"f0d43961-1270-42e4-84dd-ed6026443a32"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942."@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"@en . "[1944]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0319051/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " I\nPROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nREPORT\nOF THE\nPROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT\nFOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST, 1942\nWITH APPENDICES\nPRINTED BY\nAUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.\nVICTORIA, B.C. :\nPrinted by Charles F. Banfield, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1943. To His Honour Colonel W. C. Woodward,\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 for\nthe year ended December 31st, 1942, with Appendices.\nGEOEGE SHARRATT PEARSON,\nCommissioner of Fisheries.\nProvincial Fisheries Department,\nCommissioner of Fisheries' Office,\nVictoria, British Columbia. Honourable George S. Pearson,\nCommissioner of Fisheries, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094I have the honour to submit herewith the Annual Report of the Provincial\nFisheries Department for the year ended December 31st, 1942, together with\nAppendices.\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour obedient servant,\nGEORGE J. ALEXANDER,\nAssistant Commissioner. TABLE OF CONTENTS.\nREPORT OF THE PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT FOR 1942.\nPage.\nValue of Canadian Fisheries and the Standing of the Provinces in 1941 7\nValue of British Columbia's Fisheries in 1942 8\nCapital, Equipment, and Employees -. 9\nThe Canned-salmon Pack for British Columbia for 1942.. 9\nBritish Columbia's Canned-salmon Pack by Districts 10\nReview of British Columbia's Salmon-canning Industry, 1942 18\nOther Canneries (Pilchard, Herring, and Shell-fish) ___ 19\nMild-cured Salmon 20\nDry-salt Salmon 20\nDry-salt Herring 21\nPickled Herring 21\nHalibut Production 21\nFish Oil and Meal 22\nCondition of British Columbia's Spawning-grounds 24\nContributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. (Digest.) (No. 28.) 24\nPilchard Investigation 26\nHerring Investigation 27\nThe Clam Investigation 28\nInternational Fisheries Commission, 1942 29\nInternational Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, 1942 30\nAPPENDICES.\nContributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon. (No. 28.) By\nWilbert A. Clemens, Ph.D., Department of Zoology, University of British\nColumbia, Vancouver, B.C 31\nReport on Pilchard-tag Recovery, 1942-43. By John Lawson Hart, Ph.D., Pacific\n\"Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C 43\nThe Tagging of Herring (Clupea Pallasii) in British Columbia: Apparatus,\nInsertions, and Recoveries during 1942-43. By Albert L. Tester, Ph.D., and\nR. V. Boughton, Ph.D., Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C 44\nBiological Investigations of Commercial Clams. By Ferris Neave, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C 70\nReport of the Investigations of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries\nCommission for the Year 1942 75\nSpawning Report, British Columbia, 1942. By Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief\nSupervisor of Fisheries 78\nStatistical Tables 85 REPORT OF THE\nPROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT FOR 1942.\nVALUE OF CANADIAN FISHERIES AND THE STANDING OF\nTHE PROVINCES, 1941.\nThe value of the fisheries products of Canada for the year 1941 totalled $62,258,872.\nDuring that year British Columbia produced fisheries products to the value of\n$31,732,037, or 50.9 per cent, of Canada's total.\nBritish Columbia in 1941 led all the Provinces in the Dominion in respect to the\nproduction of fisheries wealth. Her output exceeded that of Nova Scotia, the second\nin rank, by $12,634,832.\nThe market value of the fisheries products of British Columbia in 1941 was\n$10,021,870 more than in the previous year. There was an increase in the value of\nsalmon amounting to $7,122,013.\nThe capital invested in the fisheries of British Columbia in 1941 was $29,314,179,\nor 54.6 per cent, of the total capital employed in fisheries in all of Canada. Of the total\ninvested in the fisheries of British Columbia in 1941, $10,477,873 was employed in\ncatching and handling the catches and $18,836,306 invested in canneries, fish-packing\nestablishments, and fish-reduction plants.\nThe number of persons engaged in British Columbia fisheries in 1941 was 18,131,\nor 28.5 per cent, of Canada's total fishery-workers. Of those engaged in British\nColumbia, 10,217 were employed in catching and handling the catches and 7,914 in\npacking, curing, and in fish-reduction plants. The total number engaged in the\nfisheries in British Columbia in 1941 was 238 more than in the preceding year.\nThe following statement gives in the order of their rank the value of fishery\nproducts of the Provinces of Canada for the years 1937 to 1941, inclusive:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nProvince.\n1937.\n1938.\n1939.\n1940.\n1941.\n$16,155,439\n9,229,834\n4,447,688\n3,615,666\n1,892,036\n1,796,012\n870,299\n527,199\n433,354\n8,767\n$18,672,750\n8,804,231\n3,996,064\n3,353,775\n1,957,279\n1,811,124\n930,874\n468,646\n492,943\n5,290\n$17,698,980\n8,753,548\n5,082,393\n3,00_,315\n2,010,953\n1,655,273\n950,412\n478,511\n430,724\n4,867\n$21,710,167\n9,843,326\n4,956,618\n3,035,100\n2,002,053\n1,988,545\n714,870\n450,574\n403,510\n4,994\n$31,732,037\nNova Scotia\nNew Brunswick _\t\nOntario \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n12,634,832\n6,484,831\n3,518,402\n3,233,115\n2,842,041\n952,026\nManitoba \t\nSaskatchewan \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\nAlberta \t\nYukon\n440,444\n414,942\n6,652\nTotals \t\n$38,976,294\n$40,492,976\n$40,072,976\n$45,118,757\n$62,258,872\nSPECIES AND VALUE OF FISH CAUGHT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nThe total marketed value of each of the principal species of fish taken in British\nColumbia for the years 1937 to 1941, inclusive, is given in the following table:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSpecies.\n1937.\n1938.\n1939.\n1940.\n1941.\nSalmon \t\nHalibut \t\n$11,907,905\n1,094,214\n95,842\n$14,491,285\n1,041,165\n231,220\n$12,994,812\n1,305,642\n193,148\n$13,757,091\n1,397,999\n172,999\n$20,879,104\n1,650,731\n470,958\n$13,097,961\n$15,763,670\n$14,493,502\n$15,328,089\n$23,000,793 E 8\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nSpecies and Value of Fish caught in British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nSpecies.\n1937.\n1938.\n1939.\n1940.\n1941.\n$13,097,961\n1,181,466\n902,619\n318,769\n95,371\n95,251\n52,188\n33,201\n15,430\n36,199\n477\n2,339\n7,990\n3,722\n3,523\n1,386\n923\n2,438\n337\n50\n$15,763,670\n855,265\n867,007\n351,324\n162,508\n71,297\n54,572\n37,679\n18,985\n37,453\n$14,493,502\n2,198,912\n100,693\n357,990\n50,937\n79,419\n61,633\n39,826\n12,246\n59,976\n1,340\n5,934\n10,693\n3,752\n4,388\n2,459\n441\n3,026\n1,792\n32\n$15,328,089\n4,426,390\n632,393\n359,798\n77,944\n132,822\n80,628\n46,866\n16,354\n60,596\n2,002\n27,851\n14,574\n3,235\n7,491\n2,460\n555\n3,452\n3,887\n88\n$23,000,793\nHerring-\n4,665,260\n1,781,876\n398,316\n98,970\n189,527\n83,253\n30,470\n8,115\n116.111\nFlounders \t\n6,767\n22,286\n3,942\n6,884\n3,013\n1,016\n2,467\n760\n62\n14,555\n15,832\n3,095\nSmelt\t\n5,920\nSturgeon \t\nOctopus _\nSkate _._- - \t\nOolachans - . . .., \t\n3,675\n986\n2,478\n1,492\n25\n47,086\nGrayfish, etc.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1,274\n2,310\n13,117\n29,328\n531,355\nBody-oiL\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\nOil _- \t\n29,569\n38,776\n26,740\n220,251\n12,431\n4,327\n68,073\n42,807\n184,074\n3,076\n105,453\n44,072\n36,322\n146,112\n63,210\n137,624\nMeal.-\u00E2\u0080\u0094 - \t\n69,062\n298,349\n1,465\n77,515\n10,417\n40,198\nMiscellaneous\u00E2\u0080\u0094 ,. _ _\t\nAnchovies.\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n14,050\n119,035\n567\n2,094\n61,686\n162,159\n804\n44,860\n23,913\n$16,155,439\n$18,672,750\n$17,698,980\n$21,710,167\n$31,732,0.7\nVALUE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES REACHES RECORD HIGH.*\nA new high level was reached in the value of the fisheries production of British\nColumbia in 1942. The total as marketed was $38,059,559, an increase over the year\n1941 of $6,327,522 or 20 per cent. The salmon-fishery of British Columbia, which is\nthe most important fishery in the Dominion, had a production value of $22,419,881,\nthis amount accounting for 59 per cent, of the total fisheries output of the Province.\nHerring, which is second on the list of British Columbia's chief commercial fishes,\nhad a value of $8,223,754, an increase over 1941 of $3,558,494 or 76 per cent. Halibut\nis third in order among the principal kinds of fish with a value of $2,228,818.\nThe pilchard-fishery shows a value of $2,016,607, its most important products being oil\nand meal.\nThe total quantity of fish of all kinds, including shell-fish, taken by British\nColumbia fishermen during the year was 5,712,725 cwt., with a value at the point of\nlanding of $18,415,044, compared with a catch of 5,418,891 cwt. and a landed value of\n$15,836,402 in 1941. Average prices per hundredweight paid to the fishermen for the\nprincipal kinds of fish in 1942, with figures for 1941 in brackets, were as follows:\n* Note.\u00E2\u0080\u0094These figures are taken from the Advance Report on British Columbia Fisheries, Dominion Department of Statistics, Department of Trade'and Commerce. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 9\nSalmon, $7.89 ($6.01) ; herring, 54 cents (39 cents) ; halibut, $15.68 ($12.36) ; and\npilchards, 51 cents (50 cents).\nCAPITAL, EQUIPMENT, AND EMPLOYEES.\nCapital.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The amount of capital invested in the fisheries of British Columbia in\n1942 recorded a total value of $34,848,940, compared with $29,319,198 in the preceding\nyear. The total amount comprises $11,748,763 as the value of the vessels, boats, and\ngear, and $23,100,177 as the amount invested in the fish-processing establishments.\nThe greater part of the investment in the fish-processing industry is credited to the\nsalmon-canneries, which numbered thirty and had an investment of $16,601,054.\nEmployees.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The number of men employed during the year in catching and landing\nthe fish was 12,199, compared with 10,217 in 1941, while the number of persons working in fish-processing establishments totalled only 6,939, compared with 7,914 in the\npreceding year. The total number of employees credited to the fishing industry of\nBritish Columbia in 1942 was 19,138, compared with 18,131 in the year 1941.\nCANNED-SALMON PACK FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR 1942.\nThe total pack of canned salmon put up in British Columbia in 1942 amounted to\n1,811,558 cases, according to returns made by the canners to the Provincial Fisheries\nDepartment. This was 483,875 cases less than were packed in 1941. The pack in that\nyear, however, was the largest ever recorded in British Columbia. In 1942 the canned-\nsalmon pack was 47,345 cases above the average for the previous five-year period.\nIn comparing the British Columbia canned-salmon pack figures for the war years\nwith the pack figures for the years previous to the war, due allowance must be made\nfor the effect of the war on the salmon-canning industry. This industry now is virtually\na war industry. Canned salmon is a high-protein food, packed in containers which\nmake it reasonably easy to handle. It does not require special facilities for shipment\nor storage, will keep without deterioration for a long period of time, and is ready for\nconsumption without further preparation. The British Government was quick to\nrecognize these qualities which make British Columbia canned salmon an ideal war\nration, the result being a heavy increase in the demand for canned salmon for war\npurposes. In order to meet this increased demand, the Provincial and Federal Governments again exercised a certain amount of control in their respective jurisdictions with\na view to diverting to the canners as much of the salmon-catch as possible. The controls exercised in 1942 were similar to those in effect in 1941 and, as a result, most of\nthe salmon-catch, exclusive of troll-caught spring salmon, went into cans. These facts\nshould be taken into consideration when comparing the canned-salmon pack of 1942\nwith the annual canned-salmon packs previous to 1941.\nThe 1942 canned-salmon pack consisted of 666,570 cases of sockeye, 24,744 cases of\nsprings, 4,649 cases of steelheads, 211,138 cases of cohoe, 270,622 cases of pinks, and\n633,834 cases of chums.\nAn examination of the pack figures by species shows that the sockeye pack of\n666,570 cases was 211,272 cases above the 1941 figure and exceeded the previous five-\nyear average by 225,429 cases. This was the largest sockeye-pack recorded in the\nProvince since 1913, when the total pack amounted to 972,178 cases.\nThe spring-salmon pack of 24,744 cases in 1942 was 26,849 cases less than the\nlarge pack of this species put up in 1941, but was only 398 cases less than the previous\nfive-year average.\nSteelhead trout are not salmon, but a few are caught and canned incidental to\nsalmon fishing and canning operations each year. In 1942 there were 4,649 cases of\nsteelheads canned. This is compared with 3,454 cases in 1941, 1,207 cases in 1940,\n796 cases in 1939, and 1,036 cases in 1938. E 10 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nIn 1942 the cohoe-pack amounted to 211,138 cases, which was 219,375 cases less\nthan were packed in the previous record-breaking year for this variety. The.cohoe-\npack in 1942 was also less than the pack in 1939, the cycle-year, by 33,959 cases, and was\n91,332 cases less than the average annual pack for the previous five years.\nIncluded in this figure for the 1942 cohoe-pack are 23,265 cases of bluebacks.\nThe 1942 pink-salmon pack amounting to 270,622 cases, while 56,718 cases above\nthe pack in 1940, the cycle-year, was disappointing when compared with the recent\npacks of this cycle. The 1942 pack was 116,132 cases less than the average pack for\nthis species in the previous five years and was also 112,036 cases less than the average\npacks for the previous five cycle-years. Again, as in 1941, the 1942 pack of pinks was\nthe second short pack in succession for this cycle and was definitely disappointing.\nThere were packed in British Columbia in 1942, 633,384 cases of chums, which\nwere 292,967 cases less than were packed in the year previous. It must be remembered,\nhowever, that the chum-pack in 1941 was one of the largest ever recorded for this\nspecies in British Columbia. The 1942 pack was 7,337 cases greater than the average\nfor the previous five-year period. The Government's policy of diverting as much of\nthe salmon-catch as possible to the canning trade has probably a greater effect on chum\nsalmon than any other species. Previous to the outbreak of the war large quantities\nof chum salmon found an outlet in the salt-fish and frozen-fish trade. When consideration is given to these facts, the pack figures for 1942 are not unduly large.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA'S CANNED-SALMON PACK BY DISTRICTS.\nFraser River System.\nThe total Canadian pack of all varieties of Fraser River caught salmon amounted\nto 549,617 cases, composed of 446,371 cases of sockeye, 9,688 cases of spring, 309 eases\nof steelheads, 10,542 cases of cohoes, 134 cases of pinks, and 82,573 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1941 the Fraser River produced a total pack of sockeye\nsalmon, Canadian and American, amounting to 709,829 cases. This was the largest\ntotal pack of sockeye produced on this river system since 1913 and is the largest pack\non record for this cycle, exceeding the previous record pack of 1902, when 633,033 cases\nwere packed. Of the total 1942 catch by Canadian and American fishermen, the Canadian catch was 446,371 cases, while the American fishermen in the State of Washington\ntook sockeye to the equivalent of 263,458 cases. The catch percentages are 62.8 and\n37.2 respectively. The percentages for Fraser River sockeye caught by American and\nCanadian fishermen are tabulated below for convenience. American. Canadian.\n1930\n1931\n1932\n1933\n1934\n1935\n1936\n1937\n1938\n1939\n1940\n1941\n1942\nThe Canadian pack of sockeye on the Fraser River in 1942 was the largest pack\ncaught by Canadian fishermen since 1913 and greatly exceeds any of the Canadian\nPer Cent.\n 78.0\nPer Cent.\n22.0\n\u00E2\u0080\u009E 68.0\n32.0\n . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 55.0\n45.0\n.. 71.0\n29.0\n. 72.0\n28.0\n... ... 47.0\n53.0\n 25.0\n75.0\n. 38.0\n62.0\n 42.0\n58.0\n . .. 44.5\n55.5\n... .... 37.5\n62.5\n _. . .. 39.3\n60.7\n 37.2\n62.8 BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 11\ncatches in recent past years. In considering the production figures it will be recalled\nthat in the previous cycle-year, 1938, there were 186,794 cases packed and the escapement to the spawning-grounds was excellent, especially to the Adams River spawning\narea. The pack in 1942 was made largely from fish running late in the season, proceeding to the Shuswap Lake-Adams River spawning areas. There is no doubt that\nthe success of the spawning in 1938 in the Adams River Area and a favourable survival\nof young was responsible, in a large measure, for the splendid pack in the year under\nreview. Notwithstanding the large catch, the Shuswap Lake-Adams River area was\nagain exceptionally well seeded. The reader is referred to Major Motherwell's report\non the spawning-grounds, which is included in the Appendix to this report, for details\nof the sockeye spawning in the various tributaries to this river system.\nMention was made in the pages of this report for the year 1941 of the water conditions at Hell's Gate during that season of the year in which the Adams River run of\nsockeye was passing this point. That water conditions at Hell's Gate in the year under\nreview were not detrimental to the passage of sockeye is evidenced by the appearance\nof exceedingly large numbers of sockeye on the spawning-grounds in the Shuswap-\nAdams River area.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There were 9,688 cases of spring salmon packed on the Fraser\nRiver in 1942 compared with a pack of 34,038 cases in 1941. In comparing the figures\nfor these two pack-years it must be remembered, however, that the pack in 1941 was\nexceptionally large. The 1942 pack of springs was more in line with the average\nannual packs of this species for the years previous to 1941, which packs were as follows:\n1940, 4,504 cases; 1939, 5,993 cases; 1938, 4,308 cases; 1937, 5,444 cases.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1942 there were packed 10,542 cases of cohoe salmon on the\nFraser River. This figure is compared with the year previous when 28,265 cases were\npacked and is also compared with the pack in 1939, the cycle-year, in which 13,557 cases\nwere packed. The 1942 pack was somewhat disappointing as it fell below the packs for\nthis species in recent past cycle-years and was also 7,962 cases below the average annual\npack for the previous five years.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The runs of pink salmon to the Fraser River coincide with the odd-\nnumbered years. In 1942 there was no pink run to this river system.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1942 there were packed on the Fraser River, 82,573 cases of\nchums. This was 12,497 cases less than were packed on this river system in 1941 but\nwas 22,126 cases greater than the average annual pack for the previous five years and,\nexclusive of 1941, was the largest pack of chums on the Fraser River since 1934, when\n104,092 cases were packed. The 1942 pack exceeds that of the cycle-year by 23,795\ncases.\nThe comparatively large packs of chum salmon put up on the Fraser River in 1941\nand again in 1942 do not necessarily mean that the runs in these years were greater\nthan in previous years, but reflect Government policy in diverting as much of the\nsalmon-catch as possible to the canneries for shipment to Great Britain. In pre-war\nyears large quantities of Fraser River chum salmon were salted and frozen which,\nnaturally, reduced the size of the canned-salmon packs in those years.\nIn considering the canned-salmon pack figures as an indication of the size of the\nrun proceeding to a river system, attention must also be given to the escapement of\nsalmon to the spawning-beds. In all cases where not specifically mentioned, the reader\nis referred to the spawning report published in the Appendix to this report, for conditions prevailing on the various spawning-beds.\nSkeena River.\nThe total pack of all varieties of salmon caught on the Skeena River in 1942\namounted to 152,418 cases. This is compared with the 1941 pack of 200,497 cases. As E 12 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nwill be noted in the following remarks, the difference is practically all in the sockeye-\npack which, in 1942 was very disappointing indeed. The Skeena River pack was composed of 34,544 cases of sockeye, 6,374 cases of springs, 3,231 cases of steelheads, 44,081\ncases of cohoe, 52,767 cases of pinks, and 11,421 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The sockeye-pack on the Skeena River in 1942, amounting to\n34,544 cases, was the smallest pack of sockeye canned on the Skeena River since the very\nshort pack of 1933, when 30,506 cases were packed. The pack in 1942 was largely\nderived from the spawning of 1937 and 1938, in which years the packs amounted to\n42,491 and 47,257 cases respectively. The spawning conditions in 1937 and 1938 were\nreported to have been quite satisfactory, which makes the small pack of 1942 doubly\ndisappointing. As will be observed from the report covering the spawning-grounds in\nthis area for 1942, while indications are that the numbers of salmon on the spawning-\nbeds were reasonably satisfactory, taken in conjunction with the short pack, the outlook\nis anything but optimistic. The 1942 pack on this river system was 47,223 cases less\nthan in the year previous and was 12,713 cases less than the cycle-year 1938. The 1942\npack was 35,168 cases less than the average annual pack for the previous five-year\nperiod. Considering recent annual packs of sockeye on this river system as a measure\nof its productivity and comparing same with the packs of past years, it is evident that\nthis river is still in a period of low production and would seem to require drastic conservation measures if the Skeena River is not to be permanently damaged as a sockeye\nstream.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The spring-salmon pack on the Skeena River in 1942, amounting\nto 6,374 cases, was somewhat larger than the packs for this species in recent past years.\nThe canned-salmon pack figures for this species, however, do not necessarily indicate\nthe size of the run as spring salmon find an outlet in the fresh- and frozen-fish trade.\nThe pack in 1942 was 1,389 cases greater than in 1941 and was 1,044 cases above the\naverage annual pack for the previous five-year period.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The cohoe-pack on the Skeena River in 1942 amounted to 44,081\ncases and was 6,524 cases less than were packed in 1941. The pack, however, compares\nfavourably with the packs of recent past years, being 4,617 cases greater than the\naverage annual pack for the years 1938-42, inclusive.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Sufficient pink salmon were caught on the Skeena River in 1942 to\nfill 52,767 cases. While this was 5,466 cases greater than were packed in 1940, the\ncycle-year, it was, nevertheless, considerably short of what has been packed in this cycle\nin recent past corresponding years. The pack in 1938 amounted to 69,610 cases and\nin 1936, 91,389 cases, while the pack in 1934 was 126,163 cases. In 1932 the pack\ndropped to 58,261 cases from the 275,642 cases packed in 1930. The drop in 1932\nreflects the economic conditions of the country at that time, rather than a shortage of\nfish. It will be noted from the above figures that this cycle of the pink run to the\nSkeena River requires greater conservation measures if the Skeena River is to continue\nas a substantial producer of pink salmon. Past experience indicates that this species\nresponds very readily to favourable conservation efforts and is equally responsive to\nthe effects of overfishing.\nReports from the spawning-grounds indicate that, while the pink-salmon seeding\nwas heavy in certain areas, the numbers appearing on the spawning-beds in other areas\nwere short of expectation. The canners and fishermen alike should insist on greater\nconservation measures for this river system for the next few years.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The chum-salmon pack on the Skeena River is never a large factor\nand 1942 was no exception. The pack amounted to 11,421 cases. This is compared\nwith 10,707 cases packed in 1941, 4,682 cases in 1940, 7,773 cases in 1939, and 16,758\ncases in 1938. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 13\nThe reader is referred to the report on the spawning areas by Major J. A. Motherwell, Chief Supervisor of Fisheries, which is printed in full in the Appendix to this\nreport.\nNass River.\nThe total pack of all species of salmon caught on the Nass River in 1942 amounted\nto 100,142 cases, compared with 71,330 cases caught and canned in 1941. The total\n1942 pack consisted of 21,085 cases of sockeye, 1,515 cases of springs, 534 cases of steelheads, 15,487 cases of cohoes, 49,003 cases of pinks, and 12,518 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 1942 pack of sockeye salmon on the Nass River of 21,085\ncases, while slightly less than the pack of this species for 1941, may be considered as\nreasonably satisfactory. On account of the many year-cycles comprising any run to\nthis river system, it is difficult to compare the catch of any given year with its cycle-\nyear. The sockeye-pack on the Nass River has fluctuated widely in past years, which\nmakes comparison difficult. However, the 1942 pack was only 377 cases less than the\n1938 pack, four years previous, and was 3,518 cases greater than the pack in 1937. The\n1942 pack of Nass River sockeye was equal to the average annual pack of this species\non the Nass River for the previous five years.\nAccording to reports from the spawning-beds, there was an adequate escapement\nto all the areas frequented by sockeye. The seeding was reported as \" excellent.\"\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There is never a large pack of springs on the Nass River, those\ncanned, generally speaking, are caught incidental to fishing for other varieties. The\npack in 1942 amounting to 1,515 cases, was considerably greater than the 519 cases\npacked in the previous year and exceeded the average annual pack of this species for\nthe previous five years by 469 cases.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There were sufficient cohoe salmon caught on the Nass River in\n1942 to fill 15,487 cases. This was a comparatively large pack for this species on the\nNass River and is compared with the 16,648 cases of this variety packed the previous\nyear. The 1942 pack exceeded the average annual pack for the previous five years by\n3,817 cases and, with the exception of 1941, was the largest pack of cohoe on the Nass\nRiver since 1935, when 21,810 cases were canned.\nAccording to reports from the spawning area, the seeding was very heavy by this\nspecies.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Nass River produced a pack of 49,033 cases of pink salmon.\nThis was considerably larger than the packs of this species produced on the Nass River\nin recent past cycle-years. In 1940 the pink-salmon pack amounted to 29,278 cases,\nwhile in the cycle-year 1938, 61,477 cases were canned on the Nass River. The previous\ncycle-year, 1936, produced a pack of 75,888 cases. The pink-salmon packs for the intervening years amounted to 22,667 cases in 1941, 26,370 cases in 1939, and 8,031 cases in\n1937. The 1942 pack was 11,244 cases above the average for the previous five-year\nperiod.\nAccording to reports from the spawning-grounds there was a good escapement of\npink salmon and the seeding was heavy.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Nass River has never been a large producer of chum salmon\nand the 12,518 cases of this species packed in 1942 was considerably larger than any of\nthe chum-packs on the Nass since 1938, when 15,911 cases were canned. The 1942\npack of chums exceeded the previous five-year average by 3,991 cases.\nThere was apparently an improvement in the escapement of chums to the spawning-\ngrounds as the run was reported as being one of the heaviest in years.\nRivers Inlet.\nIn 1942 there were caught in Rivers Inlet salmon of all varieties sufficient to produce a total pack of 105,539 cases. This pack was 33,111 cases less than the pack for E 14 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nthis inlet in 1941. The 1942 pack consisted of 79,199 cases of sockeye, 985 cases of\nsprings, 60 cases of steelheads, 8,467 cases of cohoe, 954 cases of pinks, and 15,874\ncases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The sockeye-pack of 79,199 cases in Rivers Inlet in 1942 was\nsomewhat disappointing, falling, as it did, considerably below the pack in 1941 and\nbeing smaller than either of the packs of 1937 or 1938, the cycle-years. The 1942 pack\nwas 8,743 cases less than the pack in 1938 and 5,633 cases less than the pack of 1937.\nThe 1942 pack was 3,573 cases above the average annual pack for the previous five\nyears. This fact, however, should be considered in relation to the two very poor packs\nin the years 1939 and 1940.\nAccording to reports from the spawning-areas, the escapement was very good.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Spring salmon are caught and canned in Rivers Inlet incidental\nto fishing for and canning other varieties. In 1942 there were 985 cases of this species\ncanned, compared with 1,692 cases in 1941, 1,226 cases in 1940, 745 cases in 1939, and\n1,209 cases in 1938.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The run of cohoe salmon to Rivers Inlet is never large and the\n1942 pack of 8,467 cases, though considerably less than the pack in 1941, when 23,202\ncases were canned, must be considered as reasonably satisfactory. The 1941 pack, with\nwhich the 1942 pack is compared, was one of the largest packs of this species put up\non Rivers Inlet in many years. In 1939, the cycle-year, the pack amounted to 10,974\ncases. The 1942 pack was 5,631 cases below the average annual pack for the previous\nfive-year period.\nThe escapement of cohoe salmon to the spawning-areas in this district would seem\nto have been small.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Pink salmon do not frequent Rivers Inlet in great numbers but are\ncanned each year in varying amounts. In 1942, 954 cases were canned. This is compared with 4,807 cases in 1941, 3,329 cases in 1940, 12,095 cases in 1939, and 9,063 cases\nin 1938. The 1942 pack of pinks in Rivers Inlet was the smallest pack of this species\nrecorded for many years.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The comparatively large pack of chum salmon in 1941 was exceeded slightly in 1942, when 15,874 cases were canned. The comparatively large packs\nof chum salmon in Rivers Inlet for the years 1941 and 1942 no doubt reflect, in a large\nmeasure, the heavy demand for all varieties of salmon for canning during the war\nyears. Previous to 1941 the chum-salmon pack in Rivers Inlet did not exceed 9,000 to\n10,000 cases.\nThe escapement of chum salmon to the spawning-beds in the Rivers Inlet area was\nreported as having been good.\nSmith Inlet.\nSmith Inlet is primarily a sockeye-fishing area and, while some seining for chum\nsalmon is carried on in this inlet during the fall of the year, the catch of this species\nhas never been large. Other varieties caught in Smith Inlet are caught incidental to\nthe sockeye-fishery. The total pack of all varieties of salmon caught in Smith Inlet\nand canned in 1942 amounted to 23,777 cases. Of these, 15,939 cases were sockeye,\n8 cases were springs, 1,813 cases were cohoe, 527 cases were pinks, and 5,490 cases\nwere chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 15,939-case sockeye-pack of Smith Inlet caught fish in 1942\nwas disappointing. The pack four years previous, in 1938, amounted to 33,894 cases,\nwhile the run five years previous, or the run in 1937, produced a pack of 25,258 cases.\nIt is well known that the run in Smith Inlet is composed of some four- and some five-\nyear-old fish. Compared with the cycle-years the 1942 pack was quite small. The 1942\npack was also 7,082 cases below the average for the previous five years. An examination BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 15\nof the sockeye-pack figures for Smith Inlet in recent past years indicates a continuous\ndownward trend. There would seem to be ample justification for greater conservation\neffort in this inlet in order to rehabilitate the sockeye population frequenting the\nspawning-beds in this area, notwithstanding the fact that the report from the spawning\nin 1942 indicated that the escapement was good.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In Smith Inlet, like Rivers Inlet, spring salmon are caught only\nincidental to fishing for other varieties. In 1942 only 8 cases were reported as having\nbeen canned from this area.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cohoe are never a large factor in the Smith Inlet catch and in\n1942 the catch of cohoe was no exception, only 1,813 cases are reported as having been\ncaught. This figure is compared with 1,955 cases in 1941, 1,102 cases in 1940, 3,880\ncases in 1939, and 1,058 cases in 1938.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094As mentioned above, pinks are not a factor in the Smith Inlet catch,\n527 cases having been caught in 1942 compared with 749 cases in 1941.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Seining for chum salmon is done in Smith Inlet in the fall of the\nyear. In 1942 the catch amounted to 5,490 cases. This is compared with 7,741 cases\nin 1941, 6,015 cases in 1940, and 2,771 cases in 1939. The pack in 1938 amounted to\n8,076 cases.\nThe escapement to the spawning-grounds was reported to have been heavy.\nQueen Charlotte Islands.\nSalmon-fishing in the Queen Charlotte Islands, with the exception of trolling, is\nconfined almost exclusively to seining for pinks and chums and some cohoe. Other\nvarieties listed as caught and canned from this district are caught incidental to fishing\nfor the above-named varieties. Chum salmon are fished for each year but pink salmon\nput in an appearance in the Queen Charlotte Islands only every alternate year, the runs\ncoinciding with the even-numbered years. The total pack of all varieties of salmon\ncaught and canned in the Queen Charlotte Islands in 1942 amounted to 144,145 cases,\nof which 83,329 cases were pink salmon and 43,801 cases were chum salmon. There\nwere also packed 16,935 cases of cohoe, 41 cases of steelheads, 38 cases of springs, and\n1 case of sockeye.