"b5ec3cc9-d8b4-4558-b633-ea4feb15fca0"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES."@en . "http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198"@en . "Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "British Columbia. Legislative Assembly"@en . "2016-03-21"@en . "[1919]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0059765/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nEEPOET\nOP THE\nCOMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES\nFOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31st, 1918\nWITH APPENDICES\nPRINTED BY\nAUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.\nVICTORIA, B.C.:\nPrinted by William FI. Cullin, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1919. To His Honour Sir Prank Stillman Barnard, K.C.M.G.,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nI beg to submit herewith, a report reviewing the operations of the Provincial\nFisheries Department for the year ending December 31st, 1918, with Appendices.\nWILLIAM SLOAN,\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nProvincial Fisheries Department,\nCommissioner of Fisheries' Office,\nVictoria, British Columbia, March fyth, 1919. TABLE OF CONTENTS.\nFISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1918.\nPaob.\nStanding of Provinces of the Dominion 7\nSpecies and Value of Fish marketed 7\nNumber of Persons engaged and Value of Plants S\nThe Salmon-catch of 1918 8\nThe Salmon-pack of Province S\nSummary of Reports from Spawning-grounds 10\nDigest of Report of American-Canadian Fisheries Conference 10\nFishing by Indians in the Fraser River 11\nMigration of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Puget Sound and Fraser River 12\nDr. Gilbert's Salmon Inspection of 1918 12\nHalibut 14\nWhaling 15\nPilchards 15\nDeep-sea Trawling 15\nOttesen Method of freezing Fish 17\nHatching Egg Collections IS\nAPPENDICES.\nThe Spawning-beds of the Fraser River 19\nThe Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet - 21\nThe Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet 24\nContribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. (Paper No. 5.) By Dr. C. H.\nGilbert 26\nHon. Wm. Sloan's Statement made at the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference .. 55\nJohn P. Babcock's Statement made at the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference .. 56\nMigration of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Puget Sound and Fraser River. By Henry\nO'Malley and Willis H. Rice 60\nSalmon-pack of 191S in detail 92\nSalmon-pack of Province, 1903 to 191S, inclusive 93 FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1918.\nValue of Canadian Fisheries and Standing op Provinces.\nThe value of the fishery products of Canada for the year ending December 31st, 1917, totalled\n$52,312,044, as against $39,208,378 for the preceding year, notwithstanding that the latter was\nconsiderably greater than in any preceding year.*\nDuring the year 1917 British Columbia contributed fishery products of a total value of\n$21,518,595, or 41 per cent, of the total for the Dominion.\nAs in recent years, British Columbia again leads all the Provinces of Canada in the value\nof her fishery products. Her output for the year exceeded in value those of Nova Scotia by\n$7,050,276, and exceeded that of all the other Provinces combined by $11,156,941.\nThe following statement gives in their order of rank the value of the fishery products of the\nProvinces for the year ending December 31st, 1917:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBritish Columbia $21,518,595 00\nNova Scotia 14,468,319 00\nNew Brunswick 6,143,088 00\nQuebec 3,414,378 00\nOntario 2,866,419 00\nPrince Edward Island 1,786,310 00\nManitoba 1,543,288 00\nSaskatchewan 320,238 00\nAlberta 184,009 00\nYukon ' 67,400 00\nTotal $52,312,044 00\nThe Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia.\nThe total value of. each species of fish taken in British Columbia for year ending December\n31st, 1917, is given in the following statement:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSalmon $16,828,7S3 00\nBlack cod 879,404 00\nHake and husk 1,090 00\nHerring 1,192,654 00\nShad 675 00\nHalibut 1,721,012 00\nSoles 78,649 00\nFlounders 23,601 00\nSkate 10,117 00\nSmelts 14,270 00\nOolachans 10,991 00\nBrill 51,420 00\nOctopus 1,656 00\nRock-cod 8,688 OO\nPilchards 11,810 00\nWhiting 2,725 00\nGrayfish 4,480 00\nOysters 32,202 00\nClams and quahaugs 84,000 00\nDulse, crabs, and cockles 48,424 00\nTrout 10,350 00\nSturgeon 9,790 00\nPerch 4,920 00\nCarried forward $21,031,711 00\n* The data used here is derived from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1917. X 8 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nThe Species and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nBrought forward $21,031,711 00\nMixed fish 13,184 00\nSalmon-roe 7,820 00\nFur-seal skins \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 6,540 00\nBone-meal 10,185 00\nFertilizer 70,164 00\nWhale-oil 342,247 00\nFish-oil \" 23,S92 00\nWitches 50 00\nGill-bone p. 12,802 00\nTotal '. $21,518,595 00\nThe total value for the year shows an increase over the previous year of $6,881,249; salmon\nproducts were increased by $0,285,178, due both to an increase in size of pack and its value.\nThe halibut-catch was less, and, notwithstanding an increase in price, shows a decrease from\nthe previous year of $305,658. The herring-catch is valued at $1,192,654, a slight gain over the\nprevious year, and whale products show a gain of $94,220, with a total value of $446,486.\nThe Number of Persons engaged and Value of Fishery Plants and Apparatus in British\nColumbia in 191S.\nThe following statement gives the number and the value of the plants, vessels, boats, and\napparatus used In the fisheries of the Province in 1918, and the number of persons engaged:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNo. Value.\nVessels, tugs, and carrying smacks 514 $ 2,500,801 00\nGasolene-boats 3,172)\nSail and row boats 8,548( 1,837,820 00\nValue of seines, trap and smelt nets 1,829,115 00\nValue of hand-lines, weirs, trawls, etc 119,3S1 00\nApproximate value of salmon and other canneries,\nfish-houses, freezers, and fixtures 9,519,941 00\nTotal $15,S07,058 00\nNumber of Persons engaged in Fishery.\nNumber in vessels 1,589\nNumber in boats 11,378\nNumber in canneries, fish-houses, etc 7,916\nTotal 20,883\nThe Salmon-catch of 1918.\nThe salmon-catch of the year 191S exceeded all previous records and produced a pack of\n1,616,157 cases. It exceeded the previous high record of 1917 by 5S1.672 cases. The catch of\nsockeye gave a pack of -276,459 cases, as against 330,209 cases in 1917; 107,354 cases of red and\nwhite springs packed, as against 76,276 cases in 1917; the pack of pink salmon totalled 527,745\ncases, a gain over 1917 of 30,9S6 cases; and the pack of 497,615 cases of chum salmon exceeded\nthat of the previous year by 21,342 cases.\nThe 191S Salmon-pack by Districts.\nThe Fraser River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The total pack of all grades of salmon on the Fraser River run in British\nColumbia waters totalled but 210,S51 cases, as against 402,538 cases in 1917, 127,472 in 1916,\n320,519 in 1915, and 349,294 cases in 1914. Over 50 per cent, of the total pack consisted of chums\nand pinks. The catch of sockeye was less than 10 per cent, of the total, was much less than in\nany former year, and produced a pack of but 19,697 cases, as against 198,183 cases in the previous\nfourth year, 1914. Since 1914 was the brood-year of the greater proportion of this year's sockeye\nrun, it shows that the run was less than 10 per cent, of that of its brood-year. 9 Geo. 5 British Columbia. X 9\nThe season's pack of Fraser River seeking sockeye on Puget Sound totalled 50,723 cases, as\nagainst 357,374 cases four years ago. The pack of sockeye In the entire Fraser River District in\n1918 totalled only 70,420 cases. Four years ago the combined catch of sockeye in that district\nproduced a pack of 534,434 cases, or 86 per cent, more than this season. A more forceful demonstration of the depletion of the run of sockeye to that river could not be exacted. It warrants\nthe statement that the Fraser is fished out of sockeye and the run is perilously near extinction.\nThe conditions that have produced this result have been set forth in previous reports of the\nDepartment. As early as 1902 the Department gave warning that too many sockeye were being\ntaken, and that, unless the fish were permitted to reach the spawning-grounds in far greater\nnumbers, the run would be exterminated. Year after year that warning was repeated, and\nbacked up by statements showing a steady decline in the number of sockeye that reached the\nspawning area. The warning fell upon ground as barren as the spawning area. The fishermen and the canners would not be denied. The amount and efficiency of the fishing-gear\nused to take the fish was increased without giving the sockeye any additional protection.\nThe Canadian authorities indicated in no uncertain manner their willingness to meet the\nconditions by restricting fishing in their waters. The authorities of the State of Washington\ncould not be induced to meet the situation by affording the fish that pass through their waters\nto reach the Fraser any adequate measure of protection. They disputed the facts submitted, and\ninstead of restricting fishing they permitted an increase in the amount and character of gear\nused, thus adding to the efficiency of their methods. Even as late as the spring of 1918, at the\nAmerican-Canadian Fisheries Conference, the State of Washington authorities contended that\nconditions on the Fraser were not of so serious a nature as to call for drastic treatment. At the\nVancouver meeting of that Conference the Commissioner and his assistant both submitted written\nstatements setting forth the views of the Provincial Government on this vital question. Those\nstatements are reproduced in the Appendices of this report.\nThe Salmon-catch of Northern Waters.\nThe Skeena River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The salmon-pack on the Skeena River in 1918 exceeded all previous\nrecords with a total of 374,216 cases, as against the previous record pack of 292,219 cases in\n1917. There was a gain in all grades. Sockeye gave a pack of 123,322 cases, as against 05,760\nin 1917, 60,293 cases in 1910, 116,533 in 1915, 136,166 in 1914, and 52,927 in 1913. Weather\nconditions throughout the sockeye season were most propitious. Fishing for spring and cohoe\nsalmon was conducted at numerous outlying points by Hollers, many of whom had excellent\nseason's return.\nRivers Inlet.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The catch of salmon on the Rivers Inlet section shows a substantial gain\nover the two preceding years, with a total pack of 103,155 cases. The catch of sockeye gave a\npack of 53,401 cases, as against 01,195 in 1917, 44,936 in 1916, 103,350 in 1915, 89,S90 in 1914,\nand 61,745 in 1913. The pack of pinks exceeded all previous years, with a total of 29,542 cases,\nas against the two previous high records of 8,065 in 1917 and 5,7S4 in 1914. The run of pinks to\nRivers Inlet has heretofore been very small. No theory as to the increase of this season has\nbeen advanced.\nThe Nass River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The catch of salmon in the Nass River section is also a high-record one,\ntotalling 143,908 cases, as against the previous high records of 119,495 in 1917 and 126,686 in\n1916. The catch of sockeye again shows a decline, with a pack of 21,816 cases, as against\n22.1S8 in 1917, 31,411 in 1916, 39,349 in 1915, and 31,327 cases in 1914. The_ record shows a steady\ndecline In the run of sockeye notwithstanding the increase of gear used. The catch of pinks amp\nchums shows substantial increase and is attributed to the more extensive use of traps and' gear.\nThe Vancouver Island Section.\nThe pack of salmon taken from Vancouver Island waters, with the exception of the sockeye\ntaken in the trap in the vicinity of Sooke, that are credited to the Fraser pack, totalled 3S9,S15\ncases. Operations were conducted at all points where any salmon could be taken. Large numbers\nof spring and cohoe salmon were taken in the open sea, facing the west coast, by means of trolling. Some 400 small boats were so engaged. The catch of sockeye was small. All other grades\nshow an increase. Chums, with pack of 251,266 cases, exceed all others combined. The catch\nof pinks gave a pack of 57,035 cases and cohoe 40,732 cases. Some 5,500,000 lb. of salmon, mostly X 10 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nchums, was exported in fresh state from the west coast. The catches made are regarded by the\nDepartment as ail overdraft on the runs, and if continued will exterminate them.\nThe Catch at Nitinat Lake.\nThe catch of fall-running salmon at Nitinat Lake, on the southern shore of Vancouver Island,\nin both 1917 and 1918 were of such an extraordinary and excessive nature as to call for extended\ncomment. Nitinat Lake is but fourteen miles in length by half a mile in width. It lies at sea-\nlevel and is connected with the sea by a narrow and short passage. There is but one tributary\nof importance, the river at the head of the lake, which has a length of some twenty miles.\nExcept during heavy rains, its volume is not large. Its gravelled channel offers a limited\nextent of spawning area. It is the only tributary frequented by salmon. A few creek sockeye\nare said to enter it in the late spring. Chums in large number run to that stream in the fall.\nCommercial fishing was first undertaken there in 1917 by the Lummi Bay Packing Company,\nwho built a cannery there that spring. By the use of two purse-seines the company's catch in\n1917 produced a pack of 51,252 of chum salmon. Not being able to handle all the fish taken, they\nexported to their plants in the State of Washington some millions of pounds. Their pack in 1917\nwas the second largest put up at any one cannery in the Province. In 191S the catch at Nitinat\nLake produced a pack of 84,000 cases, 20,000 cases more than were packed at any other one\ncannery in the Province. The fishing-gear used by the company consisted of two purse-nets\nand a trap, driven at the mouth of the river at the head of the lake. In addition to the pack\nof 84,000 cases, some 5,000,000 lb. of salmon were exported from that district. No other water\nof anything like the proportions of Nitinat Lake has ever produced in two succeeding years\nanything like as many fish. No salmon run to any watershed of its size can stand such a drain\nwithout complete annihilation.\nThe drain on the salmon run to all Vancouver Island waters is in the judgment of the\nDepartment excessive, and calls for the immediate and serious attention of the fishery officials\nof the Dominion. The fish must be given far greater measures of protection than at present\nafforded them, or they will cease to be of commercial importance.\nReports from Salmon Spawning Areas of the Province in 1918.\nDuring the season the Department, as usual, conducted an investigation of the salmon\nspawning areas of the Fraser River and Rivers and Smith Inlets. Detailed reports are attached\nhereto.\nThe spawning-grounds of the Fraser River basin were again inspected by John P. Babcock,\nAssistant to the Commissioner. He was assisted by Dr. C. H. Gilbert and Inspector of Fisheries\nC. P. Hickman. In the report made by Mr. Babcock it is again disclosed that the number of\nsalmon which reached the spawning-beds was far less than in any previous year. In all the\ngreat lake sections of the Fraser above Hell's Gate Canyon there were few or no sockeye, and\nin the lower section, with the exception of the Lillooet Lake District, there were fewer sockeye\nthan ever previously reported. As affecting future runs no importance need be attached to the\nfew that did spawn in the upper section of the Fraser, and less importance than heretofore can\nbe attached to those that spawned in the lower section. The total number of sockeye-eggs\ncollected from the tributaries of the Fraser and placed in the hatcheries totalled 20,581,500, as\nagainst 22,484,000 four years ago. Twenty million sockeye-eggs were taken from Alaska waters\nby the United States Bureau of Fisheries and donated to the Dominion Government to assist in\nrestocking the Fraser, and were shipped to the hatchery on Harrison Lake and are being incubated therein.\nRivers and Smith Inlets Spawning-grounds.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fishery Overseer A. W. Stone reports that there\nwas a serious shortage of sockeye salmon on the spawning-beds of Owikeno Lake, at the head\nof Rivers Inlet. He estimates that there was 25 per cent, less sockeye on the beds than in any\none of the past six years.\nOfficer Stone, who also inspected the spawning-grounds of the Smith Inlet run of sockeye,\nreports that the number of fish observed there this year equalled the run of 1915, but that they\nwere many times less than in 1914.\nThe American-Canadian Fisheries Commission of 191S.\nThe American-Canadian Fisheries Commission appointed by the Governments of the United\nStates and Canada to investigate fishery questions in waters contiguous to their boundary-lines 9 Geo. 5 British Columbia. . X 11\nheld meetings on this Coast, in Seattle, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Ketchikan in the spring\nof 1918. The Commission consisted of the Secretary of Commerce and Labour of the United\nStates, the Hon. William C. Redfield, E. F. Sweet, Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, and\nDr. Hugh M. Smith, United States Commissioner of Fisheries, on behalf of the United States;\nand the Hon. Chief Justice J. D. Hazen, of New Brunswick, G. J. Desbarats, Deputy Minister\nof Naval Service, and Wm. A. Found, Superintendent of Fisheries, Ottawa, on behalf of the\nCanadian Government. The inquiry conducted on this Coast was confined to an investigation\nof the salmon-fisheries of the Fraser River and the American waters of Washington Sound and\nthe halibut-fisheries of the Pacific.\nAt the Vancouver meeting of the International Commission, Commissioner Wm. Sloan and\nhis Assistant, John P. Babcock, made extended statements as to conditions in the Fraser, which\nare reproduced in the Appendix of this report.\nThe Conference concluded its sittings in Ottawa in September and unanimously adopted a\nreport. At the time of writing the report has not been made public.\nFishing by Indians in the Fraser River Basin above Tidal Limits.\nThe runs of salmon to the spawning-beds of the Fraser have become so alarmingly attenuated\nthat drastic measures will have to be taken to restore the runs. The measures to be taken must\nnot only include the secession of all fishing in tidal limits for a period of years, but must be made\nto include all fishing above tidal limits by Indians for all time, notwithstanding that they have\nboth a natural and a treaty right to take such salmon as they desire for food so long as they\nconfine themselves to the gear originally used by them.\nThe Indians resident in the Fraser River basin have always fished for salmon. Before\nthe advent of the white men they depended almost wholly upon salmon for their winter food.\nThey take them as near their homes as possible and cure them by smoking. An approximate\nestimate of the number of sockeye salmon taken by Indians above the commercial fishing limits\non the Fraser River in the years of the big runs previous to 1913 place the number at 200,000.\nIt probably largely exceeded that number. The number taken in former years of the big\nrun by the Indians resident in the Chilcotin River section is placed at from 40,000 to 50,000.\nThose taken by Indians from the Fraser basin above the mouth of the Chilcotin is given at\n20,000, and between the mouth of the Chilcotin and Bridge Rivers at 40,000-odd, while those\nalong the banks of the Thompson and Shuswap and Adams Lakes at 30,000, in the canyon of\nthe Fraser at Yale at 15,000, and in the Harrison-Lillooet Lakes section at 40,000. The figures\nhere given Include only sockeye that were taken, dressed, and cured. They do not include the\nother species of salmon taken or the sockeye consumed in a fresh state. The catches made by\nIndians in the years of the big runs previous to 1913 were not a serious drain on the run of those\nyears. The numbers taken during the lean years, though considerably less than in the big years,\nwas a serious drain on the spawning-beds. During the last decade none of the tribes above the\ncanyon at Yale have been able to get any considerable number in any lean year, and their catches\nin both 1913 and 1917 did not exceed those of early lean years. The drain on the runs, was\nnevertheless serious.\nThe right of the Indians to take salmon is unquestioned, but the number of salmon they can\nnow catch is so small as to be of little benefit to them. Owing to the fact that most of the\nIndians now grow the bulk of the food they use and are no longer dependent upon salmon, and\nthat drastic measures must be taken to restore the runs of salmon to the Fraser, the Government\nshould step in and acquire by purchase the Indians' right to take fish above the commercial\nboundaries. It is suggested that the Indians, if deliberately approached, would dispose of their\nfishing rights to the Government, and that the Government is fully warranted in entering upon\nnegotiations to acquire those rights. The sooner the better.\nIt is self-evident that salmon taken from the vicinity of their spawning-grounds are much\nmore valuable individually and collectively than the fish taken within commercial fishing waters.\nSockeye that were worth 75 cents each to commercial fishermen on the Fraser the past year\nare worth many times that amount on the spawning-grounds. The runs of the future depend\nupon the number of eggs deposited and hatched within the river's basin. The female sockeye\nof the Fraser produce averagely 2,500 eggs each.\nIt has been suggested that the Indians be deprived of their right to fish above commercial\nfishing boundaries, and in lieu thereof be aided to do all their fishing within commercial limits. X 12 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nPossibly the Indians hi the delta of the Fraser and those resident south and west of Yale might\noperate to advantage and fairly economically. The suggestion is wholly impracticable so far as\nthe great majority of the Indians are concerned. Very few of the Indians from the Chilcotin\nor north of Bridge River have ever engaged in fishing within commercial waters. For them to\njourney, with women, who do ail of the work of dressing and smoking the fish, from their homes\nto tidal waters and then back again with their bales of dried fish would cost the Government\nmany times more than to purchase and transport a far greater supply of other foods for the\nuse of the Indians at home.\nThe Indians of the Fraser are reasonable beings. There are many clear-headed men in their\ncouncils. If this matter be taken up with them in a deliberate, clear, and painstaking manner,\nit is advanced that they would soon see the benefits to be derived by disposing of their fishing\nrights. Their right at the present time is of little value to the most of them and is steadily\nlessening in value. Many of them realize this to be true. The Government should act in this\nmatter without further delay; the expense to be covered from the collection made for fishing\nlicences.\nMigration of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nDuring the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference on the Pacific Coast in April and May.\n191S, questions were raised as to the time taken by sockeye salmon to pass from the waters of\nJuan de Fuca Strait through Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia to the Fraser River. In order\nto settle this important economic question, experiments were made by the Fishery Departments\nof Canada and the United States Governments in marking with metal tags adult sockeye taken\nfrom fish-traps in the waters named. The results of this experiment are covered in a report\njust issued by the Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D.C, which is reproduced in the Appendix\nof this report from advance sheets furnished the Department by Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United\nStates Commissioner of Fisheries. The report is of interest, though it cannot be said that the\nresults of the experiment have by any means determined the questions at issue. The questions\ninvolved are vital in determining measures of conservation, and must be conducted for a sufficient\nperiod of years to produce conclusions of value.\nContribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nDr. Gilbert's fifth contribution to the reports of the Department on the life-history of the\nsockeye salmon, which is issued herewith, includes an analysis of the sockejTe runs of 1918 to\nthe Fraser, Skeena, and Nass Rivers and Rivers Inlet, and throws much additional light on\nthe mooted question of the return of mature spawning salmon to the particular part of a river's\nbasin in which they had been batched and reared. The present paper is of great value since\nit conclusively demonstrates that, in the Eraser at least, the sockeye does return to spawn in\nthe identical tributary in which it was hatched. In dealing with this important economic\nquestion Dr. Gilbert considers a number of propositions. If there'was, he submits, no tendency\nfor a salmon to return to any definite spawning district, the sockeye entering so extensive a\nbasin as the Fraser would be as likely to spawn above as belowT the canyon at Yale. Every\nspawning-bed in that event would contain individuals which had been hatched and reared\nin widely different portions of the basin, and the output of one centrally located hatchery\nwould furnish stock for all sections, since each spawning area would draw indifferently on\nthe common stock of returning migrants and the salmon frequenting it would necessarily\nagree in their structural characteristics with those frequenting each of the other spawning areas\nthroughout the basin. There would be no basis for differences. Those spawning in different\nparts of the basin would agree in their average size as yearlings and as adults. They would\nagree in the relative number of \"four- and five-year-old fish, in the relative numbers of those\nwhich had spent one year or two years in fresh water after hatching, or had proceeded to sea\nas soon as they were free-swimming. All the groups and all the variations of character which\nare found in the main runs off the mouth of the river would be repeated in every spawning\nsection. Such would inevitably be the case if the salmon passed indifferently to the various\nspawning areas, without reference to that of their native habitat.\nOn the other hand, he submits that If differences are found to exist in the populations of\ndistinct spawning districts it must be considered direct evidence that segregation has occurred,\nand is based on some principle which has determined that certain individuals in the common 9 Geo. 5 British Columbia. X 13\nrun shall pass to one spawning area while others go elsewhere to spawn. The only principle\nadequate to explain such segregation, if it generally occurs, would be the return of fish to spawn\nin their native tributary.\nDr. Gilbert abundantly demonstrates that the latter principle obtains, as between different\nriver-basins, even when they are very limited in size and have their outlets to the sea in close\nproximity to each other. In their passage to these minor streams along the salt-water channels\nthe schools of sockeye are often intimately mingled, and they separate only as the river-mouths\nare approached. Off Namu, on Fitzhugh Sound, gill-nets operated along the shore capture in\nabout equal numbers at the same time sockeye which are bound for Bella Coola and those which\nare bound for Kimsquit. They have been distinguished by characteristic scale-markings. They\nrun together along the same channels. Where they separate has not been demonstrated, but by\nthe time Bella Coola and Kimsquit Rivers are reached complete separation has occurred.\nDr. Gilbert points out that this case does not seemingly differ greatly with that of fish bound\nfor different tributaries of the same river. Conceivably, the schools may be separated as their\nrespective tributaries are reached. If the populations of these tributaries show distinguishing\ncharacteristics, no other satisfactory explanation presents itself. It must be considered, he\nstates, also, that a partial segregation of spawners may occur, though not a total one. That\nwithin certain limits indifference exists as to the precise spawning-ground frequented. Thus\nthe up-river fish may predominately run early and proceed above the canyon in the Fraser,\npassing without selection into any stream that becomes available; while the late-running fish\nmay enter the Harrison, the Pitt, and Cultus Lakes again without determinate destination. That\nthis supposition is without validity for the lower river becomes evident from the fact, emphasized\nin last year's report, that the fish entering Pitt Lake are so widely different from those entering-\nCultus Lake, and even the different spawning-beds of the Harrison, can usually be shown to\npossess individual characteristics of unquestioned significance.\nWith regard to the river above the canyon the case is not so clear, partly due, no doubt, to\nlack of adequate material. No material at all adequate has been obtained from any up-river\ntributary except the Chilcotin, because of late years the runs to the upper river have become\nextremely attenuated. Efforts of the last two years failed to produce the desired evidence, and\nit may now be too late to secure it owing to permanent depletion.\nWhere spawning populations show distinguishing characteristics, the inference is clear and\nunavoidable. A physiological barrier has existed for so long a period that minor differentiations\nhave developed and a strain or sub-race has been formed. But what is to be concluded in cases\nwhere the colonies of two distinct spawning areas present no characteristics by which we can\ndistinguish them? Obviously, Dr. Gilbert states, we must infer either (a) that segregation in\ntheir case has not occurred, or (6) that it has occurred but hasnot been effective in producing\ndivergence between the colonies. If the first of these were true, it would signify that the\n\" home-stream\" instinct was in most cases rigidly operative, while in one or more instances\nwithin the same river-basin it was wholly in abeyance. The second supposition would seem\na priori far less improbable. Complete segregation of spawning fish mayT occur, aud each\nindividual return to the stream in which it was hatched and reared, and yet, in certain instances,\nseparate colonies may have failed to develop distinct methods of growth by which they can\nbe distinguished. A failure to discover distinguishing characteristics between populations of\nseparate spawning areas need not indicate that their progeny will fail to return at maturity to\nits native stream. The two colonies may have been wholly distinct and self-perpetuating for\na very long period and yet no differences have been developed. If we should adopt distinctive\nmarks for the young from each of the two streams on their downward migration to the sea, it\nmight be shown at maturity that each stream contained spawners with a single mark only, the\none that had been given to the young from that stream. Yet the adults from the two streams\nmight be otherwise indistinguishable. Negative evidence in such a case proves nothing. But\nif affirmative evidence is found, it is conclusive. If differences are found to exist, there is no\nalternative to the acceptance of the \" home-stream \" theory. Reviewing the evidence collected in\nthe Fraser basin in 1918, Dr. Gilbert says:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" In general, it can be stated that the examination of this material completely7 supported and\nverified the conclusions reached in 1916 with regard to the spawning-beds below the canyon;\nice affirm without qualification that they are as distinctivelg populated as though located in\nseparate streams independently entering the sea. Additional material only emphasizes the fact. X 14 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nNot only were the different colonies in 191S marked by distinctive characters, but these characters\nwere the same for each colony as those noted in 1916.\"\nDr. Gilbert showTs that a very conspicuous instance of racial differentiation is furnished by\nthe Harrison watershed. It is not known how many distinct spawning areas may have existed\nthere. Several minor colonies, like that known to have existed at Silver Creek, are now practically exterminated, and there are doubtless distinct areas in Lillooet and Tenas Lakes, but no\nrecords have been obtained. A very limited number of late spawners still frequent the slack\nwaters of the main river above Harrison Rapids, the vanishing remnant of a once fine run visits\nthe lake at the head of Morris Creek, and a considerable run still goes up the Birkenhead River;\nboth of these runs pass over the spawming-beds at the Harrison Rapids, but not one of them\ntarries there. An examination of 200 spawners taken from the rapids in 191S by Mr. Robertson,\nthe clever Superintendent of the hatchery on Harrison Lake, failed to yield a single fish which\nhad been spawned elsewhere. Not one of the 200 could be confused with those constituting\neither the Morris Creek or the Birkenhead colony, and not one of the fish taken on the rapids\nwas found among the 400 specimens taken at Morris Creek, and over 200 from the Skookumchuck\nand the Birkenhead. No Morris Creek strays were found in the Birkenhead and no Birkenhead\nfish were found in Morris Creek, in spite of the fact that the Birkenhead fish had all passed close\nto the mouth of Morris Creek on their way up. In these cases the law of segregation is most\nstrictly in force, yet it seems impossible to imagine a locality better suited to straying of the\nspawning fish with resulting mixture of populations. That it does not occur here gives confidence\nthat the same law rules everywhere, though the evidence of it may be less compelling.\nThe most interesting colony of the Harrison, Dr. Gilbert shows, is the one which spawns\nlate in the season at Harrison Rapids. The nature of that spawning area is in itself highly\nunusual. The spawning habits of the sockeye have been shown to be rigidly fixed. Unlike other\nspecies, they must resort to a lake, and fail to frequent streams save during their migrations.\nThey spawn in lake tributaries or on the gravel shores of lakes. Their young develop in the\nwaters of lakes and commonly reside there over a year before migrating to the sea. Of the few\nwhich descend from lakes to the sea, few ordinarily survive to return at maturity. But the\nHarrison Rapids spawners use gravel-bars in the main river and there is no lake between them\nand the sea. Their young, in consequence, have no lake to drop down to. They have, Dr. Gilbert\nshows, adopted the highly exceptional method of life for a sockeye, of migrating to sea as soon\nas they are free-swimming and before their scales have begun to grow. No data is obtainable\nas to the percentage of survival, but enough have survived to keep the colony flourishing. This\nis apparently not true of the sockeye of any other spawning area of the Fraser. It demonstrates,\nhowever, that under the spur of necessity a sockeye colony can adapt itself to the habit of sea\nmigration in the early free-swimming fry stage, a rare habit in sockeye, though a characteristic\nof pink and chum salmon and frequently of the spring. The 200 specimens of Harrison Rapids\nspawners taken and examined in 1918 had all gone to sea in the fry stage. Not one of them\nexhibited in the centre of its scale any trace of growth in fresh water. The scales from all\nothers taken from different spawning areas recorded growth in fresh water of a year or more.\nIn 191S, as in 1916, Dr. Gilbert failed to find any individuals of sea-type spawning in any part\nof the Fraser basin other than the Harrison Rapids, though upwards of a thousand specimens\nfrom other sections were examined. The fact that no sockeye of sea-type was discovered\nelsewhere in the basin, when coupled with the further fact that every Harrison Rapids sockeye\nbelonged to the sea-type, furnishes the strongest possible evidence of the return of spawning\nsockeye to their native districts.\nDr. Gilbert's paper is reproduced in the Appendix of this report, together with reproductions\nof microscopic photographs of the centres of thirty-four scales of sockeye salmon taken from\nmany sections of the Fraser River basin, the markings of which demonstrate that in the Fraser\nthe sockeye returns to spawn in the identical tributary in which it was hatched.\nHalibut.\nThe landing of halibut at our ports and those of Seattle and Tacoma for the year 1918\nshows a decrease of 14,375,000 lb. from that of 1917. Vancouver landing for 1918 totalled but\n1,902,000 lb. as against 5,162,000 lb. in 1917. Prince Rupert shows a decrease of 3,801,000 lb.,\nwith total landings of 14,777,000 lb. Such statements demonstrate the alarming decrease of this\nfishery and afford additional evidence of the value of the publications of this Department in 9 Geo. 5\nBritish Columbia.\nX 15\n1915 and 1916 on the condition affecting the fishery, and which furnished evidence to show that\nthe banks had been seriously depleted, and that early action on the part of Canada and the\nUnited States must be taken if the fishery was not to be destroyed. Up to this time no action\nhas been taken by either Government. Joint action alone can be effective. This subject was\nconsidered by the American-Canadian Conference and evidence taken. The conclusions reached\nhave not been made public. The remarkable and alarming decline in the catch of 1918 is most\nimpressive and demands early action upon the part of Canada and the United States. The\ncorrectness of W. F. Thompson's conclusions, furnished and published by this Department in\n1915 and 1916, can no longer be questioned. Unless the halibut is given immediate and radical\nmeasure of protection, they will be exterminated on this Coast as they have been on the Atlantic.\nInternational action must be taken. By no other means can the halibut banks be given the\nnecessary protection.\nWhaling.\nWhaling during 1918 was most successful. Three stations were operated on our Coast.\nThe following statement, furnished the Department by the Consolidated Whaling Company, of\nVictoria, gives the number and species of whales landed at each of their stations during 1918:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nStatement showing Number and Species of Whales landed at British Columbia Stations in 1918.\nStation.\nSperm.\nSulphur.\nBin.\nSei.\nHump.\nRight.\nBottle-\nnose.\nTotal.\nKyuquot \t\nRose Harbour\t\nNaden \t\n12\n17\n5\n4\n12\n15\n88\n69\n51\n101\n15\n14\n41\n25\n29\ni\ni\n246\n140\n114\nTotals \t\n34\n31\n208\n130\n95\n1\nl\n500\nCanned Whale-meat.\nA total of 29,585 cases of whale-meat was canned at the company's station of Kyuquot in\n1918. The pack was made in round 1-lb. flat tins similar in all respects to salmon, each case\ncontaining forty-eight tins. The Commissioner's Assistant made a careful inspection of canning\noperations, and in his report said: \"The canning plant at the Kyuquot whaling-station, where\nthe meat of the whale is canned, is up to date in every respect. I followed the process through\nevery detail. Every feature of it, from the cooling of the meat to the sealing of the can, is in\nevery respect all the most fastidious could wish. I sampled the contents of many cans taken\nfrom the pile of those canned previous to my visit. The contents, to my. taste, equalled the best\ncanned beef or mutton in the market. There can be no question but that canned whale-meat will\ncommand a market.\" A rapid expansion in output is anticipated.\nPilchards.