{"@context":{"@language":"en","AIPUUID":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP","AggregatedSourceRepository":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","AlternateTitle":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative","CatalogueRecord":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy","Collection":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf","Creator":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","DateAvailable":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DateIssued":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","FileFormat":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format","FullText":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Genre":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","Identifier":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","IsShownAt":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","Language":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","Provider":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","Publisher":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","Rights":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","SortDate":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","Source":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source","Title":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","Type":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","Translation":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description"},"AIPUUID":[{"@value":"0c6b9bff-0304-4551-b74f-6bfd5adc6fc6","@language":"en"}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"@value":"CONTENTdm","@language":"en"}],"AlternateTitle":[{"@value":"REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.","@language":"en"}],"CatalogueRecord":[{"@value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","@language":"en"}],"Collection":[{"@value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"Creator":[{"@value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","@language":"en"}],"DateAvailable":[{"@value":"2016-03-07","@language":"en"}],"DateIssued":[{"@value":"[1930]","@language":"en"}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"@value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0300561\/source.json","@language":"en"}],"FileFormat":[{"@value":"application\/pdf","@language":"en"}],"FullText":[{"@value":" PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nEEPOET\nOP THE\nCOMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES\nFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 81 ST, 1928\nWITH APPENDICES\nPRINTED BY\nAUTHORITY OP THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.\nVICTORIA, B.C. :\nPrinted by Charles F. Bani-ield, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1929. The Honourable William Sloan.\nCommissioner of Fisheries for British Columbia from\n1918 to 1928, died on March 2nd, 1928.\nMr. Sloan first entered public life on his election to the Federal House of\nCommons for Comox-Atlin in 1904. He was re-elected in 1908. In 1916 he was\nelected to represent the Nanaimo District in the Provincial Legislature and entered\nthe Cabinet as Minister of Mines. In 1918 he was appointed Commissioner of\nFisheries for the Province and served until his death. As a member of the Federal\nHouse of Commons Mr. Sloan took an active part in all fishery discussions, notably\nin connection with the fur-seal question and the salmon and herring fisheries of\nBritish Columbia. On his insistence the use of herring in fish-reduction in British\nColumbia was prohibited.\nAs Commissioner of Fisheries of the Province he pressed steadily for conservation measures, and advocated the exchange of treaties between Canada and the\nUnited States dealing with the halibut-fisheries of the Pacific and the salmon-\nfisheries of the Fraser River system. To His Honour Robert Randolph Bruce,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour :\nI beg to submit herewith the Report of the Provincial Fisheries Department for the year\nended December 31st, 1928, with Appendices.\nSAMUEL LYNESS HOWE,\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nProvincial Fisheries Department,\nCommissioner of Fisheries' Office,\nVictoria, British Columbia, December Slst, 1928. TABLE OF CONTENTS.\nFISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1928.\nPage.\nValue of Fisheries and Standing of Provinces 5\nSpecies and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia 5\nSalmon-pack in British Columbia in 1928 6\nSalmon-pack by Districts 6\nDigest of Reports from Salmon-spawning Areas 8\nMild-cured Salmon Products 9\nProduction of Fish Oil and Meal 9\nHalibut Landings in 1928 10\nContribution to the Life-history of Sockeye Salmon 10\nSalmon-tagging in British Columbia AAraters 15\nThe Halibut Investigation 17\nAPPENDICES.\nContribution to Life-history op Sockeye Salmon. (No. 14.) By Drs. AV. A. and Lucy S.\nClemens 19\nSpawning-beds of the Fraser River. By John Pease Babcock 41\nSpawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. By A. AV. Stone 46\nSpawning-beds of Smith Inlet. By A. W. Stone 49\nSpawning-beds of the Skeena River. By Robert Gibson 50\nSpawning-beds of the Nass River. By C. P. Hickman 53\n\" A Canadian-American Salmon Reclamation Project.\" By John Pease Babcock... 55\nReport of the International Halibut Commission 58\nThe Salmon-pack Statement in Detail 77\nSalmon-pack of Province, by Districts and Species, 1913 to 1928, inclusive 80\nsockeye-salmon pack of entire fraser rlver sy'stem, 1913 to 1928, inclusive 83\nsockeye-salmon pack op province, by districts, 1913 to 1928, inclusive 83\nProduction of Fish Oil and Meal, 1920 to 1928, inclusive 83 FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT\nFOR 1928.\nVALUE OF CANADIAN FISHERIES AND THE STANDING OF PROVINCES, 1927.\nThe value of the fishery products of Canada for the year 1927 totalled $49,497,038.\nDuring the year 1927 British Columbia produced fishery products of a value of $23,264,342,\nor 47 per cent, of Canada's total.\nIn 1927 British Columbia again led all the Provinces in the Dominion, as has been the case\nfor many years, in the value of her fishery products. Her output in 1927 exceeded in value\nthat of Nova Scotia, the second in rank, by $12,480,711, and also exceeded that of all the other\nProvinces combined by $7,815,277.\nThe market value of the fishery products of British Columbia in 1927 was $4,102,757 less\nthan in the previous year, 1926, due largely to a decrease in the salmon-pack.\nThe capital invested in the fisheries of British Columbia in 1927 was $31,117,986, or 55\nper cent, of the total capital employed in Canada. Of the $31,117,986 invested in the fisheries\nof British Columbia in 1927, $12,263,636 was employed in catching and handling the catches\nand $18,854,350 invested in canneries, fish-packing establishments, and fish-reduction plants.\nThe number of persons engaged in British Columbia fisheries in 1927 was 21,322, or\n26y2 per cent, of Canada's total of 80,112. Of the 21,322 engaged in British Columbia, 13,076\nwere employed in catching and handling the catches and 8,246 in packing, curing, and fish-\nreduction.* The total number engaged in the fisheries in 1927 was 724 greater than in the\npreceding year.\nThe following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of the fishery products\nof the Provinces of Canada for the years 1923 to 1927, inclusive:\u2014\u2022\nProvince.\n1923.\n1924.\n1925.\n1926.\n19:27.\nBritish Columbia\t\nNova Scotia\t\nNew Brunswick\t\nOntario....\t\nQuebec\t\nManitoba\t\nPrince Edward Island\nAlberta\t\nSaskatchewan\t\nYukon Territory\t\nTotals\t\n$20,795,914\n8.448,385\n4,548,535\n3,159,427\n2,100,412\n1,020,595\n1,754,980\n438,737\n286,643\n11,917\n$42,565,545\n$21,257,567\n8,777,251\n'0,383,509\n3,557,587\n12,283,314\n1,232,563\n1,201,772\n339,107\n482,492\n18,773\n$22,414,618\n10,213,779\n4,798,589\n3,436,412\n3,044,919\n1,466,939\n1,598,119\n458,504\n494,882\n15,370\n$27,367,109\n12,505,922\n5,325,478\n3,152,193\n3,110,964\n2,328,803\n1,358,934\n749,076\n444,288\n17,866\n$44,-534,235\n$47,942,131\n$56,360,633\n$23,264,342\n10,783,631\n4,406,673\n3,'670,229\n2,736,450\n'2,039,738\n1,367,807\n712,469\n-503,609\n12,090\n$49,497,038\nTHE SPECIES AND VALUE OF FISH CAUGHT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nThe total value of each of the principal species of fish taken in British Columbia for the year\nended December 31st, 1927, is given in the following statement:\u2014\u2022\nSalmon $14,253,803\nHalibut 3,841,333\nHerring, oil, meal, etc 1,867,429\nCod, hake 402,438\nPilchards, oil, meal, etc 1,838,867\nClams, abalones 102,244\nBlack cod 123,421\nCrabs 68,477\nCarried forward -- $22,498,012\n* As this report goes to press the Commissioner is in receipt of a preliminary report on the fishery\nproducts of the Province for the year 1928, issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics\u2014E. H. Coats,\nStatistician-\u2014from which the following data are taken : The value of the fishery products of British Columbia\nin 1928 totalled $26,562,691, an increase of $3,298,349, compared With the production in 1927. G 6 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nThe Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia\u2014Continued.\nBrought forward $22,498,012\nSoles 82,180\nShrimps 16,592\nOysters ~ 32,258\nFlounders, brill 17,631\nRed cod 22,479\nPerch 12,402\nSmelt 16,459\nSturgeon 7,971\nOctopus 2,241\nSkate 5,490\nOolachans 2,800\nWhiting 487\nTrout 1,118\nWhales 241,488\nFish-oils, grayfish, etc 138,180\nFish-meals 145,449\nFish-fertilizer 5,300\nFur-seals '. 15,805\nTotal $23,264,342\nThe above statement shows that the salmon-fisheries of the Province in 1927 produced\n$14,253,803, or 61 per cent, of the total. It was $4,522,959 less than in the previous year.\nThe total halibut landings were marketed for $3,841,333. It was $702,387 less than in the\npreceding year. The herring-catch produced $1,867,429. It was $338,695 larger than in 1926.\nThe foregoing data are derived from the \" Fisheries Statistics of Canada \" for 1927.\nTHE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE IN 1928.\nThe salmon-pack of the Province in 1928 totalled 2,035,629 cases, the second largest recorded.\nIt was but 29,561 cases less than the highest record pack of 1926. It consisted of 203,542 cases\nof sockeye, 18,891 cases of springs, 150,657 cases of cohoes, 792,372 cases of pinks, and 862,230\ncases of chums. The sockeye-pack of 203,542 cases was the second smallest recorded. There\nwas a decrease in every district. It constituted but 10 per cent, of the total pack. Since 1915\nthere has been a decline in the percentage of sockeye in the pack, due to the decrease in the\nsockeye run to most districts and to the great increase in the pack of pinks and chums. The\ncombined pack of pink and chum salmon in 1928 constituted 79 per cent, of the total pack made\nin the Province.\nThe market value of the pack in 1928 has been estimated at $16,518,286, as compared with\n$14,253,803 in 1927 and $18,776,762 in 1926.\nTHE 1928 PACK BY DISTRICTS.\nThe Fraser River System.\u2014The catch of all species of salmon made in the Fraser River\nsystem in the Province in 1928 produced a total pack of 258,244 cases, as against 284,378 in 1927,\n274,951 in 1926, 276,855 in 1925, and 212,059 in 1924.\nThe pack consisted of 29,299 cases of sockeye, 5,082 cases of springs, 27,061 cases of cohoes,\n2,881 cases of pinks, and 193,106 cases of chums.\nThe pack of sockeye was the second smallest recorded in the Provincial waters of the\nFraser system. It was 32,094 cases less than in 1927, 56,390 cases less than in 1926, and 10,444\ncases less than in its brood-year, 1924. The pack of 193,106 cases of chums was the largest\nmade. It was 83,611 cases greater than in the former high-record pack of 109,495 cases made\nin 1924. The pack of pinks\u2014it was not a \" pink \" year\u2014was but 2,881 cases. It was 29,375\ncases less than the pack in its brood-year, 1926. The cohoe-pack of 27,061 cases was 9,656 cases\nless than in its brood-year, 1925.\nThe catch of sockeye in the State of AVashington waters of the Fraser River system in 1928\nproduced a pack of 61,044 cases. It was 8,325 cases less than the pack in the preceding fourth\nyear\u2014its brood-year. \u2014\u2014\nBRITISH COLUMBIA. - G 7\nThe combined pack of sockeye in the entire Fraser River system totalled 90,343 cases.\nIt was 18,769 cases less than in its brood-year, 1924. It was 32,028 cases less than the average\nof the preceding eight years. There was no late run to correspond with the late runs in both\n1926 and 1927.\nThe following statement gives the weekly pack of sockeye from fish caught in the Fraser\nRiver in Provincial waters:\u2014\nAVeek ending. Cases. Week ending. Cases.\nJuly 14 414 Sept. 8 1,346\nJuly 21 2,164 Sept. 15 973\nJuly 28 2,613 Sept. 22 1,676\nAug. 4 4,908 Sept. 29 1,507\nAug. 8 4,006 Oct. 6 115\nAug. 18 2,794 Oct. 13 57\nAug. 25 1,129 .\t\nSept. 1 2,538 Total 26,240*\nThe Skeena River.\u2014The salmon-pack in the Skeena District in 1928 totalled 298,709 cases,\nconsisting of 34,559 cases of sockeye, 6,420 cases of springs, 30,194 cases of cohoes, 209,579 cases\nof pinks, and 298,709 cases of chums. The total pack was 68,360 cases less than the average\npack of the preceding ten years.\nThe pack of sockeye was the smallest recorded on the Skeena since the fishery was developed.\nIt was 59,270 cases less than the average in the last eight preceding years. The sockeye run\nto the Skeena in 1928, like that to all the northern waters of the Province, was most disappointing. The run of sockeye to the Skeena, as the records of the Department abundantly show,\nconsist of four-year-old and five-year-old fish in more or less even proportion; hence the run\nof 1928 consisted of sockeye derived from the spawnings in 1923 and 1924, two years in which\nthe packs were large\u2014131,731 cases in 1923 and 144,747 cases in 1924. The catches in both of\nthose years wyere larger than the averages of the last ten years. The packs in the brood-years\nof the 1928 run were not only large, but the reports from the spawning-beds in each of those\nyears show a large seeding. The only disconcerting factor in forecasting the sockeye run to the\nSkeena in 1928 was that brought out by Drs. Clemens in their report for 1927; to wit, that\nthe catch in 1923 of five-year-old fish formed but 34 per cent, of that run and in 1924 the four-\nyear-old fish formed but 25 per cent, of that run. On that basis they estimated that the 1928\nrun would not produce a pack much in excess of 80,000 cases. It did not come near that figure;\nit totalled but 34,559 cases.\nThe small catch of 1928, together with the records of 1923 and 1924, are so unsatisfactory\nthat measures to afford a far greater escapement four and five years hence are imperative.\nThe poor runs of sockeye to the Skeena in 1927 and 1928 and the reports from the spawning-\nbeds in those years demonstrate how little dependence can be placed on forecasts based on pack\nand spawning-bed records of brood-years. Years in which the catches and seedings were large\nmay be followed by a poor return. The records do not, however, show a large return from a year\nwhen the catches and the seedings were small.\nThe catch of pinks on the Skeena in 1928 was large\u2014the third largest made there. It\ntotalled 209,579 cases and has only been exceeded by the packs of 210,081 in 1926 and 301,655\nin 1922, both of which years are in the 1928 cycle. The fish were unusually large and in prime\ncondition.\nThe catch of chum salmon on the Skeena this year was again small. It produced a pack of\nbut 17,716 cases, as against 19,006 in 1927, 63,527 in 1926, 74,308 in 1925, and 25,588 in 1924.\nThe pack of springs on the Skeena in 1928 was the smallest recorded there. It totalled but\n6,420 cases, as against 19,038 cases in 1927, 30,594 in 1926, 23,445 in 1925, 12,028 in 1924, and\n12,247 cases in 1923. The tierced pack of springs was also much less than usual.\nThe foregoing statements of the catches of sockeye, springs, and chums show that conditions\nin the Skeena are far from satisfactory and call for greater protective regulations if the industry\nin the cycles in question is to be productive.\n* Does not include the 3,059 cases consisting of sockeye caught in traps In Juan de Fuca Strait,\nVancouver Island. G 8 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nRivers Inlet.\u2014The salmon-pack in the Rivers Inlet District in 1928 totalled 81,527 cases.\nIt consisted of 60,044 cases of sockeye, 468 cases of springs, 868 cases of cohoes, 16,546 cases\nof pinks, and 3,594 cases of chums.\nThe run of sockeye to Rivers Inlet, like that to the Skeena, consists of four- and five-year-old\nfish; hence it was derived from the spawnings of 1923 and 1924, years in which the catches\nproduced packs of 116,850 and 94,891 cases. Drs. Clemens, in their digest of the data collected\nin 1927, stated that there was little hope for a large sockeye run to Rivers Inlet in 1928. They\ncalled attention to the reports that the escapement to the beds in 1918 was very poor, and that\nthis was confirmed by the analysis of the run in 1923, when the five-year-old fish formed but\n24 per cent, of the run, and that in consequence a large run of five-year-old fish could not be\nanticipated in 1928.\nAs to the other brood-year\u20141924\u2014of the 1928 run, it had been shown that there was an\nexceptionally good escapement and that in that year the run consisted of 44 per cent, of four-\nyear-old fish. On these showings they anticipated a fair run in 1928 of five-year-old fish.\nDrs. Clemens's analysis of the 1928 run shows that it consisted of 58 per cent, of four-year and\n42 per cent, of five-year-olds.\nConditions at Rivers Inlet, like those on the Skeena, call for drastic action if the runs are\nto be restored.\nSmith Inlet.\u2014The catch of salmon at Smith Inlet in 1928 was most satisfactory. There was\nan exceptionally large return. The catch of sockeye produced a pack of 33,442 cases. It was\n10,760 cases larger than the good run of the previous year. It is interesting, in view of the\nrather limited spawning area of the Smith Inlet run of sockeye, to note that it produced almost\nas large a return as that made from the vastly more extensive spawning area of the Skeena.\nThe Nass River.\u2014The catch of salmon in the Nass River District produced a total pack of\n104,877 cases, consisting of 5,540 cases of sockeye, 1,846 cases of springs, 10,734 cases of cohoes,\n83,183 cases of pinks, and 3,538 cases of chums.\nThere was a large increase in the catch of pinks, larger than in the two preceding brood-\nyears of that cycle. The catch of sockeye, on the other hand, produced much the smallest pack\nrecorded in that district. The run of sockeye to the Nass is periously near extinction. The\nreports from the spawning areas this year are no more promising than the catch.\nQueen Charlotte Islands.\u2014The salmon-catch in Queen Charlotte waters produced a pack of\n247,757 cases, consisting of 167,217 cases of pinks, 72,477 cases of chums, 7,619 cases of cohoes,\nand a few cases of sockeye and springs. This district is strictly a producer of pink and chum\nsalmon, its fresh waters being unsuited to the propagation of other species. The catch of pinks\n\u2014it was a \" pink \" year\u2014was 33,295 cases less than in the brood-year 1926. The catch of chums\nwas below the average of the last four years.\nVancouver Island.\u2014The catch of salmon from the waters of Vancouver Island produced a\ntotal pack of 390,470 cases, consisting of 14,248 cases of sockeye, 2,269 cases of springs, 23,345\ncases of cohoes, 41,885 cases of pinks, and 303,474 cases of chums. The pack of chums was the\nlargest made from its waters.\nOutlying Districts.\u2014The catch of salmon in the outlying districts produced a pack of 619,915\ncases, consisting of 26,372 cases of sockeye, 2,084 cases of springs, 50,606 cases of cohoe, 270,914\ncases of pinks, and 269,336 cases of chums.\nREPORTS FROM SALMON-SPAWNING BEDS.\nIn 1928, as in former years, the Department investigated conditions on the spawning-beds\nof the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers, and Rivers and Smith Inlets.\nThe following is a brief summary of the reports, which will be found in full in the Appendix\nof this report:\u2014\nThe Fraser River.\u2014The inspection of the salmon-spawning areas of the Fraser River basin\nwas again made by Mr. Babcock, his twenty-sixth annual inspection.\nSockeye in numbers made their appearance in Hell's Gate Canyon, above Yale, in July.\nThe July and August runs were the largest. The number seen there in September and October\nwas less than in recent years. Sockeye in numbers entered the Chilcotin in July and August.\nThe Chilcotin Indians caught upwards of 1,900 sockeye during the season. Their catch this\nyear was three or four times greater than that made in any one of the last twelve !years.\nDominion Fishery Officer Harvey, assigned to the Chilcotin section, observed upwards of 20,000\nsockeye in the reaches of the Chilko River, below the outlet of Chilko Lake, the first time in BRITISH COLUMBIA. G 9\ntwelve years that sockeye in numbers have been observed there. The size of the run of sockeye\nto the Chilko this year is as difficult to account for as the runs to Adams and Little Rivers,\nShuswap area, late in 1926 and 1927. In no other tributary of the Fraser, above the mouth of\nBridge River, which includes Quesnel and Stuart Lakes, were sockeye in numbers reported\nthis year.\nDominion Fishery Officer Shotton reported that approximately 10,000 sockeye spawned in\nLittle River in October, the majority of the fish being small in size. Sockeye in numbers were\nnot found in any of the tributaries of Shuswap Lake.\nThe number of sockeye that reached the Birkenhead River, at the head of the Harrison-\nLillooet Lakes section, while up to the average, was considerably less than the run in their\nbrood-year, 1924. Sockeye-egg collection totalled 35,000,000.\nThe run of sockeye to Cultus Lake was intercepted at the entrance to the lake, in accordance\nwith the experiments being conducted there by the Biological Board of Canada. The number of\nfish taken totalled 14,899\u201411,205 females and 3,694 males, a most exceptional ratio of three\nfemales to each male.\nAs a result of Mr. Babcock's investigation he concludes that \" a small return is all that can\nbe anticipated from this year's seeding of the spawning-beds of the Fraser River basin.\"\nThe Skeena River.\u2014An inspection of the sockeye-salmon spawning-beds in the Skeena River\nbasin this year was again made by Fishery Officer Gibson. In his report he states that because\nof the small pack this year he did not anticipate finding well-seeded beds and, in consequence,\nwas surprised to find them so well seeded. In 15-Mile Creek, at the head of Babine Lake, the\nmain lake tributary of the Skeena, he found more sockeye than he had seen there since 1920.\nHe reports similar conditions in Pierre Creek and Fulton River. In his summary of the Babine\nLake area he says it was exceptionally well seeded. The report is filled with details. With the\nexception of the Lakelse Lake area, all the beds are reported as well seeded.\nRivers Inlet.\u2014The spawning areas of the Rivers Inlet sockeye run were again inspected\nby Fishery Officer Stone. In his summary of the conditions he expresses the opinion that\n\" a moderate run only may be expected from the result of the sockeye spawning this year.\"\nWith the exception of three tributaries, all showed a marked falling-off, which he estimates to\nbe 40 per cent, lower than in the brood-years 1923 and 1924. This he attributes in great measure\nto the severe floods in the late fall of 1924.\nSmith Inlet.-\u2014Fishery Officer Stone again inspected the spawning areas of the sockeye run\nto Smith Inlet. He reports an excellent seeding of the entire area and expresses the opinion\nthat \" we can look forwTard to a big run of sockeye from this year's seeding four and five years\nhence.