58 



DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 



Marking results indicate stocks in these streams are 

 not only the mainstay of California's salmon fishery, 

 but are also important contributors to fisheries north 

 of California. Total ocean landings in 1957 dropped to 

 about half those of 1956, or to about 600,000 fish. 

 Again spawning escapement decreased. Tables 38 and 

 39 in the Appendix illustrate these trends. 



Possible explanations for these decreases are numer- 

 ous. For example, in the ocean, temperature, salinity, 

 and food factors must be considered. Unusually warm 

 coastal waters, higher in salinity than normal, did 

 occur off the coast in 1957. These conditions are not 

 favorable to salmon, and judging by the rather poor 

 condition of fish landed, food \\-as either scarce or 

 salmon could not catch it. 



Conditions inimical to salmon caused by man's popu- 

 lation and industrial gro^\'th could have increased to a 

 point beyond the tolerance of salmon. For example, 

 removal of water for irrigation, industrial, and do- 

 mestic use; removal of gravel from streambeds; pollu- 

 tion of streams by waste disposal, and mining and log- 

 ging debris; blocking access to spa\\ning areas by 

 dams or other barriers. These man-made adversities 

 are additional to age-old ones existing in nature. 



PROGRAM PROPOSED 



Efforts of the department to reorganize and bolster 

 the salmon and steelhead investigations in an attempt 

 to solve the perplexing problems of this critically im- 

 portant fishery were being made at the close of the 

 biennium. 



Responsibility for salmon historically has been di- 

 vided betAven the Inland Fisheries and Marine Re- 

 sources branches. The reorganization plan, as pro- 

 posed by the department, placed the Marine Resources 

 chief in overall responsibility for salmon research and 

 operations. 



Laie model fish screen which prevents salmon and steelhead from stray- 

 ing up irrigation ditch. 



— Fish and Game Photo 



r 



A research analyst heads the program, with a staff 

 of four reporting to him and the Marine Resources 

 chief. The proposal was presented to the State Per- 

 sonnel Board and the Department of Finance for ap- 

 proval at the end of the biennium. 



Simultaneously, the department compiled a list of 

 most urgent problems facing it as the protector of 

 salmon. Here are the items listed, not in order of 

 priority: 



1. Determine necessary water flows for salmon and 

 steelhead passage and spawning in all rivers, in ad- 

 vance of water project construction. Each water proj- 

 ect changes a stream. Water flows must be insured and 

 the department has to know how much to demand. 



2. Develop ways to predict water temperatures that 

 will result from water projects. Will the downstream 

 water be suitable for salmon? 



3. Continue to conduct and improve annual spawn- 

 ing stock inventories for all rivers. Not only must the 

 adequacy of the stock be known, but inventories are 

 essential in justifying fishery facilities (i.e. Nimbus 

 Hatchery). 



4. Determine optimum number of spawners for each 

 stream. Too few fish spell disaster; too many means 

 that the fishermen could have taken more. 



5. Determine production of downstream migrant 

 fry. Determine causes and amount of loss along fresh- 

 water migration route, during brackish water exist- 

 ence, and until time of entry into ocean catch (22-inch 

 king salmon are in their second year of life). Mark- 

 ing experiments have indicated that only 1 percent of 

 the fr_\' survive to be taken by fishermen or to spawn. 

 Of this number, fishermen landed 0.75 percent and 

 0.25 percent escaped to spawn. Causes of this high 

 mortality must be found and corrected insofar as pos- 

 sible. 



6. Determine effect on survival of variations in 

 oceanic conditions. Recent information indicates that 

 catches vary in relation to changes in salinity, tem- 

 perature, and other factors in ocean water masses. 



7. Further measure the effects of logging on salmon 

 and steelhead habitat. More specific data would be 

 helpful in solving this problem. 



8. Test artificial spawning channels. This might be 

 a better alternative to lost spawning areas than hatch- 

 eries—but no one has ever demonstrated their success 

 on a large scale. 



9. Test further the role of artificial propagation in 

 salmon management. This controversial subject has 

 never been settled to everyone's satisfaction. Is it 

 merely an alternative to lost spawning area, or can it 

 really add fish to the catch and at what cost? 



10. Develop a better fish screen program. Determi- 

 nation of needs, development of types needed, priori- 

 ties. Much has been done, but there is a long way to 

 go, especially to expedite installations. 



