FISBEBIES BESEABCB BOABDOF CANADA

MANUSCRIPT REPORT SERIES

(BIOLOGICAL)

H.T .Bi1tonandM . P . Shepard

E.tabU.hllla"tBiological Stltlon, Mlnlilmo,B .C.

Datad December , 1963

In 1962 , research vessels chartered by this Station con ­

ductedalong -l inefishingoperationintheGulfofAlaskatocatch

and tag Pac ific salmon . The good catches of sockeye made by these

vesselsduringApr ilandMayarousedconsiderable interestinthe

or ig in of the f ish , parti cu l a r l y when cons idered i n r e ga r d to the

coming f ishing season . I t was decided that exam ination of the

scales f rom the tagged sockeye might permit the i d en t if i c a ti on of

at lea s t some of the f i s h caught and thus provide so me early in -

f or ma ti on on abunda nce of the va r ious ru ns reaching the major

First , i t wa s necessary to assemble a nd exam ine the scales

of socke ye of kno wn or ig in taken f r om major r iver systems in

Br it ish Co l umbia , southeastern Alaska , the Al a sk a Peninsula, and

Br istol Bay .

1 . Dif fe rences i n a ge compos it ion

These exa minat ions i ndi ca t ed that dif ferences i n age com-

position might be used to i d e n t if y some o f the stocks. !twas

found that the Fraser River stock was the only one that did not

havealarge pro port ionof:, -year-oldfish , be ing composed almost

ent irelyof4 -yea r -oldf ish . Thus , in the gross ana lysis con ­

ducted , i t was assumed that al I f ish of more than 4 years of age

i n the high -seas catch d id not or iginate in the Fraser system.

Further , i t was found that a large proportion of the sockeye from

some areas had spent 2 years in fresh water before migrating to

sea ( "sub -3 's ") whereasamongsockeyefromotherareassub -3's

were ve ry sca rce and most of the f ish mi grated to sea a f ter

s pe nd ing only on e yea r in f r e s h water . As sh own in Tabl e I,

among t h e sa mples e xamined , sub -3 's fo rmed on ly a sma l l f r a c ti on

of the sockeye f r om Br it ish Columbia areas other t ha n the Nass

River . On the other hand , among the sockeye sam pled i n centra l and

no rther n Al a s ka, sock eye whi c h had spent two yea rs or mor e i n fre s h

wat e r , f orm ed fr om 44 to 100% of t he fi s h within t he sam ples. Be ­

cause the Nas s River stock i s a small one (catches in this area

have r ar e l y ex c e ed ed 300,000) and because sub -3 f ishform such

small f r a c ti on s of the runs to other Br it ish Columbia rive r s , f or

the purposesofg rossana lys is itwasassumedthatallsub -3sock ­

eye taken in the h igh -seas catches were bound f or Alaskan Rivers .

2 . Dif ferences in c ircu lus counts and yea r - ba nd wi d t h s

I n an a t t empt t o de t e r mi ne t he origi n of s ub - 2 s oc ke ye ,

f or fi sh s ampled in the va r ious areas li s t ed in Tab le II , co u nts

a nd mea suremen t s were mad e of the f ollowi ng sca le cha racter ist ics :

L1

- t h e wi d t h of t h e f i rst -year band fr om the

cente r of th e fo cu s of the scale to t he

outs ide edge of the fi r s t-wi nt er band.

C1

- t h e numbe r of c i r cu l i f r om t he c ent e r of

the sca le to the outs ide edge of the first -

L2 - the width of the second-year band.

C2 -the numberofc ircu l iinthesecond -yearband.

L3

-thewidthofthethird - ye ar ban d .

C3

-thenumberofcirculiin thethird - yearban d.

~ - r atio of the se con d - year ban d wi dth to the

number of c i rcu l i in t he s e c on d - ye ar ban d.

~ -ratioofthenumberof circul iinthese c ond ­

year ban d t o t he number in t he first -year ba nd .

The results of the exam i nation of th e s cales of the3-and 4 - ye ar ­

old f ish for these chara cters are given i n Fig . 1 , 2 an d 3.

( a) Ci rculus counts for the fir st -y ea r ban d (C1 )

Four -year -o ldsockeyefromtheFraserRiver , a nd River s a nd

Smith I n l e t s tended to have lower f i r s t - ye a r counts than fi shfrom

other are as i n Br it ish Colum bia and Alaska. (F ig.l.A. )

(b) Circu lus c ount s for the s ec ond - yea r ban d (C2 )

The c oun t s f o r the 3 -year-old s ex h ib ited a general c l i ne

from south to north wi th the Fra ser fi sh ha v in g the highes t nu mbe r

of s e con d - year c i rc u l i a nd t he fi s h taken of f the Aleu ti a n s t en de d

t o have the lowest number (Fig . 3 . B. ) The se con d -year c i rc u l u s

c oun t s of 4 -y ear -olds from the Fr a ser t e nd ed to be les s t han t he

c oun t s for fish from t he Sk e en a Ri ver , and Riv e r s a nd Smith In ­

lets , an d about equal t o tho se f rom Br isto l Bay . Th e Rivers a nd

Smith Inlets fish exh ibi ted the h i gh est s ec ond - yea r cou nts of a 11

(Fig .l.A. ) Count s for t h e 5 - ye a r - ol d s fr om t he vari ou s a reas

(e xc e pt i ng the Fraser Ri ve r whi c h does not hav e l arge number s

of5 's) were sim ilar to thos e fou nd for the 4 's . with the Rivers

a nd Smith I nl e t s sockeye tend ing to have the highest number.

