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 1921

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0226028.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0226028.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0226028-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0226028-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0226028-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0226028-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0226028-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0226028-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0226028-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0226028.ris

Full Text

 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
KEPORT
OF   THE
COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1921
/
WITH APPENDICES
PRINTED   BY
AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
VICTORIA,  B.C.:
Printed by Williaji H. Cullin, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.  To His Honour Walter Cameron Nichol,
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia,
May it please Your Honour :
I beg to submit herewith the Report of the Provincial Fisheries Department
for the year ending December 31st, 1921, with Appendices.
WILLIAM SLOAN,
Commissioner of Fisheries.
Provincial Fisheries Department,
Commissioner of FisJwries'.Office,
Victoria, British Columbia, January, 1922.
w 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1921.
Page.
Standing with other Provinces   5
Species and Value of Fish marketed  5
The Salmon-pack of 1921   6
The Salmon-pack of the Fraser River  6
The Salmon-pack of Northern and Vancouver Islands Districts  0
Salmon Conditions in Northern Waters   6
Dr. C. H. Gilbert's Salmon Investigation of 1920 and 1921   8
The Alaska Fur-seal Herd and the Sockeye of the Fraser River System  12
Reports from Spawning-beds of Province in 1921   13
APPENDICES. '
Contribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.    (Paper No. 7.)    By Dr. C. H.
Gilbert  15
The Spawning-beds of the Feaseb River  65
The Spawning-beds of the Skeena River   68
The Spawning-beds of the Nass River   71
The Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet  73
The Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet  74
The Salmon-pack of 1921 in detail   77
The Salmon-pack of the Province, 1900 to 1921, inclusive   7S
W 4 FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1921.
Value of Canadian Fisheries and the Standing of Provinces.
The value of the fishery products for Canada for the year 1920 totalled $49,241,339, compared
with $56,508,479 in 1919 and $60,250,544 in 1918.
During the year 1920 British Columbia produced fishery products of a total value of
$22,329,161, or 39.4 per cent, of the total fishery products for the Dominion.
British Columbia again led all the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada in the value of
her fishery products. Her output for 1920 exceeded that of Nova Scotia by $9,586,502, and it
exceeded that of all the other Provinces combined by $8,160,742.
The following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of the fishery products
of the Provinces of the Dominion for the years 1918, 1919, and 1920:—
Value of Fisheries by Provinces, 1818, 1919, and 1920.
Province.
1918.
1919.
1920.
British   Columbia   	
Nova  'Scotia   	
New  Brunswick   	
Quebec   	
Ontario  	
Prince Edward  Island
Manitoba   	
Saskatchewan   	
Alberta   	
Yukon   	
$27,282,223 OO
15,1.43,066 00
6,298,990 00
4,508,T73 00
3,1'7S,111 00
1,148,201 OO
1,830,4S,5 00
447,012 00
318,913 00
37,820 00
$25,901
15.,171:
4,07.9,
4,258.
3,410
1,536.
1,008
475
333
8
607 00
929 00
074 OO
731 00
,750 00
844 00
,717 00
,797 00
330' 00
800 00
$22,329,161 00
1.2,742,659 OO
4,423,745 00
2,59i2,3S'2. OO
3,306,412 00
2,108,257 00
The Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia.
The total value of each species of fish taken in British Columbia for the year  ending
December 31st, 1920, is given in the following statement:—
Salmon     $15,129,34S
Halibut   •  4,104,869
Herring   ■  1,228,131
Whales     435,746
Pilchards    •  540,265
Cod     322,737
Black cod •  1S1.202
Flounders, brill, etc  55,348
Soles     20,012
Crabs     57,963
Clams and quahaugs    33,363
Red cod   20,016
Oysters    36.S34
Perch  •  16,437
Grayfish    4,550
Shrimps     13,536
Smelts  15,936
Octopus   4,082
Sturgeon   3,775
Skate  2,097
Oolachans  9,096
Fur-seals     24,712
Shad     205
Tomcod   •  60
Hake and cusk  1,255
Bass   798
Whiting     274
Eels    162
Fish-oil   31,155
Fish-offal   •  1,462
Fish-fertilizer    37,6S5
Total    $22,329,161
W 5 The catch of salmon in 1920 was valued at $2,407,S18 less than in 1919 and $2,077,897 less
than in 1918. The price received for the pack of 1920 was relatively considerably higher than
in 1918 and 1919, but the pack was much less than that made in those years.
The Salmon-pack of 1921.
The salmon pack in the Province in the year 1921 totalled 603,548 cases, compared with
1,187,616 cases in 1920, 1,393,156 cases in 1919, and 1,626,738 cases in 1917. The total pack for
1921 was less than 50 per cent, of the average pack of the Province for the preceding ten years.
There was a marked decline in the catch of all species. The catch of sockeye, spring, and cohoe
was due to a poor run to all waters. The pack of pinks and chums was small owing to the lack
of demand for those grades.   Very few canners packed any chums.
The total pack of sockeye for the year was 163,914 cases, as against 136,661 cases in 1920,
167,944 in 1919, 210,851 in 1918, and 402,538 cases in 1917. The catch in every district shows
a_ decline.
The 1921 Salmon-pack by Districts.
The Fraser River.—The total pack of all species of salmon in the Fraser River District in
the Province in 1921 totalled 107,650 cases, as against 136,661 in 1920, 163,123 cases in 1919,
276,459 cases in 1918, and 330,209 cases in 1917.
The catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system produced a pack
of 39,631 cases, as against the preceding fourth year of 14S,164 cases, and compared with the
pack of eight years ago of 719,796 cases.
The 1921 pack of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system
in 1921 totalled 102,967 cases, as against 411,538 cases in 1917 and 1,665,728 cases in 1913.
The total pack of sockeye in the entire Fraser River system in 1921 was 142,598 cases,
compared to 559,702 cases in the preceding fourth year and to 2,385,524 cases in the preceding
eighth year. The pack of sockeye iii the system in 1921 was less than 6 per cent, of that of
the big year 1913. The full effect of the blockade in the Fraser River Canyon at Hell's Gate
in 1913 and the heavy drain made on the remnant of that run in 1917 is now fully manifest.
The run of former big years has dwindled to less than the average of recent lean years. The
Fraser is fished out of sockeye.    The big run has been destroyed.
The Salmon-catch of Northern Waters.
The Skeena River.—The salmon-catch in the Skeena River in 1921 totalled 234,765 eases,
as against 332,887 cases in 1920, 398,877 cases in 1919, and 374,306 cases in 1918. There was a
marked decline in the catch of all species of salmon. The catch of sockeye was the smallest
ever made on the Skeena and totalled but 41,118 cases. The catch of spring produced a pack of
21,765 cases;   cohoes, 45,033;   pinks, 124,457;   and chums, 1,993 cases.
Rivers Inlet.—The salmon-pack of Rivers Inlet was again very disappointing. It totalled
for all grades but 59,272 cases. The sockeye-catch was also the smallest ever made at Rivers
Inlet and produced a pack of but 43,300 cases;  cohoes, 4,718;   and pinks, 5,305 cases.
The Nass River.—The salmon-pack of the Nass River totalled but 51,765 cases, consisting of
9,364 cases of sockeye, 8,236 cases of cohoes, 29,4SS Cases of pinks, and 2,176 cases of chums.
Salmon Conditions in Northern Waters.
It becomes more and more apparent, from a study of the records of the catch of sockeye
and the reports from the spawning areas, that the runs of salmon to our northern waters are
being rapidly depleted, and that unless greater protection is given them than has been afforded
in the last few years they will go the way of the runs to the Fraser. They cannot stand the
drain that has been and is now being made upon them. When it is shown that in District No. 2,
our northern waters, (1) there has been since 1912 a material decrease in the catch, notwithstanding there has been an increase in the amount of gear used; (2) a great increase in the
area of waters where fishing is conducted; and (3) a very great increase in the price paid for
fish, it is evident that less fish are seeking entrance to the spawning area and that the escapement
is less.
It has been previously pointed out that by resorting to averages of the pack which cover
periods of years, the supply, with a considerable degree of certainty, can be determined. The
following statements should be of value in this connection:— 12 Geo. 5
British Columbia.
W 7
Statement showing Average Sockeye-pack, Number Of Boats licensed, and Prices paid
for Sockeye on Skeena, 1903 to 1918, inclusive.
Period.
Average
Sockeye-pack.
Average
Number of
Boats licensed.
Average Price
paid Fishermen
for Sockeye.
1903-06    	
78,868
130,851
103,164
01,427
600
800
908
876*
Cents.
10'
1907-10    	
10
1911-14    	
12%
1915-18    	
2*f
* In 1910, 1,150 boats were fished, and in 1920', 1,109.
t In 1920 and 1921 fishermen were paid 30 cents each for sockeye.
Statement showing Average Sockeye-pack, Number of Boats licensed, and Price paid
Fishermen for Sockeye on Rivers Inlet, 1903 to 1918, inclusive.
Period.
Average
Sockeye-pack.
Average
Number of
Boats licensed.
Average Price
paid Fishermen
for Sockeye.
1003-06    	
91,846
92,118
88,320
65,720
550
700
750
815*
Cents.
10
1907-10    	
10
1911-14    	
12 y3
1915-18    	
24 f
* In 1920, 871 boats were fished, and in 1821, 1,000.
t In 1920 fishermen w7ere paid 30 cents for sockeye and 55' cents for all over 600.
were paid 30 cents for sockeye.
In 1921 fishermen
The record of the sockeye-pack on the Skeena for the ten years 1902 to 1911 shows that it
was 24 per cent, greater than it was in the following ten years, notwithstanding that in the latter
period the amount of gear and the price paid for the fish and the area of the waters in which
fishing was conducted were all far greater than in the first period. The average pack from
1902 to 1911, inclusive, was 10S,762 cases, as against 95,682 cases from 1912 to 1920, inclusive,
or 13% per cent, greater. Up to 1912 the number of boats and nets engaged in the Skeena fishing
did not average over 700 per year, as against an average of 900 from 1912 to 1920, an increase
of over 28 per cent. In 1920 and 1921 there was an average of 1,129 boats and nets fished, an
increase over the period of 1902 to 1911 of CO per cent.
Up to and including 190S no fish were taken in the Skeena District outside of Kennedy Island,
at its mouth. In recent years the waters from 15 to 20 miles outside that island have been
successfully fished by many boats.
The sockeye-catch at Rivers Inlet for the ten years 1902 to 1911 produced a 26-par-cent.
greater pack than was made in the following ten years, notwithstanding that in the later period
there was in increase of 27 per cent, in the number of nets employed. Up to 1912 the price
paid for sockeye did not exceed 10 cents. From 1912 to 1915 the price was increased to
12% cents, for 1916 to 1919 it was increased to an average of 24 cents, and in 1920 the fishermen
were paid 30 cents each for all the sockeye caught up to 600 and 50 cents for all over that number.
In considering these statements it should not be overlooked that during the war period 1915-1S
every effort was made to increase food production. Had the numbers of sockeye in the waters
leading to the spawning area of District No. 2 during the war period, or since, been as numerous
as they were in earlier years, the catch would most certainly have been increased and not
diminished. It should be noted that in consequence of the increased price paid for sockeye the
Indians engaged in fishing in recent years have been far more industrious than in the years
when but 10 and 12 cents was paid them for fish, and that in consequence their average annual
catch has compared much more favourably with that made by the whites and Japanese fishermen. W 8
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
No other conclusion can be drawn from a study of the records in our northern waters than
that there has been a serious reduction in the number of fish that now seek the spawning area,
and that unless the fish are given much greater protection than is now afforded them by the
fishery regulations the run will be destroyed.
In considering conditions at Rivers Inlet and on the Skeena, it is to be noted that no
inspection was made by this Department of conditions on the spawning-bed of the Skeena In
1916, 1917, and 191S. The investigations of the spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet in 1916 and 1917
disclosed unsatisfactory conditions. Fishery Overseer A. W. Stone, who has made an annual
inspection of that section since 1912, in his report for 1916, wrote: " I am of the opinion, after
closely investigating conditions on the spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet, that the number of sockeye
that reached the beds this year falls below that of the seasons of 1913, 1914, and 1915 by close
to 75 per cent., and is due to a poor run to the inlet this year." Of conditions in 1917 he wrote:
" I am of the opinion that there was a general falling-off in the number of sockeye that reached
the beds this year; although better than last year, the run in no way approaches the vast
numbers seen on the beds in 1914 and 1915."
The seriousness of the situation in our northern waters is further made manifest by the
evidence submitted in Dr. Gilbert's analysis of the sockeye runs to Rivers Inlet, the Skeena and
Nass Rivers in 1920 and 1921, which will be found in the Appendix of this report and which is
reviewed in the following pages.
Contributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.
Dr. C. H. Gilbert's seventh contribution to the reports of the Department on the life-history
of the sockeye salmon, which is issued herewith, contains an analysis of the sockeye runs to the
principal waters of the Province for the years 1920 and 1921.
It will be recalled that for physical reasons Dr. Gilbert was unable to furnish a report of
the 1920 run in time to include it in the Department's report for that year.
With the present paper we now7 have a complete analysis of the runs of sockeye to all our
principal rivers for the past nine years. They are of great economic and scientific value, as
they disclose the facts in the life-history of the sockeye that are essential to an intelligent
conduct of our most valuable fishery. The facts submitted demonstrated beyond all question
that the runs of sockeye to all our waters have been seriously depleted, and that they will be
destroyed unless they are given far greater protection than has heretofore been afforded.
The following is a brief summary of Dr. Gilbert's present contribution:—
Rivers Inlet Sockeye Runs of 1920 and 1921.
In his previous report—1919—Dr. Gilbert commented on the prospects for 1920, calling
attention to the fact that the brood-years which would be responsible for the run of 1920
exhibited a wide disparity. The five-year fish in 1920 would be derived from eggs laid down in
1915, when the pack of Rivers Inlet sockeye exceeded 130,000 cases and was the largest ever
put up in this district. The four-year fish, on the contrary, would be descendants of 1916, with
a pack of less than 45,000 cases, the smallest of any recent year. He then wrote: "The results
during 1920 will possess more than usual interest, for in the two brood-years of that season w7e
find contrasted, as above indicated, the poorest and the very richest years of which we have a
record. It will be most interesting to observe whether the five-year age-groups will appear in
1920 in overwhelming proportions." His study of the 1920 run disclosed such to be the case.
The run was gratifying!}7 large after a series of four very poor years. It was practically all
derived from 1915; the proportion of four-year fish was but 5 per cent, .of the total run. Some
115,000 of the 121,000 cases of the 1920 run were the results of the 1915 brood, and approximately
26,000 cases of the 1919 pack were from the same brood. " If we assume," he states, " that the
packs of these two years give reliable indications of the size of the runs, then the four-year fish
that developed from the 1915 brood represented 18 per cent, and the five-year fish 82 per cent,
of the total progeny of that brood. It is facts of this nature that lead us to call the Rivers Inlet
cycle predominantly one of five years, in contrast to the Fraser River cycle, well- known to be
one of four years."
The five-year males of the 1920 Rivers Inlet run averaged 26 inches and the females 25 inches
in length, and were practically identical in size with the same year-groups in 1915 (26 and 25.1
inches), which was the brood-year for these fish. 12 Geo. 5 - British Columbia. W 9
Dr. Gilbert has previously called attention to the fact that with diminishing runs in Rivers
Inlet the size of the fish was also decreasing; no cause, he states, is known for such a coincidence,
but it is interesting to observe that the size of the individuals promptly recovered in a good-year
run.
Rivers Inlet Sockeye Run for 1921.
After presenting nearly a maximum pack in 1920 (124,254 cases), the Rivers Inlet sockeye
run declined in 1921 to the lowest level, with one exception, since the industry has been well
established. The exception occurred in 1916, and it is worthy of consideration that a five-year
period is thus seen to have intervened between the two lowest packs the river has produced, and,
as has been stated, a five-year period also separates the generous run of 1920 from the record pack
of the river which occurred in 1915, and was in excess of the 130,000 cases, and another period
of five years between 1915 and 1910 with its 126,000 cases. The three largest packs at Rivers
Inlet are thus shown to he separated by five-year intervals, as though one were the direct
descendant of the other.
The Rivers Inlet sockeye run in 1921, as in previous years, consisted of two age-groups, those
that matured in their fourth year and those that matured in their fifth year. In both of these
groups the early history is the same. They spent the first year in fresh water and descended
to the sea early in their second spring. In upwards of 1,000 individuals examined by Dr. Gilbert
only one was found which had spent two growing seasons in the lake, and it matured in its fifth
year. Though this type is abundant in many river-basins, its almost total absence in the
Owikeno basin may conceivably be due to the same adverse feeding conditions which apparently-
dwarf the flngerling migrants during their first year.
As has been noted in previous reports, the most prosperous seasons at Rivers Inlet are
distinguished by large percentages of the five-year group, and this was the case in 1921. Fifty-
one per cent, of the run consisted of five-year fish and 49 per cent, of four-year fish, the total
pack being but 46,300 cases; while in 1920, with a pack of 121,254 cases, 95 per cent, were
five-year fish and but 5 per cent, four-year fish. The average lengths and weights of the 1921
run depart but little from the averages of the eight preceding years. The four-year fish were
fully up to the average, but the five-year females were notably lacking in both length and weight,
and the five-year males only less so.
The Sockeye Run to the Skeena in 1920 and 1921.
Dr. Gilbert shows that the Skeena River sockeye run of 1920 agreed with that of Rivers
Inlet in being derived in part from a good brood-year and in part from a very poor brood-year.
The five-year fish of 1920 belonged to the brood of 1915, which produced a pack of 116,553 cases;
while the four-year component of the 1920 run was derived from the brood-year of only a
60,923-case run. The result was clearly reflected in the character of the run, which was well
below the average in size, giving a pack of only 80,S69 cases. The run consisted largely of five-
year fish, showing that the run of 1916 contributed very little to its number. Like the Rivers
Inlet and the Nass River colonies of sockeye, the Skeena is dependent more on its five- than
its four-year members, and thus approximates a five-year cycle. The average percentage of the
five-year group in the eight years from 1912 to 1919 is 60 per cent, and the highest attained in
any year was 75 per cent. But in 1920 the five-year group comprised 82 per cent, of the
one-year-in-lake type, and must be attributed to their favourable brood-year, in conjunction wTith
the very favourable brood-year for the four-year fish. As already noted, an entirely similar
condition in Rivers Inlet produced in 1920 a still larger representation of the five-year group,
95 per cent, of the run.
The salient features of the sockeye run in the Skeena in 1921, Dr. Gilbert states, are best
brought out by a comparison with the run of 1920. The latter was produced by the good brood-
year 1915 and the poor one of 1916. The result w7as a run of medium size, over four-fifths of
which were progeny of 1915. The run of 1921 had as antecedent two extremely poor brood-years,
the worst, with a single exception, that has hitherto occurred on the Skeena. The result of this
portentous combination was, in 1921, a still lower level of production than the Skeena has
previously attained. The pack of only 41,000 in 1921 registered a further decline of 35 per cent.,
compared with the extremely meagre yields of the two brood-years that produced it.
Discussing this feature, Dr. Gilbert states: " If the salmon runs were enemy forces that
we were desirous of annihilating, no more certain method could be devised than destroying them W 10
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
thus in detail. The detachments appearing each year operate wholly independently of those tbat
immediately precede and follow. If we succeed in destroying only one or two annual detachments in a five-year cycle, the results become cumulative and the eventual destruction of the
run is assured.
" It cannot too often be urged that a rational policy of conservation must prescribe a large
annual safety factor. We must continue each year to provide for the escape of larger numbers
of spawning fish than are necessary to ensure adequate production during seasons in which
conditions are favourable. A rationally controlled stream will show its spawming-grounds each
year seemingly overpopulated. This is nature's method of preventing serious depletion during
the not infrequent years when conditions are unfavourable for successful propagation and growth,
and there is no other safe method. Failure to observe this obvious precaution must be held
responsible in no small measure for the certain depletion with which all our salmon-streams are
threatened.
" The appearance of occasional good years in the course of a declining run is customary and
to be expected. They should not serve in any degree to allay our apprehensions. Poor years
also, it is true, have occurred during the most prosperous periods of productivity in our streams.
But in a declining salmon run the poor years become more numerous, they infallibly in the long
run produce their kind, and they fall to lower and lower levels. The average production for a
series of years can always be depended on to tell the tale.
" With these facts in mind, no one can doubt the serious condition we are fast realizing on
the Skeena and, it may be just to remark, on all the great salmon-rivers of the Province.
" The measures adopted in 190S for the preservation of .salmon-fisheries for the Province were
of much promise. By preventing the incursion of new canneries in districts already fully
developed, and by limiting the amount and character of the gear that should be used in each
fishing district, a measure of control was assumed which would, if adequately administered,
ensure the preservation of the salmon run. This method is incontestable7 the best that has been
devised for the purpose. Opposed to it stands the alternative method of unrestricted competition,
the results of which are now so alarmingly manifest in the waters of Alaska. But restrictions
in numbers of canneries and in amount of fishing-gear obviously will not suffice to protect a
stream unless the restrictions are adequate in amount.
" It is impossible to know in advance the utmost extent of the drafts that can safely be made
on the run of any stream. Cannery restrictions and' adequate boat-rating must always be
considered tentative measures. The situation is one that calls for solicitous inspection and
constant watchfulness. Regulations should be subject to annual revision on the part of responsible officials closely in touch with conditions as they develop."
The Fraser River Sockeye of 1920.
The total pack of the Fraser River sockeye in 1920 amounted to 111,053 cases, and showed
little change from the packs of 1916 (116,7S3) and 1919 (103,200). The season of 1918 (71,572)
still shows the river at its lowest ebb, while 1917 (559,702) exhibited the last remains of the
former big years of the Fraser River cycle. The average pack for the three years 1916, 1919,
and 1920 is 110,345 eases, so the condition of the runs seems neither to have improved nor
deteriorated within that period, unless, perhaps, an improvement is shown in 1920 by the better
conditions on the spawning-grounds shown in the Department's report for that year.
The small number of three-year grilse occurring in the run of 1920, and the bearing of this
fact on the probable size of the run of 1921, has already been discussed by Dr. Gilbert in the
Commissioner's report for 1920. The three-year males, to which the term " grilse " is applied,
always belong to the prevailing Fraser River group, characterized by having spent one whole
year in fresh water before migrating to the sea. The other members of the Fraser group mature
either in their fourth or in their fifth years, the four-year contingent predominating always in
the Fraser basin.
The four-year fish in the 1920 run, Dr. Gilbert shows, consisted of 77 per cent, and the
five-year fish 23 per cent, of the one-year-in-the-lake group. These percentages have remained
practically the same since the Fraser run definitely declined to its present low rate of production,
in 1916. Prior to that date the proportions of four- and five-year sockeye in successive runs
fluctuated widely. To illustrate this, Dr. Gilbert gives a list of all except the big years since
1912, from which it appears that the four-year percentage varied only between 76 to 77 in 1916, 12 Geo. 5 British Columbia. W 11
1918, 1919, and 1920. While these figures represent averages for the entire season, in each year
there was a wide range during the course of the run. In 1920 the four-year fish ranged from
57 per cent, at the beginning of the run to 97 per cent, in the middle of July, and during the
height of the run, the last week in July and the first half of August, the percentage characteristic
of the entire season was attained. Dr. Gilbert states that " these varying percentages are
characteristic of special stream-colonies found in the river during definite portions of the run,
or of groups of colonies that enter the river together."
The relative number of males and females in the different year.-groups is a comparatively
constant feature in each river-basin, but varies appreciatively in different races of sockeye. It
rises to the dignity of a racial character. In the record of the Fraser for a series of years the
males and females of the four-year fish, and also the five-year fish, are approximately equal in
number. This condition contrasts strikingly with that found in Rivers Inlet, where each year
shows that four-year males are much in excess of four-year females, while the five-year females
are more numerous than the five-year males.
The lengths of both four- and five-year fish in the Fraser in 1920 were below the average
for that river-basin. Dr. Gilbert called attention to this same condition in the run of 1919. The
average lengths of four-year males during five years prior to 1919 was 25 inches, and of the four-
year females during the same period 24.1 inches. In 1919 the males averaged 24.1 inches and the
females 22.8 inches; and in 1920, 24.1 and 23.2 inches. In dealing with this feature, Dr. Gilbert
states: " In the recent reduction of the Fraser River sockeye run the smaller sizes characteristic
of one or more tributaries may have suffered less extensively than the larger sizes, which could
not pass through the meshes of the gill-nets. The smaller races may be in larger proportions than
formerly, and thus pull down the average for the run."
