{"AIPUUID":[{"label":"AIP UUID","value":"0ebef124-2238-4ec2-8f5d-91c80ebd2d35","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP","classmap":"oc:DigitalPreservation","property":"oc:identifierAIP"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Refers to the Archival Information Package identifier generated by Archivematica. This serves as a link between CONTENTdm and Archivematica."}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"label":"Aggregated Source Repository","value":"CONTENTdm","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:dataProvider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who contributes data indirectly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"AlternateTitle":[{"label":"Alternate Title ","value":"FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:alternative"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An alternative name for the resource.; Note - the distinction between titles and alternative titles is resource-specific."}],"CatalogueRecord":[{"label":"Catalogue Record","value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy","classmap":"edm:ProvidedCHO","property":"dcterms:isReferencedBy"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource."}],"Collection":[{"label":"Collection","value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:isPartOf"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included."}],"Creator":[{"label":"Creator","value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:creator"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"DateAvailable":[{"label":"Date Available","value":"2014-12-10","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"DateIssued":[{"label":"Date Issued","value":"[1904]","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"oc:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"label":"Digital Resource Original Record","value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0064282\/source.json","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:aggregatedCHO"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The identifier of the source object, e.g. the Mona Lisa itself. This could be a full linked open date URI or an internal identifier"}],"FileFormat":[{"label":"File Format","value":"application\/pdf","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dc:format"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format","explain":"A Dublin Core Elements Property; The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource.; Examples of dimensions include size and duration. Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the list of Internet Media Types [MIME]."}],"FullText":[{"label":"Full Text","value":" REPORT\n-OF  THE-\nFISHERIES COMMISSIONER FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA\nFOR THE YEAR 1903.\nJOHN   PEASE   BABCOCK,   Commissioner.   4 Ed. 7 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. F 3\nFISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1903.\nTo the Honourable Charles Wilson, K. C,\nAttorney-General, Victoria, B. C.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to report that during the past spring and summer I was engaged\nin constructing the salmon hatchery at Seton Lake, for which moneys were appropriated in\nJune, 1902, and that during the fall I carefully inspected the greater part of the spawning\ngrounds of the Fraser River and its tributaries, visiting all the sections where observations\nwere made in 1901 and 1902, with the exception of the Quesnel Lake District. Owing to\nbeing engaged at the Seton Lake Hatchery during the entire summer, I was unable to visit\nthe fisheries at Rivers Inlet, the Skeena, and other less important northern points during the\nsalmon run this year. Consequently, the observations contained in this report are confined\nto the salmon of the Fraser River. During the last spring and summer I conducted a field\ninvestigation of the life of the young sockeye in fresh water. The amount of information\nobtained, and the deductions made therefrom, will be found in the concluding pages of this\nreport.\nIt is well known that the run of salmon in the Fraser River during the past season was\nthe poorest in many years. The scarcity was largely confined to the sockeye (0. nerka) variety,\nthough all varieties showed a marked decline. As the sockeye is the great commercial salmon\nof the Fraser, its failure to run as abundantly as usual entailed a great loss upon both the\nfishermen and canners. But what is of far greater importance to the Government, the fishermen and the canners than the remarkable decrease in the catch, is the fact that the number\nof sockeye which reached the spawning grounds of the Fraser this year was so small as to\nseriously threaten the destruction of this great industry. For I can positively state from\npersonal observations that the run of sockeye to the Fraser watershed above the great canyon\n(which includes the Quesnel, Shuswap and Seton-Anderson Lakes sections) was a failure,\nand that virtually no spawn to produce a future run was deposited there this year, though,\ncombined, these lake regions constitute what is believed to be 75 per cent, of the natural\nspawning grounds of the sockeye of the entire Fraser River watershed. This statement,\nwhich may reasonably alarm those interested, is made after a most careful inspection of the\nspawning grounds during the past three seasons.\nI believe that the decrease in the run and the absence of fish upon the spawning grounds\nthis year is attributable to excessive fishing. An investigation of the conditions existing on\nthe fishing grounds for the past five years amply demonstrates that to be the cause. And\nthe small catch and the empty spawning beds of the Fraser, this year and last, prove it.\nIn my report of last year I had occasion to review in detail the conditions existing upon\nthe fishing and spawning grounds of the Fraser, in which I sought to trace the movements of\nthe sockeye from the sea to the river, and attempted to show that too great a proportion of the\nsockeye was being captured in the poor years, that an insufficient number reached the spawning\ngrounds, and that there was urgent need of giving greater protection to the fish. In that\nreview I sought to show, as others have done, that the greatest movement of the sockeye\nseeking entrance to the Fraser passed through the American channels of Puget Sound, and\ncalled attention to the fact that there were no limitations, either of time or method, placed F 4 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. 1904\nupon the capture of sockeye in those waters, and that in consequence all, or most all, the\nfish which attempted to pass through those channels were captured by trap, purse or drag nets.\nIt was also shown that in our waters, though fishing was prohibited until July 1st and that a\nweekly 36-hour closed season was enforced, and that the fishing was confined to the use of gill\nnets, there was an excessive number of such nets being used.\nMy observations during the past season confirm these predictions. Since that time there\nhas been no improvement in these conditions existing upon the fishing grounds. They remain\nin the same deplorable state. There is no occasion for surprise that no greater restrictions\nhave been placed upon our fishermen in view of the fact that the whole burden of protection\nalready falls upon them, while the Americans continue to take every fish possible during the\nentire time they are in their waters. If the decline in this fishery is due to excessive fishing,\nas I have already asserted, the censure for it rests principally, if not wholly, at the door of\nthe State of Washington, as the unbridled fishing conducted in her waters is indefensible and\nunjustifiable, and, if continued, will wipe out the salmon fishery of the Fraser. We are told\nby some Washington officials that the decrease in the run of salmon is occasioned by the\nfailure to provide adequate hatcheries; that only by their establishment can the run\nbe maintained, and it is even proposed that the people interested in the fishing industry\nin the State of Washington will, if permitted, construct and operate extensive hatcheries\non the Fraser. It may be that the great canning interests of Washington believe\nthis, and are the authors of this movement, and would willingly contribute towards\nthe building and maintenance of extensive hatcheries. They would certainly be justified\nin doing so, but until they secure the passage of suitable protective legislation governing\ntheir own fishing methods, there would seem to be a lack of sincerity in their suggestion\nthat is apparent to any one familiar with the regrettable conditions existing there and\nwhich so seriously threaten their own interests and ours. No hatchery system, however\nextensive, can be devised that will maintain the run of sockeye in the Fraser from\neggs obtained from its waters, unless the fishing is so regulated as to permit the free\npassage of a sufficient number of fish to reach the spawning grounds each year. While it is\ntrue that the output of young fish for the season could have been greatly increased had there\nbeen an additional hatchery at the head of Lillooet Lake, it is equally true that under present\nconditions 75 per cent, of the spawning grounds of the Fraser were barren of fish this year.\nTwo of the three hatcheries already established on the Fraser were unable to obtain over 10\nper cent, of the eggs they have capacity to handle, and the eggs they did get were, with the\nexception of three hundred thousand, secured at Shuswap, taken from fish which entered the\nFraser after most of the American traps had been removed from the Sound.\nIt is a generally recognised fact that the run of sockeye for a given year in the Fraser\ndepends upon the result of the spawning in the fourth year preceding, and for that reason the\ncanners and fishermen expected a fair run this year because there was a fair run four years\nago. Their estimate of the run was based on the pack of four years ago, which was in the\nProvince 480,485 cases, and in Washington, 512,540 cases. So far as can be learned no\ninspection was made of the spawning grounds in that year. The conditions there were not\nobserved and considered in the estimates for that year. The fact that there was a good pack\nfour years ago indicates the conditions on the fishing grounds only, and does not tell the story\nof the conditions on the spawning grounds in that year\u2014what proportion of the run reached\nthe spawning beds. The pack represents the fish that were caught and not those that spawned.\nThe future run of fish depends upon the latter. We find from Dominion reports that there\nwere 3,405 fishing boats engaged in the Fraser District in 1899, and on the adjacent waters\nof Puget Sound there were 159 traps, 365 gill nets, 330 set nets, 125 drag seines and 72 purse sectional  view,  interior   of  seton   lake   hatchery, showing   method  of\nholding  egos  in  hatching troughs. 4 Ed. 7 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. F 5\nnets in daily use throughout that season. Referring to the Puget Sound fishing industry for\n1899, the Fish Commissioner of the State of Washington says : \"The season of 1899 was a\nrecord breaker in point of new capital employed and in the value of the season's output. This\nremarkable increase was confined almost solely to the Puget Sound District, the amount of\ncapital employed showing an increase of 110 per cent., the numbers of employees increasing in\nthe same proportion. In the amount of earnings of employees there was an increase of 300\nper cent., and the value of the output making the same extraordinary showing.\" With such\nconditions existing on the fishing grounds four years ago, we may reasonably conclude that\nthe greater proportion of the fish which sought the Fraser in that year were caught in that\nlabyrinth of nets; and that as the same methods were in use this year and last, the fish were\nfrom that cause prevented from reaching the spawning beds.\nWhen the fishermen and canners estimate the run four years hence the empty spawning\nbeds of this year must be considered, just the same as they must consider, in estimating the\nrun next year, that there were no fry liberated from the hatchery in 1900, because the spawn\ntakers could get no eggs. It is the conditions existing on the spawning beds and not the\ncatch on the fishing grounds that should be the basis of their estimates.\nThe hatchery system of the Province to be comprehensive, must insure the annual planting\nof such numbers of fry in all the salmon rivers of the Province as will maintain the run. Only\nby the enactment of adequate regulations covering the entire fishing waters, and the establishment of hatcheries and egg-collecting stations at all the main spawning sections of the Fraser,\nand at least one large hatchery at Rivers Inlet and on the Skeena River, can this result be\nattained.\nThe run of sockeye in the Fraser is greatest every fourth year, because only in that year\na sufficient number of fish reach all the spawning grounds. In other words, only everv fourth\nyear is the entire spawning area of the Fraser planted with sockeye seed. How this condition\noriginated is not known. Just so sure as you lessen the production of wheat by lessening the\nacreage planted, just so sure do you lessen the run of fish by lessening the spawning area and\nthe number of fish permitted to reach it. It does not follow that there must be no fishing;\nthat all the fish must be permitted to reach the spawning grounds, any more than it follows\nthat all the wheat must be re-planted to produce the same harvest, for the fish culturist, like\nthe farmer, by cultivation and protection, produces a greater harvest with a less amount of seed\nthan nature does.\nThe desirability of the establishment and operation of hatcheries is proven by the fact that\nby hatchery propagation a far greater proportion of the ova of every spawn fish becomes a free\nswimming fish than is produced by natural spawning; that with a given number of spawn fish\na greater number of young fish can be produced; that by the adoption of hatchery propagation\na greater number of fish may be caught for commercial use and the run still maintained than\nif natural methods are depended upon. Nature is prodigal with the ova of fish. She has to\nbe, as her method of fertilization and protection of the ova, once it is expressed from the fish,\nis uncertain and results in great loss.\nA hatchery system insures results from the fish which reach the spawning grounds eighty\nper cent, greater than without hatcheries. With the lessening of the spawning area and the\nincreasing demand for fish, hatchery propagation must be resorted to or the run of fish will\ndecrease. Hatchery propagation depends upon such measures of protection as will insure an\nadequate number of fish reaching the spawn stations, as well as upon the number and the\ncapacity of the hatcheries established.\nIt has been shown this year that in all but one section of the spawning districts of the\nFraser watershed there were few or no sockeye, and that almost the entire sockeye ova obtained\nfor the hatcheries were taken at Morris Creek, on Harrison River, from fish which entered the F 6 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. 1904\nFraser after the fishing season was over. Had there been a failure at the Morris Creek\nspawning station, either from high water, as was the case at Silver Creek, or the absence of\nfish, as at Shuswap and Seton Lakes, the plant of fry next spring would have been confined\nto the two million taken at Seton Lake hatchery and the three hundred thousand at the Shuswap\nhatchery. This demonstrates the inadequacy of the present hatchery system. Success in salmon\npropagation can result only from sufficient protection on the fishing grounds, and in establishing many spawning stations. There should be one or more spawning stations in every section\nwhere the fish congregate in large numbers to spawn. The sockeye ran abundantly at Rivers\nInlet the past season, and the spawning beds of Oweekayno Lake were well covered. Had\nsufficient money been available for the establishment of a large egg-collecting station and\nhatchery at Oweekayno Lake and on the Birkenhead River, at the head of Lillooet Lake,\nenough eggs could have been obtained and shipped to the Seton and Shuswap hatcheries to\noperate them to their full capacity. Sufficient eggs could have been secured from such a station\non the Birkenhead River to have more than doubled the output of fry from the Seton and\nShuswap hatcheries next spring. The fish were there to produce the eggs. From the developments of the past season it is to be regretted that the Department, for the reason above indicated, was unable to carry out these improvements ; yet, it is only fair to state that during the\nrun the heavy rains caused a flood in the Birkenhead River, which makes it doubtful if operations there would have been successful.\nTo provide an adequate hatchery system, the Province should construct a hatchery at the\nhead of Lillooet Lake, at or near the mouth of Owl Creek, on the Birkenhead River, also one\non Oweekayno Lake, at Rivers Inlet. With the establishment of such stations and the operation of the ones at Seton Lake, Shuswap Lake and Bon Accord, and the enlargement of the\none on the Skeena River, the output of fry each year would be sufficiently large to reasonably\ninsure the maintenance of the normal run; provided always that the regulations permit a fair\nproportion of the fish to reach these stations. Proper protection in both Provincial and\nAmerican waters, and an annual plant of one hundred million (100,000,000) of fry in the\nFraser would in time insure an average yearly run of salmon to that stream which would\napproximate in numbers the year of the present big run.\nThe establishment of such a system as here advocated will necessitate the initial expenditure of, approximately, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), and about thirty-five thousand dollars\n($35,000) per annum for maintenance. Considering that the salmon industry stands second in\nthe Province in the value of its products, such an expenditure seems warrantable. Furthermore, the fishing industry has already contributed to the Dominion Government, in the way of\nspecial taxes, an amount more than 100 per cent, greater than that which has been expended\nfor its protection and preservation. And in addition to the great sum already paid for special\nfishery licences, this industry has paid the usual and ordinary taxes levied upon property in the\nProvince, and has been one of the largest employers of labour as well. The fish-canning\nindustry, in a petition to the Government, has stated that \" in all reason the moneys it has paid\nin special licences should be expended for the preservation of its interests,\" which has not\nbeen done.\nA natural deduction from the foregoing would be that the construction and operation of\nadditional hatcheries by the Province on the Fraser is unwarranted so long as the Americans\npersist in their present method of catching all the fish which attempt to pass through their\nwaters. I would concur in this deduction did I not believe that the keen commercial sense of\nthe Americans is already awakened to the dangers which now threaten one of their great\nindustries, and that within two, or, at most, four years they will have secured the enactment\nof such legislation by the State of Washington as will provide a closed season on the Sound at  4 Ed. 7 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. F 7\nleast equal to that now enforced in our waters. If they do not do so, but continue their present\noperations, the discontinuance of hatchery operations on the Fraser by the Government would\ncompel them to do so, or would result in the loss of the millions of dollars they now have\ninvested in fisheries, which theyT know depends upon Fraser-bred fish for their maintenance.\nSeton Lake Hatchery.\nIn October, 1902, bids were invited for the construction of a hatchery building and\nSuperintendent's cottage on Lake Creek, the outlet of Seton Lake, near the village of Lillooet.\nThere were six bidders. A contract was let to W. Duguid, of Lillooet, the lowest bidder, in\nNovember. The buildings were completed and accepted in March, 1903. The hatchery\nbuilding is a substantial wooden structure 210 feet long by 40 feet wide. The roof is supported\nby the walls, thus giving a clear floor space for the 160 hatching troughs, which are each 16\nfeet long, 16 inches wide and 7 inches deep. Two troughs are placed end to end and extend\nthe width of the building, and receive the water from the head flumes which run lengthwise of\nthe building. The equipment permits of the handling of forty million (40,000,000) eggs. The\nwater supply is taken from Lake Creek at a point some 1,400 feet from the hatchery, and\nabout the same distance from Seton Lake, by means of a wooden flume three feet wide and\ntwo feet deep.\nA comfortable cottage for the Superintendent and a boarding-house for the other employees\nwere constructed and furnished. The station in all its equipment is modern, and is not excelled\nby any other on the coast.\nIn the construction and operation of this hatchery I was ably assisted by Mr. Le Roy\nLedgerwood, fish culturist, and an able body of local workmen.\nMr. J. S. Burcham, Field Collector of the Department, was stationed at the hatchery\nduring the greater part of the fall and winter, making a study of the embryonic life of the\nsockeye.\nA retaining or obstructing weir was placed at the mouth of Portage Creek, at the head of\nSeton Lake, in July, with the view of retaining in this lake the early run of salmon until they\nwere ready to spawn. There was no August run, and in the latter part of that month a\nweir was placed across the outlet of the lake to hold the fish in Lake Creek. By means of\ntraps placed in the weir and the use of a drag net below it, we captured during October and\nNovember 971 salmon, which constituted the run which reached this section this yrear, and\nfrom them we obtained 2,068,000 eggs.\nI selected the Seton Lake hatchery site in 1901\u2014the year of the big run\u2014but did not\nbegin to build until after a careful inspection of the conditions existing in the spring and fall\nof 1902\u2014the year of the small run. From my two seasons' inspection I believed it to be the\nbest location that could be found on the Fraser River above the great canyon, and was greatly\ndisappointed in not getting a larger run of fish. Either the conditions this year were\nexceptional, or the run at this point during the two previous years was not expressive of the\nvalue of this site for propagating salmon. That the conditions this year were exceptional is\nborne out by the fact that there was a similar failure in the run of sockeye at all points above\nthe great canyon.\nThe eggs taken at the hatchery are being successfully handled, and the fry will be liberated\nnext spring. Had the Province established a spawning station on Harrison Lake watershed,\nor even at Rivers Inlet, the Seton Lake Hatchery might have been fully supplied with eggs,\nas there were sufficient spawn fish in both districts to have insured, barring unfavourable\nweather, an abundance of eggs, which could have been successfully transferred to this station\nfor hatching. Movement of Young Sockeye.\nDuring the past year the Department began a systematic study of the life of the young\nsockeye salmon in the fresh water of the Fraser, to disclose, if possible, at what age the young\nmigrate to salt water, in order to determine the most suitable time and place to liberate the\nfry from the hatcheries.\nThe late Mr. Cloudsley Rutter, a naturalist of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, has\ndefinitely shown that the young of the quinnat or spring salmon (0. tschaivytscha) commence\nthe descent of rivers as soon as they have absorbed the yolk sack and are free swimming, and\nthat they reach the sea, from the Sacramento River, at from four to five months of age. His\nobservations were confined to the quinnat or spring salmon, as that is the only one of the five\nspecies of Pacific salmon found in great numbers in that stream. Heretofore no systematic\nstudy of the movements of young sockeye (0. nerka) has been recorded. The following\nnotes summarise the work of the past season. Meagre as is the data submitted, it indicates\nstrongly that there were this year two distinct sizes, representing two distinct ages, descending\nthe Fraser at nearly the same time. The smaller size, and, as far as is shown, the lesser\nnumber, averaged If inches in length, and were the product of the spawning of the previous\nfall, and are hereafter referred to as \"fry.\" The larger fish measure from 2| to 3 inches in\nlength, blue on back and silvery below, and are certainly one year older than the fry, and are\nbelieved to have spent one year in the lakes, in consequence of which they are here termed\n\" yearlings.\" Owing to the muddy water of the Fraser and Thompson Rivers, it is impossible\nto distinguish the young salmon in the main channels of either river. Only at the outlet of\none or two of the laj-ge lakes, and in the clear waters issuing from them, is it possible to follow\ntheir movements. The observations in clear water, recorded here, were conducted at Seton\nand Anderson Lakes. Those made in the Fraser were conducted at the junction of the\nThompson, at Lytton, and of fish taken either with a fyke or a hand net from both streams,\nwhere two distinct sizes were found.\nObservations at Seton Lake.\nIn Lake Creek, which is the outlet of Seton Lake, fry were observed as early as January,\nin 1903, scattered along in the shallow waters at the edges of the stream. They were less than\n1^ inches in length, and, when first observed, still showed traces of the yolk sack. As the\nseason advanced they lost all trace of the sack and grew slightly larger. They remained in the\ncreek until the end of April, their numbers growing gradually less. A few were seen in May,\nbut none in June. Those in the creek, so far as could be determined, moved down stream.\nSpecimens were found all along, and at the end of, a short irrigation ditch diverted from the\nmain creek half a mile below the lake. Scattered small schools of fry were seen moving in the\nedges of the lower end of Seton Lake. It could not be determined that they moved out of the\nlake, nor could they be found in the lake after May. No fry were observed at the outlet of\nAnderson Lake, which is tributary to Seton Lake, but no regular watch was maintained there.\nYearlings.\nThe migration of the yearlings from Seton and Anderson Lakes in 1903 began in April\nwas the greatest in the first two weeks in May, and continued until June. In Lake Creek, at\na point some 800 feet distant from Seton Lake, a dam has been placed to afford a pond for\nimpounding the late fall run of adult fish, in order to secure their ova. The water supply of\nthe hatchery below is taken from the dam by means of a large flume fed from the head-gate\nwhich is on the north bank. Up to the middle of May the water issuing from the lake passed\neither through the head-gate or over the dam, but a sufficient stream did not pass over the top  ^ '\u25a0- '\u25a0 'ft, \"l\"\nBOARDING-HOUSE     FOR    EMPLOYEES,    SETON    LAKE    HATCHERY.\nSUPERINTENDENT'S    COTTAGE,    SETON    LAKE    HATCHERY. 4 Ed. 7 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. F 9\nin April and May to attract the yearlings. The water between the lake and the hatchery dam\nwas on an average three feet in depth, 800 feet in length and 225 feet in width, with a gentle\nbut pronounced current. It afforded an exceptional location for observing the movements of\nthe yearlings.\nThe seaward movement of yearlings in 1903 began with the spring flood early in April\nand continued to the end of May, and was greatest the first two weeks in May. Very few\nwere noticeable in June. The yearlings issued from the lake at first in small and compact\nschools, towards dusk, after the sun's rays had left the surface of the water, and continued until\nsunrise next morning. Often in the afternoon, from a high bluff at the outlet, large schools\ncould be seen coming down the lake. As the season advanced the numbers greatly increased.\nThey moved in a compact school, running head first from the lake into the gentle currents of\nthe outlet. Upon reaching the first pronounced riffle they would turn en masse and head up\nthe stream, circling and moving more or less rapidly in the more quiet stretches before venturing\nto approach the dam. During the daylight their movements could be closely followed. Upon\nfirst seeing the schools of yearlings moving from Seton Lake I was impressed with the remarkable similarity of their movements to that of the schools of adult sockeye observed in salt water.\nThey were in the same compact mass, running in the same manner, finning the surface, with\nnow and then a fish leaping out of the water. In April and early in May the main current of\nthe stream passed out through the head-gate of the dam, so that it was necessary for the school\nto pass through it in order to reach the waters below. Upon feeling the rapid current at the\nhead-gate the school would circle and head up stream. As the light failed, and the numbers\nin the schools increased, the head of the school would slowly approach nearer and nearer the\nhead-gate, and now and then a hundred or more would permit themselves to be drawn into the\nflume, tail first, and be swept into the pool below. With the passing out of the first few\nthousands the movement became general and continuous; all turning just at the head-gate,\nthey permitted themselves to be drawn downward tail first. Once the movement became general\nit was impossible to estimate the numbers that would pass out even in an hour. At times the\nwaters between the lake and the dam were black with them. Even to observers accustomed\nto watching the movements of great numbers of fry in hatcheries and rearing ponds, the sight\nwas astonishing, and no estimate could be given of their numbers. For many nights there\nwere thousands and thousands of them passing.\nThat these fish were the product of the spawning of the great run of sockeye in 1901 there\ncan be no reasonable doubt. That they represented the greater proportion of the product\nseems almost as certain, though I know that the number of fry which passed down Lake\nCreek in 1902 was very large, much larger than in 1903. The sight was amazing, and impressed one with the fact that the percentage of natural fertilisation of ova and the survival\nof the resulting fry was greater than has been generally believed by the authorities.\nThe dam no doubt retarded their movements and caused them to congregate in the creek\nin greater numbers than they otherwise would have done. Once the school had passed the dam\ntheir movements could not be so fully observed. They appeared to pass rapidly down the\nstream once they were below the dam. Where the water was not broken on the surface they\nswam down stream head first, turning only when there were indications of a fall.\nThe main body which passed the dam between dusk and dawn appeared to descend the\nlength of Lake and Cayoosh Creeks to the muddy Fraser (about three and a half miles) by\n10 a. m., as no considerable numbers could be seen in the creeks after that time.\nOf their rate of travel after they reached the Fraser no idea could be formed, nor could\nwe state that they still kept in compact schools. Mr. Rutter estimated that the young quinnat\ngo down the Sacramento River at the rate of ten miles per day, that they travel mostly at F 10 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. 1904\nnight, and said \" Muddy water hastens the movement down stream, as also does high water,\nwhich is usually muddy.\" If the yearlings move down the Fraser as rapidly as they do down\nLake and Cayoosh Creeks their rate of speed must exceed ten miles per day, as the Fraser is\na much more rapid stream than the Sacramento.\nIn addition to the movement of yearlings from Seton Lake, there was observed a large\nmovement from Anderson into Seton through Portage Creek. The schools issued from\nAnderson Lake in the same manner as from Seton. All that passed from Anderson had also\nto pass from Seton into Lake Creek to reach the Fraser. Dailv observations were made\nonly at Lake Creek, so no estimate could be made this year as to which of these lakes reared\nthe greater number of yearlings.\nObservations at Lytton.\nObservations of the movements of fry and yearlings, both in the Fraser and Thompson\nRivers, were conducted at Lytton by my field assistant, Mr. J. S. Burcham.\nThe Fraser River at Lytton, just above its junction with the Thompson, at low water, is\nabout 125 yards wide, averages eleven feet in depth, and flows at the rate of six miles per hour.\nDuring the season it raised 50 feet, reaching high water mark on June 15, at which time it\nwas about 400 yards wide. In April the temperature averaged 36\u00b0; May, 46\u00b0; June, 53\u00b0;\nand July, 56\u00b0. At all times the water was muddy and of a yellowish brown colour which\nprevented observation of the fish in the water. Their presence could only be ascertained by\ncapturing them in nets. The Thompson joins the Fraser at Lytton, coming from the east\nthrough a precipitous gorge at the rate of ten miles per hour. It is about 60 yards wide,\nvaries from 16 to 23 feet in depth, is fairly clear, and has an average temperature in April of\n41\u00b0; May, 45\u00b0; June, 51\u00b0 ; July, 54\u00b0. The clearer waters and higher temperature of the\nThompson, as compared with the Fraser, is possibly due to the waters coming from the Shuswap\nand Kamloops Lakes. During the season the Thompson rose 49 feet. Owing to its steep,\nrocky banks its width was not increased more than 20 yards over its width at low water. At\nhigh water it was discoloured, but very much less so than the Fraser. Observations there\nwere conducted beginning the first of April and were discontinued on the 13th of July. In\nmaking these observations a fyke-net and hand scoop-net were employed to catch the fish.\nThe fyke-net used consisted of a long cylindrical bag made of a light, small-meshed webbing,\nwhich was kept open by means of hoops, and terminated in a pocket which was entered through\na funnel-shaped opening of webbing. From the face of the bag there were two leader nets\nextending ten feet to either side, which led the fish into the mouth of the funnel. This net\nwas set on the bottom of the river near the shore, with the mouth and leader nets up stream.\nIt was maintained in its position by means of stakes or anchors. The hand-net used was the\nordinary scoop-net employed by the Indians, but of a smaller meshed webbing. This latter\nnet was mainly used at night to take fish made visible by lamp light. Daily observations\nwere recorded on tables showing the number and size of fish taken, which are too cumbersome\nto be included in this report. The following summary will suffice to indicate the results of\nobservations at Lytton : There was a seaward movement of both fry and yearlings in the\nThompson and Fraser Rivers extending from the 1st of April to July 13th. The movement\nof fry was greatest in the Thompson, and appeared to be most numerous in April. The\nmovement of yearlings in the Thompson was apparently less than in the Fraser, and, like the\nrun of fry, was a month earlier. The average length of fry in both rivers was If inches.\nThe average length of yearlings was three inches. More fry than yearlings were secured in\nboth streams, which was natural, from the fact that the latter were stronger swimmers, more\nshy, better able from their year of experience to avoid capture, and kept more in the main\ncurrents. They both travelled down stream tail first, drifting rather than swimming down.\nIn the muddy waters of the Fraser they seemed to travel as much by day as by night. In\nthe Thompson the movement was always greatest at night. Observations will be continued\nduring the coming winter to ascertain at what time the seaward migration first passes Lytton.\nYoung Sockeye at other Points.\nMr. C. B. Sword, Dominion Inspector of Fsheries, furnished me with two sockeye fry,\none If and the other 1| inches in length, which he secured from the Fraser River near Bon\nAccord, on the 16th of April, 1902, which he said appeared to be passing down stream.\nMuddy and discoloured as the river was at that time, he observed them in considerable\nnumbers. WEIR    AT    HEAD    OF    LAKE    CREEK,    SETON    LAKE    HATCHERY.\nWEIR    AT    MOUTH    OF    PORTAGE    CREEK,    SETON    LAKE    HATCHERY. 4 Ed. 7 Fisheries Commissioner's Report. F 11\nWhile sitting on the watchman's platform of a fish-trap off Lopez Island in July, 1902, I\nobserved large schools of young salmon passing in and out of the meshes of the heart of\nthe trap, which appeared to be sockeye, though no specimens could be secured. They\nmoved in the same compact schools as the yearlings observed at Seton Lake, turning and\ncircling with the same precision which marked their movements there, and were apparently\nabout the same size. The experienced trap fisherman at my side stated that schools of these\nyoung salmon could be observed every year, but that they were more numerous that season\nthan any other in his experience.\nEarly in August, 1902, from the deck of a purse-net fishing scow, which was being operated on the salmon banks at the south-westerly end of San Juan Island, I noticed many schools\nof two distinct sizes of young salmon, which, I believe, were sockeye, and was told by a fisherman who had fished there with a purse-net for the past six years that the young salmon were\nmore numerous than he had ever seen them before, and from their movements was of the\nopinion that they were sockeye. He stated that early in July there were more of the fry size\nthan in August, and that there were more of the yearling size in the latter month.\nThe fry and yearlings have many enemies in fresh water. The crops of loons, osprevs\nand numerous other water birds which were killed at Seton Lake during the migration of\n1903, were full of the yearlings. Twenty-two were removed from the crop and throat of one\nloon. Large lake trout, charr and burbot were caught, whose stomachs were distended with\nthem. In the pool above the dam at Seton Lake no less than twenty-two large fish were\ncounted at one time preying upon the schools of yearlings. The number destroyed by these\nbirds and fish is very great and cannot be prevented. Another source of destruction, more\npernicious in its effects on these young fish, was found to exist, which could and should be\nprevented. On the 2nd of May last, at the head of Portage Creek, the outlet of Anderson\nLake, I found a brush and rock dam which prevented the passage of the young salmon from\nthat lake, which was constructed and used by the Indians for the purpose of enabling them\nto take these immature fish for food. It was an ingenious and most destructive contrivance,\nbuilt in the form of a great funnel. Its wings were made of logs, green boughs, willow brush\nand rock. At its lower end there was a basket-trap into which the fish were swept by the\nswift waters, and from which they were removed by the Indians. While the water passed\nmore or less freely through the wings of the dam, the brush prevented the fish from doing so.\nMany fish, either in seeking to pass through the brush, or being drawn into it by the current,\nbecame enmeshed and were killed. The Indians make no attempt to remove the fish thus\nentrapped, as they secure all they can use from the basket-trap at the lower end. After\nphotographing it, this brush dam was wholly removed by my assistants, many thousands of\ndead young salmon being found in the brush wings. Evidently few or none of the young\nsalmon which attempted to pass through it did so alive. At every Indian house on Portage\nCreek were found young salmon taken from this trap. The Indians eat these yearlings in a\nfresh state, and smoke and dry many more. A similar but smaller trap was found at the\nlower end of Portage creek, which was maintained by some of the Indians who live at that\nend of the creek, but no fish were found in it, and we were told by the Indians that they had\ncaught none for over a week, because none could pass the dam above. They complained of\nthe fact that the dam above them had been placed entirely across the creek, and indignantly\nprotested against our destroying their traps, claiming that they had always been permitted to\ncatch these young fish for food. I do not know that this kind of contrivance is used at other\nlakes in the Fraser watershed, but as there are Indians on all the lakes, save Quesnel, it is\nprobable that it is, and if so, the annual loss of young sockeye from this cause is very great.\nAs there is an abundance of game in all these sections, and the Indians have no trouble in\ngetting all the food they need, no possible excuse can be made for their destroying these young\nsalmon, and I strongly urge that steps be taken to prevent their doing so.\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour obedient servant,\nJOHN PEASE BABCOCK,\nFisheries Commissioner.\nVictoria, December 3.1st, 1908. F 12\nFisheries Commissioner's Report.\n1904\nTHE PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON 1903.\nFurnished the Department by the Fraser River Canners' Association.\nPACK BY CANNERIES\u2014FRASER RIVER.\nCannery.\nBritish Columbia Packers' Association\u2014\nAlbion\t\nAtlas\t\nAnglo-American \t\nAcme   \t\nBrunswick\t\nCanadian Pacific\t\nCurrie's \t\nColonial\t\nCeltic\t\nCleeve \t\nDinsmore Island\t\nEwen's\t\nImperial\t\nPacific Coast\t\nTerra Nova\t\nWestminster\t\nAnglo-British Columbia Packing Co., Ltd.\u2014\nBritannia\t\nB. A. and Canoe Pass\t\nB. C. Packing Co\t\nPhcenix  \t\nWadhams \t\nMalcolm, Cannon & Co.\u2014\nEnglish Bay\t\nGulf of Georgia\t\nScottish Canadian\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons-\nBeaver \t\nRichmond\t\nBritish Columbia Canning Co., Ltd.\u2014\nDeas Island\t\nCanadian Canning Co., Ltd.\u2014\nFraser River\t\nStar\t\nVancouver \t\nFederation Brand Salmon Canning Co., Ltd.\nLighthouse \t\nSt. Mungo Canning Co., Ltd.\u2014\nSt. Mungo\t\nNational Packing Co., Ltd.\u2014\nEagle Harbour\t\nGreat Northern Cannery\u2014\nGreat Northern\t\nC. S. Windsor-\nIndustrial\t\nTotal\t\nSockeyes.\n6,688\n3,702\n3,150\n3,769\n6,175\n4,454\n8,781\n3,440\n3,551\n4,725\n3,585\n7,612\n15,562\n5,484\n7,716\n5,338\n.530\n,305\n,034\n,547\n,396\n183\n696\n463\n960\n495\n490\n572\n4,526\n6,038\n3,489\n2,288\n3,192\nRed and White\nSprings.\n204,809\nHumpbacks.\n3\n324\n43\n225\n90\n72\n200\n238\n45\n191\n45\n55\n21\n2,084\n810\n2,607\n1,087\n9,536\n13\n1,677\n103\n195\n2,973\n4,000\n4,327\n716\n461\nGrand Total.\n3,705\n3,474\n3,769\n15,711\n4,461\n8,912\n3,440\n3,551\n4,738\n5,305\n7,940\n15,847\n5,484\n7,710\n5,338\n7,530\n9,35ii\n5,234\n6,547\n5,396\n3,197\n11,846\n10,163\n11,340\n4,495\n5,031\n7,881\n4,617\n11,175\n6,867\n2,309\n4,740  4 Ed. 7\nFisheries Commissioner's Report.\nF 13\nThe Pack of British Columbia Salmon, Season 1903.\u2014Co7tlinued.\nPACK BY CANNERIES\u2014NORTHERN POINTS.\nCannery,\nSkeena River\u2014\nBritish Columbia Packers' Association-\nBalmoral     \t\nCunningham's\t\nStandard \t\nAnglo-British Columbia Packing Co., Ltd.-\nB. A. & N. Pacific\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons-\nInverness\t\nBritish Columbia Canning Co., Ltd.\u2014\nOceanic\t\nWallace Bros., Ltd.\u2014\nClaxton   \t\nCarlisle Canning Co., Ltd.\u2014\nCarlisle\t\nP. Herman\u2014\nHerman's\t\nCassiar Packing Co. \u2014\nCassiar\t\nRivers Inlet\u2014\nBritish Columbia Packers' Association-\nBrunswick \t\nWadhams  \t\nA. B. C. Packing Co., Ltd.\u2014\nGood Hope\t\nBritish Columbia Canning Co., Ltd.\u2014\nR. I, & Victoria\t\nNaas River\u2014\nFederation Brand Salmon Canning Co., Ltd. -\nMill Bay\t\nNaas Harbour\t\nLowe Inlet\u2014\nBritish Columbia Packers' Association-\nLowe Inlet \t\nDean Channel\u2014\nR. Draney\u2014\nKimsquit ...\nNamu Harbour-\nR. Draney\u2014\nNamu \t\nBella Coola\u2014\nBritish Columbia Packers' Association-\nBella Coola\t\nSmith's Inlet\u2014\nWm. Hickey Canning Co., Ltd.-\nHickey\t\nAlert Bay\u2014\nBritish Columbia Packers' Association-\nAlert Bay\t\nWest Coast Vancouver Island\u2014\nClayoquot Fishing & Trading Co.,\nClayoquot\t\nAlberni Canal\u2014\nAlberni Packing Co.-\nAlberni \t\nObservatory Inlet\u2014\nPacific Northern Packing Co.-\nPacific Northern\t\nTotals.\nSockeyes.\nRed and White\nSprings.\nHumpbacks.\nCohoes.\nGrand Total.\n5,284\n3,258\n3,116\n3,586\n2,937\n1,625\n258\n88\n378\n1,987\n306\n10,873\n8,440\n3,510\n13,473\n3,339\n1,956\n1,878\n20,646\n5,261\n613\n3,163\n650\n9,687\n6,277\n1,681\n4,593\n1,390\n13,941\n5,988\n1,546\n3,798\n1,141\n12,473\n4,179\n798\n1,164\n342\n6,483\n2,611\n3,508\n2,366\n650\n9,135\n1,521\n1,034\n25\n93\n926\n3,481\n18,705\n18,397\n20,569\n283\n316\n20,978\n12,268\n62\n185\n12,515\n16,885\n273\n34\n17,192\n3,916\n4,522\n1,049\n426\n1,008\n1,179\n3,200\n5,973\n6,127\n10,196\n6,919\n77\n5,378\n417\n1,010\n6,805\n2,819\n835\n1,508\n5,162\n9,733\n6,140\n4,090\n1,224\n5,400\n740\n1,5C5\n1,818\n219\n3,542\n3,950\n513\n487\n4,950\n3,868\n3,390\n125\n353\n2,932\n122\n2,940\n5,994\n163,903\n23,573\n22,878\n26,190\n236,549 F 14\nFisheries Commissioner's Report.\n1904\nThe Pack of British Columbia Salmon, Season 1903.\u2014Continued.\nTHE TOTAL PACK.\nSockeyes.\nSpring.\nHumpbacks.\nCohoes.\nGrand Total.\n204,809\n163,908\n368,717\n2,084\n23,573\n4,504\n22,878\n25,728\n26,190\n237,125\n236,549\n25,657\n27,382\n51,918\n473,674\nDESCRIPTION OF PACK.\nPack by Shapes and Districts.\n1-tb.\nTails.\ni-tb.\nTails.\nl.fi>.\nFlats.\ni-tt>.\nFlats.\n1-lb.\nOvals.\ni-ib.\nOvals.\nSquats.\nTotal.\nGrand\nTotal.\nDistricts.\nFraser. River\u2014\n51,705\n633\n3,340\n72\n37,151\n547\n3,459\n6,961\n3,866\n682\n88,383\n380\n4,380\n440\n17,588\n84\n5,602\n204,809\n2,084\n4,504\n25,728\nHumpbacks \t\n1,045\n18,690\n21,538\n16,514\n20,045\n9,257\n54,656\n800\n180\n219\n4,008\n669\n64\n20,354\n5,210\n812\n13\nSkeena River\u2014\n237,125\n50,968\n18,008\n20,045\n9,648\nRed and White Springs  \t\n391\n7,031\nRivers Inlet\u2014\n3,092\n98,669\n68,119\n872\n180\n219\nNaas River\u2014\n3,448\n982\n806\n69,390\n8,438\n1,475\nRed and White Springs\t\n2,152\n6,919\n77\n35\n2,187\nLowe Inlet\u2014\n12,100\n6,919\n77\n3,200\n5,378\n417\n3,200\nDean Channel\u2014\n10,196\n5,378\n417\n1,010\n2,819\n1,010\nNamu Harbour\u2014\n6,805\n2,819\n835\n1,508\n4,090\n1,224\n835\n1,508\n4,090\n1,224\nBella Coola\u2014\nSockeyes\t\n5,162\n4,419\n5,400\n740\n4,419\nSmith's Inlet\u2014\n9,733\n5,400\n740\nRed and White Springs  \t\nAlert Bay\u2014\n1,505\n1,505\n6,140\n1,818\n219\n2,932\n122\n1,818\n219\nObservatory Inlet\u2014\n3,542\n2,932\n122\n2,940\n7,340\n638\n2,940\nWest Coast Vancouver Island\u2014\n7,340\n638\n840\n840\n112,273\n17,672\n5,615\nTotal\n25S,501\n3,412\n63,571\n12,630\n473,674 INDIAN    TRAP    FOR    CAPTURE    OF    YOUNG    SOCKEYE    AT    THE    OUTLET\nOF    ANDERSON    LAKE-\nINDIAN    TRAP    FOR    CAPTURE    OF    YOUNG    SOCKEYE    IN    PORTAGE    CREEK. 4 Ed. 7\nFisheries Commissioner's Report.\nF 15\nThe Pack of British Columbia Salmon, Season 190S.\u2014Continued.\nPACK BY DISTRICTS, PREVIOUS YEARS.\n1902\n1901\n1900\n1899\n510,383\n108,026\n19,443\n10,142\n71,079\n1898\n1897\n1896\n356,984\n100,140\n14,649\n10,395\n1895\n327,095\n154,875\n23,218\n7,638\n3,608\n70,298\n4,867\n4,966\n10,806\n5,604\n7,907\n5,200\n625,982\n990,252\n126,092\n14,790\n6,461\n5,600\n66,840\n4,158\n11,460\n4,629\n5,984\n316,522\n128,529\n18,238\n10,834\n4,138\n75,413\n4,849\n10,106\n9,182\n7,602\n256,101\n81,234\n18,953\n10,312\nS60.459\n65,905\n20,847\n10,666\n400,368\n67,797\n19,550\n8,681\n104,711\n40,207\n107,468\n58,579\nNamu and Kimsquifc\t\n7,200\n3,470\n2,694\n4,367\n8,602\n4,434\n3,987\n2,840\n5,107\n3,000\n5,100\n8,500\n4,350\nWest Coast V. I\t\n3,320\n585,413\n732,437\n1,236,156\n484,161\n1,015,477\n601,570\n566,395\nSHIPMENTS IN DETAIL\u20141903.\na\no   .\n3 o\nEH\n5 S\n\u2022e a\no tt\nH\no\no\nat _\n> at\na .j\nQ\nH\n-. =   -\no 2 P\no\u00a3 o\nif, 5 a\n9   rr   C\no \u2022\" -f\nH\n'Si\nrt    ^,\n'r\\     O\nK^\ntt, _\/\n4j o-SS\nO.a o\no ^ ^\nH\nSI a\nv, a\na s\nH\na\n3\"^ a\no SN\nh a\n|l\nO\no\na\ntn\na\no\no\ntj\na\na\nK\nH\nO\nO\n3q\n\"a\no\nH\n\u00a7\n72,280\n1,159\n12,973\n5,371\n14,046\n17,139\n12,543\n5,296\n33,358\n18,750\n76,252\n15,143\n15,191\n12,046\n385\n1,710\n697\n6\n1,442\n96\n390\n600\n20\n31\n7,873\n4,430\n1,525\n4,233\n3,392\n4\n122\n650\n506\n641\n2,703\n240\n3,485\n3,756\n479\n50\n34,089\n192,056\n07,218\nAnglo-British Columbia Packing Co., Ltd ...\n12,527\n2,709\n3,208\nJ. H. Todd & Sons\t\n16,000\n19,351\n25,522\nBritish Columbia Canning Co., Ltd\t\n1,309\n39,635\n17,529\n16,626\nFederation B. S. C. Co., Ltd\t\n280\n1,584\n1,646\n1,619\n11,175\n6,867\n3,475\nGreat Northern Cannery\t\nC. S. Windsor      \t\n461\n986\n3,039\n1,300\n1,087\n2,309\n4,740\n4,950\n3,868\n4,300\n8,362\n5,988\n1,346\n3,798\n700\n3,780\n500\n200\n172\n6,483\n6,140\n11,967\n9,135\n3,481\n5,994\n3,500\n500\n1,900\n5,491\n5,007\n3,002\n1,476\n2,291\n200\n4,468\n162,649\nTotal\t\n24,590\n461\n33,358\n18,750\n152,498\n35,463\n1,472\n10,344\n478,674\nSHIPMENTS IN DETAIL, PREVIOUS YEARS.\n1902\n1901\n206,344\n19,236\n576,065\n46,831\n1900\n51,095\n10,143\n257,848\n60,090\n1899\n1898\n1897\n1896\n1895\nEngland\u2014\n95,711\n1,700\n290,913\n150,670\n5,733\n365,151\n26,12S\n79,508\n5,687\n242,437\n8,050\n325,966\n4,957\n407.738\n38,373\n182,253\n9,076\n322,364\n11,405\n96,459\n256,301\n65,647\n29,590\n79,288\n8,832\n6,000\n135,806\n10,355\n627\n5,156\n79,714\n3,350\n131,875\n38,022\n13,538\n19,956\n180,939\n3,892\n79,171\n25,903\n56,237\n20,309\n20,815\n114,736\n41,518\n4,246\n11,945\n12,079\n231\n19,862\n87,881\n9,644\n439\n1,183\n29,380\nAustralia\t\n130,815\n28,579\n226\n4,823\n74,000\n51,041\n11,609\n2,128\n3,844\n7,850\n4,326\n25,952\n484,161\n601,570\nTotal\t\n625,982\n1,236,156\n585,413\n732,437\n1,015,477\n566,395 F 16\nFisheries Commissioner's Report.\n1904\nThe Pack of British Columbia Salmon, Season 1903.\u2014Concluded.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON FLEET, SEASON 1903.\nNames op Vessels.\n-r    9\n5 o\na So\nIBS\no\ntr   O\nW                      4l            4ri\n-\nBy Steamer\nwith Option\nLondon or\nLiverpool.\nfl\n\u25a0 rH   ;>   O\n\u00b0a as\nn\nTotal.\nSS. Nino-Chow\t\n10.545\n11,226\n21,670\n5,340\n7,720\n15,885\n10,000\n28,945\n21,570\n12,872\n2,872\n10,000\n11,808\n1,150\n11,808\n1,150\n36,475\n36,475\n64,772\n45,470\n64,772\n45,470\nTotal\t\n43,340\n15,932\n33,358\n146,717\n239,347\nVICTORIA, B.C :\nPrinled bv Richard Wolfkndrn, I.S.O., V.D., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty\n1904.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","classmap":"oc:AnnotationContainer"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","explain":"Simple Knowledge Organisation System; Notes are used to provide information relating to SKOS concepts. There is no restriction on the nature of this information, e.g., it could be plain text, hypertext, or an image; it could be a definition, information about the scope of a concept, editorial information, or any other type of information."}],"Genre":[{"label":"Genre","value":"Legislative proceedings","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"edm:hasType"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; This property relates a resource with the concepts it belongs to in a suitable type system such as MIME or any thesaurus that captures categories of objects in a given field. It does NOT capture aboutness"}],"Identifier":[{"label":"Identifier","value":"J110.L5 S7","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:identifier"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.; Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system."},{"label":"Identifier","value":"1904_07_F1_F16","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:identifier"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.; Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system."}],"IsShownAt":[{"label":"DOI","value":"10.14288\/1.0064282","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"edm:isShownAt"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; An unambiguous URL reference to the digital object on the provider\u2019s website in its full information context."}],"Language":[{"label":"Language","value":"English","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:language"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A language of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as RFC 4646 [RFC4646]."}],"Provider":[{"label":"Provider","value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:provider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who delivers data directly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Publisher":[{"label":"Publisher","value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:publisher"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making the resource available.; Examples of a Publisher include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"Rights":[{"label":"Rights","value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:rights"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Information about rights held in and over the resource.; Typically, rights information includes a statement about various property rights associated with the resource, including intellectual property rights."}],"SortDate":[{"label":"Sort Date","value":"1904-12-31 AD","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/date","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/date","explain":"A Dublin Core Elements Property; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF]."},{"label":"Sort Date","value":"1904-12-31 AD","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","classmap":"oc:InternalResource","property":"dcterms:date"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","explain":"A Dublin Core Elements Property; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF].; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF]."}],"Source":[{"label":"Source","value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source","classmap":"oc:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:source"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A related resource from which the described resource is derived.; The described resource may be derived from the related resource in whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to identify the related resource by means of a string conforming to a formal identification system."}],"Title":[{"label":"Title ","value":"REPORT OF THE FISHERIES COMMISSIONER FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR THE YEAR 1903. JOHN PEASE BABCOCK, Commissioner.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:title"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The name given to the resource."}],"Type":[{"label":"Type","value":"Text","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:type"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The nature or genre of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]. To describe the file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource, use the Format element."}],"Translation":[{"property":"Translation","language":"en","label":"Translation","value":""}]}