\nThe run of pilchards to the estuaries of the west coast of Vancouver Island was greater than\npreviously reported. Heretofore they have not been noted on the west coast in waters south of\nBarkley Sound. This year they were taken in numbers by the salmon-traps in Juan de Fuca\nStrait and in nets in Esquimalt Harbour, Cadboro Bay and Haro Strait as far north as Mayne\nIsland. The fish were large and fat. Many were sold fresh and several salmon-canners packed\nthem in 1-lb. and %-lb. cans, and they met with ready sale.\nDeep-sea Trawling.\nThe distinguishing feature of the fishery year was the successful operating of deep-sea\ntrawling vessels from our ports. Experiments conducted in 1917 out of Prince Rupert demonstrated\nthat there were \" banks \" adjacent to that port where trawling could be conducted, and which\nresulted in the successful operations of 191S. The trawler \" James Carruthers \" made forty-nine\ntrips out of Prince Rupert between February 28th and December 19th, occupying 151 days, which\nresulted in the landing of some 2,000,000 lb. of fish consisting of flounders, sole, witch, brill, cod,\nskate, and a limited amount of halibut. The average trip of the trawler from dock to dock was\nthree days. On being dressed the fish were placed in cold storage and frozen, and marketed\nprincipally in the North-west, under provisions of Order No. IS of the Canada Food Board, being X 16 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nretailed from 10 to 11 cents per pound; the Dominion Fisheries Department assuming two-thirds\nof transport charges. The trawlers' operations were limited because of the lack of a market.\nThe catch was in excess of the demand. There is no longer a question as to lack of supply or\nsuitable trawling \" banks.\" Given a market an abundant supply is assured.\nThe bulk of the catch was, as stated, marketed in the North-west. Heretofore that section\nhas been supplied only from the Coast with salmon and halibut. Other salt-water fishes were\nunknown. The sale of Pacific flatfish and cods was stimulated by an active publicity campaign\nconducted by the Canada Food Board. Sales in 1918 were sufficiently large to warrant the\nbelief that a permanent market can be established, provided the price of that year can be\nmaintained. There is no question as to the food values of trawl-caught fish. They are the equal\nof any food-fishes, with the exception of salmon. They have more flavour than halibut, and can\nbe sold at less than half the price of either salmon or halibut. Evidence of the value in which\nthey are estimated is demonstrated by the fact that the landing of trawl-caught fish at the chief\nports of Great Britain, notwithstanding the war, between May 4th and September 14th, 191S,\ntotalled 1,658,764,000 lb. During the last four months of 1917 an average of 1,500,000 lb. per\nmonth of trawl-caught fish were landed in San Francisco.\nIn face of the declining catch of our estuary and halibut fisheries, it is encouraging to record\nthe success of deep-sea trawling from our ports. A success so great as to warrant the belief that\neventually a large fleet of trawlers will operate from our ports.\nThe Department give considerable attention to the operation of the trawlers. Curtailed as\noperations were by a limited market and cold-storage capacity, they were extensive enough, as\nstated, to warrant exploitation. In advancing measures for the engagement of returned overseas\nservice men, the Commissioner stated:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" In formulating measures for the engagement of returned overseas men, full consideration\nshould be given to the fisheries. Deep-sea trawling conducted out of British Columbia ports\nin 1917 and 1918 w7ere profitable and afford evidence of the wealth of food-fishes that await\nexploitation. What Is required at this time to reap the wealth is more suitable vessels and more\ntrained men to operate them. This want can be supplied ou the Pacific Coast by the establishment of a trawling-school\u00E2\u0080\u0094a school for the training of men to engage in deep-sea trawling-fishing\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094by providing a number of suitable vessels equipped for deep-sea fishing and officered by\nexperienced navigators, engineers, and fishermen to act as instructors, and to which returned\noverseas men could be apprenticed for instruction in navigation ; the assembling and operation\nof steam and gas engines; the construction, care, casting, and hauling of trawl-nets; and the\ndressing, storing, packing, and shipment of the fish caught.\n\" In consequence, it is suggested that the Government provide a number of suitably equipped\nvessels, mail them with capable instructors, and engage them in training returned overseas men\nin deep-sea trawling-fishing. The men during their apprenticeship to be paid a good living\nwage and given a bonus from the ship's earnings, after capital expenditures have been paid,\nthat would eventually give the apprentices, who by that time aje experienced men, the ownership\nof the vessel.\n\"Well managed, the operations of such vessels would be sufficiently profitable'to furnish the\nmeans for operation and maintenance and create a sinking fund that would reimburse the Government and permit the vessel being transferred to the men to be worked on their own. There is\nroom for at least ten such training-ships on the Pacific Coast of Canada, each of which could\nprovide tuition for twenty-five apprentices. Such a school as is here suggested could be directed\nand operated in connection with the Naval Training School now established at Esquimalt.\n\" In addition to the practical trawling sea school here suggested, there should be established\nat Prince Rupert and Vancouver fish curing and packing schools for the practical training of\noverseas men in the curing, packing, and marketing of fish, and through which the catches of\nthe training-trawlers could market their catch.\n\" Men graduated from the land school could be sent in to the North-west and established as\nwholesale and retail handlers of both frozen and cured fish, first as the agents of the schools,\nand so bonused as to eventually acquire their plant and the business they have been enabled\nto establish.\n\" The establishing and maintenance of such schools as are here suggested will not provide\nfor the engagement of a large number of returned men, but it does provide for a number and\nwill materially assist in building up a food-providing class of hardy men in a field where men\nare needed and where they may gainfully engage.\" 9 Geo. 5\nBritish Columbia.\nX 17\nThe Ottesen Method of freezing Fish.\nA. Ottesen, an exporter of fish of Thistal, Denmark, after years of experience, has invented\na system of freezing fresh fish that has widely been adopted in Europe, and which should prove\nof value to companies operating in the Province which are not equipped with cold-storage plants.\nThe Fishery Director of Norway described the Ottesen method as revolutionizing the fish-\nrefrigerator. The Inspector-General of France says: \" After being thawed in water for five or\nsix hours the fish frozen by the Ottesen method look like fresh fish and are in the same condition.\nThe freezing does not cause the slightest injury to the flesh tissues, but, on the contrary, after\nthe fish have been prepared for the table they keep their firmness and full flavour. Fish so\nfrozen have been shipped long distances without change in texture or flavour.\"\nThe principle of the Ottesen method is simple and easily understood. The fish are not frozen\nin the ordinary way in air, but in a strong solution of common salt in water, which is cooled to\nvery low temperature and in which the fish are immersed. The freezing-point of the solution\nof salt depends upon the degree of saltness; the more salt, the lower the temperature. A solution\nwith 3 per cent, of salt freezes the fish at about 27\u00C2\u00B0 Fahr. A solution with 17 to 20 per cent, of\nsalt may be cooled down to from 10\u00C2\u00B0 to 60\u00C2\u00B0 Fahr. without freezing the solution. It is a solution\nof this kind which is used (instead of cooled air) to remove the heat from the fish and to freeze\nit. The apparatus consists essentially of an insulated iron vat or container of suitable dimensions\nin which the salt solution is placed. The cooling of the solution is accomplished by means of a\ncentral spiral, or worm, of iron tubing in connection with an ammonia refrigerating-machine, and\nthe solution is kept in constant movement by a central revolving propeller. Large fish are hung\nin the solution, the smaller being placed in baskets of wire netting.\nThe great value of the method appears in the simplicity of the apparatus, its cost, and in\nthe rapid freezing of the fish. Herring in baskets are completely frozen in half an hour and\nthe largest cod In from two to three hours. In ordinary methods of freezing in air the time\ntaken would be from twenty-four to thirty hours. An ordinary Ottesen apparatus can freeze\n10 tons of fish in twenty-four hours.\nThe A. Ottesen fish-freezing process was patented in Canada several years ago and the\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 Canadian rights sold to the Det Danske Frysnings Kompagin, address 33 Ny Toldbodgade,\nCopenhagen.\nThe Sockeye Salmon-pack* of the Fraser River District from 1900 to 1918, inclusive.\nYear.\nFraser River.\nPuget Sound.\nTotals.\n1900 \t\n229,800\n228,704\n458 504\n1901 \t\n928,669\n1.105.096\n2,033,765\n1902 \t\n293,477\n339,556\n633,033\n372,020\n1903 \t\n204.809\n167,211\n1904 \t\n72.6S8\n123,419\n196,107\n1905 \t\n837.489\n847,122\n1,684,611\n1906 \t\n183,007\n182,241\n365,248\n1907 \t\n62,617\n96,974\n159,591\n1908\t\n74,574\n155,218\n229,792\n585,435\n1,005,120\n1,590,555\n1910 \t\n150,432\n234,437\n384,869\n1911 \t\n62,817\n126,950\n189,767\n1912 . \t\n123,879\n183,896\n307 775\n1913 \t\n736,661\n1,664,827\n336.251\n2,401,488\n534,434\n155,714\n1914 \t\n198,183\n1915 \t\n91,130\n64,584\n1916\t\n27,394\n78,476\n105,870\n1917 \t\n148,164\n411,538\n559,732\n1918 \t\n19.697\n50,723\n70,420\n* Given in cases\u00E2\u0080\u0094forty-eight 1-lb cans to case. X 18\nReport of the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1919\nThe following statement of the salmon-eggs placed in the hatcheries of the Province in\n191S is furnished by Lieut.-Colonel F. H. Cunningham, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the\nDominion:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nStatement showing Total Number of Eggs placed in Various Hatcheries, 1918.\nName of\nHatchery.\nSockeye.\nSpring.\nCohoe.\nHumpback.\nEastern\nSpk.\nBrook\nTrout.\nDog\nSalmon.\nAlaska\nSockeye.\nWhitensh\nAnderson Lake,\nV.I.\nBabine Lake,\nSkeena River\n2,515,500\n9,100,000\n3,120,000\n1,873,000\n2,514,875\n11.960.000\n3,628,500\n3,024,000\n465,500\n3,025,000\n45,000\n272,000\n2,172,900\n1,038,000\n42,000\n650,000\n192,000\n126,000\n15,363,000\n30,000\nV.I.\nCultus Lake, Era\nser\nGerrard, Kootenay\nHarrison Lake,\nFraser\nKennedy Lake, V.I.\nNew Westminster,\nFraser\nPemberton, Fraser\n396,000\n24,000\n20,700,000\n7,000,000\nSeton Lake, Fras'r\nTotals\t\n37,735,875\n3,535,500\n4,366,900\n15,489,000\n30,000\n420,000\n20,700,000\n7,000,000\nSockeye Egg-take at Fraser River Hatcheries from 1901 to 1918.\n1901 15,741,000\n1902 72,034,000\n1903 13,464,000\n1904 9,469,000\n1905 97,656,000\n1906 51,121,000\n1907 53,952,000\n1908 46,709,000\n1909 98,000,000\n1910 37,343,000\n1911 22,937,000\n1912 38,500,000\n1913 86,000,000\n1914 28,589,000\n1915 68,476,000\n1916 '.... 40,203,000\n1917 31,004,000\n1918 ' 20,581,500*\n* In addition to the collections made from Fraser River, 20,000,000 sockeye-eggs taken in Alaska were\nhatched at Harrison Lake. 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds op Fraser River. X 19\nAPPENDICES.\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE FRASER RIVER.\nHon. Wm. Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094I have the honour to submit that during the season just closed I made a thorough\ninspection of the salmon fishing and spawning grounds of the Fraser River. The catch of all\nspecies of salmon from the Fraser River District within the Province produced a pack of only\n201,851 cases, of which more than half consisted of pinks and chums. The total pack of all\ngrades four years ago totalled 349,294 cases, 19S,1S3 of which were sockeyes.\nThe Catch of Sockeye.\nThe catch of sockeye in Provincial waters of the Fraser River District this year was very\nmuch the smallest ever made. It produced a pack of only 19,697 cases, as against 148,164 cases\nin 1917, 32,146 in 1916, 91,130 in 1915, and 198,183 in the preceding fourth year, 1914. The catch\nin our waters of the district was but 10 per cent, of that made in the latter year, the brood-year\nof the greater proportion of this year's run.\nThe catch of sockeye this season in the State of Washington wraters, included in the term\nFraser River District, was but 14 per cent, of that made in those waters four years ago. The\ncombined catch of sockeye in that entire district this season was the smallest ever recorded, and\nwas 87 per cent, less than the catch in the preceding fourth year.\nSince the primary test of the size of a run of sockeye to the Fraser River District is the\ncatch, and is expressed in figures by the pack, the above statements display the serious extent\nof the depletion in that run to that district, and fully justified the statement made by you last\nsummer at the Vancouver meeting of the Canadian-American Fisheries Conference, \" that the\nrun of sockeye salmon to the Fraser River is perilously near to extermination.\"\nThe Department's report of four years ago, in dealing with the conditions of the spawning-\nbeds of the Fraser, stated that the beds contained less sockeye than I had previously observed\nthere. It is therefore not surprising now to learn that the run this year was so limited.\nCondition on the Spawning-beds of the Fraser.\nDuring the season I personally inspected the principal sockeye-spawning area of the Fraser\nRiver basin, and was assisted by Dr. C. H! Gilbert and Inspector of Fisheries C. P. Hickman.\nThe inspection made this year, like the sixteen former inspections made by me since 1901, was\nconducted during the spawning period. As a result of the last inspection, I have to submit the\nopinion that far less sockeye reached the spawning-beds this year than in any previous one of\nwhich there is a record. In all of the great lake sections of the Fraser above Hell's Gate Canyon\nthere were few or no sockeye, and in the lower section of the Fraser, with the exception of\nLillooet Lake, there were less sockeye than previously reported.\nThe number of sockeye that reached Hell's Gate, in the narrow canyon of the Fraser above\nthe village of Yale, was smaller than in any former year. The Indians who fished there, under\ndaily supervision of Dominion fishery officials, caught less than 1,500 sockeye. They could have\ntaken more, and would have done so, but for the fact that the run of spring salmon was above\nthe average and satisfied their own demands, and they were not permitted to sell either fresh\nor'salted fish to the whites.\nThe Indians who fished at the canyon in the Fraser above the mouth of Bridge River caught\nless than 400 sockeye, and those engaged on the Fraser at Chimney Creek and at Soda Creek\ntook less than 100 at each location, while those fishing just below the mouth of Quesnel River\nwere unable to catch any sockeye at all. No sockeye were reported from that section of the\nbasin above the mouth of Quesnel River. X 20\nReport op the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nThe conditions at Quesnel and Chilko Lakes are best evidenced by the statements that less\nthan fifty sockeye are recorded by the Provincial watchman as having entered Quesnel Lake,\nand that it took Dr. Gilbert aud myself, operating separately at the principal Indian fishing-places\non the Chilcotin River, a week to obtain scales and measurements from 100 individual sockeye.\nThroughout the season the Chilcotin Indians at all their fishing-places caught less than 500\nsockeye. Dr. Gilbert was desirous of obtaining scales and measurements of sockeye entering\nthe Chilcotin and Quesnel Rivers. As stated, it took a week to get the data from the Chilcotin,\nand we could get no data from the Quesnel because so few reached that river, and they came\nso scatteringly that none were caught.\nNot to exceed 100 sockeye are known to have entered Seton-Anderson or Adams Lakes,\nthough the creeks leading from them were under observation throughout the season, and less\nthan 100 sockeye were found in any of the many tributaries of Shuswap Lake.\nIndians resident along and near the Thompson River again had no fishing-platforms on the\nbanks of that river, and are not believed to have taken fifty sockeye or any pink salmon this year.\nNo pink salmon were reported in the Fraser above Hell's Gate.\nIn former reports on the spawning area of the Fraser I have dealt separately and at length\nwith conditions at all the principal districts in the upper section of the basin. I do not do so\nthis year because the whole story is told in the above statements. There were too few fish in\nthose waters this season to warrant further records. No future importance need be attached\nto the few that did spawn there.\nThe number of sockeye which reached the spawning area of the lower section of the Fraser\nbasin this year were less than four years ago, and the hatcheries collected less sockeye-eggs.\nThe run to the streams at the head of Lillooet Lake was less than four years ago. The hatchery\nmaintained there collected 12,000.000 sockeye-eggs, as against 15,000,000 four years ago. The\nrun was, however, greater than last year. In addition to the fish that reached the hatchery this\nseason, it is to be noted that the Dominion Fishery and Indian Officer Grant, who was stationed\nat the portage between Harrison and Lillooet Lakes, records that the Indians fishing at that\nportage took over 6,CO0 sockeye. As in recent years, by orders of Officer Grant, the Indians\nretained only the male fish caught by them. The females taken were returned uninjured to\nthe water, and were thus enabled to reach the streams at the head of lake.\nThe number of sockeye that entered Plarrison and the lower lakes was less than four years\nago, and less eggs were collected for the hatcheries.\nThe total number of sockeye-eggs collected for the hatcheries on the Fraser from its tributaries was 12,210,000 less than four years ago.\nChief Inspector of Fisheries Lieut.-Colonel F. H. Cunningham reports that some 20,000,000\nsockeye-eggs taken from streams in Alaska were donated and shipped to the Harrison Lake\nHatchery by the United States Bureau of Fisheries, and that they will hatch them and the young\nbe liberated in the vicinity of Harrison Lake. This addition to the hatcheries gives a total\nof 32,210,000 sockeye being Incubated for liberation in the Fraser, as against 22,484,000 in 1914.\nReports from the Dominion Hatcheries operating in British Columbia in 1918.\n1\nSockeye.\nSpring.\nCohoe.\nChums.\nPinks.\nCultus Lake (tributary\nWestminster (tributary\nto Harrison) . . .\nto Harrison) . . .\n1,873.000\n3,120,000\n4,000.000\n3,217,000\n2.500,000\n2.313,000\n8,000,000\n2,600.000\n3,025,000\n40,000\n417,404\n42,000\n1,038,000\n636,000\n163,000\n176,000\n2,019,000\n396,000\n23,000\nSteelliead.\n37,000\n40,000\nPitt Lake \t\nVictoria, B.C., December 1st, 1918.\nI have, etc.,\nJohn Pease Babcock,\nAssistant to the Commissioner. 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. X 21\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET.\nHon. Wm. Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094I have the honour to submit the following report in respect to the conditions existing\non the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet for the year 191S:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nLeaving the cannery at Rivers Inlet on October 7th, I proceeded to the lake with the intention\nof going right through to the headwaters, a distance of between thirty-eight and forty miles, but\nthe weather, which had permitted the inspection of the spawning-beds of Smith Inlet to be made\nunder such favourable conditions, suddenly changed, and created such a sea on Lake Owikeno\nby the high wind that it was considered advisable to remain near the mouth until an improvement\nwas shown.\nEventually reaching Jeneesee Creek, a distance of twenty-two miles, I inspected the\nspawning-beds situated at this point. The creek, which in 1913 and 1914 was literally swarmed\nwith sockeye salmon, and commented upon very favourably in my reports for those two years,\nwas practically empty; beyond one or two small schools swimming about in the creek and a\nfew noted breaking water outside on the gravel shores of the beach, there was nothing to indicate\nan exceptional run to this tributary. The hatchery officials, who usually obtain their eggs from\nthis stream, had been unsuccessful in securing any so far. Since the experience of the past two\nor three years has shown that the fish have arrived late, it was deemed desirable to again visit\nthis sectioii on my return from the headwaters of the lake, in case I was too early. The logs\nand jams which litter the stream all the way up to the falls form a formidable barrier to the\nnumber of sockeye which eventually reach these beds. I do not remember, in the six years of\nmy experience of this particular stream, noting so many small grilse as on this occasion. Schools\nof them were observed spawning on the gravel-bars right up to the falls, having managed to\nwriggle their way through the fence erected by the Dominion Hatchery. The small number of\nsockeye salmon which had arrived at the creek were of good average size and compared favourably with the 1914 run.\nThe Machmell River, another tributary flowing directly into the lake at this point, although\none of the largest of the streams to be met with in this watershed, does not, nevertheless, appear\nto be favoured byr the sockeye salmon. Owing to the high stage of the water at this time the\ninspection was conducted under extreme difficulty. The thick muddy condition of this glacier\nstream did not favour accurate observation of the likely numbers spawning on the beds, but\nindications higher up, where the river-bed was visible, did not point to a big run; very few fish\nwere seen. The swift-running river precluded all attempts to secure a collection of eggs or scales\nfor the Department.\nIt was hoped that the run of sockeye salmon up the Nookins River, a tributary to the\nMachmell, would make up for the indifferent number seen at the latter point, but an examination\nof this stream disclosed similar conditions. It was difficult to believe that these spawning-beds\nwhich in former years have been so plentifully seeded could be depleted to the extent shown this\nyear, especially as the spawniug-beds were full of sockeye salmon in 1913 and 1914. There were\nno log-jams or other obstructions (with the exception of the log-jam two miles from the mouth,\nwhich does not, however, cause an obstruction to the fish) to account for the failure of the\nsalmon to run.\nOn arriving at the head of the lake next day, I made camp and inspected the tributaries\nat this section. The Indian River, which was examined under the most favourable circumstances, was absolutely empty; not one sockeye was visible as we made our way through the\nrapids to the falls. There were no log-jams or other obstructions to account for the failure;\ntherefore it cannot be due to this cause. The Cheo River, one of the finest spawning-grounds\nfor the salmon, and upon which the early-running sockeye deposit their ova, again showed up\nvery unsatisfactorily in comparison with the large numbers noted on the occasion of my visit\nthere in 1913 and 1914. Very few fish were spawning on the beds as we made our way up\nto the falls, four miles and a half distant, and only an occasional glimpse of them could be\nobtained in the deeper portions of the river. No collection of eggs was made possible owing to\nthe agile salmon eluding every effort to spear them. X 22 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nThe log-jam at the bend three miles up had not materially changed since my visit last year.\nIt affords no real obstruction unless the falls are opened to permit the salmon reaching the\nspawning-beds above. If, as has been suggested, a fish-ladder is built through the falls, then\nit will become necessary to blast out the jam to provide passage to the onward movement of\nthe fish.\nIn making the examination of the Washwash River last year, I drew attention to the huge\njam that obstructed the mouth and prevented the salmon reaching the extended spawning-beds\nabove. I am glad to report this year that a portion of the obstruction had been washed away\nby an extreme freshet and permitted the salmon to reach these beds. The log-jam, however,\nis a source of danger and may at any time effectually block this river.\nProceeding to the falls two miles and a half distant, I noted the comparatively small number\nof sockeye spawning on the beds, the majority having spawned out, but I was able to obtain a\ncollection of both salmon and scales from this stream.\nThe unsatisfactory state of the spawning-beds of the three rivers suggested that the unavoidable delay in reaching them may have been the cause for the poor results shown, but Indians\nwho had been camping here for the past six weeks stated that even at the height of the run\nof sockeye, three weeks prior to my visit, very few had come into the rivers in comparison with\nformer years, and that it was only with extreme difficulty sufficient numbers were obtained to\nsupply their winter's need. It is evident, therefore, that the outlook does not favour a big run\nto this section of the lake four or five years hence. In size the run of sockeye salmon came well\nup to the average.\nReturning from the head, I inspected Sunday Creek, a small mountain stream flowing into\nthe lake. In my report for last year I drew attention to the change in the course of the channel;\nthe original one had been obliterated. I found again another change where an extreme freshet\nhad burst its way through, changing the course again and obliterating the channel formed last\nyear. It is to be feared, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon this stream to successfully\nfulfil its functions year by year. In the Narrows, where formerly large numbers of both sockeye\nand cohoe salmon were seen on the beds, was found to be lacking of both species on this occasion.\nThe Sheemahant, the largest and most productive river of the lake, and which in past years\n(with the exception of 1916) had received its full complement of both sockeye and cohoe salmon,\nfailed this year to sustain its reputation; it fell far short of the prolific numbers encountered\nhere in 1913 and 1914. A few sockeye were observed spawning on the riffles as we proceeded\nup to the falls, but owing to the high stage of the water it was difficult to gauge with any degree\nof accuracy the real number actually on the spawning-beds; there was no room left for doubt,\nhowever, that the run this year has dropped to approximately 25 per cent, of the 1913 and 1914\nruns. The few sockeye salmon observed were all fine specimens of the race and came well up\nto the average. No log-jams obstruct this fine river, which is open to the salmon up to the falls\neighteen miles distant.\nIn making the return visit to Jeneesee Creek, I was quite prepared to see a big change in\nthe number of sockeye salmon spawning on the beds, but in this I was disappointed; very few\nhad arrived. The hatcherymen* had obtained one or two boxes of eggs, but from the small\nnumber of fish seen in the creek it did not look very hopeful for the requisite number necessary\nto fill the hatchery being produced. In comparison with the 1913 and 1914, the run of sockeye\nto Jeneesee is a failure.\nI found great difficulty in accurately estimating the run of sockeye salmon to the Asklum\nRiver owing to the tremendous volume of water flowing down at the time of my visit; it was\nnecessary to go right up to the falls, and then work our way down the sides of the river, before\nan opportunity was afforded to view the spawning-beds with any degree of accuracy. A fair\nnumber were observed spawning on the riffles, and should provide for a fair run returning here\nfour or five years hence. In examining several of these fish I found they were not yet ready\nfor spawning, and indicated their early arrival from the lake. They were fine specimens of the\nsockeye race, and here again came well up to the average of the other rivers. In estimating the\nrun I have to record a decrease to approximately 50 per cent, of the 1913, 1914, and 1915 runs.\nQuap River, in comparison with former years, is a complete failure. Calling in there on my\nway up the lake, I noted a few sockeye spawning on the beds below the fence and a small number\nhad reached the pen; concluding that this w-as only a forerunner of a big run which has never\nfailed so far to eventually make its appearance, I was certainly surprised to find on my return 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. X 23\nthat little improvement had been shown. The hatchery officials had met with little success in\ntheir endeavour to fill the hatchery and had barely obtained 1,000,000 eggs.\nAs the capacity of the hatchery is about 14,000,000 eggs, it is obvious that unless a big run\nentered very soon their efforts would be doomed to disappointment. Such a situation has\noccurred, so I am given to understand from information courteously supplied by the hatchery\nofficials; only about 3,000,000 eggs were secured by them.\nThe conditions above the fence have not changed in any way; huge trees and log-jams\nwhich obstruct the river right up to the falls are still in evidence, and will entail heavy expense\nin removing to permit the salmon reaching the extended spawning-beds.\nThe Dalley River, situated directly opposite Quay, showed little improvement. Indians who\nhad been up here three or four times during the last five weeks confirmed the lack of sockeye\nsalmon seen on the occasion of my visit there, and reported that they did not remember having\nseen so few fish spawning on the beds. This has in former years been regarded as one of the\nmost productive streams of the lake. In 1913, and especially in 1914, the sockeye salmon were\nseen in dense masses. It is to be feared that this river is also a failure. No log-jams interfere\nwith the progress of the salmon up-stream.\nThe hatchery creek appeared to be well stocked with sockeye salmon, the fine spawning-\nbeds showing to great advantage; the bars outside were thickly covered with spawning fish and\nin size attained a high average.\nThe facilities for erecting a fence to obtain eggs for the hatchery are by no means favourable\nowing to the raging torrent of water which comes down after a heavy rain; consequently the\nlarge numbers of spawning sockeye cannot be utilized by the hatchery for artificial propagation,\nthe experience of past years precluding the erection of a fence.\nAll along the shores at the mouth of the lake the sockeye salmon were observed in very\nlarge numbers; also the fine spawning-beds lying around and close to the Indian rancherie were\nthickly covered, and for the first time showed up in favourable contrast to the poor run of sockeye\nsalmon to the other tributaries of Lake Owikeno.\nSpring salmon were breaking water all the way down through the rapids of the Owikeno\nRiver and compared very favourably with former years.\nI noticed the cohoe salmon repeatedly breaking water as we proceeded back from the lake;\none or two had been caught in the pen at Quap River and indicated by their appearance early\narrival from salt water. I have no doubt that later on the spawning-beds will receive their\nfull complement of this species of salmon.\nIn reviewing the results of the inspection of the Rivers Inlet watershed, I am of the opinion\nthe serious shortage of sockeye salmon disclosed by a visit to these beds, and amounting to\napproximately 25 per cent, of the 1913, 1914, and 1915 runs, will have a correspondingly serious\neffect on the number of adult sockeye which will return from this season's spawning.\nIt may be recorded here that an exceptional run of humpback salmon invaded the inlet\nduring the sockeye-fishing season and permitted some of the canneries to put up large packs.\nThe same peculiar conditions were experienced in other sections of the district, notably at Bella\nCoola and Kimsquit, where abnormal numbers were caught by the fishermen, who made big\nmoney in consequence, some of them making between $3,000 and $4,000.\nIn conclusion, I wish to express my indebtedness to G. C. Johnston (manager) and J. Dawson,\nof Rivers Inlet Cannery; Captain Hamer (Superintendent) and J. Reid (Foreman) ; and the\nmen at the various spawning camps.\nI have, etc.,\nArthur W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 10th, 1918. X 24 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF SMITH INLET.\nHon. Wm. Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094In obedience to instructions from the Department to inspect the spawning-grounds of\nSmith and Rivers Inlets respectively for the year 1918, I have the honour to submit the following\nreports:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nProceeding to Smith Inlet to undertake the inspection of this watershed first, I arrived there\non September 22nd, and after making arrangements with Indians started for Long Lake the\nfollowing day.\nBearing in mind the extraordinary number of sockeye salmon seen on the spawning-beds\nat this point in 1914, it was certainly surprising that the run this year did not come up to\nexpectation, and that the two canneries operating here were only able to put up a total pack\nof about 14,000 cases of sockeye salmon between them. Comparing this with the total pack of\nabout 28,000 cases put up by the Smith Inlet Cannery in 1914, it will be seen there must be some\nexplanation for the decrease shown. I am of the opinion, after closely reviewing the spawning-\nbeds, that the poor results are due to the following reasons: A decided decrease 'In the number\nof sockeye salmon reaching the spawning-beds following a comparatively poor run of fish up the\ninlet. In comparison with the exceptionally big run which invaded the inlet in 1914, and correspondingly large numbers reaching the beds in that year, it was a distinct disappointment\u00E2\u0080\u0094i.e., if\nthe four-year fish were the predominating factor in that year\u00E2\u0080\u0094to find the beds had not received\ntheir complement of spawning fish. Another reason may be given in the extra number of gill-net\nfishermen empowered to fish this inlet in comparison with former years; their nets, which were\ndistributed over the inlet in large numbers, disorganized the schools of salmon proceeding up\nthe inlet, and instead of schooling up at the seining-grounds went right through and on to the\nlake. I am given to understand from the seine-net fishermen that only one fairly big haul was\nmade by them during the whole of the run.\nThe inspection of the spawning-grounds was made under very favourable conditions, fine\nweather prevailing all the time, and the rivers which last year precluded accurate observations, due to exceptionally bad weather, were low and permitted me to observe them without\ninterruption.\nThe Docee River (the overflow to the lake) was well stocked with spring salmon; a very\nlarge number were seen in the clear-running water making their way up; also the fine gravel\nspawning-beds at the mouth of the lake contained large numbers. I am able to record a substantial increase in the number of spring salmon in comparison with former years.\nAt no previous inspection have I noted so many cohoe salmon as on this occasion; schools\nwere observed swimming around and intermingled with the springs, which from their healthy-\nlooking state proclaimed their early arrival from salt water. Indications pointed to the\nspawning-beds receiving tlieirfull quota of eggs from this species of salmon.\nThe run of sockeye salmon to Quay Creek, a small stream situated about seven miles from\nthe mouth of the lake, although inspected under the most favourable conditions, showed a falling-\noff, and presented a great contrast to the numbers seen here in 1914. Schools of these fish were\nswimming around outside in the shallow waters of the lake, which no doubt will be the means\nof plentifully seeding the beds later on.\nNo exceptional brood, however, may be expected from the adults which will eventually return\nto this stream from this season's spawning. The run may be compared to the number reaching\nthis stream in 1915.\nProceeding to the head of the lake, we made camp at the mouth of the Geluch River.\nIn making our way. through the rapids to the falls later, it was satisfactory to note that the\nreputation of this fine spawning stream, although not bearing fruit to the same extent as in\n1914 and 1915, nevertheless received its full quota of spawning sockeye, which I estimate came\nwithin 25 per cent, of the number seen on these beds in the years previously mentioned; they\nwere fine healthy-looking specimens of the race and compared in size to the 1914 run. 9 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet. X 25\nEach riffle appeared to be thickly covered until we reached the spawning-beds just below the\nfalls, where the few sockeye observed in this portion of the river presented a vivid contrast to\nthe dense masses which lined the beds in 1914.\nNo log-jams or other obstructions impeded the progress of the salmon up-stream, A few\nsmall grilse were observed in this river for the first time in my inspection of these beds.\nI was very disappointed with the run of sockeye salmon to the Delabah River. In 1914, it\nwill be recalled, large numbers were observed both in the river and in the shallow waters of\nthe lake outside; great stress was laid upon the unsuitabillty of these beds for the propagation\nof salmon spawn, and suggested the benefit a hatchery would provide to counteract the all too\napparent wastage which was manifest in that year. The relatively small run of sockeye which\nreached the.beds bears a great significance in relation to the warning given at that time.\nIn making my way up to the falls fair numbers were noted spawning, but did not by any\nmeans reach the high standard attained in 1914; the beds should be fairly well seeded, however.\nIn size the sockeye were fine specimens of the race and compared very favourably with the\n1914 run.\nStretching from one end of the bay to the other, the fine gravel spawning-beds of the lake\npresented a very empty appearance in comparison to the milling mass of sockeye noted here in\n1914; beyond one largo school which was seen waiting at the mouth of the river, there was no\nindication that the remarkable run would be repeated this year.\nIn making a comparison, I estimate the run closely resembles that of 1915, or only about\n25 per cent, of the total run to this section in 1914. No log-jams or other obstructions interfere\nwith the free movement of the salmon in this river.\nReturning to the mouth of the lake, the cohoe salmon were observed breaking water frequently, but none so far had reached the spawning-beds. A late run of these fish appear to\nhave entered Smith Inlet only after the canneries had ceased operating, with the result that\nsome fishermen who had made big hauls were unable to market their fish. One or two canneries\nfrom Rivers Inlet, however, came to their assistance later.\nThe run of humpback salmon was very satisfactory and permitted the canneries to put up\nan average pack.\nIn summarizing the results of the inspection at this watershed, I am of the opinion that\nthe adult sockeyes which will return from this season's spawning will by no means approach the\nvast numbers seen on the beds in 1914, but should result in a run equal to that of 1915.\nIn regard to the run of cohoes, humpbacks, and spring salmon, I have reason to believe that\nthe favourable impression formed this year will result in a good run from each of this species\nof fish on their return as adults.\nIn conclusion. I wish to express my indebtedness to G. F. Harris, Manager of the Wallace\nFisheries at Smith Inlet.\nI have, etc.,\nArthur W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 10th, 1918. X 2G Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON.\n(No. 5.)\nBy Charles II. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, Stanford University.\nI. SPAWNING SOCKEYE COLONIES IN THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE FRASER RIVER\nDURING THE SEASON OF 1918.\nIn our report for the season of 1916 we presented for the first time evidence derived from\nan investigation of the salmon which frequented separate spawning areas of the Fraser River.\nThose which were found spawning in Morris Greek were examined separately from those that\nspawned at the Harrison Rapids. And in like manner independent studies wrere made of the\nspawners at the Harrison Hatchery, in the Birkenhead River at Pemberton, in Pitt Lake, in\nCultus Lake, and in the Chilcotin River. The object of the investigation was to throw light on\nthe much-mooted question as to the return of the mature spawning salmon to that particular\npart of the river-basin in which they had been hatched and reared. In the answer to this question\na number of possibilities must be considered.\n(1.) There may conceivably be no tendency for a salmon to return to any definite spawning\ndistrict, or to any geographically distinct group of spawning^ districts. In such case any sockeye\nentering the Fraser would be as likely to spawn above as below the canyon, and as likely to\nspawn in any one tributary as in any other. Every spawning-bed in that event would contain\nindividuals which had been hatched and reared in widely different portions of the basin.\nEach spawning area would draw indifferently on the common stock of migrants, and the\nsalmon frequenting it would necessarily agree in their characteristics with those frequenting\neach of the other spawning areas throughout the basin. There would be no basis for differences\nof any description. The salmon spawning in different parts of the basin would agree in their\naverage size, as adults, and in their early history as fingerlings migrating seawards. They would\nagree in the relative numbers of four- and five-year fish, in the relative numbers' of those which\nhad spent one year or two years in fresh water after hatching, or had proceeded to sea as soon\nas they were free-swimming. All the groups and all the variations of characters which we find\nin the main run examined off the mouth of the river would be repeated in approximately equal\nproportions on every spawning-ground. Such would inevitably be the case if the salmon passed\nindifferently to the various spawning areas without reference to their native habitat.\nOn the other hand, if differences are found to exist in the populations of distinct spawning\ndistricts, this must be considered direct evidence that segregation has occurred, based on some\nprinciple which has determined that certain individuals in the common run pass to one spawning\narea while other individuals go elsewhere to spawn. The only principle adequate to explain such\nsegregation, if It generally occurs, would be the return of fish to spawn in their native tributaries.\nThis principle obtains, as we have abundantly demonstrated, as between different river-\nbasins, even when these are of very limited size and have their outlets to the sea in close\nproximity to each other. In their passage to these minor streams along the salt-water channels\nthe schools of fish are often very intimately mingled, and they separate only as the river-mouths\nare approached. Thus, iii the vicinity of Namu, on Fitzhugh Sound, gill-nets operated along\nshore capture in about equal numbers at the same time sockeyes which are bound for Bella\nCoola and those which are bound for Kimsquit. These can be distinguished by characteristic\nscale-markings. The two schools are running intimately mingled along the same channels.\nWhere they separate has not been determined. The greater part of them may pass up Burke\nChannel together, or it may be the Kimsquit fish may take the Dean Channel. But by the time\nBella Coola and Kimsquit are reached complete separation has occurred.\nThe case wTould seem not greatly different from that of fish bound for different tributaries\nof the same river. Conceivably, the schools may be mingled along the main channels of the\nriver and become separated as their respective tributaries are reached. If the populations of\nthese tributaries show distinguishing characteristics, no other satisfactory explanation presents\nitself. 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 27\n(2.) We must consider also the possibility that a partial segregation of spawners occurs,\nbut not a total one; that within certain limits indifference exists as to the precise spawning-\nground frequented. Thus the up-river fish may predominately run early and proceed above the\ncanyon, passing without selection into any stream that becomes available; while the late-running\nfish may enter the Harrison, the Pitt, and Cultus Lakes again without determinate destination.\n\u00E2\u0080\u009EThat this supposition is without validity for the lower river becomes evident from the fact\npreviously emphasized that the fish entering Pitt Lake are so widely different from those entering\nCultus Lake, and that even the different spawning-beds of the Harrison can usually be shown\nto possess individual characteristics of unquestioned significance.\nWith regard to the river above the canyon, the case is not so clear, partly, no doubt, from\nlack of adequate material. The runs of the upper river have of late years become extremely\nattentuated. No material at ail adequate has been obtained from any up-river tributary except\nthe Chilcotin, and because of permanent depletion we may now find It too late to secure any.\nA small run which makes it possible for natives to secure a few fish for food from the main\nchannels of the up-river may yet disappear for all practical purposes when it becomes widely\ndistributed among the tributaries. And unless material can be so secured after final segregation\nhas occurred it is useless for our purposes. The differences which distinguish fish spawning in\ncontiguous areas are usually of such small amount and compass that they become wholly masked\nwhen two or more races are mingled.\nThis may be the case even at the mouths of the main tributaries. More than one spawning\ndistrict, each with its special characteristics, may be found within a given tributary. The\nHarrison River, for example, has at least four spawning areas. Scales and other data collected\nsolely at the mouth of the Harrison, or in its lower course, would be valueless. The different\nstrains would be mingled and their characteristics obliterated. The nearer the material is\nobtained to the final spawning-grounds, the greater its value for investigations of racial\ndivergence.\n(3.) Where spawning populations show distinguishing characteristics the inference is clear\nand unavoidable. A physiological barrier has existed\u00E2\u0080\u0094the racial habit of return at maturity\nto spawn in the native stream\u00E2\u0080\u0094for so long a period that minor differentiations have developed\nand a strain or sub-race has been formed. But what are we to conclude in cases where the\ncolonies of two distinct spawning areas present no characteristics by which we can distinguish\nthem? Obviously, we must infer either (a) that segregation in their case has not occurred,\nor (b) that it has occurred but has not been effective in producing divergence between the\ncolonies. If the first of these were true, it would signify that the \" home-stream \" instinct was\nin most cases rigidly operative, while in one or more instances within the same river-basin it\nwas wholly in abeyance.\nThe second supposition would seem a priori far less improbable. Complete segregation of\nspawning fish may occur, so that each individual returns to the stream in which it was hatched\nand reared, and yet, in certain instances, separate colonies may have failed to develop distinct\nmethods of growth or of habit by which they can be distinguished. Failure to discover distinguishing characteristics between populations of separate spawning areas need not indicate then\nthat their progeny will fail to return at maturity each to its native stream.\nThis process may have been in operation for many thousand years. The two colonies may\nhave been wholly distinct and self-perpetuating for a very long period and yet no differences\nhave developed. If we should adopt distinctive marks for the young from each of the two\nstreams on their downward migration to the sea, it might be shown at maturity that each stream\ncontained spawners with a single mark only, the one that had been applied to the young from\nthat stream. Vet the adults from the two tributaries might be otherwise indistinguishable.\nNegative evidence in this case proves nothing. But if affirmative evidence is found, it is conclusive. If, in fact, differences are found to exist, there is no alternative to our acceptance\nof the home-stream theory.\nDifferent tributaries of the same river may be quite unlike in the sharpness of the characteristics by which their colonies may be recognized. Cultus Lake, a tributary of the Lower Fraser,\npossesses a strongly marked race of small salmon, pale in colour of flesh, poor in oil, scarce X 28 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nworthy of the name of sockeye; while Pitt Lake, also tributary of the Lower Fraser, is frequented\nby a large race the opposite in all respects of the Cultus Lake colony. But we have been unable\nto distinguish the fish of Morris Creek, tributary to the Harrison River, from those spawning in\nthe lake-gravels in front of the Harrison Hatchery and in the small stream that supplies It.\nIn this latter case we have obtained no direct evidence of segregation; but it is rendered highly\nprobable by the more numerous instances in which it can elsewhere be demonstrated.\nThe most important investigation during the season of 1918 consisted in an attempt to test\nthe conclusions which we had based on the material of 1916 by a re-examlnation of the colonies\nfrequenting the same spawning-grounds previously reported on. \"It was hoped to secure,' also,\nmaterial from additional spawning-grounds above the canyon, from which nothing heretofore\nhad been obtained.\nThe season of 1918 was peculiarly ill-suited to the purpose. In the recent history of the\nFraser we have grown accustomed to noting that each successive year is the worst in the history\nof the industry, or is in any case distinctly worse than its representative in the last cycle, four\nyears previously. But the eNtent of the disaster In 1918 was unexpected and overwhelming.\nA run of sockeyes to the Fraser can hardly be said to have occurred. Under such circumstances\nthe numbers that escaped to the spawning-grounds were most limited. Along the main river-\nchannels were a few locations, like the canyon above Yale, the Bridge River fishing-grounds\nabove Lillooet, and those above the mouth of the Chilcotin at the Chimney Creek Bridge and at\nSoda Creek, where natives by persistent dipping secured a few fish. Material was obtained at\nall these points, but for reasons already stated it was of less value for the purposes of the\npresent investigation. In all these river-channels it was apparent a number of local races were\nmingled. Because of this the range of variation in all the characters examined was excessive,\nfar greater than when we have before us data obtained from a single spawning area.\nIn addition to these main-river locations, we were successful in securing a limited amount\nof material from the Chilcotin River at Hanceville and at Fish Canyon near its mouth; from\nthe Birkenhead at Pemberton; from the Skookumchuck above Harrison Lake; from the Harrison\nHatchery, Morris Creek, and the Harrison Rapids; and from Pitt Lake. For much of this\nmaterial we have to thank the very generous co-operation of Alex. Robertson, Superintendent\nof the Harrison Lake Hatchery, and T. W. Graham, Superintendent of the Pemberton Hatchery\non the Birkenhead. To both of these gentlemen we extend our grateful acknowledgments.\nIn general, it can be stated that the examination of this material completely supported and\nverified the conclusions reached in 1916. With regard to the spawning-beds below the canyon,\nwe affirm without qualification that they are as distinctively populated as though they were\nlocated in separate streams independently entering the sea. Additional material only emphasizes\nthis fact. Not only were the different colonies in 1918 marked by distinctive characters, but\nthese characters were the same for each colony as those noted in 1916. We have then the picture\nof a number of self-perpetuating sub-races, each of which has acquired certain minor habits of\ngrowth, of migration, of age at maturity, of length of life in fresh water, of colour and quality\nof flesh\u00E2\u0080\u0094the same characters, in short, which in various combinations characterize the races\nof the separate river-basins of the simpler sort.\nA very conspicuous instance of racial differentiation is furnished by the Harrison watershed.\nWe do not know how many distinct spawning areas it may have contained. Several minor\ncolonies, like that frequenting Silver Creek, are now practically exterminated. There were\nspawning areas doubtless in Lillooet and in Tenas Lakes, but no records of these have reached\nus. A very limited number of late spawners still frequent the slack water of the main river\nabove Harrison Rapids, the vanishing remnant of a once fine run visits the lake at the head of\nMorris Creek, and a considerable run still goes up the Birkenhead. Both the Birkenhead and\nthe Morris Creek fish pass over the very spawning-beds at Harrison Rapids, but not one of them\ntarries there. An examination of 200 specimens, laboriously gathered at Harrison Rapids in\n191S by Mr. Robertson, failed to yield a single fish which had been spawned elsewhere than in\nthe beds of the rapids. Not one could on even a cursory examination be confused with those\nconstituting either the Morris Creek or the Birkenhead colony. Not one of the Harrison Rapids\nfish wras found among over 400 specimens examined from Morris Creek, and over 200 from 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 29\nSkookumchuck aud the Birkenhead. No Morris Creek strays were found in the Birkenhead, and\nno Birkenhead fish were found in Morris Creek, in spite of the fact that all the Birkenhead fish\npassed the mouth of Morris Creek on their way. In these cases, evidently, the law of segregation\nis most strictly in force; yet it seems impossible to imagine a locality better suited to straying\nof the spawning fish with resulting mixture of populations. That it does not occur here, where\nfish pass over and pass by one another's spawning-grounds, gives confidence that the same law\nrules everywhere, though the evidence of it may be less compelling.\nHarrison Rapids.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The most interesting colony of the Harrison is the one which spawns late\nin the season at Harrison Rapids. The characteristics of this colonyr were fully discussed in our\nreport for 1916, page 50. The nature of the spawning area is in itself highly unusual. The\nspawning habits of sockeyes are generally regarded as rigidly fixed, more so than with any\nother species of salmon. Unlike other species, they- must resort to a lake, and fail to frequent\nany stream, otherwise suitable, which has no lake which they can succeed in entering. The\nlake once attained, they spawn in the gravel-beds around its margin or ascend some affluent of\nthe lake in search of suitable spawning-beds. The young develop mainly, if not exclusively, in\nthe waters of the lake, frequenting the depths in the daytime, but rising to feed at the surface\nin the evening. Under such conditions the sockeye commonly resides over a year in the lake,\nsometimes over two years, occasionally over three years, before seeking salt water. Of the\nvarying number which precociously descend to salt water in their first spring, few ordinarily\nsurvive and return at maturity.\nBut the Harrison Rapids spawners use gravel-bars in a shallow backwater region of the\nriver, where they have no genuine lake conditions at their disposal, nor any lake into which\nthe young can drop back after hatching. They have adopted, therefore, the highly exceptional\nmethod of life for a sockeye, of dropping down to salt water as soon as they are free-swimming,\nand while we have no data as to their mortality or the percentage of survival, it is clear that\nbefore man disturbed the balance of nature, enough survived to keep the colony in a flourishing\ncondition. More than this cannot be said for any of the other colonies. Clearly, then, under\nthe spur of necessity, a sockeye colony can adapt itself to the habits of sea migration in the\nearly free-swimming fry stage, a habit rare in sockeyes, and so far as known never occurring\namong cohoes; hut almost exclusively characteristic of humpbacks and dog-salmon, and frequent\namong ehluooks.\nThe 200 specimens of Harrison Rapids spawners examined in 1918 had all had the history\nabove outlined. Not one of them exhibited in the centre of its scale any trace of growth of the\nyoung in fresh water. All had passed down to sea as young fry before any portion of the scales\nhad made their appearance.\nIt is very difficult to place satisfactorily on record the evidence for racial differentiation as\nobserved on the spawning-beds. As previously pointed out, the scales have suffered extensive\nerosion during the later weeks which precede the spawning. Not only are the margins of the\nscales broken down and absorbed to such an extent that they no longer serve for determination\nof age, but the surface of the remaining portion of the scales has become more or less defaced.\nAbsorption has taken place not only at the margins but also on the surfaces of the scales, and the\nlines of growth are blurred or obliterated. Enough may be preserved to render possible a detailed\nexamination under the microscope, where the course of the ridges can be traced from such\nfragments as remain, by the aid of focusing at different levels. But such scales produce very\nunsatisfactory photographs. Nevertheless, it has seemed advisable to have a number of these\nfrom each of several spawning areas of the Fraser reproduced as a permanent record. Only\nthe centres of the scales are figured, the worn and jagged edges being omitted.\nFigs. 1 to 5 are from the spawning race at Harrison Rapids. Each contains the extensive\nfirst year's growth which occurs wholly in salt water, together with a varying portion of the\nsecond year's growth. The boundary between the two years in these cases is not a sharp one,\nleading to the conclusion that fry which descend to the sea in their first year suffer less interruption to their growth during their first fall and winter in the sea than is the case with those\nwhich pass their first year or their first two years in fresh water. Rarely, however, a slackening\nof growth in the Harrison Rapids fish at the close of their first year is indicated by a definite\nline of demarcation at its outer edge. When this exists there are thirty-two to forty rings or\nlines of growth belonging to the first year. X 30 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nAs was observed in 1916 and during previous years, sockeyes belonging to the type which\nalone frequents the Harrison Rapids spawning-beds\u00E2\u0080\u0094the sea-type\u00E2\u0080\u0094make their appearance during\nthe latter part of the run only, at the mouth of the river and in the approaches to it. In 1916\nthe firs* to appear were taken on July 17th, and after that date they occurred constantly to the\nclose of the season.\nIn 1918 the first to make their appearance at Esquimalt, from traps along the Vancouver\nIsland shore, were found on July 14th. Not a single specimen had been found among the 250\nwhich had been previously examined, distributed over June 17th, 20th, and 28th, July 2nd and\n10th. They were present on July 14th, 18th, 21st, 25th, 29th, August 2nd, 4th, 8th, 11th, and\n26th. The only dates on which examinations were made at Esquimalt after-July 14th that\nyielded no individuals of sea-type were August 13th, 16th, and 23rd. The numbers of this type\nwere evidently decreasing during the very last of the run.\nThe defective condition of the scales made it impossible to determine directly the age of\nthe Harrison Rapids fish, but the lengths were secured, and a valuable clue can be obtained from\nthe range in size found in three-year fish and in four-year fish of this type before they enter the\nriver. The complete range may not be available because of the small number of individuals\nof sea-type which were obtained at Esquimalt during 1918. Only twenty-four in all were observed.\nFive were three-year males; one a three-year female; five were four-year males; thirteen were\nfour-year females. The three-year males ranged from 20% to 24 inches long; the four-year\nmales from 26 to 28 inches. Comparing these figures with the Harrison Rapids column in\nTable I., it is seen that the majority of the Harrison Rapids males are from 25 to 29 inches long,\nand that the lengths of these, when tabulated, form a fairly regular curve, with the mode at 27.\nLying below 25 inches, extending from 17% to 24%, are sixteen thinly scattered records, which\nform no part of the curve referred to. As these two elements in the table agree closely with the\nobserved lengths of three- and of four-year males obtained in salt water where age can be determined, we are justified in concluding that approximately all Harrison Rapids males between\n17% and 24% inches long are in their third year, while those between 25 and 29 inches long are\nin their fourth year.\nThe single three-year female of this type secured from salt water in 191S is 20% inches\nlong, while thirteen four-year females range from 24 to 26% inches. Table II. gives the length\ndistribution of Harrison Rapids females, all but three of which fall within the scope from 23 to\n26 inches and form again a regular curve, while three individuals are 20, 22, and 22% inches\nlong respectively. It is highly probable that the three last mentioned are in their third year,\nwhile the remainder are in their fourth year. The earlier dates, on which sea-type individuals\nappeared in the run, produced only three-year males and four-year females, the other groups\nappearing subsequently.\nIn 1918, as in 1916, we failed to find any individuals of sea-type spawning in any part of\nthe Fraser River basin other than Harrison Rapids. Upwards of a thousand specimens were\nexamined from other spawning districts, in which it might be thought an occasional sea-type\nindividual might be found, if only as a stray. The fact that not one individual was discovered\nelsewhere, when coupled with the further fact that every Harrison Rapids sockeye belonged to\nthis group, furnishes the strongest possible evidence of the return of spawning fish to their native\ndistricts.\nMorris Creek.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This stream offered in the early days one of the most valuable spawning\ndistricts in the Harrison watershed. In his report for 1902, pages 24 and 25, J. P. Babcock\nstates: \" Morris Creek and Lake are insignificant bodies of water, but as a spawning-ground\nfor the late run of sockeye, and from the standpoint of artificial propagation, they constitute one\nof the most important and valuable points on the Fraser. The Dominion Government has\noperated a spawning-station here since 1885, and with the exception of the year 1900 has never\nfailed to take eggs. All the salmon-eggs taken by the Dominion in this Province up to 1901\nwere secured at this station.\" Much later than 1901 Morris Creek still served as the principal\nsource of eggs, first for the Bon Accord Hatchery near New Westminster, and later for the\nHarrison Lake Hatchery. None of the fry in the early days were returned to Morris Creek,\nas it was not believed that such procedure was necessary to maintain the spawning run. Even 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 31\nin 1902 (I.e.) Mr. Babcock wrote: \"It is generally believed that fish bred in a given watershed,\nsuch as the Fraser, return to it upon reaching maturity, and there is considerable evidence to\nwarrant it. It has not, however, been settled, and probably never will be, that the fish bred in\na given tributary of a large river seek only that tributary to spawn.\" Believing, then, that\nany increase in the run to a. large river would equally benefit all the tributaries, there seemed\nno reason for laboriously returning fry to Morris Lake in order that they should return there\nand help maintain the spawning run. Knowing, as we now do, that salmon will in general\nreturn to the district in which they are liberated, the fate of the Morris Creek run seems to\nhave been inevitable. It has steadily dwindled with the years until it can no longer be depended\non for any considerable take of eggs. Natural propagation was reduced to a minimum in order\nto obtain eggs for the hatcheries, while the hatchery-reared fry did not at maturity return to\nMorris Creek. The same has been the history of Silver Creek, where \" the Dominion Government\nplaced a weir in August, 1902, and took nearly two and a half million eggs, which were transferred to the hatehery near New Westminster.\" The run in Silver Creek is now practically\nextinct, and we cannot doubt that this process has been hastened by failure to replenish its run\nthrough the planting of fry. No better examples than these can be found of the necessity of\nworking out completely the entire life-history of our commercial fishes before it is possible to\npropagate them with success or to legislate wisely for their protection. Failure to follow this\nprinciple has discredited hatchery-work from the beginning, and has led to the well-founded\nsuspicion that in many instances they have been more of a detriment than an advantage to the\nruns.\nMorris Creek would seem to have been an ideal hatching and rearing ground for the sockeye.\nThe enormous run entering this very insignificant stream in early days furnishes evidence of\nextraordinarily favourable conditions. Examination of the scales of the fish now running shows\na striking uniformity in their development. They form an impressively homogeneous lot. All\nhave large sharply defined nuclear regions, testifying to a vigorous growth during their first\nyear, which is uniformly passed in the lake. The number of nuclear rings varies from fifteen\nto twenty-eight, with the mode at twenty. The frequency curve is given in Table III. In all\nprobability the fingerlings on migrating from the lake in the spring of their second year were\n4 to 6 inches in length, and better fitted to cope with their enemies than the smaller weaker\nyearlings from less favourable localities.\nFigs. 6 to 8 give typical centres of Morris Creek scales. No individuals from this district\nhad lived two years in the lake before migrating, and none had proceeded to sea in their first\nyear. The length distribution, given in Tables I. and II. in the columns for Morris Creek, seems\nto indicate that the majority of the fish were in their fifth year. The modal length for the males\nat 27 inches and for the females at 25 or 26 inches closely agrees with that usually characteristic\nof five-year.Fraser River fish.\nBirkenhead River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This affluent of the Harrison has now the most reliable sockeye run,\nand is the only spawning district of value remaining in this watershed. Its present importance\nis due in part doubtless to the fact that it was not drawn on for hatchery purposes until a much\nlater date than Morris Creek and the Harrison Lake region, and in perhaps larger part to the\nsignificant fact that the output of the hatchery is constantly planted in the Birkenhead and helps\nmaintain the run.\nThe characteristics of the Birkenhead race in 1918 are in general the same as those described\nfor the 1916 run. The growth of the fingerlings in fresh water must be much less than in the\ncase of the Morris Creek and Harrison Lake fingerlings. The nuclear area of the scale averages\nsmall, with densely crowded rings. These were somewhat more numerous in 1918 than in either\nof the two years preceding and the extremes range far more widely. The lot in 1918 was far less\nhomogeneous than in 1916 and 1917, even those taken at the Pemberton Hatchery presenting an\nunexpected amount of variation. While the nuclear regions average small and the number of\nrings in the great majority of individuals is less than sixteen (the mode lying somewhere between\neight and eleven), occasional specimens have nuclear rings running as high as nineteen, twenty,\nand twenty-one. Furthermore, the frequency curve for nuclear rings in 1918 has none of the\nregularity so well defined in 1916 and 1917. The irregularities in 1918 are equally marked and X 32 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nare similar, whether the specimens were procured at Skookumchuck or at the Pemberton Hatchery\non the Birkenhead. As seen in Table III., there is at both localities a mode at eight rings, one\nat eleven, and a less regularly defined one at fifteen. Yet, so far as known, all come from the\nsame spawning-grounds. It is not clear what significance, if indeed any, attaches to this circumstance. In spite of the variation in nuclear rings, racial peculiarities are apparent. Especially\nmarked is the small size of the first year's growth in the sea, a character that was also conspicuous in the two years preceding. Occasionally this is carried so far that the first year's\ngrowth in the sea resembles a second year in a lake, but only one undoubted two-years-in-lake\nindividual was observed.\nIt was found possible to determine age from the scales in a larger percentage of individuals\nthan was possible in other spawning localities. Both at Skookumchuck in the Lillooet River\nand at Pemberton on the Birkenhead between 40 and 50 per cent, of all specimens could be\ngrouped by age. This does not, however, give a reliable estimate of the relative numbers of\nfour- and of five-year fish present. With imperfect scales, the age of five-year fish is more readily\ndetermined than of four-year fish. Four-year scales cannot be determined unless some portion\nof the original margin of the scale is preserved, thus demonstrating that a fifth year's growth\nhad not been present when the scale was intact. But five-year scales are unmistakably such in\neases where not only the margin but the entire fifth summer's growth has been lost. If the\nlast winter's band of crowded rings is present beyond the growth of the fourth summer, or any\npart of such band, the fish was evidently in its fifth year. The practical absence of six-year\nfish of the one-year-in-lake type in the Fraser River facilitates this determination.\nIn 108 specimens from Skookumchuck, the age was ascertained in fifty-four, or exactly\none-half. Thirty-four of these were in their fourth year (twelve males and twenty-two females)\nand twenty were in their fifth year (twelve males and eight females). In 180 specimens from\nthe Birkenhead, age could be determined in seventy-eight, or 43 per cent. Of these, forty-one\nwere in their fourth year (three males and thirty-eight females) and thirty-seven in their fifth\nyear (twenty-one males and sixteen females). If these proportions were reliable, we should\nhave 37 per cent, of five-year fish at Skookumchuck and 47 per cent, at Pemberton, the percentage\nfor both localities being 43. As stated above, this percentage is too high. The minimum percentage of five-year fish can be obtained by assuming that all the undetermined individuals were\nfour-year fish, which reduces the proportion to 19 per cent. Obviously, this extreme assumption\ncannot be justified. If one-fifth of the undetermined Individuals were five-year fish, there would\nbe slightly over 30 per cent, of five-year fish in the Birkenhead-Lillooet section, and this must be\nconsidered a fairly satisfactory estimate. The percentage of five-year fish of the one-year-in-lake\n\"type in the total run, as determined by samples takeii frequently throughout the season at\nEsquimalt, was 23, and these ran largely in the early part of the season. The percentage during\nJune and the first half of July was higher than that indicated.\nPitt Lake.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Over 200 specimens were examined from Pitt Lake, and of these only twenty-five\ncould have their age determined. These proved to be in their fifth year in every instance except\none, the latter having spent two years in the lake as a fingerling and having returned from the\nsea in its sixth year. Reference to Table I. indicates that the sizes of the Pitt Lake spawners\nwere similar to those from Morris Creek and Birkenhead, the majority ranging from 25% to\n29% inches, with an average of 27.7 in the males, and from 23 to 27, with average at 25.4 in\nthe females. These averages are in the case of the males much higher than for five-jTear males\ntaken from the main run in salt water (26.3) ; while the average for females agrees exactly\nwith that obtained from five-year females taken in the Vancouver Island traps. It is our belief\nthat practically all of the Pitt Lake run was made up of fish in their fifth year.\nThe lot proved most homogeneous. The nuclear regions represented a fresh-water growth\nobviously under highly favourable conditions, though as fingerlings they had failed to attain\nas large a size as did the fingerlings in Morris Creek. The nuclear rings are bold, firm, well\nspaced, closely parallel, and regular. The number of rings, as seen in Table II., ranges from\nthirteen to twenty-one, with mode at seventeen, much lower than Morris Creek. One individual\nhas as few as ten rings; another as many as twentjT-three. It is a well-marked race. Figs. 22,\n23, and 24 illustrate the nuclear regions of characteristic scales from this region. Like the\nMorris Creek race, the first year's growth in the sea is large and vigorous. 9 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nX 33\nTable I.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Male Sockeyes, examined on their Spaivning-beds, 1918, distributed by\nLengths and by Locality.\nInches.\n17%\n18 .\n18%\n19 .\n19%\n20 .\n20%\n21 .\n21%\n22 .\n22%\n23 .\n23%\n24 .\n24%\n25 .\n25%\n26 .\n26%\n27 .\n27%\n28 .\n28%\n29 .\n29%\n30 .\n30%\n31 .\n3\n4\n5\n14\n16\n20\n22\n18\n19\n10\n8\n5\n5\n1\n2\n3\n3\n2\n2\n4\n8\n24\n24\n34\n11\n8\n1\n1\nCC! 033\n-J-S\n1\n1\n1\ni\nl\n3\n7\n7\n17\n13\n30\n8\n16\n6\n7\n3\n1\n3\n3\n21\n5\n9\n7\n12\n4\n6\n4\n1\n1\n3\n7\n6\n15\n7\n8\n3\n2\n5\n1\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Female Sockeyes examined on their Spawnhig-beds, 1918,\nby Lengths and by Locality.\ndistributed\nInches.\n4)\nc\n'Jl\nU\no\n\W\no it\nII\nU OJ\na\no .\n013 013\nB2\nfi a\nEm\nA3 \u00C2\u00A3\nOi 03,\nHrl\nCJ\nOD\nCC!\nCJ\nfl\na\no\nr*i\nr.\ns\nOJ\nBr.\nCjrH\nS cc\nB o\nAS O\nS3\nVI \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n'?o\ncj cj\nCJm\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2jo\na .\n5\"\nCC O\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0S3\n20 \t\n20% \t\n21 \t\n21% \t\n22 \t\n22% \t\n23 \t\n23% \t\n24 \t\n24% \t\n1\n2\n5\n9\n10\n23\n29\n40\n41\n33\n35\n12\n10\n3\no\ni\ni\ni\n3\n5\n1\n5\n1\n1\ni\n1\ni\nl\n8\n8\n20\n15\n6\n4\n1\nl\n12\n9\n24\n17\n26\n17\n6\ni\nl\n2\n4\n12\n6\n20\n14\n14\n7\n9\n2\n2\n1\n1\ni\ni\n4\n2\n6\n1\n12\n3\n4\n1\n5\n1\n2\n1\n2\ni\nl\nl\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\ni\nl\n4\n3\n5\n9.\n25 \t\n25% \t\n26 \t\n26% \t\n27\t\n27% \t\n28 \t\n28% \t\n29 \t X 34\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable III.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes examined on their Spawning-beds, 1918, distributed by Number\nof Nuclear Rings and by Locality.\nNo. of Rings.\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n11\n20\n21\n27\n22\n14\n10\n9\n6\n3\n2\n2\nCJ Cr,\nCC! OJ\n2\n3\n6\nS\n12\n11\n6\n5\n3\n1\n6\n13\n15\n10\n19\n14\n8\n7\n10\n3\nas\n3 o\n9\n20\n11\n9\n11\n12\n6\n1\n\u00C2\u00A3G\nThe Chilcotin River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It was with difficulty that any material was obtained from this\ndistrict. Mr. Babcock and the writer spent August 21st to 23rd at Hanceville and Alexis Creek.\nOne specimen only was seen at Alexis Creek, while at Hanceville, although dipping was constantly iu progress, only eighteen individuals were taken. At Fish Canyon, near the mouth of\nthe Chilcotin, on August 24th and 25th, thirty freshly caught sockeyes were examined, and\nportions of the skin containing scales were dissected off from sixty-two fish found drying on\nthe racks. In the case of the dried specimens we could obtain no reliable measurements and\nno record of sex. But the history of the individuals is, of course, found equally recorded on the\nscales. Such material, in default of better, may be availed of for the present purpose.\nA cursory examination of the Chilcotin material would be sufficient to demonstrate that it\nis totally distinct from any of the spawning runs investigated in the part of the Fraser River\nbasin which lies below the canyon. No single specimen from the Chilcotin agrees with the\nHarrison Rapids colony in having migrated to salt water in its first year. All had spent at least\none year in the fresh-water lakes before descending to the sea. Furthermore, a considerable\nproportion of the Chilcotin fish (from 35 to 40 per cent, of the whole) had spent two full years\nas fingerlings in their lake. This is a very significant fact, in view of the almost total absence\nof representatives of this group from the Harrison watershed and the Pitt during the season\nof 1918. Obviously there is wide variation from year to year in the extent to which fingerlings\nin the same spawning area will tarry in the lake for a second year. Thus, as has been shown\nin our report for 1916 (page 51), the two-years-in-lake type was abundantly represented in the\nBirkenhead, where they constituted 10 per cent, of the run. But only one specimen was found\nin 1918 among 288 examples from Skookumchuck and Pemberton.\nOnly 6 per cent, two-years-in-lake fish were found in the Chilcotin in 1916. It seems evident\nthat the occurrence of this type in some abundance is more probable within certain spawning\nareas than in others; but extensive fluctuations occur in successive years. From such evidence\nas is before us, it would seem that in 1918 the members of this group were exclusively bound for\nthe Chilcotin, and perhaps other spawning-grounds above the Yale Canyon. Their distribution 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 35\nin the main run becomes then a matter of special interest. Referring to our Esquimalt records,\nwe find this class sparingly represented during the early part of June, but the number increasing\nduring the month, until on June 2Sth it constituted 14 per cent, of the whole. Up to this point\nthe history of 1918 exactly parallels that of 1916. On July 2nd they constituted 12 per cent.;\nJuly 10th, 3.5 per cent.; July 14th, 9 per cent.; July 18th, 9 per cent.; July 21st, 11 per cent.;\nJuly 25th, 11 per cent.; July 29th, 13 per cent.; August 2nd, 5.5 per cent.; August 4th, 5.5 per\ncent.: August 8th, 5.5 per cent.; August 11th, 2 per cent.; and subsequent dates occasionally\nwith one specimen, but usually without any. The striking difference between 1918 and 1916,\nas regards the run of the two-years-in-lake type, lies in the heavier early run in 1918 and the\nalmost total disappearance of these forms in the latter part of August. Oil August 10th, 1916,\n10 per cent, and on August 27th 10 per cent, of the run belonged to this class. It seems highly\nprobable that the numerous late-running individuals in 1916 were bound to streams below the\ncanyon.