{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0226073":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"6e917288-b945-4561-bad6-8b4c7b1388c6","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, 1926.","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":"2016-02-29","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1928]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0226073\/source.json","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\nCOMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES\nFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST, 1926\nWITH APPENDICES\nPEINTED BY\nAUTHOEITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.\nVICTORIA,  B.C.:\n1'rinted by Charles F. Banfield, Printer to tbe King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1927.  To His Honour Robert Randolph Bkuce,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour :\nI beg to submit herewith the Report of the Provincial Fisheries Department for the year\nended December 31st, 1926, with Appendices.\nWILLIAM SLOAN,\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nProvincial Fisheries Department,\nCommissioner of Fisheries' Office,\nVictoria, British Columbia, December 30th, 1926. TABLE OF CONTENTS.\nFISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1926.\nPage:\nValue of Fisheries and Standing of Provinces  5\nSpecies and Value of Fish marketed  5\nProduction of Fish Oils and Meals .\"  6\nSalmon-pack of 1926  6\nSalmon-pack by Districts  7\nCondition of the Salmon-fishery of the Fraser River System _  8\nIncreased Drain on Pink and Chum Salmon -  8\nReports from Salmon-spawning Areas of British Columbia Waters  9\nThe Outlook for the Salmon Runs of 1927  10\nContribution to the Life-history of Sockeye Salmon :  10\nThe Salmon Investigation  14\nResults of Salmon-tagging in British Columbia \"Waters in 1925  15\nThe Halibut Investigation  27\nAPPENDICES.\nContribution to Life-history of Sockeye Salmon.    (No. 12.)\nBy Drs. W. A. and Lucy Clemens ...  2!)\nSpawning-beds or the Fraser River  58\nSpawning-beds of the Skeena River  02\nSpawning-beds of Rivers Inlet  65\nSpawning-beds of Smith Inlet :  68\nSpawning-beds of the Nass River  70\nPood Value of some British Columbia Fish  72\nThe Salmon-pack in Detaii  76\nSalmon-pack of the Province, 1911 to 1926, inclusive  79\nSockeye-salmon Pack, Fraser River Sxstem, 1911 to 1926, inclusive  82\nSockeye-salmon Pack of Province, by Districts, 1911 to 1926, inclusive  82: FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT\nFOR 1926.\nVALUE OF CANADIAN FISHERIES AND STANDING OF PROVINCES, 1925.\nThe value of the fishery products of Canada for the year 1925 totalled $47,926,802, a gain\nover 1924 of $3,392,567.\nDuring the year 1925 British Columbia produced fishery products of a value of $22,414,618,\nor 46 per cent, of Canada's total for that year. The value of the catch in 1925 exceeded that of\n1924 by $1,157,051.\nIn 1925 British Columbia again led all the Provinces, as she has done for many years, in\nthe value of her fishery products. Her output in 1925 exceeded in value that of Nova Scotia,\nthe second in rank, by $12,200,839, and her output exceeded that of all the other Provinces\ncombined by $7,100,884.\nThe capital employed in the fisheries of Canada in 1925 totalled $46,411,647, of which\n$21,674,5S4, or 46 per cent., was employed in British Columbia.\nThe persons engaged in the fisheries of Canada in 1925 totalled 69,478, of whom 17,382, or\n25 per cent., were engaged in British Columbia. Of those engaged in British Columbia, 9,944\nwere employed in catching and handling the catch and 7,438 in packing and fish-curing.\nIn 1925 British Columbia, with but 25 per cent, of the total persons engaged in the fisheries\nof Canada and but 46 per cent, of the capital employed, produced 46 per cent, of the value of\nthe fishery products of Canada.*\nThe following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of the fishery products\nof the Provinces of Canada for the years 1921 to 1925, inclusive:\u2014\nProvince.\n1921.\n1922.\n1923.\n1924.\n1925.\nBritish Columbia\t\nNova Scotia\t\nNew Brunswick\t\nOntario\t\nQuebec\t\nPrince Edward Island\nManitoba\t\nSaskatchewan\t\nAlberta\t\nYukon\t\nTotals\t\n$13,953,670\n9,778,623\n3,690.726\n3,065,042\n1,815,284\n924,529\n1,023,187\n243,018\n408,868\n$18,849,658\n10,209,25S\n4,685,660\n2,858,122\n2,089,414\n1,612,399\n908,816\n245,337\n331,239\n10,107\n$20,795\n8,448\n4,548.\n3,159:\n2,100,\n1,754.\n1,020,\n286,\n438\n11\n,914\n,385\n535\n427\n412\n980\n595\n643\n737\n917\n$34,931,935 j $41,S00,210 I $42,565,545\n$21,257,567\n8,777,251\n5,383,809\n3,557,587\n2,283,314\n1,201,772\n1,232,563\n482,492\n339,107\nIS,773\n$22,414,61S\n10,213,779\n4,798,589\n3,436,412\n3,044,919\n1,598,119\n1,466,939\n494,882\n458,504\n15,370\n$44,534,235 I $47,942,131\nTHE SPECIES AND VALUE OF PISH CAUGHT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nThe total value of each principal species of fish taken in British Columbia for the year\nended December 31st, 1925, is given in the following statement :\u2014\nSalmon  $14,973,S85\nHalibut    3,S91,S19\nHerring  1,717,985\nCod   264,036\nPilchards  182,911\nClams and quahaugs   161,764\nBlack cod  114,315\nCrabs   50,005\nSoles  36,404\nShrimps  .'  23,331\nCarried forward   $21,417,055\n* As this report goes to press the Commissioner is in receipt of a preliminary report on the fishery\nproducts of the Province for the year 1926, issued bv the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, B H Coats\nStatistician, from which the following data are taken : The value of the fishery products in 1926 totalled\n$27,367,109. It exceeded the previous high record of 1918 by $84,8S6. Of the total, salmon produced\n$18,776,762, or 69 per cent., halibut produced $4,068,868, and fish oils and meals $1,325,672. Capital\ninvested, $31,611,265.    Persons engaged, 20,213. E 6\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nThe Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia\u2014Continued.\nBrought forward   $21,417,055\nOysters    23,107\nFlounders, brill, plaice, etc  20,914\nRed cod, etc  18,025\nPerch   9,693\nSmelts   7,434\nSturgeon     5,604\nOctopus   5,056\nSkate  4,259\nOolaohans   2,147\nWhiting   1,048\nTrout   002\nBass   186\nWhales     309,608\nFish-oils, grayfish, etc  313,085\nFish-meals  202,854\nFish-fertilizer    20,825\nFur-seals  :  52,373\nMiscellaneous  143\nTotal   $22,414,618\nThe above statement shows that the salmon-fisheries of the Province in 1925 produced\n$14,973,885, or 66 per cent, of the total value of the fishery products.\nThe total amount of halibut landed was marketed for $3,891,819 and herring for $1,717,985.\nThe foregoing data are derived from the \" Fisheries Statistics of Canada,\" issued by the\nBureau of Statistics, Ottawa.\nTHE PRODUCTION OF FISH OILS AND MEALS.\nDuring the year the fish-reduction plants in the Province produced 2,402,242 imperial gallons\nof oil and 10,850 tons of fertilizer, as against 713,237 gallons of oil and 3,229 tons of meal in 1925.\nThere was a great increase in the production of pilchard oil and meal. The fifteen fish-reduction\nplants on the west coast of Vancouver Island\u2014many of which were operated for the first time\u2014\nproduced 1,89S,721 imperial gallons of oil and 7,948 tons of meal. During the months of July\nand August most of the plants were operated to capacity. Fishing was largely confined to\nestuary waters. The gear designed for operation in the open sea proved too light to handle\na catch in rough waters off the coast.\nSeveral new fish-reduction plants for the use. of pilchards will be established and be in\noperation next year.    It is anticipated that production will be materially increased in 1927.\nThe production of whale-oil in the Province in 1920 totalled 510,100 imperial gallons. But\ntwo whaling fishing stations were operated and they handled 269 whales, as against 351 in 1925.\nPACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON 1926.\nFraser\nEiver\nDistrict.\nSkeena\nEiver\nDistrict.\nBivers\nInlet\nDistrict.\nNass\nEiver\nDistrict.\nQueen\nCharlotte\nIslands\nDistrict.\nVancouver\nIsland\nDistrict.\nOutlying\nDistricts.\n*\nGrand\nTotal.\n85,6S9\n9,710\n3,073\n20,169\n13,736\n40\n21,783\n32,25'6\n88,495\n82,360\n13,377\n4,975\n2,242\n65,5S1\n66\n523\n96\n15,929\n4,'616\n751\n597\n708\n25,070\n3,952\n60'9\n661\n5,380\n3\n51,551\n86,113\n174,383\n61,\u00ab'75\n914\n1,523\n765\n29\n973\n43,631\n180,420\nISO,363\n337,012\nFancy Bed Springs\nStandard Springs\t\n32,635\n12,014\n24,530\n560\n19,145\n2,156\n754\n30,208\n210,081\n63,527\n11\n7,286\n12,815\n11,727\n375\n4,274\n50,815\n15.392\nCohoes\t\n3,716\n200,512\n168.319\n162,449\n773,012\n702,237\n274,951\n407,524\n\"98,105\n92,749\n373,815\n347,722\n470,324\n2,065,190\n* Including Smith Inlet. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 7\nThe data used here were furnished by the British Columbia Division, Canned Salmon Section\nof the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We have, however, credited the sockeye salmon\npacked at Esquimalt to the Fraser River District, because it consisted of sockeye seeking that\nwatershed to spawn. Likewise we have credited Rivers Inlet with the sockeye caught there and\npacked at Namu. In consequence the figures given differ from the association's statement and\nthose that are given in the valued \" Year-book \" of the Pacific Fisherman for 1926.\nTHE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE IN 1926.\nThe salmon-pack of the Province in 1926 totalled 2,065,190 cases, as against 1,719,282 cases\nin 1925, 1,745,313 cases in 1924, 1,341,677 cases in 1923, and 1,290,336 cases in 1922.\nThe pack of 1926 is the largest made in the Province. It exceeded the previous high record\nof 1924 by 319,877 cases.\nThe pack.of 1926 consisted of 337,012 cases of sockeye, 69,179 cases of springs, 162,449 cases\nof cohoes, 773,012 cases of pinks, and 702,237 cases of chums. The sockeye-pack was 55,506 cases\nless than in 1925. As in the two previous years, the bulk of the pack consisted of pinks and\nchum salmon. Their combined pack totalled 1,475,249 cases, a gain over that of the previous\nhigh record of 1925 of 421,875. The combined pack of pinks and chums produced 71 per cent,\nof the total pack of all species in 1926.\nTHE 1926 SALMON-PACK BY DISTRICTS.\nThe Fraser River System.\u2014The catch of all species of salmon made in the Fraser River\nsystem within the Province totalled 274,951 cases. It consisted of 85,689 cases of sockeye,\n32,952 cases of springs, 21,783 cases of cohoes, 32,256 cases of pinks, and 88,495 cases of chums.\nThe sockeye-catch in Provincial waters of the Fraser system produced the largest pack made\nin any year since 1917. On the other hand, the catch of sockeye in the State of Washington\nwaters of the Fraser system produced a pack of but 44,673 cases, much the smallest ever made\nthere. <\nThe total pack of sockeye in the entire Fraser River system in 1926 was 130,362 cases.\nIt was 17,046 cases less than that made in 1925. It was 29,964 cases more than that made in\nthe fourth preceding year.    It was 147,970 cases less than the average for the past eight years.\nThe Skeena River.\u2014The salmon-pack in the Skeena River District in 1926 totalled 407,524\ncases, consisting of 82,360 cases of sockeye, 20,594 cases of springs, 30,208 cases of cohoes,\n210,081 cases of pinks, and 63,527 cases of chums. The pack of sockeye was slightly larger than\nthat of 1925. The pack of pinks exceeded that of 1925 by 80,0012 cases. The pack of springs\nwas 2,S51 cases less.\nRivers Inlet.\u2014The salmon-pack in Rivers Inlet in 1926 totalled 9S,105 cases. It consisted\nof 65,581 cases of sockeye, 7,286 cases of cohoes, 12,815 cases of pinks, 11,727 oases of chums,\nand 685 cases of springs. The catch of sockeye, though much less than last year\u2014the high\nrecord year\u2014shows a gain over its brood-years 1921 and 1922, when the packs were 48,615 and\n53,584 respectively.\nSmith Inlet.\u2014The salmon-pack statement for 1926 of the Canned Salmon Branch of the\nCanadian Manufacturers' Association shows the packs made at Smith Inlet. Heretofore the\npacks made at Smith Inlet have either been attributed to Rivers Inlet or outlying districts.\nThe pack at Smith Inlet this year totalled 17,921 cases, consisting almost wholly of sockeye.\nThe Nass River District.\u2014The salmon caught in the Nass River District in 1926 totalled\n92,749 cases. It consisted of 15,929 cases of sockeye, 5,964 cases of springs, 4,274 cases of\ncohoes, 50,815 cases of pinks, and 15,392 cases of chums. The sockeye-pack is the smallest\nsince 1921.\nThe Vancouver Island District.\u2014The catch of salmon in the Vancouver Island District in\n1926 totalled 347,722 cases. It was 83,818 cases greater than in 1925. It was, however, not the\nhighest record. It was 42,093 cases less than in 1918. The pack consisted of 25,070 cases of\nsockeye, 5,222 cases of springs, 51,551 cases of cohoes, 86,113 cases of pinks, and 174,383 cases\nof chums.\nQueen Charlotte Islands District.\u2014The catch of salmon in Queen Charlotte Islands produced\na pack of 373,815 cases, much the largest ever made there. It exceeded the pack of 1925 by\n292,681 cases. It consisted almost wholly of pinks and chums\u2014200,512 cases of pinks and\n108,319 cases of chums. E 8 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OP FISHERIES, 1926.\nMild-cured Salmon.\u2014The production of mild-cured salmon in the Province in 1926 was but\n2,183 tierces, representing approximately 1,746,400 lb. of spring salmon. It was 915 tierces less\nthan in 1925 and 786 less than in 1924.\nThe Appendix of this report contains detailed statements, giving by districts the pack of\neaoh species since 191.1.\nCONDITIONS OF THE SOCKEYE-SALMON FISHERY OF THE\nFRASER RIVER SYSTEM.\nThe increased catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system in 1926\nattracted much local attention. It produced a pack of 85,689 cases, much the largest pack since\n1917. The catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system was,\nhowever, the smallest ever made there. It produced a pack of but 44,673 cases. The total\nsockeye-pack for the entire system in 1926 was 130,362 cases. It was 17,046 cases less than\nin 1925.\nThe increased catch of sockeye in Provincial waters and the decreased catch- in State of\nWashington waters of the Fraser system in 1926 is attributed to an unusual occurrence.\nOrdinarily the bulk of the sockeye-pack made in the system is made in Washington waters\nin July and August. This year the bulk of the catch was made in Provincial waters and it\nwas made in September and October. The pack records of the Fraser River system in the period\n1915-25, inclusive, show that 70 per cent, .of the total catch was made in Washington waters\nand 30 per cent, in Provincial waters. In 1926 the proportions were reversed for the first time\nin many years. Sixty-seven per cent, was made in the Province and but 33 per cent, in Washington waters.\nThe increased catches of sockeye made in Provincial waters and the decreased catch in\nWashington waters is attributed to the fact that in September and October a very considerable\nnumber of sockeye gained access to the Gulf of Georgia, in the Province, without being intercepted in the waters to the south or north of that gulf. Fishermen engaged in fishing in the\nGulf of Georgia and in the channels of the Fraser made good catches in September and October,\nwhile those engaged in the waters to the south and north of that gulf made no catches of sockeye\nin those months.\nHaving gained access to the Gulf of Georgia without being intercepted, the runs in\nSeptember and October were only drawn upon by the Provincial fleet of less than a thousand\ngill-net fishing-boats, and as their operations were, by Canadian regulations, confined to five\ndays each week in the gulf and the Fraser channels up to New Westminster Bridge, and to\nfour and a half days each week up to Mission Bridge, the number taken from the runs was\nsmaller than usual, and the number which escaped capture and reached the spawning-beds of\nthe Fraser was proportionately greater than when the runs are drawn upon by both the\nProvincial and the Washington fishermen. The number of sockeye that escaped capture and\nreached the spawning-beds was greater than in any yeav since 1913,\nTHE  INCREASED DRAIN ON PINK AND  CHUM  SALMON\u2014THE NEED  OF\nGREATER PROTECTION.\nThere has been such an increase in the catch of pink and chum salmon in Provincial waters\nin the last five years as to occasion grave concern to all who study the conditions of the salmon-\nfisheries of the Province. That the supply of pink and chum salmon in Provincial waters\ncannot long withstand such a heavy drain as has been made in the last three years is manifest.\nThe catches must be curtailed or the supply will be exhausted within a few years.\nThe bulk of the catches of pink and chum salmon made in the Province are taken from\nestuary waters close to the mouths of comparatively small streams by means of purse-seines.\nThere has been a startling increase in the catch and in the use of purse-seines in the last five\nyears. Many of the nets are short in length,, that they may be effectively pursed in limited\nareas where the fish are compactly schooled waiting for the flood of the tide in order to enter\nthe streams. There is immediate need that the use of short nets be prohibited. Short nets are\nnot only effectively used in limited areas, but being short they are frequently pursed illegally in\nclosed areas where long nets could not be used. Further, in many waters the use of purse-seines\nshould be permitted one tide only every twenty-four hours. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 9\nThe following statement shows the number of purse-seines licensed and the pack of pink\nand chum salmon for each of the last five years:\u2014\nNumber Cases of Pink\nlicensed. and Chum Salmon.\n1922        143 740,183\n1923        194 855,987\n1924       227 1,226,454\n1925       302 1,053,374\n1926       406 1,475,249\nREPORTS FROM SALMON-SPAWNING AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS.\nFollowing the practice adopted by the Department in 1901, of inspecting the salmon-spawning\nareas of the principal waters of the Province during the spawning'period, the Department again\ninspected the spawning areas of the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Rivers and Smith\nInlets this year. The following is a brief summary of the reports, which are to be found in full\nin the Appendix of this report:\u2014\nThe Fraser River.\u2014The inspection of the spawning-beds of the Fraser River was again made\nby Mr. Babcock, his twenty-fourth inspection.\nThe number of sockeye that reached the spawning areas of the Fraser River basin above\nHell's Gate Canyon this year was surprisingly large\u2014larger, it is estimated, than in any season\nsince 1913. Conservative estimates of the number which reached the Little Shuswap and Adams\nRivers in the lower section of the Shuswap-Adams Lakes section place their number between\nthree and four hundred thousand. Some experienced observers estimated that between four\nand five hundred thousand sockeye spawned in those rivers this year.\nThe sockeye which spawned there this year entered the Lower Fraser the last of September\nand in early October. The fish were large and had all the brilliant outward colouring of the\nraces of sockeye which formerly spawned in every section of the Upper Fraser basin. They\nwere' much more highly coloured than those which spawn in the Birkenhead River, at the head\nof Harrison-Lillooet Lakes section, and much larger and much more brilliantly coloured than the\nraces of sockeye that spawn in Cultus, Pitt, and the small lakes of the Lower Fraser. Judging\nfrom their size and brilliant colouring, they were manifestly the product of fish which spawned\nin the Shuswap section.\nSockeye in numbers were not observed in any other tributaries of the Shuswap area than\nthose mentioned, and the number of sockeye that spawned in other lake sections of the Upper\nFraser basin, which includes Quesnel, Chilko, Seton, and Anderson Lakes, was smaller than in\n1925, and not larger than the average of recent poor years.\nThe run of sockeye to the Birkenhead River, at the head of the Harrison-Lillooet Lakes\nsection, which is included in the lower section of the Fraser River basin, was large\u2014fully equal,\nif not greater than the average for the last eight years. The yearly run to this section shows\nno sign of diminishing numbers. It has been fully maintained. The hatchery on the Birkenhead\ncollected 43,000,000 sockeye-eggs and, in addition, the beds of the river were abundantly seeded.\nThe number of sockeye that reached other sections of the Lower Fraser was up to the average\nof recent years.\nDue to the increased seeding of the spawning-beds of the Shuswap Lake section and the\naverage seeding of the beds in the lower section of the Fraser this year, there is a prospect that\nthe run of sockeye to the Fraser four years hence will be larger than this year or any year\nsince 1917.\nRivers Inlet.\u2014The inspection of the spawning areas of the Rivers Inlet run was again made\nby Fishery Officer A. W. Stone.\nThe sockeye that ran to Rivers Inlet this year were the product of the brood-years 1921 and\n1922, years which produced packs of 48,615 and 53,584 cases respectively. The reports from the\nspawning area of the Rivers Inlet run clearly indicate that there was a greater escapement\nthis year than in either of the brood-years, and that the beds were better seeded than in either\nof those years, and as water and weather conditions were favourable it is anticipated that the\nreturn to Rivers Inlet, where the run is composed of more or less equal numbers of four-year-old\nand five-year-old fish, four and five years hence will be greater than it was this year.\nSmith Inlet.\u2014The inspection was again made by Fishery Officer A. W. Stone. E 10 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nThe number of sockeye which spawned on the beds in the Smith Inlet area this year was\nmaterially larger than in the brood-years 1921 and 1922, and should result in an increase in the\nruns four and five years hence.\nThe Skeena River.\u2014The inspection of the spawning-beds of the Skeena was again made by\nFisHery Officer Robert Gibson.\nThe runs of sockeye to the Skeena, like those to Rivers and Smith Inlets, consist of four-\nyear-old and five-year-old fish. The run this year was the joint product of the spawnings in\n1921 and 1922, two of the poorest brood-years recorded on the Skeena. The catch this year\nproduced a pack of 74,000 cases, a gain of over 33,000 cases over 1921, which produced the\nfive-year-old fish of this year's run; and it produced 20,000 cases less than in 1922. The reports\nfrom the spawning area this year indicate that the beds were much more abundantly seeded than\nin either of the brood-years and compared favourably with former good year seedings. The\nhatcheries without difficulty obtained their full quota of eggs. The effect of the forty-eight-hour\nweekly closed season was made manifest on all the beds. There should be a good return from\nthis year's spawning.\nThe Nass River.\u2014Fishery Inspector C. P. Hickman again inspected the spawning areas of\nthe Nass River. His reports indicate that the escapement of sockeye which reached them was\nmuch smaller than in recent years. None of the beds were well seeded. Conditions on the Nass\nare not favourable. There is no apparent indication of the maintenance of the sockeye run;\nit appears to be declining.\nTHE OUTLOOK FOR THE SALMON RUNS OF 1927.\nThe Fraser.\u2014As the sockeye run to the Fraser in 1927 will consist almost wholly of four-year\nfish derived from the spawning of 1923, it is interesting to note that the reports from the\nspawning areas in that year indicate that the number of sockeye that reached the beds was\nsmall\u2014\" less than in any previous year.\" The Birkenhead River and the other sections of the\nLower Fraser basin were the only ones in which any considerable number was noted, and their\nseeding was not so extensive as to justify anticipating an increased run in 1927.\nRivers Inlet.\u2014The sockeye run of 1927 to Rivers Inlet will consist of the five-year-old fish\nfrom the spawning of 1922 and the four-year fish from 1923. The pack in 1922 was but 53.5S4\ncases and the spawning-beds in that year were not well seeded. There is therefore no reason to\nanticipate a goodly number of five-year fish in 1927. On the other hand, the four-year fish in\nthe 1927 run will be drawn from the seedings in 1923, a year in which the pack totalled 116.S50\ncases, and in which it was reported that the beds were more abundantly seeded than in any\nformer recorded year. In consequence of these statements it is anticipated that there will be\na light run of five-year-old fish in 1927 and a large run of four-year-olds. Combined, the run\nshould be satisfactory.\nSkeena River.\u2014Prospects for a good run of sockeye to the Skeena in 1927 are excellent.\nIt will be derived from the spawnings of 1922 and 1923, when the packs totalled 96,277 and\n131,731\u2014two good years\u2014and in which the reports from the spawning areas indicated a good\nseeding.\nNass River.\u2014The run to the Nass in 1927 will come from the spawnings of 1922 and 1923,\nwhich produced packs of 31,277 and 17,821. The reports from the beds in those years indicated\na good seeding in the former year and a very poor seeding in the latter. Conditions on the\nNass are not satisfactory.\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE  SALMON.\nThe twelfth contribution to the series of papers on the life-history of the sockeye salmon\nissued by the Department, which is contained in the Appendix of this report, is contributed by\nDr. W. A. and Dr. Lucy S. Clemens. It deals with the constituents of the runs of sockeye to\nour principal waters in 1926.    The following is a brief summary:\u2014\nIn dealing with the sockeye run to the Fraser, attention is called to the fact that the\nextent of the run and the size of the pack was above expectancy, due to the appearance of a\nlarge late run the last of September, the bulk of the escapement of which proceeded to Shuswap\nLake. The distribution of the catch is interesting in that the British Columbia pack exceeded\nthat of the State of AVashington by 41,016 cases. There has been much conjecture as to the\norigin of the late portion of the run. It is apparent that before extraordinary explanations are\nresorted to all available data should be studied to see if the run cannot be accounted for in the BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 11\nnatural course of events. In this connection, Drs. Clemens state, it is interesting to note that\nin 1922 the British Columbia pack exceeded that of Washington by slightly over 3,000 cases,\nand that in only one other year since 1910 has there been a similar occurrence\u2014namely, 1915,\nwhen the British Columbia pack exceeded the Washington pack by 26,000 cases. In 1922 there\nwas a late run of sockeye to the Shuswap Lake area that surpassed any of the preceding eight\nyears. In that year Fishery Officer Shotton, in charge of the Shuswap section, reported that\nthe run was exceptionally good and that a very conservative estimate placed the number which\nspawned in Little River at six or eight thousand. Mr. Shotton also stated that in 1922 two runs\nof sockeye appeared in Adams River\u2014one on October 6th, which was light, and another on\nOctober 25th, which was heavy. In 1926 the late run reached the Fraser on September 27th\nand Adams River about October 3rd. Referring to Mr. Shotton's statement that a very conservative estimate of the number of spawning sockeye seen in Little River in 1922 was 8,000,\nDrs. Clemens express the view that it was without doubt a very conservative estimate for that\nnumber and, scattered over such a stream as Little River, would not be impressive. Mr.\nShotton's recent statement that not less than 20,000 spawned in Adams River in 1922 would\ngive a total estimate of 28,000 in the two rivers, which would indicate that more than 50,000,000\neggs were deposited that year. Mr. Babcock estimated the number of sockeye he saw in Adams\nand Little Rivers in October, 1926, at between 300,000 and 400,000; obviously such a return\ncould scarcely have resulted from the spawning of 28,000 sockeye, but since the latter estimate\nis a very conservative one, there can be no doubt that at least the bulk of them did.\nIn March, 1923, a planting of 1,176,000 eyed sockeye-eggs was made in Eagle River, a\ntributary of Upper Shuswap Lake. It has been suggested that possibly the return from that\nplanting accounted for the run of 1926 to Adams River and Little River, but since that planting\nwas at best less than 3 per cent, of the naturally deposited eggs, it is apparent that the return\ncould have formed' but a very small part of the run, even though it might have gone there\ninstead of to Eagle River.\nSince the run of sockeye to the Fraser is composed predominately of four-year-old fish, the\nbulk of the 1926 fish were undoubtedly descendants of the 1910-14-18-22 cycle. The figures\ngiven in Table I. of the report (see page 31) show that in the early years the runs of this\ncycle were very large, approximating those of the big cycle; that is, the 1909-13^-17-21-25 series.\nThe former cycle is the only one showing a tendency towards recuperation, and this recovery\nis largely the result of the development of the late run to Shuswap Lake. The significance lies\nin the apparent fact that a remnant of an up-river race is building itself up. It is indicative\nof the recuperative possibilities of the Fraser and of the possible lines of procedure which may\nprofitably be followed in attempting to assist in the rehabilitation of the runs to the upper\nriver-basin.\nDrs. Clemens call attention to the fact that the sockeye run to the Fraser in 1927 should be\nthe descendants of the 1923 run, which produced the second smallest pack in the history of the\nFraser. Moreover, the 1911-15-19-23 cycle has shown a very decided decline, as is shown in\nTable I. of the report. The reports from the spawning-beds in 1923 indicate that very few\nsockeye reached the areas above Hell's Gate, except the Shuswap area, where a few thousands\nspawned late in the season. The record indicates that there was a small late run in 1923.\nAlthough 6,000,000 eggs were planted in the Upper Fraser in 1923-24, it is evident that the\nreturns from that number under the best of conditions cannot be great. Thus, in the ordinary\ncourse of events, the sockeye-pack of 1927 depends upon the extent of the run that was produced\nin the Lower Fraser;  hence a very good run cannot be anticipated.\nThe scales of the 1927 sockeye run reported upon by Drs. Clemens consisted of 1,124 selected\nat random from fish caught in the traps in Juan de Fuca Strait from April 27th to August 30th.\nAs is usual, the one-year-in-lake-type prevailed, being represented by 995 individuals, or\n89 per cent, of the whole. Seventy-five per cent, of the total of 1,124 were four years old,\n23 per cent, five years old, and 2 per cent, three years old. Males were in excess, there being\n496 to 475 females.    The reverse was the case in 1925.