This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is this a correct use of the term tidal bore (section: Terrain)? I am pretty certain that a tidal bore refers just to the wave-like phenomenon of a dramatic tide in its flood cycle, and not simply "the extend of tidal influence." Are there actual tidal bores on the lower fraser river? I've seen this usage crop up on other pages in the Vancouver area and believe this to be an incorrect usage of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeldude (talk • contribs)
Yes, it is a correct usage; and a tidal bore on the Fraser and its tributaries the Pitt and the Stave is visible; the extend of tidal reach is the Mission Bridge. A tidal bore does not have to be "dramatic"; in the area of Ruskin, where the Stave enters the Fraser, I've seen a six-inch tidal bore; this would depend on the phase of the moon and the height of the river when in freshet or not. It's not an incorrect usage of the term; your definition is incorrect.Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply