{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0059591":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"cd616982-c80d-4be7-a927-69c69d839938","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative":[{"value":"REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2016-03-22","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1916]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0059591\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent":[{"value":"Insert: ERRATUM -- p.S36A","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":" PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nREPORT\nOF   THE\nCOMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES\nFOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1915\nWITH APPENDICES\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF\nTHE PROVINCE OF BRITISHCCLUNBIA.\nPRINTED BY\nAUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.\nVICTORIA, B.C.:\nPrinted by William H. Cullin, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n191B.  Provincial Fisheries Department,\nVictoria, May 15th, 1916.\nTo Eis Honour Frank Stillman Barnard,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nI beg to submit herewith a report reviewing the operations of the Provincial\nFisheries Department for the year ending December 31st, 1915, with Appendices.\nW. J. BOWSEE,\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nCommissioner of Fisheries' Office,\nVictoria, British Columbia, May loth, 1916.  TABLE OF CONTENTS.\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR 1915.\nPage.\nFishery Products of the Province  7\nValue of Fish marketed  7\nSalmon-pack in Fraser River District  7. S\nThe Rise of Prince Rupert as a Halibut Centre  S, 9\nScientific Research    9\nSummary of Salmon Investigations   9,10\nHalibut  Investigation     10-12\nWork on Oysters   12\nCrab Investigation     12\nSpawning-grounds of Province    12-14\nHatchery Egg-takes.    Sockeye-pack of Fraser, 1900-1915  14,15\nSockeye-pack of Northern British Columbia, 1902-1915    15\nAPPENDICES.\nThe Spawning-beds oe the Eraser River.    By John P. Babcock   16-21\nThe Spawning-grounds of Rivers Inlet.    By A. W. Stone   22-24\nThe Spawning-grounds of Smith Inlet.    By A. W. Stone   24, 25\nThe Spawning-grounds of the Nass River.    By J. M. Collison   26\nContribution  to the  Life-history  of  the  Sockeye  Salmon.     (Paper  No.  3.)     By\nCharles H. Gilbert, Ph.D  27-64\nStatistics of Halibut, etc.    By William F. Thompson   05-126\nNotes on a Halibut Parasite.    By William F. Thompson   127-129\nThe Halibut Problem.    By William F. Thompson   130-140\nThe Native Oyster of British Columbia :   Environment.    By Joseph Stafford, M.A.,\nPh.D  141-160\nContributions to the Life-history of the Pacific Coast Edible Crab.    (Paper No. 2.)\nBy F. W. Weymouth  161-163\nPack of British Columbia Salmon, Season 1915   164\nPack of Puget Sound Salmon, Season 1915  165  FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1915.\nFishery Products of the Province.\nThe value of the fishery products of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1915,\ntotalled $31,264,631. Of that amount British Columbia produced $11,515,086, or 36.8 per cent.\nBritish Columbia products exceeded those of Nova Scotia by $3,784,895, and exceeded the\ncombined fishery products of New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island by\n$633,616. This favourable showing is made notwithstanding that British Columbia shows a\ndecrease of $2,376,312 from that of the previous fiscal year. The decline is due to the fact\nthat it was an \" off-year \" on the Fraser, only a small catch of salmon being recorded there.\nValue of Fish marketed in British Columbia.\nThe total value of each of the species of fish marketed in the Province for the year ending\nMarch 31st, 1915, is given in the following statement:\u2014\nSalmon    $ 8,018,835\nHalibut  1,561,626\nHerring     876,651\nCod    366,957\nOolachans     71,036\nShad  2,370\nFlounders     12,117\nSmelts     17,856\nTrout     12,115\nSturgeon     22,980\nTomcod  120\nSoles    34,512\nSkate     6,129\nOctopus     980\nShrimps    3,200\nWhiting     1,096\nPerch  2,064\nMixed fish   32,435\nOysters    28,619\nClams    84,097\nCrabs     44,588\nFur-seals    10,560\nHair-seals     512\nFish-oil   12,481\nWhale-oil   242,068\nFish-guano     47,432\nBone-meal     1,650\nTotal      $11,515,086\nNotwithstanding that the catch of salmon on the Fraser River was a small one, the total\nsalmon-pack of the Province totalled 1,133,381 cases, of which the Fraser produced 320,514\ncases, the Skeena 279,161, the Nass 104,289, Rivers Inlet 146,838, and outlying points 282,664.\nWhile the total number of cases exceeded those of the previous year, the value was less because\na larger per cent, consisted of fall grades of fish.\nSalmon-pack in Fraser River District.\nThe pack of sockeye salmon caught in the waters of the Fraser River, Gulf of Georgia, and\nthe American channels leading to the Fraser, here termed the Fraser River District, for the year S 8 Eeport of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nwas the smallest yet recorded there, being -but 155,714 cases; of that total, 91,130 cases were\npacked in the Province and 64,584 in the State of Washington. The pack for the district this\nyear was less by 34,053 cases than that of four years ago. For the first time since 1903 the\nsockeye-pack from our waters in the district exceeded that packed in the State of Washington.\nDr. Gilbert's investigations during the year make it appear altogether probable that a\ncomponent part of the run of sockeye to the Fraser River District approach that river from\nthe north, through Johnstone Strait, and that all do not come in from the open sea through\nJuan de Fuca Strait, as has been generally supposed. Mr. Babcock, in his report for 1913,\nfirst suggested that a portion of the sockeye seeking the Fraser came down from the north\nthrough Johnstone Strait. Since the fish seeking the Fraser through Johnstone Strait would\nnot have to pass through American waters to reach the Fraser, they would not be subject to\ncapture by the traps and purse-nets which line the American channels leading to that river, and\nwhich catch the greater proportion of the sockeye run which come in from the sea through Juan\nde Fuca Strait. The fact that our pack of sockeye in the district this year exceeded that in\nthe State of Washington certainly indicates that it is to be attributed to a run of fish from the\nnorth. As the Department's salmon investigations for the past three years have established\nthat the salmon hatched in a stream return to that stream to spawn, and pass through the\nsame channels in going and returning from the sea, it appears probable that as the sockeye-\neggs now in our hatcheries were expressed from fish which came down from the north through\nJohnstone Strait, that their young will in seeking the sea pass up through Johnstone Strait, and\nupon maturing will again seek the Fraser through that strait. If this be true, there is a probability that there may still be a run of sockeye to the Fraser after excessive fishing in American\nchannels leading to that river shall have eliminated the race of sockeye that now seek the Fraser\nthrough Juan de Fuca Strait and American waters.\nPack of Pinks in Fraser River District.\nThe pack of pink salmon in the Fraser River District this year totalled 722,034 cases, as\nagainst 812,659 cases in 1913 and 1,225,493 in 1911.\nThe pack in our waters this year totalled 138,305 cases, as against 20,773 in 1913 and\n160,501 in 1911. The pack in State of Washington waters was 583,649 cases this year, as\nagainst 791,886 in 1913 and 1,046,992 in 1911. There was no demand for this species in our\nwaters in 1913. The run in both 1913 and 1911, in our own and the State of Washington\nwaters, was greatly in excess of the demand; in consequence the pack of those years cannot\nbe taken as evidence of the size of the run. The pack this year was limited only by the supply,\nand for the first time on record the catch did not nearly equal the demands of the canners. In\nconsequence of a shortage in the catch in Washington waters, buyers came over the International\nLine and purchased pinks directly from our fishermen and exported them for canning. Previous\nto their entering our markets the fishermen were getting but 3 cents each for fish; afterwards\nmany sales were made at 6 cents each, and in some cases as high as 7 cents was paid. Customs\nreturns show that 1,100,764 pink salmon were exported to the United States in a fresh state.\nThat there would be a\" great decrease in the run of pink salmon to the Fraser River District\nthis year was clearly indicated in the Department's report from the spawning-grounds in 1913.\nOwing to the blockade in the canyon of the Fraser at Hell's Gate in 1913, no pink salmon were\nable to reach the spawning-beds in the waters above that point. Up to that year countless\nmillions spawned in the Thompson and Nicola Rivers and in the vicinity of Seton Lake. As is\nshown in our report for the spawning-beds this year, no pinks reached those waters.\nThe Rise of Prince Rupert as a Halibut Centre.\nThe importance of Prince Rupert as a receiving and shipping point for fish, which has been\npressed by this Department, since it was made the terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,\nwas fully demonstrated this year. The development of the halibut fishery there is the most\ngratifying feature of our fishery for the year 1915. The growth of the fishery industry is due to\nthe operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and to a change in the Customs regulations\nplaced in effect by the Dominion authorities; the latter being made upon representation of the\nProvincial Government, Colonel F. H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries on this Coast,\nand to the active efforts of the Federal representative for the Northern District, H. S. Clements,\nEsq. 6 Geo. 5\nBritish Columbia.\nS 9\nThese changes consist of an extension of bonding and buying privileges to foreign vessels\nengaged in fishing in the waters of the Pacific off the Coast of British Columbia and Alaska.\nUnder these concessions fishing-vessels may enter our ports, land their catch in bond for shipment to the United States, sell to the Canadian buyers who assume the bonding privileges,\npurchase bait, ice, and supplies, and ship crews. These privileges are being extensively used\nby the United States fishing-boats and without injury or curtailment of our own fishermen, but\nto their decided advantage. Up to 1914 the bulk of the halibut taken oif the North Coast of this\nProvince and Alaska was marketed through Seattle; the fleet buying its supplies and outfitting\nthere. The crew maintained their families there. Since the regulations were amended there\nhas been a steady increase in the number of United States fishing-vessels plying in port of\nPrince Rupert. During the past year more than one hundred calls have 'been made at that\nport by American vessels. Many of them how regard Prince Rupert as their home port, outfit\nthere, buying all their supplies, bait, and ice, and many of the crews have established their\nfamilies there.\nThe following table gives the halibut landed in Prince Rupert in each month of the past\nthree years:\u2014\n1913.\n1914.\n1915.\nJanuary  \t\nFebruary   \t\nMarch  \t\nApril  \t\nMay\t\nJune  \t\nJuly\t\nAugust\t\nSeptember\nOctober  \t\nNovember  ....\nDecember   ....\nTotals\nLb.\nLb.\nLb.\n20,000\n190,100\n540.700\n52,000\n555.000\n625,000\n160,700\n171,500\n607,000\n396,400\n669,000\n718,300\n1,210.200\n1,409,500\n1,123.000\n1,525,300\n1,401,500\n2,111,500\n1.005,055\n751,000\n1,874,315\n1,000,055\n721,000\n1,793,500\n836,800\n987,000\n2,090.000\n778,000\n541,500\n1,304,000\n280,000\n579.000\n1,942,000\n56,300\n766.000\n1,366.000\n7,520,810\n8,741,100\n10,095,315\nOn April 10th, 1915, the Canadian Fisheries and Cold Storage Co., of Prince Rupert, agreed\nto buy halibut at market prices, and supply ice at $3 a ton and frozen bait at $25 a ton, stating\nthat prices in their general store \" are the same as those in Ketchikan.\"\nIt is believed that, if the inspection laws of the Dominion Government, whereby a rating\nequivalent to that granted to fishing-vessels in the United States be granted vessels of the size\nnow engaged in the halibut-fishing, many of them would seek Canadian registry.\nUnder existing regulations Prince Rupert will continue to handle the bulk of the halibut\ncaught in the waters facing the North-west Coast of British Columbia and Alaska. And while\nthere may be, as Mr. Thompson indicates, a falling-off in the total catch of halibut, due to a\ndepletion of the banks, there is certain to be a corresponding increase in the returns from other\nspecies of food-fishes, which, though abundant in these waters, have not heretofore been\nbrought in.\nScientific Research.\nThe Department has continued its scientific investigation of the life-history of Important\nfood-fishes. Valuable additions to the biology of Pacific marine fauna have been made, and will\nbe found in the Appendix of the report from the pens of Dr. C. H. Gilbert, Dr. J. Stafford,\nW. F. Thompson, and Professor Frank W. Weymouth.\nSummary of Salmon Investigation in 1915.\nDr. C. H. Gilbert, of Stanford University, who is retained by the Department for the study\nof salmon problems, made marked progress during the year. We publish herewith a further\ncontribution to the life-history of the sockeye and other Pacific salmon, in which he writes:\u2014\n\" A very comprehensive examination of sockeye runs throughout the Province was undertaken in 1915, which included not only the principal rivers, such as the Fraser, Rivers Inlet, S 10 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nthe Skeena, and the Nass, but also the majority of the smaller streams which have runs of\nany commercial value. The more important river systems received the more detailed investigation, and were given tests at least once each week throughout the fishing season, while the\nsmaller rivers and creeks which received attention\u2014some forty-four in number\u2014were tested\nonly once, or at most twice, during the period of their respective runs.\n\" Some of the smaller streams were investigated for the first time in 1915, but in the case\nof others, data had accumulated from previous years and were at hand for comparison. One\nof the principal reasons for widening the scope of the investigations was to throw further light\non the applicability of the parent-stream theory. The validity of this important theory has\nbeen conclusively demonstrated in the case of the larger rivers of the Province, as shown in\nthe reports of this Department for 1913 and 1914. Examination of the scales had removed any\npossible doubt that the progeny of the Fraser River fish return to the Fraser at their maturity,\nand that this is true also of the fish of each of the large river-basins. It has now been shown,\nas the result of the past season's work, that this principle holds in the case of all the rivers and\ncreeks, however small these may be, and however near together they may enter the sea.\n\" The practical significance of this demonstration is entirely obvious. In order to maintain\nthe supply of salmon in a given district, it will not be adequate to install a hatchery on any\nconvenient stream, into which the entire output of the hatchery will be turned. On the contrary,\neach stream must be given separate consideration, and must receive its own quota of fry, which\nmust feed and grow within its boundaries. The original source of the eggs is seemingly a matter\nof no importance. The destination of the adult salmon is determined by the locality in which\nthey were reared. To what extent the parent-stream theory holds for the tributaries of\nthe larger river systems is as yet undetermined, and is a matter of the utmost practical\nimportance.\n\"In the Report of the Commissioner for 1913 (page 19), Mr. J. P. Babcock, Assistant to\nthe Commissioner, suggests for the first time that a portion of the Fraser River sockeye run\nmay enter from the north through Johnstone Strait. This was based largely on the reported\noccurrence of large schools seen in 1913 south of Cape Mudge, and also on the testimony of\nMr. W. E. Anderson, of Quathiaski Cove, who had captured some of the salmon on their passage\nand considered them Fraser River fish.\n\" In the early part of August, 1915, we were given an opportunity of examining a southbound school of sockeyes, which were intercepted by Mr. Anderson at Deepwater Bay, shortly\nabove Seymour Narrows. Critical study of these has proven beyond doubt that they were bound\nfor the Fraser River, and has made it appear probable that a certain component of the Fraser\nrun enters from the north in every year, and not, as might have been supposed, in the big year\nonly of each cycle.\n\" In addition to further observations on the age-groups in the various runs, on the proportions of the sexes, and on the sizes of the different races in comparison with previous years,\nthere were examined an extensive series of yearling migrants on their way to the sea, in the\nFraser River, Smith and Rivers Inlets, and the Skeena. All previous investigations seem to\nhave shown that the average size of migrants does not change during the month or more that\nmigration is in progress. The last to leave are of the same average size as the first, although\na month or more has passed during which growth would be expected. It now appears that the\nRivers Inlet race is even more peculiar in this respect, inasmuch as the later migrants not only\ndo not increase in average size, but they actually diminish as the season progresses. With them\nthe larger sizes pass out at the opening of the downward movement, and each successive day\nis marked by the appearance of a smaller lot of migrating fish than the preceding days. This\noccurrence has not been noted elsewhere.\"\nThe Halibut Investigation.\nThe recording of the life-history of the halibut which the Department inaugurated in the\nspring of 1914, the first scientific effort made to disclose the life of this most important of\nfood-fishes, was continued throughout 1915 with marked success. The results obtained from the\ntwo years of continuous study by Mr. W. F. Thompson, the assistant in charge of the work,\njustifies his assignment aud demonstrates forcibly that only by continuous efforts throughout\neach month of the year can satisfying and conclusive results be obtained in recording the life- 6 Geo. 5 British Columbia. S 11\nhistory of Pacific food-fishes. Spasmodic efforts, conducted during vacation months only, do\nnot produce such results. Mr. Thompson's work has been of a most satisfactory nature. His\nreport for 1915 is of great value. It adds materially to his previous paper (British Columbia\nFisheries Report of 1914). Together they are the only records yet produced that afford a\nreliable basis for an intelligent handling of the halibut problem.\nAt this time, when the question of joint experiments for the protection of the halibut is\nbefore the Canadian and United States Federal Governments, the sole authority which could\nbe involved was this Department. We have been asked by both Governments for information\nand advice upon this most important economic question. Our replies were based solely upon\nMr. Thompson's reports. We have been congratulated upon the excellence and thoroughness of\nhis work, as well as upon the marked progress which he has made in disclosing essential and\nheretofore unknown facts in the life of the halibut.\nWilliam F. Thompson contributes to the Appendix of this report \" A Report on Statistics\nof, the Halibut Fishery of the Pacific: Their Bearing on the Biology of the Species and the\nCondition of the Banks.\"\nThe most immediately important conclusion in this paper is the fact of depletion. The\nevidence submitted is conclusive. He frankly disregards all published statistics of the catch\nand proves his contention from the logs of over 900 voyages of vessels engaged in halibut-fishing.\nThe tabulations submitted are invaluable in considering the future of the fishery. Indeed, the\ncontribution which is made to the knowledge of the species by such detailed statistics is\nsurprising in itself. The present condition of the fishing-banks is undoubtedly shown to relate\nto its past history and justifies the conclusions drawn from the study made on the biology of\nthe banks.\nAmong the facts presented in the paper, one which stands forth conspicuously is the great\neffect which the operations of the fishermen have had on the character of the halibut population\nof the various banks. Not only have they been very extensively depleted, but the proportion of\nthe mature and immature, of large and small fish has been radically changed. The extensive\nfishing has, it is evident, made its influence felt throughout the whole biological appearance of\nthe species, and in doing so it has rendered precarious the future of the banks, particularly the\nolder or longer known. The number of halibut still found on them is so small and the percentage\nof mature fish in the population has fallen so low that it appears imminent that the halibut in\nthe Pacific, like the Atlantic, will drop to a minor position among the food-fishes. It is difficult\nto see wherein more proof of depletion than is here given can be adduced save the final one of\ncommercial extinction of the species.\nThe rate of decrease on the banks, over 70 per cent, for each decade, is surprisingly large.\nYet it must be remembered that the constant shifting to new banks has staved off a portion of\nthe effects of impoverishment. The progress from the banks at Cape Flattery to Hecate Strait,\nand from there to Yukutat and beyond, has been at a constantly accelerated rate as the total\ncatch has grown from year to year. When expansion is at an end, as will inevitably be, the\nfishing fleet must return to the older-known banks, which will then be depleted beyond their\npresent condition unless measures are taken to allow them to recuperate. It is very plain that\nthey cannot support the fishing now existent or anything comparable with it.\nAlthough a prophecy of immediate decline in the total yield would be out of place, the\nsituation which Mr. Thompson makes clear is sufficiently serious to warrant the taking of\nimmediate steps for conservation. The contemplation of experiments on hatching the halibut\nmust lead simply to ill-founded optimism on the part of the fishermen. In the face of the\nwholesale reduction of the numbers of halibut on the banks, the establishment of hatcheries\ncannot be regarded as anything but exceedingly expensive experimental work. The hatching\nof salmon, shad, cod, and plaice has been carried on by many Governments without any very\ntangible or definable results. In the case of the halibut nothing could be known as to its results\nfor many years, and unlikely as they are to be of value, those years might incur the ruin of\nthe industry if action were delayed pending the arrival of a conclusion. It is therefore necessary\nto regard the suggestion of hatchery relief as of purely theoretical value and one which may do\ngreat harm by misleading those with the interest of the fishery at heart.\n'Mr. Thompson does not discuss extensively the steps which could be taken to conserve the\nhalibut, but his paper brings out many facts vital to their formulation. The exhausted conditions\nof the banks off our Coast is clearly shown and establishes the vital need of their protection S 12 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nduring that portion of the year when they are yielding the largest proportion of small and\nimmature fish. Since the main fishing has shifted to a position farther north there should be\nno great obstacle to the application of protective measures to the southern banks. Protection\nto a small area or the establishment of closed zones of comparative limited extent can have\nno effect on the whole. Effects of close season in various months may be judged from the\ncomparative yields given in Mr. Thompson's tabulations, the value of such closures being in\ndirect proportion to the activity of the fishery at the time they are in force.\nMr. Thompson calls timely attention to the necessity of hydrographic work on the Pacific\nsufficiently wide in scope to include temperatures and salinity in the open sea and in sheltered\nwaters. The theory which he advances for the variations in the catch of halibut depends upon\nthe first factor. He holds that in a study of herring and flounders such knowledge will be\nessential, as well as in the study of the plankton food of salmon and other food-fishes. It has\nbeen shown that temperatures and salinity have a remarkable relation to the time and place of\nspawning of the herring in the North Sea. The hydrographic work suggested might well be\nundertaken by Canada and the United States co-operating, as did the nations concerned in the\nNorth Sea fisheries. It is high time that the two Governments joined in a programme of\ninvestigations of the marine life of the Pacific.\nThe recent successful development of the tile fishery on the Atlantic Coast by the Bureau\nof Fisheries of the United States Government demonstrates what practical scientifically directed\neffort can accomplish. It is believed that at slight cost the Government could demonstrate that\nthere is a market in Canada for the cod and other valuable food-fishes which are now caught\nby the halibut fleet and thrown hack into the sea. With the continued depletion of the halibut\nthe fishermen must eventually turn to the cod and other fishes which are now discarded. The\nsooner a market is developed the better for all concerned. That the waste has so long continued\nis a reflection on all concerned.\nIn addition to the above papers on the halibut by William F. Thompson, to be found in the\nAppendix, we include \" A Note on a Sporozoan Parasite of the Halibut,\" which will be found of\ninterest to fishermen, since it deals with the fish which they so patiently cull from the catch\nand which are known to them as \" mushy halibut.\" The paper is of interest and illustrated\nby plates.\nIn addition to the above papers, there is reproduced in the Appendix of this report a paper\nentitled \" The Halibut Problem \" by Mr. Thompson, which was read at the 1916 meeting of the\nDominion Commission of Conservation, which will be found of value. We are indebted to the\nCommission of Conservation for the plates used.\nWork on Oysters.\nDr. Joseph Stafford, of McGill University, who was retained by this Department to report\nupon the oysters of the Province in 1913, and who contributed valuable papers to our reports\nfor 1913 and 1914, continued his studies in the Province the past season. His further contributions to the literature on our native oysters deals with their environment. It is of especial\neconomic value to our oyster-growers and will be found in the Appendix of this report.\nThe Crab Investigation.\nF. W. Weymouth, Assistant Professor of Physiology of Stanford University, continued the\ninvestigation of our edible crabs undertaken two years ago. The field-work during the season\nwas chiefly devoted to the fishing-ground in the vicinity of Prince Rupert and to the collection\nof data on the problems of age, growth, breeding, and moulting.\nMr. Weymouth's \" Contribution to the Life-history of the Pacific Edible Crab \" (No. 2) will\nbe found in the Appendix.\nReport from Spawning-grounds.\nDuring the season the Department, as usual, conducted an investigation of the salmon fishing\nand spawning waters of the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Rivers and Smith Inlets.\nDetailed reports from each section are given in the Appendix of this report. 6 Geo. 5 British Columbia. S 13\nSpawning-grounds of the Fraser River.\nThe report upon the fishing and spawning area of the Fraser River by John Pease Babcock,\nAssistant to the Commissioner, which is given in the Appendix, shows that the run of salmon\nto the Fraser River District this year presented unusual features, both on the fishing and\nspawning grounds.\nThe extent of the effort made this year to catch salmon is evidenced by the fact that in our\nown waters 2,614 gill-nets were employed, as against but 1,443 in 1911, while the gear employed\nin the State of Washington waters leading to the Fraser equalled that of four years ago. With\nsuch an amount of gear in use in both waters this year, it is presumed that a greater proportion\nof the salmon seeking this river during the fishing season were captured than in any previous\nyear. The combined catch of sockeye in the Fraser District (which includes that made in the\nwaters of the State of Washington and in our own waters) this year totalled 155,613 cases, being\nless by 34,149 cases than that of four years ago, and the smallest yet recorded in that district.\nFor the first time in many years the catch of sockeye in our own waters of the Fraser River\nDistrict was greater than that made in the State of Washington waters.\nThe run of pink salmon (0. gorbuscha), locally termed humpback, and which appear in the\nFraser District only biennially and which are known to mature in two years, showed a marked\ndecline this year from that in the previous year of their run, 1913. There was little demand\nfor these fish in our waters in the latter year, while this year there was a demand for all that\ncould be taken. Our pack this year totalled 138,305 cases, as against 20,773 cases in 1913. The\npack in the State of Washington waters shows a decrease from that of 1913 of 81,477 cases.\nIt is noted that for the first time on record the demand for pink salmon in Washington waters\nwas greatly in excess of the catch, and that buyers from that State came into our waters and\npurchased 1,100,764 fresh fish. In consequence the prices paid our fishermen were increased\nfrom 3 to 7 cents each.\nMr. Babcock reports that conditions on the spawning-beds of the Fraser River this year also\npresented unusual features. There were less sockeye on the beds in the waters above Yale than\nin any former year since 1901, when he began his investigation of conditions. On the other\nhand, the number of sockeye salmon which reached the spawning-beds of the tributaries which\nenter the Fraser below Yale was far greater than in any recent year, not excepting that of\nthe last big year, 1913. The total number of sockeye-eggs collected in this section this season\nexceeded 68,000,000, as against 23,000,000 in 1911. In addition, a larger number of sockeye\nspawned naturally. This is a most satisfactory and surprising showing, when it is remembered\nthat the total catch this year was the smallest yet made in the Fraser District. This favourable\nshowing is attributed by Mr. Babcock to the fact that the fish entered the river after the regular\nfishing for sockeye was over and the nets removed from the river. No pink salmon were\nobserved this year in the canyon of the Fraser at Hell's Gate, or in any of the tributaries of\nthe Fraser above that point. It will be recalled that our report for 1913 stated that no pink\nsalmon were observed passing through Hell's Gate, nor were any found in the waters above.\nBecause of the fact that pink salmon mature in two years and die after spawning, it is reasonable\nto believe that those entering the Fraser this year were the product of those which spawned in\nthe tributaries below the canyon at Yale in 1913, also that as no pink salmon spawned in the\nwaters above Yale in that year, there naturally could have been no run there this year.\nSummarizing his observations, Mr. Babcock concludes that \" as a result of the eggs collected\non the Lower Fraser, and of the number of fish which spawned there naturally, the sockeye\nrun four years hence (19-19) should show an increase over that of 1911, or that of this year,\nnotwithstanding the fact that less fish spawned in the upper reaches of the Fraser than four\nyears ago and no eggs were collected there.\"\nWhile no eggs were collected at the Seton Lake Hatchery this year owing to the failure of\nsalmon to reach there, the hatchery was supplied with 1,000,000 eyed sockeye eggs from the\nDominion hatchery at Pemberton Meadows, through the courtesy of Chief Inspector Cunningham, and with 6,000,000 pink-salmon eggs secured by this Department from the Mamquam\nRiver, a tributary of the Squamish River. This was made possible by the operation of the\nPacific Great Eastern Railway, which runs from the head of Howe Sound to Lillooet. The eggs\ncollected were shipped direct to the Seton Lake Hatchery and reached there the evening of the\nday they were taken. S 14\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nNass River Spawning-grounds.\nDuring the last of September Fishery Overseer J. M. Collison made an inspection of the\naccessible spawning-grounds of the Nass River in the Meziadin Lake Section. Meziadin Lake\nand its outlet streams were very much lower this year than previously recorded. This was due\nto the lack of snow on the mountains and very light summer rains. The water in the Meziadin\nRiver was so low that the sockeye had difficulty in passing the rapid or lower fall. Heretofore\nsalmon have passed this rapid with little effort by keeping to the left bank, and after passing\nover it reach the main fall at the mouth of the fishway built there in 1912-13.\nThe evidence submitted by Mr. Collison evidences that large numbers of sockeye were unable\nto pass the lower rapids this year, and in consequence were deprived of suitable spawning-beds.\nNotwithstanding that during ordinary seasons this rapid does not intercept the run, a fishway\nshould be provided. The expense of the work would be light as compared with the fishway on\nthe main falls.    Mr. Collison's report will be found in the Appendix.\nRivers and Smith Inlets Spawning-grounds.\nFishery Overseer A. W. Stone again made an inspection of the spawning-beds of both Rivers\nand Smith Inlets. All the streams tributary to Long Lake at the head of Smith Inlet were\nagain visited. The inspection was made the middle of September, some three weeks later than\nlast year. Large numbers of salmon were observed in Long Lake, as well as in all the tributaries,\nbut the numbers seen there impressed Mr. Stone as being far less than in 1914. He is of the\nopinion that there was a big falling-off in all tributaries and anticipates that this year's hatch\nwill not produce a run equal to that hatched in 1914.\nRivers Inlet.\nMr. Stone conducted his observations of the spawning-beds of Owikeno Lake, at the head\nof Rivers Inlet, in October. In summing up his investigations, he submits: \" I have every\nreason to believe the run of sockeye salmon was well up to the average and compares favourably\nwith the runs during the last two seasons. With the exception of one or two rivers reported\nupon unfavourably, and which comprise a very small proportion of the total spawning area, I\nhave no doubt the enormous number of sockeye seen on the beds will produce a big run from\nthis season's spawning.\" Mr. Stone's reports are of value and will be found in the Appendix\nof this report.\nSkeena River Spawning-grounds.\nWe are indebted to Colonel F. H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Province,\nfor the following summary of a report made to him by Fishery Guardian MacKendricks of\nconditions on the Skeena River spawning-grounds for 1915. Our own Inspector reached the lake\ntoo late to obtain reliable information.\n\" Sockeye salmon made their appearance at the entrance to Babine early in July and\ncontinued throughout August and early September. All the tributaries of Babine Lake were\nwell stocked. Several streams contained more fish than in former seasons. On the Babine\nRiver and at the lower end of that lake the Indians had no difficulty in taking all the salmon\nthey wished for their winter supply. The streams were so well supplied that the outlook for\nthe run four years hence is excellent.\"\nStatement showing Salmon-eggs collected for the  Hatcheries  in  the  Province for the\nYear 1915.\nHatcbery.\nSockeye.\nHumpback.\nSpring.\nCoboe.\nDog\nTotals.\nHarrison  Lake\nPemberton\nStuart Lake   . .\nBabine Lake   . .\nRivers Inlet  . .\nSkeena River   .\nAnderson Lake\nKennedy Lake\nCowichan Lake\nFraser River  . .\nSeton Lake .. .\nTotals\n42,986,000\n3,549,000\n2,540,000\n1,359,000\n50,434.000\n25,250,000\n25,250,000\n5,430,000\n5,430,000\n8,440,000\n8,440.000\n12,981,000\n12,981,000\n4,244,000\n4,244.000\n4,511,000\n321,900\n4,832,900\n4,256,500\n738,000\n1,700,000\n4,256.500\n2,438,000\n240,000\n400,000\n468,000\n1,108,000\n*\nS.000.000\n6.000,000\n108,338,500\n9,949,000\n3,278.000\n3.848.900\n\u2022\n125,414,400\n1,000,000 eyed eggs received from Pemberton Hatchery and fry planted in Seton Lake. 6 Geo. 5\nBritish Columbia.\nS 15\nThe Department is indebted to Colonel F. H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector for the Province,\nfor the statement of salmon-eggs collected at the Dominion hatcheries.\nSockeye Salmon-pack* of Fraser Rtver and Puget Sound from 1900 to 1915, inclusive.\nYear.\nFraser River.\nPuget Sound.\nTotals.\n1900\n1901\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n229.800\n928,669\n293,477\n204,809\n72,688\n837,489\n183,007\n62.617\n74,574\n585,435\n150,432\n62,817\n123,879\n736,661\n198,183\n91,130\n228,704\n1,105,096\n339,556\n167,211\n123,419\n847,122\n182,241\n96,974\n155,218\n1,005,120\n234,437\n126,950\n183,896\n1,664,827\n336.251\n64,584\n458,504\n2,033,765\n633,033\n372,020\n196,107\n1,684,611\n365,248\n159,591\n229,792\n1,590,555\n384,869\n189,767\n307.775\n2,401,488\n534,434\n155,714\nGiven in cases\u2014forty-eight 1-lb. cans to case.\nSockeye Egg-take at Fraser River Hatcheries from 1901 to 1915.\n1901      15,741,000\n1902      72,034,000\n1903      13,464,000\n1904       9,469,000\n1905    97,656,000\n1906    51,121,000\n1907    53,952,000\n1908   46,709,000\n1909    98,000,000\n1910    37,343,000\n1911    22,937,000\n1912    38,500,000\n1913     86,000,000\n1914   28,589,000\n1915   68,476,000\nSockeye-pack of Northern British Columbia from 1902 to 1915, inclusive.\nYear.\nNass River.\nSkeena River.\nRivers Inlet.\nOutlying.\nTotal.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n190,8\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n20,953\n117,677\n68,819\n8,438\n50,968\n68.119\n15,000\n93,404\n93,862\n24,462\n91,717\n82,741\n22,166\n86,394\n122,631\n17,813\n108,413\n87,874\n27,584\n139,846\n64.652\n28,246\n87,901\n89.027\n30,810\n187,246\n126,921\n37,327\n131,066\n88,763\n36,037\n92,498\n112.884\n23,574\n52,927\n61,745\n31,327\n130,166\n89,890\n39,349\n116,553\n130,350\n30,510\n36.292\n45.272\n51,234\n45,481\n40,159\n48,367\n49.832\n70,506\n67,866\n79,464\n149.336\n87.130\n98,660\n237,959\n163,908\n250.538\n243.184\n276,672\n254,259\n260.449\n255.006\n415,483\n325,022\n320,883\n252,382\n338.513\n384,912 S 16 Eeport of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nAPPENDICES.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE FRASER RIVER.\nHon. W. J. Bowser, K.C.,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to submit the following report of the inspection of the salmon fishing\nand spawning grounds of the Fraser River and its tributaries which I conducted during the past\nseason. Following the usual custom, I visited those sections of the rivers watershed frequented\nby salmon during the spawning season. In this work I was ably assisted by Inspector Hickman\nand Fishery Overseer Newcombe. I am also indebted to correspondents for information as to\nconditions in out-lying sections which I was unable to personally visit.\nThe run of salmon to the Fraser River District this year presented unusual features, both\non the fishing and spawning grounds. It is locally well known that the catch of sockeye and\npink salmon this year, both in our own waters and in the estuaries in the State of Washington\nleading to the Fraser, was the smallest on record notwithstanding the fact that the efforts made\nto catch the fish were greater than in any previous season, and the further fact that the prices\npaid for the fish were higher. In the estuary waters of the State of Washington leading to\nthe Fraser, 268 traps, 137 purse-seines, and 509 gill-nets were employed in catching salmon this\nyear, as against 300 traps, 137 purse-seines, and 459 gill-nets employed four years ago. The\nextent of the efforts made this year is more evident when it is remembered that in the last year\nof the big run (1913) 311 traps, 252 purse-seines, and 170 gill-nets were used. In our own waters\n2,614 gill-nets were engaged this year, as against 1,443 in 1911. In the last big year (1913) our\nfishermen used 2,560 gill-nets, and in 1914 2,656. With such an amount of gear in use in both\nwaters it is fair to presume that a greater proportion of the fish seeking the Fraser during the\nfishing season were captured this year than in any previous year.\nThe statement that the catch of sockeye this year was the smallest yet made in the Fraser\nDistrict should occasion no surprise when due consideration is given to the statement of\nDr. Gilbert in the Department reports for 1913 and 1914, that the race of sockeye frequenting\nthe Fraser River predominantly is a four-year fish, and coupled with the Department's reports\nfor 1911, stating \" that the run of sockeye to the spawning-beds was lighter than in any previous\nyear; that scarcely any sockeye reached the area above the great canyon of the Fraser at Yale,\nan area comprising 75 per cent, of the watershed of the Fraser; and that in the Harrison Lake\nand Lillooet Lake Sections, at most comprising but 25 per cent, of the available spawning area,\nless'than half the sock-eye reaching there four years ago (the poorest previous year) spawned\nnaturally, or were spawned this year. ... It is certain that never in the past has the\nnumber of sockeye salmon reaching this district (the Fraser above Yale) fallen so low as\nit did this year.\"\nThe combined catch of sockeye in the Fraser District (which includes that made in the\nwaters of Puget Sound, in the State of Washington, and in our own waters) this year totalled\n155,613 cases, being less by 34,149 cases than that of four years ago, and the smallest on record.\nThe catch in our own waters was greater by 28,313 cases than that of 1911, while the catch in\nthe waters of the same district in the State of Washington was less than that recorded in that\nyear by 62,467 cases, a loss in that State of nearly 50 per cent. This is the first time in many\nyears that our catch in this district has exceeded theirs.\nThe run of pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), locally termed humpback, and which appears in the\nFraser District only biennially and which are known to mature in two years, showed a marked\ndecline from that made in the previous year of their run, 1913. The total pack of the district\nthis year amounted to 722,034 cases, as against 812,659 cases in 1913, a decrease of 90,625 cases.\nThe Puget Sound pack consisted of 583,649 cases, while the 1913 pack totalled 791,886 cases.\nThe pack in our own waters of this district consisted of 138,305 cases, as against 20,773 cases in\n1913. There was no demand for this species in our waters in 1913. The run that year in our\nown and Washington waters was greatly in excess of the demand.    In consequence the pack of 6 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of the Fraser. S 17\nthat year cannot be taken as evidence of the size of the run. The pack this year was limited\nonly by the supply, and for the first time on record the catch in Puget Sound waters did not\nequal the demands of the canners operating there, with the result that buyers came over the\nInternational Line and purchased pinks directly from our fishermen and exported them for\ncanning. Previous to their entering our market the fishermen were getting but 3 cents each for\nfish; afterwards many sales were made at 6 cents each, and in some cases as high as 7 cents\nwas paid. Customs returns show that 1,100,764 pink salmon were exported to the United States\nin a fresh state this year.\nConditions on the Spawning-beds of the Fraser.\nConditions on the spawning-beds of the Fraser this year also presented unusual features.\nThere were less sockeye on the beds in the waters above Yale (which includes the greater portion\nof the spawning area of the river) than in any former year since 1901, when our inspection\nbegan, and no sockeye-eggs were collected. On the other hand, the number of salmon on the\nspawning-beds of the tributaries which enter the Fraser below Yale (which includes the Harrison\nand Lillooet Lake Section) was far greater than in any recent year, not excepting that of the\nlast big year, 1913. The total number of sockeye-eggs collected in this section this season\nexceeded 68,000,000, as against 22,937,000 in 1911. In addition, as is hereafter shown in detail,\na large number of sockeye spawned naturally. This is a most satisfactory but surprising\nshowing, especially when it is remembered that the total catch this year was the smallest yet\nmade in the Fraser District. No doubt this favourable showing is attributable to the fact that\nthe fish entered the river after the regular fishing season for sockeye was over and the nets had\nbeen removed.\nAs a result of the eggs collected on the Lower Fraser, and of the number of fish which\nspawned there naturally, the sockeye run four years hence (1919) should show an increase over\nthat of 1911, or of that of this year, notwithstanding the fact that less fish spawned in the upper\nreaches of the Fraser than four years ago, and no eggs were collected there.\nConditions in the Canyon of the Fraser at Hell's Gate.\nThe Department reports for 1913 and 1914 set forth in detail the conditions in the Fraser\nchannel at Hell's Gate, above Yale, which seriously interrupted in those years the salmon\nmigration to the spawning-grounds above. The removal of the great masses of rock which\nobstructed the channel which was undertaken in the winter of 1914 was prosecuted with\nintelligence and vigour throughout that year, and was completed early in 1915. The result\nof this work has been to practically fully restore the river to its former channel. The final\nreport of the engineer in charge of this work may be found in the Appendix of this Department's\nreport for 1914, which was issued in July, 1915.\nNotwithstanding the fact that the channel at Hell's Gate is believed to have been fully\nrestored, the salmon which reached there in August and September of this year were considerably delayed, and for days at a time were unable to pass to the waters above. Previous to the\ngreat rock-slides of 1913 and 1914 the salmon commonly met with difficulty in passing through\nthe swift waters at the Gate. The rapids there presented the first real obstacle encountered\nby the advancing fish, and at certain water-levels their delay was marked. During August and\nSeptember of this year, when the greater portion of the run reached Hell's Gate, Fishery Overseer Newcombe, who was stationed there throughout the season, reports that for days at a\ntime he could find no fish in the eddies above the Gate, and was of the opinion that for a time\nnone succeeded in getting through. At no time this season was there a noticeable number of\nsockeye assembled in any of the eddies in the river, except those immediately below the Gate,\nand it is believed that all eventually reached the waters above. No sockeye were noted in the\ncanyon in June and very few in July. Indians fished there in both June and July, but their\ncatches consisted chiefly of a limited number of spring salmon, though a few sockeye were taken\nin the latter part of July. The movement of sockeye throughout August and September was\nnoticeable, but at no time this season were they seen there in as great numbers as in 1914. The\ngreatest number which passed through Hell's Gate in one clay he placed at 4,000. Very few fish\nwere observed there in October.\nNo pink-salmon were observed in the canyon this season. It will be recalled that the report\nfor 1913 stated that no pink salmon were observed passing through the Gate, nor were any\nfound in the waters above.\n2 S 18 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nConditions in Fraser River Canyon near Bridge River.\nSockeye salmon made their first appearance at the canyon in the Fraser, just above the\nmouth of Bridge River, the latter part of July, but not in numbers until the end of August.\nThe run that month was light. It is estimated that the Indians who nvere fishing from both\nbanks of the river that month caught less than 1,000. During the month of September their\ncatch is estimated at 6,000, and during October and November at 3,500; a total for the season\nof 10,400.\nWater conditions were favourable to the passage of the fish until the latter end of the\nseason. At high water conditions are less favourable for the catching of salmon by the Indians.\nDuring low-water levels the Indians take the greater proportion of those reaching this canyon.\nI am indebted to Colonel F. H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Province,\nfor the above figures.    He maintained an officer there during the entire season.\nConditions at Seton Lake.\nNot to exceed 200 sockeye reached Seton Lake this season, and they came scatteringly during\nthe latter part of September and the early part of October. There was no later run. Early\nthis season the customary retaining-weirs were placed in the stream at the outlet of the lake,\nand all the fish which reached there were detained in the seining-pool, but at no time was there\na sufficient number of fish to warrant taking them for spawning purposes. All were permitted\nto spawn naturally.    No eggs were secured from this section this season.\nNo pink salmon reached the retaining-weirs at Seton Lake this year. Not a single specimen\nof that species was observed there, while up to 1913 countless numbers of pink salmon had\nreached this section every alternate year. Although the run of pinks to the Fraser River was\nexceptionally large in 1913, it will be recalled that none were able to pass through the canyon\nat Hell's Gate. Because of the fact that pink salmon mature in two years and die after spawning, it is reasonable to believe that those entering the Fraser this year were the product of\nthose which spawned in the tributaries below the canyon at Yale in 1913. Hence their failure\nto run to Seton Lake caused no surprise.\nVery few cohoe or spring salmon reached Seton Lake this year, and no eggs were secured\nthere.\nAnticipating that there would be no run of pink salmon to Seton Lake, arrangements were\nmade in September to secure eggs of that species from the run to the Mamquam River, near\nSquamish, at the head of Howe Sound, on the line of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. This\nrailroad runs close to the hatchery at Seton Lake, and its completion this year from the head\nof Howe Sound enabled the Department, for the first time, to go outside for eggs. Between\nSeptember 15th and October 4th 6,000,000 pink-salmon eggs were collected from the Mamquam\nRiver and transported over the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to the hatchery, and were\nsuccessfully landed there the evening of the same day they were expressed from the fish. As\na result of this successful experiment the Department should hereafter establish egg-collecting\nstations on the streams emptying into Howe Sound. The variety of pink salmon which run\nto the streams there are considerably larger and heavier than those which hertofore have run\nto Seton Lake, and are thought by many to be superior for canning. The eggs secured were\nsuccessfully hatched in December. The young fish will later be transferred from the hatching-\ntroughs to the large retaining-tanks and there held until they are able to swim freely and are\nfeeding. They will then be permitted to pass out at will into the stream which leads to the\nFraser.\nOn December 14th 1,000,000 sockeye-eggs were delivered at the Seton Lake Hatchery by\nMr. T. W. Graham, Superintendent of the Dominion hatchery at Pemberton Meadows, at the\nhead of Lillooet Lake. These eggs were a gift from the Dominion Fisheries Department through\nthe kindness of the Chief Inspector of Fisheries F. II. Cunningham. They were collected from\nthe Birkenhead River, a tributary of Lillooet Lake, and after being eyed were transported over\nthe Pacific Great Eastern Railway from one hatchery to the other in four hours. The eggs\nwere received in excellent condition. Not to exceed twelve dead eggs were removed from the\nbaskets in the three days following their delivery. They began hatching by December 20th,\nand all were hatched in a few days. The alevins will be retained in the hatchery until their\nsacks are absorved, and then transferred to large retaining-tanks, where they will be fed until 6 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of the Fraser. S 19\nMay, and they will then be released on the shoals at the head of Seton Lake.    It is anticipated\nthat some of these fish will return to Seton Lake four years hence.\nShuswap and Adams Lakes.\nFew salmon of any species were to be found in the Shuswap and Adams Lakes Sections this\nyear. So few, in fact, that the Indians along the Thompson River and at the lakes did not catch\nenough to dry any. Throughout the season no salmon were observed or taken at the dam at\nthe outlet of Adams Lake or in the Lower Adams River. The hatchery at Granite Creek was\nabandoned and dismantled and will not again be operated, because in the last five years a\nsufficient number of salmon has not reached this section to warrant its operation.\nNo pink salmon were found either in the Thompson or Nicola Rivers this season, though up\nto two years ago they spawned there in vast numbers.\nQuesnel Lake.\nThe number of salmon which reached Quesnel Lake this season was the smallest yet recorded.\nAll the fish which enter this lake are obliged to pass through the fishway in the raceway of\nthe great dam at the lake's outlet. While passing from the fishway into the lake they are\neasily counted. As in former years, the Department maintained a watchman at the dam\nthroughout the season, whose duty it was to carefully note, each day, the movements of fish\nthrough the fishway. He recorded his observations many times daily. His journal discloses\nthat the first sockeye reached the great pool at the lower end of the raceway on August 26th\n(fully two weeks later than usual), and that they continued to arrive in small numbers until\nSeptember 3rd, when the run ceased. The greatest number noted passing through the fishway\nin any one hour was thirty. The average hourly number from August 26th to September 4th\nwas but twelve. Using this as a basis of calculation, it appears that during the nine days' run\nthis year less than 3,000 sockeye entered Quesnel Lake, one of the largest lakes in the watershed\nof the Fraser. It is of interest in this connection to note that in the big run of 1909, when a\nsimilar record was kept, over 4,000,000 sockeye entered the lake. I visited the dam the last\nday of the run, and after reading the watchman's journal abandoned making my proposed\ninspection of the tributaries of Quesnel Lake. That such an inspection was unnecessary is\nshown by the reports received from the Horsefly and other tributaries to the effect that very\nfew salmon appeared in any of them this season.\nChilko Lake.\nThe number of sockeye which entered the Chilcotin River, en route to Chilko Lake at its\nhead, this season was so small as to attract no attention. The Indians fishing at Fish Canyon,\nHanceville, and Indian Bridge caught a few during the last days of August, but did not catch\nenough to furnish food for those assembled there. None were dried. In consequence of the\nfailure of sockeye to run into the Chilcotin River, the spawning-beds of Chilko Lake, which is\nthe largest lake in the Fraser watershed and the main source of the former river, were unseeded\nthis year.\nConditions in Fraser River Watershed above Quesnel River.\nStuart Lake.\u2014Mr. A. C. Murray, Mining Recorder at Fort St. James, Stuart Lake, writes:\n\" This season hardly any salmon entered Stuart Lake. The Indians around the lake may have\ncaught a dozen sockeye amongst them all, but I am certain not twenty were taken during the\nseason. However, it will interest you to learn that for this part of the country there was a\ngood run of spring salmon. These fish do not enter the lake, but spawn in the upper reaches\nof Stuart River. This run was much later than usual. It commenced towards the end of\nSeptember, and lasted until about October 20th. It is estimated that 5,000 spring salmon\nspawned in Stuart River last fall.\"\nConditions below the Canyon at Hell's Gate.\nIt gives pleasure to record that the number of sockeye which entered the lake-fed streams\nof the Fraser below the canyon at Yale, which includes both Harrison and Lillooet Lakes, this\nyear greatly exceeded the number previously recorded there in any off-year, and as great even\nas during the last big year (1913), or greater. The hatcheries in this section collected 68,575,000\nsockeye-eggs, and in addition large numbers of sockeye spawned naturally. S 20 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nLillooet Lake.\nThe number of sockeye which reached the egg-collecting stations of the hatchery at the head\nof the Lillooet Lake this season was larger than in any recent off-year, and compared favourably\nwith the number which reached there in 1913, the last big year. The fish first made their\nappearance on August 19th, somewhat later than usual. Egg-collecting began on September 16th,\nand was continued until October 13th, during which period 25,000,000 sockeye-eggs were secured,\nas against 12,500,000 taken four years ago. The collections this year are not, however, to be\ntaken as indicating that the number of fish which entered Lillooet Lake this year greatly\nexceeded the run of 1911, because such is not believed to be the case. For the past four years\nthe Dominion Fisheries authorities have maintained an officer in this section whose duty has\nbeen to enforce the fishing regulations, the result of which has been that the Indians during\nthe last three seasons have not been permitted to intercept the fish before they reached the\nspawning-stations. The salmon which enter Lillooet Lake come from Harrison Lake through\nthe Lillooet River. In passing out of the latter they are subjected to capture in the rapids at\nits head by Indians who assemble there in numbers and use dip-nets. They formerly captured\nat this point all the salmon possible, regardless of sex. During the last three seasons Officer\nGrant prevailed upon them to confine their catch to fish sufficient for their immediate needs,\nand to retain only the males taken. His efforts in this regard have been most successful, not\nonly at the rapids at the head of the Lillooet River, but also in the lower reaches of the Birkenhead River at the head of Lillooet Lake. His efforts have in no measure cut off the Indians\nfrom their usual supply of salmon for curing, since they are given, throughout the season, all\nthe fish which are taken and spawned at the egg-collecting stations. During the early part of\nthe season before egg-collecting is begun, the Indian residents at Pemberton Meadows, and close\nto the hatchery, are supplied with sufficient male fish to meet their requirement for fresh food.\nThe stripping of the fish at the hatchery does not lessen their value as food to the Indians. By\ntaking these stripped fish from the egg-collecting stations their labour is lessened, and the total\nnumber of fish secured by them is greater than they would have secured by their former methods\nof catching salmon.\nSome investigators have recently sought to create the impression that the establishment and\noperation of hatcheries in the vicinity of Indian salmon-fishing grounds works a hardship on\nthe Indians by depriving them of their usual supply of salmon for curing. Such is not the case.\nOn the contrary, the Indians are directly benefited. Many of them are given employment at\nthe hatcheries. In one season's operations at the hatchery at Seton Lake the Indians employed\nwere paid over $1,200 for labour in collecting and caring for eggs. Many are thus employed at\nthe various hatcheries every season. The total number of fish secured and cured by them is as\ngreat as formerly, and even greater in seasons when the run is light. The fish also are in every\nway as suitable for curing as though they had taken them in their customary way. The most\nthat can be truthfully stated by them in opposition to this method of securing fish is that they\nare occasionally delayed for a short time in beginning their operations for curing.\nThe run of .cohoe to this section was very light and no pink salmon reached there.\nHarrison Lake.\nThe number of sockeye which entered the tributaries of Harrison Lake this season was\ngreater than in recent off-years. The number of sockeye-eggs collected at the stations on the\nlake proper and at Morris Creek exceeded that of 1911.\nThe run of pinks to the tributaries of Harrison Lake was very light, but they spawned in\ngreat numbers in the streams tributary to Harrison River.\nCultus Lake.\nOperations at the egg-collecting station on Cultus Lake, at the head of a tributary entering\nthe Fraser from the east side and below the mouth of the Harrison River, were most successful,\nand far exceeded all previous records at any station on the Lower Fraser. Sockeye appeared\nthere in limited numbers as early as September 15th, but not in large numbers until October\n15th. The great majority reached there between the latter date and November 30th. Egg-\ncollecting began November 1st and continued until well into December. In all, 30,000,000\nsockeye-eggs were secured. 6 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of the Fraser. S 21\nWhen it became evident that the total collections of sockeye-eggs at Cultus Lake and other\nauxiliary stations of the larger hatchery at Harrison Lake would exceed its capacity, an auxiliary\nhatchery was constructed at Cultus Lake and filled to its capacity of 7,000,000 in December. The\nbalance of the eggs taken were transferred to the hatchery at Harrison Lake and are mentioned\nin the record there.\nIn addition to the large number of fish spawned at Cultus Lake, it is to be noted that\nupwards of 20,000 sockeye were permitted to pass through the retaining-weirs there and spawn\nnaturally in the streams above. Those streams were better stocked naturally, notwithstanding\nthe hatchery operations, than in any former year.\nIt is believed that the sockeye which reached Cultus Lake and other sections of the Lower\nFraser entered that river after the regular sockeye-fishing season was over and the nets removed\nfrom its waters. This is indicated (1) by the fact that the catches made during the last ten\ndays of the fishing season were very light; (2) the fish were very late in appearing at the\nstations; and the further fact (3) that the fish spawned there did not show any of the net-\nmarks on their sides and backs, which are so commonly found on the females manipulated at\nother stations.\nPitt Lake.\nFor the first time sockeye-eggs in considerable numbers were taken this year from the\ntributaries of Pitt Lake. All previous efforts to take sockeye-eggs there have failed, because\nthat species has not appeared there in sufficient numbers. Sockeye were this year observed\nthere in August, but not in large numbers until September. In September and October they\nsought entrance to all the main streams of the lake. In addition to the sockeye-eggs taken,\nmany fish spawned naturally. With the exception of 1,000,000, all the eggs taken at Pitt Lake\nwere forwarded to Harrison Lake Hatchery and are shown in the totals recorded there.\nThe remarkably large number of sockeye which entered Cultus and Pitt Lakes this season\nwas the distinguishing feature of this year's run to the Fraser watershed.\nI have, etc.,\nJohn P. Babcock,\nAssistant to the Commissioner.\nVictoria, B.C., December SOth, 1915. THE SPAWNING-GROUNDS OF RIVERS INLET.\nHon. W. J. Bowser, E.C.,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014Continuing my inspection of the spawning-grounds, I have the honour to submit my\nreport upon the conditions existing at Owikeno Lake, Rivers Inlet, in 1915.\nLeaving Rivers Inlet Cannery on October 4th, I proceeded at once to the head of the lake,\nwhich stretches for a distance of forty miles, and commenced an examination at Indian River.\nIt was very low, and on travelling up in the canoe very few sockeye were observed, and those\nthat were appeared to be all spawned out, and this was further evidenced by an examination\nof several before I could obtain one suitable for the collection of specimen eggs desired by the\nDepartment. This river clearly did not show up as favourably as last year, and this deduction\nwas borne out by one of the men from the hatchery, who stated that, while the Cheo and\nWashwash Rivers were full of sockeye salmon three weeks prior to my visit, few sockeye were\nobserved by him in the Indian River.\nThe Cheo River, which received my attention next, was very thick and muddy, due to the\nglacier, and very low; the result was I had an uninterrupted view of the salmon right up to\nthe falls. The riffles and bars were literally packed with spawning sockeye, and am of opinion\nthe beds will be as thickly seeded as last year. The log-jam at the bend had not materially\nchanged, and the salmon were able to reach the falls without difficulty. Here they were seen\nin large numbers, many making great efforts to surmount them, but all in vain. No log-jam\nother than the one already referred to interrupted their progress. In size the sockeye compared\nfavourably with those seen last year. I noticed quite a sprinkling of \" grilse \" in the river,\nresembling very much in size and appearance the sockeye tested by Dr. C. H. Gilbert and myself\nat Bella Bella Cannery during the fishing season, and which he termed three-year sockeye. I\nexamined several to determine the sex, and found they were all males.\nAn examination of the Washwash River revealed the fine spawning-bed thickly massed with\nsockeye. All the way to the falls, a distance of two miles and a half, the river-bed bore the\nsame tale. A very large proportion had spawned out, and it required the handling of several\nbefore obtaining one containing eggs. Their size in no way differed from the run last year.\nThe log-jam still obstructed the mouth, but did not hinder the movement of the salmon to the\nupper reaches. I have no doubt the fine showing here will produce its full quota of sockeye\nfrom this season's spawning.\nReturning from the head of the lake, I looked into Sunday Creek, and find it still keeps up\nits reputation. The beds were covered with sockeye, the greater number having spawned out.\nIn size they were exceptionally large fish, some of them weighing 10 and 11 lb. each. The cohoe\nsalmon had not yet invaded the spawning-ground here, although the Indians say that later on\na large number come in.\nPassing through the Narrows, which lies about thirty-two miles from the mouth of the lake,\nI observed the sockeye in great numbers spawning on the fine gravel-bars at this point, which\nshould provide a full quota of salmon from this season's spawning.\nThe Sheemahant River hereafter will be remembered by me with feelings of the greatest\nrespect. It was while negotiating one of the many rapids in our endeavour to reach the falls\nthat an accident happened, very nearly placing us hors de combat; our canoe caught on a\nsubmerged boulder, and in trying to extricate ourselves it overturned, with the result that we\nwere precipitated into the raging torrent. Beyond, however, a ducking and the loss of all our\ncamping outfit and provisions, no further harm befell us. In spite of this misfortune, I was\nable to form a good idea as to conditions existing in the finest salmon-stream tributary to the\nlake. The sockeye in thousands could be seen spawning all the way up the river. In making\na comparison with the run of last year, I have no reason to doubt that it is equally as good.\nCareful note of their size was made and found to be well up to the average of those seen in\nthe other rivers.   No log-jams interefered with the progress of the fish all the way to the falls.\nJeneesee Creek was exceptionally low for this time of the year and very few sockeye had\ncome in.    Many could be seen playing around outside and others spawning on the gravel-bars 6 Geo. 5 Spawning-grounds of Rivers Inlet. S 23\nat the entrance to the creek. (It will be remembered that in making an inspection three weeks\nearlier in the season at this point last year I found the creek crowded with sockeye.) The\nhatchery officials were waiting in vain to get the pen full, so that eggs could be collected for\nthe hatchery. Conditions improved somewhat after my inspection of the Machmell and Nookins\nRivers. With the rise of the creek they were rushing up in great numbers, and on reaching the\npen were quickly spawned out by the hatchery-men, who by this means filled about four boxes\nwith eggs. The falling-off in the number is most marked and shows no comparison with the\nrun to this stream last year; their size, however, compares very favourably. The log-jams still\nobstructed the creek all the way to the falls, but did not prevent the salmon from reaching the\nhead. I noticed a few grilse, which had managed to get through the fence, swimming around\nin the upper reaches.    An examination of a few proclaimed them to be of the male sex.\nThe Machmell River, a swift-running glacier stream, was in \" freshet\" and prevented\nsatisfactory observations. An examination made under difficulties through the bush for several\nmiles revealed very few sockeye, the thick muddy water preventing an accurate estimation of\ntheir numbers.\nThe Nookins River, on the other hand, was in every way favourable for observing conditions,\nand on making our way up through the rapids and shallow water, sockeye salmon in dense\nmasses could be seen spawning out on the fine gravel beds. No log-jams arrested their progress\nto the upper reaches, and am of opinion the run to this stream is equal to the big run experienced\nhere last year. Little difference was noticed in the size of the sockeye; they were well up to\nthe average of other streams.\nThe Asklum River was in \" freshet\" at the time of my visit and compelled me to take to\nthe bush for the purpose of reaching the head. I noticed from the mouth thousands of sockeye\nspawning on the fine gravel-bars at this point. Observations of the river up to the falls revealed\nthe same conditions; no falling-off in the run here has taken place; it was equally as prolific\nas last year. The size of the salmon was also well up to the average. The small grilse were\nagain in evidence here, as in the case of Cheo River and Jeneesee Creek, but the river was\nrunning too strong to allow an examination to be made for the determination of sex. With\nthe exception of two windfalls obstructing the river, but not impeding the progress of the salmon,\nthe way was clear to the head.\nQuap River came under inspection next, and was observed to be crowded with a seething\nmass of sockeye waiting to reach the upper part of the river. The hatchery officials here were\nmaking a great showing, and had collected in the neighbourhood of 6,000,000 eggs, and hoped to\nfill the hatchery within the week. Unfortunately at this time, and while I was staying at the\ncamp, a terrific downpour of rain threatened disaster to their hopes. The \" freshet\" which was\ncaused swept over the fence, partly destroying it, and gave the milling mass of sockeye waiting\nbelow their chance. In the mad rush many were left high and dry in the woods, and observing\nthe effect next morning at the fence very few sockeye could be seen. An examination of the\nmouth of the creek turned out more favourable. A large number of sockeye were noted at this\npoint, and which I have no doubt will provide enough eggs to allow the hatchery to receive its\nfull complement. The great windfall obstructing the river all the way to the falls undoubtedly\nsaved the situation to the hatchery. Had it not beeu for this nothing could have withstood the\nraging torrent which swept down during the storm. The sockeye were of average size and\ncompared very favourably with the run here the previous season, and in numbers about twice\nas many, and in this estimate the hatchery-men agreed with me.\nCrossing to the Dalleg River, similar conditions presented themselves. The river was\nrushing down with such volume it was necessary to take to the foothills and gradually work\naround until the falls were reached. Here the salmon could be seen in thousands. It was,\nhowever, impossible to get sufficiently near to hook one for the purpose of obtaining specimen\neggs. Observations taken here satisfied me there was no falling-off in the run of sockeye salmon\nto this river, and am of opinion the spawning-beds will be abundantly seeded.\nThe hatchery creek did not receive as many sockeye this year. The bars outside and in\nfront of the hatchery were covered with spawning sockeye, and 1 agree with Captain Hamer,\nSuperintendent of the Dominion hatchery, that the sockeye this year, instead of going into the\ncreek, are making use of the gravel-bars outside for the deposit of spawn. A collection of about\n800,000 eggs had been received at the hatchery from this creek.   I am also given to understand S 24 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\na big run of humpbacks invaded the spawning-beds here during the latter part of August. The\nexceptional size of the sockeye was most pronounced, averaging much larger than those hitherto\nmet with in the other rivers.\nA fine expanse of spawning-ground extending along the upper end of the Owikeno River,\nnear the Rancherie, was thickly massed, with spawning sockeye, which, according to the belief\nof the Indians, belong to a later run, and when ripe for spawning, instead of passing up the\nlake, drop back and spawn on the bars at this point. The whole tribe of Indians were located\nhere, and in answer to inquiries why they were not obtaining their winter supply of salmon\nfrom other portions of the tributaries to the lake as last year, they informed me the sockeye\ncaught here retain their condition very much better after being smoked as against those\nobtained on the other rivers. An examination of the sockeye swimming around here certainly\nbore out the theory; if looks were anything to go by, all appeared to be well nourished and\nwere undoubtedly fine specimens of the sockeye species.\nI did not see many cohoe salmon in the rivers, but on returning down the lake numbers\ncould be observed breaking water, which would indicate that the spawning-grounds later on\nwill be abundantly seeded by this species of salmon.\nThe Owikeno River was exceptionally high and precluded satisfactory observations of the\nspring salmon which usually make use of the spawning-grounds here.\nAt the request of the Department, I have obtained a collection of salmon-eggs from the\nvarious rivers, at the same time registering the temperature of the water.\nIn summing up the results of my investigations of the tributaries to the Owikeno Lake, I\nhave every reason to believe the run of sockeye salmon was well up to the average and compares\nvery favourably with the runs during the past two seasons. With the exception of one or two\nrivers reported upon unfavourably, and which comprise a very small proportion of the total\nspawning area, I have no doubt the enormous number of sockeye seen on the beds will produce\na big run from this season's spawning.\nAllow me, in conclusion, to express my appreciation of the kind hospitality extended to our\nparty by Mr. A. W. Carter, of the Rivers Inlet Cannery; Captain Hamer, of the Dominion\nhatchery; and the men at the various camps, to whose assistance I am indebted for a very\nsuccessful trip.\nI have, etc.,\nArthur W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 2nd, 1915.\nTHE SPAWNING-GEOUNDS OF SMITH INLET.\nHon. W. J. Bowser, K.C.,\nCommissioner of Fisheries,  Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to submit the following report of an inspection of the spawning-\ngrounds of the tributaries of Smith Inlet, conducted in September, 1915 :\u2014\nBearing in mind the exceptionally bad weather prevailing last year, and also with the\ndesire to see what the spawning-grounds would be like by an inspection three weeks earlier in\nthe season, I proceeded to Smith Inlet first, arriving there on September 16th.\nThe Docee River (the overflow to the lake), through which the sockeye salmon have to\npass to reach the spawning-ground, was very low and no difficulty was experienced in reaching\nthe lake. I noticed on the way up an exceptionally large number of spring salmon. They were\nseen here last year, but in nothing like the numbers met with on this trip. They were also\nthickly dotted along the shore at the mouth of the lake. Large numbers of sockeye salmon, too,\nwere swimming around at this point.\nProceeding to Quay Creek, which lies about seven miles from the mouth, I found the low\nstate of the water affected to a great extent the entrance. It did not, however, prevent the\nsalmon from passing in.    An examination of the spawning-grounds here and at the foot of the 6 Geo. 5 Spawning-grounds of Smith Inlet.\nfalls was distinctly disappointing. Very few sockeye could be seen, and these were for the most\npart green and not ready to spawn out. They could be seen breaking water in large numbers\noutside, so I decided to give this creek another visit on my return from the head of the lake.\nThe volume of water pouring over the falls last year, and which prevented an examination of\nthe upper reaches, did not deter me this time. A creek, running for about half a mile, opened\nout into a large lake. No sockeye or other salmon could reach this point, as the falls form an\ninsurmountable barrier.\nOn reaching the head of the lake very different conditions presented themselves. Thousands\nof sockeye salmon could be seen spawning out on the bars at the entrance to the river, the low\nstate of the lake providing an uninterrupted view.\nPassing up the Geluch River, the sockeye were noticed thickly massed on the bars and\nusing every foot of spawning-ground for the deposit of ova. This fine river with its natural\nbeds provided every facility to the salmon. No log-jams were seen to arrest their progress to\nthe falls, three and a half miles up. The bears had played havoc with the fish; hundreds could\nbe seen on the bar and in the bush, partly devoured, and the stench arising was overpowering.\nI am of the opinion that in numbers and size the sockeye salmon seen on the spawning-grounds\nhere compare favourably with the run to this point last year.\nAn examination of the Delabah River, lying about two miles from the head of the lake, did\nnot show up as favourably in comparison with last year's run of sockeye. The spawning-grounds\nwere alive with salmon, it is true, but the vast horde which had taken possession of this river,\nand noted on my previous visit, was missing; one-fourth would be a fair estimate of the number\nseen;   in size they compare very favourably.\nThe low state of the river may have accounted for the poor showing, but in observing the\nnumbers swimming around outside it did not indicate that the exceptional run of last year would\nbe repeated.\nThe fine gravel spawning-grounds reaching out into the lake, and which I feared might go\ndry at low water, is not the case. The lake, although at its lowest mark, covered the beds.\nThe absence of the milling mass of sockeye seen last year was most marked, and in this case\none-fourth of the numbers previously covering these grounds would be a fair estimate of the\nsockeye utilizing them for the deposit of spawn.\nReturning from the lake, I noticed the sockeye salmon breaking water in large numbers.\nLooking into Quay Creek, conditions were much better; the sockeye were coming in, and from\nthe number observed the beds here should he abundantly seeded, although not to the same extent\nas last year.\nOn reaching the mouth, I met the tribe of Takush Harbour Indians making their way to\nthe head for the purpose of smoking salmon for their winter's use. They were anxious to know\nif there were many fish at the Geluch, and when informed there were \" hyiu \" salmon were\ngreatly excited. I noticed they had lost no time in getting busy with the spring salmon\ncongregated at this point, as a few big fellows hanging in their shack testified.\nIn summarizing the results of my observations of the spawning-grounds, I am of the opinion,\nin basing my calculations on the run of sockeye salmon to the headwaters of this lake last year,\nthat a big falling-off will be noticeable in the run which will reach here from this season's\nspawning.\nIn conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation for the courtesy extended by Mr. G. F.\nHarris, manager of the Smith Inlet Cannery.\nI have, etc.,\nArthur W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, November 2nd, 1915. S 26 Eeport of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nTHE NASS RIVER SPAWNING-GROUNDS.\nHon. W. J. Botvser, K.C.,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014I beg to submit a report on my investigation of the spawning-grounds of Meziadin\nLake, Nass River.\nOn September 22nd I went via Stewart and over the trail to Meziadin Lake and then down\nto the falls. On reaching the lake I was surprised to see comparatively few sockeye salmon\nspawning there, and, as I had never visited these grounds before, I deemed it advisable to\ninvestigate thoroughly by making a complete round of the lake, so that I could cover all the\npossible spawning-grounds.\nI found an old dug-out canoe and started with my men down the west shore to the south\nend and back up the east shore to where the Meziadin River flows down over the falls, and\nnowhere did I see what I would consider an abundance of sockeye in the lake.\nI reached the fish-ladder and did not see many fish passing up, although the few I did see\ngoing up seemed to have no difficulty in passing up with the assistance of the ladder. After\nspending a few hours at the upper falls I went down to the lower falls, and was very much\nsurprised to see the thousands of sockeye salmon below them apparently unable to get up.\nUpon investigation I found the explanation of this, and my Indian guide, who for most of the\ntime makes his home in these parts, confirmed my views.\nThe river this year, from there being less snow on the mountains to feed it and very little\nrain during the summer, was much below its usual level; consequently the water formed one\nmain fall in mid-channel which was almost impossible for salmon to negotiate. While there I\nsaw, on the other hand, when the river is sufficiently high, it spreads out and forms on the same\nside as the ladder at the upper falls a passage of water so gradual in its descent that the salmon\nget up with ease. My Indian guide stated that as a rule this passage, which was then quite\ndry, is full of water and forms the main route for the up-going fish, and that they get up that\nway with very little difficulty.\nBelow the lower falls were hundreds of dead sockeye, several of which I examined and\nfound them all spent.    I also picked up live ones and found\" them ripe and ready for spawning.\nThe difficulty in ascending the lower falls could very easily be overcome by another small\nladder, and this could be built at a much lower cost than the ladder at the upper falls. I might\nmention I had been told by a good authority that the white-nosed sockeye did not spawn in\nMeziadin Lake, so I was on the look-out for them, and was rewarded in my search, as I pulled\nout five of this kind, both male and female, from amongst the other sockeye at the foot of the\nfalls, proving that this species also spawn in the lake. I also found out from the Indian that\nthe sockeye go even farther up the Nass River than the Meziadin, as the Indians from the Upper\nSkeena River cross over the mountains and catch them in the upper reaches of the Nass.\nI was told by an Indian whose hunting-ground it is that there is another lake on the right\nbank of the Nass River nearly opposite Bowser Lake, but he did not know if it was a sockeye\nspawning-ground. .\nOn my return trip I followed up the eastern shore of the lake. This looked to me quite\nsuitable for spawning, as about 60 yards from the shore I found a depth of water of 6 feet and\na gradual slope up to the shore. On my way back to Stewart I visited the small lake that lies\nbetween the Red Cliff Mine and Bitter Creek, and found many sockeye there, as it is a favourite\nspawning-ground for the Portland Canal salmon. In fact, it is the only one of which I know.\nThe creek leading from this lake is very much in need of a cleaning-out, and this could be done\nat a small outlay, as it is only blocked by log-jams. These are, however, sufficient to keep many\nsockeye from reaching the spawning-ground, as I found many behind these jams which were\nquite spent, and, of course, all eggs lost here would be washed away by the autumn freshets.\nI have, etc.,\nJ. Maxwell Collison,\nFishery Overseer. 6 Geo. 5 Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. S 27\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE  SOCKEYE-SALMON.\n(No. 3.)\nBy Charles H. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, Stanford University.\nI. GENERAL SCOPE OF THE SEASON'S INVESTIGATIONS.\n\u2022A comprehensive examination of sockeye runs throughout the Province was undertaken in\n1915. This included not only the principal rivers, such as the Fraser, Rivers Inlet, the Skeena,\nand the Nass, but also the majority of the smaller streams which have runs of any commercial\nvalue. The more important river systems received the more detailed investigation, and were\ngiven tests at least once each week throughout the fishing season, while the smaller rivers and\ncreeks which received attention\u2014some forty-four in number\u2014were tested only once, or at most\ntwice, during the period of their respective runs.\nSome of the smaller streams were investigated for the first time in 1915, but in the case\nof others, data had accumulated from previous years and were at hand for comparison. One\nof the principal reasons for widening the scope of the investigations was to throw further light\non the applicability of the Parent Stream Theory. The validity of this important theory has\nbeen conclusively demonstrated in the case of the larger rivers of the Province, as shown in\nthe Reports of the Commissioner for 1913 and 1914. Examination of the scales had removed\nany possible doubt that the progeny of the Fraser River fish return to the Fraser at their\nmaturity, and that this is true also of the fish of each of the large river-basins. It has now\nbeen shown, as the result of the past season's work, that this same principle holds in the case\nof all the rivers and creeks, however small these may be, and however near together they may\nenter the sea.\nThe practical significance of this demonstration is entirely obvious. In order to maintain\nthe supply of salmon in a given district, it will not be adequate to install a hatchery on any\nconvenient stream, into which the entire output of the hatchery will be turned. On the contrary,\neach stream must be given separate consideration, and must receive its own quota of fry to feed\nand grow within its boundaries. The original source of the eggs is seemingly a matter of no\nimportance. The destination of the adult salmon is determined by the locality in which the\nyoung were reared. To what extent the parent-stream theory holds for the tributaries of the\nlarger river systems is as yet undetermined, and is a matter of the utmost practical importance.\nIn the Report of the Commissioner for 1913 (page 19), Mr. J. P. Babcock, Assistant to\nthe Commissioner, suggests for the first time that a portion of the Fraser River sockeye run\nmay enter from the north through Johnstone Strait. This was based largely on the reported\noccurrence of large schools seen in 1913 south of Cape Mudge, and also on the testimony of\nMr. W. E. Anderson, of Quathiaski Cove, who had captured some of the salmon on their passage\nand considered them Fraser River fish. In the early part of August, 1915, we were given an\nopportunity to examine a south-bound school of sockeyes, which was intercepted by Mr. Anderson\nat DeePwater Bay, shortly above Seymour Narrows. Critical study of these has proven beyond\ndoubt that they were Fraser River fish, and has made it appear probable that a certain component of the Fraser run enters from the north in every year, and not, as might have been\nsupposed, in the big year only of each cycle.\nIn addition to further observations on the age-groups in the various runs, on the proportions\nof the sexes, and on the sizes of the different races in comparison with previous years, there\nwere examined an extensive series of yearling migrants taken on their way to the sea, in the\nFraser River, in Smith and Rivers Inlets, and in the Skeena. All previous investigations seem\nto have shown that the average size of migrants does not change during the month or more that\nmigration is in progress; that the last to leave are of the same average size as the first, although\na month or more has passed during which growth would be expected. It now appears that the\nRivers Inlet race is even more peculiar in this respect, inasmuch as the later migrants not only\ndo not increase in average size, but they actually exhibit a smaller size on the average as the\nseason progresses. With them the larger sizes pass out at the opening of the downward movement, and each successive day is marked by the appearance of smaller migrating fish than the\npreceding days.   This occurrence has not beeii noted elsewhere. S 28 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nII. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF .1915.\n(1.)  General Characteristics.\nIn the Annual Report of this Department for 1914 (page 47) an attempt was made to\nforecast the season of 1915 in the following terms: \"The gaps in our knowledge are too\nextensive to warrant safe prediction, but such factors as we have been able to determine favour\nthe belief that 1915 will in a measure resemble 1911, when a very small pack was accompanied\nby a large proportion of five-year fish.\" The experience of the year completely verified this\ntentative prophecy. The pack was even smaller than in 1911, and the proportion of five-year\nfish (39 per cent.), while not equal to that of 1911 (46 per cent.), was far heavier than in\nnormal years. The prediction was based, as shown in the report, on the fact that the year\n1911\u2014the brood-year from which were derived the four-year fish of 1915\u2014was one of the poorest\never known, both as regards its pack and, what is still more important, the number of breeders\nthat escaped to the spawning-beds. The year 1910, on the contrary, was a prosperous season,\nand could be expected to deliver its full quota of five-year fish. Along this line of reasoning,\nwe should be justified in assuming that the five-year fish of 1915 were present in normal numbers,\naud that the sole reason why they formed an excessively high proportion of the total run was\nthat there existed a serious deficiency in the four-year fish. If this be true, we should be able\nto compute the amount of the deficiency on the basis of the five-year fish present, and by adding\nthe deficiency to the total catch produce the proportions of a normal run. We should add enough\nfour-year fish to our total catch to bring about a reduction in the proportion of five-year fish\nfrom 39 to about 18 per cent, 18 being the average of the Fraser River during the period of our\ninvestigations.\nTo effect this reduction, we find it necessary nearly to treble the number of four-year fish\npresent, and we increase thereby the total catch, given in round numbers, from 156,000 to 338,000.\nTo compare with this estimate, we have 327,000, which is the average catch for the years 1906,\n1908, 1910, and 1912. These years will be accepted as fair representatives of the last two Fraser\nRiver cycles, for 1907 and 1911 were phenomenally poor, and 1909 and 1913 belong to the\nconstantly recurring series of big years.\nWe make no claim that a similar computation can be successful in accounting for each\nyear's run, and that the size of the run, together with the relative proportions of the four- and\nthe five-year fish of which it is composed, can be fully explained by the apparent success of the\nspawning four and five years previously. Such an attempt fails notably in the season following\nthe big year of the cycle, when we should expect an overwhelming proportion of five-year fish.\nThere must be modifying factors we have not yet ascertained. But the only way we may hope\nto obtain a clue to these is to attempt an explanation on the basis of factors which we should\nknow to be valid, and to note where and when and to what extent these prove inadequate.\nThis discussion is based on the characteristics of the main run, which begins in July and\nculminates early in August. In addition, there is a diminutive run of early fish, which appear\neach year in varying abundance along the usual channels of migration of the Fraser sockeyes.\nThey are often more numerous about the middle of May, and may decrease in numbers towards\nthe latter end of that month and throughout June. In 1915 they were unusually abundant along\nthe southern shores of Vancouver Island. They are recognized as smaller than the sockeyes of\nthe main run and are of inferior quality, both as regards colour and amount of oil. At the\ncanneries they are kept distinct from the product of the later run.\nThe destination of these early fish is unknown. The eggs are very small, so there is no\nreason to suppose they will spawn at an earlier date than will the later fish. They may be the\nproduct of some definite portion of the Fraser basin to which they will return, or they may\ndistribute themselves widely. Their inferior size seems due to their earlier departure from the\nfeeding-grounds. The same cause may account also for the poor colour and the lack of oil.\nTheir scales bear witness to the fact that little or no growth had been made since the winter\ncheck of the previous year. This check is marked on the scale by the production of a \"winter\nband \" of rings, these being densely crowded together and indicating the almost total cessation\nof growth during the period of their formation. In the four-year fish of the later run the scales\nexhibit a broad band of widely spaced rings outside the winter band, which is therefore well\nwithin the margin of the scale. But in four-year fish of the early run the band is either at the\nmargin or shortly within it. There are either no wider rings representing the new growth of\nthe year or the number of such rings is greatly reduced. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 29\nWhatever may be the history and destination of the four-year fish of the early run, the\nfive-year fish quite evidently have had a different origin from the fish of the same age which\nrun in July and August. The probability of this was pointed out in our report for 1914 (page\n50), and is amply confirmed by our investigations of the early run of 1915, based on a more\nextensive material. As will appear on a later page, the five-year fish which run in May (and\nthis is probably true also of June) have scales with very small nuclear region. As this portion\nof the scale records quite accurately the amount of growth during the first year's residence in\nfresh water, we must assume that the individuals in question have developed from yearlings\nof extraordinarily small size, and that such yearlings must have been the product of some\nunfavourable lake or group of lakes within the Fraser basin. The only alternative theory which\noffers is to the effect that these fish have originated in various parts of the basin, and for some\nreason connected with their small size as yearlings have segregated themselves from their fellows\nto constitute a part of the early run. Such a theory seems improbable in the extreme, and\nwholly inadmissible. In so far as the evidence extends, we must consider the presence of a\npeculiar body of early-running five-year fish as an argument in favour of localized runs within\nthe basin, in favour of extending the parent-stream theory to the tributaries of a large river\nsystem.\nThe general characteristics of the Fraser sockeyes exhibited no change in 1915. Both in\nlength and weight within each age-group they averaged as high as in any previous year of\nrecord. The sexes occurred again in equal numbers, as has been the case in the Fraser in each\nyear during which our investigations have been in progress. This is noteworthy in view of the\nfact that other important streams of the Province show marked inequality in proportions of\nmales and females, an inequality which may shift violently in successive years. A very small\nproportion of individuals of \" sea-type \" were present, and a somewhat larger proportion of those\nwhich spent two years in freshwater before passing down to the sea. As noted in previous years,\nthose of the latter category had not in any case matured at the age of four. By far the larger\nnumber matured at five, and a rare individual at six years.\n(2.) Age-groups and their Significance for the Runs.\nThe Fraser River is the only large stream of the Province possessing a race of sockeyes\nwhich mature principally in their fourth year. As previously stated, the average number of\nfour-year fish for the past four years comprises S2 per cent., and while no high degree of accuracy\ncan be claimed for this figure, it doubtless gives a rough approximation to the fact. Violent\noscillations in the proportions of the two principal age-groups are constantly appearing, as is\nevident in the following table :\u2014\nTable I.\u2014Percentages of Four- and Five-year Fraser River Sockeyes ir,\nwith Broods from which they icere derived.\nRuns from 1911 to 1915,\nRun of the Year.\nPercentage,\nFour and Five\nYears old.\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1911 (190,586 cases)    1\n1912 (325,451 cases)     j\n1913 (2,402,389 cases)    I\n1914 (555,557 cases)    - 3\n1915 (155,714 cases)    j\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n46%\n54%\n10%\n90%\n0+%\n99+%\n15%\n85%\n39%\n61%\n1906   (365,248 cases).\nj-1907 (159,591 cases).\nI\n11908  (236,802 cases).\nJ-1909  (1,590,555 cases).\nI\nil910 (367,482 cases).\n1911   (190,586 cases).\nTaking the proportions of four-year fish in the above table in ascending order, we have the\nfollowing percentages:    54, 61, S5, 90, 99 + .    If we associate with these the catches of the same S 30\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nyears, they present the following sequence: 54 (190,586 cases), 61 (155,557 cases), 85 (555,557\ncases), 90 (325,451 cases), 99+ (2,402,389 cases). The evidence available indicates clearly that\nin the Fraser River basin a high percentage of four-year fish accompanies a large pack, or, stated\nconversely, a small pack is occasioned mainly by a deficiency in four-year fish. If further\nobservation confirms this principle, it will be possible closely to estimate the success of a given\npack at the very beginning of the run by determining the relative numbers of four- and five-year\nfish. The higher the percentage of four-year fish, the larger will be the run. But predictions\nof this nature will not be feasible unless the proportions of the age-groups prove fairly constant\nthroughout the fishing season. It is not yet certain to what extent the May-June run on the\nFraser is available for purposes of prediction. In 1915 the correspondence was not exact. The\nfollowing table shows the variation among the age-groups as determined in 1915 at different\ntimes and places :\u2014\nTable II.\u2014Relative Proportions of Fraser River Age-groups as independently determined for\nDifferent Localities and Dates.\nLocality.\nDate.\nFour-year Fisb.      Five-year Fisb,\nSouth shore of Vancouver Island\nSouth shore of Vancouver Island\nDeepwater Bay  \t\nBellingham   \t\nMay, 1915 \t\nJuly,  1915   \t\nAugust, 1915  \t\nJuly and August, 1915\nPer Cent.\n70\n65\n65\n61\nPer Cent.\n30\n35\n35\n39\nFrom the above it appears that, although considerable variation was found among the\ndifferent groups examined, part of which may be explained by the inadequate number of\nindividuals investigated in certain of these apparent groups, nevertheless it was apparent from\nany of the samples taken that four-year fish were in abnormally low proportions, and indicated,\ntherefore, a poor run for the season. The Bellingham lot comprised over 1,200 fish taken during\nthe height of the run, and is accepted as giving the closest approximation to the proportions of\nthe age-groups.\n(3.)  Comparative Lengths and Weights.\nThe main run of July and August was examined in greatest detail at Bellingham, Washington, where the salmon are principally obtained from traps and purse-seines and contain the\nsmaller individuals in their proper proportion; 1,208 specimens were investigated, taken without\nselection, on the following dates :\u2014\nJuly 26th     261 specimens.\nAugust 3rd  255 \u201e\nAugust 9th    250\nAugust 16th    255\nAugust 23rd  187\nOf these, 1,113, or 93 per cent., belonged to the prevailing Fraser River type, and had\nremained in the lake until the second spring after hatching. One of this class, a male, 28\ninches long, weight 8 lb., had delayed maturing until its sixth year, while the remainder came\nto maturity at the close either of their fourth or fifth year. The 8 per cent, which did not\nbelong to the prevailing type were divided nearly equally between the group that spends two\nfull years in the lake and the group that proceeds directly to sea as fry of the year. Of the\nlatter group\u2014the sea-type\u2014there were found forty-six individuals, or about 4 per cent. Three\nof these matured in their third year, forty-two in their fourth, and one individual in its fifth\nyear. Of the two-years-in-lake type, thirty-four were five years old and fifteen were six years\nold.\nThe following table gives the length frequencies among 1,000 sockeyes of the prevailing type;\nthat is, those that spent one year in the lake after hatching and matured in their fourth or fifth\nyear.    They were secured at Bellingham during the height of the run. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 31\nTable III.\u2014One Thousand Fraser River Sockeyes, Run of 1915, July 26th to August 23rd, grouped\nby Age, Sex, and Length,.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nMales.      Females.      Males.      Females.\n21  \t\n21% \t\n22   \t\n22%   \t\n23   \t\n23%   \t\n24   \t\n24%   \t\n25  \t\n25%   \t\n26  \t\n26%   \t\n27  \t\n27%   \t\n28  \t\n28%   \t\n29   \t\n29%   \t\nTotals   \t\nAverage length in inches\n1\n1\ni\no\n8\n6\n16\n1\ni\n14\n41\n25\n66\n2\n2\n28\n67\n3\n5\n81\n65\n11\n17\n60\n27\n20\n31\n51\n11\n37\n59\n22\n4\n31\n34\n11\n41\n24\n4\n13\n5\n1\n25\n9\n9\n1\n5\n307\n307\n203\n183\n25.5\n24.4\n26.7\n25.9\nSimilar tables are here presented of some 500 specimens taken in traps along the southern\nshore of Vancouver Island in the month of July, and of 198 in Deepwater Bay, near Seymour\nNarrows, early in August. The Deepwater lot were proceeding south from Johnstone Strait to\nthe Gulf of Georgia. To facilitate comparison with the previous table the numbers have been\nreduced to the basis of 1,000. It will be noted that the Deepwater Bay fish agree very closely\nin average size with those from the Vancouver Island traps, and both lots average somewhat\nsmaller in each group.of individuals than do those from the Bellingham traps and seines taken\nthroughout the season. But if we consider separately the first Bellingham series which was\ntaken, those of July 26th, we find an almost exact parallel to the Vancouver Island lot. The\naverages of July 26th are as follows :\u2014\nFour-year males    24.9 inches.\nFour-year females     23.9      ,,\nFive-year males    26.4      ,,\n. Five-year females     26.0     \u201e\nIt must be kept in mind that an unknown proportion of the school which sweeps past the\nsouth coast of Vancouver Island reaches the mouth of the Fraser through Haro Strait, while\nthe Bellingham fish all skirt the Salmon Banks and pass north through Rosario Strait. Whether\nchoice between these two routes is purely fortuitous, or whether a more definite selection is\nmade by salmon from different parts of the Fraser watershed, remains to be determined. The\nsame question arises with regard to fish which enter from the north. S 32\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable IV.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes captured July 6th to 28th, 1915, along Southern Shore of\nVancouver Island.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.      Males.\nFemales.\n22%   \t\n23  \t\n23%   \t\n24  \t\n24%   \t\n25  \t\n25%   \t\n26  \t\n26%   \t\n27  \t\n27%   \t\n28  \t\n28%   \t\n29  \t\n29%   \t\n30  \t\nTotals\t\nAverage length in inches\n8\n12\n14\n24\n2\n30\n62\n60\n96     2\n6\n62\n38      4\n6\n94\n28     22\n22\n62\n6     14\n30\n40\n42\n44\n10\n24\n26\n4\n48\n12\n12\nS\n2\n14\n8\n\"2\n378  | 274    192\n156\n24.8   23.9   26.5\n25.8\nTattle V.\u2014Fraser River Bocloeyes taken at Deepivater Bay, North of Seymour Narrows,\nAugust 8th, 1915.\nLength In Inches.\ndumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFemales.     Males.\nFemales.\n20% .                       \t\n5\n11\n6\n16\n11\n16\n32\n48\n43\n59\n32\n27\n11\n5\n11\n16\n5\n5\n32\n91\n38\n49    2\n54    ]\n27     '.\n1\nt\n]\ne\n5\n!7\nLl\n!7\n13\n!7\n16\n!7\n5\n21 \t\nd\nLl\n21% .            \t\n22 \t\n22% \t\n23 \t\n23% \t\n24 \t\n24% \t\n25\t\n38\n16\n38\n32\n5\n11\n25% \t\n26 \t\n26% \t\n27 \t\n27V, \t\n28 \t\n317\n333    IS\n38\n162\n24.2\n23.8   26\n.0\n25.7 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 33\nWe have still to consider the relative sizes of the early-running school, and present below\na table giving length frequencies of the salmon taken in the Vancouver Island traps in the\nmonth of May. As will be noted, the range in length is extreme, some of the four-year females\nbeing no longer than ordinary three-year grilse, and several of the five-year fish being only 20\nand 21 inches long, whereas the five-year members of the later run are seldom shorter than\n24 inches. At the same time there are included with these distinctly undersized fish, especially\namong the five-year males, a group of individuals of ordinary stature, ranging from 24 to 29%\ninches. The frequency curve of the male five-year-olds is thus clearly bimodal. We are unable\nto draw any distinction between these two groups, save in the matter of size. The undersized\nindividuals seem to have made little or no growth since the previous fall-winter period, while\nthe larger ones evidently began the new growth well in advance of their departure from the\nfeeding-grounds. No further growth will take place in any of these, so a thorough survey of\nthe Fraser River spawning-beds should succeed in locating them.\nTable VI.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes captured May 11th to 26th, 1915, along Southern Shore of\nVancouver Island.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old. Five Years old\nMales.      Females.      Males.      Females.\n17 ..\n17%\n18 ..\n18%\n19 ..\n19%\n20 ..\n20%\n21 ..\n21%\n22 ..\n22%\n23%\n24 ..\n24%\n25 ..\n25%\n20   ..\n26%\n27 ..\n27%\n28 ..\n28%\n29 ..\n29%\nTotals\nAverage length in inches       24.1\n22.4\n4\n4\n7\nii\n4\n15\nll\n7\n15\n78\n8\n18\n52\n15\n30\n108\n18\n41\n41\n26\n74\n11\n8\n74\n4\n8\n60\n7\n26\n5\n11\n4\n7\n22\n7\n7\n\"\u20224\n7\n3E\n3\n>4t\nM\n0  1\n24.9\n4\n19\n7\n37\n11\n15\n15\n14\n141\n23.9\nThe following tables give the frequency distribution of weight in the various groups already\ntreated, with the exception of the Deepwater Bay lot, in which it was not feasible to take\nweights. It appears from these tables that the May fish in every group average lighter than\nthose of the later run, and that the July fish from the Vancouver Island traps are slightly lighter\nas regards the four-year group, and practically identical with the Bellingham lot in the five-year\ngroup.\n3 S 34\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable VII.\u2014One Thousand Fraser River Sockeyes, Run of 1915, July 26th  to August 23rd,\nBellingham, Wash., grouped by Weight, Age, and Sex.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4\n4%\n5\nsy2\n6\ney2\n7\n7%\n8\nsy2\n9\n9%\n10    10% ' 11\nAverage\nFour-year males  . .\nFour-year females. .\nFive-year males . ..\nFive-year females ..\n1\n5\n8\n20\ni\n23\n43\n3\n3\n45\n88\n5\n6\n58\n87\n12\n28\n77\n50\n33\n44\n54\n13\n48\n44\n30\n1\n36\n36\n8\n26\n12\n2\n15\n8\n1\n11\n1\n8\n5\n1\n6.3  -\n5.7\n7.4\n0.9\nTable VIII.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes captured July 6th to 28th, 1915, along Southern Shore of\nVancouver Island.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4      4%\n5%     6     ey2    7    7%    8\n8%\n9     9y2    10 ! 10y2    Average\nFour-year males . .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males  . .\nFive-year females .\n6\n12\n30\n\"2\n38\n70\n2\n66\n88\n2\n10\n110\n54\n24\n32\n72\n18\n20\n22\n44\n2\n3S\n46\n30\n6\n42\n26\n4\n38\n12\n18\n4\n2\n4\n4\n2\n6.1\n5.4\n7.4\n6.S\nTable IX.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes captured May nth to 26th, 1915, along Southern Shore of\nVancouver Island.\nWeight in Pounds.      2%      3      3%      4      jy2      5      5%      6     6%      7      7%      8      8%     9    9 % ! Aver\nFour-year males  ..\nFour-year females. .\nFive-year males .\nFive-year females\n4\n19\n11\n37\n85\n115\n67\n78\n164\n67\n4\n11\n22\n26\n19\n22\n11\n15\n19\n45\n22\n26\n8\n4\n19\n4\n11\n11\n7\n4\n15\n11\n3\n5.4\n4.3\n6.0\n5.6\nThe tables already given, dealing as they do with fish which have obviously left their\nfeeding-grounds -at different dates, afford some clue to the amount of growth that takes place\nduring the season in which they mature. Further light is thrown on this subject by the\ncomparative table which follows, giving average length and weight taken at weekly intervals\nat Bellingham during the height of the run. A small increase is apparently shown in the size\nof the four-year fish, but no increase whatever among the five-year group.\nTable X.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Run of 1915, Average Length and Weight on Successive Dates.\nDates.\n4-year Males.               4-year Females.              5-year Males.               5-year Females.\nLength.\nWeight.\nLength.\nWeight.       Length.\nWeight,   j   Length.\nWeight.\nJuly 26th   \t\nAugust 3rd\t\nAugust 9th\t\nAugust 16th  ....\nAugust 23rd  ....\n24.9\n25.3\n25.2\n25.4\n25.4\n6.2\n6.4\n6.3\n6.5\n6.4\n23.9\n24.4\n24.5\n24.7\n24.5\n5.4\n5.7\n5.8\n6.0\n5.8\n26.4\n26.6\n26.5\n27.0\n27.0\n7.3\n7.3\n7.4\n7.5\n7.6\n26.0\n26.1\n26.1\n26.1\n25.9\n7.0\n7.0\n6.8\n6.8\n6.9\nAs in the case of the average lengths, so also in the weights, we have accepted as standard\nfor the season those obtained from the Bellingham material. These are contained in Table VII.,\nand should be strictly comparable with the results in previous years at the same time and place. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 37\naverage at 15.7; while in 1915 the range is from five to twenty-one, with the average at 13.7.\nThis striking difference seems to be due to the different dates at which the two lots were\nobtained. The 1914 sample was secured July 2Sth and seems to represent a pure strain, unmixed\nwith any other. A larger number of specimens would have increased the range somewhat, but\nthere is no reason to suppose it would materially have altered the results.\nThe 1915 lot was secured July 6th (sixty specimens) and July 28th (forty specimens).\nThere is evidence that we have here a mixture of the two forms, one with the mode at ten, the\nother with the mode at sixteen. Comparison of the following two tables with Table VIII. of\nthe 1914 report \u25a0will make this evident. As will also the progression towards the unmixed later\nform observed in the three collections in July, 1915.\nTable XII.\nDate.\nRange of Variation.\nAverage.\nJuly  6th\nJuly  20th\nJuly 28th\n6 to 21\n5 to 19\n10 to 19\n13.1\n13.6\n14.9\nThe males of the July 28th lot include a single specimen with ten rings, the remainder being\ndistributed between thirteen and eighteen.   The females range from eleven to nineteen.\nTable XIII.\u2014Nuclear Rings on Scales of One Thousand Fraser River Sockeyes, Run of 1915,\nJuly 26th to August 23rd.\nNumuer  of   Nuclear\n7\n8\n9     10\n11\n12\n13    14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21    22\n23\n24\n25\nAverage.\nRings.\n1\n1\nFour-year fish  ...\n5\n21\n31\n411 55 I 68\n42\n49  43\n60\n63\n57\n37\nIS\n16\n4\n3\n1\n15.4\nFive-year fish  ....\ni\n2\n5\n10\n18  25  23\n25\n35  62\nj\n64\n43\n34\n24\n9\n5\n1\n15.9\nTable XIV.\u2014Nuclear Rings on Scales of Five-year Fraser River Sockeyes taken in 1915 along\nthe Southern Shore of Vancouver Island.\nNumber of Nuclear Rings.\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12 1 13\n14\n15\n16\n17   18\n19\n20\n21\nAverage.\nSpecimens taken in May\nSpecimens taken in July\n6\n6\n6\n25\n9\n70\n15\n101  102\n18    36\n57\n18\n76\n54\n38\n60\n25\n45\n52\n85\n51\n27\n12\n3\n3\n10.1\n13.7\nWe add also tables to show distribution of nuclear rings in four-year fish from the Vancouver\nIsland traps, and of both four- and five-year fish from Deepwater Bay. The evidence in favour\nof the identification of the latter as part of the Fraser River run is complete. The close correspondence in average length, in the number of the nuclear rings on the scales, the colour and\nquality of the flesh, the direction in which they are moving, and the time when they appear\u2014that\nis, early in August, when all other runs in this district are over\u2014excludes any other possibility\nas to their destination. In minor matters, too, there is agreement. We find among the limited\nnumber which we were able to examine three individuals of undoubted sea-type, maturing in\ntheir fourth year; and fourteen which had spent two years in the lake, one maturing at six\nyears, the remainder at five. Furthermore, when the nuclear rings are tabulated for those which\nspent two years in the lake, we find complete agreement with those of the 1914 run given in Table\nXV., page 53, of the report for that year. The first-year rings in the Deepwater Bay material\nrange from five to thirteen, the second-year rings from eight to seventeen. S 38\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable XV.\u2014Nuclear Rings on Scales of Four-year Fraser River Sockeyes taken in 1915 along\nthe Southern Shore of Vancouver Island.\nNumber   of  Nuclear\nRings.\n9      10    11\n14    15\n16\nIS\n19   20   21\n22    23   24\nAverage.\nSpecimens taken in\nMay\nSpecimens taken in\nJuly\n5\n43\n35\n24\n24\n19\n29\n48\n61\n61\n48\n42\n29\n19\n8\n3\n2\n5\n16\n27\n45\n72\n61\n87\n45\n43\n19\n27\n22\n18\n8\n3\n2\n15.3\n13.1\nTable XVI.\u2014Nuclear Rings on Scales of Fraser River Sockeyes taken in Deepwater Bay, North\nof Seymour Narrows, August 8th, ,1915.\nNumber of Nuclear Rings.\n7     8     9     10   11    12   13   14    15     16    17    18   19   20    21   22   Average\n3\n9\n11 32\n14 | 9\n43\n14\n60\n23\n57\n50\n46\n45\n46\n59\n60\n118\n51\n41\n31\n54\n17 17\n50 9\n11\n14\n6\n14.4\nFive-year fish \t\n15.6\n(5.)  Young Migrants in the Fraser River.\nDuring the season of 1915, collections of Fraser River fingerlings taken in their downward\nmigration were made in the Chilcotin River and at the foot of Quesnel Lake. For comparison\nwith these, we have the 1903 collections at Lytton, reported in No. 1 of this series, page 54, and\nSeton Lake material obtained in 1914, described in No. 2 of this series, page 55. Of these, the\nSeton Lake specimens are the most valuable, as they are the product of a single locality and\nmay throw light on the effects which local conditions may exert on the growth of young within\na single watershed. No migrants were obtainable in Seton Lake in 1915. We were also\nunsuccessful in securing them from the Harrison Lake District.\nChilcotin River Migrants.\nSixty yearlings were secured from April 20th to May 6th, thirty-one of which were males\nand twenty-nine females. They ranged in length from 61 to 93 mm., with one very exceptional\nindividual, a female, 118 mm. long. Included with the yearlings were three individuals which\nhad spent two full years in the lake, and measured 104, 109, and 117 mm. (see Fig. 1). The\nexceptional one-year female is thus not only separated by a wide gap from the next largest of\nthe yearling series, but is even larger than any of the two-year-olds. Examination of the scales\nindicates a very large growth (sixteen rings) during the first season, followed by a conspicuous\nstrong new season's growth of four rings (see Fig. 2). This is, as we shall see below, a very\nunusual combination; for those which attain large stature in the spring-summer growth of their\nfirst season usually delay further growth the following spring until they have reached the sea\n(see Fig. 3).\nExcluding the two-year fish, the others average 75.8 mm., with the mode at seventy-four.\nExcluding also the HS-mm. yearling, the average is 75 mm. They are thus distinctly smaller\nthan the Seton Lake yearlings of 1914, which ranged from 73 to 102 mm., with the average at\nS6.5. And, as will appear below, they are also distinctly smaller than the Quesnel fish of their\nown year.\nThe size stands in direct relation to the number of rings on the scales, when we are considering fish from the same brood and the same locality. This appears in the following table,\nalthough the number of specimens available is much too small to produce an even curve. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 39\nTable XVII.\nNumber of Specimens.\nRange in\nMillimetres.\nAverage Total\nRings  on  Scales.\n7  | 60 to 69\n33   70 to 79\n16   80 to 89\n3   90 to 99\n1  ! 118\n8.6\n11.1\n13.2\n13.0\n21.0\nAverage total number of rings in all specimens, 11.4, including the rings of new growth. -\nThe rings of new growth formed during the migrating season are not included, however,\nin the enumeration of nuclear rings on adult scales. The boundary-line taken in these is the\none which is best defined, and marks the outer limit of growth of the first season. It becomes\nof interest to place ou record the frequency distribution and the average number of scale-rings\nin yearlings from each of the lakes of the Fraser watershed from which we can obtain material.\nFifty-eight yearlings from the Chilcotin exhibit the following:\u2014\nTable XVIII.\u2014Scale-rings in Chilcotin yearling Migrants, not including the Rings of the New\nSeason's Growth. -.\nNumber of Rings on Scales.\n7        8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14     15     16\n17\n4   1   9     17     5   1   5\n3   1   6   I--6 J\" 2   1  .. j 1\nThe average number of rings is 10.7, while those from Quesnel average 14.6. It is worthy\nof note that the scales of the Chilcotin migrants agree closely with the nuclear area of the\nfive-year-old adults which run in May and June (see Table XIV.).\nMore than half the Chilcotin yearlings had begun the new growth of the season when they\nwere captured, the widely spaced rings which register the new growth varying from one to four\nin number (see Fig. 4). This agrees closely with the conditions which were obtained in Seton\nLake at the same dates of the previous year, where from one to five_rings of new growth had\nappeared in a considerable number of specimens. Among the Chilcotin yearlings we note that\nthe individuals which have produced no new growth on the dates captured are those which\nreached the largest size during their first season, as shown by the number of rings which they\nhad formed on their scales (see Fig. 3).    This is apparent in the following table:\u2014\nTable XIX.\nNumber of First Season Rings.\n13\nNumber of individuals \t\nNumber of individuals with new-growth rings\nAverage new-growth rings  \t\n4\n8\n17\n7\n5\n3\n6\n6\n4\n6\n15\n6\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nQuesnel Lake Migrants.\nOne hundred and eighty fingerlings were obtained at the outlet of Quesnel Lake, 110 (61 per\ncent.) of these being males and seventy (39 per cent.) females.\nThey range from 74 to 114 mm. in length, fifty males averaging 89.5 and fifty females\n87.7 mm. No two-year-old individuals were included with the yearlings. In size they agree\nvery closely with Seton Lake yearlings of the previous year (males, 86.7 mm.; females, 86.4 mm.),\nbut the Seton Lake fish, in a considerable proportion of their number, had initiated the new\ngrowth of the year, while in only 5 per cent, of the Quesnel yearlings has any new growth\nappeared. S 40\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nThe number of rings on the scales ranges from ten to twenty-two, fifty males averaging\n14.8 rings, fifty females 14.5.\nTable XX.\u2014Scale-rings in Quesnel Lake Yearling Migrants.\nNumber of Rings.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n3\n7\n10\n17\n12\n19\n16\n5\n1\n3\n1\n5\ni\nAverage, 14.6.\nIn this respect, again, there is close correspondence with Seton Lake specimens which\npossessed an average of 14.5 rings in 1914. There is nothing to indicate that the yearlings\nfrom these two localities can be distinguished. And if the adults which reach these two\nspawning districts were to return in each case to their parent stream, there would be nothing\nin the nuclear area of their scales by which this could be made evident. But the case may\nbe different with the Chilcotin District. Here, as we have seen, the 1915 yearlings were notably\nsmaller than in the other two districts, and the number of rings on the scales was materially\nreduced. Eliminating the new-growth rings, as was done with the Seton Lake and Quesnel\naverages above given, the Chilcotin rings average 10.7 instead of 14.7. This is a difference\nwhich could be readily detected in the nuclear area of adults returning to these several spawning-\ngrounds, and, in case the differences among the young migrants are constant from year to year,\nwould offer a practicable method of testing the parent-stream theory in its application to the\nseveral tributaries of a large river system.\nAs in series of fingerlings from other basins, the Quesnel Lake yearlings show a direct\nrelation between relative size of the individuals and the relative number of rings with which\nthe scales are marked. It is important that the validity of this principle be investigated in a\nlarge number of instances. In working out the life-history of individuals from their scale-\nstructure, it is a matter of importance to determine the relative size of the yearling at migration-\ntime.    The most delicate measure of this is found in the number of nuclear rings.\nTable XXI.\u2014Relation between Size of Quesnel Lake Yearlings and Number of Scale-rings.\nSex.\nNumber of\nSpecimens.\nRange in\nMillimetres.\nAverage\nRings on Scales.\nMale .\nFemale\nMale .\nFemale\nMale .\nFemale\nMale .\nFemale\nMale   .\n\u25a0i~:\n29\n10\n9\n1\n79\n79\n70 to\n70 to\n80 to 89\n80 to 89\n90 to 99\n90 to 99\n100 to 109\n100 to 109\n110 to 120\n12.4\n12.2\n13.8\n13.9\n15.8\n15.3\n19.0\n19.7\n21.5\nIII. THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1915.\n(1.)  Age-groups and their Significance.\nExperience with the 1915 run to Rivers Inlet has confirmed our opinion that the Rivers\nInlet race matures normally at a greater age than the Fraser River race. In neither stream is\nthe case complicated, as it is elsewhere, notably in the Nass, by prolonged residence in fresh\nwater by any considerable number of individuals. Both in Rivers Inlet and the Fraser the vast\nmajority of matured sockeyes have had the same history\u2014the young residing in their native\nlake until the second spring after hatching, and passing out to sea in each case some eighteen\nto twenty months after the deposition of the eggs. The difference between the two races in age\nof maturing is confined to the period of their lives which they spend in the sea. The prevailing\ntype of the Fraser River race spend two winters and three summers on the sea-feeding grounds 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 41\nand mature four years after the deposition of the eggs from which they have developed. The\nRivers Inlet race, on the other hand, in a very large proportion of its members, remains at sea\nthree winters and four summers, returning to fresh water to spawn and die at the close of its\nfifth year.\nThe reason for this divergence in habit may not be assigned at this time with full confidence.\nWhen the facts concerning the growth, development, and maturity of a large number of races\nhave been ascertained, and an attempt has been made to classify and to correlate the various\nfactors, it may become evident that certain tendencies in the early history of a race are usually\nassociated with late maturing. Such might well be the dwarfing due to relatively unfavourable\nconditions in fresh water, followed by a retarded growth during the first season of sea-feeding.\nThis actually occurs in the Rivers Inlet race, as we have previously pointed out, and is found\nin like degree in the Smith Inlet race, which also matures largely at the age of five.\nThe very limited growth in the lake during the first season is shown in Figs. 5, 6, and 7\nof this report, which present greatly enlarged photographs of the scales of fingerling sockeyes\ncaptured on their downward migration in the Owikeno River. The figure 1 in each of these\nmarks the outer margin of the very limited first season's growth. So diminutive, in fact, are\nthe young at the close of their first growing period that the race has acquired the exceptional\nhabit of starting its spring growth at an unusually early date the following season. Thus a\nsubstantial addition has been made to the stature of the'migrants before they finally enter the\nsea. In Figs. 5 and 6 the coarse rings between 1 and the margin testify to the vigour of this\nexceptional spring growth. The necessity which has led to the adoption of this early growth-\nhabit in the second spring may well stand in relation to the fate that befalls young sockeyes\nwhich proceed to sea at a very small size.    The migrating fry of the year rarely survive.\nA review of the age-groups in their relative proportions during the four years for which we\nhave now secured a record appears in the following table, together with the brood-year which\nwas responsible for each age-group. The four-year group of one year obviously spring from\nthe same brood-year as the five-year fish of the succeeding season. From this table it appears\nthat in each of the four years, with the single exception of 1913, there has been a striking\npreponderance of five-year fish. But 1913 was the poorest of recent years, if we may judge\nfrom the number of cases of salmon which were packed in Rivers Inlet during that season.\nThe suggestion at once occurs that the partial failure of 1913 was due principally or altogether\nto the failure of the five-year group, and this suggestion gains force when we observe that the\nfive-year group of 1913 was derived from the brood-year 1908, which was the poorest recent\nyear with the exception of 1913. It appears then probable that the same principle holds with\nRivers Inlet that we have already discussed for the Fraser River, with the very material\ndifference that in Rivers Inlet we must substitute a five-year for a four-year cycle.\nTable XXII.\u2014Percentages of Four- and Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes in Runs from 1912 to\n1915, with the Broods from which they ivere derived.\nRun of the Year.\nPercentage.\nFour and Five\nYears old.\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1912 (112,884 cases)   \t\n1913 (61,745 cases)    j\n1914 (89,890 cases)    |\n1915 (130,350 cases)    j\n5 yrs.      79%\n4 yrs.      21%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n20%\n80%\n5 yrs. 65%\n4 yrs. 35%\n5 yrs. 87%\n4 yrs. 13%\n1907 (87,874 cases).\n1908 (64,652  cases).\n'[\u25a01909 (89,027 cases).\n1910 (126,921 cases).\n1911 (88,763 cases).\nJ\nIt is of interest to ascertain what variation occurs during the period of the run, whether\nthere is any evident tendency in Rivers Inlet for the five-year fish to run more heavily during S 42\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nthe first as compared with the last of the season. In 1915 examination of the run was made\nat approximately weekly intervals from July 5th to August 2nd. The following percentages of\nfive-year fish were observed on each of these dates:\u2014\nTable XXIII.\u2014Percentages of Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring at Different Dates in\nthe 1915 Run.\nDates.\nPercentage of\nFive-year Fish.\nNumber of\nSpecimens examined.\nJuly 5th . .\nJuly 15th .\nJuly 21st .\nJuly 28th .\nAugust 2nd\n79\n84\n84\n88\n92\n166\n245\n274\n231\n246\nFrom this table it appears that there is a noticeable increase in relative numbers of five-year\nfish towards the latter end of the run. It becomes of special interest to ascertain the amount\nof variation in this respect which occurs year by year, in view of the possibility of predicting\nat the beginning of each run, from the proportions of five-year fish present, whether the run will\nbe of normal size or will be a comparative failure.\nIn 1,300 specimens of the 1915 run there were no individuals of sea-type, and but five that\nhad spent two years in the lake. Of these five, two were maturing in their fifth year and three\nin their sixth. There are four to six rings in the first year's growth, ten to thirteen in the\nsecond, the sum of the two in each scale ranging from fifteen to eighteen.\n(2.)  Lengths and Weights.\nThe average size of the sockeyes constituting the 1915 run to Rivers Inlet scarcely varied\nfrom the average for the preceding year. Taking separately each sex of the four- and the\nfive-year fish, we find that no one of the four groups thus formed differs in average size from\nthe same group in 1914 by more than xla inch. The following table gives the average lengths\nas we have determined them for the last four years :\u2014\nTaMe XXIV.\u2014Average Length in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Four Successive Years.\n1912.\n1913.\n1914.\n1915.\nFour-year males   .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males . .\nFive-year females\n23.2\n22.8\n25.8\n24.6\n22.9\n23.0\n25.9\n25.2\n23.0\n22.8\n25.9\n25.2\n22.9\n22.8\n26.0\n25.1\nIt appears that size is practically constant throughout the fishing season. Averages taken\nat intervals of about one week apparently show a faint tendency towards decrease in size as\nthe season advances, a tendency which recalls that shown by the migrating yearlings, as shown\nin a later section. But this needs verification in a series of years. The numbers of five-year\nfish at each date gives promise of a fairly reliable average, but the numbers of the four-year fish\nare far too scanty. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 43\nTable XXV.\u2014Average Lengths in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes on a Series of Dates during\nRun of 1915.\nJuly\n5th.\nJuly\n15th.\nJuly\n21st,\nJuly\n28th.\nAugust\n2nd.\nt-, ,        f Number of specimens\nFour-year males    <  . n      r,\nJ \\ Average lengths  ....\n\u201e .       ,     f Number of specimens\n1 our-year females { A .      %.\n(Average lengths ....\n^. , f Number of specimens\ni lve-year males     i , i      i-u\n( Average lengths ....\n,-,. ,      ,      f Number of specimens\nh lve-year females <  . ,      r.\n(Average lengths  ....\n26\n22.9\n8\n23.1\n81\n26.4\n51\n25.6\n19\n22.8\n19\n22.8\n98\n26.4\n109\n25.3\n24\n22.8\n19\n22.7\n106\n25.6\n125\n24.9\n16\n23.7\n12\n22.6\n85\n25.9\n118\n25.1\n12\n22.6\n8\n22.7\n53\n25.5\n173\n24.9\nThe following tables give detailed statements of the length and weight distribution of the\n1,300 sockeyes of the 1915 run which we have examined. In the tables the proportions have\nbeen maintained, but the numbers have been reduced to the basis of 1,000.\nTable XXVI.\u2014One thousand Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1915, grouped by Length,\nAge, and Sex.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nMales.     Females.\nFive Years old.\nMales.     Females.\n19   \t\n19%   \t\n20   \t\n20%   \t\n21   \t\n21%   \t\n22   \t\n22%\n23 . '.'.\t\n23%   \t\n24   \t\n24%   \t\n25  \t\n25%   \t\n20\t\n26%   \t\n27  \t\n27%   \t\n28  \t\n28%   \t\n29   \t\n29%   \t\nTotals   \t\nAverage length in inches\n14\n5\n11\n12\n14\n5\n2\n1\n22.9\n1\n11\n14\n12\n8\n4\n51\n22.8\n3\n3\n11\n16\n30\n39\n34\n58\n69\n59\n29\n16\n2\n1\n1\n371\n26\n1\n2\n9\n30\n61\n73\n103\n90\n76\n35\n16\n5\n2\n503\n25.1 S 44\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable XXVII.\u2014One Thousand Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1915, grouped by Weight,\nAge, and Sex.\nWeight  in   Pounds.\n3%\n5%\n6%\n10\nAverage.\nFour-year males  ..\nFour-year females\nFive-year males  . .\nFive-year  females\n15\n22\n11\n11\n8\n2\n8\n18\n17\n2\n2\n1\n2\n6\n17\n32\n45\n69\n2\n17\n57\n99\n110\n99\n64\n74\n70\n30\n43\n14\n4\n5.3\n5.1\n7.3\n6.6\n(3.)  The Nuclear Area of the Rivers Inlet Scales.\nIn correspondence with the very limited size attained by the Rivers Inlet fingerlings during\ntheir first season, the nuclear area of the adult scale is one of the smallest known. It is usually\neasy to distinguish the nuclear area proper from the intermediate band of rings formed during\nthe second spring preceding the seaward migration. In the migrating fingerling the distinction\nis usually clear and sharp, as is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, where 1 marks the boundary between\nthe two areas. And although the adult scale has the nuclear area considerably thickened and\nobscured, the lines of growth can be followed and the nucleus proper of the first season can be\ndistinguished from the intermediate zone. In Fig. 8, reproduced from our report for 1913, the\nline 1 marks the outer limit of the intermediate zone, while the nucleus proper terminates some\nfive rings nearer the centre. The same figure shows well the small extent of the first year's\ngrowth in the sea, included between lines 1 and 2.\nIn the 1914 report on the Smith Inlet race of sockeyes (page 63), attention is directed to\nthe occasional loss of the fingerling scale at the close of its first season, and the regeneration\nof a new scale with blank centre in the old scale-pocket. The fact that this has occurred can\nalways be detected in races which produce large fingerlings and have, in consequence, a large\nnuclear area to the scales. But where fingerling growth is very limited, and the nuclear area\nin many individuals may be reduced to two, three, or four, rings (see Fig. 7, where the true\nnucleus is inside line 1), the matter is more difficult to ascertain, and the age of the fish may be\nmisjudged by a whole year. Usually, however, careful observation develops the fact that the\ninnermost ring on the scale is abnormally large, and a prolonged search among other scales\nof the same fish will discover the missing centre. In a later chapter we record an identical\nexperience with the scales of yearlings.\nThe following table gives the distribution of the number of nuclear rings in 1,000 specimens\nexamined. The difference in average between the four- and the five-year fish is no greater than\nwe have found between the yearling scales of two succeeding years.\nTable XXVIII.\u2014Nuclear Rings on Scales of One Thousand Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1915.\nNumber of Nuclear Rings.\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\nll\n12\n13\nAverage.\ni\n2\n9\n1\n123\n20\n269\n35\n250\n31\n138\n13\n64\n12\n16\n5\n3\n4\n1\n1\n2\n7.0\n5.S\n(4.)  Relative Numbers of Males and Females.\nThe returns for the 1915 Rivers Inlet run exhibit again an excess of four-year males over\nfour-year females, and a similar excess of five-year females over five-year males. So far as\nconcerns the percentages, the one about neutralizes the other, but from the fact that five-year\nfish are so much more numerous than four-year fish (87 per cent, of the run), a considerable\nexcess of females must result. From the standpoint of propagation of the race this cannot be\nconsidered a disadvantage. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 45\nA comparative statement follows of the percentages of males and females of different ages\nduring the last four years :\u2014\nTable XXIX.\u2014Percentage of Males and Females in Rivers Inlet Sockeyes of Different Ages.\n1912.\n1913.\n1914. 1915.\nPercentage of four-year males\nPercentage of four-year females\nPercentage of five-year males . .\nPercentage of five-year females\n39\n74\n71\n61\n26\n29\n33\n37\n37\n67\n63\n63\n60\n40\n42\nNo better explanation seems to offer than the one already suggested in our report for 1914\n(page 60), \" that the broods started out with approximately equal numbers of males aud females,\nand that the results observed were due to inequality in the age of maturing for the two sexes.\nAccording to this theory, if the males should on the average mature earlier than the females, we\nshould have an excess of males among four-year fish and an excess of females among five-year\nfish.