Of the two-year-in-the-lake type of the Fraser run, it is shown that evidence accumulates
that the colonies bound for different tributaries enter the Fraser in regular order and on comparatively constant dates. Year by year, relatively to the other colonies, they seem to maintain
their proper place in the procession. In both 1916 and 1920 the two-year-in-the-lake type was
running in moderate fashion during the latter part of June and almost wholly disappeared in
July, to again appear in August.
As throwing additional light on the definite schedule of events which characterizes the
Fraser River run of sockeye, Dr. Gilbert again notes that the run of individuals which have
proceeded to sea shortly after hatching, and as soon as they become free swimming, did not
begin in 1920 until after the middle of July. So close a chronology as July 14th, 15th, 17th, and
19th for the first appearance of the fish of this type in the runs of four different years is striking
evidence of the regularity with which the run is conducted year by year. Individuals of sea-type
and those of the two-year-in-lake type are the only ones that can w7ith certainty be recognized
always in a composite assemblage, such as that which comprises the Fraser River run.
The Fraser River Sockeye Run of 1921.
In analysing the Fraser River sockeye run of 1921, Dr. Gilbert states: " As a lineal
descendant of the series of quadrennial big years of the Fraser, 1921 possesses a special interest.
Some traces of its origin are discernible. In size the run ranks somewhat above the very low
estimate of the present small years, among which we must go back to 1915 to find as large a
pack. It diverges from the recent small years which precede it in the limited number of the
five-year group which were present. It will be recalled that in 1913, before the big years had
suffered any reduction in numbers, it was essentially of four-year fish. Diligent search was
necessary at that time for the detection of any five-year individuals. The run was then derived
from eggs laid down the previous big year, four years before, and contained no contribution
of consequence from any other year. Five-year individuals of course w7ere present in numbers
which would have made them conspicuous in a small year, but they were " concealed by the vast
hordes of four-year-olds, the progeny of the last big run."
" 'This condition characterized all the big years until 1917, when the run was cut to a fourth
or a fifth of its previous dimensions. This reduction has not affected the five-year contingent
of that run, for the five-year fish of 1917 had been spawned in 1912, before the catastrophe
that closed Hell's Gate Canyon to the ascent of the 1913 run. They were present iu their usual
numbers and were associated with so reduced a body of four-year fish that their presence was
easily discovered.   In the earlier and in the latter part of the run, in fact, the five-year fish in W 12
Report op the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
1917 attained considerable proportions in the run; in June 16th, 66 per cent; June 25th. 37
per cent.; June 28th, 20 per cent; and July 4th to 14th, 4 or 5 per cent." It is shown that the
total numbers of four-year fish contained in the twenty-one samplings examined amounted to
94 per cent, and the five-year fish to 6 per cent, of both groups.
With 1917 Dr. Gilbert now compares the run of 1921, which also began the season with a
high percentage of five-year fish, which then decreased rapidly in the early part of July and
increased again toward the last of the run. The total number of individuals examined in both
age-groups was 997, with 84 per cent, four-year fish and 16 per cent, in the five-year class.
It will be recalled that prior to 1921 a series of small years had exhibited a remarkable
uniformity in the relative sizes of the age-groups. In 1916, 1918, 1919, and 1920 the percentage
of four-year fish was either 76 or 77. In 1917, with a recognizable remnant of the big-year series
still persisting, the percentage of four-year fish rose to 94 per cent., in approximation of 1913.
when it was 99 per cent.; and in 1921, when a faint vestige of the big-year cycle still can be
traced, the percentage drops to 84, hut is still well above the small years with which it is
associated.
The length of the four-year fish in the 1921 run exhibits a further decline. The tendency has
been marked since 1919. Dr. Gilbert also states that a similar reduction in size is to be noted
in recent years at Rivers Inlet.   The further history of this tendency will he a matter of interest.
The Nass River Runs in 1920 and 1921.
Dr. Gilbert's digest of the sockeye runs to the Nass in 1920 and 1921 is as thorough and
complete as that of our other salmon-rivers. In 1919 he called attention to certain disquieting
features in the recent history of that river, and stated that extreme interest would attach to
the history of the next few years, because the runs would demonstrate to what extent the Nass
has been depleted. The runs of 1920 and 1921 go a long way to justify the foreboding entertained.
The pack of 1920 was but 16,740 cases, nearly 25 per cent, less than the smallest pack of recent
years. The sockeye-pack of the Nass in 1921 totalled but 9,364 cases, or 6,376 cases less than
that of the preceding year, when the pack was the smallest made on that river.
The Nass has a five-year cycle. The average pack for the last cycle, 1916 to 1920, is 24,083
cases, and for the preceding cycle, 1911 to 3915, is 33,523 cases. Three years of the previous
cycle had each a larger pack than was made in any single year of the last period, and three
years of the last period had each a lower record tban was made in any year during the preceding
five-year cycle. Such evidence conclusively demonstrates that the runs of sockeye to the Nass
have suffered such serious impairment that " all of those interested in the perpetuation of the
industry should co-operate to lessen the intensity of fishing operations in the district before
depletion has become a fact.    The condition has become highly critical."
The above summary of Dr. Gilbert's report for the years 1920 and 1921 inadequately displays
the nature and the value of his work. Those interested will find the complete report attached
hereto.
The Alaska Fur-seal Herd and the Sockeye of the Fraser River System.
In 1911 a convention was signed by Great Britain, the "United States, Japan, and Russia,
prohibiting their people from pelagic killing of fur-seals. Under its terms the United States was
permitted to kill a number of the batchelor males on the Pribyhoff Islands in Alaska and to
pay to each Government a percentage of the sale of the skins taken.
Following the treaty, the United States imposed a closed season on the islands for five years,
during which no seals were killed. It resulted in a satisfactory increase. Since then the killing
of batchelor males only has been resumed under direction of United States officials. The killing
of surplus males is of direct benefit to the herd, as on their reaching maturity the males fight
so fiercely for possession of the rookeries that they kill many of the young pups. The skins of
the males taken on the islands—none are killed in the sea—and sold since 1917 realized over
$7,000,000, of which sum Great Britain has received 15 per cent.
In 1873 the number in the herds of fur-seals on tbe Pribilof Islands was estimated at
2,500,000 individuals. In 1911, when the convention was signed, the herds had been reduced to
125.000. The census recently taken shows that the herd now contains over 500,000 individuals,
and it is confidently expected that under the protection now afforded the herds will attain their
original numbers.   It is estimated by experts that within a few years the skins of 100,000 surplus 12 Geo. 5 British Columbia. W 13
males will be taken annually, and that Great Britain's share, that is paid to Canada, will amount
to $1,000,000 per year. An authority writing on the subject states : " The value of conservation
has never been more swiftly or more decisively illustrated."
A convention by Great Britain and the United States that would afford to the schools of
sockeye salmon that yet remain in the Fraser River system and in the open sea the same measure
of protection now afforded the fur-seal would in twenty or thirty years give a far greater return
than has come or will come from the convention of 1911. The sockeye salmon of the Fraser
River system can and should be handled in the same businesslike manner as Great Britain, the
United States, Japan, and Russia have successfully handled the fur-seal question. It is the only
way in which this vital situation can be handled. It is an international question and it can be
handled only in an international way.
Reports from the Salmon-spawning Areas of the Province in 1921.
Following the practice inaugurated in 1902, the Department conducted investigations of the
spawning areas of the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Smith and Rivers Inlets. The
detailed reports from each section for 1921 will be found in the Appendix of this report.
The Fraser River.—John P. Babcock, Assistant to the Commissioner, again inspected the
spawning area of the Fraser River basin. It was his eighteenth annual inspection. Major J. A.
Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion in tbe Province, accompanied him
over the greater portion of the area, and he is indebted to him and his assistants, and also many
local residents, both white and Indians, scattered over the basin, for information of value as
to conditions.
Mr. Babcock in his report states that sockeye made their appearance at Hell's Gate in the
Fraser Canyon, above Yale, late in July, and were observed there during August and September.
The run was greatest in August. " At no time this year were sockeye observed there in as large
numbers as in 1920." No pink salmon were seen there during the year or in the waters above,
and none have been since the disaster in 1913. On the other hand, the number of spring salmon
seen at Hell's Gate was larger than usual.
Attention is called to a press statement that the sockeye that pass through the Fraser Canyon
to the waters above enter the Fraser annually in July, and that the August run to the Fraser
spawns annually in the tributaries of that stream below Hell's Gate. Such, Mr. Babcock states,
is not the case. Every season since observations were begun in 1901 more sockeye have been seen
at Hell's Gate in August and September, and in some years in October, than at any time in the
month of July. In 1901 and again in 1905 there was a good run of sockeye through the canyon in
November, and they have been seen there in considerable numbers in December.
The report deals with conditions in all sections and shows that very few sockeye reached
any one of them this year. In concluding the report, Mr. Babcock states: " A summary of
conditions of the spawning area of the Fraser basin this year shows that, notwithstanding the
fact that 1921 was in the cycle of former big runs, the run of sockeye was no larger and the
spawning-beds no better seeded than in recent lean years. The quadrennial big run of sockeye
to the Fraser has been destroyed. There were not eggs enough deposited on the Fraser this
year to produce an ordinary lean-year run."
Rivers Inlet.—The spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet were again inspected by Fishery Officer
A. W. Stone in 1921. It was his ninth fall trip over the tributaries of Owikeno Lake, the
spawning area of the Rivers Inlet run. His report gives in detail his observation on each of
the tributaries. In summarizing the general conditions, he states that the rivers at the head
of the lake were far from satisfactory. There was a light run to them all, as was the case in
both 1916 and 1917. The other tributaries of the lake were as well seeded as in any season in
recent years. The size of the sockeye observed in all tributaries coincided with the bi-weekly
tests made at the canneries. They averaged but little over 5 lb. each, being smaller than in
former seasons at Rivers Inlet.
Smith Inlet.—The spawning-bed of the Smith Inlet sockeye was inspected by Fishery Overseer A. W. Stone. The exceptionally poor run of sockeye to Smith Inlet this season demonstrates
the merit of the warning given by Mr. Stone in his report of spawning conditions in 1916 and
1917, the two brood-years of the 1921 run. Conditions this year show how serious the situation
at Smith Inlet has become. Notwithstanding that drag-seines are no longer used in the inlet,
so many gill-nets were used this season, with the result that the spawning-beds were very poorly
seeded. ■
w u
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
The Nass River.—The spawning-beds of the Meziadin Lake section of the Nass River were
again inspected by Inspector of Fisheries C. P. Hickman. He was accompanied by Overseer
J. M. Collison, of the Dominion service, who has repeatedly visited the section. In comparing
the run of sockeye to the Meziadin watershed for 1921 with former years, Inspector Hickman is
of the opinion that there were more fish to be seen in the lake than usual, but far less at the
falls en route to the lake than in the years 1919 and 1920. Conditions at the fishway at the falls
in the Meziadin River were fairly satisfactory. The basins of the fishway, however, are fast
filling with gravel and should be cleaned out. Observations in the Nass basin have largely been
confined to the Meziadin section. The Bowser Lake section has not been visited since the year
of its discovery—1912—because access to that lake is most difficult. It is unquestionably a very
important spawning section of the Nass and more information as to conditions there is necessary
to a comprehensive study of spawning conditions. The lack of information as to conditions in
that section has always been the weakness of the reports on the spawning area of the Nass.
The Skeena River.—The spawning-beds of the Skeena River basin were again inspected
this season by Fishery Officer Gibson. He reports that the Dominion fishery officials from the
Stuart Lake Hatchery, Fraser basin, again collected sockeye-eggs at 15-Mile and Pierre Lake
Creeks, at the head of Babine Lake. The run to that section compared favourably with former
years. Stuart Lake Indians caught and smoked some 7,000 sockeye taken from the stream at
that end of Babine Lake.
Conditions at the hatchery at the outlet of Morrison Lake were most promising. The
hatchery was filled with sockeye-eggs and natural propagation is reported greater than usual.
Sockeye in large numbers entered this section in June. The retaining-ponds at the hatchery
were well filled with vigorous fry of last season's' hatch.
The beds of the Skeena at the outlet of Babine Lake and the Indian smoke-houses located
there displayed very few sockeye. The Indians stated that the number of sockeye that passed
there this year was so small that they had been unable to obtain their usual supply. From their
account the run was much below the average of recent years. Reports of the run of sockeye
up the Bulkley River this year are more satisfactory than in recent years.
Major J. A. Motherwell, Dominion Chief Inspector of Fisheries in the Province, supplied the
following statement showing the number of salmon-eggs placed in each of the hatcheries of the
Province in 1921:—
Collection of Salmon-eggs, British Columbia, 1921.
Hatchery.
Salmo?,'.
Sockeye.
Cohoe.
Humpback.
Spring
White
Spring.
Totals.
Anderson Lake
Babine iLakc ..
Cowichan Lake
Cultus 'Lake . .
Harrison Lake
Kennedy Lake
Pemberton ....
Pitt Lake ....
Rivers Inlet ..
Skeena River .
Stuart take*   .
Totals
1.0,033.200
6,090,000
4,306,200
727,000
1,854,000
26,053,000
2,'680,750
18,374,400
4,286,000
5,530,000
1,227,800
S2y950
4.000
79,934,550
1,314.750
4,515.000
390,000
1,507,300
937.000
4.911,000
2,444,300
|,000
9,000
* Eggs'collected from the Skeena River basin.
10,033.200
6,090,000
2,744,100
4,306,200
6,179,000
1,936,950
26,053,000
2,680,750
18,374,400
4.686,000
5,530,000
88,613,600 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 15
APPENDICES.
CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  THE  LIFE-HISTORY  OF   THE   SOCKEYE   SALMON
(No. 7.)
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RUNS OF SOCKEYE TO THE PRINCIPAL RIVERS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA IN 1920 AND 1921.
By; Charles H. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, Stanforo University.
THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1920.
The total pack of Fraser River sockeye in 1920 amounted to 111,053 cases, and showed little
change from the packs of 1916 (116,783) and 1919 (103,200). The season of 1918 (71,572) still
shows the river at its lowest ebb, while 1917 (559,702) exhibited the last remains of the former
big years of the Fraser River cycle. The average pack for the three years 1916, 1919, and 1920
is 110,345 cases, so the condition of the run seems neither to have improved nor deteriorated
within that period, unless, -perhaps, an improvement is shown in 1920 by the better condition
of the spawning-grounds, as reported by Mr. Babcock in a previous bulletin.
(1.) The One-year-in-lake Type.
The small number of three-year grilse occurring in the run of 1920, and the bearing of this
fact on the probable size of the run in 1921, has already been discussed by us in the Commissioner's Report for 1920, page 27. The three-year males, to which we apply the term " grilse,"
always belong to the prevailing Fraser River group, characterized by having spent one whole
year in fresh water before passing down to the sea. The other members of this group mature
either in their fourth or in their fifth years, the four-year contingent predominating always in
this river-basin. An analysis of the prevailing one-year-in-lake group for the year 1920 is given
in the following table, based on over 1,700 individuals taken by random sampling on twenty-six
different days, well-spaced throughout the run. They were captured in traps along the southern
shore of Vancouver Island and were examined at the Esquimalt Cannery of J. H. Todd & Sons,
to whom our thanks are due for many courtesies.
Table I.—Fraser River Sockeyes from Vancouver Island Traps, 1920, One Year in Lake,
grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Length in Inches.
Number of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Five Years old.
Males.   | Females.
19   	
19%   	
20   	
20%   	
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
28   	
28%   	
29   	
Totals   	
Totals  each  group
Average  lengths  ..
11
34!
56
103
141'
144
73
54
19
2
1
1
658
3
10
0
26
40
104
142
US
137
50
17
o
1
3
11
17
26
2S
22
34
23
11
3
2
1
663
188
0
15
45
42
44
29
11
11
2
1
215
1,321
24.1
|       23.2      1
24.6 W 16
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
As is shown in the above table, the four-year fish in 1920 constituted 77 per cent, and the
five-year fish 23 per cent, of the one-year-in-lake group. These percentages have remained^
practically the same since the Fraser run definitely declined to its present low rate of production, in 1916. Prior to that date the proportions of four- and five-year sockeyes in successive
runs fluctuated widely. To illustrate this phase of the history of the river, we give below a
list of all except the big years since 1912, with the number of cases of sockeyes packed each
year and the percentage of four-year fish:— Cases. Per Cent.
1912     325,451 90
1914      555,557 85
1915      155,714 61
1916     116,783 76
191S     71,572 77
1919      103,200 76
1920     111,053 77
From this it appears the four-year percentage has varied only between 76 and 77 in 1916,
1918, 1919, and 1920. But these figures represent averages for the entire season, while in each
of the above years a wide range occurred during the course of the run. In the following table
we specify the percentages of four- and five-year sockeyes found in each sample taken during
the season of 1920. The four-year fish range from 57 per cent, at the beginning of the run to
97 per cent, in the middle of July, and then during the height of the run, including the last week
of July and the first half of August, the percentage characteristic of the entire season is attained.
Considering the entire series, w7e find it easily divisible into three or possibly four periods. From
June 14th to July 2nd the four-year sockeyes average 65 per cent.; from July 5th to July 19th
they average 90 per cent.; and for the remainder of the run they average 75 per cent. A minor
division seems indicated at August 11th, with 74 per cent, characterizing the run from that date
to July 22nd, and 79 per cent, from August 11th to the 30th. That these varying percentages
are characteristic of special stream-colonies found in the river during definite portions of the
run, or of groups of colonies that enter the river together, admits of no question. Divisions of
the season similar to those indicated above have been proposed on the same basis during previous
years.
Table II.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Fraser River Sockeyes, 1920 Run, One Tear in Lake,
occurring on Different Dates.
Date.
Four-year Fish.     Five-year Fish
Specimens
examined.
June   14   	
15   	
„      23   	
2S   	
July     2   	
,,        5   	
9   	
13   	
„      16   	
„      19   	
2'2   	
„      28   	
„      30   	
Aug.     2   	
4   	
6   	
9   	
11   	
„      13   	
„      10   	
„      IS   	
„      20   	
„      23   	
„      25 to 30
79
■69
57
63
84
90
97
92
89
77
76
65
80
67
76
67
76
SO
SO
78
SO
82
80'
43.
21
31
43
37
16
10
3
S
11
23
24
35
20
33
24
33
24
20
20
22
20
IS
2.0
105
91
80
91
90
57
96
97
101
90
74
72
60
89
55
46
66
91
49
40
51
35
51
49 12 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. W 17
The relative numbers of males and females in the different year-groups is a comparatively
constant feature in each river-basin, but varies appreciably in different races of sockeyes. It
thus rises to the dignity of a racial character. In our record of the Fraser River runs for a
series of years the males and females of the four-year fish, and also the five-year fish, are
approximately equal in number. This condition contrasts strikingly with that found in Rivers
Inlet, where each year it is seen that four-year males are much in excess of four-year females,
while the five-year females are more numerous than the five-year males. The 1920 run to the
Fraser River was no exception in" this regard, the four-year males and females being practically
in equal numbers, while the male five-year fish were 47 per cent, of the five-year group. Taking
both four- and five-year groups together, the males constituted 49 per cent, of the run.
The lengths of both four- and five-year fish in 1920 were below the average for this river-
basin. In 1919 w7e called attention to the same condition prevailing in that year. The average
lengths of the four-year males during five years prior to 1919 was 25 inches, and of the four-year
females during the same period 24.1 inches. But in 1919 the males averaged 24.1 and the females
22.8 inches; and in 1920, 24.1 and 23.2 inches. In the recent reduction of the Fraser River
sockeye run the smaller sizes characteristic of one or more tributaries may have suffered less
extensively than the larger sizes, which could not pass through the meshes of the gill-nets. The
smaller races may be in larger proportion than formerly,-and thus pull down the average for
the run.
In our reports for the years 1917, 1918, and 1919 we have presented tables showing increase
in average size during the progress of the season, in each year-group, the later fish being
appreciably larger than are the first to run. As this increase in size during the season does
not occur in Rivers Inlet, where the average size remains approximately the same or actually
diminishes toward the close of the run, the matter merits attention.
(2.)  The Two-years-in-lake Ty7pe.
In our previous reports we have called attention to the regular appearance of this type in
certain portions of the Fraser River run and its virtual absence on other dates. Compared with
the other groups present, it may vary widely in abundance in different years, but the parts of
each run characterized by its presence agree closely in successive seasons. A regular schedule
is maintained year after year. Samples of the run taken in June always contain representatives
of this class. They diminish in numbers or entirely disappear in July and then reappear in
greater abundance in August. This unequal distribution in the run suggests a like inequality
among the various tributaries of the Fraser. And such, in fact, we have found. In certain
colonies they are apparently wholly absent, or are very rare. In other colonies they are comparatively abundant. Their presence in any portion of the run can be accepted as evidence that
some colony is then entering the river bound for a tributary which normally contains them.
An intensive study of this type, including its growth characteristics and its distribution within
the run and throughout the river-basin, would promise to throw much light on the inner
constitution of the run itself. Evidence accumulates that the colonies bound for different
tributaries enter the river in regular order and on comparatively constant dates. Year by year,
relatively to the other colonies, they seem to maintain their proper place in the procession.
In the following table we bring together our determinations of the percentages of this type
which we have made for different dates in the runs of 1916, 1919, and 1920. In both 1916 and
1920 the two-years-in-lake type was running in moderate fashion during the later part of June
and almost wholly disappeared in July, to again appear in August. The June run of this type
in 1920 began unusually late (none were seen among nearly 300 specimens examined June 14th,
15th, and 23rd), and the August run exceeded in intensity anything hitherto reported.
Six-year fish of this type are never abundant in the Fraser basin. In 1920 but three
individuals were encountered in nearly 2,000 examined. Two of these appeared June 28th, the
date on which the first five-year fish of this class were taken; the third was obtained July 2nd.
All. three were male fish, 24%, 26, and 26% inches long.
A second table gives the distribution of lengths among males and females of this group.
The average lengths are practically identical with those of the one-year-in-lake class one year
younger. The additional year spent in the lake greatly increases the hazards of this class and
gives them no advantage in final size in the Fraser basin. '
W 18
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table III.—Percentages of Two-years-in-lake Type on Different Dates of the Run.
1920.
Table IV.—Fraser River Sockeyes from Vancouver Island Traps, 1920, Tioo-years-in-lake Type.
Length in Inches.
Number of Individuals.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
Six Years old.
Males.      Females.
20 ..
20%
21 ..
21%
22 ..
22%
23 ..
23%
24 ..
24%
25 ..
25%
26 ..
26%
Totals	
Average   lengths   ..
S
•8
10
8
14
56
24.3
9
IS
11
12
3
1
1
1
62
23.2 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 19
(3.)  The Sea-type.
As throwing additional light on the definite schedule of events which characterizes the
Fraser River run of sockeyes, we again note that the run of individuals which had proceeded
to sea shortly after hatching, and as soon as they became free-swimming, did hot begin in this
year until after the middle of July. The first capture in 1920 was on July 19th. In 1916 the
first was observed on July 17th, and in 1918 on July 14th. In 1919 one occurred very exceptionally on June 9th, but as none appeared between that date and July loth, and they appeared
daily after that date, July 15th is properly to be selected as the beginning of the run in 1919.
So close a chronology as July 14th, 15th, 17th, and 19th for the first appearance of the fish of
this type in the runs of four different years is striking evidence of the regularity with which
the run is conducted year by year. Individuals of sea-type and those of the two-years-in-lake
type are the only ones that can w7ith certainty be recognized always in a composite assemblage,
such as that which comprises the Fraser River run. Could we detect locality groups as unerringly
and segregate them from the general mass, we cannot doubt that they too would appear in regular
sequence and on fairly regular dates.
The sea-type in 1920 occurred daily after its first appearance, and most numerously from July
22nd to August 13th. Fifty-three specimens were included in our material, distributed among
three- and four-year groups, as shown in the following table:—
Table V.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1920.
Length in Inches.
Number of Individuals.
Three Years old.
Males.
Females.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
20   	
20%   	
21   	
21%   	
22	
22%   	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%    	
27   	
Totals   	
Average   lengths
23
13
23.3
21.8
24.3
THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1921.
The total pack of sockeyes bound for the Fraser River in 1921 was 142,598 cases, 39,031
packed in British Columbia and 102,967 on Puget Sound. The Puget Sound figures include also
sockeyes bound for the Skagit River, in the State of Washington. These run earlier in the
season than the Fraser River sockeyes and are known to be somewhat inferior to the latter
in quality. But no attempt has been made to determine the size of the Skagit River run and
we have no data which would enable us to segregate the two. It is not believed, however, that
the Skagit pack attains any considerable size.
As a lineal descendant of the series of quadrennial big years of the Fraser, 1921 possesses
a special interest. Some traces of its origin are discernible. In size the run ranks somewhat
above the very low estate of the recent small years, among which we must go back to 1915
to find as large a pack. It diverges also from the recent small years which precede it in the
limited number of the five-year group which were present.   It will be recalled that in 1913, .
