470 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
was reported, a record which has not since been equaled. The catch of both pinks 
and chums fluctuated widely, pinks reaching high peaks in 1911, 1917, and 1923, 
while the catch of chums was especially high in 1912 and again in 1924. In two 
cases the pink-salmon peaks followed a year in which no catch was recorded, and 
in the other case it followed a year in which the catch was less than 10,000. The 
evidence indicates, although not too clearly, that the pinks of this bay were running 
more heavily on the odd years during this period. After 1924 the catch w T as doubt- 
less affected by the closure of the bay east of a line from Inner Point Sophia to Game 
Point and the prohibition of fishing in the head of the bay. 
Pleasant Island, Porpoise Islands, and The Sisters are productive areas in the 
Icy Strait district, affording favorable locations for the operation of traps. The 
catches at these points came from the runs of migrating salmon which were destined 
to the tributaries of Chatham Strait and Lynn Canal, the greater part of the reds, 
kings, and cohos moving northward, while the pinks and chums sought primarily the 
streams to the southward. These and other facts respecting the migrations of salmon 
in southeastern Alaska have been shown in a series of reports dealing with tagging 
experiments in this district. 9 
Excursion Inlet, indenting the mainland on the north side of Icy Strait, is pri- 
marily a producer of chums, although it would appear from the data presented in the 
table that it also has produced other species in considerable numbers, the figures for 
1920 being especially in point. However, these catches were probably made along 
the shore south of the inlet from the runs of salmon passing to the eastward, and should 
be included with the regular Icy Strait catches. They were reported, however, under 
the name of Excursion Inlet as being the easiest means of identification of location. 
The section of the table headed “Unallocated”, includes all catches reported 
from the Icy Strait district but without reference to particular localities. It obviously 
includes, as might well be expected, a very large percentage of the total number of 
fish taken in the district, and it is not unlikely that catches are included which were 
actually taken outside the area commonly known as Icy Strait. Thus fish taken in 
Cross Sound and elsewhere were frequently reported as coming from Icy Strait and 
there is no way in which these errors may now be rectified. Obviously it is pointless 
to give any consideration to the fluctuations in the unallocated catch. There follows 
a discussion of the total catch in the Icy Strait district. 
The catches in Icy Strait (see fig. 13) have been notably affected by the various 
economic causes which have been mentioned in the introduction (p. 438) and cannot 
always be accepted as indices of the relative abundance of salmon in these waters. 
For example, the catch of chums in 1912 was much greater than in 1911, but this does 
not necessarily mean that the actual abundance was greater. The true explanation 
is, doubtless, that there was an increased demand for this species in 1912 resulting in 
a greater fishing effort and a greater catch. In a general way it appears to be true that, 
in years in which a small catch of pink salmon was made, the catch of chums was 
increased. This is, however, particularly true of the period during which the develop- 
ment of the industry, so far as the packing of pinks and chums was concerned, was 
« Salmon-tagging Experiments in Alaska, 1924 and 1925, by Willis H. Rich. Bulletin U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, vol. XLIX, 
1926 (1926), pp. 109-146, Washington. 
Ibid— 1926. By Willis H. Rich and Arnie J. Suomela. Bulletin, U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, vol. XLIII, 1927 (1927), pp. 
71-104, Washington. 
Ibid . — 1927 and 1928. By Willis H. Rich and Frederick G. Morton. Bulletin U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, vol. XLV, 1929 (1929), 
_pp. 1-23, Washington. 
Ibid. — 1930. By Willis H. Rich. Bulletin U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, vol. XLVII, 1931 (1932), pp. 399-406, Washington. 