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1942 there was a run of pink salmon to the Queen Charlotte\nIslands. This run produced a pack of 83,329 cases. While this is considerably larger\nthan the pink-salmon packs produced in the Queen Charlotte Islands in recent past\nyears, it is, however, very much below the capabilities of this area when compared with\nthe packs of a few years ago. In 1930 the pack of pink salmon amounted to 224,902\ncases. In 1934 the pack had dropped to 53,398 cases. In 1936 conditions had improved\nto the extent that 89,355 cases were canned, while in 1938 the pack again dropped to\n57,952 cases and, in 1940, still lower to 44,966 cases. The pink-salmon runs to the\nQueen Charlotte Islands should be a large factor in the total British Columbia salmon-\npack. A study of the figures would seem to indicate that much greater conservation\nefforts are needed if this salmon run is to produce to its full capabilities. It might be\nargued that war-time is not the time to curtail fishing effort as the product is so largely\nneeded for food. It should be remembered, however, that pink-salmon runs reflect the\neffects of overfishing very rapidly and it would seem to be a very shortsighted policy\nto continue overfishing in this area to the extent that depletion might take place beyond\nthe powers of the species to rehabilitate itself.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 43,801 cases of chum salmon caught in the Queen Charlotte\nIslands area in 1942 is compared with 40,882 cases of this species caught in 1938, four\nyears previous. In 1941 the catch of chums amounted to 76,745 cases, while in 1940\nthere were caught sufficient to fill 164,911 cases. The 1942 pack was 30,571 cases below\nthe average annual pack for the previous five years. E 16 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 16,935 cases of cohoe canned from Queen Charlotte Islands\ncaught fish in 1942 is compared with 27,421 cases in 1941, 8,897 cases in 1940, 3,020\ncases in 1939, while in 1938 there were canned 16,616 cases.\nThe reader is referred to the report of the Chief Supervisor of Fisheries, published\nin the Appendix to this report, for details on the spawning conditions in the Queen\nCharlotte Islands area.\nCentral Area.\nThe Central area, for statistical purposes, comprises all the salmon-fishing areas\noff the mainland coast between Cape Calvert and the Skeena River, except Rivers Inlet.\nThe total pack of all species of salmon caught in this area in 1942 amounted to 198,408\ncases, compared with a total pack for this area in 1941 of 244,579 cases. The 1942 pack\nconsisted of 17,470 cases of sockeye, 723 cases of springs, 355 cases of steelheads, 31,274\ncases of cohoe, 69,434 cases of pinks, and 79,152 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Burke and Dean Channels and Fitzhugh Sound are the principal\nsockeye-fishing grounds in this area. Some sockeye are caught, however, in the vicinity\nof Banks Island and Principe Channel and a few are also taken in Gardner Canal. In\n1942 the total sockeye-catch in the Central area amounted to 17,470 cases, which was\n3,384 cases less than were canned in the year previous. The 1942 pack, however, was\n18,708 cases less than were packed in this area four years previous. The 1942 pack was\nthe smallest pack of sockeye put up in this area for many years, and was 9,070 cases less\nthan the average pack for the previous five-year period.\nThe reader is referred to the spawning report, published in the Appendix to this\nreport, for details of the escapement to the various spawning-beds.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Spring salmon are caught and canned in this area but, as in other\ndistricts, the catch of springs is incidental to fishing for other varieties. Also, much of\nthe spring salmon caught in this area finds an outlet in other than the canning trade.\nIn 1942, 723 cases of spring salmon were canned in this area.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Sufficient numbers of cohoe salmon were caught in the Central\narea in 1942 to fill 31,274 cases. This was 13,944 cases less than were canned in the\nyear previous and 13,152 cases less than were canned in 1939, the cycle-year. The 1942\ncatch was the smallest pack put up in the Central area since 1937, when 25,009 cases\nwere canned. The 1942 pack was also 14,230 cases less than the average for the previous five years.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 1942 pack of pink salmon in the Central area amounted to\n69,434 cases, which must be considered a failure for the pink-salmon run in this area.\nThis was the third year in succession that the run of pink salmon in the Central area\nhas not materialized. The cycle-year, 1940, to which this run belongs, produced a pack\nof 54,478 cases. Previous to 1940 the Central area had produced packs well over\n300,000 cases. For convenience, the cycle-years 1930-42, inclusive, are listed below:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1930 376,084\n1932 80,034\n1934 157,336\n1936 246,378\n1938 130,842\n1940 54,478\n1942 69,434\nFrom this it will be observed that this district is capable of producing much larger\npacks of pink salmon than have been packed in recent past years. The pack in the\npast three years indicates definitely that depletion is taking place in this area at an\nalarming rate, and unless drastic measures for conservation are applied immediately\n. we may look for a further diminution of the pink-salmon runs to this area. No pressure should be permitted to further interfere with the imposition of whatever restrictions are necessary to rebuild this area commensurate with its potentialities.\nReports from the spawning-areas in the Central area in 1942 are encouraging.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Central area produced chum salmon in 1942 sufficient to fill\n69,152 cases. This pack was quite disappointing and was the smallest pack produced\nfrom Central area caught fish since 1931. It will be remembered in that year the small\npack was due largely to curtailment on the part of the canners, rather than the lack of\nfish. The 1942 chum-pack was 32,435 cases less than were canned in the year previous\nand 27,451 cases less than the average annual pack for the previous five years.\nFor particulars regarding the escapement of chum salmon in this area the reader\nis referred to the report on the spawning-beds of the Chief Supervisor of Fisheries,\npublished in the Appendix to this report.\nVancouver Island.\nIn 1942 a total of 536,803 cases of all varieties of salmon were canned and credited\nto the Vancouver Island district. This was 61,498 cases below the average annual pack\ncredited to this district for the previous five-year period. In 1942 the Vancouver Island\npack consisted of 51,961 cases of sockeye, 5,407 cases of springs, 119 cases of steelheads,\n81,837 cases of cohoe, 14,474 cases of pinks, and 383,005 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 51,961 cases of sockeye salmon canned from Vancouver\nIsland caught fish in 1942 was the largest sockeye-pack for this district in recent past\nyears and exceeded the large pack of the previous year by 11,688 cases. The 1942 pack\nexceeded the average annual pack of sockeye salmon for this district for the previous\nfive-year period by 21,634 cases. If one assumes a four-year cycle for the majority of\nthe sockeye frequenting the various Vancouver Island streams, the 1942 pack exceeded\nthat of the cycle-year of 1938 by 23,996 cases.\nThe reader is referred to the report on the spawning conditions by the Chief Supervisor of Fisheries, which is published in the Appendix to this report.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There are large quantities of spring salmon caught in the waters\noff Vancouver Island each year. Most of these are taken by troll, however, and enter\nthe fresh- and frozen-fish trade. The canned-salmon pack of springs consists principally of salmon taken in the seines while fishing for other varieties. In 1942 the\npack of spring salmon amounted to 5,407 cases, compared with 8,038 cases caught and\ncanned in the year previous. In 1940 the pack of this species amounted to 2,454 cases,\nwhile in 1938, 2,889 cases of spring salmon were canned.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 81,837 cases of cohoe salmon canned from Vancouver Island\ncaught fish in 1942 were less than half the number of cases of this species canned in\nthe year previous. The 1942 pack was 28,261 cases less than the average annual pack\nfor this species for the previous five years. The figures for the Vancouver Island\ncohoe-pack included 23,265 cases of bluebacks which were canned from fish caught\nadjacent to Vancouver Island. Figures for the 1941 Vancouver Island cohoe-pack\nincluded 30,027 cases of bluebacks.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Pink salmon were caught and canned in the Vancouver Island area\nin 1942 to the extent of 14,474 cases. This was 19,311 cases less than the pack in 1940,\nthe cycle-year, and when compared with previous cycle-years, the 1942 pack of pinks\nwas, to all intents and purposes, a failure. The small pack of pink salmon caught in\nthe Vancouver Island District for the past two years would seem to warrant special\nattention by those responsible for conservation.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 383,005-case pack of chum salmon caught in the waters\nadjacent to Vancouver Island in 1942 was 210,011 cases less than were canned in 1941,\nin which year, however, the pack of this variety established something of a record for\n2 E 18 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nthis district. The 1942 pack, exclusive of the record pack of 1941, was the largest\npack of this species canned from Vancouver Island caught fish in recent past years.\nPrevious to the outbreak of hostilities, chum salmon caught in this district found an\noutlet in the salt-fish and frozen-fish trades and, in addition, there existed a considerable\ndemand for this fish from the United States side of the International boundary. Since\nthe outbreak of hostilities the Provincial Government, in order to divert as much salmon\nas possible from other channels into the canning industry, declined to issue salmon-\nsaltery licences and, as a result, no salteries have operated. The Federal Government\nhas also taken action which' has restricted, to a considerable extent, the freezing of\nchum salmon and has also taken action to control or prohibit the export of fresh chum\nsalmon. These measures have been taken for the purpose of adding to the total British\nColumbia canned-salmon pack, which pack is shipped in its entirety to the British\nMinistry of Food. The result of these measures is reflected in the size of the chum-\nsalmon pack. The 1942 pack of chum salmon from Vancouver Island caught fish was\n36,147 cases greater than the average annual pack for this species for the previous five\nyears. In comparing the pack figures for the various species in the different districts\nwith the previous years' packs, these comparisons must take into consideration the\nescapement to the spawning-beds. In all cases where these conditions are not specifically mentioned in the text, the reader is referred to the report of British Columbia's\nsalmon-spawning beds, contributed by the Chief Supervisor of Fisheries and published\nin the Appendix to this report.\nREVIEW OF BRITISH COLUMBIA'S SALMON-CANNING INDUSTRY, 1942.\nThere were thirty salmon-canneries licensed to operate in British Columbia in 1942.\nThis number was six less than operated in 1941. The operating canneries were situated in the various districts, as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nQueen Charlotte Islands 1\nNass River 2\nSkeena River 6\nCentral area 4\nRivers Inlet 1\nJohnston Strait 2\nFraser River and Lower Mainland . 12\nWest coast of Vancouver Island 2\nCompared with the year previous, in 1942 one cannery less operated in the Queen\nCharlotte Islands District and the same number operated on the Nass River. On the\nSkeena River, in 1942 one cannery less operated than in 1941 and in the Central area\nthe same number operated as in the year previous. In 1942 only one cannery operated\non Rivers Inlet, whereas in 1941 there were two canneries. In Johnston Strait there\nwere two canneries less operating in 1942 than in 1941, while on the Fraser River and\nLower Mainland there was an increase of one cannery over the year previous. On the\nwest coast of Vancouver Island four canneries operated in 1941, while in 1942 only two\nwere in operation. The principal reason for fewer canneries operating, especially in\nthe northern districts in 1942, was no doubt due in a large measure to the difficulty in\nsecuring experienced cannery labour. Under ordinary circumstances there is no doubt\nbut that a greater number of canneries would have operated in the Queen Charlotte\nIslands in 1942, due to the fact that 1942 coincides with the run of pink salmon in that\ndistrict. However, the pink salmon caught in the Queen Charlotte Islands area were\ntransported to the mainland, with the exception of the pack of one cannery operating at\nPacofi. In the Fraser River and Lower Mainland district all canneries operating in\n1941 also operated in 1942 and, in addition, one new cannery was licensed on the Vancouver Harbour Commissioner's fish dock, namely, Clover Leaf Cannery, belonging to\nJ BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 19\nthe British Columbia Packers, Limited. The practice of closing down various canneries\nand packing salmon for longer distances was a growing practice before the war, but\nsince the outbreak of hostilities the scarcity of experienced help has been an increasing\nproblem and it is reasonable to expect that a greater concentration of operations will\ncontinue as long as the war lasts. A few years ago it was considered impractical to\npack salmon over long distances for canning. The new, large, fast vessels, powered\nwith economical Diesel engines which have been developed by the industry in the last\nfew years, have made it practical and economical to carry salmon over increasingly\nlonger distances which, together with modern refrigeration, have enabled the canners\nto operate fewer canneries and has tended to make for a more economical operation.\nProbably the most outstanding feature of the salmon-canning operations in British\nColumbia was the exceptionally large pack of sockeye canned from Fraser River caught\nfish. The year 1942 coincided with the anticipated late run of sockeye to the Adams\nRiver tributary, which run, when it materialized, taxed the capacity of the canneries\nin the immediate vicinity to the utmost and made necessary the packing of considerable\nquantities to other areas for canning. The Fraser River, in 1942, produced the largest\nsockeye-pack in British Columbia since 1913. In that year, of course, many more canneries were in operation. There is no doubt but what the 1942 sockeye-pack might\nhave been even larger except that near the end of the season a dispute arose between\nthe fishermen and the operators as to the price of salmon, the operators claiming that\non account of the lowering in quality toward the latter part of the season the salmon\nwere not worth as much as those caught earlier in the season. The fishermen declined\nto return to fishing and as the season was nearly at an end fishing automatically ceased.\nHowever, several days heavy production were lost.\nAs in 1941, the Federal Government advised the British Columbia canners that the\nBritish Ministry of Food was anxious to obtain the whole of the British Columbia\nsalmon-pack. In order that as much of .the catch as possible would be canned, similar\nrestrictions upon the disposal of salmon were in effect in 1942 as were so successful in\ndiverting most of the catch to the canners in 1941. The Provincial Government again\ndeclined to permit the operation of salmon dry-salteries and the Federal Government\nagain placed an embargo on the export of fresh salmon in certain categories. As a\nresult of these measures, the 1942 salmon-pack, like that in 1941, was considerably\nenhanced. These facts should be taken into consideration when making the comparisons between the canned-salmon pack figures for British Columbia for the years 1941\nand 1942 and the pack figures of previous years, otherwise the comparisons might lead\nto erroneous conclusions.\nOTHER CANNERIES (PILCHARD, HERRING, AND SHELL-FISH).\nPilchard.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pilchard-canning industry in British Columbia is. centred on the\nwest coast of Vancouver Island, as it is in the waters off the shores of Vancouver\nIsland where the principal pilchard-fishery is conducted. Occasionally, however, some\npilchards are canned in canneries located some distance from the fishing-grounds. One\nsuch pilchard-cannery was so located in 1942. While the bulk of the pilchard-catch is\nreduced to meal and oil, there is, however, a growing demand for canned pilchards.\nThe quantity canned in any year, however, is not altogether indicative of the demand,\nas pilchards for canning are selected from the regular pilchard-catch and, due to the\nexigencies of this fishery, there is not always a sufficient quantity of pilchards of a\nquality suitable for canning.\nIn 1942 seven pilchard-canneries operated compared with five in 1941. The seven\nplants operating in 1942 produced 42,008 cases of canned pilchards compared with a\nproduction of 72,498 cases in 1941 and 73,000 cases in 1940.\n\t E 20 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nHerring.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Previous to the outbreak of the war herring were canned in British\nColumbia to some extent, but the pack was never large, due to the limited market for\ncanned herring. In 1939, principally on account of hostilities in Europe and the\ndemand for a high-protein food, the canning of herring assumed the proportions of a\nmajor industry and in that year 418,021 cases of herring were canned in British\nColumbia. The continued demand from Britain for a low-cost high-protein food has\nresulted in elevating the herring-canning industry from a minor role to that of a major\nindustry. In order to divert as much of the herring-catch as possible to the herring-\ncanneries, the Provincial Government has maintained a policy of refusing to issue\nlicences to plants utilizing herring, except herring-canneries and herring-reduction\nplants. In certain localities where herring-reduction plants are permitted to operate,\nthe operation is restricted to herring not suitable for canning or to plants located in\ndistricts where canning-machinery is not available. The result of these restrictions,\ntogether with the increased effort on the part of the fishermen, has been to increase the\ncanned-herring pack enormously.\nIn 1941 twenty-three canneries operated and produced a pack of 1,527,350 cases.\nIn 1942 twenty-two herring canneries were licensed to operate. Four of these, however, did not commence operations, but the eighteen operated plants produced in 1942\na pack of 1,253,978 cases of canned herring.\nIn the pages of this Department's report for 1941 it was stated that the requirements of Great Britain for a low-cost high-protein food during war-time was an ideal\nopportunity for the herring-packers of British Columbia to demonstrate to the British\nconsumer their ability to supply canned herring in large quantities and also, that if the\noperators insist on maintaining a high standard of quality, there would seem to be no\ngood reason why a very large portion of this trade could not be retained after the war.\nIt is felt that this statement is worthy of repeating. While there is no doubt that when\nthe war is over there will again be some demand for British Columbia herring in a\nsalted state, there is no doubt but that the canning of herring is the method to be preferred. British Columbia canners should make the most of this opportunity.\nShell-fish.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Shell-fish, principally clams and oysters, are canned in British Columbia\nto some extent. The operation, however, is never large, although in some years production is considerably higher than in others. In 1942 four canneries were licensed to can\nshell-fish. These four canneries produced a pack of 1,630 cases of crab and 20,637 cases\nof clams. One shell-fish cannery put up a small pack of canned abalone. In 1941 there\nwere canned 6,773 cases of crabs and 11,560 cases of clams.\nMILD-CURED SALMON.\nThere were five tierced-salmon plants licensed to operate in British Columbia in\n1942. Only three of these operated, however. These three plants produced 969 tierces\nof mild-cured salmon in 1942 compared with a pack of 1,481 tierces put up by four\nplants in 1941.\nDRY-SALT SALMON.\nIn each year previous to 1939 there have been varying amounts of chum salmon\ndry-salted for shipment to the Orient. In some years the production of dry-salt salmon\nhas reached fairly large proportions and in recent past years this industry has been\ncontrolled and regulated by the British Columbia Salt-fish Board, which Board is a\nscheme set up under the \" Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act.\"\nChum salmon, normally, are fished in quantity in the fall of the year. There is, however, a considerable pack of canned chum salmon put up during the summer and early\nautumn months. Due to the increased demand occasioned by the war for inexpensive\nprotein foods, such as canned salmon, the Provincial Government declined to issue salmon dry-saltery licences in 1939. For similar reasons the licences covering salmon\ndry-salteries were again refused by the Provincial Government in 1940. In 1941, and\nagain in 1942, the demand of the British Government for a very large portion of the\nBritish Columbia salmon-pack made it imperative that as much as possible of the\nsalmon-catch be diverted to the canneries. For this reason the Provincial Government\nagain refused to issue licences covering salt-salmon operations and, as a consequence,\nno salmon were legally dry-salted in British Columbia in 1942. A small operation, not\nlicensed, resulted in the prosecution of the operator.\nFor the above-noted reasons the British Columbia Salt-fish Board was again inoperative during the 1942 season and, on that account, no report of the British Columbia\nSalt-fish Board is included in this report.\nDRY-SALT HERRING.\nPrevious to the 1941 season, production of dry-salt herring was, in latter years,\nregulated by the British Columbia Salt-fish Board under the \" Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act.\" The total production of dry-salt herring in British\nColumbia was formerly shipped to the Orient, particularly to Japan, and from there\nquantities were re-exported to Manchukuo and China. Conditions in the Orient in\nrecent past years have reduced the quantity of dry-salt herring shipped to the Orient\nvery considerably. Since 1940 the British Columbia Government has refused to issue\nherring dry-saltery licences in order to divert as much as possible of the herring-catch\nto the herring-canneries which were all operating on British war orders for this commodity. There were no herring dry-salteries operated in British Columbia in 1941.\nPICKLED HERRING.\nThe pickling of herring in British Columbia has been revived since the beginning\nof the war, due to certain markets in the United States, which formerly obtained their\nsupplies of this commodity from European markets, having to look elsewhere for this\nproduct. In 1940 there were 5,500 barrels of pickled herring put up in British Columbia. In 1941 three plants were licensed to operate, which produced a pack of 3,095\nbarrels. In 1942 only two pickled-herring plants were licensed to operate, these two\nplants having a combined production of 2,440 barrels.\nIn order to divert as much as possible of the east coast herring-catch to the\nherring-canneries for the production of canned herring for Britain, the Provincial\nGovernment again declined to permit pickled-herring plants to operate on fish caught\non the east coast of Vancouver Island. This action, no doubt, had the effect of lessening the amount of herring that otherwise would have found an outlet in the pickling\nplants. Another factor which, no doubt, had an adverse effect on the size of the pickled-\nherring pack, was the lateness of the run of herring on the'west coast of Vancouver\nIsland. One plant located on the west coast and capable of handling a very much larger\npack, was forced to remain idle for a considerable time during the early part of the\nseason due to lack of fish.\nHALIBUT PRODUCTION.\nThe halibut-fishery on the Pacific Coast of North America is regulated by the International Fisheries Commission and is shared in by the nationals of both Canada and\nthe United States. The Commission regulates the fishery on a quota basis and on that\naccount there is very little fluctuation in the amount of halibut landed from year to\nyear. For the purpose of regulation the coast is divided into four areas, the principal\nareas, from the standpoint of production, being Areas Nos. 2 and 3. Area No. 2 comprises the waters off the Washington and British Columbia coasts from the approximate\nvicinity of Wallapa Harbour in the south to Cape Spencer in the north. Area No. 3 E 22 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\ncomprises the waters from the northern boundary of Area No. 2 to the Aleutians. The\nother two areas, Nos. 1 and 4, from which production is very small, comprise the waters\nsouth of Area No. 2 and the Bering Sea, respectively.\nIn 1942 the catch-limits set by the International Fisheries Commission were: For\nArea No. 2, 22,700,000 lb. and for Area No. 3, 26,800,000 lb.\u00E2\u0080\u0094a total of 49,500,000 lb.\nof saleable halibut, exclusive of that quantity which is permitted to be taken incidental\nto fishing for other species under permit in Area No. 2 after its closure and before the\nclosure of Area No. 3. The catch-limits in 1942 were 500,000 lb. greater than those\nallowed in 1941, all of which were taken in Area No. 3. There are no catch-limits set\nby the Commission for Areas Nos. 1 and 4. These areas automatically close when the\ncatch-limit has been taken in Areas Nos. 2 and 3. In addition to the 49,500,000 lb. permitted to be taken from Areas Nos. 2 and 3, the International Fisheries Commission\nagain issued permits which allowed vessels to land halibut caught incidental to fishing\nfor other species in an area closed to halibut-fishing when halibut-fishing is permitted\nin another area.\nThe total landings of all vessels in 1942 amounted to 50,438,130 lb., exclusive of\nthat amount landed under permit, as mentioned above. This was 1,679,870 lb. less than\nthe total landings recorded in the year 1941. Of the total amount of halibut caught in\n1942, 23,168,182 lb. were taken in Area No. 2 while 26,984,327 lb. were caught in Area\nNo. 3. Area No. 1 produced 285,621 lb.\nThe total halibut-landings at Canadian ports by all vessels amounted to 24,559,216\nlb., and of this total 11,343,578 lb. were caught in Area No. 2 while 13,215,638 lb. were\ncaught in Area No. 3. These area totals are compared with 12,206,000 lb. caught in\nArea No. 2 and 10,631,000 lb. caught in Area No. 3 in 1941.\nThe Canadian halibut-fleet caught and landed in Canadian ports a total of 11,128,-\n922 lb. Of the total Canadian landings in Canadian ports, 9,113,911 lb. were taken by\nCanadian vessels in Area No. 2 and 2,015,011 lb. were taken by Canadian vessels in\nArea No. 3. These figures are compared with 10,469,000 lb. from Area No. 2 and\n2,334,000 lb. from Area No. 3 by Canadian vessels in Canadian ports in 1941. The total\nhalibut-catch caught and landed in Canadian ports by Canadian vessels in 1942 was\n1,674,078 lb. less than similar landings for the year previous. The total Canadian catch\nof halibut in 1942 was 1,685,398 lb. less than in the year previous.\nIn 1942 the weighted average price paid for Canadian halibut in Prince Rupert was\n14.1 cents per pound. In 1941 the weighted price paid for Canadian halibut in Prince\nRupert was 9.86 cents per pound. The average weighted price for all Canadian landings in Canadian ports in 1942 was 14.2 cents per pound.\nHalibut-livers in 1942 were again in great demand by pharmaceutical houses as a\nvaluable source of concentrated vitamins. These livers have been in increasing demand\nsince the outbreak of the war. Heretofore we have been able to give the value received\nby the fishermen for this commodity but, due to marketing arrangements in 1942, settlement for halibut-livers had not been consummated at the time of going to press, hence\nvalues have had to be omitted.\nThe above figures are compiled from information supplied by the International\nFisheries Commission, which information is gratefully acknowledged.\nFISH OIL AND MEAL.\nThe production of fish-oil and edible fish-meal from various species of British\nColumbia fish has become an important factor in the fishing industry of the Province.\nPilchard and herring have been, and probably still are, the principal species used for\nthe production of oil and meal, but considerable quantities of these products are also\nproduced from dogfish and cannery waste. Due to the exigencies of the war in Europe\nand the necessity for natural sources of vitamins and the discovery that certain British BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 23\nColumbia fish-oils are a potent source of Vitamins A and D, there has developed in\nBritish Columbia in the past eighteen months a very important branch of the fishing\nindustry engaged in producing unquestionably high vitamin oils from various fish-\nlivers, some of which have not been used heretofore. The livers used principally in this\nbranch of the fish-oil industry are dogfish-livers, various species of cod-livers, halibut-\nlivers, shark-livers (notably soup-fin shark), and others.\nIn addition to the vitamin oils, British Columbia reduction plants produced fish-oil\nand edible fish-meal in large quantities. The oil is used in numerous manufacturing\nprocesses, principally in the making of soaps, paints, linoleums, etc., and in recent years\nconsiderable quantities of this oil have found an outlet as a feeding oil for the feeding\nof poultry and other live stock. The meal is also used to fortify stock foods.\nFish-liver Oils.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Provincial Government did not license the operation of\nplants producing liver-oils exclusively in 1941; therefore, no returns have been made\nto the Provincial Fisheries Department, but it is known that the production of high\nvitamin liver-oils was quite considerable in 1941. In 1942 the Provincial Fisheries\nDepartment issued licences to nine plants operating on the production of fish-liver oils.\nAccording to returns made to the Provincial Fisheries Department, these nine plants\nproduced 916,723 gallons of high vitamin-oils from fish-livers.\nPilchard Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pilchard-fishery in British Columbia is conducted principally off the west coast of Vancouver Island and, while the bulk of the pilchard-catch\nis taken well offshore, there appear in certain seasons schools of pilchards in the inner\npassages and in the proximity of Queen Charlotte Sound. In 1942 much of the early\nproduction was caught off the Washington coast. There were eight pilchard-reduction\nplants licensed to operate in 1942, compared with nine similar operations in 1941. The\neight plants produced 11,003 tons of edible fish-meal and 1,560,269 imperial gallons of\noil in 1942, compared with a production of 11,437 tons of meal and 1,916,191 imperial\ngallons of oil by the nine plants in the year previous.\nAnchovies.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Anchovies are occasionally taken in small quantities in the waters off\nthe west coast of Vancouver Island. The Provincial Department of Fisheries does not\nlicense plants specifically for anchovy reduction. In 1942 plants on the west coast produced 618 tons of anchovy meal and 32,130 imperial gallons of oil.\nHerring Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The reduction of herring in British Columbia has grown and\nis now an important branch of our winter fishery. Herring are caught from October\nthrough to March, and while heretofore the fishery was conducted largely on the west\ncoast and south-east coast of Vancouver Island and in the vicinity of Prince Rupert, in\nrecent years the fishery has been extended to practically the whole of the British\nColumbia coast. In 1941, however, the demand from Great Britain for a high-protein\nfood at low cost, which demand could be met only by a large-scale production of canned\nherring, made necessary such Government action as would divert as much herring as\npossible from the reduction plants to the herring-canneries. The Provincial Government in 1942 licensed herring-reduction plants on the west coast of Vancouver Island\non the distinct understanding that no herring caught on the east coast would be utilized\nfor reduction in west coast plants. Plants located on the east coast were licensed on the\nunderstanding that no herring caught on the east coast of Vancouver Island would be\nused for reduction purposes, except that portion of the catch unsuitable for canning.\nThese Provincial Government regulations were supplemented by further regulations by\nthe Federal Government which prohibited the delivery of east coast caught herring to\nany one except a licensed herring-cannery. As a result of the steps taken by the\nFederal and Provincial Departments of Fisheries, and the desire of the canners to can\nas much of the herring-catch as possible, the ten herring-reduction plants which were\nlicensed to operate in British Columbia in 1942 produced somewhat less meal and oil\nthan the fifteen licensed plants did in 1941. In 1941 there were produced 8,780 tons of E 24 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nherring-meal and 594,684 imperial gallons of herring-oil. The production in 1942\namounted to 4,633 tons of herring-meal and 323,379 imperial gallons of herring-oil.\nWhale Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1942 only one whale-reduction plant was licensed to operate\nin British Columbia. This plant received 163 whales and produced therefrom 130 tons\nof meal and 205 tons of fertilizer, also 255,556 imperial gallons of oil. Of this total,\n228,889 imperial gallons were sperm oil which is presently in great demand by armament-works. There is no doubt that whaling activity in British Columbia would have\nbeen on a much larger scale in 1942 were it not for special war conditions prevailing in\nthe north Pacific.