Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST,… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1919

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0059765.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0059765.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0059765-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0059765-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0059765-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0059765-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0059765-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0059765-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0059765-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0059765.ris

Full Text

 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
EEPOET
OP   THE
COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31st, 1918
WITH APPENDICES
PRINTED  BY
AUTHORITY OF THE  LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY.
VICTORIA, B.C.:
Printed by William FI. Cullin, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
1919.  To His Honour Sir Prank Stillman Barnard, K.C.M.G.,
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.
May it please Your Honour:
I beg to submit herewith, a report reviewing the operations of the Provincial
Fisheries Department for the year ending December 31st, 1918, with Appendices.
WILLIAM SLOAN,
Commissioner of Fisheries.
Provincial Fisheries Department,
Commissioner of Fisheries' Office,
Victoria, British Columbia, March fyth, 1919.  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.
FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1918.
Paob.
Standing of Provinces of the Dominion   7
Species and Value of Fish marketed   7
Number of Persons engaged and Value of Plants   S
The Salmon-catch of 1918  8
The Salmon-pack of Province   S
Summary of Reports from Spawning-grounds   10
Digest of Report of American-Canadian Fisheries Conference   10
Fishing by Indians in the Fraser River    11
Migration of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Puget Sound and Fraser River   12
Dr. Gilbert's Salmon Inspection of 1918   12
Halibut  14
Whaling    15
Pilchards     15
Deep-sea Trawling  15
Ottesen Method of freezing Fish  17
Hatching Egg Collections  IS
APPENDICES.
The Spawning-beds of the Fraser River  19
The Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet   -  21
The Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet   24
Contribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.    (Paper No. 5.)    By Dr. C. H.
Gilbert  26
Hon. Wm. Sloan's Statement made at the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference .. 55
John P. Babcock's Statement made at the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference .. 56
Migration  of  Adult  Sockeye  Salmon  in  Puget  Sound and Fraser  River.    By  Henry
O'Malley and Willis H. Rice    60
Salmon-pack of 191S in detail  92
Salmon-pack of Province, 1903 to 191S, inclusive   93  FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1918.
Value of Canadian Fisheries and Standing op Provinces.
The value of the fishery products of Canada for the year ending December 31st, 1917, totalled
$52,312,044, as against $39,208,378 for the preceding year, notwithstanding that the latter was
considerably greater than in any preceding year.*
During the year 1917 British Columbia contributed fishery products of a total value of
$21,518,595, or 41 per cent, of the total for the Dominion.
As in recent years, British Columbia again leads all the Provinces of Canada in the value
of her fishery products. Her output for the year exceeded in value those of Nova Scotia by
$7,050,276, and exceeded that of all the other Provinces combined by $11,156,941.
The following statement gives in their order of rank the value of the fishery products of the
Provinces for the year ending December 31st, 1917:—
British Columbia    $21,518,595 00
Nova Scotia     14,468,319 00
New Brunswick        6,143,088 00
Quebec        3,414,378 00
Ontario        2,866,419 00
Prince Edward Island        1,786,310 00
Manitoba          1,543,288 00
Saskatchewan   320,238 00
Alberta    184,009 00
Yukon   '   67,400 00
Total     $52,312,044 00
The Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia.
The total value of. each species of fish taken in British Columbia for year ending December
31st, 1917, is given in the following statement:—
Salmon   $16,828,7S3 00
Black cod  879,404 00
Hake and husk   1,090 00
Herring    1,192,654 00
Shad    675 00
Halibut     1,721,012 00
Soles    78,649 00
Flounders     23,601 00
Skate     10,117 00
Smelts     14,270 00
Oolachans     10,991 00
Brill    51,420 00
Octopus     1,656 00
Rock-cod     8,688 OO
Pilchards     11,810 00
Whiting    2,725 00
Grayfish   4,480 00
Oysters     32,202 00
Clams and quahaugs   84,000 00
Dulse, crabs, and cockles   48,424 00
Trout     10,350 00
Sturgeon     9,790 00
Perch    4,920 00
Carried forward     $21,031,711 00
* The data used here is derived from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1917. X 8 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
The Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia—Concluded.
Brought forward    $21,031,711 00
Mixed fish  13,184 00
Salmon-roe    7,820 00
Fur-seal skins  • 6,540 00
Bone-meal    10,185 00
Fertilizer     70,164 00
Whale-oil  342,247 00
Fish-oil    " 23,S92 00
Witches    50 00
Gill-bone    p.  12,802 00
Total  '. $21,518,595 00
The total value for the year shows an increase over the previous year of $6,881,249; salmon
products were increased by $0,285,178, due both to an increase in size of pack and its value.
The halibut-catch was less, and, notwithstanding an increase in price, shows a decrease from
the previous year of $305,658. The herring-catch is valued at $1,192,654, a slight gain over the
previous year, and whale products show a gain of $94,220, with a total value of $446,486.
The Number of Persons engaged and Value of Fishery Plants and Apparatus in British
Columbia in 191S.
The following statement gives the number and the value of the plants, vessels, boats, and
apparatus used In the fisheries of the Province in 1918, and the number of persons engaged:—
No. Value.
Vessels, tugs, and carrying smacks        514 $ 2,500,801 00
Gasolene-boats       3,172)
Sail and row boats     8,548( 1,837,820 00
Value of seines, trap and smelt nets  1,829,115 00
Value of hand-lines, weirs, trawls, etc  119,3S1 00
Approximate value of salmon and other canneries,
fish-houses, freezers, and fixtures  9,519,941 00
Total     $15,S07,058 00
Number of Persons engaged in Fishery.
Number in vessels        1,589
Number in boats    11,378
Number in canneries, fish-houses, etc     7,916
Total    20,883
The Salmon-catch of 1918.
The salmon-catch of the year 191S exceeded all previous records and produced a pack of
1,616,157 cases. It exceeded the previous high record of 1917 by 5S1.672 cases. The catch of
sockeye gave a pack of -276,459 cases, as against 330,209 cases in 1917; 107,354 cases of red and
white springs packed, as against 76,276 cases in 1917; the pack of pink salmon totalled 527,745
cases, a gain over 1917 of 30,9S6 cases; and the pack of 497,615 cases of chum salmon exceeded
that of the previous year by 21,342 cases.
The 191S Salmon-pack by Districts.
The Fraser River.—The total pack of all grades of salmon on the Fraser River run in British
Columbia waters totalled but 210,S51 cases, as against 402,538 cases in 1917, 127,472 in 1916,
320,519 in 1915, and 349,294 cases in 1914. Over 50 per cent, of the total pack consisted of chums
and pinks. The catch of sockeye was less than 10 per cent, of the total, was much less than in
any former year, and produced a pack of but 19,697 cases, as against 198,183 cases in the previous
fourth year, 1914. Since 1914 was the brood-year of the greater proportion of this year's sockeye
run, it shows that the run was less than 10 per cent, of that of its brood-year. 9 Geo. 5 British Columbia. X 9
The season's pack of Fraser River seeking sockeye on Puget Sound totalled 50,723 cases, as
against 357,374 cases four years ago. The pack of sockeye In the entire Fraser River District in
1918 totalled only 70,420 cases. Four years ago the combined catch of sockeye in that district
produced a pack of 534,434 cases, or 86 per cent, more than this season. A more forceful demonstration of the depletion of the run of sockeye to that river could not be exacted. It warrants
the statement that the Fraser is fished out of sockeye and the run is perilously near extinction.
The conditions that have produced this result have been set forth in previous reports of the
Department. As early as 1902 the Department gave warning that too many sockeye were being
taken, and that, unless the fish were permitted to reach the spawning-grounds in far greater
numbers, the run would be exterminated. Year after year that warning was repeated, and
backed up by statements showing a steady decline in the number of sockeye that reached the
spawning area. The warning fell upon ground as barren as the spawning area. The fishermen and the canners would not be denied. The amount and efficiency of the fishing-gear
used to take the fish was increased without giving the sockeye any additional protection.
The Canadian authorities indicated in no uncertain manner their willingness to meet the
conditions by restricting fishing in their waters. The authorities of the State of Washington
could not be induced to meet the situation by affording the fish that pass through their waters
to reach the Fraser any adequate measure of protection. They disputed the facts submitted, and
instead of restricting fishing they permitted an increase in the amount and character of gear
used, thus adding to the efficiency of their methods. Even as late as the spring of 1918, at the
American-Canadian Fisheries Conference, the State of Washington authorities contended that
conditions on the Fraser were not of so serious a nature as to call for drastic treatment. At the
Vancouver meeting of that Conference the Commissioner and his assistant both submitted written
statements setting forth the views of the Provincial Government on this vital question. Those
statements are reproduced in the Appendices of this report.
The Salmon-catch of Northern Waters.
The Skeena River.—The salmon-pack on the Skeena River in 1918 exceeded all previous
records with a total of 374,216 cases, as against the previous record pack of 292,219 cases in
1917. There was a gain in all grades. Sockeye gave a pack of 123,322 cases, as against 05,760
in 1917, 60,293 cases in 1910, 116,533 in 1915, 136,166 in 1914, and 52,927 in 1913. Weather
conditions throughout the sockeye season were most propitious. Fishing for spring and cohoe
salmon was conducted at numerous outlying points by Hollers, many of whom had excellent
season's return.
Rivers Inlet.—The catch of salmon on the Rivers Inlet section shows a substantial gain
over the two preceding years, with a total pack of 103,155 cases. The catch of sockeye gave a
pack of 53,401 cases, as against 01,195 in 1917, 44,936 in 1916, 103,350 in 1915, 89,S90 in 1914,
and 61,745 in 1913. The pack of pinks exceeded all previous years, with a total of 29,542 cases,
as against the two previous high records of 8,065 in 1917 and 5,7S4 in 1914. The run of pinks to
Rivers Inlet has heretofore been very small. No theory as to the increase of this season has
been advanced.
The Nass River.—The catch of salmon in the Nass River section is also a high-record one,
totalling 143,908 cases, as against the previous high records of 119,495 in 1917 and 126,686 in
1916. The catch of sockeye again shows a decline, with a pack of 21,816 cases, as against
22.1S8 in 1917, 31,411 in 1916, 39,349 in 1915, and 31,327 cases in 1914. The_ record shows a steady
decline In the run of sockeye notwithstanding the increase of gear used. The catch of pinks amp
chums shows substantial increase and is attributed to the more extensive use of traps and' gear.
The Vancouver Island Section.
The pack of salmon taken from Vancouver Island waters, with the exception of the sockeye
taken in the trap in the vicinity of Sooke, that are credited to the Fraser pack, totalled 3S9,S15
cases. Operations were conducted at all points where any salmon could be taken. Large numbers
of spring and cohoe salmon were taken in the open sea, facing the west coast, by means of trolling. Some 400 small boats were so engaged. The catch of sockeye was small. All other grades
show an increase. Chums, with pack of 251,266 cases, exceed all others combined. The catch
of pinks gave a pack of 57,035 cases and cohoe 40,732 cases.    Some 5,500,000 lb. of salmon, mostly X 10 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
chums, was exported in fresh state from the west coast.   The catches made are regarded by the
Department as ail overdraft on the runs, and if continued will exterminate them.
The Catch at Nitinat Lake.
The catch of fall-running salmon at Nitinat Lake, on the southern shore of Vancouver Island,
in both 1917 and 1918 were of such an extraordinary and excessive nature as to call for extended
comment. Nitinat Lake is but fourteen miles in length by half a mile in width. It lies at sea-
level and is connected with the sea by a narrow and short passage. There is but one tributary
of importance, the river at the head of the lake, which has a length of some twenty miles.
Except during heavy rains, its volume is not large. Its gravelled channel offers a limited
extent of spawning area. It is the only tributary frequented by salmon. A few creek sockeye
are said to enter it in the late spring. Chums in large number run to that stream in the fall.
Commercial fishing was first undertaken there in 1917 by the Lummi Bay Packing Company,
who built a cannery there that spring. By the use of two purse-seines the company's catch in
1917 produced a pack of 51,252 of chum salmon. Not being able to handle all the fish taken, they
exported to their plants in the State of Washington some millions of pounds. Their pack in 1917
was the second largest put up at any one cannery in the Province. In 191S the catch at Nitinat
Lake produced a pack of 84,000 cases, 20,000 cases more than were packed at any other one
cannery in the Province. The fishing-gear used by the company consisted of two purse-nets
and a trap, driven at the mouth of the river at the head of the lake. In addition to the pack
of 84,000 cases, some 5,000,000 lb. of salmon were exported from that district. No other water
of anything like the proportions of Nitinat Lake has ever produced in two succeeding years
anything like as many fish. No salmon run to any watershed of its size can stand such a drain
without complete annihilation.
The drain on the salmon run to all Vancouver Island waters is in the judgment of the
Department excessive, and calls for the immediate and serious attention of the fishery officials
of the Dominion. The fish must be given far greater measures of protection than at present
afforded them, or they will cease to be of commercial importance.
Reports from Salmon Spawning Areas of the Province in 1918.
During the season the Department, as usual, conducted an investigation of the salmon
spawning areas of the Fraser River and Rivers and Smith Inlets. Detailed reports are attached
hereto.
The spawning-grounds of the Fraser River basin were again inspected by John P. Babcock,
Assistant to the Commissioner. He was assisted by Dr. C. H. Gilbert and Inspector of Fisheries
C. P. Hickman. In the report made by Mr. Babcock it is again disclosed that the number of
salmon which reached the spawning-beds was far less than in any previous year. In all the
great lake sections of the Fraser above Hell's Gate Canyon there were few or no sockeye, and
in the lower section, with the exception of the Lillooet Lake District, there were fewer sockeye
than ever previously reported. As affecting future runs no importance need be attached to the
few that did spawn in the upper section of the Fraser, and less importance than heretofore can
be attached to those that spawned in the lower section. The total number of sockeye-eggs
collected from the tributaries of the Fraser and placed in the hatcheries totalled 20,581,500, as
against 22,484,000 four years ago. Twenty million sockeye-eggs were taken from Alaska waters
by the United States Bureau of Fisheries and donated to the Dominion Government to assist in
restocking the Fraser, and were shipped to the hatchery on Harrison Lake and are being incubated therein.
Rivers and Smith Inlets Spawning-grounds.—Fishery Overseer A. W. Stone reports that there
was a serious shortage of sockeye salmon on the spawning-beds of Owikeno Lake, at the head
of Rivers Inlet. He estimates that there was 25 per cent, less sockeye on the beds than in any
one of the past six years.
Officer Stone, who also inspected the spawning-grounds of the Smith Inlet run of sockeye,
reports that the number of fish observed there this year equalled the run of 1915, but that they
were many times less than in 1914.
The American-Canadian Fisheries Commission of 191S.
The American-Canadian Fisheries Commission appointed by the Governments of the United
States and Canada to investigate fishery questions in waters contiguous to their boundary-lines 9 Geo. 5 British Columbia. . X 11
held meetings on this Coast, in Seattle, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Ketchikan in the spring
of 1918. The Commission consisted of the Secretary of Commerce and Labour of the United
States, the Hon. William C. Redfield, E. F. Sweet, Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, and
Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United States Commissioner of Fisheries, on behalf of the United States;
and the Hon. Chief Justice J. D. Hazen, of New Brunswick, G. J. Desbarats, Deputy Minister
of Naval Service, and Wm. A. Found, Superintendent of Fisheries, Ottawa, on behalf of the
Canadian Government. The inquiry conducted on this Coast was confined to an investigation
of the salmon-fisheries of the Fraser River and the American waters of Washington Sound and
the halibut-fisheries of the Pacific.
At the Vancouver meeting of the International Commission, Commissioner Wm. Sloan and
his Assistant, John P. Babcock, made extended statements as to conditions in the Fraser, which
are reproduced in the Appendix of this report.
The Conference concluded its sittings in Ottawa in September and unanimously adopted a
report.    At the time of writing the report has not been made public.
Fishing by Indians in the Fraser River Basin above Tidal Limits.
The runs of salmon to the spawning-beds of the Fraser have become so alarmingly attenuated
that drastic measures will have to be taken to restore the runs. The measures to be taken must
not only include the secession of all fishing in tidal limits for a period of years, but must be made
to include all fishing above tidal limits by Indians for all time, notwithstanding that they have
both a natural and a treaty right to take such salmon as they desire for food so long as they
confine themselves to the gear originally used by them.
The Indians resident in the Fraser River basin have always fished for salmon. Before
the advent of the white men they depended almost wholly upon salmon for their winter food.
They take them as near their homes as possible and cure them by smoking. An approximate
estimate of the number of sockeye salmon taken by Indians above the commercial fishing limits
on the Fraser River in the years of the big runs previous to 1913 place the number at 200,000.
It probably largely exceeded that number. The number taken in former years of the big
run by the Indians resident in the Chilcotin River section is placed at from 40,000 to 50,000.
Those taken by Indians from the Fraser basin above the mouth of the Chilcotin is given at
20,000, and between the mouth of the Chilcotin and Bridge Rivers at 40,000-odd, while those
along the banks of the Thompson and Shuswap and Adams Lakes at 30,000, in the canyon of
the Fraser at Yale at 15,000, and in the Harrison-Lillooet Lakes section at 40,000. The figures
here given Include only sockeye that were taken, dressed, and cured. They do not include the
other species of salmon taken or the sockeye consumed in a fresh state. The catches made by
Indians in the years of the big runs previous to 1913 were not a serious drain on the run of those
years. The numbers taken during the lean years, though considerably less than in the big years,
was a serious drain on the spawning-beds. During the last decade none of the tribes above the
canyon at Yale have been able to get any considerable number in any lean year, and their catches
in both 1913 and 1917 did not exceed those of early lean years. The drain on the runs, was
nevertheless serious.
The right of the Indians to take salmon is unquestioned, but the number of salmon they can
now catch is so small as to be of little benefit to them. Owing to the fact that most of the
Indians now grow the bulk of the food they use and are no longer dependent upon salmon, and
that drastic measures must be taken to restore the runs of salmon to the Fraser, the Government
should step in and acquire by purchase the Indians' right to take fish above the commercial
boundaries. It is suggested that the Indians, if deliberately approached, would dispose of their
fishing rights to the Government, and that the Government is fully warranted in entering upon
negotiations to acquire those rights.    The sooner the better.
It is self-evident that salmon taken from the vicinity of their spawning-grounds are much
more valuable individually and collectively than the fish taken within commercial fishing waters.
Sockeye that were worth 75 cents each to commercial fishermen on the Fraser the past year
are worth many times that amount on the spawning-grounds. The runs of the future depend
upon the number of eggs deposited and hatched within the river's basin. The female sockeye
of the Fraser produce averagely 2,500 eggs each.
It has been suggested that the Indians be deprived of their right to fish above commercial
fishing boundaries, and in lieu thereof be aided to do all their fishing within commercial limits. X 12 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
Possibly the Indians hi the delta of the Fraser and those resident south and west of Yale might
operate to advantage and fairly economically. The suggestion is wholly impracticable so far as
the great majority of the Indians are concerned. Very few of the Indians from the Chilcotin
or north of Bridge River have ever engaged in fishing within commercial waters. For them to
journey, with women, who do ail of the work of dressing and smoking the fish, from their homes
to tidal waters and then back again with their bales of dried fish would cost the Government
many times more than to purchase and transport a far greater supply of other foods for the
use of the Indians at home.
The Indians of the Fraser are reasonable beings. There are many clear-headed men in their
councils. If this matter be taken up with them in a deliberate, clear, and painstaking manner,
it is advanced that they would soon see the benefits to be derived by disposing of their fishing
rights. Their right at the present time is of little value to the most of them and is steadily
lessening in value. Many of them realize this to be true. The Government should act in this
matter without further delay; the expense to be covered from the collection made for fishing
licences.
Migration of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
During the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference on the Pacific Coast in April and May.
191S, questions were raised as to the time taken by sockeye salmon to pass from the waters of
Juan de Fuca Strait through Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia to the Fraser River. In order
to settle this important economic question, experiments were made by the Fishery Departments
of Canada and the United States Governments in marking with metal tags adult sockeye taken
from fish-traps in the waters named. The results of this experiment are covered in a report
just issued by the Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D.C, which is reproduced in the Appendix
of this report from advance sheets furnished the Department by Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United
States Commissioner of Fisheries. The report is of interest, though it cannot be said that the
results of the experiment have by any means determined the questions at issue. The questions
involved are vital in determining measures of conservation, and must be conducted for a sufficient
period of years to produce conclusions of value.
Contribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.
Dr. Gilbert's fifth contribution to the reports of the Department on the life-history of the
sockeye salmon, which is issued herewith, includes an analysis of the sockejTe runs of 1918 to
the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Rivers Inlet, and throws much additional light on
the mooted question of the return of mature spawning salmon to the particular part of a river's
basin in which they had been batched and reared. The present paper is of great value since
it conclusively demonstrates that, in the Eraser at least, the sockeye does return to spawn in
the identical tributary in which it was hatched. In dealing with this important economic
question Dr. Gilbert considers a number of propositions. If there'was, he submits, no tendency
for a salmon to return to any definite spawning district, the sockeye entering so extensive a
basin as the Fraser would be as likely to spawn above as belowT the canyon at Yale. Every
spawning-bed in that event would contain individuals which had been hatched and reared
in widely different portions of the basin, and the output of one centrally located hatchery
would furnish stock for all sections, since each spawning area would draw indifferently on
the common stock of returning migrants and the salmon frequenting it would necessarily
agree in their structural characteristics with those frequenting each of the other spawning areas
throughout the basin. There would be no basis for differences. Those spawning in different
parts of the basin would agree in their average size as yearlings and as adults. They would
agree in the relative number of "four- and five-year-old fish, in the relative numbers of those
which had spent one year or two years in fresh water after hatching, or had proceeded to sea
as soon as they were free-swimming. All the groups and all the variations of character which
are found in the main runs off the mouth of the river would be repeated in every spawning
section. Such would inevitably be the case if the salmon passed indifferently to the various
spawning areas, without reference to that of their native habitat.
On the other hand, he submits that If differences are found to exist in the populations of
distinct spawning districts it must be considered direct evidence that segregation has occurred,
and is based on some principle which has determined that certain individuals in the common 9 Geo. 5 British Columbia. X 13
run shall pass to one spawning area while others go elsewhere to spawn. The only principle
adequate to explain such segregation, if it generally occurs, would be the return of fish to spawn
in their native tributary.
Dr. Gilbert abundantly demonstrates that the latter principle obtains, as between different
river-basins, even when they are very limited in size and have their outlets to the sea in close
proximity to each other. In their passage to these minor streams along the salt-water channels
the schools of sockeye are often intimately mingled, and they separate only as the river-mouths
are approached. Off Namu, on Fitzhugh Sound, gill-nets operated along the shore capture in
about equal numbers at the same time sockeye which are bound for Bella Coola and those which
are bound for Kimsquit. They have been distinguished by characteristic scale-markings. They
run together along the same channels. Where they separate has not been demonstrated, but by
the time Bella Coola and Kimsquit Rivers are reached complete separation has occurred.
Dr. Gilbert points out that this case does not seemingly differ greatly with that of fish bound
for different tributaries of the same river. Conceivably, the schools may be separated as their
respective tributaries are reached. If the populations of these tributaries show distinguishing
characteristics, no other satisfactory explanation presents itself. It must be considered, he
states, also, that a partial segregation of spawners may occur, though not a total one. That
within certain limits indifference exists as to the precise spawning-ground frequented. Thus
the up-river fish may predominately run early and proceed above the canyon in the Fraser,
passing without selection into any stream that becomes available; while the late-running fish
may enter the Harrison, the Pitt, and Cultus Lakes again without determinate destination. That
this supposition is without validity for the lower river becomes evident from the fact, emphasized
in last year's report, that the fish entering Pitt Lake are so widely different from those entering-
Cultus Lake, and even the different spawning-beds of the Harrison, can usually be shown to
possess individual characteristics of unquestioned significance.
With regard to the river above the canyon the case is not so clear, partly due, no doubt, to
lack of adequate material. No material at all adequate has been obtained from any up-river
tributary except the Chilcotin, because of late years the runs to the upper river have become
extremely attenuated. Efforts of the last two years failed to produce the desired evidence, and
it may now be too late to secure it owing to permanent depletion.
Where spawning populations show distinguishing characteristics, the inference is clear and
unavoidable. A physiological barrier has existed for so long a period that minor differentiations
have developed and a strain or sub-race has been formed. But what is to be concluded in cases
where the colonies of two distinct spawning areas present no characteristics by which we can
distinguish them? Obviously, Dr. Gilbert states, we must infer either (a) that segregation in
their case has not occurred, or (6) that it has occurred but hasnot been effective in producing
divergence between the colonies. If the first of these were true, it would signify that the
" home-stream" instinct was in most cases rigidly operative, while in one or more instances
within the same river-basin it was wholly in abeyance. The second supposition would seem
a priori far less improbable. Complete segregation of spawning fish mayT occur, aud each
individual return to the stream in which it was hatched and reared, and yet, in certain instances,
separate colonies may have failed to develop distinct methods of growth by which they can
be distinguished. A failure to discover distinguishing characteristics between populations of
separate spawning areas need not indicate that their progeny will fail to return at maturity to
its native stream. The two colonies may have been wholly distinct and self-perpetuating for
a very long period and yet no differences have been developed. If we should adopt distinctive
marks for the young from each of the two streams on their downward migration to the sea, it
might be shown at maturity that each stream contained spawners with a single mark only, the
one that had been given to the young from that stream. Yet the adults from the two streams
might be otherwise indistinguishable. Negative evidence in such a case proves nothing. But
if affirmative evidence is found, it is conclusive. If differences are found to exist, there is no
alternative to the acceptance of the " home-stream " theory. Reviewing the evidence collected in
the Fraser basin in 1918, Dr. Gilbert says:—
" In general, it can be stated that the examination of this material completely7 supported and
verified the conclusions reached in 1916 with regard to the spawning-beds below the canyon;
ice affirm without qualification that they are as distinctivelg populated as though located in
separate streams independently entering the sea.   Additional material only emphasizes the fact. X 14 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
Not only were the different colonies in 191S marked by distinctive characters, but these characters
were the same for each colony as those noted in 1916."
Dr. Gilbert showTs that a very conspicuous instance of racial differentiation is furnished by
the Harrison watershed. It is not known how many distinct spawning areas may have existed
there. Several minor colonies, like that known to have existed at Silver Creek, are now practically exterminated, and there are doubtless distinct areas in Lillooet and Tenas Lakes, but no
records have been obtained. A very limited number of late spawners still frequent the slack
waters of the main river above Harrison Rapids, the vanishing remnant of a once fine run visits
the lake at the head of Morris Creek, and a considerable run still goes up the Birkenhead River;
both of these runs pass over the spawming-beds at the Harrison Rapids, but not one of them
tarries there. An examination of 200 spawners taken from the rapids in 191S by Mr. Robertson,
the clever Superintendent of the hatchery on Harrison Lake, failed to yield a single fish which
had been spawned elsewhere. Not one of the 200 could be confused with those constituting
either the Morris Creek or the Birkenhead colony, and not one of the fish taken on the rapids
was found among the 400 specimens taken at Morris Creek, and over 200 from the Skookumchuck
and the Birkenhead. No Morris Creek strays were found in the Birkenhead and no Birkenhead
fish were found in Morris Creek, in spite of the fact that the Birkenhead fish had all passed close
to the mouth of Morris Creek on their way up. In these cases the law of segregation is most
strictly in force, yet it seems impossible to imagine a locality better suited to straying of the
spawning fish with resulting mixture of populations. That it does not occur here gives confidence
that the same law rules everywhere, though the evidence of it may be less compelling.
The most interesting colony of the Harrison, Dr. Gilbert shows, is the one which spawns
late in the season at Harrison Rapids. The nature of that spawning area is in itself highly
unusual. The spawning habits of the sockeye have been shown to be rigidly fixed. Unlike other
species, they must resort to a lake, and fail to frequent streams save during their migrations.
They spawn in lake tributaries or on the gravel shores of lakes. Their young develop in the
waters of lakes and commonly reside there over a year before migrating to the sea. Of the few
which descend from lakes to the sea, few ordinarily survive to return at maturity. But the
Harrison Rapids spawners use gravel-bars in the main river and there is no lake between them
and the sea. Their young, in consequence, have no lake to drop down to. They have, Dr. Gilbert
shows, adopted the highly exceptional method of life for a sockeye, of migrating to sea as soon
as they are free-swimming and before their scales have begun to grow. No data is obtainable
as to the percentage of survival, but enough have survived to keep the colony flourishing. This
is apparently not true of the sockeye of any other spawning area of the Fraser. It demonstrates,
however, that under the spur of necessity a sockeye colony can adapt itself to the habit of sea
migration in the early free-swimming fry stage, a rare habit in sockeye, though a characteristic
of pink and chum salmon and frequently of the spring. The 200 specimens of Harrison Rapids
spawners taken and examined in 1918 had all gone to sea in the fry stage. Not one of them
exhibited in the centre of its scale any trace of growth in fresh water. The scales from all
others taken from different spawning areas recorded growth in fresh water of a year or more.
In 191S, as in 1916, Dr. Gilbert failed to find any individuals of sea-type spawning in any part
of the Fraser basin other than the Harrison Rapids, though upwards of a thousand specimens
from other sections were examined. The fact that no sockeye of sea-type was discovered
elsewhere in the basin, when coupled with the further fact that every Harrison Rapids sockeye
belonged to the sea-type, furnishes the strongest possible evidence of the return of spawning
sockeye to their native districts.
Dr. Gilbert's paper is reproduced in the Appendix of this report, together with reproductions
of microscopic photographs of the centres of thirty-four scales of sockeye salmon taken from
many sections of the Fraser River basin, the markings of which demonstrate that in the Fraser
the sockeye returns to spawn in the identical tributary in which it was hatched.
Halibut.
The landing of halibut at our ports and those of Seattle and Tacoma for the year 1918
shows a decrease of 14,375,000 lb. from that of 1917. Vancouver landing for 1918 totalled but
1,902,000 lb. as against 5,162,000 lb. in 1917. Prince Rupert shows a decrease of 3,801,000 lb.,
with total landings of 14,777,000 lb. Such statements demonstrate the alarming decrease of this
fishery and afford additional evidence of the value of the publications of this Department in 9 Geo. 5
British Columbia.
X 15
1915 and 1916 on the condition affecting the fishery, and which furnished evidence to show that
the banks had been seriously depleted, and that early action on the part of Canada and the
United States must be taken if the fishery was not to be destroyed. Up to this time no action
has been taken by either Government. Joint action alone can be effective. This subject was
considered by the American-Canadian Conference and evidence taken. The conclusions reached
have not been made public. The remarkable and alarming decline in the catch of 1918 is most
impressive and demands early action upon the part of Canada and the United States. The
correctness of W. F. Thompson's conclusions, furnished and published by this Department in
1915 and 1916, can no longer be questioned. Unless the halibut is given immediate and radical
measure of protection, they will be exterminated on this Coast as they have been on the Atlantic.
International action must be taken. By no other means can the halibut banks be given the
necessary protection.
Whaling.
Whaling during 1918 was most successful. Three stations were operated on our Coast.
The following statement, furnished the Department by the Consolidated Whaling Company, of
Victoria, gives the number and species of whales landed at each of their stations during 1918:—
Statement showing Number and Species of Whales landed at British Columbia Stations in 1918.
Station.
Sperm.
Sulphur.
Bin.
Sei.
Hump.
Right.
Bottle-
nose.
Total.
Kyuquot   	
Rose Harbour	
Naden   	
12
17
5
4
12
15
88
69
51
101
15
14
41
25
29
i
i
246
140
114
Totals   	
34
31
208
130
95
1
l
500
Canned Whale-meat.
A total of 29,585 cases of whale-meat was canned at the company's station of Kyuquot in
1918. The pack was made in round 1-lb. flat tins similar in all respects to salmon, each case
containing forty-eight tins. The Commissioner's Assistant made a careful inspection of canning
operations, and in his report said: "The canning plant at the Kyuquot whaling-station, where
the meat of the whale is canned, is up to date in every respect. I followed the process through
every detail. Every feature of it, from the cooling of the meat to the sealing of the can, is in
every respect all the most fastidious could wish. I sampled the contents of many cans taken
from the pile of those canned previous to my visit. The contents, to my. taste, equalled the best
canned beef or mutton in the market. There can be no question but that canned whale-meat will
command a market."    A rapid expansion in output is anticipated.
Pilchards.
The run of pilchards to the estuaries of the west coast of Vancouver Island was greater than
previously reported. Heretofore they have not been noted on the west coast in waters south of
Barkley Sound. This year they were taken in numbers by the salmon-traps in Juan de Fuca
Strait and in nets in Esquimalt Harbour, Cadboro Bay and Haro Strait as far north as Mayne
Island. The fish were large and fat. Many were sold fresh and several salmon-canners packed
them in 1-lb. and %-lb. cans, and they met with ready sale.
Deep-sea Trawling.
The distinguishing feature of the fishery year was the successful operating of deep-sea
trawling vessels from our ports. Experiments conducted in 1917 out of Prince Rupert demonstrated
that there were " banks " adjacent to that port where trawling could be conducted, and which
resulted in the successful operations of 191S. The trawler " James Carruthers " made forty-nine
trips out of Prince Rupert between February 28th and December 19th, occupying 151 days, which
resulted in the landing of some 2,000,000 lb. of fish consisting of flounders, sole, witch, brill, cod,
skate, and a limited amount of halibut. The average trip of the trawler from dock to dock was
three days. On being dressed the fish were placed in cold storage and frozen, and marketed
principally in the North-west, under provisions of Order No. IS of the Canada Food Board, being X 16 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
retailed from 10 to 11 cents per pound; the Dominion Fisheries Department assuming two-thirds
of transport charges. The trawlers' operations were limited because of the lack of a market.
The catch was in excess of the demand. There is no longer a question as to lack of supply or
suitable trawling " banks."    Given a market an abundant supply is assured.
The bulk of the catch was, as stated, marketed in the North-west. Heretofore that section
has been supplied only from the Coast with salmon and halibut. Other salt-water fishes were
unknown. The sale of Pacific flatfish and cods was stimulated by an active publicity campaign
conducted by the Canada Food Board. Sales in 1918 were sufficiently large to warrant the
belief that a permanent market can be established, provided the price of that year can be
maintained. There is no question as to the food values of trawl-caught fish. They are the equal
of any food-fishes, with the exception of salmon. They have more flavour than halibut, and can
be sold at less than half the price of either salmon or halibut. Evidence of the value in which
they are estimated is demonstrated by the fact that the landing of trawl-caught fish at the chief
ports of Great Britain, notwithstanding the war, between May 4th and September 14th, 191S,
totalled 1,658,764,000 lb. During the last four months of 1917 an average of 1,500,000 lb. per
month of trawl-caught fish were landed in San Francisco.
In face of the declining catch of our estuary and halibut fisheries, it is encouraging to record
the success of deep-sea trawling from our ports. A success so great as to warrant the belief that
eventually a large fleet of trawlers will operate from our ports.
The Department give considerable attention to the operation of the trawlers. Curtailed as
operations were by a limited market and cold-storage capacity, they were extensive enough, as
stated, to warrant exploitation. In advancing measures for the engagement of returned overseas
service men, the Commissioner stated:—
" In formulating measures for the engagement of returned overseas men, full consideration
should be given to the fisheries. Deep-sea trawling conducted out of British Columbia ports
in 1917 and 1918 w7ere profitable and afford evidence of the wealth of food-fishes that await
exploitation. What Is required at this time to reap the wealth is more suitable vessels and more
trained men to operate them. This want can be supplied ou the Pacific Coast by the establishment of a trawling-school—a school for the training of men to engage in deep-sea trawling-fishing
—by providing a number of suitable vessels equipped for deep-sea fishing and officered by
experienced navigators, engineers, and fishermen to act as instructors, and to which returned
overseas men could be apprenticed for instruction in navigation ; the assembling and operation
of steam and gas engines; the construction, care, casting, and hauling of trawl-nets; and the
dressing, storing, packing, and shipment of the fish caught.
" In consequence, it is suggested that the Government provide a number of suitably equipped
vessels, mail them with capable instructors, and engage them in training returned overseas men
in deep-sea trawling-fishing. The men during their apprenticeship to be paid a good living
wage and given a bonus from the ship's earnings, after capital expenditures have been paid,
that would eventually give the apprentices, who by that time aje experienced men, the ownership
of the vessel.
"Well managed, the operations of such vessels would be sufficiently profitable'to furnish the
means for operation and maintenance and create a sinking fund that would reimburse the Government and permit the vessel being transferred to the men to be worked on their own. There is
room for at least ten such training-ships on the Pacific Coast of Canada, each of which could
provide tuition for twenty-five apprentices. Such a school as is here suggested could be directed
and operated in connection with the Naval Training School now established at Esquimalt.
" In addition to the practical trawling sea school here suggested, there should be established
at Prince Rupert and Vancouver fish curing and packing schools for the practical training of
overseas men in the curing, packing, and marketing of fish, and through which the catches of
the training-trawlers could market their catch.
" Men graduated from the land school could be sent in to the North-west and established as
wholesale and retail handlers of both frozen and cured fish, first as the agents of the schools,
and so bonused as to eventually acquire their plant and the business they have been enabled
to establish.
" The establishing and maintenance of such schools as are here suggested will not provide
for the engagement of a large number of returned men, but it does provide for a number and
will materially assist in building up a food-providing class of hardy men in a field where men
are needed and where they may gainfully engage." 9 Geo. 5
British Columbia.
X 17
The Ottesen Method of freezing Fish.
A. Ottesen, an exporter of fish of Thistal, Denmark, after years of experience, has invented
a system of freezing fresh fish that has widely been adopted in Europe, and which should prove
of value to companies operating in the Province which are not equipped with cold-storage plants.
The Fishery Director of Norway described the Ottesen method as revolutionizing the fish-
refrigerator. The Inspector-General of France says: " After being thawed in water for five or
six hours the fish frozen by the Ottesen method look like fresh fish and are in the same condition.
The freezing does not cause the slightest injury to the flesh tissues, but, on the contrary, after
the fish have been prepared for the table they keep their firmness and full flavour. Fish so
frozen have been shipped long distances without change in texture or flavour."
The principle of the Ottesen method is simple and easily understood. The fish are not frozen
in the ordinary way in air, but in a strong solution of common salt in water, which is cooled to
very low temperature and in which the fish are immersed. The freezing-point of the solution
of salt depends upon the degree of saltness; the more salt, the lower the temperature. A solution
with 3 per cent, of salt freezes the fish at about 27° Fahr. A solution with 17 to 20 per cent, of
salt may be cooled down to from 10° to 60° Fahr. without freezing the solution. It is a solution
of this kind which is used (instead of cooled air) to remove the heat from the fish and to freeze
it. The apparatus consists essentially of an insulated iron vat or container of suitable dimensions
in which the salt solution is placed. The cooling of the solution is accomplished by means of a
central spiral, or worm, of iron tubing in connection with an ammonia refrigerating-machine, and
the solution is kept in constant movement by a central revolving propeller. Large fish are hung
in the solution, the smaller being placed in baskets of wire netting.
The great value of the method appears in the simplicity of the apparatus, its cost, and in
the rapid freezing of the fish. Herring in baskets are completely frozen in half an hour and
the largest cod In from two to three hours. In ordinary methods of freezing in air the time
taken would be from twenty-four to thirty hours. An ordinary Ottesen apparatus can freeze
10 tons of fish in twenty-four hours.
The A. Ottesen fish-freezing process was patented in Canada several years ago and the
■ Canadian rights sold to the Det Danske Frysnings Kompagin, address 33 Ny Toldbodgade,
Copenhagen.
The Sockeye  Salmon-pack*  of  the Fraser River District  from  1900  to  1918,  inclusive.
Year.
Fraser River.
Puget Sound.
Totals.
1900 	
229,800
228,704
458 504
1901 	
928,669
1.105.096
2,033,765
1902 	
293,477
339,556
633,033
372,020
1903 	
204.809
167,211
1904 	
72.6S8
123,419
196,107
1905 	
837.489
847,122
1,684,611
1906 	
183,007
182,241
365,248
1907 	
62,617
96,974
159,591
1908	
74,574
155,218
229,792
585,435
1,005,120
1,590,555
1910 	
150,432
234,437
384,869
1911 	
62,817
126,950
189,767
1912 .   	
123,879
183,896
307 775
1913 	
736,661
1,664,827
336.251
2,401,488
534,434
155,714
1914 	
198,183
1915 	
91,130
64,584
1916	
27,394
78,476
105,870
1917 	
148,164
411,538
559,732
1918 	
19.697
50,723
70,420
* Given in cases—forty-eight 1-lb cans to case. X 18
Report of the Commissioner op Fisheries.
1919
The following statement of the salmon-eggs placed in the hatcheries of the Province in
191S is furnished by Lieut.-Colonel F. H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the
Dominion:—
Statement showing Total Number of Eggs placed in Various Hatcheries, 1918.
Name of
Hatchery.
Sockeye.
Spring.
Cohoe.
Humpback.
Eastern
Spk.
Brook
Trout.
Dog
Salmon.
Alaska
Sockeye.
Whitensh
Anderson   Lake,
V.I.
Babine Lake,
Skeena River
2,515,500
9,100,000
3,120,000
1,873,000
2,514,875
11.960.000
3,628,500
3,024,000
465,500
3,025,000
45,000
272,000
2,172,900
1,038,000
42,000
650,000
192,000
126,000
15,363,000
30,000
V.I.
Cultus Lake, Era
ser
Gerrard, Kootenay
Harrison Lake,
Fraser
Kennedy Lake, V.I.
New Westminster,
Fraser
Pemberton, Fraser
396,000
24,000
20,700,000
7,000,000
Seton Lake, Fras'r
Totals	
37,735,875
3,535,500
4,366,900
15,489,000
30,000
420,000
20,700,000
7,000,000
Sockeye Egg-take at Fraser River Hatcheries from  1901 to 1918.
1901   15,741,000
1902  72,034,000
1903  13,464,000
1904    9,469,000
1905  97,656,000
1906   51,121,000
1907   53,952,000
1908   46,709,000
1909   98,000,000
1910   37,343,000
1911    22,937,000
1912  38,500,000
1913  86,000,000
1914    28,589,000
1915   68,476,000
1916  '.... 40,203,000
1917  31,004,000
1918  '  20,581,500*
* In addition to the collections made from Fraser River, 20,000,000 sockeye-eggs taken in Alaska were
hatched at Harrison Lake. 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds op Fraser River. X 19
APPENDICES.
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE FRASER RIVER.
Hon. Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit that during the season just closed I made a thorough
inspection of the salmon fishing and spawning grounds of the Fraser River. The catch of all
species of salmon from the Fraser River District within the Province produced a pack of only
201,851 cases, of which more than half consisted of pinks and chums. The total pack of all
grades four years ago totalled 349,294 cases, 19S,1S3 of which were sockeyes.
The Catch of Sockeye.
The catch of sockeye in Provincial waters of the Fraser River District this year was very
much the smallest ever made. It produced a pack of only 19,697 cases, as against 148,164 cases
in 1917, 32,146 in 1916, 91,130 in 1915, and 198,183 in the preceding fourth year, 1914. The catch
in our waters of the district was but 10 per cent, of that made in the latter year, the brood-year
of the greater proportion of this year's run.
The catch of sockeye this season in the State of Washington wraters, included in the term
Fraser River District, was but 14 per cent, of that made in those waters four years ago. The
combined catch of sockeye in that entire district this season was the smallest ever recorded, and
was 87 per cent, less than the catch in the preceding fourth year.
Since the primary test of the size of a run of sockeye to the Fraser River District is the
catch, and is expressed in figures by the pack, the above statements display the serious extent
of the depletion in that run to that district, and fully justified the statement made by you last
summer at the Vancouver meeting of the Canadian-American Fisheries Conference, " that the
run of sockeye salmon to the Fraser River is perilously near to extermination."
The Department's report of four years ago, in dealing with the conditions of the spawning-
beds of the Fraser, stated that the beds contained less sockeye than I had previously observed
there.    It is therefore not surprising now to learn that the run this year was so limited.
Condition on the Spawning-beds of the Fraser.
During the season I personally inspected the principal sockeye-spawning area of the Fraser
River basin, and was assisted by Dr. C. H! Gilbert and Inspector of Fisheries C. P. Hickman.
The inspection made this year, like the sixteen former inspections made by me since 1901, was
conducted during the spawning period. As a result of the last inspection, I have to submit the
opinion that far less sockeye reached the spawning-beds this year than in any previous one of
which there is a record. In all of the great lake sections of the Fraser above Hell's Gate Canyon
there were few or no sockeye, and in the lower section of the Fraser, with the exception of
Lillooet Lake, there were less sockeye than previously reported.
The number of sockeye that reached Hell's Gate, in the narrow canyon of the Fraser above
the village of Yale, was smaller than in any former year. The Indians who fished there, under
daily supervision of Dominion fishery officials, caught less than 1,500 sockeye. They could have
taken more, and would have done so, but for the fact that the run of spring salmon was above
the average and satisfied their own demands, and they were not permitted to sell either fresh
or'salted fish to the whites.
The Indians who fished at the canyon in the Fraser above the mouth of Bridge River caught
less than 400 sockeye, and those engaged on the Fraser at Chimney Creek and at Soda Creek
took less than 100 at each location, while those fishing just below the mouth of Quesnel River
were unable to catch any sockeye at all. No sockeye were reported from that section of the
basin above the mouth of Quesnel River. X 20
Report op the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
The conditions at Quesnel and Chilko Lakes are best evidenced by the statements that less
than fifty sockeye are recorded by the Provincial watchman as having entered Quesnel Lake,
and that it took Dr. Gilbert aud myself, operating separately at the principal Indian fishing-places
on the Chilcotin River, a week to obtain scales and measurements from 100 individual sockeye.
Throughout the season the Chilcotin Indians at all their fishing-places caught less than 500
sockeye. Dr. Gilbert was desirous of obtaining scales and measurements of sockeye entering
the Chilcotin and Quesnel Rivers. As stated, it took a week to get the data from the Chilcotin,
and we could get no data from the Quesnel because so few reached that river, and they came
so scatteringly that none were caught.
Not to exceed 100 sockeye are known to have entered Seton-Anderson or Adams Lakes,
though the creeks leading from them were under observation throughout the season, and less
than 100 sockeye were found in any of the many tributaries of Shuswap Lake.
Indians resident along and near the Thompson River again had no fishing-platforms on the
banks of that river, and are not believed to have taken fifty sockeye or any pink salmon this year.
No pink salmon were reported in the Fraser above Hell's Gate.
In former reports on the spawning area of the Fraser I have dealt separately and at length
with conditions at all the principal districts in the upper section of the basin. I do not do so
this year because the whole story is told in the above statements. There were too few fish in
those waters this season to warrant further records. No future importance need be attached
to the few that did spawn there.
The number of sockeye which reached the spawning area of the lower section of the Fraser
basin this year were less than four years ago, and the hatcheries collected less sockeye-eggs.
The run to the streams at the head of Lillooet Lake was less than four years ago. The hatchery
maintained there collected 12,000.000 sockeye-eggs, as against 15,000,000 four years ago. The
run was, however, greater than last year. In addition to the fish that reached the hatchery this
season, it is to be noted that the Dominion Fishery and Indian Officer Grant, who was stationed
at the portage between Harrison and Lillooet Lakes, records that the Indians fishing at that
portage took over 6,CO0 sockeye. As in recent years, by orders of Officer Grant, the Indians
retained only the male fish caught by them. The females taken were returned uninjured to
the water, and were thus enabled to reach the streams at the head of lake.
The number of sockeye that entered Plarrison and the lower lakes was less than four years
ago, and less eggs were collected for the hatcheries.
The total number of sockeye-eggs collected for the hatcheries on the Fraser from its tributaries was 12,210,000 less than four years ago.
Chief Inspector of Fisheries Lieut.-Colonel F. H. Cunningham reports that some 20,000,000
sockeye-eggs taken from streams in Alaska were donated and shipped to the Harrison Lake
Hatchery by the United States Bureau of Fisheries, and that they will hatch them and the young
be liberated in the vicinity of Harrison Lake. This addition to the hatcheries gives a total
of 32,210,000 sockeye being Incubated for liberation in the Fraser, as against 22,484,000 in 1914.
Reports from the Dominion Hatcheries operating in British Columbia in 1918.
1
Sockeye.
Spring.
Cohoe.
Chums.
Pinks.
Cultus Lake  (tributary
Westminster  (tributary
to Harrison)   . . .
to Harrison)   . . .
1,873.000
3,120,000
4,000.000
3,217,000
2.500,000
2.313,000
8,000,000
2,600.000
3,025,000
40,000
417,404
42,000
1,038,000
636,000
163,000
176,000
2,019,000
396,000
23,000
Steelliead.
37,000
40,000
Pitt Lake 	
Victoria, B.C., December 1st, 1918.
I have, etc.,
John Pease Babcock,
Assistant to the Commissioner. 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. X 21
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET.
Hon. Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit the following report in respect to the conditions existing
on the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet for the year 191S:—
Leaving the cannery at Rivers Inlet on October 7th, I proceeded to the lake with the intention
of going right through to the headwaters, a distance of between thirty-eight and forty miles, but
the weather, which had permitted the inspection of the spawning-beds of Smith Inlet to be made
under such favourable conditions, suddenly changed, and created such a sea on Lake Owikeno
by the high wind that it was considered advisable to remain near the mouth until an improvement
was shown.
Eventually reaching Jeneesee Creek, a distance of twenty-two miles, I inspected the
spawning-beds situated at this point. The creek, which in 1913 and 1914 was literally swarmed
with sockeye salmon, and commented upon very favourably in my reports for those two years,
was practically empty; beyond one or two small schools swimming about in the creek and a
few noted breaking water outside on the gravel shores of the beach, there was nothing to indicate
an exceptional run to this tributary. The hatchery officials, who usually obtain their eggs from
this stream, had been unsuccessful in securing any so far. Since the experience of the past two
or three years has shown that the fish have arrived late, it was deemed desirable to again visit
this sectioii on my return from the headwaters of the lake, in case I was too early. The logs
and jams which litter the stream all the way up to the falls form a formidable barrier to the
number of sockeye which eventually reach these beds. I do not remember, in the six years of
my experience of this particular stream, noting so many small grilse as on this occasion. Schools
of them were observed spawning on the gravel-bars right up to the falls, having managed to
wriggle their way through the fence erected by the Dominion Hatchery. The small number of
sockeye salmon which had arrived at the creek were of good average size and compared favourably with the 1914 run.
The Machmell River, another tributary flowing directly into the lake at this point, although
one of the largest of the streams to be met with in this watershed, does not, nevertheless, appear
to be favoured byr the sockeye salmon. Owing to the high stage of the water at this time the
inspection was conducted under extreme difficulty. The thick muddy condition of this glacier
stream did not favour accurate observation of the likely numbers spawning on the beds, but
indications higher up, where the river-bed was visible, did not point to a big run; very few fish
were seen. The swift-running river precluded all attempts to secure a collection of eggs or scales
for the Department.
It was hoped that the run of sockeye salmon up the Nookins River, a tributary to the
Machmell, would make up for the indifferent number seen at the latter point, but an examination
of this stream disclosed similar conditions. It was difficult to believe that these spawning-beds
which in former years have been so plentifully seeded could be depleted to the extent shown this
year, especially as the spawniug-beds were full of sockeye salmon in 1913 and 1914. There were
no log-jams or other obstructions (with the exception of the log-jam two miles from the mouth,
which does not, however, cause an obstruction to the fish) to account for the failure of the
salmon to run.
On arriving at the head of the lake next day, I made camp and inspected the tributaries
at this section. The Indian River, which was examined under the most favourable circumstances, was absolutely empty; not one sockeye was visible as we made our way through the
rapids to the falls. There were no log-jams or other obstructions to account for the failure;
therefore it cannot be due to this cause. The Cheo River, one of the finest spawning-grounds
for the salmon, and upon which the early-running sockeye deposit their ova, again showed up
very unsatisfactorily in comparison with the large numbers noted on the occasion of my visit
there in 1913 and 1914. Very few fish were spawning on the beds as we made our way up
to the falls, four miles and a half distant, and only an occasional glimpse of them could be
obtained in the deeper portions of the river. No collection of eggs was made possible owing to
the agile salmon eluding every effort to spear them. X 22 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
The log-jam at the bend three miles up had not materially changed since my visit last year.
It affords no real obstruction unless the falls are opened to permit the salmon reaching the
spawning-beds above. If, as has been suggested, a fish-ladder is built through the falls, then
it will become necessary to blast out the jam to provide passage to the onward movement of
the fish.
In making the examination of the Washwash River last year, I drew attention to the huge
jam that obstructed the mouth and prevented the salmon reaching the extended spawning-beds
above. I am glad to report this year that a portion of the obstruction had been washed away
by an extreme freshet and permitted the salmon to reach these beds. The log-jam, however,
is a source of danger and may at any time effectually block this river.
Proceeding to the falls two miles and a half distant, I noted the comparatively small number
of sockeye spawning on the beds, the majority having spawned out, but I was able to obtain a
collection of both salmon and scales from this stream.
The unsatisfactory state of the spawning-beds of the three rivers suggested that the unavoidable delay in reaching them may have been the cause for the poor results shown, but Indians
who had been camping here for the past six weeks stated that even at the height of the run
of sockeye, three weeks prior to my visit, very few had come into the rivers in comparison with
former years, and that it was only with extreme difficulty sufficient numbers were obtained to
supply their winter's need. It is evident, therefore, that the outlook does not favour a big run
to this section of the lake four or five years hence. In size the run of sockeye salmon came well
up to the average.
Returning from the head, I inspected Sunday Creek, a small mountain stream flowing into
the lake. In my report for last year I drew attention to the change in the course of the channel;
the original one had been obliterated. I found again another change where an extreme freshet
had burst its way through, changing the course again and obliterating the channel formed last
year. It is to be feared, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon this stream to successfully
fulfil its functions year by year. In the Narrows, where formerly large numbers of both sockeye
and cohoe salmon were seen on the beds, was found to be lacking of both species on this occasion.
The Sheemahant, the largest and most productive river of the lake, and which in past years
(with the exception of 1916) had received its full complement of both sockeye and cohoe salmon,
failed this year to sustain its reputation; it fell far short of the prolific numbers encountered
here in 1913 and 1914. A few sockeye were observed spawning on the riffles as we proceeded
up to the falls, but owing to the high stage of the water it was difficult to gauge with any degree
of accuracy the real number actually on the spawning-beds; there was no room left for doubt,
however, that the run this year has dropped to approximately 25 per cent, of the 1913 and 1914
runs. The few sockeye salmon observed were all fine specimens of the race and came well up
to the average. No log-jams obstruct this fine river, which is open to the salmon up to the falls
eighteen miles distant.
In making the return visit to Jeneesee Creek, I was quite prepared to see a big change in
the number of sockeye salmon spawning on the beds, but in this I was disappointed; very few
had arrived. The hatcherymen* had obtained one or two boxes of eggs, but from the small
number of fish seen in the creek it did not look very hopeful for the requisite number necessary
to fill the hatchery being produced. In comparison with the 1913 and 1914, the run of sockeye
to Jeneesee is a failure.
I found great difficulty in accurately estimating the run of sockeye salmon to the Asklum
River owing to the tremendous volume of water flowing down at the time of my visit; it was
necessary to go right up to the falls, and then work our way down the sides of the river, before
an opportunity was afforded to view the spawning-beds with any degree of accuracy. A fair
number were observed spawning on the riffles, and should provide for a fair run returning here
four or five years hence. In examining several of these fish I found they were not yet ready
for spawning, and indicated their early arrival from the lake. They were fine specimens of the
sockeye race, and here again came well up to the average of the other rivers. In estimating the
run I have to record a decrease to approximately 50 per cent, of the 1913, 1914, and 1915 runs.
Quap River, in comparison with former years, is a complete failure. Calling in there on my
way up the lake, I noted a few sockeye spawning on the beds below the fence and a small number
had reached the pen; concluding that this w-as only a forerunner of a big run which has never
failed so far to eventually make its appearance, I was certainly surprised to find on my return 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. X 23
that little improvement had been shown.   The hatchery officials had met with little success in
their endeavour to fill the hatchery and had barely obtained 1,000,000 eggs.
As the capacity of the hatchery is about 14,000,000 eggs, it is obvious that unless a big run
entered very soon their efforts would be doomed to disappointment. Such a situation has
occurred, so I am given to understand from information courteously supplied by the hatchery
officials; only about 3,000,000 eggs were secured by them.
The conditions above the fence have not changed in any way; huge trees and log-jams
which obstruct the river right up to the falls are still in evidence, and will entail heavy expense
in removing to permit the salmon reaching the extended spawning-beds.
The Dalley River, situated directly opposite Quay, showed little improvement. Indians who
had been up here three or four times during the last five weeks confirmed the lack of sockeye
salmon seen on the occasion of my visit there, and reported that they did not remember having
seen so few fish spawning on the beds. This has in former years been regarded as one of the
most productive streams of the lake. In 1913, and especially in 1914, the sockeye salmon were
seen in dense masses. It is to be feared that this river is also a failure. No log-jams interfere
with the progress of the salmon up-stream.
The hatchery creek appeared to be well stocked with sockeye salmon, the fine spawning-
beds showing to great advantage; the bars outside were thickly covered with spawning fish and
in size attained a high average.
The facilities for erecting a fence to obtain eggs for the hatchery are by no means favourable
owing to the raging torrent of water which comes down after a heavy rain; consequently the
large numbers of spawning sockeye cannot be utilized by the hatchery for artificial propagation,
the experience of past years precluding the erection of a fence.
All along the shores at the mouth of the lake the sockeye salmon were observed in very
large numbers; also the fine spawning-beds lying around and close to the Indian rancherie were
thickly covered, and for the first time showed up in favourable contrast to the poor run of sockeye
salmon to the other tributaries of Lake Owikeno.
Spring salmon were breaking water all the way down through the rapids of the Owikeno
River and compared very favourably with former years.
I noticed the cohoe salmon repeatedly breaking water as we proceeded back from the lake;
one or two had been caught in the pen at Quap River and indicated by their appearance early
arrival from salt water. I have no doubt that later on the spawning-beds will receive their
full complement of this species of salmon.
In reviewing the results of the inspection of the Rivers Inlet watershed, I am of the opinion
the serious shortage of sockeye salmon disclosed by a visit to these beds, and amounting to
approximately 25 per cent, of the 1913, 1914, and 1915 runs, will have a correspondingly serious
effect on the number of adult sockeye which will return from this season's spawning.
It may be recorded here that an exceptional run of humpback salmon invaded the inlet
during the sockeye-fishing season and permitted some of the canneries to put up large packs.
The same peculiar conditions were experienced in other sections of the district, notably at Bella
Coola and Kimsquit, where abnormal numbers were caught by the fishermen, who made big
money in consequence, some of them making between $3,000 and $4,000.
In conclusion, I wish to express my indebtedness to G. C. Johnston (manager) and J. Dawson,
of Rivers Inlet Cannery; Captain Hamer (Superintendent) and J. Reid (Foreman) ; and the
men at the various spawning camps.
I have, etc.,
Arthur W. Stone,
Fisheries Overseer.
Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 10th, 1918. X 24 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF SMITH INLET.
Hon. Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—In obedience to instructions from the Department to inspect the spawning-grounds of
Smith and Rivers Inlets respectively for the year 1918, I have the honour to submit the following
reports:—
Proceeding to Smith Inlet to undertake the inspection of this watershed first, I arrived there
on September 22nd, and after making arrangements with Indians started for Long Lake the
following day.
Bearing in mind the extraordinary number of sockeye salmon seen on the spawning-beds
at this point in 1914, it was certainly surprising that the run this year did not come up to
expectation, and that the two canneries operating here were only able to put up a total pack
of about 14,000 cases of sockeye salmon between them. Comparing this with the total pack of
about 28,000 cases put up by the Smith Inlet Cannery in 1914, it will be seen there must be some
explanation for the decrease shown. I am of the opinion, after closely reviewing the spawning-
beds, that the poor results are due to the following reasons: A decided decrease 'In the number
of sockeye salmon reaching the spawning-beds following a comparatively poor run of fish up the
inlet. In comparison with the exceptionally big run which invaded the inlet in 1914, and correspondingly large numbers reaching the beds in that year, it was a distinct disappointment—i.e., if
the four-year fish were the predominating factor in that year—to find the beds had not received
their complement of spawning fish. Another reason may be given in the extra number of gill-net
fishermen empowered to fish this inlet in comparison with former years; their nets, which were
distributed over the inlet in large numbers, disorganized the schools of salmon proceeding up
the inlet, and instead of schooling up at the seining-grounds went right through and on to the
lake. I am given to understand from the seine-net fishermen that only one fairly big haul was
made by them during the whole of the run.
The inspection of the spawning-grounds was made under very favourable conditions, fine
weather prevailing all the time, and the rivers which last year precluded accurate observations, due to exceptionally bad weather, were low and permitted me to observe them without
interruption.
The Docee River (the overflow to the lake) was well stocked with spring salmon; a very
large number were seen in the clear-running water making their way up; also the fine gravel
spawning-beds at the mouth of the lake contained large numbers. I am able to record a substantial increase in the number of spring salmon in comparison with former years.
At no previous inspection have I noted so many cohoe salmon as on this occasion; schools
were observed swimming around and intermingled with the springs, which from their healthy-
looking state proclaimed their early arrival from salt water. Indications pointed to the
spawning-beds receiving tlieirfull quota of eggs from this species of salmon.
The run of sockeye salmon to Quay Creek, a small stream situated about seven miles from
the mouth of the lake, although inspected under the most favourable conditions, showed a falling-
off, and presented a great contrast to the numbers seen here in 1914. Schools of these fish were
swimming around outside in the shallow waters of the lake, which no doubt will be the means
of plentifully seeding the beds later on.
No exceptional brood, however, may be expected from the adults which will eventually return
to this stream from this season's spawning. The run may be compared to the number reaching
this stream in 1915.
Proceeding to the head of the lake, we made camp at the mouth of the Geluch River.
In making our way. through the rapids to the falls later, it was satisfactory to note that the
reputation of this fine spawning stream, although not bearing fruit to the same extent as in
1914 and 1915, nevertheless received its full quota of spawning sockeye, which I estimate came
within 25 per cent, of the number seen on these beds in the years previously mentioned; they
were fine healthy-looking specimens of the race and compared in size to the 1914 run. 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet. X 25
Each riffle appeared to be thickly covered until we reached the spawning-beds just below the
falls, where the few sockeye observed in this portion of the river presented a vivid contrast to
the dense masses which lined the beds in 1914.
No log-jams or other obstructions impeded the progress of the salmon up-stream, A few
small grilse were observed in this river for the first time in my inspection of these beds.
I was very disappointed with the run of sockeye salmon to the Delabah River. In 1914, it
will be recalled, large numbers were observed both in the river and in the shallow waters of
the lake outside; great stress was laid upon the unsuitabillty of these beds for the propagation
of salmon spawn, and suggested the benefit a hatchery would provide to counteract the all too
apparent wastage which was manifest in that year. The relatively small run of sockeye which
reached the.beds bears a great significance in relation to the warning given at that time.
In making my way up to the falls fair numbers were noted spawning, but did not by any
means reach the high standard attained in 1914; the beds should be fairly well seeded, however.
In size the sockeye were fine specimens of the race and compared very favourably with the
1914 run.
Stretching from one end of the bay to the other, the fine gravel spawning-beds of the lake
presented a very empty appearance in comparison to the milling mass of sockeye noted here in
1914; beyond one largo school which was seen waiting at the mouth of the river, there was no
indication that the remarkable run would be repeated this year.
In making a comparison, I estimate the run closely resembles that of 1915, or only about
25 per cent, of the total run to this section in 1914. No log-jams or other obstructions interfere
with the free movement of the salmon in this river.
Returning to the mouth of the lake, the cohoe salmon were observed breaking water frequently, but none so far had reached the spawning-beds. A late run of these fish appear to
have entered Smith Inlet only after the canneries had ceased operating, with the result that
some fishermen who had made big hauls were unable to market their fish. One or two canneries
from Rivers Inlet, however, came to their assistance later.
The run of humpback salmon was very satisfactory and permitted the canneries to put up
an average pack.
In summarizing the results of the inspection at this watershed, I am of the opinion that
the adult sockeyes which will return from this season's spawning will by no means approach the
vast numbers seen on the beds in 1914, but should result in a run equal to that of 1915.
In regard to the run of cohoes, humpbacks, and spring salmon, I have reason to believe that
the favourable impression formed this year will result in a good run from each of this species
of fish on their return as adults.
In conclusion. I wish to express my indebtedness to G. F. Harris, Manager of the Wallace
Fisheries at Smith Inlet.
I have, etc.,
Arthur W. Stone,
Fisheries Overseer.
Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 10th, 1918. X 2G Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON.
(No. 5.)
By Charles II. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, Stanford University.
I.   SPAWNING SOCKEYE COLONIES  IN THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE FRASER RIVER
DURING THE SEASON OF 1918.
In our report for the season of 1916 we presented for the first time evidence derived from
an investigation of the salmon which frequented separate spawning areas of the Fraser River.
Those which were found spawning in Morris Greek were examined separately from those that
spawned at the Harrison Rapids. And in like manner independent studies wrere made of the
spawners at the Harrison Hatchery, in the Birkenhead River at Pemberton, in Pitt Lake, in
Cultus Lake, and in the Chilcotin River. The object of the investigation was to throw light on
the much-mooted question as to the return of the mature spawning salmon to that particular
part of the river-basin in which they had been hatched and reared. In the answer to this question
a number of possibilities must be considered.
(1.) There may conceivably be no tendency for a salmon to return to any definite spawning
district, or to any geographically distinct group of spawning^ districts. In such case any sockeye
entering the Fraser would be as likely to spawn above as below the canyon, and as likely to
spawn in any one tributary as in any other. Every spawning-bed in that event would contain
individuals which had been hatched and reared in widely different portions of the basin.
Each spawning area would draw indifferently on the common stock of migrants, and the
salmon frequenting it would necessarily agree in their characteristics with those frequenting
each of the other spawning areas throughout the basin. There would be no basis for differences
of any description. The salmon spawning in different parts of the basin would agree in their
average size, as adults, and in their early history as fingerlings migrating seawards. They would
agree in the relative numbers of four- and five-year fish, in the relative numbers' of those which
had spent one year or two years in fresh water after hatching, or had proceeded to sea as soon
as they were free-swimming. All the groups and all the variations of characters which we find
in the main run examined off the mouth of the river would be repeated in approximately equal
proportions on every spawning-ground. Such would inevitably be the case if the salmon passed
indifferently to the various spawning areas without reference to their native habitat.
On the other hand, if differences are found to exist in the populations of distinct spawning
districts, this must be considered direct evidence that segregation has occurred, based on some
principle which has determined that certain individuals in the common run pass to one spawning
area while other individuals go elsewhere to spawn. The only principle adequate to explain such
segregation, if It generally occurs, would be the return of fish to spawn in their native tributaries.
This principle obtains, as we have abundantly demonstrated, as between different river-
basins, even when these are of very limited size and have their outlets to the sea in close
proximity to each other. In their passage to these minor streams along the salt-water channels
the schools of fish are often very intimately mingled, and they separate only as the river-mouths
are approached. Thus, iii the vicinity of Namu, on Fitzhugh Sound, gill-nets operated along
shore capture in about equal numbers at the same time sockeyes which are bound for Bella
Coola and those which are bound for Kimsquit. These can be distinguished by characteristic
scale-markings. The two schools are running intimately mingled along the same channels.
Where they separate has not been determined. The greater part of them may pass up Burke
Channel together, or it may be the Kimsquit fish may take the Dean Channel. But by the time
Bella Coola and Kimsquit are reached complete separation has occurred.
The case wTould seem not greatly different from that of fish bound for different tributaries
of the same river. Conceivably, the schools may be mingled along the main channels of the
river and become separated as their respective tributaries are reached. If the populations of
these tributaries show distinguishing characteristics, no other satisfactory explanation presents
itself. 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 27
(2.) We must consider also the possibility that a partial segregation of spawners occurs,
but not a total one; that within certain limits indifference exists as to the precise spawning-
ground frequented. Thus the up-river fish may predominately run early and proceed above the
canyon, passing without selection into any stream that becomes available; while the late-running
fish may enter the Harrison, the Pitt, and Cultus Lakes again without determinate destination.
„That this supposition is without validity for the lower river becomes evident from the fact
previously emphasized that the fish entering Pitt Lake are so widely different from those entering
Cultus Lake, and that even the different spawning-beds of the Harrison can usually be shown
to possess individual characteristics of unquestioned significance.
With regard to the river above the canyon, the case is not so clear, partly, no doubt, from
lack of adequate material. The runs of the upper river have of late years become extremely
attentuated. No material at ail adequate has been obtained from any up-river tributary except
the Chilcotin, and because of permanent depletion we may now find It too late to secure any.
A small run which makes it possible for natives to secure a few fish for food from the main
channels of the up-river may yet disappear for all practical purposes when it becomes widely
distributed among the tributaries. And unless material can be so secured after final segregation
has occurred it is useless for our purposes. The differences which distinguish fish spawning in
contiguous areas are usually of such small amount and compass that they become wholly masked
when two or more races are mingled.
This may be the case even at the mouths of the main tributaries. More than one spawning
district, each with its special characteristics, may be found within a given tributary. The
Harrison River, for example, has at least four spawning areas. Scales and other data collected
solely at the mouth of the Harrison, or in its lower course, would be valueless. The different
strains would be mingled and their characteristics obliterated. The nearer the material is
obtained to the final spawning-grounds, the greater its value for investigations of racial
divergence.
(3.) Where spawning populations show distinguishing characteristics the inference is clear
and unavoidable. A physiological barrier has existed—the racial habit of return at maturity
to spawn in the native stream—for so long a period that minor differentiations have developed
and a strain or sub-race has been formed. But what are we to conclude in cases where the
colonies of two distinct spawning areas present no characteristics by which we can distinguish
them? Obviously, we must infer either (a) that segregation in their case has not occurred,
or (b) that it has occurred but has not been effective in producing divergence between the
colonies. If the first of these were true, it would signify that the " home-stream " instinct was
in most cases rigidly operative, while in one or more instances within the same river-basin it
was wholly in abeyance.
The second supposition would seem a priori far less improbable. Complete segregation of
spawning fish may occur, so that each individual returns to the stream in which it was hatched
and reared, and yet, in certain instances, separate colonies may have failed to develop distinct
methods of growth or of habit by which they can be distinguished. Failure to discover distinguishing characteristics between populations of separate spawning areas need not indicate then
that their progeny will fail to return at maturity each to its native stream.
