VAN CLEVE and BEVAN: DECLINE OF KARLUK SALMON RUNS 



cannot be disputed. Thompson and Bevan (1954) 

 studied the average weekly number of salmon 

 in the catch each year, from 1937 through 1952. 

 Comj^arison of the number caught each week 

 with the numbers that escaped in the same 

 period showed that the catch in 1950 was taken 

 between 7 June and 19 July and between 2 

 and 16 August. A few were taken between 27 

 September and 4 October, but most of the 

 spawners escaped between 14 June-12 July and 

 6 September-4 October. Few escaped during the 

 fishing season in early August (Thompson and 

 Bevan, 1954, Figure 5). Thus, as late as 1950 

 the midseason Karluk sockeye salmon were 

 still being heavily fished. 



SPAWNING IN THE KARLUK RIVER 



During the entire history of the investigation 

 of the Karluk sockeye salmon beginning in 

 1921 it is remarkable that the large numbers of 

 fish spawning in the Karluk River below the 

 lake received only passing attention until the 

 observations of Walker and Bevan in 1950. 

 One would think that large numbers of fry and 

 fingerlings must have been seen by those tend- 

 ing the weir after it had been moved to the out- 

 let of the lake in 1945. However, no doubt the 

 rigors of establishing the weir and making it 

 "fish tight" each year, combined with other de- 

 mands of the yearly observations gave added 

 credibility to Gilbert and Rich's (1927) hypoth- 

 esis that the sockeye salmon eggs spawned in 

 the Karluk River were wasted. A measure of the 

 small importance attached to the Karluk spawn- 

 ers is that all reports including Gilbert and 

 Rich (1927) do not include the Karluk River on 

 their maps of the watershed. In view of the 

 relatively small proportion of the total num- 

 bers of fish escaping through the weir which 

 were accounted for each year in the spawning 

 streams around and above the lake, an examina- 

 tion of the number of fish that have been seen 

 spawning in the river below the lake becomes 

 necessary. The entire Karluk watershed is 

 shown in Figure 1. 



The Karluk River is difficult to navigate by 

 shallow draft outboard, and is not easily ob- 

 served from the bank. The general practice of 

 those visiting the spawning grounds has been 



to spend practically all of their time on Karluk 

 Lake and on the streams above the outlet. Other 

 factors contributing to the neglect of the spawn- 

 ing activity in the Karluk were listed by 

 Rounsefell (1958) in his Appendix L as: (1) 

 Spawning in the Karluk is late and hence was 

 only partially observed by the summer field par- 

 ties visiting the lake. (2) Spawning fish inter- 

 mingled with migrating fish. (3) Only a small 

 percentage of returning adults have stream-tyj^e 

 nuclei. Hence Gilbert and Rich (1927) suggested 

 that the spawning below Karluk Lake might 

 be a waste. 



Nevertheless, it is surprising that so little 

 effort seems to have been expended studying 

 this part of the Karluk pojiulation. Rounsefell 

 (1958: 169) summarized the observations to 1932 

 in his Table A-16, which is reproduced below 

 as Table 1. 



Further evidence of the importance of spawn- 

 ing in the Karluk River is provided by observa- 

 tions of large numbers of sockeye salmon fry 



154*00' 



Shelikof Stroif 



Cape 

 Karluk 



^<:^ 



Kodiok Island 



OMoller Lake 

 ? miles 10 



-I r 



10 15 



kilomelers 



Figure 1. — The Rarluk system. True north is indicated 

 in the upper right. 



633 



