54 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



Table 2 gives, in detail, the catch of each species of salmon in each region of 

 Bristol Bay and the total of each species for the whole of Bristol Bay. Four quite 

 distinct districts are recognized in the Bristol Bay region, known by the name of the 

 chief river in each district. The Nushagak district includes several important 

 streams flowing into Nushagak Bay — the Nushagak, Igushik, Wood, and Snake 

 Rivers. The Kvichak district includes, besides the Kvichak, the Naknek River and 

 several smaller streams, which are virtually tributary to the Kvichak. The Egegik 

 and Ugashik Rivers are distinct. The data for the years 1893 to 1903, taken from the 

 reports of special agents of the Treasury Department, do not give the locality of 

 capture but only the location of the cannery where the fish were packed. Although 

 doubtless there is some danger of confusion in assuming that the fish canned in any 

 one of the four districts of Bristol Bay were captured in that same district, we believe 

 that the confusion is not likely to be serious and, therefore, have included the figures 

 in our tables. 



It is quite apparent, from a comparison of the catch figures with those for the 

 pack, that in many cases the figures for the catch have been derived from those of the 

 pack by multiplying the number of cases by a factor assumed to represent the number 

 of fish per case. This is a source of some error, especially in the earlier data; but as 

 most of the companies keep faii-ly reliable records of the number of fish per case the 

 data are considered adequate for such analysis as we have made. 



No records of the amount of gear used are available until 1904. Without doubt 

 these records are much less satisfactory than are the records of the catch of fish and 

 must be used with the greatest care. The records of gUl nets in Bristol Bay seems 

 especially unsatisfactory, as the records indicate a decided change in the average 

 length of gill net during the history of the fishery. For several years the standard 

 length has been 200 fathoms, but in former years the standard length was only about 

 100 fathoms. Again, m most instances the number of gill nets recorded in the state- 

 ments submitted by the companies is apparently a record of the total number of gUl 

 nets on hand for the season and does not state the number of nets actually fished. 

 No doubt the number of gill nets on hand bears a fairly definite and constant ratio 

 to the number fished, but this is certainly a possible source of serious error. Further- 

 more, there are two kinds of gill nets in common use — a large-meshed net used for 

 king salmon and a small-meshed net used primarily for reds. Some of the companies 

 show the number of nets of each kind, while others do not segregate them, although 

 there is no reason to suppose that they have not operated the same sort of gear. In 

 spite of these and other weaknesses we have thought best to include in these tables 

 the number of nets and traps operated, although we have not given the number of 

 fathoms of nets used, as in some of the later tables. These data will serve to give 

 some measure, however roughly, of the gross changes in the intensity of fishing, and 

 even a rough measure of this is better than none. 