This process may have been in operation for many thousand years. The two colonies may
have been wholly distinct and self-perpetuating for a very long period and yet no differences
have developed. If we should adopt distinctive marks for the young from each of the two
streams on their downward migration to the sea, it might be shown at maturity that each stream
contained spawners with a single mark only, the one that had been applied to the young from
that stream. Vet the adults from the two tributaries might be otherwise indistinguishable.
Negative evidence in this case proves nothing. But if affirmative evidence is found, it is conclusive. If, in fact, differences are found to exist, there is no alternative to our acceptance
of the home-stream theory.
Different tributaries of the same river may be quite unlike in the sharpness of the characteristics by which their colonies may be recognized. Cultus Lake, a tributary of the Lower Fraser,
possesses a strongly marked race of small salmon, pale in colour of flesh, poor in oil, scarce X 28 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
worthy of the name of sockeye; while Pitt Lake, also tributary of the Lower Fraser, is frequented
by a large race the opposite in all respects of the Cultus Lake colony. But we have been unable
to distinguish the fish of Morris Creek, tributary to the Harrison River, from those spawning in
the lake-gravels in front of the Harrison Hatchery and in the small stream that supplies It.
In this latter case we have obtained no direct evidence of segregation; but it is rendered highly
probable by the more numerous instances in which it can elsewhere be demonstrated.
The most important investigation during the season of 1918 consisted in an attempt to test
the conclusions which we had based on the material of 1916 by a re-examlnation of the colonies
frequenting the same spawning-grounds previously reported on. "It was hoped to secure,' also,
material from additional spawning-grounds above the canyon, from which nothing heretofore
had been obtained.
The season of 1918 was peculiarly ill-suited to the purpose. In the recent history of the
Fraser we have grown accustomed to noting that each successive year is the worst in the history
of the industry, or is in any case distinctly worse than its representative in the last cycle, four
years previously. But the eNtent of the disaster In 1918 was unexpected and overwhelming.
A run of sockeyes to the Fraser can hardly be said to have occurred. Under such circumstances
the numbers that escaped to the spawning-grounds were most limited. Along the main river-
channels were a few locations, like the canyon above Yale, the Bridge River fishing-grounds
above Lillooet, and those above the mouth of the Chilcotin at the Chimney Creek Bridge and at
Soda Creek, where natives by persistent dipping secured a few fish. Material was obtained at
all these points, but for reasons already stated it was of less value for the purposes of the
present investigation. In all these river-channels it was apparent a number of local races were
mingled. Because of this the range of variation in all the characters examined was excessive,
far greater than when we have before us data obtained from a single spawning area.
In addition to these main-river locations, we were successful in securing a limited amount
of material from the Chilcotin River at Hanceville and at Fish Canyon near its mouth; from
the Birkenhead at Pemberton; from the Skookumchuck above Harrison Lake; from the Harrison
Hatchery, Morris Creek, and the Harrison Rapids; and from Pitt Lake. For much of this
material we have to thank the very generous co-operation of Alex. Robertson, Superintendent
of the Harrison Lake Hatchery, and T. W. Graham, Superintendent of the Pemberton Hatchery
on the Birkenhead.    To both of these gentlemen we extend our grateful acknowledgments.
In general, it can be stated that the examination of this material completely supported and
verified the conclusions reached in 1916. With regard to the spawning-beds below the canyon,
we affirm without qualification that they are as distinctively populated as though they were
located in separate streams independently entering the sea. Additional material only emphasizes
this fact. Not only were the different colonies in 1918 marked by distinctive characters, but
these characters were the same for each colony as those noted in 1916. We have then the picture
of a number of self-perpetuating sub-races, each of which has acquired certain minor habits of
growth, of migration, of age at maturity, of length of life in fresh water, of colour and quality
of flesh—the same characters, in short, which in various combinations characterize the races
of the separate river-basins of the simpler sort.
A very conspicuous instance of racial differentiation is furnished by the Harrison watershed.
We do not know how many distinct spawning areas it may have contained. Several minor
colonies, like that frequenting Silver Creek, are now practically exterminated. There were
spawning areas doubtless in Lillooet and in Tenas Lakes, but no records of these have reached
us. A very limited number of late spawners still frequent the slack water of the main river
above Harrison Rapids, the vanishing remnant of a once fine run visits the lake at the head of
Morris Creek, and a considerable run still goes up the Birkenhead. Both the Birkenhead and
the Morris Creek fish pass over the very spawning-beds at Harrison Rapids, but not one of them
tarries there. An examination of 200 specimens, laboriously gathered at Harrison Rapids in
191S by Mr. Robertson, failed to yield a single fish which had been spawned elsewhere than in
the beds of the rapids. Not one could on even a cursory examination be confused with those
constituting either the Morris Creek or the Birkenhead colony. Not one of the Harrison Rapids
fish wras found among over 400 specimens examined from Morris Creek,  and over 200 from 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 29
Skookumchuck aud the Birkenhead. No Morris Creek strays were found in the Birkenhead, and
no Birkenhead fish were found in Morris Creek, in spite of the fact that all the Birkenhead fish
passed the mouth of Morris Creek on their way. In these cases, evidently, the law of segregation
is most strictly in force; yet it seems impossible to imagine a locality better suited to straying
of the spawning fish with resulting mixture of populations. That it does not occur here, where
fish pass over and pass by one another's spawning-grounds, gives confidence that the same law
rules everywhere, though the evidence of it may be less compelling.
Harrison Rapids.—The most interesting colony of the Harrison is the one which spawns late
in the season at Harrison Rapids. The characteristics of this colonyr were fully discussed in our
report for 1916, page 50. The nature of the spawning area is in itself highly unusual. The
spawning habits of sockeyes are generally regarded as rigidly fixed, more so than with any
other species of salmon. Unlike other species, they- must resort to a lake, and fail to frequent
any stream, otherwise suitable, which has no lake which they can succeed in entering. The
lake once attained, they spawn in the gravel-beds around its margin or ascend some affluent of
the lake in search of suitable spawning-beds. The young develop mainly, if not exclusively, in
the waters of the lake, frequenting the depths in the daytime, but rising to feed at the surface
in the evening. Under such conditions the sockeye commonly resides over a year in the lake,
sometimes over two years, occasionally over three years, before seeking salt water. Of the
varying number which precociously descend to salt water in their first spring, few ordinarily
survive and return at maturity.
But the Harrison Rapids spawners use gravel-bars in a shallow backwater region of the
river, where they have no genuine lake conditions at their disposal, nor any lake into which
the young can drop back after hatching. They have adopted, therefore, the highly exceptional
method of life for a sockeye, of dropping down to salt water as soon as they are free-swimming,
and while we have no data as to their mortality or the percentage of survival, it is clear that
before man disturbed the balance of nature, enough survived to keep the colony in a flourishing
condition. More than this cannot be said for any of the other colonies. Clearly, then, under
the spur of necessity, a sockeye colony can adapt itself to the habits of sea migration in the
early free-swimming fry stage, a habit rare in sockeyes, and so far as known never occurring
among cohoes; hut almost exclusively characteristic of humpbacks and dog-salmon, and frequent
among ehluooks.
The 200 specimens of Harrison Rapids spawners examined in 1918 had all had the history
above outlined. Not one of them exhibited in the centre of its scale any trace of growth of the
young in fresh water. All had passed down to sea as young fry before any portion of the scales
had made their appearance.
It is very difficult to place satisfactorily on record the evidence for racial differentiation as
observed on the spawning-beds. As previously pointed out, the scales have suffered extensive
erosion during the later weeks which precede the spawning. Not only are the margins of the
scales broken down and absorbed to such an extent that they no longer serve for determination
of age, but the surface of the remaining portion of the scales has become more or less defaced.
Absorption has taken place not only at the margins but also on the surfaces of the scales, and the
lines of growth are blurred or obliterated. Enough may be preserved to render possible a detailed
examination under the microscope, where the course of the ridges can be traced from such
fragments as remain, by the aid of focusing at different levels. But such scales produce very
unsatisfactory photographs. Nevertheless, it has seemed advisable to have a number of these
from each of several spawning areas of the Fraser reproduced as a permanent record. Only
the centres of the scales are figured, the worn and jagged edges being omitted.
Figs. 1 to 5 are from the spawning race at Harrison Rapids. Each contains the extensive
first year's growth which occurs wholly in salt water, together with a varying portion of the
second year's growth. The boundary between the two years in these cases is not a sharp one,
leading to the conclusion that fry which descend to the sea in their first year suffer less interruption to their growth during their first fall and winter in the sea than is the case with those
which pass their first year or their first two years in fresh water. Rarely, however, a slackening
of growth in the Harrison Rapids fish at the close of their first year is indicated by a definite
line of demarcation at its outer edge. When this exists there are thirty-two to forty rings or
lines of growth belonging to the first year. X 30 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
As was observed in 1916 and during previous years, sockeyes belonging to the type which
alone frequents the Harrison Rapids spawning-beds—the sea-type—make their appearance during
the latter part of the run only, at the mouth of the river and in the approaches to it. In 1916
the firs* to appear were taken on July 17th, and after that date they occurred constantly to the
close of the season.
In 1918 the first to make their appearance at Esquimalt, from traps along the Vancouver
Island shore, were found on July 14th. Not a single specimen had been found among the 250
which had been previously examined, distributed over June 17th, 20th, and 28th, July 2nd and
10th. They were present on July 14th, 18th, 21st, 25th, 29th, August 2nd, 4th, 8th, 11th, and
26th. The only dates on which examinations were made at Esquimalt after-July 14th that
yielded no individuals of sea-type were August 13th, 16th, and 23rd. The numbers of this type
were evidently decreasing during the very last of the run.
The defective condition of the scales made it impossible to determine directly the age of
the Harrison Rapids fish, but the lengths were secured, and a valuable clue can be obtained from
the range in size found in three-year fish and in four-year fish of this type before they enter the
river. The complete range may not be available because of the small number of individuals
of sea-type which were obtained at Esquimalt during 1918. Only twenty-four in all were observed.
Five were three-year males; one a three-year female; five were four-year males; thirteen were
four-year females. The three-year males ranged from 20% to 24 inches long; the four-year
males from 26 to 28 inches. Comparing these figures with the Harrison Rapids column in
Table I., it is seen that the majority of the Harrison Rapids males are from 25 to 29 inches long,
and that the lengths of these, when tabulated, form a fairly regular curve, with the mode at 27.
Lying below 25 inches, extending from 17% to 24%, are sixteen thinly scattered records, which
form no part of the curve referred to. As these two elements in the table agree closely with the
observed lengths of three- and of four-year males obtained in salt water where age can be determined, we are justified in concluding that approximately all Harrison Rapids males between
17% and 24% inches long are in their third year, while those between 25 and 29 inches long are
in their fourth year.
The single three-year female of this type secured from salt water in 191S is 20% inches
long, while thirteen four-year females range from 24 to 26% inches. Table II. gives the length
distribution of Harrison Rapids females, all but three of which fall within the scope from 23 to
26 inches and form again a regular curve, while three individuals are 20, 22, and 22% inches
long respectively. It is highly probable that the three last mentioned are in their third year,
while the remainder are in their fourth year. The earlier dates, on which sea-type individuals
appeared in the run, produced only three-year males and four-year females, the other groups
appearing subsequently.
In 1918, as in 1916, we failed to find any individuals of sea-type spawning in any part of
the Fraser River basin other than Harrison Rapids. Upwards of a thousand specimens were
examined from other spawning districts, in which it might be thought an occasional sea-type
individual might be found, if only as a stray. The fact that not one individual was discovered
elsewhere, when coupled with the further fact that every Harrison Rapids sockeye belonged to
this group, furnishes the strongest possible evidence of the return of spawning fish to their native
districts.
Morris Creek.—This stream offered in the early days one of the most valuable spawning
districts in the Harrison watershed. In his report for 1902, pages 24 and 25, J. P. Babcock
states: " Morris Creek and Lake are insignificant bodies of water, but as a spawning-ground
for the late run of sockeye, and from the standpoint of artificial propagation, they constitute one
of the most important and valuable points on the Fraser. The Dominion Government has
operated a spawning-station here since 1885, and with the exception of the year 1900 has never
failed to take eggs. All the salmon-eggs taken by the Dominion in this Province up to 1901
were secured at this station." Much later than 1901 Morris Creek still served as the principal
source of eggs, first for the Bon Accord Hatchery near New Westminster, and later for the
Harrison Lake Hatchery. None of the fry in the early days were returned to Morris Creek,
as it was not believed that such procedure was necessary to maintain the spawning run.    Even 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 31
in 1902 (I.e.) Mr. Babcock wrote: "It is generally believed that fish bred in a given watershed,
such as the Fraser, return to it upon reaching maturity, and there is considerable evidence to
warrant it. It has not, however, been settled, and probably never will be, that the fish bred in
a given tributary of a large river seek only that tributary to spawn." Believing, then, that
any increase in the run to a. large river would equally benefit all the tributaries, there seemed
no reason for laboriously returning fry to Morris Lake in order that they should return there
and help maintain the spawning run. Knowing, as we now do, that salmon will in general
return to the district in which they are liberated, the fate of the Morris Creek run seems to
have been inevitable. It has steadily dwindled with the years until it can no longer be depended
on for any considerable take of eggs. Natural propagation was reduced to a minimum in order
to obtain eggs for the hatcheries, while the hatchery-reared fry did not at maturity return to
Morris Creek. The same has been the history of Silver Creek, where " the Dominion Government
placed a weir in August, 1902, and took nearly two and a half million eggs, which were transferred to the hatehery near New Westminster." The run in Silver Creek is now practically
extinct, and we cannot doubt that this process has been hastened by failure to replenish its run
through the planting of fry. No better examples than these can be found of the necessity of
working out completely the entire life-history of our commercial fishes before it is possible to
propagate them with success or to legislate wisely for their protection. Failure to follow this
principle has discredited hatchery-work from the beginning, and has led to the well-founded
suspicion that in many instances they have been more of a detriment than an advantage to the
runs.
Morris Creek would seem to have been an ideal hatching and rearing ground for the sockeye.
The enormous run entering this very insignificant stream in early days furnishes evidence of
extraordinarily favourable conditions. Examination of the scales of the fish now running shows
a striking uniformity in their development. They form an impressively homogeneous lot. All
have large sharply defined nuclear regions, testifying to a vigorous growth during their first
year, which is uniformly passed in the lake. The number of nuclear rings varies from fifteen
to twenty-eight, with the mode at twenty. The frequency curve is given in Table III. In all
probability the fingerlings on migrating from the lake in the spring of their second year were
4 to 6 inches in length, and better fitted to cope with their enemies than the smaller weaker
yearlings from less favourable localities.
Figs. 6 to 8 give typical centres of Morris Creek scales. No individuals from this district
had lived two years in the lake before migrating, and none had proceeded to sea in their first
year. The length distribution, given in Tables I. and II. in the columns for Morris Creek, seems
to indicate that the majority of the fish were in their fifth year. The modal length for the males
at 27 inches and for the females at 25 or 26 inches closely agrees with that usually characteristic
of five-year.Fraser River fish.
Birkenhead River.—This affluent of the Harrison has now the most reliable sockeye run,
and is the only spawning district of value remaining in this watershed. Its present importance
is due in part doubtless to the fact that it was not drawn on for hatchery purposes until a much
later date than Morris Creek and the Harrison Lake region, and in perhaps larger part to the
significant fact that the output of the hatchery is constantly planted in the Birkenhead and helps
maintain the run.
The characteristics of the Birkenhead race in 1918 are in general the same as those described
for the 1916 run. The growth of the fingerlings in fresh water must be much less than in the
case of the Morris Creek and Harrison Lake fingerlings. The nuclear area of the scale averages
small, with densely crowded rings. These were somewhat more numerous in 1918 than in either
of the two years preceding and the extremes range far more widely. The lot in 1918 was far less
homogeneous than in 1916 and 1917, even those taken at the Pemberton Hatchery presenting an
unexpected amount of variation. While the nuclear regions average small and the number of
rings in the great majority of individuals is less than sixteen (the mode lying somewhere between
eight and eleven), occasional specimens have nuclear rings running as high as nineteen, twenty,
and twenty-one. Furthermore, the frequency curve for nuclear rings in 1918 has none of the
regularity so well defined in 1916 and 1917.   The irregularities in 1918 are equally marked and X 32 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
are similar, whether the specimens were procured at Skookumchuck or at the Pemberton Hatchery
on the Birkenhead. As seen in Table III., there is at both localities a mode at eight rings, one
at eleven, and a less regularly defined one at fifteen. Yet, so far as known, all come from the
same spawning-grounds. It is not clear what significance, if indeed any, attaches to this circumstance. In spite of the variation in nuclear rings, racial peculiarities are apparent. Especially
marked is the small size of the first year's growth in the sea, a character that was also conspicuous in the two years preceding. Occasionally this is carried so far that the first year's
growth in the sea resembles a second year in a lake, but only one undoubted two-years-in-lake
individual was observed.
It was found possible to determine age from the scales in a larger percentage of individuals
than was possible in other spawning localities. Both at Skookumchuck in the Lillooet River
and at Pemberton on the Birkenhead between 40 and 50 per cent, of all specimens could be
grouped by age. This does not, however, give a reliable estimate of the relative numbers of
four- and of five-year fish present. With imperfect scales, the age of five-year fish is more readily
determined than of four-year fish. Four-year scales cannot be determined unless some portion
of the original margin of the scale is preserved, thus demonstrating that a fifth year's growth
had not been present when the scale was intact. But five-year scales are unmistakably such in
eases where not only the margin but the entire fifth summer's growth has been lost. If the
last winter's band of crowded rings is present beyond the growth of the fourth summer, or any
part of such band, the fish was evidently in its fifth year. The practical absence of six-year
fish of the one-year-in-lake type in the Fraser River facilitates this determination.
In 108 specimens from Skookumchuck, the age was ascertained in fifty-four, or exactly
one-half. Thirty-four of these were in their fourth year (twelve males and twenty-two females)
and twenty were in their fifth year (twelve males and eight females). In 180 specimens from
the Birkenhead, age could be determined in seventy-eight, or 43 per cent. Of these, forty-one
were in their fourth year (three males and thirty-eight females) and thirty-seven in their fifth
year (twenty-one males and sixteen females). If these proportions were reliable, we should
have 37 per cent, of five-year fish at Skookumchuck and 47 per cent, at Pemberton, the percentage
for both localities being 43. As stated above, this percentage is too high. The minimum percentage of five-year fish can be obtained by assuming that all the undetermined individuals were
four-year fish, which reduces the proportion to 19 per cent. Obviously, this extreme assumption
cannot be justified. If one-fifth of the undetermined Individuals were five-year fish, there would
be slightly over 30 per cent, of five-year fish in the Birkenhead-Lillooet section, and this must be
considered a fairly satisfactory estimate. The percentage of five-year fish of the one-year-in-lake
"type in the total run, as determined by samples takeii frequently throughout the season at
Esquimalt, was 23, and these ran largely in the early part of the season. The percentage during
June and the first half of July was higher than that indicated.
Pitt Lake.—Over 200 specimens were examined from Pitt Lake, and of these only twenty-five
could have their age determined. These proved to be in their fifth year in every instance except
one, the latter having spent two years in the lake as a fingerling and having returned from the
sea in its sixth year. Reference to Table I. indicates that the sizes of the Pitt Lake spawners
were similar to those from Morris Creek and Birkenhead, the majority ranging from 25% to
29% inches, with an average of 27.7 in the males, and from 23 to 27, with average at 25.4 in
the females. These averages are in the case of the males much higher than for five-jTear males
taken from the main run in salt water (26.3) ; while the average for females agrees exactly
with that obtained from five-year females taken in the Vancouver Island traps. It is our belief
that practically all of the Pitt Lake run was made up of fish in their fifth year.
The lot proved most homogeneous. The nuclear regions represented a fresh-water growth
obviously under highly favourable conditions, though as fingerlings they had failed to attain
as large a size as did the fingerlings in Morris Creek. The nuclear rings are bold, firm, well
spaced, closely parallel, and regular. The number of rings, as seen in Table II., ranges from
thirteen to twenty-one, with mode at seventeen, much lower than Morris Creek. One individual
has as few as ten rings; another as many as twentjT-three. It is a well-marked race. Figs. 22,
23, and 24 illustrate the nuclear regions of characteristic scales from this region. Like the
Morris Creek race, the first year's growth in the sea is large and vigorous. 9 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
X 33
Table I.—Fraser River Male Sockeyes, examined on their Spaivning-beds, 1918, distributed by
Lengths and by Locality.
Inches.
17%
18 .
18%
19 .
19%
20 .
20%
21 .
21%
22 .
22%
23 .
23%
24 .
24%
25 .
25%
26 .
26%
27 .
27%
28 .
28%
29 .
29%
30 .
30%
31 .
3
4
5
14
16
20
22
18
19
10
8
5
5
1
2
3
3
2
2
4
8
24
24
34
11
8
1
1
CC! 033
-J-S
1
1
1
i
l
3
7
7
17
13
30
8
16
6
7
3
1
3
3
21
5
9
7
12
4
6
4
1
1
3
7
6
15
7
8
3
2
5
1
Table II.—Fraser River Female Sockeyes examined on their Spawnhig-beds, 1918,
by Lengths and by Locality.
distributed
Inches.
4)
c
'Jl
U
o
\W
o it
II
U OJ
a
o   .
013 013
B2
fi a
Em
A3 £
Oi 03,
Hrl
CJ
OD
CC!
CJ
fl
a
o
r*i
r.
s
OJ
Br.
CjrH
S cc
B o
AS O
S3
VI —
'?o
cj cj
CJm
•jo
a .
5"
CC O
■S3
20   	
20%   	
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
1
2
5
9
10
23
29
40
41
33
35
12
10
3
o
i
i
i
3
5
1
5
1
1
i
1
i
l
8
8
20
15
6
4
1
l
12
9
24
17
26
17
6
i
l
2
4
12
6
20
14
14
7
9
2
2
1
1
i
i
4
2
6
1
12
3
4
1
5
1
2
1
2
i
l
l
3
2
1
1
1
i
l
4
3
5
9.
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27	
27%   	
28   	
28%   	
29   	 X 34
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table III.—Fraser River Sockeyes examined on their Spawning-beds, 1918, distributed by Number
of Nuclear Rings and by Locality.
No. of Rings.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
20
21
27
22
14
10
9
6
3
2
2
CJ    Cr,
CC! OJ
2
3
6
S
12
11
6
5
3
1
6
13
15
10
19
14
8
7
10
3
as
3 o
9
20
11
9
11
12
6
1
£G
The Chilcotin River.—It was with difficulty that any material was obtained from this
district. Mr. Babcock and the writer spent August 21st to 23rd at Hanceville and Alexis Creek.
One specimen only was seen at Alexis Creek, while at Hanceville, although dipping was constantly iu progress, only eighteen individuals were taken. At Fish Canyon, near the mouth of
the Chilcotin, on August 24th and 25th, thirty freshly caught sockeyes were examined, and
portions of the skin containing scales were dissected off from sixty-two fish found drying on
the racks. In the case of the dried specimens we could obtain no reliable measurements and
no record of sex. But the history of the individuals is, of course, found equally recorded on the
scales.    Such material, in default of better, may be availed of for the present purpose.
A cursory examination of the Chilcotin material would be sufficient to demonstrate that it
is totally distinct from any of the spawning runs investigated in the part of the Fraser River
basin which lies below the canyon. No single specimen from the Chilcotin agrees with the
Harrison Rapids colony in having migrated to salt water in its first year. All had spent at least
one year in the fresh-water lakes before descending to the sea. Furthermore, a considerable
proportion of the Chilcotin fish (from 35 to 40 per cent, of the whole) had spent two full years
as fingerlings in their lake. This is a very significant fact, in view of the almost total absence
of representatives of this group from the Harrison watershed and the Pitt during the season
of 1918. Obviously there is wide variation from year to year in the extent to which fingerlings
in the same spawning area will tarry in the lake for a second year. Thus, as has been shown
in our report for 1916 (page 51), the two-years-in-lake type was abundantly represented in the
Birkenhead, where they constituted 10 per cent, of the run. But only one specimen was found
in 1918 among 288 examples from Skookumchuck and Pemberton.
Only 6 per cent, two-years-in-lake fish were found in the Chilcotin in 1916. It seems evident
that the occurrence of this type in some abundance is more probable within certain spawning
areas than in others; but extensive fluctuations occur in successive years. From such evidence
as is before us, it would seem that in 1918 the members of this group were exclusively bound for
the Chilcotin, and perhaps other spawning-grounds above the Yale Canyon.    Their distribution 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 35
in the main run becomes then a matter of special interest. Referring to our Esquimalt records,
we find this class sparingly represented during the early part of June, but the number increasing
during the month, until on June 2Sth it constituted 14 per cent, of the whole. Up to this point
the history of 1918 exactly parallels that of 1916. On July 2nd they constituted 12 per cent.;
July 10th, 3.5 per cent.; July 14th, 9 per cent.; July 18th, 9 per cent.; July 21st, 11 per cent.;
July 25th, 11 per cent.; July 29th, 13 per cent.; August 2nd, 5.5 per cent.; August 4th, 5.5 per
cent.: August 8th, 5.5 per cent.; August 11th, 2 per cent.; and subsequent dates occasionally
with one specimen, but usually without any. The striking difference between 1918 and 1916,
as regards the run of the two-years-in-lake type, lies in the heavier early run in 1918 and the
almost total disappearance of these forms in the latter part of August. Oil August 10th, 1916,
10 per cent, and on August 27th 10 per cent, of the run belonged to this class. It seems highly
probable that the numerous late-running individuals in 1916 were bound to streams below the
canyon.
The material obtained at Fish Canyon did not differ in any respect from that obtained
higher up-stream at Hanceville. The nuclear areas of the scales are characteristically marked
with slender rings, not greatly crowded, nor widely spaced. The rings are fairly regular and
in general parallel, but the individual rings are frequently broken and interrupted. Figs. 14 fo
20 present characteristic centres of Chilcotin scales, the majority of these from the two-years-in-
lake form.
The first year's growth in the sea usually averages small, with the scale-rings often crowded
and irregularly spaced, indicating partial checks in the middle of the growing season. Variations
are found in this regard, as is always the case, but the general picture is of a single spawning
type, displaying not more than the usual amount of variation. Two forms can be roughly
distinguished, one with large, the other with small nuclear regions, and these two exist among
those individuals that spent two years in the lake as well as among those that migrated seawards
in their second spring. No other differences have been detected between the two groups. Those
with the larger type nucleus may have been the first to hatch. Intermediate individuals are
found.
It was impossible to determine the age in the majority of the specimens. In thirty-three
out of a total of 108 the scale was complete at some point on the margin, and made it possible
to ascertain in each case that the fish when captured was in its third year since entering the
sea. Those of the one-year-in-lake type were all in their fourth year; those of the two-years-
in-lake type were in their fifth year. Both types had spent an equal period on the sea-feeding
grounds and had reached essentially the same size. A comparison of length-frequencies of
Chilcotin fish (Table I.) with those of Pitt Lake, Morris Creek, and the Birkenhead will show
the much smaller range in size of the Chilcotin material. We failed to find evidence of five-year
fish (one-year-in-lake type) in the Chilcotin, either in 1916 or in 1918; or of six-year fish (.two-
years-in-lake type), although numerous examples of these six-year fish are known to have entered
the mouth of the river in June and July.
The Quesnel River.—No material was obtained from the Quesnel River. Mr. Babcock and
the writer visited the dam and flshway at the outlet of Quesnel Lake on September 3rd and 4th.
No salmon had been observed to enter the fishway, and only two or three which we did not
secure were seen in the pool at the foot of the race.   No run was reported at any later date.
Specimens were secured, mainly from drying-racks, at Chimney Creek Bridge and at Soda
Creek, points on the main river between the mouths of the Chilcotin and the Quesnel. It might
be assumed with some justice that the majority, if not all, of these fish were headed for the
Quesnel. Along the river between Quesnel and Fort George no success appeared to attend
fishing at any point. Here aud there we could learn of the capture of a few strays, but that
was all. Yet it Is hazardous to adopt conclusions based on evidence of this nature. Some
proportion of the Soda Creek and Chimney Creek fish were undoubtedly bound up-river beyond
the Quesnel. What the relative numbers were it is impossible to estimate. The same kind of
evidence that would convince us no fish were running in the upper river can also be adduced
to demonstrate that none entered the Quesnel.
The material secured at Chimney Creek Bridge and at Soda Creek was clearly different
from that obtained in the Chilcotin. For one point of distinction, there were few individuals
of the two-years-in-lake type. Out of a total of seventy-one specimens, only five, or 7 per cent.,
were of this class, which constituted 35 per cent, of the Chilcotin fish.   This abrupt change from X 36 Report of the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1919
the mouth of the Chilcotin in the few miles to Soda Creek could have only one meaning.
A distinct body of fish, developed from fry which had been hatched in the Chilcotin, had entered
that river. Other minor differences marked the nuclear portions of the scales from fish taken
above the mouth of the Chilcotin—differences which hardly lend themselves to description, as
they appear in the ever-varying material, but nevertheless in a composite image are found to
have a certain distinctness and an unquestioned significance. The nuclear rings are on the
average more closely crowded, while the number of rings remains about the same, ranging widely
from seven to twenty-one, with the mode at ten. The first year's growth in the sea is small,
and the individuals are all of those sizes which characterize Fraser River sockeyes that have
spent three years at sea. The condition of the scales permitted us to ascertain the age of but
one specimen, a four-year fish, but we entertain no doubt that all the individuals observed had
spent three years at sea, and were either in their fourth or fifth year, depending on whether
as fingerlings they had remained one year or two years in fresh water. Fig. 21 presents for
comparison the centre of the scale of a Soda Creek specimen.
Fraser River Canyon above Yale.—Fifty specimens were obtained from natives dipping in
the canyon and above, as far as Lytton. Inasmuch as it is supposed no sockeyes entered the
Thompson in 1918, and the Seton-Anderson section was wholly bare of spawning-fish, it would
be natural to assume that sockeyes captured in the canyon above Yale were all bound for the
Chilcotin and the Quesnel, and would wholly resemble the fish captured at Fish Canyon and
Chimney Creek. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Yale Canyon fish averaged much
larger than the up-river fish, and contained a considerable proportion of five-year individuals,
of which not one was detected above. Apparently some 30 per cent, of the fish dipped in the
canyon were five years old, a much larger percentage than was at any part of the run entering
the mouth of the river. The destination of these five-year sockeyes is a question of much
importance. The only direct evidence we have is derived from two specimens, the only material
obtained from the Thompson River—one taken two miles east of Lytton on the Thompson; the
other at Thompson Siding, nine miles east of Lytton. Both of these are five years old, one
24 the other 26 inches long, and both females. Only four of the fifty are of the two-years-in-lake
type, so we could not be dealing to any considerable extent with Chilcotin material. Furthermore, many of the nuclear regions of the scales are of the robust type, with strong, bold, parallel
ridges, quite different from the delicate slender-ringed nuclei of the upper river. Figs. 25 to 28
illustrate certain of the types of scales characterizing the sockeyes taken in Yale Canyon and
above, while Fig. 29 is from the Thompson.
We. can apparently not escape the conclusion that a large proportion of these canyon fish,
taken during the month of August, were bound up the Thompson River. Certainly they were not
bound for the Chilcotin or the upper district. Although few in number, they were concentrated
in the canyon, but when they reached the quiet waters above the canyon, and afterwards scattered
over the immense Shuswap-Adams district, they were wholly lost to sight. If this inference is
correct, it gives us the first glimpse of the Thompson race or races. The suggestion that these
fish, like those spawning below the canyon, may in considerable numbers attain five years of
age is an interesting one, and must be taken into account in all discussions of the four-year
cycle and the striking variation in the proportion of the age-groups in the Fraser River.
Bridge River.—No material was obtained from the stretch of the Fraser between the mouth
of the Thompson at Lytton and the outlet to Seton Lake at Lillooet. Above Lillooet, at Bridge
River, fifty specimens were obtained from August 21st to September Sth, and proved on examination to contain a mixture of the type found in the Chilcotin at Fish Canyon, together with that
secured above the Chilcotin in the main Fraser at Chimney Creek Bridge and at Soda Creek.
The Chilcotin type predominated. Twenty-six per cent, were constituted of two-years-in-lake
fish. The sizes ran low and the entire assemblage was markedly different from that taken at
the same period and earlier in the month of August in the Yale Canyon. One specimen, a male
27 inches long, was in its fifth year, but all the others were of smaller size and apparently
four-year fish. The nuclear rings of those of the one-year-in-lake form ranged from twelve
to twenty-one, the smaller sizes predominating, and largely concentrated between thirteen and
seventeen; the mode at sixteen. Those of the two-years-in-lake type have the rings of the first
year ranging from six to eleven; those of the second year from twelve to twenty. 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 37
II.   THE FRASER RUN OF 1918.
In our report for 1916 we remarked: " The run of sockeye salmon to the Fraser River in
1916 was the poorest known." In 1917 we were obliged to record the disappearance of the big
year of the cycle from Fraser River runs, with no prospect of its recovery. And in 1918 the
run reaches still lower dimensions than in 1916, the total catch on Puget Sound being 50,617
cases and in Canadian waters 20,955 cases, a total of 71,572 cases. This is but six-tenths' the
catch of 1916, the poorest previous year.
The brood-years for 1918 were 1913 for the five-year fish and 1914 for those in their fourth
year, the four-year fish largely predominating, as is customary in the Fraser River. 1.913 was
the big year of that cycle, but big years are now known to owe their magnitude to four-year
fish hatched in the upper waters of the Fraser, in tributaries which produce few or no five-year
fish. The tributaries of the Eraser which are responsible for five-year fish lie below the Yale
Canyon, with the possible exception of the Thompson River, and have never experienced large
increases in the size of the run during the big years of the cycle. W-e would have no reason to
expert, therefore, any unusual influx of five-year fish in 191S because of its relation to 1913. On
the other hand, the 1913 run to the Lillooet Lake section, which supports the Pemberton Hatchery
on the Birkenhead, the most important spawning stream of the Harrlson-Lillooet section of the
river, was distinctly poorer than in any big year since the hatchery had been established there.
The history of 1913 gave no grounds for hope of any large number of five-year fish in 1918.
The four-year fish were hatched from the 1914 brood stock, which would be considered of
more than average size for an off-year if we relied on the figures for the commercial returns
(555,557 cases). On inspecting the reports from the spawning-grounds presented by Mr. Babcock
for 1914, we find, however, that serious obstructions in the canyon above Yale prevented the
ascent of the salmon during the greater part of August, and hampered them greatly at other
portions of the run. The result was what might have been anticipated. The numbers that
reached the up-river spawning-grounds were everywhere greatly reduced. Fewer sockeye reached
the Chilcotin than during any other recorded year. The run at Quesnel Lake was one of the
poorest since the fishway was built in 1903, the total number that entered the lake being too
small to make any noticeable showing there. Only a few hundred reached the Seton-Anderson
Lake section, and the run to the Shuswap-Adams District was distinctly light. There was a fair
run to Lillooet Lake and a rather small run to the Harrison.
This review of the situation is given to show how hazardous it is to predict future runs
solely on the basis of the number of cases packed during the brood-years. This cannot be
depended on to give reliable data on the number of fish that will succeed in spawning. A careful
study of the conditions described on the spawning-beds of the Fraser in 1913 and 1914 by
Mr. Babcock would have prepared us for a decidedly limited run in 1918, though perhaps it
would not have foreshadowed the magnitude of the disaster.
Age-groups.—In spite of the phenomenally small size of the run, the number of five-year fish
shows no marked increase above the normal, although in other years of reduced run it has
frequently shown such increase. Taking into consideration those sockeyes only which remained
one year in the lake before passing to sea, we find the average percentage of five-year fish in
the run to have been 23 per cent, varying on different days of the run from 5 to 59 per cent.
