Talk:Fraser River

message: 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)
replies: text: By all means. And any other significant ones, too.--Keefer4 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tributaries

message: Nothing is mentioned about the yearly flooding, and especially the major flooding concerns today.70.69.51.111 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Great Floods of 1894 and 1948 are crying out to have separate articles done; Flood control on the Fraser River is a worthy article subject, of course, under whatever tit; there's a great pic from 1894 of the Fraser's waters right up to the deck of the Alexandra Suspension Bridge that can be used for at least one illustration, although the flooded-out Matsqui Prairie or inundated Chilliwack or the washouts in Mission/Dewdney are all online archive shots too.Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flooding

message: 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:
*Fraser Canyon
*Fraser Canyon Gold Rush/Fraser Canyon War
*Steamboats of the Upper Fraser River in British Columbia, and related template
*Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake, which I haven't started yet....(the related template has been, though, in a draft form at Template talk:Steamboats British Columbia)_
*Fraser Canyon Highway Tunnels is a redirect ot Fraser Canyon
*Fraser Canyon Railway Tunnels could use a writeup, whether with both CPR and CNR together or separately.
*Siska, British Columbia I've started and now realize it's a collection of articles, and isn't a bona fide official placename; Cisco still is, and Siska Flat for the Indian Reserve, despite the usual vernacular use of Siska ever since I guess the building of the Siska Lodge.  I'll try and finish most of what I know about it (by now, after digging) but in general all the canyon towns/localities need writeups, especially the old roadhouses and the bars; Hill's Bar, Nicaragua Bar, Kanaka Bar....a few I've made like Foster Bar.  List of roadhouses of the Cariboo Road is probably a good idea, adn nearly all items will/can have articles, and Canadian Pacific Railway stations in British Columbia and its CNR counterpart come to mind (the PGE/BCR stations aren't really worth it; most were huts....)
*A  template to integrate all these seesm a good idea; or as a section within  which is another idea Iv'e got kicking around.
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)
replies: text: List of gold-mining bars on the Fraser River or something to that effect is also like the roadhouses a key history article here; I have a friend who's working on a piece taht should be acitable/published source on all of them, but there's lots already out there for many....Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About "top" status

message: Addition by Pfly:
:. Simpson and his party were the first Europeans to cross the Coast Mountains since Simon Fraser's journey twenty years before
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)
replies: text: Heh, good point. I was quoting the book w/o much thought. It was late. Remove or edit... Pfly (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of hte problems with non-source materials, and even source materials, is they often have things like geography wrong....just because something's in a book don't mean it's true; btw see latest on Talk:Sinixt re the claim that Colville operations revolved around them etc......Skookum1 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though supposedly one should use primary sources sparingly on wikipedia, at least according to WP:PRIMARY. In any case, I undid that edit. Pfly (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpson in 1828

message: 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)
thread_title: Wording about delta

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, the whole intro has wording and terminology problems, and there's more geography that could fit into it - the Rocky Mountain Trench, Fraser Basin, Fraser Plateau, also Fraser Lowland, which is the proper name for the area that includes lower Whatcom County, not "the delta".  The delta also begins at Agassiz/Chilliwack, some say even further upriver, where the floodplain and in-river floodplain islands and sloughs first appear, i.e. Sea Bird-Herrling Islands area, the small floodplain at Flood/Laidlaw isn't usually counted in; the river also doesn't just pass through Vancouver's suburbs, it delimits the southern part of the city proper as well.  I'll try and amend the text in this section in the next few days, but it also predicates fixing up articles like Fraser Plateau and making Fraser Basin (separate from Fraser Plateau and Basin complex, which is an eco-region article, not a landform article) and Fraser Lowland.....my intent here, and it's too bad I'm so far from BC-oriented libraries, is to launch getting this article towards the kind of thoroughness that is so impressive in the teamwork results at Columbia River.  This has a "top" importance in WPCanBC and should be ina lot better shape before it goes to V0.7 release.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Mountains 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Sumallo River]] & more 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pitt River not displaying in infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: I saw that bit about the Yellowhead, too, but I know when I was transferring data from Basemap into http://bivouac.com (where I was an editor/geographer for a few thousand hours), that it showed the Fraser as starting in the pass, i.e. a stream entering - Moose Lake is it? - was labelled as the Fraser, and it began in the pass; that's the official labelling, I don't know if it's on the modern incarnation of Basemap, which isn't what it used to be (e.g. only 200m contour lines, isntad of of 20m, and fewer elevation points etc.).  "true source" is not interpretable, it has to be cited; if it's flow-rate or size of creek that's leading you to that conclusion, it's still not a sourced fact, it's your conclusion, i.e. WP:Original research.  Now that you've mentioned Fraser Pass, though, I guess I'll make its stub - using .  Presumably not named directly for or by Simon Fraser, but as a consequence of its proximity to the river's headwaters; which is uncited so I can't really say it in the article; BCGNIS doesn't make the statement so neither can I....Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Official names are often confusing; such as the Little River between Shuswap and Little Shuswap Lakes, which is really the South Thompson, or the Seton River, which everybody in Lillooet calls teh last stretch of "Cayoosh Creek"; similarly the Canim and Mahood Rivers were originally Bridge Creek.....I think the official source of the Fraser is whatever that big lake is - Moose Lake?.  There's other large headwater-streams, though; e.g. to the west of Mt Robson - is it the Robson River?  I've forgotten; the one with the big waterfall on it...anyway no, Yellowhead Creek is Yellowhead Creek; official names are all we (can) use; same as with Columbia Lake vs the streams that feed it, hwich are the "true" source of the Columbia, from the Columbia icefield, but not the official source as none of them are named Columbia River....Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  It appears there is a stretch of the Fraser above Moose Lake, as per this where it says the Moose River flows into the Fraser above Moose Lake...gonna have to poke aroudn some more but you're welcome to make Moose River and Yellowhead Lake (if that's not made already).Skookum1 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's Moose Lake's BCGNIS for you (there's several others elsewhere in BC).Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also Rainbow Canyon, which is on the Moose River.Skookum1 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Basemap wasn't functioning earlier and I got caught up with things elsewhere (passes in the Chilcotin Ranges; see my user contributions); I have to go out now, will try to remmber to look it up later.  BTW if you're interested in the Fraser as a general subject there's a book on the river by Bruce Hutchison, can't remember its exact title.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Right you are; I just looked at Basemap and it is in the basin on the northwest side of Fraser Pass, due south of Blackrock Mountain; and it's not an Alberta-border pass so I'll strip that cat from that article; if you want a lat long for the origin it's hard to say, but I doubt that creek out of Fraser Pass is any much larger than the ones off the moraine to its west; I think about where they all come together could be used for a position for the source, since that would appear to be the start of the main stream - ; sorry for the confusion, it's been a while since my intense digi-mapping of this area so it must have been some other matter that had me on the in-the-pass bandwagon; maybe it's the Kickign Horse I remember us (in the office at bivouac.com) squabbling over it (mildly; we had other un-miled squabbles...).  BTW although I've made a few of them - the Torpy, McGregor, and Milk Rivers - the upper Fraser tributaries like the Raush and various others are all in need of making, also any large feeder streams like Herrick Creek; nearly all other tributaries downstream from here - of this size - have been made....Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraser River's Source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fraser River Source Fixed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Aboriginal name

message: 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)
replies: text: When located on the river here the monitoring station (N 49 22' 26" W 121 30' 15") is just west of Hope and not at the mouth of the Fraser.--Kevmin (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flow rates paper

message: 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)
replies: text: I just spent a bit of time trying to solve this, but must stop and sleep. The 139,000 m3/s stat is quite large--nearly twice the greatest recorded flow of the Columbia River. But the 19,600 m3/s stat is smaller than I would expect for the historic peak flow of the Fraser. Both numbers appear to come from reliable sources. Perhaps it is a difference between peak "instantaneous" flow and peak "daily", or some similar measurement variant. It could be differences in estimating the flow of an event that occurred more than a century ago. It could be a typo. Still, Nonfictionary, your approach is failing to win me over. Personal attacks in edit summaries, Skookum's talk page, etc, only undermine your credibility. Calling his world small and questioning his understanding of hydrology only demonstrates how little you know about him. Comparisons to the Congo River seem misguided. The Fraser and the Congo differ hugely. Does the Congo experience huge releases of glacier meltwater during the summer? How many square kilometers of glacial icefields feed into the Congo? The seasonal hydrology of the two rivers couldn't be more different. The source cited for 139,000 m3/s is clear and reliable. It could be an error. Shouting and making belittling comments do nothing to resolve things. Pfly (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the MoE source last night; avg discharge in the 3k range, minimum in the 1k range - max in the 139,00 range?  It may very well be a typo in that document, though to me 19,000 seems way to small though it is in the other sources but only in a certain context "discouting inflows from tributaries below Hope" or however it's put.  http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca is NOT an authoritative site, nor is it a government site.  As for the twice-the-Columbia comparison, I've heard that before actually - that the Fraser, though narrower, can out-discharge the Columbia when in freshet.  Has me thinking that List of rivers by volume might be a good idea....there's other rivers in BC that are profoundly big despite very short lengths - the Pitt among them, but also the Squamish, Homathko, Skeena, Nass and Stikine...where to find that data I'm not sure....but I'm pretty sure that if the DFO and Fraser Basin Council sites are read carefully, that 19,000 figure is in a certain context; I'll see what I can find at MoE and also at the Int'l Hydrography site.....Nonfictionary's attack on me alone, given the five or six other editors that have been reversing his edits (which were wildly off the pre-existing data; I think he even "corrected" the mean/avg discharge and even the river's well-known length from the DFO site....in general, federal sites are less reliable about BC geography than provincial ones are, but.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See next.Skookum1 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''supposed to open minded forum''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Whoa, lots of words! You make me want to work on this page and related topics. But first I must finish/publish the rapids of the Columbia page. Almost ready to move it from sandbox to a real page. Some of the minor rapids will have to wait for later incorporation. I'll see if I can find hydrometric data for the rivers you mentioned (Squamish, Powell, Klilnaklini, Homathko, Dean). The stations are sadly sparse and all too often no where near the river's mouth. Pfly (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, did three (all in m3/s). Squamish River near Brackendale (08GA022): 238 mean, 2630 max daily, 3149 max instantaneous, 11 min. Homathko River at the mouth (08GD004): 270 mean, 2660 max daily, 3140 max inst.; 20 min. Klinaklini River East Channel (main) near mouth (08GE002): 297 mean, 1830 max daily, 1640 max inst.; 24.9 min. Pfly (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographic issues

message: 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.
*Iona Island
*Westham Island
*Sea Island (British Columbia)
*Swishwash Island
*Tilbury Island
*Deas Island
*Lulu Island
*Richmond Island
*Reifel Island
*Steveston Island
*No. 1 Island
*Gilmour Island (British Columbia)
*Kirkland Island
*Williamson Island (British Columbia)
*Barber Island (British Columbia)
*Mitchell Island
*Twigg Island (defunct, now merged by fill with Mitchell Island)
*Annacis Island
*Lion Island (British Columbia)
*Don Island
*Poplar Island
*Essondale Islet (in Coquitlam River)
*Tree Island (British Columbia)
*Douglas Island (British Columbia)
*Barnston Island
*McMillan Island
*Brae Island (now filled in to become part of McMillan Island)
*Crescent Island (British Columbia)
*Hullah's Island (in Stave River)
*Matsqui Island
*Hatzic Island (in Hatzic Lake)
*Nicomen Island
*Strawberry Island (British Columbia)
*Skumalasph Island
*Fairfield Island
*Queens Island
*Yaalstrick Island
*Hog Island (Fraser River)
*Rose Island (Fraser River) also known as Rose-Kirkland Island
*Rosebank Island
*Sea Bird Island
*Windermere Island (British Columbia)
*Cottonwood Island
*Echo Island (Harrison Lake)
*Long Island (Harrison Lake)
*Lone Tree Island (Harrison Lake)
*Marguerite Island (aka Margaret Island; Harrison Lake)
*Camile Island (Harrison Lake)
*Vasasus Island
*Wadsworth Island
*Wahleach Island
*Bristol Island (British Columbia)
*Croft Island
*Greenwood Island
*Herrling Island
*Lady Franklin Rock
*Saddle Rock (British Columbia)
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)
thread_title: List of islands in the Fraser River [and its tributaries]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not a "huge sturgeon" 

message: 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)
thread_title: List of sloughs

message: 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)
thread_title:  New map 

message: 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)
replies: text: The most-downriver hydrometric station I can find data for is station 08MH126, "FRASER RIVER AT PORT MANN PUMPING STATION". It is below Coquitlam but before the river branches in the delta. You can get historical discharge data for 1965-1992. The mean discharge over all those years is 3620 m3/s, or slightly more than the page currently says. Here is a link to the station page, historical monthly discharge—see the "mean" column, per year, and at the bottom the mean row, mean column, for all years. This might not be quite what you are looking for, but perhaps helpful. Pfly (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discharge data from 1985 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050417222353/http://www.ccge.org/ccge/english/Resources/rivers/tr_rivers_fraserRiver.asp to http://www.ccge.org/ccge/english/Resources/rivers/tr_rivers_fraserRiver.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sediment discharge