\nMiscellaneous Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Dogfish and fish-offal reduction plants are licensed to\noperate each year in British Columbia. These plants produced meal and oil from cannery waste and from the carcasses of dogfish. The oil from the dogfish carcasses is not\nto be confused with dogfish-liver oil, which has been reported in another section of this\nreport. In 1942 eleven licensed plants operated in British Columbia.. These eleven\nplants produced 637 tons of dogfish-meal and 3,513 tons of fish-meal from cannery waste.\nThey also produced 30,801 imperial gallons of oil from dogfish carcasses and 275,571\nimperial gallons of oil principally from salmon and herring cannery waste.\nCONDITIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA'S SPAWNING-GROUNDS.\nOwing to this Department having discontinued making inspections of the various\nsalmon-spawning areas of the Province, we are indebted to Major J. A. Motherwell,\nChief Supervisor of Fisheries, and the officers of his Department who conducted the\ninvestigations, for furnishing us with a copy of his Department's report. His courtesy\nin supplying us with this report is gratefully acknowledged.\nMajor Motherwell's report on the condition of British Columbia's salmon-spawning\ngrounds will be found in full in the Appendix to this report.\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON\n(DIGEST). (No. 28.)\nThere will be found in the Appendix to this report, Paper No. 28 in the series\n\" Contributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon.\" This paper is again the\nwork of Dr. W. A. Clemens, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia.\nIn this latest paper Dr. Clemens points out that by using as a basis the pack figures,\ntogether with the escapement to the spawning-beds, one may judge the extent of the run\nof salmon to a river system and, in connection with the three areas under review, attention is drawn to the fact that the packs of Rivers Inlet and the Nass River were, to all\nintents and purposes, equal to the averages of the past years of record, and these facts,\ntaken together with the occurrence of good escapements, provide grounds for considering that the runs to these two areas are quite satisfactory. On the Skeena River,\nhowever, the situation is quite different. The pack there was the second lowest on\nrecord in 1942 and as there is no indication of a correspondingly large escapement,\ntaken together with other factors, would indicate that there is a problem in connection with the sockeye salmon of the Skeena River which warrants \" very careful\nconsideration.\"\nSince this series of reports was commenced in 1913, the data have been carried\nforward each year until the tabular material has reached quite a considerable size and in\norder to avoid having the tabulations become unwieldy, it has been deemed desirable\nto consider the year 1941 as the end of the first section of this series and to commence\na new section with the year 1942, or the present paper. It is the intention to summarize all of the data prior to 1941 and to make the conclusions available at an early\ndate. Commencing with this paper a change has been made in the method of length\nI measurement of the fish. However, the material as presented will be comparable, as\ncorrections are made to compensate for the change in method.\nCommenting specifically on the sockeye-salmon runs to the particular river systems,\nDr. Clemens remarks as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRivers Inlet Sockeye Salmon Run of 1942.\nThe pack of sockeye at Rivers Inlet in 1942 of 79,199 cases fell within the range\nof medium-sized packs and approached the average of the past thirty-five years. The\n1942 run was composed largely of five-year-old fish derived from the spawning of 1937,\nwhich was a particularly productive brood-year in that it also produced a large percentage of four-year-old fish in 1941.\nCommenting on the return in 1943 the author points out that this run will be the\nresult of the spawnings of 1938 and 1939. In the former year the pack amounted to\n87,942 cases and the escapement was reported as good, and since this brood-year produced only 8 per cent, of four-year-old fish in 1942 it is reasonable to expect a good\nreturn of five-year-old fish in 1943. It sometimes happens, however, that a low four-\nyear-old percentage is followed in the succeeding year by a low five-year-old percentage,\nindicating a year of poor reproduction. In the case of Rivers Inlet, no reports being at\nhand to indicate adverse climatic conditions during the 1938 and 1939 incubation period,\nthere should, therefore, be a reasonable expectation for large numbers of five-year-old\nfish in 1943.\nIn 1939 the pack was 54,143 cases and the escapement was reported at least as\nbeing an average one. However, the Fisheries Inspector referred to high-water conditions during the spawning period. In view of this and the small pack, it is possible\nthat the production from the 1939 spawning may be low.\nSkeena River Sockeye Run of 1942.\nIn this river system in 1942 the pack was 34,544 cases and the escapement is\nreported as especially good to Lakelse Lake and reasonably satisfactory to the Babine\narea. This pack is the second lowest on record and, considering the size of the pack\nand the escapement, the run was probably all that could be expected from the spawnings\nof 1937 and 1938 under relatively uniform environmental conditions. Dr. Clemens\npoints out that the return in 1943 will be the product of the 1938 and 1939 spawnings.\nIn the former year the pack was 47,257 cases and the escapement was reported as very\ngood. In the latter year the pack was 68,485 cases and the escapement stated as being\nexceptionally good, but unless unusually favourable conditions for reproduction have\nprevailed there would appear to be no ground for expecting a very large run in 1943.\nNass River Sockeye Run of 1942.\nDealing with this river system Dr. Clemens points out that the run to the Nass\nRiver in 1942 produced a pack of 21,085 cases with the escapement reported as being\nvery good. The pack was practically equal to the average of the packs for the past\nthirty years. The return in 1943 will be the product of the spawnings of 1938 and\n1939. In 1938 the pack was 21,462 cases and the escapement reported as large with a\nheavy seeding. In 1939 the pack consisted of 24,357 cases and the escapement was\nreported as very satisfactory. This would seem to indicate a good return in 1943, but\nDr. Clemens is particular to point out that predictions for the Nass River, due to many\ncauses, are unsatisfactory.\nThe reader is referred to the report in full for the details of the analyses of the\nsockeye runs to these three river systems. E 26 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nPILCHARD INVESTIGATION.\nThe programme of pilchard investigation has included sampling and tag-recovery.\nActive work on pilchard-tagging has been brought to a close and a review of all the\nresults of the seven years of the tagging programme has been prepared. All the information available on the occurrence in British Columbia waters of pilchards of the\n1939 year-class has been\" brought together and the significance of the group from the\npoint of view of the fishery estimated.\nSampling for length showed the size of pilchards to be less scattered during the\n1942 season than in 1941 but more scattered than in any other recent year. Most of\nthe pilchards encountered were between the lengths of 200 and 250 millimetres, with\nthe numbers of fish fairly evenly distributed among the lengths between those limits.\nFish taken north of Vancouver Island and apparently those taken during the winter\nfishery averaged smaller than the fish taken during the usual summer fishery off the\nwest coast of Vancouver Island.\nFifteen pilchard-tags were recovered. Considerable interest attaches to the recovery by the Butedale plant of a tag put out in California. Evidently the fish carrying\nthis tag was taken at the north end of Aristazabal Island and constitutes a northern\nrecord for the capture of a fish which is known to have been in California waters.\nA review of the tagging results obtained since 1936 shows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThe considerable interchange of pilchards between northern fishing-grounds\nand those off the California coast is too great to be the result of casual\nmovements and definite migration is accordingly indicated.\nDuring the first season following that of tagging, tagged fish appear to be\nmore concentrated on northern fishing-grounds than off the California\ncoast. Shortcomings in the techniques of recovering the tags and of\nmaking calculations contribute to this discrepancy, but it appears that\nsome of the difference is due to incompleteness during the first year of the\nmigration from northern fishing-grounds to California fishing-grounds.\nDuring the first year after tagging tagged fish are more concentrated off\nsouthern California than off central California but in subsequent seasons\nthis observation does not hold true.\nThe average minimum speeds of southward migration of pilchards were estimated as ranging from 3.4 to 7.7 nautical miles per day.\nEstimates of pilchard mortality based on tag returns indicate a total annual\ndeath rate of approximately 71 per cent.\nAn examination of the available records shows that during the summer of 1940\npilchards hatched during 1939 were extraordinarily abundant in all the waters of\nBritish Columbia south of Pitt Island, with the exception of the heads of some of the\nlong inlets, the northern end of the Strait of Georgia, and the northern channels\nleading into it. In the summer of 1939 considerable quantities of the small fish were\ncaptured and canned. During the winter which followed many tons of young pilchards\ndied in Saanich Inlet and Pender Harbour.\nIn the summer of 1941 the fish were encountered as two-year-olds generally distributed in abundance in Canadian waters and they comprised about 25 per cent, of\nthe individual fish taken off the west coast of Vancouver Island. At the same time\nsurvivors of the previous winter's mortality in the Strait of Georgia supplied a small\nfishery, and nearly 50 per cent, of the 6,000 cubic tons taken north of Vancouver Island\nwere two-year-old fish. During the winter of 1941-42 considerable catches of pilchards\nwere made off the west coast of Vancouver Island and nearly 80 per cent, of the fish\ntaken at this time belonged to the group under discussion.\nPilchards of the 1939 year-class were prominent as three-year-olds in the British\nColumbia fisheries of 1942, but it is difficult to estimate the exact importance as the BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 27\ngroup could no longer be certainly recognized by inspection. In the summer fishery\noff the west coast of Vancouver Island the three-year-old fish appeared to be relatively\nmore important than in the previous year and in the summer fishery farther north 1939\nyear-class fish were definitely predominant. A few catches of three-year-old fish were\nmade in the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Strait. It cannot be assumed that\nall of the 1939 year-class pilchards present off the west coast of Vancouver Island\nduring 1942 were survivors of the original schools which were in the inlets and immediately offshore during the early summer of 1940. It is likely that the fishery on the\nwest coast of Vancouver Island has drawn upon 1939 year-class fish produced over most\nof the north-east Pacific area and tag recoveries indicate that as early as the summer\nof 1941 one or more pilchards of the 1939 year-class present in California waters during\n1940 had migrated to the Canadian fishing-grounds.\nThe pilchard investigation has been carried out by Dr. J. L. Hart and his\nassistants.\nHERRING INVESTIGATION.\nThe herring investigation was continued during the year under joint financial\narrangement between the Fisheries Research Board of Canada and the Provincial\nFisheries Department. The work was undertaken by Dr. A. L. Tester, Dr. R. V.\nBoughton, and their assistants. Dr. Boughton terminated his services at the end\nof 1942.\nIn spite of many difficulties in obtaining equipment and help under present war\nconditions, all of the important phases of the investigation were carried on during the\nyear. Emphasis was placed on the herring-tagging and tag-recovery programme, a\ncomplete account of which appears in the Appendix to this report. In this programme,\nwork was concentrated on two of the more accessible major areas, the Strait of\nGeorgia and Queen Charlotte Strait, although recoveries from taggings of previous\nyears yielded additional information on the runs to other areas. The results again\nshowed that the populations in major areas may be considered to be practically independent, and that within major areas there is limited mixing of particular runs. However, both between major areas and between runs, the degree of mixing encountered in\n1942-43 appeared to be somewhat greater than in previous years. The investigations\nrevealed a complex situation within the Strait of Georgia. The more southern fishing-\ngrounds (Satellite Channel and Nanoose Bay) were supplied mostly by fish which had\nspawned along the south-east coast of Vancouver Island; the more northern fishing-\ngrounds (Deep Bay and Deepwater Bay) were supplied mostly by fish which had\nspawned in the northern part of the Strait of Georgia, but there were also indications\nof a considerable influx of fish which had spawned in the Queen Charlotte Strait area.\nOn the west coast of Vancouver Island there was a movement, probably of considerable\nmagnitude, of Quatsino Sound fish to Ououkinsh Inlet.\nDuring the 1942 spawning period a mortality of herring took place in a limited\narea along the south-east coast of Vancouver Island (chiefly between Nanaimo and\nComox). This was investigated but the causes could not be ascertained. Many of the\nfish were tagged during the period of mortality and the period of apparent recovery.\nSome of these taggings yielded no returns and others only a very few, indicating that\nthe mortality involved a considerable tonnage of fish and that most of those fish that\nappeared to be recovering eventually died. A mortality of eggs which took place along\nthe south-east coast of Vancouver Island in April, 1942, was also investigated. It\nappeared to be associated with unfavourable hydrographic conditions. No serious\neffect on the future of the fishery because of this egg mortality was anticipated, as\nthere appeared to be an excellent showing of fish of the year during the summer.\nThe sampling programme was continued during 1942-43, with particular emphasis\non the catches along the east coast of Vancouver Island. Sampling trips to other areas E 28 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nwere not attempted. Samples were preserved at plants in other areas and were sent\nto the Pacific Biological Station for examination. During the course of the year,\nlength and age composition studies of the 1941-42 samples were completed.\nDaily catch records of the herring-fishery were again collected through the medium\nof Pilot House Record Books. A manuscript report was prepared dealing with the relative success of the fishery in each statistical area, expressed in terms of availability\n(average catch per seine per day's fishing).\nDuring the spring of 1942, a careful survey of the herring-spawning grounds in\nthe Strait of Georgia and in Queen Charlotte Strait was attempted with the object of\ndetermining what quantitative data on egg deposition could be obtained and their\naccuracy in estimating the quantity of spawning fish. Many insuperable difficulties\nwere encountered and the errors introduced by these were of such magnitude as to\ndiscourage any attempts at quantitative estimation. However, herring-spawning\nreports prepared by fisheries inspectors were again collected. These should provide\nuseful qualitative data and should give indications of major changes in the abundance\nof the spawning populations.\nAn investigation of the possible use of the echo sounder (an automatic depth\nrecorder) for locating schools of herring was made. By agreement with the Fisheries\nResearch Board of Canada, British Columbia Packers, Limited, purchased this instrument and installed it on their boat, the \" Nishga,\" with the understanding that it would\nbe tested under scientific supervision and that the findings would be available to the\nindustry at large. It was demonstrated that the instrument recorded the presence of\nherring schools at depths of from 5 to 60 fathoms, and that it gave some indications of\nthe magnitude of these schools. A scouting trip to fishing-grounds in Central and\nNorthern British Columbia was unsuccessful because of the failure of herring to enter\ninshore waters during February when the tests were made. Although it has been\nshown that the echo sounder is definitely superior to other methods in locating fish, its\npractical utility must still be determined by continued use of the instrument.\nTHE CLAM INVESTIGATION.\nThe investigation into the clams of British Columbia was continued in 1942. This\ninvestigation was instituted in order to ascertain the conditions prevailing on some of\nthe clam-beaches of British Columbia, particularly those which had been exploited commercially for some considerable length of time. The investigation was undertaken by\nthe Fisheries Research Board at the request of the Provincial Fisheries Department\nand is financed jointly by these two organizations. The work was commenced by Dr.\nRoy Elsey and is now being conducted by Mr. Ferris Neave, of the Pacific Biological\nStation, Nanaimo. While the investigation is primarily for the purpose of obtaining\ninformation on the clams of the Province, it is broad enough to include shell-fish\ngenerally.\nIn the Appendix to this report will be found a report \" Biological Investigations\nof Commercial Clams,\" by Ferris Neave. In this paper Mr. Neave discusses the\ndistribution, by species and by areas, of the commercial clam-catch of 1941-42.\nFigures are again presented for the purpose of comparing the availability of clams in\ndifferent localities and in different seasons, based on the average catch made by a digger\nduring one low-tide period.\nResults of the second season's study of the butter-clam beach at Seal Island are\nsummarized. Data are presented concerning the growth-rate of the clams and the\ncomposition of the population. The effect of these factors on future production is\ndiscussed. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 29\nINTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION, 1942.\nThe International Fisheries Commission continued the regulation of the Pacific\nhalibut-fishery and carried on the observations of the fishery and of the stocks of halibut\nthat are essential to regulation.\nThe members of the Commission were the same as in 1941\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, Mr. L. W.\nPatmore and Mr. A. J. Whitmore for Canada, and Mr. Edward W. Allen and Mr.\nCharles E. Jackson for the United States. Mr. Allen and Mr. Patmore were chairman\nand secretary respectively.\nMeetings of the Commission were held on April 14th at Vancouver and on December 10th, 11th, and 12th at Seattle. On December 11th the Commission met with the\nConference Board, composed of representatives of the halibut-fishing fleets. At these\nmeetings the results of investigations, the effect of regulation upon the condition of the\nstocks of halibut, and matters relating to future regulations were considered.\nHalibut-fishing regulations, differing in a few respects from those of 1941, were\nissued on March 25th. They changed the end of the winter closed season from midnight of March 31st to midnight of April 15th. They increased the catch-limit in\nArea 3, where the stock showed continued improvement, from 26,300,000 to 26,800,000\nlb., but retained the catch-limit of 22,700,000 lb. in Area 2. To aid enforcement they\nmade the licence of any vessel with baited fishing-gear on board invalid for the posses-\n' sion of halibut in any area other than that for which the licence was validated.\nThe fishing season was opened on April 16th, fifteen days later than in 1941.\nAreas 1 and 2, including all grounds south of Cape Spencer, Alaska, were closed at\nmidnight of June 29th, when the Area 2 catch-limit was attained. Areas 3 and 4,\nincluding all fishing-grounds north and west of Cape Spencer, were closed at midnight\nof September 25th, when the Area 3 catch-limit was taken. Permits for the retention\nof halibut caught incidentally by set-line vessels during fishing for other species in\nareas closed to halibut-fishing became invalid at midnight of October 15th.\nLandings of halibut reported on the Pacific coast during the year amounted to\n50,386,000 lb. Of this amount, 286,000 lb. were reported from Area 1, to the south of\nWillapa Harbor, Washington; 23,228,000 lb. from Area 2, between Willapa Harbor\nand Cape Spencer, Alaska; and 26,872,000 lb. from Area 3, between Cape Spencer and\nthe Aleutian Islands. No halibut was caught in Area 4, which includes Bering Sea\nand the Aleutian Island region. The landings from Area 2 included 527,000 lb. taken\nunder permit by set-line vessels fishing for other species after closure of the area to\nhalibut-fishing.\nThe curtailment system, by which the fishing-fleets had for several years distributed their landings over a longer season of the year, was abandoned early in the\nfishing season. This had the effect of shortening the fishing season in all areas,\nalthough it was offset to some extent by reductions in the size of the fleets, by a temporary reduction in the availability of halibut on some of the most productive banks in\nArea 2, and by naval restrictions on fishing in Area 3.\nThe investigations of the Commission's scientific staff were continued where necessary for the purposes of the halibut treaty. They included the collection and analysis\nof current statistical and biological data by which the success of past and present regulations can be determined and on which future regulations must be based.\nStudy of the changes taking place in the size-composition and age-composition of\nthe stocks of marketable halibut as a result of regulation was continued as well as wartime conditions would permit. Approximately 32,000 halibut from different banks\nwere measured at the time of landing at Seattle. Of these, 24,000 were from banks\nin Area 2 and 12,000 from grounds in Area 3. Materials for the determination of age-\ncomposition were secured from the same landings.\nMarket measurements proved that halibut of spawning size were very abundant\nin Area 3 but present only in moderate numbers in Area 2. Measurements did not E 30 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nreveal any significant increase in the number of spawners in Area 2 during the year\nbut did show that small immature fish, upon which the future supply of spawners\ndepends, were entering the fishery in greater numbers than in any recent year.\nQuantitative investigations of the production of spawn, the best available method\nof determining changes in spawning conditions as soon as they occur, were continued in\nArea 2. A vessel was chartered and operated from early December in 1941 to the end\nof February in 1942, in the vicinity of Cape St. James, British Columbia. During this\nperiod, 344 net-hauls were made at 131 stations to determine the abundance of eggs\nand larvae. Hydrographic samples were taken at fifteen stations to ascertain the conditions under which the eggs were developing. The spawning materials obtained were\nless adequate than usual, due to bad weather which precluded any net-work for a two-\nweek period at the height of the spawning season, but indicate that eggs were produced\nin numbers comparable to those found in the previous winter.\nThe abundance of halibut, as indicated by the catch per unit of fishing effort,\nimproved during the year. The average catch per unit of gear in Area 3 was 8 per\ncent, greater than in 1941 and 103 per cent, greater than in 1930. In Area 2, the\naverage catch per unit of gear was 5 per cent, and 83 per cent, above the levels of 1941\nand 1930 respectively.\nThe investigations of the Commission continued to explain the changes taking\nplace in the stocks of halibut. They proved that the Area 3 stock is in good condition\nand is improving slowly but that the stock in Area 2 is still in unsound condition,\ndespite the marked improvement that occurred between 1930 and 1938. However, they\nalso provided good reason for believing that the Area 2 stock is entering a new period\nof improvement.\nThe biological and statistical work carried on by the Commission has demonstrated\nthe existence of definite and understandable relationships between the abundance of\nhalibut, the amount of fishing, and the amount of catch. It proves that current catches\nare the greatest that can be taken from the partly rebuilt stocks on the grounds without\ndiminution of those stocks and of the catches from them in the immediate future. It\nshows that maintenance of the halibut regulations on the present rational basis will\nassure not only the greatest possible catch of halibut during the next few years but\nalso the securing of that catch at the least possible cost.\nINTERNATIONAL PACIFIC SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION, 1942.\nThere will be found in the Appendix to this report, a \" Report on Investigations of\nthe International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission for the Year 1942,\" by Dr. W. F.\nThompson, Director of Investigations. In this report Dr. Thompson deals with the\nCommission's findings in connection with the migrations of the Fraser River sockeye\npast various temporary barriers on the way to the spawning-beds, more particularly\nwith conditions prevailing at Hell's Gate. Dr. Thompson mentions briefly the evidence\nof a blockade at Hell's Gate obtained by the Commission in 1938, 1939, and 1940. The\nblockade at Hell's Gate in 1941 is referred to and also the remedial measure^ taken by\nthe Commission in the event of a similar blockade in 1942.\nAccording to the evidence obtained by the Commission, the 1942 run, especially\nthat portion proceeding to Shuswap Lake spawning areas, had no difficulty in passing\nHell's Gate, as did another run to the Stellako District, which passed Hell's Gate about\nthe same time as the Shuswap run.\nIn his report on the activities of the Commission Dr. Thompson discusses the\ntagging programme in the river itself, the construction of a model of the Fraser River\nreach at Hell's Gate> together with the results of the tagging at Sooke. Dr. Thompson\nalso mentions studies of the Quesnel District which have been commenced with a view\nto determining methods of rehabilitation there.\nThe reader is referred to Dr. Thompson's report for a more detailed account of the\nCommission's activities. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 31\nAPPENDICES.\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON.\n(No. 28.)\nBy Wilbert A. Clemens, Ph.D., Department of Zoology, The University of\nBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.\nINTRODUCTION.\nThe sockeye-salmon pack in 1942 attributable to Rivers Inlet and the Skeena and\nNass Rivers was 134,828 cases, being 20 per cent, of the sockeye-pack of the Province.\nThe individual packs were as follows: Rivers Inlet, 79,199 cases; Skeena River, 34,544\ncases; and Nass River, 21,085 cases. The escapements to Rivers Inlet and the Nass\nRiver were reported as very good while that to the Skeena as only fairly satisfactory.\nThe information on the pack and the escapement supplies the basis for judging the\nextent of a run to a river system. The packs on Rivers Inlet and the Nass River were\npractically equal to the averages of the past years of record and within the range of\nexpectation for the cycle-years. These facts, together with the occurrences of good\nescapements, provide grounds for considering the runs in these two areas as satisfactory. The situation on the Skeena River is otherwise. The pack is the second\nlowest on record and there is no indication of a correspondingly large escapement.\nAlthough a large return was not expected from the brood-years 1937 and 1938, it was\nhoped that there would be some evidence of increased production. Apparently this has\nnot been forthcoming. In view of the fact that the Skeena River has frequently produced packs of over 100,000 cases, it is evident that the problem of sockeye-salmon\nproduction in this river warrants very careful consideration.\nDESIGNATION OF AGE-GROUPS.\nTwo outstanding features in the life-history of the fish have been selected in designating the age-groups\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, the age at maturity and the year of its life in which\nthe fish migrated from fresh water. These are expressed symbolically by two numbers,\none in large type, which indicates the age of maturity, and the other in small type,\nplaced to the right and below, which signifies the year of life in which the fish left the\nfresh water. The age-groups which are met most commonly are:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n81( 4X\u00E2\u0080\u0094the \" sea-types \" or fish which migrate in their first year and mature\nat the ages of three and four years respectively.\n32\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" the grilse,\" usually males, which migrate in their second year and\nmature at the age of three.\n42, 52\u00E2\u0080\u0094fish which migrate in their second year and mature at the ages of four\nand five respectively.\n53, 63\u00E2\u0080\u0094fish which migrate in their third year and mature at the ages of five\nand six respectively.\n64, 74\u00E2\u0080\u0094fish which migrate in their fourth year and mature at the ages of six\nand seven respectively.\nCHANGES IN TABULAR MATERIAL.\nSince the inception of this series of annual reports in 1913, the data have been\ncarried forward from year to year until the tabular material has reached considerable E 32 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nsize. In order to avoid having the material become unwieldy it seems desirable to\nconsider the year 1941 as the end of a section and to commence a new section with the\nyear 1942. All the available data prior to 1941 will be summarized and the conclusions\nmade available at an early date.\nWith the commencement of the second series of tabular data, a change has been\nmade in the method of length measurement of the fish. All measurements prior to\n1942 were made by tape. The method consisted in placing the tape over the side of the\nfish's body from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail-fin. All measurements in\nthe future will be made by placing the fish on a board on which is marked a linear scale\nand the distance from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail-fin will be read on the\nboard. The latter method thus gives a straight-line instead of an arched-line measurement.\nIn 1942, each collector took both measurements on approximately one hundred fish.\nExamination of the data showed that the average difference in the measurements was\nseven-tenths of an inch for the Skeena and Nass Rivers and eight-tenths of an inch for\nRivers Inlet. Accordingly in the tables of average lengths, three sets of figures are\ngiven: (1) The average lengths for the previous period as obtained by the tape\nmeasurement; (2) the above lengths from which have been deducted the respective\nfractions; (3) the 1942 average lengths as obtained by the board measurement.\n1. THE RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1942.\n(1.) General Characteristics.\nThe pack of sockeye at Rivers Inlet in 1942 amounted to 79,199 cases and fell\nwithin the range of medium-size packs; that is, between 60,000 and 100,000 cases.\nThe 1942 pack approached the average of the past thirty-five years; namely, 83,115\ncases. The run of 1942 was composed of 91 per cent, of five-year-old fish and therefore derived from the spawning of 1937. This brood-year was particularly productive\nin that it also produced a large percentage of four-year-old fish in 1941.\nThe return in 1943 will be the result of spawnings in 1938 and 1939. In the\nformer year the pack was 87,942 cases and the escapement was reported as good. Since\nthis brood-year produced only 8 per cent, of four-year-old fish in 1942, a goodly return\nof five-year-old fish might be expected in 1943. However, sometimes a low four-year-\nold percentage is followed in the succeeding year by a low five-year-old percentage,\nindicating a year of poor reproduction. No reports are at hand to indicate adverse\nclimatic conditions during the 1938-39 incubation period and there should therefore be\na reasonable expectation for rather large numbers of five-year-old fish in 1943.\nIn 1939 the pack was 54,143 cases and the escapement was reported as at least an\naverage one. The fisheries inspector referred to high-water conditions during the\nspawning period. In view of these facts it is possible that the production from the\n1939 spawning will be relatively low.\n(2.) Age-groups.\nThe data for this year's study are obtained from 1,841 fish obtained in thirty-nine\nrandom samplings of the commercial catch from June 29th to August 7th. The 42 age-\ngroup is represented by 153 individuals forming 8 per cent., the 52 age-group by 1,672\nindividuals or 91 per cent., the 53 by 4 fish and the 63 by 12 fish or 1 per cent. In\naddition there is one 62 individual not included in the tabulations or calculations.\nThe outstanding feature in the age-group distribution is the exceptionally high\npercentage of 52's. Only once in the past years of record has there been a comparable\ninstance\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, in 1920, when the percentage was 95. (Table I.) BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 33\n(3.) Lengths and Weights.\nThe average lengths of the males and females of the 42 age-groups are 21.9 and\n21.3 inches respectively and of the 52 age-group 25.0 and 23.8 inches respectively.\nThese are approximately equivalent. to the averages of the past years of record.\n(Table IV.)\nThe average weights of the males and females of the 42 age-group are 5.1 and\n4.6 lb. respectively and for the 52 age-group 7.2 and 6.4 lb. respectively. These are\nessentially equivalent to the averages of the past years of record. (Table V.)\nThe information concerning the distribution of lengths and weights in 1942 is\ngiven in Tables II. and III.\nOne male of the 62 age-group occurs in the sampling. It is 27 inches in length\nand 8 lb. in weight. (4) DlsTRIBUTI0N 0F THE gEXEg.\nThe total number of males in the samplings is 692 and of females 1,149, percentages\nof 38 and 62 respectively. While the percentage of females is very high, it is not\nexceptional, since the figure was exceeded in 1936 and in 1938. In the 42 age-group the\nmales predominate with a percentage of 61, while in the 52 age-group the females predominate with a percentage of 65. This distribution of the sexes is characteristic of\nthe Rivers Inlet sampling and may be related to gill-net selectivity, as pointed out in\nan earlier report. It is evident that the high total percentage of females is due to the\npredominance of the 52 age-group. (Table VI.)\nTable I.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Percentages of Age-groups in Runs\nof Successive Years and Packs.\nYear.\nPercentage of Individuals.\n4,\n1907\n1908\n1909\n1910\n1911\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n1916\n1917\n1918\n1919\n1920\n1921\n1922\n1923\n1924\n1925\n1926\n1927\n1928\n1929\n1930\n1931\n1932\n1933\n1934\n1935\n1936\n1937\n1938\n1939\n1940\n1941\n1942\n(87,874 cases).-\n(64,652 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(89,027 cases) ....\n(126,921 cases )..\n(88,763 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(112,884 cases)..\n(61,745 cases)....\n(89,890 cases)\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(130,350 cases).\n(44,936 cases) ...\n(61,195 cases)-\n(53,401 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(56,258 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(121,254 cases)..\n(46,300 cases)....\n(60,700 cases) -\n(107,174 cases)..\n(94,891 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(169,554 cases)-\n(65,581 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(64,461 cases)....\n(60,044 cases)....\n(70,260 cases)....\n(119,170 cases)..\n(76,428 cases)....\n(69,732 cases) \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(83,507 cases)...\n(76,923 cases)--\n(135,038 cases) ..\n(46,351 cases) -\n(84,832 cases) ...\n(87,942 cases) ._.\n(54,143 cases)._\n(63,469 cases)...\n(93,378 cases)...\n(79,199 cases) _..\n35\n13\n26\n39\n57\n46\n5\n49\n81\n74\n43\n23\n59\n81\n55\n77\n49\n53\n67\n44\n77\n57\n53\n60\n27\n67\n69\n59\n79\n20\n65\n87\n74\n61\n43\n54\n95\n51\n18\n24\n54\n77\n38\n16\n40\n18\n48\n44\n27\n55\n20\n41\n46\n37\n70\n32\n28\n40\n91\n3 E 34\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 191,2, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nLength in Inches.\n42\n5\n2\nh\n6\n3\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n19\t\n2\n1\n1\n4\n19 %.....\t\n3\n1\n1\n5\n20 \t\n11\n6\n17\n2oy2\t\n6\n10\n16\n21\t\n9\n12\n3\n24\n21% \t\n10\n14\n12\n36\n22\n17\n4\n7\n5\n13\n22\n44\n69\n1\n1\n82\n22 y2 \t\n101\n23 \t\n16\n7\n1\n2\n31\n33\n131\n173\n1\n1\n180\n23 y2\t\n216\n24 ...\n6\n1\n55\n200\n\t\n1\n263\n24% \t\n2\n71\n215\n1\n289\n25 \t\n83\n131\n1\n215\n25y2\t\n103\n72\n1\n3\n179\n26 \t\n83\n22\n3\n1\n109\n26y2_.\t\n59\n3\n62\n27\t\n26\n1\n1\n28\n27 y2\t\n7\n1\n\t\n\t\n8\n28 \t\n7\n7\nTotals \t\n93\n60\n593\n1,079\n1\n3\n5\n7\n1.841\nAve. lengths\u00E2\u0080\u0094-\t\n21.9\n21.3\n25.0\n23.8\n23.5\n22.5\n26.1\n25.2\nTable III.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 19U2, grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4\n2\nE\n2\nh\n63\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n21/\u00E2\u0084\u00A2 _ -\t\n1\n18\n11\n23\n11\n17\n5\n3\n1\n3\n13\n22\n16\n5\n1\n5\n19\n37\n52\n76\n77\n88\n81\n64\n51\n23\n12\n6\n2\n1\n1\n4\n34\n87\n159\n202\n211\n195\n115\n46\n14\n9\n1\n1\n1\n2\n\t\n2\n1\n1\n1\n\t\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1\n3 \t\n1\n3y2 _....\n7\n4 \t\n35\n4y2 --\n72\n5 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n146\n5y2 --\t\n214\n6 \t\n61.4 \t\n272\n294\n7 .. \t\n277\n7 V. \t\n206\n8 \t\n130\n8y2 -\t\n81\n9 \t\n60\n9% __._\n24\n10 \t\n10.2\n13\n6\n11 \t\n2\nTotals ..... \t\n93\n60\n593\n1.079\n1 !\n3\n5\n7\n1,841\nAve. weights\n5.1\n4.6\n7.2\n6.4\n6\n5.3\n8.3\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 7.6\n1 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 35\nTable IV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of the 42 an^ 52\nGroups, 1912 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\n5\n2\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912-41- -\t\n22.4\n21.6\n21.9\n22.4\n21.6\n21.3\n25.4\n24.6\n25.0\n24.7\n23.9\n1942\n23.8\nTable V.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of the 42 and 52\nGroups, 1914 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\n52\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1914-41 \t\n4.9\n5.1\n4.8\n4.6\n7.0\n7.2\n6.5\n1942 .\t\n6.4\nTable VI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females,\n1915 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\n5\n2\nPer Cent.\nTotal\nMales.\nPer Cent.\nTotal\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nFemales.\n63\n61\n37\n39\n34\n35\n66\n65\n50\n38\n50\n1942 _____ _'\t\n62\n2. the skeena river sockeye run of 1942.\n(1.) General Characteristics.\nThe Skeena River sockeye salmon produced a pack of 34,544 cases and an escapement reported as especially good to Lakelse Lake and reasonably satisfactory to the\nBabine area. As stated previously the pack is the second lowest on record. Considering the pack and the escapement record, the run was probably all that could be\nexpected from the spawnings of 1937 and 1938 under relatively uniform environmental\nconditions.\nThe return in 1943 will be the product of the 1938 and 1939 spawnings. In the\nformer year the pack was 47,257 cases and the escapement was reported as very good.\nIn the latter year the pack was 68,485 cases and the escapement stated as being exceptionally good. Unless unusually favourable conditions for reproduction prevailed,\nthere would appear to be no grounds for expecting a very large return in 1943.\n(2.) Age-groups.\nThe length, weight, and sex data and scale collections were obtained from 1,393\nfish in thirty-seven random samplings from June 29th to August 15th. The 42 age-\ngroup is represented by 502 individuals or 36 per cent., the 52 by 748 or 54 per cent.,\n. E 36 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nthe 53 by 106 or 7 per cent., and the 63 by 37 or 3 per cent. (Table VII.). The percentage of five-year-old fish is thus fairly high but there is nothing exceptional in the\ndistribution of the age-classes.\n(3.) Lengths and Weights. , ,\nThe average lengths of the males and females in the 42 age-group are 22.6 and 22.3\ninches respectively and in the 52 age-group 25.2 and 24.3 inches respectively. These\nlengths are essentially equivalent to the averages of the past years of record. On the\nother hand, the average lengths of the fish in the 5:J and 63 age-groups are somewhat\nabove the past years' averages. (Table X.)\nThe average weights of the males and females in the 42 age-group are 4.9 and 4.7\nlb. respectively and slightly below the average of the past years of record. Those of\nthe five-year-old fish are approximately equivalent while those of the 63 age-class are\nsomewhat above the averages of the past years. (Table XI.)\nA single individual of the 62 age-group occurs in the samplings but has not been\nincluded in the tabulations or calculations. It is 27. inches in length and 8% lb. in\nweight.\n(4.) Distribution of the Sexes.\nThe total number of males in the samplings is 461 and of females 932, percentages\nof 33 and 67 respectively. The percentage of females is the highest on record and\ncontinues the upward trend in number of females for the past eight years. The usual\nexcess of females occurs in both the 42 and 52 age-classes, the percentages being 58\nand 75 respectively. As in the case of Rivers Inlet the predominance of females is due\nto the large numbers of fish in the 52 age-group. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 37\nTable VII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Percentages of Age-groups in Runs\nof Successive Years and Packs.\nPercentage of\nIndividuals.\nYear.\nh\n52\nh\n63\n1907 (108,413 cases) \t\n57\n50\n25\n36\n34\n57\n51\n27\n15\n69\n70\n56\n23\n51\n62\n62\n51\n62\n39\n40\n44\n57\n58\n49\n67\n45\n64\n50\n80\n39\n36\n43\n60\n75\n64\n38\n29\n34\n60\n71\n22\n16\n29\n69\n45\n26\n28\n39\n30\n52\n30\n37\n36\n34\ntl\n20\n40\n15\n35\n15\n52\n54\n13\n9\n9\n9\n6\n6\n12\n8\n7\n3\n9\n9\n7\n6\n8\n28\n7\n5\n7\n18\n11\n11\n16\n11\n4\n8\n7\n1908 (139,846 cases) - \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n1909 (87,901 cases) \t\n1910 (187 246 ca-\"=s)\n1911 (131 066 ca. \u00C2\u00BBfl)\n1912 (92,498 cases) \t\n1913 (52,927 cases). \t\n1914 (130,166 cases) ' _\t\n-\n1915 (11\u00C2\u00AB .-SS (\u00E2\u0080\u00A2_\u00C2\u00AB<\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\u00C2\u00BB)\n1916 (60,923 cases)\t\n18\n1917 (65,760 cases) .'. \t\n1918 (123,322 cases) .. ..\n6\n6\n1919 (184,945 cases)\t\n1920 (90,869 cases)-\t\n4\n8\n1921 _41,fU8 _-_K.es>\ns\n1922 (96,277 cases)\t\n2\n1923 (131,731 rases)\n7\n1924 (144,747 cases) _ \t\n1\n1925 (77,784 cases)\t\n1\n1926 (82,360 cases)\t\n3\n1927 .83,996 enseal\n1\n1928 (34,559 cases)-\t\n3\n1929 (78,017 cases)-\t\n2\n193fl (132,372 cases)\n1\n1931 _93,023 cases)\n2\n1932 _B9,91I_ cases)\n12\n1933 _30,506 cases)\n2\n1934 (54,558 cases)\n1\n19.35 .52,879 cases.\n2\n193R (81,973 eases)\n2\n4\n1937 .42,491 ease-)\n1938 f47,257 cases)\n5\n1939 (68,485 cases)-.\t\n4\n1940 (116,507 cases) \t\n1\n1\n1941 (81,767 cases) -\t\n1942 (34,544 cases) \t E 38\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTable VIII.-\n-Skeena River Sockeyes, 1942, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nLength in Inches.\n4\na\n5\n2\n5\n3\n6\n3\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n20 \t\n5\n1\n6\n2oy2\t\n7\n2\n2\n1\n12\n21 \t\n10\n26\n2\n1\n39\n2iy\u00E2\u0080\u009E\t\n24\n40\n2\n2\n68\n22 \t\n39\n78\n8\n2\n1\n128\n22y2__ \t\n26\n68\n14\n2\n6\n116\n23 .\u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n27\n54\n4\n53\n4\n9\n151\n23y2 ,\t\n34\n16\n6\n70\n2\n5\n\t\n1\n134\n24\t\n29\n5\n22\n127\n8\n7\n5\n203\n24 y2 _ _ _\n3\n3\n22\n120\n7\n10\n1\n4\n170\n25 \t\n5\n43\n33\n109\n51\n10\n5\n8\n3\n3\n2\n6\n1\n184\n25y2_\t\n95\n26 ,\t\n28\n8\n7\n2\n4\n49\n26y2_ __..._ ._\t\n17\n3\n1\n21\n27\t\n8\n1\n4\n1\n14\n27 y2\u00E2\u0080\u0094 __ __....\t\n1\n\t\n1\n28 ...__\n1\n1\n28 y2 \t\n\t\n29 \t\n1\n1\nTotals \u00E2\u0080\u0094_\n209\n293\n184\n564\n53\n53\n15\n22\n1,393\n22.6\n22.3\n25.2\n24.3\n24.1\n23.7\n26.3\n24.9\nTable IX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, 1942, grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4\n2\n52\n5\n3\n6\n3\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM. F.\n1\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n3%\t\n4\t\n4%. -\t\n5 ... \"\t\n11\n35\n42\n45\n34\n32\n8\n2\n\t\n5\n71\n84\n98\n25\n10\n1\n9\n13\n32\n36\n44\n31\n12\n3\n3\n3\n24\n81\n87\n166\n93\n87\n19\n4\n2\n5\n1\n4\n6\n16\n8\n10\n1\n1\n3\n3\n14\n14\n14\n4\n4\n4\n3\n2\n2\n1\n2\n5\n6\n3\n3\n1\n1\n19\n117\n155\n252\n5y2 _\n181\n6 \t\n279\n6%\t\n7\t\n1%- -\t\n8\n155\n150\n57\n19\n8% ' -\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n9 .,,',\t\n4\n5\n209\n293\n184\n564\n53\n53\n15\n22\n1,393\n4,9\n4.7\n6.7\n6.0\n5.8\n5.4\n7.2\n6.6 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 39\nTable X.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of Principal\nAge-groups, 1912 to 1942.\n42\n52\n53\nh\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912-41 -\t\n23.7\n23.1\n25.8\n25.1\n25.2\n24.9\n24.2\n24.3\n24.2\n23.5\n24.1\n23.4\n22.7\n23.7\n25.8\n25.1\n26.3\n24.8\n1912-41 (conversion) , ,,\n1942 \t\n23.0 22.4\n22.6 22.3\n24.1\n24.9\nTable XI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of Principal\nAge-groups, 1914 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\n52\nh\n63\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1914-41 \t\n5.4\n4.9\n5.0\n4.7\n6.8\n6.7\n6.1\n6.0\n5.7\n5.8\n5.1\n5.4\n6.8\n7.2\n6.0\n1942 -\t\n6.6\nTable XII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females, 1915 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\nh\nPer Cent.\nTotal\nMales.\nPer Cent.\nTotal\nFemales.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1915-41\n(average)\n48\n42\n52\n58\n43\n25\n57\n75\n46\n33\n1 '\n54\n1942\t\n!\n3. THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1942.\n(1.) General Characteristics.\nThe run of sockeye salmon to the Nass River produced a pack of 21,085 cases and\nan escapement reported as very good. The pack was practically equal to the average\nof the packs of the past thirty years\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, 21,936 cases.\nThe return in 1943 will be the product of the spawnings of 1938 and 1939. In the\nformer year the pack was 21,462 cases and the escapement was recorded as large with\na heavy seeding. In the latter year the pack consisted of 24,357 cases and the escapement was reported as very satisfactory, particularly heavy in the Meziadin Lake area.\nThere would seem to be promise for a good return in 1943 but prediction is unsatisfactory for the Nass River.\n(2.) Age-groups.\nThe material for the 1942 study consists of data for 1,291 fish obtained in forty-\nfive random samplings from June 30th to August 12th. The representation of the\nvarious age-classes is as follows: 42, 281 fish or 22 per cent.; 52, 86 fish or 7 per cent.;\n53, 858 fish or 66 per cent; and 63, 66 fish or 5 per cent. (Table XIII.). The 53 age-\ngroup predominates as usual, with a percentage equal to that of the past thirty years.\nThe distribution of the four age-groups in 1942 presents no unusual features. E 40\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\n(3.) Lengths and Weights.\nThe average lengths of the males and females of the 42 age-group is 23.9 and 23.2\ninches respectively, which are very slightly greater than the averages of the past years\nof record. In the case of the 53 age-group the average lengths are 24.9 and 24.3 inches\nrespectively and somewhat less than the averages of the past years\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, 25.4 and\n24.6 inches. (Table XVI.)\nThe average weights of the males and females of all the age-groups are somewhat\nless than the averages of the past years of record. (Table XVII.)\n(4.) Proportions of the Sexes.\nThe total number of males in the samplings is 584 and of females 707, percentages\nof 45 and 55 respectively, and approximate the averages of the past twenty-seven\nyears of record\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, 47 and 53 per cent. The females slightly outnumber the\nmales in the 42, 52, and 53 age-groups, but the males predominate in the 63 age-group.\n(Table XVIII.)\nTable XIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Percentages of Principal Age-groups\nfrom 1912 to 1942 and Packs.\nPercentage of Individuals.\n1912\n1913\n1914\n1915\n1916\n1917\n1918\n1919\n1920\n1921\n1922\n1923\n1924\n1925\n1926\n1927\n1928\n1929\n1930\n1931\n1932\n1933\n1934\n1935\n1936\n1937\n1938\n1939\n1940\n1941\n1942\n(36,037 cases)..\n(23,574 cases)-\n(31,327 cases)..\n(39,349 cases)..\n(31,411 cases) ..\n(22,188 cases)..\n(21,816 cases)..\n(28,259 cases)..\n(16,740 cases) ..\n(9,364 cases)\t\n(31,277 cases)..\n(17,821 cases)..\n(33,590 cases)..\n(18,945 cases) ..\n(15,929 cases)-\n(12,026 cases)..\n(5,540 cases)\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(16,077 cases)..\n(26,405 cases)..\n(16,929 cases)..\n(14,154 cases)..\n(9,757 cases) ...\n(36,242 cases)..\n(12,712 cases)..\n(28,562 cases)_\n(17,567 cases)..\n(21,462 cases) ..\n(24,357 cases)..\n(13,809 cases)..\n(24,876 cases).\n(21,085 cases).\n15\n4\n19\n9\n10\n30\n7\n8\n10\n6\n11\n4\n23\n12\n8\n30\n25\n28\n10\n28\n35 .\n13\n11\n16\n22\n21\n14\n23\n37\n22\n27\n12\n41\n14\n17\n15\n16\n22\n14\n7\n2\n6\n12\n7\n6\n9\n15\n17\n4\n7\n9\n10\n7\n4\n4\n13\n8\n7\n7\n63\n71\n45\n59\n66\n71\n45\n65\n72\n75\n91\n77\n91\n67\n63\n81\n61\n60\n54\n67\n61\n55\n74\n73\n67\n59\n52\n66\n2\n2\n10\n4\n9\n6\n6\n8\n1\n6\n2\n2\n13\n4\n6\n7\n3\n4\nN6\n10\n6\n5\n7\n10\n4\n( BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 41\nTable XIV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, 1942, grouped by Age, Sex, and Length,\nand by their Early History.\nLength in Inches.\nNumber of Individuals.\nF.\nF.\nTotal.\n20% .\n21\t\n21%-\n22\t\n22%-\n23 \t\n23%-\n24\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n24 %..\n25\t\n26%-\n26.\t\n26%..\n27 .....\n27%..\n28.\t\n28%_\n29\t\n29%_\nTotals.\nAve. lengths .\n13\n21\n28\n19\n17\n7\n1\n16\n26\n43\n35\n23\n9\n4\n2\n163\n41 |\n2\n1\n5\n12\n11\n6\n6\n45\n1\n4\n18\n25\n36\n76\n92\n70\n32\n18\n6\n1\n14\n40\n70\n108\n100\n92\n32\n16\n2\n2\n1\n1\n2\n16\n16\n5\n3\n1\n24.9\n24.3\n26.9\n20\n26.0\n23\n52\n117\n152\n203\n221\n225\n124\n73\n43\n32\n11\n6\n2\n1,291\nTable XV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, 1942, grouped by Age, Sex, and Weight,\nand by their Early History.\nNumber of\nIndividuals.\nWeight in Pounds.\n4\n2\n52\n53\n63\nTotal.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nsv\u00E2\u0080\u009E __ \t\n1\n3\n4\n4 \t\n3\n16\n2\n5\n26\n4% \t\n6\n28\n1\n8\n32\n75\n5 \t\n21\n23\n59\n32\n1\n2\n2\n4\n36\n44\n103\n137\n1\n2\n222\n5 % \t\n245\n6 \t\n31\n18\n5\n22\n119\n149\n1\n4\n349\n6% \t\n21\n6\n6\n6\n88\n40\n*\n7\n178\n7 --\t\n10\n1\n9\n3\n57\n12\n15\n2\n109\n7% _\t\n2\n7\n6\n18\n1\n6\n4\n44\n8\t\n7\n1\n\t\n6\n1\n13\n4\n1\n26\n8% \t\n7\n9 \t\n3\n1\n1\n4\n9% . . .. \t\n1\n10\t\n1\n1\nTotals -\t\n118\n163\n41\n45\n379\n479\n46\n20\n1,291\n5.8\n5.1\n7.1 [ 6.3\n6.2 ! 5.6\n7.5\n6.7 E 42\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTable XVI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of Principal\nAge-groups, 1912 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\n52\nh\n63\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912-41\t\n24.5\n23.8\n23.9\n23.7\n23.0\n23.2\n26.3\n25.6\n26.1\n25.2\n24.5\n24.9\n26.1\n25.4\n24.9\n25.3\n24.6\n24.3\n27.7\n27.0\n26.9\n26.4\n25.7\n1942\t\n26.0\nTable XVII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of Principal\nAge-groups, 1914 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\nh\nh\n63\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1914-41 _\t\n1942 \t\n6.0\n5.8\n5.4 7.3 6.4\n5.1 1 7.1 6.3\n6.9\n6.2\n6.2\n5.6\n8.0\n7.5\n7.0\n6.7\nTable XVIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females,\n1915 to 1942.\nYear.\n42\n52\n53\n63\nPer Cent.\nTotal\nMales.\nPer Cent.\nTotal\nFemales.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n49\n42\n52\n58\n47\n48\n53\n52\n45\n44\n55\n56\n63\n70\n37\n30\n47\n45\n53\n1942 - \t\n55 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 43\nREPORT ON PILCHARD-TAG RECOVERY, 1942-43.\nBy John Lawson Hart, Ph.D., Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo.\nThe recovery of pilchard-tags has been continued by the use of electromagnets\ninstalled in British Columbia reduction plants. This has been made possible through\nthe active co-operation of the fishing companies which have allowed the installation of\nthe magnets and of the reduction plant crews who have attended to the actual return\nof the tags.\nOnly fifteen tags were recovered. This small number is believed due to two causes:\n(1) A decrease in the efficiency of recovery and (2) the relatively small concentration\nof tags in the population. The small fish which were abundant in the fishery have been\ntagged less intensively than were the larger fish which predominated in the catch in\nformer years, as the young fish have been liable to being tagged for fewer seasons and\ntagging operations have been curtailed somewhat in the years since they entered the\nfishery.\nThe sources and places of recovery of the tags dealt with in this report are shown\nin the following tabulation:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nCanada.\nWashington.\nOregon.\nCalifornia.\nTotal.\nCanadian tags'\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n0\nIt\n5\nIt\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1*\n1\n1\n2\n5\n7\nTotals\t\n13\n0\n0\n2\n15\n* Hold over from 1941.\nt Taken during the winter of 1942-43.\n% Two taken during the winter of 1942-43, one taken at Butedale.\nThe presence of California tags in the winter fishery indicates that pilchards which\nhad been in California attached themselves to (or constituted) the schools of fish which\nwere wintering on the Canadian coast. Tags put out in Oregon were relatively much\nmore abundant than in former years. The recovery by the Butedale plant of a California tag from pilchards caught at Aristazabal Island constitutes a northern recovery\nrecord for fish known to have been in California.\nNo tagging-work was carried out during 1942. E 44 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTAGGING OF HERRING (CLUPEA PALLASII) IN BRITISH.COLUMBIA:\nAPPARATUS, INSERTIONS, AND RECOVERIES DURING 1942-43.\nBy Albert L. Tester, Ph.D., and R. V. Boughton, Ph.D.,\nPacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.\nCONTENTS.\nPage.\nIntroduction 44\nTagging 44\nRecovery methods _ 48\nInduction detectors 48\nMagnets 51\nReward placards 51\nRecoveries 51\nInduction detectors 51\nMagnets 55\nStability of populations and movements 62\nMajor areas 62\nWest coast of Vancouver Island 63\nEast coast of Vancouver Island 65\nQueen Charlotte Strait 66\nCentral British Columbia 67\nNorthern British Columbia 67\nSummary of results 67\nAcknowledgments . 68\nDetailed list of tags inserted during 1942-43 68\nReferences 69\nINTRODUCTION.\nThis is the seventh of a series of annual reports dealing with herring-tagging and\ntag-recovery. The herring-tagging programme was originally designed (1) to add to\nthe general knowledge of the life-history of herring in British Columbia waters, (2) to\ndetermine the extent of herring movements, and (3) to determine the strength of the\ntendency of herring to form local populations. In addition, it was hoped that some\ninformation might be obtained on the rates of exploitation of the populations supplying\nthe various fishing-grounds.\nFor detailed information concerning the methods of tagging and recovery, the\nreader is referred to earlier reports in this series (Hart and Tester, 1937, 1938, 1939,\nand 1940; Hart, Tester, and McHugh, 1941; and Hart, Tester, and Boughton, 1942).\nThe methods used in 1942-43 which are essentially similar to those used in earlier\nyears, are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.\nTAGGING.\nAs in previous years, nickel-plated iron \" belly \" tags, stamped with distinguishing\nnumbers or letters, were used. These were inserted into the body-cavity of herring\nchiefly \" by hand,\" using a special tagging-knife (Hart and Tester, 1937), or, in one\ncase, using a \" gun \" (Hart and Tester, 1938). BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 45 E 46 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nHerring for tagging were obtained from a salmon-trap, from bait-pounds, and by\nmeans of shore-seines and bait-seines. The seine-caught fish were usually tagged\nimmediately, but in some cases part of the catch was transferred to a live-box and\nretained for several hours before tagging. Every possible care was taken to avoid\ninjury to the fish in handling.\nWhen tagging seine-caught fish, the tagger usually works from a skiff alongside\nthe cork-line, and tags the fish one at a time as they are removed from the seine and\nhanded to him in a dip-net. In 1942-43 this procedure was used in most cases, but in\ntagging 7F, 7G, 7H, and 71 (Table I.) there was a departure in technique. Lots of from\n50 to 100 fish were dipped from the seine and transferred to a tub of fresh sea-water on\nboard the tagging-boat. The fish were then caught by hand, tagged, and released from\nthe tub by two taggers working together. The water in the tub was changed between\nsuccessive lots. The fish appeared to suffer no serious ill-effects from being confined\nin this small container for the few minutes required to tag them, although they\nprobably lost more scales than in the usual method of handling. This modified procedure was first adopted to enable tagging to proceed in stormy weather when it was\nvery difficult to work from a skiff, and it was later adhered to because it was found to\nbe a more convenient and more rapid method.\nFor the most part, a larger number of tags was used in each individual tagging in\n1942-43 than in former years. The general policy was to tag as many fish as possible,\nup to 3,000, in each locality. The purpose was to increase the number of recoveries\nmade by the two induction detectors, which are the principal means of recovering tags\nat the present time and which operate only on a small portion of the total catch.\nApart from one tagging at the Sooke salmon-traps towards the start of the 1942-43\neast coast of Vancouver Island fishing season (October), tagging was confined to the\nspawning season (February, March, and April) and was concentrated in two major\nareas, the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Strait. This is in accordance with\nthe new policy adopted last year (Hart, Tester, and Boughton, 1942) of intensive study\nof the more accessible major areas, and with the recent policy of not tagging on fishing-\ngrounds during the fishing season.\nTwo seine-boats, and a small gas-boat before these were available, were used for\nthe spring tagging operations. In the Strait of Georgia tagging was moderately successful, five lots being tagged along the west shore, two lots along the east shore, one\nnear the head of Jervis Inlet, and one at the north end of the strait above Seymour\nNarrows. No fish were tagged in the vicinity of Saltspring Island, Nanaimo, Nanoose\nBay, or Cortes Island, although most of these localities were scouted several times\nduring the period. In Queen Charlotte Strait, three lots of fish were tagged, all in\nlocalities where taggings had been carried out in previous years. In addition, one\nlarge tagging was made along the Central coast-line. There was no opportunity for\ntagging along the west coast of Vancouver Island.\nSummarized data on the 1942-43 taggings are included in Table I., along with\nsimilar data for those taggings of earlier years which are referred to in this report.\nPlaces included in the table are shown on the accompanying map. Detailed data for\nthe 1942-43 taggings, for use in identifying recoveries, are given in Table IX. at the\nend of this report, following the custom of former years. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 47\nTable I.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Summary of the Tagging Data for Taggings producing Returns during the\n1942-43 Fishing Season and for Tags inserted during the 1942-43 Fishing Season\nand the 1943 Spawning Season.\nTagging\nCode.\nDate.\nNo. of\nTags\ninserted.\nMethod of\nCapture of\nFish.\u00C2\u00BB\nTagging\nMethod.t\nPlace of Tagging.\n3M\nMar. 9, 1939\t\n997\n1,297\n1,599\n1,499\n1,197\n1,797\n1,150\n1,000\n1,199\n1,595\n1,399\n798\n1,397\n1,000\n975\n1,060\n1.488\n1,697\n1,495\n1,200\n995\n1,200\n992\n1,989\n998\n1,193\n496\n497\n993\n1,004\n1,000\n2,000\n1,489\n1,499\n1,689\n1,497\n2,000\n1.776\n1,498\n1,005\n697\n1,892\n2,997\n2,495\n2,004\n2.500\n2,989\n2.002\n1,693\n2,989\n1,000\n1,099\n3,493\n2,978\nS.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nD.N.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\n. B.S.\nS.S.\nS.S.\nS.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nS.T.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.P.\nS.S.\nS.T.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nS.S.\nB.P.\nB.P.\nB.S.\nB.S.\nG, K\u00C2\u00B0\nG, K\u00C2\u00B0\nG, K'\nG, K'\u00C2\u00B0\nG, K\"\nG, K'\u00C2\u00B0\nG. K'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nG, K'\nG, K'\n. K'\nG, K'\nG, K'\nG, K'\nG, K'\nG, K'\nG. K'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nG\nK'\nK'\nK'\nG, K'\nG\nG, K'\nG. K'\nK'\nK'\nG\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\nK'\n3Q\n3V\n4G\nMar. 11, 1939\t\nMar. 19, 1939 \t\nMar. 3. 1940\t\nRivers Inlet Cannery.\nOff Markale, Kyuquot Sound.\n4K\n4L\nMar. 13, 1940 \t\nMar. 17, 18, 1940 . ..\nDeep Bay, Baynes Sound.\n4P\n4Q\nMar. 16, 17, 18, 1940\t\nMar. 18, 1940 \t\nWhitepine Cove, Clayoquot Sound.\n4R\nMar. 19, 1940\t\n4U\n4W\nMar. 24, 1940\t\nMar. 18, 1940\t\nWinter Harbour, Quatsino Sound.\n4Z\n4AA\nMar. 23, 1940 ._\t\nMar. 28, 29, 1940\t\nLake Island, Milbanke Sound.\n5C\nMar. 6, 1941\t\n5D\nMar. 8. 1941 \t\n5E\n51\nMar. 10. 1941 ___ _\nMar. 17, 1941\t\nEntrance to Nanoose Bay.\n5L\nMar. 28, 1941\t\n5N\nMar. 30, 1941. . .\n50\n5P\nMar. 4, 1941 _ _ \t\nMar. 5, 1941\t\nLyall Point, Barkley Sound.\n5Q\nMar. 8. 9. 1941 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n5U\nMar. 11, 1941 _...\n5W\nMar. 13, 1941 .\n5X\nMar. 14, 1941\t\n5Y\nMar. 16, 1941\t\nInlet.\n6A\nOct. 17, 1941 \t\n6C\n6E\n6F\nFeb. 26, 1942\t\nMar. 6, 1942 \t\nMar. 7, 1942\t\nGanges Harbour, Saltspring Island.\nEast side Kuper Island.\n6G\nMar. 9, 1942 \t\n6H\nMar. 9, 1942\t\n61\nMar. 10, 1942 \t\n6K\n6L\nMar. 27, 1942\t\nMar. 15, 1942 \t\nSquirrel Cove, Cortes Island.\n6M\nMar. 19, 1942\t\n6N\n60\nMar. 28, 1942 \t\nMar. 30, 1942 _ \t\nClio Channel.\n6P\n6Q\n7A\nApr. 21, 22, 1942 ___.._\t\nApr. 24, 1942 , \t\nOct. 3, 1942 \t\nCahnish Bay.\nDeparture Bay, near Nanaimo.\n7B\n7C\n7D\n7E\n7F\nFeb. 25, 26, 1943\t\nMar. 1, 3, 1943\t\nMar. 7, 8. 12. 13, 1943 \t\nMar. 16, 1943 \t\nMar. 27. 1943\t\nLadysmith Harbour.\nShingle Point, Valdes Island.\nSkuttle Bay, near Sliammon.\nPorlier Pass.\n7G\n7H\nMar. 29, 1943\t\nApr. 2. 1943 \t\nDeserted Bay, Jervis Inlet.\n71\nApr. 11. 1943 \t\n7J\n7K\nMar. 17, 18, 1943\t\nMar. 22, 1943 \t\nDeepwater Bay.\n7L\n7M\nMar. 28, 1943\t\nMar. 31, 1943\t\nShoal Harbour, Retreat Passage.\n7N\nApr. 5, 1943 \t\nChatham Channel.\n* B.S.=bait-seine ; S.S.=shore-seine ; S.T.=salmon-traps ; D.N.=dip-net; B.P.=bait-pound.\nt G=:gun ; K'=fish held with one hand while knife and tag are manipulated with other hand; K\u00C2\u00B0\none man while another manipulates knife and tag; K'\u00C2\u00B0=:both types of knife-tagging used.\nifish held by E 48\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nThe following recapitulation shows the number of tags used in each area and year\nfor the past five years of the investigation. Similar data for earlier years (1936-37\nand 1937-38) are omitted (see Hart, Tester, and Boughton, 1942).\nT 1 _.\nNumber of Tags used in\neach Year.\nLocality.\n1938-39.\n1939-40.\n1940-41.\n1941-42.\n1942-43.\nFall and Winter.\n1.454\n2.525\n1,094\n2,494\n755\n897\n495\n496\n697\n1,197\n1,799\n400\n9,077\n3,796\n8,437\n2,497\n2,299\nSpring.\nStrait of Georgia (including Puget Sound and north\n6,587\n5,947\n3,489\n2,696\n4,947\n200\n9,759\n5,877\n2,491\n15,559\n5,465\n21,561\nQueen Charlotte Strait and south to Nodales Channel\n5,077\n1,497\n3,493\n27,041\n29,697\n24,471\n23,017\n30,828\nRECOVERY METHODS.\nAs in previous years, tags were recovered mechanically by two methods, induction\ndetectors and magnets. A third possible means of recovering tags, advertising in canneries where the fish are handled to some extent and where tags might be found by\nemployees, was tried.\nInduction Detectors.\nTwo induction detectors were used throughout the 1942-43 fishing season, one at\nthe Imperial Cannery and the other at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery, Steveston.\nAt the Imperial Cannery, the detector in operation last year was again used, but\nin a new position\u00E2\u0080\u0094i.e., it was moved from the unloading system formerly supplying\nboth cannery and reduction plant to a new unloading system which supplied only the\ncannery. The general arrangement of the conveyers and the mechanical means of\ntrapping the tagged fish were similar to those formerly used at Galiano Island (Hart\nand Tester, 1937) and at Ucluelet (Hart and Tester, 1938). The fish unloaded from\nthe packers passed up a marine leg, along a pivoted overhead conveyer, down a sloping\nwooden chute and into a weighing-machine. In sliding down the chute, the fish passed\nthrough a \" pick-up \" detector coil and over a trap-door which was pivoted transversely\nat its centre on an axle, and was operated by a compressed-air piston, controlled electrically. When an impulse was transmitted from the detector coil, the trap-door\nmomentarily opened to a position at right angles to the flow, allowing about a pailful of\nfish, including the tagged one, to fall to a bin below.\nThe substitution of an A.C. solonoid (Ross) air-valve and an A.C. latching relay\nfor former D.C. equipment in the Imperial detector enabled the set to be run entirely\non alternating current (cf. Hart and Tester, 1937). The Ross valve gave more positive\naction than the old D.C. valve but apparently created an electrical interference which\nwas not eliminated during the course of the season and which caused the trap-door to\noperate more than once on each impulse, thus spilling more fish than necessary. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 49\nAir Hoses .\nPiston-\nControl\nRoom\nMercoid Swltch-\nBln-\nPlatform'\nInclined Conveyor from Marine Log\n-Belt Conveyor\n^Pulley\n, Belts\nFig. 1. Diagram of the induction detector trap system at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery. E 50 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nThe Imperial detector gave very satisfactory performance during the period of\noperation (October 23rd to February 2nd), apart from minor breakdowns, and operated efficiently on about 75 per cent, of the fish passing into the cannery.\nThe detector formerly used at Ucluelet was installed at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery. The method of trapping the tagged fish was different from that used in any\nprevious installation and is illustrated in Fig. 1. On being unloaded, the herring\npassed up the marine leg, along an overhead conveyer, and dropped into a weighing-\nmachine. Successive trip-loads then passed up an inclined conveyer into the plant\nwhere they dropped to a moving belt. This belt, which had a non-magnetic lacing\n(bronze wire), carried the fish through the detector coil and past a double gate system.\nWhen an impulse was transmitted from the detector coil, a compressed-air piston pulled\nthe gates across the belt. A mercoid switch arrangement, activated by the movement\nof the gates, then cut off the current to the D.C. solonoid air-valve, and changed the\nstream of compressed air acting on the piston to close the gates. Fish were both swept\nand led off the belt into a bin. By close adjustment of the distance of the coil from the\ngates, tagged fish could be caught regardless of their position on the belt, as long as\nthey did not lie crosswise.\nFailure of the apparatus to recover tagged fish if they pass crosswise through the\ncoil, so that the long axis of the tag is exactly parallel to the coil face, was mentioned\nin the first report of this series (Hart and Tester, 1937). The detector is least sensitive to tags in this position and only rarely can it be operated at a sufficiently high\nsensitivity to detect them. In all previous installations the fish slid down a chute\nmostly head or tail first and only rarely would one pass through the coil in a crosswise\nor nearly crosswise position. In the Gulf of Georgia installation, the fish were spilled\non a belt and lay at random. An unknown percentage, believed to be small, would pass\nthrough the coil crosswise and would not be detected. This factor would tend to make\nthe detector at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery somewhat less efficient than that at the\nImperial Cannery, but its effect would be compensated to some extent by an increased\nefficiency resulting from greater precision in timing which is made possible by using a\nconstant-speed belt.\nThe detector at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery gave less satisfactory performance\nthan that at the Imperial during the period of operation (October 28th to February\n3rd) and ran efficiently on about 65 per cent, of the fish passing into the cannery. The\napparatus was temporarily out of commission several times because of short circuits\nin the wiring of the control-cabinets, which burned out relays and variable resistances.\nThese were caused by the warm, damp atmosphere of the control-room, located near the\nro'of of the reduction plant, and probably also by the action of ammonia emanating from\na near-by offal-bin. Repairs were complicated by the shortage of replacement parts due\nto war conditions and in several cases less satisfactory substitutions were made which\ncontributed to unstable operation. On the whole, however, the performance of this\nequipment was more satisfactory than in previous years and this was due partly to the\nreplacement of the large 7- by 21-inch coils (Hart and Tester, 1938) with the smaller\n7- by 16-inch coils, similar to those used with the other detector, and partly to several\nminor modifications in the circuit of the \" amplifier \" unit.\nThe operating efficiency of the two tag detectors can be compared from data collected in 1942-43. In the following table is shown the number of tags recovered\nper hundred tons of fish examined \" efficiently \" from each fishing-ground by each\nImperial Gulf of Georgia\nFishing-ground. Detector. Detector.\nSatellite Channel 0.66 0.53\nNanoose Bay 0.30 0.20\nDeep Bay 0.45 0.30\nDeepwater Bay 0.66 0.29 \t\nBRITISH COLUMBIA. E 51\nThe Imperial detector consistently recovered more tags per hundred tons of fish\nthan the Gulf of Georgia detector; on the average (weighted to the number of tons\ncaught in each locality) its operating efficiency was 1.4 times as great. The lower\nefficiency of the Gulf of Georgia detector is believed due partly to fish passing crosswise through the coil but mostly to a lower average sensitivity during periods of\nunstable performance, factors which have already been discussed.\nMagnets.\nElectromagnets already installed in the meal-lines of reduction plants were again\ninstrumental in recovering tags. A new installation was made in the offal-reduction\nplant of the Gulf of Georgia Cannery. The Tuck Inlet magnet was removed when the\nreduction plant was dismantled. That at Kildonan failed to give satisfactory service\nthroughout the season in a new installation made necessary by plant renovations. This\ncondition has since been remedied.\nAs pointed out in all previous reports, magnets are less satisfactory than induction\ndetectors because of the uncertainty regarding the fishing locality from which the fish\nbearing the tag originated. Recoveries from cracks and crevices in the plant machinery, from traps for tramp metal, and from other sources where doubt surrounds the\norigin of the tag are included as magnet returns.\nA good example of the possibility for error in interpreting returns from these\nsources occurred among the 1942-43 recoveries. Several tags were found in the\nmachinery of one reduction plant during cleaning up operations at the close of the\nseason. Presumably these had originated with fish run through the plant in 1942-43.\nHowever, one (H96934) was a test tag which had been used to test the efficiency of the\nmagnet on February 4th, 1940. It was thus returned three years after it had been\nplanted in a fish and thrown into the conveyer.\nThe reduced opportunity for recovering tags on magnets in reduction plants\nbecause of extensive canning operations still pertained in 1942-43 (Hart, Tester, and\nBoughton, 1942).\nReward Placards.\nFollowing a suggestion made in the report for last year, placards offering a reward\nfor tags and describing places in which they might be found were distributed to all\ncanneries and reduction plants.\nIn the case of canneries it was hoped that tags which might fall out of the body-\ncavity of the fish in the heading-machines or on the packing-tables might be found by\ncannery-workers. No returns resulted. Although several tags which were found when\npreparing herring for the table and for bait were sent in, none of these returns could\nbe directly attributed to the result of placard advertising. It would seem that the\nchances of tags being found in canneries are very small. Possibly some success might\nresult from displaying the placards in kippering-houses where the fish are handled\nindividually.\nThe reward placards were also exhibited in reduction plants and there they probably stimulated the search for tags on magnets and in the plant machinery.\nRECOVERIES.\nQualifications which must be considered in interpreting the recoveries and in\ndrawing conclusions regarding the populations involved have already been discussed\nfully (Hart, Tester, and McHugh, 1941) and summarized (Hart, Tester, and Boughton,\n1942).\nInduction Detectors.\nThe results of tag-recoveries by the two detectors are summarized in Table II.\nSeventy-seven tagged fish were taken, fifty-five by the Imperial and twenty-two by the E 52\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nGulf of Georgia detector. Of these, sixty-two had been out for more than six months\nand fifteen had been out for a comparatively short period.\nOf the 7A tags used at Sooke on October 3rd, 1942, eleven were recovered at Satellite Channel, three at Nanoose Bay, and one at Deep Bay. These confirm the results\nof previous years in showing a movement of herring from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to\nvarious fishing-grounds along the south-east coast of Vancouver Island, and extend the\nknown range of this movement from Nanoose Bay, as observed last year, to Deep Bay,\nsome 30 nautical miles to the north-west. A consideration of the number of 7A recoveries per hundred tons of fish effectively operated on by the detectors (Satellite\nChannel, 0.15; Nanoose Bay, 0.06; and Deep Bay, 0.03), and the times at which the\nrecoveries were made, suggests a gradual dispersal of these tagged fish rather than a\nmass movement from one fishing-ground to another.\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Tags recovered by Induction Detectors during 1942-43.\nPlace and Month of Tagging.\nPlace of\nCapture.\nCode.\nSatellite\nChannel.\nNanoose\nBay.\nDeep Bay.\nDeepwater\nBay.\nTotal.\n4U\nWinter Harbour, March, 1940 _ \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n1\n11\n1\n2\n9\n1\n12\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n3\n1\n4\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n\"..\"._\n4\n2\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1 '\n1\n1\n1\n7A\n15\n6A\n1\n6C\n4\n13\n3M\nKulleet Bay March, 1939\n1\n6G\nKulleet Bay, March, 1942 _.._ \t\n13\n5C\n6F\n6Q\n5D\nGabriola Bluff, March, 1941 \t\nDeparture Bay, March, 1942 . _\t\nDeparture Bay, April, 1942 _\t\n1\n2\n1\n1\n3\n6H\n61\nBaynes Sound, March, 1942 \t\nSkuttle Bay, March, 1942 \t\n1\n6\n6K\n6P\nSquirrel Cove, March, 1942 \t\n3\n5\n4L\n6N\nCutter Creek, March, 1940 \t\n1\n3\n60\nKingcome Inlet, March, 1942 \t\nTotals \t\n1\n46\n13\n14\n4\n77\nOf the sixty-two tags out for more than six months, fifty-five (89 per cent.) were\noriginally used in the same general area in which they were recovered\u00E2\u0080\u0094i.e., the Strait\nof Georgia (including the southern part of Discovery Passage)\u00E2\u0080\u0094and seven (11 per\ncent.) were from \"outside\" areas. Of the latter, two were from the west coast of\nVancouver Island and showed some influx of Quatsino Sound fish (4U) and Barkley\nSound fish (5P) to Satellite Channel in the southern part of the strait. Five were\nfrom Queen Charlotte Strait and showed some influx of fish from various localities in\nthis area (Cutter Creek, 4L; Clio Channel, 6N; and Kingcome Inlet, 60) to Deep Bay\nand Deepwater Bay in the northern part of the Strait of Georgia.\nConsidering only the tags out for at least six months which were both used and recovered in the Strait of Georgia, there is some evidence of partial segregation of the\npopulations fished along the east coast of Vancouver Island. The following table shows\nthe number of recoveries from each fishing-ground and the percentage originally used\nin the southern part (Sooke to Nanoose Bay) and the northern part of the Strait of BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 53\nGeorgia (north of Nanoose Bay to Discovery Passage, including the east shore of the\nstrait) :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFishing-ground.\nNumber of\nRecoveries.\nPer Cent. Recoveries.\nSouthern.\nNorthern.\nSatellite Channel-\nNanoose Bay _ __\nDeep Bay\t\nDeepwater Bay\t\n33\n10\n10\n2\n97\n60\n20\n40\n80\n100\nThese results suggest that fish which spawn in the southern part of the strait are\nmore likely to be caught on southern fishing-grounds and fish which spawn in the\nnorthern part are more likely to be caught on northern fishing-grounds. It might be\npointed out that recoveries of current Sooke tags (7A) indicate that the majority, if\nnot all, of the fish supplying the southern fishing-grounds entered the strait by way of\nthe Strait of Juan de Fuca. Those supplying the northern fishing-grounds may have\ncome either from Discovery Passage or from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The recovery\nof one 7A tag at Deep Bay shows that some at least followed the latter route, whereas\nthe recovery of Queen Charlotte Strait tags (4L, 6N, 60) at both Deep Bay and Deep-\nwater Bay, and not at either Nanoose Bay or Satellite Channel, suggests that others\nmay have come by way of Discovery Passage; although there are other possible explanations that might be advanced.\nFrom data on hand it is possible to make an approximate calculation of the percentage recovery of tags which were used originally in the Strait of Georgia during\nthe 1942 spawning season (\" 6 \" series) and which were recovered from the Strait of\nGeorgia fishing-grounds during the 1942-43 fishing season. For each tagging, the\nfollowing procedure was used: (1) Determine the number of tags recovered from each\nfishing-ground by the two detectors, multiplying those for the Gulf of Georgia detector\nby 1.4 to correct for its lower operating efficiency (page 51) ; (2) multiply each\nof these figures by the tonnage of fish caught on the particular fishing-ground (Satellite\nChannel, 20,497; Nanoose Bay, 23,411; Deep Bay, 7,760; Deepwater Bay, 3,084) and\ndivide by the tonnage of fish \" efficiently \" examined for tags by the two detectors\n(Satellite Channel, 7,356; Nanoose Bay, 5,024; Deep Bay, 3,688; Deepwater Bay,\n798) ; (3) express the sum of the recoveries from the various fishing-grounds as a\npercentage of the number of tags originally used. The absolute accuracy of these\ncalculations depends on the assumptions, believed to be approximately correct, that the\nImperial detector is 100 per cent, efficient at recovering tags, that the recoveries from\neach fishing-ground were distributed in the total catch in the same proportion as in the\npart of the catch operated on by the two detectors, and that each of the detectors operated on a similar proportion of the catch from each fishing-ground. The results are\nshown in Table III.\nConsiderable variation in percentage recovery was found. Three of the four taggings, made fairly close to the Satellite Channel fishing-grounds (6C, 6E, and 6G),\nyielded the highest percentage recoveries but no returns resulted from the fourth\n(6B). The 6B and 6C taggings (Prevost Island and Ganges Harbour) were separated\nin time by only a week (February 19th and 26th) and in distance by only 3 nautical\nmiles, yet this difference in the returns resulted. Previous taggings at Ganges Harbour (2N and 4G) have been singularly unproductive in former years. The average\nrecovery from the four 1942 taggings in this southern area was 3 per cent. E 54\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTable III.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Calculation of Percentage Recovery for Tags used in the Strait of Georgia\nduring the Spring of 1942 and recovered from Satellite Channel (A), Nanoose\nBay (B), Deep Bay (C), and Deepwater Bay (D).\n(For explanation see text.)\nCode.\nPlace and Date of Tagging,\n1942.\nNumber of Detector\nRecoveries from Fishing-\ngrounds at\nCalculated Total Number\nof Recoveries from Fishing-grounds at\nNumber\nof Tags\nused.\nPercentage\nA.\nB.\nC.\nD.\nTotal.\nA. t B.\n1\nC.\nD.\nTotal.\nRecovery.\n6B\n6C\n6E\nPrevost Island, February 19 _\nGanges Harbour, February 26\n2.8\n10.2\n13.2\n1.0\n1.0\n1.4\n1.4\n4.0\n1.0\n1.0\n1.4\n2.8\n1.0\n1.4\n4.8\n2.0\n2.0\n1.4\n1.0\n5.2\n14.2\n14.2\n2.4\n1.0\n1.0\n7.6\n3.4\n5.8\n......\n7.8\n27.9\n36.8\n2.8\n2.8\n3.9\n6.5\n18.6\n4.7\n4.7\n6.5\n13.0\n2.1\n2.1\n10.1\n4.2\n4.2\n5.4\n3.9\n16.4\n46.5\n41.5\n4.9\n2.8\n4.7\n20.5\n9.6\n21.1\n997\n497\n993\n1,000\n500\n1,004\n1,005\n698\n800\n2,000\n1,489\n1,499\n1,498\n1,579\n3.3\n4.7\n6G\n4.2\n6D\n6F\n6Q\n6R\n6S\n6H\nDeparture Bay, March 7_\t\n0.5\n0.3\nDeparture Bay, May 2\t\nNanaimo Harbour, June 3, 4\n0.2\n61\nSkuttle Bay, March 10 __.\t\n1.4\n6K\n6P\n6J\nSquirrel Cove, March 27 \t\nCahnish Bay, April 21, 22\n0.6\n1.4\n.___..\nReturns from the taggings made between Nanaimo Harbour and Union Bay (6D,\n6F, 6Q, 6R, 6S, and 6H) were very meagre, averaging but 0.2 per cent. (Table III.).\nThree of the taggings (6D, 6R, and 6S) failed to produce any recoveries on either the\ntag detectors, or, as will be noted later, on magnets. In contrast, taggings made in\nthis area in previous years have produced substantial returns. The reason for the low\npercentage recovery in 1942-43 is most probably related to the unusual mortality of\nherring which took place mostly between Dodd Narrows and Deep Bay, but which may\nhave extended to Union Bay, during March and April of 1942 (Hart, Tester, and\nBoughton, 1942; Tester, 1942). Although a positive statement cannot be made on\none year's recoveries, the results indicate that most of the fish tagged during the period\nof mortality (6D, 6F, and 6H) and also during the period of \" recovery \" when the fish\nwere in a peculiar lethargic condition (6Q, 6R, and 6S) died, presumably along with a\nfair percentage of the spawning population. It is interesting to note that in spite of\nthe mortality there was a high availability and a good catch of herring at both Nanoose\nBay and Deep Bay, fishing-grounds which would be expected to be most directly\naffected. Table III. shows that the former received substantial contributions from\nother spawning-grounds chiefly in the southern part, and the latter received substantial\ncontributions from other spawning-grounds chiefly in the northern part of the strait.\nHowever, these known contributions would not necessarily account entirely for the\nexcellent fishing.\nThe average recovery from taggings in the extreme northern part of the strait\n(61, 6K, and 6P), 1.1 per cent., was greater than that in localities from Nanaimo to\nUnion Bay but less than that in localities south of Dodd Narrows. The most logical\nexplanation is that the groups of fish tagged in the northern part of the strait were not\nas intensively fished as those in the last-mentioned locality.\nNo returns were received from the tagging at Porpoise Bay, Seechelt Inlet (6J).\nThis was not unexpected as the fish tagged were the small, slow-growing type typical of\nthe mainland inlets and, as such, would be classed as a local population. Evidently they\ndid not contribute to the populations which supply the main fishing-grounds of the\nStrait of Georgia. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 55\nCalculations similar to those in Table III. for tags inserted in the Strait of Georgia\nduring the spring of 1941 at Gabriola Bluff (5C), Hammond Bay (5D), Nanoose Bay\n(5E), Breakwater Island (5F), and Bargain Harbour (5G) can be made. Only three\nof these taggings produced returns (5C, 5D, and 5E) and all of these came from Satellite Channel. The average percentage recovery was 0.33 per cent.\nTable IV.\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094Tags from each Tagging recovered by each Plant making\nMagnet Recoveries during the 1942-43 Season.\nLocality and Month of Tagging.\nPlant\nMAKING\nRecovery\n(See foot-note for fish processed.)\nCode.\nUclue-\nlet.\nNootka.\nCeepee-\ncee.\nImperial.\nNamu.\nBute-\ndale.\nMiscellaneous.\nTotal.\n4AA\nBarkley Sound, March, 1940 \t\n1\n1\n50\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n4\n5P\n3\n4P\nWhitepine Cove, March, 1940\t\n2\n....\n2\n4Q\nRefuge Cove, March, 1940\t\n1\n1\n2\n5Y\nRefuge Cove, March, 1941\t\n1\n1\n\t\n\t\n2\n4R\nNootka Sound, March, 1940\t\n3\n2\n5\n5Q\n9\n4\n13\n5U\n2\n2\n4\n3V\nKyuquot Sound, March, 1939\t\n1\n1\n5X\nBunsby Islands, March, 1941 ___\t\n5\n16\n17\n38\n4U\nQuatsino Sound, March, 1940\t\n9\n10\n1\n3\n23\n5W\n2\n17\n11\n1\n2\n33\n4G\nGanges Harbour, March, 1940\t\n-\n1\n1\n6C\nGanges Harbour, February, 1942 ...\n1\n1\n6E\nKuper Island, March, 1942\t\n1\n3\n4\n6G\nKulleet Bay, March, 1942 \t\n1\n1\n2\n7A\nSooke, October, 1942 _\t\n2\n1\n1\n4\n5D\nHammond Bay, March, 1941\t\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094-\n2\n5E\n1\n1\n4K\nDeep Bay, March, 1940 _\t\n1\n1\n61\nSkuttle Bay, March, 1942 _\t\n'1\n2\n3\n6K\nSquirrel Cove, March, 1942\t\n1\n1\n2\n6P\nCahnish Bay, April, 1942\t\n4\n____\n4\n6L\nRetreat Passage, March, 1942\t\n1\n\t\n1\n6N\nClio Channel, March, 1942\t\n1\n3\n2\n1\n1 8\n60\nKingcome Inlet, March, 1942 _.\n6\n1\n2 9\n3Q\n1\nI l\n4W\nCampbell Island, March, 1940\t\n1\n1\n4Z\nLake Island, March, 1940 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n1\n.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n51\nCampbell Island, March, 1941\t\n1\n1\n5L\nLaidlaw Island, March, 1941 _\n2\n2\n5N\nKwakshua Passage, March, 1941 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n1\n6M\nCampbell Island, March, 1942\nTotals _\t\n1\n3\n3 1\n1\n9\n17\n64\n59\n24\n12\n9\n5\n190\nUcluelet: East coast of Vancouver Island, Clayoquot Sound, Barkley Sound, Kyuquot Sound, Quatsino Sound,\nNootka Sound.\nNootka: Kyuquot Sound, Nootka Sound, Quatsino Sound, Clayoquot Sound.\nCeepeecee: Kyuquot Sound (including Ououkinsh Inlet and Malksope Inlet), Quatsino Sound, Nootka Sound\nand Esperanza Inlet, Clayoquot Sound, east coast of Vancouver Island.\nImperial: East coast of Vancouver Island (Satellite Channel, Nanoose Bay, Deep Bay), Queen Charlotte\nStrait (Clio Channel and Knight Inlet), Deepwater Bay.\nNamu: Rivers Inlet, Laredo Inlet, Queen Charlotte Strait (mostly Knight Inlet), localities in Central area,\nQuatsino Sound, Queen Charlotte Islands.\nButedale: East coast of Vancouver Island (including Deepwater Bay), Laredo Inlet, Quatsino Sound, Queen\nCharlotte Strait.\nMagnets.\nAs shown in Table IV., magnets or comparable methods of recovery in six reduction plants resulted in the return of 185 tags. In this table have also been included\nfive tags recovered from miscellaneous sources (preparing fish for table use, etc.), to E 56 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nmake a total of 190 recoveries. The number recovered from reduction plants is less\nthan that of last year (399) for several known reasons: (1) Failure in the operation of\nthe Kildonan magnet, (2) no taggings were made on the west coast of Vancouver Island\nin the spring of 1942, and (3) no fish were caught along the northern coast-line.\nLarge-scale canning operations reduced the opportunity for recovering tags, and small\ncatches along the central coast-line also lowered the recoveries in both 1941-42 and\n1942-43.\nIt is evident from Table IV. that in most cases the majority of the tags recovered\nby each reduction plant were inserted in the same general area as that from which the\nmajority of the fish passing through the plant were caught. The best example is that of\nthe two west, coast of Vancouver Island reduction plants, Nootka and Ceepeecee, the\nformer of which operated entirely and the latter almost entirely on west coast of Vancouver Island fish. In the former 98 per cent, and in the latter 90 per cent, of the\nrecoveries resulted from taggings made on the west coast of Vancouver Island.\nAs in past years, each return listed in Table IV. has been considered individually\nin relation to the daily deliveries of fish to the plant and the behaviour of the magnet\nin recovering tags. An attempt has been made to present an unbiased interpretation\nof the probable origin of each tag. In some cases the fishing-ground from which the\ntag originated can be stated with certainty, in others with a fair degree of certainty;\nwhereas in still others, where several alternative fishing-grounds are equally possible,\nno interpretation is offered. A discussion of the returns from each individual tagging\nis included in the following paragraphs and the results are presented in Table V. Contrary to the custom of past years, only \"magnet\" returns, as listed in Table IV., are\nincluded in the discussion.\nRivers Inlet (3Q) : One recovery reported, probably correctly, from fish caught\nat Rivers Inlet. Laredo Inlet and Meyers Passage, other localities in the Central area,\nQuatsino Sound, Queen Charlotte Islands, and localities in the Queen Charlotte Strait\narea are possible but unlikely sources of this tag.\nKyuquot Sound (3V) : One recovery reported, probably correctly, from Ououkinsh\nInlet. The east coast of Vancouver Island and Sydney Inlet are possible alternatives.\nGanges Harbour (4G) : One recovery reported, probably correctly, from Deep-\nwater Bay. A likely possible alternative is Deep Bay, and less likely alternatives are\nother east coast of Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Strait localities.\nDeep Bay (4K) : One recovery correctly reported from Ououkinsh Inlet.\nWhitepine Cove (4P) : Two tags recovered which may have originated in any west\ncoast of Vancouver Island locality except Barkley Sound, or, less likely, the east coast of\nVancouver Island. These were found in plant machinery at the close of the season.\nRefuge Cove (4Q) : Two tags recovered. It is certain that one of these originated\nwith fish from Ououkinsh Inlet. The other was reported from Quatsino Sound, but,\naccording to the records of the plant making the return, it is equally likely to have come\nfrom the Nootka Sound area, with the Kyuquot Sound and east coast of Vancouver\nIsland areas as less likely possibilities. However, from other evidence, the tag is considered to have probably originated from Nootka Sound rather than from Quatsino\nSound. Two plants which operated on Quatsino Sound fish, but not on fish from any\nother locality on the west coast of Vancouver Island, recovered Quatsino Sound tags,\nbut none from any other west coast locality. This evidence will be used and referred\nto in discussions which follow.\nKendrick Arm (4R) : Five recoveries, three of which were reported from Ououkinsh\nInlet and two from Nootka Sound. Of the three reported from Ououkinsh Inlet, one\ncame from there for certain and the other two most probably also, but with the east\ncoast of Vancouver Island and Clayoquot Sound areas as less likely alternatives. The\ntwo reported from Nootka Sound are equally likely to have come from Quatsino Sound, BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 57\nwith the Clayoquot Sound and Kyuquot Sound areas as remote possibilities. However,\nin view of the evidence given in the preceding paragraph, the two tags are considered\nto have probably come from Nootka Sound as reported.\nWinter Harbour (4U) : Twenty-three recoveries, reported from the following\nlocalities: Ououkinsh Inlet, eleven; Quatsino Sound, eight; Nootka Sound, three; and\nQueens Cove, one. Of the recoveries reported from Ououkinsh Inlet, four are correct;\nseven are probably correct, with the east coast of Vancouver Island and Clayoquot\nSound areas as remote possibilities for five, and the Clayoquot Sound area as a somewhat likely possibility for the other two. Of the recoveries reported from Quatsino\nSound, there is but little doubt that at least four originated with Quatsino Sound fish\nas they were recovered immediately following the processing of fish from that locality\nby plants which had not operated previously on west coast of Vancouver Island herring.\nHowever, three of the four have east coast of Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte\nStrait localities as remote alternatives and the remaining one has Fish Egg Inlet and\nQueen Charlotte Strait localities as remote alternatives. The remaining four tags\nreported from Quatsino Sound fish are also considered to have originated there,\nalthough Clayoquot Sound and Nootka Sound are likely alternatives for two, and\nNootka Sdund is a likely alternative for the other two, while Kyuquot Sound and the\neast coast of Vancouver Island are remote possible alternatives for all four. The 4U\ntags reported from the Nootka Sound area may have originated there, but Quatsino\nSound is an equally likely alternative for three, with Clayoquot Sound and Kyuquot\nSound as less likely alternatives. The fourth tag from the Nootka area, reported from\nQueens Cove fish, is most likely to have originated there, although Kyuquot Sound,\nQuatsino Sound, and Clayoquot Sound are possible sources and the east coast of Vancouver Island is a remote possibility.\nCampbell Island (4W) : One tag reported, probably correctly, from Ououkinsh Inlet. The east coast of Vancouver Island and Clayoquot Sound are possible alternatives.\nLake Island (4Z) : One recovery reported, probably correctly, from Deepwater\nBay. A likely possible alternative is Deep Bay, and less likely alternatives are other\neast coast of Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Strait localities.\nToquart Bay (4AA) : One recovery, correctly reported, from Ououkinsh Inlet.\nHammond Bay (5D) : Two returns, one reported, probably correctly, from the east\ncoast of Vancouver Island (Satellite Channel or Nanoose Bay) and the other, probably\ncorrectly, from \" Cowichan \" (Satellite Channel). A possible alternative for the first\nis Barkley Sound and possible alternatives for the second are Bones Bay, Nanoose Bay,\nKnight Inlet, and Minstrel Island.\nNanoose Bay (5E) : One recovery reported, probably correctly, from the east coast\nof Vancouver Island (Satellite Channel or Nanoose Bay). Barkley Sound is a less\nlikely alternative.\nCampbell Island (51) : One recovery reported to have come from a load of pilchards from Bullock Channel, August 22nd, 1942. As pilchards had been processed\nprior to that date, this was probably not a \" hang-over \" from the previous herring\nseason and may be assumed to have come from herring caught with the pilchards either\nin Bullock Channel or in other localities in the Central area.\nLaidlaw Island (5L) : Two tags returned, both probably coming from fish caught\nin Laredo Inlet. This was the locality reported for one; the other was found while\ncleaning the grinder after running on three lots of Laredo Inlet fish. For both, less\nlikely alternatives are Quatsino Sound and various localities in Queen Charlotte Strait\nand the Strait of Georgia.\nKwakshua Passage (5N) : One recovery reported from Quatsino Sound. This is\nprobably correct, although there is a good chance that it may have come from either\nNootka Sound or Clayoquot Sound areas, and a remote chance that it may have come\nfrom either the Kyuquot Sound or east coast of Vancouver Island areas. E 58 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTable V.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Summarizing the Supposed Sources of Tags from each Tagging producing\nReturns, listed in Table IV., during the 1942-43 Season.\n(The entries in this table represent the authors' interpretation of the recoveries\nbased on data concerning the amounts and dates of fish delivered to each plant, the\nplants which failed to make recoveries from certain taggings, and the peculiarities of\neach plant in returning tags as determined by tests. Details of the qualifications concerning the interpretations are given in the text.)\nCode.\nLocality and Month of\nTagging.\nPlace of Capture.\nTotal.\n_:\n>>\n_\n_\n_?\n.\no ,\n\u00C2\u00ABtB\n-J-3\n\u00C2\u00A3**\n0 rt\noo g\n__ *\n^ _\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0_ 0\no S\nZH\nQJ\nc\n_q\na\n9\nO\na\no\n13\na\no\n03\nO\nG\n\u00C2\u00B0m\n+J\nrt\n3\na\n1 J=\neu \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nrt o-a\n> C C\nm_rt >>\nea \u00C2\u00AB qj\nS{{\n+* 2_ ti\nCJ > _v_\nQJ pw\n>\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 O <_\nP- O O\nti\nss\n2 5\n-U CO\ncffl\nrt t,\n>,%\n\u00C2\u00ABs\np. p,\nQJ QJ\nQJ QJ\nOQ\nu\no\n.Soj\nsi\nCD U\n\u00C2\u00A7 \u00C2\u00ABi\ne\nc.\n1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nIs\no_\n0)\n\"2\nQJ\n>\ns\nj\u00C2\u00BBTjj\noi o\nciTS\nOh OJ\ntH u\n>\"T3\nIS __\n01\nIh\n<\n1\nc\n_\no\n4AA\n50\n5P\n4P\n4Q\n5Y\n4R\n5Q\n5U\n3V\n5X\n4U\n5W\n4G\n6C\n6E\n6G\n7A\n5D\n5E\n4K\n61\n6K\n6P\n6L\n6N\n60\n3Q\n4W\n4Z\n51\n5L\n5N\n6M\nBarkley Sound, March, 1940\t\nBarkley Sound, March, 1941\t\nBarkley Sound, March, 1941\t\nWhitepine Cove, March, 1940\t\nRefuge Cove, March, 1940\t\nRefuge Cove, March, 1941\t\nNootka Sound, March, 1940\t\nNootka Sound, March, 1941\t\nEsperanza Inlet, March, 1941\t\nKyuquot Sound, March, 1939\t\nBunsby Islands, March, 1941\t\nQuatsino Sound, March, 1940\t\nQuatsino Sound, March, 1941\t\nGanges Harbour, March, 1940\t\nGanges Harbour, February, 1942\nKuper Island, March, 1942\t\nKulleet Bay, March, 1942\t\nSooke, October, 1942 \t\nHammond Bay, March, 1941\t\nNanoose Bay, March, 1941\t\n1\n1\n....\n1\n1\n1\n2\n9\n2\n7\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\n3\n1\n1\n26\n11\n8\n1\n1\n1\n2\n8\n3\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n5\n3\n19\n2\n-\n1\n3\n1\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n4\n....\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n3\n2\n2\n2\n5\n13\n4\n1\n38\n23\n33\n1\n1\n4\n2\n4\n2\n1\n1\n3\n2\n4\n1\n8\n9\ns\n1\n9 '\nSkuttle Bay, March, 1942 \t\nSquirrel Cove, March, 1942\t\nCahnish Bay, April, 1942 \t\nRetreat Passage, March, 1942\nClio Channel, March, 1942\t\nKingcome Inlet, March, 1942\t\nRivers Inlet, March, 1939 __\nCampbell Island, March, 1940\nLake Island, March, 1940\t\nCampbell Island, March, 1941.\t\nLaidlaw Island, March, 1941 __\nKwakshua Passage, March, 1941 .\nCampbell Island, March, 1942\nTotals \t\n2\n1\n2\n3\n2\n1\n1\n3\n21\n62\n13\n40 | 12\n1\n14 | 6\n1\n6\n8\n2 | 3\n1\n190\nLyall Point (50) : Four recoveries, two reported from Ououkinsh Inlet, one from\nNootka Sound, and one from Sydney Inlet. One of the two reported from Ououkinsh\nInlet is correct, and the other probably so but with the east coast of Vancouver Island\nand Clayoquot Sound areas as possible alternatives. Although Quatsino Sound appears\nto be a likely alternative for the recovery reported from Nootka Sound, in view of the\ndiscussion given in a preceding paragraph (4Q), it is considered to have come from the\nNootka Sound area, with the Clayoquot Sound and Kyuquot Sound areas as less likely\npossibilities. The return reported from Sydney Inlet most probably originated there BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 59\nbut had all other west coast fishing-grounds and the east coast of Vancouver Island as\nless likely alternatives.\nToquart Bay (5P) : Three recoveries, reportedly from Sydney Inlet, Queens Cove,\nand Quatsino Sound. The first is probably correct, with all other west coast localities\nand the east coast of Vancouver Island as possible alternatives. The second is equally\nlikely to have come from the Clayoquot Sound area, with Quatsino Sound and Kyuquot\nSound also as possibilities. The third is equally likely to have come from either Clayoquot Sound or Nootka Sound, with Ououkinsh Inlet and the east coast of Vancouver\nIsland as remote possibilities.\nKendrick Arm (5Q) : Thirteen recoveries, three reported from Ououkinsh Inlet,\none from Quatsino Sound, and nine from Nootka Sound or Queens Cove. Two reported\nfrom Ououkinsh Inlet are certainly correct and the third is probably so, with the east\ncoast of Vancouver Island and Sydney Inlet as possible alternatives. The tag reported\nfrom Quatsino Sound may equally well have come from any of the west coast fishing-\ngrounds north of Barkley Sound or, as a remote possibility, from the east coast of\nVancouver Island.\nOf the nine reported from Nootka Sound area, at least four probably originated\nthere, but with the following less likely alternatives for one: Clayoquot Sound and\nKyuquot Sound areas; for another: these two areas and Quatsino Sound; and for the\nremaining two: all three areas and the east coast of Vancouver Island. The remaining\nfive, while reported from Nootka Sound might equally well have come from Quatsino\nSound fish, or, as a remote possibility, from either the Clayoquot Sound or Kyuquot\nSound areas. However, in view of the discussion given in a preceding paragraph (4Q),\nthey are considered to have originated with fish from the Nootka Sound area.\nQueens Cove (5U) : Four recoveries. One, reported from Ououkinsh Inlet, probably originated there, with the east coast of Vancouver Island and the Clayoquot Sound\nareas as less likely alternatives. One, reported from Queens Cove, probably originated\nthere or in Nootka Sound, with the Kyuquot Sound, Quatsino Sound, Clayoquot Sound\nareas as less likely alternatives and the east coast of Vancouver Island as a remote\npossibility. One of the remaining two recoveries is reported from Queens Cove and the\nother from Nootka Sound. The former is equally likely to have come from the Clayoquot Sound area with the Quatsino Sound and Kyuquot Sound areas as less likely possibilities. The other, judging from plant records, is equally likely to have come from\nQuatsino Sound, but in view of the discussion above (4Q) it is considered to have come\nfrom the Nootka Sound area, as reported, with the Clayoquot and Kyuquot Sound areas\nas remote possibilities.\nBrowning Inlet (5W) : Thirty-three recoveries reported from the following localities: Quatsino Sound, eight; Ououkinsh Inlet, seven; Kyuquot Sound, one; Queens\nCove, nine; Nootka Sound, five; Sydney Inlet, two; Meyers Passage or Pacofi or\nLaredo Inlet, one.\nOf the eight recoveries reported from Quatsino Sound three are considered as correct, two of which have localities in the Queen Charlotte Strait and east coast of Vancouver Island areas as less likely alternatives and one of which has other west coast of\nVancouver Island areas, except Barkley Sound, as less likely alternatives and the east\ncoast of Vancouver Island as a remote possibility. The remaining five may equally\nwell have come from the Nootka Sound area or from other west coast areas except\nBarkley Sound, or from the east coast of Vancouver Island as a remote possibility.