No orderly sequence was observed, although in general the heavier percentages were found in
June and July. Striking changes in the relative proportions of age-groups in successive years
accompanies violent alternations of good and bad years. In such cases we find the poor years
in such a series are signalized on the Fraser by a high percentage of five-year fish. But when
the runs have declined almost uniformly to a low level, as seems now to be the case, the age-
groups regain their normal relations and remain about the same from year to year.
Succession of Types in the Run.—As in previous years, it was obvious in examining the takes
of different dates in orderly sequence that changes were constantly occurring in the constitution
of the run. On July 2nd and 10th, for example, two distinct types could be recognized, one with
a small nuclear region, containing most frequently eight to fourteen rings, usually with a band
of intermediate rings outside it, and a small first year in the sea. The nuclear rings were fine,
crowded, and more or less broken, and numerous five-year fish were included in this series. The
characteristics here given are so closely those of the Lillooet-Birkenhead race as to raise a
presumption that the fish of this type were bound to that portion of the Fraser watershed. X 38
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
The second type was marked by the large size of the nucleus, containing sixteen to twenty-
two rings, and without distinct band of Intermediates surrounding it. The nuclear rings are
boldly drawn and strong, well spaced, and not interrupted. The first year's growth in the sea
is not reduced, with more or less crowded, irregularly spaced rings, as in the preceding type,
and very few are in their fifth year. This second type apparently disappears abruptly about
the middle of July and is replaced by several partially recognizable strains, which, together
with type number one, form a very mixed assemblage. Figs. 30 to 34 Illustrate some of the
different forms which appear in this run.
Tables IV. to XL give the succession of sizes appearing on a series of dates, and indicate
that the average size increases during the advance of the season, largely by the disappearance
of the smaller individuals included in the early part of the run. Taking into consideration only
the predominating class in the Fraser, which after hatching spends one full year (fifteen months)
in the lake, the average sizes for the 1918 run are as follows:—■
Length, Weight,
Inches. Lb.
Four-year males     24.9 6.5
Four-year females      23.8 5.7
Five-year males     26.3 7.5
Five-year females       25.4 6.7
From the above it appears the conditions on the feeding-grounds at sea were normal and
an average growth was effected.    Compare with Table XL, page 35 of Paper No. 3 (1915), of this
series.
Table IV.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Lengths
and Dates of Capture.
Inches.
rH
OJ
a
3
l-o
0
CN
OJ
H
0
ri
CO
ID
oi
I"!
©
rs
re*'
t-H
3
He
CO
rH
3
>,
3
1-5
to
CM
k.
3
He.
ci
CM
>c
3
l-J
ci
ci
3
ti
3
<
cd
si
3
ti
3
CO
rH
3
06
ri
ti)
3
<
CO
CM
ti
3
<
CD
CN
ti
3
<
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
23                               	
4
2
5
1
i
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
1
1
3
1
4
7
6
1
2
	
26
2
5
3'
1
2
1
	
16
2
4
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
1
'4'
4
4
1
4
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
23%   	
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
6
5
6
4
1
3
2
10
5
1
2
3
6
.3
7
3
1
,1
94                             	
1
2
?,
24%                       	
4
3
5
s
1
12
3
2
1
1
1
25  .             	
3
25%   	
2
26   .                       	
?6Vo
27                                       .   .
1
19
17
2
16
2
19
Totals   	
—
5
18
7
12
10
23
22
25
12
27
3
7 9 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
X 39
Table V.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Females, Esquimalt, 1918, distributed by Lengths
and Dates of Capture.
Inches.
ri
CJ
a
3
1-5
©'
CM
CJ
3
3
1-5
cd
CM
OJ
a
3
ri
ci
t»
3
1-5
d
rH
r-.
3
1-5
rj!
rH
J-?
3
1-5
CO
rH
3
1-5
T-i
CI
3
1-5
IO
CN
3
1-5
d
CM
>/
3
ro
cm'
to
3
<1
-<ai
to
3
cd
to
3
<
rH
to
3
CO
rH
to
«<1
d
rH
to
3
<!
CO
CI
to
3
<
d
CM
to
3
<1
©5
ft
W
20  	
2
20%   	
21   	
2
21%   	
1
2
6
3
5
1
4
1
1
22	
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
i
2
1
2
4
4
1
1
2
i
l
7
1
5
2
1
2
4
1
4
2
1
2
3
7
3
5
1
22%
2
2
6
4
3
1
4
2
7
2
8
3
4
2
1
i"
3
8
1
6
2
1
2
3
23   .                  	
1
6
5
5
23%   	
2
1
1
6
2
6
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
3
2
2
24   	
24%   	
1
1
1
25  	
25%   .           	
1
1 1 1
26   ..
26%
1
27   	
i
27%             .   .-..
1
17
Totals
10
21
12
12
16
19
15
21
17
28
9
21
20
9
18
1
3
1
Table VI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Males, Esquimalt, 1918, distributed by Lengths
and Dates of Capture.
Inches.
OJ
a
r^
d
CI
©
a
3
1-3
CO
CI
CJ
a
3
l-s
ci
3
l-s
d
rH
!=-,
3
1-5
ri
>,
ro
od
rH
>>
3
1-5
CI
r>
10
CI
>>
3
r-3,
d
CI
>>
3
1-5
ci
to
3
<
-*>
to
3
CO
to
3
<
ti
3
CO
rH
to
d
rH
to
CO
CI
to
3
<5
d
CI
M
3
22       	
22%   	
v
23   	
23%       	
1
24           	
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
25           	
1
2
1
4
3
i'
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
T
1'
2
1
1
25%              	
1
1
3
1
1
26                    	
1
1
26%             	
1
1
1
1
1
27   	
1
1
a
2
1
27%                       	
3
28                    	
1
28%
1
1
11
29                      	
Totals   	
4
—
11
13
	
8 1 4
9
4
6
1
7
4
2
1
2
2 X 10
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table VII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Females, Esquimalt, 1918, distributed by Lengths
and Dates of Capture.
Inches.
t-
rH
CJ
a
a
1-5
d
CM
0
a
hs
cd
Cl
a
a
I?
ci
rt
d
003
>>
r->
CO
He!
CI
a
1-5
IO
CI
3
He
d
CI
>c
3
H5
ci
. to
3
to
4
od
to
<
rH
to
3
•<
CO
rH
CO
3
<
d
to
<
CO
CI
60
3
d
CI
to
3
<
22               	
1
22%   	
23   	
23%           	
1
1
2
24   .             	
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
24%    •.	
1
2
25   	
1
2
i
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
25%   	
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
26                 	
1
1
2
26%                       	
1
1
1
27   	
2
271/,    . -  .	
1
6
Totals   	
2
5
S
5
7
1
4
	
2
2
4
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
Table VIII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Weights
and Dates of Capture.
Pounds.
c
3
3
He
d
CI
CO
a
He
od
CI
CJ
a
3
He
ci
t»
3
He
d
rH
a
He
r-i
>,
3
Hj
od
3
He
CI
>>
3
He
id
Cl
ci
CI
_C-c
3
He
ci
ti
a
r*'
to
<
GO
to
CO
ri
ti
3
■"1
d
rH
ti
a
<
CO
CI
to
3
CD
CI
ti
3
«!
3          	
1
1
1
1
1
4
8
1
1
1
3%	
4       	
2
2
1
1
1
5
3
2
2
1
ixe,   	
1
1
1
5  	
6
6
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
2
2
1
4
4
5
4
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
5
2
1
2
1
8
4
5
2
i
1
9
1
8
2
1
2
4»
4
5
6
3
5%    '	
5
i
l
4
1
4
4
2
2
2
5
5
7
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
9
4
10
2
1
1
1
i
1
6   	
1
6%   	
0
1
t-U,   	
'>.
8  	
8%   	
9   	
9%   	
1
26
1
19
Totals   	
5
18
7
19
16
IT
16
12
10
23
22
25
12
27
3
7 9 Geo. 5
Life-history" of Sockeye Salmon.
X 41
Table IX.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Females, Esquimalt, 191.8, distributed by Weights
and Dates of Capture.
Pounds.
rH
CJ
a
a
He
d
CM
OJ
a
3
He
od
CN
CJ
a
3
He
ci
3
He
d
ri
>3
3
He
-*'
rH
3
He
od
rH
3
HS
CI
3
He
LO
Ct
>,
3
ro
d
CI
>>
3
He
CM*
to
<
ti
<1
od
ti
3
<
H
ti
3
<
CO
rH
ti
3
O
d
to
3
CO
CI
ti
3
<
d
CI
ti
3
<
CO
a
CJ
02
1
1
■ii/„                  	
1
6
4
7
1
2
4
1
6
i
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
4.                           	
5
2
1
1
2
1
7
1
3
i
3
4
2
5
2
2
5
2
4
6
2
5
3
8
2
1
3
6
3
5
3
4
5
7
7
2
1
1
1
1
3
i
1
io'
6
3
1
2
1
4
4
7
2
1
8
2
4
1
1
514      	
1
2
4
2
7
5
5
6          	
i
2
1
1
6%           	
1
7%   	
8              	
1
8%   	
9   	
l
9%   	
i             Totals
10
21
12
12
16
19
15
21
17
28
9
21
20
17
9
18
i
3
6
Table X.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Males, Esquimau, 1918,  distributed  by  Weights
and Dates of Capture.
Pounds.
rH
CJ
a
a
He
d
CI
OJ
a
3
He
od
CI
CJ
fl
3
He
ci
>>
3
Hj
d
rH
H5
>>
3
He
od
>>
3
He
ci
6c.
Irs
LO
CI
>c
3
He
d
CI
3
He
ci
to
3
to
<
00
to
-5J
rH
to
3
-<1
cd
tH
60
a
<
d
rH
60
3
CO
CI
60
<
oi
CM
to
3
<
4V„          	
1
1
2
Ky„                     	
1
6            	
2
1
2
3
3
2
Y
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
RU,               	
1
6
1
4
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
7        	
VV,    	
1
1
1
1
1
1
8   	
1
8%   	
1
9   	
1 '
2
3
9%   	
1
2
1
10   	
10%   	
1
11   	
11%   	
1
11
Totals   	
4
11
13
S
4
9
4
6
1
7
4
2
1
2
•>, X 42
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table XI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Females, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Weights
and Dates of Capture.
Pounds.
7-i
OJ
a
a
He
d
CN
CJ
a
3
He
od
CI
cc
a
3
He
ci
3
He
d
rH
>c
3
1-5
rH
>c
3
H5
cd
rH
>,
3
He
CI
>>
3
H5
fl
t-s
d
Cl
>c
3
He
ci
to
3
<1
^'
to
5,
od
to
3
0
to
3
<1
CO
rH
to
3
<i
d
rH
to
3
<
CO
Cl
to
-3
d
CI
to
3
<
A.U,                 	
1
1
1
-,\L                       	
1
4
1
6
1
3
1
1
2
1
g                             	
RU-,                      	
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
T
i
2
1
1
7                  	
7U,                          	
1
2
2
1
8                    	
1
8%
1
1
1
9                       	
9%   	
10   .
1
10%   .
11   	
11%   	
Totals   	
2
5
15
5
7
1
4
6
2
2
4
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
III.  THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1918.
The Rivers Inlet sockeye run of 1918 was the third very poor run in succession. Were it
not for the exceptionally favourable showing in 1915 (130,350 cases), giving evidence of extensive
fluctuations for which we cannot account, the present situation would take on a grave aspect.
With the spawning-beds in Owikeno Lake in unsatisfactory condition, close attention should be
paid this fishing district in the following years.
The run of 1918 had a smaller percentage of five-year fish than in any previous year since
the very unsatisfactory season of 1913. Rivers Inlet is predominately a five-year stream, and
in general (exceptions can be noted) has shown the largest proportions of five-year fish during
the most successful seasons. The five-year fish of 1918 were derived from 1913, when the fish,
in addition to small numbers, were small in size for the various age-groups. But in 1918 they
were far smaller, well below the average for this river both in length and in weight for all
groups. The season must be considered a highly exceptional one. The males were much more
numerous than the females compared with previous years, and the five-year fish pursued the
very opposite course to that which they followed in 1916 and 1917. In these two years they
appeared most abundantly in the early days of the run and gradually decreased as the season
advanced. This is the customary method with five-year fish, not only in Rivers Inlet, but in
other streams as well. But in 191.8 the Rivers Inlet five-year-olds were almost wholly lacking
at the beginning of the run, when on June 27th they constituted only 7 per cent, of the catch.
From this date they increased regularly until July 19th, when they made 69 per cent, of the
day's capture, and then maintained approximately that percentage for the remainder of the
season. The reasons for such complete reversals of habit in a highly exceptional year cannot
be conjectured at present. 9 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
X 43
Table XII.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes in Runs from 191% to
1918, ivith the Broods from which they were derived.
Run ot the Y'ear.
1912 (112,884 cases)    j
1913 (61,745 cases)   	
1914 (89,890 cases)    j
1915 (130,350 cases)    j
1916 (44,936 cases)
1.917 (61,195 cases)
1918  (53,401 cases >
Percentage.
Four and Five
Years old.
5 yrs.    79%
4 yrs.    21%
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
20%
80%
65%
35%
87%
13%
76%
24%
67%
33%
57%
43%
Brood-year from which
derived.
1907 (87,874 cases).
1908 (64,652 cases).
1909 (89,027 cases).
1910 (126,921 cases).
-   1911 (88,763 cases).
[   1912 (112,884 cases).
I   1913 (61,745 cases).
1914 (89,890 cases).
Table XIII.—Percentages of Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring at Different Dates in
the 1918 Run.
Dates, 191$.
Percentages of
Five-year Fish.
Numher of
Specimens
examined.
June 27	
7
19
25
32
37
64
59
69
44
59
54
75
.,    29  	
75
July    2  	
75
4  	
75
„    10  	
75
„    12  	
75
„    16	
75
19  	
75
„    23  	
70
„    26  	
75
„    30  	
70
Table XIV.—Percentages of Males and Females in Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring on Different
Dates, Season of 1918.
d
ci
CN
TH
rH
rH
>,
r-.
>>
r-l
3
3
3
3
ro
He
He
He
91
98
81
59
9
2
19
41
63
92
43
50
37
8
57
50
Four-year males
Four-year females
Five-year  males
Five-year females
60
40
85
15
57
43
77
23
39
61
78
22
48
52
51
49
58
42
51
49
34
66
48
42
43
67 X 44
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Average percentages—
Four-year males     71
Four-year females   26
Five-year males   53
Five-year females    47
Average total males throughout season   66 per cent.
Average total females throughout season   34       „
Table XV.—Rivers Inlet Sockeye, Run of 1918, grouped by Length, Age, and Sex.
19 ..
19%
20 ..
20%
21 ..
21%
22 ..
22%
23 ..
23%
24 ..
24%
25 ..
25%
26 ..
26%
27 ..
27%
28 ..
Length in Inches.
Totals    	
Average length in inches
Number of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Males.
1
1
6
10
50
55
69
49
35
26
31
15
7
355
Females.       Males.
Five Years old.
1
4
11
23
25
9
11
8
1
2
96
22.5
1
4
4
S
23
20
14
'21
17
28
15
11
4
1
171
24.9
Females.
1
3
17
13
39
35
25
20
16
4
2
175
24.5
Table XVI.
-Rivers Inlet Soclceye, Run of 1918, grouped by Weight, Age, an
d Sex.
3 ..
3%
4 ..
4%
5 ..
5%
6%
7  ..
7%
8%
9  ..
9%
10  ..
Weight in Pounds.
Totals    	
Average weight in pounds
Number of Individuals.
Four Y'ears old.
Males..
7
42
117
77
51
30
20
355
4.9
Females.
3
24
34
20
9
Five Years old.
96
5.1
2
11
26
24
22
29
21
15
12
5
3
1
171
6.7
2
20
22
46
29
26
20
6
2
1
1
175
6.3 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 45
IV.   SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1918.
(1.)  General Characteristics and the Age-groups.
The Skeena River sockeye-pack for 1918 consisted of 123,322 cases, and ranks among the
best half-dozen years in the history of the industry. Coming as it does after two phenomenally
poor years, it gives grounds for hope that the Skeena may not as yet be suffering the results
of overfishing. Evidences of the decline of a run, with standardized fishing methods, are, however, generally of slow and irregular approach. The returns from this river should be most
carefully scrutinized.
The necessity for this is all the more evident for the reason that some important factor
which must be largely concerned in determining the success or failure of the runs remains
unknown to us. Attention has been repeatedly drawn to the total lack of relation between
the run of any year and the apparent size of the runs four and five years before. The year
1918 presents a striking example of this lack of correlation. Its brood-years were 1913 and 1914,
and as its five-year fish constituted 59 per cent, of the total run of 1918, the year 1913 was
relatively the most important. But 1913 was apparently the very poorest year the Skeena has
ever experienced. The four-year fish derived from the 1913 run constituted only 38 per cent,
of the run of 1917, which was but little better than 1913. There seemed no reason to anticipate
that 1913 would deliver five-year fish in 1918 far in excess of its entire yield of both four- and
five-year fish.
The nature of the unknown factor must be at present wholly a matter for conjecture. We
have called attention previously to the effect of boisterous weather on the commercial success
of a season. A stormy summer is popularly supposed largely to diminish the proportion of
salmon captured. The number of cases packed during such a season might indicate a poor run,
whereas the run may have been above the average, and the escape to the spawning-beds unusually
large. An attempt to correlate size of pack with weather conditions has not been made. It is
possible that weather may exert a directly favourable or unfavourable influence on the size of
the run in any year, in addition to its effect on fishing operations. This also is a matter inviting
careful investigation.
During previous years we have observed an extensive variation in the relative abundance of
the two-years-in-lake group. It has varied from 7 per cent, in 1914 to 27 per cent, in 1916, but
in two of the four years in which this proportion has been determined it has been 14 and 15
per cent. We have observed in other rivers a wide disparity in this regard between successive
years. Evidently, at times, a much larger percentage of the yearlings fail to migrate in their
second spring than is usually the case. We have no clue to the significance of this change of
habit. It is perhaps to be sought in fluctuating conditions which in certain seasons are less
favourable to vigorous growth of the fingerlings than in other seasons. We have previously
called attention to the fact that the larger sizes of yearlings migrate at the end of their first
year, while the smaller sizes more frequently remain behind for additional growth. If a racial
habit has been formed in a given river favouring migration seawards when a certain average
stature has been attained, a much larger proportion of individuals may fail to reach it in one
year than in another.
In 1918 the Skeena River run contained what appears to be a fair average number of adults
that had when fingerlings spent two years in fresh water. Fifteen per cent, of the run belonged
to this class. As shown in Table XVIII., 60 per cent, of these returned at the age of five and
40 per cent, at the age of six. A tendency appears for the members of this group to run into
the river in larger numbers during the early part of the season, although this tendency is not
so strongly marked as in the case of the five-year fish that as fingerlings spent only one year
in the lake. As shown in the table, the individuals belonging to the latter group become proportionally less abundant during the latter half of July, while the four-year fish that have spent
only one year in fresh water become more abundant.
(2.)   Relative Numbers op Males and Females.
A well-marked tendency for the males to precede the females was shown in 1918 in the
Skeena, and is evidenced by Table XX., giving the proportions of the sexes in both four-year
and five-year fish, taken at intervals of three or four days throughout the run. During the
dates in June males were in excess of females generally in both groups, largely in excess in X 46
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
the younger group, less so in the five-year contingent. In both groups, as the season progresses,
there is an obvious increase in the number of females at the expense of the males. During the
latter half of July the five-year females are greatly predominating, and the four-year females
are nearly as abundant as the males of their class. Taking into consideration all the groups
present in the run, the one-year-in-lake and the two-years-in-lake groups, of all ages, we find
the males notably exceeding the females and constituting 57 per cent, of the entire run.
Considering the run as a unit and ignoring the fluctuations in its constitution from its origin
to its close, we find the proportions of the sexes in the different groups, brought into comparison
with previous years, presented in Table XXI. The close correspondence in a series of years is
most striking, as is also the fact that the proportions of the sexes in 1918 represents in each
of the groups the average for all the years of which we have, a record. AVe note again that
males predominate in both groups of the two-years-in-lake series. The five-year members have
a slightly higher percentage of males than the six-year class, but in both classes the males are
constantly in excess. It is not clear why the two years spent in fresh water in their early history
should have influenced them in this manner. We should have expected males to predominate
in the five-year class, while females would be equally in excess with the six-year-olds.
(3.)  Lengths and Weights.
The following tables indicate that the size of Skeena River sockeyes in 1918 was fully up
to the average observed over a series of years. The conditions at sea then had been favourable,
and no adverse weather conditions had stunted growth during the late winter and early spring
months of the spawning year. We again call attention to the comparatively unreliable averages
for fish of the two-years-in-lake group, due to the small size of these groups. The weights for
the year agree as closely as do the lengths. Comparing 1918 with 1915, we find the greatest
difference in the average weights for the various classes is two-tenths of a pound; while the
greatest difference in the average lengths equals two-tenths of an inch.
Table XVII.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Skeena River Sockeyes that spent One Year
in Lake, in Runs of Successive Years.
Run of the Year.
1912 (92,498 cases)   .
1913 (52,927 cases)   .
1914 (130,166 cases)
1915 (116,553 cases)
1916 (60,923 cases)   .
1917 (65,760 cases)   ,
1918 (123,322 cases)
Percentage.
Four and Five
Years old.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
yrs.
yrs.
yrs.
yrs.
yrs.
yrs.
43%
57%
50%
50%
75%
25%
64%
36%
60%
40%
62%
38%
59%
41%
Brood-year from which
derived.
1907 (108,413 cases).
1908 (139,846 cases).
1909 (87,901 cases).
1910 (187,246 cases).
1911 (131,066 cases).
1912 (92,49S cases).
\   1913 (52,927 cases).
j
1914  (130,166 cases). 9 Geo. 5
Life-histori' of Sockeye Salmon.
X 47
Table XVIII.—Percentages of Different Age-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes, found to constitute
the Run on a Succession of Dates, Season of 1918.
Dates, 1918.
One Year in Lake.
Four Years old.      Five Years old
Two Y'ears  in  Lake.
Five Y'ears old.        Six Years old
June 22
„ 25
„ 28
July 1
„ 4
„ 8
„ 12
„ 15
„ 19
„ 22
„ 27
„ 30
•£i
33
30
27
59
46
42
44
67
76
83
82
33
55
53
48
23
48
38
39
26
13
13
16
13
6
11
11
16
3
12
14
5
11
4
27
6
6
14
2
3
8
3
2
Table XIX.—Relative Numbers in One-year-in-lake and Tico-years-in-laJce Groups, Skeena River
Sockeyes, 1918, on a Succession of Dates.
Dates.
June 22
„ 25
„ 28
July 1
„ 4
„ 8
„ 12
„ 15
„ 19
„ 22
„ 27
„ 30
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
60
40
88
12
S3
17
75
25
82
18
94
6
80
20
83
17
93
7
89
11
96
4
98
2
Table XX.—Percentages of Males and Females, One-year-in-lake Group, Skeena River Sockeyes,
1918, on a Succession of Dales.
Four Years.
Five Years.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
June 22 	
„ 25 	
„ 28	
July 1 	
4 	
8 	
61
74
94
82
59
85
67
62
63
56
44
52
39
26
6
18
41
15
33
38
37
44
56
48
61
59
46
60
53
46
. 46
30
12
17
33
33
39
41
54
40
47
54
„ 12 	
„ 15 	
„ 19 	
„ 22 	
„ 27 	
„ 30 	
54
70
88
83
67
67 X 48
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table XXI.—Relative Numbers of Males and Females in Different Year-groups, Skeena River
Sockeyes, in a Series of Years.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Years.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1912   	
1913   	
1914   	
1915   	
1916   	
1917   	
1918   	
54
69
60
55
70
65
63
46
31
40
45
30
35
37
42
47
47
45
43
4S
46
58
53
53
55
57
52
54
56
65
61
44
35
39
54
58
56
46
42
44
Table XXII.—Skeena River Sockeyes, Run of 1918, One Year
and Sex.
Lake, grouped by Length, Age,
Length in Inches.
21  	
21%   	
22    •
22%   	
23  	
23%   	
24	
24%   	
25  	
25%   	
26  	
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
28  	
Totals  	
Average length in inches
Number of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Males.       Females.
8
27
35
43
39
41
9
12
1
226
24.1
1
3
7
21
39
23
21
9
6
2
1
133
23.3
Five Years old.
Males.        Females.
25.8
1
4
1
3
6
19
2
22
13
41
20
20
34
16
17
6
14
2
5
1
114
133
24.9 a
fa
*^et
." CD
h -a
C3 rj
W-5
■■.■^^
co  £
fe   S M  S
03 co
5
S V    CO
a
.2 fl
toO
as
s ■ .
3^
a»
% a
fe S -
u.S
OJ    CD
>-. fa Fig. 9.  Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River, taken September 22nd, 1918.
Female, 21 inches long. -.■-;.  •.v,i'....-.--..•C.«\»'- ••-■■ -    , \ ■  •
s*XvV<  ■ ->$&r- ir•".:'
Fig. 10. Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River taken September 7th, 1918.
Female, 24 inches long. Fig.  11.  Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River, taken September 10th, 1918.
Female, 25 inches long. ///:
Fig.  12. Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River, taken September 7th, 1918.
Female, 24 inches long. 3   6
at 3
CD  ^0
5   3
g fl
.£  .M  Ol
«5H
. CD 00
CO O rH
rH     9    CD
»-l g «
O   +J
i-i   «J
a.  <]
SS;$?Ss^—--"■
M <
Ol    cD
a 5
r*      ®
.    2
E5 Fig. 16.  Fraser River sockeye from Fish Canyon, Chilcotin River,
taken August 24th, 1918.    Female, 28% inches long. vmfg
Fig
17. Fraser River sockeye from Fish Canyon, Chilcotin River, taken August 25th, 1918.
Male, 23*4 inches long. Fig.  18.  Fraser River sockeye from Fish Canyon, Chilcotin River, taken August 24th, 1918. 3 co
":-3-u"-»       •  "*■        **X»    ':'.="■
Xsc^XCi;:*;,',!- '•   •.
Ji&-.'c-I-:'-;" ■■■
>SiV>xxx.x -
t'X.X • "
. X ^ -X  '-
M
3
<
rH
r3
rH
a <M
SO
s ..^XSxvX:   '
'- v % -."• .c -
;••;.'■■ - •.
>v.'•" • .-"••-'X"'"
*   ■■•,.-Vt   V**»£-St ■-'■    '■':■'
-...'."-.Otc
S S8
O   <M
s
a  ■
9 a Fig
23.  Fraser River sockeye from Pitt Lake,  taken  October  27th,  1918.
Male, 27% inches long. Fig.  24. Fraser River sockeye from Pitt Lake, taken October 27th, 1918.    Female, 26% inches long. 3
a a
CD    O
3   ii
CD   -H
£   3
CD  CO
>   ri
■Z co-
E
X^
iililMi H  .0
Ph   M
3
be rH     a.
o, fe
« -
to   ti
3.3   g
j3 3
3. .3
a .
CD    CD
CO   Jd
cs ca
fe "
.   bo .
ca  b u
Ol    -O ri
-O CD
biS ^
fe bS
O «w
80 G r'.^<x:x * "-x^^.
Fig. 31. Fraser River sockeye from Vancouver Island traps, taken July 25th, 1918.
Female, 25% inches long, in fourth year. Reached the sea as fingerling &% inches
long. Fig. 32. Fraser River sockeye from Vancouver Island traps, taken July 25th, 1918.
Male, 26 inches long, two years in lake, in fifth year. Fingerling reached the sea
about 5%   inches long. Fig. 33. Fraser River sockeye from Vancouver Island traps, taken July 29th, 1918. Male, 23%
inches long, in fifth year. Observe small nuclear region, indicating descent to sea as yearling less
than 1%  inches long. Fig. 34. Fraser River sockeye from Vancouver Island traps, taken July 29th, 1918.
Male, 27 inches long, two years in lake, in fifth year. Note extremely large nuclear
region, indicating descent to sea as two-year-old when  8%   inches long. 9 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
X 49
Table XXIII.—Skeena River Sockeyes, Run of 1918, One Year in Lake, grouped by Weight, Age,
and Sex.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
3%   	
2
16
44
51
53
33
20
6
i
1
1
12
48
39
21
9
1
1
2
1
3
12
24
31
16
13
5
5
i
4	
5
5%   	
20
6  	
37
6%                                      	
34
7    	
20
qu,   .                                                           	
10
8	
5
s%   	
2
9   	
9%   	
10                 .                         ..---.	
Totals   .
Average
226
133
113
133
5.7
5.3
6.8
6.3
Table XXIV.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, for Seven
Successive Years.
Four-year males  .
Four-year  females
Five-year males   .
Five-year females
1912.
24.6
23.5
26.4
25.2
1913.
23.5
22.9
25.5
24.7
1914.
24.2
23.4
26.2
25.1
1915.
24.2
23.5
25.9
25.0
1916.
23.9
23.6
26.2
25.0
1917.
23.6
23.2
25.5
24.7
1918.
24.1
23.3
25.9
25.0
Table XXV.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, for Three
Successive Years.
Five-year males ..
Five-year females
Six-year males   . .
Six-year females
1916.
24.1
23.8
26.2
24.8
1917.
23.9
23.8
25.4
25.0
1918.
23.9
23.4
25.2
24.7 X 50                          Eeport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.                          1919
Table XXVI.—Average Weights, Skeena River Sockeyes, for Five Successive Years.
1914.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
One year in lake—
Two years in lake—
5.9
5.3
7.2
6.3
5.7
5.2
6.8
6.2
5.9
5.2
6.6
6.0
5.4
5.1
7.1
6.3
5.8
5.4
7.08
5.9
5.3
5.0
6.4
6.0
5.5
5.2
6.3
5.8
5.8
5.3
6.9
6.4
5.7
5.3
6.6
6.1
V.   THE SOCKEYE RUN IN THE NASS RIVER, 1918.
The 1918 run of sockeyes in the Nass River agreed with 1917 as being far below the average
take for the last ten years, which is a little over 30,000 cases.    The pack in 1917 was only
22,188 cases and was the worst up to that date for the past decade.   But the 191S pack was
only 21,316 cases.
The size of the fish in the different classes was not less than the average in good years.
In the four-year fish of the one-year-in-lake type, both males and females were distinctly larger
than in the two previous years, as is shown by both average lengths and average weights in
Table XXVII., the averages used being for the July fish only.   The sizes would have been even
larger had the August run been included.
The July and the August portions of the run were as sharply marked as had previously
been noted.   The one-year-in-lake type, both four- and five-year classes, had practically disappeared from the August run, which was composed of individuals that had spent two years in
fresh water in the fingerling stage, and others that had spent three years in fresh water.
Representatives of both of these groups had been present also in July, but the July individuals,
in all the groups that spent two years in the lake, averaged distinctly smaller than the August
fish of the same classes.    It would be interesting to follow the August fish to their spawning-
grounds, which are probably distinct from those of the early run.
Table XXVII.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths and Weights of Different Classes,
Runs of 1916, 1917, and 1918.
Average Sizes of Individuals that spent
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1916 (inches)   	
1917 (inches)    	
1918 (inches)   	
1916 (pounds)  	
1917 (pounds)    ....
1918 (pounds)
24.5
23.4
24.9
6.0
5.3
6.2
23.3
23.2
24.1
5.3
5.3
5.7
26.4
25.5
25.6
7.2
6.8
7.1
25.0
24.7
24.7
6.3
6.2
6.2
26.5
25.3
25.7
7.2
6.3
7.1
25.7
24.7
24.8
6.2
5.8
6.2
27.9
26.5
27.1
8.1
7.3
8.2
25.8
25.5
25.0
6.4
6.4
6.6 9 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
X 51
Table XXVIII.—Nass River Sockeyes which ran in July, 191S, grouped by Age, Sex, Length,
and by their Early History.
Number of Individuals that spent
Length in
Inches.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Three Years in
Lake.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
22   	
22%    	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27   	
27%	
28   	
28%'  	
29   	
29%   	
30   	
1
1
1
5
6
5
1
7
9
6
6
1
1
1
3
2
7
3
9
6
2
3
4
1
i
2
2
6
7
4
6
4
i
:
3
3
5
11
14
LO
3
i
2
1
2
6
6
9
11
19
>2
9
4
1
1
1
1
4
6
6
3
9
9
4
0
5
2
i
4
5
3
2
1
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
i
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
Total No...
75
70
33
49
91
79
27
13
4
11
Ave.  length
24.9
24.1
25.6
24.7
25.7
24.8
27.1
25.0
27.3
25.4
Ave. weight
6.2
5.7
7.1
6.2
7.1
6.2
8.2
6.6
8.1
6.8
Table XXIX.—Nass River Sockeyes which ran in August, 1918, grouped by Age, Sex, Length,
and by their Early History.
Number of Individuals that spent
Length in
Inches.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Three Years in
Lake.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
92
22%    	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%    	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
'i
1
1
i
i
i
"2
5
6
5
- 2
1
i
'5
13
6
6
i
i
4
2
i
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
28   	
28%   	
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
i
4
1
Total No...
3
2
22
32
6
1
11
8
Ave. length
25.5
25
26.4   1    25.2
27.6
26.5
26.5
26.1
Ave. weight
7
6
• •
7.2
6.5
8
.5
7.5
7
.8
6.8 X 52
Keport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table XXX.—Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates
in 1918.
1918.
One Year in Lake.
Two Y'ears in Lake.
Three Y'ears in -Lake.
Four Years.
Five Years.
Five Years.
Six Years.
Six Years.
Seven Years.
June 26  	
July     2   	
35
27
57
43
40
27
22
22
10
5
10
2
25
14
13
37
32
22
13
19
2
9
40
59
23
12
22
37
45
49
63
61
60
68
7
6
6
14
16
8
6
18
7
9
2
4
2
19
7
23
21
8   	
„    11   	
„    16   	
„    19   	
„    23   	
„    25   	
„    30   	
Aug.    2   	
„      5   	 9 Geo. 5 Statement by Hon. Wm. Sloan. X 53
STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES
COMMISSION BY THE HON. WILLIAM SLOAN, COMMISSIONER OF
FISHERIES, AT THE VANCOUVER MEETING,  1918.
Gentlemen of the Commission,—As the Commissioner of Fisheries for the Province of
British Columbia, I desire to comment briefly on the present precarious condition of the sockeye-
salmon fishery of the Eraser River. The watershed of that river and its channels lie wholly
within the Province. From its watershed have come all but a fraction of the sockeye that have
been taken in the waters contiguous to the International Boundary-line which separates the
Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington. From that watershed must continue
to come the seaward migrants of sockeye which produce the commercial runs of sockeye to those
waters, because there is no other watershed tributary to those waters which affords sufficient
spawning and rearing waters for sockeye salmon. The vast runs of former big years demonstrates the extent and the value of the runs that that watershed can produce. It is the greatest
sockeye-producing watershed known. No other watershed has produced such vast numbers of
sockeye. That watershed is to-day as capable as ever of producing the vast run of the past.
It has not been contaminated. Settlement, power and irrigation have not injured it in any
way. It needs only to be protected to produce the great runs of the past. Its produce has been
lessened—alm5st destroyed—because a sufficient number of spawning sockeye has not been
permitted to reach it. The runs in the three last years have steadily decreased because too few
of the adult salmon have escaped capture in Dominion and State waters; because of excessive
fishing-too many have been captured. The run of the big year was further destroyed by a rock-
slide blocking the river-channel at Hell's Gate in 3913.
That the runs in the three last years have been almost wiped out by commercial fishing and
that the run in the big year has been alarmingly decreased has been ably demonstrated by
statements already submitted to you. It is unnecessary here to more than call your attention
to the evidence of depletion already in your hands. I do, however, accentuate the fact that
the evidence submitted to you by our Department is founded upon scientifically ascertained facts.
The watershed of the Fraser and the fishing areas supplied by It have been under close scrutiny
since 1901. No other has been so carefully observed. The history of the race of sockeye that
frequent the Fraser is better known than that of any other district. The facts are no longer
questioned. The run of sockeye to the Fraser is periously near to extermination. They will
be exterminated if conditions remain as they are, and in so short a period as to wipe out all
interests of both fishermen and Banners. In view of the evidence there is, in my judgment,
but one thing to do. Adopt measures that will ensure to the watershed all the sockeye that
still survive. To that end I would suggest that the total prohibition of sockeye-fishing in the
waters frequented by those produced in the Fraser River until such time as they have recovered
from their depleted condition. I suggest this though it does involve compensation to resident
fishermen and canners who can establish that they are entitled to compensation by their
respective Governments. It is fruitless to rely upon concurrent regulations in British Columbia
and the State of Washington waters. That has been tried and failed. Such efforts will continue
to fail. Present commercial and monetary considerations must be eliminated. It must be in
an international way, because it is an international question. It is one of the greatest fishery
questions in which Canada and the United States are now concerned. The only adequate, the
only permanent solution of this question, I submit, is-the acquisition by Canada and the United
States of all the rights in this fishery of which they may not now be in possession. That being
established, the waters should be closed to sockeye-fishing for such a period of time as is
necessary to restore the runs to the abundance of former big years. AVhen that has been
accomplished, let fishing be resumed under supervision and for the benefit of the two nations
until such time as they have been recouped for their expenditures, and thereafter in such manner
and to the end that the supply may not again become depleted.
I submit, gentlemen, that the Governments of Canada and the United States should recognize
that the conditions confronting them demand such treatment. There is no gainsaying the
evidence.    The watershed of the Fraser River will, when adequately protected, produce more X 54 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
sockeye salmon than any known watershed. It produced in 1913 2,300,000 cases. In the three
following lean years it produced an average of but 267,000 cases per year. Being in possession
of a watershed capable of producing 2,300,000 cases a year, can any Government be content with
conditions by which but 267,000 cases are produced, and the continuance of which will entirely
destroy any production whatever? The evidence in the case is conclusive—it is undisputed;
the fishery is in a precarious condition. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the
remedies to be applied. I submit that those best qualified to speak have made it plain that no
temporary measures will produce desired results. The races of sockeye that frequent the Fraser
cannot be restored by any half-way measure. To allow the destruction of the sockeye-flsheries
of the Fraser River would be an unnatural, immoral, and unpatriotic policy.
The questions here involved are similar to those in the fur-seal case. They are international
in character, and not Provincial or State questions, and must be dealt with upon broad national
lines and in the interests of the people of Canada and the United States.
Faithfully yours,
Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries for British Columbia.
STATEMENT MADE BY JOHN P. BABCOCK, ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, AT VANCOUVER
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERY CONFERENCE,
1918.
Mb. Chairman and Gentlemen of the International Fisheries Commission,—The outstanding features of the salinoii-fishery of the Fraser River District, in my judgment, are the
depletion of the runs and the potentialities of the watershed. Because depletion has been shown,
and is universally admitted, I shall confine attention to the latter.
The Watershed,—The watershed of the Fraser River contains a greater area of tributary
fresh-water lakes than are found in any other on the Coast. The Fraser drains the major
portion of the south-eastern section of the Province of British Columbia. Three of the largest
lakes on the Pacific slope and five others of large area contribute their waters to the Fraser
and afford spawning areas and rearing waters for a countless number of sockeye salmon. No
other known watershed affords such an extended spawning area. No other watershed produced
in a single year such vast numbers of sockeye. The great runs of 1901, 1905, 1909, and 1913
demonstrate the harvest that watershed will afford when abundantly seeded. The great catches
of those years—ranging from 1,572,000 to 2,401,000 cases—demonstrates the number of fish that
may safely be taken without, injury to the runs of the future, because, notwithstanding such
great catches, every section of the spawning area of the watershed was shown to have been
abundantly seeded in 1901, 1905, and 1909, and there is evidence to show that its spawning area
would have been as abundantly seeded in 1913 but for an accident.
Since 1901 I have made a study of conditions on the fishing and spawning grounds of the
Fraser River. I first inspected its spawning area in 1901. As the agent of the Provincial
Government I have inspected that watershed during the spawning period every year since, with
the exception of the years 1910 and 1911. The annual publication of the Provincial Government
contains my yearly reports.
As the result of my inspections, I feel fully justified in submitting that the major portion
of the great runs of 1905, 1909, and 1913 were the product of the sockeye that spawned in that
section of the watershed of the Fraser that lies north of the great canyon in the Coast ranges,
commonly termed " the Fraser River Canyon." And that the major portion of the runs in the
alternate years—the lean years—were the product of the sockeye that spawned in that section
of the watershed that lies to the south and west of the Fraser River Canyon. In the discussion
of this question the former is here termed the upper section of the Fraser River watershed,
and the latter the lower section of the Fraser watershed.   In my judgment, the great runs of 9 Geo.- 5 Statement by John P. Babcock. X 55
the big years have very largely consisted of fish propagated in the upper section, plus the
normal yearly product of the lower section. The runs in the alternate, or lean, years have
been the normal yearly product of the lower section plus the small numbers produced in the
lean years from the beds of the upper section.
In the big years 1901, 1905, and 1909 every spawning-bed in the upper section was crowded
with sockeye. They were found there in incredible numbers. The beds of that section in 1913
showed an alarming decrease. While over 4,000,000 sockeye were recorded as entering Quesnel
Lake in 1909, but 550,000 were shown to have entered that lake in 1913, and less than 2S,000 in
1917. Furthermore, similar conditions were shown to have existed in all the lake districts of
the upper section in 1913 and 1917. The number of sockeye that reached the beds of the upper
section in 1917 were shown to have been very much less than in 1913, and little, if any, more
numerous than in some reeent lean years. The records of the upper section in 1913, and again
in 1917, demonstrate that the conditions which produced the big runs in 1905, 1909, and 1913 no
longer exist, that the big year run has been destroyed, and that hereafter the runs of those years
must be classed with the runs in the lean years. In the alternate—the lean—years the spawning-
beds of the upper section were but sparingly seeded up to 1906 and have not been as well seeded
since. Gradually, with one or two exceptional years, the number of sockeye which reached the
upper section in the lean years has notably declined. Every district in the upper section shows
a decline. Hatcheries located at Shuswap and Seton Lakes, the only hatcheries in the upper
section, have been closed because a sufficient number of sockeye have not reached those lakes
in recent years to afford a supply of eggs. No eggs were or could have been collected at either
of those lakes in the last .three years.
Passing to the spawning area of the lower section of the Fraser, the record discloses that
from 1901 to 1917 there was no pronounced increase in the- run in the big years over the run
of the lean years. That there has been as many fish on those beds in the lean years as in the
big years. This is especially true of the runs to Lillooet and Harrison Lakes, the two great
lakes of the lower section. The runs to this section have shown a steady decline. There were
less sockeye in this section in 1917 than in any former year, big or lean, on record, and less eggs
were secured for the hatcheries.
Because the bulk of the run of the big years issues from the upper section of the watershed,
and because there has been no noticeable increase in the number of sockeye on the beds of the
lower section in those years, it appears that the condition which originally brought about the
phenomenon of the big run and the three following small runs of sockeye to the Fraser was of
such a character as to have affected only the run to the upper section and yet did not affect the
run to the lower section.
Because the run to every lake district of the upper section was equally affected we are
warranted in assuming that the point of obstruction was located below the junction of the
Thompson and the Fraser Rivers. Because the run was affected for three years only, it is
assumed that the barrier, or blockade, was of such a character as to have affected the run in
those years only and did not affect the run in the fourth year; that in the fourth year it had
worn away or been removed by high water to an extent that permitted the run of that year
to reach the spawning-beds of the upper section.
The channel of the Fraser through the canyon extending from Yale to Cisco is exceedingly
narrow at many points. Towering cliffs of rock line its banks. A rock-slide such as the one
that occurred in that canyon, at Hell's Gate, in 1913 could easily have produced a similar result
at an earlier period of time, and just as effectively cut off the run for a number of years as the
slide of 1913 would have done had it not been removed by the Dominion Government in 1914.
Great as was the slide of 1913, it did not cut off all of the early run of sockeye of that year.
Owing to extreme high water in July numbers of sockeye were enabled to pass through, as was
demonstrated by the fish reaching Quesnel and Chilko Lakes.
Assuming, then, that we have here a reasonable theory of the origin and the nature of the
barrier that cut off the sockeye from the spawning area of the upper section of the Fraser which
resulted in the phenomenon of the one big year and three lean year runs of sockeye, let us
speculate as to the extent of its effect upon the runs of the three lean years. The barrier may
have been sufficient to have cut off a portion of the run only, or it may have cut off the entire
run. If a portion of the run at extreme high or low water was enabled to pass, that portion
would have furnished the nucleus—the seed—for a run four years later. X 56 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
If we assume that the entire run was cut off from the upper section for one or all of the
three years of the cycle, we must furnish a plausible, a workable, theory to account for the
restoration of the runs in the three lean years. That is not difficult. Dr. Gilbert, by his study
of the growth and structure of the scales of the sockeye, has demonstrated that, while the race
of sockeye that frequent the Fraser are predominately four-year old fish, there is in the run
of every year three-year-old, four-year-old, and five-year-old fish. He demonstrated "clearly
that in the Fraser basin a high percentage of four-year fish accompanied a large pack, or, stated
conversely, a small pack is occasioned mainly by a deficiency in four-year-old fish."*
In four runs he found an average of 82 per cent, of four-year-old fish. In the catch of 1912
he found 21.5 per cent, of three-year-old fish and 10 per cent, of five-year-old fish. The presence
of from 54 to 99 per cent, of four-year-old fish in five consecutive runs, and plus per cent, to
46 per cent, of five-year-old fish in the same runs, establishes the fact that from each year's
spawning a proportion of five-year-old fish are produced. We have here evidence of the existence
in the run of the year that was not obstructed the nucleus for a future run. The period taken
to build up a run from such a scant seeding must have been an extended one. Had this constituted the only seed that reached the beds in the three lean years, the run following the big year
should have been more readily built up than the run in the two following years. In fact, the
record of the pack demonstrates that the catch in the year following the big run has always
been greater than in the two following years.
We are not, however, confined to the conclusion that if the run for three years was entirely
destroyed the run in the lean years was built up entirely from the spawning of five-year-old fish.
Granting the premises of the home-stream theorists that salmon bred in a stream return to that
stream to spawn because the weight of evidence favours their contention, there is abundant
evidence on this Coast and in New Zealand, where the Pacific salmon have been established,
to show that some of the salmon bred in one stream have on reaching maturity entered a different
stream to spawn. Further, it has not been shown or claimed that all the fish bred in a watershed
return to the identical tributary of that watershed in which they were propagated. There is
sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that some salmon propagated in the lower section
of the Fraser have entered the upper section and spawned there. We have therefore three strings
to our bow to account for the existence of the runs of the lean years: (1) The escapes at high
or low stages of water during the original blockade; (2) the overlapping five-year-old fish bred
in the upper section by the run that did survive; and (3) the fish bred in the lower section that
passed to the upper section and spawned there.
The building-up of a run to the upper section of the Fraser by any or all of the measures
here indicated would of necessity have takeii a long period of time. We cannot estimate it,
but we are not compelled to place it in the dark ages, or even two or three centuries ago. We
can, however, postulate that during that period the Indians of the upper section and in the Fraser
Canyon were catching such fish as they could secure up to the limit of their demands, and were
in consequence interfering with a more rapid development of a run. The records of Simon
Fraser, the discoverer and original navigator of the river that bears his name, written more
than a century ago—1806-11—establishes the fact that there was in those years a big run every
fourth year and a light run in each of the three succeeding years in the Upper Fraser. He also
furnishes evidence to show that in some of the lean years the Indians at Stuart and Fraser Lakes
could not supply his post with all the salmon he required, and that an additional supply was
obtained from the post at Kamloops, where the run appears to have been larger or the demand
less; indicating at that time the Indians could not obtain from Stuart and Fraser Lakes all
the fish they desired.
This matter has been treated at length that it may be appreciated that the period of time
necessary to restore a depleted run to a run of commercial importance is under natural conditions
a long one, and because it has been stated that the failure of nature to have equalized the runs
of sockeye in the Fraser demonstrated that the runs in the lean years could not be developed to
the proportions of a big-year run. I sumbit that there is no force in that contention. The runs
in the lean years will equal the runs of former big years four years following as abundant seeding
as the beds received in either 1901, 1905, and 1909. It is only a matter of seeding the spawning
area abundantly.
* B.C. Fishermen Report, 1915, pages 29' and 30. 9 Geo. 5 Statement by John P. Babcock. X 57
Mr. Secretary Redfield requested that in advocating restrictive measures I should consider
the present demand for foods, and that he would like me to express my views on the subject.
In reply, let me submit: The average pack of Fraser River sockeye in Washington aud British
Columbia in the last three lean years totalled but 267,000 cases. The reports from the spawning-
grounds of the Fraser in these years give no promise that the runs in the following three lean
years will equal that average. If that be true, the best we can expect is 267,000 cases per year.
Is the food shortage so serious as to demand that the few remaining sockeye of the Fraser run
be drawn upon to supply that number of cases?
Permit me, gentlemen, to draw my remarks to a conclusion by quoting from the very able
statement furnished you by my mentor, Dr. Gilbert:—
" The Fraser River presents unexampled opportunities for productiveness and wealth. The
people need the enormous supplies of highly valuable food which the river is able to produce
annually. It should not be permitted to remain at its present low rate of production. . . .
The people need the food. They will come to need it in future years even more sorely than they
do at the present. No private interests should be permitted to stand in the way of restoring
this producer of food to the public.
" If the Fraser River were a private monopoly, to be henceforth wisely handled, there can
be no doubt it would now be promptly closed to commercial fishing for a term of years, and the
entire run—now so sadly dwindled—dedicated to purposes of propagation. This should be done
without further delay for at least one cycle of four years, and the results carefully noted by a
continued study of the spawning-beds. ... If the river were closed to fishing for one cycle
of four years, we could know fairly well in advance what the result was to be, and could then
either open the river and sound to restricted fishing if conditions should warrant, or, if necessary,
close it for a future period of four years. This is the only method to restore the sockeye run
with any promptness and with any certainty of success.
" So great has been the reduction of the runs, we cannot predict with any optimism what
would be the result of less drastic measures. If the amount of fishing-gear in use be limited
and the weekly closed season be extended, undoubtedly a somewhat larger proportion of fish
would reach the beds. But it must be borne in mind that it is not the proportion of a given
run which spells success, but the actual numbers of spawners. The whole of a sadly depleted
run may be all too few to produce the desired results. It is greatly to be feared that any
restriction hi the present case which would be so moderate as still to leave it profitable for
canners to operate in the face of such reduced runs can accomplish little or nothing towards
restocking of the river. The only wise course—the only adequate remedy—is to close the river
for a term of years by concurrent action of the two Governments."
Yours respectfully,
John Pease Babcock,
Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries. X 58 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
MIGRATION OF ADULT SOCKEYE SALMON IN PUGET SOUND AND
FRASER RIVER.*
By Henry O'Malley, Field Assistant, U.S. Bureau op Fisheries, in Charge op Operations
on the Pacific Coast, and Willis H. Rich, Field Assistant, U.S. Bureau op Fisheries.
INTRODUCTION.
During the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference on the Pacific Coast in April and May,
1918, the question was constantly raised as to the time required for the sockeye salmon of Fraser
River to pass through Puget Sound.
In order to determine this important question, Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United States Commissioner of Fisheries, and W. A. Found, Superintendent of the Canadian Fisheries, decided to carry
out an extensive marking experiment. Early in July the authors were detailed to take immediate
charge for the United States Bureau of Fisheries, and to confer with Lieut.-Colonel F. H. Cunningham, acting for the Canadian Government. The final arrangements were that the Canadian
fisheries authorities would handle the marking operations in Canadian waters and the United
States Bureau of Fisheries the marking operations in Puget Sound, and that each Government
would attend to the collecting of data in its respective waters.
The authors are especially indebted to H. J. Todd & Sons; E. B. Deming, Pacific American
Fisheries; W. A. Lowman, Coast Fish Co.; Frank Wright, Carlisle Packing Co.; and J. W.
Elliott, Alaska Packers' Association. Without the co-operation of these men and the members
of their respective organizations it would have been impossible to have successfully conducted this
experiment. L. H. Darwin, Washington State Fish Commissioner, and his deputies also rendered
valuable assistance. Many helpful suggestions were received from Dr. Charles H. Gilbert, of
Stanford University.
PROCEDURE.
Tags and their Attachment.
The method adopted for procuring the desired data was to mark with serially numbered
tags enough adult sockeye salmon so that a sufficient number of returns could reasonably be
expected. After consideration of several types of tags the one finally accepted was of the
" bachelor-button " type, similar to those in use for marking cattle and other live stock. This
button comes in two separate halves, each with a hollow central extension which forms the shaft
of the complete 'button. The shaft of one half of the button is small enough to pass through
the shaft and long enough to extend slightly beyond the.face of the other half. When placed
together in the proper position the two halves are fastened by means of a special crimping-tool.
This is built on the general plan of a pair of pliers; but the jaws meet only toward the tips,
at which points are conical elevations. By fitting these elevations into the open ends of the
shaft and closing the tool firmly, the end of the smaller inner shaft is spread sufficiently to
prevent its being pulled back through the outer shaft.
The buttons were made of either silver or aluminium. Some fear was entertained that the
aluminium might corrode in the salt water sufficiently to make it diflicult or impossible to read
the numbers, but in this experiment there was absolutely no difficulty on this account. No
corrosion is noticeable on any of the buttons returned, although some of them must have been
three or four weeks in practically pure salt water. This is contrary to the experience of Greene,t
who found that salt water had a strongly corrosive action on aluminium buttons of similar style.
This may be due to some slight difference in the alloy of which the buttons were made.
* Reproduced from advance sheets furnished the Department by Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United States
Commissioner of Fisheries.
t Greene, Charles W.: The Migration of Salmon in the Columbia River. Bulletin, U.S. Bureau of
Fisheries for 1909, Vol. XXIX., pages 129-148.     Washington, 1911. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 59
The buttons were attached to the upper lobe of the caudal (tail) fin. It was first necessary
to cut a hole of the proper size to admit the shaft of the button. This was done by means of
an ordinary leather-punch. Figs. 1 to 4 show, in situ, both sides of two buttons which were
returned.*
The operation of attaching the tags required, usually, less than one minute and no particularly unfavourable results of tagging were noticed. At some of the stations where the
marking was done the fish were held in crates until after the marking for the day was complete,
and it was noticed that they soon recovered from the effects of being out of water while the tag
was being attached and were apparently in perfect condition when liberated.
Reports that the tags were " worrying " the fish and causing them to wear their tails in an
effort to remove the tags were investigated and found to be quite unfouuded. Tails of several
fish have been preserved and show no indication of such wearing as had been asserted. Figs. 1
and 2 are from such a specimen.
The fish to be marked were taken from the traps at the time of lifting and were held either
in crates or in one of the pockets of the spiller until they could be marked and released.
Marking-stations.
Marking-stations were established at five points in Puget Sound, as follows: Near Sooke,
Vancouver Island, British Columbia; Salmon Banks, just south of San Juan Archipelago ; near
Point Partridge, Whidbey Island; near Village Point, Luinmi Island; and at the last trap in
American waters on Point Roberts. For convenience these have been designated in the following
pages as Stations A, B, C, D, and E, respectively.
The work at these stations was in charge of the following men:—
A. Sooke, B.C.—W. H. Rich, Field Assistant, United States Bureau of Fisheries  (July
14th to 23rd) ; Dr. C. McLean Fraser, Director of the Biological Station, Nanaimo,
British Columbia (July 23rd to the end of the season) ; Alex. Robertson, Superintendent, Harrison Lake Hatchery, Dominion Fisheries Department.
B. Salmon  Banks—Walter   C.   Buckmaster,   Apprentice  Fish-culturist,   United   States
Bureau of Fisheries.
C. Point Partridge—Clive L. Henry, Apprentice Fish-culturist, United States Bureau of
Fisheries.
D. Lmnmi Island—Don E. Courser, Apprentice Fish-culturist, United States Bureau of
Fisheries.
E. Point Roberts—Joseph Kemmerich, Foreman, United States Bureau of Fisheries.
The last four of these stations were under the general supervision of Dennis Winn, Field
Superintendent, United States Bureau of Fisheries.
Collection and Organization of Data.
In the collection of data reliance was necessarily placed in fishermen, trap-tenders, and
cannerymen. A reward of 25 cents was offered for the return of each button accompanied by
information giving the date and place of capture. Specimens taken in American waters were
taken care of by Dennis Winn, at the Seattle office of the United States Bureau of Fisheries,
and those taken in Canadian waters by Colonel Cunningham, at the office of the Dominion
Fisheries Department at New Westminster, British Columbia. One of the tags reported from
the upper, regions of the Fraser River was secured by J. P. Babcock, Assistant to the Commissioner of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia.
While the majority of these records are considered approximately correct, data secured in
this manner are necessarily subject to some inaccuracies, both as to time and place of capture.
In the authors' opinion, however, these inaccuracies will be balanced, so that with reasonably
large series the averages should be reliable. In cases where the data were obviously wrong the
records have been omitted. This has been done in several instances where the date given for
the capture was earlier than that on which the fish was recorded as having been marked. A
number of tags were returned with incomplete data, either the date or the place of capture, or
both, wanting.   All such cases have been omitted entirely from consideration.
For the convenient organization of the data the American waters .of the sound from which
returns were reported have been divided into nine regions.   Several factors guided in establishing
* Not shown in this reprint. X 60
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
O J^-'J    U   a    N       D    E       F    u 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 61
the boundaries of these regions : (1) The general geography of the district; (2) the grouping of
traps; and (3) the nature of the descriptions giving the locality where the tags were recovered.
These last frequently indicated merely the general region in which the tag was taken; i.e.,
Rosario Strait. The boundaries of these regions, as well as the location of the marking-stations,
are showii on the accompanying map. All of the records reported from the Canadian waters
which are open to commercial fishing have been treated together. For this reason that part of
the Strait of Georgia just outside the mouths of the Fraser River and the river itself, from the
mouth to Mission Bridge, together constitute the tenth region. The reasons for so treating the
Canadian returns will be given later.
STATISTICAL STUDY OF DATA.
General Features.
In the following study the chief concern is with what is believed to be a strict and reasonably
complete presentation of the facts. There has been no attempt to draw conclusions regarding
the bearing of these facts upon the particular problems connected with the conservation of the
sockeyes of the Fraser River. Some of the tables present similar data as seen from different
points of view. This has, perhaps, been carried to aii extreme in order that all obtainable facts
might be available. Other tables are presented rather as matters of record than as having any
especial bearing on- the main problems in hand. For the most part such tables are presented
without detailed comment.
Raw Data.
Table 1 gives,for each marking-station the numbers of the tags attached each day. As noted
in the table, silver tags were used only at Sooke (Station A). At all other stations aluminium
tags were used, and the first few tags used at Sooke were also of aluminium, Nos. 5 to 29,
inclusive.
Table 1.—List of Tag Numbers attached at each Marking-station.
Station A, Sooke, British Columbia.*
Numbers.
Date.
Total.
Numbers.
Date.
Total.
From
To
From
To
5
8
29
1350
1362
1382
1390
1447
1545
1617
1-70.7
1918.
July 14 	
„  21 	
4
21
25
10
20
8
56
98
72
99
1718
1823
1901
2039
20S8
2OS0
2101
2125
1822
1900
2038
2078
2100
2087
2123
2127
1918.
July 31 	
105
9
Aug. 1 	
2 	
77
138
1326
„  21 	
1353
..  22 	
.,  23 	
„  24 	
„   4 	
41
1363
1383
4 	
„   6 	
23
8
1391
„   6 	
23
144S
27 	
1546
1.618
„  28 	
„  30 	
Tot
al 	
831
Station B
, Salmon Banks, Wash.
3001
3025
3065
3160
3216
3266
3377
3454
3394
3400
July 21	
25
40
95
56
50
111
54
17
6
3455
3497
3601
3665
3759
3S01
349fl
3600
3664
3758
3800
3S36
42
3026
22 	
104
3066
,.  23 	
24 . :	
„   2 	
64
„   4 	
94
25 	
.,   5 	
42
„  26 	
3401
3378
3395
,,.  28 	
„  30 	
„  31 	
To
836
Station C, Point Partridge, WASH.f
1001
1043
July
17
1044
1093
,,
19
1094
1154
22
1155
1230
,,
24
1231
1382
.,
20
1383
1546
Aug.
6
43
50
61
76
152
164
1547
1665
1770
1925
1664
1769
1924
2000
Aug.
13
14
Total
118
105
155
1,000
* Tag Nos. 5 to 29, attached at Station A, and the tags used at all other stations were aluminium.
With the exception of those noted, all tags attached at Station A were of silver.
t This is the official list as given by the assistant having charge of the marking at this station. The
records for August 6th and subsequent dates are subject to suspicion on account of an admitted lack of
veracity in the accounts.    Previous to this date Dennis Winn was present at the markings. X 62
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 1.—List of Tag Numbers attached at each Marking-station—Concluded.
Station D, Lummi Island, Wash.
Station E, Point Roberts, Wash.
Numbers.
Date.
Total.
Numbers.
Date.
Total.
From
To
From
To
2001
2085
2177
2251
2314
2360
2416
2477
July
Aug.
19
23
24
28
30
2
4
1918.
85
92
74
63
46
56
61
247S
2556
2650
2691
2555
2649
2690
2737
Aug.    5
6
.,        7
9
1918.
7S
20S6
2178
94
41
2252
2315
2361
47
737
2417
4001
4096
4166
4259
4373
4495
4534
4631
4744
4819
4835
30
86
98
121
152
Total
Table 2 gives in serial order a complete list of the tags returned, showing the place where
and the date on which the tags were attached and the date and region of capture. Tables 1 and
2 contain the raw data from which all of the subsequent tables were constructed.
Table 2.—List of Tags returned.
Tags attached at Station A, Sooke, British Columbia.
]
Date
Date
Region
Days
Date
Date
Region
Days.
Tag No.
fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
m
irked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
3
1918.
1918.
1918.
1918.
ly  14
July   19
2
5
1455    	
July   27
July   36
1
3
12   	
,     21
.„     23
9
9
1463    	
„     27
Aug.    2
6
6
14    	
,     21
Aug.     1
8
11
1467   	
,,      27
July   31
9
4
16    	
,     21
„     20
*
3©
1468   	
27
„      30
6
3
19	
,      21
1
t
11
1473    	
„      27
Aug.     3
7
7
21    .	
,      21
July   24
7
3
1477    	
„     27
,.           0
7'
9
25   	
,      21
„     25
9
4
1481    	
27
July   29
6
2
26	
,     21
„      23
2
2
I486   	
„     27
,.      31
6
4
9~
,      21
„      25
1
4
1505'    	
„     27
Aug.    1
t
o
28   	
,      21
,.      24
2
3
1512   	
„      27
6
6
10
29    	
,      2.1
„      31
6
10
1513    	
.,      27
July 28
'      §
1
1328    	
,      21
„     25
2
4
1515    	
,.      27
Aug.    4
1
8
1331    	
,      21
„     26
2,
o
1519    	
„      27
Sept. 14
1!
49
1332    	
,      21
„     23
1
2
1529    	
„      27
July   30
6
3
1335   ....
, ■    21
„     24
9
r>
1538    	
„      27
Aug.    5
7
9
1339    	
,      2-1
,,     24
2
o
1543    	
„     28
July  30
7
2
1342   	
,      21
„     28
9
7 -
1546   	
„      2.8
„     29
6
1
1353   	
22
„      28
9
6
1549    	
„     28
29
1
1
135?	
22
„     29
10
4
1531    	
„     28
Aug.    1
f
4
1339	
,     2'2
„     80
10
8
1565   	
„      28
„        4
7
7
1362	
92
„      23
1
1
1573    	
,,     28
„     23
9
26
1368	
,      23
Aug. 30
10
7
1588   	
„      28
9
fi
4
1371    	
,     23
July 31
10
8
15«1    	
„     28
9
6
12
1390	
24
„      29
6
0
1502s    	
„      28
,,        o
10
8
1404	
,      25
„     29
9
4
1593   	
„      28
4
8
7
140io    	
,     25
„      28
1
3
1507   	
„      28
9
6
12
1407    	
,     25
Aug.    4
1
10
1602    	
„     28
4
7
7
1423    	
,      25
July   30
8
0
1607    	
„     28
4
8
7
1449	
27
Aug.     1
10
o
1610
„     28
July   31
6
3
* Hell's Gate. SO miles above Mission, Fraser River.
t Yale.  60 miles above Mission,  Fraser River.
I No Point trap, Vancouver Island.
§ Beachy trap. Vancouver Island.
|| Samaquam, Lillooet River, 25 miles above Harrison Lake, 90 miles above Mission. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Cockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 63
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station A, Sooke, British Columbia—Concluded.
Date
Date
Region
Days
]
Date
Date
Region
Days
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
<lsh
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
m
irked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1617     	
July 28
Aug.    2
10
0
1888          A
ig.     1
Aug.    9'
10
8
1619   	
„     30
1
4
2
1839   	
1
4
7
o
1629   	
„      30
7
8
8
1843   	
1
6
9
0'
1633    	
„      30
7
7
8
1844	
1
7
8
6
1637    	
,,      30
6
2
7
1S45    	
1
,,        o
7
4
1646    	
„     30
1
*
2
1852    	
1
4
1
3
•1653    	
„      30
6
7
7
1854    	
1
6
6
o
1658    	
„      30
1-
*
2
1835    	
1
4
2
3
1662    	
„      30
1
*
2
1857    	
1
5
6
4
1663   	
„      30
„      ' 7
9
7
1870   	
1
,,        o
7
4
1664    	
„      30
„      11
6
12
1873   	
1
7
7
6
1665    	
.,      30
1
*
2
1889   	
1
,,        o
8
4
1667   	
„      30
„      11
8
12
1901    	
2
6
6
4
1672    	
„      30
9
7
10
1902    	
2
8
•.IO
6
1673    	
„      30
>,       o
6
6
1903    	
2
.,        ?
9
o
1682    	
„      30
1
1
1
1904    	
2
6
8
4
1686   	
„      30
a
2
7
1905    	
2
,,        7
8
o
1697    	
„      30
July  31
1
1
1907    	
9
,,        o
?
3
1699    	
„     30
Aug.    8
9
9
1920   	
2
„      13
9
11
1712    	
„      30
„        o
9
6
1929   	
9
„      13
9
2
1714    	
„      30
1
9
2
1935    	
2
8
7
6
1721    	
„      31
,,        a
8
5
19157    	
2
4
1
2
1727   	
„      31
3
7
3
1958    	
2
6
7
4
1735    	
„     3(1
„     18
10
IS
1964	
2
,,        o
*
2
1738   	
„      31
i
2,
0
1986    	
9
i,        o
2
3
1739    	
„     31
8
7
8
1992    	
2
9
7
1
1753    	
„      31
„      14
8
14
1996	
2
4
7
2
1756    	
„      31
,,        o
8
5
2004    	
2
8
8
6
1761    	
„      31
6
7
6
2015   	
9
F,          8
6
4
1764    	
„      31
4
7
4
2018    	
9
„      12
10
10
176?   	
„      31
„     11
7
11
2024    	
o
6
6
4
1769    	
„      31
9
10
9
2029    	
9
,,        7
7
o
1778   	
„      31
„      11
7
11
2032   	
2
9
8
7
1780   	
„      31
„      16
8
16
2050	
4
8
8
4
1783    	
„      31
,,            0
9
0
2053	
4
;6
10.
33
1786    	
„      34
„      18
10
18
2071    	
4
7
7
3
1796   	
„      31
„      12
7
12
2073    	
4
„   ii
9
7
179?    	
„      31
,,        ?
8
7
2074	
4
,,        7
1
3
1801    	
„      31
„      18
8
18
2093	
4
,,        ?
2
3
1806    	
„     31
„      13
8
13
2097	
4
8
8
4
1814   	
„      31
G
6
6
2100	
4
9
8
0
1813   	
„     -31
,,        o
7
5
2103	
6
9
8
3
1816    	
„      31
,,            0
8
a
2113    	
6
9
7
3
1818   	
„      31
0
8
6
2116	
6
„      11
7
0
1821    	
„      31
»,       a
6
o
Tags attached at Station B, Salmon Banks, Wash.
3007    	
July  21
July  26
10
5
3118          Ju
ly 23
July
24
1
1
3009   	
,,      21
„     29
1
8
3121    	
,     23
26
1
3
3014    	
„      21
„     99
1
8
3125   	
,      23
25
2
2
3015   	
„      21
>,      24
9
o
3128    	
,     23
26
10'
3
3024    	
,,      21
„      25
10
4
3129    	
9|.3
24
1
1
3028'	
„      22
„     24
2
2
3133    	
,      23
28
10
0
3036    	
22
Aug.     6
'7
15
3134    	
,      23
26
4
2
3037    	
„      23
July   24
2
2
3143   	
,      23
29
10
6
3039   	
22
„     24
1
2
3146   	
,     23
28
10
0
3040    	
„      22
„     25
2
3
• 3147   	
,      23
29
.9
0
3042    	
22
„     29
8
7
3148    	
,      23
29
0
6
3050    	
2-2
,,     24
9
2
3149    	
,      23
•
23
10
1
3052	
22
„     23
2
1
3130   	
,      23
26
8
3
3060   	
2.2
„      24
2
2
3153             ,
,      23
31
2
8
30-62    	
„      22
,,     25
8
3
3158    	
,      23
Aug.
1
2
9
3070   	
„     23
„     2-5
1
2
3160	
,      23
July
29
9
6
3075   	
„      23
„     24
1
2
3168	
,      24
26
9
2
3079    	
„      23
„      25
1
2
3169   	
,      24
24
1
1
3086   	
„     23
„      27
10
4
3173   	
,      24
,,
28
9
4
3087    	
„      23
„      26
fi
3
3174	
,      24
29
10
0
3088   	
„      23
„     25
9
2
3175   	
,      24
25
-    1
1
3089    	
„      23
„      26
2
3'
3176	
,      24
28
2
4
3093   	
„      23
„     26
9
o
31SO	
,      24
Aug.
2
2
9
3103   	
„      23
.,      25
9
2
3184    	
,      24
July
'Mi
9
2
■3104    	
„      23
„      28
10'
0
3185    	
,      24
Aug.
2
10
9
3111    	
„     23
„      29
10
6
* Beachy trap, Vancouver Island. X 64
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station B, Salmon Banks, Wash.—Continued.
Date
Date
Region
Davs
Date
Date
Region
Days
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1918.
