288 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
seasonal catch, consequently, was smaller than it would have been had the plants 
been able to utilize any fish which they could have taken, and at the same time the 
younger age classes were afforded protection. Furthermore, the curing of herring 
requires much hand labor, and the daily capacity of a saltery was limited to the 
amount of fresh fish which could be handled. Much fishing time was lost impounding 
“feedy ” loads of herring to allow them time to cleanse their intestinal tracts of food 
material (for description of impounding, see Rounsefell, 1930, pp. 231-232). 
The introduction of the reduction units largely removed these limitations placed 
on the amount and size of the fish which could be utilized by the plants. The change 
from a fishery for salting to one for reduction has been gradual, and culminated in 
1928 when the relative proportions of pickling fish in the catch became unusually 
low. This was due partly to the tremendous abundance of the 1926 year class which 
was then entering the catch as 3-year-olds and partly to earlier overfishing, which 
had caused the practical disappearance of the older age groups. The size of these 
3-year-olds made them unsuitable for packing, but their abundance was sufficient 
to maintain a fishery for reduction products. 
The change of interest from pickled herring to fish oil and meal has caused some 
change in the conduct of the fishery. Precious fishing time is no longer wasted 
while small loads of “feedy” fish are impounded. Now impounding is resorted to 
only at times of unusual abundance so as to keep the reduction plants busy during 
a period of scarcity or of weather too stormy for fishing. No size limit for the fish 
to be taken is observed, and fishermen seldom spend much time searching for schools 
of large herring. In operating a reduction plant without salting, the machinery can 
be kept operating constantly without having to wait upon the limitations that are 
necessarily imposed when all of the larger fish must be sorted out for pickling. 2 
Referring again to Figure 12 we find the curve showing the number of boats cor- 
rected to allow for the factors of regulations restricting the fishing season and time 
spent by the boats during the season at grounds other than Prince William Sound. 
From 1918, when the exploitation of this region began on a large scale, until 1922, 
the total catch and the weighted number of boats increased in about relative propor- 
tions. From 1922 until 1928 there was a decrease in total catch in proportion to the 
weighted number of boats fishing (except in 1925). During 1929 and 1930, however, 
a decreased number of boats caught an increased poundage. Apparently, then, 
although there was a decline in abundance beginning in 1923 and continuing through 
1927, the 1926 year class was sufficiently abundant to cause the fishery to approach 
the abundance of earlier years. Since the fishery is drawing almost entirely from 
this year class, however, a decline to former low levels of abundance may be expected 
shortly unless the intensity of the fishery is reduced, or a new abundant year class 
appears. 
CONCLUSIONS 
9 
1. The fishery is highly localized. Over a period of 8 years, 51 per cent of the 
catch was taken in the waters adjacent to Evans Island, 26 per cent in Macleod 
Harbor and Hanning Bay on Montague Island, 14 per cent in a few small bays on 
the southern end of Knight Island, and 7 per cent in the small area from McClure 
Bay to Eshamy Bay (including Main Bay). The whole of the remainder of Prince 
William Sound produced less than 3 per cent of the catch during this period. 
2 During 1929, however, at least one of the plants operated its two boats only on alternate days, since the limited capacity of 
the 2-ton reduction unit would not handle all of the fish which could have been taken. Had the plant suflicient capacity, its pro- 
duction could have been doubled during part of the season. 
