W TAGGING SITES 



BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICTS 



~ ~ OPEN TO FISHING 



■■ FISHING DISTRICT TAG RECOVERIES 



\yy/^ ESCAPEMENT TAG OBSERVATIONS 



RECOVERY AREA 



Figure 14. — Distribution of tags recovered in catch (commercial fishery) and observed in the escapements from sockeye salmon 

 released at 10 tagging sites in Nushagak and Naknek-Kvichak districts (inshore area) in 1956. 



of different ocean age was not serious enough to pre- 

 vent interpretation of the distribution of individual 

 stocks in inner Bristol Bay. 



A second assumption is that the proportion of each 

 stock at a given tagging location remained essentially 

 the same throughout the duration of the sockeye 

 salmon run into Bristol Bay. This assumption is 

 necessary because I have grouped the recoveries from 

 all laggings at each site (regardless of the date when 

 the fish were tagged) so that I would have enough tags 

 for analysis, particularly in 1955, 1956, and 1959. 



In most years and at most tagging sites, fish were 

 tagged during the 2-wk period when sockeye salmon 

 runs to each fishing district reached their maximum 



intensity. Therefore, I consider the apparent distribu- 

 tion of individual sockeye salmon stocks in inner 

 Bristol Bay resulting from my analysis to represent 

 the major portion of the run to each district. 



A third assumption made in analyzing the tagging 

 data is that tagged fish recaptured in each district had 

 an equal likelihood of being reported to investigators. 

 There was no reason to expect a variation in reports 

 from fishermen in each district of the tagged fish cap- 

 tured and therefore no reason to question the validity 

 of this assumption. 



The final assumption is that each tagged fish in the 

 escapement had an equal likelihood of being obser\'ed 

 and identified as to its location of tagging. It was 



14 



