650 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
1926 were the result of exceptionally good runs at Aniakchak and Hook Bays. The 
catch of 1924 in Chignik Bay was indeed unusually good and when the catches at 
Aniakchak and Hook Bays are added we have the very high total catch noted. 
The catch in Chignik Bay fell off again, however, in 1926, although the good catches 
in the other localities held up the total catch for the district to a level approximately 
that of 1924. The recent increase in the catch of pinks in the Chignik district, there- 
fore, is seen to be due to the extension of the fishery to new grounds, and it does not 
seem probable that the increase will continue unless there is further extension of the 
fishery to include other districts that produce pink salmon. The catches in the odd 
years have been insignificant except in 1927 when there was a very good catch of 
over 180,000 fish in Chignik Bay alone. The catches in the other localities were, 
however, not much, if any, greater than normal so that, whatever affected the catch 
in Chignik Bay, it seems probable that similar conditions did not obtain in other 
near-by places. This increased catch of pinks at Chignik in 1927 may indicate that 
the odd-year runs are “building up” or it may be the result of some change in the 
fishing intensity for this species which the authors have been unable to trace. 
Table 2. — Graphic table of catches of pink salmon in Chignik district 
[Each letter represents a catch of 20,000 fish eicept that fractional parts of this unit catch are considered as full units. Thus any 
catch up to 20,000 will be represented by a letter; any catch between 20,000 and 40,000 will be represented by two letters, etc. 
The letter “B” indicates the catch in Chignik Bay and Lagoon; "A ” the catch at Aniakchak; “E ” the catch at Hook Bay; 
and " G ” the catch at Kujulik] 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913. 
1914. 
1915. 
1916 
1917. 
1918. 
1919. 
1920. 
1921. 
1922. 
1923. 
1924. 
1925. 
1926 
1927. 
Year 
Catch 
B 
BB 
BBB 
BBE 
BBBBB 
BBB 
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB 
BA 
BBBBBBBBBBAAAA AAA AG 
BAG 
BBBBBBBBBBBBBAAG 
BB 
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 
B 
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBA AAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEE 
BA AE 
BBBBBBBBBBBBAAA A AAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEGGG 
BBB BBBBB A AEG 
The catch of cohos is shown graphically in Figure 4 and also in Table 3. Through- 
out the period under discussion the catch in Chignik Bay has been by far the most 
important and was exceeded only in 1926 by the catch at Aniakchak. The trend was 
generally downward between 1910 and 1923, but remarkable catches were made in 
both 1924 and 1927. The poor catches of 1921 and 1923 were undoubtedly due, at 
least in part, to the poor market for the cheaper grades of salmon that prevailed at 
that time, and this has affected the trend. In spite of the general downward tend- 
ency up to 1924 it seems doubtful that any real depletion had taken place; the sudden 
increase in 1924 to a level more than twice as high as that of any previous year would 
certainly indicate that the spawning reserves were adequate to produce a good run, 
at least under favorable conditions. It is interesting to note that the peak runs of 
1916 and 1924 were followed by other peak runs three years later. This strongly 
indicates that the Chignik cohos are predominantly 3-year fish although it is known 
that in some other near-by districts a large proportion of the fish of this species are 
4-year fish. 
