512 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
exceeded the catch in all other years covered by this review. The fact that this was 
accomplished under more stringent regulation of fishing than had ever before prevailed 
makes it seem very probable that no depletion of this species has occurred. 
The condition of the chum fishery appears less satisfactory as the catches since the 
economic drop in 1921-1923 have not fully recovered and are still but slightly higher 
than those of the poor years almost a decade earlier when fishing was far less intensive 
and when only a few packing plants were in operation. If it were not for the greater 
restriction of fishing in these later years, there would be reason to assume that the 
chum fisheries show depletion, especially when viewed in the light of the larger number 
of seines and traps now in use. The changed regulation of fishing in 1924 and the 
slackened fishing effort in the few years just preceding upset the continuity of opera- 
tions and leave no satisfactory basis for an appraisal of the present condition of the 
fishery. The reported catch of only 116,159 chums in 1927 probably is indicative 
of a poor run in that year, since it represents a decline of more than 80 percent from the 
catches in 1925 and 1926 and is the lowest catch on record since 1909. 
The development of the pink-salmon fishery was marked by no very large catches 
until 1915 when 1,668,270 pinks were caught, exceeding by more than 1,000,000 the 
catch in any earlier year. That was the beginning of a 4-year period of large pro- 
duction which reached a high point in 1918 when 2,800,945 pinks were taken. The 
decline in the fishing effort of 1919, caused by overproduction in 1917 and 1918, was 
reflected in the drop of 73 percent in catch in that year. The catch in 1920 was 38 
percent larger than in 1919, but it was followed by a decline of 65 percent in 1921, 
from which there was practically no recovery in 1922. The curve of production moved 
upward in 1923 and 1924, only to fall to very low levels in 1925 and 1927 while the 
intervening year of 1926 showed a catch almost equal to that of 1918. Production 
in the even years increased more rapidly than it fell off in the odd years, but the 
fluctuations since 1922 indicate that the general conditions as regards the pink-salmon 
runs is none too stable. At the present rate of regression, the odd years will soon 
provide very poor runs in the Frederick Sound district. Drastic curtailment of 
fishing in 1927, by Executive orders, was necessary to provide even a moderate escape- 
ment, and the wide fluctuations in catches in recent years may presage a failing supply 
of pinks. 
The king-salmon fishery of this district is not important. Fair catches were made 
in 5 years, perhaps largely as the result of trolling in the western part of the sound. 
As these catches were made in large part on the feeding grounds of the Icings, they 
cannot be regarded as coming from runs to Frederick Sound. A few kings bound for 
the Stikine River may pass through this waterway, but the bulk of the Stikine run 
undoubtedly approaches the river through Sumner Strait and Clarence Strait. The 
Taku River may also account for some of the kings taken in the sound. The fact 
that a considerable part of the catch was taken by lines gives no indication that this 
district supports a run of kings distinctively its own. No streams tributary directly 
to the waters of the sound have ever been recognized as producers of king salmon. 
The district is likewise poor in red-salmon streams. The largest catches ever 
reported from its waters were 46,463 in 1920 and 37,208 in 1926, while the average for 
24 years is less than 20,000. They doubtless came chiefly from runs to other districts 
which may account for the absence of marked indications of depletion. There is 
little probability that larger catches of this species will ever be made in this district 
without a material increase in the number of traps along the migration routes of the 
incoming salmon. 