\nFour of the seven recoveries reported from Ououkinsh Inlet came from that fishing-\nground for certain, and the remaining three very probably also originated there, with\nthe east coast of Vancouver Island and Sydney Inlet as possible alternatives. The\nrecovery reported from Kyuquot Sound also probably came from Ououkinsh Inlet, with\nthe east coast of Vancouver Island and Barkley Sound as less likely alternatives. E 60 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nOne of the recoveries reported from Queens Cove probably originated there,\nalthough all other west coast areas except Barkley Sound are likely possibilities and\nthe south-east coast of Vancouver Island is a remote alternative. Of the remaining\nthirteen returns reported from Queens Cove or from Nootka Sound, nine were equally\nlikely to have come from Quatsino Sound, with the Clayoquot Sound and Kyuquot Sound\nareas as less likely possibilities, and four were equally likely to have come from either\nClayoquot Sound or Quatsino Sound, with the Kyuquot Sound area as a remote possibility. All thirteen returns were from one plant in which the magnet-tender evidently\nfailed to realize that Quatsino Sound fish were being processed. It is considered likely\nthat most of these thirteen tags actually originated with Quatsino Sound fish, although\nthis interpretation is not used in summarizing the results. (Table V.)\nOf the two tags reported from Sydney Inlet, one is likely to have come from there\nor other places in the Clayoquot Sound area, but with the following less likely alternatives: the Quatsino Sound, Nootka Sound, Barkley Sound, east coast of Vancouver\nIsland, and Kyuquot Sound areas. The other is equally likely to have originated from\nthe Quatsino Sound or Nootka Sound areas or, as remote possibilities, the Kyuquot\nSound and east coast of Vancouver Island areas.\nThe recovery reported from Meyers Passage, Pacofi or Laredo Inlet, is considered\nto have probably originated with Central British Columbia fish, although it may have\ncome from a small quantity (10 tons) of Queen Charlotte Island fish processed at the\ntime or from Quatsino Sound fish which were processed a few days previous to the time\nof the recovery.\nBunsby Islands (5X) : Thirty-eight recoveries reported from the following localities: Ououkinsh Inlet, twenty-one; \" Kyuquot,\" five; Quatsino Sound, four; Queens\nCove, three; Nootka Sound, four; and \" unknown,\" one.\nIt is certain that eight of the recoveries came from Ououkinsh Inlet as reported\nand it is most probable that the remaining thirteen reported from Ououkinsh Inlet and\nthe five reported from \" Kyuquot \" also originated there. Of these eighteen recoveries,\ntwelve have the east coast of Vancouver Island or Sydney Inlet as remote alternatives;\none has the Clayoquot Sound area as less likely alternative, and five have the east coast\nof Vancouver Island and Barkley Sound as less likely alternatives.\nThe four tags reported from Quatsino Sound may have originated there, but all\nare almost equally likely to have come from the Nootka Sound area, the Clayoquot\nSound area, and, in one case, the Kyuquot Sound area; with Ououkinsh Inlet and the\neast coast of Vancouver Island as remote possibilities in all cases.\nOf the seven tags reported from Queens Cove or Nootka Sound, at least three are\nprobably correct, with Clayoquot Sound and Quatsino Sound as less likely alternatives\nfor two and these localities and Kyuquot Sound as less likely alternatives for the third,\nwhich also has the east coast of Vancouver Island and Ououkinsh Inlet as remote possibilities. Three more can be considered as probably correct, with Clayoquot Sound and\nKyuquot Sound as less likely alternatives. The remaining tag reported from Nootka\nSound is considered to have come from that area from considerations given above (4Q),\nwith the Clayoquot Sound and Kyuquot Sound areas as less likely possibilities.\nOne tag, picked up from the plant machinery after the close of the season, may\nhave originated from any of the west coast areas, except Barkley Sound, or, less likely,\nfrom the east coast of Vancouver Island.\nRefuge Cove (5Y) : Two tags recovered. One reported from Ououkinsh Inlet may\nhave originated there or in the Clayoquot Sound area. The other, reported from Quatsino Sound, is equally likely to have come from the Nootka Sound area. This is considered to be the most probable origin, in view of a previous discussion (4Q), with the\nClayoquot Sound and Kyuquot Sound areas as less likely alternatives and the east coast\nof Vancouver Island as a remote possibility. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 61\nGanges Harbour (6C) : One recovery reported, evidently in error, from Sydney\nInlet. It most probably came from the east coast of Vancouver Island (Nanoose Bay\nor Satellite Channel) or possibly from Barkley Sound.\nKuper Island (6E) : Four recoveries, one certainly and two probably coming from\nSatellite Channel or Nanoose Bay on the east coast of Vancouver Island. Of the latter,\none has Barkley Sound, and the other, various localities in the Queen Charlotte Strait\narea as less likely alternatives. The fourth tag, one of two recovered during a run on\noffal from east coast of Vancouver Island fish, may equally well have originated either\nfrom east coast fish or from fish reduced the day previously from Bones Bay.\nKulleet Bay (6G) : Two recoveries, both reported from east coast of Vancouver\nIsland fish. One probably came from either Satellite Channel or Nanoose Bay, with\nBarkley Sound as a possible alternative, but the other may equally well have originated\nwith fish from the Queen Charlotte Strait area.\nSkuttle Bay (6 I) : Three recoveries. One is certain to have come from Nanoose\nBay fish as reported. The other two are both reported from Deepwater Bay and one\nof these is probably correct. The other may have come from either Deepwater Bay or\nDeep Bay. Both, however, have various localities in Queen Charlotte Strait as remote\nalternatives.\nSquirrel Cove (6K) : Two recoveries, one reported from Rivers Inlet and the other\nfrom Deepwater Bay. It is fairly certain that the Rivers Inlet record is correct, with\nless likely alternatives of other localities in the Central area, the Queen Charlotte\nIslands, Quatsino Sound, and Queen Charlotte Strait. It is fairly certain that the tag\nreported from Deepwater Bay came from east coast of Vancouver Island fish, probably\nfrom either Deepwater Bay or Deep Bay, but other east coast of Vancouver Island and\nQueen Charlotte Strait localities are remote possibilities.\nRetreat Passage (6L) : One recovery reported, probably correctly, from Rivers\nInlet, but with a variety of remote alternatives in other localities of the Central area,\nQueen Charlotte Islands, Quatsino Sound, and Queen Charlotte Strait.\nCampbell Island (6M) : Nine recoveries. Three reported from Rivers Inlet are\nalmost certainly correct, with remote alternatives as listed under 6L. Of two reported\nfrom Quatsino Sound, one probably came from there, with less likely alternatives in the\nQueen Charlotte Strait and east coast of Vancouver Island areas; the other may have\ncome from either Quatsino Sound or Nootka Sound, or, as less likely possibilities, the\nClayoquot Sound, Kyuquot Sound, or east coast of Vancouver Island areas. Two\nreported from Ououkinsh Inlet most probably originated there, with the east coast of\nVancouver Island and Sydney Inlet as remote possibilities. One reported from Queens\nCove probably came from there or from Clayoquot Sound or Quatsino Sound, with\nOuoukinsh Inlet as a much less likely alternative. One tag was recovered when cleaning herring reported to have been caught at Deep Bay.\nClio Channel (6N) : Eight recoveries. One reported from Rivers Inlet is considered to have come from there, but with less likely alternatives in the Central area,\nQueen Charlotte Islands, and Quatsino Sound. One reported from Meyers Passage or\nPacofi or Laredo Channel certainly came from some locality outside of Queen Charlotte\nStrait, probably the Central area, but with the Queen Charlotte Islands and Quatsino\nSound as alternatives. One reported from \" Deepwater Bay or Bones Bay,\" probably\ncame from Deepwater Bay with Nanoose Bay as a less likely alternative. One reported\nfrom Ououkinsh Inlet probably came from there, with the east coast of Vancouver\nIsland and Sydney Inlet as less likely alternatives. Two reported from Bones Bay were\nfound in the grinder following the processing of Bones Bay fish and are considered to\nhave more likely come from that locality or from some other fishing-ground in the\nQueen Charlotte Strait area than from the offal of herring from Satellite Channel and\nNanoose Bay. One reported from Deepwater Bay is probably correct, with Deep Bay E 62 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\na less likely alternative and with other east coast of Vancouver Island localities and\nQueen Charlotte Strait localities as remote possibilities. One tag was recovered when\ncleaning herring reported to have been caught at Deep Bay.\nKingcome Inlet (60) : Nine recoveries. One is considered to have originated\nwith Rivers Inlet fish, as reported, with alternatives similar to the 6N recovery listed\npreviously. Four are reported from Bones Bay, two under circumstances similar to\nthose for the 6N recoveries discussed above. This locality is accepted as the most\nprobable for all four, with other localities in Queen Charlotte Strait and fishing-grounds\non the lower east coast as less likely sources. Two tags, one reported from \" Cowichan \"\nand the other from Nanoose Bay, may have come from the offal of fish from those localities but both are equally likely to have come from some fishing-ground in the Queen\nCharlotte Strait area. Two tags were found when cleaning herring reported to have\ncome from Deep Bay.\nCahnish Bay (6P) : Four recoveries. One reported from Deepwater Bay and\nanother reported from the \" Gulf area \" may have come from either Deepwater Bay or\nDeep Bay, with Queen Charlotte Strait and lower east coast of Vancouver Island localities as less likely possible sources. One report from Deep Bay and another from\n\"Bones Bay\" (?) may have come from those places, or from other east coast of\nVancouver Island or Queen Charlotte Strait fishing-grounds with equal probability.\nSooke (7A) : Four recoveries. Two reported from the east coast of Vancouver\nIsland probably came from either Nanoose Bay or Satellite Channel fish, or, as a less\nlikely alternative, from Barkley Sound. One, reported from Nanoose Bay, certainly\ncame either from there or from Satellite Channel. The remaining one, reported from\nDeepwater Bay, is equally likely to have come from Deep Bay, and is somewhat less\nlikely to have come from Satellite Channel, with Nanoose Bay and some locality in the\nQueen Charlotte Strait area as more remote alternatives.\nSTABILITY OF POPULATIONS AND MOVEMENTS.\nMajor Areas.\nTable VI. gives a summary of the number of tags recovered from major areas from\nboth magnets, as interpreted in Table V., and induction detectors, as shown in Table II.,\nbut excluding Sooke (7A) recoveries, which were out for less than six months. Considering magnet returns only, 158 out of 180, or 88 per cent., are interpreted as coming\nfrom the same general area in which they were used (as compared with 96 per cent, in\nboth 1941-42 and 1940-41, and 98 per cent, in 1939-40). If detector returns are\nincluded, the figures are 213 out of 242, or, again, 88 per cent. These data do not give\nso fair an impression of the degree of interchange between general areas as did\nsimilar figures for early years. They are greatly influenced by differences between\nareas in the quantity of fish caught and the proportions canned.\nTo obtain somewhat more comparable data the concentration of tags per hundred\ntons of fish has been calculated (Table VII.). For the Strait of Georgia, where practically the entire catch was canned, detector recoveries only were used, those for the\nGulf of Georgia detector being corrected as explained in a preceding section. For all\nother areas magnet recoveries were used and the returns were considered as having\ncome from the weight of fish reduced plus half the weight of fish canned. It is believed\nthat errors introduced by inaccuracy in the latter arbitrary correction would be small.\nThe data are not corrected for efficiency of the magnets in returning tags, nor for\nvariation in this efficiency between plants. No correction for differences between areas\nin the number of tags originally used has been attempted.\nFrom Table VII. it may be seen that the concentration of tags per hundred tons of\nfish is greatest in the fish caught in the major area in which the tags were originally BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 63\nused. This shows that the 1942-43 results are in essential agreement with those of\nformer years in indicating the relative independence of the fish of major areas. However, some of the figures also suggest that the extent of mixing between major areas,\nwhile limited, was somewhat greater than in former years. Particular cases of mixing\nwill be discussed in the following sections.\nWest Coast of Vancouver Island.\nAll of the tags recovered on the west coast of Vancouver Island came from fishing-\ngrounds to the north-west of Barkley Sound. Lack of recoveries from Barkley Sound\nfish may be due to lack of opportunity for recovery, for the catch was small and the fish\nwere mostly canned by the one plant submitting returns, or it may be due to a scarcity\nor absence of tags in the catch.\nMagnet returns (Table V.) indicate some movement, probably small in extent, of\nStrait of Georgia (4K) and Queen Charlotte Strait (6N) fish to Ououkinsh Inlet, and\na movement, probably of greater magnitude, of Central British Columbia fish (4W, 5N,\nand 6M) to Ououkinsh Inlet and Quatsino Sound. As shown by detector returns (Table\nII.) there was also a movement, probably small, of Quatsino Sound fish (4U) and\nBarkley Sound fish (5P) to Satellite Channel, on the east coast of Vancouver Island.\nThe independence of individual fishing areas on the west coast of Vancouver\nIsland was maintained only imperfectly, possibly even less so than in former years.\nThis is shown by the summary of results, based on the returns as interpreted in Table\nV. and as shown in Table II., which is given in Table VIIL From the latter table it\nmay be calculated that of the tags used and recovered on the west coast of Vancouver\nIsland (for which interpretations are offered), 51 out of 96, or 53 per cent., are considered as having come from the same area in which they were used; or, combining the\nNootka Sound-Esperanza Inlet and the Ououkinsh Inlet areas, the figures are 65 out\nof 96 or 68 per cent. These may be compared with similar calculations made in\n1941-42\u00E2\u0080\u009460 per cent, and 77 per cent.; and 1940-41\u00E2\u0080\u009463 per cent, and 71 per cent.\nThe returns from Ououkinsh Inlet are of particular interest in that they represent\nmostly \" certain \" recoveries. It is shown that all other areas on the west coast of\nVancouver Island and, in addition, three \" outside \" general areas, contributed to this\nfishery which took place during December and early January. However, the majority\nof the recoveries were of tags originally used either in that area (43 per cent.) or in\nQuatsino Sound (31 per cent.). The latter demonstrates a substantial movement of\nQuatsino Sound fish (4U and 5W) to the Kyuquot Sound-Ououkinsh Inlet area similar\nto that reported in 1940-41 (4U). However, as found in both 1940-41 and 1941-42,\nthere are indications of an even greater concentration of Quatsino Sound tags among\nfish caught in Quatsino Sound. According to the records of two plants which did not\noperate on fish from other grounds on the west coast of Vancouver Island, the concentration amounted to 1.35 per hundred tons; this may be compared with 0.36 per\nhundred tons as calculated for Ououkinsh Inlet fish. Therefore the extent of mixing\n- between the two areas may not be as great as might be judged from the tabulation.\nResults for previous years have been based mostly on tags out for nearly a year,\nand partly on tags out for nearly two years or longer. As there was no tagging on\nthe west coast of Vancouver Island in the spring of 1942, the present results are based\nentirely on tags out for nearly two years or longer. It is probable that the greater\ndegree of mixing indicated by the 1942-43 recoveries is related to the greater opportunity for mixing afforded by the longer period of freedom of the tagged fish. This is\nillustrated by an analysis of the results for last year. Including the recoveries given\nin the Postscript (Hart, Tester, and Boughton, 1942), 95 out of 144 recoveries, or 66\nper cent., were of tags used and recovered in the same area, out for nearly a year;\n44 out of 77 recoveries, or 58 per cent., were of tags used and recovered in the same E 64\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\narea, but out for nearly two years or longer. Therefore, the results for 1942-43 (52\nper cent.) agree more closely with those for 1941-42 than might be judged on first\nconsideration.\nTable VI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Summary, according to Major Areas, of the Supposed Sources of all Tags\nfrom Taggings producing Returns on Magnets (M) and Induction Detectors (D)\nduring the 1942-43 Season. (For Qualifications, see Table V. and Text.)\nGeneral Locality of Recovery.\nGeneral Locality of Tagging.\nWest\nCoast of\nVancouver\nIsland.\nStrait of Georgia\n(including Discovery\nPassage).\nQueen\nCharlotte\nStrait.\nCentral\nBritish\nColumbia.\nNo Interpretations\noffered.\nWest Coast of Vancouver Island __.\nStrait of Georgia (including Discovery Pas-\nM.\n130\n1\n1\n7\nM.\n15\n5\n2\nD.\n2\n55\n5\nM.\n6\nM.\n1\n4\n7\nM.\n4\n2\nTable VII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Concentration of Tags per Hundred Tons of Fish according to Major Areas\nfor Magnet Recoveries (M) and Detector Recoveries (D). (For Explanation, see\nText.)\nGeneral Locality or Recovery.\nGeneral Locality of Tagging.\nWest Coast\nof\nVancouver\nIsland.\nStrait of\nGeorgia\n(including\nDiscovery\nPassage).\nQueen\nCharlotte\nStrait.\nCentral\nBritish\nColumbia.\nM.\n0.99\n0.01\n0.01\n0.05\nD.\n0.01\n0.36\n0.03\nM.\n0.31\nM.\n0.02\n0.02\n0.10\n0.17\nTable VIIL\u00E2\u0080\u0094Summary of the Supposed Sources of all Tags recovered during the\n1942\u00E2\u0080\u009443 Fishing Season which were used on the West Coast of Vancouver Island\nor which are interpreted as having been returned from that Major Area. (For\nQualifications, see Table V. and Text.)\nArea of Tagging.\nInterpreted Area of Recovery.\n__< rt\n5 c\n5 *\no h\nUI OJ\nrt ft\nJ=m .\n-*_ *\u00E2\u0080\u0094 +j\n8-5-2\nj-.y rt\nt? QJ\n_ W\nBarkley Sound \t\nClayoquot Sound and Sydney Inlet\t\nNootka Sound and Esperanza Inlet\t\nKyuquot Sound and Ououkinsh Inlet__\nQuatsino Sound _ \t\n1\n2\n13\n7\n2\nAreas not on the West Coast of Vancouver Island-\n3\n1\n7\n27\n19\n5\n11\n2\n2\n106\n2\n3\n2\n5\n22\n2 BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 65\nIn 1942-43, as in 1941-42, there was an exceptionally large number of tags\nrecovered on the west coast of Vancouver Island as compared with the east coast and\nother areas. In 1942-43 the number of west coast tags recovered on the west coast\n(130) was less than in 1941-42 (346) although the tonnage operated on was approximately the same (1942-43, 13,095 tons; 1941-42, 13,822 tons; both including weight\nof fish reduced plus half of weight canned). The decrease is to be expected, however,\nas no additional tags were used, and as there would be a dilution of the concentration\nof tagged fish by recruitment.\nA rough calculation of the percentage recovery of 5-series tags used in the spring\nof 1941 on the west coast of Vancouver Island and recovered there in 1942-43 can be\nmade by multiplying the number of recoveries (96) by the total catch (16,989 tons),\ndividing by the tonnage considered to have yielded the tags (13,095 tons), and expressing the result (124) as a percentage of the total number of tags used (9,759). This\nrough calculation indicates a recovery of 1.27 per cent, for 5-series tags, which may be\ncompared with 0.33 per cent, as estimated for the east coast of Vancouver Island. The\ndifference might be due to a variety of causes: (1) more efficient recovery on the west\ncoast of Vancouver Island; (2) more efficient tagging on the west coast; (3) more\nintensive fishing on the west coast; (4) smaller recovery on the east coast because of\nthe mortality in the spring of 1942; (5) the movement of tagged fish away from the\neast coast; (6) factors connected with lack of random distribution of the tagged fish.\nA complete discussion of these various possible factors will not be attempted at\nthe present time. The difference seems unlikely to have resulted from (1), (2), or (5).\nFactor (4) may have contributed to the difference if some of the fish tagged in the\nspring of 1941 died during the mortality which took place in the spring of 1942 along\na section of the south-east coast of Vancouver Island. Factor (6) may also have contributed to the difference in a way which is not yet clear. Factor (3), a more intensive\nfishery on the west coast of Vancouver Island, is, on first consideration, a likely cause\nbut rough calculations of the total recoveries of 5-series tags on the east coast of\nVancouver Island (lower east coast including Nanoose Bay) in 1941-42 and 1942-43\n(171 and 21) and of 5-series tags on the west coast of Vancouver Island (all areas) in\n1941-42 and 1942-43 (273 and 124) indicate a higher total mortality rate on the east\ncoast (88 per cent, per annum) than on the west coast (55 per cent, per annum). It\nwould seem from these results that either natural mortality was much higher, possibly\nbecause of (4), or that mortality due to fishing was greater on the east than on the\nwest coast.\nEast Coast of Vancouver Island.\nAs mentioned in a previous section, two west coast of Vancouver Island tags were\nrecovered from Satellite Channel in the southern part and five Queen Charlotte Strait\ntags were recovered from Deep Bay and Deepwater Bay in the northern part of the\nStrait of Georgia by induction detectors. To these instances of mixing may be added\nfive Queen Charlotte Strait tags and two Central British Columbia tags probably\nrecovered from Deep Bay and (or) Deepwater Bay in the northern part of the Strait,\nand one Strait of Georgia tag probably recovered on the west coast of Vancouver Island\nand one probably recovered at Rivers Inlet (Table V.). Of these results, the most\ninteresting and most important is the recovery of the Queen Charlotte Strait tags,\nwhich demonstrates a substantial movement of fish from that area to Deep Bay and\nDeepwater Bay in the northern part of Strait of Georgia. These fish may have come\nby way of Discovery Passage or, less likely, by way of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.\nMagnet recoveries (M) confirm the detector recoveries (D) in showing a tendency\ntowards independence of the more southerly from the more northerly components of\n5 E 66\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nthe Strait of Georgia population as shown by the following tabulation (omitting 7A\nrecoveries). .\nArea of Recovery.\nArea of Tagging in Strait of Georgia.\nSatellite Channel and\nNanoose Bay.\nDeep Bay and Deepwater\nBay.\nD.\nM.\nTotal.\nD.\nM.\nTotal.\n38\n1\n8\n1\n46\n2\n5\n10\n5\n5\n15\nApplication of the Chi-square test shows the heterogeneity in the data to be highly\nsignificant statistically. The arbitrary division between the \" southern part\" and the\n\" northern part\" of the Strait of Georgia (page 52) might be taken as a straight\nline between Parksville and Sechelt (see map). It might be noted that the northern\npart includes Deepwater Bay and Okisollo Channel, localities which have been\ngrouped as \" Discovery Passage \" and treated as a separate area in previous reports.\nAlthough this arbitrary division has been made to illustrate tendencies noted in the\n1942-43 results, without doubt the situation along the east coast of Vancouver Island is\none of considerable complexity which varies from year to year (cf. Hart and Tester,\n1940; Hart, Tester, and McHugh, 1941; Hart, Tester, and Boughton, 1942).\nThe recovery of Sooke tags (7A) by magnets supplements the detector recoveries\nin showing an extension of the movement of these fish from the Strait of Juan de Fuca\nto north of Nanoose Bay (Deep Bay or Deepwater Bay).\nIt may be noted that no additional tags were recovered by magnets from taggings\nmade within the area of mortality along the south-east coast of Vancouver Island (6D,\n6F, 6Q, 6R, 6S, 6H), thus confirming the conclusion drawn from detector returns that\na large portion of the fish tagged in this area died. It may also be noted that there\nwere no recoveries from Porpoise Bay (6J), thus supporting the suggestion that the\nfish from this area (Seechelt Inlet) did not enter the east coast of Vancouver Island\nfishery. Likewise there were no recoveries from the early tagging at Prevost\nIsland (6B).\nQueen Charlotte Strait.\nThe recovery of Queen Charlotte Strait tags (4L, 6N, 60) at Deep Bay and Deep-\nwater Bay in the northern part of the Strait of Georgia, indicating a movement of some\nmagnitude, has already been discussed. It was also noted that one Queen Charlotte\nStrait tag (6N) was recovered from Ououkinsh Inlet, on the west coast of Vancouver\nIsland. In addition, Table V. indicates a movement, also of some magnitude, of Queen\nCharlotte Strait tags (6L, 6N, and 60) to Rivers Inlet, which is considered to be part\nof the Central British Columbia area. It is interesting to note that fish from not one\nbut from several taggings took part in these movements to the northern part of the\nStrait of Georgia and to Rivers Inlet, indicating mixture of the fish originally tagged\nin separate localities in Queen Charlotte Strait (Clio Channel, Cutter Creek, Retreat\nPassage, and Kingcome Inlet). One Clio Channel tag (6N) was also recovered from\nsome locality in the Central area other than Rivers Inlet.\nWithout doubt there was a considerable dispersal of fish originally tagged in the\nQueen Charlotte Strait area to localities near the boundaries of adjoining major areas.\nHowever, calculations (Table VII.) show that the concentration of Queen Charlotte\nStrait tags in fish caught in Queen Charlotte Strait (chiefly at Clio Channel) was\ngreater than in these other localities, indicating that the movements away from the\narea might not be so great as might be assumed from a consideration of the untreated\ndata. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 67\nCentral British Columbia.\nAs mentioned previously, several tags originally used in Central British Columbia\n(4W, 5N, and 6M) were recovered from Ououkinsh Inlet and Quatsino Sound, and\npossibly from other west coast of Vancouver Island localities; two Central British\nColumbia tags (4Z and 6M) were probably recovered from Deep Bay in the Strait of\nGeorgia; one west coast of Vancouver Island tag (5W) was probably recovered from\nsome locality in the Central area; and one east coast of Vancouver Island tag was\nprobably recovered from Rivers Inlet. The movements of Central British Columbia\nfish away from the area (particularly to the west coast of Vancouver Island) and the\nmovements of \" outside \" fish into the area (particularly from Queen Charlotte Strait)\nare probably of greater extent than has been indicated by the results of previous years.\nHowever, the calculations of Table VII. again show that there was a higher concentration of Central British Columbia tags taken in that area than in other major areas.\nIt is interesting to note (Table V.) that tags used at Campbell Island (6M) and\nRivers Inlet (3Q) were probably returned from Rivers Inlet, and that tags used at\nLaidlaw Island (51) were probably returned from Meyers Passage and Laredo Inlet.\nThere has been only one other recovery from Rivers Inlet (3Q)\u00E2\u0080\u0094one tag was recovered,\nprobably from Kwakshua Passage, in 1939-40.\nThe small number of returns from Central British Columbia is doubtless related in\npart to the small catch and the small number of tags used there as compared with major\nareas to the south.\nNorthern British Columbia.\nNo catches were made in Northern British Columbia during the regular 1942-43\nfishing season and no tags were recovered from that area. No tags originally used in\nNorthern British Columbia were recovered elsewhere.\nSUMMARY OF RESULTS.\nThe results of the herring-tagging and recovery programme in 1942-43, in general,\nagree with those of previous years in showing the relative independence of the populations in major areas.' However, the degree of mixing which took place in 1942-43 was\napparently greater than in previous years. There was a dispersal, probably of considerable magnitude, of Queen Charlotte Strait fish to the northern fishing-grounds of\nthe Strait of Georgia and the southern fishing-grounds of Central British Columbia.\nLikewise there was a dispersal of some Central British Columbia fish to the more\nwesterly fishing-grounds of the west coast of Vancouver Island.\nAs in past years, within major areas there was a tendency towards segregation of\npopulations. This was the case in the Strait of Georgia, where fish in the northern\npart were relatively independent of those in the southern part. In general, it was also\nthe case on the west coast of Vancouver Island, although there was a considerable movement of Quatsino Sound fish to Ououkinsh Inlet.\nProbably a large portion of the fish which spawned in a limited area along the ea'st\ncoast of Vancouver Island during the spring of 1942 died during a mortality which took\nplace there during the spawning period. E 68\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTable IX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Detailed List of Tags inserted during 1942-43.\nIdentification\nMarks.\nP28001-P28100\nP28101-P28200\nP28201-P29600\nAAUU\nBBMM\nHHHH\nHHMM*\nIIUU\nIIZZ\nJJHH\nJJJJ\nJJPP\nJJTT\nJJUU\nJJXX\nJJZZ\nJJ44\nKKAA\nKKBB\nKKJJ\nKKLL\nKKNN\nKKPP\nKKTT\nKKUU\nKK44\nKK66\nLLAA\nLLBB\nLLHH\nLLII\nLLXX\nLL44\nLL66\nMMAA\nMMHH\nMMII\nMMJJ\nMMKK\nMMLL\nMMMM\nMMNN\nMMOO\nMMUU\nMMXX\nMM44\nMM66\nNNAA\nNNBB\nNNZZ\nPPHH\nDate released.\nApr. 5\nMar. 28\nApr. 5.\nFeb. 25\nMar. 29,\nFeb. 26\nApr. 11\nOct.\nOct.\nFeb.\nFeb. 21.\nMar.\nMar. 16\nMar. 16,\nApr. 11\nMar. 27\nMar. 3\nMar. 17\nMar. 28.\nMar. 22\nMar. 18\nMar. 17:\nApr. 2,\nMar. 27\nMar. 12\nApr. 2\nOct.\nMar. 31\nApr. 5\nMar. 31\nMar. 31\nApr. 5\nMar. 31\nApr. 5\nMar. 27,\nMar. 29\nMar. 29\nMar.\nMar. 29\nMar. 29\nMar. 13\nMar. 1\nApr. 2\nFeb. 26\nApr. 11\nMar. 7\nMar. 3\nMar. 31\nMar. 31\nMar. 31\nMar. 29\nTagging\nCode.\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1942\n1942\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943 ]\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1942\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n1943\n7N\n7L\n7N\n7B\n7G\n7B\n71\n7A\n7A\n7B\n7B\n7C\n7E\n7E\n71\n7F\n7C\n7J\n7L\n7K\n7J\n7J\n7H\n7F\n7D\n7H\n7A\n7M\n7N\n7M\n7M\n7N\n7M\n7N\n7F\n7G\n7G\n7D\n7G\n7G\n7D\n7C\n7H\n7B\n71\n7D\n7C\n7M\n7M\n7M\n7G\nWhere released.\nChatham Channel\t\nRetreat Passage\t\nChatham Channel\t\nLadysmith Harbour-\nDeserted Bay\t\nLadysmith Harbour...\nBaynes Sound\t\nSooke \t\nSooke \t\nLadysmith Harbour...\nLadysmith Harbour..\nValdes Island _\nPorlier Pass \t\nPorlier Pass \t\nUnion Bay \t\nPender Harbour\t\nValdes Island\t\nDeepwater Bay\t\nRetreat Passage\t\nClio Channel \t\nDeepwater Bay\t\nDeepwater Bay\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\nNorthwest Bay\t\nPender Harbour \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSkuttle Bay _ - _.\nNorthwest Bay\t\nSooke \t\nGunboat Passage-\t\nChatham Channel\t\nGunboat Passage\t\nGunboat Passage\t\nChatham Channel\t\nGunboat Passage\t\nChatham Channel\t\nPender Harbour\t\nDeserted Bay\t\nDeserted Bay\t\nSkuttle Bay. \t\nDeserted Bay \t\nDeserted Bay _.\nSkuttle Bay\t\nValdes Island\t\nNorthwest Bay\t\nLadysmith Harbour-\nUnion Bay\t\nSkuttle Bay \t\nValdes Island\t\nGunboat Passage\t\nGunboat Passage \t\nGunboat Passage \t\nDeserted Bay\t\nNo. of\nTags used.\n96\n99\n1,390\n991\n497\n200\n193\n100\n1,002\n1,002\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n1,000\n989\n1,005\n1,000\n1,005\n498\n499\n499\n499\n499\n496\n497\n499\n496\n500\n498\n500\n499\n499\n500\n489\n499\n499\n502\n500\n502\n500\n498\n502\n500\n495\n* Tagged while under way as an experiment.\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS.\nAs in former years, the investigation has received the co-operation of many individuals and agencies. British Columbia Packers, Limited, and the Canadian Fishing\nCompany, Limited, designed the unloading systems at their canneries (Imperial and'\nGulf of Georgia) at Steveston to accommodate the induction detectors and gave considerable assistance in the installation and operation of these. Plant crews of these\nand other companies attended magnets and returned tags during the course of the\nseason. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 69\nA pair of coils, used with the detector at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery, was loaned\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 through the courtesy of Dr. E. H. Dahlgren, Alaska'Fishery Investigation (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service), Seattle, U.S.A.\nThe seine-boats \" Gospak \" and \" Cape Russell \" were loaned for spring tagging\noperations by British Columbia Packers, Limited, and the Canadian Fishing Company,\nLimited. The crews of these boats\u00E2\u0080\u0094Captains C. Coffin and E. Bostrom, and Messrs.\nR. Hoover, A. Somers, G. McGregor, and E. Gregory\u00E2\u0080\u0094co-operated fully. Assistance\nwas also rendered by Mr. S. Vollmers, Nanaimo, during the spring and by Dr. J. L.\nHart, Pacific Biological Station, who conducted the tagging at Sooke.\nThe co-operation and assistance of all of the above is gratefully acknowledged.\nTheir help has been essential to the continuance of the programme.\nThe investigation has been carried on under joint agreement by the Fisheries\nResearch Board of Canada and the Fisheries Department of the Province of British\nColumbia. Thanks are extended to Dr. R. E. Foerster and to Mr. G. J. Alexander, of\nthe respective organizations, for their support and assistance.\nThe senior author who prepared this report assumes responsibility for the accuracy\nof the presentation and for the interpretations of the data which have been included.\nThe services of the junior author, R. V. Boughton, terminated on December 31st, 1942.\nREFERENCES.\nHart, J. L., and A. L. Tester. The- tagging of herring (Clupea pallasii) in British\nColumbia: Methods, apparatus, insertions, and recoveries during 1936-37. Report,\nB.C. Provincial Fisheries Department, 1936, 55-67, 1937.\nHart, J. L., and A. L. Tester. The tagging of herring (Clupea pallasii) in British\nColumbia: Apparatus, insertions, and recoveries during 1937-38. Report, B.C.\nProvincial Fisheries Department, 1937, 64-90, 1938.\nHart, J. L., and A. L. Tester. The tagging of herring (Clupea pallasii) in British\nColumbia: Apparatus, insertions, and recoveries during 1938-39. Report, B.C.\nProvincial Fisheries Department, 1938, 51-78, 1939.\nHart, J. L., and A. L. Tester. The tagging of herring (Clupea pallasii) in British\nColumbia: Insertions and recoveries during 1939-40. Report, B.C. Provincial\nFisheries Department, 1939, 42-66, 1940.\nHart, J. L., A. L. Tester, and J. L. McHugh. The tagging of herring (Clupea pallasii)\nin British Columbia: Insertions and recoveries during 1940-41. Report, B.C.\nProvincial Fisheries Department, 1940, 47-74, 1941.\nHart, J. L., A. L. Tester, and R. V. Boughton. The tagging of herring (Clupea\npallasii) in British Columbia: Apparatus, insertions, and recoveries during 1941-\n42. Report, B.C. Provincial Fisheries Department, 1941, 49-78, 1942.\nTester, A. L. Herring mortality along the south-east coast of Vancouver Island.\nFisheries Research Board of Canada, Progress Reports (Pacific) No. 52, 11-15,\nSeptember, 1942. E 70 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nBIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF COMMERCIAL CLAMS.\nBy Ferris Neave, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.\nDuring the past season investigations have been continued on the more important\ncommercial species of shell-fish, especially in relation to (1) the productivity of different areas and (2) the factors, such as growth-rate and amount of annual seeding,\nwhich affect the size of the catch from year to year. While much of this work is still\nincomplete, certain phases are dealt with in the present report.\nThe investigation, conducted under the auspices of the Pacific Biological Station,\nNanaimo, has received much assistance, financial and otherwise, from the Provincial\nFisheries Department, through the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. George J. Alexander.\nCOMMERCIAL CLAM-CATCH.\nThrough the active co-operation of the Dominion Department of Fisheries and\nthe industry, statistical information has been obtained concerning the quantities of\nvarious species of clams landed during the season of 1941-42 and the distribution and\nrelative availability of these species in various areas of the Province.\nFor the purposes of the present report, the year is taken as beginning on October\n1st, which is the opening of the season for butter-clams. These constitute the major\nportion of the British Columbia catch.\nProduction by Species during 1941-42.\nThe following estimates are based on reports submitted to the Pacific Biological\nStation. In view of possible omissions and inaccuracies the figures should be regarded\nas approximate, only, but they serve to indicate the scope of the industry and the\nrelative importance of the species concerned.\nSpecies. Lb.\nButter-clams 3,032,397\nRazor-clams 590,200\nLittle-neck clams (ca.) 200,000\nHorse-clams 8,418\nProduction of butter and little-neck clams was lower than in the previous season\n(1940-41), probably due in large measure to a relative scarcity of diggers and, in the\ncase of little-necks, to a temporary closure of the market during the summer of 1942,\nfollowing cases of shell-fish poisoning on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The\nhorse-clam is of little importance at the present time, the production reported being\ntaken incidentally in the course of digging for butter-clams. This species is frequently\ndiscarded from catches. After an interval of four years razor-clam production was\nresumed on the north shore of Graham Island (the only present source of supply in\nBritish Columbia) in 1942.\nComparison op Areas.\nButter-clams.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The reported catch was distributed geographically as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nArea. Lb.\nPrince Rupert district 1,382,124\nBella Bella district 140,000\nAlert Bay district 923,055\nQuathiaski district 20,160\nSeal Island, near Comox 235,757\nChemainus district 290,010\nSidney district 40,891 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 71\nThese figures emphasize the northward shift which has taken place in recent years\nin the centre of production. About four-fifths of the catch, according to these data,\ncame from north of Seymour Narrows.\nAs in previous seasons, the average quantity of clams dug by one man during one\nlow-tide period has been calculated for most of the areas concerned as a guide to the\ntrend of productivity from year to year. Average catches, as estimated for the three\nseasons for which data are available, are shown in the following table:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nArea.\nAverage Catch (Lb.) per Man-tide.\n1939-40. 1940-41.\n1 .\n1941-42.\nPrince Rupert district __\t\n200.7\n120.0\n138.0\n182.7\n198.2\n124.7\n149.9\n272.3\n186.7\n599.9\n153.8\n159.1\nSeal Island _\t\nThe productivity of beaches in the Alert Bay district appears to have fallen off,\nwhile a rise in productivity is indicated for the Chemainus-Sidney area during the\nthree years covered by the investigation.\nLittle-neck Clams.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The reported production was as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nArea. Lb.\nVancouver district 10,800\nJervis Inlet district : 2,560\nMilbanke Sound district (ca.) 28,000\nChemainus district 158,180\nAverage catches per man-tide have been calculated as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nAverage Catch (Lb.) per Man-tide.\nArea. 1940-41. 1941-42.\nVancouver district 74.7 73.8\nJervis Inlet district 77.3 92.3\nMilbanke Sound district 70.7 54.4\nChemainus district 122.5 127.0\n\" Chemainus district \" includes various localities along the south-east coast of\nVancouver Island and among the Gulf Islands. This area, in addition to providing\nthe greater part of the British Columbia catch during the past two years, shows the\nhighest yield per unit of effort.\nINVESTIGATIONS AT SEAL ISLAND.\nThe investigation of the large butter-clam beach at Seal Island, near Comox,\ninitiated in 1942 (see Rept. B.C. Fish. Dept., 1941), was continued in February, 1943.\nDigging is not permitted at this locality except for these experimental operations.\nAs in the previous year, operations were conducted in co-operation with British\nColumbia Packers.\nA record was kept of the catch made and the man-hours expended during a specified number of low tides on each of four defined areas, covering a large proportion of\nthe most productive parts of the beach. From three of these areas (A, B, and C) E 72\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nknown quantities of clams had been taken in 1942. The fourth area (D) had not been\npreviously dug. A summary of the,statistics obtained is presented.\nNo. of\nTides.\nNo. of\nMan-\ntides.\nMan-\nhours.\nCatch.\nAverage Catch.\nArea.\nPer Man- , Per Man-\ntide, hour.\nremoved\nin 1942.\nA _ \t\n3\n1\n1\n3\n151\n57\n45\n141\n699.65\n218.48\n123.75\n546.59\nLb.\n87,489\n36,133\n11,478\n101,725\n579.50\n633.91\n255.07\n721.45\n125.00\n165.38\n92.75\n186.11\nLb.\n111,292\nB \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n25,920\nC ....\t\n98,545\nD ' \t\n8\n394\n1588.47\n236,825\n601.08\n149.09\n235,757\nThe total catch and the effort expended in terms of man-tides and man-hours were\nalmost exactly the same as in 1942. The smaller production of the two areas which\nwere heavily dug in 1942 was offset by the large catches made on Area D.\nGrowth of Clams and Size Composition of the Population.\nThe annual production which can be sustained over a period of years depends of\ncourse on the rate of replacement of the clams removed. This in turn is dependent\non the growth-rate of the clams, the amount of seeding which takes place, and the\nsurvival of the young clams.\nThe age of butter-clams can be read with varying degrees of facility by counting\nthe number of \" winter-rings \" on the shell. Fig. 1 shows the average length of the\nshell in successive winters. The values were obtained by measuring the winter-rings\nof a large number of individuals taken at various seasons of the year and from various\nlocations on the Seal Island beach. They were confirmed by measurements of the total\nlength of winter-caught clams of various ages. It will be seen that, on the average,\nthe legal length of 2V_ inches is attained in this locality by the sixth winter; that is, at\nan age of something over five years, since spawning appears to take place in the summer.\nA study of the sizes and ages of clams dug from this beach has indicated that the\namount of spawning and (or) survival varies greatly in different years. In twelve\nsamples (each consisting of from 200 to 900 individuals) taken from various locations\non the Seal Island beach between 1940 and 1943, only two year-classes (those spawned\nin 1934 and 1935) have appeared as the most numerous age-groups represented in any\nsample. The size composition of a typical sample is shown in Fig. 2. In this graph\nabout 50 per cent, of the clams are within a narrow length range of from 7.0 to 8.0\ncm. (2.75 to 3.15 inches), this corresponding approximately to the 1934 and 1935 year-\nclasses. The 1936 year-class is fairly well represented in most samples, but there\nappears to be a definite deficiency of more recent age-groups. Recruitments to the\npresent stock of legal-size clams can therefore be expected to be on a small scale for\nseveral years.\nEffect of Digging.\nAlthough the 1943 catches from the experimental areas remained high in comparison with other localities in Southern British Columbia, certain marked effects of the\nprevious year's digging were apparent. In the following table the quantities of clams\nremoved in 1942 are expressed in pounds per square yard; i.e., total weight of clams\nproduced, divided by the number of square yards in each area:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nArea.\nA .\nB ..\nC ..\nLb. per Sq. Yd.\nremoved in 1942.\n10\n2\n13\nEffect in 1943, as measured by Average\nCatch per Man-hour.\nProduction considerably reduced.\nProduction increased.\nProduction much reduced. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 73\n9\n_J-\n3i\n8\n-\n3\n7\n6\n-\nLcqa!\nLena 1.1\nzi.\n.\nv5\n?! s\n.\nz g\n-L.\nx\n\"> ,\n, 0\n\u00C2\u00A3 *\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n/5_ *\nji\nc J\n<_\n/\no\n2.\n/\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nz.\n1 Z 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 to\nWinters\nFig. 1. Growth of butter-clams at Seal Island. Average lengths in successive winters.\n(,0\nA\nss\nj /\nso\n! f\n4S\n140\nfi /\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2ir\nJO\nJ]\ng .0\n\"3' 1 /A\ntn 1 / \\n*> _._.\n\n*\u00C2\u00AB\n\u00C2\u00A3\n\u00C2\u00A3\"\ni\"\n1\nA. IV\".. ./, . , , \">-7\nJ--\u00C2\u00BB4_-(_7.??;_:\nLeng./) (_enf.n.e.r es)\nFi!\n?. 2. Leng\nth-compc\nsition of\na sample\nof butter-\nclams tak\nen at Sea\nI Island in July, 1942.\n1 E 74 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nIt is evident that with the existing rate of replacement a production of 10-13 lb.\non areas A and C cannot be sustained (during three nights' digging of Area A in 1943,\nthe average catch per man-hour fell from 167 to 97 lb.). While the increased production of Area .B was perhaps largely due to changes in the personnel digging this\nparticular area in the two seasons, it seems certain that the 1942 catch had not reduced\nthe availability of clams.\nSummary and Outlook.\nThe heavily productive portion of the Seal Island beach is roughly 10 acres in\nextent, of which about four-fifths is occupied by the four experimental areas. It is\nnow evident that the distribution of marketable clams was relatively even at the time\nwhen large-scale operations commenced.\nThe very heavy population which has now been tapped in two seasons consists to\na large extent of clams belonging to a few highly successful year-classes. Since the\ndata suggest that no year-classes of comparable abundance are likely to reach marketable size within the next few years, it would seem wise to refrain from too heavy\nexploitation of the existing stock.\nIf digging were permitted over the whole beach, an annual production up to 5 lb.\nper square yard could probably be maintained for several years, unless natural mortality, of which little is known, were to increase sharply with advancing age. Assuming\na total area of 10 acres, a production of 5 lb. per square yard would represent about 120\ntons per annum. This is almost exactly the amount produced in each of the last two\nseasons, although this catch has not, of course, been spread evenly over the beach.\nWhile these conclusions are subject to modification, it is suggested that annual\nproduction at Seal Island should not greatly exceed 100 tons, until the presence of\nlarger numbers of young clams can be demonstrated. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 75\nREPORT ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC\nSALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1942.\nBy W. F. Thompson, Director.\nDuring 1942 the blockade in Hell's Gate Canyon was again the centre of interest.\nIt will be remembered that there was a heavy mortality in 1941 during water-\nlevels at which the fish could not pass. The dangerous levels lasted from the last\ndays of July to nearly the end of the period of sockeye migration. A brief opening\nabout September 1st allowed the major part of the escapement for the season to the\nup-river spawning-grounds, an escapement which in itself was considerable to certain\ndistricts.\nIt had long been known that sockeye were delayed in passage at various points\nin the river, and especially at Hell's Gate. The Commission itself had in 1938, 1939,\nand 1940 good evidence of this delay. But there was no evidence that the fish did not\nlater proceed. There was lacking necessary proof of the mortality which resulted.\nIn 1941 this proof was supplied in conclusive fashion by concentration of the Commission's work upon an adequate tagging programme, with a new technique of interpretation of the results. It was successful in proving the very high percentage of\ndeaths among the delayed fish and in showing the manner in which it affected the\nindividual races which passed Hell's Gate at the time of blockade.\nAttention was immediately given to remedial measures. In fact, before the investigation was complete, steps had been taken to put them in effect. Delay in doing so\ncould be expected because of the magnitude of the engineering problem involved in\nany permanent alteration of the reach or of the conditions of passage. To care for\nthe immediate future as well as possible, during this delay, it was decided to construct\na small fish-pass through the rock and around the obstruction on the east bank. The\nentrances to this could not be placed to take care of all parts of the blocked levels of\nthe river, nor could it be made of sufficient size to care for all levels and any anticipated\nnumber of fish. Hence it is not regarded as more than a partial solution at best.\nA report was submitted to the two Governments recommending its construction.\nBut even with this approval funds could not be secured in time for construction during\nthe low water immediately following the run of 1941. It was, however, begun as the\nwater-level fell in the fall of 1942, and it was completed in that year, ready for the\nrun of 1943.\nThe run of 1942 was in large part bound for the Shuswap district and was the\nlargest of recent years, a recurrence of the four-year cycle which has grown up there\nsince the '30s. It seemed imperative to provide some means of salvaging this run in\ncase the river was blocked during its progress past Hell's Gate. The temporary rock-\ncut could not be finished in time. In case a prolonged blockade developed, great mortality might be caused. Accordingly, the Commission considered methods of salvaging\neggs from fish held below the block and of transporting fish over it. It was finally\ndecided to capture the fish in the eddy immediately below the obstruction on the east\nbank. A large-sized brail-net was operated by a derrick, the fish were dropped into\na tank and flushed down a flume opening 750 feet up-stream. It was a procedure which\ncould be very useful in case the sockeye accumulated in dense masses, but might not\nbe so if they were sparse in number. Certainly but a small fraction of the total run\ncould be handled. This equipment was ready for use before the heavy run of the year\ncommenced.\nAt the same time another extensive tagging experiment was carried out, over 8,000\ntags being placed. This was to further test the upper limits of the obstruction, and\nto determine any possible difference between opposite sides of the river which might\nindicate the necessity of remedial action on both sides. E 76\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nIt was also to provide a record of the mortality caused, especially if the period of\nthe block happened to be short. It was obvious that in 1941 the period was exceptionally long, and the question might be raised fairly as to whether it was not a most\nunusual year. A test to see if mortalities were caused by an average or short period\nof dangerous river-levels was badly needed. With the technique developed this could\nbe done.\nFortunately both for the run of fish and for the desired test, the river fell rapidly\nthrough the levels at which the block was present. It remained but twenty-eight days\nbetween 40 and 25 feet on the gauge, and was below the dangerous levels by September 1st. The great Shuswap run of fish went through without delay, the bulk subsequent to September 15th, and a run to the Stellako district passed in early September.\nThe fishing equipment and flume, while ready for use before the heavy run commenced,\nwas used very little and its efficiency remains to be determined by use.\nIn consequence, in 1942 the mortalities during a short period of block were\ndetermined, a large uninterrupted run to one main locality was observed, and the conditions to be remedied were given the necessary more detailed study.\nThe evidence now at hand must be analysed in detail, but thus far it has indicated\nthat there was a heavy mortality rate in the small number of fish which presented\nthemselves at the Gate during the blockade. This increased with the length of time the\nindividual was delayed. The delay began considerably before the 40-foot level was\nreached and the mortality was graduated in effect, not abruptly greater after twelve\ndays or thereabouts of delay. Full analysis must be awaited as to these points before\nthey can be stated precisely without reservation.\nThe tagged fish retaken at Adams and Little Rivers indicated that the early fish\nin a run had a slower time of migration and a longer period on the grounds before\ndeath than the later fish. Indeed, at the end of the run it was difficult to see how any\ndelay could be endured without bringing death before reaching the grounds or before\nspawning. If so, it can be expected that the results of delay will vary, not only with\nthe time of year the block occurs but with the race which happens to be passing and\nwith the early or late fish of the same race. It may, indeed, be worthy of investigation to see whether the early-running up-river races are not more seriously affected\nthan the late runs, because the block usually occurs in mid-season and would affect the\nlatter part in one case and the early part in the other, with corresponding difference\nin effect. During the year, detailed surveys were made of Hell's Gate reach, and a\nmodel on the scale of one to fifty was constructed at the University of Washington,\nwhere the nearest available facilities for such work were found. The model was constructed and tests run under the supervision of Mr. Milo C. Bell by Professors E. S.\nPretious of the University of British Columbia and Walter Hiltner of the University\nof Washington, with the advice and assistance of Professor C. W. Harris of the latter\ninstitution.\nAs a result of the tests run on this model, and of detailed studies made otherwise,\nit is hoped to make recommendations to the two Governments\u00E2\u0080\u0094Canadian and the\nUnited States\u00E2\u0080\u0094for complete and permanent remedies.\nTagging was also continued at Sooke, on the southern end of Vancouver Island.\nA total of 1,802 sockeye were tagged, with a recovery of 41 per cent. The results for\nthe five years this has been done follow:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nYear.\nNo. tagged.\nNo. recovered.\nPer Cent,\nrecovered.\n1938 _\t\n980\n1,051\n930\n849\n1,802\n431\n547\n417\n485\n735\n44\n1939 _\t\n1940 -\t\n45\n1941 \t\n58\n1942\t\n41\nI\n. BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 77\nIt is interesting to observe the alternation of low returns in even years, with high\nin odd years. The odd years are those in which pink salmon are abundant.\nThe programme of the Commission was carried on as usual. The enumeration of\nmigrants, both adults and young, was continued at Cultus Lake. Statistics of the\ncommercial catch were gathered by cannery observers who collected biological data.\nEstimations of escapement were made by stream observers in addition to their duties\nof recovering tags, etc. Studies of the Quesnel district were begun to determine\nmethods of rehabilitation to be undertaken as soon as possible.\nThe Commission is faced with two additional major projects\u00E2\u0080\u0094the collection of\nproper statistics for regulating purposes and the beginning of rehabilitation in the\nQuesnel district as well as in others. It has also a third, the preparation of scientific\nreports on the great mass of data now in hand. These must be given attention at the\nearliest possible moment. E 78 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nSPAWNING REPORT, BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1942.\nBy J. A. Motherwell.\nThe following are the outstanding features apparent from this year's examination\nof the salmon-spawning grounds of the Province:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1.) There was an immense return of sockeye to the spawning-grounds of the\nAdams River, Little River, and other Shuswap areas frequented by this\nvariety, notwithstanding the fact that the run had produced an unusually\nlarge pack for District No. 1.\n(2.) The return of sockeye to the Chilco system exceeded that of the brood-\nyear of 1938 by 400 per cent. This cycle, in common with others of the\nChilco area, has been increasing most satisfactorily.\n(3.) A seeding by approximately 3,000 sockeye salmon in the Stellako River,\nin the Francois Lake area, produced this year a return estimated at just\nunder 40,000 fish\u00E2\u0080\u0094a remarkable showing.\n(The above are all portions of the Fraser River watershed.)\n(4.) The excellent supplies of spawning salmon found in the watersheds above\nmentioned are unassailable evidence that there was no real blockade at\nHell's Gate this year. Water conditions were most favourable, particularly during the sockeye run, and the salmon passed safely through\nwithout any assistance.\n(5.) In the very considerable spawning area of Yakoun River, Masset Inlet,\nQueen Charlotte Islands, the return of pink salmon to the spawning-\ngrounds this year was the greatest since the large run of 1930, notwithstanding a most satisfactory commercial catch.\nThe usual details follow:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nQUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS.\nThe escapement of springs to the Yakoun River was larger than usual. Cohoe were\nfound to be very plentiful in the Yakoun and, in fact, in all the streams usually\nfrequented by this variety. The Inspector speaks of the escapement as the heaviest\nin his fourteen years' experience.\nThis has been what is usually known as the \" big \" pink year in the Masset Inlet\narea. Since 1930 the runs have been more or less unsatisfactory. However, this year\nthe spawning-grounds were found to be crowded with pinks. The seeding of this\nvariety in the Yakoun system and in the two other larger streams is reported as being\nvery heavy and extremely satisfactory. In the streams along the easterly coast of the\nislands it was found that Skedans was the only area well seeded.\nThe escapement of chums in Masset Inlet was very poor. In Naden Harbour,\nhowever, there was a good supply. In the streams along the east coast the escapement\nis reported as being heavier than for some years. This applies even more so to the\nwest coast streams.\nNASS AREA.\nIn the Meziadin Lake area a very good run of early sockeye occurred, and the\nseeding was heavy, under ideal conditions. The same conditions are reported with\nregard to the late run. The whole seeding is reported as excellent.\nThe fishway at the outlet of Meziadin Lake has been damaged to some extent.\nWhat was possible in the way of correcting conditions was done by the inspecting\nofficer and there is reason to believe that the structure will be efficient for at least\nanother year.\nIn the lower reaches of the Nass River the escapement of the several varieties of\nsalmon is reported as showing marked improvement. The escapement of springs is\nJ BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 79\nreported as very heavy. This is the second year that such satisfactory conditions have\nobtained. The seeding of cohoe is reported as being very heavy, although the fish were\nlate in arriving. The pink seeding at Quinnimaas River, Khutzeymateen River, and\nIkginik River, and several other smaller streams, is reported as being very heavy.\nThe chum seeding also showed a marked improvement, the total run being reported as\none of the heaviest in years.\nSKEENA AREA.\nThe sockeye seeding in Williams Creek, which is the principal area frequented by\nthis variety, is reported as heavy and better than that of the cycle-year of 1938.\nThe other sockeye-spawning grounds of the Lakelse Lake system were satisfactorily\nseeded. A good spawning of cohoe occurred in Williams Creek, and the supply of pinks\non the usual spawning-grounds is reported as being heavy and compares favourably\nwith the brood-year of 1940.\nIn the Ocstahl River watershed the sockeye-supply is reported as medium, although\nit is not a particularly valuable sockeye area. The spring seeding at Johnson Creek\nwas heavy. The cohoe-supply was heavy and better than that of the cycle-year of 1939.\nPinks were found in good quantities, better than the cycle-year. The chum-supply was\nmedium only.\nIn the important Babine Lake section of this area the quantities of sockeye found\non the spawning-grounds were hardly equal to those of the year 1938, for instance,\nalthough they are considered as reasonably satisfactory. A larger seeding was expected.\nAt several streams tributary to the lake, conditions were very encouraging. For instance, at Pierre Creek, the quantity observed was three times that of the brood-year\nof 1938. There was also an improvement at Twin Creek. The seeding, however, was\nnot up to expectations at Fulton River and Fifteen-mile Creek. The spring-salmon\nsupply was found to be quite satisfactory. The cohoe seeding is reported as fairly\nheavy. The pink-supply, however, was short of that of the brood-year of 1940.\nLOWE INLET AREA.\nIt was found impossible to inspect several of the spawning areas in this district,\ndue to very heavy rains during the run up-stream. All the lakes and streams were in\nflood at spawning-time. The conclusions reached with regard to the spawning conditions are, therefore, the result of what observations were possible on the spawning-\ngrounds, together with an estimate of the run judged by the commercial fishing results.\nThe sockeye escapement is estimated as being satisfactory. During the early part of\nthe season there was little rain and the streams shrunk to such an extent as to be\nimpassable for salmon. This necessitated fishing-closures to preserve a reasonable\nportion of the run for the spawning-grounds. The cohoe escapement to all streams is\nreported as heavy. The pink-supply showed a decided improvement over the brood-\nyear of 1940. This condition was assisted greatly by the above-mentioned extra closed\nperiods. All chum salmon spawning-grounds were well supplied with that variety;\nin fact, the escapement was larger than usual.\nBUTEDALE AREA.\nThis was reported as the driest season for many years. Many of the small streams\ndried up completely. Only light supplies of sockeye were observed on the spawning-\ngrounds, generally speaking, although some of the larger streams which were not so\nmuch affected by the dry weather showed fair supplies of sockeye. The cohoe seeding\nwas the heaviest in recent years. The pink-supply showed an increase over 1940,\nalthough some of the smaller streams suffered, due to the dry weather. The escapement to Quaal and Kainet Rivers was exceptionally heavy. The escapement of pinks E 80 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nfor the area generally is reported as much greater than that of 1940. Chums, however,\nwere scarcer than usual.\nBELLA BELLA AREA.\nThe prolonged dry weather also experienced in this area caused a considerable loss\nof pinks, which were unable to reach their spawning-grounds, due to the low level of\nwater in the streams. However, the seeding is reported as an average one, generally\nspeaking. The showing of cohoes and chums was much more satisfactory.\nOwing to the absence of the regular Inspector on military duty, and the illness of\nthe relieving officer, the inspection was made by an officer who, not having had previous\nexperience in the district, was not able to make comparisons with other years.\nBELLA COOLA AREA.\nNotwithstanding an unusually long period of very dry weather, most of the streams\nin this area contained sufficient water on the arrival of the salmon to permit of their\npassing safely to the spawning-grounds. The only exceptions were several of the\nsmaller creeks flowing into Dean Channel. The season has been very free of freshets\nand spawning conditions generally are reported as being very favourable.\nA very satisfactory supply of sockeye salmon reached the spawning-grounds of the\nBella Coola and Atnarko River systems, comparing favourably with the run of the\nbrood-year. An unusually large number of \" runts\" was observed, however. The\nspring-salmon supply is reported as being excellent, for the fifth successive year.\nThe inspecting officer reports that this run has been built up beyond expectations.\nThe supply of cohoes was quite satisfactory. A surprisingly good supply of pinks was\nfound, which was remarkable in view of the failure of the run in the cycle-year.\nA good supply of chums also was present on the spawning-grounds.\nRIVERS INLET AREA.\nThe sockeye escapement to this area is reported as being very good. Quap River is\nreported as being filled with spawning sockeye. Asklum River is reported as being\nabnormally well seeded. The supplies found in Genesi River were good, equal to the\nyear 1938, but better than the year 1937. The Shumahault River received an average\nseeding. At Indian River the escapement was good, being better than 1938 and much\nbetter than 1937. The same conditions apply to the Waukwahs River. Good seedings\nwere observed at Cheo, Nookins, Markwell, and Dallec Rivers, and Hatchery Creek.\nThe spawning in the Whonnock River, which drains Owikeno Lake system to the sea,\nwas very good. Spring salmon were observed in good quantities in the Indian and\nWaukwash Rivers.\nSummarizing the conditions in the Owikeno Lake district the Inspector states that\nhe considers the escapement of salmon for 1942 to be at least on a par with the year\n1938, and much better than 1937.\nIn the areas directly tributary to salt water, such as Moses Inlet, Kildala Bay,\nHole in the Wall, and Draney Inlet, the seeding of cohoes was only a medium one.\nThere was, however, a good escapement of chums.\nSMITH INLET AREA.\nThe sockeye spawning is reported as being good; very good in relation to the\ncommercial catch. The only two important sockeye streams are the Geluck and\nDelabah Rivers. These were well supplied with sockeye. The seeding of cohoes was\nonly an average one, but fairly heavy in the case of chums. FRASER RIVER WATERSHED.\nPrince. George Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The sockeye seeding in the Stuart Lake system is reported\nas being two-thirds greater than that of the brood-year. There were good runs, comparatively speaking, to Forfar Creek and Kynoch Creek, tributary to Middle River.\nBetter supplies were found in Rossette and Gluske Creeks. The later run to the Fraser-\nFrancois Lake watershed showed a remarkable increase over the brood-year. In 1938\napproximately 3,000 sockeye were observed in the Stellako River, and from this seeding\nbetween 35,000 and 40,000 sockeye arrived in the river this fall. Their condition was\nreported as splendid, thousands showing no outside scars or abrasions, and the\nindividual size of the fish being a good average, with a number of fine large specimens.\nSpawning conditions were excellent. The supply of spring salmon on the several\nspawning-grounds of the Prince George area was hardly up to expectations.\nQuesnel Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The large increase in the number of spawning sockeye found in\nthe Chilco River and Lake system is the outstanding feature in the report for this\nparticular district. The increase in the number of spawners over the brood-year of\n1938 is estimated at over 400 per cent. The conditions in this particular system during\nrecent years have been extremely encouraging. The Bowron River system contained a\nsmall quantity of spawning sockeye, equal to the seeding of 1938. No salmon of this\nvariety were found in the Horsefly River or Quesnel Lake systems. The spring-salmon\nspawners were found in quantities, generally speaking, comparable with those of\nrecent years.\nKamloops Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The return this year of sockeye was the result of the very heavy\nseeding of 1938, and proved up to expectations. The principal sockeye-spawning\ngrounds are the Adams River and Lake system, Little River, and several of the streams\ntributary to Shuswap Lake. Every foot of Little River and Adams River was crowded\nwith spawning sockeye and others passed in a continuous stream through the fishway\nconstructed on the left side of Adams River, in the dam erected about one-half mile\nbelow the foot of the lake. This one-half mile above the dam was also covered with\nspawning sockeye, and there is reason to believe that many passed up into the lake\narea, although it would appear from the information at hand that there are few\nvaluable sockeye-streams tributary to Adams Lake. There is evidence, however, that\na certain quantity of sockeye spawned along the lake-shore. Scotch Creek, Seymour\nRiver, and Shuswap River also received a good supply, although the spawning areas\nare not comparable in size with those of the above-mentioned district.\nThe water-levels at Hell's Gate during the time the Adams-Shuswap run was5\npassing through were such as to permit the easy passage of the salmon without any\nassistance. There would appear to be reason to believe, therefore, that all salmon\nheading for the above-mentioned system safely reached the spawning-grounds. They\narrived in excellent condition.\nThe spring-salmon supply was quite a satisfactory one, in comparison with that of\nother years. The individual fish were unusually large and arrived in excellent condition.\nThe cohoe-supply was also an average one, although the fish were individually smaller\nthan usual.\nPemberton Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There was a remarkable return of sockeye to the spawning-\ngrounds of the Birkenhead River system, the estimated quantity of parent fish being\n83,000 compared with 30,000 in the brood-year of 1938. This is an increase of approxi-\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 mately 180 per cent. The streams tributary to the Lillooet Lake system also contained\nan unusually large number of spawning sockeye. There was also a seeding of this\nsame variety in the Anderson-Seton Lake system, the quantity being in the vicinity\nof 1,000 salmon, compared with approximately 450 in the brood-year. It has been\nobserved that when the water conditions make the rapids in the Fraser River at the\noutlet of Bridge River unusually difficult, greater numbers of sockeye appear in the\nAnderson-Seton Lake system. E 82 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nThe supply of spring salmon was similar to that of 1939, in the Birkenhead system.\nIt is estimated at approximately 45,000 fish. The cohoe seeding is considered satisfactory throughout the whole of the Pemberton-Squamish area. This has been the\n\" off \" year for the pink variety. The supply of chums in the Squamish system was\nfound quite satisfactory.\nChilliwack Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The run of sockeye reaching the Chilliwack system is always\na light one and is reported this year as average. The Cultus Lake run, however, up to\nNovember 23rd, the date of inspection, by actual count had reached a total of 18,620\nand was expected to exceed 20,000 fish. There were a few showing in Kawkawa Lake.\nNo distressed salmon of this variety were found in the Coquihalla River or at the outlet\nof other streams, which occurs when there is a serious blockade at Hell's Gate. The\nspring seeding is reported as only fair. The cohoe-supply to the Chilliwack River was\ngood but the Vedder River was not so well stocked, although conditions were better in\nseveral of the smaller tributaries. The chum seeding in the Chilliwack and Vedder\nsystems was quite good. Sweltzer Creek was unusually heavily stocked. The steelhead\nseeding is reported as satisfactory.\nHarrison Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In the Harrison Lake system sockeye spawning at Hatchery\nCreek, Silver Creek, and Douglas Creek, tributary to Harrison Lake, was very similar\nto that of the brood-year. There was the usual quantity in the Harrison River at what\nis known as \" The Rapids.\" At Morris Creek there was a good spawning, an increase\nover that of 1938. In the Harrison Rapids the spring spawning was heavier than\nusual, and was reported as being the best in years. The cohoe-supply can be considered\nonly as medium. Chums, on the other hand, were present in larger quantities than\nfor some years. The supply is reported as being heavy in the Stave and Harrison\nRivers.\nPitt Lake Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In the Pitt River watershed the sockeye spawning was somewhat\ngreater than that of the brood-year. There was an average supply of cohoe, with a\nheavy seeding of chums.\nLower Fraser Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In the Serpentine and Nicomekl Rivers the supply of cohoe\nsalmon on the spawning-grounds compared very favourably with that of the brood-year\nof 1939. Spawning was late, due to lack of rain. The supplies of this variety in the\nAlouette, Coquitlam, Bear, and Salmon Rivers were only medium, whereas the seeding\nof chums was excellent.\nNorth Vancouver Area.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The cohoe seeding was good and the quantities of spawning chum salmon were satisfactory.\nALERT BAY AREA.\nVery satisfactory supplies of sockeye were found on the main Nimpkish River\nspawning-grounds, being estimated at 25 per cent, greater than that of the brood-year.\nSatisfactory quantities were also observed at Fulmore River, Port Neville, Keough\nRiver, and other sockeye-streams. The spring seeding is reported as fairly satisfactory, with a heavy seeding at Nimpkish River. The cohoe-supply was medium,\nexcept at Viner Sound, Salmon River, and Seymour River, where it is reported as heavy.\nThe pink-supply was disappointing, generally speaking, although a satisfactory seeding\noccurred at Embley River, Wakeman River, Keough River, and Kingcome River. The\nchum seeding was good at Salmon River and in the streams draining into Seymour Inlet.\nHeavy supplies were observed at Viner River, Adams River, and Nimpkish River.\nThe supplies of this variety generally were satisfactory.\nQUATHIASKI AREA.\nThe sockeye seeding at Hayden Bay, Loughborough Inlet, and Phillips Arm was\nquite satisfactory, that at Hayden Bay particularly being reported as excellent and an BRITISH COLUMBIA. E 83\nimprovement over the brood-year by at least 30 per cent. The spring seeding was a\nfair average only, although conditions were somewhat better at Campbell River.\nThe cohoe-supplies were poor, with the exception of the streams draining into Loughborough Inlet, Phillips Arm, and Bute Inlet, where the escapement was somewhat\nbetter. The pink escapement was very poor at Bear River, although the streams\ndraining into Loughborough Inlet received more satisfactory supplies. The chum\nseeding was only fair.\nCOMOX AREA.\nThis is not a sockeye area. The spring-salmon supplies are reported as light,\ncompared with the seasons 1936 to 1939, but an improvement over the years 1940\nand 1941. The cohoe seeding was very satisfactory, generally speaking. The pink-\nsupply was found to be entirely inadequate. The chum escapement is reported as good,\nparticularly at Little Qualicum River, where a heavy seeding occurred. The supply at\nBig Qualicum, however, did not come up to expectations. Conditions at Courtenay\nRiver were satisfactory.\nPENDER HARBOUR AREA.\nThe sockeye-supplies in the Saginaw system were somewhat better than the brood-\nyear, which, however, was reported as the lightest of any year on record. The spring\nand cohoe supplies were normal. This also applies to the pink seeding, in so far as the\nstreams draining into Toba Inlet and Narrows Arm are concerned. In all other\nsections, however, the seeding was unsatisfactory. Chums were found in satisfactory\nquantities in most of the streams in the area.\nLADYSMITH AREA.\nThe supplies of springs and cohoes were found to be quite up to a good average.\nThis is not an important pink area but the usual number were found on the spawning-\ngrounds. There was an improvement in the chum spawning over the seasons of 1938\nand 1939, but not equal to the unusually good seeding of 1941.\nCOWICHAN AREA.\nIt is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 spring salmon reached the\nspawning-grounds of the Cowichan River, above Skutz Falls. In addition, there was a\ngood seeding in the lower part of the river. The number of cohoes is estimated at\nbetween 40,000 and 60,000 above Skutz Falls fishway and a considerable seeding in the\narea below the falls. The seeding of cohoes was also very satisfactory in the Koksilah\nRiver, as well as Kelvin, Glenora, and Norie Creeks. A satisfactory quantity of chums\nwas observed.\nVICTORIA AREA.\nThis is a fall-salmon area, with no large streams which can be utilized for spawning\npurposes. The cohoe and chum seeding is estimated as a fair average.\nALBERNI AREA.\nIn the principal sockeye areas of the Somass-Stamp River system there was a\nsplendid supply of sockeye found. The count through the fishway at Stamp Falls was\nthe largest of any season. At Anderson River the escapement was fair but the\nspawning-beds were reasonably well seeded. The supply on the Hobarton River beds\nwas larger than usual. The seeding of springs in the main streams such as the Somass,\nNahmint, Sarita, Toquart, and Nitinat Rivers was found to be good. The escapement\nof cohoes to the main spawning areas of the system is reported as very satisfactory.\nThe chum seeding has also been very good.\n. E 84 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nCLAYOQUOT AREA.\nThe sockeye-supplies on the spawning-grounds are reported as being considerably\nheavier than during the brood-year of 1938, and at least equal to the heavy seeding of\nlast year, which was the best in the past fifteen years. The supply of pinks and cohoes\nwas an average one. The chum spawning is reported as heavy in practically all streams.\nSpawning conditions were excellent.\nNOOTKA AREA.\nThe spring and cohoe supplies on the spawning-grounds were found to be normal.\nThe area is more important as a chum district. Supplies of this variety are reported\nas being very good and much better than in the years 1938, 1939, and 1940, although not\nas good as the unusually good year of 1941.\nKYUQUOT AREA.\nThe spring-salmon seeding is reported as being very good, comparing very favourably with that of previous years. The cohoe-supplies were average and about equal\nto the brood-year of 1939. The chum-supplies were excellent and the size of the\nindividual fish was large.\nQUATSINO AREA.\nThe usual small seeding of sockeye was observed in the few streams frequented by\nthis variety. This fishery is not an important one. In Marble Creek, frequented by\napproximately 75 per cent, of the springs which go to the Quatsino area, there was an\naverage supply of this variety. The escapement to the other creeks frequented by\nsprings showed an improvement over recent seasons. The cohoe seeding throughout\nthe whole area was heavy, the largest quantities being observed in Marble Creek,\nRupert Creek, and Spruce River. The pink seeding was better than usual in Rupert\nRiver and East Creek.' The other small streams received average supplies. The chum\nescapement was good in proportion to the run and is considered satisfactory. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 85\nSTATISTICAL TABLES.\nPACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON, SEASON 1942.\nShowing the Origin op Salmon caught in each District.\nDistrict.\nSockeye.\nSprings.\nSteelheads.\nCohoe.\nPinks.\nChums.\nTotal.\n446,371\n1\n21,085\n34,544\n79,199\n15,939\n17,470\n51,961\n9,688\n38\n1,515\n6,374\n985\n723J\n5,407\n6\n309\n41\n534\n3,231\n60\n355\n119\n10,542\n16,935\n15,487\n44,0811\n8,467\n1,813\n31,274\n81,8375\n701\n134\n83,329\n49,0031\n52,767\n954\n527\n69,434\n14,474\n82,573\n43,801\n12,518\n11,421\n15,874\n5,490\n79,152\n383,005\n549,617\n144,145\n100,1421\nSkeena River _ .\n152,4181\n105,539\nSmith Inlet ... \t\n23,777\n198,408.\n536,803!\n707\nTotals \u00E2\u0080\u009E. ._\t\n666,570\n24.744J\n4,649\n211,138\n270,622.\n633,834\n1,811,558\n* 23,265 y% cases of bluebacks are included with the cohoe-pack for Vancouver Island.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE TOTAL SALMON-PACK BY SPECIES\nFROM 1934 TO 1942.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935. 1 1934.\n1\nSockeye _ ,\u00E2\u0080\u009E.. ...\n666,570\n24,7441\n633,834\n270,6221\n211,138\n4,649\n455,298\n51,593\n926,801\n427,774\n430,513\n3,454\n366,402\n17,740\n643,441\n213,904\n224,522\n1,207\n269,887\n16,098\n386,590\n620,595\n245,097\n796\n447,450\n15,356\n541,819\n400,876\n301,081\n1,036\n325,836\n16,174\n447,760\n585,574\n133,489\n844\n414,809\n29,853\n597,488\n591,5351\n229,750\n1,068\n350,444\n21,920\n409,604\n514,966\n231,492\n596\n377,844\n29,776\n513,181\nPink\t\n436,354\nCohoe _. \t\n225,431\n1,280\nTotals -_..\t\n1,811,558\n2,295,433\n1,467,216\n1,539,063 jl,707,798|l,509,677\n1\n1,864,503!\n1,529,022\n1,583,866\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE TOTAL SALMON-PACK OF\nBRITISH COLUMBIA BY DISTRICTS.\nTotal packed by Districts in 1934 to 1942, inclusive.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\nFraser \t\n549,617\n152,418!\n105,539\n23,777\n100,142!\n536,8031\n343,2601\n431,299\n200,497\n138,650\n32,109\n71,330\n985,835\n398,152\n46,561\n152,363\n195,355\n88,665\n33,998\n60,441\n419,579\n516,815\n199,241\n205,604\n83,502\n28,727\n55,946\n590,736\n375,307\n277,084\n223,413\n122,363\n44,921\n113,970\n458,554\n467,493\n231,848\n133,165\n108,782\n35,502\n49,042\n608,798\n342,350\n260,261\n218,634\n72,0111\n14,888\n139,575!\n559,7461\n599,387\n216,728\n170,420\n155,571\n49,928\n78,214\n469,427\n388,734\n273,139\n284,096\n86,000\n41,256\n75,213\n372,347\n451,815\nRivers Inlet \t\nSmith Inlet \t\nNass River \t\nOther Districts \t\n1,811,558\n2,295,433|1,467,216\n1\n1,539,063\nl,707,798t\n1,509,677*\n1,864,503!\n1,529,02211,583,866\nI\n* Including 527 cases of Alaska cohoe packed at Skeena River.\nf Including 5,779 cases of Alaska sockeye and 26,828 cases of Alaska cohoe packed at Skeena River. E 86\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nTABLE SHOWING THE TOTAL\nARRANGED IN ACCORDANCE\nBritish Columbia .\nWashington\t\nSOCKEYE-PACK OF THE FRASER RIVER,\nWITH THE FOUR-YEAR CYCLE, 1895-1942.\nTotal.\nBritish Columbia _\nWashington\t\nTotal.\nBritish Columbia .\nWashington\t\nTotal .\nBritish Columbia.\nWashington\t\nTotal.\nBritish Columbia .\nWashington ____\nTotal\nBritish Columbia .\nWashington \u00E2\u0080\u009E__\t\nTotal .\nBritish Columbia -\nWashington ____\nTotal.\nBritish Columbia\nWashington \t\nTotal.\nBritish Columbia.\nWashington\t\nTotal\nBritish Columbia\nWashington\t\nTotal.\nBritish Columbia.\nWashington \u00E2\u0080\u0094__\t\nTotal.,\nBritish Columbia -\nWashington \t\n1907-\n1927-\n1939\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n395,984\n1896\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n356.984\n1897-\n- 860.459\n1898\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n256.101\n65,143\n72,979\n312,048\n252,000\n461,127\n429,963\n1,172,507\n508,101\n480,485\n1900\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n229,800\n1901-\n- 928,669\n1902\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n293,477\n499,646\n228,704\n1,105,096\n339,556\n980,131\n458,504\n2,033,765\n633,033\n204,809\n1904\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n72,688\n1905-\n- 837,489\n1906\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n183.007\n167,211\n123,419\n837,122\n182.241\n372,020\n196,107\n1,674,611\n365.248\n59.815\n1908\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n74,574\n1909-\n- 585,435\n1910\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n150.432\n96.974\n170,951\n1,097,904\n248.014\n156,789\n245,525\n1,683,339\n398.446\n58.487\n1912\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n123.879\n1913-\n- 719.796\n1914\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n198.183\n127.761\n184,680\n1,673,099\n335.230\n186,248\n308,559\n2,392,895\n533.413\n91.130\n1916\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n32,146\n1917-\n- 148,164\n1918\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n19.697\n64,584\n84,637\n411,538\n50,723\n155,714\n116,783\n559,702\n70,420\n38,854\n1920\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n48,399\n1921-\n- 39,631\n1922\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n51.832\n64,346\n62,654\n102,967\n48.566\n103,200\n111,053\n142,598\n100,398\n31.655\n1924\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n39,743\n1925-\n- 35.385\n1926\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n85.689\n47,402\n69,369\n112,023\n44.673\n79,057\n109.112\n147.408\n130,362\n61,393\n1928\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n29,299\n1929-\n- 61.569\n1930\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n103.692\n97,594\n61,044\n111,898\n352.194\n158,987\n90,343\n173,467\n455.886\n40,947\n1932\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n65,769\n1933-\n- 52,465\n1934\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n139.238\n87.211\n81,188\n126,604\n352,579\n128,158\n146,957\n179,069\n491.817\n62,822\n1936\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n184,854\n1937-\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 100,272\n1938\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n186.794\n54,677\n59,505\n60,259\n134,641\n117,499\n244,359\n160,531\n321,435\n54,296\n1940\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n99,009\n1941\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 171,290\n1942\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n446,371\n43,511\n59,354\n110,605\n263,458\nTotal..\n97,807\n158,363\n281,895\n709,829 BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 87\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,\nBY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES.\nFraser River, 1927-42, inclusive.\n| 1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\n446,371\n9,688\n82,573\n134\n10,542\n309\n171,290\n34,038\n95,070\n102,388\n28,265\n248\n99,009\n4,504\n35,665\n12\n13,028\n145\n54,296\n5,993\n30,150\n95,176\n13,557\n69\n186,794\n4,308\n58,778\n63\n27,127\n14\n100,272\n5,444\n20,878\n94,010\n11,244\n184,854\n15,126\n31,565\n62,822\nSprings , \t\nChums \t\n9,401\n8,227\n111,328\n28,716\n24,950\nTotals\t\n549,617\n431,299\n152,363\n199,241\n277,084\n231,848\n260,261\n216,728\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n1930.\n1929.\n1928.\n1927.\nSockeyes ,\t\n139,238\n16,218\n104,092\n2,199\n11,392\n52,465\n5,579\n34,391\n92,746\n13,901\n65,769\n28,701\n14,948\n385\n16,815\n23\n40,947\n9,740\n251\n13,307\n8,165\n657\n103,692\n21,127\n68,946\n30,754\n25,585\n27,879\n61,569\n10,004\n144,159\n158,208\n40,520\n12,013\n29,299\n5,082\n193,106\n2,881\n27,061\n795\n61,393\n18,453\n67,259\nPinks \t\n102,536\n24,079\n10,658\nTotals \t\n273,139\n199,082\n126,641\n73,067\n277,983\n426,473\n258,224\n284,378\nSkeena River, 1927-42, inclusive.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935. .\n34,544\n6,374\n11,421\n52,767\n44.081J\n3,231\n81,767\n4,985\n10,707\n50,537\n50,605\n1,896\n116,507\n6,118\n4,682\n47,301\n20,614\n133\n68,485\n4,857\n7,773\n95,236\n29,198\n55\n47,257\n4,318\n16,758\n69,610\n52,821\n42\n42,491\n4,401\n10,811\n59,400\n15,514\n21\n81,973\n4.55U\n15.297J\n91,389\n25,390\n33\n52,879\n4,039\n8,122\nPinks 1\t\n81,868\n23,498\n14\nTotals .\n152,418J\n200,497\n195,355\n205,604\n190,806\n132,638\n218,634\n170,420\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n1930.\n1929.\n1928.\n1927.\nSockeyes \t\nSprings _\t\n70,655\n8,300\n24,388\n126,163\n54,456\n114\n30,506\n3,297\n15,714\n95,783\n39,896\n267\n59,916\n28,269\n38,549\n58,261\n48,312\n404\n93,023\n9,857\n3,893\n44,807\n10,637\n768\n132,372\n7,501\n5,187\n275,642\n29,617\n58\n78,017\n4,324\n4,908\n95,305\n37,678\n13\n34,559\n6,420\n17,716\n209,579\n30,194\n241\n83,996\n19,038\n19,006\nPinks \t\n38,768\n26,326\nSteelheads \t\n582\nTotals _\t\n284,096\n185,463\n233,711\n162,986\n450,377\n220,245\n298,709\n187,716 88 REPORT OP PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,\nBY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nRivers Inlet, 1927-42, inclusive.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\n79,199\n985\n15,874\n954\n8,467\n60\n93,378\n1,692\n15,442\n4,807\n23,202\n129\n63,469\n1,226\n9,025\n3,329\n11,561\n55\n54,143\n745\n5,462\n12,095\n10,974\n83\n87,942\n1,209\n7,759\n9,063\n16,285\n105\n84,832\n917\n9,415\n7,536\n6,012\n70\n46,351\n5811\n11,505\n6,4321\n7,1221\n19\n135,038\nSprings \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n429\n7,136\nPinks \t\n4,554\n8,375\nSteelheads -\t\n39\nTotals ._\t\n105,539\n138,650\n88,665\n83,502\n122,363\n108,782\n72,0111\n155,571\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n1930.\n1929.\n1928.\n1927.\n76,923\n436\n895\n2,815\n4,852\n79\n83,507\n449\n677\n5,059\n3,446\n82\n69,732\n459\n944\n3,483\n7,062\n29\n76,428\n325\n429\n5,089\n6,571\n32\n119,170\n434\n492\n18,023\n756\n105\n70,260\n342\n989\n2,386\n1,120\n29\n60,044\n468\n3,594\n16,546\n868\n7\n65,269\nSprings \t\n608\n1,122\nPinks\t\n671\n2,094\n9\nTotals\t\n86,000\n93,220\n81,709\n88,874\n138,980\n75,126\n81,527\n69,773\nSmith Inlet, 1927-42, inclusive.\n] 1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\nSockeyes\t\n15,939\n8\n1,813\n527\n5,490\n21,495\n124\n1,955\n749\n7,741\n45\n25,947\n142\n1,102\n755\n6,015\n37\n17,833\n215\n3,880\n3,978\n2,771\n50\n33,894\n68\n1,058\n1,761\n8,076\n64\n25,258\n21\n241\n483\n9,494\n5\n12,788\n30\n310\n65\n1,653\n42\n31,648\n216\n1,201\nPinks \t\n4,412\n12,427\n24\nTotals .\n23,777\n32,109\n33,998\n28,727\n44,921\n35,502\n14,888\n49,928\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n1930.\n1929.\n1928.\n1927.\nSockeves __ . \t\n14,607\n164\n3,941\n6,953\n15,548\n43\n41,256~\n37,369\n354\n5,068\n19,995\n8,841\n87\n25,488\n48\n273\n1,148\n165\n20\n12,867\n122\n112\n824\n133\n36\n32,057\n290\n1,460\n16,615\n1,660\n103\n9,683\n78\n275\n853\n113\n12\n33,442\n286\n230\n167\n19\n6\n22,682\n349\n2,990\nPinks \t\n732\n2,605\nSteelheads \t\n8\nTotals \t\n71,714\n27,142\n14,094\n52,185\n11,014\n34,150\n29,366\n1 Previously reported in Queen Charlotte and other districts. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 89\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,\nBY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nNass River, 1927-42, inclusive.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\nSockeyes \t\n21,085\n1,515\n12,518\n49,0031\n15,487\n534\n24,876\n519\n6,246\n22,667\n16,648\n374\n13,809\n1,716\n5,461\n29,278\n10,060\n117\n24,357\n708\n2,500\n26,370\n1,996\n15\n21,462\n773\n15,911\n61,477\n14,159\n188\n17,567\n1,251\n10,080\n8,031\n12,067\n46\n28,5621\n2,167\n20,6201\n75,8871\n11,842\n496\n12,712\n560\n17,481\nPinks \t\n25,508\n21,810\n143\nTotals _ \t\n100,1421\n71,330\n60,441\n55,946\n113,970\n49,042\n139,5751\n78,214\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n1930.\n1929.\n1928.\n1927.\n28,701\n654\n2,648\n32,964\n9,935\n311\n9,757\n1,296\n1,775\n44,306\n3,251\n49\n14,154\n4,408\n14,515\n44,629\n7,955\n10\n16,929\n1,439\n392\n5,178\n8,943\n26,405\n1,891\n3,978\n79,976\n1,126\n84\n16,077\n352\n1,212\n10,342\n1,202\n5,540\n1,846\n3,538\n83,183\n10,734\n36\n12,026\n3,824\n3,307\nPinks ... _\t\n16,609\n3,966\n96\nTotals\n75,213\n60,434\n85,671\n32,881\n113,460\n29,185\n104,877\n39,828\nVancouver Island District, 1927-42, inclusive.\n1942. 1941. 1940. 1939. 1938. 1937. 1936. 1935.\nSockeyes\t\nSprings\t\nChums\t\nPinks\t\nCohoes .. _.\t\nSteelheads\t\nTotals .\n51,961\n5,407\n383,005\n14,474\n81.837J\n119\n40,273\n8,038\n593,016\n177,292\n166,908\n15,177\n2,454\n279,064\n33,785\n88,885\"\n214\n16,259\n2,889\n212,949\n235,119\n123,388\n132\n27,965\n4,254\n266,566\n70,108\n62,054\n27,607\ni 536,8031 985,835\n419,579\n590,736\n25,427\n2,359\n203,900\n318,780\n52,244\n32,696!\n6,340\n347,951\n82,028?\n90,625\n105\n22,928\n6,525\n143,960\n191,627\n104,366\n21\n458,554 608,798 559,746 469,427\nI I\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1930. I 1929.\n1927.\nSockeyes I 27,282\nSprings .\nChums....\nPinks\t\nCohoes ...\n1,630\n210,239\n54,526\n78,670\nSteelheads and Bluebacks..\nTotals \t\ni72,347\n18,397\n4,875\n96,642\n172,945\n60,019\n147\n27,611\n10,559\n70,629\n33,403\n35,132\n28,596\n22,199\n4,055\n16,329\n81,965\n26,310\n24,638\n24,784\n3,431\n177,856\n89,941\n30,206\n14,177\n353,025\n205,930\n175,541\n340,395\n10,340\n1,645\n162,246\n74,001\n35,504\n11,118\n14,248\n2,269\n303,474\n41,885\n23,345\n5,249\n294,854\n390,470\n24,835\n6,769\n220,270\n52,561\n58,834\n10,194\n373,463\n* 23,277 cases of bluebacks are included with the cohoe-pack for Vancouver Island. E 90\nREPORT OP PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SALMON-PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,\nBY DISTRICTS AND SPECIES\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued.\nQueen Charlotte Islands, 1933-42, inclusive.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\n1933.\n1\n38\n43,801\n83,329\n16,935\n41\n149\n236\n76,745\n524\n27,421\n11\n16\n62\n164,911\n44,966\n8,897\n1\n36\n45,519\n2,123\n3,020\n179\n66\n40,882\n57,952\n16,616\n2\n140\n72,689\n13\n4,631\n85\n227\n69,304\n89,355\n19,920\nSprings __\n63\n86,298\n1,479\n5,461\n258\n38,062\n53,398\n8,315\n3,575\n6,988\nPinks _ _\t\nTotals\t\n144,145\n105,086\n218,852\n50,699\n115,695\n77,475\n178,891\n93,301\n100,033\n10,563\nCentral Area, 1933-42, inclusive.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\n1933.\nSockeyes _\t\nSprings\t\nChums \t\nPinks \t\n17,470\n7231\n79,152\n69,434\n31,274\n355\n20,854\n460\n111,587\n66,130\n45,218\n330\n32,042\n1,518\n135,802\n54,478\n49,886\n506\n26,158\n655\n79,384\n150,498\n44,426\n392\n36,178\n540\n127,089\n130,842\n56,716\n433\n29,987\n1,641\n110,493\n97,321\n25,009\n614\n27,499\n830\n99,592\n246,378\n45,824\n373\n32,417\n687\n125,953\n94,190\n41,831\n355\n20,438\n2,116\n117,309\n157,336\n53,850\n733\n26,106\n841\n128,602\n101,701\n33,471\n827\nTotals _____\n198,4081\n244,579\n274,232\n301,513\n351,798\n265,065\n420,496\n295,433 | 351,782\n1\n291,548\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SOCKEYE-PACK OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,\nBY DISTRICTS, 1927 TO 1942, INCLUSIVE.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n1936.\n1935.\n446,371\n34,544\n79,199\n15,939\n21,085\n51,961\n17,471\n171,290\n81.767\n93,378\n21,495\n24,876\n40,273\n22,219\n99,009\n116,507\n63,469\n25,947\n13,809\n15,177\n32.484\n54,296\n68,485\n54,143\n17,833\n24,357\n16,259\n34,514\n186,794\n47,257\n87,942\n33,894\n21,462\n27,965\n36,357\n100,272\n42,491\n84,832\n25,258\n17,567\n25,427\n29,989\n183,120\n81,973\n46,351\n12,788\n28,5621\n34,4301\n27,584\n62,822\nSkeena River \t\n52.879\n135.038\nSmith Inlet\t\n31,648\nNass River \t\n12,712\n22,928\n32,417\nTotals \t\n666,570\n455,298\n366,402\n269,887\n441,671*\n325,836\n414,809\n350,444\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n1930.\n1929.\n1928.\n1927.\nFraser River \t\nSkeena River\t\n139,238\n70,655\n76,923\n14,607\n28,701\n27,282\n20,438\n52,465\n30.506\n83,507\n37,369\n9,757\n18,397\n26,106\n65.769\n59,916\n69,732\n25,488\n14,154\n27,611\n21,685\n40.947\n93,023\n76.428\n12,867\n16,929\n22,199\n29,071\n103,692\n132,372\n119,170\n32,057\n26,405\n24,784\n39,198\n61,569\n78,017\n70,260\n9,683\n16,077\n10,340\n. 35,331\n29,299\n34,559\n60,044\n33,442\n5,540\n14,248\n26,410\n61,393\n83,996\n65,269\nSmith Inlet \t\n22,682\n12.026\n24,835\n37,851\nTotals\t\n377,844\n258,107\n284.355\n291,464\n477,678\n281,277\n203,542\n308,052\n216 cases of Alaska sockeye packed in British Columbia canneries are not shown in the above table for the\nyear 1936.\n* 5,779 cases of Alaska sockeye packed at Skeena River are not shown in the above table for the year 1938. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 91\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE SPRING-SALMON PACK OF BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA, BY DISTRICTS, 1931 TO 1942, INCLUSIVE.\n1942.\n1941.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n9,688\n38\n1,515\n6,374\n985\n8\n7231\n5,407\n6\n34,038\n236\n519\n4,985\n1,692\n124\n460\n8,038\n383\n4,504\n62\n1,716\n6,118\n1,226\n142\n1,518\n2,454\n5,993\n36\n708\n4,857\n745\n215\n655\n2,889\n4,308\n66\n773\n4,318\n1,209\n68\n540\n4,254\n\t\n5,444\n. 140\n1,251\n4,401\nRivers Inlet ____ _ _\t\nSmith Inlet \t\nCentral Area .. . _\t\n917\n21\n1,641\n2,359\nTotals _\t\n24,7441\n50,475\n17,740\n16,098\n15,536\n_J\n16,174\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\nFraser River ...\t\nQueen Charlotte Islands \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n15,126\n227\n2,167\n4,5511\n5811\n30\n830\n6,340\n9,401\n63\n560\n4,039\n429\n216\n687\n6,525\n16,218\n258\n654\n8,300\n436\n164\n2,116\n1,630\n5,579\n3.575\n1.296\n3,297\n449\n354\n841\n4,875\n28,701\n278\n4,408\n28,269\n459\n48\n3,236\n10,559\n9,740\n854\n1,439\n9,858\n325\nSmith Inlet '\t\n122\n754\n4,055\nTotals _ _ \t\n29,853\n21,920\n29,776\n20,266\n75,958\n27,147\n* In addition to the above there were packed 1,118 cases of springs out of cold-storage stocks, catch of 1940.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE COHOE-SALMON PACK OF BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA, BY DISTRICTS, 1931 TO 1942, INCLUSIVE.\n1942.\n1941.*\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n10,542\n16,935\n15,487\n44,0811\n8,467\n1,813\n31,274\n81,8371\n701\n28,265\n27,421\n16.648\n50,605\n23,202\n1,955\n45,218\n166,908\n31,187\n13,028\n8,897\n10,060\n20,614\n11,561\n1,102\n49,886\n88,885\n20,489\n13,557\n3,020\n1,996\n29,198\n10,974\n3,880\n44,426\n123,388\n14,658\n27,127\n16,616\n14,159\n52,821\n16,285\n1,058\n56,716\n89,471\n26,828\n11,244\n4,631\n12.067\n15,514\n6,012\nNass River _\t\nSkeena River _ _\nRivers Inlet \t\nSmith Inlet _.\n25,009\n58,244\nVancouver Island _ :..\nTotals _\t\n211,138\n391,409\n224,522\n245,097\n301,081\n133,489\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n28,716\n19,920\n11,842\n25,390\n7,1221\n310\n45,824\n90,6251\n24,950\n5,461\n21,810\n23,498\n8,375\n1,201\n41,831\n104,366\n11,392\n8,315\n9,935\n54,476\n4,852\n3,941\n53,850\n78,670\n13,901\n3,251\n39.896\n3,446\n5,068\n33,471\n60,019\n16,815\n3,805\n7,955\n48,312\n7,062\n273\n41,172\n63,637\n8.818\n5,335\n8,943\n10,637\n6,571\n112\n10,806\n50,953\nQueen Charlotte Islands _ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _\t\nSkeena River _ \t\nTotals \t\n229,750\n231,492\n225,431\n159,052\n189,031\n102,175\n* In addition to the above there were packed 39,104 cases of cohoe out of cold-storage stocks, catch of 1940. E 92\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1942.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE PINK-SALMON PACK OF BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA, BY DISTRICTS, 1931 TO 1942, INCLUSIVE.\n1942.\n1941.\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\n134\n83,329\n49,0031\n52,767\n954\n527\n69,434\n14,474\n102,388\n524\n22,667\n50,537\n4,807\n749\n66,130\n177.292\n2,680\n12\n44,966\n29,278\n47,301\n3,329\n755\n54,478\n33,785\n95,176\n2,123\n26,370\n95,236\n12.095\n3.978\n150,498\n235,119\n63\n57,952\n61,477\n69,610\n9.063\n1,761\n130,842\n70,108\n94,010\n13\n8,031\nSkeena River _\t\nRivers Inlet \t\nSmith Inlet _\t\n59.400\n7,536\n483\n97,321\nVancouver Island __ __\n318,780\n270,6221\n427,774\n213,904\n620,595\n400,876\n5S5,574\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n111.328\n1.479\n25,508\n81.868\n4,554\n4,412\n94,190\n191,627\n2,199\n53,398\n32,964\n126,163\n2,815\n6,953\n157,336\n54,526\n92,746\n385\n2,415\n44,629\n58.261\n3,483\n1,148\n80,034\n33,403\n13,307\n89,355\n75,8871\n91,389\n6,4321\n65\n246,378\n82,0281\n44,306\n95,783\n5,059\n19,995\n101,701\n172,945\n5,178\n44,807\n5,089\nSmith Inlet -.\n824\n55,825\n81,965\nTotals \t\n591,5351\n514,966\n436,354\n532,535\n223,758\n206,995\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE CHUM-SALMON PACK OF BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA, BY DISTRICTS, 1931 TO 1942, INCLUSIVE.\n1\n1942.\n1941.*\n1940.\n1939.\n1938.\n1937.\nFraser River _\u00E2\u0080\u0094 -\n82,573\n43,801\n12,518\n11,421\n15,874\n5,490\n79,152\n383,005\n95,070\n76,745\n6,246\n10,707\n15,442\n7,741\n111.587\n593,016\n3,908\n35,665\n164,911\n5,461\n4,682\n9,025\n6,015\n135,802\n279.064\n2,816\n30,150\n45,519\n2,500\n7,773\n5,462\n2,771\n79,384\n212,949\n82\n58,778\n40,882\n15,911\n16,758\n7,759\n8,076\n127,089\n266,566\n20.878\n72,689\n10,080\nSkeena River \t\n10,811\n9,415\n9,494\n110,493\n203,900\nTotals\t\n633,834\n920,462\n643,441\n386,590\n541,819\n447,760\n1936.\n1935.\n1934.\n1933.\n1932.\n1931.\n31,565\n69,304\n20,6201\n15,2971\n11,505\n1,653\n99,592\n347,951\n8,227\n86,298\n17,481\n8,122\n7,136\n12,427\n125,953\n143,960\n104,092\n38,062\n2,648\n24,388\n895\n15,548\n117,309\n210,239\n34,391\n6,988\n1,775\n15,714\n677 '\n8,841\n128,602\n96,642\n14,948\n358\n14,515\n38,549\n944\n165\n166,653\n70,629\n251\n392\n3,893\n429\nSmith Inlet . _. \t\n113\nCentral Area._ ._\t\nVancouver Island \t\n34,570\n16,239\nTotals \t\n597,488\n409,604\n513,181\n293,630\n306,761\n55,997\n* In addition to the above there were packed 6,339 cases of chumS out of cold-storage stocks, catch of 1940. BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nE 93\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE QUANTITY OF PILCHARD PRODUCTS\nPRODUCED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1930 TO 1942.\nSeason.\nCanned.\nMeal.\nOil.\n1930-31 \t\nCases.\n55,166\n17,336\n4,622\n2,946\n35,437\n27,184\n35,007\n40,975\n69,473\n7,300\n59.166\n72,498\n42,008\nTons.\n13,934\n14,200\n8,842\n1,108\n7,628\n8,666\n8,715\n8,483\n8,891\n906\n4,853\n11,437\n11,003\nGals.\n3,204.058\n1931-32 .. \t\n2,551.914\n1932-33 \t\n1,315,864\n1933-34 _. _____ _\t\n275,879\n1934-35 \t\n1,635,123\n1935-36 , \t\n1,634.592\n1936-37 ____ \t\n1.217,087\n1937-38 \t\n1,707,276\n1938-39 _ \t\n2,195,850\n1939-40\t\n178,305\n1940-41 _ -_- _\t\n890,296\n1941-42 ___ \t\n1,916,191\n1942-43 \t\n1,560,269\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE QUANTITY OF HERRING PRODUCTS\nPRODUCED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1935 TO 1942.\nSeason.\nCanned.\nDry-salted.\nPickled. Meal.\nOil.\n1935-36 \t\n1936-37\t\nCases.\n26,143\n20,914\n27,365\n23,353\n418.021\n640,252\n1,527.350\n1,253,978\nTons.\n14,983\n16,454\n10,230\n7,600\n7,596\n5,039\nTons.\n892\n779\n502\nTons.\n5,313\n10,340\n14,643\n18,028\n22,870\n10,886\n8,780\n4,633\nGals.\n328.639\n786,742\n1937-38\n1,333 245\n1938-39 _\t\n1,526,117\n1939-40 ......\t\n1,677,736\n1940-41 ___\t\n923,137\n1941-42 \t\n594,684\n1942-43 -\t\n323,379\nThe above figures are for the season, October to March 31st, annually.\nSTATEMENT SHOWING THE QUANTITY OF MEAL, OIL, AND FERTILIZER,\nPRODUCED FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN HERRING AND PILCHARD,\n1935 TO 1942.\nFrom Whales.\nFrom other Sources.\nWhalebone\nand Meal.\nFertilizer.\nOil.\nMeal and\nFertilizer.\nOil.\nTons.\nTons.\nGals.\nTons.\nGals.\n211\n354\n426,772\n2,226\n260,387\n332\n687\n763,740\n2,857\n356,464\n268\n527\n662,355\n2,445\n266,009\n273\n512\n543,378\n2,059\n3,559\n186,261\n331,725\n181\n434\n361,820\n4,998\n415,856\n270\n561\n619,025\n5,410\n405,340\n130\n205\n255,555\n4,768\n1,255,225*\n1935-36.\n1936-37 .\n1937-38 .\n1938-39\n1939-40 .\n1940-41 .\n1941-42 .\n1942-43\nIncludes 916,723 gallons fish-liver oil.\nVICTORIA, B.C. :\nPrinted by Charles F. Banfield, Printer to tiie King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1943.\n1,325-643-5193 "@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1944_V01_06_E1_E93"@en . "10.14288/1.0319051"@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 PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31ST, 1942 WITH APPENDICES"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .