GROWTH RATE IN PACIFIC .SALMON 17 



\ 



Victoria, B.C., August 2(J, 189^7, p. 4). In his report of 1913, JVIr. Babeock called 

 attention 'to the opinion of Mr. W. E. Anderson, salmon canner of Quathiaski, that 

 the fish caught at Deepwater bay, in the years of the b'g run on the Fraser river, 

 were Fraser river fish. In 1915, Dr. C. li. Gilbert examined 198 fish from Deep- 

 water bay and found they were similar in length and in scale characteristics to 

 those from the Fraser river. Hence he, concluded that this run by the northern 

 route was not confined to the years of the big run on the Fraser river. Thus Pro- 

 fessor Prince's expert view has been fully confirmed. Since 1917 was a year in the 

 quadrennial series, known as the years of 1.he big run, although there was not the 

 usual large run on the Fraser, the examination of the collection from Deepwater 

 bay does not show anything for the ofi^ years, but it does show that for that year 

 at least the identity of the Deepwater bay fish can scarcely be doubted. Taking the 

 growth year by year, the similarity is so marked that it would scarcely be possible to 

 get two batches of such large numbers on different days from either locality to give 

 better agreement in any respect. 



It is fortunate Jhat with the fish from these three localities that show unmistaken 

 identity, it is possible to compare the fish that enter Sauch-en-auch creek, since these, 

 also entering the strait of (ieorgia, show a decided departure in type, or rather in 

 absolute rate of growth, as the rate of growth for each year, relative to that of the 

 preceding year, is much similar to that of the Fraser river type. 



In general apix^arance the Sauch-en-auch sockeye seem quite different to the 

 Fraser river fish but doubtless much of this is due to the smaller size. A collection of 

 undersized Fraser river fish might have much the same api)earance. Although they are 

 small, the flesh in the can, is not readily distinguished from that of the Fraser river 

 sockeye. According to Mr. W., E. Anderson of Quathiaski, the sockeye that are caught 

 in Loughborough inlet and Philips arm, are of the same type. It would appear there- 

 fore, that the fish that pass frtnn Johnstone strait through Discovery passage, are of 

 the Fraser river type, while those that are diverted from this course to pass through 

 Chancellor channel are of somewhat similar type but they are of an undersized race, 

 that do not get as far south as the Fraser river. Instead they pass up Loughborough 

 inlet and Philips arm while some of them get as far south as Sauch-en-auch creek. 

 According to Mr. Anderson, in earlier years the Indians had a narrow portion of this 

 pass entirely staked so that all larger fish were caught and only the smaller ones got* 

 through. This may account for the small race of fish, for even if this selection went 

 'on for only four years, and it may have done so for a much longer period, there would 

 be a possibility at least, that the majority of the large sized fish of the run would be 

 eliminated. Since, occasionally, a larger fish is found among the others, there is all 

 the greater probability for such an explanation. There were three of those in the four 

 year class of the one year stream type in the collection from 'Sauch-en-auch creek, each 

 20 inches long, the average growth of which in the four .vears, was 3.7, 8.0, 7.2, and 3.1 

 inches respectively, very closely coinciding with the average from the other three locali- 

 ties. 



If this run of sockeye, passing through Chancellor channel or other adjacent chan- 

 nels, was originally of the Fraser river type, a cause for the diversion of this run from 

 the main Fraser river run in the first place is not readily surmised or a reason for their 

 passage up these inlets and creeks instead of meeting with the others to move up the 

 Fraser river, although, to be sure, at the south end of the strait of Georgia, the I'un 

 divides to pass through Haro and Eosario straits and the intervening channels, and 

 some pass up the smaller rivers into the State of Washington. 



In making comparison of the 1917 sockeye with those of 1916, a direct basis can 

 only be obtained in the Fraser river sockeye of that year, since none of the 1917 socl^eye 

 were of the same general type as the Kivers inlet sockeye, and the Rivers inlet sockeye 

 were compared with the Fraser river fish in the previous paper. 



Comparing the Fraser river sockeye in the two year, is is evident that there are 

 the same three types — the two year stream, the one year stream and the sea, but the six 



79550—2 