(c) Circulus counts f or the th i rd -year band (C3)

Thethird -yearc ircu luscountsfor4-and5-year -o ldsockeye

tended t o show a south to north c line , with the Fraser River and

t he Rivers and Smith In lets stocks tend i ng to exhibit h igher

counts than those f r om further north i n Cook Inlet and Br istol

Bay . ( Se e Fi g .l.A. ) .

(d) Widths of the f irst -year band (L1)

The f irst -year an nulus widths of 3-yea r -old sockeye

tended to be highe r for those f ish caught in the vic inity of the

Al eu t i a ns (assumed to be Br isto l Bay origin) , tha n for either the

SkeenaorFraserRiver fish (F ig . 3 .A.). The fi r s t - ye ar widths

f or the 4 - year -o lds tended to be lowest for the Rivers and Smith

In lets fi s h , and h ighest for the Fraser and Alaskan stocks (F ig . 2).

The 5 -yea r -o lds exh ibited a sou th to north cl ine with the Rivers

and Smith I n l e t s f ish exhib iting the l owe s t values and the Alaska n

stocks the h i ghest .

(e) Widths of the second -yea r band (L2)

Measurements fo r 3 -year -olds f r om the Fraser were the

highest , fo llowed by those f o r Ske en a sockeye and for Aleutian

fi s h (F ig . 3 .A .) Second -yearwidthsfor4-and5-year-oldf ish

fai led to show any c lear-cut d ifferences between sockeye f r om

d if fere nt areas .

(0 Width s of th e th i rd -yea r ba nd (L3)

For 4 - an d S-y ear -ol d fi s h , t here was a south to nor t h

c li ne in the third -year a nnu l u s wi dths , wi th t he sou th er n Br i tish

h i biting t he hi gh e s t va l ues and the Alaska n stocks t he l owest

values . (See Fig . 2 )

(g) The s pac e between c i rc uli i n the sec ond year i~~

Th e a ve r a ge spa ce be t wee n c i rc u li was determined by com-

pu ti ng t he ratio of th e wi d th in t he s eco nd ye ar to t he numbe r of

c ircul i in th e s ec ond yea r. For3' s,4 'sandS 's a stri ki ng

d i f f e r e nc e in the d e ns i t y of c i rc u l i was found between sc al e s fr om

Br i t i s h Co lumb ia and southeastern Alaska so ckeye , and s ca le s from

the more northern Alaskan s tocks . Central an d northern Al a sk an

so ckeye t en de d to have much wi d er s pac i ng between th e c i rc u l i th a n

th e fi sh from s outh e a s te r n Al as ka a nd Br i t i s h Col umbia . Rivers

a nd Smi th Inl et s sockeye ha d th e mos t c ompac t c i rc u l i o f a l l.

(Se eFig . l. B an d3 .C . )

(h ) Th e ratio of th e number of circuli in t he se con d -

year to the number of c i rc u l i i n the first -y ea r b a nd i~ ~

Thi s cha rac t e r wa s e xami ned f or a ll t he a ge s and with th e

ex ception of t he 3 - ye ar -old s was not use f u l in separati ng the

va r i ous stock s . The exa mi nat ion of th is cha rac t e r f or the 3-year -

o l d s s howed s ome s e pa rat ion between th e Fr a ser Ri ve r fi s h and the

other sto ck s , wi t h the Fr a se r sockeye t end in g t o hav e larger

values than d id e ither th e Skeena fi s h or thos e fi s h sam pled ne a r

the Aleutians (Fig . 3. 0 . )

For mea s u reme nts of ea ch of the scale cha racters l isted,

for s oc keye from e a ch are a , f or each a g e gr ou p a ppr oximate limi t s

were determi ned which wou ld includ e at l e a s t 95% of t he observa -

tions recorded . Us i ng the arbitra ry limi t s f or each scale

character , keys were s e t u p f or a ge 4 2 and a ge 52 so c key e .

(Tables II I and I V) . Forthe4-y ear -old s, the limi t s set for the

Fraser River f i s h were establ ished u sing the scale character is t ics

of the jack sockeye (a ge - 32) whic h had returned i n 196 1 , the Adams

River yea rl in gs from 1960 , a nd a ge - 42 fi s h which had returned in

196 1. Th e arb itrary limit s e s t abli s he d for the Rivers and Smith

In lets age -4 2 sock e ye we r e bas ed u pon the cha racte r istics of age ­

4 2 's f r om the r un s of 1960 a nd 19 61. The limit s e s t abli s h ed for

theSkeenaRive r a g e - 4 2' s , wer ebas eduponthescalecha ract er is ­

tics of the 1960 yearlings , the j a c ks fr om 1961, andtheage - 4 2

fish wh ich had r e t urn ed i n 1960 a nd 1961. The Cook I n le t limit s

were based u pon sam pl es f rom the r uns of 1958 a nd 1959 (data f o r

more recent ye a r s we r e not av ail ab le ) . Limi ts f or t he Br istol

Bay stocks were bas ed u po n s cale sa mples of age -4 2 socke ye f r om

therunsof 1960 ,196l , and f rom i mma t ur e age - 32 's cau ght near

Adak and Kiska I s l an d s in t he Aleutians i n 196 1. The latter

were samples ta ke n i n l at e Ju ne a nd early July and were bel ieved

to re present the Br i sto l Bay fi s h which would be return i ng as

age - 4 2 fish i n 196 2. Th e limit s estab lished fo r the 5 -year ­

olds from most of the sh ore areas we r e based upo n the scale

-

c ha rac t er ist ics of 5 -yea r - olds whi c h r e t urned in 1960 and 1961.