\nThe material obtained at Fish Canyon did not differ in any respect from that obtained\nhigher up-stream at Hanceville. The nuclear areas of the scales are characteristically marked\nwith slender rings, not greatly crowded, nor widely spaced. The rings are fairly regular and\nin general parallel, but the individual rings are frequently broken and interrupted. Figs. 14 fo\n20 present characteristic centres of Chilcotin scales, the majority of these from the two-years-in-\nlake form.\nThe first year's growth in the sea usually averages small, with the scale-rings often crowded\nand irregularly spaced, indicating partial checks in the middle of the growing season. Variations\nare found in this regard, as is always the case, but the general picture is of a single spawning\ntype, displaying not more than the usual amount of variation. Two forms can be roughly\ndistinguished, one with large, the other with small nuclear regions, and these two exist among\nthose individuals that spent two years in the lake as well as among those that migrated seawards\nin their second spring. No other differences have been detected between the two groups. Those\nwith the larger type nucleus may have been the first to hatch. Intermediate individuals are\nfound.\nIt was impossible to determine the age in the majority of the specimens. In thirty-three\nout of a total of 108 the scale was complete at some point on the margin, and made it possible\nto ascertain in each case that the fish when captured was in its third year since entering the\nsea. Those of the one-year-in-lake type were all in their fourth year; those of the two-years-\nin-lake type were in their fifth year. Both types had spent an equal period on the sea-feeding\ngrounds and had reached essentially the same size. A comparison of length-frequencies of\nChilcotin fish (Table I.) with those of Pitt Lake, Morris Creek, and the Birkenhead will show\nthe much smaller range in size of the Chilcotin material. We failed to find evidence of five-year\nfish (one-year-in-lake type) in the Chilcotin, either in 1916 or in 1918; or of six-year fish (.two-\nyears-in-lake type), although numerous examples of these six-year fish are known to have entered\nthe mouth of the river in June and July.\nThe Quesnel River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094No material was obtained from the Quesnel River. Mr. Babcock and\nthe writer visited the dam and flshway at the outlet of Quesnel Lake on September 3rd and 4th.\nNo salmon had been observed to enter the fishway, and only two or three which we did not\nsecure were seen in the pool at the foot of the race. No run was reported at any later date.\nSpecimens were secured, mainly from drying-racks, at Chimney Creek Bridge and at Soda\nCreek, points on the main river between the mouths of the Chilcotin and the Quesnel. It might\nbe assumed with some justice that the majority, if not all, of these fish were headed for the\nQuesnel. Along the river between Quesnel and Fort George no success appeared to attend\nfishing at any point. Here aud there we could learn of the capture of a few strays, but that\nwas all. Yet it Is hazardous to adopt conclusions based on evidence of this nature. Some\nproportion of the Soda Creek and Chimney Creek fish were undoubtedly bound up-river beyond\nthe Quesnel. What the relative numbers were it is impossible to estimate. The same kind of\nevidence that would convince us no fish were running in the upper river can also be adduced\nto demonstrate that none entered the Quesnel.\nThe material secured at Chimney Creek Bridge and at Soda Creek was clearly different\nfrom that obtained in the Chilcotin. For one point of distinction, there were few individuals\nof the two-years-in-lake type. Out of a total of seventy-one specimens, only five, or 7 per cent.,\nwere of this class, which constituted 35 per cent, of the Chilcotin fish. This abrupt change from X 36 Report of the Commissioner op Fisheries. 1919\nthe mouth of the Chilcotin in the few miles to Soda Creek could have only one meaning.\nA distinct body of fish, developed from fry which had been hatched in the Chilcotin, had entered\nthat river. Other minor differences marked the nuclear portions of the scales from fish taken\nabove the mouth of the Chilcotin\u00E2\u0080\u0094differences which hardly lend themselves to description, as\nthey appear in the ever-varying material, but nevertheless in a composite image are found to\nhave a certain distinctness and an unquestioned significance. The nuclear rings are on the\naverage more closely crowded, while the number of rings remains about the same, ranging widely\nfrom seven to twenty-one, with the mode at ten. The first year's growth in the sea is small,\nand the individuals are all of those sizes which characterize Fraser River sockeyes that have\nspent three years at sea. The condition of the scales permitted us to ascertain the age of but\none specimen, a four-year fish, but we entertain no doubt that all the individuals observed had\nspent three years at sea, and were either in their fourth or fifth year, depending on whether\nas fingerlings they had remained one year or two years in fresh water. Fig. 21 presents for\ncomparison the centre of the scale of a Soda Creek specimen.\nFraser River Canyon above Yale.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fifty specimens were obtained from natives dipping in\nthe canyon and above, as far as Lytton. Inasmuch as it is supposed no sockeyes entered the\nThompson in 1918, and the Seton-Anderson section was wholly bare of spawning-fish, it would\nbe natural to assume that sockeyes captured in the canyon above Yale were all bound for the\nChilcotin and the Quesnel, and would wholly resemble the fish captured at Fish Canyon and\nChimney Creek. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Yale Canyon fish averaged much\nlarger than the up-river fish, and contained a considerable proportion of five-year individuals,\nof which not one was detected above. Apparently some 30 per cent, of the fish dipped in the\ncanyon were five years old, a much larger percentage than was at any part of the run entering\nthe mouth of the river. The destination of these five-year sockeyes is a question of much\nimportance. The only direct evidence we have is derived from two specimens, the only material\nobtained from the Thompson River\u00E2\u0080\u0094one taken two miles east of Lytton on the Thompson; the\nother at Thompson Siding, nine miles east of Lytton. Both of these are five years old, one\n24 the other 26 inches long, and both females. Only four of the fifty are of the two-years-in-lake\ntype, so we could not be dealing to any considerable extent with Chilcotin material. Furthermore, many of the nuclear regions of the scales are of the robust type, with strong, bold, parallel\nridges, quite different from the delicate slender-ringed nuclei of the upper river. Figs. 25 to 28\nillustrate certain of the types of scales characterizing the sockeyes taken in Yale Canyon and\nabove, while Fig. 29 is from the Thompson.\nWe. can apparently not escape the conclusion that a large proportion of these canyon fish,\ntaken during the month of August, were bound up the Thompson River. Certainly they were not\nbound for the Chilcotin or the upper district. Although few in number, they were concentrated\nin the canyon, but when they reached the quiet waters above the canyon, and afterwards scattered\nover the immense Shuswap-Adams district, they were wholly lost to sight. If this inference is\ncorrect, it gives us the first glimpse of the Thompson race or races. The suggestion that these\nfish, like those spawning below the canyon, may in considerable numbers attain five years of\nage is an interesting one, and must be taken into account in all discussions of the four-year\ncycle and the striking variation in the proportion of the age-groups in the Fraser River.\nBridge River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094No material was obtained from the stretch of the Fraser between the mouth\nof the Thompson at Lytton and the outlet to Seton Lake at Lillooet. Above Lillooet, at Bridge\nRiver, fifty specimens were obtained from August 21st to September Sth, and proved on examination to contain a mixture of the type found in the Chilcotin at Fish Canyon, together with that\nsecured above the Chilcotin in the main Fraser at Chimney Creek Bridge and at Soda Creek.\nThe Chilcotin type predominated. Twenty-six per cent, were constituted of two-years-in-lake\nfish. The sizes ran low and the entire assemblage was markedly different from that taken at\nthe same period and earlier in the month of August in the Yale Canyon. One specimen, a male\n27 inches long, was in its fifth year, but all the others were of smaller size and apparently\nfour-year fish. The nuclear rings of those of the one-year-in-lake form ranged from twelve\nto twenty-one, the smaller sizes predominating, and largely concentrated between thirteen and\nseventeen; the mode at sixteen. Those of the two-years-in-lake type have the rings of the first\nyear ranging from six to eleven; those of the second year from twelve to twenty. 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 37\nII. THE FRASER RUN OF 1918.\nIn our report for 1916 we remarked: \" The run of sockeye salmon to the Fraser River in\n1916 was the poorest known.\" In 1917 we were obliged to record the disappearance of the big\nyear of the cycle from Fraser River runs, with no prospect of its recovery. And in 1918 the\nrun reaches still lower dimensions than in 1916, the total catch on Puget Sound being 50,617\ncases and in Canadian waters 20,955 cases, a total of 71,572 cases. This is but six-tenths' the\ncatch of 1916, the poorest previous year.\nThe brood-years for 1918 were 1913 for the five-year fish and 1914 for those in their fourth\nyear, the four-year fish largely predominating, as is customary in the Fraser River. 1.913 was\nthe big year of that cycle, but big years are now known to owe their magnitude to four-year\nfish hatched in the upper waters of the Fraser, in tributaries which produce few or no five-year\nfish. The tributaries of the Eraser which are responsible for five-year fish lie below the Yale\nCanyon, with the possible exception of the Thompson River, and have never experienced large\nincreases in the size of the run during the big years of the cycle. W-e would have no reason to\nexpert, therefore, any unusual influx of five-year fish in 191S because of its relation to 1913. On\nthe other hand, the 1913 run to the Lillooet Lake section, which supports the Pemberton Hatchery\non the Birkenhead, the most important spawning stream of the Harrlson-Lillooet section of the\nriver, was distinctly poorer than in any big year since the hatchery had been established there.\nThe history of 1913 gave no grounds for hope of any large number of five-year fish in 1918.\nThe four-year fish were hatched from the 1914 brood stock, which would be considered of\nmore than average size for an off-year if we relied on the figures for the commercial returns\n(555,557 cases). On inspecting the reports from the spawning-grounds presented by Mr. Babcock\nfor 1914, we find, however, that serious obstructions in the canyon above Yale prevented the\nascent of the salmon during the greater part of August, and hampered them greatly at other\nportions of the run. The result was what might have been anticipated. The numbers that\nreached the up-river spawning-grounds were everywhere greatly reduced. Fewer sockeye reached\nthe Chilcotin than during any other recorded year. The run at Quesnel Lake was one of the\npoorest since the fishway was built in 1903, the total number that entered the lake being too\nsmall to make any noticeable showing there. Only a few hundred reached the Seton-Anderson\nLake section, and the run to the Shuswap-Adams District was distinctly light. There was a fair\nrun to Lillooet Lake and a rather small run to the Harrison.\nThis review of the situation is given to show how hazardous it is to predict future runs\nsolely on the basis of the number of cases packed during the brood-years. This cannot be\ndepended on to give reliable data on the number of fish that will succeed in spawning. A careful\nstudy of the conditions described on the spawning-beds of the Fraser in 1913 and 1914 by\nMr. Babcock would have prepared us for a decidedly limited run in 1918, though perhaps it\nwould not have foreshadowed the magnitude of the disaster.\nAge-groups.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In spite of the phenomenally small size of the run, the number of five-year fish\nshows no marked increase above the normal, although in other years of reduced run it has\nfrequently shown such increase. Taking into consideration those sockeyes only which remained\none year in the lake before passing to sea, we find the average percentage of five-year fish in\nthe run to have been 23 per cent, varying on different days of the run from 5 to 59 per cent.\nNo orderly sequence was observed, although in general the heavier percentages were found in\nJune and July. Striking changes in the relative proportions of age-groups in successive years\naccompanies violent alternations of good and bad years. In such cases we find the poor years\nin such a series are signalized on the Fraser by a high percentage of five-year fish. But when\nthe runs have declined almost uniformly to a low level, as seems now to be the case, the age-\ngroups regain their normal relations and remain about the same from year to year.\nSuccession of Types in the Run.\u00E2\u0080\u0094As in previous years, it was obvious in examining the takes\nof different dates in orderly sequence that changes were constantly occurring in the constitution\nof the run. On July 2nd and 10th, for example, two distinct types could be recognized, one with\na small nuclear region, containing most frequently eight to fourteen rings, usually with a band\nof intermediate rings outside it, and a small first year in the sea. The nuclear rings were fine,\ncrowded, and more or less broken, and numerous five-year fish were included in this series. The\ncharacteristics here given are so closely those of the Lillooet-Birkenhead race as to raise a\npresumption that the fish of this type were bound to that portion of the Fraser watershed. X 38\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nThe second type was marked by the large size of the nucleus, containing sixteen to twenty-\ntwo rings, and without distinct band of Intermediates surrounding it. The nuclear rings are\nboldly drawn and strong, well spaced, and not interrupted. The first year's growth in the sea\nis not reduced, with more or less crowded, irregularly spaced rings, as in the preceding type,\nand very few are in their fifth year. This second type apparently disappears abruptly about\nthe middle of July and is replaced by several partially recognizable strains, which, together\nwith type number one, form a very mixed assemblage. Figs. 30 to 34 Illustrate some of the\ndifferent forms which appear in this run.\nTables IV. to XL give the succession of sizes appearing on a series of dates, and indicate\nthat the average size increases during the advance of the season, largely by the disappearance\nof the smaller individuals included in the early part of the run. Taking into consideration only\nthe predominating class in the Fraser, which after hatching spends one full year (fifteen months)\nin the lake, the average sizes for the 1918 run are as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nLength, Weight,\nInches. Lb.\nFour-year males 24.9 6.5\nFour-year females 23.8 5.7\nFive-year males 26.3 7.5\nFive-year females 25.4 6.7\nFrom the above it appears the conditions on the feeding-grounds at sea were normal and\nan average growth was effected. Compare with Table XL, page 35 of Paper No. 3 (1915), of this\nseries.\nTable IV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Lengths\nand Dates of Capture.\nInches.\nrH\nOJ\na\n3\nl-o\n0\nCN\nOJ\nH\n0\nri\nCO\nID\noi\nI\"!\n\u00C2\u00A9\nrs\nre*'\nt-H\n3\nHe\nCO\nrH\n3\n>,\n3\n1-5\nto\nCM\nk.\n3\nHe.\nci\nCM\n>c\n3\nl-J\nci\nci\n3\nti\n3\n<\ncd\nsi\n3\nti\n3\nCO\nrH\n3\n06\nri\nti)\n3\n<\nCO\nCM\nti\n3\n<\nCD\nCN\nti\n3\n<\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n23 \t\n4\n2\n5\n1\ni\n1\n3\n2\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n2\n5\n1\n1\n3\n1\n4\n7\n6\n1\n2\n\t\n26\n2\n5\n3'\n1\n2\n1\n\t\n16\n2\n4\n4\n4\n3\n3\n1\n3\n2\n3\n1\n1\n'4'\n4\n4\n1\n4\n1\n3\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n23% \t\n1\n1\n1\n4\n1\n2\n1\n1\n6\n5\n6\n4\n1\n3\n2\n10\n5\n1\n2\n3\n6\n.3\n7\n3\n1\n,1\n94 \t\n1\n2\n?,\n24% \t\n4\n3\n5\ns\n1\n12\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n25 . \t\n3\n25% \t\n2\n26 . \t\n?6Vo\n27 . .\n1\n19\n17\n2\n16\n2\n19\nTotals \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n5\n18\n7\n12\n10\n23\n22\n25\n12\n27\n3\n7 9 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nX 39\nTable V.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Females, Esquimalt, 1918, distributed by Lengths\nand Dates of Capture.\nInches.\nri\nCJ\na\n3\n1-5\n\u00C2\u00A9'\nCM\nCJ\n3\n3\n1-5\ncd\nCM\nOJ\na\n3\nri\nci\nt\u00C2\u00BB\n3\n1-5\nd\nrH\nr-.\n3\n1-5\nrj!\nrH\nJ-?\n3\n1-5\nCO\nrH\n3\n1-5\nT-i\nCI\n3\n1-5\nIO\nCN\n3\n1-5\nd\nCM\n>/\n3\nro\ncm'\nto\n3\n<1\n-,\nro\nod\nrH\n>>\n3\n1-5\nCI\nr>\n10\nCI\n>>\n3\nr-3,\nd\nCI\n>>\n3\n1-5\nci\nto\n3\n<\n-*>\nto\n3\nCO\nto\n3\n<\nti\n3\nCO\nrH\nto\nd\nrH\nto\nCO\nCI\nto\n3\n<5\nd\nCI\nM\n3\n22 \t\n22% \t\nv\n23 \t\n23% \t\n1\n24 \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n2\n1\n1\n25 \t\n1\n2\n1\n4\n3\ni'\n3\n2\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\nT\n1'\n2\n1\n1\n25% \t\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n26 \t\n1\n1\n26% \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n27 \t\n1\n1\na\n2\n1\n27% \t\n3\n28 \t\n1\n28%\n1\n1\n11\n29 \t\nTotals \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n11\n13\n\t\n8 1 4\n9\n4\n6\n1\n7\n4\n2\n1\n2\n2 X 10\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable VII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Females, Esquimalt, 1918, distributed by Lengths\nand Dates of Capture.\nInches.\nt-\nrH\nCJ\na\na\n1-5\nd\nCM\n0\na\nhs\ncd\nCl\na\na\nI?\nci\nrt\nd\n003\n>>\nr->\nCO\nHe!\nCI\na\n1-5\nIO\nCI\n3\nHe\nd\nCI\n>c\n3\nH5\nci\n. to\n3\nto\n4\nod\nto\n<\nrH\nto\n3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2<\nCO\nrH\nCO\n3\n<\nd\nto\n<\nCO\nCI\n60\n3\nd\nCI\nto\n3\n<\n22 \t\n1\n22% \t\n23 \t\n23% \t\n1\n1\n2\n24 . \t\n1\n1\n2\n3\n2\n2\n2\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n24% \u00E2\u0080\u00A2.\t\n1\n2\n25 \t\n1\n2\ni\n1\n1\n3\n2\n2\n1\n2\n2\n1\n25% \t\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n26 \t\n1\n1\n2\n26% \t\n1\n1\n1\n27 \t\n2\n271/, . - .\t\n1\n6\nTotals \t\n2\n5\nS\n5\n7\n1\n4\n\t\n2\n2\n4\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n3\n1\nTable VIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Weights\nand Dates of Capture.\nPounds.\nc\n3\n3\nHe\nd\nCI\nCO\na\nHe\nod\nCI\nCJ\na\n3\nHe\nci\nt\u00C2\u00BB\n3\nHe\nd\nrH\na\nHe\nr-i\n>,\n3\nHj\nod\n3\nHe\nCI\n>>\n3\nHe\nid\nCl\nci\nCI\n_C-c\n3\nHe\nci\nti\na\nr*'\nto\n<\nGO\nto\nCO\nri\nti\n3\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\"1\nd\nrH\nti\na\n<\nCO\nCI\nto\n3\nCD\nCI\nti\n3\n\u00C2\u00AB!\n3 \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n8\n1\n1\n1\n3%\t\n4 \t\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n5\n3\n2\n2\n1\nixe, \t\n1\n1\n1\n5 \t\n6\n6\n1\n4\n1\n2\n4\n3\n1\n2\n2\n1\n4\n4\n5\n4\n1\n1\n2\n1\n5\n1\n1\n1\n5\n2\n1\n2\n1\n8\n4\n5\n2\ni\n1\n9\n1\n8\n2\n1\n2\n4\u00C2\u00BB\n4\n5\n6\n3\n5% '\t\n5\ni\nl\n4\n1\n4\n4\n2\n2\n2\n5\n5\n7\n1\n3\n3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n2\n9\n4\n10\n2\n1\n1\n1\ni\n1\n6 \t\n1\n6% \t\n0\n1\nt-U, \t\n'>.\n8 \t\n8% \t\n9 \t\n9% \t\n1\n26\n1\n19\nTotals \t\n5\n18\n7\n19\n16\nIT\n16\n12\n10\n23\n22\n25\n12\n27\n3\n7 9 Geo. 5\nLife-history\" of Sockeye Salmon.\nX 41\nTable IX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Females, Esquimalt, 191.8, distributed by Weights\nand Dates of Capture.\nPounds.\nrH\nCJ\na\na\nHe\nd\nCM\nOJ\na\n3\nHe\nod\nCN\nCJ\na\n3\nHe\nci\n3\nHe\nd\nri\n>3\n3\nHe\n-*'\nrH\n3\nHe\nod\nrH\n3\nHS\nCI\n3\nHe\nLO\nCt\n>,\n3\nro\nd\nCI\n>>\n3\nHe\nCM*\nto\n<\nti\n<1\nod\nti\n3\n<\nH\nti\n3\n<\nCO\nrH\nti\n3\nO\nd\nto\n3\nCO\nCI\nti\n3\n<\nd\nCI\nti\n3\n<\nCO\na\nCJ\n02\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0ii/\u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n1\n6\n4\n7\n1\n2\n4\n1\n6\ni\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n3\n2\n4. \t\n5\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n7\n1\n3\ni\n3\n4\n2\n5\n2\n2\n5\n2\n4\n6\n2\n5\n3\n8\n2\n1\n3\n6\n3\n5\n3\n4\n5\n7\n7\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\ni\n1\nio'\n6\n3\n1\n2\n1\n4\n4\n7\n2\n1\n8\n2\n4\n1\n1\n514 \t\n1\n2\n4\n2\n7\n5\n5\n6 \t\ni\n2\n1\n1\n6% \t\n1\n7% \t\n8 \t\n1\n8% \t\n9 \t\nl\n9% \t\ni Totals\n10\n21\n12\n12\n16\n19\n15\n21\n17\n28\n9\n21\n20\n17\n9\n18\ni\n3\n6\nTable X.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Males, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Weights\nand Dates of Capture.\nPounds.\nrH\nCJ\na\na\nHe\nd\nCI\nOJ\na\n3\nHe\nod\nCI\nCJ\nfl\n3\nHe\nci\n>>\n3\nHj\nd\nrH\nH5\n>>\n3\nHe\nod\n>>\n3\nHe\nci\n6c.\nIrs\nLO\nCI\n>c\n3\nHe\nd\nCI\n3\nHe\nci\nto\n3\nto\n<\n00\nto\n-5J\nrH\nto\n3\n-<1\ncd\ntH\n60\na\n<\nd\nrH\n60\n3\nCO\nCI\n60\n<\noi\nCM\nto\n3\n<\n4V\u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n1\n1\n2\nKy\u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n1\n6 \t\n2\n1\n2\n3\n3\n2\nY\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\nRU, \t\n1\n6\n1\n4\n1\n3\n2\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\ni\n1\n1\n7 \t\nVV, \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n8 \t\n1\n8% \t\n1\n9 \t\n1 '\n2\n3\n9% \t\n1\n2\n1\n10 \t\n10% \t\n1\n11 \t\n11% \t\n1\n11\nTotals \t\n4\n11\n13\nS\n4\n9\n4\n6\n1\n7\n4\n2\n1\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2>, X 42\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable XI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Five-year Females, Esquimau, 1918, distributed by Weights\nand Dates of Capture.\nPounds.\n7-i\nOJ\na\na\nHe\nd\nCN\nCJ\na\n3\nHe\nod\nCI\ncc\na\n3\nHe\nci\n3\nHe\nd\nrH\n>c\n3\n1-5\nrH\n>c\n3\nH5\ncd\nrH\n>,\n3\nHe\nCI\n>>\n3\nH5\nfl\nt-s\nd\nCl\n>c\n3\nHe\nci\nto\n3\n<1\n^'\nto\n5,\nod\nto\n3\n0\nto\n3\n<1\nCO\nrH\nto\n3\n\nPercentage.\nFour and Five\nYears old.\n5 yrs. 79%\n4 yrs. 21%\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n20%\n80%\n65%\n35%\n87%\n13%\n76%\n24%\n67%\n33%\n57%\n43%\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1907 (87,874 cases).\n1908 (64,652 cases).\n1909 (89,027 cases).\n1910 (126,921 cases).\n- 1911 (88,763 cases).\n[ 1912 (112,884 cases).\nI 1913 (61,745 cases).\n1914 (89,890 cases).\nTable XIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring at Different Dates in\nthe 1918 Run.\nDates, 191$.\nPercentages of\nFive-year Fish.\nNumher of\nSpecimens\nexamined.\nJune 27\t\n7\n19\n25\n32\n37\n64\n59\n69\n44\n59\n54\n75\n., 29 \t\n75\nJuly 2 \t\n75\n4 \t\n75\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10 \t\n75\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12 \t\n75\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\t\n75\n19 \t\n75\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23 \t\n70\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26 \t\n75\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 \t\n70\nTable XIV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Males and Females in Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring on Different\nDates, Season of 1918.\nd\nci\nCN\nTH\nrH\nrH\n>,\nr-.\n>>\nr-l\n3\n3\n3\n3\nro\nHe\nHe\nHe\n91\n98\n81\n59\n9\n2\n19\n41\n63\n92\n43\n50\n37\n8\n57\n50\nFour-year males\nFour-year females\nFive-year males\nFive-year females\n60\n40\n85\n15\n57\n43\n77\n23\n39\n61\n78\n22\n48\n52\n51\n49\n58\n42\n51\n49\n34\n66\n48\n42\n43\n67 X 44\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nAverage percentages\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFour-year males 71\nFour-year females 26\nFive-year males 53\nFive-year females 47\nAverage total males throughout season 66 per cent.\nAverage total females throughout season 34 \u00E2\u0080\u009E\nTable XV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeye, Run of 1918, grouped by Length, Age, and Sex.\n19 ..\n19%\n20 ..\n20%\n21 ..\n21%\n22 ..\n22%\n23 ..\n23%\n24 ..\n24%\n25 ..\n25%\n26 ..\n26%\n27 ..\n27%\n28 ..\nLength in Inches.\nTotals \t\nAverage length in inches\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nMales.\n1\n1\n6\n10\n50\n55\n69\n49\n35\n26\n31\n15\n7\n355\nFemales. Males.\nFive Years old.\n1\n4\n11\n23\n25\n9\n11\n8\n1\n2\n96\n22.5\n1\n4\n4\nS\n23\n20\n14\n'21\n17\n28\n15\n11\n4\n1\n171\n24.9\nFemales.\n1\n3\n17\n13\n39\n35\n25\n20\n16\n4\n2\n175\n24.5\nTable XVI.\n-Rivers Inlet Soclceye, Run of 1918, grouped by Weight, Age, an\nd Sex.\n3 ..\n3%\n4 ..\n4%\n5 ..\n5%\n6%\n7 ..\n7%\n8%\n9 ..\n9%\n10 ..\nWeight in Pounds.\nTotals \t\nAverage weight in pounds\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Y'ears old.\nMales..\n7\n42\n117\n77\n51\n30\n20\n355\n4.9\nFemales.\n3\n24\n34\n20\n9\nFive Years old.\n96\n5.1\n2\n11\n26\n24\n22\n29\n21\n15\n12\n5\n3\n1\n171\n6.7\n2\n20\n22\n46\n29\n26\n20\n6\n2\n1\n1\n175\n6.3 9 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. X 45\nIV. SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1918.\n(1.) General Characteristics and the Age-groups.\nThe Skeena River sockeye-pack for 1918 consisted of 123,322 cases, and ranks among the\nbest half-dozen years in the history of the industry. Coming as it does after two phenomenally\npoor years, it gives grounds for hope that the Skeena may not as yet be suffering the results\nof overfishing. Evidences of the decline of a run, with standardized fishing methods, are, however, generally of slow and irregular approach. The returns from this river should be most\ncarefully scrutinized.\nThe necessity for this is all the more evident for the reason that some important factor\nwhich must be largely concerned in determining the success or failure of the runs remains\nunknown to us. Attention has been repeatedly drawn to the total lack of relation between\nthe run of any year and the apparent size of the runs four and five years before. The year\n1918 presents a striking example of this lack of correlation. Its brood-years were 1913 and 1914,\nand as its five-year fish constituted 59 per cent, of the total run of 1918, the year 1913 was\nrelatively the most important. But 1913 was apparently the very poorest year the Skeena has\never experienced. The four-year fish derived from the 1913 run constituted only 38 per cent,\nof the run of 1917, which was but little better than 1913. There seemed no reason to anticipate\nthat 1913 would deliver five-year fish in 1918 far in excess of its entire yield of both four- and\nfive-year fish.\nThe nature of the unknown factor must be at present wholly a matter for conjecture. We\nhave called attention previously to the effect of boisterous weather on the commercial success\nof a season. A stormy summer is popularly supposed largely to diminish the proportion of\nsalmon captured. The number of cases packed during such a season might indicate a poor run,\nwhereas the run may have been above the average, and the escape to the spawning-beds unusually\nlarge. An attempt to correlate size of pack with weather conditions has not been made. It is\npossible that weather may exert a directly favourable or unfavourable influence on the size of\nthe run in any year, in addition to its effect on fishing operations. This also is a matter inviting\ncareful investigation.\nDuring previous years we have observed an extensive variation in the relative abundance of\nthe two-years-in-lake group. It has varied from 7 per cent, in 1914 to 27 per cent, in 1916, but\nin two of the four years in which this proportion has been determined it has been 14 and 15\nper cent. We have observed in other rivers a wide disparity in this regard between successive\nyears. Evidently, at times, a much larger percentage of the yearlings fail to migrate in their\nsecond spring than is usually the case. We have no clue to the significance of this change of\nhabit. It is perhaps to be sought in fluctuating conditions which in certain seasons are less\nfavourable to vigorous growth of the fingerlings than in other seasons. We have previously\ncalled attention to the fact that the larger sizes of yearlings migrate at the end of their first\nyear, while the smaller sizes more frequently remain behind for additional growth. If a racial\nhabit has been formed in a given river favouring migration seawards when a certain average\nstature has been attained, a much larger proportion of individuals may fail to reach it in one\nyear than in another.\nIn 1918 the Skeena River run contained what appears to be a fair average number of adults\nthat had when fingerlings spent two years in fresh water. Fifteen per cent, of the run belonged\nto this class. As shown in Table XVIII., 60 per cent, of these returned at the age of five and\n40 per cent, at the age of six. A tendency appears for the members of this group to run into\nthe river in larger numbers during the early part of the season, although this tendency is not\nso strongly marked as in the case of the five-year fish that as fingerlings spent only one year\nin the lake. As shown in the table, the individuals belonging to the latter group become proportionally less abundant during the latter half of July, while the four-year fish that have spent\nonly one year in fresh water become more abundant.\n(2.) Relative Numbers op Males and Females.\nA well-marked tendency for the males to precede the females was shown in 1918 in the\nSkeena, and is evidenced by Table XX., giving the proportions of the sexes in both four-year\nand five-year fish, taken at intervals of three or four days throughout the run. During the\ndates in June males were in excess of females generally in both groups, largely in excess in X 46\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nthe younger group, less so in the five-year contingent. In both groups, as the season progresses,\nthere is an obvious increase in the number of females at the expense of the males. During the\nlatter half of July the five-year females are greatly predominating, and the four-year females\nare nearly as abundant as the males of their class. Taking into consideration all the groups\npresent in the run, the one-year-in-lake and the two-years-in-lake groups, of all ages, we find\nthe males notably exceeding the females and constituting 57 per cent, of the entire run.\nConsidering the run as a unit and ignoring the fluctuations in its constitution from its origin\nto its close, we find the proportions of the sexes in the different groups, brought into comparison\nwith previous years, presented in Table XXI. The close correspondence in a series of years is\nmost striking, as is also the fact that the proportions of the sexes in 1918 represents in each\nof the groups the average for all the years of which we have, a record. AVe note again that\nmales predominate in both groups of the two-years-in-lake series. The five-year members have\na slightly higher percentage of males than the six-year class, but in both classes the males are\nconstantly in excess. It is not clear why the two years spent in fresh water in their early history\nshould have influenced them in this manner. We should have expected males to predominate\nin the five-year class, while females would be equally in excess with the six-year-olds.\n(3.) Lengths and Weights.\nThe following tables indicate that the size of Skeena River sockeyes in 1918 was fully up\nto the average observed over a series of years. The conditions at sea then had been favourable,\nand no adverse weather conditions had stunted growth during the late winter and early spring\nmonths of the spawning year. We again call attention to the comparatively unreliable averages\nfor fish of the two-years-in-lake group, due to the small size of these groups. The weights for\nthe year agree as closely as do the lengths. Comparing 1918 with 1915, we find the greatest\ndifference in the average weights for the various classes is two-tenths of a pound; while the\ngreatest difference in the average lengths equals two-tenths of an inch.\nTable XVII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Four- and Five-year Skeena River Sockeyes that spent One Year\nin Lake, in Runs of Successive Years.\nRun of the Year.\n1912 (92,498 cases) .\n1913 (52,927 cases) .\n1914 (130,166 cases)\n1915 (116,553 cases)\n1916 (60,923 cases) .\n1917 (65,760 cases) ,\n1918 (123,322 cases)\nPercentage.\nFour and Five\nYears old.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\nyrs.\nyrs.\nyrs.\nyrs.\nyrs.\nyrs.\n43%\n57%\n50%\n50%\n75%\n25%\n64%\n36%\n60%\n40%\n62%\n38%\n59%\n41%\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1907 (108,413 cases).\n1908 (139,846 cases).\n1909 (87,901 cases).\n1910 (187,246 cases).\n1911 (131,066 cases).\n1912 (92,49S cases).\n\ 1913 (52,927 cases).\nj\n1914 (130,166 cases). 9 Geo. 5\nLife-histori' of Sockeye Salmon.\nX 47\nTable XVIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Different Age-groups, Skeena River Sockeyes, found to constitute\nthe Run on a Succession of Dates, Season of 1918.\nDates, 1918.\nOne Year in Lake.\nFour Years old. Five Years old\nTwo Y'ears in Lake.\nFive Y'ears old. Six Years old\nJune 22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00C2\u00A3i\n33\n30\n27\n59\n46\n42\n44\n67\n76\n83\n82\n33\n55\n53\n48\n23\n48\n38\n39\n26\n13\n13\n16\n13\n6\n11\n11\n16\n3\n12\n14\n5\n11\n4\n27\n6\n6\n14\n2\n3\n8\n3\n2\nTable XIX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Relative Numbers in One-year-in-lake and Tico-years-in-laJce Groups, Skeena River\nSockeyes, 1918, on a Succession of Dates.\nDates.\nJune 22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\n60\n40\n88\n12\nS3\n17\n75\n25\n82\n18\n94\n6\n80\n20\n83\n17\n93\n7\n89\n11\n96\n4\n98\n2\nTable XX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Males and Females, One-year-in-lake Group, Skeena River Sockeyes,\n1918, on a Succession of Dales.\nFour Years.\nFive Years.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nJune 22 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\t\nJuly 1 \t\n4 \t\n8 \t\n61\n74\n94\n82\n59\n85\n67\n62\n63\n56\n44\n52\n39\n26\n6\n18\n41\n15\n33\n38\n37\n44\n56\n48\n61\n59\n46\n60\n53\n46\n. 46\n30\n12\n17\n33\n33\n39\n41\n54\n40\n47\n54\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 \t\n54\n70\n88\n83\n67\n67 X 48\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable XXI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Relative Numbers of Males and Females in Different Year-groups, Skeena River\nSockeyes, in a Series of Years.\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nYears.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n1912 \t\n1913 \t\n1914 \t\n1915 \t\n1916 \t\n1917 \t\n1918 \t\n54\n69\n60\n55\n70\n65\n63\n46\n31\n40\n45\n30\n35\n37\n42\n47\n47\n45\n43\n4S\n46\n58\n53\n53\n55\n57\n52\n54\n56\n65\n61\n44\n35\n39\n54\n58\n56\n46\n42\n44\nTable XXII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Run of 1918, One Year\nand Sex.\nLake, grouped by Length, Age,\nLength in Inches.\n21 \t\n21% \t\n22 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\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 length in inches\nNumber of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nMales. Females.\n8\n27\n35\n43\n39\n41\n9\n12\n1\n226\n24.1\n1\n3\n7\n21\n39\n23\n21\n9\n6\n2\n1\n133\n23.3\nFive Years old.\nMales. Females.\n25.8\n1\n4\n1\n3\n6\n19\n2\n22\n13\n41\n20\n20\n34\n16\n17\n6\n14\n2\n5\n1\n114\n133\n24.9 a\nfa\n*^et\n.\" CD\nh -a\nC3 rj\nW-5\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0.\u00E2\u0096\u00A0^^\nco \u00C2\u00A3\nfe S M S\n03 co\n5\nS V CO\na\n.2 fl\ntoO\nas\ns \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 .\n3^\na\u00C2\u00BB\n% a\nfe S -\nu.S\nOJ CD\n>-. fa Fig. 9. Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River, taken September 22nd, 1918.\nFemale, 21 inches long. -.\u00E2\u0096\u00A0-;. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2.v,i'....-.--..\u00E2\u0080\u00A2C.\u00C2\u00AB\\u00C2\u00BB'- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2-\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 - , \ \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\ns*XvV< \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 ->$&r- ir\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\".:'\nFig. 10. Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River taken September 7th, 1918.\nFemale, 24 inches long. Fig. 11. Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River, taken September 10th, 1918.\nFemale, 25 inches long. ///:\nFig. 12. Fraser River sockeye from the Birkenhead River, taken September 7th, 1918.\nFemale, 24 inches long. 3 6\nat 3\nCD ^0\n5 3\ng fl\n.\u00C2\u00A3 .M Ol\n\u00C2\u00AB5H\n. CD 00\nCO O rH\nrH 9 CD\n\u00C2\u00BB-l g \u00C2\u00AB\nO +J\ni-i \u00C2\u00ABJ\na. <]\nSS;$?Ss^\u00E2\u0080\u0094--\"\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nM <\nOl cD\na 5\nr* \u00C2\u00AE\n. 2\nE5 Fig. 16. Fraser River sockeye from Fish Canyon, Chilcotin River,\ntaken August 24th, 1918. Female, 28% inches long. vmfg\nFig\n17. Fraser River sockeye from Fish Canyon, Chilcotin River, taken August 25th, 1918.\nMale, 23*4 inches long. Fig. 18. Fraser River sockeye from Fish Canyon, Chilcotin River, taken August 24th, 1918. 3 co\n\":-3-u\"-\u00C2\u00BB \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \"*\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 **X\u00C2\u00BB ':'.=\"\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nXsc^XCi;:*;,',!- '\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2.\nJi&-.'c-I-:'-;\" \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n>SiV>xxx.x -\nt'X.X \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \"\n. X ^ -X '-\nM\n3\n<\nrH\nr3\nrH\na v.'\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\" \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 .-\"\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2-'X\"'\"\n* \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u00A2,.-Vt V**\u00C2\u00BB\u00C2\u00A3-St \u00E2\u0096\u00A0-'\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 '\u00E2\u0096\u00A0':\u00E2\u0096\u00A0'\n-...'.\"-.Otc\nS S8\nO ri\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0Z co-\nE\nX^\niililMi H .0\nPh M\n3\nbe rH a.\no, fe\n\u00C2\u00AB -\nto ti\n3.3 g\nj3 3\n3. .3\na .\nCD CD\nCO Jd\ncs ca\nfe \"\n. bo .\nca b u\nOl -O ri\n-O CD\nbiS ^\nfe bS\nO \u00C2\u00ABw\n80 G r'.^2\n9\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n6\n6\n3\n9\n9\n4\n0\n5\n2\ni\n4\n5\n3\n2\n1\n3\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\ni\n2\n1\n2\n3\n2\n3\n1\nTotal No...\n75\n70\n33\n49\n91\n79\n27\n13\n4\n11\nAve. length\n24.9\n24.1\n25.6\n24.7\n25.7\n24.8\n27.1\n25.0\n27.3\n25.4\nAve. weight\n6.2\n5.7\n7.1\n6.2\n7.1\n6.2\n8.2\n6.6\n8.1\n6.8\nTable XXIX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes which ran in August, 1918, grouped by Age, Sex, Length,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of Individuals that spent\nLength in\nInches.\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nThree Years in\nLake.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n92\n22% \t\n23 \t\n23% \t\n24 \t\n24% \t\n25 \t\n25% \t\n26 \t\n'i\n1\n1\ni\ni\ni\n\"2\n5\n6\n5\n- 2\n1\ni\n'5\n13\n6\n6\ni\ni\n4\n2\ni\n26% \t\n27 \t\n27% \t\n28 \t\n28% \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n4\n2\ni\n4\n1\nTotal No...\n3\n2\n22\n32\n6\n1\n11\n8\nAve. length\n25.5\n25\n26.4 1 25.2\n27.6\n26.5\n26.5\n26.1\nAve. weight\n7\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n7.2\n6.5\n8\n.5\n7.5\n7\n.8\n6.8 X 52\nKeport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable XXX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates\nin 1918.\n1918.\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Y'ears in Lake.\nThree Y'ears in -Lake.\nFour Years.\nFive Years.\nFive Years.\nSix Years.\nSix Years.\nSeven Years.\nJune 26 \t\nJuly 2 \t\n35\n27\n57\n43\n40\n27\n22\n22\n10\n5\n10\n2\n25\n14\n13\n37\n32\n22\n13\n19\n2\n9\n40\n59\n23\n12\n22\n37\n45\n49\n63\n61\n60\n68\n7\n6\n6\n14\n16\n8\n6\n18\n7\n9\n2\n4\n2\n19\n7\n23\n21\n8 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 \t\nAug. 2 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 5 \t 9 Geo. 5 Statement by Hon. Wm. Sloan. X 53\nSTATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES\nCOMMISSION BY THE HON. WILLIAM SLOAN, COMMISSIONER OF\nFISHERIES, AT THE VANCOUVER MEETING, 1918.\nGentlemen of the Commission,\u00E2\u0080\u0094As the Commissioner of Fisheries for the Province of\nBritish Columbia, I desire to comment briefly on the present precarious condition of the sockeye-\nsalmon fishery of the Eraser River. The watershed of that river and its channels lie wholly\nwithin the Province. From its watershed have come all but a fraction of the sockeye that have\nbeen taken in the waters contiguous to the International Boundary-line which separates the\nProvince of British Columbia and the State of Washington. From that watershed must continue\nto come the seaward migrants of sockeye which produce the commercial runs of sockeye to those\nwaters, because there is no other watershed tributary to those waters which affords sufficient\nspawning and rearing waters for sockeye salmon. The vast runs of former big years demonstrates the extent and the value of the runs that that watershed can produce. It is the greatest\nsockeye-producing watershed known. No other watershed has produced such vast numbers of\nsockeye. That watershed is to-day as capable as ever of producing the vast run of the past.\nIt has not been contaminated. Settlement, power and irrigation have not injured it in any\nway. It needs only to be protected to produce the great runs of the past. Its produce has been\nlessened\u00E2\u0080\u0094alm5st destroyed\u00E2\u0080\u0094because a sufficient number of spawning sockeye has not been\npermitted to reach it. The runs in the three last years have steadily decreased because too few\nof the adult salmon have escaped capture in Dominion and State waters; because of excessive\nfishing-too many have been captured. The run of the big year was further destroyed by a rock-\nslide blocking the river-channel at Hell's Gate in 3913.\nThat the runs in the three last years have been almost wiped out by commercial fishing and\nthat the run in the big year has been alarmingly decreased has been ably demonstrated by\nstatements already submitted to you. It is unnecessary here to more than call your attention\nto the evidence of depletion already in your hands. I do, however, accentuate the fact that\nthe evidence submitted to you by our Department is founded upon scientifically ascertained facts.\nThe watershed of the Fraser and the fishing areas supplied by It have been under close scrutiny\nsince 1901. No other has been so carefully observed. The history of the race of sockeye that\nfrequent the Fraser is better known than that of any other district. The facts are no longer\nquestioned. The run of sockeye to the Fraser is periously near to extermination. They will\nbe exterminated if conditions remain as they are, and in so short a period as to wipe out all\ninterests of both fishermen and Banners. In view of the evidence there is, in my judgment,\nbut one thing to do. Adopt measures that will ensure to the watershed all the sockeye that\nstill survive. To that end I would suggest that the total prohibition of sockeye-fishing in the\nwaters frequented by those produced in the Fraser River until such time as they have recovered\nfrom their depleted condition. I suggest this though it does involve compensation to resident\nfishermen and canners who can establish that they are entitled to compensation by their\nrespective Governments. It is fruitless to rely upon concurrent regulations in British Columbia\nand the State of Washington waters. That has been tried and failed. Such efforts will continue\nto fail. Present commercial and monetary considerations must be eliminated. It must be in\nan international way, because it is an international question. It is one of the greatest fishery\nquestions in which Canada and the United States are now concerned. The only adequate, the\nonly permanent solution of this question, I submit, is-the acquisition by Canada and the United\nStates of all the rights in this fishery of which they may not now be in possession. That being\nestablished, the waters should be closed to sockeye-fishing for such a period of time as is\nnecessary to restore the runs to the abundance of former big years. AVhen that has been\naccomplished, let fishing be resumed under supervision and for the benefit of the two nations\nuntil such time as they have been recouped for their expenditures, and thereafter in such manner\nand to the end that the supply may not again become depleted.\nI submit, gentlemen, that the Governments of Canada and the United States should recognize\nthat the conditions confronting them demand such treatment. There is no gainsaying the\nevidence. The watershed of the Fraser River will, when adequately protected, produce more X 54 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nsockeye salmon than any known watershed. It produced in 1913 2,300,000 cases. In the three\nfollowing lean years it produced an average of but 267,000 cases per year. Being in possession\nof a watershed capable of producing 2,300,000 cases a year, can any Government be content with\nconditions by which but 267,000 cases are produced, and the continuance of which will entirely\ndestroy any production whatever? The evidence in the case is conclusive\u00E2\u0080\u0094it is undisputed;\nthe fishery is in a precarious condition. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the\nremedies to be applied. I submit that those best qualified to speak have made it plain that no\ntemporary measures will produce desired results. The races of sockeye that frequent the Fraser\ncannot be restored by any half-way measure. To allow the destruction of the sockeye-flsheries\nof the Fraser River would be an unnatural, immoral, and unpatriotic policy.\nThe questions here involved are similar to those in the fur-seal case. They are international\nin character, and not Provincial or State questions, and must be dealt with upon broad national\nlines and in the interests of the people of Canada and the United States.\nFaithfully yours,\nWm. Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries for British Columbia.\nSTATEMENT MADE BY JOHN P. BABCOCK, ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, AT VANCOUVER\nMEETING OF THE AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERY CONFERENCE,\n1918.\nMb. Chairman and Gentlemen of the International Fisheries Commission,\u00E2\u0080\u0094The outstanding features of the salinoii-fishery of the Fraser River District, in my judgment, are the\ndepletion of the runs and the potentialities of the watershed. Because depletion has been shown,\nand is universally admitted, I shall confine attention to the latter.\nThe Watershed,\u00E2\u0080\u0094The watershed of the Fraser River contains a greater area of tributary\nfresh-water lakes than are found in any other on the Coast. The Fraser drains the major\nportion of the south-eastern section of the Province of British Columbia. Three of the largest\nlakes on the Pacific slope and five others of large area contribute their waters to the Fraser\nand afford spawning areas and rearing waters for a countless number of sockeye salmon. No\nother known watershed affords such an extended spawning area. No other watershed produced\nin a single year such vast numbers of sockeye. The great runs of 1901, 1905, 1909, and 1913\ndemonstrate the harvest that watershed will afford when abundantly seeded. The great catches\nof those years\u00E2\u0080\u0094ranging from 1,572,000 to 2,401,000 cases\u00E2\u0080\u0094demonstrates the number of fish that\nmay safely be taken without, injury to the runs of the future, because, notwithstanding such\ngreat catches, every section of the spawning area of the watershed was shown to have been\nabundantly seeded in 1901, 1905, and 1909, and there is evidence to show that its spawning area\nwould have been as abundantly seeded in 1913 but for an accident.\nSince 1901 I have made a study of conditions on the fishing and spawning grounds of the\nFraser River. I first inspected its spawning area in 1901. As the agent of the Provincial\nGovernment I have inspected that watershed during the spawning period every year since, with\nthe exception of the years 1910 and 1911. The annual publication of the Provincial Government\ncontains my yearly reports.\nAs the result of my inspections, I feel fully justified in submitting that the major portion\nof the great runs of 1905, 1909, and 1913 were the product of the sockeye that spawned in that\nsection of the watershed of the Fraser that lies north of the great canyon in the Coast ranges,\ncommonly termed \" the Fraser River Canyon.\" And that the major portion of the runs in the\nalternate years\u00E2\u0080\u0094the lean years\u00E2\u0080\u0094were the product of the sockeye that spawned in that section\nof the watershed that lies to the south and west of the Fraser River Canyon. In the discussion\nof this question the former is here termed the upper section of the Fraser River watershed,\nand the latter the lower section of the Fraser watershed. In my judgment, the great runs of 9 Geo.- 5 Statement by John P. Babcock. X 55\nthe big years have very largely consisted of fish propagated in the upper section, plus the\nnormal yearly product of the lower section. The runs in the alternate, or lean, years have\nbeen the normal yearly product of the lower section plus the small numbers produced in the\nlean years from the beds of the upper section.\nIn the big years 1901, 1905, and 1909 every spawning-bed in the upper section was crowded\nwith sockeye. They were found there in incredible numbers. The beds of that section in 1913\nshowed an alarming decrease. While over 4,000,000 sockeye were recorded as entering Quesnel\nLake in 1909, but 550,000 were shown to have entered that lake in 1913, and less than 2S,000 in\n1917. Furthermore, similar conditions were shown to have existed in all the lake districts of\nthe upper section in 1913 and 1917. The number of sockeye that reached the beds of the upper\nsection in 1917 were shown to have been very much less than in 1913, and little, if any, more\nnumerous than in some reeent lean years. The records of the upper section in 1913, and again\nin 1917, demonstrate that the conditions which produced the big runs in 1905, 1909, and 1913 no\nlonger exist, that the big year run has been destroyed, and that hereafter the runs of those years\nmust be classed with the runs in the lean years. In the alternate\u00E2\u0080\u0094the lean\u00E2\u0080\u0094years the spawning-\nbeds of the upper section were but sparingly seeded up to 1906 and have not been as well seeded\nsince. Gradually, with one or two exceptional years, the number of sockeye which reached the\nupper section in the lean years has notably declined. Every district in the upper section shows\na decline. Hatcheries located at Shuswap and Seton Lakes, the only hatcheries in the upper\nsection, have been closed because a sufficient number of sockeye have not reached those lakes\nin recent years to afford a supply of eggs. No eggs were or could have been collected at either\nof those lakes in the last .three years.\nPassing to the spawning area of the lower section of the Fraser, the record discloses that\nfrom 1901 to 1917 there was no pronounced increase in the- run in the big years over the run\nof the lean years. That there has been as many fish on those beds in the lean years as in the\nbig years. This is especially true of the runs to Lillooet and Harrison Lakes, the two great\nlakes of the lower section. The runs to this section have shown a steady decline. There were\nless sockeye in this section in 1917 than in any former year, big or lean, on record, and less eggs\nwere secured for the hatcheries.\nBecause the bulk of the run of the big years issues from the upper section of the watershed,\nand because there has been no noticeable increase in the number of sockeye on the beds of the\nlower section in those years, it appears that the condition which originally brought about the\nphenomenon of the big run and the three following small runs of sockeye to the Fraser was of\nsuch a character as to have affected only the run to the upper section and yet did not affect the\nrun to the lower section.\nBecause the run to every lake district of the upper section was equally affected we are\nwarranted in assuming that the point of obstruction was located below the junction of the\nThompson and the Fraser Rivers. Because the run was affected for three years only, it is\nassumed that the barrier, or blockade, was of such a character as to have affected the run in\nthose years only and did not affect the run in the fourth year; that in the fourth year it had\nworn away or been removed by high water to an extent that permitted the run of that year\nto reach the spawning-beds of the upper section.\nThe channel of the Fraser through the canyon extending from Yale to Cisco is exceedingly\nnarrow at many points. Towering cliffs of rock line its banks. A rock-slide such as the one\nthat occurred in that canyon, at Hell's Gate, in 1913 could easily have produced a similar result\nat an earlier period of time, and just as effectively cut off the run for a number of years as the\nslide of 1913 would have done had it not been removed by the Dominion Government in 1914.\nGreat as was the slide of 1913, it did not cut off all of the early run of sockeye of that year.\nOwing to extreme high water in July numbers of sockeye were enabled to pass through, as was\ndemonstrated by the fish reaching Quesnel and Chilko Lakes.\nAssuming, then, that we have here a reasonable theory of the origin and the nature of the\nbarrier that cut off the sockeye from the spawning area of the upper section of the Fraser which\nresulted in the phenomenon of the one big year and three lean year runs of sockeye, let us\nspeculate as to the extent of its effect upon the runs of the three lean years. The barrier may\nhave been sufficient to have cut off a portion of the run only, or it may have cut off the entire\nrun. If a portion of the run at extreme high or low water was enabled to pass, that portion\nwould have furnished the nucleus\u00E2\u0080\u0094the seed\u00E2\u0080\u0094for a run four years later. X 56 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nIf we assume that the entire run was cut off from the upper section for one or all of the\nthree years of the cycle, we must furnish a plausible, a workable, theory to account for the\nrestoration of the runs in the three lean years. That is not difficult. Dr. Gilbert, by his study\nof the growth and structure of the scales of the sockeye, has demonstrated that, while the race\nof sockeye that frequent the Fraser are predominately four-year old fish, there is in the run\nof every year three-year-old, four-year-old, and five-year-old fish. He demonstrated \"clearly\nthat in the Fraser basin a high percentage of four-year fish accompanied a large pack, or, stated\nconversely, a small pack is occasioned mainly by a deficiency in four-year-old fish.\"*\nIn four runs he found an average of 82 per cent, of four-year-old fish. In the catch of 1912\nhe found 21.5 per cent, of three-year-old fish and 10 per cent, of five-year-old fish. The presence\nof from 54 to 99 per cent, of four-year-old fish in five consecutive runs, and plus per cent, to\n46 per cent, of five-year-old fish in the same runs, establishes the fact that from each year's\nspawning a proportion of five-year-old fish are produced. We have here evidence of the existence\nin the run of the year that was not obstructed the nucleus for a future run. The period taken\nto build up a run from such a scant seeding must have been an extended one. Had this constituted the only seed that reached the beds in the three lean years, the run following the big year\nshould have been more readily built up than the run in the two following years. In fact, the\nrecord of the pack demonstrates that the catch in the year following the big run has always\nbeen greater than in the two following years.\nWe are not, however, confined to the conclusion that if the run for three years was entirely\ndestroyed the run in the lean years was built up entirely from the spawning of five-year-old fish.\nGranting the premises of the home-stream theorists that salmon bred in a stream return to that\nstream to spawn because the weight of evidence favours their contention, there is abundant\nevidence on this Coast and in New Zealand, where the Pacific salmon have been established,\nto show that some of the salmon bred in one stream have on reaching maturity entered a different\nstream to spawn. Further, it has not been shown or claimed that all the fish bred in a watershed\nreturn to the identical tributary of that watershed in which they were propagated. There is\nsufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that some salmon propagated in the lower section\nof the Fraser have entered the upper section and spawned there. We have therefore three strings\nto our bow to account for the existence of the runs of the lean years: (1) The escapes at high\nor low stages of water during the original blockade; (2) the overlapping five-year-old fish bred\nin the upper section by the run that did survive; and (3) the fish bred in the lower section that\npassed to the upper section and spawned there.\nThe building-up of a run to the upper section of the Fraser by any or all of the measures\nhere indicated would of necessity have takeii a long period of time. We cannot estimate it,\nbut we are not compelled to place it in the dark ages, or even two or three centuries ago. We\ncan, however, postulate that during that period the Indians of the upper section and in the Fraser\nCanyon were catching such fish as they could secure up to the limit of their demands, and were\nin consequence interfering with a more rapid development of a run. The records of Simon\nFraser, the discoverer and original navigator of the river that bears his name, written more\nthan a century ago\u00E2\u0080\u00941806-11\u00E2\u0080\u0094establishes the fact that there was in those years a big run every\nfourth year and a light run in each of the three succeeding years in the Upper Fraser. He also\nfurnishes evidence to show that in some of the lean years the Indians at Stuart and Fraser Lakes\ncould not supply his post with all the salmon he required, and that an additional supply was\nobtained from the post at Kamloops, where the run appears to have been larger or the demand\nless; indicating at that time the Indians could not obtain from Stuart and Fraser Lakes all\nthe fish they desired.\nThis matter has been treated at length that it may be appreciated that the period of time\nnecessary to restore a depleted run to a run of commercial importance is under natural conditions\na long one, and because it has been stated that the failure of nature to have equalized the runs\nof sockeye in the Fraser demonstrated that the runs in the lean years could not be developed to\nthe proportions of a big-year run. I sumbit that there is no force in that contention. The runs\nin the lean years will equal the runs of former big years four years following as abundant seeding\nas the beds received in either 1901, 1905, and 1909. It is only a matter of seeding the spawning\narea abundantly.\n* B.C. Fishermen Report, 1915, pages 29' and 30. 9 Geo. 5 Statement by John P. Babcock. X 57\nMr. Secretary Redfield requested that in advocating restrictive measures I should consider\nthe present demand for foods, and that he would like me to express my views on the subject.\nIn reply, let me submit: The average pack of Fraser River sockeye in Washington aud British\nColumbia in the last three lean years totalled but 267,000 cases. The reports from the spawning-\ngrounds of the Fraser in these years give no promise that the runs in the following three lean\nyears will equal that average. If that be true, the best we can expect is 267,000 cases per year.\nIs the food shortage so serious as to demand that the few remaining sockeye of the Fraser run\nbe drawn upon to supply that number of cases?\nPermit me, gentlemen, to draw my remarks to a conclusion by quoting from the very able\nstatement furnished you by my mentor, Dr. Gilbert:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The Fraser River presents unexampled opportunities for productiveness and wealth. The\npeople need the enormous supplies of highly valuable food which the river is able to produce\nannually. It should not be permitted to remain at its present low rate of production. . . .\nThe people need the food. They will come to need it in future years even more sorely than they\ndo at the present. No private interests should be permitted to stand in the way of restoring\nthis producer of food to the public.\n\" If the Fraser River were a private monopoly, to be henceforth wisely handled, there can\nbe no doubt it would now be promptly closed to commercial fishing for a term of years, and the\nentire run\u00E2\u0080\u0094now so sadly dwindled\u00E2\u0080\u0094dedicated to purposes of propagation. This should be done\nwithout further delay for at least one cycle of four years, and the results carefully noted by a\ncontinued study of the spawning-beds. ... If the river were closed to fishing for one cycle\nof four years, we could know fairly well in advance what the result was to be, and could then\neither open the river and sound to restricted fishing if conditions should warrant, or, if necessary,\nclose it for a future period of four years. This is the only method to restore the sockeye run\nwith any promptness and with any certainty of success.\n\" So great has been the reduction of the runs, we cannot predict with any optimism what\nwould be the result of less drastic measures. If the amount of fishing-gear in use be limited\nand the weekly closed season be extended, undoubtedly a somewhat larger proportion of fish\nwould reach the beds. But it must be borne in mind that it is not the proportion of a given\nrun which spells success, but the actual numbers of spawners. The whole of a sadly depleted\nrun may be all too few to produce the desired results. It is greatly to be feared that any\nrestriction hi the present case which would be so moderate as still to leave it profitable for\ncanners to operate in the face of such reduced runs can accomplish little or nothing towards\nrestocking of the river. The only wise course\u00E2\u0080\u0094the only adequate remedy\u00E2\u0080\u0094is to close the river\nfor a term of years by concurrent action of the two Governments.\"\nYours respectfully,\nJohn Pease Babcock,\nAssistant Commissioner of Fisheries. X 58 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nMIGRATION OF ADULT SOCKEYE SALMON IN PUGET SOUND AND\nFRASER RIVER.*\nBy Henry O'Malley, Field Assistant, U.S. Bureau op Fisheries, in Charge op Operations\non the Pacific Coast, and Willis H. Rich, Field Assistant, U.S. Bureau op Fisheries.\nINTRODUCTION.\nDuring the American-Canadian Fisheries Conference on the Pacific Coast in April and May,\n1918, the question was constantly raised as to the time required for the sockeye salmon of Fraser\nRiver to pass through Puget Sound.\nIn order to determine this important question, Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United States Commissioner of Fisheries, and W. A. Found, Superintendent of the Canadian Fisheries, decided to carry\nout an extensive marking experiment. Early in July the authors were detailed to take immediate\ncharge for the United States Bureau of Fisheries, and to confer with Lieut.-Colonel F. H. Cunningham, acting for the Canadian Government. The final arrangements were that the Canadian\nfisheries authorities would handle the marking operations in Canadian waters and the United\nStates Bureau of Fisheries the marking operations in Puget Sound, and that each Government\nwould attend to the collecting of data in its respective waters.\nThe authors are especially indebted to H. J. Todd & Sons; E. B. Deming, Pacific American\nFisheries; W. A. Lowman, Coast Fish Co.; Frank Wright, Carlisle Packing Co.; and J. W.\nElliott, Alaska Packers' Association. Without the co-operation of these men and the members\nof their respective organizations it would have been impossible to have successfully conducted this\nexperiment. L. H. Darwin, Washington State Fish Commissioner, and his deputies also rendered\nvaluable assistance. Many helpful suggestions were received from Dr. Charles H. Gilbert, of\nStanford University.\nPROCEDURE.\nTags and their Attachment.\nThe method adopted for procuring the desired data was to mark with serially numbered\ntags enough adult sockeye salmon so that a sufficient number of returns could reasonably be\nexpected. After consideration of several types of tags the one finally accepted was of the\n\" bachelor-button \" type, similar to those in use for marking cattle and other live stock. This\nbutton comes in two separate halves, each with a hollow central extension which forms the shaft\nof the complete 'button. The shaft of one half of the button is small enough to pass through\nthe shaft and long enough to extend slightly beyond the.face of the other half. When placed\ntogether in the proper position the two halves are fastened by means of a special crimping-tool.\nThis is built on the general plan of a pair of pliers; but the jaws meet only toward the tips,\nat which points are conical elevations. By fitting these elevations into the open ends of the\nshaft and closing the tool firmly, the end of the smaller inner shaft is spread sufficiently to\nprevent its being pulled back through the outer shaft.\nThe buttons were made of either silver or aluminium. Some fear was entertained that the\naluminium might corrode in the salt water sufficiently to make it diflicult or impossible to read\nthe numbers, but in this experiment there was absolutely no difficulty on this account. No\ncorrosion is noticeable on any of the buttons returned, although some of them must have been\nthree or four weeks in practically pure salt water. This is contrary to the experience of Greene,t\nwho found that salt water had a strongly corrosive action on aluminium buttons of similar style.\nThis may be due to some slight difference in the alloy of which the buttons were made.\n* Reproduced from advance sheets furnished the Department by Dr. Hugh M. Smith, United States\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nt Greene, Charles W.: The Migration of Salmon in the Columbia River. Bulletin, U.S. Bureau of\nFisheries for 1909, Vol. XXIX., pages 129-148. Washington, 1911. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 59\nThe buttons were attached to the upper lobe of the caudal (tail) fin. It was first necessary\nto cut a hole of the proper size to admit the shaft of the button. This was done by means of\nan ordinary leather-punch. Figs. 1 to 4 show, in situ, both sides of two buttons which were\nreturned.*\nThe operation of attaching the tags required, usually, less than one minute and no particularly unfavourable results of tagging were noticed. At some of the stations where the\nmarking was done the fish were held in crates until after the marking for the day was complete,\nand it was noticed that they soon recovered from the effects of being out of water while the tag\nwas being attached and were apparently in perfect condition when liberated.\nReports that the tags were \" worrying \" the fish and causing them to wear their tails in an\neffort to remove the tags were investigated and found to be quite unfouuded. Tails of several\nfish have been preserved and show no indication of such wearing as had been asserted. Figs. 1\nand 2 are from such a specimen.\nThe fish to be marked were taken from the traps at the time of lifting and were held either\nin crates or in one of the pockets of the spiller until they could be marked and released.\nMarking-stations.\nMarking-stations were established at five points in Puget Sound, as follows: Near Sooke,\nVancouver Island, British Columbia; Salmon Banks, just south of San Juan Archipelago ; near\nPoint Partridge, Whidbey Island; near Village Point, Luinmi Island; and at the last trap in\nAmerican waters on Point Roberts. For convenience these have been designated in the following\npages as Stations A, B, C, D, and E, respectively.\nThe work at these stations was in charge of the following men:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nA. Sooke, B.C.\u00E2\u0080\u0094W. H. Rich, Field Assistant, United States Bureau of Fisheries (July\n14th to 23rd) ; Dr. C. McLean Fraser, Director of the Biological Station, Nanaimo,\nBritish Columbia (July 23rd to the end of the season) ; Alex. Robertson, Superintendent, Harrison Lake Hatchery, Dominion Fisheries Department.\nB. Salmon Banks\u00E2\u0080\u0094Walter C. Buckmaster, Apprentice Fish-culturist, United States\nBureau of Fisheries.\nC. Point Partridge\u00E2\u0080\u0094Clive L. Henry, Apprentice Fish-culturist, United States Bureau of\nFisheries.\nD. Lmnmi Island\u00E2\u0080\u0094Don E. Courser, Apprentice Fish-culturist, United States Bureau of\nFisheries.\nE. Point Roberts\u00E2\u0080\u0094Joseph Kemmerich, Foreman, United States Bureau of Fisheries.\nThe last four of these stations were under the general supervision of Dennis Winn, Field\nSuperintendent, United States Bureau of Fisheries.\nCollection and Organization of Data.\nIn the collection of data reliance was necessarily placed in fishermen, trap-tenders, and\ncannerymen. A reward of 25 cents was offered for the return of each button accompanied by\ninformation giving the date and place of capture. Specimens taken in American waters were\ntaken care of by Dennis Winn, at the Seattle office of the United States Bureau of Fisheries,\nand those taken in Canadian waters by Colonel Cunningham, at the office of the Dominion\nFisheries Department at New Westminster, British Columbia. One of the tags reported from\nthe upper, regions of the Fraser River was secured by J. P. Babcock, Assistant to the Commissioner of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia.\nWhile the majority of these records are considered approximately correct, data secured in\nthis manner are necessarily subject to some inaccuracies, both as to time and place of capture.\nIn the authors' opinion, however, these inaccuracies will be balanced, so that with reasonably\nlarge series the averages should be reliable. In cases where the data were obviously wrong the\nrecords have been omitted. This has been done in several instances where the date given for\nthe capture was earlier than that on which the fish was recorded as having been marked. A\nnumber of tags were returned with incomplete data, either the date or the place of capture, or\nboth, wanting. All such cases have been omitted entirely from consideration.\nFor the convenient organization of the data the American waters .of the sound from which\nreturns were reported have been divided into nine regions. Several factors guided in establishing\n* Not shown in this reprint. X 60\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nO J^-'J U a N D E F u 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 61\nthe boundaries of these regions : (1) The general geography of the district; (2) the grouping of\ntraps; and (3) the nature of the descriptions giving the locality where the tags were recovered.\nThese last frequently indicated merely the general region in which the tag was taken; i.e.,\nRosario Strait. The boundaries of these regions, as well as the location of the marking-stations,\nare showii on the accompanying map. All of the records reported from the Canadian waters\nwhich are open to commercial fishing have been treated together. For this reason that part of\nthe Strait of Georgia just outside the mouths of the Fraser River and the river itself, from the\nmouth to Mission Bridge, together constitute the tenth region. The reasons for so treating the\nCanadian returns will be given later.\nSTATISTICAL STUDY OF DATA.\nGeneral Features.\nIn the following study the chief concern is with what is believed to be a strict and reasonably\ncomplete presentation of the facts. There has been no attempt to draw conclusions regarding\nthe bearing of these facts upon the particular problems connected with the conservation of the\nsockeyes of the Fraser River. Some of the tables present similar data as seen from different\npoints of view. This has, perhaps, been carried to aii extreme in order that all obtainable facts\nmight be available. Other tables are presented rather as matters of record than as having any\nespecial bearing on- the main problems in hand. For the most part such tables are presented\nwithout detailed comment.\nRaw Data.\nTable 1 gives,for each marking-station the numbers of the tags attached each day. As noted\nin the table, silver tags were used only at Sooke (Station A). At all other stations aluminium\ntags were used, and the first few tags used at Sooke were also of aluminium, Nos. 5 to 29,\ninclusive.\nTable 1.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tag Numbers attached at each Marking-station.\nStation A, Sooke, British Columbia.*\nNumbers.\nDate.\nTotal.\nNumbers.\nDate.\nTotal.\nFrom\nTo\nFrom\nTo\n5\n8\n29\n1350\n1362\n1382\n1390\n1447\n1545\n1617\n1-70.7\n1918.\nJuly 14 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21 \t\n4\n21\n25\n10\n20\n8\n56\n98\n72\n99\n1718\n1823\n1901\n2039\n20S8\n2OS0\n2101\n2125\n1822\n1900\n2038\n2078\n2100\n2087\n2123\n2127\n1918.\nJuly 31 \t\n105\n9\nAug. 1 \t\n2 \t\n77\n138\n1326\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21 \t\n1353\n.. 22 \t\n., 23 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 4 \t\n41\n1363\n1383\n4 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 6 \t\n23\n8\n1391\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 6 \t\n23\n144S\n27 \t\n1546\n1.618\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 \t\nTot\nal \t\n831\nStation B\n, Salmon Banks, Wash.\n3001\n3025\n3065\n3160\n3216\n3266\n3377\n3454\n3394\n3400\nJuly 21\t\n25\n40\n95\n56\n50\n111\n54\n17\n6\n3455\n3497\n3601\n3665\n3759\n3S01\n349fl\n3600\n3664\n3758\n3800\n3S36\n42\n3026\n22 \t\n104\n3066\n,. 23 \t\n24 . :\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2 \t\n64\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 4 \t\n94\n25 \t\n., 5 \t\n42\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26 \t\n3401\n3378\n3395\n,,. 28 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31 \t\nTo\n836\nStation C, Point Partridge, WASH.f\n1001\n1043\nJuly\n17\n1044\n1093\n,,\n19\n1094\n1154\n22\n1155\n1230\n,,\n24\n1231\n1382\n.,\n20\n1383\n1546\nAug.\n6\n43\n50\n61\n76\n152\n164\n1547\n1665\n1770\n1925\n1664\n1769\n1924\n2000\nAug.\n13\n14\nTotal\n118\n105\n155\n1,000\n* Tag Nos. 5 to 29, attached at Station A, and the tags used at all other stations were aluminium.\nWith the exception of those noted, all tags attached at Station A were of silver.\nt This is the official list as given by the assistant having charge of the marking at this station. The\nrecords for August 6th and subsequent dates are subject to suspicion on account of an admitted lack of\nveracity in the accounts. Previous to this date Dennis Winn was present at the markings. X 62\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 1.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tag Numbers attached at each Marking-station\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nStation D, Lummi Island, Wash.\nStation E, Point Roberts, Wash.\nNumbers.\nDate.\nTotal.\nNumbers.\nDate.\nTotal.\nFrom\nTo\nFrom\nTo\n2001\n2085\n2177\n2251\n2314\n2360\n2416\n2477\nJuly\nAug.\n19\n23\n24\n28\n30\n2\n4\n1918.\n85\n92\n74\n63\n46\n56\n61\n247S\n2556\n2650\n2691\n2555\n2649\n2690\n2737\nAug. 5\n6\n., 7\n9\n1918.\n7S\n20S6\n2178\n94\n41\n2252\n2315\n2361\n47\n737\n2417\n4001\n4096\n4166\n4259\n4373\n4495\n4534\n4631\n4744\n4819\n4835\n30\n86\n98\n121\n152\nTotal\nTable 2 gives in serial order a complete list of the tags returned, showing the place where\nand the date on which the tags were attached and the date and region of capture. Tables 1 and\n2 contain the raw data from which all of the subsequent tables were constructed.\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned.\nTags attached at Station A, Sooke, British Columbia.\n]\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays.\nTag No.\nfish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nm\nirked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n3\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\nly 14\nJuly 19\n2\n5\n1455 \t\nJuly 27\nJuly 36\n1\n3\n12 \t\n, 21\n.\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n9\n9\n1463 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\nAug. 2\n6\n6\n14 \t\n, 21\nAug. 1\n8\n11\n1467 \t\n,, 27\nJuly 31\n9\n4\n16 \t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n*\n3\u00C2\u00A9\n1468 \t\n27\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n6\n3\n19\t\n, 21\n1\nt\n11\n1473 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\nAug. 3\n7\n7\n21 .\t\n, 21\nJuly 24\n7\n3\n1477 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n,. 0\n7'\n9\n25 \t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n4\n1481 \t\n27\nJuly 29\n6\n2\n26\t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n2\n2\nI486 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n,. 31\n6\n4\n9~\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n1\n4\n1505' \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\nAug. 1\nt\no\n28 \t\n, 21\n,. 24\n2\n3\n1512 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n6\n6\n10\n29 \t\n, 2.1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n6\n10\n1513 \t\n., 27\nJuly 28\n' \u00C2\u00A7\n1\n1328 \t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n2\n4\n1515 \t\n,. 27\nAug. 4\n1\n8\n1331 \t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n2,\no\n1519 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\nSept. 14\n1!\n49\n1332 \t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n1\n2\n1529 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\nJuly 30\n6\n3\n1335 ....\n, \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n9\nr>\n1538 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\nAug. 5\n7\n9\n1339 \t\n, 2-1\n,, 24\n2\no\n1543 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n7\n2\n1342 \t\n, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n7 -\n1546 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2.8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n6\n1\n1353 \t\n22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n6\n1549 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n29\n1\n1\n135?\t\n22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n10\n4\n1531 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 1\nf\n4\n1339\t\n, 2'2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 80\n10\n8\n1565 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 4\n7\n7\n1362\t\n92\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n1\n1\n1573 \t\n,, 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n9\n26\n1368\t\n, 23\nAug. 30\n10\n7\n1588 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\nfi\n4\n1371 \t\n, 23\nJuly 31\n10\n8\n15\u00C2\u00AB1 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n6\n12\n1390\t\n24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n6\n0\n1502s \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n,, o\n10\n8\n1404\t\n, 25\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n9\n4\n1593 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n4\n8\n7\n140io \t\n, 25\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n1\n3\n1507 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n6\n12\n1407 \t\n, 25\nAug. 4\n1\n10\n1602 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n4\n7\n7\n1423 \t\n, 25\nJuly 30\n8\n0\n1607 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n4\n8\n7\n1449\t\n27\nAug. 1\n10\no\n1610\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 31\n6\n3\n* Hell's Gate. SO miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nt Yale. 60 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nI No Point trap, Vancouver Island.\n\u00C2\u00A7 Beachy trap. Vancouver Island.\n|| Samaquam, Lillooet River, 25 miles above Harrison Lake, 90 miles above Mission. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Cockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 63\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station A, Sooke, British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\n]\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\n, o\n6\n6\n1903 \t\n2\n., ?\n9\no\n1682 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n1\n1\n1\n1904 \t\n2\n6\n8\n4\n1686 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\na\n2\n7\n1905 \t\n2\n,, 7\n8\no\n1697 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nJuly 31\n1\n1\n1907 \t\n9\n,, o\n?\n3\n1699 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nAug. 8\n9\n9\n1920 \t\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n9\n11\n1712 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n9\n6\n1929 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n9\n2\n1714 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n1\n9\n2\n1935 \t\n2\n8\n7\n6\n1721 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, a\n8\n5\n19157 \t\n2\n4\n1\n2\n1727 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n3\n7\n3\n1958 \t\n2\n6\n7\n4\n1735 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 3(1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n10\nIS\n1964\t\n2\n,, o\n*\n2\n1738 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\ni\n2,\n0\n1986 \t\n9\ni, o\n2\n3\n1739 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n8\n7\n8\n1992 \t\n2\n9\n7\n1\n1753 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n8\n14\n1996\t\n2\n4\n7\n2\n1756 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, o\n8\n5\n2004 \t\n2\n8\n8\n6\n1761 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n6\n7\n6\n2015 \t\n9\nF, 8\n6\n4\n1764 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n4\n7\n4\n2018 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n10\n176? \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\n11\n2024 \t\no\n6\n6\n4\n1769 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n9\n10\n9\n2029 \t\n9\n,, 7\n7\no\n1778 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\n11\n2032 \t\n2\n9\n8\n7\n1780 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n8\n16\n2050\t\n4\n8\n8\n4\n1783 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, 0\n9\n0\n2053\t\n4\n;6\n10.\n33\n1786 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 34\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n10\n18\n2071 \t\n4\n7\n7\n3\n1796 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n7\n12\n2073 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E ii\n9\n7\n179? \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, ?\n8\n7\n2074\t\n4\n,, 7\n1\n3\n1801 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n8\n18\n2093\t\n4\n,, ?\n2\n3\n1806 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n8\n13\n2097\t\n4\n8\n8\n4\n1814 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nG\n6\n6\n2100\t\n4\n9\n8\n0\n1813 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E -31\n,, o\n7\n5\n2103\t\n6\n9\n8\n3\n1816 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, 0\n8\na\n2113 \t\n6\n9\n7\n3\n1818 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n0\n8\n6\n2116\t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\n0\n1821 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00C2\u00BB, a\n6\no\nTags attached at Station B, Salmon Banks, Wash.\n3007 \t\nJuly 21\nJuly 26\n10\n5\n3118 Ju\nly 23\nJuly\n24\n1\n1\n3009 \t\n,, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n8\n3121 \t\n, 23\n26\n1\n3\n3014 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 99\n1\n8\n3125 \t\n, 23\n25\n2\n2\n3015 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n>, 24\n9\no\n3128 \t\n, 23\n26\n10'\n3\n3024 \t\n,, 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n10\n4\n3129 \t\n9|.3\n24\n1\n1\n3028'\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n2\n2\n3133 \t\n, 23\n28\n10\n0\n3036 \t\n22\nAug. 6\n'7\n15\n3134 \t\n, 23\n26\n4\n2\n3037 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\nJuly 24\n2\n2\n3143 \t\n, 23\n29\n10\n6\n3039 \t\n22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n1\n2\n3146 \t\n, 23\n28\n10\n0\n3040 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n2\n3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 3147 \t\n, 23\n29\n.9\n0\n3042 \t\n22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n8\n7\n3148 \t\n, 23\n29\n0\n6\n3050 \t\n2-2\n,, 24\n9\n2\n3149 \t\n, 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n23\n10\n1\n3052\t\n22\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n2\n1\n3130 \t\n, 23\n26\n8\n3\n3060 \t\n2.2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n2\n2\n3153 ,\n, 23\n31\n2\n8\n30-62 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n,, 25\n8\n3\n3158 \t\n, 23\nAug.\n1\n2\n9\n3070 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2-5\n1\n2\n3160\t\n, 23\nJuly\n29\n9\n6\n3075 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n1\n2\n3168\t\n, 24\n26\n9\n2\n3079 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n1\n2\n3169 \t\n, 24\n24\n1\n1\n3086 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n10\n4\n3173 \t\n, 24\n,,\n28\n9\n4\n3087 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nfi\n3\n3174\t\n, 24\n29\n10\n0\n3088 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n2\n3175 \t\n, 24\n25\n- 1\n1\n3089 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n2\n3'\n3176\t\n, 24\n28\n2\n4\n3093 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n9\no\n31SO\t\n, 24\nAug.\n2\n2\n9\n3103 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n., 25\n9\n2\n3184 \t\n, 24\nJuly\n'Mi\n9\n2\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A03104 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n10'\n0\n3185 \t\n, 24\nAug.\n2\n10\n9\n3111 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n10\n6\n* Beachy trap, Vancouver Island. X 64\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station B, Salmon Banks, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDavs\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n31S8 \t\nJuly 24\nJuly 2S\n10\n4\n3399 \t\nJuly 31\nAug. 2\n2\n2\n3189 \t\n,. 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n6\n6\n' 340-2 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n9\n2\n3194 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n6\n2\n3403 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 1\n?,\n4\n3198 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nSept. 15\n*\n53\n3404 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 28\n1\n1\n3100 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nJuly 2,9\n10\n0\n3405 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n1\n1\n3-900 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n., 25\n4\n1\n3409 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n,, 28\n1\n1\n3203 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nAug. 1\n7\n8-\n3410 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 2\n10\n0\n3210 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nJuly 25\n6\n1\n3412 \t\n28\n9\n9\n12\n3216 \t\nu 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n1\n1\n3414 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n7\n2\n3222 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\nAug. 2\n8\n8\n3415 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2S\nAug. 4\n7\n3223 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\nJuly 30\n10\n0\n3418 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n9\n3226 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n6\n1\n3423 \t\n,, 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n3232 \t\n;, 9-i\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n0\n3425 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n1\n3244 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\nAug. 7\n10\n13\n3428 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n., 31\n8\n3\n3245 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n33\n3432 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 8\n8\n11\n3246 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 9,5\n,. 21\n10'\n27\n3433 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 31\n6\n3\n3251 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 93\nJuly 28\n10\n3\n3434 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n2\n3233 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E \"5\n.. 28\n6\n1\n3437 \t\n28\nAug. 5\n1\n8\n,, 25\nAug. 19\n10\n23\n3441 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n,, 9\n10\n6\n3257 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00C2\u00B05\nJuly 29\n10'\n4\n3442 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n9\n3259 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\nAug. 8\n2\n14\n3443 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 13\n9\n16\nS'efi \t\n,, 25\n1\nS\n7\n3444 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 29\n1\n1\n3268 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 31\n1\n0\n3449 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n,, 29\n1\n1\n39fi9 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E \"6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 99\n7\n3\n3446 \t\n,, 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n2\n3270 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n1\n2\n3448 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n,. 31\n8\n3\n3272 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n,, 29\n8\n3\n3450 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 1\n9\n4\n3273 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00C2\u00B06\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n10\n2\n3451 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 31\n10\n3\n3974 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n1\n2\n3432 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n2\n3273 \t\n,, 2fl\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n1\n2\n:343? \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nAug. -6\n7\n6\n3278 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n4\n3460 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n4\n8\n4\n3281 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nt\n0\n3461 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n3\n8\n3\n3286 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n7\n3\n34'8'2 ......\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n6\n8\nfi\n3288 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n, ,28\n1\n2\n3463 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nII\n30\n3290 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n3\n3-469 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n1\n1\n3294 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n90\n9\n3\n3471 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n'7\n1\n3995 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n1\n9\n3474 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n9\n6\n2\n3297 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n0\n3475' \t\n,. 31\n2\n1\n3298 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n10\n1\n3478 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n1\n1\n3299 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 18\n8\n23\n3481 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n8\n1\n3301 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 30\n10\n4\n3484\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,> 8\n2\n0\n3309 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n,. 29\n1\n3\n3486 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n1\n3312 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 1\n9\n0\n3487 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n2\n8\n2\n3317 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n,, 0\n7\n10\n3490 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n4\n7\n4\n3321 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nSept. 15\n\u00C2\u00A7\n51\n3495 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n2\n8\n2\n3322 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\nJuly 30\n10\n4\n348*0 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E '31\n6\n1\n6\n3326 \t\n,, 26\n,, 29\n1\n3\n3501 \t\nAug. 1\n9\n1\n1\n3328 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n9\n3\n3502 \t\n1\n>, 0\n8\n4\n3399 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n0\n3508 \t\n1\n9\n6\n1\n3330 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 22\n9\n27\n3310 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E H12\n10\n11\n3335 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 29\n10\n3\n3513 \t\n1\n4\n8\n3\n3337 \t\n,, 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n4\n3514 \t\n1\n1\n1\n3339 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 5\n9\n10\n3518 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n10\n14\n3340 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 30\n9\n4\n3522 \t\n1\n2\n6\n1\n3350 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n6\n0\n3523 \t\n1\n2\n1\n1\n3351 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n9\n3\n3524 \t\n1\n,, 0\n8\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n4\n3526 \t\n1\n2\n9\n1\n3335 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n8\n3\n3527 \t\n1\n4\n8\n3\n3336 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n10\n0\n3528 \t\n1\n6\n8\n5\n3357 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n2\n3529 \t\n1\n4\n10\n3\n3358 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n10\n3\n3335 \t\n1\n,, 0\n7\n4\n3361 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n6\n3\n3537 \t\n1\n2\n6\n1\n3366 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 8\n9\n13\n3541 \t\n1\n,, 0\n2\n4\n3367 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 28\n1\n2\n3544 \t\n1\n,, 0\n9\n4\n3368 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 1\n8\n6\n3545 \t\n1\n2\n6\n1\n3372 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 30\n10\n4\n3547 \t\n1\n,, 0\n4\n3373 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n10\n0\n3548 \t\n. , 1\n3\n8\n2\n3377 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 8\n5\n3330 \t\n1\n4\n2\n3\n3378 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nAug. 4\n7\n0\n35-51 \t\n1\n2\n6\n1\n3382 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nJuly 31\n6\n1\n3552 \t\n1\n4\n10\n3\n3394 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nAug. 5\ni\n1\n3553 \t\n1\n,, 7\n8\n6\n3397 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n7\n1\n1\n4\n7\n3398\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\" !\n7\n4\n1\n4\n8\n3\n* Four miles above Pitt Lake, 30 miles from Fraser River, 50 miles trom ocean,\nt Soda Creek, 280 miles above Mission.\nI Devil's Run, 10 miles above Mission.\n\u00C2\u00A7 Four-mile Creek, Pitt River, 50 miles above Fraser River, 50 miles from ocean.\nII Hagenson Slough, 30 miles above Fraser, 50 miles from ocean.\n11 The record is September 12th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August\n12th, as tabulated.\n** Fraser River, 5 miles above Yale, 60 miles above Mission. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Cockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 65\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station B, Salmon Banks, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDavs\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n19-18.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n3556 \t\nAug. 1\nAug. 5\n8\n4\n3699 \t\nAug. 4\nAug. 8\n9\n4\n1\n.. 11\n8\n10\n3700 \t\n4\n6\n8\n2\n3562 \t\n1\n2\n6\n1\n3702 \t\n4\n, 0\n6\n1\n3567 \t\n1\n1\n4\n1\n3703 \t\n4\n9\n10\n0'\n3574 \t\n1\n4\n8\n3\n3704 \t\n4\n6\n7\n2\n3577 \t\n1\n4\n7\n4\n3705 \t\n4\n, 1\n10\n3\n3378 \t\n, X\n2\n6\n1\n3711 \t\n4\n6\n2\n2\n3579 \t\n1\n4\n?\n3\n3713 \t\n4\n6\n7\n9\n3582 \t\n1\n6\n4\no\n3714 \t\n4\n9\n9\na\n3583 \t\n1\n6\n8\nD\n3715 \t\n4\n6\n9\n2\n3584 \t\n1\n, 12\n7\n11\n3718 \t\n4\n, 19\n10\n15\n1\n, 3\n0\n4\n3721 \t\n4\n, 7\n9\n3\n3387 \t\n1\n2\n1\n1\n3722 \t\n4\n9\n10\n0\n3588 .-\t\n1\nj o\n1\n4\n3727 \t\n4\n, 1\n8\n3\n3589 \t\n1\n7\n8\n6\n3798 \t\n4\n7\n9\n3\n3590 \t\n1\n, o\n8\n4\n3730 \t\n4\n6\n9\n2\n3591 \t\n1\ni o\n10\n4\n4\n6\n7\n2\n3394 \t\n1\n6\n6\n0\n3737 \t\n4\n, 0\n7\n1\n3598 \t\n1\n2\n6\n1\n3730 \t\n4\n, o!\n1\n1\n3605 \t\n2\n, 3\n8\n3\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 3741 \t\n4\n6\n?\n2\n3606 \t\n2\n, o\n9\n3\n3742 \t\n4\n8\n-8\n4\n3610 \t\n2\n, 14\n8\n12\n3743 \t\n4\n7\n6\n3\n3613 \t\n2\n, o\n8\n3\n3744 \t\n4\nSept. 16\n-!-\n43\n3617 \t\n9\n4\n1\n9\n3746 \t\n4\nAug. 8\n10\n4\n3619 \t\n9\n, 5\n7\n3\n3747 \t\n4\n, 11\n7\n7\n3'6->4 \t\n9\n, 0\n1\n3\n37-52 \t\n4\n, 23\n9\n19\n3625 \t\n9\n7\n8\no\n3754 \t\n4\n, 1\n1\n3\n3630 \t\n2\n4\n1\n2\n3756 \t\n4\n6\n7\n2\n3632 \t\n2\n4\n1\n2\n3757 \t\n4\n, 0\n1\n1\n3633 \t\n9\n, 7\n8\n5\n3760 \t\n5\n9\n9\n4\n3634 \t\n9\n, 7\n9\n0\n3762 \t\n, o\n, 7\n2\n2\n3635 \t\n9\n4\n1\n2\n3764 \t\n, o\n9\n8\n4\n3637 \t\n9\n, 14\n2\n12\n3773 \t\n, 0\n7\n8\n2\n3639 \t\n2\n, *17\n10\n15\n, o\n, 13\n7\n8\n3642 \t\n9\n, o\n9\n3\n3777 \t\n, 5\n9\n7\n4\n3643 \t\n9\n, o\n9\n3\n3778 \t\n, o\n12\n9\n7\n3644 \t\n9\ni o\n7\n3\n3779 \t\n> o\nSept. 20\n\u00C2\u00A7\n46\n3646 \t\n9\n, 0\n9\n3\n3780 \t\n, o\nAug. 7\n6\n2\n3648 \t\n9\n, 0\n8\n3\n3783 \t\n, 5\n, 10\n8\n0\n3653 \t\n9\n, o\ni\n3\n3789 \t\n0\n8\n8\n3\n3658 \t\n2\n6\n10\n4\n3790 \t\n, o\n8\n9\n3\n3662 \t\n, 2\n6\n10\n4\n3791 \t\n, o\n, 7\n7\n2\n3663 \t\n2\n7\n8\n0\n3792 \t\n, o\n6\n7\n1\n3667 \t\n4\n, o\n1\n1\n3794 .....\n, o\n8\n2\n3\n3670 \t\n4\n, 10\n8\n6\n379-5 \t\no\n9\n9\n4\n3672 \t\n4\n6\n6\n2\n3797 \t\n, 0\n, 12\n10\n7\n3673 ,\n4\n6\n2\n2\n3800 \t\ni o\n, 18\n9\n13\n3677 \t\n4\n6\n9\n2\n3801\n7\n, 12\n9\n0\n3678 \t\n, 4\n9\n8\n0\n3803 \t\n7\n, 10\n9\n3\n3680 \t\n4\n, 20\n10\n16\n3806 \t\n, 7\n, 10\n8\n3\n3682 \t\n4\n, 7\n8\n3\n3807 \t\n, 7\n9\n7\n2\n3685 \t\n4\n7\n8\n3\n3812 \t\n, - 7\n, 11\n8\n4\n3687 \t\n4\n7\n8\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 3\n3818 \t\n7\nSept. 3\nII\n27\n3688 \t\n4\n, IS\n9\n14\n3819 \t\n, 7\nAug. 14\n9\n7\n3693 \t\n4\nSept. 17\nt\n44\n3820 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n0\n3694 \t\n4\nAug. 14\n2\n10\n3826 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n10\n6\n3695 \t\n4\n6\n8\n2\n3829 .\n7,\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 1118\n10\n11\n3696\n4\n6\n7\n2\n383:5 \t\n, 7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n8\n3\nTags attached at Station C, Point Paktkidge, Wash.\n1001 \t\nJuly 17\nJuly 19\n7\n2\n1023 \t\nJuly 17\nJuly 20\n4\n3\n1003 \t\n, 17\n, 20\n4\n3\n1030 \t\n, 17\n99\n1\n0\n1010 \t\n, 17\n, 22\n4\n0\n1031 \t\n, 1?\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n10\n4\n1011 \t\n, 17\n, 23\n9\n6\n1036 \t\n, 1?\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n1\n3\n1017 \t\n, 17\n, 20\n8\n3\n1037 \t\n, 17\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n1\n8\n1018 \t\n, 17\n23\n9\n6\n103S \t\n, 17\nAug. 17\n**\n31\n1019\n, 17\n22\n1\n0\n1041\n17\nJuly 24\n'\n7\n* The record is September 17th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date i\n> August\n17th, as tabulated.\nt Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nX Fraser River, 65 miles above Mission.\n\u00C2\u00A7 Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\n]| Four-mile Creek, Pitt River, 30 miles above Fraser River, 50 miles from ocean.\nIf The record is September ISth, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date i\n5 August\n18th, as tabulated.\n*\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Devil's Run, 10 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\n5 X 66\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station C, Point Pabteidge, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTag No.\n1044\n1050\n1052\n1055\n1057\n1038\n10 50\n1061\n1063\n1067\n1069\n1075\n1078\n1079\n1080\n1085\n1088\n1090\n1092\n1094\n1098\n1104\n1106\n1107\n1109\n1111\n1116\n1124\n1128\n1129\n1130\n1132\n1133\n1138\n1151\n1156\n1157\n1163\n1165\n1167\n1169\n1173\n1175\n1176\n1177\n1185\n1192\n1193\n1194\n1196\n1197\n1199\n1205\n1207\n1212\n1213\n1221\n1223\n1228\n1229\n1231\n1235\n1238\n1239\n1241\n1242\n1244\n1249\n1251\n1264\n1269\n1278\n1285\n1289\n1200\n1293\n1296\nDate\nFish\nmarked.\n191S.\nJuly\n22\n22\n92\n22\n22\n22\n9 2\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n24\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\nDate\nFish\nrecaught.\nRegion\nwhere\ntaken.\n1918.\nJuly\n24\n22\n24\n92\n22\n9 9\n23\n21\n92\n24\nAug.\n9\nJuly\n22\n99\n24\n22\n22\n21\n24\n30\n26\n23\n23\n24\n25\nAug.\n12\nJulv\n24\n25\n24\n30\n30\n28\n29\n29\n24\n26\n31\nAug.\n8\n10\n1\nJuly\n29\n30\nAug.\no\n6\nJuly\n29-\n31\n25\n31\n30\nAug.\n10\nJuly\n29\n29\n31\n30\nAug.\n1\nJuly\n29\nAug.\n7\n.lulv\n30\n31\n31\n29\nAug.\n0\nJulv\n30\n29\nAug.\n18\nJuly\n29\nAug.\n1\n.lulv\n2.9\nAug.\n6\nJulv\n29\n30\n31\nAug.\n1\nJulv\n29\nAug.\n18\nJuly\n29\nAug.\n0\nJuly\n30\n1\n1\n2\n10\n1\n8\n9\n10\n1\n10\n2\n10\n2\n1\n10\n9\n*\n1\n9\n6\n2:\n9\n10\n10\n8\n9\n1\n2\n10\n7\n10\nDavs\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDavs\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n1918.\n1918.\n5\n1307 \t\nJuly 26\nAug. 1\n8\n6\n3\n1308 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n,, o\n10\n10\n0\n1309 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n2\n2\n7\n3\n1310 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 30\n9\n4\n3\n1313 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n8\n9\n3\n1317 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 2\n9\n7\n4\n1320 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n16\n2\n1322 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n,, 0\n10\n10\n3\n1328 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 30\n6\n4\n5;\n1330 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n1\n4\n14\n1334 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2:6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n4\n3\n1337 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n4\n3\n1344 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n3\n0'\n1346 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n3\n3\n1347 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n3\n3\n1351 \t\n,, 26\nAug. 4\n7\n9\n1353 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n1\n8\n6\no\n1354 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n1\n8\n6\n11\n1355 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n1\n10\n6\n4\n1357 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n9\n6\n14\n1\n1360 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n1\n2\n6\n1\n1363 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n7\n17\n3\n1368 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n4\n7\n9\n3\n1368 \t\n.. 26\nJuly 29\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A07\n3\n21\n1399 \t\n,, 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n4\n2\n1372 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 16\n9\n27\n3\n1373 \t\n,, 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00C2\u00BB8\n10\n2-3\n1374 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nJuly 30\n8\n4\n8\n1375\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n3\n8\n1377 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\nAug. 6\n2\n11\n6\n1380 .\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n1\n9\n6\n7\n1424 \t\nAug. 6\n7\n2\n1\n7\n1438 \t\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A06\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\n0\n1548 \t\n7\n9\n1\n2\n4\n1559 \t\n7\n,, 11\n8\n7\n7\n1567 \t\n7\n>> 7\n2\n1\n15\n1569 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n4\n17\n7\n,, 11\n8\n4\n8\n1577 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n10\n7\no\n1579 \t\n,, 7\n9\n2\n2\n6\n1591 \t\n,, 7\n,, 13\n8\n'5\n12\n1598 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n4\n6\n13\n1604 \t\n,, ?\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n6\n9\n1609 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n8\n6\n1\n7\n6\n17\n1617 \t\n7\n9\n7\n2\n1628 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n4\n1639 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n9\n0\n1673 \t\n9\n,, 16\n8\n7\n1677 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13'\n9\n4\n1681 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n8\n9\n7\n6\n8\n5\n14\n6\n7\n7\n1687 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n6\nj>\n1689 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n8\n6\n1691 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n9\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A00\n1695 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n8\n4\n1704 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n6\n3\n1705 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n8\n4\n1717 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n7\n4\n1719 \t\n,, 9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n9\n4\n1721 \t\n9\n;, 14\n8\n0\n10\n4\n3\n1?9'3 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n1\n2\n1724 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n6\n3\n1732 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n7\n3\n1735 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n9\n13\n3\n6\n3\n1736 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E IS\n10\n9\n1741 \t\n9\n9\n2\n1\n1743 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n8\n4\n11\n1746 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n8\n9\n3\n1749 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n8\n3\n4\n1762 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 6\n14\n5\n1763 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n2'\n4\n6\n1768 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n9\n5\n3\n1769 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n8\n4\n23\n1773 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n8\n2\n3\n1787 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n9\n8\n10\n1793 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n9\n0\n4\n1796 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n2\n1\n* Ebey's Landing, below Point Partridge.\nt Otter Point, Vancouver Island.\nX The record is September 18th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August\n18th, as tabulated. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of S-ockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 67\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station C, Point Partridge, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n1807 \t\nAug. 13\nAug. 17\n9\n4\n1907 \t\nAug. 13\nAug. 15\n1\n2\n1812 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n2\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n,, 16\n9\n3\n1820 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 19\n8\n3\n1931 \t\n,. 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n7\n0\n1835 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 14\n9\n1\n1932 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n7\n5\n1846 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 16\n4\n3\n1933 \t\n,, 14\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n10\n9\n1831 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 16\n8\n3\n1935 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n6\n2\n1853 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, IS\n8\n0\n1939 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n2\n1854 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 16\n8\n3\n1945 \t\n,, 14\nSept. 3\n10\n19\n1856 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 14\n1\n1\n1932 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\nAug. 19\n?\n0\n186-5 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 15\n1\n'->\n1957 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 17\n1\n3\n1867 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 19\n7\n6\n1969 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n2\n2\n1878 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 16\n1\n3\n1970 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n2\n2\n1-887 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n92\n9\n9\n1976 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n2\n0'\n1889 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 15\n9\n2\n1982 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n2\n1\n1891 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 16\n8\n3\n1986 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n8\n6\n1897 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 15\n8\n2\n1993 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n,, 15\n2\n1\n1899 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 19\n7\n6\n1999 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n10\n11\n1900\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n, 15\n2\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n2\n2\nTags attached at Station D, Lummi Island, Wash.\n2002 \t\nJuly 19\nJuly 30\n9\n11\n2177 \t\nJuly 23\nJuly 24\n8\n1\n2003 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n99\n8\n3\n2181\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nAug. 2\n10\n9\n2013 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n92\n8\n3\n2183\n,, 24\nJuly 25\n9\n1\n2015 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n22\n8\n3\n2185\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n,, 29\n9\n0\n2020 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n22\n10\n3\n2186\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n8\n1\n2031 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n22\n8\n3\n2189\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n4\n2033 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n,. 23\n9\n4\n2190\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n9\n2\n\"037 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nAug. 6\n8\n18\n2201 '\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nAug. 6\n9-\n13\n2038 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nJuly 21\n8\n2\n2210\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n,. 12\n10\n19\n2039 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n22\n8\n3\n2214\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\nJuly 26\n9\n2\n2040 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n6-\n2216\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n1\n2044 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n3\n2221\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n10\n0\n2049 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n8\nO\n2226\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n9\n2\n9051 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nAug. 9,\n8\n21\n2231\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n1, 29\n9\n0\n2052' \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nJuly 22\n8\n3\n9->32\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\n9\n3\n20pi5 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n92\n7\n3\n2234\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n9\n4\n2057 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\na\n4\n2237\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n10\n0\n2061 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n8\n3\n2238\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n9\n2\n2063 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2240\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n9\n0\n2065 \t\n,, 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n8\n3\n2241\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n9\n2\n2069 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n8\n3\n9942:\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n6\n2072 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n9\n2\n2246\n,. 2-4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n8\n1\n2073 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n0\n2250\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n8\n4\n9075 \t\n,. 19\n., \u00C2\u00B04\n7\n0\n2251\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 94\nAug. 5\n10\n12\n2078 \t\n19\n,, 22\n8\n3\n2252\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n33\n2079 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n99\n9\n3\n2253\n,, 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 7\n9\n10\n2082 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n9\n4\n2255\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 29\n9\n1\n2084 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nAug. 16\n*\n28\n2257\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n,, 30\n8\n2\n2088 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\nJuly 26\n8\n3\n2259\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 1\n9\n4\n2090 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2261\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n8\n2\n2092 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2263\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n8\n1\n2094 \t\n93\n,, 24\n8\n1\n2268\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 26\nt\n29\n'095 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2269\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 31\n8\n3\n2096 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n8\n3\n22 iO\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n., 30\n9\n2098 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2271\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 1\n10\n4\n9100 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\nAug. 2\nt\n10\n2280\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n8\n9\n2103 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\nJuly 26\n8\n3\n2282\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n2\n2108 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n2\n2285\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAUg. 11\n10\n15\n2112 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n9\n1\n2286\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 29\n1\n1\n2122 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2287\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n2\n2123 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 96\n8\n3\n2288\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n2\n2137 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2289\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nAug. 8\n10\n11\n2147 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n95\n8\n2\n2290\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n8\n2\n9148 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n7\n2291\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E - 28\nAug. 1\n9\n3\n2158 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2293\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\nJuly 30\n9\n2\n2160 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n., 24\n9\n1\n230O\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n8\n1\n2161 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\nAug. 13\n10\n21\n2302\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n2.\n2166 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\nJuly 26\n10\n3\n2.304\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n8\n1\n2171 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n9\n2\n2310\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n1\n1\n2173 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2312\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n2\n2174 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\n8\n1\n2313\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29\n8\n1\n2175\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n8\n8\n2314\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n2\n* Soda Creek Canyon, 280 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nt Yale, 60 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nX Hell's Gate, 80 miles above Mission, Fraser River. X 68 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station D, Lummi Island, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nDate\nD-te\nRegion\nDavs\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDavs\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute. .\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n101S.\n2315 \t\nJuly 30\nAug. 30\n*\n31\n2485 \t\nAug. 5\nAug. 7\n9\n2\n2319 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n1\n9\n2\n\"487 \t\n5\n8\n9\n2323 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n2\n8\n3\n2488\n,, o\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E ?\n9\n9,\n2324 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n1\n9\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2'492 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 5\n,, ?\n9\n2\n2328 \t\n,, 30\n1\n9\n2\n2493 \t\n>, 5\n6\n8\n1\n2330 \t\n,, 30\nJuly 31\n10\n1\n249-5 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n6\n8\n1\n2331 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nAug. 2\n10\n3\n9407 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E i>\n6\n8\n1\n2335 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n2\n8\n3\n2501 \t\nj, o\n6\n9\n1\n2338 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nJuly 31\n10\n1\n2S013 ...:.\n,, o\nt23\n10\n18\n2344 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n8\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2'507 \t\n,, o\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n\u00C2\u00A7\n46\n9346 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nAug. 2\n2\n3\n2510 \t\n,, 0\n,. 7\n8\n2\n2347 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n1\n8\n2,\n2512 \t\n,, o\n6\n8\n1\n2349 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nJuly 31\n9\n1\n2515 \t\n,, 5\n9\n9\n4\n2358 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\nAug. 1\n8\n2\n\"516 \t\n,, o\n6\n9\n1\n2359 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n9\n10\n3\n2517 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 5\n,, 7\n9\n2\n2365 \t\nAug. . 2\n4\n8\n2\n2518 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n6\n8\n1\n2367 \t\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E zy\n7\n3\n2522 \t\ni> o\n7\n8\n2\n2368 \t\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n10\n3\n2523 \t\n,, o\n6\n8\n1\n2370 \t\n9\n4\n8\n2\n2529 \t\nj j o\n7\n8\n2\n2373 \t\n9\n4\n8\n2\n2530 \t\n,, o\n6\n8\n1\n2375 \t\n2\n4\n8\n2\n2531 \t\n\u00C2\u00BB o\n,, ?\n8\n2\n2376 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n9\n3\n2333 \t\n,, 3\n6\n9\n1\n2381 \t\n9\n,, o\n9\n3\n2539 \t\n,, o\n7\n8\n2\n2384 \t\n9\n,, 0'\n8\n3\n2541 \t\n,, o\n6\n8\n1\n2389 \t\n9\n9\n9\ni\n2542 \t\n,, o\n8\n8\n3\n2391 \t\n9\n6\n8\n4\n2544 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n.; 7\n8.\n2\n2394 \t\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\n10\n23\n2546 \t\n,, 5\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 7\n8\n2\n2401 \t\n9,\n4\n9\n2\n2547 \t\n,, 5\n6\n8\n1\n2403 \t\n9\n>, o\n9\n3\n2548 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n8\nID\n3\n2404 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n10\n11\n2549 \t\n,, o\n8\nS'\n3\n2405 \t\n2\nii o\n9\n3\n2531 \t\n,, E\u00C2\u00BB\n6\n8\n1\n.2410 \t\n2\n9\n9\n1\n2532 \t\n,, o\n8\n10\n3\n2413 \t\n9\n9\n9\n7\n2354 \t\n,, 5\na ?\n8\n2\n2414 \t\n2\n,, o\n9\n3\n2556 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E ?\n9\n1\n2416 \t\n2\nS\n9\n6\n\"557 \t\n6\n8\n8\n2\n2420 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E ?\n8\nO\n2558 \t\n6\n9\n10\n3\n2421 \t\n4\n,, o\n8\n1\n2559 \t\n6\n6\n9\n1\n2424 \t\n4\n6\n8\n2\n2560 \t\n6\n,, ?\n9\n1\n2496 \t\n4\n4\n7\n1\n2566 \t\n6\n9\n10\n3\n9495\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n7\n1\n2569 \t\n6\n9\n9\n3\n2429 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E tl9\n10\n15\n2570 \t\n6\n6\n9\n1\n2431 \t\n4\n,, o\n7\n1\n2574 \t\n6\n9\n9\n3\n2432 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n7\n1\n2575 \t\n6\n'9\n10\n3\n2434 \t\n4\n,, 7\n8\no\n257\u00C2\u00A9 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\nII\n10\n2435 \t\n4\n6\n8\n9\n2578 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\no\n2436 \t\n4\n6\n9\n2\n9579 \t\n6\n9\n8\n3\n2437 \t\n4\n,, o\n8\n1\n2580 \t\n6\n9\n8-\n9438 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n8\n1\n2583 \t\n6\n7\n8\n1\n2439 \t\n4\n4\n7\n1\n2384 \t\n6\n,, 10\n8\n4\n2440 \t\n4\n,, o\n9\n3\n2585 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n8\n4\n2441 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n8\n1\n2587 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n'0\n2442 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n8\n2\n2588 \t\n6\n8\n8\n2\n2443 \t\n4\n6\n9\n2\n9589 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E ?\n9\n1\n2444 \t\n4\n,, o\n9\n1\n2591 \t\n6\n,, 7\n9\n1\n2443 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n8\n1\n2592 \t\n6\n7\n9\n1\n2449 \t\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n8\n1\n2593 \t\n6\n6\n9\n1\n2453 \t\n4\n,, o\n8\n1\n2595 \t\n6\n9\n8\n3\n2455 \t\n4\n\u00C2\u00BB o\n8\n1\n2398 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n8\n6\n2456 \t\n4\n6\n8\n9\n2002 \t\n6\n9\n9\n3\n2457 \t\n4\n6\n8\n2.\n2603 \t\n6\n9\n10\n3\n2459 \t\n4\n7\n9\n3\n2604 \t\n6\n8\n8\n9\n2464 \t\n4\n,, 5\n9\n1\n9605 \t\n6\n9\n0\n3\n2465 \t\n4\nSept. 3\n10\n30\n2610 \t\n6\n9\n9\n3\n2466 \t\n4\nAug. 6\n9\n2\n2611 \t\n6\n,, ?\n8\n1\n2469 \t\n4\n>, o\n8\n1\n2612 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n8\n6\n2471 \t\n4\n6\n8\n2\n9614 \t\n6\n8\n9\n9\n2472 \t\n4\n,, -o\n9\n1\n9616 \t\n6\n7\n9\n1\n2474 \t\n4\n6\n9\n2\n9618 \t\n6\n8\n10\n2\n2475 \t\n4\n6\n8\n9\n2621 \t\n6\n9\n8\n3\n2476 \t\n4\n6\n8\n2\n2622 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n9\n4\n2478 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 5\n6\n8\n1\n2693 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n9\n0\n2482\n,, o\n7\n8\n2\n2625\n6\n8\n9\n2\n\u00C2\u00AB Lytton, 110 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nt The record is September 19th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date i\ns August\n19th, as tabulated.\nX The record is September 23rd, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date I\ns August\n23rd, as tabulated.\n\u00C2\u00A7 Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\n|| Strawb\nerry Island\n, 50' miles\nabove Mi\nssion, Fr\ntser River. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 69\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nTags attached at Station D, Lum mi Island, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n191S.\n2627 \t\nAug. 6\nAug. 7\n8\n1\n2678 \t\nAug. 7\nAug. 10\n8\n3\n2628 \t\n0\n,. 7\n9\n1\n2682\n,, 7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n0\n2629 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n10\no\n2683\n,, 7\n9\n8\n2\n2630 \t\n6\n8\n9\n2\n2684\n,, 7\n9\n9\n9\n2631 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\no\n2685\n,, 7\n9\n9\n2\n2633 \t\n6\n9\n9\n3\n2686\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n9\n0\n2634 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n9\n9\n2687\n,, 7\n8\n8\n1\n2633 \t\n6\n,, 7\n9\n1\n2688\n,, ?\n8\n8\n1\n2636 \t\n6\n- \u00E2\u0080\u009E 8\n8\n2\n2689\n\u00C2\u00BB 7\n8\n9\n1\n2642 \t\n6\n8\n9\n9\n2692\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n9\n2645 \t\n6\n,, ?\n8\n1\n2699\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n2\n2646 \t\n6\n8\n8\n9\n2707\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n9\n4\n2648 \t\n6\nSept. 19\n*\n44\n2710\n9\nSept. 4\nX\n26\n2651 \t\n7\nAug. 12\n8\n0\n2713\n9\nAug. 16\n8\n7\n2635 \t\n7\n9\n8\n9\n2717\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n9\n3\n2657 \t\n,, 7\n8\n8\n1\n2718\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\n10\n0\n2659 \t\n7\n8\n9\n1\n2719\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n3\n2681 \t\n,' 7\n8\n8\n1\n2720\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n8\n6\n2662 \t\n,, i\n9\n9\n2\n2722\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n9\n4\n2666 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n8\n3\n2726\n9\n,, 14\n9\n0\n2669 \t\n,, 7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n9\n3\n2728\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n3\n2670 \t\n7\n9\n9\n2\n2733\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n8\n9\n2672 \t\n,, 7\n9\n9\n9\n2734\n9\n,,11-13\n9\no\n2675 \t\n,, 7\n9\n8\n9,\n2736\n9\n,, 14\n9\n0\n2676 \t\n,, 7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n1\n40\n2737\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n7\n10\nTags attached at Station E, Point Roberts, Wash.\n4001\n4007\n4008\n4012\n4025\n4047\n4065\n4071\n4103\n4104\n-1107\n4109\n4117\n4121\n4122\n4129\n4138\n4142\n4130\n4166\n4174\n4183\n4187\n4196\n4198\n4203\n4207\n4209\n4211\n4216\n4219\n4220\n4921\n4246\nJuly\n25\n23\n25\n25\n25\n25\n25\n25\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n26\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\n29\nJuly\n29\nAug.\n4\n.lulv\n26\nAug.\no\nJuly\n30\n29\n28\n29\nAug.\n3\nJuly\n29\n30\n29\n31\n30\n28\n29\n29\n28\nAug.\no\n9\n16\n2\n4\n12\nSept\n12\nAug.\n9\nJuly\n30\nAug.\n0\nJuly\n30\nAug.\n2\nJuly\n31\n31\n30\nAug.\n1\n10\n7\n10\n\u00C2\u00A7\n10\nII\n10\n10\n10\n10\n10\n10\n10\nIO\n10\n10\n10\n10\nII\n10\n10\n10\ntt\n8\n10\n10\n10\n9\n10\n10\n10\n9\n4\n4249 \t\n11\n4252 \t\n1\n4258 \t\n11\n4264 \t\no\n4267 \t\n4\n4268 \t\n3\n4270 \t\n4\n4271 \t\n8\n4274 ......\n3\n4277 \t\n4\n4279 \t\n3\n4283 \t\no\n4*84 \t\n4\n4286 \t\n2\n4288 \t\n3\n4289 \t\n3\n4291 \t\n2\n42, o-\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n9\n15\n4407 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n10\n15\n4633 \t\n,, o\n9\n6\n4\n4415 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n9\n10\n2\n4639 \t\n9 0\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n10\n15\n4417 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, o\n10\n6\n4646 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E o\n9\n10\n4\n4423 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n10\n1\n4653 \t\n,, \u00C2\u00BB'\nNov. 16\n\u00C2\u00A7\u00C2\u00A7\n103\n4432 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n9\n1\n4654 \t\n,, 5\nAug. 11\n10\n6\n4434 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nJuly 31\n10\n1\n4657 \t\n,, &\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n10\n8\n4436 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nAug. 30\n10\n30\n4660 \t\n5\n7\n10\n2\n4438 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\n11\n4663 \t\n\u00C2\u00BB o\n9\n10\n4\n1446 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n2\n10\n2\n4664 \t\n,, 5\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n9\n6\n4447 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n10\n21\n4669 \t\n;, 3\n6\n10\n1\n4454 \t\n.. 31\n6\n8\n6\n4670 \t\n9 O\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n10\n10\n4461 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E i\n10\n7\n4677 \t\n,i 0\n7\n10\n2\n4464 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, 7\n10\n7\n4686 \t\n,, a\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n10\n13\n4467 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, o\n8\n5\n4687 \t\n3\n8\n10\n3\n4468 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n8\n16\n4691 \t\n9 0\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n7\n6\n4474 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n10\n20\n4692 .\n,, 5\n., 16\n9\n11\n4476 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, o\n9\n0'\n4694 \t\n,, 3\nSept. 6\n10\n32\n4478 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n9\n10\n9\n4708 \t\n,, o\nAug. 12\n9\ni\n4480 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, o\n10\n0\n4l'09: \t\n,, 0\n,. 12\n10\n7\n4481 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n7\n10\n7\n4713 \t\n,i o\nSept. 5\n10\n31\n44S2 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\n\u00C2\u00A7\n2S\n4714 \t\n,, o\nAug. 12\n10\n7\n4483 \t\n,, 31\n9\n10\n2\n4732 \t\n,, o\n,, 20\n10\n13\n4483 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, o\n9\n0\n4733 \t\n,, o1\n6\n10\n1\n4486 \t\n,1 31\n2\n10\n9\n4735 \t\n,> a\n9\n9\n4\n4487 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n,, 5\n8\nO\n473S \t\n,, o\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n10\n21\n4488 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n1\n10\n1\n4740 \t\n9 0\n9\n10\n4\n4489 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nJuly 31\n10\n1\n4751 \t\n6\n9\n10\n3\n4491 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\nAug. 1\n9\n1\n4753 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n9\nG\n4492 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\n6\n-10\n6\n4 15 4 \t\n6\n6\n10\n1\n4499 \t\nAug. 1\n4\n10\n8\n4756 \t\n6\n18\n10:\n12\n450O \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E lis\n10\n7\n4739 \t\nfi\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n24\n4502 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n9\n11\n4760 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n10\n10\n4306 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n10\n18\n4765 \t\n6\n8\n10\n2\n430-8 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n10\n12\n4773 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n6\n4509 \t\n.1\n4\n10\n3\n4776 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n10\n14\n4511 \t\n1\nSept. 2\n10\n32\n4777 \t\n6\n,, 7\n10\n1\n4315 \t\n1\n4\n10\n3\n4780 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n9\n-o\n4516 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n11\n4784 \t\n6\n9\n9\n3\n4521 \t\n1\n6\n10\n5\n4790 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n10\n12\n4524 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n10\n20\n'4791 \t\n6\n7\n10\n1\n1\n9\n10\n1\n4<96 \t\n6\n,, 19\n10\n13\n4526 \t\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 6\n10\no\n4799 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26\n10\n20\n4533 \t\n1\n2\n10\n1\n4800 \t\n9 6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n10\n7.\n4534 \t\n9\n>, o\n10\n3\n4801 \t\n6\n6\n10\n10\n4540 \t\n2\n>> 5\n10\n3\n4803 \t\n6\n,, 7\n10\n1\n4544 \t\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n10\n9\n4808 \t\n6\n8\n10\n2\n2\n,, 7\n1\n5\n480-9 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\n10\n24\n4547 \t\n2\n,, 5\n**\n3\n4812 \t\n6\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n6\n2\n4\n10\n9\n4813 \t\n6\n8\n10\n2\n4556 \t\n2\n,, o\n10\n3\n4S14 \t\n6\n8\n10\n2\n4558 \t\n9\n4\n10\n2\n4818 \t\n6\n,,111122\n10\n19\n4560 \t\n9\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n8\n10\n4823 \t\n,, 7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\n10\n6\n4562 \t\n2\n8\n10\n6\n4825 \t\n7\n9\n9\n2\n4569 \t\n2\n4\n10\n2\n4828\n,, ?\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E ?\n10\n1\n* Skookumchuck, on Lillooet River, 12 miles above Harrison Lake, 73 miles above Mission.\nt Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet River, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nX Portage Creek, foot of Anderson, 170 miles above Mission.\n\u00C2\u00A7 Hell's Gate, 80 miles above Mission.\n|| The record is September 8th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August\nSth, as tabulated.\n\\ Devil's Run, 10 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\n** Three miles above Mission. Fraser River.\nft Trafalgar Flat. 50 miles above Mission. Fraser River.\nXX Samaquam. Lillooet River, 25 miles above Harrison Lake, 90 miles above Mission.\n\u00C2\u00A7\u00C2\u00A7 Mouth of Seymour Creek, Burrard Inlet, at North Vancouver.\nill The record is September 22nd, but this is.possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August\n22nd, as tabulated. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 71\nTable 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094List of Tags returned\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nTags attached at Station E, Point Robekts, Wash.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nDate\nDr.te\nRegion\nDays\nDate\nDate\nRegion\nDays\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nTag No.\nFish\nFish\nwhere\nen\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\nmarked.\nrecaught.\ntaken.\nRoute.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n1918.\n4830 \t\nAug. 7\nAug. 16\n*\n9\n74 \t\nAug. 15\nSept. 24\nJ\n40\n4831 \t\n,, 7\n,, ?\n10\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\nt\n37\n4833 \t\n7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n10\n3\n83 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n%\n31\n4836 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n10\n10\n-84 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n10\n26\n4847 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n4\n90 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n9\n\u00C2\u00A7\n17\n4861 \t\n8\n8\n10\n1\n100 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nAug. 19\n10\n1\n4869 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n10\n2\n113 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22\n10\n3\n4870 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\nt\n11\n126 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n10\n1\n4879 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n8\n10\n127 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n22\n10\n2\n4883 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n9\n4\n130 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\nSept. 5\n10\n16\n4886 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 10\n10\n2\n137 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\nAug. 28\n10\n8\n4896 \t\n\u00C2\u00BB 8\n12\n10\n4\n140 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n22\n10\n2\n4913 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12\n10\n4\n149 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n22\n10\n2\n4914 \t\n8\n9\n10\n1\n151 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 20\n22\n10\n4921 \t\n8\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 11\n10\n3\n136 \t\n,. 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n10\n1\n36 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 18\n10\n3\n164 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\nOct. 7\nt\n47\n38 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 16\n10\n1\n165 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\nAug. 21\n10\n1\n72 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15\nSept. 20\nX\n36\n167 ....\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 1127\n10\n6\n* American Bar, 50 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nt Trafalgar Flat, 50 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\nX Birkenhead River, 25 miles above Lillooet Lake, 130 miles above Mission, Fraser River.\n\u00C2\u00A7 Samaquam, Lillooet River, 25 miles above Harrison,Lake, 90 miles above Mission.\n|| The record is September 27th, but this is possibly a mistake, and the more probable date is August\n27th, as tabulated. ,\nPeecentage of Returns.\nTalile 3 shows the percentage of returns from each day's marking at each station. The data\nfrom which the percentages were obtained are also given. In general the returns indicate that\nthe marking was quite uniformly successful. This is especially true with that done at Stations\nB and D. The marking done at Station A suffered somewhat in efficiency for a few days at the\ntime the change was made in the personnel, hut otherwise is satisfactory. The records from\nStation E show a sudden diminution in the percentage of returns on August Sth and for the\nfollowing three days on which tish were marked. No explanation can be given for this. As\nnoted (note to Table 1, Station C), the accuracy of the August records for Station C is subject\nto considerable question, and the operator at this point has admitted reporting incorrectly the\nnumber of fish marked on August 6th. But 2 out of 164 reported marked on this date were\nrecovered, a much lower percentage than was obtained from any other day's marking. These\nfacts have thrown the record of marking done at this station during August so much under\nsuspicion that it was considered necessary, in certain phases of the study, to disregard entirely\nthe returns.\nIt is important to call attention to the fact that the figures given In Table 3 cannot be\naccepted as giving any adequate idea of the percentage of fish entering from the ocean which\nare caught while passing through the waters where commercial fishing is permitted. Several\nindeterminate factors must modify the percentage of returns to such an extent that, while they\nare reasonably comparable inter se, the actual figures give a much-distorted idea of the toll\ntaken from the run as it is passing through the sound and river. Two of these factors are\nespecially obvious, i.e.: (1) The figures as given here do not include all of the actual returns\nsince some were omitted on account of faulty or incomplete data; the error from this factor,\nhowever, is not great, approximately 5 per cent.; (2) a much more important source of error\nis due to lost tags. There are no means of knowing just how many were taken and not turned\nin. Nor can anything more be learned as to the number of tags lost from the fish between the\ntime they were attached aiid the time the fish were captured. Numerous reliable reports came\nto us of fish which showed a split in the tail-fin terminating in a hole similar to the one made\nwith the leather-punch. Apparently the tags had in some manner become caught and pulled out.\nAnother possibility is that some of the fish were unable to stand the operation necessary to the\nattachment of the tag, more particularly the attendant handling and removal from the water.\nAll of these factors would tend to increase the percentage of fish captured, but obviously\nthere are no means for determining to what extent. X 72\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 3.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Fish marked each Day, Total Number of Returns from each Day's Marking,\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 and Percentages of Returns for each Station, 1918.\nStation- A.\nStation B.\nStation C.\nDate marked.\nPercent\nPercent\nPercent\nMarked.\nReturned.\nage returned.\nMarked.\nReturned.\nage returned.\nMarked.\nReturned\nage returned.\nJuly 14 \t\n4\n1\n25\n43\nii\n30\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19 \t\n50\n19\n38\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21 \t\n46\n16\n35\n25\no\n20\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22 \t\n10\n4\n40\n40\n10\n25\n61\n16\n26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23 \t\n20\n2\n10\n95\n27\n28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2-4 \t\n8\n1\n12\n56\n18\n32\n76\n25\n30\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25 \t\n56\n4\n7\n50\n13\n26\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26 \t\n111\n45\n40\n152\n4\u00C2\u00BB\n33\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27 \t\n9S\n16\n16\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28 \t\n72\n15\n21\n54\n27\n50\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 \t\n99\n20\n20\n117\n3\nIS\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31 \t\n105\n24\n23\n4S\n20\n42\ni i\n12\n16\n104\n46\n45\n2 \t\n138\n21\n15\n64\n24\n38\n4 \t\n64\n8\n12\n94\n. 44\n48\n42\n18\n43\n6 \t\n34\n3\n9\n164\n2\n1\n36\n11\n31\n118\n14\n12\n9 \t\n105\n25\n24\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13 \t\n155\n24\n15\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14 \t\n76\n16\n21\nTotals \t\n831\n147\n17.7\n836\n311\n-37.5\n1,000\n203\n20.2\nDate marked.\nStation D.\nStation E.\nMarked.\nReturned.\nPercentage returned.\nMarked.\nReturned.\nPercentage returned.\n.Tulv 19 .\".\n85\n92\n74\n'63\n'ie\n'06\n61\n78\n94\n41\n'47\n28\n25\n23\n'as\nio\n'26\n35\n35\n52\n21\n'io\n33\n27\n31\n'ie\n'33\n'36\n57\n45\n55\n51\n'34\n95\n70\n'93\n114\n122\n39\n97\n113\n75\n16\n118\n36\n12\n23\n31\n16\n' 's\n11\n'is\n33\n41\n14\n24\n'27\n25\n6\n12\n7\n1\n2\n7\n4\n23\t\n24\t\n'\n25 \t\n8\n16\n'\n28 \t\n29 \t\n19\n'\n30 \t\n29\n1\n31 \t\n34\nAll\n36\n2 \t\n25\n4 \t\n5 \t\n24\na \t\n33\n37\n8 \t\n10\n9 \t\n15 \t\n12\n16 \t\n8\n19 \t\n9\n20 \t\n23\n21 \t\n25\n'\nTotals \t\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 737\n298\n40.7\n1,0:90\n240\n99\nTotal number marked 4,494\nTotal number returned 1,199\nPercentage returned 26.8\nAmong; the specimens listed in Table 2 the following were recorded as having been taken\noutside the limits of the regions indicated on the map :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDays out.\n1 specimen, Burrard Inlet, marked August Sth, Station E 103\n2 specimens, Ebey's Lauding, marked July 24th,. Station C 17\n1 specimen, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked July 26th, Station C .. 11\n2 specimens, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked July 27th, Station A . 1-5 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 73\n1 specimen, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked August 28th, Station A 4\n4 specimens, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked July 20th, Station A . 2\n1 specimen, near Sooke, British Columbia, marked August 2nd, Station A . . 2\nThese specimens from without the limits were so few that they have been omitted from\nfurther consideration. It seems probable that, with the exception of the specimens marked\nat Station A and taken near Sooke, these represent runs of sockeyes which were bound to some\nstream other than the Fraser River.\nIn the following tables separate consideration has been given to those fish which came from\nthe tributaries of the Eraser and from the main river above Mission Bridge. The problems\nconnected with the fish from these upper waters are sufficiently distinct from those connected\nwith the fish taken by commercial fishermen to demand such separate treatment.\nTable 4 gives the number of specimens returned (1) from the main commercial fishing-\ngrounds, (2) from the Upper Fraser River, and (3) from outside the limits which we have set.\nTable 4.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Marked Fish taken in- Numbered Districts of-Puget Sound and Fraser\nRiver, Upper Fraser River, and outside these Boundaries.\nTotal\nreturned.\nNumber from\nMarking-station.\nMain\nDistricts.\nUpper\nFraser\nRiver.\nOutside\nLimits.\n147\n311\n203\n298\n240\n136\n301\n190\n280\n212\n3\n10\n1\n9\n27\n8\n3\n1,199\n1,137\n50\n1'2\nDetailed Study or Returns from the Commercial Fishing Districts.\nTwo tables have been prepared for each of the marking-stations, presenting in detail the\ndata obtained from the marking: First, a table showing for each day's marking the number\nand percentage of specimens recovered from each region and the average number of days\nrequired for the journey; second, a table showing the distribution of returns according to the\nregion from which the return was reported and the number of days en route. This last is given\nas a matter of record and in order to show something of the range of variation underlying the\naverage rates of progress as given in various other tables. It is upon the data given in these\ntables that the general discussions of the routes and rates of travel which immediately follow\nare based.\nTable 5.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station A taken\nin each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1918*\nRegion.\nDate marked.\n1.\n2\n4.\n6.\n7.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\n' 9\ni\n2\ni\n1\n2\n'i\n1\n1\n3.0\n1.0\n6.5\n3.0\n1.0\n1.0\n.io\n2.0\n3.0\n1\n6\n1\n9:\ni\n9.\n5\ni\n5.0\n3.3\n6.0\n7.0\n5.0\n4.0\n2.5\n3.0\n'i\n2.'0\n'i\n'i\n'e\n5\n2\n3\n2\n3\n16.0\n5.0\n3.7\n6.4\n9.0\n5.3\n4.5\n4.0\n'i\n'i\n3\n3\n8\n4\n6\n1\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\t\n99\n3.0\n8.5\n5.3\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\t\n.. 31\t\nAug. 1\t\n9\n8.3\n7.5\n4.2\n3.5\n3.0\n4.0\nTotal\t\n12\n16\n1\n23\n32\nAveragest .. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n2.8\n4.1\n2.0\n5.7\n5 8\n* No specimens marked at Station A were recovered in Regions 3 and\nt Weighted mean. X 74\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 5.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station A taken\nin each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1918\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nDate marked.\nRegion.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\n10.\nFish.\nDays.\nTotal\nmarked.\nTotal\nreturned.\nPercentage\nreturned.\nJuly 14\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21\t\n99\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 2\u00C2\u00A7X '.'.'.WW '.'.\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 27\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28'\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\t\nAug. 1\t\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 i.'.'.,'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.\n6\t\nTotal\t\nAverages*\n'i\nli.'o\n3\n'i\n5.0\n'i\nl\n2\n7.0\nl\n2\n10.0\n4\n9\n9.9\n2\n5.0\n4\no.o\n2\n3\n4.3\n1\n1\n3.0\n25\n13\n\"\n4.3\n4.0\n4.0\n26.0\n6.0\n8.0\n7.0\n6.0\n5.0\n6.5\n15.0\n8.0\n8.0\n33.0\n10.5\n4\n46\n10\n20\n105\n77\n138\n64\n34\n831\n1\n14\n4\n2\n1\n4\n13\n14\n16\n24\n12\n20\n136\n30\n40\n10\n12\n7\n13\n19\n16\n23\n16\n14\n12\n9\n16.3\n* Weighted mean.\nTable 6.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station A according lo Region in which\ncaptured and Number of Days en Route.*\nDays en Route.\nRegion.\n1.\n2,\n4.\n6.\n7. S.\n9.\n10.\n1\t\n9\n4\n9\n4\n1\n'i\n2\n6\n1\n4\n1\n2\ni\n1\n1\n3\n6\n5\n2\n'2\n3\n1\n9\n6\n4\n3\n3\n4\n3\n9\n1\n2\ni\n1\n4\n6\n3\n4\n1\n'i\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n3\n'i\n-'i\n'i\n3\t\n4\t\n'i\n9\n6 .. . . \t\n1\n7\t\n8\t\n9\t\n1\n4\n1\n10\t\n11\t\n1\n12 .. .\t\n13\t\n14\t\n16\t\n18 .. \t\n2\n26\t\n33\t\n'i\nTotals \t\n12\n16\n1\n23\n32\n25 1 13 14\n* No specimen's marked at Station A were recovered in Regions 3 and 5. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 75\nTable 7.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station B taken\nin each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1918.*\nRegion.\nDate marked.\n1.\n2.\n4.\n6.\n7.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nJuly 21\t\n9 9\n2\n1\n6\n3\n12\n7\n'i\n5\n5\n4\nS.O\n2.0\n1.8\n1.0\ns.'o\n2.0\n2.5\n1.6\n2.2\n1.2\n5\n4\n2\n1\n'3\n'3\n2\ni\n6\n2\n2.0\n5.5\n6.5\n14.0\n3.7\n2.7\n3.5\n12.0\n3.3\n2.3\n'i\n1\n'2\n2.0\n1.0\n3.0\n'2\n3\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n9\n'3\n1\n4.5\n3.0\n1.0\n4.0\n3.0\n1.0\n2.0\n1.4\n2.0\n2.0\n'i\n'i\n'3\n2\n2:\n5\n5\n3\n8\n4\n1\n15.0\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\t\n,, 24\t\n9g \t\n8.0\n26 \t\n5.3\n28\t\n3.0\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\t\n9;\n5.5\n3.2\n5.0\n3.0\n4\t\n2.5\n3.7\n2.0\nTotals \t\n49\n29\n4\n25\n35\nAverages! . . .\n2.4\n4.2\n2.2\n2.3\n4.4\nRegion.\nTotal\nmarked.\nTotal\nreturned.\nDate marked.\n8\n9.\n10.\nPercentage\nreturned.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nJuly 21 \t\n2'\n1\n2\n5\n3\n'ti\n14\n7\n9\n4\n3\n5.0\n3.0\n7.5\n8.0\n5.7\n3.0\n3.0\n5.1\n3.4\n3.3\n3.3\n1\n1\n51\n3\nio\n7\n'3\n5\n6\n5\n3 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n3.0\n2.0\n3.6\n2.7\n7.3\n5.7\ns.'o\n3.4\n8.0\n6.2\n5.0\n2\n's\n4\n7\n11\n4\n3\n3\n6\n1\n3\n4.5\n4.4\n5.7\n11.7\n3.5\n4.0\n7.0\n8.0\n8.7\n7.0\n7.3\n25\n40\n95\n56\n50\n111\n54\n1?\n48\n104\n64\n94\n42\n36\n5\n10\n27\n17\n12\n43\n27\n3\n19\n43\n24\n42\n17\n10\n20\n29 \t\n25\n23\t\n28\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24\t\n25\t\n30'\n24\n26 \t\n39'\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\t\n30' \t\n50\n18\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31\t\nAug. 1\t\n9\n40\n44\n38\n4\t\n45\n41\n28\nTotals\t\n56\n49\n54\n836\n301\n36\nAveragest . . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n4.7\n5.4\n6.3\n* No specimens marked at Station B were recovered in Regions 3 and\nt Weighted mean. X 76\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 8.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station B according to Region in which\ncaptured and Number of Days en Route*\nDavs en Route.\nRegion.\n1.\n2,\n4.\n6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\n1\t\n9\n20\n15\n6\n1\n3\n1\n9,\n13\n4\n2\ni\n'i\nl\n2\n1\ni\ni\n2\n1\n, 13\n4\n4\n2\n4\n9\n7\n6\n1\n9\n1\n2\n'i\nl\n'i\n1\n6\n21\n8\n7\n5\n2\n1\n'i\n1\n1\n1\n'i\n1\n10\n13\n9\n4\n2\n2\n'i\n'i\n2\n1\n'i\ni\ni\n2\n2\n3\t\n4 .\ni\n8\n14\n14\n6\t\n1\n8\t\n9\t\n10\t\n3\ni\n11\t\n12\t\nl\n13\t\ni\n14\t\n15\t\n'9\n16\t\n19\t\n23\t\n25 \t\n1\n'i\n27\t\n1\nTotals *\t\n49\n20\n4\n25\n35\n36\n49\n54\n* No specimens marked at Station B were recovered in Regions 3 and 5.\nTable 9.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station C taken\nin each Region and Average Number of Days en Route, 1.918.*\nRegion.\nDate marked.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n0.\n7.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nJuly 17\t\n4\n'i\n3\n5\n'i\n1\n4\n1\n5.2\n3.6\n4.3\n3.2\n2.6\n2.0\n2.0\n3.0\n5\n9\n4\n6\n1\n9\n5\n7\n2.8\n2.5\n10.0\n5.5\n1.0\n1.-5\n2.5\n1.4\n2.1\n'i\n'i\n3.6\n7.6\n'i\ni\n4.3\n6.6\n3.6\n5\n1\n4\nO\n'i\n4\n'i\n6.2\n2.0\n4.2\n7.0\n9.6\n6.2\n2.6\n2\ni\n'6\n1\n1\n2\n2\n3\n4 5\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19\t\n99\n3.5\n24\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 26-\t\nAug. 6\t\n9.0\n5.0\n2.0\n9\t\n13 . .\n3.5\n6.0\n14 \t\n5.0\nTotals\t\n213\n34\n2\n5\n19\n20\nAverages! . . .\n3.0\n3.8\n5.0\n4.4\n\"\n5.7\n5.6\nRegion.\nTotal\nmarked.\nTotal\nreturned.\nDate marked.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nPercentage\nreturned.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\n1\n5\n3\n2\n13\n'e\n10\n7\n1\n3.0\n5.4\n5.0\n7.0\n5.6\n5.5\n3.0\n6.0\n2\n1\nO\n4\n7\n\"i\n5\n5\n6.0\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 3.0\n6.3\n6.5\n8.1\n5.6\n6.2\n5.8\n1\n9\n5\n7\n'i\n1\n'3\n4.0\n13.5\n8.7\n10.9\n7.6\n9.0\n13.6\n43\n50\n61\n76\n152\n164\n118\n105\n135\n76\n13\n19\n16\n23\n47\n2\n14.\n25\n24\n16\n30.0\n38,0\n29 \t\n96.0\n30.0\n33.0\n1.0\n12.0\n9\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 13\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 14\t\n24.0\n15.5\n21.0\nTotals\t\n48\n28\n20\n1,000\n199\n19.0\nAveragesf.. \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nly.Q\n6.3\n9.8\n* No specimens marked at Station C were taken in Region\nf Weighted mean. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 77\nTable 10.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station C according to Region in which\ncaptured and Number of Days en Route*\nDays en Route.\nRegion.\n1. 2. 3.\n4. 6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\n1 \t\n2 \t\n3 \t\n4 . .\n3 8\n6 9\n7 7\n1 1\n3 1\n3\n2 1\n1 1\n! i\ni\n! 'i\n1\n1\n2\ni 2\n2 2\n1 8\n1\n'i\n: '}\n2\n1\n2\n9\n4\n3\n1\n*2\n1\n'i\n'i\n12\n11\n4\n8\n1\n9,\n9\n'i\n'i\n-2\n7\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A05\n3\n3\n4\n1\n1\ni\ni\n's\n2\n6 \t\n2\n3\n8 \t\n9 \t\n10 \t\n11 \t\n2\n1\n12 \t\n1\n13 \t\n14 \t\n1\n15 \t\n16 \t\n17 \t\n\"1 \t\n9Q\n1\n4\nTotals\t\n>3 34\n2\n5 19\n20\n4S\n28\n20\n* No specimens marked at Station C were recovered in Region 5.\nTable 11.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station D taken\nin each Region and Average Number of Dags en Route, 1918*\nRegion.\n1\n2\n-\nS\n.\n10.\nJO\na\nX3\na .\na\nrjrj\nrd\nm\n^\nw\nA\nof.\nrd\noil\nA\noti\nA\noc\n55 T3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2A%\ni\ncci\n0\nP\nE\n03]\nD\nr33i\ncc3\n0\nE\ncd\nQ\ns\nCC!\nQ\no ^3\nH9\nIt\nSg\nJuly 19\t\n..\n2\n4.0\n16\n5.1\n8\n4.6\n1\n3.0\n85\n27\n32\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23\t\n17\n1.9\n4\n1.5\no\n10.3\n92\n24\n26\n., 24\t\n3\n2.0\n15\n3.8\n5\n10.2\n74\n23\n31\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28\t\n9\n1.0\n9\n1.4\n12\n2.8\n4\n15.7\n63\n27\n43\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30\t\n1\n3.0\n0\n9 2\n4\n1.7\n4\n2.0\n46\n14\n30\n1\n3.0\n6\n2.5\n10\n2.8\no\n12.3\n56\n20\n36\n.. s\t\nrt\n1.0\n19\n1.6\n9\n1.6\n2\n22.5\n61\n35\"\n57\n23\n1.6\n8\n1.9\n3\n8.0\n78\n34\n44\n6\t\n2\n5.0\n18\n2.8\n24\n9 3\n6\n3.2\n94\n50\n53\ni\t\n10\n1.8\n9\n2.2\n1\n5.0-\n41\n20\n49\n9\t\ni\n10.0\n\u00C2\u00B0\n3.8\n6\n4.0\n3\n3.7\n47\n15\n32\nTotals \t\n9\n1\n11\n.. | 131\n109\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n33\n737\n289\n39\nAveragest- .\n1.0\n..\n3.0\n3.3\n..\n2.5\n2.7\n8.5\n..\n* No specimens marked at Station D were recovered in Regions 3', 4, 5, and 6.\nt Weighted mean.\nTable 12.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station D according to Region in which\ncaptured and Number of Days en Route, 1918*\nDavs en Route.\nRegion.\nDavs en Route.\nRegion.\n1. 2.\n7. 1 8.\n9.\n10.\n1. j 2.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\n1\n9\n'i\n5\n' 2\n47'\n39\n28\n6\n4\n3\n1\n1\n28\n38\n19\n10\n7\n2\n1\n'i\n1\n1\n2\ni\n12\n2\n5\n'i\n'i\n2\n12\t\n' i\n\"1\n' i\n1\n9\n13\t\n15 : .\n3 \t\n4 \t\n2\n18\t\n1\n20\t\n\"1\t\n23\t\n1\n6 \t\n1\n1\n8 \t\n9 \t\n30\t\n1\n1\n.. | X\nTotals \t\n2 1 1 1 11\n131\n109\n11 \t\n35\n* No specimens marked at Station D recovered in Regions 3, 4, 5, and X 78\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 13.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number and Percentage of Specimens from each Day's Marking at Station E taken\nin each Region and Average Number of Dags en Route, 1918*\nRegion.\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\nCD\nJ*\nCr\nCd\na\n\"cd\n+j\n0\nH\n00\na\nc\n\"cd\n0\nH\nDate marked.\n6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nA\n013\nS\ncd\na\n3d\nfe\ntfl\nA\nV3\ns\nOC\ncs\nfi\nA\n013\n>,\nCC!\nfi\nHi\n5\nm\nri\ncd\nfi\nbD .\n\u00C2\u00A7S\nS2\nJuly 25\t\ni.'o\n1\n'2\n'i\n11.0\n7.5\n8.0\n'3\n3\n5\n'9\n'i\n3.7\n4.0\n7.8\n8.5\ntoo\n'2\n5\n5'\n1\n4\n5\n3\n1\n1\n3.5\n7.4\n3.4\n11.0\n5.2\n8.6\n4.7\n2.0\n4.0\n5 i S4\n95\n70\n93\n114\n122\n39\n97\n113\n75\n16\n118\n56\n12\n23\n31\n16\n6\n10\n14\n27\n39\n14\n20\n26\n23\n5'\n11\n3\n'2\n7\n3\n6\n26\t\n29\t\n30\t\n31\t\n2\n10\n9\n19\n27\n13\n14\n19\n22\n4\n9\n3\n' '9\n7\n3\n3.7\n5.0\n5.5\n8.3\n9.3\n4.9\n9.8\n7i.9\n2.7\n3.4\n10.0\n2.0\n4.7\n2,7\n14\n15\n23\n32\n36\n21\n23\n33\n31\n6\t\n8\t\n10\n5\n'8\n23\n19\n16\t\n19\t\n20\t\n21\t\nTotals \t\nl\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ! 4\n14\n27\n166\n1,000\n212\n19.5\nAveragesf ....\n4.0 ! ..\n8.0\n6.4\n5.8\n6.7\n* No specimens marked at Station E were recovered in Regions 1,\nt Weighted mean.\n4, aud 5.\nTable 14.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distribution of Returns from Marking at Station E according to Region\ncaptured and Number of Days en Route*\nwhich\nDays en Route.\nRegion. .\nDays en Route.\nRegion.\n6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\n6.\n7.\n8. \u00C2\u00A3\n10.\n1 \t\n'i\n'i\n'i\n'2\n'2\n3\n3\n1\n2\n'2\n3\n1\n3\n4\n6\n2\n2\n'2\n'2\n34\n25\n24\n10\n7\n12\n10\n4\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n2\n15 \t\n2 4\n2 \t\n3 \t\n1? :;.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2.:::::>:\n1\n2\n1\n18 \t\n2\n5 \t\n6 \t\n7 \t\n8 \t\n20 \t\n21 \t\n24 \t\n26\t\n27 \t\n3\n3\n2\n1\n1\n10 \t\n11 \t\n30 \t\n31 \t\n32 \t\nTotals ....\n2\n1\n12 \t\n13\t\n14 \t\n2\n1\n4\n14 5\n7 1 166\n* No specimens marked at Station E were recovered in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.\nIt was hoped that much more detailed information as to the migration up the Fraser Kiver\nmight be presented, and to that end the river and the waters of the Strait of Georgia around\nthe mouth of the river had been divided into twenty regions, each comprising about five miles\nof the river or off shore about the mouths. The returns from Canada were at first studied on\nthis basis, but it finally became clear that the subdivisions were much too small to give results\nof any significance. These twenty regions were then divided into seven, as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRegion 10. Banks off the mouth of the South Arm and Canoe Pass.\nRegion 11. South Arm and Canoe Pass up as far as Deas Island.\nRegion 12. South Arm from Deas Island to New Westminster.\nRegion 13. Banks off the mouth of the North Arm.\nRegion 14. North Arm.\nRegion 15. Fraser River from New Westminster to the mouth of Pitt River.\nRegion 16. Fraser River from the mouth of Pitt River to Mission Bridge. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 79\nTable 15 gives the number of specimens which were marked at each of the marking-stations\nrecovered from each of these regions, and the average number of days en route. It is apparent\nfrom this that even with this increase in the size of the regions no significant and consistent\ndifference in the length of time required to reach the different regions appears, and for the\npurposes of statistical analysis it was necessary to consider all of the returns from the main\nCanadian waters as constituting a single group, and to combine Regions 10 to 16 into one region,\n10. It is much to be regretted that the data are not such as to make possible a reliable estimate\nof the rate of travel in the river itself. Whether this is due to the manner of collecting and\nrecording the data cannot be stated. Although these records from Canadian waters do not admit\nof detailed analysis, yvhen combined as a single group they agree well with the results obtained\nfrom American waters.\nTable 15.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Specimens marked at each Station recovered in each Region in Canadian\nWaters, including the Fraser River to Mission Bridge only, and Average Number of Days\nen Route.\nStation.\nTotal\nFish.\nAverage\nNumber\nA.\nB.\nC.\nD.\nE.\nDays en\nRoute.*\nRegion 10 :\n3\n7.0\n8 .\n13.5\n2\n6.5\n1\n5.0\n15\n6.3\n27\n6.0\n5\n5.6\n1\n5.0\n2\n0.0\n4\n7.8\n7\n10.3\n8\n6.9\n2\n13.5\n9\n14.5\n1\n10.0\n11\n8.0\n15\n9.1\n3\n12.3\n3\n2.7\n1\n1.0\n2\n3.0\n35\n6.8\n77\n6.1\n11\n5.2\n11\n9.9\n1:8\n6.8\n4\n9.7\n10\n6.0\n66\n134\n23\n14\n19\n9\n16\nRegion 11 :\n7.2\nRegion 12 :\nFish \t\nRegion 13 :\nFish \t\n6.9\n7.6\nRegion 14 :\nFish \t\n8.4\nRegion 15 :\nFish \t\nRegion 16 :\nFish \t\n6.7\n8.1\n6.6\nTotal fish \t\n14\n54\n20\n35\n166\n2.S9\nAverage number days en route* ....\n10.5\n6.1\n9.8\n8.3\n6.6\n7.1\n* Weighted mean.\nIn Table 16 is shown the total number of individuals marked at each station which were\ntaken in each region, together with the average time en route. This combines the totals and\naverages developed in Tables 5 to 14.\nTable 16.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Specimens marked at each Station taken in each Region and Average\n_..... _ . Number of Days en Route*\nRegion.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\nb\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish. | Days.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\n12\n49\n23\n2\n2.8\n2.4\n3.0\n1.0\n16\n29-\n34\n1\n4.1\n4.2\n3.8\n3.0\n'\u00E2\u0080\u00A22\ns.'o\n1\n4\n5\n2.0\n2.2\n4.4\n23\n25\n19\n'i\n5.7\nB \t\n2.3\n5.7\nD \t\nF, \t\n4.0\nTotals \t\n86\n80\n2.\n10\n68\nNo specimens were taken in Region 5. X 80\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 16.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Specimens marked at each Station taken, in each Region and Average\nNumber of Days en Route\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concluded.\nRegion.\n7.\n5\n9.\n10.\nTotal.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nFish.\nDays.\nA \t\nB \t\n32\n35\n20\n11\n4\n5.S\n4.4\n5.6\n3.3\n8.0\n25\n58\n48\n131\n14\n7.5\n4.7\n5.6\n2.5\n6.4\n13\n40\n28\n109\n27\n7 2\n5.4\n6.5\n2.7\n5.8\n14\n54\n20\n35\n166\n10.5\n6.3\n9.8\n8.5\n6.7\n136\n301\nC \t\n199'\nD \t\nE \t\n2S9\n212\nTotals \t\n102\n274\n226\n289\n1,137\nRoutes taken by Fraser River Sockeyes through Puget Sound.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Tables 17 and 18 show in\ncomplementary ways the distribution of returned fish according to the station at which they\nwere marked and the region in which they were taken. Table 17 gives the percentages of the\ntotal returns from each station which were taken in each region and Table 18 the percentages\nof the total returns from each region which were marked at each station. The returns from\nRegions 3, 4, and 5 are practically negligible. It is quite obvious that the great majority of\nthe fish, on entering the Sound through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, pass across to Washington\nSound, and especially the southern shores of the southern' islands of the San Juan Archipelago\n(Region 1) and the western shore of Whidbey Island (Region 2) ; 8.8 per cent, of the returned\nfish which were marked at Sooke were taken in Region 1 and 11.8 per cent, in Region 2.\nTable 17.-\n-Percentages of Recovered Fish from each Marking-station ivhich were taken in each\nRegion*\nRegion.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n0.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nA \t\nS.S\n16.2\n11.4\n0.7\n11.8\n9.6\n16.8\n0.4\n'i\n0.7\n1.3\n2.5\n17.0\n8.3\n9.9\n6.5\n23.5\n11.6\n9.9,\n3.8\n1.9\n18.4\n18.9\n24.3\n45.3\n6.6\n9.5\n16.2\n13.8\n37.7\n12.7\n10.3\nB \t\n17.9\nC \t\n10.4\nD . ... \t\n12.1\nE \t\n78.3\n* No specimens were recovered in Region 5.\nTable 18.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentage of Recovered Fish from each Region ichich were marked at each Station*\nRegion.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nA \t\nB \t\nC\t\n14.0\n57.0\n26.7\n2.3\n20.0\n36.2\n42.5\n1.3\n100\n10\n40\n50\n33.3\n36.3\n29.0\n1.4\n31.4\n34.4\n19.6\n10.8\n3.8\n9.1\n20.6\n17.7\n47.5\n5.1\n5.8\n21.6\n12.4\n48.3\n11.9\n4.S\n18.6\n7.2\nD \t\n12.1\nB \t\n57.3\n' * No specimens were recovered in Region 5.\nThere is apparently considerable interchange of fish between Regions 1 and 2, as is evidenced\nby the fact that 9.6 per cent, of the returned fish marked at Station B, located in Region 1, were\ntaken in Region 2, and that 11.4 per cent, of the fish marked at Station C, in Region 2, were\ntaken in Region 1. From the region of Washington Sound a very few fish pass northward\nthrough Haro Strait (Region 4), but the proportion must be small compared with those passing\nthrough Rosario Strait and on up through the Strait of Georgia. The apparent proportions may,\nhowever, be modified by the fact that there are many more traps in Rosario Strait than in Haro 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 81\nStrait. The few fish taken in Haro Strait came from Stations A, B, aud C, as would be expected.\nOnly two specimens were taken in Deception Pass, both marked at Station C. No fish are\nrecorded as having been taken in the central channels of the San Juan Archipelago.\nFrom the southern part of the Strait of Georgia (locally designated the Gulf of Georgia)\nthe fish pass Point Roberts and enter Canadian territorial waters. Very soon thereafter they\nmust enter the river, especially through Canoe Pass and the main mouth of the South Arm, and\nbegin their journey up the river to the spawning-grounds.\nIn summarizing, the route followed by the very great majority of the salmon entering the\nStrait of Juan de Fuca and bound for the Fraser River may be stated as follows: Across\nWashington Sound to the \" Banks \" south of the San Juan Islands and to the western shore\nof Whidbey Island; from here northward through Rosario Strait to the Strait of Georgia, past\nPoint Roberts to the mouths of the Fraser River. There is no evidence to indicate that this\nroute is varied in different parts of the season.\nAs might be expected, this route is well indicated by the location of the various trap-sites.\nThe approximate number of traps in the various regions of Puget Sound for which licences were\nissued in 1918 is as follows:*\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRegion 1 14.\n20\n13\n11\n4\n26\nRegion 7 , 11\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 8 40\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 9 39\nTotal 178\nIn addition to the above, there are six traps located on the Canadian side of the Straits\nof Juan de Fuca, on Vancouver Island, eleven scattering traps along the southern shore of these\nstraits, and twenty-nine in Admiralty Straits, chiefly between Admiralty Bay and Double Bluff.\nThere are also a few in Hood Canal and that part of the sound extending south past Seattle,\nSaratoga Passage, and Padiila Bay. The ones listed above are those of chief concern here.\nThere is apparently only a very low degree of correlation between the number of traps and\nthe number of marked fish taken in any particular region. In Table 19 the six regions from\nwhich most of the returns came have been arranged in the order of the number of traps located\nin each. Then is given, for each region, the percentages of fish marked at Stations A and B\nwhich were recaptured in the respective regions. No correlation is apparent between the number\nof traps and the returns from Station A. There seems to be a distinct correlation in the case\nof the returns from Station B (especially if Region 6 is omitted), but the correlation is not well\nproportioned.\nTable 19.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Correlation between Number of Traps in Various Regions and Number of Marked Fish\ntaken in those Regions.\nRegion.\nNumber\nof Traps.\nPercentage of\nReturns from\nStations.\nA.\nB.\n11\n14\n20\n26\n39\n40\n4.12\n1.44\n1.95\n2.87\n1.82\n3.35\n4.98\n5.88\n6.23\n3.28\n8.31\n8.62\nIn a few instances a retrograde migration has apparently taken place and the fish have\ntravelled away from rather than toward the mouth of the Fraser River. It is possible that\nfaulty data may account for this, especially in such extreme cases as those fish marked at\nStation D and reported taken in Regions 1 and 2; or it may be that these are not Fraser River\nfish, but are sockeyes bound for some other stream.\n* Based upon licences issued by the Fish and Game Commission of the State of Washington. X 82 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1919\nRate of Migration.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A number of the preceding tables give, variously grouped, the average\nnumber of days required to pass from each marking-station to each region. Tables 5, 7, 9, 11,\nand 13 show the total range of variation in this regard for each station, and the general averages\nfor each station are shown in Table 16. From the last-mentioned table it is apparent that, as\nwould be expected, the time en route usually increases as the distance between the station and\nthe regions where the fish were recovered increases. Those fish which were captured in the\nsame region in which they were marked\u00E2\u0080\u0094such, for instance, as were marked at Station B and\nrecovered from Region 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094have evidently been slow to resume the migration after the marking.\nForty-nine specimens marked at Station B were taken in Region 1 after being out an average\nof 2.4 days. From Station C thirty-four specimens were taken in Region 2 after an interval\nof 3.8 days. Eleven specimens from Station D were taken in Region 7 after an average of 3.3\ndays, and twenty-seven specimens from Station R were taken in Region 9 after 5.8 days. It\nseems quite clear that, in the case of fish which have been recaptured comparatively close to\nthe point at which they were liberated, the rate of progress is slower than that of fish taken a\ngreater distance from the marking-station. Also, as may be seen from Table 16, in cases where\na retrograde migration has taken place the rate of progress has usually been slow. These\noccurrences may possibly be due to some slight injury, or other unfavourable result, due to the\nhandling attendant upon tagging. It may also be due to inaccurate data. In either case it\nwould seem justifiable, when estimating the normal rate of progress through the sound, to\nconsider only those cases of forward migration in which the fish have travelled a reasonably\nlong distance from the station at which they were marked, say not less than twenty miles.\nIn the case of the Canadian records it will be noted that the correlation between the distance\ntravelled and the time en route is very low. The average time required to pass from Station E,\nat Point Roberts, into the Fraser River is 6.6 days. This would indicate a much slower rate of\nmigration here than in other parts of the sound. In order to throw additional light upon this\npoint, the difference between the time required for fish marked at Stations A, B, C, and D to\nreach the vicinity of Point Roberts (Region 9) and that which elapsed before the fish from these\nsame stations were taken in Canadian waters has been calculated as follows :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDays.\nStation A 3.3\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E B 0.9\nC 3.3\nD ! 5.6\nAverage (simple mean) 3.27\nThis indicates a rate of progress between Point Roberts and the Fraser River over twice as\nrapid as that indicated solely by the results of the marking at Point Roberts, and one agreeing\nmuch better with the results obtained from the American records.\nThe previous tables have shown the rate of travel as the number of days required to pass\nfrom the marking-station to the various regions of the sound. In order to make these figures\ncomparable, the rate in miles per day has been calculated for each Instance. This has been done\nby simply dividing the distance\" travelled by the time required to make the journey. Table 20\ngives the distances from each marking-station to each of the established regions of the sound.\nThese distances were measured, by means of aii ordinary map measure, from the marking-station\nto approximately the centre of the region in question. The most direct route possible was chosen. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 83\nTable 20.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distances on Puget Sound from Marking-stations to Regions where Fish were taken*\nStation.\nRegion.\nMiles.\nStation.\nRegion.\nMiles.\nStation.\nRegion.\nMiles.\nr l\n35.0\n' 1\n15.5\nr i\n62.0\n2\n47.5\n2\n2\n59.5\n3\n57.0\n3\n15.5\n3\n62.5\n4\n45\n4\n35.0\n4\n35\nA \t\n5\n6\n52.5\n60\nC \t\nJ\n5\n6\n23.5\n20\nE \t\n5\n6\n35\n7\n71\n7\n33\n7\n35\n8\nS3\n8\n45\n8\n20.5\n9\n92.5\n9\n59.5\n9\n. 10\n122.5\nL io\n89.5\n,, io\n30\n\" 1\nl\n33.5\n2\n15\n2\n28\n3\n21.5\n3\n29.5\n4\n17.5\n4\n51.5\nB \t\n5\n10\nD \t\n0\n41.5\n6\n21.5\n6\n13\n7\n33.5\n7\n8\n47.5\n8\n11.5\n9\n62\n9\n27.5\n10\n92\n10\n57.5\n* As it is obvious that the majority of the fish pass through Rosario Strait, the distances, wherever\napplicable, have been measured over this route.\nTable 21.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Specimens marked at each Station taken in each Region and Rate of\nProgress in Miles per Day*\nA.\nB.\nC.\nD\nE.\nA.\nB.\nC.\nD.\nE.\nRegion 1 :\nRegion 7 :\nFish \t\n12\n49\n23\n2\nFish \t\n32\n35\n20\n11\n4\nRate \t\n12.5\n5.2\n33.5\nRate \t\n12.2\n7.6\n5.9\n4.4\nRegion 2 :\nRegion S :\nFish \t\n16\n29'\n34\n1\nFish \t\n^5\n56\n48.\n131\n14\nRate \t\n11.5\n3.6\n9.3\nRate \t\n11.1\n10.1\n8.0\n4.6\n3.2\nRegion 3 :\nRegion 9 :\nFish \t\n2\nFish \t\n13\n49\n28\n109\n27\nRate\t\n3.1\nRate \t\n12.8\n11.5\n9.1\n10.2\nRegion 4 :\nRegion 10 :\nFish \t\n1\n4\n0\nFish \t\n14\n54\n20\n35\n166\n22.5\n8.0\n8.0\nRate \t\n11.7\n14.G\n9.1\n6.8\n4.5\nRegion 6 :\nFish\t\n2.3\n25\n19\n1\nRate \t\n10.5\n9.3\n3.5\n11.2\n* No specimens were taken in Region 5.\nTable 21 gives the results of these calculations of the rate in miles per day, together with\nthe number of individuals on which the calculations are based. From this has been calculated\nthe mean rate of travel.* In doing this all cases have been omitted which were based on (1) less\nthan ten individuals, (2) a distance travelled of less than twenty miles, and (3) a retrograde\nmigration relative to the mouth of the Fraser River. This has been done to exclude, as nearly\nas possible, all abnormal figures. With these exclusions there remain nineteen categories on\nwhich to base the final conclusions as to the rate of migration. The data for these nineteen\ncategories are given separately in the following table:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n* This and other similar means have been computed by use of the \" harmonic mean \" recommended by\nYule (An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics), Rugg (Statistical Methods Applied to Education), and\nothers, for the calculation of mean rates based on units of work. The harmonic mean is denned by Rugg\nas \" the reciprocal of the arithmetic mean of the reciprocals of the individual measures of the series.\" X 84\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 22.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rate of Progress in the Nineteen Categories containing the Most Reliable Data.\nStation marked.\nRegion\nwhere\ncaptured.\nDistance\ntravelled.\nSpecimens.\nRate per\nDay.\nA \t\n1\nr i\n2\n6\n7 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n8\n9\nL io-\nf 7\n8\nMiles.\n35.0\n47.5\n60\n71\n83\n92.5\n122.5\n21.5\n33.5\n47.5\n62\n92\n33\n45\n59.5\n89.5\n27.5\n57.5\n30\nNumber.\n12\n16\n23\n32\n25\n13\n14\n25\n35\n56\n49\n54\n20\n4'8\n28\n20\n109\n35\n166\nMiles.\n12.5\n11.5\n10.5\n12.2\nB \t\n11.1\n12.8\n11.7\n9.3\n7.6\n10.1\nC \t\n9\nI 10\n\ l\nI io9\n\ 10\nin\n11.5\n14.6\n5.9\n8\nD \t\n9.1\n9.1\n10.2\nE \t\n6.8\n4 5\nCalculated from these figures the mean rate of migration is 7.8 miles per day. If the\nCanadian records are omitted, the rate is 9.7 miles per day.\nGreene,* in his study of the migration of salmon (Chinook, silver salmon, and steelhead)\nin the Columbia River, obtained results quite different from these. He estimates that from\nthirty to forty days are usually required for the process of acclimatization to fresh water, during\nwhich time the fish work back and forth with the tides. After entering water which is wholly\nfresh he estimates the rate of travel of silver salmon and steelhead at 6.36 to 7.50 miles per day,\nalthough he concedes that this is only about one-third of the rate of travel as. estimated by men\nengaged in the fishing industry and seems to imply that their figures are probably more reliable\nthan his own. Greene's figures should be accepted with considerable caution on account of the\ncomparatively few individuals marked and the fact that three species were represented and all\ncombined to give his final results. The sockeye-tagging experiment has produced no evidence\nindicating that the migration is especially retarded during the passage from salt to fresh water.\nAs may he seen from Table 15, there is no great difference in the time required to pass from\nAmerican waters to the Fraser River, just within the mouths, and that required to pass above\nNew Westminster, where the water is entirely fresh. Furthermore, as will be seen later, in\nthe case of fish taken on or near the spawning-grounds in the tributaries, the time elapsed since\nmarking averages between thirty and forty days, the time given by Greene as required for the\nprocess of acclimatization. It may be concluded either that Greene's results are wholly unreliable\nor that the migration of sockeye is quite different from that of the species studied by him, which\nis, of course, entirely possible. The rate of migration of the quinnat (Chinook) salmon of the\nSacramento River as given by Rutterf is much more nearly in accord with the results of this\nsockeye study. He estimates the rate of progress through brackish water to average seven or\neight miles per day and that through fresh water to be between fifteen and twenty miles per day.\nThese figures apply only to the spring run on the Sacramento River. The migration of the fall\nrun is considerably slower, averaging but four to five miles per day through the fresh water.\nGreene's observations were, of course, made upon fall-run fish.\nA further analysis of data has shown some interesting variations in the rate of migration.\nA calculation of the mean rate of migration from each marking-station indicates that the rate\nof travel decreases as the fish approach nearer the mouth of the Fraser as follows: Station B,\n10.5; Station C, 7.9; Station D, 9.1; Station E, 4.5.\n* Greene. Charles W.: The Migration of Salmon in the Columbia River. Bulletin U.S. Bureau of Fisheries for 1909, Vol. XXIX., pages 129-14S. Washington, 1911.\nt Rutter, Cloudsley: Natural History of the Quinnat Salmon. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission for 1902,\nVol. XXII., pages 65-142. Washington, 1904. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River.\nX 85\nFinally the rates of migration for different parts of the season have been calculated. The\ndata given in Tables 1 and 2 were first condensed into quartiles and then into halves, and the\nrate of travel in miles per day was calculated for each of these. The positions of the quarter\npoints determining the quartiles were based on the number of fish marked, not on the number\nreturned. In adopting a central point on which to separate the halves it was rather arbitrarily\ndetermined to consider all fish marked during July as belonging to the first half and all those\nmarked during August as belonging to the second half. It is more convenient to think of the\nhalves as separated in this manner, and the central point separating the fish marked into halves\ncomes sufficiently close to August 1st to warrant the division on this basis. These calculations\nhave not been made for Stations C and E. The inaccuracies in the marking record at Station C\nwould have made such treatment valueless. In the case of Station E, over 78 per cent, of the\nfish recovered were taken in Canadian waters. Inasmuch as the authors were unable to make a\ndetailed analysis of the Canadian records, it has seemed best not to attempt too detailed an\nanalysis of the records obtained from the marking at Station E.\n'Table 23.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rate in Miles per Day in Different Quartiles\u00E2\u0080\u0094Returns from Station A.\nRegion.\nI.\n2.\n7.\nS\n3.\n10.\nQuartiles.\nfl\non\nfa\nCD\nba\ncd*\na\no \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nfl\n+-:\nfl\nCD\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A051\nCD\nA\nCD\nfl\nCD\nfl\nCD\n03\noc+J\noi\nCC]\nCS\nO\nrr\nM\nfa\n\u00C2\u00AB\nfa\nK\nS\nrr\nfa\nH\nfa\nM\nfa\nB\nhi\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A04U\nFirst \t\n6\n9.2\n8\n12.2\n6\n13.9\n3\n11.3\n2\n10.4\n5\n22.0\n5\n19.1\n35\n13.0\n3\n35.0\n2\n6.8\n9\n8.6\n8\n9.9\n4\n9.8\n0\n9.2\n2\n18.8\n33\n10.0\nThird \t\n1\n11.6\n4\n12.8\n6\n12.5\n13\n11.4\n13\n10.0\n2\n11.6\n0\n10.4\n44\n11.1\nFourth \t\n2\n14.0\n2\n15.8\n2\n15.0\n8\n19.7\n0\n17.3\n1\n13.2\n2\n5.7\n23\n14.5\n* Harmonic mean.\nTable 21,.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rate in Miles per Day in Different Halves\u00E2\u0080\u0094Returns from Station A.\nRegion.\n1.\n2.\nrt\n8\n9.\n10.\nHalves.\nfl\nfa\nCD\nci\ncd#\nfl\nCD\nfl\n-t->\nfl\nCD\nfl\n4J\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0s\nfl\n+j\nfl\nC3\ncj\ncci\noi\nOJ\nci\n!> =3\nfc-\nS\nfa\n\u00C2\u00AB\nfa\nM\nfa\n85\nfa\n\u00C2\u00AB\nfa\n\u00C2\u00AB\nfa\n\u00C2\u00AB\nEH\nXi\n4\n6\n11\n4\n5.1\n9.3\n14.3\n10.8\n2\n5\n18\n15\n2.9\n7.6\n10.8\n9.6\n3\n9\n25\n19\n11.0\n6.2\n10.3\n13.2\n10\n14\n'7\n18\n20.O\n10.3\n12.6\n10.3\n14\n21\n6\n13\n18.4\n14.4\n14.6\n13.3\n33\n55\n68\n69\n11.0\n9,9\nThird \t\n11.5\n11.3\n* Harmonic mean. X 86\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nTable 26.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rate in Miles per Day in Different Halves\u00E2\u0080\u0094Returns from Station B.\nRegion.\nfl\n013\nfa\nrt\nO\nB\nHalves.\n6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nfl\ncc\nCD\nci\nM\n013\nfa\nCD\n+c\nci\n\u00C2\u00AB\nfl\noil\nfa\n03\nta\nfl\n013\nri\nCD\nci\n'A\nfl\n013\nfa\noj\n+->\nci\nCD4-J\nt\u00C2\u00BB rt\n12\n13\n7.7\n12.6\n14\n21\n6.0\n8.6\n19\n37\nS.S\n10.8\n27\n22\n12.1\n11.3\n36 1 16.1\n18 13.4\n10S\n112\n10.5\n10.9\nHarmonic mean.\nTable 27.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rate in Miles per Day in Different Quartiles\u00E2\u0080\u0094Returns from Station D.\nRegion.\nTotal\nFish.\nAverage\nRate.*\nQuartiles.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nAverage\nRate (for\nRegions\n9 and 10\nonly).\nfl\non\nfa\nCD\n4-c\ncj\nK\nfl\non\nCD\nci\nfl\nOf!\nfa\nCD\noi\nThird \t\n33\nIS\n46\n31\n3.7\n6.4\n6.S\n4.1\n13\n30\n27\n39\n8.1\n8.6\n13.1\n11.0\n5\n13\n7\n10\n6.7\n6.5\n3.9\n16.4\n51\n61\n80\n83\n4.6\n7.3\n7.5\n7.0\n7.6\n7.S\n8.8\n11.8\n* Harmonic mean.\nTable 28.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rate in Miles per Day in Different Halves\u00E2\u0080\u0094Returns from Station D.\nRegion.\nTotal\nFish..\nHalves.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nAverage\nFish.\nRate.\nFish.\nRate.\nFish.\nRate.\nRate.*\nFirst \t\n50\n81\n4.3\n5.5\n43\n- 66\nS.S 17\n6.2\n7.4\n110\n165\n5 6\n11.5\nIS\n7.2\n* Harmonic mean.\nIn the case of the quartiles, the indications are that the rate Is more rapid in the first than\nin the second quartile, and that the rates in the third and fourth quartiles are successively more\nrapid than in the second. This does not appear clearly in the results from Station D, especially\nwhen the returns from Region S are included. Omitting the returns from Region 8 (which is\ndeemed legitimate, considering the comparatively short distance travelled, just twenty miles\nfrom Station D to the centre of Region S) brings the results more nearly in accord with those\nobtained from Stations A and B, the only disagreement being in the rate during the first quartile.\nThis is, in the case of Station D, slightly less, rather than greater, than the rate in the second\nquartile.\nIt seems not unlikely that the difference in rates of travel shown in the different quartiles\nmay be explained as indicating racial differences existing in the fish composing different parts\nof the run. Gilbert* has demonstrated that the Fraser River run is composed of a number of\ndistinguishable races, each bound to a different spawning region. The assumption that these\nraces may have different rates of migration while passing through the waters of the sound does\nnot seem to be a difficult one to accept.\n* Gilbert, Charles H. : Contributions to the Life History of the Sockeye Salmon. Report. Commissioner\nof Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia for 1017, Paper No. 4, pages Q33-S0. Victoria, 191S. 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Sockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 87\nIn the case of the halves, the results from all three stations are in complete agreement,\nindicating that the rate during the second half is distinctly more rapid than during the first\nhalf.\nIn connection with the above determination of the rate of progress through Puget Sound,\nit must be borne in mind that the rates are undoubtedly lower than they should be. This\nnecessarily follows when it is considered that seldom less than one day, and frequently three\nor four days, elapses between the times when the traps are lifted and the fish reported. Again,\nthe fish may spend some time in the hearts and pot of the trap before entering the spiller, from\nwhich they may be taken at the next lift. A fish entering the trap immediately after it has been\nlifted would not be reported before the next day at the earliest, thus adding at least one day to\nthe actual time required to make the journey from the marking-station. If traps were uniformly\nlifted at twenty-four-hour intervals, twelve hours could with safety be subtracted from the\naverage number of days en route and the rate calculated accordingly. The authors' knowledge\non this point, however, is not sufficient to warrant such treatment. It would undoubtedly be a\nstep in the right direction, but would tend to give an opinion that the rates have been fully\ncorrected, which would be quite unwarranted by the facts. It is possible that the error involved\nis within the limits of error dependent upon other factors.\nReturns from Tributary Streams and the Eraser River above Mission Bridge.\nReturns were obtained from various sections of the Fraser River watershed which have not\nbeen included in the regions indicated on the map. These sections may be indicated as follows :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Specimens.\nMain river, 3 to 27 miles above Mission 7\nMain river, near Hope, Yale, Hell's Gate, and Spuzzum 16\nMain river at Lytton and Lillooet 2\nMain river at Soda Creek 2\nPitt River 6\nHarrison Lake system, between Harrison and Lillooet Lakes 5\nHarrison Lake system, Birkenhead River 9\nSeton Lake system, - Portage Creek 2\nChilcotin River 1\nThe complete data concerning these returns are given in Table 29. The mean dates on which\nthe fish captured in each of the above districts have been calculated and appear in the summary.\nThis was done in order to see, if possible, when the fish bound to the different tributaries were\nto be found in Puget Sound. We have suggested above the possibility of a segregation in time\nof the races demonstrated by Dr. Gilbert. 'X 88\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A28\ncq\nft.\no\nr-\nr-\nr*\no\ne\nC5\nft,\nI\ne\nt. fl V\nCO\nW\n\u00C2\u00A9 nc\nlO\n\u00C2\u00A9 HH \u00C2\u00A9 O\nIII'8!\n\u00C2\u00A9 ...\nOl iH i-t O CO\nH iH co in -\nrO\nCO CO CO\nCO HH HH HH .\n1- \u00C2\u00A9 O CM CO\nCM \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9\nOi\nIs\nCM CO CO CM\nr-i CO CO -\n.^ S3\n>-. >> >- >v be\nbi bi f*a >i\ns\nSft\n\"3 3 33 \u00C2\u00BB\n5 5 3 9:\ncd\nW\n\"-^ \"\"3 >\"3 i-S <\n<3 <5 ^ 0 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nf\u00C2\u00BB tD Ol CM CD\niO \u00C2\u00A9 CM rH \u00C2\u00A9\n,3 S\ni-t\nm\n,\n, _ A\n^ ^~~\"\"' \"\"\u00C2\u00BB\n( \"^' \"' -, <\nm ^\nffiCsMlQ'JHOKIClCOHffiHH\nHCOOf-OHSKONit-HiQ\ntH rH -H rH CM rH HM\nCMCMHi-htjicOCOCOHHHHH'HHH' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n\u00C2\u00B0 PS\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* Mfl NO O IT, N C M M O C C\nONrHM^irjOHHU-rlNOCO\nH\n-2 d\nCM iH CM rH r-l rH CO\nbi be bi. b/, -*- bi ii, bi bi: bi bi br. bi bi\n3 3 3 33 333333333\nCMCMiH rHiHCMCMCM i\u00E2\u0080\u0094i iH rH\nri hV*^ 4^4J4ij^4-=4J .434343\nH-rojojcucvoa.oi'aja.aj\n< \"1 (B cc x I- x x k _ a; 'X M\ncr \u00C2\u00A9 cm =-i ir. i- -j-- ~ \u00C2\u00A9 i-h cm i-coo\nO CT ^1 ^ \u00E2\u0080\u0094. .Q Id lO un rH \u00C2\u00A9 rH \u00C2\u00A9\nr,,\"9\nCMCM CM CM CM CM CO CO CO\nCOCO rH CO rH rH rH rH CM CM CO CO\n>*> >> bi bi ^^ ^^j >> bi bi bij^\n\"33^^\"33S33r3!=^=:3\nJ$}Z' b'r; It. '\"\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 bi bt bi bi bi X '>\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n33P3-;33333r:jr-;=s ;\nc:\nbb^^-i^^-ITn^^^^ \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n-shs<. bi bi \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 jfe >\u00C2\u00BB E?,E? &J\n3 p p :3,333 ^\nbi bi\n: S3 :\ns\nl-S <\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*$ 'l-3H-i-Sl-Si >i\nfil\nP\nu\n)w\nOJ\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 rt \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\ncs :\n(S ^5\n1 to ;\n: \"S \u00C2\u00AB\njzj u\nSc ^\n'\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 ^ S\n\u00C2\u00BB is \u00C2\u00B0\nt-\" 'E\nq3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A21 g Sc\n? -O 3\nrid\nc3\np\n*c 1 *|\n5 - c\n3 P bu\nJ\nillooet\nkes, Bi\nes, Por\n0\no\nCD\nsi on\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0puzz\nBrid\nver .\nbove\n-3 3 -a\nm\nI I I\nO \u00E2\u0080\u0094! b-\n27 miles above\near Hope, Ya\nmain river\nytton and LilL\nada Creek, ma\nitt River, 5 mi\nii Harris\nn and Li\nnd Ande\nin River\nTotal..\netwee:\narriso\nston a\nhilcot:\nco S\nhH 05\n-H\n'A W\ncc O 9 Geo. 5 Migration of Cockeye in Puget Sound and Fraser River. X 89\nThe data here presented are quite too fragmentary to afford a basis for more than the most\ntentative conclusions ; but the following points are suggested:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1.) The fish which go farthest up the main river before turning into the tributary in which\nthey are to spawn run earlier in the season.\n(2.) The main bulk of the fish which pass up the main river past Hope are to be found in\nPuget Sound at the height of the season, the latter part of July and early in August.\n(3.) The fish entering the lower tributaries, Pitt River and the Harrison Lake system, come\nlargely from those fish constituting the last half of the run.\nIn the event that it were deemed desirable to stop commercial fishing for part of the season,\nit would seem that the first part should be selected, as the indications are that there is a larger\nproportion of the up-river fish in the first half of the run, and these are the fish which have\nsuffered more severely as a result of the disaster of 1913.\nSUMMARY.\n(1.) The experiment of tagging adult sockeye salmon in Puget Sound was initiated in an\neffort to determine the routes and rates of migration of Fraser River sockeye in passing through\nthe waters yvhere commercial fishing is permitted.\n(2.) During July and August, 1918, numbered silver or aluminium buttons were attached\nto 4,494 adult sockeyes. Of these, 1,199 were later recovered and data as to time and.places of\ncapture secured.\n(3.) The route most commonly followed passes from the Strait of Juan de Fuca across\nWashington Sound to the Salmon Banks and Whidbey Island, then through Rosario Strait and\nthe southern part of the Strait of Georgia, past Point Roberts to the mouths of the Fraser River.\n(4.) The rate of migration as determined by the data for American waters is approximately\nten miles per day.\n(5.) The migration is more rapid during the last half than during the first half of the\nseason. X 90\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nPACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON, 1918.\nCompiled from Data furnished the Department ry the B.C, Salmon Canners' Association.\nFraser River District\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons (Esquimalt)\t\nGlen Rose Canning Co., Ltd\t\nGreat West Packing Co., Ltd\t\nM. DesBrisay & Co\t\nGosse-Millerd Packing Co., Ltd\t\nDefiance Packing Co., Ltd\t\nC.L. Packing Co., Ltd\t\nSt. Mungo Canning Co., Ltd\t\nEagle Harbour Packing Co., Ltd ..\nLiverpool Canning Co., Ltd\t\nCanadian Fishing Co., Ltd\t\nTotals\t\nSkeena River District\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons\t\nKildala Packing Co., Ltd\t\nB.C. Canning Co., Ltd\t\nSkeena River Cora. Co., Ltd\t\nCassiar Packing Co., Ltd.\t\nWallace Fisheries, Ltd\t\nGosse-Millerd Packing Co., Ltd. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nCanadian Fish & Cold Stor. Co., Ltd\nPort Edward Fisheries, Ltd\t\nTotals\t\nRivers Inlet District\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd\t\nJ. H. Todd & Sons\t\nB.C. Canning Co., Ltd\t\nKildala Packing Co., Ltd\t\nWallace Fisheries, Ltd\t\nProvincial Canning Co., Ltd\t\nMcTavish Fisheries, Ltd\t\nTotals\t\nNass River District\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co., Ltd\t\nKiiicolith Fisheries, Ltd\t\nM. DesBrisay & Co\t\nWestern Salmon Packers, Ltd\t\nPortland Fisheries, Ltd\t\nTotals\t\nVancouver Island District\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nAnglo B.C. Packing Co\t\nJ. H. Todd &Sons\t\nWallace Fisheries, Ltd\t\nQuathiaski Canning Co., Ltd.......\nWestern Packers, Ltd\t\nC. L. Packing Co., Ltd X\nPreston Packing Co., Ltd\t\nClayquot Sound Canning Co., Ltd..\nNanaimo Canning & Packing, Ltd..\nRedonda Canning & Cold Storage Co,\nGulf Islands Fishing & Can. Co., Ltd.\nSidney Canning Co., Ltd\t\nLumrai Bay Packing Co., Ltd\t\nNootka Packing Co., Ltd\t\nDefiance Packing Co., Ltd\t\nPuntledge Canning Co., Ltd\t\nTotals\t\nOutlying Districts\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nB.C. Packers' Association\t\nGosse-Millerd Packing Co., Ltd\t\nKildala Packing Co., Ltd\t\nWallace Fisheries, Ltd\t\nDraney Fisheries, Ltd\t\nKimsquit Fisheries, Ltd \t\nWestern Packers, Ltd\t\nMaritime Fisheries, Ltd\t\nTallheo Fisheries, Ltd\t\nWestern Salmon Packers, Ltd\t\nLockport Canning Co\t\nTotals\t\nGrand totals\t\nSockeyes.\nRed\nSprings.\nWhite\nSprings.\nChums.\nPinks.\nCohoes.\nBlue backs\nand\nSteelheads\n(IRAND\nTotals\n(Cases).\n8,462\n4,472\n11,471\n10,696\n779\n14,177\n599\n50,656\n611\n615\n884\n2,605\n33\n3,816\n416\n8,980\n2,848\n2,848\n883\n267\n862\n2,079\n3,586\n416\n7,677\n792\n667\n998\n1,995\n461\n4,717\n677\n10,307\n874\n727\n1,646\n819\n4\n1,329\n5,399\n1,500\n1,162\n2,978\n7,238\n154\n2,839\n36\n15,907\n294\n5,154\n429\n18,355\n2,241\n1,625\n28,098\n918\n291\n1,447\n5,455\n19\n29\n9,068\n1,034\n494\n1,188\n5,857\n5,142\n909\n13,715\n212\n379\n428\n3,735\n2,836\n1,211\n1,760\n10,551\n725\n342\n1,476\n10,866\n185\n932\n8\n14,534\n544\n19,697\n622\n15,192\n1,046\n16,515\n11,676\n1S,3S8\n708\n31,111\n24,853\n2,916\n86,215\n40,111\n4,395\n208,851\n24,526\n3,050\n2,743\n34,907\n12,113\n1,709\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 81,964\n19,917\n2,262\n1,173\n2,469\n26,181\n4,258\n667\n56,927\n8,016\n3,838\n456\n487\n12,861\n9,319\n34,977\n9,438\n746\n330\n118\n13,355\n631\n358\n24,976\n12,257\n957\n124\n194\n9,070\n2,139\n362\n25,103\n5,729\n826\n426\n679\n11,543\n1,475\n367\n21,045\n10,118\n695\n314\n124\n8,256\n799\n347\n20,653\n14,384\n1,402\n419\n15,506\n2,377\n526\n34,614\n7,823\n995\n152\n552\n10,640\n1,879\n366\n22,407\n6,944\n897\n115\n2,810\n8,730\n1,513\n6\n21,015\n4,170\n345\n16,013\n367\n822\n11,978\n10,678\n2,256\n38,759\n4,671\n286\n4,994\n30,535\n123,322\n14,626 '\n6,828\n22,573\n161,727\n374,216\n152\n990\n10,771\n31,577\n5.282\n121\n23\n2,018\n56\n7,500\n4,939\n144\n3,962\n2,688'\n11,733\n7,295\n235\n48\n2,332\n21\n9,931\n5,951\n131\n40\n1,345\n3,492\n2,919\n13,878\n6,153\n93\n39\n4,181\n2,129\n833\n13,428\n3,800\n18\n27\n3,906\n210\n7,961\n5,355\n53,401\n4,776\n13l\n957\n894\n34\n19\n932\n676\n392\n7,147\n452\n6,729\n29,542\n12,074\n103,155\n659\n3,503\n3,454\n2,039\n15,717\n7,208\n511\n549\n11,262\n18,569\n2,580\n425\n41,104\n4,427\n634\n563\n11,354\n6,014\n4,718\n405\n28,115\n2,608\n191\n8,071\n15,888\n6,048\n13\n32,819\n2,142\n97\n49\n2,315\n8,366\n1,278\n70\n14,317\n655\n5\n2,332\n3,863\n40,368\n6,915\n398\n1,305\n11,836\n21,816\n1,820\n59,206\n17,061\n143,908\n285\n375\n12,164\n10,479\n4,813\n28,116\n4,300\n1,016\n348\n302\n5,546\n11,512\n1,258\n6,758\n373\n21,904\n2,049\n8,433\n40,775\n606\n215\n310\n5,038\n18,055\n3.806\n28,030\n179\n481\n9,103\n3,375\n23\n13,161\n13,719\n2,430\n258\n231\n16,638\n1,285\n570\n1,694\n10,856\n2,117\n16,522\n2,607\n1,465\n41\n1,425\n368\n6,906\n39\n30\n25,303\n657\n838\n122\n26,989\n189\n337\n9,877\n2,001\n1,126\n13,530\n121\n90\n46\n8,719\n724\n2,073\n1,489\n13,262\n1,174\n1,394\n671\n13,147\n320\n5,769\n22,475\n13\n1,326\n290\n81,890\n59\n1,224\n84,802\n8,399\n805\n20,206\n24,753\n2,796\n32,206\n24,753\n6,243\n17,084\n25,460\n2,171\n4,864\n2,642\n10,598\n540\n11,138\n251,266\n57,035\n40,732\n4,215\n389,815\n7,601\n35,100\n17,793\n98\n82,489\n780\n25\n24,485\n9,090\n3,167\n4\n37,551\n5,501\n166\n77\n2,326\n10.071\n1,816\n357\n20,313\n8,613\n343\n1,511\n43,812\n463\n51,742\n6,424\n19\n10\n13,708\n23,930\n8.373\n71\n52,635\n4,204\n68\n18\n2,271\n12,872\n1,637\n368\n21,438\n7,907\n96\n2,690\n10,503\n2,304\n23,508\n2,508\n182\n9,024\n31,033\n368\n78 .\n43,193\n1,467\n186\n73\n2,107\n13,762\n6,871\n31\n23,497\n11,732\n3,174\n540\n15,446\n13,000\n8,500\n21,500\n51,980\n276,459\n6,581\n3,002\n90,464\n201,847\n42,331\n1,007\n396,212\n65,535\n41,819\n497,615\n527,745\n191,068\n15,916\n1,616,157 9 Cxeo. 5\nStatement showing Salmon-pack op the Province.\nX 91\nrr\nI\u00E2\u0080\u0094I\nO\nPh\n02\nfi\nrr\n<\nm\nH\nO\ni\u00E2\u0080\u0094i\nrr\nEH\nm\nPQ\nrr>\nr-i H\no\n|2S\nW1\nW CO\nH rH\n\u00C2\u00B0o\n\n-* co eo\nNO\u00C2\u00A9\nm oi cn\nCC \u00E2\u0080\u0094i ->] \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 7 1 -?.\n*OatHO\nN-OHNhO\nCC ~ I O MO*\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*qi- cn i-ii>\nOTNcDt-'d'or\nci co co r- -* o\nl- iQ Cl Cl I-- Cl\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A000 00 GO Ol IC r-H\nCD CC- ci O CO TO\nCI-hknnh\nt- W3 \u00C2\u00A9\n:c ~ ~- cc ci -n\nco r r ci i- \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0080\u0094.\ni-H cn co cc cj m\n0\u00C2\u00BB01CK-H\nX rH\nCO\nrH\nrH\nOC4J>r*lQ\nIO CN X CO i-H\nCO O CO Ol t-h\nco\"i-h>o\"cm\"i>\n>o r- i-h io *#\nCl rH O CO CN\nI-H X I-H O rH\nr-i\" CD' CO Of\nrH Ol Ol CN -*\nCOOlHiN\n-^^-t~ iO o\nC0~rH\"cD\"ai\"tN\n;?ci\nrtf.g\n^Scd\n-3 5 o\n\".3 O\nSo\nco rr\nrH rr\nOo'rT\nrf\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0X \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nX Ol Sf\n. CO .\nO Cl i-H IO iO O\nr^ CO I.C 01 CO -rH\nX Cl CO X CJ rH\nt* Cl Cl J>- CN\nOl iO CC CO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nWNrH-mcn\nI> CO m CO 00\nco co \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* r- cO\nO Oi cn \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* \u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\ncd'co\"co\"cn\"\"(m\"\n>* i-H t- Ol CM\nNulCOCQl'-\niO H O O H\nCC'co'cMO'co\"\nOl rH CO Ol iH CO\nMNOMHH\nCl\" co\" i-T \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* \"O\nCO HCQH\n31,411\n3,845\n11,200\n69,693\n19,139\n1,498\nCD\n00\nCD\nCO\n22,188\n4,496\n24,938\n44,568\n22,180\n1,125\nm\ncc\nrjl\ncc\"\nCO C- X CD r\nHU5SOC-\nX i-H CO CN C\nin a>\ndagra X 92\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1919\nOl Ol rM CO CO\nCO \u00C2\u00A9 X lO CO\nco \u00C2\u00BBo co i-h r-\nSO tH \u00C2\u00A9 XO CM\ntH CM \u00C2\u00A9 CO \"O\ni-H CO -N \u00C2\u00A9 I~\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 COCC\nc\nSO\nCO CM \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \u00C2\u00A9 i\u00E2\u0080\u0094l -\nCl\nCO . r-f .\nIO\ntH CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CO CM -\n\u00C2\u00A9\nlO\nrH rH -tHCS \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nUO\nCD\nOl I-- \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00C2\u00A9 Tf< CN\nCM\nOi\n-* . CM CM\nOl\nn,\n\u00C2\u00A9\nX\no\nOl\no\nOs\nCO\nl> CN rH .\ns\nX \u00C2\u00A9 rH CO Tt* \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nCO H K CO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nCM\nCM\ntKOONCMCO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nt- CM CO CM \u00C2\u00A9 .\n\u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 X \u00C2\u00A9 CO \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n\"\"\ni-H r-H t~- Cl CM \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n-\nCO\n\u00C2\u00A9\nCO Tfl X \u00C2\u00A9 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* I>\nOl\nOl\n1-H i-H\n1>\nCl\nCO\nX\n\u00C2\u00A9 IO Tf X CO \u00C2\u00A9\n*-,\nOi\n-*\no\nS\nH\nTi\nH\n&M.\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2o cu\nga-c.\u00C2\u00A3o3\na\na.\nUr>\n<-\nUi\nf CO X co \nfi\" \u00C2\u00A9\" io\" ucTio\" Ol\n1 SO \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 t~ CM\no Ol \u00C2\u00A9 o\nCM \u00C2\u00A9 Ol O\nr-H \u00C2\u00A9 CO \u00C2\u00A9\nCO Ol CM IO\nO \u00C2\u00A9 Cl X\nCl X CM \u00C2\u00A9\n\u00C2\u00A9 O X Tf\nX CM I-~ CO\nTi\"di0OiO\n\u00C2\u00A9 IO tK CN\ni-h iO \u00C2\u00A9 CO\nrH CM O X\nCO\" Cl\" TjT r-T\n\u00C2\u00A9 io \u00C2\u00A9 CO\nlOt-OOD\n0.1X50\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*HC \u00C2\u00A9_\ncn'oTio\"\u00C2\u00A9\nrH \u00C2\u00A9 I\u00E2\u0080\u0094 tH\ni-h CM\n\u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 Tfl O\n\u00C2\u00A9 CO rH Cl\nTf- r~ o \u00C2\u00A9\n035\n398\n720\nTf\nIO\n\u00C2\u00A9\no\nCN\nr~ im os cs\nTf Ol Ol CO\nCM CM rH\nCO\nCM\n\u00C2\u00A9\n-f C CD -t\nTf rH CO X\nCO Tf \u00C2\u00A9 CO\nHTflr-HO\n\u00C2\u00A9 IO \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9\nCO CM i-h\n\u00C2\u00A9 iO CO t>\n\u00C2\u00A9 iO CD CO\nClt- \u00C2\u00A9 Tf<\nTf CO o Cl\nCO CM i-h\nO \u00C2\u00A9 CD tH\nCl N \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* O\nCO CM i-H rH\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0x ~ ci io co r\u00C2\u00BB\nCO r- O \u00C2\u00A9 Cl \u00C2\u00A9\ni-C Cl CO ^ N IO\ncm\" cm\" io\" ci\" io\" th\"\nC- \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 rH CM \u00C2\u00A9\nTh Ol rH CO CM\ni\u00E2\u0080\u0094I \u00C2\u00A9 IO- X icC cc\nIO rH IO O i\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C2\u00A9\nX Ol rH \u00C2\u00A9 X I-\nC Tt .;,- ^^-i\nrH I\"- \u00C2\u00A9 Tf X \u00C2\u00A9\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nOl CO rH rH CO Tfl\nS3C'S\u00C2\u00A7I\nI CM X\nx as\n\u00C2\u00A9 Tfl X rH\nTH Tf CO rn\nrH Ol \u00C2\u00A9 rH\nOl t- X CM\nNNOCO\nWONH\njrf\nI *\nt- O \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9\nX X X i-H\n-H IO -f\n\u00C2\u00A9 X X CO\nTfTio'rH t-*\nMm oi\nX \u00C2\u00A9 Tf< IO\ncor- X X\niO Ol X CM\nCO O IO X\nCM \u00C2\u00A9 O CO\nI\u00E2\u0080\u0094 X \u00C2\u00A9 o\ngo\nCD\n>. cn \u00E2\u0080\u0094 no\nS o a- s\nO -i H -C\ncoOPMO"@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1919_V02_23_X1_X92"@en . "10.14288/1.0059765"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Victoria, BC : Government Printer"@en . "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"@en . "Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1918 WITH APPENDICES"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .