer-reviewed paper would do well. -- Curoi ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fraser River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has this:
"it discharges 20 million tons of sediment into the ocean"
If interpreted literally then that's the total sediment the river has/will ever send into the ocean -- and I highly doubt that meaning is what is intended to convey. I would bet it's the annual rate but without access to good documentation I can't modify it. Anyone have a source? Linktex ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
how much detail should be listed in the Tributaries section? should the Coquihalla River be listed, for example? -- Doviende 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing is mentioned about the yearly flooding, and especially the major flooding concerns today.
70.69.51.111
06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed that a few hours ago and thought maybe I'd better make some comments here; I'm too used to taking liberties with edit comments and putting reasons for stuff there ;-) Lately I've been working with the WPWash and WPOreg folks on Columbia River, which they've got close to, if not at, FA status, and it's a magnum opus or river articles. I'm not in a position to augment the Fraser article from where I am (Halifax) although through discussion I'm able to offer ideas/hithces and all that; there are a few key subarticles:
But back to the main Fraser article; it's sorely lacking, sorry to say; I encourage the regional editors to start adding to/augmenting it....we can do better than this. As in the previous section, separate articles on the Great Fraser Flood of 1894 and Great Fraser Flood of 1948, by whatever titles, are more than worthwhile and there's lots of images for both; maybe once I get finished with the Interior steamboats stuff I'll get back to these floods, but again I don't have a lot of print sources on hand, just personal knowledge that somebody else will ahve to cite for me; also the New Westminster Great Fire has been needing as standalone article for a while; Vancouver's fire has its own, yes? No? Not sure.... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Addition by Pfly:
Uh, the journey down the Fraser doesn't involve penetration of the Coast Mountains, rather the skirting of their southeastern/southern end; the Cascade Range is the left bank (east bank) - the Fraser Canyon does not pass through the Coast Mountains. And, er, at teh time in fact, the CM were still called "the Cascades" (not "Cascade Range"; see the BCGNIS for Coast Mountains about that). The first journey non-indigenous journey I know of through the Coast Mountains after A. Mackenzie in 1793 was Francis Ermatinger and sidekick (can't remember who) on a reconnaissance of what would later become the Lakes Route; I think the year was 1828, maybe 1827; that route transits the Coast Mountains and in a sense "crosses" them by linking Interior and Coast regions; I'm not sure when overland contact on other possible routes was first made, e.g. the Bentinck Arm and Bute Inlet routes; sometime well after 1858 though; Lieut. Mayne's explorations are teh first formal explorations c. 1860, include penetration of the Lillooet-Toba route and a trip from Lillooet to Fort Chilcotin (via the Yalakom River, sounds like, but his journal doesn't describe the trip in any detail) and from there west to the sea; I think at Bentinck Arm. Anyway, what can be said about Simpson is his trip was the first through the Fraser Canyon by a non-indigenous person since Simon F's journey. Gotta compare dates with that Ermatinger trip, though; which was before or after the other.... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
From the Geography section: After 100 kilometres (about 60 mi), it forms a delta... After 100 km from what? From where it exits the Fraser Canyon? The text is unclear here. Pfly ( talk) 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Another comment, especially wrt the above thread about early HBC trips through the Coast Mountains. The article's Geography section currently says: It then issues from the Coast Mountains from a deep canyon (the Fraser Canyon) about 270 km (170 mi) long. Ok, does the Fraser cross the Coast Mountains or not. I think not. This text implies it does though. Pfly ( talk) 04:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Good mornin ya'll
Just wanted 2 point out, the Sumallo River is a tributary of the Skagit River, not the Fraser, so I took it off the tributary list.
Also, whether they were taken off the list or just never added, the tributary list is missing several major tributaries, all of which enter the river near Moose Lake. They are Yellowhead Creek (the outlet stream from Yelowhead Lake), the Moose River, Robson River & Swiftcurrent Creek. So, I thought I'd add them since all of them r significant tributaries.
Have a nice day everyone!
AndrewEnns ( talk) 9:44, 02 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.161.11 ( talk)
Not sure why that is; neither the Pitt nor Coquitlam are displaying; the Coquitlam's not really a major tributary (there are many others considerably larger, e.g. the Stein, Nahatlatch, Anderson and various in the Robson Valley area) so it doesn't ahve to be there; but the Pitt, as the largest-by-volume (I think - gotta be larger than the Thompson or Nechako!) certainly does). Skookum1 ( talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe the Fraser begins in Yellowhead Pass. It may start near Yellowhead Pass, however, I believe the river's true source is in a small, unnamed lake just west of Fraser Pass. On Google Earth, the little link to the Fraser River Page is on the little lake I'm referring to, which leads me to believe that is the widely accepted, true source of the mighty Fraser.
AndrewEnns ( talk) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When I wrote the above message which you replied to about the river's source, I didn't actually know where Yellowhead Pass was lol. Anyway, I used basemap to find it (I finally took your advice about using basemap) & its located between the headwaters of Yellowhead Creek & the Miette River. So does that basically mean the stream labeled on basemap as Yellowhead Creek I was actually planning on making an article on it) is actually the Fraser River? That seems pretty odd. Now I'm officially confused.
AndrewEnns ( talk) 03:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at the basemap yet? have a look at it, that is where I found out that the river extends all the way up to Fraser Pass. Note, also the BCGNIS page says that Moose Lake is an expansion of the river, not the source. Also, the BCGNIS page for the Moose River says "it flows into the Fraser above Moose Lake, so there is reason to believe that the river extends well above Moose Lake. AS for making articles on the Moose River, [[Yellowhead Creek & Yellowhead Lake, I think I will do that sometime soon. Have a look at the basemap and tell me what you think.
AndrewEnns ( talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL Well its good to get that all fixed up. NEXT TOPIC OF CONFUSION PLZ!!! HAHA! Anyhow, yeah either that little lake just west of Fraser Pass or the joining of all those little streams is the offcial source of the Fraser, you decide. As for other articles, I plan on making Yellowhead Creek & Yellowhead Lake, the Moose River, maybe Moose Lake, the Robson River (I've made a stub for one of its 4 waterfalls - Emperor Falls) & Swiftcurrent Creek. I will also see if I can make Herrick Creek & the Raush River as well. Also, I think I will expand your stubs on the Torpy, McGregor & Milk. To make a long story short, hopefully I will try to look at doing or expanding all the articles mentioned by you here, however, as you can see, thats a fair bit of work, so I guess I just gotta go one article at a time and I should be good.
Thanx for helping me figure this out tho
Gnite
Hello Everyone
Just so everyone knows, the source of the Fraser (coordinates & all) have been changed (now that I finally got around to doing it) finally! Skookum1 & I carefully discussed it & we both agreed it for sure does NOT start at Yellowhead Pass. For it to do that, the creek known as Yellowhead Creek would have to be the Fraser & Yellowhead Lake (I made that stub by the way) would... well... have to be... Fraser Lake? Then what we call the Fraser Lake out near Vanderhoof (the guys who live next door to me are moving there this summer LOL)? Good thing the river was named the way it was!
Anyhow, I'm just letting everyone know of the long needed change!
Peace Everyone
AndrewEnns ( talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the example of the Columbia River article, and others also within BC where the indigenous name is used in the lede somewhere, and in the infobox, the question here is which of the names/spellings might apply. Sto:lo with or without diacriticals is only the Halkomelem name, and I'm not sure as ever whether the diacriticals are appropriate for referring to the whole group, beyond the bounds of the tribal council (the STC) which prefers that way of spelling/orthography; its name in Skwxwu7jkesh or Shishalh doesn't really apply, although those would be good to have of course; but whiel I suspect that in Nlaka'apamux and Shuswap it might be Staulo or Stahlo, which is how it's transcribed in Kamloops Wawa in its Chinook Jargon lexicon. I've seen in early accounts but I wouldn't know in modern Thompson or Shuswap how it should be spelled; in Lillooet I think it's related to Setl or Sat', which is the name of the Bridge River Fishing Grounds and also the basis of the term "St'at'i'mc/Stl'atl'imx (peple of Setl/Sat'" - "people of the Fraser" (originally that term applied only to bands in the area of Lillooet and the Tslalh'mc and N'Quatqu'mx of Seton and D'Arcy were together "the lakes people" (rendered by Edwards as Lexalexamux, but I've seen no modern corroboration of that, i.e. academic/indigenous sources)and the term Lillooet only applied to Lil'wat, and not all of the Lower Lillooet; Teit comments that in Thompson and Shuswap languages/versions, there was no common name for the people west of the Fraser, and that th tertm " Slatlemuk "had no meaning; unless it does mean "river people" in those languages spun off their name for the Frser; I think there was a separate term or qualifier, for lesser streams; but each had a name. Farther upstream in Fraser's journals there's this term Tacoutche Tesse, which was what was thought tobe the name of the Columbia (which is what Fraser hoped the river was), I don't know what language it's in, it may not be Carrier. Names used by the Tshilqot'in and [[Okanagan people}|Okanagan]] would also be good to have, and Lummi, Nooksack, Straits, the Island/Downriver Dialects etc...Languages needed for all present on the river itself are Hunquminum, Halqemeylem (whose spakers were known as the Fraser River Salish or Fraser River Indians (and omsetimes called Cowidgins/Cowichans...), Nlaka'pamuctsin, Lillooet/St'at'imcets/, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemctsn, Carrier and Sekani; but any found can be added; the primary one I guess is Sto:lo/Staulo since so many areas use it or a form of it; but then, as I started mentioning, which spelling to use; beucase "Sto:lo" is expressly Halqemeylem, with or without diacriticals; the old anglicization up and down the river as far as I suppose, Williams Lake, was Stalo/Staulo/Stahlo/Stl; above that the Carrier and Sekani terms are probably similar, and related to the Chilcotin one....its Chilcotin form is, just guessing, likely to end in /-ko/ like Chilko and Taseko. There's likely different terms depending on which group of Carrier, too, e.g. the Ulkatchos vs those in Prince George ( Lheidli Tenneh). Skookum1 ( talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't actually participated in the current edit dispute about flow rates. However for all involved I have located the paper being cited as the source for the new numbers: here the /publ/ section of the address was left out so the link in the edit summaries was not linking correctly. -- Kevmin ( talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
you guys will make up any excuse to keep your contributes in play, calling down all others opinions or facts and SKOOKUM1 THe Fraser river is no where near the size or depth or lenth of the Congo River in Africa but obviously you have never been there have you, so what makes you think that your right when your world is so small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfictionary ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've found an authoritative primary source at FedGov - Water Survey Canada but haven't been able to get it to load (timeout errors), i.e. the "Archived Hydrometric Data" link, which goes back to mid-19th C. - see the Fraser River entries under F, in the Station Name Index - here. The station for main flow is "Fraser River at New Westminster", as below that the data is for different channels/arms. Station number for that Archived Hydrometric Data is 08MH025. Seems like the information avaiable will also enable us to make a flow-chart for the Fraser at different points along its length, i.e. above/below each main tributary; might make a nice chart huh? Anyway I can't get that site to load, maybe someone else can, and we can have a resolution to this silly dispute and the childish behaviour about it; an authoritative source is an authoritative source, i.e. the hydrometric data; other reports whether fraserbasin.bc.ca or MoE's flood summary are actually secondary sources, not primary.16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the hydrometric station data will not answer this question. Here's an interesting source: Comprehensive Review of Fraser River at Hope: Flood Hydrology and Flows--Scoping Study, Final Report, October 2008. Prepared for: BC Ministry of Environment. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants (but note it says, "this project was conducted under the guidance of Bill Kuhnke, P.Eng. and Neil Peters, P.Eng. of the BC Ministry of Environment, who together with Ron Henry, P.Eng., also of BC Ministry of Environment, reviewed the draft report and provided valuable comments."--sounds good to me). Some key passages:
Gotta run, more later! Pfly ( talk) 18:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Notes on what you've found out:
That's all for now; I'll probably see something in your items again once I post this but these are all thoughts ensuant upon the flow-rate debate and what else is needed to improve the article. Skookum1 ( talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
NB Fraser Delta isn't just from New West/Queensborough downstream; it's everything up to Rosedale Prairie/ Sea Bird Island, in pockets flanking the river, as defined by BC Gov via Holland's source; I can't remember if it's considered to include Flood- Laidlaw....the Fraser Valley begins at Hope, but does teh Delta?? There's a highways/tourism sign at the crest pull-out of the Agassiz Mountain stretch of Highway 7 (the mountain is actually Mount Woodside) taht says the view marks the beginning of the Delta (though Sea Bird Island would be out of view beyond and as an extension of Agassiz Prairie, to the left/east; Seabir'ds more of a canyon island, though floodplain, though; there is a mountain wall between it and agassiz prairie, but only a short strtch; if it's included in the Detla, then the Detla begins at Ruby Creek, which seems odd to me. as it's a very mountainous neighbourhood right there) And btw I finally figured out a conundrum that has always bothered me; Yale is at the mouth of the canyon. but Hope is where the valley and the canyon meet; what Yale is at the mouth of is the Little Canyon (the Big Canyon or Black Canyon stretching from Spuzzum to Boston Bar...). Hope is at the mouth of the Fraser Canyon, overall, the Canyon, which is also something of a cultural unit, though both Hope and Yale are aligned Coast-wise as far as Interior/Coast goes, though Yale is by definition an "Interior town" as the Valley, part of the Coast, only begins at Hope; it's because of its old role as a port town and at one time the biggest industrial camp in BC (CPR construction base) that, though in the Interior, culturally/historically it's part of the Coast; similarly it and Spuzzum and the end of the coastal climate area (though even Spuzzum can be dry when it's been raining in Yale for days....) not incidentally, it's also where Sto:lo territory ends; Spuzzum is Nlaka'pamux, so there's an "ethnographic fit" to the Coast inclusion; just a side issue but relevant to any later discussions about what begins where in terms of the Fraser's geography, i.e .as the article grows. Hope, on the other hand, has always related up-canyon and it's something of a commercial centre for people from the Canyon towns, as it has more services and commercial/retail offerings, and at least south of Lytton is a lot of an easier drive than up to Cache Creek/Ashcroft; some Lyttonites will shop in Lillooet for similar reasons. Geography of the Fraser River or Geography of the Fraser River basin might be a title for a core article, given all the landforms within the basin etc; we might think about or just start List of Fraser River-related topics though in a way that's already the disambiguation page isn't it? Skookum1 ( talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What I found useful, also, on that table, was the size of teh drainage basin for each river, at least above any given measuring station. In the case of the Klinaklini it would make sense to combine the two channels, since there's no common figure for the combined - or is that OR? As for the Squamish at Brackendale, hmmm that excludes the flow of the Mamquam which is quite large but I guess they have no measuring gauge below that (possibly because the course of the river below there is nearly all in Indian Reserve - ??) Skookum1 ( talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
this is a draft list, ensuant from revisions to List of islands of Canada#British Columbia and Lower Mainland articles; not ready to make a full list, but starting it here, partly from memory and otherwise from map reference; my estimate is there are about a hundred islands between Hope and the Strait of Georgia, not including minor sandbars...there may be a few above Hope, including Lady Franklin Rock and Saddle Rock (British Columbia). "Banks" e.g. Roberts Bank and the Sand Heads, should probably not be included....partly because they're not really in the Fraser River...rather offshore from it. I've included, potentially, "the Fraser River [and its tributaries] so Hatzic Island (in Hatzic Lake), Hullah's Island (in the lower Stave delta/oxbow adjacent to Silvermere Lake and Echo and Long Islands (in Harrison Lake) can be included.
That's in rough upstream order, obviously not alphabetical, and is a list of officially gazetted/named islands only. I haven't included sandbars, though maybe notable ones like Hill's Bar and Maria Bar should be so included; but some bars are not islands e.g. Yale Bar, Hope Bar (though Hill's and Maria are...or were though siltation may have changed that...). The note on Lower Mainland that there are almost a hundred islands in the Fraser is from either the Dept of Highways info sign on Highway 7 for "Fraser Delta", which is on Agassiz Mountain, overlooking Rosedale Prairie, or is in S. Holland's "Landforms of British Columbia". There are other smaller islands up the Fraser, some of them named; I may get to that later. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A huge white sturgeon weighing an estimated 0.91 kg (2 lb) and measuring 3.76 m (12 ft 4 in) was caught and released on the Fraser River in July 2012.
This would had to have been a very thin fish at 2 pounds....
Here's the correct info from ( http://greatriverfishing.com/world-record-sturgeon-fraser-river/)
It measured an astounding 12 feet and four inches, and while it was impossible to weigh it, charts indicate that its weight is about 1,100 pounds. It had a 53 inch girth measured below the pectoral fins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.69.113 ( talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the list I built here to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia#Sloughs list as it's not just Fraser sloughs or Lower Mainland sloughs. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I made a new, rather detailed map and added to the page. Let me know if there are any mistakes or problems. I based it on this nice map of the Rhine. It is obviously meant to be viewed at larger than thumbnail size. In time I'd like to add an inset (or separate map) of the Lower Mainland region, but that will have to wait. Pfly ( talk) 19:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking for a better source for the annual mean, minimum, and maximum discharges that is published but have not found one yet. Having a source on discharge from 1985 is seriously out-of-date. That's missing almost 30 years of data when that data does actually exist at multiple gauges (Hope and Mission?) along the river. I think this needs to be addressed if anyone can find a more authoritative source. Perhaps an actually published peer-reviewed paper would do well. -- Curoi ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fraser River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has this:
"it discharges 20 million tons of sediment into the ocean"
If interpreted literally then that's the total sediment the river has/will ever send into the ocean -- and I highly doubt that meaning is what is intended to convey. I would bet it's the annual rate but without access to good documentation I can't modify it. Anyone have a source? Linktex ( talk) 16:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)