Limits for the Cook In l e t fi s h were based u pon a ge -5 2's f r om the

run s of 195 8 an d 1959.

Usin g t he limit s lis t ed in Tables III a nd I V, f or age -4 2

a nd age - 52 fi s h r e spe ctivel y, attempts were then mad e to class ify

s ock eye ta ke n i n the high -s eas catches with res pect to their areas

of or igin. Th e sca le characte r ist ics of e a c h fi sh were compared

with th e limi t s f or t h e va r ious cha racte r ist ics l ist ed in the

ta b les . If f or a ny cha racter the val u e obta i ned f or an ind ividua l

f i sh f ell ou ts id e th e arb it ra r y ra nge for s ockeye f rom a givenarea

the n i t wa s cons ide red t hat that parti cul a r fi s h d id not or ig inat e

in tha t parti cul ar area . Foll owi ng th is pr oc edur e , a f ish might

be cl a s sifi ed as or ig i nat i ng i n one river s ystem only (incases

where t he va l u e f o r on e or mor e character ist ics f ell ou t s i d e the

ra nges es tabl ished fo r a ll areas but on e) , or might be classif ied

a s or i g i nat i ng in e ither of t wo or three , f our o r ev en mor e reg io ns

(wh er e sca les were l e s s d ist i nct ive with c ounts or me a s u r eme nt s

f a l ling with i n the r a nge of those e s t abli s h ed f or t wo or more

areas) . There a re nume r ous permu t a tions and co mbi na t ions of

po s sibl e a r ea s of or ig in f or f ish whose a rea of or ig in could not

be d es i gnated preci s ely but for the pu rp o s e of the pr e s e nt re po r t

onl y th e catego ries sho wn in Tab le V we re used .

To obta in e s tima t e s of the pr opo r ti on s of sockeye that

would be e xpected to be class i f ied correctly with r e sp e c t to

r egi on of or i gi n, or misclass if ied,sub -sam plesof the fish of

kno wn or ig ins wer e pr oc e ss ed in the sam e way as if they had been

sa mples ta ken on the high s ea s .

The resu lts are s ho wn i n Tab les V a nd VI . For only 5% of

theage - 4 2 s oc keye fr om the Fr a s er area could th e pr eci s e reg ion

of or ig i n be des i gnated . An additi on a l 20% would be des ignat ed as

hav ing or i g inat ed in e ither the Frase r River or in Rivers orsmi t h

Inlets . An add i tiona l 40 % would be des ignated as or ig ina ting in

e ithe r the Fraser system, Ri ve rs o r Smith In lets or the Sk e eria

River . Nonewas misclass i f i ed as ha v i ng or iginated i n an Alaskan

stream bu t f or the rem ain i ng 35% i t wa s no t po s s i b l e to determine

whether t he fi s h had or ig ina t ed i n Al a s ka or Br itish Co lumb ia.

Among s keena Riv er age - 4 2 soc keye , non e was i d enti fi ed a s

or ig i nat i ng fr om t he Sk e e na alone but 45% wer e d es ignated a s

or iginating i n Br it ish Col umbi a ge ne r all y , and the r est (55%)

could no t be as s igned as hav ing or ig inat ed e ither i n Br it ish Col umbia

or in Alaska . The River s a nd Smith I nl e t s sockeye wer e th e most

read ily iden ti fied of a ll , wi t h 72% be ing des ignated as or ig inat i ng

from the s e areas only a nd 93% i n all as or ig inating f r om Br it ish

Co lumb ia . Only 22% of t he Cook I nl e t sockeye were des i gnated as

or iginat ing in t h is are a , but a t otal of 4 5% were des ignated as

or i g i nat i ng so mewhere i n Alas ka . Of the Br istol Bay 4 -y e a r - o l d s,

20% were ass i gn ed to this area onl y and a tota l of 85% to Alaska

gene ra lly . None of the Al a sk a Pen i nsula sa mples were ass igned

on ly to this a rea but 29% were i de n t ifi ed as orig ina ting f r om

the Al a s ka n r e g ion genera l ly .

l

Main l y be c au s e Frase r River f ish were not considered in

establ ish ing the standards , ag e -5 2 sockeye i n the tests were more

read ily se parated than were age - 4 2 fi s h. OftheSkeena samples ,

38% we r e des ig nated as or ig inat ing from the Skeena only and 60%

as or ig i nat i ng from Br i tish Columbia genera ll y . Rivers and Smith

Inl e t s sockeye were aga in the most readily i d e nti fi ed , with 89%

des ig nated as origina t i ng f rom these areas pa r ti cul a r l y an d 97% in

all , as or i g inat in g somewhere i n Br it ish Co lumb ia . Cook Inlet

5 -yea r - olds were not as r e adil y i d entif i ed as4 's from th is a r e a

wi t h onl y 3% des ignated as or ig inating from th is a rea, Thirteen

per cent of th e rema in ing sam pl es were ass igned to Br istol Bay an d

63% to the Alaskan region generally. For the Br isto l Bay 5 -year -

oLds , 20% wer e i d e nt if i ed as or ig ina ting i n Bristol Bay , and a total

of 94% as or ig inat ing f rom the Alaskan reg ion . Twenty -five per cent

of th e 5 - year -o lds fr om the Alaskan Pen insu la were i de nt i f i ed as

o r i g ina t in g in th is a rea s pec if icall y and 50% as or ig inating i n the

Alas ka n reg ion ge ne ra lly .

If i t i s assumed that the pr op or ti on s of each s tock that

could be i d en tifi ed co r rectly wer e the sa me as i ndi c a t ed b y t he s ub ­

sa mples class i f ied in Tab les V a nd VI , then i t wou ld be assumed

t hat mo s t of the Rivers and Smith I nl e t s f ish , and the Br isto l Bay

fi s h among sa mples t a ken on the h igh seas wou l d be i d e n t i fi ed . On

the other hand , none of t he Skeena 4 -year -olds would be i d e ntifi ed

s pec if ically and on ly a small pe r c en t a g e of the Fr a s er fi s h (5%)

would be des ignated pr eci s e l y . However , for both stocks , more

t ha n 50% of t he fis h would be d es i gnat ed as origin a ting f ro m

Us in g the r a nge s given i n Tab l e s III an dIVfor4 - a nd

5 -year -o ldsoc ke ye , th e sc a l es of 887 - 42's and 51 4 -5 2 's f ro m t he

catches of th e r es ea rch ves s e ls in t h ei r fi r s t a nd second c ru ise s

in Apr il and May of 1962 were ex ami ne d and ass igned to each of th e

va r ious sho r e a r ea s , or co mbi nat i ons of sh ore a r eas. The re sul t s

of t his ana lys is a r e sh own in Tab l e VI I. Fo r the pre sen t ana lys is

Alaskan ar eas were gr oupe d onl y int o two ; Br isto l Bay and other

stocks in c l ud ed no 5 - ye a r -o lds a nd t ha t a ll socke ye with f r e s hwa t e r

a ges of grea t er t ha n one yea r ( I. e , sub3's, s ub 4 's , etc ,) were

bou nd fo r Al a sk an str eams . Th e re s u l t s show that of th e sock eye

sam pled on the high s ea s , a l mos t half (48.83%) wer e 42

' S, a th i rd

(33 .0 4%) sub -3 's a nd ot h er fis h with l ong f re s h wat er r e sid e nce

and 18 . 13% 52 's . Among the 4 2 ' s , at least t he c ount ry of de s ­

ti nationwa s d e t e rminedfor almo s t tw o-thi r d s ; of thes e s l i ghtly

less than ha lf were d es i gna t ed as b e in g bo und f or Br it ishCo lumb i a

and sl ightly ov e r ha lf t o Ala s ka. The pr op orti on of th e sa mpl e s

identif ied and th e fr actions of th os e cons idered to be bound f or

Br it ish Columb i a or Alas ka wer e abou t the sam e f or 5 -y ea r - ol d s a s

for 4 -y ear -o lds .

Beca use th e sc a l es of s ock e ye from certa in areas were more

dist i ncti ve tha n those fr om other areas , t he percentages ass igned

to the var ious a r e a s in Tab l e VI I do no t necessa r ily re present the

r elat iv e pr op o r ti on s of that stock amon g th e sam ples. Tomake

rough est i mates of the re lat ive contributions of ea ch sto ck tothe

sam ples , the degree of dist in ctiveness of the sca les was co n s idered .

First consid er ing 4 2' s, as shown in Table VII , 48.83% of a ll th e

so ckeye sam pled on the h igh seas were 4 2 's. A total of 13 . 89%

were sockeye des ignated as or ig inat ing in Br it ish Co lu mbi a ; 5. 49%

cou ld be des ignated to a spe c ific a rea and the rema in ing 8 . 40% onl y

to the Br it ish Columbia a r e a generally. On the basis of t h e an alys i s

of th e standards (Tab le V) however , it would be ex pected t ha t frac -

ti on s of only 0 .45 and 0 .65 of theSkeena a nd Fraser Ri ver fish

and 0 .93 of the Rivers -Smith Inlets sockeye wou ld be de s i gnat ed as

o r ig inat ing i n Br itish Columb ia. Th e rema inder would b e s ockeye

which could not be d istingu ished from Alaskan sockeye. Thu s , the

perc e n t age s of Br i t i s h Columb ia sockeye among the h igh -se a s samples

wou ld exceed the 8 . 40% s pec if i cally i d e ntifi ed by th e s ca le method.

An a ppr ox i mation of the li ke l y per c e n t a ge of the h igh -seas sa mpl e s

cons ist i ng of socke ye bou nd f or Br itish Co lumb ia can be de r i ved

Ass ume t hat ( i) the f r a c t i on of t he a ge - 4 2 sock ey e bou nd

f o r the Ri vers -Smith I nlets area that would be i d e n t i fi ed as

Br i t i s h Col umbia sock eye was 0 .93 , a nd that the fraction that

would be i d en tifi ed s pec if ica ll y as Rivers -Smith I nlets so ckeye

was 0 .72 , and (L i ) the f r a c ti on of age -4 2 so ckeye or ig inating i n

the Fraser an d Skeena Rivers that could be ident if ied a s British

Columb ia bound sockeye was the same for both - say 0.55 ( the

average of the f r a c ti on s for the standard sam ples for t he t wo

areas) and that the i d e ntifi a bl e fraction of age -4 2 sockey e bound

for other Br it ish Colu mbia a reas (e xcluding Rivers and Smith I n l e t s )

wou ld a lso be 0 .55. 1

1 As ide f ro m the Rivers and Smith In lets area, soc keye bound

f or th e Fr a s er and Ske ena Rivers probab l y pr ovid ed well ove r 80%

of age -4 2 s oc keye cau ght off the Br itish Columb ia a nd State of

Wa s h ing t on coasts i n 196 2.

Of the s ockeye sa mpled on the h igh seas, 4 . 58% were i d enti ­

f ied as or iginat in g in t he Ri v e r s - Smi t h In lets area. These were

es timated ( s ee assum ption ( i) above and Table V) to have f orm ed a

f r a c t i on of 0 .7 2 of the tota l nu mber of Rivers -Smith Inlets sock eye

i n the sa mples. The est imat ed t ot a l of Rivers -Smith I nle t s sockeye

wou ld the re f or e amount to 6 :~~ = 6 . 36% of t he sockeye sam pl ed, and

an addit ional fr a c t i on of 0 .21 (0.93 -0 .72) of the Rive rs -Smith

socke ye wou ld pr e s umab ly be d es i gnat ed as Brit ish Columb ia bound

f ish which cou ld not be s e pa rated fr om those bound f or Br it ish

Co lumb ia stocks . Fish in the latter category wou ld f or m

0. 21 x 6 .36 = 1.34% of the socke ye sam pled i n the Gulf of

The total of 13. 89% ass ig ned as i d entifi ab l e Br itish

Columbia age - 4 2 socke ye i n Table VII can now be d i v ided i n t o two

categor ies - t he par t co mposed of sockeye bound for the Rivers -

Smith I nletsareaa ndthe pa rtcomposedofsockeyeboundforother

areas . The Rivers -Smith Inl e t s component i s composed of those f ish

s pec if ica lly ass igned to the Rivers -Smith a rea (4.58%) plus those

d is tingu ished fr om sock eye f r om other Br it ish Columb ia areas (an

est imated 1.34%). The component of s ockeye bound f o r other Brit ish

Co l umbia a r eas i s co mposed of those s pec if ically ass igned to the

Fraser (0 . 80%), the Skeena (0.11%) and th ose which cou ld be

ass i gned to Brit ish Columb ia on ly generally, less the est imated

fr a ction of this grou p which was bound fo r the Rivers and Smith

Inl e t s a rea (8 . 40 - 1.34 = 7 .06%). The total Rivers -Smith Inlets

co mpo ne nt totalled 5 .92 a nd t he other Brit ish Columb ia stocks com -

ponen t 7. 97 . Return ing to the earl ier assumptions that fractions

of 0 .93 a nd 0 .55 of the Rivers -Smith Inlets and other stock res -

pe c tivel y , c ould be d istingu ished as Br itish Columbia fish, it can

there for e be es tima t ed that of the sockeye sa mples taken in the

Gulf of Al a sk a , 6 : ~~ = 6.36% would b e age - 4 2 fi s h bound for Rivers

or Smith Inl e t s and that 6: ~b = 14 .4 9% wou l d be a ge -4 2 sockeye

bo und f or oth er Canad ian r i ve r s, giving a t ota l of 20 .85% for

a ge - 4 2 s ockeye bou nd f or all Ca nad ian r ive rs.

A s im i la r pr oc edu r e was followed f or est i mat ing the per ­

centa ge of ag e - 4 2 sam ples take n that wer e bound f or Alaska . I n

the pre s en t anal ys is i t was assumed that Alaskan f ish cons isted

of two t ypes _ those bound fo r Br istol Bay and those bound f or

otherAlaskanareas2andthat , as i nd i ca t ed i n Tab le V, ( L) of

2 This analys is greatly overs imp li fies the pr obl em; as i n­

d icated in Table V some stocks other than the Br istol Bay stock

(e .g . Alaska Peninsula) have characteristics d i ff e r i ng marked ly

from those for another a rea (e.g . Cook I nlet sockeye). More and

better sam ples from coasta l a reas are required to i mpr ove the

procedure .

the sam ples taken tha t were bound for Bristol Bay, a fr a c t i on of

0 .20 wou ld be i d entifi ed pr eci s e l y with respect to area of des ­

tina tion an d f or an add it io na l fr a ction of 0.65 could bedistin -

gui sh edfrom Bri ti sh Co l umbia sockeye. The re main ing fraction

of 0 .15 wou ld be sockeye which could not be d istinguished from

Br itish Colu mbia sockeye , a nd (i i) the f raction of the sockeye

bound for ar eas other than Br istol Bay which would b e identified

as Al as ka bound fi s h woul d be 0.40 (approx imate average of value

for Alaska pe nin s u l a and Cook I nl e t - s e e Ta b l e V) . The p er ­

centage of the h ig h -s eas sa mples tha t were des ig nated as be ing

bound for Br isto l Bay s pec ificall y was 2 .29% (see Tab le VI]). The

total est i mat ed per c en t ag e of Br istol Bay sockeye in t he sam ple s

would there fo re be es timated as ~:~6 = 11.45% and the percentage

that would b e Br istol Ba y sockeye which could onl y be i d e ntif i ed as

bei ng bou nd f or Alaska ge ne rally would be 0 .65 x 11.45 = 7 . 44%.

The perce nta ge of sockeye bound f or other Alaskan areas whi ch co uld

be i d en tifi ed as be ing bou nd f or Ala ska would the r e fore be

14 .67 -7 . 44=7 .23. If these represent a f ract ion of 0.40 of

the non -Bristol Bay bou nd Alaskan sockeye, the total pr e s en t wou l d

be estimat ed as 6 : ~6 = 18 . 08%. Thu s, the total per c en t a g e of the

h i gh -seas sam ples composed of age - 4 2 sockeye bound for Alaska

would be 11.45 + IB.08 = 29.53%. The calculations are summarized

Tog ether , the est imates of British Columb ia bound

age -42

fi s h and of Al a s ka bound f ish tota l 50.38% (20 .85 + 29 .53),

very c lose to the total per c e n t a ge of age -4 2 sockeye i n the

sam ples (4B .83%) .

Fo r age -52

so ckeye , a total of 4 .28% we re i d e ntifi ed as

o r ig i nat in g i n Briti sh Co lumb ia . Accord ing to Tab l e V, large

fr a c tions of those sockeye bound f or both the Rivers -Smith lnlets

a rea a nd the Sk eena wou l d be i d e ntifia bl e. On the bas is of data

pr es en ted in Tabl es V and VII , i t wou ld be est i mated that the

t otal perc en t a ge of the hi gh -seas sam ples composed of age -5 2

s oc ke ye bou nd f o r t h e River s -Smith Inlets area wou ld be g :~~ = 1. 00

an dtheper centageformed by Ri ve r s - Smi t h bo un d so c key e whi c h coul d

no t be se parated fr om othe r Br it ish Columbia run s would be

(0 .97 - 0 .89) x 0 .59 = 0 .05% . The es timated t otal per c e n t a g e

of Sk ee na bound a ge -5 2 sockeye wou ld be ~: ~~ = 7. 37 , and the

propor t i on tha t wou ld be c ompos ed of Skeena bou nd s ockeye which

c ou ld not be s e pa ra t ed from other Br it ish Co lu mbia r un s would b e

(0 . 40 -0 .38) x 0 .89 = 0. 0 2 . Among those ass igned t o British

Columbia genera ll y (0 .59%) , a total of 0 .52% (0 .59 - 0 .02 - 0 .05%)

wou l d be composed of sockeye not bound e ither f or th e Skeena or

the Rivers -Smith I nle t s a rea . Assum ing that the f ract ion of

these that would be s e pa rab le f r om United States fi s h was the

sameasfortheSkeena fish(0 .40 -seeTableV) , t he n the total

pe r c e n t a ge of age -5 2 fi s h among the high -seas sam ples that were

bound f o r othe r Brit ish Columb i a streams wou ld be g : ~~ = 1.30%.

Thus , as shown in Tabl e I X, a n estimated total of 9 .6 7%

(7 .37 + 1.00 + 1. 30 ) of the h igh -seas s ampl es were estimated to

have been composed of ag e -5 2 so ckeye bou nd f or Brit ish Columbia .

The per c e n t a ge of the h igh -seas sa mples composed of age -52

so ckeye class ified as or i g i nati ng in Bristol Bay was 2.09 (see

Table VII) . Based on data i n Table V, it woul d b e estimated that

among the h i gh -s eas sam ples a t otal of~=10.45%wouldbe

bound for Bristol Bay a nd t he perc en t ag e formed by Br istol Bay

sockeye which could not b e se pa rated from other Al ask an runs

(but which could be se parated f rom Br itish Colum b ia fi s h ) would

be 0 .7 4 x 10 .45 = 7 .73%. Thi s fi gur e i s h igher t ha n the tota l

p er c e nt ag e of all s ock eye t hat were ass igned to the "Al a s ka general "

category (4 .26% - see Table VII) i nd i ca ti ng e rrors i n th e pr oc edu r e s ,

probab lycausedbya la c k of re presentat ive sam ples i n the sta nd ards

usedtodes cr ibethe character ist icsofthepopulat ions contr ibu -

tarytothehigh -seassamples. The data wou ld suggest that the

Br isto l Bay sockeye were more separable from other Alaskan stoc ks

than i nd i c a t ed by the fi gur e s in Tabl e VII. Without mor e sam pl es

f r om var ious r iver systems in Alaska, it is i mpo s sib l e to resolve

t he incons istencies in the data. For pur po s e s of the pr e s e n t

analysis i t was assumed tha t a f ract ion of 0 .55 ( a pprox imate

average of fract ions of Br istol Bay standa r d sam ples and tho se

from ot he rAl a sk a n a r e a s - s e e Tabl e V) of Al aska b ound age - 52

sockeye amon g the h igh -seas sam ples could be i dentified as

orig inat ing i n Al a s ka general ly . Thu s , i f , as i nd i ca t ed in

Table VII , 6 .35% oL .t h e h ig h - s e a s s a mpl e s we r e i d e ntifi e d by the

sca le me t hod as o r ig i nati ng i n Alaska , the likel y total percen ­

tage of age -52

s ockeye amon g the h i gh -seas sam ples would be

calcu lated as ~ : ;~ = 11.55% .

The results of these computat io ns ar e su mmar ized in Table X.

Expa nsi on s of the f i gures on the per c ent a ge s of t he var ious grou ps

pr e s en t t o account for the variat ions in t he e s tima t ed f r a c t i on of

each stock that c ou ld be i d en tifi ed by the scale me t hod gave a

sl igh t ove restimate of the t otal per c en t a ge s of a ge - 4 2 and age -5 2

s ockeye pr e s e n t (50 .3 8% and 21.22% compa red to actual values of

48 .8 3% a nd 18 . 13% fo r age -4 2 and age -5 2 f i s h r e s pe c ti vel y ) . The

co mputed f i gur e s were then ad justed s o that the per c e nt a ge s of the

three age g rou ps were the sa me as i n the or i g ina l samples (see

Table XI ) . Fro m th e data i n Tab le XI t he f o ll owi ng conclusions

( i) Al a s ka n bo und sockeye f o r med ab out th re e -quarters of the fish

sa mpled. Br i stol Bay soc keye f o r med ab out one - quar t e r of the

a ge - 4 2 sockeye pr e s e nt .

( i i) Brit ish Co lumb ia bound socke ye fo rmed s lightly over one -quarter

of a l l the sockeye sam pled .

a) Rivers -<3mith I nlets area sockeye f o rme d s lightly over 6% of

the t o t al . Among these f i s h age - 4 2 sockeye we r e over s ix

t imes as abundant as age -5 2 f ish .

b) Age - 42

sockeye go ing to Ca nad ian areas other than Rivers

a nd Smith In lets (these would i ncl ud e the Adams River run)

amounted t o onl y 14 . 49% of the total sockeye sam pled .

c) Age - 52 s ocke ye bou nd for the Ske ena River contributed 7 .37%

of a ll the sock ey e sa mpled. These f or med ov er three -quarte rs

of a ll the age -5 2 soc key e bou nd f or Canadian streams (they

were ove r se ven t imes a s abundant as Rivers -Smith I nl e t s

a ge -5 2 fi s h ) .

Pr e l i minary e xami na ti on of l e ng t h data and i nf o r ma ti on on

go na d s ize for a f ew of t he sock e ye sa mpled dur ing Apr il and May

s u gges ted that mos t of the so c ke ye ta ken on long -lines were

ma turing and would be a va ilab le to coastal fisher ies later i n

the ye a r. I f th is is t rue, and if the high -seas operat ion sampled

th e stocks bou nd f or a ll Nor th Amer ican a reas in a representat ive

way , the n the pe r c en t a ge s of the h igh -seas sa mples designated as

be ing dest ined f or d if f erent coasta l areas in Table XI should be

pr op or ti ona l t o the abu nda nc e of the stocks reach ing these area s

l a ter i n the year . Prec is e i nfo r ma ti on on the abundance of a l l

import a n t stocks i s l ac k in g. Howev e r, i n 1962, i t i s l i kely that

a ll i mpor t a nt sockeye r un s wer e ex plo ited i n t e n si ve l y and on the

assumpt ion t hat t he r a t e s of e xp l oi t a ti on were of about the same

i n a ll a reas ( prel im i na ry i nf o rmati on i ndi c a t ed that t he r a t e s o f

ex plo itat ion i n Br isto l Ba y , the Sk eena and Fraser were between

4 5 a nd 48%) , 3 then the ab undance of th e catches pr ov i d e a r ough

3 0 n the bas is of pr elimi na r y data 1962 rates of exploitation

wer e - i n Br isto l Bay 45%, i n the Skeena River Inlets area 45% a nd

in the Fraser 48%.

measu re of the abu ndance of the stocks . I n Tab le XII , the relat ive

abundance of catche s i n d if fe rent a r eas i s c ompa red with est imates

of the pe r c e n t a ge s of t he h igh-seas sam plesas s i gn edtodifferen t

a reas . The co mpar ison reveals that the f r a c t i on s of the sam ples

des i gnated as or i g ina ting i n Al a s ka and Br itish Columb ia were very

s i milar t o the fr a cti ons of the total North Amer ican catch formed

by Alaskan a nd Br it ish Colu mbia fi s h res pect ive ly . The comparison

als o sho ws t hat the fra c t i on s of both sam pl es and catches formed

by Riv e rs -S mith I nl e t s a rea sockeye were qu ite s imilar and that

the r e l a ti ve pr o por t i ons of t he two majo r age c lasses wi th in th e

Ri ver s -S mi t h I n l ets s ampl es were qu ite s imi l a r to th ose i n the

catc hes . The est i ma t ed pr op or ti on of Sk e ena Ri ve r age -5 2 socke ye

i n the catches , howe ve r , wa s on l y one -th i rd of th a t i nd i c a t ed by

t h e sca l e sa mpl es .

The s e pr el i min a r y stud i es a re pr omi s in g . It i s ho ped that

by obta i n i ng mor e r e pre s en t a tive sam ples fr om co ast al areasmore

pr e ci s e se pa rat io ns betwee n i ndi v i d ua l s f rom d i f f erent sockeye

Percentage of sockeye which had spent one or more yearsi n freshwater bef o re migrating to the sea.

Years i n Freshwater

Unit ed Sta tes (Al a s ka )

Br isto l Bay , 1956 -1959

Ala s ka Pe ni ns ul a (Ch ign ik) 1956, 1958

Alaska Pen insula (Shumag in Islands) 1958

Al a s ka Peninsula (8earRiver) 1959

Kod iak (Red River) 1956, 1958

Kodi a k (Karluk River) 1956, 1958

Cook I n l et (Se ldov ia) 1958

Cook Inl e t (Ke nai River) 1959

Copp e r River , 1959

Canada (Br itish Columbia)

NassRiver, 1960, 1961

SkeenaRiver, 1960, 1961

Rivers Inlet, 1960,1961

Smith In let , 1960, 1961

Fraser River , J ohn s t one Stra it, 1960 ,1961

Numbers of sockeye sam pled i n various coastal area s .

Caneda (Br it is h Col umb i a )

Fraser Fishery

United States (Alaska)

Br isto l Bay

Br isto l Bay

Br isto l Bay

Chig n i k Al a sk a Pe ni nsula

Chign ik Al a sk a Pen i nsu la

Age Class

1, 059

So ckeyeYearl ings

-cj

(")N

rn j (")N

H

U

co

(")N oqN

UN

!iL1J

UN UN;:

,-,,,,

.....N .....N

0- 0-«'"

..J ..J.....~ .....N .....(") 0- UN U(") .....N l.JN uNLJ

l- I-

Arb itrary r a ng e s of counts and measurements for:~~k;~~ ~~~~~n~n the major shore areas for 52

Ri versSmith Ske ena Fis h Cook Br is t ol Alaska

Inl e t s Ri ve r Cr eek I n l et Bay Pen .

~~~sj~~

~~

~~

~~J;

~~SUee ~ -o

o ~

~ ~

'" ~ -.0

~~ : ~ -i

~~ : :; i~~

~~

j£: : ci '"

~~ :'"

~a:i

~r ~~~

~ ~~~

~~ ;'l

il~ l8~ ~ ~~

i~

::;:.0

-0 0 ..,N

<t:>- r~

o ~

f-g:~

;:

::>

a:

..,M

o..-ou

.oM

"N .oN ::;:

0

UNIT ED STATES

Sr isto lBay

of t h e 1962 Gulf of Alaskaof a ge - 4 2 socke ye bound fo r

I II Estimated tota lPe r cen t a ge Pro po r t io n pe r c e nt amongi dentifi ed i d entifi able sam pl es

I /ll

O.SOl } .. J0 .11

7.977 .06

Estimat e s of pe r ce nt age s of 1962 Gulf o f Al a sk a sockeye~~~~;~s co mpo sed of a ge -5 2 sockeye bound f or d i ffe r ent

I II Es tima ted totalPe rcentage Fr a c ti on perc en t amongi d e ntif i ed i de ntifia b le sam ples

CANADA

Skeena

Es tima t ed Skee nabound sockeyeclass if ied asB.C . unknown

Rivers -S mith

Es timated Rivers ­Smith bound s oc ke yeclassif ied asB.C . un kn own

B.C . unk nown(ex clud i ng e stima tedpe r c e nt age s bound fo rS keenaa nd Rive rs ­Smi t h)

UNITED STATES

Alaska ge nera ll y

r/r r

;i ~i ~8... ~; ~E §~

<t:CD

...

~~

:i 0-

.o

c;: 0 -

Ul

tcr:o «

-c .J" ",Nu,

19

gi·M ....

~C'. o-

«CD

Ul'"

.cEErl

o w

~3

.0 :ic;:

U«

«.q'" on'"

Tab le XI I . Compa.rison of catches in vario us North Americ an coastal areas with e stinatedpr opor t i ons of sockeye destined for different areas among high -seas samples .

Pr opor tion ofSockeye Sampl ed

Al aska

Bristol Bay 4 ,778 34 . 1

Ot her Alaska !W12. lli29 ,774 69 . 7

British Col umbia a nd Washing to n State .

Fraser and vici nity (including Washingto n Sta t e) 1 ,7581

12 .5

Rivers and Smith In l e t s a f!.e-4.... 1, 1082

7 .9 6 .2

165 ' ...1.d ....Q:.2...1, 28a4 9 .2 7 .0

(total stock )5 37l 2 .6 ?

( t otal st ock) 5 6373~ ....hL

4i44 3 .4 ?

7284.2d -

Total British Columbia and Washington State 4 ,258 430 .3

14 ,032

l Inc lud es Fraser co nve ntion waters , in both Canada and United States plus Canadian areas 12 and 13 .

~~:~;e:::~:;:g::~:ups (i.e . inc l udes some " su b- 3" fish as well)

5Ca t ch pl us escapemen t .

Fig .l.A. Number of c i rc ul i i n ea ch ye a r ban d of th efirst t hre e ye ars of 4 -y ea r -old socke ye fromriver s of British Columbi a , Alaska andBri s t ol Bay .

B. Ra ti o of the wid th of the secon d yea r ban d tot he numbe r of circuli in the s e cond yea r band .

",20

;:

",60

~ 4 0

Fi g. 2 . Annul u s widths i n ea c h yea r band of the fi rst threeyea r s of 4 - yea r - o l d s oc ke ye f r om r i v e r s ofB r itishCol umb i a , Alaska a nd Bristol Bay .

20~1961

:1:20

~ 1961

i20 1961

~ 1961

3 42ndYEARANNULUSWIDTH2nd YEAR CIRCULI

'0 15 20 202530 35 4 0NUMBER OF CIRCULI

;

ADAMS R.

SKEENA R.

K1SKA

ADAK

U:20-i-'~~-ao..-_~

15~20

~20'+-------""---

2 3 42nd YEAR CIRCULII" YEAR CIRCULI

Fi g .3.A. Annulus wid th s i n ea c h ye a r band of th e fir st twoye a r s of th e 3 - year-o l d socke ye f ro m ri vers ofBritish Columbia a nd the Al euti a ns .

B. Numbe r o f ci rc uli i n ea c h yea r band of the f ir s tt wo yea rs of t he3-y e a r -old so c key e f ro m r i v e r s o fBr i t ish Col umbi a , Ala sk a a nd Br is tol Ba y .

C . Ratio of the wi d t h of th e s e co nd year ba nd to t henumbe r of circul i in th e s e cond year ba nd .

D. Ratio of t he number of ci rculi in the s econd ye a rba nd to the numbe r of ci r c ul i i n th e fir s t yea r ba nd .