FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 85, NO. 1 



Table 4.— Comparisons of estimated percentage stock group contributions to May 

 troll fisheries of 1982 and 1983 within sampling areas 1 and 4 and 1 through 4. 



'Data from Miller et al. 1983. 



^Values In parentheses designate number of fish sampled. 



ing considerable dissimilarity as well as some 

 consistency. A much larger proportion of tules and 

 a correspondingly smaller contribution of Califor- 

 nia fish was seen in 1982 in sampling areas 1 

 through 4. 



The comparisons of estimates within sampling 

 areas 1 and 4 differed between both sampling areas 

 and years. For each year, estimates within sampling 

 area 1 were similar to the estimates based on the 

 total sample. Estimates from sampling area 4 were 

 consistent with those of the total sample but with 

 a larger proportion of California fish estimated in 

 1983 and substantially larger Puget Sound-Canadian 

 stock group and smaller tule estimates. These obser- 

 vations are consistent with the location of sampling 

 area 4 at the southern point of entry for most of the 

 populations destined for Puget Sound and British 

 Columbia, and are reinforced by the high propor- 

 tion of fish estimated for this stock group in sam- 

 pling area 4B. 



The much higher total harvest of the 1982 May 

 troll fishery (73,196; Miller et al. 1983) than in the 

 same fishery for 1983 (40,312) accentuates the dif- 

 ference in numbers of tules taken (approximately 

 56,000 vs. 22,700). 



The numbers of tule group fish returning to the 

 mouth of the Columbia River and to hatcheries (i.e., 

 spawning escapement) were also much lower in 1983 

 (Washington Department of Fisheries 1984'^) and 

 were insufficient to fulfill hatchery requirements. 

 This contrast was attributed to a climatological 

 phenomenon termed "El Niiio" that affected the 

 oceanic distribution and survival of many species 

 beginning in 1983 (Mysak 1986). 



^Washington Department of Fisheries. 1984. Status of fall 

 Chinook stocks in the northern Oregon through Vancouver Island 

 ocean fishing areas. Unpubl. rep., 35 p. Department of Salmon 

 Harvest Management, Washington Department of Fisheries, 115 

 General Administration Building, Olympia, WA 98504. 



DISTRIBUTION AND 

 RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 

 TULES AND UPRIVER BRIGHTS 



The actual and potential value of tule and upriver 

 bright runs in the sampling areas of this study war- 

 rant a more detailed focus on the abundance of these 

 stocks and their subgroups. The great value of tule 

 stocks in ocean fisheries off the Washington coast 

 has been demonstrated from these and other data 

 (e.g., Miller et al. 1983). Although a similar value 

 for upriver brights in either oceanic or river harvests 

 is not yet apparent, it is premature to assign a lesser 

 value to these runs because of geographic and tem- 

 poral limitations of sampling. Indeed, data from 

 coded vdre tags (Table 5) indicate a distinctly differ- 

 ent oceanic distribution of tules and upriver brights. 

 Over half of the recoveries of the tagged fish from 

 the tule stock (Spring Creek) were harvested off the 

 Washington coast. However, only about 5% of the 

 tagged fish from upriver bright stocks were re- 

 covered in this area, with over 90% harvested in 

 waters of Alaska and British Columbia. 



The substantially increased contribution of upriver 

 brights in the late sport fishery (Table 3, Fig. 2) is 

 consistent with a late migratory surge of these fish. 

 Clearly, based on distributions indicated through tag 

 data in Table 5, the upriver brights contribute 

 heavily to fisheries in areas north of those sampled 

 in this study. However, they were estimated at 

 sizable numbers only very late in this study presum- 

 ably enroute through the areas sampled to their 

 spawning grounds. 



The tules and upriver brights have been con- 

 sidered as unit populations to this point. The sub- 

 group data indicate considerable heterogeneity 

 within both groups with regard to time, area, and 

 fishery. Comparisons of the two tule subgroups 

 (Table 3, Fig. 2) indicate a considerable difference 



20 



