FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL 71, NO. 3 



They quote from the Karluk River report of 

 Gilbert and Rich (1927) a statement by Rich, 



.... The spawning escapement [of 1926] was the 

 best in many years, and in all probability was the best 

 that has ever been observed by the few white men who 

 have visited the lake. 



They then append the following footnote, 



This was certainly a rhetorical statement with little 

 foundation other than Rich's impression of a "big" run. 



Actually Van Cleve and Bevan are wrong. 

 The total run of 1926 was exceeded only by 

 those of 1901 and 1906. The escapement in 

 1926 of over 2V2 million sockeye salmon was 

 certainly larger than in either of the two earlier 

 years. In 1901 for instance the egg take for the 

 Karluk hatchery was less than in all but 7 of 

 the 20 yr the hatchery operated. They admit 

 themselves that despite regulations to the con- 

 trary fishermen were still operating in the river 

 itself as late as 1899, and were not officially 

 excluded from the lagoon until 1918. Further- 

 more, there is no record of anyone visiting 

 Karluk Lake in either 1901 or 1906. 



Van Cleve and Bevan have devoted far too 

 much space to trying to prove that my assump- 

 tion of a 35% escapement before installation 

 of a counting weir in 1921 is much too conser- 

 vative, apparently in order to substantiate their 

 theory of one large seasonal run overfished in 

 the center. Yet there are no records in existence 

 by which one can make a truly sound estimate 

 and the exact proportion is of little consequence. 

 When one considers, however, the numerous 

 closed fishing seasons that had to be imposed 

 from time to time each year after 1921 in order 

 to achieve a 50% escapement through the weir 

 it is wholly unreasonable to expect more than 

 a 35% escapement in the earlier years of almost 

 unrestricted fishing in the river and the lagoon. 

 They go so far as to credit Gilbert and Rich 

 (1927) as supporting their view (despite their 

 earlier reflections on the validity of Rich's 

 statements), saying, 



A careful reading of Gilbert and Rich (1927) also 

 shows that they felt that Rutter's estimate of the total 

 number that spawned in Moraine Creek in 1903 was 

 about one-half as large as the true figure. 



Van Cleve and Bevan perhaps failed to note 

 that Rutter kept a careful count of spawners 

 in Moraine Creek over a full month from 5 

 August to 5 September. Rutter also stated that 

 in 1903 the spawning season was practically 

 over early in September. Far from supporting 

 the view of Van Cleve and Bevan, Rich says, 



In 1926 Moraine Creek was well seeded by this early 

 run and was also used extensively by the later runs — 

 those that spawned in the early part of August, at the 

 same time Rutter's observations were made. ... It is 

 quite probable that conditions were vastly different 

 in 1903 than in 1926, and that the early escapement 

 was very much smaller. Certainly, if Moraine Creek 

 in 1903 had received anything like the early spawning 

 run it had in 1926 the remains of the dead fish would 

 have attracted the attention of a well-trained observer 

 such as Mr. Rutter. 



In this connection it should be noted that Van 

 Cleve and Bevan also use Rutter's statement 

 (Chamberlain, 1907) to prove that the early 

 years had only one peak in the runs. However, 

 Rutter actually said. 



The Karluk is said similarly to have two runs, one 



maximum about the last of June and one the first of 



August, but this was not true in 1903 when the river 

 was under study. 



It is thus quite clear that Rutter had been well 

 informed on the usual two runs, the first one 

 being the larger. The use of what happened in 

 only one year (1903) to prove the usual non- 

 existence of a large early run is poor extrapola- 

 tion on the part of Van Cleve and Bevan in 

 my opinion. 



It should be noted that Van Cleve and Bevan 

 in claiming to believe my admittedly rough as- 

 sumption of a 35% escapement during the early 

 years of the fishery is too conservative, base 

 "their argument partially on the lower return 

 per spawner in the 1929-48 period as contrasted 

 with the earlier period. Nevertheless they have 

 not challenged my calculations (Rounsefell, 1949) 

 showing escapements of sockeye salmon in the 

 Fraser River from 1894 to 1921 as amounting 

 to only 18% of the runs (only 6% in the heavily 

 fished war year of 1917), and its increase to 

 27.4% of the run in the 1922-45 period of stricter 

 law enforcement and longer closed seasons. 



Concerning their theory that in the earlier 



656 



