of 1961-brood cliinook saliiiDii in the fisheries 

 sampled. 



14. If survival of marked relative to unmarked 

 fish was GO or 100 percent rather than the assmned 

 70 percent, then the estimated catch of hatchery 

 fisli would have been 3;>0,46r) or 209,672, respec- 

 tively. The latter value is considered too low: 

 it is not likely that the survival of marked fish ex- 

 ceeded 70 percent of the sur\-ival of unmarked fish. 



15. The estimated cost of rearing the fall 

 chinook salmon of the 1961 brood released from 

 the study hatcheries was $831,522. The estimated 

 net value to the fishermen of the catch of these 

 fish was $1,917,003. The benefit to cost ratio was, 

 therefore, 2.3 :1. 



16. The estimated total value of the catch of fall 

 chinook salmon of 1961 brood that originated 

 from all Columbia I\i\er hatcheries (including 

 five hatcheries not participating in the marking 

 exi)eriment) was $2,05.').O00. 



17. We considered that the estimated catch of 

 hatchery fish, and, therefore, the value and l)enefit- 

 ratio, is minimum. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



^lany agencies and indi\iduals assisted us. The 

 Canadian Government financed and conducted an 

 excellent program of mark sampling in the Brit- 

 ish Columbia fisheries. Without such sampling we 

 would have been seriously handicapped. The S'.ate 

 fishery agencies provided research and manage- 

 ment personnel and necessary catch data. Charles 

 O. Junge. Jr., Fish (\immission of Oregon, and 

 Keynold A. Fredin, Bureau of ('onnnercial Fish- 

 eries, developed the original design of the hat(diery 

 evaluation study. Harold Godfrey, Fisheries Re- 

 search Board of Canada: Gary Finger, Alaska 

 Department of Fish and Game: Fmanuel A. Le- 

 Mier, Richard E. NoI)le, and Harry Senn, Wash- 

 ington Department of Fisheries; Fred E. Locke, 

 Oregon Game Commission: Ernest R. Jeffries, 



Earl F. Pulford. Roy E. Sams, and R.obert E. 

 Loetfel, Fish Connnission of Oregon: Harlan E. 

 Johnson, Roger Burrows, Robert Combs, Joseph 

 P^lliot, and Warner (i. Taylor, Bureau of Sport 

 Fisheries and Wildlife: Paul T. Jensen, California 

 Fish and Game Department, and the many mem- 

 l)ers of their respective agencies ga\e their time 

 and effort. James A. Crutchfield re\"-iewed the 

 economic section. 



LITERATURE CITED 



Brow.x. William G., Ajmer Sixgii, and Emery N. Castle. 

 r.l(i4. All econiimie evaluation of the Oregon salmon 

 and steelhfud .sport fishery. Oreg. State Univ., 

 Oreg. Agr. Sta.. Tech. I'.iill, Ts. 47 pp. 

 Ci.KAVKR, Frederick C. 



IIKJ". The effects of ocean fishing upon the Colnnibia 

 River stocks of fall chinook salmon. Ph.D. thesis, 

 Univ. Wash., Seattle. l.'iO pp. [Typewritten.] 

 Com key, H.. D. Worlu.xd, and H. Bilto.v. 



I'.MJS. Results of some tests conducted to examine the 



efficiency of aging chinook salmon {Oncorhiinchus 



i.ili(tinjtKchu) from their scales. .7. Fish, Res. 



Bd. Can. I In press.] 



Groves, Ala.n B.. Gerai.ii B. Colli.xs. and I'arkkr S. 



Trefethex. 



IOCS. Roles of olfaction and vision in choice of 

 spawning site by homing adult chinook salmon 

 iOncorhynckux tslniH-ytschu) . J. Fish. Res. Bd. 

 Can. 2.J : .StiT-STC. 

 Hewitt. George S.. and Roger E. Burrows. 



104.S. Improved method for enumerating hati-hery 

 fish populations. Progr. Fi.sh-Cult. lOd): iV27. 



IXTERX.VTIONAL XORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES COM.MISSKIX. 



10.52-66. Statistical yearbook [19.">2-0U]. Int. N. 

 Pac. Fish. Comm.. Vancouver. Brit. Columliia. 

 Various pagination. 

 PiLFORD. Earl F. 



1"J64. Analysis of average-weight sampling of com- 

 mercial catches of Columbia River chinook salmon. 

 Fish Comm. Oreg., Re.s. Briefs 10(1) : 5-1.5. 

 W.\SHiNGTO?r State Department of Fisheries. 



1964. 1964 annual report. Wash. State Dep. Fish., 

 Olympia, 233 pp. 

 Weber. Dot-glas. and George .T. Ridgway. 



10(17. Marking Pacific salmon with tetracycline anti- 

 biotics. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 24: S49-86.5. 



U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



