- PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA EEPORT op the COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1922 WITH APPENDICES PRINTED BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. VICTORIA, B.C.: Printed by William H. Cl'llin, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty. 1923. To His Honour Walter Cameron Nichol, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia. May it please Your Honour: I beg to submit herewith the Eeport of the Provincial Fisheries Department for the year ending December 31st, 1922, with Appendices. WILLIAM SLOAN, Commissioner of Fisheries. Provincial Fisheries Department, Commissioner of Fisheries' Office, Victoria, British Columbia, January, 1923. TABLE OF CONTENTS. IERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1922. Page. Standing with other Provinces 5 Species and Value of Fish marketed 5 The Salmon-pack of 1922 6 The Salmon-pack by Districts 6 Contribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon 7 Reports from Salmon-spawning Areas, 1922 13 APPENDICES. Contributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. (Paper No. 8.) By Dr. C. H. Gilbert 16 The Spawning-beds of the Fraser River 49 The Spawning-beds oe the Skeena River 53 The Spawning-beds of the Nass Biver 56 The Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet 59 The Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet 61 The Salmon-pack of 1922 in detail 64 The Salmon-pack of the Province, 1907 to 1922, inclusive 06 The Salmon-pack of Puget Sound, 1907 to 1922 69 The Sockeye-salmon Pack of Province by Districts, 1907 to 1922, inclusive 69 FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1922. Value of Canadian Fisheries and the Standing of Peovinces. The value of the fishery products for Canada for the year 1921 totalled $34,931,935. This total is the lowest since 1914. It is $14,309,404 less than for 1920 and §25,000,000 less than the high record of ,1918, when under war prices and increased demands the total reached $60,250,514. During the year 1921 British Columbia produced fishery products of a total value of $13,953,070, or 31 per cent, of the total fishery products of the Dominion. British Columbia again led all the Provinces of Canada in the value of her fishery products. Her output for 1921 exceeded that of Nova Scotia by $4,175,047, and it exceeded that of all the other Provinces combined by $2,754,028. The following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of the fishery products of the Provinces of the Dominion for the years 1918, 1939, 1920, and 1921:— Value of Fisheries by Provinces, 1918,1919, 1920 and 1921. Province. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec $27,282,223 00 15,143,066 00 6,298,990 00 4,568,773 00 3,175,111 00 1,148,201 00 1,830,435 00 447,012 00 318,913 00 37,820 00 $25,301,607 00 15,171,929 00 4,979,074 00 4,258,731 00 3,410,750 00 1,536,844 00 1,008,717 00 475,797 00 333,330 00 8,800 00 $22,329,161 12,742,659 4,423,745 2,592,382 3,306,412 00 00 00 00 00 $13,953,670 00 9,778,623 00 3,690,726 00 1,815,284 00 3,065,042 00 924,529 00 1,023,107 00 243,018 00 2,108,257 00 408,868 00 28,988 00 The Species and Value of Fish Caught in British Columbia. The total value of each principal species of fish taken in British Columbia for the ending December 31st, 1921, is given in the following statement :— Salmon $ 8,577,602 . Halibut ' 3,636,076 Herring 963,407 Pilchards 101,945 Cod 232,638 Black cod 142,558 Flounders, brill, etc 8,397 Soles 20,174 Crabs 46,889 Clams and quahaugs 41,390 Red cod 10,067 Oysters 21,136 Perch 19,496 Crayfish 12,998 Shrimps 13,066 Smelts 19,430 Octopus 2,933 Sturgeon 5,415 Skate 7,609 Oolachans 1,185 Fur-seals 40,980 Shad 204 Carried forward $13,919,197 year T 6 Report op the Commissioner op Fisheries. The Species and Value of Fish Caught in British Columbia—Continued. Brought forward $13,919,197 Hake and cusk 35 Whiting _ 318 Fish-oil 7,110 Fish-meal 23,110 Fish-fertilizer 3,900 Total $13,953,670 The catch of salmon in 1921 was valued at $8,577,(302, or $0,551,746 less than in 1920 and $8,959,564 less than in 3919. The price received in 1921 was relatively less than in 1920 and much less than in 1919, and the total pack for 1921 was the smallest made in the Province since the industry was fully established. The Salmon-pack of 1922. The salmon-pack of the Province in the year 1922 totalled 1,290,326 cases, as against 603,548 cases in 1921, 1,187,619 cases in 1920, 1,393,156 cases in 1919, and 1,557,485 cases in 1918. Notwithstanding that the pack of 1922 is the fourth largest packed in the Province, it is far less valuable than in many other years, due to the fact that 840,183 cases, or 60 per cent., consisted of pink and chum salmon. The value of the pack of 1922 is estimated at $11,247,000, as against $8,577,602 in 1921 and $15,129,348 of 1920. Of the estimated value of the 1922 pack, $5,100,000 is credited to the 299,614 cases of sockeye and $4,900,000 to the 840,183 cases of pink and chum salmon. The gain in the pack this year was due largely to the increased pack of pinks and chums. The pack of pinks totalled 581,979 cases, as against 192,906 cases in 1921, when few canners packed either pinks or chums. The pack of chums totalled 258,204 cases, as against 71,408 cases in 1921. The pack of sockeye in 1922 totalled 299,614 cases, as against 163,914 cases in 1921, 136,661 cases in 1920, 167,944 cases in 1939, and 210,851 cases in 1918. The catch in every district shows a gain over that of 1921. Most of the gain was made on the Skeena and Nass Rivers. The 1922 Salmon-pack by Districts. The Fraser River.—The total pack of all species of salmon in the Fraser District in the Province totalled 137,482 cases, consisting of 51,833 cases of sockeye, 16,861 cases of spring, 23,587 cases of cohoe, 29,578 cases of pinks, and 17,895 cases of chum. The total pack this year was the largest since 1919. The catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system this year produced a pack of 51,833 cases, as against 19,697 eases in the preceding fourth year, and comparable with the pack of eight years ago of 198,183 cases, The pack of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system in 1922 totalled 48,566 cases, as against 102,967 cases in 1921, 50,723 cases in 1918, and 357,374 cases in 1914. The total pack of sockeye in the entire Fraser River system in 1922 was 100,399 cases, compared to 70,420 cases in the preceding fourth year and to 444,504 cases in the preceding eighth year. The increased catch in Provincial waters is largely attributable to the use of less fishery gear in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser system. Under the present depleted condition of the run of sockeye to the Fraser the amount of gear used in that section is less because of the expensive nature of the fishery apparatus that must be used there. If permitted, gill-nets will be used in the Provincial waters of the system long after expensive traps and purse-nets are abandoned in the State of Washington. - The Salmon-catch of Northern Waters. The Skeena River.—The catch of salmon on the Skeena this year totalled 482,305 cases, as against 234,765 cases in 1921, 374,300 cases in 1919, and 292,219 cases in 1917. There was a marked gain 'in all species. Some 4,390 cases of Alaska-caught sockeye are included in total 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 7 for 1922. The catch of sockeye gave a pack of 96,277 cases, as against 41,118 cases in 1921, 123,322 cases in 1918, and 65,760 cases ill 1917. The sockeye that run to the Skeena consist of four- and five-year-old fish in fairly even proportions. The run this year was in consequence derived from a good year and a light year's spawning. It produced 6,000 more cases than the average of the brood-years. There was a pronounced catch of pinks on the Skeena this year. Every cannery packed them. The pack of pinks this year totalled 301,655 cases, as against 124,457 cases in 1921 and 177,679 cases in the brood-years 1919 and 1920. The catch of chums gave a pack of 39,758 cases, as against 1,993 cases in 1921, when few canneries packed any of this species. Rivers Inlet.—The pack at Rivers Inlet this year totalled 79,712 cases, as against 103,155 cases in 1918 and 95,302 cases in 1917. The catch of sockeye produced a pack of 53,584 cases, as against 53,401 cases in 3918 and 61,195 cases in 1917. The pack of pinks totalled 24,292 cases. Nass River.—The pack on the Nass River totalled 124,071 cases, much the largest since 1918. The catch of sockeye gave a pack of 31,277 cases, also much the largest since 1916. It is the fifth largest ever made on the Nass. The bulk of the season's pack, however, consists of pinks, with a total of 75,6S7 cases. Contribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. Dr. C. H. Gilbert's eighth contribution to the reports of the Department on the life-history of the sockeye salmon, which is issued herewith, contains an analysis of the sockeye runs to the principal waters of the Province for the year 1922. With the present paper we now have a complete analysis of the runs of sockeye to our main estuaries for the last ten consecutive years. The following is a digest of Dr. Gilbert's present paper:— The Fraser River Sockeye Run of 1922. The total sockeye-pack of the district tributary to the Fraser River in 1922 amounted to 100,398 cases, of which 51,832 were produced in British Columbia waters and 48,566 in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound figures, as Dr. Gilbert has pointed out in previous reports, include each year sockeye bound for the Skagit River, in the State of Washington, as well as those bound to the Fraser River. The traps located on West Beach, on Widley Island, are well known to capture Skagit River sockeye (blnebacks) during the early part of the season, these being replaced later in the run by Fraser River sockeye. The Skagit sockeye are known to have poorer colour and to be deficient in oil, but in the annual returns they are all included and are classed as sockeye. At present the two races cannot be segregated. As the run to the Fraser continues to dwindle, the Skagit component comes to assume greater and greater relative. importance in the Puget Sound pack. That it is probably maintaining itself at present at about the same level seems to be indicated by the annual return of spawning fish to Baker Lake, in the State of Washington. The United States Bureau of Fisheries' hatchery on Baker Lake has for years spawned artificially all the sockeye that reach those spawning-grounds. There is no natural spawning in that district. In spite of the intensive fishing to which it is exposed in Puget Sound, the spawning escape that annually reaches the hatchery has maintained itself without reduction. There is, however, no means at present of estimating the number taken in Puget Sound. The prevailing type of the run of sockeye to the Fraser this year, as in the ten previous years' that the run has been subjected to analysis, consisted of the one-year-inlake type. The members of this group resided in their native lake for the first year after hatching, passed to sea in their second spring, and returned either in their third year as mature male grilse, or in their fourth, fifth, or sixth years as mature members of both sexes. The grilse are always in relatively very small numbers, the four-year fish largely predominate over all other year classes, the five-year fish of this group are second in Importance, and the six-year fish extremely rare. Among the 892 specimens taken at random from the catches of the Vancouver Island traps, at intervals during the season, 80 per cent, belonged to the one-year-in-lake group, 8 per cent, to the two-years-in-lake group, and 12 per cent, to the "sea-type," the members of which descend to the ocean as soon as they are free-swimming. No grilse made their appearance prior to July 12th. The two-years-in-lake group were absent during the first half of June and reached their maximum development during the second half of June. The sea-type was confined to the latter half of the run after the middle of July. A similar appearance of these groups within the run has been noted each year. It is especially interesting to observe that all the members of the sea-type appear during the same part of each year's run, whether they are three or four years old, and, similarly, the members of the two-years-in-lake type are confined to a certain part of the run, although some of them are four years old, some five, and some six. The scales examined by Dr. Gilbert were collected at random from fish caught in Vancouver Island traps on thirty-four different dates,- from May 29th to September 7th, with intervals of from two to four days. The relative numbers of four- and of five-year fish of the one- year-in-Iake group varied widely from the first to the last of the season, the older group running in larger relative numbers on the earlier dates. During the first two weeks of June five-year fish represented 65 per cent, of the run, while during August it comprised only 5 or 6 per cent. The average for the entire season was only 12 per cent, the proportion being smaller than for other recent years with reduced output, although the five-year component of the 1922 run was derived from 1917, when the seeding of the spawning areas of the Fraser was better than in 1918, the year responsible for the four-year fish of the 1922 run. The course of the run was not only marked by changes in the relative numbers of the year-classes, but also by changes in the average size of the individuals constituting each year- class. The four-year fish showed an average increase in length and weight as the season advanced. This seasonal increase in size, as Dr. Gilbert has pointed out in previous reports, is a constant feature of the Fraser River run. It might be ascribed to growth during the season, the fish entering the river late having had a longer time on the feeding-grounds than those that enter early. But in other river-basins this does not hold. In fact, the reverse condition may obtain, the later fish showing smaller average size than those that first enter. It seems more probable, therefore, that the occurrence in the Fraser is due to the larger size of the members of the racial groups that constitute the run during the latter part of the season. Comparing the range in size and the average size of each of the categories with similar tables for previous years, a remarkable agreement will be observed. But the length of both males and females in the four-year group has suffered obvious reduction during the last four years, for which no explanation is found. The run of 1922 aligns itself with 1919, 1920, and 1921 in this regard. Included in the one-year-in-lake group of the 1922 run, Dr. Gilbert found eight specimens that had spent two years in the sea and were returning as mature males in their third year. These so-called " grilse " do not appear in the early part of the Fraser run, although in other river-basins they may do so. Their occurrence relatively late in the season is probably correlated with the fact of their occurrence in some racial colonies to the exclusion of others. The two-years-in-lake type was present in moderate numbers in the 1922 run, constituting 7.4 per cent, of the total. As in other years, they ran abundantly in the latter half of June, but contrary to previous seasons there was no second wave of migration entering in August. Dr. Gilbert has previously suggested that as this group is not uniformly distributed throughout the Fraser basin, some tributaries having it in abundance, while in others they are absent, the presence or absence may indicate the presence or absence of the racial groups of which it forms a component part. A special feature of the 1922 run was the presence of members of the two-years-in-lake type that were only four years old. These have not previously been reported in the Fraser, and have rarely been encountered in any stream except the Columbia, where they are a regular feature each year. Dr. Gilbert on previous occasions has called attention to the fact that the length of time spent in the stream or lake by fry and fingerlings before migrating to the sea has little or no influence on the size of the individuals at maturity. The factor which mainly determines size is the number of years spent in the ocean. Life in the river or lake is not a factor in this respect. It delays the coming to maturity by approximately the entire period of residence in fresh water. An interesting comparison is afforded by the three groups of sockeye found in the Fraser River run in 1922. Those of the sea-type descended to the sea soon after hatching, had no residence in fresh water, and matured after three or four seasons on the sea-feeding grounds 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 9 when in their third or fourth years. The one-year-in-lake type spent one year in fresh water, had two or three or four seasons in the sea, and matured in their third, fourth, or fifth years. The two-years-in-lake type spent two years in fresh water, remained two, three, or four seasons in the sea, and matured iii their fourth, fifth, or sixth years. If we ignore, Dr. Gilbert states, the fresh-water history of these three types and group them according to the number of years they have spent in the sea, we shall find that the members of each group have attained approximately the same size, although they may differ in age by as much as two years. The Rivers Inlet Sockeye Run of 1922. Dr. Gilbert in dealing with the Rivers Inlet run for 1922 points out that the runs for the last three years have exhibited extremely wide fluctuations in volume, 1920 having produced one of the very largest packs known to the inlet, 1921 the next to the smallest since the industry became well established, and, finally, 1922 showing a slight improvement over 1921, 1919, and 1918, and almost diu)licating the pack of 1917, which would be considered its progenitor if we adopt the theory of a five-year cycle for the inlet. As has been previously shown, the correspondences are very striking when the years with their respective packs are arranged in series'with five-year intervals. Allowing for the fact that there has been an unquestionable impoverishment of the stream during the last five years, so the individual years of the last cycle show some reduction below the corresponding years of the previous cycle, the major fluctuations in size of the run seem to be repeated when these are arranged in five-year groups, while there is no correspondence if the arrangement is on the basis of four years, or any other number than five. Dr. Gilbert presents the following table, giving in even thousands of full cases the packs since 1907 arranged in accordance with the five-year cycle. The series of corresponding years read along the horizontal lines from left to right :— 1907 87,000 1912 112,000 1917 61,000 1922 60,700 1908 64,000 1913 61,000 303S 53,000 1909 89,000 1914 89,000 1919 56,000 1910 120,000 1915 130,000 1920 121,000 1911 88,000 1916 44,000 1921 46,000 From this it appears that 1922 falls perfectly in line with its series and can be considered a lineal descendant of 1917. But, unfortunately for this view, 1922 appears to be an exception to the rule prevailing among the Rivers Inlet runs, and instead of being composed largely of five-year fish it was made up for the most part (82 per cent.) of fish that were only four years old. It must be considered, therefore, to be more largely derived from the brood-year 1918. But as the pack in 1918 was 53,401 cases the discrepancy is not formidable. The run to Rivers Inlet consists, to the practical exclusion, of all other classes, of fish that spent their first year in the lake, have then migrated seawards in their second spring, and have returned as mature spawners either in their fourth year or in their fifth year. The run consists of these two classes, and the only variation that occurs from year to year is in their relative proportions. Analysis of the runs since 1912 has shown that most frequently the five-year group has been larger than the four-year group. For the ten years from 1912 to 1921 the average percentage of five-year sockeye is 64 and of the four-year sockeye 36. In different years, however, extensive divergencies from these averages are found, ranging from 20 per cent, of five-year fish in 1913 to 95 per cent, in 1920. Thus in 1920 the vast preponderance of five-year fish was obviously due to the fact that the brood-year of the five-year fish (1915) was characterized by one of the largest runs known in the watershed, while the brood-year for the four-year fish (1916) was characterized by one of the very smallest runs known on the inlet. Through this circumstance the natural tendency of the Rivers Inlet fish to mature rather late—rather in their fifth than in their fourth year—was reinforced by an overwhelming preponderance of the year that produced the five-year contingent. The run of 1922 was highly unusual in the fact that throughout the season the four-year fish were far more numerous than the five-year fish. The only previous year that affords a parallel with 1922 is 1913, when a pack was put up of 61,000 cases, and the run consisted of 80 per cent, of four-year fish and only 20 per cent, of five-year fish. In all these respects it closely resembled 1922. with its 60,700 cases and its 82 per cent, of four-year fish. In 3913 Eeport op the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 no adequate cause for the unusually high percentage of four-year fish has been discovered, although the brood-year for these, 1909 (S9,000 oases), was apparently a better year than the brood-year for the five-year fish, 1908 (64,000 cases). But it does not seem that this disparity in numbers among the spawning groups is adequate to produce the observed results. In 1922, Dr. Gilbert states, the same difficulty is presented, but at first sight in more pronounced form. For in this case the four-year fish, which so largely predominates in the run, have for their brood-year 1918 (53,401 cases), one of the least successful commercially of all the observed years on the inlet. While, one the other hand, the five-year fish, which are so sparsely represented in the run, are derived from 1917 (61,195 cases), which was appreciably a better year. A possible clue to the apparently discordant result in this case is derived from the reports from the spawning area for the two years in question. In'1917 there was a serious shortage of fish on the spawning-beds, in spite of the relatively successful fishing season. In 1918, on the other hand, in spite of the unsuccessful fishing season, the numbers of sockeye that reached the beds that year compared! favourably with those seen there in 1913, 1914, and 1915, and greatly exceeded the spawners of 1910. From this it is evident that if one had some accurate method of determining from year to year the number of fish on the spawning-grounds, this would afford data for prophecy concerning the corresponding year of the next cycle far more reliable than are obtained from the pack statistics of each year. Still more reliable results would be obtained if we could take a census of the young finger! ings on their seaward migration, for we would then have eliminated all the uncertain and variable factors that prevent successful spawning, that destroy the fry and fingerlings during their residence in fresh water. We even then should still have to contend with the hazards of their ocean-life for a term of years, which must vary widely with the different years, exacting sometimes a lighter, sometimes a heavier toll on the salmon schools. The statistics of the pack give a very uncertain basis for estimating the number of fish that will reach the spawning-grounds. Even the number of spawners do not enable us to predict accurately the size of the fingerling schools that will descend to the sea. Yet these are the only data we have available on which to base an estimate of the probable size of the run in the corresponding year of the next cycle. In 1921 the proportion of male sockeye was much less than in the five preceding years. In the runs from 1916 to 1920 the percentage of males varied only between 74 and 79 per cent., and for four of the five years it varied only between 74 and 75 per cent. It therefore seems incomprehensible that in 1921 the percentage of males of four-year-olds should drop, as it did, to 65 per cent, of that class, while at the same time the percentage of five-year males should drop to 38, whereas for the three previous years it had been 49, 45, and 48 per cent. The sudden change in 1921 is now fully paralleled by the condition of the run in 1922. Not only is there a great reduction in the number of males present in both year-classes, but the results are practically identical with those obtained in 1923. In the five-year group the percentages are identical, while in the four-year fish there is a difference of only 1 per cent, in the two years. A wide difference exists between the two years in the relative total number of males and females present in the run, for in 1922 the four-year fish, in which males are relatively most abundant, were present in such large proportion that the total males outnumbered the females. The disastrous effects of this condition on the success of the spawning can be readily seen. While the general agreement with runs of preceding years was marked in 1922 and the range in size of the different categories was approximately the same, an unexpected discrepancy became evident when a correlation of length and weight was made. In previous years it has in general been the experience that when the average length of a given group . was greater or less than the average length of the same group in some other year, the respective weights of the two years have varied correspondingly in the same district. But that proves not to have been the case in the run of 1922. Dr. Gilbert submits data to show that all the lengths in 1922 were less than the average for the nine preceding years, and that the reverse is true with regard to the weights. In 1922 both the males and females of both year-classes are conspicuously above the normal or average weights. Both males and females of the four- year class average much heavier than in any year from 1914 to 1921, being 6 lb. and 5.9 lb. respectively, while the average for eight years is 5.3 and 5.1 lb. The frequency distribution of weights and lengths during different dates of the run prove again that the size of the fish of 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 11 this watershed, comparing throughout those of the same year-class, did not increase as the season progressed, but, on the contrary, slightly diminished. This seems as well established a habit with the fish of Rivers Inlet as the reverse habit is with the fish of the Fraser basin. In the Fraser run, as Dr. Gilbert has shown, there is a marked increase in the length of the fish of each category as the season advances. The Skeena River Sockeye Run of 1922. As in the case of the Nass, the Skeena River in 1922 produced a satisfactory run. The pack of 100,667 cases of sockeye was the best since 1919, and was slightly more than the average of the packs for the two brood-years that produced it. The brood-years were 1917 and 1918, and judging the size of their runs by the packs which they produced, the two, Dr. Gilbert shows, were very unequal in size. 1917 was one of the very poorest years on' the Skeena, with a pack of only 65,760 cases; while 1918 was one of the better years, with a pack of 123,322 cases. As 1918 was responsible for the four-year fish of 1922, it was interesting to inquire whether the four-year group in 1922 would greatly exceed the five-year fish. Such was the case, as Dr. Gilbert shows. The four-year fish of the dominant group (one-year-in-lake) constituted 81 per cent, of this group and the five-year fish only 18 per cent. If the five-year fish of the two-year-in-lake group were included, the run consisted of 72 per cent, four-year fish as against 28 per cent, of the total five-year fish—the fish derived from the spawn of 1917. Dr. Gilbert has frequently been unable to correlate extraordinary development of a given year-class with the predominance of its brood-year, the most recent being that of 1921, w-hen there were more than three times as many four-year as five-year fish, whereas the packs put up in their respective brood-years were nearly equal. In 1922, however, as was the case in 3920, the two brood-years were sharply contrasted in size, the larger in each case representing one of the most successful seasons and the smaller one of the least successful. Both In 1921 and 1922 this condition was directly reflected in the size of the year-classes. In 1920 the brood-year of the five-year fish furnished five times as many cases as the brood-year for the four-year fish, and the five-year fish furnished 82 per cent, of the dominant group of the run. In 1922 the conditions were reversed, for the five- year fish produced only about half the pack of the brood-year of the four-year fish. The percentage of the two year-classes in the run are also shown to be reversed. The four-year fish of the dominant group furnished 81 per cent, and the five-year fish only 19 per cent. The four age-classes which year by year constitute the Skeena sockeye run were as usual the only ones represented in the catch of 3922. With this limited number may well be compared the six to eight year-classes present in the Nass each succeeding year. The comparative simplicity of the Skeena run and the extreme multiplicity of divers forms in the Nass are racial characteristics and testify to the effective isolation of the two colonies. Dr. Gilbert shows that weight and length of the year-class in the 1922 Skeena run were a little undersized. Both lengths and weights tell the same story. It is interesting in this connection to recall what is shown elsewhere in this valuable report concerning the size of the Rivers Inlet and the Nass sockeye of 1922. The Rivers Inlet fish, like those of the Skeena, averaged a little smaller in each year-class, while those of the Nass were also smaller in each class, except the six-year males and females, in which were so few individuals that the averages are unreliable. It seems, therefore, that the conditions to which were exposed all the Northern British Columbia sockeye which constituted the run of 1922 were somewhat less favourable than usual, with the result that the fish failed to attain full average stature. It is interesting, Dr. Gilbert states, to speculate on the period in their history when this small dwarfing probably occurred. It would seem improbable it could have been in their earlier years, for in that case compensatory growth in later years would have made up the deficiency. Also during these earlier years they were associated on the feeding-grounds with the fish which had matured one year earlier and constituted the run of 1921. . But the four-year fish of these runs did not show the dwarfing effects that made their appearance among all classes in 1922. On previous occasions, when practically all the sockeye of the streams of the Province have been of less than average size, Dr. Gilbert has noted an additional fact of significance in this connection. The dwarfing had not only failed to affect the fish of the preceding year, but those of the following year also may come back to normal size or even exceed it. The most plausible hypothesis that Dr. Gilbert offers is that the dwarfing was occasioned by conditions unfavourable to normal growth during the early part of the season in which the sockeye was to mature. They cease to feed early and seek their spawning-stream, but prior to doing so they have responded to the onset of the growing season and have increased somewhat in size. But if the season were delayed, so growth began unusually late, the fish may have failed, before leaving the feeding-grounds, to add as much to their stature as in normal years. This being the case, the run of 1921 would not have been exposed to these untoward conditions, and the run of 1923 would have an opportunity later in the season to compensate by more vigorous growth for the late start in the spring. Dr. Gilbert's Analysis of the Nass River Sockeye Run. The Nass River made a gratifying recovery in 1922. The sockeye-pack of 31,277 cases exceeded any that had been made since 1916 and compared most favourably with the average of the five years, 1917 to 1921. In his report for 1921 attention was called to the apparent lack of any relation between the pack records on the Nass and the corresponding runs in the following cycle. The Nass cycle, as he has shown, is clearly one of five years, yet the ran of 1921 was phenomenally poor, although its brood-year, 1916, was, according to the pack record and also the result of examination of the spawning-grounds, one of the very best years of the preceding cycle. This lack of relation is further emphasized by the run of 1922. The five- year sockeye of that run to an extent unusual even for the Nass constituted 90 per cent, of the run and had been hatched from eggs laid dwwn in 1917. The run of 1917 was only of medium size (22,188 cases), as estimated from the magnitude of the pack, and the escape to the spawning-grounds was reported distinctly less than in 1916. Yet from this apparently mediocre brood-year there resulted one of the best runs that has recently appeared in the Nass. The nature of the exceptional conditions, favourable or unfavourable, which were responsible are not known. In previous reports Dr. Gilbert has advanced certain reasons for fearing that the Nass run is declining in size. The phenomenal run of 1922 is not conclusive of this question. An exceptionally favourable season in a declining run is not an unusual occurrence, but the experience of the next two or three years should demonstrate beyond doubt the truth of the matter. Six age-groups were present in the 1922 run, two of those commonly encountered in other years being unrepresented. The lacking groups were the seven-year class of the three-years-in- the-lake type and the three-year class of the sea-type. Of the six groups present, two w-ere in their fourth year, two in their fifth year, and two in their sixth. Disregarding the early- history of these groups in fresh water, and considering only their age as indicating the brood- year from which they had their origin, 8 per cent, were in their fourth year and were derived from the spawning run of 1918, 90 per cent, were in their fifth year and were the result of the 1917 spawning, while 2 per cent, were in their sixth year and came from 1916. The five- year group, the young of which had spent two years in the lake before descending to the sea, is always the dominant group in the Nass, the average for the ten years prior to 1922 being 63 per cent. But during these ten years the maximum percentage was 73, in contrast with the 90 per cent, present in 1922. This increased percentage was at the expense of all the other groups present in the run, but in larger measure at the expense of the six-year fish, and the five-year group which spent only one year in the lake before migrating. The last-mentioned group has in other years assumed large proportions. In 1911 it constituted 42 per cent, of these four principal groups, but in 1922 only 2 per cent. In both length and weight the principal classes in the Nass in 1922 were normal. The percentage of each year-class contained in the run, compared with similar tables given in former reports, shows entire agreement on the nature of these changes. The sea-type group always is confined to the early days of each run and disappears completely before the middle of July. The six-year group shows the converse of this. They run sparingly or not at all in the early part of the run, and attain their greatest relative numbers in the latter half of July and in August. The two five-year groups and the four-year one-year-in-the-lake group are usually present throughout the run, but not in equal proportions. The four- and five-year groups, one-year-in-the-lake, usually attain their maximum development in the second and third weeks of July and taper away then in either direction, while the dominant group is strong, but not equally strong. A detailed comparison of these events, chronicled for a number of 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 13 years, makes an impressive showing and demonstrates that behind the apparent uniformity in the run, w7hen superficially viewed, there lies a great diversity of groups, which are marshalled in an orderly sequence which remains the same from year to year. So far as is known at the present time, there are only two sockeye spawning-grounds of importance in the Nass basin, that of Bowser Lake and that of Meziadiu Lake. It has seemed probable, Dr. Gilbert states, that some of the racial differences to which attention has repeatedly been recalled may be found to characterize the colonies of these two lakes. The material so far obtained is inadequate to settle the question. The scales obtained from a few sockeye from each lake in 1922 present results in full harmony with the theory of different racial groups. Of the fifteen specimens examined from Bowser Lake, six belonged to the oue-year-in-the-lake type and the remainder to the two-year-in-the-lake type. None had spent three years. Of the ten specimens from Meziadin Lake, none belonged to the one-year-in-the-lake type, eight belonged to the two-year-in-the-lake type, and two to the three-year-in-the-lake type; apparently indicating that the Meziadin group spend as fingerlings a longer period in the lake than is the case with the Bowser Lake group. Dr. Gilbert's report, with its fifty tabulations, is reproduced in the Appendix of this report. As the foregoing digest shows, it is of great value. Reports from the Salmon-spawning Areas of the Province in 1922. The Department again conducted investigations of the spawning-beds of the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Rivers and Smith Inlets. Detailed reports from each section are reproduced in the Appendix of this report. The Fraser River.—John P. Babcock, Assistant to the Commissioner, again inspected the spawning-beds of the Fraser River basin, his nineteenth annual inspection. He states That " notwithstanding that the catch of sockeye in the Fraser this year was larger than four years ago, the number that spawned in the river-basin is not believed to have been greater." Conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon of the Fraser are dealt with as follows:— " Conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon have been under close observation of competent fishery officers since 1901. Fishery Overseer Scott, of the Dominion service, one of its most faithful and observant officers, has beeii stationed there almost daily during the salmon run since 3913. He reports that the number of sockeye that reached there this year was noticeably less than in any other year since he Was detailed to that patrol in 1914. " Water conditions in the canyon throughout the season were favourable to the fish. At no time this year were they such as to delay their passage for more than a few hours at a time. " Much has been said and written of conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon. It has been stated that ' the river's channel in the canyon Is still blocked by rock that was deposited by railroad construction and the great slide of 1913,' and that ' the channel has never been cleaned out properly, and that the upward migration of the fish is considerably hampered yet by the slide.' Also that it is necessary that ' the bottom of the river near Hell's Gate Canyon be cleared of obstructions, as the evidence goes to show that that work was not properly completed.' " In my judgment," Mr. Babcock continues, " there is no w-arrant for such statements. The work of restoring the channel in 1913-14 and the late winter of 1914-15 was in charge of and under close observation of several of the best-known engineers on the Coast. The work of clearing the channel was undertaken upon lines agreed upon at a conference of engineers held in the canyon in 1913 during the blockade. The work was performed by one of the biggest and best-equipped and experienced engineering firms on the Coast. It was done on a plus-cost basis and was most carefully watched and checked by engineers representing the Dominion and the Province, and by the Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion and myself. Over 225,000 cubic yards of loose rock was removed from the channel. The last of the rock was removed late In the winter of 1914-15 at a time when the water in the channel was the lowest in years. The engineers in charge had little difficulty in getting to the bed of the channel. This is clearly shown by the many photographs taken at the time. Photographs taken of the channel at Hell's Gate previous to the slide and since 1914 show that the currents of water passing through the canyon are the same now as they were before 1913. " With few exceptions, the salmon that have reached the canyon since 1914, like those that reached there previous to 1933, have passed through the rapids at Hell's Gate by travelling T 14 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 close to the right side. Few salmon can or ever have negotiated the rapids on the left side. The wall on both sides is bed-rock and not rock thrown into the channel during railroad-construction or by the collapse of the tunnel in 1913. Salmon do and always have since 1901 attempted to pass up on the left side. During certain favourable stages of water many have succeeded, but in all years the bulk of the run has passed up on the right side of the rapids. At no time this year, or in any year since 1914, have salmon in numbers been seen in any of the eddies a quarter of a mile below Hell's Gate. If the run in any year since 1914 had been blocked the fish would have congregated in the eddies for a considerable distance below the Gate, just as they were massed there, and for many miles below, in 1913. At no time this year on any one day were salmon to be seen in numbers to exceed 300 in the eddies immediately below the Gate, and none were found in the eddies an eighth of a mile below. Almost every day in July and August and Septeiuber a few sockeye were seen passing through the Gate on the right side. " The real blockade in 1913 was in the rapids above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek, some 3 miles above Hell's Gate proper. This is clearly set forth in the Department's Report for 1913. Vast numbers of sockeye passed through Hell's Gate proper every month during the run in 1913, and they made the passage by hugging the rocks on the right side of the rapids. However, the fish that passed through those rapids were unable to get through the rapids in the river's channel above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek, some 3 miles above Hell's Gate. " After twenty-one years of continuous study of conditions in the canyon, I am fully convinced that the fish that reach there now have no more difficulty in getting through the canyon than those that reached there previous to railroad-construction and the slide of 1913. " Chief Inspectors of Fisheries Cunningham and Motherwell, Engineer McHngh, and Fisheries Overseer Scott, of the Dominion service, have devoted much time every season since 1913 to a close study of conditions, and all have repeatedly stated that the fish have not been unduly delayed there and that the channel has been fully restored." Mr. Babcock's report will be found ill the Appendix of this report. Rivers Inlet.—The spawning area of the salmon that run in Rivers Inlet was again inspected by Fishery Officer A. W. Stone. It was his tenth consecutive trip over the tributaries of Owikeno Lake at the head of the inlet. Mi-. Stone reports that the spawning-beds of several of the main streams at the head of the lake were not well seeded—that the run there had been small, as small as last year and much below the average of earlier years. On the other hand he found the streams lower down as well seeded as in any year since 1913, and that a large return may be anticipated from their seeding this year. Smith Inlet.—The spawning-beds of the Smith Inlet salmon run were inspected by Officer Stone. In his report he expresses the opinion that the number of sockeye that spawned there this year was larger than in the brood-years of the year's run 1917-18, but that the run did not equal those of 3914-15. Water conditions were not, however, favourable to this year's spawning, and in consequence the returns four and five years hence may not be as large as otherwise would have been the case. Nass River.—The spawning-beds of the Meziadin and Bowser Lake sections of the Nass were again inspected by Inspector of Fisheries Hickman. He was accompanied by Fishery Overseer Collison, of the Dominion service. The trip to Bowser Lake was the second since its discovery by Mr. Hickman in 1912. The spawning-beds of the Meziadin were found to be better seeded than in any one of the last five years. The fishway was found in satisfactory condition, but it is recommended that the retaining-wall for the gravel-bank requires early attention, as there is danger that the cribbing may cave in and thus fill up the passage. An interesting description of the little-known Bowser Lake is given in the report. Owing to the discoloration of the waters of that section it was difficult to determine how many fish reached there this year. By use of nets it was determined that sockeye were spawning in several sections, but no estimate of their number could be made. 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 15 Statement of Salmon-egg Collections in Hatcheries of British Columbia, 1922. Hatchery. Sockeye. Spring. Cohoe. Chums. 8,505,000 8,100,000 3,222,750 2,057,800 9,053,185 1,128,500 1,518,860 1,591,700 100,000 3,086,670 26,000,000 Pitt Lake 3,514,000 14,590,100 8,259,000 Totals 83,301,835 2:647,360 1,691,700 3,086,670 T 16 Report op the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 APPENDICES. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON. (No. 8.) By Charles H. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor or Zoology, Stanford University. 1. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1922. The total sockeye-pack of districts tributary to the Fraser River amounted in 1922 to 100,398 cases, of which 51,832 were produced in British Columbia and 48,566 in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound figures, as we have previously pointed out, include each year sockeyes (" blue- backs") bound for the Skagit River, in the State of Washington, as well as those on their way to the Fraser River. Traps located on the West Beach, on Whidbey Island, are well known to capture Skagit River bluebacks during the early part of the season, these being replaced later in the run by Fraser River sockeyes. The Skagit fish are known to have poorer colour and to be deficient in oil, but in the annual returns they are all classed as sockeyes, and we are unable at present to segregate the two races. As the Fraser River run continues to dwindle, the Skagit component comes to assume greater and greater relative importance in the Puget Sound pack. That it is probably maintaining itself at or about the same level seems to be indicated by the annual return of spawning fish to Baker Lake. The Bureau of Fisheries' hatchery on Baker Lake has for years spawned artificially all the sockeyes that reach these spawning-grounds. 'There is no natural spawning in this district, the entire Skagit run being now maintained through hatchery operations. In spite of the intensive fishing to which it is exposed in Puget Sound, the spawning escape that annually reaches the hatchery has maintained itself without reduction. We have, unfortunately, no means at present of estimating the yield of the Baker Lake run, for the number captured in Puget Sound has not been de-' termined. (1.) The One-year-in-lake Type. This was the prevailing type in the run of 1922, as in all previous seasons during which the Fraser River run has been subjected to analysis. The members of this group reside in their native lake for the first year after hatching, pass out to the ocean in their second spring, and return either in their third year as mature male grilse, or in their fourth, fifth, or sixth years as mature members of both sexes. The grilse are always in relatively very small numbers, the four-year fish are largely predominant over all the other year-classes, the five-year fish of this group are second in importance, and the six-year fish are extremely rare. Among the 892 specimens taken by random sampling from the product of the Vancouver Island traps, at intervals during the season, 80 per cent, belonged to the one-year-in-lake group, 8 per cent, to the two-years-in-lake group, and 12 per cent, to the " sea-type," the members of which descend to the ocean as soon as they are free-swimming. The following table (No. I.) gives the percentage of these different groups within the run on successive dates throughout the season. It will be noted that no grilse made their appearance prior to July 12th, that the two-years-in-lake group were absent during the first half of June and reached their maximum development during the second half of June, and that the sea-type was confined to the latter half of the run after the middle of July. A similar appearance of these groups within the run has been noted each year. It is specially interesting to observe that all members of the sea-type appear during the same part of the run, whether they are three or four years old, and, similarly, the members of the two-years-in-lake type are confined to a certain part of the run, although some of them are four years old, some five, and some six. ■s 13 Geo. 5 Lipe-history op Sockeye Salmon. T 17 Table I.—Percentages of Different Year-classes, Fraser River Sockeyes occurring on a Succession of Dates throughout the Run of 1922. Dates. One Year in Lake. Three Years. Four Years. Five Years. Two Years in Lake. Four Years. Five Years. Six Years. Sea-type. Three Years. Four Years. May 29 June 1 ., 5 8 ., 12 '. ., 15 „ 19 „ 22 .. 26 „ 28 July 4 6 „ 12 „ 15 ., 19 .. 20 22 „ 24 . -. ., 26 „ 28 „ 31 Aug. 2 ,, 5 7 .. 10 ., 12 ., 15 „ 17 „ 19 „ 21 „ 23 „ 25 Sept. 1 7 Specimens examined .... Percentage each class 50 33 100 10 30 40 77 53 56 84 81 74 75 82 61 82 73 71 61 68 42 66 71 77 66 79 83 92 100 96 88 84 100 83 50 67 90 70 50 8 12 13 4 9 11 10 18 3 9 10 9 2 K 6 10 17 608 80 70 10 8 19 19 12 5 5 10 6 7 3 7 14 12 13 8 6 17 19 10 17 16 3 13 39 17 54 6 4 6 9 8 13 16 28 7 48 The material examined was collected by random sampling on thirty-four different dates, distributed over the period from May 29th to September 7th, with intervals between the samplings of from two to four days. It is adequate, therefore, for the detection of changes that occur during the season in the constitution of the run. The relative numbers of four- and of five-year fish of the one-year-in-lake group varied widely from the first to the last of the season, the older group running in larger relative numbers on the earlier dates. Table II. indicates that during the first two weeks of June five-year fish represented 65 per cent, of the run, while during August it comprised only 5 or 6 per cent. The average for the entire season is only 12 per cent., the proportion being smaller than for other recent years with reduced output, although the five-year component of the 1922 run was derived from 1917, when the seeding of the spawning areas of the Fraser was better than in 1938, which was the year responsible for the four-year fish of 1922. ieport of the Commissioner op Fisheries. Table II.—Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1922 Rim, Percentages Four and Five Years old, occurring on Different Dates. Dates. Four Years. Five Years. Number of Specimens examined. May 29 to June 15 June 19 to June 28 July 4 to July 19 . July 20 to July 24 July 26 to July 31 ' Aug. 2 to Aug. 7 .. Aug. 10 to Aug. 15 Aug. 17 to Aug. 21 Aug. 23 to Sept. 7 Averages 35 86 88 93 86 94 93 99 93 65 14 12 7 14 6. 7 1 12 37 86 88 86 81 90 89 75 56 688 The course of the run was not only marked by changes in the relative numbers of the year-classes, but also by changes in the average size of the individuals constituting each year- class. As shown in Tables III. to VI., given below, representatives of the prevailing year-class, the four-year fish, showed an average increase in length and weight as the season advanced. A similar seasonal increase is evident in members of the other year-classes represented in the Fraser River run, but they occur in such relatively small numbers that they do not furnish averages in length and weight that are reliable. This seasonal increase in size is a constant feature of the Fraser River run, and has been pointed out in our previous reports covering a series of years. It might be ascribed to growth during the season, the fish entering the river late having had a longer time on the feeding grounds than those that enter early. But in other river-basins this does not hold. In fact, the reverse condition may obtain, the later fish showing smaller average sizes than those that were first to enter. It seems more probable, therefore, that the occurrence in the Fraser is due to the larger size of the members of the racial groups that constitute the run during the latter part of the season, these groups being apparently those bound for the lakes that lie in the lower part of the Fraser River basin and nearest the sea. Table III.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, One Year in Lake, arranged by Length and Date of Capture. Inches. ©2 ►>§ 5 3 ©X tHOJ O) OJ C C (M.CO OJOOXI 3 3 bfl&Jj 3 3 cl=r: 3 3 Total. 19 , 19% 20 20% 21 21% 22 22% 23 23% 24 24% 25 25% 26 '. 26% Total No Average lengths 11 23.9 39 6 10 3 1 4 2 5 13 7 1 3 2 3 14 8 6 1 1 35 22.7 23.0 39 "2472" 41 "2378" 39 33 36 25 24.6 24.5 24.7 | 24.8 I 1 4 5 7 6 12 15 23 33 45 55 51 19 13 298 24.0 iEO. Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 19 Table IV.—Fraser River Sockeycs, Four-year Females, One Year in Lake, arranged by Length and Date of Capture. Inches. QJ OJ c a a 3 I-5I-J (JNt- bjj&£ a S « WJ&lj ■ 3 B *1< bfibfl <11 Total. '19 19% 20 201/a 21 21% 22 221/2 23 2sy2 24 24% 25 251/2 26 26% Total No Average lengths 22.5 35 21.5 42 1 3 3 1 2 10 14 1 4 1 i 41 3 3 3 13 1 29 22.1 22.6 23.3 1 5 3 18 46 10 12 13 50 1 1 5 1 12 8 7 1 2 38 23.6 23.4 23.7 1 4 1 1 ~27~ 23.9 4 4 •10 10 10 23 37 44 65 61 20 10 i 1 23.0 Table V.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, One Year in Lake, arranged by Weight and Date of Capture. Pounds. 0 (NrH 0 OS 00 i-ilN 0 . 0 ©Tt< MM 0 <M?0 0 O o»o rH rH 0 lHOJ. 0 Total. a! c a a 3 3 3 3 3 1-iH £?.£> << << bjj bo SPo. 2% 1 1 1 1 3V„ 2 4 . . . 1 3 5 3 1 13 4«, . 4 1 0 1 1 9 5 1 6 4 4 7 1 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 5 22 sy2 . 24 6 ... '* 1 0 1 7 5 10 3 6 9 8 10 7 8 7 2 11 8 9 11 5 1 3 5 49 6V„ 51 7 . . . 45 7y2 . 1 2 8 5 6 5 8 7 42 8 . ... 2 2 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 16 8% 6 !l . ' 1 1 2 Total No 11 23 35 39 41 39 33 36 25 282 Average weights . .. 5.1 5.2 5.6 6.6 6.4 6.9 _J 6.9 6.7 6.6 6.4 T 20 Report op the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table VI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Females, One Year in Lake, arranged by Weight and Date of Capture. Pounds. o o=2 CJ." >»d o ©CC T-iCi a e 3 3 o . o ©TtH CMOJ. 1-51-» July 26 to July 31. o 4-1 o +J CIO riiH bijbi o b/jbi o 4-» Total. 1 1 1 2 4 1 4 3 1 1 4 3 5 3 9 7 7 4 4 1 4 9 15 4 3 1 1 2 5 2 9 6 4 1 1 1 3 6 19 9 3 1 2 1 3 o 8 14 11 11 •■ •• •• 1 2 6 11 11 6 1 2 1 5 6 4 6 3 1 3 3% 7 9 4 4% 12 17 36 5% 52 6 6% 71 49 7 30 5 8 3 Total No Average weights . . . 2 17 42 41 29 • 46 50 38 27 292 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.2 . 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 5.7 The size frequencies of the four- and five-year fish of this group are given in Tables VII. and VIII., which follow. Comparing the range in size and the average size of each of the categories with similar tables for previous years, a remarkable agreement is observed. But the length of both males and females in the four-year group has suffered obvious reduction during the last four years, for which we have no explanation. 1922 aligns itself with 1919, 1920, and 1921 in this regard, as appears from the following summaries: Males. Females. Average lengths for five years prior to 1919 25.0 24.1 Lengths in 3919 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 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 21 Table VII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length. Length in Inches. Numbek of Individuals. Four Years old. Males. Females. Males. Five Years old. Females. Total. 19 19% 20 20% 21 21% 22 22% 23 23% 24 24% 25 . . , 25% 26 26% 27 27% 28 Totals Totals each group Average lengths . 12 15 23 33 45 55 51 19 13 9 298 7 4 4 10 10 10 23 37 44 65 61 20 10 4 1 310 608 24.0 23.0 25.8 J 42 38 80 24.1 5 8 15 18 16 37 99 117 84 69 37 18 17 7 4 1 23.7 Table VIII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps, grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight. Weight in Pounds. Numbee of Individuals. 2% 3 3% 4 4% 5 5% 6 6% 7 7% 8 8% 9 9% 10 Totals Average weights Four Years old. Five Years old. Total. Males. Females. Males. Females. 1 1 1 7 8 2 9 1 12 13 12 •• 2 27 9 17 1 27 22 36 5 5 68 24 52 1 4 81 49 71 5 2 127 51 49 6 9 115 45 30 6 6 87 42 5 4 3 54 16 3 3 22 6 4 10 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 282 ' 292 38 34 646 6.4 5.7 7.0 6.1 6.6 Included in the one-year-in-lake group we find eight specimens that had spent but twyo years in the sea and are returning as mature males in their third year. These so-called " grilse " do not appear in the early part of the Fraser River run, although in other river-basins they may do so. Their occurrence relatively late in the season in the Fraser River is probably correlated with the fact of their occurrence in some racial colonies to the exclusion of others. In Table IX. these specimens are arranged by length and date of capture. Table IX.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Male Grilse, One Year in Lake, 1922, grouped by Length and Date of Capture. Length in Inches. July 12. July 19. Aug. 2. Aug. 10. Aug. 12. Aug. 17. Aug. 23. Aug. 25. 15% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18% 1 19 20 21 Average length, 19 inches; average weight, 3.4 lb. (2.) The Two-years-in-lake Type. This group was present in moderate numbers in the 1922 run, those present in our samples constituting 7.4 per cent, of the total, the number of individuals being sixty-four. The distribution of these within the run, given separately for each year-class and each sex, is shown in Table X. As in other years, the members of this group ran abundantly in the latter half of June, but contrary to our experience in previous seasons, there was no second wave of migration entering in August. In fact, there were fewer present in the August run than in any other part of the season. The sharp distinction in this regard between 1922 and such a season as 1920 is shown by comparing Table X. of this report with Table III. of the report for 1921. We have previously suggested that as this group is not uniformly distributed throughout the Fraser basin, some tributaries having it in abundance, while others are apparently without representatives of it, the presence or absence of it in various parts of the Fraser River run may be indicative of the presence or absence of the racial groups of which it forms a component part. If this theory is sound, the almost total absence of the group during the August run of 1922 may indicate the almost total absence of some racial group which usually characterizes this part of the run. A special feature of the 3922 run was the presence of members of this group only four years old. These had not been reported previously from this watershed, and are rarely encountered in any stream except the Columbia, where they are a regular feature in each year. It is interesting to note that although these fish have spent the same time in the sea as the three-year "grilse" (of the one-year-in-lake type) and are of equal size with the latter, nevertheless females of this type mature because of the additional year of their age, while the females of equal size of the one-year-in-lake type practically never mature until a later year. Six-year representatives of the group were present in unusual numbers, 27 per cent, of the total number taken belonging to this rather rare year-class. The length and weight frequencies of members of this group are shown in Tables XL and XII. It is noticeable that the five-year members of this group, which had spent three years in the sea, averaged a little smaller than the four-year members of the one-year-in-lake group, which had also spent three years in the sea. Four years (one-year-in-lake group) ... .Males, 24.0 inches; females, 23.0 inches. Five years (two-years-in-lake group) .. .Males, 23.5 inches ; females, 22.7 inches. iEO. eiy of Sockeye Salmon. T 23 Table X.—Fraser River Sockeyes, 1922, Tiro Years in Lake, arranged by Age, Sex, and Date of Capture. o loci o o o . o ©<ri tHCJ, o CJCO o . -^© o o5 c g 3 3 Sis 3 3 1-31-5 3 3 1-51-5 1-5^ bis 5 3 1-51-5 tjj&b 3 3 bcljc 3 3 +j o 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 3 6 3 1 1 5 2 18 Five-year females 8 4 3 2 1 3 21 Six-year males 7 3 1 1 1 1 14 3 3 Totals :. 25 10 6 6 8 6 3 64 Table XI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length. Length In Inches. Number of Individuals. Four Years old. Males. Females. Five Years old. Males. Females. I! Six Years old. Males. Females. Total. 15% 16 16% 17 17% 18 18% 19 19% 20 20% .'■'. 21 21% 22 22% 23 23% 24 24% 25 25 % 26 26% 27 27% 28 Totals Totals each group Average lengths . 19.2 18 21 39 17 23.5 22.7 25.4 24.3 64 T 24 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table XII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps, grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight. Weight in Pounds. Number of Individuals. Four Years old. Males. Females. Five Years old. Males. Females. Six Years old. Males. Females. Total. 1% 2 2% 3 3% 4 4% 5 5% 6 6% 7 7% 8 8% 9 9% 10 Totals Average weights 12 15 42 3.9 6.1 5.4 5.5 5.5 (3.) The Sea-type. It has been shown in previous years that no representatives of this group ever make their appearance in the early stages of the run, but ordinarily arrive with great promptness about the middle of July. In 1922 our samples contain a single individual taken on July 6th, one on July 15th, and another on July 19th, all of these confined to the four-year class. On July 20th four specimens were included in our material, distributed over each sex of the two year-classes, and from their consistent appearance on subsequent dates it appears that the run of this type was now fairly under way. It was present in 1922 in unusually large numbers. Of the 102 specimens included in our samples, fifty-four were in their third year and forty-eight in their fourth year. The seasonal distribution of these specimens is indicated in Table XIII. We have on previous occasions called attention to the fact that the length of time spent in the stream or lake by fry and fingerlings before migrating to sea has little or no influence on the size of the individuals at maturity. The factor which mainly determines size is the number of years spent in the ocean. Life in the river or lake accomplishes nothing in this direction. It delays the coming to maturity by approximately the entire period of residence in fresh water, and during this period of one year, or two years, or even three years spent in such residence, the young are exposed to the attack of trout and other enemies and their number is decimated. An interesting comparison is afforded by the three groups of sockeyes found in the Fraser River run in 1922. Those of the sea-type descended to the sea soon after hatching, had no residence in fresh water, and matured after three or four seasons on the sea-feeding grounds when in their third or fourth years. The one-year-in-lake type spent one year in fresh water, had two, three, or four seasons in the sea, and matured in their third, fourth, or fifth years. The two-years-in-lake type spent two years in fresh water, remained two, three, or four seasons in the sea, and matured in their fourth, fifth, or sixth years. If we ignore the fresh-water history of these three types and group them according to the number of years they have spent at sea, wre shall find that the members of each group have attained approximately the same size, although they may differ in age by as much as two years. The results of this grouping are shown in Table XIV. The length and weight frequencies of the sea-type material are exhibited in Tables XV. and XVI. 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 25 Table XIII.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps, grouped by Age, Sex, and Date of Capture. Number of Individuals. Dates, 1922. Three Years old. Four Years old. Total. ' Males. Females. Males. Females. July 6 1 1 o 4 2 6 8 1 5 6 9 1 1 2 2 1 o 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 6 O 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 7 1 1 1 „ 15 ,,•19 1 1 „ 20 .' 4 „ 22 „ 24 5 8 „ 26 „ 28 : „ 31 Aug. 2 10 7 21 12 5 7 6 „ 10 9 „ 12 4 „ 15 4 „ 23 1 „ 25 1 Totals 40 14 30 18 102 Table XIV.—Fraser River Sockeyes, 1922, grouped by nwmber of Years spent on Sea-feeding Grounds. Age. Two Years at Sea. Males. Females. One-year-in-lake type Two-years-in-lake type Three Years at Sea Sea-type One-year-in-lake type Two-years-in-lake type Four Years at Sea. Sea-type One-year-in-lake type Two-years-in-lake type Inches. 19.0 19.2 23.0 24.0 23.5 25.5 25.8 25.4 Inches. 16.5 22.6 23.0 22.7 24.2 24.1 24.3 Report of the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 Table XV.—Fraser River Sockeyes, 1922, Sea-type, from Vancouver Island Traps, arranged by Age, Sex, and Length. Length in Inches. Number of Individuals. Three Years old. Males. Females. Four Years old. Males. Females. Total. 20 20% 21 21% 22 22% 23 23% 24 24% 25 25% .' 26 1 26% 27 Totals Totals each group Average lengths 10 12 40 14 54 23.0 1 2 9 10 3 3 2 30 18 48 22.6 25.5 I 24.2 I " 1 4 5 0 13 19 8 8 14 11 3 2 | 102 | 24.1 Table XVI.—Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1922, from Vancouver. Island Traps, by Age, Sex, and Weight. arranged Weight in Pounds. Number of Individuals. Three Years old. Four Years old. Total. Males. Females. Males. Females. 3 : 1 2 10 17 6 4 3 5 5 1 .. - .. 1 3 4 5 3 1 1 .. 3% 4 . . ' ■ ■ - 1 4% 5 . . o 7 5% 6 16 20 6% 11 7 ' 4 10 9 4 1 2 13 7% 13 8 . . 10 8% 9 ■ . . . 5 1 9% 2 Totals 40 14 30 18 102 5.9 1 5 5> 7 a 6.9 6 5 2. THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1922. (1.) General Characteristics. The Rivers Inlet runs for the last three years have exhibited extremely wide fluctuations in volume, 1920 having produced one of the very largest packs known to the river, 1921 the next to the smallest since the industry became well established, and, finally, 1922 showing a slight improvement over 1921, 1919, and 1918, and almost duplicating the pack of 1917, which would be considered its progenitor, if we adopt the theory of a five-year cycle for this stream. 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 27 As we have previously shown, the correspondences are very striking when the years with their respective packs are arranged in series with five-year intervals. Allowing for the fact that there has been an unquestionable impoverishment of the stream during, the last five years, so the individual years of the last cycle show some reduction below the corresponding years of the previous cycle, the major fluctuations in size of run are seen to be repeated when these are arranged in five-year groups, while there is no correspondence if the arrangement is on the basis of four years, or any other number than five. We give below in even thousands of full cases the packs since 1907 arranged in accordance with the five-year cycle. The series of corresponding years read along the horizontal lines from left to right. 1907 87,000 1912 112,000 1917...'.. 61,000 1922 60,700 1908..... 64,000 1913 61,000 1918 53,000 1909 89,000 1914 89,000 1919 56,000 1910 120,000 1915 130,000 1920 121,000 1911 88,000 1916 44,000 1921 46,000 From this it appears that 1922 falls perfectly in line with its series and can be considered a lineal descendant of 1917. But, unfortunately for this view, 1922 proved to be an exception to the rule prevailing among the Rivers Inlet runs, and instead of being composed largely of five-year fish it was made up for the most part (82 per cent.) of fish that were only four years old. It must be considered, therefore, to be more largely derived from the brood-year 1918. But as the pack in 1918 was 53,401 cases the discrepancy is not formidable. (2.) The Age-groups. The Rivers Inlet run is characterized by the almost total absence of sockeyes belonging to the group (sea-type) which migrate oceanwards as soon as they are free-swimming, and also of sockeye (two-year-in-lake type) which linger in fresh water for two years before descending to the sea. The run consists, to the practical exclusion of all other classes, of fish that have spent their first year in the lake, have then migrated seawards in their second spring, and have returned as mature spawners either in their fourth year or in their fifth year. The run consists then practically of these two year-classes and of no others, and the only variation that occurs from year to year is in the relative proportions of these two classes. Analysis of the runs since 1912 has shown that most frequently the five-year group has been larger than the four-year group. For the ten years from 1912 to 1921 the average percentage of five-yea-r sockeyes is 64 and of four-year sockeyes 36. In different years, however, extensive divergencies from these averages are found, ranging from 20 per cent, of five-year fish in 1913 to 95 per cent, in 1920. It is sometimes possible to explain these unusual years by the history of the brood-years that were responsible for the two year-classes. Thus in 1920 the vast preponderance of five-year fish was obviously due to the fact that the brood-year of the five-year fish (1915) was characterized by one of the largest runs known in this watershed, while the brood-year for the four-year fish (1916) was characterized by one of the very smallest runs known on the river. Through this circumstance the natural tendency of Rivers Inlet fish to mature relatively late—rather in their fifth than in their fourth year—was reinforced by an . overwhelming preponderance of the year that produced the five-year contingent. Frequently, however, the cause for abnormal or unusual relative sizes of the year-classes in any given run eludes us. They may sustain no relation to the apparent size of their brood-years, estimated on the basis of pack statistics. And we may have no facts at our disposal to indicate unusual success or failure on the spawning-grounds. An unusually heavy run of five-year fish in a given year may be associated with a commercially poor year five years previously. And nothing that is known to us of its history in fresh water or in the sea is adequate to explain its predominance. The run of 1922 was highly unusual in the fact that throughout the season the four-year fish were far more numerous than the five-year fish. The only previous year that affords a parallel with 1922 is 1913, when a pack was put up of 61,000 cases, and the run consisted of 80 per cent, of four-year fish and only 20 per cent, of five-year fish. In all these respects It closely resembled 1922, with its 60,700 cases and its 82 per cent, of four-year fish. In 1913 no adequate cause for the unusually high percentage of four-year fish has been discovered, although the brood-year for these (1909, 89,000 cases) was apparently a better year than the brood-year T 28 Ieport of the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 for the five-year fish (1908, 64,000 cases). But it does not seem that this disparity in numbers among the spawning groups is adequate to produce the observed results. In 1922 the same difficulty confronts us, but at first sight in more pronounced form. For in this case the four-year fish, which so largely predominate in the run, have for their brood- year 1918 (53,401 eases), one of the least successful commercially of all the observed years on the river. While, on the other hand, the five-year fish, which are so sparsely represented in the run, are derived from 1917 (61,195 cases), which was appreciably a better year. A possible clue to the apparently discordant results in this case is derived from the reports of Fishery Overseer A. W. Stone for the two years in question. In 1917 he reports that, in spite of the relatively successful fishing season, there was a serious shortage of salmon on the spawning-grounds of Owikeno Lake. He furnished an estimate of " 25 per cent, less sockeyes on the beds than in any one of the past six years." In 1918, on the contrary, in spite of the unsuccessful fishing season, he found the number of the sockeye salmon that reached the spawning area of Owikeno Lake that year compared favourably with those seen there in 1913, 1914, and 1915, and greatly exceeded the spawning run of 1916. From this it is evident that if we had some accurate method of determining from year to year the number of fish on the spawning-grounds, this would afford data for prophecy concerning the corresponding year of the next cycle far more reliable than are obtained from the pack statistics of each year. Still more reliable results would be obtained if we could take a census of the young fingerlings on their downward migration to the sea, for we would then have eliminated all the uncertain and variable factors that prevent successful spawning, that eat or otherwise destroy the eggs, and that eat or otherwise destroy the fry and fingerlings during their year of life in the lake. We should still have to contend with the hazards of ocean-life over a term of years, hazards which must vary widely with the different years, and must exact sometimes a lighter, sometimes a heavier toll on the salmon schools. The more of these hazards we can place behind us, the greater accuracy of possible prophecy of the size of the spawning run when the salmon school shall have reached maturity. And conversely, the more hazards that intervene and act variably with different seasons, the less value our data have for purposes of prediction. The statistics of the pack give very uncertain basis for estimating the number of fish that will reach spawning- grounds. Even the number of spawners do not enable us to predict accurately the size of the fingerling schools that will descend to the sea. Yet these are the only data we have available on which to base an estimate of the probable size of the run in the corresponding year of the next cycle. Our estimate of the size of the five-year contingent in the 1922 run is made less reliable than usual by the insufficiency of the data furnished. Measurements and scale-collections have usually been made by the local Fisheries Overseer during the entire season, but it will be seen by reference to the accompanying tables that the first samples taken in 1922 were as late in the run as July 10th, due to a strike. 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 of events is not exactly the same in runs of different years. However, as is shown in Table XVIII., the proportions of five-year fish were so much less than on 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. 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Ssockeyb Salmon. T 29 Table XVII.—Percentages of Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes appearing at Different Dates from 1915 to 1922. Date. 1915 June 27 . „ 28 . „ 29 . „ 30 . July 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . „ 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . „ 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 26 . 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . Aug. 1 2 . 84 84 88 92 1916. 93 92 90 84 69 08 60 1917. I 1918. I 1919. ! 1921. 94 73 41 46 44 7 19 25 32 37 64 59 69 44 65 47 67 52 55 55 32 77 56 51 48 48 47 57 40 36 44 53 38 1922. 30 30 30 24 16 8 16 T 30 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table XVIII.—Percentages of Four- and Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, in Runs from 1912 to 1922, with Broods from which they were derived. Run of the Year. Percentage, Four and Five Years old. 1912 (112,884 cases) j 1913 (61,745 cases) ] 1914 (89,890 cases) j 1915 (130,350 cases) j 1916 (44,936 cases) j 1917 (61,195 cases) j 1918 (53,401 cases) j 1919 (56,258 cases) j 1920 (121,254 cases) '..) 1921 (46,300 cases) j 1922 (60,700 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. 79% 21% 20% 80% 65% 35% 87% 13% 76% 24% 67% 33% 43% 57% 54% 46% 95% 5% 51% 49% 18% 82% Brood-year from which derived. 1907 (87,874 cases). 1908 (64,652 cases). > 1909 (89,027 cases). 1910 (126,921 cases,*. \ 1911 (88,763 cases). [ 1912 (112,884 cases), I j. 1913 (61,745 cases). \ 1914 (89,890 cases). ! 1 \. 1915 (130,350 cases). I \- 1916 (44,936 cases). I (■ 1917 (61,195 cases). 1918 (53,401 cases). (3.) Distribution of the Sexes.. In the report of the previous year (1921) it was shown that the male sockeyes were relatively much less numerous than had been observed during any of the five years preceding, and that this deficiency of males was equally marked with the four-year fish and with those of the five-year class. What made the occurrence seem the more remarkable was the fact that there had been great uniformity in the percentages of males and females from 1916 to 1920, especially in the four-year group. By consulting Table XIX., which follows, it will appear that during the above years the percentage of males had varied only between 74 and 79, and for four of the five years it had varied only between 74 and 75. It seemed incomprehensible that in 1922 the percentage of male four-year-olds should drop to 65 per cent, of the four-year class, while at the same time the percentage of five-year males should drop to 38, whereas for the three previous years it had been 49, 45, and 48 per cent. The sudden change in 1921 is now fully paralleled by the condition of the run in 1922. Not only is there a great reduction in the number of males present in both year-classes, but the results are practically identical with those obtaining in 1921. In the five-year group the percentages are identical, while in the four-year fish there is a difference of only 1 per cent, in the two years. A wide difference exists between the two years in the relative total number of males and females present in the run, for in 1922 the four-year fish, in which males are relatively most abundant, were present in such large proportions that the total males very largely outnumbered the females. The disastrous effects of this condition on the success of the spawning can be readily seen. ■ 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 31 Table XIX.—Relative Numbers of Males and Females, Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1916 to 1922. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921.| 1922 Average percentages— Four-year males . Pour-year females Five-year males .. Five-year females Average total males .. Average' total females 74 26 40 60 52 48 75 25 42 58 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 39 Table XX.—Percentages of Males and Females in Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring on Different Dates, Season of 1922. July 10. July 12. July 14. July 17. July 20. July 22. July 24. Aug. 3. Aug. 5. Four-year males Four-year females Five-year males . Five-year females 90 10 57 43 82 18 50 50 80 20 24 76 72 28 39 61 64 36 27 73 76 24 33 67 59 41 42 58 47 53 100 43 57 20 80 (4.) Lengths and Weights. The following tables give statistics of length and weight for the age-classes and for each sex separately for the run of 1922. While the general agreement with runs of preceding years was marked and the range in size of the different categories was approximately the same, an unexpected discrepancy became evident when a correlation of lengths and weights was attempted. On previous years it has in general been the experience that when the average length of a given group was greater or less than the average length of the same group in some other year, the respective weights of the two years have varied correspondingly in the same direction. But that proves not to be the case in the run of 1922. By reference to Table XXII. it is seen that all the lengths in 1922 were less than the average for the ten years which include 1922. This includes both males and females of the four-year class and both males and females of the five- year class. But on consulting Table XXIV. the reverse is found to be true with regard to the weights. For both males and females of both year-classes are conspicuously above the normal or average weight. Both males and females of the four-year class average much heavier than in any year from 1914 to 1921, being 6 lb. and 5.9 lb. respectively, while the average for eight years is 5.3 and 5.1 lb. The data here used were obtained by Fisheries Overseer Arthur W. Stone, who has been responsible also for the data of previous years, and we have no reason to doubt the reliability of the figures given. Assuming their correctness, we are compelled to attribute a degree of plumpness to the 1922 Rivers Inlet sockeyes beyond what they usually display. Our frequency distributions of weights and lengths during different dates of the run prove again that the size of the fish of this watershed, comparing throughout those of the same year- class, does not increase as the season progresses, hut, on the contrary, slightly diminishes. This seems as well established a habit with the fish of Rivers Inlet as the reverse habit is with the fish of the Fraser basin. In the Fraser River run, as we have shown, there is a marked increase in the length of the fish of each category as the season advances. T 32 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table XXI.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length, and by their Early History. Number of Individuals. Inches. One Year in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Total. Four Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. 19% 1 5 25 57 84 60 42 33 23 12 6 3 2 1 7 31 37 44 37 14 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 9 6 8 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 8 11 13 16 14 4 1 2 20% 6 21 34 21 % 89 22 124 22% 111 23 89 23% 60 24 53 24% 37 25 30 25% 12 26 8 26% 5 27 3 27% 1 Totals 354 180 46 74 5 2 2 663 Ave. length . . 22.5 22.4 24.6 24.2 22.4 23.2 25.5 22.8 Table XXII.—Average Length in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Ten Years. I 1012. 1913. 1914. I 1915. J 1916. 1917. I 1918. I 1919. j 1921. I 1922. | Average. I I I I I I I I I Four-year males Pour-year females Five-year males . Pive-year females 23.2 22.9 23.0 22.9 22.9 22.5 22.3 22.4 22.9 22.5 22.8 22.8 23.0 22.8 22.8 22.S 22.3 22.5 22.3 22.6 22.4 22.6 25.8 25.9 25.9 26.0 25.8 25.0 24.9 24.8 25.2 24.6 25.4 24.6 25.2 25.2 25.1 25.0 24.4 24.5 24.4 24.2 24.2 M 24.7 13 Geo. 5 Life-history op Sockeye Salmon. T 33 Table XXIII.—Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, grouped by their Early History. Age, Sex, and Weight, and by Number of Individuals. Pounds. One Year in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Total. Four Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. 4 1 3 30 124 91 56 24 16 8 1 1 13 66 64 28 6 2 1 1 6 7 7 8 5 3 2 4 2 1 8 17 22 11 7 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4% 4 5 46 5% 196 6 170 6% 108 7 59 7% , 39 8 1 1 22 8% 10 9 o 9% 4 10 2 Totals 354 180 46 74 5 2 2 663 Ave. weight .. 6.0 5.9 7.4 7.0 _J 6.4 6.5 8.2 6.2 Table XXIV.—Average Weight in Pounds of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Eight Years. T 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1921. 1922. Average. Four-year males . Pour-year females Five-year males . Five-year females 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.0 7.3 7.3 7.6 6.8 6.6 6.7 5.0 4.9 6.6 6.2 4.9 5.1 6.7 6.7 4.9 4.8 5.9 5.2 4.9 6.9 6.0 6.0 5.9 7.4 7.0 5.3 5.1 7.0 Table XXV.—Four-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, showing Length Frequency Distribution through the Season. Males. Females. Inches. © >, 3 1-3 Cl H >, a 1-5 H >> 3 h-3 H 3 o IN 3 1-3 Cl >. 3 CJ. >> 3 CO ti 3 << 60 3 < "3 +j o EH o ri >> 3 ^5 rH j>j, ha rH 3 3 1-3 o Cl >, 3 res CJ 3 t-3 CJ. 3 60 3 IO 60 3 *r: o EH 19% 20% 1 5 13 8 5 3 7 1 1 1 1 4 4 12 7 4 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 9 6 4 5 3 3 3 1 3 4 9 9 5 4 6 1 1 8 10 4 3 4 2 3 2 1 6 9 11 10 3 6 2 1 1 1 4 5 9 7 5 2 3 1 2 11 10 4 6 4 5 8 7 2 3 1 1 5 25 57 84 60 42 33 23 12 6 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 6 3 1 2 4 2 4 5 3 1 1 3 2 1 5 2 1 1 7 12 3 1 1 2 2 6 9 7 12 1 8 6 14 7 2 2 1 7 21% 31 22 37 22% 44 23 37 23% 14 24 7 24% 2 25% 26 1 Totals . . . 45 42 39 41 37 50 37 33 30 354 5 9 10 16 21 16 26 37 40 180 T 34 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table XXVI.—Five year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, shmoing Length Frequency Distribution through the Season. Males. Females. Inches. o TlH t- o Cl ** CO ia o Cl <* fc- o Cl ■* re IO TH r^ r^ Cl Cl Cl „: r^ rH r^ h _3 >> >, >> >. >, t»> h 60 60 3 -4-> >. t>> 5>> >, t*> >• t-> 60 60 +j 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Hi Hj l-s I-; l-i l-s »-3 «l B Hj 1-; Hj f-3 H3 (-3 H3 < EH 21 1 1 2 1 1 22 1 1 1 1 22% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 o 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1. 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 23 8 23% 11 24 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 ?, 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 o 2 9 6 8 4 4 1 4 2 2 5 1 1 4 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 13 24% 16 25 14 25% 4 26 2 1 1 2 4 9 1 1 1 1 26% 2 27 .... 2 1 1 3 1 27% Totals .... 12 11 5 7 3 2 5 1 46 9 " 16 11 8 4 7 4 4 74 Table XXVII.—Average Length in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, on a Series of Dales. July 10. July 12 July 14. July 17. July 20. July 22 July 24. Aug. 3. Aug. 5. Four-year males . Four-year females Five-year males . Five-year females 22.2 22.7 24.7 23.9 22.5 22.6 25.1 24.6 22.9 22.8 25.1 24.2 22.6 22.3 25.5 24.2 22.7 22.5 24.3 23.9 I 22.8 22.7 24.2 24.9 22.3 22.2 24.0 24.6 22.0 22.3 23.4 22.2 22.5 21.0 23.6 Table XXVIII.—Four-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, showing Weight Frequency Distribution through the Season. Males. Females. Pounds. o ci TlH i- o Cl Cl Cl rH Cl CO no © ■H ci rH i~ d Cl 01 Cl rji Cl CO IO h3 >> 3 1-3 3 *"3 1-3 3 1-3 3 60 3 < 60 3 o EH 3 3 ro >> 3 j* ^ hs >> ►"3 1 60 3 < EH 1 1 4% ..., 1 1 3 30 1 1 13 66 64 28 6 9 5 10 9 9 1 2 3 • 1 6 3 1 5 14 17 1 4 15 15 5 1 5% 15 T> 9 1? 15 16 16 19 10 194 1 3 3 4 3 15 8 6 9 14 10 13 q I9 R 4 12 91 2 4 1 7 6 6 4 6% 7 8 4 9 5 1? 7 4 56 1 2 4 3 7 ?, 5 4 1 5 3 4 24 1 2 2 7% 4 4 2 2 2 2 16 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 3 8 1 8% Totals 45 42 39 41 37 50 37 [ 33 I 30 354 5 9 10 16 21 16 26 37 40 180 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 35 Table XXIX.—Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, showing Weight Frequency Distribution through the Season. Pounds. Males. Females. © ci rj< i- c Cl ■^ CO IO © Cl Tt< i- o CM ^ CO IO T^ r^ T-i rH Cl Cl Cl _] ^i rH y-i Cl Cl Cl _j >> >> >. r*> t-. >. r*i 60 60 H-» fe. t». t*. >-. s~. >. >i 60 60 3 +J 3 3 3 3 Hj Hs "■> hj *> •"• 1-3 EH *■» '-- 1-3 1-3 r- 'I rr. <i EH 5 . 1 1 1 1 5% 6 . 1 1 6 7 7 1 2 5 1 1 3 3 5 5 3 3 2, 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 6% '7 17 22 T% 8 . 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 O 2 1 1 8 5 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 • - 11 8% 9 . 2 1 2 1 2 4 OVo 10 Totals ... 1 1 2 12 11 5 7 3 2 5 1 46 9 11 16 11 8 4 1.7 4 4 74 I'aWe XXX.—Average Weight in Pounds of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, on a Series of Dates. July 10. July 12. July 14. July 17. July 20. Julv 22. July 24. Aug. 3. Four-year males . . Four-year females Five-year males . Five-year females 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 7.4. 7.9 7.8 7.5 6.9 7.4 6.6 7.2 6.1 5.9 7.3 6.6 6.2 6.1 7.1 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.8 6.8 5.5 7.3 6.6 6.8 3. THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1922. (1.) General Characteristics and the Year-classes. As in the case of the Nass, the Skeena River in 1922 made a reassuring record. The pack of 100,667 cases of sockeyes was the best since 1919, and is slightly better than the average of the packs of the two brood-years that produced it. The brood-years were 1917 and 1918, and judging the size of their runs by the packs which they produced, the two were very unequal in size. 1917 was one of the very poor years on the Skeena, with a pack of only 65,760 cases; while 1918 was one of the better years, providing a pack of 123,322 cases. This big year, 1918, was responsible for the four-year fish of 1922, so we have been interested to inquire whether the four-year group in the run of 1922 would greatly outnumber the five-year fish. Such, indeed, turned out to be the case, as is shown in Table XXXI., which follows. The four-year fish of the dominant group (one-year-in-the-lake) constituted 81 per cent, of this group and the five- year fish only 18 per cent. If we include also the five-year fish of the two-year in-the-lake group, we would still have 72 per cent, four-year fish as opposed to 28 per cent, of the total five-year fish present—the fish which were derived from the spawn of the year 1917. We have frequently been unable to correlate extraordinary development of a given year- class with the predominance of its brood-year. Many cases in which this has been impossible appear in Table XXXI., the most recent being that of 1921, when there were more than three times as many four-year as five-year fish, whereas the packs put up in their respective brood- years were nearly equal. In 1922, however, as was also clearly the case in 1920, the two brood-years were sharply contrasted in size, the larger in each case representing one of the most successful seasons, and the smaller one of the least successful. Both hi 1920 and 1922 this condition was directly reflected in the size of the respective year-classes. In 1920, as is shown in Table XXXI., the T 36 Report op the Commissioner of Fisheries. 192 brood-year for the five-year fish furnished almost five times as many cases as the brood-year for the four-year fish, and the five-year fish furnished 82 per cent, of the dominant group of the run. In 1922 the conditions were directly reversed, for the brood-year for the five-year fish produced only about half the pack of the brood-year of the four-year fish, and the percentages of these two year-classes In the run are also reversed. The four-year fish of the dominant group furnished 81 per cent, and the five-year fish only 19 per cent. Table XXXI.—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 (92,498 cases) j 1913 (52,927 cases) j 1914 (130,166 cases) I 1915 (116,553 cases) j 1916 (60,923 cases) j 1917 (65,760 cases) j 1918 (123,322 cases) ' | 1919 (184,945 cases) { 1920 (90,869 cases) j 1921 (41,018 cases) j 1922 (100,667 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. 43% 57% 50% 50% 75% 25% 64% 36% 60% 40% 62% 38% 59% 41% 69% 31% 82% 18% 24% 76% 19% 81% 1907 (108,413 cases). [ 1908 (139,846 cases). 1909 (87,901 cases). 1910 (187,246 cases). I- 1911 (131,066 cases). 1912 (92,498 cases). 1913 (52,927 cases). j- 1914 (130,166 cases). 1915 (116,553 cases). i (. 1916 (60,923 cases). I ]■ 1917 (65,760 cases). 1918 (123,322 cases). The four age-classes which year by year constitute the Skeena River run of sockeyes were as usual the only ones represented in the run of 1922. With this limited number may well be compared the wealth of forms (six to eight year-classes) present in the Nass with each succeeding year. The comparative simplicity of the Skeena run and the extreme multiplicity of diverse forms in the Nass are distinctly racial characteristics and testify to the effective isolation of the two colonies. As is shown in Table XXXII., the four year-classes were all present at the beginning of the season and had representatives each day until near its close. But they exhibited wide fluctuations in relative numbers during this period. As is frequently but not always the case in the Skeena and in other river-basins, the oldest year-classes ran strongest during the early portions of the season and decreased in relative numbers toward the close, when the younger groups predominated. As a striking example of this tendency we have the four-year fish of 1922. On the first five sample-dates they averaged 53 per cent, of the total fish present in the run; while on the last five sample-dates they averaged 86 per cent. A singular exception to this tendency frequently occurs on the latest date of which we have material. At this time there may be a complete reversal of a tendency which up to that date had shown consistent progress. We have noticed this reversal at the close of the season 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 37 in other river-basins besides the Skeena. In Table XXXII. we observe the four-year fish gradually increasing in proportional representation and constituting 91 per cent, of the fish present on August 11th, while the five-year group had entirely disappeared after a consistent history of diminishing numbers. But four days later, on August 15th, the five-year group had again appeared, constituting 26 per cent, of the fish present in the run, in larger relative numbers than had occurred since the early days of July. No increase is shown in the other five-year class that had been two-years-in-the-lake as fingerlings, although containing fish of equal age derived from the same brood stock. Table XXXII.—Percentages of the Principal Age-classes, Skeena River Sockeyes, found to constitute the Run on a succession of Dates, Season of 1922. Dates, 1922. One Year in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Number of Specimens. Pour Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. ari June July 26 29 3 61 53 52 47 54 63 70 66 77 76 89 91 92 91 67 25 " 26 27 33 24 22 16 16 15 10 2 4 1 26 9 15 18 18 19 13 11 16 7 13 8 4 7 9 7 5 6 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 125 125 125 125 10 14 17 123 124 123 20 123 24 124 26 125 31 124 1 122 7 125 11 15 123 15 70 16 12 2 1,751 Table XXXIII.—Percentages of the Principal Year-classes, Skeena Rimer Sockeyes, from 1916 lo 1922. Year. One Year in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Four Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. 1916 34 57 51 27 15 69 70 38 29 34 60 71 22 16 13 9 9 9 6 6 12 18 1917 5 1918 6 1919 4 1920 8 1921 3 1999 . . : 2 srages, 1916 to 1921 Av 42 42 9 7 (2.) Lengths and Weights. In Tables XXXIV. to XLI. are given weight and length distributions of the different year- classes for the year 1922, and for this year in comparison with previous years. From Tables XXXVII. and XLI., which give average lengths and average weights of each year-class for 1922 in comparison with general averages for several previous years, we learn that the 1922 sockeyes of each class were a little undersized. Both lengths and weights tell the same consistent tale, so there can be ho doubt of the fact. It is interesting in this connection to recall what is shown elsewhere in this report concerning the sizes of the Rivers Inlet and Nass River sockeyes for 1922. The Rivers Inlet fish, like those of the Skeena, averaged a little smaller in each year-class, while those of the Nass T 38 Report op the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 were also smaller in each class, excepting the six-year males and females, in which were so few individuals that the averages are unreliable. It seems, therefore, that the conditions to which were exposed all the Northern British Columbia sockeyes which constituted the run of 1922 were somewhat less favourable than usual, with the result that the fish failed to attain their full average stature. It is interesting to speculate on the period in their history when the slight dwarfing probably occurred. It would seem improbable it could have been in their earlier years, for in that case compensatory growth in later years would have made up the deficiency. Also during these earlier years they were associated on the feeding-grounds with the fish which had matured one year earlier and constituted the runs of 1921. But the four-year fish of these runs did not show the dwarfing effects that made their appearance among all classes in 1922. On previous occasions, when practically all the sockeyes of the streams of the Province have been of less than average size, we have noted an additional fact of significance in this connection. The dwarfing had not only failed to affect the fish of the preceding year, but those of the following year also may come back to normal size or even exceed it. The most plausible hypothesis, in view of all these facts, seems to be that the dwarfing was occasioned by conditions unfavourable to normal growth during the early part of the season in which the sockeyes were to mature. They cease to feed early and seek their spawning- streams, but prior to doing so they have responded to the onset of the growing season and have increased somewhat in size. But if the season were delayed, so growth began unusually late, the fish might have failed, before leaving the feeding-grounds, to add as much to their stature as in normal years. The run of 1921 would not have been exposed to these untoward conditions, and the run of 1923 would have an opportunity later in the season to compensate by more vigorous growth for the late start of the spring. Table XXXIV.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1922, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length. Length in Inches. 20 20% 21 21% 22 22% 23 23% 24 24% 25 25% 26 26% 27 27% 28 Totals Ave. lengths Number op Individuals. One-year-in-lake Type. Four Years old. Males. Females. 3 6 14 35 52 112 125 132 82 49 22 4 636 23.6 1 4 44 101 170 153 81 26 8 1 589 23.2 Five Years old. Males. Females. 1 1 5 8 16 27 18 19 8 9 1' 2 115 25.3 1 7 28 39 4.1 30 10 9 165 24.4 Two-years-in-lake Type. Five Years old. Males. Females. 3 6 10 11 24 18 16 8 7 5 108 23.8 1 1 2 11 39 24 14 7 1 100 23.3 Six Years old. Males. Females. 20 24.9 18 24.1 Total. 8 22 88 177 340 365 298 193 133 62 41 9 9 1 1,751 23.7 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 39 Table XXXV.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, for Eleven Successive Years. I 1I 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922 Four-year males Four-year females Five-year males . Five-year females 24.6 23.5 26.4 25.2 23.5 22.9 25.5 24.7 24.2 23.4 26.2 25.1 24.2 23.5 25.9 25.0 23.9 23.6 26.2 25.0 23.6 23.2 25.5 24.7 24.1 23.3 25.9 25.0 24.3 23.4 25.7 24.8 23.8 23.2 25.3 23.8 23.1 25.2 24.2 23.6 23.2 25.3 24.4 Table XXXVI.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, for Seven Successive Years. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 24.1 23.8 26.2 24.8 .23.9 23.8 25.4 25.0 23.9 23.4 25.2 24.7 24.3 23.4 25.8 24.7 24.1 23.4 26.2 25.1 24.2 23.4 24.9 24.2 23.8 23.3 24.6 24.1 Table XXXVII.—Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, 1922, compared with General Averages, 1912 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 . Average Lengths, 1922. 23.6 23.2 25.3 24.4 23.8 23.3 24.9 24.1 Averages, 1912 to 1921. 24.0 23.3 25.8 24.9 24.1 23.6 25.7 24.8 Table XXXVIII.—Skeena River Sockeyes, 1922, One Year m Lalce, Average Lengths on a Series of Dates. Dates. Four Years old. Five Years old. Males. Females. Males. Females. 23.4 23.4 23.6 23.4 23.4 23.9 23.9 24.2 22.9 22.8 23.0 23.1 23.1 23.5 23.4 23.4 25.0 25.2 25.6 25.6 25.8 25.2 25.2 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.6 24.4 25.0 24.5 24.8 T 40 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table XXXIX.—Skeena Rwer Sockeyes, 1922, grouped by Weight, Age, Sex, and by their Early History. Number op Individuals thai spent Weight in Pounds. One Yeai in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Total. Four Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. 3 5 30 88 160 143 122 51 23 4 1 16 135 217 136 70 15 2 5 22 28 18 13 12 12 2 1 7 23 58 48 21 5 2 1 8 12 20 29 21 8 4 3 2 4 22 41 21 10 2 1 6 5 3 2 1 2 2 1 6 7 1 1 3% 6 4 58 4% 268 5 478 5% 421 6 311 6% 119 7 48 7% 22 8 17 8% 2 9 9% 1 Totals 636 589 115 164 108 100 20 18 1,751 Ave. weights . 5.4 5.1 6.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 6.2 5.7 5.4 Table XL.-—Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes for Nine Successive Years. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. One year in lake— Four-year males . Four-year females Five-year males . Five-year females Two years in lake— Five-year males . Five-year females Six-year males .. Six-year females . 5.9 5.3 7.2 6.3 I 5.7 5.2 6.8 6.2 5.9 5.2 6.6 6.0 5.3 5.0 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.2 6.3 5.8 5.8 5.3 6.9 6.4 5.7 5.3 6.6 6.1 6.1 5.5 7.0 6.2 6.1 5.4 6.9 6.3 5.6 5.1 7.2 6.4 6.3 5.1 7.3 6.3 0.7 5.1 6.4 5.8 5.1 6.0 5.4 ,0.1 6.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 6.2 Table XLI.—Average Weights of Sloeena River Sockeyes, 1922, compared with General Averages, 1915 to 1921. Average Lengths, 1922. Averages, 1915 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 . 5.4 5.1 6.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 6.2 5.7 5.7 5.2 6.8 6.2 5.9 5.2 6.7 6.0 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 41 (3.) Proportions of the Sexes. We have shown in Table XLII. that in accordance with previous experience the four-year group contains more males than females, one five-year group (one-year-in-lake) contains more females than males, and the other five-year group (two'-years-in-lake) has more males than females. The six-year group has no constant habit in this regard, the averages for six years showing the two sexes in equal numbers. In 1922, as it happened, the males of this group were most numerous. Our total samples were 1,751 in number, and of these, 879 were males and 872 females. The two sexes were perfectly balanced on the spawning-beds of this year. Table XLII.—Percentages of Males and Females in each of the Different Year-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes, in a Series of Years. One Yeas in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Year. Pour 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 57 46 31 40 45 30 35 37 47 59 56 48 43 42 47 47 45 43 48 46 46 37 44 41 44 58 53 53 55 57 52 54 54 63 56 59 56 56 65 61 52 43 50 52 54 44 35 39 48 57 50 48 46 54 58 56 45 41 43 53 50 1913 1914 1915 1916 46 1917 42 1918 44 1919 1920 59 1921 57 1922 47 Ave., 1912 or 1916-21.. 50 4. THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1922. (1.) General Characteristics. The Nass River made a gratifying recovery in 1922, the soekeye-pack of 31,277 cases exceeding any that had been made since 1916, and comparing most favourably with the average of the five years, 1917 to 1921, which is 19,673 cases. We called attention in our report for 1921 to the apparent lack of any relation between the pack records on the Nass and the size of the corresponding runs of the following cycle. The Nass cycle is clearly one of five years, yet the run of 1921 was phenomenally poor, although its brood-year, 1916, was, according to the pack records and also the results of examination of the spawning-grounds, one of the very best years of the preceding cycle. This lack of relation is further emphasized by the run of 1922. As will appear later in this report, the sockeyes of this run were, to an extent unusual even for the Nass River, five-year fish. Ninety per cent, of the run were of this age and had been hatched from eggs laid down by the spawning run of 1917. The run of 1917 was of only medium size (22,188 cases), as estimated from the magnitude of the pack, and the escape to the spawning-grounds was reported distinctly less than in 1916. Yet from this apparently mediocre brood-year there resulted one of the best runs that has recently appeared in the river. The nature of the exceptional conditions, favourable or unfavourable, which were responsible for these contradictory results is not known to us. In previous reports we have advanced certain reasons for fearing that the Nass River run is declining in size. The phenomenal run of 1922 is not conclusive of this question. An exceptionally favourable season in a declining run is not an unusual occurrence, but the experience of, the next two or three years should demonstrate beyond doubt the truth of the matter. (2.) The Age-groups. Six age-groups were present in 1922, two of those commonly encountered in other years being unrepresented in this run. The lacking groups were the seven-year class of the three-years-in- lake type and the three-year class of the sea-type. Of the six groups present, two were in their fourth year, two in their fifth year, and two in their sixth. Disregarding the early history of these groups in fresh water, and considering only their age as indicating the brood-year from which they had their origin, we find that of the entire run 8 per cent, were in their fourth year and were derived from the spawning run of 1918, 90 per cent, were in their fifth year and were the output of the 1917 spawning, while 2 per cent, were in their sixth year and must be traced back to 1916. In Table XLIIL, which follows, we have disregarded the less important groups and have considered only the four groups which always constitute the bulk of the run, and in 1922 included 97 per cent, of the fish captured. From this table it is apparent what overwhelming proportions were assumed by the five-year group, the young of which had spent two years in the lake before seeking the sea. This is always the dominant group in the Nass, the average for a term of ten years prior to 1922 being 63 per cent. But during these ten years the maximum percentage was 73, in contrast with the 90 per cent, present in 1922. This increased percentage was at the expense of all the other groups present, but in larger measure at the expense of the six-year fish, and the five-year group which spent only one year in the lake before migrating. The last-mentioned group has in ether years assumed large proportions. In 1914 it constituted 42 per cent. of these four principal groups, but in 1922 only 2 per cent. Table XLIII.—Percentage of Principal Age-groups present in the Nass River Sockeye Run of 1922. Percentage op Individuals that spent ■ Year. One Year in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Pour Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. 1912 8 15 4 19 9 10 30 7 8 10 6 27 12 41 14 17 15 16 22 14 7 2 63 71 45 59 66 71 45 65 72 75 91 2 1913 2 1914 10 1915 8 1916 8 1017 4 1918 9 1919 6 6 1921 8 1922 1 11 17 66 6 (3.) Lengths and Weights. In Tables XLIV. to XLIX. we give the distribution of lengths and weights for the different year-groups and for males and females separately. Also the averages are given compared with similar averages for the previous years during which the analysis of the runs has been made by the Department. Tables XLVI. and XLVIL, giving averages of the principal classes for 1922 compared with general averages for a term of years preceding, indicate that the year 1922 was wholly normal in the growth of the sockeyes, which showed averages almost identical with the general averages in question. There is an apparent slight tendency to be below the normal size, a tendency which is most clearly marked in the five-year fish of both types, but the difference is too small to be of great significance. 13 Geo. 5 LlFE-HISTORY OP SOCKEYE SALMON. T 43 =5 ISI sj * ^ as '10©OOIOMinO»MoO»jOMN HfllOCl-HICOOMO© rH rH Cl 01 Cl • H LI IO fl •Hfl • rH rH rji CO rH Cl rH 01 • rH ' 01 H • Cl rH KO rH CO Cl Ol rH 1 rH • 01 <M ■ Cl ■ hHI Ci O l> O CO -^ - 01 rH rH Ci t- -*H rHrHCJ.ClCOCO-rJHHlHIOlO'cOCOt-b-COOOCjCi© oicioioioicicioioicictoioioioioioioico S « ■ B < PROVINCIAL LIBRARY, VICTORIA, B. C T 44 Eeport of the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 Table XLV.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Principal Classes from 1912 to 1922. One Year in Lake. Two Years in Lake. Four Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. Males. Females. 1912 (in 1913 24.6 24.1 24.6 24.0 24.5 23.4 25.0 24.9 23.3 23.5 22.7 23.5 23.3 23.2 24.3 24.1 26.5 25.6 26.1 25.9 26.4 25.-5 25.7 26.2 26.3 25.5 25.6 25.1 24.8 25.1 25.2 25.0 24.7 24.7 25.2 25.0 24.3 24.6 26.2 26.0 26.3 26.5 26.5 25.3 25.9 26.5 26.7 26.2 25.7 25.4 25.2 25.5 25.9 25.6 24.7 25.0 25.8 25.9 25.6 25.0 27.0 26.0 26.9 26.6 27.9 26.5 27.2 27.9 27.4 27.9 28.0 25.6 26.6 1914 25.6 1915 25.3 1916 25.7 1917 25.5 1918 25.2 1919 26.7 1920 24.0 i 23.4 25.9 1921 24.3 24.2 23.5 23.4 26.2 1922 25.9 Table XLVI.—Average Lengths of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1922, compared with General Averages of 1912 to 1921. Average Lengths, 1922. General Averages, 1912 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 24.3 23.5 26.0 24.9 26.2 25.5 27.1 25.8 13 Geo. 5 Life-history op Sockeye Salmon. T 45 HHt-C)«CO00iMiniOMN CO ■* ri (Nt-lfflOr-WCOCO ' ■^ o rl W ^ Cl H CM o H !* CO tc° ^1 ri , CO T3 0) g> O ri a IO id s -j? U ri fl) tH u P o fa 3 1-1 J. d d Cj fl> O 50 OJ ri IO CO § £ fa g E| fl) s ri 13 CQ OJ ri • -H CllO WHM • ■ • ■ -f CO r~ i . o i H CO Si w fl) ri t» aa ri £ H >H tc 6 H CJ ■* IO § H^ cC ri t^ Cii •*» © CQ £ T3 OJ d • • rH • • • CM ri • • • " I^ co * 5 m OQ 6 fa cd !3 < ri 4) §5 to u o > a M CO a ri • • • -rH *rH -CM • CM rH t- rH CO ri s © & Cs r-H g *3 o r-H Jo ri *d ri Ht-COMMMWIClTiH . . - co CO o a ■H H rH Ci cd © a S 1 S-4 ri fa 2; EH © to Si K1 OJ •rHC0b-<NeM^rHlO-># -rH CO X ri Cl 00 rH *# O CN o cd ©£ fa rt rH rH rH to m Cl **l 13 fl) ri • H CO rl M IOM -r-i ■ • • b- Cl O OQ a H cd § d r-i ri fa OJ ^ >> tH _o H to § 0) jm 83 5 G) ri • • • rH CN) rH Cl • rl rH • - 00 X CO 00 a <a a DQ © & ri fl) CJ ri b- ** © 4 o ta ri o a CJ fa •«* id to S> s o ,23 ■ tM Cl LO 00 t- rH rH - - - • cc Ci ri CM i6 oo fa s OO is 5 3 o to N to Pn is & rO bn > O > B <1 P- v£l \S v« -s?* -^1 -XI H^ >->- T-T- r-^ r-h rT" ^^OOOfflt-t-COOOCiO T 46 Report op the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 Table XLVIII.—Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Principal Classes, from 1913 to 1922. Year. One Yeak in Lake. Four Years old. Males. Females. Five Years old. Males. Females. Two Yeaes in Lake. Five Years old. Males. Females. Six Years old. Males. Females. 1913 (pounds) 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 5.5 6.3 6.5 6.2 5.6 6.0 5.3 6.3 6.0 5.6 6.0 5.9 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.8 5.5 5.2 5.4 5.4 7.4 6.9 7.2 6.8 7.2 6.6 7.4 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.3 5.9 6.3 6.1 6.2 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.3 7.2 6.7 7.4 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.2 5.8 6.4 6.1 6.7 6.3 6.3 7.9 7.2 8.1 7.3 8.3 7.8 7.9 7.7 8.1 I 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.0 6.6 6.6 Table XLIX.—Average Weights of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1922, compared with General Averages of 1914 to 1921. Average Weights, 1922. General Averages, 1914 to 1921. I One year in lake— Four-year males j 5.9 5.9 Four-year females j 5.4 5.3 Five-year males j 6.8 7.0 Five-year females [ 6.2 6.3 Two years in lake— Five-year males [ 6.8 7.0 Five-year females 1 6.3 6.3 Six-year males [ 8.1 7.8 Six-year females j 6.6 6.6 I I (4.) Seasonal Changes during the Run. In Table L. we present for each date throughout the season in which samples were taken the percentage in each year-class contained in the run on that date. Inspection of this table makes evident the extensive changes which occurred in the constitution of the run as the season advanced, and a comparison with similar tables contained in our reports for previous years shows entire agreement in the nature of these changes. The sea-type group always is confined to the early days of each run and disappears completely before the middle of July. The six-year groups show the converse of this. They run sparsely or not at all in the early part of the run and attain their greatest relative numbers in the latter half of July and in August. The two five-year groups and the four-year one-year-in-the-lake group are usually present throughout the run, but not in equal proportions. The four- and five-year groups, one-year-in-lake, usually attain their maximum development in the second and third weeks of July and taper away thence in either direction, while the dominant group is strong, but not equally strong throughout. A detailed comparison of these events, as chronicled for a number of years, makes an impressive showing and demonstrates that behind the apparent uniformity in the run, when'superficially viewed, there lies a great diversity of groups, which are marshalled in an orderly sequence which remains the same from year to year. In Tables LI. to LIV. we give the dominant type in the Nass (five years old, two-years-in- lake) arranged by lengths and weights for each of the sample dates throughout the season. The average lengths and weights given for each date show clearly a slight increase in size toward the close of the season. We have reason to believe that in the Nass, as in the Fraser, this increase in size is related to the appearance of a larger race bound for a different tributary, and is not 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 47 the effect of growth during the summer, and we refer in this connection to the graph presented on page 64 of our report for the year 1921. So far as is known at the present time, there are only two sockeye spawning-grounds in the Nass watershed, that of Bowser Lake and that of Meziadin Lake. It has seemed probable that some of the racial differences to which we have repeatedly called attention as appearing in the main run would be found to characterize the respective colonies of these two lakes. No adequate material has yet come to hand to enable us to settle this question, but a few samples obtained in the summer of 1922 in Bowser Lake and at the Meziadin Falls by C. P. Hickman present results in harmony with the theory of different racial groups inhabiting these two lakes. Of the fifteen specimens examined from Bowser Lake, six belonged to the one-year-in-lake type and the remainder to the two-years-in-lake type, none of the specimens having in their fingerling stage spent three years in the lake. Of the ten specimens from the Meziadin Falls, none belonged to the one-year-in-lake type, eight belonged to the two-years-in-lake type, and two to the three-years- in-lake type. While this material cannot be considered adequate, it is very interesting as apparently indicating that the Meziadin group spend as fingerlings a longer period in the lake than is the case with the Bowser Lake group. Table L.—Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates in 1922. Date. One Yeae in Lake. Two Yeaes in Lake. Theee Yeaes in Lake. Sea-type. GJITJ.C p'SS Four Years old. Five Years old. Five Years old. Six Years old. Six Years old. Four Years old. June 28 2 3 4 12 13 10 7 6 4 1 2 5 5 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 84 82 90 93 84 84 86 80 92 92 90 91 2 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 5 6 16 11 1 1 79 30 45 July 6 121 8 117 10 122 13 118 17 111 21 110 25 109 28 110 111 10 90 No. of individuals.. 73 25 1,096 11 18 20 1,243 Per cent, each class 6 2 88 1 1 2 Table LI.—Nass River Male Sockeyes, 1922, in Fifth Year, Tivo-years-in-lake Type, arranged by Lengths on a Series of Dates. Inches. 00* cm g 0 CO | CO >> r^ 00 d ,-h CO* >> i~ 10 CM CO CM d "3 0 EH 23 3 4 4 3 4 2 1 3 12 9 11 12 4 1 1 16 8 16 1 4 1 1 1 3 9 5 16 10 4 2 4 6 12 10 9 7 4 1 2 1 4 6 14 10 4 • ■ 1 1 2 4 5 12 8 10 1 1 2 1 2 5 11 11 6 3 , 4 6 13 10 6 0 2 8 10 7 10 1 4 1 6 9 15 1 1 23% 24 1 5 10 11 8 1 6 23 241/2 38 25 82 25% 87 26 140 26% 71 27 49 27% 28 28% 4 1 1 Totals 36 20 53 | 47 49 54 43 44 38 42 41 36 503 25.3 25.2 25.31 25.7 25.8 25.4 25.9 26.1 26.0 26.0 26.1 25.5 25.7 T 48 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923 Table LII.—Nass River Female Sockeyes, 1922, in Fifth Year, Two-years-in-lake Type, arranged by Lengths on a Series of Dates. Inches. CO Cl g d CO CJ a 3 H5 d B CO >* 3 1-5 d s P"5 CO* 3 t>* >> 3 >-5 CM 3 ►■J IO CM >. 3 ro. CO* ci _^ t*5 ci < d rH ti 3 <! fH 21 21% . . 22 22% . . 23 23% . . 24 24% . . 25 25% .. 26 26% . . 27 27% . . 6 6 5 8 5 2 q 2 5 3 1 1 1 .1 4 13 11 9 12 3 1 1 1 1 4 10 8 23 7 5 1 1 1 2 2 7 12 12 10 5 2 1 2 2 2 10 20 5 4 1 3 5 4 15 16 6 3 2 6 7 17 10 7 1 1 1 2 4 5 15 17 11 4 3 1 2 2 14 13 11 10 4 2 1 5 5 11 8 19 6 2 2 2 4 6 7 13 11 2 1 1 1 4 9 33 69 90 161 115 73 24 11 2 Totals . 30 17 56 61 54 45 53 51 | 62 59 | 59 46 593 Average lengths ... 24.5 24.8 24.7 24.8 24.9 24.8 25.1 25.1 25.3 25.2 25.5 24.8 25.0 Table Llll.—Nass River Male Sockeyes, 1922, in Fifth Year, Two-years-in-lake Type, arranged by Weights on a Series of Dates. Pounds. CO CM CJ d CO CJ I "■9 d a 1-5 CO >> s d r»» t-5 CO* rH >> 3 t-5 3 1-5 rH* Cl 3 IO Cl 3 1-5 CO Cl >l 3 1-5 oi 3 ■5 d rH 6i 3 < "S O iH 4 .. 4% 5 .. 5% 6 . . 6% 7 .. 7% 8 . . 8% 9 .. 9% 5 7 11 10 3 4 6 3 3 4 1 6 12 12 13 7 2 2 11 13 12 5 4 1 2 6 8 20 10 O 4 11 13 6 16 4 . 2 6 9 16 8 1 1 1 1 3 7 14 14 3 1 2 2 8 13 10 1 2 6 8 13 8 7 2 5 10 11 11 1 1 1 7 10 13 5 1 6 27 82 112 144 101 25 4 1 Totals . 36 | 20 53 47 49 54 43 44 38 42 41 36 503 Average weights . . 6.5 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.8 1 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.8 13 Geo. 5 Life-history OF Sockeye Salmon. T 49 Table LIV.—Nass River Female Sockeyes, 1922 in Fifth Year, Two-years-in -lake Type, arranged by Weighti on % Series of Dates. 00 d d CO* d CO* i-* rH -i* d Pounds. CO CJ § i*> t» >, rH rH Cl r-> Cl r\ ci M ti) "3 H-» 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 '"= N l-J l"? 1-5 1-5 hs 1-5 >s EH 4 1 1 4% 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 5 6 4 7 7 5 6 1 3 3 4 46 5% 11 2 .13 10 7 8 5 9 7 10 11 10 103 6 7 5 13 32 19 17 21 17 12 20 16 14 193 6% .... 5 3 13 6 9 16 17 10 23 12 19 9 142 7 1 1 7 q 10 2 o 10 12 12 6 6 72 7% 2 i 3 1 2 4 4 4 2 2 25 8 1 1 1 1 4 8% 9 9% Totals 30 17 56 61 54 45 53 51 62 59 50 46 593 Avera ge weights 5.7 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.3 T 50 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.- 1923 THE SPAWNING BEDS OF THE FRASER RIVER, Hon. William Sloan, Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C. Sie,—I have the honour to submit that during the season of 3922 I inspected the salmon fishing and spawning areas of the Fraser River. The catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system this year produced a pack of 51,832 cases, as against 39,031 cases in 1921 and 39,697 cases four years ago. It is the largest pack since 1917. The catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system produced a pack of 48,566 cases, as against 102,967 cases in 1921 and 50,723 cases in 1918. The pack of sockeye for the entire Fraser River system totalled 100,399 cases, as against 142,598 cases in 1921 and 70,420 cases in the fourth preceding year, 1918. The catch of other species of salmon in the above system shows little variation from that of 1921. An inspection of the spawning area of the Fraser River basin was made in July, August, September, October, and November. I am again indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector for the Dominion in the Province, and his assistants, and to many local residents, both white and Indian, scattered over the basin, for information of value. Notwithstanding the fact that the catch of sockeye in the Fraser this year was larger than four years ago, the number that spawned in the basin this year is believed to have been no greater. The number of sockeye that reached Hell's Gate Canyon above Yale this season was small, apparently smaller than that recorded in any former year. The first fish reached there in July. Small numbers were seen there almost every day during July, August, and September, and an occasional one or two every day in October. There is no foundation for the statement that all the sockeye that spawn in the Fraser basin above Hell's Gate enter the river.- in July and pass through that canyon in July and early August. The records show that many of the fish that pass through Hell's Gate Canyon reach there late in August, all through September, and in many years large numbers have reached there in October. In 1905, 3909, and 1913 vast numbers reached that canyon in October and as late as November. And sockeye have been seen there late in December. Conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon have been under the close observation of competent fishery officers since 1901. Fishery Overseer Scott, of the Dominion service, one of its most faithful and observant officers, has been stationed there almost daily during the salmon run since 1913. He reports to Major Motherwell that the number of sockeye that reached there this year was notably less than in any other year since he was detailed to that patrol in 1914. Water conditions throughout this season were favourable to the passage of fish. At no time were they such as to delay their progress for more than a few hours at a time. Much has been said and written of conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon. It has been stated that " the river's channel in the canyon is stili blocked by rock that was deposited by railroad- construction and the great slide of 3933 " ; that " the channel has never been cleaned out properly, and that the upward migration of the fish is considerably hampered yet by the slide." Also that it is necessary that " the bottom of the river near Hell's Gate Canyon be cleared of obstructions, as the evidence goes to show that that work was not properly completed." In my judgment such statements are not warranted. The work of restoring the channel in 1913-14 and the late winter of 1914-35 was in charge of and under close observation of several of the best-known engineers on the Coast. The work of clearing the channel was undertaken upon lines agreed upon at a conference of seven well-known engineers held in the canyon in 1913 during the blockade. The work was performed by one of the best-equipped and experienced engineering firms on the Coast. It was done on a plus-cost basis and was most carefully watched and checked by engineers representing the Dominion and the Province, and by the Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion and myself. Over 225,000 cubic yards of loose rock was removed from the channel. The last of the rock was removed late in the winter of 1914-15 at a time when the water in the river was at the lowest stage in years. The engineers in charge had little difficulty in getting to the bed-rock in the channel. That the bed-rock was reached is clearly shown by the many photographs taken at the time. Comparison of photographs taken of the . 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds op Fraser River. T 51 channel at Hell's Gate previous to the slide and those taken since 1914, published in the Department's Reports for 1913, 1914, and 19.15, shows that the currents of water passing through Hell's Gate Canyon are the same now as they were before 3933. With few exceptions, the salmon that have reached the canyon since 1914, like those that reached there previous to 1913, have passed through the rapids at Hell's Gate by travelling close to the right side. Few salmon have ever negotiated the rapids on the left side. The wall on both sides is bed-rock, not rock thrown into the channel during railroad-construction or by the collapse of the tunnel in 1913. Ever since 1901 salmon have attempted to pass up the left side as they do now. During certain favourable stages of water many have succeeded, but in all years the bulk of the run has passed up on the right side. At no time this year, or in any year since 1914, have salmon in numbers been seen in any of the eddies a quarter of a mile below Hell's Gate. If the run in any year since 1914 had been blocked the fish would have congregated in the eddies for a considerable distance below the Gate, just as they were massed there, and for many miles below, in 1913. At no time this year on. any one day were salmon to be seen in numbers to exceed 100 in the eddies immediately below the Gate, and none were found in the eddies an eighth of a mile below. Almost every day in July, August, and September a few sockeye were seen passing through the Gate on the right side, and some were seen attempting to pass up the left side. The real blockade in 1913 was in the rapids above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek, some 3 miles above Hell's Gate proper. This is clearly set forth in the Department's Report for 1913. Vast numbers of sockeye passed through Hell's Gate proper every month during the run of 1913, making the passage by hugging the rocks on the right side. However, the fish that did get through those rapids were unable to get through the rapids above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek. These facts appear to have been unknown to or ignored by some of the observers who have been sent to the canyon to study conditions. Of those who have gone there some have been sufficiently observant to note " that the fish have little difficulty in negotiating the west side of the rapids " at Hell's Gate, and all have noted that most, if not all, of the fish that attempted to get up on the east side failed to do so. Hence the manifestly unconsidered statement above referred to that the failure of the fish to surmount the rapids on the east side was because " the river's channel has never been cleared out properly and that the upward migration is considerably hampered yet by the slide " is unwarranted. After twenty-one years of continuous observation of conditions in the canyon, I am fully convinced that the fish that reach there now have no more difficulty in getting through than was experienced by those that reached there previous to the slide of 1913. Chief Inspectors of Fisheries Cunningham and Motherwell, Engineer Mcllugh, and Fisheries Overseer Scott, of the Dominion service, have devoted much time every season since 1913 to a close study of these conditions, and all have repeatedly stated that the fish have not been unduly delayed and that the channel has been fully restored to its natural bed. Any engineer who visits the place can readily see that the rock in the channel at Hell's Gate is bed-rock, and not rock thrown into the river. It is possible that blasting out the rock on the east side, and thus widening the channel at Hell's Gate some 100 yards or more, might afford the fish an easier passage than at present. There is danger, however, that the widening of the channel may create currents which would prove insurmountable to the fish. I therefore strongly urge that no further efforts be directed towards any questionable so- called improvement of conditions at Hell's Gate, for the reason that the salmon that now reach there are not unduly delayed and all pass to the waters above the gate. Fishery Officer Shotten reports to Major Motherwell that " the salmon run to my district " (the Thompson-Shuswap section) " this year surpasses any of the previous eight years." He reports that sockeye were found in numerous tributaries. The Indians fishing in the canyon below Soda Creek, under permits issued by the Dominion fishery authorities, report that they caught less than fifty sockeye salmon this year. No sockeye were found in Quesnel Lake or its principal tributary in September. Men who spent the summer and fall at the outlet of Quesnel Lake state that they saw no sockeye there this year. Similar statements were made to me by residents on the Horsefly River, the main tributary of Quesnel Lake. The number of spring salmon that reached the Bowron River, the main salmon-spawning tributary of the South Fork of the Fraser, this year was the largest ill many years. Large T 52 Report op the Commissioner op Fisheries. numbers were observed spawning there in September. But no sockeye were to be seen in the stream -below Bowron Lake, and less than a dozen were found on the spawning-beds in the streams above that lake. The run of sockeye to the Chilcotin River this season was so small that the Indians who fished under permits issued by the Dominion did not catch enough fish to supply their immediate demands. It is estimated that the Indians caught less than 200 at Fish Canyon, and that those who fished at Hanceville and Indian Bridge were less successful. Reports received from whites and Indians from the head of Chilko River and Chilko Lake state that no sockeye were seen there this year. No sockeye are known to have entered Seton Lake this year. A few spring salmon were observed spawning in the creek at the outlet of Seton Lake in September and early October. It is pleasing to be able to state that the run of sockeye to the Birkenhead River, at the head of the Harrison-Lillooet Lakes section, this year was most satisfactory. There has been a good run, a run that compares favourably with earlier years, to this section in each of the last five years. It is the only section in the Fraser basin that has had a good run. The run there this year is believed to have been better than last year and to have equalled that of two years ago. Twenty-five millions of sockeye-eggs were obtained for the hatchery and the extensive and excellent spawning-beds of the Birkenhead, both above and below the hatchery, were well seeded. The maintenance of the run of sockeye to this section is generally accredited to the successful operation of the hatchery under Superintendent Graham. Chief Inspector of Fisheries Motherwell announces that a portion of the eggs in the hatchery will be transported and planted in the Horsefly River, and that plants will also be made in the tributary at the head of Anderson Lake. The number of sockeye that spawned in Harrison Lake and its tributaries, though larger than last year, was small. The run to Morris Creek was better than for several seasons. I am indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion in this Province, for the following statement giving the number of salmon-eggs placed in the hatcheries this year:— Statement of Salmon-egg Collections in Hatcheries or British Columbia, 3922. Hatchery. Sockeye. Spring Cohoe. , Chums. Anderson Lake Babine Lake . . Cowichan Lake Cultus Lake . . Gerrard Harrison Lake Kennedy Lake Pemberton Pitt Lake Rivers Inlet . . Skeena River . Stuart Lake .. Lloyds Creek . Totals 8,505.000 8,100,000 3,222,750 2.057,800 9.053,185 26,000,000 3,514,000 14,590,100 8.259,000 1,128,500 1,518.860 83,301,835 1,647,360 1,591,700 100,000 1,091,700 3,086.070 3,086,670 Respectfully submitted. John Pease Babcock, Assistant to the Commissioner. 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Skeena River. T 53 THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE SKEENA RIVER. Hon. William Sloan, Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C. Sir,—In obedience to your instructions, I beg to submit herewith the following report on the spawning-beds of the Skeena River for the year 3922:— I arrived at Donald's Landing on September 5th and visited Pierre Creek the following day. Owing to the long dry spell this summer Babine Lake and its tributary creeks were much below their usual September level. Pierre Creek was well stocked with sockeye, the males and females being about equal and up to the average in size. There have been no Indians fishing at the mouth of this creek this year, nor has the creek been disturbed, as in former years, with spawning- fences, etc., when Stuart Lake Hatchery collected a million or two of sockeye-eggs every year from this creek and 15-Mile Creek. Pierre Creek was very low but in excellent condition for some considerable distance from the lake. There were a few minor obstructions at places, but not sufficient to hinder the sockeye in any way. This is distinctly a sockeye-creek, there being no other varieties to be seen; even friend trout, owing to the low water and the large number of sockeye, was conspicuous by his absence. The first sockeye were noticed in this creek on July 21th and there were large schools playing about in the lake at the mouth of the creek at the time of my visit. This creek will be well seeded, much better than last year, and from all reports on a par with the year 3918. The following day I proceeded to Babine River at the outlet of the lake. On going down the river in a boat the water was so shallow that one could plainly see large numbers of sockeye scattering here and there at the approach of the boat. A large number were spawning on the bars and gravelly patches and the deep holes were full of sockeye. It is on this stretch of water, approximately 10 miles, that the Babine Indians, consisting of a hundred families, catch their yearly supply of salmon. Most of the families were using two nets, as a new net was supplied them this year by the Government. The new net is made out of the regulation salmon-twine, having a 5%-ineh mesh extension measure, the other net being made by themselves, with the mesh all the way up to 5%-inch extension measure. Nearly all the Indian women are good net- makers and they claim that most of the fish are caught with their own nets, the mesh in the Government net being too big and the twine too thick. I visited several of their smoke-houses, which were all well stocked with sockeye. They did not complain, as is customary, at the run of sockeye this year, but complained bitterly at their inability to catch them with the Government net. Each family, I should judge, and on a very conservative estimate, would have over 600 sockeye, and that, taking into consideration that they did not start fishing until the first week in August, is ample proof of a good run to the Babine. It was owing to most of the Indians lighting forest fires around the lake that they were later in fishing this year. The first sockeye was noticed on Babine River about June 15th. Last year this river was swarming with humpback salmon, hut there were few to be seen this year. On the lower stretches the Indians were catching a large number of spring salmon, the majority being in the neighbourhood of 25 lb. in weight. A few cohoe salmon were to be seen, but it was still early for that species. Babine River will be well seeded this year and easily up to the average of all good years. I next proceeded to Hatchery Creek, which still maintains its reputation of being the best sockeye-creek of the Skeena watershed. This creek, which is about 2% miles in length, was free from all obstructions and in splendid shape. Many sockeye were seen spawning on the numerous shallow gravelly patches all along the creek, but the last 300 yards of the creek at the mouth of Morrison Lake was simply teeming with sockeye. The spawning fences and pens are erected at this part, which is close to the hatchery. The fences were not erected until July 11th, and as the sockeye were running two weeks previous to that date it was expected that a large number had passed through into the lake. I met Mr. Hearns, the Superintendent of the hatchery, who was busily engaged spawning. He had great difficulty in obtaining ripe males as the majority were still green. He informed me, however, that he would easily secure his 8,000,000 eggs for the hatchery, there being more than sufficient in the pens, besides letting a large number through to the lake when the fences were removed. The sockeye in this creek are above the average in weight and length and are fine specimens, the males and females being apparently evenly balanced. Hatchery Creek will be well seeded and up to the average of 1918, T 54 Report of ti Commissioner of Fisheries. the last good year. Morrison Lake is about 12 miles in length, and through the kindness of Mr. Hearns I was able to visit Salmon Creek in his gas-boat. This creek comes in at the upper end of the lake. It is a long slow-running creek, but with excellent spawning-beds, consisting of gravel and sand. There were quite a number of good-sized sockeye in the creek, the males and females being evenly balanced. This creek will also be well seeded. The next place visited was Fulton River, which was somewhat of a disappointment at the time. The mouth of this river resembles a slough for about half a mile, but the spawning- grounds commence beyond that. This is one of the latest spawning-creeks on Babine, the first sockeye being seen on August 15th. There were not many sockeye to be seen and these were below the average in size. Five Indian families were fishing in the slough, taking up about two- thirds of the passage with their nets. They had not many sockeye in their smoke-houses, but were doing much better at the time of my visit. Large schools of sockeye were in the lake at the mouth of the creek as if the main run was still to come, and this is corroborated by a later favourable report of the number of sockeye on the spawning-grounds, which should now be well seeded. At 35-Mile Creek, which was visited next, there were five families from Stuart Lake and the Portage fishing in the lake near the mouth of the creek. I was informed that the Government has supplied them with nets this year to fish in Stuart Lake. In their smoke-houses they had about 400 sockeye per family, but as the sockeye were still running up the creek they would no doubt increase their catch. This creek was also in excellent shape and was well filled with sockeye. The majority were of an average size, there being fewer '• runts " than formerly, and the males and females being about equal in number. The Dominion authorities have a Guardian stationed here during the run to prevent the Indians molesting the sockeye in the creek. As Stuart Lake Hatchery did not take any sockeye-eggs from the Babine this year there are no fences to prevent the fish from going farther up the creek. At the falls about half a mile up the creek it was noticed that the sockeye made no attempt to go beyond them, although they could easily have done so. The first sockeye were seen in this creek on August 3rd, which is about the same date as other years. This creek will be well seeded and easily up to the average of former good years. In my former reports I quoted 4-Mile Creek as being too small to be of any importance a*s a sockeye-creek, but was agreeably surprised on being first told of the conditions this year. It is a small creek and particularly so this summer, but, nevertheless, there were a good number of spawning sockeye to be seen and a large number of dead and decaying sockeye. Being one of the earliest spawning-creeks on the lake, this little creek will be well seeded. I next visited Grizzly Creek, which runs into Beaver Creek, about 7 miles from the lake. There is fully half a mile of ideal spawning-grounds on this creek, with the exception of a few little windfalls and log obstructions. These log obstructions do not hinder the fish in any way, as a close inspection revealed deep holes underneath the logs. This is the earliest spawning- creek on Babine, and although there were still a large number of live sockeye in the creek the majority had already spawned, as was noticed by the dead and decaying fish. From the number of fish on the banks it was evident that the black and grizzly bear do a lot of damage to this creek, unfertilized eggs being scattered all along the creek. The sockeye were of a good size, the males and females being about equal. The following day I visited Beaver Creek, which resembles a slough for about 3 miles from the mouth of the creek. Beyond that, and between log-jams and beaver-dams, there are some good spawning-beds. This creek also contained more dead than live sockeye, but judging from the number seen the creek will be well seeded, far ahead of the last three years, and comparing well with 3918. The Fishery Guardian informed me there was quite a run of small sockeye salmon to this creek in the beginning of July. These little sockeye were quite silvery in appearance and averaged from 10 to 12 inches in length. Later when he visited this creek the little salmon had lost their silvery appearance and were identical with the older fish. The Indians call them " silver salmon," and apparently they only appear in this creek. I have made arrangements with the Guardian to procure one or two specimens next year when they first come to the creek. This being the last point of interest on Babine, I returned to Donald's Landing and arrived at Burns Lake on September 18th. In summing up the Babine area, I may say without hesitation that the spawning-grounds are exceptionally well seeded this year, much better than last year, and compare favourably with the year 1918. Judging by the total catch this year on the Skeena, one would not have expected 33 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Skeena River. T 55 the above results, but it is quite evident that the additional six hours of a close season has made an appreciable difference on the spawning-grounds. There were less sockeye with gill-net marks than formerly, which might also be said to be the result of the extension of the close season. I arrived in Hazelton on September 20th and visited Awillgate Canyon on the Bulkley River. Twelve Indian families had been fishing, or rather spearing fish at this point, and I am informed that they bad put up in their smoke-houses in the neighbourhood of 3,000 sockeye, which is fair considering the low and clear water. The Fishery Guardian at Hazelton reported a big run of sockeye up the Bulkley which-was equally as good as the year 1918. The Guardian also reported that about eighty Indian families in the Hazelton District, including the Bulkley and Skeena Rivers, had caught approximately 35,000 sockeye. The first sockeye was noticed in the Bulkley at Hazelton on June 1st. Kishpiox River, one of the main humpback-creeks of the Skeena, was literally alive with this variety. I arrived at Lakelse Lake on September 22nd and met Mr. Cart, the Superintendent of Lakelse Hatchery. At the time of my visit Mr. Catt had already obtained the full quota of sockeye-eggs for his hatchery—viz., 10,000,000 eggs. I first visited Williams Creek, which is the principal sockeye-creek on Lakelse, and from its appearance will be well seeded this year. The sockeye were of an average size, the males and females being well balanced. There were still a large number of sockeye in the lake at the mouth of the creek. The first sockeye appeared in this creek on July 26th, and Mr. Catt informed me that the run increased till about August 20th; then gradually decreased until September Sth, when an unusually big run came in on September 9th. Schallabuchan Creek was next visited, but this creek will be poorly seeded. During July and August the entrance to the creek was very shallow, but large schools of sockeye made their appearance at the mouth of the creek, only to be frightened away by the many trout- anglers who regarded this as a favourite spot. A good few had gone up the creek, however, but at that it will be much below the average. Salmon Creek, a branch of Granite Creek, will be well seeded this year. It is only a small creek about a quarter of a mile long, but Mr. Catt collected 500,000 eggs from it. The fish-traps had been removed and the sockeye were still running up the creek. Trout or Lakelse River, the outlet of the lake was one swarming mass of humpback salmon, which will be well seeded with this variety. Lakelse area will be abundantly seeded and well up to the former high average. This being the last point of interest, I returned to Terrace, and arrived in Port Essington on the night of September 23rd. In conclusion, I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the Dominion Hatchery Superintendents and Fishery Guardians, to whom I am indebted for information supplied and hospitality shown. , I have, etc. Robert Gibson, Provincial Constable and Fishery Overseer. Port Essington, B.C., October 16th, 1922. THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE MEZIADIN LAKE AND BOWSER LAKE WATERSHEDS OF THE NASS RIVER. Hon. William Sloan, Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C. Sir,—In obedience to instructions from the Department to inspect the spawning-beds of the Upper Nass River, I beg to submit the following report on the Meziadin Lake and Bowser Lake watersheds:— I left Vancouver on August 33st and took two Nass River Indians, who were awaiting me at Prince Rupert, into Stewart. It was the intention to join forces with the Dominion Fisheries party, but as there was some work to be done at the Meziadin Falls fishway, J. M. Collison, Dominion Fishway Officer, left with three men one week earlier, to await my arrival at the fishway. I left Stewart on September 6th for Meziadin Lake, and arrived at the cabin at the head of the lake on September 9th. Here it was necessary to build a raft for the journey down the lake. By the evening of Sunday, September 1.1th, we had the raft finished. On the 11th we started down the lake, and many spawning sockeye were to be observed at all favourable places at the head of the lake. Sockeye were in evidence at several gravel reaches on the lake-shore for a distance of 5 miles down the lake; but from this point on the water runs out quite shallow for a long distance, and having a more or less muddy bottom from the silt deposited by the Hanna River and McLeod Creek, it is not suitable for spawning. We reached the head of the McBride Rapids on the evening of the 11th and made camp. As our raft was too large to take through the rapids, we had to leave it here and make another one below the rapids. As stated in previous reports, this is the spawning-grounds for the spring salmon in this watershed. At times they were to be observed in great numbers, but there did not appear to be many there this season. After completing our second raft we continued on down the Meziadin River and arrived at the cabin at the falls on September 12th. Here we met Mr. Collison with his men, who bad been working in the river below the fishway clearing away the rock that had collected there, and which helped to divert the salmon to the far side of the falls. They had removed all the loose rock that was in the river at the approach to the fishway, as recommended last year. The sharp rubble has been moved away, and the bed of the river is now in its natural state and permits the salmon to enter the fishway direct. This has greatly improved conditions at the approach, so that I do not think it necessary to consider any fhrther work in the nature of another fishway on the far side of the falls. The condition of the crib-work at the fishway is much the same as reported on last year, with the exception that some of the braces that were put in three years ago showed signs of dry-rot. These have now been replaced by new ones, and the crib-work should now hold in place for another year. The original logs in the crib-work are showing signs of decay, and had it not been for the supports put in it would surely have given way before now. At the present time there are about twenty braces in place, extending right across the fishway, which makes it very unsightly, and prevents the taking of a photograph showing the condition of the fishway proper. There does not appear to be any more debris in the pockets than there was last year, but it would improve conditions to have them cleaned out. The only feasible time to do this work would be when the water is at its lowest stage, which should be in the early spring. It would be necessary to close the water off tight at the intake by a dam built of sacks or some other material. We made an inspection of both the upper and lower falls and found that sockeye were very plentiful at both places. Very few cohoe salmon had arrived at the falls at the time of our visit. Salmon were passing through the fishway continually, there being about 200 sockeye in each of the basins at all times.' Mr. Collison informed me that sockeye were passing through freely for the whole week prior to my arrival. Many sockeye were congregated below both falls and a fine resting-place is afforded about 100 feet below the first basin. Sockeye were to be seen right across the face of the upper fall. There was more than the usual amount of water in the Meziadin River this season, which makes it more favourable for the salmon to pass up. The reason for the high stage of water was owing to the fine warm weather this summer, which has 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Nass River. melted the glacier ice and snow and raised the water-level of the lake nearly to its high-water mark. After completing our work at the fishway we returned to the cabin at the head of the lake. At the cabin we re-outfitted for our trip into the Bowser Lake districts, taking with us only those things that were absolutely necessary. We left the head of Meziadin Lake on September 16th and had a fairly decent trail as far as the Hanna River bridge, a distance of about 10 miles. From that point we left the old trail and struck off into the brush in a north-westerly direction. For a few miles the route had been blazed by some trappers who anticipated going in this fall. The travelling was very slow, a# the going was difficult, and every one in the party had a heavy pack. After four and a half days' travelling through timber and brush we came out high up on the Cottonwood River. This river rises to the south-west of Bowser Lake. It is joined by the Bowser River about 5 miles from the Nass. After reaching the Cottonwood we changed our course and went down-stream until we came to its confluence with the Bowser River. Here we camped for three days. At this place there is a rapid and we built our raft above these rapids for our cruise around Bowser Lake. While the men were making the raft we fixed up a net from some sockeye-web that I had brought, and set it in the river above the rapids. We were not very successful in our efforts, but caught one sockeye and one trout weighing about 8 lb. There is no doubt that more salmon passed through the net than we caught, as we saw the corks agitated several times, but before we could get to the net the fish had liberated itself. The reason for this is that by the time the salmon reach the upper rivers they are greatly diminished in size, and it would take a smaller- mesh net than the standard size of 5% inches to capture them when the net is hanging well in deep water. It had been our intention to explore the country below the confluence of the Cottonwood and Bowser Rivers to the Nass River, but as it had been pouring rain for five days the river was so high that it would have been extremely dangerous to attempt to ford it. We had therefore to abandon that part of our programme. I estimate that the distance from the head of Meziadin Lake to this place by the course we took would be about 40 or 45 miles. After completing our raft we took in our net and went up the Bowser River. The outlet of the lake is about 4 miles from the junction with.the Cottonwood and about 1 mile from the easterly end of the lake. There is a short rapid just below the outlet. While going up the river on our raft we saw a fine moose swim across and take to the woods. On reaching the lake we continued on our way up towards its head and camped for the night about half-way. The next day, September 26th, was fine, the first ray of sunshine we had had since leaving the Hanna River, which enabled us to use our 'cameras with good effect. Bowser Lake runs east and west for about 12 miles; then it takes a turn, nearly forming an L, running nearly south for 6 miles, which makes its whole length about 18 miles. Its width varies in places from three-quarters of a mile to 2 miles, there being some deep bays on its northerly side. Along the southerly side of the lake is a range of high hills, capped with glaciers and snow, and which extend beyond the head of the lake. The mountains and hills are very impressive when seen on a fine day, the snow and ice coming low down the mountain-side. Where these ranges occur they run precipitously down to the lake-shore. There are several small rivulets coming down the mountain-sides caused by the melting ice and snow, and where they enter the lake are the most likely and only places where observations of salmon have been possible in this watershed. Owing to the dirty, milky white colour of the lake-water and the absence of falls and extensive rapids, there are no places where salmon congregate in numbers or where an observer can easily collect data. These difficulties I experienced on my visit to this watershed in 1912, so I decided this year to take in some netting to prospect with. At a suitable place about 4 miles from the head of the lake we put out the net, and succeeded in taking fourteen sockeye in three-quarters of an hour. These, with the one taken in the river, made fifteen sockeye captured, and no salmon of any other kind. I obtained scales from each of the specimens caught in this watershed, and also took scales from ten sockeye at Meziadin Falls, which I am submitting to you to see if they differ from each other. After obtaining our specimens and taking some photographs we continued on, and reached the head of the lake in the evening. The northerly side of the lake is bounded by a low rolling country from the easterly end of the lake to where it makes its turn to the south. From this point up to the head and beyond is a range of ice-clad mountains, corresponding with the range T 58 of the Commissioner of Fisheries. on the opposite side. September 27th was a fine day and we investigated conditions at the head of the lake. Here there is a low flat country between the mountain ranges, with a large dirty muddy river coming down from the glacier country above, spreading over the flats and entering the lake at different places. About 1 mile up the valley from the head of the lake and on the westerly side a creek with clear water comes in from a small valley and joins the main river directly. There were no salmon to be observed in this stream. This is the only possible creek in this watershed that is likely to attract sockeye, and as they were not in evidence it implies that the salmon that enter this watershed spawn in the lake, as is the case in Meziadin Lake. * After completing our work at the head of the lake we commenced our return journey. September 28th was a wet day, and the rain poured all the time from then until we again reached Meziadin. On the return journey we struck in overland from the easterly end of Bowser Lake and did not find our course of the way in until we were well on our way to Meziadin. We experienced considerable hardship on the return journey owing to the heavy downpour of rain. The whole of the party were wet through and it was impossible to dry out as it rained continually. We reached the cabin at the head of Meziadin Lake on Sunday evening, October 1st, after fifteen days out from here to the Bowser Lake watershed, having only had two fine days on that trip. We then started on our return to Stewart, arriving there on October 4th. A. Mackie, Inspector of Dominion Fisheries at Prince Rupert, kindly sent, in a patrol-boat to Stewart, which enabled us to return our men direct to the Nass, the boat arriving on the evening of the 7th and leaving the next morning. In making a summary of our trip of inspection, I beg to submit that the sockeye spawning- beds in the Meziadin Lake watershed were fairly well seeded, and a great improvement in the run was to be observed this season compared with the last few years. The number of sockeye on the spawning-grounds was equal if not greater than that of 1917. It was indeed a great pleasure to find so many fish, as the runs of the past few years have been very poor. I would recommend that some permanent work be done on the fishway in respect to holding the bank in place, also that the pockets be cleaned out. Referring to the run of sockeye salmon to the Bowser Lake section, there are no places where salmon are likely to collect in numbers and where they would be retarded on their journey to the spawning-beds; there are no falls or rapids of any magnitude, also the water is so dirty that it is impossible to see anything below the surface. In spite of this we are able to state conclusively that sockeye salmon do spawn here, as we proved by our operations with the short length of net that we used. Had it not been for the net we would have made this trip without having seen a salmon at all. While we know that sockeye do run to this watershed, I do not believe that any estimate can be made of their numbers owing to the discoloured water. Respectfully submitted. C. P. Hickman, Inspector of Fisheries. 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet. T 59 THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF SMITH INLET. Hon. William Sloan, Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C. Sir,—In pursuance of instructions from the Department, I have the honour to submit unreport upon the inspection of the spawning-beds at Smith Inlet for the year 3922. Leaving the cannery at Rivers Inlet on September 18th for the spawning-beds, I was hoping that the fine weather prevailing for several months past would continue and permit the inspection to be made under favourable conditions, but in this I was disappointed. The weather broke with such violence that it was necessary to remain in camp at the foot of Long Lake until it had moderated. An examination of the Docee River was made, and I find that the run of spring salmon equalled that of previous years. The river was full of this species of salmon and many dead were seen lying in the shallow waters at the mouth. Situated along the shore-line at the mouth of the lake large numbers were observed disporting themselves in the clear water. The run was exceptionally good and should provide abundant seeding for the spawning-beds. Proceeding up the lake, I inspected Quay Creek, situated about 7 miles from the mouth, and am able to report a considerable improvement in numbers of sockeye in comparison with the brood-years 1917-18. The creek was full of sockeye and it is to be regretted that the fish cannot make use of the spawning-beds situated above the falls. At present they form a formidable barrier and it is only by erecting a fish-ladder that this obstruction could be overcome. Outside the creek, although the spawning-beds could not be seen owing to the high stage of the water, sufficient evidence was obtained by the large number breaking water to indicate abundant seeding. The Delabah River, situated about 2 miles from the head of the lake, presented a great contrast to the comparatively small number of sockeye salmon seen last year. In the clear water thousands upon thousands congregated in schools near the mouth waiting, while the spawning-beds farther up were literally packed with spawning fish. Making my way up the river to the falls 1% miles distant, the sockeye seemed in no way to diminish in numbers. The run corresponds closely to the number seen here in 1917, and very much in excess of the number observed in 1918, the two years from which the present run resulted. The gravel-beds situated along the lake-shore at the mouth of the Delabah could not be observed owing to the high stage of the water, but the exceptionally large numbers breaking water in every direction indicated that the beds will be provided with abundance of seed. The entire bay was alive with salmon. Proceeding to the Geluch River, situated at the head of the lake, 1 was compelled to wait until the river had subsided, the lake having backed up into the river for 2 miles. When it was possible to make the inspection, I found the spawning-bed covered with spawning sockeye; each riffle contained large numbers fighting to find room to deposit their spawn. In the small mountain streams emptying into the river the same conditions prevailed. The run is an improvement over the number of sockeye salmon seen here in 1917-18, the brood-years from which the present run is derived. No log-jams or other obstructions prevented the fish making full use of the spawning-beds. Returning once more to the mouth of the lake, I was able to form a better idea as to the run of spring salmon, the lake having gone down considerably. It is one of the best noted in years. The opinion expressed by the cannerymen and fishermen that the run of sockeye to Smith Inlet this year is the largest they have known is not borne out by the inspection just undertaken. While it is true that a very large number reached the spawning-beds, the run did not approach by any means the vast numbers seen on the spawning-beds in 1914-15. It was undoubtedly better than the runs encountered in the brood-years 1917-38. In estimating the run of fish which will return from this season's spawning, due consideration must be given to the exceptional freshet which occurred while the salmon were engaged in spawning. It may have done considerable harm to the eggs; otherwise I have no reason to believe that the run should not be as large as this year. T 60 CEPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 1923 The run of humpback and cohoe salmon, was well up to the average. In estimating the size of the sockeye run to Smith Inlet, I find that they compare favourably in size with the run of sockeye to Rivers Inlet this year, averaging a little over 5 lb. I have, etc., A. W. Stone, Fisheries Overseer. Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 5th, 1922. ■ - ■ 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. T 61 THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET. Hon. William Sloan, Commissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C. Sir,—1 have the honour to submit the following report in connection with the inspection of the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet for the year 1922:— Weather conditions which had been so unfavourable in my inspection of the spawning-beds at Smith Inlet improved, and permitted an uninterrupted view of the tributaries at Lake Owikeno. Leaving for the lake on October 6th, I decided to take advantage of the fine weather and inspect the Sheemahant River first. It is one of the largest tributaries emptying into the lake and reaches back into the mountains a distance of 40 miles. With the exception of cohoe salmon, no other fish have been known to surmount the rock- slide which blocks the river 18 miles from the mouth, and only at certain stages of the river have the cohoe salmon been able to negotiate this obstacle. In an endeavour to give the sockeye salmon an opportunity to reach the spawning-beds above, the Dominion Department of Fisheries in the spring of this year engaged in the difficult task of clearing some of the obstruction, but more work in this direction will have to be done in order that the salmon can reach the beds above. A practical illustration of the ineffectiveness of the work was furnished by watching the cohoe salmon in large numbers vainly trying to surmount the obstruction; many would leap high out of the water, only to be hurled back beaten and broken as soon as they struck the swift-flowing river. With the object of determining if some of the fish had surmounted the falls, I proceeded above the obstruction for some miles, but there was no evidence of them. It is therefore obvious that if the cohoe salmon could not pass through, the sockeye did not do so. An examination of this river from the mouth up to the rock-slide was again very disappointing ; very few fish representing sockeye were encountered, and this was further borne out by Indians who had recently made a drift here, who informed me that out of a total of seventy fish caught only nine were sockeye, the balance being cohoe. A few sockeye were seen near the mouth, and again in a small branch stream 12 miles up. On the other hand, cohoe salmon in very large numbers were observed all the way up the river and again at the rock- slide. The run of sockeye to this stream, in my opinion, as was the case last year, was a complete failure, and may be due to the extreme freshet which occurred in 1917, just when the fish were engaged in spawning. An excerpt from my report for that year which I quote is of interest in this respect, as it gave due warning that this might happen:— " The Owikeno Lake ten or twelve days prior to my visit experienced one of the worst rain-storms, and rose higher than has been known for years even by the Indians. The result may have caused considerable harm to the spawning-beds, especially in the early-running streams, and should be carefully noted when making the inspection four or five years hence." Since the run of sockeye both last year and again this year were failures, and were derived from the seeding of that year, it is possible this may have accounted for the depletion which has taken place in this stream. Arriving at the head of the lake, the three tributaries at this section again showed up very unfavourably. The Cheo, examined first, contained a few sockeye salmon swimming around at the mouth, and again farther up a fair number were observed spawning on the riffles. In one or two streams emptying into the river there was evidence of sockeye, but in taking this fine spawning-stream as a whole it was a distinct disappointment. Both in 1917 and 1918 I reported unfavourably on the run of sockeye to the AVashwash River, but an improvement was shown this year in the run of sockeye that had taken possession of the spawning-beds; from the log-jam up to within a mile of the falls the fish in considerable numbers were observed. Providing that the freshet which occurred recently did not damage the spawning, a very fair number should return as adults. The river needs urgent attention, as the log-jams which have formed since the clearance effected by the Dominion Department of Fisheries in 1919 form a formidable barrier to the salmon if not taken in hand at once. The Washwash, unlike the majority of the rivers, requires attention every year owing to the continual change in the course of the stream. T 62 Report of the itsheries. 1923 The Indian River, situated on the north side of the lake, also proved a disappointment. An inspection of the spawning-beds right up to the falls disclosed very few sockeye. Returning from the head of the lake. I examined the spawniug-beds at Sunday Creek. There were no sockeye inside the stream, but a fair number were observed spawning on the gravel-beds outside. In the narrows close to the Indian shack the spawning-beds were abundantly stocked with both sockeye and cohoe salmon. The Indians, finding that the Sheemahant River was not productive, were catching them in large numbers here. The run corresponds closely to that of 1917, one of the brood-years from which the present run of sockeye resulted. At Jeneesee camp was made and an inspection conducted at this section of the lake. The Nookins River, examined first, is situated about half a mile from the Machmell River and tributary to it. The spawning-beds disclosed the first real evidence of an abundance of sockeye, the clear water helping materially in this respect. Proceeding up the main river to the rough water, they were noted in large numbers spawning on the various riffles. In a branch stream on the right of the main river thousands could be seen spawning, while in various deep pools big schools of the fish were observed. A log-jam at the head of this stream could with advantage be removed to permit the salmon reaching the main river, above; at present the fish cannot pass through. No other log-jams interfere with the movement of the fish in this stream. The Machmell River in size closely resembles the Sheemahant, but is not a good spawning- river. Few sockeyes make use of the spawning-beds, preferring the quiet waters of the Nookins. The Department of Dominion Fisheries is finding great difficulty in holding the dam which was erected two years ago to prevent this river from breaking through into Jeneesee Creek. Considerable time and labour have been spent on it already, and it is hoped that the efforts in this direction will be successful. At Jeneesee Creek the fine run of sockeye which returned last year was lacking on this occasion. The recent freshet had permitted the sockeye to pass over the hatchery fence and on to the spawning-beds above, so that no difficulty was experienced in arriving at a proper estimate of their numbers. The run closely resembles that which returned in 1920, comprising at least 80 per cent, three-year-old fish, or grilse, as they are termed. It is the second time that this has occurred, aud opens up a theory as to whether an explanation can be found in the small male fish mating with the matured female sockeye to account for this peculiar feature. It is to be noted that for several years a steady increase has taken place in the number of small sockeye returning to this creek in particular. The Department of Dominion Fisheries in the spring of this year built some retaining-ponds similar to those erected at the hatchery and stocked them with young fry. Unfortunately, just when they were thriving and doing well, the ponds were destroyed by the recent high water, permitting the young fish to escape, so that the result of this experiment is still uncertain. The hatchery officials had made little headway in the collection of eggs, and from the small number of sockeye salmon seen below the fence it did not seem that their efforts in this direction would be successful. Later reports from this stream are of a very unsatisfactory nature. An inspection of Asklum River showed again the havoc wrought by the recent high water; both hatchery fences which had been erected last year, and from which the hatchery hoped to obtain eggs, were completely destroyed; a log-jam had formed at the fence erected in the main stream and should be removed or will cause a serious blockade. An examination of the spawning-beds was made under ideal conditions, the clear water permitting an uninterrupted view of the salmon. From the mouth all the way up to the rough water, 3 miles distant, the gravel-beds were alive with fish, and bunched together in deep pools large schools of sockeye were in evidence. It is one of the best runs that I have seen in this river in years and surpasses the brood-years 1917-18. On my arrival at Quap I found the hatcherymen busy spawning, making up for the delay in losing the first run of fish which had during the high water passed over the fence and on to the spawning-beds above. An examination of this river above the fence presented a scene unparalleled in my experience. The beds contained a seething mass of sockeye for a distance of 4 miles, and thousands could be seen at intervals in the deep pools schooled up waiting until they were ripe for spawning. Below the fence the same remarkable conditions prevailed, and again outside in the bay another run was observed of equally large numbers. In estimating the run of fish to this tributary, I find it closely corresponds to the remarkable numbers that 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. T 63 returned last year and far surpassed the run of 1917, one of the brood-years from which the present run resulted. Since the run of sockeye in 1918 was a poor one, it would appear that the exceptional return of adult sockeye this year is derived from 1917 seeding, or composed almost entirely of five-year fish. No log-jams or other obstructions interfere with the free movement of the salmon up-stream. Crossing to the Dalley River, I found that the spawning-beds, as in the case of the Asklum and Quap Rivers, contained an exceptional run of fish; the beds were thickly lined from near the mouth right up to the falls, 4% miles distant. In the clear running water thousands of dead bodies were noted, and on the bars all the way along their putrid bodies caused a most offensive odour. It is easily one of the best runs that has been seen in years. No log-jams obstructed the river. Returning to the hatchery, the small creek situated here was being rapidly filled with sockeye and showed up very favourably in comparison with previous years. Hatchery officials were collecting eggs and had obtained a fair number up to the time of my visit. Passing from the mouth of the lake into the river, fish were observed breaking water in all directions; the spawning-beds here and around the Indian rancherie were thickly covered with spawning sockeye, giving every facility to the Indians in securing their full winter's supply. On my way down-stream spring and dog salmon were very much in evidence, indicating a good run of this species of salmon. Summing up the results of the inspection of the watershed at Rivers Inlet, I find conditions similar to that experienced last year, in that the head rivers, comprising the Indian, Cheo, and Washwash, were not well stocked with sockeye salmon. The Sheemahant again proved a failure, also Jeneesee Creek, in so far as the number of adult sockeye that had returned. On the other hand, the Nookins, Asklum, Quay, Dalley, Hatchery Creek, and the spawning- beds at the mouth of the lake were as well stocked as in any year of my inspection since 1913. In size the sockeye generally were below the average, agreeing with tests made by me at the canneries throughout the fishing season, of a little over 5 lb. The Dominion Department of Fisheries has tried the experiment of planting eggs on those rivers which have not been productive, and if the results of its efforts materialize I have no reason to take a pessimistic view of the situation. The lower tributaries will undoubtedly provide a very large return of adult sockeye from this season's spawning. In conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation for the courtesy shown me by G. C. Johnston, Manager,. Rivers Inlet Cannery; Weldon R. Reid, Superintendent of the Dominion Hatchery; and the men at the various spawning camps. I have, etc., A. W. Stone, Fisheries Overseer. Rivers Inlet, B.C., November 5th, 1922. T 64 Report op the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 t/3 O O ■ t-5 la ■ <i a ■ PQ R tO *_) Hi ■a q fl g ° J a ^ -1 o> ^ H tc os o «s OHO XI V C3T3 a. J? dJ3 IQ o a O -M CC IO 00 CO tfi Cl O IS -H O X M » q q q -^ o o ■H 00 N ■* © © o" CO "# tH HHLO Ci •■* Cl "* Cl i-l CO t- CO !0 -•* "rt t- ■* LO Ci -H O Cl t- i-l 00 M ■* :o o i-o Cl t- 1- © IO rH 03 Ci co ci "i cc ep *# t- lo" gn ■ri -i eC co" « o-«s © O N cb 0Q o o h :■; o -m co x © CO CO I- Cj C6 rH O of T)H O rH CO ■* IS CO" Q fcJD T3 •9 2 A! & g s a 3 ■° m o c- EH 3° - - 60 O 5 u 3 M J eg- § a - . Ph Ja ■° fe *s ■j w u « a- ^ »J P_r m CQ fe cd CQ hi d ri 5 £ 5 o 2 £ OQ -fl J &H *r) d . U hs CJClt--CDTHClLOI>Clt---XCD m-*OOiOCnCC0010lNCO olom m t» oo -^ co q n co q LO CD" GO "* Ci CO © O TrT Cl" H ©" OCOH^COC^-HCOCNOOCOIOCO ©OOCD^Ol-XCOQOCOM cd co co th ci qo co ci -^ Ci -a co COCOCD't-t-i-TI iM IN l-OO t- Cl CO H^OO0CX^**CC iO LO IO t- LO O CO CD t- Ci CD Cl CO Cl CD Cl -^ CD CM L- IO Cl CD O CO t- ■* Cl Cl Cl -+ O LO O O H'fWMOCO'^HMCO'* Cl_ 00 CO Ci t- CO X CD *tf Cl tH cd" o" th" ■ Cl rHrHCOt-COTHCDCO O CO H ■* LO LO O I- rH LO LO (M rH "* rH -MClClLOb-^ClCDLO-H^CO flCOOOOOH-fKlHX f CO o ■* co ■* CO IO t- CO t-rHIOCCOOOO-HrHClOO rH CD Ci "H O Cl tH Cl Ci Ci W ■H^ CO CO O Cl rH CO >0 Cl L- LO -Hi X tH Ci' rH CD" Ci & rH CD -* 'cj .. ci as M O bOeS a 10 I 3 cd 3*?9; <! C ■^ w M O j j* 5 H o a o a ss« a w a 5*1 • -a . qss K W '^ 3 " 50 J 3 a y si «8 t- 2 ,fl « 12 « § g S S fc ^ fe fl a fl ._, o d g oj d gj "O 53 *i3 5° S H 3 fl d iS d ^ d OOtHXXCOOO^LO CO IO CD rH ci CO -^ Ci CO « d o d ■* t-* t-" t-" m rH rH rH tH CXX-HHCOCDt-O oihoooo-*-* OCOrHOX-H^t-CD tP <* LO IO" rH rH rH CCrHrHCSCDOOr-i X -H tH CO CO CD CO X rH Cl CO rH TfH f- CD "HH Cl rHCOXrHOOrHrjH-^ © CO t- I- X IO CO t- LO <o o^ c o q l- © h ec ■hh" io io ■* co" lo" lo" cd" cm" fcJD id ■23 =a 00 & EH OK M i-s J J .9 — 2 a ca 5^V •3 m " tJ to _aj bB ^ ^3 w ■a -1« ■S o a) O W w <H fl C !m < Q S _^ d O ^ CD IH CD CD d xl o'2-S | « a l? k 5' 13 Geo. 5 Pack op British Columbia Salmon, Season 1922. T 65 n CO O t/J (M "cn Cl OS Pi Pi & -4 n o W ^ < 3 W w r» 'A u O M r-5 w ~ H < H m n < H i—i Ph 3 B !-> < .-; H O 0 u W a s «■ 0 HH w H a HH o-j fl Pi pq a ft ta o ■<1 «l w 0 o 3 n Aj Ph K a H R D KOri OcHO *■) fl dj tu wrfl d£ a Ph Ch£ d t- CO © tH ""-JM CC IO h IO IO co q cn cq co co Ci cf co" io rH Cl Th Cl rH ci 10 x © ci NOD t- M H t- Cl © "# rH 00 © © (M rH LO CO ■* H H [>• GO © © X ■* x" x" cn" ©" rH Cl rH rH Ci Ci Cl t- © CO X © X rH Cl rH LO CO Cl t- © Cl Th CO Ci t- rH © rH Cl CM CO t- © IO © CO © © © Cl CO ■■* "■■fl CO © co" x" io t^" co" s 5 3 ;5' lfl r S of fl o ■+= Oj ■ 3 o J t! ■ Ph .S U .2 ' fco Ph hd a ca ,j ■ 3 cq fi a fa ^ s g . O ® -fl . a - o , CQ -< 3 & ! © CO © ISO CO X CO CO CM X CO t- l- © X © CO © © © t- LO rHXTh©C0C0©IOrHX© <W-*lflt-ClO(OCOtNI> IHHtXNOJCOCimO) t> Ttl rH t- © © ©" cf Th CO" HO" tH rH CO tH Cl Cl PMMt-O © X CO Cl CO © rH © CO X OI©©©lOC0ClC0©C0© CO © Cl IO Cl LO X © © Th © no cq co t- in •^J,** N 9-1 ©„ IO Cl rH rH tH CO*" rH • CO t- © CO I- LO ■ CO © CO •9 3 eg M 6 rrj °3 -n 3 •jy,a.' 5 3 s » ■ss°S OW pi i-i ^ S ea OJ ca & ■« a o b =3 "3 "soap ■a 3S -J 6 . »l o Jj u *i a a J o PL, s r i4 j u O OJ cj +J 0J P (H O 3 O S Ph SJfl d CD Z Q XThiot-©cici© IO IO IO CO CO CD H L- ■* © CO ©^ rH X^ tH h^ <*" co" io" th" x" io © ci Th •<# © t- tH Cl r-t Cl rH tH tH -CO rH CO CO CO t- ■ *■*-: Th Ci CO Cl io -co tH X X CO t- CO X IO O ■* 05 O H O t- rH Th rH rH rH x" ©" th co co ©■ H Cl Cl Cl rH H io •* N w n l> io Th ci co © cm ■* I* no cc q q co CO Th ©" io ci CO ■ t- IO fc- ■ CM rH © CM tH b- © • Th CO d © • IO CM © • b- IOOJOC1COCOCOO ■* 1-* a oo i- h ■* l- ffi W^H^WCCrt Th t-T co" Th (Co cd io" tjT cf r >o O +i be r fl o t3 . „ a) d w> . xj p, fl TJ m <« 13 5 M dj 10 o Sol* . O CD .fl o-asgE . cl o o ■d ■a . +j t« o -o ■rS s 3 J r — mPh1* .g • H 0 °9 a) _ — Sf? co cj o 9. »' ^ o fl O *h « T 66 Eeport of the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 STATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE. Feasee River. 1922. 1021. 1920. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1916. 1915. Sockeyes Springs, Red Springs, White Chums Pinks Cohoes Bluehacks and Steel heads Totals 51,832 10,561 6,300 17,895 29,578 23,587 S17 39,631 11,360 5,949 11,233 8,178 29,978 1,331 140,570 107,050 I 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 15,941 19,697 15,192 24,853 86,215 18,388 40,111 4,395 148,164 10,197 18,916 59,973 134,442 25,895 • 4,951 136,661 I 167,944 208,857 I | 402,538 32,146 17,673 11,430 30,934 840 31,330 3,129 127,472 91,130 23,228 5,392 18,019 138,305 43,514 31 320,519 1914. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1909. 1908. 1007. Sockeyes Springs, Red Springs, White .-...-. Chums Pinks Cohoes Bluebacks and Steel- heads Totals 198,183 11,209 15,300 74,826 6,272 43,504 349,294 719,796 3,573 49 22,220 20,773 16,018 123,879 15,856 9,826 12,997 574 36,190 58,487 7,028 6,751 47,237 142,101 39,740 150,432 1,018 8,925 52,460 128 35,031 782,429 199,322 301,344 247,004 585,435 1,428 ' 8,687 27,919 74,574 1,903 2,263 415 33,270 623,469 ! 112,425 59,815 3,448 557 63,530 35,766 163,116 Skeena River. 1922. 1021. 1920. 1019. 1018. 1017 1916. 1015. Sockeyes Springs Chums Pinks Cohoes Steelhead Trout Totals 96,277 14,170 39,758 301,655 24,099 1,050 477,915 41,018 21,766 1,993 124,457 45,033 498 89,364 37,403 3,834 177,679 18,068 1,21.8 184,045 25,941 31,457 117,303 36,559 2,672 123,322 22,031 22,573 161,727 38,750 4,994 65,760 16,285 21,516 148,319 38,456 1,883 60,293 20,933 17,121 73,029 47,409 3,743 234,765 2,887 39S.877 !74,300 292,219 I 223,158 116,533 15,273 5,769 107,578 32,100 1,798 270,161 1014. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1009. 1908. Sockeyes Springs Chums Pinks Cohoes Steelhead Trout Totals 130,166 11,740 8,329 71,021 16,378 52,927 26,436 66,045 18,647 02,498 23,833 504 97,588 39,835 131,066 17,942 70 81,956 23,376 187,246 9,785 13,473 11,531 237,634 164,055 I 254,258 254,410 I 222,035 87,901 12,469 f 28,120 12,249 139,846 13,842 45,404 10,085 140,739 209,177 108,413 10,378 25,217 15,247 159,255 13 Geo. 5 Statement showing Salmon-pack op the Province. T 67 STATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE—Continued. Rivees Inlet. 1922. 1921. 1920. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1916. 1910. 53,584 323 311 24,292 1,120 82 48,615 364 173 5,303 4,718 97 125,742 1,793 1,226 25,647 2,908 56,258 1,442 7,089 6,538 9,038 53,401 1,409 , 6,729 29,542 12,074 61,195 817 16,101 8,005 9,124 44,930 1,422 20,144 3,567 15,314 130,355 1,022 5,387 Pinks Cohoes 2,904 7,115 Totals 70,712 59,272 133,248 80,367 103,155 95,302 85,383 146,838 1914. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1909. 1908. 1907. Sockeyes Springs Chums Pinks Cohoes Steelhead Trout Totals 89,890 566 5,023 5,784 7,780 100,052 61,745 594 2,097 3,660 112,8-84 1,149 3,845 8,809 11,010 08,096 137,697 101,060 I 88,763 317 288 5,411 6,287 126,921 383 19 2,075 89,027 587 1,400 129,308" 91,014 ' 64,652 454 479 9,505 75,090 Nass River. 87,874 450 700 5,040 94,064 1922. 1921. 1020. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1916. 1915. 31,277 2,062 11,277 75,087 3,533 235 9,364 2,088 2,176 29,488 8,236 413 16,740 4,857 12,145 43,151 3,700 560 28,259 3,574 24,041 29,949 10,900 789 21,816 4,152 40,368 59,206 17,061 1,305 22,188 4,496 24,938 44,568 22,180 1,125 31,411 3,845 11,200 59,503 19,139 1,498 39,349 3,701 Pinks 11,076 34,879 Cohoes 15,171 113 Totals 124,071 51,765 81,153 97,512 143,908 119,495 126,686 104,289 1914. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1010. 1009. 1908. 1907. 31,327 3,385 25,569 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 3,759 5,189 1.1,467 7,942 30,810 1,239 351 895 6,285 140 28,246 •2,337 3,589 6,818 27,584 3,263 6,612 8,348 1,101 17,813 1,288 Pinks 5,957 6,093 681 Totals 94,890 53,423 71,162 65,684 39,720 40,900 46,908 31,832 T 68 Report op the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1923 STATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE—Continued. Vancouver Island Districts.* 1922. 1921. 1920. 1919. 1918. 15,147 6,936 0,987 0,452 6,143 886 3,230 29,211 36.013 29,324 108,478 34,431 12,591 128,013 251,266 36,043 10,060 14,391 43,186 57,035 18,575 11,120 20,555 53,629 40,752 5,495 3,151 Totals 185,524 69,528 74,170 267,293 389,815 Outlying Districts. 1922. 1921. 1920. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1916. 1915. 47,107 18,350 64,473 54,077 51,980 8,582 90,464 201,847 42,331 1,009 32,902 0.056 112,364 112,209 30,201 865 45,373 11,423 160,812 143,615 70,431 712 98,000 4,988 80,485 113,824 31,331 4,995 21,412 14,818 18,203 15,633 30,946 247,149 33,807 3,721 14,766 165,717 110,300 35,011 702 9,488 40,849 83,626 48,966 Steelheads and Blue- 409 1 2.790 985 Totals 278,144 | 80,568 j 395,728 381,163 404,793 204,597 432,366 313,894 ' - 1914. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1909. 1908. 1907. 1 87,130 149,336 79,464 67,866 70,506 49,832 2,190 6,148 13,532 48,307 6,439 23,538 20,709 36 40,159 7,108 70,727 111,930 43,254 7,246 52,758 83,430 28,328 22,837 37,734 128,296 65,806 12,659 39,167 64,312 42,457 7,439 5,551 ' 20,008 19,460 9,977 Pinks 23,300 25,754 Steelheads and Blue- 2 Totals 320,168 285,898 | 334,187 226,461 123,054 71,708 99,089 99,192 Total packed by Districts in 1907 to 1922, inclusive. 1922. 1921. 1920. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1910. 1915. 140,570 477,915 79,712 124,071' 185,524 278,144 107,650 234,765 50,272 51,765 69,528 80,568 136,661 332,787 157,522 81,153 84,170 395,223 167,944 398,877 80,367 97,512 267,293 381,163 210,851 374,216 103,155 143,908 389,815 404,793 402,538 292,219 05,302 119,495 325,723 294,597 127,472 223,158 85,383 126,686 432,366 320,519 279,161 Nass River ♦Vancouver Island. Outlying Districts . 146,838 104,289 313,894 Grand totals. 1,285,946 603,548 _J 1,187,616 1,393,156 1,020,738 M 1,557,485 995,065 1,164,701 1914. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1909. 1908. 1907. 349,294 782,429 199,322 1 301,344 247,994 023,409 112,425 103,116 237,634 109,052 94,890 320,169 164,055 68,096 53,423 285,898 254,258 254,410 137,007 101,066 71,162 1 65,684 1 334,187 [ 226,461 222,035 129,398 39,720 123,054 140,739 91,014 40,980 71,708 209,177 75,090 46,908 09,080 159,255 Nass River "Vancouver Island. Outlying Districts . 94,064 31,832 99,192 Grand totals. 1,111,039 1,353,901 006,626 948,965 762,201 907,920 542,689 547,459 * Previously the Vancouver Island pack was shown in Outlying Districts pack. 13 Geo. 5 Statement showing Sockeye-pack op the Province. T 69 STATEMENT SHOWING SALMON-PACK OF PUGET SOUND, BY SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922. 1922. 1921. 1920. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1910. 1915. 48,566 102,967 62,654 64,346 1 50,723 411,538 84,637 87,465 Cohoes 111,771 89,412 24,502 210,883 235,860 114,276 155,832 180,799 Puget Sound Pinks. 2,225 404,713 4,669 421,215 6,605 1,121,884 1,887 589,780 65,552 30,831 48,849 525,541 267,538 216,285 427,8'7« 410,087 Totals 228,114 527,023 140,520 1,221,985 •1 560,726 1,863,983 670,234 1,268,731 1914. 1013. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1909. 1908. 1907. Sockeyes 1 357,374 1,665,728 201,572 140,529 234,437 1,005,120 162,228 90,974 Cohoes 151,135 49,150 149,977 244,208 154,077 139,297 05,863 111,011 Puget Sound Pinks. 909 788,789 708 1,038,136 305,156 448,730 280,070 50,176 03,132 111,143 148,810 52,251 51,186 51,840 Totals 780,488 2,553,843 415,389 1,534,016 537,324 1,561,824 309,277 709,155 STATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-P ACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY DISTRICTS, 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE. 1922. 1921. 1920. 1919. 1918. 1917. 1916. 1915. Praser River 1 51,832 | 39,031 48,399 38,854 19,697 148,164 32,146 91,130 Skeena River .... *96,277 | . 41,018 89,064 184,945 123,322 65,760 60,923 116,553 53,584 | 48,615 125,742 56,258 53,401 61,195 44,930 130,350 Nass River 31,277 | 9,364 16,740 28,250 21,816 22,188 31,411 39,349 Outlying Districts. Totals 62,254 | '25,286 71,730 61,129 58,223 42,541 45,373 98,660 295,224 | 163,914 ] 351,405 369,445 276,459 339,848 214,780 476.042 1914. 1913. 1912. 1911. 1910. 1909. 1908. 1907. Fraser River 198,183 1 719,796 123,879 58,487 150,432 585,435 74,574 50,815 Skeena River .... 130,166 52,027 02,408 131,066 187,246 87,901 139,846 108,413 Rivers Inlet 89,890 61,745 112,884 88,763 126,021 89,027 64,652 87,874 Nass River 31,327 ■23,574 36,037 37,327 30,810 28,246 27,584 17,813 -Outlying Districts. 87,130 149,336 79,464 67,S66 70,506 49,832 . 48,367 40,159 536,690 972,178 1 444,762 383,509 1 565,915 840,441 335,023 314,074 * 4,390 cases deducted from Skeena for 1922, Alaska sockeye. - VICTORIA, B.C.: Printed hy William H. Ciili.in, Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty. - 192 3. •
- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- BC Sessional Papers /
- PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER...
Open Collections
BC Sessional Papers
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST,… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly [1923]
jpg
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
Title | PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1922 WITH APPENDICES |
Alternate Title | DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. |
Creator |
British Columbia. Legislative Assembly |
Publisher | Victoria, BC : Government Printer |
Date Issued | [1923] |
Genre |
Legislative proceedings |
Type |
Text |
FileFormat | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Identifier | J110.L5 S7 1923_V02_08_T1_T69 |
Collection |
Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia |
Source | Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia |
Date Available | 2016-02-23 |
Provider | Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library |
Rights | Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia |
CatalogueRecord | http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198 |
DOI | 10.14288/1.0300605 |
AggregatedSourceRepository | CONTENTdm |
Download
- Media
- bcsessional-1.0300605.pdf
- Metadata
- JSON: bcsessional-1.0300605.json
- JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0300605-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0300605-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0300605-rdf.json
- Turtle: bcsessional-1.0300605-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0300605-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: bcsessional-1.0300605-source.json
- Full Text
- bcsessional-1.0300605-fulltext.txt
- Citation
- bcsessional-1.0300605.ris
Full Text
Cite
Citation Scheme:
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}]}"
data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
async >
</script>
</div>

https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0300605/manifest