W 20 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1922
before the big year had suffered any reduction in numbers, it was made up essentially of four-year
fish. Diligent search was necessary at that time for the detection of any five-year individuals.
The run was derived from eggs laid down the previous big year, four years before, and contained
no contributions of consequence from any other year. Five-year individuals were of course
present in numbers which would have made them conspicuous in a small year, but they were
" concealed by the vast hordes of four-year-olds, the progeny of the last big run."
This condition must have characterized all the big years until 1917, when the run was cut
to a fourth or a fifth of its previous dimensions. This reduction had not affected the five-year
contingent of that run, for the five-year fish of 1917 had been spawned in 1912, before the
catastrophe that had closed the canyon to the ascent of salmon. They were present in their
usual numbers and were associated with so reduced a body of four-year fish that their presence
was easily discovered. In the earlier and in the latter part of the run, in fact, the five-year fish
in 1917 attained considerable proportions in the run; on June 16th, 66 per cent.; June 25th,
37 per cent.; June 28th, 20 per cent.; and July 4th to 14th, 4 or 5 per cent. After this date,
throughout July, the number was reduced to 1 per cent, or less, but rose again on August 0th,
and from that time on to the conclusion of the run maintained an average of 8 per cent. The
total number of four-year fish contained in our twenty-one samplings, well distributed throughout
the run, amounted to 94 per cent, and the five-year fish to 6 per cent, of the total of both groups.
With 1917 we can now compare 1921, which also began the season with a high percentage
of five-year fish, which then decreased rapidly to the early part of July and increased again
toward the last of the run. From June 9th to the 20th the five-year fish in our samples
comprised 56 per cent.; on June 27th, 41 per cent.; on June 30th, 17 per cent. From July 4th
to August 9th the percentages of thirteen samples averaged 11 per cent, and from August 11th
to the 31st 19 per cent, of the members of both groups. The total number of individuals examined
in both age-groups was 997, with 84 per cent, four-year fish and 16 per cent, in the five-year
class.
It will be recalled that prior to 1921 a series of the small years had exhibited a. remarkable
uniformity in the relative sizes of their age-groups. In 1916, 1918, 1919, and 1920 the percentage
of four-year fish was either 76 or 77. In 1917, with a recognizable remnant of the big-year series
still persisting, the percentage of four-year fish rose to 94 per cent, in approximation of 1913,
when it was 99; and in 1921, when a faint vestige of the big-year cycle still can be traced, the
percentage drops to 84, but is still well above the small years with which it is associated.
In the following table we present an analysis of the one-year-in-lake type, the only one which
has any considerable economic importance in the Fraser run. In 1921, as in 1920, the females
in both year-groups were somewhat in excess of the males, 52 per cent, of the four-year group
and 58 per cent, of the five-year group.
The lengths of the four-year fish exhibit a still further decline in 1021. The tendency has
been marked since 1919, as appears below:— Males. Females.
Average lengths for five years prior to 1919     25.0 24.1
Lengths in 1919      24.1 22.8
Lengths in 1920      24.1 23.2
Lengths in 1921      23.7 23.0-
A similar reduction in size has been observed during the declining years of the Rivers Inlet
fishery.   The further history of this tendency will be a matter of interest. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 21
Table VI.—Fraser River Sockeyes from Vancouver Island Traps, 1921, One Year in Lake,
Grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Length in Inches.
Number of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
18%   	
19   	
19%   	
20   	
20%	
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
28   	
28%   	
Totals   	
Total each group
Average lengths  .
16
88
62
72
72
56
40
14
11
6
403
1
1
2
1
4
16
55
S3
112
79
53
IS
5
2
2
840
23."
23.0
1
1
5
4
23
9
9
4
2
1
66
25.9
1
2
6
15
21
20
10
11
1
91
24.6
We have not included in the above table five representatives of the one-year-in-lake group,
which matured at the age of three and were all males. These precocious males, to which we
apply the term " grilse," are never relatively abundant. They represent always a very small
percentage of the brood to which they belong.. Five is an unusually large number to find among
a thousand individuals, now that the big year has vanished. None appeared in the run prior
to July 28th.   One was 1S%, the other four were 19 inches long, and they weighed 3 to 3% lb.
TWO-YEARS-IN-LAKE   GROUP.
This group was sparsely represented in the run of 1921, but exhibited clearly the peculiar
distribution within the period of the run that we have commonly observed in the Fraser. The
group was in evidence, although in small numbers, throughout the month of June, but became
very rare in the early half of July. Our samples taken on July 8th, 11th, and 15th contained
only 2 per cent, of this group, and samples taken on July 18th, 21st, 25th, and 2Sth are wholly
without any individuals that had spent their first two years in their native lake before passing
out to the sea. On August 1st representatives of the group reappeared, more abundantly than
in June, and were then present in each of our samples taken throughout the month of August.
On August 15th they constituted 11 per cent, of the run. It seems probable that the early-
running members of this group belong with colonies which are bound well up-stream beyond
the Yale Canyon, perhaps to the Chilcotin, while the members of the August run are bound for
one or more of the tributaries below the canyon. Our samples in 1921 contained fifty-one
examples of the two-years-in-lake type, forty-four of which were in their fifth year and seven
in their sixth year.
The Sea-ty7pe.
The first ten of our samplings, covering the entire.month of June and the first half of July,
were without any members of this group.    The first one was observed July 18th and one or more '
W 22 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1922
specimens appeared in each of our numerous samples taken after that date. 1921 agrees closely
with other years in which we have observed the first appearance of this group in the run. In
1916 we recorded the first individual on July 17th and in 1919 on July 19th. Of the twenty-
eight specimens examined in 1921, six were in their third year and twenty-two in their fourth
year.
THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1920.
(1.)  General Characteristics.
In our previous report in this series (Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, 1919, page 52)
we commented on the prospects for 1920, calling attention to the fact that the two brood-years
which would be responsible for the run of 1920 exhibited a wide disparity. The five-year fish
of 1920 would be derived from eggs laid down in 1915, when the pack of Rivers Inlet sockeyes
exceeded 130,000 cases and was the largest ever put up in this district. The four-year fish, on
the contrary, would be descendants of 1916, with a pack of less than 45,000 cases, the smallest
of any recent year. We remarked: " The results during 1920 will possess more than usual
interest, for in the two brood-years of that season w7e find contrasted, as above indicated, the very
poorest and the very richest years of which we have record. It will be most interesting to
observe w7hether the five-year age-group will appear in 1920 in overwhelming proportions." Such,
in fact, as will appear, turned out to be the case. The run was gratifyingly large after a series
of four very poor years, and it was practically all derived from 1915, the proportion of four-year
fish (5 per cent, of the total) being so small as to be negligible. Some 115,000 of the 121,000
cases of the 1920 run were results of the 1915 brood, and approximately 26,000 cases of the 1919
pack were composed of four-year fish from the same great brood of 1915. If w7e assume that
the packs of these two years give reliable indications of the size of the runs, then the four-year
fish that developed from the 1915 brood represented IS per cent, and the five-year fish 82 per cent,
of the total progeny of that brood. It is facts of this nature that lead us to call the Rivers
Inlet cycle predominantly one of five years, in contrast to the Fraser River cycle, well known to
be one of four years.
(2.) Age-groups, Lengths and Weights.
Among 596 individuals examined, distributed well throughout the run, only thirty-one were
in the fourth year, a number too small to be available for statistical treatment. It is interesting
to note, however, that the usual changes in the constitution of the run are indicated by this very
limited material. Although no samples were secured later than July 23rd, it is seen that more
four-year fish were appearing on the later dates. The numbers are as follows: June 29th, 1;
July 2nd, 5; Sth, 3; 9th, 3; 13th, 3; 16th, 2; 20th, 9; 23rd, 5. The males, as usual, are in
excess of the females, only eight females (26 per cent.) being present.
Because of the small numbers of four-year individuals examined, the average lengths and
weights for this group would be wholly unreliable. The five-year males average 26 inches and
the females 25 inches in length, and are practically identical in size with the same year-groups
in 1915 (26 and 25.1 inches), which was the brood-year for these fish. We have called attention
heretofore to the fact that with diminishing runs in Rivers Inlet the size of the fish was also
decreasing. No cause is known for such a coincidence, but it is interesting to observe that
the size of the individuals promptly recovered in a year of a good run. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 23
Table VII.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1920, grouped by Length, Age, and Sex.
Length in Inches.
Number of Individuals examined.
Four Years old.
Males.      Females.
Five Years old.
Males.      Females.
19%   	
20   	
20%   	
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
28   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
28   	
28%   	
29   	
Totals
15
1(7
30
29
43
37
315
23
17
271
3
4
6
18
36
50
61
43
43
20
9
2
296
Table VIII.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1920, grouped by Weight, Age, and Sex.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of Individuals examined.
Four Years old.
Males.       Females.
Five Years old.
Males.      Females.
3   	
3%   	
4   	
4%   	
5   	
5%   	
6   	
6%   	
7   	
7%   	
S   	
8%   	
9   	
9%   	
10   	
10%   .........
11   	
11%   	
Totals
23
1
4
7
9
21
32
35
42
42
28
21
14
10
3
271
1
17
32
66
50
55
33
27
10
296 W 24
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table IX.—Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1920, shoicing Length Frequency Distribution
through the Season.
Males.
Females.
Inches.
C-1
a
3
Ha
ft
3
ft
K3
a'
.ft
3
Ha
CO
ft
3
Ha
ft
d
.Da
3
CO
ft
3
Ha
"3
o
H
0)
a
3
Ha
ei
ft
3
ft
3
c"
ft
3
Ha
CO
M>
3
Ha
.ft
3
Ha
Q
ft
Ha
CO
O-l
ft
o
EH
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
23%   	
2.4   	
24%   	
25   	
2
2
6
5
6
S
S
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
4
3
s
2
5
6
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
S
7
5
2
1
1
1
2
1
5
3
9
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
6
4
6
4
2'
1
2
1
1
5
5
■5
4
1
6
2
4
5
3
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
1
2
3
5
5
15
17
30
20
43
37
35
23
17
5
4
2
2
4
5
4
7
1
2
4
2
5
9
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
■3
3
S
4
'5
.   2
1
1
1
1
■      1
3
6
5
5'
8
7
2
1
1
1
5
10
8
4
4
1
1
/.
1
1
4
3
7
7
5
9
3
1
2
2
5
12
11
3
■5
1
2
1
1
5
10
6
17
5
4
2
3
4
6
18
36
50
61
25%   	
26   	
20%    	
27   	
43
43
20
9
27%   	
28   	
28%   	
29   	
2
1
Totals. .
48
43
37
33
36
32
23
19
271
25
26 1  35
39
36
■41
43  1  51
1.
296
Table X.—Average Lengths in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1920, in Fifth Year,
on a Series of Dates.
June 29.
July 2.
July 5.
July 9.
July 13.
July 16.
July 20.
July 23.
26.4
25.2
25.9
25.1
26.3
25.4
26.0
25.4
25.9
24.8
25.S
25.0
25.9
24.9
25.0
2*T
Not only is no increase in length shown with advancing season in the above table, but there
is evident in the later dates a run of fish of distinctly inferior size. A discussion of this subject
appears later in this paper under the run for 1921.
(3.) Proportions of the Sexes.
As we have already indicated, the four-year class was so sparsely represented in 1920 that
no statistics of any value can be obtained from it. Males were more abundant than females in
our few samples, as is always the case in this race of sockeyes, but the percentages (74 per cent,
males, 26 per cent, females) has no significance for the reason stated.
In the case of the five-year group we find the rates of males to females varying widely
through the season, the males, as usual, showing the highest percentages early in the run.
Samples were procured on eight days, spaced three or four days apart, the earliest date being
June 29th, the latest July 23rd. For these eight dates the percentages of male five-year fish
ran: 66, 62, 51, 46, 50, 44, 35, 27. The average of these percentages is 48 per cent, males and
52 per cent, females, and these percentages hold also for the total number of males and females
(271 males, 296 females) taken during the season. 12 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. W 25
THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1921.
(1.)  General Characteristics.
After presenting nearly a maximum pack in 1920 (121,254 cases) the Rivers Inlet sockeye
run declined in 1921 to the lowest level, with one exception, since the industry has become well
established. The exception occurred in 1916, and it is worthy of consideration that a five-year
period is thus seen to have intervened between the two lowest packs the river has produced.
A five-year period also separated the generous run of 1920 from the record pack of the river,
which occurred in 1915 and was in excess of 130,000 cases; and another period of five years
between'1915 and the season of 1910, with its 126,000 cases. The three largest sockeye-packs on
the river are thus seen to be separated by five-year intervals, as though one were the direct
descendant of the other. Inasmuch as the Rivers Inlet cycle is prevailingly one of five years—
a larger proportion of the fish maturing in their fifth than in their fourth year—the above-noted
coincidences seem reasonable and lead us to arrange other recent years in similar five-year
sequences and observe the results.
We give below, in even thousands of full cases, the packs since 1907, arranged in accordance
with the five-year cycle:—
1907   87,000 1912 112,000 1917  61,000
190S   64,000 1913   61,000 1918   53,000
1909   89,000 1914   S9,000 1919  56,000
1910 126,000 1915 130,000 1920 121,000
1911  8S,00§ ■ 1916  44,000 1921  46,000
That a certain consistency marks these series of related years is not to be questioned, and is
only faintly obscured by the obvious impoverishment which the river has suffered during the
last five-year period and which began in less marked degree even during the preceding period.
The product of the first five-year period was 454,000 cases; of the second, 436,000 cases; of
the third, 337,000 cases. From an inspection of these figures it seems reasonable to conjecture
that fishing operations during the period 1912 to 1916 had become more concentrated and effective
than in the previous cycle, and that there was captured for commercial purposes a larger proportion of the runs than had previously been the case. This would tend to obscure such reduction
in the runs as had already occurred, and would prepare for the impressively serious decline
during the following five-year period.
To what extent the future will approve a five-year cycle in Rivers Inlet only the future can
disclose. If predictions during the fifteen years above listed had been based on the fifth year
preceding, but one surprise would have been experienced, that of the exceptional year 1912, when
the pack of 112,000 cases was seemingly without competent ancestors and left no worthy
descendants. Such other changes as are evident in the cyclical series can be properly ascribed
to the progressive decline in the runs.
During previous years we have sought to investigate the internal constitution of the annual
sockeye run by means of samples collected at more or less equal intervals throughout the season.
By this means we have endeavoured to ascertain the comparative sizes of the year-groups, the
relative proportions of the sexes, and the size distribution of males and females among the
various classes. An obvious source of possible error in our method lay in treating all the various
samples as contributing data of equal importance for determining the total constitution of the
run, whereas the earlier and later samples were taken when the number of individuals running
was very small, while some of the intermediate takes sampled the run at its maximum. It
becomes of importance, therefore, to ascertain the course of the run throughout the season.
If it develops symmetrically, with its peak midway of the season and its advance and decline
similar in degree, our method of sampling will produce reliable results with regard to all factors
which are constant and those also which vary progressively in the same direction and with
equal pace.
To throw light on the course of the run, we have obtained through the co-operation of
Fisheries Overseer Stone the daily sockeye-catch at three of the Rivers Inlet canneries during
the season of 1921.    We have taken the total daily catch of the three canneries in even hundreds, W 26
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
have smoothed the series once by threes, and present the results in the following graph. Considering the nature of the data, which are affected by weather conditions and the weekly closed
season, the symmetrical development of the run clearly appears.
/eooo
Magnitude of the sockeye-salmon run throughout the season of 1921, measured by the receipts
at the canneries.
(2.)  The Age-groups.
The Rivers Inlet run in 1921, as in previous years, consisted almost entirely of two age-
groups, those that matured in their fourth and those that matured in their fifth year. In both
of these groups the early history is the same, the initial year of their lives being spent in
fresh water, descent to the sea taking place early in the second spring. Among nearly a thousand
individuals examined in 1921, only one was found which had spent two growing seasons in the
lake, maturing then in its fifth year. This type is abundant in many river-basins. Its almost
total absence in the Owikeno River may conceivably be due to the same adverse feeding conditions
which apparently dwarf the fingerlings in this stream during their first season.
The relative proportions of the four- and the five-year groups is a constantly varying one
throughout the season. In the majority of the years the older group predominates strongly
during the early part of the run, but loses more or less of its advantage over the four-year group
with the advancing season. In exceptional years we have witnessed a reversal of this procedure,
the four-year fish relatively decreasing and the five-year fish increasing toward the close of the
run. The following table gives our experience in this regard from 1915 to 1921. During four
of the six years the five-year fish were relatively most abundant during the early part of the
run.    This was the case in 1921. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 27
Table XI.—Percentages of Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes appearing at Different Dates
from 1915 to 1921.
Date.
1915.
1916.
19H7.
1918.
1919.
1921.
June 27
„     2S
„     29
„     30
July     1
a       2
,,        o
4
„       5
6
>>       7
S
9
„     10
»     11
»,     12
„     13
»     14
„     15
„     16
„     17
„     18
„     19
„     20
,       21
„     22
„     23
„     24
„     2'5
„     20
„     27
„     28
„     29
.,     30
,,     31
Aug.     1
2
3
4
84
S4
S'S
'.)■!
93
92
00
84
09
68
no
04
8S
S2
50
41
40
44
19
25
32
37
C4
44
59
GO
56
66
51
48
48
07
40
36
44
53
3S
We have noted in our reports of previous years that the more prosperous seasons in Rivers
Inlet tend to be distinguished by larger percentages of the older year-group. The year 1921 was"
no exception to this general rule. Taking the total number of all our samples, obtained on
thirteen different dates, well spaced during the continuance of the run, we find the five- and
four-year groups in approximately equal numbers, the former constituting 51 per cent, and the
latter 49 per cent, of the run. The following table gives the relative size of the age-groups for
each year since 1912, with the brood-year from which each age-group was derived:— W 28
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XII.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year River's Inlet Sockeyes in Runs from 1912 to 1921,
with Broods from which they teere derived.
Run of the Year.
Percentage,
Four and Five
Years old.
Brood-year from which
derived.
1912 (112,884  cases.)
1913 (61,745   cases)
1914 (S9,S90   cases)    .
1915 (130.35O  cases)
1910 (44,036   cases)    .
1917 (61,195   cases)    .
1918 (53,401  cases)   .
. 1919 (56,258  cases)   .
1920 (121,254   cases)
1921 (46,300 cases)   .
5 yrs. 79%
4 yrs. 21%
5 yrs. 20%
4 yrs. 80%
5 yrs. 65%
4 yrs. 35%
5 yrs. 87%
4 yrs. 13%
5 yrs. 76%
4 yrs. 24%
5 yrs. 67%
4 yrs. 33%
5 yrs. 43%
4 yrs. 57%
5 yrs. 54%
4 yrs. 46%
5 yrs. 95%
4 yrs.    5%
5 yrs. 51%
I  I     4 yrs. 49%
,
1907 (87,874  cases).
t 190S (64,652   cases).
L 1909 (89,027  cases).
I 1910 (126,921  cases).
I
J. 1911 (SS,763  cases).
j. 1912 (112,884 cases).
'. 1913 (61,745   cases).
i
I 1914 (S9.S00 cases).
L 1915 (130,350  cases).
I 1916 (44,936  cases).
1917 (61,195  cases).
(3.)  Distribution of the Sexes.
It will be seen by the following table that the four-year male sockeyes were much less
abundant than usual in 1921 in proportion to the females, and that the five-year males were also
notably less abundant. Whereas in most years the total male sockeyes in our samples well
exceed the total females of both groups, in 1921 the two sexes were present in almost equal
numbers.
•   Table XIII.—Relative Numbers of Males and Females, Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1916 to 1921.
Average percentages—
Four-year males .
Four-year females
Five-year males ..
Five-year  females
Average total males  ..
Average total  females
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
74
75
74
79
74
26
25
26
21
26
40
42
49
45
48
60
58
51
55
52
52
53
66
58
49
48
47
34
42
51
1921.
35
3S
62
51
49
The distribution of the sexes during the course of the run followed the customary series of
changes. Both four- and five-year males show a decided tendency to precede the females, as
is shown in the table given below, which presents the percentages of the two sexes separately for
each year group on a series of thirteen dates. While the average of all the percentages of four-
year males throughout the season is 65, the average for the first four dates is 82 per cent, and
for the last four dates 43 per cent. Similarly, the average of all the percentages of five-year
males is 38, but the first four dates of the table give an average of 52 per cent, and the last
four dates 22 per cent. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 29
Table XIV.—Percentage of Males and Females in Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring on Different
Dates, Season of 1921.
June   June
28.      30.
July
2.
July    July
'5.         7.
July
12.
July
16.
July
IS.
July
19.
July
27.
July
29.
Aug.
1.
Aug.
4.
S8
12
57
43
82
IS
59
41
SO
20
53
47
78
22
38
62
67
33
42
58
67
33
36
64
75
25
51
419
66
34
30
70
76
24
33
67
43
57
15
85
50
50
30
70
40
60
22
78
37
63
21
79
(4.) Lengths anu Weights.
The length and weight frequency distributions are given in the following tables, separately
for males and females of each year-group. Comparing with a similar table presented in a
previous report for the year 1919, we find the parallelism very close. The four-year males ranged
during both seasons from 19% to 25 or 25% inches and the four-year females from 20% to 24%
or 25 inches. The five-year males show an unusual distribution, which is rather clearly bimodal,
with a large number of individuals among the larger sizes, from 25% to 27 inches. An entirely
similar curve is formed by the male five-year weights, which are himodally arranged, with excess
of individuals of the heavier size.
Table XV.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1921, grouped by Lengths, Age, and Sex.
Length in Inches.
Number of Individuals examined.
Four Years old.
Males.       Females.
Five Years old.
Males.      Females.
19%   	
20   	
20%   	
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
2S   	
28%   	
29   	
Totals
1
1
4
5
17
48
56
67
51
29
14
299
1
4
16
25
48
51
20
11
1
1
1
2
8
12
17
17
13
15
25
24
28
21
2
2
23
28
40
73
41
44
15
14
11
3
1
297 W 30
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XVI.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1921,
where Lengths overlap.
Length in Inches.
Proportion.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
90
92
96
77
75
Z.5
31
22
S
2
10
S
4
23
25
23%   	
69
78
92
9S
24%   	
25   	
25%	
Table XVII.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of- 1921, grouped by Weight, Age, and Sex.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of Individuals examined.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
3   	
3%   	
4   	
4%   	
5   	
5%   	
6   	
f. 1-4    	
7   	
T%    	
8   	
8%   	
9   	
9%   	
10   	
Totals
3
2
15
61
95
OS
34
17
4
299
1
12
61
64
28
10
1
177
3
16
24
26
14
24
33
22
17
10
4
1
194
2
1
15
45
6S
67
47
26
IS
5
The average lengths and weights are shown below in comparison with previous years. They
depart but little from the averages of the eight preceding years, which are given in the last
column. The four-year fish are fully up to average length and weight, but the five-year females
are notably lacking in both length and weight, and the five-year males only less so.
Table XVIII.—Average Length in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Nine Years.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1921.
Average.
Four-year  males   ...
Four-year females  . .
Five-year males  .. .
Five-year  females   ..
23.2
. 22.9
25.S
24.6
22.9
23j0
25.9
25.2
23.0
22.8
25.9
25.2
22.9
22.8
26.0
25.1
22.9
22.8
25. S
25.0
22.5
22.3
25.0
24.4
2:2.3
22.5
24.9
24.5
22.4
22.3
24.8
24.4
22.9
22.6
25.2
24.2
22.S
22.7
25.5
24.S 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 31
Average Weight in Pounds of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Seven Years.
1914.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1921.
Average.
5.4
5.3
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.1
4.8
4.9
5.0
Five-year males  	
7.3
7.3
7.6
6.6
6.7
6.3
6.9
7.0
Five-year  females   	
6.S
6.6
6.7
6.2
6.7
5.9
6.0
6.5
Table XIX.—Four-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1921, showing Length Frequency. Distribution
on a Number of Dates.
Males.
Inches.
OC
o
L~
cl
CD
co   ■
ci
i-
ci
rt-
^
rH
H
H
rH
Cl
C3
a
o
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
si
it
-2
a
0
H
s
1-5
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ht
Ha
Ha
Ha
r-a
FH
19  	
19 y,  	
1
1
20    	
1
1
1
1
1
1
20%   	
4
21   	
.2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
21%   	
17
22   	
4
5
2
6
6
3
5
3
4
6
2
2
4S
1
6
5
S
4
S
4
4
4
2
3
5
2
56
23	
5
3
4
3
2
10'
3
5
5
1
6
'6
4
5
4
7
9
3
9
8
1
4
2
7
2
23%   	
51
24   	
3
3
1
2
6
3
2
4
2
1
1
1
29
24%   	
2
1
4
1
1
3
2
14
25  	
1
1
1
2
1
r,
25%   	
1
Totals   ....
