Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST,… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1928

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0226073.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0226073.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0226073-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0226073-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0226073-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0226073-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0226073-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0226073-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0226073-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0226073.ris

Full Text

 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REPORT
COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST, 1926
WITH APPENDICES
PEINTED BY
AUTHOEITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
VICTORIA,  B.C.:
1'rinted by Charles F. Banfield, Printer to tbe King's Most Excellent Majesty.
1927.  To His Honour Robert Randolph Bkuce,
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
ended December 31st, 1926, with Appendices.
WILLIAM SLOAN,
Commissioner of Fisheries.
Provincial Fisheries Department,
Commissioner of Fisheries' Office,
Victoria, British Columbia, December 30th, 1926. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1926.
Page:
Value of Fisheries and Standing of Provinces  5
Species and Value of Fish marketed  5
Production of Fish Oils and Meals ."  6
Salmon-pack of 1926  6
Salmon-pack by Districts  7
Condition of the Salmon-fishery of the Fraser River System _  8
Increased Drain on Pink and Chum Salmon -  8
Reports from Salmon-spawning Areas of British Columbia Waters  9
The Outlook for the Salmon Runs of 1927  10
Contribution to the Life-history of Sockeye Salmon :  10
The Salmon Investigation  14
Results of Salmon-tagging in British Columbia "Waters in 1925  15
The Halibut Investigation  27
APPENDICES.
Contribution to Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.    (No. 12.)
By Drs. W. A. and Lucy Clemens ...  2!)
Spawning-beds or the Fraser River  58
Spawning-beds of the Skeena River  02
Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet  65
Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet :  68
Spawning-beds of the Nass River  70
Pood Value of some British Columbia Fish  72
The Salmon-pack in Detaii  76
Salmon-pack of the Province, 1911 to 1926, inclusive  79
Sockeye-salmon Pack, Fraser River Sxstem, 1911 to 1926, inclusive  82
Sockeye-salmon Pack of Province, by Districts, 1911 to 1926, inclusive  82: FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
FOR 1926.
VALUE OF CANADIAN FISHERIES AND STANDING OF PROVINCES, 1925.
The value of the fishery products of Canada for the year 1925 totalled $47,926,802, a gain
over 1924 of $3,392,567.
During the year 1925 British Columbia produced fishery products of a value of $22,414,618,
or 46 per cent, of Canada's total for that year. The value of the catch in 1925 exceeded that of
1924 by $1,157,051.
In 1925 British Columbia again led all the Provinces, as she has done for many years, in
the value of her fishery products. Her output in 1925 exceeded in value that of Nova Scotia,
the second in rank, by $12,200,839, and her output exceeded that of all the other Provinces
combined by $7,100,884.
The capital employed in the fisheries of Canada in 1925 totalled $46,411,647, of which
$21,674,5S4, or 46 per cent., was employed in British Columbia.
The persons engaged in the fisheries of Canada in 1925 totalled 69,478, of whom 17,382, or
25 per cent., were engaged in British Columbia. Of those engaged in British Columbia, 9,944
were employed in catching and handling the catch and 7,438 in packing and fish-curing.
In 1925 British Columbia, with but 25 per cent, of the total persons engaged in the fisheries
of Canada and but 46 per cent, of the capital employed, produced 46 per cent, of the value of
the fishery products of Canada.*
The following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of the fishery products
of the Provinces of Canada for the years 1921 to 1925, inclusive:—
Province.
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
1925.
British Columbia	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Ontario	
Quebec	
Prince Edward Island
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
Yukon	
Totals	
$13,953,670
9,778,623
3,690.726
3,065,042
1,815,284
924,529
1,023,187
243,018
408,868
$18,849,658
10,209,25S
4,685,660
2,858,122
2,089,414
1,612,399
908,816
245,337
331,239
10,107
$20,795
8,448
4,548.
3,159:
2,100,
1,754.
1,020,
286,
438
11
,914
,385
535
427
412
980
595
643
737
917
$34,931,935 j $41,S00,210 I $42,565,545
$21,257,567
8,777,251
5,383,809
3,557,587
2,283,314
1,201,772
1,232,563
482,492
339,107
IS,773
$22,414,61S
10,213,779
4,798,589
3,436,412
3,044,919
1,598,119
1,466,939
494,882
458,504
15,370
$44,534,235 I $47,942,131
THE SPECIES AND VALUE OF PISH CAUGHT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
The total value of each principal species of fish taken in British Columbia for the year
ended December 31st, 1925, is given in the following statement :—
Salmon  $14,973,S85
Halibut    3,S91,S19
Herring  1,717,985
Cod   264,036
Pilchards  182,911
Clams and quahaugs   161,764
Black cod  114,315
Crabs   50,005
Soles  36,404
Shrimps  .'  23,331
Carried forward   $21,417,055
* As this report goes to press the Commissioner is in receipt of a preliminary report on the fishery
products of the Province for the year 1926, issued bv the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, B H Coats
Statistician, from which the following data are taken : The value of the fishery products in 1926 totalled
$27,367,109. It exceeded the previous high record of 1918 by $84,8S6. Of the total, salmon produced
$18,776,762, or 69 per cent., halibut produced $4,068,868, and fish oils and meals $1,325,672. Capital
invested, $31,611,265.    Persons engaged, 20,213. E 6
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
The Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia—Continued.
Brought forward   $21,417,055
Oysters    23,107
Flounders, brill, plaice, etc  20,914
Red cod, etc  18,025
Perch   9,693
Smelts   7,434
Sturgeon     5,604
Octopus   5,056
Skate  4,259
Oolaohans   2,147
Whiting   1,048
Trout   002
Bass   186
Whales     309,608
Fish-oils, grayfish, etc  313,085
Fish-meals  202,854
Fish-fertilizer    20,825
Fur-seals  :  52,373
Miscellaneous  143
Total   $22,414,618
The above statement shows that the salmon-fisheries of the Province in 1925 produced
$14,973,885, or 66 per cent, of the total value of the fishery products.
The total amount of halibut landed was marketed for $3,891,819 and herring for $1,717,985.
The foregoing data are derived from the " Fisheries Statistics of Canada," issued by the
Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa.
THE PRODUCTION OF FISH OILS AND MEALS.
During the year the fish-reduction plants in the Province produced 2,402,242 imperial gallons
of oil and 10,850 tons of fertilizer, as against 713,237 gallons of oil and 3,229 tons of meal in 1925.
There was a great increase in the production of pilchard oil and meal. The fifteen fish-reduction
plants on the west coast of Vancouver Island—many of which were operated for the first time—
produced 1,89S,721 imperial gallons of oil and 7,948 tons of meal. During the months of July
and August most of the plants were operated to capacity. Fishing was largely confined to
estuary waters. The gear designed for operation in the open sea proved too light to handle
a catch in rough waters off the coast.
Several new fish-reduction plants for the use. of pilchards will be established and be in
operation next year.    It is anticipated that production will be materially increased in 1927.
The production of whale-oil in the Province in 1920 totalled 510,100 imperial gallons. But
two whaling fishing stations were operated and they handled 269 whales, as against 351 in 1925.
PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON 1926.
Fraser
Eiver
District.
Skeena
Eiver
District.
Bivers
Inlet
District.
Nass
Eiver
District.
Queen
Charlotte
Islands
District.
Vancouver
Island
District.
Outlying
Districts.
*
Grand
Total.
85,6S9
9,710
3,073
20,169
13,736
40
21,783
32,25'6
88,495
82,360
13,377
4,975
2,242
65,5S1
66
523
96
15,929
4,'616
751
597
708
25,070
3,952
60'9
661
5,380
3
51,551
86,113
174,383
61,«'75
914
1,523
765
29
973
43,631
180,420
ISO,363
337,012
Fancy Bed Springs
Standard Springs	
32,635
12,014
24,530
560
19,145
2,156
754
30,208
210,081
63,527
11
7,286
12,815
11,727
375
4,274
50,815
15.392
Cohoes	
3,716
200,512
168.319
162,449
773,012
702,237
274,951
407,524
"98,105
92,749
373,815
347,722
470,324
2,065,190
* Including Smith Inlet. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 7
The data used here were furnished by the British Columbia Division, Canned Salmon Section
of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We have, however, credited the sockeye salmon
packed at Esquimalt to the Fraser River District, because it consisted of sockeye seeking that
watershed to spawn. Likewise we have credited Rivers Inlet with the sockeye caught there and
packed at Namu. In consequence the figures given differ from the association's statement and
those that are given in the valued " Year-book " of the Pacific Fisherman for 1926.
THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE IN 1926.
The salmon-pack of the Province in 1926 totalled 2,065,190 cases, as against 1,719,282 cases
in 1925, 1,745,313 cases in 1924, 1,341,677 cases in 1923, and 1,290,336 cases in 1922.
The pack of 1926 is the largest made in the Province. It exceeded the previous high record
of 1924 by 319,877 cases.
The pack.of 1926 consisted of 337,012 cases of sockeye, 69,179 cases of springs, 162,449 cases
of cohoes, 773,012 cases of pinks, and 702,237 cases of chums. The sockeye-pack was 55,506 cases
less than in 1925. As in the two previous years, the bulk of the pack consisted of pinks and
chum salmon. Their combined pack totalled 1,475,249 cases, a gain over that of the previous
high record of 1925 of 421,875. The combined pack of pinks and chums produced 71 per cent,
of the total pack of all species in 1926.
THE 1926 SALMON-PACK BY DISTRICTS.
The Fraser River System.—The catch of all species of salmon made in the Fraser River
system within the Province totalled 274,951 cases. It consisted of 85,689 cases of sockeye,
32,952 cases of springs, 21,783 cases of cohoes, 32,256 cases of pinks, and 88,495 cases of chums.
The sockeye-catch in Provincial waters of the Fraser system produced the largest pack made
in any year since 1917. On the other hand, the catch of sockeye in the State of Washington
waters of the Fraser system produced a pack of but 44,673 cases, much the smallest ever made
there. <
The total pack of sockeye in the entire Fraser River system in 1926 was 130,362 cases.
It was 17,046 cases less than that made in 1925. It was 29,964 cases more than that made in
the fourth preceding year.    It was 147,970 cases less than the average for the past eight years.
The Skeena River.—The salmon-pack in the Skeena River District in 1926 totalled 407,524
cases, consisting of 82,360 cases of sockeye, 20,594 cases of springs, 30,208 cases of cohoes,
210,081 cases of pinks, and 63,527 cases of chums. The pack of sockeye was slightly larger than
that of 1925. The pack of pinks exceeded that of 1925 by 80,0012 cases. The pack of springs
was 2,S51 cases less.
Rivers Inlet.—The salmon-pack in Rivers Inlet in 1926 totalled 9S,105 cases. It consisted
of 65,581 cases of sockeye, 7,286 cases of cohoes, 12,815 cases of pinks, 11,727 oases of chums,
and 685 cases of springs. The catch of sockeye, though much less than last year—the high
record year—shows a gain over its brood-years 1921 and 1922, when the packs were 48,615 and
53,584 respectively.
Smith Inlet.—The salmon-pack statement for 1926 of the Canned Salmon Branch of the
Canadian Manufacturers' Association shows the packs made at Smith Inlet. Heretofore the
packs made at Smith Inlet have either been attributed to Rivers Inlet or outlying districts.
The pack at Smith Inlet this year totalled 17,921 cases, consisting almost wholly of sockeye.
The Nass River District.—The salmon caught in the Nass River District in 1926 totalled
92,749 cases. It consisted of 15,929 cases of sockeye, 5,964 cases of springs, 4,274 cases of
cohoes, 50,815 cases of pinks, and 15,392 cases of chums. The sockeye-pack is the smallest
since 1921.
The Vancouver Island District.—The catch of salmon in the Vancouver Island District in
1926 totalled 347,722 cases. It was 83,818 cases greater than in 1925. It was, however, not the
highest record. It was 42,093 cases less than in 1918. The pack consisted of 25,070 cases of
sockeye, 5,222 cases of springs, 51,551 cases of cohoes, 86,113 cases of pinks, and 174,383 cases
of chums.
Queen Charlotte Islands District.—The catch of salmon in Queen Charlotte Islands produced
a pack of 373,815 cases, much the largest ever made there. It exceeded the pack of 1925 by
292,681 cases. It consisted almost wholly of pinks and chums—200,512 cases of pinks and
108,319 cases of chums. E 8 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OP FISHERIES, 1926.
Mild-cured Salmon.—The production of mild-cured salmon in the Province in 1926 was but
2,183 tierces, representing approximately 1,746,400 lb. of spring salmon. It was 915 tierces less
than in 1925 and 786 less than in 1924.
The Appendix of this report contains detailed statements, giving by districts the pack of
eaoh species since 191.1.
CONDITIONS OF THE SOCKEYE-SALMON FISHERY OF THE
FRASER RIVER SYSTEM.
The increased catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system in 1926
attracted much local attention. It produced a pack of 85,689 cases, much the largest pack since
1917. The catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system was,
however, the smallest ever made there. It produced a pack of but 44,673 cases. The total
sockeye-pack for the entire system in 1926 was 130,362 cases. It was 17,046 cases less than
in 1925.
The increased catch of sockeye in Provincial waters and the decreased catch- in State of
Washington waters of the Fraser system in 1926 is attributed to an unusual occurrence.
Ordinarily the bulk of the sockeye-pack made in the system is made in Washington waters
in July and August. This year the bulk of the catch was made in Provincial waters and it
was made in September and October. The pack records of the Fraser River system in the period
1915-25, inclusive, show that 70 per cent, .of the total catch was made in Washington waters
and 30 per cent, in Provincial waters. In 1926 the proportions were reversed for the first time
in many years. Sixty-seven per cent, was made in the Province and but 33 per cent, in Washington waters.
The increased catches of sockeye made in Provincial waters and the decreased catch in
Washington waters is attributed to the fact that in September and October a very considerable
number of sockeye gained access to the Gulf of Georgia, in the Province, without being intercepted in the waters to the south or north of that gulf. Fishermen engaged in fishing in the
Gulf of Georgia and in the channels of the Fraser made good catches in September and October,
while those engaged in the waters to the south and north of that gulf made no catches of sockeye
in those months.
Having gained access to the Gulf of Georgia without being intercepted, the runs in
September and October were only drawn upon by the Provincial fleet of less than a thousand
gill-net fishing-boats, and as their operations were, by Canadian regulations, confined to five
days each week in the gulf and the Fraser channels up to New Westminster Bridge, and to
four and a half days each week up to Mission Bridge, the number taken from the runs was
smaller than usual, and the number which escaped capture and reached the spawning-beds of
the Fraser was proportionately greater than when the runs are drawn upon by both the
Provincial and the Washington fishermen. The number of sockeye that escaped capture and
reached the spawning-beds was greater than in any yeav since 1913,
THE  INCREASED DRAIN ON PINK AND  CHUM  SALMON—THE NEED  OF
GREATER PROTECTION.
There has been such an increase in the catch of pink and chum salmon in Provincial waters
in the last five years as to occasion grave concern to all who study the conditions of the salmon-
fisheries of the Province. That the supply of pink and chum salmon in Provincial waters
cannot long withstand such a heavy drain as has been made in the last three years is manifest.
The catches must be curtailed or the supply will be exhausted within a few years.
The bulk of the catches of pink and chum salmon made in the Province are taken from
estuary waters close to the mouths of comparatively small streams by means of purse-seines.
There has been a startling increase in the catch and in the use of purse-seines in the last five
years. Many of the nets are short in length,, that they may be effectively pursed in limited
areas where the fish are compactly schooled waiting for the flood of the tide in order to enter
the streams. There is immediate need that the use of short nets be prohibited. Short nets are
not only effectively used in limited areas, but being short they are frequently pursed illegally in
closed areas where long nets could not be used. Further, in many waters the use of purse-seines
should be permitted one tide only every twenty-four hours. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 9
The following statement shows the number of purse-seines licensed and the pack of pink
and chum salmon for each of the last five years:—
Number Cases of Pink
licensed. and Chum Salmon.
1922        143 740,183
1923        194 855,987
1924       227 1,226,454
1925       302 1,053,374
1926       406 1,475,249
REPORTS FROM SALMON-SPAWNING AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS.
Following the practice adopted by the Department in 1901, of inspecting the salmon-spawning
areas of the principal waters of the Province during the spawning'period, the Department again
inspected the spawning areas of the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Rivers and Smith
Inlets this year. The following is a brief summary of the reports, which are to be found in full
in the Appendix of this report:—
The Fraser River.—The inspection of the spawning-beds of the Fraser River was again made
by Mr. Babcock, his twenty-fourth inspection.
The number of sockeye that reached the spawning areas of the Fraser River basin above
Hell's Gate Canyon this year was surprisingly large—larger, it is estimated, than in any season
since 1913. Conservative estimates of the number which reached the Little Shuswap and Adams
Rivers in the lower section of the Shuswap-Adams Lakes section place their number between
three and four hundred thousand. Some experienced observers estimated that between four
and five hundred thousand sockeye spawned in those rivers this year.
The sockeye which spawned there this year entered the Lower Fraser the last of September
and in early October. The fish were large and had all the brilliant outward colouring of the
races of sockeye which formerly spawned in every section of the Upper Fraser basin. They
were' much more highly coloured than those which spawn in the Birkenhead River, at the head
of Harrison-Lillooet Lakes section, and much larger and much more brilliantly coloured than the
races of sockeye that spawn in Cultus, Pitt, and the small lakes of the Lower Fraser. Judging
from their size and brilliant colouring, they were manifestly the product of fish which spawned
in the Shuswap section.
Sockeye in numbers were not observed in any other tributaries of the Shuswap area than
those mentioned, and the number of sockeye that spawned in other lake sections of the Upper
Fraser basin, which includes Quesnel, Chilko, Seton, and Anderson Lakes, was smaller than in
1925, and not larger than the average of recent poor years.
The run of sockeye to the Birkenhead River, at the head of the Harrison-Lillooet Lakes
section, which is included in the lower section of the Fraser River basin, was large—fully equal,
if not greater than the average for the last eight years. The yearly run to this section shows
no sign of diminishing numbers. It has been fully maintained. The hatchery on the Birkenhead
collected 43,000,000 sockeye-eggs and, in addition, the beds of the river were abundantly seeded.
The number of sockeye that reached other sections of the Lower Fraser was up to the average
of recent years.
Due to the increased seeding of the spawning-beds of the Shuswap Lake section and the
average seeding of the beds in the lower section of the Fraser this year, there is a prospect that
the run of sockeye to the Fraser four years hence will be larger than this year or any year
since 1917.
Rivers Inlet.—The inspection of the spawning areas of the Rivers Inlet run was again made
by Fishery Officer A. W. Stone.
The sockeye that ran to Rivers Inlet this year were the product of the brood-years 1921 and
1922, years which produced packs of 48,615 and 53,584 cases respectively. The reports from the
spawning area of the Rivers Inlet run clearly indicate that there was a greater escapement
this year than in either of the brood-years, and that the beds were better seeded than in either
of those years, and as water and weather conditions were favourable it is anticipated that the
return to Rivers Inlet, where the run is composed of more or less equal numbers of four-year-old
and five-year-old fish, four and five years hence will be greater than it was this year.
Smith Inlet.—The inspection was again made by Fishery Officer A. W. Stone. E 10 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
The number of sockeye which spawned on the beds in the Smith Inlet area this year was
materially larger than in the brood-years 1921 and 1922, and should result in an increase in the
runs four and five years hence.
The Skeena River.—The inspection of the spawning-beds of the Skeena was again made by
FisHery Officer Robert Gibson.
The runs of sockeye to the Skeena, like those to Rivers and Smith Inlets, consist of four-
year-old and five-year-old fish. The run this year was the joint product of the spawnings in
1921 and 1922, two of the poorest brood-years recorded on the Skeena. The catch this year
produced a pack of 74,000 cases, a gain of over 33,000 cases over 1921, which produced the
five-year-old fish of this year's run; and it produced 20,000 cases less than in 1922. The reports
from the spawning area this year indicate that the beds were much more abundantly seeded than
in either of the brood-years and compared favourably with former good year seedings. The
hatcheries without difficulty obtained their full quota of eggs. The effect of the forty-eight-hour
weekly closed season was made manifest on all the beds. There should be a good return from
this year's spawning.
The Nass River.—Fishery Inspector C. P. Hickman again inspected the spawning areas of
the Nass River. His reports indicate that the escapement of sockeye which reached them was
much smaller than in recent years. None of the beds were well seeded. Conditions on the Nass
are not favourable. There is no apparent indication of the maintenance of the sockeye run;
it appears to be declining.
THE OUTLOOK FOR THE SALMON RUNS OF 1927.
The Fraser.—As the sockeye run to the Fraser in 1927 will consist almost wholly of four-year
fish derived from the spawning of 1923, it is interesting to note that the reports from the
spawning areas in that year indicate that the number of sockeye that reached the beds was
small—" less than in any previous year." The Birkenhead River and the other sections of the
Lower Fraser basin were the only ones in which any considerable number was noted, and their
seeding was not so extensive as to justify anticipating an increased run in 1927.
Rivers Inlet.—The sockeye run of 1927 to Rivers Inlet will consist of the five-year-old fish
from the spawning of 1922 and the four-year fish from 1923. The pack in 1922 was but 53.5S4
cases and the spawning-beds in that year were not well seeded. There is therefore no reason to
anticipate a goodly number of five-year fish in 1927. On the other hand, the four-year fish in
the 1927 run will be drawn from the seedings in 1923, a year in which the pack totalled 116.S50
cases, and in which it was reported that the beds were more abundantly seeded than in any
former recorded year. In consequence of these statements it is anticipated that there will be
a light run of five-year-old fish in 1927 and a large run of four-year-olds. Combined, the run
should be satisfactory.
Skeena River.—Prospects for a good run of sockeye to the Skeena in 1927 are excellent.
It will be derived from the spawnings of 1922 and 1923, when the packs totalled 96,277 and
131,731—two good years—and in which the reports from the spawning areas indicated a good
seeding.
Nass River.—The run to the Nass in 1927 will come from the spawnings of 1922 and 1923,
which produced packs of 31,277 and 17,821. The reports from the beds in those years indicated
a good seeding in the former year and a very poor seeding in the latter. Conditions on the
Nass are not satisfactory.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE  SALMON.
The twelfth contribution to the series of papers on the life-history of the sockeye salmon
issued by the Department, which is contained in the Appendix of this report, is contributed by
Dr. W. A. and Dr. Lucy S. Clemens. It deals with the constituents of the runs of sockeye to
our principal waters in 1926.    The following is a brief summary:—
In dealing with the sockeye run to the Fraser, attention is called to the fact that the
extent of the run and the size of the pack was above expectancy, due to the appearance of a
large late run the last of September, the bulk of the escapement of which proceeded to Shuswap
Lake. The distribution of the catch is interesting in that the British Columbia pack exceeded
that of the State of AVashington by 41,016 cases. There has been much conjecture as to the
origin of the late portion of the run. It is apparent that before extraordinary explanations are
resorted to all available data should be studied to see if the run cannot be accounted for in the BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 11
natural course of events. In this connection, Drs. Clemens state, it is interesting to note that
in 1922 the British Columbia pack exceeded that of Washington by slightly over 3,000 cases,
and that in only one other year since 1910 has there been a similar occurrence—namely, 1915,
when the British Columbia pack exceeded the Washington pack by 26,000 cases. In 1922 there
was a late run of sockeye to the Shuswap Lake area that surpassed any of the preceding eight
years. In that year Fishery Officer Shotton, in charge of the Shuswap section, reported that
the run was exceptionally good and that a very conservative estimate placed the number which
spawned in Little River at six or eight thousand. Mr. Shotton also stated that in 1922 two runs
of sockeye appeared in Adams River—one on October 6th, which was light, and another on
October 25th, which was heavy. In 1926 the late run reached the Fraser on September 27th
and Adams River about October 3rd. Referring to Mr. Shotton's statement that a very conservative estimate of the number of spawning sockeye seen in Little River in 1922 was 8,000,
Drs. Clemens express the view that it was without doubt a very conservative estimate for that
number and, scattered over such a stream as Little River, would not be impressive. Mr.
Shotton's recent statement that not less than 20,000 spawned in Adams River in 1922 would
give a total estimate of 28,000 in the two rivers, which would indicate that more than 50,000,000
eggs were deposited that year. Mr. Babcock estimated the number of sockeye he saw in Adams
and Little Rivers in October, 1926, at between 300,000 and 400,000; obviously such a return
could scarcely have resulted from the spawning of 28,000 sockeye, but since the latter estimate
is a very conservative one, there can be no doubt that at least the bulk of them did.
In March, 1923, a planting of 1,176,000 eyed sockeye-eggs was made in Eagle River, a
tributary of Upper Shuswap Lake. It has been suggested that possibly the return from that
planting accounted for the run of 1926 to Adams River and Little River, but since that planting
was at best less than 3 per cent, of the naturally deposited eggs, it is apparent that the return
could have formed' but a very small part of the run, even though it might have gone there
instead of to Eagle River.
Since the run of sockeye to the Fraser is composed predominately of four-year-old fish, the
bulk of the 1926 fish were undoubtedly descendants of the 1910-14-18-22 cycle. The figures
given in Table I. of the report (see page 31) show that in the early years the runs of this
cycle were very large, approximating those of the big cycle; that is, the 1909-13^-17-21-25 series.
The former cycle is the only one showing a tendency towards recuperation, and this recovery
is largely the result of the development of the late run to Shuswap Lake. The significance lies
in the apparent fact that a remnant of an up-river race is building itself up. It is indicative
of the recuperative possibilities of the Fraser and of the possible lines of procedure which may
profitably be followed in attempting to assist in the rehabilitation of the runs to the upper
river-basin.
Drs. Clemens call attention to the fact that the sockeye run to the Fraser in 1927 should be
the descendants of the 1923 run, which produced the second smallest pack in the history of the
Fraser. Moreover, the 1911-15-19-23 cycle has shown a very decided decline, as is shown in
Table I. of the report. The reports from the spawning-beds in 1923 indicate that very few
sockeye reached the areas above Hell's Gate, except the Shuswap area, where a few thousands
spawned late in the season. The record indicates that there was a small late run in 1923.
Although 6,000,000 eggs were planted in the Upper Fraser in 1923-24, it is evident that the
returns from that number under the best of conditions cannot be great. Thus, in the ordinary
course of events, the sockeye-pack of 1927 depends upon the extent of the run that was produced
in the Lower Fraser;  hence a very good run cannot be anticipated.
The scales of the 1927 sockeye run reported upon by Drs. Clemens consisted of 1,124 selected
at random from fish caught in the traps in Juan de Fuca Strait from April 27th to August 30th.
As is usual, the one-year-in-lake-type prevailed, being represented by 995 individuals, or
89 per cent, of the whole. Seventy-five per cent, of the total of 1,124 were four years old,
23 per cent, five years old, and 2 per cent, three years old. Males were in excess, there being
496 to 475 females.    The reverse was the case in 1925.
The average length of the four-year-old males and females is the lowest on record. The
decrease in length is astonishing, being almost 1 inch less in the case of the males and % inch
in females, as compared with the records of the previous year, which was the lowest up to that
period. (See Table V., page 33.) During the last eight years there has been a decrease in
average length of 1% inches in the males and V-i inch in the females.
With the decrease in length there has also been a decrease in weight. E 12 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1920.
It is apparent that the races of larger individuals are decreasing in numbers either through
selective action of fishing operations or natural causes. The opinion is expressed that there is
but little doubt that fishing operations are responsible and indicate the great strain being put
on the stock. There can be no question as to the reliability of the figures, since all the material
examined has been collected from the traps at Sooke, and the sampling and measuring for years
have been made by the same assistant. Drs. Clemens are here dealing with fish which approached
the Fraser to the south of Vancouver Island from April to the end of September, and not with
the fish which appeared later and comprised the run to Shuswap Lake either this year or in 1922.
The data concerning lengths and w-eights are given in Tables X. and XL, pages 35 and 36.
The Rivers Inlet Sockeye Run of 1926.—The sockeye run to Rivers Inlet in 1926 produced
a pack of 65,581 cases. This falls in line with the 1911-16-21-26 series and is a fair pack for
that series. Sixty per cent, of the run consisted of four-year-old fish, derived from the 1922
spawning, which consisted of 82 per cent, of four-year-old individuals. Forty per cent, of the
run consisted of five-year-old fish, derived from the 1921 spawning, when the run consisted of
51 per cent, of five-year-old fish.
In the report for 1925 it was stated that the pack figures seemed to further confirm the
opinion that there is a five-year cycle in Rivers Inlet (Table XIII.). While this is true and
while the five-year-old fish appear to be the dominant factor in the runs, the occurrence of
varying numbers of four-year-old fish makes the prediction of future runs difficult. The five-year
group is fairly uniform; on the other hand, the four-year group shows great fluctuations. In
view of such fluctuations, together with the high percentages' of males, Drs. Clemens state that
it would appear, as Dr. Gilbert suggested in his report for 1917, that there are present each year
considerable numbers of males which have been precocious in development and have matured at
four years of age instead of five. It may be recalled that in the Fraser there are precocious
males maturing at three years of age.
The run of 1927 to Rivers Inlet will be derived from the brood-years 1922 and 1923. While
the reports from the spawning-beds in 1922 indicate an abundant seeding, the run of that year
consisted of only 18 per cent, of five-year-old fish, the smallest percentage of five-year-old fish on
record. In his report on the run of 1922 Dr. Gilbert points out that, owing to a strike, fishing
did not begin until about July 10th. He states: " At this time the run is in ordinary years
reaching its culminating point and certain changes have occurred in its composition. One of
these changes usually concerns the proportions of four- and five-year fish, the latter in most years
running more heavily during the first part of the season. What allowance should be made for
this factor it is impossible to judge, for the sequence is not exactly the same in runs of different
years. However, the proportions of five-year fish were so much less than in any other year
during the same period of the run that we are justified in concluding that this year-group was
present in greatly reduced numbers in the run of 1922."
The four-year-old fish of the 1927 run should be derived from the spawning of 1923. The
pack of 1923 was large and the report from the spawning-beds in that year indicated an abundant
seeding, so that a fair number of four-year-old fish may appear. However, the 1907-12-17-22
cycle has with one exception produced small packs, and in view of the small percentage of
five-year-old fish in the 1922 run it does not appear that a large run may be expected in 1927.
Drs. Clemens find the distribution of the sexes in the Rivers Inlet runs the most interesting
and puzzling of the four systems under review. Throughout all the years of record the four-
year-old males have far outnumbered the four-year-old females and the five-year-old females
outnumbered the five-year-old males. During the past eleven years in the former group the
males have formed an average of 71 per cent., while the average for the females was 29 per cent.
In the latter group the males have averaged 39 per cent, and the females 61 per cent, over the
same period. A similar condition occurs in the Skeena groups, but the discrepancy is not so
pronounced. The total percentage of males in the 1926 run was only slightly higher than the
total percentage of females—51 and 49 per cent, respectively. In 1922, one of the brood-years
of the 1927 run, the percentages were 61 males and 39 females.
The Skeena River Sockeye Run of 1926.—As was anticipated in the report of last year, the
Skeena pack of 1926 was only a fair one, some 82,300 cases. Nothing more could be expected
from the brood-years 1921 and 1922, the former of which had the lowest pack on record. A run
that fluctuates from year to year as much as the Skeena does can be judged best by grouping
the years and comparing the averages.    Thus combining the packs of the last twenty years in BRITISH COLUMBIA.
E 13
four groups of five succeeding years each, the averages are as follows: 1907-11, 130,894 cases;
1912-16, 90,513 cases;  1917-21, 103,183 cases;  1922-26, 106,567 cases.
The deduction shown above is quite obvious—a decline, following which the run has been
little more than maintaining itself.
Referring to Table XIX., page 42, it is seen that in the earlier years of the run—from
1912 to 1920—with but a single exception, the five-year group formed 50 per cent, or more of
the runs. Since 1921 in only one year (1924) has this been true. A number of years ago
Dr. Gilbert pointed out in general that the largest packs were associated with years in which
the percentage of the five-year fish was greatest. It is interesting then to note that the pack
of 1924 is the largest in the last six years. We are not able to offer an explanation for this
apparent reversal in the proportions of four-year and five-year classes during recent years, and
it does not seem to have changed the runs materially.
For years it has been more or less apparent that the Skeena run consists predominantly of
two age-groups—namely, four-year-olds and five-year-olds. On this account the packs cannot
be arranged in either four- or five-year cycles. If conditions are fairly stable and the packs bear
some relation to the escapement, then taking the figures of 1914, where 75 per eent. of the pack
consisted of five-year-old and 25 per cent, of four-year-old fish, it would be expected that in
1918 there should have been a pack of four-year-old fish of close to 30,000 cases and in 1919
a pack of five-year-old fish of 100.',000' cases. Using this same method of calculation for 1915,.
the results give 42,000 for 1919 and 74,000 in 1920. The total for 1918 would be 142,000 cases.
The actual pack in 1919 was 185,000. The following tabulation shows the correspondence between
the actual pack and the calculated over a period of years:—
Year.
Actual.
Calculated.
Eeports from
Spawning-beds
in Brood-years.
1912, fair.
1917 '.	
66,000
123,000
185,000
91,000
41,000
96,000
132,000
145,000
78,000
82,000
66,000
59,000
140,000
99,000
62,000
92,000
130,000
144,000
106,000
88,000
106,000
1913, good.
1918	
1919	
1914, very good.
1920	
1916, fair.
1921	
1922	
1923	
1924	
1925	
1917, no report.
1918, no report.
1919, good.
1920, poor.
1921, fair.
1926	
1927                     	
1922, very good.
Making allowance for the normal fluctuations which occur in any run, for the fact that only
two age-groups have been considered, and for the fact that packs do not bear the same relation
to the escapement year after year, it will be seen that the correspondence is fairly close and
would seem to be additional evidence of the existence of two distinct groups in the Skeena runs.
It is the only run in which two age-groups play roles of equal importance. In the Fraser run
the four-year-old one-year-in-lake class dominates. The Rivers Inlet run has two components,,
the five-year-old one-year-in-lake and the four-year-old one-year-in-lake, but the former is by
far the more important element. The Nass run resembles the Fraser in having a single predominant group, but in this case it is the five-year-old two-years-in-lake class.
For the last nine years there has been a relatively close correspondence between the pack
and the brood-years from which they have been derived. According to expectancy the pack of
1927 should reach the 100,000 mark. One brood-year, 1921, had a fairly high pack, but it did
not contain many five-year-old fish, and, on the other hand, 1923 had a very good pack with a
large per cent, of four-year-old individuals which should be spawning next year and which will
likely form a large proportion of the run. In addition it was reported in both 1922 and 1923
that the spawning-beds of the Skeena basin were well seeded.
The Nass River Sockeye Run of 1926.—In dealing with the Nass run of sockeye in 1926,
Drs. Clemens state that the apparent instability of the Nass River run has been proved out
several times during the past few years and a fear that the run is materially declining has
been expressed.    As has been known for some time, the Nass cycle is a five-year one.    In 1925. Drs. Clemens said that the outlook for 1926 was discouraging because its brood-year, 1921, had
the smallest pack recorded. Consequently it is not surprising to find the pack of 1926 totalled
but 15,929 cases. Looking at it simply as the second smallest pack on record, one might feel
justified in accepting it as evidence of further decline. On the other hand, in viewing the
situation as a whole, there seems to be reason for believing that the run has maintained itself
during the last five years, for the average annual pack of this cycle—from 1922 to 1920—is
23,512 cases, against 19,673 cases for the preceding cycle, 1917 to 1921. Furthermore, in 1925
attention was called to the fact that the packs for 1923, 1924, and 1925 showed a rather close
correspondence to the packs of their brood-years, 1918, 1919, and 1920 respectively, and likewise
there is a similar correspondence between 1926 and 1921. This tendency of return to normal
expectancy, together with the fact that the brood-years for 1927 and 1929 had large packs, and
that three out of five of Inspector Hickman's reports for the past five years state bhat the
spawning-beds were very well seeded—the fish being exceedingly numerous—are hopeful signs.
If reliance can be placed on such signs as a brood-year pack of 31,277 cases with 90 per cent,
of the run five-year-old fish, and the spawning-bed reports, then there should be a good pack at
the Nass in 1927.
In dealing with the age-groups in the sockeye run to the Nass, Drs. Clemens state that their
consideration is always more interesting than that of the age-groups of the Fraser, Rivers Inlet,
and the Skeena, from the fact that .not only are older fish found than in the runs to the other
waters, but also a greater variety in the combination of years the fish spend in fresh and salt
waters. Some of the Nass fish go to the sea as fry and return at the end of either three or
four years; again, others remain in fresh water one, two, three, or even four years before
making their way to the ocean, where they stay from two to five summers before returning to
their native stream. However, this great complexity usually resolves itself into eight principal
age-groups. The analysis of the run of 1926 was based upon 1,856 samplings taken every three
or four days over a period of two months, begininng June 23rd and extending to August 20th.
The usual eight age-groups were all represented and an additional group, hitherto unreported,
consisting of four full years spent in fresh water and three summers in the sea.
Attention is also called to a very interesting feature about the run to the Nass—the various
age-groups show year after year a remarkable constancy in seasonal changes. The dominant
group, the five-year-old two-years-in-the-lake, is present throughout the entire run with varying
degrees of strength. The four-year-old one-year-in-the-lake and the five-year-old one-year-in-the-
lake classes are also present throughout, but reach their greatest numbers during the second
and third weeks of July. The two sea-type groups are confined to the early weeks and the
six- and seven-year-old fish to the latter part.
As stated, the full text and the exhaustive tabulations of Drs. Clemens's report is reproduced
in the Appendix of the report.
THE SALMON INVESTIGATION FEDERATION.
The International Pacific Salmon Investigation Federation—consisting of the executives and
the scientific staffs of the Fisheries Departments of Canada, the United States, British Columbia,
Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska—that was formed in Seattle last year held its
annual meeting in Seattle in December. The purpose of the Federation is to produce through
joint and uniform effort the knowledge essential for the proper and scientific administration of
the salmon-fisheries of the Pacific Coast in OTder to effectively conserve the great salmon
resources of the North Pacific.
The conception of such conservation held by the Federation involves the utilization of the
salmon resources to the fullest extent compatible with their preservation. The association seeks
to be able to say definitely how many salmon can be taken from a given water and still leave
sufficient for spawning purposes, so that the supply will continue year after year at a high level.
The last meeting of the Federation again brought out that the central idea of its programme
is the production of the maximum yield obtainable from the salmon-fisheries and yet to maintain
them. By the maximum yield is meant the greatest production of fish which may be taken for
commercial purposes without endangering the future supply. To provide adequately for this the
Federation seeks to ascertain what natural fluctuations in the abundance of salmon occur; the
causes of fluctuations, particularly the immediate causes, though the ultimate causes should
finally be determined; the intensity with which the commercial fishing is conducted and its
effects on the future supply;   the relative value of various measures which may be employed BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 15
to prevent depletion and to build up runs already depleted. With these fundamental requirements in mind, the Federation at its last meeting afforded free discussion of the following
subjects:—
(li) Collection of adequate and uniform statistics, which are of fundamental importance
and should include not only data which will show the trend of fishing efforts.
(2.) Tagging experiments, which have been productive of a great deal of valuable information relative to the ocean migrations of salmon, and bearing on the relationship between salmon
found in different regions. Such data are essential to reliable interpretation of statistics. The
importance of such data is well known in the results obtained from the tagging off the west
coast of Vancouver Island in the last two years, by which it was determined that fish caught,
tagged, and liberated there were later recaptured in the Columbia, in Oregon, and the Sacramento, in California, as well as in British Columbia waters; and by the tagging along the
Alaska Peninsula, through which it was determined that the fish caught in the Ikitan-Shumagin
Island District were largely from the spawning-streams of Bristol Bay.
(3.) Scale-analysis of adult runs of salmon, which is essential to any understanding of the
causes, either immediate or ultimate, responsible for the fluctuations in abundance, and likewise
•will provide the necessary data on which to base prophecies of future runs, and by which can
be determined the productivity of each brood-year, the relative effects of heavy and light seeding
of the spawning-beds, the effect of various methods of artificial propagation, and of modifications
ill the intensity of fishing, etc.
(4.) Study of adult returns of salmon from a known escapement to the spawning-grounds,
a line of investigation that is being carried out on specially selected streams, where the production can be accurately determined, such as at Cultus Lake in British Columbia and on the
Karluk and Chignik Rivers in Alaska. It is of course impossible to conduct such studies on
large rivers like the Fraser and the Columbia, but it is believed that important principles may
be discovered by an intense study of these selected streams which may be of universal application.
(5.) Stream surveys of spawning areas which, as conducted in British Columbia and Alaska,
have proven of value as a substitute for escapement counts where these last are impossible.
(6.) Study of the production of seaward migrant salmon from known escapements of parent
fish, being undertaken at Cultus Lake in British Columbia and at Karluk through marking
experiments.
(7.) Efficiency of various methods of artificial propagation as compared with natural
propagation, as such investigation is one of most practical importance and designed to improve
present methods of fish-culture, as is shown by the experiments being conducted by the
Biological Board of Canada in British Columbia and the United States Bureau of Fisheries,
and the States on the Columbia, Klamath, and Sacramento Rivers.
(S.)   The effect of transplanting of eggs and fry from one stream to another,
(9.) Improvement of spawning areas and overcoming obstacles, natural and artificial, to
the ascent of spawning salmon and the descent of the seaward migrants, the most important by
far being the question that pertains to the possibility of providing efficient passage-way for both
adult and young salmon over high dams.
(10.) The life-history in fresh water, with particular attention to the factors affecting
survival during the period of the salmon's life, which includes the rate of the development of
the eggs, the growth and habits of the young and allied problems, as well as their bearings on
the problems of natural propagation and those of fish-culture.
The Seattle meeting of the Federation demonstrated the value of such conferences. Every
leading fishery executive and scientific investigator of the Pacific Coast States was in attendance.
It was by far the most interesting and productive meeting held by the association.
RESULTS OF SALMON-TAGGING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS IN 1925.
The tagging of salmon experiments conducted in Provincial waters in 1925 have added so
materially to the knowledge of the movements of spring salmon (0. tsahawytscha) that the
following digest of the data contained in Paper No. 9, Volume 3 of the Contribution to Canada's
Biology and Fisheries issued by the Biological Board of Canada, is inserted here. The Department is indebted to the Biological Board for permission to reproduce the tabulations and for
the use of the plates and maps used in the original publication on salmon-tagging experiments
in British Columbia waters.   Tagging was conducted in accordance with the programme adopted1 E 16
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
by the Pacific Salmon Investigating Federation. During the season of 1925, 1,399 spring, 1,17S
sockeye, and 51 cohoe salmon were tagged and liberated in British Columbia waters.
Tagging was conducted on the west coast of Vancouver Island between May 25th and June
25th. During that period 1,125 spring and 51 cohoe salmon were tagged and liberated. Experiments were also conducted on the west coast of Queen Charlotte Islands between June 19th and
July 25th, and 659 sockeye were tagged at Haystack Island, at the southern entrance of Portland
Canal, from August 3rd to the 21st, and 519 sockeye were tagged at Deepwater Bay, Seymour
Narrows, from August 7th to the 14th.
The salmon tagged on the west coast of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands were
secured from market fishermen using trolls. The fish were paid for at current market rates.
The sockeye at Haystack were secured from salmon-traps and the sockeye tagged at Deepwater
Bay were taken from purse-nets.
The tags used in the experiments were aluminium plates % inch broad by '/m inch thick
and bent into a rectangle 1 inch long, and bearing on the outer surface the letters " B.C. " and
numerals. The tags were secured to the smaller fish in the scale region at the base of the tail,
as shown in Fig. No. 1, by means of pliers shown in Fig. No. 2.    The above-described tags proved
Fig. 1. Salmon with tag attached to the tail.
Fig. 2. Pliers used in tagging salmon.
too small for use at the base of the tail of spring salmon of 20 lb. or more in weight.    In their
case the tag was secured in the rays of the dorsal fin.    The tags for use on large fish should
be longer than those described  and in  no case  should be placed so close to  the flesh  that
sufficient space is not available for added growth.
The following statement gives the approximate weight and the number of each weight of
fish tagged on the west coast of Vancouver Island:—
Weight. No. of
Lb. Fish.
1- 9   330
10-19   498
Weight. No. of
Lb. Fish.
30-39   72
40-49   11
20-29   206
50-58 BRITISH COLUMBIA.
E 17
Map 1. Showing points where spring salmon tagged off Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, in 1925
were recaptured that year. E IS
REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,  1926.
Of the 1,125 spring salmon tagged on the west coast of Vancouver Island, 70, or 6 per cent.,
were recaptured in 1925 and 43 in 1926, and the tags with their records returned to the Biological
Board.
Of the 1,125 spring salmon, 10 were recaptured in British Columbia waters, 59 in United
States waters, and 1 in the open sea. Of the 10 recaptured in British Columbia waters, 4 were
caught in the Fraser River, 5 in Juan de Fuca Strait, and 1 in Barkley Sound.
Of the 59 recaptured in United States waters, 41 were taken from the Columbia River in
Oregon, 11 in Puget Sound, and 2 in the Sacramento River in California. The points of recapture
are shown on Map 1, page 17.
The following tabulation gives in detail the record of the recaptured salmon tagged on the
west coast of Vancouver Island in 1925:—
Return of Spring Salmon tagged off Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, 1925.
(The numbers are arranged according to date of tagging.)
Tag No.
Date tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Days free.
Place of Eecapture.
5
May   23
192
Sept.
5.
100
Columbia Eiver, 1 mile below mouth of Cowlitz.
58
„      23
Aug.
1
69
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.
81
„      SO
,,
24
86
Puget Sound,  Skagit Bay,  Wash.
206
„      30
July
9
40
Puget Sound, Swinomish Slough, Wash.
211
„      30
No  date
Columbia Eiver.
163
June    1
Sept.
10
101
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Pillar Eoek, Wash.
405
1
19
110
Columbia Eiver,  Kalama Eiver Hatchery.
239
2
,,
—
90
Columbia Eiver,  1 mile below mouth of Cowlitz.
250
2
Aug.
10
69
Columbia Eiver, Warrendale.
253
2
Sept.
16
106
Columbia Eiver, Tongue Point, 20 miles from mouth.
256
2
,,
90
Columbia Eiver, near Eainier.
25S
2
Oct.
126
Columbia Eiver, Kalama Eiver Hatchery.
37
4
July
23
49
Columbia Eiver.
276
4
20
46
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.
505
„        4
June
23
19
Columbia Eiver, Puget Island.
50S
4
Sept.
30
118
Columbia Eiver, Kalama Eiver Hatchery.
536
4
,,
17
105
Columbia Eiver.
538
4
June
24
20
Columbia Biver, Tongue Point.
607
4
Aug.
12
69
Columbia Eiver, North Fork.
•   628
4
June
17
13
Puget Sound, Skagit Biver, North Fork.
632
4
Sept.
10
98
Columbia BiveT, St. Helens.
es-
4
July
2S
54
Columbia Eiver, Chinook.
es 7
4
Sept.
12
100
Columbia Eiver. Puget Island.
437
6
tf
10
96
Sacramento Eiver, Benicia, Cal.
544
6
,,
28
114
Fraser Biver, Sunbury.
561
6
,,
30
116
Columbia Eiver, Kalama Eiver Hatchery.
683
6
,,
14
100
Willapa Harbour, Nasel Eiver Hatchery, Wash.
694
6
Aug.
IS
73
Columbia Biver, mouth of Willamette.
905
6
July
14
38
Columbia Biver, Astoria.
920
6
,,
29
53
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Esquimalt, V.I.
923
6
Nov.
12
159
Oregon, Alsea Eiver.
581
„      10
July
3
23
Puget Sound, Ebby Trap, Whidbey Island, Wash.
592
„      10
Aug.
22
73
Columbia Eiver, Astoria.
599
„      10
July
25
45
Columbia Eiver.
802
„      10
July
31
51
Columbia Eiver.
822
„      10
Sept.
12
94
Columbia Eiver, Wauna.
939
„      10
June
18
8
Puget Sound, Salmon Bank, Wash.
945
„      10
Aug.
17
08
Columbia Eiver, mouth of Willamette.
949
„      10
June
30
20
Fraser Eiver, Steveston.
733
„      11
Sept.
26
107
Columbia Eiver, Little White Hatchery.
S35
„      11
Dec.
21
193
Green Eiver Hatchery, Auburn, Wash.
837
„      11
June
20
9
Off Long Beach, west of Barkley Sound (troll).
844
„      11
July
23
42
Columbia Eiver.
859
„      11
Aug.
3
53
Columbia Eiver.
459
Aug.   14
June
—
Off Cape Flattery  (hook).
465
„      14
July
6
22
Columbia Eiver, Astoria.
4'72
„      14
Aug.
29
76
Sacramento Eiver, Pittsburg, Cal. BRITISH COLUMBIA.
E 19
Return of Spring Salmon tagged off Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, 1925—Continued.
Tag No.
Date tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Days free.
Place of Eecapture.
1925.
743
Aug.   14
Sept. 14
92
Columbia Eiver, Tongue Point.
754
„      14
No  date
Oregon  Coast.
758
„      14
July   13
29
Puget Sound, Skagit Eiver, Wash.
766
„      14
Aug.     1
48
Columbia Eiver, Altoona.
779
„      14
July   18
34
Fraser Eiver, Yale.
309
„      16
Aug.   22
67
Columbia Eiver.
317
„      16
Sept.    S
84
Puget Sound, Port Townsend, Wash.
345
16
26
102
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Port Angeles, Wash.
358
„      18
No date
Columbia Eiver.                                                               ,
596
„      18
Aug.     7
50
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.
984
„      18
„      12
00
Columbia Biver, Altoona.
989
„      IS
Oct.    12
116
Washington  Sound,  San Juan Island, Wash.
1000
„      18
Aug.   18
61
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Victoria, V.I.
365
„      20
July   lo
25
Columbia Eiver, Puget Island.
35S
„      22
Aug.   17
56
Pug 't Sound, Deception Pass, Wash.
377
22
Sept. 12
82
Columbia Eiver,  Skamokawa.
378
22
„      15
85
Columbia Eiver, Astoria.
383
„      22
No  date
Columbia Eiver.
4031
„      23
Sept. 15
84
Fraser Eiver, mouth.
4222
„      23
Aug.   20
58
Puget Sound,  Salmon Bank, Wash.
412S
24
June  24
Off Barkley Sound ;   picked up dead.
4133
„      24
Aug.     7
44
Columbia Eiver, Puget Island.
4242
„      24
„      —
37
Columbia Eiver, Astoria.
4244
„      25
Sept. 25
1
92
Columbia Eiver, Little White Hatchery.
The Retubn of Tags of Salmon captubed in 1026 that were tagged on the
West Coast of Vancouveb Island in 1925.
In addition to the above, some 43 of the fish tagged off the Vancouver Island coast in 1925
were recaptured in 1926.
Of that number, 27 were taken from the Columbia River in Oregon and 11 in British
Columbia waters;  only one of the latter being caught in the Fraser River.
From the fact that 68 of the 113 tags recovered from salmon tagged on the west coast of
Vancouver Island were taken from the Columbia River, it would appear that the spring salmon
from that great river commonly feed off the west coast of Vancouver Island and are subject
to recapture there. The Department is indebted to Dr. W. A. Clemens for the following record
of fish recaptured in 1926:—
1926 Return of Tags affixed to Spring Salmon off Ucluelet in 1925.
Tag No.
Date tagged.
Date caught.
Period out.
Place caught.
1925.
1926.
2
May   23
Sept.  20
1 year 117 days	
North Island, Ore., Columbia Eiver.
11
„      23
April 28
11 months 5 days...
Swiftsure Bank.
33
June    4
Aug.   21
1 year 77 days	
Bakers Bay, Columbia Eiver.
50
May   26
Sept.  11
1 year 10S days	
McGowan Trap, 15 miles up Columbia E.
78
„      27
May    19
11 months 22 days.
Swiftsure Bank.
71
„      27
Aug.   25
15 months	
Off Ucluelet.
73
„      27
14
1 year 77 davs	
Chinook, Wash., Columbia Eiver.
117
„     .27
May    14
11 months 17 days.
Ucluelet.
88
„      30
Aug.   2S
1 year 3 months	
Bakers Bay, Columbia Eiver.
121
„      26
3
1 year 67 days.	
Pillar Eock, Columbia Eiver.
162
July     1
Oct.      2
1 year 2 months
Little White Salmon  Eiver  Hatchery,
Columbia Biver. E 20
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
1926 Return of Tags affixed to Spring Salmon off Ucluelet in 1925—Continued.
Tag No.       Date tagged.        Date caught.
Period out.
Place caught.
192
5.
1926.
181
June
4
June     9
1 year 5 days	
Sooke Trap.
204
May
30
Aug.   18
1 year 78 days	
Fish-reduction plant, Flarel, Columbia E.
212
„
30
7
1 year 69 days	
McGowan, Columbia Eiver.
230
June
2
,,         5
1 year 63 days	
Westpoint, Ore., Columbia Eiver.
216
May
30
July   —
1 year 45 days	
Sooke.
257
June
2
2
1 year 1 month	
Bakers Bay, Columbia Biver.
343
16
Winter, 1925-26
6 months	
Bakers Bay, Columbia Eiver.
281
4
Sept.  13
1 year 99 days	
Hammond, Ore., Columbia Eiver.
410
1
Aug.   21
1 year 81 days	
Dungeness Trap.
411
1
July     6
1 year 35 days	
Pillar Point Trap, Columbia Eiver.
418
1
May   15
11 months 14 days.
20 miles off Ucluelet.
413
1
Aug.     8
1 year 67 days	
Astoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Eiver.
531
4
Feb.   26
9 months 22 days..
Astoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Eiver.
541
6
Aug.   21
1 year 76 days	
Astoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Eiver.
642
4
Oct.       5
1 year 123 days
Astoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Biver.
1926 Return of Tags affixed to Spring Salmon on West Coast of Vancouver Island in. 1925.
Tag No.    j   Date tagged.
Date caught.
Period out.
Place caught.
1
925.
1926.
654               Ju
ne    4
May    16
11 months 12 days.
Off Ucluelet.
673
6
Feb.    26
8 months '20 days...
Columbia Eiver.
740
14
Winter, 1925-26
6 months	
760
,      14
July     5
1 year 21 days	
Columbia Eiver.
765
,      14
„      18
1 year 34 days	
3 miles S.W. of Quillahute Eiver, Wash.
771
,      14
Sept.  25
1 year 101 days	
Chinook Cannery, Columbia Eiver.
781
14
16
1 year 92 days	
Chinook,   Columbia Biver.
783
,      14      •
July     9
1 year 25 days	
Dungeness.
813
,      10
„      26
1 year 56 days	
Eagle Cliff, Wash., Columbia Eiver.
921
6
Sept.  14
1 year 92 days	
Chinook Trap, Columbia Eiver.
928
6
8
1 year 86 days	
Ewens Slough, Fraser Eiver.
947
17
Mar.   29
9 months 17 days...
Off Ucluelet.
4105
23
4019
,      IS
April 14
9 months 26 days...
Off Ucluelet.
4140
24
11
9 months	
San Juan Island.
4170
,      25
Aug.   15
13 months 20 days.
Henry Island Trap.
4215
,      23
May      1
10 months 8 days..
Off Ucluelet.
Salmon-tagging Opeeations off Hippa Island, Queen Charlotte Island Group, in 1925.
In June and July, 1925, 274 spring salmon were tagged in the vicinity of Hippa Island, on
the west coast of Graham Island, Queen Charlotte Group, of which 32, or 11 per cent., were
recovered. Of the 32 recovered, 10 Were taken in Provincial waters, 20 in the United States
waters, and 1 in the open sea. Of the 10 secured from Provincial waters, 2 were taken from
the Skeena River, 2 in Barkley Sound, 1 at Sooke, 1 in Boundary Bay, and 4 in the Fraser
River;  the fish from the Skeena and Fraser Rivers being recovered in July.
Of the 20 recaptured in L^nited States waters, 19 were taken from water in or off the Oregon
Coast, 7 of them being taken from the Columbia River proper; the southernmost point of
recapture being the 4 taken in Coos Bay, Oregon, 870 miles south of the point of liberation.
One of them made the journey in 60 days. The point of recapture of the fish tagged at Hippa
Island is shown on Map 2, page 22. The following statement gives in detail the record from
Hippa Island:— BRITISH COLUMBIA.
E 21
Return of Spring Salmon tagged off Hippa Island, West Coast of Graham Island,
Queen Charlotte Islands, 1925.
Tag No.
Date tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Days free.
Place of Eecapture.
1925.
2103
June  19
Aug.     8
'50
Fraser Eiver, Sunhury.
2105
„      19
July   24
35
Oregon, Tillamook Bay.
2110
„      19
Oct.    29
132
Oregon, Nestucca Biver.
2013
„      20
Sept. 27
99
Oregon, Siletz Biver.
2014
„      20
Aug.   20
61
Puget Sound, Salmon Bank, Wash.
2117
„      20
July   13
23
Skeena Eiver, 20 miles from mouth.
2201
„      20
Oct.    22
124
Columbia Eiver, Clatskanie.
2202
„      20
Sept. 21
93
Oregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.
2128
„      22
4
74
Fraser Eiver, Mount Lehman.
2133
„      22
July   23
31
Columbia Eiver.
2209
„      22
Sept. 15
85
Barkley Sound, Alberni Canal, off Franklin
Creek.
2212
„      22
July   21
29
Columbia Eiver.
2226
July     1
„      24
23
Skeena Eiver, Port Essington.
2140
3
„      22
19
Fraser Eiver,  Sunbury.
2144
3
Aug.   14
42
Strait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.
2164
6
Sept.    3
59
Fraser Eiver,  Sunbury.
2239
6
„      23
79
Oregon, Nehalem Eiver.
2243
6
July   25
19
Columbia Eiver, Sand Island.
2179
„      15
Oct.    17
94
Oregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.
2188
„      16
July   15?
Off Hippa Island ;   picked up dead.
2197
„      16
Sept. 21
67
Oregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.
2034
„      17
„      12
57
Columbia Eiver, '2 miles from Altoona.
2045
„      19
„      22
65
In ocean off Oregon Coast  (troll).
2050
„      19
Oct.    19
92
Oregon, Umpqua Eiver.
2067
„      19
No date
Columbia Eiver.
2070
„      19
Sept. 14
57
Columbia Eiver,  Wauna.
2073
„      19
Oct.    10
83
Oregon, Umpqua Eiver.
2096
„      23
Nov.     8
108
Barkley  Sound,  Uchucklesit.
2098
„      23
Sept. 21
60
Oregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.
2251
23
Oct.      9
78
Oregon, Alsea Eiver.
2272
„      24
8
76
14 miles inside Gray's Harbour Bar, Wash.
2288
„      25
Sept.    1
3S
Boundary Bay, Strait of Georgia.
Tagging of Sockeye Salmon in 1925.
Six hundred and fifty-nine sockeye salmon (O. nerka) were tagged and liberated at Haystack
Island, at the south of the mouth of Portland Canal, early in August, 1925.
Of the 659 tagged, 135, or 20 per cent., were recaptured in 1925; 80 of which were taken
in the Nass River, 14 in waters leading to the Nass, 13 in the Skeena River, 27 in Alaska waters,
and 1 in Union Passage, Grenville Channel, 50 miles south of the Skeena River. It is also
interesting to note that tags were recovered from 2 sockeye that were caught at Onslow Island,
Clarence Strait, Alaska, one day after being tagged and liberated, and that one was taken at
Meziadin Falls, 100 miles above the mouth of the Nass, in the month of November.
All the sockeye tagged at Haystack Island were secured from traps. Map 3, page 24, shows
the points of recapture.
The rate of travel exhibited by several of the sockeye tagged at Haystack Island is
remarkable, as is shown in the following tabulations:—
Tag No.
Date
tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Distance
travelled.
Time
en route.
Bate of
Travel.
2559	
Aug.   12
„      21
12
12
12
Aug.    12
22
13
13
14
Miles.
30
100
95
95
95
Hours.
6
24
24
24
48
Miles per Hr.
2933	
4
2563	
4
2623	
4
2621..           	
2 E 22
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Stmnq Salmon,    tagoed at Hibha
Island, Jane and   Julu  HIS.
Map 2.  Showing points where spring salmon tagged at Hippa Island were recaptured that year. ■-
■
BRITISH COLUMBIA.                                                             E 23
Returns of Sockeye Salmon tagged at Haystack island Trap, August, 1925.
Tag No.
Date tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Days free.
Place of Eecapture.
1925.
2300
Aug.     3
Aug.     8
5
Alaska, Gravina Island, Dall Head.
2301
3
„      21
18
Nass Biver.
2310
3
„      21
9
Portland Inlet.
2318
3
7
4
Nass Eiver.
2319
3
7
4
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2320
3
Sept. 22
50
Wark Canal, mouth  of   (troll).
2321
3
Aug.     7
4
Nass Eiver.
2326
3
>,        5
2
Alaska, Bevill Channel, Foggy Bay.
232S
3
„      13
10
Nass Eiver, mouth of.
2331
3
18
15
Nass Eiver.
233S
3
,,        5
2
Alaska, Eevlll Channel, Foggy Bay.
2348
3
,,        7
4
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2350
3
4
1
Nass Biver.
2352
,,        5
„      18
13
Nass Eiver.
2371
,, .      5
„      28
24
Skeena Eiver, 4 miles north of Hazelton.
2376
,,         5
„      14
9
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2385
„        5
„      13
8
Portland  Inlet.
2387
>,        5
„      12
7
Nass Biver, Kincolith Bar.
2390
,,        5
6
1
Alaska,  Bevill Channel,  Slate Island.
2392
,,        5
„       14
9
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2393
,,        5
10
5
Alaska, Cape Fox, Dixon Entrance.
2396
>i        5
,,      14
9
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2466
,,        5
„       12
7
Skeena Eiver.
2410
,,        5
„   .   14
9
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2412
,,        5
„      14
9
Nass Eiver, mouth of.
2431
.,        5
8
3
Alaska, Bevill Channel, Foggy Bay.
2433
,,        5
t,      12
7
Nass Eiver, Mouth Point.
2382
,,        5
„      14
7
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2386
,,        5
„      14
7
Nass Eiver.
2439
,,        5
„      17
10
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2440
„        5
„      10
3
Nass Eiver.
2444
,,        5
18
11
Nass Eiver.
2446
,,        5
„      14
7
Nass Biver, Portland Inlet.
2448
,,        5
11
4
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2454
,,        5
11
4
Nass Biver.
2460
7
„      14
7
Nass Biver.
2461
7
„      10
3
Nass Eiver.
2465
7
„      11
4
Portland Inlet.
2468
7
6?
Portland  Inlet.
2469
7
„      10
3
Alaska, Cape Fox, Dixon Entrance.                        .
2471
7
„      12
5
Nass Eiver, Mouth Point.
2476
7
14
7
Observatory Inlet, mouth of.
2481
7
13
6
Alaska, Ernest  Sound, Union Bay.
2485
7
Sept. 25
49
Wark Canal, mouth of  (troll).
2486
,,        7
Aug.   17
10
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
248S
,,         7
12
5
Nass Eiver, Mouth Point.
2491
7
„      14
7 •
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2499
7
„      10
3
Nass Eiver.
2500
7
„      10
3
Portland Inlet,  Steamer Passage.
2508
7
18
11
Nass Eiver.
2510
7
„      13
6
Skeena Eiver.
2513
7
„      10
3
Skeena Eiver, mouth of.
2514
„      10
„      13
3
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2521
„      10
,,      12
2
Nass Eiver.
2530
„      10
„      14
4
Nass Eiver, Portland Inlet.
2534
„      10
„      12
2
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
'2539
„      10
„      20
10
Skeena Eiver.
2545
„      10
14
4
Nass Eiver.
2548
„      10
Sept. 14
35
Skeena Eiver, Hazelton.
2551
7
Aug.   14
4
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2553
„      12
„      16
4
Alaska, Bevill Channel, Foggy Bay.
2559
„      12
„      12
0
Nass Biver.
2562
„      12
„      10?
L
Portland Inlet,  Steamer Passage. E 24
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Cockeye   tagged
at  Haystack Island
August  \<\15
Map 3. Showing points where sockeye salmon tagged at Haystack Island in 1925 were recaptured
that year. BRITISH COLUMBIA.
E 25 E 26
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Returns of Sockeye Salmon tagged at Haystack Island Trap, August, 1925—Continued.
Tag No.        Date
tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Days free.
Place of Eecapture.
1
1925.
2563               At.
g.   12
Aug.   13
1
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2570
,      12
„      14
2
Nass Eiver.
2574                  ,
,      12
Sept. 20
39
Dundas Island, Dixon Entrance  (troll).
2589
,      12
Aug.   23
11
Grenville Channel,  Union Passage.
2591
,      12
,<      17
7
Skeena Eiver, Port Essington.
2595                  ,
,      12
17
5
Nass Eiver, near Point.
2597
,      12
„      20
8
Skeena   Eiver.
2606             '    ,
,      12
„      17
5
Nass Biver, near Point.
2609
,      12
„      10?
Portland Inlet,  Steamer Passage.
2619
,      12
„      13
1
Alaska,  Cape Fox, Dixon Entrance.
2621
,      12
„      14
2
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2623
12
„      13
1
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2625
,      12
„      17
5
Alaska, Kanagunut Island.
2627
,      12
„      16
4
Alaska, Gravina Island,  Seal Cove.
2629                  ,
,      12
>,      17
5
Alaska, Kanagunut Island.
2602
14
8?
Alaska, Gravina Island, Vallenar Bay.
2604
,      14
„      18
4
Nass Biver.
2617
,      14
„      17
3
Nass Biver.
2631
,      14
„      19
5
Nass Biver.
2642                  ,
,      14
16
2
Nass Biver.
2650
14
21
7
Nass Eiver.
2654
14
Sept. 23
40
Wark Canal (troll).
2655
14
Aug.   17
3
Portland Inlet.
2659
,      14
„      20
6
Skeena Eiver.
2663                  ,
,      14
7?
Nass Eiver, mouth of.
2664                  ,
,      14
„      17
' 3
Alaska, Kanagunut Island.
2665
,      14
„      19
5
Nass Eiver.
2668
,      14
13?
Alaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.
2671
14
„      21
7
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2675                  ,
,      14
„      17
3
Nass Eiver, near Point.
2682                  ,
,      14
„      17
3
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2700
,      14
„      17
3
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2710
14
Nov.   15
93
Nass Eiver, Meziadin Falls.
2712                  ,
14
Aug.   21
7
Nass River, Kincolith Bar.
2715
,      14
„      17
3
Nass Eiver, near Point.
2716
14
„      16
2
Skeena Eiver.
2718                  ,
14
18
4
Nass Eiver.
2719
14
21
7
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2720
,      14
„      17
3
Nass Eiver.
2724
,      14
„      19
5
Nass Eiver.
2728                  ,
,      14
„      18
4
Portland Inlet,
2734              .   ,
,      14
Sept. 20
37
Skeena Eiver, Bahine Lake.
2736
,      14
Aug.   21
7
Nass Eiver.
2739
,      14
„      16
2
Alaska, Nakat Bay.
2740
,      14
„      26
12
Nass Eiver, Aiyansh.
2743
,      17
„      19
■ 2
Nass Eiver.
2746
,      17
21
4
Nass Eiver.
2751
,      17
„      20
3
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2752
,      17
Sept.    S
22
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2755                  ,
,      17
Aug.   20
3
Nass Eiver.
2768
,      17
„      21
4
Nass Eiver.
2775
,      17
„      21
4
Nass Eiver.
2780
,      17
„     '20
3
Alaska, Prince of Wales Island, Kassa Inlet.
2785
,      17
„      28
' 11
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2797
,      17
„     '20
3
Nass Eiver.
2S55
,      17
„      19
2
Nass Biver.
2858
,      17
„      18
1
Alaska, Nakat Bay.
2860
,      17
„      21
4
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2866                  ,
,      17
21
4
Nass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.
2875              .   ,
,      14
„      21
4
Nass Eiver.
2.881
,      14
„      20
3
Alaska, Prince of Wales Island, Kassa Inlet.
'2884
,      14
„      28
11
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2888
,      14
„      21
4
Nass Eiver.
2895
14
„      19
_J
2
Skeena Eiver, mouth of (off Eachail Island). _____ .   _  .
BRITISH COLUMBIA.
E 27
Returns of Sockeye Salmon tagged at Haystaek Island Trap, August, 1925—Continued.
Tag No.
Date tagged.
Date of
Eecapture.
Days free.
Place of Eecapture.
1925.
2817
Aug.   19
Aug.   24
5
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2803
„      19
„      28
9
Nass Eiver, Leading Point.
2S20
,      19
„      21
2
Nass Eiver.
2825
,      19
Sept. 14
26
Skeena Eiver, Hazelton.
2822
,      19
Aug.   20
1
Nass Eiver.
2930
,      21
„      31
10
Nass Eiver.
2933
,      21
22
1
Alaska,  Clarence  Straits, Onslow Island.
2936
,      21
„     28
7
Nass Eiver.
Results of Sockeye-tagging at Deepwater Bay, Seymour Narrows, in 1925.
Between August 7th and 14th, 1925, 519 sockeye salmon taken from purse-nets were tagged
and liberated at Deepwater Bay, Seymour Narrows, of which 107, or 20 per cent., were recaptured.
Of the 107 recaptured, all but one were taken in Provincial waters, mainly in the Fraser.
The one exception noted was taken on September 25th, off the east shore of Whidbey Island,
Washington.
Of the 107 retaken, 90 were recaught in August, 17 in September, and 1 in October.
The tagging of sockeye at Deepwater Bay in 1925 confirms the findings of Dr. Gilbert, in
his report for 1915, that a portion of the sockeye runs to the Fraser reached there from the
north.
THE HALIBUT INVESTIGATION.
The investigation of the life-history of the Pacific halibut and the condition of that fishery
in the North Pacific, which is being conducted by the International Fisheries Commission, created
by the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States, made progress during the year.
The Commission's staff during the summer and fall-was engaged largely in tagging halibut and
obtaining data from the banks off the Oregon Coast to the Shumagin Island, Alaska. Fishing
was conducted in the usual commercial way by the " Scandia," one of the largest halibut-fishing
vessels in the Pacific fleet, which was under charter to the Commission for much of the year.
The halibut caught which were not seriously injured were tagged and released. Those too
seriously injured to survive were retained and, after examination for racial characteristics,
age, etc., were cleaned, iced, landed, and sold in the regulation manner. Since tagging operations
were begun in 1925 over 8,000 fish have been tagged and released. Of the fish tagged, some
800 have been recaptured and the tags returned to the Commission.
The primary work of the Commission on the " Scandia " has been to obtain data as to the
existence or non-existence of distinct differences in the halibut on various banks—to determine
whether the fish are homogenous or more or less distinct races; to determine if there are
significant body proportions and differences in anatomical structure and variations in the time
of spawning and age at maturity.
Some progress has also been made in the study of propagation. Several types of tow-nets,
young-fish trawls, and hydrographic instruments were used in the effort to solve some of the
problems—the location of the spawning-banks, location and depth at which eggs, lame, and
newly hatched fish may be obtained; in other words, their environment and in what way the
water-currents are likely to affect the drift of eggs and young fish, as drift is important to
determine isolation. To determine the age and rate of growth of fish in widely scattered banks
a considerable amount of data has been collected from a large number of fish. More than
15,000 scales and ear-bones, by which rate of growth and age is established, have been assembled.
In addition to the data as to. age, rate of growth, racial characteristics, migration, and
propagation, much progress has been made in other features of the Commission's work. Complete
records of the halibut landed on the coast since 1914 have been made, with records showing the
catches per unit of gear—per skate. Enough data have been obtained to show the catch per
skate for many years on many banks. The records from the banks in Hecate Strait show that
in the last twenty years the average catch per skate has dropped from 477 lb. in 1907 to 45 lb. E 28 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
in 1926. It forcefully shows the depletion that has taken place on Hecate banks. All other
known long-fished banks show a similar rate of decrease. The present supply is being maintained by resorting to newly discovered and far-distant banks; by more intense fishing on
depleted banks; and by the use of smaller hooks—by the catching of an increased number of
young fish. The outstanding feature of this part of the work, like that previously conducted by
the Provincial Government, is the establishment of depletion.
The work is still being directed to ascertain What steps, if any, can be taken to arrest
depletion, and as the work progresses new questions are presented for solution. Take, for
instance, the question of protecting the young rather than the adult. There are great fisheries
which flourish on the capture of the young fish only, and there are more which depend entirely
upon adults. Possibly because of the fact that more fisheries depend upon the catching of
adults, there is a popular tendency to deprecate the catching of the young. Yet, as Mr. W. F.
Thompson, the Commission's Director of Investigations, has pointed out, it is a fact that in most
fisheries the toll taken by man from the young of any species is but a minute fraction of that
taken by other enemies—that a great proportion of the young which could in many cases be
taken by man will later be consumed by natural enemies alone. That being the case, why not
take the young? On the other hand, even though an adult survives many perils to arrive at
spawning size, it has increased greatly in bulk, so that it might pay to protect the young and
profit by the increase in weight. Picture, as Mr. Thompson has done, a fisherman with a young
fish he has taken asking himself whether, if he throws it back into the water, it might not
return to his nets a year or more later many times larger, but pausing when he saw the many
enemies awaiting the return of the young fish to their reach. Would he have to return twenty
young fish to get one large one back? Would that be good business? In which case would the
fishermen destroy the most spawners? The present knowledge is of so little value in comparing
the rate of mortality with rate of growth that this question cannot be determined. Only close
study and experience can demonstrate the way to administer a great marine fishery. A fundamental difficulty at present is that it is not known what balance should be maintained between
young and old—between spawners and non-spawners. Such questions can only be determined
by skilfully framed and continuous experiments. The adequacy and efficiency of regulations
must await the results of their application. LIFE-HISTORX OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 29
APPENDICES.
CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  THE  LIFE-HISTORY  OP  THE   SOCKEYE   SALMON.
(No. 12.)
By Wilbert A. Clemens, Ph.D., Director, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo,
and Lucy S. Clemens, Ph.D.
1.   THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.
The total pack from the run to the Fraser River amounted to 130,362 cases, of which 85,689
were packed in the Province of British Columbia and 44,673 cases in the State of Washington.
The extent of the run and the size of the pack was above expectancy, due to the appearance of
a large late run in September, the bulk of the escapement of which proceeded to Shuswap Lake
(Little River and Adams River) to spawn. The distribution of the pack is interesting in that
the British Columbia pack exceeded that of the Washington by 41,016 cases. This circumstance
is apparently partly the result of the failure of the American fishermen to intercept the late
run. There has been much conjecture as to the origin of this late portion of the run. It is
apparent that before extraordinary explanations are resorted to all available data should be
studied to see if the run cannot be accounted for in the natural course of events. In this connection it is interesting to note that in 1922 the British Columbia pack exceeded that of the
Washington by slightly over 3,000 cases. In only one other year since 1910 has there been a
similar occurrence—namely, in 1915, when the Canadian pack exceeded the American by 26,000
cases. (Table I.) In ,1922 there was a late run which went to the Shuswap area, as Fishery
Officer Shotton reported in that year that the run to that area surpassed any of the previous
eight years. The following quotations from the report of Mr. Shotton are given with the
permission of Major Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, Vancouver: " The run of sockeye
was exceptionally good, there being two runs. The first run of sockeye were the larger fish
many of which went to the spawning areas in the Adams River. The smaller sockeye, which
followed closely, were also numerous; in fact, too numerous to mention numbers. I used every
endeavour to get some one of authority to estimate the number of sockeye in the Little River,
but they only smiled, saying it was almost impossible. I am taking a very conservative estimate
when I state that some six to eight thousand had been seen in the Little River."
It might be expected that the weekly pack records would show a late run in 1922, but this
is not the case, as may be seen in Table II., which is given with the permission of Major Motherwell. The occurrence of the late run in 1926 is clearly indicated in the figures for October 2nd,
1926, but there is no corresponding large pack in 1922. Since the sockeye-fishing season ends
in the Fraser River on September 30th, it may be that the Shuswap run entered the river after
that date. Mr. Shotton states that in 1922 two runs of sockeye appeared in Adams River—one
on October 6th, which was light, and another, on October 25th, which was heavy. In 1926
the run arrived in the Fraser River on September 27th and had reached Adams River about
October 20th. If, therefore, the run of 1922 was five days later than the run in 1926, it must
have come in after the close of the sockeye-fishing season and so did not leave a record in the
figures of the pack.
It will be noted that Mr. Shotton states that a very conservative estimate of the number
of sockeye in Little River in 1922 would be 8,000. This without doubt was a very conservative
estimate, for that number scattered in a stream such as Little River would not be very impressive.
Mr. Babcock states that Mr. Shotton believes there were no less than 20,000 sockeye in Adams
River in 1922. There would thus be a total of at least 28,000 spawning fish in the two rivers,
which would mean a deposition of over 50,000,000 eggs. Mr. Babcock has estimated the number
of fish on the spawning-beds in these rivers in 1926 as between 300,000 and 400,000. Obviously
such a return could scarcely have resulted from the spawning of 28,000 fish, but since the latter
estimate is a very conservative one there can be no doubt but that at least the great bulk of
them did. E 30 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
In March, 1923, a planting of 1,176,000 eyed sockeye-eggs was made in Eagle River, a
tributary of Upper Shuswap Lake. It has been suggested that possibly the return from this
planting accounted for the run of 1926 to Adams River and Little River, but since this planting
was at best less than 3 per cent, of the natural deposition it is apparent that the return could
have formed but a very small part of the run, even though it might have gone there instead of
to Eagle River.
Since the run to the Fraser is composed predominately of four-year-old fish, the bulk of the
1926 fish were undoubtedly descendants of the 1910-14-18-22 cycle. The figures in Table I.
show that in the early years the runs of this cycle were very large, approximating those of
the big- cycle; that is, the 1909-13-17-21-25 series. The former cycle is the only one showing
a decided tendency toward recuperation and this recovery is largely the result of the development of this late run to Shuswap Lake. The significance lies in the apparent fact that a
remnant of an up-river race is building itself up into a large run. It is indicative of the
recuperative possibilities of the Fraser and of the possible lines of procedure which may profitably be followed in attempting to assist in the rehabilitation of the upper river.
The sockeye coming to the Fraser River in 1927 should be the descendants of the 1923 run,
which produced the second smallest pack in the history of the Fraser. Moreover, the 1911-15-
19-23 cycle has shown a very decided decline, as shown in Table I. Mr. Babcock's report of
inspection of the spawning-beds in 1923 indicates that very few sockeye reached the areas above
Hell's Gate, except the Shuswap area, where a few thousand spawned late in the season.
Table II. indicates that there was a small late run in 1923. Although 6,176,000 eggs collected
from the Lower Fraser run of 1923 were planted in the Upper Fraser, it is evident that the
returns from this under the best of conditions cannot be great. Thus, in the ordinary course
of events, the sockeye-pack of 1927 will depend upon the extent of the run to the Lower Fraser
and a very large run cannot be anticipated.
The material for this year's study consisted of data and scales from 1,124 sockeye salmon
selected at random from April 27th to August 30th in forty-three samplings.
(1.)  The One-year-in-lake Type.
This type was the predominant one in the Fraser River run, as usual, being represented by
995 individuals, or 89 per cent, of the total of 1,124. The proportions of the three classes were
as follows: Three years of age, 24, or 2 per cent.; four years of age, 743, or 75 per cent.; and
five years of age, 228, or 23 per cent. The four-year-old one-year-in-lake fish thus continue to
form the bulk of the run, accounting for 66 per cent, of the total.
Tables III. and IV. give the lengths and weights of the four- and five-year specimens of
the one-year-in-lake type in the collection.
It will be noted that the numbers of the males were slightly in excess of those of the females,
there being 496 of the former and 475 of the latter. In the previous year the reverse was the
ease.
The average lengths of the four-year-old males and females is the lowest on record. The
decrease is astonishing, being almost 1 inch in the case of the males and % inch in the case
of the females, as compared with the figures of last year, when a low record was established.
(See Table V.) It will be seen that during the last eight years there has been a decrease in
average length of 1% inches in the case of the males and at least Vi inch in the case of the
females. That this decrease in size has taken place in the cycles is shown in the following table
for the 1926-1922-1918 cycle :—
Average length, 1918.:  Males, 24.9 inches;  females, 23.8 inches.
Average length, 1922:  Males, 24.0 inches;  females, 23.0 inches.
Average length, 1926:  Males, 22.6 inches;  females, 22.3 inches.
With the decrease in length there has also been a decrease in average weight.   The average
weights in 1926 for the four-year-old males were 5.2 lb. and for the females 4.9 lb., which are
the lowest on record.
Similar decreases have taken place among the five-year-old one-year-in-lake fish, as illustrated
by the following:—.
Average length, 1916 : Males, 26.S inches; females, 25.5 inches.
Average length, 1921: Males, 25.7 inches ; females, 24.6 inches.
Average length, 1926:  Males, 24.6 inches;  females, 24.0 inches. LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON. E 31
It is apparent that the larger individuals of the various races or the races of larger
individuals are decreasing in numbers either through the selective action of fishing operations
or through natural causes. There can be little doubt but that fishing operations are responsible
and that we have here an indication of great strain being put upon the stock. There can be
no question as to the reliability of the figures, since all the material has been collected at the
traps at Sooke and the methods of sampling and measurement have been uniform throughout
the years. We are dealing here, of course, only with those fish which have appeared off the
southern end of Vancouver Island up to about the end of the first week in September, and so
not with those fish which have appeared later and formed such runs as went to Shuswap Lake
this year or in 1922.    The late run of this year reached the Fraser River about September 28th.
The grilse, three-year-old one-year-in-lake fish, were relatively few in numbers, forming a
total of twenty-four, of which five were females. The data concerning the grilse are given in
Tables VI. and VII.
(2.)  The Two-years-in-lake Type.
This group does not form a large component of the Fraser River fish. In 1926 there were
but seventy-nine individuals in the total collection, distributed as follows: Three individuals
four years of age, fifty-eight individuals five years of age, and eighteen individuals six years
of age. (See Tables VI., VII., VIII., and IX.) As has been pointed out by Dr. Gilbert, the
additional year in the lake does not add appreciably to the adult length or weight.
(3.)  The Sea-type.
The individuals of this type were not numerous in the run of 1926, there being 22 three
years of age and 28 four years of age.    The average of the previous six years was 33 of the
former and 35 of the latter.    The following figures give the number of individuals of this type
ill the runs 1920 to 1926 :— Three Years      Pour Years
old. old.
1920       36 17
1921       6 22
1922       54 4S
1923        64 94
1924         8 30
1925       27
1926     22 28
It will be seen that the type was abundantly represented in 1922 and 1923 and should thus
have been well represented in 1926.
The data concerning lengths and weights are given in Tables X. and XL It should be pointed
out that in this year the sea-type exceed in both average length and average weight the corresponding one-year-in-lake type. That is, the average lengths of the four-year-old one-year-in-lake
males and females are 22.6 and 22.3 inches respectively, while the average lengths of the three-
year-old males and females of the sea-going type are 23.4 and 22.5 inches respectively.
Table I.—Fraser River Packs, 1910-26, arranged in accordance with the Four-year Cycle.
B.C 1910—   150,432 1914—198,183 1918— 19,697 1922— 51,832 1926— 85,689
Wash  248,014 335,230 50,723 48,566 44,673
Total  398,446 533,413 70,420 100,30S 130,362
B.C 1911—     58,487 1915— 91,130 1919— 88,854 1923— 31,655
Wash  127,761 64,584 64,346 47,402
Total  180,248 155,714 103,200 79,057
B.C 1912—   123,879 1916— 32,146 1920— 48,399 1924— 39,743
Wash  184,680 84,637 62,654 69,369
Total  308,559 116,783 111,053 109,112
H.C 1913—   719,796 1917—148,164 1921— 39,631 1925— 35,385
Wash  1,673,099 411,538 102,967 112,023
Total  2,392,895 S'59,70'2 142,598 147,408 E 32
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Table II.—Comparative Statement of Packs of Sockeye, Fraser River District, 1922-26.
1922.
1923.
1924.
19.
5.
1926.
Date.
No. of
Cases.
Date.
No. of
Cases.
Date.
No. of
Cases.
Date.
No. of
Cases.
Date.
No. of
Cases.
23
July
4
11
92
928
July
10
17
58
July   15
,,      22
881
353
July
21
81
July
19
337
■
18
756
,
24
1,695
„      29
4,030
,.
28
1,001
,,
26
2,540
,t
25
4,167
,,
31
2,148
Aug.     5
5,155
Aug.
4
2,020
Aug.
2
5,921
Aug.
1
5,633
Aug.
7
2,136
„      12
7,536
.,
11
3,980
,,
9
5,839
,,
8
7,257
,,
14
8,795
„      19
6,509
,,
18
5,515
,,
16
4,549
,,
15
2,736
,,
21
7,541
„      26
7,949
,,
'25
3,432
,,
23
6,476
,,
22
2,516
,,
28
5,144
Sept.    2
7,025
Sept.
1
2,910
„
30
5,262
,,
29
1,676
Sept.
4
3,469
9
832
„
6
1,177
Sept.
6
995
Sept.
5
1,674
,,
11
5,933
„      16
3,932
,,
15
4,225
„
13
475
,,
12
1,218
„
18
9,169
„      23
3,079
„
22
873
,,
20
172
,,
19
889
„
25
6,410
„      30
701
29
2,322
,,
27
306
„
26
670
Oct.
2
24,148
Oct.      7
429
Oct.
6
13
753
635
Oct.
4
11
212
66
Oct.
3
10
500
3
"
9
5,680
Table III.—Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Islan4 Traps,
grouped by Age, Sex, and, Length.
Length in Inches.
Numbek of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Males.
Five Years old.
Females.     Males.     Females
Total.
18 	
1S%	
19	
19%	
20	
20%	
21	
21%,,	
22	
22%	
23	
23%	
24	
24%	
25	
25%	
26	
26%	
27	
27%	
28 	
Totals	
Average lengths
17
24
29
33
23
17
13
13
31
45
40
24
13
6
380
3
4
12
24
30
24
14
12
2S
23
38
45
53
31
12
7
'6
7
8
17
19
11
16
6
2
1
1
357
110
4
2
7
13
11
24
11
19
11
118
12
29
49
59
59
41
34
48
50
79
90
116
104
90
48
39
14
2
2
1
971
22.6
24.6
24.0 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 33
Table IV.—Fraser River Sockeyes, One Tear in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,
grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of Individuals.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Total.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
2
5
46
46
47
25
41
32
28
23
36
23
20
4
6
4
2
5
46
36
41
41
30
34
56
29
27
6
3
1
....
1
7
10
8
5
19
IS
23
8
8
1
1
1
2
4
13
18
13
30
22
10
4
2
2%....                                      .           	
11
3	
93
3%	
85
4	
99
4%	
89
97
5%	
84
6	
133
6%... 	
92
7	
96
7%	
41
8	
31
8%	
9	
7
9%  	
9
6
Totals	
3'86             357
110       |     118
971
5.2
4.9
6.2        1       5.7
Table V.—Average Lengths, Fraser River Sockeyes, Four Years old, One Year in Lake,
for a Term of Years.
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
Lengths in 1922   24.0 23.0
Lengths in 1923   24.3 23.3
Lengths in 1924   23.8 22.8
Lengths in 1925  23.5 22.9
Lengths in 1926   22.G 22.3
Table VI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Grilse, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,
grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Length in Inches.
One Year in Lake,
Three Years old.
Two Years in Lake,
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
17%      i	
2
1
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
....
2
1
o
1
1
18	
18%...           	
19	
19%	
20    	
20%    	
21	
21%	
00
1
Totals  	
Average lengths	
19                     5
2         |           1
19.7       1        19.3
1
21.0
22.0 E 34
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,
1926.
Table VII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Grilse, 1926, from, Vancouver
grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.
Island Traps,
Weight in Pounds.
One Year in Lake,
Three Years old.
Two Years in Lake,
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
2  	
1
1
4
5
4
4
3
1
1
....
....
1
1
2%	
3                               	
....
3%	
4	
4%             .            	
i
Totals	
19                     5
2         1           1
Average weights	
3.6
3.3
4.2
5.0
Table VIII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,
grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Length in Inches.
Number of
Individuals.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
18	
3
1
2
1
1
7
«
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
7
2
4
1.
....
2
2
1
18%	
19	
19%	
20                                                                                               	
20%	
21	
21%	
1
22	
2
22%	
2
23	
23%	
1
24	
24%	
4
25	
2
25%	
26	
26V.	
1
Totals	
29         |         29
5
13
23.2                 22.4
25.5
23 7 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 35
Table IX.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,
grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of
Individuals.
Five Y'ears old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
2%	
1
2
4
1
3
5
6
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
3
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
3	
3%	
4	
4%	
5%	
6	
6%	
7....J	
7%	
8	
8% 	
Totals	
29
29
5
13
5.4
4.S
7.4
5.7
Table X.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1926, from Vancouver
grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Island Traps,
Length in Inches.
Number of
Individuals.
Three Years old.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
29
1
5
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
4
22%	
23 _	
23%	
24	
n
i   ,   ::
;;;;     i     ;;;;
24%	
25	
4
25%	
3
3
3
2
26	
Totals	
13          |            9
8
20
23.4                 22.5
25.4
24.6
- E 36
REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Table XI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,
grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of
Individuals.
Three Years old.
Four Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
4	
2
1
4
o
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
4%	
1
5%	
1
6	
6%	
6
7	
3
7%	
2
8	
2
8% :	
1
Totals	
13
9
8
20
Average weights	
6.1
5.4
7.3
6.6
2.   THE RIVERS  INLET  SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.
(1.)  General Characteristics.
The 1926 pack for Rivers Inlet amounted to 65,581 cases. This falls in line with the
1911-16-21-26 series and is a fair pack for that series. Sixty per cent, of the run consisted
of four-year-old fish and were thus no doubt derived from the 1922 spawning, when the run
consisted of 82 per cent, of four-year-old individuals. Forty per cent, of the run consisted of
five-year-old fish derived from the 1921 spawning, when the run consisted of 51 per cent, of
five-year-old individuals.    (Table XII.)
In the report on the run of 1925 it was stated that the pack figures seemed to further confirm
the opinion that there is a five-year cycle in Rivers Inlet. (Table XIII.) While this is true
and while the five-year-old fish appear to be the dominant factor in the runs, the occurrence of
varying numbers of four-year-old fish makes prediction rather difficult. The five-year group is a
fairly uniform one, as may be seen when the percentages of the numbers of these fish in the runs
are arranged in the five-year cycles, as follows:—
Per Cent.
Per Cent.
Per Cent.
1912	
 79               1917.
...67               1922.
...43               1923.
 IS
1913	
 20               1918
 24
1914	
 65                1919
...54                1924.
 56
1915....	
 87               1920
...95                1925.
 77
1916	
 76                1921
...51                1926.
 40
On the other
hand,
the four-year-old group
shows great fluctuations :-
Per Cent
Per Cent
Per Cent.
Per Cent.
1912	
....21
1916	
.24
1920...
  5
1924	
 44
1913	
....80
1917	
33
1921...
 49
1925	
 23
1914	
....35
1918	
.57
1922...
 82
1926	
 60
1915	
....13
1919	
.46
1923...
 76
In view of such fluctuations, together with the high percentages of males, it would appear,
as Dr. Gilbert suggested in his report for 1917, that there are present each year considerable
numbers of males that have been precocious in development and have matured at four years of
age instead of at five. It may be recalled that in the Fraser there are precocious males maturing
at three years of age and called grilse.
The run of 1927 will be derived from the brood-years 1922 and 1923. While the report from
the spawning-beds in 1922 indicated an abundant seeding, the run of that year consisted of only
18 per cent, of five-year-old fish, the smallest percentage of five-year-old fish on record. In his
report on the run of 1922, Dr. Gilbert points out that, owing to a strike, fishing did not commence until about July 10th. He states: ".'At this time the run is in ordinary years reaching its
culminating point and certain changes have occurred in its composition. One of these changes
usually concerns the proportions of the four- and five-year fish, the latter in most years running
more heavily during the first part of the season. What allowance should be made for this
factor it is impossible to judge, for the sequence is not exactly the same in runs of different
years. However, the proportions of five-year fish were so much less than in any other year
during the same period of the run that we are justified in concluding that this year-group was
present in greatly reduced numbers in the run of 1922."
The four-year-old fish of the 1927 run should be derived from the spawning of 1923. The
pack of 1923 was large and the report from the spawning-beds in that year indicates that there
was an abundant seeding, so that a fair number of four-year-old fish may appear.
However, the 1907-12-17-22 cycle has, with one exception, produced small packs, and in view
of the small percentage of five-year-old individuals in the 1922 run it does not appear that a
large run may be expected in 1927.
(2.)  Age-groups.
Data and scales were obtained from 735 fish in ten samplings from June 29th to August 4th.
The various age-groups were represented as follows: 432 individuals four-years-old one-year-in-
lake, 283 five-years-old one-year-in-lake, 14 five-years-old two-years-in-lake, and 6 six-years-old
two-years-in-lake. The first group was thus the predominant one, forming 59 per cent, of the
run.    (Tables XIV. and XV.)
The average lengths and weights of the four-year-old fish were above those of recent years,
while those of the five-year-old fish showed no significant change.    (Tables XVI. and XVII.)
(3.)  Distribution of the Sexes.
The distribution of the sexes in the Rivers Inlet runs is the most interesting and puzzling
of the four systems under consideration. Throughout all the years of record the four-year-old
males have far outnumbered the four-year-old females and the five-year-old females outnumbered
the five-year-old males. (Table XVIII.) During the past eleven years in the former group
the males have formed an average of 71 per cent., while the average for the females was
29 per cent. In the latter group the males have averaged 39i per cent, and the females 61 per
cent, over the same period. A similar condition occurs in the Skeena groups, but the discrepancy
is not so pronounced. The total percentage of males in the 1926 run was only slightly higher
than the total percentage of females—51 and 49 per cent, respectively. The total percentages
in 1922, the brood-year of the 1927 run, were 61 for the males and 39 for the females. It would
seem probable that a considerable percentage of the males of the five-year group develop
precociously and return a year earlier than normal; that is, in their fourth year instead of
their fifth. E 38
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Table XII.—Percentages of Four- and Fve-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes in Runs from 1912 to 1926,
with Broods from which they were 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 (89,890 cases).
1915 (130,350 cases).
1916 (44,936 cases)..
1917 (61,195 cases).
1918 (53,401 cases).
1919 (56,258 cases).
1920 (121,254 cases).
1921 (46,300 cases).
1922 (60,700 cases)....
1923 (107,174 cases)..
1924 (94,891 cases)....
1925 (159,554 eases).
1926 (65,581 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%
4 yrs. 49%
5 yrs. 18%
4 yrs. 82%
5 yrs. 24%
4 yrs. 76%
5 yrs. 56%
4 yrs. 44%
5 yrs. 77%
4 yrs. 23%
5 yrs. 40%
4 yrs. 60%
1907 (S7.874 cases).
1908 (64,652 cases).
1909 (89,027 cases).
1910 (126,921 cases).
1911 (88,763 cases).
1912 (112,884 cases).
1913 (61,745 cases).
1914 (89,890 cases).
1915 (130,350 cases).
1916 (44,936 cases).
1917 (61,195 cases).
1918 (53,401 cases).
1919 (56,258 cases).
1920 (121,254 cases).
1921 (46,300 cases).
1922 (60,700 cases).
Table XIII.—Packs of Rivers Inlet since 1907 in Even Thousands, arranged
in accordance with the Five-year Cycle.
1907  87,000 1912 112,000 1917  61,000
190S  64,000 1913  61,000
1914  89,000 1919
1909  89,000
1922  60,000
1918  53,000 -1923 107,000
1910 126,000 1915 130.000
1911  88,000 1916  44,000
... 56,000
1920 121,000
1924  94,000
1925 159,000
1921  46,000 1926..
65,000 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 39
Table XIV.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1926, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length,
and by their Early History.
Number of
Individuals.
Length in Inches.
One-year-ir
-lake Type.
Two-years-in-lake Type.
Total.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
20	
3
6
22
30
39
3S
21
47
26
IS
12
9
1
1
2
6
25
29
35
30
22
6
3
1
1       !       1
1       |       ....
::::  i  i
1
....       |       ....
....       i       ....
....       |       ....
....       [      ....
....       J       ....
....       |       ....
1       j       ....
E    i
"i  |  ::::
i  |   i
i      i
....  i  ....
3
20%	
3
3
4
7
7
14
11
' 7
15
7
8
4
1
1
2
4
16
31
21
41
22
18
20
12   >
2
2
7
21	
27
21%	
37
22	
69
22%	
76
23	
23%	
i
....
2
....
2
2
2
80
115
24	
76
24%	
83
25	
48
25%	
35
26	
37
26%	
21
27	
12
27%	
6
28	
1
Totals	
272
160
91       j    192
5       |         9
4       |         2
22.S
22.9
25.1
24.6
22.9      1     23.1
25.6
26.8
Table XV.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1926, grouped by Age, Sea, and Weight,
and by their Early History.
Weight in Pounds.
Number of Individuals.
One-year-in-lake Type.
Four Years old.        Five Years old
Males.    Females.     Males.      Females.     Males.
Two-years-in-lake Type.
Five Years old.
Females.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Total.
3%	
4	
4%	
5	
5%	
6	
6%	
7	
7%	
8	
8%	
9	
9%	
Totals	
Ave. weights
3
40
63
44
45
43
26
272
5.2
7
29
4S
47
22
5
1
1
160
1
3
2
8
17
19
6
12
11
4
6
2
24
36
43
'24
22
20
11
4
91
192
6.9
6.3
5.3
5.3
7.8
8.0
3
SO
104
119
139
129
76
35
35
26
2
T35~ E 40
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Table XVI.—Average Lengths in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Fifteen Years.
Year.
Four-year
Males.
Four-year
Females.
Five-year
Males.
Five-year
Females.
1912                   	
23.2
22.9
23.0
22.9
22.9
22.5
22.3
22.4
22.9
22.5
22.4
22.3
22.2
22.8
22.8
23.0
22.8
22.8
'22.8
22.3
22.5
22.3
22.6
22.4
22.3
'22.3
22.2
22.9
25.8
25.9
25.9
26.0
25.8
25.0
24.9
24.8
26.0
25.2
24.6
24.6
24.9
25.5
25.1
24.6
1913                                                               	
'25.2
1914                                            	
25.2
1915..                	
25.1
1916	
25.0
1917    .                                    	
24.4
1918.. .                           	
24.5
1919	
24.4
1920             	
25.0
1921	
04 0
1922	
24.2
1923             	
24.1
1924	
24.3
1925	
24.8
1926            	
'24.6
Table XVII.—Average Weight in, Pounds of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Twelve Years.
Year.
Four-year
Males.
Four-year
Females.
Five-year
Males.
Five-year
Females.
1914	
5.4
5.3
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.9
5.2
6.0
5.0
4.9
4.6
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.1
4.8
4.9
5.9
4.8
4.8
4.4
5.2
7.3
7.3
7.6
6.'6
6.7
6.3
6.9
7.4
6.5
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.8
1915	
6.6
1916	
6.7
1917	
6.2
1918	
6.7
1919            	
1921	
6.0
1922	
7 0
1923            	
1924	
6 1
1925	
6 9
1926	
6.3
Table XVIII.—Relative Numbers of Males and Females, Rivers
One-year-in-lake Type, 1915 to 1926.
Inlet Sockeyes,
1915.! 1916.   1917.   1918.1 1919.1 1920.1 1921.   1922.
1923.   1924.   1925.   1926
Average percentages—
Four-year males	
Four-year females	
Five-year males	
Five-year females	
Percentage total males...
Percentage total females
74
26
40
60
45
52
55
48
25
42
53
47
74
26
49
51
66
34
79
21
45
55
58
42
74
'26
48
52
49
51
65
35
38
62
51
49
66
34
38
62
61
39
71
33
67
38
74
66
26
34
31
34
69
66
50
41
'50
59
63
37
32
68
51
49
3. THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.
(1.) General Characteristics and Age-groups.
As anticipated last year, the Skeena pack of 1926 was only a fair one, some 82,360 cases.
Nothing more could be expected from the brood-years 1921 and 1922, the former of which had
the lowest pack on record. A run which fluctuates from year to year as much as the Skeena
does can be judged best by grouping the years and comparing the averages. Thus, combining
the packs of the last twenty years in four groups of five successive years each, the averages are
as follows:—
1907-11 130,894 cases. 1917-21 103,183 cases.
1912-16  90,513 cases. 1922-26 106,567 cases.
The deduction is quite obvious—a decline, following which the run has been doing little more
than maintaining itself. LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 41
Referring to Table NIX., it is seen that in the earlier years of the run, from 1912-20, with
but a single exception, the five-year group formed 50 per cent, or more of the runs. Since 1921
in only one year (1924) has this been true. A number of years ago Dr. Gilbert pointed out that
in general the largest packs were associated with years in which the percentages of the five-year
fish were greatest. It is interesting, then, to note that the pack of 1924 is the largest in the
last six years. We are not able to offer any explanation for this apparent reversal in the
proportions of four-year and five-year classes during recent years, and it does not seem to have
changed the run materially.
It has been more or less apparent that the Skeena run is composed predominately of two
■ age-groups—namely, four-year-olds and five-year-olds. On this account the packs cannot be
arranged in either four- or five-year cycles. If conditions are fairly stable and the packs bear
some relation to the escapements, then taking the figures of 1914, where 75 per cent, of the
pack consisted of five-year-old and 25 per cent, of four-year-old fish, it would be expected that
in 1918 there should be a pack of four-year-old fish in the neighbourhood of 30,000 cases and
in 1919 a pack of five-year-old fish of 100,000. Using the same method of calculation for 1915,
the results give 42,000 for 1919 and 74,000 in 1920. The total for 1918 would be 142,000 cases.
The actual pack in 1919 was 185,000 cases. The following figures show the correspondence
between the actual pack and the calculated over a period of years:—■
Actual.
Calculated.
Reports from
Spawning-beds
in Brood-years.
1
1912, fair.
1917	
66,000
123,000
185,000
91,000
41,000
96,000
132,000
145,000
78,000
82,000
66,000
59,000
140,000
99,000
62,000
92,000
130,000
144,000
106,000
88,000
106,000
1913, good.
1918           	
1914, very good.
1915, very good.
1916, fair.
1919	
1920	
1921	
1917, no report.
1918, no report.
1919, good.
1920, poor
1922	
1923	
1924	
1925	
1921, fair
1926	
1922, very good.
1923, very good.
1927. .                     	
Making allowance for the normal fluctuations which occur in any run, for the fact that only
two age-groups have been considered, and for the fact that packs do not bear the same relation
to the escapement year after year, it will be seen that the correspondence is fairly close and
would seem to be additional evidence of the existence of two distinct groups in the Skeena run.
It is the only run in which two age-groups play roles of equal importance. In the Fraser run
the four-year-old one-year-in-lake class dominates. The Rivers Inlet run has two components,
the five-year-old one-year-in-lake and the four-year-old one-year-in-lake, but the former is by
far the more important element. The Nass run resembles the Fraser in having a single
predominant group, but in this case it is the five-year-old two-years-in-lake class.
For the last nine years there has been relatively close correspondence between packs and
the brood-years from which they have been derived. According to expectancy the pack of 1927
should reach the 100,000 mark. One brood^year, 1921, had & fairly high pack, but did not
contain many five-year-old fish, and the other, 1923, had a very good pack with a large per cent,
of four-year-old individuals which should be spawning next year and which will likely form a
large proportion of the run. In addition, Inspector Gibson reported in both 1922 and 1923 that
the spawning-beds were very well seeded.
While the Skeena run is largely composed of the two groups which spend one year in the
lake, there are also two others of lesser importance—namely, the five-year-old two-years-in-lake
and the six-year-old two-years-in-lake. The percentages of all four year-classes for the last
eleven years are given in Table XX.
(2.) Lengths and Weights.
The total number of samples, taken at well-spaced intervals on eighteen different dates,
from June 22nd to August 18th, during the run is 2,102.   The following eight tables, Nos. XXI. E 42
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
to XXVIII., furnish the detailed information concerning the size of the fish in this year's run
and also give comparisons with former years. These comparisons simply show normal growth.
The length and weight of those individuals which spent one year in the lake approximate very
closely the averages for the previous year, while the length and weight of the fish which lived
two years in fresh water average slightly higher and correspond more nearly to the 1924 figures.
(3.) Proportions of the Sexes.
In regard to proportions of the sexes, 1926 stands as an exception, in that the females
outnumbered the males in all the year-classes. However, this condition is not without a parallel
in the Skeena. The same relation was true in the run of 1921, one of the brood-years, and in
1920 as well. Usually, as in most of the sockeye-rivers, the four-one males exceed the females,
and similarly the five-two males are in excess, although in this group the exceptions are more
numerous. (Table XXIX.) Out of the total of 2,102 individuals 8S5 were males and 1,217
females.
Table XIX.—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
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
(92.49S cases)  j
(59,927 cases)  j
(130,166 cases) :  j
(116,553 cases) J
(60,923 eases)  i
(65,760 cases)  j
(123,322 cases)  I
(184,945 cases)  ■!
(90,869 cases) ,  ■>
(41,018 cases) j
(96,277 cases) *  j
(131,731 cases) ,.. j
(144,747 eases) \
(77,784 eases)  j
(82,360 cases)  j
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
'5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
5 yrs.
4 yrs.
43%
57%
50%
50%
75%
25%
64%
36%
60%
40%
62%
38%
59%
41%
69%
31%
82%
18%
24%
76%
19%
81%
34%
66%
75%
25%
47%
53%
30%
70%
1907 (108,413 cases).
1908 (139,846 cases).
j. 1909 (87,901 cases).
1910 (187,246 cases).
1911 (131,066 cases).
j. 1912 (92,498 cases).
I
]
1913 (52,927 eases).
1914 (130,166 eases).
j-1915 (116,553 cases).
1916 (60,923 cases).
1917 (65,760 cases).
\ 1918  (123,322 cases).
J
1
}■   1919 (184,945 cases).
1
]■ 1920  (90,869 eases).
J
)
j. 1921 (41,018 cases).
J
1922  (96,277 cases).
* 4,930 cases of Alaska sockeye deducted from original figure of 10a,667 eases. LIFE-HISTORY OP SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 43
Table XX.—Percentages of the Principal Year-classes, Skeena, River Sockeyes,
from 1916 to 1926.
Year.
One Year in Lake.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Two Years in Lake.
Five Years
old.
Six Years
old.
1916	
34
57
51
27
15
69
70
56
23
51
62
38
29
34
60
71
22
16
29
69
45
26
13
9
9
9
6
6
12
8
7
3
9
18
1917	
1918	
6
1919	
4
1920	
8
1921	
3
1922	
2
1923 _	
7
1924	
1
1925	
1
1926	
3
Table XXI.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1926, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.
Number of Individuals.
Length in Inches.
One-year-ln-lake Type.
Two-years-in-lake Type.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Total.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
19%    	
1
8
22
27
44
53
74
9S
83
63
29
14
7
3
3
15
45
103
170
191
140
70
35
2
1
,   |   ....
1
2
7
20
27
18
14
4
1
2
3
18
26
29
14
9
1
2
20         	
20% 	
1
1
3
7
23
'24
31
1
8
26
45
71
67
21    	
11
37
22	
22%	
1
1
75
23	
3
2 |         2
1                 7
3 5
1                 5
7       |         4
7                   3
3
3
1       1
254
334
24	
359
24%	
297
25	
231
25%	
42                 53
147
26	
26%	
37
24
22
9
9
2
23
10
4
2
....
::::
89
52
27	
32
27%	
14
28	
10
28%	
2
29	
29%	
1
Totals	
526
775
236
310
94             102
29       |       30
2,102
Ave. lengths
23.8
23.4
25.6           24.S
24.6
23.8
26.0      ]     25.0
1 E 44
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
Table XXII.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake,
for Fifteen Successive Years.
Year.
Four-year
Males.
Four-year
Females.
Five-year
Males.
Five-year
Females.
1912  : 	
24.6
23.5
24.2
24.2
23.9
23.6
24.1
24.3
23.8
23.8
23.6
23.7
24.1
23.6
23.8
23.5
22.9
23.4
23.5
23.6
23.2
23.3
23.4
23.2
23.1
23.2
23.1
23.3
22.8
23.4
26.4
25.5
26.2
25.9
26.2
25.5
25.9
25.7
26.2
' 25.2
25.3
25.5
26.2
'25.6
25.6
25.2
1913	
24.7
1914	
25.1
1915	
25.0
1916	
25.0
1917	
24.7
1918	
25.0
1919	
24.8
1920	
25.3
1921	
24.2
1922	
24.4
1923	
24.5
1924	
25.2
1925	
24.7
1926	
24 8
Table XXIII.—-Average Lengths of Skeena Sockeyes, Tivo Years in Lake,
fcrr Eleven Successive Years.
Year.
Five-year
Males.
Five-year
Females.
Six-year
Males.
Six-year
Females.
1916
24.1
23.9
23.9
24.3
24.1
24.2 .
23.8
23.9
24.7
24.1
24.6
23.8
23.8
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.2
23.6
23.3
23.8
26.2
25.4
25.2
25.8
26.2
24.9
24.6
25.6
25.8
25.8
26.0
24.8
1917   ....          	
25.0
1918	
24.7
1919	
24.7
1920..	
25.1
1921                                                            	
24 2
1922. ...                                       	
24.1
1923                                                                	
24.4
1924..	
•   24.8
1925
24.8
1926	
25.0
Table XXIV.—Average Lengths of Skeena, River Sockeyes, 1926, compared with 1923, 192k, 1925,
and with General Averages, 1912 to 1921.
Average
Lengths,
1926.
Average
Lengths,
1925.
Average
Lengths,
1024.
Average
Lengths,
1923.
Averages,
1912  to
1921.
One year in lake—
23.8
23.4
25.6
24.8
'24.6
23.8
26.0
25.0
23.6
22.8
25.6
24.7
24.1
23.3
25.8
24.5
24.1
23.3
26.2
25.2
24.7
23.6
25.8
•24.8
23.7
23.1
25.5
.     24.5
23.9
23.2
25.6
24.4
24.0
23.3
25.8
24.9
Two years in lake—
24.1
23.6
25.7
24.8 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
i
E 45
Table XXV.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1926,
grouped by Age,
Sea?, and Weight.
Number
of Individuals.
Weight in Pounds.
One-year-in-lake Type.
Two-years-in-lake Type.
Four Years old.
live Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Total.
Males.
Females.
Males.   1 Females.
1
Males.
Females.
Males.   I E"emales.
i
3	
1
5
49
80
93
144
79
46
25
3
1
1
2
51
184
264
175
73
23
2
1
3
3
19
33
44
43
29
36
13
7
4
1
13
59
86
64
52
25
7
1
2
6
7
27
35
12 .
6
1
2
17
33
33
15
2
....
I
1
2
1
4
3
6
7
2
2
1
1
3
6
5
8
3
4
3
3% -	
4	
7
106
4%	
305
480
5%	
505
6	
319
6%	
189
7	
96
7%	
57
8	
17
8%	
11
9	
9%	
1
1
10	
	
1
Totals	
526
775     .       236       |     310
94        ]     102
29       |       30
2,102
Ave. weights
5.3
5.1             6.5             '5.8
5.9             '5.2
6.9       |      '6.2
Table XXVI.—Average Weights of Skeena River Sock
for Thirteen Successive Years.
, One Year in Lake,
Y'ear.
Four-year
Males.
Four-year
Females.
Five-year
Males.
Five-year
Females.
1914	
5.9
5.7
5.4
5.3
5.8
6.1
5.6
5.7
5.4
5.3
5.6
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.9
5.0
4.7
5.1
7.2
6.8
7.1
6.4
6.9
7.0
7.2
6.4
6.5
6.3
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.3
1915 :	
6.2
1916 -•	
6.3
1917                    	
6.0
1918	
6.4
1919	
6.2
1920	
6.4
1921	
5.7
1922    	
5.7
1923	
5.7
1924	
6 3
1925	
5.8
1926               	
5 8
Table XXVII.—Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake,
for Twelve Successive Years.
lTear.
Five-year
Males.
Five-year
Females.
Six-year
Males.
Six-year
Females.
1915	
5.9
5.8
5.5
5.7
6.1
6.3
5.8
5.5
'5.3
5.9
5.5
5.9
5.2
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.S
5.1
4.9
5.2
6.6
7.1
6.3
6.6
6.9
7.3
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.0
1916	
5.9
1917	
5 8
1918	
6.1
1919 .'	
6.3
1920	
6 3
1921	
5 6
1922	
5 7
1923	
5 4
1924	
5 8
1925	
5 4
1926	
6 2 E 4G
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1920.
Table XXVIII.—Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, 1926, compared with 1928, 192Jlt
1925, and with General Averages, 1912 to 1921.
Average
Weights,
1926.
Average
Weights,
1925.
Average
Weights,
1924.
Average
Weights,
1923.
Averages,
1912  to
1921.
One year in lake—
5.3
5.1
6.5
5.8
5.9
5.2
6.9
6.2
5.1
4.7
6.5
5.8
5.5
4.9
6.9
5.4
5.6
5.0
7.0
6.3
5.9
5.1
6.6
5.8
5.3
4.9
6.3
5.7
5.3
4.8
6.3
5.4
5.7-
Four-year females	
5.2
6.8
6.2
Two years in lake—
5.9
5.2
6.7
6.0
Table XXIX.—Percentages of Males and Females in each of the Different Year-groups,
Skeena River Sockeyes, in a Series of Years.
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	
54
69
60
55
70
65
63
53
41
44
52
60
50
37
40
46
31
40
45
30
35
37
47
59
56
48
40
50
43
60
42
58
36
65
61
52
43
30
52
56
46
45
48
44
35
3'9
48
57
50
48
44
54
'55
52
....
54
58
56
45
41
43
53
40
46
47
49
1913	
47
47
45
43
48
46
46
37
44
41
37
43
42
43
53
53
55
57
52
54
54
63
56
•59
63
'57
58
57
1914                          	
1915	
1916	
1917   	
1918....                                	
42
T919	
1920	
59
1921	
1922	
1923	
1924	
54
53
51
1925	
1926                        	
4.   THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.
(1.)  General Characteristics.
An apparent instability of the Nass River run has been pointed out several times during
the past few years and a fear that the run is materially declining has also been expressed.
As has been known for some time, the Nass cycle is a five-year one. In 1925 we said that the
outlook for this year (1926) was discouraging because its brood-year (1921) had the smallest
pack yet recorded. Consequently it is no surprise to find the pack of 1926 only 15,929 cases.
Looking at it simply as the second smallest pack on record, one might feel justified in accepting
it as evidence of further decline. On the other hand, in viewing the situation as a whole, there
seems to be reason for believing that the run has maintained itself during the last five years,
for the average annual pack of this last cycle, from 1922 to 1926,, is 23„512 cases, against 19,673
cases for the preceding cycle, 1917 to 1921. Furthermore, in 1925 we called attention to the fact
that the packs of 1923, 1924, and 1925 showed a rather close correspondence to the packs of
their broods-years, 1918, 1919, and 1920 respectively, and likewise there is a similar correspondence LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 47
between 1926 and 1921. This seeming tendency of return to normal expectancy, together with
the facts that the brood-years for 1927 and 1929 had large packs, and that three out of five of
Inspector Hickman's reports for the past five years state that the spawning-beds were very well
seeded and the fish were exceedingly numerous, are all hopeful signs. If one can place reliance
on such signs as a brood-year pack of 31,277 cases with 90 per cent, of the run five-year-old fish,
and also Mr. Hickman's statement in 1922, " It was indeed a great pleasure to find so many
fish, as the runs of the past few years have been very poor," then there should be a good pack
in 1927.
(2.) Age-groups.
The consideration of the age-groups of the Nass run is always more interesting than that
of those of the Fraser, Rivers Inlet, and the Skeena. We find not only older fish than are found
in the runs to the other rivers, but also a greater variety in the combination of years the fish
spend in fresh and salt water. Some fish go to the sea as fry and return at the end of either
three or four years; again, others remain in the fresh water one, or two, or three, or even four
years before making their way to the ocean, where they stay from two to five summers before
going back to their native streams. However, this great complexity usually resolves itself into
eight principal age-groups. The analysis of the run of 1926 was based upon 1,836 samples taken
every three or four days over a period of two months, beginning on June 23rd and extending
to August 20th. The usual eight age-groups are all present and are indicated in Tables XXXI.
and XXXIV. An additional group, hitherto unreported, consisting of four full years spent in
fresh water and three summers in the sea, was represented by a single male specimen taken on
July 30th and having a length of 28 inches and a weight of 7% lb.
Table XXX. gives a comparison of the percentages of the principal age-groups over a period
of fifteen years. Perhaps the most striking point in it is the decided decrease in the numbers
of the five-year-old one-year-in-lake class. Several interesting facts are brought out by combining the figures in this table in three five-year periods, as follows:—■
One Year
IN Lake.
Two Years in Lake.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Five Y'ears
old.
Six Years
old.
1912-16	
1917-21	
1922-26	
11
13
11
22
15
7
62
65
77
5
7
5
Although the four-year-old one-year-in-lake and the six-year-old two-years-in-lake classes
have fluctuated considerably from year to year, the averages over the period of years are fairly
constant. The decline in the five-year-old one-year-in-lake class is steady and in general has
been replaced by an increase in the dominant group, five-year-old two-years-in-lake.
Comparing the 1926 averages with the above and the general averages over fifteen years,
perhaps the most noticeable point is the record percentage of the six-year-old two-years-in-lake
class. The four-year-old one-year-in-lake group is very constant in all cases and the five-year-old
two-years-in-lake class approximates quite closely the averages for the two periods 1912-16 and:
1917-21, and also the general average. Taking the entire run into account and disregarding1
the years spent in fresh water, and considering only the final age, it is worth while pointing out
that 12 per cent, of the fish were in the fourth year, 71 per cent, in the fifth year, and 17
per cent, in the sixth and seventh years. In addition there were seven fish in their third year.
Such a run as this, with high percentages of the older fish, is much more valuable commercially
than a run in which the four-year-old group forms a greater proportion of the whole (as in
1925), because the individuals of this class are much smaller and lighter in weight.
(3.) Lengths and Weights.
A peculiarity of the Nass sockeyes already stated1 by Dr. Gilbert is that these fish maintain
from year to year their general averages in length and weight, while the fish of the other
northern runs, the Skeena and Rivers Inlet, have shown a marked reduction during recent E 48 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
years. The run of 1926 is true to type, and is tabulated for length in Table XXXI. and for
weight in Table XXXIV. In Tables XXXII. and XXXIIL, which record the average lengths
of the principal year-classes over a period of years, one sees at a glance that the average lengths
for 1926 exceed those of 1925 in all groups. Similarly, Tables XXXV. and XXXVI. show that
the average weights for 1926 are in all cases equal to, if not greater than those of the preceding
year. Another racial characteristic also pointed out by Dr. Gilbert is that the ultimate size
of the Nass fish is not solely determined, as in the other streams, by the number of years spent
feeding at sea. That is to say that, irrespective of age, the Fraser River, Rivers Inlet, and
Skeena River fish which have lived the same number of summers at sea are approximately the
same size ; for example, a three-year sea-type, a four-year-old one-year-in-lake, and a five-year-old
two-years-in-lake are of equal size; and likewise a four-year sea-type, a five-year-old one-year-
in-lake, and a six-year-old two-years-in-lake are all the same. This is well illustrated in Table
XXXVII. On the other hand, the Nass fish are decidedly different in this respect. Fish which
have spent an identical number of summers at sea are not of identical or nearly identical size,
but are graded in an ascending series according to age. Table XXXVII. shows this also. This
seems to be a definite racial characteristic. What the reason for it is we do not know, but
seemingly it is not directly related to sea-feeding. Age seems to be the all-important factor.
Tables XXXVIII. and XXXIX. are given to show the relation between age and size. In
considering the four-year-old fish it is seen that there is only a very slight difference (about
half an inch) between the average lengths of the males (and similarly for the females) of the
four-year sea-type and four-year-old one-year-in-lake group. The same thing is true in regard
to weights. With the five-year-old fish, for length the balance swings slightly in favour of the
five-year-old two-years-in-lake; for weight it swings slightly in favour of the five-year-old one-
year-in-lake. The six-year-old fish tell the same tale; that is, the difference between the two
groups is inconsequential. In this river it looks as if particular age (irregardless of place where
the years are spent) is linked with a particular size, and in general the ascending scale of
years is correlated with increase in size. Our data are very scarce at both ends of the series-
and cannot be judged too critically for that reason. As it stands, the three-year-old fish begin
the series as the smallest, but the seven-year-old fish, especially the males, do not complete it
as the largest.
(4.)   Seasonal Changes during the Run.
One of the very interesting things about the complex Nass run is that the various age-groups
show year after year a remarkable constancy in seasonal change. The dominant group, the
five-year-old two-years-in-lake, is present throughout the run with varying degrees of strength.
The four-year-old one-year-in-lake and the five-year-old one-year-in-lake classes are also present
throughout, but reach their greatest numbers during the second and third weeks of July. The
two sea-type groups are confined to the early weeks and the six- and seven-year-old fish to the
later part of the run.    Table XL. exhibits these features in the run of 1926.
(5.)  The Meziadin and Bowser Lake Sockeye Colonies.
In September Inspector Hickman made his annual visit to the Meziadin watershed and
secured additional material for the study of the Meziadin and Bowser colonies. Although he
fished a net continuously for eight days in the Nass River 2 miles above the mouth of the
Meziadin, he obtained only eleven sockeyes. He attributes this to a run less than average.
The analysis of small amounts of material is always unsatisfactory and in the course of time
it may prove unreliable. Because of meagre material one is more surprised to find from year
to year fairly close correspondence than lack of conformity in the comparison of the Meziadin
and Bowser colonies. These two populations have been separated on the following characters:
First, the fish of the former spend a greater number of years in fresh water; and, secondly, they
are larger than those of the latter colony. As is seen in Table XLjL, the data for 1926 substantiates in part the first distinction; that is, the relation between the percentages of the one- and
two-years-in-lake groups is correct, but in the case of the three-years-in-lake the percentages are
reversed. Eighteen per cent, is considerably larger than the percentages of previous years when
more material was available. The size differences are given in Tables XLII. and XLIII. It has
been claimed that the larger fish are late running, and in order to show this we tabulated on LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 49
a series of dates the lengths of the 1,004 individuals of the dominant class (two-years-in-lake)
of this year's run to the Nass.    The average lengths for the dates are given below:—
Males. Females.
June 23, 29  25.8 25.1
July 5, 9   2G.1 25.5
July 12, 16   26.1 25.2
July 19, 22   26.1 25.1
July 26, 30   25.7 25.2
August 2, 6   26.5 25.5
August 9, 13  26.5 25.7
August 16, 20  26.6 25.7
On the whole there is a steady increase, but it is very slight, nearly 1 inch for the males
and 0.6 inch for the females. Out of the 485 males only eighteen are 28 inches or more in
length. Yet the average length of the Meziadin males is 28.1 inches and of the females 26.3.
Also, seventeen out of the twenty-twTo males had a fresh-water growth of two years. The margins
of the scales are badly absorbed, so that it is impossible to tell from them the number of
summers spent in the sea. But from the other facts at hand it would seem that in 1926 the
majority of the Meziadin males had spent three summers in the sea; that is to say, they belong
to the six-year-old two-years-in-lake class and not the five-year-old two-years-in-lake. The size
of the Meziadin fish corresponds closely to the general averages for this group—namely, 27.9
inches for males and 27 for the females. In addition the six-year-old two-years-in-lake are
pre-eminently a late-running group.
The Bowser material is really too scanty to comment upon, but the lengths are suggestive
of five-year-old fish rather than six.
The fact that so many of the Meziadin fish are likely six-year-old two-years-in-lake is in no
way contradictory to the claim that this colony is made up of larger fish. It is very probable
that this year is an exception rather than the rule, because usually this year-class forms an
extremely small proportion of the whole run. We have very little data for actual comparison.
No collection of Meziadin fish was made in 1925 and the figures for 1924 would seem to indicate
five-year-old fish instead of six.
The interesting point in connection with these six-year-old fish is that they seem to be
particularly associated with Meziadin Lake. Inspector Hickman took them from the fishway
in Meziadin River at the same time that he was operating the net in the Nass. If these large
fish had been running up the Nass also, they could not have escaped capture.
Table XXX.—Percentages of Principal- Age-groups present in the Nass River Sockeye Run
from 1912 to 1926.
Year.
Percentage op iNnivmuALS that spent
One Year in Lake.
Four Years
old.
Five Years
old.
Two Years in  Lake.
Five Years
old.
Six Years
old.
1912 (36,037 cases)
1913 (23,574 cases)
1914 (31,327 cases)
1915 (39,349 cases)
1916 (31,411 cases)
1917 (22,188 cases)
1918 (21,816 cases)
1919 (28,259 cases)
1920 (16,740 cases)
1921 (9,364 cases)..
1922 (31,277 cases)
1923 (17,821 cases)
1924 (33,590 cases)
1925 (18,945 cases)
1926 (15,929 cases)
15
4
19
9
10
30
7
8
10
6
11
4
23
12
27
12
41
14
17
15
16
22
14
7
2
6
3
8
12
63
71
45
71
45
65
72
75
91
77
91
67
2
2
10
13 E 50
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
e
Si
H
N
H
rO
S
EH
■:   CD   rH   CO   t—   Ol   IO   Cl   tH   Cl   CO   CD   ~V   O   IO   CO   -tf   IO
rHCOCOClClCOO'-'OOCDCOClCl
tH CO   Cl   -*   T-i   d
CCOHri
:   Cl   rH 'Cl   rH
rlMCOCO 00 t-MH
!r-:ClOCl'HClC0rH
rH   rH   rH   rH
EH   <l
■    :#   i
rHCJClCOCO-^rHIOIOlOCDI^r-COCOOlOlO
Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  <M  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  <M  CM  Cl  Cl  Cl  CO LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 51
Table XXXII.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Principal Cl
from 1912 to 1926.
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.
1912 (inches).
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
24.6
24.1
24.6
24.0
24.5
23.4
25.0
24.9
24.0
24.3
24.2
24.3
24.7
24.4
24.9
23.3
23.5
22.7
23.5
23.3
23.2
24.3
24.1
23.4
23 .'5
23.4
23.7
23.8
23.8
24.1
25.6
26.1
,9
4
•la
20.
25.
25.
'26.
20,
26.
25.
26.
25.1
24.8
25.1
25.2
25.0
24.7
24.7
25.2
25.0
'24.3
24.6
25.3
24.9
24.7
25.3
26.2
26.0
26.3
26.5
26.5
25.3
25.9
26.5
26.7
26.2
25.7
26.2
25.!
26.:
25.4
25.2
25.5
25.9
25.6
24.7
25.0
25.8
25.9
25.6
25.0
25.5
25.4
25.0
25.3
27.0
26.0
26.9
26.6
27.9
26.5
27.2
27.9
27.4
27.9
28.0
27.2
28.0
26.9
27.9
25.6
25.3
25.7
25.5
25.2
26.7
25.9
26.2
26.3
25.4
25.4
27.0
Table XXXIII.—Average Lengths of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1926, compared
with 1925, 1924, 1923, and with General Averages' of 1912 to 1921.
Average
Lengths,
1926.
Average
Lengths,
1925.
Average
Lengths,
1924.
Average
Lengths,
1923.
General
Averages,
1912 to 1921.
One year in lake-r-
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...
24.9
24.1
26.1
25.3
26.1
25.3
27.9
27.0
24.4
23.8
25.9
24.7
25.9
25.0
26.9
25.4
24.7
23.8
26.2
24.9
26.3
25.4
28.0
25.4
24.3
23.7
25.9
25.3
26.2
25.5
27.2
26.5
24.3
23.5
26.0
24.9
25.5
27.1
25.8 E 52
REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,  1926.
o
e
'5
■3
x
H
Si
t-
—
01
i—
rH
I-
Ol
»o
CO
-r
Cl
IO
CO   O   CD   Ol   CD   Cl   IO   t-   Cl   -r-i
a:
rH   Cl   CO   •*   Cl   rH
QC
L-
T-i
•
c
o           '
fa
rH
tr
ci
o
to
CO
S
1-i
io
1"
Cl
■"**
O
rS
ri
h3
IO
-5
o
s
Cl
t-t
fa
&H
H
o
g
o
to
iO
fe
t-i
ri
IO
o
I              i
Cl
CO
O)
P
fa
ft
ri
<_J
H
tH
0)
cs
g
0)
m
o
c;           :
CO
1—
t^
ci
9         i
CO
Cl
eq
0
T
CD
J
$
a
A
rH
to
>
o&
: T-i    : "^ o oi io ci rH    i    :    :
Ol
00
a
'A
Si
;         i       rH                        :    :    ;
*P
O
■d
_£
o
|       ;
cd
I                           rH   CO   rH   rH                              i
OS
03
fa
ta
a
cd
H
rH
to
£
H
:    iHNHOO-wioa^w
ic
00
.»
:       :                   rH   <M   rH   CO   rH
c
c-
.s
OJ
s
1~
CD
TJ
SQ
a
cir-cD-HHcoHHciT-i    :    :    :
c~
o
co -f ci to TfH r-i          :    ;     :    ;
r
t>»
S
HHH
o
cd
rH
IK
OJ
ci ci o w ci "ti t-i o t4 ci    :    :
10
t-
r-i ci co cd ci cd ci              :    :
■■/
cd
fa
i^i
rH    rH
-t
T3
o
a
COt-b-rrlOlQ0t-Cl      '      !      I      !
r-
Cl
2
fa
p.
ri
H
tH
K
cu
c:
>
a
;                co ci ci              :    ;    :
CR
CD
C
fa
s
tl.
T3
to
d
O
a
■ o
fa
t-
■*
rS
to
rH ci co ci                   :    :    :    :    :
va
e
rf
o
>H
DO
cocdcoiot-hcs    ;    i    :    :    i    :
r*
o
3
O
ci
<X.
CD
ta
r^
CO
^3
a
tJD
4-;rrJ
V
53
'   MS
JQJ   O
C
E-
*)
rf^
rf
^
r£
r^
rfV
■<*
*t
ir
ir
ec
ec
f
t-
QC
a
3
c LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 53
Table XXXV.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Principal Classes
from 1913 to 1926.
One Yeai
in Lake.
Two Yeaks in Lake.
Four Years old.
Five Years old.
Five Years old.
Six Years old.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1913 (pounds)	
J
1
6.3
1
6.5
1
6.7
1914         „        	
6.2
5.6
6.0
5.3
6.3
6.0
'5.6.
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
5.0
5.2
5.3
5.3
'5.8
'5.5
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.4
7.4
6.9
7.2
6.8
7.2
6.6
7.4
6.9
6.8
6.7
7.2
6.8
6.9
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.3
'5.9
6.3
'6.1
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
7.2
7.0
7.2
6.3
7.2
6.7
7.4
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.6
6.2
■5.S
6.4
6.1
6.7
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.1
6.0
6.0
7.9
7.2
8.1
7.3
8.3
7.8
7.9
7.7
8.1
7.2
8.0
7.4
7.8
6.S
1915         ,,        	
6.5
1916         ,,        	
6.4
1917         „        	
6.4
1918         „        	
6.7
1919         .,          	
6.7
1920         „          	
7.0
1921
6.6
1922
6.6
1923         „        	
6.8
1924         ,,        	
6 5
1925         „        	
6 3
1926         „        	
7.1
Table XXXVI.—Average Weights of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1926, compared,
with 1925, 1924, 1923, and with General Averages of 1914 to 1921.
Average
Weights,
1926.
Average
Weights,
1925.
Average
Weights,
1924.
Average   '■     General
Weights,   ;    Averages,
1923.      [1914 to 1921.
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...
6.0
5.4
6.9
6.0
7.8
7.1
5.4
6.8
'6.1
6.7
6.0
7.4
6.3
5.9
5.4
7.2
6.1
6.8
6.1
8.0
6.5
'5.8
5.2
6.7
6.1
6.6
6.0
7.2
6.8
5.9
5.3
7.0
6.3
7.0
6.3
7.S
6.6
Table XXXVII.—Nass, Fraser, and Skeena Rivers and Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1923 and 1926,
grouped by Number of Years spent on the Sea-feeding Grounds.
Nass.
Fraser.
Skeena.
Rivers Inlet.
Age.
Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.
3
Year 1923.
Three years at sea—•
Inches.
23.1
24.3
26.2
25.5
25.9
27.2
Inches.
22.4
23.7
25.5
24.3
25.3
.26.5
Inches.
23.0
24.0
23.5
25.5
25.8
-25.4
Inches.
22.6
23.0
22.7
24.2
24.1
24.3
Inches.
23.7
23.9
25.5
25.6
Inches.
23.1
'23.2
24.5
24.4
Inches.
22.4
23.0
24.6
Inches.
4
5
4
One-year-in-lake type	
Two-years-in-lake type
Four years at sea—
22.3
23.0
24.1
6
Two-years-in-lake type
Year 1926.
3
Three years at sea—•
23.7
24.9
26.1
24.5
26.1
27.9
22.3
24.1
25.3
24.0
25.3
27.0
23/4
22.6
23.2
25.4
24.6
'25.3
22.5
22.3
22.4
24.6
24.0
23.7
23.8
24.6
25.6
26.0
23.4
23.8
24.8
25.0
22.8
22.'9
25.1
25.6.
4
22.9
23.1
5
4
Two-years-in-lake type
Four years at sea—
24.6
26.8
«
Two-years-in-lake type	 E 54
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
to
5.
a,
g
e
02
6>
"J
(a.
N
N
N
CO
2
a
3J
ri
a
OJ
o
o
o
00
?§,
00
Cl
c
ri
•fa
0>  M
*hJ3
EC
CJ
ri
i ^
i oo
B
3
ci Cl
m
o
d
ri
a
3J
IO t- IO -^ IO tH  CO oc
o
M i>*
f-4   ft
CD  CD  CD  IO  IO  CD  IO  IO
CD
CICICICICICICICI
Cl
ri >S
^
i   0)
13
OJ^
DQ
0>
P5(&0-(M(HW«N
CC
EG
^'"'
"ri
a5cDCDCD"cDt^CDCC
CD
H
£3
dCMcicicicici^
Cl
£
ri
o
|H
o
1
M
'e§
■3
a
0)
b-ClClCT110,H^_*0
rH
^
CD  IO  CD  IO  CD  IO  lO  h-
CO
JE
.3
ClClOlCJClClClOl
Cl
3.F
fa
cH
5_!
>.
0J
©ttiQOClOfflffi
CD
p
ri
t-t^t>CCt^CCCOb-
l>
cs
P.
B
s
OlOlOlClClClClCl
Cl
u
o
8
a)
EQ
c.
0J
ri
s
COCICDOIO^OCO
«*
io io io io' io _d io io
IO
a
cicicioicioicioi
ci
o
m
a
go
Is
fa
■cf
|h
0)
>«   t>*  Cl   b-   Cl   CO   Cl   rH
Cl
o
o
ri
CD  CD  CD  HO  CD  CO  lO  CD
CD
Y-
£
i^i
Cl  Ol  £1  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl
Cl
£
ri
a
o
tH
OJ
73
W
0>
ri
ri
a
OJ
fflOM5DMOJ.t*K
OS
r*
IO   IO   TH   TjH   IO   TjH   Th   If.
■*
EH
o
PS
fa
C3    .
Cl Cl CJ Cl ci ci-ci £i
Cl
ri   r>l
o
a
O
fe
ClCOlpCpCSClCliH
CD  CD  IO  IO  IO  CD  IO  CD
o
CD
<i
CICICICICICICIC]
Cl
03
*3
rH        ;    CD   IO   CO
!  O
*-i
a
0J
IO      1   CO  CO  Tj"
i ■*
•4
Cl       '   Cl   Cl   Cl       '       ■   Cl
Cl
ri
OJ
13
rJ
rH      J   Cl   IO   ip
: if:
P
o
ri
co    ; Tt" tjh io
i -H-
»o
GO
S
Cl      ■   Cl  Cl   Cl      '      '  Cl
Cl
ri
cj
tH
a)
a.
U
o
id
ri
ri
H-hlOHHNQ0Q0i-
t-
a
QJ
ThCOCOCOCOCOCO't
CO
fa
CJ    .
Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  CJ
CM
•H  O
API
ri t-i
fe
^
IB
QOMMMt-rfC
IO
o
o
"^
Tflrfir^rfH-fi—(Hr^fJ
ni
a
Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   (N
Cl
E0
13
0J
ri
s
tfl
K
O
Cl
«
i
DO
OJ*
Cl
6Q
•
M
ft
ri
cu
r*l
ri
fa
1*
.a
o
0J
-j
t-
CO
cc
:
•      ■  Cl      '      '      ■      '  C
•
H
s
EC
A
to
u
a
ri
0J
aj
H
eo
a o rH ci co ■* io cc
%
rHClClClCliMiMC.
CICICICIOCIOC"
1-
r
r
r
r-
i-
i-
r- LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 55
"I
6
s
=s
a
■^
to
©a
6
CO
e
H
H
H
-=_
8
EC
rd
o
.2
CU
ri
EC «
a
Q
r.     ft
V
ri
OS   r>J
fa
.   OJ
tH
J, cu
fl
0)TJ
cc
0)
r=4^
H
o
DQ
ri
EQ
OJ
d
ri
© OS 10 CO CO >p © Cl
1.0
7- V
a
t-.(©CDcpCOCOCDCD
CD
r-i   ft
QJ
ri K
fa
„',  «
CU  M
OJ75
A
&
o
ri
t-co©»ot-coaqoo
t-__>__^t--cot~cpco
5~
r-l
ri
QJ
tH
o
ED
M
OJ
M
ri
ri
t-QOtpCOIOMH
t-
OS
d
i   oj
a
fa
CDt-^CpCDCDCDCOt—
CO
£h
Zfi
>>
Cj
COOlt—  rHdO-HMOO
t-
6
S
E-i
"3
t>t^t^o6->o6t^t-*
tr
GQ
3
Ph
p
_)
EC
o
O
.M
a
CU
ri
a
rlt^MMOr|OC
^DcDCOCDcdcOCDCD
Cl
CO
fa
o
EQ
0
OJ
fa
EC
K
2
CU
t-'+ioipocpcot-b-
X
O
Ph
DQ
U
ri
OJ
ri
CO  t—  CDCDCDCOCDCO
SO
tH
0>
EC
OJ
EC
EH
w
OJ
ri
Ol   CO   T-i   Cl   rH   rH   rH   Cl
rH
fa
a  ■
a
OJ
lpCDCOCDCcJcOCDCp
CD
c. rs
fa
02
CU
a
i
cD^oioqt>Cioocs
Ol
o
a
'ri
CDt-CDCDcdt-CDCO
CO
o
S
a
r*
EC
OJ
ri
t--    ; i_o io io    :    : tr
50
CU
a
io     ■ >o lp IP     ■     ' io
ip
ft
ri
OJ
fa
i
•d
"o
«_
OJ
OJ
ri
tH      :  Cl  rH  o      :      !   01
**.   i
CD      '  LO  C?  N      '      '  lp
CO
ri
a
0)
m
CU ■
Eh
.M
2
ri
ri
a
IO   Cl   **j   TH   Cl   Tf.   -rtf   rrl
"*
O
T*
IO   IO   IO   IP   IP   IP   IP   IP
IO
fa
a h
OJ
£B
d
©COOCICOOIOS©
CD  IP  CD*  IO  lO  lp  l_d  CD
Cl
id
O
s
■d
a)
o
to
CD
a
:    ; co    :    :    :    : io
•       •   Tfi       •       •       •       •   TH
r-l
ft
OJ
ri
r%
fe .
tH
ri
0>
OJ
SQ
h
so
ri
;;©:::: ip
A
■    ; id    ;    ■    ■    ■ id
EH
3
EQ
rd
W)
u
CU
a
r*
x
CU
Ol   O   rH   Cl   CO   -f   lO   CD
>
rHClClClClClClCl
010101C1C101C101
r-
r-
r-
r-
-_
T-
I-
I— E 56
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OP FISHERIES, 1926.
Table XL.
-Number of Individuals of each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running
at Different Dates in 1926.
One Year in
Lake.
Two Years in
Lake.
Three Years in
Lake.
Sea-type.
Number of
Individuals
examined.
Date.
Four
Years
old.
Five
Years
old.
Five
Years
old.
Six
Years
Old.
Six-
Years
old.
Seven
Years
old.
Three
Years
old.
Four
Years
old.
June 23	
9
12
12
17
14
13
26
18
17
11
24
12
7
5
6
1
15
8
10
14
15
21
26
26
19
19
19
4
5
3
4
2
74
100
95
85
85
77
62
62
54
57
50
68
64
59
61
41
1
2
7
2
3
7
6
20
19
19
21
31
36
25
22
1
1
2
6
1
12
12
13
19
8
1
2
1
2
2
4
3
12
1
1
1
1
	
115
June 29	
124
119
July 9	
124
July 12	
117
July 16... .
115
July 19	
July 23	
July 26	
122
114
112
July 30	
112
115
117
August 9	
120
118
117
74
204
210
1,094
221
7'5                  8
7
16
1,835
Table XLI.—Percentages of Meziadin and Bowser Lake Runs, showing Different Number
of Years in Fresh Water.
Years in Lake.
No. of
Specimens.
One
Year.
Two
Years.
Three
Years.
Meziadin,  1922                              	
13
1
40
33
18
16
27
SO
84
76
93
60
64
79
80
55
20
3
24
"o
3
4
IS
10
Meziadin, 1923                	
63
160
Meziadin,  1926	
Bowser, 1922	
Bowser,  1923	
Bowser,  1924 -	
Bowser,  1925	
Bowser, 1926	
43
15
41
34
45
11
Table XLII.—Average Lengths of the Meziadin and Bowser Lake Sockeyes for
the Years 1924, 1925, and 1926.
Year.
Meziadin Lake.
Bowser Lake.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
1924                          	
26.8
2S.1
25.7
26.3
|
25 5        j       23 6
1925                                        	
1926             	
95 0                 u s LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.
E 57
Table XLIII.—The Lengths of Individuals comprising the Meziadin and. Bowser Lake
Runs in 1926.
Length in Inches.
Number op Individuals from
Meziadin Lake.
Bowser Lake.
Males.
Females.
Males.
Females.
23         .                            	
1
1
1
1
10
3
2
2
1
1
23%                                     	
1
24	
1
24%                                 	
9
25	
4          1
25%	
3
7
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
26                                                                             	
26%	
1
27                                           	
271/.	
28	
28%	
29                                             	
29y,                                 	
30	
....
30 V,   	
22
21         j           5
6
28.1                26.3               25.9
1
24.8 E 58 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE FEASEE EIVER.
Hon. William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sik,—I have the honour to submit the following report of my twenty-fourth annual inspection
of the salmon fishing and spawning areas of the Fraser River, made during the year 1926 :—
The catch of all species of salmon in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system this
year produced a pack of 274,951 cases, as against 276,855 cases in 1925, 212,059 cases in 1924,
and 140,570 eases in the fourth preceding year, 1922.
The pack consisted of 85,689 cases of sockeye, 21,783 cases of cohoes, 32,256 cases of pinks,
32,952 cases of springs, and 88>,495 cases of chums. The pack of sockeye was the largest since
1917.    It exceeded the pack of the fourth preceding year by 33,857 cases.
The catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system in 1926
produced a pack of 44,673 cases of sockeye, as against 112,023 cases in 1925 and.' 48,566 cases in
the fourth preceding year, 1922.
The total catch of sockeye in the entire Fraser system in 1926 produced a pack of 130,362
cases.    It was 17,046 cases less than in 1925 and 29,964 cases more than in its brood-year 1922.
The increased catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters and the decrease in the catch in
the State of Washington waters is attributed to an unusual occurrence. Ordinarily the greater
proportion of the pack in the entire system is made in July and August—mainly in August.
The catches made there in those months this year produced an approximate pack of 75,000 cases,
of which 43,000 cases were packed in Washington and 32,000 cases in Provincial waters. The
catches made in September and October this year were made in Provincial waters. The numbers
caught in those months in AVashington waters did not materially increase the pack made in July
and August. This unusual occurrence is attributed to the fact that in September and October
this year a considerable number of sockeye gained access to the Gulf of Georgia without having
been intercepted in other waters. In consequence the Provincial fishing-fleet made good catches
in both of those months. The traps in Juan de Fuca Strait and the traps and purse-nets in the
estuary waters of the State of Washington that lead to the Gulf from the south, and the nets
used in the estuary waters that lead to the gulf from the north, caught very few sockeye in
September and October. None of the fishermen engaged in those waters report having any
evidence that any considerable number of sockeye passed through them in those months. How
the September and October runs of sockeye gained access to the gulf without being observed
or intercepted by fishermen operating to the south and north of the gulf is not in evidence.
Having gained access to the gulf without interception, the September and October runs were
drawn upon only by the fishermen engaged in the gulf and in the Fraser River proper, and their
operations were limited to five days each week by the weekly closed season provided in Canadian
regulations, which prohibits fishing in the gulf and the Fraser up to New Westminster Bridge
for forty-seven hours each week, and for sixty hours each week up to Mission Bridge. Instead
of being drawn upon as usual by both the Washington and the Provincial fleets, they were
drawn upon only by the latter, which this year consisted of less than 1,000 gill-net boats. In
consequence the number caught from the runs was proportionately less than usual and the
number which escaped capture and reached the spawning-beds of the Fraser River was greater
than in any year since 1913.
The remarkable increase in the catches of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser
system this year attracted great local interest and led to the assertion that the run to the Fraser
system was far in excess of any year since 1917, and indicated that " the former runs of sockeye
were coming back. . . . That the sockeye runs to the Fraser are being restored." Unquestionably the number of sockeye caught in the Provincial waters of the Fraser system this year
was greater than in any year since 1917. That, however, does not show that the number of
sockeye that sought entrance to the Fraser this year was greater than in any year since 1917,
and as a matter of fact it was not materially greater. Judged from the size of the pack made
in the system this year, it was less than last year. The pack made from Provincial waters was
more; the pack made in Washington waters was less. The combined pack this year was 17,046
cases less than in 1925. The size of the run in any year is not shown by the pack made in
Provincial waters or that made in Washington waters. That can only be determined from the
pack records of the combined catch made in Provincial and State waters.    En this connection SPAWNING-BEDS OF FRASER RIVER. E 59
it is interesting to note that the sockeye-pack records in the Fraser system in the period 1915-25,
inclusive, show that 70 per cent, of the pack was made from fish caught in Washington waters
and 30 per cent, from Provincial waters. This year the proportions were reversed for the first
time in many years. Sixty-seven per cent, were taken from Provincial waters and 33 per cent,
from Washington waters.
An additional feature of the sockeye-fishing season in the Provincial waters of the Fraser
system this year that occasioned comment was the size of the individual earnings of our
fishermen. It has been stated that individually their earnings were greater this year than in
any previous season. That is probably true, as the prices paid throughout the season were
high and the catch larger. The price opened at 65 eents per fish in July, was advanced early
in August to 80 cents, and later that month advanced to 90 cents. During September the price
ranged from 80 to 85 cents up to the 20th and then dropped to 60 cents, and finally 45 cents
for the balance of the season, which ended in October. As in September and October many of
the fishermen caught from 200 to 400 fish per day for five days per week, for four or five weeks
their earnings were large. In this connection it should be recalled that in the period 1909-16,
inclusive, an average of 4,290 gill-net fishermen were yearly engaged in Provincial waters of
the Fraser and that this year but 1,S60 were so engaged, and that where formerly thirty-five
canneries were operated on the Fraser, but nine were operated this year.
The Spawning Areas of the Fraser River.—The inspection of the sockeye-spawning areas of
the Fraser basin this year were made, as usual, in August, September, and October. In addition
to the information gained by personal observation, I am greatly indebted: to Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion in the Province, and to many white and
Indian residents in the Fraser basin, for much information of value.
The number of sockeye which spawned in the Fraser basin above Hell's Gate Canyon this
year was the largest since 1913. For the first time since 1913 the number of sockeye which
spawned in the upper section of the Fraser should materially increase the size of the run four
years hence. The number of sockeye which passed through Hell's Gate Canyon in July and
August this year was apparently small. The number which passed through that canyon in
September and October, however, was greater than in any year since 1913. Water conditions
at Hell's Gate throughout the entire season were exceptionally favourable for the passage of
such sockeye as reached there. Throughout the water was low. At no time this season were
salmon detained there. In consequence it was more difficult to gain an approximate estimate
of their numbers. The large number of sockeye known to have passed through in September and
October did not display themselves as freely at Hell's Gate as they did in the vicinity of Hope
before they reached the Gate, and as they did after they had passed through the canyon and
entered the Thompson River. It was not until the fish showed up in that river that it was
appreciated how great their numbers were.
The Indians fishing at the rapids in the Fraser just above the mouth of Bridge River this
year caught more sockeye than in many years. The water was extremely low and afforded the
Indians unusually favourable conditions in September and October for the use of their effective
dip-nets and gaffs. Major Motherwell placed a special officer there during the season to record
conditions, especially the different stages of water, to estimate the number of sockeye which
reached there and the number caught by the Indians. The record made shows that the number
of sockeye which passed through the canyon in July was estimated at 360; in August, 1,615;
September, 8,870; October, 1,170; a total of 12,015. It is recorded that the Indians during the
season caught 1,419 sockeye and 767 springs. The sockeye were not delayed there at any time
up to September 14th, and thereafter for only a day or two at a time. It will be recognized
that the estimate of the number that passed through is little more than an approximation of the
number which displayed their presence; however, it will be noticed that the number given
agrees fairly well with the number which were later noted in the extensive tributaries, lakes,
and streams farther up-stream.
Throughout the season no sockeye were observed to enter Quesnel Lake. There has been
no obstruction at the outlet of that lake since the dam and fishway were removed some years
ago. The fish which now reach there can easily enter the lake without displaying themselves.
In September some five or six hundred sockeye are reported to have reached the upper stretches
of the Horsefly River, one of the two largest tributaries of Quesnel Lake, and some three or
four hundred sockeye were observed in Mitchell River, the other large tributary, late in September and early in October.    No sockeye were reported to have reached either of these tributaries E 60 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1920.
four years ago, but egg-plants were made there that year. Dominion officers hold the opinion
that the sockeye which reached Quesnel this year are the product of egg-planting.
Reports made to Major Motherwell indicate that more sockeye passed up the Nechako to
its lake tributaries than for some years, but the numbers were limited.
For the first time in some years a few hundred sockeye reached the Bowron Lake section,
a tributary of the North Fork of the Fraser. Men engaged in constructing a new bridge over the
liver at the outlet of Bowron Lake in August reported that several hundred sockeye entered
the lake that month, and they were later observed spawning in the river at the head of the lake.
Very few sockeye were known to have spawned there four or five years ago.
Reports from the Chilcotin River section indicate that the number of sockeye which reached
there this year was not up to the average of recent years, and the run in those years was
small. Fishery Officer Hill estimated that the number that reached there this year was only
about half that of last year. The Indians who fished at Fish Canyon and Indian Bridge caught
less than five hundred, and very few are known to have reached Chilko Lake, the main source
of the Chilcotin River.
No sockeye entered Seton Lake in July or August. A few hundred are known to have passed
into the lake in September and October, a larger number than for some years. Very few spawned
there four or five years ago, but egg-plants were made in Anderson Lake, at the head of that
section, four years ago.
It is promising to note that a greater number of sockeye spawned this year in the Shuswap
Lake section, at the head of the Thompson River, than in any year since 1913. Late in
September and during October large numbers spawned in the lower reaches of Adams River
and on the gravelled bars of Little Shuswap River. In company with Major Motherwell,
J. A. Rodd, Superintendent of Fish Culture in Canada, and Fishery Officer Shotton, in charge
of the Shuswap-Thompson section, I inspected the spawning-beds above mentioned in October.
The gravelled stretches of Adams River from its mouth at the lake, for a distance of 5 miles
up-stream, were closely covered by spawning and dead sockeye that had spawned. They were
in greater numbers than I have seen them on the spawning-beds of the entire Fraser basin,
above Hell's Gate Canyon, in any season since 1913. And in addition we saw large numbers
of sockeye spawning in Little River, the outlet of Shuswap Lake, as we passed over its surface
in a launch.    All the gravelled reaches of the river's hed were crowded with spawning sockeye.
I estimated that we saw between three and four hundred thousand sockeye in the above
waters. Major Motherwell, Mr. Rodd, and Fishery Officer Shotton, all experienced overseers,
placed their number at between five and six hundred thousand.
The sockeye we saw in the Shuswap section were large and highly coloured fish—typical
specimens of the races of sockeye which formerly spawned in the Fraser above Hell's Gate.
They were much more highly coloured than the races of sockeye that spawn in the Fraser basin
below Hell's Gate Canyon, and they were, with the exception of the sockeye which spawn in
the Birkenhead River, at the head of the Lillooet-Harrison Lakes section, very much larger and
longer fish. The races of sockeye that spawn in the Lower Fraser, which includes the Harrison,
Lillooet, Cultus, and Pitt Lakes, are all small-sized fish, with the exception of those which spawn
in the Birkenhead, at the head of Lillooet Lake, and none of them are nearly so highly coloured.
The Birkenhead sockeye are as large as those found in any section above Hell's Gate, but they
are not nearly so highly coloured when spawning. In consequence I am strongly of the opinion
that the sockeye we saw in Adams and Little Rivers this year were the product of the fish which
had spawned above Hell's Gate Canyon—that they were not the product of the sockeye which
had spawned in the lower river sections.
In this connection it is interesting to refer to the spawning reports of four years ago, 1922
—the brood-year of four-year-old fish of this year's run. Officer Shotton, who has had charge
of the Shuswap Lake section for many years, in his report for 1922 wrote: "The run to my
district this year surpasses any of the previous eight years. The run of sockeye was exceptionally good, there being two runs. The first run were large fish, many of which went to the
spawning area of the Adams River. I am making a very conservative statement when I state
that I saw six to eight thousand in Little River." In his report for 1922 Mr. Shotton gave no
estimate of the number seen in Adams River that year. He now places their numbers at not
less than twenty thousand.
A brief summary of the reports of 1922 from the tributary streams of the Shuswap section
shows that the first sockeye reached Adams River on Octoher 6th and was a light run.    A second SPAWNING-BEDS  OP FRASER RIVER. E 61
run began on October 25th and was heavy. Sockeye in small numbers were also reported in
Anesty, Eagle, and Salmon Rivers and other tributaries of Shuswap Lake. The run to all
streams was reported as larger than for some years.
It is difficult to believe that the large number of fish we saw in Adams and Little Shuswap
Rivers this year were the product of so limited a spawning in that section in 1922. It is equally
difficult to credit them to the spawnings in other sections of the Upper Fraser basin in that year;
or to attribute them to the planting of sockeye-eggs made in that section in the spring of 1923,
which were collected1 from eggs gathered at Cultus Lake, in Lower Fraser, in the fall of 1922.
The latter are all small fish.
Referring to the return from natural spawning, it is interesting to note that some light has
recently been cast on the percentage of return from a known number of fish which spawned
naturally. In 1921. under the direction of Dr. C. H. Gilbert, acting for the U.S. Bureau of
Fisheries, a weir was placed across the Karluk River, on Kadiak Island, Alaska, and a count
made of all the sockeye which passed through. Something less than one and. a half million
were counted as they passed through the openings of the weir that year, and they spawned
naturally in the lake at the head of the river. The family of sockeye wrhieh runs in the Karluk
River consists largely of fish that reach maturity and spawn in their fifth year, so that the
sockeye that ran to that river this year were, with few exceptions, the product of the one and
a half million fish which spawned in 1921. The run to the Karluk this year was again intercepted
at the weir and the fish counted, and record made of the number of fish taken commercially.
Under the Federal fishing regulations of Alaska, fishermen engaged in the Karluk River are
restricted to catches of not to exceed 50 per cent, of the season's run. Under such' conditions
this year the combined weir count and the commercial catch up to September 15th, when fishing
ceased, totalled over four million fish, a return from the spawning of one and a half million fish
of four million.    It is the first record from the natural spawning of a known number of sockeye.
Conditions in the lower section of the Fraser basin this year were as satisfactory as they
have been in recent years.
The Birkenhead River, at the head of the Lillooet-Harrison Lakes section, maintained its
record as the most abundantly stocked sockeye section of the entire Fraser River basin. It was
again abundantly seeded this year. The run throughout the season was fully up to the average
of any year since records were first made there. The size of the run to this section shows no
sign of diminishing. It is the only section in which conditions are entirely satisfactory. The
sockeye came in early and ran throughout September and into October. The fish were large
and in prime condition. Over forty-three million eggs were taken for the hatchery, and the beds
of the river were well seeded naturally.    It was the largest egg-collection ever made there.
The sockeye runs to Cultus and Pitt Lakes and Morris Creek were equal to the average of
recent years.
Summarizing sockeye-spawning conditions in the Fraser this year, I am of the opinion that
the increased seeding of the Shuswap Lake section, and the normal seeding of the Birkenhead
River and the lakes to the south, should produce an increased return in 1930.
I am indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell for the following statement of the sockeye-salmon
egg collections made at Dominion hatcheries in the Fraser River b'asin this year:—
Cultus Lake Hatchery     0,442,285
Pemberton Hatchery   43,350,000
Pitt Lake Hatchery      5,044,000
Total  54,836,285
Respectfully submitted.
John Pease Babcock,
Assistant to the Commissioner. E 62 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE SKEENA RIVER.
Hon, William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sib,—In obedience to your instructions, I beg to submit the following report on the spawning-
beds of the Skeena River for the year 1926:—
I left Prince Rupert on September 6th and visited Lakelse Lake the following day. This
lake is the first important sockeye-spawning area and also the earliest of the Skeena watershed.
It is a beautiful lake, 5 miles in length and approximately 12 miles from Terrace. A good
automobile-road brings one within easy reach of Terrace. Cut-throat and rainbow trout are
plentiful in the lake and excellent fly-fishing may be obtained during the season. A good hotel
and well-equipped hot springs at the lower end of the lake are an added attraction which is
increasing the number of sportsmen and tourists each year. A large and modern Dominion
Government salmon-hatchery is located on one of the small creeks and is ably managed by
C. T. Hearne, the Superintendent, and an efficient crew.
I met Mr. Hearne on arriving at the hatchery and was surprised to learn that he had then
collected 15,000,000 sockeye-eggs, which was about 4,000,000 in excess of last year's record.
This was the more surprising when one considers the fact that the sockeye-fishing on the Lower
Skeena was similar to 1925 and can only be classified as fair. These eggs were at the time in
process of being transported to the headwaters of the Fraser River, in an attempt to restock
the depleted but once famous sockeye-river. The same number of soekeye-eggs, however, were
gathered from the Fraser watershed at a later date and have now been delivered to Lakelse
Hatchery.
Mr. Hearne informed me that the first sockeye were seen in the lake on June 12th, the
same date as last year. A number of hair-seals were seen in the lake about the end of May,
which would lead one to suggest that they had been following the sockeye. The depredations
of the hair-seals are, well known and some effective method should be utilized with a view to
extermination of these salmon-snatching pests, or at least decreasing their numbers.
The hatchery crew commenced spawning early in August and had collected 15,000,000
sockeye-eggs by August 19th. The fences and pens at the mouth of the creeks were erected
on July 19th and were all removed by August 26th, so that many sockeye undoubtedly passed
on up the creeks to their respective spawning-grounds. Owing to the absence of snow during
the previous winter all the creeks were in good shape. A heavy freshet during the spawning
season, followed by a .dry spell, generally results in a big loss of natural-spawned eggs.' I was
also informed there were many net-scarred fish, although on the whole the sockeye were slightly
larger than average years.    The males predominated and there were scarcely any " runts."
There are four soekeye-creeks on Lakelse Lake—namely, Williams, Schullabuchan, Granite,-
and Hot Spring Creeks—the largest and most important being Williams Creek. All four creeks
were visited the following day, but, with the exception of Williams Creek, few sockeye were seem
near the mouth of the creeks. . Williams Creek has an Immense spawning area, the creek being
about 20 miles in length, which is by far the longest soekeye-creek of the Skeena watershed.
Many sockeye were seen in the lower reaches of this creek and a few fresh arrivals were
jumping in the lake near the mouth of the creek. Good runs, I am informed, were recorded
in the other three creeks, and from all reports were much better than last year. Lakelse River,
the outlet of the lake, was alive with humpbacks, the upper 5-mlle stretch being one teeming mass
of this variety.
In summing up the Lakelse spawning area, which will be well seeded this- year and will
compare favourably with any former year, it is evident that there are two main factors in the
well-stocked spawning-beds. The principal one is, of course, the forty-eight hours of a " close
season " and the fact that an early run takes place before the sockeye-fishing actually begins.
This was quite evident early in June, many of the larger sockeye being caught in spring nets.
When one considers the fact that there are approximately ls100 boats fishing in the river during
sockeye-time, it is surprising, to say the least, that any escape to seed the spawning-beds.
Returning to Terrace, I arrived at Topley on September 10th. I had previously gone into
Babine Lake by way of Burns Lake, but I was informed there were no transportation facilities
this year;  hence the selection of Topley. SPAWNING-BEDS OF SKEENA RIVER. E 03
After outfitting, etc., I arrived at Fulton River, on Babine Lake, on the night of the 12th,
and on the following day reached Babine Village at the mouth of the lake. A severe snow-storm
next day made travel impossible, but on the morning of the 15th I made the trip down the 12-mile
stretch of Babine River. It is on this stretch of water that the Bahine Indians, approximately
100 families, catch their supply of fish. There are thirty smoke-houses along this stretch, each
smoke-house with from three to four families, and all were busily engaged cleaning and sun-
drying their latest catch. Each family is supplied with a new net every two years by the
Dominion Government, as these Indians live solely on salmon for food. Their smoke-houses
and racks were well filled and would average from two to three thousand per family. No
complaints were received, which is a good indication as to the extent of the run to the Babine
this year. Although one or two families commenced fishing as early as July 9th, it was not
until August 30th that all the nets were out. I am informed by the Fishery Guardian that
sockeye were first seen entering the lake on June 29th, and that there were two distinct runs
to the lake before the Indians started fishing. There was an exceptional run of springs at the
lower end of this stretch, but the humpbacks were not so plentiful as in other years. On the
return up the river many sockeye were seen darting away at the approach of the boat, there
being excellent spawning-beds near the lake.
Leaving Babine, I arrived at the Dominion Government Hatchery on the 16th. This hatchery
is situated at the head of Hatchery Creek and is about 3 miles from the lake. It is one of the
most important soekeye-creeks of the Skeena watershed, ideally situated, with an unlimited
spawning area. I met Mr. Eaton, the Superintendent of the hatchery, who informed me that
sockeye were in the creek as early as June 17th, but that the first real run did not take place
until about August 15th. Mr. Eaton and his assistants commenced spawning on September 9th, but
little progress was made owing to about 75 per cent, of the sockeye being still " green." The
pens erected at the head of Hatchery Creek were one seething mass of sockeye, and Mr. Eaton
did not anticipate any difficulty in obtaining his quota of 8,000,000 eggs for the hatchery. The
sockeye were big in size, with the males in excess of the females by about seven to one. There
was a good showing on the spawning-beds all down the creek for a distance of 2 miles and many
were seen breaking water in the deep pools. Hatchery Creek is one of the best all-round soekeye-
creeks of the Skeena watershed and it has yet to record its first failure as a sockeye-producer.
Leaving the hatchery on the morning of the 18th, I arrived at Donald's Landing, 25 miles
from the head of the lake, that night. A severe snow-storm with a strong northerly wind nearly
swamped the boat before the landing was made that night, incidentally soaking the blankets and
food. The storm continued for three days and I was unable to go to the upper end of the lake
to visit 15-Mile and Beaver Creeks. The Dominion Fishery Guardian, who patrols the upper end
of the lake, reports that there was an exceptionally good showing of sockeye in 15-Mile Creek
and that Beaver Creek was good and up to the average. With regard to Beaver Creek, it is
interesting to note that, although Babine Lake is approximately 113 miles long, Beaver Creek,
at the extreme head of the lake, is the earliest spawning-creek.
Getting an early start on the morning of the 22nd, I called in at Pierre Creek. This also
is a good all-round sockeye-creek, having about 2 miles of ideal spawning-grounds. This also
is an early-spawning creek, the bars for some distance being littered with dead and decaying
fish. Many sockeye were in the pools and on the numerous gravelly patches, however, and it
was plainly evident there had been a big run up this creek.
The following day I visited Pulton River, the largest creek flowing into Babine Lake. This
creek flows from Fulton Lake, 5 miles distant from Babine Lake. Two waterfalls, one with a
sheer drop of 40 feet, confine the sockeye to the creek. The sockeye were literally in thousands
in this creek, the shallow gravelly patches showing up like a dense mass of red. A good number
of " runts " or grilse were seen, but even at that the average in size was good. It was hard to
determine the proportion of sexes, but they appeared to be better balanced than the sockeye in
the other creeks. Five Indian families were fishing in the lake near the mouth of the creek'
and had a fair supply of fish in their smoke-houses. At the time of my visit the sockeye were
still running up the creek as the Indians were busily cleaning the previous night's catch. It is
only during the night that the gill-nets can be operated on the lake, the nets being easily seen
during the day by the wary sockeye. As this was the last point of interest on Babine I returned
to Topley on September 24th.
In summing up the Babine area, I can say without the least hesitation that the spawning-
beds will be well seeded this year.    This was my seventh consecutive visit to the spawning- E 04 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
grounds, and I found all the creeks, with two outstanding exceptions, well up to the average of
former years. The two exceptions are Fulton River and Pierre Creek, which, as regards conditions, more than surpassed any of my previous visits, both as to quantity and quality of the
sockeye. If the Skeena River cannerymen would visit the Babine spawning-beds during the
month of September, I am sure they would return to their tasks the following year with renewed
vigour, happier and contented men.
I arrived at Hazelton on September 25th and visited the canyon at Agwillgate the same
afternoon. This canyon on the Bulkley River is a little above the junction of the Skeena and
Bulkley Rivers, and was in years gone past the meeting-place of all the Indians of Upper Skeena
during the salmon run. Some decrepit old smoke-houses still remain as if in mute testimony
of what must have been a busy scene in days gone by. As the canyon is very narrow the water
rushes through and over a small fall, and it was when the salmon were making this little jump
that they were caught by the Indians with both spear and basket. Few are caught at this point
nowadays as these Indians follow more the white man's mode of living than that of their
ancestors. From all reports there was a good run of sockeye to the Bulkley River, which will
be well seeded and up to the average of former years.
Kispiox River, which joins the Skeena a few miles above Hazelton, is exclusively a humpback-river, but the run of this variety was poor this year and away below the average.
As this concluded the inspection of the spawning-beds, I left Hazelton on September 26th
and arrived at Port Essington that afternoon.
I wish to express my appreciation to the Hatchery Superintendents and Fishery Guardians
for hospitality shown and information supplied.
I have, etc.,
Robert Gibson,
Fisheries Overseer.
Port Essington, B.C., October 30th, 1926. SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET. E 65
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP RIVERS INLET.
Hon. William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit my report upon the inspection of the spawning-beds at
Rivers Inlet for the year 1926.
The delay which occurred at Smith Inlet, due to the low stage of the lake, prevented my
reaching the spawning area at Rivers Inlet until October 13th, circumstances that precluded the
observation of the early-running salmon-streams at the head of the lake, when the fish were
actually engaged in spawning, but evidence was not lacking to show that an exceptional run
of sockeye had returned to the beds prior to my visit. The Indian River, situated at the extreme
left, contained a run of sockeye very much in excess of that which was reported in 1921^32,
according to hatcherymen who had visited this tributary during September, the height of the run.
The spawning-beds were lined with spawning fish right up to the falls. Dead bodies which
covered the bars bore testimony to this gratifying improvement in the run, as compared with
the brood-years. There is a log-jam forming near the mouth which should receive attention,
or in time will work to the detriment of the spawning-beds.
A great improvement was shown in the run of sockeye to the Cheo River, as was evidenced
by the innumerable carcasses which littered the spawning-beds right up to the log-jam. Although
too late to see the peak of the run, by digging down into the gravel at various points sockeye-
eggs in abundance were disclosed, while the upheaval of the bars caused by the spawning fish
was of such an extensive nature that no doubt need be feared of the final outcome when the
sockeye return as adults from the seed deposited this year.
The condition of the Washwash River, lying over on the extreme right, is in a deplorable
state. Log-jams cover the whole width of this stream near the mouth, so that it is a wonder
the salmon are able to find their way on to the spawning-beds above. In order to find an outlet
to the lake the main river has been forced into innumerable small streams and is eating its way
gradually into the banks in towards the Cheo, a situation that demands attention from the
authorities. Late as the spawning season was at this time, sockeye salmon in an advanced
stage of spawning were noted in favourable numbers making use of the gravel-beds below the
log-jams. Farther up above these obstructions a few sockeye were seen, and in employing the
same methods as applied to the Cheo I found that, in digging down into the gravel, eggs in
abundance were brought to view. These favourable indications, coupled with the reports that
this river was full of salmon earlier in the season, ensure a big return from the seed deposited.
For the improvement shown in the three tributaries at this point credit is due to the energetic
manner in which the hatchery officials endeavoured to bring the spawning-beds back to fertility.
In 1922 they planted about 1,015,000 eyed eggs, together with 1,320,000 fry from seed collected
during the spawning season of 1921. In 1923 the same methods were adopted, and, in the very
satisfactory condition of all of them this year, the restocking which is now being carried out
each year is without doubt going a long way towards counteracting influences which have in the
past done such harm to the spawning-beds.
Returning from the headwaters, I examined Sunday Creek, a small stream situated near the
Narrows, and from the number of sockeye spawning here there should be a very fair run from
the seed planted this season. The males and females were about equally divided and were of
exceptional size.
The spawning-beds at the Narrows contained a fair run of both cohoe and sockeye. The
Indians were obtaining their winter's supply from this source and had nearly completed their
requirements.    The run closely resembled the return in 1921-22.
The spawning-beds of the Sheemahant River, unlike the unsatisfactory conditions noted in
the brood-years, showed a great improvement in the number of sockeye that reached them.
From the mouth up for many miles large numbers were seen spawning on the riffles just above
each rapid, while all the side-streams adjacent to the river contained their full quota of salmon,
busy spawning. For this improvement in the run the good work of the hatchery is again
responsible. To make up for the impoverished condition of the spawning-beds in 1921-22 they
planted no less than 4,400^000 eyed eggs. In carrying out this work it is necessary to plant
the eggs when the rivers are at their lowest stage, generally between January and February. E 66 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
It entails a great deal of labour, but from the results that are manifest it is worth the trouble.
The sockeye were unusually fine specimens of the race, the males outnumbering the females in
the proportion of about two to one. No log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the
movement up-stream.
In making the inspection of Jeneesee Creek, a small stream about 1% miles in extent, it was
satisfactory to note that the run of sockeye compared very favourably with the remarkable
showing last year. In 1921 a big run returned, while in 1922 unsatisfactory conditions prevailed.
The inference to be drawn from this is that the run this year consisted mainly of five-year
sockeye, but in submitting the following figures courteously supplied by Mr. Tingley, Superintendent of the Dominion Hatchery, we have probably the answer to one of the most prolific runs
of sockeye that Jeneesee Creek has ever received. In the brood-years the spawning-beds were
planted with 1,626,000 eyed eggs from the hatchery and supplemented by 3,951,000 young fry.
A freshet which occurred prior to my visit permitted thousands of sockeye to pass over the
hatchery fence, but so great were they in numbers that men at the camp had no difficulty in
collecting all the eggs that were necessary for their requirements at the hatchery. In size they
represented a fair average, the males outnumbering the females two to one.
The Machmell River was again too discoloured to arrive at a satisfactory estimate of the
run of sockeye, but a trapper who was engaged in building a cabin close to the river stated that
during the past month at certain stages of the water he noted many sockeyes spawning, so that
it is evident they do make use of the spawning-beds here. The Nookins River, flowing into the
Machmell about half a mile from the entrance, contained a run of sockeye equal in extent to
that which returned in 1922, the spawning-beds being covered with spawning fish right up to the
rough water 4 miles distant. In the side-streams the same conditions prevailed. No log-jams
were to be seen with the exception of one about 2 miles up, but this presented no difficulty to
the salmon finding their way to the spawning-beds beyond. The fish were a fair average in size,
the proportion of males and females being about equally divided.
Asklum River, which is situated about 12 miles from the mouth of the lake, was inspected
under ideal conditions, the low stage of the water providing an uninterrupted view of the
spawning-beds, 5 miles in extent. The run of sockeye closely resembled the numbers that
returned in 1921 and 1922, but as I was rather late in arriving it is possible that a big run of
fish had come in and spawned out prior to my -visit; the condition of the gravel-bars bore
testimony to this, as they were covered with numerous pockets where the salmon had spawned.
In digging down into the gravel, eggs in large numbers were uncovered. The fine showing of
salmon seen on the beds at this time, coupled with the large numbers that had spawned out
earlier in the season, ensures a big return four and five years hence. The river was clear of
obstructions right up to the falls; therefore the fish had no difficulty in finding their way
up-stream.    The males predominated over the females in the proportion of about two to one.
Making camp at Quap, I examined the spawning-beds at the Dalley River first. It is situated
directly opposite on the other side of the lake and comprises spawning area of about 4% miles
in extent. This river rarely fails to receive its full complement of sockeye and had not this
year fallen behind in that respect. The spawning-beds were lined with fish, the greater proportion in the last stages of spawning. Thousands of carcasses lying on the bars testified to an
exceptional run earlier in the season. The run compares very favourably with the fine showing
seen here in 1921 and 1922, the brood-years from which the present run resulted. They were a
fair average in size, the males and females about equally distributed. No log-jams were to
be seen.
The men at the camp at Quap River were busy spawning and had nearly completed filling
the hatchery with eggs. No difficulty had been experienced in making the collection, due to
the abnormal run that had returned. The freshet which had caused so many sockeye to escape
above the fence at Jeneesee created the same conditions here. In passing up through to the
headwaters above 5 miles distant, sockeyes in dense masses lined the beds, while schooled up in
the deep pools thousands waited; below the fence and out in the bay there seemed to be no
diminution in numbers. The scene is a repetition of the vast numbers that have returned to
this river in the last few years.
The spawning-heds at the Hatchery Greek contained their full quota of sockeye and came
well up to the average of former years. They were fine specimens of the race, averaging in
size larger than the runs that had been noted on the other tributaries of the lake. SPAWNING-BEDS  OF RIVERS INLET.
E 07
The spawning-beds surrounding the Indian rancherie and in the upper portion of the
Owikeno River received a run of sockeye this year comparing with the unexampled return last
year, providing the Indians with all they required for their winter's need. In passing down
through the rapids to the mouth, spring and chum salmon could be seen spawning in great
numbers.
In summarizing the results of the inspection of the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet, I am of
the opinion that the favourable conditions which were noted on all the tributaries, especially
those at the head of the lake, showed clearly that a run of sockeye of greater proportions
returned to the inlet than was the case in 1921 and 1922. Not only did the packers put up a
larger pack, amounting to about 70,000 cases, but the spawning-beds showed' a corresponding
increase. Since the spawning-beds in the brood-years contained a run of only moderate proportions, it must be assumed that in assisting the natural spawning by replenishing the rivers and
creeks with millions of eggs from the hatchery, added to which millions of young fry are turned
loose into them each year, the Dominion fishery authorities have at last found a solution to the
difficulty of ensuring an increase in the run of sockeye each year.
In conclusion, I wish to express my thanks to the management of the B.C. Fishing and
Packing Company; to Mr. Tingley, Superintendent of the Dominion Hatchery; and to the men
at the camp for courtesies extended.
Respectfully submitted.
Arthur W. Stone,
Fisheries Overseer.
Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 15th, 1926. E 68
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP SMITH INLET.
Hon. William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—I have the honour to submit my report upon the inspection of the spawning-beds at
Smith Inlet for the year 1926.
Taking into consideration the record number of boats fishing at this point during the fishing
season, it was doubtful whether the inspection of the spawning-beds would disclose conditions
detrimental to such intensive operations, but, strange as it may seem, such was not the case.
The escapement to the spawning-beds showed an improvement in comparison with the runs
which returned in 1921-22. This favourable condition was partly due to a larger run of sockeye,
as was evidenced by an increase in the pack—namely, 20,000 cases—as compared with the packs
put up in the brood-years, and partly to the great number of fishing-boats spread all over the
inlet, breaking up the schools of salmon, in such a manner that it was a rare occasion a fisherman'
was lucky enough to make a big haul at any one time; the fish, becoming scared, swam deep
and avoided the nets. To such an extent did this happen that many of the fishermen were of
the firm opinion that no harm would be done if the close season was eliminated, providing of
course rigid observance of the fishing boundary was maintained, but such a drastic step could
not be contemplated, since it would not be to the interests of conservation.
On being informed that Long Lake, the breeding-ground of the sockeye salmon, was at an
extremely low stage, it was not considered advisable to make the inspection until it had risen
sufficiently to permit of the fish reaching the beds. It was therefore not until September 27th
that a move was made in this direction. Making camp at the foot of the lake, I examined the
Docee River (the overflow to the lake), and am able to report a fine run of springs; in the
clear water hundreds could be seen spawning and also along the shore-line at the mouth. The
run of this species of salmon is in striking contrast to the poor showing last year. Intermingled
with the springs, schools of cohoe salmon were observed.
The heavy rainfall that occurred at this time made travelling very uncomfortable, and on
arriving at the head of the lake we were glad enough to make camp and dry out. The Geluch
River had in the meantime rapidly risen, a situation which compelled us to remain in camp
until it had subsided. When it was possible at last to see the spawning-beds under favourable
conditions I was agreeably surprised to find the beds, from the mouth up to the falls, covered
with sockeye salmon in dense numbers, all more or less in the green stage, evidence that they
had only just come in. The small streams adjacent to the river were not productive, on account
of bars thrown up by former freshets preventing the salmon from gaining entrance; in one
instance, however, where a fresh stream had been formed, thousands of sockeye lined the beds.
The fish were a fair average in size, the males and females being about equally represented.
No log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the movement up-stream.
Outside along the shore-line at the head of the lake, schools of sockeye salmon were still
waiting to go on the spawning-beds, which, combined with the big run that had already taken
possession of the beds inside, should provide a run of salmon equal in all respects to that which
returned in 1922. In 1921, it will be recalled, the run of sockeye to this river was very
unsatisfactory.
The Delebah River, situated about 2 miles from the head of the lake, contained a run of
sockeye equal in extent to the fine showing that returned in 1922. Schooled up in great numbers
just inside the river, the fish seemed in no hurry to commence spawning; farther up the gravel-
beds were literally alive with spawning fish all in an advanced stage of spawning, while outside
at the entrance and in the bay thousands upon thousands waited. I have no hesitation in
predicting a big return from the eggs which will be deposited this season from this river.
A log-jam, to which I referred last year,. is assuming greater proportions and should receive
attention, or will with each succeeding freshet act to the detriment of the spawning-beds. In size
the sockeye were similar to the run observed at the Geluch River, the males and females about
equal in numbers.
The restricted spawning-beds at the Quay Creek contained a fair run of sockeye, not quite
as large as the return in 1922, but far in excess of the 1921 run. Males predominated over the
females in the proportion of two to one and were a fair average in size. SPAWNING-BEDS  OF  SMITH INLET.
E 09
A few cohoe salmon were observed breaking water as we returned down the lake, and on
reaching the Docee River once more a big run of these fish had come in. Reports received from
the seine fishermen showed that the run of cohoe was larger than usual. The humpback run
was a failure, being the poorest known in years. Chum salmon, on the other hand, were caught
in very large numbers and encouraged the packers to keep open their plants two weeks later.
In summing up the results of the inspection of this watershed, I am of the opinion that the
fine showing of sockeye on the spawning-beds will be reflected in a big return four and five years
hence from the seed deposited this season. With the large and increasing number of fishermen
operating on the inlet each year, it is not to their interests to indulge in illegal fishing. The
spawning-grounds are of such a restricted character that, unless conservation is practised
unremittingly, they are hound to suffer in time, with a consequent loss not only to the canners
but to the fishermen themselves.
Respectfully submitted.
A. W. Stone,
Fisheries Overseer.
Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 15th, 1926. E 70
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE NASS RIVER.
Hon. William Sloan,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.
Sir,—In obedience to instructions received from the Department to inspect the salmon-
spawning areas in the Meziadin watershed of the Nass River, I have to inform you that this
duty has been fulfilled and beg to submit the following report:—
As in previous years, it was arranged that I should join forces with the Dominion Fishery
Officer in making an inspection of this watershed. Upon my arrival at Stewart I met Mr. A. E.
Young, who was again detailed for this work by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. We
proceeded to make provision for pack-horses, prepare our outfit, and engage two capable assistants
for the trip. After this was accomplished we left Stewart on September 8th and arrived at
the head of Meziadin Lake on the 11th. We found the trail in very poor condition, being badly
overgrown with brush. All of the bridges need repairs as the puncheon in them is rotten, the
horses continually breaking through when passing over. Upon our arrival at the head of
Meziadin Lake we found that the Dominion Fisheries Department's canvas canoe had received
bad usage since we put it away last fall, and we had difficulty in again making it seaworthy.
It is not to be expected that the canoe will be in good enough condition to use next season.
After getting the canoe in shape we inspected the sockeye-spawning grounds at the head of the
lake and for 5 miles down on each shore-line. Spawning sockeye were to be observed at many
places, but they were not congregated in large numbers. The salmon appeared to be those of an
early run and were in an advanced stage, which showed that they had been in the lake for a
considerable period.    There were four or five males to every female.
Having completed this inspection at the head of the lake, we left for the Meziadin Falls
and arrived there in the evening of September 15th. On our journey down the lake very few
fresh-run salmon were to be seen leaping as is. usual, and there was little sign of salmon at the
mouths of Hanna River and McLeod Creek.
On arriving at the falls in the Meziadin River, where the fishway is located, we were disappointed in finding very few salmon of any kind congregated below. There were not more than
ten or fifteen in the pools of the fishway at any one time and they were passing through very
slowly. At the time of our first observations at the falls there appeared to be about 100 or 150
below the fall on the far side. These were salmon of an early run. The fresh run of sockeye
which usually arrive at the time of our inspection were very few in numbers and no improvement was noticed during our ten days' stay. The fresh-run sockeye were in splendid condition
and were of large size, measuring, from 28 to 30% inches in length. In comparing conditions
at the falls with last season, the number of salmon was very small. During the 1925 season
the basins of the fishway were full all the time, the fish passing through continually. This
condition prevailed during the whole of our stay, the basins each holding about 200 salmon, while
this season only a few salmon were assembled, and at the time of our departure most of the
salmon which had reached the fall had passed through the fishway.
While at the fishway I obtained scales, measurements, etc., from forty-four sockeye taken
from the Meziadin River, and also fished a net in the Nass River, 2 miles above the outlet of
the Meziadin River. The results obtained from the operations in the Nass River were disappointing.   The net was fished continually for eight days, with the following results:—■
Sockeye. Cohoe.
September 18      2 2
September 19      1
September 20     3
September 21      2 1
September 22      2 1
September 23	
September 24 	
September 25     1
Totals   11 4 SPAWNING-BEDS OF NASS RIVER.
E 71
The water in the Nass was very low at this time. Had there been an average run of salmon
above the Meziadin watershed, these operations would have shown far better results. In taking
the scales and measurements great care was used so that the salmon in most cases were liberated
alive and uninjured.
On Sunday, September 19th, we inspected the spring-salmon spawning-beds, which are
situated at the foot of the McBride Rapids in the Meziadin River, about half a mile below the
outlet of the lake and 3% miles above the falls. Observations show that the run of spring
salmon to this watershed was on an average with past seasons. I had received instructions to
obtain specimens of trout from the Meziadin, and while there caught thirteen specimens, preserved them in formalin, and duly forwarded them to Dr. W. A. Clemens, Pacific Biological
Station, Nanaimo. To show the depredations these trout make on the spawning-beds, I opened
one trout and in its stomach found sixty-five spring-salmon eggs. These eggs were in an
advanced condition, clearly showing the well-formed young fish. In fishing for trout at this
place they are so numerous that when you pull one in several more are to be seen following
it to the surface of the water. If other trout consume eggs as the one examined the toll on
spring-salmon eggs must be enormous.
The run of cohoe to the Meziadin this season was noticeable by their absence. There were
only a few to be seen and these were mostly small-sized fish and runts. At the time of our
departure from the fishway there was no improvement in the cohoe run.
The fishway is in splendid condition, the crib-work, basins, and cement-work being in perfect
shape. During our absence since last fall a large growth of bushes had taken place between the
logs of the crib-work.    These we cleared out, leaving the fishway in its original condition.
After completing our work at the Meziadin falls we started our return journey on September
26th, arriving in Stewart on September 30th.
Summary.—In making a summary of conditions found on the salmon-spawning beds in the
Meziadin watershed of the Nass River, J have to submit that there was not a satisfactory
escapement of sockeye to this district. From observations taken at the head of the lake there
was a fair run of sockeye during the earlier part of the season. The late runs of sockeye at
the mouth of the Nass at the canneries are in appearance distinguishable from those of the
earlier runs. While some salmon from this run were to be seen below the falls, their numbers
were anything but encouraging.
The cohoe run to this watershed did not materialize up to the time of our leaving, September
26th, and it is not to be expected that they would come through in quantity after that date.
From previous observations cohoe are arriving early in September and continue during the time
of our inspection.    This season their numbers were few.
The run of spring salmon should be on an average with past seasons, and it would be much
larger if the trout did not make such a heavy toll on the spawn deposited. It is apparent from
the trout examined and mentioned earlier in this report that they not only wait behind the
salmon when the eggs are expelled, but also rob the nests when deposited.
The stage of water during the time of our visit was below normal.
Respectfully submitted.
C. P. Hickman,
Inspector of Fisheries. THE FOOD VALUE OF SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH.
By John Pease Babcock.
It is the purpose of this paper to give in simple terms a brief digest of our present knowledge
regarding the nutritive value of some of our most commonly used food-fish. The facts here
recited are drawn wholly from a recent publication of the United States Bureau of Fisheries
on the " Nutritive Value of Fish and Shell-fish."*
Human food-supplies, as a whole, should furnish enough digestible organic foodstuffs to
meet the body's needs for energy; sufficient proteins; and enough vitamins. The bulk of most
staple foods consists of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, minerals, and vitamins. With the exception
of carbohydrates, all are abundantly contained in fish and shell-fish.
The sea, Clark and Clough, in the above-named bulletin, tell us, is not merely an expanse
of . water, but may be likened to productive fields of land—it is alive. Its green plants,
microscopic or otherwise, are built up into organic matter in the forms of vegetable products.
They in turn are eaten by lower forms of animal life, and they too support higher forms; and
finally man utilizes some of the links in the chain, such as seaweeds, shell-fish, and fish.
Ultimately all fish in the sea are dependent for their stores of energy upon sunlight, which is
originally fixed by green plants. The fishes, like domesticated animals and birds., transform
raw material into human foods. The human body is built up out of the foods eaten; it maintains itself in the same way, and makes good its losses and eliminates all waste products. In
other words, it is a transforming machine for the production of form and energy. The human
body is a super-machine in converting foods into body-heat and work that is nearly 100 per cent,
perfect.    All other machines are far behind in efficiency.
Chemists who, after years of study, have determined the fixed value of foods use a common
unit in their measurements which they term the " calorie." A calorie is the amount of heat
necessary to raise the temperature of 1 lb. of water 4° F. The human body to create energy
changes the stored energy in foods into heat to keep the normal temperature of 98.6° F.
Many foods, particularly fish, contain larger amounts of so-called protein and fat types of
food material than do carbohydrates types (starch and sugar), which so characterize vegetable
foods. Fat and oil have the highest food value. They are the most concentrated forms of
energy. They supply the quickly burned fuels of the body, while the proteins play a particularly
important part in replacing losses from wear and tear of body-cells. Both proteins and nitrogenous constituents of foods, and the carbohydrates, or starch constituents, have the same fuel
value—namely, 1,860 calories per pound. On the other hand, fats have a food value of 4,220
calories per pound. In addition to the proteins, fats and starches, which constitute by far the
greater proportion of our foods, there is another highly important food essential—namely, the
inorganic matter commonly given in food-value tables as " ash." All living matter contains ash.
In bones and teeth the ash content is very high. Because human bodies can neither be built nor
function without inorganic substances, our foods must contain them. Fish and shell-fish contain
unusually wide ranges of mineral elements.
The pioneer work on the composition of North American food-fish was performed by
Professor W. O. Atwater for the United States Bureau of Fisheries between 1880 and 1887.
His work is a classical piece of research on the composition of certain classes of food material
that has not been surpassed in completeness and thoroughness by any investigator on fishery
products. He gives a highly condensed summary of the composition of the edible portions of
over forty of the most common of American fresh fish.
* Document No. 1000. FOOD VALUE OF  SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH.
The following taken from his tabulation gives the composition of the edible portions of some
of the most common fishes consumed in British Columbia:—
Name.
Total
Solids.
Fat.
Protein.
Ash.
Fuel Value
per Pound.
Per Gent.
36.4
24.6
27.5
17.4
25.3
20.8
21.3
22.2
15.8
28.8
Per Cent.
17.8
5.2
7.1
0.4
11.'2
1.8
1.9
2.1
0.6
4.2
Per Cent.
17.8
18.6
19.5
16.5
13.2
17.0
1S.1
19.2
14.2
23.1
Per Cent.
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
Calories.
1,080
565
660
Cod	
325
718
Smelt	
405
415
Trout	
445
290
Whale-meat (mammal)	
607
The above shows that there is a considerable variation in the composition and food value
of our fish. Salmon heads the list with a percentage of fat of 17.8, 17.8 of protein, and has a
fuel value of 1,080 calories per pound. Eulachan ranks second with 11.2 per cent, of fat, 13.2
per cent, of protein, and has fuel value of 718 calories per pound. Herring ranks third with
7.1 per cent, of fat, 19.5 per cent, of protein, and 660 calories. Cod has 0.4 of 1 per cent, of fat,
16.5 per cent, of protein, and 325 calories. Flounder has 0.6 of 1 per cent, of fat, 14.2 per cent,
of protein, and 290 calories.
Most more recent investigators point out one difficulty in drawing general conclusions from
Atwater's tabulations. He apparently analysed but one or two samples of different species of
fresh fish. Clark, Clough, Dill, and others found great variation in the composition of the same
kinds of food-fish, due to several factors. They found that individual fish in the same school
and caught at the same time often differed widely in composition and they ascribed it to the
greater success of some fish in securing a greater amount of foods. Then, too, there is the
important factor—namely, the proximity to the time of spawning. Dill and Green checked the
important Pacific food-fish and showed seasonal variations in food and values, generally in the
tendency towards an increase in fat content from spring to fall, due to the recognized fact that
fish feed and grow more rapidly in summer than in winter months. Green showed also that
spring salmon (quinnat) during the spawning migration suffer deterioration, particularly as
regards fat content, and to a lesser extent in protein. The flesh of the salmon is gradually
depleted of fats and proteins in the development of its eggs and milt and by its exertions in
its spawning migration. He determined the flesh-tissue of the Columbia Eiver spring (quinnat)
salmon at different dates and different distances from the sea during their migration, and gives
them as follows :—
Where taken.
Date.
Total
Solids.
Fat.
Protein.
Ash.
Organic.
Aug. 15-20	
Per Cent.
36.83
37.32
36.64
31.02
20.32
_J
Per Cent.
16.43
17.17
16.33
10.73
2.63
Per Cent.
16.97
16.8S
17.01
Per Cent.
0.90
0.89
0.95
Per Cent.
2.48
2.49
July 11-31	
2.49
700 miles from sea.	
Sept. 6-11	
Aug. 25-28	
16.31      j       1.00
1-3.71              0.94
2.94
2.99
The above evidences the fact that the food value of fresh salmon depends largely upon the
time of year they are taken and the place where they are caught. Their food value deteriorates
rapidly after they enter fresh water, for the well-known, reason that they cease feeding and are
subject to great exertion in their ascent of the rivers, and at the same time are developing their
eggs and milt.
Not only is there great variation in the seasonal value of the flesh of salmon, but in different
parts of the same fish the flesh varies in richness. In the case of both red- and white-meated
spring salmon it has been shown that slices taken near the head of some fish were 100 per cent. E 74
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
richer in fat content than the slices taken near the tail of that fish. That is why the discriminating buyer, the price being equal, demands cuts from the head end of the salmon.
It has often been stated that the Columbia River spring (quinnat) salmon are richer and
finer in flavour than those taken from any other waters on the coast:. Clark and Clough,
however, found that the spring salmon taken in Puget Sound waters averaged about the same
as those taken in the Columbia. They also developed the fact that the white-fleshed spring
salmon of Puget Sound compared favourably with the red-fleshed spring salmon when taken
at the same time and at the same place, and showed little or no differences in fat content. They
state, however, that more work is necessary to conclusively prove that the colour and food value
have any necessary relation.
As to the relative food value "of our five species of salmon, it has been shown that our
cheaper grades—the pink and the chum salmon—usually contain less fat, but that they are
equal to the spring and the sockeye in protein—tissue-building material—which is the most
essential and valuable constituent in fish and shell-fish.
Referring to canned-fish products, we are advised that in the case of the salmon there are
few changes in the processing except the addition of salt. On the other hand, in the ease of
sardines and other fish in which olive or other oil is added, the food value is increased in
calories but not in protein.
Clark and Clough, in dealing with the food value of frozen fish, reached the conclusion
that the process of freezing and storage of fish in cold rooms is one in which there is no
appreciable change in quality or food value. Regarding salt fish, we are advised that fundamentally the salting of fish results in the elimination of water. Whether fish are dried naturally
or salted, the effect is the same. Because a considerable proportion of the water is removed
by salting or drying, salt fish like cod and smoked herring are highly concentrated forms of
protein—body-building. In the case of smoked herring there is the additional advantage of a
high percentage of fat. Salt cod does not gain much in food value from1 its fat content, but it
has a percentage of 26.3 per cent, of protein and a fuel value of 502 calories per pound.
Generally speaking, the food value of shell-fish is not as high as fish-flesh, for the reason
that they do not contain very much fat. On the other hand,.this class of sea-food contains some
carbohydrates, or starchy types of nutrients, which is unusual in other sea-foods, and they
contain considerable quantities of protein, and their delicate and unusual flavours add variety
to the diet and whets the appetite. The following table gives the composition of the edible
portions of some shell-fish:—
Name.
Total
Solids.
Fat.
Protein.
Ash.
Carbohydrates.
Fuel Value
per Pound.
Per Cent.
22.9
20.6
15.8
13.1
22.7
Per Cent.
2.0
1.7
1.1
1.2
0.4
Per Cent.
16.6
13.6
8.7
6.2
19.3
Per Cent.
3.3
2.5
1.9
2.0
1.5
Per Cent.
1.2
2.8
4.1
3.7
1.7
Calories.
415
Fresh clams	
377
285
235
Fresh shrimps	
407
In order to appreciate the real significance of fish and shell-fish in the diet it is necessary
to make some comparisons in highly condensed form between the composition of fish and that
of animal and vegetable foods. It has already been shown that the great value of fish is their
content of protein. Some fish contain as much or more fat than meat, but generally they do
not. Fish do, however, compete wTith meat in the dietary on the basis of cost of the protein
involved. The tabulations contained in the bulletin from which we quote make comparisons
between different fish, animal, and vegetable food products on the basis of cost which are too
long and complicated to be used here, though they serve a very useful purpose in making comparisons of the cost of protein content, the essential ingredient, and by which It is shown that
fish compare well with meat products in the matter of protein. And they show that where
fuel value is considered it is lowest in the case of vegetable products like wheat, corn-meal,
potatoes, etc.
The United States Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1000, from which the foregoing has
wholly been compiled,  is  a most valuable summarizing of present  knowledge regarding  the ■
FOOD VALUE OF SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH.
E 75
nutritive value of fish and shell-fish foods. The various chapters it contains were prepared
by scientists qualified to write on the subject, and who show that fish and shell-fish furnish
an excellent supply of very valuable proteins and fats, and as a source of certain vitamins and
minerals they are of great importance and should be given their proper place in the diet.
We cannot do better, in concluding this brief review of the " Nutritive Value of Fish andi
Shell-fish," than to quote the. following paragraphs from Dr. Eugene Lyman Fisk, Medical
Director of the Life Extension Institute :—
" Fish is interchangeable with meat. It has, for the most part, the same deficiencies as meat
—that is, lack of vitamins and minerals—but as a source of protein it is quite the equal of meat
and, in fact, more digestible than most foods we use in a mixed diet.
" There is a slight difference in favour of most fish as compared to most meat. The notion
that fish is incompatible with other types of food, such as milk, is pure superstition. Fish can
be safely eaten with other kinds of food by the average individual. There is, however, no
mysterious, peculiar virtue in a fish diet. It does not make more brain, nor is it a good substitute
for meat, where meat is undesirable, as in some forms of disease. There is plenty to be said in
favour of a larger use of fish, without ascribing to it any mysterious virtues which it does not
possess." Ci   -f   Cl   Cl    IO   GO   r-
r-
Mt-COHW^iaOf-t-     -
Cl   ©   rH   ©   Cl   Cl   CO   rr*   ' IO
t-   CO   GO   CO   t-   Cl   c
lf
i
co io io Oi go io co t- ci co   c
i
C0©-r1*O©©rHt—     ©
CO  CO  C-1   Ci  rt*  T-i  C
0
i
o  t- so »o CO CO •* CO rH  IO    >C
>
ti c
GO  Oi  ©  Cl   I>  Q0
Ci Ol -r-i  CO t- X .c
«
COCl-rHCl'^-rih-COCOCl    t-
IO   O   Cl   h-   Cl   ©   ©   00
CO
KO   C7i   IO   Cl   rH   rH
l>
t-fO'tlCOCl-rtlrH           C0C0C
5
Cl
rH   Cl
Cl
Oi O CO Ci -HH  t-
>r
S
HOQHMI-h^HCi.    b
CD  r-
10 io co •* co    ;
t-
a
Ol  CO  CI  i-H  ©  00
i
tOt-t-t-OMNOOt-    C
00  CO'  ©  tH  ©   h-  ©
<M
CS   t-   N  15  M  IO
'■
IO  CO  I-  CO  Cl  CO   t>  Cl  ©   t—    it"
1
©   ©   rH
1-
ft
IO   t-  CO  ©  Cl  CO
0
.
C0©rHCi           rH                   r-OJP
■
r-i   ©   CO
H
-^   rH   rH
Oi   Cl   CO   rH   -tH   Cl
ex
CC
>
rH             rH                                        rH               «
j
j
ci a
© co ci ci 00    :
rH
1
Cl   Ol   t-   Cl   t-   IO   00   CO   CD   l>     t-
H
IO   ©   rH   Cl   OI   N-
»r
■
CO^rHlOrHCOCO-tlt-CO     0
)'
©   r-
Cl     ©     Cl     ©     T-i
IO   Ol   -HH   lO   OI   Cl
c
rHClrHCOCOOllO-^lCO©     C
■
00 ir
©  CO  CO  Cl  T-i
CO
rH   Cl  IO  Cl
c
ClCl-t-COlOCOrHTflCOrH
-
■
rH
CO            rH   rW
Cl
ft
rH   tH
Cf
COrHClClfHClrH          rHCl
0
H
1?
o
CO  b-  O  O  t—  CO
c
oicot-cociiocooi©b-
0
Cl c
r-(  CO  Cl  ©  r-
©
H
o
rH   -ri   -fl   r-i   IO   rH
0
IOrHrH'+^fl©©COCOCO
-
IO   t-
©   ©   ©   CI   ©
on
H
o
O   CO   "Hi   Oi   ©   CO
1-
OOCOHii'tMHCOHiiCC
c
rH   r-
CI           r-i   Cl   Cl
7!
—
rH
<
M
o
Cfl
A
o
U
rf   CO   Cl   Cl    rH    r-i
c
CD   rH   rH   Tp           Cl"                  tH   tH*
c
-'
Cl   rH   CO
i>
m
r?i
<
_-, 02
ED'S
80,2
Cl   CO
-
CO
»o 0
IO 1- © ©
-1
rH
rH
'J!_
-1
w
r-i   Cl
-t
Cl
-H  t-
ci »o Tfl CO
t-
^
1-1
s
to
a.
O
■8
t-  Cl   -H
CO  IO
cr
65
d
10 Oi -fi
io go
r
o
OJ
ci" ©
ty
H
3
r~<
\A
-1
a.
o
f£
<j
C/_
O
£$
-O  IO  -H  CO   t-i  rH
a
3
©  T-i  -ti  -HH  IO
h-  IO  ©
c
CO
CO
Cl Ci © Oi Oi co
ic
C5
r-l r- ci co ©
rH   Cl   CO
-
*#
rH   CC.
«1
pq
M
3-S
b-  I— CO  CO   IO  CO
©   rH   rH           rH
IO
C-
.    q
CD   CO   IO   rH   rH
P
H
©
§
c
5
■+.»
§
H
ce
-    (^
_s
s.
P
s
tj «i
Oi
Oi
10 o
Cf
S
IS   t-   Hj   M-
CO
Cl
»r
CO
: ci 00    : ©
CO
>—
rt =JJ
CO
CO
t=-  Cl
t-   CO   rH   00   O
t-
lO
t-
-^
»(.
c
o
a
m
M
B5
M
P
Si
T3 fl
©^
CO
^  Cl
c
o-
Ci   ^H   b-   r-i   r-i
cf
r
&
§
IO
w
-
-
—
*a
i—i
Ph* be
Cl   IO  o
-H  Ol
©
ci .co © co qi co ci ©
t-
CD
©
H
-1
>-..9
CO   CO   rH
IO o
©   t—   -fl   ^f    t-   rH             t-
PQ
<
TM   Cl
Cl
Tfi   i-H  CO                 Cl
-*
fe
O
CJ
CO   IO  T-i  Ci  Cl  CO   r-
0
tOCiCOC0Cl-+iC0-tilOC0
c
© ©
©   00   IO   Cl   ©   Trl
H
§
CO    Cl    r-l   rH    O    r-   C
or
cococioiococit—t>ri
T
© -f
rfl    -fl    CO   rH   Cl    h-
on
Cl   CO   Cl   rH   I-   Ci   C
cr
co 'Ci rH t- ci ci t- a © r-
cr
Cl  c
© CO t- ©        00
]-
M
,M
Q
M
CO  IO  O  CO  00  Ci  c
ir
r-b-COCOt-rH-tlClrrl-tl
a>
CO  ©
IO  ©   ©  CO          CO
to
O
03
CO     T-i     T-i
oc
rH           rH                   rH
./.
Cl
so
<
o
rC
f—
a    ;
rl
sa
J
+J
rJ
a     :
6
g
d
3
d
c
0
S 2 «
1
3     :
Z     j
w
J
C   r-l   -
..^    r
hJ
+-_ a
O
^ "C
J   :J
J      •
a
.9 J CJ ^
_3    -     ►"
-CJM   O  _- ^-r-
c J
CO        -        g       ;
O CJ d H-  0 J     :
be bJDO H O     ^     i
^ U a  o o a c
°a be -a  p a, fl
nrt | .S d be m w ,S 5 2
a     w .H •« to u ;   y "   c
B 13    . 41 M «  g fe        fe   >
tf   c
s .S m » be 6     :
Q
0
z
1—
bi
r=
Sl^Sa  I
. S .s £ 3 g
1
r
OQ
.    B0    «    2    Ci    fl   hH
rj « a S  *  5 *
^i   o   ri   o   tn ,5
s eh « ft s s h a 1 .j
■ H T, s  5 S   » '_   S  i
^
cj M   cd   a
.5 iS I
K
ft
w
qK
S a S 3 5 0
PC
c
^
^
«
-
Hs
pc
H
«
«
I
IS
C
s
y
y
pe
r-
p.
<
t
ps
?f.
CS PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, 1920.
Old©
t-
y->  ©  Cl  ©   Iff
Cl   CO   ©   C
rH   t-   1—   CO
iC
C0©©ClrHC0ThC0CirH©
c
1
CO  CO  CO
©   IO   t—   CO   i-T
iO   -ti   CO   r-
©   CO   ©   CO
•HOiacOMrlcOWHiMO
c
i
CO  Cl  ©
0
OO    Th    ©    t-       t^-
©CCrH©©COCOrH
V
t-   r-i   r-i   t-{   »o   Cl   Ol   Cl   rH   CO   IO
1-
t-   t-   CO
6c
CO   CO   CO   t-i
c
©    1-i    IO    t-
tt
t-    t-    T-i
cr
©rHClIOO©rHrH©©rH
I-
.
rH  C^  CO  Cl
©
Th    ©    ©    Tt
T
CO   Th   Cl
*
b-
Th   T-i   Th   rfl   Th   rH   IO  Cl   Cl   Cl   CO
*
^
w
l> Oi »Q
^
T-i  CO  CO  ©
Cl
© rH io
CO-   rH   rH   ©
o-
HH»«M00©r-!D«mO
O1
i
rH
K
-ri   ©   Cl   ©
T
00  CO  b-
c-
I-   CO   ©
HOHOdOHQOHCO
a
)
©   ©   Th   ©
cr
CO   Oi   CO
lO  rfl   IO
c
©iOb-OThClTh©t-©00
V
j
"
rH   rH   IO   ©
1-
-ti   ©   CO
CO         IO
t-    CO    Th
Cl   Cl   r-i
a
©   Cl    t-   ©    h-   IO   rH    rH    ©   Ci   IO
Cl   Cl   CO             CO            rH
Tj
©   rH   ©
C*
CO   Cl   CO   Cl
)-
n
Or
w
© © t- c
T*
ffl-f   CO
&
©   rH   Th   CO   CO   Cl   ©
© ©
©  CO  ©
CC
t—   IO   CO   IO
i-
CO   Tfi    ©   r-
c
b-   CO   CO
coi^©r-.^o©ci
© ©
IO
©
rH   ©   ©   ©
oc
©  ©  o  ©
a
b-   CO   ©
ir
ThrHCl;+rH*t|E--HH
T-i    00
-£ Cl" -ti" 01'
©
rH   rH   rH   l-
a
CO   ©   rH
c
©'                  ri H   H   id" IV
tH   ©"
tt
rH   Cl   '
)'-
t-i  IO  rH  %
r-
Cl   Cl
©
(C
Cl                   i-H                           r-i       •   rH   -H
y
© CO io
-r
CO  ©  IO  ©
-t
CO  CO  CO
Tt
h- ©
©
ClClXCS©01!O©ClC0h-
IO   Cl   CO
©
©  IO  ©  Cl
fc-
Cl  CO  CO
Cr
CO  -ti
t-lOC0Ol©t-T-H©TtiCO©
r
a co t- ci
c
Th
CO   rH   rH
P"
CO
ci
1-
Cr
"
©CO©r>-COrHClClCOThCO
©" l> Oi "5 H* iH ©"                    oo"
»r
IT
a1
©  ©  CO  Cl
IO
■:    :     :    :     : co
CO  Hi  CO  IO
1-
Cl
?'-
.      . ,    ,H
©
c
l
Th
CO
a
1
.s
©
Ir
Ci*
£-
•
Tjf
>C
.
j
°C
V
+&
•I
co
o
■h
•2
©    :    :
©
y
H  OJ  (M
-H   CO   r-
JO
t-
90
S
00    ©    "HH    t^
rH  Cl  CO  Cl
iO
»o
tt
CO
IO
z
Q
5
Ol   rH           rH
i"
^
■*
«
i
rw»
*-H
§
	
O
^
o
Kj
"5
r__£
Cl   ©
«
qp
•O  T-i   i-i   Tp
r-
&,
CO
Cl
C
£s
Ci
-h
©
0*
Ho
rH  Th
ir
Cl  Cl  Cl  Th
\c
e
rh
C
s
50
©
Cl
c
*S
CO   H           rH
t-
IO
ir
o
Cl
Cl
tt
5
fei
s
5
£
r5
-
s
[ja.
o
O Ci
i-
Cl   Cl   OS   CO
Th   CO   CO   !>•
*#   t#          ©
Cl" rH
©
©
T*
5
©  ©  CO
CO   rH   O0
Cl   ©   ©
Ol   ©
-h t-
b-   rH
©
©
c
1-
G-
cr
"
©   Th   rH
'     laJrH   Hi
©
ci ©    : ci
I   Th   rH
a
Th    : © ©    : io hi h
© r-
C
IO ci -*fi
o
Cl   «   rH   ©
O
IO
f
©
Th
t— i—
Cl   CI   CO
io ©
t-
Cl  CO  CO
■c
CO   ,ra„ CO  Cl
C
©
i-
fc*.
CO   t-i
t-   IO  ©
Cl Cl
-
b-   t-   Cl
t-
CO ira ci th
\r
©
CO   rH
IO
ir
0
—
r—
«
t;
J
j
rj
)JJ
r
o
fS
U
'CJ
5    1
o
O
T3
•d
o
•O
tJO
^
.""
3
31
5
■J
D    1
JSii;
a
bj. -
s £
3 ►-
ft c
=8   t,
3
a1.!
aa a
a
a
«j
a
cf
|
c
a
.5  a
X
bC  ii    r-
a A -r,
Sa   - *~
a   »
W  02  t-
°8        H       &
wis
.J a t;
o      a "^
O    r ri r-
**>° -   JT
■9 fcJ3 a "C
3 .a  a  a c
6
a o
ri   -■
r c
a a
w  a
o z
0
S
.2 -a  a   +■
a ^ S
M ft .2 al   £
?     gj   c
3q afe ^
&fl c
.3 a:
a^
a
a « S fe | » .3 .„ g ft ^   =
,rrt bo ^-^ & a id 5 ft' a
y    _o«o^ria.tiSg
ri
a S
1 |
CO
ri    d)   Qj
^   ri   o
2  CD    *    <D
S A -3 y
^h   o   §   ri
•3 p.
ri   a.
3   1
|
Is?
E3
fe «
«
ri   r^    «J
.  T4    «  "3
.           0Q           ri        r—
rM   t*  g
9 3 §
u. a S rt
q § §5
I
u a  a
O   ri   o
c
S
5
PC
<
c
P
K
0
C
-=
-
£
V
K
Hi
3
CS
a
H-
^
C
^r
Q
'X E 7S
REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
aa
©
C
CC
<
ft
m
<t]
7,
*
<
5-.
pq
~
*rH
o
t-H
r—I
«
PP
ft
C
M
a
rH   ©
Hi IQ ff
c
0
b-
aaS
Cl   CO   ©   rH   ©   ©   ©
©
Th
Ci  Th  Cl  CO  IO  ©  d"
rH
©  Th   ©  Th   rH
rH   r-i
IO
Th
t-  00   IO   ©   CO   ©   C
CO
B
CO   ©   ©   rH   Ol   ©   t-
©
Th  Cl   IO  rH  t>(  oo   >r
CO
-fl
CJ
Ci   rH   ©   ©   CO   Cl
p
rH   ©   IO
op
t-   Cl   IO   ©   ©   N-   Tf
rH
IO   Cl   ©   rH    IO   »0   tt
CO
rH  Th   l>  ^  ci  CO  tt
b-
©   CO   rH   IO   IO   r-i   C
©
Ch
CO   Cl   Th   ©
t-
CO  ©  ©  CO  ©  r-i  ©
fc-
o
t— co co © t- ci «
©
CO  ©  Cl  IO  t— ©  C-
Th
rfl
o
O
t-  CO  Ci  CO  Cl  rH
CO
Th
-i< BO
CO
S§
©
00 Cl
b-
T-i
01 10
CS
COrj
02
M
OS
©
a
fi
Cl
,o
a
e
OJ ft
CO  ©  Cl  -H  Cl  CO
©
t- T-i io Th io ci
33
Cl           rH           rH
t-
OQ
TJ    •
CO   -HH   Th   ©
©
IO  C5  r-i  IO
Th
^ ft
03«2
-fl
.S. t*
CO
IQ I- r- Cl
©
CM   CO   IO   OO
©
►.S
Cl
Cl           rH   rM
CO
CJ  f-i
fl q,
fe
CO
©  ©  ©  Cl  CO  CO  tt
-ti
©  IO  CO  "HH   rh  Cl  Tj
IO
b-   CO   CO   "HH   00   "HH   r-
b-
o
rH   10   ©   Cl   Cl
rH             r-i   r-i
Th
UI
T
ft
J
O    O
£   A
<J r
o
«
to 6 •=
rJ
DO   1
a
.2  0  5      !* ■+"> O B
■8   60   rf&   .-8   £
5B5
ti; -3 ^ S a S °
°8 ri t* 2 "5 a  >
30" - «ui
3 ffl ft  3 3 * a
ft   O   a ^   t;   a   d
4J
O
EH
rj W S a a « 2
PC
H
B
c
M
w
^
©  rh   10   b-  Oi  IO  Cl   rH
© Cl © T-i "fl T-i Cl 00
00 IO rH Cl t- CO f Cl
Cl*" I—" CO" CO Cl* co" t^" ©"
r>©CirH01t--h©
ci Th co co Th
lOb-h-rHOlCSCOCO
ClClClC0©rHC0©
-HH   10   t- CO   CO   CO  CO
CO" CO   rH~ IO   CO" Th" ©"
CO   ©   rH rH   ©   b-   CO
©   rH   IO   ©   IO   Cl   CO   rH
VOCOrHOOrHfHrHCO
w q a o 00 10 h t-
cf o" Cl"        ©" ©" tD Ci
CO  •
CI
10 <
01
> CO 1
COCO©-^Th©rHh-
00©00©h-rH.O©
l>   CI  Cl   rH  Cl   t-   IO  Th
©   Ci
; co ci
Ol Cl © Ci h-
!   rH   ©
© -HH © co ©
: © ci
rH  Ci                 IO
; © h-
CO   IO  CO   CO   T-i  ©   ©  IO
I— E- Cl 10 iO © © ©
©  © 10        tr- 10 © -h
0
1-
CD
1-.
CO
: ci
OS
TH
r~
CO
; 10
(Hi
CO
t-
CO
CO
: os
00
©
Cl©b-rH©C0rHC0
00 ©  © Cl  Cl  O  © Cl
CO  CO   t-  OS-OS   fc-   rH   CD
10" cf co" t-^ io"       t^" Cl"
CO  CO  IO  r-i   r-i Cl   IO
^o
a a
t>   i>   OJ   a;
««
V
a
CJ
Q Q
EO
5
0
ri
H
M   rH
hi
>
ri
n
r-l
0.
M
bo
Sfl
a
a
0
CJ
>.
a a a a
hsBbjKO^O STATEMENT  SHOWING  SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE.
E 79
STATEMENT   SHOWING   THE   SALMON-PACK   OF   THE   PROVINCE,   BY
DISTRICTS  AND   SPECIES,  PROM  1911  TO  1926,  INCLUSIVE.
Fkasek Rivbe.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
Sockeyes	
85,689
12,783
20,169
88,495
32,256
21,783
13,776
35,385
7,989
25,701
66,111
'99,800
36,717
5,15'2
39,743
2,98'2
4,648
109,495
31,fi'68
21,401
1,822
31,'655
3,854
4,279
103,248
63,645
20,173
15
51,832
10,561
6,300
17,895
29,578
23,587
817
39,631
11,360
;5,949
11,'233
8,178
29,978
1,331
48,399
10,691
4,432
'23,884
12,839
22,934
4,522
38,854
14,519
4,296
15,718
39,363
39,253
Bluebacks and Steelheads...
15,941
Totals	
274,951
276,855
212,059
226,869
140,570
107,'650
136,661
167,944
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
19,697
15,192
24,853
86,215
18,388
40,111
4,395
208,8'57_
148,164
10,197
18,916
59,973
134,442
25,895
4,951
32,146
17,673
11,430
30,934
840
31,330
3,129
127^72^
91,130
'23,228
5,392
18,919
138,305
43,514
31
1'9 8,183
11,209
15,300
74,826
6,272
43,504
719,796
3,573
49
22,220
20,773
16,018
123,879
15,856
9,826
1'2,997
574
36,190
	
■58,487
7,0'28
6,751
Chums	
Pinks	
47,237
142,101
39,740
Totals	
320,519
349,294
782,429
199,322
301,344
Skeena River.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
82,360
30,594
63,527
210,081
30,208
754
81,146
23,445
74,308
130,079
39,168
713
144,747
12,028
■25,588
181,313
26,968
214
131,731
12,247
16,527
145,973
" 31,967
418
96,277
14,176
39,758
301,655
'24,699
1,050
41,018
21,766
1,993
1*24,457
45,033
498
89,364
37,403
3,834
177,679
18,06S
1,218
184,945
25,941
Chums	
31,457
117,303
3'6 559
Steelhead Trout	
2 672
Totals	
407,524
348,859
390,858
338,863
477,915
:234,765
332,S87
398,877
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
123,322
22,931
22,573
161,727
38,759
'4,994
'65,760
16,285
21/516
148,319
3S,456
1,883
60/293
20,933
17,121
73,029
47,409
3,743
116,533
15,273
'5,769
107,578
32,190
1,798
130,166
11,740
8,329
71,021
16,378
'52,927
26,436
92,498
23,833
504
97,5818
39,835
131,066
17,942
70
Pinks	
66,045
18,647
81,956
23,376
Steelhead Trout	
Totals	
374,306
292,219
223,158
279,161
'237,634
164,055
254,258
254,410 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 192(3.
STATEMENT   SHOWING   THE   SALMON-PACK   OF   THE   PROVINCE,   BY
DISTRICTS AND SPECIES, PROM 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE—Continued.
Rivess Inlet.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919. -
65,581
685
11/727
12,815
7,286
11
•192,323
496
11,510
8,625
4,946
94,891
545
4,924
15,105
1,980
116,850
■599
3,242
10,057
1,526
53,584
323
311
24,292
1,120
82
4S.615
364
173
5,303
4/718
97
125,742
1,793
1,226
25,647
2,90S
56,258
1,442
7,089
6,538
Pinks           	
9,038
	
Totals	
98,105
217,900
117,445
132,274
79,712
59,272
133,248
80,367
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
Sockeyes	
Springs	
53,401
1,409
'6/729
29,542
12,074
61,195
817
16,101
S,06'5
9,124
44,936
1,422
20,144
3,567
15,314
130,355
1,022
5,387
2,964
7,115
89,890
566
5,0:23
5/784
7,789
61,745
594
112,884
1,149
3,845
S.809
11,010
88,763
317
288
'2,097
3,660
5,411
6,287
   1
    1    	
Totals	
103/155
95,302
85,383
146,83S
109,052
68,096
137,697
101,066
Nass River.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
15,929
'5,964
15,392
'50,815
4/274
375
18,945
3,757
22,504
35,530
8,0'27
245
33,590
2,725
26,612
72,496
6,481
1,035
17,S21
3,314
'25,791
44,165
7,894
'595
31,277
2,062
11/277
75,6S7
3,533
235
9,364
2,088
2,176
29,488
S/236
413
16,740
4,857
12,145
43,151
3,700
560
28,259
3,574
24,041
29,949
.    10,900
Totals	
92,749
■89,008
142,939
99,580
124,071
51,765
81,153
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
21,816
4,152
40,368
'59,206
17,061
1,305
22,1SS
4,496
24,938
44,568
22,180
1,125
31,411
3,84'5
11/200
59,593
19,139
1,498
39,349
3,701
11,076
34,S79
15,171
113
31,327
3,385
25/5'69
25,333
9,276
23,574
3,151
2,987
20,539
3,172
36,037
6,936
3,245
12,476
12,468
	
37,327
Chums	
Pinks	
5,189
11 467
7 942
Steelhead Trout	
Totals	
143,908
119,495
126,686
104,289
94,890
53,423
71,162
65 684
* Including 40,000 cases caught in Smith Inlet and 20,813 eases packed at Namu. STATEMENT SHOWING SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE.
E 81
STATEMENT   SHOWING   THE   SALMON-PACK   OF   THE   PROVINCE,   BY
DISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE—Continued.
Vancouver Island Distbicts.
1926.
Sockeyes	
Springs	
Chums	
Pinks	
Cohoes	
Bluebacks-..
Totals
25,070
5,222
174,383
86,113
51,5'51
5,383
1925.
347,722
10,895
5,664
127,520
'51,384
'59,747
4,832
1924.
1923.
15,618
'283
165,161
63,102
30,593
2,510
260,042     '277,267
12,006
138
120/520
30,149
21,342
7/097
1922.
191,252
15,147
886
108,478
36,943
18,575
'5,495
1S5.524
1921.
6,936
3,230
34/431
10,660
11,120
3,151
1920.
6,987
29,211
12,591
14,391
'20,555
69,528
74,170
1919.
6,452
36,013
128,013
43.1S6
53,629
267,293
Queen Chaklotte and other Districts.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
62,383
3,650
348,682
380,243
47,183
973
49,962
5,002
305,256
120,747
40,269
1,520
40,926
4,245
195,357
141,878
26,031
497
24/5 8'4
2,711
148/727
146,943
29,142
73'2
47,107
4.988
80,483
113,824
31,331
409
18,350
4,995
21,412
14,818
18,203
'2,790
64,473
15,633
30,946
247,149
33,807
3,721
'54,677
14,766
165,717
110,300
35,011
Steelheads and Bluebacks...
702
Totals    	
844,114
522,756
408,934
352,839
278,144
I
80,568
395,728
381,163
1918.     I     1917.
1910.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1911.
Sockeyes	
Springs	
Chums	
Pinks	
Cohoes	
Steelheads and Bluebacks
Totals	
51,980
S,'5'S2
90,464
201,847
42,331
1,009
32,902
'6,056
112,364
112,209
30,201
805
294,597
45,373
11,423
160,812
143,615
70,431
712
432,366
98,600
9/488
40,849
83,626
4S,966
87,130
7,108
70,727
111,930
43,254
149,336
7,246 ]
52,758 |
'83,430 j
28,328 j
  I
79,464
22,837
37,734
12S/296
65,806
313,894
320,168
'285,898
334,187
67,866
12,6'59
39,167
64,312
42,457
226,461
Total packed by Districts in 1011 to 1920, inclusive.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
Fraser	
'274,951
407,524
98,105
92/749
347/722
844,139
276,855
348,859
'217,900
89,008
263/904
522,756
212,059
390,858
117,445
142,939
277/267
604,745
226,869
338,863
132,274
99,580
191/252
352,839
140, '570
477,915
79,712
124,071
185,524
278,144
107,650
234,765
59,272
'51,765
69,52.8
80,5 68
136,661
332,787
157,522
81,153
84,170
395,223
167,944
398,877
80,367
97,512
267,293
381,163
Nass Eiver	
Vancouver Island
Grand totals...
2,065,190
1,719,282
1,745,313
1,341,677
1/285,946
■603,548
1,187,616
1,393,156
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
210,85-1
374,216
103,195
143,908
389,815
404,793
402,538
292,219
95,302
119,495
325,723
294,597
127,472
223,158
85,383
126,686
320/519
279,161
146/838
104,289
349,294
237,634
109,052
94,890
782,429
164,055
68,0'9'6
53,423
199,322
254,258
137,697
71,162
301,344
254,410
101,066
65,684
Nass Eiver	
Other Districts   ....
432,366
~995/065—
313,894
320,169
285,898
334,187
226,461
Grand totals...
1,626,738
1/557,485
1,164,701
1,111,039
1,353,901
996,626
948,965
* Including 17,921 cases of sockeye packed at Smith Inlet. E S2
REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.
STATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF THE ENTIRE FRASER
RIVER SYSTEM FROM 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
85,689
44,673
3'5,3S5
112/023
39,743
69,369
31 ,'6 35
47,402
51,832
48,566
39,631
102/967
48,399
62,654
38,854
64,346
Totals    	
130,362
147,408
109,112
79,037
100,398
142,598
111,053
103,200
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
19,697
50,723
148,164
411,538
32,146
84,637
91,130
64/584
198,183
335,230
719,796
1,673,099
123,879
184,680
58,487
127,761
Totals	
70,420
559,702
116,783
155,714
533,413
2,392,895
308,559
186,248
STATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF THE PROVINCE,
BY DISTRICTS, 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE.
1926.
1925.
1924.
1923.
1922.
1921.
1920.
1919.
85,689
82,360
65,581
15,929
25,070
62,383
35,385
81,146
192,323
18,945
14,757
49,962
39,743
144,747
94,891
33,590
15,'618
41,014
31,655
131,731
116,850
17,821
12,006
24/584
51,832
96/277*
53,584
31/277
15,147
47,107
39,631
41,018
48/615
9,364
6,936
18,350
48,399
89/064
125,742
16,740
6,987
64,473
38,854
1S4.945
56,258
28,239
6,452
54,677
337,012
392,518
369,603
334,647
295,224
163,914
351,405
369/445
1918.
1917.
1916.
1915.
1914.
1913.
1912.
1911.
Fraser River	
19,697
123,322
53,401
21,816
6,243
51,980
148,164
65,760
61,195
22,188
9,639
32,902
32,146
60,923
44,936
31,411
9,223
36,150
91,130
116,533
130,350
39,349
198,183
130,166
S9,890
31,327
719,796
52,927
'61,745
'23,374
123,879
92,498
112,884
36,037
58,487
131,066
88,763
Nass River	
37,327
98,660
87,130
149,336
79,464
67,866
Totals	
276,459
339,848
214,789
476,042
536,'696
972,1178
444,762
383,509
* 4,390 cases deducted from Skeena for 1922, Alaska sockeye.
t Vancouver Island's pack not previously segregated.
VICTORIA,  B.C.:
Printed by Charles F. Banfielh, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
1927.
1.825-827-8303

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0226073/manifest

Comment

Related Items