proaches are studded with traps, some with leads 3,500 

 feet long, and sometimes so interlaced that at a distance 

 the channel appears completely blocked, and it hardly 

 seems possible for a fish to pass." Dahlberg (1968) pre- 

 sented figures showing the location of traps fished in 

 Chignik Lagoon during 1899 and 1902. 



Because there is some question as to the effectiveness 

 of the older types of gear, I calculated fishing effort from 

 the data on gear (Table 2) and catch data. The unit of ef- 

 fort chosen was the trap-day, i.e., the number of traps 

 fished, which yields the total trap days in season i. Total 

 trap catch in season i divided by total trap days within 

 season i yields catch per unit of effort.' 



The fishing effort from 1905 to 1909 was low and t}ie 

 catch of sockeye salmon per unit of effort (CPUE) was 

 exceedingly high (Fig. 4). The sharp drop in the CPUE 



Figure 4. — Trends in fishing effort (solid line) and catch (dotted 

 line) of sockeye salmon per unit of effort at Chignik, 1900-66. 



and the concomitant rise in units of gear between 1909 

 and 1913 indicate "keen competition" between com- 

 panies during this period (Rich and Ball 1930). The 

 agreement in 1914 to equally divide the catch among the 

 three companies brought about much more efficient con- 

 duct of the fishery; however, its intensity was to no ex- 

 tent reduced in later years (Rich and Ball 1930), e.g., in 

 1922 more than 75% of the run was harvested (Alaska 

 Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries 1922).'° While it appears 

 from Figure 4 that the CPUE may have risen during the 

 period 1950-65, this may be due to a change in the effi- 



'Since beach seines gradually replaced traps over the years (Fig. 3, 

 Table 2), I chose to convert the effort by gill nets and seines to trap effort 

 in order to make all the fishing effort data comparable between years. I 

 calculated relative fishing powers, by gear type, from the percentage of 

 the catch of each type of gear and the number of units of each type of gear 

 operating concurrently. I found that on the average, one trap was the 

 equivalent of 5.9 beach seines or 26.2 gill nets. These figures are to be 

 used with caution since the selectivity of trap sites and the efficiency of 

 beach seines used during the period 1940 to 1954 and those used in the 

 1970's are probably not the same. However, these relative fishing powers 

 can be used for gross comparisons of fishing effort. 



'"The data for 1917 to 1950 were taken from the publication series 

 Alaska Fishery and Fur-Seal Industries. This series was published an- 

 nually as appendices to the Report of Commission of Fisheries until 1940. 

 Beginning in that year, they were published in the U.S. Fish and Wild- 

 life Service's Statistical Digest Series. 



ciency or catchability of the newer gear. With the intro- 

 duction of powered seine blocks, synthetic fiber nets, and 

 modem seine boats in recent years, one would expect 

 greater efficiency per unit of gear. 



Fishing regulations. — There was little, if any, 

 enforcement of fishery regulations in the Chignik fishery 

 before 1922. There were no statutory regulations prior to 

 1895, only a weekly closure of 30 h for the period 1895- 

 1906, and one of 36 h for 1907-40 (Table 2). Cooley (1963) 

 pointed out that starting in 1892 the U.S. Fish Commis- 

 sion had funds to support only one inspector and an as- 

 sistant for the enforcement of fishing regulations in the 

 entire territory of Alaska. They were forced to depend on 

 industry transportation to make their rounds during the 

 3-mo season. 



A fish-counting weir was first established in Chignik 

 River in 1922 by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. The weir 

 has not been installed every year since that time, but a 

 management agent has been on duty to check the fishing 

 area during closed periods. However, inspection of Fig- 

 ure 2 shows that until 1925 there had never been <40 

 days of fishing during the season. In 1924, with the pas- 

 sage of the White Act," which required 50% escapement 

 in streams where counting weirs were maintained, the 

 fishery was subjected to periodic closures by the manage- 

 ment agent. In 1925 it was required that the minimum 

 annual escapement at Chignik be set at 1 million fish 

 (Rich and Ball 1930). This requirement was met nearly 

 every year until 1938. Management of the Chignik 

 fishery was based mainly on the rule of 50% escapement 

 and 50% catch under the White Act until the time of its 

 repeal in 1957.' In recent yesu-s target escapements esti- 

 mated from spawner-retum relationships have been used 

 as management guidelines to secure adequate spawning 

 densities (Dahlberg 1973). 



Catch trend. — The general trend of catch declining 

 not long after the inception of the fishery is typical of 

 many other salmon fisheries in Alaska (Fig. 5). Catches 



'Public Law 204, 68th Congress, 1924 (Cooley 1963). 

 ^Public Law 296. 85th Congress. 1957. 



1B95 1900 OS 10 IS 20 2S 30 35 1*0 45 50 55 60 65 

 YEAR 



Figure .i. — Commercial catches of sockeye salmon at Chignik, 1895- 

 1966; unsmoothed curve (broken line) and curve smoothed by a 

 moving average of 5 (solid line). 



