CHIGNIK TO RESURRECTION BAY SALMON STATISTICS 
711 
CHUM SALMON 
The first recorded catch of chums in Cook Inlet was made in 1910. The history 
since then is shown graphically in Table 34. In the first nine years, the bulk of the 
catch was unallocated so that consideration need be given only to the number taken 
annually since 1918, except to mention that in 1912 and in 1916 the catch was more 
than 100,000. In 1918, it again exceeded that figure, but by a very narrow margin. 
Larger catches in the even years were followed by smaller ones in the odd years, the 
peaks becoming lower and the depressions deeper until in 1925 only 15,064 were 
caught — the smallest production in 12 years. In 1926, the catch rose sharply to 
approximately 120,000, an increase not unlike those shown in the catches of cohos, 
kings, and reds, but it was followed by a drop to 59,380 in 1927. The marked down- 
ward trend from 1916 to 1925 might well be considered as evidence of serious deple- 
tion, were it not for the sudden increase in the catch that occurred in 1926. As it is, 
it is not possible to state whether this species has been reduced in abundance or not, 
but, in view of the fact that none of the other species show clear evidence of deple- 
tion, it seems safe to assume that the same thing is true of the chums. If the size 
of the run in any year is reflected in the number of chums caught, it is at once appar- 
ent that the chum resources of Cook Inlet are economically unimportant, and that all 
reported catches were chiefly incidental to fishing for other species. Chums coming 
mainly from waters of the east shore south of Anchor Point, through Chinitna Bay, 
Tuxedni Harbor, Tyonek, and Three Mile Creek on the west shore have produced 
fair quantities in a few seasons. As a whole, this fishery holds little promise of much 
larger development. There may be localities in which moderately good catches will 
continue to be made, but there is no indication that any of them will be found in the 
northern sections of the inlet. 
Table 34. — Graphic table showing catch of chum sahnon, Cook Inlet, 1910 to 1927 
[Each figure represents 5,000 fish] 
1910 
1911. 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918. 
1919 
1920. 
1921. 
1922. 
1923. 
1924. 
1925. 
1926. 
1927. 
Year 
Catch 
X 
X 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
XXX 
xxxxxxxx 
xxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxx 
xxxxxxxx 
XXX 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxx 
RESURRECTION BAY DISTRICT 
This district embraces Resurrection Bay exclusively. The fishery districts nearest 
to it are Prince William Sound on the east and Cook Inlet on the west. In both 
directions, especially to the westward, are miles of coastal waters that have no salmon 
fisheries, so that this bay stands as a district wholly apart from any other, and it is 
quite certain that what is here shown as the catch came from runs belonging strictly 
to these waters. The figures are given in Table 35. 
