760 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
In addition to catching the adult salmon the Indians formerly caught large 
quantities of the young sockeyes on their migration from the lakes to the sea. John 
P. Babcock (Report of the Fisheries Commissioner for British Columbia for the 
year 1903) describes how the Indians had built a dam of rocks and brush across a 
stream in the form of a great funnel with a basket trap at the lower end. Besides 
those caught in the trap many thousands were destroyed by becoming entangled in 
the brush. 
EXTENT OF THE INDIAN FISHERY 
Salmon fishing on the Fraser River was always carried on by the Indians, who 
consumed large quantities of fresh salmon and dried larger quantities for their own 
use and for barter with the tribes of the hinterland. Those living near the mouth of 
the river obtained some of all species of salmon, but the Indians dwelling nearer the 
headwaters depended chiefly on sockeye, and a few king salmon. The extent of this 
fishing is rather difficult to determine. At some points, such as Bridge River, Kam- 
loops, Stuart Lake, Hell’s Gate, Pemberton, and the Chilcotin River, large catches were 
made in good years (see fig. 25). 
Fishery officials have made many estimates of the Indian catch at the chief 
fishing camps by counting the numbers of salmon on the drying racks. According to 
their reports the sockeye catch at Bridge River in big years averaged 40,000. For 
the Chilcotin River system the catches of 1905 and 1909 were also estimated at 40,000, 
the catch of 1908 at over 20,000, and that of 1913 at 25,000. Of the Lillooet River, 
Crawford (13th Annual Report of the State Fish Commissioner (Washington) 1902) 
says: 
Every year the Indians gather here to secure their salmon for the winter and thousands of sock- 
eyes are taken and dried every season. One Indian speared seventy sockeyes in two hours, the first 
day I was there. 
A toll of between 400,000 and 500,000 sockeyes in the former big years is a con- 
servative estimate of the Indian catch. Even as late as 1929, with a greatly reduced 
abundance, as well as a much smaller Indian population, an accurate estimate showed 
that they caught 48,000 sockeyes, 20,000 kings, 25,000 cohos, 4,500 pinks, and 6,500 
chums (Dominion Report, 1930). During years of poor sockeye runs the Indians 
living on tributaries where the runs failed were often on the verge of starvation, so 
complete was their dependence on the salmon for their livelihood. This was the 
case at Stuart Lake in 1841 and at Alexandria, on the Fraser River between the mouths 
of the Chilcotin and the Quesnel Rivers, in 1855 (Morice, 1904). 
CATCH BY COMMERCIAL GEAR 
In determining the number of sockeyes captured by the various methods in the 
different localities, the records of the actual number of sockeyes taken have been used 
wherever possible, and where these have not been available the number of cases 
canned has been converted into number of fish. 6 
» The number of sockeyes required to fill a 48-pound case of cans varies considerably from year to year, so that the use of the same 
conversion factor year after year would not give the best results. From two Canadian and two United States canneries we have 
obtained records covering 23 years, of the number of sockeyes required to fill a case. This varies from about 10 to 13 fish per case, 
tending to be higher in the earlier years, especially on the years of the big run. For years in which no conversion data were available 
we have used the average conversion factor of the other years of the same 4-year cycle, as the size tends to be the same from one cycle 
to the next. This is probably on account of the differences in size of the sockeyes spawning in the different lake systems, as the 
various lakes do not contribute equally to the runs of each cycle. 
