by assuming that these fish were traveling through 

 the district. Had these fish remained in the area, 

 recoveries should have been as great as those 

 from experiments between July 10 and 20, be- 

 cause fish would have been available to the fishery 

 for a longer period. 



The increase in returns during early July 

 and the high rate of recoveries during mid-July 

 are explainedby the entrance of increasing num- 

 bers of pink salmon of local origin into the fish- 

 ery. These for the mostpart are available to the 

 fishery for a longer time. The decrease in re- 

 turns at the end of July and early in August is due 

 to the fact that chances for recapture were limit- 

 ed by the ending of the fishing season on August 5. 

 Stormy weather at this time hampered fishing ac- 

 tivity, and pink salmon began to enter streams 

 of the district, further reducing recovery. 



2. Destinations of tagged pink salmon - 

 The low rate of recovery from the early tagging 

 experiments needs additional explanation before 

 it can be completely accepted as evidence of 

 traveling fish. The explanation lies in the desti- 

 nation of the tagged fish. Pink salmon that were 



tagged during June and early July were first re- 

 captured near the tagging sites and later at the 

 following widely divergent points along the Bering 

 Sea Coast: Makushin Bay and Dutch Harbor on 

 Unalaska Island, Kvichak and Nushagak Bays in 

 Bristol Bay, the Kanektok River which enters 

 Kuskokwim Bay, the Yukon River, an unnamed 

 creek near Nome in Norton Sound, and the Una- 

 lakleet, Shaktoolik, and Koyuk Rivers, which 

 enter Norton Sound. Three pink salmon were also 

 captured in the Kodiak Island area. The scat- 

 tered recoveries from Nushagak Bay and north, 

 which comprise a major portion of the low total 

 returnfromthe early experiments, are extremely 

 significant, because no commercial fishing for 

 pink salmon is carried on in the area (except in 

 Nushagak Bay). The chances of tagged fish being 

 recaptured are relatively small. Further, no 

 effort was made to secure returns from this sec- 

 tion of the coast. The small number of local re- 

 coveries from these tagging experiments may 

 repiesentthe first of the local spawners to enter 

 the fishery. But more likely the low recovery 

 rate reflects the rapid movement of fish out of the 

 area. The dispersion of tagged pink salmon to 

 widely separated points is evidence of the broad 



Figure 2. Tagging sites — Alaska Peninsula 

 pink salmon tagging experiments, 1958 



