FISHERY INDUSTRIES. 33 
120 per cent. At the up-river fields the catch in 1917 was 600 per cent greater than 
in 1914, while there was an increase of 1,000 per cent in gear for the same season. 
These statistics may tell convincingly the story of the over-fishing of the Copper 
River, but should they not, additional evidence of that fact may be obtained from the 
statements of natives and whites living along the Copper River. During the seasons of 
1916 and 1917 these people complained bitterly against the continuance of unrestricted 
commercial fishing in the Copper River, on the ground that they were being de- 
prived of a necessary food supply, and they contended that with the extension of 
activities on the lower river it became more difficult from year to year for them to 
secure a supply of salmon from those sections of the river to which they had access. 
These complaints, whether just or not, must have had some basis for their origin, 
and they, with the rapid expansion of operations on the river, gave rise to an appre- 
hension that the run of salmon could not survive the growing demands which were 
being made upon it, if unlimited fishing were allowed to continue. 
To further inform itself in respect to the depletion of this fishery the Bureau di- 
rected that special investigations be made by some of its agents to determine as far 
as possible the probable escapement of salmon to the spawning grounds. Upon the 
basis of the information thus obtained, and also upon the earnest solicitation of a num- 
ber of the interested salmon packers, the Department announced a hearing to be 
given at Seattle, Wash., on December 14, 1917, for the purpose of considering the 
advisability of providing further protection to the salmon of the Copper River. The 
hearing was held at the appointed time, and was well attended. It resulted in a 
discussion of various suggestions and plans to acccomplish the end in view, all of 
which were given consideration by the Department before the promulgation of the 
order of December 29, 1917. “The order became effective on January 1, 1918. 
The run of salmon to the Copper River in 1918 began about the middle of May. 
During the early part of the season the run struck at Alaganik, Pete Dahl, and other 
sloughs in that vicinity, but as the summer advanced the main movement of the 
salmon into the Copper was through the channels to the eastward around Grass Island 
and Cottonwood Point. The run of kings and reds was exceptionally good during 
May and June. 
In 1918 there were five companies taking salmon from the waters of the Copper 
River delta, operating approximately 130 fishing boats and 50,000 fathoms of gill 
nets, which is about 2,000 fathoms less than the quantity of gear used in the same 
waters in 1917. Four traps were operated near Cape Whitshed, each of which may 
have taken some Copper River salmon. Three were owned by the Carlisle Packing 
Co. and one by the Canoe Pass Packing Co. 
It was fairly well understood before fishing began that the run of salmon to the 
Copper River in 1918 should be large, corresponding to the run in 1914. In compari- 
son with other seasons, the appearance of salmon on the upper fishing grounds of 
the river in 1918 was somewhat later than usual, a fact that may be accounted for by 
the late breaking of winter and the consequent obstruction of many channels by 
ice which had a deterring effect on the movement of the salmon. 
A total of 5,270 fathoms of gill-net web was used in Miles Lake, 4,150 fathoms of 
which belonged to the Abercrombie Packing Co., while the remaining 1,120 fathoms 
were owned by the Northwestern Fisheries and the Canoe Pass Packing companies. 
At Mile 46, R. L. Read operated 150 fathoms of gill nets. The total amount of gear 
in use above the delta was thus 5,420 fathoms of gill nets and 30 dip nets. 
Accurate statistics of the catch of salmon in the delta region of the Copper River 
were not secured until after my arrival at Seattle, as the superintendents of the can- 
neries concerned were averse to giving out such information except through their 
home offices. It may be that some of the companies fishing off the mouth of the Copper 
River did not make a complete segregation of the Copper River fish, but included 
therewith unavoidably some that should be credited to Eyak and Martin Rivers, but 
it is also likely that there was a corresponding error in the opposite direction which 
would offset any inaccuracy along that line. The fishermen were largely to blame 
_ in this matter because they moved from place to place over the delta, fishing where 
they chose without keepingarecord oftheir catch atany pointof operation. Probably 
all salmon taken in the offshore nets and thoseset from the outer sand bars are included 
with the Copper River catch, which vitiates to some slight extent these statistics. 
In summarizing the observations of the season in regard to operations in the delta 
district of the Copper River in 1918, it may be said that approximately 50,000 fathoms 
of gill nets were used by the five companies fishing in those waters. The use of stake 
nets was generally followed on the tide flats; anchored nets were used chiefly in the 
sloughs, although some drift gill net fishing was carried on in the main channels. 
Near the mouth of the larger sloughs there was some congestion of nets, and also along 
the more important channels across the flats, such as Steamboat Slough. It was 