31S8    	
July   24
July  2S
10
4
3399    	
July   31
Aug.    2
2
2
3189    	
,.     24
„     30
6
6
' 340-2    	
„      28
July   30
9
2
3194    	
„     24
„     26
6
2
3403    	
„     28
Aug.     1
?,
4
3198   	
„     24
Sept. 15
*
53
3404    	
„     28
July   28
1
1
3100    	
„     24
July 2,9
10
0
3405    	
„     28
„      28
1
1
3-900    	
„      24
.,      25
4
1
3409    	
„     28
,,     28
1
1
3203    	
„     24
Aug.     1
7
8-
3410    	
„     28
Aug.    2
10
0
3210    	
„     24
July  25
6
1
3412   	
28
9
9
12
3216   	
u     24
„      25
1
1
3414   	
„      28
July   30
7
2
3222    	
„      25
Aug.     2
8
8
3415    	
„      2S
Aug.    4
7
3223   	
„      25
July   30
10
0
3418   	
„      28
July   30
9
3226   	
„     25
„     26
6
1
3423   	
,,      28
„      30
9
3232    	
;,    9-i
„      30
10
0
3425   	
„     28
„     29
1
1
3244    	
„     25
Aug.     7
10
13
3428   	
„      28
.,      31
8
3
3245    	
„     25
„     27
33
3432    	
„      28
Aug.    8
8
11
3246    	
„      9,5
,.      21
10'
27
3433   	
„     28
July  31
6
3
3251    	
„     93
July   28
10
3
3434   	
„     28
„     30
10
2
3233    	
„      "5
..      28
6
1
3437   	
28
Aug.     5
1
8
,,      25
Aug.  19
10
23
3441    	
„      28
,,        9
10
6
3257    	
„      °5
July   29
10'
4
3442   	
„      28
July  30
9
3259    	
„      25
Aug.    8
2
14
3443    	
„      28
Aug.  13
9
16
S'efi   	
,,      25
1
S
7
3444    	
„     28
July   29
1
1
3268   	
„      26
July   31
1
0
3449   	
„     28
,,     29
1
1
39fi9    	
„      "6
„      99
7
3
3446   	
,,      28
„      30
2
3270    	
„      26
„      28
1
2
3448    	
„      28
,.      31
8
3
3272    	
„     26
,,     29
8
3
3450   	
„     28
Aug.    1
9
4
3273    	
„      °6
„      28
10
2
3451    	
„     28
July   31
10
3
3974    	
„      26
„      28
1
2
3432    	
„      28
„     30
2
3273   	
,,      2fl
„      28
1
2
:343?    	
„      31
Aug.    -6
7
6
3278    	
„      26
„      30
10
4
3460   	
„      31
4
8
4
3281    	
„      26
„     31
t
0
3461    	
„     31
3
8
3
3286    	
„      26
„     29
7
3
34'8'2   ......
„      31
6
8
fi
3288    	
„      26
,     ,28
1
2
3463    	
„      31
„      30
II
30
3290   	
„      26
„      29
1
3
3-469    	
„      31
1
1
1
3294    	
„      26
90
9
3
3471    	
„      31
1
'7
1
3995    	
„      26
„      28
1
9
3474    	
„     31
9
6
2
3297   	
„     26
„     31
1
0
3475'   	
,.      31
2
1
3298    	
„      26
„     26
10
1
3478    	
„     31
1
1
1
3299    	
„      26
Aug.  18
8
23
3481    	
„      31
1
8
1
3301    	
„      26
July  30
10
4
3484	
„      31
,>       8
2
0
3309    	
„      26
,.     29
1
3
3486    	
„      31
1
1
3312    	
„      26
Aug.     1
9
0
3487    	
„     31
2
8
2
3317    	
„      26
,,        0
7
10
3490    	
„     31
4
7
4
3321    	
„     26
Sept. 15
§
51
3495    	
„     31
2
8
2
3322    	
„      20
July  30
10
4
348*0    	
„     '31
6
1
6
3326    	
,,      26
,,     29
1
3
3501    	
Aug.     1
9
1
1
3328    	
„     26
„      29
9
3
3502   	
1
>,        0
8
4
3399   	
„     26
„     31
1
0
3508    	
1
9
6
1
3330   	
„     26
Aug.  22
9
27
3310    	
1
„   H12
10
11
3335   	
„      26
July  29
10
3
3513   	
1
4
8
3
3337    	
,,      26
„      30
10
4
3514   	
1
1
1
3339    	
„      26
Aug.     5
9
10
3518   	
1
„      15
10
14
3340   	
„      26
July   30
9
4
3522   	
1
2
6
1
3350   	
„     26
„     31
6
0
3523   	
1
2
1
1
3351    	
„     26
„     29
9
3
3524    	
1
,,        0
8
4
„     26
„      30
9
4
3526    	
1
2
9
1
3335    	
„      26
„     29
8
3
3527   	
1
4
8
3
3336   	
„      26
„      31
10
0
3528   	
1
6
8
5
3357   	
„     26
„     28
9
2
3529    	
1
4
10
3
3358    	
„      26
„     29
10
3
3335    	
1
,,        0
7
4
3361    	
„     26
„     29
6
3
3537    	
1
2
6
1
3366    	
„     26
Aug.     8
9
13
3541    	
1
,,        0
2
4
3367   	
„     26
July  28
1
2
3544   	
1
,,        0
9
4
3368    	
„      26
Aug.     1
8
6
3545    	
1
2
6
1
3372    	
„     26
July  30
10
4
3547    	
1
,,        0
4
3373   	
„      26
„     31
10
0
3548    	
.  ,        1
3
8
2
3377   	
„     26
„     31
■    8
5
3330   	
1
4
2
3
3378    	
„     30
Aug.     4
7
0
35-51    	
1
2
6
1
3382   	
„     30
July   31
6
1
3552    	
1
4
10
3
3394    	
„      30
Aug.    5
i
1
3553   	
1
,,        7
8
6
3397    	
„      31
1
7
1
1
4
7
3398
„      31
"        !
7
4
1
4
8
3
* Four miles above Pitt Lake, 30 miles from Fraser River, 50 miles trom ocean,
t Soda Creek,  280 miles above Mission.
I Devil's Run, 10 miles above Mission.
§ Four-mile Creek, Pitt River, 50 miles above Fraser River, 50 miles from ocean.
II Hagenson Slough, 30 miles above Fraser, 50 miles from ocean.
11 The record is September 12th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August
12th, as tabulated.
** Fraser River, 5 miles above Yale, 60 miles above Mission. 9 Geo. 5      Migration of Cockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 65
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station B, Salmon Banks, Wash.—Concluded.
Date
Date
Region
Davs
Date
Date
Region
Days
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
19-18.
1918.
1918.
1918.
3556    	
Aug.     1
Aug.     5
8
4
3699    	
Aug.    4
Aug.    8
9
4
1
..      11
8
10
3700   	
4
6
8
2
3562    	
1
2
6
1
3702   	
4
,        0
6
1
3567    	
1
1
4
1
3703   	
4
9
10
0'
3574   	
1
4
8
3
3704    	
4
6
7
2
3577    	
1
4
7
4
3705    	
4
,        1
10
3
3378    	
,              X
2
6
1
3711    	
4
6
2
2
3579    	
1
4
?
3
3713    	
4
6
7
9
3582    	
1
6
4
o
3714   	
4
9
9
a
3583    	
1
6
8
D
3715   	
4
6
9
2
3584   	
1
,     12
7
11
3718    	
4
,     19
10
15
1
,        3
0
4
3721    	
4
,        7
9
3
3387    	
1
2
1
1
3722    	
4
9
10
0
3588   .-	
1
j        o
1
4
3727    	
4
,         1
8
3
3589   	
1
7
8
6
3798    	
4
7
9
3
3590    	
1
,        o
8
4
3730    	
4
6
9
2
3591    	
1
i         o
10
4
4
6
7
2
3394    	
1
6
6
0
3737    	
4
,        0
7
1
3598   	
1
2
6
1
3730    	
4
,        o!
1
1
3605    	
2
,        3
8
3
■ 3741    	
4
6
?
2
3606    	
2
,        o
9
3
3742   	
4
8
-8
4
3610    	
2
,      14
8
12
3743   	
4
7
6
3
3613    	
2
,        o
8
3
3744   	
4
Sept. 16
-!-
43
3617   	
9
4
1
9
3746    	
4
Aug.    8
10
4
3619    	
9
,        5
7
3
3747    	
4
,      11
7
7
3'6->4    	
9
,           0
1
3
37-52    	
4
,      23
9
19
3625    	
9
7
8
o
3754    	
4
,         1
1
3
3630   	
2
4
1
2
3756   	
4
6
7
2
3632    	
2
4
1
2
3757   	
4
,        0
1
1
3633    	
9
,        7
8
5
3760   	
5
9
9
4
3634    	
9
,        7
9
0
3762    	
,        o
,        7
2
2
3635   	
9
4
1
2
3764   	
,       o
9
8
4
3637    	
9
,      14
2
12
3773   	
,           0
7
8
2
3639    	
2
,   *17
10
15
,        o
,      13
7
8
3642    	
9
,        o
9
3
3777    	
,        5
9
7
4
3643    	
9
,        o
9
3
3778    	
,        o
12
9
7
3644   	
9
i        o
7
3
3779    	
>        o
Sept. 20
§
46
3646   	
9
,           0
9
3
3780    	
,        o
Aug.    7
6
2
3648    	
9
,           0
8
3
3783   	
,       5
,    10
8
0
3653    	
9
,        o
i
3
3789   	
0
8
8
3
3658    	
2
6
10
4
3790   	
,        o
8
9
3
3662    	
,        2
6
10
4
3791    	
,        o
,        7
7
2
3663    	
2
7
8
0
3792    	
,        o
6
7
1
3667    	
4
,        o
1
1
3794   .....
,        o
8
2
3
3670   	
4
,      10
8
6
379-5    	
o
9
9
4
3672   	
4
6
6
2
3797    	
,          0
,      12
10
7
3673     ,
4
6
2
2
3800   	
i         o
,      18
9
13
3677    	
4
6
9
2
3801
7
,      12
9
0
3678    	
,        4
9
8
0
3803    	
7
,      10
9
3
3680    	
4
,      20
10
16
3806    	
,        7
,    10
8
3
3682    	
4
,        7
8
3
3807    	
,        7
9
7
2
3685    	
4
7
8
3
3812    	
, -      7
,      11
8
4
3687    	
4
7
8
■ 3
3818   	
7
Sept.    3
II
27
3688   	
4
,      IS
9
14
3819    	
,        7
Aug.  14
9
7
3693   	
4
Sept. 17
t
44
3820    	
7
„      12
10
0
3694    	
4
Aug.  14
2
10
3826   	
7
„      13
10
6
3695    	
4
6
8
2
3829    .
7,
„   1118
10
11
3696
4
6
7
2
383:5   	
,        7
„     10
8
3
Tags attached at Station C, Point Paktkidge, Wash.
1001   	
July  17
July   19
7
2
1023    	
July   17
July  20
4
3
1003   	
,      17
,     20
4
3
1030   	
,      17
99
1
0
1010   	
,      17
,     22
4
0
1031    	
,      1?
„     21
10
4
1011    	
,      17
,     23
9
6
1036    	
,      1?
„     20
1
3
1017   	
,      17
,      20
8
3
1037   	
,      17
„     25
1
8
1018   	
,      17
23
9
6
103S    	
,      17
Aug.  17
**
31
1019
,      17
22
1
0
1041
17
July  24
'
7
* The record is September 17th, but this is possibly a mistake,  and  the more  probable date i
> August
17th, as tabulated.
t Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
X Fraser River, 65 miles above Mission.
§ Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
]| Four-mile Creek, Pitt River, 30 miles above Fraser River, 50 miles from ocean.
If The record is September ISth, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date i
5 August
18th, as tabulated.
*• Devil's Run, 10 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
5 X 66
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station C, Point Pabteidge, Wash.—Continued.
Tag No.
1044
1050
1052
1055
1057
1038
10 50
1061
1063
1067
1069
1075
1078
1079
1080
1085
1088
1090
1092
1094
1098
1104
1106
1107
1109
1111
1116
1124
1128
1129
1130
1132
1133
1138
1151
1156
1157
1163
1165
1167
1169
1173
1175
1176
1177
1185
1192
1193
1194
1196
1197
1199
1205
1207
1212
1213
1221
1223
1228
1229
1231
1235
1238
1239
1241
1242
1244
1249
1251
1264
1269
1278
1285
1289
1200
1293
1296
Date
Fish
marked.
191S.
July
22
22
92
22
22
22
9 2
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Date
Fish
recaught.
Region
where
taken.
1918.
July
24
22
24
92
22
9 9
23
21
92
24
Aug.
9
July
22
99
24
22
22
21
24
30
26
23
23
24
25
Aug.
12
Julv
24
25
24
30
30
28
29
29
24
26
31
Aug.
8
10
1
July
29
30
Aug.
o
6
July
29-
31
25
31
30
Aug.
10
July
29
29
31
30
Aug.
1
July
29
Aug.
7
.lulv
30
31
31
29
Aug.
0
Julv
30
29
Aug.
18
July
29
Aug.
1
.lulv
2.9
Aug.
6
Julv
29
30
31
Aug.
1
Julv
29
Aug.
18
July
29
Aug.
0
July
30
1
1
2
10
1
8
9
10
1
10
2
10
2
1
10
9
*
1
9
6
2:
9
10
10
8
9
1
2
10
7
10
Davs
Date
Date
Region
Davs
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
5
1307    	
July 26
Aug.     1
8
6
3
1308   	
„     26
,,        o
10
10
0
1309   	
„      26
2
2
7
3
1310   	
„     26
July  30
9
4
3
1313    	
„      26
„      28
8
9
3
1317    	
„     26
Aug.     2
9
7
4
1320   	
„      26
„      11
8
16
2
1322    	
„     26
,,           0
10
10
3
1328    	
„     26
July   30
6
4
5;
1330   	
„     26
„      30
1
4
14
1334    	
„      2:6
„      30
10
4
3
1337    	
„     26
„      30
9
4
3
1344   	
„     26
„     29
1
3
0'
1346   	
„     26
„     29
1
3
3
1347   	
„      26
„     29
1
3
3
1351    	
,,      26
Aug.    4
7
9
1353   	
„     26
1
8
6
o
1354    	
„     26
1
8
6
11
1355   	
„     26
1
10
6
4
1357    	
„     26
9
6
14
1
1360   	
„      26
1
2
6
1
1363   	
„     26
„      12
7
17
3
1368   	
„     26
4
7
9
3
1368    	
..      26
July 29
■7
3
21
1399    	
,,      26
„      30
9
4
2
1372    	
„     26
Aug.  16
9
27
3
1373    	
,,      26
„   »8
10
2-3
1374    	
„      26
July   30
8
4
8
1375	
„     26
„     29
1
3
8
1377    	
„     26
Aug.    6
2
11
6
1380    .
„     26
1
9
6
7
1424    	
Aug.    6
7
2
1
7
1438   	
■6
„      11
7
0
1548   	
7
9
1
2
4
1559   	
7
,,      11
8
7
7
1567   	
7
>>        7
2
1
15
1569   	
7
„      11
8
4
17
7
,,      11
8
4
8
1577    	
7
„      14
10
7
o
1579    	
,,        7
9
2
2
6
1591    	
,,         7
,,      13
8
'5
12
1598   	
7
„      13
4
6
13
1604   	
,,        ?
„      19
6
9
1609   	
7
„      13
8
6
1
7
6
17
1617   	
7
9
7
2
1628    	
7
„      11
8
4
1639    	
„        7
„      13
9
0
1673   	
9
,,      16
8
7
1677   	
9
„      13'
9
4
1681    	
9
„      18
8
9
7
6
8
5
14
6
7
7
1687   	
9
„      14
6
j>
1689    	
9
„      15
8
6
1691    	
9
„      14
9
■0
1695    	
9
„     13
8
4
1704    	
9
„     12
6
3
1705    	
9
„      13
8
4
1717    	
9
„     13
7
4
1719    	
,,        9
„      13
9
4
1721    	
9
;,    14
8
0
10
4
3
1?9'3    	
9
„    11
1
2
1724    	
9
„      12
6
3
1732    	
9
„      12
7
3
1735   	
9
„      22
9
13
3
6
3
1736   	
9
„      IS
10
9
1741    	
9
9
2
1
1743   	
9
„     13
8
4
11
1746   	
9
„     18
8
9
3
1749    	
9
„      12
8
3
4
1762    	
9
„     23
• 6
14
5
1763   	
9
„      13
2'
4
6
1768   	
9
„     14
9
5
3
1769   	
9
„      13
8
4
23
1773   	
„      13
„     15
8
2
3
1787   	
„     13
„     21
9
8
10
1793   	
„      13
„      18
9
0
4
1796    	
„      13
„      13
2
1
* Ebey's Landing, below Point Partridge.
t Otter Point, Vancouver Island.
X The record is September 18th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August
18th, as tabulated. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of S-ockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 67
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station C, Point Partridge, Wash.—Concluded.
Date
Date
Region
Days
Date
Date
Region
Days
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1807 	
Aug. 13
Aug. 17
9
4
1907 	
Aug. 13
Aug. 15
1
2
1812 	
„  13
„  14
2
1
„  13
,,  16
9
3
1820 	
„  13
,  19
8
3
1931 	
,.  14
„  19
7
0
1835 	
„  13
,  14
9
1
1932 	
„  14
„  19
7
5
1846 	
„  13
,  16
4
3
1933 	
,,  14
■ „  23
10
9
1831 	
„  13
,  16
8
3
1935 	
„  14
„  16
6
2
1853 	
„  13
,  IS
8
0
1939 	
„  14
„  16
2
1854 	
„  13
,  16
8
3
1945 	
,,  14
Sept. 3
10
19
1856 	
„  13
,  14
1
1
1932 	
„  14
Aug. 19
?
0
186-5 	
„  13
,  15
1
'->
1957 	
„  14
„  17
1
3
1867 	
„  13
,  19
7
6
1969 	
„  14
„  16
2
2
1878 	
„  13
,  16
1
3
1970 	
„  14
„  16
2
2
1-887 	
„  13
92
9
9
1976 	
„  14
„  19
2
0'
1889 	
„  13
,  15
9
2
1982 	
„  14
„  15
2
1
1891 	
„  13
,  16
8
3
1986 	
„  14
„  20
8
6
1897 	
„  13
,  15
8
2
1993 	
„  14
,,  15
2
1
1899 	
„  13
,  19
7
6
1999 	
„  14
„  25
10
11
1900
„  13
,  15
2
2
„  14
„  16
2
2
Tags attached at Station D, Lummi Island, Wash.
2002 	
July 19
July 30
9
11
2177 	
July 23
July 24
8
1
2003 	
„  19
99
8
3
2181
„  24
Aug. 2
10
9
2013 	
„  19
92
8
3
2183
,,  24
July 25
9
1
2015 	
„  19
22
8
3
2185
„  24
,,  29
9
0
2020 	
„  19
22
10
3
2186
„  24
„  25
8
1
2031 	
„  19
22
8
3
2189
„  24
„  28
9
4
2033 	
„  19
,.  23
9
4
2190
„  24
„  26
9
2
"037 	
„  19
Aug.  6
8
18
2201 '
„  24
Aug. 6
9-
13
2038 	
„  19
July 21
8
2
2210
„  24
,.  12
10
19
2039 	
„  19
22
8
3
2214
„  24
July 26
9
2
2040 	
„  19
„  25
9
6-
2216
„  24
„  25
9
1
2044 	
„  19
„  25
9
3
2221
„  24
„  29
10
0
2049 	
„  19
„  25
8
O
2226
„  24
„  26
9
2
9051 	
„  19
Aug. 9,
8
21
2231
„  24
1,  29
9
0
2052' 	
„  19
July 22
8
3
9->32
„  24
„  27
9
3
20pi5 	
„  19
92
7
3
2234
„  24
„  28
9
4
2057 	
„  19
„  23
a
4
2237
„  24
„  29
10
0
2061 	
„  19
„  22
8
3
2238
„  24
„  26
9
2
2063 	
„  19
„  24
8
1
2240
„  24
„  29
9
0
2065 	
,,  19
„  22
8
3
2241
„  24
„  26
9
2
2069 	
„  19
„  22
8
3
9942:
„  24
„  30
9
6
2072 	
„  19
„  21
9
2
2246
,.  2-4
„  25
8
1
2073 	
„  10
„  24
8
0
2250
„  24
„  28
8
4
9075 	
,.  19
.,  °4
7
0
2251
„  94
Aug.  5
10
12
2078 	
19
,,  22
8
3
2252
„  28
„  30
10
33
2079 	
„  19
99
9
3
2253
,,  28
„   7
9
10
2082 	
„  19
„  23
9
4
2255
„  28
July 29
9
1
2084 	
„  19
Aug. 16
*
28
2257
„  28
,,  30
8
2
2088 	
„  23
July 26
8
3
2259
„  28
Aug. 1
9
4
2090 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2261
„  28
July 30
8
2
2092 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2263
„  28
„  29
8
1
2094 	
93
,,  24
8
1
2268
„  28
Aug. 26
t
29
'095 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2269
„  28
July 31
8
3
2096 	
„  23
„  26
8
3
22 iO
„  28
.,  30
9
2098 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2271
„  28
Aug. 1
10
4
9100 	
„  23
Aug. 2
t
10
2280
„  28
July 30
8
9
2103 	
„  23
July 26
8
3
2282
„  28
„  30
9
2
2108 	
„  23
„  25
9
2
2285
„  28
AUg. 11
10
15
2112 	
„  23
„  24
9
1
2286
„  28
July 29
1
1
2122 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2287
„  28
„  30
9
2
2123 	
„  23
„  96
8
3
2288
„  28
„  30
9
2
2137 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2289
„  28
Aug. 8
10
11
2147 	
„  23
95
8
2
2290
„  28
July 30
8
2
9148 	
„  23
„  30
10
7
2291
„ - 28
Aug. 1
9
3
2158 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2293
„  28
July 30
9
2
2160 	
„  23
.,  24
9
1
230O
„  28
„  29
8
1
2161 	
„  23
Aug. 13
10
21
2302
„  28
„  30
9
2.
2166 	
„  23
July 26
10
3
2.304
„  28
„  29
8
1
2171 	
„  23
„  25
9
2
2310
„  28
„  29
1
1
2173 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2312
„  28
„  30
9
2
2174 	
„  23
„  24
8
1
2313
„  28
„  29
8
1
2175
„  23
„  31
8
8
2314
„  28
„  30
9
2
* Soda Creek Canyon, 280 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
t Yale, 60 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
X Hell's Gate, 80 miles above Mission, Fraser River. X 68                           Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station D, Lummi Island, Wash.—Continued.
Date
D-te
Region
Davs
Date
Date
Region
Davs
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route. .
1918.
1918.
1918.
101S.
2315    	
July   30
Aug.  30
*
31
2485    	
Aug.     5
Aug.     7
9
2
2319    	
„      30
1
9
2
"487    	
5
8
9
2323   	
„      30
2
8
3
2488
,,        o
„        ?
9
9,
2324    	
„     30
1
9
2
•'492    	
„        5
,,        ?
9
2
2328    	
,,      30
1
9
2
2493    	
>,        5
6
8
1
2330    	
,,      30
July   31
10
1
249-5    	
„         o
6
8
1
2331    	
„      30
Aug.     2
10
3
9407   	
„                   i>
6
8
1
2335   	
„      30
2
8
3
2501    	
j,         o
6
9
1
2338   	
„      30
July   31
10
1
2S013   ...:.
,,         o
t23
10
18
2344    	
„      30
„      30
8
1
•'507    	
,,        o
„      20
§
46
9346    	
„      30
Aug.    2
2
3
2510   	
,,           0
,.        7
8
2
2347   	
„      30
1
8
2,
2512   	
,,        o
6
8
1
2349    	
„      30
July   31
9
1
2515   	
,,        5
9
9
4
2358   	
„      30
Aug.     1
8
2
"516   	
,,        o
6
9
1
2359    	
„      30
9
10
3
2517   	
„        5
,,        7
9
2
2365    	
Aug. . 2
4
8
2
2518    	
„        o
6
8
1
2367    	
2
„         zy
7
3
2522   	
i>          o
7
8
2
2368    	
2
„        o
10
3
2523    	
,,        o
6
8
1
2370   	
9
4
8
2
2529    	
j j          o
7
8
2
2373   	
9
4
8
2
2530   	
,,        o
6
8
1
2375   	
2
4
8
2
2531    	
»        o
,,        ?
8
2
2376   	
9
„        o
9
3
2333   	
,,        3
6
9
1
2381    	
9
,,        o
9
3
2539   	
,,        o
7
8
2
2384    	
9
,,           0'
8
3
2541    	
,,        o
6
8
1
2389    	
9
9
9
i
2542   	
,,        o
8
8
3
2391    	
9
6
8
4
2544   	
„        o
.;         7
8.
2
2394    	
2
„     25
10
23
2546   	
,,        5
„         7
8
2
2401    	
9,
4
9
2
2547   	
,,        5
6
8
1
2403    	
9
>,        o
9
3
2548   	
„        o
8
ID
3
2404    	
9
„      13
10
11
2549    	
,,       o
8
S'
3
2405    	
2
ii           o
9
3
2531    	
,,           E»
6
8
1
.2410   	
2
9
9
1
2532    	
,,           o
8
10
3
2413    	
9
9
9
7
2354    	
,,        5
a        ?
8
2
2414    	
2
,,        o
9
3
2556    	
6
„        ?
9
1
2416   	
2
S
9
6
"557    	
6
8
8
2
2420    	
4
„        ?
8
O
2558   	
6
9
10
3
2421    	
4
,,        o
8
1
2559    	
6
6
9
1
2424    	
4
6
8
2
2560   	
6
,,        ?
9
1
2496   	
4
4
7
1
2566   	
6
9
10
3
9495
4
„        o
7
1
2569   	
6
9
9
3
2429    	
4
„    tl9
10
15
2570    	
6
6
9
1
2431    	
4
,,        o
7
1
2574    	
6
9
9
3
2432    	
4
„        o
7
1
2575    	
6
'9
10
3
2434   	
4
,,        7
8
o
257©    	
6
„      16
II
10
2435   	
4
6
8
9
2578    	
6
„      11
7
o
2436   	
4
6
9
2
9579   	
6
9
8
3
2437    	
4
,,        o
8
1
2580   	
6
9
8-
9438   	
4
„        o
8
1
2583    	
6
7
8
1
2439    	
4
4
7
1
2384    	
6
,,      10
8
4
2440    	
4
,,        o
9
3
2585    	
6
„      10
8
4
2441    	
4
„        o
8
1
2587    	
6
„      11
8
'0
2442    	
4
„      16
8
2
2588   	
6
8
8
2
2443    	
4
6
9
2
9589    	
6
„        ?
9
1
2444   	
4
,,        o
9
1
2591    	
6
,,        7
9
1
2443   	
4
„       o
8
1
2592    	
6
7
9
1
2449   	
4
„        o
8
1
2593    	
6
6
9
1
2453    	
4
,,       o
8
1
2595    	
6
9
8
3
2455   	
4
»        o
8
1
2398    	
6
„      12
8
6
2456   	
4
6
8
9
2002   	
6
9
9
3
2457   	
4
6
8
2.
2603    	
6
9
10
3
2459   	
4
7
9
3
2604    	
6
8
8
9
2464    	
4
,,        5
9
1
9605    	
6
9
0
3
2465    	
4
Sept.    3
10
30
2610   	
6
9
9
3
2466   	
4
Aug.     6
9
2
2611    	
6
,,        ?
8
1
2469    	
4
>,        o
8
1
2612   	
6
„      12
8
6
2471    	
4
6
8
2
9614   	
6
8
9
9
2472    	
4
,,       -o
9
1
9616   	
6
7
9
1
2474   	
4
6
9
2
9618    	
6
8
10
2
2475   	
4
6
8
9
2621    	
6
9
8
3
2476    	
4
6
8
2
2622    	
6
„      10
9
4
2478   	
„        5
6
8
1
2693   	
6
„      11
9
0
2482
,,       o
7
8
2
2625
6
8
9
2
« Lytton, 110 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
t The record is September 19th, but this is possibly a mistake,  and the more probable date i
s August
19th, as tabulated.
X The record is September 23rd, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date I
s August
23rd, as tabulated.
§ Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake,  130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
|| Strawb
erry Island
, 50' miles
above Mi
ssion, Fr
tser River. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 69
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station D, Lum mi Island, Wash.—Concluded.
Date
Date
Region
Days
Date
Date
Region
Days
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
1918.
191S.
2627 	
Aug. 6
Aug.  7
8
1
2678 	
Aug. 7
Aug. 10
8
3
2628 	
0
,.   7
9
1
2682
,,   7
„  12
10
0
2629 	
6
„  11
10
o
2683
,,   7
9
8
2
2630 	
6
8
9
2
2684
,,   7
9
9
9
2631 	
6
„  11
7
o
2685
,,   7
9
9
2
2633 	
6
9
9
3
2686
7
„  12
9
0
2634 	
6
„  15
9
9
2687
,,   7
8
8
1
2633 	
6
,,   7
9
1
2688
,,   ?
8
8
1
2636 	
6
- „   8
8
2
2689
»   7
8
9
1
2642 	
6
8
9
9
2692
9
„  11
8
9
2645 	
6
,,   ?
8
1
2699
9
„  11
8
2
2646 	
6
8
8
9
2707
9
„  13
9
4
2648 	
6
Sept. 19
*
44
2710
9
Sept. 4
X
26
2651 	
7
Aug. 12
8
0
2713
9
Aug. 16
8
7
2635 	
7
9
8
9
2717
9
„  12
9
3
2657 	
,,   7
8
8
1
2718
9
„  14
10
0
2659 	
7
8
9
1
2719
9
„      12
10
3
2681 	
,'   7
8
8
1
2720
9
„  15
8
6
2662 	
,,   i
9
9
2
2722
9
„  13
9
4
2666 	
7
„  10
8
3
2726
9
,,  14
9
0
2669 	
,,   7
„  10
9
3
2728
9
„  12
10
3
2670 	
7
9
9
2
2733
9
„  11
8
9
2672 	
,,   7
9
9
9
2734
9
,,11-13
9
o
2675 	
,,   7
9
8
9,
2736
9
,,  14
9
0
2676 	
,,   7
„  16
1
40
2737
9
„  19
■
7
10
Tags attached at Station E, Point Roberts, Wash.
4001
4007
4008
4012
4025
4047
4065
4071
4103
4104
-1107
4109
4117
4121
4122
4129
4138
4142
4130
4166
4174
4183
4187
4196
4198
4203
4207
4209
4211
4216
4219
4220
4921
4246
July
25
23
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
July
29
Aug.
4
.lulv
26
Aug.
o
July
30
29
28
29
Aug.
3
July
29
30
29
31
30
28
29
29
28
Aug.
o
9
16
2
4
12
Sept
12
Aug.
9
July
30
Aug.
0
July
30
Aug.
2
July
31
31
30
Aug.
1
10
7
10
§
10
II
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
IO
10
10
10
10
II
10
10
10
tt
8
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
4
4249 	
11
4252 	
1
4258 	
11
4264 	
o
4267 	
4
4268 	
3
4270 	
4
4271 	
8
4274 ......
3
4277 	
4
4279 	
3
4283 	
o
4*84 	
4
4286 	
2
4288 	
3
4289 	
3
4291 	
2
42<i6 	
10
4300 	
11
4305  	
18
4315 	
4
4317 	
6
4327 	
14
4331 	
45
4340 	
4
4348 	
1
4349 	
7
4352 	
1
4333	
4
4356 	
2
4357 	
2
4359 	
1
4360 	
3
4367 	
July
29
Aug.
0
tt
29
7
ii
29
1
8
30
9
10
30
2
10
30
3
8
311
July
30
10
30
Aug.
2
10
30
o
10
30
July
31
10
30
&ug.
16
10
30
0
10
30
6
lo
30
20
ll II
30
9.
8
30
2
10
80
„it
[26
10
30
14
9
3(1
4
8
30
Sept
13
***
30
Aug.
6
9
30
9
10
30
30
ttt
30
1
10
30
-
4
9
30
July
30
10
30
30
10
30
Aug.
9
80
July
30
9
30
31
10
30
Aug.
4
10
30
7
10
30
8
9
30
,,
6
10
3
4
1
3
6
1
17
6
. 7
21
3
2?
15
5
45
31
1
1
10
1
1
5
8
9
* Four miles above Pitt Lake, 30 miles from Fraser River, 50 miles from ocean.
t Near Spuzzum, 65 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
% Mountain Slough, above Pitt Lake, 30 miles from Fraser River, 50 miles from ocean.
i Five miles above Yale, 65 miles above Mission.  Fraser River.
II Mouth of Chilliwack River, 12 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
H Yale, 60 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
** tStrawberrv Island, 50 miles above Mission. Fraser River.
tt Portage Creek, foot of Anderson Lake,  170 miles above Mission.
XX Twenty-seven miles above Mission,  Fraser River.
§§ Devil's* Run, 10 miles above Mission.
|| | Ten-mile House, above Harrison Lake, 75 miles above Mission.
n The record is September 26th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August
26th, as tabulated.
*** Chilcotin River, 235 miles above Mission.
tit Lillooet Bridge, 1.50 miles above Mission. Fraser River. .   .
ift Hell's Gate, 75 miles above Mission, Fraser River. X 70
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Continued.
Tags attached at Station E, Point Roberts, Wash.—Continued.
Date
Date
Region
Davs
Date
Date
Region
Davs
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1918.
4368 	
July 30
Aug. 27
*
28
4573 	
Aug. 2
Sept. 5
10
3
4370 	
„  30
Sept. 14
t
46
4595 	
,,     2
7
10
o
4375 	
„  31
„  10
t
41
4596 	
9
8
7
4376 	
„  31
Aug. 15:
10
15
4601 	
2
„  20
10
18
4381 	
„  31
,,   7
8
7
4603 	
2
„  13
ft
11
4383 	
„  31
1
10
1
4606 	
2
4
10
2
4384' 	
„  31
6
10
6
4607 	
2
,,   7
9
0
4389 	
„  31
..  21
10
21
4608 	
2
,,   5
10
3
4392 	
„  31
Julv 31
10
1
4809 	
,,   2
6
9
4
4393	
„  31
Aug. 30
10
30
4610 	
2
Sept. 11
XX
40
4402 	
„  31
„  o
9
0
4614 	
9
,,   o1
9
3
4403 	
„  31
1
10
1
4622 	
2
„  11
9
9
4404 	
„  31
4
7
4
4627 	
2
„  11
10
9
4405 	
„  31
„  11
10
11
4633 	
>,        o-
„  20
9
15
4407 	
„  31
„  15
10
15
4633 	
,,   o
9
6
4
4415 	
„  31
9
10
2
4639 	
9      0
„  20
10
15
4417 	
„  31
,,   o
10
6
4646 	
„   o
9
10
4
4423 	
„  31
1
10
1
4653 	
,,   »'
Nov. 16
§§
103
4432 	
„  31
1
9
1
4654 	
,,   5
Aug. 11
10
6
4434 	
„  31
July 31
10
1
4657 	
,,    &
„  13
10
8
4436 	
„  31
Aug. 30
10
30
4660 	
5
7
10
2
4438 	
„  31
„  11
7
11
4663 	
»        o
9
10
4
1446 	
„  31
2
10
2
4664 	
,,   5
„  11
9
6
4447 	
„  31
„  21
10
21
4669 	
;,  3
6
10
1
4454 	
..  31
6
8
6
4670 	
9      O
„  15
10
10
4461 	
„  31
„   i
10
7
4677 	
,i          0
7
10
2
4464 	
„  31
,,   7
10
7
4686 	
,,   a
„  18
10
13
4467 	
„  31
,,   o
8
5
4687 	
3
8
10
3
4468 	
„  31
„  10
8
16
4691 	
9      0
„  11
7
6
4474 	
„  31
„  20
10
20
4692 .
,,   5
.,  16
9
11
4476 	
„  31
,,   o
9
0'
4694 	
,,   3
Sept. 6
10
32
4478 	
„  31
9
10
9
4708 	
,,   o
Aug. 12
9
i
4480 	
„  31
,,   o
10
0
4l'09: 	
,,     0
,.  12
10
7
4481 	
„  31
7
10
7
4713 	
,i           o
Sept. 5
10
31
44S2 	
„  31
„  28
§
2S
4714 	
,,   o
Aug. 12
10
7
4483 	
,,  31
9
10
2
4732 	
,,   o
,,  20
10
13
4483 	
„  31
,,   o
9
0
4733 	
,,   o1
6
10
1
4486 	
,1  31
2
10
9
4735 	
,>   a
9
9
4
4487 	
„  31
,,   5
8
O
473S 	
,,   o
„  26
10
21
4488 	
„  31
1
10
1
4740 	
9      0
9
10
4
4489 	
„  31
July 31
10
1
4751 	
6
9
10
3
4491 	
„  31
Aug. 1
9
1
4753 	
6
„  12
9
G
4492 	
„  31
6
-10
6
4 15 4 	
6
6
10
1
4499 	
Aug.  1
4
10
8
4756 	
6
18
10:
12
450O 	
1
„ lis
10
7
4739 	
fi
„  30
10
24
4502 	
1
„  12
9
11
4760 	
6
„  16
10
10
4306 	
1
„  19
10
18
4765 	
6
8
10
2
430-8 	
1
„  13
10
12
4773 	
6
„  12
10
6
4509 	
.1
4
10
3
4776 	
6
„  20
10
14
4511 	
1
Sept. 2
10
32
4777 	
6
,,   7
10
1
4315 	
1
4
10
3
4780 	
6
„  11
9
-o
4516 	
1
„  12
10
11
4784 	
6
9
9
3
4521 	
1
6
10
5
4790 	
6
„  18
10
12
4524 	
1
„  21
10
20
'4791 	
6
7
10
1
1
9
10
1
4<96 	
6
,,  19
10
13
4526 	
1
„   6
10
o
4799 	
6
„  26
10
20
4533 	
1
2
10
1
4800 	
9   6
„  13
10
7.
4534 	
9
>,   o
10
3
4801 	
6
6
10
10
4540 	
2
>>   5
10
3
4803 	
6
,,   7
10
1
4544 	
2
„  11
10
9
4808 	
6
8
10
2
2
,,   7
1
5
480-9 	
6
„  30
10
24
4547 	
2
,,  5
**
3
4812 	
6
„  12
10
6
2
4
10
9
4813 	
6
8
10
2
4556 	
2
,,   o
10
3
4S14 	
6
8
10
2
4558 	
9
4
10
2
4818 	
6
,,111122
10
19
4560 	
9
„  12
8
10
4823 	
,,   7
„  13
10
6
4562 	
2
8
10
6
4825 	
7
9
9
2
4569 	
2
4
10
2
4828
,,   ?
„   ?
10
1
* Skookumchuck,   on  Lillooet  River,   12  miles  above Harrison Lake,  73 miles above Mission.
t Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet River, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
X Portage Creek, foot of Anderson, 170 miles above Mission.
§ Hell's Gate,  80 miles above Mission.
|| The record is September 8th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August
Sth, as tabulated.
\\ Devil's Run, 10 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
** Three miles above Mission. Fraser River.
ft Trafalgar Flat. 50 miles above Mission. Fraser River.
XX Samaquam. Lillooet River, 25 miles above Harrison Lake, 90 miles above Mission.
§§ Mouth of Seymour Creek, Burrard Inlet, at North Vancouver.
ill The record is September 22nd, but this is.possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August
22nd, as tabulated. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 71
Table 2.—List of Tags returned—Concluded.
Tags attached at Station E, Point Robekts, Wash.—Concluded.
Date
Dr.te
Region
Days
Date
Date
Region
Days
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
Tag No.
Fish
Fish
where
en
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
marked.
recaught.
taken.
Route.
1918.
1918.
1918.
1918.
4830 	
Aug. 7
Aug. 16
*
9
74 	
Aug. 15
Sept. 24
J
40
4831 	
,,   7
,,   ?
10
1
„  15
„  21
t
37
4833 	
7
„  10
10
3
83 	
„  15
„  15
%
31
4836 	
8
„  18
10
10
-84 	
„  15
„  10
10
26
4847 	
8
„  12
10
4
90 	
„  16
9
§
17
4861 	
8
8
10
1
100 	
„  19
Aug. 19
10
1
4869 	
8
„  10
10
2
113 	
„  19
„  22
10
3
4870 	
8
„  19
t
11
126 	
„  20
„  21
10
1
4879 	
8
„  18
8
10
127 	
„  20
22
10
2
4883 	
8
„  12
9
4
130 	
„  20
Sept. 5
10
16
4886 	
8
„  10
10
2
137 	
„  20
Aug. 28
10
8
4896 	
»    8
12
10
4
140 	
„  20
22
10
2
4913 	
8
„  12
10
4
149 	
„  20
22
10
2
4914 	
8
9
10
1
151 	
„  20
22
10
4921 	
8
„  11
10
3
136 	
,.  21
„  21
10
1
36 	
„  15
„  18
10
3
164 	
„  21
Oct.  7
t
47
38 	
„  15
„  16
10
1
165 	
„  21
Aug. 21
10
1
72 	
„  15
Sept. 20
X
36
167 ....
„  21
„ 1127
10
6
* American Bar, 50 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
t Trafalgar Flat, 50 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
X Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.
§ Samaquam, Lillooet River, 25 miles above Harrison,Lake, 90 miles above Mission.
|| The record is September 27th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August
27th, as tabulated.   ,
Peecentage of Returns.
Talile 3 shows the percentage of returns from each day's marking at each station. The data
from which the percentages were obtained are also given. In general the returns indicate that
the marking was quite uniformly successful. This is especially true with that done at Stations
B and D. The marking done at Station A suffered somewhat in efficiency for a few days at the
time the change was made in the personnel, hut otherwise is satisfactory. The records from
Station E show a sudden diminution in the percentage of returns on August Sth and for the
following three days on which tish were marked. No explanation can be given for this. As
noted (note to Table 1, Station C), the accuracy of the August records for Station C is subject
to considerable question, and the operator at this point has admitted reporting incorrectly the
number of fish marked on August 6th. But 2 out of 164 reported marked on this date were
recovered, a much lower percentage than was obtained from any other day's marking. These
facts have thrown the record of marking done at this station during August so much under
suspicion that it was considered necessary, in certain phases of the study, to disregard entirely
the returns.
It is important to call attention to the fact that the figures given In Table 3 cannot be
accepted as giving any adequate idea of the percentage of fish entering from the ocean which
are caught while passing through the waters where commercial fishing is permitted. Several
indeterminate factors must modify the percentage of returns to such an extent that, while they
are reasonably comparable inter se, the actual figures give a much-distorted idea of the toll
taken from the run as it is passing through the sound and river. Two of these factors are
especially obvious, i.e.: (1) The figures as given here do not include all of the actual returns
since some were omitted on account of faulty or incomplete data; the error from this factor,
however, is not great, approximately 5 per cent.; (2) a much more important source of error
is due to lost tags. There are no means of knowing just how many were taken and not turned
in. Nor can anything more be learned as to the number of tags lost from the fish between the
time they were attached aiid the time the fish were captured. Numerous reliable reports came
to us of fish which showed a split in the tail-fin terminating in a hole similar to the one made
with the leather-punch. Apparently the tags had in some manner become caught and pulled out.
Another possibility is that some of the fish were unable to stand the operation necessary to the
attachment of the tag, more particularly the attendant handling and removal from the water.
All of these factors would tend to increase the percentage of fish captured, but obviously
there are no means for determining to what extent. X 72
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 3.—Number of Fish marked each Day, Total Number of Returns from each Day's Marking,
■   and Percentages of Returns for each Station, 1918.
Station- A.
Station B.
Station C.
Date marked.
Percent
Percent
Percent
Marked.
Returned.
age returned.
Marked.
Returned.
age returned.
Marked.
Returned
age returned.
July   14   	
4
1
25
43
ii
30
„      19   	
50
19
38
„      21   	
46
16
35
25
o
20
„      22   	
10
4
40
40
10
25
61
16
26
„      23   	
20
2
10
95
27
28
„     2-4   	
8
1
12
56
18
32
76
25
30
„      25   	
56
4
7
50
13
26
„     26   	
111
45
40
152
4»
33
„     27   	
9S
16
16
„      28   	
72
15
21
54
27
50
„      30   	
99
20
20
117
3
IS
„      31   	
105
24
23
4S
20
42
i i
12
16
104
46
45
2   	
138
21
15
64
24
38
4   	
64
8
12
94
.     44
48
42
18
43
6   	
34
3
9
164
2
1
36
11
31
118
14
12
9   	
105
25
24
„      13   	
155
24
15
„     14   	
76
16
21
Totals   	
831
147
17.7
836
311
-37.5
1,000
203
20.2
Date marked.
Station D.
Station E.
Marked.
Returned.
Percentage returned.
Marked.
Returned.
Percentage returned.
.Tulv   19 .".
85
92
74
'63
'ie
'06
61
78
94
41
'47
28
25
23
'as
io
'26
35
35
52
21
'io
33
27
31
'ie
'33
'36
57
45
55
51
'34
95
70
'93
114
122
39
97
113
75
16
118
36
12
23
31
16
' 's
11
'is
33
41
14
24
'27
25
6
12
7
1
2
7
4
23	
24	
'
25    	
8
16
'
28    	
29    	
19
'
30    	
29
1
31    	
34
All
36
2    	
25
4    	
5    	
24
a    	
33
37
8    	
10
9    	
15    	
12
16    	
8
19    	
9
20           	
23
21    	
25
'
Totals   	
■ 737
298
40.7
1,0:90
240
99
Total number marked     4,494
Total number returned    1,199
Percentage returned       26.8
Among; the specimens listed in Table 2 the following were recorded as having been taken
outside the limits of the regions indicated on the map :—
Days out.
1 specimen, Burrard Inlet, marked August Sth, Station E     103
2 specimens, Ebey's Lauding, marked July 24th,. Station C       17
1 specimen, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked July 26th, Station C ..    11
2 specimens, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked July 27th, Station A .   1-5 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 73
1 specimen, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked August 28th, Station A      4
4 specimens, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked July 20th, Station A .      2
1 specimen, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked August 2nd, Station A . .      2
These specimens from without the limits were so few that they have been omitted from
further consideration.    It seems probable that, with  the exception of the specimens  marked
at Station A and taken near Sooke, these represent runs of sockeyes which were bound to some
stream other than the Fraser River.
In the following tables separate consideration has been given to those fish which came from
the tributaries of the Eraser and from the main river above Mission Bridge. The problems
connected with the fish from these upper waters are sufficiently distinct from those connected
with the fish taken by commercial fishermen to demand such separate treatment.
Table 4 gives the number of specimens returned (1) from the main commercial fishing-
grounds, (2) from the Upper Fraser River, and (3) from outside the limits which we have set.
Table 4.—Number of Marked Fish taken in- Numbered Districts of-Puget Sound and Fraser
River, Upper Fraser River, and outside these Boundaries.
Total
returned.
Number from
Marking-station.
Main
Districts.
Upper
Fraser
River.
Outside
Limits.
147
311
203
298
240
136
301
190
280
212
3
10
1
9
27
8
3
1,199
1,137
50
1'2
Detailed Study or Returns from the Commercial Fishing Districts.
Two tables have been prepared for each of the marking-stations, presenting in detail the
data obtained from the marking: First, a table showing for each day's marking the number
and percentage of specimens recovered from each region and the average number of days
required for the journey; second, a table showing the distribution of returns according to the
region from which the return was reported and the number of days en route. This last is given
as a matter of record and in order to show something of the range of variation underlying the
average rates of progress as given in various other tables. It is upon the data given in these
tables that the general discussions of the routes and rates of travel which immediately follow
are based.
Table 5.—Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station A taken
in each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1918*
Region.
Date marked.
1.
2
4.
6.
7.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
' 9
i
2
i
1
2
'i
1
1
3.0
1.0
6.5
3.0
1.0
1.0
.io
2.0
3.0
1
6
1
9:
i
9.
5
i
5.0
3.3
6.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
'i
2.'0
'i
'i
'e
5
2
3
2
3
16.0
5.0
3.7
6.4
9.0
5.3
4.5
4.0
'i
'i
3
3
8
4
6
1
2
„      21	
99
3.0
8.5
5.3
„     30	
..     31	
Aug.   1	
9
8.3
7.5
4.2
3.5
3.0
4.0
Total	
12
16
1
23
32
Averagest  .. •
2.8
4.1
2.0
5.7
5 8
* No specimens marked at Station A were recovered in Regions 3 and
t Weighted mean. X 74
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 5.—Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station A taken
in each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1918—Concluded.
Date marked.
Region.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
10.
Fish.
Days.
Total
marked.
Total
returned.
Percentage
returned.
July 14	
„     21	
99
„     2§X '.'.'.WW '.'.
„     24	
„     25	
„     27	
„     28'	
„     30	
„     31	
Aug.   1	
2
„    ■ i.'.'.,'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
6	
Total	
Averages*
'i
li.'o
3
'i
5.0
'i
l
2
7.0
l
2
10.0
4
9
9.9
2
5.0
4
o.o
2
3
4.3
1
1
3.0
25
13
"
4.3
4.0
4.0
26.0
6.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
6.5
15.0
8.0
8.0
33.0
10.5
4
46
10
20
105
77
138
64
34
831
1
14
4
2
1
4
13
14
16
24
12
20
136
30
40
10
12
7
13
19
16
23
16
14
12
9
16.3
* Weighted mean.
Table 6.—Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station A according lo Region in which
captured and Number of Days en Route.*
Days en Route.
Region.
1.
2,
4.
6.
7.             S.
9.
10.
1	
9
4
9
4
1
'i
2
6
1
4
1
2
i
1
1
3
6
5
2
'2
3
1
9
6
4
3
3
4
3
9
1
2
i
1
4
6
3
4
1
'i
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
'i
-'i
'i
3	
4	
'i
9
6 .. . .                         	
1
7	
8	
9	
1
4
1
10	
11	
1
12 .. .	
13	
14	
16	
18 ..                       	
2
26	
33	
'i
Totals  	
12
16
1
23
32
25       1       13              14
* No specimen's marked at Station A were recovered in Regions 3 and 5. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 75
Table 7.—Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station B taken
in each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1918.*
Region.
Date marked.
1.
2.
4.
6.
7.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
July 21	
9 9
2
1
6
3
12
7
'i
5
5
4
S.O
2.0
1.8
1.0
s.'o
2.0
2.5
1.6
2.2
1.2
5
4
2
1
'3
'3
2
i
6
2
2.0
5.5
6.5
14.0
3.7
2.7
3.5
12.0
3.3
2.3
'i
1
'2
2.0
1.0
3.0
'2
3
2
2
1
1
1
9
'3
1
4.5
3.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.0
'i
'i
'3
2
2:
5
5
3
8
4
1
15.0
„     23	
,,     24	
9g                  	
8.0
26     	
5.3
28	
3.0
„     30	
„     31	
9;
5.5
3.2
5.0
3.0
4	
2.5
3.7
2.0
Totals   	
49
29
4
25
35
Averages!  . . .
2.4
4.2
2.2
2.3
4.4
Region.
Total
marked.
Total
returned.
Date marked.
8
9.
10.
Percentage
returned.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
July 21   	
2'
1
2
5
3
'ti
14
7
9
4
3
5.0
3.0
7.5
8.0
5.7
3.0
3.0
5.1
3.4
3.3
3.3
1
1
51
3
io
7
'3
5
6
5
3 ■
3.0
2.0
3.6
2.7
7.3
5.7
s.'o
3.4
8.0
6.2
5.0
2
's
4
7
11
4
3
3
6
1
3
4.5
4.4
5.7
11.7
3.5
4.0
7.0
8.0
8.7
7.0
7.3
25
40
95
56
50
111
54
1?
48
104
64
94
42
36
5
10
27
17
12
43
27
3
19
43
24
42
17
10
20
29   	
25
23	
28
„     24	
25	
30'
24
26     	
39'
„     28	
30'     	
50
18
„     31	
Aug.   1	
9
40
44
38
4	
45
41
28
Totals	
56
49
54
836
301
36
Averagest  . . •
4.7
5.4
6.3
* No specimens marked at Station B were recovered in Regions 3 and
t Weighted mean. X 76
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 8.—Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station B according to Region in which
captured and Number of Days en Route*
Davs en Route.
Region.
1.
2,
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1	
9
20
15
6
1
3
1
9,
13
4
2
i
'i
l
2
1
i
i
2
1
, 13
4
4
2
4
9
7
6
1
9
1
2
'i
l
'i
1
6
21
8
7
5
2
1
'i
1
1
1
'i
1
10
13
9
4
2
2
'i
'i
2
1
'i
i
i
2
2
3	
4 .
i
8
14
14
6	
1
8	
9	
10	
3
i
11	
12	
l
13	
i
14	
15	
'9
16	
19	
23	
25    	
1
'i
27	
1
Totals   *	
49
20
4
25
35
36
49
54
* No specimens marked at Station B were recovered in Regions 3 and 5.
Table 9.—Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station C taken
in each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1.918.*
Region.
Date marked.
1.
2.
3.
4.
0.
7.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
July 17	
4
'i
3
5
'i
1
4
1
5.2
3.6
4.3
3.2
2.6
2.0
2.0
3.0
5
9
4
6
1
9
5
7
2.8
2.5
10.0
5.5
1.0
1.-5
2.5
1.4
2.1
'i
'i
3.6
7.6
'i
i
4.3
6.6
3.6
5
1
4
O
'i
4
'i
6.2
2.0
4.2
7.0
9.6
6.2
2.6
2
i
'6
1
1
2
2
3
4 5
„     19	
99
3.5
24	
„     26-	
Aug.   6	
9.0
5.0
2.0
9	
13  . .
3.5
6.0
14     	
5.0
Totals	
213
34
2
5
19
20
Averages! . . .
3.0
3.8
5.0
4.4
"
5.7
5.6
Region.
Total
marked.
Total
returned.
Date marked.
8.
9.
10.
Percentage
returned.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
1
5
3
2
13
'e
10
7
1
3.0
5.4
5.0
7.0
5.6
5.5
3.0
6.0
2
1
O
4
7
"i
5
5
6.0
• 3.0
6.3
6.5
8.1
5.6
6.2
5.8
1
9
5
7
'i
1
'3
4.0
13.5
8.7
10.9
7.6
9.0
13.6
43
50
61
76
152
164
118
105
135
76
13
19
16
23
47
2
14.
25
24
16
30.0
38,0
29              	
96.0
30.0
33.0
1.0
12.0
9	
„     13	
„     14	
24.0
15.5
21.0
Totals	
48
28
20
1,000
199
19.0
Averagesf.. ■
ly.Q
6.3
9.8
* No specimens marked at Station C were taken in Region
f Weighted mean. 9 Geo. 5      Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 77
Table 10.—Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station C according to Region in which
captured and Number of Days en Route*
Days en Route.
Region.
1.             2.             3.
4.              6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 	
2   	
3   	
4  . .
3              8
6 9
7 7
1 1
3               1
3
2 1
1               1
!          i
i
!         'i
1
1
2
i            2
2               2
1                8
1
'i
:      '}
2
1
2
9
4
3
1
*2
1
'i
'i
12
11
4
8
1
9,
9
'i
'i
-2
7
■5
3
3
4
1
1
i
i
's
2
6   	
2
3
8   	
9   	
10   	
11   	
2
1
12   	
1
13   	
14   	
1
15   	
16   	
17   	
"1   	
9Q
1
4
Totals	
>3            34
2
5            19
20
4S
28
20
* No specimens marked at Station C were recovered in Region 5.
Table 11.—Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station D taken
in each Region and Average Number of Dags en Route, 1918*
Region.
1
2
-
S
.
10.
JO
a
X3
a .
a
rjrj
rd
m
^
w
A
of.
rd
oil
A
oti
A
oc
55 T3
•A%
i
cci
0
P
E
03]
D
r33i
cc3
0
E
cd
Q
s
CC!
Q
o ^3
H9
It
Sg
July 19	
..
2
4.0
16
5.1
8
4.6
1
3.0
85
27
32
„      23	
17
1.9
4
1.5
o
10.3
92
24
26
.,      24	
3
2.0
15
3.8
5
10.2
74
23
31
„      28	
9
1.0
9
1.4
12
2.8
4
15.7
63
27
43
„      30	
1
3.0
0
9 2
4
1.7
4
2.0
46
14
30
1
3.0
6
2.5
10
2.8
o
12.3
56
20
36
..   s	
rt
1.0
19
1.6
9
1.6
2
22.5
61
35"
57
23
1.6
8
1.9
3
8.0
78
34
44
6	
2
5.0
18
2.8
24
9 3
6
3.2
94
50
53
i	
10
1.8
9
2.2
1
5.0-
41
20
49
9	
i
10.0
°
3.8
6
4.0
3
3.7
47
15
32
Totals   	
9
1
11
..    |   131
109
■•
33
737
289
39
Averagest-  .
1.0
..
3.0
3.3
..
2.5
2.7
8.5
..
* No specimens marked at Station D were recovered in Regions 3', 4, 5, and 6.
t Weighted mean.
Table 12.—Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station D according to Region in which
captured and Number of Days en Route, 1918*
Davs en Route.
Region.
Davs en Route.
Region.
1.          2.
7.    1     8.
9.
10.
1.    j    2.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1
9
'i
5
' 2
47'
39
28
6
4
3
1
1
28
38
19
10
7
2
1
'i
1
1
2
i
12
2
5
'i
'i
2
12	
' i
"1
' i
1
9
13	
15 :    .
3  	
4   	
2
18	
1
20	
"1	
23	
1
6   	
1
1
8  	
9   	
30	
1
1
..      |        X
Totals   	
2    1      1    1    11
131
109
11   	
35
* No specimens marked at Station D recovered in Regions 3, 4, 5, and X 78
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 13.—Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station E taken
in each Region and Average Number of Dags en Route, 1918*
Region.
•a
CD
J*
Cr
Cd
a
"cd
+j
0
H
00
a
c
"cd
0
H
Date marked.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A
013
S
cd
a
3d
fe
tfl
A
V3
s
OC
cs
fi
A
013
>,
CC!
fi
Hi
5
m
ri
cd
fi
bD   .
§S
S2
July   25	
i.'o
1
'2
'i
11.0
7.5
8.0
'3
3
5
'9
'i
3.7
4.0
7.8
8.5
too
'2
5
5'
1
4
5
3
1
1
3.5
7.4
3.4
11.0
5.2
8.6
4.7
2.0
4.0
5   i     S4
95
70
93
114
122
39
97
113
75
16
118
56
12
23
31
16
6
10
14
27
39
14
20
26
23
5'
11
3
'2
7
3
6
26	
29	
30	
31	
2
10
9
19
27
13
14
19
22
4
9
3
' '9
7
3
3.7
5.0
5.5
8.3
9.3
4.9
9.8
7i.9
2.7
3.4
10.0
2.0
4.7
2,7
14
15
23
32
36
21
23
33
31
6	
8	
10
5
'8
23
19
16	
19	
20	
21	
Totals   	
l
• •     !       4
14
27
166
1,000
212
19.5
Averagesf ....
4.0 !   ..
8.0
6.4
5.8
6.7
* No specimens marked at Station E were recovered in Regions 1,
t Weighted mean.
4, aud 5.
Table 14.—Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station E according to Region
captured and Number of Days en Route*
which
Days en Route.
Region.    .
Days en Route.
Region.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
6.
7.
8.           £
10.
1   	
'i
'i
'i
'2
'2
3
3
1
2
'2
3
1
3
4
6
2
2
'2
'2
34
25
24
10
7
12
10
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
15   	
2             4
2   	
3   	
1? :;.•.:::::>:
1
2
1
18   	
2
5   	
6   	
7   	
8   	
20   	
21   	
24   	
26	
27   	
3
3
2
1
1
10   	
11   	
30   	
31   	
32   	
Totals   ....
2
1
12   	
13	
14   	
2
1
4
14          5
7   1    166
* No specimens marked at Station E were recovered in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
It was hoped that much more detailed information as to the migration up the Fraser Kiver
might be presented, and to that end the river and the waters of the Strait of Georgia around
the mouth of the river had been divided into twenty regions, each comprising about five miles
of the river or off shore about the mouths. The returns from Canada were at first studied on
this basis, but it finally became clear that the subdivisions were much too small to give results
of any significance.    These twenty regions were then divided into seven, as follows:—
Region 10. Banks off the mouth of the South Arm and Canoe Pass.
Region 11. South Arm and Canoe Pass up as far as Deas Island.
Region 12. South Arm from Deas Island to New Westminster.
Region 13. Banks off the mouth of the North Arm.
Region 14. North Arm.
Region 15. Fraser River from New Westminster to the mouth of Pitt River.
Region 16. Fraser River from the mouth of Pitt River to Mission Bridge. 9 Geo. 5      Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 79
Table 15 gives the number of specimens which were marked at each of the marking-stations
recovered from each of these regions, and the average number of days en route. It is apparent
from this that even with this increase in the size of the regions no significant and consistent
difference in the length of time required to reach the different regions appears, and for the
purposes of statistical analysis it was necessary to consider all of the returns from the main
Canadian waters as constituting a single group, and to combine Regions 10 to 16 into one region,
10. It is much to be regretted that the data are not such as to make possible a reliable estimate
of the rate of travel in the river itself. Whether this is due to the manner of collecting and
recording the data cannot be stated. Although these records from Canadian waters do not admit
of detailed analysis, yvhen combined as a single group they agree well with the results obtained
from American waters.
Table 15.—Number of Specimens marked at each Station recovered in each Region in Canadian
Waters, including the Fraser River to Mission Bridge only, and Average Number of Days
en Route.
Station.
Total
Fish.
Average
Number
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Days en
Route.*
Region 10 :
3
7.0
8    .
13.5
2
6.5
1
5.0
15
6.3
27
6.0
5
5.6
1
5.0
2
0.0
4
7.8
7
10.3
8
6.9
2
13.5
9
14.5
1
10.0
11
8.0
15
9.1
3
12.3
3
2.7
1
1.0
2
3.0
35
6.8
77
6.1
11
5.2
11
9.9
1:8
6.8
4
9.7
10
6.0
66
134
23
14
19
9
16
Region 11 :
7.2
Region 12 :
Fish   	
Region 13 :
Fish   	
6.9
7.6
Region 14 :
Fish   	
8.4
Region 15 :
Fish   	
Region 16 :
Fish   	
6.7
8.1
6.6
Total fish   	
14
54
20
35
166
2.S9
Average number days en route*  ....
10.5
6.1
9.8
8.3
6.6
7.1
* Weighted mean.
In Table 16 is shown the total number of individuals marked at each station which were
taken in each region, together with the average time en route. This combines the totals and
averages developed in Tables 5 to 14.
Table 16.—Number of Specimens marked at each Station taken in each Region and Average
_..... _      . Number of Days en Route*
Region.
1.
2.
3.
4.
b
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.   |   Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
12
49
23
2
2.8
2.4
3.0
1.0
16
29-
34
1
4.1
4.2
3.8
3.0
'•2
s.'o
1
4
5
2.0
2.2
4.4
23
25
19
'i
5.7
B    	
2.3
5.7
D                    	
F,    	
4.0
Totals   	
86
80
2.
10
68
No specimens were taken in Region 5. X 80
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 16.—Number of Specimens marked at each Station taken, in each Region and Average
Number of Days en Route—Concluded.
Region.
7.
5
9.
10.
Total.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
Fish.
Days.
A   	
B    	
32
35
20
11
4
5.S
4.4
5.6
3.3
8.0
25
58
48
131
14
7.5
4.7
5.6
2.5
6.4
13
40
28
109
27
7 2
5.4
6.5
2.7
5.8
14
54
20
35
166
10.5
6.3
9.8
8.5
6.7
136
301
C    	
199'
D   	
E    	
2S9
212
Totals   	
102
274
226
289
1,137
Routes taken by Fraser River Sockeyes through Puget Sound.—Tables 17 and 18 show in
complementary ways the distribution of returned fish according to the station at which they
were marked and the region in which they were taken. Table 17 gives the percentages of the
total returns from each station which were taken in each region and Table 18 the percentages
of the total returns from each region which were marked at each station. The returns from
Regions 3, 4, and 5 are practically negligible. It is quite obvious that the great majority of
the fish, on entering the Sound through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, pass across to Washington
Sound, and especially the southern shores of the southern' islands of the San Juan Archipelago
(Region 1) and the western shore of Whidbey Island (Region 2) ; 8.8 per cent, of the returned
fish which were marked at Sooke were taken in Region 1 and 11.8 per cent, in Region 2.
Table 17.-
-Percentages of Recovered Fish from each Marking-station ivhich were taken in each
Region*
Region.
1.
2.
3.
4.
0.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A   	
S.S
16.2
11.4
0.7
11.8
9.6
16.8
0.4
'i
0.7
1.3
2.5
17.0
8.3
9.9
6.5
23.5
11.6
9.9,
3.8
1.9
18.4
18.9
24.3
45.3
6.6
9.5
16.2
13.8
37.7
12.7
10.3
B   	
17.9
C        	
10.4
D   .       ...              	
12.1
E          	
78.3
* No specimens were recovered in Region 5.
Table 18.—Percentage of Recovered Fish from each Region ichich were marked at each Station*
Region.
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A   	
B   	
C	
14.0
57.0
26.7
2.3
20.0
36.2
42.5
1.3
100
10
40
50
33.3
36.3
29.0
1.4
31.4
34.4
19.6
10.8
3.8
9.1
20.6
17.7
47.5
5.1
5.8
21.6
12.4
48.3
11.9
4.S
18.6
7.2
D               	
12.1
B    	
57.3
' * No specimens were recovered in Region 5.
There is apparently considerable interchange of fish between Regions 1 and 2, as is evidenced
by the fact that 9.6 per cent, of the returned fish marked at Station B, located in Region 1, were
taken in Region 2, and that 11.4 per cent, of the fish marked at Station C, in Region 2, were
taken in Region 1. From the region of Washington Sound a very few fish pass northward
through Haro Strait (Region 4), but the proportion must be small compared with those passing
through Rosario Strait and on up through the Strait of Georgia. The apparent proportions may,
however, be modified by the fact that there are many more traps in Rosario Strait than in Haro 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 81
Strait. The few fish taken in Haro Strait came from Stations A, B, aud C, as would be expected.
Only two specimens were taken in Deception Pass, both marked at Station C. No fish are
recorded as having been taken in the central channels of the San Juan Archipelago.
From the southern part of the Strait of Georgia (locally designated the Gulf of Georgia)
the fish pass Point Roberts and enter Canadian territorial waters. Very soon thereafter they
must enter the river, especially through Canoe Pass and the main mouth of the South Arm, and
begin their journey up the river to the spawning-grounds.
In summarizing, the route followed by the very great majority of the salmon entering the
Strait of Juan de Fuca and bound for the Fraser River may be stated as follows: Across
Washington Sound to the " Banks " south of the San Juan Islands and to the western shore
of Whidbey Island; from here northward through Rosario Strait to the Strait of Georgia, past
Point Roberts to the mouths of the Fraser River. There is no evidence to indicate that this
route is varied in different parts of the season.
As might be expected, this route is well indicated by the location of the various trap-sites.
The approximate number of traps in the various regions of Puget Sound for which licences were
issued in 1918 is as follows:*—
Region 1       14.
20
13
11
4
26
Region 7   ,     11
„      8        40
„      9        39
Total     178
In addition to the above, there are six traps located on the Canadian side of the Straits
of Juan de Fuca, on Vancouver Island, eleven scattering traps along the southern shore of these
straits, and twenty-nine in Admiralty Straits, chiefly between Admiralty Bay and Double Bluff.
There are also a few in Hood Canal and that part of the sound extending south past Seattle,
Saratoga Passage, and Padiila Bay.   The ones listed above are those of chief concern here.
There is apparently only a very low degree of correlation between the number of traps and
the number of marked fish taken in any particular region. In Table 19 the six regions from
which most of the returns came have been arranged in the order of the number of traps located
in each. Then is given, for each region, the percentages of fish marked at Stations A and B
which were recaptured in the respective regions. No correlation is apparent between the number
of traps and the returns from Station A. There seems to be a distinct correlation in the case
of the returns from Station B (especially if Region 6 is omitted), but the correlation is not well
proportioned.
Table 19.—Correlation between Number of Traps in Various Regions and Number of Marked Fish
taken in those Regions.
Region.
Number
of Traps.
Percentage of
Returns from
Stations.
A.
B.
11
14
20
26
39
40
4.12
1.44
1.95
2.87
1.82
3.35
4.98
5.88
6.23
3.28
8.31
8.62
In a few instances a retrograde migration has apparently taken place and the fish have
travelled away from rather than toward the mouth of the Fraser River. It is possible that
faulty data may account for this, especially in such extreme cases as those fish marked at
Station D and reported taken in Regions 1 and 2; or it may be that these are not Fraser River
fish, but are sockeyes bound for some other stream.
* Based upon licences issued by the Fish and Game Commission of the State of Washington. X 82 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919
Rate of Migration.—A number of the preceding tables give, variously grouped, the average
number of days required to pass from each marking-station to each region. Tables 5, 7, 9, 11,
and 13 show the total range of variation in this regard for each station, and the general averages
for each station are shown in Table 16. From the last-mentioned table it is apparent that, as
would be expected, the time en route usually increases as the distance between the station and
the regions where the fish were recovered increases. Those fish which were captured in the
same region in which they were marked—such, for instance, as were marked at Station B and
recovered from Region 1—have evidently been slow to resume the migration after the marking.
Forty-nine specimens marked at Station B were taken in Region 1 after being out an average
of 2.4 days. From Station C thirty-four specimens were taken in Region 2 after an interval
of 3.8 days. Eleven specimens from Station D were taken in Region 7 after an average of 3.3
days, and twenty-seven specimens from Station R were taken in Region 9 after 5.8 days. It
seems quite clear that, in the case of fish which have been recaptured comparatively close to
the point at which they were liberated, the rate of progress is slower than that of fish taken a
greater distance from the marking-station. Also, as may be seen from Table 16, in cases where
a retrograde migration has taken place the rate of progress has usually been slow. These
occurrences may possibly be due to some slight injury, or other unfavourable result, due to the
handling attendant upon tagging. It may also be due to inaccurate data. In either case it
would seem justifiable, when estimating the normal rate of progress through the sound, to
consider only those cases of forward migration in which the fish have travelled a reasonably
long distance from the station at which they were marked, say not less than twenty miles.
In the case of the Canadian records it will be noted that the correlation between the distance
travelled and the time en route is very low. The average time required to pass from Station E,
at Point Roberts, into the Fraser River is 6.6 days. This would indicate a much slower rate of
migration here than in other parts of the sound. In order to throw additional light upon this
point, the difference between the time required for fish marked at Stations A, B, C, and D to
reach the vicinity of Point Roberts (Region 9) and that which elapsed before the fish from these
same stations were taken in Canadian waters has been calculated as follows :—
Days.
Station A     3.3
„       B     0.9
C   3.3
D   !   5.6
Average  (simple mean)      3.27
This indicates a rate of progress between Point Roberts and the Fraser River over twice as
rapid as that indicated solely by the results of the marking at Point Roberts, and one agreeing
much better with the results obtained from the American records.
The previous tables have shown the rate of travel as the number of days required to pass
from the marking-station to the various regions of the sound. In order to make these figures
comparable, the rate in miles per day has been calculated for each Instance. This has been done
by simply dividing the distance" travelled by the time required to make the journey. Table 20
gives the distances from each marking-station to each of the established regions of the sound.
These distances were measured, by means of aii ordinary map measure, from the marking-station
to approximately the centre of the region in question.    The most direct route possible was chosen. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 83
Table 20.—Distances on Puget Sound from Marking-stations to Regions where Fish were taken*
Station.
Region.
Miles.
Station.
Region.
Miles.
Station.
Region.
Miles.
r    l
35.0
'     1
15.5
r   i
62.0
2
47.5
2
2
59.5
3
57.0
3
15.5
3
62.5
4
45
4
35.0
4
35
A   	
5
6
52.5
60
C   	
J
5
6
23.5
20
E   	
5
6
35
7
71
7
33
7
35
8
S3
8
45
8
20.5
9
92.5
9
59.5
9
.   10
122.5
L  io
89.5
,, io
30
"     1
l
33.5
2
15
2
28
3
21.5
3
29.5
4
17.5
4
51.5
B   	
5
10
D   	
0
41.5
6
21.5
6
13
7
33.5
7
8
47.5
8
11.5
9
62
9
27.5
10
92
10
57.5
* As it is obvious that the majority of the fish  pass through  Rosario  Strait,  the distances,  wherever
applicable, have been measured over this route.
Table 21.—Number of Specimens marked at each Station taken in each Region and Rate of
Progress in Miles per Day*
A.
B.
C.
D
E.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Region 1 :
Region 7 :
Fish   	
12
49
23
2
Fish   	
32
35
20
11
4
Rate   	
12.5
5.2
33.5
Rate   	
12.2
7.6
5.9
4.4
Region 2 :
Region S :
Fish  	
16
29'
34
1
Fish   	
^5
56
48.
131
14
Rate  	
11.5
3.6
9.3
Rate   	
11.1
10.1
8.0
4.6
3.2
Region 3 :
Region 9 :
Fish   	
2
Fish   	
13
49
28
109
27
Rate	
3.1
Rate   	
12.8
11.5
9.1
10.2
Region 4 :
Region 10 :
Fish   	
1
4
0
Fish   	
14
54
20
35
166
22.5
8.0
8.0
Rate   	
11.7
14.G
9.1
6.8
4.5
Region 6 :
Fish	
2.3
25
19
1
Rate  	
10.5
9.3
3.5
11.2
* No specimens were taken in Region 5.
Table 21 gives the results of these calculations of the rate in miles per day, together with
the number of individuals on which the calculations are based. From this has been calculated
the mean rate of travel.* In doing this all cases have been omitted which were based on (1) less
than ten individuals, (2) a distance travelled of less than twenty miles, and (3) a retrograde
migration relative to the mouth of the Fraser River. This has been done to exclude, as nearly
as possible, all abnormal figures. With these exclusions there remain nineteen categories on
which to base the final conclusions as to the rate of migration. The data for these nineteen
categories are given separately in the following table:—
* This and other similar means have been computed by use of the " harmonic mean " recommended by
Yule (An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics), Rugg (Statistical Methods Applied to Education), and
others, for the calculation of mean rates based on units of work. The harmonic mean is denned by Rugg
as " the reciprocal of the arithmetic mean of the reciprocals of the individual measures of the series." X 84
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 22.—Rate of Progress in the Nineteen Categories containing the Most Reliable Data.
Station marked.
Region
where
captured.
Distance
travelled.
Specimens.
Rate per
Day.
A   	
1
r   i
2
6
7 ■
8
9
L io-
f      7
8
Miles.
35.0
47.5
60
71
83
92.5
122.5
21.5
33.5
47.5
62
92
33
45
59.5
89.5
27.5
57.5
30
Number.
12
16
23
32
25
13
14
25
35
56
49
54
20
4'8
28
20
109
35
166
Miles.
12.5
11.5
10.5
12.2
B   	
11.1
12.8
11.7
9.3
7.6
10.1
C   	
9
I   10
\     l
I io9
\   10
in
11.5
14.6
5.9
8
D   	
9.1
9.1
10.2
E   	
6.8
4 5
Calculated from these figures the mean rate of migration is 7.8 miles per day. If the
Canadian records are omitted, the rate is 9.7 miles per day.
Greene,* in his study of the migration of salmon (Chinook, silver salmon, and steelhead)
in the Columbia River, obtained results quite different from these. He estimates that from
thirty to forty days are usually required for the process of acclimatization to fresh water, during
which time the fish work back and forth with the tides. After entering water which is wholly
fresh he estimates the rate of travel of silver salmon and steelhead at 6.36 to 7.50 miles per day,
although he concedes that this is only about one-third of the rate of travel as. estimated by men
engaged in the fishing industry and seems to imply that their figures are probably more reliable
than his own. Greene's figures should be accepted with considerable caution on account of the
comparatively few individuals marked and the fact that three species were represented and all
combined to give his final results. The sockeye-tagging experiment has produced no evidence
indicating that the migration is especially retarded during the passage from salt to fresh water.
As may he seen from Table 15, there is no great difference in the time required to pass from
American waters to the Fraser River, just within the mouths, and that required to pass above
New Westminster, where the water is entirely fresh. Furthermore, as will be seen later, in
the case of fish taken on or near the spawning-grounds in the tributaries, the time elapsed since
marking averages between thirty and forty days, the time given by Greene as required for the
process of acclimatization. It may be concluded either that Greene's results are wholly unreliable
or that the migration of sockeye is quite different from that of the species studied by him, which
is, of course, entirely possible. The rate of migration of the quinnat (Chinook) salmon of the
Sacramento River as given by Rutterf is much more nearly in accord with the results of this
sockeye study. He estimates the rate of progress through brackish water to average seven or
eight miles per day and that through fresh water to be between fifteen and twenty miles per day.
These figures apply only to the spring run on the Sacramento River. The migration of the fall
run is considerably slower, averaging but four to five miles per day through the fresh water.
Greene's observations were, of course, made upon fall-run fish.
A further analysis of data has shown some interesting variations in the rate of migration.
A calculation of the mean rate of migration from each marking-station indicates that the rate
of travel decreases as the fish approach nearer the mouth of the Fraser as follows: Station B,
10.5; Station C, 7.9; Station D, 9.1; Station E, 4.5.
* Greene. Charles W.: The Migration of Salmon in the Columbia River. Bulletin U.S. Bureau of Fisheries for 1909, Vol. XXIX., pages 129-14S.    Washington, 1911.
t Rutter, Cloudsley: Natural History of the Quinnat Salmon. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission for 1902,
Vol. XXII., pages 65-142.    Washington, 1904. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.
X 85
Finally the rates of migration for different parts of the season have been calculated. The
data given in Tables 1 and 2 were first condensed into quartiles and then into halves, and the
rate of travel in miles per day was calculated for each of these. The positions of the quarter
points determining the quartiles were based on the number of fish marked, not on the number
returned. In adopting a central point on which to separate the halves it was rather arbitrarily
determined to consider all fish marked during July as belonging to the first half and all those
marked during August as belonging to the second half. It is more convenient to think of the
halves as separated in this manner, and the central point separating the fish marked into halves
comes sufficiently close to August 1st to warrant the division on this basis. These calculations
have not been made for Stations C and E. The inaccuracies in the marking record at Station C
would have made such treatment valueless. In the case of Station E, over 78 per cent, of the
fish recovered were taken in Canadian waters. Inasmuch as the authors were unable to make a
detailed analysis of the Canadian records, it has seemed best not to attempt too detailed an
analysis of the records obtained from the marking at Station E.
'Table 23.—Rate in Miles per Day in Different Quartiles—Returns from Station A.
Region.
I.
2.
7.
S
3.
10.
Quartiles.
fl
on
fa
CD
ba
cd*
a
o   ■
fl
+-:
fl
CD
■51
CD
A
CD
fl
CD
fl
CD
03
oc+J
oi
CC]
CS
O
rr
M
fa
«
fa
K
S
rr
fa
H
fa
M
fa
B
hi
■4U
First   	
6
9.2
8
12.2
6
13.9
3
11.3
2
10.4
5
22.0
5
19.1
35
13.0
3
35.0
2
6.8
9
8.6
8
9.9
4
9.8
0
9.2
2
18.8
33
10.0
Third   	
1
11.6
4
12.8
6
12.5
13
11.4
13
10.0
2
11.6
0
10.4
44
11.1
Fourth   	
2
14.0
2
15.8
2
15.0
8
19.7
0
17.3
1
13.2
2
5.7
23
14.5
* Harmonic mean.
Table 21,.—Rate in Miles per Day in Different Halves—Returns from Station A.
Region.
1.
2.
rt
8
9.
10.
Halves.
fl
fa
CD
ci
cd#
fl
CD
fl
-t->
fl
CD
fl
4J
■s
fl
+j
fl
C3
cj
cci
oi
OJ
ci
!>   =3
fc-
S
fa
«
fa
M
fa
85
fa
«
fa
«
fa
«
EH
<r,
First   	
9
12.1
11
10.3
18
9.S
19
9.7
15
S.9
10
13.0
10
13.6
92
10.5
Second   	
3
13.0
o
14.8
o
14.3
13
1S.7
10
17.3
3
12.0
4
S.6
43
14.8
* Harmonic mean.
Table 25.—Rate in Miles per Day in Different Quartiles—Returns from Station B.
Region.                                 ,
fl
OH
s
cj
•4-1
O
&
Quartiles.
6.
T.
8.
9.
10.
fl
013
fa
CD
+J
cci
«
fl
013
fa
a)
fl
013
fa
CD
Cj
M
fl
m
fa
CD
cj
M
fl
fa
CD
cd
«
CD
M
2*.
CD CD
>Xi
4
6
11
4
5.1
9.3
14.3
10.8
2
5
18
15
2.9
7.6
10.8
9.6
3
9
25
19
11.0
6.2
10.3
13.2
10
14
'7
18
20.O
10.3
12.6
10.3
14
21
6
13
18.4
14.4
14.6
13.3
33
55
68
69
11.0
9,9
Third   	
11.5
11.3
* Harmonic mean. X 86
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Table 26.—Rate in Miles per Day in Different Halves—Returns from Station B.
Region.
fl
013
fa
rt
O
B
Halves.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
fl
cc
CD
ci
M
013
fa
CD
+c
ci
«
fl
oil
fa
03
ta
fl
013
ri
CD
ci
'A
fl
013
fa
oj
+->
ci
CD4-J
t» rt
12
13
7.7
12.6
14
21
6.0
8.6
19
37
S.S
10.8
27
22
12.1
11.3
36   1 16.1
18     13.4
10S
112
10.5
10.9
Harmonic mean.
Table 27.—Rate in Miles per Day in Different Quartiles—Returns from Station D.
Region.
Total
Fish.
Average
Rate.*
Quartiles.
8.
9.
10.
Average
Rate (for
Regions
9 and 10
only).
fl
on
fa
CD
4-c
cj
K
fl
on
CD
ci
fl
Of!
fa
CD
oi
Third   	
33
IS
46
31
3.7
6.4
6.S
4.1
13
30
27
39
8.1
8.6
13.1
11.0
5
13
7
10
6.7
6.5
3.9
16.4
51
61
80
83
4.6
7.3
7.5
7.0
7.6
7.S
8.8
11.8
* Harmonic mean.
Table 28.—Rate in Miles per Day in Different Halves—Returns from Station D.
Region.
Total
Fish..
Halves.
8.
9.
10.
Average
Fish.
Rate.
Fish.
Rate.
Fish.
Rate.
Rate.*
First   	
50
81
4.3
5.5
43
-    66
S.S               17
6.2
7.4
110
165
5 6
11.5
IS
7.2
* Harmonic mean.
In the case of the quartiles, the indications are that the rate Is more rapid in the first than
in the second quartile, and that the rates in the third and fourth quartiles are successively more
rapid than in the second. This does not appear clearly in the results from Station D, especially
when the returns from Region S are included. Omitting the returns from Region 8 (which is
deemed legitimate, considering the comparatively short distance travelled, just twenty miles
from Station D to the centre of Region S) brings the results more nearly in accord with those
obtained from Stations A and B, the only disagreement being in the rate during the first quartile.
This is, in the case of Station D, slightly less, rather than greater, than the rate in the second
quartile.
It seems not unlikely that the difference in rates of travel shown in the different quartiles
may be explained as indicating racial differences existing in the fish composing different parts
of the run. Gilbert* has demonstrated that the Fraser River run is composed of a number of
distinguishable races, each bound to a different spawning region. The assumption that these
races may have different rates of migration while passing through the waters of the sound does
not seem to be a difficult one to accept.
* Gilbert, Charles H. :   Contributions to the Life History of the Sockeye Salmon.    Report. Commissioner
of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia for 1017, Paper No. 4, pages Q33-S0.    Victoria, 191S. 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 87
In the case of the halves, the results from all three stations are in complete agreement,
indicating that the rate during the second half is distinctly more rapid than during the first
half.
In connection with the above determination of the rate of progress through Puget Sound,
it must be borne in mind that the rates are undoubtedly lower than they should be. This
necessarily follows when it is considered that seldom less than one day, and frequently three
or four days, elapses between the times when the traps are lifted and the fish reported. Again,
the fish may spend some time in the hearts and pot of the trap before entering the spiller, from
which they may be taken at the next lift. A fish entering the trap immediately after it has been
lifted would not be reported before the next day at the earliest, thus adding at least one day to
the actual time required to make the journey from the marking-station. If traps were uniformly
lifted at twenty-four-hour intervals, twelve hours could with safety be subtracted from the
average number of days en route and the rate calculated accordingly. The authors' knowledge
on this point, however, is not sufficient to warrant such treatment. It would undoubtedly be a
step in the right direction, but would tend to give an opinion that the rates have been fully
corrected, which would be quite unwarranted by the facts. It is possible that the error involved
is within the limits of error dependent upon other factors.
Returns from Tributary Streams and the Eraser River above Mission Bridge.
Returns were obtained from various sections of the Fraser River watershed which have not
been included in the regions indicated on the map.    These sections may be indicated as follows :—
-   •      Specimens.
Main river, 3 to 27 miles above Mission     7
Main river, near Hope, Yale, Hell's Gate, and Spuzzum    16
Main river at Lytton and Lillooet     2
Main river at Soda Creek      2
Pitt River       6
Harrison Lake system, between Harrison and Lillooet Lakes     5
Harrison Lake system, Birkenhead River      9
Seton Lake system, - Portage Creek       2
Chilcotin River     1
The complete data concerning these returns are given in Table 29. The mean dates on which
the fish captured in each of the above districts have been calculated and appear in the summary.
This was done in order to see, if possible, when the fish bound to the different tributaries were
to be found in Puget Sound. We have suggested above the possibility of a segregation in time
of the races demonstrated by Dr. Gilbert. 'X 88
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
•8
cq
ft.
o
r-
r-
r*
o
e
C5
ft,
I
e
t.          fl          V
CO
W
© nc
lO
©                         HH                    ©    O
III'8!
©                   ...
Ol                                   iH                      i-t O          CO
H                    iH                co   in        -
rO
CO CO            CO
CO                             HH                      HH     HH             .
1-                                        ©                          O CM            CO
CM                             ©                      ©     ©
Oi
Is
CM                                   CO                      CO CM
r-i                      CO     CO            -
.^  S3
>-.                       >>               >- >v       be
bi                         bi                   f*a    >i
s
Sft
"3                               3                     33          »
5             5         3 9:
cd
W
"-^                                       ""3                          >"3 i-S            <
<3                 <5             ^  0       ■
f»                                       tD                         Ol CM            CD
iO                             ©                      CM     rH         ©
,3        S
i-t
m
,
,            _    A
^                   ^~~""'                                               ""»
(                      "^'       "'                        -,             <
m          ^
ffiCsMlQ'JHOKIClCOHffiHH
HCOOf-OHSKONit-HiQ
tH rH -H rH CM rH        HM
CMCMHi-htjicOCOCOHHHHH'HHH'            •
°     PS
■* Mfl NO O IT, N C  M M O C C
ONrHM^irjOHHU-rlNOCO
H
-2 d
CM                iH        CM rH r-l rH CO
bi be bi. b/, -*- bi ii, bi bi: bi bi br. bi bi
3  3  3  33 333333333
CMCMiH         rHiHCMCMCM         i—i iH rH
ri hV*^ 4^4J4ij^4-=4J        .434343
H-rojojcucvoa.oi'aja.aj
< "1 (B cc x I- x x k _ a; 'X M
cr © cm =-i ir. i- -j-- ~ © i-h cm i-coo
O CT  ^1   ^   —.  .Q  Id lO  un rH © rH ©
r,,"9
CMCM               CM CM CM CM CO CO                      CO
COCO        rH CO rH rH rH rH CM CM CO CO
>*> >> bi bi ^^ ^^j >> bi bi bij^
"33^^"33S33r3!=^=:3
J$}Z' b'r; It. '"■ bi bt bi bi bi X '>•
33P3-;33333r:jr-;=s         ;
c:
bb^^-i^^-ITn^^^^    ■
-shs<<l-:<<<I<'<^b^
„?c"§
v
HH   O
..                ,,                         j
© c: © ©           i-h a
©
tH £•- rH HH                   CO CM        HH CN
HH
11(2 0(0                   © ©        OS HH
O
eg a
CM rH rH                   CO tH        -H
CM
Q
+d cc
rSrl
fi_«
:      '   %^%% .     %%  |h|
.              43             ;
&
'                         <5<! < CC                   -<i<        1/2!/}
■                      QQ
COOOICX^-                   ©OS        <C OS
IO
S'S
a*
fi   =3
NN                                CO iH
-~--^y be bi)             ,&£»      bi bo
3  3  ~  ■=              33       P 2
i                     bi                 ;
s
i-s-s <-<             <-si-s      <<
:             %            :
OC          0
v                ,                          .       .         ,
f si
. eo
j^
CO H
^J  qj
D
bb
3
<
s~-
cc'g
3*
.
fi a
D
s
i-S                                                                          ...
OC          v
JC3
W                            hh ijq                          . a*
MHON
'HH   ©
Q    P,
r-i                             . CO IQ iC- CO CM
HH HH
H                       io ©                     • r- ic io o co
t* ©
OJ C
CO                                        rH                              'MHHCO
ri
te.cd  •
fi-g
July
Aug.
Aug".
Aug.
Sept
Sept
Aug.
.Sept-
:            "tia          :
a. a.
mm
co                       thhh                     .mtOHt-
HH iO
T3
CM                                                                          ■ CM CM CM CO
Q rt
>.                    bi bi                  ■ jfe >» E?,E? &J
3               p p             :3,333 ^
bi bi
:           S3         :
s
l-S                                      <■*$                                   'l-3H-i-Sl-S<H
<-«-
EC              CD
.  ., j
^^^ ,
ir? s 3
rH !0
CS
^ S o
iH CO
HH
H ga
HH
CM
OJ   C
■i
Qrrl
bi bi
:               p fl             :
:              <^             :
ft
CQ
i—  H
t~
TJ
<M CM
(M
Oi   0)
"rt ^
j>i >i
fil
P
u
)w
OJ
■   ■                    rt                         •
cs                :
(S                                                                               ^5
1                to                  ;
:            "S          «
jzj                        u
Sc               ^
'■                       ^                        S
»         is       °
t-"                                   'E
q3
•1                   g               Sc
?                      -O                        3
rid
c3
p
*c             1            *|
5                  -                c
3                       P                       bu
J
illooet
kes, Bi
es, Por
0
o
CD
si on
■puzz
Brid
ver .
bove
-3            3         -a
m
I       I     I
O                         —!                     b-
27 miles above
ear Hope, Ya
main river
ytton and LilL
ada Creek, ma
itt River, 5 mi
ii Harris
n and Li
nd Ande
in River
Total..
etwee:
arriso
ston a
hilcot:
co                      S
hH   05
-H
'A                W
cc   O 9 Geo. 5     Migration of Cockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 89
The data here presented are quite too fragmentary to afford a basis for more than the most
tentative conclusions ;  but the following points are suggested:—
(1.) The fish which go farthest up the main river before turning into the tributary in which
they are to spawn run earlier in the season.
(2.) The main bulk of the fish which pass up the main river past Hope are to be found in
Puget Sound at the height of the season, the latter part of July and early in August.
(3.) The fish entering the lower tributaries, Pitt River and the Harrison Lake system, come
largely from those fish constituting the last half of the run.
In the event that it were deemed desirable to stop commercial fishing for part of the season,
it would seem that the first part should be selected, as the indications are that there is a larger
proportion of the up-river fish in the first half of the run, and these are the fish which have
suffered more severely as a result of the disaster of 1913.
SUMMARY.
(1.) The experiment of tagging adult sockeye salmon in Puget Sound was initiated in an
effort to determine the routes and rates of migration of Fraser River sockeye in passing through
the waters yvhere commercial fishing is permitted.
(2.) During July and August, 1918, numbered silver or aluminium buttons were attached
to 4,494 adult sockeyes. Of these, 1,199 were later recovered and data as to time and.places of
capture secured.
(3.) The route most commonly followed passes from the Strait of Juan de Fuca across
Washington Sound to the Salmon Banks and Whidbey Island, then through Rosario Strait and
the southern part of the Strait of Georgia, past Point Roberts to the mouths of the Fraser River.
(4.) The rate of migration as determined by the data for American waters is approximately
ten miles per day.
(5.) The migration is more rapid during the last half than during the first half of the
season. X 90
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON, 1918.
Compiled from Data furnished the Department ry the B.C, Salmon Canners' Association.
Fraser River District—
B.C. Packers' Association	
J. H. Todd & Sons	
J. H. Todd & Sons (Esquimalt)	
Glen Rose Canning Co., Ltd	
Great West Packing Co., Ltd	
M. DesBrisay & Co	
Gosse-Millerd Packing Co., Ltd	
Defiance Packing Co., Ltd	
C.L. Packing Co., Ltd	
St. Mungo Canning Co., Ltd	
Eagle Harbour Packing Co., Ltd  ..
Liverpool Canning Co., Ltd	
Canadian Fishing Co., Ltd	
Totals	
Skeena River District—
B.C. Packers' Association	
Anglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd	
J. H. Todd & Sons	
Kildala Packing Co., Ltd	
B.C. Canning Co., Ltd	
Skeena River Cora. Co., Ltd	
Cassiar Packing Co., Ltd.	
Wallace Fisheries, Ltd	
Gosse-Millerd Packing Co., Ltd. —
Canadian Fish & Cold Stor. Co., Ltd
Port Edward Fisheries, Ltd	
Totals	
Rivers Inlet District—
B.C. Packers' Association	
Anglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd	
J. H. Todd & Sons	
B.C. Canning Co., Ltd	
Kildala Packing Co., Ltd	
Wallace Fisheries, Ltd	
Provincial Canning Co., Ltd	
McTavish Fisheries, Ltd	
Totals	
Nass River District—
B.C. Packers' Association	
Anglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd	
Kiiicolith Fisheries, Ltd	
M. DesBrisay & Co	
Western Salmon Packers, Ltd	
Portland Fisheries, Ltd	
Totals	
Vancouver Island District—
Anglo B.C. Packing Co	
J. H. Todd &Sons	
Wallace Fisheries, Ltd	
Quathiaski Canning Co., Ltd.......
Western Packers, Ltd	
C. L. Packing Co., Ltd X
Preston Packing Co., Ltd	
Clayquot Sound Canning Co., Ltd..
Nanaimo Canning & Packing, Ltd..
Redonda Canning & Cold Storage Co,
Gulf Islands Fishing & Can. Co., Ltd.
Sidney Canning Co., Ltd	
Lumrai Bay Packing Co., Ltd	
Nootka Packing Co., Ltd	
Defiance Packing Co., Ltd	
Puntledge Canning Co., Ltd	
Totals	
Outlying Districts—
B.C. Packers' Association	
Gosse-Millerd Packing Co., Ltd	
Kildala Packing Co., Ltd	
Wallace Fisheries, Ltd	
Draney Fisheries, Ltd	
Kimsquit Fisheries, Ltd  	
Western Packers, Ltd	
Maritime Fisheries, Ltd	
Tallheo Fisheries, Ltd	
Western Salmon Packers, Ltd	
Lockport Canning Co	
Totals	
Grand totals	
Sockeyes.
Red
Springs.
White
Springs.
Chums.
Pinks.
Cohoes.
Blue backs
and
Steelheads
(IRAND
Totals
(Cases).
8,462
4,472
11,471
10,696
779
14,177
599
50,656
611
615
884
2,605
33
3,816
416
8,980
2,848
2,848
883
267
862
2,079
3,586
416
7,677
792
667
998
1,995
461
4,717
677
10,307
874
727
1,646
819
4
1,329
5,399
1,500
1,162
2,978
7,238
154
2,839
36
15,907
294
5,154
429
18,355
2,241
1,625
28,098
918
291
1,447
5,455
19
29
9,068
1,034
494
1,188
5,857
5,142
909
13,715
212
379
428
3,735
2,836
1,211
1,760
10,551
725
342
1,476
10,866
185
932
8
14,534
544
19,697
622
15,192
1,046
16,515
11,676
1S,3S8
708
31,111
24,853
2,916
86,215
40,111
4,395
208,851
24,526
3,050
2,743
34,907
12,113
1,709
■ 81,964
19,917
2,262
1,173
2,469
26,181
4,258
667
56,927
8,016
3,838
456
487
12,861
9,319
34,977
9,438
746
330
118
13,355
631
358
24,976
12,257
957
124
194
9,070
2,139
362
25,103
5,729
826
426
679
11,543
1,475
367
21,045
10,118
695
314
124
8,256
799
347
20,653
14,384
1,402
419
15,506
2,377
526
34,614
7,823
995
152
552
10,640
1,879
366
22,407
6,944
897
115
2,810
8,730
1,513
6
21,015
4,170
345
16,013
367
822
11,978
10,678
2,256
38,759
4,671
286
4,994
30,535
123,322
14,626 '
6,828
22,573
161,727
374,216
152
990
10,771
31,577
5.282
121
23
2,018
56
7,500
4,939
144
3,962
2,688'
11,733
7,295
235
48
2,332
21
9,931
5,951
131
40
1,345
3,492
2,919
13,878
6,153
93
39
4,181
2,129
833
13,428
3,800
18
27
3,906
210
7,961
5,355
53,401
4,776
13l
957
894
34
19
932
676
392
7,147
452
6,729
29,542
12,074
103,155
659
3,503
3,454
2,039
15,717
7,208
511
549
11,262
18,569
2,580
425
41,104
4,427
634
563
11,354
6,014
4,718
405
28,115
2,608
191
8,071
15,888
6,048
13
32,819
2,142
97
49
2,315
8,366
1,278
70
14,317
655
5
2,332
3,863
40,368
6,915
398
1,305
11,836
21,816
1,820
59,206
17,061
143,908
285
375
12,164
10,479
4,813
28,116
4,300
1,016
348
302
5,546
11,512
1,258
6,758
373
21,904
2,049
8,433
40,775
606
215
310
5,038
18,055
3.806
28,030
179
481
9,103
3,375
23
13,161
13,719
2,430
258
231
16,638
1,285
570
1,694
10,856
2,117
16,522
2,607
1,465
41
1,425
368
6,906
39
30
25,303
657
838
122
26,989
189
337
9,877
2,001
1,126
13,530
121
90
46
8,719
724
2,073
1,489
13,262
1,174
1,394
671
13,147
320
5,769
22,475
13
1,326
290
81,890
59
1,224
84,802
8,399
805
20,206
24,753
2,796
32,206
24,753
6,243
17,084
25,460
2,171
4,864
2,642
10,598
540
11,138
251,266
57,035
40,732
4,215
389,815
7,601
35,100
17,793
98
82,489
780
25
24,485
9,090
3,167
4
37,551
5,501
166
77
2,326
10.071
1,816
357
20,313
8,613
343
1,511
43,812
463
51,742
6,424
19
10
13,708
23,930
8.373
71
52,635
4,204
68
18
2,271
12,872
1,637
368
21,438
7,907
96
2,690
10,503
2,304
23,508
2,508
182
9,024
31,033
368
78 .
43,193
1,467
186
73
2,107
13,762
6,871
31
23,497
11,732
3,174
540
15,446
13,000
8,500
21,500
51,980
276,459
6,581
3,002
90,464
201,847
42,331
1,007
396,212
65,535
41,819
497,615
527,745
191,068
15,916
1,616,157 9 Cxeo. 5
Statement showing Salmon-pack op the Province.
X 91
rr
I—I
O
Ph
02
fi
rr
<
m
H
O
i—i
rr
EH
m
PQ
rr>
r-i   H
o
|2S
W1
W CO
H   rH
°o
<tj o
pm2
o
3;
w
H
Ci
o
W
OQ
CQ
H
<
EH
CO
oi t-
x o
r— co
O Cl
O IO
io x i~~   o   co
l-H   -t-   I-O        CO        CO
co -hh io    m   i>
-* co eo
NO©
m oi cn
CC —i ->] — ■ 7 1 -?.
*OatHO
N-OHNhO
CC ~ I O MO*
■*qi- cn i-ii>
OTNcDt-'d'or
ci co co r- -* o
l- iQ Cl Cl I-- Cl
■00 00 GO Ol IC r-H
CD CC- ci O CO TO
CI-hknnh
t- W3        <M l> ©
:c ~ ~- cc ci -n
co r r ci i- ■—.
i-H cn co cc cj m
0»01CK-H<H
CC Cl ~ -H © rH CO
r-H CM CO Ol CO iO
CO CO O *# O O Ol
TH I— CO CO- -* CO Cl
rH IO "* Cl CC CO rH
■^H h- CO CO CN m i—I
CO ffi H N ■* OJ iO
1-H rH Ol Ol "* 00 Ol
f- (N CO O 00 rH IO
Cl Ol IO i—I 00 r-H Ol
CO rH 00 CM CO i-H CO
;«#
m
tr   an  r/j
J1 fcC be -
rM.5 = p^ o-s
02 00 GO O Ph Q CO
co oo   io   oo
00 H.      HI
01 o ■ o    CD
t- 00 CO t-
rH Ol CM -HH
1— iO iO CM
TfT-* N N
X CO Cl Cl
CO r-i Ol OO
oo" CO* ©
00 CN CO r-<
CO CM ■*
■** tH O
CO CO TcH
a?eo uc'
CO CM O CO CO
CO -HI t~ iO l™
O Ol        Cl CO
X CO "HH x IO
Cl CO O X CO
-# X IO lO X
CC O Ol i-h X
tO -cf iM Ol 1-
HNCOOM
1 -
lO
rH
H'
Oco
CC CC .Ol X O X
CO I-- CO I- Cl Cl
ill NI- iOhN
CC CC r-H Cl Cl cc
Cl CC C"l 7 i — -t
(M C: n O t N
65,760
16,285
21,516
148,319
38,456
1,883
292,219
123,322
22,931
22,573
161,727
38,759
4,994
CD
O
■*
CO
£' bC (3   r,
o ^ -r c -C cd
o p-rC.S o -1-3
CO
'    !
IS
-# Cl iO Ol O
I>
X rH
CO
rH
rH
OC4J>r*lQ
IO CN X CO i-H
CO O CO Ol t-h
co"i-h>o"cm"i>
>o r- i-h io *#
Cl rH O CO CN
I-H X I-H O rH
r-i" CD' CO Of
rH Ol Ol CN -*
COOlHiN
-^^-t~ iO o
C0~rH"cD"ai"tN
;?ci
rtf.g
^Scd
-3 5 o
".3 O
So
co rr
rH rr
Oo'rT
rf
■X     •
X Ol Sf
. CO     .
O Cl i-H IO iO O
r^ CO I.C 01 CO -rH
X Cl CO X CJ rH
t* Cl Cl J>- CN
Ol iO CC CO ■*
WNrH-mcn
I> CO m CO 00
co co ■* r- cO
O Oi cn ■* ■*
cd'co"co"cn""(m"
>* i-H t- Ol CM
NulCOCQl'-
iO H O O H
CC'co'cMO'co"
Ol rH CO Ol iH CO
MNOMHH
Cl" co" i-T ■* "O
CO HCQH
31,411
3,845
11,200
69,693
19,139
1,498
CD
00
CD
CO
22,188
4,496
24,938
44,568
22,180
1,125
m
cc
rjl
cc"
CO C- X CD r
HU5SOC-
X i-H CO CN C
in a>
dagra X 92
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1919
Ol Ol rM CO CO
CO © X lO CO
co »o co i-h r-
SO tH © XO CM
tH CM © CO "O
i-H CO -N © I~
■ COCC
c
SO
CO CM     ■ © i—l     -
Cl
CO          .       r-f     .
IO
tH CO     • CO CM     -
©
lO
rH rH     -tHCS     •
UO
CD
Ol I--     • © Tf< CN
CM
Oi
-*           . CM CM
Ol
n,
©
X
o
Ol
o
Os
CO
l>             CN rH     .
s
X   ©   rH CO   Tt*        ■
CO H K CO ■*
CM
CM
tKOONCMCO     ■
t- CM CO CM ©     .
© © X © CO     •
""
i-H r-H t~- Cl CM     •
-
CO
©
CO Tfl X © ■* I>
Ol
Ol
1-H i-H
1>
Cl
CO
X
© IO Tf X CO ©
*-,
Oi
-*
o
S
H
Ti
H
&M.
•o  cu
ga-c.£o3
a
a.
Ur>
<-
Ui
f CO X co <o I>
fi" ©" io" ucTio" Ol
1 SO © © t~ CM
o Ol © o
CM © Ol O
r-H © CO ©
CO Ol CM IO
O © Cl X
Cl X CM ©
© O X Tf
X CM I-~ CO
Ti"di0OiO
© IO tK CN
i-h iO © CO
rH CM O X
CO" Cl" TjT r-T
© io © CO
lOt-OOD
0.1X50
■*HC ©_
cn'oTio"©
rH © I— tH
i-h CM
©   ©   Tfl   O
© CO rH Cl
Tf- r~ o ©
035
398
720
Tf
IO
©
o
CN
r~ im os cs
Tf Ol Ol CO
CM CM rH
CO
CM
©
-f C   CD  -t
Tf rH CO X
CO   Tf   ©   CO
HTflr-HO
© IO © ©
CO CM i-h
© iO CO t>
© iO CD CO
Clt- ©  Tf<
Tf CO o Cl
CO CM i-h
O © CD tH
Cl N ■* O
CO CM i-H rH
■x ~ ci io co r»
CO r- O © Cl ©
i-C Cl CO ^ N IO
cm" cm" io" ci" io" th"
C-   ©   ©   rH   CM   ©
Th Ol        rH CO CM
i—I © IO- X icC cc
IO rH IO O i— ©
X Ol rH © X I-
C Tt .;,- ^^-i
rH I"- © Tf X ©■
Ol CO rH rH CO Tfl
S3C'S§I
I CM X
x as
© Tfl X rH
TH Tf CO rn
rH Ol © rH
Ol t- X CM
NNOCO
WONH
jrf
I   *
t- O © ©
X X X i-H
-H IO  -f
© X X CO
TfTio'rH t-*
Mm      oi
X ©  Tf<  IO
cor- X X
iO Ol X CM
CO O IO X
CM © O CO
I— X © o
go
CD
>. cn — no
S o a- s
O   -i  H -C
coOPMO

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0059765/manifest

Comment

Related Items