REPLY TO ROUNSEFELL'S 'COMMENTS ON 



EVALUATION OF CAUSES FOR THE DECLINE OF THE 



KARLUK SOCKEYE SALMON RUNS AND 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REHABILITATION,' 



BY R. VAN CLEVE AND D. E. BEVAN" 



Richard Van Cleve' and Donald E. Bevan^ 



A detailed reply to Rounsefell's comments on 

 our paper would involve repetition of those 

 sections in which we have corrected miscon- 

 ceptions and errors in his paper of 1958. He 

 has repeated many of the arguments he used in 

 1958 and has quoted parts of ours out of con- 

 text. For a detailed reply to Rounsefell's "rebut- 

 tal" we refer you again to our paper. In it we 

 have brought relevant information from older 

 publications together with factual unpublished 

 material from a number of agencies and some 

 of the most recent knowledge of sockeye biology 

 and behavior that has demonstrated the genetic 

 basis of the racial structure of their popula- 

 tions. This has been described for both the 

 Karluk and Fraser River stocks. We have used 

 this information to interpret the past history 

 of the Karluk sockeye salmon runs and from 

 it have explained their continued decline. In 

 view of the papers by Thompson (1950, 1951), 

 Thompson and Bevan (1954), Hartman and 

 Raleigh (1964), Raleigh (1967), Brannon 

 (1967, 1972), and Card and Drucker (1972),'' 

 there is no question that the Karluk sockeye 

 salmon runs are divided into many races. It is 

 unfortunate that this was not recognized earlier. 

 It is also unfortunate that while spawning 

 sockeye were noted in the Karluk River and 

 the upstream movement of fry was noted, that 

 the Karluk River spawning races have not been 



studied. So far as we know the observations of 

 Walker (1954)-* were the first detailed observa- 

 tions of the upstream movement of fry through 

 the weir and of the injuries sustained in that 

 .struggle. However, soon after those observa- 

 tions were made Bevan and Walker shifted 

 from studying sockeye salmon to studying pink 

 salmon, so they did not continue working on the 

 Karluk River spawning or on the movements 

 of the young sockeye salmon. 



In repeating his disbelief in the existence of 

 the races in the Karluk sockeye salmon as well 

 as his recommendation of added protection 

 of the midseason runs "because they are more 

 productive," Rounsefell is not only inconsistent 

 but confuses the time the fish enter the river or 

 lake with the time they spawn. Those sockeye 

 salmon that spawn in the side streams above 

 the lake move up the river and spawn in their 

 special spawning areas after a delay of several 

 weeks in the lake. Karluk River spawners, 

 however, wait in the river while others move 

 into Karluk Lake and rest there until they are 

 ready for spawning; consequently the average 

 time between their passage and spawning is 

 shorter for river spawners than for those which 

 spawn in tributary streams. The movement of 

 fish out of the lake and into the river noted by 

 Bevan (1951)'' was not a single observation 

 but has been seen several times. Since the 



' College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, 

 WA 98195. 



- Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, 

 University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. 



^ Card, R., and B. Drucker. 1972. Differentiation and 

 cause of decline of sockeye salmon of the Karluk River 

 system, Alaska. Unpubl. manuscr. Auke Bay Fish. Lab., 

 Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Auke Bay, AK 99821. 



Manuscript accepted March 1973. 



FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 7L NO. 3, 1973. 



■• Walker, C. E. 1954. The red salmon smolt migration 

 at Karluk Lake, 1954. Unpubl. manuscr. Univ. Wash., 

 Fish Res. Inst., Seattle, WA 98195. 



■'■ Bevan. D. E. 1951. Karluk Lake stream surveys. 1948- 

 1951. Unpubl. manuscr. Kodiak Isl. Res. Group, Univ. 

 Wash. Univ. Wash., Fish. Res. Inst., Seattle, WA 98195. 



661 



