"42f1d119-6a7f-46a8-ac3d-62928bb435db"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956"@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 . "2017-08-04"@en . "[1958]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0354200/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nProvincial\nDepartment of Fisheries\nREPORT\nWITH APPENDICES\nfor the Year Ended December 31st\n1956\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty\nin right of the Province of British Columbia.\n1957 To His Honour Frank Mackenzie Ross, C.M.G., M.C.,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nI beg to submit herewith the Annual Report of the Provincial Department of\nFisheries for the year ended December 31st, 1956.\nWILLIAM RALPH TALBOT CHETWYND,\nMinister of Fisheries.\nDepartment of Fisheries,\nMinister's Office, Victoria, B.C. WILLIAM RALPH TALBOT CHETWYND\nIt is with regret that we record the death of the Honourable William Ralph\nTalbot Chetwynd, Minister of Fisheries.\nMr. Chetwynd was born in Staffordshire, England, on My 28th, 1890, and\nwas educated at Clifton College. He came to British Columbia in 1908, arriving\nat Ashcroft and finally settling at Walhachin, where he became interested in\ncattle-raising and farming.\nAt the outbreak of World War I, Mr. Chetwynd joined up with the Royal\nField Artillery and went overseas in 1916. He was wounded in action on the\nSomme in 1918, while Acting Battery Commander, and won the Military Cross.\nMr. Chetwynd returned to Canada in 1919 and resumed his cattle-raising\nbusiness until 1942, when he joined the staff of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway\nas right-of-way agent, public relations officer, and general \" trouble-shooter \" for\nthat company. He remained with the P.G.E. until he entered politics.\nMr. Chetwynd was first elected to the British Columbia Legislature in June,\n1952, for the constituency of Cariboo. He was appointed Minister of Fisheries,\nMinister of Trade and Industry, and Minister of Railways on August 1st, 1952.\nHe was re-elected in 1953 and again in 1956, at which time he was appointed\nMinister of Agriculture and Minister of Fisheries.\nMr. Chetwynd died on April 3rd, 1957.\ntwo grandsons.\nHe leaves his wife, one son, and ANNOUNCEMENT\nThe first report of the \" Fisheries Office \" of the Provincial Government dealing\nwith the fisheries of British Columbia was published in 1901. This Report has been\npublished annually for the past fifty-six years.\nIn 1947, by an Act of the Legislature, the Department of Fisheries was established\nwith a Minister of Fisheries as head of the Department and a Deputy Minister as\nadministrator.\nOn March 28th, 1957, the Department of Fisheries was abolished, and it became\nthe Fisheries Branch of the new Department of Recreation and Conservation created by\nan Act of the Legislature. The Honourable Earle C. Westwood is the Minister and\nDr. D. B. Turner, Acting Deputy Minister. All matters relating to the management and\nadministration of the Fisheries Branch, Game Commission, Parks Branch, Photographic\nBranch, and the British Columbia Government Travel Bureau come under the jurisdiction\nof the Department of Recreation and Conservation.\nMr. George J. Alexander, Deputy Minister of the former Department of Fisheries,\nretired on October 31st, 1956. He served the Government of the Province in commercial\nfisheries work from 1934 to 1956, following extensive service in the fishing industry at\npoints along the coast of British Columbia. TABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage\nValue of British Columbia's Fisheries in 1956 Shows an Increase 9\nReview of British Columbia's Salmon-canning Industry, 1956 9\nThe Canned-salmon Pack for British Columbia, 1956 10\nBritish Columbia's Canned-salmon Pack by Districts 10\nOther Canneries 16\nMild-cured Salmon 17\nDry-salt Salmon 17\nDry-salt Herring 17\nHalibut-fishery : 17\nFish Oil and Meal 18\nNet-fishing in the Non-tidal Waters 19\nCondition of British Columbia's Salmon-spawning Grounds 20\nValue of Canadian Fisheries and the Standing of the Provinces, 1955 20\nSpecies and Value of Fish Caught in British Columbia 21\nContributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon (Paper No. 42) (Digest) 21\nHerring Investigation 22\nAPPENDICES\nContributions to the Life-history of the Sockeye Salmon (No. 42). By\nD. R. Foskett, B.A., M.A., and D. W. Jenkinson, Fisheries Research Board of\nCanada, Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C 25\nThe Status of the Major Herring Stocks in British Columbia in 1956-57.\nBy F. H. C Taylor, Ph.D.; A. S. Hourston, Ph.D.; and D. N. Outram, B.A.,\nFisheries Research Board of Canada, Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C 45\nReport of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission for\n1956 78\nInternational Pacific Halibut Commission, 1956 84\nSalmon-spawning Report, British Columbia, 1956 88\nStatistical Tables 101 REPORT OF THE PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT\nOF FISHERIES FOR 1956\nVALUE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA'S FISHERIES IN 1956\nSHOWS AN INCREASE\nThe total marketed value of the fisheries of British Columbia for 1956 amounted\nto $67,522,000.* This was an increase of $6,854,000 over the production for 1955.\nThe principal species marketed in 1956 were salmon, with a value of $44,306,000;\nherring, with a value of $10,660,000; and halibut, with a marketed value of $6,636,000\n(livers and viscera excluded). The value of the salmon production in 1956 was $1,436,000\nmore than in 1955, and the herring production in 1956 increased $3,337,000 in comparison with the year previous. It should be noted that the herring figures are for the\ncalendar year and, consequently, somewhat distort the picture as this fishery extends\nfrom November to March. The herring values quoted also include those fish landed in\nthe months of January and February, which properly belong to the 1955-56 herring-\nfishing season. The value of the halibut-catch was $2,712,000 more than in 1955.\nIn the 1956 season the marketed value of shell-fish amounted to $2,074,000. The\nclam production was $360,000; oyster production, $425,000; crab production, $984,000;\nand shrimp production, $305,000.\nThe value of boats engaged in commercial fishing in 1956 was $43,143,000, and\nthe total value of gear used in British Columbia's fisheries during 1956 was $7,675,000.\nThe above figures were taken from the \"Preliminary Fisheries Statistics of British\nColumbia,\" published by the Department of Fisheries of Canada, Vancouver, B.C.\nREVIEW OF BRITISH COLUMBIA'S SALMON-CANNING\nINDUSTRY, 1956\nDuring the 1956 season eighteen salmon-canneries were licensed to operate by the\nProvincial Department of Fisheries. This was two less than operated in 1955. The\nlocation of the canneries operated in 1956 was as follows: Fraser River and Lower\nMainland, 10; Central Area, 2; Skeena River, 5; and Queen Charlotte Islands, 1. No\ncanneries have been operated on the Nass River or on Vancouver Island for some years.\nThere were no canning operations on Rivers Inlet during 1956.\nFor the past few years the tendency has been to operate fewer canneries in remote\nareas and concentrate canning operations in more central locations. This has been made\npossible by the use of large, fast packers capable of carrying sufficient ice to transport\nthe salmon in good condition over long distances to the processing plants, and equipped\nwith radio-telephones for direct communication with the fishermen and shore plants.\nThe only disruption in the 1956 fishing season occurred during the period October\n15th to December 5th, due to a price dispute between the herring seine-fishermen and\nthe fishing companies.\nThe reader, when referring to the canned-salmon pack, should take into consideration the quantities of spring, cohoe, and chum salmon which find an outlet in the fresh\nand frozen-fish trade, also the large amount of chum salmon which is exported to the\nUnited States for processing each fall. Since 1947 fresh chum salmon have been permitted to be exported to the United States after September 1st in each year, which has\nhad the effect of reducing the British Columbia canned-salmon pack.\n\u00E2\u0099\u00A6This figure does not include Japanese-caught tuna canned in British Columbia.\n9 K 10 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nTHE CANNED-SALMON PACK FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1956\nThe total canned-salmon pack for British Columbia in 1956, according to the annual\nreturns submitted to the Provincial Department of Fisheries by those canners licensed to\noperate, was 1,112,844 cases, compared with 1,410,298 cases canned in the year previous.\nThe 1956 pack was the lowest since 1944. The 1956 pack was 297,454 cases less than\nin 1955 and 367,705 cases below the average annual pack for the previous five-year\nperiod.\nThe 1956 canned-salmon pack was composed of 320,093 cases of sockeye, 11,672\ncases of springs, 1,254 cases of steelheads, 212,140 cases of cohoe, 363,614 cases of\npinks, and 204,070 cases of chums.\nThe 1956 sockeye-pack of 320,093 cases was 75,272 cases higher than the pack\nfor the previous year and 129,040 cases less than the cycle-year 1952. The spring-\nsalmon pack of 11,672 cases was the smallest pack since 1952, in which year 9,279 cases\nwere canned. The total cohoe-pack of 212,140 cases was the largest since the record\npack of 313,674 cases in 1951. The 1956 pink-salmon pack was 363,614 cases, compared with 831,225 cases in 1955 and 337,060 cases in the cycle-year 1954. The chum-\nsalmon pack in 1956 was 204,070 cases. This is compared with 128,289 cases in the\nyear previous and 96,005 cases in 1952, which was the smallest pack for this species\non record.\nIn considering the pack of chum salmon, due allowance must be made for the\nlarge numbers which are exported to the United States each year.\nThe reader is referred to the tables in the Appendix to this Report for a breakdown\nof the different species of canned salmon by districts.\nIn the Appendix to this Report is published, for the first time, a table giving a\ncomplete summary of the total numbers and weight of all salmon caught by commercial\nfishermen in British Columbia during 1956. These figures are compiled from sales-slips\nreceived by the Department of Fisheries of Canada, Vancouver, B.C. The reader is\ncautioned that the total figures include all species of salmon used for processing, canning,\nfresh and frozen, and exported in the raw state to the United States.\nAny attempt to estimate the total run of any species of salmon to any river system\nshould take into consideration the escapement to the spawning-beds. The reader is\nreferred to \" The Salmon-spawning Report, British Columbia, 1956,\" and \" Catch\nStatistics,\" published in the Appendix to this Report.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA'S CANNED-SALMON PACK BY DISTRICTS\nFraser River\nThe total canned-salmon pack for the Fraser River in 1956 amounted to 113,954\ncases, compared with previous packs for this river system, as follows: 1955, 294,238\ncases; 1954, 563,087 cases; 1953, 496,396 cases; and 1952, 151,147 cases. The 1956\npack was composed of 88,132 cases of sockeye, 2,873 cases of springs, 337 cases of\nsteelheads, 12,273 cases of cohoe, 348 cases of pinks, and 9,989 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 the Canadian pack of sockeye salmon for the Fraser\nRiver amounted to 88,132 cases. This was the smallest pack for this species since 1950,\nwhen the pack amounted to 108,223 cases. The 1956 pack was 124,784 cases less\nthan the average annual pack for this river system for the previous five-year period.\nThe 1952 cycle-year for Fraser River sockeye produced a pack of 134,625 cases.\nThe Fraser River sockeye-salmon fishery is regulated by the International Pacific\nSalmon Fisheries Commission under treaty between Canada and the United States.\nThe Commission is composed of six members, three of whom are appointed by the\nCanadian Government and three by the United States Government. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 11\nThe Commission regulates the Fraser River sockeye-salmon fishery in such a way\nthat the nationals of each country share the catch equally. The Fraser River Sockeye\nSalmon Fishery Regulations are formulated by the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries\nCommission and are enforced by the Department of Fisheries of Canada. In 1956 the\nCommission recommended a special closed period extending from June 28 th to September 19th for the purpose of providing an adequate escapement to the spawning-beds and\nto obtain a closer division of the catch between Canadian and American fishermen. The\nefforts of the Commission are producing excellent results.\nAccording to the figures released by the Commission in 1956, the total sockeye-\ncatch was 1,801,708 fish. The Canadian catch amounted to 894,836 fish and was\n49.7 per cent of the total catch. The following table shows the percentage of catch by\nAmerican and Canadian fishermen since 1939.\n1939_\nAmerican\n(Per Cent)\n. 44.50\n1940 37.50\n1941 39.30\n1942 37.20\n1943 37.42\n1944 29.77\n1945 39.90\n1946 43.90\n1947 16.60\n1948 59.47\n1949 49.98\n1950 57.70\n1951 46.78\n1952 49.74\n1953 50.31\n1954 50.44\n1955 48.00\n1956 50.30\nCanadian\n(Per Cent)\n55.50\n62.50\n60.70\n62.80\n62.58\n70.23\n60.10\n56.10\n83.40\n40.53\n50.02\n42.30\n53.22\n50.26\n49.69\n49.56\n52.00\n49.70\nIn the Appendix to this Report is a table showing the total sockeye-salmon packs\nof the Fraser River arranged in accordance with the four-year cycles, from 1895 to 1956,\ninclusive, and showing the catches made by British Columbia and Washington fishermen\nin the respective years.\nThe report of the activities of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission\nfor 1956 is published in the Appendix to this Report.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The fresh- and frozen-fish trade consumes large quantities of spring\nsalmon; therefore, the canned pack of this species is never indicative of the size of the\ncatch or the size of the run. The spring-salmon pack for 1956 was 2,873 cases, compared\nwith 6,843 cases in 1955, 8,298 cases in 1954, 5,620 cases in 1953, and 2,279 cases\nin 1952.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Fraser River produced a pack of 12,273 cases of cohoe\nin 1956. This is compared with 15,910 cases in 1955 and 11,948 cases in 1954.\nIn 1953, the cycle-year, 15,480 cases were canned. Large quantities of cohoe caught in\nthe Fraser River area enter the fresh- and frozen-fish market and, of course, are in\naddition to the canned-salmon pack.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pink-salmon run to the Fraser River occurs only every alternate\nyear, the runs coinciding with the odd-numbered years. In 1956 the Fraser River\nproduced a pack of 348 cases, compared with 160,187 cases in 1955, 17 cases in 1954,\nand 204,421 cases in 1953. K 12 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The chum-salmon pack on the Fraser River for 1956 was 9,989\ncases. This is compared with the 1955 pack of 7,350 cases and the 1954 pack of 45,444\ncases. The 1956 chum pack was disappointing and was 9,647 cases below the average\nannual pack for the past five years.\nSkeena River\nThe Skeena River in 1956 produced a total salmon-pack of 55,527 cases. This was\nthe smallest pack for the Skeena since 1947, when 79,718 cases were canned. Fishing in\nthis river was curtailed by special regulatory measures designed to increase salmon\nescapements in an effort to re-establish the salmon runs depleted as a result of the rock-\nslide which blocked the Babine River, a major spawning area, during the 1951-52\nbrood-year.\nThe total pack in 1956 was 67,980 cases less than were packed in the year previous\nand 75,322 cases below the average annual pack on the Skeena for the past five years.\nThe 1956 pack is compared with the pack of 1955, in which year there were a total\nof 123,507 cases canned. The 1954 pack was 136,500 cases, while 117,406 cases\nwere canned in 1953.\nIn 1956 the canned-salmon pack on the Skeena River was composed of 14,663\ncases of sockeye, 371 cases of springs, 312 cases of steelheads, 8,265 cases of cohoe,\n25,633 cases of pinks, and 6,283 cases of chums.\nThe sockeye run to the Skeena River has been decreasing in latter years, and the\nspecial regulatory measures enforced to increase the escapement to the spawning-beds\nwere justified. As a conservation measure, fishing for all species of salmon was curtailed,\nwhich resulted in the lowest salmon-pack ever recorded for the Skeena River.\nThe reader should note that any consideration of the canned-salmon pack as a\nmeasure of the total run of any species should take into account the escapement to the\nspawning-beds. This is contained in the \" Salmon-spawning Report, British Columbia,\n1956,\" published in the Appendix to this Report.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pack of sockeye salmon on the Skeena River in 1956,\namounting to 14,663 cases, was again disappointing. This is compared with 14,649\ncases packed in 1955 and 60,816 cases canned in 1954. The 1953 pack was 65,003\ncases, and 114,775 cases were packed in 1952.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Spring salmon on the Skeena River, as on other river systems in\nthe Province, are usually caught incidental to fishing for other species and find an outlet\nin other than the canned-salmon market; therefore, the size of the spring-salmon pack is\nnot indicative of the size of the run of this species to any river system.\nIn 1956 the canned pack of spring salmon amounted to 371 cases. This is compared with 1,430 cases in 1955, 1,260 cases in 1954, 1,174 cases in 1953, and 2,082\ncases in 1952.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Skeena River is never a large producer of cohoe salmon.\nIn 1956 there were 8,265 cases of cohoe canned, compared with 14,192 cases in 1955\nand 10,449 cases in 1954. The 1956 pack was 1,040 cases below the average annual\npack for this river system for the previous five-year period.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 1956 pack of pink salmon, amounting to 25,633 cases, was\ndisappointing after the large pack of 86,788 cases in 1955. The 1956 pack was 13,691\ncases less than the cycle-year 1954, in which year 39,324 cases were canned. The 1953\npack was 29,884 cases.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 the Skeena River produced a pack of chum salmon\namounting to 6,283 cases. This is compared with 5,471 cases in 1955 and 23,135 cases\nin 1954. In 1953 the chum-salmon pack was 15,114 cases, while in 1952 only 4,638\ncases were canned. The chum-salmon pack was 4,645 cases below the average annual\npack for the previous five-year period. report of provincial fisheries department, 1956 k 13\nNass River\nThe canned-salmon pack for the Nass River in 1956 amounted to 111,414 cases.\nThis was the largest pack for the Nass since 1951, when the total pack was 152,742 cases.\nThe Nass River pack has been rather consistent since 1953. In 1955 the pack was\n62,081 cases, compared with 69,358 cases in 1954 and 66,510 cases in 1953.\nThe Nass River pack in 1956 was composed of 22,505 cases of sockeye, 536 cases\nof springs, 217 cases of steelheads, 8,165 cases of cohoe, 44,402 cases of pinks, and\n35,588 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 the Nass River produced a sockeye-salmon pack of\n22,505 cases, compared with 13,654 cases in 1955, 10,285 cases in 1954, 18,162 cases\nin 1953, and 29,429 cases in 1952. The 1956 sockeye-pack was 3,698 cases above the\naverage annual pack for the previous five-year period.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Spring salmon on the Nass River are caught only incidentally while\nfishing for other species of salmon, consequently the pack is not always an indication of\nthe size of the run or of the catch.\nIn 1956 the Nass produced 536 cases of springs, compared with 1,028 cases in\n1955, 398 cases in 1954, 527 cases in 1953, and 641 cases in 1952.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pack of cohoe salmon on the Nass River in 1956 amounted\nto 8,165 cases, compared with 9,356 cases in 1955, 6,024 cases in 1954, 5,118 cases\nin 1953, and 1,223 cases in 1952.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Nass River produced a pack of pink salmon in 1956 amounting\nto 44,402 cases. This pack is compared with the cycle-years 1954 and 1952, when\n36,448 and 13,016 cases, respectively, were canned. The pack in 1955 was 29,040\ncases, and in 1953 there were 16,635 cases canned.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The chum-salmon pack for the Nass River in 1956, amounting to\n35,588 cases, must be considered a large one when compared with the size of former\npacks of this species for this river system. The 1956 chum-salmon pack was the\nlargest pack since 1951, when 37,742 cases were canned. In 1955 the pack of chums\nwas 8,904 cases; in 1954, 15,965 cases; in 1953, 25,756 cases; and in 1952, 13,112\ncases.\nRivers Inlet\nRivers Inlet is mainly a sockeye gill-net area. In 1956 the total pack amounted\nto 146,683 cases, producing a good pack of sockeye salmon. The Rivers Inlet pack\nin 1956 was composed of 124,634 cases of sockeye, 419 cases of springs, 55 cases of\nsteelheads, 6,601 cases of cohoe, 12,046 cases of pinks, and 2,926 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet in 1956 was one of the top sockeye-producing areas.\nThe pack amounted to 124,634 cases, compared with 50,702 cases in 1955, 50,639\ncases in 1954, 132,925 cases in 1953, and 84,297 cases in 1952. The sockeye-pack\nin 1956 was 35,995 cases above the average annual pack for this species for the previous\nfive years and 34,063 cases above the average annual pack for the previous ten-year\nperiod.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Spring salmon are usually caught incidentally while fishing for\nsockeye in Rivers Inlet; therefore, the pack is never large in this area. The pack of\nspring salmon amounted to 419 cases in 1956, compared with 813 cases in 1955, 649\ncases in 1954, 865 cases in 1953, and 865 cases in 1952.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet is never a large producer of cohoe salmon. The 1956\npack of 6,601 cases was the largest since 1951, when 12,416 cases were canned. The\npack in 1955 amounted to 5,316 cases, while in 1954 the pack was 4,669 cases. In 1953\nthere were 1,979 cases of cohoe canned from Rivers Inlet caught fish and 3,415 cases\nin 1952. K 14 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In Rivers Inlet, pink salmon are caught in gill-nets incidentally while\nfishing for sockeye salmon. The pack in 1956 amounted to 12,046 cases, while the\nprevious years' packs were: 1955, 8,658 cases; 1954, 2,581 cases; 1953, 7,304 cases;\nand 1952, 12,469 cases.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 the chum-salmon pack in Rivers Inlet amounted to 2,926\ncases, compared with 5,588 cases in 1955, 12,352 cases in 1954, 5,627 cases in 1953,\nand 3,711 cases in 1952.\nSmith Inlet\nSmith Inlet is similar to Rivers Inlet, in that both are predominantly sockeye gill-net\nfishing areas. Other species of salmon caught in Smith Inlet are usually caught inci-\ndently while fishing for sockeye. The total canned-salmon pack for Smith Inlet in 1956\namounted to 42,652 cases, composed of 36,898 cases of sockeye, 166 cases of springs,\n2,249 cases of cohoe, 1,664 cases of pinks, and 1,642 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 Smith Inlet produced a pack of 36,898 cases of sockeye, compared with the previous year's pack of 28,864 cases. This area produced 18,937\ncases of sockeye in 1954, 29,947 cases in 1953, and 34,834 cases in 1952, the cycle-year.\nThe 1956 pack was 7,002 cases above the average annual pack for Smith Inlet for the\nprevious five-year period.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The spring-salmon pack for Smith Inlet is never large as this\nspecies is only caught incidental to fishing for sockeye. In 1956 there were 166 cases\nof spring salmon canned from Smith Inlet caught fish, compared with the 1955 pack\nof 326 cases. In 1954 the pack was 177 cases; in 1953 it was 176 cases; and in 1952,\n367 cases.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The cohoe-pack for 1956 amounted to 2,249 cases. This was the\nlargest pack since 1951, when 3,259 cases were canned. The packs for the previous\nyears were: 1955, 1,014 cases; 1954, 868 cases; and 1953, 615 cases.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pink-salmon pack for Smith Inlet has never been very large.\nThis species also is caught incidental to fishing for sockeye. In 1956 pink salmon\ncaught in Smith Inlet produced a pack of 1,664 cases, compared with 2,275 cases in\n1955, 523 cases in 1954, and 1,017 cases in 1952.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There were 1,642 cases of chum salmon canned in 1956 from\nSmith Inlet caught fish, compared with 2,070 cases in 1955, 2,992 cases in 1954, and\n4,015 cases in 1953. In 1952 the pack for this species dropped to 315 cases.\nQueen Charlotte Islands\nThe principal species of salmon caught in the Queen Charlotte Islands District are\npinks and chums, although a considerable number of cohoe and springs are caught for\nthe fresh- and frozen-fish markets. Pink salmon are caught only every alternate year in\nthis district, the runs coinciding with the even-numbered years. All other species are\ncaught every year.\nIn 1956 the Queen Charlotte Islands produced a total pack of canned salmon\namounting to 44,891 cases, composed of 1,323 cases of sockeye, 7,314 cases of cohoe,\n18,809 cases of pinks, and 17,443 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 the sockeye-pack amounted to 1,323 cases, compared\nwith 433 cases in 1955, 107 cases in 1954, and 246 cases in 1953. In 1952 the pack\nwas 635 cases. In the Queen Charlotte Islands District, sockeye are caught only incidentally while fishing for other species.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094As previously mentioned, spring salmon caught in this area usually\nenter the fresh- and frozen-fish trade. In 1956, 1 case of spring salmon was canned,\ncompared with 16 cases in 1955, 6 cases in 1954, and 1 case in 1953. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 15\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 there were 7,314 cases of cohoe salmon canned from\nQueen Charlotte Islands caught fish, while in 1955 the pack was 11,666 cases. In 1954\nthe pack amounted to 11,289 cases, and in 1953, 2,437 cases were canned.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In the Queen Charlotte Islands, pink salmon run only in the even-\nnumbered years. The expected run for 1956 did not materialize; therefore, the pink-\nsalmon pack of 18,809 cases was most disappointing. In 1955 the pack was 548 cases,\nwhile in 1954, the cycle-year, the pack amounted to 105,123 cases.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 1956 pack of chum salmon in the Queen Charlotte Islands\nDistrict, amounting to 17,443 cases, was again disappointing. In 1955 the pack was\n9,402 cases, compared with 83,805 cases in 1954 and 17,304 cases in 1953. Commenting on the spawning conditions in the area in 1956, the Chief Supervisor of Fisheries says:\n\" The chum-salmon failure in the Queen Charlotte Islands area was pronounced and is\nthe fourth consecutive season of poor chum-salmon runs, calling for immediate application\nof extraordinary measures for the rehabilitation of one of the prolific chum-streams in\nthis area. Pink returns to this area were also disappointingly light and will also require\nspecial conservation attention.\"\nThe Chief Supervisor's report on the spawning-beds, also the catch summary for\neach district, will be found in the Appendix to this Report.\nCentral Area\nThe Central Area includes all the salmon-fishing areas from the Skeena River to\nCape Calvert, with the exception of Rivers Inlet. The total production of canned salmon\nfrom fish caught in this area in 1956 amounted to 324,164 cases, compared with 214,998\ncases in 1955 and 327,820 cases in 1954. The 1956 pack consisted of 17,967 cases of\nsockeye, 1,364 cases of springs, 273 cases of steelheads, 40,299 cases of cohoe, 205,658\ncases of pinks, and 58,602 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Again in 1956 the Central Area sockeye-pack was small, and\nthe 17,967 cases canned was the smallest pack of this species since 1949, when 16,140\ncases were packed. In the previous years the packs were as follows: 1955, 19,648 cases;\n1954, 30,858 cases; 1953, 25,845 cases; and 1952, 26,583 cases. The sockeye-pack in\nthe Central Area was 6,213 cases below the average annual pack of sockeye in this area\nfor the previous five-year period.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 the pack of spring salmon in the Central Area amounted\nto 1,364 cases, compared with 1,864 cases in 1955, 1,645 cases in 1954, 1,568 cases in\n1953, and 1,261 cases in 1952.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The cohoe-pack of 40,299 cases in 1956 was the largest pack of\nthis species in this area since 1951, when 61,423 cases were canned. In 1955 the pack\namounted to 24,846 cases; in 1954 it was 25,611 cases; in 1953, 21,502 cases were\ncanned; and 17,289 cases were packed in 1952. The cohoe-pack in 1956 was 9,970\ncases above the average annual pack for this area for the previous five-year period.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094For years the Central Area has been a heavy producer of pink\nsalmon. In 1956 the pink-salmon pack amounted to 205,658 cases, compared with\n122,371 cases in 1955, 118,538 cases in 1954, 92,517 cases in 1953, and 207,055 cases\nin 1952. The pink-salmon pack in 1956 was 56,421 cases above the average annual pack\nfor this area for the previous five-year period.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The chum-salmon pack for the Central Area in 1956, amounting\nto 58,602 cases, must be considered disappointing when compared with the 1955 pack\nof 45,950 cases. In 1954 the chum-pack was 149,672 cases, while in 1953 the Central\nArea produced a pack of 175,289 cases. In 1952 there were 36,605 cases canned.\nReports from the spawning-grounds on the escapement of chums in the Central Area\nindicate that \"the runs were light and below those of 1952.\" K 16 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nVancouver Island\nThe Vancouver Island District, like the Central Area, supports numerous races of\nsalmon migrating to different streams. No attempt is made to deal with the various races\nseparately. It should be pointed out, however, that the sockeye salmon caught in the\nSooke traps and vicinity are not credited to Vancouver Island, but to the Fraser River,\nwhere most of them are known to migrate. Similarly, sockeye caught in Johnstone Strait\nbetween Vancouver Island and the Mainland are also credited to the Fraser River in this\nReport and not to Vancouver Island. These fish are known to be migrating to the\nFraser River.\nFor statistical purposes of this Report, salmon, other than sockeye, caught in\nJohnstone Strait between Vancouver Island and the adjacent Mainland are credited to\nVancouver Island.\nThe total salmon-pack from Vancouver Island caught fish amounted to 265,523\ncases in 1956, compared with 581,599 cases in 1955 and 349,586 cases in 1954. The\nVancouver Island salmon-pack in 1956 was composed of 13,970 cases of sockeye, 5,941\ncases of springs, 25 cases of steelheads, 118,938 cases of cohoe, 55,052 cases of pinks,\nand 71,595 cases of chums.\nSockeye Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 Vancouver Island and the adjacent Mainland area produced a pack of 13,970 cases, compared with 13,192 cases in 1955, 12,051 cases in 1954,\n46,895 cases in 1953, and 24,252 cases in 1952.\nFor details of the escapement to the spawning-grounds, the reader should refer to\nthe spawning report published in the Appendix to this Report.\nSpring Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The 1956 pack of spring salmon credited to Vancouver Island and\nthe adjacent Mainland was 5,941 cases, compared with 5,534 cases in 1955. This area\nproduced 1,649 cases in 1954 and 3,115 cases in 1953. A considerable amount of spring\nsalmon is caught each year by trolling off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The\ncanned-salmon pack figures are not indicative of the size of the catch because troll-caught\nsalmon from this area also find an outlet in the fresh, frozen, and mild-cured markets.\nCohoe Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cohoe are caught in large quantities by trolling off the west coast\nof Vancouver Island and, like spring salmon, also find a market in the fresh- and frozen-\nfish trade. For this reason the canned pack is not indicative of the size of the catch.\nBluebacks are included with the cohoe-pack.\nIn the Vancouver Island and adjacent Mainland area in 1956 the cohoe-pack\namounted to 118,938 cases, compared with 101,349 cases in 1955, 54,783 cases in 1954,\nand 57,773 cases in 1953.\nPink Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The pink-salmon pack for Vancouver Island and the adjacent Mainland in 1956 was 55,052 cases. This is compared with the packs in the even-numbered\ncycle-years\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, 1954, when 32,913 cases were packed, and the 1952 pack of\n171,812 cases. The largest pink-salmon runs and packs for this area, according to\nrecords, are produced in the odd-numbered years. In 1955 the pack amounted to\n421,355 cases, compared with 439,173 cases in 1953 and 303,102 cases in 1951.\nChum Salmon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The chum-salmon pack for Vancouver Island in 1956 was 71,595\ncases, compared with 40,105 cases in 1955, 248,098 cases in 1954, 124,840 cases in\n1953, and a small pack of 24,039 cases in 1952.\nIn 1956 there were 8,034 cases of cohoe imported from Alaska canned in British\nColumbia.\nOTHER CANNERIES\nPilchard-canneries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Since 1949 there have been no pilchards in British Columbia\nwaters. No pilchard-cannery licences were issued during the 1956 season. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 17\nHerring-canneries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 one herring-cannery was licensed to operate in British\nColumbia, producing a pack of 11,728 cases. This pack is compared with the year previous, when a total of 25,508 cases of herring were canned in various sizes, including\nsardines and oval snacks.\nTuna-fish Canneries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The first commercial tuna-fish canning operation in British\nColumbia was licensed by the Provincial Department of Fisheries in 1948. In 1956\none tuna-fish cannery was licensed to operate. This cannery produced 56,256 cases of\n7-ounce cans, 19,181 cases of 48/6-ounce cans, and 22,828 cases of 4-ounce cans. In\n1955 one tuna-fish cannery operated, producing 73,126 cases of 7-ounce cans and 29,675\ncases of 4-ounce cans. In 1956, as in 1955, all of the tuna canned in British Columbia\nwere imported from Japan in a frozen condition.\nThe tuna-fishery off the west coast of British Columbia is still in an experimental\ncondition, consequently the catch will vary from year to year.\nShell-fish Canneries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956 eight shell-fish canneries were licensed in British\nColumbia, all of which operated. This was two less than operated in 1955. The eight\nshell-fish canneries produced the following packs in 1956:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nCrabs: 32,995 cases of 24/1/2's, 1,552 cases of 48/1/2's, and 2,281 cases of\n48/14's.\nClams: 2,206 cases of 48/1's, 9,634 cases of 24/1's, 2,709 cases of 48/1/2's,\nand 7,109 cases of 24/Vi's.\nOysters: 5,085 cases of 48/,4's, 1,026 cases of 48/10-oz., and 1,114 cases\nof 48/10-ounce oyster stew.\nAbalones: 10 cases of 48/1's.\nMILD-CURED SALMON\nSix plants were licensed to mild-cure salmon in 1956, all of which operated. These\nsix plants produced 703 tierces of mild-cured salmon, totalling 5,985 hundredweight.\nThis operation is compared with the production of five plants licensed to operate in 1955\nwhich produced a pack of 553 tierces of mild-cured salmon containing 5,085 hundredweight.\nDRY-SALT SALMON\nSince the end of World War II the business of dry-salting salmon has not been\nrevived. In 1947 two licences were issued, but no operation took place. No licences\nhave been issued for salmon dry-salteries since that time.\nDRY-SALT HERRING\nIn 1956 one herring dry-saltery was licensed to operate, producing 1,202 boxes of\ndry-salt herring. This is compared with the production of one plant licensed in 1955,\nwhich produced 1,016 boxes of salt herring.\nHALIBUT-FISHERY\nThe halibut-fishery on the Pacific Coast of North America is regulated by the International Pacific Halibut Commission, which Commission is set up under treaty between\nCanada and the United States for the protection and rehabilitation of the halibut-fishery.\nThis is a deep-sea fishery and is shared by the nationals of the two countries, Canada and\nthe United States. The Commission regulates the fishery on a quota basis and, on that\naccount, there is little fluctuation in the amount of halibut landed from year to year,\nexcept when the quotas are changed by the Commission for any reason. There is, however, some fluctuation from year to year in the quantity landed by the nationals of each\ncountry. K 18 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nFor the purpose of regulation, the coast was originally divided into a number of\nareas, the principal ones, from the standpoint of production, being Areas 2 and 3. The\nCommission has found it necessary to subdivide these areas into a number of sub-areas\nin order to facilitate its work and to make better use of the stock of halibut on the different banks. For a more detailed breakdown of the areas and the geographical limits\nof each, the reader is referred to the Pacific Halibut Regulations for 1956.\nThe 1956 catch-limits set by the Commission for the different areas were as follows:\nArea 2, 26,500,000 pounds, and Area 3, 28,000,000 pounds. These were the same\nquantities as were permitted in 1955.\nIn 1956 the total landings by all vessels in all ports amounted to 67,566,000 pounds,\ncompared with 59,094,000 pounds in 1955. The 1956 catch was derived by areas as\nfollows: Area 1a, 430,000 pounds; Area 1b, 174,000 pounds; Area 2, 35,372,000\npounds; Area 3a, 30,928,000 pounds; and Area 3b, 662,000 pounds.\nThe total halibut-landings by all vessels in Canadian ports in 1956 was 25,935,000\npounds. This is compared with 22,601,000 pounds in 1955. The total landings by all\nvessels in Canadian ports in 1956 were caught as follows: Area 2, 15,686,000 pounds;\nArea 3a, 10,102,000 pounds; Area 3b, 147,000 pounds.\nCanadian vessels landed in Canadian ports in 1956 a total of 22,934,000 pounds\nof halibut. This catch is compared with Canadian landings by Canadian vessels in 1955\namounting to 19,850,000 pounds. The Canadian vessels took their catches by areas as\nfollows: Area 2, 14,988,000 pounds; Area 3a, 7,799,000 pounds; and Area 3b, 147,-\n000 pounds.\nIn addition to the above, Canadian vessels landed in American ports in 1956,\n2,723,000 pounds of halibut, compared with the same landings in 1955 of 2,298,000\npounds. The halibut landed by Canadian vessels in American ports in 1956 was caught\nas follows: Area 2, 93,000 pounds; Area 3a, 2,456,000 pounds; and Area 3b, 174,000\npounds.\nAmerican vessels landed in Canadian ports in 1956 a total of 3,001,000 pounds of\nhalibut, compared with the same landings in 1955 amounting to 2,751,000 pounds.\nThe American catch landed in Canadian ports was caught as follows: Area 2, 698,000\npounds, and Area 3a, 2,303,000 pounds.\nThe average price paid for Canadian halibut in Prince Rupert and the average\nprice for all Canadian landings in Canadian ports in 1956 was 21.7 cents per pound,\ncompared with 13 cents per pound in 1955. There was no average price immediately\navailable for Prince Rupert alone when these figures were compiled. The average price\nof halibut in the Province as a whole usually reflects the Prince Rupert price.\nA breakdown of the value of halibut-livers and vitamin-bearing halibut viscera,\nwhich is usually included in this Report, is not available at this time. However, it is\nknown that halibut-livers to the value of $34,708 and Vitamin A bearing viscera to the\nvalue of $5,232 were landed by the United States fleet. The Canadian fleet will have, no\ndoubt, received proportionately a similar amount for livers and Vitamin A bearing viscera landed in Canada.\nThe above figures relating to the halibut-catch are to the nearest thousand pounds.\nThe statistical information for the halibut-fishery was supplied by the International\nPacific Halibut Commission and is hereby gratefully acknowledged.\nFISH OIL AND MEAL\nThe production of fish-oil and edible fish-meal has been an important branch of\nBritish Columbia's fisheries for a number of years. Previous to World War II, pilchards\nand herring were the principal species used for reduction to meal and oil. The products\nof the reduction plants found a ready market, the meal being used as a supplementary\nfood for animal-feeding and the oil being used in manufacturing processes of many kinds. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 19\nThe demand for natural sources of vitamins stimulated the production of vitamin\noils from fish products, and at the outbreak of World War II the demand for natural\nsources of vitamins greatly increased the production of fish-oils of high vitamin content.\nThis increased demand brought into use other fish besides herring and pilchards during\nthe war years and immediately afterwards. Dogfish and shark livers were in high demand\nin those years. Recently, however, the increased production of synthetic Vitamin A has\nlessened the demand for fish-liver oil as a natural source of this vitamin, and if the price\nof synthetic Vitamin A falls much lower, the market for livers containing this vitamin\nmay very soon disappear.\nIn addition to the production of oils from British Columbia's various fish and fish-\nlivers in recent years, there has been considerable activity in the use of cannery-waste\nand viscera for the production of various pharmaceutical products. Besides the high\nvitamin-content oils used in the medicinal field, British Columbia's fish-oils of lower\nvitamin potency find an outlet in many manufacturing processes, and large quantities\nare used for the feeding of poultry and live stock.\nFish-liver Oil.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In 1956, only four plants were licensed to reduce fish-livers to oil,\nall of which operated. The four plants processed 648,134 pounds of livers and produced\nVitamin A to the extent of 2,355,410 million U.S.P. units. This production is compared\nwith that of 1955, in which year four plants operated and produced a total of 4,760,668\nmillion U.S.P. units of Vitamin A from 1,198,010 pounds of fish-livers.\nHerring Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The winter herring-fishery has developed into British Columbia's second important fishery in dollar value. The season generally runs from late in\nSeptember or early in October through until the following March, with a short break at\nthe Christmas period. Many of the boats used in catching herring are also used in\nsalmon-fishing, and, generally speaking, the herring-fishery does not get into full swing\nuntil the boats have been released from fishing for salmon.\nIn 1956 thirteen herring-reduction plants were licensed to operate, producing\nherring-meal to the extent of 32,772 tons and 3,602,937 imperial gallons of oil. This\nproduction is compared with the year previous, when fifteen plants produced 47,097\ntons of meal and 4,475,536 imperial gallons of oil.\nWhale Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In British Columbia there is only one shore-based whaling-\nstation. In 1956 operations from this station killed 375 whales, compared with 630 in\n1955.\nMiscellaneous Reduction.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Dogfish and fish-offal reduction plants are licensed by\nthe Provincial Department of Fisheries under miscellaneous reduction licences. These\nplants operate on cannery-waste and the carcasses of dogfish and produce meal and oil\nfor various purposes. The oil produced from the carcasses of dogfish should not be\nconfused with the oil produced from dogfish-livers, the latter being a high-potency oil\nwhich is reported in another section of this Report.\nIn 1956 ten plants were licensed to operate, producing 1,925 tons of meal and\n187,787 imperial gallons of oil. This production is compared with 1955, when nine\nplants were licensed and produced 1,993 tons of meal and 201,690 imperial gallons\nof oil.\nNET-FISHING IN NON-TIDAL WATERS\nUnder section 73 of the British Columbia Fishery Regulations, fishing with nets in\ncertain specified non-tidal waters within the Province is permissible under licence from\nthe Provincial Minister of Fisheries. This fishery is confined almost exclusively to the\nresidents living within reasonable distance of the lakes in question.\nIn the Appendix to this Report there again appears a table showing the name and\nnumber of lakes in which net-fishing has been permitted, together with the number and\napproximate weight of the various species of fish taken from each lake. K 20\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nIt will be noted that there are three different kinds of fishing licences issued for\nnet-fishing in the non-tidal waters of the Province\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, fur-farm, ordinary, and\nsturgeon. The fur-farm licences are issued to licensed fur-farmers, and the coarse fish\ntaken under these licences are used for food for fur-bearing animals held in captivity.\nOrdinary fishing licences are issued for the capture of fish other than trout, salmon, or\nsturgeon, while licences issued for sturgeon-fishing are used exclusively for that fishery.\nA detailed account of the fish taken by the licensed nets in the different waters of\nthe Province is again carried in the table appearing in the Appendix to this Report.\nCONDITION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA'S\nSALMON-SPAWNING GROUNDS\nWe are again indebted to the Chief Supervisor of the Department of Fisheries of\nCanada and the officers of his department, who conducted the investigation, for furnishing\nus with a copy of the Department's report on the salmon-spawning grounds of British\nColumbia and permitting it to be published in the Appendix to this Report. The Chief\nSupervisor's courtesy in supplying us with this information is gratefully acknowledged.\nVALUE OF CANADIAN FISHERIES AND THE STANDING\nOF THE PROVINCES, 1955\nThe value of fisheries products of Canada for the year 1955 totalled $179,068,000.\nDuring that year British Columbia produced fisheries products to the value of $60,668,-\n000, or 33 per cent of Canada's total. British Columbia, in 1955, led all of the Provinces\nof Canada in respect to the production of fisheries wealth. Her output exceeded that\nof Nova Scotia, second in rank, by $16,668,000.\nThe marketed value of the fisheries products of British Columbia in 1955 was\n$8,754,000 less than the year previous. The value of salmon amounted to $42,869,000.\nThe following statement gives the value of fisheries products of the Provinces of\nCanada for the years 1951 to 1955, inclusive:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nProvince\n1951\n1952\n1953\n1954\n1955\n$83,812,704\n40,296.367\n21,154,877\n5,511,379\n7,924,530\n7,524,392\n3,212,629\n862,327\n1,748,444\n2,261,964\n29,000,000\n$56,635,0001\n42,435,000\n20 503,700\n6.113.000\n8.343 700\n5,959,700\n3,758.700\n942,900\n1,440,000\n2,225,100\n$65,455,0001\n40,012,200\n17,522,700\n5.804 000\n7,916,100\n4,784,500\n4 048,900\n1,085.900\n1,281,300\n1,511,500\n$69,422,0001\n41.000 OOO2\n18,158,0002\n5,423,0002\n7,890 000\n5,435,000\n4,000,0002\n1,150 000\n1,644,000\n2,040,000\n28.000,0002\n$60,668,0001\n44,000,0002\n21,200,0002\nQuebec \t\nOntario \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ..\nManitoba. \t\n6,000,0002\n7,300.000\n6,000,000\n4,500 0002\n1,000 000\nSaskatchewan\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n1,800,000\n1,600.000\nNewfoundland (estimated)\t\n25,000,0002\nTotals \t\n$203,309,613\n$148,357,200\n$149,422,100\n$184,162,000\n$179,068,000\n3 This figure does not include imported Japanese-caught tuna canned in British Columbia.\n2 Estimated figures. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 21\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 1952 to 1956, inclusive, is given in the following table:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSpecies\n1952\n1953\n1954\n1955\n1956\nSalmon \t\nHalibut. ._ \t\n$40,495,000\n5,531.000\n4,235,000\n$47,936,000\n5,552,702\n6,518,000\n251,000\n384 000\n449,000\n313,000\n663,000\n854,000\n361,0001\n304,000\n6.000\n(3)\n29,000\nC2)\n7,000\n17,000\n(2)\n6,000\n34,000\n$50,281,000\n5,965,000\n7,340,000\n467,000\n487,000\n306,000\n257,000\n879,000\n461,000\n290,0001\n470,000\n4,000\n30,000\n41,000\n82,000\n4,000\n9,000\n(2)\n9,000\n57,000\n$42,869,000\n3,924,000\n7,323,000\n$44,306,000\n6 636,000\n10,660,000\nPilchard... \t\n521,000\n590,000\n477,000\n310.000\n475,000\n1 533.000\n227.0001\n438,000\n3,000\n20,000\n75,000\n445,000\n399 000\n436 000\n265,000\n996,000\n710,000\n281,0001\n420,000\n457,000\nLing cod \t\n532,000\n360,000\n139,000\n984,000\n903,000\n305,000!\n425,000\n14,000\n35,000\n17,000\n1,000\n13,000\n(2)\n7,000\n106,000\n21.000\n33,000\nPerch \t\n36,000\nSmelts \t\n15,000\n(2)\n5,000\n115,000\n1,000\n11,000\n(2)\nSkate \t\n7.000\nEulachons \t\n86,000\n349,000\n(\u00C2\u00AB)\n( = )\n26,000\n54,000\n355,390\n(2)\n(2)\n13,000\n3,000\n427,000\n(2)\n(2)\n1,000\nWhales \t\n(2)\nC2)\n(2)\n(2)\nLiver and viscera\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n132,000\n254,000\n5.000\n2,016,000\n42,000\n158,000\nOther liver and oil\t\n1,000\nMiscellaneous _\t\n1,142,000\n1,399,000\n1,555,000\n1,419,000\nTotals \t\n$56,635,000\n$65,455,092*\n$69,422,000*\n$60,668,000*\n$67,522,000*\ni Shrimps and prawns.\n2 Included in miscellaneous.\n3 Skate and flounders.\n* This figure does not include imported Japanese-caught tuna canned in British Columbia.\nMiscellaneous includes octopus, whales, and fish products, meal and oil, which cannot be separated into species,\nwith a value of $500 or less.\nThe above figures were supplied by the Federal Department of Fisheries, Vancouver,\nand are hereby gratefully acknowledged.\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON\nPaper No. 42 (Digest)\nThis paper was prepared this year by D. R. Foskett, B.A., M.A., and D. W. lenkin-\nson, of the Pacific Biological Station of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Nanaimo, B.C. This is the forty-second consecutive paper in this series reporting on the\nsockeye salmon in the commercial catch in the main runs north of the Fraser River.\nThe samples of sockeye, from which the reported data are taken, were obtained from\nthe commercial fishery in each area, which is mainly a drift gill-net fishery. The authors\npoint out that since gill-nets are selective in removing salmon from a fish run\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is,\nthey tend to select fish of certain sizes or sex\u00E2\u0080\u0094the samples taken may not be completely\ntypical of the whole run of fish being sampled. The data of the sockeye catch were\nobtained from the Statistical Branch of the Department of Fisheries of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., and the pack figures were obtained from the Provincial Department of\nFisheries, Victoria, B.C. K 22\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nIn commenting on the individual runs, it is pointed out that the pack of 22,505 cases\nof sockeye salmon on the Nass River was quite good for this area and above the average\nof 17,899 cases for the last ten years. The run in 1956 resulted from the spawning escapements of 1951 and 1952, which were reported as very satisfactory.\nCommenting on the Skeena River, the authors point out that the effect of the Babine\nslide, which occurred in 1951, was noted in 1955 in the small proportion of 4-year-old\nfish in the catch sample, as was expected. In the 1956 sockeye-catch sample, the expected\nfall-off in the 5-year fish occurred as a direct effect of the slide. The catch sample consisted mainly of 4-year fish which came from the 1952 spawning escapement after the\npartial clearance of the Babine River.\nThe yield of 14,663 cases of sockeye in 1956 was a slight increase over the previous\nyear's commercial catch, which represented the lowest on record for the Skeena River.\nWith respect to Rivers Inlet, the 1956 sockeye-catch produced 124,634 cases, which\nwas nearly two and one-half times that of the previous year. It is pointed out that the\ncatch was the result of the spawning escapement from the 1951 run which produced a\npack well above the average. The 1951 spawning escapement, as reported in the Department of Fisheries of Canada's spawning report for 1951, was medium to heavy, and from\nthis came 90 per cent of the 1956 run, according to the sample studied.\nThe Smith Inlet sockeye run of 1956, which yielded 36,898 cases, was 30 per cent\nabove the ten-year average of 27,725 cases. The catch sample consisted mainly of 5-year-\nold fish, the result of heavy supplies of sockeye reaching the spawning-grounds in 1951.\nFor a more detailed analysis of the sizes making up the different runs, the reader is\nreferred to the paper which appears in the Appendix to this Report.\nHERRING INVESTIGATION\nResearch on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) in British Columbia was continued in\n1956-57 by the Fisheries Research Board of Canada at the Biological Station, Nanaimo,\nB.C.\nThe purpose of herring research is to obtain the scientific basis for a management\npolicy that would permit the maximum sustained yield from this resource. The research\ninvolves:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) A general continuing study of all major British Columbia herring populations to provide information on the status of these populations and to\nindicate the general application of specific studies.\n(2) Detailed studies, in certain populations, of problems in population\ndynamics at various life-history stages. The problems involved concern,\nin general, the relationship between the size of spawning stock and the\nstrength of the resulting year-class, and the efficacy of catch quotas in preventing over-utilization and in stabilizing abundance at a high level.\nGeneral Studies of Adult Stocks of All Major Populations\nAlthough tag returns in 1956-57 were fewer in number (1,708) and were attended\nby more uncertainty as to the most probable area of recovery than in previous years,\nthey confirmed once again the relative discreteness of the populations as now defined.\nEmigration in 1956-57 followed a normal, average pattern in most populations.\nRelative abundance in each of the major populations was assessed from the size of\nthe catch made in the sub-district occupied by each population and from an estimate of\nthe spawning population derived from information on the amount of spawn deposited.\nIn 1956-57 the total catch was 177,087 tons, the lowest since 1947-48, a decrease of\n29 per cent from the record catch of 1955-56. The amount of spawn deposited (131.1\nmiles) was 30 per cent less than in 1955-56. Thus herring were appreciably less abundant REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 23\nin 1956-57 than in the previous season. The greatest decreases in relative abundance\noccurred in the upper and lower Queen Charlotte Islands and the lower west coast sub-\ndistricts. However, abundance was also appreciably lower in the lower central and\nmiddle east coast sub-districts. In the northern sub-district, there was a substantial\nincrease in relative abundance from the low levels of the preceding three seasons. In the\nupper central sub-district abundance increased somewhat in 1956-57, but still remained\nbelow average. In the lower east coast sub-district there was little evidence of any\nchange in abundance. Late inshore migration again apparently hindered the exploitation\nof the upper west coast population. However, the amount of spawn deposited there\nindicated that while abundance may have decreased from the 1955-56 level, it still\nremained above average.\nThe decreased relative abundance in most populations in 1956-57 resulted primarily\nfrom the weakness of the dominant year-classes contributing to the fishable stocks. In\nthe upper and lower Queen Charlotte Islands populations the 1954, 1953, and 1952\nyear-classes (fish of ages III, IV, and V respectively) were weak. In the lower central\nsub-district also, the 1952 and 1953 year-classes (ages IV and V) were relatively weak,\nand had not the 1954 year-class (age III) been of at least average strength, abundance in\nthis sub-district would have declined further. The powerful 1951 year-class, which as\nV-year fish contributed so strongly to the high 1955-56 catches in the lower Queen Charlotte Islands and lower central sub-districts, could not be expected as Vl-year-old fish in\n1956-57 to make again an appreciable contribution to these populations. In the northern\nsub-district, where abundance increased substantially in 1956-57, the 1953 and 1954\nyear-classes (ages IV and III respectively) were of at least average strength and were\nstronger than in other Northern British Columbian populations. In Southern British\nColumbia populations (District 3) relative abundance is dependent mainly on the\ncontributions of the year-class providing fish of age III, and to a lesser extent on that\nproviding fish of age IV. In the lower west coast sub-district the dominant year-class\n(the 1954, age III) was very weak, and the 1953 year-class (age IV), although it appeared\nof average strength in 1955-56, made a poor contribution in 1956-57. In the middle\neast coast population, the 1952 year-class appears to have been the last of a series of three\nstrong year-classes. The 1953 year-class (age IV) was of below averge strength, and the\n1954 year-class of only average strength. In the lower east coast population, the 1953\nyear-class (age IV) was relatively weaker than the 1952 and preceding recent year-classes,\nbut the 1954 year-class (age III) was probably as strong as those year-classes.\nRelative abundance in 1957-58 will depend principally on the contributions to the\nadult stock of the 1954 and 1955 year-classes. The 1954 year-class appears to be of\naverage strength in most Southern British Columbia populations, but of below average\nstrength in some northern populations. Present indications, on the basis of the proportion of Il-year fish in the catches in 1956-57, suggest that the 1955 year-class may be\nof average strength in southern populations, but possibly of somewhat above average\nstrength in some northern populations. No substantial change in total catch is, therefore,\nexpected in 1957-58.\nNo significant differences were noted in the size of the fish at each age in the various\npopulations in 1956-57, indicating that feeding conditions were probably normal.\nIn the summer of 1956 a fishery for reduction purposes occurred, taking 30,579\ntons of the total catch of 177,087 tons. This summer fishery was more substantial and\nmore widespread than those in previous years. While catches were made in all sub-\ndistricts except the upper west coast, 44 per cent came from the upper east coast sub-\ndistrict, 28 per cent from the northern sub-district, and 13 per cent from the lower east\ncoast sub-district. Tag-recoveries from these fisheries, although relatively few in number,\nsuggested that in most areas the same stocks were fished in summer as in winter. However, the degree of intermingling with adjacent stocks was greater in summer than in K 24 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nwinter. In all areas the summer-fished stocks contained a smaller proportion of younger\nfish and a greater proportion of older fish than the equivalent winter-fished stocks. The\ndifferences in age composition between the summer- and winter-fished stocks suggest that\nnew recruits do not join the fishable stocks until the time of the autumn pre-spawning\nmigration. The summer-fished stocks appeared to consist mainly of fish recruited in previous years and were probably the residues of the previous season's spawning populations.\nInvestigations of Special Problems\nThe juvenile (I-year) herring research programme was terminated after the 1956\nseason. While this programme yielded valuable information on herring at this stage in\ntheir life-history, the effort involved in estimating the distribution and abundance of\njuveniles in a given area precluded the extension of this programme to other parts of the\ncoast, or its continuation as a basis for the prediction of relative abundance at recruitment. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 25\nAPPENDICES\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIFE-HISTORY OF THE\nSOCKEYE SALMON (No. 42)\nBy D. R. Foskett,* B.A., M.A., and D. W. Ienkinson,\nFisheries Research Board of Canada, Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.\nINTRODUCTION\nThis is the forty-second report in a series which was begun in 1914 by the Commissioner of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia and has since been continued\nwithout interruption since that time, the reports appearing each year in the Report of\nthe Commissioner of Fisheries, latterly the Report of the Provincial Department of\nFisheries. The reports give, for each year, pertinent information regarding the sizes,\nsex ratios, and age compositions of the sockeye caught in each of the major sockeye-\nsalmon fishing areas of the British Columbia coast, with the exception of the Fraser\nRiver, which since 1937 has been within the jurisdiction of the International Pacific\nSalmon Fisheries Commission. The areas dealt with, therefore, include the Nass River,\nSkeena River, Rivers Inlet area, and Smith Inlet area.\nThe samples of sockeye, from which the reported data are taken, are obtained from\nthe commercial fishery in each area, which is, in the main, a drift gill-net fishery. To the\nextent, therefore, that gill-nets are selective in removing salmon from a run of fish\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nthat is, tend to select fish of certain sizes or sex\u00E2\u0080\u0094the samples taken may not be completely\ntypical of the whole run of fish being sampled. It has already been shown, in No. 38\nof this series, that at Rivers Inlet that portion of the run that escapes the fishery and\nreaches the spawning-grounds (termed the \" spawning escapement \") may have a quite\ndifferent size, sex, and age composition from that taken by the fishery.\nThe data herein reported pertain to the 1956 catches of sockeye. The numbers of\nsockeye caught in the four areas under review were taken from the statistical records\nof the Department of Fisheries, Vancouver. The sockeye-pack in numbers of cases\ngiven in the tables was supplied by the British Columbia Department of Recreation and\nConservation, Victoria, B.C.\nDESIGNATION OF AGE-GROUPS AND TREATMENT OF DATA\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 fife in which the\nfish migrated from fresh water. These are expressed symbolically by two numbers\u00E2\u0080\u0094one\nin large type, which indicates the age of maturity, and the other in small type, placed to\nthe right and below, which signifies the year of life in which the fish left fresh water.\nThe age-groups which are met most commonly are:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n3i, 4-i\u00E2\u0080\u0094the \" sea types \" or fish which migrate seaward in their first year and\nmature in their third and fourth year respectively.\n32\u00E2\u0080\u0094\" the grilse,\" almost exclusively males and frequently called \" jacks,\"\nwhich migrate seaward in their second year and mature in their\nthird year.\n* Now on the staff of the Canadian Wildlife Service, National Parks Branch, Department of National Resources\nand Northern Affairs.\n3 K 26 BRITISH COLUMBIA\n^2j 52\u00E2\u0080\u0094fish which migrate seaward in their second year and mature in their\nfourth and fifth years respectively.\n^3, 63\u00E2\u0080\u0094fish which migrate seaward in their third year and mature in their\nfifth and sixth years respectively.\n64, 74\u00E2\u0080\u0094fish which migrate seaward in their fourth year and mature in their\nsixth and seventh years respectively.\nFish were measured to the nearest quarter of an inch, but when averaged the\naverage has been recorded to the nearest tenth of an inch to avoid using fractions of\nmore than one decimal place. Weights were taken to the nearest tenth of a pound.\nThis has resulted in an even-pound and half-pound bias when the data are grouped to\nthe nearest quarter-pound.\n1. THE NASS RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1956\n(1) General Characteristics\nThe pack of 22,505 cases of sockeye salmon (Table I) was quite good for the\nNass area and above the average of 17,899 for the last ten years (1946-55).\nThe run in 1956 resulted from the spawning escapements of 1951 and 1952, which\nwere reported as very satisfactory. In both these years the commercial fishery was\ngood, packs of 24,405 and 29,492 cases respectively being made.\n(2) Age-groups\nThe Nass River sockeye-catch sample contained 27 per cent 4-year fish, 59 per cent\n5-year fish, and 14 per cent 6-year fish (Table I). Of these fish, 35.5 per cent had\nspent one year in fresh water, migrating seaward early in their second year; 63 per cent\nhad spent two years in fresh water, migrating seaward early in their third year. The\nremainder of 1.5 per cent had migrated to sea as fry, returning as adults in their fourth\nyear (Tables II and III).\n(3) Lengths and Weights\nThe average weights for the main age-groups of the year's samples were slightly less\nthan the previous ten-year average, though in most cases slightly greater than in 1955\n(Tables IV and V).\n(4) Distribution of Sexes\nIn the Nass River sockeye sample, 49.5 per cent were males and 50.5 per cent\nfemales. The percentage of males in the main age-groups was as follows: 42, 50 per\ncent; 52, 44 per cent; 53, 47 per cent, and 63, 61 per cent (Table VI).\n2. THE SKEENA RIVER SOCKEYE RUN OF 1956\n(1) General Characteristics\nThe effect of the Babine Rive slide, which occurred in 1951, was noted in 1955 in\nthe small proportion of 4-year fish in the catch sample, as was expected. In the 1956\nsockeye-catch sample, the expected fall-off in the 5-year fish occurred as a direct effect\nof the slide. The catch sample consisted mainly of 4-year fish, which came from the\n1952 spawning escapement after the partial clearance of the Babine River.\nThe yield of 14,663 cases of sockeye in 1956 was a slight increase over the previous\nyear's commercial catch, which represented the lowest on record from the Skeena River\n(Table VII). report of provincial fisheries department, 1956 k 27\n(2) Age-groups\nThe 84 per cent of 4-year fish in the Skeena River sockeye-catch sample was the\nhighest percentage of that age-group ever recorded for that area. Of the remainder,\n15 per cent were 5-year fish and 1 per cent 6-year fish (Table VII).\n(3) Lengths and Weights\nFrom a consideration of Tables X and XI it can be seen that the size of the Skeena\nRiver sockeye caught in 1956, in all but the 6-year fish, was well above the average.\nThe lengths and weights for the main age-groups were as follows: The male 42 fish\naveraged 23.6 inches and 6 pounds, and the female 42's, 22.9 inches and 5.3 pounds;\nthe male 52 fish averaged 26.1 inches and 8.2 pounds, and the female 52's, 24.9 inches\nand 6.8 pounds; the male 53 fish averaged 23.9 inches and 6.6 pounds, and the female\n53's, 23.5 inches and 6.2 pounds; the male 63 fish averaged 25.9 inches and 7.6 pounds,\nand the female 63's, 23.7 inches and 5.6 pounds (Tables VIII, IX, X, and XI).\n(4) Distribution of Sexes\nThe distribution of sexes in the Skeena River sockeye-catch sample (Table XII)\nagain shows two trends which are almost invariable. These are that the catch as a whole\ncontains over 50 per cent females, and that the 52 age-group fish in the catch contains\nan even greater percentage of females.\n3. RIVERS INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1956\n(1) General Characteristics\nThe 1956 sockeye-catch, with a total of 124,634 cases, was nearly two and one-half\ntimes that of the previous year (Table XIII). In the main, the catch was resultant of\nthe spawning escapement from the 1951 run which, itself, produced a pack well above\nthe average. The 1951 spawning escapement, quoting from the Federal Department of\nFisheries \"Salmon Spawning Report, British Columbia 1951,\" was medium to heavy,\nand from this came 90 per cent of the 1956 run, according to the sample studied.\n(2) Age-groups\nThree age-groups were present in the 1956 catch sample: 52, 90 per cent, 42,\n10 per cent; and two fish of the 53 age-group were noted. These proportions are quite\nnormal for the area (Table XIII).\n(3) Lengths and Weights\nLengths and weights were found to be quite normal and were well within the range\nrecorded in previous years.\nThe average length for both the 42 male and female fish was 21.5 inches. The\naverage length of the 52 male fish was 25.3 inches, and of the females, 24.3 inches\n(Tables XVI and XVII).\nThe average weights in both age-groups were slightly above the ten-year average,\nwith the male and female 42 fish both at 4.7 pounds. The average weight of the 52 male\nfish was 8 pounds, and of the females, 6.9 pounds (Tables XIV and XV).\nNo escapement records are available this year.\n(4) Distribution of Sexes\nIn the two age-groups, the usual relationship of a larger proportion of males amongst\nthe 4-year-old fish sample, and a smaller proportion amongst the 5-year-old fish, again\noccurred (Table XVIII). The over-all proportion of male fish in the catch sample was\n39 per cent. K 28 BRITISH COLUMBIA\n4. THE SMITH INLET SOCKEYE RUN OF 1956\n(1) General Characteristics\nThe yield of 36,898 cases of sockeye salmon from Smith Inlet was 30 per cent above\nthe ten-year average of 27,725 cases. The catch sample consisted mainly of 5-year-old\nfish, the result of heavy supplies of sockeye reaching the spawning-grounds in 1951.\n(2) Age-groups\nThe similarity of the Smith Inlet to the Rivers Inlet sockeye populations showed\nitself in the usual two main age-groups. Four per cent of the catch-sample were 4-year-\nold fish, and 96 per cent were 5-year-old fish (Table XIX). The three age-groups were\n96 per cent 52 sockeye, 4 per cent 42 sockeye, and only one 53 fish was present in the\nsample.\n(3) Lengths and Weights\nThe size of the Smith Inlet sockeye, as with those of Rivers Inlet, was well within the\nnormal range over the last ten years (Tables XXII and XXIII).\nThe average length for the 42 male fish was 22.5 inches; weight, 5.6 pounds; for\nthe female fish, 22.1 inches and 5.2 pounds. In the 52 age-group, the male fish averaged\n24.9 inches and 7.6 pounds, and the female 52's, 24.3 inches and 6.9 pounds. The one\nmale 53 fish in the catch sample was 22.2 inches in length and weighed 4.7 pounds\n(Tables XX and XXI).\n(4) Sex Distribution\nAs in the Rivers Inlet sample, the Smith Inlet fish showed a predominance of males\nin the 42 age-group (65 per cent), while among the 52 age-group the females represented\n62 per cent (Table XXIV). The over-all catch sample consisted only of 38 per cent\nmale fish. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 29\nTable I.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Percentages of Principal Age-groups in Runs\nof Successive Years and Packs\nYear\nPack in\nCases\nNumber of\nSockeye1\nPercentage of Individuals\n42\n52\n53\n63\n1912 \t\n36,037\n23,574\n31,327\n39,349\n31,411\n22,188\n21,816\n28,259\n16,740\n9,364\n31,277\n17,821\n33,590\n18,945\n15,929\n12,026\n5,540\n16,077\n26,405\n16,929\n14,154\n9,757\n36,242\n12,712\n28,562\n17,567\n21,462\n24,357\n13,809\n24,876\n21,085\n13,412\n13.083\n9,899\n12,511\n10,849\n13,181\n9,268\n27,286\n24,405\n29,492\n18,163\n10,285\n13 fi .4\n8\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\n5\n15\n46\n13\n15\n12\n39\n3\n41\n28\n23\n35\n12\n27\n27\n12\n41\n14\n17\n15\n16\n22\n14\n7\n2\n6\n3\n8\n12\n7\n6\n9\n15\n17\n4\n7\n9\n10\n7\n4\n4\n13\n8\n7\n7\n13\n15\n11\n12\n12\n16\n6\n19\n9\n19\n22\n20\n15\n9\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\n68\n70\n66\n59\n52\n66\n67\n32\n37\n72\n56\n60\n48\n71\n31\n46\n46\n40\n70\n50\n2\n1913. \t\n1914\n2\n10\n1915\n8\n1916 \t\n8\n1917\n4\n1918\n9\n1919\n6\n1920\n6\n1921 \t\n8\n1922 \t\n1\n1923\n6\n1924\n2\n1925\n2\n1926\n13\n1927\n4\n1928 ...\n1929 \t\n\t\n3\n6\n1930 \t\n3\n1931\t\n6\n1932 \t\n7\n1933 _\n3\n1934 \t\n4\n1935 - .\n6\n1936\n1937 \t\n1938\t\n1939\n1940\n10\n1941 \t\n\t\n1942 \t\n5\n15\n38\n1943 \t\n1944 \t\n1945 \t\n1946 _ \t\n3\n1947 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\t\n1948 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n12\n1949 ....\n7\n1950 \t\n6\n1951 \t\n13\n1952 \t\n1953 \t\n1954\t\n304,500\n198,400\n101,600\n154 004\n4\n9\n5\n1955\t\n1956 _ \t\n77 505 I 754 ROO\n14\n1 To nearest hundred. K 30\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Length,\nand by Their Early History\nNumber of Individuals\nLength in Inches\n41\n42\n43\n52\n5\n3\n63\nTotal\n1\nM. F.\nM. 1 F.\nM.\nF.\n1\nM. 1 F.\n1\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n18%\t\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n..._.\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n2\n3\n7\n4\n3\n4\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n8\n3\n2\n6\n7\n3\n9\n2\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\n11\n4\n6\n10\n25\n19\n22\n19\n32\n17\n16\n9\n13\n9\n7\n6\n3\n1\n2\n2\n2\n3\n7\n10\n29\n13\n22\n22\n34\n23\n15\n17\n23\n13\n7\n7\n7\n3\n1\n1\n5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n8\n11\n5\n6\n9\n3\n1\n4\n7\n1\n1\n1\n3\n3\n6\n6\n4\n4\n5\n4\n2\n2\n3\n4\n2\n1\n2\n1\n19 .\n1\n2\n3\n3\n4\n13\n7\n15\n8\n7\n31\n10\n10\n13\n4\n1\n2\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094-\n5\n3\n8\n4\n8\n14\n34\n10\n11\n6\n15\n4\n2\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n19.4 \t\n19.4\t\n19% \t\n20 \t\n20%._\t\n2W2 \t\n1\n2\n1\n5\n20% \t\n21 \t\n21 Vi _\t\n7\n8\n21 !/2 \t\n15\n2134 \t\n8\n22 \t\n19\n2214 \t\n31\n22V_ \t\n90\n22% \t\n36\n23 \t\n23 Vi \t\n59\n47\n23VS \t\n93\n23% _ - -\n24 \t\n82\n57\n241/4 - - -- .\n24% \t\n24% \t\n58\n86\n51\n25 \t\n41\n25.4 \t\n33\n25 V_ \t\n40\n25% -\t\n23\n26 . \t\n20\n26Vi _\t\n23\n261/2\t\n26% \t\n26\n12\n27 \t\n12\n27.4.\t\n27V_ \t\n12\n4\n27% \t\n28 \t\n28% \t\n3\n4\n8\n28Vi \t\n2\n28% \t\n1\nTotals \t\n5 | 9\n138 | 136\n2\n39 | 50\n238\n269\n83 | 52\n1,021\n72.8 1 22.8\n93.5 1 77.8\n20.9\n25.6 1 24.4\n24.3\n23.6\n26.4 1 25.4\n24.0 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 31\nTable III.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Weight,\nand by Their Early History\nNumber ol Individuals\nWeight in Pounds\n4\nL\n4\n2\n43 52\n5\n3\n6\n_\nTotal\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\n1 1\nF. 1 M. 1 F.\n1 1\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n3 \t\n1\n1\n..._.\n1\n3V4 \t\n1\n3 V. _ \t\n1\n2\n2\n5\n3% \t\n3\n\t\n3\n4 \t\n1\n3\n\t\n4\n4Vi \t\n2\n6\n\t\n2\n5\n15\n4V_ \t\n1\n3\n28\n1\n13\n46\n4% \t\n5\n14\n2\n17\n38\n5 \t\n2\n11\n7\n17\n25\n1\n4\n5\n6\n29\n30\n1\n64\n5V4 \t\n74\n5V_ \t\n4\n23\n28\n4\n33\n50\n1\n1\n144\n5% \t\n1\n21\n3\n5\n20\n27\n1\n2\n80\n6 \t\n1\n26\n13\n2\n2\n1\n4\n4\n22\n21\n25\n20\n3\n3\n6\n82\n6V4 _ '\n71\n6V_ \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\t\n1\n1\n15\n3\n5\n5\n10\n4\n44\n17\n26\n6\n4\n3\n8\n6\n118\n6% \t\n40\n7 \t\n4\n4\n6\n12\n3\n4\n2\n35\n7V4 _\t\n1\n1\n2\n3\n12\n1\n6\n18\n17\n6\n6\n6\n2\n2\n11\n3\n7\n7\n1\n38\n7V. \t\n62\n7% \t\n2 1 2\n16\n8 \t\n......\n2\n1\n5\n6\n2\n1\n1\n5\n9\n14\n3\n2\n16\n8V4 \t\n12\n8V. \t\n23\n8%\t\n2\n1\n6\n3\n12\n9 \t\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n\t\n3\n2\n4\n9Vi _ _\t\n 1 --\n2\n9V4 \t\n\t\n1\n1\n1\n6\n2\n2\n2\n7\n9% _ _.\n4\n10 . \t\n2\nlOVi\n2\nTotals \t\n5\n9\n138\n136\n2 | ...... | 39 | 50\n238\n269\n83\n52\n1,021\n5.5\n5.4\n5.8\n5.0\n4.1 1 1 7.6 1 6.4\n6.4\n5.7\n8.1\n7\n6.1\nTaWe 7F.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of Principal\nAge-groups, 1912 to 1956\nYear\n42\n52\n53\n63\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912-41 \t\n24.5\n23.8\n23.9\n22.8\n23.5\n23.4\n23.4\n23.4\n23.3\n23.8\n23.6\n24.0\n23.9\n23.9\n24.1\n23.1\n23.5\n23.7\n23.0\n23.2\n22.2\n22.7\n22.8\n22.4\n22.9\n22.6\n22.8\n23.1\n23.1\n23.1\n22.9\n23.1\n22.3\n22.8\n26.3\n25.6\n26.1\n26.1\n25.7\n25.0\n26.3\n25.9\n26.2\n26.2\n26.0\n26.2\n26.8\n26.9\n26.5\n26.0\n25.6\n25.2\n24.5\n24.9\n24.8\n24.6\n24.4\n24.9\n24.1\n25.3\n23.8\n24.7\n24.8\n25.3\n25.6\n25.3\n24.7\n24.4\n26.1\n25.4\n24.9\n24.1\n24.8\n24.7\n24.9\n24.5\n25.0\n24.7\n24.5\n25.1\n24.8\n24.9\n25.3\n24.1\n24.3\n25.3\n24.6\n24.3\n23.5\n23.8\n24.0\n23.9\n23.6\n24.1\n23.7\n23.7\n24.1\n23.9\n24.1\n24.5\n23.2\n23.6\n27.7\n27.0\n26.9\n27.1\n26.8\n25.1\n28.1\n27.0\n27.7\n26.1\n26.7\n27.4\n27.6\n27.7\n27.7\n26.9\n26.4\n1912-41 (conversion) \t\n1942 _\t\n25.7\n1943 \t\n1944 \t\n1945 .. ....\n1946 \t\n1947 \t\n1948 \t\n1949 \t\n1950 \t\n1951 \t\n1952\t\n25.8\n25.8\n25.5\n26.0\n25.6\n26.7\n25.5\n25.6\n26.4\n26.3\n26.5\n26.0\n25.1\n25.4\n1953 _\t\n1954 \t\n1955 \t\n1956 \t K 32\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable V.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of Principal\nAge-groups, 1914 to 1956\nYear\n42\n52\n53\nh\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1914-41 _\t\n6.0\n5.8\n5.2\n5.7\n5.7\n5.6\n5.8\n5.8\n5.9\n5.9\n6.0\n6.0\n6.2\n6.4\n5.6\n5.8\n5.4\n5.1\n4.7\n5.0\n5.3\n4.9\n5.3\n5.3\n5.1\n5.2\n5.2\n5.2\n5.4\n5.5\n4.9\n5.0\n7.3\n7.1\n7.6\n7.7\n7.0\n8.1\n7.7\n8.1\n7.9\n7.9\n7.9\n8.4\n8.3\n8.8\n7.8\n7.5\n6.4\n6.3\n6.4\n6.5\n6.4\n6.7\n6.2\n7.1\n5.8\n6.6\n6.6\n6.9\n7.2\n7.4\n6.8\n6.4\n6.9\n6.2\n5.9\n6.7\n6.5\n6.5\n6.3\n7.0\n6.5\n6.4\n6.7\n6.7\n6.6\n7.4\n6.1\n6.4\n6.2\n5.6\n5.3\n5.7\n5.9\n5.4\n5.6\n6.0\n5.4\n5.5\n5.7\n5.7\n5.8\n6.3\n5.4\n5.7\n8.0\n7.5\n7.9\n8.2\n7.2\n8.9\n8.1\n9.1\n7.7\n8.2\n8.8\n8.7\n9.0\n9.5\n8.3\n8.1\n7.0\n6.7\n1943 \t\n6.9\n1045\n7.1\n1946.. \t\n7.0\n6 9\n1949 . \t\n68\n1950 .\t\n7.1\n1951 \t\n1952 \t\n1953. _ ..\n1954\t\n7.6\n7.5\n7.9\n7 8\n1955\n1956 .\n6.9\n7.0\nTable VI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nass River Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females,\n1915 to 1956\nYear\n42\n52\n53\n63\nPer Cent\nTotal\nMales\nPer Cent\nTotal\nFemales\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n49\n42\n51\n53\n37\n62\n50\n45\n57\n41\n46\n49\n50\n42\n50\n50\n51\n58\n49\n47\n63\n38\n50\n55\n43\n59\n54\n51\n50\n58\n50\n50\n47\n48\n67\n45\n37\n59\n52\n54\n56\n42\n47\n56\n44\n44\n60\n44\n53\n52\n33\n55\n63\n41\n48\n46\n44\n58\n53\n44\n56\n56\n40\n56\n45\n44\n47\n39\n38\n45\n51\n52\n51\n43\n46\n49\n46\n44\n47\n47\n55\n56\n53\n61\n62\n55\n49\n48\n49\n57\n54\n51\n54\n56\n53\n53\n63\n70\n74\n60\n53\n75\n81\n66\n50\n58\n70\n59\n62\n45\n68\n61\n37\n30\n26\n40\n47\n25\n19\n34\n50\n42\n30\n41\n38\n55\n32\n39\n47\n45\n54\n50\n38\n50\n56\n53\n53\n44\n49\n50\n48\n43\n49\n50\n53\n1942... ... .. - . .\n55\n1943 --\n46\n1944 ,\t\n50\n1945 \t\n62\n1946...\t\nJO\n1947 --\n47\n1949 . \t\n1950\n47\n56\n1951 _ . . .\n1952\t\n51\n1953.. \t\n1954 \t\n1955 \t\n1956 _\t\n52\n57\n51 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 33\nTable VII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Percentages of Age-groups in Runs\nof Successive Years and Packs\nYear\nPack In\nCases\nNumber of\nSockeye1\nPercentage of Individuals\n42\n52\nh\n63\n1907 \t\n108,413\n139,846\n87,901\n187,246\n131,066\n92,498\n52,927\n130,166\n116,553\n60,923\n65,760\n123,322\n184,945\n90,869\n41,018\n96,277\n131,731\n144,747\n77,784\n82,360\n83,996\n34,559\n78,017\n132,372\n93,023\n59,916\n30,506\n54,558\n52,879\n81,973\n42,491\n47,257\n68,485\n116,507\n81,767\n34,544\n28,268\n68,197\n104,279\n52,928\n32,534\n101,267\n65,937\n47,479\n61,694\n114,775\n65,003\n60,817\n14,649\n14,663 1\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\n39\n37\n20\n13\n14\n80\n17\n21\n33\n66\n48\n33\n15\n84\n43\n50\n75\n64\n38\n29\n34\n60\n71\n22\n16\n29\n69\n45\n26\n28\n39\n30\n52\n30\n37\n36\n34\n31\n20\n40\n15\n35\n15\n52\n54\n39\n52\n63\n70\n82\n13\n76\n72\n61\n26\n43\n54\n59\n14\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\n16\n7\n12\n8\n3\n6\n4\n4\n4\n3\n6\n10\n14\n1\n1908 --\n1909 \t\n1910 \t\n1911 \t\n1912\t\n\t\n1913 \t\n1914 \t\n1915 _ \t\n1916 \t\n18\n1917 \t\n5\n1918 \t\n6\n1919\t\n4\n197,0 \t\n8\n1921 _\t\n3\n1922 _\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n2\n1923\t\n7\n1924 .. _\t\n1\n1925 _ \t\n1\n1926 \t\n3\n1927 -.\n1\n1928 \t\n3\n1929 _ \t\n1930 _\t\n\t\n2\n1\n1931 _\t\n\t\n2\n1932 \t\n12\n1933 \t\n2\n1934 _ -\n1\n1935 \t\n2\n1936 \t\n\t\n2\n1937 - \u00E2\u0080\u0094~ - -\n4\n1938 _ _ . .-\n5\n1939 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n4\n1940 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n1\n1941 -\n1\n1942 -\n3\n1943 _ \t\n6\n1944 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n4\n1945 ..- _ - \t\n5\n1946 -\n9\n1947 _ -\t\n1\n1948 _ _ .\n1\n1949 _\t\n3\n1950-. _\t\n3\n1951 _ \t\n1\n1952 \t\n1,294,500\n659,200\n571,900\n157,362\n149,100\n1953 \t\n3\n1954 .. ... ...\t\n1055\n2\n11\n1\n1956 . \t\n1 To nearest hundred. K 34\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable VIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Length,\nand by Their Early History\nLength in Inches\nNumber of Individuals\n42\n52\n53\n63\nTotal\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n19%\t\n1\n2\n2\n2\n5\n3\n2\n5\n4\n6\n8\n24\n16\n13\n17\n41\n26\n15\n25\n4\n3\n2\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n10\n6\n11\n18\n15\n16\n18\n38\n16\n13\n11\n17\n5\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n1\n5\n2\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\nz\n1\n2\n2\n6\n2\n2\n12\n2\n4\n9\n5\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n20 \t\n2\n20Vi \t\n3\n20V__\t\n2\n20%. .\n5\n21.\t\n21V4 \t\n15\n21V4 . \t\n9\n21% \t\n13\n22\n22V4....\n\t\n23\n19\n22V4 . .... \t\n23\n22% \t\n27\n23 ...\n63\n23 Vi\n23 VS....\n\t\n33\n30\n23% \t\n31\n24..\t\n65\n24%\t\n35\n24V. \t\n18\n24% \t\n41\n25 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n6\n25V4 \t\n7\n25V. \t\n18\n25% \t\n1\n26\t\n12\n26V4 \t\n5\n26V4. _ _ _\n7\n26%\t\n2\n27 \t\n1\n27Vi. \t\n27V4 \t\n1\n27%\t\n1\n28\t\nTotals\n1\n230\n207\n22\n50\n3\n1\n2\n5\n520\nAverage lengths\t\n23.6\n22.9\n26.1\n24.9\n23.9\n23.5\n25.9\n23.7\n23.5 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 35\nTable IX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Weight,\nand by Their Early History\nWeight in Pounds\nNumber of Individuals\n42\n<\n2\n5\n3\n63\nTotal\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n3 \t\n5\n2\n4\n13\n5\n6\n5\n31\n17\n20\n23\n48\n11\n8\n11\n8\n9\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n6\n8\n25\n22\n13\n21\n50\n14\n22\n5\n14\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n4\n5\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n5\n7\n5\n5\n5\n8\n5\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n::::\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3%...\t\n3Vi\t\n6\n3% \t\n6\n4\t\n10\n4%\t\n8\n4V4\t\n38\n4%\t\n28\n5 \t\n21\n5%..\t\n27\n5V_\t\n83\n5% \t\n33\n6 \t\n48\n6V4. \t\n36\n6V_ .... .... \t\n69\n6%\n7...\t\n\t\n16\n16\n714\t\n21\n7V_ \t\n7% \t\n8\t\n16\n14\n7\n8Vi\t\n6\n8V2\t\n8%...,\t\n4\n1\n9 _ \t\n2\n9V4 \t\n9Vi \t\n9% \t\n1\n10 _ \t\n10% \t\nlOVi- .\n1\n1\nTotals -..\t\n230\n207\n22\n50\n3\n1\n2\n5\n520\n6.0\n5.3\n8.2\n6.8\n6.6\n6.2\n7.6\n5.6\n5.9\nTable X.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of Principal\nAge-groups, 1912 to 1956\nYear\n4\n2\n52\n5\n3\n63\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1912-41 \t\n1912-41 (conversion)\t\n1942 \t\n23.7\n23.0\n22.6\n21.9\n22.4\n22.6\n22.7\n22.3\n23.0\n22.5\n22.8\n22.7\n23.3\n23.2\n22.2\n22.5\n23.6\n23.1\n22.4\n22.3\n21.9\n21.7\n22.3\n22.0\n22.0\n22.3\n22.2\n22.3\n22.6\n22.6\n22.8\n22.4\n22.1\n22.9\n25.8\n25.1\n25.2\n25.1\n24.8\n24.9\n25.4\n25.1\n25.3\n25.3\n25.7\n25.9\n25.8\n26.2\n26.6\n25.6\n26.1\n24.9\n24.2\n24.3\n23.9\n23.9\n24.1\n24.3\n23.8\n24.1\n24.5\n24.4\n24.8\n24.7\n25.0\n25.2\n24.5\n24.9\n24.2\n23.5\n24.1\n23.3\n22.5\n23.3\n23.9\n23.0\n23.0\n23.2\n23.9\n23.6\n23.2\n23.6\n23.9\n23.0\n23.9\n23.4\n22.7\n23.7\n22.6\n21.7\n22.6\n23.2\n22.4\n22.1\n22.3\n23.4\n22.9\n22.8\n22.9\n22.9\n22.6\n23.5\n25.8\n25.1\n26.3\n25.8\n25.0\n25.0\n25.5\n26.3\n26.0\n24.8\n25.5\n26.0\n26.1\n26.0\n26.4\n25.2\n25.9\n24.8\n24.1\n24.9\n1943 ... _\n1944 \t\n24.7\n23.7\n1945 \t\n24.3\n1946 \t\n1947 \t\n1948... \t\n1949 _\n1950 \t\n24.4\n25.8\n24.5\n23.9\n24 3\n1951\n24 6\n1952 \t\n1953 \t\n1954 \t\n1955 \t\n24.6\n25.5\n24.9\n24.0\n23.7\n1956- - \t K 36\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable XI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of Principal\nAge-groups, 1914 to 1956\nYear\n4\n2\n52\n5\n3\n63\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1914-41\n1942 .\n5.4\n4.9\n4.7\n5.1\n5.2\n4.7\n4.9\n5.5\n5.0\n4.8\n5.1\n5.6\n5.8\n4.9\n4.9\n6.0\n5.0\n4.7\n4.6\n4.6\n4.9\n4.2\n4.7\n4.9\n4.7\n4.3\n5.0\n5.0\n5.5\n4.9\n4.8\n5.3\n6.8\n6.7\n6.8\n7.0\n6.7\n6.9\n6.9\n7.3\n7.1\n7.2\n7.6\n7.5\n8.0\n8.8\n7.4\n8.2\n6.1\n6.0\n5.9\n6.1\n6.1\n3.8\n5.9\n6.1\n6.3\n5.9\n6.5\n6.4\n6.9\n7.2\n6.4\n6.8\n5.7\n5.8\n5.5\n5.3\n5.6\n5.8\n5.3\n5.4\n5.3\n5.8\n5.6\n5.6\n5.8\n6.2\n5.5\n6.6\n5.1\n5.4\n4.9\n4.6\n5.0\n5.1\n5.0\n4.7\n4.8\n5.1\n5.0\n5.0\n5.2\n5.2\n5.0\n6.2\n6.8\n7.2\n7.3\n7.1\n6.7\n7.0\n7.7\n7.7\n6.6\n6.8\n7.6\n7.4\n7.8\n8.6\n7.1\n7.6\n6.0\n6.6\n1943 . _ .\n6.1\n1944\n5.8\n1045\n6.2\n1946 \t\n6.1\n1947\n6.8\n1948\n64\n1949\t\n5.7\n1950 . .\n5.6\n1951 .. ._\t\n6.4\n1952 ...\t\n6.0\n1953 \t\n1954\t\n7.3\n7.2\n1955 _ \t\n6.1\n1956 \t\n5 6\nTable XII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Skeena River Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females,\n1915 to 1956\nYear\nM.\nF.\nM.\nPer Cent\nTotal\nMales\nPer Cent\nTotal\nFemales\n1915-41 (average).\n1942\t\n1943\t\n1944\t\n1945\t\n1946\t\n1947\t\n1948\t\n1949\t\n1950\t\n1951\t\n1952\t\n1953\t\n1954\t\n195J\t\n1956\t\n48\n42\n50\n54\n41\n50\n50\n50\n54\n56\n41\n52\n40\n44\n57\n53\n52\n58\n50\n46\n59\n50\n50\n50\n46\n44\n59\n48\n60\n56\n43\n47\n43\n25\n31\n34\n35\n32\n29\n29\n30\n40\n37\n34\n34\n38\n42\n34\n57\n75\n69\n66\n65\n68\n71\n71\n70\n60\n63\n66\n66\n62\n58\n66\n46\n33\n43\n43\n38\n38\n33\n47\n36\n44\n39\n48\n39\n43\n47\n44\n54\n67\n57\n57\n62\n62\n67\n53\n64\n56\n61\n52\n61\n57\n53\n56 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 37\nTable XIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Percentages of Age-groups in Runs\nof Successive Years and Packs\n1 To nearest hundred.\n2 Age-class represented but less than 0.5 per cent.\nYear\nPack in\nCases\nNumber of\nSockeye1\nPercentage of Individuals\n42\n52\n53\n63\n1907 \t\n87,874\n64,652\n89,027\n126,921\n88,763\n112,884\n61,745\n89,890\n130,350\n44,936\n61,195\n53,401\n56,258\n121,254\n46,300\n60,700\n107,174\n94,891\n159,554\n65,581\n64,461\n60,044\n70,260\n119,170\n76,428\n69,732\n83,507\n76,923\n135,038\n46,351\n84,832\n87,942\n54,143\n63,469\n93,378\n79,199\n47,602\n36,852\n89,735\n73,320\n140,087\n37,665\n39,495\n142,710\n102,565\n84,298\n132,925\n50,640\n50,702\n124,634\n21\n80\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\n8\n8\n76\n57\n37\n3\n55\n84\n13\n38\n41\n73\n60\n45\n10\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\n91\n23\n41\n63\n97\n44\n14\n87\n60\n58\n26\n39\n54\n90\nl\n2\n2\n2\n3\n4\n3\n2\n2\n5\n1\n2\n1\n1\n3\n1\n3\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n(2)\n1\n1\n1\n1\n(a)\n(2)\n1908\n1909 -\n1910 \t\n1911\n1912 \t\n\t\n1913\n1914 \t\n1915 \t\n\t\n....\n1916 \t\n1917 .... .\n1918 . \t\n\t\n1919\t\n1920\n-\n1921 \t\n1922\n1923 ... ... ...\n1924 \t\n\t\n1\n1925\n1926 .. . .\n1\n1927 _ _-\n1928\n\t\n1\n1929 \t\n2\n1930 \t\n1\n1931 \t\n1937\n\t\n1\n1\n1933 \t\n1934 \t\n1\n1935 _.\n1\n1936 ~ _\t\n1937 . _. \t\n1938 \t\n2\n1939...\t\n1940. \t\n1941 \t\n\t\n--\n1942 \t\n1\n1943 . . \t\n1\n1944\n\t\n1945 -.\n1946 _\t\n1947 \t\n1948\n\t\n-\n1949 \t\n1950 \t\n1051\n\t\ni\n(2)\n(a)\n(2)\n1\n1059\n938,700\n1,522,300\n575,700\n584,128\n1,072,300\n1953 \t\n1954 \t\n195.\n1956\t K 38\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable XIV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Length,\nand by Their Early History\nNumber of Individuals\nLength in Inches\n4\n2\n52\n53\nTotal\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n19% . ..\n1\n2\n2\n5\n8\n7\n3\n2\n4\n5\n5\n5\n1\n4\n1\n4\n3\n2\n2\n2\n1\n2\n4\n2\n2\n2\n6\n3\n4\n3\n3\n3\n3\n2\n3\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n19*4 \t\n19% \t\n20 .. - _\t\n2\n1\n1\n3\n2\n6\n3\n3\n4\n5\n7\n7\n14\n7\n11\n16\n15\n23\n20\n45\n27\n43\n23\n38\n14\n14\n5\n6\n2\n1\n3\n2\n7\n14\n15\n20\n14\n27\n22\n41\n36\n55\n49\n71\n51\n76\n49\n42\n20\n20\n10\n3\n4\n2\n9\n20% _\t\n12\n20V_ . _ \t\n9\n20% _ _ .\t\n5\n21 \t\n10\n21V4 \t\n11\n2IV2 _ \t\n14\n21% _\t\n17\n22 \t\n29\n22*4- -\t\n22*_ _ _\t\n22\n30\n??%\n21\n23 _\t\n39\n23% .-\t\n30\n23VS - - - -\n52\n23%\n54\n24 \u00E2\u0080\u0094. - \t\n65\n24V4 - \t\n24V_ _ _\t\n62\n87\n24%... \t\n25 .\u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ _ -\n66\n99\n25% \t\n69\n25 Vi \t\n87\n25%\t\n47\n26 \t\n63\n26V4 \t\n33\n26V4\t\n26% - _ _ \t\n41\n14\n27 . - -.\n14\n27V4 . \t\n5\n27 Vi . \t\n6\n27% - - -\t\n2\nTotals _ - \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n68\n47\n367 | 649\n1 | 1 | 1,133\n21.5\n21.5\n25.3\n24.3\n23.2 1 22 1 24.3 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 39\nTable XV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Weight,\nand by Their Early History\ndumber of Individuals\nWeight in Pounds\n4\n2\n52\n53\nTotal\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n3V4 \t\n3*4 _. .\n6\n7\n8\n9\n6\n6\n3\n2\n8\n4\n4\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n4\n3\n6\n3\n7\n7\n4\n5\n2\n3\n2\n2\n2\n1\n4\n7\n1\n1\n4\n6\n11\n19\n1\n1\n1\n10\n3% _ _\n4 _ \t\n11\n17\n4% \t\n18\n4V_ \t\n20\n5 \t\n22\n36\n5% _\t\n1 20\n37\n5*4 - \t\n5% _ - \t\n10\n4\n14\n7\n12\n8\n15\n12\n11\n25\n34\n17\n48\n25\n28\n40\n33\n39\n30\n61\n33\n73\n46\n55\n37\n60\n23\n24\n14\n13\n53\n43\nfi \t\n61\n6*4 _ . .. \t\n38\n6V2 \t\n77\n6% _\t\n41\n7 \t\n89\n714 \t\n59\n7*4 _\t\n66\n7% _ _ _\t\n62\n8\n94\n8*4 .... _\t\n40\n8*4 _ \t\n72\n8% _\t\n39\n9 ... .\n41\n9V4 _.\n24 1 1\n25\n9*4 _ \t\n20\n16\n7\n9\n2\n4\n\" 1\n24\n9%\n16\n10 - \t\n8\n10*4 \t\n9\n10*4 - -\t\n2\n10% . \t\n...... | ......\n2 | ......\n11 - -\t\n2\nTotals \t\n68\n47\n367 | 649\n1 | 1 | 1,133\n4.7\n4.7\n8.0 1 6.9\n6\n4.7 1 7.0\nTable XVI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of the\n42 and 52 Groups, 1912 to 1956\nYear\nM.\nM.\n1912-41. \t\n1912-41 (conversion)..\n1942 \t\n1943.. \t\n1944 \t\n1945 \t\n1946 \t\n1947\t\n1948. \t\n1949 .. -\t\n1950\t\n1951 \t\n1952... \t\n1953 \t\n1954\t\n1955\t\n1956 \t\n22.4\n21.6\n21.9\n20.5\n21.1\n20.9\n20.6\n20.6\n21.4\n20.9\n21.1\n21.9\n21.5\n21.6\n22.0\n21.2\n21.5\n22.4\n21.6\n21.3\n21.1\n21.0\n21.2\n21.1\n20.7\n21.3\n21.4\n20.8\n21.9\n21.5\n21.8\n21.6\n21.0\n21.5\n25.4\n24.6\n25.0\n24.3\n23.5\n24.2\n25.1\n24.0\n25.2\n23.8\n25.2\n25.8\n26.0\n26.5\n26.1\n25.4\n25.3\n24.7\n23.9\n23.8\n23.7\n23.3\n23.9\n24.1\n23.5\n24.2\n22.8\n24.2\n24.8\n25.0\n25.3\n25.1\n24.5\n24.3 K 40\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable XVII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of the\n42 and 52 Groups, 1914 to 1956\nYear\nM.\nM.\n1914-41..\n1942\t\n1943\t\n1944\t\n1945..\n1946..\n1947-.\n1948_\n1949..\n1950..\n1951..\n1952..\n1953-\n1954..\n1955-\n1956.\n4.9\n5.1\n4.1\n4.6\n4.3\n3.9\n4.1\n4.7\n4.4\n4.2\n5.2\n4.9\n4.7\n5.2\n4.5\n4.7\n4.8\n4.6\n4.4\n4.4\n4.4\n3.9\n3.9\n4.6\n4.3\n3.9\n5.0\n4.7\n4.7\n4.8\n4.2\n4.7\n7.0\n7.2\n6.8\n6.2\n6.6\n7.2\n6.4\n7.9\n5.9\n7.5\n8.6\n8.7\n8.8\n8.9\n7.4\n8.0\n6.5\n6.4\n6.3\n6.0\n6.4\n6.2\n5.9\n7.0\n5.9\n6.4\n7.4\n7.4\n7.6\n7.6\n6.5\n6.9\nTable XVIII,\n-Rivers Inlet Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females,\n1915 to 1956\nYear\n41\n42\n52\nPer Cent\nTotal\nMales\nPer Cent\nTotal\nFemales\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1915-41 (average) _ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n1942\t\n36\n50\n50\n64\n50\n50\n63\n61\n62\n67\n70\n79\n72\n50\n70\n75\n66\n58\n55\n67\n67\n59\n37\n39\n38\n33\n30\n21\n28\n50\n30\n25\n34\n42\n45\n33\n33\n41\n34\n35\n34\n33\n39\n37\n35\n38\n22\n36\n30\n34\n33\n29\n31\n36\n66\n65\n66\n67\n61\n63\n65\n62\n78\n64\n70\n66\n67\n71\n69\n64\n50\n38\n36\n59\n57\n53\n36\n45\n63\n41\n44\n44\n49\n52\n48\n39\n50\n62\n1\u00C2\u00B043\n64\n1944 \t\n41\n1Q45\n43\n1\u00C2\u00BB47\n64\n1948 \t\n1949 _ -\t\n55\n37\nlosn\n59\n1951 \t\n1952 _ .\n56\n56\n195 .\n51\n1954\n48\n1955\n52\n1956 \t\n61 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 41\nTable XIX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Smith Inlet Sockeyes, Percentages of Age-groups in Runs\nof Successive Years and Packs\nYear\nPack In\nCases\nNumber of\nSockeye1\nPercentage of Individuals\n4i\n42\n52\n62\n53\n1925 . \t\n33,764\n17,921\n22,682\n33,442\n9,683\n32,057\n12,867\n25,488\n37,369\n14,607\n31,648\n12,788\n25,258\n33,894\n17,833\n25,947\n21,495\n15,939\n15,010\n3,165\n15,014\n14,318\n36,800\n10,456\n13,189\n42,435\n49,473\n34,834\n29,947\n18,937\n28,864\n36,898\n\t\n2\n1\n50\n11\n5\n7\n92\n17\n22\n8\n89\n61\n42\n4\n50\n89\n95\n90\n5\n83\n77\n91\n10\n38\n58\n96\n3\n(2)\n(2)\n1\n(~2)\n1926 _\t\n1927 _\t\n1928 \t\n1929 _ \t\n\t\n-\n1930 \t\n1931 .\n1932 \t\n1933 \" \t\n\t\n1934\n1935 -\t\n1936 _ _ .\n1937\n1938\t\n1939. \t\n-\n1940 \t\n1941 ... .... ... \t\n1942 ..\n1943 \t\n1944 \t\n1945\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 -\n....\n1946\n1947\t\n1948 \t\n-\n._.\n1949 \t\n(2)\n(2)\n(2)\nl\n(2)\nl\n1950 .._ \t\n1951 ... -\t\n342,200\n367,100\n190,800\n325,478\n442,300\n1952. \t\n1953 \t\n1954\t\n1955\n(2)\n1956. . \t\n1 To nearest hundred.\n2 This age-class was represented by less than 0.5 per cent of the number of fish in the sample. K 42\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable XX.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Smith Inlet Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Length,\nand by Their Early History\nNumber of Individuals\nLength in Inches\n4\n2\n52\n53\nTotal\nM.\nF.\n1\nM. F.\n1\nM.\nF.\n20*4 _ ...\n20*4 _ \t\n1\n1\n1\n4\n4\n4\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n5\n9\n13\n19\n26\n40\n34\n46\n39\n46\n30\n15\n9\n10\n6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n12\n19\n31\n37\n63\n81\n68\n78\n66\n56\n38\n24\n13\n7\n2\n1\n\t\n1\n20%\t\n1\n21\t\n1\n21%\t\n21*4 _ _\t\n1\n2\n21% _. \t\n3\n22\n10\n22% \t\n22*4 - \t\n22% - \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n8\n10\n17\n23 \t\n24\n23% \t\n36\n23*4\t\n23% \t\n47\n76\n24 - \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n100\n24% \t\n24*4 \t\n24%. _ \t\n25 ... \t\n25% \t\n97\n119\n100\n102\n77\n25*4 \t\n70\n25% _ _ ...\n26 .\n43\n22\n26%...\t\n26*4 \t\n11\n10\n7fi3^\n6\n27\t\n27% - . . \t\n1\n1\n27*4 \t\n1\n1\nTotals\t\n22\n12\n360 | 602\n1 | ..... | 997\nAverage lengths \t\n22.5\n22.1\n24.9 | 24.3\n1\n22.2 | | 24.5\n1 1 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 43\nTable XXI.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Smith Inlet Sockeyes, 1956, Grouped by Age, Sex, Weight,\nand by Their Early History\nWeight in Pounds\n*\nNumber of Individuals\n4\n2\n52\n53\nTotal\nM.\n1\nF.\n1\n1\nM. F.\n1\nM.\nF.\n4 \t\n1\n1\n2\n4\n6\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n3\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n7\n3\n6\n9\n25\n18\n14\n38\n63\n25\n37\n34\n36\n9\n8\n8\n7\n4\n2\n3\n2\n1\n6\n22\n24\n28\n33\n117\n59\n72\n61\n87\n30\n15\n19\n17\n5\n3\n1\n1\n\t\n1\n4*4 _ -\n1\n4*4.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n3\n434\n5\n5\n10\n5 *4__ .\n10\n5*4 _ _ \t\n36\n5 34 . \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n31\n6 \t\n36\n6% _\t\n42\n6*4 \u00E2\u0080\u0094.\n6% \t\n144\n78\n7 . _ \t\n86\n7% -\t\n7V_ \t\n100\n151\n73/4 -\n8 \t\n55\n52\n8Vi \t\n53\n8V2 \t\n53\n834\t\n14\n9 \t\n11\n9*4 _ \t\n9V_ .... \t\n8\n8\n934 _\t\n4\n10 -\t\n2\n1014 .... ... ..\n10*4.-\n3\nTotals -\t\n22\n12\n360 | 602\n1 | | 997\n5.6\n5.2\n7.6 1 6.9\n4.7 1 ...... 1 7.1\nTable XXII.-\n-Smith Inlet Sockeyes, Average Lengths in Inches of Age-groups,\n1945 to 1956\nYear\n41\n42\n52\n62\nh\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1945 _ \t\n25.4\n26.3\n23.5\n24.3\n25.0\n22.2\n21.3\n23.2\n21.9\n21.4\n21.6\n22.8\n21.8\n22.9\n22.3\n21.8\n22.5\n22.0\n22.7\n23.4\n21.7\n21.7\n21.7\n22.0\n22.4\n22.3\n21.9\n21.6\n22.1\n25.1\n24.7\n25.2\n25.0\n24.6\n24.8\n25.6\n25.7\n25.9\n25.7\n25.3\n24.9\n24.4\n24.0\n24.3\n24.3\n24.3\n24.0\n24.8\n24.9\n25.2\n24.9\n24.6\n24.3\n26.7\n25.0\n25.5\n25.1\n25.1\n20.5\n23.4\n22.9\n22.8\n23.0\n22.2\n1946 \t\n1947- \t\n1948 \t\n1949 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n1950 \t\n1951\t\n1952.\t\n1953 \t\n1954 _\t\n23.1\n23.3\n23 5\n1955 . \t\n22.3\n1956 \t K 44\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable XXIII.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Smith Inlet Sockeyes, Average Weights in Pounds of Age-groups,\n1945 to 1956\nYear\n4\n1\n4\n2\n5\n2\n6\n2\n5\n3\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1945\t\n7.9\n8.0\n6.1\n5.9\n7.1\n4.9\n4.6\n5.7\n5.1\n5.0\n4.9\n6.0\n4.8\n5.9\n5.2\n5.0\n5.6\n4.7\n5.8\n5.5\n5.4\n5.1\n5.0\n5.2\n5.2\n5.3\n4.7\n4.7\n5.2\n7.1\n7.3\n6.9\n7.6\n7.2\n7.4\n8.2\n8.0\n8.2\n7.9\n7.5\n7.6\n6.5\n6.6\n6.0\n6.9\n6.7\n6.6\n7.3\n7.1\n7.6\n7.0\n6.9\n6.9\n10.3\n7.5\n7.3\n7.2\n7.3\n4.0\n6.4\n5.7\n5.7\n5.8\n4.7\n1946\n1947 \t\n1948 \t\n1949\t\n1950\t\n1951 \t\n\t\n1952 \t\n5.4\n1953 \t\n1954..\t\n1955 - .\n5.8\n5.8\n4.8\n1956\nTable XXIV.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Smith Inlet Sockeyes, Percentages of Males and Females,\n1945 to 1956\n41\n4\n_\n52\n62\n53\nPer Cent\nPer Cent\nYear\nTotal\nMales\nTotal\nFemales\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\nM.\nF.\n1945 -\t\n73\n27\n49\n51\n61\n39\n1946\n59\n1947 \t\n38\n62\n47\n53\n46\n54\n1948 \t\n79\n21\n42\n58\n11\n89\n43\n57\n1949\t\n36\n64\nSO\n20\n40\n60\n100\n77\n23\n1950.. ...\n86\n14\n42\n58\n100\n49\n51\n1951 \t\n72\n28\n41\n59\nICO\n100\n48\n52\n1952.......\t\n57\n43\n38\n62\n100\n63\n37\n40\n60\n1953 \t\n100\n60\n40\n36\n64\n71\n29\n58\n42\n1954 \t\n25\n75\n70\n30\n25\n75\n25\n75\n52\n48\n1955 .. ...\n\t\n\t\n76\n24\n37\n63\n100\n54\n46\n1956\t\n65\n35\n38\n62\n100 I\n38\n62 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 45\nTHE STATUS OF THE MAJOR HERRING STOCKS\nIN BRITISH COLUMBIA IN 1956-57\nBy F. H. C. Taylor, Ph.D., A. S. Hourston, Ph.D., and D. N. Outram, B.A.,\nFisheries Research Board of Canada, Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.\nINTRODUCTION\nThis report is the tenth of a series of annual reports on the results of herring research\ncarried out at the Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., by the Fisheries Research Board\nof Canada. The various aspects of the research programme discussed in previous years\nwere outlined in 1955-56 (Taylor, Hourston, and Outram, 1956). Continuing the policy\nof the past three years, the degree of integrity, present status, and level of abundance of\neach of the major British Columbia herring stocks in 1956-57 are discussed.\nTHE 1956-57 FISHERY\nThe total catch in the 1956-57 season (May 1st, 1956, to March 10th, 1957)\namounted to 177,087 tons, the lowest since 1947-48; 30,579 tons were taken in the\nsummer fishery lasting from the beginning of June* to the end of September, and 146,508\ntons in the regular winter fishery.\nThe summer fishery in 1956 was more substantial and more widespread than in\npreceding years, with catches being made in all sub-districts except the upper west coast\n(Table I). In 1953, 10,600 tons were taken in the summer, 8,600 tons from the middle\neast coast sub-district and 2,000 tons from Swiftsure Bank (Area 21) in the lower west\ncoast sub-district; in 1954, 4,868 tons were taken, entirely from the middle east coast\nsub-district; in 1955 there was no summer fishery. In 1956 the August fishery in Queen\nCharlotte Sound, in the upper east coast sub-district, provided 44 per cent of the total\nsummer catch of 30,579 tons, the September fishery in Caamano Sound in the northern\nsub-district 28 per cent, the lower east coast fishery (May to September) 13 per cent,\nand the September fishery on Swiftsure Bank 7 per cent. The remaining 8 per cent came\nfrom small fisheries in the upper and lower central, the middle east coast, and upper\nQueen Charlotte Islands sub-districts. In general, individual catches were small in\ncomparison with those made in the winter fishery. Availability or catch per unit of\neffort (Table I) in nearly all sub-districts was much lower than in the subsequent winter\nfisheries.\nIn the regular winter fishery, catches (Table I) were below the average of the last\nfive years in all sub-districts except the lower Queen Charlotte Islands and lower central,\nand, with one exception, were well below the 1955-56 catches. Only in the northern\nsub-district was the catch greater than in 1955-56, but still below the five-year average.\nIn the lower Queen Charlotte Islands, in Area 2be, the catch was the second largest\nrecorded, although it was only about one-third of the phenomenal catch of 85,609 tons\nmade in 1955-56. The catch in Area 2ae of the upper Queen Charlotte Islands sub-\ndistrict was sharply down in comparison to previous years and was the poorest since\nthe area was first exploited in 1953-54. Catches were made on the west coast of the\nQueen Charlotte Islands for the first time in 1956-57; 117 tons were taken in one day's\nfishing in Renfell Sound in Area 2aw and 512 tons in Louscoone Inlet in Area 2bw\nduring the first half of February.\nIn the northern sub-district, the quota was taken for the first time in three years,\nwith the winter fishery accounting for 22,983 tons out of the season's total of 31,461\n* In all sub-districts, except the lower east coast of Vancouver Island where the fishing season commences on\nMay 1st. K 46\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nFig. 1. Map showing the division of the British Columbia coast into districts,\nsub-districts, and areas. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 47\ntons. In contrast to the previous season when the fishery depended on populations\n(probably local) in Tuck Inlet and Morse Basin, the greater part of the 1956-57 catch\nwas from the main migratory population fished in Hecate Strait off the southern tip of\nPorcher Island.\nIn the upper central sub-district (Area 6), the catch, although well below average,\nwas considerably greater than in 1955-56. Meyers Pass and Green Inlet were the main\nfishing areas.\nIn the lower central sub-district (Areas 7 to 10), the catch, while slightly above the\n1951-52 to 1956-57 average, was well below that of 1955-56. The main fishing-\ngrounds were in Kildidt Sound and Kwakshua Passage, farther to the south than in the\nprevious year.\nIn the middle east coast sub-district, the catch was 17,753 tons, almost double the\nnormal quota of 10,000 tons, although only slightly more than one-half the record catch\nof the previous year. Almost the entire catch was made in the Deepwater Bay region\nof Area 13 during the first three weeks of December. In 1955-56 the main fishery\noccurred in January and early February, with approximately two-thirds of the catch being\nmade in Area 13 and one-third in Area 14. Availability was higher in 1956-57 than\nin 1955-56.\nIn the lower east coast sub-district, while the quota was taken, the catch was about\n20 per cent smaller than in 1955-56. Because of the delay in the start of the season due\nto price negotiations, this fishery, usually the first to occur, was about a month later than\nusual. It did not start until the first week in December, and for the first time in a number\nof years the quota was not taken before the Christmas closure. Availability was about\nthe same as in 1955-56.\nThe catch in the lower west coast sub-district was the lowest recorded. Almost the\nentire catch was made in Barkley Sound, and represented the smallest catch from this\narea since 1941-42. The upper west coast sub-district produced only 541 tons of fish,\nalmost all from Ououkinish Inlet. In spite of the low catch, the level of abundance in\nthis sub-district, as indicated by the amount of spawn deposited, was probably above\naverage.\nTAGGING\nThe coastwise adult herring tagging programme was discontinued after 1954, when\nit was considered that the general relationship between most major populations was\nsufficiently well understood for the practical purposes of management, and that the annual\nvariations in the extent of intermingling between populations were not large enough to\nwarrant the continued expenditure entailed (Taylor, 1955). In 1955 and 1956 adult\ntagging was confined to the Strait of Georgia in an effort to determine more precisely the\ncomplex relationships between the middle and lower east coast populations. This programme was suspended after the 1956 season when it became apparent that no additional\ninformation was likely to be obtained because of difficulties in separating tags recovered\nfrom these populations when the fisheries occur, as is often the case, at approximately the\nsame time. No adult herring were tagged, therefore, in the spring of 1957.\nJuvenile herring also have been tagged to provide information on the juvenile stocks\nreared in certain areas and on the spawning stocks that support the fisheries in these and\nother areas (Taylor, Hourston, and Outram, 1956). From 1952 to 1954 this programme\nwas confined to the lower west coast sub-district and in 1955 and 1956 to populations\nin the Strait of Georgia and adjacent San Juan Islands area. This programme was terminated after the 1956 season, when the entire juvenile herring research programme was\ndiscontinued. The data on the 1956 juvenile herring taggings are summarized below:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 K 48\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nSub-district and Area\nof Tagging\nMiddle East Coast-\nArea 13\t\nNumber Tagged\nin 1956\n3,130\nArea 14 4,060\nArea 15 7,253\nArea 16 3,102\nLower East Coast\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nArea 17a 3,075\nArea 17b 3,023\nArea 18 6,058\nArea 19 3,106\nSan Juan Islands 6,003\nTotal.\n38,810\nTAG RECOVERY\nIn the 1956-57 season, tags were recovered only by magnets in reduction-plant\nmeal-lines. No tag-detector was operated, even on an experimental basis, because the\ndifficulties introduced by the increased use of electricity to operate plant machinery proved\ninsurmountable (Taylor et al., 1956).\nFor reasons discussed in previous reports {see Taylor et al., 1956), the various\nreduction plants differ in their efficiency in recovering and submitting tags found on the\nmagnets. Tests to determine the efficiency of the various plants in recovering tags were\nconducted in the same manner as in previous years (Stevenson, Hourston, Jackson, and\nOutram, 1952). The average efficiency of each plant in 1956-57, together with its\naverage efficiency in 1955-56 in parentheses, is given below:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nAdult Tags\nJuvenile Tags\nPlant\nNumber of\nTests\nAverage\nEfficiencv\nNumber of\nTests\nAverage\nEfficiencv\nWest Coast of Vancouver Island\n- (1)\n1 (3)\n1 (3)\n1 (2)\n1 (3)\n1 (2)\n.... (92)\n84 (84)\n98 (94)\n68 (76)\n96 (97)\n86 (89)\n- (1)\n1 (3)\n1 (3)\n1 (2)\n1 (3)\n1 (2)\n(60)\nSteveston and Vicinity\n60 (53)\n70 (80)\n30 (60)\n70 (85)\nNorth Shore \u00E2\u0096\u00A0 \t\n90 (75)\n87 (88)\n96 (91)\n.... (92)\n68 (78)\n64 (79)\n90 (71)\n90 (81)\n64 (71)\n70 (65)\nNorth and Central British Columbia\n1 (2)\n- (1)\n2 (2)\n1 (2)\n2 (2)\n1 (2)\n1 (2)\n(1)\n2 (2)\n- (2)\n2 (2)\n1 (2)\n(70)\n55 (50)\n- - (35)\n80 (60)\nNorth Pacific _ \t\n30 (70)\n| 82 (82)\n59 (58)\nIn 1956-57 there was little change in the general level of efficiency of adult tag\nrecovery. Fairview and North Pacific plants in the Prince Rupert area showed increases\nin efficiency, while Colonial and Port Edward showed substantial decreases for the second\nyear in succession. The Seal Cove plant has always been relatively inefficient in recovering tags. After an increase in 1955-56, the efficiency of this plant in 1956-57 fell to its\nnormal level.\nThe average efficiency of the major plants in Northern British Columbia in recovering\njuvenile herring tags was about the same as in 1955-56, while the efficiency of plants in REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 49\nSouthern British Columbia was somewhat less. Again, there was considerable variation\nin efficiency among individual plants. The greatest changes were at Colonial and North\nPacific, where sharp decreases occurred, and at North Shore and Fairview, where marked\nincreases in efficiency were recorded. Over the past four seasons there has been a\ndecrease in the relative efficiency of juvenile tag recovery. In 1956-57 the ratio of\njuvenile to adult efficiency was 0.74; in 1955-56, 0.77; in 1954-55, 0.78; and in 1953-\n54, 0.83.\nA total of 1,708 tags, including nineteen State of Washington tags, were recovered\nin 1956-57 from the magnets in twelve reduction plants. Of these, 272 were recovered\nin the summer and early fall fishery, the remainder in the regular winter fishery.\nUsing the same methods as in previous years (Tester and Stevenson, 1948), the most\nprobable area of recovery has been determined for each plant magnet return (Table II).\nThe tendency for reduction plants to process fish simultaneously from a number of\ndiffierent areas was accentuated in 1956-57 by the delay in the start of the regular winter\nfishery. As a result, only a small proportion, 516 out of 1,436,.or 36 per cent, of the\ntags recovered could be assigned with any certainty to a particular area of recovery.\nRecoveries from the middle and lower east coast sub-districts were the most seriously\naffected. Of 1,152 fish tagged and possibly recovered in these two sub-districts, the most\nprobable area of recovery could be determined for only 239 or 21 per cent.\nTo assess movement between populations, the probable numbers of tags in the\ncatches were calculated from the plant magnet returns (Table III). The method used\nwas described by Taylor and Outram (1954). Tags recovered at Port Albion and Bute-\ndale reduction plants were omitted, as no magnet efficiency tests were carried out at these\ntwo plants. Because of the relatively small numbers of tags certain as to area of recovery\n(Table III, column 9), the estimates of movement between populations are considered\ngenerally less reliable in 1956-57 than in previous years. Certain other sources of error\nare also liable to affect these estimates:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) The length of time the tagged fish have been at liberty. In 1955 and 1956\nonly the middle and lower east coast populations were tagged. The\nremaining populations have not been tagged since 1954. The majority\nof the recoveries from the middle and lower east coast populations in\n1956-57, as in previous years, were mainly from fish that had been at\nliberty for one or two seasons.* From all other populations, recoveries\nwere from fish that had been at liberty for three or more seasons. Because\nof the greater time at liberty, estimates of movement based on these\nrecoveries may not be strictly comparable to estimates in.previous years\nor to estimates for the middle and lower east coast populations. On the\nbasis of recoveries in 1955-56, the tendency for the degree of dispersion\nfrom the sub-district of tagging to increase the longer the fish had been\nat liberty was not sufficiently marked to warrant the assessment of movement on the basis of recoveries from fish at liberty for the same number\nof years (Taylor, Hourston, and Outram, 1956). In 1956-57, because\nof the additional year of liberty, this tendency might be expected to be\nmore pronounced. However, the number of recoveries certain as to area\nof recovery was insufficient to provide a reliable test of this possibility.\n(2) Differences in the degree of exploitation of the various populations both\nin the same season and in different seasons. As the number of tags recovered varies with the size of the catch, differences in the amount of fish\ncaught in the area of tagging and in areas receiving tags from it will affect\nestimates of the amount of movement between areas. Similarly, if the\nproportional sizes of the catches vary from year to year, comparisons of\n* More exactly eight or twenty months, since herring are tagged in March and the fishery develops in November. K 50 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nthe degree of dispersion between years will also be affected. Errors of\nthis type might be minimized if estimates of dispersion were based on\ncalculations of the probable number of tags per ton in the various areas.\nHowever, because of the large and variable number of tags doubtful as\nto area of recovery, such calculations would not be reliable.\nSince the catches in the lower Queen Charlotte Islands and northern sub-districts\nhave varied widely in the last three seasons and since neither population has been tagged\nsince 1954, estimates of the migration of fish from these two populations will be affected\nthe most seriously by errors from the above two sources. Estimates of dispersion from\nthe middle and lower east coast populations will be the least affected, since catches in\neach have varied little in the past three years and since both have been tagged every year.\nBecause of the relatively small number of tag returns certain as to area of recovery\nand because of the possibility of additional errors from the sources discussed above,\nestimates of movements between populations in 1956-57 should be accepted with caution.\n(1) In 1956-57 most of the recoveries from the regular winter fishery were\nfrom the sub-district of tagging and confirm previous conclusions on the\nrelative discreteness of the major populations. The \" homing \" tendency\nwas apparently least pronounced in the upper Queen Charlotte Islands\npopulation (Area 2ae) and most pronounced in the lower east coast\npopulation.\n(2) The apparent emigration of 44 per cent (14/32) from Area 2ae to the\nnorthern sub-district was very much greater in 1956-57 than in previous\nseasons. This estimate may be unreliable because of the small number\nof tags involved. It may reflect in part a greater degree of dispersion\nrelated to the longer period the tagged fish were at liberty, but more probably overestimates the true movement because of the great difference in\nthe sizes of the catches in the two regions (Table I).\n(3) Emigration from the lower Queen Charlotte Islands population (Area\n2be) amounted to 22 per cent (21/94) in 1956-57, compared to 3 per\ncent in 1955-56. The majority of the emigrants (17) were recovered in\nthe northern sub-district, and the remainder in the lower central sub-\ndistrict. Once again the apparent increase in emigration may be due to\nincreased time at liberty, but more probably it is a reflection of the smaller\nrelative difference in the sizes of the catches in the two regions (Table I).\nEighty per cent (73/91) of the recoveries from the lower Queen Charlotte Islands region were from fish tagged there, 8 per cent (7/91) were\nfrom the northern sub-district, and 10 per cent (9/91) from the upper\nand lower central sub-districts.\n(4) Of the recoveries of fish tagged in the northern sub-district, 8 per cent\n(7/97) were from the lower Queen Charlotte Islands area and 13 per\ncent (13/97) from the lower central sub-district. Emigration in 1956-57\nwas similar to the average emigration (23 per cent) between 1936 and\n1952 (Stevenson, 1955) and very much less than the estimate in 1955-56.\nThe apparently great emigration in 1955-56 may have been the result of\nthe dependence of the fishery on the isolated untagged stocks of herring\nin Tuck Inlet and Morse Basin rather than on the main migratory northern sub-district population tagged in previous years (Taylor, Hourston,\nand Outram, 1956). Thus the number of returns from the northern\nsub-district from fish tagged there would be proportionately smaller than\nnormal in comparison with the number of returns from other regions. In\n1956-57 the fishery, although centred farther to seaward than in other\nyears, again apparently depended on the main migratory northern popu- REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 51\nlation. Sixty-eight per cent (76/112) of the recoveries made in the\nnorthern sub-district were of fish tagged there, 15 per cent (17/112)\nwere from the lower Queen Charlotte Islands, and 12 per cent (14/112)\nfrom the upper Queen Charlotte Islands. The remaining 5 per cent were\nfrom the upper and lower central sub-districts.\n(5) Emigration from the lower central sub-district amounted to 8 per cent\n(13/150) in 1956-57, with the major portion (5 per cent) again to the\nlower Queen Charlotte Islands sub-district. Limited movement occurred\nto the northern and middle east coast sub-districts. The pattern of emigration from the lower central sub-district was similar to that in previous\nyears, in spite of the fact that the main centre of the fishery shifted southwards from the Thompson Channel-Seaforth Channel region to the\nKildidt Sound-Kwakshua Passage region. Of the recoveries made in the\nlower central sub-district, 80 per cent (138/172) were from fish tagged\nthere, 6 per cent from fish tagged in the upper central sub-district, 7 per\ncent from fish tagged in the northern sub-district, 4 per cent from the\nmiddle east coast, and 2 per cent from the lower Queen Charlotte Islands\nsub-district.\n(6) The fishery in the upper central sub-district was again too small to be\nable to assign tag recoveries to it with any degree of certainty. About\n77 per cent (10/13) of the recoveries from fish tagged in this sub-district\nwere apparently recovered in the lower central sub-district. The remainder were recovered from the northern and lower Queen Charlotte Islands\nsub-districts.\n(7) Movement from the middle east coast population amounted to 28 per cent\n(58/204) in 1956-57, considerably greater than in the previous two\nseasons (6 per cent in 1955-56 and 4 per cent in 1954-55) but less than\nthe average of 45 per cent for the years 1936 to 1952 (Stevenson, 1955).\nThe majority of the emigation (25 per cent) was to the lower east coast,\nas compared to 5 per cent in 1955-56 and 2 per cent in 1954-55. Emigration to the lower east coast was greatest from Area 14 and least from\nArea 13. Of recoveries made in the middle east coast sub-district, 97\nper cent (146/150) were from fish tagged there, the remaining 3 per cent\ncoming from the northern, lower central, and lower east coast populations.\n(8) The apparent dispersion of lower east coast herring to other sub-districts\n(3 per cent) was less in 1956-57 than in 1955-56 (about 15 per cent).\nIt was all to the middle east coast sub-district. Only 54 per cent (59/110)\nof the recoveries from the lower east coast sub-district were from fish\ntagged there, and 46 per cent were from the middle east coast. The\nremainder were fish tagged in the San Juan Islands.\n(9) No tags certain as to area of recovery were obtained from the small west\ncoast fishery.\nIn 1956-57 there was a substantial summer and early fall fishery with a total catch of\n30,579 tons (Table I). Tags were recovered from the summer fisheries in the northern,\nupper east coast, middle east coast, lower east coast, and lower west coast sub-districts.\nOf the eight tags from the northern sub-district landings, six were from fish tagged\nin that sub-district and the remaining two from fish tagged in the lower central sub-\ndistrict.\nThe probable number of tags in the relatively large upper east coast fishery was\nseventeen\u00E2\u0080\u0094fifteen from fish tagged in the middle east coast sub-district and two from\nfish tagged in the lower central sub-district. The relatively small number of recoveries\nsuggests that while the stocks contained some middle east coast and a few lower central K 52 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nsub-district fish, the majority most probably were from the upper east coast population,\nwhich has only been very lightly tagged in the past five years, rather than from some\npreviously unexploited stock.\nThe relatively small middle east coast summer fishery yielded sixty-two tags certain\nas to area of recovery. Of these, 74 per cent (46/62) were from the middle east coast\nsub-district, mainly from Area 14, and 25 per cent (15/62) from the lower east coast\nsub-district. Recoveries from the summer fishery in 1953-54 showed a similar distribution, with 73 per cent of the recoveries from taggings in the middle east coast sub-\ndistrict and 22 per cent from the lower east coast sub-district. In the winter fisheries in\nthe same two seasons in this sub-district, 88 and 97 per cent respectively of the recoveries were from middle east coast tagged fish and 8 and 2 per cent respectively from lower\neast coast tagged fish. In both the summer and winter fisheries in 1954-55, the percentages of middle east coast tagged fish were lower (47 and 60 per cent respectively) and\nthe percentages of lower east coast tagged fish higher (44 and 15 per cent respectively).\nThe 1954-55 results were, however, probably biased by the large number of recoveries\nin the summer and winter fisheries from a lower east coast tagging on the border between\nthe two sub-districts.\nIn the summer of 1956 there was a substantial fishery for reduction purposes in\nthe lower east coast sub-district for the first time. This fishery yielded 196 tags certain\nas to area of recovery. Of these, 57 per cent were from fish tagged in the lower east\ncoast sub-district, and 43 per cent from fish tagged in the middle east coast sub-district,\na pattern of recoveries similar to that obtained in the regular winter fishery.\nA total of eleven tags were contained in the Area 21 catches\u00E2\u0080\u0094five, or 46 per cent,\nfrom fish tagged in the middle east coast sub-district and four, or 36 per cent, from the\nlower east coast sub-district. There was one recovery each from an American tagging\nin the San Juan Islands and from an upper west coast tagging. Because of the small\nnumber of recoveries and because of the lack of tagging in the lower west coast sub-\ndistrict after the spring of 1954, these results cannot be considered reliable. In 1953-54\nthere was also a summer fishery in Area 21. In this fishery 46 per cent (17/37) of the\nrecoveries were from fish tagged in the lower west coast sub-district, 43 per cent (16/37)\nfrom the lower east coast sub-district, and 8 per cent (3/37) from the middle east coast\nsub-district. In contrast, in the 1953-54 winter fishery 95 per cent of the recoveries\nwere from lower west coast taggings, with only 1 per cent from the lower east coast.\nIn the middle and lower east coast sub-districts, tag recoveries suggest that, while\nin the summer there may be a greater degree of intermingling with adjacent populations,\nthe stocks are the same as those fished in the winter. In Area 21 the stocks fished in\nsummer probably consist predominantly of fish that spawn in the lower west coast and\nlower east coast sub-districts. Fish from the middle east coast sub-district are also\npresent, and in some years, at least, may form an appreciable portion of the stock.\nThe recoveries of fish from the upper east coast, lower east coast, and lower west coast\nfisheries which were tagged in the middle east coast sub-district tend to confirm the\nhypothesis that middle east coast herring migrate seaward both northward through\nJohnstone Strait and southward through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but suggest that\npossibly the southward route in some years may be the dominant one.\nHowever, because of the small numbers of recoveries from all summer fisheries,\nthese conclusions on summer intermingling must be treated with caution.\nRECOVERY OF JUVENILE HERRING TAGS\nThree juvenile herring tags were recovered in 1956-57. Two were from fish tagged\nin Barkley Sound in 1953\u00E2\u0080\u0094one was recovered in the upper west coast sub-district, the\nother in either the middle or lower east coast sub-district. The third recovery, made in\nthe lower east coast sub-district, was from fish tagged in Jervis Inlet (Area 16) in 1954. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 53\nSAMPLING\nThe objective of a sampling programme is to obtain a number of individuals from\na population, the average and range of whose characteristics are representative of the\nentire population. Each fishing season, random samples of the herring-catch are taken\nat the reduction plants, and age, length, weight, sex, and degree of maturity are recorded\nfor each of a standard number of fish from every sample. Practical difficulties preclude\nattaining a perfect representation of the fishable stocks, but examination of the sampling\ndata from previous years has indicated two aspects of the programme in which improvement could be made within the scope of our present operations.\nFirstly, the annual goal of a sample taken from every unit (that is, a certain number\nof tons) of fish caught seldom has been attained except at plants in the Vancouver area,\nwhere Biological Station personnel were established throughout the fishing season.\nSampling at other plants is done by plant personnel who are subject to other demands\non their time and who show varying degrees of conscientiousness. Since the Vancouver\nplants process mainly fish from the southern stocks (District 3, Fig. 1), information on\nthe northern stocks has not been nearly so complete and reliable as that on the southern\nstocks. In an attempt to overcome this bias, a field station was established in Prince\nRupert during the 1956-57 season to give comparable coverage on the fish landed in\nthat area. Plants in the Prince Rupert and Vancouver areas, which handle 65 per cent\nof the total catch, process appreciable amounts from all sub-districts. To increase the\ncoverage at other plants, the numbers of samples requested were increased to 50 per cent\nmore than the number desired, and then these samples were sub-sampled to obtain a\ncomparable catch-sample ratio.\nSecondly, it has been noted in past sampling programmes that two or more samples\ntaken from the same locality on the same day may differ appreciably in their composition.\nIn order to increase the coverage of the catch by samples, the 1956-57 programme was\nset up to include double the number of samples. Because the mean and range of variation in the characters sampled are demonstrated almost equally well by the first fifty fish\nin a sample as by 100 fish, it was possible to double the number of samples without\nincreasing the number of fish to be processed by reducing the size of the samples to\nfifty fish.\nAGE COMPOSITION AND YEAR-CLASS STRENGTH\nThe age of a herring can be determined from the number of growth seasons shown\non its scales. Age determinations were made for each of fifty fish in forty-five samples\nobtained from the summer fishery in 1956 and in 575 samples obtained during the\n1956-57 winter fishing season. (In 1955-56, 288 samples of 100 fish were employed.)\nOne sample was taken for every 680 tons of fish caught in the summer fishery and for\nevery 250 tons caught in the regular winter fishery, as opposed to one sample for every\n900 tons in the previous winter season. Percentage age composition was calculated\nfrom these data for the ten major British Columbia herring populations and for stocks\non the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands in the regular winter fishery and for\nfish from various statistical areas by months for the summer fishery (Table IV). These\ndata, along with data on the average weight of fish at each age in each population (Table\nVII) and the total catch taken from each population (Table I), give an estimate of the\nnumber of fish at each age taken by the summer and winter fisheries from each population\n(Table V). Data from Table IV show the relative contributions of the various year-\nclasses to the stocks, while data from Table V show the relative importance of these year-\nclasses in the catch from the various populations.\nData from the winter fishery indicate that the 1954 year-class dominated in most\npopulations and appears to be somewhat stronger than the below-average 1953 year-class.\nA notable exception was the northern sub-district, where the 1953 year-class, of above- K 54 BRITISH COLUMBIA\naverage strength in that sub-district, dominated the catch. The 1955 year-class made a\nstrong showing in the upper central and upper east coast sub-districts and may be stronger\nthan the 1954 year-class in these populations. The strong 1951 year-class (Vl-year\nfish) again made appreciable contributions to the lower Queen Charlotte Islands, lower\ncentral, upper east coast, and middle east coast populations, where it had dominated in\nthe previous year's catch. However, after four successive years of supporting the fishery\nin most of these populations, its numbers have been reduced to a level where it can no\nlonger be expected to make major contributions to future fisheries. On the basis of its\ncontributions as H-year-old fish, the 1955 year-class appears to be above average in the\nDistrict 2 and upper east coast populations but below average in those farther south.\nThus the general picture of recruitment in recent years along the coast is that of a\nvery strong 1951 year-class followed by a weak 1952 year-class, a below-average 1953\nyear-class, an average 1954 year-class, and finally the 1955 year-class, which appears\nabove average in the north but weak in the south. Abundance in most populations\nreached a high level when the strong 1951 year-class was recruited and then declined as\nthis year-class moved through the fishery. The 1951 year-class held abundance at a fairly\nhigh level as the poor 1952 year-class moved through the fishery, and the decline was\nbuffered somewhat as the 1953 and 1954 year-classes made somewhat stronger, although\nno more than average, contributions to the stocks. The apparently good 1955 year-class\nmay hold abundance at is present level in the north, but further declines can be anticipated\nin the south.\nThe year-class newly recruited as Ill-year fish continued to dominate in the lower east\ncoast and lower and upper west coast populations, indicating no major variation in year-\nclass strength in these regions. The middle east coast and lower central populations have\nreverted to this pattern with the disappearance of the 1951 year-class as an important\ncontributor to the catch. Fish of age III (the 1954 year-class) also dominated the stocks\nin both areas on the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands, forming a somewhat\nlarger proportion of the catch in the northerly than in the southerly area. The more usual\nsituation in the north of extended recruitment with several year-classes dominating the\ncatch obtained in the upper and lower east coasts of the Queen Charlotte Islands and\nupper central populations. These populations were made up largely of III-, IV-, and\nVl-year fish, II-, III-, and Vl-year fish, and II- and Ill-year fish respectively. The poor\n1952 year-class (V-year fish) in all these populations and the poor 1953 year-class (IV-\nyear fish) in the lower east coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands and upper central\npopulations disrupted this pattern only slightly. The 1953 year-class (IV-year fish)\nappears to be the only one recruited to the northern population since 1951 which was\nnot below average, and it alone dominated the population in 1956-57.\nIn the summer of 1956, in the lower east coast sub-district (Areas 17a, 17b, 18,\nand 19) the 1953 year-class as IV-year-old fish formed the greatest proportion of the\npopulation from June to August. In September and in the regular winter fishery, the\n1954 year-class (age III) was the dominant contributor. In the middle east coast sub-\ndistrict in September, the 1953 year-class contributed the largest number of fish, but in\nthe regular winter fishery the 1954 year-class did. In the upper east coast sub-district in\nJune the 1952 year-class was the largest contributor, in July and August the 1954 year-\nclass was, and in the regular winter fishery the 1955 year-class (age II) provided the most\nfish. In the upper and lower central sub-districts the 1951 year-class (age VI) was\ndominant in September, while in the regular winter fishery the 1954 year-class was\ndominant in the lower central and the 1955 year-class (age II) in the upper central.\nIn all areas the stocks providing the summer fisheries contained a smaller proportion\nof younger fish and a larger proportion of older fish than the equivalent winter populations. In areas where samples were available for several summer months, there is an\nindication of a relatively small but progressive increase in the proportion of younger fish REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 55\nas the summer progresses. In late summer or early fall before the winter fishery commences, a sharp increase occurs in the proportion of fish in those age-groups where\nrecruitment is greatest. Thus, in all populations, the proportion of Ill-year-old fish\nincreases in this interval. The increases are less marked in the middle east coast and the\nnorthern and central British Columbia populations, where a greater proportion of the\nrecruitment occurs at older ages and hence where fish of age III generally form a smaller\nproportion of the population.\nThe differences in age composition between summer- and winter-fished stocks suggest\nthat the new recruits do not join the fishable stocks until the time of the autumn pre-\nspawning migration. The summer stocks appear to consist mainly of fish recruited in\nprevious years and are the residues of the previous season's spawning populations.\nAVERAGE LENGTH AND WEIGHT\nIn six of the ten major herring populations, upper and lower east coast of the Queen\nCharlotte Islands, northern, upper central, upper east coast, and lower west coast fish of\neach age were larger, on the average, in the winter of 1956-57, than in the previous year\nand than the ten-year average for the seasons 1946-47 to 1955-56 (Tables VI and VII).\nIn some of these populations, however, the H-year fish were smaller than average or than\nin 1955-56. In the lower central and upper west coast sub-districts the fish were smaller\nthan average and the lower central fish were smaller than in the previous season. (No\ndata were obtained for the upper west coast in 1955-56.) Fish taken from the other\ntwo sub-districts (lower and middle east coast) were similar in length to the previous year\nand to the ten-year average. Irregularities in the average length and weight patterns of\nfish younger than III years and older than VI years probably reflect the relatively small\nnumbers of fish sampled from these age-groups.\nIn animal populations there is often an inverse relationship between the relative size\nof the population and the growth rate of individuals comprising it\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is, the population\nlimits the amount of food available to the individual. This situation appears to apply\nroughly in 1956-57 to all but the northern population. Abundance in 1956-57 was\ngenerally low except for the upper west coast, lower central, and northern populations,\nand average size was greater except in the upper west coast and lower central populations.\nHowever, catch, spawn deposition, and average size were all high in the northern sub-\ndistrict. This anomalous situation might be related to the fact than 97 per cent of the\nnorthern catch was taken on the offshore grounds fished intensively for the first time in\n1956-57. If these fish were from other than the northern stock, abundance would be\nlow in the northern population and size would consequently be greater. However, tag\nreturns indicated that these were the northern stocks fished prior to 1955-56. The most\nprobable explanation, therefore, appears to be that the abundance and (or) distribution of\nthe planktonic food-supply of this population was unusually favourable in 1956 and in\nexcess of the population requirements.\nThe somewhat erratic growth pattern presented by the average lengths and weights\nof herring from the summer fisheries may be due in part to sampling inadequacies. The\nnumber of samples from any area for any month is small and may not provide a reliable\nindication of the population average lengths and weights. The data (Tables VI and VII)\nsuggest that the fish in summer are longer and heavier in all populations, except the lower\ncentral, where the summer fishery (in Area 8) may have depended on a slower-growing\nlocal population. Two possible explanations of the larger size of summer-caught herring\nare offered. Environmental conditions may be more suitable for growth in those localities\nwhere the summer fisheries occurred than in those where the fish caught in winter had\nspent the summer, or more probably, considering that the greatest differences occur\namong the younger fish, that the younger age-groups in the summer stocks contain a\ngreater proportion of earlier-maturing, faster-growing fish than do the same age-groups K 56 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nin the winter stocks. In the lower east coast sub-district there is also some indication of\na progressive increase in average length and weight during the summer until September,\nwhen the fish appear intermediate in size between those taken earlier and winter-caught\nfish. The different size and age composition of fish taken in September may be the result\nof the first incursion of the winter stocks. In other sub-districts the trend in growth\nduring the summer is less obvious and more erratic from age-group to age-group.\nSEX RATIO\nFemales continued to slightly outnumber the males in the British Columbia herring\nstocks (Table VIII). The high sex ratios in the lower west of the Queen Charlotte\nIslands and the upper west coast populations probably reflect poor sampling as only two\nsamples were obtained from each of these populations. The generally lower sex ratios\nin 1956-57 presumably result from the reduced number of older fish in the stocks as\nfemales tend to live longer and thus dominate the older age-groups. The only heavily\nsampled population (northern) which showed an increase in sex ratio over 1955-56\nwas also the only one to show a significant increase in average age.\nEXTENT AND INTENSITY OF SPAWNING\nEach year, officers of the Federal Department of Fisheries measure the extent and\nintensity of herring-spawn depositions along the entire British Columbia coast-line.\nIndependent and more detailed surveys are also carried out by Biological Station personnel in certain regions. In 1955 and 1956, the lower and middle east coast sub-districts\nwere surveyed, but in 1957, only the latter sub-district and the Boundary Bay region\nwere searched for spawn.\nEstimates of the extent and intensity of spawn depositions provide an index of the\nsize of the relative spawning escapements, since natural mortality during the short period\nbetween the close of the fishery and the commencement of spawning can be considered\nnegligible. A measure of the extent of spawn deposition also provides information on\nthe initial size of the new year-class.\nThe length of each individual spawning-ground was measured by pacing along the\nbeach or by reference to detailed charts. Compensation was made for width, only when\nthis dimension was greater than 100 yards or less than 5 yards. In these cases the\nreported length was converted to an equivalent length at a standard width of 30 yards.\nThe intensity on each spawning was estimated in terms of one of five categories\u00E2\u0080\u0094very\nlight, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy\u00E2\u0080\u0094depending on the number of eggs per unit\narea of vegetation. The length of each spawning at the reported intensity was converted\nto an equivalent length in statutory miles at a standard intensity of medium, and the\nresults totalled for each statistical area. By summing the area totals, an estimate of the\namount of spawn deposited in 1957 in each sub-district and on the coast as a whole was\nobtained (Table IX).\nA total of 131.5 miles of herring spawn at standard intensity was deposited in British\nColumbia coastal waters in 1957, the lowest amount ever recorded, and a reduction of\n30 per cent from the 1956 level. The number of miles of spawn deposited in 1957\ndecreased markedly in six sub-districts, increased slightly in two sub-districts, and\nSubstantially in One. PerCent PerCent\nSub-district Reduction Increase\nUpper Queen Charlotte Islands (x) (*)\nLower Queen Charlotte Islands 71 \t\nNorthern 56\nUpper central 2002\n1 No change.\n2 Although the per cent increase in the upper central sub-district is very large, the actual increase in miles of\nspawn is small; deposition in 1957 was less than a mile for the second successive year. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 57\nPer Cent Per Cent\nSub-district Reduction Increase\nLower central 39 \t\nUpper east coast 38 \t\nMiddle east coast 56 \t\nLower east coast 6\nLower west coast 33 \t\nUpper west coast 55 \t\nIn the upper Queen Charlotte Islands sub-district, spawning in Area 2ae was almost\nnegligible for the third successive year. A small spawning of 0.11 mile was located in\nSeal Inlet in Area 2aw. This is one of the few reports ever received from the west coast\nof the Queen Charlotte Islands. In the lower Queen Charlotte Islands sub-district (Area\n2be), spawning was drastically reduced. Only one spawning of any consequence (at\nBurnaby Narrows) was reported from this sub-district.\nIn the northern sub-district, the above-average spawn deposition was due primarily\nto a record spawning in Area 3, principally in the vicinity of Port Simpson. The extent\nof spawn also showed an increase in Area 4 for the second successive year. In both the\nupper and lower central sub-districts, the amounts of spawn found were well below\naverage for the second successive year. The absence of any spawnings in the usually\nproductive Myers Pass-Kitasu Bay region (Area 6) for the second year in a row were\nprimarily responsible for the low level of spawning in the upper central sub-district. In\nthe lower central sub-district, a small increase in spawn deposition in Area 8 was more\nthan offset by substantial reduction in Area 7. The lack of spawning along the north\nand south-west coast of Campbell Island (Area 7) caused the reduction in the lower\ncentral sub-district.\nIn the upper east coast sub-district, spawning was well below the average for the\nlast twenty years. Although spawn deposition occurred on all the usual spawning-\ngrounds, the individual spawnings were reduced in size and intensity from 1956. A small\nspawning occurred at Nugent Sound (Area 11) for the first time since 1954.\nIn the middle east coast sub-district, the extent of spawn was less than one-half of\nthe previous year. Marked reduction in the number of spawnings in Area 14, particularly\nin the Comox Harbour vicinity, were primarily responsible for the decrease. While no\nspawn was observed in Area 15 in 1956, 3.2 miles were found there in 1957.\nIn the lower east coast sub-district, spawn deposition increased slightly in 1957.\nExceptionally heavy and extensive spawnings in Nanoose Bay in Area 17a more than\noffset the very reduced spawnings in Area 17b, where, following four years of progressive\nreduction, spawning in 1957 for the first time on record was negligible.\nIn the lower west coast sub-district, spawning was below average. The absence of\nthe usual spawnings in Useless Inlet (Area 23) was mainly responsible for the reduced\n1957 level of spawn deposition in this sub-district. The reduction in deposition in Area\n23 was partly compensated for by a small increase in the extent of deposition in Area 24.\nIn the upper west coast sub-district, spawn deposition in 1957, while less than one-\nhalf of that of the previous year, was still about average. The decrease in spawn deposition in 1957 was due primarily to a reduction in the size of the usually large spawning\nat Nuchatlitz (Area 25). In 1956 this locality accounted for about 80 per cent of the\ntotal spawn deposition in this sub-district, but in 1957 it produced only about 40 per cent\nof the total. A small increase in deposition occurred in Area 26. In Area 27 no\nspawning was reported in 1956; however, in 1957 a small amount again was found.\nIn the Boundary Bay region, 2.1 miles of spawn were located in 1957, considerably\nless than the 15.6 miles found in 1955, the only other year in which spawning was reported\nthere. K 58 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nDISCUSSION\nThe status of the major B.C. herring stocks will now be discussed in the light of\ninformation derived from data in the previous sections.\nIn 1956-57, herring in British Columbia were generally less numerous than in the\nprevious season and below the average for the past five years. The total catch was only\n70 per cent of the record 1955-56 catch and 90 per cent of the average catch for 1951-52\nto 1956-57. Catches in all sub-districts were below average except in the northern,\nlower Queen Charlotte Islands, and lower central sub-districts, where they were slightly\nabove average. The greatest declines in catch occurred in the lower west coast and\nupper Queen Charlotte Islands sub-districts. Spawn deposition in 1957 was only 74 per\ncent of the 1956 deposition, well below average. Marked decreases in the amount of\nspawn deposited occurred in all sub-districts except the northern, upper and lower east\ncoast sub-districts. In the first of these, spawn deposition increased considerably in\n1957, but in the other two only slightly.\nIn the upper Queen Charlotte Islands sub-district there was a marked decline in\ncatch for the second successive year; no spawning was reported for the third year in\nsuccession. In 1953-54, the first year this area was fished, the catch amounted to 26,600\ntons and availability was very high; in 1954-55, while the catch (21,800 tons) was\nalmost as large as in the previous year, considerably greater effort was required to take\nit; in 1955-56 the catch was sharply reduced to 6,458 tons, and was accompanied by\na further decline in availability; in 1956-57 the catch was again markedly reduced,\namounting to only 1,276 tons, and availability also was very sharply down. In 1954,\n1.4 miles of spawn were reported, but in succeeding years only insignificant amounts of\nspawn were found. Thus, assuming the same proportion of the population was available\nto the fishery each year, it appears that a sharp decline in abundance has occurred in\nthis area in the last four years.\nOne reason for the decline undoubtedly lies in the relative strengths of the year-\nclasses which contributed to these fisheries. In 1953-54 the 1949 year-class as V-year-\nold fish contributed almost one-half the catch; its contribution was over twice as large\nas that made by the 1951 year-class as Ill-year fish, the 1950 class as IV-year fish, or\nthe 1948 year-class as Vl-year fish. In 1954-55, catch was maintained at a high level\nby the strong entry of the 1951 year-class which, as IV-year fish, provided over one-third\nof the catch, and almost twice as many fish as either the 1950 year-class or the 1949\nyear-class, which for Vl-year-old fish made a relatively substantial contribution. The\ncatch of the 1952 year-class as Ill-year-olds was only one-third the size of the catch\nprovided by the 1951 year-class the previous year. In 1955-56 the 1951 year-class, as\nV-year fish, provided about one-third of the season's reduced catch; its contribution was\nabout twice that provided by the 1953, 1952, or the 1950 year-classes. The contribution\nof the 1953 year-class as Ill-year fish was only about one-fifth of the contribution made\nby the 1951 year-class at the same age. In 1956-57 the 1951 year-class, now at age VI,\nwas again the dominant contributor to the very reduced catch. The 1954 year-class as\nIll-year fish made a very poor showing, contributing about one-twentieth the amount\nthe 1951 year-class did at age III.\nThus it would appear that the 1949 year-class was very strong and the 1951 year-\nclass of above average strength. The 1952 and 1953 year-classes were weak, and the\n1954 year-class very weak. Thus the good catches of 1953-54 and 1954-55 were the\nresult of large contributions by two strong year-classes\u00E2\u0080\u0094the 1949 and the 1951. The\nsharply declining catches of the next two seasons, although partially sustained by the\nremnants of the 1951 year-class, resulted from the successive recruitment of three weak\nyear-classes.\nIn the lower Queen Charlotte Islands sub-district, the catch, although slightly above\naverage, was only a little over one-third the phenomenally large catch of the preceding REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 59\nseason. Spawn deposition was sharply reduced. The very large catch of 1955-56\nresulted from the extremely large contribution of the very strong 1951 year-class as\nV-year-old fish. This year-class provided almost two-thirds of the catch. In 1956-57\nthis year-class contributed over one-third of the catch, over two to three times as much\nas any of the younger year-classes. The recent decrease in abundance in this population\nis explained by the appearance of three relatively weak year-classes, those of 1952, 1953,\nand 1954. The decline in catch would have been greater had it not been for the large\ncontribution for Vl-year-old fish of the strong 1951 year-class. As this year-class cannot\nbe expected to make a substantial contribution as VH-year-old fish, a further sharp decline\nwill probably occur in 1957-58.\nThe catch in the northern sub-district reached the level of the quota for the first\ntime in three years. Spawn deposition also showed a substantial increase in this region.\nThe increase in abundance appears to be due to the above-average strength of the 1953\nyear-class (IV-year fish). The strong 1951 year-class also made a good contribution as\nVl-year-olds. The increase in catch may also have been influenced by the change in\nfishing-grounds. In 1955-56 the fishery centred in Tuck Inlet and Morse Basin and\nmay have been dependent more on local populations. In 1956-57, on the other hand,\nthe fishery centred in Hecate Strait, and tag returns suggest that it was dependent on the\nmajor northern population normally fished around Porcher Island.\nIn the upper central sub-district, while catch increased considerably over 1955-56,\nit still remained well below average. Spawn deposition, although slightly greater than\nin 1956, remained at a very low level. It would appear, therefore, that although abundance has increased slightly, it is still well below average. The increase in abundance\nmay be traced to the strength of the 1954 year-class. This year-class may be of average\nstrength in contrast to the two preceding year-classes, which were weak. This year-class,\nwhile probably not as strong as the 1951 year-class and definitely not as strong as the\n1947 year-class, appears stronger than any of the remaining recent year-classes. The\n1955 year-class, which made a strong contribution as II-year fish in 1956-57, may\npossibly turn out to be as strong as the 1954 year-class.\nIn the lower central sub-district, the catch, although about average for the last five\nyears, was only about two-thirds as large as in 1955-56. Spawn deposition showed a\nmarked decline for the second year in succession and was about 40 per cent less than\nin 1956. The strong 1951 year-class, although it made a contribution above average\nfor Vl-year fish, was too old to sustain the level of abundance. The 1952 and 1953\nyear-classes, V- and IV-year-old fish, were relatively weak. The 1954 year-class, as in\nthe upper central sub-district, appears relatively strong, although probably not as strong\nas the 1951 year-class. The 1955 year-class made an excellent showing as Il-year-old\nfish, particularly in the more southern areas of the sub-district. There is the possibility,\ntherefore, that abundance may increase in 1957\u00E2\u0080\u009458.\nThe catch in the upper east coast sub-district was the largest recorded for this region.\nA substantial summer fishery (13,584 tons) occurred in 1956 off the entrance to Queen\nCharlotte Strait. The regular winter fishery, however, contributed only about another\n1,300 tons, well below average. Spawn deposition decreased fairly sharply from the\n1955-56 level, but was probably not greatly below average. As the available evidence\nsuggests that the summer-fished stocks were of upper east coast origin, it would appear\nthat the level of abundance in this population was fairly high in 1956-57. The strong\n1951 year-class, while it by no means dominated the summer or winter fisheries, made\nvery strong contributions to both. The 1952 year-class appears to be stronger in this\npopulation than the 1953 year-class. The 1954 year-class made a relatively good contribution to both the summer and winter fisheries and appears to be stronger than the 1953\nyear-class, although probably not as strong as either the 1952 or 1951 year-classes. As\nthe 1955 year-class shows prospects of being of average strength, abundance may remain\nat a reasonably high level in 1957-58. K 60 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nIn the middle east coast sub-district, the catch, although almost double the 10,000-\nton quota, was well below the 1955-56 catch, and slightly below the average catch for\nthe past five years. Spawn deposition was only a little more than 50 per cent of the\n1956 deposition. Abundance in 1956-57 declined from the high level of the past few\nyears and now is probably not above average. The 1952 year-class appears to have been\nthe last of a succession of three strong year-classes. The 1953 year-class was below\naverage in strength and the 1954 year-class of probably average strength. No great\nincrease in abundance is expected in 1957-58.\nIn the lower east coast sub-district, while the quota was again exceeded, the catch\nwas the smallest for the past five seasons. Spawn deposition was about average, approximately the same as in 1955-56. The suggested moderate decline in abundance has\nprobably resulted from the below-average contribution of the relatively weak 1953 year-\nclass as IV-year-old fish. The 1954 year-class appears to be of at least average strength.\nNo marked change in abundance is foreseen in this population.\nBoth catch and spawn deposition were at a low level in the lower west coast sub-\ndistrict in 1956-57. The catch was the smallest ever recorded from this region. Spawn\ndeposition, while below average, was greater than in some past years. The newly\nrecruited 1954 year-class appeared to be weak, and the 1953 year-class, although it made\nat least an average contribution as Ill-year fish in 1955\u00E2\u0080\u009456, made a poor showing as\nIV-year fish this past season. Little increase is looked for in 1957-58 unless the 1955\nyear-class is stronger than expected.\nIn the upper west coast sub-district there was again no appreciable fishery. Spawn\ndeposition, while less than in 1956, was still above average. Abundance would appear\nto be at a relatively high level in this population, but the fish have not become available\nto the fishermen because of late inshore movement.\nACKNOWLEDGMENT\nEach year, through their co-operation in many ways, the fishing companies, herring\nfishermen, and officers of the Federal Department of Fisheries materially contribute to\nthe success of the British Columbia herring investigation. Their contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are due to the various members of the staff of the\nBiological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., whose advice and effort attend these investigations.\nThis report continues a series published until 1956 under the auspices of the British\nColumbia Department of Fisheries. Following the reorganization of certain Provincial\nGovernment services, the British Columbia Department of Recreation and Conservation\nhas kindly consented to publish this report.\nSUMMARY\nAlthough the 1956-57 tag returns were fewer in number and were attended by more\nuncertainty as to the most probable area of recovery, they confirmed once again the relative discreteness of the populations as now defined.\nFish from the upper Queen Charlotte Islands population, as in 1955-56 but in contrast to 1954-55, showed the greatest tendency to wander from the sub-district of tagging. Fish from the northern population, in contrast to 1955-56 but as in 1954-55,\nshowed a relatively high \"homing\" tendency. The 1956-57 returns from fish tagged\nin this sub-district provide some confirmation of the assumption that the 1956-57 fishery,\nalthough centred in Hecate Strait, was dependent on the main northern stock, while the\n1955-56 fishery centred in Tuck Inlet and Morse Basin depended to a larger degree on\nlocal untagged stocks. In all other populations from which adequate tag returns were\navailable, the proportion of recoveries from the area of tagging followed the average\npattern. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956 K 61\nThe tag recoveries from summer fisheries in 1956-57 and in two previous seasons,\nalthough relatively few in number, suggest that in most areas the same stocks are fished\nin summer as in winter. However, the degree of intermingling with adjacent stocks is\ngreater in summer than in winter.\nThe total catch in 1956-57 was 177,087 tons, the lowest since 1947-48. Of this\ntotal, 30,579 tons were taken in a summer fishery. In the summer fishery, 44 per cent\nof the catch came from the upper east coast sub-district, 28 per cent from the northern\nsub-district, and 13 per cent from the lower east coast sub-district. The remaining 15\nper cent came from small fisheries in the lower west coast, upper and lower central, middle east coast, and upper Queen Charlotte Islands sub-districts. In the regular winter\nfishery, catches were below average in all sub-districts, except the northern, lower Queen\nCharlotte Islands, and lower central. The greatest declines occurred in the lower west\ncoast and upper Queen Charlotte Islands sub-districts. Spawn deposition in 1957 was\nthe lowest recorded, and represented a reduction of 30 per cent from the 1956 level.\nThe greatest decreases occurred in the lower Queen Charlotte Islands, middle east coast,\nupper west coast, lower central, upper east coast, and lower west coast sub-districts.\nA substantial increase in spawn deposition occurred in the northern sub-district, and slight\nincreases in the lower east coast and upper central sub-districts.\nIn 1956-57, herring were relatively less abundant than in 1955-56 in the upper\nand lower Queen Charlotte Islands, lower central, middle and lower east coast, and upper\nand lower west coast sub-districts.\nIn 1956-57 the strong 1951 year-class, although it made relatively substantial contributions for the Vl-year-old fish to the catches in some sub-districts, was too old to\nsustain the level of abundance in any population. In the upper and lower Queen Charlotte Islands sub-districts, the low level of abundance is associated with the weakness of\nthe year-classes providing fish of ages III, IV, and V (the 1954, the 1953, and the 1952\nyear-classes respectively). In the lower central sub-district the 1952 and 1953 year-\nclasses were relatively weak, and had the 1954 year-class not been of at least average\nstrength, abundance would have been lower. In the middle east coast sub-district, the\n1952 year-class appears to have been the last of a succession of three strong year-classes.\nThe 1953 year-class (IV-year fish in 1956-57) was of below average strength, but the\n1954 year-class (age III) may be of average strength. In the lower east coast sub-district\nthe decrease in abundance was relatively slight and may be traced to the below-average\nstrength of the 1953 year-class (IV-year-old fish). The 1954 year-class was probably\nof average strength. In the lower west coast sub-district, in common with other Southern\nBritish Columbia populations, newly recruited fish of age III formed the bulk of the population. In 1956-57 the dominant year-class (that of 1954) was very weak. The 1953\nyear-class (age IV) made a poor contribution, although it had appeared to be of average\nstrength the previous season.\nOnly in the northern sub-district did fish appear to be definitely more abundant\nthan in 1955-56. In this sub-district the 1953 year-class (age IV) appeared to be of\nabout average strength and the 1954 year-class (age III) of probably average strength.\nIn the upper central sub-district, although abundance showed probably a slight\nincrease over the 1955-56 level, it still remained well below average. In this sub-district\nthe 1954 year-class was probably of average strength, while the two preceding year-\nclasses were weak.\nIn 1956-57, fish of each age were somewhat larger than in 1955-56 and larger\nthan the average for the last ten years in the upper and lower Queen Charlotte Islands,\nnorthern, upper east coast, and lower west coast populations. In the lower central and\nthe upper west coast sub-districts, the fish were smaller than average, and the lower\ncentral fish were smaller than in 1955-56. Fish in the lower and middle east coast sub- K 62\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\ndistricts were similar in size to those of the previous year and close to the ten-year average.\nFemales continued to outnumber males in all populations.\nREFERENCES\nStevenson, J. C. (1955): The movement of herring in British Columbia waters as\ndetermined by tagging, with a description of tagging and tag recovery methods.\nRapp. et Proc.-Verb., Cons. Explor. Mer. 140, II, pp. 33-34.\nStevenson, J. C; Hourston, A. S.; Jackson, K. J.; and Outram, D. N. (1953):*\nResults of the west coast of Vancouver Island herring investigation, 1951-52. Rept.\nBritish Columbia Fish. Dept, 1951, pp. 57-87.\nTaylor, F. H. C. (1955): The status of the major herring stocks in British Columbia\nin 1954-55. Rept. British Columbia Fish. Dept., 1954, pp. 51-73.\nTaylor, F. H. C, and Outram, D. N. (1954): Results of investigation of the herring\npopulations on the west coast and lower east coast of Vancouver Island in 1953-54.\nRept. British Columbia Fish. Dept., 1953, pp. 52-82.\nTaylor, F. H. C; Hourston, A. S.; and Outram, D. N. (1956): The status of the\nmajor herring stocks in British Columbia in 1955-56. Rept. British Columbia Fish.\nDept., 1955, pp. 51-80.\nTester, A. L., and Stevenson, J. C. (1948): * Results of the west coast of Vancouver\nIsland herring investigation, 1947-48. Rept. British Columbia Fish. Dept., 1947,\npp. 41-86.\n' Reprints were published in year following the date of publication of report,\nTable I.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Catch and Availability by Sub-district for the 1956-57 and 1955-56 Seasons\nSub-district\nSeason\nCatch,\n1956-57\nCatch,\n1955-56\nAverage\nCatch,\n1951-52 to\n1956-571\nCatch per\nUnit of\nEffort,\n1956-57\nCatch per\nUnit of\nEffort,\n1955-56\nUpper Queen Charlotte Islands\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSummer2\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nWinter3\t\nWinter\nWinter\nWinter\nSummer\nWinter\nSummer\nWinter\nSummer\nWinter\nSummer\t\nWinter\nSummer\nWinter\nSummer\nWinter\nSummer\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nWinter ....\nWinter\nSummer\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nWinter\n344\n1,276\n117\n25,626\n512\n8,478\n22,983\n355\n5,043\n792\n29,323\n13,584\n1,312\n906\n17,753\n4,007\n39,164\n2,114\n2,858\n541\n6,458\n85,609\n35\n15\n33\n19\n58\n52\n14\n38\n30\n45\n24\n14\n73\n13\n56\n19\n42\n44\n14,033\n24,987\n58\nArea 2aw\t\nLower Queen Charlotte Islands\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n138\n28,306\n8,382\n27^962\n5,266\n11,429\n22\nLower central\u00E2\u0080\u0094Areas 7 to 10\t\nUpper east coast _. \t\n1,869\n46,391\n920\n29,652\n98\n46\n20,401\n47\nLower west coast _ . .\n48,709\n18,847\n560\n46,567\n13,837\n7,249\n59\n88\n62\nTotal (tons) \t\n30,579\n146,508\n250,444\n196,486\n-\n1 Catches in 1952-53 omitted.\n2 Summer fishery, June 1st to September 30th, except in lower east coast sub-district where the opening date is\nMay 1st.\n3 Winter fishery, October 1st to February 5th, in District 3 and to March 10th in District 2. Because of a delay in\nreaching a price agreement, the season started on December 4th in 1956-57. REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, 1956\nK 63\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Tags Recovered by Plant Crews, according to Area of Tagging and\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery, for the 1956-57 Fishing Season\nSUMMER FISHERY, 1956-57\nSub-district and Area\nof Tagging\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery\nOS\no5\nIh O\n5 -;\n-JO\nSw\nLower Queen Charlotte\nIslands\nArea 2be\t\nNorthern\nArea 4..\nArea 5..\nLower Central\nArea 7..\nMiddle East Coast\nArea 13\t\nArea 14..\nArea 15.\nLower East Coast\nArea 17a \t\nArea 17b .\nUpper West Coast\nArea 25 \t\n18S\n16AA\n18Q\n18N\n16X\n17FF\n17HH\n17KK\n19A\n20A\n19B\n19C\n20B\n20C\n20D\n20E\n20F\n18A\n19D\n19E\n17E\n18C\n19G\n20H\n18B\n19H\n19K\n20J\n20K\n15F\n17J\n18E\n19M\nSan Juan Islands, U.S.A.\nQuilceneBay \t\nI 1952\nI 1954\nI\n| 1954\n1952\n1953\n1953\n1953\n1955\n1956\n1955\n1955\n1956\n1956\n1956\n1956\n1956\n1954\n1955\n1955\n1953\n1954\n1955\n1956\n1954\n1955\n1955\n1956\n1956\n1951\n1953\n1954\n1955\n1956\n2\n1 [ 1\nI 2\n1 | 24\n3 I 42\n.... 1\nI I\n9\n7\n4\n1\n13\n22\n4\n32\n38\n4\n10\n2\n1\n2\n2\n25\n2\n2\n2\n25\n51\n1\n2\n1\n1 K 64\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Tags Recovered by Plant Crews, according to Area of Tagging and\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery, for the 1956\u00E2\u0080\u009457 Fishing Season\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued\nWINTER FISHERY, 1956-57\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery\nto\n.0\nS\n(/.\n8\nc/_\nv.\nu\nSub-district and Area\n_>\non\n'5b\nC\naS\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A1\nra\n\"ra\no\nU\nC3\no\n0\nra\no\nO\nO\nU\nC\nu\no\nof Tagging\no\nDO\nC.\nO cn\nCD*.\nd\nfi\nt\u00C2\u00AB\ntn\nCA\nV.\nCB^\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0a *-\n0\n60\nH\n<**\naS\n33\na\nU\nu\nra\nw\n[3\nra\nW\n1\n>\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nb2\nc _=\nra S\nrt, o\na\no\nLj O\nu O\ni.\n1.\nk,\n^i\n-J -\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n-O\n4> Tl\n\"u\nw\n_>\naj\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0a\nV\nK\ntt\n\u00C2\u00BB*H H\nT3\u00E2\u0080\u009E\n_D\nc.\nS\"\u00C2\u00BB\nS ra\na.\n?\na\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\n>\ns\na\nt- \u00C2\u00AB\n\"a cn\ncd\nH\n->\nDu\no_=\no\nZ\nS3\no\n1-1\na\nD\nis\no\no\na\nv5 ra\nC\u00E2\u0080\u0094\no\nh\nUpper Queen Charlotte\nIslands\n1\nArea 2ae ..\t\n18T\n1954\n4\n2\n6\n18U\n1954\n13\n1\n8\n22\n18W\n1954\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n....\n-\n....\n2\nLower Queen Charlotte\nIslands\n|\nArea 2be \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n16CC\n1952\n10\n2\n1\nl\n14\n17QQ\n1953\n13\n3\n1\n_.-\n1\n18\n17RR\n1953\n10\n1\n....\n1\n\t\n\t\n12\n18S\n1954\n29\n7\n....\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n-\n3\n41\nNorthern\nArea 4\t\n16Z\n16AA\n1952\n1952\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n2\n1\n17MM\n1953\n1\n6\n\t\n1\n8\nI7NN\n1953\n1\n2\n\t\n\t\n1\n1\n5\n17PP\n1953\n1\n1\n\t\n2\n18P\n1954\n\t\n1\n1\n18Q\n1954\n1\n10\n\t\n\t\n.- 1 11\n18R\n1954\n1\n24\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n28\nArea 5 . \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n18N\n1954\n-\n1\n13\n6\ni\n-\n2\n23\nUpper Central\nArea 6 \t\n14BB\n15V\n1950\n1951\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n-\n....\n1\n1\n17LL\n1953\n4\n\t\n4\n18M\n1954\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n5\n....\n1\nl\n9\nLower Central\nArea 7 \t\n15AA\n15BB\n1951\n1951\n....\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n2\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n-\n2\nl\n2\n7\n16U\n1952\n1\n\t\n\t\n3\n\t\n4\n16W\n1952\n\t\n10\n\t\n\t\n1\n11\n16X\n1952\n3\n1\n4\n16Y\n1952\n\t\n13\n\t\n1\n14\n17EE\n1953\n1\n3\n15\n2\n21\n17FF\n1953\n\t\n23\n\t\n1\n24\n17GG\n1953\n1\n11\n1\n13\n17HH\n1953\n4\n- 1 4\n1711\n1953\n\t\n\t\n4\n\t\n4\n17KK\n1953\n\t\n\t\n5\n\t\n\t\n\t\n5\n18J\n1954\n\t\n13\n1\n14\n18K\n1954\n\t\n\t\n\t\n15\n\t\n1\nl\n17\n18L\n1954\n3\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n9\ni\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\nl\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n15\nArea 10 \t\n15CC\n1951\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n....\n-\n-\n-\n1\nUpper East Coast\nArea 12\t\n17DD\n1953\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n14\n4\n18\nMiddle East Coast\nArea 13 \t\n19A\n1955\n6\n2\n1\n57\n6\n72\n20A\n1956\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n45\n6\n206\n16\n274\nArea 14 \t\n14A\n1950\n1 ! 11\n16A\n1952\n2\n1\n2 1 1\n6\n17B\n1953\n\t\n\t\n\t\n1 | .-\n1\n18B\n1954\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n1 [ -\n1\n19B\n1955\n\t\n1\n\t\n24 j 1\n26\n19C\n1955\n~\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n2\n....\n5 1 1\nI\n9 REPORT OF PROVINCIAL FISHERIES DEPARTMENT. 1956\nK 65\nTable II.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Number of Tags Recovered by Plant Crews, according to Area of Tagging and\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery, for the 1956-57 Fishing Season\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued\nWINTER FISHERY, 1956-57\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued\nJUVENILE HERRING TAG RECOVERIES\no\n-0\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery\nSub-district and Area\na\na\nes\n\"ra\n\"ra\nra\no\nU\no\n0\nra\no\nO\nra\no\nO\nra\no\nO\no\no\n-J\nof Tagging\nOB\n\nD.\n^\nU\nCD\nCD\nP.\n5 E\n^3 ...\n\"ra\nH\n0>\n>>\nDO\nOJ5\nJO\nZ\nD\no\n-1\na\n\u00C2\u00A7\nO\n0\n0\nz9\ns<3\nC-\no\nH\n20B\n1956\n1\n1\n10\n12\n20C\n1956\n20\n7\n113\n5\n145\n20D\n1956\n\t\n\t\n..... 1 13 1 1\n53\n5\n72\n20E\n1956\n1\n10\n6\n77\n4\n98\n20F\n1956\n1\n13\n9\n1\n88\n6\n118\n14B\n14C\n1950\n1950\n-\n....\n-\n1\n1\n1\n1\n15A\n1951\n1\n3\n4\n15B\n1951\n\t\n\t\n3\n3\n17A\n1953\n- 1 2\n\t\n5\n7\n18A\n1954\n.... 12 12\n12\n1\n17\n19D\n1955\n2\n11\n2\n52\n3\n71\n19E\n1955\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n14\n4\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n55\n3\n73\n20G\n1956\n-\n1\n1\nLower East Coast\n18C\n19F\n1954\n1955\n1\n1\n2\n2\n5\n3\n8\n19G\n1955\n3\n2\n5\n20H\n1956\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n7\n--\n23\n2 [ 32\n18D\n19H\n1954\n1955\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n4\n.... | 1\n.... 1 6\n19K\n1955\n1 1 1\n20J\n1956\n\t\n\t\n22\n11\n33\n20K\n1956\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n15\n27\n2 | 45\nArea 18 _\t\n15F\n18E\n1951\n1954\n....\n....\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n18F\n1954\n\t\n\t\n\t\n4\n4\n19L\n1955\n2\n2\n19M\n1955\n....\n_..\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n2\n2\nLower West Coast\nArea 24 \t\n16K\n1952\n1\n.... 1 1\n17T\n1953\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n1\nUpper West Coast\nArea 25 \t\n18H\n1954\n1952\n1953\n--\n1\n1\n....\n....\n1\n1\nArea 26 \t\n16T\n17AA\n17BB\n1953\n....\n....\n....\n....\n1\nSan Juan Islands, U.S.A.\n1955\n1956\n1956\n....\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n....\n....\n1\n1\n....\n1\n....\n1\n3\n5\n1\n1\n3\n3\n8\n1956\n1\n.... | 1\nLocality Unknown _.\n....\n....\n....\n2\nMiddle East Coast\n19B\n17YY\n17BBB\n1955\n1953\n1953\n-\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\n1\n_..\n1\n1\n1\n| 1\nLower West Coast\nArea 23\t\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1\nI 1\n....\n-- I 1 K 66\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable III.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Probable Numbers of Tags in the Catches during the 1956-57 Season, Based\non Magnet Recoveries, Shown by Area of Tagging and Probable Sub-district of\nRecovery, with Actual Number of Tags1 in Parentheses.\nSUMMER FISHERY, 1956-57\nProbable Sub-district of Recovery\nSub-district and Area of Tagging\nco\ni\na*\nCJ w.\nui-h\n&S\nu O\nas\nco\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\nG\nc 1\n w\nft W\na \u00C2\u00AB\nPW\nco\nrt\n&8\n2 \u00E2\u0084\u00A2\ncn\nra\no\ni-O\n*t_\no ra\nJW\nCO\nrt\nO\nCD 4_>\n> CO\n,3>S\n'3\ni\u00E2\u0080\u0094i tn\n\nV.\nVO\nto\nPi\n&\nt\n<\nQ\nM\nH\nO\n55\nO\nPh\nPh\ngo\nPh\no\nu\nH\n<\n43-3 '\nQ OrP QJ\nI\na\n3 O\n\u00C2\u00AB -0\nOC\nS4S\ncninoov qoovocNthtj-\nth oo tN ov ^j cn vq O cn Tt cn\nCN Tt Jgj eo CN Tt\"\nTt CN\nCN Tt ^3\nof 00 fe-\ncn en\noo cn\nm cn\nOV O O OO OO^MHIC\nTHinooo r-nr-nr-H\nTHinincn^oooTtoo -r-*\noo vo\no r-\nTf r-\no o\no o\nCN vo\no o\nO O\ncn oo\nO O\nin O\ncn oo\n\u00C2\u00A9 o\nm in\nOv c-\no o\nO m\nO Ov\n! O O\n! CO Tt\n! TT T>\nI o o\n! O VO\n! CN CO\no\nt>\nen\ntH\n(N m\no o\nTt vq\nCN\no\n00\nCJ CJ\nM M\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0a-a\n>Z3-\n2s\n_fc 3 u \u00C2\u00A3\nCd J4 rt 0 *-J i_J\n\"\u00C2\u00AB^3_\na & b S .3 3-\u00C2\u00B0-*i2c.!5\u00E2\u0080\u009E..g--.2.c5'5Ea\u00C2\u00A3K\n\u00C2\u00A711II 1^1981 lliilllllNSs\n<;<;\u00C2\u00ABuouubih(i,(.\u00C2\u00AB2zzzoo.(i.\u00C2\u00ABh(h??\nJ- J\nT_ a,\nO \u00E2\u0096\u00A0-\no \u00C2\u00A3\ng 6\nG _. a\n1|S\n\"h .9 to\n6 *3 ___\n3 Ih 3\nfeOwa\no\nH\n0)\n3\no\npa\nA\nCM\nu r-\nu m\n_.\n5 TH\nB\n0\nVh\nCm.\ntt.\no\nn\n5\ns\ns\nS\n9\nS\n,g\nz\n(1\np "@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1958_V02_05_K1_K110"@en . "10.14288/1.0354200"@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 . "Provincial Department of Fisheries REPORT WITH APPENDICES for the Year Ended December 31st 1956"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .