"3ba5dba3-27e2-42bf-bced-1a1a6c0d2e7f"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "DEPARTMENT 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 . "2016-02-23"@en . "[1923]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0300605/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " -\nPROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nEEPORT\nop the\nCOMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES\nFOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1922\nWITH APPENDICES\nPRINTED BY\nAUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.\nVICTORIA, B.C.:\nPrinted by William H. Cl'llin, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1923. To His Honour Walter Cameron Nichol,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nI beg to submit herewith the Eeport of the Provincial Fisheries Department\nfor the year ending December 31st, 1922, with Appendices.\nWILLIAM SLOAN,\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nProvincial Fisheries Department,\nCommissioner of Fisheries' Office,\nVictoria, British Columbia, January, 1923. TABLE OF CONTENTS.\nIERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1922.\nPage.\nStanding with other Provinces 5\nSpecies and Value of Fish marketed 5\nThe Salmon-pack of 1922 6\nThe Salmon-pack by Districts 6\nContribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon 7\nReports from Salmon-spawning Areas, 1922 13\nAPPENDICES.\nContributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. (Paper No. 8.) By Dr. C.\nH. Gilbert 16\nThe Spawning-beds of the Fraser River 49\nThe Spawning-beds oe the Skeena River 53\nThe Spawning-beds of the Nass Biver 56\nThe Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet 59\nThe Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet 61\nThe Salmon-pack of 1922 in detail 64\nThe Salmon-pack of the Province, 1907 to 1922, inclusive 06\nThe Salmon-pack of Puget Sound, 1907 to 1922 69\nThe Sockeye-salmon Pack of Province by Districts, 1907 to 1922, inclusive 69 FISHERIES COMMISSIONER'S REPORT FOR 1922.\nValue of Canadian Fisheries and the Standing of Peovinces.\nThe value of the fishery products for Canada for the year 1921 totalled $34,931,935. This\ntotal is the lowest since 1914. It is $14,309,404 less than for 1920 and \u00C2\u00A725,000,000 less than\nthe high record of ,1918, when under war prices and increased demands the total reached\n$60,250,514.\nDuring the year 1921 British Columbia produced fishery products of a total value of\n$13,953,070, or 31 per cent, of the total fishery products of the Dominion. British Columbia\nagain led all the Provinces of Canada in the value of her fishery products. Her output for\n1921 exceeded that of Nova Scotia by $4,175,047, and it exceeded that of all the other Provinces\ncombined by $2,754,028.\nThe following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of the fishery products\nof the Provinces of the Dominion for the years 1918, 1939, 1920, and 1921:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nValue of Fisheries by Provinces,\n1918,1919, 1920\nand 1921.\nProvince.\n1918.\n1919.\n1920.\n1921.\nNova Scotia \t\nNew Brunswick \t\nQuebec \t\n$27,282,223 00\n15,143,066 00\n6,298,990 00\n4,568,773 00\n3,175,111 00\n1,148,201 00\n1,830,435 00\n447,012 00\n318,913 00\n37,820 00\n$25,301,607 00\n15,171,929 00\n4,979,074 00\n4,258,731 00\n3,410,750 00\n1,536,844 00\n1,008,717 00\n475,797 00\n333,330 00\n8,800 00\n$22,329,161\n12,742,659\n4,423,745\n2,592,382\n3,306,412\n00\n00\n00\n00\n00\n$13,953,670 00\n9,778,623 00\n3,690,726 00\n1,815,284 00\n3,065,042 00\n924,529 00\n1,023,107 00\n243,018 00\n2,108,257\n00\n408,868 00\n28,988 00\nThe Species and Value of Fish Caught in British Columbia.\nThe total value of each principal species of fish taken in British Columbia for the\nending December 31st, 1921, is given in the following statement :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSalmon $ 8,577,602 .\nHalibut ' 3,636,076\nHerring 963,407\nPilchards 101,945\nCod 232,638\nBlack cod 142,558\nFlounders, brill, etc 8,397\nSoles 20,174\nCrabs 46,889\nClams and quahaugs 41,390\nRed cod 10,067\nOysters 21,136\nPerch 19,496\nCrayfish 12,998\nShrimps 13,066\nSmelts 19,430\nOctopus 2,933\nSturgeon 5,415\nSkate 7,609\nOolachans 1,185\nFur-seals 40,980\nShad 204\nCarried forward $13,919,197\nyear T 6\nReport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\nThe Species and Value of Fish Caught in British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nBrought forward $13,919,197\nHake and cusk 35\nWhiting _ 318\nFish-oil 7,110\nFish-meal 23,110\nFish-fertilizer 3,900\nTotal $13,953,670\nThe catch of salmon in 1921 was valued at $8,577,(302, or $0,551,746 less than in 1920 and\n$8,959,564 less than in 3919. The price received in 1921 was relatively less than in 1920 and\nmuch less than in 1919, and the total pack for 1921 was the smallest made in the Province\nsince the industry was fully established.\nThe Salmon-pack of 1922.\nThe salmon-pack of the Province in the year 1922 totalled 1,290,326 cases, as against 603,548\ncases in 1921, 1,187,619 cases in 1920, 1,393,156 cases in 1919, and 1,557,485 cases in 1918. Notwithstanding that the pack of 1922 is the fourth largest packed in the Province, it is far less\nvaluable than in many other years, due to the fact that 840,183 cases, or 60 per cent., consisted\nof pink and chum salmon. The value of the pack of 1922 is estimated at $11,247,000, as\nagainst $8,577,602 in 1921 and $15,129,348 of 1920. Of the estimated value of the 1922 pack,\n$5,100,000 is credited to the 299,614 cases of sockeye and $4,900,000 to the 840,183 cases of pink\nand chum salmon.\nThe gain in the pack this year was due largely to the increased pack of pinks and chums.\nThe pack of pinks totalled 581,979 cases, as against 192,906 cases in 1921, when few canners\npacked either pinks or chums. The pack of chums totalled 258,204 cases, as against 71,408\ncases in 1921.\nThe pack of sockeye in 1922 totalled 299,614 cases, as against 163,914 cases in 1921, 136,661\ncases in 1920, 167,944 cases in 1939, and 210,851 cases in 1918. The catch in every district\nshows a gain over that of 1921. Most of the gain was made on the Skeena and Nass Rivers.\nThe 1922 Salmon-pack by Districts.\nThe Fraser River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The total pack of all species of salmon in the Fraser District in the\nProvince totalled 137,482 cases, consisting of 51,833 cases of sockeye, 16,861 cases of spring,\n23,587 cases of cohoe, 29,578 cases of pinks, and 17,895 cases of chum. The total pack this\nyear was the largest since 1919.\nThe catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system this year produced a pack of 51,833 cases, as against 19,697 eases in the preceding fourth year, and comparable with the pack of eight years ago of 198,183 cases,\nThe pack of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system in 1922\ntotalled 48,566 cases, as against 102,967 cases in 1921, 50,723 cases in 1918, and 357,374 cases\nin 1914.\nThe total pack of sockeye in the entire Fraser River system in 1922 was 100,399 cases,\ncompared to 70,420 cases in the preceding fourth year and to 444,504 cases in the preceding\neighth year.\nThe increased catch in Provincial waters is largely attributable to the use of less fishery\ngear in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser system. Under the present depleted condition of the run of sockeye to the Fraser the amount of gear used in that section is less\nbecause of the expensive nature of the fishery apparatus that must be used there. If permitted,\ngill-nets will be used in the Provincial waters of the system long after expensive traps and\npurse-nets are abandoned in the State of Washington. -\nThe Salmon-catch of Northern Waters.\nThe Skeena River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The catch of salmon on the Skeena this year totalled 482,305 cases, as\nagainst 234,765 cases in 1921, 374,300 cases in 1919, and 292,219 cases in 1917. There was a\nmarked gain 'in all species. Some 4,390 cases of Alaska-caught sockeye are included in total 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 7\nfor 1922. The catch of sockeye gave a pack of 96,277 cases, as against 41,118 cases in 1921,\n123,322 cases in 1918, and 65,760 cases ill 1917. The sockeye that run to the Skeena consist\nof four- and five-year-old fish in fairly even proportions. The run this year was in consequence\nderived from a good year and a light year's spawning. It produced 6,000 more cases than the\naverage of the brood-years. There was a pronounced catch of pinks on the Skeena this year.\nEvery cannery packed them. The pack of pinks this year totalled 301,655 cases, as against\n124,457 cases in 1921 and 177,679 cases in the brood-years 1919 and 1920. The catch of chums\ngave a pack of 39,758 cases, as against 1,993 cases in 1921, when few canneries packed any\nof this species.\nRivers Inlet.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pack at Rivers Inlet this year totalled 79,712 cases, as against 103,155\ncases in 1918 and 95,302 cases in 1917. The catch of sockeye produced a pack of 53,584 cases,\nas against 53,401 cases in 3918 and 61,195 cases in 1917. The pack of pinks totalled 24,292\ncases.\nNass River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pack on the Nass River totalled 124,071 cases, much the largest since\n1918. The catch of sockeye gave a pack of 31,277 cases, also much the largest since 1916. It\nis the fifth largest ever made on the Nass. The bulk of the season's pack, however, consists\nof pinks, with a total of 75,6S7 cases.\nContribution to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\nDr. C. H. Gilbert's eighth contribution to the reports of the Department on the life-history\nof the sockeye salmon, which is issued herewith, contains an analysis of the sockeye runs to\nthe principal waters of the Province for the year 1922. With the present paper we now have\na complete analysis of the runs of sockeye to our main estuaries for the last ten consecutive\nyears.\nThe following is a digest of Dr. Gilbert's present paper:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThe Fraser River Sockeye Run of 1922.\nThe total sockeye-pack of the district tributary to the Fraser River in 1922 amounted to\n100,398 cases, of which 51,832 were produced in British Columbia waters and 48,566 in Puget\nSound. The Puget Sound figures, as Dr. Gilbert has pointed out in previous reports, include\neach year sockeye bound for the Skagit River, in the State of Washington, as well as those\nbound to the Fraser River. The traps located on West Beach, on Widley Island, are well known\nto capture Skagit River sockeye (blnebacks) during the early part of the season, these being\nreplaced later in the run by Fraser River sockeye. The Skagit sockeye are known to have\npoorer colour and to be deficient in oil, but in the annual returns they are all included and\nare classed as sockeye. At present the two races cannot be segregated. As the run to the\nFraser continues to dwindle, the Skagit component comes to assume greater and greater relative.\nimportance in the Puget Sound pack. That it is probably maintaining itself at present at about\nthe same level seems to be indicated by the annual return of spawning fish to Baker Lake,\nin the State of Washington. The United States Bureau of Fisheries' hatchery on Baker Lake\nhas for years spawned artificially all the sockeye that reach those spawning-grounds. There\nis no natural spawning in that district. In spite of the intensive fishing to which it is exposed\nin Puget Sound, the spawning escape that annually reaches the hatchery has maintained itself\nwithout reduction. There is, however, no means at present of estimating the number taken\nin Puget Sound.\nThe prevailing type of the run of sockeye to the Fraser this year, as in the ten previous\nyears' that the run has been subjected to analysis, consisted of the one-year-inlake type. The\nmembers of this group resided in their native lake for the first year after hatching, passed\nto sea in their second spring, and returned either in their third year as mature male grilse,\nor in their fourth, fifth, or sixth years as mature members of both sexes. The grilse are always\nin relatively very small numbers, the four-year fish largely predominate over all other year\nclasses, the five-year fish of this group are second in Importance, and the six-year fish extremely rare.\nAmong the 892 specimens taken at random from the catches of the Vancouver Island traps,\nat intervals during the season, 80 per cent, belonged to the one-year-in-lake group, 8 per cent,\nto the two-years-in-lake group, and 12 per cent, to the \"sea-type,\" the members of which descend\nto the ocean as soon as they are free-swimming. No grilse made their appearance prior to July 12th. The two-years-in-lake group were\nabsent during the first half of June and reached their maximum development during the second\nhalf of June. The sea-type was confined to the latter half of the run after the middle of July.\nA similar appearance of these groups within the run has been noted each year. It is especially\ninteresting to observe that all the members of the sea-type appear during the same part of\neach year's run, whether they are three or four years old, and, similarly, the members of the\ntwo-years-in-lake type are confined to a certain part of the run, although some of them are\nfour years old, some five, and some six.\nThe scales examined by Dr. Gilbert were collected at random from fish caught in Vancouver Island traps on thirty-four different dates,- from May 29th to September 7th, with intervals of from two to four days. The relative numbers of four- and of five-year fish of the one-\nyear-in-Iake group varied widely from the first to the last of the season, the older group running\nin larger relative numbers on the earlier dates. During the first two weeks of June five-year\nfish represented 65 per cent, of the run, while during August it comprised only 5 or 6 per cent.\nThe average for the entire season was only 12 per cent, the proportion being smaller than\nfor other recent years with reduced output, although the five-year component of the 1922 run\nwas derived from 1917, when the seeding of the spawning areas of the Fraser was better than\nin 1918, the year responsible for the four-year fish of the 1922 run.\nThe course of the run was not only marked by changes in the relative numbers of the\nyear-classes, but also by changes in the average size of the individuals constituting each year-\nclass. The four-year fish showed an average increase in length and weight as the season\nadvanced. This seasonal increase in size, as Dr. Gilbert has pointed out in previous reports,\nis a constant feature of the Fraser River run. It might be ascribed to growth during the season,\nthe fish entering the river late having had a longer time on the feeding-grounds than those\nthat enter early. But in other river-basins this does not hold. In fact, the reverse condition\nmay obtain, the later fish showing smaller average size than those that first enter. It seems\nmore probable, therefore, that the occurrence in the Fraser is due to the larger size of the\nmembers of the racial groups that constitute the run during the latter part of the season.\nComparing the range in size and the average size of each of the categories with similar tables\nfor previous years, a remarkable agreement will be observed. But the length of both males\nand females in the four-year group has suffered obvious reduction during the last four years,\nfor which no explanation is found. The run of 1922 aligns itself with 1919, 1920, and 1921\nin this regard.\nIncluded in the one-year-in-lake group of the 1922 run, Dr. Gilbert found eight specimens\nthat had spent two years in the sea and were returning as mature males in their third year.\nThese so-called \" grilse \" do not appear in the early part of the Fraser run, although in other\nriver-basins they may do so. Their occurrence relatively late in the season is probably correlated with the fact of their occurrence in some racial colonies to the exclusion of others.\nThe two-years-in-lake type was present in moderate numbers in the 1922 run, constituting\n7.4 per cent, of the total. As in other years, they ran abundantly in the latter half of June,\nbut contrary to previous seasons there was no second wave of migration entering in August.\nDr. Gilbert has previously suggested that as this group is not uniformly distributed throughout the Fraser basin, some tributaries having it in abundance, while in others they are absent,\nthe presence or absence may indicate the presence or absence of the racial groups of which it\nforms a component part.\nA special feature of the 1922 run was the presence of members of the two-years-in-lake\ntype that were only four years old. These have not previously been reported in the Fraser,\nand have rarely been encountered in any stream except the Columbia, where they are a regular\nfeature each year.\nDr. Gilbert on previous occasions has called attention to the fact that the length of time\nspent in the stream or lake by fry and fingerlings before migrating to the sea has little or\nno influence on the size of the individuals at maturity. The factor which mainly determines\nsize is the number of years spent in the ocean. Life in the river or lake is not a factor in\nthis respect. It delays the coming to maturity by approximately the entire period of residence\nin fresh water.\nAn interesting comparison is afforded by the three groups of sockeye found in the Fraser\nRiver run in 1922. Those of the sea-type descended to the sea soon after hatching, had no\nresidence in fresh water, and matured after three or four seasons on the sea-feeding grounds 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 9\nwhen in their third or fourth years. The one-year-in-lake type spent one year in fresh water,\nhad two or three or four seasons in the sea, and matured in their third, fourth, or fifth years.\nThe two-years-in-lake type spent two years in fresh water, remained two, three, or four seasons\nin the sea, and matured iii their fourth, fifth, or sixth years. If we ignore, Dr. Gilbert states,\nthe fresh-water history of these three types and group them according to the number of years\nthey have spent in the sea, we shall find that the members of each group have attained approximately the same size, although they may differ in age by as much as two years.\nThe Rivers Inlet Sockeye Run of 1922.\nDr. Gilbert in dealing with the Rivers Inlet run for 1922 points out that the runs for the\nlast three years have exhibited extremely wide fluctuations in volume, 1920 having produced\none of the very largest packs known to the inlet, 1921 the next to the smallest since the industry\nbecame well established, and, finally, 1922 showing a slight improvement over 1921, 1919, and\n1918, and almost diu)licating the pack of 1917, which would be considered its progenitor if\nwe adopt the theory of a five-year cycle for the inlet.\nAs has been previously shown, the correspondences are very striking when the years with\ntheir respective packs are arranged in series'with five-year intervals. Allowing for the fact\nthat there has been an unquestionable impoverishment of the stream during the last five years,\nso the individual years of the last cycle show some reduction below the corresponding years\nof the previous cycle, the major fluctuations in size of the run seem to be repeated when these\nare arranged in five-year groups, while there is no correspondence if the arrangement is on the\nbasis of four years, or any other number than five. Dr. Gilbert presents the following table,\ngiving in even thousands of full cases the packs since 1907 arranged in accordance with the\nfive-year cycle. The series of corresponding years read along the horizontal lines from left to\nright :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1907 87,000 1912 112,000 1917 61,000 1922 60,700\n1908 64,000 1913 61,000 303S 53,000\n1909 89,000 1914 89,000 1919 56,000\n1910 120,000 1915 130,000 1920 121,000\n1911 88,000 1916 44,000 1921 46,000\nFrom this it appears that 1922 falls perfectly in line with its series and can be considered a\nlineal descendant of 1917. But, unfortunately for this view, 1922 appears to be an exception\nto the rule prevailing among the Rivers Inlet runs, and instead of being composed largely of\nfive-year fish it was made up for the most part (82 per cent.) of fish that were only four\nyears old. It must be considered, therefore, to be more largely derived from the brood-year\n1918. But as the pack in 1918 was 53,401 cases the discrepancy is not formidable.\nThe run to Rivers Inlet consists, to the practical exclusion, of all other classes, of fish that\nspent their first year in the lake, have then migrated seawards in their second spring, and\nhave returned as mature spawners either in their fourth year or in their fifth year. The run\nconsists of these two classes, and the only variation that occurs from year to year is in their\nrelative proportions.\nAnalysis of the runs since 1912 has shown that most frequently the five-year group has\nbeen larger than the four-year group. For the ten years from 1912 to 1921 the average percentage of five-year sockeye is 64 and of the four-year sockeye 36. In different years, however,\nextensive divergencies from these averages are found, ranging from 20 per cent, of five-year\nfish in 1913 to 95 per cent, in 1920. Thus in 1920 the vast preponderance of five-year fish was\nobviously due to the fact that the brood-year of the five-year fish (1915) was characterized\nby one of the largest runs known in the watershed, while the brood-year for the four-year\nfish (1916) was characterized by one of the very smallest runs known on the inlet. Through\nthis circumstance the natural tendency of the Rivers Inlet fish to mature rather late\u00E2\u0080\u0094rather\nin their fifth than in their fourth year\u00E2\u0080\u0094was reinforced by an overwhelming preponderance of\nthe year that produced the five-year contingent.\nThe run of 1922 was highly unusual in the fact that throughout the season the four-year\nfish were far more numerous than the five-year fish. The only previous year that affords a\nparallel with 1922 is 1913, when a pack was put up of 61,000 cases, and the run consisted of\n80 per cent, of four-year fish and only 20 per cent, of five-year fish. In all these respects it\nclosely resembled 1922. with its 60,700 cases and its 82 per cent, of four-year fish. In 3913 Eeport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nno adequate cause for the unusually high percentage of four-year fish has been discovered,\nalthough the brood-year for these, 1909 (S9,000 oases), was apparently a better year than the\nbrood-year for the five-year fish, 1908 (64,000 cases). But it does not seem that this disparity\nin numbers among the spawning groups is adequate to produce the observed results.\nIn 1922, Dr. Gilbert states, the same difficulty is presented, but at first sight in more pronounced form. For in this case the four-year fish, which so largely predominates in the run,\nhave for their brood-year 1918 (53,401 cases), one of the least successful commercially of all\nthe observed years on the inlet. While, one the other hand, the five-year fish, which are so\nsparsely represented in the run, are derived from 1917 (61,195 cases), which was appreciably\na better year. A possible clue to the apparently discordant result in this case is derived from\nthe reports from the spawning area for the two years in question. In'1917 there was a serious\nshortage of fish on the spawning-beds, in spite of the relatively successful fishing season. In\n1918, on the other hand, in spite of the unsuccessful fishing season, the numbers of sockeye that\nreached the beds that year compared! favourably with those seen there in 1913, 1914, and 1915,\nand greatly exceeded the spawners of 1910. From this it is evident that if one had some\naccurate method of determining from year to year the number of fish on the spawning-grounds,\nthis would afford data for prophecy concerning the corresponding year of the next cycle far\nmore reliable than are obtained from the pack statistics of each year. Still more reliable\nresults would be obtained if we could take a census of the young finger! ings on their seaward\nmigration, for we would then have eliminated all the uncertain and variable factors that prevent\nsuccessful spawning, that destroy the fry and fingerlings during their residence in fresh water.\nWe even then should still have to contend with the hazards of their ocean-life for a term of\nyears, which must vary widely with the different years, exacting sometimes a lighter, sometimes a heavier toll on the salmon schools.\nThe statistics of the pack give a very uncertain basis for estimating the number of fish\nthat will reach the spawning-grounds. Even the number of spawners do not enable us to\npredict accurately the size of the fingerling schools that will descend to the sea. Yet these are\nthe only data we have available on which to base an estimate of the probable size of the run in\nthe corresponding year of the next cycle.\nIn 1921 the proportion of male sockeye was much less than in the five preceding years.\nIn the runs from 1916 to 1920 the percentage of males varied only between 74 and 79 per cent.,\nand for four of the five years it varied only between 74 and 75 per cent. It therefore seems\nincomprehensible that in 1921 the percentage of males of four-year-olds should drop, as it did,\nto 65 per cent, of that class, while at the same time the percentage of five-year males should\ndrop to 38, whereas for the three previous years it had been 49, 45, and 48 per cent. The\nsudden change in 1921 is now fully paralleled by the condition of the run in 1922. Not only\nis there a great reduction in the number of males present in both year-classes, but the results\nare practically identical with those obtained in 1923.\nIn the five-year group the percentages are identical, while in the four-year fish there is\na difference of only 1 per cent, in the two years. A wide difference exists between the two\nyears in the relative total number of males and females present in the run, for in 1922 the\nfour-year fish, in which males are relatively most abundant, were present in such large proportion that the total males outnumbered the females. The disastrous effects of this condition\non the success of the spawning can be readily seen.\nWhile the general agreement with runs of preceding years was marked in 1922 and the\nrange in size of the different categories was approximately the same, an unexpected discrepancy became evident when a correlation of length and weight was made. In previous\nyears it has in general been the experience that when the average length of a given group\n. was greater or less than the average length of the same group in some other year, the respective\nweights of the two years have varied correspondingly in the same district. But that proves\nnot to have been the case in the run of 1922. Dr. Gilbert submits data to show that all the\nlengths in 1922 were less than the average for the nine preceding years, and that the reverse\nis true with regard to the weights. In 1922 both the males and females of both year-classes\nare conspicuously above the normal or average weights. Both males and females of the four-\nyear class average much heavier than in any year from 1914 to 1921, being 6 lb. and 5.9 lb.\nrespectively, while the average for eight years is 5.3 and 5.1 lb. The frequency distribution of\nweights and lengths during different dates of the run prove again that the size of the fish of 13 Geo. 5\nBritish Columbia.\nT 11\nthis watershed, comparing throughout those of the same year-class, did not increase as the\nseason progressed, but, on the contrary, slightly diminished. This seems as well established a\nhabit with the fish of Rivers Inlet as the reverse habit is with the fish of the Fraser basin.\nIn the Fraser run, as Dr. Gilbert has shown, there is a marked increase in the length of the\nfish of each category as the season advances.\nThe Skeena River Sockeye Run of 1922.\nAs in the case of the Nass, the Skeena River in 1922 produced a satisfactory run. The\npack of 100,667 cases of sockeye was the best since 1919, and was slightly more than the average\nof the packs for the two brood-years that produced it. The brood-years were 1917 and 1918,\nand judging the size of their runs by the packs which they produced, the two, Dr. Gilbert\nshows, were very unequal in size. 1917 was one of the very poorest years on' the Skeena, with\na pack of only 65,760 cases; while 1918 was one of the better years, with a pack of 123,322\ncases. As 1918 was responsible for the four-year fish of 1922, it was interesting to inquire\nwhether the four-year group in 1922 would greatly exceed the five-year fish. Such was the\ncase, as Dr. Gilbert shows. The four-year fish of the dominant group (one-year-in-lake) constituted 81 per cent, of this group and the five-year fish only 18 per cent. If the five-year fish\nof the two-year-in-lake group were included, the run consisted of 72 per cent, four-year fish as\nagainst 28 per cent, of the total five-year fish\u00E2\u0080\u0094the fish derived from the spawn of 1917.\nDr. Gilbert has frequently been unable to correlate extraordinary development of a given\nyear-class with the predominance of its brood-year, the most recent being that of 1921, w-hen\nthere were more than three times as many four-year as five-year fish, whereas the packs put\nup in their respective brood-years were nearly equal.\nIn 1922, however, as was the case in 3920, the two brood-years were sharply contrasted in\nsize, the larger in each case representing one of the most successful seasons and the smaller\none of the least successful. Both In 1921 and 1922 this condition was directly reflected in the\nsize of the year-classes. In 1920 the brood-year of the five-year fish furnished five times as\nmany cases as the brood-year for the four-year fish, and the five-year fish furnished 82\nper cent, of the dominant group of the run. In 1922 the conditions were reversed, for the five-\nyear fish produced only about half the pack of the brood-year of the four-year fish. The percentage of the two year-classes in the run are also shown to be reversed. The four-year fish\nof the dominant group furnished 81 per cent, and the five-year fish only 19 per cent.\nThe four age-classes which year by year constitute the Skeena sockeye run were as usual\nthe only ones represented in the catch of 3922. With this limited number may well be compared the six to eight year-classes present in the Nass each succeeding year. The comparative\nsimplicity of the Skeena run and the extreme multiplicity of divers forms in the Nass are racial\ncharacteristics and testify to the effective isolation of the two colonies.\nDr. Gilbert shows that weight and length of the year-class in the 1922 Skeena run were\na little undersized. Both lengths and weights tell the same story.\nIt is interesting in this connection to recall what is shown elsewhere in this valuable report\nconcerning the size of the Rivers Inlet and the Nass sockeye of 1922. The Rivers Inlet fish,\nlike those of the Skeena, averaged a little smaller in each year-class, while those of the Nass\nwere also smaller in each class, except the six-year males and females, in which were so few\nindividuals that the averages are unreliable.\nIt seems, therefore, that the conditions to which were exposed all the Northern British\nColumbia sockeye which constituted the run of 1922 were somewhat less favourable than usual,\nwith the result that the fish failed to attain full average stature. It is interesting, Dr. Gilbert\nstates, to speculate on the period in their history when this small dwarfing probably occurred.\nIt would seem improbable it could have been in their earlier years, for in that case compensatory growth in later years would have made up the deficiency. Also during these earlier\nyears they were associated on the feeding-grounds with the fish which had matured one year\nearlier and constituted the run of 1921. . But the four-year fish of these runs did not show\nthe dwarfing effects that made their appearance among all classes in 1922. On previous\noccasions, when practically all the sockeye of the streams of the Province have been of less\nthan average size, Dr. Gilbert has noted an additional fact of significance in this connection.\nThe dwarfing had not only failed to affect the fish of the preceding year, but those of the\nfollowing year also may come back to normal size or even exceed it. The most plausible hypothesis that Dr. Gilbert offers is that the dwarfing was occasioned\nby conditions unfavourable to normal growth during the early part of the season in which\nthe sockeye was to mature. They cease to feed early and seek their spawning-stream, but\nprior to doing so they have responded to the onset of the growing season and have increased\nsomewhat in size. But if the season were delayed, so growth began unusually late, the fish\nmay have failed, before leaving the feeding-grounds, to add as much to their stature as in\nnormal years. This being the case, the run of 1921 would not have been exposed to these\nuntoward conditions, and the run of 1923 would have an opportunity later in the season to\ncompensate by more vigorous growth for the late start in the spring.\nDr. Gilbert's Analysis of the Nass River Sockeye Run.\nThe Nass River made a gratifying recovery in 1922. The sockeye-pack of 31,277 cases\nexceeded any that had been made since 1916 and compared most favourably with the average\nof the five years, 1917 to 1921. In his report for 1921 attention was called to the apparent\nlack of any relation between the pack records on the Nass and the corresponding runs in the\nfollowing cycle. The Nass cycle, as he has shown, is clearly one of five years, yet the ran of\n1921 was phenomenally poor, although its brood-year, 1916, was, according to the pack record\nand also the result of examination of the spawning-grounds, one of the very best years of the\npreceding cycle. This lack of relation is further emphasized by the run of 1922. The five-\nyear sockeye of that run to an extent unusual even for the Nass constituted 90 per cent, of\nthe run and had been hatched from eggs laid dwwn in 1917. The run of 1917 was only of medium\nsize (22,188 cases), as estimated from the magnitude of the pack, and the escape to the spawning-grounds was reported distinctly less than in 1916. Yet from this apparently mediocre\nbrood-year there resulted one of the best runs that has recently appeared in the Nass. The\nnature of the exceptional conditions, favourable or unfavourable, which were responsible are\nnot known. In previous reports Dr. Gilbert has advanced certain reasons for fearing that the\nNass run is declining in size. The phenomenal run of 1922 is not conclusive of this question.\nAn exceptionally favourable season in a declining run is not an unusual occurrence, but the\nexperience of the next two or three years should demonstrate beyond doubt the truth of the\nmatter.\nSix age-groups were present in the 1922 run, two of those commonly encountered in other\nyears being unrepresented. The lacking groups were the seven-year class of the three-years-in-\nthe-lake type and the three-year class of the sea-type. Of the six groups present, two w-ere\nin their fourth year, two in their fifth year, and two in their sixth. Disregarding the early-\nhistory of these groups in fresh water, and considering only their age as indicating the brood-\nyear from which they had their origin, 8 per cent, were in their fourth year and were derived\nfrom the spawning run of 1918, 90 per cent, were in their fifth year and were the result of\nthe 1917 spawning, while 2 per cent, were in their sixth year and came from 1916. The five-\nyear group, the young of which had spent two years in the lake before descending to the sea,\nis always the dominant group in the Nass, the average for the ten years prior to 1922 being\n63 per cent. But during these ten years the maximum percentage was 73, in contrast with\nthe 90 per cent, present in 1922. This increased percentage was at the expense of all the\nother groups present in the run, but in larger measure at the expense of the six-year fish, and\nthe five-year group which spent only one year in the lake before migrating. The last-mentioned\ngroup has in other years assumed large proportions. In 1911 it constituted 42 per cent, of these\nfour principal groups, but in 1922 only 2 per cent.\nIn both length and weight the principal classes in the Nass in 1922 were normal. The\npercentage of each year-class contained in the run, compared with similar tables given in\nformer reports, shows entire agreement on the nature of these changes. The sea-type group\nalways is confined to the early days of each run and disappears completely before the middle of\nJuly. The six-year group shows the converse of this. They run sparingly or not at all in\nthe early part of the run, and attain their greatest relative numbers in the latter half of July\nand in August. The two five-year groups and the four-year one-year-in-the-lake group are\nusually present throughout the run, but not in equal proportions. The four- and five-year\ngroups, one-year-in-the-lake, usually attain their maximum development in the second and third\nweeks of July and taper away then in either direction, while the dominant group is strong,\nbut not equally strong. A detailed comparison of these events, chronicled for a number of 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 13\nyears, makes an impressive showing and demonstrates that behind the apparent uniformity\nin the run, w7hen superficially viewed, there lies a great diversity of groups, which are marshalled\nin an orderly sequence which remains the same from year to year.\nSo far as is known at the present time, there are only two sockeye spawning-grounds of\nimportance in the Nass basin, that of Bowser Lake and that of Meziadiu Lake. It has seemed\nprobable, Dr. Gilbert states, that some of the racial differences to which attention has repeatedly\nbeen recalled may be found to characterize the colonies of these two lakes. The material so\nfar obtained is inadequate to settle the question. The scales obtained from a few sockeye from\neach lake in 1922 present results in full harmony with the theory of different racial groups.\nOf the fifteen specimens examined from Bowser Lake, six belonged to the oue-year-in-the-lake\ntype and the remainder to the two-year-in-the-lake type. None had spent three years. Of the\nten specimens from Meziadin Lake, none belonged to the one-year-in-the-lake type, eight belonged to the two-year-in-the-lake type, and two to the three-year-in-the-lake type; apparently\nindicating that the Meziadin group spend as fingerlings a longer period in the lake than is the\ncase with the Bowser Lake group.\nDr. Gilbert's report, with its fifty tabulations, is reproduced in the Appendix of this report.\nAs the foregoing digest shows, it is of great value.\nReports from the Salmon-spawning Areas of the Province in 1922.\nThe Department again conducted investigations of the spawning-beds of the Fraser, Skeena,\nand Nass Rivers and Rivers and Smith Inlets. Detailed reports from each section are reproduced in the Appendix of this report.\nThe Fraser River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094John P. Babcock, Assistant to the Commissioner, again inspected the\nspawning-beds of the Fraser River basin, his nineteenth annual inspection. He states That\n\" notwithstanding that the catch of sockeye in the Fraser this year was larger than four years\nago, the number that spawned in the river-basin is not believed to have been greater.\"\nConditions in Hell's Gate Canyon of the Fraser are dealt with as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon have been under close observation of competent fishery\nofficers since 1901. Fishery Overseer Scott, of the Dominion service, one of its most faithful\nand observant officers, has beeii stationed there almost daily during the salmon run since 3913.\nHe reports that the number of sockeye that reached there this year was noticeably less than\nin any other year since he Was detailed to that patrol in 1914.\n\" Water conditions in the canyon throughout the season were favourable to the fish. At\nno time this year were they such as to delay their passage for more than a few hours at a\ntime.\n\" Much has been said and written of conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon. It has been stated\nthat ' the river's channel in the canyon Is still blocked by rock that was deposited by railroad\nconstruction and the great slide of 1913,' and that ' the channel has never been cleaned out\nproperly, and that the upward migration of the fish is considerably hampered yet by the slide.'\nAlso that it is necessary that ' the bottom of the river near Hell's Gate Canyon be cleared of\nobstructions, as the evidence goes to show that that work was not properly completed.'\n\" In my judgment,\" Mr. Babcock continues, \" there is no w-arrant for such statements. The\nwork of restoring the channel in 1913-14 and the late winter of 1914-15 was in charge of and\nunder close observation of several of the best-known engineers on the Coast. The work of\nclearing the channel was undertaken upon lines agreed upon at a conference of engineers held\nin the canyon in 1913 during the blockade. The work was performed by one of the biggest\nand best-equipped and experienced engineering firms on the Coast. It was done on a plus-cost\nbasis and was most carefully watched and checked by engineers representing the Dominion and\nthe Province, and by the Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion and myself. Over\n225,000 cubic yards of loose rock was removed from the channel. The last of the rock was\nremoved late In the winter of 1914-15 at a time when the water in the channel was the lowest\nin years. The engineers in charge had little difficulty in getting to the bed of the channel. This\nis clearly shown by the many photographs taken at the time. Photographs taken of the channel\nat Hell's Gate previous to the slide and since 1914 show that the currents of water passing\nthrough the canyon are the same now as they were before 1913.\n\" With few exceptions, the salmon that have reached the canyon since 1914, like those\nthat reached there previous to 1933, have passed through the rapids at Hell's Gate by travelling T 14 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923\nclose to the right side. Few salmon can or ever have negotiated the rapids on the left side.\nThe wall on both sides is bed-rock and not rock thrown into the channel during railroad-construction or by the collapse of the tunnel in 1913. Salmon do and always have since 1901\nattempted to pass up on the left side. During certain favourable stages of water many have\nsucceeded, but in all years the bulk of the run has passed up on the right side of the rapids.\nAt no time this year, or in any year since 1914, have salmon in numbers been seen in any\nof the eddies a quarter of a mile below Hell's Gate. If the run in any year since 1914 had\nbeen blocked the fish would have congregated in the eddies for a considerable distance below\nthe Gate, just as they were massed there, and for many miles below, in 1913. At no time this\nyear on any one day were salmon to be seen in numbers to exceed 300 in the eddies immediately\nbelow the Gate, and none were found in the eddies an eighth of a mile below. Almost every\nday in July and August and Septeiuber a few sockeye were seen passing through the Gate\non the right side.\n\" The real blockade in 1913 was in the rapids above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek, some 3\nmiles above Hell's Gate proper. This is clearly set forth in the Department's Report for 1913.\nVast numbers of sockeye passed through Hell's Gate proper every month during the run in\n1913, and they made the passage by hugging the rocks on the right side of the rapids. However,\nthe fish that passed through those rapids were unable to get through the rapids in the river's\nchannel above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek, some 3 miles above Hell's Gate.\n\" After twenty-one years of continuous study of conditions in the canyon, I am fully convinced that the fish that reach there now have no more difficulty in getting through the\ncanyon than those that reached there previous to railroad-construction and the slide of 1913.\n\" Chief Inspectors of Fisheries Cunningham and Motherwell, Engineer McHngh, and Fisheries\nOverseer Scott, of the Dominion service, have devoted much time every season since 1913 to\na close study of conditions, and all have repeatedly stated that the fish have not been unduly\ndelayed there and that the channel has been fully restored.\"\nMr. Babcock's report will be found ill the Appendix of this report.\nRivers Inlet.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The spawning area of the salmon that run in Rivers Inlet was again inspected by Fishery Officer A. W. Stone. It was his tenth consecutive trip over the tributaries\nof Owikeno Lake at the head of the inlet.\nMi-. Stone reports that the spawning-beds of several of the main streams at the head of\nthe lake were not well seeded\u00E2\u0080\u0094that the run there had been small, as small as last year and\nmuch below the average of earlier years. On the other hand he found the streams lower down\nas well seeded as in any year since 1913, and that a large return may be anticipated from\ntheir seeding this year.\nSmith Inlet.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The spawning-beds of the Smith Inlet salmon run were inspected by Officer\nStone. In his report he expresses the opinion that the number of sockeye that spawned there\nthis year was larger than in the brood-years of the year's run 1917-18, but that the run did\nnot equal those of 3914-15. Water conditions were not, however, favourable to this year's\nspawning, and in consequence the returns four and five years hence may not be as large as\notherwise would have been the case.\nNass River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The spawning-beds of the Meziadin and Bowser Lake sections of the Nass\nwere again inspected by Inspector of Fisheries Hickman. He was accompanied by Fishery\nOverseer Collison, of the Dominion service. The trip to Bowser Lake was the second since\nits discovery by Mr. Hickman in 1912. The spawning-beds of the Meziadin were found to be\nbetter seeded than in any one of the last five years. The fishway was found in satisfactory\ncondition, but it is recommended that the retaining-wall for the gravel-bank requires early\nattention, as there is danger that the cribbing may cave in and thus fill up the passage. An\ninteresting description of the little-known Bowser Lake is given in the report. Owing to the\ndiscoloration of the waters of that section it was difficult to determine how many fish reached\nthere this year. By use of nets it was determined that sockeye were spawning in several\nsections, but no estimate of their number could be made. 13 Geo. 5 British Columbia. T 15\nStatement of Salmon-egg Collections in Hatcheries of British Columbia, 1922.\nHatchery.\nSockeye. Spring.\nCohoe.\nChums.\n8,505,000\n8,100,000\n3,222,750\n2,057,800\n9,053,185\n1,128,500\n1,518,860\n1,591,700\n100,000\n3,086,670\n26,000,000\nPitt Lake\t\n3,514,000\n14,590,100\n8,259,000\nTotals \t\n83,301,835\n2:647,360\n1,691,700\n3,086,670 T 16\nReport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nAPPENDICES.\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON.\n(No. 8.)\nBy Charles H. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor or Zoology, Stanford University.\n1. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1922.\nThe total sockeye-pack of districts tributary to the Fraser River amounted in 1922 to\n100,398 cases, of which 51,832 were produced in British Columbia and 48,566 in Puget Sound.\nThe Puget Sound figures, as we have previously pointed out, include each year sockeyes (\" blue-\nbacks\") bound for the Skagit River, in the State of Washington, as well as those on their way\nto the Fraser River. Traps located on the West Beach, on Whidbey Island, are well known\nto capture Skagit River bluebacks during the early part of the season, these being replaced\nlater in the run by Fraser River sockeyes. The Skagit fish are known to have poorer colour and\nto be deficient in oil, but in the annual returns they are all classed as sockeyes, and we are\nunable at present to segregate the two races. As the Fraser River run continues to dwindle,\nthe Skagit component comes to assume greater and greater relative importance in the Puget\nSound pack. That it is probably maintaining itself at or about the same level seems to be\nindicated by the annual return of spawning fish to Baker Lake. The Bureau of Fisheries'\nhatchery on Baker Lake has for years spawned artificially all the sockeyes that reach these\nspawning-grounds. 'There is no natural spawning in this district, the entire Skagit run being\nnow maintained through hatchery operations. In spite of the intensive fishing to which it is\nexposed in Puget Sound, the spawning escape that annually reaches the hatchery has maintained itself without reduction. We have, unfortunately, no means at present of estimating\nthe yield of the Baker Lake run, for the number captured in Puget Sound has not been de-'\ntermined.\n(1.) The One-year-in-lake Type.\nThis was the prevailing type in the run of 1922, as in all previous seasons during which the\nFraser River run has been subjected to analysis. The members of this group reside in their\nnative lake for the first year after hatching, pass out to the ocean in their second spring, and\nreturn either in their third year as mature male grilse, or in their fourth, fifth, or sixth years\nas mature members of both sexes. The grilse are always in relatively very small numbers,\nthe four-year fish are largely predominant over all the other year-classes, the five-year fish\nof this group are second in importance, and the six-year fish are extremely rare.\nAmong the 892 specimens taken by random sampling from the product of the Vancouver\nIsland traps, at intervals during the season, 80 per cent, belonged to the one-year-in-lake\ngroup, 8 per cent, to the two-years-in-lake group, and 12 per cent, to the \" sea-type,\" the members of which descend to the ocean as soon as they are free-swimming.\nThe following table (No. I.) gives the percentage of these different groups within the run\non successive dates throughout the season. It will be noted that no grilse made their appearance prior to July 12th, that the two-years-in-lake group were absent during the first half of\nJune and reached their maximum development during the second half of June, and that the\nsea-type was confined to the latter half of the run after the middle of July. A similar appearance of these groups within the run has been noted each year. It is specially interesting to\nobserve that all members of the sea-type appear during the same part of the run, whether they\nare three or four years old, and, similarly, the members of the two-years-in-lake type are confined to a certain part of the run, although some of them are four years old, some five, and\nsome six. \u00E2\u0096\u00A0s\n13 Geo. 5\nLipe-history op Sockeye Salmon.\nT 17\nTable I.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Different Year-classes, Fraser River Sockeyes occurring on a Succession\nof Dates throughout the Run of 1922.\nDates.\nOne Year in Lake.\nThree\nYears.\nFour\nYears.\nFive\nYears.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFour\nYears.\nFive\nYears.\nSix\nYears.\nSea-type.\nThree\nYears.\nFour\nYears.\nMay 29 \t\nJune 1 \t\n., 5 \t\n8 \t\n., 12 '.\t\n., 15 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22 \t\n.. 26 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28 \t\nJuly 4 \t\n6 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 12 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 15 \t\n., 19 \t\n.. 20 \t\n22 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 24 . -.\t\n., 26 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 31 \t\nAug. 2 \t\n,, 5\t\n7 \t\n.. 10 \t\n., 12 \t\n., 15 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 17 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 19 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 21 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 23 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 25 \t\nSept. 1 \t\n7 \t\nSpecimens examined ....\nPercentage each class\n50\n33\n100\n10\n30\n40\n77\n53\n56\n84\n81\n74\n75\n82\n61\n82\n73\n71\n61\n68\n42\n66\n71\n77\n66\n79\n83\n92\n100\n96\n88\n84\n100\n83\n50\n67\n90\n70\n50\n8\n12\n13\n4\n9\n11\n10\n18\n3\n9\n10\n9\n2\nK\n6\n10\n17\n608\n80\n70\n10\n8\n19\n19\n12\n5\n5\n10\n6\n7\n3\n7\n14\n12\n13\n8\n6\n17\n19\n10\n17\n16\n3\n13\n39\n17\n54\n6\n4\n6\n9\n8\n13\n16\n28\n7\n48\nThe material examined was collected by random sampling on thirty-four different dates,\ndistributed over the period from May 29th to September 7th, with intervals between the samplings\nof from two to four days. It is adequate, therefore, for the detection of changes that occur\nduring the season in the constitution of the run. The relative numbers of four- and of five-year\nfish of the one-year-in-lake group varied widely from the first to the last of the season, the older\ngroup running in larger relative numbers on the earlier dates. Table II. indicates that during the\nfirst two weeks of June five-year fish represented 65 per cent, of the run, while during August\nit comprised only 5 or 6 per cent. The average for the entire season is only 12 per cent., the\nproportion being smaller than for other recent years with reduced output, although the five-year\ncomponent of the 1922 run was derived from 1917, when the seeding of the spawning areas of\nthe Fraser was better than in 1938, which was the year responsible for the four-year fish of 1922. ieport of the Commissioner op Fisheries.\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1922 Rim, Percentages Four and Five\nYears old, occurring on Different Dates.\nDates.\nFour\nYears.\nFive\nYears.\nNumber of\nSpecimens\nexamined.\nMay 29 to June 15\nJune 19 to June 28\nJuly 4 to July 19 .\nJuly 20 to July 24\nJuly 26 to July 31\n' Aug. 2 to Aug. 7 ..\nAug. 10 to Aug. 15\nAug. 17 to Aug. 21\nAug. 23 to Sept. 7\nAverages\n35\n86\n88\n93\n86\n94\n93\n99\n93\n65\n14\n12\n7\n14\n6.\n7\n1\n12\n37\n86\n88\n86\n81\n90\n89\n75\n56\n688\nThe course of the run was not only marked by changes in the relative numbers of the\nyear-classes, but also by changes in the average size of the individuals constituting each year-\nclass. As shown in Tables III. to VI., given below, representatives of the prevailing year-class,\nthe four-year fish, showed an average increase in length and weight as the season advanced.\nA similar seasonal increase is evident in members of the other year-classes represented in the\nFraser River run, but they occur in such relatively small numbers that they do not furnish\naverages in length and weight that are reliable.\nThis seasonal increase in size is a constant feature of the Fraser River run, and has been\npointed out in our previous reports covering a series of years. It might be ascribed to\ngrowth during the season, the fish entering the river late having had a longer time on the\nfeeding grounds than those that enter early. But in other river-basins this does not hold.\nIn fact, the reverse condition may obtain, the later fish showing smaller average sizes than\nthose that were first to enter. It seems more probable, therefore, that the occurrence in the\nFraser is due to the larger size of the members of the racial groups that constitute the run\nduring the latter part of the season, these groups being apparently those bound for the lakes that\nlie in the lower part of the Fraser River basin and nearest the sea.\nTable III.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, One Year in Lake, arranged by Length\nand Date of Capture.\nInches.\n\u00C2\u00A92\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BA>\u00C2\u00A7\n5 3\n\u00C2\u00A9X\ntHOJ\nO) OJ\nC C\n(M.CO\nOJOOXI\n3 3\nbfl&Jj\n3 3\ncl=r:\n3 3\nTotal.\n19 ,\t\n19% \t\n20 \t\n20% \t\n21 \t\n21% \t\n22 \t\n22% \t\n23\t\n23% \t\n24\t\n24% \t\n25 \t\n25% \t\n26 '.\t\n26% \t\nTotal No\t\nAverage lengths\n11\n23.9\n39\n6\n10\n3\n1\n4\n2\n5\n13\n7\n1\n3\n2\n3\n14\n8\n6\n1\n1\n35\n22.7\n23.0\n39\n\"2472\"\n41\n\"2378\"\n39\n33\n36\n25\n24.6\n24.5\n24.7 | 24.8\n I\n1\n4\n5\n7\n6\n12\n15\n23\n33\n45\n55\n51\n19\n13\n298\n24.0 iEO.\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nT 19\nTable IV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeycs, Four-year Females, One Year in Lake, arranged by Length\nand Date of Capture.\nInches.\nQJ OJ\nc a\na 3\nI-5I-J\n(JNt-\nbjj&\u00C2\u00A3\na S\n\u00C2\u00AB\nWJ&lj\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 3 B\n*1<\nbfibfl\n<11\nTotal.\n'19 \t\n19% \t\n20 \t\n201/a \t\n21 \t\n21% \t\n22 \t\n221/2 \t\n23 \t\n2sy2 \t\n24 \t\n24% \t\n25 \t\n251/2 \t\n26 \t\n26% \t\nTotal No\t\nAverage lengths\n22.5\n35\n21.5\n42\n1\n3\n3\n1\n2\n10\n14\n1\n4\n1\ni\n41\n3\n3\n3\n13\n1\n29\n22.1\n22.6\n23.3\n1\n5\n3\n18\n46\n10\n12\n13\n50\n1\n1\n5\n1\n12\n8\n7\n1\n2\n38\n23.6\n23.4\n23.7\n1\n4\n1\n1\n~27~\n23.9\n4\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A210\n10\n10\n23\n37\n44\n65\n61\n20\n10\ni\n1\n23.0\nTable V.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Males, One Year in Lake, arranged by Weight and\nDate of Capture.\nPounds.\n0\n(NrH\n0\nOS 00\ni-ilN\n0 .\n0\n\u00C2\u00A9Tt<\nMM\n0\n\n<<\n<<\nbjj bo\nSPo.\n2% \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3V\u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n2\n4 . . .\n1\n3\n5\n3\n1\n13\n4\u00C2\u00AB, .\n4\n1\n0\n1\n1\n9\n5\n1\n6\n4\n4\n7\n1\n0\n1\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n5\n22\nsy2 .\n24\n6 ...\n'*\n1\n0\n1\n7\n5\n10\n3\n6\n9\n8\n10\n7\n8\n7\n2\n11\n8\n9\n11\n5\n1\n3\n5\n49\n6V\u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n51\n7 . . .\n45\n7y2 .\n1\n2\n8\n5\n6\n5\n8\n7\n42\n8 . ...\n2\n2\n6\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n2\n16\n8% \t\n6\n!l . '\t\n1\n1\n2\nTotal No\t\n11\n23\n35\n39\n41\n39\n33\n36\n25\n282\nAverage weights . ..\n5.1\n5.2\n5.6\n6.6\n6.4\n6.9\n_J\n6.9\n6.7\n6.6\n6.4 T 20\nReport op the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1923\nTable VI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Four-year Females, One Year in Lake, arranged by Weight\nand Date of Capture.\nPounds.\no\no=2\nCJ.\"\n>\u00C2\u00BBd\no\n\u00C2\u00A9CC\nT-iCi\na e\n3 3\no .\no\n\u00C2\u00A9TtH\nCMOJ.\n1-51-\u00C2\u00BB\nJuly 26 to\nJuly 31.\no\n4-1\no\n+J\nCIO\nriiH\nbijbi\no\nb/jbi\no\n4-\u00C2\u00BB\nTotal.\n1\n1\n1\n2\n4\n1\n4\n3\n1\n1\n4\n3\n5\n3\n9\n7\n7\n4\n4\n1\n4\n9\n15\n4\n3\n1\n1\n2\n5\n2\n9\n6\n4\n1\n1\n1\n3\n6\n19\n9\n3\n1\n2\n1\n3\no\n8\n14\n11\n11\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n1\n2\n6\n11\n11\n6\n1\n2\n1\n5\n6\n4\n6\n3\n1\n3 \t\n3% \t\n7\n9\n4 \t\n4% \t\n12\n17\n36\n5%\t\n52\n6\t\n6% \t\n71\n49\n7 \t\n30\n5\n8 \t\n3\nTotal No\t\nAverage weights . . .\n2\n17\n42\n41\n29 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n46\n50\n38\n27\n292\n4.2\n4.6\n4.9\n5.2\n. 5.8\n6.0\n6.1\n6.2\n6.2\n5.7\nThe size frequencies of the four- and five-year fish of this group are given in Tables VII.\nand VIII., which follow. Comparing the range in size and the average size of each of the\ncategories with similar tables for previous years, a remarkable agreement is observed. But the\nlength of both males and females in the four-year group has suffered obvious reduction during\nthe last four years, for which we have no explanation. 1922 aligns itself with 1919, 1920, and\n1921 in this regard, as appears from the following summaries:\nMales. Females.\nAverage lengths for five years prior to 1919 25.0 24.1\nLengths in 3919 24.1 22.8\nLengths in 1920 24.1 23.2\nLengths in 1921 23.7 23.0\nLengths in 1922 24.0 23.0 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nT 21\nTable VII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Length.\nLength in Inches.\nNumbek of Individuals.\nFour Years old.\nMales. Females. Males.\nFive Years old.\nFemales.\nTotal.\n19 \t\n19% \t\n20 \t\n20% \t\n21 \t\n21% \t\n22 \t\n22% \t\n23 \t\n23% \t\n24 \t\n24% \t\n25 . . ,\t\n25% \t\n26 \t\n26% \t\n27 \t\n27% \t\n28 \t\nTotals \t\nTotals each group\nAverage lengths .\n12\n15\n23\n33\n45\n55\n51\n19\n13\n9\n298\n7\n4\n4\n10\n10\n10\n23\n37\n44\n65\n61\n20\n10\n4\n1\n310\n608\n24.0\n23.0 25.8\nJ\t\n42\n38\n80\n24.1\n5\n8\n15\n18\n16\n37\n99\n117\n84\n69\n37\n18\n17\n7\n4\n1\n23.7\nTable VIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, One Year in Lake, 1922, from Vancouver Island Traps,\ngrouped by Age, Sex, and Weight.\nWeight in Pounds.\nNumbee of Individuals.\n2% \t\n3 \t\n3% \t\n4 \t\n4% \t\n5 \t\n5% \t\n6 \t\n6% \t\n7 \t\n7% \t\n8 \t\n8% \t\n9 \t\n9% \t\n10 \t\nTotals \t\nAverage weights\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nTotal.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n1\n1\n1\n7\n8\n2\n9\n1\n12\n13\n12\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n2\n27\n9\n17\n1\n27\n22\n36\n5\n5\n68\n24\n52\n1\n4\n81\n49\n71\n5\n2\n127\n51\n49\n6\n9\n115\n45\n30\n6\n6\n87\n42\n5\n4\n3\n54\n16\n3\n3\n22\n6\n4\n10\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n5\n1\n1\n282 '\n292\n38\n34\n646\n6.4\n5.7\n7.0\n6.1\n6.6\nIncluded in the one-year-in-lake group we find eight specimens that had spent but twyo\nyears in the sea and are returning as mature males in their third year. These so-called \" grilse \"\ndo not appear in the early part of the Fraser River run, although in other river-basins they may do so. Their occurrence relatively late in the season in the Fraser River is probably\ncorrelated with the fact of their occurrence in some racial colonies to the exclusion of others.\nIn Table IX. these specimens are arranged by length and date of capture.\nTable IX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, Male Grilse, One Year in Lake, 1922, grouped by Length\nand Date of Capture.\nLength in Inches.\nJuly 12.\nJuly 19.\nAug. 2.\nAug. 10.\nAug. 12.\nAug. 17.\nAug. 23.\nAug. 25.\n15%\t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n18%\t\n1\n19 \t\n20 \t\n21 \t\nAverage length, 19 inches; average weight, 3.4 lb.\n(2.) The Two-years-in-lake Type.\nThis group was present in moderate numbers in the 1922 run, those present in our samples\nconstituting 7.4 per cent, of the total, the number of individuals being sixty-four. The distribution of these within the run, given separately for each year-class and each sex, is shown in\nTable X. As in other years, the members of this group ran abundantly in the latter half of\nJune, but contrary to our experience in previous seasons, there was no second wave of migration\nentering in August. In fact, there were fewer present in the August run than in any other\npart of the season. The sharp distinction in this regard between 1922 and such a season as\n1920 is shown by comparing Table X. of this report with Table III. of the report for 1921.\nWe have previously suggested that as this group is not uniformly distributed throughout the\nFraser basin, some tributaries having it in abundance, while others are apparently without\nrepresentatives of it, the presence or absence of it in various parts of the Fraser River run\nmay be indicative of the presence or absence of the racial groups of which it forms a component\npart. If this theory is sound, the almost total absence of the group during the August run of\n1922 may indicate the almost total absence of some racial group which usually characterizes\nthis part of the run.\nA special feature of the 3922 run was the presence of members of this group only four\nyears old. These had not been reported previously from this watershed, and are rarely encountered in any stream except the Columbia, where they are a regular feature in each year.\nIt is interesting to note that although these fish have spent the same time in the sea as the\nthree-year \"grilse\" (of the one-year-in-lake type) and are of equal size with the latter, nevertheless females of this type mature because of the additional year of their age, while the females\nof equal size of the one-year-in-lake type practically never mature until a later year.\nSix-year representatives of the group were present in unusual numbers, 27 per cent, of the\ntotal number taken belonging to this rather rare year-class.\nThe length and weight frequencies of members of this group are shown in Tables XL and\nXII. It is noticeable that the five-year members of this group, which had spent three years in\nthe sea, averaged a little smaller than the four-year members of the one-year-in-lake group,\nwhich had also spent three years in the sea.\nFour years (one-year-in-lake group) ... .Males, 24.0 inches; females, 23.0 inches.\nFive years (two-years-in-lake group) .. .Males, 23.5 inches ; females, 22.7 inches. iEO.\neiy of Sockeye Salmon.\nT 23\nTable X.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fraser River Sockeyes, 1922, Tiro Years in Lake, arranged by Age, Sex, and Date\nof Capture.\no\nloci\no\no\no .\no\n\u00C2\u00A9\n7 a\n6.9\n6 5\n2. THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1922.\n(1.) General Characteristics.\nThe Rivers Inlet runs for the last three years have exhibited extremely wide fluctuations\nin volume, 1920 having produced one of the very largest packs known to the river, 1921 the\nnext to the smallest since the industry became well established, and, finally, 1922 showing a\nslight improvement over 1921, 1919, and 1918, and almost duplicating the pack of 1917, which\nwould be considered its progenitor, if we adopt the theory of a five-year cycle for this stream. 13 Geo. 5 Life-history of Sockeye Salmon. T 27\nAs we have previously shown, the correspondences are very striking when the years with\ntheir respective packs are arranged in series with five-year intervals. Allowing for the fact\nthat there has been an unquestionable impoverishment of the stream during, the last five years,\nso the individual years of the last cycle show some reduction below the corresponding years of\nthe previous cycle, the major fluctuations in size of run are seen to be repeated when these are\narranged in five-year groups, while there is no correspondence if the arrangement is on the\nbasis of four years, or any other number than five. We give below in even thousands of full\ncases the packs since 1907 arranged in accordance with the five-year cycle. The series of\ncorresponding years read along the horizontal lines from left to right.\n1907 87,000 1912 112,000 1917...'.. 61,000 1922 60,700\n1908..... 64,000 1913 61,000 1918 53,000\n1909 89,000 1914 89,000 1919 56,000\n1910 120,000 1915 130,000 1920 121,000\n1911 88,000 1916 44,000 1921 46,000\nFrom this it appears that 1922 falls perfectly in line with its series and can be considered\na lineal descendant of 1917. But, unfortunately for this view, 1922 proved to be an exception\nto the rule prevailing among the Rivers Inlet runs, and instead of being composed largely of\nfive-year fish it was made up for the most part (82 per cent.) of fish that were only four years\nold. It must be considered, therefore, to be more largely derived from the brood-year 1918.\nBut as the pack in 1918 was 53,401 cases the discrepancy is not formidable.\n(2.) The Age-groups.\nThe Rivers Inlet run is characterized by the almost total absence of sockeyes belonging to\nthe group (sea-type) which migrate oceanwards as soon as they are free-swimming, and\nalso of sockeye (two-year-in-lake type) which linger in fresh water for two years before\ndescending to the sea. The run consists, to the practical exclusion of all other classes, of fish\nthat have spent their first year in the lake, have then migrated seawards in their second spring,\nand have returned as mature spawners either in their fourth year or in their fifth year. The\nrun consists then practically of these two year-classes and of no others, and the only variation\nthat occurs from year to year is in the relative proportions of these two classes.\nAnalysis of the runs since 1912 has shown that most frequently the five-year group has\nbeen larger than the four-year group. For the ten years from 1912 to 1921 the average percentage of five-yea-r sockeyes is 64 and of four-year sockeyes 36. In different years, however,\nextensive divergencies from these averages are found, ranging from 20 per cent, of five-year\nfish in 1913 to 95 per cent, in 1920. It is sometimes possible to explain these unusual years\nby the history of the brood-years that were responsible for the two year-classes. Thus in 1920\nthe vast preponderance of five-year fish was obviously due to the fact that the brood-year of\nthe five-year fish (1915) was characterized by one of the largest runs known in this watershed,\nwhile the brood-year for the four-year fish (1916) was characterized by one of the very smallest\nruns known on the river. Through this circumstance the natural tendency of Rivers Inlet fish\nto mature relatively late\u00E2\u0080\u0094rather in their fifth than in their fourth year\u00E2\u0080\u0094was reinforced by an .\noverwhelming preponderance of the year that produced the five-year contingent.\nFrequently, however, the cause for abnormal or unusual relative sizes of the year-classes in\nany given run eludes us. They may sustain no relation to the apparent size of their brood-years,\nestimated on the basis of pack statistics. And we may have no facts at our disposal to indicate\nunusual success or failure on the spawning-grounds. An unusually heavy run of five-year fish\nin a given year may be associated with a commercially poor year five years previously. And\nnothing that is known to us of its history in fresh water or in the sea is adequate to explain\nits predominance.\nThe run of 1922 was highly unusual in the fact that throughout the season the four-year\nfish were far more numerous than the five-year fish. The only previous year that affords a\nparallel with 1922 is 1913, when a pack was put up of 61,000 cases, and the run consisted of\n80 per cent, of four-year fish and only 20 per cent, of five-year fish. In all these respects It\nclosely resembled 1922, with its 60,700 cases and its 82 per cent, of four-year fish. In 1913 no\nadequate cause for the unusually high percentage of four-year fish has been discovered, although\nthe brood-year for these (1909, 89,000 cases) was apparently a better year than the brood-year T 28\nIeport of the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nfor the five-year fish (1908, 64,000 cases). But it does not seem that this disparity in numbers\namong the spawning groups is adequate to produce the observed results.\nIn 1922 the same difficulty confronts us, but at first sight in more pronounced form. For\nin this case the four-year fish, which so largely predominate in the run, have for their brood-\nyear 1918 (53,401 eases), one of the least successful commercially of all the observed years on\nthe river. While, on the other hand, the five-year fish, which are so sparsely represented in\nthe run, are derived from 1917 (61,195 cases), which was appreciably a better year.\nA possible clue to the apparently discordant results in this case is derived from the reports\nof Fishery Overseer A. W. Stone for the two years in question. In 1917 he reports that, in\nspite of the relatively successful fishing season, there was a serious shortage of salmon on the\nspawning-grounds of Owikeno Lake. He furnished an estimate of \" 25 per cent, less sockeyes\non the beds than in any one of the past six years.\" In 1918, on the contrary, in spite of the\nunsuccessful fishing season, he found the number of the sockeye salmon that reached the\nspawning area of Owikeno Lake that year compared favourably with those seen there in 1913,\n1914, and 1915, and greatly exceeded the spawning run of 1916. From this it is evident that\nif we had some accurate method of determining from year to year the number of fish on the\nspawning-grounds, this would afford data for prophecy concerning the corresponding year of\nthe next cycle far more reliable than are obtained from the pack statistics of each year. Still\nmore reliable results would be obtained if we could take a census of the young fingerlings on\ntheir downward migration to the sea, for we would then have eliminated all the uncertain and\nvariable factors that prevent successful spawning, that eat or otherwise destroy the eggs, and\nthat eat or otherwise destroy the fry and fingerlings during their year of life in the lake. We\nshould still have to contend with the hazards of ocean-life over a term of years, hazards which\nmust vary widely with the different years, and must exact sometimes a lighter, sometimes a\nheavier toll on the salmon schools. The more of these hazards we can place behind us, the\ngreater accuracy of possible prophecy of the size of the spawning run when the salmon school\nshall have reached maturity. And conversely, the more hazards that intervene and act variably\nwith different seasons, the less value our data have for purposes of prediction. The statistics\nof the pack give very uncertain basis for estimating the number of fish that will reach spawning-\ngrounds. Even the number of spawners do not enable us to predict accurately the size of the\nfingerling schools that will descend to the sea. Yet these are the only data we have available\non which to base an estimate of the probable size of the run in the corresponding year of the\nnext cycle.\nOur estimate of the size of the five-year contingent in the 1922 run is made less reliable\nthan usual by the insufficiency of the data furnished. Measurements and scale-collections have\nusually been made by the local Fisheries Overseer during the entire season, but it will be seen\nby reference to the accompanying tables that the first samples taken in 1922 were as late in the\nrun as July 10th, due to a strike. At this time the run is in ordinary years reaching its culminating point and certain changes have occurred in its composition. One of these changes usually\nconcerns the proportions of four- and five-year fish, the latter in most years running more heavily\nduring the first part of the season. What allowance should be made for this factor it is impossible to judge, for the sequence of events is not exactly the same in runs of different years. However, as is shown in Table XVIII., the proportions of five-year fish were so much less than on\nany other year during the same period of the run that we are justified in concluding that this\nyear-group was present in greatly reduced numbers in the run of 1922. 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Ssockeyb Salmon.\nT 29\nTable XVII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes appearing at Different Dates\nfrom 1915 to 1922.\nDate.\n1915\nJune 27 .\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 28 .\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 29 .\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 30 .\nJuly 1 .\n2 .\n3 .\n4 .\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 5 .\n6 .\n7 .\n8 .\n9 .\n10 .\n11 .\n12 .\n13 .\n14 .\n15 .\n16 .\n17 .\n18 .\n19 .\n20 .\n21 .\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 22 .\n23 .\n24 .\n25 .\n26 .\n27 .\n28 .\n29 .\n30 .\n31 .\nAug. 1\n2 .\n84\n84\n88\n92\n1916.\n93\n92\n90\n84\n69\n08\n60\n1917. I 1918. I 1919. ! 1921.\n94\n73\n41\n46\n44\n7\n19\n25\n32\n37\n64\n59\n69\n44\n65\n47\n67\n52\n55\n55\n32\n77\n56\n51\n48\n48\n47\n57\n40\n36\n44\n53\n38\n1922.\n30\n30\n30\n24\n16\n8\n16 T 30\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1923\nTable XVIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Four- and Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, in Runs from 1912\nto 1922, with Broods from which they were derived.\nRun of the Year.\nPercentage,\nFour and Five\nYears old.\n1912 (112,884 cases) j\n1913 (61,745 cases) ]\n1914 (89,890 cases) j\n1915 (130,350 cases) j\n1916 (44,936 cases) j\n1917 (61,195 cases) j\n1918 (53,401 cases) j\n1919 (56,258 cases) j\n1920 (121,254 cases) '..)\n1921 (46,300 cases) j\n1922 (60,700 cases) j\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n5 yrs.\n4 yrs.\n79%\n21%\n20%\n80%\n65%\n35%\n87%\n13%\n76%\n24%\n67%\n33%\n43%\n57%\n54%\n46%\n95%\n5%\n51%\n49%\n18%\n82%\nBrood-year from which\nderived.\n1907 (87,874 cases).\n1908 (64,652 cases).\n> 1909 (89,027 cases).\n1910 (126,921 cases,*.\n\ 1911 (88,763 cases).\n[ 1912 (112,884 cases),\nI\nj. 1913 (61,745 cases).\n\ 1914 (89,890 cases).\n!\n1\n\. 1915 (130,350 cases).\nI\n\- 1916 (44,936 cases).\nI\n(\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 1917 (61,195 cases).\n1918 (53,401 cases).\n(3.) Distribution of the Sexes..\nIn the report of the previous year (1921) it was shown that the male sockeyes were relatively\nmuch less numerous than had been observed during any of the five years preceding, and that this\ndeficiency of males was equally marked with the four-year fish and with those of the five-year\nclass. What made the occurrence seem the more remarkable was the fact that there had been\ngreat uniformity in the percentages of males and females from 1916 to 1920, especially in the\nfour-year group. By consulting Table XIX., which follows, it will appear that during the above\nyears the percentage of males had varied only between 74 and 79, and for four of the five years\nit had varied only between 74 and 75. It seemed incomprehensible that in 1922 the percentage\nof male four-year-olds should drop to 65 per cent, of the four-year class, while at the same time\nthe percentage of five-year males should drop to 38, whereas for the three previous years it had\nbeen 49, 45, and 48 per cent.\nThe sudden change in 1921 is now fully paralleled by the condition of the run in 1922.\nNot only is there a great reduction in the number of males present in both year-classes, but the\nresults are practically identical with those obtaining in 1921. In the five-year group the percentages are identical, while in the four-year fish there is a difference of only 1 per cent, in\nthe two years. A wide difference exists between the two years in the relative total number of\nmales and females present in the run, for in 1922 the four-year fish, in which males are relatively\nmost abundant, were present in such large proportions that the total males very largely outnumbered the females. The disastrous effects of this condition on the success of the spawning\ncan be readily seen. \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n13 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nT 31\nTable XIX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Relative Numbers of Males and Females, Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1916 to 1922.\n1916.\n1917.\n1918.\n1919. 1920.\n1921.| 1922\nAverage percentages\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFour-year males .\nPour-year females\nFive-year males ..\nFive-year females\nAverage total males ..\nAverage' total females\n74\n26\n40\n60\n52\n48\n75\n25\n42\n58\n53\n47\n74\n26\n49\n51\n66\n34\n79\n21\n45\n55\n58\n42\n74\n26\n48\n52\n49\n51\n65\n35\n38^\n62\n51\n49\n39\nTable XX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages of Males and Females in Rivers Inlet Sockeyes occurring on Different\nDates, Season of 1922.\nJuly\n10.\nJuly\n12.\nJuly\n14.\nJuly\n17.\nJuly\n20.\nJuly\n22.\nJuly\n24.\nAug.\n3.\nAug.\n5.\nFour-year males\nFour-year females\nFive-year males .\nFive-year females\n90\n10\n57\n43\n82\n18\n50\n50\n80\n20\n24\n76\n72\n28\n39\n61\n64\n36\n27\n73\n76\n24\n33\n67\n59\n41\n42\n58\n47\n53\n100\n43\n57\n20\n80\n(4.) Lengths and Weights.\nThe following tables give statistics of length and weight for the age-classes and for each\nsex separately for the run of 1922. While the general agreement with runs of preceding years\nwas marked and the range in size of the different categories was approximately the same, an\nunexpected discrepancy became evident when a correlation of lengths and weights was attempted.\nOn previous years it has in general been the experience that when the average length of a given\ngroup was greater or less than the average length of the same group in some other year, the\nrespective weights of the two years have varied correspondingly in the same direction. But\nthat proves not to be the case in the run of 1922. By reference to Table XXII. it is seen that\nall the lengths in 1922 were less than the average for the ten years which include 1922. This\nincludes both males and females of the four-year class and both males and females of the five-\nyear class. But on consulting Table XXIV. the reverse is found to be true with regard to the\nweights. For both males and females of both year-classes are conspicuously above the normal\nor average weight. Both males and females of the four-year class average much heavier than\nin any year from 1914 to 1921, being 6 lb. and 5.9 lb. respectively, while the average for eight\nyears is 5.3 and 5.1 lb. The data here used were obtained by Fisheries Overseer Arthur W.\nStone, who has been responsible also for the data of previous years, and we have no reason to\ndoubt the reliability of the figures given. Assuming their correctness, we are compelled to\nattribute a degree of plumpness to the 1922 Rivers Inlet sockeyes beyond what they usually\ndisplay.\nOur frequency distributions of weights and lengths during different dates of the run prove\nagain that the size of the fish of this watershed, comparing throughout those of the same year-\nclass, does not increase as the season progresses, hut, on the contrary, slightly diminishes. This\nseems as well established a habit with the fish of Rivers Inlet as the reverse habit is with the\nfish of the Fraser basin. In the Fraser River run, as we have shown, there is a marked increase\nin the length of the fish of each category as the season advances. T 32\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1923\nTable XXI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length, and by their\nEarly History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nInches.\nOne Year\nin Lake.\nTwo Years\nin Lake.\nTotal.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n19% \t\n1\n5\n25\n57\n84\n60\n42\n33\n23\n12\n6\n3\n2\n1\n7\n31\n37\n44\n37\n14\n7\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n2\n2\n2\n9\n6\n8\n4\n4\n2\n3\n1\n1\n1\n8\n11\n13\n16\n14\n4\n1\n2\n20% \t\n6\n21 \t\n34\n21 % \t\n89\n22 \t\n124\n22% \t\n111\n23 \t\n89\n23% \t\n60\n24 \t\n53\n24% \t\n37\n25 \t\n30\n25% \t\n12\n26 \t\n8\n26% \t\n5\n27 \t\n3\n27% \t\n1\nTotals \t\n354\n180\n46\n74\n5\n2\n2\n663\nAve. length . .\n22.5\n22.4\n24.6\n24.2\n22.4\n23.2\n25.5\n22.8\nTable XXII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Average Length in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Ten Years.\nI\n1012.\n1913. 1914. I 1915. J 1916. 1917. I 1918. I 1919. j 1921. I 1922. | Average.\nI I I I I I I I I\t\nFour-year males\nPour-year females\nFive-year males .\nPive-year females\n23.2\n22.9\n23.0\n22.9\n22.9\n22.5\n22.3\n22.4\n22.9\n22.5\n22.8\n22.8\n23.0\n22.8\n22.8\n22.S\n22.3\n22.5\n22.3\n22.6\n22.4\n22.6\n25.8\n25.9\n25.9\n26.0\n25.8\n25.0\n24.9\n24.8\n25.2\n24.6\n25.4\n24.6\n25.2\n25.2\n25.1\n25.0\n24.4\n24.5\n24.4\n24.2\n24.2\nM\n24.7 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history op Sockeye Salmon.\nT 33\nTable XXIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, grouped by\ntheir Early History.\nAge, Sex, and Weight, and by\nNumber\nof Individuals.\nPounds.\nOne Year\nin Lake.\nTwo Years\nin Lake.\nTotal.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n4 \t\n1\n3\n30\n124\n91\n56\n24\n16\n8\n1\n1\n13\n66\n64\n28\n6\n2\n1\n1\n6\n7\n7\n8\n5\n3\n2\n4\n2\n1\n8\n17\n22\n11\n7\n5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4% \t\n4\n5 \t\n46\n5% \t\n196\n6 \t\n170\n6% \t\n108\n7 \t\n59\n7% ,\t\n39\n8 \t\n1\n1\n22\n8% \t\n10\n9 \t\no\n9% \t\n4\n10 \t\n2\nTotals \t\n354\n180\n46\n74\n5\n2\n2\n663\nAve. weight ..\n6.0\n5.9\n7.4\n7.0\n_J\n6.4\n6.5\n8.2\n6.2\nTable XXIV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Average Weight in Pounds of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes for Eight Years.\nT\n1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918.\n1919.\n1921.\n1922.\nAverage.\nFour-year males .\nPour-year females\nFive-year males .\nFive-year females\n5.4\n5.3\n5.5\n5.2\n5.1\n5.0\n7.3\n7.3\n7.6\n6.8\n6.6\n6.7\n5.0\n4.9\n6.6\n6.2\n4.9\n5.1\n6.7\n6.7\n4.9\n4.8\n5.9\n5.2\n4.9\n6.9\n6.0\n6.0\n5.9\n7.4\n7.0\n5.3\n5.1\n7.0\nTable XXV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Four-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, showing Length Frequency Distribution\nthrough the Season.\nMales.\nFemales.\nInches.\n\u00C2\u00A9\n>,\n3\n1-3\nCl\nH\n>,\na\n1-5\nH\n>>\n3\nh-3\nH\n3\no\nIN\n3\n1-3\nCl\n>.\n3\nCJ.\n>>\n3\nCO\nti\n3\n<<\n60\n3\n<\n\"3\n+j\no\nEH\no\nri\n>>\n3\n^5\nrH\nj>j,\nha\nrH\n3\n3\n1-3\no\nCl\n>,\n3\nres\nCJ\n3\nt-3\nCJ.\n3\n60\n3\nIO\n60\n3\n*r:\no\nEH\n19% \t\n20% \t\n1\n5\n13\n8\n5\n3\n7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n4\n12\n7\n4\n5\n2\n1\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\n9\n6\n4\n5\n3\n3\n3\n1\n3\n4\n9\n9\n5\n4\n6\n1\n1\n8\n10\n4\n3\n4\n2\n3\n2\n1\n6\n9\n11\n10\n3\n6\n2\n1\n1\n1\n4\n5\n9\n7\n5\n2\n3\n1\n2\n11\n10\n4\n6\n4\n5\n8\n7\n2\n3\n1\n1\n5\n25\n57\n84\n60\n42\n33\n23\n12\n6\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n5\n3\n3\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n2\n6\n3\n1\n2\n4\n2\n4\n5\n3\n1\n1\n3\n2\n1\n5\n2\n1\n1\n7\n12\n3\n1\n1\n2\n2\n6\n9\n7\n12\n1\n8\n6\n14\n7\n2\n2\n1\n7\n21% \t\n31\n22 \t\n37\n22% \t\n44\n23 \t\n37\n23% \t\n14\n24 \t\n7\n24% \t\n2\n25% \t\n26 \t\n1\nTotals . . .\n45\n42\n39\n41\n37\n50\n37\n33\n30\n354\n5\n9\n10\n16\n21\n16\n26\n37\n40\n180 T 34\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.\n1923\nTable XXVI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Five year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, shmoing Length Frequency Distribution\nthrough the Season.\nMales.\nFemales.\nInches.\no\nTlH\nt-\no\nCl\n**\nCO\nia\no\nCl\n<*\nfc-\no\nCl\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nre\nIO\nTH\nr^\nr^\nCl\nCl\nCl\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E:\nr^\nrH\nr^\nh\n_3\n>>\n>,\n>>\n>.\n>,\nt\u00C2\u00BB>\nh\n60\n60\n3\n-4->\n>.\nt>>\n5>>\n>,\nt*>\n>\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nt->\n60\n60\n+j\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHi\nHj\nl-s\nI-;\nl-i\nl-s\n\u00C2\u00BB-3\n\u00C2\u00ABl\nB\nHj\n1-;\nHj\nf-3\nH3\n(-3\nH3\n<\nEH\n21 \t\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n22 \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n22% \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\no\n2\n2\n2\n1\n2\n3\n3\n1.\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n23 \t\n8\n23% \t\n11\n24 \t\n3\n1\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\n?,\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\no\n2\n9\n6\n8\n4\n4\n1\n4\n2\n2\n5\n1\n1\n4\n3\n3\n2\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n13\n24% \t\n16\n25 \t\n14\n25%\t\n4\n26 \t\n2\n1\n1\n2\n4\n9\n1\n1\n1\n1\n26% \t\n2\n27 ....\n2\n1\n1\n3\n1\n27% \t\nTotals ....\n12\n11\n5\n7\n3\n2\n5\n1\n46\n9\n\"\n16\n11\n8\n4\n7\n4\n4\n74\nTable XXVII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Average Length in Inches of Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Run of 1922, on a Series\nof Dales.\nJuly 10. July 12\nJuly 14.\nJuly 17.\nJuly 20. July 22\nJuly 24.\nAug. 3.\nAug. 5.\nFour-year males .\nFour-year females\nFive-year males .\nFive-year females\n22.2\n22.7\n24.7\n23.9\n22.5\n22.6\n25.1\n24.6\n22.9\n22.8\n25.1\n24.2\n22.6\n22.3\n25.5\n24.2\n22.7\n22.5\n24.3\n23.9\nI\n22.8\n22.7\n24.2\n24.9\n22.3\n22.2\n24.0\n24.6\n22.0\n22.3\n23.4\n22.2\n22.5\n21.0\n23.6\nTable XXVIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Four-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, showing Weight Frequency Distribution\nthrough the Season.\nMales.\nFemales.\nPounds.\no\nci\nTlH\ni-\no\nCl\nCl\nCl\nrH\nCl\nCO\nno\n\u00C2\u00A9\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0H\nci\nrH\ni~\nd\nCl\n01\nCl\nrji\nCl\nCO\nIO\nh3\n>>\n3\n1-3\n3\n*\"3\n1-3\n3\n1-3\n3\n60\n3\n<\n60\n3\no\nEH\n3\n3\nro\n>>\n3\nj*\n^\nhs\n>>\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BA\"3\n1\n60\n3\n<\nEH\n1\n1\n4% ...,\n1\n1\n3\n30\n1\n1\n13\n66\n64\n28\n6\n9\n5 \t\n10\n9\n9\n1\n2\n3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1\n6\n3\n1\n5\n14\n17\n1\n4\n15\n15\n5\n1\n5% \t\n15\nT>\n9\n1?\n15\n16\n16\n19\n10\n194\n1\n3\n3\n4\n3\n15\n8\n6 \t\n9\n14\n10\n13\nq\nI9\nR\n4\n12\n91\n2\n4\n1\n7\n6\n6\n4\n6%\t\n7\n8\n4\n9\n5\n1?\n7\n4\n56\n1\n2\n4\n3\n7 \t\n?,\n5\n4\n1\n5\n3\n4\n24\n1\n2\n2\n7% \t\n4\n4\n2\n2\n2\n2\n16\n1\n1\n8 \t\n1\n2\n2\n1\n3\n8\n1\n8% \t\nTotals \t\n45\n42\n39\n41\n37\n50\n37 [ 33\nI\n30\n354\n5\n9\n10\n16\n21\n16\n26\n37\n40\n180 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nT 35\nTable XXIX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Five-year Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1922, showing Weight Frequency Distribution\nthrough the Season.\nPounds.\nMales.\nFemales.\n\u00C2\u00A9\nci\nrj<\ni-\nc\nCl\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0^\nCO\nIO\n\u00C2\u00A9\nCl\nTt<\ni-\no\nCM\n^\nCO\nIO\nT^\nr^\nT-i\nrH\nCl\nCl\nCl\n_]\n^i\nrH\ny-i\nCl\nCl\nCl\n_j\n>>\n>>\n>.\nr*>\nt-.\n>.\nr*i\n60\n60\nH-\u00C2\u00BB\nfe.\nt\u00C2\u00BB.\nt*.\n>-.\ns~.\n>.\n>i\n60\n60\n3\n+J\n3\n3\n3\n3\nHj\nHs\n\"\u00E2\u0096\u00A0>\nhj\n*>\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\"\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n1-3\nEH\n*\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00C2\u00BB\n'--\n1-3\n1-3\nr-\n'I\nrr.\n O CO -^\n- 01 rH rH Ci t- -*H\nrHrHCJ.ClCOCO-rJHHlHIOlO'cOCOt-b-COOOCjCi\u00C2\u00A9\noicioioioicicioioicictoioioioioioioico\nS \u00C2\u00AB\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 B <\nPROVINCIAL LIBRARY,\nVICTORIA, B. C T 44\nEeport of the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nTable XLV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths of Principal Classes from 1912 to 1922.\nOne Year in Lake.\nTwo Years in Lake.\nFour Years old.\nFive Years old.\nFive Years old.\nSix Years old.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\nMales.\nFemales.\n1912 (in\n1913\n24.6\n24.1\n24.6\n24.0\n24.5\n23.4\n25.0\n24.9\n23.3\n23.5\n22.7\n23.5\n23.3\n23.2\n24.3\n24.1\n26.5\n25.6\n26.1\n25.9\n26.4\n25.-5\n25.7\n26.2\n26.3\n25.5\n25.6\n25.1\n24.8\n25.1\n25.2\n25.0\n24.7\n24.7\n25.2\n25.0\n24.3\n24.6\n26.2\n26.0\n26.3\n26.5\n26.5\n25.3\n25.9\n26.5\n26.7\n26.2\n25.7\n25.4\n25.2\n25.5\n25.9\n25.6\n24.7\n25.0\n25.8\n25.9\n25.6\n25.0\n27.0\n26.0\n26.9\n26.6\n27.9\n26.5\n27.2\n27.9\n27.4\n27.9\n28.0\n25.6\n26.6\n1914\n25.6\n1915\n25.3\n1916\n25.7\n1917\n25.5\n1918\n25.2\n1919\n26.7\n1920\n24.0 i 23.4\n25.9\n1921\n24.3\n24.2\n23.5\n23.4\n26.2\n1922\n25.9\nTable XLVI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Average Lengths of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1922, compared with\nGeneral Averages of 1912 to 1921.\nAverage\nLengths,\n1922.\nGeneral\nAverages,\n1912 to\n1921.\nOne year in lake\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFour-year males\nFour-year females\nFive-year males .\nFive-year females\nTwo years in lake\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFive-year males .\nFive-year females\nSix-year males ..\nSix-year females\n24.3\n23.5\n26.0\n24.9\n26.2\n25.5\n27.1\n25.8 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history op Sockeye Salmon.\nT 45\nHHt-C)\u00C2\u00ABCO00iMiniOMN\nCO\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nri\n(Nt-lfflOr-WCOCO '\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0^\no\nrl W ^ Cl H\nCM\no\nH\n!*\nCO\ntc\u00C2\u00B0\n^1\nri ,\nCO\nT3\n0)\ng>\nO\nri\na\nIO\nid\ns\n-j?\nU\nri\nfl)\ntH\nu\nP\no\nfa\n3\n1-1 J.\nd d\nCj fl>\nO\n50\nOJ\nri\nIO\nCO\n\u00C2\u00A7\n\u00C2\u00A3\nfa\ng\nE|\nfl)\ns\nri\n13\nCQ\nOJ\nri\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 -H CllO WHM \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n-f\nCO\nr~\ni .\no\ni\nH\nCO\nSi\nw fl)\nri t\u00C2\u00BB\naa\nri\n\u00C2\u00A3\nH\n>H\ntc\n6\nH\nCJ\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nIO\n\u00C2\u00A7\nH^\ncC\nri\nt^\nCii\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\u00C2\u00BB\n\u00C2\u00A9\nCQ\n\u00C2\u00A3\nT3\nOJ\nd\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 rH \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CM ri \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \"\nI^\nco\n* 5\nm\nOQ\n6\nfa\ncd\n!3\n<\nri\n4)\n\u00C2\u00A75\nto\nu\no\n>\na\nM\nCO\na\nri\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 -rH *rH -CM \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CM rH\nt-\nrH\nCO\nri\ns\n\u00C2\u00A9\n&\nCs\nr-H\ng\n*3\no\nr-H\nJo\nri\n*d\nri\nHt-COMMMWIClTiH . . -\nco\nCO\no\na\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0H H rH\nCi\ncd\n\u00C2\u00A9\na\nS\n1\nS-4\nri\nfa\n2;\nEH\n\u00C2\u00A9\nto\nSi\nK1\nOJ\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2rHC0b-# -rH\nCO\nX\nri\nCl 00 rH *# O CN\no\ncd\n\u00C2\u00A9\u00C2\u00A3\nfa\nrt\nrH rH rH\nto\nm\nCl\n**l\n13\nfl)\nri\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 H CO rl M IOM -r-i \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nb-\nCl\nO\nOQ\na\nH\ncd\n\u00C2\u00A7\nd\nr-i\nri\nfa\nOJ\n^\n>>\ntH\n_o\nH\nto\n\u00C2\u00A7\n0)\njm\n83\n5\nG)\nri\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 rH CN) rH Cl \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 rl rH \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 -\n00\nX\nCO\n00\na\n\ns\no\n,23\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 tM Cl LO 00 t- rH rH - - - \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\ncc\nCi\nri\nCM\ni6\noo\nfa\ns\nOO\nis\n5\n3\no\nto\nN\nto\nPn\nis\n&\nrO\nbn\n>\nO >\nB <1\nP-\nv\u00C2\u00A3l \S v\u00C2\u00AB -s?* -^1 -XI\nH^ >->- T-T- r-^ r-h rT\"\n^^OOOfflt-t-COOOCiO T 46\nReport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nTable XLVIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights of Principal Classes, from 1913 to 1922.\nYear.\nOne Yeak in Lake.\nFour Years old.\nMales. Females.\nFive Years old.\nMales. Females.\nTwo Yeaes in Lake.\nFive Years old.\nMales. Females.\nSix Years old.\nMales. Females.\n1913 (pounds)\n1914\n1915\n1916\n1917\n1918\n1919\n1920\n1921\n1922\n5.5\n6.3\n6.5\n6.2\n5.6\n6.0\n5.3\n6.3\n6.0\n5.6\n6.0\n5.9\n5.0\n5.2\n5.3\n5.3\n5.8\n5.5\n5.2\n5.4\n5.4\n7.4\n6.9\n7.2\n6.8\n7.2\n6.6\n7.4\n6.9\n6.8\n6.5\n6.4\n6.3\n6.2\n6.3\n5.9\n6.3\n6.1\n6.2\n7.2\n7.0\n7.2\n6.3\n7.2\n6.7\n7.4\n6.9\n6.8\n6.5\n6.6\n6.2\n5.8\n6.4\n6.1\n6.7\n6.3\n6.3\n7.9\n7.2\n8.1\n7.3\n8.3\n7.8\n7.9\n7.7\n8.1\nI\n6.7\n6.8\n6.5\n6.4\n6.4\n6.7\n6.7\n7.0\n6.6\n6.6\nTable XLIX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Average Weights of Principal Classes of Nass River Sockeyes, 1922, compared with\nGeneral Averages of 1914 to 1921.\nAverage\nWeights,\n1922.\nGeneral\nAverages,\n1914 to\n1921.\nI\nOne year in lake\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFour-year males j 5.9 5.9\nFour-year females j 5.4 5.3\nFive-year males j 6.8 7.0\nFive-year females [ 6.2 6.3\nTwo years in lake\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFive-year males [ 6.8 7.0\nFive-year females 1 6.3 6.3\nSix-year males [ 8.1 7.8\nSix-year females j 6.6 6.6\nI I\n(4.) Seasonal Changes during the Run.\nIn Table L. we present for each date throughout the season in which samples were taken\nthe percentage in each year-class contained in the run on that date. Inspection of this table\nmakes evident the extensive changes which occurred in the constitution of the run as the season\nadvanced, and a comparison with similar tables contained in our reports for previous years\nshows entire agreement in the nature of these changes. The sea-type group always is confined\nto the early days of each run and disappears completely before the middle of July. The six-year\ngroups show the converse of this. They run sparsely or not at all in the early part of the run\nand attain their greatest relative numbers in the latter half of July and in August. The two\nfive-year groups and the four-year one-year-in-the-lake group are usually present throughout the\nrun, but not in equal proportions. The four- and five-year groups, one-year-in-lake, usually attain\ntheir maximum development in the second and third weeks of July and taper away thence in\neither direction, while the dominant group is strong, but not equally strong throughout. A\ndetailed comparison of these events, as chronicled for a number of years, makes an impressive\nshowing and demonstrates that behind the apparent uniformity in the run, when'superficially\nviewed, there lies a great diversity of groups, which are marshalled in an orderly sequence which\nremains the same from year to year.\nIn Tables LI. to LIV. we give the dominant type in the Nass (five years old, two-years-in-\nlake) arranged by lengths and weights for each of the sample dates throughout the season. The\naverage lengths and weights given for each date show clearly a slight increase in size toward the\nclose of the season. We have reason to believe that in the Nass, as in the Fraser, this increase\nin size is related to the appearance of a larger race bound for a different tributary, and is not 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history of Sockeye Salmon.\nT 47\nthe effect of growth during the summer, and we refer in this connection to the graph presented\non page 64 of our report for the year 1921.\nSo far as is known at the present time, there are only two sockeye spawning-grounds in the\nNass watershed, that of Bowser Lake and that of Meziadin Lake. It has seemed probable that\nsome of the racial differences to which we have repeatedly called attention as appearing in the\nmain run would be found to characterize the respective colonies of these two lakes. No adequate\nmaterial has yet come to hand to enable us to settle this question, but a few samples obtained\nin the summer of 1922 in Bowser Lake and at the Meziadin Falls by C. P. Hickman present\nresults in harmony with the theory of different racial groups inhabiting these two lakes. Of the\nfifteen specimens examined from Bowser Lake, six belonged to the one-year-in-lake type and the\nremainder to the two-years-in-lake type, none of the specimens having in their fingerling stage\nspent three years in the lake. Of the ten specimens from the Meziadin Falls, none belonged to\nthe one-year-in-lake type, eight belonged to the two-years-in-lake type, and two to the three-years-\nin-lake type. While this material cannot be considered adequate, it is very interesting as apparently indicating that the Meziadin group spend as fingerlings a longer period in the lake than\nis the case with the Bowser Lake group.\nTable L.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Percentages in each Class of Nass River Sockeyes running at Different Dates in 1922.\nDate.\nOne Yeae\nin Lake.\nTwo Yeaes in Lake.\nTheee\nYeaes\nin Lake.\nSea-type.\nGJITJ.C\np'SS\nFour\nYears old.\nFive\nYears old.\nFive\nYears old.\nSix\nYears old.\nSix\nYears old.\nFour\nYears old.\nJune 28 \t\n2\n3\n4\n12\n13\n10\n7\n6\n4\n1\n2\n5\n5\n3\n1\n3\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n84\n82\n90\n93\n84\n84\n86\n80\n92\n92\n90\n91\n2\n1\n4\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n5\n6\n16\n11\n1\n1\n79\n30\t\n45\nJuly 6\t\n121\n8\t\n117\n10\t\n122\n13\t\n118\n17\t\n111\n21\t\n110\n25\t\n109\n28\t\n110\n111\n10\t\n90\nNo. of individuals..\n73\n25\n1,096\n11\n18\n20\n1,243\nPer cent, each class\n6\n2\n88\n1\n1\n2\nTable LI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Male Sockeyes, 1922, in Fifth Year, Tivo-years-in-lake Type, arranged by\nLengths on a Series of Dates.\nInches.\n00*\ncm\ng\n0\nCO\n|\nCO\n>>\nr^\n00\nd\n,-h\nCO*\n>>\ni~\n10\nCM\nCO\nCM\nd\n\"3\n0\nEH\n23 \t\n3\n4\n4\n3\n4\n2\n1\n3\n12\n9\n11\n12\n4\n1\n1\n16\n8\n16\n1\n4\n1\n1\n1\n3\n9\n5\n16\n10\n4\n2\n4\n6\n12\n10\n9\n7\n4\n1\n2\n1\n4\n6\n14\n10\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n1\n1\n2\n4\n5\n12\n8\n10\n1\n1\n2\n1\n2\n5\n11\n11\n6\n3 ,\n4\n6\n13\n10\n6\n0\n2\n8\n10\n7\n10\n1\n4\n1\n6\n9\n15\n1\n1\n23% \t\n24 \t\n1\n5\n10\n11\n8\n1\n6\n23\n241/2 \t\n38\n25 \t\n82\n25%\t\n87\n26\t\n140\n26% \t\n71\n27 \t\n49\n27% \t\n28 \t\n28% \t\n4\n1\n1\nTotals \t\n36\n20\n53 | 47\n49\n54\n43\n44\n38\n42\n41\n36\n503\n25.3\n25.2\n25.31 25.7\n25.8\n25.4\n25.9\n26.1\n26.0\n26.0\n26.1\n25.5\n25.7 T 48 Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 1923\nTable LII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Female Sockeyes, 1922, in Fifth Year, Two-years-in-lake Type, arranged\nby Lengths on a Series of Dates.\nInches.\nCO\nCl\ng\nd\nCO\nCJ\na\n3\nH5\nd\nB\nCO\n>*\n3\n1-5\nd\ns\nP\"5\nCO*\n3\nt>*\n>>\n3\n>-5\nCM\n3\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BA\u00E2\u0096\u00A0J\nIO\nCM\n>.\n3\nro.\nCO*\nci\n_^\nt*5\nci\n<\nd\nrH\nti\n3\n>\ns\nd\nr\u00C2\u00BB\u00C2\u00BB\nt-5\nCO*\nrH\n>>\n3\nt-5\n3\n1-5\nrH*\nCl\n3\nIO\nCl\n3\n1-5\nCO\nCl\n>l\n3\n1-5\noi\n3\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A05\nd\nrH\n6i\n3\n<\n\"S\nO\niH\n4 ..\n4%\n5 ..\n5%\n6 . .\n6%\n7 ..\n7%\n8 . .\n8%\n9 ..\n9%\n 5\n 7\n 11\n 10\n 3\n4\n6\n3\n3\n4\n1\n6\n12\n12\n13\n7\n2\n2\n11\n13\n12\n5\n4\n1\n2\n6\n8\n20\n10\nO\n4\n11\n13\n6\n16\n4 .\n2\n6\n9\n16\n8\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n7\n14\n14\n3\n1\n2\n2\n8\n13\n10\n1\n2\n6\n8\n13\n8\n7\n2\n5\n10\n11\n11\n1\n1\n1\n7\n10\n13\n5\n1\n6\n27\n82\n112\n144\n101\n25\n4\n1\nTotals .\n 36 | 20\n53\n47\n49\n54\n43\n44\n38\n42\n41\n36\n503\nAverage weights . .\n 6.5\n6.4\n6.6\n6.7\n6.8 1 6.8\n6.8\n7.0\n7.0\n7.0\n6.9\n6.7\n6.8 13 Geo. 5\nLife-history\nOF\nSockeye Salmon.\nT 49\nTable LIV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Female Sockeyes,\n1922\nin Fifth Year, Two-years-in\n-lake Type, arranged\nby Weighti\non\n% Series of Dates.\n00\nd\nd\nCO*\nd\nCO*\ni-*\nrH\n-i*\nd\nPounds.\nCO\nCJ\n\u00C2\u00A7\ni*>\nt\u00C2\u00BB\n>,\nrH\nrH\nCl\nr->\nCl\nr\\nci\nM\nti)\n\"3\nH-\u00C2\u00BB\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n3\n'\"=\nN\nl-J\nl\"?\n1-5\n1-5\nhs\n1-5\n>s\nEH\n4 \t\n1\n1\n4% \t\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n7\n5 \t\n 6\n4\n7\n7\n5\n6\n1\n3\n3\n4\n46\n5% \t\n 11\n2\n.13\n10\n7\n8\n5\n9\n7\n10\n11\n10\n103\n6 \t\n 7\n5\n13\n32\n19\n17\n21\n17\n12\n20\n16\n14\n193\n6% \t\n.... 5\n3\n13\n6\n9\n16\n17\n10\n23\n12\n19\n9\n142\n7 \t\n 1\n1\n7\nq\n10\n2\no\n10\n12\n12\n6\n6\n72\n7% \t\n2\ni\n3\n1\n2\n4\n4\n4\n2\n2\n25\n8 \t\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n8% \t\n9 \t\n9% \t\nTotals\n 30\n17\n56\n61\n54\n45\n53\n51\n62\n59\n50\n46\n593\nAvera\nge weights\n 5.7\n6.0\n6.0\n5.9\n6.2\n6.1\n6.1\n6.3\n6.4\n6.3\n6.2\n6.1\n6.3 T 50\nReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries.-\n1923\nTHE SPAWNING BEDS OF THE FRASER RIVER,\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSie,\u00E2\u0080\u0094I have the honour to submit that during the season of 3922 I inspected the salmon\nfishing and spawning areas of the Fraser River.\nThe catch of sockeye in the Provincial waters of the Fraser River system this year produced a pack of 51,832 cases, as against 39,031 cases in 1921 and 39,697 cases four years ago.\nIt is the largest pack since 1917. The catch of sockeye in the State of Washington waters of\nthe Fraser River system produced a pack of 48,566 cases, as against 102,967 cases in 1921 and\n50,723 cases in 1918. The pack of sockeye for the entire Fraser River system totalled 100,399\ncases, as against 142,598 cases in 1921 and 70,420 cases in the fourth preceding year, 1918. The\ncatch of other species of salmon in the above system shows little variation from that of 1921.\nAn inspection of the spawning area of the Fraser River basin was made in July, August,\nSeptember, October, and November. I am again indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector for the Dominion in the Province, and his assistants, and to many local residents, both\nwhite and Indian, scattered over the basin, for information of value.\nNotwithstanding the fact that the catch of sockeye in the Fraser this year was larger than\nfour years ago, the number that spawned in the basin this year is believed to have been no\ngreater.\nThe number of sockeye that reached Hell's Gate Canyon above Yale this season was small,\napparently smaller than that recorded in any former year. The first fish reached there in\nJuly. Small numbers were seen there almost every day during July, August, and September,\nand an occasional one or two every day in October. There is no foundation for the statement\nthat all the sockeye that spawn in the Fraser basin above Hell's Gate enter the river.- in July\nand pass through that canyon in July and early August. The records show that many of the\nfish that pass through Hell's Gate Canyon reach there late in August, all through September,\nand in many years large numbers have reached there in October. In 1905, 3909, and 1913 vast\nnumbers reached that canyon in October and as late as November. And sockeye have been\nseen there late in December.\nConditions in Hell's Gate Canyon have been under the close observation of competent fishery\nofficers since 1901. Fishery Overseer Scott, of the Dominion service, one of its most faithful and\nobservant officers, has been stationed there almost daily during the salmon run since 1913. He\nreports to Major Motherwell that the number of sockeye that reached there this year was notably\nless than in any other year since he was detailed to that patrol in 1914.\nWater conditions throughout this season were favourable to the passage of fish. At no time\nwere they such as to delay their progress for more than a few hours at a time.\nMuch has been said and written of conditions in Hell's Gate Canyon. It has been stated\nthat \" the river's channel in the canyon is stili blocked by rock that was deposited by railroad-\nconstruction and the great slide of 3933 \" ; that \" the channel has never been cleaned out properly,\nand that the upward migration of the fish is considerably hampered yet by the slide.\" Also that\nit is necessary that \" the bottom of the river near Hell's Gate Canyon be cleared of obstructions,\nas the evidence goes to show that that work was not properly completed.\"\nIn my judgment such statements are not warranted. The work of restoring the channel\nin 1913-14 and the late winter of 1914-35 was in charge of and under close observation of several\nof the best-known engineers on the Coast. The work of clearing the channel was undertaken\nupon lines agreed upon at a conference of seven well-known engineers held in the canyon in\n1913 during the blockade. The work was performed by one of the best-equipped and experienced\nengineering firms on the Coast. It was done on a plus-cost basis and was most carefully watched\nand checked by engineers representing the Dominion and the Province, and by the Chief Inspector\nof Fisheries for the Dominion and myself. Over 225,000 cubic yards of loose rock was removed\nfrom the channel. The last of the rock was removed late in the winter of 1914-15 at a time\nwhen the water in the river was at the lowest stage in years. The engineers in charge had little\ndifficulty in getting to the bed-rock in the channel. That the bed-rock was reached is clearly\nshown by the many photographs taken at the time. Comparison of photographs taken of the .\n13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds op Fraser River. T 51\nchannel at Hell's Gate previous to the slide and those taken since 1914, published in the Department's Reports for 1913, 1914, and 19.15, shows that the currents of water passing through Hell's\nGate Canyon are the same now as they were before 3933.\nWith few exceptions, the salmon that have reached the canyon since 1914, like those that\nreached there previous to 1913, have passed through the rapids at Hell's Gate by travelling\nclose to the right side. Few salmon have ever negotiated the rapids on the left side. The wall\non both sides is bed-rock, not rock thrown into the channel during railroad-construction or by\nthe collapse of the tunnel in 1913. Ever since 1901 salmon have attempted to pass up the left\nside as they do now. During certain favourable stages of water many have succeeded, but in\nall years the bulk of the run has passed up on the right side. At no time this year, or in any\nyear since 1914, have salmon in numbers been seen in any of the eddies a quarter of a mile\nbelow Hell's Gate. If the run in any year since 1914 had been blocked the fish would have congregated in the eddies for a considerable distance below the Gate, just as they were massed\nthere, and for many miles below, in 1913. At no time this year on. any one day were salmon\nto be seen in numbers to exceed 100 in the eddies immediately below the Gate, and none were\nfound in the eddies an eighth of a mile below. Almost every day in July, August, and September\na few sockeye were seen passing through the Gate on the right side, and some were seen attempting to pass up the left side.\nThe real blockade in 1913 was in the rapids above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek, some 3 miles\nabove Hell's Gate proper. This is clearly set forth in the Department's Report for 1913. Vast\nnumbers of sockeye passed through Hell's Gate proper every month during the run of 1913,\nmaking the passage by hugging the rocks on the right side. However, the fish that did get through\nthose rapids were unable to get through the rapids above the mouth of Scuzzy Creek. These\nfacts appear to have been unknown to or ignored by some of the observers who have been sent\nto the canyon to study conditions. Of those who have gone there some have been sufficiently\nobservant to note \" that the fish have little difficulty in negotiating the west side of the rapids \"\nat Hell's Gate, and all have noted that most, if not all, of the fish that attempted to get up on\nthe east side failed to do so. Hence the manifestly unconsidered statement above referred to\nthat the failure of the fish to surmount the rapids on the east side was because \" the river's\nchannel has never been cleared out properly and that the upward migration is considerably\nhampered yet by the slide \" is unwarranted.\nAfter twenty-one years of continuous observation of conditions in the canyon, I am fully\nconvinced that the fish that reach there now have no more difficulty in getting through than\nwas experienced by those that reached there previous to the slide of 1913.\nChief Inspectors of Fisheries Cunningham and Motherwell, Engineer Mcllugh, and Fisheries\nOverseer Scott, of the Dominion service, have devoted much time every season since 1913 to a\nclose study of these conditions, and all have repeatedly stated that the fish have not been unduly\ndelayed and that the channel has been fully restored to its natural bed.\nAny engineer who visits the place can readily see that the rock in the channel at Hell's\nGate is bed-rock, and not rock thrown into the river. It is possible that blasting out the rock\non the east side, and thus widening the channel at Hell's Gate some 100 yards or more, might\nafford the fish an easier passage than at present. There is danger, however, that the widening\nof the channel may create currents which would prove insurmountable to the fish.\nI therefore strongly urge that no further efforts be directed towards any questionable so-\ncalled improvement of conditions at Hell's Gate, for the reason that the salmon that now reach\nthere are not unduly delayed and all pass to the waters above the gate.\nFishery Officer Shotten reports to Major Motherwell that \" the salmon run to my district \"\n(the Thompson-Shuswap section) \" this year surpasses any of the previous eight years.\" He\nreports that sockeye were found in numerous tributaries.\nThe Indians fishing in the canyon below Soda Creek, under permits issued by the Dominion\nfishery authorities, report that they caught less than fifty sockeye salmon this year.\nNo sockeye were found in Quesnel Lake or its principal tributary in September. Men who\nspent the summer and fall at the outlet of Quesnel Lake state that they saw no sockeye there\nthis year. Similar statements were made to me by residents on the Horsefly River, the main\ntributary of Quesnel Lake.\nThe number of spring salmon that reached the Bowron River, the main salmon-spawning\ntributary of the South Fork of the Fraser, this year was the largest ill many years. Large T 52\nReport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\nnumbers were observed spawning there in September. But no sockeye were to be seen in the\nstream -below Bowron Lake, and less than a dozen were found on the spawning-beds in the\nstreams above that lake.\nThe run of sockeye to the Chilcotin River this season was so small that the Indians who\nfished under permits issued by the Dominion did not catch enough fish to supply their immediate\ndemands. It is estimated that the Indians caught less than 200 at Fish Canyon, and that those\nwho fished at Hanceville and Indian Bridge were less successful. Reports received from whites\nand Indians from the head of Chilko River and Chilko Lake state that no sockeye were seen\nthere this year.\nNo sockeye are known to have entered Seton Lake this year. A few spring salmon were\nobserved spawning in the creek at the outlet of Seton Lake in September and early October.\nIt is pleasing to be able to state that the run of sockeye to the Birkenhead River, at the\nhead of the Harrison-Lillooet Lakes section, this year was most satisfactory. There has been\na good run, a run that compares favourably with earlier years, to this section in each of the\nlast five years. It is the only section in the Fraser basin that has had a good run. The run\nthere this year is believed to have been better than last year and to have equalled that of two\nyears ago. Twenty-five millions of sockeye-eggs were obtained for the hatchery and the extensive\nand excellent spawning-beds of the Birkenhead, both above and below the hatchery, were well\nseeded. The maintenance of the run of sockeye to this section is generally accredited to the\nsuccessful operation of the hatchery under Superintendent Graham. Chief Inspector of Fisheries\nMotherwell announces that a portion of the eggs in the hatchery will be transported and planted\nin the Horsefly River, and that plants will also be made in the tributary at the head of Anderson\nLake.\nThe number of sockeye that spawned in Harrison Lake and its tributaries, though larger\nthan last year, was small. The run to Morris Creek was better than for several seasons.\nI am indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion\nin this Province, for the following statement giving the number of salmon-eggs placed in the\nhatcheries this year:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nStatement of Salmon-egg Collections in Hatcheries or British Columbia, 3922.\nHatchery.\nSockeye.\nSpring\nCohoe. , Chums.\nAnderson Lake\nBabine Lake . .\nCowichan Lake\nCultus Lake . .\nGerrard \t\nHarrison Lake\nKennedy Lake\nPemberton\nPitt Lake\t\nRivers Inlet . .\nSkeena River .\nStuart Lake ..\nLloyds Creek .\nTotals\n8,505.000\n8,100,000\n3,222,750\n2.057,800\n9.053,185\n26,000,000\n3,514,000\n14,590,100\n8.259,000\n1,128,500\n1,518.860\n83,301,835\n1,647,360\n1,591,700\n100,000\n1,091,700\n3,086.070\n3,086,670\nRespectfully submitted.\nJohn Pease Babcock,\nAssistant to the Commissioner. 13 Geo. 5\nSpawning-beds of Skeena River.\nT 53\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE SKEENA RIVER.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094In obedience to your instructions, I beg to submit herewith the following report on\nthe spawning-beds of the Skeena River for the year 3922:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nI arrived at Donald's Landing on September 5th and visited Pierre Creek the following day.\nOwing to the long dry spell this summer Babine Lake and its tributary creeks were much below\ntheir usual September level. Pierre Creek was well stocked with sockeye, the males and females\nbeing about equal and up to the average in size. There have been no Indians fishing at the mouth\nof this creek this year, nor has the creek been disturbed, as in former years, with spawning-\nfences, etc., when Stuart Lake Hatchery collected a million or two of sockeye-eggs every year\nfrom this creek and 15-Mile Creek. Pierre Creek was very low but in excellent condition for\nsome considerable distance from the lake. There were a few minor obstructions at places,\nbut not sufficient to hinder the sockeye in any way. This is distinctly a sockeye-creek, there\nbeing no other varieties to be seen; even friend trout, owing to the low water and the large\nnumber of sockeye, was conspicuous by his absence. The first sockeye were noticed in this\ncreek on July 21th and there were large schools playing about in the lake at the mouth of the\ncreek at the time of my visit. This creek will be well seeded, much better than last year, and\nfrom all reports on a par with the year 3918.\nThe following day I proceeded to Babine River at the outlet of the lake. On going down\nthe river in a boat the water was so shallow that one could plainly see large numbers of sockeye\nscattering here and there at the approach of the boat. A large number were spawning on the\nbars and gravelly patches and the deep holes were full of sockeye. It is on this stretch of water,\napproximately 10 miles, that the Babine Indians, consisting of a hundred families, catch their\nyearly supply of salmon. Most of the families were using two nets, as a new net was supplied\nthem this year by the Government. The new net is made out of the regulation salmon-twine,\nhaving a 5%-ineh mesh extension measure, the other net being made by themselves, with the\nmesh all the way up to 5%-inch extension measure. Nearly all the Indian women are good net-\nmakers and they claim that most of the fish are caught with their own nets, the mesh in the\nGovernment net being too big and the twine too thick. I visited several of their smoke-houses,\nwhich were all well stocked with sockeye. They did not complain, as is customary, at the run\nof sockeye this year, but complained bitterly at their inability to catch them with the Government\nnet. Each family, I should judge, and on a very conservative estimate, would have over 600\nsockeye, and that, taking into consideration that they did not start fishing until the first week\nin August, is ample proof of a good run to the Babine. It was owing to most of the Indians lighting forest fires around the lake that they were later in fishing this year. The first sockeye was\nnoticed on Babine River about June 15th. Last year this river was swarming with humpback\nsalmon, hut there were few to be seen this year. On the lower stretches the Indians were catching a large number of spring salmon, the majority being in the neighbourhood of 25 lb. in weight.\nA few cohoe salmon were to be seen, but it was still early for that species. Babine River will\nbe well seeded this year and easily up to the average of all good years.\nI next proceeded to Hatchery Creek, which still maintains its reputation of being the best\nsockeye-creek of the Skeena watershed. This creek, which is about 2% miles in length, was\nfree from all obstructions and in splendid shape. Many sockeye were seen spawning on the\nnumerous shallow gravelly patches all along the creek, but the last 300 yards of the creek at\nthe mouth of Morrison Lake was simply teeming with sockeye. The spawning fences and pens\nare erected at this part, which is close to the hatchery. The fences were not erected until July\n11th, and as the sockeye were running two weeks previous to that date it was expected that\na large number had passed through into the lake. I met Mr. Hearns, the Superintendent of the\nhatchery, who was busily engaged spawning. He had great difficulty in obtaining ripe males\nas the majority were still green. He informed me, however, that he would easily secure his\n8,000,000 eggs for the hatchery, there being more than sufficient in the pens, besides letting a\nlarge number through to the lake when the fences were removed. The sockeye in this creek\nare above the average in weight and length and are fine specimens, the males and females being\napparently evenly balanced. Hatchery Creek will be well seeded and up to the average of 1918, T 54\nReport of ti\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nthe last good year. Morrison Lake is about 12 miles in length, and through the kindness of\nMr. Hearns I was able to visit Salmon Creek in his gas-boat. This creek comes in at the upper\nend of the lake. It is a long slow-running creek, but with excellent spawning-beds, consisting\nof gravel and sand. There were quite a number of good-sized sockeye in the creek, the males\nand females being evenly balanced. This creek will also be well seeded.\nThe next place visited was Fulton River, which was somewhat of a disappointment at the\ntime. The mouth of this river resembles a slough for about half a mile, but the spawning-\ngrounds commence beyond that. This is one of the latest spawning-creeks on Babine, the first\nsockeye being seen on August 15th. There were not many sockeye to be seen and these were\nbelow the average in size. Five Indian families were fishing in the slough, taking up about two-\nthirds of the passage with their nets. They had not many sockeye in their smoke-houses, but\nwere doing much better at the time of my visit. Large schools of sockeye were in the lake at\nthe mouth of the creek as if the main run was still to come, and this is corroborated by a later\nfavourable report of the number of sockeye on the spawning-grounds, which should now be well\nseeded.\nAt 35-Mile Creek, which was visited next, there were five families from Stuart Lake and\nthe Portage fishing in the lake near the mouth of the creek. I was informed that the Government has supplied them with nets this year to fish in Stuart Lake. In their smoke-houses they\nhad about 400 sockeye per family, but as the sockeye were still running up the creek they would\nno doubt increase their catch. This creek was also in excellent shape and was well filled with\nsockeye. The majority were of an average size, there being fewer '\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 runts \" than formerly, and\nthe males and females being about equal in number. The Dominion authorities have a Guardian\nstationed here during the run to prevent the Indians molesting the sockeye in the creek. As\nStuart Lake Hatchery did not take any sockeye-eggs from the Babine this year there are no\nfences to prevent the fish from going farther up the creek. At the falls about half a mile up\nthe creek it was noticed that the sockeye made no attempt to go beyond them, although they could\neasily have done so. The first sockeye were seen in this creek on August 3rd, which is about\nthe same date as other years. This creek will be well seeded and easily up to the average of\nformer good years. In my former reports I quoted 4-Mile Creek as being too small to be of\nany importance a*s a sockeye-creek, but was agreeably surprised on being first told of the conditions this year. It is a small creek and particularly so this summer, but, nevertheless, there\nwere a good number of spawning sockeye to be seen and a large number of dead and decaying\nsockeye. Being one of the earliest spawning-creeks on the lake, this little creek will be well\nseeded.\nI next visited Grizzly Creek, which runs into Beaver Creek, about 7 miles from the lake.\nThere is fully half a mile of ideal spawning-grounds on this creek, with the exception of a few\nlittle windfalls and log obstructions. These log obstructions do not hinder the fish in any way,\nas a close inspection revealed deep holes underneath the logs. This is the earliest spawning-\ncreek on Babine, and although there were still a large number of live sockeye in the creek the\nmajority had already spawned, as was noticed by the dead and decaying fish. From the number\nof fish on the banks it was evident that the black and grizzly bear do a lot of damage to this\ncreek, unfertilized eggs being scattered all along the creek. The sockeye were of a good size,\nthe males and females being about equal. The following day I visited Beaver Creek, which\nresembles a slough for about 3 miles from the mouth of the creek. Beyond that, and between\nlog-jams and beaver-dams, there are some good spawning-beds. This creek also contained more\ndead than live sockeye, but judging from the number seen the creek will be well seeded, far ahead\nof the last three years, and comparing well with 3918. The Fishery Guardian informed me there\nwas quite a run of small sockeye salmon to this creek in the beginning of July. These little\nsockeye were quite silvery in appearance and averaged from 10 to 12 inches in length. Later\nwhen he visited this creek the little salmon had lost their silvery appearance and were identical\nwith the older fish. The Indians call them \" silver salmon,\" and apparently they only appear in\nthis creek. I have made arrangements with the Guardian to procure one or two specimens next\nyear when they first come to the creek. This being the last point of interest on Babine, I returned\nto Donald's Landing and arrived at Burns Lake on September 18th.\nIn summing up the Babine area, I may say without hesitation that the spawning-grounds\nare exceptionally well seeded this year, much better than last year, and compare favourably with\nthe year 1918. Judging by the total catch this year on the Skeena, one would not have expected 33 Geo. 5\nSpawning-beds of Skeena River.\nT 55\nthe above results, but it is quite evident that the additional six hours of a close season has made\nan appreciable difference on the spawning-grounds. There were less sockeye with gill-net marks\nthan formerly, which might also be said to be the result of the extension of the close season.\nI arrived in Hazelton on September 20th and visited Awillgate Canyon on the Bulkley River.\nTwelve Indian families had been fishing, or rather spearing fish at this point, and I am informed\nthat they bad put up in their smoke-houses in the neighbourhood of 3,000 sockeye, which is\nfair considering the low and clear water. The Fishery Guardian at Hazelton reported a big\nrun of sockeye up the Bulkley which-was equally as good as the year 1918. The Guardian also\nreported that about eighty Indian families in the Hazelton District, including the Bulkley and\nSkeena Rivers, had caught approximately 35,000 sockeye. The first sockeye was noticed in the\nBulkley at Hazelton on June 1st. Kishpiox River, one of the main humpback-creeks of the\nSkeena, was literally alive with this variety.\nI arrived at Lakelse Lake on September 22nd and met Mr. Cart, the Superintendent of\nLakelse Hatchery. At the time of my visit Mr. Catt had already obtained the full quota of\nsockeye-eggs for his hatchery\u00E2\u0080\u0094viz., 10,000,000 eggs. I first visited Williams Creek, which is\nthe principal sockeye-creek on Lakelse, and from its appearance will be well seeded this year.\nThe sockeye were of an average size, the males and females being well balanced. There were\nstill a large number of sockeye in the lake at the mouth of the creek. The first sockeye appeared\nin this creek on July 26th, and Mr. Catt informed me that the run increased till about August\n20th; then gradually decreased until September Sth, when an unusually big run came in on\nSeptember 9th. Schallabuchan Creek was next visited, but this creek will be poorly seeded.\nDuring July and August the entrance to the creek was very shallow, but large schools of sockeye\nmade their appearance at the mouth of the creek, only to be frightened away by the many trout-\nanglers who regarded this as a favourite spot. A good few had gone up the creek, however,\nbut at that it will be much below the average. Salmon Creek, a branch of Granite Creek, will\nbe well seeded this year. It is only a small creek about a quarter of a mile long, but Mr. Catt\ncollected 500,000 eggs from it. The fish-traps had been removed and the sockeye were still\nrunning up the creek. Trout or Lakelse River, the outlet of the lake was one swarming mass\nof humpback salmon, which will be well seeded with this variety. Lakelse area will be abundantly\nseeded and well up to the former high average.\nThis being the last point of interest, I returned to Terrace, and arrived in Port Essington\non the night of September 23rd.\nIn conclusion, I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the Dominion Hatchery\nSuperintendents and Fishery Guardians, to whom I am indebted for information supplied and\nhospitality shown. ,\nI have, etc.\nRobert Gibson,\nProvincial Constable and Fishery Overseer.\nPort Essington, B.C., October 16th, 1922. THE SPAWNING-BEDS OF THE MEZIADIN LAKE AND BOWSER LAKE\nWATERSHEDS OF THE NASS RIVER.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094In obedience to instructions from the Department to inspect the spawning-beds of the\nUpper Nass River, I beg to submit the following report on the Meziadin Lake and Bowser Lake\nwatersheds:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nI left Vancouver on August 33st and took two Nass River Indians, who were awaiting me\nat Prince Rupert, into Stewart. It was the intention to join forces with the Dominion Fisheries\nparty, but as there was some work to be done at the Meziadin Falls fishway, J. M. Collison,\nDominion Fishway Officer, left with three men one week earlier, to await my arrival at the\nfishway.\nI left Stewart on September 6th for Meziadin Lake, and arrived at the cabin at the head\nof the lake on September 9th. Here it was necessary to build a raft for the journey down the\nlake. By the evening of Sunday, September 1.1th, we had the raft finished.\nOn the 11th we started down the lake, and many spawning sockeye were to be observed at\nall favourable places at the head of the lake. Sockeye were in evidence at several gravel reaches\non the lake-shore for a distance of 5 miles down the lake; but from this point on the water runs\nout quite shallow for a long distance, and having a more or less muddy bottom from the silt\ndeposited by the Hanna River and McLeod Creek, it is not suitable for spawning.\nWe reached the head of the McBride Rapids on the evening of the 11th and made camp.\nAs our raft was too large to take through the rapids, we had to leave it here and make another\none below the rapids. As stated in previous reports, this is the spawning-grounds for the spring\nsalmon in this watershed. At times they were to be observed in great numbers, but there did\nnot appear to be many there this season.\nAfter completing our second raft we continued on down the Meziadin River and arrived\nat the cabin at the falls on September 12th. Here we met Mr. Collison with his men, who bad\nbeen working in the river below the fishway clearing away the rock that had collected there,\nand which helped to divert the salmon to the far side of the falls. They had removed all the loose\nrock that was in the river at the approach to the fishway, as recommended last year. The sharp\nrubble has been moved away, and the bed of the river is now in its natural state and permits the\nsalmon to enter the fishway direct. This has greatly improved conditions at the approach, so\nthat I do not think it necessary to consider any fhrther work in the nature of another fishway\non the far side of the falls.\nThe condition of the crib-work at the fishway is much the same as reported on last year,\nwith the exception that some of the braces that were put in three years ago showed signs of\ndry-rot. These have now been replaced by new ones, and the crib-work should now hold in place\nfor another year. The original logs in the crib-work are showing signs of decay, and had it\nnot been for the supports put in it would surely have given way before now. At the present\ntime there are about twenty braces in place, extending right across the fishway, which makes\nit very unsightly, and prevents the taking of a photograph showing the condition of the fishway\nproper. There does not appear to be any more debris in the pockets than there was last year,\nbut it would improve conditions to have them cleaned out. The only feasible time to do this\nwork would be when the water is at its lowest stage, which should be in the early spring. It\nwould be necessary to close the water off tight at the intake by a dam built of sacks or some\nother material.\nWe made an inspection of both the upper and lower falls and found that sockeye were very\nplentiful at both places. Very few cohoe salmon had arrived at the falls at the time of our visit.\nSalmon were passing through the fishway continually, there being about 200 sockeye in each of\nthe basins at all times.' Mr. Collison informed me that sockeye were passing through freely\nfor the whole week prior to my arrival. Many sockeye were congregated below both falls and\na fine resting-place is afforded about 100 feet below the first basin. Sockeye were to be seen\nright across the face of the upper fall. There was more than the usual amount of water in\nthe Meziadin River this season, which makes it more favourable for the salmon to pass up. The\nreason for the high stage of water was owing to the fine warm weather this summer, which has 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Nass River.\nmelted the glacier ice and snow and raised the water-level of the lake nearly to its high-water\nmark.\nAfter completing our work at the fishway we returned to the cabin at the head of the\nlake. At the cabin we re-outfitted for our trip into the Bowser Lake districts, taking with us\nonly those things that were absolutely necessary. We left the head of Meziadin Lake on\nSeptember 16th and had a fairly decent trail as far as the Hanna River bridge, a distance\nof about 10 miles. From that point we left the old trail and struck off into the brush in a\nnorth-westerly direction. For a few miles the route had been blazed by some trappers who\nanticipated going in this fall. The travelling was very slow, a# the going was difficult, and\nevery one in the party had a heavy pack. After four and a half days' travelling through\ntimber and brush we came out high up on the Cottonwood River. This river rises to the\nsouth-west of Bowser Lake. It is joined by the Bowser River about 5 miles from the Nass.\nAfter reaching the Cottonwood we changed our course and went down-stream until we came\nto its confluence with the Bowser River. Here we camped for three days. At this place there\nis a rapid and we built our raft above these rapids for our cruise around Bowser Lake. While\nthe men were making the raft we fixed up a net from some sockeye-web that I had brought,\nand set it in the river above the rapids. We were not very successful in our efforts, but caught\none sockeye and one trout weighing about 8 lb. There is no doubt that more salmon passed\nthrough the net than we caught, as we saw the corks agitated several times, but before we\ncould get to the net the fish had liberated itself. The reason for this is that by the time the\nsalmon reach the upper rivers they are greatly diminished in size, and it would take a smaller-\nmesh net than the standard size of 5% inches to capture them when the net is hanging well\nin deep water.\nIt had been our intention to explore the country below the confluence of the Cottonwood\nand Bowser Rivers to the Nass River, but as it had been pouring rain for five days the river\nwas so high that it would have been extremely dangerous to attempt to ford it. We had therefore to abandon that part of our programme. I estimate that the distance from the head of\nMeziadin Lake to this place by the course we took would be about 40 or 45 miles.\nAfter completing our raft we took in our net and went up the Bowser River. The outlet\nof the lake is about 4 miles from the junction with.the Cottonwood and about 1 mile from the\neasterly end of the lake. There is a short rapid just below the outlet. While going up the\nriver on our raft we saw a fine moose swim across and take to the woods. On reaching the\nlake we continued on our way up towards its head and camped for the night about half-way.\nThe next day, September 26th, was fine, the first ray of sunshine we had had since leaving the\nHanna River, which enabled us to use our 'cameras with good effect. Bowser Lake runs east\nand west for about 12 miles; then it takes a turn, nearly forming an L, running nearly south\nfor 6 miles, which makes its whole length about 18 miles. Its width varies in places from\nthree-quarters of a mile to 2 miles, there being some deep bays on its northerly side. Along\nthe southerly side of the lake is a range of high hills, capped with glaciers and snow, and\nwhich extend beyond the head of the lake. The mountains and hills are very impressive when\nseen on a fine day, the snow and ice coming low down the mountain-side. Where these ranges\noccur they run precipitously down to the lake-shore. There are several small rivulets coming\ndown the mountain-sides caused by the melting ice and snow, and where they enter the lake\nare the most likely and only places where observations of salmon have been possible in this\nwatershed. Owing to the dirty, milky white colour of the lake-water and the absence of falls\nand extensive rapids, there are no places where salmon congregate in numbers or where an\nobserver can easily collect data. These difficulties I experienced on my visit to this watershed\nin 1912, so I decided this year to take in some netting to prospect with. At a suitable place\nabout 4 miles from the head of the lake we put out the net, and succeeded in taking fourteen\nsockeye in three-quarters of an hour. These, with the one taken in the river, made fifteen\nsockeye captured, and no salmon of any other kind. I obtained scales from each of the\nspecimens caught in this watershed, and also took scales from ten sockeye at Meziadin Falls,\nwhich I am submitting to you to see if they differ from each other.\nAfter obtaining our specimens and taking some photographs we continued on, and reached\nthe head of the lake in the evening. The northerly side of the lake is bounded by a low rolling\ncountry from the easterly end of the lake to where it makes its turn to the south. From this\npoint up to the head and beyond is a range of ice-clad mountains, corresponding with the range T 58\nof the Commissioner of Fisheries.\non the opposite side. September 27th was a fine day and we investigated conditions at the\nhead of the lake. Here there is a low flat country between the mountain ranges, with a large\ndirty muddy river coming down from the glacier country above, spreading over the flats and\nentering the lake at different places. About 1 mile up the valley from the head of the lake\nand on the westerly side a creek with clear water comes in from a small valley and joins the\nmain river directly. There were no salmon to be observed in this stream. This is the only\npossible creek in this watershed that is likely to attract sockeye, and as they were not in\nevidence it implies that the salmon that enter this watershed spawn in the lake, as is the case\nin Meziadin Lake. *\nAfter completing our work at the head of the lake we commenced our return journey.\nSeptember 28th was a wet day, and the rain poured all the time from then until we again\nreached Meziadin. On the return journey we struck in overland from the easterly end of\nBowser Lake and did not find our course of the way in until we were well on our way to\nMeziadin. We experienced considerable hardship on the return journey owing to the heavy\ndownpour of rain. The whole of the party were wet through and it was impossible to dry out\nas it rained continually. We reached the cabin at the head of Meziadin Lake on Sunday\nevening, October 1st, after fifteen days out from here to the Bowser Lake watershed, having\nonly had two fine days on that trip. We then started on our return to Stewart, arriving there\non October 4th.\nA. Mackie, Inspector of Dominion Fisheries at Prince Rupert, kindly sent, in a patrol-boat\nto Stewart, which enabled us to return our men direct to the Nass, the boat arriving on the\nevening of the 7th and leaving the next morning.\nIn making a summary of our trip of inspection, I beg to submit that the sockeye spawning-\nbeds in the Meziadin Lake watershed were fairly well seeded, and a great improvement in the\nrun was to be observed this season compared with the last few years. The number of sockeye\non the spawning-grounds was equal if not greater than that of 1917. It was indeed a great\npleasure to find so many fish, as the runs of the past few years have been very poor. I would\nrecommend that some permanent work be done on the fishway in respect to holding the bank\nin place, also that the pockets be cleaned out.\nReferring to the run of sockeye salmon to the Bowser Lake section, there are no places\nwhere salmon are likely to collect in numbers and where they would be retarded on their\njourney to the spawning-beds; there are no falls or rapids of any magnitude, also the water\nis so dirty that it is impossible to see anything below the surface. In spite of this we are\nable to state conclusively that sockeye salmon do spawn here, as we proved by our operations\nwith the short length of net that we used. Had it not been for the net we would have made\nthis trip without having seen a salmon at all. While we know that sockeye do run to this\nwatershed, I do not believe that any estimate can be made of their numbers owing to the\ndiscoloured water.\nRespectfully submitted.\nC. P. Hickman,\nInspector of Fisheries. 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Smith Inlet. T 59\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF SMITH INLET.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094In pursuance of instructions from the Department, I have the honour to submit unreport upon the inspection of the spawning-beds at Smith Inlet for the year 3922.\nLeaving the cannery at Rivers Inlet on September 18th for the spawning-beds, I was\nhoping that the fine weather prevailing for several months past would continue and permit the\ninspection to be made under favourable conditions, but in this I was disappointed. The weather\nbroke with such violence that it was necessary to remain in camp at the foot of Long Lake\nuntil it had moderated.\nAn examination of the Docee River was made, and I find that the run of spring salmon\nequalled that of previous years. The river was full of this species of salmon and many dead\nwere seen lying in the shallow waters at the mouth. Situated along the shore-line at the\nmouth of the lake large numbers were observed disporting themselves in the clear water. The\nrun was exceptionally good and should provide abundant seeding for the spawning-beds.\nProceeding up the lake, I inspected Quay Creek, situated about 7 miles from the mouth,\nand am able to report a considerable improvement in numbers of sockeye in comparison with\nthe brood-years 1917-18. The creek was full of sockeye and it is to be regretted that the fish\ncannot make use of the spawning-beds situated above the falls. At present they form a formidable barrier and it is only by erecting a fish-ladder that this obstruction could be overcome. Outside the creek, although the spawning-beds could not be seen owing to the high stage of the\nwater, sufficient evidence was obtained by the large number breaking water to indicate abundant seeding.\nThe Delabah River, situated about 2 miles from the head of the lake, presented a great\ncontrast to the comparatively small number of sockeye salmon seen last year. In the clear\nwater thousands upon thousands congregated in schools near the mouth waiting, while the\nspawning-beds farther up were literally packed with spawning fish. Making my way up the\nriver to the falls 1% miles distant, the sockeye seemed in no way to diminish in numbers. The\nrun corresponds closely to the number seen here in 1917, and very much in excess of the number observed in 1918, the two years from which the present run resulted. The gravel-beds\nsituated along the lake-shore at the mouth of the Delabah could not be observed owing to the\nhigh stage of the water, but the exceptionally large numbers breaking water in every direction\nindicated that the beds will be provided with abundance of seed. The entire bay was alive\nwith salmon.\nProceeding to the Geluch River, situated at the head of the lake, 1 was compelled to wait\nuntil the river had subsided, the lake having backed up into the river for 2 miles. When it\nwas possible to make the inspection, I found the spawning-bed covered with spawning sockeye;\neach riffle contained large numbers fighting to find room to deposit their spawn. In the small\nmountain streams emptying into the river the same conditions prevailed. The run is an improvement over the number of sockeye salmon seen here in 1917-18, the brood-years from which\nthe present run is derived. No log-jams or other obstructions prevented the fish making full\nuse of the spawning-beds.\nReturning once more to the mouth of the lake, I was able to form a better idea as to the\nrun of spring salmon, the lake having gone down considerably. It is one of the best noted\nin years.\nThe opinion expressed by the cannerymen and fishermen that the run of sockeye to Smith\nInlet this year is the largest they have known is not borne out by the inspection just undertaken. While it is true that a very large number reached the spawning-beds, the run did not\napproach by any means the vast numbers seen on the spawning-beds in 1914-15. It was undoubtedly better than the runs encountered in the brood-years 1917-38.\nIn estimating the run of fish which will return from this season's spawning, due consideration must be given to the exceptional freshet which occurred while the salmon were engaged\nin spawning. It may have done considerable harm to the eggs; otherwise I have no reason to\nbelieve that the run should not be as large as this year. T 60\nCEPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.\n1923\nThe run of humpback and cohoe salmon, was well up to the average. In estimating the\nsize of the sockeye run to Smith Inlet, I find that they compare favourably in size with the\nrun of sockeye to Rivers Inlet this year, averaging a little over 5 lb.\nI have, etc.,\nA. W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 5th, 1922. \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 - \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. T 61\nTHE SPAWNING-BEDS OF RIVERS INLET.\nHon. William Sloan,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u00941 have the honour to submit the following report in connection with the inspection\nof the spawning-beds at Rivers Inlet for the year 1922:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nWeather conditions which had been so unfavourable in my inspection of the spawning-beds\nat Smith Inlet improved, and permitted an uninterrupted view of the tributaries at Lake\nOwikeno.\nLeaving for the lake on October 6th, I decided to take advantage of the fine weather and\ninspect the Sheemahant River first. It is one of the largest tributaries emptying into the lake\nand reaches back into the mountains a distance of 40 miles.\nWith the exception of cohoe salmon, no other fish have been known to surmount the rock-\nslide which blocks the river 18 miles from the mouth, and only at certain stages of the river\nhave the cohoe salmon been able to negotiate this obstacle. In an endeavour to give the sockeye\nsalmon an opportunity to reach the spawning-beds above, the Dominion Department of Fisheries\nin the spring of this year engaged in the difficult task of clearing some of the obstruction, but\nmore work in this direction will have to be done in order that the salmon can reach the beds\nabove. A practical illustration of the ineffectiveness of the work was furnished by watching\nthe cohoe salmon in large numbers vainly trying to surmount the obstruction; many would\nleap high out of the water, only to be hurled back beaten and broken as soon as they struck\nthe swift-flowing river. With the object of determining if some of the fish had surmounted\nthe falls, I proceeded above the obstruction for some miles, but there was no evidence of them.\nIt is therefore obvious that if the cohoe salmon could not pass through, the sockeye did not\ndo so.\nAn examination of this river from the mouth up to the rock-slide was again very disappointing ; very few fish representing sockeye were encountered, and this was further borne\nout by Indians who had recently made a drift here, who informed me that out of a total of\nseventy fish caught only nine were sockeye, the balance being cohoe. A few sockeye were seen\nnear the mouth, and again in a small branch stream 12 miles up. On the other hand, cohoe\nsalmon in very large numbers were observed all the way up the river and again at the rock-\nslide. The run of sockeye to this stream, in my opinion, as was the case last year, was a complete failure, and may be due to the extreme freshet which occurred in 1917, just when the\nfish were engaged in spawning. An excerpt from my report for that year which I quote is of\ninterest in this respect, as it gave due warning that this might happen:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The Owikeno Lake ten or twelve days prior to my visit experienced one of the worst\nrain-storms, and rose higher than has been known for years even by the Indians. The result\nmay have caused considerable harm to the spawning-beds, especially in the early-running\nstreams, and should be carefully noted when making the inspection four or five years hence.\"\nSince the run of sockeye both last year and again this year were failures, and were derived\nfrom the seeding of that year, it is possible this may have accounted for the depletion which\nhas taken place in this stream.\nArriving at the head of the lake, the three tributaries at this section again showed up\nvery unfavourably. The Cheo, examined first, contained a few sockeye salmon swimming\naround at the mouth, and again farther up a fair number were observed spawning on the\nriffles. In one or two streams emptying into the river there was evidence of sockeye, but in\ntaking this fine spawning-stream as a whole it was a distinct disappointment.\nBoth in 1917 and 1918 I reported unfavourably on the run of sockeye to the AVashwash\nRiver, but an improvement was shown this year in the run of sockeye that had taken possession\nof the spawning-beds; from the log-jam up to within a mile of the falls the fish in considerable\nnumbers were observed. Providing that the freshet which occurred recently did not damage\nthe spawning, a very fair number should return as adults. The river needs urgent attention,\nas the log-jams which have formed since the clearance effected by the Dominion Department\nof Fisheries in 1919 form a formidable barrier to the salmon if not taken in hand at once.\nThe Washwash, unlike the majority of the rivers, requires attention every year owing to the\ncontinual change in the course of the stream. T 62\nReport of the\nitsheries.\n1923\nThe Indian River, situated on the north side of the lake, also proved a disappointment.\nAn inspection of the spawning-beds right up to the falls disclosed very few sockeye.\nReturning from the head of the lake. I examined the spawniug-beds at Sunday Creek.\nThere were no sockeye inside the stream, but a fair number were observed spawning on the\ngravel-beds outside.\nIn the narrows close to the Indian shack the spawning-beds were abundantly stocked with\nboth sockeye and cohoe salmon. The Indians, finding that the Sheemahant River was not\nproductive, were catching them in large numbers here. The run corresponds closely to that\nof 1917, one of the brood-years from which the present run of sockeye resulted.\nAt Jeneesee camp was made and an inspection conducted at this section of the lake. The\nNookins River, examined first, is situated about half a mile from the Machmell River and\ntributary to it. The spawning-beds disclosed the first real evidence of an abundance of sockeye,\nthe clear water helping materially in this respect. Proceeding up the main river to the rough\nwater, they were noted in large numbers spawning on the various riffles. In a branch stream\non the right of the main river thousands could be seen spawning, while in various deep pools\nbig schools of the fish were observed. A log-jam at the head of this stream could with advantage\nbe removed to permit the salmon reaching the main river, above; at present the fish cannot\npass through. No other log-jams interfere with the movement of the fish in this stream.\nThe Machmell River in size closely resembles the Sheemahant, but is not a good spawning-\nriver. Few sockeyes make use of the spawning-beds, preferring the quiet waters of the Nookins.\nThe Department of Dominion Fisheries is finding great difficulty in holding the dam which\nwas erected two years ago to prevent this river from breaking through into Jeneesee Creek.\nConsiderable time and labour have been spent on it already, and it is hoped that the efforts\nin this direction will be successful.\nAt Jeneesee Creek the fine run of sockeye which returned last year was lacking on this\noccasion. The recent freshet had permitted the sockeye to pass over the hatchery fence and\non to the spawning-beds above, so that no difficulty was experienced in arriving at a proper\nestimate of their numbers. The run closely resembles that which returned in 1920, comprising\nat least 80 per cent, three-year-old fish, or grilse, as they are termed. It is the second time\nthat this has occurred, aud opens up a theory as to whether an explanation can be found in\nthe small male fish mating with the matured female sockeye to account for this peculiar\nfeature. It is to be noted that for several years a steady increase has taken place in the\nnumber of small sockeye returning to this creek in particular. The Department of Dominion\nFisheries in the spring of this year built some retaining-ponds similar to those erected at the\nhatchery and stocked them with young fry. Unfortunately, just when they were thriving and\ndoing well, the ponds were destroyed by the recent high water, permitting the young fish to\nescape, so that the result of this experiment is still uncertain. The hatchery officials had made\nlittle headway in the collection of eggs, and from the small number of sockeye salmon seen\nbelow the fence it did not seem that their efforts in this direction would be successful. Later\nreports from this stream are of a very unsatisfactory nature.\nAn inspection of Asklum River showed again the havoc wrought by the recent high water;\nboth hatchery fences which had been erected last year, and from which the hatchery hoped\nto obtain eggs, were completely destroyed; a log-jam had formed at the fence erected in the\nmain stream and should be removed or will cause a serious blockade. An examination of the\nspawning-beds was made under ideal conditions, the clear water permitting an uninterrupted\nview of the salmon. From the mouth all the way up to the rough water, 3 miles distant, the\ngravel-beds were alive with fish, and bunched together in deep pools large schools of sockeye\nwere in evidence. It is one of the best runs that I have seen in this river in years and surpasses the brood-years 1917-18.\nOn my arrival at Quap I found the hatcherymen busy spawning, making up for the delay\nin losing the first run of fish which had during the high water passed over the fence and on to\nthe spawning-beds above. An examination of this river above the fence presented a scene\nunparalleled in my experience. The beds contained a seething mass of sockeye for a distance\nof 4 miles, and thousands could be seen at intervals in the deep pools schooled up waiting until\nthey were ripe for spawning. Below the fence the same remarkable conditions prevailed, and\nagain outside in the bay another run was observed of equally large numbers. In estimating\nthe run of fish to this tributary, I find it closely corresponds to the remarkable numbers that 13 Geo. 5 Spawning-beds of Rivers Inlet. T 63\nreturned last year and far surpassed the run of 1917, one of the brood-years from which the\npresent run resulted. Since the run of sockeye in 1918 was a poor one, it would appear that\nthe exceptional return of adult sockeye this year is derived from 1917 seeding, or composed\nalmost entirely of five-year fish. No log-jams or other obstructions interfere with the free\nmovement of the salmon up-stream.\nCrossing to the Dalley River, I found that the spawning-beds, as in the case of the Asklum\nand Quap Rivers, contained an exceptional run of fish; the beds were thickly lined from near\nthe mouth right up to the falls, 4% miles distant. In the clear running water thousands of\ndead bodies were noted, and on the bars all the way along their putrid bodies caused a most\noffensive odour. It is easily one of the best runs that has been seen in years. No log-jams\nobstructed the river.\nReturning to the hatchery, the small creek situated here was being rapidly filled with\nsockeye and showed up very favourably in comparison with previous years. Hatchery officials\nwere collecting eggs and had obtained a fair number up to the time of my visit.\nPassing from the mouth of the lake into the river, fish were observed breaking water in\nall directions; the spawning-beds here and around the Indian rancherie were thickly covered\nwith spawning sockeye, giving every facility to the Indians in securing their full winter's supply.\nOn my way down-stream spring and dog salmon were very much in evidence, indicating a good\nrun of this species of salmon.\nSumming up the results of the inspection of the watershed at Rivers Inlet, I find conditions\nsimilar to that experienced last year, in that the head rivers, comprising the Indian, Cheo,\nand Washwash, were not well stocked with sockeye salmon. The Sheemahant again proved\na failure, also Jeneesee Creek, in so far as the number of adult sockeye that had returned.\nOn the other hand, the Nookins, Asklum, Quay, Dalley, Hatchery Creek, and the spawning-\nbeds at the mouth of the lake were as well stocked as in any year of my inspection since\n1913. In size the sockeye generally were below the average, agreeing with tests made by me\nat the canneries throughout the fishing season, of a little over 5 lb. The Dominion Department of Fisheries has tried the experiment of planting eggs on those rivers which have not\nbeen productive, and if the results of its efforts materialize I have no reason to take a pessimistic\nview of the situation. The lower tributaries will undoubtedly provide a very large return of\nadult sockeye from this season's spawning.\nIn conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation for the courtesy shown me by G. C. Johnston, Manager,. Rivers Inlet Cannery; Weldon R. Reid, Superintendent of the Dominion\nHatchery; and the men at the various spawning camps.\nI have, etc.,\nA. W. Stone,\nFisheries Overseer.\nRivers Inlet, B.C., November 5th, 1922. T 64\nReport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nt/3\nO O \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nt-5 la \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n\n^ H tc\nos o \u00C2\u00ABs\nOHO\nXI\nV\nC3T3 a.\nJ? dJ3\nIQ o a O -M CC IO 00\nCO tfi Cl O IS -H O X\nM \u00C2\u00BB q q q -^ o o\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0H 00 N \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 o\" CO\n\"# tH HHLO\nCi \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* Cl \"* Cl i-l CO\nt- CO !0 -\u00E2\u0080\u00A2* \"rt t- \u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nLO Ci -H O Cl t- i-l\n00 M \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* :o o i-o Cl\nt- 1- \u00C2\u00A9 IO rH 03 Ci\nco ci \"i cc ep *# t-\nlo\" gn \u00E2\u0096\u00A0ri -i eC co\"\n\u00C2\u00AB o-\u00C2\u00ABs \u00C2\u00A9 O N cb 0Q\no o h :\u00E2\u0096\u00A0; o -m co x\n\u00C2\u00A9 CO CO I- Cj C6 rH O\nof T)H O rH CO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* IS CO\"\nQ\nfcJD T3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A29 2\nA!\n& g\ns a\n3 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00C2\u00B0\nm o\nc- EH\n3\u00C2\u00B0 -\n- 60 O\n5 u 3 M\nJ eg- \u00C2\u00A7 a\n- . Ph Ja\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00C2\u00B0 fe *s\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0j w u \u00C2\u00AB\na- ^ \u00C2\u00BBJ P_r\nm CQ fe cd\nCQ hi\nd ri\n5 \u00C2\u00A3 5 o\n2\n\u00C2\u00A3 OQ\n-fl J\n&H *r)\nd .\nU hs\nCJClt--CDTHClLOI>Clt---XCD\nm-*OOiOCnCC0010lNCO\nolom m t\u00C2\u00BB oo -^ co q n co q\nLO CD\" GO \"* Ci CO \u00C2\u00A9 O TrT Cl\" H \u00C2\u00A9\"\nOCOH^COC^-HCOCNOOCOIOCO\n\u00C2\u00A9OOCD^Ol-XCOQOCOM\ncd co co th ci qo co ci -^ Ci -a co\nCOCOCD't-t-i-TI iM IN l-OO\nt- Cl CO H^OO0CX^**CC\niO LO IO t- LO O CO CD t- Ci CD Cl\nCO Cl CD Cl -^ CD CM L- IO Cl CD O\nCO t- \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* Cl Cl Cl -+ O LO O O\nH'fWMOCO'^HMCO'*\nCl_ 00 CO Ci t- CO X CD *tf Cl tH\ncd\" o\" th\" \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 Cl\nrHrHCOt-COTHCDCO\nO CO H \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* LO LO O I-\nrH LO LO (M rH \"* rH\n-MClClLOb-^ClCDLO-H^CO\nflCOOOOOH-fKlHX\nf CO o \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* co \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* CO IO t- CO\nt-rHIOCCOOOO-HrHClOO\nrH CD Ci \"H O Cl tH Cl Ci Ci W\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0H^ CO CO O Cl rH CO >0 Cl L- LO\n-Hi X tH Ci' rH CD\" Ci & rH CD -*\n'cj ..\nci as\nM O\nbOeS\na 10\nI 3\ncd\n3*?9;\n\n<\n.-;\nH\nO\n0\nu\nW\na\ns\n\u00C2\u00AB\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n0\nHH\nw\nH\na\nHH\no-j\nfl\nPi\npq\na\nft\nta\no\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0<1\n\u00C2\u00ABl\nw\n0\no\n3\nn\nAj\nPh\nK\na\nH\nR\nD\nKOri\nOcHO\n*\u00E2\u0096\u00A0)\nfl dj\ntu\nwrfl\nd\u00C2\u00A3\na\nPh\nCh\u00C2\u00A3\nd\nt- CO \u00C2\u00A9 tH \"\"-JM\nCC IO h IO IO\nco q cn cq co\nco Ci cf co\" io\nrH Cl Th Cl rH\nci 10 x \u00C2\u00A9 ci\nNOD t- M H\nt- Cl \u00C2\u00A9 \"# rH\n00 \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 (M rH\nLO CO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* H H\n[>\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 GO \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 X\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* x\" x\" cn\" \u00C2\u00A9\"\nrH Cl rH rH\nCi Ci Cl t- \u00C2\u00A9\nCO X \u00C2\u00A9 X rH\nCl rH LO CO Cl\nt- \u00C2\u00A9 Cl Th CO\nCi t- rH \u00C2\u00A9 rH\nCl CM\nCO t- \u00C2\u00A9 IO \u00C2\u00A9\nCO \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 Cl\nCO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* \"\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00E2\u0096\u00A0fl CO \u00C2\u00A9\nco\" x\" io t^\" co\"\ns\n5 3 ;5'\nlfl r S of\nfl o \u00E2\u0096\u00A0+= Oj \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n3 o J t! \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nPh .S U .2 '\nfco Ph hd\na ca ,j \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n3 cq fi a\nfa ^ s g\n. O \u00C2\u00AE -fl\n. a - o ,\nCQ -< 3 & !\n\u00C2\u00A9 CO \u00C2\u00A9 ISO CO X CO CO CM X CO\nt- l- \u00C2\u00A9 X \u00C2\u00A9 CO \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 t- LO\nrHXTh\u00C2\u00A9C0C0\u00C2\u00A9IOrHX\u00C2\u00A9\n\nIHHtXNOJCOCimO)\nt> Ttl rH t- \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9\n\u00C2\u00A9\" cf\nTh CO\" HO\" tH rH CO\ntH Cl Cl\nPMMt-O\n\u00C2\u00A9 X CO Cl CO\n\u00C2\u00A9 rH \u00C2\u00A9 CO X\nOI\u00C2\u00A9\u00C2\u00A9\u00C2\u00A9lOC0ClC0\u00C2\u00A9C0\u00C2\u00A9\nCO \u00C2\u00A9 Cl IO Cl LO X \u00C2\u00A9 \u00C2\u00A9 Th \u00C2\u00A9\nno cq co t- in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2^J,** N 9-1 \u00C2\u00A9\u00E2\u0080\u009E\nIO Cl rH rH tH CO*\" rH\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CO t- \u00C2\u00A9\nCO I- LO\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 CO \u00C2\u00A9 CO\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A29 3\neg M\n6 rrj\n\u00C2\u00B03\n-n 3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2jy,a.'\n5 3 s \u00C2\u00BB\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0ss\u00C2\u00B0S\nOW\npi i-i\n^ S ea OJ\nca & \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00C2\u00AB a\no b =3 \"3\n\"soap\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0a\n3S\n-J\n6 .\n\u00C2\u00BBl\no Jj u\n*i a a\nJ o PL,\ns r\ni4 j\nu O\nOJ cj +J\n0J P (H\nO 3 O\nS Ph\nSJfl\nd CD\nZ Q\nXThiot-\u00C2\u00A9cici\u00C2\u00A9\nIO IO IO CO CO CD H L-\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* \u00C2\u00A9 CO \u00C2\u00A9^ rH X^ tH h^\n<*\" co\" io\" th\" x\" io \u00C2\u00A9 ci\nTh \u00E2\u0080\u00A2<# \u00C2\u00A9 t- tH Cl\nr-t Cl rH tH tH -CO\nrH CO CO CO t- \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 *\u00E2\u0096\u00A0*-:\nTh Ci CO Cl io -co\ntH X X CO t- CO X\nIO O \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* 05 O H O\nt- rH Th rH rH rH\nx\" \u00C2\u00A9\" th co co \u00C2\u00A9\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nH Cl Cl Cl rH\nH io \u00E2\u0080\u00A2* N w n l>\nio Th ci co \u00C2\u00A9 cm \u00E2\u0096\u00A0*\nI* no cc q q co\nCO Th \u00C2\u00A9\" io ci CO\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 t- IO fc-\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 CM rH \u00C2\u00A9\nCM tH\nb- \u00C2\u00A9 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Th CO\nd \u00C2\u00A9 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 IO CM\n\u00C2\u00A9 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 b-\nIOOJOC1COCOCOO\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* 1-* a oo i- h \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* l-\nffi W^H^WCCrt Th\nt-T co\" Th (Co cd io\" tjT cf\nr >o\nO +i\nbe r\nfl o\nt3 . \u00E2\u0080\u009E a)\nd w> . xj\np, fl TJ m\n<\u00C2\u00AB 13 5\nM dj 10 o\nSol*\n. O CD .fl\no-asgE\n. cl o o\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0d\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0a\n. +j\nt\u00C2\u00AB o -o\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0rS\ns 3\nJ r \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nmPh1* .g\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 H 0 \u00C2\u00B09 a)\n_ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Sf? co\ncj o 9. \u00C2\u00BB'\n^ o fl\nO *h \u00C2\u00AB T 66\nEeport of the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY\nDISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE.\nFeasee River.\n1922.\n1021.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\nSockeyes \t\nSprings, Red \t\nSprings, White \t\nChums \t\nPinks \t\nCohoes \t\nBluehacks and Steel\nheads \t\nTotals\t\n51,832\n10,561\n6,300\n17,895\n29,578\n23,587\nS17\n39,631\n11,360\n5,949\n11,233\n8,178\n29,978\n1,331\n140,570 107,050\n I\n48,399\n10,691\n4,432\n23,884\n12,839\n22,934\n4,522\n38,854\n14,519\n4,296\n15,718\n39,363\n39,253\n15,941\n19,697\n15,192\n24,853\n86,215\n18,388\n40,111\n4,395\n148,164\n10,197\n18,916\n59,973\n134,442\n25,895\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 4,951\n136,661 I 167,944 208,857\n I |\t\n402,538\n32,146\n17,673\n11,430\n30,934\n840\n31,330\n3,129\n127,472\n91,130\n23,228\n5,392\n18,019\n138,305\n43,514\n31\n320,519\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1007.\nSockeyes \t\nSprings, Red \t\nSprings, White .-...-.\nChums \t\nPinks \t\nCohoes \t\nBluebacks and Steel-\nheads \t\nTotals\t\n198,183\n11,209\n15,300\n74,826\n6,272\n43,504\n349,294\n719,796\n3,573\n49\n22,220\n20,773\n16,018\n123,879\n15,856\n9,826\n12,997\n574\n36,190\n58,487\n7,028\n6,751\n47,237\n142,101\n39,740\n150,432\n1,018\n8,925\n52,460\n128\n35,031\n782,429\n199,322\n301,344\n247,004\n585,435\n1,428\n' 8,687\n27,919\n74,574\n1,903\n2,263\n415\n33,270\n623,469 ! 112,425\n59,815\n3,448\n557\n63,530\n35,766\n163,116\nSkeena River.\n1922.\n1021.\n1920.\n1019.\n1018.\n1017\n1916.\n1015.\nSockeyes \t\nSprings\t\nChums \t\nPinks \t\nCohoes \t\nSteelhead Trout\nTotals\n96,277\n14,170\n39,758\n301,655\n24,099\n1,050\n477,915\n41,018\n21,766\n1,993\n124,457\n45,033\n498\n89,364\n37,403\n3,834\n177,679\n18,068\n1,21.8\n184,045\n25,941\n31,457\n117,303\n36,559\n2,672\n123,322\n22,031\n22,573\n161,727\n38,750\n4,994\n65,760\n16,285\n21,516\n148,319\n38,456\n1,883\n60,293\n20,933\n17,121\n73,029\n47,409\n3,743\n234,765\n2,887 39S.877\n!74,300\n292,219 I 223,158\n116,533\n15,273\n5,769\n107,578\n32,100\n1,798\n270,161\n1014.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1009.\n1908.\nSockeyes \t\nSprings\t\nChums \t\nPinks \t\nCohoes \t\nSteelhead Trout\nTotals\n130,166\n11,740\n8,329\n71,021\n16,378\n52,927\n26,436\n66,045\n18,647\n02,498\n23,833\n504\n97,588\n39,835\n131,066\n17,942\n70\n81,956\n23,376\n187,246\n9,785\n13,473\n11,531\n237,634 164,055\n I\t\n254,258 254,410 I 222,035\n87,901\n12,469\nf 28,120\n12,249\n139,846\n13,842\n45,404\n10,085\n140,739 209,177\n108,413\n10,378\n25,217\n15,247\n159,255 13 Geo. 5\nStatement showing Salmon-pack op the Province.\nT 67\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY\nDISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nRivees Inlet.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1910.\n53,584\n323\n311\n24,292\n1,120\n82\n48,615\n364\n173\n5,303\n4,718\n97\n125,742\n1,793\n1,226\n25,647\n2,908\n56,258\n1,442\n7,089\n6,538\n9,038\n53,401\n1,409\n, 6,729\n29,542\n12,074\n61,195\n817\n16,101\n8,005\n9,124\n44,930\n1,422\n20,144\n3,567\n15,314\n130,355\n1,022\n5,387\nPinks \t\nCohoes \t\n2,904\n7,115\nTotals\t\n70,712\n59,272\n133,248\n80,367\n103,155\n95,302\n85,383\n146,838\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1907.\nSockeyes \t\nSprings\t\nChums \t\nPinks \t\nCohoes \t\nSteelhead Trout\nTotals\n89,890\n566\n5,023\n5,784\n7,780\n100,052\n61,745\n594\n2,097\n3,660\n112,8-84\n1,149\n3,845\n8,809\n11,010\n08,096 137,697 101,060\nI \t\n88,763\n317\n288\n5,411\n6,287\n126,921\n383\n19\n2,075\n89,027\n587\n1,400\n129,308\" 91,014\n '\t\n64,652\n454\n479\n9,505\n75,090\nNass River.\n87,874\n450\n700\n5,040\n94,064\n1922.\n1921.\n1020.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n31,277\n2,062\n11,277\n75,087\n3,533\n235\n9,364\n2,088\n2,176\n29,488\n8,236\n413\n16,740\n4,857\n12,145\n43,151\n3,700\n560\n28,259\n3,574\n24,041\n29,949\n10,900\n789\n21,816\n4,152\n40,368\n59,206\n17,061\n1,305\n22,188\n4,496\n24,938\n44,568\n22,180\n1,125\n31,411\n3,845\n11,200\n59,503\n19,139\n1,498\n39,349\n3,701\nPinks \t\n11,076\n34,879\nCohoes \t\n15,171\n113\nTotals\t\n124,071\n51,765\n81,153\n97,512\n143,908\n119,495\n126,686\n104,289\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1010.\n1009.\n1908.\n1907.\n31,327\n3,385\n25,569\n25,333\n9,276\n23,574\n3,151\n2,987\n20,539\n3,172\n36,037\n6,936\n3,245\n12,476\n12,468\n37,327\n3,759\n5,189\n1.1,467\n7,942\n30,810\n1,239\n351\n895\n6,285\n140\n28,246\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A22,337\n3,589\n6,818\n27,584\n3,263\n6,612\n8,348\n1,101\n17,813\n1,288\nPinks \t\n5,957\n6,093\n681\nTotals\t\n94,890\n53,423\n71,162\n65,684\n39,720\n40,900\n46,908\n31,832 T 68\nReport op the Commissioner op Fisheries.\n1923\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF THE PROVINCE, BY\nDISTRICTS AND SPECIES, FROM 1907 TO 1922, INCLUSIVE\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nVancouver Island Districts.*\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n15,147\n6,936\n0,987\n0,452\n6,143\n886\n3,230\n29,211\n36.013\n29,324\n108,478\n34,431\n12,591\n128,013\n251,266\n36,043\n10,060\n14,391\n43,186\n57,035\n18,575\n11,120\n20,555\n53,629\n40,752\n5,495\n3,151\nTotals \t\n185,524\n69,528\n74,170\n267,293\n389,815\nOutlying Districts.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\n47,107\n18,350\n64,473\n54,077\n51,980\n8,582\n90,464\n201,847\n42,331\n1,009\n32,902\n0.056\n112,364\n112,209\n30,201\n865\n45,373\n11,423\n160,812\n143,615\n70,431\n712\n98,000\n4,988\n80,485\n113,824\n31,331\n4,995\n21,412\n14,818\n18,203\n15,633\n30,946\n247,149\n33,807\n3,721\n14,766\n165,717\n110,300\n35,011\n702\n9,488\n40,849\n83,626\n48,966\nSteelheads and Blue-\n409\n1 2.790\n985\nTotals \t\n278,144 | 80,568 j 395,728\n381,163\n404,793\n204,597\n432,366\n313,894\n' -\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1907.\n1\n87,130\n149,336\n79,464\n67,866\n70,506\n49,832\n2,190\n6,148\n13,532\n48,307\n6,439\n23,538\n20,709\n36\n40,159\n7,108\n70,727\n111,930\n43,254\n7,246\n52,758\n83,430\n28,328\n22,837\n37,734\n128,296\n65,806\n12,659\n39,167\n64,312\n42,457\n7,439\n5,551 '\n20,008\n19,460\n9,977\nPinks \t\n23,300\n25,754\nSteelheads and Blue-\n2\nTotals \t\n320,168\n285,898 | 334,187\n226,461\n123,054\n71,708\n99,089\n99,192\nTotal packed by Districts in 1907 to 1922, inclusive.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1910.\n1915.\n140,570\n477,915\n79,712\n124,071'\n185,524\n278,144\n107,650\n234,765\n50,272\n51,765\n69,528\n80,568\n136,661\n332,787\n157,522\n81,153\n84,170\n395,223\n167,944\n398,877\n80,367\n97,512\n267,293\n381,163\n210,851\n374,216\n103,155\n143,908\n389,815\n404,793\n402,538\n292,219\n05,302\n119,495\n325,723\n294,597\n127,472\n223,158\n85,383\n126,686\n432,366\n320,519\n279,161\nNass River \t\n\u00E2\u0099\u00A6Vancouver Island.\nOutlying Districts .\n146,838\n104,289\n313,894\nGrand totals.\n1,285,946\n603,548\n_J\n1,187,616\n1,393,156\n1,020,738\nM\n1,557,485\n995,065\n1,164,701\n1914.\n1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1907.\n349,294\n782,429\n199,322 1 301,344\n247,994\n023,409\n112,425\n103,116\n237,634\n109,052\n94,890\n320,169\n164,055\n68,096\n53,423\n285,898\n254,258 254,410\n137,007 101,066\n71,162 1 65,684\n 1 \t\n334,187 [ 226,461\n222,035\n129,398\n39,720\n123,054\n140,739\n91,014\n40,980\n71,708\n209,177\n75,090\n46,908\n09,080\n159,255\nNass River \t\n\"Vancouver Island.\nOutlying Districts .\n94,064\n31,832\n99,192\nGrand totals.\n1,111,039\n1,353,901\n006,626\n948,965\n762,201\n907,920\n542,689\n547,459\n* Previously the Vancouver Island pack was shown in Outlying Districts pack. 13 Geo. 5 Statement showing Sockeye-pack\nop the Province.\nT 69\nSTATEMENT SHOWING SALMON-PACK OF PUGET SOUND, BY SPECIES,\nFROM 1907 TO 1922.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1910.\n1915.\n48,566\n102,967\n62,654\n64,346\n1\n50,723\n411,538\n84,637\n87,465\nCohoes \t\n111,771\n89,412\n24,502\n210,883\n235,860\n114,276\n155,832\n180,799\nPuget Sound Pinks.\n2,225\n404,713\n4,669\n421,215\n6,605\n1,121,884\n1,887\n589,780\n65,552\n30,831\n48,849\n525,541\n267,538\n216,285\n427,8'7\u00C2\u00AB\n410,087\nTotals\n228,114\n527,023\n140,520\n1,221,985\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A21\n560,726\n1,863,983\n670,234\n1,268,731\n1914.\n1013.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1907.\nSockeyes \t\n1\n357,374\n1,665,728\n201,572\n140,529\n234,437\n1,005,120\n162,228\n90,974\nCohoes \t\n151,135\n49,150\n149,977\n244,208\n154,077\n139,297\n05,863\n111,011\nPuget Sound Pinks.\n909\n788,789\n708\n1,038,136\n305,156\n448,730\n280,070\n50,176\n03,132\n111,143\n148,810\n52,251\n51,186\n51,840\nTotals\n780,488\n2,553,843\n415,389\n1,534,016\n537,324\n1,561,824\n309,277\n709,155\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-P\nACK OF THE PROVINCE,\nBY DISTRICTS, 1907 TO 1922,\nINCLUSIVE.\n1922.\n1921.\n1920.\n1919.\n1918.\n1917.\n1916.\n1915.\nPraser River \t\n1\n51,832 | 39,031\n48,399\n38,854\n19,697\n148,164\n32,146\n91,130\nSkeena River ....\n*96,277 | . 41,018\n89,064\n184,945\n123,322\n65,760\n60,923\n116,553\n53,584 | 48,615\n125,742\n56,258\n53,401\n61,195\n44,930\n130,350\nNass River \t\n31,277 | 9,364\n16,740\n28,250\n21,816\n22,188\n31,411\n39,349\nOutlying Districts.\nTotals \t\n62,254 | '25,286\n71,730\n61,129\n58,223\n42,541\n45,373\n98,660\n295,224 | 163,914\n]\n351,405\n369,445\n276,459\n339,848\n214,780\n476.042\n1914. 1913.\n1912.\n1911.\n1910.\n1909.\n1908.\n1907.\nFraser River \t\n198,183\n1\n719,796 123,879\n58,487\n150,432\n585,435\n74,574\n50,815\nSkeena River ....\n130,166\n52,027\n02,408\n131,066\n187,246\n87,901\n139,846\n108,413\nRivers Inlet \t\n89,890\n61,745\n112,884\n88,763\n126,021\n89,027\n64,652\n87,874\nNass River \t\n31,327\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A023,574\n36,037\n37,327\n30,810\n28,246\n27,584\n17,813\n-Outlying Districts.\n87,130\n149,336\n79,464\n67,S66\n70,506\n49,832\n. 48,367\n40,159\n536,690\n972,178\n1\n444,762\n383,509\n1\n565,915\n840,441\n335,023\n314,074\n* 4,390 cases deducted from Skeena for 1922, Alaska sockeye.\n-\nVICTORIA, B.C.:\nPrinted hy William H. Ciili.in, Printer to the King\n's Most Excellent Majesty.\n-\n192\n3.\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2"@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1923_V02_08_T1_T69"@en . "10.14288/1.0300605"@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, 1922 WITH APPENDICES"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .