Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Walbaum in Artedi, 1792)
Common Name:
Chinook Salmon
Synonyms and Other Names:
king salmon
Identification:
Chinook salmon is characterized by small dark spots on the head, back, and caudal fin, black gums on the lower haw, and a fusiform, streamlined, and laterally compressed body. Sea run fish are dark green to blue-black on their heads and back and silvery to white on the sides and belly. Chinook salmon changes to an olive-brown, red, or purplish color during spawning. See also Moyle (1976a); Scott and Crossman (1973); Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Morrow (1980); Eschmeyer et al. (1983); Page and Burr (1991).
Size:
up to 147 cm
Native Range:
Arctic and Pacific drainages from Point Hope, Alaska, to Ventura River, California. Occasionally strays south to San Diego, California. Also in northeastern Asia (Page and Burr 1991).
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences:
First detected in 1870 in Lake Huron (Emery 1985). Chinooks have been stocked in Lake Michigan, Illinois (Parsons 1973; Smith 1979; Emery 1985; Underhill 1986; Burr 1991); Lake Michigan and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana (Nelson and Gerking 1968; Parsons 1973; Emery 1985; Underhill 1986; Tilmant 1999); the Great Lakes surrounding Michigan and Isle Royale National Park and the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (Parsons 1973; Phillips et al. 1982; Emery 1985; Underhill 1986; Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1997; Tilmant 1999; Cudmore-Vokey and Crossman 2000); Lake Superior, and numerous inland lakes in Minnesota (Parsons 1973; Eddy and Underhill 1974; Phillips et al. 1982; Emery 1985; Underhill 1986); Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Little Moose Lake in Herkimer County (CU 73659), and Green Lake State Park in Onondaga County (CU 72033), New York (Parsons 1973; Smith 1985; Vinyard 2001; Craine 2002); Lake Erie and its tributaries, and the Tuscarwas, Muskingum, Scioto, and Great Miami drainages in Ohio (Trautman 1957; Parsons 1973; Trautman 1981; Underhill 1986); the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers, and Lake Erie, Pennsylvania (Bean 1892b; Parsons 1973; Cooper 1983; Underhill 1986); Riley Lake in Chippewa County, Stormy and Pallette lakes in Vilas County, Lakes Michigan and Superior, and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin (Parsons 1973; Phillips et al. 1982; Becker 1983; Emery 1985; Underhill 1986; Tilmant 1999).
Table 1. Great Lakes region nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state/province, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha are found here.
Full list of USGS occurrences
Table last updated 5/25/2026
† Populations may not be currently present.
* HUCs are not listed for areas where the observation(s) cannot be approximated to a HUC (e.g. state centroids or Canadian provinces).
Ecology:
Chinook salmon are anadromous, migrating from streams to the ocean to grow and mature and returning to their natal streams to spawn. Fry may migrate to sea after as few as three months or as many as three years, but most stay one year instream. Instream, chinook feeds mainly on macroinvertebrates; after migrating from the stream, it feeds primarily on small forage fish. Landlocked Chinook salmon in the Great Lakes usually leaves its natal stream for the lake proper within a few months of hatching (Michigan DNR 2011).
Great Lakes Means of Introduction:
Authorized introductions for sportfishing. Stocking began as early as 1874 in several states. Parsons (1973) give detailed accounts of stockings in the Great Lakes. The first stocking of large numbers of Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in the Great Lakes occurred in 1967 in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior in part to control alewfie. O. tshawytscha was first planted into Lake Superior in 1967 by the state of Michigan. This introduction was extended to Minnesota in 1974, Wisconsin in 1977, and Ontario in 1988. Annual plants of spring fingerlings between 1989 and 1991 averaged approximately 350,000 in Michigan, 509,000 in Minnesota, 384,000 in Wisconsin, and 300,000 in Ontario. By 1970 the species had been planted in all the Great Lakes (Parsons 1973). Between 1873 and 1933, about 11 million individuals were stocked in the Great Lakes basin (Parsons 1973). In a second attempt to establish O. tshawytscha, another six million were stocked 1967-1970. Stocking numbers of O. tshawytscha in Lake Ontario peaked in 1984 at 4.2 million fish and ranged from 3.2 million to 3.6 million annually from 1984 to 1992. From 1994-1996, stocking ranged from 1.5-1.7 million fish and from 1997-1999 stocking ranged from 2.0-2.2 million fish (Mills 2003). From the mid-1980s to 1992, the Michigan DNR stocked approximately 3.5 million fingerlings into Lake Huron (Ebner 1995).
Great Lakes Status:
Overwintering, reproducing, widespread.
Great Lakes Impacts:
Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha has a high environmental impact in the Great Lakes.
Realized:
In the Great Lakes, O. tshawytscha competes with native lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) (Page and Laird 1993). Scott et al. (2003) found that the presence of O. tshawytscha causes delayed nesting and reduced survival of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) during spawning in Lake Ontario. Additionally, Atlantic salmon was generally more active and males engaged in more agonistic behavior (head-down, lateral display, parallel swim) when O. tshawytscha was present. Such effects could have a negative impact on present Atlantic salmon restoration efforts.
The introduction of Pacific salmonines is deemed responsible for the introduction of Renibacterium salmoninarum, which causes bacterial kidney disease in lake trout, brook trout (S. fontinalis), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), and bloater (C. hoyi). However, the specific role of O. tshawytscha in this introduction is unknown (see GLANSIS fact sheet for R. salmoninarum).
Crawford et al. (2001) pointed out that salmonids have the potential to alter the energy and nutrient cycles of the Great Lakes system through increased energy transfer between open water and streams/tributaries. This energy transfer includes the addition of nitrogen and phosphorus to tributaries through decaying salmonine carcasses, as well as the addition of salmon eggs and dead fish as a food source in streams (Ivan et al. 2011, Parmenter and Lamarra 1991, Rand et al. 1992). Rand et al. (1992) found that phosphorus released from salmon carcasses was responsible for >50% of the total phosphorus discharged in some Lake Ontario streams during parts of the spring. The presence of live salmonids may have an even greater effect on nutrients in streams through the excretion of ammonium and soluable reactive phosphorus and their mechanical disturbance of the stream bottom during spawning runs (Ivan et al. 2011, Tiegs et al. 2009). In Lake Ontario, O. tshawytscha is being parasitized by the copepod Salmincola califorensis (Mullin and Reyda 2020).
Potential:
O. tshawytscha is a predatory fish and may impact populations of smaller fishes. Some agencies in lakes Michigan and Ontario drastically reduced their stocking quotas for chinook salmon in the 1990s and are concerned about their impact on the fish community, namely declining populations of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and other forage fish (Schreiner 1995). Jones (1993) predicted that maintaining high levels of predator demand by stocking O. tshawytscha and other top predators at the current rate would eventually lead to an alewife collapse, possibly followed by the further collapse of other small forage fish populations. O. tshawytscha had totally eliminated rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) in two small New Hampshire lakes where the salmon was stocked to control the smelt (McAffee 1966).
Negus (1995) proposed that stocking of O. tshawytscha in Lake Superior could be modified to alter predation pressure on important prey species. However, hatchery-reared O. tshawytscha was found to make up only 25% of the sport fish catch in Lake Superior—such lack of predominance indicating that O. tshawytscha have become naturalized and stocking efforts may only marginally affect Chinook salmon biomass in the lake (Peck 1999). Hatchery-reared O. tshawytscha in Lake Huron only contributes 1 out of every 8 fish in the population (MIDNRE 2011).
There is little evidence to support that Oncorhynchus tshawytscha has significant socio-economic impacts in the Great Lakes.
As this species is intentionally stocked for recreation, there are no negative impacts on human health or recreation associated with this species.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha has a high beneficial effect in the Great Lakes.
Realized:
Since the introduction of O. tshawytscha to control alewife populations in the 1960s, O. tshawytscha has remained an important component of the Great Lakes fisheries and is recreationally and economically valuable. It was estimated that of the five most-stocked non-native salmonine species (O. kisutch, O. mykiss, O. tshawytscha, S. trutta, S. salar), O. tshawytscha constituted 45% of all stockings before 1998 (Crawford 2001). It is most commonly fished in open water, but is also fished as a fall stream species (especially off of Lake Ontario) (Bence and Smith 1999). From 1967 to 1993, over 259 million individuals were stocked in the Great Lakes (Kocik and Jones 1999). In 2005, nearly 9.5 million chinook salmon were stocked in the Great Lakes system (not including Lake Erie) as reported by various agencies (USFWS/GLFC 2010). Most were stocked in Lake Michigan (4,000,000+) followed by Lake Huron (2,500,000+) (USFWS/GLFC 2010). A 2005 survey of anglers fishing in Canada reported an annual recreational harvest of 426,890 individuals in the Great Lakes system (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008). Additionally, chinook salmon is a significant catch of the Native American commercial harvest, especially in Lake Huron (Bence and Smith 1999).
Potential:
Eggs spawned by O. tshawytscha have been found to comprise an important part of the native brown trout diet in Great Lakes tributaries, but the effects of this consumption have yet to be understood (Ivan et al. 2011; Hermann et al. 2020). O. tshawytscha is currently being evaluated as a pollutant indicator in the Great Lakes (Renaguli et al. 2020).
Management:
Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes region) Pacific salmon management is extremely diverse, integrated, and cascading and is therefore these are the most heavily regulated species (direct and indirectly) in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes states and provinces have their own specific fishing regulations. Generally, the overall goals and objectives of Pacific salmon fishing regulations are the same throughout the region i.e., to maintain or enhance a healthy and sustainable salmonid fisheries. Pacific salmon fishing regulations include daily and season bag limits, size limits, permitted baitfish, manner of taking i.e., snagging or hook and line, and designated season dates (See New York DEC, Pennsylvania F&BC, Ohio DNR, Michigan DNR, Indiana DNR, Illinois DNR, Minnesota DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Ontario MNR, and Quebec MRNF websites for specific fishing regulations).
Typically, Pacific salmon regulations are not species specific, but rather regulate the salmonid fisheries as a whole. Indirect Pacific salmon regulations include mandated salmonid pathogen screening tests and baitfish regulations.
Mandatory salmonid pathogen screening tests are implemented in all Great Lakes states and provinces. The importation, exportation, and transportation of Pacific salmon is highly regulated to control the spread of infectious diseases and parasites such as VHS, BKD, and whirling disease (See USGS nonindigenous diseases and parasites fact sheets for state and provincial regulations).
State and provincial baitfish regulations have aided in preventing the spread of infectious disease. Specific and or stricter regulations are placed on baitfish species that are known carriers of salmonid pathogens.
Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.
Control
Biological
Pacific salmon prey heavily upon two non-native species in the Great Lakes, the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax). Alewives remain a key food source and crucial to the survival of Pacific salmon. Over the past several decades, Pacific salmon populations have fluctuated with fluctuating alewife populations. Managing one species significantly impacts the other. Pacific salmon and alewives have significant environmental, socio-economic, and beneficial effects in the Great Lakes and therefore integrated management is essential. Rainbow smelt are also a major component of Pacific salmon diet. Similar to alewives, Pacific salmon and rainbow smelt management should be integrated. Rainbow smelt have a high environmental impact and high beneficial effect in the Great Lakes. The presence or absence of this species significantly alters predator-prey relationships and competition between native species. Managers can also attempt to increase less harmful native prey species stocks while allowing harmful invasive prey species to decrease. Implementation of this bio-control has potential significant beneficial effects in the Great Lakes with few negative impacts (See USGS fact sheets on alewife and rainbow smelt).
Of the 23 nonindigenous diseases and parasites in the Great Lakes, Aeromonas salmonicida, Renibacterium salmoninarum, Myxobolus cerebralis, and Novirhabdovirus sp. infections have been realized in Great Lakes Pacific salmon, while Heterosporosis sp. and Piscirickettsia cf. salmonis infections have been realized clinically or outside the Great Lakes. Glugea hertwigi, a microsporidian, is known to cause mortality in rainbow smelt. Therefore, Pacific salmon management must include the management of the above pathogens and parasites (See USGS fact sheets on Aeromonas salmonicida, Renibacterium salmoninarum, Myxobolus cerebralis, Novirhabdovirus sp., Heterosporosis sp., Piscirickettsia cf. salmonis, and Glugea hertwigi for information on Great Lakes impacts and management).
Physical
Aquaculture facilities manage wild and cultured Pacific salmon stocks through wild stock assessments and other methods. Managers are then able to make informed decisions on stocking strategies. Research, pathogen screening, and pathogen treatment, etc. is conducted in aquaculture facilities (See state and provincial DEC, MNR, DNR, and corresponding agency and department websites for information on salmonid aquaculture and state hatcheries).
Chemical
Chemical controls for Pacific salmon are not intended to eradicate or kill the species but rather to protect it against infectious disease. Typically, depending on the target species, chemicals controls are only effective in aquaculture or similar systems. Examples of chemicals used and include Furogen®, chlorination, and disinfectants.
Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.
Remarks:
Chinook salmon has not been stocked in Oklahoma (Pigg, personal communication). Parsons (1973) gave detailed stocking information for the Great Lakes. During the 1970s, nearly all Chinook salmon in the Great Lakes reached sexual maturity by age 3. in the 1990s, however, 20% became sexually mature at age 4 (Ebner 1995). Lakewide average weight (kg) at age in Lake Huron is 1.8 kg at age 1, 5.2 kg at age 2, 7.2 kg at age 3, and 8.1 kg at age 4. (Ebner 1995). Wurster (2005) found that Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario occupy epilimnetic waters approaching their upper lethal limit of 22°C in the summer months, presumably because the highest prey fish biomass is found near 20°C. Rand (1998) estimated survival rates of stocked Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario to be 45% to 47%.
References
(click for full reference list)
Author:
Fuller, P., G. Jacobs, M. Cannister, J. Larson, A. Fusaro, and A.S. Mulligan
Contributing Agencies:
Revision Date:
5/6/2026
Peer Review Date:
6/26/2014
Citation for this information:
Fuller, P., G. Jacobs, M. Cannister, J. Larson, A. Fusaro, and A.S. Mulligan, 2026, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum in Artedi, 1792): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System, Ann Arbor, MI, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/GreatLakes/FactSheet.aspx?HUCNumber=4090002&NoCache=1%2F10%2F2013+3%3A54%3A45+PM&Species_ID=920, Revision Date: 5/6/2026, Peer Review Date: 6/26/2014, Access Date: 5/25/2026
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.