15
27
20
28
26
26
30
21
34
20
21
14
17
299
Females.
Inches.
CC
Cl
ci
,d
L-"
ci
cc
rH
cv
I-
Cl
OS
Cl
«
rt<
c
iD
C
3
Ha
ft
3
Ha
ft
Ha
H-*
ft
Ha
ti
ft
ft
Ha
ifi
bj-
(H
O
19   	
19 %   	
20  	
1
1
21   	
1
2
1
4
21%   	
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
•-}
1
2
16
22   	
2
1
4
1
3
2
2
o
2
2
3
25
22%   	
1
1
2
5
4
■4
4
3
9
4
6
■ 48
28   	
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
9
11
6
7
12
51
23%   	
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
7
1
4
2
20
24  	
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
11
1
1
25  	
25 %   	
Totals   	
2
6
5
■S
13
13
10
11
11
27
21
21
29
177 W 32
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XX.—Five-year Riven
Inlet Sockeyes, 1921, showing Length Frequency Distribution
on a Number of Dates.
Inches.
Males.
21 ..
21%
22 ..
22%
23 ..
23%
24 ..
24%
25 ..
25%
26 ..
26%
27 ..
27%
2S ..
28%
29   ..
Totals	
1
9
10
3
4
25
26
14
15
CO
CO
ci
1-
ci
■
l-l
H
1-1
!N
<N
>>
t>)
\>>
>>
fcJD
3
3
3
3
3
r-3
>-i
Ha
Ha
H5
13
18
13        10
<
1
1
2
8
12
17
17
13
15
25
24
2S
21
7
194
Inches.
21 ..
21%
22 ..
22%
23 ..
23%
24 ..
24%
25 ..
25%
26 ..
26%
27 ..
27%
2S ..
28%
29   .
Totals
Females,
17
23
L-
(N*
CO
CO
ci
*-i
rH
■H
iH
>.
>t
>a
t*i
S^
0
3
E3
•-}
3
H=
Ha
Hs
Ha
Ha
23
1
1
3
o
1
3
'4
2
7
3
2
1
2
3
5
4
0
0
5
4
4
3
0
1
7
1
5
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
21
23
17
30
20
10
3
1
22
24
31
2
2
23
28
4.0
73
41
44
15
14
11
3
1
297 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 33
Table XXI.—Four-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1921, Weight Frequency Distribution
on a Number of Dates.
Males.
Pounds.
CO
Cl
o
a
CJ
Ha
ci
CO
o
a
Ha
ci
ft
3
Hj
id
ft
D
Ha
ft
3
l-a
ci
ft
Ha
cp
rH
ft
"3
Ha
CO
rH
ft
3
Ha
ci
ft
a
Ha
i-
Cl
ft
3
Ha
ci
Cl
ft
3
fci
bi
3
3
+-.
o
Frl
3    	
1
6
3
2
3
1
7
6
7
4
2
1
5
9
2
1
2
1
11
9
4
3
1
6
7
6
3
3
5
9
6
3
1
2
1
6
10
6
3
3
1
5
7
6
2
1
3
1
4
9
9
8
1
7
6
4
1
1
3
9
4
3
2
3
.9
2
2
6
5
3
1
3
2
15
61
95'
3 l/r,      	
4   	
4 %   	
5%   	
6   	
6%     	
68
34
17
4
Totals	
15
27
20
28
26
26
30
21
34
20
21
14
17
299
Pounds.
Females.
CO
ci
ffl
a
3
Ha
cd
CO
o
a
3
ci
ft
3
Ha
id
3
Ha
ft
3
H3
ci
ft
Ha
co
ft
3
Ha
CO
rH
ft
Ha
ci
rH
ft
3
Ha
Cl
3
ci
ci
ft
3
Ha
60
3
oi
3
3
+j
o
EH
3 ..
3%
4 ..
1
1
2
l
5
6
1
2
2
5
1
3
1
3
8
4
6
2
1
13
7
3
O
13
1
5
2
2
10
1
s
2
11
1
6
1
3
11
1
6
13
2
27
1
4
8
8
21
5
10
3
3
21
4
9
8
7
1
29
1
12
4%
61
64
28
5%
10
e%
1
Totals   	
177
1
1        1       |        I        !        1        1
Table XXII.—Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockey,es, 1921, Weight Frequency Distribution
on a Number of Dates.
Males.
Pounds,
00
S
ci
id
1-
ci
CO
ci
i-*
oi
.
*H
ci
r-l
rH
rH
Cl
Cl
O
3
a
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ti
i>i
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
*?■
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
<;
R
o
31/.   	
4   	
41/2   	
1
1
1
3
2
.      1
3
1
2
2
3
2
16
5%	
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
24
2
1
3
3
3
8
2
1
2
1
26
6 %  	
6
2
2
1
.1
2
14
2
10
5
3
3
8
1
2
2
4
1
5
1
,2
4
1
24
7%   	
33
8   	
6
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
22
sy2 	
8
1
1
1
2
2
2
17
9 	
2
2
2
1
2
1
10
91/0 	
1
1
1
1
4
10 	
1
1
Totals   	
32
25
26
14
15
13
IS
13
10
4
9
9
6
194 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XXII.—Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1921, Weight Frequency Distribution
on a Number of Dates—'Continued.
Pounds.
3   	
S%   	
4  	
4%   	
5   	
5%   	
6  	
6%   	
7   	
'7%   	
8   	
8%   	
9  	
9%   	
10  	
Totals
Females.
24
23
21
23
30
20'
22
1
11
5
3
2
1
1
24
31
2
10
1
2
1
22
1
15
45
OS
67
47
26
IS
297
Table XXIII.—Average Lengths in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1921,
on a Number of Dates.
June
28.
June
30.
July
2.
July
5.
July
7.
July'
12.
July
16.
July
IS.
July
19.
July
27.
July
29.
Aug.
1.
Aug.
4.
Four-year males ..
22.1
22.9
2,2.7
22.7
22.0
23.1
23.0
23.2
22.8
23.6
22,9
22.8
22.7
Four-year females .
23.5
22.S
22.8
22.8
22.4
22.5
22.2
22.6
22.4
22,9
22.8
23.0
22.S
Five-year  males   ..
26.1
25.5
25.5
24».2
24.S
25.0
25.0
25,6
25.0
23.9
23.7
24.8
24.5
Five-year females  .
25.0
24.3
24.5
24.1
24.1
24.7
23.1
24.3
24.5
23.7
23.9
24.3
23.2
From the above table it appears that, with the possible exception of the four-year males,
none of the year-groups increased in average length during the season. For the first six dates
given the four-year males averaged 22.7 inches and for the last six dates 23 inches. The four-year
males differ from the other three year-groups in the diminutive size of the first fish to appear
on June 28th. In all other groups the first fish to appear were of larger average size than on
any subsequent date during the season, while the reverse was the case with the four-year males.
The smallest males entered first. The four-year females maintained their average size unchanged
throughout the season. The first six dates give us an average of 22.8 inches and the last six dates
22.75 inches. The point that here deserves our attention is the longer feeding and growing period
of those which entered late. The females that averaged 22.S inches on August 4th had been
feeding and growing five weeks longer than those which also averaged 22.8 inches on June 30th.
The conclusion is inevitable that the first fish to enter the river were the largest of the schools
(with the exception of the four-year males), and the others successively abandoned their sea-
feeding grounds and turned streamwards, when they had attained the same stature as those
earliest to run.
This tendency for the Rivers Inlet sockeyes of the 1921 run to inaugurate the run with the
largest individuals is even better shown in the five-year fish. In these, notwithstanding their
continued growth, the later individuals were smaller than those of the early half of the run.
They had not been able to overtake them, in spite of their additional weeks of growth. For the
first six dates of the above table the five-year males averaged 25.2 inches and for the last six
dates 24.6 inches, and the corresponding averages for the five-year females are 24.5 and 24.0 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 35
inches. Five-year sockeyes, as is well known, grow far less rapidly during their last season
than do four-year fish. The smaller individuals among the five-year group would be less likely,
therefore, to make good their deficiency by an additional period of feeding in the sea.
It is not known whether the tendency here observed is followed generally in all years by
the Rivers Inlet race. Still less do we know of its existence in other races. Often the later
portion of the run in certain rivers is characterized by somewhat larger fish. But they may have
been smaller during the first days of the season, when the early run left them behind to continue
their feeding. In such cases, also, the larger individuals of the school may successively have
been drafted to .maintain the spawning run.
The procedure here in the conduct of the spawning migration is very similar to what we
have observed in the seaward migration of the yearlings in the early spring. In the third paper
of this series (Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the year ending December 31st, 1015,
page 45) we reported on the size of yearling migrants obtained in the Owikeno River. An
extensive series of the -year 1914 agreed perfectly with a second series collected the following
year, in showing a constantly diminishing size as the season progressed. In this case, also, the
larger individuals successively abandoned the school and those that remained behind in the lake
continued to feed voraciously and to grow. While the causes that determine this procedure are
unknown, the parallelism is striking between the seaward migration of the diminutive fingerlings
and the streamward migration of the mature salmon.
THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1920.
(1.)  The Year-gkotjf-s.
The Skeena River run of 1920 agreed with that of Rivers Inlet in being derived in part from-
a good brood-year and in part from a very poor brood-year. The five-year fish of 1920 belonged
to the brood of 1915, which produced a pack of 116,553 cases; while the four-year component
of the 1920 run was derived from the brood of 1916, which produced a pack of only 60,923 cases.
These conditions were clearly reflected in the character of the run, which was well below the
average in size (90,869 cases) and was largely composed of five-year fish. The year 1916
contributed very little to its success.
As is shown by the following table, different years in the Skeena basin vary in the relative
size of the four- and five-year classes, but almost always the older group predominates. Like
the Rivers Inlet and Nass River colonies, the Skeena is dependent more on its five- than its
four-year members, and thus approximates a five-year cycle. The average percentage of this
group for the eight years from 1912 to 1919 is 60 per cent, and the highest attained in any
year was 75 per cent. But in 1920 the five-year group comprised 82 per cent, of the one-year-in-
lake type. The extremely large representation in 1920 was undoubtedly due to the favourable
brood-year for the five-year fish, in conjunction with the very unfavourable brood-year for the
four-year fish. As appears elsewhere in this report, an entirely similar condition produced in
the 1920 run in Rivers Inlet a still larger representation of the five-year group, which comprised
95 per cent, of the run. W 36
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XXIV.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Skeena Sock
in Runs of Successive Years.
that spent One Year in Lake
Run of the Year.
1912 (92,408  cases)    j
1913 (52,927  cases) j
1914 (130,166  cases)    j
1915 (116.,553  cases)    j
1916 (60,923  cases)    j
1917 (65,760  cases) j
1918 (123,322   cases)     j
1919 (184,945  cases)    j
1920 (90,869  cases)     j
Percentage
Four and Five
Brood-
year from which
Years
old.
derived.
5  yrs.
43%
1907
(108,413  cases).
4   yrs.
57%
f
1908
(139,846  cases).
5   yrs.
50%
4   yrs.
50%
1
1
\
1909
(87,901  cases).
5   yrs.
75%
4   yrs.
25%
1
1
1910
(1S7.246  cases).
5   yrs.
64%
4   yrs.
36%
1
1911
(131.066  cases)
5   yrs.
60%
1
4   yrs.
40%
\
1
1
1912
(92,498  cases).
5   yrs.
62%
4   yrs.
38%
)
1913
(52,927  cases).
5   yrs.
59%
1
4   yrs.
41%
1
1
1914
(130,166  cases)..
5   yrs.
69%
4   yrs.
31%
)
I
1915
(116,553  cases).
5   yrs.
82%
4   yrs.
18%
1916
(60,923  cases).
The relative size of the various age-groups that constitute the run varies not only from year
to year, but in different portions of the same run. This is shown for the year 1920 by the
following table, which gives the percentages in which the four year-classes occur in the run on
a series of dates. A similar table in our report for the year 1919 (1920), page 60, shows a
definite and progressive change in the relative dimensions of the two principal classes, which
belong to the one-year-in-lake type. In 1919 the four-year class was poorly represented at first,
but increased steadily in numbers throughout the season, w7hile the opposite tendency was clearly
shown in the five-year class. But in 1920 no tendency is as clearly defined and such changes as
occur are rather in the opposite direction. The four-year class is relatively smaller in the latter
half of the run.
Table XXV.—Percentages of Different Age-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes, on a Succession of
Dates, Season of 1920.
Dates, 1920.
Number of
Specimens.
One Year in Lake.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years
old.
Six Years
old.
_
75
49
124
117
125
124
122
124
123
118
171
71
120
104
16
20
16
18
IS
15
IS
9
IS
19
8
7
S
16
6S
74
66
73
OS
'T-3
73
74
63
72
"77
75
70
55
8
4
11
6
6
6
5
3
8
3
6
8
3
11
8
2
3
16	
8
6
4
14
11
6
9
10
10
18
1,507
15
71
6
8 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 37
Table XXVI.—Percentages of Different Age-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes, from 1916 to 1920.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Year.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Six Years
old.
1916  	
34
57
51
27
15
3S
29
34
60'
71
13
9
9
9
6
15
1917   	
1918   	
6
1919   	
4
1920	
8
37                      46
9
S
The size attained by the different age-classes is determined principally by the number of
years spent in the sea, and the age when they become mature is similarly determined. Two of
the four age-classes in the Skeena have spent three seasons in the sea; the other two have spent
four seasons. To the former group belong the four-year fish and the five-year class that spent
two years in fresh water before entering the sea. The group that spent four seasons feeding in
the sea is composed of the five-year class that remained one year in the lake and the six-year
class that remained two years in the lake. If w7e consider the relative abundance of the two
groups thus defined at different periods of the run in 1920 we have the results shown in the
following table. The fish that had lived longest in the sea, and were maturing one year later
than the other group, ran more heavily in the later part of the season.
Table XXVII—Percentages, 1920.
Date.
I Three Years'
Sea-feeding.
JL
Four Years'
Sea-feeding.
July 5, 7, 9 .
„ 12, 16, 19
„    20,. 26,   28
Aug.   2,  5,   10
„     12,  18   ...
71.3
77.2
80.0
83.0
82.0
(2.) Lengths.
The material at hand for study of the 1920 run consists of random samples taken at close
intervals in time throughout the run. Fourteen dates are represented, distributed through July
and the first half of August, the total number of individuals examined being 1,567. The lengths
were obtained, as usual for these studies, with a steel tape, and were measured over the curve of
the sides of the fish from the median line of the snout to the outer tip of the middle rays of the
caudal fin. The middle rays are the shortest and their tips lie at the beginning of the notch of
the tail-fin.
"We give below an analysis of the run, based on- the samples submitted. The number of
individuals of each age-class appear, grouped by sex and by length, and the average size is
given of each category. W 38
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XXVIII.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1920, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Length in Inches.
19  	
19%   	
20   	
20%   	
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
23%	
24   	
24%   	
25   	
25%   	
26  	
26%   	
27   	
27%   	
2S   	
28%   	
29  	
Totals   	
Average lengths
Number op Individuals.
One-year-in-lake Type.
Four-Years old.
13
23.
17
16
93
23.S
Males.     Females.
1
3
14
24
IS
31
22
14
3
132
23.2
Five Years old.
Males.     Females.
1
3
1
4
3
26
7
4'7i
31
115
31
141
72
143
66
125
93
52
41
26
41
11
16
2
9
1
Two-years-in-lake Type.
Five Years old.
Males.    Females.
4
13
13
3
3
413     |
CO 7
42
28.2
25.3
24.1
2
S
8
IS
12
23.4
Six Years old.
Males.    Females.
1
4
6
10
6
4
S
9
26.2
2
6
10'
11
13
16
9
6
3
3
80
25.1
A comparison of the average lengths in 1920 of males and females of the different year-classes
with those of former years is given in the two tables which follow. The figures for 1920 stand
very close to the averages of several years. The younger age-class in each table is slightly
smaller than the average for a number of years, and the older age-class in each table is larger
than the general average, in both males and females.
From an inspection of the general averages given in the last columns of these tables it again
becomes apparent that the two-years-in-lake type obtain no advantage in size from their extra
year of life. The five-year class of this type has spent the same time feeding at sea as the
four-year class of the one-year-in-lake type. As seen from the tables, there is no significant
differences in their size. The same is true of the six-year fish of the lower table compared with
the five-year group above. The extra year brings no advantage and exposes them to attack for
an entire year in which they are especially vulnerable.
Table XXIX.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, for
Nine Successive Years.
1
1   1912.
1
1913.
1914.
1915.
1916.
1917.
1918.
1919.
1920.
Average.
Four-year  females   	
1
|   24.6
.   |    23.5
1
. . [    26.4
|    25.2
1
23.5
22.9
25.5
24.7
24.2
23.4
26.2
25.1
24.2
23.5
25.9
25.0
23.9
28.6
2'6.2
25.0
23.6
23,2
25.5
24.7
24.1
23.®
25.9
25.0
24.3
23.4
25.7
24.8
23.8
23.2
26.2
25.3
24.0
23.3
25.9
25.0 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 39
Table XXX.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, for
Five Successive Years.
1916.
1917.
19181.
1919.
1920.
Average.
24.1
23:8
26.2
24.8
I	
23.9
23..S
25.4
25.0
23.9
23.4
25.2
24.7
24.3
,23.4
25.S
24.7
24.0
23.4
26.2
25.1
24,1
23.6
25.8
24.9
The weight distribution among the four year-classes is given in the following table, the
males and females in each class being given separately. On the lower two lines of the table
are given the average lengths for each year-class, and for comparison the general averages for
a term of years. The latter can be used as a basis for judging the standing of the year with
respect to size. As we found in our discussion of lengths, so here it appears that the two younger
classes in each of the types are slightly smaller than the general averages, while the two older
classes of each type are well above the average.
Table XXXI.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1920, grouped by Weight, Age, Sex, and by their
Early History.
Weight in Pounds.
une Yeah
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.
a	
10
24
22
22
12
2
1
7
44
34
24
18
4
1
1
S
20
49
01
S3
7S
60
34
12
6
1
5
26
112
135
204
104
73
2S
9
1
2
4
11
15
5
4
1
1
15
17
14
5
3
1
6
3
8
6
11
7
10
3
3%
4   ..
4%
1
4
5%
17
19
6%
13
8
7%
16
2
S%
9    .
9%
10   ..
10%
No. of specimens. . .
Average weights   ..
Averages,  1915—20..
93
132
413
097
42
55
55
80
5.6
5.1
72
6.4
6.3
5.1
7.3
6.3
5.7
5.2
6.9
6.3
5.9
5.3
6,8
6.1 	
I
W 40
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
In the two groups most numerously represented in the Skeena River—the four- and five-year
classes, that spent their first year in lake residence—an increase in length as the season progresses is clearly evident. This appears below in the average lengths for a series of dates in
1920 :—
Date.
Four Years old.
Males.     Females.
Five Years old.
Males.     Females.
July 5, 7. 9 .
„ 12, 16, 19
„   20, 26, 28
Aug. 2, 5,  10
„   12,   18 • . .
23.3
23,6
24.3
23.9
24.3
22,9
23.2
23.1
23.4
23.4
25.4
26.0
26.4
26.4
26.3
24.9
25.2
25.4
25.3
25.2
(3.) Males and Females.
The season-of 1920 was exceptional in presenting a higher percentage of females than of
males in every age-class. During the eight previous years of which we have a record the males
of the four-year class have been more numerous than the females, the females have outnumbered
the males in the five-year class with one lake-year, the males have again been most abundant
in the five-year class of the two lake-year type, and also in the six-year class, prior to 1919.
In all river-basins thus far examined, in which the five-year classes predominate, the
four-year males are in excess of the five-year females. But in the Fraser River, in which the
four-year class prevails, this group has the sexes equally represented.
The history of the Skeena River as regards the relative numbers of the sexes is shown in
the following table:— *
Table XXXII.—Relative Numbers of Males and Females in Different Year-groups, Skeena River
Sockeyes, in a Series of Years.
Year.
One Year in CLake.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.     Males
Six Years old.
Females.
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
191S
1919
1920
54
.09
60
55
70
05
63
53
41
46
31
40
45
30
35
37
47
59
io
43
4S
46
46
37
58
53
53
52
54
54
63
56
65
61
52
43
44
36
39
4S
57
Averages
59
41
56
45
54
5S
56
45
41
46
42
44
55
51
49
THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1921.
(1.) General Characteristics.
The salient features of the run of 1921 are best brought out by a comparison with the run
of 1920. The latter was produced by one good brood-year (1915) and one poor one (1916). The
. result was a run of medium size, over four-fifths of which were progeny of the good brood-year.
The run of 1921 had as antecedents two extremely poor brood-years, the worst, with a single
exception, that had hitherto occurred in the Skeena River. The result of this portentous combination was, in 1921, a still lower level of production than the Skeena had previously attained.
The pack of only 41,000 cases in 1921 registered a further decline of 35 per cent, compared
with the extremely meagre yields of the two brood-years that produced it. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 41
If the salmon runs w7ere enemy forces that we -were desirous of annihilating, no more certain
method could be devised than destroying them thus in detail. The detachments appearing each
year operate wholly independently of those that immediately precede and follow. If we succeed
in destroying only one or two annual detachments in a five-year cycle, the results become
cumulative and the eventual destruction of the run is assured.
It cannot too often be urged that a rational policy of conservation must prescribe a large
annual safety factor. We must continue each year to provide for the escape of larger numbers
of spawning fish than are necessary to ensure adequate production during seasons in which the
conditions are favourable. A rationally controlled stream will show its spawning-grounds each
year seemingly overpopulated. This is nature's method of preventing serious depletion during
the not infrequent years when conditions are unfavourable for successful propagation and
growth, and there is no other safe method. Failure to observe this obvious precaution must
be held responsible in no small measure for the certain depletion with which all our salmon-
streams are threatened.
The appearance of occasional good years in the course of a declining run is customary and
to be expected. They should not serve in any degree to allay our apprehensions. Poor years
also, it is true, have occurred during the most prosperous periods of productivity in our streams.
But in a declining salmon run the poor years become ever more numerous, they infallibly in
the long run produce their kind, and they fall to lower and lower levels. The average production
for a series of years can always be depended on to tell the tale.
With these facts in mind, no one can doubt the serious condition we are fast realizing on
the Skeena and, it may be just to remark, on all the great salmon-rivers of the Province.
The measures adopted in 1908 for the preservation of the salmon-fisheries of the Province
were of much promise. By preventing the incursion of new canneries in districts already fully
developed, and by limiting the amount and character of gear that should be used in each fishing
district, a measure of control was assumed which would, if adequately administered, ensure the
preservation of the salmon runs. This method is incontestably the best that has been devised
for the purpose. Opposed to it stands the alternative method of unrestricted competition, the
results of which are now so alarmingly manifest in the waters of Alaska.
But restriction in number of canneries and in amount of fishing-gear obviously will not
suffice to protect a stream unless the restrictions are adequate in amount. It is impossible to
know in advance the utmost extent of the drafts that can safely be made on the run of any
stream. Cannery restriction and a definite boat-rating must always be considered tentative
measures. The situation is one that calls for solicitous inspection and constant watchfulness.
Regulations should be subject to annual revision on the part of responsible officials closely in
touch with conditions as they develop.
(2.)  The Aoe-classes.
We have made our customary analysis of the run of 1921 and present the results in a series
of tables given below.
As regards their early history,, the Skeena sockeyes fall in two main groups, the one-year-
in-lake and the two-years-in-lake groups; those of the former group descending to salt w7ater
after one year's residence as fingerlings in their native lake, the members of the second group
spending an additional year in fresh water.
In the Skeena basin always the one-year-in-lake group is the most important, and contains
two year-classes, which are maturing at the ages respectively of four and of five years. The less
important group, with two lake-years in their early history, also contains two year-classes, which
are respectively in their fifth and their sixth years. The relative numbers in these four year-
classes, with their length and weight distributions, appear in the two tables which follow. W 42
Beport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XXXIII.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1921, grouped by Length, Age, Sex, and
by their Early History.
Length in Inches.
Number op Individuals that spent
One Year in Lake.
Four Years old.
Males.
Five Years old.
Females.
Males.     Females.    Males.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Females
Males.
Females.
19 ..
19%
20 ..
20%
21 -..
21%
22 ..
22%
23 ..
23%
24 ..
24%
25 ..
25%
26 ..
26%
27 ...
27%
28 ..
28%
29 ..
1
1
9
16
42
66
125
113
124
60
2'7
6
1
1
10
20
59
15S
152
189
91
52
9
3
1
1
2
6
11
19
33
2S
38
20
19
10
6
1
4
7
15
56
49
37
42
16
10
12
8
4
1
1
14
11
10
10
Totals	
Average lengths
592
23.8
132
241
59
23.1
25.2
24.2
59
23
30
24.2
23,4
24.!
24.2
Table XXXIV.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1921, grouped by Weight, Age, Sex, and
by their Early History.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of Individuals that spent
One Year in Lake.
Four Years old.
Males.     Females.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years old.
Males.
Females.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
8
8
9
9
10
2
9
23
59
179
90
246
162
1S5
142
7S
83
28
29
3
13
4
1
4
10
34
3'7
44
24
23
10
3
15
4S
71
52
31
11
12
14
10
10
4
2
1
1
16
17
10
12 ■
2
Totals |       592
 !
Average weights   .. 5.7
192
241
59
23
30
5.1
i        5'1     1
5.7 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 43
As is seen by the preceding tables, the one-year-in-lake group far exceeds the other and
constitutes so large a percentage of the run that our statistics of the Skeena run have often
concerned themselves for practical reasons exclusively with this group. In 1921 it comprised
91 per cent, of all the salmon that entered the Skeena, a figure somewhat, though not greatly, in
excess of the average for a term of years. We give below for comparison the relative proportions
of the four year-classes in the Skeena. runs from 1916 to 1921. If we exclude the year 1916,
which was very unusual in extreme development of two-years-in-lake sockeyes, we find the other
five years show a remarkable agreement in the relative size of the two main divisions. The
average for the five years is 87 per cent, one-year-in-lake type and 13 per cent, two-years-in-lake
type.
Table XXXV.—Percentages of Different Age-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes, from 1916 to 1921.
Year.
1916 	
1917 	
1918 	
1919 	
1920 	
1921	
Averages,  1916 to 1920
One Year in Lake.
Four Years
old.
34
5'7
51
27
15
69
Five Years
old.
38
29
34
60
71
22
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years
old.
13
Six Years
old.
18
46
The two tables which follow treat the two general groups and the four age-classes as these
were found to occur in different periods throughout the entire run. The material collected by
the Department of Fisheries consisted of eighteen samples taken on different dates, usually
three or four days apart, consisting in all of 1,941 sockeyes. No very obvious changes in the
constitution of the run with respect to its year-classes are indicated hy these tables.
Table XXXVI.—Percentages of Different Age-classes, Skeena River Sockeyes, found to constitute
the Run on a Succession of Dates, Season of 1921.
Dates, 1921.
July
June  21   	
„      24   	
„      27   	
„      30   	
5   	
8   	
12   	
14   	
15   	
21   	
25   	
28   	
2  	
5   	
9   	
11   	
15	
IS   .'........
Averages
Aug.
One Year in [Lake.
Four Years
old.
71
6S
71
61
61
63
70
74
69
80
72
68
66
75
S3
63
53
53
69
Five Years
old.
21
20
19
30
26
16
20
19
22
IS
19
SO
20
22
12
21
■37
33
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years
old.
S
13
8
4
9
1
8
1
6
3
4
Six Years
old.
22
Number of
Specimens.
125
121
123
122
122
115
124
124
120
120
118
106
105
102
7S
75
71
70
1,941 W 44
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XXXVII.—Relative Numbers in One-year-in-lake and. Two-years-in-lake Groups, Skeena
River Sockeyes, 1921, on a Succession of Dates.
Dates, 1921.
One Year
in Lake.
Two Years
in Lake.
June 21 	
„     24 	
„     27 	
„      SO	
July    5 	
8 	
„      12	
„     14 	
„      IS 	
„     2.1 	
„   25  '..
„     28   	
Aug.     2   	
,,        5	
9   	
„      11   	
„     15   	
„      IS   	
Averages
92
SS
90
91
S'7
84
90
94
90
9S
92
9S
S7
97
95
92
90
S6
8
12
10
9
13
16
10
6
10
2
S
2
13
3
5
8
10
14
91
_|_
If the classes be grouped according to the number of years spent feeding in the sea, where
practically all of their growth occurs, we find that the two younger classes of each group have
had three years' feeding at sea and the two older classes of each group have had four years.
On a series of dates extending throughout the run we find a uniform progression in the relative
sizes of these two assemblages, as shown in the following table. The extent of the change is
not great, but the uniform trend is obvious, and its significance is attested by a similar progression of much greater amount which appeared in the run of 1919, and is made evident in Table
40 of our report for that year. In 1919 the assemblage which had spent three years in the sea
increased from 27 per cent, at the beginning of the season to 51 per cent, at its close. The
change was therefore iu the same direction as in 1921, the older group running most heavily
in the early part of the season.
Table XXXVIII.-
-Percentages of Skeena River Sockeyes,
Feeding at Sea.
1921, with Three and Four Years'
Date.
Three Years'
Sea-feeding.
Four Years'
Sea-feeding.
June 21, 24, 27', 30
July   6, S, 12, 14  .
„ IS, 21, 25, 28.
A-ag.    2, 5, 9   	
„      11,  15, IS   . . .
79
64
26
23
23
21
2S
A most striking contrast is presented by the runs of 1920 and 1921 in the relative numbers
which they contained of the two principal year-classes, the four- and the five-year classes of the
one-year-in-lake group. In 1920, as has been pointed out in the report of the run of that year,
the five-year class was far in excess and constituted 82 per cent, of the group. In 1921 the
relations were almost completely reversed, with the four-year class comprising 76 per cent, of
the group. In 1920 the disparity in numbers of the two age-classes seems to receive ready
explanation in the relative sizes of their respective brood-years. 1915 could well be expected to
produce a larger number of progeny than 1916. But the case is not so clear in the run of 1921.
Both four- and five-year fish of 1921 had very poor brood-years, to all appearances about equally 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 45
poor. We can only assume that the run of 1916 encountered even harder conditions than its
almost equally poor sister. The relations of brood-years to their progeny are shown below for
a term of years.
Table XXXIX.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Skeena River Sockeyes that spent One Year
in Lake, in Runs of Successive Years.
Run of the Year.
Percentage
Four and Five
Years old.
Brood-years from which
derived.
1912
1913
1914
1917
1916
1917
19 IS
1919
1020
1921
(92,498 cases)    j
(52,927 cases)    j
(130,166 cases)    |
(116,553 cases)    j
(60,923 cases)    ;	
(65,760 cases)   .. .'. 5
(123,322 cases)    j
(1S4,945 cases)    1
(90,869 cases)     j
(41,018 cases)  j
5 yrs. 43%
4 yrs. 57%
5 yrs. 50%
4 yrs. 50.%
5 yrs. 75%
4 yrs. 25%
5 yrs. '64%
4 yrs. 36%
5 yrs. 60%
4 yrs. 40%
5 yrs. 62%
4 yrs. 3S%
5 yrs. 59%
4 yrs. 41%
5 yrs. 69%
4 yrs. 31%
5 yrs. 82%
4 yrs. 18%
'5 yrs. 24%
4 yrs. 76%
/
1907 (10»,41S cases).
ISO'S (139,S46 cases).
1909 (87,901  cases).
1910 (187,246 cases).
1911 (131,066 cases).
1012 (92.,49S  cases).
1013 (52,927  cases).
1914 (130,166 cases).
1915 (116,563 cases).
t   1816  060,923 cases).
1917   (65,760 cases).
(3.) Lengths and Weights.
The size attained by the different categories of the 1921 run to the Skeena, as evidenced
by the lengths and weights of our samples, is shown in a series of tables given below.
In the first of these the average lengths of the four year-classes in 1921 are brought in
comparison with the average of similar figures obtained during analyses of the runs from 1912
to 1920. These general averages undoubtedly present a reliable normal size for the age-classes
of this river. On comparison, it is seen in 1921 that the two younger year-classes of each group
—the four-year class of the first and the five-year class of the second—are almost up to the
standard, while the older two year-classes—the five-year class of the first group and the six-year
class of the second—are in each case far below the normal. The apparent significance of this
diversity in growth among the different year-classes is emphasized w7hen we come to consider the
nature of the grouping. The tw7o younger classes, which reached normal size, while not of the
same age, had spent the same length of time, and in fact the same three years, in the sea.
Equally the two older classes, while one was five and the other six years old, had spent the same
period in the ocean—a period which included the same three years with the two younger classes,
together with a fourth year which was not shared by the other two. A more intensive study of
the scales than we have been able to make would demonstrate whether the abnormally restricted
growth was evenly distributed among the years of sea-feeding or could be considered the result
of unfavourable conditions during a shorter period of time. It is worthy of note that five- and
six-year classes in the 1921 run of the Nass and Rivers Inlet—the nearest important sockeye-
streams—showed no deficiency in length compared with averages in those streams. W 46
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XL.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, 1921, compared with General Averages,
1912 to 1920.
Average
Lengths,
1921.
Averages,
1912 to
1920.
One year in lake—
Four-year   males
Four-year females
Five-year males ...
Five-year  females
Two years in lake—
Five-year males  ..
Five-year  females
Six-year males  ..
Six-year  females
24.0
23.3
25.9
25.0
24.1
23.6
2.3.S
24.9
Table XLI.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1921, One Year in Lake, Average Lengths on a
Series of Dates.
Date.
Four Years old.
Males.     Females.
Five Years old.
Males.     Females.
June 21, 24   	
„ •   27, 30, July  5, 8
July   12, 14, 18	
„     21, 25, 28   	
Aug.    2, 5   . .	
9, 11   	
„      15, 18   	
23.9
23.7
213.9
23.8
24.1
24,4
23.8
23.0
22.9
23.0
23.1
23.3
23.4
23,3
25.2
25.4
25.1
24.8
25.1
25.6
25.4
24.1
23.9
24.2
24.4
24.5
24.0
24.6
Table XLII.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake,
for Ten Successive Years.
Four-year   males
Four-year  females
Five-year  males  .
Five-year  females
1912. |   1913,
1914.
24.6  I    23.5   I
23.5   |   22.9
26.4   |    25.5  I
25.2   [    24.7   |
 I L
24.2
23.4
I I
1915. 1   1916.
 I
2.4.2
23.5
I
26.2   I    25.9
25.1   I    25.0
I
23.9
23.6
26.2
25.0
1917
23.6
23.2
25.5
24.7
1918.
24.1
23.3
1919.
24,3
23.4
25.7
24. S
1920.
23.8
23.2
26.2
25.3
1921.
23.S
23.1
25.2
24.2
Table XLIII.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, Tivo Years in Lake,
for Six Successive Years.
1916. 1   1017.
1918.I   1919.
1920.
1921.
Five-year  males
Five-year females
Six-year males   .
Six-year  females
24.1   I
23.8 I
23.9
23.8
26.2   j    25.4
24.S'|    25.0
23.9
23,4
25.2
24:7
24,3
23.4
26.8
24.7
24.1
23.4
26.2
25.1
24.2
23.4
24.9
24.2
The average weights of the different year-classes are in accord with the data presented
above for the lengths. The two classes with three years' residence in the sea are of average
size or only slightly below the average.    This holds equally for males and females of each class. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 47
But the two classes that remained growing in the sea for four seasons are not only below normal,
but so far below that no parallel can be found among the runs of the preceding seven years for
which we have records of weights. .
Table XLIV.—Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, 1921, compared with
General Averages, 1915 to 1921.
Average
Weights,
1921.
Averages,
1915'to
1920.
One year in lake—
Four-year   males
Four-year females
Five-year males   ..
Five-year  females
Two years in lake—
Five-year males  .
Five-year  females
Six-year males  ..
Six-year  females
5.1
0.4
5.7
5.S
5.1
6.0
5,6
o.i
5.2
6.9
6.3
5.9
5.3
6.8
6.1
Table X.LV.—Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes for Eight Successive Years.
I
I.
I
1914. I 1915. | 1910.  1917. I 191S. [ 1919. j 1920'.
I
JL
1021.
5.1
6.4
5.8
5.1
6.0
5.6
One year in lake—
Four-year males  .
Four-year females
Five-year males   .
Five-year females
Two years in lake—
Five-year males  .
Five-year  females
Six-year males   ..
Six-year  females
'5.9
5.3
7.2
6.3
5.2
6.S
6.2
5.0
■5.2
0.6
6.0
6.4
5.1
7.1
6.3
5.S
5.4
7.1
5,9
5.3
5.0
6.4
6.0
5.5
5.2
6.3
5.8
5.3
6.9
6.4
O.'d
6.6
6.1
6.1
5.5
7.0
6.2
6.1
5.4
6.9
0.3
5.6
5.1
6,3
5.1
7.3
(4.)  Males and Females.
The last two years stand alone in the series which w7e have examined, in the excess of females
in practically all groups. It is the general rule on the Skeena, as indeed in the majority of the
sockeye-streams, for the four-year males to exceed in number the females. During the eight
years prior to 1920 the records give an average of 59 per cent, males and only 41 per cent,
females in this class, and in no year of the series did females outnumber the males. It seems
remarkable, therefore, that this relation should be reversed during two years in succession.
The same condition exists to an approximately equal degree in the five-year class that spent
two years in lake. The average of four years shows 55 per cent, males, but in 1920 there were
but 43 per cent, males and in 1921 50 per cent. « '
W 48
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table XLVI.—Relative Numbers of Males and Females in Different Year-groups,
Skeena River Sockeyes, in a Series of Years.
One Year in Dake.
Two Years in Lake.
Year.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1912   	
54
69
60
55
70
65
63
53
41
44
46
31
40
45
30
35
37
47
59
56
42
47
47
45
43
4S
46
46
O 1
44
5S
53
53
55
57
52
54
54
63
56
1
54
5S
56
45
41
43
1913  	
56
65
61
52
43
50
44
35
39
4S
57
50
1914  	
1915	
1916   	
1917   	
46
4a
1918   	
1919   	
44
1920   	
59
1921   	
57
Averages, 1912-20...
59
41
44
56
55               45
1
'     51
49
THE SOCKEYE RUN TO THE NASS RIVER IX 1920.
(1.)  General Considerations.
In our report on the Nass River run of sockeyes in 1919 (page 64) we called attention to
certain disquieting features in the recent history of the river, and stated that extreme interest
would attach to the history of the next few years, which would certainly demonstrate to what
extent the river w7as being depleted of salmon. The first of this series goes far toward justifying
any forebodings we may have entertained. The pack of 16,740 cases was nearly 25 per cent,
less than the smallest previous pack of recent years. The Nass River has a five-year cycle.
The average pack Jor the last cycle, 1916 to 1920, is 24,0S3 cases; and for the preceding cycle,
1911 to 1915, is 33,523' cases. Three years of the previous cycle had each a larger pack than
was made by any single year of the last period, and three years of the last period had each a
lower record than was made by any year during the preceding five-year cycle. The evidence now
appears conclusive that the Nass River run has suffered impairment. How serious the damage
has been cannot be fully ascertained until the progeny of the present cycle, now feeding in lake
and sea, shall have matured and constituted the runs of the next few years. All of those
interested in the perpetuation of the salmon industry on the Nass should co-operate to lessen
the intensity of fishing operations in this district before hopeless depletion has become a fact.
The condition has become highly critical. —
12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 49
(2.)  The Age-geoups. ;
In the 1920 run there were represented seven different age-groups, four of which constituted
98 per cent, of the run. These are the four- and five-year groups, the young of which had spent
one year in fresh water before passing out to sea; and the five- and six-year groups, the young
of which had spent their first two years in fresh water. Of these, the two five-year groups, as
usual in this river-basin, were of prime importance, together forming 84 per cent, of the whole
run. Although containing such diverse elements and sockeyes of such a wide range in age—from
three to seven years—the Nass may well be considered to have a five-year cycle.
The following table gives the percentages of the four principal year-groups in the Nass River
run for the past nine years. Minop fluctuations occur in the relative abundance of the four
groups in different years, but in general the order of precedence is clearly maintained. The
most abundant group numerically is the five-year-old, two-years-in-lake class, which usually
constitutes well over 50 per cent, of the run. The five-year-old, one-year-in-lake class occupies
second place, producing nearly 20 per cent, of the run, usually exceeding the other two classes
combined. The year 1920 closely approximated the average distribution of the year-classes,
showing an excess in the predominating class and a corresponding deficiency in the one-year-in-
lake groups.
Table XLVII.
Year.
Percentage or Individuals that spent
One Year in Lake.
Four Years   Five Years
old. old.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years
old.
Six Years
old.
1912    	
1913   	
1914    	
1915    	
1916   	
1917   	
1918    	
1919   	
1920    	
Averages
8
15
4
19
9
10
30
12
27
12
41
14
17
15
16
22
14
20
■63
71
45
59
i©6
71
45
65
72
62
2
2
10
An analysis of the entire run is presented in the two tables which follow, based on 974
individuals, taken by random samplings at weekly intervals from July 18th to August 22nd.
The lengths and weights are given for males and females separately of each of the seven year-
groups represented in the run. The seven-year type, three years in lake, usually found in Nass
River runs,- furnished no representatives in 1920. The sea-type, the young of which proceed to
sea directly on hatching, had but two representatives in our samples, one for each year-group.
While this type is never abundant, it contained more representatives in 1919 than the three-
years-in-lake type. W 50
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
1*1
e
El
§
s
s
e
=Q
ss
as
BQ
S
Oj
H
Ei
ft
tn
fa
o3
OJ
OJ
W
w
ci
o
o
fa
*q
d
w
fl
2
"3
H
rH
CD
d
3
<y
fa
|H
z
CU
43
ta
d
H
cd
d
•d
o
i-
fl
o
a
9
CM
as aJ
SO
fa
cd
>.H
tH
m
cu
M
rH
OS
ci
03
a
<
0
OJ
oi
rH
>
a
Cl
J9
S3
d
fa
H
tH
CQ
«*
H
oi
m
QJ
ta
a
z
w
eu
d
•a
•       ■   Ci)   ^   $i   IO   I'rl   h   W   CC   O   tS   00   )ti   rH   H   rj   H      ■      •      •
on
OJ
a
•      ■                                   H  tM   ^  O   H   W  ^   n  H                              ...
_
>»
o
S3
fa
ed
H
n
rS
■       -r-t       •CO"^(X)t-iHOC>ttt't;-»^OO^Ktli-(       ■       •       ■
i^
i-
fa
^
c
cn
CQ
«
rH
0
a
C/J
cm
fa
o
CtJ
>s
JH
E-f
CP
0)
s
d
rH
'5
QJ
ci
-d
d
*
"*.
o
a
cm
cu
d
O
m
u
d
fa
___	
u
e>
s
fa
d
03
c$
ta'
OJ
a
2   I
a
tfl
a
a
£3
M
i7
a!
>
a
£
^
SP
SP
*
#
*
*
SP
SP
t
«J
o
'■'
*
i e
o
'•'
c
e
o
.-■
c
CV
o
C*
c«
c
e-
6" 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 51
6
I
«
CD
CJ
d
r-t
t-i
d
a
CU
fa
N
d
h
XJl
d
'—'
fa
r*{
01
d
Cfl
1-1
a
O
d
a
d
d
<u
fa
N
-
0
Cfl
. £
cu
-d
H
d
Cfi'
cj
d
d
2
o
d
a
OJ
1-1     'P
W CU
CQ
fa
d Uj
d
——_
>H
CU
■4
53
d
1-1         t^
HJ
H
<
o
Cfl
a
>
S
o .
d
a
o
■   CU
On
d
cu
QQ
OJ
CD
H
0)
M
d
~i
l-
CQ
rt
-A
d
CQ
cc
-d
or
t-
o
a
c
«5
h
fa
a
H
Eh
cu
OJ
d
Cl  M  fl   H Q  H  N 3i O 00	
H   H  M  Ift  b-  IQ  Cl             	
t-
fa
p?3
C
OJ
rQ
r-
CO
O
a
QE
©
fa ■
CU
a
d
&H
Cfl
H
cu
r-
T+t
o
d
IC*
t-:
-id
d
d
fa
S
d
fd
d        =?
CM
o>
O)
d
O
o
IQ
d
CJ
a
OJ
fa
D*
»o.
d
Of
CO
Ct-
iri
|
fa
a
K
C
(0
&
■a
e
OJ
rC
0
s
c
>
a
E-
<J
is
SP
#
sP
ss
Tt
w
cr
cc
fc-
a
*
r-
r-
t-
i- W 52
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
The relative sizes of the different types and year-classes are in general similar in successive
seasons if we consider the runs as a whole, but the variations in this respect are extreme from
one end of a fishing season to the other. For this reason numerous samplings are necessary to
give us satisfactory data concerning the construction of the run.
These changes in the relative abundance of the year-groups in different portions of the run
occur in fairly uniform sequence in different years, as can be seen on comparing the following
table with similar tables in our previous reports in this series. The sea-type and the one-year-in-
lake type, with their four year-classes, appear most numerously in the earlier half of the run.
Representatives of the sea-type are among the earliest to enter—a fact 'which may account for
the small numbers to appear in our samples in 1920, our first sample dating past the middle
of July. The two-years-in-lake and the three-years-in-lake types show a distinct tendency to run
late in greatest numbers.
Table L.—Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates in 1920.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Three Yrs. in Lake.
Sea-type.
Cfl
^ d S
eu'd d
fSa
%■ a %
<lr-l  Cl
Date.
Four
Years old.
Five
Years old.
Five
Years old»
Six
. Years old.
Six
Years old.
Three
Years old.
Four
Years old.
July   IS	
15
18
11
6
33
24
2'3
10
1
3^5
44
'5-8
73
98
94,
18
12
.7
5!
1
2
'2
1
4
2
4
1
1
121
171
124
8	
„     ,15	
17*
298
9'?
86
(3.) Peopobtions of the Sexes.
In the 1920 run the females outnumbered the males in all except one wholly unimportant
year-group. The total number of males in our six samplings constituted 47 per cent, and the
females 53 per cent, of the run.
Considerable diversity has occurred in this regard in different years. Considering the four
principal year-classes only, we find that the four-year class, one-year-in-lake type has more males
than females in every year of which records are available, except in 1920; the five-year class
of the same type has always the reverse condition, with more females than males; the five-year
class, two-years-in-lake type has a distinct excess of males in three years out of seven, an equal
excess of females in two of the above years, including 1920, and an essential equality of the
sexes the remaining two years; the six-year class of this type is always poorly represented, so
averages are uncertain, but our material shows a distinct tendency toward excess of males.
(4.) Lengths and Weights. I
The Nass River sockeyes of 1920 were of average size or above, the slight deficiency in both
male and female four-year fish being more than compensated for by noticeable excess above the
averages in the other year-groups.
The following tables of lengths and weights give a comparative view over a number of years.
The reliability of our data for 1920 is attested by the agreement in every group shown in the two
tables. Wherever the lengths are above or below the average as given, the weights are correspondingly above or below the average obtained from a series of years. ^■.'"-
12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 53
Table LI.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Different Classes' from 1912 to 1920.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Year.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1912 (inches)   	
1913         	
1914
10ie         „       	
1017          „        	
1918
1919          	
1920
24.6
24.1
24.6
24.0
24.5
23.4
23.0
24.9
24.0
23.3
23.5
■ 23.7     .
23.5
23.3
23.2
24.3
24.1
23.4
26.5
23.6
26.1
25.9
26.4
25.5
25.7
26.2
26.3
25.1
24.8
25.1
25.2
25.0
24.7
24.7
23.2
25.0
26.2
26.0
26.3
36.5
'    26.5
25.3
25.9
26.5
26.7
25.-4
25.2
25.5
2S.9
23.6
24.7
25.0
25,®
25.9
27.0
26.0
26.9
26.6
271.9
26.5
27.2
27.9
27'.4
25.6
26.6'
25.6
25.3
25.7
25.5
25.2
26.7
25.9
Total averages...
24.3
23.5     |       26.0
I
25.0
26.2
25.4
r
27.0      f       25.8
Table LII.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Different Classes from 1912 to 1920.
One Year in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Year.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
„ Five Y
;ars old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1913  (pounds)
5
5
6'!.3
6
0
«!7
1914
6.2
5.0
7.4
6.5
7.2
6:5
7.9
6.8
1915
5.6
5.2
6.9
6.4
7.0
6.6
7.2
6.5
1016
6.0
5:3
7.2
6.3
7.2
6.2
8.1
6.4
10,17
5.3
5.3
6.8
6.2
6.3
5j8
7.3
6.4
19118
0.3
5.8
7.2
6.3
7.2
6.4
8,3
6.7
1019
6.0
5.5
6.6
5.9
6.7
6.1
.7.®
6.7
1920
3.6
5.2
7.4
6.3
7.4
6.7
7.9
7.0
Total  average
5...         5.8
5.3
7.1
6.3
7.0
6.3.
7.8
6.7
In previous reports we have called attention to the fact that the August part of the run
may often be distinguished sharply from the part of the run that precedes the first of August.
The differences are often clearly marked in the two series in the centres of the scales, which
record the early history of the fish in fresh water, and a further difference is found in the
decidedly larger size of the August fish. The latter difference may be exemplified in the 1920
run by the average size of the females of the dominant type in different parts of the run. The
dominant type consists of five-year individuals that had spent their first two years in fresh water.