\" Or, stated in other terms, the precocious maturing of four-year males leaves a corresponding deficiency of five-year males. But, as the relative number of four-year fish is small, the\ndeficiency in five-year males would be less proportionately than the four-year excess. Thus, in\n1914, 35 per cent, of the run consisted of four-year fish, and of these 71 per cent, were males.\nIf we assume that the four-year fish represented not only 35 per cent, of the 1914 run, but also\n35 per cent, of their brood (involving a probable source of error of greater or less extent), then\n24.85 per cent, of the brood matured as four-year males and 10.15 per cent, of the brood as\nfour-year females; leaving 25.15 per cent, of the brood to mature as five-year males and 39.85\nper cent, as five-year females. The expectation, on this basis, for the five-year fish of the 1915\nrun (65 per cent, of their brood) was 39 per cent, males and 61 per cent, females. The actual\nexperience, as we have stated, was 42 per cent, males and 58 per cent, females. In view of the\nvarious sources of error which we cannot eliminate, this discrepancy is not unexpectedly large.\nOne source of error which we have not previously considered lies in the possible shifting\nin the proportion of males and females at different periods of the run. Determinations made\nseparately for each of the observation dates in the 1915 season seem to indicate a decided\nincrease in the proportion of five-year females towards the close of the season. We do not\nhave represented in this series either the earliest fish to run or the latest, but these would\nnot materially affect the result, inasmuch as they represent proportionately so small a part of\nthe run.\nThe proportions of the sexes in the 1915 run are given below by dates. The four-year fish\nwere so limited in number on each date that the results are not in their case reliable.\nTable XXX.\u2014Percentages of Males and Females in Four- and Five-year Fish at Different Dates,\nRivers Inlet Sockeye Run of 1915.\nJuly 5th.\nJuly 15th.\nJuly 21st.     July 28th.        August 2nd.\nFour-year males   .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males  .\nFive-year females\n76\n24\n53\n47\n50\n50\n47\n53\n56\n44\n46\n54\n57\n43\n42\n58\n60\n40\n24\n76\n(5.)  Yearling Migrants in Rivers Inlet.\nIn 1915, 900 fiugerlings were obtained on their downward journey to the sea by Fisheries\nOverseer A. W. Stone by means of fyke-nets operated in the Owikeno River from May 14th to\nthe 26th, inclusive. S 46 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nTwelve lots were taken of seventy-five each. In nine of these lots the males are in excess\nof the females, while in the remaining three the females are slightly more numerous than the\nmales. The percentage of males varies from 44 to 63 on different days; of females, from 37\nto 56.   The percentage of males in the total number captured is 55; of females, 45.\nThe lengths range from 50 to 73 mm., there being no appreciable difference in size of males\nand females. The average of both sexes for the entire series is 58.6 mm., while in 1914 the\naverage was 59.7. We have no clue to the causes for this slight fluctuation in size. The 1915\nfish appeared plump and well-nourished, and the stomachs of all were distended with a minute\ncrustacean on which they were abundantly feeding. No inconsiderable numbers were infested\nwith an external copepod parasite,* which seemed absurdly large for the diminutive fingerling\nto carry about and nourish. The parasites were much more numerous in 1915 than in the previous year, but not more than 10 per cent, of the fish were infested. A few of these parasites\nattack the young sockeye in Smith Inlet also, but are much less numerous. We have not\nencountered them in other basins. The smallest Rivers Inlet yearling which we have observed\nwas taken in 1914 and was parasitized by three copepods, one of which was attached to the gill-\narch. The fish was only 40 mm. long, and had made no growth whatever since the preceding\nseason. The scales were marked with six or seven rings representing the first year's growth,\nthe outer rings narrowly spaced in characteristic fashion. Three other dwarfs were obtained in\n1914, separated by a gap from the rest of the series. All agreed in not having initiated the new\ngrowth of the year when captured, their abnormally small size being associated with this fact.\nBut only the one above mentioned was parasitized. None of these dwarfs were obtained in 1915,\nthe series beginning normally at 50 mm.\nThe following tables give for 1914 and 1915 respectively the sizes of the yearlings captured\non successive days of migration. From these it appears that in both years the larger fish were\nthe first to leave the lake, while the succeeding days are marked by the slightly diminishing\naverage size of their migrants. The tables include males and females without discrimination,\nbut the fact is equally well shown when each sex is considered separately. There is a slight\nshifting in the modal point as the season advances, and there is also a dropping-out of the\nunusually large individuals (68 mm. and over) and the appearance of the smaller sizes which\nwere little or not at all in evidence at the beginning of the season. Whether this diminution\nin size continues throughout the migrating period cannot be determined from the material at\npresent available. It is not improbable that a minimum average size would be attained, which\nwould then be found constant as long as the fish were leaving the lake.\nNo similar phenomenon was observed by Chamberlain in his investigations on the salmon\nof Alaska.f From an examination of the Naha River throughout the migrating season, he\nconcludes: \" The migration of salmon takes place in such a manner that the average size of\nthe migrants is about the same throughout the season.\"\nA possible source of error in his figures lies in the impossibility, at the time he conducted his\ninvestigations, of distinguishing yearlings from two-year-olds among the migrating fingerlings.\nThe range in length, according to Chamberlain, is from 49 to 115 mm., a range which would seem\nexcessive for fish of the same age. It will probably appear, when scales from a series of Naha\nfingerlings are examined, that the larger sizes have remained two full years in the lake. If so,\ntheir presence in varying numbers on different days might obscure the trend of events among\nthe yearlings.\n* Through the kindness of Professor Charles B. Wilson, this parasite has been identified as Salmincola\n(Lernmopoda) falculata.\nf Some Observations in Salmon and Trout in Alaska. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 627, 1907,\npage 37. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 47\nTable XXXI.\u2014Yearling Sockeyes, Rivers Inlet, 1914.   Lengths in Millimetres on Successive Days\nof Migration.\nMm.\nMay.\n13th to 21st.\n22nd, 23rd. 24th to 27th.\n28th.\n29th.        30th, 31st.\nJune.\n1st, 2nd.   Sth to 7th.\n40\t\n42\t\n44\t\n49\t\n50\t\n51\t\n52\t\n53  \t\n54\t\n55\t\n56\t\n57\t\n58\t\n59\t\n60\t\n61\t\n62\t\n63\t\n64\t\n65\t\n66\t\n67\t\n6S\t\n69\t\n70\t\n71\t\n72\t\n73    ...\nNumber    of\nspecimens\nAverage mm.\n4\n8\n4\n12\n8\n12\n17\n11\n6\n7\n2\n3\ni\n1\n100\n64.1\n3\n7\n8\n11\n12\n13\n6\n9\n9\n5\n4\n100\n61\n3\n4\n4\n12\n18\n19\n10\n9\n9\n5\n2\n4\n8\n7\n12\n9\n11\n15\n14\n18\n15\n12\n10\n12\n8\n5\n6\n6\n2\n5\n1\no\n2\n3\n4\n100\n100\n100\n1\n2\n4\n7\n15\n13\n22\n13\n9\n3\n4\n2\n2\n1\n59.2\n59.6\n57.9\n100\n58.9\n2\n1\n5\n14\n13\n12\n13\n13\n9\n7\n4\n2\n1\n100\n2\n6\n13\nIS\n20\n18\n7\n7\n1\n5\n2\n100\n5S.3\nWhen the curve is smoothed by averaging each number in the last line of the above table\nwith the adjacent number to the left, the series reads as follows:\u2014\nMay.\nJune.\n13th to 21st.\n22nd, 23rd.\n24th to 27th.\n28th.\n29th.\n30th, 31st.\n1st, 2nd.\n5th to 7th-.\nAverage  mm.\n64.1\n62.5\n60.1\n59.4\n58.7\n58.4\n57.9\n57.6 S 48\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable XXXII.\u2014Yearling Sockeyes, Rivers Inlet, 1915.    Lengths in Millimetres on Successive\nDays of Migration.\nMm.\nDates in May.\n14th.\nloth, 16th.\n17th, 18th.\n19th, 20th.\n21st, 22nd.\n23rd, 24th.        26 th.\n50   \t\n51 '.\t\n52   \t\n53   \t\n54   \t\n55   \t\n56   \t\n57   \t\n58   \t\n59   \t\n60   \t\n61   \t\n62   \t\n63   \t\n64   \t\n65   \t\n66   \t\n67   \t\n6S   \t\n69   \t\n70   \t\n71   \t\n72   \t\n73   \t\nNumber    of    specimens\nAverage mm\t\nSmoothed  curve   . .\n1\n1 2\n2 2\n5       4\n1\n3 1\n4 1\n2\n1\n2\n5       7\n3       4\n1\n4\n10      11\n9      13\n1\n3\n14\n21      21\n18      14\n5\n8\n11\n20      17\n13      11\n5\n6\n18\n17      15\n26      5\n8\n16\n20\n20      19\n22      11\n7\n15\n22\n13      12\n9       3\n7\n17\n19\n16      13\n14       6\n8\n23\n14\n12       9\n11       2\n4\n13\n5\n5       7\n8       2\n5\n16\n4\n3       3\n4\n8\n3\n3\n2\n4\n6\n8\n3\n1\n1\n4\n7\n2\n5\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1\n2\ni\nl\n1\n1\n6\n1\n2\n1\n1\ni\ni\n75\n150\n150     150     150     150      75\n61.2\n61.2\n59.3  |  5\n7.2     57.5     57.6    56.6\nj   61.2\n61.2\n60.2     58.2     57.3     57.5  j 57.1\nThe number of Individuals which spend two full years in the lake before migrating is very\nlimited among Rivers Inlet fingerlings. Five were found in the 1914 series, ranging from 69 to\n81 mm. in length. The first year's growth in these contains four to six rings, the second year's\ngrowth six to twelve rings. Usually there are one or two rings of the new season's growth at\nthe margin.    Four similar specimens were discovered in the 1915 series  (see Fig. 7).\nThe great majority of the 1915 yearlings had made a vigorous growth during the season in\nwhich they migrated, as indicated by the widely spaced scale-rings, from one to six in number,\nwhich lie outside the narrowly crowded rings of the previous season. The amount of new growth\nhas varied widely in different individuals and stands apparently in inverse ratio to the stature\nattained at the close of the first year. In general, the smaller the individual at the close of its\nfirst season's growth, the earlier it begins the growth of the next year, and the greater the amount\nof this growth will have been made by the time it leaves the lake. (Compare Fig. 6 with Fig. 5\nin this regard.) Here, again, as we found with respect to the adult stature, there is a standard\nsize which individuals of the race seek to attain, and a compensatory law of growth, in accordance with which laggards are spurred on to accelerated growth and the precocious are retarded.\nThe following table makes this sufficiently evident with regard to the yearlings. We may assume\nthat the number of rings produced on the scale during the first season is in general proportionate\nto the size of the fish at the close of that period, while the number of rings of new growth\nadequately represent the amount of such growth. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 49\nTable XXXIII.\u2014Relation between Amount of New Season's Growth in Rivers Inlet Yearlings,\n1915, and Size attained during First Season.\nIndividuals with First Season Rings\nnumbering\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n4.4\n3.6\n3.5\n2.3\n2\n0.7\nThe number of first-year rings ranges from three to twelve, with an average of 8.08. Those\nof the new growth range from one to nine, with an average of 3.41. The sums of the two on\neach scale vary from nine to sixteen.\nConspicuous exceptions occur to this rule of growth, but they are few in number. At one\nend of the series stand a few scattering dwarfs 40 to 44 mm. long which do not connect up with\nthe rest of the series. In spite of their small size at the close of the first year, some influence\nretarded the onset of the active period and they show no new growth whatsoever. At the other\nend of the series stand a few exceptional giants, which also fail to enter a regular frequency\ncurve. Examination of their scales indicates that they were large vigorous fish the preceding\nfall, but contrary to the usual procedure had made another vigorous growth early in the new\nseason.\nWe have assumed above that the number of rings in the scale up to the point representing\nthe close of the first year's growth is in general an indication of the relative size of the\nindividuals. We cannot test that directly in the Rivers Inlet yearlings, but we have enumerated\nthe total rings (the first-year rings plus those of the new season) in a number of yearlings\ncovering the total range in size, and present the results in the following table:\u2014\nTable XXXIV.\u2014Showing Relation of Size  to  Total Number of  Scale-rings  in Rivers  Inlet\nMigrating Yearlings, 1915.\nNumber of Specimens.\nRange in\nMillimetres.\nAverage Total\nNuclear Rings.\n9\n50 to 54\n55 to 59\n60 to 64\n65 to 69\n70 to 73\n9 5\n30                    \t\n10 6\n43   \t\n111\n15   \t\n12 6\n2\n15 5\nIV.   THE  SMITH INLET  SOCKEYE RUN OF 1915.\n(1.)  Certain Characteristics of the Run.\nThe first examination of a Smith Inlet sockeye run was made in 1914, when it was noted\nthat a very large percentage of the fish\u2014about 80 per cent, of the entire run\u2014were delaying\nmaturity until their fifth year. As the pack in 1914 was at least up to the average for Smith\nInlet, we were justified in assuming that whatever group normally predominates in the Smith\nInlet race was represented during that season in its usual proportions. Continued observation\nof a number of sockeye races for a term of years has taught us that violent oscillations in the\nproportions of the age-groups in any river system are occasioned by equal variation in the\nabundance of the prevailing group for that stream. On this basis we announced in the report\nfor 1914 that the Smith Inlet race matured more generally at five than at four years.\nThis conclusion is borne out by the experience of the run of 1915, which was probably one\nof the largest runs known in that district, although unfortunately no statistics are available.\nIt is most instructive in this connection to note that the proportion of five-year fish is still\ngreater than in 1914. A test was made near the beginning of the run, on July 3rd, when\n97 per cent, consisted of five-year fish. Although 182 fish were examined, only six proved to\nbe in their fourth year, and there were no females among them.\nA second test, taken July 27th, showed a somewhat larger number of four-year fish, forty-\nnine out of a total of 492.   But, even at that, the percentages stand 90 per cent, five-year-olds S 50\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nand 10 per cent, in their fourth year. This apparent increase in the proportion of the younger\ngeneration toward the close of the season may not have been part of a progressive tendency.\nIn Rivers Inlet the reverse tendency was apparent, the relative numbers of five-year fish\nincreasing with the later dates. A weekly or semi-weekly test at each of these stations is much\nto be desired. Both streams form very simple systems, each with a single lake, and the races\nof sockeyes are extremely alike in their characteristics. If any general laws can be deduced\nfrom the movements of sockeyes, a detailed examination of such runs should make them\napparent.\n(2.) Average Lengths and Weights.\nThe two tests made July 3rd and July 27th differ so materially in the length distribution\nthat it seems advisable to place them independently on record. Both are given in the table\nwhich follows. One hundred and eighty-two were examined July 3rd and 492 on July 27th,\nbut for convenience of direct comparison each lot is reduced in the table to the basis of 500.\nIt will be noted that the early-running five-year fish average larger than those running later.\nThis result is in accordance with our experience in Rivers Inlet in a more extended series of\ndates (see Table XXV., this report). Unfortunately in both Instances the four-year fish are\nin such small numbers that no certain evidence can be had from them. The averages of the\nlater lot of Smith Inlet fish in 1915 agree very closely with the seasonal average for 1914, the\nmale five-year fish coinciding exactly, the females differing by VM inch only.\nTable XXXV.\u2014Smith Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1915, grouped by Length, Age, Sex, and Date of\nCapture.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nJuly    July\n3rd.    27th.\nJuly\n3rd.\nJuly\n27th.\nJuly\n3rd.\nJuly\n27th.\nJuly\n3rd.\nJuly\n27th.\n19   \t\n19%   \t\n20   \t\n20%    \t\n21   \t\n21%    \t\n22   \t\n22%    \t\n23   \t\n23%    \t\n24   \t\n24%   \t\n25\t\n25%   \t\n26   \t\n26%   \t\n27   \t\n27%    \t\n28   \t\n28%   \t\n29   \t\n29%   \t\nTotals   \t\nAverage length in inches\n11\n3\nOl\nM\n3\n19\n8\n30\n61\n60\n22\n27\n3\n1\n8\n28\n41\n32\n30\n26\n4\n6\n1\n1\n17\n30\n20    247     184     236     266\n3\n25\n36\n49\n68\n33\n19\n3\n1\n1\n2\n1\n5\n16\n35\n56\n70\n49\n19\n8\n3\n22.9    23.4 1\n22.7   25.7   25.5   25.3   24.8 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 51\nTable XXXVI.\u2014Smith Inlet Sockeyes taken July 21th, 1915, grouped by Weight, Age, and Sex.\nWeight in Pounds.\n3      3%\n4      4%      5      5% |    6      6%     .7      7% )   8      8%      9         Average.\nFour-year males  .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males  ..\nFive-year females\n2\n6\n10\n8\n6\n24\n2\n4\n14\n8\n6\n6\n2\n12\n48\n74\n6\n12\n38\n106\n194\n2\n88\n84\n40\n12\n6\n4\n98\n50\n14\n12\n5.3\n4.9\n6.5\n6.0\n(3.)  The Nuclear Area of the Scales.\nIn the 1915 run the Smith Inlet fish had obviously a larger nuclear scale region, provided\nwith more numerous rings than had those from Rivers Inlet. This was true with both four-\nand five-year fish, while in each stream the four-year-olds had larger nuclei than the five-year-\nolds. The four-year sockeyes from Smith Inlet averaged 9 rings; from Rivers Inlet, 7; the\nfive-year fish from Smith Inlet, 7.3; from Rivers Inlet, 5.8. Every effort was made to eliminate\nfrom the count the fresh-water new-growth rings of the second season, enumerating only those\nrings that lie within the first winter check. But the line of demarcation is often difficult to\nmake out in the adult scale, because of the thickening and blurring effects of subsequent additions\nto the thickness of the scale, while such difficulty does not exist in the case of the yearling\nscale. Whatever the cause, a lack of agreement will be noted between the average number of\nrings in the 1915 migrating yearlings from each basin and the average nuclear rings in the\n1915 adults from the corresponding stream. Thus the 1915 yearling record gives 6.1 for Smith\nInlet and 8 for Rivers Inlet, and the yearling record for 1914 gave 5.4 for Smith Inlet and 6.3\nfor Rivers Inlet. The cause for this discrepancy is not clear, although it may be due to larger\nannual fluctuations than we have observed in the sizes of the yearlings from the two basins,\nand to a corresponding degree in the number of scale-rings.\nTable XXXVII.\u2014Nuclear Rings on Scales of Smith Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1915.\nNumber of Nuclear Rings.\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\nAverage.\nFour-year fish\t\n2\n27\n3\n116\n5\n193\n10\n178\n14\n164\n24\n124\n8\n72\n6\n31\n10\n10\n3\n9.0\n7.3\n(4.)  Relative Numbers of Smith Inlet Males and Females.\nThe run of 1915 was again marked by excess of four-year males over four-year females and\na compensating excess of five-year females over five-year males.\nTable XXXVIII.\u2014Percentage of Males and Females in Smith Inlet Sockeyes of Different Ages.\n1914.\n1915.\nPercentage of four-year males  .\nPercentage of four-year females\nPercentage of five-year males . .\nPercentage of five-year females\n60\n40\n46\n54\nIn neither year for which we have record is the disproportion among the sexes as extensive\nas is shown in Rivers Inlet over a longer term of years. It is most instructive to note, however,\nthat in both cases an excess in the males maturing at an early age is followed by a deficiency\namong the males maturing in the following year. It is equally significant that when, as in the\nSmith Inlet race, the excess of four-year males is less than among Rivers Inlet four-year fish,\nthe extent of the deficiency among five-year males is correspondingly less. S 52   . Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nIn the 1914 Smith Inlet run we noted that the proportions of the sexes were similar on\nJuly 4th and July 28th, the only two dates when tests were made. The 1915 tests were on\nJuly 3rd and July 27th, but the results were quite different. On July 3rd the sexes were in\nnearly equal numbers\u2014males 51 per cent, and females 49 per cent. But on July 27th the females\nwere running in increased numbers, for among nearly 500 specimens, 59 per cent, were females\nand 41 per cent, males. This increase of females toward the close of the season agrees with the\nRivers Inlet experience in 1915. We have taken as the average for the year for the five-year\nfish, the mean between the two dates. Among the four-year contingent we were compelled to\nuse the percentage of July 27th, as no four-year females were secured on the earlier date.\n(5.)  Young Sockeye Migrants in Smith Inlet , 1915.\nMigrating Fingerlings.\u2014Young sockeyes in the fingerling stage, on their seaward migration\nfrom the lake in which they had spent their first year after hatching, were secured by Fisheries\nOverseer Stone on the dates from May 31st to June 6th. Two hundred and fifty specimens were\nobtained, and consisted of 132 males (53 per cent.) and 118 females (47 per cent.). The numbers\ninvolved are so limited that the slight excess of males cannot be considered conclusive. Males\nwere more abundant than females in each of three separate lots captured on different days\nwithin the period mentioned, but the remaining two lots showed a slight excess of females.\nIn 1914 a similar series of about 200 migrating fingerlings contained a few more females than\nmales.\nThe average size of the migrants was greater in 1915 than in 1914, and the total range in\nsize varied accordingly. In 1915 the extremes in size were 61 and 88 mm., and all but a few\nscattering individuals were included between 65 and 77 mm. The average of the entire series\nis 71.7 mm.; of the males, 72.1; of the females, 71.3. Thus the males average slightly larger,\nand this is true also of each of the separate lots taken on different days. It was the case also\nin 1914, when the males averaged 67.2 and the females 66. It is probable, therefore, that the\nlarger size of the male migrating fingerlings is a constant feature in the Smith Inlet race.\nComparing Smith Inlet with Rivers Inlet for the years 1914 and 1915, it is seen that they\nvaried in opposite directions in the sizes attained by their young migrants. While Smith Inlet\nproduced a brood of larger fish in 1915, the Rivers Inlet fingerlings of 1915, as shown in a\nprevious section, were slightly smaller than in 1914. Yet the two inlets are separated by a\nfew miles only, and the lakes in which their respective sockeyes breed have short outlets and\nare elevated but a few feet above tide-water. From this it would seem that the annual variations to which these lakes are subject as regards temperature, rainfall, and other climatic\nconditions must coincide, and that they would produce an identical effect on the fingerlings of\nthe two basins, in case they produced any effect at all. The fact that the lengths attained by\nthe fingerlings of the two basins vary in opposite directions in successive years appears to indicate\nthat climate is not the principal determining factor, and that other conditions must be sought\nwhich are local in their nature and vary independently within the limits of each lake or watershed. To determine these, a physical and biological survey of one or more lakes should be\nundertaken, which would make a comparative study in two successive years of all the elements\nof the environment favourable or detrimental to the young sockeyes, and with these should be\ncorrelated the varying rates of growth of the fry and fingerlings. The swarms of minute\norganisms on which the young fish feed may well vary ill abundance extensively in different\nyears, but the Smith Inlet and Rivers Inlet fingerlings appear plump and well nourished in\nboth years and afford no evidence of stunting due to lack of food.\nIn another interesting respect there appears to be a divergence in the behaviour of the young\nmigrants of the two basins, for the Smith Inlet fingerlings fail to show that decrease in average\nsize on successive days of migration which is so characteristic of Rivers Inlet. Instead of a\ndecrease, the Smith Inlet migrants show a small but constant increase during successive periods,\nand this is true of both males and females, and in about equal amount. The following table\nexhibits the length-distribution of all the individuals examined on successive dates, covering\nthe period under investigation, the sexes given separately. The slight increase in size needs\nconfirmation by a much larger series, which would adequately represent the entire migration at\nfrequent intervals. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 53\nTable XXXIX.\u2014Yearling Sockeyes, Smith Inlet, 1915.    Lengths in Millimetres on Successive\nDays of Migration.\nMillimetres.\nMay 31st to June 3rd.\nJune 4th.       June 5th and 6th.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.            F.\nM.\n61   \t\n1\n62   \t\n1\n63   \t\n1\n64   \t\n65   \t\ni\n66   \t\n2\n67   \t\n1\n3\n68   \t\n7\n3\ni\n4\n69   \t\n4\n3\n2\n3\n2\n70  \t\n5\n7\n4\n4           4\n3\n71   \t\n6\n11\n4\n4            9\n12\n72   \t\nS\n9\n10\n4            7\n6\n73   \t\n-    7\n6\n3\n6            6\n7\n74   \t\n2\n7\n3\n1            6\n11\n75   \t\n2\n1\n2            3\n6\n76   \t\n2\n1\n1\n5\n77   \t\n2\n1\n1\n78   \t\n79   \t\n80   \t\n1\n1\nNumber of specimens\nA\"2rage mm\t\nAverage both sexes . .\n47\n53\n28\n22\n43\n57\n70.6\n71.6\n71.1\n71.6\n71.9\n71.9\n72.6\n72.;\nNone of the young migrants had spent more than one winter in the lake after hatching;\nall were in their second year. They had grown very slowly during the spring and summer of\ntheir first season, and had compensated for this by beginning a vigorous growth very early in\nthe second spring. Thus, in each of the individuals examined, the scales contained an inner\nseries of delicate thin crowded rings which marks the limited growth of the first spring and\nsummer. As in the previous year, one transition ring usually lies between the two series,\nnarrowly spaced and parallel to the inner rings, but heavy like the outer ones, and often extended\nlaterally beyond the last rings of the inner series. The inner and the outer series are sharply\ndistinguished. Often they are not strictly parallel, the outer rings frequently more wavy and\nirregular, the irregularities corresponding to the uneven margin of the rapidly growing scales,\nand parallel in all the rings formed at this season.\nThe number of inner rings, representing the first season's growth, is slightly greater than\nin the 1914 yearlings, and shows an average of 6.1 instead of 5.4. This is compensated by a\nslightly smaller number of outer rings, which average 3.5 instead of 4.2. It will be noted that\nin both years the sums of the outer and inner rings equals 9.6'. As in the previous season, many\nscales in certain individuals fail to show any trace of the delicate inner rings of the first year,\n-and contain only the few heavy widely-spaced rings of the second season. Other scales from the\nsame individuals often contain the missing rings and give the complete history of the fish.\nFig. 9 represents the scale of an exceptional individual which made a very extensive growth,\nmarked by thirteen rings, during its first season, and a moderate increase indicated by four\nrings in its second season before migrating.\nV. THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1915.\n(1.)  The Age-groups.\nIn this discussion we limit ourselves to the predominating type of Skeena River sockeyes,\nthose whiclTspend but one year in fresh water and mature either at the age of four or of five S 54\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nyears. We have failed to discover any grilse maturing at the age of three years, and if such\nare present in the run they must habitually escape through the meshes of the gill-nets which\nform the exclusive means of fishing at the mouth of the Skeena.\nAs in other rivers, so in the Skeena, the relative sizes of the four- and the five-year groups\nvary widely in successive years. The significance of this variation, and its relation to the size\nof the run in any given year, can be determined only by an extended series of observations.\nSuch data as we have, covering the last four years, are presented in the following table:\u2014\nTable XL.\u2014Percentages of Four-\nand Five-year Skeena River Sockeyes in Runs of Successive\nYears.\nRun of the Year.\nPercentage,\nFour and Five\nYears old.\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1912 (92,498 cases)    |\n1913 (52,927 cases)    j\n1914 (130,166 cases)   \t\n1915 (116,553 cases)    - J\n1907 (108,413 cases).\n1908 (139,846 cases).\n1909 (87,901 cases).\n1910 (187,246 cases).\n1911 (131,066 cases).\nFrom this it would appear that the five-year fish in the Skeena run are normally in excess\nof the four-year fish; and that where the reverse condition obtains, and the four-year fish are\nmost numerous, a smaller run results. The figures presented in this table are not wholly reliable,\nalthough they cover accurately the material to which we have had access. But through the\ncontinued neglect of the observer to whom has been entrusted the collection of data, our material\nhas failed to represent in any year a complete cross-section of the run. The relative proportions\nof the age-groups may not remain constant from first to last of the season, and the figures\nmay err accordingly. In 1915 tests were made on July 3rd, 10th, 21st, and 22nd. These seem\nto show a slight increase in relative numbers of the four-year group on the later dates. The\npercentages of four-year fish for the dates above given are 33.5, 30.5, 39.5, and 39.7. These\ndifferences are not sufficiently great materially to affect our results, but we are without representation of either the beginning or the end of the run.\n(2.)  Average Lengths and Weights.\nThe following tables present the frequency distribution of fish of different sizes among those\nwhich remained a single year in the lake and descended to the sea at the beginning of the second\nseason. Of this prevailing group, we examined 738 specimens. For convenience of comparison,\nthese have been reduced in the tables to the basis of 1,000. 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 55\nTable XLI.\u2014Skeena River Sockeyes, Run of 1915, One Year in Lake, grouped hy Length,\nAge, and Sex.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber or Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nMales.      Females.\nFive Years old.\nMales.    I Females.\n21 ..\n21%\n22 ..\n22%\n23 .\n23%\n24 ..\n24%\n25 ..\n25%\n26 ..\n26%\n27 ..\n27%\n28 ..\n28%\n29 ..\nTotals  \t\nAverage length in inches\n5\ni\n3\n4\n7\n12\n1\n12\n45\n4\n4\n24\n42\n1\n8\n41\n31\n12\n50\n52\n18\n16\n77\n34\n3\n27\n88\n19\n1\n63\n64\n1\n72\n42\n1\n46\n38\n7\n*2\n1\n18\n2\n1\n199     I     157\n24.2\n23.5\n289\n25.9\n355\n25.0\nTable XLII.\u2014Skeena River Sockeyes, Run of 1915, One Year in Lake, grouped hy Weight,\nAge, and Sex.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4%\n5%      6     6%      7      7%      8      8%      9\nAverage.\nFour-year males   .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males   . .\nFive-year females\n13\n28\n60\n57\n21\n14\n52\n55\n19\n6\n11\n27\n43\n84\n7\n11\n76\n107\n82\n62\n30\n54\nIS\n21\n7\n5.7\n5.2\n6.8\n6.2\nTable XLIII.\u2014Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, for Four\nSuccessive Years.\n1912.\n1913.\n1914.\n191C\nFour-year males  .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males  ..\nFive-year females\n24.6\n23.5\n26.4\n25.2\n23.5\n22.9\n25.5\n24.7\n24.2\n23.4\n26.2\n25.1\n24.2\n23.5\n25.9\n25.0 S 56\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable XLIV.\u2014Average Lengths and Weights, Skeena River Sockeyes, Runs of 191,'t and 1915.\nLengths.\nWeights.\n1914. 1915. 1914. 191.\nFour-year males   .\nFour-year  females\nFive-year males  . .\nFive-year females\n24.2\n23.4\n26.2\n25.1\n24.2\n23.5\n25.9\n25.0\n5.9\n5.3\n7.2\n6.3\n5.7\n5.2\n6.8\n6.2\n(3.)  Proportions of the Sexes.\nFor comparison with the results of previous years we present the following table, giving\npercentages of males and females among four- and five-year fish during the past four years:\u2014\nTable XLV.\u2014Percentages of Males and Females in Skeena River Sockeyes of Different Ages.\n1912.\n1913.\n1914.\n1915.\nFour-year males  .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males  .\nFive-year females\n54\n46\n42\n58\n69\n31\n47\n53\n60\n40\n47\n56\n44\n45\n55\nThe above results are sufficiently close for successive years when we consider the limited\ndata available. This is the more regrettable in the present instance, as a somewhat extensive\nshifting in the relative proportions of the sexes seems to occur as the season advances. To what\nextent this shifting discredits the percentages given above, we are unable to state.\nA very similar change occurs in the Rivers Inlet run, as we have shown in Table XXX.\nof this report, wherein it appears that a decided increase in the relative numbers of five-year\nfemales occurs in the latter part of the run. For comparison we give below a similar table\nfor the Skeena River, covering the four dates on which tests were taken in 1915:\u2014\nTable XLVI.\u2014Percentages of Males and Females in Four- and Five-year Sock-\nDates, Skeena River, 1915.\nat Different\nJuly 3rd.    July 10th.   July 21st.\nJuly 22nd.\nFour-year males     60\nFour-year females   ' 40\nFive-year males   i 53\nFive-year females   I 47\n48\n52\n50\n50\n57\n43\n36\n64\n57\n43\n38\n62\n(4.)  Number of Nuclear Scale-rings.\nAs is shown in the following table, the number of nuclear rings on the scales of Skeena\nRiver sockeyes of the one-year-in-lake type ranged in 1915 from five to twenty-two, resembling\nin this respect the Fraser River race (see Table XIIL, this report), but no other on the coast\nof British Columbia. The average number of rings is slightly lower in the Skeena race, but\nthey are more widely spaced, indicate an equally vigorous growth on the part of the yearlings,\nwhich equal in size the yearlings from the Fraser. The table given below is based on 738\nspecimens, reduced to the basis of 1,000 :\u2014 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 57\nTable XLVII.\u2014Nuclear Rings, Skeena River Sockeyes, 1915, One Year in Lake.\nNumber of Nuclear Rings.\n5\n6\n7\n8  9\n10\n11  12\n13\n14\n15\n16 17 18 19 20 j 21 22\n3\n3\n7\n4\n18\n5\n12\n18\n19\n18\n43\n19 52\n48 114\n59\n95\n45\n96\n43\n78\n44\n59\n18\n27\n22\n15\n3\n7\n..  1\n4 ..\ni\nAverage: four-year fish, 13.5 ; five-year fish, 12.8.\n05.)  The Two-years-in-lake Type.\nIn our report for 1914 we have included an account of the Skeena River sockeye runs for\nthe three years, 1912, 1913, and 1914, and in discussing the racial peculiarities of the Skeena\nRiver group we have called attention to certain peculiarities in which it strongly resembles the\nFraser River race. Among these may be mentioned the very vigorous growth in fresh water\nduring the first summer after hatching, the equally extensive growth during the first season in\nthe sea, and the prevailing habit of proceeding to sea in the fingerling stage in the spring of the\nsecond year. , \u2022\nIn the last-mentioned respect a strong contrast is found with the Nass River race, in which\neach year more than half of the yearling fingerlings fail to migrate seawards, and remain for\none or two years' additional residence in fresh water. As we have previously observed, this\nhabit exists in some degree in each of the river-basins which we have examined. But in certain\nstreams, as in the Fraser, it is of comparatively infrequent occurrence, and affects so small\na proportion of the individuals comprising a run that these are usually ignored in the tables\nrepresenting frequencies of length and weight and other statistics of the run.\nIn the tables given in our 1914 report (pages 66, 67), presenting statistics for the Skeena\nRiver runs for 1912, 1913, and 1914, we have in similar fashion ignored all individuals which\nhad tarried two years in their native lake before seeking the salt water. Only 7 per cent, of\nthe 1914 run had shown this history, the remainder having performed their downward migration\nas yearlings, and alone receiving consideration in the tables to which reference has been made.\nIt appears, however, that in the Skeena race the number of delayed fingerling migrants is\nsubject to a considerable annual fluctuation. In the 1915 run they were much more numerous,\nand comprised 15.4 per cent, of all the specimens which we examined. As in the case of delayed\nfingerling migrants in the Fraser basin and elsewhere, none of this class in the Skeena came to\nmaturity at the age of four years, after two summers and one winter in the sea. They were\ndivided almost equally between five- and six-year fish, and in each of these groups females were\nslightly more numerous than males. Thus, with a total of 133 individuals, the five-year group\ncontained thirty-two males and thirty-five females; the six-year group, thirty-one males and\nthirty-five females. Here, again, it is evident that the additional 3'ear's residence in fresh\nwater has had only a very slight effect on the period at which maturity will be attained.\nThose individuals which spend but one year in fresh water mature at the age of four or five,\nthose which spend two years in fresh water at the age of five or six. The only accelerating\neffect of the second year in fresh water is observed in an increase, within the second group,\nin the percentage which mature during the first of their two years, that is at the age of five\nrather than six. These comprise, as we have seen, about 50 per cent, of the whole; while\nthose of the first group (one-year-in-lake) maturing at the age of four comprised in 1915 but\n36 per cent, of the group.\nThe effect on stature of the additional year's residence in the lake can be ascertained by\ncomparing individuals of the two groups which have spent equal times on the sea-feeding\ngrounds, whatever period they may have spent previously in fresh water. Thus we compare\nfour-year fish of the first group with five-year fish of the second group, and five-year fish of the\nfirst with six-year fish of the second.    The results are shown in the following table:\u2014 S 58\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable XLVIII.\u2014Comparative Lengths and Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, 1915, with Equal\nPeriods of Sea-feeding, but Different Periods of Residence in Fresh Water.\nIndividuals that spent\nTwo Winters in Sea.\nThree Winters in Sea.\nOne Year in Lake\n(Four Years old).\nTwo Years in Lake\n(Five Years old).\nOne Year in Lake\n(Five Years old).\nTwo Years in Lake\n(Six Years old).\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nAverage length in inches\nAverage weight in pounds\n24.2\n5.7\n23.5\n5.2\n24.5\n5.9\n23.4\n5.2\n25.9\n6.8\n25.0\n6.2\n25.6\n6.6\n24.4\n6.0\nIt is thus apparent that in the Skeena River race an additional year's residence in the lake\nbefore descending to the sea neither advances to any considerable degree the period of maturing,\nnor adds anything to the stature of the fish. No advantage whatever accrues from it, whereas,\non the other hand, during the entire additional year, the fingerlings are exposed to the attacks\nof predacious fishes which decimate their ranks. The facts may not be wholly similar, however,\nin other river-basins, as will be seen on reference to our report on the Nass.\nExamination of the nuclear region of the scale confirms our previous assertion that the group\nof yearlings which postpone migration is composed on the average of smaller individuals than\nthose which migrate. In the 1915 run the adults which had migrated seawards as yearlings\nshowed in the nuclear area of their scales an average of thirteen rings, formed in the lake during\ntheir first season. Those adults which as yearlings had postponed their seaward migration for\nanother year had formed at the end of their first year an average of slightly less than seven\nrings. And the number of rings, we know, is roughly proportionate to the size of the fish. Those\nof the two-years-in-lake group which mature at five years have on the average a slightly greater\nnumber of nuclear rings than have those which mature at six. For the first year in the lake\nthe averages are 6.9 and 6.5; for the second year, 13.7 and 12.7; and for the sums of all the\nnuclear rings on each scale we have 20.7 and 19.2. The differences are so slight that an accumulation of evidence will be needed before we can assert that the yearlings and two-year-olds which\nare to mature at the age of five show a slight but tangible superiority over those which will\nmature a year later.\n(6.)  Yearling Migrants from Babine Lake, 1915.\nA series of migrating yearlings of the Skeena River race was secured by Fisheries Overseer\nK. F. Birchall in the outlet to Babine Lake on dates from April 30th to May 17th. This was a\nfull month earlier than the collections made in 1914.\nThe total number obtained was 389, of which 171 (44 per cent.) were males and 218 (56\nper cent.) were females. The total range in size was from 68 to 102 mm., the males averaging\nS6.2 and the females 85.5. The correspondence is thus very close with the preceding year, when\nthe total range in size was from 69 to 101 mm., the average for the males being 85.2 and for the\nfemales 83.5.\nIt is evident that the size attained by a given race at the period of its seaward migration\nis as definitely standardized as is the adult stature of the race. In the one case, as in the\nother, slight annual fluctuations are to be expected, based doubtless on varying elements in the\nenvironment which we have not as yet determined.\nNone of the specimens examined had spent two years in the lake, whereas in 1914 there\nwere included with the migrants a few two-year-olds, of which the smallest was 101 mm. long.\nIn both 1914 and 1915 the yearling scales terminate each in a winter band, thus indicating that\nthe vigorous growth of a new season had not yet begun. They agree in this respect with the\nmajority of the Fraser River migrants, which also belong to a vigorous race which attain a\nlarge size during the first season after hatching.    Among the 1915 Babine specimens, only one 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 59\nhad begun the new growth (see Fig. 10). This individual had evidently failed to develop in its\nfirst year as rapidly as had its fellows, for the scales contain but seven rings up to the time of\nthe winter check, whereas the average for the yearlings is fourteen, and none of the others had\nless than eleven. In this exceptional specimen four broad rings of the new season's growth\nsurround the seven which mark the first year. They indicate that growth was begun precociously\nto compensate for slow early development. That it had fairly succeeded is indicated by the\nlength of the specimen, 81 mm., which is but little below the average.\nThe number of rings on the scales of 100 yearlings averages greater than was observed in\n1914. The range is from eleven to twenty, with the average (and also the mode) at fourteen.\nIn 1914 the range was from eight to sixteen, with average and mode at twelve.\nTable XLIX.\u2014Yearling Sockeyes, Babine Lake, Skeena River,\nLengths in Millimetres.\nApril SOth to May 1th, 1915.\nMillimetres.\nMales.\nFemales.\nBoth Sexes.\n6S   \t\n\"i\ni\ni\n2\n4\n1\n5\n5\n5\n5\n6\n6\n4\n9\n11\n15\n18\n9\n8\n9\n12\n5\n6\n4\n6\n4\n2\n2\n2\ni\nl\ni\n1\ni\nl\n\"i\n3\n4\n3\n8\n8\n8\n12\n9\n16\n18\n19\n15\n19\n13\n11\n17\n7\n4\n2\n7\n1\n1\n2\n2\n3\n2\n1\n70                    \t\n1\n71    \t\n2\n72      \t\n2\n73    \t\n2\n74    \t\n5\n75   \t\n4\n76    \t\n9\n77   \t\n8\n78       \t\n13\n79      \t\n13\n80    \t\n14\n81    \t\n18\n82    \t\n13\n83    \t\n25\n84    \t\n29\n85    \t\n34\n86   \t\n33\n87   \t\n28\n88   \t\n21\n89   \t\n20\n90   \t\n29\n91   \t\n12\n92   \t\n10\n93   \t\n6\n94   \t\n13\n95    \t\n5\n96   \t\n3\n97    \t\n4\n98   \t\n4\n99    \t\n3\n100   \t\n1\n101    \t\n3\n102    \t\n1\n171\n218\n389\n86.2\n85.5\n85 8\nTable L.\u2014Number of Rings on Scales in One Hundred Babine Lake Yearlings, 1915.\nNumber of Rings.\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18-\n19\n20\n4\n17\n19\n22\n21\n8\n5\n3\n1\nAverage number of rings :   Males, 13.8; females, 14.5 ; total, 14.2. S 60\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nVI. THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN, 1915.\n(1.)  Age-groups and General Characteristics.\nThere have been previously enumerated seven distinct groups of mature sockeyes which\ncomprise the Nass River run, distinguished by the age at which they mature, and by the period\nwhich they spend in fresh water in the fry or fingerling stage (of. B.C. Report for 1914, page\n70). All the groups thus defined made their appearance again in 1915, except group (7), the\nindividuals of which spend three years in fresh water and mature at the age of seven. These\nwill rarely be encountered in the Nass, where only two specimens have been obtained in previous\nyears; but farther north, in certain Alaskan streams, this group is by no means of rare occurrence. A single representative of another rare group, not heretofore reported from the Nass,\nwas obtained in 1915. This individual had spent one year in the lake as fingerling, descending\nto the sea in its second spring after hatching, and had spent four winters and five summers in\nthe sea, maturing at the age of six. It was a male fish, captured July 7th in the early part\nof the run, was 25 inches long and weighed 6 lb. It was thus distinctly below the average\nlength and weight of five-year fish with the same early history, and must have been early\ndwarfed.\nAnother group very sparsely represented in the Nass, as indeed in practically all the sockeye-\nstreams in British Columbia, is the one we have designated the sea-type, the young having entered\nthe sea as early fry, practically without residence in fresh water. Only nine specimens out of a\nthousand had that history in 1915. All but one of these were females, and averaged 24 inches\nlong, with an average weight of 5.9 lb. All matured in their fourth year, and, as was the case\nin 1914, they exhibited an undoubted tendency to appear early in the run; four were taken July\n7th, four July 12th, one July 20th, and none in August.\nThe outstanding feature of the run of 1915 was its sharp division into an early and a late\nperiod, the two exhibiting very distinct characteristics. The second period was marked by a\nnew run of conspicuously larger fish appearing after the middle of the season, in the final days\nof July or during the first of August. Examination of the scales indicates that the new run\nwas made up in a very large measure of representatives of a single one of the numerous age-\ngroups we know to be present. Over 80 per cent, had remained two years in the lake and were\nmaturing at the age of five; while in the early period of the run, at no time were more than\n25 per cent, of this group present. The following table, which indicates the percentages of\neach gronp running at different dates, emphasizes the abrupt change that appeared in August.\nUnfortunately we have not the exact dates on which the two August tests were made. They\nwere almost certainly within the first half _of the month, for in the latter part of August the\nscales have suffered such extensive erosion that the determination of age becomes difficult.\nTable, LI.\u2014Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates in 1915.\nOne Y'ear\nin Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nThree Yea\n-s in Lake.\nSea-type.\nNumber of\nIndividuals\nFour\nFive\nFive\nSix\nSix\nSeven\nFour\nexamined.\nY'ears.\nYears.\nYears.\nYears.\nY'ears.\nYears.\nYears.\nJuly 7th   \t\n26\n38\n24\n9.5\n0.5\n2\n197\nJuly 12th\t\n28\n41\n20\n6\n2\n3\n99\nJuly 20th\t\n30\n30\n25\n13\n1.6\n0.4\n250\nAugust (1st lot) ..\n2\n10\n82\n4\n2\n258\nAugust (2nd lot) . .\n5\ni\n83\n3\n2\n237\nNot only did five-year fish of the two-year-in-lake type largely predominate in the August\nrun, but those which appeared at that time were distinctively marked. They averaged larger\nthan the members of the same group which were running in July, and, what is of even more\nimportance, they exhibited in the nuclear area of their scales a larger number of rings, with\nconspicuously wider, more even, and regular spacing than had characterized the scales belonging\nto the fish of the July run.    A glance was sufficient to distinguish the two types, and inasmuch 6 Geo. 5\nLlFE-HISTORY   OF   THE   SOCKEYE   SALMON.\nS 61\nas the nuclear area of the scale records that part of the life of the fish which had been spent\nin fresh water, the conclusion seems obvious that the members of the two runs had had a\ndifferent early history, in different parts of the watershed. Only two lakes of importance are\nknown to which Nass River sockeyes have access, Meziadin Lake and the one recently discovered\non the initiative of Mr. Babcock, of this Department, and very appropriately named Lake Bowser.\nWe have no present means of knowing to which of these lakes the later run belongs. That could\nbe ascertained by collecting sufficient material and data at points beyond the forking of the\nstreams which lead to the respective lakes. In this way, it is believed, complete evidence could\nbe secured of a localization of distinct sockeye strains within the basin, and this w'ould render\nnecessary the assumption that fish would in the great majority of cases return at maturity to\nthe part of the basin in which they were spawned.\nIt is interesting and significant that similar evidence of racial distinction could not be\nobtained from the four-year and the five-year groups that had spent only one year in the lake.\nThe nuclear area of the scales in these did not differ among early and late running fish, and\nthere was no wholly satisfactory evidence of an abrupt change in size of the later individuals,\nalthough this is probable in the five-year group. The following table presents average lengths\nin each of the different groups on successive dates. The numbers in brackets indicate the number\nof individuals available for each average. In many cases, especially in the six-year groups, these\nwere wholly inadequate to give a reliable result.\nTable LIT.\u2014Average Lengths of Different Age-groups of Nass River Sockeyes, 1915, on a\nSuccession of Dates.\n1915.\nGroup I.\nFour Years old.\nOne Year in\nLake.\nGroup II.\nFive Years old.\nOne Year in\nLake.\nGroup III.\nFive Years old,\nTwo Years in\nLake.\nGroup IV.\nSix Years old,\nTwo Years in\nLake.\nGroup V.\nSix Years old,\nThree Years in\nLake.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nJuly   7th   ....\n24.0\n23.7\n26.0\n25.2\n25.3\n24.1\n26.3\n25.2\n25.2\nJuly 12th   ....\n(34)\n24.1\n(18)\n23.7\n(39)\n25.9\n(36)\n25.1\n(39)\n25.6\n(8)\n24.2\n(12)\n25.0\n(6)\n24.6\n(1)\n25.0\nJuly 20th   ....\n(18)\n24.2\n(10)\n23.4\n(13)\n25.9\n(11)\n25.1\n(4)\n25.3\n(6)\n25.2\n(2)\n26.3\n(4)\n25.3\n28.5\n(2)\n26.5\nAugust (a)   \u25a0 \u25a0\n(38)\n24.5\n(38)\n23.3\n(35)\n26.1\n(40)\n25.6\n(25)\n26.9\n(38)\n26.3\n(15)\n28.3\n(16)\n25.4\n(2)\n24.2\n(2)\n26.3\nAugust   (b)\n(4)\n25.2\n(2)\n23.9\n(ID\n26.6\n(14)\n25.5\n(111)\n26.8\n(102)\n26.0\n(5)\n27.1\n(4)\n27.0\n(1)\n27.0\n(4)\n27.0\n(3)\n(9)\n(4)\n(12)\n(99)\n(99)\n(4)\n(4)\n(2)\n(2)\nGroup III. of the above table is of greatest interest in the present discussion, as it was\nprincipally through peculiarities in this group that the August run was characterized. The\nmales of this group, as is indicated in the table, ran very uniformably during July, the average\nlength for the three dates in July being 25.3 inches and contrasting sharply with the 26.9 inches\nshown by the August specimens. The females exhibit a similar difference, the first two dates\nin July giving an average of 24.1 inches, while the two in August show 26.2. But the last date\nin July (20th) gives an intermediate average for the females (25.3), while the males gives no\nindication of increase in size on that date. The females are also relatively more numerous on\nJuly 20th, being for the first time in greater numbers than the males. A careful scrutiny of the\nfemales obtained July 20th supplies the key to their peculiar behaviour, for not only were there\nincluded among them more numerous individuals of larger size, but these had also larger nuclei,\nwith the rings more numerous and more widely spaced. In other words, there had been on\nJuly 20th an influx of females of the August form, whereas but few males of this form had\nas yet appeared. Stragglers of the August form were present throughout July, among both\nmales and females, whereas in August the characteristic July form had practically disappeared.\nWe have stated above that the nuclear rings of the August form were not only more widely\nspaced, but they were more numerous.    This applies, however, only to the rings formed during S 62                           Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.                            1916\nthe second year in the lake, those formed during the first year averaging about the same in\nboth series.    Where both strains are present at the same time, as notably on July 20th, that\nfact can be made apparent by forming a table wherein the number  of second-year  nuclear\nrings for each individual is checked against the length of the fish.    These have been prepared\nseparately for males and females and for the two periods July and August, and are given below.\nIn those for July the smaller numbers of nuclear rings are rather constantly associated with\nthe smaller fish, and the larger nuclei with fish of larger size, and the two lots are easily\ndistinguished.   But in the August run, when only one strain was present, both the number of\nnuclear rings and the size of the fish are large, but the smaller fish of the lot do not have an\naverage smaller number of nuclear rings than do the large individuals.\nSix-year fish of the two-years-in-lake group show also two types of nuclei characteristic\nof the two runs.    None of those running in August had less than ten rings in the outer nuclear\ndivision, while among those running in July were numerous individuals with nine, eight, seven,\nand even six rings, formed during the second year in the lake.    But the size of the six-year\nfish is not so closely correlated with the characteristics of the nuclear area, and the total number\nof specimens available is too limited for purposes of tabulation.\nTable LIII.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, July, 1915, Males, Five Years  old,  Two  Years in Lake.\nLengths checked against Second-year Nuclear Rings.\nNumber of Nuclear\nRings.\n\u25a0Lengths in Inches.\nTotal.\n22%\n23\n23%\n24      24%\n25\n25%\n26\n26%\n27\n27%\n28\ni\nl\ni\n'i\nl\ni\n3\n2\n1\n1\n3\ni\nl\n2\n1\n1\n'i\n1\ni\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n'i\ni\n3\n2\n1\n2\n2\ni\n\"2\n2\n1\n2\n7\n4\n6\n16\n11\n11\n8\n6\n8   \t\n9   \t\n10   \t\n11   \t\n1\n12   \t\n13  \t\n14   \t\n15  \t\n16  \t\n17  \t\n18  \t\nl\n1\n4\n5\n2\n1\n1\n2\n2\n3\nTable LIV.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, July, 1915, Females, Five Years old, Two Years in Lake.\nLengths cheeked against the Second-year Nuclear Rings.\nNumber of Nuclear Rings.\nLengths in Inches.\nTotals.\n22%\n23\n23%\n24\n24yi\n25\n25%\n26\n26%\n27\n28\n5:::::::::::::::::::\n9   \t\ni\ni\n2\n1\n2\ni\n2\n1\n3\ni\n3\n1\n'i\n2\n1\ni\n\"2\n1\ni\n3\n1\n1\ni\n2\n2\n1\n0\ni\ni\n2\ni\n1\n1\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\ni\n1\n5\n5\n5\n1\n9\n11\n10\n5\n1\n2\n3\nio \t\n11   \t\n12   \t\n13   \t\n14    \t\n15    '\t\n16   \t\n17   \t\n18   \t 6 Geo. 5\nLife-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nS 63\nTable LV.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, August, 191.5, Males, Five Years old,  Ttvo Years in Lake.\nLengths checked against Second-year Nuclear Rings.\nNumber of\nNuclear Rings.\nLengths in Inches.\n22%\n23%     24  | 24%     25\n25%     26     26%     27     27%     28     28%\n29\nTotals.\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n1\n3\n14\n6\n15\n4\n4\n1\n6\n23\n42\n39\n24\n9\n3\nTable LVI.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, August, 1.915, Females, Five Years old, Two Years in Lake.\nLengths checked against Second-year Nuclear Rings.\nNumber of\nLengths in Inches.\nTotals.\nNuclear Ring\n!.\n22%\n23\n23%\n24\n24%\n25\n25%\n26\n26%\n27\n27%\n28\n28%\n29\n7 . .\n8 ..\n9 ..\n10 ..\n11 ..\n12 ..\n13 ..\n14 ..\n15 ..\n16 ..\n17 ..\n18 . .\ni\ni\n:\nL\n>\n1\n1\ni\nl\n5\n4\n4\n2\ni\ni\n2\n8\n5\n6\n1\n2\n5\n9\n22\n15\n12\n2\ni\n4\n6\n12\n14\n4\n4\n1\n1\ni\ni\n0\n5\n2\n1\n2\n4\n5\nt\ni\n1\n1\n3\n4\n14\n23\n60\n54\n35\n9\n(2.) Average Lengths and Weights.\nIn the following tables are given the frequency distribution of lengths, and the average\nlengths and weights of the July run and the August run separately. As we have already seen\non a previous page, the July run contained one element which ran exclusively in the early\npart of the season mixed with certain members of a second group which reached the apex of\nits run in August. The July averages represent, therefore, neither the early-running group\nnor the late one, but a mean between the two. But the August run was homogeneous, practically\nno strays were present, and the averages represent purely those of the second group.\nIn both tables the number of individuals reported has for convenience been reduced to the\nuniform scale of 1,000. They do not include the few individuals of \" sea-type,\" nine in all,\nwhich ran exclusively during July, nor the single individual which reached the age of six after\nhaving spent but one year in fresh water. S 64\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable LVII.\u2014\"Nass River Sockeyes which ran in July, 1915, grouped by Age, Sex, and Size, and\nby their Early History.\nNumber of Individuals that spent\nLength in\nInches.\nOne Year\nin Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nThree Years in\nLake.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Y\nears old.\nSixY\nnars old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n21   \t\n2\n2\n...\n21%   ...\n...\n22   \t\n2\n2\n...    ,        ...\n22%   . . .\n5\n13\n4\n23  \t\n30\n30\n2\n2\nii\n10\n2\n23%   ...\n31\n26\n2\n9\nn\n11\n2\n24  \t\n28\n42\n4\n18\n15\n17\n2\n4\n24%   . . .\n41\n4\n9\n- 28\n9\n11\n2\n11\n2\n25  \t\n19\n2\n31\n43\n19\n9\n6\n7\n25%  ...\n7\n2\n33\n30\n20\n15\n11\n11\n2\n3\n26  \t\n2\n47\n20\n10\n9\n9\n4\n26%   . . .\n35\n13\n24\n9\n7\n4\n27  \t\n13\n8\n15\n11\n6\n2\n27%   . . .\n4\n5\n2\n2\n28  \t\n4\n4\n3\n28%   . ..\nSo.  ..\n...\n2\nTotal\n167\n123\n184\n171\n134\n106\n54\n49\n5\n7\nAve. length\n24.1\n23.5\n25.9\n25.1\n25.3\n24.9\n26.2\n25.2\n27.4\n25.S\nAve. weight\n5.7\n4.9\n6.9\n6.3\n6.3\n5.9\n6.8\n6.5\n6.8\n6.3\nTable LVIII.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes tchich ran in August, 1915, grouped by Age, Sex, and Size,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber op Individuals that spent\nLength in\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nThree Years in\nLake.\nInches.\nFour Years old,\nFive Years old,\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n21   \t\n21%   \t\n92\n4\n6\n6\n6\n6\n2\n;\n6\n2\nL4\nL0\n8\n4\n6\n2\ni.\ni\nl:\ni\nt\n2\n4\n4\n8\n18\n)4\nL2\n38\n18\nL2\n6\nl\nIt\n\\\nJ\nf\n\u25a0   \u2022\n4\n2\n18\n>4\n!2\n)0\n58\n!4\n4\n2\n2\n2\n8\n2\n2\ni\ni\ni\ni\nt\n2\n2\n2\n;\n1\nt\n2\n4\n22%   \t\n23  \t\n23%   \t\n24  \t\n24%   \t\n25 \t\n25%   \t\n26 \t\n26%   \t\n27 \t\n27%   \t\n28  \t\n28%   \t\n29  \t\n4\n8\n2\n6\n6\n4\n4\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\nTotal.No. ..\n14\n22\n30\n52\n426\n406\n18\n16\n6\n10\nAve. length\n24.8\n23.8\n26.2\n25.6\n26.8\n26.2\n27.7\n26.2\n26.7\n26.6\nAve. weight\n0\n.9\n6\n.5\n<3\n.9\n6\n.7\n1\n.3\n6\n.8\n7\n.8\n6.'\n\u25a0\n6\n.5\n6\n.8 \u201e-~\n\u00a33\nh\n\u00a3 f\u00a3s\n'-\u25a0\nFig. 2. Fraser River sockeye fingerling, one year old. New growth\nof second year begins at 1. Female, IIS mm. long. Chilcotin River,\nApril 21st, 1915.     (Page 38.) III\n\u2022eg\n85\nIf\n*\u25a0\u00ab\n-III\n3 \u00bbS  o o3 f\nFig. 9. Smith Inlet fingerling sockeye, one year old. Exceptional\nindividual, showing unusually extensive growth during the first\nseason.    Male, 71 mm. long.    June 5th, 1915.     (Page 52.) 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 65\nSTATISTICS OF THE HALIBUT FISHERY IN THE PACIFIC: THEIR\nBEARING ON THE BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES AND THE CONDITION   OF   THE   BANKS.\nBy William F. Thompson, Stanford University.\nINDEX.\nPage.\nIntroduction  67\nDiscussion     68\nTables employed in Report    65\nNature of Data employed    71\nStatement of Purpose and Outline of Paper    72\nThe Shifting of the Fishing-grounds     73\nCharts showing Plotted Fishing Records  122-126\nLength of Voyages    78\nThe Time spent in Fishing     80\nYield    82\nWeight caught per Unit of Gear and Cargo  83\nNumber Fish caught per Unit of Gear and Cargo  88\nFluctuation in Sizes of Fish caught    92\nVariations in  Sizes of Fish from Different Banks  99\nChart of Areas of Fishing-banks     122-126\nRelative Productivity of Areas   105\nSummary  107\nTABLES EMPLOYED IN REPORT.\nPage ,\nNo.    1. Average Depths in which Fishing has bee n carried on    76\n2. Seasonal Variation in Depths at which Fishing is done    76\n3. Annual Averages of Depths fished in  76\n4. Averages for March and April of Depths in which Fishing was done    76\n5. Number of Records given by Depth for each Year for which Average Weights were\navailable     77\n6. Number of Voyages according to  Locality in which the Catch was obtained for the\nFive Vessels used in the Present Paper     77\n7. Voyages of Vessel B in 1906 during the Period January to May     78\n8. Average Number of Hours per Voyage    79\n9. Annual Average of Hours per Voyage   79\n10. Average Number of Hours per Voyage for each Month, showing Seasonal Variation\n11. Average Number of Hours per Voyage spent in Fishing, by Months.    Corrected for 80\nVessel Variation     81\n12. Comparison of Length of Voyages and Fishing-time' per Voyage ,  82\n13. Time spent in reaching Banks and lost through Bad Weather     82\n14. Comparison of Length of Voyages and Time spent Fishing- for the Period from 1903\nto 1912 (inclusive)     82\n15. Showing Correspondence of Estimated and Actual Weights of Cargoes  83\n16. Weight of Halibut caught per Skate    84\n17. Weight caught per Skate, showing Averages for such Periods as are best compared 84\n18. Seasonal Fluctuation in Weight caught per Skate, by months   84\n19. Seasonal Fluctuation of Weight caught per  Skate.    Contrasting Averages for  Six-\nmonth Periods    85\n20. Weight of Halibut caught per Skate.    Corrected for Variations in Bank Productivity 86\n21. Averages from Table 20    86\n22. Weight of Cargoes landed.    From  Corrected Data, based on Table 61    87\n23. Average Weight of Cargoes for Years and Seasons     87\n24. Seasonal  Change in Weights  of  Cargoes.    From   Corrected  Weights   (as  given  in\nTable 22)     88\n25. Average Number of Fish caught per Skate.    A Summation of Table 62    88\n26. Average Number of Fish caught per Skate for Comparable Groups of Months.    From\nTable 25    89. S 66 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nNo. 27. Average Number caught per Skate for Seasons of Six Months, showing same Decrease in Both Seasons.    From Table 25    89\n28. Seasonal Variation in Number of Fish caught per  Skate.    From Table 25     89\n29. Number of Fish caught per Skate, Areas I.,  II.,  III.    Correct for Bank Variation.\nFrom Table 64     90\n30. Number of Fish caught per Skate on Areas I., II., and III.   Averages of Comparable\nPeriods in Table 29    91\n31. Average Number and Weight per Skate taken on Rose Spit Bank    91\n32. Yearly Average of Number of Fish per Cargo     92\n33. Comparison of Average Pounds per Cargo  by  Months  with  Average  Number  per\n\u2022 Cargo, to show Heavier Proportionate Average Weight in Winter    92\n34. Average Weight of Fish in Cargoes, as weighed at Dock     94\n35. Averages for Periods which are Comparable.    Taken from Table 34  94\n36. Comparison of Average Weights of Fish  \u25a0  94\n37. Average Sizes of Fish on Various Banks    during  Winter  and  Summer     95\n38. Comparison of Seasonal Variations in Weight and in Number caught per Skate ... 95\n39. Showing the Computed Ages of the Fish caught during Summer and Winter  96\n40. Decrease in Average Size with Greater Depth    ,  96\n41. Correlation of Size of Fish and Number caught per Skate, in Two Periods    98\n42. Correlation of Size and Number on \"Old\" and \"New\" Banks (under and over 75\nFathoms) between 1911 and 1914 (inclusive)     98\n43. Correlation of Size and Number on the \" Older \" Beds    ,  98\n44. Correlation of Weight of Individuals and  Number caught per Skate on Area II.  ... 98\n45. Weight and Number per Skate caught on Limited Areas, to show the Fluctuation . . 99\n46. Records of Catches on Inshore Banks, Areas VI., VII., and VIII  102\n47. Data to be taken from the Daily Log   103\n48. Results of Computations from Table 47   ,  103\n49. Average Weight of Fish in Cargoes as weighed at the Dock on Landing, considering\nthose  from  Single Banks     103\n50. Number, Weight per Skate, and Individual Weight of Fish in Catches made in Inside\nWaters     104\n51. Relative Productivity of Different Areas   105\n52. Number and Weight per Skate caught on Area XII., off North Island    106\n53. Number and Weight per Skate caught eta Area XL, West Coast of the Queen Charlottes     106\n54. Weight and Number per Skate caught on the \" Horshoe \"     106\n55. Average Number and Weight per Skate caught on Areas V., IX...and X  106\n56. Average Number and Weight per Skate  caught on Areas XIV.  and  XV.,  Virago\nSound and Masset    107\n57. Average Length of Voyages per Vessel for each Month, in Hours    110\n58. Average  Number  of  Hours  spent  Fishing per Vessel (data unmodified)     Ill\n59. Weight of Fish caught per Skate by each Vessel      112\n60. Average AV eight caught per Skate on Areas I., IL, and III.   (uncorrected for Bank\nVariation)     113\n61. Average Weight of Cargoes as landed by each Vessel   (data uncorrected for Vessel\nVariation)      114\n62. Average Number of Fish caught per Skate, by Month and Vessel  115\n63. Number of Fish per Cargo, by Vessel and Month    116\n64. Average Number caught per Skate, given by Areas    ,  117\n65. Average Size of Fish caught in Areas L, II., and III., by Months    118\n66. Average Weights of Fish and Depths at which caught on Various Banks  119 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 67\nI. INTRODUCTION.\nAt the inception of the work on the life-history of the halibut by the Fisheries Department\nof the British Columbia Government in the spring of 1914, many voyages were made by the\nauthor on every class of vessel engaged in its capture. One of the things which first attracted\nattention was the care with which the masters and mates of the vessels kept their logs, or\nships records, and the excellent nature from a scientific standpoint of the data kept in them.\nIt was, therefore, soon one of the prime objects of the field-work to examine as complete a series\nof the log-books as was possible. In the course of this the logs for over 900 voyages were obtained,\nand from them the data herein presented were carefully extracted. The labour of doing this has\nbeen very great, yet the results have well repaid it.\nThere are but few data extant, as far as the writer knows, which give in satisfactory fashion\nthe effects on the banks of overfishing with lines.* From that viewpoint those given here should\nbe valuable, for such knowledge is, without doubt, of the greatest importance in the consideration of the future of the fishery, the protection of the species, or the merits, from the standpoint\nof conservation, of various methods of fishing. These considerations alone would justify any\ntrouble put forth to secure such data, but there are others which are as important. Thus the\npresent condition of a bank is intimately related to its past history, and this must underlie the\nconclusions drawn from studies made on the biology of such a bank. Indeed, the contribution\nwhich is made to the knowledge of the natural history of the species by such detailed statistics\nis surprising in itself. Although this work is considered by the writer to be'simply an indication\nof what could be done, hardly an illustration, one of its aims is to prove what even imperfect\ndata are capable of showing, and to urge the collection of whatever is available. It might be\npossible that those engaged in any extensive fishery could, without prejudice to their interests,\nkeep such records as would throw light on their operations, when it has been done voluntarily\nin the present case.