Table 3 . —Distribution of 1959 recoveries from days of tagging, Kvlchak River system 



Recoveries in part or in whole knovm to be from per3onal-use fisheries. 

 = Does not include 22 tags recovered at or below Igiuglg and 18 recovered after analysis was completed. 



The evaluation of the data shown on the three 

 maps is necessarily subjective, and it is sug- 

 gested that the reader consider each year's 

 data in two steps as follows: First, compare 

 the distribution at each recovery point against 

 the composite. Distributions that contrast 

 with the composite may reflect independent 

 timing and may be segregated. To consider 

 such distributions further, and because cer- 

 tain composites are heavily weighted from 

 principal recovery points a second step is 

 necessary. Second, therefore, take particular 

 distributions that are like the composites and 

 compare them with distributions which have 

 suggested a segregated spawning group. If 

 groups appear to contrast both with the com- 

 posite and with distributions like the composite, 

 then segregation appears likely. 



Using this two-step analysis, it is pos- 

 sible to consider the likelihood of segre- 

 gated groups in the 3 years with tagging 

 data. 



In 1957 the same number of fish were 

 tagged in each experiment (table 4). Figure 6 

 shows that approximately the same number of 

 recoveries were derived from each composite. 

 Comparing the individual points with this, 

 Kijik Lake (No. 30) is clearly contrasted. 

 Newhalen-Nondalton (No. 24) and Gibraltar 

 (No. 3) are both somewhat in contrast. All 

 other recovery points conform to the pattern 

 or are too poorly represented to be significant. 

 The three points in contrast with the composite 

 also appear to contrast with other particular 

 recovery points. 



13 