July 18.
July 25.
Aug. 1.
Aug. 8.
Aug.
Average   lengths
Average  weights
24.8
6.1
24.8
6.1
25.4
6.4
23:8
6.5
26.4
6.9
25.9
©.3
_]_
We have not previously in these studies plotted weights against lengths in any group to
ascertain the amount of variation that exists in the weights of fish having the same length and
other facts of interest in connection with this distribution. In the following tables we have done
this for the dominant Nass River group, which consists, as we have shown, of five-year individuals,
which spent their first two years in their lake before descending to sea. In the tables the males
and females are treated separately, and for purposes of comparison similar data are given also
for the year 1919. W 54
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
On each of the horizontal lines of the table is given the number of individuals which have
the length stated at the left end of the line and the weights as given at the tops of the columns.
The variation in w7eight of fish of equal length is astonishingly great. In Table LV. it is shown,
for example, that male salmon of this group, captured in 1919, 26% inches long, varied from 5 to
8 lb. in weight. The right-hand column gives the average weights for the different lengths. That
these increase together is of course inevitable, as is also the fact of a regular progressive increase.
The irregularities in our table are wholly due to the small number of individuals in certain of
the categories, and largely disappear in the first table in the groups between 25 and 28 inches,
where the numbers are large enough to give fairly reliable averages. When this series of
numbers is smoothed it is seen that in 1919, in this group of male sockeyes, an increase of
V-2 inch in the length caused a corresponding increase of 0.3 lb.
This method of handling the data makes possible a direct comparison of the weights of
males and females of equal length. The general impression prevails that female fish are plumper
and therefore heavier than males if material of equal length is chosen. It is a matter of observation that the snouts of the males are sharper and appear longer, even in the earlier phases of
the run. This characteristic would also tend to decrease weight relative to length. But the
result of our tabulation w7as exactly the reverse of what we had anticipated. For every length
which the males and females have in common the males average heavier than the females, a fact
that holds equally in 1919 and in 1920.
To bring these facts together in small compass and in simplified form, we repeat below the
average weights from the four tables, having first smoothed each set by threes.
Table LIII.
Inches.
1919.
Males.       Females.
1920.
Males.       Females.
24 .
24%
25 .
23%
26 .
26%
27 .
27%
28 .
Lb.
3.2
5>:5
5,7
6.0
6.3
6.6
6.9
7:2
Lb.
5,1
5.9
6.2
9.5
6.7
6.9
Lb.
5:8
6.0
6.2
6.7
6.9
7.3
7.6
7.9
Lb.
6.0
6,4
6.7
7.0
7.8
7.7
8.0
Table LIV.—Length and Weight, Distribution of Male Nass River Sockeyes, 1919, Five Years old,
Two Years in Lake.
Length in
Inches.
Weight in Pounds.
6%.
'?%. 8.      I     8%.    I       9.
Average
Weights.
23   	
23%    	
24   	
24%    	
25   	
25%   	
26   	
26%   	
27.
27%   	
28	
28% '	
29   	
20%    	
Ave. lengths
24:8
3
9
9
13
9
.25.'
10
22
■30
17
12
4
26.0
2
2
17
35
18
16
7
-I-
4
17
29
SO
16
26.3    |     26:!
12
21
19
1
5
3
15
3
>T.8
27,6
9.2
5.7
5.7
6.1
6,3
6.6
7.0
7.2
7.5
7.9 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 55
Table LV.—Length and Weight Distribution of Female Nass River Sockeyes, 1919, Five Years old,
Two Years in Lake.
Length in
Weight in Pounds.
Average
Inches.
4.
4%.            5.            3%.           6,           6%.    1       7.      |     T%.    I       8.
Weights.
33   	
23%   	
24   	
24%   	
1
1
1
1
3
Q
12
16
15
9
2
1
2
3
13
54
26
23
9
1
3
23
48
53
25
.8
2
6
15
41
30
14
2
,3
20
26
19
3
1
* ■
1
3
22
4
1
4,9
5,2
5.1
5.3
25   	
5.6
23%   	
26   	
5.8
6.2
26%    	
27   	
6.4
6.9
27%    	
28    ".
28%   	
6.9
Ave. lengths .
24:8
25.3
25.8
26.2
26:5
27.0
Table LVI.—Length and Weight Distribution of Male Nass River Sockeyes, 1920,
Five Years old, Two Years in Lake.
Length in
Inches.
Weight in Pounds.
4%.
31%.
6.     I   6%.
I
7.     I    7%.
8%.   I      9.
Average
Weights.
22
22%
23 .
23%
24 .
24%
25 .
23%
26 .
26%
27 .
2T%
28' .
28%
29   .
3
20
12
8
10
15
29
1'2
3
1
2
21
19
12
5.0
5.6
6.5
6.3
7.0
7.2
7.6
7.9
81.1
■8.7 W 56
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table LVII.—Length and Weight Distribution of Female Nass River Sockeyes, 1920,
Five Years old, Two Years in Lake.
Length in
Inches.
Weight in Pounds.
4%.
3%.
6%.
7%.   f
8%.
Average
Weights.
22 .
22%
23 .
33%
24 .
24%
23 .
23%
26 .
26%
27
27!%
2S> .
28%
•29 .
29%
3
1
7
10
6
2
1
22
22
11
1
9
19
54
15
10
38
20
15
1
16
13
4.1
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.6
3.6'
6.1
6.4
6.7
7.0
7.3
7.7
8.0
THE SOCKEYE RUN TO THE NASS RIVER IN 1921.
(1.)   GENERAL CHABACTERISTICS AND THE AGE-GROUPS.
No facts are known to us which can in any degree explain the phenomenally poor run of
sockeyes to the Nass River in 1921. The principal brood-year for 1921 was 1916, when a pack
of over 31,000 cases was put up, and the spawning-grounds were reported to be abundantly
populated when inspected in the fall of that year.
Fears have been frequently expressed during the last few years lest the future of the river
might be menaced by American traps located at projecting points along the northern side of
Dixon Entrance. That certain of these traps do intercept the schools of Nass River sockeyes
cannot be questioned. But they were in no way responsible for the shortage in 1921. Had they
made serious inroads on the brood-year, 1916, the canneries at the mouth of the river could not
have made a full pack, as they did in that year. As for 1921, the American traps were not
driven and the Nass fish were undisturbed. An occasional floating trap was installed in the
region in question, but the few sockeyes we were able to examine from their captures were
certainly not bound for the Nass River. The poor packs on Rivers Inlet and the Skeena in
1921 could be anticipated from the history of these streams in 1916 and 1917. But the occurrence
of a similar shortage in the Nass River remains totally unexplained.
The material that served for the following analysis of the run w7as gathered, by random
sampling on twenty different periods, selected at close intervals throughout the season. The
total number of individuals examined was 1,797 and the dates extend from June 28th to
August 19th.
Seven year-classes were present in the 1921 run, as shown in the two following tables, in
which the individuals comprising these classes are shown grouped according to sex, length, and
weight. The seven-year-old class, which spends three years in the lake as fingerlings, is always
in very small numbers when present. No individuals of this class were found among our
samples in either 1920 or 1921. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 57
as
-,
o
s
oo
00
a
•r-
e
6i
■  Cl  CN   M  t-I  C3  r-t
(NrlfiH'
rH   Ol  rH   (TA  OZ  CO  H
r!R     *  <M  CM  -^  rH      » rH
Tt(H«00(D^l-t-lMCO«l^N     *tH
Irl   H(M     ■«9'«rl-l'-fflfi|'f'*rtH
;WCPQ©IOOr-ftlOOi»0^^
HHTfL-ODTHrlffl©MH
'MNCOrlMb-fNNi
•   51  Cl W  W  M  CO N M  -^  IS  W     ■  rH
■«C>C5iOH55C5l.-rtHrl
CNjt-lOCOC^r-ll.OC^C^CNlT
!C5COHH«INrtCC^7*OlQOt0t-(:00CftffifflS'5
H       <J W 58
Keport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
to
*3
CD
0
o
^
a
rH
»o
e»
0)
ti
CL)
02
U
IO
CD
w
cd
IQ
o
Ph
r^
a>
ci
o
9
SQ
<*>
.2
12
O
a
O
rH
"a
ci
t-i
fq
T"!
H
s
El
£
CJ
t-I
TO
CD
ed
L-
IQ
•3
(0
H
s
&l
OJ
rO
a
■d
CD
lO
IO
i
a
o
r-\
CO
TO  (D
TO
fH
rH
-ri"
CS
H
*s
QJ
X
CO
^
fc4
w
ci
I—
IS
EH
S
e
a
o
"3
£
8
a
•d
•      •     •      -CNCNCOrHcDCNrHCNrHrH     •     •
CO
CO
sa
>
o
■..■•_     ■HHrl         rl
CO
CO
CD
o
'fa
o
a
EH
CD
Eh
^
TO
CD
fe
•      •      *      •   CM  r-i   -^1   tO   rH   CN   t-   I-   3)   ^   rH      •
CO
L-
rO
fa
OJ
OQ
cd
-      •      •      •                                   rH  rH   rH
L-
t-
'S
M
a
O
D
a
a
S
fe
in
oi
rd
TO
CD
•      •tHlOCUl-rlfflOOlCOrt      -      -      •      •
cl
B
c>
a
CD
•      ■                   ^   H   O   P|   ri   IO   H              •      •      •      •
Cft
cp
>H
DO
rH   CN   rH   rH
CO
1"H
'
6
EH
cd
CD
rH
Eh
-
cu
Ol
,s
•HOHC?IO(?liflrtN©H
00
OS
rH
cS
rimi-WCrptMCpN
CP
£
rH   rH   rH
CD
_
o
H3
CD
*3
a
CN
rH
.      .      .                   H   CN   H                              •              ...
t-
CP
"S>
OQ
00
tH
CD
OJ
EH
Ph
TO
•      •      'rHrHC^OrHCNCiQrHCD^rHi-l      •      ■
Ci
05
o
&2
3
rH   rH
IO
CO
a
<£>
?>
($
a
CN
•^
o
a
Q
tS
oo
ID
a
O
TO
5j
rH
55
s
fe
i
u
0
TO
CD
csri
O
ed
CO
CO
rH
s
os
a
A
X]
SJ3
e
Cl
ID
TO
3
o
H
Ml
OJ
H
£
Mco-*^i6iOCDcpt-l-^(»fflftOc5
rA   tH 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 59
The percentages of the four principal groups in the 1921 run diverged sharply from the
average in one respect. The five-year class of the one-year-in-lake type was very scantily
represented. Whereas it usually comprises a fifth or more of the run, in 1921 it contributed
little more than a fifteenth. It was even lass numerous than either the four- or the six-year
classes, although it usually outnumbers both of these combined. It was proportionally far smaller
than in the nine previous years of which we have record, while the other five-year class was
correspondingly more numerous than ever before.
Table LX.
Year.
PEItCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS IHttT SPENT
One Year in Lake.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years
old.
Six Years
old.
1912
1913
1914
1915'
1916
1917
1918'
1919
1920
1921
8'
15'
4
19
9
10
30
7
8-
10
27
12
41
14
17
15
16
22
14
7
63
71
45
59
©6
71
45
65
72
2
2
10
8
In the following table we give again the percentages, on a large number of dates throughout
the season of 1921, of each class of sockeyes then comprised in the run. The table displays the
entrances and the exits of groups and the period during the run when they attained their
maximum numbers. It is to be noted that at the opening of the fishing season the two one-year-
in-lake classes were present in small numbers only, that the two classes increased in parallel
fashion until they reached their maximum numbers during the third week in July, and then
rapidly decreased until they almost wholly, disappeared in August. Their parallel history during
the season is a striking phenomenon. The two six-year classes also progressed proportionally,
being absent or nearly so on the early days of the run and increasing toward the close, the
class belonging to the three-years-in-lake type entering later than the other. The two sea-type
classes were present only during the first two weeks of the season. The principal class of
five-year-olds does not vary significantly during the season. Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table LXI.—Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates in 1921.
Date.
One Yeae in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Three
Y'EARS
in Lake.
Sea-type.
SQ
^^    •     ■
O rarQ
fS!
Four
Years old.
Five
Years old.
Five
Years old.
Six
Years old.
Six
Years old.
Three
Years old.
Four
Years old.
6
5
8
11
19
17
2.8
.20
22
6
17
8
16
7
5
1
1
3
2
6
«
6
7
21
36
18
11
9
8
'8
4
1
2
2
3
2
83
79
79
SO
69
'57
36
56
62
77
63
67
64
83
88
80
79
79
67
74
2
6
4
5
5
6
12
17
14
8
4
16
16
14
22
12
1    .
1
2
2
1
6
3
2
4
'8
13
5
5
2
3
4
3
3
1
1
122
July   1    	
125
July  7,  8   	
123
99
July 11	
122
July 13,  14   	
July  16   	
125.
25
July 18   	
9'5
July 20  	
100
July 22	
47
July 26   	
72
July  29   	
12'5'
July 30   	
49
Aug.  1  	
74
98
Aug.  6	
69
Aug.  8   	
174
Aug.   13   	
67
Aug.  16  	
36
Aug.  19   	
No.  Individuals   ....
170       [       1,31       1      1,300
136
28
17
15
1,797
Percent,   each   class
9
7
72
8
2
1
1
(2.) Lengths and Weights.
Table LXII.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Different Classes from 1912 to 1921.
One Year
in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Year.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.     Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1912   (inches)    	
24.6
24.1
24,6
24.0
24.5
23.4
25.0
24.9
24.0
24.3
23.3
23.5
22.7
23.5
23.3
23.2
24.3
24.1
23.4
23.5
26.5
25.1
26.2
26.0
26.3
26.5
26.5
25.3
23,9
25.4
25.2
25.5
26.9
23,6
24.7
25.0
27.0
26.0
26.9
26.6
27.9
26.5
27.2
27.9
27.4
27.9
25.6
1913          „          	
25.6
26.1
25.9
26.4
25.5
25.7
26.2    .
26.3
25.5
24.8
25.1
25.2
25.0
24. T
24.7
25.2
25.0
24,3
26.6
1914          „          	
25.6
1915          „          	
25.3
1916
25.7
1917          „          	
25'.5
19118          „          	
25l2
1919          „           	
26.5     J      25.8
26.7           25.9
26.2            25.6
26.7
1920          „           	
25.9
1921          „           	
26.2
. 12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 61
Table LXIII.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Different Classes from 1913 to 1921.
One Year
in Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Year.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.    Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
J.
A
A
6.7
1914         „          	
6.2
5.6
6.0
5,3
6.3
6.0
5.6
6.0
5.0
5.2
5,3'
5,3
5.8
0:5.
5.2
5.4
7.4
6,9
7'.2
6.S
7.2
6.6
7.4)
6.9
6.5
6.4
6,3
6.2
6.3
5.9
6.3
6.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
6.3
7.2
6.7
7.4
6.9
■6.5
6.6
6,2
5.8
6.4
6.1
6.7
6.3
7.9
7.2
'8.1
7.3
8.3
7,8
7.9
7.7
L_
6.8
1915                     	
6.5
1916         „          	
6.4
1617         „              • ■
6,4
19'1>8                      	
6.7
1910          ,                      	
6,7
1920          „          	
7.0
1921         ,.          	
6.6
In the two tables which precede we have given the average lengths and the average weights
of Nass River sockeyes for a term of years. These show in general a close correspondence in
the averages of the different age-groups, especially in those groups that are most numerously
represented in every run. The annual averages in these are more reliable than in groups with
smaller numbers and are less subject to the chance variations of limited random sampling. The
groups with smaller numbers are always those of the sea-type and those that remain three years
in the lake after hatching. As each of these types contains two distinct year-groups and the
males and females of each year-group are listed separately, each category has very few individuals.
In 1921 the three year-groups of these two types combined contained only sixty individuals and
the categories ranged from five to fifteen. Averages based on such very limited material are
of little value for any one year. It is only by summing up the averages of a long series of
years that we obtain a reliable index of the sizes characteristic of the members of these year-
groups.
The dominant classes in the Nass are the four-year group and the five-year group of the
one-year-in-lake type and the five-year and six-year groups of the two-years-in-lake type. Together
these constituted in 1921 approximately 97 per cent, of the run. Their lengths and weights,
which we compare in the following tables with the general averages derived from our records,
since 1912, indicate that they had had a normal existence in the sea and were as well nourished
as average representatives of their respective groups in any year. There is no reason to believe
that the phenomenally small run in 1921 was due in any measure to adverse conditions that
affected injuriously the growth of the fish.
Table LXIV.—Average Weights of Nass River Sockeyes, 1921, compared with General Averages-
of 191Jt to 1919.
Average
Weights,
H921.
General
Averages,.
1914 to
1919.
One year in lake—
Four-year males .
Four-year females
Five-year males, .
Five-year females
Two years in lake—
Five-year males  .
Five-*year females
Six-year males  ...
Six-year females
5.9
5.4
7.0
6.3
6.3
7.8 W 62
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
Table LXV.—Average Lengths of Nas
River Soclcey0s, 1.921,
of 1912 to 1919.
compared with General Averages
Average
Lengths,
11921.
General
Averages,
1912 to
1919.
One year in lake—
Four-year males .
Four-year females
Five-year males  .
Five-year females
Two years in lake—
Five-year males  .
Five-year females
Six-year males  ..
Six-year females
It is a remarkable fact that the averages in size taken for the entire season compare so
closely between one year and the next, while yet such ver37 extensive fluctuations in size occur
each year during the continuance of the run. The causes for these fluctuations are obscure.
In some cases, undoubtedly, they have to do with racial differences and the disparity in size
which may characterize colonies bound for distinct tributary streams. The more extensive
fluctuations may well be ascribed to this cause, but there are minor changes in size from day
to day or week to week, too numerous and often too slight, to make plausible such an explanation.
In the two tables below and in the graph which follows we illustrate the fluctuations in size
by dividing the run into eleven periods, and giving for each of these the distribution of
individuals taken during such period. Males and females are given separately. It might be
considered that the apparent changes in average size were due to the vagaries of chance sampling,
were it not that the frequency distributions display a fair symmetry, in whatever part of the
scale they may occur; and for the additionally significant fact that the fluctuations of male and
female lengths throughout the series of dates are parallel. As all the measurements were taken
by the same observer, the average errors due to observation should be the same in different
samples. It is possible the minor differences in size are in part due to the arrival of different
schools of fish that have lived together in the sea and have fed better or worse than schools
which precede or follow them in the run.
The group chosen for the following tables is the largest group present on the Nass River
run, consisting of five-year fish that remained in the lake for two years after hatching. This
group comprised numerically 72 per cent, of the run in 1921. ■
12 Geo. 5
Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.
W 63
Table LXVI.—Nass River Male Socloeyes, 1921, in Fifth Year, Two-ycar-in-lake Type, arranged
by Lengths on a series of Dates.
Inches.
M
3
21   	
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
23%   	
24   	
24%	
25   	
25'%   	
26	
26% 	
27   	
27%	
28   	
28%    	
29   	
29%   	
30   	
Totals	
Average lengths
20
11
10
1
11
6
11
2
53     |     41
8
12
1
.3
1
4
14
15
16
17
13
■88
--
25.7   |    26.2  |    25.4  |    25,9  |    25.1
25.0
29
7
18
23
13
13
1
3
86
27.0
1
2
1
3
6
,11
16
IS
10
13
9'0
27.3
7
14
13
20
8
4
3
77
2 6'. 5'
29
26,5
Table  LXVII.—Nass
River  Female  Sockeyes,  1921,  in Fifth  Year,
arranged by Lengths on a Series of Dates.
Two-years-in-lake  Type,
■*"
00
CO
qp
ci
Cl
H
IO
rH
Indies.
Cl
rA
t-
Ci
CO
s
O
Ol
61 CO
6»   ,.
rH
<55
rH
>>
t>>
>>
>>
>>
t*s
t>a
bn
6X3
fci
3
3
3
p
Ha
l-s
1-5
1-5
■s
hs
t-3
■S
<
<
<
21   	
2
7
11
12
10
4
1
1
2
7
■  5
26
10
6
2
1
4
9
7
3
12
3
a
1
1
1
1
5
6
14
14
15
8
4
4
1:
4
1
4
4
6
9
3
4
1
1
5'
2
5
6
2
5
6
1
1
1
2
■3
7
10
1
4.
1
1
1
5
2
13
17
21
29
20
5'
2
4.
2
6
10
19
25
22
13
8
1
4
7
14
18
25'
'19
1'6
7
2
2
21%   	
22   	
22%   	
23   	
2,3%   	
1
24   	
3
24%   	
4
25   	
4
25%   	
4
29   	
7
26%   	
6
27   	
1
27%   	
1
28   	
1
28%   	
29   	
Totals	
48
58
46
72
37
32
33
110
110
114
S9
Average lengths ...
25.0
25.5'
24,0
25.6
24.91
24.5
24.8
26.1
26,4
26'.0
25.6 —
■
W 64
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
&S
/-6 6-A3       Z6-/9
Variations in average size of Nass River sockeyes,  five-year-old class, two years  in lake,  at
different periods in the run o£ 1921.
Inspection of the graph makes evident the sudden and extensive increase in length which
characterized the late-running fish. In a period of only two days, from July 20th to the 22nd,
the average length of the males increased nearly iy2 inches, from 25.6 to 27 inches, and the
females a similar amount, from 24.8 to 26.1 inches. They remained nearly constant at this new
level, but in both sexes with distinct additional increase, for a period of over two weeks, when,
the size again diminished.
This is one of the major fluctuations referred to on a previous page as probably of racial
origin. A similar phenomenon has been observed in the run of previous years and ascribed to
the same cause. In our report for 1915 (1916, page 60) we state: "The outstanding feature
of the run of 1915 was its sharp division into an early and a late period, the two exhibiting very
distinct characteristics. The second period was marked by a new run of conspicuously larger
fish appearing after the middle of the season, in the final days of July or during the first of
August." We there called attention to a difference manifested by the larger late-running fish
of 1915 in the character of the central area of the scales, which records growth in fresh water.
A different habit of growth in fresh water, taken in connection with distinctive size and definite
appearance in the run, warranted the assumption that we had to do with a distinct race, bound
either for Meziadin or Bowser Lake, the only two spaw7ning areas known in this watershed.
The difficulties in the way of adequate exploration of the Nass River basin have thus far prevented
a determination of this matter by examining the spawning populations of the two lakes. 12 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Fraser River. W 65
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE FRASER RIVER.
Hon. William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit the following report of my annual inspection of the salmon-
spawning area of the Fraser River basin during the season of 1921:—
I made my eighteenth annual inspection of the principal spawning area of the Fraser River
basin during July, August, September, and October. Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector
of Fisheries for the Dominion in the Province, accompanied me over the greater portion of the
area. I am indebted to him and his assistants, and also to many local residents, both white and
Indian, scattered over the basin, for information of value.   ■
For the past three years the Indian residents on the Fraser, above the commercial fishing
limits at Mission Bridge, have been prohibited from catching salhion. Previous to three years
ago the Indians above Mission Bridge were permitted to take fish for their own use. They
maintained regular fishing-stations in the canyon above Yale, in the canyon above the mouth
of Bridge River, at Soda Creek and Quesnel on the Fraser, at three stations on the Chilcotin
River, and also at numerous points on the Thompson River. By observations made at these
stations valuable data as to the time, duration, and abundance of the salmon run were easily
obtained. But since then they no longer fish openly, and such data are therefore difficult to
obtain, and when obtained are far less satisfactory.
By authority granted by the Minister in Ottawa, this Department was permitted to use a
gill-net daily in the Fraser near New Westminster, and in the Harrison at the rapids above
Harrison Mills, during the months of May and June, during which time commercial fishing for
sockeye is prohibited. This work was undertaken in order to ascertain if any considerable
number of sockeye entered the Fraser during those months. By this means it was demonstrated
that no run of sockeye entered the Fraser in May and June this year. No sockeye were taken
in the nets used in the Harrison and less than twenty in the nets employed in the Fraser.
Sockeye made their appearance at Hell's Gate in the Fraser Canyon above Yale late in July
and were observed there during August and September. The run was greatest in August.
I visited the canyon several times in August and September and was twice accompanied by
Major Motherwell. At no time this season were sockeye observed there in as large numbers
as in 1920. Dominion Fishery Officer Scott, who has been detailed to patrol that canyon for the
past seven years, reported to Major Motherwell that the number of sockeye that passed through
Hell's Gate this year was less than last year. The run during last season is believed to have
been larger than in the preceding year. Water conditions at Hell's Gate throughout this season
were most favourable for the passage of fish. The fish were not delayed there at any time.
No pink salmon were seen at Hell's Gate during the season, nor have any been observed there,
or in the waters above, since 1913. The number of spring salmon seen at Hell's Gate this
year was larger than usual.
It has been stated in the press that the sockeye that pass through the Fraser Canyon to the
waters above enter the Fraser annually in July, and that the August run to the Fraser spawns
annually in the tributaries of that stream below Hell's Gate. Such is not the case. Every
season since our observations began in 1901 more sockeye have been seen at Hell's Gate in
August and September, and in some years in October, than at any time in the month of July.
In 1901 and again in 1905 there was a good run of sockeye through the canyon in November,
and they have been seen there in December.
The number of sockeye that entered Quesnel Lake this year was much more difficult to
determine than in any year since my observations began in 1901. The great dam that was
built at the outlet of the lake in 1S98 was virtually removed in May of this year by the Public
Works Department of the Provincial Government. Some 250 feet of the dam near the left
bank bulk-head was removed because of its weakened condition. There was danger that the
dam might give way during high water and cause serious damage to the bridges and the valley
lands immediately below. It will be recalled that the Province constructed a large fishway in
the race of the dam in 1903, and that all the salmon that have since entered the lake have
passed through it.   In doing so they were enumerated with some considerable degree of accuracy. W 68
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
It was shown, for example, that over 4,000,000 sockeye passed through the fishway in 1909, that
some 550,000 passed through it in 1913, and less than 2S,000 in 1917. The removal of the section
of the dam above referred to enabled the fish this year to enter the lake with ease and without
passing through the fishway, though passage through the fishway was still available to them.
It could not therefore be determined w7ith any degree of accuracy how many entered the lake'
this year. A watchman was stationed there during the season as in the years since the fishway
was constructed. His report states that sockeye first reached there on August ISth, and that
small numbers were observed daily up to September 18th; that they were most numerous
between September 1st and 10th, and that he believed the total number that entered the lake
this year was greater than last year, but very much smaller than four years ago.
On visiting the Horsefly River, the main spawning tributary of Quesnel Lake, we were
informed by men mining in the river-bed and by residents along the banks that more sockeye
reached the Horsefly this year than last, but that the run was very small for a big year.
At the spawning-grounds at the head of Bowron Lake (called Bear Lake in my early
reports), a tributary of the South Fork of the Fraser, very few sockeye were found. The run
to this section in the big years up to 1913 was always large, and in the lean years up to 1909
considerable numbers were seen there. Observations by residents on the stream below Bowron
Lake indicate that the sockeye were more numerous this year than last year and that the run
of spring salmon was larger.
For the first time in several years it is reported that sockeye were seen in the tributaries
of the Nechako River.
Sockeye reached the Chilcotin River on August 4th. The Indians, notwithstanding the
existence of prohibitory regulations, are known to have taken a few at night for some two
weeks after that date. Indians living at the head of the Chilko River near the outlet of Chilko
Lake state that the run this year was greater than last season. From the statements made by
Chilcotin Indians and resident whites, there is reason to believe that the run to that section this
year was better than to any other section above Hell's Gate.
Not a single sockeye is known to have entered Seton Lake this year, though a close watch
was maintained at the Seton Lake Hatchery and by residents on the Portage between Seton and
Anderson Lakes.
The number of sockeye observed in the Shuswap Lake section was less than last season.
None were seen in the Thompson and none made their appearance at the dam at the outlet of
Adams Lake. Fishery Overseer Shotten, who has patrolled the Shuswap District and the
Thompson River for the past eight years, reports that there were less sockeye this year than
last, that no pinks were seen, and that the run of spring salmon was up to the average of
recent years.
Superintendent T. W. Graham, of the Pemberton Hatchery at the head of Lillooet Lake,
reported to Major Motherwell that the run of sockeye to that section this year was not as great
as last year, but that it equalled those of 1908 and 1919, and was at least five times greater
than in 1917, the year of the poorest run recorded there since the making of records was begun
in 1902. Superintendent Graham collected 26.000,000 sockeye-eggs this year. The water in the
river was high throughout the season, and owing to a break in the weir the egg collection was
lessened by some millions of eggs.
Harrison Lake.—Alexander Robinson, Superintendent of the hatchery in the Harrison Lake
District, reports that the run of sockeye this year was small to all waters in that section, the
smallest since the hatchery was built in 1905. Sockeye-egg collections totalled but 700,000.
There was a big run of pinks, but the run of springs was not as large as in recent years. Water
conditions were most unfavourable for natural spawning.
Pitt Lake.—There was an average early run of sockeye to Pitt Lake and tributaries, but
water conditions were most unfavourable for natural spawning and egg collections.
Cultus Lake.—Sockeye made their appearance at Cultus Lake in August, a month earlier
than usual. Approximately 10,000 reached the spawning-station at the lake's entrance, the
majority of which were spawned artificially.    More than 4,000,000 sockeye-eggs were secured.
A summary of conditions of the spawning area of the Fraser basin this year shows that,
notwithstanding the fact that 1921 was in the cycle of former big runs, the run of sockeye was
no larger and the spawning-beds no better seeded than in recent lean years. The quadrennial
big run of sockeye to the Fraser River has been destroved. .
12 Geo. 5
Spawning-beds of Fraser River.
W 67
There were not sufficient eggs deposited in the Fraser this year to produce an ordinary lean-
year run.
The following statement forwarded to the Department by Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief
Inspector of the Dominion Fisheries Department, gives the total egg collections of all the
hatcheries:—
Collection of Eggs, British Columbia, 1921.
Hatchery.
Salmon.
Sockeye.
Cohoe.
Humpback.
Spring
White
Spring.
Totals.
Anderson   Lake
Babine   Lake   . .
Cowichan   Lake
Cultus  Lake   ...
Harrison   Lake
Kennedy   Lake   .
Pemberton   ....
Pitt Lake ......
Rivers Inlet . .
Skeena River .
Stuart   Lake*   .
Totals
10.
033
090
200
OOO
306.
727.
854,
053,
680,
374,
286,
530,
200
,000
OOO
OOO
750
400
O'O'O
,000
79,9'34',.:.'3'0
1,227,800
92,950
4,000
4,515,000
39'6,0'00
1,507',30'0
93 7,OOO
1,314,750
4,911,O'O'O
2,444,300
9,000
9,000
10,033,200
6,090,000
2,744,100
4,306,200
6,179,000
1,936,950
26,053,000
2,6*0,750
18,374,400
4,686,000
5,530,000
88,613,600
* Eggs collected from the  Skeena River Basin.
Respectfully submitted.
Victoria, B.C., December 1st, 1921.
John Pease Babcock,
Assistant to the Commissioner. '
W 68
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE SKEENA RIVER.
Hon. William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sie,—In obedience to your instructions, I beg to submit herewith the following report on
the spawning-beds of the Skeena River for the season 1921:—
I arrived at Donald's Landing, on Babine Lake, on the evening of September 6th, and on
the following day proceeded to 15-Mile Creek, which is some 10 miles from the head of the
lake on the south shore. This creek has about half a mile of ideal spawning-grounds commencing
at the mouth of the creek and ending at the first little waterfall. Beyond that the creek is of
a rocky nature, with a series of waterfalls, which hinder the sockeye from going up and is not
suitable for spawning purposes. At the time of my visit there were fourteen Stuart Lake
Indian families fishing with thirty nets off the mouth of the creek and had caught something
like 4,000 sockeye. I met Mr. Crawford, the Superintendent of Stuart Lake Hatchery, and
his assistant, Mr. Karnock, who were busy spawning. The barricade, or fence, for spawning
purposes is erected at the head of the spawning area, which in no way interferes with the natural
propagation in tbe creek. Mr. Crawford informed me he commenced spawning on August 29th,
which is eleven days earlier than last year, and that he had then almost a million sockeye-eggs.
This creek was in excellent shape and there would be at least three times as many sockeye as
last year. The creek will be well seeded and will compare favourably with any former average
year. The sockeye could be plainly seen spawning from the mouth of the creek right up to the
barricade, and although there w7ere quite a number of undersized fish, or " runts," as they are
called, the average size on the whole was much better than last year. The females were in excess
of the males in proportion of about ten to eight. I visited this creek again on September 17th
and found the Indians had caught about 7,000 sockeye. I am informed that there have been at
least twenty-four Indian families, all from Stuart Lake, fishing off the mouth of this creek this
season. As this is quite a drain on this particular creek, I think some restrictions should be
imposed, limiting at least the number of nets used at one time. I understand that it is owing to
the fishing restrictions on the Fraser River watershed that the Stuart Lake Indians are now
coming to Bahine. Mr. Crawford had then secured 2,110,000 sockeye-eggs and he was hopeful of
obtaining another 500,000 from this creek. One Indian who had his net out the night before
had caught twenty-four green sockeye, all females too, which was evidence the sockeye were
still running at this date. Mr. Crawford informed me it was his intention to plant 250,000 eyed
sockeye-eggs in this creek when he was through spawning, and another 250,000 in Pierre Creek,
another creek on Babine Lake from which he obtains ova for Stuart Lake Hatchery.
On September 9th I arrived at Pierre Lake, which is almost midway between the Old Fort
and the head of the lake, and was agreeably surprised to find no Indian fishing at the mouth.
This creek was also in good condition, having even a bigger spawning area than 15-Mile Creek.
Mr. Crawford had his fish barricades erected away up the creek too, as this was of a similar
formation to 15-Mile. Sockeye were seen in this creek on August 1st and Mr. Crawford commenced spawning on August 18th, which is five days earlier than last year. The number of
sockeye-eggs Mr. Crawford had spawned in this creek was approximately 2,000,000. This creek
was .also well stocked with sockeye, large numbers even being seen in the lake at the mouth
of the creek, some of which were spawning. The fish here were of a good size and were of a
better average than 15-Mile, the males, if anything, predominating. From the number of fish
seen and also the number that had already spawned by the formation of the gravel, this creek
will be well seeded and up to the average of former years.
Leaving Pierre Creek, I arrived at the Babine Hatchery on the night of September 10th and
met Mr. Gibbs, the Superintendent. The following day an inspection was made of the Hatchery
Creek from the mouth to the outlet of Morrison Lake, where the hatchery is located, a distance
of about 2% miles. This creek is cleared of all obstructions and is a series of pools and gravel
patches. Although the big majority of the sockeye spawn in the upper part of the creek, a large
number were seen in the deep pools at the lower end and some were spawning in the shallow gravel
patches. This creek is undoubtedly the best sockeye-creek on the Skeena watershed, and its
success is mainly due to the hatchery and its location.    Although it is not considered an early 12 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Skeena River. W 69
spawning-creek, I was informed by Mr. Gibbs and his men that a large number of sockeye came
up the creek and into Morrison Lake as early as June ISth. As the barricades and fish-pens
w7ere not erected till July 15th, it was evident from the number of dead sockeye in the creek
at the head of Morrison Lake that an early run had occurred. Hatchery Creek was alive w7ith
sockeye, the big fish-pens being one swarming mass. The creek will be well seeded and easily
up to the average of former years. The fish in this creek are of an exceptional quality and
attain a high average, the males and females being evenly balanced. Two of the female sockeye
picked at random measured 25% and 26% inches respectively, while I should think the average
weight of the sockeye to be in the vicinity of 9 lb. LTp to September 12th Mr. Gibbs had
spawned 2,500,000 eggs, and judging by the sockeye still available he should not have much
difficulty in obtaining his S,000,000 capacity for the hatchery. I may say that Mr. Gibbs is
having great success with his retaining-ponds, where this year's sockeye-fry are being held.
The pond, or rather the series of ponds, have an intake of running water from Morrison Lake
and there were in the neighbourhood of 5,000,000 fry. To look at the ponds in the evening one
would imagine it was pouring rain, so swift were the young fry in catching the small flies that
would alight. Although a keen search was made, I could only see two or three dead fry in the
bottom of the ponds.
I arrived at Babine on September 13th and the following morning went down the Babine
River for about 10 miles. It is on this stretch of water that the Babine Indians, approximately
100 families, catch their winter's supply of fish. Although this stretch of water from the bridge
at Babine for a distance of at least 3 miles has always been considered a good spawning-ground,
there were very few7 sockeye to be seen. There were large numbers of humpbacks, however, and
a few cohoes, which was a decided contrast to the well-stocked sockeye-creeks in the lake. The
Indians have their smoke-houses all down this stretch of water on both side of the river and
complained bitterly about the scarcity of sockeye. Unlike the down-river Indians and their
choice of salmon, the Babine Indians prefer sockeye and sockeye only. An examination of their
smoke-houses revealed that the average catch per family would he less than 200 sockeye, with
probably from 400 to 500 humpbacks and a few cohoe and spring salmon. This stretch of water
will be poorly seeded and away below the average of former years.
Leaving Babine on September 34th, I arrived at Tachek or Fulton Creek, where there were
seven Indian families fishing off the mouth. The Indians had a fair amount of sockeye in their
smoke-houses, but complained about not catching enough through their rotten nets. The Dominion
Department furnishes each family with a new net each year, but it appears they keep using
their old nets as well, with the result stated. This creek resembles a slough for about a mile
from the lake and has about 3 miles of fair spawning-grounds. The sockeye go up as far as the
falls, about 4 miles from the lake, but cannot get beyond. This creek was also in good condition,
with a large number of sockeye in the pools and many spawning in the shallow gravel patches.
The sockeye were of a good size, with the males slightly in excess of the females. This creek
will be exceptionally well seeded and will rank next to Hatchery Creek, being well up to the
average of former years.   Last year this creek was almost devoid of sockeye.
I visited Beaver Creek on September 17th, which is a much longer creek than the others.
This also has a slough for about 3 miles from the lake, with a series of rock and log obstructions
and a few good spawning areas for about 9 miles up the creek. This creek is the farthest from
the mouth of the Babine La-ke and also the earliest spawning-creek. I am informed there was a
big run of sockeye up this creek on July 30th, and that it has never been so good for years.
I went up the creek for a considerable distance, but there were few live sockeye. It was well
seeded, however, judging from the big number of dead salmon caught in the log-jams and in the
big pools. The Indians speak well of this creek too and are very enthusiastic about it, as tbey
say that lots of sockeye in creek means lots of bear.
Leaving Beaver Creek, I called in at 4-Mile Creek, but this is too small to be of any
importance, as one can jump across it almost anywhere. There were, however, a few live and
some dead sockeye which had spawned. As this was the last point of interest on Babine,
I returned to Donald's Landing and arrived at Burns Lake on September 18th. In summing up
the Babine District, I may say that, with the exception of Lower Babine River, which will be
poorly seeded, all the creeks on the lake, the more important spawning-grounds, will be well
seeded, very much better than last year and will compare favourably with any former average
year.    It was plainly evident that the run was much earlier than previous years;   hence the W 70
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
poor catch of sockeye from the hundred Indian families on Babine River.    There were also, I may
say, more fish with net-scars than former years.
While at Burns Lake I was informed by the Indians that there was a run of sockeye in
Burns Lake from the Fraser River for the first time for eighteen years. Mr. Crawford also said
the same occurred in Stuart Lake, of the Fraser River watershed.
I arrived at Hazelton on September 20th and visited Awillgate Canyon, in the Bulkley River,
where the Hazelton Indians catch their fish. The Indians had removed a lot of the fish from
the smoke-houses, but the Dominion Guardians informed me that the Indians must have put up
at least 10,000 sockeye. According to the Guardians' report, there was a good run of sockeye up
the Bulkley River and the Indians were apparently quite satisfied with the amount they had
caught. The Kispiox River and creeks in the Hazelton vicinity were swarming with humpbacks
and there has also been a good run of cohoes.
■Leaving Hazelton, I arrived at Terrace on September 22nd and visited Lakelse Lake and
hatchery the following morning, when I met Mr. Catt, the Superintendent of the hatchery.
Mr. Catt informed me that the sockeye run to the lake was very poor this year and that he
only had obtained to date a total of 3,800,000 sockeye-eggs for the hatchery. The first sockeye,
he informed me, were seen in the creeks on June 12th, and the barricades, or spawning-fences,
were not put in till July 24th, so a few sockeye would undoubtedly spawn naturally up the creeks.
Mr. Catt commenced spawning on August Sth and he said there were more ripe fish then than
the first day's spawn last year, which again bears out the theory of an earlier run this year.
The first creek visited was Williams Creek, which is a long, swift-running creek opening out
near the mouth, The sockeye do not go far up, preferring to spawn in the shallow gravel-beds
near the lake. There were not many sockeye in the creek, but the fish-pens at the barricade
were full and contained a good-number of green or unripe sockeye. A number could be seen in
the lake at the mouth of the creek, so apparently tbe sockeye were still running. This creek will
be poorly seeded and will be below the average of former years.
Schallabuchan was the.next creek visited, but as this is a much earlier spawning-creek there
were few live sockeye to be seen. From the number of dead salmon in the creek it is apparent
that a few had gone up and spawned, but the average was away below normal.
The remaining creeks were much smaller, but the same poor condition existed, which forecasts that the Lakelse area will be poorly seeded this year and will be away below the average
of former years. All the creeks on Lakelse are of a mountainous nature, and Mr. Catt attributes
the failure this year to the excessive high water in these mountain streams in the fall of the
year 1917, when most of the natural spawned ova was washed away. As this was the last
point of interest, I returned to Terrace and arrived in Port Essington on September 25th.
I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the Dominion Hatchery Superintendents
and the Dominion Fishery Guardians, to whom I am indebted for information supplied and
hospitality shown.
I have, etc.,
Robert Gibson,
Provincial Constable and Fishery Overseer.
Port Essington, B.C., October 5th, 1921. 12 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Nass River. W 71
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE NASS RIVER.
Hon. Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sin,—In obedience to the wishes of the Department, I have made a trip of inspection to
the salmon-spawning area of the Meziadin watershed of the Nass River, and beg to submit the
following report:—
Before leaving for the north I made arrangements with the Chief Inspector of Dominion
Fisheries, J. A. Motherwell, to make the trip into the Nass in company with their Overseer,
J. M. Collison. I left New Westminster on September Sth and arrived at Prince Rupert on
the 10th, where I met Mr. Collison. We engaged three Indian packers for the trip. We arrived
at Stewart on the 11th and after getting our outfit together left for the interior on the 13th.
On the trip in we encountered many difllculties on account of the bad condition of the trails,
also in crossing the Bear River Glacier. The ice, which is receding in many places, makes
travelling very dangerous. There being no bridge or other means of crossing the Surprise River,
it is necessary to ford it. This is a mountain stream about 200 feet wide and the water is
waist-high. A cable crossing at this place would be of great benefit to travellers, as the waters
rise very rapidly during freshet and it is very dangerous to ford when you have a heavy pack
on your back.
We reached the head of Meziadin Lake on Saturday, September 17th, in a pouring rain and
everything wet through.
On Sunday, September ISth, we made an inspection of the spawning-beds at the south-west
section of the lake, from the head of the lake and for a distance of 3 miles down. Sockeye were
to be seen at different favourable places for spawning and at one place they were fairly plentiful.
On the 19th we left the head of the lake and followed the north-westerly shore-line on our journey
down. For a distance of between 3% or 4 miles there are several favourable shallow gravel
reaches suitable for spawning sockeye, and at these places sockeye were to be observed in
considerable numbers and far more numerous than I have seen at this place before. Here we
saw a grizzly bear wade into the lake and take two salmon.
On continuing our journey down the lake we went up Hanna Creek and McLeod Creek, two
streams of considerable size, emptying into the lake on its northerly side. We only saw one
sockeye there. The water, which is very clear, enables you to see the bottom, and my observations bear out my previous contention that sockeye do not go up these streams for spawning
purposes.
There were very few salmon to be seen leaping in the lake, which is their habit when they
enter the lake green, or, rather, when they are not nearly ripe for spawning.
At the spring-salmon spawning-ground below the McBride Rapids in tbe Meziadin River
there were not so many springs to be seen as in former years. After inspecting the vicinity of
the rapids we continued our way on down the river and arrived at the cabin at the fishway/
after dark.    It was raining hard.
On Tuesday, September 20th, it poured with rain all day and we were unable to make any
inspection worthy of note.
On the 21st, the rain having ceased, we made a thorough inspection of both the upper and
lower falls from all angles. There were very few salmon at either place. Two small schools
were to be seen immediately below the upper fall and a small number on the far side, not more
than twenty-five in each lot. They were about half sockeye and half cohoe. No salmon were
to be seen congregated below the lower fall, but a few salmon were passing up at intervals,
mostly cohoe.
Very few salmon were passing through the fishway, only an odd one once in a while, and
only a small number resting in the basins of the fishway. The reason for this is that there
were no fish to come through. The salmon passing up were sockeye and cohoe, and the cohoe
were in greater numbers.
The absence of sockeye at the fishway was very noticeable to one whose duty it has been
to make an annual inspection, for in the past, up to and including the year 1917, as many
sockeye could be observed passing through the fishway in one minute as we saw this season '
W 72 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1922
pass through in one hour. It must be borne in mind that I have always timed my inspection
at this point to take place between September 20th and 28th. The stage of water at the falls
and fishway was favourable for the salmon to pass up.
In the evening of the 22nd and morning of the 23rd there were more cohoe salmon coming in.
but no improvement in the sockeye run. On the 22nd we inspected the main Nass River from
its junction with the Meziadin and for 1 mile above. A few salmon were to be seen passing up
the Nass to watersheds above the Meziadin, but conditions for making observations at this point
are not good owing to the discoloration of the water and its great volume.
The conditions at the fishway and approach to it are practically the same as reported upon
during my visit of inspection last season. The braces that were put in to hold up the crib-work
are all intact and look good for another year, unless some unforeseen trouble comes along, such
as a flood or freshet like that which visited the Upper Nass District in the late fall of 1917.
The basins of the fishway are gradually filling up, the debris being nearly up to the top of the
facing-wall and for about half of the depth of each basin, leaving very little resting-place at
the present time. All of these basins will have to be cleaned out in the near future. It can
best be done by placing a dam across the intake. The work will have to be done at the lowest
stage of water, which I think would be in the early spring before the snow and ice start to melt.
Summary.—In comparing the run of sockeye salmon to the Meziadin watershed for 1921 with
former years, I am of the opinion that there were more sockeye to be observed on the spawning-
beds in the lake and a slight decrease at the falls in comparison with the years 1919 and 1920.
The rui* of spring salmon was not as good and the cohoe appeared to be more plentiful.
All my previous trips of inspection were timed so that I would be at the Meziadin Falls about
the same date each year, and from the time of my first visit in 1908 up to and including the year
1917 there were always a large number of sockeye to be observed at this place. This happy state
of affairs has ceased to exist, and at times it is now only possible for an experienced eye to
detect salmon lying below the falls. It will be noted that no inspection was made in the year
1918, but the work was carried on in 1919, 1920, and 1921. From the reports of these three years
it is shown that the runs of sockeye to the Meziadin watershed have materially diminished.
In making a report on the sockeye situation of the Lower Nass River, with the exception
of a small unimportant stream close to Ayansh, all of our data have been taken from the
Meziadin watershed. While I think that the Meziadin watershed is the most important as far
as the run of sockeye to the Nass is concerned, we have it on record that the sockeye still
continue on up the main Nass River above the Meziadin, and have been seen in Bowser Lake.
Owing to the shortage of provisions and the inclemency of the weather at the time of my visit
to Bowser Lake it was not possible to make more than a survey of the lake, and to substantiate
the fact that sockeye did run to this watershed I have been informed that there is a river
entering the main Nass from tbe east side, and above the Bowser Lake watershed, that sockeye
run to. We have no data from this source and we do not know what bearing the streams above
the Meziadin have on the sockeye situation of the Nass. The country around the Upper Nass
is very difficult to travel, there being several large rivers to cross and no means of crossing
otherwise than by raft, and then only in favourable places. Many parties travelling in this
district have nearly met disaster.
Yours obediently,
C. P. Hickman,
Inspector of Fisheries.
New Westminster, B.C., November 2ist, 1921. 12 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet. W 73
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF SMITH INLET.
Hon. Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sib,—In pursuance of instructions from the Department to conduct an inspection of the
spawning-beds at Smith and Rivers Inlet respectively, the watershed at Smith Inlet w7as visited
first.
The exceptionally poor run of sockeye salmou manifest in the small pack obtained by the
canneries during the fishing season, totalling, I am reliably informed, to but a little over 4,000
cases, clearly demonstrated the merit of the warning given in my reports for 1916-17, two years
from which the present run resulted, that if the intensive fishing to which this inlet has been
subjected yearly was repeated disastrous effects would result. The conditions were serious on
the spawning-beds this year, as the following detailed report will show :—
Leaving Rivers Inlet Cannery on September 18th, I proceeded to Smith Inlet, and after
making arrangements with Indians conducted an inspection at Long Lake, the breeding-grounds
of the sockeye salmon.