\nThe average length of the four-year-old males and females is the lowest on record. The\ndecrease in length is astonishing, being almost 1 inch less in the case of the males and % inch\nin females, as compared with the records of the previous year, which was the lowest up to that\nperiod. (See Table V., page 33.) During the last eight years there has been a decrease in\naverage length of 1% inches in the males and V-i inch in the females.\nWith the decrease in length there has also been a decrease in weight. E 12 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1920.\nIt is apparent that the races of larger individuals are decreasing in numbers either through\nselective action of fishing operations or natural causes. The opinion is expressed that there is\nbut little doubt that fishing operations are responsible and indicate the great strain being put\non the stock. There can be no question as to the reliability of the figures, since all the material\nexamined has been collected from the traps at Sooke, and the sampling and measuring for years\nhave been made by the same assistant. Drs. Clemens are here dealing with fish which approached\nthe Fraser to the south of Vancouver Island from April to the end of September, and not with\nthe fish which appeared later and comprised the run to Shuswap Lake either this year or in 1922.\nThe data concerning lengths and w-eights are given in Tables X. and XL, pages 35 and 36.\nThe Rivers Inlet Sockeye Run of 1926.\u2014The sockeye run to Rivers Inlet in 1926 produced\na pack of 65,581 cases. This falls in line with the 1911-16-21-26 series and is a fair pack for\nthat series. Sixty per cent, of the run consisted of four-year-old fish, derived from the 1922\nspawning, which consisted of 82 per cent, of four-year-old individuals. Forty per cent, of the\nrun consisted of five-year-old fish, derived from the 1921 spawning, when the run consisted of\n51 per cent, of five-year-old fish.\nIn the report for 1925 it was stated that the pack figures seemed to further confirm the\nopinion that there is a five-year cycle in Rivers Inlet (Table XIII.). While this is true and\nwhile the five-year-old fish appear to be the dominant factor in the runs, the occurrence of\nvarying numbers of four-year-old fish makes the prediction of future runs difficult. The five-year\ngroup is fairly uniform; on the other hand, the four-year group shows great fluctuations. In\nview of such fluctuations, together with the high percentages' of males, Drs. Clemens state that\nit would appear, as Dr. Gilbert suggested in his report for 1917, that there are present each year\nconsiderable numbers of males which have been precocious in development and have matured at\nfour years of age instead of five. It may be recalled that in the Fraser there are precocious\nmales maturing at three years of age.\nThe run of 1927 to Rivers Inlet will be derived from the brood-years 1922 and 1923. While\nthe reports from the spawning-beds in 1922 indicate an abundant seeding, the run of that year\nconsisted of only 18 per cent, of five-year-old fish, the smallest percentage of five-year-old fish on\nrecord. In his report on the run of 1922 Dr. Gilbert points out that, owing to a strike, fishing\ndid not begin until about July 10th. He states: \" At this time the run is in ordinary years\nreaching its culminating point and certain changes have occurred in its composition. One of\nthese changes usually concerns the proportions of four- and five-year fish, the latter in most years\nrunning more heavily during the first part of the season. What allowance should be made for\nthis factor it is impossible to judge, for the sequence is not exactly the same in runs of different\nyears. However, the proportions of five-year fish were so much less than in any other year\nduring the same period of the run that we are justified in concluding that this year-group was\npresent in greatly reduced numbers in the run of 1922.\"\nThe four-year-old fish of the 1927 run should be derived from the spawning of 1923. The\npack of 1923 was large and the report from the spawning-beds in that year indicated an abundant\nseeding, so that a fair number of four-year-old fish may appear. However, the 1907-12-17-22\ncycle has with one exception produced small packs, and in view of the small percentage of\nfive-year-old fish in the 1922 run it does not appear that a large run may be expected in 1927.\nDrs. Clemens find the distribution of the sexes in the Rivers Inlet runs the most interesting\nand puzzling of the four systems under review. Throughout all the years of record the four-\nyear-old males have far outnumbered the four-year-old females and the five-year-old females\noutnumbered the five-year-old males. During the past eleven years in the former group the\nmales have formed an average of 71 per cent., while the average for the females was 29 per cent.\nIn the latter group the males have averaged 39 per cent, and the females 61 per cent, over the\nsame period. A similar condition occurs in the Skeena groups, but the discrepancy is not so\npronounced. The total percentage of males in the 1926 run was only slightly higher than the\ntotal percentage of females\u201451 and 49 per cent, respectively. In 1922, one of the brood-years\nof the 1927 run, the percentages were 61 males and 39 females.\nThe Skeena River Sockeye Run of 1926.\u2014As was anticipated in the report of last year, the\nSkeena pack of 1926 was only a fair one, some 82,300 cases. Nothing more could be expected\nfrom the brood-years 1921 and 1922, the former of which had the lowest pack on record. A run\nthat fluctuates from year to year as much as the Skeena does can be judged best by grouping\nthe years and comparing the averages.    Thus combining the packs of the last twenty years in BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 13\nfour groups of five succeeding years each, the averages are as follows: 1907-11, 130,894 cases;\n1912-16, 90,513 cases;  1917-21, 103,183 cases;  1922-26, 106,567 cases.\nThe deduction shown above is quite obvious\u2014a decline, following which the run has been\nlittle more than maintaining itself.\nReferring to Table XIX., page 42, it is seen that in the earlier years of the run\u2014from\n1912 to 1920\u2014with but a single exception, the five-year group formed 50 per cent, or more of\nthe runs. Since 1921 in only one year (1924) has this been true. A number of years ago\nDr. Gilbert pointed out in general that the largest packs were associated with years in which\nthe percentage of the five-year fish was greatest. It is interesting then to note that the pack\nof 1924 is the largest in the last six years. We are not able to offer an explanation for this\napparent reversal in the proportions of four-year and five-year classes during recent years, and\nit does not seem to have changed the runs materially.\nFor years it has been more or less apparent that the Skeena run consists predominantly of\ntwo age-groups\u2014namely, four-year-olds and five-year-olds. On this account the packs cannot\nbe arranged in either four- or five-year cycles. If conditions are fairly stable and the packs bear\nsome relation to the escapement, then taking the figures of 1914, where 75 per eent. of the pack\nconsisted of five-year-old and 25 per cent, of four-year-old fish, it would be expected that in\n1918 there should have been a pack of four-year-old fish of close to 30,000 cases and in 1919\na pack of five-year-old fish of 100.',000' cases. Using this same method of calculation for 1915,.\nthe results give 42,000 for 1919 and 74,000 in 1920. The total for 1918 would be 142,000 cases.\nThe actual pack in 1919 was 185,000. The following tabulation shows the correspondence between\nthe actual pack and the calculated over a period of years:\u2014\nYear.\nActual.\nCalculated.\nEeports from\nSpawning-beds\nin Brood-years.\n1912, fair.\n1917 '.\t\n66,000\n123,000\n185,000\n91,000\n41,000\n96,000\n132,000\n145,000\n78,000\n82,000\n66,000\n59,000\n140,000\n99,000\n62,000\n92,000\n130,000\n144,000\n106,000\n88,000\n106,000\n1913, good.\n1918\t\n1919\t\n1914, very good.\n1920\t\n1916, fair.\n1921\t\n1922\t\n1923\t\n1924\t\n1925\t\n1917, no report.\n1918, no report.\n1919, good.\n1920, poor.\n1921, fair.\n1926\t\n1927                     \t\n1922, very good.\nMaking allowance for the normal fluctuations which occur in any run, for the fact that only\ntwo age-groups have been considered, and for the fact that packs do not bear the same relation\nto the escapement year after year, it will be seen that the correspondence is fairly close and\nwould seem to be additional evidence of the existence of two distinct groups in the Skeena runs.\nIt is the only run in which two age-groups play roles of equal importance. In the Fraser run\nthe four-year-old one-year-in-lake class dominates. The Rivers Inlet run has two components,,\nthe five-year-old one-year-in-lake and the four-year-old one-year-in-lake, but the former is by\nfar the more important element. The Nass run resembles the Fraser in having a single predominant group, but in this case it is the five-year-old two-years-in-lake class.\nFor the last nine years there has been a relatively close correspondence between the pack\nand the brood-years from which they have been derived. According to expectancy the pack of\n1927 should reach the 100,000 mark. One brood-year, 1921, had a fairly high pack, but it did\nnot contain many five-year-old fish, and, on the other hand, 1923 had a very good pack with a\nlarge per cent, of four-year-old individuals which should be spawning next year and which will\nlikely form a large proportion of the run. In addition it was reported in both 1922 and 1923\nthat the spawning-beds of the Skeena basin were well seeded.\nThe Nass River Sockeye Run of 1926.\u2014In dealing with the Nass run of sockeye in 1926,\nDrs. Clemens state that the apparent instability of the Nass River run has been proved out\nseveral times during the past few years and a fear that the run is materially declining has\nbeen expressed.    As has been known for some time, the Nass cycle is a five-year one.    In 1925. Drs. Clemens said that the outlook for 1926 was discouraging because its brood-year, 1921, had\nthe smallest pack recorded. Consequently it is not surprising to find the pack of 1926 totalled\nbut 15,929 cases. Looking at it simply as the second smallest pack on record, one might feel\njustified in accepting it as evidence of further decline. On the other hand, in viewing the\nsituation as a whole, there seems to be reason for believing that the run has maintained itself\nduring the last five years, for the average annual pack of this cycle\u2014from 1922 to 1920\u2014is\n23,512 cases, against 19,673 cases for the preceding cycle, 1917 to 1921. Furthermore, in 1925\nattention was called to the fact that the packs for 1923, 1924, and 1925 showed a rather close\ncorrespondence to the packs of their brood-years, 1918, 1919, and 1920 respectively, and likewise\nthere is a similar correspondence between 1926 and 1921. This tendency of return to normal\nexpectancy, together with the fact that the brood-years for 1927 and 1929 had large packs, and\nthat three out of five of Inspector Hickman's reports for the past five years state bhat the\nspawning-beds were very well seeded\u2014the fish being exceedingly numerous\u2014are hopeful signs.\nIf reliance can be placed on such signs as a brood-year pack of 31,277 cases with 90 per cent,\nof the run five-year-old fish, and the spawning-bed reports, then there should be a good pack at\nthe Nass in 1927.\nIn dealing with the age-groups in the sockeye run to the Nass, Drs. Clemens state that their\nconsideration is always more interesting than that of the age-groups of the Fraser, Rivers Inlet,\nand the Skeena, from the fact that .not only are older fish found than in the runs to the other\nwaters, but also a greater variety in the combination of years the fish spend in fresh and salt\nwaters. Some of the Nass fish go to the sea as fry and return at the end of either three or\nfour years; again, others remain in fresh water one, two, three, or even four years before\nmaking their way to the ocean, where they stay from two to five summers before returning to\ntheir native stream. However, this great complexity usually resolves itself into eight principal\nage-groups. The analysis of the run of 1926 was based upon 1,856 samplings taken every three\nor four days over a period of two months, begininng June 23rd and extending to August 20th.\nThe usual eight age-groups were all represented and an additional group, hitherto unreported,\nconsisting of four full years spent in fresh water and three summers in the sea.\nAttention is also called to a very interesting feature about the run to the Nass\u2014the various\nage-groups show year after year a remarkable constancy in seasonal changes. The dominant\ngroup, the five-year-old two-years-in-the-lake, is present throughout the entire run with varying\ndegrees of strength. The four-year-old one-year-in-the-lake and the five-year-old one-year-in-the-\nlake classes are also present throughout, but reach their greatest numbers during the second\nand third weeks of July. The two sea-type groups are confined to the early weeks and the\nsix- and seven-year-old fish to the latter part.\nAs stated, the full text and the exhaustive tabulations of Drs. Clemens's report is reproduced\nin the Appendix of the report.\nTHE SALMON INVESTIGATION FEDERATION.\nThe International Pacific Salmon Investigation Federation\u2014consisting of the executives and\nthe scientific staffs of the Fisheries Departments of Canada, the United States, British Columbia,\nWashington, Oregon, California, and Alaska\u2014that was formed in Seattle last year held its\nannual meeting in Seattle in December. The purpose of the Federation is to produce through\njoint and uniform effort the knowledge essential for the proper and scientific administration of\nthe salmon-fisheries of the Pacific Coast in OTder to effectively conserve the great salmon\nresources of the North Pacific.\nThe conception of such conservation held by the Federation involves the utilization of the\nsalmon resources to the fullest extent compatible with their preservation. The association seeks\nto be able to say definitely how many salmon can be taken from a given water and still leave\nsufficient for spawning purposes, so that the supply will continue year after year at a high level.\nThe last meeting of the Federation again brought out that the central idea of its programme\nis the production of the maximum yield obtainable from the salmon-fisheries and yet to maintain\nthem. By the maximum yield is meant the greatest production of fish which may be taken for\ncommercial purposes without endangering the future supply. To provide adequately for this the\nFederation seeks to ascertain what natural fluctuations in the abundance of salmon occur; the\ncauses of fluctuations, particularly the immediate causes, though the ultimate causes should\nfinally be determined; the intensity with which the commercial fishing is conducted and its\neffects on the future supply;   the relative value of various measures which may be employed BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 15\nto prevent depletion and to build up runs already depleted. With these fundamental requirements in mind, the Federation at its last meeting afforded free discussion of the following\nsubjects:\u2014\n(li) Collection of adequate and uniform statistics, which are of fundamental importance\nand should include not only data which will show the trend of fishing efforts.\n(2.) Tagging experiments, which have been productive of a great deal of valuable information relative to the ocean migrations of salmon, and bearing on the relationship between salmon\nfound in different regions. Such data are essential to reliable interpretation of statistics. The\nimportance of such data is well known in the results obtained from the tagging off the west\ncoast of Vancouver Island in the last two years, by which it was determined that fish caught,\ntagged, and liberated there were later recaptured in the Columbia, in Oregon, and the Sacramento, in California, as well as in British Columbia waters; and by the tagging along the\nAlaska Peninsula, through which it was determined that the fish caught in the Ikitan-Shumagin\nIsland District were largely from the spawning-streams of Bristol Bay.\n(3.) Scale-analysis of adult runs of salmon, which is essential to any understanding of the\ncauses, either immediate or ultimate, responsible for the fluctuations in abundance, and likewise\n\u2022will provide the necessary data on which to base prophecies of future runs, and by which can\nbe determined the productivity of each brood-year, the relative effects of heavy and light seeding\nof the spawning-beds, the effect of various methods of artificial propagation, and of modifications\nill the intensity of fishing, etc.\n(4.) Study of adult returns of salmon from a known escapement to the spawning-grounds,\na line of investigation that is being carried out on specially selected streams, where the production can be accurately determined, such as at Cultus Lake in British Columbia and on the\nKarluk and Chignik Rivers in Alaska. It is of course impossible to conduct such studies on\nlarge rivers like the Fraser and the Columbia, but it is believed that important principles may\nbe discovered by an intense study of these selected streams which may be of universal application.\n(5.) Stream surveys of spawning areas which, as conducted in British Columbia and Alaska,\nhave proven of value as a substitute for escapement counts where these last are impossible.\n(6.) Study of the production of seaward migrant salmon from known escapements of parent\nfish, being undertaken at Cultus Lake in British Columbia and at Karluk through marking\nexperiments.\n(7.) Efficiency of various methods of artificial propagation as compared with natural\npropagation, as such investigation is one of most practical importance and designed to improve\npresent methods of fish-culture, as is shown by the experiments being conducted by the\nBiological Board of Canada in British Columbia and the United States Bureau of Fisheries,\nand the States on the Columbia, Klamath, and Sacramento Rivers.\n(S.)   The effect of transplanting of eggs and fry from one stream to another,\n(9.) Improvement of spawning areas and overcoming obstacles, natural and artificial, to\nthe ascent of spawning salmon and the descent of the seaward migrants, the most important by\nfar being the question that pertains to the possibility of providing efficient passage-way for both\nadult and young salmon over high dams.\n(10.) The life-history in fresh water, with particular attention to the factors affecting\nsurvival during the period of the salmon's life, which includes the rate of the development of\nthe eggs, the growth and habits of the young and allied problems, as well as their bearings on\nthe problems of natural propagation and those of fish-culture.\nThe Seattle meeting of the Federation demonstrated the value of such conferences. Every\nleading fishery executive and scientific investigator of the Pacific Coast States was in attendance.\nIt was by far the most interesting and productive meeting held by the association.\nRESULTS OF SALMON-TAGGING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS IN 1925.\nThe tagging of salmon experiments conducted in Provincial waters in 1925 have added so\nmaterially to the knowledge of the movements of spring salmon (0. tsahawytscha) that the\nfollowing digest of the data contained in Paper No. 9, Volume 3 of the Contribution to Canada's\nBiology and Fisheries issued by the Biological Board of Canada, is inserted here. The Department is indebted to the Biological Board for permission to reproduce the tabulations and for\nthe use of the plates and maps used in the original publication on salmon-tagging experiments\nin British Columbia waters.   Tagging was conducted in accordance with the programme adopted1 E 16\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nby the Pacific Salmon Investigating Federation. During the season of 1925, 1,399 spring, 1,17S\nsockeye, and 51 cohoe salmon were tagged and liberated in British Columbia waters.\nTagging was conducted on the west coast of Vancouver Island between May 25th and June\n25th. During that period 1,125 spring and 51 cohoe salmon were tagged and liberated. Experiments were also conducted on the west coast of Queen Charlotte Islands between June 19th and\nJuly 25th, and 659 sockeye were tagged at Haystack Island, at the southern entrance of Portland\nCanal, from August 3rd to the 21st, and 519 sockeye were tagged at Deepwater Bay, Seymour\nNarrows, from August 7th to the 14th.\nThe salmon tagged on the west coast of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands were\nsecured from market fishermen using trolls. The fish were paid for at current market rates.\nThe sockeye at Haystack were secured from salmon-traps and the sockeye tagged at Deepwater\nBay were taken from purse-nets.\nThe tags used in the experiments were aluminium plates % inch broad by '\/m inch thick\nand bent into a rectangle 1 inch long, and bearing on the outer surface the letters \" B.C. \" and\nnumerals. The tags were secured to the smaller fish in the scale region at the base of the tail,\nas shown in Fig. No. 1, by means of pliers shown in Fig. No. 2.    The above-described tags proved\nFig. 1. Salmon with tag attached to the tail.\nFig. 2. Pliers used in tagging salmon.\ntoo small for use at the base of the tail of spring salmon of 20 lb. or more in weight.    In their\ncase the tag was secured in the rays of the dorsal fin.    The tags for use on large fish should\nbe longer than those described  and in  no case  should be placed so close to  the flesh  that\nsufficient space is not available for added growth.\nThe following statement gives the approximate weight and the number of each weight of\nfish tagged on the west coast of Vancouver Island:\u2014\nWeight. No. of\nLb. Fish.\n1- 9   330\n10-19   498\nWeight. No. of\nLb. Fish.\n30-39   72\n40-49   11\n20-29   206\n50-58 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 17\nMap 1. Showing points where spring salmon tagged off Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, in 1925\nwere recaptured that year. E IS\nREPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,  1926.\nOf the 1,125 spring salmon tagged on the west coast of Vancouver Island, 70, or 6 per cent.,\nwere recaptured in 1925 and 43 in 1926, and the tags with their records returned to the Biological\nBoard.\nOf the 1,125 spring salmon, 10 were recaptured in British Columbia waters, 59 in United\nStates waters, and 1 in the open sea. Of the 10 recaptured in British Columbia waters, 4 were\ncaught in the Fraser River, 5 in Juan de Fuca Strait, and 1 in Barkley Sound.\nOf the 59 recaptured in United States waters, 41 were taken from the Columbia River in\nOregon, 11 in Puget Sound, and 2 in the Sacramento River in California. The points of recapture\nare shown on Map 1, page 17.\nThe following tabulation gives in detail the record of the recaptured salmon tagged on the\nwest coast of Vancouver Island in 1925:\u2014\nReturn of Spring Salmon tagged off Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, 1925.\n(The numbers are arranged according to date of tagging.)\nTag No.\nDate tagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDays free.\nPlace of Eecapture.\n5\nMay   23\n192\nSept.\n5.\n100\nColumbia Eiver, 1 mile below mouth of Cowlitz.\n58\n\u201e      23\nAug.\n1\n69\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.\n81\n\u201e      SO\n,,\n24\n86\nPuget Sound,  Skagit Bay,  Wash.\n206\n\u201e      30\nJuly\n9\n40\nPuget Sound, Swinomish Slough, Wash.\n211\n\u201e      30\nNo  date\nColumbia Eiver.\n163\nJune    1\nSept.\n10\n101\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Pillar Eoek, Wash.\n405\n1\n19\n110\nColumbia Eiver,  Kalama Eiver Hatchery.\n239\n2\n,,\n\u2014\n90\nColumbia Eiver,  1 mile below mouth of Cowlitz.\n250\n2\nAug.\n10\n69\nColumbia Eiver, Warrendale.\n253\n2\nSept.\n16\n106\nColumbia Eiver, Tongue Point, 20 miles from mouth.\n256\n2\n,,\n90\nColumbia Eiver, near Eainier.\n25S\n2\nOct.\n126\nColumbia Eiver, Kalama Eiver Hatchery.\n37\n4\nJuly\n23\n49\nColumbia Eiver.\n276\n4\n20\n46\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.\n505\n\u201e        4\nJune\n23\n19\nColumbia Eiver, Puget Island.\n50S\n4\nSept.\n30\n118\nColumbia Eiver, Kalama Eiver Hatchery.\n536\n4\n,,\n17\n105\nColumbia Eiver.\n538\n4\nJune\n24\n20\nColumbia Biver, Tongue Point.\n607\n4\nAug.\n12\n69\nColumbia Eiver, North Fork.\n\u2022   628\n4\nJune\n17\n13\nPuget Sound, Skagit Biver, North Fork.\n632\n4\nSept.\n10\n98\nColumbia BiveT, St. Helens.\nes-\n4\nJuly\n2S\n54\nColumbia Eiver, Chinook.\nes 7\n4\nSept.\n12\n100\nColumbia Eiver. Puget Island.\n437\n6\ntf\n10\n96\nSacramento Eiver, Benicia, Cal.\n544\n6\n,,\n28\n114\nFraser Biver, Sunbury.\n561\n6\n,,\n30\n116\nColumbia Eiver, Kalama Eiver Hatchery.\n683\n6\n,,\n14\n100\nWillapa Harbour, Nasel Eiver Hatchery, Wash.\n694\n6\nAug.\nIS\n73\nColumbia Biver, mouth of Willamette.\n905\n6\nJuly\n14\n38\nColumbia Biver, Astoria.\n920\n6\n,,\n29\n53\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Esquimalt, V.I.\n923\n6\nNov.\n12\n159\nOregon, Alsea Eiver.\n581\n\u201e      10\nJuly\n3\n23\nPuget Sound, Ebby Trap, Whidbey Island, Wash.\n592\n\u201e      10\nAug.\n22\n73\nColumbia Eiver, Astoria.\n599\n\u201e      10\nJuly\n25\n45\nColumbia Eiver.\n802\n\u201e      10\nJuly\n31\n51\nColumbia Eiver.\n822\n\u201e      10\nSept.\n12\n94\nColumbia Eiver, Wauna.\n939\n\u201e      10\nJune\n18\n8\nPuget Sound, Salmon Bank, Wash.\n945\n\u201e      10\nAug.\n17\n08\nColumbia Eiver, mouth of Willamette.\n949\n\u201e      10\nJune\n30\n20\nFraser Eiver, Steveston.\n733\n\u201e      11\nSept.\n26\n107\nColumbia Eiver, Little White Hatchery.\nS35\n\u201e      11\nDec.\n21\n193\nGreen Eiver Hatchery, Auburn, Wash.\n837\n\u201e      11\nJune\n20\n9\nOff Long Beach, west of Barkley Sound (troll).\n844\n\u201e      11\nJuly\n23\n42\nColumbia Eiver.\n859\n\u201e      11\nAug.\n3\n53\nColumbia Eiver.\n459\nAug.   14\nJune\n\u2014\nOff Cape Flattery  (hook).\n465\n\u201e      14\nJuly\n6\n22\nColumbia Eiver, Astoria.\n4'72\n\u201e      14\nAug.\n29\n76\nSacramento Eiver, Pittsburg, Cal. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 19\nReturn of Spring Salmon tagged off Barkley Sound, Vancouver Island, 1925\u2014Continued.\nTag No.\nDate tagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDays free.\nPlace of Eecapture.\n1925.\n743\nAug.   14\nSept. 14\n92\nColumbia Eiver, Tongue Point.\n754\n\u201e      14\nNo  date\nOregon  Coast.\n758\n\u201e      14\nJuly   13\n29\nPuget Sound, Skagit Eiver, Wash.\n766\n\u201e      14\nAug.     1\n48\nColumbia Eiver, Altoona.\n779\n\u201e      14\nJuly   18\n34\nFraser Eiver, Yale.\n309\n\u201e      16\nAug.   22\n67\nColumbia Eiver.\n317\n\u201e      16\nSept.    S\n84\nPuget Sound, Port Townsend, Wash.\n345\n16\n26\n102\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Port Angeles, Wash.\n358\n\u201e      18\nNo date\nColumbia Eiver.                                                               ,\n596\n\u201e      18\nAug.     7\n50\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.\n984\n\u201e      18\n\u201e      12\n00\nColumbia Biver, Altoona.\n989\n\u201e      IS\nOct.    12\n116\nWashington  Sound,  San Juan Island, Wash.\n1000\n\u201e      18\nAug.   18\n61\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Victoria, V.I.\n365\n\u201e      20\nJuly   lo\n25\nColumbia Eiver, Puget Island.\n35S\n\u201e      22\nAug.   17\n56\nPug 't Sound, Deception Pass, Wash.\n377\n22\nSept. 12\n82\nColumbia Eiver,  Skamokawa.\n378\n22\n\u201e      15\n85\nColumbia Eiver, Astoria.\n383\n\u201e      22\nNo  date\nColumbia Eiver.\n4031\n\u201e      23\nSept. 15\n84\nFraser Eiver, mouth.\n4222\n\u201e      23\nAug.   20\n58\nPuget Sound,  Salmon Bank, Wash.\n412S\n24\nJune  24\nOff Barkley Sound ;   picked up dead.\n4133\n\u201e      24\nAug.     7\n44\nColumbia Eiver, Puget Island.\n4242\n\u201e      24\n\u201e      \u2014\n37\nColumbia Eiver, Astoria.\n4244\n\u201e      25\nSept. 25\n1\n92\nColumbia Eiver, Little White Hatchery.\nThe Retubn of Tags of Salmon captubed in 1026 that were tagged on the\nWest Coast of Vancouveb Island in 1925.\nIn addition to the above, some 43 of the fish tagged off the Vancouver Island coast in 1925\nwere recaptured in 1926.\nOf that number, 27 were taken from the Columbia River in Oregon and 11 in British\nColumbia waters;  only one of the latter being caught in the Fraser River.\nFrom the fact that 68 of the 113 tags recovered from salmon tagged on the west coast of\nVancouver Island were taken from the Columbia River, it would appear that the spring salmon\nfrom that great river commonly feed off the west coast of Vancouver Island and are subject\nto recapture there. The Department is indebted to Dr. W. A. Clemens for the following record\nof fish recaptured in 1926:\u2014\n1926 Return of Tags affixed to Spring Salmon off Ucluelet in 1925.\nTag No.\nDate tagged.\nDate caught.\nPeriod out.\nPlace caught.\n1925.\n1926.\n2\nMay   23\nSept.  20\n1 year 117 days\t\nNorth Island, Ore., Columbia Eiver.\n11\n\u201e      23\nApril 28\n11 months 5 days...\nSwiftsure Bank.\n33\nJune    4\nAug.   21\n1 year 77 days\t\nBakers Bay, Columbia Eiver.\n50\nMay   26\nSept.  11\n1 year 10S days\t\nMcGowan Trap, 15 miles up Columbia E.\n78\n\u201e      27\nMay    19\n11 months 22 days.\nSwiftsure Bank.\n71\n\u201e      27\nAug.   25\n15 months\t\nOff Ucluelet.\n73\n\u201e      27\n14\n1 year 77 davs\t\nChinook, Wash., Columbia Eiver.\n117\n\u201e     .27\nMay    14\n11 months 17 days.\nUcluelet.\n88\n\u201e      30\nAug.   2S\n1 year 3 months\t\nBakers Bay, Columbia Eiver.\n121\n\u201e      26\n3\n1 year 67 days.\t\nPillar Eock, Columbia Eiver.\n162\nJuly     1\nOct.      2\n1 year 2 months\nLittle White Salmon  Eiver  Hatchery,\nColumbia Biver. E 20\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\n1926 Return of Tags affixed to Spring Salmon off Ucluelet in 1925\u2014Continued.\nTag No.       Date tagged.        Date caught.\nPeriod out.\nPlace caught.\n192\n5.\n1926.\n181\nJune\n4\nJune     9\n1 year 5 days\t\nSooke Trap.\n204\nMay\n30\nAug.   18\n1 year 78 days\t\nFish-reduction plant, Flarel, Columbia E.\n212\n\u201e\n30\n7\n1 year 69 days\t\nMcGowan, Columbia Eiver.\n230\nJune\n2\n,,         5\n1 year 63 days\t\nWestpoint, Ore., Columbia Eiver.\n216\nMay\n30\nJuly   \u2014\n1 year 45 days\t\nSooke.\n257\nJune\n2\n2\n1 year 1 month\t\nBakers Bay, Columbia Biver.\n343\n16\nWinter, 1925-26\n6 months\t\nBakers Bay, Columbia Eiver.\n281\n4\nSept.  13\n1 year 99 days\t\nHammond, Ore., Columbia Eiver.\n410\n1\nAug.   21\n1 year 81 days\t\nDungeness Trap.\n411\n1\nJuly     6\n1 year 35 days\t\nPillar Point Trap, Columbia Eiver.\n418\n1\nMay   15\n11 months 14 days.\n20 miles off Ucluelet.\n413\n1\nAug.     8\n1 year 67 days\t\nAstoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Eiver.\n531\n4\nFeb.   26\n9 months 22 days..\nAstoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Eiver.\n541\n6\nAug.   21\n1 year 76 days\t\nAstoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Eiver.\n642\n4\nOct.       5\n1 year 123 days\nAstoria, Ore., Cannery, Columbia Biver.\n1926 Return of Tags affixed to Spring Salmon on West Coast of Vancouver Island in. 1925.\nTag No.    j   Date tagged.\nDate caught.\nPeriod out.\nPlace caught.\n1\n925.\n1926.\n654               Ju\nne    4\nMay    16\n11 months 12 days.\nOff Ucluelet.\n673\n6\nFeb.    26\n8 months '20 days...\nColumbia Eiver.\n740\n14\nWinter, 1925-26\n6 months\t\n760\n,      14\nJuly     5\n1 year 21 days\t\nColumbia Eiver.\n765\n,      14\n\u201e      18\n1 year 34 days\t\n3 miles S.W. of Quillahute Eiver, Wash.\n771\n,      14\nSept.  25\n1 year 101 days\t\nChinook Cannery, Columbia Eiver.\n781\n14\n16\n1 year 92 days\t\nChinook,   Columbia Biver.\n783\n,      14      \u2022\nJuly     9\n1 year 25 days\t\nDungeness.\n813\n,      10\n\u201e      26\n1 year 56 days\t\nEagle Cliff, Wash., Columbia Eiver.\n921\n6\nSept.  14\n1 year 92 days\t\nChinook Trap, Columbia Eiver.\n928\n6\n8\n1 year 86 days\t\nEwens Slough, Fraser Eiver.\n947\n17\nMar.   29\n9 months 17 days...\nOff Ucluelet.\n4105\n23\n4019\n,      IS\nApril 14\n9 months 26 days...\nOff Ucluelet.\n4140\n24\n11\n9 months\t\nSan Juan Island.\n4170\n,      25\nAug.   15\n13 months 20 days.\nHenry Island Trap.\n4215\n,      23\nMay      1\n10 months 8 days..\nOff Ucluelet.\nSalmon-tagging Opeeations off Hippa Island, Queen Charlotte Island Group, in 1925.\nIn June and July, 1925, 274 spring salmon were tagged in the vicinity of Hippa Island, on\nthe west coast of Graham Island, Queen Charlotte Group, of which 32, or 11 per cent., were\nrecovered. Of the 32 recovered, 10 Were taken in Provincial waters, 20 in the United States\nwaters, and 1 in the open sea. Of the 10 secured from Provincial waters, 2 were taken from\nthe Skeena River, 2 in Barkley Sound, 1 at Sooke, 1 in Boundary Bay, and 4 in the Fraser\nRiver;  the fish from the Skeena and Fraser Rivers being recovered in July.\nOf the 20 recaptured in L^nited States waters, 19 were taken from water in or off the Oregon\nCoast, 7 of them being taken from the Columbia River proper; the southernmost point of\nrecapture being the 4 taken in Coos Bay, Oregon, 870 miles south of the point of liberation.\nOne of them made the journey in 60 days. The point of recapture of the fish tagged at Hippa\nIsland is shown on Map 2, page 22. The following statement gives in detail the record from\nHippa Island:\u2014 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 21\nReturn of Spring Salmon tagged off Hippa Island, West Coast of Graham Island,\nQueen Charlotte Islands, 1925.\nTag No.\nDate tagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDays free.\nPlace of Eecapture.\n1925.\n2103\nJune  19\nAug.     8\n'50\nFraser Eiver, Sunhury.\n2105\n\u201e      19\nJuly   24\n35\nOregon, Tillamook Bay.\n2110\n\u201e      19\nOct.    29\n132\nOregon, Nestucca Biver.\n2013\n\u201e      20\nSept. 27\n99\nOregon, Siletz Biver.\n2014\n\u201e      20\nAug.   20\n61\nPuget Sound, Salmon Bank, Wash.\n2117\n\u201e      20\nJuly   13\n23\nSkeena Eiver, 20 miles from mouth.\n2201\n\u201e      20\nOct.    22\n124\nColumbia Eiver, Clatskanie.\n2202\n\u201e      20\nSept. 21\n93\nOregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.\n2128\n\u201e      22\n4\n74\nFraser Eiver, Mount Lehman.\n2133\n\u201e      22\nJuly   23\n31\nColumbia Eiver.\n2209\n\u201e      22\nSept. 15\n85\nBarkley Sound, Alberni Canal, off Franklin\nCreek.\n2212\n\u201e      22\nJuly   21\n29\nColumbia Eiver.\n2226\nJuly     1\n\u201e      24\n23\nSkeena Eiver, Port Essington.\n2140\n3\n\u201e      22\n19\nFraser Eiver,  Sunbury.\n2144\n3\nAug.   14\n42\nStrait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke, V.I.\n2164\n6\nSept.    3\n59\nFraser Eiver,  Sunbury.\n2239\n6\n\u201e      23\n79\nOregon, Nehalem Eiver.\n2243\n6\nJuly   25\n19\nColumbia Eiver, Sand Island.\n2179\n\u201e      15\nOct.    17\n94\nOregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.\n2188\n\u201e      16\nJuly   15?\nOff Hippa Island ;   picked up dead.\n2197\n\u201e      16\nSept. 21\n67\nOregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.\n2034\n\u201e      17\n\u201e      12\n57\nColumbia Eiver, '2 miles from Altoona.\n2045\n\u201e      19\n\u201e      22\n65\nIn ocean off Oregon Coast  (troll).\n2050\n\u201e      19\nOct.    19\n92\nOregon, Umpqua Eiver.\n2067\n\u201e      19\nNo date\nColumbia Eiver.\n2070\n\u201e      19\nSept. 14\n57\nColumbia Eiver,  Wauna.\n2073\n\u201e      19\nOct.    10\n83\nOregon, Umpqua Eiver.\n2096\n\u201e      23\nNov.     8\n108\nBarkley  Sound,  Uchucklesit.\n2098\n\u201e      23\nSept. 21\n60\nOregon, Coos Bay, Marshfleld.\n2251\n23\nOct.      9\n78\nOregon, Alsea Eiver.\n2272\n\u201e      24\n8\n76\n14 miles inside Gray's Harbour Bar, Wash.\n2288\n\u201e      25\nSept.    1\n3S\nBoundary Bay, Strait of Georgia.\nTagging of Sockeye Salmon in 1925.\nSix hundred and fifty-nine sockeye salmon (O. nerka) were tagged and liberated at Haystack\nIsland, at the south of the mouth of Portland Canal, early in August, 1925.\nOf the 659 tagged, 135, or 20 per cent., were recaptured in 1925; 80 of which were taken\nin the Nass River, 14 in waters leading to the Nass, 13 in the Skeena River, 27 in Alaska waters,\nand 1 in Union Passage, Grenville Channel, 50 miles south of the Skeena River. It is also\ninteresting to note that tags were recovered from 2 sockeye that were caught at Onslow Island,\nClarence Strait, Alaska, one day after being tagged and liberated, and that one was taken at\nMeziadin Falls, 100 miles above the mouth of the Nass, in the month of November.\nAll the sockeye tagged at Haystack Island were secured from traps. Map 3, page 24, shows\nthe points of recapture.\nThe rate of travel exhibited by several of the sockeye tagged at Haystack Island is\nremarkable, as is shown in the following tabulations:\u2014\nTag No.\nDate\ntagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDistance\ntravelled.\nTime\nen route.\nBate of\nTravel.\n2559\t\nAug.   12\n\u201e      21\n12\n12\n12\nAug.    12\n22\n13\n13\n14\nMiles.\n30\n100\n95\n95\n95\nHours.\n6\n24\n24\n24\n48\nMiles per Hr.\n2933\t\n4\n2563\t\n4\n2623\t\n4\n2621..           \t\n2 E 22\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nStmnq Salmon,    tagoed at Hibha\nIsland, Jane and   Julu  HIS.\nMap 2.  Showing points where spring salmon tagged at Hippa Island were recaptured that year. \u25a0-\n\u25a0\nBRITISH COLUMBIA.                                                             E 23\nReturns of Sockeye Salmon tagged at Haystack island Trap, August, 1925.\nTag No.\nDate tagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDays free.\nPlace of Eecapture.\n1925.\n2300\nAug.     3\nAug.     8\n5\nAlaska, Gravina Island, Dall Head.\n2301\n3\n\u201e      21\n18\nNass Biver.\n2310\n3\n\u201e      21\n9\nPortland Inlet.\n2318\n3\n7\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2319\n3\n7\n4\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2320\n3\nSept. 22\n50\nWark Canal, mouth  of   (troll).\n2321\n3\nAug.     7\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2326\n3\n>,        5\n2\nAlaska, Bevill Channel, Foggy Bay.\n232S\n3\n\u201e      13\n10\nNass Eiver, mouth of.\n2331\n3\n18\n15\nNass Eiver.\n233S\n3\n,,        5\n2\nAlaska, Eevlll Channel, Foggy Bay.\n2348\n3\n,,        7\n4\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2350\n3\n4\n1\nNass Biver.\n2352\n,,        5\n\u201e      18\n13\nNass Eiver.\n2371\n,, .      5\n\u201e      28\n24\nSkeena Eiver, 4 miles north of Hazelton.\n2376\n,,         5\n\u201e      14\n9\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2385\n\u201e        5\n\u201e      13\n8\nPortland  Inlet.\n2387\n>,        5\n\u201e      12\n7\nNass Biver, Kincolith Bar.\n2390\n,,        5\n6\n1\nAlaska,  Bevill Channel,  Slate Island.\n2392\n,,        5\n\u201e       14\n9\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2393\n,,        5\n10\n5\nAlaska, Cape Fox, Dixon Entrance.\n2396\n>i        5\n,,      14\n9\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2466\n,,        5\n\u201e       12\n7\nSkeena Eiver.\n2410\n,,        5\n\u201e   .   14\n9\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2412\n,,        5\n\u201e      14\n9\nNass Eiver, mouth of.\n2431\n.,        5\n8\n3\nAlaska, Bevill Channel, Foggy Bay.\n2433\n,,        5\nt,      12\n7\nNass Eiver, Mouth Point.\n2382\n,,        5\n\u201e      14\n7\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2386\n,,        5\n\u201e      14\n7\nNass Eiver.\n2439\n,,        5\n\u201e      17\n10\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2440\n\u201e        5\n\u201e      10\n3\nNass Eiver.\n2444\n,,        5\n18\n11\nNass Eiver.\n2446\n,,        5\n\u201e      14\n7\nNass Biver, Portland Inlet.\n2448\n,,        5\n11\n4\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2454\n,,        5\n11\n4\nNass Biver.\n2460\n7\n\u201e      14\n7\nNass Biver.\n2461\n7\n\u201e      10\n3\nNass Eiver.\n2465\n7\n\u201e      11\n4\nPortland Inlet.\n2468\n7\n6?\nPortland  Inlet.\n2469\n7\n\u201e      10\n3\nAlaska, Cape Fox, Dixon Entrance.                        .\n2471\n7\n\u201e      12\n5\nNass Eiver, Mouth Point.\n2476\n7\n14\n7\nObservatory Inlet, mouth of.\n2481\n7\n13\n6\nAlaska, Ernest  Sound, Union Bay.\n2485\n7\nSept. 25\n49\nWark Canal, mouth of  (troll).\n2486\n,,        7\nAug.   17\n10\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n248S\n,,         7\n12\n5\nNass Eiver, Mouth Point.\n2491\n7\n\u201e      14\n7 \u2022\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2499\n7\n\u201e      10\n3\nNass Eiver.\n2500\n7\n\u201e      10\n3\nPortland Inlet,  Steamer Passage.\n2508\n7\n18\n11\nNass Eiver.\n2510\n7\n\u201e      13\n6\nSkeena Eiver.\n2513\n7\n\u201e      10\n3\nSkeena Eiver, mouth of.\n2514\n\u201e      10\n\u201e      13\n3\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2521\n\u201e      10\n,,      12\n2\nNass Eiver.\n2530\n\u201e      10\n\u201e      14\n4\nNass Eiver, Portland Inlet.\n2534\n\u201e      10\n\u201e      12\n2\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n'2539\n\u201e      10\n\u201e      20\n10\nSkeena Eiver.\n2545\n\u201e      10\n14\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2548\n\u201e      10\nSept. 14\n35\nSkeena Eiver, Hazelton.\n2551\n7\nAug.   14\n4\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2553\n\u201e      12\n\u201e      16\n4\nAlaska, Bevill Channel, Foggy Bay.\n2559\n\u201e      12\n\u201e      12\n0\nNass Biver.\n2562\n\u201e      12\n\u201e      10?\nL\nPortland Inlet,  Steamer Passage. E 24\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nCockeye   tagged\nat  Haystack Island\nAugust  \\<\\15\nMap 3. Showing points where sockeye salmon tagged at Haystack Island in 1925 were recaptured\nthat year. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 25 E 26\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nReturns of Sockeye Salmon tagged at Haystack Island Trap, August, 1925\u2014Continued.\nTag No.        Date\ntagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDays free.\nPlace of Eecapture.\n1\n1925.\n2563               At.\ng.   12\nAug.   13\n1\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2570\n,      12\n\u201e      14\n2\nNass Eiver.\n2574                  ,\n,      12\nSept. 20\n39\nDundas Island, Dixon Entrance  (troll).\n2589\n,      12\nAug.   23\n11\nGrenville Channel,  Union Passage.\n2591\n,      12\n,<      17\n7\nSkeena Eiver, Port Essington.\n2595                  ,\n,      12\n17\n5\nNass Eiver, near Point.\n2597\n,      12\n\u201e      20\n8\nSkeena   Eiver.\n2606             '    ,\n,      12\n\u201e      17\n5\nNass Biver, near Point.\n2609\n,      12\n\u201e      10?\nPortland Inlet,  Steamer Passage.\n2619\n,      12\n\u201e      13\n1\nAlaska,  Cape Fox, Dixon Entrance.\n2621\n,      12\n\u201e      14\n2\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2623\n12\n\u201e      13\n1\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2625\n,      12\n\u201e      17\n5\nAlaska, Kanagunut Island.\n2627\n,      12\n\u201e      16\n4\nAlaska, Gravina Island,  Seal Cove.\n2629                  ,\n,      12\n>,      17\n5\nAlaska, Kanagunut Island.\n2602\n14\n8?\nAlaska, Gravina Island, Vallenar Bay.\n2604\n,      14\n\u201e      18\n4\nNass Biver.\n2617\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n3\nNass Biver.\n2631\n,      14\n\u201e      19\n5\nNass Biver.\n2642                  ,\n,      14\n16\n2\nNass Biver.\n2650\n14\n21\n7\nNass Eiver.\n2654\n14\nSept. 23\n40\nWark Canal (troll).\n2655\n14\nAug.   17\n3\nPortland Inlet.\n2659\n,      14\n\u201e      20\n6\nSkeena Eiver.\n2663                  ,\n,      14\n7?\nNass Eiver, mouth of.\n2664                  ,\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n' 3\nAlaska, Kanagunut Island.\n2665\n,      14\n\u201e      19\n5\nNass Eiver.\n2668\n,      14\n13?\nAlaska, Ernest Sound, Union Bay.\n2671\n14\n\u201e      21\n7\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2675                  ,\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n3\nNass Eiver, near Point.\n2682                  ,\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n3\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2700\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n3\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2710\n14\nNov.   15\n93\nNass Eiver, Meziadin Falls.\n2712                  ,\n14\nAug.   21\n7\nNass River, Kincolith Bar.\n2715\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n3\nNass Eiver, near Point.\n2716\n14\n\u201e      16\n2\nSkeena Eiver.\n2718                  ,\n14\n18\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2719\n14\n21\n7\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2720\n,      14\n\u201e      17\n3\nNass Eiver.\n2724\n,      14\n\u201e      19\n5\nNass Eiver.\n2728                  ,\n,      14\n\u201e      18\n4\nPortland Inlet,\n2734              .   ,\n,      14\nSept. 20\n37\nSkeena Eiver, Bahine Lake.\n2736\n,      14\nAug.   21\n7\nNass Eiver.\n2739\n,      14\n\u201e      16\n2\nAlaska, Nakat Bay.\n2740\n,      14\n\u201e      26\n12\nNass Eiver, Aiyansh.\n2743\n,      17\n\u201e      19\n\u25a0 2\nNass Eiver.\n2746\n,      17\n21\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2751\n,      17\n\u201e      20\n3\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2752\n,      17\nSept.    S\n22\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2755                  ,\n,      17\nAug.   20\n3\nNass Eiver.\n2768\n,      17\n\u201e      21\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2775\n,      17\n\u201e      21\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2780\n,      17\n\u201e     '20\n3\nAlaska, Prince of Wales Island, Kassa Inlet.\n2785\n,      17\n\u201e      28\n' 11\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2797\n,      17\n\u201e     '20\n3\nNass Eiver.\n2S55\n,      17\n\u201e      19\n2\nNass Biver.\n2858\n,      17\n\u201e      18\n1\nAlaska, Nakat Bay.\n2860\n,      17\n\u201e      21\n4\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2866                  ,\n,      17\n21\n4\nNass Eiver, Kincolith Bar.\n2875              .   ,\n,      14\n\u201e      21\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2.881\n,      14\n\u201e      20\n3\nAlaska, Prince of Wales Island, Kassa Inlet.\n'2884\n,      14\n\u201e      28\n11\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2888\n,      14\n\u201e      21\n4\nNass Eiver.\n2895\n14\n\u201e      19\n_J\n2\nSkeena Eiver, mouth of (off Eachail Island). _____ .   _  .\nBRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 27\nReturns of Sockeye Salmon tagged at Haystaek Island Trap, August, 1925\u2014Continued.\nTag No.\nDate tagged.\nDate of\nEecapture.\nDays free.\nPlace of Eecapture.\n1925.\n2817\nAug.   19\nAug.   24\n5\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2803\n\u201e      19\n\u201e      28\n9\nNass Eiver, Leading Point.\n2S20\n,      19\n\u201e      21\n2\nNass Eiver.\n2825\n,      19\nSept. 14\n26\nSkeena Eiver, Hazelton.\n2822\n,      19\nAug.   20\n1\nNass Eiver.\n2930\n,      21\n\u201e      31\n10\nNass Eiver.\n2933\n,      21\n22\n1\nAlaska,  Clarence  Straits, Onslow Island.\n2936\n,      21\n\u201e     28\n7\nNass Eiver.\nResults of Sockeye-tagging at Deepwater Bay, Seymour Narrows, in 1925.\nBetween August 7th and 14th, 1925, 519 sockeye salmon taken from purse-nets were tagged\nand liberated at Deepwater Bay, Seymour Narrows, of which 107, or 20 per cent., were recaptured.\nOf the 107 recaptured, all but one were taken in Provincial waters, mainly in the Fraser.\nThe one exception noted was taken on September 25th, off the east shore of Whidbey Island,\nWashington.\nOf the 107 retaken, 90 were recaught in August, 17 in September, and 1 in October.\nThe tagging of sockeye at Deepwater Bay in 1925 confirms the findings of Dr. Gilbert, in\nhis report for 1915, that a portion of the sockeye runs to the Fraser reached there from the\nnorth.\nTHE HALIBUT INVESTIGATION.\nThe investigation of the life-history of the Pacific halibut and the condition of that fishery\nin the North Pacific, which is being conducted by the International Fisheries Commission, created\nby the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States, made progress during the year.\nThe Commission's staff during the summer and fall-was engaged largely in tagging halibut and\nobtaining data from the banks off the Oregon Coast to the Shumagin Island, Alaska. Fishing\nwas conducted in the usual commercial way by the \" Scandia,\" one of the largest halibut-fishing\nvessels in the Pacific fleet, which was under charter to the Commission for much of the year.\nThe halibut caught which were not seriously injured were tagged and released. Those too\nseriously injured to survive were retained and, after examination for racial characteristics,\nage, etc., were cleaned, iced, landed, and sold in the regulation manner. Since tagging operations\nwere begun in 1925 over 8,000 fish have been tagged and released. Of the fish tagged, some\n800 have been recaptured and the tags returned to the Commission.\nThe primary work of the Commission on the \" Scandia \" has been to obtain data as to the\nexistence or non-existence of distinct differences in the halibut on various banks\u2014to determine\nwhether the fish are homogenous or more or less distinct races; to determine if there are\nsignificant body proportions and differences in anatomical structure and variations in the time\nof spawning and age at maturity.\nSome progress has also been made in the study of propagation. Several types of tow-nets,\nyoung-fish trawls, and hydrographic instruments were used in the effort to solve some of the\nproblems\u2014the location of the spawning-banks, location and depth at which eggs, lame, and\nnewly hatched fish may be obtained; in other words, their environment and in what way the\nwater-currents are likely to affect the drift of eggs and young fish, as drift is important to\ndetermine isolation. To determine the age and rate of growth of fish in widely scattered banks\na considerable amount of data has been collected from a large number of fish. More than\n15,000 scales and ear-bones, by which rate of growth and age is established, have been assembled.\nIn addition to the data as to. age, rate of growth, racial characteristics, migration, and\npropagation, much progress has been made in other features of the Commission's work. Complete\nrecords of the halibut landed on the coast since 1914 have been made, with records showing the\ncatches per unit of gear\u2014per skate. Enough data have been obtained to show the catch per\nskate for many years on many banks. The records from the banks in Hecate Strait show that\nin the last twenty years the average catch per skate has dropped from 477 lb. in 1907 to 45 lb. E 28 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nin 1926. It forcefully shows the depletion that has taken place on Hecate banks. All other\nknown long-fished banks show a similar rate of decrease. The present supply is being maintained by resorting to newly discovered and far-distant banks; by more intense fishing on\ndepleted banks; and by the use of smaller hooks\u2014by the catching of an increased number of\nyoung fish. The outstanding feature of this part of the work, like that previously conducted by\nthe Provincial Government, is the establishment of depletion.\nThe work is still being directed to ascertain What steps, if any, can be taken to arrest\ndepletion, and as the work progresses new questions are presented for solution. Take, for\ninstance, the question of protecting the young rather than the adult. There are great fisheries\nwhich flourish on the capture of the young fish only, and there are more which depend entirely\nupon adults. Possibly because of the fact that more fisheries depend upon the catching of\nadults, there is a popular tendency to deprecate the catching of the young. Yet, as Mr. W. F.\nThompson, the Commission's Director of Investigations, has pointed out, it is a fact that in most\nfisheries the toll taken by man from the young of any species is but a minute fraction of that\ntaken by other enemies\u2014that a great proportion of the young which could in many cases be\ntaken by man will later be consumed by natural enemies alone. That being the case, why not\ntake the young? On the other hand, even though an adult survives many perils to arrive at\nspawning size, it has increased greatly in bulk, so that it might pay to protect the young and\nprofit by the increase in weight. Picture, as Mr. Thompson has done, a fisherman with a young\nfish he has taken asking himself whether, if he throws it back into the water, it might not\nreturn to his nets a year or more later many times larger, but pausing when he saw the many\nenemies awaiting the return of the young fish to their reach. Would he have to return twenty\nyoung fish to get one large one back? Would that be good business? In which case would the\nfishermen destroy the most spawners? The present knowledge is of so little value in comparing\nthe rate of mortality with rate of growth that this question cannot be determined. Only close\nstudy and experience can demonstrate the way to administer a great marine fishery. A fundamental difficulty at present is that it is not known what balance should be maintained between\nyoung and old\u2014between spawners and non-spawners. Such questions can only be determined\nby skilfully framed and continuous experiments. The adequacy and efficiency of regulations\nmust await the results of their application. LIFE-HISTORX OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 29\nAPPENDICES.\nCONTRIBUTIONS  TO  THE  LIFE-HISTORY  OP  THE   SOCKEYE   SALMON.\n(No. 12.)\nBy Wilbert A. Clemens, Ph.D., Director, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo,\nand Lucy S. Clemens, Ph.D.\n1.   THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.\nThe total pack from the run to the Fraser River amounted to 130,362 cases, of which 85,689\nwere packed in the Province of British Columbia and 44,673 cases in the State of Washington.\nThe extent of the run and the size of the pack was above expectancy, due to the appearance of\na large late run in September, the bulk of the escapement of which proceeded to Shuswap Lake\n(Little River and Adams River) to spawn. The distribution of the pack is interesting in that\nthe British Columbia pack exceeded that of the Washington by 41,016 cases. This circumstance\nis apparently partly the result of the failure of the American fishermen to intercept the late\nrun. There has been much conjecture as to the origin of this late portion of the run. It is\napparent that before extraordinary explanations are resorted to all available data should be\nstudied to see if the run cannot be accounted for in the natural course of events. In this connection it is interesting to note that in 1922 the British Columbia pack exceeded that of the\nWashington by slightly over 3,000 cases. In only one other year since 1910 has there been a\nsimilar occurrence\u2014namely, in 1915, when the Canadian pack exceeded the American by 26,000\ncases. (Table I.) In ,1922 there was a late run which went to the Shuswap area, as Fishery\nOfficer Shotton reported in that year that the run to that area surpassed any of the previous\neight years. The following quotations from the report of Mr. Shotton are given with the\npermission of Major Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, Vancouver: \" The run of sockeye\nwas exceptionally good, there being two runs. The first run of sockeye were the larger fish\nmany of which went to the spawning areas in the Adams River. The smaller sockeye, which\nfollowed closely, were also numerous; in fact, too numerous to mention numbers. I used every\nendeavour to get some one of authority to estimate the number of sockeye in the Little River,\nbut they only smiled, saying it was almost impossible. I am taking a very conservative estimate\nwhen I state that some six to eight thousand had been seen in the Little River.\"\nIt might be expected that the weekly pack records would show a late run in 1922, but this\nis not the case, as may be seen in Table II., which is given with the permission of Major Motherwell. The occurrence of the late run in 1926 is clearly indicated in the figures for October 2nd,\n1926, but there is no corresponding large pack in 1922. Since the sockeye-fishing season ends\nin the Fraser River on September 30th, it may be that the Shuswap run entered the river after\nthat date. Mr. Shotton states that in 1922 two runs of sockeye appeared in Adams River\u2014one\non October 6th, which was light, and another, on October 25th, which was heavy. In 1926\nthe run arrived in the Fraser River on September 27th and had reached Adams River about\nOctober 20th. If, therefore, the run of 1922 was five days later than the run in 1926, it must\nhave come in after the close of the sockeye-fishing season and so did not leave a record in the\nfigures of the pack.\nIt will be noted that Mr. Shotton states that a very conservative estimate of the number\nof sockeye in Little River in 1922 would be 8,000. This without doubt was a very conservative\nestimate, for that number scattered in a stream such as Little River would not be very impressive.\nMr. Babcock states that Mr. Shotton believes there were no less than 20,000 sockeye in Adams\nRiver in 1922. There would thus be a total of at least 28,000 spawning fish in the two rivers,\nwhich would mean a deposition of over 50,000,000 eggs. Mr. Babcock has estimated the number\nof fish on the spawning-beds in these rivers in 1926 as between 300,000 and 400,000. Obviously\nsuch a return could scarcely have resulted from the spawning of 28,000 fish, but since the latter\nestimate is a very conservative one there can be no doubt but that at least the great bulk of\nthem did. E 30 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nIn March, 1923, a planting of 1,176,000 eyed sockeye-eggs was made in Eagle River, a\ntributary of Upper Shuswap Lake. It has been suggested that possibly the return from this\nplanting accounted for the run of 1926 to Adams River and Little River, but since this planting\nwas at best less than 3 per cent, of the natural deposition it is apparent that the return could\nhave formed but a very small part of the run, even though it might have gone there instead of\nto Eagle River.\nSince the run to the Fraser is composed predominately of four-year-old fish, the bulk of the\n1926 fish were undoubtedly descendants of the 1910-14-18-22 cycle. The figures in Table I.\nshow that in the early years the runs of this cycle were very large, approximating those of\nthe big- cycle; that is, the 1909-13-17-21-25 series. The former cycle is the only one showing\na decided tendency toward recuperation and this recovery is largely the result of the development of this late run to Shuswap Lake. The significance lies in the apparent fact that a\nremnant of an up-river race is building itself up into a large run. It is indicative of the\nrecuperative possibilities of the Fraser and of the possible lines of procedure which may profitably be followed in attempting to assist in the rehabilitation of the upper river.\nThe sockeye coming to the Fraser River in 1927 should be the descendants of the 1923 run,\nwhich produced the second smallest pack in the history of the Fraser. Moreover, the 1911-15-\n19-23 cycle has shown a very decided decline, as shown in Table I. Mr. Babcock's report of\ninspection of the spawning-beds in 1923 indicates that very few sockeye reached the areas above\nHell's Gate, except the Shuswap area, where a few thousand spawned late in the season.\nTable II. indicates that there was a small late run in 1923. Although 6,176,000 eggs collected\nfrom the Lower Fraser run of 1923 were planted in the Upper Fraser, it is evident that the\nreturns from this under the best of conditions cannot be great. Thus, in the ordinary course\nof events, the sockeye-pack of 1927 will depend upon the extent of the run to the Lower Fraser\nand a very large run cannot be anticipated.\nThe material for this year's study consisted of data and scales from 1,124 sockeye salmon\nselected at random from April 27th to August 30th in forty-three samplings.\n(1.)  The One-year-in-lake Type.\nThis type was the predominant one in the Fraser River run, as usual, being represented by\n995 individuals, or 89 per cent, of the total of 1,124. The proportions of the three classes were\nas follows: Three years of age, 24, or 2 per cent.; four years of age, 743, or 75 per cent.; and\nfive years of age, 228, or 23 per cent. The four-year-old one-year-in-lake fish thus continue to\nform the bulk of the run, accounting for 66 per cent, of the total.\nTables III. and IV. give the lengths and weights of the four- and five-year specimens of\nthe one-year-in-lake type in the collection.\nIt will be noted that the numbers of the males were slightly in excess of those of the females,\nthere being 496 of the former and 475 of the latter. In the previous year the reverse was the\nease.\nThe average lengths of the four-year-old males and females is the lowest on record. The\ndecrease is astonishing, being almost 1 inch in the case of the males and % inch in the case\nof the females, as compared with the figures of last year, when a low record was established.\n(See Table V.) It will be seen that during the last eight years there has been a decrease in\naverage length of 1% inches in the case of the males and at least Vi inch in the case of the\nfemales. That this decrease in size has taken place in the cycles is shown in the following table\nfor the 1926-1922-1918 cycle :\u2014\nAverage length, 1918.:  Males, 24.9 inches;  females, 23.8 inches.\nAverage length, 1922:  Males, 24.0 inches;  females, 23.0 inches.\nAverage length, 1926:  Males, 22.6 inches;  females, 22.3 inches.\nWith the decrease in length there has also been a decrease in average weight.   The average\nweights in 1926 for the four-year-old males were 5.2 lb. and for the females 4.9 lb., which are\nthe lowest on record.\nSimilar decreases have taken place among the five-year-old one-year-in-lake fish, as illustrated\nby the following:\u2014.\nAverage length, 1916 : Males, 26.S inches; females, 25.5 inches.\nAverage length, 1921: Males, 25.7 inches ; females, 24.6 inches.