136 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
are only of relative value, however, as indeed are the measurements of length in this 
preliminary test, and no calculations are to be based on either set of measurements. 
DISCUSSION OF TECHNIQUE. 
It should be remembered that the procedure related here was done on the first 
and only attempt to tag fish in the migration run up the Columbia River. The details 
are given rather fully for the guidance of those who may in the future try this or similar 
experiments. The technique in handling can be improved as regards two factors; first 
in the convenience of arrangements for increasing the speed of dipping, measuring, 
and tagging the fish; second, in the skill which comes with continued handling which will 
reduce the chances of local injury and of asphyxiation of the fish. 
The fishes suffer no physical injury up to the point where the hole is punched in the 
tail to receive the button. Careless or inexperienced handling, however, may lead to 
some injury. For example, if the meshes of the dip net are too large it requires care 
lest the fins be split or a gill torn in removing the fish from it. These injuries can be 
reduced by care and skill, as has just been stated. Silver salmon will also lose scales 
in struggling unless they are swung free of the operator’s body. For example, if a sil- 
ver salmon should begin to struggle just as it is swung into the arms of the operator 
and the operator should undertake to hold it firmly, a number of scales would almost 
invariably be lost. But if the fish be quickly swung by the tail free of the operator’s 
body until the struggles cease no injury will be done. 
Other fins, such as the dorsal or pectorals, might better have been tagged than the 
tail fin. The objection can be legitimately raised that, since the tail is the most active 
organ, it would be better to run no risk of its injury, even though the injury were slight, 
as in this experiment. On the whole, I am of the opinion that this is a well-founded objec- 
tion. If the button is inserted a little too near the base of the tail, there will be some 
delay in the healing of the wound. Most of my fish were reported as retaken in fine 
condition, but some that were taken at The Dalles, Oreg., and had therefore made the 
longest runs, were reported to have buttons that had become very loose.® The holes 
for the insertion of the buttons had not healed — in fact, had grown larger. The dorsal 
fin, or even the adipose fin, are possible points that might prove more advantageous for 
the insertion of the marker. The possibility of tearing out the button in gill nets and 
the like must always be given consideration in making a choice of points for marking. 
As for the tag or marker itself, various criticisms have or may be offered regarding 
it — that it is too large, that it is too heavy, that it may frighten the fish, since it is bright 
and shining, that “it may act to the fish like the proverbial tin can to a dog’s tail.” 
All of these have little basis in fact and reason. Considered in relation to the size and 
a ‘'[On August the 25] a 35-pound chinook salmon, in the very best of condition, button snugly in place without any 
sign of sore, was caught by seine about 15 miles upstream (from the state trap) in the Columbia River, in the main ship 
channel opposite Altoona, Wash.” — Wm. H. Bailey, of the Miller’s Sands Fishing Company, of Altoona, Wash. 
“We got a steelhead to-day. No. 98. * * * This button wears a big hole in the tail, large enough almost to 
drop out.” — Frank A. Seufert, The Dalles, Oreg., under date of October 5, 1908. 
“I inclose herewith serial tag No. 87, taken from a io-pound silver salmon on the 10th of October, caught by 
Mr. Ed. Le Roy in a trap at the head of Cottonwood Island. Mr. Le Roy states that the fish was in first-class condition 
when taken.” — H. C. McAllister, master fish warden of Oregon. 