The Docee river (the overflow of the lake) was negotiated with little difficulty and camp
made at this point. The number of spring salmon noted in this river showed no falling-off from
other years, large numbers being in evidence all the way up. The water was too high to
estimate the number spawning on the gravel shore at the foot of the lake, but the continual
breaking of water indicated a good run.
Proceeding to Quay Creek, a distance of about 7 miles, an examination was made of the
spawning-beds both inside and outside the creek, but the small numbers disclosed conclusively
demonstrated that little value can be attached to the supply of eggs deposited this year. The
run to this stream was a failure.
On reaching the head of the lake, a distance of 16 miles, two or three schools of sockeye
salmon were observed schooled in the still waters of the lake close to the entrance of Geluch
River, or Smoke-house Creek, as it is termed hy the Indians, and on the spawning-beds inside
the entrance. Hope was entertained that the run here would be a considerable improvement on
that reflected in the run of fish to Quay, but the spawning-beds disclosed few sockeye as we
proceeded up to the falls S1^ miles distant. The small mountain streams emptying into this
tributary contained a few sockeye, but in comparison with other years the poor showing of fish
both here and in the main river was distinctly disappointing. The run, in my opinion, is the
poorest since 1916. The fish generally were small in size. No log-jams or other obstructions
interfered with the free movement of salmon up-stream.
An inspection of the Delabah River, situated about 2 miles from the head of the lake, was
conducted under ideal conditions. From the entrance up for a distance of 500 yards the
spawning-beds contained no evidence of sockeye salmon, in striking contrast to the scene represented last year, when in this part of the stream thousands of fish had collected; farther up,
however, sockeye were seen in large numbers, the first real showing of fish found on the beds.
In the bay outside, where in former years big schools of sockeye were observed, none were to be
found. The run to the head of the lake did not approach even the small number seen here
in 1916.
Usually salmon are seen breaking water in all directions on the lake when travelling up
and down, but this season none were in evidence.
Reviewing the conditions of the spawning-beds at Smith Inlet this year, I am obliged once
more to emphasize the danger of intensive fishing. The effects of the use of drag-seines operated
in 1916-17 was manifested in no uncertain manner by the poor run of sockeye to the inlet this year.
Now, although the seines have been eliminated, it is vital to the interests of those concerned to
conserve the runs, especially during the next two years, in order to allow the spawning-beds
to recover from the depletion which is all too apparent. The outlook is not encouraging in this
respect, as it is to be noted that the cannery interests, instead of nursing the runs, are increasing
their gear to such an extent that no less than 218 gill-nets were distributed over the inlet this
season. Such a policy if continued cannot but have a devastating effect upon the runs in future
years, as the runs will not stand the drain and will assuredly become extinct if present conditions
are continued. In size the sockeye were much below the average.
: I have, etc.,
A. W. Stone,
Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 1st, 1921. Fisheries Overseer. W 74 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1922
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET.
Hon. Wm. Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit my report upon the inspection of the Rivers Inlet watershed
for the year 1921.
Having completed the inspection of the spawning-beds at Smith Inlet, where conditions were
found to be anything but satisfactory, it was with a feeling of misgiving that the spawning-beds
at Lake Owikeno were approached, especially considering tbe small pack of sockeye salmon
obtained by the canneries during the fishing season, amounting to about 45,000 cases.
Leaving for the lake on October 4th, I stayed overnight at the Dominion Hatchery and was
able to view, by the courtesy of Weldon R. Reid, the officer in charge, the new ponds which have
been built under the direction of Mr. McHugh, Engineer for the Department of Dominion
Fisheries, for retaining the young fry until the yearling stage. The advantage which will be
derived from this system is manifest, as it means that the young fish when liberated will be
in a much stronger state to withstand the numberless enemies met with on their migration
to the sea. It entails a great deal of extra work, as the young fry have to be fed; this is being
performed by the use of cheap-grade salmon, and also by making use of the spawned-out sockeye,
which are collected from the spawning-beds and dried in a special drying-kiln erected for the
purpose. It is an entirely new departure upon which the Dominion authorities have to be
commended, and is an earnest of their desire to keep the supply of sockeye salmon at Rivers
Inlet up to* its full productive power.
Taking advantage of the fine weather, I first made an inspection of the Sheemahant River,
situated about 30 miles up the lake. It is an arduous trip at any time, but difficult and dangerous
when the river is not just right for canoeing. On this occasion we were able to reach to within
half a mile of the falls by canoe. It was very disappointing to note the utter lack of spawning
sockeye on the beds as we made our way through the innumerable rapids to the falls IS miles
distant. At a small creek entering this tributary 12 miles from the mouth, and which in former
years never failed to contain sockeye, no fish of any description were noted. Our first view of
the sockeye salmon was obtained at the falls, where numbers were making futile efforts to
surmount them, but were hurled back at each attempt. A careful examination was made of the
roek-slide which for a distance of about 300 yards obstructs the flow of water from above.
The first obstruction is composed of two huge rocks fluug across the river, with about 10 feet
dividing them. It is through this narrow passage the torrent of water hurls itself, forming an
insurmountable barrier. Above this other large rocks have decreased the original width of the
river to such an extent that the easy flow of the water above is now turned into a seething
torrent. With comparatively little expense at the proper time the rocks could be blasted out
and the salmon given access to about 20 miles of the fine spawning-grounds. It is encouraging
to learn that the Dominion Department of Fisheries is directing its attention to this rock-slide
and that in the near future it is to be removed. The same care was exercised in examining the
river on our return, but there was no evidence of either sockeye or cohoe salmon. There were
two obstructions in the river, one about 5 miles up and the other a little farther along from
this;  both should receive attention.
Arriving at the head of the lake, camp was made and an inspection conducted at the
tributaries situated here. The Cheo, examined first, was very disappointing, no evidence of
sockeye being noted, with the exception of about fifty seen in a small creek 3 miles up. The
log-jam at the bend and situated just below the falls still obstructs the river, but proves no
hindrance to the salmon reaching the spawning-beds between this and the falls. No salmon
were noted here, which is in striking contrast to the well-stocked beds reported last year.
The Indian River failed to show any sign of fish, which may have been due to the freshet
earlier in the spawning season, but the absence of the dead salmon usually seen here, in my
opinion, points clearly to a very poor run.
The Washwash River, situated directly opposite the lake, was fairly well supplied with
spawning sockeye, but in comparison with last year very much below the average. In that
portion of the river situated between the log-jam and the entrance not one salmon was observed 12 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. W 75
on the spawning-beds, the run closely resembling the poor showing encountered in 1916. A great
deal of work is necessary to clear out the mass of debris and log-jams which have accumulated
once more in that part of the river which a few years ago received attention from the Department of Dominion Fisheries, and will again become a source of danger if not taken in hand
shortly. The new channel formed two years ago, and to which reference has already been made,
is still covered with fallen trees and log-jams.
Returning from the head of the lake, I examined Sunday Creek and was glad to see an
improvement in the run of fish here. The spawning-beds lying along the shore-line at the mouth
were thickly covered, closely resembling the number which returned to spawn in 1917.
The spawning-grounds situated near the Sheemahant flats were well covered with both cohoe
and sockeye salmon, providing the Indians located here with all the fish necessary for their
winter's use. At the landing close to the Indian shack thousands upon thousands of yearling
salmon were seen in the clear water feeding upon the offal of dead salmon. They were
undoubtedly the results of last year's spawning.
Jeneesee Creek, from which the Dominion Hatchery has annually taken eggs, unlike the
conditions experienced in recent years, showed up remarkably well. The retainiug-fence which
had been carried out by a freshet earlier in the season permitted thousands of sockeye to reach
the spawning-beds above. The hatchery officials had made little progress in collecting eggs
owing to the large number that had escaped, but were not worrying on this account, as there
still remained sufficient sockeye available for their requirements. From the entrance up to the
fence the creek was alive with fish, decidedly the best showing here since 1913. The Indians
had placed a net right across the mouth and determined action on the part of hatchery people
was necessary in order to put a stop to their depredations. Mr. Reid wasted no time in argument,
but had the net pulled up by his men, threatening to take other action if they employed similar
methods in future. I understand it is the intention of the Department of Dominion Fisheries
to build a retaining-pond in this creek in order to hold the young fry until the yearling stage,
similar to the method employed at the hatchery.
A visit to the Machmell River was next undertaken, but owing to the high stage of the
water it was impossible to form any estimate of the number of salmon on the spawning-beds
here. In order to prevent this river overflowing into Jeneesee Creek as it did last year a new
channel has been blown o.ut on the extreme right. It is hoped by these measures that a great
body of water will be turned away, relieving the strain on the dam which, under the direction
of Mr. Reid, of the Dominion Hatchery, was hurriedly constructed at the time the Machmell
broke through into Jeneesee Creek. Great ingenuity was displayed by Mr. Reid in meeting the
emergency at the time of its occurrence.
The Nookins River, a tributary to the Machmell, was examined under the most favourable
circumstances. For the first time in many years it was possible to go right through to the big
rapids several miles up by canoe. I was disappointed at the run of sockeye here, the spawning-
beds disclosing a great scarcity of fish, reminding me of the small number that reached there
in 1916.
Asklurn River, situated about 12 miles from the mouth of the Owikeno Lake, experienced
an exceptional run of sockeye salmon this year. The run closely coincided with the remarkable
numbers observed on the spawning-beds in 1913-14. The hatcherymen had erected two fences
about a quarter of a mile from the entrance and, although meeting with constant difficulties,
succeeded in obtaining a fair number of eggs. The river-bed up to the fences was literally covered
with spawning fish, while in the deeper portion of the river thousands waited. Above the fences
sockeye in equal numbers to those seen below were noted.
The Indians outside this stream were catching fish by means of a net. They had experienced
no difficulty all the season in obtaining all they required for smoking purposes. Large numbers
were in evidence in the lake near the mouth of the stream.
At the Dominion Hatchery, situated on Quap River, there was a scene of great activity.
The men had their hands full in collecting eggs. The traps were full of fish and a seething mass
lined the spaw7ning-beds below the fence. From there down to the entrance thousands upon
thousands of sockeye were making their way up-stream or waiting in the deep pools. Out in
the bay the water was black with them, corresponding very closely to the remarkable numbers
seen here last year, and even this number did not represent the total run to this river this year,
as I was later informed that after my visit another big run had come in.    Beyond the fence only W 76 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1922
those fish that had artificially been spawned out were in evidence. With the opening of the
fences after the requirements of the hatchery have been filled, the spawning-beds, now clear of
all obstructions, should be exceptionally well seeded.
The Dalley River, situated directly opposite, bore unusual evidence of a fine run of fish;
distributed over the river-bed numberless dead bodies could be seen in the clear water below the
rapids, testifying to a big run earlier in the season. Large numbers were observed spawning
on the beds all the way up to the falls about 4 miles distant, and in my opinion equalled the
numbers seen there in 1917. No log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the free movement
of the salmon up-stream.
Returning to the hatchery once more, the small creek, which on my former visit contained
very few sockeye, now showed up to great advantage. The beds were thickly covered with
spawning fish, and it was hoped that a fair number of eggs would be collected by means of the
trap located at the entrance. It was the intention of Mr. Reid to fill the hatchery with 18,000,000
eggs if possible, a greater number than it had ever received before. To prevent the danger of
such a large number becoming smothered at the time of hatching, it is proposed to thin them
out immediately and place them in the retaining ponds recently built for the purpose.
Sockeye were much in evidence spawning on the gravel-beds situated along the shore-line
close to the rancherie. Spring salmon also showed up in numbers here and should provide a
fair run of this species on their return as adults. Both cohoe and chum salmon failed to appear
in large numbers this year, the run of each species showing up very poorly.
In summarizing the general conditions of the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet, I find that the
rivers situated at the head of the lake, comprising the Indian, Cheo, and Washwash, were anything but satisfactory. The recent freshet may have accounted partly for the poor showing made
here, but all the evidence points to a very poor run of sockeye, as was the case in 1916-17. The
Sheemahant and Nookins Rivers were both poorly seeded in those years. The other tributaries
of the lake, comprising the Asklum, Jeneesee, Quap, Dalley, and the spawning-beds of the lake-
shore, were, on the other hand, as well seeded as in recent years. The size of the sockeye observed
in all the tributaries closely coincided with the bi-weekly tests made by me at the canneries
during the fishing season. They averaged but little over 5 lb. each. That may be the reason
why more fish were not caught in the great amount of gear employed.
In conclusion,  I  wish to extend my thanks to  C.  C. Johnston,  Manager of Rivers Inlet
Cannery;   Weldon R. Reid, officer in charge at the Dominion Hatchery, and to his assistants for
the courtesy received at their hands.
i I have, etc.,
A. W. Stone,
Fisheries Overseer.
Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 1st, 1921. .-
12 Geo. 5 Pack of British Columbia Salmon, Season 1921.
W 77
PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON,  SEASON 1921.
Compiled fkom Data furnished the Department by the B.C. Salmon Canneks' Association.
Names.
Sockeyes.
Red
Springs.
Pink and
White
Springs.
Bluebacks
and
Steelheads.
Cohoes.
Pinks.
Chums.
Grand
Total
(Cases).
Fraser River District—
B.C. Fishing & Packing Co., Ltd...
J. II. Todd & Sons, Ltd	
A.B.O. Packing Co., Ltd	
Gosse-Millerd, Ltd.  	
Great West, Packing Co., Ltd	
Glenrose Canning Co., Ltd	
Canadian Fishing Co., Ltd	
Great Northern Packing Co., Ltd...
16,922
2,196
2,265
2,631
1,903
3,969
2,125
1,483
827
1,589
2,754
977
39,631
4,663
3
546
529
1,178
2,127
1,684
150
470
5,235
471
36
199
4
4
5,949
201
821
29
210
477
1,060
369
3,167
252
64
53
288
845
66
420
1,331
12,018
4,792
100
108
4,200
6,149
2,653
422
277
259
29,978
13,003
11,462
12,626
1.182
605
519
973
694
836
2,902
231
2,739
439
1,640
659
2,219
549
33
8,178
2,355
1,043
"62
7,763
11,223
466
237
31
84
1,175
44,777
8,539
5,012
3,863
7,343
11 444
14,760
4,148
1,291
J. H. Todd & Sons (Esquimalt),
Sooke Harhour Fg. & Pk. Co., Ltd..
2,754
977
Totals    	
11,360
107,660
Skeena River District—
B.C. Fishing & Packing Co., Ltd...
J. H. Todd & Sons, Ltd	
4,680
6,233
4,177
3,706
3,635
2,241
2,698
2,043
5,829
4,223
1,553
7,699
620
2,895
380
304
1,001
1,443
872
1,324
1,657
404
18,599
110
25
45
48
85
51
229
18
155
96
29,449
7,729
13,719
9,890
12,393
12,276
6,401
6,866
10,515
11,164
4,055
55,727
26,044
34,492
15,373
16,937
16,427
11,992
10,475
18,504
22,181
6,612
B.C. Canning Co., Ltd	
Wallace Fisheries, Ltd	
Cap. Fish & Cold Storage Co., Ltd.
Maritime Fisheries, Ltd	
Totals	
41,018
498
97
45,033
124,467
1,993
234,765
Rivers Inlet District—
B.C. Fishing & Packing Co., Ltd....
J. H. Todd & Sons, Ltd	
11,880
4,697
5,603
3,547
4,352
5,419
5,593
5,135
2,389
48,615
1,975
2,370
1,789
1,974
1,256
9,364
2,997
172
1,429
43
6
12
59
233
247
4,809
12
4
155
18
173
15,375
5,116
11,859
3.627
4,397
5,473
5,7(*7
2,389
364
97
238
46
129
4,718
3,257
502
1,676
2,236
505
5,305
59,272
Nass River District—
B.C. Fishing * Packing Co., Ltd...
Anglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd	
725
79
58
327
242
5,329
4,857
10,062
3,559
5,681
29,488
667
i,005
27
577
12,343
7,918
14,590
8,305
8,609
Northern B.C. Fisheries, Ltd	
Western Salmon Packing Co., Ltd..
Totals	
1,431
657
413
8,236
3,285
5,903
592
781
388
61
60
60
2,176
4,360
1,172
8,820
1,702
241
4,171
3,402
10,573
51,765
Vancouver Island District—
B.C. Fishing & Packing Co., Ltd....
J. H. Todd & Sons, Ltd	
3,501
1S6
1,174
2,100
25
155
2,350
102
83
2,690
164
376
7
3,144
3,151
1,593
4,633
4,434
12,736
12,027
12,274
3,759
10,390
4,257
3,452
10,633
Clayoquot Sound Canning Co., Ltd.
Wallace Fisheries, Ltd	
Totals	
6,936
540
2,452
183
44
35
11,120
10,660
34,431
5,295
15,854
263
21,412
69,528
Outlying Districts—
B.C. Fishing & Packing Co., Ltd....
4,654
2,776
3,871
3,429
69
2,215
1,336
318
219
1,215
42
487
3
45
156
2,586
9,584
2,908
1.955
66
426
3,264
18,203
3,030
7,217
4,464
31
76
25,336
29,019
12,197
3,612
3,157
6,001
1,336
Sea Fish Co., Ltd	
Totals	
18,350
163,914
2,281
33,725
2,714
2,790
14,818
80,568
13,027
8,280
117,288
192,906
71,408
603,548 W 78
.
Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.
1922
DC
i—i
O
Ph
m
Q
ft
<j
Ul
rH
O
t—i
Eh
OQ
I—I
«
H
OW
ft>
t—i
h-1
>
'A
•~
\-i
'A
Ph
h-1
a
ft
H
—
W
T-J
H
(N
«
ta
rH
«
Oo
9c
ta
w
Eh
O
ft
o
m
Ul
m
EH
ft
EH
■er-j
EH
02
1— CO     ■
cm    ■   iO   ■■#    •   -
Tf
oj
*"■
COI-ifl     ifl     N     ■     •
i^ C CO    i-.    *-    •    -
CM
CJ
t^                             CO     .     .
■>#■*■     tO     Q     •     .
fe
Ci
H
□0 oj *n co o '"f    ■    ■
ifi                r»n*M     .     .
N 'ti iM a N O     ■     ■
Oi
1-1
CO CC Ci O CO CO     ■     -
Ci
i—f
*.
l"
Oi
Oi
r-l
OOOWffl Wi-*H"  •
CJ
rH ol co Oi co m
Ci ol      i—1 co Tf
1-1
CM
3D
t-t CO rf Ci X CO r-t     •
Tf
CUHHM       CO
-* N CO CO Ol iO rH     ■
CO
Oi
r-t                           rH
■w
Oi
00
CM
TfaiCOCOCOCOCOCO
T*
Ci
00 io oi i- en -r-i co CO
Oi
ft         i-t CO CO
Ci Ci CO =0 CO CC CO  •j'j
Ci
CO
©
co co Tf co r—*—      cm
Ci
« iH       fl       CN
o
:J :
-5 3
:h  :
o
H
>?bnbc%
8*M |
1
J s «
tn a; -j
££^
01
CO0QC.
OOQPh
Tf CO     r-t
1 *£
Ol
rH
1   ^
1-
CO 00    ■*•*    o    ■
Oi co"  LC   ■©*
r"'
HO!    O    OJ     •
00 i-H     CN     ft     .
Tf
r->—
1-1
UJ
<N I—     ■ i* iO     ■
CO CN O CO CO     ■
CC       Ci CO     •
**
*"!
*
j—co    - ta I>    ■
,-
o
Ttt
M
N
rH i-H        O CO
i-H                ft
OJ CO CN CM O **
m
COCMHNtX
CN
CM
o iff ■» a » «
Ci
00 ft
tN
r"1
<N IN (N CO CO
rH                r-
Tjt-iTlOlCN
CO
rH              r-\
CO
Tf CO Tf Oj CO 00
r-
Tf <N        Ol Tf
co
1-1
: s
DQ
■H
o
Tfl
H
O  rj   P   a
M-H a *
m cu
0Jj=
of?
a
j
Ud
Ok?
1  od
rH
1  H
Tf ©     • ©©     •
Oi
t-
1
1       l.fc     ■     -O      ■
«
1   cf     : :ft" :
CO           .     .           .
CJ
^
fiNODHN     ■
00 r- 00 OOO     •
%
1    offTco'co'f<   .
1-1
ft
©
©
r"1
1-1
rt
CO
CO   ,7-1   Tt!   CO   ft        •
CO
Tft            Cl            ft
CO
IflS-HWrft     .
th -tt r- irj ©    •
CO CN Ci cc CO     •
^
Ol Tf o io ©    '
CO
©
i>0 (N CO Oi    •
CM
rH
H
IO Tf CO CO 00 1^
CN
•
fl
;
H
O
TI
H
a? bc " u
oj „a
ock
ui i
ink
ohc
tea
-
PL
L.
02
CN             . CO IQ     .
CO
Ol
u
Tit
r-i M iti ~  yj H-
t-
^
MNi-it)-S1       .
CO
CO ©"CO* Ol (N     .
" '
t~- io cc co t—    •
<£>
Ol OO CO CO I -     ■
CO CO iO CO Ol
Ci
CO
r-tOCMCl
CO        rH "O. rH
CO CC CO 00 O >CJ
iQ
"
CJ
CO
3
Ci Tf rH Ci O Ci
Ol lO © OJ Oi !■-
OJ
O N iff H O O
CO
2>
rH         rH Tf
CO
uO
lr~
© Ol Ol Ci CO
s
fl
H
o
T)
H
03 c B
a
a
■ <3
|l
a
a
L
-
L
02 12 Geo. 5
Statement showing Salmon-pack of the Province.
W 79
CO Tf o io Ol
Tf Ol CC CO Ifi
ft CO Ol O l-
CD CO CO coco
X —
rt
© OJ  Tf CO ft
CO CO  Tf © rH
CO
I -
a
? in
S c £ !
■M.d §,3 °a
o D..G.2 O.H
EmOCOte
in
©
Tf    ifi          ■   Oi   t>          -          '
©
9                      -..
o
Tf            . CM Ol
©
00
©
©
Tf           . CM Ol
©
CO
o
Tf                           H      .      .
Tf
©
o r~ ifi o ©   .   .
1>               Ol ft     .     .
©
CO f CO © Tf
Ol
r~
Tf  ■» |> Ol 00
©
1-1
© © CO o oo    -
00
©
IQ
*i
Ol
CO
S
o
1-1
IS
©   Tf    CO   ©   ©    ©          •
©            Tf   CO   Tf
CO
CO
CO Tf OO © Tf t-     ■
©
ft  rH
i_.
Ci © CO Ol -n 00     ■
CO
00
s«
-,
©
Tf   Tf   IQ   CO   IQ
CO
CO CO CO © t^- r-t     .
00
o
CO
CO © Tf 00 Ol OI ifi
©
©
fl   .
o    ■
*c3
H   •
o
tn
re y
H
m3 gj,
a
4
c
S c3
g £ g c— oj p
a,
C£
ua
02 P-!
CD ©
CO -f
- ifi
CO
• t-
-cmcoo
o
CO ifi Tf Ol     . Ol
ft CM © CO      - r-t
Tf
rt,H
S
"
© © Tf O        CO
-
• H
u.
rH
©
Ol Ol rH               ft
-f © © Tf       -r-t
Ifi
© ifi © CO        CN
rH Ol ft               CO
©
Tf O © Tf     -CO
©
on -* cc co    .ifi
©
r-f
,_,
©
rH
H
r- ifi co oo    -co
ft   Ol            ft            Tf
©
co © oj io co r- "
Ifi
-It Ol        ft CO CM
©
ft
Ol
rt
Tf t^ r- oi co co"
co
© CO CO ifi Ol ft
ft
co a cc ;. - -r.
ft
rH-I— Ol CO o CO
CO I— IO i-H rH Ol
©
CDNNHHtW
rH CO r-l               CO
© ifi Ol Ifi 0O CO
CONWNICjm
ifi
©
© CO ifi ifi CO CO
©
©
- jS
0Q
_5i *-
m
O
a
tl c"
-   >   3   CC
t_ "■"  «J 'Cl
ci
o
MM
Eho:
S£
r^
CO
©
1-1          """
cj cor- oc
©
_
1-1
CO
Tf
O' © US iC
©
© ft CO
^
•-'
Ht
©
Tf    O
oc
CO
CM ft        f
©
© *
ft  Ol © r-
*
-*
Ol l>- CO o
©
Ifi'
*
CO
]--. .—1 Jt— r-
ft
CO        J>-
'-,
Ol
CO
ft
CO rH        OJ
l>
,_,
©
30
co x oo a
1  Ol
©
fc^
Tf (-■ ft O-
H
*
©
©
r-t
©
CO CO Ol if
CM Tf if
Tf Ol Ci ©
©
CN
©
©
OJ Tf f. o
©
CM
©
r-i        Tf
Ifi
*f5
■ c
Ph
<5
■ fj
■ C
H
g o cu c
o:
QPhC 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0226028/manifest

Comment

Related Items