\nAverage length, 1926:  Males, 24.6 inches;  females, 24.0 inches. LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON. E 31\nIt is apparent that the larger individuals of the various races or the races of larger\nindividuals are decreasing in numbers either through the selective action of fishing operations\nor through natural causes. There can be little doubt but that fishing operations are responsible\nand that we have here an indication of great strain being put upon the stock. There can be\nno question as to the reliability of the figures, since all the material has been collected at the\ntraps at Sooke and the methods of sampling and measurement have been uniform throughout\nthe years. We are dealing here, of course, only with those fish which have appeared off the\nsouthern end of Vancouver Island up to about the end of the first week in September, and so\nnot with those fish which have appeared later and formed such runs as went to Shuswap Lake\nthis year or in 1922.    The late run of this year reached the Fraser River about September 28th.\nThe grilse, three-year-old one-year-in-lake fish, were relatively few in numbers, forming a\ntotal of twenty-four, of which five were females. The data concerning the grilse are given in\nTables VI. and VII.\n(2.)  The Two-years-in-lake Type.\nThis group does not form a large component of the Fraser River fish. In 1926 there were\nbut seventy-nine individuals in the total collection, distributed as follows: Three individuals\nfour years of age, fifty-eight individuals five years of age, and eighteen individuals six years\nof age. (See Tables VI., VII., VIII., and IX.) As has been pointed out by Dr. Gilbert, the\nadditional year in the lake does not add appreciably to the adult length or weight.\n(3.)  The Sea-type.\nThe individuals of this type were not numerous in the run of 1926, there being 22 three\nyears of age and 28 four years of age.    The average of the previous six years was 33 of the\nformer and 35 of the latter.    The following figures give the number of individuals of this type\nill the runs 1920 to 1926 :\u2014 Three Years      Pour Years\nold. old.\n1920       36 17\n1921       6 22\n1922       54 4S\n1923        64 94\n1924         8 30\n1925       27\n1926     22 28\nIt will be seen that the type was abundantly represented in 1922 and 1923 and should thus\nhave been well represented in 1926.\nThe data concerning lengths and weights are given in Tables X. and XL It should be pointed\nout that in this year the sea-type exceed in both average length and average weight the corresponding one-year-in-lake type. That is, the average lengths of the four-year-old one-year-in-lake\nmales and females are 22.6 and 22.3 inches respectively, while the average lengths of the three-\nyear-old males and females of the sea-going type are 23.4 and 22.5 inches respectively.\nTable I.\u2014Fraser River Packs, 1910-26, arranged in accordance with the Four-year Cycle.\nB.C 1910\u2014   150,432 1914\u2014198,183 1918\u2014 19,697 1922\u2014 51,832 1926\u2014 85,689\nWash  248,014 335,230 50,723 48,566 44,673\nTotal  398,446 533,413 70,420 100,30S 130,362\nB.C 1911\u2014     58,487 1915\u2014 91,130 1919\u2014 88,854 1923\u2014 31,655\nWash  127,761 64,584 64,346 47,402\nTotal  180,248 155,714 103,200 79,057\nB.C 1912\u2014   123,879 1916\u2014 32,146 1920\u2014 48,399 1924\u2014 39,743\nWash  184,680 84,637 62,654 69,369\nTotal  308,559 116,783 111,053 109,112\nH.C 1913\u2014   719,796 1917\u2014148,164 1921\u2014 39,631 1925\u2014 35,385\nWash  1,673,099 411,538 102,967 112,023\nTotal  2,392,895 S'59,70'2 142,598 147,408 E 32\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTable II.\u2014Comparative Statement of Packs of Sockeye, Fraser River District, 1922-26.\n1922.\n1923.\n1924.\n19.\n5.\n1926.\nDate.\nNo. of\nCases.\nDate.\nNo. of\nCases.\nDate.\nNo. of\nCases.\nDate.\nNo. of\nCases.\nDate.\nNo. of\nCases.\n23\nJuly\n4\n11\n92\n928\nJuly\n10\n17\n58\nJuly   15\n,,      22\n881\n353\nJuly\n21\n81\nJuly\n19\n337\n\u25a0\n18\n756\n,\n24\n1,695\n\u201e      29\n4,030\n,.\n28\n1,001\n,,\n26\n2,540\n,t\n25\n4,167\n,,\n31\n2,148\nAug.     5\n5,155\nAug.\n4\n2,020\nAug.\n2\n5,921\nAug.\n1\n5,633\nAug.\n7\n2,136\n\u201e      12\n7,536\n.,\n11\n3,980\n,,\n9\n5,839\n,,\n8\n7,257\n,,\n14\n8,795\n\u201e      19\n6,509\n,,\n18\n5,515\n,,\n16\n4,549\n,,\n15\n2,736\n,,\n21\n7,541\n\u201e      26\n7,949\n,,\n'25\n3,432\n,,\n23\n6,476\n,,\n22\n2,516\n,,\n28\n5,144\nSept.    2\n7,025\nSept.\n1\n2,910\n\u201e\n30\n5,262\n,,\n29\n1,676\nSept.\n4\n3,469\n9\n832\n\u201e\n6\n1,177\nSept.\n6\n995\nSept.\n5\n1,674\n,,\n11\n5,933\n\u201e      16\n3,932\n,,\n15\n4,225\n\u201e\n13\n475\n,,\n12\n1,218\n\u201e\n18\n9,169\n\u201e      23\n3,079\n\u201e\n22\n873\n,,\n20\n172\n,,\n19\n889\n\u201e\n25\n6,410\n\u201e      30\n701\n29\n2,322\n,,\n27\n306\n\u201e\n26\n670\nOct.\n2\n24,148\nOct.      7\n429\nOct.\n6\n13\n753\n635\nOct.\n4\n11\n212\n66\nOct.\n3\n10\n500\n3\n\"\n9\n5,680\nTable III.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Islan4 Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and, Length.\nLength in Inches.\nNumbek of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nMales.\nFive Years old.\nFemales.     Males.     Females\nTotal.\n18 \t\n1S%\t\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\nTotals\t\nAverage lengths\n17\n24\n29\n33\n23\n17\n13\n13\n31\n45\n40\n24\n13\n6\n380\n3\n4\n12\n24\n30\n24\n14\n12\n2S\n23\n38\n45\n53\n31\n12\n7\n'6\n7\n8\n17\n19\n11\n16\n6\n2\n1\n1\n357\n110\n4\n2\n7\n13\n11\n24\n11\n19\n11\n118\n12\n29\n49\n59\n59\n41\n34\n48\n50\n79\n90\n116\n104\n90\n48\n39\n14\n2\n2\n1\n971\n22.6\n24.6\n24.0 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 33\nTable IV.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, One Tear in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.\nWeight in Pounds.\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nTotal.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n2\n5\n46\n46\n47\n25\n41\n32\n28\n23\n36\n23\n20\n4\n6\n4\n2\n5\n46\n36\n41\n41\n30\n34\n56\n29\n27\n6\n3\n1\n....\n1\n7\n10\n8\n5\n19\nIS\n23\n8\n8\n1\n1\n1\n2\n4\n13\n18\n13\n30\n22\n10\n4\n2\n2%....                                      .           \t\n11\n3\t\n93\n3%\t\n85\n4\t\n99\n4%\t\n89\n97\n5%\t\n84\n6\t\n133\n6%... \t\n92\n7\t\n96\n7%\t\n41\n8\t\n31\n8%\t\n9\t\n7\n9%  \t\n9\n6\nTotals\t\n3'86             357\n110       |     118\n971\n5.2\n4.9\n6.2        1       5.7\nTable V.\u2014Average Lengths, Fraser River Sockeyes, Four Years old, One Year in Lake,\nfor a Term of Years.\nMales. Females.\nAverage lengths for five years prior to 1919  25.0 24.1\nLengths in 1919  24.1 22.8\nLengths in 1920  24.1 23.2\nLengths in 1921  23.7 23.0\nLengths in 1922   24.0 23.0\nLengths in 1923   24.3 23.3\nLengths in 1924   23.8 22.8\nLengths in 1925  23.5 22.9\nLengths in 1926   22.G 22.3\nTable VI.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Grilse, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Length.\nLength in Inches.\nOne Year in Lake,\nThree Years old.\nTwo Years in Lake,\nFour Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n17%      i\t\n2\n1\n3\n4\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\n....\n2\n1\no\n1\n1\n18\t\n18%...           \t\n19\t\n19%\t\n20    \t\n20%    \t\n21\t\n21%\t\n00\n1\nTotals  \t\nAverage lengths\t\n19                     5\n2         |           1\n19.7       1        19.3\n1\n21.0\n22.0 E 34\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,\n1926.\nTable VII.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Grilse, 1926, from, Vancouver\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.\nIsland Traps,\nWeight in Pounds.\nOne Year in Lake,\nThree Years old.\nTwo Years in Lake,\nFour Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n2  \t\n1\n1\n4\n5\n4\n4\n3\n1\n1\n....\n....\n1\n1\n2%\t\n3                               \t\n....\n3%\t\n4\t\n4%             .            \t\ni\nTotals\t\n19                     5\n2         1           1\nAverage weights\t\n3.6\n3.3\n4.2\n5.0\nTable VIII.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Length.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n18\t\n3\n1\n2\n1\n1\n7\n\u00ab\n4\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n2\n7\n2\n4\n1.\n....\n2\n2\n1\n18%\t\n19\t\n19%\t\n20                                                                                               \t\n20%\t\n21\t\n21%\t\n1\n22\t\n2\n22%\t\n2\n23\t\n23%\t\n1\n24\t\n24%\t\n4\n25\t\n2\n25%\t\n26\t\n26V.\t\n1\nTotals\t\n29         |         29\n5\n13\n23.2                 22.4\n25.5\n23 7 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 35\nTable IX.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.\nWeight in Pounds.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nFive Y'ears old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n2%\t\n1\n2\n4\n1\n3\n5\n6\n3\n2\n3\n4\n4\n3\n2\n3\n5\n4\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1\n3\t\n3%\t\n4\t\n4%\t\n5%\t\n6\t\n6%\t\n7....J\t\n7%\t\n8\t\n8% \t\nTotals\t\n29\n29\n5\n13\n5.4\n4.S\n7.4\n5.7\nTable X.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1926, from Vancouver\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Length.\nIsland Traps,\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nThree Years old.\nFour Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n29\n1\n5\n4\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n3\n4\n22%\t\n23 _\t\n23%\t\n24\t\nn\ni   ,   ::\n;;;;     i     ;;;;\n24%\t\n25\t\n4\n25%\t\n3\n3\n3\n2\n26\t\nTotals\t\n13          |            9\n8\n20\n23.4                 22.5\n25.4\n24.6\n- E 36\nREPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTable XI.\u2014Fraser River Sockeyes, Sea-type, 1926, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.\nWeight in Pounds.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nThree Years old.\nFour Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n4\t\n2\n1\n4\no\n1\n3\n3\n2\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n4%\t\n1\n5%\t\n1\n6\t\n6%\t\n6\n7\t\n3\n7%\t\n2\n8\t\n2\n8% :\t\n1\nTotals\t\n13\n9\n8\n20\nAverage weights\t\n6.1\n5.4\n7.3\n6.6\n2.   THE RIVERS  INLET  SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.\n(1.)  General Characteristics.\nThe 1926 pack for Rivers Inlet amounted to 65,581 cases. This falls in line with the\n1911-16-21-26 series and is a fair pack for that series. Sixty per cent, of the run consisted\nof four-year-old fish and were thus no doubt derived from the 1922 spawning, when the run\nconsisted of 82 per cent, of four-year-old individuals. Forty per cent, of the run consisted of\nfive-year-old fish derived from the 1921 spawning, when the run consisted of 51 per cent, of\nfive-year-old individuals.    (Table XII.)\nIn the report on the run of 1925 it was stated that the pack figures seemed to further confirm\nthe opinion that there is a five-year cycle in Rivers Inlet. (Table XIII.) While this is true\nand while the five-year-old fish appear to be the dominant factor in the runs, the occurrence of\nvarying numbers of four-year-old fish makes prediction rather difficult. The five-year group is a\nfairly uniform one, as may be seen when the percentages of the numbers of these fish in the runs\nare arranged in the five-year cycles, as follows:\u2014\nPer Cent.\nPer Cent.\nPer Cent.\n1912\t\n 79               1917.\n...67               1922.\n...43               1923.\n IS\n1913\t\n 20               1918\n 24\n1914\t\n 65                1919\n...54                1924.\n 56\n1915....\t\n 87               1920\n...95                1925.\n 77\n1916\t\n 76                1921\n...51                1926.\n 40\nOn the other\nhand,\nthe four-year-old group\nshows great fluctuations :-\nPer Cent\nPer Cent\nPer Cent.\nPer Cent.\n1912\t\n....21\n1916\t\n.24\n1920...\n  5\n1924\t\n 44\n1913\t\n....80\n1917\t\n33\n1921...\n 49\n1925\t\n 23\n1914\t\n....35\n1918\t\n.57\n1922...\n 82\n1926\t\n 60\n1915\t\n....13\n1919\t\n.46\n1923...\n 76\nIn view of such fluctuations, together with the high percentages of males, it would appear,\nas Dr. Gilbert suggested in his report for 1917, that there are present each year considerable\nnumbers of males that have been precocious in development and have matured at four years of\nage instead of at five. It may be recalled that in the Fraser there are precocious males maturing\nat three years of age and called grilse.\nThe run of 1927 will be derived from the brood-years 1922 and 1923. While the report from\nthe spawning-beds in 1922 indicated an abundant seeding, the run of that year consisted of only\n18 per cent, of five-year-old fish, the smallest percentage of five-year-old fish on record. In his\nreport on the run of 1922, Dr. Gilbert points out that, owing to a strike, fishing did not commence until about July 10th. He states: \".'At this time the run is in ordinary years reaching its\nculminating point and certain changes have occurred in its composition. One of these changes\nusually concerns the proportions of the four- and five-year fish, the latter in most years running\nmore heavily during the first part of the season. What allowance should be made for this\nfactor it is impossible to judge, for the sequence is not exactly the same in runs of different\nyears. However, the proportions of five-year fish were so much less than in any other year\nduring the same period of the run that we are justified in concluding that this year-group was\npresent in greatly reduced numbers in the run of 1922.\"\nThe four-year-old fish of the 1927 run should be derived from the spawning of 1923. The\npack of 1923 was large and the report from the spawning-beds in that year indicates that there\nwas an abundant seeding, so that a fair number of four-year-old fish may appear.\nHowever, the 1907-12-17-22 cycle has, with one exception, produced small packs, and in view\nof the small percentage of five-year-old individuals in the 1922 run it does not appear that a\nlarge run may be expected in 1927.\n(2.)  Age-groups.\nData and scales were obtained from 735 fish in ten samplings from June 29th to August 4th.\nThe various age-groups were represented as follows: 432 individuals four-years-old one-year-in-\nlake, 283 five-years-old one-year-in-lake, 14 five-years-old two-years-in-lake, and 6 six-years-old\ntwo-years-in-lake. The first group was thus the predominant one, forming 59 per cent, of the\nrun.    (Tables XIV. and XV.)\nThe average lengths and weights of the four-year-old fish were above those of recent years,\nwhile those of the five-year-old fish showed no significant change.    (Tables XVI. and XVII.)\n(3.)  Distribution of the Sexes.\nThe distribution of the sexes in the Rivers Inlet runs is the most interesting and puzzling\nof the four systems under consideration. Throughout all the years of record the four-year-old\nmales have far outnumbered the four-year-old females and the five-year-old females outnumbered\nthe five-year-old males. (Table XVIII.) During the past eleven years in the former group\nthe males have formed an average of 71 per cent., while the average for the females was\n29 per cent. In the latter group the males have averaged 39i per cent, and the females 61 per\ncent, over the same period. A similar condition occurs in the Skeena groups, but the discrepancy\nis not so pronounced. The total percentage of males in the 1926 run was only slightly higher\nthan the total percentage of females\u201451 and 49 per cent, respectively. The total percentages\nin 1922, the brood-year of the 1927 run, were 61 for the males and 39 for the females. It would\nseem probable that a considerable percentage of the males of the five-year group develop\nprecociously and return a year earlier than normal; that is, in their fourth year instead of\ntheir fifth. E 38\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTable XII.\u2014Percentages of Four- and Fve-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes in Runs from 1912 to 1926,\nwith Broods from which they were derived.\nRun of the Year.\nPercentage,\nFour and Five\nYears old.\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1912 (112,884 cases).\n1913 (61,745 cases).\n1914 (89,890 cases).\n1915 (130,350 cases).\n1916 (44,936 cases)..\n1917 (61,195 cases).\n1918 (53,401 cases).\n1919 (56,258 cases).\n1920 (121,254 cases).\n1921 (46,300 cases).\n1922 (60,700 cases)....\n1923 (107,174 cases)..\n1924 (94,891 cases)....\n1925 (159,554 eases).\n1926 (65,581 cases)....\n5 yrs. 79%\n4 yrs. 21%\n5 yrs. 20%\n4 yrs. 80%\n5 yrs. 65%\n4 yrs. 35%\n5 yrs. 87%\n4 yrs. 13%\n5 yrs. 76%\n4 yrs. 24%\n5 yrs. 67%\n4 yrs. 33%\n5 yrs. 43%\n4 yrs. 57%\n5 yrs. 54%\n4 yrs. 46%\n5 yrs. 95%\n4 yrs. 5%\n5 yrs. 51%\n4 yrs. 49%\n5 yrs. 18%\n4 yrs. 82%\n5 yrs. 24%\n4 yrs. 76%\n5 yrs. 56%\n4 yrs. 44%\n5 yrs. 77%\n4 yrs. 23%\n5 yrs. 40%\n4 yrs. 60%\n1907 (S7.874 cases).\n1908 (64,652 cases).\n1909 (89,027 cases).\n1910 (126,921 cases).\n1911 (88,763 cases).\n1912 (112,884 cases).\n1913 (61,745 cases).\n1914 (89,890 cases).\n1915 (130,350 cases).\n1916 (44,936 cases).\n1917 (61,195 cases).\n1918 (53,401 cases).\n1919 (56,258 cases).\n1920 (121,254 cases).\n1921 (46,300 cases).\n1922 (60,700 cases).\nTable XIII.\u2014Packs of Rivers Inlet since 1907 in Even Thousands, arranged\nin accordance with the Five-year Cycle.\n1907  87,000 1912 112,000 1917  61,000\n190S  64,000 1913  61,000\n1914  89,000 1919\n1909  89,000\n1922  60,000\n1918  53,000 -1923 107,000\n1910 126,000 1915 130.000\n1911  88,000 1916  44,000\n... 56,000\n1920 121,000\n1924  94,000\n1925 159,000\n1921  46,000 1926..\n65,000 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 39\nTable XIV.\u2014Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1926, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nLength in Inches.\nOne-year-ir\n-lake Type.\nTwo-years-in-lake Type.\nTotal.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n20\t\n3\n6\n22\n30\n39\n3S\n21\n47\n26\nIS\n12\n9\n1\n1\n2\n6\n25\n29\n35\n30\n22\n6\n3\n1\n1       !       1\n1       |       ....\n::::  i  i\n1\n....       |       ....\n....       i       ....\n....       |       ....\n....       [      ....\n....       J       ....\n....       |       ....\n1       j       ....\nE    i\n\"i  |  ::::\ni  |   i\ni      i\n....  i  ....\n3\n20%\t\n3\n3\n4\n7\n7\n14\n11\n' 7\n15\n7\n8\n4\n1\n1\n2\n4\n16\n31\n21\n41\n22\n18\n20\n12   >\n2\n2\n7\n21\t\n27\n21%\t\n37\n22\t\n69\n22%\t\n76\n23\t\n23%\t\ni\n....\n2\n....\n2\n2\n2\n80\n115\n24\t\n76\n24%\t\n83\n25\t\n48\n25%\t\n35\n26\t\n37\n26%\t\n21\n27\t\n12\n27%\t\n6\n28\t\n1\nTotals\t\n272\n160\n91       j    192\n5       |         9\n4       |         2\n22.S\n22.9\n25.1\n24.6\n22.9      1     23.1\n25.6\n26.8\nTable XV.\u2014Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1926, grouped by Age, Sea, and Weight,\nand by their Early History.\nWeight in Pounds.\nNumber of Individuals.\nOne-year-in-lake Type.\nFour Years old.        Five Years old\nMales.    Females.     Males.      Females.     Males.\nTwo-years-in-lake Type.\nFive Years old.\nFemales.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nTotal.\n3%\t\n4\t\n4%\t\n5\t\n5%\t\n6\t\n6%\t\n7\t\n7%\t\n8\t\n8%\t\n9\t\n9%\t\nTotals\t\nAve. weights\n3\n40\n63\n44\n45\n43\n26\n272\n5.2\n7\n29\n4S\n47\n22\n5\n1\n1\n160\n1\n3\n2\n8\n17\n19\n6\n12\n11\n4\n6\n2\n24\n36\n43\n'24\n22\n20\n11\n4\n91\n192\n6.9\n6.3\n5.3\n5.3\n7.8\n8.0\n3\nSO\n104\n119\n139\n129\n76\n35\n35\n26\n2\nT35~ E 40\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTable XVI.\u2014Average Lengths in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Fifteen Years.\nYear.\nFour-year\nMales.\nFour-year\nFemales.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\n1912                   \t\n23.2\n22.9\n23.0\n22.9\n22.9\n22.5\n22.3\n22.4\n22.9\n22.5\n22.4\n22.3\n22.2\n22.8\n22.8\n23.0\n22.8\n22.8\n'22.8\n22.3\n22.5\n22.3\n22.6\n22.4\n22.3\n'22.3\n22.2\n22.9\n25.8\n25.9\n25.9\n26.0\n25.8\n25.0\n24.9\n24.8\n26.0\n25.2\n24.6\n24.6\n24.9\n25.5\n25.1\n24.6\n1913                                                               \t\n'25.2\n1914                                            \t\n25.2\n1915..                \t\n25.1\n1916\t\n25.0\n1917    .                                    \t\n24.4\n1918.. .                           \t\n24.5\n1919\t\n24.4\n1920             \t\n25.0\n1921\t\n04 0\n1922\t\n24.2\n1923             \t\n24.1\n1924\t\n24.3\n1925\t\n24.8\n1926            \t\n'24.6\nTable XVII.\u2014Average Weight in, Pounds of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Twelve Years.\nYear.\nFour-year\nMales.\nFour-year\nFemales.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\n1914\t\n5.4\n5.3\n5.5\n5.0\n4.9\n4.9\n5.2\n6.0\n5.0\n4.9\n4.6\n5.2\n5.2\n5.1\n5.0\n4.9\n5.1\n4.8\n4.9\n5.9\n4.8\n4.8\n4.4\n5.2\n7.3\n7.3\n7.6\n6.'6\n6.7\n6.3\n6.9\n7.4\n6.5\n6.6\n6.9\n6.9\n6.8\n1915\t\n6.6\n1916\t\n6.7\n1917\t\n6.2\n1918\t\n6.7\n1919            \t\n1921\t\n6.0\n1922\t\n7 0\n1923            \t\n1924\t\n6 1\n1925\t\n6 9\n1926\t\n6.3\nTable XVIII.\u2014Relative Numbers of Males and Females, Rivers\nOne-year-in-lake Type, 1915 to 1926.\nInlet Sockeyes,\n1915.! 1916.   1917.   1918.1 1919.1 1920.1 1921.   1922.\n1923.   1924.   1925.   1926\nAverage percentages\u2014\nFour-year males\t\nFour-year females\t\nFive-year males\t\nFive-year females\t\nPercentage total males...\nPercentage total females\n74\n26\n40\n60\n45\n52\n55\n48\n25\n42\n53\n47\n74\n26\n49\n51\n66\n34\n79\n21\n45\n55\n58\n42\n74\n'26\n48\n52\n49\n51\n65\n35\n38\n62\n51\n49\n66\n34\n38\n62\n61\n39\n71\n33\n67\n38\n74\n66\n26\n34\n31\n34\n69\n66\n50\n41\n'50\n59\n63\n37\n32\n68\n51\n49\n3. THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.\n(1.) General Characteristics and Age-groups.\nAs anticipated last year, the Skeena pack of 1926 was only a fair one, some 82,360 cases.\nNothing more could be expected from the brood-years 1921 and 1922, the former of which had\nthe lowest pack on record. A run which fluctuates from year to year as much as the Skeena\ndoes can be judged best by grouping the years and comparing the averages. Thus, combining\nthe packs of the last twenty years in four groups of five successive years each, the averages are\nas follows:\u2014\n1907-11 130,894 cases. 1917-21 103,183 cases.\n1912-16  90,513 cases. 1922-26 106,567 cases.\nThe deduction is quite obvious\u2014a decline, following which the run has been doing little more\nthan maintaining itself. LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 41\nReferring to Table NIX., it is seen that in the earlier years of the run, from 1912-20, with\nbut a single exception, the five-year group formed 50 per cent, or more of the runs. Since 1921\nin only one year (1924) has this been true. A number of years ago Dr. Gilbert pointed out that\nin general the largest packs were associated with years in which the percentages of the five-year\nfish were greatest. It is interesting, then, to note that the pack of 1924 is the largest in the\nlast six years. We are not able to offer any explanation for this apparent reversal in the\nproportions of four-year and five-year classes during recent years, and it does not seem to have\nchanged the run materially.\nIt has been more or less apparent that the Skeena run is composed predominately of two\n\u25a0 age-groups\u2014namely, four-year-olds and five-year-olds. On this account the packs cannot be\narranged in either four- or five-year cycles. If conditions are fairly stable and the packs bear\nsome relation to the escapements, then taking the figures of 1914, where 75 per cent, of the\npack consisted of five-year-old and 25 per cent, of four-year-old fish, it would be expected that\nin 1918 there should be a pack of four-year-old fish in the neighbourhood of 30,000 cases and\nin 1919 a pack of five-year-old fish of 100,000. Using the same method of calculation for 1915,\nthe results give 42,000 for 1919 and 74,000 in 1920. The total for 1918 would be 142,000 cases.\nThe actual pack in 1919 was 185,000 cases. The following figures show the correspondence\nbetween the actual pack and the calculated over a period of years:\u2014\u25a0\nActual.\nCalculated.\nReports from\nSpawning-beds\nin Brood-years.\n1\n1912, fair.\n1917\t\n66,000\n123,000\n185,000\n91,000\n41,000\n96,000\n132,000\n145,000\n78,000\n82,000\n66,000\n59,000\n140,000\n99,000\n62,000\n92,000\n130,000\n144,000\n106,000\n88,000\n106,000\n1913, good.\n1918           \t\n1914, very good.\n1915, very good.\n1916, fair.\n1919\t\n1920\t\n1921\t\n1917, no report.\n1918, no report.\n1919, good.\n1920, poor\n1922\t\n1923\t\n1924\t\n1925\t\n1921, fair\n1926\t\n1922, very good.\n1923, very good.\n1927. .                     \t\nMaking allowance for the normal fluctuations which occur in any run, for the fact that only\ntwo age-groups have been considered, and for the fact that packs do not bear the same relation\nto the escapement year after year, it will be seen that the correspondence is fairly close and\nwould seem to be additional evidence of the existence of two distinct groups in the Skeena run.\nIt is the only run in which two age-groups play roles of equal importance. In the Fraser run\nthe four-year-old one-year-in-lake class dominates. The Rivers Inlet run has two components,\nthe five-year-old one-year-in-lake and the four-year-old one-year-in-lake, but the former is by\nfar the more important element. The Nass run resembles the Fraser in having a single\npredominant group, but in this case it is the five-year-old two-years-in-lake class.\nFor the last nine years there has been relatively close correspondence between packs and\nthe brood-years from which they have been derived. According to expectancy the pack of 1927\nshould reach the 100,000 mark. One brood^year, 1921, had & fairly high pack, but did not\ncontain many five-year-old fish, and the other, 1923, had a very good pack with a large per cent,\nof four-year-old individuals which should be spawning next year and which will likely form a\nlarge proportion of the run. In addition, Inspector Gibson reported in both 1922 and 1923 that\nthe spawning-beds were very well seeded.\nWhile the Skeena run is largely composed of the two groups which spend one year in the\nlake, there are also two others of lesser importance\u2014namely, the five-year-old two-years-in-lake\nand the six-year-old two-years-in-lake. The percentages of all four year-classes for the last\neleven years are given in Table XX.\n(2.) Lengths and Weights.\nThe total number of samples, taken at well-spaced intervals on eighteen different dates,\nfrom June 22nd to August 18th, during the run is 2,102.   The following eight tables, Nos. XXI. E 42\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nto XXVIII., furnish the detailed information concerning the size of the fish in this year's run\nand also give comparisons with former years. These comparisons simply show normal growth.\nThe length and weight of those individuals which spent one year in the lake approximate very\nclosely the averages for the previous year, while the length and weight of the fish which lived\ntwo years in fresh water average slightly higher and correspond more nearly to the 1924 figures.\n(3.) Proportions of the Sexes.\nIn regard to proportions of the sexes, 1926 stands as an exception, in that the females\noutnumbered the males in all the year-classes. However, this condition is not without a parallel\nin the Skeena. The same relation was true in the run of 1921, one of the brood-years, and in\n1920 as well. Usually, as in most of the sockeye-rivers, the four-one males exceed the females,\nand similarly the five-two males are in excess, although in this group the exceptions are more\nnumerous. (Table XXIX.) Out of the total of 2,102 individuals 8S5 were males and 1,217\nfemales.\nTable XIX.\u2014Percentages of Four- and Five-year Skeena River Sockeyes that spent\nOne Year in Lake, in Runs of Successive Years.\nRun of the Year.\nPercentage,\nFour and Five\nYears old.\nBrood-years from which\nderived.\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n1916\n1917\n1918\n1919\n1920\n1921\n1922\n1923\n1924\n1925\n1926\n(92.49S cases)  j\n(59,927 cases)  j\n(130,166 cases) :  j\n(116,553 cases) J\n(60,923 eases)  i\n(65,760 cases)  j\n(123,322 cases)  I\n(184,945 cases)  \u25a0!\n(90,869 cases) ,  \u25a0>\n(41,018 cases) j\n(96,277 cases) *  j\n(131,731 cases) ,.. j\n(144,747 eases) \\\n(77,784 eases)  j\n(82,360 cases)  j\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n'5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n43%\n57%\n50%\n50%\n75%\n25%\n64%\n36%\n60%\n40%\n62%\n38%\n59%\n41%\n69%\n31%\n82%\n18%\n24%\n76%\n19%\n81%\n34%\n66%\n75%\n25%\n47%\n53%\n30%\n70%\n1907 (108,413 cases).\n1908 (139,846 cases).\nj. 1909 (87,901 cases).\n1910 (187,246 cases).\n1911 (131,066 cases).\nj. 1912 (92,498 cases).\nI\n]\n1913 (52,927 eases).\n1914 (130,166 eases).\nj-1915 (116,553 cases).\n1916 (60,923 cases).\n1917 (65,760 cases).\n\\ 1918  (123,322 cases).\nJ\n1\n}\u25a0   1919 (184,945 cases).\n1\n]\u25a0 1920  (90,869 eases).\nJ\n)\nj. 1921 (41,018 cases).\nJ\n1922  (96,277 cases).\n* 4,930 cases of Alaska sockeye deducted from original figure of 10a,667 eases. LIFE-HISTORY OP SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 43\nTable XX.\u2014Percentages of the Principal Year-classes, Skeena, River Sockeyes,\nfrom 1916 to 1926.\nYear.\nOne Year in Lake.\nFour Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFive Years\nold.\nSix Years\nold.\n1916\t\n34\n57\n51\n27\n15\n69\n70\n56\n23\n51\n62\n38\n29\n34\n60\n71\n22\n16\n29\n69\n45\n26\n13\n9\n9\n9\n6\n6\n12\n8\n7\n3\n9\n18\n1917\t\n1918\t\n6\n1919\t\n4\n1920\t\n8\n1921\t\n3\n1922\t\n2\n1923 _\t\n7\n1924\t\n1\n1925\t\n1\n1926\t\n3\nTable XXI.\u2014Skeena River Sockeyes, 1926, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length.\nNumber of Individuals.\nLength in Inches.\nOne-year-ln-lake Type.\nTwo-years-in-lake Type.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nTotal.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n19%    \t\n1\n8\n22\n27\n44\n53\n74\n9S\n83\n63\n29\n14\n7\n3\n3\n15\n45\n103\n170\n191\n140\n70\n35\n2\n1\n,   |   ....\n1\n2\n7\n20\n27\n18\n14\n4\n1\n2\n3\n18\n26\n29\n14\n9\n1\n2\n20         \t\n20% \t\n1\n1\n3\n7\n23\n'24\n31\n1\n8\n26\n45\n71\n67\n21    \t\n11\n37\n22\t\n22%\t\n1\n1\n75\n23\t\n3\n2 |         2\n1                 7\n3 5\n1                 5\n7       |         4\n7                   3\n3\n3\n1       1\n254\n334\n24\t\n359\n24%\t\n297\n25\t\n231\n25%\t\n42                 53\n147\n26\t\n26%\t\n37\n24\n22\n9\n9\n2\n23\n10\n4\n2\n....\n::::\n89\n52\n27\t\n32\n27%\t\n14\n28\t\n10\n28%\t\n2\n29\t\n29%\t\n1\nTotals\t\n526\n775\n236\n310\n94             102\n29       |       30\n2,102\nAve. lengths\n23.8\n23.4\n25.6           24.S\n24.6\n23.8\n26.0      ]     25.0\n1 E 44\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTable XXII.\u2014Average Lengths of Skeena River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake,\nfor Fifteen Successive Years.\nYear.\nFour-year\nMales.\nFour-year\nFemales.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\n1912  : \t\n24.6\n23.5\n24.2\n24.2\n23.9\n23.6\n24.1\n24.3\n23.8\n23.8\n23.6\n23.7\n24.1\n23.6\n23.8\n23.5\n22.9\n23.4\n23.5\n23.6\n23.2\n23.3\n23.4\n23.2\n23.1\n23.2\n23.1\n23.3\n22.8\n23.4\n26.4\n25.5\n26.2\n25.9\n26.2\n25.5\n25.9\n25.7\n26.2\n' 25.2\n25.3\n25.5\n26.2\n'25.6\n25.6\n25.2\n1913\t\n24.7\n1914\t\n25.1\n1915\t\n25.0\n1916\t\n25.0\n1917\t\n24.7\n1918\t\n25.0\n1919\t\n24.8\n1920\t\n25.3\n1921\t\n24.2\n1922\t\n24.4\n1923\t\n24.5\n1924\t\n25.2\n1925\t\n24.7\n1926\t\n24 8\nTable XXIII.\u2014-Average Lengths of Skeena Sockeyes, Tivo Years in Lake,\nfcrr Eleven Successive Years.\nYear.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\nSix-year\nMales.\nSix-year\nFemales.\n1916\n24.1\n23.9\n23.9\n24.3\n24.1\n24.2 .