PKINCE WILLIAM SOUND, COPPER AND BERING RIVER SALMON STATISTICS 205 
The coho fishery in this locality is relatively unimportant; and the catch each 
year was probably made incidental to fishing for other species, especially pinks, and 
has no value as indicating the extent of the coho runs. This situation is true also in 
respect to the chum fishery as this species, like the others, was taken in general fish- 
ing for all kinds of salmon, largely by traps. The catch of chums at Chenega dropped 
from 8,527 in 1918 to 1,341 in 1919, or at about the same ratio as the catches of other 
species declined, indicating that the fishing effort was less. The fluctuations in catch 
from 1918 to 1924 correspond with those of the pink salmon in the same years, and 
the increase after 1924 was equally rapid. The trend of the catch is unmistakably 
upward in approximately the same ratio as the rise in the trend of the pink-salmon 
catches. All of these facts indicate a close relationship between the catches of chums 
and pinks which is due, undoubtedly, to the fact that chums are taken chiefly inci- 
dental to the taking of pinks. 
The pink-salmon catch at Chenega exceeded that in any other locality in the 
Knight Island Passage district, which makes Chenega one of the most important 
districts of the sound. It has increased steadily in each even year from 1918 to 1926. 
Disregarding the season of 1921, the odd years have also shown a progressive increase 
in production until the catch in 1927 was 412,498, about 7,000 less than the catch in 
1926 — the best the locality had known. These facts show conclusively an upward 
trend of the fishery and that the run in the off year of 1927 was abnormally large 
without apparent cause. A similar unexpected increase in the catch of pink salmon 
in 1927 was noted in other districts and was discussed in Part II of this series (pp. 
709 and 710). 
Chenega has produced a few thousand red salmon every season from 1918 to 
1927. As stated above, this stream was in early years confused with Eshamy and 
until the installation of traps along the east coast of Chenega Island all salmon 
reported as coming from Chenega undoubtedly were taken at Eshamy. It may be 
assumed safely, moreover, that the red salmon taken in the traps along Chenega 
Island since . 1918 were Eshamy fish and that their migration route was northward 
through Knight Island Passage. 
King salmon have not been reported from Chenega since 1920. Beginning in 
1918, catches were made in three years, a total of 211 fish being taken. 
Drier Bay . — Scattered catches of coho, chum, and red salmon were made in this 
bay, but its importance as a fishing locality rests chiefly in the production of pinks. 
Only one small catch of that species was made before 1918; but since then the catches 
have increased, though somewhat irregularly, and culminated in a catch of 119,678 
pinks in 1924. This comparatively large catch gave prominence to the locality as a 
producer of pinks, but so few seasons for which data are available in this review have 
since elapsed that the future of the district remains uncertain. In 1926 and 1927, 
the catches were 48,133 and 41,044, respectively, which may be regarded as very 
good yields for a small district having only a few small streams. 
Eshamy Bay and Lagoon . 4 — From 1904, the year in which the Government began 
the systematic collection of fishery statistics of Alaska, the record of catches in this 
locality is unbroken through 24 years. Production has been consistently good, 
considering that the streams are few and small and that over-fishing was the rule 
rather than the exception for years. Exclusive of 1921, no serious drop in production 
of any species occurred until 1924. The reduced production in 1924 and subsequent 
* Including also catches reported from Rubber boot Creek, located 
the northern entrance to Eshamy Bay. 