\"\nNass River.\u2014Inspector of Fisheries C. P. Hickman again inspected the Meziadin Lake area\nof the Nass River\u2014the main spawning area in the Nass basin\u2014this year being his twentieth\nannual inspection. His summary of conditions shows that few sockeye were found in any\nsection\u2014\" far less than have been found there in any one of the last four years. Neither in\nMeziadin Lake nor at the fishway at the falls below the lake were sockeye in number to be\nseen.\" There were so few sockeye at the fishway that he was unable to obtain sufficient\nspecimens from which to collect the scales desired by Drs. Clemens. The set-nets which he\nplaced in the Nass River, above the mouth of the Meziadin River, failed to catch a single sockeye. The fishway was found in excellent condition.\nMILD-CURED SALMON PRODUCTS.\nThe mild-cured salmon products totalled 2,676 tierces\u2014approximately 1,800,000 lb.; substantially that of 1927.\nFISH OIL AND MEAL PRODUCTION IN 1928.\nThe production of fish oil and meal in the Province in 1928 shows a large increase. The\ntwenty-three fish-reduction plants on the west coast of Vancouver Island produced 4,035,879\ngallons of oil and 15,280 tons of meal, as against 2,827,796 gallons of oil and 13,571 tons of meal\nin 1927. Four new plants were in operation. Of the total production in 1928, 3,997,656 gallons\nof oil and 14,502 tons of meal were extracted from pilchards and 38,223 gallons of oil and 320\ntons of meal from herring.\nThe twenty-three plants in operation on the west coast in 1928 handled 81,740 tons of fresh-\ncaught pilchards, from which they extracted an average per ton of 48.6 gallons of oil and 0.016 G 10 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nton of meal. The seven plants which engaged in herring production used 1,846 tons of fresli\nherrings, from which was extracted an average of 19.9 gallons of oil and 0.017 ton of meal from\neach ton of fresh fish handled.\nAVhile the bulk of the pilchards landed were taken in estuary waters, the catches made in\nthe open sea off the coast were much larger than in previous years.\nThe fish meal and oil products of the Province are exported, England, Germany, and the\nUnited States being the largest importers.\nThe stockmen of the Province should not overlook the animal food value of the fish-meals\nbeing produced on our west coast. Professor G. W. Cavanagh, of Cornell University, states that\ncalves fed a ration of fish-meal per day \" at the end of a year had an average height of 2V2 inches\nin excess of the standard height and an average weight of 300 lb. in excess of the standard\nweight. Herds fed on a ration of fish-meal are free from goitre, and no cases of abortion in\ncows of the herd recorded.\" Other authorities claim that herds fed a ration per day of fish-meal\nhave no tubercular cows.\nHALIBUT LANDINGS IN 1928.\nThe landings of halibut in British Columbia ports in 1928 totalled 30,007,179 lb., as against\n26,892,328 lb. in 1927. a gain in Provincial landings of 3,114,851 lb. Of the total Provincial\nlandings, 9,758,560 lb. were docked by the Canadian fleet and 20,248,619 lb. by the United States\nfleet, the catches of the latter being shipped in bond to the United States. Of the total landings\nin British Columbia, 28,412,356 lb. were made at Prince Rupert, 1,214,771 lb. at Vancouver, and\nthe balance on the west coast of Vancouver Island and at Butedale. The landings in Prince\nRupert were 3,101,767 lb. greater than those made in 1927. An interesting feature of the landings\nmade at Prince Rupert in 1928 is the statement that the \" Prosperity A \" led the fleets in her\ntotal landings of 293,000 lb. and that her crew's share for that season was close to $2,500 per\nman; also that the \" Onome \" ranked second in the season's record of landings, the crew's share\nper man being $2,170.\nThe landings of halibut at all Pacific ports in 1928, with a few scattered returns missing,\ntotalled 54,255,918 lb., against 54,712,796 lb. in 1927, a decline of 456,878 lb. The total landings\nat Provincial ports were 55.3 per cent, of the total Pacific port landings.\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON.\nThe fourteenth contribution to the series of papers on the life-history of the sockeye salmon,\nissued by the Department, which is contained in the Appendix of this report, is contributed by\nDrs. W. A. and Lucy S. Clemens. The present paper, together with those which have preceded\nit, constitute one of the most detailed continuous records of any fishery. They give the constituents of the age-classes, sex, weights, and lengths of the salmon in each of the runs to the\nprincipal waters of the Province for the last fifteen years. The following is a brief summary\nof the present paper:\u2014\nIn 1928 the packs of sockeye in the four areas considered by Drs. Clemens in the present\nreport were small and in three of them were below expectancy, the exception being in the run\nto Rivers Inlet, and, what is equally significant, the reports from the spawning-beds indicate\nsmall escapements to the spawning-beds, with the exception of Skeena River.\nThe situation disclosed by Drs. Clemens's present paper merits earnest consideration. When\nsuch close study of representative sampling of runs, examination of packs, and reports from\nspawning-beds indicates so clearly a steady decline in any cycle, coupled with small escapements,\nit is obvious that the amount of the catch should be reduced in order that a greater escapement\nto the spawning-beds may be secured. In this connection Drs. Clemens instance the pack on\nthe Nass River. The catch this year produced a pack of but 5,540 cases. The bulk of the\nsockeye in that river system mature at five years of age. The year 1928 therefore falls in the\ncycle-years 1908-13-18-23-28. The packs in those years were as follows: 1908, 27,584 cases;\n1913, 23,574 cases; 1918, 21,816 cases; 1923, 17,821 eases; 1928, 5,540 eases. The reports from\nthe spawning-beds of the Nass in those years show good escapement in 1908; a fair one in 1913;\nno report for 1918; a poor escapement in 1923: and a very poor one in 1928\u2014indicating clearly\nthat escapements have not been adequate to maintain the runs in this cycle.\n\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 Drs. Clemens call attention to the efforts being made in British Columbia and in Alaska to\nobtain exact data concerning the relation between catch and escapement. It is not known at BRITISH COLUMBIA. G 11\npresent what this relation should be in order to maintain a run at a reasonable high level of\nproduction. Until such time as this information is available, resort must be made to experiment.\nIn those cycle-years of any stream where continuous decreases in the catches have occurred\nand where escapements have been obviously inadequate, the line of action should be to restrict\nthe catch to such an extent as to ensure an adequate escapement; and, as already stated, the\nrestriction must at present be determined by experiment. However, in the case of the 1908-13-\n18-23-28 cycle of the Nass River, depletion has become so serious that only complete prohibition\nof sockeye-fishing in 1933 can apparently save the cycle.\nWith the accumulation of our knowledge in the last fifteen years concerning the cycles of\nthe runs to our principal streams, it would seem that the time has arrived when a definite limit\nof the catches for each river system might be made. Drs. Clemens call attention to the fact that\nin conjunction with such a procedure it is imperative that provision be made for obtaining more\nexact information concerning escapements, preferably by the installation of counting-weirs.\nGeneral Characteristics of Fraser Sockeye Run in 1928.\nIn dealing with the total sockeye-pack for the Fraser River system in 1928, Drs. Clemens\nshow that the catch produced a total pack of 90,343 cases, of which 29,299 cases were packed in\nBritish Columbia and 61,044 cases in the State of AA'ashington. The year 1928 was the continuation of the 1912-16-20-24 cycle and its pack shows a continuation of the steady decline in the\npacks of that series. It cannot be assumed that the blockade in Hell's Gate Canyon in 1913\naffected that cycle; hence there can be but one conclusion drawn\u2014namely, that the catches have\ngreatly exceeded the reproductive capacity of the escapement of the years in that cycle. It is\nnow more clearly evident that the catches in 1904 and 1908, with packs of 458,000 and 429,000\nrespectively, were too great, and, in face of the continued decline in the cycle as indicated by\nthe pack and the spawning-bed reports, it is manifest that the toll of the fishery is still too\ngreat to maintain even the present low average of the Fraser.\nThe sockeye run to the Fraser system in 1929, Drs. Clemens state, will be derived from the\nspawnings of 1925. The year 1929 is in the cycle of the one-time \" big years,\" and there is a\nreasonable expectation of the run in that year being at least equivalent to that of 1925. This\nconclusion appears justified from the report on the spawning-beds in 1925, which states:\n\" A summary of observations and reports on spawning conditions in the Fraser River basin this\nseason warrants the conclusion that the escapement of sockeye was somewhat greater than in\nany year since 1913. However, the number of sockeye that reached and spawned in all sections\nwas not sufficiently great to produce much, if any, increase in the run four years hence.\"\nThe material used by Drs. Clemens for this year's study of the Fraser sockeye run consisted\nof data and scales from 1,004 sockeye selected at random from April 20th to September 15th, in\ntwenty-nine samplings.\nThe 4o age-group predominated as usual, being represented by 717 individuals, or 71 per cent,\nof the total. The 5 age-group, the next most abundant numerically, was represented by 188\nindividuals, or 19 per cent. Other age-groups\u2014namely, 5., 6 , 3 , 4 , 3 , and 4 \u2014were present\nin small numbers. Drs. Clemens present this year a table giving the percentages of the various\nage-groups in each year since 1919.\nThe average lengths and weights of the 1928 fish were normal.\nGeneral Characteristics of the Rivers Inlet Sockeye Run of 1928.\nThe run of sockeye to Rivers Inlet in 1928 was the only one that came up to expectancy.\nIt amounted to 60,044 cases and, while comparatively small, was without doubt all that could\nhave been expected from the spawnings of 1923 and 1924. A disquieting feature, however, is\nthat the reports from the spawning-beds in 1928 indicate a poor escapement.\nDrs. Clemens furnish a table giving a general summary of the packs and the composition\nof the Rivers Inlet runs for a period of seventeen years, wThich shows some considerable uncertainty as to the real nature of the sockeye runs. The annual pack varies over a wide range\nand the relative proportions of the four- and the five-year-old fish show a marked variability\nfrom year to year, a seemingly uncorrelated mass of data. \" If, however, we accept,\" Drs.\nClemens state, \" the theory that this river has pre-eminently a five-year cycle, we are able to\ninterpret this data with considerable satisfaction, both for packs and also for relative percentages G 12 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nof the age-groups. Turning attention first to the commercial yield, we find a striking correlation\nif we tabulate the successive packs in series of five-year intervals. In the following table each\nseries, or five-year cycle, is arranged horizontally across the page:\u2014\n1.\n1907,\n87,874 cases;\n1912,\n112,884;\n1917,\n61,195;\n1922,\n53,584;\n1927, 64,461.\n2.\n1908,\n64,652 cases;\n1913,\n61,745;\n1918,\n53,401;\n1923,\n107,174;\n1928, 60,044.\n3.\n1909,\n89,027 cases;\n1914.\n89,890;\n1919,\n56,258;\n1924,\n94,891.\n4.\n1910,\n126,921 cases;\n1915,\n130,350;\n1920,\n125,338;\n1925,\n159,554.\n5.\n1911,\n88,763 cases;\n1916,\n44,936;\n1921,\n48,615;\n1926,\n65,581.\nThe major fluctuations in size of pack are remarkably constant in series 2, 3, and 4. Series\n2, with the exception of the year 1923, has produced packs ranging between 50,000 and 65,000\ncases. Series 3, except for one year, 1919, is composed of greater packs, varying within the\nlimits of 89,000 to 95,000 cases. The pack in 1923 is much larger than would be anticipated from\nthe brood-year pack of 1918. Similarly, in series 3 the pack of 1919 is noticeably small and less\nthan expected. These two exceptions in the series find a ready explanation in Overseer Stone's\nreport of the conditions on the spawning-beds in 1919. He wrote: \" Taking into consideration\nthe comparatively poor pack obtained by the canners at Rivers Inlet this season, it is surprising\nthat the spawning-beds did not show a correspondingly poor seeding. The exceptionally large\nnumber of sockeye observed spawning on the beds, and noted in tens of thousands schooled up\nin the deeper portions of the various tributaries, precludes the opinion generally expressed by the\ncanning fraternity that the run this year was a small one. My inspection showed that the\nspawning-beds were as abundantly seeded as in 1914 and more so than in 1915. As the sockeye,\ngenerally speaking, did not reach an average standard in size, the poor catch may be attributed\nto their having passed through the nets. Fishermen whom I interviewed during the fishing\nseason time and again deplored their luck in seeing hundreds of salmon pass through their nets.\nThe extension of the weekly closed season had its effect, because I found the spawning-beds of\nthe tributaries of Owikeno Lake so abundantly seeded this year that I look for a favourable\nreturn in the runs four and five years hence.\" \" Hence,\" state Drs. Clemens, \" the small commercial pack of 1919 is accounted for by the fact that the fish were smaller than usual and\nimmense numbers of them passed through the nets. AVhile the pack statistics for the year 1919\nindicate a poor run, it was in reality a very large one. This simply shows that the size of the\npack in itself may not be a reliable index to a run.\"\nAs for the pack of 1923, which was considerably greater than expectancy, 76 per cent, of the\nfish were four years old and were the progeny of the enormous escapement of 1919.\nSeries 4 of the five-year pack statement has a uniformly high pack of 120,000 cases or better.\nUndoubtedly the success of this cycle is at least partly accounted for by the fact that in the\n5 group, which predominates the cycle, the females outnumber the males.\nSeries 1 and 5 of the statement under consideration show less uniformity in size of pack\nthan do the other series. It is possible that we would find some explanation for these fluctuations, which are particularly marked in the earlier years, if reports of the escapements were\navailable.\nA most interesting correspondence is brought out in the runs in the years in question, if we\narrange a similar series, substituting the percentage of the four- and the five-year-old fish in\nplace of the pack:\u2014\n1. 1912...\n-.79%\n1917...\n-.67%\n1922...\n....18%\n1927...\n....17%\n21%\n33%\n82%\n83%\n2. 1913....\n....20%\n1918....\n....43%\n1923...\n....24%\n1928\u2014\n-.42%\n80%\n57%\n76%\n58%\n3. 1914\n....65%\n35%\n1919\n....54%\n46%\n1924\n....56%\n44%\n4. 1915\n....87%\n13%\n1920\n....95%\n5%\n1925\n-.77%\n23%\n5. 1916\n....76%\n24%\n1921\n....51%\n49%\n1926\n-.40%\n60%\nAs would be expected, the second, third, and fourth series are \/those in which the greatest\nconstancy is found. In the second series in all cases the percentage of four-year-old fish is greater\nthan that of the five-year-olds. In series 3 the five-year-old fish slightly outnumber the four-year\nfish. In series 4 the five-year-olds form the great bulk of the packs. BRITISH COLUMBIA. G 13\nIn comparing these twTo sets of tabulations, Drs. Clemens saw at once that there is a correlation between the size of the pack and the relative proportions of the four- and five-year-old fish.\nA majority of four-year-old fish means a small pack, roughly between 50,000 and 60,000 cases.\nAVhen the five-year-old slightly exceed the fours the pack amounts to 85,000 to 95,000 cases. A\npreponderance of five-year-old fish produces a pack of at least 120,000 cases.\nAt the present t-ime Drs. Clemens can give no explanation for the reversal of the proportions\nof the age-groups either between any two successive years, such as 79 per cent, five-year-olds and\n21 per cent, four-year-olds in 1912, against 20 per cent, five-year-olds and 80 per cent, four-year-\nolds in 1913; or between any two five-year periods within the same series\u2014as illustrated by 67\nper cent, fives and 33 per cent, fours in 1917 and 18 per cent, fives and 82 per cent, fours in 1922.\nNeither are they able to determine why the four-year age-groups have a greater correlation\nwhen plotted on a basis of five than they have when tabulated on a basis of four. All they\nsuggest is that these tabulations show that certain rather definite proportions of the four- and\nfive-year age-groups seem to have been established in three five-year cycles in Rivers\" Inlet and\nthat these proportions are in turn linked with packs of certain size.\nDrs. Clemens state that the year 1928 belongs to the cycle in which the packs have the small\naverage of about 60,000 cases. The average packs of the cycles 1909-14-19-24 and 1910-15-20-25\nshow that Rivers Inlet is capable of a much greater annual yield than 60,000 cases. If, therefore,\nthe cycle of 1908-13-18-23-28, which is known to be \" weak,\" is to be made more productive, it\ncan only be done by making provision for a greater escapement to the spawning-beds.\nReferring to the run of 1929, Drs. Clemens say it will be the product of the spawnings of\n1924 and 1925. In 1924, according to the report from the spawning-beds, there wras an exceptionally large escapement and the samplings in that year showed that five-year-old fish made up\n56 per cent, of the run. The pack consisted of 94,891 cases. The report from the spawning-beds\nin 1925 indicated an excellent escapement, but in that year 77 per cent, of the run consisted of\nfive-year-old fish and it is not expected that the progeny of these fish will appear until 1930. The\nfour-year-old fish formed but 23 per cent, of the run which produced the large pack of .159,554\ncases. There may therefore be a return of a fair number of four-year-old fish in 1929. Taking\nthese things into consideration and also the fact that the year 1929 belongs to the 1909-14-19-24\ncycle, there would seem to be a reasonable expectancy of a run which may produce a pack\nof between 85,000 and 95,000 cases.\nGeneral Characteristics op the Skeena River Sockeye Run of 1928.\nIn dealing with the Skeena River sockeye run of 1928, Drs. Clemens state that \" from the\ncommercial standpoint the pack was the darkest spot in the sockeye-fishing of that season.\" The\npack consisted of only 34,559 cases, which is the lowest on record and 6,459 cases less than the\nprevious low record of 1921. In their report for the year 1927 they pointed out that a large pack\ncould not be expected in 1928 because of the low percentages of four- and five-year-old fish in the\nruns of 1924 and 1923 respectively, and stated that a pack much in excess of 80,000 cases could\nnot be expected. It is of interest, therefore, to seek possible causes for the discrepancy between\nthe prediction and the actual pack.\nPredictions at the present time, Drs. Clemens state, are based upon pack statistics according\nto cycle-years, analyses of random samplings of the runs from year to year and annual reports\nfrom the spawning-beds, also upon the assumption that conditions remain reasonably constant\nfrom year to year. Nothing is known concerning the success of the hatch, conditions during\neither the fresh-water or the marine periods of growth, and but little concerning the fishing conditions in any year. It is evident, therefore, that the pack of any year may not coincide with\npredictions. However, in 1928, although the pack was relatively small, the reports from the\nspawning-beds indicate a large escapement. Mr. Gibson, who has inspected the beds for a\nnumber of years, says of 15-Mile Creek, a tributary of Babine Lake, in Skeena basin: \" Although\nI have been inspecting the spawning-grounds of Babine Lake since 1920, I have never before\nseen so many sockeye in this creek.\" Again: \" In summing up the Babine area, I can say with\nconfidence that this area will be exceptionally well seeded this year.\" He suggests that the\nadditional weekly twelve hours of \" close season\" may have been responsible for the large\nescapement. Undoubtedly the extra closed period did allow more fish to pass up to the spawning-beds than otherwise would have done so. Whether this circumstance is sufficient to account\nfor the difference between the expected and the actual pack cannot be determined at the present G 14 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\ntime, and the returns four and five years hence will be watched with great interest. It would\nseem, however, that with the large escapement the situation as regards the future of this cycle\non the Skeena River is satisfactory and that there should be a good return four or five years\nhence.\nThe run of 1929, Drs. Clemens state, will be derived from the seedings of 1924 and 1925. In\n1924 the pack consisted of 144,747 cases and the sampling of the fish in that year showed that\nthe five-year-old fish made up 75 per cent, of the run. The report from the spawning-beds at\nboth Lakelse and Babine Lakes stated that large numbers of sockeye reached the stream and\nin general the runs were exceptionally good. The prospects of a large return of five-year-old\nfish in 1929 should therefore be good. In 1925 the pack totalled 77,784 cases and the run was\nmade up of 53 per cent, of four-year-old fish. The spawning-beds were reported as having been\nvery well seeded. In view of these facts it would seem that a large run, possibly producing a\npack in the neighbourhood of 140,000 cases, may be expected.\nGeneral Characteristics op Nass River Sockeye Run in 1928.\nThe year 1928 Drs. Clemens find the erratic Nass a normal river, fulfilling a logical expectation of a very small sockeye-pack. The pack is the smallest on record and consists of the\nastonishingly small figures of 5,540 cases. Although the certainty of an unmistakable decline\nin the run of sockeye to the Nass has been impressing itself during the past few years, up to the\npresent time it has not been necessary to face the possibility of complete failure in the near\nfuture. AAre cannot look ahead without looking back. As is well known, the great majority of\nthe Nass sockeye mature at the end of five years. Hence the principal brood-year of this 1928\nrun was 1923, which yielded the mediocre pack of 17,821 cases. In that year, after his annual\ninspection of the spawning-grounds in the Meziadin watershed of the Nass River basin, Inspector\nof Fisheries Hickman reported a very poor seeding. In view of the small size of this year's pack\nit is not surprising to find the following in the summary of Inspector Hickman's report for 1928:\n\" A summary of spawning conditions showrs that very few sockeye were to be found in any section ; far less than have been found in any one of the last four years.\"\nIn 1923 the pack on the Nass was 17,821 cases; in 1928 it was 5,540\u2014a drop of 12,000 cases.\nWhat will the pack be in 1933 ? AVhile predictions and expectancy in the Nass run are in general\nunreliable, one cannot conceive of any condition which could produce in 1933 anything but an\nexceedingly small run and a pack of very small commercial value. On the other hand, the run\nitself, by reason of its greatly reduced numbers, will be very valuable for seeding purposes and\nevery effort should be made to allow all the sockeye to reach the spawning-beds.\nDrs. Clemens quote what Dr. Gilbert wrote in 1919, to wit: \" When the experience of a\nseries of years indicates unmistakably that the productivity of a stream is declining to a lower\nlevel, the common-sense treatment of the situation is to modify favourably the only factor over\nwhich we exercise control. AVe should increase the spawning reserve and thus seek to augment\nthe egg production. Egg production must, after all, be fundamentally most important. As a\nconstant factor, in the long run it will dominate the situation.\" Unless the taking of sockeye in\nthe Nass River is prohibited, in the year 1933 we can look for nothing but complete annihilation\nof the run which occurs in the five-year cycle, 1923-28-33-38.\nAs to the run of 1929, Drs. Clemens make no prediction. They simply state that in the past\nthe packs of this five-year-cycle stream have been consistently large, as the following figures\nshow: 1909, 28,246 cases ; 1914, 31,327 cases ; 1919, 28,259 cases; and 1924, 33,590 cases. Consequently we may await 1929's returns with interest.\nIn former years the late Dr. Gilbert pointed out, in several of his contributions to this series\nof papers, that large runs to the Skeena and Rivers Inlet seem to be intimately associated with\nlarge percentages of five-year-old fish. It is interesting to note that in this cycle of the Nass\nthe four-year-old component of the runs is very small. We have no figure for 1909, but in 1914\nthe four-year-olds constituted only 4 per cent, of the run; in 1919, 7 per cent.; and in 1924,\n4 per cent.; while over a period of seventeen years the general average of the group is 11-12\nper cent. Not only is the brood-year pack of 1919 larger, but, in addition, in that year Inspector\nHickman reported the spawning-beds more extensively seeded than usual. In any other river\nsystem except the Nass these facts would indicate a very good return in 1929.\nThe full text of Drs. Clemens's paper, together with its thirty-one tabulations, will be found\nin the Appendices of the report. It is, as the foregoing digest shows, one of the most interesting\nand valuable of the series published in the annual reports of the Department since 1912. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nG 15\nSALMON-TAGGING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS.\nThe Biological Board of Canada, following an agreement with the International Pacific\nSalmon Investigation Federation, consisting of the executive and scientific staffs of the Fisheries\nDepartments of Canada, the United States, British Columbia, AVashington, Oregon, California,\nand Alaska, has been tagging and liberating salmon in British Columbia waters since 1925.\nThe purpose of the Federation is to produce through joint and uniform effort the knowledge\nessential for the proper and scientific administration of the salmon-fisheries of the Pacific Coast\nin order to effectively conserve the great salmon resources of the North Pacific.\nThe tagging of salmon experiments conducted by the Biological Board of Canada in British\nColumbia waters were begun in 1925 and have been continued since then. The following is a\nbrief summary of the Board's efforts :\u2014\nSummary op Spring Salmon (O. tsciiawytscha) tagged in British Columbia\nWaters, 1925-28.\nDate\ntagged.\nLocation.\nTotal\ntagged.\nRecaptured.\nPer Cent.\nof\nRecapture.\n1925\t\nUcluelet, west coast of Vancouver Island\t\nHippa Island, Queen Charlottes\t\n1,125\n274\n1,353\n54\n518\n168\n267\n133\n122\n34\n179\n18\n64\n15\n15\n6\n10.8\n1925\t\n12.0\nW6 ..\n13.2\n1927\t\nQuatsino, west coast of Vancouver Island\t\n33.0\n1927\n12 4\n1927\n9.0\n1928\n5 6\n1928\n4 5\nTotals\t\n3,892\n453\nOf the 1,125 spring salmon tagged at Ucluelet in 1925, sixty-eight were recaptured the same\nyear, two of which were taken in the Sacramento River in California, forty-one in the Columbia,\ntwo on the coast of Oregon, eleven in Puget Sound, and four in the Fraser River.\nIn 1926 the number of recaptures of spring salmon tagged in 1925 off Ucluelet totalled forty-\nfive, of which twenty-six were retaken in the Columbia River, two in Oregon, one on the west\ncoast of AVashington, and the balance inside the entrance to Juan de Fuca Strait, only one of\nwhich was taken in the Fraser.\nOf the 1,353 spring salmon tagged off Ucluelet in 1926, 128 were recaptured that year\u2014\nsixty-nine were taken in the Columbia, one off the Washington coast, fifty-six taken inside Cape\nFlattery, only nine of which were taken in the Fraser. Forty-seven of the spring salmon tagged\noff Ucluelet in 1926 were retaken in 1927, thirty-seven of which were retaken in the Columbia.\nAll the other ten were retaken east of Cape Flattery.\nSeven of the fish tagged off Ucluelet in 1925 were retaken in the Columbia River in 1927;\nalso one tagged there in 1926 was retaken in the Columbia River in 1928.\nOf the fifty-four spring salmon tagged off Quatsino in 1927, eighteen were retaken that year\n\u2014twelve of which were caught in the Columbia River and only three inside Cape Flattery. None\nhave since been taken.\nOf the 518 spring samon tagged off Kyuquot in 1927, fifty-eight were retaken that year\u2014\nforty of which were caught in the Columbia, seven off the coast of AVashington, and three off\nthe coast of Oregon.\nFive of the fish tagged off Kyuquot in 1927 were retaken in 1928\u2014one off Goose Island, north\nof the Queen Charlotte Islands, two at Cape Flattery, one in Barkley Sound, and one in the\nFraser River.\nOf the 274 spring salmon tagged off Hippa Island, west coast of Queen Charlottes, in 1925,\nthirty-one were retaken that year\u2014seven in the Columbia, twelve off the Oregon coast, one off\nthe AVashington coast, two in the Skeena River, and two in Barkley Sound. But three of the\nfish tagged off Hippa in 1925 were retaken in 1926\u2014one in Alaska, one in the Nass River, British\nColumbia, and one off the AVashington coast. G 16\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nOf the 133 spring salmon tagged in Queen Charlotte Sound in 1928, but six were retaken\nthat year\u2014four of which were taken in the Fraser River, one near Nanaimo, and one at West\nBeach, AVashington.\nOf the 168 spring salmon tagged at Deep Bay, north-east coast of Vancouver Island, in 1927,\nonly nine were recovered that year\u2014four of which were taken in the Fraser and one in the\nSkagit River in AVashington. But six of the fish tagged at Deep Bay in 1927 were retaken in\n1928\u2014three in the Fraser, one at Knight Inlet, one at Cape Mudge, and one at Deep Bay.\nOf the 267 spring salmon tagged near Nanaimo, east coast of Vancouver Island, in 1928,\nfifteen were recaptured that year\u2014of which eight were taken from the Fraser, one in the\nColumbia River, one at Smith Inlet, north of Queen Charlottes, one at Point Roberts, and one\nin the Cowichan.\nThe foregoing shows that of the 2,478 spring salmon tagged off Ucluelet in 1925 and 1926,\n181 were recaptured in the Columbia River; and that of the 572 spring salmon tagged off Quatsino and Kyuquot in 1927, fifty-two were retaken in the Columbia.\nThe foregoing data demonstrate that a considerable number of Columbia River breed spring\nsalmon feed off the west coast of Vancouver Island, and that one of them was caught and tagged\non the east coast of Vancouver Island.\nSummary of Cohoe Salmon (O. kisutch) tagged, 1925-28.\nDate\ntagged.\nLocation.\nTotal\ntagged.\nReturn.\nPer Cent.\nof\nReturn.\n1925\n51\n180\n135\n357\n99\n1,609\n833\n5\n11\n8\n47\n23\n158\n77\n9.8\n1926 \t\n6.1\n1927\n6.0\n1927\n13.5\n1928\n23.0\n1928\n9.8\n1928\n9.2\nTotals\t\n3,264\n329\nOf the fifty-one cohoe salmon tagged off Ucluelet in 1925, only five were retaken that year;\nall were retaken east of the point of liberation. Of the 180 tagged in 1926, eleven were retaken\n\u25a0\u2014one as far south as Grays Harbour, Washington, one at Dungeness, and one in Bute Inlet. Of\nthe 135 tagged off Kyuquot in 1927, eight were retaken that year, two of which were captured in\nthe Columbia.\nOf the ninety-nine cohoe tagged at the traps at Sooke, twenty-four were retaken that year,\nall inside Juan de Fuca Strait.\nOf the 833 cohoe tagged in Queen Charlotte Sound in 1928, seventy-seven were retaken that\nyear\u2014eleven in the Fraser, thirteen in Bute Inlet, and the others in waters south of the point\nof liberation.\nOf the 1,609 cohoe tagged near Nanaimo in 1928, 158 were recaptured that year\u2014thirty-five,\nor 22 per cent., in the Fraser.\nSummary of Sockeye Salmon (O. nerka) tagged, 1925 and 1928.\nDate\ntagged.\nLocation.\nTotal\ntagged.\nRecaptures.\nPer Cent.\nof\nReturn.\n1925 .\n659\n515\n10\n402\n135\n107\n3\n61\n20 5\n1925\t\n20.0\n1928\t\nJohnstone Strait \t\n30.0\n1928 . .\n15.0\nTotals\t\n1,586\n306 .\nBRITISH COLUMBIA. G 17\nOf the 515 sockeye salmon tagged at Deep AVater Bay in 1925, sixty-five were retaken that\nyear. As was anticipated, fifty-six, or 86 per cent., were retaken in the Fraser, three in English\nBay, and only one in the State of Washington waters. Limited as is the above return, it sustains the belief that a portion of the run of sockeye which seek the Fraser come down from the\nnorth through Johnstone Strait.\nOf the 659 sockeye that were tagged off Haystack Island, north-west end of Vancouver\nIsland, in 1925, 135 were retaken that year. The return shows that eighty, or 60 per cent., were\ntaken in the Nass, thirteen in the Skeena, twenty-seven in South-eastern Alaska, and the balance\nin various waters north of the point of liberation.\nHALIBUT INVESTIGATION.\nThe International Fisheries Commission, created by the Halibut Treaty between Canada\nand the United States to make a thorough investigation into the life-history of the Pacific halibut\nand the condition of that fishery, made its first report to the two Governments in the spring of\n1928. The report is reproduced in the Appendix of this report. The following excerpt from\nthe report shows the extent and condition of the fishery:\u2014\n\" Fisheries for halibut are prosecuted in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic Oceans,\nand yield about ninety millions of pounds annually. The Pacific halibut-fishery, which is\ncovered by the terms of this convention, is the greatest in the world. The annual catch exceeds\nfifty millions of pounds, which represents about 60 per cent, of the world's catch. Of the remainder, about thirty millions are credited to European countries and six millions to the\nAtlantic Coast of this continent. The value of the Pacific halibut-catch to the fishermen is about\nseven million dollars annually, and it is consequently one of the most important fisheries in\nNorth American waters. The Pacific halibut is, therefore, one of the most important species of\nfood-fishes indigenous to the waters of the North American Continent. The halibut-fishery banks\nof the Eastern Pacific are shown in Plates Nos. 1-3. The division into areas shown thereon is\nfor statistical purposes and should not be confused with those referred to in the Commission's\nrecommendations, which will be submitted later on.\n\" The Pacific halibut-fishery originated soon after the first railway communication was\nestablished between the two coasts of the United States. It is, therefore, comparatively young.\nIt had its inception in 1888 near Cape Flattery, at the entrance to Juan de Fuca Strait. The\nfishery expanded rapidly and by 1910 it had extended to grounds off Cape Ommaney, Baranof\nIsland, 600 miles to the north. Subsequent expansion has extended the fishery until it now\ncovers about 1,800 miles of coast. Formerly as many fish were taken from the 600-mile stretch\nas are now procured from the entire area of 1,800 miles. The banks on the eastern side of the\nGulf of Alaska, which yield spawning fish, were first exploited in 1913. In 1926 the larger\nboats made by far the greater part of their catches in the vicinity of Kodiak Island, on' the\nwestern side of the Gulf of Alaska, about 1,200 miles beyond the original fishery. The catch on\nthe older grounds south of Cape Ommaney has decreased from a total in excess of fifty million\npounds in 1910 to about twenty-one millions in 1926, and much greater effort was exerted in\nmaking the catch in the latter year. It is evident that the present level of production has been\nmaintained by extending fishing operations to new areas, as the catch on the older grounds\ndecreased, and by increasing the intensity of the fishing effort.\n\" The amount of gear now used on the older banks is about two and one-half times the\nquantity formerly used, yet the present catch is only about 40 per cent, of the former yield from\nthese grounds. Under the stress of this great intensification of fishing effort the abundance of\nfish on the older banks has fallen enormously, to 16 per cent, of the abundance in 1906. AVhere\nin 1906 the catch per set of a unit of fishing-gear was nearly 300 lb., in 1926 it was below 50 lb.\nExpressed in another way, it required six units of gear to catch as many fish as one unit caught\nin 1906. The decline has gone on at an even rate and shows no tendency to slacken. Accompanying this fall in abundance there has been a decrease in the average size of the fish landed\nand a great increase in the percentage of undersized fish. For example, between 1919 and 1926\nthe percentage of undersized fish from the older banks increased from 20 to 30 per cent.\n\" The more recently exploited banks to the westward show the same trend, the catch having\nfallen from 160 lb. per unit of gear in 1923 to 100 lb. in 1926, and was still lower in 1927, while\nat the same time there was an increase in the number of fish under 11% lb.\n2 G 18 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\n\" The rapidity of decline is regarded as especially serious because of the very slow rate of\ngrowth of the halibut, an adult being from twelve to twenty-five years, or over, in age. Hence\nthe present decline has taken place within the life-span of one halibut of ordinarily large size.\nAs nearly all the fish which are being caught now were spawned eight or ten years ago, the\nabundance of the younger fish, which will annually be available for capture in the next ten\nyears, has already been established. If these are greatly reduced in numbers, and the intensity\nof the fishery is maintained, the outlook for a future stock of spawning fish sufficient to maintain\nthe supply presents a hopeless picture. In fact, the Commission's investigations indicate that\nrelatively few mature halibut are now found on the older banks.\n\" These illustrations demonstrate beyond a doubt that the fishery is in a very serious condition, and that the banks cannot stand the intensity of fishing to which they are subjected. The\nCommission is fully convinced that the conditions are so serious that no delay should be permitted in the adoption of additional conservation measures. In the light of the investigations\nmade, such action is essential to the maintenance of the fishery.\"\nRecommendations.\nThe Commission recommends that power be given proper governmental authorities:\u2014\n\" 1. (a.) To establish areas, within each of which, if deemed necessary for the preservation\nof the fishery there, the total catch of halibut may be reduced by a predetermined percentage\nannually, commencing not less than one year after the putting into force of this recommendation,\nuntil the fishery therein shall reach a state of stability of yield.\n\"(6.) To determine upon the amount of this percentage reduction, and to revise the same\nfrom time to time as may be found necessary, the intent being to restrain any increase in the\namount of fishing within such area.\n\" 2. To close permanently to all fishing the two areas herewith defined, and known to be\npopulated by small immature halibut, and to close such other grounds as may be found by the\nCommission to be populated by a similar class of fish.\n\" 3. To prevent the use of any fishing-gear deemed unduly destructive.\n\" 4. To extend the present closed season by two weeks at its beginning, making the closure\nfor all fishing in all areas from November 1st to February 15th, both dates inclusive, and to\nfacilitate future alterations in the length of close season.\n\" 5. To license all vessels fishing for halibut in treaty waters, under such terms as are\nnecessary for the purpose of the treaty, including statistical returns, and for clearance to\nregulated waters.\" LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON. G 19\nAPPENDICES.\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON.\n(No. 14.)\nBy AVilbert A. Clemens, Ph.D., Director, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo,\nand Lucy' S. Clemens, Ph.D.\nINTRODUCTION.\nIn the year 1928 the packs of sockeye in the four areas considered in this series of reports\nhave been low, and in three of these below expectancy, the exception being in the case of Rivers\nInlet. Coupled with this, the reports from the spawning-beds indicate small escapements to\nthe streams, except in the case of the Skeena River. The situation therefore merits earnest\nconsideration.\nAVhen study of representative samplings of runs, examination of pack statistics, and perusal\nof reports from spawning-beds have been made, and clear indication of steady decline in any\ncycle coupled with poor escapements has been found, it is obvious that the amount of the\ncatch should be reduced so that greater escapements to the spawning-beds may be permitted.\nFor example, the pack on the Nass River this year was 5,540 cases. The bulk of the sockeye in\nthis river system mature at five years of age and the year 1928 therefore falls in the cycle-years\n1908-13-18-23-28. The packs in these years were as follows : 1908, 27,584 cases ; 1913, 23,574;\n1918, 21,816; 1923, 17,821; 1928, 5,540. The reports from the spawning-beds were as follows:\n1908, good-; 1913, fair; 1918, no report; 1.923, poor ; 1928, very poor. It is thus clearly evident\nthat escapements have not been adequate to maintain the runs of this cycle.\nAA'hile efforts are being made both in British Columbia and in Alaska to obtain exact data\nconcerning the relation between catch and escapement, we do not know at the present time what\nthis relation should be in order to maintain a run at a reasonably high level of production, and\ntherefore until such time as this information is available, resort must be made to experiment.\nIn those cycle-years of any stream where continuous decreases in packs have occurred, and where\nescapements have been obviously inadequate, the line of action should be to restrict the catch\nto such a point that there is definite assurance of adequate escapement. As stated previously,\nthe extent of restriction must for the present be determined by experiment. In the case of the\n1908-13-18-23-28 cycle of the Nass River, depletion has become so serious that it would seem\nthat only complete prohibition of sockeye-fishing in 1933 would save the cycle.\nAA'ith the accumulation of our knowledge concerning the cycles of runs, it would seem that\nthe time had arrived when a definite limit to the amount of catch for each river system might\nbe made. In conjunction with such a procedure, it would be imperative that provision be made\nfor obtaining more exact information concerning escapements, preferably by the installation of\ncounting-weirs.\n1. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1928.\n(1.) General Characteristics.\nThe total pack for the Fraser River system in 1928 amounted to 90,343 cases, of which\n29,299 cases were packed in the Province of British Columbia and 61,044 cases in the State of\nWashington. The year 1928 is the continuation of the 1912-16-20-24 cycle and its pack shows\na continuation of the steady decline in the packs of this series (Table I.). It cannot be conceived that the blockade at Hell's Gate in 1913 affected this cycle, and there can be but one\nconclusion\u2014namely, that the catch has greatly exceeded the reproductive capacity of the cycle.\nIt is abundantly evident now that the catches in 1904 and 1908, with packs of 458,000 and\n429.000 respectively, were too great, and in the face of the continued decline in the cycle, as\nindicated by the packs and the spawning-bed reports, it is evident that the toll of the fishery is\nstill too great. G 20\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nThe run of 1929 will be derived from the spawning of 1925. This is in the cycle of the\none-time \" big years,\" and there is a reasonable expectation of the run of 1929 being at least\nequivalent to that of 1925. This conclusion appears justified from the report on the spawning-\nbeds in 1925, which states: \" A summary of observations and reports on spawning conditions in\nthe Fraser River basin this season warrants the conclusion that the escapement of sockeye was\nsomewhat greater than in any year since 1913. However, the number of sockeye that reached\nand spawned in all sections was not sufficiently great to produce much, if any, increase in the\nrun of four years hence.\"\nThe material for this year's study consisted of data and scales from 1,004 sockeye salmon\nselected at random from April 20th to September 15th in twenty-nine samplings.\n(2.) Age-groups.\nThe 4 age-group predominated as usual, being represented by 717 individuals, or 71 per cent,\nof the total. The 5 age-group,* the next most abundant numerically, was represented by 188\nindividuals, or 19 per cent. Other age-groups\u2014namely, 5,6,3,4,3, and 4 \u2022\u2014were present\nin small numbers (Tables II. and III.).* AVe present this year Table IN., showing the percentages of the various age-groups in each year since 1919.\nThe average lengths of the males and females of the dominant age-group, 4 , were practically\nthe same as those of their progenitors in 1924. The average was 23.4 inches in the case of the\nmales and 23 in the case of the females.\nSimilarly, the average lengths of the 5 and 5 age-groups are quite normal. The outstanding\nfeature in the lengths is the large average size of the 6 group and the small average sizes of\nthe 3 and 4 groups. It must be kept in mind, though, that the number of individuals in these\ngroups is relatively small. (See Table V.)\nThe average weights of the 4 , 5o, and 5, age-groups are quite similar to those of their\nprogenitors. It is interesting to note the much greater weight of the 5 group in 1928 as\ncompared with that of 1927. Corresponding with the great length of the 6 group, we find large\nweight. Curiously enough, in the 3 and 4 groups, while the lengths are the smallest on record,\nthe weights are normal (Table VI.).\nThe total number of males was 559, while that of the females was 445, and the males\nexceeded the females in numbers in all the important year-classes.\nTable I.\u2014Fraser River Packs, 1910-28, arranged in accordance with the Four-year Cycle.\nB.C 1910\u2014 150,432 1914\u2014198,183 1918\u2014 19,697 1922\u2014 51,832 1926\u2014 85,689\nWash..'. 248,014 335,'230 '50,723 48,566 44,673\nTotal \u25a0- 39S,446 533,413 70,420 100,398 130,362\nB.C 1911\u2014 58,487 1915\u2014 91,130 1919\u2014 38,854 1923\u2014 31,655 1927\u2014 61,393\nWash 127,761 64,584 64,346 47,402 97,594\nTotal 186,248 155,714 103,200 79,057 158,987\nB.C 1912\u2014 123,879 1916\u2014 32,146 1920\u2014 48,399 1924\u2014 39,743 1928\u2014 29,299\nWash 184,6S0 84,637 62,654 69,369 61,044\nTotal 308,5-59 116,783 111,053 109,112 90,343\nB.C 1913\u2014 719,796 1917\u2014148,164 1921\u2014 39,631 1925\u2014 35,385\nAVash 1,673,099 411;538 102,967 112,023\nTotal 2,392,895 '559,702 142,598 147,408\n* In this paper, as in the preceding one, a modification in the terminology for describing the age-classes\ncomprising the sockeye runs to the various rivers has been adopted. In the earlier papers the age-groups\nwere distinguished at maturity and the years spent in fresh water as \" four-years-old, one-year-in-thc-lake,\"\nor \" five-years-old, two-years-in-the-lake.\" In the present terminology these terms are used symbolically\nas follows : 4\u201e and Ss, in which 4 and 5 represent the age1 of the fish and the 2 and 3 the year of its life\nin which the fish left the fresh water. Pish which spend one year in fresh water migrate to sea in their\nsecond year; hence the terms \"four-years-old, one-year-in-the-lake\" and 4, are synonymous. Likewise\n\"five-years-old, two-years-in-the-lake\" and 53 are synonymous, and so on. The age-group known as the\nsea-type, in which the fish go to sea as fry in their first year, are designated as S1 and 4,, according as they\nmature at the age of three or four years. LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 21\nSo\n'S\ne\nv.\n\u20228\n65\no\na.\n8\n\u2022a\ne\na\nSi\nrH C-l rH \u00bbH\n\u25a0H I rH N\ntH CO rH CO co J H\nrHCOCSrHCOrfl 01 rH\nrt< :H\u00abfict-o^oci : h ri\n^^ j^ ;# :^ j ^ j^ ; ;\u00a3 i^ 1^3 |^ i^ j\nONcocoffladoHHoiciMn'i'^idiocdfflNNaJ\nHHriHHHCICinPlplP]CieiN?l\u00abClHPlCl^n\n% %\nB < G 22\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nSi\nr-\ns>\ne\n63\n\u25a08\nS\n\"8\n\u00a7\n\u00a9\nO\nr.\n6S\na,\ne\nS-i\ns\n8\nr*\nas\nB\nSi\n\u00ab5 *>\ne\nr-\n<8\nKG\nc\nIT\n\u25a0^\n\u2014\na\nBE\nh-\nor\nex\n1C\na\nCO\ni\u2014\n-t\nr-\n-v\n,\nN M M M 13 O N IO \u00ab H IO i^ M W\n!-\nHHririri\nc\nEn\nH\nCO\nfe\nCO\nIO\n^\nCO\nee\nCN\nfa\nCO\niM\nCO\nira\nTP\nr^\nCO,\nrH rH\ntH rH\n; IO\nCD\nfa\no\nTjH\nw\nrH\no\nw\nr^\noo\nJ\n<\n\u2022* CO CN\np\na\nfa\nIO\n>\na\ncoH\n\"A\nW\nrH CO IO CN\nr-\n41\n3\nr-\nCD\nO\n ' ' ' ' ' ' \" ' ' '\nOS\n\u00bb\nr-\nO\nP\nfa\nOO\nZ\nso\n,_,\nCO\nCD\n1^\n00\nIO M ^ CO H H\nCf\nt-\nfa\nrH\nIO\nCO\nIO\nrS\niH i-l\nrH\nIOt-HTtlNMH\u00ab\nK!\nIO\n\u00ab\nCD\nH^^Nt-OMIOO'O'tl\nrH\nT-t\n\n(Ot-WWCJOOIOOOCICOiM\nfa\nrirtfitit-o^N\nCO\ncc\nio\nS\nc-imio^i-OMOcoiMiOCDOifcqrt\nCR\nH P*\nrH Ol CO IP IO CD IM CM rH\n1\nCD\n^\n\u00ab .\nM\n\u2022H 02\n\n\u00a3fa\nh-\n C\nr^\nr^\nrH 0\ntv and 5- Age-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes,\nin Runs of Successive Years.\nRun of the Year.\nPercei\nFour an\nYears\ntage,\nd Five\nold.\no yrs.\n4 yrs.\n43%\n57%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n50%\n50%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n75%\n25%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n64%\n36%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n60%\n40%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n62%\n38%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n59%\n41%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n69%\n31%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n82%\n18%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n24%\n76%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n19%\n81%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n34%\n66%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n75%\n25%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n47%\n53%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n30%\n70%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n31%\n69%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n43%\n57%\nBrood-years from which\nderived.\n1912 (92,49S cases).\n1913 (59,927 cases).\n1914 (130,166 cases).\n1915 (116,553 cases).\n1916 (60,923 cases).\n1917 (65,760 cases).\n191S (123,322 cases).\n1919 (1S4.945 cases).\n1920 (90,869 cases).\n1921 (41,018 cases).\n1922 (96,277 cases).\n1923 (131,731 cases).\n1924 (144,747 cases).\n1925 (77,784 cases)....\n1926 (82,360 cases).\n1927 (83,996 cases).\n1928 (34,559 cases).\n1907 (108,413 cases).\n1908 (139,846 cases).\nj-1909 (87,901 cases).\n1910 (187,246 cases).\n1911 (131,066 cases).\n1912 (92,498 cases).\n1913 (52,927 cases).\n1914 (130,166 cases).\n1915 (116,-553 cases).\n1916 (60,923 cases).\n1917 (65,760 cases).\n1918 (123,322 cases).\n\u25a0 1919 (184,945 cases).\n1920 (90,869 cases).\n.1921 (41,018 cases).\n1922 (96,277 cases).\n.1923 (131,731 cases).\nJ\n1924 (144,747 cases). G 32\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nTable XIV.\u2014Percentages of the Principal Year-classes, Skeena River Sockeyes,\nfrom 1916 to 1928.\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nYear.\nFour Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nSix Years\nold.\n1916\t\n34\n57\n51\n27\n\u202215\n69\n70\n56\n23\n51\n62\n62\n'51\n38\n29\n34\n60\n71\n22\n16\n29\n69\n45\n26\n28\n39\n13\n9\n9\n9\n6\n6\n12\n8\n7\n3\n9\n9\n7\n18\n1917\t\n1918\t\n6\n1919\t\n4\n1920\t\n8\n1921\t\n3\n1922\t\n2\n1923\t\n7\n1924\t\n1\n1925\t\n1\n1926\t\n3\n1927 \t\n1\n1928\t\n3\nTable XV.\u2014Skeena River Sockeyes, 1928, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length, and by\ntheir Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nLength in Inches.\n4\n2\n5\n2\n5\n3\n6\n3\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n20\t\n20% . \t\n1\n3\n18\n23\n59\n61\n152\n88\n109\n61\n41\n13\n1\n2\n1\n2\n17\n35\n141\n104\n220\n74\n59\n22\n6\n3\n2\n1\n7\n4\n10\n19\n50\n40\n88\n54\n91\n32\n39\n6\n2\n4\n3\n6\n2\n32\n40\n112\n80\n136\n61\n57\n10\n10\n1\n1\n1\n5\n7\n16\n16\n16\n8\n4\n2\n1\n2\n3\n24\n19\n32\n9\n12\n2\n1\n1\n4\n3\n5\n1\n10\n4\n4\n1\n2\n5\n8\n5\n6\no\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n6\n21\t\n21% \t\n39\n65\n22\t\n22%\t\n242\n197\n23\t\n23% \t\n465\n251\n24\t\n24% \t\n370\n221\n25\t\n25%\t\n287\n135\n26\t\n26%\t\n27\t\n27%\t\n28 . \t\n161\n52\n54\n6\n4\n28%\t\nTotals\t\n632\n686\n447\n549\n78\n104\n33\n33\n2,562\nAve. lengths\n23.3\n22.8\n25.3\n24.7\n23.5 22.8\n1\n25.6\n24.7 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 33\nTable XVI.\u2014Skeena River Sockeyes, 1928, grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight, and by\ntheir Early History.\nNUMEER OF\nIndividuals.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4\n2\n5\n2\n5\n3\n63\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n3% \t\n15\n80\n175\n169\n95\n73\n17\n7\n1\n12\n168\n284\n157\n50\n14\n1\n1\n3\n14\n32\n62\n101\n96\n68\n29\n24\n8\n7\n1\n1\n4\n28\n85\n158\n146\n87\n32\n7\n1\n1\n3\n6\n20\n24\n17\n3\n4\n1\n1\n26\n42\n21\n6\n6\n2\n1\n7\n4\n7\n10\n3\n1\n1\n9\n9\n7\n5\n1\n1\n32\n4\t\n4%\t\n287\n564\n5 \t\n498\n5% \t\n404\n6 \t\n354\n6%\t\n7\t\n215\n121\n7%\t\n8 \t\n40\n26\n8% \t\n9\n9\t\n9%\t\n9\n2\n10 \t\n1\nTotals\t\n632\n686\n447\n549\n78\n104\n33\n33\n2,562\nAve. weights....\n5.0\n4.6\n6.4\n5.8\n5.0\n4.6\n6.5\n5.8\nTable XVII.\u2014Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, 40\nfor Seventeen Successive Years.\nand 5 Age-groups,\nYear.\nFour-year\nMales.\nFour-year\nFemales.\nFive-year\n-Males.\nFive-year\nFemales.\n1912.\n1913\n1914.\n1915\n1916\n1917.\n1918\n1919\n1920.\n1921.\n1922.\n1923.\n1924.\n1925.\n1926.\n1927.\n1928.\n24.6\n23.5\n24.2\n24.2\n23.9\n23.6\n'24.1\n24.3\n23.8\n23.8\n23.6\n23.7\n24.1\n23.6\n23.8\n23.9\n23.3\n23.5\n22.9\n23.4\n23.5\n23.6\n23.2\n23.3\n23.4\n23.2\n23.1\n23.2\n23.1\n23.3\n22.8\n23.4\n23.3\n22.8\n26.4\n25.5\n26.2\n25.9\n26.2\n25.5\n25.9\n25.7\n26.2\n25.2\n25.3\n25.5\n26.2\n25.6\n25.6\n25.7\n25.3\n25.2\n24.7\n25.1\n25.0\n25.0\n24.7\n25.0\n24.8\n25.3\n24.2\n24.4\n24.5\n25.2\n24.7\n24.8\n24.8\n24.7 G 34\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nTable XVIII.\u2014Average Lengths of Skeena Sockeyes, 5\nfor Thirteen Successive Years.\nand 6 Age-groups,\nYear.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\nSix-year\nMales.\nSix-year\nFemales.\n1916\t\n24.1\n23.9\n23.9\n24.3\n24.1\n24.2\n23.8\n23.9\n24.7\n24.1\n24.6\n24.1\n23.5\n23.8\n23.8\n23.4\n23.4\n23.4\n23.4\n23.3\n23.2\n23.6\n23.3\n23.8\n23:5\n22.8\n26.2\n25.4\n25.2\n25.8\n26.2\n24.9\n24.6\n25.6\n25.8\n25.8\n26.0\n2'5.2\n25.6\n24.8\n1917 \t\n25.0\n1918 \t\n24.7\n1919 \t\n24.7\n1920 \t\n25.1\n1921 \t\n24.2\n1922 \t\n24.1\n1923 . ...\n24.4\n1924\t\n24.8\n1925\t\n24.8\n1926\t\n25.0\n1927\t\n24.9\n1928\t\n24.7\nTable XIX.\u2014Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, 4\nfor Fifteen Successive Years.\nand 5 Age-groups,\nYear.\nFour-year\nMales.\nFour-year\nFemales.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\n1914\t\n5.9\n5.7\n5.4\n5.3\n5.8\n6.1\n5.6\n5.7\n5.4\n5.3\n5.6\n5.1\n5.3\n5.4\n5.0\n5.3\n5.2\n5.1\n5.0\n5.3\n5.5\n5.1\n5.1\n5.1\n4.9\n5.0'\n4.7\n5.1\n5.1\n4.6\n7.2\n6.8\n7.1\n6.4\n6.9\n7.0\n7.2\n6.4\n6.5\n6.3\n7.0\n6.5\n6.5\n6.5\n6.4\n6.3\n1915\t\n6.2\n1916 \t\n6.3\n1917\t\n6.0\n1918 \t\n6 4\n1919 \t\n6 2\n1920 . . \t\n6 4\n1921 :\t\n5 7\n1922.. . -\t\n1923 \t\n1924\t\n6 3\n1925\t\n5 8\n1926\t\n5 8\n1927 \t\n1928\t\n5 8\nTable XX.\u2014Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, 5 and 6 Age-groups,\nfor Fourteen Successive Years.\nYear.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\nSix-year\nMales.\nSix-year\nFemales.\n1915\t\n5.9\n5.8\n5.5\n5.7\n6.1\n6.3\n5.8\n5.5\n5.3\n5.9\n'5.5\n5.9\n'5.4\n5.0\n5.2\n5.4\n5.2\n5.3\n5.4\n5.1\n5.1\n5.1\n4.8\n5.1\n4.9\n5.2\n\u25a05.0\n4.6\n6.6\n7.1\n6.3\n6.6\n6.9\n7 H\n6 0\n1916\t\n5 9\n1917\t\n5.8\n1918\t\n1919\t\n6.3\n1920\t\n1921\t\n1922\t\n6.2\n6.3\n6.6\n6.9\n6.9\n6.0\n6.5\n5.7\n5.4\n5.8\n5.4\n6.2\n\u25a05.8\n5.8\n1923\t\n1924\t\n1925\t\n1926 ;\t\n1927\t\n1928\t LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 35\nTable XXI.\u2014Percentages of Males and Females in each of the Different Year-groups,\nSkeena River Sockeyes, in a Series of Years.\nYear.\n4\n2\n6\n2\n5\n3\n6\n3\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912\t\n54\n69\n60\n55\n70\n65\n63\n53\n41\n44\n52\n60\n50\n57\n40\n45\n48\n46\n31\n40\n45\n30\n35\n37\n47\n59\n56\n48\n40\n50\n43\n60\n55\n52\n42\n47\n47\n45\n43\n48\n46\n46\n37\n44\n41\n37\n43\n42\n43\n41\n45\n5S\n53\n53\n55\n57\n52\n54\n54\n63\n56\n59\n63\n\u25a057\n58\n57\n59\n55\n56\n65\n61\n52\n43\nSO\n52\n56\n46\n45\n48\n47\n43\n....\n44\n35\n39\n48\n57\n50\n48\n44\n54\n'55\n52\n53\n57\n--\n54\n58\n56\n45\n41\n43\n53\n40\n46\n47\n49\n'56\n50\n1913 \t\n1914\t\n1915\t\n1916\t\n46\n1917\t\n42\n1918 \t\n44\n1919 \t\n1920\t\n59\n1921\t\n57\n1922\t\n47\n1923\t\n60\n1924 \t\n1925 \t\n53\n1926\t\n1927\t\n1928\t\n51\n44\n50\n4. THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1928.\n(1.) General Characteristics.\nThe year 1928 finds the erratic Nass a normal river, fulfilling a logical expectation of a\nvery small pack. This pack is the smallest on record and consists of the astonishingly small\nfigure of 5,540 cases. Although the certainty of an unmistakable decline of the run of sockeyes\nto the Nass has been impressing itself upon us during the past few years, up to the present time\nit has not been necessary to face the possibility of complete failure in the near future. We\ncannot look ahead without glancing back. As is well known, the great majority of Nass sockeyes\nmature at the end of five years. Hence, the principal brood-year of this 1928 run was 1923,\nwhich yielded the mediocre pack of 17,821 cases. In that year, after his annual inspection of the\nspawning-grounds in the Meziadin watershed of the Nass River basin, Inspector Hickman\nreported a very poor seeding. In view of the small size of this year's pack it is not surprising\nto find the following in the summary of Inspector Hickman's report for 1928: \" This year shows\nthat very few sockeye were to be found in any section; far less than have been found in any\none of the last four years.\"\nIn 1923 the pack was 17,821 cases. In 1928 it was 5,540, a drop of 12,000 cases. In 1933\nwhat will the pack be? While predictions and expectations in the Nass run are in general\nunreliable, one cannot conceive of any condition which could produce in 1933 anything but an\nexceedingly small run and a pack of very small commercial value. On the other hand, the run\nitself, by reason of its greatly reduced numbers, will be very valuable for seeding purposes and\nevery effort should be made to allow all the fish to reach the spawning-beds.\nAs the late Dr. Gilbert wrote in 1919, \" AVhen the experience of a series of years indicates\nunmistakably that the productivity of a stream is declining to a lower level, the common-sense\ntreatment of the situation is to modify favourably the only frtctor over which we exercise control.\nWe should increase the spawning reserve and thus seek to augment the egg production. Egg\nproduction must, after all, be fundamentally most important. As a constant factor, in the long\nrun it will dominate the situation.\" Unless the taking of sockeye in the Nass River is prohibited\n-in the year 1933 we can look for nothing but complete annihilation of the run which occurs in\nthe five-year cycle, 1923-28-33-38.\nAs for the run of 1929, we make no prediction. We will simply state that in the past the\npacks of this five-year cycle have been consistently large, as the following figures show: 1909,\n28,246 cases ; 1914, 31,327 cases; 1919, 28,259 cases ; 1924, 33,590 cases. Consequently we await\nnext year's return with unusual interest. G 36 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nIn former years the late Dr. Gilbert pointed out on several occasions that large runs in the\nSkeena and Rivers Inlet seemed to be intimately associated with large percentages of five-year-\nold fish. It is interesting to note that in this cycle of the Nass the four-year-old component\nof the runs is very small. We have no figure for 1909, but in 1914 the four-year-olds constituted\nonly 4 per cent, of the run; in 1919, 7 per cent.; and in 1924, 4 per cent.; while over a period\nof seventeen years the general average of this group is 11-12 per cent. Not only is the brood-\nyear pack of 1919 larger, but, in addition, in that year Inspector Hickman reported the spawning-\nbeds more extensively seeded than usual. In any other river system, except the Nass, these facts\nwould indicate a very good return in 1929.\n(2.) Age-groups.\nThe analysis of the run of 1928 is based upon 1,760 samples gathered every three or four\ndays beginning on June 23rd and continuing through August 16th. Only seven of the usual eight\nage-groups are present. These are enumerated in Tables XXIV. and XXVI. The 7 class has\nnot been regarded as an important component of the run because it has never been represented\nexcept by a very small number of individuals. Consequently it is no surprise to find a year\nwithout a single representative. Of the principal age-groups, 30 per cent, are 42's; 6 per cent,\nbelong to the 5o's; 61 per cent, to the 5 's; and 3 per cent, to the 63's (Table XXII.).\nA comparison of these percentages and those of other years shows an unusual abundance\nof 4 's. This is readily explained when one remembers that these fish are descendants of the\nrun of 1924, which was one of the most extensive runs known to the Nass. It is to be hoped that\nthe remainder of the progeny which will mature in 1929 will return in equal strength. Just as\nthe 4 's have returned in greater numbers than usual, sb the dominant class, the 5 's, has fallen\nbelow its usual average. The percentages of 5, 's and 6 's are not unlike those of 1927 and the\nfive-year period 1922-26 (Table XXIIL).\n(3.) Lengths and Weights.\nA study of Tables XXV. and XXVII. shows that a slight lowering of the general average\nlengths and weights has taken place in each year-class and, in general, in both sexes. It is\nparticularly noticeable in the 5 's and 6 's. In the past, maintenance of size from year to year\nhas been regarded as a racial characteristic. At the present time we regard the size reduction\nof 1928 more as a peculiarity of the year than as an indication of a tendency likely to be\nexhibited in the runs of the future. In the past the late Dr. Gilbert frequently made the suggestion that there seemed to be a definite correlation between general size reduction and a small\nrun. The facts of this year's run to the Nass certainly substantiate his suggestion.\nTables XXVIII. to XXX. are included to give additional data on another racial characteristic\u2014namely, that age and size are closely associated. The relation is this: that the smallest\nfish are the youngest and, conversely, the largest fish are of the greatest age. In the other river\nsystems the factor determining the size does not seem to be age, but the number of years spent\non the sea-feeding grounds. For example, the Fraser, Skeena, and Rivers Inlet fish which have\nlived three years in the ocean are all practically the same size irregardless of the age at which\nthey left the fresh water. Table XXVIII. illustrates this point. The Fraser figures for 1928\ndo not conform with those of past years. Their sequence suggests a correlation between age\nand size as in the Nass. This, however, is probably not the case. A scrutiny of the table shows\nboth that the lengths of the sea-types (3 's and 4 's) are considerably below the averages of\nformer years, and also that the lengths of the 6 's are appreciably greater than usual. The\nexplanation of these differences presumably lies in the fact that these age-classes are not well\nrepresented numerically. In small groups of individuals there is always a danger that all\nvariations will be in one direction, either toward largeness or smallness. In such cases the\naverage falls above or below the normal mean of a much larger number of the same individuals.\n(4.) Seasonal Changes during the Run.\nOne feature of the Nass run, the seasonal succession of the age-groups, shows no variation\nfrom year to year. As stated previously, the 5 's are the dominant group and appear with\nvarying degrees of strength throughout the entire run. On the one hand, the sea-types, those\nfish which go to sea without spending one or more years in fresh water, are present early in the\nrun. On the other hand, the oldest fish, the 6's, run late. The 4 's and 5 's are found during\n2 2' LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 37\nthe whole run, but reach their maximum numbers in the second and third weeks of July\n(Table XXXI.).\n(5.) The Meziadin and Bowser Lake Sockeye Colonies.\nThe discussion of these colonies is of necessity omitted this year. It has been the custom\nof Inspector Hickman to collect scales and take measurements of sockeyes during his annual\nvisit to the spawning-grounds of the Nass River watershed. This year, however, the fish were\nso scarce that he could not procure sufficient specimens from which to obtain material.\nTable XXII.\u2014Percentages of Principal Age-groups present in the Nass River Sockeye Run\nfrom 1912 to 1928.\nYear.\nPercentage of Individuals that spent\nOne Year in Lake.\nFour Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFive Years\nold.\nSix Years\nold.\n1912 (36,037 cases)\n1913 (23,574 cases)\n1914 (31,327 cases)\n1915 (39,349 cases)\n1916 (31,411 cases)\n1917 (22,188 cases)\n1918 (21,816 cases)\n1919 (28,259 cases)\n1920 (16,740 cases)\n1921 (9,364 cases) ..\n1'922 (31,277 eases)\n1923 (17,821 cases)\n1924 (33,590 cases)\n1925 (18,945 cases)\n1926 (15,929 cases)\n1927 (12,026 eases)\n1928 (5,540 cases)...\n8\n15\n4\n19\n9\n10\n30\n7\n8\n10\n6\n11\n4\n23\n12\n8\n30\n27\n12\n41\n14\n17\n15\n16\n22\n14\n7\n2\n6\n12\n7\n6\n63\n71\n45\n59\n66\n71\n45\n65\n72\n75\n91\n77\n91\n67\n63\n81\n61\n2\n2\n10\n4\n9\n6\n6\n8\n1\n6\n2\n2\n13\n4\n3\nTable XXIII.\u2014Percentage of Principal Age-groups in Nass River Soekeye Run\nfrom 1912 to 1926 combined into Five-year Periods.\nOne Year\nIN Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFour Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nSix Years\nold.\n1912-16\t\n11\n13\n11\n22\n15\n7\n62\n65\n77\n1917-21\t\n7\n1922-26 _\t\n5 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\ne\n5^\nto\n*>\na\naj\nH\n\u00abi\ng\n\u00bb\n\u00ab\nll\n-4\nto\nP\nO\nO}\n>\na\nto\n\u00ab!>\nHH\n*MM\nOl CO lO CO ?1\n! Cl CO Cl rH '\nrH Ol CO rH\nCl CO CO tH l~ rH\nOlOliHCli-H-^COrHCO\n01 It-rHOOClt-ClOl\n: f IO M ffi IN i\nrH CO O VO t- CD O CO I rH\n\u00a9\n01\ncc'\nC-I\nso\n0.\ncr.\n\u2022#\n-1\n:;s ;# j* j-jS I* j* |S! |'S! i#\n& \u00abi LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 39\nTable XXV.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Principal Classes\nfrom 1912 to 1928.\nYear.\n4\n2\n5\n2\n5\n3\n6\n3\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912 (inches)\t\n24.6\n24.1\n24.6\n24.0\n24.5\n23.4\n25.0\n24.9\n24.0\n24.3\n24.2\n24.3\n24.7\n24.4\n24.9\n24.9\n24.3\n23.3\n23.5\n22.7\n23.5\n23.3\n23.2\n24.3\n24.1\n23.4\n23.5\n23.4\n23.7\n23.8\n23.8\n24.1\n24.2\n23.5\n26.5\n25.6\n26.1\n25.9\n26.4\n25.5\n25.7\n26.2\n26.3\n25.5\n25.6\n25.9\n26.2\n25.9\n26.1\n25.3\n26.0\n25.1\n24.8\n25.1\n25.2\n25.0\n24.7\n24.7\n25.2\n25.0\n24.3\n24.6\n25.3\n24.9\n24.7\n25.3\n25.2\n25.1\n26.2\n26.0\n26.3\n26.5\n26.5\n25.3\n25.9\n26.5\n26.7\n26.2\n25.7\n26.2\n26.3\n25.9\n26.1\n26.3\n25.5\n25.4\n25.2\n25.5\n25.9\n25.6\n24.7\n25.0\n25.8\n25.9\n25.6\n25.0\n25.5\n25.4\n25.0\n25.3\n25.9\n24.6\n27.0\n26.0\n26.9\n26.6\n27.9\n26.5\n27.2\n27.9\n27.4\n27.9\n28.0\n27.2\n28.0\n26.9\n27.9\n27.6\n28.1\n25.6\n1913 \u201e \t\n26.6\n1914 \u201e \t\n25.6\n1915 \u201e \t\n25.3\n1916 \u201e \t\n25.7\n1917 \u201e \t\n25.5\n1918 \u201e '....\n25.2\n1919 \u201e .... . \t\n26.7\n1920 \u201e \t\n25.9\n1921 \t\n26.2\n1922 \u201e \t\n25.9\n1923 \u201e \t\n26.5\n1924 \u201e \t\n25.4\n1925 \u201e \t\n25.4\n1926 \u201e \t\n27.0\n1927 \u201e \t\n26.5\n1928 \u201e \t\n26.2 G 40\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nr_;\nai\nrtOOHNIQOCONt-OMH\no\no\nHNCOIOOONO^^t\nCO\nSH\nrH CO -,\n01\n\u00bbo\n\u2022?\u00bb\nto\n^\nSa\nrO\n&\n\u2022a\ns\nc\nS\na\n&\n'\u00a3\n\u00a3\n^\n\u25a0a\n&\njicirHrn:::::;::\n^\n^\ns\nCQ\n! i > ..,;.. :\nIO\na\nJ\n<\n**\nto\na\nco\n=5\n>\na\nCO\nCO\n3\nCD\nto\nz\n65\nb.\n^\nSi\nrf5\nO\nOS\n&\n: H \u25a0* rH rj< io Cl Cl j j j\nOi\nrH\nCO\nCO*\n\u25a0<3\nn\nto\na\n0\nCO\nCO\nSJ,\ns\n?,\no\na\n: : : : ; ci io ^ t- w >P \u00ab h\nCO\nrH\nGO\nco\"\n\u00aei\ncu\n*H\n&\nCO\n>o\n00\nIO\noo\nto\nSi\nH (N H\nIO\nCO\nto\n\u00ab\nto\no\na\n;Hrlb-*t-IOW55H :\no\nCM\n; d t- co o io ci ; : ;\nCO\nCD\n^.\nS\ns>\n\u00ab\nCO\nCl\n&i\n\u25a0#\nCO\noo\n00\nN\ne\n10\nfe\n|\na\n! rH t N l> CO CO M \u00a9 H !rH I\nIO\n\u00a9\nI\n: : rH ; :\n^\nt-^\n>-H\nU\nH\nH\n.\n&i\no\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nrH\nOl\nK?\nIS\nw\nt<\n6i\na\n\u00ab#\nco\nrH CO b- CO CO rH ', \\ I ! I ',\nCO\nci\n\u00bb.o\n03\n-d\na\n*\"' CD\n#6y\n\u25a0we\ncd\na a\nbfiS\n%o\nO >\n^\nrf\n1\nr?\ni\nrf\n1\nrf\n\u25a0\nrf\n1\n3\nrf\ni\ntt\n\u25a0$\nK\n\u00bbr\n\u00a5\ncfi\nfc-\nL>\na\nGC\nC\na\nr- LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 41\nTable XXVII.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Principal Classes\nfrom 1914 lo 1928.\nYear.\n4\n2\n5\n2\n5\n3\n6\n3\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n6.2\n5.6\n6.0\n5.3\n6.3\n6.0\n5.6\n6.0\n5.9\n5.8\n5.9\n5.9\n6.0\n6.2\n5.6\n5.0\n5.2\n5.3\n5.3\n\u25a05.8\n5.5\n5.2\n5.4\n5.4\n5.2\n5.4\n5.4\n5.4\n5.8\n5.0\n7.4\n6.9\n7.2\n6.8\n7.2\n6.6\n7.4\n6.9\n6.8\n6.7\n7.2\n6.8\n6.9\n7.1\n7.0\n6.5\n6.4\n6.3\n6.2\n6.3\n\u25a05.9\n6.3\n6.1\n6.2\n6.1\n6.1\n6.1\n6.2\n6.3\n6.2\n7.2\n7.0\n7.2\n6.3\n7.2\n6.7\n7.4\n6.9\n6.8\n6.6\n6.8\n6.7\n6.7\n6.9\n6.2\n6.5\n6.6\n6.2\n5.8\n6.4\n6.1\n6.7\n6.3\n6.3\n6.0\n6.1\n6.0\n6.0\n6.2\n5.5\n7.9\n7.2\n8.1\n7.3\n8.3\n7.8\n7.9\n7.7\n8.1\n7.2\n8.0\n7.4\n7.8\n7.8\n8.1\n6.8\n1915 \t\n6.5\n1916 \t\n6.4\n1917 \u201e \t\n6.4\ni9ie\t\n6.7\n1919 \u201e \t\n6.7\n1920 \u201e \t\n7.0\n1921 \u201e \t\n6.6\n1922 \t\n6 6\n1923 \t\n6 8\n1924 \t\n6 5\n1925 \u201e \t\n6 3\n1926 \u201e \t\n7 1\n1927 \u201e \t\n7 0\n1928 \t\n6 6\nTable XXVIII.\u2014Nass, Fraser, and Skeena Rivers and Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1923, 1926, 1921,\nand 1928, grouped by Number of Years spent on the Sea-feeding Grounds.\nAge.\nNass.\nFraser.*\nSkeena.\nEivees Inlet.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n3\nYear 1923.\nThree years at sea\u2014\nInches.\n23.1\n24.3\n26.2\n25.5\n25.9\n27.2\nInches.\n22.4\n23.7\n25.5\n24.3\n25.3\n26.5\nInches.\n23.3\n24.3\n24.2\n25.2\n25.8\n26.3\nInches.\n22.7\n23.3\n22.9\n24.1\n24.8\n24.9\nInches.\n23.7\n23.9\n25.5\n25.6\nInches.\n23.1\n23.2\n24.5\n24.4\nInches.\n22.4\n23.0\n24.6\nInches.\n4\n5\n4\nOne-year-in-lake type\t\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nFour years at sea\u2014\n22.3\n23.0\n24.1\n6\nTwo-years-in-lake type\n3\nYear 1926.\nThree years at sea\u2014\n23.7\n24.9\n26.1\n24.5\n26.1\n27.9\n22.3\n24.1\n25.3\n24.0\n25.3\n27.0\n23.4\n22.6\n23.2\n25.4\n24.6\n25.5\n22.5\n22.3\n22.4\n24.6\n24.0\n23.7\n23.8\n24.6\n25.6\n26.0\n23.4\n23.8\n24.8\n25.0\n22.8\n22.9\n25.1\n25.6\n4\n22.9\n5\n4\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nFour years at sea\u2014\u25a0\n23.1\n24.6\n6\nTwo-years-in-lake type\n26.8\n3\nYear 1927.\nThree years at sea\u2014\n23.4\n24,9\n'26.3\n25.6\n26.3\n27.6\n23.'5\n\u202224.2\n25.9\n24.1\n25.2\n26.5\n23.4\n24.1\n21.7\n25.1\n26.1\n25.3\n22.2\n23.1\n22.0\n24.5\n24.6\n24.6\n'23.9\n24.1\n25.7\n25.2\n23.3\n23.5\n24.8\n24.9\n22.1\n22.5\n24.6\n4\n5\n4\nOne-year-in-lake type\t\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nFour years at sea\u2014\n22.4\n23.2\n'5\n24.2\n6\nTwo-years-in-lake type\n24.3\n3\nYear 1928.\nThree years at sea\u2014\n23.7\n24.3\n25.5\n25.1\n26.0\n28.1\n22.4\n23.5\n24.6\n23.6\n25.1\n26.2\n19.1\n23.4\n24.2\n19.8\n25.5\n27.1\n18.7\n23.0\n23.4\n24.7\n26.0\n23.3\n23.5\n25.3\n25.6\n22.8\n22.8\n24.7\n24.7\n22.3\n22.8\n' 26.1\n27.2\n4\nOne-year-in-lake type\t\n22.8\n5\n4\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nFour years at sea\u2014\u2022\n23.0\n5\n25.2\n6\nTwo-years-in-lake type\n25.5\n* The figures formerly recorded in this table as those of 1923 were in reality those of 1922.\nhas been corrected In this report.\nThe mistake G 42\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\n'd\n\u00a9 :\ni : \u00a9\n\u2022o\nio :::::: co :\nBO\nrH\n00 i\nCl '\n: t-\n\u25a0 \u25a0 CJ\nfa\net}\n**<\nt-\n55\nci :\n\u2022 : ci c\n:\nq\ns\n>\nF^\nh*\n\u25a0 : oo c\n>\n\u2022- L- \u00a9\n0)\nw\nCQ\noo\n00\n\u00ab,\na\nS\nO\n&\nt-C5Cl\u00a9l0^rtiOir\nCl\n*\ns\nl-O\u00a9\u00a9Q0l0C0rH\u00a9\nI-\n\u00a9\nfa\nCD IO \u00a9 \u00bb0 CO IO IO t- CC\nCIOIOICIOIOICIOIO\n\u00a9\nCl\nC\u00a3\nc\n9\nfa\nCDt-\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9b-t-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nto\nCO\nCO\n*o\ns\nCi \u2022# o\n\u00a9 OS \u00a9 o:\n\u00a9\nT-\nQ0\u00a9t-rHCI\u00a9TttOOO0\n1-\n\u00a9l>-\u00a9\u00a9t-\nt-\n\u00a9\nw\nM\nPh\n0\nf^\np.\nB\no\nM\nto\n&\nto\nto\nB\nV\nto\nSi\noo\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9io-*\u00a9cocr\n\u00bbo\n-\na\nfa\nrHt-C0C0\u00a9rH\u00a9OCl\nCl\n10\n6\nO\nEh\nIO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO *c\nC1C1C1C1C1010101C\nIO\nCl\n\"T\nCN\ns\no\nu\n5\nCQ\nIO\n^coco\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\n\u00a9\nIK\n^*\nGS\nIS\nto\n53\nW\n\u2022d\nLO I- Cl t- Cl CO \u00a9 rH cr\nCI\n1-\n8\nK\n\u2022o\n\u2022\nt- ** \u00a9 X \u00a9 00 t- t- \u00a9\n00\nCl\no\n3\n\u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9 IO \u00a9 \u00a9 IO- \u00a9 \u00a9\nCl Cl Ol CJ Ol 04 Ol Ol CJ\nCl\n01\no\nCL,\nc\ncc\nr^\n\u00a9I\u2014 \u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n55\ncd\noa\nK\nOO\nM\nH\ntH\nto\nto\nCJ\nCl\u00a9C0\u00a9C0\u00a9l-C0O\n\u00a9\nr-\nto\nCO\nV\n\u00a9\n01\n\u00a9\nto\n\"4\nfa\nIO 10 \"# ^ IO \u2022* ** IO 1C\nCl Cl CM Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl CI\nCl\nc\n*\n^\nEH\ni\nt5\nfa\nfa\nIO \u00a9CO\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\nSi\nS5\nr3\nIO\nSi\nC-l\n10\nIS\nto\nC3\nP3\n<3\nClC0lO\u00a9ffiCl\u00a9rHC*:\n\u00a9\ns\nts\nto\n\u00a9-*\u00a9Xt-ClG0\u00a9rH\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n1\nS\n\u00a9 \u00a9 IO IO IO \u00a9 10 \u00a9 \u00a9\nCICICICICICICICICJ\nCO\nCl\ncc\n9\na\ns\n\u00a9\n<\nea\n>\np\u00ab5\n\u00a9!>\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9t-\u00a9\u00a9I>\nco\nt-\nto\nto\nCO\nrH : \u00a9 IO CO\n: \u00a9 r-\nrH\nX\n00\nT\n*-<\nfa\nio ; co co -*\nCl ' Cl Cl Cl\n' Cl c\nCl\n90\nfa\nIO ' IO 10 IO \" ' LO IO\nIO\n10\nr4\nH\n\u25ba\"I\nig\n.\nth : ci io io.\n: io \u00a9\n1-i\nr-\n^\n\u2022o\n\u2022\n** : \u00a9 rH \u00a9 : : \u00a9 oo\nco\n\u00a9\nto\no\ni*-j\n\u00a9 : Tfi tt< lo\nCl ' Cl Cl Cl\n; ** io\n\u25a0 Cl CJ\nIO\nCl\nCl\nto\n5^\ns\n\u00a9 ' LO \u00a9 t- ' ' LO \u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nto\nr-i\n\u2022V\nC$\nH\no\nCJ\n\u2014\nto\nO\nm\n3\nO\nrH\nH^iq-fNoOGOHW\n00\nit:\n52\nIH\np\no\nfa\nIO Cl \u25a0* ** oi \u2022* -* ^00\n\u25a0-n\n\u00a9\nfa\n\u25a0^COMMCOWCO^'t\nOIOIOIOICIOIOIOIOI\nCO\nOl\n::\nCl\nu.\nfa\nlOlOIOlOIOlOiOlOlO\nIO\nIO\njo\ng\n\u00ab\n^\n\u00abo\n00\ne\nS\n\u00a9 O co c-i cc t- ^ c. g:\nIO\nDC\nan\n\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9\u00a900\u00a9\u00a9\u00a9C1\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\u25a0^H \"J\"* '-i* \"^ ^* ^i \"^ \"^t ^\n01 Cl Cl Cl Cl Ol Cl Cl Cl\nCl\n-t\n0\nC3\n1\ns\n\u00a9L0\u00a910 1OIOlO\u00a9\u00a9\nIO\n\u00bbo\ni\nH\nH\nN\n\u2022d\no\nco\nu\ncd\nCO\nfa\n1 \"-rl\n: ci\n' Cl\n: co io\ni cm' co\n' Cl c\nr\n:\n1,\nH\nH\nH\n13\no\nCO\ntH\nCO\nfa\n\u25a0 \u00bb TjH ' ' ' ' -rfH \u25a0\nto\nrH\nIH\nrO\ne\n&H\nCD\nC\n-a\nH\nS\n: cd\n! t- Tff\n: co\" co\nCl\n0)\nCJ\n)H\nh<\n: : \u00a9 : : : : lo cc\n**\n' ' Cl ' \u25a0 ' ' Cl Cl\nc*\nbe :\nh\nIH\na>\no\ncd\nCJ\n& !\nH\nCD\n><\n03 !\nCl- \u00a9 r-\nCl CO tjh IO \u00a9 t-\n\"fl Ol\nC2\u00a9rHOJCOT|HlO\u00a9t- r X\nrH Cl C\nCl Cl Cl Cl Cl c\n-H Cl Cl Ol Cl Ol Cl Cl Cl < Cl\n-\nOi C\nrH r-\nc-\n-\nr-\n\u00a9 c\nrH r-\nc\nO:\n1~i\n*\nT-\na\nr-\nr.\ncs\nr\ncs\ncr\n\u00a9 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nG 43\nTable XXXI.\u2014Number of Individuals of each Glass of Nass River Sockeyes running at\nDifferent Dates in 1928.\nDate.\n4\n2\n5\n2\n5s\n6s\n6,\n\\\n\\\n4\nl\nNumber of\nIndividuals\nexamined.\nJune 23\t\nJune 26\t\nJune 29\t\nJuly 3 \t\n25\n28\n34\n41\n31\n33\n52\n50\n49\n59\n37\n36\n22\n18\n3\n6\n6\n10\n12\n4\n6\n12\n10\n8\n5\n6\n1\nK\n3\n2\n44\n46\n63\n72\n85\n74\n51\n62\n64\n53\n69\n78\n87\n50\n30\n85\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\n7\n1\n2\n3\n9\n5\n7\n3\n2\n4\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n15\n14\n2\n1\n20\n12\n7\n1\n1\n110\n112\n119\n120\nJuly 6 . \t\n124\nJuly 9 \t\n121\nJuly 13 \t\n121\nJuly 16\t\n121\nJuly 20\t\n121\nJuly 24 \t\n121\nJuly 28\t\n119\nJuly 31\t\n122\nAug. 4\t\nAug. 8\t\n121\n75\n35\nAug. 16\t\n98\n524\n93\n1,013\n50\n7\n32\n41\n1,760 G 44 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE PKASEE EIVEE.\nHon. S. L. Howe,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSie,\u2014I have the honour to submit the following report of my twenty-sixth yearly inspection\nof the salmon fishing and spawning areas of the Fraser River, made during the year 1928:\u2014\nThe Catch in the Fraser River System.\u2014The catch of all species of salmon in Provincial\nwaters of the Fraser River system this year produced a pack of 258,224 cases, as against 284,378\ncases in 1927, 274,951 cases in 1926, 276,855 cases in 1925, and 212,059 cases in 1924.\nThe pack consisted of 29,299 cases of sockeye, 5,082 cases of springs, 27,061 cases cohoes,\n2,881 cases pinks, and 193,106 cases of chums.\nThe pack of 29,299 cases of sockeye was the second smallest recorded in Provincial waters\nof the system. It was 32,094 cases less than in 1927, 56,390 cases less than in 1926, and 10,444\ncases less than in its brood-year, 1924. The pack of chums, 193,106 cases, was the largest made\nin Provincial waters of the Fraser. It was 83,611 cases greater than the former record high\npack of 109,495 cases made in 1924. The pack of pinks\u2014it was not a \" pink \" year\u2014was but\n2,881 cases. It was 29,375 cases less than the pack in its brood-year, 1926. The cohoe-pack of\n27,061 cases was 9,656 cases less than in its brood-year, 1925.\nThe catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system in 1928\nproduced a pack of 61,044 cases. It was 8,325 cases less than the pack in the preceding fourth\nyear.\nThe combined pack of sockeye in the Fraser River system totalled 90,343 cases. It was\n18,769 cases less than in its brood-year, 1924. It was 32,029 cases less than the average of the\npreceding eight years. There was no late run this year to correspond with the late runs in\n1926 and 1927.\nThe Spawning Areas of the Fraser River Basin.\u2014As in the preceding twenty-five years, the\ninspection of the sockeye-salmon spawning areas of the Fraser basin was made in August,\nSeptember, and October. In addition to the information gained from personal inspection, I am\ngreatly under obligation to Major J. A. Motherwell, Dominion Chief Inspector of Fisheries in the\nProvince, for furnishing me copies of spawning-bed reports made him by his many assistants\nstationed at important points, and am also indebted to members of the Provincial Police and to\nmany white and Indian residents on the Fraser and its tributaries. The information so gained\nenabled me to form a more comprehensive view of conditions than was possible from my own\npersonal observation.\nSockeye in numbers made their appearance in Hell's Gate Canyon, in the Fraser above Yale,\nin July. A few fish were seen there in May. The July and August runs were the largest this\nyear, but the number seen there in September and October was smaller than in recent years.\nThroughout the season water conditions appeared to be more favourable than usual. The July\nand August fish were exceptionally large, as was the case with those caught in the traps in\nJuan de Fuca Strait and in the Lower Fraser in July and early August. They were typical\nup-river fish. Later reports indicate that they spawned in the Chilcotin and North Thompson\nRivers. Very few of them were reported from any other section.\nReports made to Major Motherwell show that sockeye salmon made their first appearance\nat the canyon in the Fraser above the mouth of Bridge River on July 21st, and remained in\nevidence until August 10th; they increased in number between the 10th and 21st. A small\nnumber passed daily in September and a few were noted October 7th and 8th. The fish were\nlarge, averaging 25 inches in length. Water conditions were unusually favourable up to\nSeptember 13th. The Indians fishing at the canyon caught 2,724 sockeye and 1,092 springs.\nSockeye in numbers entered the Chilcotin River on July 25th and ran until August 8th.\nAnother school entered the river August 19th and ran until August 21st. Both consisted of large\nfish. During the runs the Chilcotin Indians, at their fishing-station^ at Fish Canyon and at\nIndian Bridge, caught upwards of 1,900 large-sized sockeye. Their catch this year was three or\nfour times greater than that made in any one of the past twelve years. Their fishing was closely\nwatched by Dominion Fishery Guardian Harvey, who later on visited Chilko Lake, where he\nstates he observed upwards of 20,000 sockeye in the reaches of the rivers, a few miles below the\nlake itself. This is the first time in twelve years that sockeye in numbers have been seen there.\nSo few sockeye have reached Chilko Lake in recent years that some observers have been led to\nconclude that Chilko Lake had never been frequented by any considerable number of sockeye\nand that the spawning-beds of that lake had never been an important factor in contributing to a big year's run of fish to the Fraser. The contrary is true, as the records abundantly show.\nNo other tributary of the Fraser basin, not even excepting the Quesnel and Shuswap sections,\nwas formerly more abundantly seeded than Chilko. It was one of the greatest tributaries to the\nruns of the big year in the entire Fraser basin.\nFrom the known facts in the life-history of the sockeye it must be assumed that the runs\nof from 20,000 to 30,000 sockeye to the Chilcotin-Chilko Rivers this year were the product of fish\nwhich spawned in that area four years ago. But the records do not show that any considerable\nnumber of sockeye were noted in that section that year. The run this year is as difficult to\naccount for as the October runs of sockeye to Adams and Little Rivers in 1926 and 1927. It only\ngoes to show how little reliance can be placed on the inspection of spawning areas. The areas\nare so vast, the points where accurate estimates can be made so few, and the runs of sockeye\nthat have entered the mouth of the Fraser in recent yeajs so small that it has been and is most\ndifficult to form an opinion as to the approximate number which reached many sections.\nIn no other tributary of the Fraser, above the mouth of Bridge River, which includes Quesnel\nand Stuart Lakes, were sockeye in numbers reported this season.\nThe run of sockeye to the Thompson River, Shuswap section, this year, while larger than in\naverage years, was not up to that of the two previous years. There was a run in August.\nInstead of proceeding to Shuswap Lake they passed up the North Thompson River. The\nmajority appear to have spawned in Raft River and Finn Creek; Fishery Officer Shotton saw\nthem there. It is the first time in many years, he stated, when any considerable number of\nsockeye have been seen in that section. The Indians who flocked to the section appear to have\ntaTten a large number.\nOfficer Shotton further reported that approximately 10,000 sockeye spawned in Little River\nin October. The majority of the fish observed were of the small variety of sockeye. The Indians\ncaught a considerable number. The run was very much smaller than the runs in October of\n1926 and 1927. They appear to have spawned largely in Little River; very few entered Adams\nRiver.\nVery few sockeye entered Seton-Anderson Lakes this year.\nThe run of sockeye that reached the Birkenhead River, at the head of the Harrison-Lillooet\nLakes section, this year, while up to the average, was considerably less than the run in their\nbrood-year 1924. The fish were rather late in arriving. The sockeye-egg collection from the\nBirkenhead totalled 35,010,000.\nThe run of sockeye to Cultus Lake was intercepted at the entrance to the lake, in accordance\nwith the experiments conducted there by the Biological Board of Canada. The number of fish\ntaken in the traps totalled 14,899, of which 11,205 were females and 3.694 males, a most exceptional ratio of three females to each male. The fish taken were stripped and eggs placed in\nthe hatcheries. The number taken totalled 28,114,000.\nFrom the foregoing it will be appreciated that a small return is all that can be anticipated\nfrom this year's seeding of the spawning-beds of the Fraser River.\nI am indebted to Major Motherwell for the following statement giving the egg collection at\nthe hatcheries on the Fraser River and other streams this year:\u2014\nSalmon-egg Collections, British Columbia Hatcheries, 1928.\nHatchery. Sockeye Salmon. Spring Salmon.\nAnderson Lake, V.I 8,799,000 \t\nBabine Lake, Skeena 9,144.000 \t\nCowichan Lake, V.I 1,670,000\nCultus Lake, Fraser 28,114,000 \t\nKennedy Lake, V.I 2,819,600 \t\nPemberton, Fraser 35,010,000 \t\nPitt Lake, Fraser 5,550,000 \t\nRivers Inlet 14,060,500 \t\nSkeena River 5,525,000 \t\nTotals 109,022,100 1,670,000\nRespectfully submitted. _ _\nJohn Pease Babcock,\nVictoria, December 1st, 1928. Assistant to the Commissioner. THE SPAWNING BEDS OP EIVEES INLET.\nHon. S. L. Howe,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014In pursuance of instructions from the Department, I have the honour to submit my\nreport upon the inspection of the spawning-grounds at Rivers Inlet for the year 1928.\nIt was anticipated that the exceptionally fine run of sockeye experienced at the commencement of the fishing season would, if continued, result in a big pack being put up by the canneries,\nbut as the season progressed it fell off to such an extent that little more than half a big-year\npack was obtained. This failure was generally attributed to the cold, wet season combined with\nthe large number of power-boats operating on the inlet, causing the fish to swim deep, thus\navoiding the nets and passing through to the spawning-grounds; but, as it turned out, such was\nnot the case, because conditions on the spawning-grounds were anything but satisfactory. The\nfailure was due to a poor run of fish.\nIn the brood-years 1923-24 the reports show that the spawning-beds with one or two exceptions contained a big run, and had conditions during the spawning been favourable the return\nof mature sockeye this year would have shown up much more favourably. In the late fall of\n1924 an abnormal downfall of rain, lasting for several days, caused such extreme \" freshets \"\nthat the rivers and creeks, one and all, were literally scoured out, undoubtedly causing untold\ndamage to the eggs, and to this I have every reason to believe the failure to be attributable.\nIt was not until October 4th that I was available to make the inspection; consequently it\nwas not possible to see the condition of the head-rivers when the fish were at the height of\nspawning. I am, however, indebted to Mr. Frank Tingley, Superintendent of the Hatchery, and\nMr. James Boyd, Dominion Fishery Overseer, for valuable information. They had visited the\nspawning-beds at the Indian, Cheo, and Washwash Rivers three weeks prior to my visit and\nwere in a position to give me first-hand information. All the rivers contained a big run of\nsockeye and compared very favourably with the fine showing experienced last year. The exceptional size of the sockeye was especially noted, indicating a big return of five-year fish. Mr.\nBoyd informed me that in the Washwash River the run of sockeye was composed of 60 per cent,\nof five-year and 40 per cent, of four-year fish, which indicates a big run of four-year sockeye\nentered this stream. He also noted a big run of spring salmon. It is apparent from their\nreport that the \" freshet \" had not affected these early-running streams like those which receive\nthe later runs.\nLeaving the cannery at Rivers Inlet on October 4th, we proceeded through the rapids to the\nOwikeno Lake. On the way up cohoe and spring salmon were breaking water in all directions.\nAt the Old Town Rancheries, situated near the mouth of the lake, the Indians informed me that\nfew sockeye were spawning here, but anticipated that a big run of fish would drop back from\nthe lake later. On reaching Quap River I made camp and, as very few sockeye had shown up,\ncrossed over and inspected the Dalley River, situated directly opposite. Proceeding up through\nthe rapids to the headwaters, a very fair run of sockeye could be seen spawning in the clear\nwater above each riffle. It did not reach the proportions of the brood-years 1923-24 by 20 per\ncent., but in size they represented a high average, the males outnumbering the females two to\none. No log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the movement of the fish up-stream.\nAn examination of the Asklum River, situated about 16 miles from the mouth of the lake and\ngenerally considered one of the most prolific spawning-streams on the lake, was very disappointing. There was no evidence of sockeye in the lower portion near the entrance, or out in the lake,\nbut a very fair run had taken possession of the spawning-beds farther up and were much in\nevidence right up to the rough water. Large and small sockeye were about equally represented,\nthe males predominating in the proportion of two to one over the females. The river was clear\nof obstructions, but showed signs of the havoc caused by the \"freshets.\" In comparing the run\nof sockeye to this tributary with the vast numbers which returned in the brood-years 1923-24,\nit falls short by at least 50 per cent.\nMaking camp at Jeneesee Creek, the inspection of the tributaries at this section was made.\nJeneesee Creek contained a fair run of sockeye and at the time of my visit they were coming in\nfrom the lake in large numbers. Small three-year sockeye were much in evidence above the\nhatchery fence. The hatcherymen had made a fair collection of eggs, but the fish were too\ngreen for spawning purposes and many had to be thrown back. The run did not compare in\nany way with the dense masses seen during the brood-years. In size the fish were above the average and no doubt derived from the 1923 brood. On my return from the head of the lake\nI again visited this creek, but no improvement was shown.\nThe low stage of the Machmell River permitted an uninterrupted view of the spawning-beds\nright up to the canyon, but the thick, muddy condition of the water prevented an accurate\nestimate of the run. A few sockeye cast up on the bars were noted, and in the shallow water\nabove each riffle a few could be seen spawning. In size they were above the average, males\noutnumbering the females two to one.\nThe Nookins (or Nechants, as it is sometimes termed), tributary to the Machmell, ranks\nwith the best of the spawning-streams on the lake, but this year fell far below expectations.\nPassing up through the rapids a few sockeye were observed close inshore, and in the side-streams\nadjacent others spawned, but taking the entire run on the whole it was very poor and one of\nthe smallest seen in years. In size the fish represented a high average, the males outnumbering\nthe females two to one.\nThe inspection of Sheemahant River was next undertaken. It is one of the most difficult\nrivers to negotiate, extending up to the falls 18 miles distant. Above the falls spawning-beds of\nthe finest description extend again 20 miles in to the mountains. Proceeding up through the\nvarious rapids, sockeye in fair numbers were seen spawning on the gravel-beds above each riffle,\nwhile many others were observed making their way up-stream close inshore. The water was\nvery milky, so that it was difficult to estimate the run, but sufficient numbers were spawning on\nthe beds to ensure a fair run of fish from the seed deposited. There was a fair run of sockeye\nin the small creek 10 miles up, large and small fish being about equally represented. The run is\nsimilar in numbers to that which returned in 1924. Two or three log-jams obstructed portions\nof the river, but did not interfere with the movement of the sockeye up-stream. Males and\nfemales were about equally divided.\nThere were a few sockeye and cohoe salmon spawning on the beds at the \" Narrows,\" close\nto the Indian smoke-house, and also at Sunday Creek, but in each case the run fell far short of\nthe return in the brood-years.\nMaking camp at the head of the lake, the three tributaries, Indian, Cheo, and Washwash,\nwere next inspected. It was of course too late to observe the extent of the run, but indications\nshowed that a big run of sockeye entered these streams a month prior to my visit, and which\nMr. Tingley and Mr. Boyd commented so favourably upon. In the Indian River, lying over on\nthe extreme left of the lake, carcasses in hundreds littered the bars, creating a most offensive\nodour. Small patches of half-eaten fish along the banks showed that the bears were not slow\nin taking advantage of the opportunity to have a big feast. A few spent sockeye were noted\neven at this late stage in the lower portion near the entrance. The run was composed of sockeye\nabove the average size, females outnumbering the males two to one.\nPassing up through to the headwaters of the Cheo River, hundreds of dead fish covered the\nbars, and especially was this so between the log-jam and the falls; sockeye in the last stages of\nspawning could be seen in the clear water swimming around near the entrance. The run here\nwas composed of large sockeye similar to the Indian River, males and females being about\nequally divided. With the exception of the big log-jam 3% miles up the river, no other obstructions impeded the movement of the sockeye up-stream.\nThe Washwash River, lying over on the extreme right of the lake, was again a great scene\nof chaos; log-jams scattered all over the bars near the entrance had split up the main river into\nseveral small ones. Each of these small streams contained hundreds of carcasses of sockeye,\nindicating a very big run earlier in the spawning season. Some in the last stages of exhaustion\nwere swimming around at the entrance. There appeared to be a greater proportion of small\nsockeye in the Washwash than had been noted in any of the other rivers previously examined,\nalthough the large sockeye were in the majority. Males outnumbered the females two to one.\nReturning from the head of the lake, a visit was again paid to Quap River, where the\nhatcherymen were busy collecting eggs for the hatchery. About half the hatchery had been\nfilled at this time, and it was anticipated that a big run of sockeye would enter later with the\nrise of the lake. Indications, however, did not look very promising, since the dense masses of\nfish which in the last few years had invaded Quap River appeared to be entirely absent this\nyear. Usually, when a big run of fish is on, the water outside in the bay is continually disturbed\nby fish breaking water, but this was noticeably absent. The run is composed of sockeye ranging\nfrom 6 to 10 lb. in weight, reminding me of the very high average of the big-year runs. Males\nwere in greater proportion to the females by at least two to one. G 48 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nThe small creek adjoining the hatchery was full of sockeye and showed up in great contrast\nto the poor showing in some of the other streams. The run is composed of sockeye of exceptional\nsize.\nOn my return to the Indian rancheries at the head of the Owikeno River, the Indians were\nnot able to give me a very favourable account of the spawning. Many had been out spending\nall day in trying to get sufficient sockeye for their winter's need\u2014where in other years no\ndifficulty was found in filling the nets in one haul. The sockeye also were small fish, and no\ndoubt the result of the 1924 brood. Passing down through the rapids chum salmon in large\nnumbers were observed.\nIn summing up the results of the inspection of the Rivers Inlet watershed, I am of the\nopinion that a moderate run only may be expected from the result of the spawning this season.\nWith the exception of the Indian, Cheo, and Washwash Rivers, all showed a marked falling-off,\nwhich I estimate to be 40 per cent, lower than the total runs which returned in the brood-years\n1923-24. There is no doubt that great damage was done to the eggs in the late fall of 1924 by\nthe extreme freshet, which probably accounts for the lack of small fish. The run of big sockeye\nwas apparently not so affected, since they predominated the run not only on the fishing-grounds,\nbut on the spawning-beds. Humpback salmon were very scarce in this district, but cohoe and\nchum salmon were in great abundance.\nIn conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation for courtesies extended by Mr. Frank\nTingley, Superintendent of the Dominion Hatchery, and the men at the various spawning camps.\nRespectfully submitted.\nA. W. Stone,\nProvincial Fisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 19th, 1928. THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP SMITH INLET.\nHon. S. L. Howe,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to submit my report upon the inspection of the spawning-grounds\nof Smith Inlet for the year 1928.\nThe run of sockeye which returned to Smith Inlet this year was derived from the eggs\nspawned in 1923-24. In 1923 the spawning-beds were exceptionally well seeded, but in 1924\nwere not so satisfactory; this, however, may have been due to the early inspection, and that\nthe main run of fish were late in leaving the lake-waters for the spawning-beds, due note of\nwhich was recorded in my report for that year. Looking back over the records of the packs\nput up during the \" lean \" years prior to 1920, it will be seen that the Dominion Department of\nFisheries made no mistake when they curtailed the activities of the seine-nets in Qualla Creek.\nNot only did the packers put up a record for a \" lean \" year, of 33,000 cases of sockeye, but\nsufficient numbers escaped to the spawning-beds to ensure a big return four and five years hence,\nsubject of course to climatic conditions not having affected the spawn. From the remarkable\nsize of the sockeye it is evident that the run was composed mainly of five-year fish.\nOn account of the delay in the inspection of the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet, it was later\nthan usual that the inspection was made at Smith Inlet. Reaching the vicinity of the spawning-\nbeds on October 28th, I made camp at the mouth of the lake, and examined the Docee River (the\noverflow to the lake) first. Spring salmon, all in an advanced stage of spawning, filled the\nentire river and provided one of the biggest runs of this species of salmon known in years.\nCohoe salmon intermingled with the springs in very large numbers, and were busy spawning not\nonly in the river, but along the shore-line at the mouth of the lake.\nProceeding up the lake to Quay Creek, 7 miles distant, a few spent sockeye were swimming\naround on spawning-beds outside, but, as this is an early-running stream, it was not possible to\nestimate the extent of the run, which had arrived three weeks prior to my visit.\nArriving at the Geluch (or Smoke-house Creek, as it is generally termed), camp was made\nand an inspection of the spawning-beds undertaken. Passing up through the various rapids,\nthousands of sockeye lined the beds, all in the last stages of spawning, while dead fish covered\nthe bars in all directions; hundreds had been left high and dry on the banks during high water,\nnot having spawned. All the mountain streams adjacent to the river were full of spawned-out\nsockeye, representing large and small fish in about equal numbers. Males and females were\nevenly distributed. The scene in this river is a repetition of the remarkable run which returned\nin 1923. No log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the movement of the salmon upstream.\nThe Delabah River, lying about 2 miles from the head of the lake, was again a scene of\nunparalleled activity. No sockeye were to be seen outside in the lake, but from the entrance\nright up to the falls thousands upon thousands of fish, all in the last stages of exhaustion, covered\nthe beds, while carcasses littered the bars in every direction, the stench being overpowering.\nBig fish formed the majority of the run, indicating that it was from eggs spawned in 1923, or\ncomposed mainly of five-year sockeye.\nReturning down the lake, cohoe salmon were to be seen breaking water in all directions,\nwhile in the Docee River they were coming in to spawn in ever-increasing numbers.\nA very poor run of humpback salmon this year was the report received from all quarters,\nbut chum salmon, on the other hand, were exceptionally prolific, representing one of the biggest\nruns known in years, while cohoe salmon were plentiful.\nIn summing up the results of the spawning for this year, I am of the opinion that we can\nlook forward to a big run of sockeye from this year's seeding, four and five years hence.\nRespectfully submitted.\nA. W. Stone,\nFishery Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 19th, 1928. THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE SKEENA EIVEK.\nHon. S. L. Howe,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014In obedience to your instructions, I beg to submit the following report on the spawning-\nbeds of the Skeena River for the year 1928:\u2014\nI left Prince Rupert on September 7th and arrived at Burns Lake early the following\nmorning. After outfitting I set out again and reached Donald's Landing, on Babine Lake, on the\nevening of the 9th.\nBabine Lake is due north from Burns Lake, about 25 miles distant, and is reached by a fair\nwagon-road. Babine Lake was at about its average low level for late summer and was therefore favourable for natural propagation purposes. At the outset, I may say, I was not very\noptimistic of finding well stocked and seeded sockeye-creeks, as the sockeye-pack on the Skeena\nRiver this year was much below the average. I was agreeably surprised, however, as the\nfollowing report will show.\nThe first creek visited was 15-Mile Creek, near the head of the lake, which is one of the best\nall-round spawning-creeks on the Babine watershed. At the mouth of the creek six Stuart Lake\nIndian families were encamped in smoke-houses and were catching sockeye with nets in the lake\nnear the mouth of the creek. The total catch each night up to the time of my visit would\naverage about sixty sockeye. The nets are not used during the day owing to the water being\nvery clear, and of course not used during the weekly closed season. A Dominion Fishery\nGuardian is stationed at this creek during the sockeye run to prevent the Indians fishing during\nthe close season and also to stop any interference with the spawning-beds. 15-Mile Creek is a\nfairly long creek, but it has only about half a mile of good spawning-grounds. The spawning-\ngrounds stretch from the mouth of the creek and are ideal for the purpose, having not a rock\nor boulder in the half-mile stretch. This area was one teeming mass of sockeye. Although\nI have been inspecting the spawning-grounds of Babine Lake since 1920, I have never before\nseen so many sockeye in this creek. I made a trip beyond the usual spawning-grounds farther\nup the creek and noticed many sockeye utilizing to the best advantage the few gravelly patches\nhere and there between the boulders. The Fishery Guardian informed me that the first sockeye\nwere seen in this creek on August 8th and the first run two days later. The males and females\nappeared to be evenly distributed and of a good average size. There were again many \" runts \"\nor grilse to be seen, but their numbers did not appear to be in excess of previous years.\nOn September 12th I visited Pierre Creek, another good sockeye-creek on Babine Lake.\nBabine Lake, I may say, is about 113 miles long and Pierre Creek enters it about midway. This\ncreek has about 2 miles of good spawning-ground, beginning, like 15-Mile Creek, right at the\nmouth of the creek. Mr. Crawford, Superintendent of Stuart Lake Hatchery, was busily engaged\nat the time in spawning operations and had obtained approximately 5,000,000 sockeye-eggs for\nStuart Lake Hatchery. There was also a fine showing of sockeye in this creek, being far ahead\nof any former year that I have seen. The females were slightly in excess of the males in number\nand both sexes were of a good average size. It was pleasing to note that few runts were to be\nseen here. Although Pierre is considered to be an early-spawning creek, many sockeye were still\nto be seen in the lake at the mouth of the creek, indicating that the sockeye were still running.\nOn September 13th I visited Fulton River, the largest creek flowing into Babine Lake. This\ncreek flows from Fulton Lake, about 5 miles distant, and is a real angler's paradise, as far as\nbig rainbow trout are concerned. The sockeye do not spawn in the lower stretches of Fulton\nRiver as the first half-mile resembles a slough, in that it has a muddy bottom. Two falls close\nto Fulton Lake, the largest having a sheer drop of 40 feet, prevent the sockeye entering Fulton\nLake. Many fine specimens were seen in the large pools at the foot of the first falls. The\nsockeye were plentiful in this creek and could be plainly seen in large numbers on all the\ngravelly patches. The males and females appeared to be evenly balanced, but the runts were\nmore numerous than in former years. Fulton River is one of the later-spawning creeks of\nBabine and many sockeye could be seen breaking water at the mouth of the creek. Five Babine\nIndian families were fishing near the mouth of the creek and, judging by the sockeye in their\nsmoke-houses, had done very well. Fulton River will be well seeded and will compare favourably with any previous good year. Leaving Fulton River I arrived at Babine village the same night. The following morning\nI made the usual trip down the 12-mile stretch of the Babine River. This is the only outlet of\nBabine Lake. This stretch is fairly wide, with very little current, and it is the scene of much\nactivity during the months of August and September. Thirty smoke-houses of a permanent\nnature are located on this stretch and they are occupied by some sixty-five Babine Indian\nfamilies. Every evening except Saturday, during the sockeye run, these sixty-five families set\ntheir nets, about 195 in number, for the night. The nets are taken in again in the morning\nand hung up to dry; meanwhile all hands attend to the catch of fish, cleaning and smoking, etc.\nEach family is supplied with a gill-net every second year by the Dominion authorities. These\nnets are 200 feet long, 25-mesh deep, with 5^-inch extension measure. The smoke-houses visited\nwere found well stocked with sockeye and few complaints were heard as to lack of fish. A few\ngood-sized spring salmon were seen in the smoke-houses and many pinks on the racks at the\nlower end of this stretch. In the narrow part beyond this stretch the river was swarming with\npinks. A Fishery Guardian patrols this 12-mile stretch, and to him I am indebted for the\nfollowing information: Sockeye were first seen and caught entering Babine Lake on July 9th.\nFair run on July 24th and running strong on July 29th. Ten families were fishing on August\n10th and the whole sixty-five families fishing by August 28th. On the following dates big runs\nof sockeye were reported entering the lake: August 10th, 13th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 27th, 28th, 29th,\nand 31st; September 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th, and 13th. On August 30th there was a big run of pinks\nbelow the fishing-grounds on Babine River. With the sockeye the males appeared to be in excess\nof the females by about three to one. The runts were also very much in evidence here and are\nundoubtedly on the increase. In regard to the pinks, it is interesting to note that, although the\npack of this variety was a big one on the Skeena this year, the run to Babine was not as good\nas last year.\nLeaving Babine village I arrived at the Dominion Government Hatchery on September 15th.\nThe hatchery is located at the head of Hatchery Creek and is about 3 miles from Babine Lake.\nHatchery Creek in turn flows out of Morrison Lake, which is about 12 miles long. The trail\nfrom Babine Lake to the hatchery is close to the creek, and all the way up continuous splashing\nwas heard, indicating the presence of many sockeye. I met Mr. Eaton, the Hatchery Superintendent, who had just started to collect his quota of 8,000,000 sockeye-eggs for the hatchery.\nThe \" pens \" erected at the head of the creek, close to the hatchery, were full of sockeye, which\nensured a full hatchery. Hatchery Creek has long been noted for its steady run of sockeye and\nalso the large size of the fish. This year was no exception, but unfortunately there was an\nextraordinary number of runts among them. This is the first year that I have noticed so many\nrunts in this creek. -The first sockeye were seen in Hatchery Creek on July 27th, which is a\nlittle later than usual. The males and females were about even in number. While I was at\nthe hatchery word was received that 6,000,000 sockeye-eggs collected by Mr. Crawford from\nPierre Creek and 3,000,000 from 15-Mile Creek, originally intended for Stuart Lake Hatchery,\nwere to be brought to Babine Hatchery. On receipt of this information all pens and fences in\nthe creek were immediately removed, allowing the sockeye to go where they desired and spawn\nnaturally. In this regard it was interesting to note that, although the majority that were near\nthe lake passed on through, and many would certainly spawn in the creek at the head of\nMorrison Lake, a good number returned to Hatchery Creek. Mr. Eaton informed me that the\nbiggest cohoe run known on Hatchery Creek and Morrison Lake took place last year. While\nspawning, Mr. Eaton had obtained an adult female sockeye having the adipose fin cut. This\nfish was so marked at the hatchery four or five years ago, and I was fortunate in obtaining\nthe data, which were forwarded to Dr. Clemens at Nanaimo.\nI returned to Donald's Landing, but was unable to visit Grizzly Creek, at the head of the\nlake, owing to stormy weather. I did, however, visit 15-Mile Creek again, which I found in even\nbetter condition. The fences had all been removed and the Indians had returned to Stuart Lake,\nfrom all accounts well satisfied with their catch.\nA delay in transportation facilities necessitated a stop of two days at Donald's Landing and\nI reached Burns Lake on September 25th.\nIn summing up the Babine area, I can say with confidence that this area will be exceptionally\nwell seeded this year. From a canneryman's point of view this may be difficult to understand,\nowing to the poor sockeye-fishing this year. Undoubtedly there will be good reasons advanced\nas to why this is so, but I think that the most important reason, and the most logical one, was G 52\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nthe enforced additional twelve hours of a \" close season \" throughout sockeye-fishing. A distressing feature, however, was the big increase seen in the number of runts. These runts are undersized but fully matured three-year-old sockeye, properly called grilse, and are practically all\nmales. Some measure should be taken to eliminate them, at least to some extent.\nOn September 26th I visited Moricetown Falls, on the Bulkley River. In accounting for\nten fish going over the falls, five were cohoes, three were sockeye, and two were large steelheads.\nAn old Indian, with a safety-rope around his waist in Alpine fashion, was catching one of these\nthree varieties every five minutes with the aid of a long pole with gaff-hook attached.\nI visited Agwillgate Canyon the same day, but found little to be seen there. I was assured,\nhowever, that there had been a good run of sockeye up the Bulkley River.\nKispiox River was again up to expectations in regard to the pinks, the river being literally\nswarming with this variety.\nOn September 28th I visited Lakelse Lake and met Mr. Hearne, the Superintendent at the\nDominion Hatchery. Lakelse Lake is the first important sockeye-spawning area and the earliest\nof the Skeena watershed. It is 12 miles from Terrace and is reached by a good automobile-road.\nThe lake is about 5 miles long and is becoming famous for its cut-throat and rainbow trout.\nExcellent fly-fishing can be had, and this, coupled with the added attraction of a well-equipped\nhot springs and hotel, is yearly drawing an increasing number of anglers and tourists.\nThere are four sockeye-creeks on Lakelse Lake\u2014namely, AVilliams, Schullabuchan, Granite,\nand Hot Springs. Owing to the late date I did not visit the last three named creeks, but did\nvisit AVilliams Creek as the sockeye were still running there. Heavy rains had discoloured the\nwater and swollen the creek considerably, so that other than an occasional sockeye breaking\nwater it was impossible to determine the extent of the run. Fences and pens for spawning\npurposes were erected at AVilliams Creek on July 22nd. Spawning commenced on August 4th,\nbut the pens and fences were washed out on August 9th, allowing between 3,000 and 4,000 sockeye\nto pass through. Mr. Hearne informed me that when spawning first began the males predominated to the extent of fifteen to one, but gradually lessened off and later on the sexes were about\nequal in number. In contrast to Babine there were very few runts at Lakelse, the sockeye being\nbig in average. Mr. Hearne had obtained 5,400,000 sockeye-eggs and, but for the difficulty\nexperienced with the high water and loss of fences, could have obtained at least 10,000,000. He\nwas, however, hopeful of securing a few more thousands.\nThe run to Granite and Hot Springs Creeks this year was only fair, but the run to Schullabuchan was good. Sockeye were first noticed in the lake on June 14th, which is about the usual\ntime. Arery few net-scarred fish were seen this year. An unusual incident was noticed by\nMr. Hearne\u2014a female pink spawning with a male sockeye. This female chased the males of its\nown species away in order to spawn with the sockeye. At the time there was no scarcity of male\npinks or female sockeye.\nAVhile at the hatchery I saw the retaining-ponds, where excellent results of artificial\npropagation were seen. The young fry were large in size and thriving well, being in good\nshape for their long journey seaward.\nIn summing up the Lakelse spawning area as regards the sockeye, I may say that the run\nthis year was disappointing, not being as good as previous years. The run of pinks, however,\nwas well up to former good years, Lakelse River in particular being one teeming mass of this\nvariety.\nThis being the last point of interest, I returned to Terrace and arrived at Prince Rupert\non October 1st.\nI wish to express my appreciation to the Hatchery Superintendents and Fishery Guardians\nfor hospitality shown and information supplied.\nI have, etc.,\nRobert Gibson,\nFishery Overseer.\nPrince Rupert, B.C., October 30th, 1928. THE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE NASS EIVER.\nHon. S. L. Howe,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014In response to instructions to inspect the salmon-spawning areas of the Meziadin Lake\nwatershed of the Nass River, I have the honour to submit the following report:\u2014\u2022\nLeaving Victoria on August 29th, I arrived at the town of Stewart on September 1st, there\nmeeting Mr. A. E. Young, Dominion Fishery Officer. As in the past, we joined forces on this trip\nof inspection. Upon my arrival Mr. Young informed me that the new canvas canoe being\nsupplied by the Dominion Fisheries Department had not arrived, and a few days later received\na telegram from Mr. A. Mackie, Inspector of Dominion Fisheries, Prince Rupert, to the effect\nthat the canoe would arrive on Monday, September 10th. In the meantime we engaged two\nassistant packers and had our outfit in readiness to start. The delay was unfortunate as we\nmissed some fine weather. The canoe arrived on the night of the 10th and we left Stewart on\nthe 11th, raining hard. AVe made American Creek and stayed there for the night. The weather\nwas very wet on the journey into Meziadin Lake, arriving there on September 14th after having\ntrouble in fording Beaver and Surprise Rivers. On September 15th we assembled the new\n\" King \" canoe and made an inspection of the sockeye-spawning grounds at the head of the lake,\ndown the southerly shore to 5-Mile Point, thence across the lake to the northerly shore to its\nhead. In making this examination we did not see twenty spawning sockeye on the beds where\nthey are usually to be observed. Conditions at this particular part of the district were poorer\nthan I have found for many years, the last very poor showing being in 1923.\nOn Sunday, September 16th, we made the trip down the lake in the canoe. No salmon\nwere to be seen disporting themselves in the lake or at the mouths of McLeod Creek and Hanna\nRiver. On leaving the lake we entered the Meziadin River and waded the canoe through the\nMcBride Rapids, which were running high. We arrived at the Falls Cabin at 6.30 p.m.\nSeptember 17th was a very wet day. We inspected the fishway, also upper and lower falls.\nThere were very few sockeye to be seen passing through the fishway, and only a small number\nwere observed in the resting-places below both falls. The salmon assembled were about equally\ndivided between sockeye and cohoe, this species just commencing to arrive. During our stay at\nthe falls until September 27th sockeye conditions did not improve, but the run gradually declined,\nand at the time of our departure all had passed up-stream. In past years the large white-nosed\nvariety of sockeye have been noticeable. There were none to be seen this year.\nUpon opening six sockeye caught below the falls, two of them were infested with thin\nthread-like worms in the abdominal cavity. The blood in the dorsal aorta, which extends along\nthe lower surface of the backbone, was of a pale-slate colour. The specimen in general had not\nthe appearance of being in a healthy condition.\nThe cohoe run improved for a few days, reaching its peak about the 25th, when they\ncommenced to diminish. It is possible that there may be a later run to this district, but from\nobservations the cohoe situation was not as good as in former years.\nOn September 18th we hung the net and fished it in the main Nass River above the Meziadin,\nfishing the net continually until the evening of the 26th. The water in the Nass was high and\ndiscoloured during that time. Our operations with the net were most discouraging as we did\nnot take a single sockeye. In past years we have always taken about an equal number of\nsockeye and cohoe. It is evident that no sockeye were passing up the main river as we had a\nsplendid set with the net. The total results of the net-fishing was twenty-one cohoe and four\nsteelhead. AVhile this was the first time that we have failed to obtain specimens of sockeye, it\nwas also the first time that we have taken steelhead.\nOn September 21st we inspected the spring-salmon spawning-beds at the lower end of\nMcBride Rapids in the Meziadin River. There was very little sign of dead spent fish, only a\nfew undersized females were seen; also the remaining springs on the spawning-beds were scarce.\nThe fishwa'y is in good condition. There was a considerable growth of vegetation and brush\naround the crib-work and sides, which we removed. There is no sign of crumbling or decay in\nthe cement-work. One piece of slate rock had sloughed off into the uppermost basin, which we\ncould not displace. This rock will be of no hindrance to the passage of fish providing no further\ndislodgment occurs. After completing our work at the falls we started on our return journey on September 27th.\nOn the way up the lake some cohoe were observed at the mouth of the Hanna River. AVe arrived\nback in Stewart in the evening of October 1st after experiencing wet and broken weather for\nthe entire time that we were in the field.\nSummary.\u2014A summary of spawning conditions in the Meziadin watershed of the Nass River\nbasin this year shows that very few sockeye were to be found in any section\u2014far less than have\nbeen found there in any one of the last four years in which I have inspected this district.\nNeither in Meziadin Lake or at the fishway at the falls below were sockeye in numbers to be\nseen. Sockeye were so few in numbers that we were unable to obtain sufficient specimens from\nwhich to collect scales, and in consequence no scales were collected. The net we set in the Nass\nRiver above its junction with the Meziadin failed to catch any sockeye, though the water was\ngreatly discoloured and the net most favourably located. The fishway at the falls is in excellent\ncondition.\nRespectfully submitted.\nC. P. Hickman.\nInspector of Fisheries. SALMON RECLAMATION PROJECT. G 55\nA CANADIAN-AMERICAN SALMON RECLAMATION PROJECT.*\nBy John Pease Babcock.\nThe sockeye-salmon fishery of the Fraser River System was once the most productive salmon-\nfishery in which Canadian and American fishermen engaged. No other salmon-fishery was so\nspeedily developed. No other reached such a wealth of production. No other was so speedily\ndestroyed. No other affords so promising a field for exploitation. The restoration of that\nfishery is the greatest reclamation project in which Canada and the United States can jointly\nengage.\nThe history of the development and the destruction of the sockeye-salmon fishery of the\nFraser River System is one of the most calamitous fish stories ever told. Notwithstanding that\nthe story is hackneyed, no version of it has appeared in the Proceedings of the American\nFisheries Society. It is the purpose of this paper to fill that void.\nThe sockeye-fishery of the Fraser River System was and is an international fishery. The\nterm \" Fraser River System \" includes all the waters in British Columbia and the State of\nAArashington which are frequented by sockeye salmon. The term \" Fraser River System \" includes\nall the waters of Juan de Fuca, Rosario, and Haro Straits, the Gulf of Georgia, and the channels\nof the Fraser River frequented by sockeye salmon in their migrations.\nThe history of the sockeye-fishery of the Fraser River System has been faithfully recorded.\nThe records of no other fishery are as complete.\nThe Annual Reports of the British Columbia Fisheries Department since 1901, and those of\nthree International Commissions which investigated conditions in 1905, 1908, and 1918, demonstrate that the sockeye salmon that formerly frequented the waters of the Fraser River System\nin vast numbers were hatched in the Fraser River watershed in British Columbia, lived for their\nfirst year or more in its lake-waters, then migrated to sea, where they remained until the\nsummer of their fourth year and then sought to return through Canadian and United States\nwaters to that river to spawn, and after spawning died.\nBecause all the sockeye caught in the Fraser River System have been canned, the pack\nrecords afford an accurate measure of abundance. The outstanding fact in the pack records,\nother than that of depletion, is the former four-year periodicity in abundance. From the beginning up to and including 1913, the pack records show an astonishingly large pack every fourth\nyear\u2014known as the \" big year \"; and relatively small packs in each of the three following years\n\u2014known as the \" small years \"\u2014a condition that had no counterpart in any other waters. The\nperiodicity in abundance is made plain by reference to the packs in the \" big years \" and in the\n\" small years.\" In the big years 1897, 1901, 1905, 1909, and 1913 the pack averaged 1,777,585\ncases. The packs in small years in the period 1894-1900\u2014a period before depletion was manifest\nin the small years\u2014produced an average pack of 542,597 cases.\nCommercial fishing for sockeye began in a small way in Canadian waters in 1876, with a\npack of less than 10,000 cases. Fishing was confined to the channels of the Fraser River up to\n1890 and gill-nets alone were employed. Gill-net fishing was extended to the discoloured salt\nwaters off the mouths of the river in 1890. Up to that year only the Canadian fleet was engaged,\nthe market was limited, and the catch in any one season did not produce a pack in excess of\n183,000 cases.\nCommercial fishing for sockeye began in the State of AVashington waters of the system in\n1891, with the installation of traps in the vicinity of Point Roberts. Proving most effective, the\nnumber of traps employed increased rapidly and became the leading factor in 1897. Purse-seines\ncame into use in American waters in 1901 and have since that year been extensively used. Since\n1901, with one or two minor exceptions, the yearly catch in American waters of the system has\nbeen in excess of 60 per cent, of the total catch.\nProduction in the system in the big years of each four-year cycle reached its height in 1913\nwith a total pack of 2,392,895 eases, containing the edible portion of over 25,000,000 individual\nsockeye. In 1917, the big year following the record high pack of 1913, the pack fell to 559,702\ncases, a drop of close to 77 per cent. Since 1917 the packs in the big years of each four-year\ncycle have not exceeded 148,000 cases and can no longer be distinguished by their size from the\npacks of the three small years. There has been no periodicity in abundance since 1917. The\nglory of the Fraser has been destroyed.\n* Read at meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Seattle, Washington, August 30th, 1928. G 56 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nThe catches in the small years of each cycle up to the period 1898, 1899, and 1900 display no\nevidence of depletion. In each of those small years the pack averaged 648,912 cases. .From\nthen on the packs in the small years rapidly declined. In each of the last eight years the total\npack in any one year has not exceeded 159,000 cases, and in one year\u20141923\u2014it fell to 79,057\ncases. The pack in the last eight years has averaged but 123,372 cases. Furthermore, the bulk\nof the pack in recent years has consisted of late-running fish\u2014runs that were not drawn upon\nprior to 1914.\nThe factors that so speedily destroyed the sockeye run to the Fraser River System are easily\ndetermined. In 1901 the Fisheries Department of the British Columbia Government inaugurated\na system of inspecting the entire spawning areas of the Fraser River. An annual inspection\nhas been made and reports published. Year after year, since 1901, these reports have called\nattention to the significant fact that the greater proportion of the vast spawning-beds of the\nFraser basin were but lightly seeded in each of the small years and in all the big years since\n1909. The late Dr. Gilbert, the cleverest of all fishery investigators, in one of his classic\n\" Contributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon,\" published in the reports of the\nBritish Columbia Fisheries Department, states that: \" The history of the Fraser River sockeye\nshows unmistakably that the three small years of each cycle were overfished early in the\nindustry. During the early years, when fishing was confined to the region about the mouths of\nthe river and drift-nets alone were employed, no evidence exists of overfishing. The last cycle\nin' which these conditions obtained was 1894-96. During each of the small years of that cycle\nthere were packed approximately 350,000 cases on the Fraser River and about 60,000 cases in\nPuget Sound. During each of those years, therefore, about 5,000,000 sockeye were taken from\nthe spawning run. . . . Apparently, however, a third of a million cases a year could be safely\ntaken, for the following cycle shows no decrease. . . . During the following period of four\nyears (1897-1900) the traps in Puget Sound became an important matter. AVhile the British\nColumbia pack showed little or no reduction, it was now met by a pack on Puget Sound which\nnearly equalled it. The total catches during the three off-years of that cycle nearly doubled\nthose of the preceding cycle and exacted an average toll of about 10,000,000 fish from the spawning\nruns of 1897-1900. The total pack of the three small years of that cycle was over 2,000,000 cases.\n\" The result was quickly apparent. . . . The small years of the following cycle showed\nsuch a marked decline as to indicate that we had far overstepped the line of safety. It was then\nduring the cycle of 1897-1900 that the first serious damage was done to the sockeye run of the\nFraser. By doubling the pack of the three small years, not only was the surplus fully taken,\nbut the necessary spawning reserve was seriously encroached on, with the result that in the\nsmall years of the following cycle (1902, 1903, and 1904), in spite of the increased amount of\ngear employed, the pack was cut in half, while the spawning-beds at the same time were but\nsparsely seeded.\n\" The inevitable and disastrous trend of events should have been evident to the dullest. But\nthe parties in interest refused to hold their hands and proceeded with the slaughter of the\nspawning remnant.\"\nTurning now to the decline in the runs in the big years: The records are equally clear. As\nalready stated, the sockeye runs in the big years 1897, 1901, 1905, 1909, and 1913 produced an\naverage pack of 1,777,585 cases, and it should be noted that the catches on both sides of the line\nin 1901 and 1905 exceeded the canning capacity and several millions of fish were wasted.\nUp to and including 1913 the packs in the big year show no evidence of an overdrain on the\nspawning-runs. The British Columbia Fisheries Report for 1913 shows that the escapement that\nyear was as great, if not greater than in the preceding big year, 1909\u2014the brood-year of the\n1913 run. But that report shows that the escapment in 1913 met with disaster and that comparatively few sockeye reached the spawning-beds that year, with the result that four years\nlater\u20141917\u2014the pack fell to 559,732 cases, or close to 77 per cent, less than in 1913, and in 1921\nit dropped to 142,598 cases, a drop in eight years of 2,250,297 cases.\nThe escapement in 1913 did not reach the spawning-beds for the reason that the river's:\nchannel above Yale\u2014known as Hell's Gate Canyon\u2014was virtually closed to the passage of fish\nby a great rock-slide. Millions of fish that had escaped capture and reached the obstruction in\nHell's Gate Canyon were unable to pass over it, notwithstanding that strenuous efforts were\nmade to enable them to do so. After frantic and continuous efforts to overcome the obstruction\nthe fish became exhausted and were swept down-stream, where they died without spawning.\nThe Report of the British Columbia Fisheries Department for 1913 deals exhaustively, in both\ntext and illustration, with the disaster to .the escapement in 1913. That report shows that the SALMON RECLAMATION PROJECT. G 57\nnumber of sockeye that reached the spawning-beds above Hell's Gate Canyon in 1913 was less\nthan an eighth of the number that reached the beds in 1909. This is made manifest by brief\nreference to the spawning-bed reports for 1909 and 1913. In 1909 4,000,000 adult sockeye were\ncounted as they entered Quesnel Lake, one of the great lakes in the Fraser basin above Hell's\nGate. In 1913 a similar count records that only 550,000 entered that lake. The spawning report\nof the British Columbia Fisheries Department for 1913 concludes with the following words:\n\" The foregoing statements warrant the conclusion that the number of sockeye that spawned in\nthe Fraser watershed this year was not sufficient to make the run four years hence even approximate the runs of 1905, 1909, or 1913.\" The accuracy of that forecast and the disastrous effects\nof the 1913 blockade were made manifest on the fishing-grounds in 1917. Notwithstanding that\nfar more fishermen and more fishing-gear were employed and a much higher price paid for the\nfish on both sides of the line in 1917, the total catch produced a pack of but 559,732 cases, as\nagainst 2,392,895 cases in 1913.\nFrom then on conditions became even worse. Had the 6,000,000 of individual sockeye that\nwent to make up the pack of 1917 been permitted to reach and seed the spawning-beds in that\nyear, some of the loss occasioned by the 1913 blockade could have been recovered. But such was\nnot the case. The authorities, the fishermen, and the canners on both sides of the line did not\nheed the warning in the reports of 1913. No additional protective measures were enacted and\nthe fishermen and the canners spared no efforts to capture every last sockeye in the run of 1917,\nwith the inevitable result that the escapement of that year was no greater than it had been in\nrecent small years and in consequence the spawning-beds produced no greater returns. The catch\nfour years later\u20141921\u2014produced a pack of but 142,598 cases.\nThe sockeye-salmon fisheries of the Fraser River System were not destroyed by the parties\nin interest without vigorous protest from fishery authorities on both sides of the line. As early\nas 1905 a joint commission, representing Canada and the State of AVashington, after a full\ninvestigation of conditions, unanimously recommended the cessation of all sockeye-fishing in the\nsystem in the small years 1906 and 1908. The commission expressed the opinion that by so doing\nthe runs in the following cycle-years would be materially inceased. The closing was to be an\nexperiment; the runs at that period had not been reduced to a low level. The Government of\nCanada accepted the suggestion and passed the necessary enabling Act. A similar Act was\ndenied passage by the Legislature of the State of AArashington and Canada repealed her Act;\nand every one concerned went after the fish harder than ever.\nIn 1908 an international commission was created to study conditions. Following its unanimous report and recommendation, Canada and the United States drafted a treaty providing for\nthe preservation and propagation of sockeye in the Fraser River System. The Government of\nCanada ratified the treaty. The President transmitted the treaty to the United States Senate.\nAfter two years' delay the Senate refused to concur and the treaty was withdrawn.\nThen came the disaster of 1913 and renewed efforts to secure international intervention. In\n1918 Canada and the United States again appointed a second international commission, headed\nby the Chief Justice of New Brunswick and the Secretary of Commerce of the United States.\nIn accordance with the unanimous recommendations of that commission a second treaty was\ndrawn, which provided for \" the times, seasons, and methods of sockeye-fishing in the Fraser\nRiver System\" and \" for the conduct of investigations into the life-history of the salmon,\nhatchery methods, spawning-ground conditions, and other relative matter.\"\nThat treaty was promptly approved by the Government of Canada. The United States\nSenate again refused to concur and the President withdrew it.\nNothing has since been accomplished. The pitiful remnants of the former abundant runs\nto the Fraser are still being preyed upon by Canadian and United States fishermen, and the vast\nspawning areas of the Fraser basin remain unseeded and unproductive.\nThe Fraser River basin contains 1,514,000 acres of spawning area. That area has not been\nlessened or contaminated. It is as extensive and as suitable for the propagation of sockeye as\nformerly. The vast lake-waters of the Fraser are as rich in the natural foods of young sockeye\nas ever. The channels of the river are open and free to the passage of such fish as are permitted\nto enter them. All that is required to produce the abundant runs of former years is a sufficient\nnumber of fish to seed them as abundantly as they were seeded in those years. No other waters\nafford so alluring a field for exploitation.\nThe restoration of the sockeye-salmon fisheries of the Fraser River System is the greatest\nreclamation project in which Canada and the United States can jointly engage. G 58 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nREPORT OP THE INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION APPOINTED\nUNDER THE NORTHERN PACIFIC HALIBUT TREATY.\nThe treaty between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut-fishery\nof the northern Pacific Ocean, including Behring Sea, was ratified on October 21st, 1924. It is\nremarkable from the double standpoint that it is the first treaty entered into by Canada as a\nnation and that it is the first effective one anywhere having for its object the conservation of a\nthreatened high-seas fishery. It, therefore, serves as a precedent for international co-operative\ncontrol of sea-fisheries, where such is necessary. This forms an important additional reason why\nsuccess should be achieved under it.\nThe treaty provides an entire cessation of halibut-fishing for three months each year. This\nwas regarded, at the time it was entered into, as an essential minimum of protection. It also\nprovided for the appointment of an International Fisheries Commission, the duties of which are\nto make recommendations regarding the need for modification of the close season, to make a\nthorough investigation into the life-history of the Pacific halibut, and to make recommendations\nas to the regulation of the fishery that may be deemed desirable for its preservation and development. The specific provisions of the convention dealing with these phases follow:\u2014\n\" The nationals and inhabitants and the fishing vessels and boats of the Dominion of Canada\nand of the United States, respectively, are hereby prohibited from fishing for halibut (Ilippo-\nglos-sus) both in the territorial waters and in the high seas off the western coast of the Dominion\nof Canada and of the United States, including Behring Sea, from the 16th day of November next\nafter the date of the exchange of ratifications of this convention, to the 15th day of the following\nFebruary, both days inclusive, and within the same period yearly thereafter, provided that upon\nthe recommendation of the International Fisheries Commission hereinafter described this close\nseason may be modified or suspended at any time after the expiration of three such seasons, by\na special agreement concluded and duly ratified by the High Contracting Parties.\n\" The High Contracting Parties agree to. appoint within two months after the exchange of\nratifications of this convention, a commission to be known as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of four members, two to be appointed by each party. This commission shall\ncontinue to exist so long as this convention shall remain in force. Each party shall pay the\nsalaries and expenses of its own members and joint expenses incurred by the commission shall\nbe paid by the two High Contracting Parties in equal moieties.\n\" The commission shall make a thorough investigation into the life-history of the Pacific\nhalibut, and such investigation shall be undertaken as soon as practicable. The commission\nshall report the results of its investigation to the two Governments and shall make recommendations as to the regulation of the halibut-fishery of the North Pacific Ocean, including the Behring\nSea, which may seem desirable for its preservation and development.\"\nThe undersigned, having been appointed commissioners under the treaty by their respective\nGovernments, undertook their duties without delay. At the outset they decided to employ a\ncompetent man as director of investigations, in which capacity the services of AV. F. Thompson\nwere secured. He not only brought to the work the needed training and ability, but the experience and knowledge that resulted from three seasons' investigations in the Pacific halibut-fishery,\nwhich he had undertaken some years previously on behalf of the Provincial Government of\nBritish Columbia. A competent staff of young energetic scientists to assist him was also employed.\nThe commision further arranged for the appointment of an honorary scientific council, with which\nnot only the commission but the director of investigations icould consult, and to which has been\nsubmitted the plans of investigations to be undertaken from time to time. This council consists\nof two representatives from each country:\u2014\nProfessor John N. Cobb, Dean of the College of Fisheries of the University of Washington, Seattle.\nMr. N. B. Scofield, Head of the Department of Commercial Fisheries of the Fish and\nGame Commission of California.\nDr. C. McLean Fraser, Professor of Zoology in the University of British Columbia, and\nformerly Director of the Marine Biological Station at Nanaimo, B.C.\nDr. W. A. Clemens, present Director of the aforesaid station. Plate IV.\nLive halibut ready for liberation with numbered tag on cheek-bone. The director and staff have from time to time presented reports on the progress of the\ninvestigation and on their findings to the commission, and to the scientific council. These\nfindings are used in the formulation of the present recommendations. The scientific results are,\nhowever, not inserted in this report, but will be published later in more detailed form than is\npracticable here.\nThe task with which the commission found itself to be charged is one of great magnitude\nand difficulty. The fishery covers a coast-line of about 1,800 miles in length. The halibut can\nonly be studied at sea and under difficult conditions. Hence it has not been possible in the three\nyears during which the commission has been at work to cover the whole field exhaustively.\nWhat has been accomplished has, however, been done (with care and the information obtained\nis sufficient to satisfy the commission as to the necessity of certain main lines of action, if the\nfishery is to be preserved.\nThough the investigation has been highly scientific in character, the commission determined\nat the outset that it would be carried out along practical lines, with close adherence to facts and\navoidance of unsupported theory. Its aim has been to establish beyond doubt the actual condition of the fishery at present and the history of its trend to that condition. It has sought to\ndefine the remedial measures which should be adopted to save the fishery and to build it up, as\nwell as the conditions that would have to be met in applying such measures.\nStatistics have formed an indispensable part of the facts gathered. They have included not\nonly complete records of landings, but of operations at sea. Through 'the splendid co-operation\nof the fishing-vessel captains, the commission has secured extensive records of the individual\ncatches, from which the yield per unit of fishing effort, the \" skate,\" has been ascertained for each\nsection of the coast. These cover every season and are for years as far back as 1906.\nEven more important have been the biological studies. These have included the rates of\ngrowth according to localityy, the migrations, the \" races \" existent, and the spawning habits.\nMaterial has been collected by the staff, not merely from voyages on fishing-vessels, but through\nthe operations of vessels chartered for the purpose. Thousands of halibut have been caught and\nreleased with numbered tags attached, and have been recovered from fishermen through rewards\noffered. From the records thus furnished it has been possible to determine the migrations of the\nhalibut. Extensive studies of the physical characteristics and the growth of the different\n\" races \" have confirmed such findings. The drift of the eggs and larva? in the open ocean have\nbeen studied by means of fine-meshed silk nets and by observation of the currents. The results\nof these biological studies, in conjunction with those from the statistics, form the basis for the\nconclusions reached in this report.\nIMPORTANCE OF FISHERY.\nFisheries for halibut are prosecuted in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic Oceans, and\nyield about 90,000,000 lb. annually. The Pacific halibut-fishery, which is covered by the terms of\nthis convention, is the greatest in the world. The annual catch exceeds 50,000,000 lb., which\nrepresents about 60 per cent, of the world's catch. Of the remainder about 30,000,000 are\ncredited to European countries and 6,000,000 to the Atlantic Coast of this continent. The value\nof the Pacific halibut-catch to the fishermen is about $7,000,000 annually, and it is consequently\none of the most important fisheries in North American waters. The Pacific halibut is, therefore,\none of the most important species of food-fishes indigenous to the waters of the North American\nContinent. The halibut-fishery banks of the Eastern Pacific are shown in Plates Nos. I. to III.*\nThe division into areas shown thereon is for statistical purposes and should not be confused\nwith those referred to in the commission's recommendations, which will be submitted later on.\nCONDITION OF FISHERY.\nThe Pacific halibut-fishery originated soon after the first railway communication was established between the two coasts of the United States. It is, therefore, comparatively young. It\nhad its inception in 1888 near Cape Flattery, at the entrance to Juan de Fuca Strait. The!\nfishery expanded rapidly and by 1910 it had extended to grounds off Cape Ommaney, Baranof\nIsland, 600 miles to the north. Subsequent expansion has extended the fishery until it now\ncovers about 1,800 miles of coast. Formerly as many fish were taken from the 600-mile stretch\nas are now procured from the entire area of 1,800 miles. The banks on the eastern side of the\n*Not reproduced in this reprint of report. G 60\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928. INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION. G 61\n\u00bb\n%\no\nh\no\n8\nas\nf\nH\nJ\n&\no\noi\nAl\ns\u00bb s\nkN 3\n^7\nci\no\nto\ntw\nO\n* !\n,\nn3 >**>\n5C\nS\ns\n* s\n3a\nft,\n^ 5*\no \"\na\nM *\nU&\n> \u00ab\n0J -+_i\nH \"J*\nH 8\n^ rn\n3 |\n\u00a7\u25a02\nPh ^\nc*.\n.\u00a3 bo\n\u00ab\nr- -\u00ab rftfr- jHxErfccMxfxfcd\n\u00ab\u2022 \u00a5\"* J. .\u201e,.'\u2022*'\"I _\nProposed Masset Closed \" Nursery.\" G 76\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928\nFourth Recommendation.\nThe Extension of the Present Close Season by Two Weeks, and the Facilitation of\nFuture Alterations.\nArticle I. of the present treaty provides a yearly closed season for all halibut-fishing in the\nwaters covered by the treaty from the 16th day of November to the 15th day of February following, both days inclusive. The economic advantages of this closure and the absence of effects\nbeneficial to the perpetuation of the fishery have been already commented upon. It is evident\nthat the close season has merely shortened the period within which the catch has been taken.\nThe commission is, however, satisfied that the adoption of the close season was a wise\nmeasure, as it has obvious beneficial economic effects, as far as the whole fishery is concerned.\nIt eliminates the most expensive fishing part of the year, and one which is also full of hardship.\nIt stabilizes the price of frozen halibut, and this in turn has a favourable effect on the demand\nfor such frozen fish. The catches at that time of year are claimed to be of poor quality, and\nfrequently so great as to lower the selling-price below what is profitable. On account of these\nconditions all branches of the industry and the commission are unanimous in their support of\nmaintaining the close season.\nIndeed, with the exception of the owners of some of the large fishing-vessels, who feel that\ntheir investment is too great to admit of a longer close season, the industry favours the lengthening of the closure by two weeks at both ends.\nThe commission is satisfied that lengthening the close season by two weeks at the beginning\nwould not be seriously detrimental to any interest, and would be economically beneficial to the\nindustry as a whole. Hence it recommends that by special agreement of the character provided\nfor in Article I. of the treaty the annual close season be lengthened so as to begin on the 1st\ninstead of the 16th of November in each year.\nIt is entirely conceivable, however, that under other circumstances the present length of the\nclose season would be too great and would lead to serious economic difficulties. Conditions in a\nfishery are not so stable as to justify reliance upon their indefinite continuation. At the present\ntime prosperity would seem to render the maximum closure possible, but it does not follow that\nthis will be permanently true. There should, therefore, be provided means whereby the length\nof the close season may be altered more readily than is now the case.\nIn concluding, the commissioners desire to respectfully urge upon their Governments the\nvery serious condition of this great fishery and the necessity for prompt action to rehabilitate it.\n(Signed) John Pease Babcock,\nChairman.\nWm. A. Found.\nMiller Freeman.\nHenry O'Mailey. PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, 1928.\nG 77\no\noo\nC-I\nCi\n8\nO\nw\n<\nO\n02\nn\np\no\no\nw\npq\nO\nM\no\n1\na\n!E\n<\no\nz\no\nas\nd\nM\nIS\na\nH\nW\nB\nO\nm\na\nb\nSi\nH\nH\nD\nO\nS 03 (1)\nrt +e to\noho\nr-t\nIO\ncc\nCO\no\nrH\nK5\nci\n&\nCO\nto\n5S\nH\n\u00a9\ni-\n\u00a9\n<*\nCD\n-H\nOl\nOl\n00\n1(0\n01\nto\na\n3\nO\nO t\u2014 t- fN !\nco \"rfi o ci :\nt- io ** *H :\ncm\" \u00a9\" ci t\u2014\" :\nfc- t- i-t CO\nCD\n\u00a9\nrH\nCO\"\nOS\nM\na\nS\no ;\nio :\nrH\nX\n00\no-f\ncfi\nO\no\nu\nN H lo oo :\nio os th 03 :\nO N H IO :\nt-T o of co :\nr-t rH\nH\nCD\n\u00a9\nb-\"\nOl\n4, en\n*>J5\nto\nCJ\nci\na>\nS\nGO\nH\nIO\nb-\n01\n&\nfe a.\n02\nCO I- CD\nCO CD O\nIO H N\nrH Cl\"\nOi\n\u00a9\nco\"\ns-. pa\noi be\nW\u00ab3\nr- cd co\nCO Oi -#\nCD\nCD\n\u25a0a\nW be\n\u00aba3\n1-\nOS\nCO\n03\nCO\n>>\ncu\nCJ\no\nIO CO CM\nIO \u00a9 H\nrH -+ Oi\nh-\" cd\" of\nrH\n\u00a7\nI\u2014\nci\nOi\nCD\nCl\nOi\n<-*\nto\na\na\nu\na\nc\nc\n1\nc\nC\n-.2\na\np\n0\ni-\"\nc\n-1\nC\n1 s\n1\n-\nX\ni\n)\n0\n_\n>\n1\n1\n\u00bb\nc\na\nf-\n>A\nm\nE3\no\n-\no\nr*4\nu\nG\n<\nfcr\nCl CO Oi CD CO O\n\u2022* \u2022* IO t- GO \u00a9\nO ** Ci t~ co r-t\n\u25a0* \u00a9 CD -rH CO O\ncc co a n cp i-\nCD X CM CD CO 00\n0i Oi \u25a0* CO CD CO\nCl O IO CO CO CD\nOS CO CD CO O Cl\nCD 03 rH CO CD Ci\n\u00a9 Cl I- -<* SO -t\nCI CO O CD CD b-\nco\" cd\" co\"\nOi CO O t-\n\u00a9 rH O Ci\nCO Cl rH\nIO IO C H OD\nCi 03 \u00a9 X\nW Cl CO rH\nX IO \"HH\nrH ,-H X\n\u00a9 Cl X\nrH X tH \u00a9 \u00a9 CO\nCO CO X tH X rH\n\u00a9 Ci \u00a9 rn ci Cl\nb-\" CO\" I p\" CO Cl\" CO\n' o . j\nrj \u25a0 B\nf S A 3\n> a a u a\nJ1 3 I *\nJ Ch ,2 \" \"\nto\n, 7 \u00bb o! \u00ab\n\u00bb S-i \u25a0 *\n. a a es a\nHUOB\nfi5\nC-l Oi -HH Oi CO\nx \u00bbo \u00a9 C-l IO\nt- \u00a9 rH CD CO\n00' rt f\" O\" t-*\nTr< Cl IO tO X\ni-i Ci \u00a9 d Ci\nCl 03 CM\nIO rH \u00a9 C3 IO\n\u00a9 \u00a9 X IO CO\nGO rH \u00a9 CO IO\n\u00a9 Cl \u00a9 CO t-\n\u00a9 Oi TH -rH o\n\u00ab\nCM ^ rH \u00a9\nb-\n\u00a9 O CO Ol \u00a9 \u00a9 X\nIO\nCO\n\u00a9 \"# IO j\n\u00a9\nTfl rH Cl\nX\n\u00a9 \u00a9 rH TIH\nH\nIO \u00a9 Ol IO \u00a9 rH iH\nCO\n\u25a0\u00b14\nCl IO ^\ni-H\nX \u00a9 CO tHH\nCl\nb- b- Cl 03 H \u00a9\nX\n\u2022* \u00a9\" Cl\n\u00ab\nCO rH Ol Cl\nI-\nb- CO IO -^\nrH\n&<\n(M Ol CO\nX\nX CO CO rH\n\u00a9\nrH tH\n\u25a0*\n13\nrH\nI\n1\no\nto*\n03 co x :\n\u00a9\nIO \u00a9 CO\n\u25a0\u00ab*\nb- Ol IO IO\n\u00a9\n01 IO IQ -* Ttt CO IO\n10\ncu\n\u00a9 b- X ;\n:o\nrh \u00a9 x\nCO\nOl b- CO X\ni-H\nx \u00a9 f- oi b- oi io\n-tH\no\nCl\n\u25a0^H Cl_ CO\nb-\n03 CM CO \u00a9\n\u00a9\nIO IO \u00a9 X X Ol Cl\nCO\nfit\nQ\nOi\"\n\u00a9\nrH\nH \"*\" rH\nl>\nx\" io\" io\" of\nCO\nCl\nO\nO\nCO\n\nfc*\n\u00a7\ns\nMrt\ns\nHs>\n2\n!\nOS\ncu\nO\n<\n-K.\na) ft\n\u00a9 io co :\nX\nco : tj-\nb-\n00\nw : 00 !\n\u00a9\n\u00a7\nx : io : : co io\nH\nOS\nrH\no\nb- \u00a9 :\nb-\nOC\n\u00a9\nc\ns\nOl\nCC\nOl\n\u00a9\n\u25a0*\nTP\nQ\ngl\n\u00a3 a,\n02\ni-H\ni-H\nCO\nCO\n13\n|\nM\nCl\nIO\n02\nCD\nS\nCD\nCD\n00\n\u25a0d\ncu\n<\nTJ .\n\u00ab\nO\nCi)\n\u20220\ncd\nH-1\nr\u00a35\ncc) &0\nco cm :\nX\noo\noo\nci\nOi X io\no\n\u00a3\n\"t* :\n-n\nSi\n\u00a9\nb- X\nT-\nffl\n1\nt- |\nb-\n\u00a9 \u00a9 Ol\nIO\n\u00a9\nCC\no\nco :\n1\ns\nC3\nOl\nCO\n\u00a9\nCO\n-*\n\u00a9\n'CJ\nd\n3\no\nh3\nCD\nH-\ncd\no\nO\n\u00a9 : : :\nc\nX OS\nt-\nO\nth : : h\nOl\nbH co : io \u00a9 : rH\n1-\nCO\n\u00ab\n\"# X\nc>-\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\n\"* Oi\nb-\n\u00a9\nX\nCO\nW\n02\n>>B\nIO CO\n0\"\nIO rH\nrH\nc\nCJ l-i\n=CS\u00ab3\n1-\nt-H\nI-H\nfe\ncu\nH\nI-H\no\nM\nto\ncu\nHH t- o h\nOl\nOl Ol c\nc\nb- \u00a9 io :\nX\nhh : b- : co b- b-\nX\ni\n>\nM\nP>5\nb- \u00a9 \u00a9 rH\n-t\n\u00a9 b- ir\n-rr\nrH rH i\nO-\nrH : rH\nb- OS \u25a0\u25a0*\n-t\nJBJ\nX X \u00a9 \u00a9_\n\"t\nHffll\ni-\nio : oi\nCO \u00a9 io\nc\nfe\nCJ\nCO io\" Oi\" \u25a0*\"\n0*\nOl\" rH r-\n>r\nl> i rH\nCO ri\nT|\n^\no\nrH\n0*\n\u00bbo\nO\n02\no\nM\nri\no\n\u00ab|\ni-i\nPh\nrz\na\no\nA\n g\n.-si \u00a7 ^\n9 6\na \"z\n. cci -=\nCL \u2022-\nJ\nI\n2 \"\u2022 6D bo\"\nkj .9 g S c\n\u25a0\u25a0 CD \u25a0** fl c\n9) \u201e U h \u25a0+-\nfl fl S cj o 73\nBB =3 JS 3 g O S -2\nCO\nCD\n03\ned\nCJ\n8 . fe ft \u00a3\n\"CJ ^ PJ *\n\u00ab pq\" 3 S\nPh \u00a3\u00ab 8\ni\nb Ea oj s c\n\u00ab .3 8 ij\nPh \"ro ci cu\n\u00ab S S - P 3 rn\nM C3 +J S 4J &\n* si o 3 a a\n01\n\u00a9\nb-\nCl\"\n\u2022 Ti * tfl\nHi n\n;\nas t( m\nq -9 i -a\n|\n9 d^\n\u00ab g \u00a7 a\nPC\n<\nt\nJ M\nl\n1 Pt\n<\n1 C\n'\"\nc\nc\n) H\na\n%\nr-\nC\n2\nC\nc\nfC PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, 1928.\nG 79\n8\n3\nO\nT-H\ncr\n\u00a9\nCM\n\u00a9\nIO\nCi \u00a9 IO b- Ci\nrH\nIO \u00a9 \u00a9 rH X\n\u00a9\nOl \u00a9 b- \u25a0* HH\n01\nTh IO b- Ol Ol\nrH\nCO rH\nIO 01 CO CO \u00a9\n\u00a9\nCO CO CO IO b-\nOl b- Ol IO IO\nCO \u00a9 rH IO Cl\n03\nb- rH \u00a9 rH\nrH\nCM\nrH 01 CO Oi Ol\n\u25a0HH\n\u00a9 rH X \u00a9 X\ni-H\nH Ci \"*fl rH rH\n\u00a9\nIO IO \u00a9 rH X\nCl Ol \u00a9 rH\nfe\nrH rH\no to O CC Cl\nes\nCi Ci Cl b- Cl\n\u00a9\nrH \u00a9 IO X CO\nCi IO \u00a9 IO CO\nCl\nIO\n\u00a9\nOi\nIO\nt-\n01\nb-\nrH\n\u00bbp\n; x\nX\nOl\nOl\n\u00a9 CO X Ol\n\u00a9\n\u00a9 IO ^* IO\n\u00a9\nCO CO rH\nX\nIO b- iH\n\u00a9\n01\nCM io X\nb-\nCM rH\nrH\nio\n^\nIO\nOl\n01\n-tf\neo\nT}H\n\u00a9\nrf4 -HH \u00a9 X \u00a9\nCl\n\u00a9 rH X \u00a9 \u00a9\nb-\nCO \u00a9 X CO b-\nCO\nCO rH X rH\n\u00a9\nH\nOl\nre\n2S +\n.Hi +\u25a0\n^\n6 -21-1\nCJ 6 J r\n\u201e\u201eCJ O\n'C\nc\u00bbr\n\"3 -a J4 a \u25a0 \u00ab\nSifl CJ \u00a3 ^\nPacker\n>B.C.\ndian P\ncome V\ntu Cai\nTo\n. r rf w) g\no &f d p S\nPC\n<\nc\n\\\u00a3\nK\nI\n=0\n0\n\u25a0HH03b-\u00a9b-b-\u00a910\nOl \u00a9 Ol IO b- IO t- H\nOlb-lOrHXb-'HHCl\noocoH'tTfhoai\nIO Ci X CO \u00a9 H^ Oi rH\nOl Ol rH Cl CO \u00a9\ncp to if c: co t- h ts\n\u00a9rHOlrHCO-H^b-CO\nH C- IO IO <# \u25a0* CO\nCO b- CO CO Cl CO \u00a9\n\u00a9 rH b- \u00a9 \u00a9\nrH CO Cl\nCM\nCO\nX\nrHCl\u00a9t-COb->Oi*ti\nOOt-HOCDHCOH\nX IO IO rH rH Cl X Ci\nCl\nb-\nCO\nrH^X\u00a9HH\u00a910\u00a9\n\u00a9Ci\u00a9COC0rH\"HH\u00a9\n\u00a9i-HXCJb-\u00a9COCO\nOJ^MMhOHtS\n\u00a9ClOlb-\u00a9C0-^\u00a9\n\u00a9 b- Ol rH CO IOCC\nOO'tCCiMHHHO\nh_b-db-\u00a9HH-HHb-\nb- \u00a9 rH \u00a9 CO \u00a9 IO\nb-b-rHCb-Olb-Cl\n\u00a9rHIOCOCOCpXCO\nCO b- \" Ci \u00a9 \u00a9\nOl Oi \"HH Ol \u00a9 X X Cl\nCllO^H^TtiCO-rhb-\nOI IO \u00a9 \u25a0# IO Cl CO\nCi -hh\" \u00a9\" CO IO\" *tf \u00a9\"\nCI CO \u00a9 CO rH Ol\n; * a a s\n- > 2 o fc-\n3.\u00ab'\n! g Ss\naj cu t> \"S\n2 \u00b0 s -.\nCD CU Ci -w\nCJ\n\u25a0a i;\n\u25a03 O\ncd a ^\n-h ^ H\n\u25a02 M \"\ng ft \u00b0\nfo 02 K \u00bb \u00a3 c>> b G 80\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PKOVINCE, BY\nDISTEICTS AND SPECIES, PEOM 1913 TO 1928, INCLUSIVE.\nFraser River.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n29,299\n1,173\n3,909\n193,106\n2,881\n27,061\n795\n61,393\n7,925\n10,528\n67,259\n102,536\n24,079\n10,658\n85,689\n12,783\n20,169\n88,495\n32,256\n21,783\n13,776\n35,385\n7,989\n25,701\n66,111\n99,800\n36,717\n5,152\n39,743\n2,982\n4,648\n109,495\n31,968\n21,401\n1,822\n31,655\n3,854\n4,279\n103,248\n63,645\n20,173 '\n15\n51,832\n10,561\n6,300\n17,895\n29,578\n23,587\n817\n39,631\nSprings, Red\t\n11,360\n5,949\n11,233\n8,178\n29,978\n1,331\nBluebacks and Steelheads..\nTotals \t\n258,224\n284,378\n274,951\n276,855\n212,059\n226,869\n140,570\n107,650\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n48,399\n10,691\n4,432\n23,884\n12,839\n22,934\n4,522\n38,854\n14,519\n4,296\n15,718\n39,363\n39,253\n15,941\n19,697\n15,192\n24,853\n86,215\n18,388\n40,111\n4,395\n148,164\n10,197\n18,916\n59,973\n134,442\n25,895\n4,951\n32,146\n17,673\n11,430\n30,934\n840\n31,330\n3,129\n91,130\n23,228\n5,392\n18,919\n138,305\n43,514\n31\n198,183\n11,209\n15,300\n74,826\n6,272\n43,504\n719,796\n3,573\n49\n22,220\n20,773\n16,018\nTotals \t\n136,661\n167,944\n208,857\n402,538\n127,472\n320,519\n349,204\n782,4^9\nSkeena River.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n34,559\n6,420 .\n17,716\n209,579\n30,194\n241\n298,709\n83,996\n19,038\n19,006\n38,768\n26,326\n582\n82,360\n30,594\n63,527\n210,081\n30,208\n754\n81,146\n23,445\n74,308\n130,079\n39,168\n713\n144,747\n12.028\n25,588\n181,313\n26,968\n214\n131,731\n12,247\n16,527\n145,973\n31,967\n418\n96,277\n14,176\n39,758\n301,655\n24,699\n1,050\n41,018\n21,766\n1,993\n124,457\n45,033\nSteelhead Trout\t\n498\nTotals\t\n187,716\n407,524\n348,859\n390,858\n_|\n338,863\n477,915\n234,765\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n89,364\n37,403\n3,834\n177,679\n18,068\n1,218\n184,945\n25,941\n31,457\n117,303\n36,559\n2,672\n123,322\n22,931\n22,573\n161,727\n38,759\n4,994\n65,760\n16,285\n21,516\n148,319\n38,456\n1,883\n60,293\n20,933\n17,121\n73,029\n47,409\n3,743\n116,533\n15,273\n5,769\n107,578\n32,190\n1,798\n130,166\n11,740\n8,329\n71,021\n16,378\n52,927\n26,436\nPinks\t\nCohoes\t\nSteelhead Trout\t\n66,045\n18,647\nTotals\t\n332,887\n398,877\n374,306\n292,219\n223,158\n279,161\n237,634\n164,055 STATEMENT SHOWING SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE.\nG 81\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PEOVINCE, BY\nDISTEICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1913 TO 1928, INCLUSIVE\u2014Continued.\nRivers Inlet.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n60,044\n468\n3,594\n16,546\n868\n7\n65,269\n608\n1,122\n671\n'2,094\n9\n65,581\n685\n11,727\n12,815\n7,286\n11\n*192,323\n496\n11,510\n8,625\n4,946\n94,891\n545\n4,924\n15,105\n1,980\n116,850\n599\n3,242\n10,057\n1,526\n53,584\n323\n311\n24,292\n1,120\n82\n48,615\n364\n173\n5,303\nCohoes\t\n4,718\n97\nTotals\t\n81,527\n69,773\n98,105\n217,900\n117,445\n132,274\n79,712\n59,272\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n125,742\n1,793\ni;226\n25,647\n2,908\n56,258\n1,442\n7,089\n6,538\n9,038\n53,401\n1,409\n6,729\n29,542\n12,074\n61,195\n817\n16,101\n8,065\n9,124\n44,936\n1,422\n20,144\n3,567\n15,314\n130,355\n1,022\n5,387\n2,964\n7,115\n89,890\n566\n5,023\n5,784\n7,789\n61,745\n594\n2,097\n3,660\nTotals\t\n133,248\n80,367\n103,155\n95,302\n85,383\n146,838\n109,052\n68,096\nNass River.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n5,540\n1,846\n3,538\n83,183\n10,734\n36\n12,026\n3,824\n3,307\n16,609\n3,966\n96\n15,929\n5,964\n15,392\n50,815\n4,274\n375\n18,945\n3,757\n22,504\n35,530\n8,027\n245\n33,590\n2,725\n26,612\n72,496\n6,481\n1,035\n17,821\n3,314\n25,791\n44,165\n7,894\n595\n31,277\n2,062\n11,277\n75,687\n3,533\n235\n9,364\n2,088\n2,176\n29,488\n8,236\nSteelhead Trout\t\n413\nTotals\t\n104,877\n39,828\n92,749\n89,008\n142,939\n99,580\n124,071\n51,765\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n16,740\n4,857\n12,145\n43,151\n3,700\n560\n28,259\n3,574\n24,041\n29,949\n10,900\n789\n21,816\n4,152\n40,368\n59,206\n17,061\n1,305\n22,188\n4,496\n24,938\n44,568\n22,180\n1,125\n31,411\n3,845\n11,200\n59,593\n19,139\n1,498\n39,349\n3,701\n11,076\n34.879\n15,171\n113\n31,327\n3,385\n25,569\n25,333\n9,276\n23,574\n3,151\n2,987\nPinks\t\n20,539\n3,172\nTotals\t\n81,153\n97,512\n143,908\n119,495\n126,686\n104,289\n94,890\n53,423\n1 Including 40,000 cases caught in Smith Inlet and 20,813 cases packed at Namu. G 82\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1928.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PEOVINCE, BY\nDISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1913 TO 1928, INCLUSIVE\u2014Continued.\nVancouver Island District.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n14,248\n2,269\n303,474\n41,885\n23,345\n5,249\n24,835\n6,769\n220,270\n52,561\n58,834\n10,194\n25,070\n5,222\n174,383\n86,113\n51,551\n5,383\n10,895\n5,664\n127,520\n51,384\n59,747\n4,832\n15,618\n283\n165,161\n63,102\n30,593\n2,510\n12,006\n138\n120,520\n30,149\n21,342\n7,097\n15,147\n886\n108,478\n36,943\n18,575\n5,495\n6,936\n3,230\n34,431\n10,660\n11,120\n3,151\nTotals \t\n390,470\n373,463\n347,722\n260,042\n277,267\n191,252\n185,524\n69,528\nQueen Charlotte and other Districts.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n59,852\n2,806\n341,802\n438,298\n58,455\n609\n60,533\n7,826\n252,230\n36,481\n47,433\n973\n62,383*\n3,650\n348,682\n380,243\n47,183\n973\n49,962\n5,002\n305,256\n120,747\n40,269\n1,520\n40,926\n4,245\n195,357\n141,878\n26,031\n497\n24,584\n2,711\n148,727\n146,943\n29,142\n732\n47,107\n4,988\n80,485\n113,824\n31,331\n409\n18,350\n4,995\n21,412\n14,818\n18,203\nSteelheads and Bluebacks..\n2,790\nTotals \t\n901,822\n405,476\n844,114\n522,756\n408,934\n352,839\n278,144\n80,568\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n64,473\n15,633\n30,946\n247,149\n33,807\n3,721\n54,677\n14,766\n165,717\n110,300\n35,011\n702\n51,980\n8,582\n90,464\n201,847\n42,331\nl,O09\n32,902\n6,056\n112,364\n112,209\n30,201\n865\n45,373\n11,423\n160,812\n143,615\n70,431\n712\n98,600\n9,488\n40,849\n83,626\n48,966\n985\n87,130\n7,108\n70,727\n111,930\n43,254\n149,336\n7,246\n52,758\nCohoes\t\n83,430\n28,328\nTotals \t\n395,728\n381,163\n404,793\n294,597\n432,366\n313,894\n320,168\n285,898\nTotal packed by Districts in 1913 to 1928, inclusive.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n258,224\n298,709\n81,527\n104,877\n390,470\n901,822\n284,378\n187,716\n69,773\n39,828\n373,463\n405,476\n274,951\n407,524\n98,105\n92,749\n347,722\n844,139*\n276,855\n348,859\n217,900\n89,008\n263,904\n522,756\n212,059\n390,858\n117,445\n142,939\n277,267\n604,745\n226,869\n338,863\n132,274\n99,580\n191,252\n352,839\n140,570\n477,915\n79,712\n124,071\n185,524\n278,144\n107,650\nSkeena\t\n234,765\n59,272\n51,765\nVancouver Island...\nOther Districts\n69,528\n80,568\nGrand totals\n2,035,629\n1,360,634\n2,065,190\n1,719,282\n1,745,313\n1,341,677\n1,285,946\n603,548\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n136,661\n332,787\n157,522\n81,153\n'84,170\n395,223\n167,944\n398,877\n80,367\n97,512\n'267,293\n381,163\n210,851\n374,216\n103,155\n143,908\n389,815\n404,793\n402,538\n292,219\n95,302\n119,495\n325,723\n294,597\n127,472\n223,158\n85,383\n126,686\n320,519\n279,161\n146,838\n104,289\n349,294\n237,634\n109,052\n94,890\n782,429\n164,055\n68,096\n53,423\nSkeena\t\nVancouver Island...\nOther Districts\n432,366\n313,894\n320,169\n285,898\nGrand totals\n1,187,616\n1,393,156\n1,626,738\n1,557,485\n995,065\n1,164,701\n1,111,039\n1,353,901\n* Including 17,921 cases of sockeye packed at Smith Inlet. STATEMENT SHOWING SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE.\nG 83\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF THE ENTIRE FRASER\nRIVER SYSTEM FROM 1913 TO 1928, INCLUSIVE.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n29,299\n61,044\n61,393\n97,594\n85,689\n44,673\n35,385\n112,023\n39,743\n69,369\n31,655\n47,402\n51,832\n48,566\n39,631\nState of Washington\t\n102,967\nTotals\t\n90,343\n158,987\n130,362\n147,408\n109,112\n79,057\n100,398\n142,598\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n48,399\n62,654\n38,854\n64,346\n19,697\n50,723\n148,164\n411,538\n32,146\n84,637\n91,130\n64,584\n198,183\n335,230\n719,796\n1,673,099\nTotals\t\n111,053\n103,200\n70,420\n559,702\n116,783\n155,714\n533,413\n2,392,895\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF THE PROVINCE,\nBY DISTRICTS, 1913 TO 1928, INCLUSIVE.\n1928.\n1927.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n29,299\n34,559\n60,044\n5,540\n14,248\n59,852\n61,393\n83,996\n65,269\n12,026\n24,835\n60,533\n85,689\n82,360\n65,581\n15,929\n25,070\n62,383\n35,385\n81,146\n192,323\n18,945\n14,757\n49,962\n39,743\n144,747\n94,891\n33,590\n15,618\n41,014\n31,655\n131,731\n116,850\n17,821\n12,006\n24,584\n51,832\n96,277\n53,584\n31,277\n15,147\n47,107\n39,631\n41,018\n48,615\n9,364\nVancouver Island\t\n6,936\n18,350\nTotals\t\n203,542\n308,052\n337,012\n392,518\n369,603\n334,647\n295,224\n163,914\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n48,399\n89,064\n125,742\n16,740\n6,987\n64,473\n38,854\n184,945\n56,258\n28,259\n6,452\n54,677\n19,697\n123,322\n53,401\n21,816\n6,243\n51,980\n148,164\n65,760\n61,195\n22,188\n9,639\n32,902\n32,146\n60,923\n44,936\n31,411\n9,223*\n36,150\n91,130\n116,553\n130,350\n39,349\n198,183\n130,166\n89,890\n31,327\n719,796\n52,927\n61,745\n23,574\n98,660\n87,130\n149,336\nTotals\t\n351,405\n369,445\n276,459\n339,848\n214,789\n476,042\n536,696\n972,178\n* Vancouver Island's pack not previously segregated.\nPRODUCTION OF FISH OIL AND MEAL, B.C., 1920-28.\nProm Pilchards.\nPeom Herring.\nFrom Whales.\nProm other\nSources.\nYear.\nMeal and\nFertilizer.\nOil.\nMeal.\nOil.\nWhalebone\nand\nMeal.\nFertilizer.\nOil.\nMeal.\nOil.\n1'9'20\nTons.\nGals.\nTons.\n310\n2,218\n788\nGals.\nTons.\n'503\n326\n485\n'292\n347\n340\n345\n376\nTons.\n1,035\n230\n910\n926\n835\n'666\n651\n754\nGals.\n604,070\nTons.\n466\n489\n911\n823\n1,709\n'2,468\n1,752\n1,948\n3,205\nGals.\n55,669\n1921...\n44,700\n192'2\t\n283,314\n706,'514\n645,657\n856,939\n468,206\n437,967\n571,914\n75,461\n1923....\n180,318\n1924\n241,376\n192'o\t\n'2,083\n'8,481\n12,145\n14,502\n495,653\n1,898,721\n2,610,120\n3,997,656\n354,853\n1926\n1927\n1928\t\n13,700\n173,343\n61,245\n217,150\n'250,811\n3*87,276 VICTORIA, B.C. :\nPrinted by Chables F. Banfield, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1929.\n1825-629-6452","@language":"en"}],"Genre":[{"@value":"Legislative proceedings","@language":"en"}],"Identifier":[{"@value":"J110.L5 S7","@language":"en"},{"@value":"1930_V01_08_G1_G84","@language":"en"}],"IsShownAt":[{"@value":"10.14288\/1.0300561","@language":"en"}],"Language":[{"@value":"English","@language":"en"}],"Provider":[{"@value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","@language":"en"}],"Publisher":[{"@value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","@language":"en"}],"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","@language":"en"}],"SortDate":[{"@value":"1930-12-31 AD","@language":"en"},{"@value":"1930-12-31 AD","@language":"en"}],"Source":[{"@value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"Title":[{"@value":"PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST 1928 WITH APPENDICES","@language":"en"}],"Type":[{"@value":"Text","@language":"en"}],"Translation":[{"@value":"","@language":"en"}],"@id":"doi:10.14288\/1.0300561"}