\n23.8\n23.9\n24.7\n24.1\n24.6\n23.8\n23.8\n23.4\n23.4\n23.4\n23.4\n23.3\n23.2\n23.6\n23.3\n23.8\n26.2\n25.4\n25.2\n25.8\n26.2\n24.9\n24.6\n25.6\n25.8\n25.8\n26.0\n24.8\n1917   ....          \t\n25.0\n1918\t\n24.7\n1919\t\n24.7\n1920..\t\n25.1\n1921                                                            \t\n24 2\n1922. ...                                       \t\n24.1\n1923                                                                \t\n24.4\n1924..\t\n\u2022   24.8\n1925\n24.8\n1926\t\n25.0\nTable XXIV.\u2014Average Lengths of Skeena, River Sockeyes, 1926, compared with 1923, 192k, 1925,\nand with General Averages, 1912 to 1921.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1926.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1925.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1024.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1923.\nAverages,\n1912  to\n1921.\nOne year in lake\u2014\n23.8\n23.4\n25.6\n24.8\n'24.6\n23.8\n26.0\n25.0\n23.6\n22.8\n25.6\n24.7\n24.1\n23.3\n25.8\n24.5\n24.1\n23.3\n26.2\n25.2\n24.7\n23.6\n25.8\n\u202224.8\n23.7\n23.1\n25.5\n.     24.5\n23.9\n23.2\n25.6\n24.4\n24.0\n23.3\n25.8\n24.9\nTwo years in lake\u2014\n24.1\n23.6\n25.7\n24.8 LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\ni\nE 45\nTable XXV.\u2014Skeena River Sockeyes, 1926,\ngrouped by Age,\nSea?, and Weight.\nNumber\nof Individuals.\nWeight in Pounds.\nOne-year-in-lake Type.\nTwo-years-in-lake Type.\nFour Years old.\nlive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nTotal.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.   1 Females.\n1\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.   I E\"emales.\ni\n3\t\n1\n5\n49\n80\n93\n144\n79\n46\n25\n3\n1\n1\n2\n51\n184\n264\n175\n73\n23\n2\n1\n3\n3\n19\n33\n44\n43\n29\n36\n13\n7\n4\n1\n13\n59\n86\n64\n52\n25\n7\n1\n2\n6\n7\n27\n35\n12 .\n6\n1\n2\n17\n33\n33\n15\n2\n....\nI\n1\n2\n1\n4\n3\n6\n7\n2\n2\n1\n1\n3\n6\n5\n8\n3\n4\n3\n3% -\t\n4\t\n7\n106\n4%\t\n305\n480\n5%\t\n505\n6\t\n319\n6%\t\n189\n7\t\n96\n7%\t\n57\n8\t\n17\n8%\t\n11\n9\t\n9%\t\n1\n1\n10\t\n\t\n1\nTotals\t\n526\n775     .       236       |     310\n94        ]     102\n29       |       30\n2,102\nAve. weights\n5.3\n5.1             6.5             '5.8\n5.9             '5.2\n6.9       |      '6.2\nTable XXVI.\u2014Average Weights of Skeena River Sock\nfor Thirteen Successive Years.\n, One Year in Lake,\nY'ear.\nFour-year\nMales.\nFour-year\nFemales.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\n1914\t\n5.9\n5.7\n5.4\n5.3\n5.8\n6.1\n5.6\n5.7\n5.4\n5.3\n5.6\n5.1\n5.3\n5.3\n5.2\n5.1\n5.0\n5.3\n5.5\n5.1\n5.1\n5.1\n4.9\n5.0\n4.7\n5.1\n7.2\n6.8\n7.1\n6.4\n6.9\n7.0\n7.2\n6.4\n6.5\n6.3\n7.0\n6.5\n6.5\n6.3\n1915 :\t\n6.2\n1916 -\u2022\t\n6.3\n1917                    \t\n6.0\n1918\t\n6.4\n1919\t\n6.2\n1920\t\n6.4\n1921\t\n5.7\n1922    \t\n5.7\n1923\t\n5.7\n1924\t\n6 3\n1925\t\n5.8\n1926               \t\n5 8\nTable XXVII.\u2014Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, Two Years in Lake,\nfor Twelve Successive Years.\nlTear.\nFive-year\nMales.\nFive-year\nFemales.\nSix-year\nMales.\nSix-year\nFemales.\n1915\t\n5.9\n5.8\n5.5\n5.7\n6.1\n6.3\n5.8\n5.5\n'5.3\n5.9\n5.5\n5.9\n5.2\n5.4\n5.2\n5.3\n5.4\n5.1\n5.1\n5.1\n4.S\n5.1\n4.9\n5.2\n6.6\n7.1\n6.3\n6.6\n6.9\n7.3\n6.0\n6.2\n6.3\n6.6\n6.9\n6.9\n6.0\n1916\t\n5.9\n1917\t\n5 8\n1918\t\n6.1\n1919 .'\t\n6.3\n1920\t\n6 3\n1921\t\n5 6\n1922\t\n5 7\n1923\t\n5 4\n1924\t\n5 8\n1925\t\n5 4\n1926\t\n6 2 E 4G\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1920.\nTable XXVIII.\u2014Average Weights of Skeena River Sockeyes, 1926, compared with 1928, 192Jlt\n1925, and with General Averages, 1912 to 1921.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1926.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1925.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1924.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1923.\nAverages,\n1912  to\n1921.\nOne year in lake\u2014\n5.3\n5.1\n6.5\n5.8\n5.9\n5.2\n6.9\n6.2\n5.1\n4.7\n6.5\n5.8\n5.5\n4.9\n6.9\n5.4\n5.6\n5.0\n7.0\n6.3\n5.9\n5.1\n6.6\n5.8\n5.3\n4.9\n6.3\n5.7\n5.3\n4.8\n6.3\n5.4\n5.7-\nFour-year females\t\n5.2\n6.8\n6.2\nTwo years in lake\u2014\n5.9\n5.2\n6.7\n6.0\nTable XXIX.\u2014Percentages of Males and Females in each of the Different Year-groups,\nSkeena River Sockeyes, in a Series of Years.\nOne Year\nin Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nYear.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n1912\t\n54\n69\n60\n55\n70\n65\n63\n53\n41\n44\n52\n60\n50\n37\n40\n46\n31\n40\n45\n30\n35\n37\n47\n59\n56\n48\n40\n50\n43\n60\n42\n58\n36\n65\n61\n52\n43\n30\n52\n56\n46\n45\n48\n44\n35\n3'9\n48\n57\n50\n48\n44\n54\n'55\n52\n....\n54\n58\n56\n45\n41\n43\n53\n40\n46\n47\n49\n1913\t\n47\n47\n45\n43\n48\n46\n46\n37\n44\n41\n37\n43\n42\n43\n53\n53\n55\n57\n52\n54\n54\n63\n56\n\u202259\n63\n'57\n58\n57\n1914                          \t\n1915\t\n1916\t\n1917   \t\n1918....                                \t\n42\nT919\t\n1920\t\n59\n1921\t\n1922\t\n1923\t\n1924\t\n54\n53\n51\n1925\t\n1926                        \t\n4.   THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1926.\n(1.)  General Characteristics.\nAn apparent instability of the Nass River run has been pointed out several times during\nthe past few years and a fear that the run is materially declining has also been expressed.\nAs has been known for some time, the Nass cycle is a five-year one. In 1925 we said that the\noutlook for this year (1926) was discouraging because its brood-year (1921) had the smallest\npack yet recorded. Consequently it is no surprise to find the pack of 1926 only 15,929 cases.\nLooking at it simply as the second smallest pack on record, one might feel justified in accepting\nit as evidence of further decline. On the other hand, in viewing the situation as a whole, there\nseems to be reason for believing that the run has maintained itself during the last five years,\nfor the average annual pack of this last cycle, from 1922 to 1926,, is 23\u201e512 cases, against 19,673\ncases for the preceding cycle, 1917 to 1921. Furthermore, in 1925 we called attention to the fact\nthat the packs of 1923, 1924, and 1925 showed a rather close correspondence to the packs of\ntheir broods-years, 1918, 1919, and 1920 respectively, and likewise there is a similar correspondence LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 47\nbetween 1926 and 1921. This seeming tendency of return to normal expectancy, together with\nthe facts that the brood-years for 1927 and 1929 had large packs, and that three out of five of\nInspector Hickman's reports for the past five years state that the spawning-beds were very well\nseeded and the fish were exceedingly numerous, are all hopeful signs. If one can place reliance\non such signs as a brood-year pack of 31,277 cases with 90 per cent, of the run five-year-old fish,\nand also Mr. Hickman's statement in 1922, \" It was indeed a great pleasure to find so many\nfish, as the runs of the past few years have been very poor,\" then there should be a good pack\nin 1927.\n(2.) Age-groups.\nThe consideration of the age-groups of the Nass run is always more interesting than that\nof those of the Fraser, Rivers Inlet, and the Skeena. We find not only older fish than are found\nin the runs to the other rivers, but also a greater variety in the combination of years the fish\nspend in fresh and salt water. Some fish go to the sea as fry and return at the end of either\nthree or four years; again, others remain in the fresh water one, or two, or three, or even four\nyears before making their way to the ocean, where they stay from two to five summers before\ngoing back to their native streams. However, this great complexity usually resolves itself into\neight principal age-groups. The analysis of the run of 1926 was based upon 1,836 samples taken\nevery three or four days over a period of two months, beginning on June 23rd and extending\nto August 20th. The usual eight age-groups are all present and are indicated in Tables XXXI.\nand XXXIV. An additional group, hitherto unreported, consisting of four full years spent in\nfresh water and three summers in the sea, was represented by a single male specimen taken on\nJuly 30th and having a length of 28 inches and a weight of 7% lb.\nTable XXX. gives a comparison of the percentages of the principal age-groups over a period\nof fifteen years. Perhaps the most striking point in it is the decided decrease in the numbers\nof the five-year-old one-year-in-lake class. Several interesting facts are brought out by combining the figures in this table in three five-year periods, as follows:\u2014\u25a0\nOne Year\nIN Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFour Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nFive Y'ears\nold.\nSix Years\nold.\n1912-16\t\n1917-21\t\n1922-26\t\n11\n13\n11\n22\n15\n7\n62\n65\n77\n5\n7\n5\nAlthough the four-year-old one-year-in-lake and the six-year-old two-years-in-lake classes\nhave fluctuated considerably from year to year, the averages over the period of years are fairly\nconstant. The decline in the five-year-old one-year-in-lake class is steady and in general has\nbeen replaced by an increase in the dominant group, five-year-old two-years-in-lake.\nComparing the 1926 averages with the above and the general averages over fifteen years,\nperhaps the most noticeable point is the record percentage of the six-year-old two-years-in-lake\nclass. The four-year-old one-year-in-lake group is very constant in all cases and the five-year-old\ntwo-years-in-lake class approximates quite closely the averages for the two periods 1912-16 and:\n1917-21, and also the general average. Taking the entire run into account and disregarding1\nthe years spent in fresh water, and considering only the final age, it is worth while pointing out\nthat 12 per cent, of the fish were in the fourth year, 71 per cent, in the fifth year, and 17\nper cent, in the sixth and seventh years. In addition there were seven fish in their third year.\nSuch a run as this, with high percentages of the older fish, is much more valuable commercially\nthan a run in which the four-year-old group forms a greater proportion of the whole (as in\n1925), because the individuals of this class are much smaller and lighter in weight.\n(3.) Lengths and Weights.\nA peculiarity of the Nass sockeyes already stated1 by Dr. Gilbert is that these fish maintain\nfrom year to year their general averages in length and weight, while the fish of the other\nnorthern runs, the Skeena and Rivers Inlet, have shown a marked reduction during recent E 48 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nyears. The run of 1926 is true to type, and is tabulated for length in Table XXXI. and for\nweight in Table XXXIV. In Tables XXXII. and XXXIIL, which record the average lengths\nof the principal year-classes over a period of years, one sees at a glance that the average lengths\nfor 1926 exceed those of 1925 in all groups. Similarly, Tables XXXV. and XXXVI. show that\nthe average weights for 1926 are in all cases equal to, if not greater than those of the preceding\nyear. Another racial characteristic also pointed out by Dr. Gilbert is that the ultimate size\nof the Nass fish is not solely determined, as in the other streams, by the number of years spent\nfeeding at sea. That is to say that, irrespective of age, the Fraser River, Rivers Inlet, and\nSkeena River fish which have lived the same number of summers at sea are approximately the\nsame size ; for example, a three-year sea-type, a four-year-old one-year-in-lake, and a five-year-old\ntwo-years-in-lake are of equal size; and likewise a four-year sea-type, a five-year-old one-year-\nin-lake, and a six-year-old two-years-in-lake are all the same. This is well illustrated in Table\nXXXVII. On the other hand, the Nass fish are decidedly different in this respect. Fish which\nhave spent an identical number of summers at sea are not of identical or nearly identical size,\nbut are graded in an ascending series according to age. Table XXXVII. shows this also. This\nseems to be a definite racial characteristic. What the reason for it is we do not know, but\nseemingly it is not directly related to sea-feeding. Age seems to be the all-important factor.\nTables XXXVIII. and XXXIX. are given to show the relation between age and size. In\nconsidering the four-year-old fish it is seen that there is only a very slight difference (about\nhalf an inch) between the average lengths of the males (and similarly for the females) of the\nfour-year sea-type and four-year-old one-year-in-lake group. The same thing is true in regard\nto weights. With the five-year-old fish, for length the balance swings slightly in favour of the\nfive-year-old two-years-in-lake; for weight it swings slightly in favour of the five-year-old one-\nyear-in-lake. The six-year-old fish tell the same tale; that is, the difference between the two\ngroups is inconsequential. In this river it looks as if particular age (irregardless of place where\nthe years are spent) is linked with a particular size, and in general the ascending scale of\nyears is correlated with increase in size. Our data are very scarce at both ends of the series-\nand cannot be judged too critically for that reason. As it stands, the three-year-old fish begin\nthe series as the smallest, but the seven-year-old fish, especially the males, do not complete it\nas the largest.\n(4.)   Seasonal Changes during the Run.\nOne of the very interesting things about the complex Nass run is that the various age-groups\nshow year after year a remarkable constancy in seasonal change. The dominant group, the\nfive-year-old two-years-in-lake, is present throughout the run with varying degrees of strength.\nThe four-year-old one-year-in-lake and the five-year-old one-year-in-lake classes are also present\nthroughout, but reach their greatest numbers during the second and third weeks of July. The\ntwo sea-type groups are confined to the early weeks and the six- and seven-year-old fish to the\nlater part of the run.    Table XL. exhibits these features in the run of 1926.\n(5.)  The Meziadin and Bowser Lake Sockeye Colonies.\nIn September Inspector Hickman made his annual visit to the Meziadin watershed and\nsecured additional material for the study of the Meziadin and Bowser colonies. Although he\nfished a net continuously for eight days in the Nass River 2 miles above the mouth of the\nMeziadin, he obtained only eleven sockeyes. He attributes this to a run less than average.\nThe analysis of small amounts of material is always unsatisfactory and in the course of time\nit may prove unreliable. Because of meagre material one is more surprised to find from year\nto year fairly close correspondence than lack of conformity in the comparison of the Meziadin\nand Bowser colonies. These two populations have been separated on the following characters:\nFirst, the fish of the former spend a greater number of years in fresh water; and, secondly, they\nare larger than those of the latter colony. As is seen in Table XLjL, the data for 1926 substantiates in part the first distinction; that is, the relation between the percentages of the one- and\ntwo-years-in-lake groups is correct, but in the case of the three-years-in-lake the percentages are\nreversed. Eighteen per cent, is considerably larger than the percentages of previous years when\nmore material was available. The size differences are given in Tables XLII. and XLIII. It has\nbeen claimed that the larger fish are late running, and in order to show this we tabulated on LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 49\na series of dates the lengths of the 1,004 individuals of the dominant class (two-years-in-lake)\nof this year's run to the Nass.    The average lengths for the dates are given below:\u2014\nMales. Females.\nJune 23, 29  25.8 25.1\nJuly 5, 9   2G.1 25.5\nJuly 12, 16   26.1 25.2\nJuly 19, 22   26.1 25.1\nJuly 26, 30   25.7 25.2\nAugust 2, 6   26.5 25.5\nAugust 9, 13  26.5 25.7\nAugust 16, 20  26.6 25.7\nOn the whole there is a steady increase, but it is very slight, nearly 1 inch for the males\nand 0.6 inch for the females. Out of the 485 males only eighteen are 28 inches or more in\nlength. Yet the average length of the Meziadin males is 28.1 inches and of the females 26.3.\nAlso, seventeen out of the twenty-twTo males had a fresh-water growth of two years. The margins\nof the scales are badly absorbed, so that it is impossible to tell from them the number of\nsummers spent in the sea. But from the other facts at hand it would seem that in 1926 the\nmajority of the Meziadin males had spent three summers in the sea; that is to say, they belong\nto the six-year-old two-years-in-lake class and not the five-year-old two-years-in-lake. The size\nof the Meziadin fish corresponds closely to the general averages for this group\u2014namely, 27.9\ninches for males and 27 for the females. In addition the six-year-old two-years-in-lake are\npre-eminently a late-running group.\nThe Bowser material is really too scanty to comment upon, but the lengths are suggestive\nof five-year-old fish rather than six.\nThe fact that so many of the Meziadin fish are likely six-year-old two-years-in-lake is in no\nway contradictory to the claim that this colony is made up of larger fish. It is very probable\nthat this year is an exception rather than the rule, because usually this year-class forms an\nextremely small proportion of the whole run. We have very little data for actual comparison.\nNo collection of Meziadin fish was made in 1925 and the figures for 1924 would seem to indicate\nfive-year-old fish instead of six.\nThe interesting point in connection with these six-year-old fish is that they seem to be\nparticularly associated with Meziadin Lake. Inspector Hickman took them from the fishway\nin Meziadin River at the same time that he was operating the net in the Nass. If these large\nfish had been running up the Nass also, they could not have escaped capture.\nTable XXX.\u2014Percentages of Principal- Age-groups present in the Nass River Sockeye Run\nfrom 1912 to 1926.\nYear.\nPercentage op iNnivmuALS that spent\nOne Year in Lake.\nFour Years\nold.\nFive Years\nold.\nTwo Years in  Lake.\nFive Years\nold.\nSix Years\nold.\n1912 (36,037 cases)\n1913 (23,574 cases)\n1914 (31,327 cases)\n1915 (39,349 cases)\n1916 (31,411 cases)\n1917 (22,188 cases)\n1918 (21,816 cases)\n1919 (28,259 cases)\n1920 (16,740 cases)\n1921 (9,364 cases)..\n1922 (31,277 cases)\n1923 (17,821 cases)\n1924 (33,590 cases)\n1925 (18,945 cases)\n1926 (15,929 cases)\n15\n4\n19\n9\n10\n30\n7\n8\n10\n6\n11\n4\n23\n12\n27\n12\n41\n14\n17\n15\n16\n22\n14\n7\n2\n6\n3\n8\n12\n63\n71\n45\n71\n45\n65\n72\n75\n91\n77\n91\n67\n2\n2\n10\n13 E 50\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\ne\nSi\nH\nN\nH\nrO\nS\nEH\n\u25a0:   CD   rH   CO   t\u2014   Ol   IO   Cl   tH   Cl   CO   CD   ~V   O   IO   CO   -tf   IO\nrHCOCOClClCOO'-'OOCDCOClCl\ntH CO   Cl   -*   T-i   d\nCCOHri\n:   Cl   rH 'Cl   rH\nrlMCOCO 00 t-MH\n!r-:ClOCl'HClC0rH\nrH   rH   rH   rH\nEH   <l\n\u25a0    :#   i\nrHCJClCOCO-^rHIOIOlOCDI^r-COCOOlOlO\nCl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  <M  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  <M  CM  Cl  Cl  Cl  CO LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 51\nTable XXXII.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Principal Cl\nfrom 1912 to 1926.\nOne Year in Lake.\nFour Years old.\nMales.    Females.\nFive  Years old.\nMales.      Females.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFive Years old.\nMales.     Females.\nSix Years old.\nMales.     Females.\n1912 (inches).\n1913\n1914\n1915\n1916\n1917\n1918\n1919\n1920\n1921\n1922\n1923\n1924\n1925\n1926\n24.6\n24.1\n24.6\n24.0\n24.5\n23.4\n25.0\n24.9\n24.0\n24.3\n24.2\n24.3\n24.7\n24.4\n24.9\n23.3\n23.5\n22.7\n23.5\n23.3\n23.2\n24.3\n24.1\n23.4\n23 .'5\n23.4\n23.7\n23.8\n23.8\n24.1\n25.6\n26.1\n,9\n4\n\u2022la\n20.\n25.\n25.\n'26.\n20,\n26.\n25.\n26.\n25.1\n24.8\n25.1\n25.2\n25.0\n24.7\n24.7\n25.2\n25.0\n'24.3\n24.6\n25.3\n24.9\n24.7\n25.3\n26.2\n26.0\n26.3\n26.5\n26.5\n25.3\n25.9\n26.5\n26.7\n26.2\n25.7\n26.2\n25.!\n26.:\n25.4\n25.2\n25.5\n25.9\n25.6\n24.7\n25.0\n25.8\n25.9\n25.6\n25.0\n25.5\n25.4\n25.0\n25.3\n27.0\n26.0\n26.9\n26.6\n27.9\n26.5\n27.2\n27.9\n27.4\n27.9\n28.0\n27.2\n28.0\n26.9\n27.9\n25.6\n25.3\n25.7\n25.5\n25.2\n26.7\n25.9\n26.2\n26.3\n25.4\n25.4\n27.0\nTable XXXIII.\u2014Average Lengths of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1926, compared\nwith 1925, 1924, 1923, and with General Averages' of 1912 to 1921.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1926.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1925.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1924.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1923.\nGeneral\nAverages,\n1912 to 1921.\nOne year in lake-r-\nFour-year males....\nFour-year females\nFive-year males....\nFive-year females.\nTwo years in lake\u2014\nFive-year males....\nFive-year females.\nSix-year males\t\nSix-year females...\n24.9\n24.1\n26.1\n25.3\n26.1\n25.3\n27.9\n27.0\n24.4\n23.8\n25.9\n24.7\n25.9\n25.0\n26.9\n25.4\n24.7\n23.8\n26.2\n24.9\n26.3\n25.4\n28.0\n25.4\n24.3\n23.7\n25.9\n25.3\n26.2\n25.5\n27.2\n26.5\n24.3\n23.5\n26.0\n24.9\n25.5\n27.1\n25.8 E 52\nREPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,  1926.\no\ne\n'5\n\u25a03\nx\nH\nSi\nt-\n\u2014\n01\ni\u2014\nrH\nI-\nOl\n\u00bbo\nCO\n-r\nCl\nIO\nCO   O   CD   Ol   CD   Cl   IO   t-   Cl   -r-i\na:\nrH   Cl   CO   \u2022*   Cl   rH\nQC\nL-\nT-i\n\u2022\nc\no           '\nfa\nrH\ntr\nci\no\nto\nCO\nS\n1-i\nio\n1\"\nCl\n\u25a0\"**\nO\nrS\nri\nh3\nIO\n-5\no\ns\nCl\nt-t\nfa\n&H\nH\no\ng\no\nto\niO\nfe\nt-i\nri\nIO\no\nI              i\nCl\nCO\nO)\nP\nfa\nft\nri\n<_J\nH\ntH\n0)\ncs\ng\n0)\nm\no\nc;           :\nCO\n1\u2014\nt^\nci\n9         i\nCO\nCl\neq\n0\nT\nCD\nJ\n$\na\nA\nrH\nto\n>\no&\n: T-i    : \"^ o oi io ci rH    i    :    :\nOl\n00\na\n'A\nSi\n;         i       rH                        :    :    ;\n*P\nO\n\u25a0d\n_\u00a3\no\n|       ;\ncd\nI                           rH   CO   rH   rH                              i\nOS\n03\nfa\nta\na\ncd\nH\nrH\nto\n\u00a3\nH\n:    iHNHOO-wioa^w\nic\n00\n.\u00bb\n:       :                   rH   <M   rH   CO   rH\nc\nc-\n.s\nOJ\ns\n1~\nCD\nTJ\nSQ\na\ncir-cD-HHcoHHciT-i    :    :    :\nc~\no\nco -f ci to TfH r-i          :    ;     :    ;\nr\nt>\u00bb\nS\nHHH\no\ncd\nrH\nIK\nOJ\nci ci o w ci \"ti t-i o t4 ci    :    :\n10\nt-\nr-i ci co cd ci cd ci              :    :\n\u25a0\u25a0\/\ncd\nfa\ni^i\nrH    rH\n-t\nT3\no\na\nCOt-b-rrlOlQ0t-Cl      '      !      I      !\nr-\nCl\n2\nfa\np.\nri\nH\ntH\nK\ncu\nc:\n>\na\n;                co ci ci              :    ;    :\nCR\nCD\nC\nfa\ns\ntl.\nT3\nto\nd\nO\na\n\u25a0 o\nfa\nt-\n\u25a0*\nrS\nto\nrH ci co ci                   :    :    :    :    :\nva\ne\nrf\no\n>H\nDO\ncocdcoiot-hcs    ;    i    :    :    i    :\nr*\no\n3\nO\nci\n<X.\nCD\nta\nr^\nCO\n^3\na\ntJD\n4-;rrJ\nV\n53\n'   MS\nJQJ   O\nC\nE-\n*)\nrf^\nrf\n^\nr\u00a3\nr^\nrfV\n\u25a0<*\n*t\nir\nir\nec\nec\nf\nt-\nQC\na\n3\nc LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 53\nTable XXXV.\u2014Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Principal Classes\nfrom 1913 to 1926.\nOne Yeai\nin Lake.\nTwo Yeaks in Lake.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n1913 (pounds)\t\nJ\n1\n6.3\n1\n6.5\n1\n6.7\n1914         \u201e        \t\n6.2\n5.6\n6.0\n5.3\n6.3\n6.0\n'5.6.\n6.0\n5.9\n5.8\n5.9\n5.9\n6.0\n5.0\n5.2\n5.3\n5.3\n'5.8\n'5.5\n5.2\n5.4\n5.4\n5.2\n5.4\n5.4\n5.4\n7.4\n6.9\n7.2\n6.8\n7.2\n6.6\n7.4\n6.9\n6.8\n6.7\n7.2\n6.8\n6.9\n6.5\n6.4\n6.3\n6.2\n6.3\n'5.9\n6.3\n'6.1\n6.2\n6.1\n6.1\n6.1\n6.2\n7.2\n7.0\n7.2\n6.3\n7.2\n6.7\n7.4\n6.9\n6.8\n6.6\n6.8\n6.7\n6.7\n6.5\n6.6\n6.2\n\u25a05.S\n6.4\n6.1\n6.7\n6.3\n6.3\n6.0\n6.1\n6.0\n6.0\n7.9\n7.2\n8.1\n7.3\n8.3\n7.8\n7.9\n7.7\n8.1\n7.2\n8.0\n7.4\n7.8\n6.S\n1915         ,,        \t\n6.5\n1916         ,,        \t\n6.4\n1917         \u201e        \t\n6.4\n1918         \u201e        \t\n6.7\n1919         .,          \t\n6.7\n1920         \u201e          \t\n7.0\n1921\n6.6\n1922\n6.6\n1923         \u201e        \t\n6.8\n1924         ,,        \t\n6 5\n1925         \u201e        \t\n6 3\n1926         \u201e        \t\n7.1\nTable XXXVI.\u2014Average Weights of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1926, compared,\nwith 1925, 1924, 1923, and with General Averages of 1914 to 1921.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1926.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1925.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1924.\nAverage   '\u25a0     General\nWeights,   ;    Averages,\n1923.      [1914 to 1921.\nOne year in lake\u2014\nFour-year males....\nFour-year females\nFive-year males....\nFive-year females.\nTwo years in lake\u2014\nFive-year males\t\nFive-year females..\nSix-year males\t\nSix-year females...\n6.0\n5.4\n6.9\n6.0\n7.8\n7.1\n5.4\n6.8\n'6.1\n6.7\n6.0\n7.4\n6.3\n5.9\n5.4\n7.2\n6.1\n6.8\n6.1\n8.0\n6.5\n'5.8\n5.2\n6.7\n6.1\n6.6\n6.0\n7.2\n6.8\n5.9\n5.3\n7.0\n6.3\n7.0\n6.3\n7.S\n6.6\nTable XXXVII.\u2014Nass, Fraser, and Skeena Rivers and Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1923 and 1926,\ngrouped by Number of Years spent on the Sea-feeding Grounds.\nNass.\nFraser.\nSkeena.\nRivers Inlet.\nAge.\nMale.\nFemale.\nMale.\nFemale.\nMale.\nFemale.\nMale.\nFemale.\n3\nYear 1923.\nThree years at sea\u2014\u2022\nInches.\n23.1\n24.3\n26.2\n25.5\n25.9\n27.2\nInches.\n22.4\n23.7\n25.5\n24.3\n25.3\n.26.5\nInches.\n23.0\n24.0\n23.5\n25.5\n25.8\n-25.4\nInches.\n22.6\n23.0\n22.7\n24.2\n24.1\n24.3\nInches.\n23.7\n23.9\n25.5\n25.6\nInches.\n23.1\n'23.2\n24.5\n24.4\nInches.\n22.4\n23.0\n24.6\nInches.\n4\n5\n4\nOne-year-in-lake type\t\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nFour years at sea\u2014\n22.3\n23.0\n24.1\n6\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nYear 1926.\n3\nThree years at sea\u2014\u2022\n23.7\n24.9\n26.1\n24.5\n26.1\n27.9\n22.3\n24.1\n25.3\n24.0\n25.3\n27.0\n23\/4\n22.6\n23.2\n25.4\n24.6\n'25.3\n22.5\n22.3\n22.4\n24.6\n24.0\n23.7\n23.8\n24.6\n25.6\n26.0\n23.4\n23.8\n24.8\n25.0\n22.8\n22.'9\n25.1\n25.6.\n4\n22.9\n23.1\n5\n4\nTwo-years-in-lake type\nFour years at sea\u2014\n24.6\n26.8\n\u00ab\nTwo-years-in-lake type\t E 54\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nto\n5.\na,\ng\ne\n02\n6>\n\"J\n(a.\nN\nN\nN\nCO\n2\na\n3J\nri\na\nOJ\no\no\no\n00\n?\u00a7,\n00\nCl\nc\nri\n\u2022fa\n0>  M\n*hJ3\nEC\nCJ\nri\ni ^\ni oo\nB\n3\nci Cl\nm\no\nd\nri\na\n3J\nIO t- IO -^ IO tH  CO oc\no\nM i>*\nf-4   ft\nCD  CD  CD  IO  IO  CD  IO  IO\nCD\nCICICICICICICICI\nCl\nri >S\n^\ni   0)\n13\nOJ^\nDQ\n0>\nP5(&0-(M(HW\u00abN\nCC\nEG\n^'\"'\n\"ri\na5cDCDCD\"cDt^CDCC\nCD\nH\n\u00a33\ndCMcicicicici^\nCl\n\u00a3\nri\no\n|H\no\n1\nM\n'e\u00a7\n\u25a03\na\n0)\nb-ClClCT110,H^_*0\nrH\n^\nCD  IO  CD  IO  CD  IO  lO  h-\nCO\nJE\n.3\nClClOlCJClClClOl\nCl\n3.F\nfa\ncH\n5_!\n>.\n0J\n\u00a9ttiQOClOfflffi\nCD\np\nri\nt-t^t>CCt^CCCOb-\nl>\ncs\nP.\nB\ns\nOlOlOlClClClClCl\nCl\nu\no\n8\na)\nEQ\nc.\n0J\nri\ns\nCOCICDOIO^OCO\n\u00ab*\nio io io io' io _d io io\nIO\na\ncicicioicioicioi\nci\no\nm\na\ngo\nIs\nfa\n\u25a0cf\n|h\n0)\n>\u00ab   t>*  Cl   b-   Cl   CO   Cl   rH\nCl\no\no\nri\nCD  CD  CD  HO  CD  CO  lO  CD\nCD\nY-\n\u00a3\ni^i\nCl  Ol  \u00a31  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl\nCl\n\u00a3\nri\na\no\ntH\nOJ\n73\nW\n0>\nri\nri\na\nOJ\nfflOM5DMOJ.t*K\nOS\nr*\nIO   IO   TH   TjH   IO   TjH   Th   If.\n\u25a0*\nEH\no\nPS\nfa\nC3    .\nCl Cl CJ Cl ci ci-ci \u00a3i\nCl\nri   r>l\no\na\nO\nfe\nClCOlpCpCSClCliH\nCD  CD  IO  IO  IO  CD  IO  CD\no\nCD\n<i\nCICICICICICICIC]\nCl\n03\n*3\nrH        ;    CD   IO   CO\n!  O\n*-i\na\n0J\nIO      1   CO  CO  Tj\"\ni \u25a0*\n\u20224\nCl       '   Cl   Cl   Cl       '       \u25a0   Cl\nCl\nri\nOJ\n13\nrJ\nrH      J   Cl   IO   ip\n: if:\nP\no\nri\nco    ; Tt\" tjh io\ni -H-\n\u00bbo\nGO\nS\nCl      \u25a0   Cl  Cl   Cl      '      '  Cl\nCl\nri\ncj\ntH\na)\na.\nU\no\nid\nri\nri\nH-hlOHHNQ0Q0i-\nt-\na\nQJ\nThCOCOCOCOCOCO't\nCO\nfa\nCJ    .\nCl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  Cl  CJ\nCM\n\u2022H  O\nAPI\nri t-i\nfe\n^\nIB\nQOMMMt-rfC\nIO\no\no\n\"^\nTflrfir^rfH-fi\u2014(Hr^fJ\nni\na\nCl   Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   Cl   (N\nCl\nE0\n13\n0J\nri\ns\ntfl\nK\nO\nCl\n\u00ab\ni\nDO\nOJ*\nCl\n6Q\n\u2022\nM\nft\nri\ncu\nr*l\nri\nfa\n1*\n.a\no\n0J\n-j\nt-\nCO\ncc\n:\n\u2022      \u25a0  Cl      '      '      \u25a0      '  C\n\u2022\nH\ns\nEC\nA\nto\nu\na\nri\n0J\naj\nH\neo\na o rH ci co \u25a0* io cc\n%\nrHClClClCliMiMC.\nCICICICIOCIOC\"\n1-\nr\nr\nr\nr-\ni-\ni-\nr- LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 55\n\"I\n6\ns\n=s\na\n\u25a0^\nto\n\u00a9a\n6\nCO\ne\nH\nH\nH\n-=_\n8\nEC\nrd\no\n.2\nCU\nri\nEC \u00ab\na\nQ\nr.     ft\nV\nri\nOS   r>J\nfa\n.   OJ\ntH\nJ, cu\nfl\n0)TJ\ncc\n0)\nr=4^\nH\no\nDQ\nri\nEQ\nOJ\nd\nri\n\u00a9 OS 10 CO CO >p \u00a9 Cl\n1.0\n7- V\na\nt-.(\u00a9CDcpCOCOCDCD\nCD\nr-i   ft\nQJ\nri K\nfa\n\u201e',  \u00ab\nCU  M\nOJ75\nA\n&\no\nri\nt-co\u00a9\u00bbot-coaqoo\nt-__>__^t--cot~cpco\n5~\nr-l\nri\nQJ\ntH\no\nED\nM\nOJ\nM\nri\nri\nt-QOtpCOIOMH\nt-\nOS\nd\ni   oj\na\nfa\nCDt-^CpCDCDCDCOt\u2014\nCO\n\u00a3h\nZfi\n>>\nCj\nCOOlt\u2014  rHdO-HMOO\nt-\n6\nS\nE-i\n\"3\nt>t^t^o6->o6t^t-*\ntr\nGQ\n3\nPh\np\n_)\nEC\no\nO\n.M\na\nCU\nri\na\nrlt^MMOr|OC\n^DcDCOCDcdcOCDCD\nCl\nCO\nfa\no\nEQ\n0\nOJ\nfa\nEC\nK\n2\nCU\nt-'+ioipocpcot-b-\nX\nO\nPh\nDQ\nU\nri\nOJ\nri\nCO  t\u2014  CDCDCDCOCDCO\nSO\ntH\n0>\nEC\nOJ\nEC\nEH\nw\nOJ\nri\nOl   CO   T-i   Cl   rH   rH   rH   Cl\nrH\nfa\na  \u25a0\na\nOJ\nlpCDCOCDCcJcOCDCp\nCD\nc. rs\nfa\n02\nCU\na\ni\ncD^oioqt>Cioocs\nOl\no\na\n'ri\nCDt-CDCDcdt-CDCO\nCO\no\nS\na\nr*\nEC\nOJ\nri\nt--    ; i_o io io    :    : tr\n50\nCU\na\nio     \u25a0 >o lp IP     \u25a0     ' io\nip\nft\nri\nOJ\nfa\ni\n\u2022d\n\"o\n\u00ab_\nOJ\nOJ\nri\ntH      :  Cl  rH  o      :      !   01\n**.   i\nCD      '  LO  C?  N      '      '  lp\nCO\nri\na\n0)\nm\nCU \u25a0\nEh\n.M\n2\nri\nri\na\nIO   Cl   **j   TH   Cl   Tf.   -rtf   rrl\n\"*\nO\nT*\nIO   IO   IO   IP   IP   IP   IP   IP\nIO\nfa\na h\nOJ\n\u00a3B\nd\n\u00a9COOCICOOIOS\u00a9\nCD  IP  CD*  IO  lO  lp  l_d  CD\nCl\nid\nO\ns\n\u25a0d\na)\no\nto\nCD\na\n:    ; co    :    :    :    : io\n\u2022       \u2022   Tfi       \u2022       \u2022       \u2022       \u2022   TH\nr-l\nft\nOJ\nri\nr%\nfe .\ntH\nri\n0>\nOJ\nSQ\nh\nso\nri\n;;\u00a9:::: ip\nA\n\u25a0    ; id    ;    \u25a0    \u25a0    \u25a0 id\nEH\n3\nEQ\nrd\nW)\nu\nCU\na\nr*\nx\nCU\nOl   O   rH   Cl   CO   -f   lO   CD\n>\nrHClClClClClClCl\n010101C1C101C101\nr-\nr-\nr-\nr-\n-_\nT-\nI-\nI\u2014 E 56\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OP FISHERIES, 1926.\nTable XL.\n-Number of Individuals of each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running\nat Different Dates in 1926.\nOne Year in\nLake.\nTwo Years in\nLake.\nThree Years in\nLake.\nSea-type.\nNumber of\nIndividuals\nexamined.\nDate.\nFour\nYears\nold.\nFive\nYears\nold.\nFive\nYears\nold.\nSix\nYears\nOld.\nSix-\nYears\nold.\nSeven\nYears\nold.\nThree\nYears\nold.\nFour\nYears\nold.\nJune 23\t\n9\n12\n12\n17\n14\n13\n26\n18\n17\n11\n24\n12\n7\n5\n6\n1\n15\n8\n10\n14\n15\n21\n26\n26\n19\n19\n19\n4\n5\n3\n4\n2\n74\n100\n95\n85\n85\n77\n62\n62\n54\n57\n50\n68\n64\n59\n61\n41\n1\n2\n7\n2\n3\n7\n6\n20\n19\n19\n21\n31\n36\n25\n22\n1\n1\n2\n6\n1\n12\n12\n13\n19\n8\n1\n2\n1\n2\n2\n4\n3\n12\n1\n1\n1\n1\n\t\n115\nJune 29\t\n124\n119\nJuly 9\t\n124\nJuly 12\t\n117\nJuly 16... .\n115\nJuly 19\t\nJuly 23\t\nJuly 26\t\n122\n114\n112\nJuly 30\t\n112\n115\n117\nAugust 9\t\n120\n118\n117\n74\n204\n210\n1,094\n221\n7'5                  8\n7\n16\n1,835\nTable XLI.\u2014Percentages of Meziadin and Bowser Lake Runs, showing Different Number\nof Years in Fresh Water.\nYears in Lake.\nNo. of\nSpecimens.\nOne\nYear.\nTwo\nYears.\nThree\nYears.\nMeziadin,  1922                              \t\n13\n1\n40\n33\n18\n16\n27\nSO\n84\n76\n93\n60\n64\n79\n80\n55\n20\n3\n24\n\"o\n3\n4\nIS\n10\nMeziadin, 1923                \t\n63\n160\nMeziadin,  1926\t\nBowser, 1922\t\nBowser,  1923\t\nBowser,  1924 -\t\nBowser,  1925\t\nBowser, 1926\t\n43\n15\n41\n34\n45\n11\nTable XLII.\u2014Average Lengths of the Meziadin and Bowser Lake Sockeyes for\nthe Years 1924, 1925, and 1926.\nYear.\nMeziadin Lake.\nBowser Lake.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n1924                          \t\n26.8\n2S.1\n25.7\n26.3\n|\n25 5        j       23 6\n1925                                        \t\n1926             \t\n95 0                 u s LIFE-HISTORY OF SOCKEYE SALMON.\nE 57\nTable XLIII.\u2014The Lengths of Individuals comprising the Meziadin and. Bowser Lake\nRuns in 1926.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber op Individuals from\nMeziadin Lake.\nBowser Lake.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n23         .                            \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n10\n3\n2\n2\n1\n1\n23%                                     \t\n1\n24\t\n1\n24%                                 \t\n9\n25\t\n4          1\n25%\t\n3\n7\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n26                                                                             \t\n26%\t\n1\n27                                           \t\n271\/.\t\n28\t\n28%\t\n29                                             \t\n29y,                                 \t\n30\t\n....\n30 V,   \t\n22\n21         j           5\n6\n28.1                26.3               25.9\n1\n24.8 E 58 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE FEASEE EIVER.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSik,\u2014I have the honour to submit the following report of my twenty-fourth annual inspection\nof the salmon fishing and spawning areas of the Fraser River, made during the year 1926 :\u2014\nThe catch of all species of salmon in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system this\nyear produced a pack of 274,951 cases, as against 276,855 cases in 1925, 212,059 cases in 1924,\nand 140,570 eases in the fourth preceding year, 1922.\nThe pack consisted of 85,689 cases of sockeye, 21,783 cases of cohoes, 32,256 cases of pinks,\n32,952 cases of springs, and 88>,495 cases of chums. The pack of sockeye was the largest since\n1917.    It exceeded the pack of the fourth preceding year by 33,857 cases.\nThe catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system in 1926\nproduced a pack of 44,673 cases of sockeye, as against 112,023 cases in 1925 and.' 48,566 cases in\nthe fourth preceding year, 1922.\nThe total catch of sockeye in the entire Fraser system in 1926 produced a pack of 130,362\ncases.    It was 17,046 cases less than in 1925 and 29,964 cases more than in its brood-year 1922.\nThe increased catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters and the decrease in the catch in\nthe State of Washington waters is attributed to an unusual occurrence. Ordinarily the greater\nproportion of the pack in the entire system is made in July and August\u2014mainly in August.\nThe catches made there in those months this year produced an approximate pack of 75,000 cases,\nof which 43,000 cases were packed in Washington and 32,000 cases in Provincial waters. The\ncatches made in September and October this year were made in Provincial waters. The numbers\ncaught in those months in AVashington waters did not materially increase the pack made in July\nand August. This unusual occurrence is attributed to the fact that in September and October\nthis year a considerable number of sockeye gained access to the Gulf of Georgia without having\nbeen intercepted in other waters. In consequence the Provincial fishing-fleet made good catches\nin both of those months. The traps in Juan de Fuca Strait and the traps and purse-nets in the\nestuary waters of the State of Washington that lead to the Gulf from the south, and the nets\nused in the estuary waters that lead to the gulf from the north, caught very few sockeye in\nSeptember and October. None of the fishermen engaged in those waters report having any\nevidence that any considerable number of sockeye passed through them in those months. How\nthe September and October runs of sockeye gained access to the gulf without being observed\nor intercepted by fishermen operating to the south and north of the gulf is not in evidence.\nHaving gained access to the gulf without interception, the September and October runs were\ndrawn upon only by the fishermen engaged in the gulf and in the Fraser River proper, and their\noperations were limited to five days each week by the weekly closed season provided in Canadian\nregulations, which prohibits fishing in the gulf and the Fraser up to New Westminster Bridge\nfor forty-seven hours each week, and for sixty hours each week up to Mission Bridge. Instead\nof being drawn upon as usual by both the Washington and the Provincial fleets, they were\ndrawn upon only by the latter, which this year consisted of less than 1,000 gill-net boats. In\nconsequence the number caught from the runs was proportionately less than usual and the\nnumber which escaped capture and reached the spawning-beds of the Fraser River was greater\nthan in any year since 1913.\nThe remarkable increase in the catches of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser\nsystem this year attracted great local interest and led to the assertion that the run to the Fraser\nsystem was far in excess of any year since 1917, and indicated that \" the former runs of sockeye\nwere coming back. . . . That the sockeye runs to the Fraser are being restored.\" Unquestionably the number of sockeye caught in the Provincial waters of the Fraser system this year\nwas greater than in any year since 1917. That, however, does not show that the number of\nsockeye that sought entrance to the Fraser this year was greater than in any year since 1917,\nand as a matter of fact it was not materially greater. Judged from the size of the pack made\nin the system this year, it was less than last year. The pack made from Provincial waters was\nmore; the pack made in Washington waters was less. The combined pack this year was 17,046\ncases less than in 1925. The size of the run in any year is not shown by the pack made in\nProvincial waters or that made in Washington waters. That can only be determined from the\npack records of the combined catch made in Provincial and State waters.    En this connection SPAWNING-BEDS OF FRASER RIVER. E 59\nit is interesting to note that the sockeye-pack records in the Fraser system in the period 1915-25,\ninclusive, show that 70 per cent, of the pack was made from fish caught in Washington waters\nand 30 per cent, from Provincial waters. This year the proportions were reversed for the first\ntime in many years. Sixty-seven per cent, were taken from Provincial waters and 33 per cent,\nfrom Washington waters.\nAn additional feature of the sockeye-fishing season in the Provincial waters of the Fraser\nsystem this year that occasioned comment was the size of the individual earnings of our\nfishermen. It has been stated that individually their earnings were greater this year than in\nany previous season. That is probably true, as the prices paid throughout the season were\nhigh and the catch larger. The price opened at 65 eents per fish in July, was advanced early\nin August to 80 cents, and later that month advanced to 90 cents. During September the price\nranged from 80 to 85 cents up to the 20th and then dropped to 60 cents, and finally 45 cents\nfor the balance of the season, which ended in October. As in September and October many of\nthe fishermen caught from 200 to 400 fish per day for five days per week, for four or five weeks\ntheir earnings were large. In this connection it should be recalled that in the period 1909-16,\ninclusive, an average of 4,290 gill-net fishermen were yearly engaged in Provincial waters of\nthe Fraser and that this year but 1,S60 were so engaged, and that where formerly thirty-five\ncanneries were operated on the Fraser, but nine were operated this year.\nThe Spawning Areas of the Fraser River.\u2014The inspection of the sockeye-spawning areas of\nthe Fraser basin this year were made, as usual, in August, September, and October. In addition\nto the information gained by personal observation, I am greatly indebted: to Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion in the Province, and to many white and\nIndian residents in the Fraser basin, for much information of value.\nThe number of sockeye which spawned in the Fraser basin above Hell's Gate Canyon this\nyear was the largest since 1913. For the first time since 1913 the number of sockeye which\nspawned in the upper section of the Fraser should materially increase the size of the run four\nyears hence. The number of sockeye which passed through Hell's Gate Canyon in July and\nAugust this year was apparently small. The number which passed through that canyon in\nSeptember and October, however, was greater than in any year since 1913. Water conditions\nat Hell's Gate throughout the entire season were exceptionally favourable for the passage of\nsuch sockeye as reached there. Throughout the water was low. At no time this season were\nsalmon detained there. In consequence it was more difficult to gain an approximate estimate\nof their numbers. The large number of sockeye known to have passed through in September and\nOctober did not display themselves as freely at Hell's Gate as they did in the vicinity of Hope\nbefore they reached the Gate, and as they did after they had passed through the canyon and\nentered the Thompson River. It was not until the fish showed up in that river that it was\nappreciated how great their numbers were.\nThe Indians fishing at the rapids in the Fraser just above the mouth of Bridge River this\nyear caught more sockeye than in many years. The water was extremely low and afforded the\nIndians unusually favourable conditions in September and October for the use of their effective\ndip-nets and gaffs. Major Motherwell placed a special officer there during the season to record\nconditions, especially the different stages of water, to estimate the number of sockeye which\nreached there and the number caught by the Indians. The record made shows that the number\nof sockeye which passed through the canyon in July was estimated at 360; in August, 1,615;\nSeptember, 8,870; October, 1,170; a total of 12,015. It is recorded that the Indians during the\nseason caught 1,419 sockeye and 767 springs. The sockeye were not delayed there at any time\nup to September 14th, and thereafter for only a day or two at a time. It will be recognized\nthat the estimate of the number that passed through is little more than an approximation of the\nnumber which displayed their presence; however, it will be noticed that the number given\nagrees fairly well with the number which were later noted in the extensive tributaries, lakes,\nand streams farther up-stream.\nThroughout the season no sockeye were observed to enter Quesnel Lake. There has been\nno obstruction at the outlet of that lake since the dam and fishway were removed some years\nago. The fish which now reach there can easily enter the lake without displaying themselves.\nIn September some five or six hundred sockeye are reported to have reached the upper stretches\nof the Horsefly River, one of the two largest tributaries of Quesnel Lake, and some three or\nfour hundred sockeye were observed in Mitchell River, the other large tributary, late in September and early in October.    No sockeye were reported to have reached either of these tributaries E 60 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1920.\nfour years ago, but egg-plants were made there that year. Dominion officers hold the opinion\nthat the sockeye which reached Quesnel this year are the product of egg-planting.\nReports made to Major Motherwell indicate that more sockeye passed up the Nechako to\nits lake tributaries than for some years, but the numbers were limited.\nFor the first time in some years a few hundred sockeye reached the Bowron Lake section,\na tributary of the North Fork of the Fraser. Men engaged in constructing a new bridge over the\nliver at the outlet of Bowron Lake in August reported that several hundred sockeye entered\nthe lake that month, and they were later observed spawning in the river at the head of the lake.\nVery few sockeye were known to have spawned there four or five years ago.\nReports from the Chilcotin River section indicate that the number of sockeye which reached\nthere this year was not up to the average of recent years, and the run in those years was\nsmall. Fishery Officer Hill estimated that the number that reached there this year was only\nabout half that of last year. The Indians who fished at Fish Canyon and Indian Bridge caught\nless than five hundred, and very few are known to have reached Chilko Lake, the main source\nof the Chilcotin River.\nNo sockeye entered Seton Lake in July or August. A few hundred are known to have passed\ninto the lake in September and October, a larger number than for some years. Very few spawned\nthere four or five years ago, but egg-plants were made in Anderson Lake, at the head of that\nsection, four years ago.\nIt is promising to note that a greater number of sockeye spawned this year in the Shuswap\nLake section, at the head of the Thompson River, than in any year since 1913. Late in\nSeptember and during October large numbers spawned in the lower reaches of Adams River\nand on the gravelled bars of Little Shuswap River. In company with Major Motherwell,\nJ. A. Rodd, Superintendent of Fish Culture in Canada, and Fishery Officer Shotton, in charge\nof the Shuswap-Thompson section, I inspected the spawning-beds above mentioned in October.\nThe gravelled stretches of Adams River from its mouth at the lake, for a distance of 5 miles\nup-stream, were closely covered by spawning and dead sockeye that had spawned. They were\nin greater numbers than I have seen them on the spawning-beds of the entire Fraser basin,\nabove Hell's Gate Canyon, in any season since 1913. And in addition we saw large numbers\nof sockeye spawning in Little River, the outlet of Shuswap Lake, as we passed over its surface\nin a launch.    All the gravelled reaches of the river's hed were crowded with spawning sockeye.\nI estimated that we saw between three and four hundred thousand sockeye in the above\nwaters. Major Motherwell, Mr. Rodd, and Fishery Officer Shotton, all experienced overseers,\nplaced their number at between five and six hundred thousand.\nThe sockeye we saw in the Shuswap section were large and highly coloured fish\u2014typical\nspecimens of the races of sockeye which formerly spawned in the Fraser above Hell's Gate.\nThey were much more highly coloured than the races of sockeye that spawn in the Fraser basin\nbelow Hell's Gate Canyon, and they were, with the exception of the sockeye which spawn in\nthe Birkenhead River, at the head of the Lillooet-Harrison Lakes section, very much larger and\nlonger fish. The races of sockeye that spawn in the Lower Fraser, which includes the Harrison,\nLillooet, Cultus, and Pitt Lakes, are all small-sized fish, with the exception of those which spawn\nin the Birkenhead, at the head of Lillooet Lake, and none of them are nearly so highly coloured.\nThe Birkenhead sockeye are as large as those found in any section above Hell's Gate, but they\nare not nearly so highly coloured when spawning. In consequence I am strongly of the opinion\nthat the sockeye we saw in Adams and Little Rivers this year were the product of the fish which\nhad spawned above Hell's Gate Canyon\u2014that they were not the product of the sockeye which\nhad spawned in the lower river sections.\nIn this connection it is interesting to refer to the spawning reports of four years ago, 1922\n\u2014the brood-year of four-year-old fish of this year's run. Officer Shotton, who has had charge\nof the Shuswap Lake section for many years, in his report for 1922 wrote: \"The run to my\ndistrict this year surpasses any of the previous eight years. The run of sockeye was exceptionally good, there being two runs. The first run were large fish, many of which went to the\nspawning area of the Adams River. I am making a very conservative statement when I state\nthat I saw six to eight thousand in Little River.\" In his report for 1922 Mr. Shotton gave no\nestimate of the number seen in Adams River that year. He now places their numbers at not\nless than twenty thousand.\nA brief summary of the reports of 1922 from the tributary streams of the Shuswap section\nshows that the first sockeye reached Adams River on Octoher 6th and was a light run.    A second SPAWNING-BEDS  OP FRASER RIVER. E 61\nrun began on October 25th and was heavy. Sockeye in small numbers were also reported in\nAnesty, Eagle, and Salmon Rivers and other tributaries of Shuswap Lake. The run to all\nstreams was reported as larger than for some years.\nIt is difficult to believe that the large number of fish we saw in Adams and Little Shuswap\nRivers this year were the product of so limited a spawning in that section in 1922. It is equally\ndifficult to credit them to the spawnings in other sections of the Upper Fraser basin in that year;\nor to attribute them to the planting of sockeye-eggs made in that section in the spring of 1923,\nwhich were collected1 from eggs gathered at Cultus Lake, in Lower Fraser, in the fall of 1922.\nThe latter are all small fish.\nReferring to the return from natural spawning, it is interesting to note that some light has\nrecently been cast on the percentage of return from a known number of fish which spawned\nnaturally. In 1921. under the direction of Dr. C. H. Gilbert, acting for the U.S. Bureau of\nFisheries, a weir was placed across the Karluk River, on Kadiak Island, Alaska, and a count\nmade of all the sockeye which passed through. Something less than one and. a half million\nwere counted as they passed through the openings of the weir that year, and they spawned\nnaturally in the lake at the head of the river. The family of sockeye wrhieh runs in the Karluk\nRiver consists largely of fish that reach maturity and spawn in their fifth year, so that the\nsockeye that ran to that river this year were, with few exceptions, the product of the one and\na half million fish which spawned in 1921. The run to the Karluk this year was again intercepted\nat the weir and the fish counted, and record made of the number of fish taken commercially.\nUnder the Federal fishing regulations of Alaska, fishermen engaged in the Karluk River are\nrestricted to catches of not to exceed 50 per cent, of the season's run. Under such' conditions\nthis year the combined weir count and the commercial catch up to September 15th, when fishing\nceased, totalled over four million fish, a return from the spawning of one and a half million fish\nof four million.    It is the first record from the natural spawning of a known number of sockeye.\nConditions in the lower section of the Fraser basin this year were as satisfactory as they\nhave been in recent years.\nThe Birkenhead River, at the head of the Lillooet-Harrison Lakes section, maintained its\nrecord as the most abundantly stocked sockeye section of the entire Fraser River basin. It was\nagain abundantly seeded this year. The run throughout the season was fully up to the average\nof any year since records were first made there. The size of the run to this section shows no\nsign of diminishing. It is the only section in which conditions are entirely satisfactory. The\nsockeye came in early and ran throughout September and into October. The fish were large\nand in prime condition. Over forty-three million eggs were taken for the hatchery, and the beds\nof the river were well seeded naturally.    It was the largest egg-collection ever made there.\nThe sockeye runs to Cultus and Pitt Lakes and Morris Creek were equal to the average of\nrecent years.\nSummarizing sockeye-spawning conditions in the Fraser this year, I am of the opinion that\nthe increased seeding of the Shuswap Lake section, and the normal seeding of the Birkenhead\nRiver and the lakes to the south, should produce an increased return in 1930.\nI am indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell for the following statement of the sockeye-salmon\negg collections made at Dominion hatcheries in the Fraser River b'asin this year:\u2014\nCultus Lake Hatchery     0,442,285\nPemberton Hatchery   43,350,000\nPitt Lake Hatchery      5,044,000\nTotal  54,836,285\nRespectfully submitted.\nJohn Pease Babcock,\nAssistant to the Commissioner. E 62 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE SKEENA RIVER.\nHon, William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSib,\u2014In obedience to your instructions, I beg to submit the following report on the spawning-\nbeds of the Skeena River for the year 1926:\u2014\nI left Prince Rupert on September 6th and visited Lakelse Lake the following day. This\nlake is the first important sockeye-spawning area and also the earliest of the Skeena watershed.\nIt is a beautiful lake, 5 miles in length and approximately 12 miles from Terrace. A good\nautomobile-road brings one within easy reach of Terrace. Cut-throat and rainbow trout are\nplentiful in the lake and excellent fly-fishing may be obtained during the season. A good hotel\nand well-equipped hot springs at the lower end of the lake are an added attraction which is\nincreasing the number of sportsmen and tourists each year. A large and modern Dominion\nGovernment salmon-hatchery is located on one of the small creeks and is ably managed by\nC. T. Hearne, the Superintendent, and an efficient crew.\nI met Mr. Hearne on arriving at the hatchery and was surprised to learn that he had then\ncollected 15,000,000 sockeye-eggs, which was about 4,000,000 in excess of last year's record.\nThis was the more surprising when one considers the fact that the sockeye-fishing on the Lower\nSkeena was similar to 1925 and can only be classified as fair. These eggs were at the time in\nprocess of being transported to the headwaters of the Fraser River, in an attempt to restock\nthe depleted but once famous sockeye-river. The same number of soekeye-eggs, however, were\ngathered from the Fraser watershed at a later date and have now been delivered to Lakelse\nHatchery.\nMr. Hearne informed me that the first sockeye were seen in the lake on June 12th, the\nsame date as last year. A number of hair-seals were seen in the lake about the end of May,\nwhich would lead one to suggest that they had been following the sockeye. The depredations\nof the hair-seals are, well known and some effective method should be utilized with a view to\nextermination of these salmon-snatching pests, or at least decreasing their numbers.\nThe hatchery crew commenced spawning early in August and had collected 15,000,000\nsockeye-eggs by August 19th. The fences and pens at the mouth of the creeks were erected\non July 19th and were all removed by August 26th, so that many sockeye undoubtedly passed\non up the creeks to their respective spawning-grounds. Owing to the absence of snow during\nthe previous winter all the creeks were in good shape. A heavy freshet during the spawning\nseason, followed by a .dry spell, generally results in a big loss of natural-spawned eggs.' I was\nalso informed there were many net-scarred fish, although on the whole the sockeye were slightly\nlarger than average years.    The males predominated and there were scarcely any \" runts.\"\nThere are four soekeye-creeks on Lakelse Lake\u2014namely, Williams, Schullabuchan, Granite,-\nand Hot Spring Creeks\u2014the largest and most important being Williams Creek. All four creeks\nwere visited the following day, but, with the exception of Williams Creek, few sockeye were seem\nnear the mouth of the creeks. . Williams Creek has an Immense spawning area, the creek being\nabout 20 miles in length, which is by far the longest soekeye-creek of the Skeena watershed.\nMany sockeye were seen in the lower reaches of this creek and a few fresh arrivals were\njumping in the lake near the mouth of the creek. Good runs, I am informed, were recorded\nin the other three creeks, and from all reports were much better than last year. Lakelse River,\nthe outlet of the lake, was alive with humpbacks, the upper 5-mlle stretch being one teeming mass\nof this variety.\nIn summing up the Lakelse spawning area, which will be well seeded this- year and will\ncompare favourably with any former year, it is evident that there are two main factors in the\nwell-stocked spawning-beds. The principal one is, of course, the forty-eight hours of a \" close\nseason \" and the fact that an early run takes place before the sockeye-fishing actually begins.\nThis was quite evident early in June, many of the larger sockeye being caught in spring nets.\nWhen one considers the fact that there are approximately ls100 boats fishing in the river during\nsockeye-time, it is surprising, to say the least, that any escape to seed the spawning-beds.\nReturning to Terrace, I arrived at Topley on September 10th. I had previously gone into\nBabine Lake by way of Burns Lake, but I was informed there were no transportation facilities\nthis year;  hence the selection of Topley. SPAWNING-BEDS OF SKEENA RIVER. E 03\nAfter outfitting, etc., I arrived at Fulton River, on Babine Lake, on the night of the 12th,\nand on the following day reached Babine Village at the mouth of the lake. A severe snow-storm\nnext day made travel impossible, but on the morning of the 15th I made the trip down the 12-mile\nstretch of Babine River. It is on this stretch of water that the Bahine Indians, approximately\n100 families, catch their supply of fish. There are thirty smoke-houses along this stretch, each\nsmoke-house with from three to four families, and all were busily engaged cleaning and sun-\ndrying their latest catch. Each family is supplied with a new net every two years by the\nDominion Government, as these Indians live solely on salmon for food. Their smoke-houses\nand racks were well filled and would average from two to three thousand per family. No\ncomplaints were received, which is a good indication as to the extent of the run to the Babine\nthis year. Although one or two families commenced fishing as early as July 9th, it was not\nuntil August 30th that all the nets were out. I am informed by the Fishery Guardian that\nsockeye were first seen entering the lake on June 29th, and that there were two distinct runs\nto the lake before the Indians started fishing. There was an exceptional run of springs at the\nlower end of this stretch, but the humpbacks were not so plentiful as in other years. On the\nreturn up the river many sockeye were seen darting away at the approach of the boat, there\nbeing excellent spawning-beds near the lake.\nLeaving Babine, I arrived at the Dominion Government Hatchery on the 16th. This hatchery\nis situated at the head of Hatchery Creek and is about 3 miles from the lake. It is one of the\nmost important soekeye-creeks of the Skeena watershed, ideally situated, with an unlimited\nspawning area. I met Mr. Eaton, the Superintendent of the hatchery, who informed me that\nsockeye were in the creek as early as June 17th, but that the first real run did not take place\nuntil about August 15th. Mr. Eaton and his assistants commenced spawning on September 9th, but\nlittle progress was made owing to about 75 per cent, of the sockeye being still \" green.\" The\npens erected at the head of Hatchery Creek were one seething mass of sockeye, and Mr. Eaton\ndid not anticipate any difficulty in obtaining his quota of 8,000,000 eggs for the hatchery. The\nsockeye were big in size, with the males in excess of the females by about seven to one. There\nwas a good showing on the spawning-beds all down the creek for a distance of 2 miles and many\nwere seen breaking water in the deep pools. Hatchery Creek is one of the best all-round soekeye-\ncreeks of the Skeena watershed and it has yet to record its first failure as a sockeye-producer.\nLeaving the hatchery on the morning of the 18th, I arrived at Donald's Landing, 25 miles\nfrom the head of the lake, that night. A severe snow-storm with a strong northerly wind nearly\nswamped the boat before the landing was made that night, incidentally soaking the blankets and\nfood. The storm continued for three days and I was unable to go to the upper end of the lake\nto visit 15-Mile and Beaver Creeks. The Dominion Fishery Guardian, who patrols the upper end\nof the lake, reports that there was an exceptionally good showing of sockeye in 15-Mile Creek\nand that Beaver Creek was good and up to the average. With regard to Beaver Creek, it is\ninteresting to note that, although Babine Lake is approximately 113 miles long, Beaver Creek,\nat the extreme head of the lake, is the earliest spawning-creek.\nGetting an early start on the morning of the 22nd, I called in at Pierre Creek. This also\nis a good all-round sockeye-creek, having about 2 miles of ideal spawning-grounds. This also\nis an early-spawning creek, the bars for some distance being littered with dead and decaying\nfish. Many sockeye were in the pools and on the numerous gravelly patches, however, and it\nwas plainly evident there had been a big run up this creek.\nThe following day I visited Pulton River, the largest creek flowing into Babine Lake. This\ncreek flows from Fulton Lake, 5 miles distant from Babine Lake. Two waterfalls, one with a\nsheer drop of 40 feet, confine the sockeye to the creek. The sockeye were literally in thousands\nin this creek, the shallow gravelly patches showing up like a dense mass of red. A good number\nof \" runts \" or grilse were seen, but even at that the average in size was good. It was hard to\ndetermine the proportion of sexes, but they appeared to be better balanced than the sockeye in\nthe other creeks. Five Indian families were fishing in the lake near the mouth of the creek'\nand had a fair supply of fish in their smoke-houses. At the time of my visit the sockeye were\nstill running up the creek as the Indians were busily cleaning the previous night's catch. It is\nonly during the night that the gill-nets can be operated on the lake, the nets being easily seen\nduring the day by the wary sockeye. As this was the last point of interest on Babine I returned\nto Topley on September 24th.\nIn summing up the Babine area, I can say without the least hesitation that the spawning-\nbeds will be well seeded this year.    This was my seventh consecutive visit to the spawning- E 04 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\ngrounds, and I found all the creeks, with two outstanding exceptions, well up to the average of\nformer years. The two exceptions are Fulton River and Pierre Creek, which, as regards conditions, more than surpassed any of my previous visits, both as to quantity and quality of the\nsockeye. If the Skeena River cannerymen would visit the Babine spawning-beds during the\nmonth of September, I am sure they would return to their tasks the following year with renewed\nvigour, happier and contented men.\nI arrived at Hazelton on September 25th and visited the canyon at Agwillgate the same\nafternoon. This canyon on the Bulkley River is a little above the junction of the Skeena and\nBulkley Rivers, and was in years gone past the meeting-place of all the Indians of Upper Skeena\nduring the salmon run. Some decrepit old smoke-houses still remain as if in mute testimony\nof what must have been a busy scene in days gone by. As the canyon is very narrow the water\nrushes through and over a small fall, and it was when the salmon were making this little jump\nthat they were caught by the Indians with both spear and basket. Few are caught at this point\nnowadays as these Indians follow more the white man's mode of living than that of their\nancestors. From all reports there was a good run of sockeye to the Bulkley River, which will\nbe well seeded and up to the average of former years.\nKispiox River, which joins the Skeena a few miles above Hazelton, is exclusively a humpback-river, but the run of this variety was poor this year and away below the average.\nAs this concluded the inspection of the spawning-beds, I left Hazelton on September 26th\nand arrived at Port Essington that afternoon.\nI wish to express my appreciation to the Hatchery Superintendents and Fishery Guardians\nfor hospitality shown and information supplied.\nI have, etc.,\nRobert Gibson,\nFisheries Overseer.\nPort Essington, B.C., October 30th, 1926. SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET. E 65\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OP RIVERS INLET.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to submit my report upon the inspection of the spawning-beds at\nRivers Inlet for the year 1926.\nThe delay which occurred at Smith Inlet, due to the low stage of the lake, prevented my\nreaching the spawning area at Rivers Inlet until October 13th, circumstances that precluded the\nobservation of the early-running salmon-streams at the head of the lake, when the fish were\nactually engaged in spawning, but evidence was not lacking to show that an exceptional run\nof sockeye had returned to the beds prior to my visit. The Indian River, situated at the extreme\nleft, contained a run of sockeye very much in excess of that which was reported in 1921^32,\naccording to hatcherymen who had visited this tributary during September, the height of the run.\nThe spawning-beds were lined with spawning fish right up to the falls. Dead bodies which\ncovered the bars bore testimony to this gratifying improvement in the run, as compared with\nthe brood-years. There is a log-jam forming near the mouth which should receive attention,\nor in time will work to the detriment of the spawning-beds.\nA great improvement was shown in the run of sockeye to the Cheo River, as was evidenced\nby the innumerable carcasses which littered the spawning-beds right up to the log-jam. Although\ntoo late to see the peak of the run, by digging down into the gravel at various points sockeye-\neggs in abundance were disclosed, while the upheaval of the bars caused by the spawning fish\nwas of such an extensive nature that no doubt need be feared of the final outcome when the\nsockeye return as adults from the seed deposited this year.\nThe condition of the Washwash River, lying over on the extreme right, is in a deplorable\nstate. Log-jams cover the whole width of this stream near the mouth, so that it is a wonder\nthe salmon are able to find their way on to the spawning-beds above. In order to find an outlet\nto the lake the main river has been forced into innumerable small streams and is eating its way\ngradually into the banks in towards the Cheo, a situation that demands attention from the\nauthorities. Late as the spawning season was at this time, sockeye salmon in an advanced\nstage of spawning were noted in favourable numbers making use of the gravel-beds below the\nlog-jams. Farther up above these obstructions a few sockeye were seen, and in employing the\nsame methods as applied to the Cheo I found that, in digging down into the gravel, eggs in\nabundance were brought to view. These favourable indications, coupled with the reports that\nthis river was full of salmon earlier in the season, ensure a big return from the seed deposited.\nFor the improvement shown in the three tributaries at this point credit is due to the energetic\nmanner in which the hatchery officials endeavoured to bring the spawning-beds back to fertility.\nIn 1922 they planted about 1,015,000 eyed eggs, together with 1,320,000 fry from seed collected\nduring the spawning season of 1921. In 1923 the same methods were adopted, and, in the very\nsatisfactory condition of all of them this year, the restocking which is now being carried out\neach year is without doubt going a long way towards counteracting influences which have in the\npast done such harm to the spawning-beds.\nReturning from the headwaters, I examined Sunday Creek, a small stream situated near the\nNarrows, and from the number of sockeye spawning here there should be a very fair run from\nthe seed planted this season. The males and females were about equally divided and were of\nexceptional size.\nThe spawning-beds at the Narrows contained a fair run of both cohoe and sockeye. The\nIndians were obtaining their winter's supply from this source and had nearly completed their\nrequirements.    The run closely resembled the return in 1921-22.\nThe spawning-beds of the Sheemahant River, unlike the unsatisfactory conditions noted in\nthe brood-years, showed a great improvement in the number of sockeye that reached them.\nFrom the mouth up for many miles large numbers were seen spawning on the riffles just above\neach rapid, while all the side-streams adjacent to the river contained their full quota of salmon,\nbusy spawning. For this improvement in the run the good work of the hatchery is again\nresponsible. To make up for the impoverished condition of the spawning-beds in 1921-22 they\nplanted no less than 4,400^000 eyed eggs. In carrying out this work it is necessary to plant\nthe eggs when the rivers are at their lowest stage, generally between January and February. E 66 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nIt entails a great deal of labour, but from the results that are manifest it is worth the trouble.\nThe sockeye were unusually fine specimens of the race, the males outnumbering the females in\nthe proportion of about two to one. No log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the\nmovement up-stream.\nIn making the inspection of Jeneesee Creek, a small stream about 1% miles in extent, it was\nsatisfactory to note that the run of sockeye compared very favourably with the remarkable\nshowing last year. In 1921 a big run returned, while in 1922 unsatisfactory conditions prevailed.\nThe inference to be drawn from this is that the run this year consisted mainly of five-year\nsockeye, but in submitting the following figures courteously supplied by Mr. Tingley, Superintendent of the Dominion Hatchery, we have probably the answer to one of the most prolific runs\nof sockeye that Jeneesee Creek has ever received. In the brood-years the spawning-beds were\nplanted with 1,626,000 eyed eggs from the hatchery and supplemented by 3,951,000 young fry.\nA freshet which occurred prior to my visit permitted thousands of sockeye to pass over the\nhatchery fence, but so great were they in numbers that men at the camp had no difficulty in\ncollecting all the eggs that were necessary for their requirements at the hatchery. In size they\nrepresented a fair average, the males outnumbering the females two to one.\nThe Machmell River was again too discoloured to arrive at a satisfactory estimate of the\nrun of sockeye, but a trapper who was engaged in building a cabin close to the river stated that\nduring the past month at certain stages of the water he noted many sockeyes spawning, so that\nit is evident they do make use of the spawning-beds here. The Nookins River, flowing into the\nMachmell about half a mile from the entrance, contained a run of sockeye equal in extent to\nthat which returned in 1922, the spawning-beds being covered with spawning fish right up to the\nrough water 4 miles distant. In the side-streams the same conditions prevailed. No log-jams\nwere to be seen with the exception of one about 2 miles up, but this presented no difficulty to\nthe salmon finding their way to the spawning-beds beyond. The fish were a fair average in size,\nthe proportion of males and females being about equally divided.\nAsklum River, which is situated about 12 miles from the mouth of the lake, was inspected\nunder ideal conditions, the low stage of the water providing an uninterrupted view of the\nspawning-beds, 5 miles in extent. The run of sockeye closely resembled the numbers that\nreturned in 1921 and 1922, but as I was rather late in arriving it is possible that a big run of\nfish had come in and spawned out prior to my -visit; the condition of the gravel-bars bore\ntestimony to this, as they were covered with numerous pockets where the salmon had spawned.\nIn digging down into the gravel, eggs in large numbers were uncovered. The fine showing of\nsalmon seen on the beds at this time, coupled with the large numbers that had spawned out\nearlier in the season, ensures a big return four and five years hence. The river was clear of\nobstructions right up to the falls; therefore the fish had no difficulty in finding their way\nup-stream.    The males predominated over the females in the proportion of about two to one.\nMaking camp at Quap, I examined the spawning-beds at the Dalley River first. It is situated\ndirectly opposite on the other side of the lake and comprises spawning area of about 4% miles\nin extent. This river rarely fails to receive its full complement of sockeye and had not this\nyear fallen behind in that respect. The spawning-beds were lined with fish, the greater proportion in the last stages of spawning. Thousands of carcasses lying on the bars testified to an\nexceptional run earlier in the season. The run compares very favourably with the fine showing\nseen here in 1921 and 1922, the brood-years from which the present run resulted. They were a\nfair average in size, the males and females about equally distributed. No log-jams were to\nbe seen.\nThe men at the camp at Quap River were busy spawning and had nearly completed filling\nthe hatchery with eggs. No difficulty had been experienced in making the collection, due to\nthe abnormal run that had returned. The freshet which had caused so many sockeye to escape\nabove the fence at Jeneesee created the same conditions here. In passing up through to the\nheadwaters above 5 miles distant, sockeyes in dense masses lined the beds, while schooled up in\nthe deep pools thousands waited; below the fence and out in the bay there seemed to be no\ndiminution in numbers. The scene is a repetition of the vast numbers that have returned to\nthis river in the last few years.\nThe spawning-heds at the Hatchery Greek contained their full quota of sockeye and came\nwell up to the average of former years. They were fine specimens of the race, averaging in\nsize larger than the runs that had been noted on the other tributaries of the lake. SPAWNING-BEDS  OF RIVERS INLET.\nE 07\nThe spawning-beds surrounding the Indian rancherie and in the upper portion of the\nOwikeno River received a run of sockeye this year comparing with the unexampled return last\nyear, providing the Indians with all they required for their winter's need. In passing down\nthrough the rapids to the mouth, spring and chum salmon could be seen spawning in great\nnumbers.\nIn summarizing the results of the inspection of the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet, I am of\nthe opinion that the favourable conditions which were noted on all the tributaries, especially\nthose at the head of the lake, showed clearly that a run of sockeye of greater proportions\nreturned to the inlet than was the case in 1921 and 1922. Not only did the packers put up a\nlarger pack, amounting to about 70,000 cases, but the spawning-beds showed' a corresponding\nincrease. Since the spawning-beds in the brood-years contained a run of only moderate proportions, it must be assumed that in assisting the natural spawning by replenishing the rivers and\ncreeks with millions of eggs from the hatchery, added to which millions of young fry are turned\nloose into them each year, the Dominion fishery authorities have at last found a solution to the\ndifficulty of ensuring an increase in the run of sockeye each year.\nIn conclusion, I wish to express my thanks to the management of the B.C. Fishing and\nPacking Company; to Mr. Tingley, Superintendent of the Dominion Hatchery; and to the men\nat the camp for courtesies extended.\nRespectfully submitted.\nArthur W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 15th, 1926. E 68\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OP SMITH INLET.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to submit my report upon the inspection of the spawning-beds at\nSmith Inlet for the year 1926.\nTaking into consideration the record number of boats fishing at this point during the fishing\nseason, it was doubtful whether the inspection of the spawning-beds would disclose conditions\ndetrimental to such intensive operations, but, strange as it may seem, such was not the case.\nThe escapement to the spawning-beds showed an improvement in comparison with the runs\nwhich returned in 1921-22. This favourable condition was partly due to a larger run of sockeye,\nas was evidenced by an increase in the pack\u2014namely, 20,000 cases\u2014as compared with the packs\nput up in the brood-years, and partly to the great number of fishing-boats spread all over the\ninlet, breaking up the schools of salmon, in such a manner that it was a rare occasion a fisherman'\nwas lucky enough to make a big haul at any one time; the fish, becoming scared, swam deep\nand avoided the nets. To such an extent did this happen that many of the fishermen were of\nthe firm opinion that no harm would be done if the close season was eliminated, providing of\ncourse rigid observance of the fishing boundary was maintained, but such a drastic step could\nnot be contemplated, since it would not be to the interests of conservation.\nOn being informed that Long Lake, the breeding-ground of the sockeye salmon, was at an\nextremely low stage, it was not considered advisable to make the inspection until it had risen\nsufficiently to permit of the fish reaching the beds. It was therefore not until September 27th\nthat a move was made in this direction. Making camp at the foot of the lake, I examined the\nDocee River (the overflow to the lake), and am able to report a fine run of springs; in the\nclear water hundreds could be seen spawning and also along the shore-line at the mouth. The\nrun of this species of salmon is in striking contrast to the poor showing last year. Intermingled\nwith the springs, schools of cohoe salmon were observed.\nThe heavy rainfall that occurred at this time made travelling very uncomfortable, and on\narriving at the head of the lake we were glad enough to make camp and dry out. The Geluch\nRiver had in the meantime rapidly risen, a situation which compelled us to remain in camp\nuntil it had subsided. When it was possible at last to see the spawning-beds under favourable\nconditions I was agreeably surprised to find the beds, from the mouth up to the falls, covered\nwith sockeye salmon in dense numbers, all more or less in the green stage, evidence that they\nhad only just come in. The small streams adjacent to the river were not productive, on account\nof bars thrown up by former freshets preventing the salmon from gaining entrance; in one\ninstance, however, where a fresh stream had been formed, thousands of sockeye lined the beds.\nThe fish were a fair average in size, the males and females being about equally represented.\nNo log-jams or other obstructions interfered with the movement up-stream.\nOutside along the shore-line at the head of the lake, schools of sockeye salmon were still\nwaiting to go on the spawning-beds, which, combined with the big run that had already taken\npossession of the beds inside, should provide a run of salmon equal in all respects to that which\nreturned in 1922. In 1921, it will be recalled, the run of sockeye to this river was very\nunsatisfactory.\nThe Delebah River, situated about 2 miles from the head of the lake, contained a run of\nsockeye equal in extent to the fine showing that returned in 1922. Schooled up in great numbers\njust inside the river, the fish seemed in no hurry to commence spawning; farther up the gravel-\nbeds were literally alive with spawning fish all in an advanced stage of spawning, while outside\nat the entrance and in the bay thousands upon thousands waited. I have no hesitation in\npredicting a big return from the eggs which will be deposited this season from this river.\nA log-jam, to which I referred last year,. is assuming greater proportions and should receive\nattention, or will with each succeeding freshet act to the detriment of the spawning-beds. In size\nthe sockeye were similar to the run observed at the Geluch River, the males and females about\nequal in numbers.\nThe restricted spawning-beds at the Quay Creek contained a fair run of sockeye, not quite\nas large as the return in 1922, but far in excess of the 1921 run. Males predominated over the\nfemales in the proportion of two to one and were a fair average in size. SPAWNING-BEDS  OF  SMITH INLET.\nE 09\nA few cohoe salmon were observed breaking water as we returned down the lake, and on\nreaching the Docee River once more a big run of these fish had come in. Reports received from\nthe seine fishermen showed that the run of cohoe was larger than usual. The humpback run\nwas a failure, being the poorest known in years. Chum salmon, on the other hand, were caught\nin very large numbers and encouraged the packers to keep open their plants two weeks later.\nIn summing up the results of the inspection of this watershed, I am of the opinion that the\nfine showing of sockeye on the spawning-beds will be reflected in a big return four and five years\nhence from the seed deposited this season. With the large and increasing number of fishermen\noperating on the inlet each year, it is not to their interests to indulge in illegal fishing. The\nspawning-grounds are of such a restricted character that, unless conservation is practised\nunremittingly, they are hound to suffer in time, with a consequent loss not only to the canners\nbut to the fishermen themselves.\nRespectfully submitted.\nA. W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 15th, 1926. E 70\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OP THE NASS RIVER.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u2014In obedience to instructions received from the Department to inspect the salmon-\nspawning areas in the Meziadin watershed of the Nass River, I have to inform you that this\nduty has been fulfilled and beg to submit the following report:\u2014\nAs in previous years, it was arranged that I should join forces with the Dominion Fishery\nOfficer in making an inspection of this watershed. Upon my arrival at Stewart I met Mr. A. E.\nYoung, who was again detailed for this work by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. We\nproceeded to make provision for pack-horses, prepare our outfit, and engage two capable assistants\nfor the trip. After this was accomplished we left Stewart on September 8th and arrived at\nthe head of Meziadin Lake on the 11th. We found the trail in very poor condition, being badly\novergrown with brush. All of the bridges need repairs as the puncheon in them is rotten, the\nhorses continually breaking through when passing over. Upon our arrival at the head of\nMeziadin Lake we found that the Dominion Fisheries Department's canvas canoe had received\nbad usage since we put it away last fall, and we had difficulty in again making it seaworthy.\nIt is not to be expected that the canoe will be in good enough condition to use next season.\nAfter getting the canoe in shape we inspected the sockeye-spawning grounds at the head of the\nlake and for 5 miles down on each shore-line. Spawning sockeye were to be observed at many\nplaces, but they were not congregated in large numbers. The salmon appeared to be those of an\nearly run and were in an advanced stage, which showed that they had been in the lake for a\nconsiderable period.    There were four or five males to every female.\nHaving completed this inspection at the head of the lake, we left for the Meziadin Falls\nand arrived there in the evening of September 15th. On our journey down the lake very few\nfresh-run salmon were to be seen leaping as is. usual, and there was little sign of salmon at the\nmouths of Hanna River and McLeod Creek.\nOn arriving at the falls in the Meziadin River, where the fishway is located, we were disappointed in finding very few salmon of any kind congregated below. There were not more than\nten or fifteen in the pools of the fishway at any one time and they were passing through very\nslowly. At the time of our first observations at the falls there appeared to be about 100 or 150\nbelow the fall on the far side. These were salmon of an early run. The fresh run of sockeye\nwhich usually arrive at the time of our inspection were very few in numbers and no improvement was noticed during our ten days' stay. The fresh-run sockeye were in splendid condition\nand were of large size, measuring, from 28 to 30% inches in length. In comparing conditions\nat the falls with last season, the number of salmon was very small. During the 1925 season\nthe basins of the fishway were full all the time, the fish passing through continually. This\ncondition prevailed during the whole of our stay, the basins each holding about 200 salmon, while\nthis season only a few salmon were assembled, and at the time of our departure most of the\nsalmon which had reached the fall had passed through the fishway.\nWhile at the fishway I obtained scales, measurements, etc., from forty-four sockeye taken\nfrom the Meziadin River, and also fished a net in the Nass River, 2 miles above the outlet of\nthe Meziadin River. The results obtained from the operations in the Nass River were disappointing.   The net was fished continually for eight days, with the following results:\u2014\u25a0\nSockeye. Cohoe.\nSeptember 18      2 2\nSeptember 19      1\nSeptember 20     3\nSeptember 21      2 1\nSeptember 22      2 1\nSeptember 23\t\nSeptember 24 \t\nSeptember 25     1\nTotals   11 4 SPAWNING-BEDS OF NASS RIVER.\nE 71\nThe water in the Nass was very low at this time. Had there been an average run of salmon\nabove the Meziadin watershed, these operations would have shown far better results. In taking\nthe scales and measurements great care was used so that the salmon in most cases were liberated\nalive and uninjured.\nOn Sunday, September 19th, we inspected the spring-salmon spawning-beds, which are\nsituated at the foot of the McBride Rapids in the Meziadin River, about half a mile below the\noutlet of the lake and 3% miles above the falls. Observations show that the run of spring\nsalmon to this watershed was on an average with past seasons. I had received instructions to\nobtain specimens of trout from the Meziadin, and while there caught thirteen specimens, preserved them in formalin, and duly forwarded them to Dr. W. A. Clemens, Pacific Biological\nStation, Nanaimo. To show the depredations these trout make on the spawning-beds, I opened\none trout and in its stomach found sixty-five spring-salmon eggs. These eggs were in an\nadvanced condition, clearly showing the well-formed young fish. In fishing for trout at this\nplace they are so numerous that when you pull one in several more are to be seen following\nit to the surface of the water. If other trout consume eggs as the one examined the toll on\nspring-salmon eggs must be enormous.\nThe run of cohoe to the Meziadin this season was noticeable by their absence. There were\nonly a few to be seen and these were mostly small-sized fish and runts. At the time of our\ndeparture from the fishway there was no improvement in the cohoe run.\nThe fishway is in splendid condition, the crib-work, basins, and cement-work being in perfect\nshape. During our absence since last fall a large growth of bushes had taken place between the\nlogs of the crib-work.    These we cleared out, leaving the fishway in its original condition.\nAfter completing our work at the Meziadin falls we started our return journey on September\n26th, arriving in Stewart on September 30th.\nSummary.\u2014In making a summary of conditions found on the salmon-spawning beds in the\nMeziadin watershed of the Nass River, J have to submit that there was not a satisfactory\nescapement of sockeye to this district. From observations taken at the head of the lake there\nwas a fair run of sockeye during the earlier part of the season. The late runs of sockeye at\nthe mouth of the Nass at the canneries are in appearance distinguishable from those of the\nearlier runs. While some salmon from this run were to be seen below the falls, their numbers\nwere anything but encouraging.\nThe cohoe run to this watershed did not materialize up to the time of our leaving, September\n26th, and it is not to be expected that they would come through in quantity after that date.\nFrom previous observations cohoe are arriving early in September and continue during the time\nof our inspection.    This season their numbers were few.\nThe run of spring salmon should be on an average with past seasons, and it would be much\nlarger if the trout did not make such a heavy toll on the spawn deposited. It is apparent from\nthe trout examined and mentioned earlier in this report that they not only wait behind the\nsalmon when the eggs are expelled, but also rob the nests when deposited.\nThe stage of water during the time of our visit was below normal.\nRespectfully submitted.\nC. P. Hickman,\nInspector of Fisheries. THE FOOD VALUE OF SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH.\nBy John Pease Babcock.\nIt is the purpose of this paper to give in simple terms a brief digest of our present knowledge\nregarding the nutritive value of some of our most commonly used food-fish. The facts here\nrecited are drawn wholly from a recent publication of the United States Bureau of Fisheries\non the \" Nutritive Value of Fish and Shell-fish.\"*\nHuman food-supplies, as a whole, should furnish enough digestible organic foodstuffs to\nmeet the body's needs for energy; sufficient proteins; and enough vitamins. The bulk of most\nstaple foods consists of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, minerals, and vitamins. With the exception\nof carbohydrates, all are abundantly contained in fish and shell-fish.\nThe sea, Clark and Clough, in the above-named bulletin, tell us, is not merely an expanse\nof . water, but may be likened to productive fields of land\u2014it is alive. Its green plants,\nmicroscopic or otherwise, are built up into organic matter in the forms of vegetable products.\nThey in turn are eaten by lower forms of animal life, and they too support higher forms; and\nfinally man utilizes some of the links in the chain, such as seaweeds, shell-fish, and fish.\nUltimately all fish in the sea are dependent for their stores of energy upon sunlight, which is\noriginally fixed by green plants. The fishes, like domesticated animals and birds., transform\nraw material into human foods. The human body is built up out of the foods eaten; it maintains itself in the same way, and makes good its losses and eliminates all waste products. In\nother words, it is a transforming machine for the production of form and energy. The human\nbody is a super-machine in converting foods into body-heat and work that is nearly 100 per cent,\nperfect.    All other machines are far behind in efficiency.\nChemists who, after years of study, have determined the fixed value of foods use a common\nunit in their measurements which they term the \" calorie.\" A calorie is the amount of heat\nnecessary to raise the temperature of 1 lb. of water 4\u00b0 F. The human body to create energy\nchanges the stored energy in foods into heat to keep the normal temperature of 98.6\u00b0 F.\nMany foods, particularly fish, contain larger amounts of so-called protein and fat types of\nfood material than do carbohydrates types (starch and sugar), which so characterize vegetable\nfoods. Fat and oil have the highest food value. They are the most concentrated forms of\nenergy. They supply the quickly burned fuels of the body, while the proteins play a particularly\nimportant part in replacing losses from wear and tear of body-cells. Both proteins and nitrogenous constituents of foods, and the carbohydrates, or starch constituents, have the same fuel\nvalue\u2014namely, 1,860 calories per pound. On the other hand, fats have a food value of 4,220\ncalories per pound. In addition to the proteins, fats and starches, which constitute by far the\ngreater proportion of our foods, there is another highly important food essential\u2014namely, the\ninorganic matter commonly given in food-value tables as \" ash.\" All living matter contains ash.\nIn bones and teeth the ash content is very high. Because human bodies can neither be built nor\nfunction without inorganic substances, our foods must contain them. Fish and shell-fish contain\nunusually wide ranges of mineral elements.\nThe pioneer work on the composition of North American food-fish was performed by\nProfessor W. O. Atwater for the United States Bureau of Fisheries between 1880 and 1887.\nHis work is a classical piece of research on the composition of certain classes of food material\nthat has not been surpassed in completeness and thoroughness by any investigator on fishery\nproducts. He gives a highly condensed summary of the composition of the edible portions of\nover forty of the most common of American fresh fish.\n* Document No. 1000. FOOD VALUE OF  SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH.\nThe following taken from his tabulation gives the composition of the edible portions of some\nof the most common fishes consumed in British Columbia:\u2014\nName.\nTotal\nSolids.\nFat.\nProtein.\nAsh.\nFuel Value\nper Pound.\nPer Gent.\n36.4\n24.6\n27.5\n17.4\n25.3\n20.8\n21.3\n22.2\n15.8\n28.8\nPer Cent.\n17.8\n5.2\n7.1\n0.4\n11.'2\n1.8\n1.9\n2.1\n0.6\n4.2\nPer Cent.\n17.8\n18.6\n19.5\n16.5\n13.2\n17.0\n1S.1\n19.2\n14.2\n23.1\nPer Cent.\n1.1\n1.0\n1.5\n1.2\n1.4\n1.7\n1.4\n1.2\n1.3\n1.2\nCalories.\n1,080\n565\n660\nCod\t\n325\n718\nSmelt\t\n405\n415\nTrout\t\n445\n290\nWhale-meat (mammal)\t\n607\nThe above shows that there is a considerable variation in the composition and food value\nof our fish. Salmon heads the list with a percentage of fat of 17.8, 17.8 of protein, and has a\nfuel value of 1,080 calories per pound. Eulachan ranks second with 11.2 per cent, of fat, 13.2\nper cent, of protein, and has fuel value of 718 calories per pound. Herring ranks third with\n7.1 per cent, of fat, 19.5 per cent, of protein, and 660 calories. Cod has 0.4 of 1 per cent, of fat,\n16.5 per cent, of protein, and 325 calories. Flounder has 0.6 of 1 per cent, of fat, 14.2 per cent,\nof protein, and 290 calories.\nMost more recent investigators point out one difficulty in drawing general conclusions from\nAtwater's tabulations. He apparently analysed but one or two samples of different species of\nfresh fish. Clark, Clough, Dill, and others found great variation in the composition of the same\nkinds of food-fish, due to several factors. They found that individual fish in the same school\nand caught at the same time often differed widely in composition and they ascribed it to the\ngreater success of some fish in securing a greater amount of foods. Then, too, there is the\nimportant factor\u2014namely, the proximity to the time of spawning. Dill and Green checked the\nimportant Pacific food-fish and showed seasonal variations in food and values, generally in the\ntendency towards an increase in fat content from spring to fall, due to the recognized fact that\nfish feed and grow more rapidly in summer than in winter months. Green showed also that\nspring salmon (quinnat) during the spawning migration suffer deterioration, particularly as\nregards fat content, and to a lesser extent in protein. The flesh of the salmon is gradually\ndepleted of fats and proteins in the development of its eggs and milt and by its exertions in\nits spawning migration. He determined the flesh-tissue of the Columbia Eiver spring (quinnat)\nsalmon at different dates and different distances from the sea during their migration, and gives\nthem as follows :\u2014\nWhere taken.\nDate.\nTotal\nSolids.\nFat.\nProtein.\nAsh.\nOrganic.\nAug. 15-20\t\nPer Cent.\n36.83\n37.32\n36.64\n31.02\n20.32\n_J\nPer Cent.\n16.43\n17.17\n16.33\n10.73\n2.63\nPer Cent.\n16.97\n16.8S\n17.01\nPer Cent.\n0.90\n0.89\n0.95\nPer Cent.\n2.48\n2.49\nJuly 11-31\t\n2.49\n700 miles from sea.\t\nSept. 6-11\t\nAug. 25-28\t\n16.31      j       1.00\n1-3.71              0.94\n2.94\n2.99\nThe above evidences the fact that the food value of fresh salmon depends largely upon the\ntime of year they are taken and the place where they are caught. Their food value deteriorates\nrapidly after they enter fresh water, for the well-known, reason that they cease feeding and are\nsubject to great exertion in their ascent of the rivers, and at the same time are developing their\neggs and milt.\nNot only is there great variation in the seasonal value of the flesh of salmon, but in different\nparts of the same fish the flesh varies in richness. In the case of both red- and white-meated\nspring salmon it has been shown that slices taken near the head of some fish were 100 per cent. E 74\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nricher in fat content than the slices taken near the tail of that fish. That is why the discriminating buyer, the price being equal, demands cuts from the head end of the salmon.\nIt has often been stated that the Columbia River spring (quinnat) salmon are richer and\nfiner in flavour than those taken from any other waters on the coast:. Clark and Clough,\nhowever, found that the spring salmon taken in Puget Sound waters averaged about the same\nas those taken in the Columbia. They also developed the fact that the white-fleshed spring\nsalmon of Puget Sound compared favourably with the red-fleshed spring salmon when taken\nat the same time and at the same place, and showed little or no differences in fat content. They\nstate, however, that more work is necessary to conclusively prove that the colour and food value\nhave any necessary relation.\nAs to the relative food value \"of our five species of salmon, it has been shown that our\ncheaper grades\u2014the pink and the chum salmon\u2014usually contain less fat, but that they are\nequal to the spring and the sockeye in protein\u2014tissue-building material\u2014which is the most\nessential and valuable constituent in fish and shell-fish.\nReferring to canned-fish products, we are advised that in the case of the salmon there are\nfew changes in the processing except the addition of salt. On the other hand, in the ease of\nsardines and other fish in which olive or other oil is added, the food value is increased in\ncalories but not in protein.\nClark and Clough, in dealing with the food value of frozen fish, reached the conclusion\nthat the process of freezing and storage of fish in cold rooms is one in which there is no\nappreciable change in quality or food value. Regarding salt fish, we are advised that fundamentally the salting of fish results in the elimination of water. Whether fish are dried naturally\nor salted, the effect is the same. Because a considerable proportion of the water is removed\nby salting or drying, salt fish like cod and smoked herring are highly concentrated forms of\nprotein\u2014body-building. In the case of smoked herring there is the additional advantage of a\nhigh percentage of fat. Salt cod does not gain much in food value from1 its fat content, but it\nhas a percentage of 26.3 per cent, of protein and a fuel value of 502 calories per pound.\nGenerally speaking, the food value of shell-fish is not as high as fish-flesh, for the reason\nthat they do not contain very much fat. On the other hand,.this class of sea-food contains some\ncarbohydrates, or starchy types of nutrients, which is unusual in other sea-foods, and they\ncontain considerable quantities of protein, and their delicate and unusual flavours add variety\nto the diet and whets the appetite. The following table gives the composition of the edible\nportions of some shell-fish:\u2014\nName.\nTotal\nSolids.\nFat.\nProtein.\nAsh.\nCarbohydrates.\nFuel Value\nper Pound.\nPer Cent.\n22.9\n20.6\n15.8\n13.1\n22.7\nPer Cent.\n2.0\n1.7\n1.1\n1.2\n0.4\nPer Cent.\n16.6\n13.6\n8.7\n6.2\n19.3\nPer Cent.\n3.3\n2.5\n1.9\n2.0\n1.5\nPer Cent.\n1.2\n2.8\n4.1\n3.7\n1.7\nCalories.\n415\nFresh clams\t\n377\n285\n235\nFresh shrimps\t\n407\nIn order to appreciate the real significance of fish and shell-fish in the diet it is necessary\nto make some comparisons in highly condensed form between the composition of fish and that\nof animal and vegetable foods. It has already been shown that the great value of fish is their\ncontent of protein. Some fish contain as much or more fat than meat, but generally they do\nnot. Fish do, however, compete wTith meat in the dietary on the basis of cost of the protein\ninvolved. The tabulations contained in the bulletin from which we quote make comparisons\nbetween different fish, animal, and vegetable food products on the basis of cost which are too\nlong and complicated to be used here, though they serve a very useful purpose in making comparisons of the cost of protein content, the essential ingredient, and by which It is shown that\nfish compare well with meat products in the matter of protein. And they show that where\nfuel value is considered it is lowest in the case of vegetable products like wheat, corn-meal,\npotatoes, etc.\nThe United States Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1000, from which the foregoing has\nwholly been compiled,  is  a most valuable summarizing of present  knowledge regarding  the \u25a0\nFOOD VALUE OF SOME BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH.\nE 75\nnutritive value of fish and shell-fish foods. The various chapters it contains were prepared\nby scientists qualified to write on the subject, and who show that fish and shell-fish furnish\nan excellent supply of very valuable proteins and fats, and as a source of certain vitamins and\nminerals they are of great importance and should be given their proper place in the diet.\nWe cannot do better, in concluding this brief review of the \" Nutritive Value of Fish andi\nShell-fish,\" than to quote the. following paragraphs from Dr. Eugene Lyman Fisk, Medical\nDirector of the Life Extension Institute :\u2014\n\" Fish is interchangeable with meat. It has, for the most part, the same deficiencies as meat\n\u2014that is, lack of vitamins and minerals\u2014but as a source of protein it is quite the equal of meat\nand, in fact, more digestible than most foods we use in a mixed diet.\n\" There is a slight difference in favour of most fish as compared to most meat. The notion\nthat fish is incompatible with other types of food, such as milk, is pure superstition. Fish can\nbe safely eaten with other kinds of food by the average individual. There is, however, no\nmysterious, peculiar virtue in a fish diet. It does not make more brain, nor is it a good substitute\nfor meat, where meat is undesirable, as in some forms of disease. There is plenty to be said in\nfavour of a larger use of fish, without ascribing to it any mysterious virtues which it does not\npossess.\" Ci   -f   Cl   Cl    IO   GO   r-\nr-\nMt-COHW^iaOf-t-     -\nCl   \u00a9   rH   \u00a9   Cl   Cl   CO   rr*   ' IO\nt-   CO   GO   CO   t-   Cl   c\nlf\ni\nco io io Oi go io co t- ci co   c\ni\nC0\u00a9-r1*O\u00a9\u00a9rHt\u2014     \u00a9\nCO  CO  C-1   Ci  rt*  T-i  C\n0\ni\no  t- so \u00bbo CO CO \u2022* CO rH  IO    >C\n>\nti c\nGO  Oi  \u00a9  Cl   I>  Q0\nCi Ol -r-i  CO t- X .c\n\u00ab\nCOCl-rHCl'^-rih-COCOCl    t-\nIO   O   Cl   h-   Cl   \u00a9   \u00a9   00\nCO\nKO   C7i   IO   Cl   rH   rH\nl>\nt-fO'tlCOCl-rtlrH           C0C0C\n5\nCl\nrH   Cl\nCl\nOi O CO Ci -HH  t-\n>r\nS\nHOQHMI-h^HCi.    b\nCD  r-\n10 io co \u2022* co    ;\nt-\na\nOl  CO  CI  i-H  \u00a9  00\ni\ntOt-t-t-OMNOOt-    C\n00  CO'  \u00a9  tH  \u00a9   h-  \u00a9\n<M\nCS   t-   N  15  M  IO\n'\u25a0\nIO  CO  I-  CO  Cl  CO   t>  Cl  \u00a9   t\u2014    it\"\n1\n\u00a9   \u00a9   rH\n1-\nft\nIO   t-  CO  \u00a9  Cl  CO\n0\n.\nC0\u00a9rHCi           rH                   r-OJP\n\u25a0\nr-i   \u00a9   CO\nH\n-^   rH   rH\nOi   Cl   CO   rH   -tH   Cl\nex\nCC\n>\nrH             rH                                        rH               \u00ab\nj\nj\nci a\n\u00a9 co ci ci 00    :\nrH\n1\nCl   Ol   t-   Cl   t-   IO   00   CO   CD   l>     t-\nH\nIO   \u00a9   rH   Cl   OI   N-\n\u00bbr\n\u25a0\nCO^rHlOrHCOCO-tlt-CO     0\n)'\n\u00a9   r-\nCl     \u00a9     Cl     \u00a9     T-i\nIO   Ol   -HH   lO   OI   Cl\nc\nrHClrHCOCOOllO-^lCO\u00a9     C\n\u25a0\n00 ir\n\u00a9  CO  CO  Cl  T-i\nCO\nrH   Cl  IO  Cl\nc\nClCl-t-COlOCOrHTflCOrH\n-\n\u25a0\nrH\nCO            rH   rW\nCl\nft\nrH   tH\nCf\nCOrHClClfHClrH          rHCl\n0\nH\n1?\no\nCO  b-  O  O  t\u2014  CO\nc\noicot-cociiocooi\u00a9b-\n0\nCl c\nr-(  CO  Cl  \u00a9  r-\n\u00a9\nH\no\nrH   -ri   -fl   r-i   IO   rH\n0\nIOrHrH'+^fl\u00a9\u00a9COCOCO\n-\nIO   t-\n\u00a9   \u00a9   \u00a9   CI   \u00a9\non\nH\no\nO   CO   \"Hi   Oi   \u00a9   CO\n1-\nOOCOHii'tMHCOHiiCC\nc\nrH   r-\nCI           r-i   Cl   Cl\n7!\n\u2014\nrH\n<\nM\no\nCfl\nA\no\nU\nrf   CO   Cl   Cl    rH    r-i\nc\nCD   rH   rH   Tp           Cl\"                  tH   tH*\nc\n-'\nCl   rH   CO\ni>\nm\nr?i\n<\n_-, 02\nED'S\n80,2\nCl   CO\n-\nCO\n\u00bbo 0\nIO 1- \u00a9 \u00a9\n-1\nrH\nrH\n'J!_\n-1\nw\nr-i   Cl\n-t\nCl\n-H  t-\nci \u00bbo Tfl CO\nt-\n^\n1-1\ns\nto\na.\nO\n\u25a08\nt-  Cl   -H\nCO  IO\ncr\n65\nd\n10 Oi -fi\nio go\nr\no\nOJ\nci\" \u00a9\nty\nH\n3\nr~<\n\\A\n-1\na.\no\nf\u00a3\n<j\nC\/_\nO\n\u00a3$\n-O  IO  -H  CO   t-i  rH\na\n3\n\u00a9  T-i  -ti  -HH  IO\nh-  IO  \u00a9\nc\nCO\nCO\nCl Ci \u00a9 Oi Oi co\nic\nC5\nr-l r- ci co \u00a9\nrH   Cl   CO\n-\n*#\nrH   CC.\n\u00ab1\npq\nM\n3-S\nb-  I\u2014 CO  CO   IO  CO\n\u00a9   rH   rH           rH\nIO\nC-\n.    q\nCD   CO   IO   rH   rH\nP\nH\n\u00a9\n\u00a7\nc\n5\n\u25a0+.\u00bb\n\u00a7\nH\nce\n-    (^\n_s\ns.\nP\ns\ntj \u00abi\nOi\nOi\n10 o\nCf\nS\nIS   t-   Hj   M-\nCO\nCl\n\u00bbr\nCO\n: ci 00    : \u00a9\nCO\n>\u2014\nrt =JJ\nCO\nCO\nt=-  Cl\nt-   CO   rH   00   O\nt-\nlO\nt-\n-^\n\u00bb(.\nc\no\na\nm\nM\nB5\nM\nP\nSi\nT3 fl\n\u00a9^\nCO\n^  Cl\nc\no-\nCi   ^H   b-   r-i   r-i\ncf\nr\n&\n\u00a7\nIO\nw\n-\n-\n\u2014\n*a\ni\u2014i\nPh* be\nCl   IO  o\n-H  Ol\n\u00a9\nci .co \u00a9 co qi co ci \u00a9\nt-\nCD\n\u00a9\nH\n-1\n>-..9\nCO   CO   rH\nIO o\n\u00a9   t\u2014   -fl   ^f    t-   rH             t-\nPQ\n<\nTM   Cl\nCl\nTfi   i-H  CO                 Cl\n-*\nfe\nO\nCJ\nCO   IO  T-i  Ci  Cl  CO   r-\n0\ntOCiCOC0Cl-+iC0-tilOC0\nc\n\u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9   00   IO   Cl   \u00a9   Trl\nH\n\u00a7\nCO    Cl    r-l   rH    O    r-   C\nor\ncococioiococit\u2014t>ri\nT\n\u00a9 -f\nrfl    -fl    CO   rH   Cl    h-\non\nCl   CO   Cl   rH   I-   Ci   C\ncr\nco 'Ci rH t- ci ci t- a \u00a9 r-\ncr\nCl  c\n\u00a9 CO t- \u00a9        00\n]-\nM\n,M\nQ\nM\nCO  IO  O  CO  00  Ci  c\nir\nr-b-COCOt-rH-tlClrrl-tl\na>\nCO  \u00a9\nIO  \u00a9   \u00a9  CO          CO\nto\nO\n03\nCO     T-i     T-i\noc\nrH           rH                   rH\n.\/.\nCl\nso\n<\no\nrC\nf\u2014\na    ;\nrl\nsa\nJ\n+J\nrJ\na     :\n6\ng\nd\n3\nd\nc\n0\nS 2 \u00ab\n1\n3     :\nZ     j\nw\nJ\nC   r-l   -\n..^    r\nhJ\n+-_ a\nO\n^ \"C\nJ   :J\nJ      \u2022\na\n.9 J CJ ^\n_3    -     \u25ba\"\n-CJM   O  _- ^-r-\nc J\nCO        -        g       ;\nO CJ d H-  0 J     :\nbe bJDO H O     ^     i\n^ U a  o o a c\n\u00b0a be -a  p a, fl\nnrt | .S d be m w ,S 5 2\na     w .H \u2022\u00ab to u ;   y \"   c\nB 13    . 41 M \u00ab  g fe        fe   >\ntf   c\ns .S m \u00bb be 6     :\nQ\n0\nz\n1\u2014\nbi\nr=\nSl^Sa  I\n. S .s \u00a3 3 g\n1\nr\nOQ\n.    B0    \u00ab    2    Ci    fl   hH\nrj \u00ab a S  *  5 *\n^i   o   ri   o   tn ,5\ns eh \u00ab ft s s h a 1 .j\n\u25a0 H T, s  5 S   \u00bb '_   S  i\n^\ncj M   cd   a\n.5 iS I\nK\nft\nw\nqK\nS a S 3 5 0\nPC\nc\n^\n^\n\u00ab\n-\nHs\npc\nH\n\u00ab\n\u00ab\nI\nIS\nC\ns\ny\ny\npe\nr-\np.\n<\nt\nps\n?f.\nCS PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, 1920.\nOld\u00a9\nt-\ny->  \u00a9  Cl  \u00a9   Iff\nCl   CO   \u00a9   C\nrH   t-   1\u2014   CO\niC\nC0\u00a9\u00a9ClrHC0ThC0CirH\u00a9\nc\n1\nCO  CO  CO\n\u00a9   IO   t\u2014   CO   i-T\niO   -ti   CO   r-\n\u00a9   CO   \u00a9   CO\n\u2022HOiacOMrlcOWHiMO\nc\ni\nCO  Cl  \u00a9\n0\nOO    Th    \u00a9    t-       t^-\n\u00a9CCrH\u00a9\u00a9COCOrH\nV\nt-   r-i   r-i   t-{   \u00bbo   Cl   Ol   Cl   rH   CO   IO\n1-\nt-   t-   CO\n6c\nCO   CO   CO   t-i\nc\n\u00a9    1-i    IO    t-\ntt\nt-    t-    T-i\ncr\n\u00a9rHClIOO\u00a9rHrH\u00a9\u00a9rH\nI-\n.\nrH  C^  CO  Cl\n\u00a9\nTh    \u00a9    \u00a9    Tt\nT\nCO   Th   Cl\n*\nb-\nTh   T-i   Th   rfl   Th   rH   IO  Cl   Cl   Cl   CO\n*\n^\nw\nl> Oi \u00bbQ\n^\nT-i  CO  CO  \u00a9\nCl\n\u00a9 rH io\nCO-   rH   rH   \u00a9\no-\nHH\u00bb\u00abM00\u00a9r-!D\u00abmO\nO1\ni\nrH\nK\n-ri   \u00a9   Cl   \u00a9\nT\n00  CO  b-\nc-\nI-   CO   \u00a9\nHOHOdOHQOHCO\na\n)\n\u00a9   \u00a9   Th   \u00a9\ncr\nCO   Oi   CO\nlO  rfl   IO\nc\n\u00a9iOb-OThClTh\u00a9t-\u00a900\nV\nj\n\"\nrH   rH   IO   \u00a9\n1-\n-ti   \u00a9   CO\nCO         IO\nt-    CO    Th\nCl   Cl   r-i\na\n\u00a9   Cl    t-   \u00a9    h-   IO   rH    rH    \u00a9   Ci   IO\nCl   Cl   CO             CO            rH\nTj\n\u00a9   rH   \u00a9\nC*\nCO   Cl   CO   Cl\n)-\nn\nOr\nw\n\u00a9 \u00a9 t- c\nT*\nffl-f   CO\n&\n\u00a9   rH   Th   CO   CO   Cl   \u00a9\n\u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9  CO  \u00a9\nCC\nt\u2014   IO   CO   IO\ni-\nCO   Tfi    \u00a9   r-\nc\nb-   CO   CO\ncoi^\u00a9r-.^o\u00a9ci\n\u00a9 \u00a9\nIO\n\u00a9\nrH   \u00a9   \u00a9   \u00a9\noc\n\u00a9  \u00a9  o  \u00a9\na\nb-   CO   \u00a9\nir\nThrHCl;+rH*t|E--HH\nT-i    00\n-\u00a3 Cl\" -ti\" 01'\n\u00a9\nrH   rH   rH   l-\na\nCO   \u00a9   rH\nc\n\u00a9'                  ri H   H   id\" IV\ntH   \u00a9\"\ntt\nrH   Cl   '\n)'-\nt-i  IO  rH  %\nr-\nCl   Cl\n\u00a9\n(C\nCl                   i-H                           r-i       \u2022   rH   -H\ny\n\u00a9 CO io\n-r\nCO  \u00a9  IO  \u00a9\n-t\nCO  CO  CO\nTt\nh- \u00a9\n\u00a9\nClClXCS\u00a901!O\u00a9ClC0h-\nIO   Cl   CO\n\u00a9\n\u00a9  IO  \u00a9  Cl\nfc-\nCl  CO  CO\nCr\nCO  -ti\nt-lOC0Ol\u00a9t-T-H\u00a9TtiCO\u00a9\nr\na co t- ci\nc\nTh\nCO   rH   rH\nP\"\nCO\nci\n1-\nCr\n\"\n\u00a9CO\u00a9r>-COrHClClCOThCO\n\u00a9\" l> Oi \"5 H* iH \u00a9\"                    oo\"\n\u00bbr\nIT\na1\n\u00a9  \u00a9  CO  Cl\nIO\n\u25a0:    :     :    :     : co\nCO  Hi  CO  IO\n1-\nCl\n?'-\n.      . ,    ,H\n\u00a9\nc\nl\nTh\nCO\na\n1\n.s\n\u00a9\nIr\nCi*\n\u00a3-\n\u2022\nTjf\n>C\n.\nj\n\u00b0C\nV\n+&\n\u2022I\nco\no\n\u25a0h\n\u20222\n\u00a9    :    :\n\u00a9\ny\nH  OJ  (M\n-H   CO   r-\nJO\nt-\n90\nS\n00    \u00a9    \"HH    t^\nrH  Cl  CO  Cl\niO\n\u00bbo\ntt\nCO\nIO\nz\nQ\n5\nOl   rH           rH\ni\"\n^\n\u25a0*\n\u00ab\ni\nrw\u00bb\n*-H\n\u00a7\n\t\nO\n^\no\nKj\n\"5\nr__\u00a3\nCl   \u00a9\n\u00ab\nqp\n\u2022O  T-i   i-i   Tp\nr-\n&,\nCO\nCl\nC\n\u00a3s\nCi\n-h\n\u00a9\n0*\nHo\nrH  Th\nir\nCl  Cl  Cl  Th\n\\c\ne\nrh\nC\ns\n50\n\u00a9\nCl\nc\n*S\nCO   H           rH\nt-\nIO\nir\no\nCl\nCl\ntt\n5\nfei\ns\n5\n\u00a3\nr5\n-\ns\n[ja.\no\nO Ci\ni-\nCl   Cl   OS   CO\nTh   CO   CO   !>\u2022\n*#   t#          \u00a9\nCl\" rH\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nT*\n5\n\u00a9  \u00a9  CO\nCO   rH   O0\nCl   \u00a9   \u00a9\nOl   \u00a9\n-h t-\nb-   rH\n\u00a9\n\u00a9\nc\n1-\nG-\ncr\n\"\n\u00a9   Th   rH\n'     laJrH   Hi\n\u00a9\nci \u00a9    : ci\nI   Th   rH\na\nTh    : \u00a9 \u00a9    : io hi h\n\u00a9 r-\nC\nIO ci -*fi\no\nCl   \u00ab   rH   \u00a9\nO\nIO\nf\n\u00a9\nTh\nt\u2014 i\u2014\nCl   CI   CO\nio \u00a9\nt-\nCl  CO  CO\n\u25a0c\nCO   ,ra\u201e CO  Cl\nC\n\u00a9\ni-\nfc*.\nCO   t-i\nt-   IO  \u00a9\nCl Cl\n-\nb-   t-   Cl\nt-\nCO ira ci th\n\\r\n\u00a9\nCO   rH\nIO\nir\n0\n\u2014\nr\u2014\n\u00ab\nt;\nJ\nj\nrj\n)JJ\nr\no\nfS\nU\n'CJ\n5    1\no\nO\nT3\n\u2022d\no\n\u2022O\ntJO\n^\n.\"\"\n3\n31\n5\n\u25a0J\nD    1\nJSii;\na\nbj. -\ns \u00a3\n3 \u25ba-\nft c\n=8   t,\n3\na1.!\naa a\na\na\n\u00abj\na\ncf\n|\nc\na\n.5  a\nX\nbC  ii    r-\na A -r,\nSa   - *~\na   \u00bb\nW  02  t-\n\u00b08        H       &\nwis\n.J a t;\no      a \"^\nO    r ri r-\n**>\u00b0 -   JT\n\u25a09 fcJ3 a \"C\n3 .a  a  a c\n6\na o\nri   -\u25a0\nr c\na a\nw  a\no z\n0\nS\n.2 -a  a   +\u25a0\na ^ S\nM ft .2 al   \u00a3\n?     gj   c\n3q afe ^\n&fl c\n.3 a:\na^\na\na \u00ab S fe | \u00bb .3 .\u201e g ft ^   =\n,rrt bo ^-^ & a id 5 ft' a\ny    _o\u00abo^ria.tiSg\nri\na S\n1 |\nCO\nri    d)   Qj\n^   ri   o\n2  CD    *    <D\nS A -3 y\n^h   o   \u00a7   ri\n\u20223 p.\nri   a.\n3   1\n|\nIs?\nE3\nfe \u00ab\n\u00ab\nri   r^    \u00abJ\n.  T4    \u00ab  \"3\n.           0Q           ri        r\u2014\nrM   t*  g\n9 3 \u00a7\nu. a S rt\nq \u00a7 \u00a75\nI\nu a  a\nO   ri   o\nc\nS\n5\nPC\n<\nc\nP\nK\n0\nC\n-=\n-\n\u00a3\nV\nK\nHi\n3\nCS\na\nH-\n^\nC\n^r\nQ\n'X E 7S\nREPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\naa\n\u00a9\nC\nCC\n<\nft\nm\n<t]\n7,\n*\n<\n5-.\npq\n~\n*rH\no\nt-H\nr\u2014I\n\u00ab\nPP\nft\nC\nM\na\nrH   \u00a9\nHi IQ ff\nc\n0\nb-\naaS\nCl   CO   \u00a9   rH   \u00a9   \u00a9   \u00a9\n\u00a9\nTh\nCi  Th  Cl  CO  IO  \u00a9  d\"\nrH\n\u00a9  Th   \u00a9  Th   rH\nrH   r-i\nIO\nTh\nt-  00   IO   \u00a9   CO   \u00a9   C\nCO\nB\nCO   \u00a9   \u00a9   rH   Ol   \u00a9   t-\n\u00a9\nTh  Cl   IO  rH  t>(  oo   >r\nCO\n-fl\nCJ\nCi   rH   \u00a9   \u00a9   CO   Cl\np\nrH   \u00a9   IO\nop\nt-   Cl   IO   \u00a9   \u00a9   N-   Tf\nrH\nIO   Cl   \u00a9   rH    IO   \u00bb0   tt\nCO\nrH  Th   l>  ^  ci  CO  tt\nb-\n\u00a9   CO   rH   IO   IO   r-i   C\n\u00a9\nCh\nCO   Cl   Th   \u00a9\nt-\nCO  \u00a9  \u00a9  CO  \u00a9  r-i  \u00a9\nfc-\no\nt\u2014 co co \u00a9 t- ci \u00ab\n\u00a9\nCO  \u00a9  Cl  IO  t\u2014 \u00a9  C-\nTh\nrfl\no\nO\nt-  CO  Ci  CO  Cl  rH\nCO\nTh\n-i< BO\nCO\nS\u00a7\n\u00a9\n00 Cl\nb-\nT-i\n01 10\nCS\nCOrj\n02\nM\nOS\n\u00a9\na\nfi\nCl\n,o\na\ne\nOJ ft\nCO  \u00a9  Cl  -H  Cl  CO\n\u00a9\nt- T-i io Th io ci\n33\nCl           rH           rH\nt-\nOQ\nTJ    \u2022\nCO   -HH   Th   \u00a9\n\u00a9\nIO  C5  r-i  IO\nTh\n^ ft\n03\u00ab2\n-fl\n.S. t*\nCO\nIQ I- r- Cl\n\u00a9\nCM   CO   IO   OO\n\u00a9\n\u25ba.S\nCl\nCl           rH   rM\nCO\nCJ  f-i\nfl q,\nfe\nCO\n\u00a9  \u00a9  \u00a9  Cl  CO  CO  tt\n-ti\n\u00a9  IO  CO  \"HH   rh  Cl  Tj\nIO\nb-   CO   CO   \"HH   00   \"HH   r-\nb-\no\nrH   10   \u00a9   Cl   Cl\nrH             r-i   r-i\nTh\nUI\nT\nft\nJ\nO    O\n\u00a3   A\n<J r\no\n\u00ab\nto 6 \u2022=\nrJ\nDO   1\na\n.2  0  5      !* \u25a0+\"> O B\n\u25a08   60   rf&   .-8   \u00a3\n5B5\nti; -3 ^ S a S \u00b0\n\u00b08 ri t* 2 \"5 a  >\n30\" - \u00abui\n3 ffl ft  3 3 * a\nft   O   a ^   t;   a   d\n4J\nO\nEH\nrj W S a a \u00ab 2\nPC\nH\nB\nc\nM\nw\n^\n\u00a9  rh   10   b-  Oi  IO  Cl   rH\n\u00a9 Cl \u00a9 T-i \"fl T-i Cl 00\n00 IO rH Cl t- CO f Cl\nCl*\" I\u2014\" CO\" CO Cl* co\" t^\" \u00a9\"\nr>\u00a9CirH01t--h\u00a9\nci Th co co Th\nlOb-h-rHOlCSCOCO\nClClClC0\u00a9rHC0\u00a9\n-HH   10   t- CO   CO   CO  CO\nCO\" CO   rH~ IO   CO\" Th\" \u00a9\"\nCO   \u00a9   rH rH   \u00a9   b-   CO\n\u00a9   rH   IO   \u00a9   IO   Cl   CO   rH\nVOCOrHOOrHfHrHCO\nw q a o 00 10 h t-\ncf o\" Cl\"        \u00a9\" \u00a9\" tD Ci\nCO  \u2022\nCI\n10 <\n01\n> CO 1\nCOCO\u00a9-^Th\u00a9rHh-\n00\u00a900\u00a9h-rH.O\u00a9\nl>   CI  Cl   rH  Cl   t-   IO  Th\n\u00a9   Ci\n; co ci\nOl Cl \u00a9 Ci h-\n!   rH   \u00a9\n\u00a9 -HH \u00a9 co \u00a9\n: \u00a9 ci\nrH  Ci                 IO\n; \u00a9 h-\nCO   IO  CO   CO   T-i  \u00a9   \u00a9  IO\nI\u2014 E- Cl 10 iO \u00a9 \u00a9 \u00a9\n\u00a9  \u00a9 10        tr- 10 \u00a9 -h\n0\n1-\nCD\n1-.\nCO\n: ci\nOS\nTH\nr~\nCO\n; 10\n(Hi\nCO\nt-\nCO\nCO\n: os\n00\n\u00a9\nCl\u00a9b-rH\u00a9C0rHC0\n00 \u00a9  \u00a9 Cl  Cl  O  \u00a9 Cl\nCO  CO   t-  OS-OS   fc-   rH   CD\n10\" cf co\" t-^ io\"       t^\" Cl\"\nCO  CO  IO  r-i   r-i Cl   IO\n^o\na a\nt>   i>   OJ   a;\n\u00ab\u00ab\nV\na\nCJ\nQ Q\nEO\n5\n0\nri\nH\nM   rH\nhi\n>\nri\nn\nr-l\n0.\nM\nbo\nSfl\na\na\n0\nCJ\n>.\na a a a\nhsBbjKO^O STATEMENT  SHOWING  SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE.\nE 79\nSTATEMENT   SHOWING   THE   SALMON-PACK   OF   THE   PROVINCE,   BY\nDISTRICTS  AND   SPECIES,  PROM  1911  TO  1926,  INCLUSIVE.\nFkasek Rivbe.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\nSockeyes\t\n85,689\n12,783\n20,169\n88,495\n32,256\n21,783\n13,776\n35,385\n7,989\n25,701\n66,111\n'99,800\n36,717\n5,15'2\n39,743\n2,98'2\n4,648\n109,495\n31,fi'68\n21,401\n1,822\n31,'655\n3,854\n4,279\n103,248\n63,645\n20,173\n15\n51,832\n10,561\n6,300\n17,895\n29,578\n23,587\n817\n39,631\n11,360\n;5,949\n11,'233\n8,178\n29,978\n1,331\n48,399\n10,691\n4,432\n'23,884\n12,839\n22,934\n4,522\n38,854\n14,519\n4,296\n15,718\n39,363\n39,253\nBluebacks and Steelheads...\n15,941\nTotals\t\n274,951\n276,855\n212,059\n226,869\n140,570\n107,'650\n136,661\n167,944\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n19,697\n15,192\n24,853\n86,215\n18,388\n40,111\n4,395\n208,8'57_\n148,164\n10,197\n18,916\n59,973\n134,442\n25,895\n4,951\n32,146\n17,673\n11,430\n30,934\n840\n31,330\n3,129\n127^72^\n91,130\n'23,228\n5,392\n18,919\n138,305\n43,514\n31\n1'9 8,183\n11,209\n15,300\n74,826\n6,272\n43,504\n719,796\n3,573\n49\n22,220\n20,773\n16,018\n123,879\n15,856\n9,826\n1'2,997\n574\n36,190\n\t\n\u25a058,487\n7,0'28\n6,751\nChums\t\nPinks\t\n47,237\n142,101\n39,740\nTotals\t\n320,519\n349,294\n782,429\n199,322\n301,344\nSkeena River.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n82,360\n30,594\n63,527\n210,081\n30,208\n754\n81,146\n23,445\n74,308\n130,079\n39,168\n713\n144,747\n12,028\n\u25a025,588\n181,313\n26,968\n214\n131,731\n12,247\n16,527\n145,973\n\" 31,967\n418\n96,277\n14,176\n39,758\n301,655\n'24,699\n1,050\n41,018\n21,766\n1,993\n1*24,457\n45,033\n498\n89,364\n37,403\n3,834\n177,679\n18,06S\n1,218\n184,945\n25,941\nChums\t\n31,457\n117,303\n3'6 559\nSteelhead Trout\t\n2 672\nTotals\t\n407,524\n348,859\n390,858\n338,863\n477,915\n:234,765\n332,S87\n398,877\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n123,322\n22,931\n22,573\n161,727\n38,759\n'4,994\n'65,760\n16,285\n21\/516\n148,319\n3S,456\n1,883\n60\/293\n20,933\n17,121\n73,029\n47,409\n3,743\n116,533\n15,273\n'5,769\n107,578\n32,190\n1,798\n130,166\n11,740\n8,329\n71,021\n16,378\n'52,927\n26,436\n92,498\n23,833\n504\n97,5818\n39,835\n131,066\n17,942\n70\nPinks\t\n66,045\n18,647\n81,956\n23,376\nSteelhead Trout\t\nTotals\t\n374,306\n292,219\n223,158\n279,161\n'237,634\n164,055\n254,258\n254,410 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 192(3.\nSTATEMENT   SHOWING   THE   SALMON-PACK   OF   THE   PROVINCE,   BY\nDISTRICTS AND SPECIES, PROM 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE\u2014Continued.\nRivess Inlet.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919. -\n65,581\n685\n11\/727\n12,815\n7,286\n11\n\u2022192,323\n496\n11,510\n8,625\n4,946\n94,891\n545\n4,924\n15,105\n1,980\n116,850\n\u25a0599\n3,242\n10,057\n1,526\n53,584\n323\n311\n24,292\n1,120\n82\n4S.615\n364\n173\n5,303\n4\/718\n97\n125,742\n1,793\n1,226\n25,647\n2,90S\n56,258\n1,442\n7,089\n6,538\nPinks           \t\n9,038\n\t\nTotals\t\n98,105\n217,900\n117,445\n132,274\n79,712\n59,272\n133,248\n80,367\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\nSockeyes\t\nSprings\t\n53,401\n1,409\n'6\/729\n29,542\n12,074\n61,195\n817\n16,101\nS,06'5\n9,124\n44,936\n1,422\n20,144\n3,567\n15,314\n130,355\n1,022\n5,387\n2,964\n7,115\n89,890\n566\n5,0:23\n5\/784\n7,789\n61,745\n594\n112,884\n1,149\n3,845\nS.809\n11,010\n88,763\n317\n288\n'2,097\n3,660\n5,411\n6,287\n   1\n    1    \t\nTotals\t\n103\/155\n95,302\n85,383\n146,83S\n109,052\n68,096\n137,697\n101,066\nNass River.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n15,929\n'5,964\n15,392\n'50,815\n4\/274\n375\n18,945\n3,757\n22,504\n35,530\n8,0'27\n245\n33,590\n2,725\n26,612\n72,496\n6,481\n1,035\n17,S21\n3,314\n'25,791\n44,165\n7,894\n'595\n31,277\n2,062\n11\/277\n75,6S7\n3,533\n235\n9,364\n2,088\n2,176\n29,488\nS\/236\n413\n16,740\n4,857\n12,145\n43,151\n3,700\n560\n28,259\n3,574\n24,041\n29,949\n.    10,900\nTotals\t\n92,749\n\u25a089,008\n142,939\n99,580\n124,071\n51,765\n81,153\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n21,816\n4,152\n40,368\n'59,206\n17,061\n1,305\n22,1SS\n4,496\n24,938\n44,568\n22,180\n1,125\n31,411\n3,84'5\n11\/200\n59,593\n19,139\n1,498\n39,349\n3,701\n11,076\n34,S79\n15,171\n113\n31,327\n3,385\n25\/5'69\n25,333\n9,276\n23,574\n3,151\n2,987\n20,539\n3,172\n36,037\n6,936\n3,245\n12,476\n12,468\n\t\n37,327\nChums\t\nPinks\t\n5,189\n11 467\n7 942\nSteelhead Trout\t\nTotals\t\n143,908\n119,495\n126,686\n104,289\n94,890\n53,423\n71,162\n65 684\n* Including 40,000 cases caught in Smith Inlet and 20,813 eases packed at Namu. STATEMENT SHOWING SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE.\nE 81\nSTATEMENT   SHOWING   THE   SALMON-PACK   OF   THE   PROVINCE,   BY\nDISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE\u2014Continued.\nVancouver Island Distbicts.\n1926.\nSockeyes\t\nSprings\t\nChums\t\nPinks\t\nCohoes\t\nBluebacks-..\nTotals\n25,070\n5,222\n174,383\n86,113\n51,5'51\n5,383\n1925.\n347,722\n10,895\n5,664\n127,520\n'51,384\n'59,747\n4,832\n1924.\n1923.\n15,618\n'283\n165,161\n63,102\n30,593\n2,510\n260,042     '277,267\n12,006\n138\n120\/520\n30,149\n21,342\n7\/097\n1922.\n191,252\n15,147\n886\n108,478\n36,943\n18,575\n'5,495\n1S5.524\n1921.\n6,936\n3,230\n34\/431\n10,660\n11,120\n3,151\n1920.\n6,987\n29,211\n12,591\n14,391\n'20,555\n69,528\n74,170\n1919.\n6,452\n36,013\n128,013\n43.1S6\n53,629\n267,293\nQueen Chaklotte and other Districts.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n62,383\n3,650\n348,682\n380,243\n47,183\n973\n49,962\n5,002\n305,256\n120,747\n40,269\n1,520\n40,926\n4,245\n195,357\n141,878\n26,031\n497\n24\/5 8'4\n2,711\n148\/727\n146,943\n29,142\n73'2\n47,107\n4.988\n80,483\n113,824\n31,331\n409\n18,350\n4,995\n21,412\n14,818\n18,203\n'2,790\n64,473\n15,633\n30,946\n247,149\n33,807\n3,721\n'54,677\n14,766\n165,717\n110,300\n35,011\nSteelheads and Bluebacks...\n702\nTotals    \t\n844,114\n522,756\n408,934\n352,839\n278,144\nI\n80,568\n395,728\n381,163\n1918.     I     1917.\n1910.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1911.\nSockeyes\t\nSprings\t\nChums\t\nPinks\t\nCohoes\t\nSteelheads and Bluebacks\nTotals\t\n51,980\nS,'5'S2\n90,464\n201,847\n42,331\n1,009\n32,902\n'6,056\n112,364\n112,209\n30,201\n805\n294,597\n45,373\n11,423\n160,812\n143,615\n70,431\n712\n432,366\n98,600\n9\/488\n40,849\n83,626\n4S,966\n87,130\n7,108\n70,727\n111,930\n43,254\n149,336\n7,246 ]\n52,758 |\n'83,430 j\n28,328 j\n  I\n79,464\n22,837\n37,734\n12S\/296\n65,806\n313,894\n320,168\n'285,898\n334,187\n67,866\n12,6'59\n39,167\n64,312\n42,457\n226,461\nTotal packed by Districts in 1011 to 1920, inclusive.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\nFraser\t\n'274,951\n407,524\n98,105\n92\/749\n347\/722\n844,139\n276,855\n348,859\n'217,900\n89,008\n263\/904\n522,756\n212,059\n390,858\n117,445\n142,939\n277\/267\n604,745\n226,869\n338,863\n132,274\n99,580\n191\/252\n352,839\n140, '570\n477,915\n79,712\n124,071\n185,524\n278,144\n107,650\n234,765\n59,272\n'51,765\n69,52.8\n80,5 68\n136,661\n332,787\n157,522\n81,153\n84,170\n395,223\n167,944\n398,877\n80,367\n97,512\n267,293\n381,163\nNass Eiver\t\nVancouver Island\nGrand totals...\n2,065,190\n1,719,282\n1,745,313\n1,341,677\n1\/285,946\n\u25a0603,548\n1,187,616\n1,393,156\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n210,85-1\n374,216\n103,195\n143,908\n389,815\n404,793\n402,538\n292,219\n95,302\n119,495\n325,723\n294,597\n127,472\n223,158\n85,383\n126,686\n320\/519\n279,161\n146\/838\n104,289\n349,294\n237,634\n109,052\n94,890\n782,429\n164,055\n68,0'9'6\n53,423\n199,322\n254,258\n137,697\n71,162\n301,344\n254,410\n101,066\n65,684\nNass Eiver\t\nOther Districts   ....\n432,366\n~995\/065\u2014\n313,894\n320,169\n285,898\n334,187\n226,461\nGrand totals...\n1,626,738\n1\/557,485\n1,164,701\n1,111,039\n1,353,901\n996,626\n948,965\n* Including 17,921 cases of sockeye packed at Smith Inlet. E S2\nREPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, 1926.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF THE ENTIRE FRASER\nRIVER SYSTEM FROM 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n85,689\n44,673\n3'5,3S5\n112\/023\n39,743\n69,369\n31 ,'6 35\n47,402\n51,832\n48,566\n39,631\n102\/967\n48,399\n62,654\n38,854\n64,346\nTotals    \t\n130,362\n147,408\n109,112\n79,037\n100,398\n142,598\n111,053\n103,200\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n19,697\n50,723\n148,164\n411,538\n32,146\n84,637\n91,130\n64\/584\n198,183\n335,230\n719,796\n1,673,099\n123,879\n184,680\n58,487\n127,761\nTotals\t\n70,420\n559,702\n116,783\n155,714\n533,413\n2,392,895\n308,559\n186,248\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF THE PROVINCE,\nBY DISTRICTS, 1911 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE.\n1926.\n1925.\n1924.\n1923.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n85,689\n82,360\n65,581\n15,929\n25,070\n62,383\n35,385\n81,146\n192,323\n18,945\n14,757\n49,962\n39,743\n144,747\n94,891\n33,590\n15,'618\n41,014\n31,655\n131,731\n116,850\n17,821\n12,006\n24\/584\n51,832\n96\/277*\n53,584\n31\/277\n15,147\n47,107\n39,631\n41,018\n48\/615\n9,364\n6,936\n18,350\n48,399\n89\/064\n125,742\n16,740\n6,987\n64,473\n38,854\n1S4.945\n56,258\n28,239\n6,452\n54,677\n337,012\n392,518\n369,603\n334,647\n295,224\n163,914\n351,405\n369\/445\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\nFraser River\t\n19,697\n123,322\n53,401\n21,816\n6,243\n51,980\n148,164\n65,760\n61,195\n22,188\n9,639\n32,902\n32,146\n60,923\n44,936\n31,411\n9,223\n36,150\n91,130\n116,533\n130,350\n39,349\n198,183\n130,166\nS9,890\n31,327\n719,796\n52,927\n'61,745\n'23,374\n123,879\n92,498\n112,884\n36,037\n58,487\n131,066\n88,763\nNass River\t\n37,327\n98,660\n87,130\n149,336\n79,464\n67,866\nTotals\t\n276,459\n339,848\n214,789\n476,042\n536,'696\n972,1178\n444,762\n383,509\n* 4,390 cases deducted from Skeena for 1922, Alaska sockeye.\nt Vancouver Island's pack not previously segregated.\nVICTORIA,  B.C.:\nPrinted by Charles F. Banfielh, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1927.\n1.825-827-8303","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":"1928_V01_08_E1_E82","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0226073","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 ENDED DECEMBER 31ST, 1926 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"}]}}