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

Item Metadata

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

 -
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.
•

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0300605/manifest

Comment

Related Items