30 MIGRATION OF ADULT SOCKEYE SALMON. 
miralty Straits, chiefly between Admiralty Bay and Double Bluff. 
There are also a few in Hood Canal and that part of the Sound ex- 
tending south past Seattle, Saratoga Passage, and Padilla Bay. The 
ones listed above are those of chief concern here. 
Little if any correlatton between the number of traps and the 
number of marked fish taken in any particular region can be shown. 
In Table 19 the six regions from which most of the returns came 
have been arranged in the order of the number of traps located in 
each. Then is given, for each region, the percentages of fish marked 
at stations A and B which were recaptured in the respective regions. 
The other stations were not similarly treated, since only from these 
two did the fish pass through nearly allregions. Although no corre- 
lation is apparent here we would expect such a correlation to appear 
if sufficient data were available. 
TABLE 19.—NUMBER OF TRAPS IN VARIOUS REGIONS AND NUMBER OF MARKED FISH 
TAKEN IN THOSE REGIONS. 




Percentage of 
returns from 
Region. Number stations— 
of traps. 
AX. | B. 
| | 
Va% «Bobeiae Pons ae ecu. be Mae see Sa een Ae ee te ces ie | 11 3-85 4.18 
T. MEEL DD bE. PE ROReN Ot TED, SIP ROR RS Fae 80 ES) aie | 14 1.44 5.86 
Dae IN AEE ito Se ae PES ws aoe ce ee ee ee os. ee eee 20 1.92 3.46 
Ge wssepiac ae dics wap Se wanes sheen ee eRe Sr iae ee eee eee See eae Seema 26 2.76 2.99 
De Fc Lar EES sas SE Ee ee SS eee 39 1.56 5. 86 
Bee og ate Sl cdos ese Sue Sen Seek ee tie eee tee a ese oa eee Reet emt 40 3.00 6.69 
In a few instances a retrograde migration has apparently taken 
place, and the fish have traveled away from rather than toward 
the mouth of the Fraser River. It is possible that faulty data may 
- account for this, especially in such extreme cases as those fish marked 
at station D and reported taken in regions 1 and 2; or it may be that 
these are not Fraser River fish, but are sockeyes bound for some 
other stream. 
Rate or Mieration.—A number of the preceding tables give, 
variously grouped, the average number of days required to pass 
from each marking station to each region. Tables 5,7, 9,11, and 13 
show the total range of variation in this regard for each station, and 
the general averages for each station are shown in Table 16. From 
the last-mentioned table it is apparent that, as would be expected, 
the time en route usually increases as the distance between the 
station and the regions where the fish were recovered increases. 
Those fish which were captured in the same region in which they 
were marked—such, for instance, as were marked at station B and 
recovered from region 1—have evidently been slow to resume the 
migration after the marking. Forty-nine specimens marked at 
station B were taken in region 1 after being out an average of 2.4 
days. From station C, 34 specimens were taken in region 2 after an 
interval of 3.8 days. Eleven specimens from station D were taken 
in region 7 after an average of 3.3 days, and 27 specimens from 
station E were taken in region 9 after 5.8 days. It seems quite clear 