\nThe most immediately important conclusion reached in this paper is the fact of depletion.\nIt would seem improbable that any one who was at all conversant with the facts would deny\nit, yet this has been frequently done, and more often the statement has been challenged for\nproof.! It has therefore been thought to be of the utmost importance to advance irrefutable\nproof of the state of the banks.\nIn considering the evidence here presented, it should be borne in mind that the banks oft\nthe coast of British Columbia are but a portion of the total, on which but a part of the catch\nis obtained. As a matter of fact, vessels from Vancouver and Seattle now travel beyond Kodiak\nIsland, as far as the entrances to Bering Sea, the principal yield for 1915 having come from the\nGulf of Alaska (see page 75 for remarks on the shifting of the fisheries), and this fact is eloquent\nproof of the prevalence on the banks of South-eastern Alaska of the same conditions shown to\nexist on those treated here. It must be expected that the fishery would be carried, on to the\nnew banks as soon as the increased difference in yield would offset the greater distance to be\ntraversed. The principle of this is obvious, for all of the vessels must in a way compete for\nthe fish to be obtained, being subject to the same economic pressure. Therefore, in considering\nthe evidence, it should be remembered that the area covered by it is typical of the whole, save\n* Sec, however, the abstracts of Scottish Fishery Statistics by T. Wemyss Fulton and D'Arcv Went-\nworth Thompson, particularly in North Sea Fisheries Investigation Committee, Fifth Report (Northern\nArea) on Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea and Adjacent Waters, 1908-1911\n(Fishery Board for Scotland), pages 67 and 205.\nf By Professor Arthur Willey, Investigation into the Pacific Halibut Fisheries, British Columbia, in\n\" Contributions  to  Canadian Biology,\"  1914-15.     Sessional Paper No. 38a ; pages 1 to 17.     Issued in 1916.\nIn this connection w,e may quote from the above paper issued by the Biological Board of Canada,\nwhich came to hand after the completion of this work : \" Under these conditions we have to consider whether\nthe stock of halibut will continue to stand the strain that is imposed upon it. Practical fishermen are\nsometimes apt to he pessimistic in this regard, although the aggregate catches do not as yet show auy sign\nof diminution. Up to a certain point the thinning-out of the banks by the capture of surplus fishes must\nbe beneficial to the numbers and quality of those that remain. But this optimum standard of fishing intensity is vague and cannot be defined otherwise than arbitrarily. Recommendations to curtail the fishery\nare easily made, but they would be entirely ineffective unless there happened to be a clear case for the\nimmediate enforcement of rigid restrictions. The fact is that there is no such pressing call for drastic\naction, and therefore this aspect of the question need not be discussed here. What we are asked to do is\nto devise measures for the expansion, not for the limitation  of the industry.\"     (Page  15.)\nProof for no part of this statement is given. The meaning of \" expansion \" is problematic, for if it\nimplies the necessity of finding new banks the depletion of the old is acknowled,ged. Conclusions such as\nare reached in this quotation are assuredly based on a lesser knowledge than is possessed by the fishermen,\nbut materially strengthen the influence of those opposed to any control of the fishery. in so far as it is nearer to the markets than other areas, and that the depletion of the banks\naccessible to fisherman from a given port means the loss of the industry to that port and the\nregion it serves.\nAs may be seen by reference to the statistics of fish landed given by the reports of the\nUnited States Bureau of Fisheries, and in the \" Year-book \" of the Pacific Fisherman, a trade\njournal published in Seattle, there is no decrease evident in the total yield per year. No consideration is made, however, for accurately judging the increase of the fleet, save in the recent\nnumbers of the Pacific Fisherman. It has been thought best, therefore, to frankly disregard all\npublished statistics, save where they may be shown to explain incidental problems.\nIt is unfortunate that the logs from which the data were taken had to be returned to the\ncaptains from whom they were borrowed, but the data have been copied on special blanks. It\nwill be Impossible to print anything save the tables compiled from these, although in the event\nof a future study of the beds other questions may arise for which the copied data will be\nnecessary.    These have been, therefore, bound and preserved for reference.\nFor the opportunity of examining their logs and records, thanks are due Captains Knighthall,\nSelig, Dave Candow, Robert Candow, Barry, Hansen, and Freeman, also to Mr. Greenwood, of\nthe Skeena River Fisheries, and Mr. Hagar, of the Canadian Fishing Company. To Captain.\nFreeman and his interest is due a large part of the record, as well as a great deal of the perhaps\nlimited knowledge the writer has of the fishing-banks. Captain Freeman has been on the Pacific\nCoast engaged in halibut-fishing throughout its phenomenal increase, and his well-balanced, acute\nobservations have been of great assistance in the work which the writer has carried on aboard\nhis vessel, the \" Flamingo.\" His kindly courtesy, and that of his crew, has rendered working\nconditions pleasant where they might not have been. Great assistance in the laborious task of\ncompiling and computing the statistics has been given by Mrs. Thompson, and several sections\nare based on her work. Thanks are due Dr. C. H. Gilbert for the privilege of working in the\nlaboratories of Stanford University, California, as well as for his many kindnesses and his\nencouragement.\nII. DISCUSSION.\nAmong the facts presented in the following pages, the one which stands forth most conspicuously is the great effect which the operations of the fishermen have had on the character\nof the halibut populations of the various banks. Not only have they been very extensively\ndepleted, but the proportions of mature and immature, of large and small fish have been radically changed. The presence of the greatest numbers of immature fish on those banks which\nhave been exploited for the longest time and most intensely would be extremely misleading unless\nthe effect of overfishing were discounted. It is impossible in this connection to refrain from\nobserving the striking parallelism between this condition and that prevailing in the North Sea\nin the case of the plaice. There, although it is known that the Bight of Heligoland and the\nDutch Coast are regions most intensely fished, the presence of great numbers of immature fish\nand the absence of mature has been urged in support of theories of migration from these\n\" nurseries \" to the deeper water \" spawning-banks.\"* However this may be in regard to the\nplaice, it is evident that migration in the halibut must be shown by other means. It is not\nintended by this to deny the occurrence of migration, but simply to call attention to the obvious\nimportance of the history of a bank in the consideration of its biological problems. It is a\ncorollary of this that the distribution of large and small fish is not a criterion of fast and slow\ngrowth unless the depletion of the banks is taken into account. Throughout the attempt to\ncorrelate the average size of the fish on a bank and its geographical position, the use of the\nterms fast and slow growing as synonyms of large and small has been avoided.\nThe discovery of \" spawning-banks \" is often stated as an object of research, but, in the\ncase of the halibut at least, this term is subject to suspicion as to its correctness. Those areas\ncharacterized by mature and spawning fish deserve rather the name of undepleted banks, in view\nof their history. It is customary among the fishermen to resort to these especially in winter,\nand by a coincidence they are always situated in deep water. The seasonal change in the depths\nat which fishing for halibut is carried on is shown on page 76 to be very considerable. This\nmust, one would think, have some basis in the catch to be obtained, and the deep-water fishing\n* Garstang, in Vol. III., \" Des Rapports et Proce's Verbaux du Conseil International pour l'explora-\ntion des la Mer, Aout 1905.\" Also in \" International Investigation, Marine Biological Association, Report\n1, 1902-3.\" 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific S 69\nmust be more profitable, during the winter months, than that in shoal water. This is far from\nimplying, however, that there are more fish caught per unit of gear during the colder months\nin deep water than during the warmer months. It might be assumed that the fishermen were\n\" following the fish,\" as they say, if such an increase were evident; in other words, the large\nspawning fish caught would be supposedly migrants from the shoaler banks. Aside from the\nfact that there is no decrease in the average size of the fish caught on the latter banks at that\nseason, there are reasons why the fishing in deeper waters should not decline as extensively as\nthat in shallower. It is well known that the fluctuations in temperature with the seasons are\nless in the deeper strata of the oceans, and in the portions nearest the main body of water.\nA fall in temperature has been shown to cause a lessening of the activity and metabolism of\nfish, and the conclusion follows that where the fall is least the fish remain most active\u2014namely,\nin the deeper waters. If this is true, areas which are but lightly, or not at all, fished during\nthe summer may because of their depth compare favourably with inshore banks during the\nwinter in so far as the way in which the fish take the bait. In the case of the halibut, these\nouter banks are those on which the intensity of fishing has been least, and which have been\nexploited last, with the result that their fish have been able to remain nearer maturity than\nthe others. The objections to such a theory are certainly less than to one implying migration,\nalthough data as to seasonal fluctuations of temperature on the different banks are lacking, as\nare records concerning the yield (see Tables 52 and 53 for those which are available).\nIn fact, the results given in the present paper confirm those of the previous one by the\nwriter* in indicating the improbability of any considerable migration between banks. If, in\nthe long time provided by the life of a halibut, which reaches an age of over twenty years and\ndoes not mature until twelve, the populations of adjacent banks do not become mixed to such a\ndegree as to nullify differences in rate of growth, the extent of migration is of slight practical\nimportance, or the differences exceedingly large. The close proximity of some of these banks\nhas been remarked on in the text. It is perfectly possible, it must be recognized, that these\nevidences of isolation are due to the presence of barriers not visible above water, which may\nconfine or limit movements, but this does not in any degree contradict the conclusion that the\nhalibut is not an extensively migratory fish.\nThe distribution of the banks characterized by large and small fish is not favourable to any\nconception of migration to explain the differences. The banks outside the entrance to Hecate\nStrait have smaller fish than those inside, whereas the reverse would be expected if the large\nfish migrated outward to deeper water to spawn. On the other hand, the migration cannot be\nto these inner banks, because they have been shown to be lacking in mature fish, the catch being\nto an increasing extent of small fish.\nThe fact that there is a seasonal difference in the size of fish caught on all the banks, outer\nas well as inner, is not conformable to any conception of migration, but it may be difficult to\nexplain in a completely acceptable way. A careful examination of the evidence has led to a\npossible theory which will serve to emphasize the importance of work along certain lines\u2014\nnamely, those of the effect of the seasons on the character of the fish population. It is a well-\nknown fact that the principal growth of fish takes place during the warmer months, for it is\non that basis that the age is deciphered from the markings of the otoliths and scales. There\nshould be, because of this summer growth, an increase during the whole of the period of rapid\ngrowth in the number of fish which have reached the size suitable for catching with the hook,\nwith a resultant depression of the average size.\nAs is remarked on page 97, it seems probable that the halibut are found in \" schools,\" or\npopulations of various average sizes, and, as indicated in Table 43, the tendency is to constantly\ndepend more and more on the fish of small size. Indeed, the larger fish form numerically an\nincreasingly smaller part of the whole, and it has become a predominant characteristic of halibut-\nfishing that the large \" schools \" of small or medium-sized fish are sought out especially, and\na set is rarely repeated where but few fish (generally large) are caught. It is hence very\nprobable that the young fish are caught off to a great extent the first year they come of\nsufficient size. There cannot be many of them left in the fall, considering that the intensity\nof fishing is such as is shown to be the case. On the other hand, the large fish, scattered or\nin small schools, are scarcely worthy of attention while there are young fish to be caught, and\ntheir numbers do not form an appreciable part of the catches until it is necessary to take what-\n* Report of the British Columbia Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, page 76. S 70 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\never may be found. They therefore form a larger part of the winter catches than of the summer,\nwith a consequent increase in the average size caught.\nWhere the mature fish have been nearly all caught, or where depletion has been going on\nso vigorously that none have been allowed to grow to maturity, the larger fish on the banks\nwould be represented by the remnants of schools of the preceding one or two years; but where\nthere is still a considerable number of larger fish left from a number of years, the average age\nwould be greater, with a consequent greater contrast in size between them and the new schools.\nIt should be anticipated, therefore, that on certain banks a slighter seasonal difference will be\nfound than on others, as seems to be actually the case. It is not to be expected, however, that\neach catch of larger fish would be of uniform size on the same bank, but considerable variation\nmust exist between \" schools,\" and where but few records are obtained from an area it may be\npossible that the apparent differences are due simply to imperfect data.\nAn alternative to this explanation would be the simple assumption that during the winter\nthe younger or smaller fish cease to take the bait as eagerly as the larger, or perhaps the\nsmaller male ceases to take the hook. There seems to be no evidence in favour of this theory\nas far as the halibut .Is concerned. Neither is there any in favour of that of migration as an\nexplanation, while there is much against. The winter increase in size is evident on all the\nbanks examined, whereas through migration there should be an actual decrease in winter size\non certain of the banks. It seems more satisfactory to assign the phenomenon to the periodical\ngrowth of young fish, due to the changes in temperature or food consequent on the seasons.\nIt is possible that the differences in average size of the fish found on different banks also\nmay be due to temperature or to some factor dependent on temperature, such as food. The\ndistribution of the large and small fish, discounting the effects of depletion, is such as would\nconform to this, for the inshore waters are generally supposed to be warmer than the offshore,\nalthough they may fluctuate through greater extremes. This, of course, assumes that the average\nsizes are resultant from the rates of growth. In support of such a theory no evidence as to the\nseasonal changes in temperature in the North Pacific is available to the writer, while the question\nof food in the case of a carniverous fish is replete with difficulty. It may be pointed out, however, that the seasonal variation in the catch per skate would argue for a difference in the\nactivity of the halibut, rather than a lack of food alone.\nUnfortunately there are no data at hand to show the fluctuations in temperature in any\nportion of the fishing-grounds, nor are there sufficient to indicate a lesser change in the catch\nper skate on the deeper banks than on the shoal. The correlation of the average size with the\nrate of growth is still to be accomplished, although partially indicated. When these things\nhave been investigated it may be possible to discuss the bearings and meaning of the facts\npresented in this paper with more assurance.\nThe intense fishery has, it is evident, made its influence felt throughout the whole biological\nappearance of the species, and in doing so it has rendered precarious the future of the banks,\nparticularly the older or longer known. The numbers still found on them is so small, and the\npercentage of mature fish in this population has fallen so low, that it appears imminent that\nthe halibut in the Pacific will drop to a minor position among the food-fishes. It may recede\nnorthward as it did from the shores of Massachusetts, and from the coast of England, until it\nexists only in the more remote and difficult to reach of the banks. It is very difficult to see\nwherein more proof than is at hand may be adduced to emphasize this tendency, save the final\none of the catastrophe of commercial extinction itself.\nThe rate of decrease shown, over 70 per cent, for each decade, is surprisingly large. Yet\nit must be remembered that the constant shifting to new banks has staved off a portion of the\neffects of impoverishment. This extension is, in its way, a measure of depletion. Just as a\nmine may be exhausted and its owners reduced to working over the discarded low-grade ore,\nso may the halibut banks. The progress from Cape Flattery to Hecate Strait, and from there\nto Yakutat and beyond, has been at a constantly accelerated rate as the total catch has grown\nfrom year to year. When the end will be reached, perhaps in the southern Bering Sea, perhaps\non the Siberian Coast, is, of course, difficult to forecast. In the meantime the expenses of long\nvoyages are gradually growing, and the necessity for vessels of large steaming radius is becoming\ngreater, until it is a question whether the final reserves of halibut shall be exploited by vessels\nfrom our coasts. When expansion is at an end, as will inevitably be, the vessels must return\nto fishing on the older banks, which will then be depleted beyond their present condition unless 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 71\nmeasures are taken to allow them to recuperate. They cannot support the fishery now existent,\nit is very plain, or anything comparable with it.\nThere are many reasons why this depletion does not evince itself in the prosperity of the\nfishing business in direct proportion. The rising prices demanded of the consumer and the\nextension to new banks require no comment as to their effects. More important than these,\nhowever, is the fact that the time and effort required to obtain the fish is only a portion of that\nnecessary to carry the fish from the ocean to the consumer, and a seemingly overwhelming\nincrease in the fishing-time of the boats is but a moderate increase in the total. The length\nof the voyage, we shall see, does not increase in the same proportion as the actual fishing-time,\nand the length of the voyage is but a part of the whole journey over ocean and land. In fact,\nit is but just to assume that there has been a heightening of the efficiency in transportation\nduring the development of the fishing industry. In other words, the increased expense of obtaining the fish is distributed between that of transporting and selling, and is felt correspondingly\nless. It is evident, therefore, that an automatic abatement of the fishery in direct proportion\nto the rate of depletion is far from what is to be expected, and those who rest content in the\nbelief that it will not pay commercially to deplete the banks beyond the limit of recuperation\nare on unsafe grounds.\nAlthough a prophecy of the immediate commencement of a decline in the total yield would\nbe out of place, the situation appears sufficiently serious to warrant the taking of immediate\nsteps for conservation. The contemplation of experiments in hatching the halibut, however,\nmust lead simply to ill-founded optimism on the part of the fishermen. The hatching of cod\nand plaice has been carried on by several Governments with results which are local and limited,\nand have been disputed. These species are much smaller, more easily handled, come to maturity\nat a smaller size, and the near-ripe fish are obtainable in greater numbers than is the case with\nthe halibut. The ova of the latter are not found on the surface, and even with the spawning\nfish in breeding-ponds it would be difficult to obtain the fertilized eggs, although there is no\ndoubt that they could be obtained. In the face of the wholesale reduction of the numbers\nof halibut on the banks, the establishment of hatcheries cannot be regarded as anything but\nexceedingly expensive experimental work. Nothing could be known as to its results for many\nyears, unlikely as they are to be of value, and those years might mean the ruin of tjie industry\nif action were delayed pending the arrival at a conclusion. It is, therefore, necessary to regard\nthe suggestion of such a remedy as of purely theoretical value, which might do great harm by\nmisleading those with the interest of the fishery at heart.\nIt is not the purpose here to discuss the steps which could be taken, but several facts vital\nto their formulation have been brought out in the present paper. The exhausted condition of\nthe southern banks, with the exception of those off the coast of Oregon, has been shown. It must\nbe borne in mind that the vital need of these is protection during that portion of the year when\nthey are yielding their largest proportion of small and immature fish. That the main fishery\nhas shifted to a position farther north is also evident, and there should be no great obstacle to\nthe application of adequate measures to the older banks. That protection to a small area would\nhave no effect on the whole is equally obvious, so that whatever is done must be applied to the\nwhole of the depleted portion. The effect of close seasons in various months may be judged from\nthe comparative statistics of yield which are hereafter given, the value of such closures being\nin direct proportion to the activity of the fishery at the time they are put in force.\nIII. NATURE OF THE LOG DATA EMPLOYED.\nFrom the mass of data obtained from ships' logs it was thought best to select that obtained\nfrom five vessels of similar type. These were of steel construction, steaming approximately ten\nknots per hour, and operating from the same port in British Columbia. They were vessels\nwhich had long records in the halibut fishery, had been ably commanded and similarly provisioned, so that there is every probability that the data obtained are homogeneous. They are\ndesignated as vessels A, B, C, D, and E throughout the present work.\nThe methods employed in fishing on these steamers have been ably, and more authoritatively,\ndescribed by Captain H. B. Joyce;* and it will suffice here to give very briefly the necessary-\nfacts for the proper understanding of the data.    Recent years have seen the introduction of the\nIn United States Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 763, page 6.     Washington, 1912. S 72 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\n\" long-line \" boats, or those which fish over the side\u2014not from dories; but these vessels employ\ndifferent units of gear than do the dory vessels, and their results are not comparable, hence they\nare omitted from consideration in the present description.\nThe steamers usually carry twelve dories, sometimes ten, each manned by two men. These\nsmall boats are set in a long line a quarter to half a mile apart along the edge of the bank, and\nthen run their long \" ground-lines \" parallel to each other across the bank, or area over which\nthe captain has given them instructions to fish. The ground-lines are composed of bundles of\ngear called skates, usually from two to four of them being set by a dory at one time, attached\nin a single long piece and buoyed at either end, where there are also anchors to hold the lines in\nplace. These skates are at present composed of eight lines of 50 fathoms each, with hooks set\nabout thirty-two to the line. At the inception of the present records, in 1902, the skate on the\nvessels which are here considered consisted of ten lines, as stated by Captain Freeman,* but in\nrecent years, since 1909, when deep-water fishing began, eight lines have been used. Since the\nshort skate is often as effective as the long, especially on narrow banks, it has been judged\nundesirable to modify the data directly in proportion, hence no allowance has been made.\nUsually two sets or trials are made in a day, occasionally one or three. On the map on\npage 124 there is plotted in about 51\u00b0 30' latitude and 130\u00b0 45' longitude, the space covered by\nsuch a trial or \" set,\" in order to graphically illustrate the great extent of territory. The line\nrun daily by a single vessel Is about forty-eight miles in length, with more than 25,000 hooks.\nIf such a set is not successful in obtaining a paying amount of fish, the ground is abandoned\nand a set made in a different place. The great desire is to find what is called a \" pocket\" or\n\" school \" of fish, usually composed of medium or small fish in considerable numbers. Some of\nthe captains shift ground constantly in their search for good pockets, others are content with\nobtaining a paying quantity of fish. A pocket does not last very long after discovery, although\nlarge cargoes are caught.\nAt first the fishermen were paid by the fish, the two in each dory according to the number\ntheir boat brought in, and as a consequence the fish were carefully counted. This had certain\nadvantages, as the captains were able to tell in which part of the area covered by the set the\nfish were most abundant, and thus judge where it was best to work the next time. Therefore,\nwhen payment by the fish was discontinued and the men received \" share and share alike,\" it\ncontinued to be the custom to record the number of fish, and is yet among the dory-vessel officers.\nAt the same time, it has constantly been the habit of the captains to estimate the weight of fish\ncaught at each set or on each day. All this information was set down in the logs, as a rule one\nor more features of it being neglected, according to the ideas of the mate or the captain as to\nwhat was necessary.   The recorded data is treated in this paper.\nOn page 121 is given a reproduction of a page from one of the pilot-house logs, and on page\n103 an illustration of the data taken from the records of a voyage. As to the accuracy of these\ndata the writer has satisfied himself, knowing that they are as close as the fishermen are able\nto give them\u2014fully as carefully noted as are the statistics of fish landed usually given in governmental records. The errors found have apparently been constant in their extent throughout, not\ndecreasing or increasing in any special way, and no hesitation should be experienced in accepting\ntheir value for the purposes for which they are used in the text. The accuracy of the estimated\nweights has been discussed on page 83, where the methods are given by which such estimates\nare made.\nIn compiling and computing, the adding-machine has been used wherever possible, and the\nslide-rule has been employed throughout. As a result of the use of the latter, the figures were\nnever carried to decimal points beyond those which were necessary.\nIV. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND OUTLINE OF PAPER.\nIt will be sought to throw light on the following things:\u2014\n(1.) The fact of depletion, which will be evident throughout:\n(2.) The rate of impoverishment of the banks:\n(3.) The biology of the species, and the effects on it of overfishing.\n* In a letter dated June 18th, 1916 : \" The length of the skate now used on the halibut-boats has been\nreduced from ten lines to eight lines of 50 fathoms each, or from a former length of 500 fathoms to 400.\nThis change took place on the steamers about seven years ago.\" 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 73\nSince it would be difficult to follow the above order, for almost all the data have some\nbearing on each phase, the following sequence has been adopted in treatment:\u2014\n(1.)  The shift of the fishing-grounds:\n(2.) The length of the voyages:\n(3.)  The time spent in fishing, as compared with the other parts of the voyage:\n(4.) Yield:\n(a.) Weight caught per skate and per cargo:\n(b.) Number caught per skate and per cargo:\n(5.)  Sizes of fish obtained, fluctuations'in:\n(6.)  Variations in average size of fish from different banks:\n(7.)  Relative productivity of different areas.\nThe summary will be found under the heading \" VI.\" on page 107, and the discussion of\nthe general bearing of the facts ascertained under \" II.\" on page 68.    Wherever possible the\ntables with detailed data have been placed at the close of the report, and those derived from\nthem included in the text.\nV.   PRESENTATION OF RECORDS.\n(1.)  The Shift of the Fishing-grounds.\nThe utilization of new banks and the partial abandonment of the old is one of the first\nevidences of impoverishment. It does not mean in itself the rapid exhaustion of the supply,\nbut assuredly does indicate the fact that the process is under way. If it takes place soon after\nthe beginning of the fishery, and while the fishing fleet is yet small, it is fair to presume that\nthe depletion is rapid. Whatever evidence is available in the log data has therefore been\nconsidered, with additional notes from other sources.\nThe five vessels under consideration sailed from British Columbian ports, and in consequence\nthe banks to the south were exploited by them first, being largely abandoned only when the\nfishing became unprofitable. It is possible to trace the change which took place either through\nthe depths fished in, or by plotting the fishing records on charts for the various years. It may\nalso be seen in the data showing the yield, as will be pointed out, a temporary increase being\nevident, for example, in 1910 and 1911 in the weight caught per skate, due to the use of the\nNorth Island and Alaskan banks. It should be recognized, however, that the records of these\nfive vessels are not identical by any means with those of the whole fleet, for the most active use\nof the banks off the coast of Alaska and of those in the inland straits was carried on by other\nvessels. In fact, the records here presented show the tendencies in a portion only of the total\narea.\nIn Table 1 are given the records available as to the depths in which fishing was done. It\nwill be noticed that an abrupt increase is to be found in 1910; also the winter months seem\nto be characterized by fishing in somewhat deeper water. The change in the depths between\nthe early and later records is well shown in Table 2, which is a summation of Table 1. The\naverages for 1907 and 190S are in every case lower than those for 1911 and 1912. The seasonal\nchange in 1911 and 1912 is evident, but in the earlier years its extent is not as clear as is\ndesirable. In Table 3 the yearly averages for 1909, 1910, and 1911 are shown, although 1910\nis incomplete, and the abrupt change seems evident. The records for March and April are\ncomparable throughout a series of years, and are presented in Table 4. It shows in similar\nfashion the increase in 1910. This is due to the inclusion of records from off North Island,\nmarking a change to deeper banks in general, although not the complete abandonment of the\nold banks.\nThe reason for the existence of fishing on the older banks when they are apparently partly\ndepleted is seen In the great seasonal variation in the yield obtained. It is evident from almost\nall the data presented that during the winter months the yield falls very greatly, but rises to\nits maximum in summer, during June and July. It is during these best months that it is\npossible to do profitable fishing on these banks, and that fact keeps a certain number of vessels\non the impoverished areas. Notwithstanding this, it is common knowledge that even during\nthe best season it now pays to go to the Far North.\nThe number of records from various depths may be shown in Table 5, constructed only from\nthose records having, in addition, the average weight of the fish caught, and hence somewhat limited in number. This illustrates the change in the banks particularly, because all the records\nunder 75 fathoms are from the old banks\u2014that is, those fished previously to the year 1910. In\n1913, for instance, two modes may be seen, representing the old and the new banks. It is not\nmeant to imply by this statement that no fishing beyond this depth was carried on previously to\n1910, or that no fishing was done on the banks here called new. It is simply meant that a clear\ndivision has been made in the present case, representing the change that took place more\ngradually in point of fact.\nOn the maps shown on pages 122-125 may be seen the plotted fishing records for two periods,\none before the change in banks and the other after. In constructing these maps, the fishing\nwhich was done in Alaska was omitted from consideration. The extent of this, as far as the\nvessels here considered are concerned, may be judged from the figures given in Table 6, showing\nthe distribution of the voyages according to the locality of the catch. The maps show that the\nbanks off the outer coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands were not exploited in the early years\nof the fishery, but about 1910 and 1911 they were very extensively resorted to. By comparing\nTable 6 it may be seen that this change was accompanied by the use of the Alaskan banks.\nHowever, the near-by Alaskan banks were soon depleted, being already partially exhausted by\nother vessels, and it became necessary to go great distances for banks better than those off the\ncoast of British Columbia. It is common knowledge that in the last few years the southern\nbanks have been so completely impoverished that a good proportion of the voyages are to the\nfar-distant northern banks.\nProof of this condition may be adduced from what statistics are available for the Alaskan\nfisheries. From the reports of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries for the various\nyears, the following statistical abstract may be taken, showing in pounds the total quantity\nlanded in Alaska each year:\u2014\nLb.\n1907         4,492,118\n1908         5,692,000\n1909         5,234,924\n1910       21,630,289\n1911       17,315,571\n1912       16,896,743\n1913       13,687,784\n1914    .\"    14,807,797\nThese figures illustrate the extension of the main fishery from the southern banks into the\nAlaskan in 1910, although, of course, if figures were available for the place of capture of catches\nlanded in Seattle, they would doubtless show the same change.\nThe change in Alaskan fisheries may also be judged by comparing the yearly reports of the\nUnited States Agents in Alaska, who have accompanied their statistical summaries with remarks\non the condition of the fisheries. The use of the banks off South-eastern Alaska, the exhaustion\nof these, and the necessity for larger and better-found boats for the more distant northerly (or\nrather north-westerly) banks are all chronicled in turn. As the reports cannot here be quoted\nat length, the following references may be given for those interested. They are all contained\nin the reports of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries, or in the appendices thereto under\nthe heading of \" Bureau of Fishery Documents \" for the given years.\nRatbburi, Richard.    Report for 1888, pages XLI.-CVII.    1892.\nAlexander, A. B.    Report for 1904, pages 121-162.    1904.\nCobb, J. N.   Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 603.   1906.\nMarsh and Cobb.   Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 632.   1908.\nChamberlain and Cobb.    Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 766.    1912.\nChamberlain and Bower.    Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 780.    1913.\nBower and Fassett.    Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 797.    1914.\nAs bearing out these reports, and substantiating the fact that vessels now go as far as\nYakutat and beyond for the greater part of the supply of halibut, the statistical bulletins issued\nmonthly by the United States Bureau of Fisheries during a part of 1915 and 1916 may be quoted. 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 75\nHalibut landed at Seattle.\nOctober, 1915\u2014 Lb.\nFrom Flattery Bank   (3 trips)           1,930\nWest Coast of Vancouver Island  (3 trips)         64,000\nGoose Island Banks  (2 trips)         50,000\n\u201e      Hecate Strait  (16 trips)       479,000\nYakutat Bay  (7 trips)    1,049,862\nNovember, 1915\u2014\nFrom West Coast of Vancouver Island (10 trips)    321,000\n\u201e      Hecate Strait  (3 trips)         21,000\nForrester Island  (1 trip)         12,000\n\u201e      Yakutat Bay   (16 trips)    1,958,527\nJanuary, 1916\u2014\nFrom Coronation Island       80,000\nYakutat       843,055\nFebruary, 1916\u2014\nFrom West Coast of Vancouver Island  (1 trip)         3S,000\n\u201e      Coronation Island  (1 trip)         15,000\n\u201e      Yakutat Bay  (5 trips)       653,931\nMarch, 1916\u2014\nFrom Flattery Banks (8 trips)         63,799\nWest Coast of Vancouver Island  (1 trip)           7,000\nHecate Strait   (2 trips)       113,003\nCoronation Island  (8 trips)       141,003\nYakutat Bay  (10 trips)       222,404\nPortlock Bank  (2 trips)       268,000\nThe positions of banks not shown in the map on page 122 are:\u2014\nFlattery Bank:    At the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.\nYakutat Bay:    Latitude, 59\u00b0  35' N.;   longitude,  140\u00b0   W.    Distant 1,025  miles from\nSeattle.\nForrester Island:   Near the Canadian Boundary in South-eastern Alaska.\nCoronation Island:    Latitude,  55\u00b0  50' N.;   longitude,  134\u00b0  10' W.    In  South-eastern\nAlaska.\nPortlock Bank:    Latitude, 58\u00b0 20' N.;  longitude, 150\u00b0 W.    Near Kodiak Island, distant\n1,300 miles from Seattle via Cross Sound.\nIt should be borne in mind, however, that the sharp classification of voyages under the heads\nof single banks is not as a rule possible save in an approximate way, and that these monthly\nlists undoubtedly present simply the localities from which the greater part of the catches came.\nIt is probable that under the head of Yakutat are included fish from banks as far or farther\nthan Cape Cleare.\nThe changes in the location of the fishery may be summarised briefly.* In 1888 the fishery\ncommenced, and grew rapidly, most of the fish coming from the Cape Flattery Banks, but about\n1895 the banks in Hecate Strait were being exploited. In the early years of the first decade\nof this century the South-eastern Alaskan and British Columbian banks in more or less sheltered\nlocalities were being utilized, resulting about 1910 in their impoverishment. The fishermen then\nmoved to deeper waters in more exposed situations on the outer coasts, fishing in more than 100\nfathoms coming into vogue. Those banks lying off the coast of Alaska as far as Icy Strait were\nin great part depleted by 1913 or' before, and at the present date, 1916, the greater part of the\ncatch comes from Yakutat and beyond. Mention should be made of the banks off the coast of\nOregon which have been recently developed by the United States Fish Commission. This constant\nmovement was not made because richer banks were being discovered, but because the yield from\nthe older banks for the gear employed steadily fell the longer they were fished. It is unfortunate\nthat fishing is still carried on best within these old areas during that season of the year when\nthe young fish are to be caught in greatest abundance. In brief, the history of the fishery is\nthat of a nomadic fleet, stripping the grounds as it goes, but leaving behind a sufficient number\nof vessels to prevent recuperation. S 76\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 1.\u2014Average Depths in which Fishing has been carried on.*\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902  .     ..\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906 .     . .\n1907 .     . .\n1908   \t\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915   .     . .\n56-7\n32-8\n37-5\n29-4\n50-11\n78-10\n100-4\n120-6\n31-2\n38-7\n49-1\n40-10\n106-19\n100-6\n188-10\n104-4\n169-3\n18-2\n39-5\n51-6\n38-5\n40-23\n140-15\n108-12\n79-8\n98-8\n82-2\n97-1\n46-4\n45-1\n28-11\n33-3\n21-15\n94-15\n50-11\n93-16\n65-15\n58-2\n125-1\n42-4\n28-8\n43-3\n20-12\n22-9\n36-17\n98-16\n73-16\n85-12\n66-1\n49-8\n47-3\n36-3\n43-9\n54-2\n78-9\n98-1.0\n48-6\n99-5\n24-1\n44-5\n37-7\n41-4\n75-2\n74-12\n70-5\n72-13\n77-8\n51-4\n29-2\n34-4\n58-2\n51-1\n46-21\n42-3\n105-5\n67-5\n48-5\n56-5\n29-3\n48-16\n54-14\n79-10\n47-9\n52-3\n30-5\n60-1\n30-1\n74-18\n56-7\n83-8\n34-5\n49-9\n62-4\n17-5\n21-7\n76-9\n46-4\n...\n40-3\n24-10\n50-2\n27-3\n54-6\n110-5\n94-9\n135-1\n* Number of records on which, each average is based is given after the hyphen in each case.\nTable 2.\u2014Seasonal Variation in Depths at which Fishing is done.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1911 and 1912   110.0\n1 '\n144.0\n93.5\n71.5\n67.2\n88.0\n72.0\n44.1\n51.0\n65.0\n61.1\n93.6\nAve. in group\n1907 and 1908\n115.8\n40.3\n75.6 '\n37.4\n55.7\n39.0\n73.2\n43.2\nTable 3.\u2014Annual Averages of Depths fished in.\nFathoms.\n1909     37.2\n1910      81.1\n1911     73.7\nTable .'\/.\u2014Averages for March and April of Depths in which Fishing teas done.\nFathoms.\n1905        32.0\n1906      42.0\n1907   ! .\u00bb      39.5\n1908        35.5\n1909       30.5\n1910    116.8\n1911   7S.9\n1912   86.2\n1913   81.7\n1914   69.5\n1915     111.0 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 77\nTable 5.\u2014Number of Records given by Depth for each Year for w-hich Average Weights were\navailable.\nDepths.\n15 and\n25 and\n35 and\n45 and\n55 and\n65 and\n75 and\n85 and\n95 and\n105 and\n115 and\n125 and\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\n70\n80\n90\n100\n110\n120\n130\n1902..\n2\n<J\n3\n6\n1\n1904..\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1906..\n7\n4\n7\n6\n3\n2\n1907..\n1\n1908..\n2\n1\n1\n1909..\n14\n7\n6\n5\n4\n1\n1\n1910..\n6\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1911..\n2\n6\n14\n12\n4\n4\no\n1\n13\n8\n1\n2\n1912..\n2\n2\n10\n6\n2\n5\n5\n2\n3\n1913..\n4\n1\n1\n8\n4\n4\n9\n11\n5\n1\n1914..\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n3\n1\nTable 6.\u2014Number of Voyages according to Locality in ivhich the Catch was obtained for the Five\nVessels used in the Present Paper.\nYear.\nOfP   BC    Bnnlrci      At   and   South   of\nUtt BA\" ^anlcs-    Cape Ommaney.\nAt and South of\nIcy Strait.\nAt and  South of\nYakutat.\n1901   \t\n1902 \t\n1903 \t\n1904\t\n1905 \t\n1906\t\n1907\t\n8\n20\n40\n43\n28\n57\n85\n101%\nSI\n69\n57%\n39\n34%\n33\n16\ni\n8\ni\n3%\n2\n2\n1908 ,\t\n1909 \t\n1910\t\n1911 \t\n1912\t\n1913\t\n1914   \t\n1915   \t\n2%\n3\n19\n35\n4\n1%\n6\nTotals   \t\n712%\n74\n8%\n6\nGrand total of voyages examined, 800.\nThe figures in Table 2 illustrate a phase of this change in fishing-banks which is very\nilluminating. It will be noticed that 1911 and 1912 represent a period when both old and new\nbanks were in use; in other words, shoal, inshore, and deep, offshore banks were available,\nwhereas in 1907 and 1908 for all practical purposes the latter were unknown. The depths for\n1911 and 1912 show a sharp seasonal fluctuation, which is not as evident in 1907 and 1908.\nThe cause for this will in all probability be found in the relative fluctuations in temperature\nand the effect of this on the activity and metabolism of the fish. Deeper, outside banks fluctuate\nless than shoal, inshore banks in seasonal temperatures, and hence the latter are much wrarmer\nin summer, thereby presumably rendering the halibut more inclined to take the bait. The\noffshore, deeper waters, on the other hand, are supposed to be more constant in temperature,\nand are available for fishing when the colder weather, has rendered the shallower banks unprofitable. It would be highly desirable to prove this by observation on the banks of the Pacific\nOcean, rather than by relying on comparison with the results found in the North Sea.*\n* A few of the references available which deal with the relation of temperature to the rate of growth,\nactivity, and metabolism of fish are here given :\u2014\nB'ulton, T. W. Rate of Growth of Sea-Ashes. In Twentieth Annual Report of the Fishery Board\nfor Scotland, being for the Year 1901. Part III., pages 320-439 (see page 335). Shows the\ncorrespondence of rate of growth with the fluctuations in temperature.    (Concluded on, p. 78.) S 78\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\n(2.) Lengths op Voyages.\nThe most complete portion of the data available is that dealing with the length of the\nvoyages. In a way it is also the most satisfactory index of the depletion of the banks, because\nit represents very directly what is of most immediate concern to the dealers, the increasing\ndifficulty of obtaining a yield. It should be considered, of course, in connection with the cargoes\nobtained.\nThe conditions on the Pacific Coast lend themselves to the obtaining of uniform data in an\nadmirable fashion. The voyage to and from the banks is not subject to any delay other than\nthat of going successively farther afield. The banks lie comparatively close along shore, and\nthe powered vessels universally used traverse the splendid inland passages characteristic of\nBritish Columbia and South-eastern Alaska. Thus it is that the voyages are made almost on a\nschedule to and fro, the only considerable delays being met with on the fishing-banks. In the\ndays when a catch could be obtained in protected waters, the voyages were made with clock-like\nregularity as compared with those made in other seas. To illustrate this, the dates of sailing\nand arrival of vessel B for the early part of 1906 may be given (Table 7).\nTable 7.\u2014Voyages of Vessel B in 1906 during the Period January to May.\nVoyage.\nSailed.\nArrived.\nLength.\n1        \t\nDec.     30\nJan.     11\n25\nFeb. 9\n20\nMarch 3\n\u201e 15\n\u201e      25\nApril 4\n18\n28\nMay 4\n10\n16\nJan.        9\n23\nFeb.       6\n17\nMarch    1\n\u201e      12\n\u201e      23\nApril     2\n15\n26\nMay       3\n8\n15\n20\n0\n12     ..     16\n3      \t\n12     \u201e     15\n8 \u201e     14\n9 \u201e       8\n9     \u201e       8\n8     \u201e     15\n8     \u201e     15\n11     \u201e     14\n8     \u201e     11\n5     \u201e       6\n4 \u201e     15\n5 \u201e     14\n4     \u201e       5\n4                \t\n6          \t\n7    \t\n8\t\n9    \t\n10   \t\nii  : i\t\n12    \t\n'\n13    \t\n'\n14   \t\nThe first source of delay to come to mind, in considering the length of a voyage, is the\nweather, which varies from year to year and month to month, but which may simply be ignored\nin forming conclusions based on averages. It does not, as is shown above, affect to any\nappreciable extent the trips to the banks, or from them, but bad weather does result in a\ncessation of fishing and forces the vessels to lie idle in the many harbours adjacent to the banks.\nOther factors tending to lengthen the voyages are resultant directly from the depletion of the\nbanks\u2014namely, the constantly decreasing yield for the labour, and the consequent necessity for\nsearch or prospecting, and the use of banks farther afield. Any constant tendency to increase\nthe length of the voyages must therefore be assigned to the effects of depletion, especially as the\nsame vessels are used throughout.\nFulton, T. W.    The Rate of Growth of Fishes.     In Twentv-second Annual Report of the  Fishery\nBoard for Scotland, being for the Year 1903.    Part  III.,  pages  141-241,  Plates VI.-XII.   (see\npage 142 and page 159).\nSund,   Oscar.     Undersokelser over Brislingen   i   Norske   farvand.     In   Aarsberetning   vedkommend\nNorges  Fiserier,   1910.    Bergen,   1911.    Shows the correspondence between the fat contents of\nherring and the temperature.\nThe second paper by Fulton referred to above may be cited (page 170). From sufficiently extensive\nexperiments with various fishes in aquaria he .reaches the following conclusion: \" It appears that the\ninfluence of temperature is active in modifying the rate of growth by acting directly upon the metabolism\nof the fish and also by affecting the rapidity of digestion. In very cold water the fishes give up feeding\naltogether, because the ferments upon which digestion depends do not act, or act very slowly, at low temperatures, and in fishes, as in other animals, appetite waits on digestion, and this is, on the other hand,\ncorrelated with the metabolism in the tissues. It has been shown by Krukenberg that the pepsine or\nanalogous body in the stomach of fish acts as well at 20 C. as at 40 C, at which, among mammals, digestion is most active, and that the rapidity of its action is closely related .to temperature ; and Knautiie and\nZuntz have shown that the same thing applies to the metabolism in fish, the vital activities being more\nactive iu the higher temperature, as shown by the excretion of carbonic-acid gas and other products of\nmetabolism.\" Fulton kept fishes in tanks with very slightly different temperatures, and found marked\ndifferences in rate of growth.    A sudden change of 7\u00b0  C. served to kill some species immediately. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific\nS 79\nAs a table compounded from data for a number of vessels would naturally be more satisfactory than that for a single one, it was decided to make use of those for all five vessels. The\nvariation in the records for any single vessel would thus be counteracted. But since statistics\nfor the individual vessels do not cover exactly the same time, such a table would be affected by\nany inherent difference in the speed of the ship or other minor factors. These were measured\nby a comparison of the data which covered the same dates. Thus the vessel A was taken as\nthe standard; B had a half of its records on dates for which records for A were also available,\n\u25a0and the sum of these records stood to each other as 43 to 40, the latter being those of A. The\nsame was done for the other vessels, the other proportions being 61 to 60 for C to A, 16 to 15\nfor D to A, and 21 to 20 for E to A. None of these changes was considerable in extent, but\nthey were made nevertheless. The unchanged records are in every case given in separate tables\nso that the work may be corroborated. The resultant figures represent simply the rate of\ndepletion when those on different dates are compared, this rate being present in the data for\neach vessel and remaining unchanged because of the uniform alteration. The record used for\neach vessel in each month is the average of the length of the voyages made during that month.\nDuring the later years of the period covered, the length of a voyage grew to be such that but a\nsingle one was made in the month. The following table is the result of the compilation (Table\nS), but the unaltered data are given at the end of the report (Table 57).\nThe average length of the voyages per year -may be calculated from Table 8 for 1903 to 1914,\ninclusive, and are given in Table 9. It is evident that an increase began almost at the inception\nof the records. The voyages increased 2.1 times in length between 1904 and 1914; 1.96 times\nbetween 1903 and 1913; and about 1.5 times between 1909 and 1914, or 190S and 1913. This is\nmuch within the true rate of depletion, because It does not consider the decreased sizes of the\ncargoes or the use of new banks, and that the time spent in passing outward and inward bound\nhas not increased in due proportion to the remainder.\nBy comparing the monthly averages one with the other, it may be seen that the voyages\nare much longer during the winter months. The averages for each month for the period from\n1903 to 1914, inclusive, are given in Table 10, showing that the voyages in January were 1.8 times\nas long as those in June.    (See also Table 7.)\nTable S.\u2014Average Number of Hours per Voyage.\nYear.\nJan. J Feb.\n1\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902 \t\n1903 \t\n1904 \t\n1905 \t\n1906 \t\n1907 \t\n1908 \t\n1909 \t\n1910 \t\n1911 \t\n1912 \t\n1913 \t\n1914 \t\n1915 \t\n288\n237\n223\n255\n339\n334\n318\n420\n514\n528\n350\n444\n254\n216\n245\n227\n305\n420\n306\n392\n356\n490\n372*\n409\n204\n172\n283\n198\n297\n314\n272\n297\n288\n327\n393\n359\n120\n104\n162\n188\n219\n281\n197\n369\n297\n299.\n324\n309\n164\n139\n168\n130\n192\n217\n142\n257\n268\n257\n324\n246\n284\ni55\n89\n156\n112\n154\n210\n174\n212\n259\n246\n288\n262\n292\n145\n117\n153\n163\n169\n161\n161\n228\n259\n255\n372\n291\n269\n108\n115\n151\n187\n191\n160\n250\n154\n288\n289\n372\n327\n335\n90\n135\n143\n177\n181\n212\n216\n217\n272\n301\n328\n359\n355\n302\n157\n222\n275\n217\n250\n259\n219\n333\n344\n332\n368\n410\n569\n452\n214\n279\n307\n343\n214\n258\n246\n344\n376\n390\n410\n526\n504\n221\n218\n223\n206\n279\n351\n292\n362\n413\n384\n480\n410\n426\nSupplied by averaging the months to either side.\nTable 9.\u2014Annual Average of Hours per Voyage.\nHours.\n1903   191\n1904  17S\n1905  207\n1906  199\n1907  245\n1908   256\nI S 80\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\n1909  256\n1910  311\n1911  \\  328\n1912   356\n1913  375  *\n1914  376J\nTable 10.\u2014Average Number of Hours per Voyage for each Month, showing Seasonal Variation.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1903 to 1914\n(inc.)\n354\n333\n284\n239\n209\n193\n206\n216\n241\n317\n350\n337\n\/\n(3.) The Time spent in Fishing, as compared with the other Pabts op the Voyage.\nIn studying the time spent in fishing, the days on which gear was run were regarded as\nfishing-time, and, expressed in hours, are given in Table 58 as averages for each month for the\nrespective vessels. The latter are designated as in Table 57. As in the treatment of the length\nof the voyages, and following the same procedure, these data are corrected and combined to\nform Table 11.\nThe time spent in obtaining a certain amount of catch in various years should represent\nfairly the relative variation in abundance during those years, but it may not be as evident on\nfirst consideration why the length of the voyages should not do so, and in fact should vary\nwidely. The voyage is, however, utilized in doing several things\u2014namely, passing to and from\nthe grounds, fishing, and in suspended operations during those times when bad weather prevents\nfishing. As has been indicated, the passage to and from the banks is not subject to the effect\nof the weather, being accomplished through the inland straits that traverse the coast. Hence\nthe time thus consumed does not increase save in response to a necessity for travelling to more\ndistant banks. That lost on account of bad weather is, however, lost during the time spent\non the banks or in the adjacent harbours, and naturally forms a definite proportion of the total\ntime thus spent when averages for a suitable period are concerned. As the time spent on the\nbanks is dependent solely on the necessity of obtaining a cargo, all the good weather is utilized\nin fishing. Hence the time lost on account of bad weather is as definitely related to that spent\nin fishing as the climate is stable, and must increase in the same proportions.\nIn Table 12 in the last two columns are presented for the several years the average time\nspent per voyage on the fishing-banks, and the percentage that it forms of the average length\nof the voyages. It will be seen that between 1904 and 1914 the time increased two and three-\nquarter times, somewhat faster than did the average length of the voyages as indicated by\nthe column of percentages. \"An examination of the four winter months and of the four summer\nmonths in the same table shows, however, that the time spent fishing in summer has increased\nwith great rapidity, approximately four times between 1904 and 1914, while it has not increased\nthus in the winter. Although the actual hours per voyage have increased to twice, the percentage\ndoes not seem to have altered radically. It is evident in that case that a portion of the\nimpoverishment of the banks would evince itself through a more rapid decrease in the yield\nper voyage. In Table 23 and on page 87 it is proved that the average weight of the winter\ncargo is decreasing much more rapidly than that of the summer. In this case it is obvious\nthat the winter months have become increasingly unprofitable in comparison with the remainder\nof the year.\nIn accordance with what has been said concerning the time lost on account of bad weather,\nit may be seen that there is also an increase in the time spent otherwise than in fishing. In\nTable 13 the hours spent in fishing have been subtracted from the length of the voyages, considering the averages for the four summer and four winter months. This gives the time spent in\npassage to and from the banks, combined with that lost on account of bad weather. As little\ntime is lost on account of bad weather in the summer months, it is possible to arrive at some\nmeasure of what is lost on account of increased bad weather during the winter, although the 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 81\ntime taken in finding the banks is perhaps increased during the winter, and cannot, unfortunately,\nbe distinguished from the other. The resultant data is shown in column 4 of Table 13, and was\nobtained by subtracting the figures in the second column from those in the third. It will be\nnoticed that the increase shown by this is almost the same as that of the fishing-time for the\nsame -months, the time for 1904 being to that for 1914 as 10 is to 18 in both cases. This is in\naccordance with the expectation as noted in the second paragraph of this section.\nIt is evident, in fact, that during the winter there is not a very great difference between\nthe rate of increase of the length of the voyage, of the time spent in fishing, and of the time\nlost on account of bad weather. For the period from 1903 to 1908, inclusive, this lost time\naveraged 29.2 per cent, of the length of the voyages, and for the period from 1909 to 1914, 30.6\nper cent. For the same periods the fishing-time was 43.5 and 48.4 per cent, respectively of the\nlengths of the voyages. These figures are, of course, approximate, but contrast sufficiently with\nthose given for the summer. If a reason is sought for this, it is necessary to consider the\nsteaming radius of the vessels, the preservation of the fish on the ice, and the market conditions.\nIt is entirely probable that the fishing-time would be increased as much as possible to offset\nthe decreased yield if such a course were possible or profitable.\nThere is every reason to believe that the length of time consumed in passage to and from\nthe banks has increased greatly in recent years, as will be indicated in the section dealing with\nthe shift in the fishing-grounds. This is perhaps more particularly true of the winter, as\nindicated on the charts, even as early as 1911 and 1912. The effect of this will be commented\non later.\nThe distribution of time, considering the average for all the complete years in Table 11,\nshows that in the four summer months approximately 59.3 per cent, of the time was spent in\nfishing and 40.7 per cent, in reaching the banks. In the four winter months 30 per cent, of\nthe total time for the voyage was spent on account of increased bad weather, 46 per cent, in\nfishing, and 24 per cent, in passage to and from the grounds. However, it is evident in Table 12\nthat the percentage of time spent fishing in summer is increasing rapidly, and if data for 1913\nand 1915 are added, the average time spent fishing in summer rises to 62.6 per cent, of the total\nfor the voyage. In Table 14 the average percentage of time spent in fishing each month has\nbeen calculated from data covering the years 1903 to 1912, inclusive. This serves to supplement\nthe above tables.\nTo summarize, it is evident that the time per voyage is not an adequate measure of the\ndepletion of the banks; nor is the fishing-time per voyage, calculated for the whole year. That\nfor the summer is shown to be more nearly adequate. There is no reason, however, which would\nprevent the fishing-time, either in winter or summer, in conjunction with the yield expressed\nin the average cargoes, being considered as giving a correct measure.    (See page 86.)\nTable 11.\u2014Average Number of Hours per Voyage spent in Fishing, by Months.    Corrected for\nVessel Variation.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902 \t\n124\n112\n1903 \t\n122\n109\n118\n27\n82\n68*\n55\n44\n75\n150\n82\n68\n1904 \t\n109\n101\n90\n46\n62\n46\n54\n66\n66\n106\n112\n109\n1905 \t\n123\n137\n118\n109\n82\n82\n91*\n101\n102\n164\n123\n82\n1906 \t\n137\n137\n145\n101\n85\n57\n84\n110\n123\n123\n124\n118\n1907 \t\n117\n129\n129\n147\n85\n95\n85\n86\n120\n125\n97\n126\n1908 \t\n179\n136\n120\n126\n129\n129\n92\n74\n128\n111\n108\n147\n1909 \t\n161\n173\n179\n113\n95\n91\n93\n124\n144\n191\n182\n219\n1910 \t\n199\n167\n218\n185\n117\n114\n119\n88\n162\n177\n177\n164\n1911 \t\n142\n156\n185\n190\n156\n155\n164\n189\n175\n185\n181\n172\n1912 \t\n270\n220\n198\n175\n212\n168\n147\n209\n207\n184\n184\n264\n1913 \t\n298\n234\n266\n204\n264\n204\n209\n219\n166\n232\n1914 \t\n233\n207\n220\n142\n183\n214\n216\n276\n264\n228\n216\n300\n1915 \t\n336\n312\n288\n312\n276\n216\n216\n223\n240\n264\nSupplied by averaging the adjacent months of the same year.\n6 S 82\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 12.\u2014Comparison of Length of Voyages and Fishing-time per Voyage.\nNov.. I>ee., Jan.. Feb.\nMay, June, July, Aug.\nWhole Year.\nYear.\n112 CD\n3 d\no >,\na o\na u\nm a\nGJ\nto ba\nu d\nP >\u00bb\no o\ni\u2014I   U\n+->\na\nTO\n\u00bba\nCh\nm\no\na\n2\nC-l <D\nO bJD\ntH\n+2\na\nC2,\nW\n\u25a0 M\nMa\nto a\nXJ 02\nIH%\nm\nPh\ntn\n3\no\na\n3\ns\nd\nTO\nsi\no \u00ab\n01\nCH\n1903   \t\n1904   \t\n1905   \t\n1906   \t\n1907   \t\n1908\t\n1909   \t\n1910   \t\n1911   \t\n1912   \t\n1913   \t\n1914   \t\n1915   \t\n95\n108\n116\n129\n117\n143\n184\n177\n163\n235\n239\n260\n246\n254\n244\n313\n323\n333\n400\n411\n477\n446\n36.5\n43.9\n45.7\n52.9\n37.4\n44.3\n55.3\n44.3\n39.7\n49.2\n53.6\n62\n57\n89\n84\n88\n104\n101\n110\n166\n184\n.235\n222\n233\n143\n115\n157\n148\n177\n187\n182\n213\n269\n262\n339\n282\n295\n43.4\n49.6\n56.7\n56.7\n49.7\n55.6\n55.5\n51.6\n61.7\n70.1\n69.3\n78.8\n79.0\n83\nSI\n110\n112\n112\n123\n147\n157\n171\n203\n225\n43.5\n45.5\n53.2\n56.3\n45.7\n48.0\n57.5\n50.5\n52.1\n57.1\n59.9\nTable 13.\u2014Time spent in reaching Banks and lost through Bad Weather.\nYear.\nMay, June, July, Aug.\nNov., Dec, Jan., Feb.\nIncrease in Winter.\n1903   \t\n81\n175\n94\n1904   \t\n58\n138\n80\n1905   \t\n68\n138\n70\n1906  \t\n64\n115\n51\n1907   \t\n89\n196\n107\n83\n81\n180\n149\n77\n1909   \t\n68\n1910   \t\n103\n223\n120\n1911   \t\n103\n248\n145\n1912   \t\n78\n242\n164\n1913   \t\n104\n1914   \t\n60\n1915   \t\n62\nTable lh.\u2014Comparison of Length of Voyages and Time spent Fishing for the Period from 1903\nto 1912 (inclusive).\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.      Dec.\nLength of voyages\nFishing-time  ....\nPer cent,  spent\nfishing\n346\n156\n45.0\n321\n146\n45.5\n265\n150\n56.6\n224\n122\n54.5\n193\n110\n57.0\n177\n100\n56.5\n181\n98\n54.0\n189\n109\n57.7\n218\n130\n59.6\n282\n152\n54.0\n317\n137\n43.2\n321\n147\n45.8\n(4.)  Yield.\nIn analysing the cause of the increase in the length of the voyage and of the greater time\ntaken in fishing, the first factor to be met with is naturally the yield which is obtained for the\nwork.   As has been previously explained, it was possible to obtain data on this subject by 6 Geo. 5.\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 83\ncalculating the average yield per skate of gear fished, and by making comparisons between\nsuccessive years. In the logs the yield is given in either or both of two ways, in actual counts\nof the number or in estimated weight of fish caught. The 'weight, naturally, is less accurate\nin separate instances, but there is no reason why it should not be sufficiently accurate when a\ngreat many records are utilized. In order to test this, the logs were carefully examined for\nvoyages for which the total estimate was given or where it 'was possible to find the estimated\nweight for all the catches, and thus to arrive at an estimated weight for the cargo. These were\ncompiled and compared with the actual weights for which the fishermen were paid. Considering\nthat there is usually a certain amount culled from each cargo and not reckoned in the final tally,\nthe estimates are fairly close. Different periods do not show any change in manner of variation\nof the estimates, so it is plain that the data are acceptable. It should be mentioned that the\n\" small\" fish, for which the men were paid but a portion of the price of large fish, are included\nin the tally totals. The following table (15) consists of records of cargo weights taken from\nthe logs as they came in order of their dates, hence is without prejudice:\u2014\nTable 15.\u2014Showing Correspondence of Estimated and Actual Weights of Cargoes.\n1906, 1907,\nand 1908.\n1913 and 1914.\nEstimated Weight.\nActual Weight.\nEstimated Weight.\nActual Weight.\n115,000\n101.000\n80,000\n87,884\n135,000\n137,000\n220,000\n194,100\n80,000\n63,890\n248,000\n248,560\n188,000\n161,925\n\u2022  183,000\n178,510\n190.000\n177,610\n90,500\n86,980\n91,000\n78,470\n62,000\n61.000\n115,000\n\u2022 113.650\n59,500\n58,000\n75,000\n76,845\n60,000\n55,000\n143.000\n142,180\n78,000\n74,770\n214,000\n178,215\n142,000\n144.310\n110,000\n109.000\n116,000\n122,120\n75,000\n83,740\n119.000\n122.800\n91,000\n102,550\n75,500\n68,000\n130,000\n124,000\n135,000\n140,640\n54,000\n51.945\n70,000\n61.520\n1,886,000\n1,703,540\n1,008,500\n1,042,074\nAs is shown in the table, the variation of the estimates from the actual weights is not large,\nand in no case so distinct as to invalidate the comparisons made with their aid, in which the\ndecrease in yield per skate is shown to be as high as 75 per cent, in ten years. The degree of\naccuracy attained is due to the methods used by the fishermen in judging the weights of the\ncatches. The fish are, on dory vessels, thrown into \" checkers \" on the deck as they are taken\nfrom the dories. These \" checkers \" are pens formed by partitions, placed to check the sliding\nof the fish around the deck as the vessel rolls\u2014hence the name \" checkers.\" The fishermen soon\nbecome cognizant of the number of pounds it requires to fill these, and thus are able to arrive\nat the close estimates noted in their logs. The fish-hold is similarly divided into sections called\npens, and the fishermen who place the fish on the ice are able to tell very closely what weight\nof fish is in each of these. It is, from these two sources, possible to form a fairly accurate\njudgment, for it is not in reality estimating, but rather measuring somewhat crudely.\n(4a.) Weight caught per Unit of Gear and per Cargo.\nThe rate of decrease in weight obtained per skate may be reckoned from Table 17, which is\nderived from Table 16. (See Table 59 for details.) As shown by the column giving the annual\naverages, the yield in 1007 was 2.13 times what it was in 1912, a period of five years. This,\nmultiplied by 2, gives 4.26 times for a period of ten years. The other two columns of the same\ntable show the weight per skate in 1907 to be 3.25 and 2.S7 times, respectively, what it was in S 84\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\n1914, seven years later. This, averaged, would indicate for a period of ten years an initial\nweight of fish 4.37 times the final. As would he expected, these two results for a period of ten\nyears slightly exceed the figures obtained by considering the time spent fishing in summer, which\nwas between 3.5 times and 4. One might easily explain this discrepancy by considering the\nsmaller cargoes required in the later years; and the decrease in the length of the skate, which\nif applied in proportion would reduce 4.26 times to 3.40 (see page 72). It is evident, then, that\nthere is in the yield per skate a true index of the productivity of the banks in general, when\nthe use of new banks and all the modifying factors are included without being discounted.\nThe amount per unit of gear was much less in winter than in summer, as shown in Tables\nIS and 19, being in January about half of what it was in July. The significance of this will be\ndiscussed later, although it is, of course, evident that it is of great importance in considering\na close season.\nTable 16.\u2014Weight of Halibut caught per Skate.*\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n3]\n2'\nIf\n5(\n5(\nXi\nj\n.0\n\u2022o\n59\n10\nS2\nt5\n>5\n4(\n2!\n2',\n3-\n3?\n1J\ni(\n>0\n)9\n27\n14\n54\n!8\n59\n(\nc\nf\n]\n]\n183\n!18\n!29\n!46\n!00\n!00\n.17\n.26\n1\n1\nf\n]\n]\n>82\n!08\n>38\n519\n!76\n!23\n-31\nL66\n395\n507\n234\n485\n492\n537\n244\n201\n257\n9\n5\n4\n3\n6\n3\n2\n1\n1\n73\n16\n86\n34\n27\n14\n05\n31\n42\n139\n473\n710\n316\n289\n78\n136\n138\n438\n430\n454\n456\n556\n325\n367\n69\n125\n128\n1,307\n649\n316\n588\n211\n500\n322\n220\n171\n120\n111\n1,000\n233\n201\n609\n210\n161\n166\n241\n165\n99\n69\n321\n650\n454\n412\n192\n226\n130\n84\n97\n453\n324\n257\n210\n122\n115\n* These averages are based on the individual catches, not on the averages for each vessel.\nTable 11.\u2014Weight caught per Skate, showing Averages for such Periods as are best compared.\nIn Table 16.\nYear.\nWhole Year.   Jan. to May (inc.).\nMay, Aug., Sept., Oct.\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n455*\n468\n379\n286\n334\n440\n350\n386\n213\n190\n163\n421\n466\n372\n328\n429\n356\n249\n135\n143\n* Data for July supplied by averaging June and August.\nTable 18.\u2014Seasonal Fluctuation in Weight caught per Skate, by Months.    From Table 16.\nYear.    Jan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1907. 190S,\n1912\n242\n299\n334\n371\n32S\n439\n491\n417\n375\n32S\n332\n234\n* December lacking. 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 85\nTable 19.\u2014Seasonal Fluctuation of Weight caught per Skate.    Contrasting Averages for Six-\nmonth Periods.\nYear.\nWinter.\nSummer.\n1907 \t\n440\n294\n150\n106\n471\n190S \t\n463\n1912\t\n276\n1914*  -.\t\n156\nTo compare with the yield per skate as shown by the total catch on the fishing-grounds, the\nyield for a limited area was compiled, thus obviating the result of the use of new banks. (See\nTable 60 for detailed records.) The banks found in Hecate Strait (Areas II. and III.) and\nthose off Goose Island (Area I.) were combined, utilizing the same methods as were employed\nin equalizing data from different vessels (see page 79). In general, the same results were\nobtained as for the more complete records, showing the sharp seasonal variation and the constant\ndecrease.\nIn combining the data, the comparative yield per skate was obtained for the three banks.\nThis was done by utilizing those records which were simultaneous, the sums of such records\ngiving what is presumed to be the nearest indication of the comparative yield. Thus the sums\nof records on common dates were:\u2014\nGoose Island Banks (Area 1.) 4,415\nRose Spit-Bonilla Banks (Area II.) 5,572\nEast Coast of Queen Charlottes   (Area III.) S.940\nRose Spit-Bonilla Banks (Area II.) 8,389\nAccording to these proportions, the yield of the Goose Island Banks should be to those of\nthe East Coast of the Queen Charlottes as 2,480 is to 3,332. There are but ten records in common\nbetween these two areas, and these give the proportions of 2,4S0 to 3,332, not a variation of any\nimportance. If we consider the yield of the Rose Spit-Bonilla Banks as a unit, the yield from\nGoose Island would be 0.79, and that from the East Coast of the Queen Charlottes 1.07. This\nrelative productivity may be the result of the difference in size of the fish or the capacity of\nthe bank to support fish, which is the same thing in the end, theoretically, the latter condition\nleading supposedly to a slower growth. In view of the depleted condition of the banks it is\ndifficult to see how competition for food could effect the relative size very greatly.\nEliminating this difference in productivity by multiplying the yield from each by a factor\nderived from the proportions given above, the data given in Table 20 were obtained. The\ndecrease is fully as evident as in Table 16, and the seasonal fluctuation is also. By comparing\nthe months given under 1914 with the same months in 1907 and 1908 (see Table 20) and\nobserving the rate of decrease, it is seen that the catch in the earlier years of a ten-year period\nwould be respectively 4.4 and 4.77 times what it would be in the later, and by comparing 1907\nand 1912 it would appear to be 4.71 times. (When modified in accordance with the decrease in\nlength of skate, this would be 3.77 times.) It is evident that this rate of depletion is somewhat\nmore rapid than the rate found when all the available records were used without correction for\nthe different banks (4.26 to 4.37), but this would be expected. As was remarked on page 72,\nthese banks were exploited until it paid to go farther to new banks, the old banks being fished\non only when it paid to do so. We may consider, then, the difference between the rate of\ndecrease for the whole fishery and that for the separate banks as a measure of the greater drain\nthe latter are subject to on account of their position and characteristics.\nIt would appear that the rates of depletion as found in the several ways are consistent and\nsubstantially corroborate each other to such an extent that there cannot be any doubt as to their\napproximate correctness. S 86\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 20.\u2014Weight of Halibut caught per Skate.    Corrected for Variations in Bank Productivity.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910 . .\n1911\n1912 , ,\n1913 \t\n1914\ni\ni\n3\nmi\n>S(\nill\n11]\n91\nk\n3\nI\n\u00bb\n41\n33\n30\n37\n3\n3\n5\n2\n5\n9\n486\n330\n230\n179\n168\n131\n110\n114\n531\n328\n504\n247\n121\n181\n170\n333\n306\n511\n225\n493\n363\n428\n205\n138\n200\n483\n514\n419\nigi\n157\n*419\n680\n405\n263\n76\n163\n551\n355\n449\n283\n212\n136\n1,026\n1,080\n246\n382\n245\n500\n326\n181\n188\n139\n1,085\n233\n201\n*343\n219\n53\n208\n230\n198\n76\n97\n324\n701\n439\n363\n198\n195\n96\n136\n95\n342\n322\n206\n1.54\n92\n* Supplied by averaging the adjacent months.\nTable 21.\u2014A. Averages of the Years 1901 and 1908 of Table 20.   B. Averages of the Years 1901,\n1908, 1909, and 1914.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\nA \t\nB \t\n272\n213\n374\n272\n408\n290\n429\n383\n368\n357\n498\n393\n549\n402\n314\n253\n281\n401\n264\nThe weights of the cargoes landed are of primary importance to fishermen and dealers, and,\ntaken in conjunction with the length of the voyages, indicate to them the condition of the fishery.\nHence, although it must be understood that they do not give an adequate idea of the actual state\nof affairs, the data obtained concerning them are of considerable interest. (See Table 61 for the\nrecords unmodified for vessel differences.)\nThe constant decrease in the average weight of the cargoes is shown in Table 23, derived\nfrom Table 22, the data from the different vessels having been combined (page 87). The average\nfor 1914 is seen to be slightly more than a half of that for 1905, but that for 1914 is not\ncomplete, lacking December, a month when the yield is lowest. Comparing the summer and\nwinter months of Table 23, the decrease is seen to be less in the summer, due perhaps to the\neffect of the increased bad weather, or perhaps to the limitation of the voyage-length by the low\nsteaming radius of the vessels.\nIt is interesting to see how far this rate of decrease of the cargoes will explain the discrepancy mentioned on page 83 between the decrease shown by the yield per skate and that shown\nby the time spent in fishing per voyage. Taking the years 1907 and 1914, and considering the\naverages of 1914 for the several classes of data as units, in terms of which the others may be\nexpressed, we may construct the following table:\u2014\nYear.\nCatch per Skate\n(Weight).\nFishing-time per\nVoyage.\nCargo.\n1914\n1907\n1.00\n3.48\n1.00\n0.50\n1.00\n1.80\nIt may be seen that the catch per skate, as indicating the abundance of fish, multiplied by\nthe time spent in fishing per voyage, should indicate approximately the size of the cargo. This\nexpectation for the cargo of 1907 would be about 1.75 times* that of 1914, whereas it is found\nto be, by the actual data, as above, 1.8 times.    When it is considered that there are many other\n* If the increased length of the skate were taken into consideration, this would be 1.89 times. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific\nS 87\nsmall factors entering into any such calculation, the agreement is satisfactory, and indicates\nthe essential correctness of the date. The difference is not as great as would be expected to\nensue from the longer time needed to handle a skate of gear in the deeper water utilized in later\nyears.\nComparisons of other years for the same purpose as that above give slightly varying results,\nas would be expected. It was found that the cargo of 1911 should have been 1.3 times as large\nas that of 1908, instead of 1.1 times, as was actually the case. That for 1912 should have been\n0.9 instead of 0.8, as was found in comparison with 1908. That for 1914 was 0.63 instead of 0.6.\nThe results vary on each side of the expectation.\nIt should be noticed that the comparison of summer and winter yields in Table 24 shows that\nthe yield for January and December is between approximately a third and a fourth of that for\nthe best summer months.   This is of considerable importance in the discussion of a close season.\nTable\n-Weight of Cargoes landed.   From Corrected Data, based on Table 61.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nJune.\n1902\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n83,875\n108,560\n132,800\n87,233\n43,382\n47,403\n79,492\n37,000\n41,797\n140,520\n152,755\n182,167\n108,600\n63,276\n70,065\n114,305\n91,900\n62,462\n109,112\n208,633\n133,150\n83,233\n105,232\n118,026\n138,575\n145,897\n59,973\n146,862\n139,843\n127,325\n145,392\n158,258\n73,335\n148,230\n128,151\n87,884\n91,000\n124,840\n122,400\n151,324\n127,206\n189,198\n162,647\n167,692\n132,428\n126,103\n185,800\n175,500\n203,464\n122,463\n158,000\n221,407\n144,817\n219,473\n99,865\n86,945\nYear.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n152.400\n127,640\n154,670\n153,550\n167,178\n172,521\n76,085\n113,400\n114,392\n99,828\n151,100\n177,695\n167,633\n134,000\n122,056\n104,223\n146.953\n182,857\n124,098\n77,508\n90,000\n138,000\n120,739\n142,618\n104,150\n170,762\n195,495\n160,340\n149,779\n127,078\n83,422\n77,815\n165,000\n90,705\n101,675\n190,000\n111,702\n113,510\n150.237\n128,675\n62,365\n58,000\n23,985\n78,947\n113,288*\n142,225\n118,419\n101,708\n78,325\n105,433\n42,005\n29,447\n111,900\n128.935\n124,900\n82,100\n84,485\n72,636\n32,957\n33,150\n38,690\n* Derived hy averaging adjacent months of same year.\nTable 23.\u2014Average Weight of Cargoes for Years and for Seasons.\nWeight of Cargo,\nWeight for Six\nWeight for Six\nYear.\nAnnual Average.\nWinter Months.\nSummer Months.\n1905  \t\n148,174*\n105,484\n139,567*\n1906  \t\n144,417\n134,969\n153,866\n1907  \t\n140,591\n143.740\n137,441\n1908  \t\n129,440\n98,945\n159,535\n1909  \t\n114,898\n83,291\n146,505\n1910   \t\n112,441\n82,836\n142,046\n1911  \t\n133,431\n99,938\n169,923\n1912   \t\n109,622*\n75,833*\n137,780\n98,538*\n42,046*\n126,784\n1914   \t\n77,490*\n54,744*\n97,781\n* From incomplete data, see Tahle 22. S 88\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 2-i.\u2014Seasonal Change in Weights of Cargoes.    From  Corrected  Weights   (as  given in\nTable 22).\nYear.                                        Jan.\nFeb.          March.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\n1906 to 1911  (inc.)          83,145\n[\n115,195      131,142\n132,064\n146,269\n177,772\nYear.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.              Nov.\nDec.\n1906 to 1911  (inc.)   \t\n154,660\n142,093\n153,857\n132,633\n109,900\n71,705\n(4b.)  Number op Fish caught per Unit oe Gear and per Cargo.\nThe number of fish caught per skate is given in Tables 25 to 28, as taken from Table 62.\nThere is to be seen the constant evidence of depletion which pervades all the data utilized, but\nthe comparable periods are somewhat irregular, and the complete years all follow 1907. The\nperiod covering March, April, and May is easily compared, as is that containing September,\nOctober, November, and December, but neither of these is extensive enough to give a thoroughly\nreliable average.\nComparing these tables with Table 20, giving the weight per skate, the same variations are\nshown in 1910 and 1911, resultant from the heavy catches recorded from the newer banks, notably\nthose offshore from North Island.\nThe yield caught per skate in 1908 is shown, according to the annual averages, to be 2.43\ntimes that for 1914, six years later, which would be equivalent to 4.05 times in ten years. When\n1909 and 1914 are compared, this equivalent would be 4.07 times. Other years would give for\nperiods of ten years: 1908 and 1913, 3.49 times; 1908 and 1912, 3.38 times; 1909 and 1913,\n3.66 times. Whichever of these figures is nearest the average rate of decrease, it is evident that\nit is less than was found for the weight caught per skate (page 84), and in this fact is to be\nfound the first evidence yet given that the average weight of the fish caught has steadily and\nextensively declined. Whether this is due to a shift to new fishing-banks, or is due to an actual\nchange in the population of each bank, will be taken uip later.\nIn Table 28 the seasonal variation in number caught per skate is shown, that for January\nbeing about a quarter of that for July, whereas the fluctuation of weight has been shown to be\na half (page 86). This indicates that the average weight of the fish caught is heavier in winter,\nof which further proof will be given.\nTable 25.\u2014Average Number of Fish caught per Skate.    A Summation of Table 62.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDee.\n1902  \t\n51.5\n34.8\n31.0\n33.7\n1903  \t\n19.5\n1905  \t\n21.9\n24.3\n32.9\n27.2\n1906  \t\n21.1\n18.0\n22.3\n17.5\n50.6\n64.3\n34.4\n48.6\n9.1\n21.0\n31.4\n1907  \t\n8.6\n13.5\n11.5\n33.9\n19.3\n47.2\n17.7\n9.3\n1908  \t\n7.8\n10.1\n8.3\n25.9\n23.3\n29.3\n20.7\n19.9\n43.2\n20.3\n11.8\n9.3\n1909  \t\n7.8\n5.5\n7.7\n17.3\n22.4\n20.8\n36.1\n30.2\n19.6\n12.4\n7.6\n5.9\n1910  \t\n7.5\n10.2\n13.3\n31.4\n14.9\n30.2\n32.6\n35.0\n23.3\n32.6\n12.3\n6.0\n1911  \t\n7.7\n20.9\n10.6\n13.1\n26.3\n20.5\n24.3\n21.6\n21.3\n10.2\n. 11.8\n4.0\n1912  \t\n2.3\n13.2\n10.4\n9.5\n17.0\n20.5\n28.6\n24.7\n19.1\n16.1\n4.5\n3.5\n1913  \t\n9.4\n13.2\n12.8\n26.3\n7.7\n15.0\n9.6\n5.7\n5.8\n4.3\n1914\n5.9\n14.7\n6.3\n7.7\n17.9\n13.9\n8.3\n8.7\n7.3\n2.5\n3.7 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 89\nTable 26.\u2014Average Numbers of Fish caught per Skate for Comparable Groups of Months.    From\nTable 25.\nYear.\nAnnual Average.\nMarch, April, May.\nSept., Oct., Nov.,Dec.\n1902   \t\n1905   \t\n1906   \t\n1907   \t\n19.2\n16.1\n21.1\n16.0\n14.2\n11.0*\n7.9*\n28.1\n19.3\n19.2\n15.8\n19.9\n16.7\n12.3\n11.8\n10.6\n37.7\n27.5\n23.4\n1908   \t\n1909   \t\n1910   \t\n1911   \t\n1912   \t\n21.2\n11.4\n18.6\n11.8\n10.7\n1913*   \t\n6.4\n1914*   \t\n4.5*\n* Not complete ; see Table 25.\nTable 21.\u2014Average Number caught per Skate for Seasons of Six Months, showing same Decrease\nboth Seasons.    From Table 25.\nPeriods compared.\nSummer.\nWinter.\n1906, 1907, and 190\n1912, 1913, and 191\n8 \t\n31.1\n14.9\n16.5\n4 \t\n7.6\nTable 28.\u2014Seasonal Variation in Number of Fish caught per Skate.    From Table 25.\nPeriod.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1908 to 1912\n(inc.)\n6.6\n11.9\n10.1\n19.4\n20.8\n24.3\n28.5\n26.3\n25.3\n18.3\n9.6\n5.7\nAs in the case of the weight of fish caught per skate, the number caught per skate was\nreckoned for the same three areas (see page 85). The resultant table shows depletion in the\nsame manner, and the seasonal fluctuation in the same degree (see Table 64). In fact, each\nindividual bank showed the same tendencies, but the greater number of records from the\ncombined areas allowed of more uniform results (see Tables 29 and 30 for the separate areas,\nand Table 31 for a single bank, Rose Spit).\nIn the formation of Table 29 the same methods of correcting the data were used as in\ntreating of the weight per skate (see page 85). The simultaneous records from the areas\nyielded the following sums:\u2014\nTwenty-seven records gave\u2014\nRose Spit-Bonilla  (Area II.)      3.905\nEast Coast of Queen Charlottes (III.)      2,794\nThirty-one records gave\u2014\nRose Spit-Bonilla  (II.)  5.535\nGoose Island Banks (I.)     5,811\nThese two proportions would lead to an expected proportion of: the yield of Area I. is\nto that of Area III. as 2,807 is to 2,055; but the actual proportion found from fifteen records\nis 2,807 to 1,920. This is not an excessive variation. By reference to page 85 it may be seen\nthat this relation of banks is the reverse to that shown by the weight per skate, which must\nindicate, of course, what is really the case, that the fish from these three banks vary widely\nin size. This is not to be attributed to the effects of depletion, which would leave only the young,\nbut to an actual difference in the rate of growth;  for, as has been seen, there are actually more S 90\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nfish by number to be caught on those banks where the yield in weight per skate is the smallest.\nAlthough, in view of the small number of records available, no great significance should be\nattached to the exact figures, the reversed order of the two methods of counting the yield may\nbe graphically illustrated by expressing them in terms of the Rose Spit-Bonilla Banks as a unit.\nArea.\nWeight per Skate.\nNumber per Skate.\nI\t\n0.79\n1.00\n1.07\n1.05\nII\t\n1.00\nTTT             \t\n0.71\nThe comparable periods in Table 29 are averaged in Table 30. It is apparent that the annual\naverages are too few to compare with advantage, but the groups of months supply a certain\nbasis. It has been thought best, however, not to base the calculation of the total rate of decrease\non anything but the annual average, and therefore it has not been given. A comparison between\nthe rates of decrease shown by similar groups of months in Tables 26 and 29 has been thought\npermissible, the purpose being to show that the rate of decrease for the three areas is greater\nthan that for the whole fishery. This is the same relation which was found above in the\ncomparison of the rates of decrease in the average weight caught per skate, and illustrates the\nresult of the constant exploitation of new and undepleted banks. The average for 1905 was\ncompared with those for 1912, 1913, and 1914; that for 1906 was compared with those for 1913\nand 1914; that for 1908 with 1914, considering the months March, April, and May, and the\nresultant rates of depletion expressed in terms of that for ten years and the whole averaged.\nThe yield for the initial year of a ten-year period proved to be 3.22 times that for the final when\nthe three areas were considered, and 2.63 times when the whole fishery was included. Utilizing\nthe months of September, October, November, and December, comparing 1902 with 1910, 1911,\nand 1913, and 1906 with 1911 and 1913, the initial yield was found to be 5.03 times the final in\nthe limited areas and 4.45 times in the whole. It is apparent that the rate of depletion shown\nby the number caught per skate on the Areas I., IL, and HI. is in harmony with that derived\nfrom the whole fishing-ground. In considering the seeming magnitude of the last rate found,\nit should not be regarded as contradicting the lower rates obtained from comparing longer\nperiods, when the tendency toward variation found in such fishing statistics and the seasonal\nfluctuations are borne in mind.\nThe averages for each month given below (Table 29) bear out the range of variation found\nfrom the statistics for the whole ground, and they show in their contrast to the weight caught\nper skate as given in Table 21 that the winter weights of the fish are heavier than the summer.\nTable 29.\u2014Number of Fish caught per Skate, Areas I., II., III.    Corrected for Bank Variation.\nFrom Table 64.\nYear.\n1902 \t\n1903 \t\n1904 \t\n1905 \t\n1906 \t\n1907 \t\n1908 \t\n1909 \t\n1910 \t\n1911 \t\n1912 \t\n1913 \t\n1914 \t\nAve. 1908 to\n1911 (inc.)\nJan.\n15.8\n6.2\n4.5\n9.1\n5.3\n8.1\n2.6\n4.1\n6.7\nFeb.      March.     April.     May.    June.    July.    August.    Sept.     Oct\n23.7\n37.4\n13.0\n7.2\n7.1\n4.5\n20.8\n9.9\n7.7\n20.4\n14.8\n13.5\n9.6\n8.2\n8.1\n9.4\n9.3\n2.7\n5.4\n34.6\n33.4\n23.6\n21.7\n21.2\n16.0\n6.3\n19.8\n7.8\n20.6\n24.9\n25.3\n31.5\n31.4\n17.5\n27.3\n13.2\n8.7\n19.6\n26.9\n26.1\n28.3\n20.3\n16.5\n20.7\n22.1\n8.6\n16.8\n21.5\n94.0\n18.9\n34.4\n21.2\n23.0\n9.9\n5.5\n7.4\n24.4\n32.7\n32.2\n18.4\n10.1\n34.3\n17.8\n13.8\n16.1\n20.2\n37.4\n62.8\n63.8\n21.7\n22.1\n19.9\n46.5\n21.8\n24.2\n10.4\n11.2\n27.6\n44.4\n12.6\n9.1\n19.4\n25.0\n4.6\n14.9\n15.7\n18.8\n3.7\n3.5\n15.1\nNov.\n31.0\n26.8\n20.5\n17.5\n12.3\n10.1\n14.9\n6.7\n16.4\n4.6\nii.b\nDee.\n24.8\n12.8\n21.0\n5.9\n8.7\n2.9\n2.2\n9.6 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 91\nTable 30.\u2014Number of Fish caught per Skate on Areas I.,\nPeriods in Table 2\nII., and III.    Averages of Comparable\nYear.\nAnnual.\nMarch, April, May.\nSept., Oct., Nov.,Dec.\n1902    \t\n18.5\n15.2\n17.6\n15.9\n26.6\n24.5\n21.6\n20.4\n15.6\n26.4\n9.6\n10.4\n10.9\n36.6\n1905    \t\n1906    \t\n29.6\n1907   \t\n17.8\n1908   \t\n1909    \t\n1910   \t\n1911    \t\n1912    \t\n20.1\n10.1\n21.2\n11.8\n1913    \t\n5.2\n1914    \t\nTable 31.\u2014A\nvcragc Number\nand\nWeight\nper\nSkate\ntaken on\nRose Spit\nBank.\nYear.\nJan.        I\n'eb\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902,   No.\n62.2\n51.3\n\u201e    Wt.\n1560\n1903,  No.\n16.7\n\u201e     Wt.\n1904,  No.\n10.3\n13.7\n\u201e     Wt.\n250\n361\n1905,  No.\n16.5\n47.0\n\u201e     Wt.\n1906,  No.\n89.3\n10.8\n18.9\n37.4\n.,    Wt.\n1180\n277\n821\n1907,  No.\n1\n2.!\n)          9.5\n.   .   .\n67.6\n26.6\n16.7\n.,     Wt.\nI\n17:\nj\n729\n459\n440\n1908,  No.\n1\n7.(\n)       11.0\n42.9\n33.1\n22.4\n12.6\n17.7\n\u201e     Wt.\n347\nU'\nr       308\n389\n430\n1909,  No.\n13.2\n3.:\n;      1.7\n19.9\n7.9\n5.3\n7.1\n\u201e     Wt.\n282\n417\n119\n93\n1910,  No.\n\u201e    Wt.\n1911,  No.\n9.6\n20.7\n26.9\n31.3\n10.1\n6.6\n\u201e     Wt.\n277\n400\n247\n151\n184\n1912,  No.\n17.7\n23.3\n17.8\n,.    Wt.\n208\n336\n287\n125\n1913,  No.\n5.2\n14.7\n\u201e    Wt.\n67\n228\n181\n1914,  No.\n7.4\n\u201e     Wt.\n83\niii\n62\nThe average numbers of fish per cargo are tabulated in Table 63. In Table 32 are given the\nannual averages derived from these data after correction for vessel variation. It is noticeable\nthat a marked decrease is not evident save in 1907 and in 1912, which may be simply a variation.\nIn fact, there is no ground shown for believing that there has been either a decrease or an\nincrease. However, if Table 23 is referred to, the years 1913 and 1914 show a marked decrease\nin the average weight, perhaps correlated, if complete statistics were available, with a similar\nmarked decrease in number. What is presented in the unmodified table for these years surely\nseems to bear this out. The point to be emphasized is, however, the fact that, despite the\nincrease in length of the voyages and the shifting to new banks, there has been no corresponding\nincrease, save perhaps temporarily, in the number of fish caught per voyage.\nTable 32 is a comparison of the annual averages for the weight of the cargoes (from\nTable 23) and the number of fish in them, to show the decreased weight of fish. It will be shown\nlater that this is consequent to a decrease in the case of each bank, rather than because fishing is S 92\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\ncarried on over areas characterized by smaller fish, although, to be sure, the shifting of the\nfishery to undepleted banks has counterbalanced the decrease to a certain extent.\nIn Table 33 the monthly average weight per cargo is divided by the averages for number\nper cargo to give the average individual weights according to the season. In these there is\nsomewhat of an error because of the comparison of periods which are not strictly contemporaneous. It will be seen from this table that there is a very decided fluctuation in average\nweight, that of the winter months being very much greater, the average for May, June, and\nJuly being but two-fifths of that for December.\nTable 32.\u2014Average Number of Fish per Cargo.\nYear.\nNo. of Fish.\nAverage Weight.*\n1904    \t\n6,027\n6,520\n4,996\n6.834\n8.004\n7.268\n5,967\nLb.\n1905    \t\n22.7\n1906    \t\n1907    \t\n29 2\n1908   \t\n1909    \t\n16 8\n1910   \t\n14.1\n1911      \t\n18 4\n1912     \t\n18.3\n* As compared with Table 23.\nTable 33.\u2014Comparison of Average Pounds per Cargo by Months with Average Number per Cargo,\nto show Heavier Proportionate Average Weight in Winter.\nMonth.\nMonthly Average Weight\nper Cargo, 1900-11.\nAverage Number\nper Cargo, 1909-12.\nAverage Weight.\nJanuary\nFebruary\nMarch   . .\nApril   . . .\nMay   \t\nJune . ..\nJuly . . . .\nAugust . .\nSeptember\nOctober .\nNovember\nDecember\n83,145\n115,195\n131,142\n132.064\n146.269\n177,772\n154,660\n142.093\n153.857\n132,633\n109,900\n71,705\n2.386\n3,940\n5,094\n6.501\n10.202\n10,131\n11.073\n11.292\n10,333\n7,535\n3,921\n1,959\n34.8\n29.3\n25.8\n20.3\n14.3\n17.5\n14.0\n12.6\n14.9\n17.6\n28.0\n36.7\n(5.)  Fluctuations in Average Sizes of Fish caught.\nIn considering the changes in size of the fish caught by the vessels there are four factors\ntaken into consideration. These are: First, the effect of the fishing on the average size; second,\nthe seasonal fluctuations; third, the differences in the sizes of fish caught on the different banks\nand at the different depths;   and, fourth, the possible schooling of fish in sizes and sexes.\nThe most disturbing feature in the effects of the line-fishing for halibut is the marked\nlowering of the size of the fish obtained, as was indicated in discussing the number of fish\ncaught per skate, on page 89. This has been, up to the present time, hidden to the dealers\nand in part to the fishermen by the constant extension of the fishery to new banks and the\nconsequent influx of fish from localities in which the average size had not decreased to such a\nmarked degree (see Tables 1 and 6). Therefore, for the clearest manifestations of the fact\nthe records of the individual banks must be examined, preferably the older banks. It must be\nborne in mind, however, that these results giving the average size of fish caught are not strictly\nadequate to represent the real degree of change, as the records in which large fish are caught\nare given the same importance in the computations as are catches characterized by their small 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific S 93\nsize, although the former are predominately light yields because of few fish, while the latter are\nheavy, with many fish. In Table 43 this is discounted and a truer picture given of the decrease\nin size.\nIn Table 65 are given the average sizes of fish caught in three areas (I., IL, and III.), which\nare outlined on the chart, page \u2014. The decrease in size is seen to be very marked. The data\nin this table are combined to form Table 36 by averaging the individual records within the\nsix-month seasons. The decrease in weight is shown even more distinctly, although it must be\nrecognized that the six-month periods into which the data are separated are not completely\nfilled in every case. Table 37 also shows the decrease, though somewhat less clearly because\nof the paucity of records. It is not attempted to give figures for the rate at which the size\nwas decreasing, because of the lack of sufficient data in suitable years.\nThe seasonal fluctuation in the size of the fish caught is very noticeable, and represents\nwhat is one of the most interesting problems raised by the present data, and one which must\nbe considered in treating the calculations as to average size. It bears on the probabilities of\nmigration, as well as on the extent of depletion, and is of importance from a commercial standpoint.\nIn Table 35.are shown the seasonal changes in the size of fish as brought in by the vessels\nwithout regard to the banks from which they came. These data are taken from records of actual\ncounts and weights made on the docks, which, however, do not state the amount of fish culled\nout. It would be barely possible that the change was connected with more extensive culling\nin winter, if it were not true that the records for the individual catches show It likewise (Table\n36). The average weights in the case of the cargoes were obtained bjT dividing the weight of\nthe cargo by the number of the fish, but the records of individual catches were made while the\nvessels were on the banks, hence are not influenced by any question of culling. It may be seen\nthat the seasonal fluctuation shown in the table is very plain and unmistakable.\nThe records for the individual banks are not as complete as is the case with the records for\nthe cargoes landed, so they have been grouped in winter and summer seasons of six months each\n(Tables 36 and 37). There is, of,course, a change from month to month within these periods,\nbut it will not affect the validity of the comparisons save where two adjacent months are\ncontrasted as summer and winter. In such cases, for example, under Virago Sound in 1909,\nwhere the months of September and October are thus used, the fact is shown in the table, and\nnot much weight should be given to their seeming reversal of the ordinary seasonal relationships\n(Table 37). Even including these, in twenty-three cases the average for the winter is shown\nto be the heavier, while in but four the opposite is indicated, in each of them by a narrow margin.\nThe evidence, then, is that there is an actual change in the average weight from season to season.\nThis change, as shown by the direct evidence of the records, may be checked by a comparison\n(Table 38) of the average weight and the average number caught per skate in the different\nseasons. These data are taken from the tables for the three areas compared in Table 36. The\nweight per skate, (B) and (C), for each month from Table 21 was divided by the number of\nfish per skate for the corresponding month (A) from Table 29, and the proportions shown in\nthe rows headed B\/A and C\/A. This is not, of course, indicative of the actual weight of the\nfish caught in any particular year and month, but represents merely the proportion of the average\nweight in each case to that of the other months. It is evident that the seasonal change is the\nsame that has been shown for the cargoes and for the individual banks.\nIn Table 36 are given the averages for all those years which have records for both seasons,\nconsidering only the three large areas there indicated. With regard to these it will be well to\ncall attention to the age relationship. The lengths of which these weights are characteristic\nmay be calculated from the chart given in a preceding paper by the present writer in the Report\nof the British Columbia Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914 (1915), page 78, using the \"cleaned\nand headed \" curve. These lengths may in turn be applied to the charts giving the average\nlength at any age on page 80 of the same report. From these sources Table 39 is compiled.\nIt is noticeable that in this case there is a year's growth, more or less, difference in size between\nthe average seasonal weights. On examining data from other banks (see Table 37), the seasonal\ndifference is very much greater than this, giving pause to any explanation based on age. This\nwill be discussed later. S 94\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 34.\u2014Average Weight of Fish in Cargoes, as weighed at Dock.\nYear.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAugust.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902 ....\n1903 .     ..\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907 .     ..\n1908 .     ..\n1909\n1910   ....\n1911\n1912 .     ..\n1913   \t\n1914\nAve. 1907\nto 1912\n23.3\n22.3\n18,3\n17.8\n17.5\n22.9\n19.5\n33.3\n15.6\n21.6\n19.8\n20.0\n24.2\n25.8\n33.5\n36.0\n21.9\n24.0\n19.2\n27.6\n22.7\n32.9\n27.5\n32.4\n30.1\n23.2\n24.6\n27.8\n19.2\n27.6\n18.7\n23.3\n17.3\n14.1\n16.0\n17.0\n21.2\n22.3\n18.6\n18.6\n16.4\n14.1\n20.4\n13.0\n12.9\n13.0\n11.7\n16.0\n15.0\n15.9\n13.4\n14.3\n12.9\n12.4\n22.3\n18.3\n13.6\n13.6\n15.6\n15.2\n14.7\n15.3\n12.1\n18.5\n12.5\n12.4\n17.6\n20.8\n14.3\n18.4\n13.8\n17.0\n22.8\n11.0\n14.9\n16.8\n14.7\n24.2\n13.5\n16.2\n17.3\n18.2\n17.3\n13.4\n13.6\n15.5\n17.4\n14.2\n17.5\n16.0\n15.2\n32.8\n23.3\n19.9\n15.6\n18.0\n11.9\n18.4\n12.1\n20.0\n11.5\n16.0\n27.3\n23.6\n28.0\n25.8\n16.9\n21.0\n21.9\n18.4\n22.8\n14.6\n21.4\n33.4\n24.3\n23.0\n16.9\n20.2\n16.0\n30.6\n16.5\n21.7\nTable 35.\u2014Average Weights for Periods which are Comparable.    Taken from Table 34-\nYear.\nJan. to April.\nMay to Oct.\nSummer.\nWinter.\nAnnual.\n1905   \t\n1906   \t\n1907   \t\n21.1\n24.6\n21.8\n22.5\n24.3\n24.8\n21.8\n27.1\n17.5\n16.5\n15.9\n14.7\n14.4\n16.7\n14.4\n17.5\n15.2\n17.5\n16.0\n15.7\n14.3\n15.2\n17.2\n15.8\n26.6\n22.7\n22.8\n24.2\n21.2\n22.7\n19.3\n1908   \t\n1909   \t\n1910   \t\n19.3\n19.3\n18.2\n1911   \t\n1912   \t\n19.9\n1914   \t\nTable 36.\u2014Comparison of Average Weights of Fish.\"'\nYear.\nII.\nRose Spit-Bonilla Bank.\nIII.\nEast Coast op Queen\nChablottes.\nI.\nGoose Islano Banks.\nWinter.\nSummer.\nWinter.\nSummer.\nWinter.\nSummer.\n1902   \t\n1903   \t\n27.2-4\n27.0-17\n26.4-24\n25.0-20\n13.8-5\n20.5-11\n19.4-8\n16.5-1\n22.6\n29.5-2\n21.9-4\n24.6-31\n18.4-6\n12.0-1\n14.3-19\n16.3-17\n12.0-10\n18.6'\n28.5-1\n32.5-9\n34.4-10\n17.6-4\n27.9-3\n28.1'\n23.4-2\n34.3-2\n2619-22\n17.9-21\n14.5-4\n23.4\n16.8-11\n10.2-1\n10.7-2\n12.6\n19.8-2\n1904   \t\n1905   \t\n1906   \t\n1907   \t\n1908   \t\n1909   \t\n1910   \t\n1911   \t\n1912   \t\n1914   \t\n14.7-6\n11.6-1\n13.3-1\n14.6-9\n.    11.2-18\n9.1-10\n9.0-17\n10.4\n* The  number  of  records  on  which  each  average  is based  is  indicated  by  the  number  following the\nhyphen in each case. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 95\nTable 37.\u2014Avert\nSizes of Fish on Various Banks during Winter and Summer.*\nlTear.\nWinter.\nSummer.\nYear.\nWinter.\nSummer.\n1906 .\n1909 .\nArea IV.\nArea V.\n33.0-1\n26.2-10\n26.2-2\n33.0-1\n13.6-4\n22.3-1\n16.0-1\n2S.7-4\nOct.\n21.6-2\n16.1-4\n20.0-1\n15.7-11\n12.5-4\n12.6-2\n19.1-16\n18.5-2\n17.8-3\n22.7-7\n29.3-1\n29.5-1\n18.1-3\n22.2-8\n17.0-7\n10.8-4\n21.3-6\n14.0-4\n14.8-2\n28.2-6\nSept.\n12.7-2\n10.2-1\nArea XI.\n1911  \t\n1912\t\n39.1-1\n25.8-S\n17.1-5\n21.1-4\n23.5-3\n11.2-6\nOct.\n13.2-2\n8.9-1\n12.6-1\n25.1-1\n25.1-3\n37.7-5\n13.3-1\n26.2-5\n16.2-5\n26.2-5\n22.1-3\n23.3-5\n1910\n1911 .\n1912 .\n1914 ,\n1912\n1913 .\nArea XII.\n1910\t\n1912  \t\n1914\t\nArea XIII.\n1911 \t\n1914 \t\nArea XIV.\n1906 \t\n1908\t\n1909 \t\n1911 \t\n1912 \t\n12.6-3\n13.2-5\n34.9-5\n1914\n1914 .\n1911\nArea VI.\nArea VII.\nli.1-6\n13.4-2\nSept.\n1913 \t\n9.0-1\n1914  .\nArea VIII.\n1914 \t\nArea XV.\n1909 \t\n1912  \t\n1913 \t\n9.6-1\nArea IX.\n9.4-7\n10 8-4\n1906\n1908   .\nBose Spit Part of Area 11.\n1902  \t\n1904  \t\n1906\t\n1907 \t\n1908\t\n1909\t\n1909  \t\n1911 \t\n1912 \t\n1913  \t\n13.2-1\n1914 .\nArea X.\n15.3-6\n15 9 2\n1911\t\n1912  \t\n11.3-5\n12 6-8\n1902 .\n1913 \t\nAverage   of   years   with\nrecords for both seasons\n12.S-1\n1911\n1912   .\n26.6\n18.1\n* The   number  of  records\nhyphen in each case.\non   which  each  average  is based  is  indicated by the number  following the\nTable 38.\u2014Comparison of Seasonal Variations in Weight and in dumber caught per Skate.\nPeriod.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\nA. 1908 to  1911\n(inclusive)\nB. 1907 and 1908\nC. 1907-09 & 1914\n6.7\n272\n213\n9.9\n374\n272\nS.S\n408\n290\n20.6\n429\n383\n26.9\n368\n357\n21.5\n498\n393\n24.4\n549\n20.2\n402\n27.6\n314\n253\n15.1\n281\n11.0\n401\n9.0\n264\nB\/A   \t\n40.5\n37.7\n46.4\n20.8\n13.7\n23.1\n22.5\n19.9\n11.4\n18.6\n36.4\n27.5\nC\/A    \t\n31.7\n27.5\n32.9\n18.6\n13.3\n18.3\n9.1 S 96\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 39.\u2014Showing the Computed Ages of the Fish caught during Summer and Winter\nArea II.\nArea III.\nArea I.\nWinter.\nSummer.\nWinter.\nSummer.\nWinter.\nSummer.\nAverage weight \t\n22.0\n37\n9.4\n18.6\n35 y2\n8.3\n28.1\n39%\n10.2\n23.4\n37%\n9.6\n12.6\n3oy2\n9.4*\n10.4\n29\n8 6*\n* Using the curve for Frederick Island, as more characteristic of the rate of growth found on Area I.\nt In the paper from which the rates of growth are taken, the Roman numerals denote the year in which\nthe fish was at the time of being caught.    The figures here given represent the number of years completed.\nIt has been shown that there is a seasonal change in the size of fish, and also a constant\ndecrease in size. It remains to be proved that these will not account for all the variations\nfound, but the statistics at hand are unfortunately not extensive enough to give much light on\nthe subject. Whether the distribution of fish within a bank is affected by depth is unsettled.\nTable 40 is presented in this connection, showing that there is apparently a connection between\ndepth and size, but here it has been impossible to show that this is not due to the inclusion\nof different banks with different rates of growth and different depths. The number of records\nfor each limited area are too few for an examination in this regard. The division into two\nperiods, before 1910 and after, serves to separate the records from the older banks, and the\ndata after 1910 is a mixture of those from old and new banks. It will be seen that in the case\nof the old banks the size seems to decrease with greater depth, but where the new and deeper\nbut undepleted banks with their large fish are included the opposite seems to hold. The difficulty\nin reaching a safe conclusion is plain.\nTable 40.\u2014Decrease in Average Size with Greater Depth.\nFathoms.\nBefore 1010.\nAfter 1010.\nFathoms.\nAfter 1910 (Con.).\n15                                 \t\nLb.\n27.7\n27.4\n35.5\n29.3\n20.6\n22.3\n23.9\n20.5\n17.4\n26.0\n17.7\n19.6\n16.7\nLb.\n14.2\n13.8\n17.9\n10.0\n13.1\n12.3\n14.4\n12.4\n11.7\n16.1\n18.1\n20.1\n14.4\n80\n85\n90\n95\n100\n105\n110\n115\n120\n125\n130\n135\nLb.\n19.2\n20                                      .          \t\n23.3\n25                         \t\n26.8\n30                                                      \t\n23.1\n22.0\n40                                                                \t\n22.1\n45\t\n50   \t\n55\t\n60   \t\n65   .             \t\n19.9\n25.0\n21.6\n13.9\n70   \t\n28.6\nThe above table does not take into consideration those causes of variation which are of\nimportance. The variation from exactness in the records, inevitable in dealing with estimated\nweights, renders it imperative that large numbers of such be used, but the depth is the class\nof data most frequently omitted, and there are in all only 150 records available for the older\nbanks. The limits within which the fishing was done were almost always stated as between\na maximum and a minimum, which are usually far apart. The variations in the average weight\nof fish caused by depletion and by the seasonal fluctuation cannot be eliminated without a\nsufficient number of records for particular times. The differences between banks in rate of\ngrowth are great, and are not known exactly enough to allow of correction. Hence it has been\nthought best to present the available records in an appended table (66) without attempting\nfurther conclusions. This, of course, leaves the question of the distribution of the fish (within\nstrictly local limits) without presenting evidence and entirely undecided. It is a question, of\ncourse, distinct from that of migration between banks. 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 97\nBy arranging the records of catches in weight classes (Tables 41 to 44), the numbers caught\nper skate may be shown to be in direct correlation. This would indicate that every catch does\nnot contain an equal number of heavy and light fish, but that there are catches which are\ncomposed predominantly of heavy or light fish; in other words, a catch is not strictly representative of the population of a bank, but of certain portions of it which may perhaps deserve the\nname of schools. However, we meet here the same objection that is met in considering other\nstatistics\u2014namely, that the records are from different banks. In order to remedy this, those\nfrom the Rose Spit-Bonilla Area (II.) were studied in the same way (Table 44), and the same\nconditions shown. Even in such a case there is the possibility of Including local areas of different\ncharacteristics. There are not enough records to allow of the study of finer divisions in the\nsame way, but the fact that there are great fluctuations in the average sizes of fish in catches\nfrom strictly limited areas is shown in Table 45. It is worthy of notice that the correlation\nbetween size of catch and average weight proves that these fluctuations are not the product of\nchance, although they are obviously so great as to obscure that correlation when but a few\nrecords are considered.\nTable 41 illustrates the fact that in the catches in general there is a reliance on younger\nand smaller fish, but under the 1911 to 1914 totals there are included numerous data from the\nnew banks opened in 1910. The division of these into old and new banks is the same as dividing\nthem at 75 fathoms, as they are Indicated in Table 42. The comparison of the first sections in\nTables 41 and 42 shows the increased dependence on small fish on the old banks and the more\nrapid proportional decrease of the large fish.\nBy dividing the years 1902 to 1910 into two periods the same tendency of increased dependence on small fish may be seen (see Table 43). This takes for granted the equal distribution\nof fishing on the old banks. Since Table 42 shows the newer and undepleted banks to be\ncharacterized by a dependence on larger fish, it is also proved that it is not the change to\ndeeper banks which has produced the decrease in size of fish.\nIn the examination of the statistics from the Rose Spit-Bonilla Area (II.) (Table 44), it is\nevident that there is the same increased number per skate when the catch is made up of small\nfish, the same dependence on small fish in later years, and the same rapid failure of the supply\nof large fish. In it, as was not the case in the tables for the banks in general, the seasonal\nfluctuations in size, the changes in average size from year to year, and the differences in size\nbetween areas were guarded against. It is improbable that there has been any change in the\nlocation of the fishery within the same bank or area, as these are too small to allow of extensive\nchanges when the great space covered by each trial or set of the lines is. considered (see chart\non page 122).\nTheoretically, the supply of young fish would be kept up for some time after the mature fish\nhad been so far depleted as to affect the number spawned. The hooks catch no fish before they\nreach a length of 15 inches, and it is probable that on the average a fish is not caught until it\nis over 24 inches long. This would allow the last full brood about three or four years at least\nbefore it was caught, and hence the depletion of young fish would lag that far behind that of\nthe larger. In examining Table 44 it is evident that there is some question of depletion in the\n5- to 15-lb. class at least before 1912, whereas there is none in regard to the 15- to 25-lb. class\nafter 1909. There is no clear evidence for the 25- to 35-lb. class, unfortunately, but the fact\nthat there are no records of average catches in that class after 1912 is eloquent of the state\nof affairs.\nIt is not to be doubted, in view of the evidence given above, that the conditions on the older\nbanks as a whole are based on the presence of similar conditions on the individual banks, and\nthat the increased dependence on young fish is due to the effects of depletion on each local\npopulation. The corollary of this is that the number of mature fish on the banks has been\ndisproportionately depleted on the overfished banks, and that their absence is not a natural\ncondition, but a result of the commercial fishery. The fact is of the utmost importance in\nconsidering the state of the banks, for it must be urged with all emphasis that the future of a\nspecies ill any region is not dependent simply on the number of fish present, but rather on the\nproportion of those fish which are allowed to come to maturity. Granted that the total population has fallen each decade to a quarter of its initial number, as has been shown, the mature\npopulation must have fallen still more rapidly. As was shown in a preceding paper by the\nauthor,* fish from Hecate Strait do not begin to mature until they reach a length of 35 inches\n* Report of the British Columbia Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, page 92, 1915.\n7 S 98\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\n(weighing 18 lb. cleaned and headed), and a comparison with Table 44 will show that there are\nno more catches made in Area II. averaging that high, although this was by no means the case\nin earlier years. To emphasize this it may be well to point out that 50 per cent, are not mature\nuntil they have reached a length of 43 inches (44 lb.). It is very evident from these figures that\nthe longer these banks are subject to such a drain, the longer they will require for recuperation,\nif such be possible when adequate measures are taken to allow it..\nTable 41.\u2014Correlation of Size of Fish and Number caught per Skate, in Two Periods.\nWeight Classes.\n5 to\n15 Lb.\n15  to 25 Lb.\n25 to St\nLb.\n35  to  45  Lb.\nAverage for 1902 to 1910   (all under 75\nfathoms)\nAverage for 1911 to 1914  (all depths) . .\n37.5\n(16  records)\n23.2\n(71 records)\n24.4\n(41 records)\n14.4\n(69 records)\n18.0\n(31 records)\n16.8\n(27 records)\n(12\n(4\n17.6\nrecords)\n12.8\nrecords)\nTable 42.\u2014Correlation of Size and Number on \" Old \" and \" New \" Banks (under and\nFathoms) between 1911 and 1914 (inclusive).\nover 15\nWeight Classes.\n5 to\n15 Lb.        15 to 25 Lb.       25 to\n35 Lb.\n35\nto 45 Lb.\n1911 to 1914, under 75 fatho\n1911. to 1914, over 75 fathon\n25.0 per skate\n(61 records)\n11.8\n(10 records)\n12.1 per skat\n(30 records)\n16.1\n(40 records)\ne     8.0 per skate\n(2 records)\n17.5\n(25 records)     (4\n12.8\nrecords)\nTable 43.\u2014Correlation of Size and Number on the \" Older \" Beds.\nWeight Classes.                                5 to\n15 Lb.       15  to 25 Lb.  |   25 to 3\n5 Lb.\n35  to  45   Lb.\nAverage for 1902 to 1906 \t\nAverage for 1907 to 1910  \t\nAverage for 1911 to 1914\t\n4S.S\n(9 records)\n23.1\n(7 records)\n25.0\n(61  records)\n28.5\n(15 records)\n21.7\n(27 records)\n12.1\n(30 records)\n24,6\n(16 records)\n11.6\n(15 records)\nS.O\n(2  records)\n27.4\n(5 records)\n10.6\n(7 records)\nTable 44-\u2014Correlation of Weight of Individuals and Number caught per Skate on A\nrea II.\nWeight Classes.\nSeason.\n5 to 15 Lb.\n15  to 25 Lb.\n25 to 35  Lb.\nNo.  per\nSkate.     |\nNo. of\nBecords.\nNo. per        No.  of\nSkate.        Records.\nNo.  per\nSkate.\nNo.   of\nRecords.\n1908\t\nS.\nW.\nS.\nW.\nS.\nW.\ns.\nw.\ns.\nw.\ns.\nw.\ns.\nw.\n27.3\n17.1\n12.9\n7.8\n41.6\n18.6\n30.4\n18.9\n26.S\n29.2\n15.6\n9.1\n7.5\n7\n2\n4\n2\n1\n4\n13\n2\n12\n3\n-8\n4\n3\n20.3\n15.2\n27.5\n12.7\n7.9\n15.5\n9.5\n13.2\n8.5\n8.5\n8.4\n9\n8\n4\n10\n2\n5\n4\n5\n2\n2\ni\n20.7\n10.5\n6.2\n4.8\n8.5\n15.1\n11.5\n5\n13\n8\n1\n4\n1\n4\n1909\t\n1910\t\n1911\t\n1912\t\n1913\t\n1914\t\n\"\n1    s.\n1    w.\n23.7\n17.0\n49       i       18.1\n16                 12.1\n25\n27\n17.6\n92\n7\n29\n* Based on the sum of the individual records, not on averages for the seasons of each year.    Catches\naveraging over 35 lb. are omitted, as being too few iu number. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 99\n-Weight per Individual and Number per Skate caught on Limited Areas, to show the\nFluctuation*\nTable 45.-\nDate.\nAverage\n\\Veight.\nNumber.\nDate.\nVverage\niVeight.\nNumber.\nJuly, 1908 (Two Peaks)   ....\n18.3\n25.9\nMarch, 1912 (Otter Passage and\n17.0\n5.9\n23.1\n33.1\nShrub Island)\n24.1\n3.9\n24.5\n18.2\n26.8\n16.6\n32.3\n18.0\n26.9\n7.1\n34.1\n16.3\n\u2022\n27.0\n10.6\n36.8\n22.6\n27.6\n7.1\n39.1\n15.9\n\u2022\n28.2\n10.5\n41.9\n14.9\n28.3\n6.3\n42.4\n33.4\nApril, 1912 (Cape Scott)\n18.7\n11.1\nMay, 1911 (Two Peaks)   \t\n33.1\n8.4\n19.0\n4.8\n-   35.3\n9.5\n20.3\n10.2\n38.2\n9.7\n22.2\n4.2\n38.2\n10.9\n23.5\n17.2\n45.6\n10.9\n24.1\n11.1\nSept., 1908  (Virago Sound)..\n10.5\n71.4\nSept., 1902 (Cape Scott)\n20.3\n68.3\n10.8\n93.0\n25.0\n66.5\n10.8\n58.7\n26.6\n84.6\n11.5\n101.4\n27.4\n55.6\n11.5\n90.5\n32.6\n21.3\n11.6\n47.7\n37.0\n51.1\nAug., 1911 (Horseshoe)   \t\n11.4\n27.5\nSept., 1912 (Atli Head)   \t\n9.7\n14.3\n13.4\n24.8\n11.7\n27.3\n14.0\n33.4\n12.2\n15.9\n15.5\n40.3\n14.2\n87.8\n16.0\n41.7\n14.9\n16.7\n17.3\n12.0\n\u25a0  -\n15.6\n8.9\n17.6\n47.4\n21.9\n8.9\n25.4\n23.4\nAug., 1911 (Atli Head)   \t\n14.1\n19.9\nJune, 1912 (Otter Passage and\n13.7\n49.4\n15.4\n33.5\nShrub Island)\n14.7\n8.5\n16.6\n16.8\n15.9\n12.5\n16.7\n10.8\n17.6\n14.0\n16.8\n43.3\n17.6\n20.7\n18.7\n22.3\n1S.1\n6.7\n18.9\n30.2\nMay, 1909  (Reef Island)   . ..\n16.3\n12.7\nApril,   1913    (N.W.   Corner   of\n6.7\n15.4\n18.1\n28.7\nGoose Island Bank)\n7.8\n22.6\n\u2022\n22.5\n39.2\n7.8\n17.8\n30.7\n13.6\n8.3\n42.8\n\u2022\n32.1\n13.0\n9.3\n19.0\n37.0\n16.1\n9.8\n17.0\n38.5\n15.5\n38.7\n13.5\n* AU examples at hand which had more than five records for the same date, for the same limited locality,\nare presented.\n(6.)  Variations in Average Sizes oe Pish from Different Banks.\nIn the consideration of the preceding data it has been constantly evident that there are\ndifferences in the average size of fish obtained on different banks. In a previous paper by the\nwriterf there has been shown a difference in rate of growth on different banks, but the ages\nof specimens from all the banks here treated have not been determined. The presumption would\nbe, however, that difference in average size means a difference in rate of growth, hence the\npresent data is of absorbing interest. If a correlation between the situation of a bank and the\nrate of growth characteristic of it can be established it will be of the utmost importance, both\nfrom the standpoint of the study of the halibut itself and of other marine animals, and it is\nhere attempted to demonstrate a correlation at least between average size and situation.\nIn the paper cited above it has been shown that the rates of growth are very divergent on\ndifferent banks  (page 80 et seq.), and that the largest sizes attained were in correlation with\nt Report of British Columbia Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, page 76. S 100 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nthese rates of growth. In considering the average size of the fish caught, however, we must\ndiscount the fact of the decrease in average size resultant from overfishing and of the seasonal\nfluctuations. There is presumably also a difference in the natural rate of mortality, but this\nis impossible to measure except after the elimination of all other factors, and it would not be\nexpected that it would be a predominating influence. If it be possible to show that the rate\nof growth and the normal average size of fish caught on each bank stand in close agreement,\nit will be possible to more accurately measure the effect of depletion by a comparison of rates\nof growth and of existing average sizes. At the same time, our knowledge would be extended\nto banks where the approximate extent of depletion is known, but from which at present no\nspecimens are obtainable in sufficient numbers' to determine the rate of growth. The importance\nof such facts in formulating general statements is obvious.\nOn the chart of areas of halibut fishing-banks (page 122) are shown the various banks\nbetween the Alaskan border-line and Vancouver Island. In so far as the surveys available\nshow them, the 70-fathom lines have been stippled to give the outlines of the banks. In the\ncase of the banks off North and Frederick Islands (designated as Areas XII. and XIIL on\nthe chart) the line shown is rather that of 110 fathoms, as that depth is nearer that utilized\nfor fishing on those banks. In each case the most prominent landmarks from which the fishermen name the banks are shown. The areas treated as units in this work were chosen because\nthe records of the fishermen lend themselves to such a division\u2014not primarily because of the-\napparent topography of the bottom. In fact, it would have been misleading to base divisions\non such features of this as were available, because of their inaccuracy and incompleteness.\nHence the conclusion must be guarded against that it is meant to imply in any way the essential\nunity of the areas.\nAs a matter of fact, the records are not capable of being located with absolute accuracy..\nThe vessels in one set of gear may cover ten miles of bank, and hence may catch fish from\nwidely different banks. Again, the position of the vessel is never certainly known unless the\nday is very clear so that landmarks may be sighted. And, finally, the exact position, if known,\nis not always recorded, the reference being merely to the bank and its depth, using the locality\nknown to the fishermen, as \" Horseshoe \" or \" Horseshoe of Two Peaks \" (meaning two different\nbanks). Hence it has seemed best to establish certain facts which apply to the average condition of the various areas, holding in mind meanwhile the possibility of a diversity within\nthem. Even where the local conditions accurately discernible, the formation of averages for\nlarge areas would be a necessity to the discovery of the causes of variation.\nExamining the accompanying map, the various areas may be seen to be distinguished by\nRoman numerals, indicating the order of treatment. Of these, Areas I. to IX. (inclusive) have\nbeen fished from before the beginning of the records given here (Banks Island was fished about\n1895), and the great development of the halibut fishery before 1910 took place, particularly on\nthese banks. We may look, then, at them as capable of comparison year by year. But in regard\nto Areas XL, XII., and XIIL, the case is different, although fishing, to be sure, had been done\nthere. Not until 1910 were many fish taken on them; hence their depletion should be reckoned\nfrom that date.\nAs shown in Table 36, Area I. (Goose Island Grounds) is characterized throughout by a\nuniformly smaller-sized fish than the other two dealt with. Area III. has a larger size than\nIL, but it is plain that I. is distinctly in a separate class. The averages indicate what are\nthe approximate proportionate weights. The differences in these banks are evident when the\nseasons are compared separately and when the decrease due to overfishing is indicated; hence\nshould be indisputable.\nIt is possible, however, to make a somewhat more thorough comparison. In Table 65 the\nmonthly averages of the catches made in each area are given in each year, and the method used\nin correcting the variations between banks and vessels, on page 81, was used. Comparing Area.\nII. with Area L, all the months in which averages for both were obtainable were included, and\nthe sums of the simultaneous records found. Prom this the average weight was again reckoned,\ngiving, for eleven months, 14.9 lb. for Area I. and 20.2 lb. for Area II.; and for seventeen months,\nfor Area II. 19.9 lb. and for Area III. 23.6 lb. By comparing these results with the averages\nin Table 36 there is evident some variation, but the general conclusions as to the relative sizes\nare the same. 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 101\nArea IV., the bank famous among the fishermen as the \" Horseshoe,\" is treated separately\nbecause it was thought that on it might be found fish intermediate in size between those on\nAreas I. and II. That this is perhaps true may be seen by comparing the data based on sufficient\nnumbers of records in Tables 36 and 37, but no exact comparison has been attempted because of\nthe paucity of records. The difference between I. and IV. is clear, and it is evident that the\nformer is rather to be classified with II. and III.\nAreas V., VI., VII., and VIII. are known as \" along shore \" banks. Table 37 and the final\ncolumn of Table 46 show that what records are available classify them as banks with large\nfish. Similarly situated and of similar character, the size of their fish might be expected to be\nnearly the same, and all the records so indicate them. They contrast sharply with Area I.,\nwhere there is found a smaller fish. There is a distance of but fifteen or twenty miles of deep\nwater between these banks.\nArea IX. (Table 37) was heavily fished in early days, and it is well within the limits of\nprobability that the halibut have been allowed to recuperate on them. As has been shown on\nthe maps illustrating the shift in the fisheries from year to year (page 122), a somewhat similar\ncase of the recrudescence of fishing on the bank off the northern end of Banks Island may be\nfound. Area IX. has been confused with X. in the records, and it is probable that a difference\nis present between them.\nThe West Coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands (Table 37, Area XL) was rarely fished\nuntil 1911 and 1912; hence but little decrease in average size in the records is to be expected\nwhen the available data cover but these two years. The records on which Table 37 are based\nshow very few fish caught per skate in this area in 1912, as follows: 16.1 per skate (average\nweight 15.5 lb.) ; 6.1; 7.8 ; 2.1; 5.4; and 5.3. The banks are extremely narrow, and the catches\nare made in reality in the mouths.of the inlets or almost among the rocks of the shore. (See\nremarks on \" inside waters.\") .\nIn Area XII. (Table 37) the data are more acceptable, and it is distinctly shown that,\nconsidering that the data concern what is the early history of the bank, the average sizes are\nsmall. The years 1910 and 1912 in Table 37 should be compared with 1895 and 1897 for Hecate\nStrait. In the determination of the age of the fish taken in Area XII. (see Report of British\nColumbia Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, page 80) it was found that this small size was\nbased on the slow rate of growth, as compared, for instance, with fish from Hecate Strait.\nThese areas on the western coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands are interesting in their revelation of the independence of the various areas by their existence in an undepleted condition so\nclose to impoverished banks.\nThe offshore banks of North Island (Area XIIL) are on the shoal grounds which extend\nsouthward from Forrester Island, and the records available are not sufficient to base accurate\njudgment on.\nBetween North Island and Rose Spit are found three or four banks\u2014namely, those off\nPillar Bay, Virago Sound, Masset, and Tow Hill. They are combined in the text to form Areas\nXIV. and XV. (Table 37). The average size of the fish from these banks is decidedly smaller\nthan that of those from Hecate Strait, corresponding in this regard to those from the Goose\nIsland grounds (Area I.). The returns from Rose Spit, which is intermediate between these\nareas and Area IL, show a wide variation, small fish and large fish being caught\u2014probably\nage-groups\u2014although there is the possibility that Rose Spit is in reality two separate banks.\nWithout considering Rose Spit, however, it is but thirty five-miles between banks with sharply\ndifferent characteristic sizes.\nIf the records of individual catches, which are given in Table 45 to show the fluctuation in\nlimited areas, are examined, it may be seen that the bank differences are very well defined. The\nrecords of a single voyage in Table 47 illustrate the same thing, the Virgin Rocks (Area VIII.)\nhaving 20-lb. fish, while the Gravel Grounds (Area I.) have 11-lb. The data for the other\nrecords were not given in the log, as was too often the case.\nOther evidence that the average size in individual catches may be adduced to show the\ndifferences between the banks. In Table 49 the average weight of the fish in those cargoes\nwhich come in their entirety from individual banks is given. By comparing it with the\nimmediately foregoing text it may be seen that the data bear out the conclusions when seasonal\nfluctuation and annual decreases are allowed for. For example, Areas XIV. and XV., Masset\nand Virago Sound, may be compared with Areas I. and II. S 102\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nIt is evident, then, that the banks which are sheltered, if such a term is admissible, from the\nopen ocean are characterized by larger fish, while those which are open to it have as a rule\nsmaller fish. In the chart on page 122 these two types of banks are marked by differing lines.\nHowever, it should be remembered that the sizes characteristic of the sheltered banks also vary,\nas, for instance, those for Areas II. and III., and the conclusion should not be made so sweeping\nas to regard an area as uniform within itself. The significance of the results found are heightened\nwhen it is shown that there are closely situated banks which have widely different rates of\ngrowth.\nIt is perhaps questionable whether the large average sizes of fish which are known to be\ntaken in enclosed waters is due to the same cause as the increased growth and large size of\nfish from certain of the banks. In Table 50 are given records from such inside waters, for the\nmost part portions of the inland passages frequented by the vessels on the way to and from the\nbanks. It is noticeable that the number of fish caught per skate is very low; and the personal\nexperience of the writer with halibut-fishermen in the small gasolene-boats which fish in such\nwaters has led him to regard these fish as isolated individuals of considerable age and size.\nThey are caught, as will be seen from the records, along what would correspond to the inner\nedges of the banks which lie along the shore. It is safe, in all probability, to regard them as\nfish which have drifted away from the banks\u2014the chances of a fish doing this increasing directly\nin proportion to his age\u2014or as the isolated survivors of unfavourable conditions.\nTable 46-\u2014Records of Catches on Inshore Banks * Areas VI., VII., and VIII.\nDate.\nNumber\nper Skate.\nArea VI.\n1914, July    '\t\n,,      August  \t\n\u201e      September   \t\n1915, August  \t\nArea VII.\n1909, February  \t\n1910, January  \t\n,,      June\t\n1911, May   \t\n1912, January   \t\n,,       February   \t\n\u201e      April\t\n\u201e       September   \t\n\u201e      December \t\n1913, June\t\n.,       September    \t\n1914, June \t\n\u201e      July   \t\nArea VIII.\n1905, May   \t\n1910, January  \t\n\u201e      April\t\n1913, May   \t\n\u201e      October   \t\n1914, June  \t\n\u201e      July   \t\n\u201e      September  \t\n6.8-8\n3.5-1\n2\n0\n23\n4\n1\n2\n3\n9-1\n6-1\n.9-2\n.3-1\n0-1\n5-1\n8-2\n1.6-1\n61.3-1\n1.4-1\n6.2-1\n10.0-4\n6.4-2\n3.4-1\nWeight\nper Skate.\n143-16\n133-1\n133-8\n125-1\n83-1\n156-3\n133-1\n729-1\n56-1\n104-1\n1S8-1\n167-1\n23-1\n219-6\n105-5\n73-1\nAverage\nWeight.\n22.7-7\n29.3-1\n33.6-1\n29.5-1\n1S.1-1\n22.0-5\n23.0-2\n21.6-1\n* The number of records on which each average is based is indicated by the number following the hyphen\nin each case. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 103\nTable 47.\u2014Data to be taken from the Daily Log.\n(Name  of  Vessel:   Flamingo.    Captain:   A.  Freeman.    Home   Port:   Vancouver.   Number  of\nDories:   Twelve.   There are eight lines to a skate.)\nDate, 1914.\nLocality.\nNo. of\nSkates.\nCatch.\nNo.\nLb.\nRemarks.\nJune 16..\n17..\n18..\n19..\n20..\n21..\n23..\nS.E. of Virgin Rocks\nGravel Grounds   ....\nTally-sheet totals . . ,\n48\n96\n96\n84\n36\n48\n96\n84\n623\n977\n901\n613\n12,000\n22,000\n20,000\n16,000\n838\n1,093\n1,028\n12,000\n12.000\n6,073\n103,685\nSailed June 15.\n\" No fish.':\nArrived June 24   (counted and\nweighed at dock).\nTable 48.\u2014Records taken from Table 41*\nCatch per Skate.\nDate.\nNo.\nLb.\nAverage Weight\nof Fish.\nJune 16.\n17.\n18.\n19.\n20.\n21.\n22.\n23.\n13.0\n250\n19.3\n10.2\n229\n22.5\n9.4\n208\n22.2\n7.3\n190\n26.1\n17.4\n11.4\n125\n11.0\n12.2\n143\n11.7\nTally-sheet\n17.1\n* From the data in Table 47 the average number and weight per skate w-ere calculated by dividing the\ncatch for the day by the number of skates utilized, and the average weight of the fish in each catch by\ndividing the pounds by the number.\nTable 49.\u2014Average Weight of Fish in Cargoes as weighed at the Dock, considering those from\nSingle Banks.\nDate.\n1906,\n1909,\n1910,\n1911,\n1914,\nArea I.,  Goose Island.\nSeptember    \t\nMay  \t\nJune\t\nMay '.....'......'.\t\nJuly\t\n'August\t\n,\u00bb       \t\nJuly\t\nMay\t\nJune  \t\nAverage\nWeight.\n12.7\n13.6\n13.0\n11.9\n13.6\n13.1\n12.8\n11.0\n13.2\n13.2\n12.6\n15.3\n11.5\n8.8\n10.0\nArea II., Exact Localities (?)\n1905, February  \t\n,,      March   \t\n1906, February  \t\n\u201e      March  \t\n1908, October   \t\n\u201e      December   \t\n1909, January\t\n\u201e      November  \t\nArea II., White Rocks.\n190S, November   \t\n1912, October \t\nArea II., Broioning Entrance.\n1908, Xovember  \t\nAverage\nWeight.\n18.8\n16.9\n18.9\n30.0\n13.9\n17.5\n16.2\n18.7\n28.9\n31.3\n12.8\n26.9 S 104\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 49.\u2014Average Weight of Fish in Cargoes, etc.\u2014Concluded.\nDate.\nArea II., Rose Spit.\n1908, April  \t\n1912, August\t\nArea II., Two Peaks.\n1909, January   \t\n\u201e      February \t\n1910, September   \t\n\u201e      December   \t\n1914, January   \t\nArea II., Cape George.\n1910, June\t\nArea III., Exact Localities (?).\n1909, May\t\nArea III., Cumshewa.\n1909, May\t\nArea III., Atli Head.\n1906, April  \t\n\u00bb      July\t\nArea III., Ramsay Island.\n1913, June\t\nArea IV., Horseshoe.\n1906, July \t\n1910, September \t\n1911, July\t\n\u201e      August\t\nArea V., off Otter Point.\n1914, July \t\nAverage\nWeight.\n12.8\n15.S\n15.2\n35.0\n14.8\n16.0\n15.6\n14.2\n26.8\n33.8\n22.8\n16.7\n15.9\n14.1\n16.2\n13.4\n15.0\n23.4\nDate.\nArea VII., off Gosling Rocks.\n1909, April   \t\nArea VIII., off Virgins and Ganders.\n1914, July \t\nArea IX., Cape Scott.\n1905, April   \t\n1906, June  \t\n19'l2, March  \t\n\u201e      April  \t\nArea XL, West Coast of Queen\nCharlottes.\n1911, April   \t\n\u201e      May \t\n\u201e      September \t\n1912, January   \t\n,,      February\t\n1914, March  \t\nArea XII., North Island.\n1911, February \t\n\u201e       June \t\n1912, May \t\n,,      June\t\n1914, February \t\nAreas XIV. and XV., Masset and Virago.\n1910, October \t\n1912, July\nAverage\nWeight.\n17.3\n14.7\n21.5\n18.7\n15.3\n15.3\n30.8\n23.6\n21.2\n12.8\n23.0\n33.3\n24.0\n19.2\n21.7\n18.1\n12.3\n26.6\n17.6\n12.1\n11.7\n11.2\nTable 50.\u2014Number, Weight per Skate,\nand Individual Weight of Fish in Catches made in Inside\nWaters.\nLocality.\nDate.\nNo.\nper Skate.\nWeight\nper Skate.\nAverage\nWeight.\nOff Fort Rupert\t\nNear Cape Calvert*\t\nInside Dundas Island  \t\n\u201e       Chatham Sound*   \t\n\u201e      Dundas Island   \t\n\u201e      Virgins\t\nBetween Zayas and Du'ndas Island*\nInside Banks Island  \t\n,,      Round Island   \t\n,,      Banks Island   \t\n\u201e      Aristazable\t\nIn Laredo Channel \t\n\u201e   Petrel Channel  \t\nNorth of Stephens Island  \t\nBeaver Passage   \t\nLaredo Sound\t\nInside Price Island  . . .\nPrincipe Channel\t\nInside West Rock  . . . .\n\u201e      Stephens Island\nOff Cape Caution\t\nBlackfish Sound \t\nStrait of Georgia\t\n1909.\n1910,\n1911,\n1912,\nMarch . . .\nSeptember\nDecember .\nJanuary   .\nMarch   . . .\nMay\t\nOctober ..\nNovember\ni)\nDecember\n1913, July\n1914,\nOctober . .\nNovember\nJanuary .\nOctober . .\nNovember\n2.2\n3.3\n0.8\n4.6\n5.6\n0.3\n7.6\n0.8\n5.5\n7.0\n1.8\n2.2\n2.2\n6.0\n2.2\n1.5\n3.4\n1.0\n0.03\n1S2\n83\n55\n56\n83\n125\n56\n62\n26\n* In situations but little removed from the banks, hardly deserving the name of \" inside waters.\" 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 105\n(7.)  Relative Productivity of Different Areas.\nThe comparison of the productivity of the different banks is very difficult. The wealth of\nfish on a bank before it is impoverished may be altered widely by the intensity of commercial\nfishing to which it is subjected, both absolutely and in its standing in comparison with other\nbanks. This is, of course, the essence of what is meant by depletion. Statistics which cover a\nperiod of years include several stages of impoverishment, and unless the process has been\nsimultaneous on the areas the accuracy of the comparison is impaired. At the same time, banks\nwhich had an initially large stock of fish may decline much more rapidly than others with a\nsmall stock, and the comparison might result in a truer picture than would be given by a large\nnumber of records within a short time. The data obtained undoubtedly fluctuate widely with\nthe varying intensities of fishing; they are sparse for certain banks, and have naturally a wide\nrange of variation, as has been previously indicated. Hence the lending of much importance to\nthe results tabulated is deprecated.\nThe methods used have been given on page 89, where comparisons between Areas I., IL, and\nIII. have already been made. The tables from which the averages used have been taken are\nindicated in Table 51, and the derived proportions are given in terms of Area II. as a unit. The\ncolumns headed \" No. of Dates \" give the number of dates the averages for which were utilized.\nIn some cases the number of records used in obtaining each of these averages has been considerable, as may be seen from the cited tables. For the location of the various areas the chart on\npage 122 may be used.\nTable 51.\u2014Relative Productivity of Different Areas.\nArea.\nTable with\nData.\nWeight per\nSkate.\nNo. of\nDates.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nNo. of\nDates.\nII\t\nIll\t\nIV\t\n60 and 64\n60 and 64\nRO and 64\n54\n55\n46\n46\n46\n55\n55\n53\n52\n56\n50\n0.79\n1.00\n1.07\n1.35\n1.20\n6.56\n0.73\n0.25\n1.18\n1.00\n3.54\n1.23\n0.51\n21\n30\n10\n11\n4\n3\n3\n12\n7\n6\n16\n8\n1.05\n1.00\n0.71\n0.97\n0.78\n0.72\n0.46\n1.28\n0.42\n0.85\n0.56\n2.89\n1.49\n0.26\n31\n27\n9\nV\t\n13\nVI\t\no\nVII\t\n6\nVIII\t\n4\nIX\t\nX\t\n8\n19\nXI\t\nXII\t\n8\n6\nXIV. and XV\t\n26\n20\nIn comparing this table with the results in the preceding pages, certain facts may be seen\nto be corroborated. Thus the large yield of Area XII. is obviously the consequence of its late\nexploitation, mentioned on page 101. It would be expected that Area XL would show the same\nrelative yield, but, as was stated on page 101, it is peculiar in its narrowness and steepness.\nIn fact, it seems to bear a certain definite resemblance fo Areas VI., VII., VIII., and IX., which\nare along-shore banks and are also characterized by a light yield. It will be observed that, in\ncomparison with these areas, Area XL has a heavy yield, in harmony with its late exploitation\nand its undepleted state at the time the records were obtained from it. To this class of banks\nthose called \" Inside Waters \" should be added, judging from the yield and from their actual\ncontinuity. It is very probable that an examination of Areas II. and III. would show a differentiation of inshore and offshore banks, but in these cases it is well known that the heaviest\nyields have come from the banks which are not farther from the shore nor more discontinuous\nwith it than is the case with Area VII., for instance (see charts on pages 123-125).\nAttention should be called to the striking fact that Area XII. remained undepleted for a\nconsiderable period of time after the impoverishment of the other banks was in evidence. It is\nproof that there is no systematic migration between it and other banks, and that there is a\nconsiderable degree of independence, at least, in so far as casual migration or diffusion is\nconcerned. S 106                       Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 52.\u2014Number and Weight per Skate caught on Area XII., off North Island.*\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\n14.2-7\n15.6-12\n29.7-7\n48.3-3\n36.1-1\n19.1-1\n630-3\n404-11\n951-4\n1,326-4\n1911, October\t\n16.S-1\n37.7-4\n16.6-6\n15.3-4\n278-2\n41-2\n385-4\n537-10\n2S8-4\n417-1\n,,      April  \t\n\u201e      May  \t\n1914, February   \t\n* Number of records used in reaching averages indicated in each case by figure following hyphen.\nTable 53.\u2014Number and Weight per Skate caught on Area XI., West Coast of Queen Charlottes.*\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\n1911, April  \t\n33.2-5\n9.0-1\n11.0-1\n12.3-1\n14.7-6\n9.1-1\n2.6-8\n18.0-9\n1,058-3\n194-1\n321-10\n250-1\n248-4\n168-1\n1912, March   \t\n13.6-5\n16.1-1\n6.9-2\n3.7-2\n5.3-1\n6.0-1\n236-2\n202-2\n'     152-2\n208-1\n150-1\n72-2\nMay  \t\n\u201e       July  \t\n\u201e      July \t\n1913, October\t\n1914, March  \t\n* Number of records used in reaching averages indicated in each case by number following hyphen.\nTable 54.\u2014Weight and Number per Skate caught on the \" Horseshoe.\"*\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight pel-\nSkate.\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\n1906, May \t\n8.7-1\n94.4-1\n62.7-4\n25.6-1\n5.2-2\n32.1-5\n36.8-4\n27.7-1\n250-1\n729-2\n312-2\n897-1\n143-1\n456-4\n556-1\n1910, September \t\n14.2-2\n13.8-1\n50.2-5\n2S.8-11\n54.1-3\n13.2-1\n10.6-1\n8.8-1\n238-1\n532-2\n507-8\n764-3\n33-1\n173-2\n167-1\n83-1\n1911, April  \t\n\u201e      July \t\n1907, March   \t\n\u201e      July  \t\n1912,  June   \t\n1908, May \t\n\u201e      July  \t\n1909, March  \t\n1910, July   \t\n\u201e      July \t\n1914, August   \t\n* Number of records from which each average is formed is given after the hyphen in each case.\nTable 55.\u2014Average Number and Weight per Skate caught on Areas V., IX., and X*\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\n1\nWeight per\nSkate.\n-n\u201e+\u201e                              No. per\nDate-                              Skate.\n1\nWeight per\nSkate.\nArea X., Cape Scott.\n1902, September\t\n57.9-6\n32.5-4\n7.3-1\n31.3-1\n16.8-2\n47.2-6\n11.2-1\n4.1-1\n33.7-1\n1,571-6\n916-4\n973-1\n238-1\n333-1\nArea X.\u2014Continued.\n1908, October  \t\n1909, February \t\n\u201e      December   \t\n15.9-4\n4.0-1\n8.5-6\n4.0-1\n6.1-6\n9.1-1\n5.1-1\n1.8-1\n10.0-3\n187-5\n437-1\n238-1\nSOS-2\n1.903, January \t\n1905, April   \t\n\u201e      May  \t\n1906   June                  \t\n1907   March   \t\n\u201e      May\t\n1911. March   \t\n190S        \u201e       \t\n* Number of records from which averages are formed indicated in each case by figure following hyphen. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 107\nTable 55.\u2014Average Number and Weight per Skate.\u2014Concluded.\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nArea X.\u2014Concluded.\n1911, April   \t\nMay  \t\n1912, April  \t\nMay  \t\n\u201e      September \t\n1913, April  \t\n\u201e      August\t\n1914, March   \t\nMay  \t\n\u201e      June\t\n,,      September \t\n\u201e      October  \t\n1915, July  \t\nArea IX., Hope Island.\n1906, February\t\n1908, January \t\n1909, March  \t\n,,      November  \t\n1910, April  \t\n1911, March  \t\n\u201e      April  \t\nMay  \t\n1912, May  ...'.\t\n1913, October  \t\n1914, August   \t\n7.2-6\n13.0-1\n11.9-7\n3.9-1\n19.5-5\n7.0-1\n17.4-1\n7.8-3\n0.7\n2.8-1\n5.3-1\n2.9-1\n3.5-1\n14.7-1\n9.4-14\n5.4-1\n4.9-1\n5.2-1\n1.5-1\nWeight pei-\nSkate.\n112-3\n156-1\n117-11\n119-1\n207-4\n278-1\n288-4\n73-1\n90-1\n56-1\n446-2\n132-3\n33-1\n81-2\ni'o'-i\nDate.\nArea V., Otter Passage.\n1909, December   \t\n1910, March  \t\n1912, February\t\nMarch  \t\n\u201e      April\t\n\u201e      May  \t\n\u201e      June   \t\nJuly  \t\n\u201e      September .,\t\n\u201e      November  \t\n1913, April  \t\nMay\t\n\u201e October \t\n,, November   \t\n,, December\t\n1914, January\t\n,, February\t\n\u201e May \t\n,, June\t\n\u201e August\t\n\u201e October\t\nNo. per\nSkate.\n2.2-1\n3.2-2\n9.7-1\nS.5-8\n15.5-5\n12.2-2\n18.6-6\n12.9-4\n2.8-4\n3.0-1\n5.S-1\n2.1-1\n0.5-1\n7.2-2\n4.5-1\n12.3-1\n7.0-1\n6.5-1\n0.7-1\nWeight per\nSkate.\n272-2\n202-9\n312-8\n280-4\n259-8\n150-1\n193-5\n91-1\n136-2\n166-1\n111-2\n213-3\n119-1\n132-2\nt Includes Otter Passage, Shrub Island, Haycocks, and Estevan.\nTable 56.\u2014Average Number and Weight per Skate caught on Areas XIV. and XV., Virago Sound\nand Masset*\nDate.\nNo. per\nSkate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\nPiute                               ,     No- per\nuate-                       |     Skate.\nWeight per\nSkate.\n1905, February \t\n1906  'November\n12.6-1\n24.9-2\n58.3-7\n17.9-4\n1.9-2\n66.5-7\n1.5-1\n3.3-3\n17.7-5\n20.0-11\n20.7-1\n5.7-3\n8.0-1\n37.4-5\n18.8-2\n5.8-1\n472-2\n745-4\n456-8\n787-9\n276-3\n271-5\n513-1\n1911, August\t\n10.9-1\n24.6-1\n4.2-2\n2.9-1\n0.3-1\n21.6-3\n53.7-2\n31.1-4\n34.9-1\ni.a-i\n4.7-1\n21.9-8\n7.6-2\n440-4\n1907,  October\t\n1912, February \t\n135-2\n1908, April  \t\n,,       July   \t\n212-5\n,,      December   \t\n1909, January   \t\n1,000-1\n276-6\n225-2\n1913, April  \t\nJuly  \t\n139-4\n59-1\n1910, March   \t\n125-4\n120-4\n1914, July  \t\n1915, June\t\n78-6\n100-1\n138-7\n* Number of records from which each average is formed indicated by figure following hyphen.\nVI. SUMMARY.\nThe conclusions may be summarized first in the order in which they were reached in the\ntext, and then, briefly, in that utilized in stating the objects of the paper. S 108 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\n(1.)  The Shift op the Fishing-grounds.\nThe location of the most intense fishery is shown to have shifted year by year to a greater\ndistance.\nThe comparison of the average depths at which fishing was done indicates a change to deeper\nwaters in 1910.\nThe plotted fishing records for one period before and one after 1910 illustrate this change,\nwhich was to the coast outside the Queen Charlottes and Alaska.\nThat a similar change took place in Alaska is shown by quotations and statistics from the\nreports of United States Government agents.\nStatistics as to the localities from which the fish landed in Seattle were obtained ,prove the\nextension of the most active fishery to banks still farther north.\nThe voyages made by the five vessels whose records are utilized prove this constant extension\nby their distribution in successive years.\nThe tendency to fish in deeper waters during the winter months than during the summer\nbecame apparent after the outer banks were utilized.\n(2.) The Length of the Voyages.\nThe increase in the length of the voyages, due to depletion, was between 1.96 times and 3\ntimes for a period of ten years.\nThe voyages were much longer during the winter than during the summer, January having\nan average 1.8 times that for June.\n(3.) The Time spent in Fishing as compared with the other Parts of the Voyages.\nThe length of the voyages is not a direct measure of depletion, as it is composed of the time\nspent in passage, in fishing, and that lost during bad weather while on the grounds.\nThe time of passage did not increase save in response to the necessity of going to new and\nmore distant banks.\nThe fishing-time increased 2% times in ten years, but faster in summer (four times in ten\nyears)  than in winter.\nThe time lost on account of bad weather during winter increased in the same proportion\nthat the fishing-time did  (1.8 times in ten years).\nAlthough the actual fishing-time was longer in winter, the percentage of the total for the\nvoyage was less.\nThe winter fishing, it is concluded from the above figures, tends to become increasingly more\nexpensive than that in the summer.\n(4.)  The Yield.\n(a.) The Catches by Weight.\nThe rate of decrease in the weight caught per skate on all grounds was 4.26 to 4.37 times in\nten years;  that is, the initial yield was that many times greater than the final in each decade.\nThe weight caught per skate was about half in January what it was in July, considering all\nbanks.\nThe rate of decrease in weight caught per skate was higher in limited areas, being 4.4 to\n4.77 times in ten years, or, as expressed in per cent., 77.3 to 79 per cent. This would be 71.6 to\n73.8 per cent, if full allowance were made for the decrease in length of the skate.) This is a\ntruer rate than that for the whole fishing-ground.\nThe seasonal fluctuation was the same for the limited areas as for all banks.\nThe rate of decrease shown by the weight of the cargoes landed, when combined with that\nfor the fishing-time per voyage (on the ground that they supplement each other), gives the same\nrate of decrease which is found for the yield per skate. Since the cargoes were weighed at the\ndocks this fact completely corroborates the latter rate of decrease.\nThe decreased size of cargoes in winter is shown very clearly, those for December and\nJanuary being one-third to one-quarter of those for the best of the summer months. 6 Geo. 5 Statistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific. S 109\n(b.)  The Catches by Number of Fish.\nThe number of fish caught per skate were at the beginning of each decade 3.38 to 4.05 times\nwhat it was at the end. This rate varies slightly from that found from the weight caught per\nskate, showing the decreasing average weight of the individual fish.\nThe seasonal variation in number caught per skate is proved to be very great, that for\nJanuary being a quarter of that for July. In comparison with the lesser decrease or fluctuation\nin weight, this shows the increased weight of the fish in winter.\nIn obtaining the preceding results the variance between the figures for the relative productivity of the banks, when calculated for the weight and for the numbers, foreshadowed the\ndifference in the average sizes characteristic of the various areas.\nThe decrease in numbers per skate is greater in the tables for separate areas than in those\nfor the whole fishery, as was also found in the case of the weight.\nThe seasonal variation in number caught on the limited areas shows, when compared with\nthe yield in weight, the same indications of a fluctuation in average seasonal weight of the fish\nas did the yield for the whole fishing area, and also corroborates the extent of seasonal changes.\nThere has been no distinct increase in the number of fish caught per voyage in response to\nthe increase in the length of the voyages.\nThe average weight of, and numbers of, fish in the cargoes indicates that the average\nindividual weight of the fish has fallen.\nA comparison of averages for cargo weights and numbers also indicates that the average\nweight of individuals obtained in winter exceeds that of the summer fish.\n(5.)  Sizes of Fish obtained, Fluctuations in.\nThe average weight is shown to have been lowered very markedly when statistics either\nfrom limited areas or from the whole are considered, using direct data from the catches.\nThe seasonal fluctuation is proved by the average weights of the individuals in the cargoes\nas a whole, by the averages for the separate records of catches, and by the comparison of average\nweight and average number taken per skate.\nIt is shown that in the case of Areas I., IL, and III. the seasonal flucutation corresponds\nclosely to a year's growth, while it does not seem to do so on other banks with fewer records.\nAn explanation is suggested.\nThe influence of depth on the size of fish caught remains unsettled. Although there is an\napparent decrease with depth on the older banks, the introduction of newer and deeper banks\nresults in a reversal of this relation.\nRecords of catches in weight classes show a correlation of average weight with number per\nskate, small fish being caught in larger numbers.\nThere is presented evidence of the presence of schools, or local populations of different\ncomposition as to sizes.\nIncreased reliance on young fish is evident from the examination of weight classes, both in\nthe records from the whole and in those from limited parts of the fishing-ground.\nThe mature fish upon which propagation depends are shown to be depleted to a more serious\nextent than the immature or small. Their absence is shown to be due to commercial fishing, not\nbeing natural.\n(6.) Variations in Average Size of Fish from Different Banks.\nThe average sizes in differe.nt areas are shown to differ markedly by comparisons of records\nof individual catches, in averages for months and seasons, and also in certain cases of cargoes\nwhich came from single banks. The banks nearest the open ocean seem to be characterized by\nsmall fish, while the more \" sheltered \" banks and the enclosed waters have large ones.\n(7.) Relative Productivity of Different Banks.\nThe banks exploited last show the largest comparative yield.\nThe inner or along-shore banks were characterized by small yields but large fish, being\napparently less productive naturally. S 110\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nThe fact of the impoverishment of the banks is evident in every phase of the above summary,\nthe shifting location of the most intense fishery, the increased time and effort required to obtain\na yield, the lowering of the average size of the fish on the banks, and the direct comparison of\nthe productivity of depleted and undepleted banks. The rate at which this has taken place is\ndefinitely ascertained, and a careful examination of the possible ways of calculating it shows\nthe correctness of that obtained through the yield per skate, while at the same time the evidence\nfrom every source is shown to concur in the result. It is therefore believed that the banks have\ndepreciated in yield by weight between 70 and 80 per cent, each decade since their active use\nwas begun.\nIn so far as the biology of the banks is concerned, a correlation between their position and\nthe average sizes of their fish seems evident, and there are recorded seasonal changes in the\naverage weights and the catch per unit of gear. Certain indications as to the \" schooling \" of\nthe fish are given. The relative abundance of mature and immature fish and the relative productivity of different types of banks are ascertained as far as possible.\nTable 51.\u2014Average Length of Voyages per Vessel for each Month, in Hours.\nVessel.\nJan.\nFeb. March. April. May. June. July.\nAug\nSept. Oct. Nov.\nDec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\nS3\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\nJ)\nJJ\n1912\nJ)\n))\n1913\n1914\n1915\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nB\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nO\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nA\nB\nC\nA\nC\nA\n319\n246\n219\n298\n298\n255\n232\n184\n240\n263\n304\n274\n244\n213\n370\n303\n283\n363\n277\n320\n329\n375\n329\n360\n310\n360\n337\n369\n348\n425\n394\n319\n262\n672\n271\n342\n327\n254\n258\n308\n275\n366\n320\n320\n351\n312\n280\n397\n328\n353\n432\n531\n429\n421\n516\n335\n450\n304\n473\n470\n220\n479\n376\n345\n241\n608\n469\n540\n464\n213\n589\n271\n335\n499\n480\n276\n403\n588\n508\n332\n405\n350\n372\n456\n360\n434\n45i\n367\n365\n129\n112\niii\n202\n198\n261\n228\n247\n340\n289\n286\n199\n242\n176\n340\n187\n400\n457\n334\n290\n274\n285\n330\n324\n299\n344\n336\n395\n318\n31.4\n176\niio\niso\n107\n172\n195\n208\n199\n205\n245\n229\n160\n146\n135\n346\n168\n252\n200\n245\n277\n227\n358\n282\n257\n374\n324\n272\n223\n2S4\n167\n156\niio\n96\n126\n132\n114\n168\n165\n162\n164\n187\n120\n186\n211\n219\n192\nies\n103\n231\n178\n198\n160\n136\n205\n231\n186\n158\n219\n162\n172\n198\n173\n183\n232\n154\n160\n146\n154\n258\n201\n182\n243\n199\n168\n279\n186\n200\n158\n268\n236\ni6i\n210\n276\n131\n272\n263\n267\n249\n319\n294\n267\n221\n252\n263\n324\n281\n327\n311\n246\n255\n286\n347\n298\n288\n372\n372\n252\n285\n327\n278\n302\n292\n269\n335\n145\n160\n146\n190\n209\n1.77\n256\n177\n216\n232\n228\n267\n222\n198\n252\n196\n292\n286\n270\n286\n286\n332\n324\n346\n268\n315\n312\n437\n413\n355\n302\n204\n252\n134\n209\n240\n300\ni68\n360\n419\n298\n233\n369\n253\n226\n278\n229\n147\n227\n368\n304\n300\n280\n260\n244\n242\n305\n199\n275\n204\n193\n301\n258\n310\n426\n420\n382\n3ii\n367\n378\n412\n389\n340\n403\n316\n429\n348\n374\n349\n458\n395\n432\n348\n396\n420\n576\n460\n408\n483\n569\n504\n452\n260\n216\n234\n240\n221\n293\n298\n463\n247\n376\n364\n303\n320\n337\n372\n410\n3S8\n410\n493\n504\n275\n264\n537\n480\n384\n443\n426 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 111\nTable 58.\u2014Average Number of Hours spent Fishing per Vessel (Data unmodified).\nYear.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\nJ)\n1910\n1911\n)>\n)\u00bb\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\nVessel. | Jan. | Feb. | March. | April. | May. | Juue. | July. | Aug. | Sept. |  Oct. j Nov. |    De.\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nA\nB\nD\nE\nA\nB\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\n.C\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nA\nB\nC\nA\nC\nA\n104\n106\n96\n108\n120\n132\n96\n120\n192\n192\n144\n156\n168\n156\n156\n192\n144\n192\n240\n192\n168\n96\n144\n144\n240\n288\n192\n264\n336\n96\n120\n48\n72\n102\n96\n103\n24\n72\n'is\n38\n66\n132\n72\n89\n79\nii\n54\nii\nis\n'66\n60\n'72\n48\n'66\n96\n'66\n84\ni20\n103\n'66\n72\n'72\n89\n90\n168\n144\n108\n96\n120\n127\n's6\n'66\n96\n'54\n'66\n55\nii6\n66\n96\n'66\nii3\niio\n120\niii\nios\n120\nii6\n96\n72\n77\n72\n144\n108\n96\n84\n'66\n120\nies\n89\n65\n72\n72\n132\nios\n120\n144\n120\n79\n84\n113\n'66\n144\n96\n108\n120\n144\n144\n151\nii6\n72\n108\n96\n137\n96\n89\n120\n120\n90\ni20\nii6\ni20\n66\n89\n108\n120\n120\n180\n144\n113\n120\n113\n65\n60\n9.6\n84\n96\n192\n192\n96\n82\n79\n84\n120\n144\n168\n144\n144\n180\n144\n168\n192\n144\n168\n156\n96\n96\nios\n132\n216\n192\n204\n156\n79\niii\n96\n144\n168\n240\n192\n161\n96\ni20\n101\niso\nies\n192\n192\n264\n113\n108\n144\n144\n216\n132\n240\n'66\niii\nios\n89\niso\ni66\ni68\n168\n216\n132\n84\n96\n127\n72\n120\n204\n.168\n288\n192\n228\n168\n180\n151\n175\n192\n192\n216\n144\n192\n168\n168\n144\n137\n120\n192\n168\n132\n180\n168\n151\n192\n96\n. 156\nISO\n144\n113\n168\ni68\niii\n192\niio\n72\n168\n168\n161\n144\n168\n204\n168\n180\n168\n216\n192\n185\n192\n168\n144\n192\n216\n216\n168\n216\n144\n204\n216\n156\n120\n216\n216\n120\niii\n180\n216\n192\n192\n240\n240\n204\n264\n204\n216\n228\ni68\n240\n336\n144\n156\n288\n180\n168\n240\n240\ni66\n216\n216\n192\n204\n209\n276\n264\n228\n216\n192\n216\n135\n168\n216\n216\n312\n288\n312\n276\n216\n216\n223\n240\n264\n\u2022\n\u25a0\" 1\n103\n96\n60\n'66\n72\n144\n'66\n113\n120\niii\n10s\n180\n156\n144\n96\n228\n216\n192\nies\n151\n168\n144\n168\n16S\n264\n72\n264\n216\niio\n300 S 112\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 59.\u2014Weight of Fish caught per Skate by each Vessel.*\nDate.\nVessel.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\n1902   \t\n1903   \t\n1904  \t\n1905  \t\n1906  \t\nD\nD\nB\nD\nE\nE\nA\nB\n0\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\n0\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nA\nB\n0\nA\n6\nA\nSMKtO\n375-4\n270-12\n2'66-5\n146-10\n263-5\n500-4\n787-3\n226-2\n10O-1\n145-11\n106-3\n89-6\n460-6\n375-4\n271-11\n174-5\n208-5\n317-4\n382-3\n330-8\n302-3\n407-3\n133-7\n168-1\n265-10\n95-13\n48'3'-15\n302-5\n326-11\n454-2\n181-4\n176-8\n262-5\n287-4\n238-1\n333-2\n226-6\n148-3\n217-22\n164-7\n83-1\n117-8\n136-8\n122-26\nf\n582-11\n375-4\n281-10\n476-1\n646-5\n483'-3\n665-9\n739-3\n152-14\n323-3\n219-27\n282-2\n125-12\n138-13\n129-14\n111-3\n173-24\n395-11\n507-8\n234^5\n473-5\n491-9\n808-2\n386^e\n889-7\n368-15\n559-3'\n291-26\n164-15\n206-16\n207-14\n170-6\n204-13\n299-16\n202-2\n973-1\n1907  \t\n516-2\n190S  \t\n'\n*\n476-5\n\"\n536-1\n1909  \t\n'\n''\n334-5\n1910 \t\n\"\n'\n1911  \t\n743-7\n473-10\n\"\n1,351-1\n\"\n1912  \t\n287-25\n1913 \t\n205-9\n1914  \t\n171-14\n100-18\n1915  \t\n142-12\nJuly.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n190S\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\nD\ni>\nB\nD\nE\nE\nA\nB\nC\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\nO\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nA\nB\nC\nA\nC\nA\n139\n762-\n692-\n387-7\n270-12\n146-2\n450-3\n264-17\n371-5\n78-6\n143-12\n133-29\n138-1S\n438-2\n430-5\n454-12\n456-4\n556-1\n320-19\n290-15\n414-7\n414-18\n290-11\n69-1\n125-14\n63-1\n128-18\n1,307-10\n649-3\n315-8\n594^-2\n365-4\n211\n500\n\u25a0 1,000-8\n233-3\n201-6\n609-9\n240-4\n187-5\n-12\n161\n208-\n12\n317-21\n329-15\n206-14\n277-13\n171-11\n143^1\n178-16\n120-13\n111-5\n1.46-2\n265-21\n151-11\n486-2\n208-12\n131-7\n162-7\n117-12\n89-21\n69-4\n324-3\n650-9\n454-12\n350-7\n384-6\n1,011-1\n193-S\n151-19\n321-7\n377-5\n166-8\n110-14\n97-6\n74-8\n97-3\n453-5\n324-7\n253-8\n259-11\n152-6\n358-2\n38-2\n340-3\n122-3\n167-2\ni66-7\n* Number ol: records from which each average was obtained follow it, separated by a hyphen. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 113\nTable 60.\u2014Avera\nWeight caught per Skate\nVan\non Areas I., II., and III. (uncorrected for Bank\nation).*\nDate.\nArea.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\n1902  \t\n1.\nII.\nII.\nII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\n11.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nrl\n413-5\n417-2\n269-13\n313-7\n311-3\n375-1\n39-2\n333^1\n104-1\n490-4\n317-2\n546-6\n241-5\n521-1\n496-12\n388-6\n337-3\n335-7\n559-3\n254-11\n88-3\n143-9\n195-4\n42-1\n276-21\n56-1\n159-12\n1904  \t\n1905  \t\n1906  \t\n*\n1907  \t\n341-8\n187-2\n347-4\n240-7\n212-16\nlii-i\n92-4\n'95-5\n292-2\n726-7\n335-4\n347-8\n229-11\n101-2\n319-3\n179-1\n168-1\nS3-1\n255-7\niiip-3\n75-7\n134-21\n567-10\n389-3\n286-11\n538^6\n264-3\n125-2\n125-2\n140-16\n255-9\n120-6\n170-27\n515-2\n1908 \t\n526-5\n'\n536-1\n1909  \t\n417-1\n312-2\n1910  \t\n1911  \t\n1912  \t\n237-7\n83-1\n1913  \t\n1914 \t\n124-14\n1915  \t\nDate.\nArea.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\nI.\nII.\nII.\nII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\n\u25a0   I.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\n437-2\nAlo-A\n250-1\n694-1\n514-17\n694-1\n321-5\n105-2\n393-4\n75-2\n83-1\n129-17\n129-S\n449\n134-7\n270-4\n438-10\n42-1\n371-23\n165-7\n63-1\n135-8\n889-2\n931-2\n854-2\n381-6\n118-2\n382-3\n245-4\n500-1\n194-1\n336-10\n424-8\n33-1\n160-5\n363-8\n188-15\n106-3\n185-4\n129-3\n83-1\n1,085-4\n233-3\n201-6\n219-4\n11-1\n92-1\n20S-1\n245-6\n229-3\n209-12\n201-12\n58-4\n101-4\n97-1\n324-3\n701-7\n439^-6\n363-9\n223-3\n186-5\n195-4\n115-7\n83-5\n136^12\n95-2\n342-5\n322-3\n148-9\n281-8\n154-4\n92-3\n424-4\n* Number of records from which each average is formed  indicated hy figure  following hyphen  in  each S 114\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 61.\u2014Average Weight of Cargoes as landed by each Vessel (Data uncorrected for Vessel\nVariation) .*\nDate.\nVessel.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\n1902   \t\n1905  \t\n1906 \t\nD\nB\nB\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nA\nA\nB\nC\nD\nA\nB\nC\nA\nB\nC\nA\nC\nA\n83,875-1\n108,560-2\n80,975-2\n153,515-1\n68,882-2\n63,725-1\n36,955-2\n42,000-1\n40,660-2\n47,403-2\n53,985-1\n105,000-1\n37,900-1\n29,700-1\n41,797-1\n140,5io-l\n152,755-3\n120,ii5-l\n131,342-2\n104,007-2\n55,830-1\n83,105-1\n46,000-1\n43,452-2\n70,065-1\n114,305-2\n91,900-1\n67,i92-2\n43,653-1\n109,ii2-3\n208,633-3\n126,737-2\n85,517-2\n8l',i38-2\n39,375-1\n128,397-3\n96,000-1\n49,260-2\n118,026-2\n138,575-2\n145,897-2\n42,620-1\n56,500-2\n146,862-3\n139,843-3\n95,644-3\n153,655-1\n160,070-1\n111,840-1\n108,665-2\n161,887-2\n73,335-2\n223,460-1\n73,000-1\n128,i51-3\nS7,884-l\n74,885-2\n121,3i3-5\n101,6i5-2\n104,826-3\n89,033-3\n181,548-3\n104,826-3\n89,033-3\n123,289-5\n104.i50-2\n189,198-3\n156,970-2\n174,000-1\n167,692-2\n132,ii8-2\n75,800-1\n115,838-3\n116,560-2\n\"\n141,235-3\n114,i86-4\n169,600-3\n221,594-3\n1907  \t\n'\n190S \t\n\"\n141,063-3\n1909  \t\n122,463-3\n\"\n1910  \t\n1911  \t\n158,000-3\n200.S14-2\n198,000-1\n\"\n217 400-1\n1912  \t\n144,817-3\n1913  \t\n219,473-2\n1914 \t\n86,229-2\n93,540-2\n1915  \t\n86,945-1\nDate.\nVessel.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902   \t\n1905  \t\n1906  \t\nD\nB\nB\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nA\nA\nB\nC\nD\nA\nB\nC\nA\nB\n\u25a0C\nA\n138,3i3-3\n127,208-3\n92,782-2\n103,630-3\n154,425-2\n117,950-3\n140,377-4\n130,033-3\n167,178-3\n184,337-3\n98,500-1\n187,700-1\n76,085-2\n113,i6o-2\n126,3io-3\n79,500-2\n99,828-2\n15l',i6o-3\n177,695-3\n138,093-3\n126,ii7-2\n104,706^\n114,240-2\n97,i20-3\n104,223-4\n146,953-3\n199,000-1\n182,857-2\n124,698-2\n77,508-2\n96,66o-l\n105,200-5\n120.739-4\n142,618-3\n250,66o-l\n-85,250-2\n172,i05-2\n108,000-1\n143,722-2\n153,990-1\n75,250-2\n180,350-1\n160,340-1\n134.19S-2\n181,000-1\n127,078-2\n97,i6o-2\n68,590-1\n86,980-1\n76,175-1\n77.S15-1\n125,670-3\n90,705-2\n101,675-3\n144,330-2\n124,637-3\n60,000-1\nioo',iio-2\n115,000-1\n150',i37-2\n109,025-1\n46,000-1\n175,795-1\n76,298-2\n34,500-1\n6l',si4-2\n44,670-2\n23,985-2\n78,947-2\n119,i95-2\n106,076-2\n132,032-3\n130,000-1\n74,017-2\n76,562-2\n125,000-1\n78,3i5-l\n101,650-2\n113,000-1\n42,005-1\n35,3io-l\n21,265-2\n85,000-1\n128,935-2\n120,095-1\n'\n78,150-1\n1907  \t\n320,000-1\n78,917-2\n\"\n41,605-1\n190S  \t\n68,137-2\n54,000-1\n'\n83,612-2\n1909  \t\n72,636-2\n1910  \t\n1911  \t\n32,957-1\n33,150-1\n17,500-1\n1912  \t\n\"\n1913  \t\n48,180-1\n24,065-1\n1914 \t\n1915  \t\n* Number of records from which each average is formed indicated hy number following hyphen in each 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics\nof Halibut Fishery\nin Pacific.\nS 115\nTable 62.\u2014Average Number of Fish c\nlught per Skate, by Month and Vessel.*\nDate.\nVessel.\nJan.\nj         Feb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\n..Tune.\n1902  \t\n1903   \t\n1904  \t\n1905  \t\n1906  \t\nD\nD\nD\nB\nA\nB\nD\nE\nA\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\nC\nA\nB\nC\nA\nC\n19.5-9\n5.'3-8\n17.3-3\n3.7-9\n3.4-3\n2.1-5\n6.4-13\n12.7-12\n5.9-18\n5.1-2\n13.3-6\n7.7-7\n2.5-9\ni.4^-2\n5.9-8\n0.7-1\n219-6\n211-4\n13.5-7\n5.4^9\n20.7-4\n6.'<X10\n3.4-2\n4.5-11\n6.1-15\n3.6-4\n14.3-6\n10.5-8\n20.9-8\n20.8-3\n13.7-10\n12.3-8\n14.7-9\n1.4-1\n2i.3-12\n18.0-715\nli.5-10\n5.4^-10\n13.2-6\n7.8-16\n7.9-5\n7.7-14\n7.6-14\n9.8-11\n2.6-1\n6.6-2\n22.0-8\n9.6-10\n10.3-6\nli.8-9\n10.1-19\n13.5-5\n9.2-9\n2.7-6\n6.3-7\n2.5-1\n32.9-11\n22.3-S\n14.5-10\n42.2-7\n25.9-9\n9.3-9\n16.6-9\n19.0-11\n48.5-8\n27.9-10\n10.1-14\n5.9-15\n14.2-12\n9.8-16\n8.3-5\n7.7-2\n13.9-13\n10.O-2\n2.1-1\n27.2-9\n17.5-12\n28.3-6\n24.6-6\n8.4-2\n22.8-15\n21.&-11\n12.1-3\n16.4^6\n44.1-12\n26.S-15\n19.4-10\n15.3-14\n23.3-17\n10.3-16\nli.1-18\n11.0-14\n17.9-12\n50.6-S\n\"\n1907  \t\n1908 ..\t\n1909 \t\n32.3-1\n29.1-9\n'\n19.4-1\n1909  \t\n29.5-7\n15.7-12\n1910 \t\n30.3-11\n1911  \t\n21.4-13\n24.5-10\n\"\n16.3-5\n5.5-2\n1912  \t\n20.5-18\n1913  \t\n26.3-7\n1914 \t\n13.9-15\n1.5-1\nDate.\nVessel.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902   \t\n1903   \t\n1904   \t\n1905   \t\n1906  \t\nD\nD\nD\nB\nA\nB\nD\nE\nA\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\nC\nA\nB\nC\nA\nC\n643-6\n55.1-1\n26.V-IO\n36.1-8\n22.3-2\n35.6-7\n32.8-15\n16.7-13\n20.9-8\n28.6-10\n5.0-1\n7.7-8\nS.3-13\n1.1-1\n3i.4^2\n33.9-7\n23.7-2\n19.2-11\n25.3-2\n3i.l-5\n24.9-5\n51.9-3\n25.7-11\n20.3-15\n18.3-8\n24.7-17\n36.0-1\n15.0-2\n8.7-15\n51.5-8\n73.6-2\n48.6-3\n19.3-8\n27.0-5\n31.5-2\n59.4^7\n28.1-4\n17.3-15\n213-15\n24.3-2\n20.6-17\n22.1-15\n19.1-11\n19.2-15\n8.7-7\n11.8-3\n7.3-12\n34.8-9\n9.VU\n9.1-6\n47.2-9\n18.6-1\n23.2-6\n15.9-4\nli.9-13\n12.7-14\n35.5-9\n27.5-5\n13.9-10\n9.7-12\n16.7-1\n20.3-10\n9.9-7\n17.9-1\n5.7-11\n2.5-8\n31.0-2\n26.8-3\n2i.6-8\n17.7-7\n10.8-8\n13.4-6\n10.5-10\n23.8-1\n8.2-12\n6.9-11\n12.3-7\nli.4^S\n11.4-13\n4.6-10\n36.6-1\n5.8-7\ni.5-3\n3.7-6\n33.7-4\n32.4-7\n27.9-2\n1907  \t\n9.3-7\n1908 \t\n1909  \t\n11.4-8\n6.5-4\n8.9-13\n1909  \t\n5.8-15\n5.9-14\n1910  \t\n4.9-6\n7.7-3\n1911 \t\n4.0-6\n1.6-2\n1912 \t\n3.5-8\n1913 \t\n6.S-3\n1.9-3\n1914 \t\n* Number of\nrecords o\nn which averj\niges are based\nindicated by\nfigure follow\ning hyphen ir\neach case. S 116\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 63.\u2014Number of Fish per Cargo, by Vessel and Month.*\nDate.\nVessel.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\n1902   \t\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nB\nD\nE\nA\nC\nA\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nC\nE\nA\nB\n6\nE\nA\nB\nA\nA\n3,492-2\n3,483-2\n6,219-2\n6,457-2\n4,817-2\n1,207-1\n3,681-2\n1,471-1\n3,729-2\n1,345-1\n1,745-2\n3,279-2\n2,139-2\n2,764-1\n1,139-1\n2,686-1\n6,795-2\n3,929-3\n5,819-2\n7,699-3\n5,'459-l\n5,991-2\n1,621-2\n4,117-2\n1,547-2\n2,885-1\n1,945-1\n3,609-1\n5,'206-2\n3,827-1\n3,503-1\n8,137-3\n6,12S-3\n5,015-3\n6,399-3\n4,317-2\n2,810-2\n2,141-2\n2,511-2\n3,450-1\n4,104-2\n3,141-1\n2,579-2\n3,348-2\n5,245-2\n3,967-1\n5,630-2\n5,'447-2\n4,15S-1\n2,185-1\n4,724-4\n5,590-3\n7,924-3\n6,038-3\n6,'288-2\n2,206-1\n5,956-1\n8,514-1\n9,347r2\n4,184-1\n4,692-3\n7,243-2\n6,128-1\n10,553-2\n4,526-2\n3,397-2\n5,865-3\n2,768-1\n6,059-4\n5,625-4\n5,777-4\n6,759-5\n4,938-3\n6,424-3\n9,151-1\n5,378-4\n4,362-4\n14,865-3\n5,095-1\n12,091-2\n14,431-3\n11.353-1\n5,628-1\n12,929-2\n6,150-1\n11,948-2\n11,422-3\n1903  \t\n1904   \t\n3,395-3\n1905  \t\n1906   :.\n5,390-1\n8,959-4\n1907  \t\n7,481-3\n1908  \t\n9,341-2\n1909  \t\n10,809-2\n\"\n'\n7,021-1\n1910  \t\n11,397-2\n\"\n1911  \t\n9,253-3\n9,094-2\n\"\n4,812-1\n\"\n1912  \t\n8,877-3\n1913  \t\n1914  \t\n17,757-2\n6,464-2\nDate.\nVessel.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\nB\nr>\nB\nD\nB\nD\nB\nB\nD\nE\nA\nC\nA\nC\nD\nA\nC\nD\nE\nA\nC\nE\nA\nB\nC\nE\nA\nB\nA\nA\n4,573-5\n6,292-2\n9,'220-3\n7,319-3\nS.2S6-3\n4,031-3\n12,084-2\n13,839-4\n15,530-2\n7,082-2\n6,299-2\n6,'647-2\n6,39-6-3\n5,060-5\n6,794-4\n5,741-3\n11,354-4\n4,385-3\n7,928-3\n4.871-4\n11,465-1\n11,006-1\n7,520-4\n9,500-1\n9,071-3\n12,651-1\n12,408-2\n6,004-2\n5,764-2\n4,108-5\n6,185-4\n4,917-3\n5,300-1\n7,265-4\n7,817-4\n4,228-1\n4,916-2\n1,339-1\n11,352-1\n5,443-1\n11,999-2\n8,235-2\n11,608-2\n10,007-2\n8,051-2\n3,912-1\n5.605-1\n4,636-3\n5,434-2\n1,770-1\n2,731-2\n4,5S0-^l\n1,816-2\n3,387-1\n5,644-2\n7,335-2\n12,663-2\n5,432-2\n4,863-2\n6,296-2\n3.225-1\n3,131-2\n1,960-2\n4.235-2\n3,393-2\n1,894-2\n734-1\n2,710-2\n7,081-1\n3,627-1\n7,910-1\n5,148-2\n4,887-1\n2,753-2\n3,510-3\n4,354-1\n4,642-1\n4,694-1\n5,119-1\n1,915-1\n1,924-1\n2.20S-1\n4,535-3\n5,674-2\n3.06S-4\n4,149-2\n3,880-2\n1,591-1\n3,427-2\n4,073-2\n2,745\u00ab-2\n2,902-1\n2,075-1\n1,243-1\n2,085-1\n974-1\n2,922-1\n* Number of records ou which each average is based given by figure following hyphen in each ease. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 117\nTable 64-\u2014Average Number caught per Skate, given by Areas.*    (See charts on pages 123-125.)\nArea.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n.1912\n1913\n1914\nI.\nII.\nII.\nII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\n15.8-6\n9.2-10\n2.3-1\n6.8-1\n2.3-1\n3.3-2\n9.1-25\n5.3\ns.i\ni.'&\ni.i\n2\n-5\n23.7-5\n,4-2\n13.0-7\n7.0-4\n7.0-6\n5.3-23\n6.3-7\n3.2-\n20.8-3\n7.7-1\ni.i-i\n30.9-8\n18.9-2\n8.9-2\n12.8-5\n12.9-1\n12.6-8\n7.4-6\n14.6-5\n5.1-1\n12.8-12\n3.9-6\n6.0-18\n13.3-2\n7.9-1\n2.6-1\n14.1-4\n3.3-2\n8.2-1\n10.7-9\n2.7-1\n3.5-2\n7.4-1\n46.7-3\n35.3-5\n17.1-5\n18.4-1\n35.3-3\n10.7-2\n36.9-11\n25.9-9\n13.'i-18\n19.1-6\n17.3-1\n17.0-5\nli.3-9\n2.5-1\n10.1-2\n2i.4-6\n1S.2-5\n7.8-3\n13.5-1\n37.0-3\n25.5-3\n26.3-5\n8.3-1\n31.4-9\n33.1-3\n312-1\n41.2-1\n16.7-16\nli.1-3\n16.4-6\n31.7-12\n31.7-7\n14.3-12\n22.3-8\n5.2-2\n12.3-7\n9.9-4\n3.2-1\n20.6-6\n27.4-1\n37.7-5\n20.6-6\n29.S-S\n12.2-9\n9.6-2\n23.8-4\n21.7-6\n23.2-9\n8.6-2\n17.6-5\nDate.\nArea.\nJuly\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\nI.\nII.\nII.\nII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\n1.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\n67.3\n18.9\n36.1\n2i.3\n24.1\n10\n-6\n15.4-1\n5.0-1\n5.5-2\n74-1\n34.3-2\n32.2-S\n18.4-2\n10.1-1\n54S^4\n16.3-2\n6.1-2\n12.3-5\n25.3-7\n1.8-1\n26.0-14\n16.9-5\n44.7-2\n32.2-2\n62.8^-1\n67.0-2\n217-4\n22.1-4\n19.9-9\n46.5-8\n6.5-1\n22.5-9\n26.3-9\nlii'-4\n26.0-8\n10.4^4\n7.0-4\n11.1-3\n44.4-4\nli.O-3\n91-6\n19.4-1\n25.0^5\n6.7-1\n8.5-10\n14.6-1\n11.8-5\n14.0-4\n15.7-5\n15.7-2\n3.7-1\n2.6-1\n3.5-4\n31.0-2\n26.8-3\n33.7-4\n20.5-7\n32.4-7\n12.2-1\n17.5-3\n12.8-3\n12.3-16\n34.1-1\n9.4-12\n7.4^-6\n9.1-12\n7.6-17\n3.5-1\n14.9-8\n*6.7-2\n7.6-1\n6.7-1\n4.9-5\n0.7-2\n16.4^-3\n4.6-4\ni'i-i\n15-2\n* Number of records on which each average is based given in each case by figure following hyphen. S 118\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 65.\u2014Average Size of Fish caught in Areas I., II., and III., by Months.*\nDate.\nArea.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\n1902  \t\nI.\n1904  .\nII.\nII.\n1905  \t\nII.\nlh.S-1\n1906  \t\nI.\n18.9-1\n1907\n1908 .\nII.\nIII.\nII.\nII.\n218-2\n114-5\n21.9-4\n33.9-1\n20.4-3\n23.2-1\n25.0-5\n1909  .\nIII.\nI.\n16.8-11\n3i.3-2\n11.0-1\n1910  .\nII.\nIII.\nI.\n24.5-13\n24.6-2\n39.5-3\n44.5-1\n39.9-3\n317-7\n25.6^1\n24.7-15\n18.5-2\n1911   .\nII.\nIII.\nI.\n21.5-1\n9.9^-1\n214-6\n13.0-3\n>,     \u25a0\n11.\nIII.\n14.2-1\n15.7-1\n31.2-1\n26.1-3\n10.2-7\n21.4-3\n1912  \t\nI.\n10.2-1\n10.9-8\nil.5-8\n1913\n1914  .\nII.\nIII.\nI.\nII.\nIII.\nI.\n27.8-3\n10.7-2\n14.3-2\n8.3-6\n11.0-5\n10.4U\n10.7-2\n13.2-1\n8.5-9\n34.0-2\n12.0-4\n\"\nII.\nIII.\n\u202212.1-1\n11.2-1\nli.8-1\nDate.\nArea.\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.                  Oct.\n1\nNov.\nDec.\nAverage.!\n1902..\nI.\nII.\n19.8-2\n29.5-2\n27.2-4\n19.8\n27.9\n1904..\nII.\n20.4-3\n29.3-4\n25.5\n1905. .\nII.\n18.8\n1906..\nI.\n14.7-3\n12.6-2\n14.7\n\u25a0  \u2022\nII.\n22.9-7\n29.9-10\n\u25a0 26.1\nIII.\n12.9-1\n28.5-1\n25.1\n1907..\nII.\n20.4\n190S..\nII.\n31.2-16\n21.7-2\n13.2-3\n26.6-12\n28.6-6\n25.4\n,.       .   .\nIII.\n42.5-1\n31.3-8\n32.8\n1909..\nI.\n16.3\n\u201e        .  .\nII.\n15.9-3\n16.4-1\n24.1-3\n23.5\n.   .\nIII.\n26.4-4\n29.2\n1910..\nI.\n13.3-1\n13.3\n. .\nII.\n12.0-1\n13.9-1           li.1-3\n13.5\n'}\nIII.\n24.4\n1911..\nI.\n11.1-2\n15.4-2\n29.8-1\n14.6\n\u201e        .   .\nII.\n21.3-3\n15.1.-9\n20.4-5           19.1-2\n28.1-2\n16.6\n.,,       .   .\nIII.\n16.7-7\n14.6-8\n12.3-3\n17.8\n1912..\nI.\n11.5-2\n11.2\nII.\n18.2-11\n12.2-4\nli.9-3            1S.1-2\n17.3\n,,        .   .\nIII.\n14.4-S\n13.0-2\n14.1\n1913..\nI.\n9.1\n\u201e        \u25a0   \u2022\nII.\n12.8-1\n15.4-2\n16.5-1\n12.4\n,,       .   .\nIII.\n10.S-1\n27.9-3\n20.3\n1914..\nI.\n7.2-4\n9.2\n5)       \"   \u2022\nII.\n11.9-3\n10.4-1\n11.6\n.,   ..\nIII.\n15.5-3\n15.5\n* Number of records on which each average is based indicated by figure following hyphen in each case.\nf Based on the sum of individual records, not on monthly averages. 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 119\nTable 66.\u2014Average Weights of Fish and Depths at which caught on Various Banks.\nDate.\nDepth, Weight,\nFathoms. Lb.\nNorth-west Corner, Goose\nIsland.\n1906, May   .\n1912, March\n1913, April  .\nMay\nGravel Grounds, Goose\nIsland.\n1906,  Sept.\n1909,  June\n1914, May  .\nSouth-east Corner, Goose\nIsland.\n1906, Aug. .\n1909, March\n1912, Mav  . .\nCape Scott.\n1902,  Sept\t\nOct.\n1906,  June\nSept.\n1909, March\n1911, Mav .\n1913, April  .\nHorseshoe.\n1909,  Aug.\n1911,     \u201e\nVicinity of Otter Passage.\n1912,  June   \t\nMarch\nInside Gulley, North\nIsland.\n1910, Jan.\n51\n56\n53\n52-56\n51\n52-56\n51\n51\n51\n51\n58\n57-67\n28-41\n30-38\n32-60\n42\n65\n60\n60\n45-55\n48-6S\n60\n58-65\n45-65\n45-50\n48\n40-54\n33-38\n33-45\n33-48\n30\n39-^9\n48-60\n30^0\n50-65\n60-75\n55-90\n55-90\n120-45\n50-120\n105\n70\n18.9\n10.2\n6.7\n7.8\n7.8\n8.3\n9.3\n7.0\n9.3\n10.9\n12.0\n13.2\n11.0\n8.9\n16.5\n20.5\n8.6\n20.3\n26.6\n37.0\n22.6\n25.2\n31.4\n35.5\n15.2\n15.3\n15.3\n15.3\n21.3\n23.0\n22.3\n12.0\n20.9\n16.0\n14.0\n13.7\n14.7\n17.6\n24.1\n26.9\n28.2\n23.4\n29.1\nInside Gulley, North\nIsland\u2014Concluded.\n1910, Jan.\nFeb.\nApril\nTico Peaks.\n1904, Nov.\n191.1, May\nSept.   .\n1912,  March\nSept\t\nWhite Rocks.\n1902, Sept.\nOct.\n1904, Nov.\n1906, May\n1909, Nov.\nReef Island.\n1909, March  \t\n\u201e      April\t\nMay\n1910,\n1911, \"\n1912, Sept.\n1913, May\n1910,   May\n1911,  March   \t\nAtli Head.\n1909, Feb\t\nMay\n85-95\n200\n50-60\n80-106\n100-200\n120\n140-180\n40-45\n35\n25^10\n16-30\n16-30\n38\n15-57\n48-70\n90\n90\n18-40\n45-55\n40\n26-30\n11-14\n35\n14-20\n15-50\n40-80\n20-25\n17-25\n15\n17-19\n16-17\n16-17\n15\n19-21\n17\n15-17\n17-24\n52-60\n18\n17-20\n16\n17\n14\n15\n20-25\n30\n20-30\n17\n18-40\n33.4\n16.5\n18.4\n30.2\n31.2\n12.2\n12.6\n26.1\n8.4\n9.5\n9.7\n10.9\n10.9\n11.4\n20.0\n26.3\n29.5\n8.6\n28.5\n31.0\n33.7\n32.8\n13.2\n29.7\n39.0\n45.0\n26.1\n29.8\n32.6\n16.3\n18.1\n22.5\n38.5\n27.5\n28.0\n16.6\n17.1'\n14.8\n13.2\n20.0\n22.2\n24.2\n24.4\n31.2\n31.3\n42.5\n44 8\n17.2\n19.6 S 120\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTable 66.\u2014Average Weights of Fish, etc.\u2014Concluded.\nDate.\nAtli Head\u2014Concluded.\n1911, Sept\t\n\u201e      Oct\t\n1912, Aug\t\nDepth,\nFathoms.\nWeight,\nLb.\nSept.\nOct.\nFlat Grounds North of\nSkidegate.\n1906,   Dec\t\n1909,   May    \t\nCape. George.\n1902,   Sept\t\n1904, Oct\t\n\u201e     Nov\t\n1905, May    \t\n35\n45-50\n35\n35-50\n35\n35\n30-48\n50-53\n52-56\n52\n52\n43-56\n54\n44-62\n51\n51\n8-16\n20-24\n25-30\n35-75\n25-33\n25\n17.5\n13.6\n16.7\n16.8\n18.7\n18.9\n12.2\n9.7\n11.7\n12.2\n14.2\n14.9\n15.6\n21.9\n12.3\n13.7\n28.5\n14.5\n30.5\n13.0\n31.1\n18.8\nDate.\nDepth,\nFathoms.\nWeight,\nLb.\nCape George\u2014Con.\n1906, Oct\t\n\u201e     Nov\t\n1907, Jan\t\n1909, June  \t\nNov\t\n1911, Aug\t\nRose Spit.\n1902,   Oct\t\n1904,      \u201e      \t\n\"     Nov\t\n1906,     \u201e      \t\nJJ 11 \t\n1908, March   .'.\n1909, Jan\t\n11 it \t\n1911,  Sept 7.7.\"\n28-35\n28-45\n30-45\n40\n11\n30\n30\n16-65\n35-60\n50-55\n13-20\n30-65\n30-70\n24-30\n18\n50\n48-70\n75\n15-60\n40-60\n25-55\n20-50\n17.3\n23.1\n25.8\n19.3\n29.3\n15.0\n14.6\n25.1\n23.6\n25.6\n26.1\n41.0\n43.4\n48.0\n22.7\n13.8\n15.6\n16.7\n17.6\n18.7\n10.3\n14.2 it Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 121\n0\n0\nm\n$\no\nj\n(-\u2022J\n>c*~\nX\n'L\n9%\nt\\-\n^\n\u00a3\n1 A\nI\n\u25a0\"?\u2022'\ns^  *a!\nIii\n83\n3\n2\n0 S 122\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 123\nxy^vj\n\/ XON\nFISHING   RECORDS\n during\t\nWINTERS OF 1907 AND 1908\nOff the Coast of\nL-   BRITISH COLUMBIA\nAreas designated by Roman Numerals\nare treated in the Text.\n Fast-Growing, or Large\n.Sloiv-Growing, or Small\nDrawn bg  Will F.  Thompson S 124\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\n\\^   %J\n\/ XOrW\nFISHING   RECORDS\nduring \u25a0\nSUMMERS OF 1907 AW 1908\nOff the Coast of\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nf designated bp Roman Numerals\nire. treated in the Text.\n. Fast-Growing, or Large\n. Slow-Growing, or Small\nDrawn by WW F.  Thompson 6 Geo. 5\nStatistics of Halibut Fishery in Pacific.\nS 125\n\\^  ^\n\/ XON\nFISHING   RECORDS\n during\t\nWINTERS OF 1911 AND 1912\nOff the Coast of\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nAreas designated bp Roman Numerals\nare treated in the Text.\n.Fast-Growing, or Large\n. Slow-Growing, or Small\nDrawn bp Will F. Thompson S 126\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\n\\^   M\n\/ XON\nSHING   RECORDS\n during\t\nSUMMERS OF 1911 AND 1912\nOff the Coast of\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nAreas designated bo Roman Numerals\nare treated in the Text.\n-Fast-Growing, or Large\n.Slow-Growing, or Small\nDrawn bp Will F. Thompson 6 Geo. 5 Sporozoan Parasite of the Halibut. S 127\nA NOTE ON A SPOROZOAN PARASITE OF THE HALIBUT.\nBy William F. Thompson, or Stanford University.\nIn considering the cause of what is known as \" mushy \" halibut among the fishermen, certain\nfacts have come to light which may be recorded, although the investigation is not complete.\nThey possess importance as steps towards an adequate knowledge of a subject difficult of\napproach. The work has been done in the laboratories of Stanford University, and the writer\nis under obligations to Dr. C. H. Gilbert for permission to do this, and also for calling attention\nto the problem.\n\" Mushy \" halibut are usually understood to mean those fish which are discarded by the\ndealers because of their softness. The number thus culled varies widely during the seasons,\nand also, according to the fishermen, between cargoes of vessels which have fished on the same\ngrounds. It is said that the banks off the coast of Oregon yield an especially large percentage\nof this \" mushy \" halibut. In the course of the work the culling of a number of cargoes was\nwitnessed. It was evident that under the head of \" culls \" there were included several different\ntypes\u2014namely, those which were \" white-meated \"; those which were \" yellow,\" or slightly\nspoiled; those which were \" mushy \"; and those which were \" wormy.\" A fish which was in\nan advanced state of \" mushiness \" was termed \" milky.\" In observing the culling at various\nestablishments in the United States and Canada, it became evident that methods were used\nwhich varied widely, the proportion of fish which were culled on account of being \" wormy \"\nforming, however, but a small part of the total. It is not the purpose here to discuss other\nthan the \" mushy \" and \" wormy \" halibut.\nThe so-called \" wormy \" halibut are rare, relatively speaking, in proportion to the total\nculls, but are readily discovered by cutting into the flesh, as is done by the cullers. Thus far\nno cases have been observed in which a \" wormy\" or parasitized halibut was \" milky\" or\n\" mushy,\" and the two types may be distinguished sharply by their appearance. There is no\nexternal evidence of the infection by the parasite which causes \" worminess.\" A cut through\nthe trunk muscles parallel to the grain exposes the parasites as silvery threads lying among\nthe muscle-fibres. These threads lie with the fibres in a regular way, and extend from septum\nto septum of the myomeres, but not through them. The muscles of the head are apparently less\nliable to infection than those of the trunk, and usually none are to he seen in the head of even\na heavily infected specimen.    The density of infection varies somewhat in different individuals.\nPlate 1,* Fig. 1, a photo-micrograph of a cross-section of a portion of muscle, enlarged eighteen times, gives some idea of the size of the threads as compared to the muscle-fibres, and of\nthe density of infection. These threads vary between 0.20 and 0.30 mm. in diameter, four or five\ntimes that of the fibres. In Plate 1, Fig. 2, is a cross-section of a single thread, enlarged about\n185 times. It will be seen that the thread is actually a tube-like structure, containing a mass\nof fine granule-like bodies with an envelope formed by the fibrillse of the muscle, within which\nthe parasite exists. The muscle-fibres are not degenerate in any way, the striations being as\nperfectly evident as in adjacent fibres. In Plate 3, Figs. A and B, are given reconstructions of\nthe ends of two of these threads. It will he noticed that the threads are formed of several\ncysts or trophozoites disposed in no definite order\u2014end to end or side by side. Small projections\nare frequent.\nThe material when found on the wharves was not in the best possible condition, and, pending\nthe discovery of specimens when freshly caught, the minute structure of the parasite is given in\na provisional way. The sections which were made were stained in Hansen's iron haematoxylin\nand counterstained with eosin.\nThere is no definite wall to the tubule, or trophozoite, the substance of the limiting layer\nbeing continuous with a reticulum which extends into the interior. Occasionally (Plate 3,\nFig. 9) there may be seen a densely staining layer on the external surface, but this appears\nto be either an atrophied portion of muscle or a decomposition product, and not found over\nthe whole tubule. In the meshes of the reticulum may be found various types of bodies. The\nmore frequent ones along the immediate periphery are small bodies (0.001 mm. or less in\ndiameter)   which stain black with iron hematoxylin   (Plate 3,  Fig. 6).   These appear to  be\n* Plates referred to follow the text. S 128 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nsurrounded with clear zones of protoplasm at times, and may be individual cells. The larger\nbodies, which may be termed spores until more is known about them, are about 0.003 mm. in\ndiameter, are destitute of a spore-capsule, and apparently compound. There is always present\na large eosinophyle body (Plate 3, Figs. 1 to 8), but whether there are more than the one in\nany case remains to be seen. This large body (polar capsule?) lies to one side, and in the\ncrescent thus left are found nuclear-like bodies somewhat similar to those found in the periphery\nof the tubule. Occasionally (Plate 3, Fig. 3) it would seem undeniable that each of these is\nsurrounded by its own zone of cytoplasm, and that there is in this case really a set of small\ncells partially wrapping the large eosinophyle body. Vacuoles which are sometimes present\nmay indicate the commencement of degeneration, due to preservation so long after the death\nof the halibut (Plate 3, Figs. 2 and 4, ca.). In the centre of the tubule these spores seem to\nbe surrounded by less reticulum than on the periphery.\nThe great similarity between the tubules would indicate that the parasites had reached a\ndefinite stage in which they had halted, and that the infection was not progressing. This is.\nsupported by the fact that all the fish affected were healthy specimens, as far as could be\nascertained, and that the examination of \"sick\" fish when first caught does not show the\npresence of the parasite.\nIn considering this, there may be mentioned a very curious modification of the muscle-fibre\nin which the parasite lies. In Plate 3, Fig. A, is given a drawing of a portion of a thread..\nAround this, toward one end of the section shown, may be seen a band of fibrillse, like a sphincter\nmuscle, outside of the longitudinal, fibrillse. In Plate 1, Fig. 3, is given a photo-micrograph of\na cross-section of the same thread, in which the circular course of the fibrillse may be easily\ntraced. Careful examination of these fibres show that they are definitely striated, as distinctly\nas the muscles in any other part of the section. The tubules seem to show the evidences of past\nconstrictions. The origin of these circular fibrillse is obscure, of course, and no theory is.\nadvanced to account for them. They are not present in any case in normal muscle-fibres, as.\nhas been carefully ascertained. The conclusion which must be drawn from their presence is.\nthat they are modifications produced by the presence of the parasites, and this indicates the\nprobability that the parasitized tissues have not been vitally injured. It would seem that some\ntime would be necessary for the production of such a reaction.\nIn examining the \" mushy \" halibut, a spore was found which may or may not be the cause\nof that condition. It is evidently from a sporozoon. Its shape is somewhat like that of a\nfour-pointed star, with four polar capsules. The investigation of this has not gone far enough\nto enable a connection to be made between it and the sporozoan responsible for the \"wormy\"\ncondition. It is also not at all easily decided whether the \"mushy\" and \"milky\" fish are-\nthe results of sporozoan or of bacterial infection. The inability of fishermen, as well as the\nwriter, to distinguish mushy fish when freshly caught would seem to require explanation.\nPlate 2, Figs. 1 and 2, are photographs of slices made of a \"milky\" halibut after hardening\nin formaldehyde.\nIt has been thought best to refrain from discussion of the systematic relationships of the\nspecies or the stages represented until more is known of the life-history. It is hoped that what\nis here described will be of use to workers in this field, and that it will be amplified by further\nwork. The material is hard to obtain in good condition, and the study of the life-history may\nbe slow to progress.\nExplanation of Plates.\nPlate 1.   Cross-sections of Parasitized Tissue.\nFig. 1. Showing density of infection, enlarged 24 times.\nFig. 2. A single tubule, enlarged 185 times.\nFig. 3. A tubule showing the circular muscle fibrillse, enlarged about 225 times.\nPlate 2.  Slices of \" Milky \" Halibut, after Hardening in Formaldehyde, showing\nWhite Areas of \" Milk.\"\nFig. 1. Transverse section of trunk.   The cavity between the three crosses is a typical result\nof advanced infection.\nFig. 2. Sagittal section of trunk muscles. *&\".<\u00a3\u00bb.\n*#\nFi g u re I\nFigure 2\n\u25a0tqur\u20aci ^\u00bb.\nPlate 1. -\nrai-\u00bb                                \"WP**-*^   m\u201e   i ii HiTfiMlii^BJWra^\nIk.                            \u25a0 \u00a3lw^ki*-\"..~',-      r'!L \u25a0 H^'J\u00bbwriuLm\n1                I^^^^^J     ^gg\nFigure  i\n\u25a0ni  w?\u2122*\u00a3*    ;M 'PiKll\nmmf\\m\u00a3 ^JmJm  ' XtM\nfafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafaHfafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafaK*                                                                                      ^L * ^p\n..fafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafal .j^fal   HAJi       p\u00bb J^flS                               \"\"^VEHh           v^B\n\u25a0 I, 7                                                                                        *\u25a0\u25a0., i9\n^\u25a0Hyg^^^^a^*\n-Figune2\nPlate 2. >\u2022\nWM\n9 7\n\u25a0s. A i'\n&\u2022*\u25a0    \u25a0'\u2022.\u25a0*\n.si        -. \u25a0 -mi\nFigure A\nFig ure B\nPlate 3.  6 Geo. 5 Sporozoan Parasite of the Halibut. S 129\nPlate 3. Reconstruction from Series of Sections of the Threads of Infected Tissue.\nFig. A. Thread with several tubules side by side, enlarged about 70 time's.\nsph, sphincter fibrillse.\nFig. B. Thread with tubules lying end to end.\nFigs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and S. Spores of varying appearance.    Figs. 2 and 4 may be degenerating,\nas shown by the vacuoles;   5 has its capsule of small bodies apparently loosened or not\nyet in final position; 8 represents the usual type of spore, and by far the most abundant.\nFig. 6. A small body from the periphery of the trophozoite.\nFig. 9. A portion of the periphery of the trophozoite, showing the false (?) external envelope\nand the striated muscles.\ncap, capsule of small cells   (?).\ne, large eosinophyle body.\nmf, striated muscle,\nret, reticulum,\nv, vacuoles. S 130 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nTHE PROBLEM OF THE HALIBUT.*\nBy William F. Thompson, British Columbia Fisheries Department.\nOne of the chief problems confronting fishery authorities on the Pacific Coast is that of the\nhalibut. Second only to the salmon in value, the landings during 1914 at Pacific Coast ports\nare estimatedf at over 64,000,000 lb., an apparent increase over 1913 of 9,000,000 lb. It is believed\nthat the figures for 1915 will show little or no falling-off,!: though there is a general conviction\namongst those interested in the industry that the halibut is being depleted. This conviction is\n\u25a0based upon the fact that the length of time required to complete a catch is longer than formerly,\nthat the fishing-vessels must proceed to more distant banks, that on various well-known banks\nthe fish are no longer abundant and are growing scarcer.\nSea Fisheries are exhaustible.\nIt is not generally recognized that sea fisheries are exhaustible, and it is urgently necessary,\nin the case of the halibut, to know what vitality there is behind the tremendous yield, and what\nmeasures may be taken to care for it. The real value of a species must be measured only in\nterms of what it is capable of yielding without damage to itself, and it behoves us to ascertain\nwhether the present catch is a normal yield, or made at the expense of the future existence of\nthe halibut; in other words, whether we are using the interest only or are also drawing on the\nprincipal. It is also necessary to determine the possibility of preventing the ruin of the industry,\na problem which can only be solved by earnest research. The yield of halibut in the Atlantic\nis too small to provide the wealth of material necessary for research-work without unduly\nprolonged and excessive effort. Hence, there is in the Pacific the last opportunity to deal\nadequately with the problem and it is passing rapidly.\nInvestigation of Halibut.\nThe British Columbia Department of Fisheries recognized that an inquiry, to be complete,\nmust deal with the whole life of the halibut, including the growth, history, food, seasonal distribution, and period of fertility. The writer has been actively engaged upon the study of this\nproblem since the spring of 1914. The work of collecting data was done on the fishing-vessels,\nit being necessary to accompany them to the banks on each trip, and the conditions met with on\nthe boats modified the procedure greatly. Much time was thus lost, as the vessels usually fished\nonly when the weather was suitable, and were compelled to prospect a great deal until banks\nwere found which yielded well. The conditions were anything but those to be found in the\nlaboratory, and, as accurate work consumes time, it was rarely possible to examine as many as\n100 fish a day. Nevertheless, nearly 3,000 specimens have been examined in the course of the\nwork.\nIt is perhaps natural to ask why it was not possible to examine the fish when they were\nbrought ashore, and thus avoid the disagreeable living and working conditions at sea. It cannot\nbe too strongly emphasized that work of that sort would have been nearly worthless. The fish\nin any vessel may come from any bank; as all the viscera are removed, the sexes cannot he\ndistinguished, and the cuts made in cleaning the fish, which is done on the banks, allow the head\nto assume an unnatural position and make the measurement of length inaccurate. The inability\nto distinguish the two sexes would alone be sufficient to invalidate any work after the vessels\nare docked.\nLittle Information available.\nThere is very little existing literature on the halibut, and the field is practically a virgin\none. Isolated notes have appeared, most of them conjectural or of little value, the most valuable\nbeing notes on the ova of the halibut, and its spawning season in the North Atlantic, observations\n* Read at meeting of Conservation Commission, January, 1916.\nt From Pacific Fisherman.\n% Since the above was written, the Pacific Fishermen's Tear-took has estimated the catch for 1915 as\n1,410,280 lb. more than that for 1914. 6 Geo. 5 Problem of the Halibut. S 131\nmade in a scattering way, but valuable in corroboration of what has been discovered in the\nPacific. It is believed that this is the first systematic attempt which has ever been made to\nwork out the life-history of the halibut. The fallacy of reasoning from the habits of other\nspecies of flatfish is evident, and nothing has been accepted as true unless shown so by actual\ndata obtained. The writer, however, freely acknowledges that the direction of his efforts has\nbeen very largely influenced by the splendid work of the English, Scotch, and German writers\non the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)  of the North Sea..\nPhysical Characteristics. ,\nThere are few commercial fish which exceed the halibut in average size, and among those\nof the north temperate regions there are no important ones which individually exceed it in\nweight, save the sturgeon. It is simply a giant flounder, active and predacious, one of the group\nwith its eyes both on one side of its head, a bottom dweller with the habit of lying on one of\nits sides, hence very dark on the upper or right, and white on the lower, or left, surface. The\nfemale sometimes reaches a length of over 6 feet and a weight of over 200 lb., though, as a\njule, the fish in any catch average from 15 to 30 lb.\nVessels and Handling.\nThe vessels used in the Pacific Coast halibut fishery are of two classes, steam and gasolene,\nsailing-vessels being out of place in the long narrow inlets and passages of our western coast.\nThe steamers are the familiar trawlers, of about 125 tons burthen, about 100 feet long, making\nas high as 11 knots, and capable of carrying 200,000 or 250,000 lb. of halibut on ice. Some of\nthem carry dories, as many as twelve in some instances, but it is becoming more and more\n:necessary to use the method known as \" long-lining,\" or fishing from the deck. With two fishermen to a dory, the engine and deck hands bring the total crew up to thirty or thirty-five. The\ngasolene-boats vary greatly in size, the largest being 100 tons burthen, but they do not usually\ncarry more than six dories. A great many small ones are manned by two men, who do not use\na dory, but fish over the side.\nRapid Delivery of Halibut.\nEach trip usually lasts about two weeks, longer in winter, however, than in summer, and\nthe fish are cleaned and kept with crushed ice in the hold. On landing, these fish are reiced\nand shipped by fast trains, or placed in cold storage. The consumer often receives fish which\nhave been on ice a month, and the quality of the flesh is such that it does not markedly\ndeteriorate. Every condition has lent itself to the building-up of a great market and to the\nrapid depletion of the supply.\nIt is difficult to realize the enormous part played by perfection of transportation facilities\n.and the institution of cold-storage methods. Halibut caught in the North Pacific, off Alaska,\n:are placed fresh on the markets of California and Massachusetts at rates which, as the magnitude\nof the business testifies, are anything but prohibitive. There would, obviously, be no demand\nfor the enormous yield unless such an extensive market were open.\nMethods used in Fishing.\nDory fishing only has been considered, as in \" long-line \" fishing proper data are rarely kept.\nThe gear used consists of pieces of \" ground-line \" or stout trawl-line in lengths of about 400\nfathoms, and, when not in use, coiled on a square piece of canvas, called a \" skate,\" perhaps\nbecause of its resemblance to that fish. The whole coil has come to be called a \" skate.\" On\nthis line are attached short lengths of smaller line, the \" gangings,\" with the hooks at the ends,\nabout 265 to a \" skate.\" Each dory, of which there are usually twelve on a steamer, uses two\nto four \" skates \" to a \" set,\" tied into a single piece, baited with herring or other fish. The\ndories lay their lines parallel to each other over a bank, both ends of each line anchored and\nbuoyed. The catch of the different dories used to be reckoned separately, as the men were paid\naccording to the catch. This no longer obtains, but the fish in each dory are counted, as it is\nthus possible to see what part of the bank yields best, and so guide further work. The total\nnumber of fish for the day, divided by the number of \" skates \" used, gives a comparable index\n\u2022of the amount of fish obtained and a clue to the abundance on the bank. S 132\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nTrawling destroys many other Fish.\nTrawl-line fishing destroys as many fish of other species as are caught of halibut. Records\nmade on the banks show a total of 193 halibut to 246 other fish, of which 171 were edible. At\ntimes, on certain banks, the catch is exclusively of some undesired species, and all of these are\nusually discarded, often so badly injured that it is safe to say that few escape mortal hurt.\nA number of counts were made of fish as they came aboard one of the long-line vessels and\nthe following table gives these. The red or rock cod come to the surface with their air-bladders-\ndistended, their eyes nearly popping out, from the release of the pressure under which they live\nat great depth. They, therefore, are unable to sink, and sometimes thousands of them cover the\nwater for miles over the fishing-banks. To eliminate this waste, the use of such fish should be\ngiven every encouragement.\nMarch\n1914.\nDec,\n1915.\nHalibut   \t\n37\n22\n8\n3\n2\n3\n2\n1\n44\n4\n16\n2\n1\n31\n22\n7\n24\n2\n4\n.5\n26\n11\n12\n3\n3\n4\n35\n11\n1\n21\n20\n13\n36\n193\n83]\n44\n30\n9\n68\n11\n1\n246\nTotal fish  \t\n78\n67\n95\n62\n68\n69\n439\n12\n12\n13\n15\n15\n15\n* Numbers of fish of each species brought up on the halibut trawl\u2014the non-edible fish being marked\nwith an asterisk.\nThe Food of the Halibut.\nIt is difficult to say whether a fish eats more of another valuable species than is legitimate,\nfor it may also eat great quantities of some enemy of that valuable species. The fabric of\nmarine life is so interwoven and complex that, with our present slight knowledge, we cannot\nseparate the strands. Hence, one must not take too seriously food data which apparently testify\nagainst the halibut, but the incomplete results of these researches are presented below.\nThe following are consumed, many of which are not available directly as food to man:.\nSea-anemones, starfish, brittle-stars, sea-urchins, sea-cucumbers, worms, small shell-fish, devilfish, squids, crabs (other than the edible crab), dogfish, skates, red and black cod, herring, ratfish,\nsand-lances, and grey cod. Among the species of value are the red cod, black cod, herring, and\ngrey cod, with perhaps certain small flounders. Only one species is markedly an article of\nfood\u2014namely, the grey cod\u2014and at present there is no commercial fishery for it on the halibut\nbanks. Among the mass of other food consumed the grey cod loses its relative importance.\nIt is probable that any damage done this way is offset by the fact that the grey cod is digested\nto form halibut, and also by the destruction of probable grey-cod enemies, such as the red cod\nand black cod. In fact, the extinction of the halibut might decrease the supply of grey cod\nrather than increase it.\nRestricted Area of Halibut Banks.\nAn important factor in the life-history of the fish is the area of the fishing-banks. The\nwidth of the continental shelf is much less on the Pacific Coast of America than on the Atlantic,\nand, as a corollary of this, the fishing-banks are restricted in area. There are no available\npublished figures, but a close approximation made by us places the total area between the\n140-fathom line and the outer coast, without the inlets, between the Shumagin Islands in Northern\nAlaska and the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, at 80,000 square miles. Of this, 19,500\nsquare miles are off the British Columbian coasts. This area is distributed along the coast-line\nof 1,600 miles, and hence has an average width of fifty miles. The total is much less than that\nof the North Sea, and, in addition, the valuable fishing-banks constitute but a small portion of 6 Geo. 5\nProblem of the Halibut.\nS 133\nthe 80,000 square miles. Whether any extensive new banks will be discovered is problematical.\nOne must, therefore, guard against the false conclusion that the Pacific Coast banks are very\nextensive, and must recognize the relatively small area as one of the contributing factors to\nrapid exhaustion.\nBanks easily depleted.\nThe peculiar length and narrowness of the Pacific continental shelf renders it more easily\ndepleted locally, for there are ho near-by banks from which immigrants may come m any number.\nThis is isolation, to a certain degree, which should render itself evident in the origin of regional\nraces, with their own peculiar characteristics as to rate of growth and dimensions. A bank is\nnot surrounded on all sides by other banks, but is connected by narrow shore-line banks only;\nhence the idiosyncrasies of the local stock are not entirely counteracted by interchange. In fact,\nsuch local peculiarities are of great significance in judging the degree of isolation which might\nexist, the probability of local extermination, and the rate of repletion possible by migration from\nnear-by banks.\nIn the work under consideration an attempt has been made to gather such statistics, and\na good degree of success has been met with.\nThe rate of growth has been shown to be sharply different in localities not far distant one\nfrom the other, as Frederick Island and Rose Spit, but this will be treated later. That obtained\nby a series of measurements of the head-length is particularly striking, and is indicative of what\nmay be expected of other data dealing with measurements of body-depth, height or length of\nfins, counts of fin-rays, etc., when such are compiled.\nIt is evident that there is no extensive interchange of fish between localities, otherwise such\ndifferences as are given could not remain permanent. The progressive depletion of the banks\nfrom the south northward is therefore comprehensible. It has been like the annihilation of an\narmy in detail, each separate detachment encountering the full force of the fishing fleet, which\nmight be resisted if the resources of the remainder could be called on to aid. Fortunately it\ndoes not pay to fish a region over closely when by going a distance an abundance may be obtained,\nso there are still fish to be caught on the southern banks and presumably propagation continues\nthere. But only when too late does one know when a species has been depleted on a bank past\nthe limit of safety.\nSlow Growtth of Halibut.\nNot only does the nature of the coastal bank lend itself to rapid depletion, but the nature\nof the species itself is such as to render it little resistant. It will be recalled that it was said\nto be one of the largest of market fish, and, reasoning from this, it is evident that a larger area\nof bank is necessary to support each individual than is the case with smaller fish. The total\npopulation must hence be less, and, as the increased size renders it less difficult to catch great\nquantities, the rate of depletion is correspondingly rapid.\nIf it took merely a few years to grow a fish of such a size, this would not be so serious,\nbut, as a matter of fact, one of the earliest and most important of the results of the investigation\nwas to show the slow rate of growth and the comparatively great age attained. The table following gives this in figures, as extracted from the Report of the British Columbia Commissioner of\nFisheries for 1914:\u2014\nAverage Length in Inches of Halibut at Any Age.\nAge.\nHecate Strait.\nMale.\nFrederick Island.\nKodiak Island.\nFemale.\nMale.\nFemale.\nMale.\nFemale.\nIll  (17.0)\nIV | 19.3\nV  (23.8)\nVI  24.3\nVII  27.6\nVIII  31.6\nIX ' 31.7\n20.6\n24.2\n28.1\n30.7\n35.4\n37.0\n(21.0)\n(18.5)\n(24.61\n(23.0)\n(27.8)\n25.4\n(22.5)\n(20.5)\n(28.5)\n(26.6)\n(25.5)\n(25.1)\n(20.3)\n22.4\n24.0\n(22.7)\n25.5\n27.8 S 134\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nAverage Length in Inches of Halibut at any Age\u2014Concluded.\nAge.\nHecate Strait. Frederick Island.\nMale.        Female.   I     Male.        Female\nKodiak Island.\nMale. Female.\nX  33.6\nXI  34.3\nXII  36.6\nXIII  39.4\nXIV  (39.0)\nXV  (37.7)\nXVI  42.8\nXVII  (41.5)\nXVIII  (43.0)\nXIX\t\nXX\t\nXXI I\nXXII i\n(35.6)\n39.3\n41.8\n51.6\n48.2\n49.9\n61.2\n69.0\n(65.0)\n(55.2)\n(57.7)\n27.4\n29.4\n(27.5)\n(30.2)\n(31.5)\n(37.5)\n(37.5)\n(38.2)\n(36.7)\n(37.5)\n30.7\n32.8\n(30.0)\n(36.8)\n25.2\n26.3\n27.7\n28.8\n29.0\n29.7\n32.4\n(32.1)\n(36.4)\n(30.7)\n26.8\n28.6\n29.0\n31.8\n34.5\n(33.8)\n38.9\n(42.4)\n38.4\nNote.\u2014The figures in parentheses are based on too few  specimens, less than five, to be considered at\nall conclusive.\nAverage Length of Female Halibut at Any Age, within Limits caught by Hook*\nKodiak  Island,  125  specimens;   Frederick  Island,  32  specimens ; Hecate  Strait,  170 specimens.\nCommission   of  Conservation __\n4G\n!\u00ab\n$\nc\n$\nM\nH\nA\n1\n'\n1\n&\u25a0\nM\n\"\u25a0\nK^\n1*\n,l<\n\u25a0y\nV\n[\u25a0\n'\"\n0\nK,\niff\n\\\\.\n'^\nK\u00a3\nr\nfr\nKL\nH\n\u25a0-\n\"\n\u2022\u2022\n\u2022\n\"\u25a0\n\u2022-\n46\nYear I\nn    m    w\ny    yl   me    nm ix    xzi    xrrzni  xnr xv svi m\nMethods of determining Age.\nThe methods employed in obtaining these age determinations have been the same as those\nused with such good effect in the case of the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) of the North Sea\nand in the case of many other fish. It has been found that, during a year, there are great\nfluctuations in the'rate of growth of any fish, it being very rapid during the summer and almost\nnil during the winter. This fluctuation leaves its traces on all the hard parts of a fish, and\na difference in structure between the parts laid down during the different seasons can be\ndistinguished. The bones of the body, especially the vertebra? and gill-covers, show this differentiation, but these are not nearly as readily utilized as are the scales and the limy concretions\niu each ear-chamber, called \" ear-bones,\" or otoliths, which show annular rings in many ways\nstrongly resembling those of trees. In the case of the halibut the otoliths were found to be the\nbest, and were consequently used. In other species, by actually raising fish, it has been demonstrated that the age is correctly given by these structures.\nHalibut reaches Great Age.\nThe oldest halibut obtained had reached twenty-five years, but the great majority seemed\nto attain an age of between fourteen and nineteen years. The youngest caught were three, four,\nand five years old, the size of the hook used apparently preventing the capture of smaller and\n* Plates furnished by Dominion Commission of Conservation. 6 Geo. 5\nProblem of tpie Halibut.\nS 135\nyounger specimens. The females from Hecate Strait had an average length of 2% feet when\nseven years old, and 4 feet when fourteen years old. A fish 4 feet long would weigh between 60\nand 70 lb. It will be seen that the rate of growth on different banks is very different and that\nof males is much slower than that of females. By utilizing those figures based on enough specimens to be correct, or by using smooth curves, it was found that the males are but 88 per cent,\n(about %) of the length of the females, practically the same proportion when any one of the\nthree banks is considered. A male of 26 lb. (35 inches long) would be the same age as a female\nof 35 lb. (40 inches long), the male being but three-fourths of the weight of the female, and in\ncomparing rates of growth on various banks the same sex should be used.\nVariations in Size and Weight.\nThere is also a striking difference in size attained by the fish from the different banks.\nA fish 26 lb. (35 inches long) from Frederick Island is approximately the same age as one 45 lb.\n(43% inches long) from Hecate Strait. In other words, the fish from Frederick Island average\nbut 55 to 60 per cent, of the weight of those from Hecate Strait. The fish from Kodiak Island\nare, in turn, smaller than those from Frederick Island. They are approximately 73 per cent, of\nthe length and 40 to 52 per cent, of the weight of those from Hecate Strait.\nThis work on the rate of growth and the difference in this regard on different banks has met\nwith complete corroboration from another source\u2014namely, that of the age at sexual maturity.\nOn the Hecate Strait banks one-half of the females mature at the length of 43 inches, on the\nFrederick Island banks at 35 inches, and off Kodiak Island at 30 inches. These lengths are in\neach case those reached during the twelfth year, according to the otoliths. Thus it is at least\nevident that the relative sizes reached at maturity indicate the same comparative rates of growth\nas do the otoliths.\nPercentage of Fish Mature at Any Age.\nHecate  Strait  Kodiak Island\t\nOofrtfn i\nSSIOI\nof\nCons\nerva\nwn\nSOX-\n*\n907.\nt\n70X\n\/\/\n**\u25a0\n70*-\n\/\n7\nIn\nma\ntu\n~e\n\/\/\nM\nitu\nre\nsor.\ni\n30X\nfl\nit\n30%\n\/\nior.\n-j,\n\u2014-\n\"\"'\nYear i    n   ut   iv   v    vr  vn vm u   x   xi  xn xm xjv xv xrr xvn xvnrnx. 3X xxr xxnxxmxxrr\nPercentage of Fish Mature, at Any Length, from Hecate Strait, Kodiak and Frederick Islands.\nFrederick Island  Kodiak  Island .... Hecate  Strait\t\nCommission of Conservation\nmox\nV\n.'\nf\n*\u25a0*\n*\n\u2022\n\u2022 '\n,\n;\nf\n\/\n.'\n\/\nt\n\/\n1\n1\nrr\nir\na\nt\nu\n\\(\n\/\nf\nh\n\\t\nit\nu\nr\ne\n\/\n1\ni\n1\n.'\n\u2022\n\/\n\u2022\nf\n.\n1\n.\n\/\n\/\n\u2014t\n\/\n1007.\n50%\n25%\nI5lnches    20 25\n45 50 55 60 65 S 136 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nRate of Growth of Halibut.\nThese data as to the maturity age of the halibut are significant from another standpoint\nthan that of mere corroboration of the rate of growth. Indeed, there is no more important phase\nof the life-history of an animal than its sexual period, as this is directly concerned with the\npropagation of the species. The accompanying charts indicate the age and size at maturity,\nalthough, of course, it is difficult to obtain any idea of the length of life after maturity is\nattained. It is probable that the numbers of the species diminish nearly as rapidly in the classes\nwhich are mature as in those which are immature, and that the fish rarely attain a greater age\nthan eighteen or nineteen years. This has yet to be worked out, but enough has been done to\nshow that different conditions exist on different banks, and that, in some cases at least, overfishing has diminished in a marked degree the percentage of mature fish. The greatly decreased\naverage size of fish caught on Rose Spit and Two Peaks are suggestive in this regard, and\nindicates that almost all the catches are composed of small, immature fish.\nDanger of Future Depletion of Banks.\nThe present average size of fish caught on these banks is about 12 lb., and no females are\nfound mature under 26 lb.; hence mature females probably exist in small proportion. At all\nevents, it is certain that maturity comes at a late period in the life of the halibut, and that under\ncertain conditions the majority never reach that state. This abbreviation of the sexual period\nis something which needs the closest attention, as it is vitally connected with the existence of\nthe species. The percentage of mature fish on the banks should be constantly watched, as it,\nbetter than the abundance of individuals, indicates most unmistakably the danger of depletion\nof the banks. This would be analogous to the inspection of the spawning-beds of the salmon,\nwhere a lack of spawning fish presages a small run when that year's brood returns as mature\nfish.\nAn attempt has been made to work out a method of distinguishing mature and immature\nfish at any time of the year, other than the spawning season. This is not yet complete, and is\nsubject to certain qualifying conditions, which do not, it is believed, impair its validity. It is\nbased on the fact that in the female gonad, or organ bearing the sexual products, provision is\nmade for future years, a certain group of ova becoming ready for spawning every winter. This\nreadiness is indicated largely by the attainment of large size, and each future year's group may\nbe recognized by its distinctive diameter. The growth is extended over several years at least,\nand it is possible to see in preparation the groups destined for each year in the near future.\nBy carefully measuring a number of ova they may be clearly distinguished one from the other\nand the years of maturity readily assigned. Practice enables any one, as a rule, readily to decide,\nby the appearance of the ovary, its opacity and the size of the largest ova, whether a given fish\nis destined to spawn the following year.*\nFactors leading to Depletion.\nThe factors affecting the depletion of the banks may be tentatively enumerated as follows:\u2014\n(1.)  The comparatively small extent of the banks in proportion to the great catch, with\nthe peculiar length and narrowness of the continental shelf on which they lie:\n(2.) The large size of the fish:\n(3.)  The slow rate of growth, indicating the comparatively long time required to reach\nmarket size:\n(4.) The late maturity of the females.\nEnough work has been done along these lines to indicate that they are valid causes of\ndepletion, but it is, as yet, impossible to definitely apportion their relative importance. A great\ndeal of work remains to be done to complete our studies of these depletion factors. It is, however,\naxiomatic that any attempt to conserve the supply of halibut must take into consideration these\ncauses of depletion.\nRapid Depletion of Eastern Banks.\nWe must procure demonstrable data respecting the rate of depletion, and a special effort\nhas been made to obtain such data.    The history of the banks on both the Atlantic and Pacific\n* For details the Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for British Columbia for 1914 should he\nconsulted. 6 Geo. 5\nProblem of the Halibut.\nS 137\nias been one of rapid depletion. In 1830 the New England cod-fishermen regarded the halibut\nas nuisances, but, once a market for halibut was established, the demand increased with the\nsupply, and in 1884 vessels were going to Iceland and Davis Strait for cargoes. The banks to\nthe south soon became entirely depleted and now no halibut are found there. The catch landed\nat Gloucester has fallen from 11,300,000 lb. in 1879 to 4,024,000 lb. in 1910. The fishery on the\nPacific Coast is not as old, the first cargoes being landed about 1888, but it is being pursued most\nenergetically, and, owing to the great increase in the number of vessels employed and the use\nof banks further afield, the total yield apparently does not indicate a marked decrease. The\nstatistics of annual yield do not indicate the depletion of the banks until long after it is well\nadvanced. Unfortunately, also, returns are very fragmentary, compiled in anything but a\nsystematic manner, and hence are unreliable.\nInformation as to the yield, however, can be gathered from the ships' daily recorft or logs.\nThese logs are the notes kept by the officers concerning the movements of the vessels, the amount\nof gear used, and the catch. These were not at first accepted as accurate, but extended acquaintance with the fishermen and their records has shown that they are as accurate as is necessary.\nThe depletion of the banks has been shown to be so pronounced as to override any variations in\nrecords due to inaccuracy, which, at most, are not greater than in the average commercial record.\nThe captains and mates are, as a rule, intelligent men.\nResults of Investigation.\nProvided one is well, acquainted with the banks and with the methods used, there is no\nreason whatever to doubt the accuracy of the results obtained by a study of the logs. The\nmethods of fishing have been already described, and the meaning of the term \" skate\" as a\nunit of gear has been defined. The average yield per skate has been compiled from records of\nover 500 voyages. Three-month periods were treated as units because the number of records\nper month was not always sufficient to give satisfactory average results. It showed that, during\nthe summer months, the yield was heaviest and that there was a more uniform decrease. Comparing the years 1906 and 1912, the number of fish caught per \" skate \" was reduced about\n50 per cent, in six years\u2014from an average of 42.8 fish per skate in 1906 during the summer\nto an average of 21.9 in 191.2. The logs of some vessels, for the six summer months, also show\nthat the time spent per fishing voyage had increased proportionately\u2014namely, from 3.4 days\nIn 1906 to 8.9 days in 1912. In addition, the size of the catch actually decreased, despite the\nfact that in early years the dealers placed a limit on the cargo which might be brought in,\nthe average load in the summers of 1905 and 1906 being 135,300 lb., and that in the same period\nof 1913 and 1914, 107,S00 lb. To demonstrate that these figures are representative and accurate\nthe following tables are appended:\u2014\nShoiving Average Number of Fish caught per Unit of Clear used, for Six-month Periods.\nYears.\n1902.\n1903.\n1904.\n1905. 1 1905. ! 1907. j 1908. 1 1909. 1 1910. | 1911. i 1912. | 19ly. j 1914.\nApril-September  . .     501\nOctober-March .... | 33.2\n19.5\n73.6\n12.2\n30.1\n23.9\n42.8    36.9\n18.5 j 12.9\n26.1\n11.1\n24.1\n7.4\n28.6 1 25.1    21.9\n14.1 | 10.7      8.5\n17.1\n6.1\n12.9\n6.3\nShoiving the Average Number of Days fished per Voyage in order to obtain a Cargo.\nYear.\n.Tan.-Mar.      Apr.-June.      July-Sept.\nOct.-Dec.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n4.6\n3.2\n3.6\n2.0\n4.6\n3.7\n5.1\n2.9\n5.4\n5.3\n5.8\n6.7\n3.6\n8.3\n5.2\n9.8\n6.9\n9.0\n10.5\nNo records\n9.2\n8.8\n10.2\n2.0\n2.1\n2.5\n3.7\n4.0\n3.8\n3.7\n3.7\n4.7\n6.9\n7.4\n9.6\n10.0\n4.2\n3.4\n3.8\n4.5\n4.9\n4.5\n5.7\n7.5\n7.4\n7.4\n9.0\n8.7\n10.6 S 138\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nShowing Average Cargoes landed by Three Steamers of Similar Capacity.\nThose marked with an asterisk (*) are averages affected by a limit placed on cargoes by the-\ndealers.\nMonths.\nJan.\nFeb.\nMarch.\nApril.\nMay.\nJune.\nYears 1905 and 1906  \t\n108,215\n37,900\n146,833\n67,192\n171,313\n42,620\n143,353\n76,295\n110,162*\n122,474\n141 235*\nYears 1913 and 1914  \t\n152,851\nMonths.\n\u2022\nJuly.\nAug.\nSept.\nOct.\nNov.\nDec.\nYears 1905 and 1906  \t\n132,761*\n121,152\n157.313\n100,802\n126,967\n73,202\n97,287\n42,898\n78,340\n35,340\n125 988\nYears 1913 and 1914  \t\n59,770\nShowing Number of Fish caught per \"Skate\" on Rose Spit and Two Peaks Banks  during\nSummer and Winter Months.\nBased on 226 records.    The starred figures being obtained from but three or four records, hence\nnot conclusive.\nYears.\n1902.\n1903.\n1904.\n1905.\n1906.\n1907.\n56.7*\nNo\nrecords\n16.7*\nNo\nrecords\n11.4*\nNo\nrecords\n24.8\n47.1\n24.6\nNo\nrecords\n12.9\n27.5\nYears.\n1908.          1909.\n1910.\n19.11.\n1912.           1913.\n1\n1914.\n19.1\n22.5\n6.0\n18.0\n9.3\n27.9\n9.3\n25.2\n6.5\n19.3\nNo\nApril to September   \t\n11.1             9.2\nShowing Decreased Average Weight of Fish caught on Two Peaks and Rose Spit Banks.\nYear.\n1902\n1903\n1904\n1905\n1906\n1907\n1908\nAverage\nWeight.\n25.1\nNo records\n25.1\nNo records\n33.9\nNo records\n25.2\nYear.\nAverage\nWeight.\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n26.8\n16.1\n16.7\n17.1\n13.4\n12.3\nNot only is the depletion very evident in the banks as a whole, but the same tendencies are\nevident in the returns from individual banks, as instanced in tables of catch on Two Peaks and\nRose Spit banks. An alarming feature disclosed by the table is the decrease in average size of\nthe fish caught on this bank, resulting from the capture of the larger and older fish.\nGrowing Market for other Fish.\nIt is evident, then, that there has been a great and marked decrease in the abundance of fish\non the banks off British Columbia. This is shown by the above tables as directly and truthfully\nas possible, more so than by the statistics of fish landed, upon which advocates of fish-conservation\nhave usually based their arguments.    When the catch is cut in half in six years, the rate of 6 Geo. 5 Problem of the Halibut. S 139\ndecrease on the banks is a very rapid one. It may well be asked what the ultimate result will\nbe. At present it ceases to be profitable to fish when a certain minimum return is not obtained,\nand that limit has been reached in our southern waters for the winter season. However, the\nrapidly growing market for other species, such as black cod, will enable vessels to fish there\nprofitably, whereas before they could not. The demand that there be a close season during the\nwinter by international agreement incidentally seeks to render vessels profitable by the elimination of the most unprofitable season when it is necessary to make longer voyages. Whether such\na close season would benefit the halibut to such a degree that it would stand the consequently\nmore severe attack in summer is as yet a question unanswerable, depending mainly on whether\nthis closure would be made of sufficient length.\nRemedial Measures advocated.\nThe discovery of the rate of depletion is the only direct method at present available for\ndetermining the abundance and vitality of the species. But it is sufficiently accurate to demonstrate to every one that we are using both the principal and interest; therefore we must either\nconserve the former by lessening the drain or increase the yield by aiding nature in the propagation of the young. A species may never be replaced. Its destruction is not the diversion of\ncapital into new hands and new uses; it is the destruction of a tool, fashioned by hands man\ncannot imitate, which should make available the resources of the sea for an indefinite number\nof years.\nKnowing, then, the fact of depletion, and certain of the causes, it follows that remedial\nmeasures should be sought. Through \" artificial \" propagation nature may be assisted by aiding\nthe young fish to survive what is perhaps the most critical period of its life, or by giving it.\nsome measure of protection from its human enemies. But to assist nature effectively requires\naccurate scientific knowledge. Every detail of the life of a fish seems to have some bearing on\nthe problem, and the more complete the knowledge the better the prospect of success. In the\ncase of salmon, the breeding habits were comparatively easily and readily observed in a direct\nway, and the early history of the fish was known in its broad features because of the conditions\nunder which it spawns and lives. When the life-history of a purely marine fish is considered\na more obscure field is entered. The salmon migrates up the streams and breeds at easily\nascertained times, but no one knows whether the halibut migrates, for all its movements are\nout of sight, nor, until recently, when it bred. The ova of the salmon are laid and they may\nbe watched in their development, but the halibut ova have never been found, once they are laid,\nnor is anything known of how or where they develop. Where aid may be given or restraint\nused cannot be told until the life-history is fairly well known. Only a little progress has been\nmade along that line, which is necessarily a difficult one.\nUniform Spa*ning Season.\nThe spawning season for the halibut in European waters, as derived from scattered records,\nseems to correspond in general to that on our Pacific Coast. We first ascertained the latter by\nexamination of specimens sent in by fishermen and by actual observation. It has now been\nobserved throughout in the Gulf of Alaska. It extends from the end of December to the end of\nApril. It is at its height probably in January or February, but it is still unknown whether the\ntime varies with the latitude. The time of spawning was, of course, one of the first things it\nwas necessary to ascertain.\nVariations in Rate of Growth. >\nThere are few differences between the two sexes, and none of these may be relied upon to\ndistinguish them at sight. The finding of such a one would have saved a great deal of work\nin dissection and rendered available the catches landed at the wharves. However, there are\nreal and striking differences in the average rate of growth and proportions of the sexes. The\ndifference in rate of growth has already -been shown, and the difference in length of head is given\nin the tables of variations between localities in the Report of the British Columbia Fisheries\nDepartment for 1914, page 83. There is also a difference in the depth of the pocket in which\nthe sexual organs lie, but all these differences so overlap that they cannot be relied upon to\ndistinguish individuals of the two sexes. Hence it is apparent that no measures can be taken\nto give far-reaching protection to one sex rather than the other. S 140 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nArtificial Propagation.\nThe number of ova laid and their method of ripening are very important, not merely from\na general standpoint, but as factors in artificial propagation. The gonads in the mature female\nat certain times of the year\u2014just before spawning\u2014contain large, loose ova. In the British\nIsles counts of the ova contained in the ovary range from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000. The count\nmade by us of the ova in a 40-inch female from Pacific waters showed it to contain about\n370,000 ova. This is very much less than the European fish, but it is probable that, as the\nlengths given would indicate, the latter were much larger and older. Probably the rule holds\nas in the case of the plaice\u2014namely, that the number of large ova increases both with age and\nsize. While the halibut carries great numbers of ova, this does not mean that it is prolific,\nbecause, as a rule, species which lay a great number of ova do so in order to overcome great\nnatural obstacles to their survival.\nUsing the minimum, that counted by us, it is easy to reckon the volume which would be\noccupied by the mature ova. The ova, shortly before maturity, undergo a rapid enlargement,\nbecoming transparent and loose in the ovary. The final diameter, as found in samples collected\non the Pacific Coast and preserved in formalin, is 3.67 mm. (*\/, inch, nearly). For 370,000 turgid\nova this would yield a volume equal to between half and three-fourths of the bulk of the parent\nfish. We therefore conclude that the ova ripen gradually and are discharged over some period\nof time. If this conclusion is corroborated it will have a vital bearing on the collection of ova\nfor propagation. In the case of the European flounder, it has been found necessary to keep it\nin captivity to obtain the entire yield. With the halibut this would be an impossibility without\ngreat expense, while the fact that the ova do not float would hinder the employment of brooding\nenclosures such as are used with the cod.\nDearth of Information.\nThe work being done at present includes an elaboration of these facts, the importance of\nwhich is apparent. Data should be gathered as to the development of the larva?, about which\nabsolutely nothing is known. This implies research with plankton and otter-trawl nets. Nor\nis anything known as to where the young fish live. Probably they are to be found on the halibut\nbanks, but it is necessary to have a sea-going vessel fitted for otter-trawling to collect any data\non this score, and unfortunately there are no vessels of this character employed in commercial\nfisheries on this portion of the coast. A small otter-trawler was used in protected waters, but\nno results were obtained. The need of such work is very urgent, as the halibut is rapidly\ndecreasing in numbers, particularly in southern waters.\nFrom the foregoing it is evident that it is still impossible to come to a definite conclusion\nregarding methods of protecting or aiding the halibut. The facts of the life-history show the\nspecies to be peculiarly exposed to depletion, and statistics demonstrate that such depletion is\ntaking place. It is not possible to look forward to artificial propagation with any degree of\noptimism, and probably we shall be left with the alternative of restricting the operations of the\nfishermen. The work we are doing is handicapped by lack of apparatus, but, as a preliminary\nstudy of the problem, is worth while. Until we know the spawning habits, the migrations, and\nthe population of the different banks, and until we solve many related problems, it will be\nimpossible to take action with definite assurance that it will be adequate. O XI\nIH   S  6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 141\nTHE NATIVE OYSTER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.\n(OSTREA   LURIDA,   CARPENTER.)\nBy joseph Stafford, M.A., Ph.D., Montreal.\nEnvironment.\nThe lifetime of the oyster may be conveniently regarded as divisible into two primary\nperiods, the first being that period during which the oyster is coming into existence as an oyster,\nthe second the period of its adult life, when it is fully equipped for the duties of its existence.\nAs the first period originates with the simple egg and terminates with the completely\norganized animal, it is possible to employ advancement of structure as a means of distinguishing\nintermediate or secondary periods, such as oosperm, segmentation, embryo, larva, spat, and\nyouthful stages, in all of which the most easily recognized features are increase of size, modification of shape, and change of habit.    This is the period of development, embryology, or ontogeny.\nThe second period constitutes the greater part of the lifetime of the oyster, the period when\nit is outfitted with its full complement of developed organs. It maintains a comparatively stable\nform and appearance, and is engaged especially in the processes of feeding, growing, and reproducing. Its dominant features are structure, organization, anatomy, or morphology, on the one\nhand, and activities, duties, functions, or physiology, on the other.\nIn both periods, since structure is the basis of function, anatomy and physiology progress\ntogether, from the more simple to the more complex. The egg is a single cell, possessing its\nstore of food, and its powers of digestion, respiration, etc. The embryo is an advance in that\nthere is a differentiation into internal or digestive and external or respiratory portions. The\nlarva, in developing intestine, gills, velum, and shell, makes still further provision for efficiency\nin digestion and respiration, as well as adds means of locomotion and protection. In a similar\nmanner might be recounted the whole category of organs and functions, ascending from the egg\nthrough youthful to adult stages, and declining to senility and finally death.\nIn all this the subject is strictly the oyster itself, apart from any consideration of its\nsurroundings. It takes for granted suitable external conditions, outside of and around the\nliving oyster. But it is clear that vast numbers of oysters do not find such conditions, and that\nthe areas about them may present all kinds of differences, reacting upon them, such as suitable\nor unsuitable, favourable or unfavourable, passable, restraining, prohibitive, or destructive.\nThere is opened up here another great field for research, distinct from, as broad, as varied,\nand as important as the one confined to the oyster per se.    This is the subject of environment.\nAn oyster cannot continue to live except under possible conditions. If transferred to a pond\nof fresh water it will soon die. It cannot long withstand burial in sand or exposure to air.\nIt is killed, if unprotected, by summer heat and by winter frost. It may be crushed by a\nrolling stone or smothered in mud. It requires food, salt, calcium carbonate, and other substances\nfor its sustenance. It may be eaten up or maimed by another animal. Egg, embryo, larva, and\nspat are more easily destroyed than the adult. Development, organization, activity, nutrition,\nlife, growth, reproduction, all presuppose a proper external medium, with suitable climatic,\nphysical, chemical, and biological contents.\nIf a living healthy oyster be taken up in a beakerful of sea-water and kept confined it will\nnot live long. In a pailful or a hogsheadful it may do better. In a small pond or lagoon of salt\nwater it may do better still. But sooner or later the oyster will die. The conditions are not\nsuitable. There is no change of water, no aeration, no supply of oxygen; the chemical contents\nof the water become exhausted; the waste excreta from the oyster becomes aggregated to the\nextent of being poisonous; the food gives out; the small volume of water, partaking of the\ntemperature of the air, may become too cold or too warm or be evaporated. If the lagoon is\nso situated as to have periodical connections with the sea and thus have its food, salts, and\ntemperature replenished and its injurious wastes diluted or carried away, the oyster may do\nas well or almost as well aa where it was first procured in a cove, bay, or estuary. Generally,\nwithin limits, the larger the body of water and the more perfect the connection with the sea,\nthe larger and healthier are the oysters and the better the conditions of their environment.\nBy such a process of reasoning we may be led from the small area immediately surrounding\nan oyster outwards through the medium in which it lives into ever-widening areas, until the\noceans themselves are comprehended.   And we might arrive at the conclusion that the deep, S 142 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nopen sea would offer the most ideal conditions for the oyster. But the study of distribution\n.proves that not all oceans, nor all parts of any one of them, are inhabited by oysters. Oysters\ndo not occur in polar seas, nor can they be dredged up from very deep water. The larvae are\nnot taken in plankton at great distances from shore. There must be circumstances limiting\ntheir dispersal to, or their ability to live in, deep wTater. Even as the land is approached oysters\nare restricted to few places possessing special features. It is impossible for any one place to\ncontain everything that is beneficial and nothing that is detrimental. The preponderance of\nfavourable or of unfavourable conditions determines the status of the environment. The oyster,\nto some extent, can withstand the paucity of essential constituents, can defend itself against\ninjurious elements, and can accommodate itself to changing surroundings. But there is a limit\nto its powers of adaptation and endurance.\nThe subkingdom of animals to which the oyster belongs is called Mollusca. The two largest\nclasses of molluscs are Univalves (or Gastropods) and Bivalves (or Lamellibranchs). The latter\nincludes oysters, silver-shells, pearl-oysters, scallops, quohogs, clams, mussels, and a great many\nother less commonly known species. While many of these may live together in the same bay\nor on the same bed, yet they do not always compete with one another in any very definite manner,\nbecause of their slight differences of habits. The closer, the relationship, the closer is the competition. This is keenest of all between individuals of the same species, next between species\nof the same genus. It becomes important to be able to distinguish one species from another\nand to know for sure that the animal referred to in any given case is an oyster and not some\nother species of close resemblance. I have heard men declare that an oyster occurs in such-and-\nsuch a place, that they had seen oysters there, that they could not make a mistake for they had\nbeen brought up in an oyster district and had been accustomed to seeing oysters. Yet, when I\nvisited the place, I found no oysters, hut some other species that might be mistaken for an\noyster by people not habituated to looking below superficial resemblances. Oyster-fishermen are\nnot aware that there are so many different species of animals as there are, and are liable to\ncall any mollusc an oyster that in a general way looks somewhat like an oyster. The commonest\nmistakes are with the large Placunanomia or the smaller Anom.ia (silver-shell), the heavy-shelled\nHinnites (a kind of large scallop) and sometimes Pecten (the smaller scallop), Mcleagrina (the\nso-called pearl-oyster, which belongs to the Aviculidse, not the Ostreidaj), and even Ilaliotis (the\nabalone, which is a univalve, not a bivalve). The common name \" rock-oyster \" is given to several\nspecies, belonging even to different genera, that are not oysters at all. Enough has been said\nto show that, before it is possible to talk with accuracy about the distribution, habitat, habits,\nor physical surroundings of the oyster, it is necessary to be able to distinguish the oyster from\nall other animals with which it might be conflicted.\nFrom the foregoing pages it will be apparent that the subject of environment is a broad\none, and that it ramifies into a number of departments that can best be dealt with in separate\nsections.\nSpecies.\nOysters are not of one species but of many, the number of which is unknown, but has been\nplaced at about seventy living and 200 extinct.\nLister (1638-1712), in his HistorhB Conchyliorum and other works, showed that he knew the\nAmerican oyster, Ostrea vwginiana.\nLinmeus or Linne (1707-1778), who introduced the binomial method of naming animals, in\nhis great work, Systema Naturre, running through twelve editions in his own time and a couple\nsince, placed Pecten, Lima, Malleus, Vulsella, Plicatula, and Perna among the oysters. Of the\ntrue oysters he describes Ostrea folium, Ostrea orbicularis, Ostrea edulis.\nLamarck (1744-1829), in his Historie Naturelle des Animaux sans vertebres, gave brief\ndescriptions of fifty-three living and eighty-two fossil species. He referred eleven living to\nAmerica: 0. borealis, brasiliana, scabra, rostralis, virginica, canadensis, rufa, margaritacea,\nrubella, limacella, and plicatula, of which three are of interest here as occurring on the Atlantic\nCoast of Canada and the United States and transplanted to the Pacific Coast\u2014viz., 0. virginica,\ncanadensis, and borealis.\nSome authors recognize 0. lacerans, rufa, frons, equestris, folium, triangularis, cristata, and\nparasitica, from farther south along the United States Coast and the West Indies, while others\nare of the opinion that there is perhaps but one species from the Bay of Chaleur to at least the\nGulf of Mexico. \u25a06 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 143\nCarpenter (1820-1877), in his Catalogue of the Reigen Collection of Mazatlan Mollusca in\nthe British Museum, 1855-7, and in his Report of the Present State of our Knowledge with regard\nto the Mollusca of the West Coast of North America, Report of the British Association, 1856\n(London, 1857), and in his Supplementary Report, 1863 (1864), describes, discusses, or mentions\nO. columMensis, O. conchaphila (with a variety palmula), O. amara, O. lurida (with varieties\nlaticaudata, rufoides, expansa), and O. iridescens ( = 0. prismatica), from the western coast of\nNorth America, and was of opinion the 0. virginica, and maybe other species from the Gulf\nof Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, had in some earlier time been able to cross the Isthmus of\nPanama.\nFew of the species mentioned are sufficiently well known to warrant any final conclusion,\nbut what is known of them points to the view that the number is overestimated, many so-called\nspecies having been described upon insufficient superficial differences brought about by the\nexternal physical conditions of their environment. The first to become well known was, of\ncourse, the common oyster of Europe (0. edulis, L.). Then followed the common oyster of the\nAtlantic Coast of the United States and Canada (O. virginiana, Lister = 0. virginica, Gmelin),\nand finally the common oyster of the Pacific Coast of the United States and Canada (0. lurida,\nCarpenter). A few other species such as the Portuguese oyster (O. angulata) and a Japanese\noyster (0. eucullata) are partially known morphologically, but not embryologically. Even the\ncommon European oyster is not nearly so well known in its complete life-history as either, of\nour Canadian species. Some of the other species are represented by few specimens, in part\ncollected nobody knows how, nobody knows where, by nobody knows whom, without regard to\nage or maturity or whether they were fair samples, and distinguished entirely by their external\nappearances.\nWhen we think of the haphazard, isolated, and disconnected manner in which fossils are\nfound; of the way in which older naturalists obtained specimens from travellers, curiosity-shops,\ntrading; of the tendency to procure odd, abnormal, or distorted individuals; of the lack of\nzoological training of the collectors; and of the frequency with which specimens from different\nregions were mixed before identified, it is not surprising that many species and numerous\nsynonyms have come into the literature.\nOn the other hand, when a present-day zoologist walks over one of our extensive natural\nor artificial oyster-beds or looks over the great shipments that pass into commerce, he is struck\nwith the variability of the genus and its species, and the apparent influence of surrounding\nconditions upon rate and character of growth and consequently upon the superficial appearance\nof the oysters. An experienced man can often tell at a glance what bed a given sample of\noysters came from.\nWhere oysters have grown under favourable conditions of depth, salinity, and temperature\nof water; of abundance of suitable food; on rather hard bottom; unhampered by pressure of\nrocks, stones, barnacles, or shells; not crowded by contact and competition -with other living\noysters; free from accident from ice, rolling stones, bites of animals, or other injurious circumstances, they are then likely to be of good size, deep and compact, normally and regularly shaped,\nwith a somewhat smooth, hard, bright shell, having even rings of growth, and altogether\npresenting a uniform and fine sample.\nWhen oysters have grown under conditions that are unfavourable in this or that particular,\nthey are modified accordingly, becoming stunted, thin, long, irregular, curved, twisted, warped,\nmalformed, disproportioned, rough - surfaced, sharp - edged, plicated, ribbed, spined, grooved,\nscalloped, or otherwise presenting a mixed and poor sample.\nIn sorting over great numbers of oysters it is possible to pick out specimens of very different\nsuperficial appearance, hut no more different species than are the tall and short, slim and stout,\nthin and fat, light and dark, erect and stooped, well-formed and crippled or disfigured members\nof even the same families of our own race.\nThe practice of collecting birds, butterflies, shells, etc., for diversion has long appealed to\nmen employed in confined and strenuous occupations, as well as to men of leisure, educated\nperhaps in some other lines, but in no sense qualified as judges of. the objects collected. The\nhardness and durability of shells stamp them as especially favourable for collecting, preserving,\nand transporting, and their differences in size, shape, colour, and surface markings render them\ninteresting objects for exhibition collections, as is shown in natural history, college, and university\nmuseums.    But conchology is a very superficial department of zoology, and the conchologist who S 144 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nknows nothing of anatomy, physiology, cecology, and embryology is scarcely the proper person\nto decide the difficult question of what constitutes a species.\nIn our museum collections oysters are generally poorly represented. I know museums\nwithout a single specimen. Even the Carpenter collection of shells in the Redpath Museum\nof McGill University, while it includes a number of oysters of various reputed species from\ndifferent districts, has not a good, normal, and representative sample set up of either our\neastern or our western species. It has two poor specimens of the short variety of Ostrea\nvirginiana (viz., 0. borealis), and two of the long variety (viz., O. canadensis), unlabelled,\nfrom the Gulf of St. Lawrence, contributed by Dawson. Nowadays, of course, one has but to\ngo to a fish-store, meat-market, restaurant, or hotel to see oysters fresh from the coast, but in\nCarpenter's time oysters had not yet come into prominence as an article of food in this country.\nCarpenter had enough shells to make up four remarkably fine collections. One is exhibited in\nthe Redpath Museum, the collection he regarded as richest in varieties. A second collection\nis preserved in the British Museum. A third went to the Field Museum in Chicago. The fourth\nis stored in the Redpath Museum. The collections are not exact duplicates. Chitons and\nGastropods appear especially well represented, but Bivalves and Cephalopods are also abundant.\nThere is a small, more typically Canadian collection, by Dawson, from the Gulf of St.\nLawrence, with one fairly good representative of our eastern oyster from Pictou, N.S.\nAnother collection presented by Carpenter, the Reigen Collection of Mazatlan Shells,\nsupplements his own with regard to western species. Carpenter made five collections from\nthe Mazatlan shells, the other four going to the British Museum, the Smithsonian Institution,\nHavard University, and the State of New York.\nOstrea virginiana had been known by Lister, Linnaeus, Gmelin, Lamarck, Turton, Favanne,\nBorn, Chemnitz, Dillwyn, Sowerby, Gray, Hanley, Woodward, and others, before Adams, Conrad,\nTryon, Gould, Binney, DeKay, Say, Stearns, Stimpson, Verrill, Dall, Dawson, Whiteaves, and\nothers up to the present time interested themselves in it in a faunistic manner. It has been\ndescribed, figured, and redescribed many times, the descriptions varying according to the specimens to hand and the points selected or neglected. The older descriptions are all too brief and\ndo not sufficiently distinguish one species from another. This has been most apparent in later\ntimes, as new species and fresh information have been added.\nThree of Lamarck's species are characterized thus:\u2014\nOstrea virginica, Gmel. Huitre etroite. O. testa, augusta, subresta, crassa, lamellosS.;\nvalva superiore planulata.    Habite les cStes de Virginie.    162 mm., etc.\nOstrea canadensis, Lam. Huitre latescente. O. testa, elongata, subcurva, sursum latescente,\nlamellosa, crassissima; valva superiore infernd convexa. Habite la merdu Canada, a la entree\ndu Fleuve S. Laurent, et pres de New York.    200 mm., etc.\nOstrea borealis, Lam. Huitre de New York. O. testa, oblongo-ovata, albida; membranis\nimbricatis, undulatis;   valva superiore convexiuscula.    Habit pres de New York.    75 mm., etc.\nFrom this it will be apparent that they are not sufficiently delimited. The first two are of\nthe same general shape\u2014viz., long and narrowT\u2014and it is impossible to separate them on slight\ndifferences of length, breadth, thickness, curvature, or the flatness or convexity of the upper\nvalve.    It appears that:\u2014\nThe Virginian species is long, straight, narrow, edges nearly parallel, valves shallow, upper\nvalve depressed, 2 to 6 inches long and half as broad.\nThe Canadian species, although very near to the former, is to he distinguished as larger,\nlonger, slightly curved, broader (especially towards the posterior end as the animal grows),\nthicker, and more massive, 6 to 8 inches long, but may reach 12, and 3 to 4 wide.\nThe northern species (0. borealis), although resembling 0. virginica, is more like 0. edulis,\nbut distinct from both; young ovate-oblong, old elongate (but shorter and broader than the\nothers), dilated and rounded at posterior end, somewhat incurved, massive and rough, lower\nvalve with coarse radiating folds or spiny ribs, convex, edge entire or waved, 2 to 6 inches long\nby 2 to 5 wide.\nLater authors have generally united 0. virginica and canadensis, while some have continued\nto regard O. borealis as distinct. Oyster-fishermen are accustomed to speak of a long variety\nand of a short or round variety. Both occur on the same beds. Where oysters grow in bunches\nthey are prone to become long and narrow in order to keep apart as much as possible and to\ncarry the open ends away from the substratum.   These sticking in or lying on mud also incline 6 Geo. 5 Native Oy-ster of British Columbia. S 145\nto lengthen with a view to keeping the gape above depositing sediment. They have been known\nto reach a length of 1% feet. A young oyster is broader in proportion to its length than an\nold one.\nThe Caraquette oyster (1914 Report, Plate IV., Fig. 21) is more constantly divergent from\nO. virginica (V., 22) than either O. canadensis or O. borealis (IV., 20). It never reaches a large\nsize, and is generally slightly curved towards the dorsal edge, broadens gradually backwards, has\na deep, thick, heavy, hard, stony shell, and can (except in young specimens) be recognized at a\nglance. If any variety deserves to be regarded as a distinct species it certainly is this one.\nIn 1909 I took Caraquette oysters to Malpeque and crossed eggs from one with sperms from the\nother, and conversely, and in both cases raised up larva? to the usual size for cultural experiments.\nThis proves (if anything proves) that the two oysters are of the same species. In the same way\nI have sometimes used long and short oysters for fertilization experiments. They are not\ndifferent species; they are form varieties of the same species. Variations in size, shape, surface,\ncolour, as well as differences in age, are capable of bringing about considerable superficial\ndifferences in appearance of oysters as of other animals, which we wbuld not think of regarding\nas different species in consequence. Young oysters in great numbers on hard bottom at low\ntide at Ram Island Point, Malpeque Bay, P.E.I. (The Canadian Oyster, Ottawa, 1913, Plates\nIII., IV., figs, at bottom), present a very different sample from the large oysters dredged up or\ntonged up from the Curtain Island beds (similar to 1914, IV. and V., 22) a short distance away,\nand yet most of these oysters have developed from spawn drifted from the large oysters as the\ntide swept down the bay.\nOysters brought to Montreal markets, or shipped to the culturists of British Columbia, by\ncar-loads from the great beds of the United States, show the same kinds of variations as on our\nown beds.\nExtreme varieties at first sight look quite distinct. But as intermediate forms are filled\nin the differences gradually vanish. It is possible to select series leading from small young\noysters up to the extremes of length and breadth and surface. On large oysters one can make\nout by the rings of growth the shapes of the individual at different periods of its life. These\nshapes correspond with the forms of younger individuals. In tracing backwards differences\nvanish. Small spats are more alike than grown oysters. Larvae of the same age are identical,\nwhether destined to become the same or different form varieties.\nThe southern species, w7hether virtual or apparent, are of less interest to us. We need\nmore information with regard to their abundance, full size, constancy of form, habitat, etc.\nIt is perhaps safe to say that 0. laeerans, Han., and 0. rufa, Lam., are small-sized 0. virginiana,\nwith the purple muscle-scar and other characters of the same. O. frons, Lin., is a peculiarly\nmodified form, perhaps in adaptation to its habitat on stalks of Gorgomas, being narrow with\nstrong radial folds that interlock at the margins. O. equestris, Say, was taken by Hanley to\nbe the young of O. frons. O. folium, Lin., also has interlocking marginal folds. O. triangularis,\nHolmes;   O. cristata, Born;   and O. parasitica, Gmel., are doubtful.\nOstrea lurida, Carpenter, the name by which our western oyster has come to be known,\noccupies a somewhat similar position on the Pacific Coast to what O. virginiana does on the\nAtlantic. It has a broad distribution and a number of varieties. The name was given by\nCarpenter (1S50). After reviewing the collections of Dombey, Humboldt, Eschscholtz, Cuming,\nNuttal, D'Orbigny, Reigen, Adams, and others, for all the Mollusca collected from Alaska to\nPeru, and after determining and classifying the shells collected by Reigen at Mazatlan, on the\nCoast of Mexico opposite the mouth of the Gulf of California, he ventured to add new species\nto those previously recognized. To the oyster he contributed the specific names 0. lurida (with\nvarieties laticaudata, rufoides or rufa, and expansa), O. conchaphila (with variety palmula),\nand 0. amara.\nIn the Carpenter collection there are specimens of 0. lurida, pamula, rufa, and prismatica\nfrom California, and of O. megodon from Acapulco and Peru, as well as a single large orbicular\noyster, unnamed, but marked \" Pacific Is.\" It agrees very well with descriptions of O. denti-\neulata, Lam., from the Cape of Good Hope, and doubtless does not belong to our coast.\nIn the stored collection there are from the West Coast O. lurida (with its three varieties),\nO. conchaphila (with its variety), 0. panamensis, 0. amara, 0. prismatica, 0. virginiana, and\nO. parasitica.\n10 S 146 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nIn the Mazatlan shells there are O. lurida (with its three varieties), O. conchaphila (with\nits variety), 0. columbiensis, O. amara, 0. iridescens, and O. virginina fun.\nOf these, 0. prismatica, Gray ( = O. iridescens, Gray; O. spathulata and margaritacea,\nLam.; cequatorialis jun. and puelchana, D'Orb.), from its characteristic large size and shape,\nis doubtless a distinct species from the Gulf of California. O. megodon, Hani. ( = 0. gallus,\nValenc), from Acapulco and Peru, possesses such exaggerated characters in its broad radial\nfolds interlocking at the margin that it also is very likely distinct. 0. virginica, Gmel.;\n0. parasitica, Gmel. ( = O. arborea, Chem.) ; and O. rufa, Gld., are doubtful. This narrows us\ndown to the Carpenter group, and in this connection it may be interesting to know something\nof the \" type\" specimen, O. lurida. It was obtained from Cooper and came from Shoalwater\nBay, Wash. It is somewhat square, 2% x 2% inches, irregularly warped,.bears a scar as if\nhaving been attached to a round iron as of an anchor. The shell is thick and heavy, clean,\nsmooth, and of a dull greyish or drab, silky surface. I have seen millions of our western oysters,\nbut never one like this type. If we are to admit to the species only those oysters that conform\nto the type, then we will be bound to acknowledge that the type specimen is perhaps the only\n0. lurida in existence, and all the tons upon tons of western oysters that pass into commerce\nbelong to some other species. If, however, we acknowledge the ability to vary extensively, as\nseen for the eastern oyster, then the type may be an irregular and deformed specimen of the\nspecies. In either case the type is not typical. What\" we want in a type is a fair representative\nof the masses. Strange individuals, oddities, curiosities, malformations, abnormalities, distortions, freaks, and the like, are interesting in relation to the physical conditions or other causes\nthat brought them about, but are of no use in setting forth the character of what is called a\nspecies. Carpenter's second collection here (in storage) has several good specimens, marked\n\" typical,\" that have no more resemblance to the type than this last has to the masses. It is\ninconceivable how this specimen came to be settled on as a type, unless out of some sense of\nindebtedness to Cooper, who doubtless gave him the specimen and whose name is on the card\naccompanying it.\nThe varieties rufoides, laticaudata, and expan-sa are hut variations from the regular form\nthat may be found on mud-fiats.\nO. conchaphila agrees with the variety that occurs on rocks and under flat stones. Its\nvariety palmula ( = 0. cumingiana, Dkr.) bears radial folds at the margins.\nO. columbiensis was named by Hanley (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1845, page 107) from Cuming's\nspecimens obtained on the coast of Columbia (United States of Colombia). The descriptions\nand the single specimen I have seen agree with the first specimens of O. lurida I found on the\nunder-sides of flat stones in Departure Bay, Vancouver Island. I am satisfied that 0. lurida,\nconchaphila, and columbiensis (with their varieties) are all one species, and that the latter name\nhas precedence.\nO. amara is a short, deep form with lower valve irregularly radiate and plicated at the\nmargin. O. panamensis is the name applied by Carpenter to Nos. 380a and 3Slb of Adams's\nshells from Panama. Both amara and panamensis are doubtful, the specimens and descriptions\nnot being satisfactory.\nAll this faunistic work needs to be done over again, on the spot, where common and normal\nindividuals may be selected and attention given to other matter than the mere superficial appearance of the dead shells. AVe are now well past the curiosity stage, when shells from different\nlands had their monetary value (from a few pence to as much as \u00a310), and were bought and\nsold in a similar manner to what the more useless old postage-stamps are at the present day.\nSome of the old conchologists must have pored over their shells for days, months, and even\nyears, trying to decide whether they belonged to this or that species or if they should be made\na new species. O. lurida, Carp., with its numerous varieties and synonyms, = O. edulis, Cooper\n= O. columbiensis, Hani.\nCarpenter was of the opinion (from Adams's work) that Atlantic species had at some time\nmade connection with the Pacific across the narrow isthmus between the Gulf of Darien and\nthe Bay of Panama, such that 0. virginiana may occur to the west of Central America, Mexico,\nand even Southern California. And it may have been so, but we need more accurate information\nthan is at present to hand to prove it.\nHaving considered in brief the species from equatorial America northward to California,\nwe are now in a position to judge that northward along California, Oregon, Washington, and 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 147\nBritish Columbia there is but one native species, with at least all the form-varieties that were\nformerly considered species (or their varieties). From the little, thin, white, smooth, scale-like\nvariety that clings closely by its whole left side to a rock or stone; to the small or large, more\nor less deeply-coloured, smooth or rough-surfaced, free variety of tidal flats; to the large,\nwhitish, thin-shelled variety of Blunden Lagoon; to the still larger, more corrugated variety of\nCampbell Island Lagoon, there is but one species, as shown by the histological structure, the size\nof the egg, and the enibryological development.\nThat this species is distinct from the eastern species is proved by comparison of average\nadult sizes of the two oysters, differences of structure, the contents of the reproduction organs,\nthe size of the egg, the different stage of development of the spawn, the size of the larva, and\nmany other particulars.\nDistribution.\nThe present distribution of the oyster does not depend solely upon its present physical\nconditions of existence, nor upon its anatomical organization and physiological capabilities, nor\nupon its ontogenetic development. It depends to a large extent upon its phylogenetic development ;   i.e., the past history of its race.\nGeological distribution (distribution in time) for the oyster goes back to the Lower Carboniferous era, from which time to the present innumerable generations have offered myriads of\nindividuals chances for dispersal in the seas in similar ways to what occur at the present day.\nWhite and Heilprin (Fourth Ann. Rep. U.S. Geo. Surv., 1SS2-83) enumerate more than 100\nspecies of fossil oysters from this continent alone. The oyster did not become plentiful until\nthe Oreaceous, when it reached the limit not only in numbers of individuals, but also in numbers\nof species and genera. Besides the genus Ostrea, the genera Exogyra and Gryphcea were\nIncluded in the family OstreUhe. In succeeding periods oysters were not only distributed along\nthe coasts of this continent, but a great brackish-water Laramie Sea, extending from Mexico\nto Canada, was inhabited by them.\nGeographical distribution (distribution in space) is confined to the seas of the torrid and\ntemperate zones\u2014the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indians Oceans. The North Atlantic, especially its\nextensions into Europe (Mediterranean, Adriatic, Black Sea, Bay of Biscay, English Channel,\nNorth Sea) and in America (Gulf of St. Lawrence, Gulf of Mexico), is the great oyster-producing\nocean of the world. The North Pacific from British Columbia to Panama on the east and from\nJapan to Australia in the west is relatively poorer, as is also and to a greater extent the Indian\nOcean. The oyster occurs in contiguity to all continents. Among the oyster-producing countries\nmay be mentioned Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal,\nItaly, Algeria, Senegambia, Canada, United States, Mexico, Central America, West Indies, Brazil,\nJapan, China, India, Java, New Holland, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and some others.\nThe United States from Cape Cod to the Gulf of Mexico form an almost continuous oyster\narea, with Chesapeake Bay as the centre and Baltimore the greatest oyster market in the world.\nThe western coast of the United States is much poorer in oysters, which occur, however, from\nPuget Sound to the Gulf of California.\nCanada from the Bay of Chaleur to the southern shore of Nova Scotia on the east and a\ngood part of British Columbia, including both sides of Vancouver Island, on the west, although\nInferior to the United States in point of production, is yet potentially rich in oysters.\nWhile all oysters have or have had free access to the oceans, yet they are and have been\nrestricted to certain parts. This limitation is due to both extrinsic and intrinsic conditions.\nExtrinsic conditions have to do with the interposition of such barriers as continents, islands,\npromontories, even rivers and lakes, as well as distance, depth, direction of currents, salinity,\ncoldness, and the character of the bottom or the absence of food. Intrinsic conditions are such\nas belong to the oyster itself, its organization and capabilities. Specialization of structure means\nspecialization of function (dependent upon structure), which again is associated with loss of\nability to perform other functions; i.e., loss of power of adaptation. When .the larva becomes\nfixed it loses its ability to lead a pelagic life and becomes littoral or bound to the shore. Here\nthere is greater variation in physical conditions, ranging almost from those of deep sea to those\nof exposure on a tidal beach. Along bluff, projecting capes, where the sea beats with resistless\nforce, the soft, loose earth is washed away; exposed rocks are weathered, corroded, and partly\ndissolved, leaving great fissures and chasms that eat deeper and deeper until masses are loosened S 148 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nand crash to the bottom, breaking into fragments. These again are rolled and ground against\none another until from the rocky promontory outwards there is every gradation between large\nangular or rounded boulders and pulverized sand. At such places oysters are not ordinarily\nfound. The smaller boulders, stones, gravel, and sand, that have had their corners worn off\nand become rounded, are sufficient indication that this is no place for living creatures. If any*\nexist it is in protected corners between rocks or under leaning slabs of stone.\nFarther around from such a point the rocky walls become lower and less precipitous; the\nforce of the waves less powerful; the depth diminishes; the water is warmer from contact with\nthe shore; the salinity is reduced by admixture with the water of rivulets. We pass from the-\nextreme of precipitous walls and crags, ceaseless motion and resistless force, grinding, groaning,\nand roaring, to the extreme of rest and quietness in a sheltered cove, where a forest rises from\nthe water's edge; a beach slants gradually towards the sea; the water is still, warm, and\nbrackish; the more or less sandy or muddy bottom may be covered with a soft fluffy ooze; the\nwater creeps listlessly up and down with the tides, flooding or exposing areas of flats.\nBetween these extremes there are all gradations, varying perhaps through gulfs, bays,,\nestuaries, coves, lagoons, and pools, gradations appreciable by ourselves, or distinguishable by\nscientific instruments, or recognizable only by the animal itself, which has been matured under-\nsuch conditions and hereditarily connected with progenitors for ages.\nSince oysters are not inhabitants of the deep sea, nor of exposed promontories, there are-\nbreaks in the continuity of oyster-distribution between habitable bays. If such a bay exists\non one side of a promontory, the chances are there will not be another on the other side for\nat least some distance, which increases the difficulties of the oyster in becoming distributed to\nfresh areas along the coast.\nLarge bays are in a measure similar to the ocean; it is only their more shallow borders\nor shores of islands that are adapted to the requirements of the oyster. Thus it comes about\nthat the general distribution consists of a much interrupted shallow-water fringe along the\nmeeting-line of sea and land, with a preference for bays and coves. These are protected from\nthe deep, cold, heavy water of the open ocean, with its irresistible breakers, by islands, capes,\nreefs, bars, or sand-dunes; the depth of the water is limited; the bottom is of definite character;\nthe salinity and temperature fall between certain extremes; there is food, admixture with fresh\nwater, and no great deposit of sediment.\nA review of the different stages of organization of the oyster from the egg to the adult will\nshow that there is but one stage when the animal is automatically locomotory\u2014viz., the stage\nof the larva. In the lifetime of the oyster the larva occupies a relatively brief period and swims\nonly short distances. Moreover, it has a very tender organization and cannot withstand transference to conditions much different from those under which it originates. The spat and the\nadult are capable of greater defence, but, on account of their complete lack of locomotory organs,\ntheir state of fixation, or their weight, their chances of dispersal are very small and must be\nleft to external mechanical agencies of more or less accidental nature. Thus, in proportion to\nwhich the oyster becomes specialized for life after a particular fashion, by just so much does,\nit become hampered in its ability to adapt itself to life in a different manner. The act of fixation,\nalthough doubtless of great advantage in saving the lives of multitudes of larvae, yets puts an\neffective check on succeeding attempts at dispersal. The act of spreading to new areas must\nbe chiefly performed d.uring the short period between spawning and spatting, and especially\nby movements of the water in which the eggs and larva; are suspended. Transference in mud\nclinging to birds' feet or attached to rolling shells can have but very limited effect. I have\noccasionally seen empty valves, that have dried out on the flats at low tide, lifted by the rising\nwater and carried away like miniature boats in tidal currents. Ice formed around oysters or\nshells at low tide may be lifted and floated away in a similar manner, transporting living oysters\nor spat-bearing shells with it. Transplanted Connecticut oysters from the flats in Boundary Bay-\nmay be found some miles up the Nicomekl River, where no oysters were ever planted.\nHabitat.\nThe western oyster occurs in shallow offshoots of the sea in two chief ways\u2014attached to\nshbmerged rocks, boulders, and stones, or free on beaches and flats. At first sight this distinction\nappears well made, but in reality the free oysters are either attached to gravel-stones, bits of 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 149\nshells, or other small objects, or have been attached and afterwards become loose. Those that\nare entirely free will nearly always show a scar in the shape of a hollow or otherwise recognizable\nsurface near the umbo of the left valve, bearing evidence not only of the former fixation, but\nthe nature of the object to which attached. The greatest number are fastened to oyster-shells,\nbut many have used clams, cockles, mussels, whelks, gravel, almost anything of a hard nature\nthat occurs. The most natural position for an oyster is to be fixed in such a manner that it\nis horizontal, with the deep valve below and the flatter valve above, serving somewhat as a lid.\nBoth fixation and horizontal position are and have been of advantage to the oyster, otherwise\nthey would not have arisen and been perpetuated, the former in holding the oyster above depositing sediment, shifting sand, or smothering mud, the latter in retaining a sufficient quantity of\nsea-water to support respiration and prevent desiccation during possible tidal periods of exposure.\nThe horizontal position, operating and repeated generation after generation for ages, is doubtless\nwhat has brought about the asymmetry or lobsidedness of the oyster\u2014viz., the greater development of the left over the right side and the basin-shape of the left valve and lid-like form of the\nright. Near relatives of the oyster that lead a free life are symmetrical, and the young of the\noyster up to a certain stage of the larva is itself symmetrical.\nBut oysters have to meet different circumstances, and it is not possible for all of the larvae\nto select the most favourable positions, or even retain them after they are selected. Where\nthere are more or less vertical rocks, or where the under-sides of supports have to be used, it\nbecomes difficult or impossible. A spat fixed vertically may grow away from the support and\nbecome for the most part horizontal, but in doing so it limits its area of attachment and is all\nthe more liable to become loosened by the solvent action of the water, alternate wetting and\ndrying, or be brushed away by drift. In falling to the bottom it becomes exposed to a different\nset of conditions. It may light on the wrong side, become overwhelmed and crushed or smothered\nby falling or rolling stones, gravel, sand, mud, or sediment, or be exposed to sun and air. A spat\nattached to the under-side of a leaning rock or supported stone is, of course, upside down with\nregard to gravitation, although right side up writh reference to its substratum, and is not taking\nadvantage of the basin-shape of its left valve. But it does not need this advantage, since, in\nsuch a shaded place, it is guarded against desiccation.\nOysters fixed to rocks are not plentiful because of the unfavourable location at the points\nof capes projecting towards deep, rough water. They are generally of small size with a comparatively large surface of attachment\u2014in many cases the whole outer surface of the left valve.\nAs the oyster grows it follows the surface of the rock; where this is flat the shell becomes flat,\nthin, broad, and regular in shape; it deepens into a hollow and turns over or away from a ridge,\noften curving dorsalwards. When growing in a confined space it takes the shape of the space at\nits disposal.\nOn beaches the oysters are fixed to shells, barnacles, gravel, or other objects, and as a rule\ndo not grow to a large size or occur in great abundance. While not exposed to such great forces\nas at rocky points, there is a certain amount of rolling of the smaller stones, gravel, and sand,\nrestricting the oysters to few places and small areas.\nMud-fiats produce by far the greatest numbers and the largest and finest oysters. This is\nfor the reason that the best conditions prevail there. Such flats occur in bays of considerable\nsize, but shallow, so that the upper end is sufficiently distant from the mouth to warrant a\ndegree of protection at high tide, and the bottom slants off gradually from the high-water mark,\nleaving smaller or larger areas of gravel, sand, or mud exposed at the time of lowT water. On\nlarge flats the bottom varies with the locality. Gravel is pretty well limited to spots where\nstrong currents have cleared away the lighter matter. Sand forms the great mass of the material\nof flats. Mud or sandy mud is broadly distributed from even the upper limits of the bay, where\ntidal movement is not very strong, down to hollows and even parts of channels. Black mud is\nlargely organic in composition, a good part having been formed from decaying seaweeds and the\nbodies of animals.\nEvery bay, even every cove, drains off fresh water in some way or other from the adjoining\nland. Whether by river, creek, ditch, or soakage; whether in the drought of summer or during\nthe freshets of spring; whether from lakes, springs, rain, or melting snow and ice, the water\nis carried down to mix with that of the sea. At high tide the meeting-place is some way above\nthe mouth of the river. At low tide, where there are exposed flats, the current follows a channel\nthrough the flats and first enters the salt water some distance down the bay.   With the falling S 150 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\ntide the fresh water at first overflows the flats and later is confined to the channel; with the\nrising tide the fresh water is at first blocked in the channel and is then raised and swept back\nover the flats. In deep water, as at the mouth of a bay, the heavy sea-water presses under the\nlighter surface, water, but where the bottom rises abruptly, off the edges of flats and along the\nsides of channels, the lower sea-water is directed upwards and mixes with the surface water.\nFarther up in a bay, where the water becomes shallower, the mixing of sea and fresh water is\nmore complete. During each tide the water of a bay varies in salinity, at one time towards\nsea-water, at another towards fresh water.\nAnother change effected in the tidal water of bays is the acquisition of warmth. Great areas\nof flats are exposed to the air and to the sun for several hours during each tide. In the warm\nseasons these become warmed, even heated, and in turn warm the rising water, which, as it\nebbs, carries off heat to the adjoining mass of sea-water. Repetition of the process twice a day\nsoon makes an appreciable difference.\nThe tidal flow, the bringing of lower water to the surface, the spreading and thinning-out\nover shallow places towards the head of the bay, waves, ripples, and other causes bring about\na certain amount of aeration of the water.\nExchange of water, alternation between Salter and fresher water, rise in temperature,\naeration of the water, exposure to air and sun, cannot fail to have effects on oysters, as well\nas on other animals and plants associated with them.\nAlong the sides of the channel open at intervals the mouths of narrow or broad sloughs,\nwhich begin shallow towards the margins of the bay and deepen as they approach the channel\nor body of bay-water at low tide. Down these flow currents during falling tide and up them\nat rising tide. At the lowest spring-tides they may he largely empty or reduced to narrow,\nshallow strips of drainage-water. At low neap tides they are broad and overflow considerable\nareas of grass-covered tide-flats. These are the best areas for the native oyster. It is along\nthem or in patches here and there that the native oyster was originally and is yet chiefly to be\nfound. The oysters are either covered with shallow water at low tide or exposed for only\nshort intervals, while the eel-grass acts as a strainer in keeping the water back and preventing\ncomplete drainage, or falls over and protects the oysters from direct heat of the sun.\nThe higher parts of flats are first to he exposed and last to be submerged. Where they are\nsandy, as they often are along the banks of the channels or on delta-like deposits at the mouths\nof rivers or of channels, the surface is of a more or less unstable nature, being to some extent\nshifted by movements of the water or even winds. During the time of low tide in warm weather\nthe surface sand may dry off and be drifted by the wind like snow in winter or surface sand of\ndeserts. At places sharp-edged overhanging banks are formed in this way, of which the edges\nkeep dropping over into the current and the sand carried to be deposited elsewhere. At rising\ntide dry sand-grains surrounded by a layer of air are floated up and carried away. Under\nshallow water, as at certain stages of falling and rising tide, the whole surface is thrown into\nripple-marks. Portions of the banks are being removed by currents, while other parts are being\nadded to. In some places secondary channels are being cut, and in time the whole area may be\ncompletely changed. This changeableness renders it unfit for habitation by oysters. In fact,\nsuch places are rarely tenanted by any animals, although some burrowing species of clams or\nworms or fluctuating starfish, snails, or nudibranchs may occasionally occur. The water as it\nebbs and flows above may be so laden with sediment as to interfere with respiratory and feeding\nprocesses. Even seaweeds \u25a0 can rarely find a footing in such places any more than on sandy\nbeaches, points, or bars.\nThe lower parts of flats are exposed to the air for shorter periods and covered with water\nfor longer period^. They generally are, and tend to become, of a different character from the\nhigher parts. Heavy elements.such as gravel are rarely to be found except towards the mouths\nof sloughs, where from the strength of the currents lighter matters have been washed away.\nSand predominates, but not the fine, light, clean, loose kind of the higher parts already referred\nto. The sand here is mixed with other elements that help to pack and harden it into a more\nresistant substratum. A certain amount of mud and clay is washed down by rivers or worn\naway from the borders of the bay. Broken-up and disintegrating shells are an important factor.\nSediment, ooze, and even chemical substances are deposited from the water. Decomposition of\nseaweeds, eel-grass, drift, the bodies of animals contribute to the formation of a black organic\nmud.    Bacteria, diatoms, algffi, infusoria, worms, starfish, Crustacea, whelks, clams, and other 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of Britispi Columbia. S 151\norganisms abound; and oysters find here more suitable physical conditions as well as a greater\nabundance of food. Black mud is an indication of the presence of food-matter. The comparatively quiet, shallow water of bays is not only an advantage to oysters, but to the diatoms\nthat form the bulk of their food. The sharp edges of eel-grasses are often studded with diatoms\nthat are continually breaking away and drifting in the water, to be gathered in as food by the\nrespiratory currents of oysters, spats, and larvae.\nThe areas between sloughs are not absolutely flat, but have their higher and lower spots,\nof which the former may dry off, while the latter retain shallow pools of water during the periods\nof low tides. In some of the pools there is eel-grass and sometimes clustered or scattered\noysters. The greater part of the intervening areas is composed of bare, firm sand. Even this\nis exposed to continuous, slow action on the part of local currents formed by the rising and\nfalling of the tidal water. Small events sometimes give rise to processes which effect great\nchanges in a few months or years. A softer spot in the sand, a clam-burrow, the track of a man,\nthe furrow left by the stranding of a boat, may originate a little whirl of water, a small current\nor an eddy, which will gradually clear its way and hollow out a new pool, a little slough, or a\ntributary channel.    Part of the main current may be diverged to a new course across the flats.\nEvery change of the surface is liable to interfere with smaller or larger groups of oysters,\nin undermining and allowing them to sink into the sand or mud, in silting them over and shutting\nthem off from access to the water, in rolling them into gutters that may be afterwards filled\nup, and in many other ways.\nThe great disadvantage of mud-flats is the absence of rocks, stones, or other hard bodies\nto serve as places of fixation for spats. This is largely overcome by dead shells of mussels,\ncockles, clams, and whelks, living on the surface or burrowing in the mud. Larvae from more\nor less distant oysters may be brought by the tides and somewhat accidentally secure a footing\non the shells. The first generation offers an increased surface for the next, and soon there are\nnot only broad surfaces for attachment, but an abundance of larvae produced on the spot. Each\nshell may become the nucleus of a bunch of oysters, which later are broken apart and scattered\nuntil there is formed a considerable bed of oysters where formerly there were none. The oysters\nin such bunches grow away from a small area of attachment and tend to become long and slim,\nbut after being separated fill out and form better samples.\nOyster banks and oyster reefs such as occur in the East, consisting of elevations, ridges, or\nbroad areas of dead oyster-shells of vast extent and several feet deep, with living oysters only\non the surface, are not found in the West. The shell of the western oyster is not sufficiently\ndurable, being not only much smaller and thinner but much softer than that of the eastern\noyster and more readily undergoing decomposition. In shell-heaps (kitchen middens) left by\nour Indians in many places along the coast there is an abundance of western clams, but relatively\nfew oysters.\nOf the oysters on a bed many are continually dying from old age, disease, or accidents.\nTheir places are being constantly taken by younger generations coming on in succession back\nthrough the stages of smaller and smaller oysters, spats, larvae, embryos, and eggs. The eggs\nare produced by the older oysters and spawning takes place where these oysters are living. The\nhabitat of the old oysters becomes the habitat for the developing young. The larvae lie on the\nbottom for part of the time, but are able to rise and swim for intervals, during which time,\npartly by their own efforts and partly by tides and currents, they may be transported to other\nplaces. The spats are fixed to solid bodies, where, unless they in some way become afterwards\nfreed, they remain the rest of their lives. All are subject to accidents, such as being overwhelmed\nin sand or mud. They all need water of a salinity and temperature neither too high nor too\nlow.    They all require food.\nTypical Localities.\nBoundary Bay, as a type of an oyster-bay, stands alone in comparison with the other\nlocalities along our coast in its larger size and extensive flats and sloughs. Its flats form a\nseries with the great sand-heads at the mouth of the Fraser River to the north, and to the\nsouth with the flats extending into Puget Sound in the State of Washington. The original\nstock of oysters in Boundary Bay was small and scattered, as can still be seen in those parts\nthat are not cultivated. Southward are several uyster areas, as at Samish, passing over to\nthe beds about Olympia at the head of Puget Sound. S 152 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nOyster Harbour (at Ladysmith), Nanoose Bay, and Malaspina Inlet (Okeover Arm) are\nexamples of narrower bays, with smaller areas restricted to beaches at their upper ends.\nVon Donop Creek (Cortes Island), the lagoons behind Blunden Harbour, and a lagoon on\nCampbell Island (near Bella Bella) furnish another type\u2014that of a shallow-water lagoon.\nIn travelling northward from Boundary Bay, first shallow-water flats soon fail and then\nshallow-water beaches become scarce. The coast assumes a bold and precipitous aspect, broken\nby numerous fiord-like indentations and presenting a general sameness of structure. Steep,\nrocky, high hanks, narrow channels, deep water, shady cliffs, mountains and forests, snow-clad\npeaks and glaciers, cold spring and alpine streams are not adapted to the requirements of the\noyster. The Strait of Georgia, protected by Vancouver Island, furnishes areas of flats and\nbeaches; Queen Charlotte Sound and the exposed waters of the open coast exhibit only isolated\ncases of special structural advantages such as lagoons. The oysters of the former adhere to\nthe common types, those of the latter tend towards peculiar variations.\nNatural Conditions of Existence.\nStarting out with the oyster as it is found in nature under the conditions of a broad\ndistribution and gradually narrowing down to the habitat of the individual with a view to\ndiscover its essential requirements, it becomes evident that, while in a limited sense the natural\nconditions of existence have to do with a small volume of the medium immediately surrounding\nthe living oyster, yet the conditions of that small quantity are not dependent upon itself alone,\nbut extend through a vast space to multitudes of objects outside.\nThe non-occurrence of the oyster on land, in fresh water, in the deep ocean, in polar seas,\ncoupled with the facts of its distribution in shallow water of equatorial and temperate seas,\nshows that it requires a special medium\u2014viz., the salt water of the ocean\u2014that it needs the -\nheat of at least a temperate climate, that it must have a more or less solid substratum upon\nwhich to rest, and as a fourth necessity must be mentioned food. These may be taken as chief\nof the factors that recur and interknit in a variety of ways throughout the climatic, physical,\nchemical, and biological environment of the oyster.\nSea-ivater is the natural and necessary medium for the oyster. It is the proper and the\nonly proper medium. It is the medium to which the oyster is habituated and to which it has\nbecome more and more adapted, not only since the oyster was an egg, but for countless generations, even before its ancestors could have been recognized as oysters. All its organs and\nactivities have been developed under the conditions of a salt-water medium. Fresh water would\nserve to bathe and keep its soft body from drying and clogging, could assume the proper\ntemperature, could bring oxygen to' and carry away carbon dioxide from its gills, might even\nsupply food. Yet if swimming larvae of the oyster be transferred from sea-water into fresh\nwater their activities cease on the instant, and their organs become fixed and rigid in the position\nof movement at which they happened to be when the transfer took place. Of all things taking\npart in the life of the oyster, sea-water is the most constantly and the most intimately concerned.\nAn oyster may be transferred from a tropical to a temperate climate, from the bay in which it\nhad its origin to another of somewhat different physical structure, and continue to live and\nthrive. But if placed in a body of fresh water, or in the air, or in sand, not to mention other\npossible media, it will soon die, and in its tenderest and more susceptible stages it will die\nsuddenly.\nHeat stands only second to sea-water in importance to the oyster. That this is so may be\njudged from the northerly and southerly distribution, which is confined to torrid and temperate\nzones, and, in fact, to the shallower and warmer portions of these. Adults could withstand\ngreater cold than that to which they are generally exposed, but they need warmth to develop\ntheir eggs and young, as well as for the production of abundant food. Too great a degree of\nheat or too great a degree of cold (which is but absence of heat) is fatal. Where oysters are\nliving at some depth below the surface, extremes of temperature cannot occur because of the\nprotective influence of the water above them, which does not readily or rapidly change. In very\nshallow water or when exposed to air the direct action of the sun or of frost can go beyond\nthe usual limits. The effect is observable in early summer, when numbers of oysters on flats\nsuccumb to the first warm spells of weather, and in winter when they are caught in frost\nor ice. More extensive mortality, although not so apparent, results from sudden changes of\ntemperature on larva? or other young stages of oysters. 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 15c\nIt is difficult to recognize the extent to which heat affects external conditions. It is not\nonly responsible for the temperature of the medium and the rapidity of the production of food,\nbut it is to be largely accredited with the state of fluidity of the sea-water, the solidity of the\nsubstratum, the movements of the water such as waves and tidal currents, and of the air such\nas winds, the precipitation of rain, the composition of the dissolved contents of the sea-water,\nand many other phenomena that profoundly affect the life of the oyster. It is the form of\nenergy equally potent in climatic, physical, chemical, or biological conditions. Weight, pressure,\nfriction, hardness, roughness, light, aeration, associates, enemies, competition, defence, etc.,\nexercises a subsidiary influence in the life of the oyster.\nA substratum of more or less solid consistence is necessary for the oyster. It cannot rest\non the surface of or remain suspended in sea-water. It has to lie on the bottom or be supported\non something solid. On the bottom it is subject to great dangers, more especially the deposit\nof sediment and the drifting of sand and mud, which might close around and bury it out of\naccess to sea-water and food, and stifle it for want of oxygen or crush it under the accumulating\nweight. Adult oysters have no means of extricating themselves from such a position or of\nmigrating to a different locality. Where there is no, or little, deposit or drift they may lie on\nsoft bottom and feed and grow satisfactorily. But the eggs and embryonic stages of a new\ngeneration would have little chance in such a place, since, because of their small size, they\nwould filter down among the particles of sand or mud and be crushed by the swaying movements\nbrought about by the overlying water. The larv\u00ab, however, are capable of rising and swimming\nfor short periods, and consequently have a chance of reaching solid bodies, such as scattered\ndead shells, gravel, stones, or rocks, on which they are more likely to remain safe. The fortunate\namong them succeed in fastening their shells to the solids, and as spats become supported for\na time at least above the area of deposit. In this position the spat may grow to an adult or it\nmay sooner or later become loosened and drop away free. In the latter case, because of the\n.support offered by its broad surface, it is now not so likely to sink into the soft bottom and lose\nits life.\nFood is required to promote the growth of the young and to sustain the life of the full-grown.\nAt first thought it may appear that the presence of food is the most important essential in the\nsurroundings of the oyster. But the oyster can do without food for a longer time than it can\nresist an adverse medium, the extremes of temperature, suffocation, or pressure. No one condition\nis of itself sufficient. Even two or three are not enough. Sea-water, warmth, substratum, nourishment, constitute the minimum of requirements for the continued life of the oyster. Adaptation\nto one carries with it a specialization to which the others have to become correlated. Sea-water\nas a medium, fixation as a mode of life, special temperature, all effect limitations upon the kind\nand quantity of food accessible to the oyster. Only those organisms can serve it for food that\ncan live in the same regions with the oyster and can be drawn by the respiratory current to its\n\u2022digestive organs.\nIt thus results that the great mass of the food of oysters consists of diatoms\u2014minute,\nmicroscopic, unicellular plants that float suspended in sea-water as a constituent of plankton\nor that fringe the edges of eel-grass or other weeds, from which they are continually breaking\naway and drifting freely in the water. Examination of eel-grass by means of a lens or microscope during the warm season will show the surface and especially the sharp edges thickly\nstudded with diatoms standing out in much the same way as a coat of hair. Fucus, Laminaria,\nand other seaweeds; the surface of rocks, stones, gravel, even mud; shells, Crustacea, tumicates,\nfishes, and other animals, all give attachment to diatoms that contribute to the supply of free\nforms suspended in the water. Desmids, filamentous algffi, and other minute species of plants,\ntogether with spores, seeds, and debris of larger species, furnish smaller quantities of food, as\nalso do protozoa, hydroids, bryozoa, helminths, copepods, eggs, and small young stages of many\nanimals.\nClimatic conditions affect the oyster directly or indirectly in a great number of ways. The\noceanic distribution of the oyster north and south of the equator depends primarily upon climate.\nThe temperature of the air is communicated to the surface water, which, if it is cooled, sinks,\nbecause of increased specific gravity, and mixes with deeper layers; if it is warmed, it is also\nmixed by wave or tidal movements until lower layers, and in shallow water the lowest, are\nchanged. Winds transfer warm air from a heated plain or cold air from snow-capped mountains.\nPrecipitation of rain, snow, sleet, or hail from the air into the water,  besides  a change of S 154 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\ntemperature, reduces the salinity, and on exposed flats may come into direct contact with larva?\nor other susceptible stages. Frost and ice in winter and extreme heat of the sun in summer\nproduce serious results. Fog, mist, humidity, intercept heat from the sun or reduce radiation\nfrom the earth.\nSeasonal changes, but especially the biennial changes which divide the year into a- cold\nand a warm season, bring about on the part of the oyster corresponding periods of growth or\nreproduction. In northern countries, where the seasons are sharply defined, there is restriction\nof the breeding to a short period. In countries where there is no extreme difference between\nthe cold and the warm season the breeding time of the oysters is spread over a longer period.\nPhysical conditions influencing the oyster are not confined to its immediate vicinity, but\nbegin with the air and the adjoining land and extend into the sea, giving character to its bed,\nand depth, movements, constitutents, and temperature to its water. The topography of the\nadjacent land is a fair indication of the physiography of the ocean-bed. Mountains harbour\nsnow, glaciers, springs, and precipitate fogs, rain, and hail. Cold air flows down their slopes\nas rivers do through their valleys, in both cases occasioning and giving direction to movements\nand changes of temperature, and carrying fresh water, sediment, calcium carbonate, or other\nmatters to the sea. Forests affect the temperature and composition of the air, which, in winds,\nstorms, waves, and currents, is in part mixed with the surface water and carried to the ocean.\nThe bed of the ocean is almost as irregular as the surface of the land, being raised into\nmountain-like ridges, reefs, cliffs, banks, or flats, with intervening plains, valleys, or channels,\nup and down which a great part of the movement of the water takes place. Local differences\nof the bottom occur, such as crags, boulders, stones, gravel, sand, mud, and ooze, and the water\nvaries from being thick with sediment to being clear and pure.\nMovements of the water, such as waves, river currents, tides, tidal currents, and ocean\ncurrents, mix surface water with air, with fresh water, and with sea-water from greater depths\nor different regions, and thus distribute suspended or dissolved contents or contained heat or\ncold. The water exercises a solvent and disintegrating action upon rocks, which are continually\ncrumbling on the surface and in part being carried to other places\u2014chiefly of a lower level.\nDepth affects the pressure, force of movements, light, specific gravity, temperature.\nThe physical states of water, and its changes on the one hand into ice and on the other\ninto vapour, reacts in a variety of ways, especially in shallow water, either indirectly through\nmodification of the bed or directly through contact or exposure.\nSalinity or saltiness is what primarily distinguishes sea-water from fresh water. The taste\nis due to the salts in solution, and more especially to common salt or what is commonly called\nsalt. Strictly speaking, the amount of salts in solution, not the number or kinds, is what\nconstitutes salinity. Their weight added to that of the water makes sea^water heavier than\nfresh water\u2014i.e., gives to it a higher specific gravity.*\nAt first thought sea-water may seem to be only water containing a limited amount of salt\nor sodium chloride, and it is not immediately apparent that water taken from the head of a\nhay, from the surface at the centre of the bay, from the bottom, from the mouth, or from a\ndistance outward in the ocean would present any difference either in contents or in physiological\neffect. At the heads and margins of bays there is an accession of fresh water from soakage,\nsprings, streams, creeks, or rivers. At such places the water may be quite fresh. Farther off\nthere is a little sea-water mixed with fresh water, rendering it brackish. Still farther outwards\nthe water is distinctly salty.\nOne way of finding the amount of dissolved salts in sea-water is to weigh equal volumes\nof fresh water and of sea-water. A quicker and more practicable way (especially when out to\nsea aboard a boat) is to use an hydrometer or salinometer. Either of these when floated in sea-\nwater will indicate its relative weight or specific gravity as compared with pure water. The\nspecific gravity of distilled water at 0\u00b0 C. at the sea-level is taken as the standard and is called 1.\nFresh water, as from rain, springs, wells, has a S.G. of 1, although there may be traces of mineral\n* The term density, sometimes erroneously used for specific gravity, has reference to the closeness\nof structure of a body. Cold causes shrinkage of volume and, as there is the same amount of matter\nin less space, increase of density. Volume for volume, the body weighs heavier\u2014i.e., has a higher specific\ngravity. Pressure does the same, but, on account of the great incompressibility of water, especially at the\nmoderate depths where oysters live, there is scarcely any change from this cause. The Increased specific\ngravity of sea-water over fresh water is due to the salts dissolved in it\u2014i.e., its salinity. The figures representing specific gravity enable the salinity to be recognized at once. 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 155\nor other matter from the land, from the air, or from decomposing or living organisms. Sea-water\nin the open sea a few miles from shore has a S.G. of about 1.024. Between the head of a bay\nwhere fresh water enters and the open sea there may be all degrees of S.G. from 1.000 to 1.024.\nThis means that in the first case 1,000 cubic centimetres (or 1,000 grams) of the fresh water\ncontain no salt; in the second case 1,000 cc. (or 1,024 grams) of the sea-water contain 24 grams\nof dissolved salts, constituting its salinity.\nAs the specific gravity of a sample of water depends upon the place at which it is taken, so\nalso it depends upon the time or rather the state of the tide. During ebb-tide the fresh-water\naccessions follow on the surface of and behind the receding water down to the low-water mark.\nDuring rising tide the heavy salt water from outside is brought up to the high-water mark,\ncarrying with it, of course, some of the fresh water, which, because of the flow, is pretty uniformly\nmixed with the sea-water.\nSimilarly, towards the centre or mouth of a deep bay or still farther outwards, the surface\nwater from admixture with the lighter fresh water is of a less specific gravity\u2014i.e., contains\nless salt than the heavy salt water underneath. In the vicinity of a large river even the latter\nmay be somewhat reduced in salinity. Extremes are formed by the estuary of a large river in\none case and a deep-water bay with little or no fresh water supply in the other.\nRain adds directly to the fresh-water supply of a bay and indirectly through the rivers or\nother drainage from the land. A heavy fall of snow through the winter makes a difference in\nthe supply of fresh water during the next spring and summer. In mountainous regions a great\nquantity of snow on the neighbouring peaks may keep up a constant supply of drainage-water\nall through the summer. Glaciers and springs in like manner make their contributions. On\nthe other hand, tidal currents, even high winds, may bring up greater quantities of outer sea-\nwater than usual.\nIt will be evident that for purposes of comparison between different years, different months.\nor other times, it is important to take readings of specific gravity under similar conditions as to\nplace and state of tide. Over the oyster-beds out in the bay at high tide of May 10th, 1913,\nand May 11th, 1915, the S.G. was the same, 1.021 On May 22nd the figures were 1.020 and\n1.0215 for the same two years. On June 3rd, 1913, and June 4th, 1915, they were 1.017 and\n1.0215 ; and on July 14th, 1913, the S.G. went down to 1.011, while on July 17th, 1915, it was\nup to 1.0205. The main cause for the differences is to be found in the facts that the mountains\nin sight from the bay bore white caps of deep snow in the former summer, while in the latter\nthe snow was very thin with dark streaks of land showing through. In the one case the rivers\nwere flooded; in the other they were low. In the first year water of high S.G. had to be sought\noutwards in the bay; in the second it came right up to the banks and even extended into the\nrivers. In 1913 the S.G. of all my surface readings fluctuated between 1.011 and 1.0215; in\n1915 between 1.016 and 1.0225. In the latter year the difference between a high tide and the\nsucceeding low tide only varied about 0.001 to 0.002 in S.G., showing what a small amount of\nfresh water made its way into the bay. Nevertheless, that there was, even in this dry summer,\na continuous difference in the salinity of surface and deep water may be shown by the following\nobservation: On June 15th, 1915, in 20 fathoms of water off the mouth of the bay, the surface\nwater had a S.G. of 1.020, and the bottom water a S.G. of 1.0235. The bottom water was brought\nup for examination by a Negretti and Zambra deep-sea water-bottle.\nThe temperature of sea-water depends upon a great number of conditions besides the sun's\nheat and the latitude. In the open ocean there are few causes for modification of the direct\naction between sun and water and the changes are small and gradual. Where sea and land meet\nthere are many causes for modification, and the changes are greater, more frequent, and more\nrapid of development. Most of these causes are to be found in the atmosphere covering both\nland and sea, the physiography of the contiguous land, the depth and form of the ocean-bed,\nand the physical properties of water itself.\nSea-water is coldest in midwinter and warmest in midsummer. Inshore becomes warmer\nthan offshore water, which is due to the lower specific heat of land over that of water. Exposed\nto the same source of heat, land becomes warmed to a higher degree than water and in turn\nwarms the air and the water in contact with it. The flow of the air in winds and of the water\nin rivers carries heat to shore-waters, where tides and ocean currents distribute it.\nThe water of bays is most affected by the heat of summer. Exposed banks, beaches, and\nflats are heated by sun and air and then warm the inflowing tide-water, which, upon receding, :S 156 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nmixes with and warms the adjoining outer water. The change is little, but when repeated twice\na day it gradually effects an appreciable result. In the five months May-September the lowest\ntemperature I have recorded was 10.5\u00b0 C, taken in Grenville Channel July 29th, 1914. In the\nopen water of Boundary Bay July 28th, 1913, I have the reading 20\u00b0 C. (and for July 30th,\n1915, 19\u00b0 C). Neglecting the small variation due to difference of latitude, this may be taken\nas a comparison between an area exposed to the open sea and one protected therefrom by a\nlarge island, bringing the water into intimate contact with the land. Another comparison of\nthe same nature is afforded by observation of a temperature of 11\u00b0 C. off Shelter Bay, Queen\nCharlotte Sound, August 3rd, 1914, and of 17.5\u00b0 C. in Von Donop Creek, Cortes Island, two days\nlater. The first place is exposed to the open sea, while the latter is well protected behind\nVancouver Island. A still stronger proof is shown by comparison of temperatures at two points\nin the Strait of Georgia so close together that there is no question of a difference of latitude.\nBetween Galiano and Mayne Islands, August 11th, 1914, the water was 14\u00b0 C, whereas on the\n-day before in Horseshoe Bay it was 24\u00b0 C. These islands are situated in the deep, cold, tidal\nwater that enters through Juan de Fuca Strait, while the bay is shallow water, out of the way\nof the chief tidal current and well protected by land.\nThe land not only warms the incoming tidal water, but it warms the outgoing river-water.\nThat this Is true is well shown by observations, August 11th, 1914, while crossing the Strait of\nGeorgia from Mayne to Vancouver. As we have seen, the water at the first place was at 14\u00b0 C,\nbut as soon as the muddy water from the Fraser River was reached the temperature went up\nto 20\u00b0 C. At Boundary Bay similar observations have been made over and over again. On\nJune Sth, 1915, in the region of the salmon-traps off the mouth of the hay, the water was at\n15\u00b0 C, while under the Nicomekl bridge it was nearly 20\u00b0 C.\nThe heating effect of flats during a single tide may be shown hy the following: On August\n14th, 1915, the high-tide water in Boundary Bay was 20\u00b0 C. During the succeeding low tide\n\u25a0exposed flats extending far into the bay became warmed by the sun to such an extent that the\nwater in a shallow dyke rose to the temperature of 26.5\u00b0 C. before the next tide arrived. The\n\u25a0edge of the water in shallow bays and in lagoons often reaches 30\u00b0 C.\nWhere the water does not flow off and back again but simply falls and rises\u2014i.e., where\nthere is a considerable depth of water for mixture with that that is warmed\u2014the change is not\nso great. Under the bridge of the Nicomekl River, May 15th, 1915, high tide 17\u00b0 C, low tide\n19\u00b0 C.;  August 15th, high tide 20\u00b0., low tide 22\u00b0 C.\nA similar thing is observable in the channel of the Serpentine River, where it winds its way\nbetween flats at some distance from its high-water entrance into the bay. On July 9th, 1915, at\nlow tide, the temperature was 20\u00b0 C. One hour after low tide it was 21.5\u00b0 C. Two hours after\nlow tide it was 21\u00b0 C. Four hours after low tide it was 20\u00b0 C. There was no considerable or\nsudden change. The increase of temperature from 20\u00b0 to 21.5\u00b0 was due to the water in the\nchannel rising along warmer banks before the cold tidal water reached it.\nAs the water at the upper end of a bay is warmer and that at the mouth of the hay and\noutwards towards the broad ocean is colder, so surface water is warmer and deep water is\ncolder. On June 15th, 1915, between the inner and outer lines of salmon-traps off the mouth\nof Boundary Bay, in 20 fathoms sounding, the surface temperature was 17.5\u00b0 C. and the bottom\ntemperature was 12.5\u00b0 C. Near the same place, in 19 fathoms, July 13th, the readings were\n15.5 and 13, the low surface temperature being due to cloudy and rainy weather.\nAs might be suspected, surface water is most variable. This changes from place to place\nand from day to day, even from one time of day to another. A sunny or a cloudy day, a shower\nof rain, a wind, may cause considerable difference. The proximity of mountains, especially those\nthat are snow-capped or contain glaciers, cools the air and the drainage-water from them.\nEvaporation carries off heat. One cubic centimetre of water by volume (or 1 gram by\nweight) at or a little above 0\u00b0 C. absorbs 1 calorie of heat for a rise of 1\u00b0 C, or 100 calories\nup to the point of vaporization. It then absorbs 536 calories as it turns into vapour, without\neffecting any change in its temperature (latent heat of steam, latent heat of vaporization of\nwater). The greatest amount of heat is rendered latent when there is the greatest amount\nof evaporation\u2014i.e., in the warmest weather. If it were not carried off in this way it would\npass into and increase the temperature of the already warmed body of water left behind. In\nshallow water the temperature would rise to such a degree as to prove fatal to oysters and other\nliving organisms. 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 157\nFreezing liberates heat. One cubic centimetre of water while freezing into ice gives up\nSO calories of heat (latent heat of water, latent heat of fusion of ice). This tends to delay the\nprocess of freezing. Fresh water in cooling on the surface becomes of greater specific gravity\nand sinks until the whole mass is lowered to 4\u00b0 C. The surface water in further cooling becomes\nof less specific gravity (from formation of crystals of ice) and remains at the surface. When\na sheet of ice is formed at 0\u00b0 C. it protects the underlying water from further extreme.\nSea-water does not freeze at 0\u00b0 C. but at \u20141.9\u00b0 C. The water underneath becomes a little\ncolder than fresh water under similar circumstances. It is not cold, however, but freezing,\nwhich is injurious to oysters.\nIn all these cases water responds slowly to change; i.e., it requires the transfer of a great\ndeal of heat to effect any change in it. Water is thus a very stable substance in itself and acts\nas a great leveller of extremes. This is further exhibited in comparison with the sand of\nbeaches and flats. While 1 calorie will heat 1 gram of water 1\u00b0 C, it requires only about 0.16\ncalorie to do the same for 1 gram of sand. This is to say that where water and sand are\nexposed to the same heat of the sun on a hot summer day the sand assumes a higher temperature\nthan the water. Similarly, in shallow water the sun's rays to a great extent pass through the\nwater and are taken up by the underlying sand, which in turn gives up heat to the water.\nOysters exposed on sand in hot weather soon begin to gape. In thin layers of water they\nmay do the same, but in deeper layers they are protected by the tempering action of the water.\nThe warm season for the year 1913 was late in arriving; 1914 was earlier, and 1915 still\nearlier. Comparing the first and the last, it may be said that 1913 was a late season and 1915\nan early one. On May 10th, 1913, over the oyster-beds out in the bay, the temperature of the\nsurface water was 13\u00b0 C, whereas on May 11th, 1915, it was 17\u00b0 C. This single comparison is\nsupported by readings of temperatures at corresponding periods throughout the two seasons.\nAs we have also seen, the first was a season of low S.G. of bay-water; the latter one of high\nS.G. And these conditions had their effect upon the oysters. In 1913 the first oyster containing\nripe spawn was found May 21st, and the first larva? taken from the water June 6th. In 1914\nthe same occurred on May 7th and 22nd. In 1915, although observations were begun May 9th,\nit was too late to see the first spawn or even the first larva?\u2014there were larvae in the water at\nthe first collection of plankton.\nIn the latter year spats were found high up around the margins of the bay, on shells, stones,\ntimbers of wharf, even delicate seaweeds like Enteromorpha.\nChemical conditions have reference to the composition of natural sea-water, its constant\nand variable constituents, and its dilution with fresh water.\nThe efficiency of sea-water as a medium for the oyster is not due to the chemical constitution\nof water as such\u2014i.e., its molecular contents of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen held\ntogether by chemical affinity\u2014but is due rather to the physical properties of water as a fluid,\nand the chemical properties of the dissolved contents of the water.\nThe physical properties of sea-water, such as fluidity, specific gravity, incompressibility,\nstability, cohesion, adhesion, capillarity, specific heat, latent heat, etc., are of the utmost\nimportance in making it a suitable medium. The chemical properties of the salts in solution\nare what give to sea-water its special efficiency over fresh water.\nThe physical and chemical properties of water, along with its wide distribution, constitute\nit the great universal solvent. The oceans with their multiform extensions into the continents,\nmeeting the discharge of a more than equally varied network of surface and subterranean fresh\nwater, bring water into contact with all kinds of rocks, minerals, and soils, to which must be\nadded living and dead animal and vegetable matters, as well as air. Contact of the at first\nneutral solvent with more or less soluble substances transforms it into a weak chemical reagent,\nwith, in some cases, greater and more varied powers for dissolving. Fresh water eventually\nmakes its way to the sea with its small store of dissolved substances, and can only return to\nthe higher levels of the land through evaporation and transport by the air. But the vapour of\nwater does not carry back dissolved salts to the land. These accumulate and slowly increase\nthe salinity of the ocean. Because of the circulation of water from oceans to continents and\nback again, it would not be surprising if the ocean-water were found to contain at least traces\nof almost every known chemical element and most of the inorganic compounds. From plants\nand animals it must also contain many organic compounds. S 158 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\nThe most easily recognized constituent of sea-water is simply revealed by the taste\u2014that\nof common or table salt (sodium chloride) ; and it is due to this that sea-water is also called\nsalt water. If some sea-water be evaporated in a dish its salt may be procured solid, although\nnot in pure form. A little of the powder (or some of the original sea-water) placed on moist\nred litmus-paper will soon turn it blue, showing the presence also of an alkali. Other substances\nare obtained in the manufacture of salt from sea-water, in the ashes of burnt seaweeds, in the\ncrusts lining the boilers of sea-going steamers.\nBoth qualitative and quantitative chemical analyses of sea-water require very great care\nand the use of highly technical methods. The ordinary methods of qualitative analysis (as\ngiven, e.g., in Prescott and Johnson's Qualitative Chemical Analysis) do not at once show all\nthat the sea-water holds in solution. If to sea-water in a test-tube be added hydrochloric acid,\nthere is no precipitate and consequently no first-group metals present (silver, lead, mercury).\nHydrogen sulphide produces no precipitate\u2014no second-group metals (arsenic, antimony, tin,\ngold, platinum, molybdenum, mercury, lead, bismuth, copper, cadmium). With a drop of nitric\nacid, warmed, and then ammonium chloride and ammonium hydrate, there results no precipitate\n\u2014no third group (aluminium, chromium, iron). Hydrogen sulphide again gives no precipitate\u2014\nno fourth .group (cobalt, nickel, manganese, zinc). Ammonium hydrate and ammonium carbonate\ngive a white precipitate\u2014fifth-group metals (barium, strontium, calcium), that when filtered\noff leaves a filtrate in which sodium hydrogen phosphate gives a white precipitate (magnesium).\nThe first precipitate is dissolved in dilute acetic acid and divided into three portions; to the first\nis added potassium bichromate and no precipitate shown no barium; the second with calcium\nsulphate shown no strontium; the third with ammonium oxalate produces a white precipitate\nof calcium oxalate, proving the presence of calcium. A sixth group (potassium, sodium, lithium,\nCcCsium, rubidium, ammonium) is not precipitated by the above group-reagents. A little of the\nwhite powder obtained by the evaporation of sea-water when held in a Bunsen flame colours it\nespecially yellow (sodium). When viewed through a cobalt glass the flame appears violet\n(potassium). Through a spectroscope there are to be seen the calcium, sodium, and potassium\nlines.\nDuring the heat of summer the edges of lagoons, where there is a good deal of evaporation,\nshow deposits on grass, sticks, stones, earth, shells, etc., of a yellowish or reddish colour, suggesting the oxides of iron. A little of this shaken up with water in a test-tube gives a greenish\ncolour with potassium ferrocyanide, a deep blue with potassium ferricyanide, and a brownish\ncolour with potassium sulphoeyanide. A few drops of nitric acid added to these change the first\nto blue, the second remains blue, and third turns red, any one of which reactions proving the\npresence of iron. Sea-water itself, when similarly treated, first shows no change; with a drop\nof nitric acid and a little heat the first turns faint blue, the second is unchanged, the third turns\nred and then fades. Thus, with these extremely sensitive reagents, sea-water is shown to contain\niron, although not apparently precipitated in the third group. By very special methods sea-water\nhas been shown to contain traces of many other elements (chlorine, bromine, iodine, fluorine,\nphosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, sulphur, silicon, boron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, aluminium,\nbarium, strontium, arsenic, lithium, ca?sium, rubidium, gold).\nA few acid radicals may be shown. If to the powder left by evaporation of sea-water\nsulphuric acid be added there is effervescence\u2014i.e., liberation of gas. Moist blue litmus-paper\nheld over the gas is reddened. Fresh lime-water held as a drop in the end of a glass tube above\nthe effervescing mass is turned turbid. The gas is or contains carbon dioxide, the acid radical\nof carbonic acid. It also has a suffocating smell, gives a white precipitate in a drop of silver\nnitrate, and with vapour of ammonia produces a white cloud, proving that it also contains\nhydrochloric acid. A little of the powder dissolved in water (or some of the original sea-water)\nwith barium nitrate gives a white precipitate of barium sulphate, indicating that it contains\nsulphur troxide, the acid radical of sulphuric acid. These acid radicals combined with the\nformer metals or bases give such substances as sodium and magnesium chlorides; magnesium,\ncalcium, and potassium sulphates; and calcium carbonate, constituting the greater part of the\n.salts of sea-water. 6 Geo. 5 Native Oyster of British Columbia. S 159\nQuantitative analyses of sea-water have been made. From analysis of seventy-seven samples,\ntaken from different localities by the Challenger expedition, Dittmar arrived at an approximate\ncomposition of the salts in sea-water:\u2014\nSodium chloride    77.758\nMagnesium chloride   10.878\nMagnesium sulphate       4.737\nCalcium sulphate      3.600\nPotassium sulphate      2.465\nCalcium carbonate      0.345\nMagnesium bromide     0.217\n100.000\nIt is believed that this does not represent the actual conditions in the sea. Not more than\n10 per cent, of the dissolved salts exists as such compounds, and then in all possible combinations ;\nthe rest is dissociated as ions. Sea-water can hold only about half the quantity of calcium\ncarbonate given, the rest most likely existing as bicarbonate of calcium and ma.gnesium and\nhydrates of the same (causing the alkalinity). Calcium sulphate and calcium and magnesium\ncarbonates are near to saturation. Besides the great areas of calcareous rock in the sea-bottom,\nthere is fresh calcium carbonate formed from the calcium in the water and the carbon dioxide\nfrom the air, respiration and decomposition of animals. The carbonate is scarcely soluble, but\nin the presence of carbon dioxide (forming bicarbonate) is freely soluble. Iron from minerals\nis brought into solution in a similar manner.\nOxygen is taken up from the air above fresh and salt water, especially through the action\nof waves and currents. It is not soluble to so great an extent in sea-water as in fresh water.\nWarm water takes up less than cold. Pressure reduces the amount. It is in greatest quantity in\nsurface water. It is used up in the respiration of animals, but to a large extent restored by\nplants.\nCarbon dioxide is taken up from the air and is also present as carbonates. It is liberated\nin respiration of animals and absorbed in that of plants. It is of value to the oyster as a\nconstituent of the shell.\nThe halogens (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine) must be present in minute quantities in\nsea-water from the disintegration of seaweeds from which they are prepared commercially.\nThe contents of the sea-water are not constants\u2014they must vary in quality and quantity\nwith the locality, the character of the bottom, depth, temperature, pressure, rivers, nature of\nland drained, atmosphere, animals and plants, etc\nBiological conditions are perhaps more confined to the regions inhabited by the oyster than\nare climatic, physical, or chemical conditions. The living things with which the oyster has to\ndo as a general rule originate in, or in nearness to, the areas they inhabit. Other animals and\nplants occupy positions that might be taken by oysters, or compete with them for food, or\npollute the water in which the oyster lives, or wander back and forth as enemies against which\nthe oyster has to assume a state of defence.\nEnemies that prey directly upon oysters are not numerous, thanks to the protection afforded\nby the shells. Seals may pick up thin-shelled, loose oysters and crack the shells between their\njaws, swallowing soft parts and rejecting hard parts. Certain carnivorous or omnivorous fish,\nsuch as rays, flounders, cunners, sculpins, and even cods, may devour young oysters or spats,\nwhile little fish like herrings must swallow numbers of larva? and eggs. Crabs break the thin,\ngrowing edges of oyster-shells and suck out soft parts or expose them to attacks from other\nanimals. Whelks bore holes through shells and insert a long proboscis through which to suck\nthe flesh of the oyster. Starfish engulf small-sized oysters with their extruded stomachs, or by\na long, constant pull with their sucker-feet tire a large oyster until it gapes, when the starfish\nwill insert an arm and eventually its stomach. Certain worms bore channels in the shells of\noysters until the shells become weakened or softened. The boring-sponge perforates the shells\nuntil they resemble honey-comb. The oyster-crab does not occur in Canadian oysters. Parasitic\nworms do not occur. The only internal parasite found is a protozoon of the genus Trypanosoma.\nHydroids, bryozoa, tube annelids, barnacles, and the like, that merely take up their residence S 160 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1916\non the shells as they do on stones, are not parasites and do not seriously discommode the oyster.\nEggs, embryos, and larva? must be swallowed in great numbers by numerous species of animals\nthat feed, as the oyster does itself, by ciliary action.\nCompetition for place or food has a more far-reaching effect. Mussels, cockles, clams, and\nthe like that are closely associated with the oyster, on the same beds, may take up areas that\ncould otherwise be occupied by oysters. Because of their similar organization and habits they\nfeed in the same way and use the same kinds of food, reducing the amount within reach for\noysters. Competition among oysters themselves is still keener, many individuals being crowded\nout or starved to the advantage of others. But for the oyster as a species the death of\nindividuals is not all loss. Their empty shells are turned to account as points of fixation for\nnew generations.\nMarine plants exert considerable influence over the lives of oysters. Their roots harden\nand retain the substratum, their decay changes the nature of the bottom and gives rise to clouds\nof bacteria, and these supply nourishment for larger organisms that may in turn furnish food\nfor oysters. Eel-grass constitutes a submarine forest that attracts, offers hiding-places, breaks\nthe force of currents, supports food, gives attachment to other animals and plants, changes the\ncomposition of the salts in the water, absorbs carbon dioxide, and in many other ways touches\nthe actual life of the oyster. On exposed beaches and flats eel-grass holds back the drainage-\nwater and protects oysters from the direct heat of the sun. But of all the advantages of plants\nthe most important in the life of the oyster is in the supply of diatoms or other species that can\nserve as food. 6 Geo. 5 Life-history of the Pacific Coast Edible Crab. S 161\nCONTRIBUTIONS  TO  THE  LIFE-HISTORY  OF  THE PACIFIC  COAST\nEDIBLE   CRAB.\n(Cancer magister.)\n(No. 2.)\nBy F. W. Weymouth, Assistant Professor of Physiology,  Stanford University.\nCrab-fishing Grounds qf British Columbia.\nIn a previous report* reference has been made to the fisheries adjacent to Victoria, Nanaimo,\nand Vancouver, which were visited during the summer of 1914 and in part in 1915. The field-\nwork during the summer of 1915 was devoted chiefly to the grounds about Prince Rupert.\nPrince Rupert.\nThe local market at Prince Rupert is not extensive enough to support a large fishery, but\nat the time visited a considerable trade was growing up with the Interior. Especially during\nthe cooler months, when shipping conditions were most favourable, an increasing number of\ncrabs were being expressed East to Edmonton, Winnipeg, and other cities of Central Canada,\nand prospects seemed good for a further development of this trade.\nThe crabs now marketed at Prince Rupert come almost entirely from the immediate vicinity,\nthe harbour adjacent to the city, Metlakatla, Silver Creek Cove, Shawatlan, and many near-by\npoints being fished locally. The local conditions are quite diversified and the crabs seem to vary\ncorrespondingly. As they appeared in the market the crabs were much less uniform in size,\nfor instance, than those reaching Vancouver from Boundary Bay, for while they included some\nof the largest specimens so far examined in the Province, they also included many small ones.\nSimilarly, it was difficult to fix even approximately the dates for the breeding and moulting\nseasons, apparently because of local differences in these times.\nFishing has not yet been prosecuted very systematically and there has been no extensive\ndevelopment of gear. Only a few traps were seen, most of the fishing being carried on by means\nof hoop-nets of simple construction. Any considerable development of trap-fishing requires\naccessible grounds of reasonable extent, which must furnish shallow water, a sandy bottom,\nand enough protection from storms to prevent too extensive movement of the sand and consequent\nburying of the traps. The grounds just mentioned do not supply all these conditions, but others\na little farther removed will probably meet all requirements when the growth of the market\njustifies their development. Crabs are known to be present in abundance, for example, on the\nbar at the mouth of the Skeena and in Naden Harbour and adjacent points in the Queen Charlotte\nIslands. In fact, Naden Harbour has long been noted for the size, abundance, and quality of\nits crabs, though, on account of its position, commercial fishing has never developed there.\nAlthough crabs are found in many places on the coast of the Province, fishing-grounds other\nthan in the immediate vicinity of the cities already considered (Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver,\nand Prince Rupert) can hardly assume commercial importance for a considerable time, and will\nnot be discussed here.\nLarvae.\nThe Megalops, the last larval stage of the crab before the free-swimming life is given up for\nthe bottom habitat of the adult, were again obtained during the present summer. The dates on\nwhich Megalops have been observed during the last two years are: Sidney, Vancouver Island,\nJuly 22nd, 1914;   Boundary Bay, July 5th, 1915.\nMethods of measuring Crabs.\nRecently, in discussing the protective laws relating to crabs that were in force on the\nPacific Coast,f I pointed out the lack of uniformity in closed season and size limit, stating that\n* Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, page 128.\nt Trans.   Second Annual Meeting Pacific Fisheries Society, 1915.\n11 S 162\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nthe legal size was 7 inches in California, 6% inches in Washington, and 6 inches in Oregon and\nBritish Columbia. This does not, however, fully represent the lack of uniformity, as at least\nthree methods of measuring are followed on this coast.\nThe legal \" 7 inches \" in California is measured \" across the back,\" and by the present\ninterpretation is allowed to follow the curve of the shell, and the lateral teeth or \" horns \" are\nincluded. This thus corresponds to the greatest width of the animal obtained by stretching a\ntape across the back. In Washington and British Columbia the lateral teeth are included in\nthe legal measurement, but the distance measured is the shortest one between their tips, such\nas would be obtained by the use of calipers or dividers. Commercially, at least on Puget Sound,\na \" 6-inch crab \" is one which measures 6 inches in greatest width exclusive of the lateral teeth.\nIt will readily be seen that a \" 6-inch \" crab may vary considerably in size, depending upon\nwhere and how it is measured. As a step toward clarifying this confusion the following table\nis given. It is based on 112 males from Boundary Bay which were measured by the three\nmethods above described. It is highly probable that a series from another locality would show\naverage differences, depending upon the characteristic shape of the local variety. Bearing this\nin mind, as well as the fact that the figures are averages, and that individual variations of\nYs inch are common and of 14 inch not rare, the table may be found convenient for purposes of\ncomparison. It is to be hoped that in time the methods of measuring and the size limits may\nbecome uniform along the entire coast.\nTable 1.\u2014Comparison of Methods of measuring Crabs.\nCommercial.     B.C. Legal.     Calif. Legal.\nLegal size, British Columbia\t\n)> ,\u00bb \t\nLegal size, Washington and Oregon\nLegal size, California   \t\nInch.\n5%\n6\n6%\n6%\n7\niV-i\nInch.\n6\n6%\n6i\/2\n6%\n7%\n7%\nInch.\n6%\n6%\n6%\n7\n7%\n8%\nThe three figures of each horizontal line represent the results of applying the three methods\nto the same crab.    The figures marking the legal size are in black-faced type.\nRelation of Size to Weight.\nThe relation of size to weight is of interest from several points of view, and some data\nfor its establishment have been accumulated. In the case of the crab this relation is somewhat\ndifferent from that found in a salmon or other ordinary fish, where there is a continuous increase\nin both length and weight. The crab increases in size only at the moulting period, when, in a\nfew hours, it may display the entire season's growth, amounting to a fifth or sixth of its\nprevious width. Although at this time the growth in width is accompanied by a growth in\nweight, the two are not proportional, the increase in weight being much less than that in width.\nDuring the interval between moults, while the width remains unchanged, the weight gradually\nincreases until just before moulting practically the same relation is established as was present\nbefore the previous moult. As a consequence, crabs of a given size may vary widely in weight,\nso widely, in fact, that it may be detected merely by handling them, and the fishermen and\ndealers speak of \" light crabs \" and \" heavy crabs,\" the latter being, of course, most highly prized\nfor their food value. This variation is entirely aside from that which would occur provided\nthat all the crabs weighed had been taken exactly the same time after moulting.\nIt is also probable that crabs from different localities will show average differences in the\nrelation of weight to size due to differences in the shape which seem to characterize local races.\nThe following rough table is based on the same material as the preceding table; the crabs were\nweighed alive shortly after being taken from the water. The figures cannot be applied to cooked\ncrabs;   it is hoped that data on this question may be given in a later report. 6 Geo. 5 Life-history of the Pacific Coast Edible Crab. S 163\nTable 2\u2014Weight of Live Crabs.\nWeight in Pounds. Size in Inches.\n1%   6%-6%\n1%   6%-7%\n1%   6%-7%\n2   7 -7%\n2%   7%-7%\nIt will be noted that the variation shown is very large.    Figures for the larger sizes are\nnot available.    I have seen crabs weighing 3% lb.; dealers claim that 4 lb. is about the maximum. S 164\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1916\nPACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON 1915.\nCompiled from Figures furnished this Department by the B.C. Salmon Canneks' Association.\nDistricts and Canneries.\nSockeyes.\nRed\nSprings.\nWhite\nSprings.\nChums.\nPinks.\nCohoes.\nSteel-\nleads.\nGranu\nTotals\n(Cases).\nEraser River District\u2014\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons\t\nB.C. Canning Co., Ltd\t\nGreat West Packing Co., Ltd. ..\n35,006\n0,009\n2,462\n3,180\n3,134\n2,764\n3,145\n4,021\n13,023\n1,970\n5,071\n3,590\n1,701\n3,374    j\n2,090\n3,771\n805\n312\n1,179\n1,204\n1,231\n1,011\n1,548\n1,551\n\"52\n2,100\n20\n604\n7,840\n23,228\n921\n116\n348\n78\n121\n91\n' 1,309\n\"\u202225\n'\"523\n1,860\n5,392\n5\n65\n134\n3,388\n250\n263\n208\n284\n1,005\n5,532\n3,113\n3,565\n747\n1S4\n380\n18,919\n44,676\n9,890\n0,213\n3,529\n3,034\n4,405\n0,002\n0,408   \"\n10,339\n3,197\n6,525\n3,600\n3,405\n11,332\n9,750\n138,305\n6,926\n330\n2,476\n2,157\n1,374\n1,516\n323\n264\n9,505\n167\n2,809\n4,863\n1,194\n210\n9,400\n43,514\n21\nio\n91,321\n17,750\n15,199\n10,373\n9,130\n10,205\n10,765\nGosse-Millerd Can. Co., Ltd\t\nDefiance Packing Co., Ltd\t\nSt. Mutigo Canning Co., Ltd\t\nEagle Harbor Canning Co., Ltd..\nThe Graham Co. (Seott Can.)....\nJ. H. Todd & Sons (Esquimalt) ..\n13,246\n47,259\n5,334\n17,606\n17,718\n7,067\n10,227\n31,320\n91,130\n31\n320,519\nSkeena River District\u2014\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd...\nJ. H. Todd & Sons\t\n29,875\n18,692\n10,894\n10,894\n9,153\n6,307\n8,647\n16,247\n5,844\n116,553\n2,983\n4,090\n553\n730\n1,828\n1,062\n761\n1,426\n1,630\n3,iei\n112\n146\n2,350\n5,769\n30,696\n19,058\n11,000\n6,214\n8,286\n5,585\n8,780\n9,921\n6,808\n12,051\n4,155\n5,710\n3,262\n1,400\n1,036\n1,293\n1,706\n1,517\n898\n209\n378\n313\n76,50S\n50,036\n29,003\nB.C. Canning Co., Ltd \t\n21,508\n21,186\nSkeena River Com. Co., Ltd\t\nWallace Fisheries, Ltd\t\nCanadian  Fish & Cold Storage\nCo., Ltd\t\n13,990\n19,481\n29,300\n18,149\nTotals \t\n15,069\n204\n107,578\n835\n378\n1,598\n28\n44\n81\n2,964\n6,302\n11,611\n7,604\n9,362\n32,190\n516\n3,860\n2,739\n7,115\n2,006\n2,295\n5,300\n5,564\n1,798\n279,101\nRivers Islet District\u2014\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd. ...\nJ. H. Todd & Sons \t\n47,183\n15,697\n17,072\n17,7711\n16,296\n16,323\n167\n382\n203\n77\n193\n5J188\n199\n5,387\n48,701\n25,505\n21.60S\nKildala Packing Co., Ltd\t\n18,010\n16,417\n16,597\nTotals\t\n130,350\n1,022\n808\n1,750\n490\n5\n387\n281\n146,838\nNass River District\u2014\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd....\nKincoleth Packing Co., Ltd\t\nM. DesBrisay & Co\t\n8,852\n16,668\n8,727\n5,102\n39,349\n24,385\n252\n928\n8,500\n3,097\n46,166\n3,016\n1,380\n9,623\n133\n1,180\n733\n10\n10,333\n11,076\nlis\n19,068\n32,615\n22,127\n30,479\nTotals .   \t\n3,053\n2,503\n\"125\n'\"\u25a0253\n6,081\n49\n288\n15\n\"48\n9,302\n648\n34,879\n11,400\n12,702\n4,676\nii',is8\n765\n8,166\n13,036\n14,248\n230\n4,105\n83,626\n15,171\n113\nOutlying Districts\u2014\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd.\nKildala Packing Co., Ltd\t\nClayoquot Sound Can. Co., Ltd..\nQuathiaski Canning Co., Ltd\t\n''' i-20\n780\n10,292\n2,421\n700\n2,200\n7,069\n11,563\n1,685\n2,314\n1,825\n40,849\n11,378\n3,913\n964\n300\n10,474\n1,490\n2,108\n4,045\n4,988\n2,846\n0,400\niii\n\"5\n466\n50,506\n27,219\n9,628\n9,600\n30,338\n61,566\n13,290\n30,073\n31,298\n5,538\n1,180\n12,438\nGosse-Millerd Canning Co. (Bella\nBella)\t\nNanaimo Canning Co., Ltd\t\nTotals\t\n98,660\n120\n48,966\n985\n313,894\nGrand Totals\t\n476,042\n51,734\n6,370\n82,000\n367,352\n146,956\n2.S27\n1,133,381 6 Geo. 5\nPack of Puget Sound Salmon, 1915.\nS 165\nPacked by Districts previous Yeaks.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1907.\n1906.\n1905.\n1904.\n1903.\nFraser River....\nSkeena River...\nNass River\t\nRivers Inlet....\nOutlying\t\n328,390\n237,634\n94,890\n109,052\n341,078\n1,111,039\n732,059\n104,055\n68,096\n53,423\n336,268\n1,353,901\n173,92;\n254,258\n137,697\n71,102\n359,538\n801,344\n254,410\n65,684\n101,066\n226,461\n223,148\n222,035\n39,720\n129,398\n147,900\n762,201\n567,203\n140,739\n40,990\n91,014\n127,974\n967,920\n89,184\n209,177\n46,908\n75,090\n122,330\n542,689\n163,116\n159,255\n31,832\n94,064\n99,192\n240,486\n162,420\n32,534\n122,878\n71,142\n029,460\n877,136\n114,085\n32,725\n83,122\n60,392\n1,167,460\n128,903\n154,869\n19,085\n94,295\n68,745\n237,125\n98,669\n12,100\n69,390\n56,390\nTotals\n996,576\n948,965\n547,459\n465,894\n473,674\nESTIMATED PACK OF PUGET SOUND SALMON, SEASON 1915.\nFurnished the Department by Kelley-Clarke Co., Seattle.\nGrades.\nTails.\nFlats.\nHalves\n(8 doz. to case).\nTotal Cases.\n12,906\n114,105\n551,807\n406,888\n14,867\n28,100\n10,471\n2,033\n55,471\n59,692\n38,594\n27,502\n1,766\nS7,465\n180,799\n689,780\n410,687\nTotals\t\n1,085,706\n\u2022\n127,554\n1,268,731\nThe Red Spring pack, amounting- to 22,982 cases, we have included in Sockeye figures.\nPuget Sound Pinks r.un biennially.    Due again 1917.\nApproximate value 1915 Puget Sound pack, ^=4,510,261.40, based on average selling prices Sept. 1, 1915, to Feb. 21, 1916.\nComparative Packs of Puget Sound.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n140,529\n244,208\n1,038,130\n111,143\n1910.\n1909.\n1,005,120\n139,297\n365,156\n52,261\n1908.\n1907.    1   1906.\n1\n1905.\n1904.\nCohoes \t\nPug. S'd Pinks\nChums\t\n87,465\n180,799\n589,780\n410,687\n1,268,731\n857,374\n151,135\n909\n280,070\n789,488\n1,665,728\n49,150\n788,789\n50,176\n201,572\n149,977\n708\n63,132\n234,437\n154,077\n148,810\n162,228\n95,863\n51,186\n96,974\n111,611\n448,730\n51,840\n182,241\n98,206\n155,221\n837,122\n89,630\n71,490\n49,047\n1,047,295\n123,419\n106,856\n66,355\nTotals...\n2,553,843\n415,389\n1,534,016\n537,324\n1,561,824\n300,277\n709,155\n435,668\n286,630\nVICTORIA,  B.C. :\nPrinted by William H.  Cullin,  Printer  to  the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1916.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Legislative proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"J110.L5 S7","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"1916_V02_12_S1_S165","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0059591","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/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","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1915 WITH APPENDICES","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}