CHIGNIK TO RESURRECTION BAY SALMON STATISTICS 647 
Table 1 . — Salmon catch and fishing apparatus used in the Chignik Bay district, 1888 to 1927 — Con. 
Year 
Coho 
Chum 
Pink 
King 
Red 
Traps 
Total— Continued. 
1908 
1, 630, 677 
1, 730, 804 
1, 314, 672 
8 
1909 
8 
1910 
36, 907 
7,788 
18, 979 
23, 773 
34, 475 
29, 617 
45, 899 
13, 323 
21, 118 
17, 170 
23,128 
55, 099 
30, 080 
80, 080 
55, 665 
267, 148 
9, 583 
344, 470 
18 
1911 
14, 788 
14, 032 
1, 077', 595 
29 
1912 
33 
1, 330, 832 
833, 220 
1, 056, 629 
1, 330, 031 
1,002,911. 
1,456, 466i 
1, 542, 707 
884, 938? 
1, 772, 710 
1,828, 857 
1,248, 763 
642, 872 
877, 343 
37 
1913 
91, 152 
1,918 
320 
37 
1914 
32, 388 
9 
1915 
65, 350 
88, 778 
107, 950 
306, 718 
124, 963 
152, 206 
220, 721 
212, 789 
84, 375 
1, 054 
1,693 
904 
9 
1916 
9 
1917 
12 
1918 
1,449 
597 
12 
1919 
34, 931 
22, 493 
4,807 
297, 826 
30, 620 
359, 510 
8, 967 
999, 992 
42, 704 
677, 026 
14 
1920 
811 
12 
1921 
13, 251 
14, 952 
18, 574 
94, 433 
30, 049 
399 
9 
1922 
500 
9 
1923 
867 
9 
1924 1 
110,793 
483 
9 
1925 
102, 121 
265, 168 
171,467 
1, 475 
830 
712, 658 
510, 718 
456, 263 
9 
1926 
31,842 
101, 422 
10 
1927 
186, 710 
987 
10 
Note. — No catches were reported in the years not shown. Kujulik Bay is locally known as Sitkum Bay. 
Moser’s figures for the years up to and including 1897 give only total case packs 
and are not segregated by species. The data for 1898 to 1900 give the pack by species 
and also the average number of fish per case, so that it is possible to estimate the 
catch with a fair degree of accuracy. The reports of the Treasury agents have also 
been consulted and the data compared carefully with those given by Moser. These 
reports show the number of fish caught, and these data have been used when they 
checked with Moser’s figures for the pack. In cases where the two series of data did 
not check we have assumed Moser’s to be the more reliable and have calculated the 
catch from the pack. The data for the later years, beginning with 1904, have come 
from the sworn statements submitted yearly to the Bureau of Fisheries by the several 
companies. 
The transfer of fish from one locality to another was a common practice in western 
Alaska until recently, when it was stopped by regulation. Such transfers were 
frequently made back and forth between the Chignik canneries and those at Karluk 
and Alitak and have occasioned a great deal of confusion in the records. Great care 
has been taken in trying to eliminate errors from this cause and it is believed that the 
data are fairly welt segregated. It is possible, however, that there is still some slight 
confusion. Another difficulty has been encountered in some of the more recent 
records due to the agreement between the three companies operating at Chignik to 
divide the catch equally. The statements submitted by these companies do not 
always agree; some of the statements are apparently based on the catch made by the 
particular company regardless of its final disposition, others show the catch and also 
the deliveries and receipts to and from other companies, and still others show the fish 
packed regardless of the source. If the procedure has been uniform, any one of the 
systems would have provided us with the desired data but, unfortunately, this was 
not the case. The chief difficulty encountered has to do with the allocation of 
the catch to the several subdistricts, Chignik proper, Aniakchak, Kujulik, and Hook 
Bays. The statements of the several companies have been very carefully examined 
and some additional information has been secured by correspondence. In spite of 
the greatest care it has been necessarry to allocate certain catches arbitrarily, 
but it is felt that no serious errors have resulted. The totals for the whole district 
are considered sufficiently reliable for the practical purposes to which they may be put. 
