a:>--= ~ aJ ::J 1-

~ aJ <( I

~ LL. 0 <(

~ <0 r-­

=10 =.,....-· -0 -o

0 10 .... C') t\1 C')

-FOR INTER-DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY-

BRISTOL BAY DATA REPORT NO. 24

Sl-\ 22'2-

.Nl Prl

·,, •. zLI

/·

I

Tikchik Lake System Commercial Freshwater Fishery

(A Preliminary Report)

by Carl Yanagawa

Fishery Biologist

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries

Dillingham, Alaska

November 1, 1969

APJL][§ Alaska Resources Library & InfonnatiQn.Services

Library Buikling, Suite 111 3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage., AK 995084614

~o.fl,.erg.-;d w~·(:o·

STATE~~S ·. ',

DEPARTMENT OF FISM.~'ti~ME UBRARY

P.O. BOX 3-2000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802-2000

FORM SA-IB

MEMORANDUM State of Alaska

TO: I

FROM:

p y

Alex H. McRae, Director Division of Sport Fish Juneau

Michael L. Nelson Division of Commercial Fisheries Dillingham

DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME

DATE August 14, 1967

SUBJECT: Tikchik Report

c 0

p

Enclosed please find the section on "Fishery Potential" for Carl's report. If you have no objections, I believe that you should leave my name on this part of the report. I would hate to see Carl arguing the pros and cons of something he did not write. Also, enclosed is a sug­gested opening for the report re: Walt's old policy statement and a paragraph Ken would like to see included.

y

cc: C. H. Meacham, Regional Supervisor, Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage Ken Middleton, Area Biologist, Commercial Fisheries, King Salmon

INTRODUCTION

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has as one of its primary

objectives the development of new fisheries on previously unharvested

stocks of fish. The Department has encouraged the harvest of whitefish,

char and allied species with a minimum of success. This has been due

primarily to transportation and marketing difficulties -- economic

factors. The Department will continue to aid in the u'tilization of our

untapped freshwater fisheries resources within the bounds of sound con­

servation practices.

Ken Middleton would like to see the following inserted at the end

of the Introduction section:

The data contained in the following report was collected jointly by

the Division of Commercial Fisheries and the Division of Sport Fish of

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Division of Commercial

Fisheries collected all data in the spring and fall of 1966 while that

data assembled in the spring of 1967 was gathered by the Division of

Sport Fish.

FISHERY POTENTIAL

by Michael L. Nelson, Division of Commercial Fisheries

Enough data has now been collected and analyzed to allow the Department

to discuss the commercial fishery potential of the Tikchik Lake system.

Through aerial and ground surveys conducted in the past and the more recent

commercial venture, it has been established that stocks of whitefish

and lake trout are present in harvestable numbers. Further, it has been

shown, especially in the case of the humpback whitefish, that these species

are acceptable on the market and in fact, are superior to fish taken in

other areas.

It is the writer's opinion that the establishment of a commercial

fishery on the Tikchik system would be difficult, and in all probability

a marginal venture. In addition to the obvious problems (i.e., transporta­

tion and marketing), there remains the question of the ability of the

Lake system to produce sustained yields over a long period of time. Gill

net sampling by the Fisheries Research Institute and the recent commercial

fishery has shown that catch per unit of effort was low in relation to

similar lakes in Canada. Sizable catches of lake trout and whitefish

were made in the fall of 1966 by the commercial fishermen. However, these

catches (unlike the spring fishery) were made under open-water conditions

and at a time when lake trout and whitefish were concentrated preparatory

to spawning in September and October. The spring fishery, which took place

through the ice, had a much lower catch per unit of effort.

With establishment of a commercial fishery on the Tikchiks it may

become necessary to restrict fishing in the fall season to protect spawning

-2-

runs of whitefish and lake trout. The resultant winter fishery would be

conducted at a time when fish are less available and catch per unit of

effort is low.

Research conducted to date does not allow us to make an estimate of

how much poundage can be taken from the Lake system on a sustained yield

basis. However, a catch of 150,000 pounds per year would not seem unrea­

sonable when compared with similar lakes in Canada. Yield (pounds/acre)

varied tremendously with each lake due basically to mineral content,

physical characteristics and standing crops of phyloplankton and zoo­

plankton. Only the lower three Tikchik Lakes have been surveyed for

commercial potential. If these lakes are the only ones fished commercial­

ly the sustained annual catch might be considerably lower.

It is not the Department's intent to set poundage quotas for the

Tikchik system when so little data is available. The Tikchik Lake system

may produce more than the figure quoted, es.pecially in the developmental

period of the fishery when old populations of fish would expect to be

harvested.

A joint gill net sampling program in the summer of 1967 by the

Fisheries Research Institute and the Division of Commercial Fisheries

has shown that there was no change in catch per unit of effort, age

composition or species composition when data taken before the commercial

fishery is compared to data collected after the fishery was operational.

,;-.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction •

Description of the Area

Fishing Methods ~-;;-·--- ---·. - ~-- ._,

Page 1

2

2 Sport Fishery - - ·- - ·- ··- -Fall Fishery - - - - - - - • •

-2·--~--:3~--

Fishing Regulations - • - - - - - - - - - • - .- - 3

Commercial Fishery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 Spring, 1966 - • - - - - - - - 4 Fall, 1966 - - - - - - - - - - 5 Spring, 1967 - - • - - 6 Fishery Summary ..; - - - - - - - - - - 6

Sampli~g Commercial Catch

Biology - - - - - - - - ----· _.......::_:.:..:.,: ____ ··--·-~:-. _ Age Composition - - •· • - - - - • -Sex Composition • - - - - - - - -Length and Weight - - - - • Parasitism - - • - -

Associated Studies • - -Fisheries Research Institute - • -Canadian Stndiea - - - - - • • -~-~¥~ v4.~a•v- - -uy .... ,.. .,; •-••-•,r . Problems

Acknowledgement- - - - - - - - -

Literature Cited -

. - . . -

Appendix -Table Table Table Table Table Table

1. Morphometry of the three lower lakes -·.2. 'List of common and _scientific names of fisher· · 3. Summary - April 15 to May 16, 1966 - • - -4. Summary ~ September 22 to October 14, 1966 5 •. ' Swmnary - March 13 to April 9, 1967 6. Percentage composition of fishes in

gill net ca·tches, 1964 ·- ·- ·- ··---- ·­Table. 7. : Frequency distribution by length and age group.

of Lake trout, 1966. - - - - - - - • - -Table 8. ! Frequency distribution by 'length and age group

1 of Lake trout, 1967 - - - - - - - - - -Table 9. · Frequency distribution by length and age group

of Humpback whitefish, 1966 -- • Table 10. Frequency distribution by length and age group

of Humpback whitefish, 1967

7

8 8 9 9 9

10 10 ll 11 12

14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21

-22

23

24

25

26

Table 11. Table 12.

Average round Average round 1966 and 1967

weight of gill net catch, 1964 -weight of gill net catches,

Table 13. Summary of age composition of humpback whitefish

Page 27

28

·and lake trout, 1964 and 1965. - - - - - - - - 29 Table 14. Summary of sex ratios of humpback whitefish and

lake trout, 1964 and 1966 - - - - - - 30

Figure Figure Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

1, Tikchik Lake syster - - -·-- --2. Commercial catch areas, Tikchik lake system -3, Length-weight relationship, Lake trout

April and may, 1966 - - - - - - - - - -4. ·Length-weight relationship, Lake trout,

September and October, 1966 - - - - - - -5, Length-weight relationship, Lake trout

March and April, 1967 - - - - - - - - - -6, Length-weight relationship, Lake trout

1966-67 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --Figure 7. Length-weight relationship, Humpback white-

31 32

33

34

35

36

fish, April and May, 1966 - - - - - - - - - - 37 Figure 8. Length-weight relationship, Humpback white-

fish, September and October, 1966 - - - - - - 38 Figure 9, Length-weight relationship, Humpback white-

fish, March and April, 1967 - - - - - - - - - 39 Figure 10, · Length-weight relationship, Humpback whitefish,

1966-1967 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 Figure 11. Length· frequency: relationshij>:,;,;.Lake trout,

April and May, 1966 - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 Figure 12, Length frequency relationship, Lake trout,

Scptewber aud OctubeL, 1966 - - - - - - - - 42 Figure 13, Length frequency relationship, Lake trout,

March and April, 1967 - - - - - - - - - - - 43 Figure 14. Length frequency relationship, Lake trout,

Figure 15.

Figure 16,

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19,

Figure 20·,

1966 - 67 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 Length frequency relationship, Humpback whitefish, April and May, 1966 - - - -Length frequency relationship, Humpback

45

whitefish, September and October, 1966 ., 46 Length frequency relation~;h_!£-;--H!iinpb-a~c:":~J.:. :;::~= whitefish, March and April, 1%1-;--..-., ~ 7 - --::J£L:-.-~--. Length frequency relationship, Humpback ·' whitefish, 1966-67 - - - - - - - - - - _.;:_ -Length frequency relationship, Humpback Whitefish, July, 1964 - - - - - - - - - -

·Length frequency relationship. Lake trout July, 1964 ------ -·-- ··-- -,--

I .. .. •.-'

-··---·~- -·~

48

49

50

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of initiating a freshwater commercial fishery in the

Bristol Bay area is to provide year-round income for the residents of

the area. Various groups around the Dillingham area have been interested

in such a program for the past 4-5 rears. Attempts to establish a winter

freshwater fishery have been made in Lake Clark and Lake Iliamna during

the winter of 1963-64 (Metsker, 1961}_.

Alaska Freshwater Fisheries Company initiated the 1966-67 freshwater

commerci~l fishery in Tikchik Lake. Fishing was conducted in the Spring

and Fall of 1966 and during the spring of 1967.

Problems that have plagued the Iliamna Lake freshwater fishery have

also appeared in the Tikchik Lake fishery (Metsker, 1967). Transportation

costs is .still the major problem with marketing being next. The only

means of transportation to and from the Tikchik Lake system is by charter

aircraft since no scheduled airline service is available. Transportation

to market is also a major concern since there are no roads linking Bristol

Bay to the continental United States. Air transportation, although very

expepsive. is the only possible way to get the product to market. During

the spring and fall of 1966 the fish were processed in Dillingham and ·

flown to market in Anchorage, ·While in. the spring of 1967 the fish were

flown to the midwest in the round. '

The fishery was conducted on an expe~mental basis to determine if

_such an operation could_be economically feasible. The following is a

report on the commercia·l freshwater fishery in the Tikchik Lakes area •.

2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

The Tikchik lake system is located approximately 65 air miles north

of Dillingham. It drains about 1,486 square miles (Gadau, 1966). Seven

lakes make up the Tikchik system (Figure 1). Commercial freshwater fishing

was conducted mainly in Tikc~ik lake,. however exploratory work was initiated

in Nuyakuk lake and lake Chauekuktuli. Morphometry of the three lower

lakes in the system is shown in Table 1.

FISHING METHODS

Spring Fishery

An ice chisel, jigger.board and snow machine We~estandard equipment

for the spring fishermen on the Tikchik Lake.

A suitable fishing location is located, and the ice chisel is em-

played to open a hole about two feet in diameter. The jigger board

is placed under the ice and "Jigged" until a suitable distance is obtained

(50 fathoms for a 50 fathom net). As the board is "j igged• along it pro-

duces a knocking sound. While one person "jigs", the other is following

· the board as it moves under the ice pulling the running line. Another

hole is chipped in the ice and the board is retrieved. At this stage

tiE fishermen have a running line between the two holes. The net is

then attached to one end of the running line and the other end of the

runningline is tied to a snow machine which pulls the net into the water.

Both ends of the net are then attached to poles which are longer than the

diameter of the hole and are s~t across the hole. All nets were fished

on the bottom of the lake during the spring in approximately 45-120 feet

of water. Mesh sizes of nets· employed during the spring fishery were '

4 3/4", 5 3/8 11, 5 1/2" and·8-ll2_'~s_tretch measures~ ----- '-- --.·~·

When the net is pulled, a running line is attached to one ~-ef--

th~ net. Both fishermen then pull the ::_et. from the other end, .... ~-• ..:.....:i.1 :...s

stacKeci in a pile with the lead line on one side anG the corks o~-. :.he

other. As the net is being pulled the fi3h are picked out. Ther~C is

no problem of t:he net freezing toge;:he:- :-ec.nuse it freezes as i:: is b~:..:.:2

pulled. To reset the net, one £i.;hem.;,;..n -goes to t:ne -;::-~,\::-,_- end :::f. th2 ~:.-.:. t

$~d fastens the running line to his sno~ machine an~ pulls ~he ne~ in~c

water. i'lie otl:ier -fisl:ieriileri assures· that the net is- set -ir; tc.c

properly.

Fall Fishery

Salmon gill nets of 4 3/4" and 5'3/8" stretch measure wer<> u::il~z"~

during the fall fishery. Two methods of fishing were employed. One me;:;,~ .. :

was to at~ach one end of the net to a stake on shore .o':nd the o;:f.c:: er..-.:..

anchored in deep water. A buoy was attached to the anchor line t~ whict

the end was attached. Fishing in this method is essential:y the same as

t:hat of "set netting" in the salmon fishery.

rne other method was to anchor both ends of the gill net in deep

water with a buoy attached to both anchor lines.

Skiffs and outboards were used until "freeze up" when fishiu;;: w<.s

terrr.inated.

Fishing Regulations

No official closed areas ··were designated during the spring i:.~-.. d f~_l

fisheries of 1966, however the fishermen voluntarily avoided areas of

spawning fish and areas of sport fish interest. In the spring of 1967

official closed areas were laid-out by the D~vision of Commercia: ?i5hcri~s

which coincided with known spawning grounds and areas of concent~ation& of

sport fi~h (Figure .. :2). In addii:.ior. these regulatory measures we-.:.·~ ir.f.Jrceci:

l) ~ permit was issued to every fisherman wl:ich required c :.-epor.:. at the end of fishing.

4 .•

2) Every fisherman had. t.Q_I>e licensed for his gear and to fish

commercially. - =--==--==~::~-=--~--------·------._________ ---=----- ~---.

3) Minimum mesh size of 4 3/4" stretch measure.

4} Limit amount of gear to 300 fathoms for each fisherman.

5) Seven closed areas to protect sport fish interests and whitefish and lake trout on the spawning grounds.

6) Fishing ia prohibited from June 1 to August 31 •

. , COHMERCTAL FJSHERY

The Tikchik lake commercial fishery lasted for 82 days, 32 deys

during the spring of 1966, 22 days during the fall of 1966 and 28 days ._

during the spring of 1967. A total of 8 licensed fishermen fished during

the entire fishery. Two fishermen operated in the spring of 1966, two

during the fall of 1966 and four during the spring of 1967.

Approximately $1.i,300 was paid out to the fishermen. The total

catch for 1966 and 1967 was 22,884 pounds .of all species.

The major obsticle in the fishery was ,the high cost of transportation

The Tikchik lake system il 65 air miles north of Dillingham and is ac•

cessible only by aircraft,Since the fishery was dealing with a perishable ' .

product, costly air transportation was the only means a~ailable to get

the fish to market,

Of the 17 species of fish found in. the Tikchik lake system, only ·

humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian). and lake trout (Salvelinus namaucush)

were taken in commercial quantities. Arctic char (Sai.velinus alpinus),

burbot (Lots lots) and nortQern pike (Esox lucius) were taken in smaller

quantities (Table 2),

Spring 1966

A total of 1,816 fish (7,714 pounds) were caught from April 15 /

to May 16,. 1966, Twq fishermen caught 1,218 humbpack whitefish (4,834 Pounds),

s.

528 lake trout (2,864 pounds) and 16 pike (191 pounds), for a species

- ----- . - ----composition of 67 ~ whitefish, 32 ~ lake trout and 1~ pike.· Average

catch for each of the days was 38 humbpack whitefish, 18 lake trout, and

0.5 pike or 56.5 fish of all species (Table 3).

Average round weight of fish caught was4,0 pounds for humpback white­

fish, 4.6 pounds for lake trout and 11.6 pounds for' pike (Table 12):

All fishermen used salmon gill nets dur:i.ng the spring of the year.·

Nets used in the fishery were 4.3/4", 5 3/8" and 8·1/2" stretch measure.

One grayling was caught during the entire fishery.

Fall, 1966

During the 22 days of fishing (September 22 to October 14) two

fishermen caught 2,539 fish (12,726 pounds), The total catch was composed

of 1,494 humpback whitefish (6,394 pounds), 710 lake trout (3,523 pounds),

298 pike (2,643)pounds) and 37 char (166 pounds), Species composition

was similar to the spring fishery (Table 4). An average catch of 72

humpback whitefish, 34 lake trout, 15 pike and 2 char or 123 fish of

all species were caught daily.(Table 4).

Catch in,fiah per hour was 0,67 humpback whitefish, 0.32 lake trout,

0.13 pike and 0.01 char or 1.13 fish per hour per atandart net. Similar

values were found by FRI (Table 11). ·catch in pounds per hour was 2.88

humpback whitefish, 1.59 lake trout, 1.19 pike and 0.07 char, or 5.73 I

pounds per.hour per .~tandard net (see table 11 for comparable data).

Average weight of fish were 4.1 pounds for humpback whitefish, 4.9

.. _--pounds .. for lake trout, 9.0 pounds for pike and 4,5 pounds for char (Table 12);

Commercial fishermen fished other lakes fo.r ·the first time during

this period. Nuyakuk lake and Lake Chauekuktuli were· fished for a short

time. Catches were so small that they were combined with those of Tikchik

6.

in this report.

Four rainbow trout·and six grayling were caught during the fishery.

Spring, 1967

Three to four fishermen caught 555 fish (2,444 pounds) during the

26 days of fishing (March 13 to April 9). Fish caught by species were

326 humpback whit,fish (1,304 pounds), 210 lake trout ( 1,055 pounds),

2 char (8 pounds), 2 pike (30 ·pounds)and 15 burbot (47 pounds) (Table 5).

Again species composition was similar to the spring and fall fishery

of 1966 (Table 5). The average daily catch was 11 humpback whitefish

and 8 lake trout or 19 fish of all species per day. Catch per hour

per standard net was 0.13 for humpback whitefish, 0.08 for Lake trout

and a total hourly catch of all species of 0.21. Average weigh< .£ .fish

were 4.0 pounds for humpback whitefish and 5.1 pounds for lake trout

(Tabel 12).

During this fishery all nets used. were 5 ~" stretch mesh special

11diver 11 nets.

No sport fish were caught during this fishing period. (Table 5).

Fishery Summary

During 1966 and 1967 a total of 4,910 fish of all species (22,884 lbs.)

were caught during 82 days of fishing. The species composition oi the

catch was 3,038 humpback whitefish (12,532 pounds), 1,502 lake trout

(7,267 pounds), 316 pike (2,864 po~nds), 39 char.(l74) pounds) and

15 burbot (47 pounds). Over-all specie composition was 63% humpback

whitefish, 30% lake trout, 6% pike, 1% char and 1% burbot.

Average hourly ca_tch was 0,39 humpback whitefiSh (1.7 pounds), 0.19

Lake trout (1.0 pounds), and 0.06 pike (.6 pounds) and .66 fish of all

species (3.3 pounds). Hourly catch figures were taken from the fall of

7.

i

' ' 1966 and spring of 1967, since no hourly effort data was collected during

. the spring fishery of 1966.- The daily -aver!ige-catch·-f-;;;-che entire fish-

ery was 37 humpback whitefish and 18 lake trout, or a total of 55 fish

of the major two commercial species.

Two different types of gear were used during the fishery; salmon

gill nets .and special diver nets.

A total of 11 sport fish were caught during the fishery ( 4 rainbow

trout and 7 grayling) •

The Fisheries Research Institute of the University of Washington have

conducted an ecological survey of Tikchik lake, Nuyakuk lake and Lake

Chauekuktuli in 1964 and 1965 •. ·variable mesh gill nets (1", 1 3/4", 2",

2 1/2",3", 4'') were used in the studies. (Burgner, et. al., 1965). During ) :;

1964, 54 lake trout and 70 humpback whitefish were caught.in Tikchik lake

for an hourly catch of 0.05 lake trout and 0,66 humpback whitefish and

- ..__.__ .. -.1! .. ", __ ., '---~~- _; -·~· 'tt\1!~ _.. B. LU LR.L UJ. L • L f pt:L llUU&. • ; •. ~ .1.11.: .1.'7 V.l t Iii tutal of 20 lake trout aud 12 bu-mp-

back whitefish were caught in Tikchik lake for an hourly catch of 0.51

lake trout and 0,30 humpback whitefish and .82 per hour total. (Reeves ~ ~ .

1967, unpublished), Although not entirely comparabel, these catch per

hour rates are similar to those of the commercial freshwater fishery.

Average weight .of fish caught in Tikchik lake duringl964 by FRI

was 3.8 pounds for humpback whitefish and 4.3 pounds for lake trout (Burg-

.( ' ner, et. al., 1965) (Table 11).

SAMPLING COMMERCIAL CATCH

The.Alaska Department of Fish and Game initiated a sam~ling program

during the spring of 1966 as a means to monitar the experimental fishery.

The sampling program was continued during the fall of 1966 and spring

of 1967.

Two methods of .•sampling were utilized. During the spring snd fall

' '·

8.

of 1966, sampling was conducted at Dillingham, as all catches were flown

in and processed in Dillingham. Length, weight, sex and parasitism were

recorded as well as obtaining scales for age analysis. During the spring

fishery of 1967 a Department biologist was located at the Tikchlk lake to

collect the rainbow data. Length, weight and estemal parasitism were

recorded along with scale and branchiostegal ray samp'tes. No sex deter­

mination or intemal parasitism observations were made because all fish

were flown out in the round.

Branchi,ostegal rays were collected from lake trout for aging purposes.

Age determinations through this method di,d not'prove satisfactory, con­

·sequently all ages were recorded from scales.

BIOLOGY

Age Composition

Scales were taken from 191 lake trouts from the Tikchik lake com­

mercial fishery during 1966 and 1967. Lake trout in age classes 5 through

13 were collected (Tables 7 and 8).

Humpback whitefish scales were taken from the-Tikchik lake commercial

fishery in 1966 and 1967. Age classes ranged 8 through 16 years (Tables

9 and 10}.

Age composition of lake trout during 1966 and 1967 were very similar.

Approximately 90 percent of the fish fell within age groups 6-through 8

(Table 7 and 8).

Fisheries Research Institute found that 78 percent of the lake

trout caught ·in 1964 and 72 percent caught in-1965- fell in age classes

6 through 8 (Reeves, 1967, unpublished) (Table 13).

The majority (70~ or better) of humpback ~hitefish fell in age groups

ll through 14 for the commercial; -fishery (Tables 9 and 10).

During 1964-and-1965-- FRI ·found that only 49'7. and 55% of the humpback

9.

i.f:~.::. ::eiish ;":.:= ll in age groups 11 th-.:-o.:;.6h l4.. The greZ;::e:: percent<:.0~ c.f

.fish in the younger age group can be expl.s.::...r-&d by che sn . .:..i..:.er m..;;.sh .. ~.~t::.ts

<;,::p ~eyed by FRI. (Reeves, 19 67, Unpub lisheci) (Table 13) •

Sex Composition

Data on sex ratios were collected only during the spring and fall

o:.: ::_~,65, when the fish .were processe.:;.. 1.:;..;,.-r.pback whitefish we:-e fouuc: to

have a ratO.o of 47% males and 53% females while lake trout were i<O/; mal.:o~

ar~ 50% females {Table 14). Fisheries Research Institute derived sex

ratios o~J.:' cor 1964 on Tikchik lake. Sex ratios for hum,,:o.,c:c .· . ._

were 57% males and 43% females; 53% males to 47% femaies for lake "rout.

(Reeves, 1967, unpublished) (Table 14).

Len;2:t:h and 1-Jeight

Lake trout growth rates are shown in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6. G~0wth

ra.:t'!s coi:-.cide very closely with thst of lake trout from a relat::.v~.~..y

unexploited lake trout fishery in Great Slave Lake (Kennedy, 1954).

Figur~s 7, 8, 9 and 10 show length-weight relationships for humpback

whitefish.

During 1966 and 1967 the most frequently caught lake trout hac a

size range of 500 to 575 mm, while in 1964 an additional size rar.g2 of

500 to 525 111m were also caught in cbundance. This condition may ::,c due

to the fact that during FRI sampling in 1964, variable mesh gill n<:ts "''"·e

<!SEd wit..'!. ·the largest mesh being 4 inches. Dttring 1966 anci 1967 the smallest

m<::sh .size \·JZS 4 3/4 inches (~ .. igurcS ~1~ 12, 13, 14 and 2C) ~

'~L1e :!~edominant size group of humpback whitefish Was 525 mw _._ . .._ 196~ ....

19 66 anc 19 67 (Figures 15, 16, 17, lS and 19) •

lL: h.::-.s been found that lu.i.'-e trout we::e more highly parasitise:L cx­

tern.::.l.ly w:::ile humpback whitefish v1e:-e highly parasitised internai:.y ..

10.

Copepods were prominent on lake trout in the oral and buccal cavities.

Copepods were not found in large number on whitefish. Tape worms were

more widely found in whitefish then in lake trout (Casey, 1966, unpublishedO.

Cystos were commonly found in both lake trout and whitefish.

A few lake trout were observed in poor condition (large heads and

slender bodies) during the 1967 fishery, but no internal investigations were

made due to the fact all fish were marketed in the J:'ourid. It is assumed

that these fish were highly parasitised as were the arctic char in the

Iliamna Lake.· fishery during 1964 (Metsker, 1967),

The copepods were identified to be (Salmincola sp.)

ASSOCIATED SUTDIES

Fisheries Research Institute

In June and July,l964 and again in 1965 the Fisheries Research In-

stitute of the University of Washington sampled Tikchik lake, Nuyakuk lake

and Lake Chauekuktuli,

In addition to humpback whitefish.and·lake trout, round whitefish were·

caught,

The average. ages of lake trout caught in Tikchik lake were age class 6

which also coincided with age classes of fish caught in Nuyakuk and Chau­

kuktuli. Humpb~ck whitefish age class 9, 10 and 11 constituted the bulk ! '

of the fish cau'ght ·in all three lakes.

During 196,5, lake trout age Classes ran from 6 through 8 with 7 being

the predominan~ age class for all three lakes while the bulk of humpback

whitefish fell .iq age class 11 9Reeves, 1967, unpublished).

Lake trout catches were consistently high in all three lakes, being

40.3 % in Tikchik lake, 42.9% in Nuyakuk lake and 53.4% in Lake Chauekuktuli.

Hhitefish,: both humpback and round, made up the bulk of the •·:··aincLr

of the catch w~th 52~3~-bumpback whitefish in Ti~chik lake and 28.3% humpback

11.

whitefish in Nuyakuk lake and 33.91. round whitefish in Lake Chauekuktuli.

(Table 6) (Burgner, et. al., 1965).

Canadian Studies

Canadian studies were reviewed to provide a comparison with findings

from the Tikchik lakes.

Kennedy, 1945, found that during 1945 the majority of lake whitefish

caught in Great Bear lake fell in age class 9 which is quite similar to

chose of the Tikchik lakes. Gill nets of variable mesh were used (21..;",

3", 4", S" 11nd 51..;"). It was also found that lake whitefish preferred

river mouths rather than the lake itself •

. Kennedy, 1953 found two populations of lake whitefish in Great Slave

lake. One popula.tion had a large number of individuals in age group 12

while the other was in age group 14. These were taken from the commercial

fishery during 1946 through 1949.

Sex ratios were determined to be approximately 1 : 1. It has also been

noted that selectivity of gill nets capture the larger fish in each age class

(Kennedy, 1953).

Sport· Fishery

At the present·time there are two sport fishing camps on Tikchik

lake. One operator has nne cabin that has been in use for some time

while three others have been built recently. The other operator has one

cabin that has been used for some time. Fishing is genex:ally good at

the outlets of the lakes and at the mouths of inflowing an<l outflowing

rivers.

The Allen river, the narrows between· T·ikchik and Nuyaltuk .lakes, the

Narrows on Lake Chauekuktuli, Tikchik River and the Nuyakuk River are

excellent areas for grayling an4 rainbow trout. Cer-tain ?f th·· ·· ··ve

12.

srated areas are good for one species of fish (grayling or rainb,,,.

trout) while'others are not. Large lake trout are caught by trollcr.g

in Nuyakuk and Tikchik lakes. Rainbows are not found further north

than the Narrows between Tikchik and Nuyakuk lakes. It has been rc-

ported, but not substantiated, that some rainbows are taken in the

east end of Nuyakuk lake.

Figure 2 shows the areas closed to commercial fishing which coin-

cides with areas of concentrations for sports fish.

Rainbow trout and grayling, two important sport fishes are not

found in areas where lake trout and whitefish are found. Sport species

usually frequent areas of swift and fairly shallow water while others do

not. Ecologically speaking rainbows and grayling do not inhabit the same

ecological niche as do lake trout and whitefish.

Problems

Marketing was a major obstacle until good samples of whitefish were

sent out to prospective buyers where the fish were reported to be of ex-

cellent quality. A problem still exists if the same situation arises as

that of 1967 where the producers could not supply enough fish to the buyer.

If this situation should continue, prospective buyers will hesitate to . commit themselves to the producers.

The most obvious problem confron'ted by the fishery is that of trans-

portation. The only means of transportation from the lakes to Dillingham ··-- . . ·< . ~---- :__ ~

is by aircraft, No airstrip· is presently avatlab!e-at._t_!)e ~_:kc_l\iks -CD_n_--~--.,_.. .. __ __

sequently aircraft must be equipped with floats in the summer and skiis

in the winter. There is also a period, of "freez-up" and break-up" when

the lakes are inaccessible. After reaching Dillingham the fish must be I .

air freighte.d on tbc•market, either in Anchorage or to other states.

--'-"-''---------"~.

13.

Fishing itself presented a problem when the fish were appar&nt1y

ur> ."Ja dab lc. From catch records of 19 66 and 19 67 it seems pr0" ~hat

fish move to other areas of the lakes at different times of the

Largest catches were made in the fall of the year, coinciding with &?awn­

ing. Spring catches for 1967 were lower than that of the spring of 1966.

The spring flshery of 1967 terminated a month earlier than that of 1966.

This might be a possible explanation as to why catches were so lo~< i"

1967. It is probable that the fish do not start feeding until late spring.

and consequently are not moving and not available to the fishery.

At this point no conclusion can be reached as to how much fi.sh:ng

pressure the lakes can withstand and what the possible production ,,, the

lakes are. More studies should be initiated before any sustained yi.eld

production figures can be attained.

14.

ACKNCMLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to thank the following people and organizations

who provided information and assistance during this study:

\

1,) Sport Fish Division, Alaska Department of Fim and Game 2,) Commercial Fisheries Division, Alaska Department of Fish

and Game 3.) Michael L. Nelson, Commercial Fishery Biologist 4.) Commercial Fisheries who fished Tikchik lake,

(

LITERATURE CITED

Burgner, R. L., D. E. Rogers and Jerry Reeves. 1965, Observations of Resident Fishes in the Tikchik and Wood River Lake Systems. University of Washington Publications in Fish. Cir. No. 229,, 14 pp.

Casey, c. W., 1966. Tikchik Freshwater Commercial Fishery catch Sampling report, unpublished report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Gaudau, E. L., 1966; Mineral Study of the Four Lake Systems in the Nushagak District· of Alaska. M. S. Thesis, University of Wash­ingto~t, 229 pp.

Kennedy, W. A., 1949. Some observations on the Coregonine Fish of Great Bear Lake, N. W. T., Bulletin, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, LXXXII {1949), lOpp.

15.

Kennedy, W. A., 1953. Growth,Maturity, Fecundity and Mortality in the relatively unexploited whitefish {Coregonus clupeaformis), of Great Slave lake, Journal, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 10 (7) :413.

Kennedy, W. A., 1954, Growth, Maturity, and Mortality in the relatively unexploited Lake Trout, {Cristovomer namaycush), of Great Slave Lake., Journal, FiBheries Research Board uf Canada, 11 (6)~ 831.

Metsker, Howard,, 1967. Iliamna Lake Watershed Freshwater Fisheries Inves~igation of 1964. Alaska Department of Game, Informational Leaflet No. 95., 50pp.

' ,.

Connnercial Fish and

Reeves, J., 196L. Resident Fish Data from 1965. Fisheries Research Institute.,

the ~ikchik Lakes, Unpublished data.

1964 and 42pp.

·.; .: ~ :

\

. ' i i

·-

16.

APPENDIX

l .... ;~ .. ,. -~ .. ':··

. ~ ·:

l7.

Table 1. Morphometry of i?e three lower lakes in the Tikchik system.-

Tikchik Nuyakuk Chauekuktuli

Altitude (ft.) 316.7 316.7 326.7

Max; length-(ml.) 9.3 24.S 23.0

Max. depth (ft.) 150.0 ,. 943.3 7893.3

Mean depth (ft.) 50.0 376.6 370.0

Max. width (mi.) 3.4 3.9 1.9

Mean width (mi.) 2.2 2.2 1.3

Surface area (mi.2) 20.5 55.6 . 31.7

Shore line (mi.) . 39.1 76.4 56.5 ------ =----Volume (km. 3) 0.8 - 16.3 8 ·2..::_:::-

1/ Gadau, 1966 ·

.. _. -· __ ./_ ------.-- .-____ .,....:: __ - .. ,_,_...,

I

~ ' .J • ..

I I

---~~---

18.

Table 2 •• List of common and scientific names of fishes collected by Fisheries Research Institute personnel in the Tikchik Lake system.!/

Common Name Scientific Name

Least cisco Coregonus sardinella

Humpback whitefish Coregonus pidschian

Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri

Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum

Pink salmon Orcorhynchus gorbuscha

Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri

Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus

Northem pike Esox lucius

Burbot Lots lots

Threespine stickleback' Gasterosteus aculeatus

Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius

Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus

!/ Bumger, et 'al., 1965.

Table 3,

No. of nets fished

No. of fathoms

No. of days fished

No. of people fishing

Average catch per day

Catch by lake

Species composition

Total no. of fish caught

19.

Summary, Tikchik lake, Commercial catch April 15 to May 1~, 1966.

.. : 2 to 6, mesh size 4 3/4" - 5 3/8" -

8 1/2"

100 to 300

32 (approximate)

.2

38 whitefish, 18 lake trout, 0.5 pike; 1 grayling caught for entire period Daily total: 56.5 all species

: Tikchik - 1,816: 100~

Whitefish ~ 67~ Lake trout - 32~

Pike - 1~

:· 1, 218 whitefish 582 lake trout

16 pike .-1-::,8~176 total

Total no. of pounds caught • • 4,834 pounds of whitefish 2,689 pounds of lake trout

191 pounds of pike 7,714 pounds total

----

( I

20.

Table 4. Summary, Tikchik lake system, Commercial catch, September 22 to October 14, 1966.

No. of nets fished

No. of fathoms

No. of days fished

No. of people fishing

Average catch per day

Catch by lake!/

Species composition

Total No. of fish caught

Total no. of pounds caught

Total no. of hours fished

No. o£ fish per hour!/

No. of pounds per hour

:

2 to 10, mesh size 4 3/4" - 5 3/8"

100 to 475

22(approximate)

2

72 whitefish, 34 lake trout, 15 pike, 2 char -- 15 burbot, 4 rainbows, 6 grayling were caught for the entire period. Daily total: 123 fish of all species

Tikchik - 2,385 - 88~ Nuyakuk - 285 - 11~ Chauekuktuli - 34 - 1~

Whitefish - 59~ Lake trout - 28l Pike 12~

Char - ll

: 1,494 whitefish 710 lake trout 298 pike

_R char 2,539 total

: 6,394 pounds of whitefish

• •

3,523 pounds of lake 2,643 pounds of pike.

166 P!'unds of char 12,726 total

2,217

0. 67 whitefish 0.32 lake trout 0.13 pike 0.01 char T:T3total

trout

2.88 whitefish 1. 59 lake tro11t

---- 1.19 pike--....___-0 .07-·chu-_:~--~---=--~ 5. 73 total · -

11 Catch will not be seperated as to lakes b~t simply as catch from Tikchik lake further along in this report.

11 1 fishing hour equals one hour fishing time with 50 fathoms of gill net.

i. .

21.

Table 5. Summary, Tikchik lake system, Commercial catch, March 13 to April 9, 19 67.

No. of nets fished

No. of fathoms

···No. of-· days fished

No. of people fishing

Average catch per day

Catch by lake

Species composition

'·

Total No. of filh caught

Total No. of pounds caught

Total No. of hours fished · · ·

No. of fish per-hour _______ _

. \"

i : : ~

2 to 9; mesh • all 5 1/2"

100 to 450

28 approximate

3 to 4

. 11 Humpback whitefish, 8 lake trout 2 char, 2 pike and 15 burbot were caught during the whole period. Daily total - 19 fish all species.

Tikchik lake - 555 - 1001

Humpback whitefish - 591 Lake trout - 381 Char - 0.41 Pike - 0.41 Burbot - 31

326 Humpback whitefish 210 Lake trout

2 char -;:z Pike 15 Burbot

555 Total

1,304 1,055

8 30 47

2,444

pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds

of Humpback whitefish of Lake trout of Char of Pike of Burbot total

·---l>f ·• .,, .. -. 2,424

. t" . '~.. •

. :'~

'. 1:

: --0.13 Humpback whitefish ·• 0.08 Lake trout

. '

Trace of Char, Pike and Burbot 0.21 Total

: 0.53 Humpback whitefish 0.44 Lake trout Trace of Char, Pike and Burbot 0.97 Total

~ ' -

Table 6.

Species

Humpback whitefiah

Pygmy whitefiah

Round Whitefiah

Arctic Char

Lake trout

Arctic grayling

Burbot

Total number of fish

Total net hours

22.

Percentage composition of resident fishes in gill net catches in the Tikchik lake system, 1964.-V

Tikchik

52.3

2.2

0.8

2.2

40.3

2.2

134.0

106

.. Nuyakuk

28.3

0.5

19.2

8.1

43.9

o.s

o.s

198.0

106

Chauekuktuli

6.8

33.9

5.9

53.4

118.0

59

!/ Burgner, et al., 1965

' I

_..;__~----·-·· -:---'-'-----.....;!!-..._

23.

Table 7. Frequency distribution by I

length and age group ot Lake trout in the Tikchik lake commercial catch, 1966.

Length interval Ase Groul! (Millimeters} 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

481-490 2 2 491-500 1 l 501-510 2 1 J 511-520 4 2 6 521-530 3 2 5 531-540 3 3 6 541-550 1 2 3 551-560 1 3 5 1 10 561-570' 2 4 6 571~580 1 1 2 581-590 1 5 6 591•600 1 6 2 9 601-610 2 6 8 611-620 3 1 4, 621-630 1 3 1 5 631-640 1 1 1 3 641-650 1 1 2 651-660 3. 3 661-670 6' 6 671-680 681-690 2 2 4 691-700 2 ! 3 701-710 1 1 711•720 721-730 1 1 2 731-740 741-750 751-760 761-770 771-780 781-790 791-800 801-810 1 l

•'

Total number 1 24 39 29 6 1 1 101

Percent of total -_1.0 23.8 38i6' 28.7. 5.9 1.0 1.0 100.0 --- ==-~- ..... .,._.

Average li!ngthh 556 536 57j 645 678 73a--:/-OO ---· !'.

I

24.

Table B. Frequency distribution by length and age group of Lake trout in the Tikchik lake commercial catch, 1967.

Length interval Ase Groue !Millimeters} 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

, .

471-4BP 1 1 481-490 491-500 1 1

... 501-510 L 1 1 3 ----

511=520 1 1 1 .. 3

521-530 5 3 1 ., 531-540 1 3 1 5 541-550 2 4 2 8 551-560 2 6 1 2 1 12 561-570 3 4 4 1 12 571-580 1 5 1 2 9 581-590 2 2 2 6 591-600 2 1 3 601-610 2 3 1 6 611-620 1 1 1 3 621-630 1 1 631-640 3 3 641-650 1 1 651-660 661-670 1 1 ,_. .... ... ,... 011•oov

681-690 . ~· 691-700

-~-701-710 711-720 721-730 1 1~·

731-740 ·- ·-

741-750 751-760 761-770 I 771-780 781-790 791-800 801-810 '-sn-S2o '

821-830 ' ..

831-840 . ..

~'-· -----.-- .. :. . ··---~-~ __ ----...~ .. =....-..

841-850 851-860 1 1 901-910 1 1. Total number 20 38 22 8 1 1 90

Percentage of totaf ' . {'

22.2 42.2 24.5 8,9 1.1 . 1.1 . 100.0

Av_erage length 555 570 597 575 560 910 .;-.

i

I / ..

. ..

25.

Table 9 •• Frequency distribution by length and age group of Humpback whitefish in the Tikchik Commercial fishery, 1966.

Length interval Age Groul! (Millimeters) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total

431-440 n 1 2 441-450 451-460 461-470 2 2 471-480 1 3:1 a a 7 481-490 1 1 1. 3 491-500 1 1 1 1 1 5 501-510 2 3 5 3 2 1 16 511-520 1 4 2 6 3 1 17 521-530 1 1 :;3 4 5 5 1 20 531-540 3 5 4 7 3 5 1 28 541-.550 1 3 3 9 .2 2 20 551-560 3 3 3 1 10 561-570 1 3 1 5 571-580 2 1 1 4 581-590 591-600 1 l I 601-610 611-620 621-630 631-640 64i-650 1 1 651-660

Total number 7 12 28 31 29 18 15 1 . 141

Percentage of t~H.

Total 5.0 8.5 19.8 22.0 20.6 12.8 10.6 o;7 100.0

Average length 510 . 517 . 519 528 • 529 536 539 536 . ~-..c.:._

:=-. .i

--------- -

. · .. ,

. _,·. ~

: -. ~ .

' . .· .,.. . . :·'. _. -""---- -- -.----=::....:---~--

'-

I

Table 10. Frequency distribution by length and .age group of Humpback whitefish in the Tikchik commercial fishery, 1967.

Length interval (Millimeters) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total

. ,..1:.459 1 1 451-460 461-470 . ' 1 1 471-480 481-490 2

.~?;---, ' 2

491-500 ....

1 .. , .•· 1 2 501-510

..... :. 1' 3' :> 1 1 .9 511-520 •6 .. 4 2 1 13 521-530 2 6 2 6 1 17 531-540 l.1 5 ·a 2 1 2 19 541-550 1 6 5 4 16

• c •• 551-560 1 2 7 1 1 12 561-570 2 2 5 1 10

. '.::. -~ 571-580 ...... 1 ' i 1 1 3

581-590 2 1 3

Total Number 2 1 3 35 32 25 5 4 1 108

Percentage of Total 1.8 1.0 2.8 32.4 29.6 23.1 4.6 3.7 1.0 100.0

Average Length 530 560 530 530 541 547 535 553 584

... ··-. ,- . '' ~-, ... ., -~ f-.,.

' . ' '

N

"'

( . ; ..

Table 11.

Species

Average round weight in pounds ol/fish caught by gill net in the Tikchik system, 1964.-

27.

Tikchik Nuyakuk Chauekuktuli

Humpback whitefish 3.8 4.2 5.5

Round whitefish 1.2 1.4

Lake Trout 4.3 ------ 3.6 ~-- 2.9 -~

Arctic char 2.7 ------------z~--

All species 4.0 3.0 2.5

Catch per hour 1.27 1.87 2.00

Pounds•per hour 5.1 5.6 5.0 ' c

1/ I .

Burgner, et al., _1965 .. :;. ~-.J ______ ..... ,-,,..,.--..:-..------~--~"'"­

:-!.'

\

' ' . I

i

. , I ~/ /

-:·

,"_,--;

. ·-· .

....

. ''··

l . .-_ ·-:

. ;._ .,

. ,. -· ·,.__.: . : ..

.(\.·.•·

! :

~---~·----

~ ·-

·,.

28.

Table 12. Average round weight in pounds of fish caught by gill net in the Tikchik Lake system, 1966 and 1967.

SEring 1966 Fall 1966 SEring Species No. Sampled Weight No. Sampled Weight No. Sampled

Humpback whitefish 136 4.0 39 4.1 157

Lake trout 85 4.6 30 4.8 95

Northern pike 7 11.9 28 9.0

Arctic char 4.5

1967 Weight

4.0

5.1

29.

Table 13, Summary of age composition of humpback whitefish and lake trout from the Tikchik lakes, 1964 and 1965.1/

Humpback whitefish

Ase Class Year 6 7 8 9 10 11 12'' 13 14 15 Total 1964 No. 2 1 1 20 28 25 15 6 5 1 104

Per Cent 1.9 1.0 1.0 19.2 26.9 24.0 14.4 5.8 4.8 1.0 100.0 1965 No. 2 2 7 10 13 7 4 2 47

Per Cent 4.3 4. 3 14.8 21.3 27.6 14.8 8.5 4.3 100.0

Lake trout

A e Class Yi..ar 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 J.U 15 1964 No. 8 19 - -S..-- '" -----2 . ,l,c;. .

Per Cent 16.0 38.0 16.0 24.0 4.0 1965 No. 1 6 17 34 30 16 3 1 1 1 1 1 Per Cent ,(). 9 5.4 15,2 30.3 26.18 14.3 2.6 0.9 0.9 0,9 0.9 0.9

!/ Reeves,-1967, unpublished data,

): . I

To tel

49

100.0

112

100.0

Table 14. Summary of sex ratios of humpback whitefish and lake trout from Tikchlk lake, 1964 and 1966.

. 196i!1/

Males Females

Lake trout

No. 8 7

Per cent 53 47

Humpback whitefish

No. 20 15

Per cent 57 43

1966 Males Females

Lake trout

No. 25 38

Per cent 40 60

Humpback whitefish

No. 46 52

Per cent 47 53

!/ Soufce: Reeves, 1967, unpublished

-------

30.

]

I ]

J J J .l

~I

(j j)l

J J J

Figure 1

NishlikLake

Chikuminuk Lake

Lake Cbauekuktuli

Portage Arm1

N

·--...::.:~s_,.. ___ -::· ~- -~ .......

TIKCHIK LAKE SYSTEM BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA

5 0 5

Tikchik River·

Tikchik Lake

.~ '

\Lake Cheaekuktuli

\~. ·-'~! '1~--·~ .

. . .

Cloaed to Coa.ercial Fishing

[ __ ~I .. . LJ; (___] [__] ----r lfUr·~ .(

J::··

------ -

~-

I

')Creek #1

//

CIHmRCIAL CATCH AREAS TIXCHIK LAKE SYSTEM BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA

Scale in Miles

Ruyakuk l;:l River •

I I

5

-~ _r_

_:t·~· .; .~;

~_:: .. ::

.,. ; . __ ,: f.(~r~-i ·-:. !.:;...:.; .... --

.. .-.. ·

• 1 <I .... ... .;. .... .. :--; _:.-

•

12

'10

8

6

2

r· -- -, L___j

-~ .

. ·:~ _,, .·._ ...

-~' -~ ...

· .. •.

-'-

.. ~-

,_

.~

.,. . -~.

-•.•. =-:. ·.,, ..... . -i. ,.q:;_:··;-·

_ .• :; ;! __ ;~·~r i:·_:: . ~- ;:.:! -~ ,'.:·iftt:~· ;:::ii~

[__]

' ... : -; '. -~ I I

·.-··

LJ

. .. -~ ·.' _:-

',··

'I -;; .. -;;;_.

.- : . -~- .· .··.;

.·.·: . '

. ,.

i_

, ·0 L-------+---------.--------:.':':.--------:: eo 7~ a~ 450 550

·Figure 3, - /

Length in Mi lli.me ters

Length-weight relationship, Lake trout, Commercial Tikchik Lake sysLem, _ AprH and May, 19''6 N ~ 85

catch,

.... "'

.. ·,.

+::. . ~::,.:·

L__; 12 [______]

10

8

4

0 450

·'·

• . . , '

·'····'·· •: ';'

... . :

·:·;~·· -- :· ·:,._~-;,, •. -:;;. • ~t;:''! :;:1,

LJ

.. :,; ..

,_,_ •..

·,.,.,.._. '·

.,, ···.·.-::•

550

-~ ' ,. -·

L.J LJ L.J·

.,:

. ....

f.:' : ~-

i?<ft~:;i_· ___ ~~~~ {:;',; ;l}, ... .;-'

~·- -t

..;

.. . , .. •· -~ ..

1.. c .~

·,,,

~.A: • • i'• :1 :~.

.!il•,•·>"';_>'-

'·'' _;;:,i;'h-{;·:,:_:_ :.<-}~!"F~i~~i:-•~!, · -.-.. ~,{;\)~j~j';; .. t· .

•1.: ·. · .· r·~ :r ·

fiso Length in Millimeters

,-.

. .. ·

.,., .

.. ~-'

. ' . '

Figure 4. Length-weip,ht relationship, Lake trout, Commercial catch Tikchik Lnke system, Septerr.ber and October, 1966.

·. -·

.. ),:···· --~~--'-""'"'-'·'··

N • 20

_._,_., --:' ,'(1. ~--- :· .,

. ~---

·.:':';_ .. : :J

_ .. ,.., ...

;;.

,JV

25

20 •.

·--'

10 '·

5

;,.:, ' ~--

·\··

0 450

:•.

LJ. L ' ~·

• .- ........ : ... . 'tl.·

J •.

'"-.·:······ ,.,, i: ~·- ----1· •.-. --~-

,. •' ~ .

'

·:, .. ~ ·-

.: ' ~ -: '

.. -._

. . : ~ .. ·,,·

:, .-

·' \'' 1 .. ;; ~ ~- .:.: ---.--.,· .. ,

I!)

'I '··· l· .• ,; ___ ._i·,L"" ... : ... ' ...... "···---..::

,, __ .

······

550 650 750 Length in Millimeters

Figure 5. Length-weight relationship, Lake trout, Commercial catch, Tikchik Lake system, March and April, 1967 •

. N • 95

·--.,:

·.·; I

I

-~

·' . .:;.. J

... ,."'''' .-.-~

;

-;

--. :....:.-:-::· -~---.._, ___ _

._ ..

,.

850

i

\;;. ·;·.

"' .~.·. '·

"{•"

., .... : -~ .. -

'-'·

-.--·-~'(.·._ . .,

2S

. ·i:. ',20 .. t

. '~io ; ,·

:;. '!•' .. ~ . '

s

:0 450

. ~ ·, •..... Figure 6.

. :•

... ~i"~+·· .-;;· ..... · .. ·-. '-" .; .... .;,.

J ·:! ::·l\•,1-': q.:,r.

·'··

. L.J. LJ

' ' :· . ~. J

6510

· Lengt:h in Millimeters

' 1·

I I. , ....

. ~' : ' -... . ,.,. •.·; . -- ~ • .. :; ... : ~

· ...

-~·

1so

Length-weight relationship,l.ake trout, commercial catch,· Tikchik Lake system, 1966-6i'.

N • 200

,.:; ··.::

:. ~:· . .. , .. "' .

..

· .....

· .

:•·.

··~ ,.

850

;

.... II>' . ...

1

l ' ·l

·-.

, .. ,·_.· ~ ".

.. ~ •. ;.· ' !:·: --~'.

6

2

0. 450

j,,

-....

··.'

..

-~ • T

;~!:~-~¥}~i:f~:~;_: :·<·;:~ . .,-:~~.!'\ . ""'"'' . ·.·~ . ·.·

. ·.:. ,_.. ....

... · .... ·

;.·

.. ~ :~~.~:A h~~;~·· ~! ~I~::!. ~:i::flt iti ";'"

..... _,._ .,_, .•

@@@

~ . . .. i' .•.1,:

...... •::.•

. ~. ;,'

5SO 6oo Length :Ln Millimeters

Figure 7 •. Length-weight relationship, Humpback whitefish, Commercial catch, Tikchik Lake system, April •md May, 1966. N " 136

:\ :t:· :' .' ...;---·

;. ,·

>.:;·,·

• .. : :~

.. ~ . .. ... ·.··~ , ..

.

6510

t:i •

.. )'.

:;

·, ..

·l ··i•'J.

~ ·:- ... , . ';- .. 'f,~ -·i·<_:-;_.:.~::;1;;_,: ,.,

.. ,., ~··~,.- ·,, k8 · . • J d , ...

•'_, .. ;

. ...... . . . ' ~ ' · ..

6

4

2

ti_; ~'. 0 :/ ..... ._ ··'·

':·

425

. :-·. . ... . ,:_ •.

.•. ·.•'

·_,

. ,, ;

• ·•.

·: ~ :'!'

·,., ;: ' ... "·!·•

., . -: .•..... · ,;,.

······' ;; •,:• ;'> . ·." , .. , i ' . ' ; ~ " I~

. i:;'r;~-~~\~_-::;>~~};~.{{~:.:·-~- __ ·.~·.: ···;

;_~t~tH~~lt;;tr;] - . . :~:·;;(:i~~""

•• ~ •·

500

,:') .~· ~-

. . ;. : .• ;i. ; ·..- :s:·:·

.. ;. ._,.,. .. . ."·i·.;;~:

:-:. . . ~r-L.

:·!·:··

Length in Millimeters

. ,;._. .. -

'

·i ·":···

Figure ·a;···:·Le;ngth-weight relationship, Humpback whitefish, Commercial ca~ch .. ,~ .. Tikchik Lske system, September and October, 1966. "·· :-·"···if • 38

·-r··=~!-·.;; .. ' .-: . -~- .

-.~-

, .. ·.I

·, ,,

-~ ~{:~ :::t-~;· .•• _; ,.J

:., '

. .'~~>~~-t ... :: ,;,: . :· ,.

'--I_ ••

•: .

. :.

... ... -

. ~

. ;~: . .-,:·

.. :~-__;_; ... --., a·" .. .

·:"' ;, ..

0 .. •. ,. 400

Figure 9.

·•-·.·

·. -~ ·.·. -·.;

'500

_:,.

. -~:.

=····-.

"; >- '-.·.

. ~ .. -

• j.

~- ...

,600

Lengt:h f.n Mi.i:lime ~era

/

,'- : ( - -:··

!:.''

*: ,1" ~: T .... ·•

_.,_

... J ..

700

Length-weight re la tio"'ship, Humpback whitefish, Commercial catch Tikchik Lake system, March and April, 1967 N • 157

_., .... :.:.•,; .. ,, ......

........__, ... :.

......

),·.

$ ..

:~);'_';f.

~~~~l-~t:·~~~­~:" ' ...

~-::~;> ;t~_~k.

: ·;,;•;~ .<.~, ! 'I?:' ·-T~ ....

. , "

' ., __ ;, .... ~ ' ; . . •·'''1,.._.;>!~'":: •c

.-.~+~l-:i :i~~~-~-~::

10

2

. •... .. : ,,::':J:\;'~!:~~~~~J't: _'" --~ ·: .; ' ._;_ dV~ ~~~~-;~~}~:f :. :if.::;

.. ,.

::.1;:; :.~~!~;·?_~'1'. 'l :.'. 1!.-:! :

0~·~o--~----------~.s~o~o----------------6-o-o-----------------7oo Length in Millimeters

Figure 10.

.,;_,

Humpback whitefish, 1966··67.

L<'ngth-weight relationship, Tikchik Lake system,

·.Ni ~ 351

,,.,,,. --·· . -

Commercial catch ,•,.·•·

--....... ~ ; .. -.:·

. •· .

····:

1.-·

•'· ~l

' .

i•'

...... ~~f.r:,.·

!;!.

:t·.·.

~·. _,.-

... ~--, .

,.

", ....

:, __

,.. • .... ~ ... .., ~ 0

.' 0

·I .....

: j

I

··..1'-.

. -~- -· - ___ , ...

4

,. __ .

~: ' -!:--:--: , ..

:x . :: ,-F."

/o 450

Figure 11.

... - ··-. '"""

~ ,- . ·._.· ,-,·

550

.. _ ;:

1-'., --<~j'•l;.. ,.,.;;>.•

1..".•

·''· ..

~ t ,_i.1i::~~~;~:~-'r?:!~

.. ··_q ~--

~ ... ·. -~·'

--.;

650 Length in Millimeters

Length frequency re:lationship, Lake Tikchik Lake system, April and May, N • 85

trout, 1966.

,<·

,_ .

750

-r-t .. .­·.;;

Commercial catch,

----

·-· .-:,, .

··:: :;_-.i ~;-~ ..

! . J;::.~.::~_:;:;.

i': !' l::

10

0 450

!•!

...

-. . -. ~

;

-~ '

•· . .'

:·,

·:_;_. __ .

--:::·. .,,

_,-..

...

·· . .\.1~~~1-~-: -:~~:7~·:·~-~~:(~ii!;1\~: ;;s~f.~ :hf-i: :·:~ i-:~~if.;~ .. ·!

; (_

·, ~- ..

550 650 Length in •Iillimeters

~-~·; .. ' . ,.. . ... . '-· \ ·, J: ~: ;; ; . ·r ~_,-. "·: .. ~ .:~:

·:.··

I• ;.,

750

Length frequency relattonship, Lake trout, Commercial catch; Tikchik Lake sy~<tem, September and October, 1966 • N • 20

·--... ·

.!.

•:-.

. .'. : '. . ~!

"; -~

;, ..

~ ..

..,

*' ... •

.,

r ' --

i:.'. 'o ···'-

~~:;~· :'i;;'

~.c.; .. •

~-!~:-:.;

·''

,.....> •

12

"" . -:·. -~:j-·,·;(.:<; ~

< ·>D 'c_~

..

~ .• :...-. ,,-. J, ~ '·

.-, .•... -,.._._ . """"' .. , ...... . '';/-·'•', ... :~:-

-8

0 450

"'X ... ~ ..

·-.,--'~:'"'·:. .,.

----·-550

Figure

'11 :

' .. (

13 •

·,._.;

· .. ::: ..;·.

_::~(~.m~.~--.

. -!

-~--.;.; ... ---~~o,·;

--~ .i .:~ ;;,. ri~-~~:--i --· ~- · ..~~-:~,·;:~~~~l i!:.

•·,';-':,, -;_.j'• ··-

: :•''

L.,

--·-

.---

650

··' . _, .. ,.,_.; ·-~- 1-.. ,.,

Length frequenc:y relationship, Tikchik Lake system, March and N • 9.S

,_,._-,.

[____]' ' :

' ~ .. ,

.... ·

•·.· .. ·

·-.-[J,

.,.:

•··

. : -~, . ' .

. !;

.,... ,_,.·

750

Lake trout, Commercinl catch April, 1967.

,· •.. ,·._,,

···<,:,!;;-.;·'·"'

850

:...____)·

'.; .

:tr; ·.

. ~--

·-··· ''· ., . ..

·•\ ··-.

~f:-· ... , .. , . .,.,

&~;-~·;1_~:-:~: : __ ;_r~;-~1~:r·-~:;;~;Arl~r:·'-- ~,}~-. r--~·;_;, .. !::- :

t~f;fiL : • -5.

-0''-

__ , ..

;,

~:~~~~;,;:.~[.~;~[,,:,,, ~:~!1I~~:.':::rt~-;_t ~, ~ :~~it''! ~\ ::' ;,;

i·· ;• .. _,

.... _ •'\1" ; ... ~~--

-;-·

t.~ · ~.--.~ · ··-F:~. -"-'~f:• '; :· ·-·· . --~·.-· c

~-·· .. '" ......

;.r<··:

·.·,: ..

'.,l·

8

4

·;-

·•·· ·.<

.·;.:

·'."

. ' ~ . : ~ ·r:

' '; ~~: · ~::U:~.;:~t .... ;d,..·;-;-~;;:..

·'·::z::,

i:

~~~c!~:~:::. ~-

··' ;:r

t.·:

. .. .. ,. ~

·.:: _,.;.,.:.;:; .. .. ,.,.,., .. ,..,

. :.: ... -~;iT·•:;-

' ;t,:.~ :: •. !j_(~-~~~~ ..... ,

•'f. :• :.

~ ·:-·:-~•··--

,_, ..

. ·\·

',:l'•-;'' ,;:,. . ;..

• I ••}'•

,, __ ,,;_

,,

j;

--~1-'' .-. ,;

·-·:

'~;·-.-··

.. ~- ...

.;:.-. r

:.! ..

.. '-~:r._;. : ·i:·;_·~.::.

-,.:: .;.i') ,;.~

~ : . ~ . ' . : ,-,. . :' ' :: :i _;~A;:i;:{;~ .. ~~:

;· .

I" '-~·-;~:

" -; . . '~ ;-;' .. :.; .:- ~; ..

,.-_..,, -_:.-; ~f

.~----------,=-------------:~-'-'---~-----::c:-::-----··- ··-------------550 650 750 850 .. , -··:.:

: ~~~~;r-::1! r~'}-..· .. r;:-.1~>-

Vigure 14. ·.~ ~-. -,,

l~ngth in Millimeters

Length frequency t'elationship, Lake trout, Tikcbik Lake systo,m, 1966..;.67. N •200

·--·."·'· . -.. -... -~.

.........

Commercial catch, ..

. •. ···-1•-

;': -~-, .

;·:. ~ .

'·-·· ·:·o.•;p· •. ·-- .,

~·., ·•· ·-E,-1:

-~·f:..TI' F-;+ . l'11 :,.

k.<

;--· t,;:_ f··.

l~~-::. :f-0..:.;,.. ·, ~- ~:;

·M· . ., .. . . " : ~ f,'£: '; ''·"' ·~:.•·· ,.,

-Pr·:::t . . t~rn~ .... ::~':\f · --.n.

·'.-j.;_;

---~. . __ ;, ..

10 . -~-- -; ~ ; .• ·'' .

.: ...

i" 5-

~~~m ~~.; -... -...~ ~:';",!i;" :

~~i~· . · r f.!~- ·'lh . ':::.~~ .; ·:1"' ;-r~-- . ,_, .,._ .-'

r,~l,·p.,,.-. .r

0 ' ,,

... _, ...

.·,.

.... :i'

.

~t~;,;t;,f~:{i/;, 'o:•;' :·:!,·.

~?~ ,; i~ .; '"' il!i,.·;··l/2., j, _,.,. ,.. 450 •· .,,.

--;

~ ' ' ..

. .+-

...... :. ·i·

. ~---t

.t: .::_ .... ,..,. ·' ;--j

.::.,~.:~~-i:.'t .. :\

, .. -,!

. ·.?

::·

'-> .. i; .. ,):.:~:;,· .. :1

--~-- . :;: . . . ~~- .

500

-..... ..

•. ':_;7 c ·•., -- ._ ... :·-. ; \: } .. ;_;·-:··_,-·,,;.'

·. :· ---::,·;::

,; . -·: -,:_ ..

'·

''

:~ · .. ..-.

... :_..-~-

~:;·?',;' -~ '. f<!.

-~~-i :.-~.-.l~:-:!2~ :; .'. " :. ~''..-;--·.;r-.-·.:, ...... ..

. ,,-,. -; !' •-.·

,,: -:.d'.:+-~:_··:··- ". ' . .-

;.;.

.·.··

•"("."

·,._· .

·-·•:-

·::.;~.;.:,. :-----;.

550

Length in Millimeters ·: ,_ ..... _,

.·.·,

.,.t.

' ;.:

I ~~ Figure 15, relationship, Humpback whitefish, Jlpril and May, 1966.

Length frequency Tikchik Lake system,

.!'-

:;

t I ,, .... J

·I

I

· .. , __ -.;-

......

.. ·! ,,-~.

I-'"-

. --~ , ·:-·· .. ,·. H .• 136 ::'

,t·.:-

"-!·'

',' •: ---'-::::!'. .. ' ~- ; '

,,,: ~ :: .~,~ .... '--~'' ~'~'"-' . ' "t • ,--~- '

.·.i

' ... ·

-~· '. -· : ·' .

' ~'

: -:i·:' -, ' -·-· •. r. ;j .. ,.,; ! ... : :"; ~-_., ~!'''. ~-:••':'! !!il~!.,:'~. . •: . :. . ' ~ ;,

; .. ·

... -~·:; ·i

600 .• J .·· ..

,:,

t f\t' ...

-~-V.-. ~ .. Commercial catch · ...

<"'"'"

. ...... ,,'·

--~' ~.'

·'

~~~~~/:;-~.~ ........ ..,,.._~-p;; ,,

• . ·I

·.;;. ,_• .,· ,· . ..~q.;.,.

~<

..... -<~ . _,-. ; ""· .... . -•· .. "'

ll~'iJ!~ 1 j:rl-~:~- ·. ,;.;.f:_;.::·~iii~;!·''~~--- ~

~~fii!fl~!J· f~~~·-r:·•: ---t,,-: , .. ·r·.ri~~_. r::·.· .u ,_:.·:,'i.· •. ~:.·,·- .. -J-.. ]_i," ··,·;. !;; .,~:~ I~ • "·<;:;+' (;\_!f:: '" ,.. . '' ~-~--- . ~·· u .. i' .. ;~ -:. ) ~~~i::~:-::_/~; ~l ;,- -~-- ~!.:-.·_,:>·~·- k i1;'··· :! fi.'•· . '. .ii~; ..

)tj=.~: • !:! --~ .•

~-=-'· "}."

"& . .?: ·r1'f4 10

5

0

: .:-~-.'. r ...

. __ ,_

-~:' ~---' '

.,-.,! :,.-.. ' ,.~ .

. ; ---.~~j~1i~~j;~ : ,_, .. ~ ,. .. . ~-.

·: .. - ...

.,

450

' ... -~.'.·.·.;·;.J:,;f.t_i1,,~.~.:.:[.~ .. ,-H ·. •;;, .. -~··i~r( ~ '1.~~·.:':.+ r. /~tf~~ii-~)~·:: rr;;_;j/;

-i~-·-~--1' .. ... ·-;~.-.,.

·--j

.1:1~--~.;, __ :i ; :=-~-~~:~-7-~~~-:

.-,c

.· ... r

.....

500

·:i·

·•· ·1r:

. · .. ~

550

·.i-; '-\ .'i-

·.- .. ...

,,

' ~:' ,·'1 ·;-•·­:•

1· •. -

,·'

. -~-

_; --~ -'

., ..

·. ·_:;-

.. ~-

600 Length in !Ullimeters

Figure 16. Length frequency relatioDIJhlp, Tikchik Lake system, Septl!mber N • 38

-·. ;,:_:: ' . -~- ·---:·

~~- --:-,

. . , ~- .. _. .. :-: _. __ , .. -...... .

Humpback whitefish, and October, 19 66.

.,,_

., I·. _. ::: ~ • •

:..,_,-__ .

·-:!-:

,.~_ .-. _,_. .. :---. _ .. ·. :. ;,.,

Commercial catch,

.. ,. , •. \~1

.. ·- .·

-,. .. ·. ,_ ..

•.:-·.,

~: .. j~.::~:> .. , . ..;, ~~-:~-.,___;_ -: ... , ·-......

.,--;:'.!':' .' ~= ~-: --~

.,(J •.. - .•

,. ..-,

'''•'"'"• . ·:,· ~]·; --:. -. ,,.~-~- ·.r-.

, ... ,.

-~--,

·-. ;·.-

[ __ .) ··· ... ._

··.•

.,.. ·•.'

12

8 ..

i:.''••

·~c,;:·-j'~"."!-=:rr.~· · ··• .. , .. , ....... ~-~~-- ~--

;:, . •••• ·.·:-!:

"1,' .. · ..•• '1.

··r --, L___l

··;_,, ·'!~--·--:~ -.~::.:

-~"

·:·-·

-.-. •'•· ·j' --~~ .'

-~·-·---.:.-" ,·'':!; .;,:: .

. .. :~,-~flJ~i:~:--1 .. ,~·;;·_· .. ;~ --~-~~~f;:r~_-.(

,._,_,.~,.;., 'UF··· . ,---,_,: :~-7-

·Pigure 17.

'"'""""'-' • ~ .. '1.' .

d .• .• ·iLJ.

.. -::-

. ·,.

:~.·-~-:~f. ;-:i. --~ .•.. , .

..... ~-~.---l:

--·~~ ... '-W'': -:.~~i·~~:~:~~f:~~:~ .. ':

500

.r

.:.';_, ::_

. ---~: ., .

'·•·' --:i.~·l·:: . , I

--.;' - ~ -~ . ~~:~:- ::.~ ,, .

;~ .

.... _.·

-' 'l"~ ·=·

~- '

. ·-: 1-~.

,:,.:Length in MilHmeters

·. -~·-· .

·'-r

Length frequency r~l.aticinahip,

LJ

-.,,_·-.1

;_.

.... ...

. .-~

; ., -- . . ... o.:~ .,

,,_,

·-·~--~--';•

;;:!i~~--,1'·1

i ,.-.-.. ~ ·:! ;:

L_j

,:--·

···-

r 1 '-----' ', ,, ~·--

~;

': ·:~-~~fl:-:;_· i

'· 't ~ .. -~-~· ·:~~ •::>t. >'<•';~-~::.,.1"' .. ~"'~'. ·-~·-.::~i'-'7 .:~ ~--~-1!- 7 ':!~·--~·1", .•. ' ,., .; .. :. .• ~-'·. .':l' ) •.

. . .:;-:::-:~

'\!·

. •· . ... . ~--(-~~-~~ ,. { ' .

-;:,''•''" _,:;: ...•.... -- .. ;. --~ .. , .•.1

-. ·;.:, ·--~-~Jk.t~;;.- i-i~·~::

: ·.:·,·i-~;h~; ~-.:~·, ., ..... ,,,,, .. ,

700 -.~~-';-/: . . ,-..... '"'.t"-· .. ~

·.:'·· .. ~:, .,. ,~~

•'·· .

.; . ~;.

...... :_~- t•;:~ .. ~~·:.~:.·: ~r-;--;- . ; ... ~:c

,, •--f ·;_~.;·J·:~:t:-i ·-·~:·.· ... ~:,::.·~.-;.: .. _ .. ..: .;.;.',':

catch, Tikchik N • 157

Humpback whitefish, C~ercia1 and April, 19 67. lake systerm, Harch ··;:··;· ,, ..

"' • ,;,·. 01' • . -~'

. .. ::::

'. _,,,

,,;., .. -:.,.. ', ··•·•··· ·~-

. :~ '/:~~;-~}~-,~!:_,~-{ -.. ~s.:~~:.t.~~::: ~~-; . . :·:···-.-je·-~- ,_.,

,-• ~-:':'1i'!l-·::li~=~

. ''f"'·

r i ., · r· ... · __ ~ . ___ , '------.1

:''

14 ,,.,_ .~;::tj. ·~;, . ".;:~~:-; •. ;r-~~-; -.

• 12 . _ _,_:.,-

8

~-

'0 4~o'""o_...;.... _ _.. __

. :~:-~·g: .,_:;....,~:· -

·~-,....~~~·

';'-~~-~:·­

:•:•.e-.t~l:.::: ... , :·-"'·

-··: ...

Figure 18.

I

500

...... ;

,.•;'

q :.J,,

... -·

·'

-:.r '·' ..... . ··'.

......... -

• t.;.··· .. ~·"' .. .... ·~'.:~----~ .

600

Length in Millimeters '

;_. ·"

·)·:~~:-~: .. -:. ' ~ .... .

- -~~; :i~'i ,; --· ~; -. -·· ..

.;:--~;v ~ ,:_ ,:c~ -'~ • .• jJ.! :, : i:::: -·'··-

·:~-~;~: ~--~.};:!~~: ..

- :·:;-W::-- ... ,

-, .: 't ~

. --~ ..

... -,.--...... ,, ;-,. <!•'',

.,,:,

, ... •, :~!'~::-: ,-.... -~~:. ,,.,,.

. !~i-i::.:•:

. ·;~·: __ ,: ·.-:-· .

·;! -··.: ' -~

... ,, -~; --~--! ..

. '··. ·'~---· ;-..

',:·''

.... -, . ··:. r ~ ,; __ ,

700

IJ .. '< . , .. .. . .. _~;·;·, ..... ~ ... ~- .

r-elationship, Humpback white, sys tern, 19 66-67.

Length frequency catch, Tikch:lk Lak·e N • 331

Commercial

·-

.. :_ •. ·--·- .:· 6 . ' .. .. , .

. . . ~ '

.-.

·t· "~'·" ~ :

. ~.-

; -~- ..

. :" -:;:

.. __ ;, -->-·t:·!.'i:.~~r ..

·-., ,.

, .. _., ...

·.: .. . ··:

~~!] .~~\:": :; ' , ........ .

•••. !, .::r.r, <· ;~~\i.:

i·' ., ,.;

:.~:··t·_~:-~ • . I·.:; ~~:;.; . ::, · .. :t:;:;~~~~ ~~--'

'f ·;_f1t\~-i1~1 ··:i ':~f:!"•_:t;-:t·;-_;1:.~ '

:.;· ....

:~·;. ; l' ~ '· .• , .

·-.~-

...

. ~ . '. -,

..... "'"

·•,o

j. ;; .. ~ ~;

.~-- --.; '.:.

f .. ;,. ...

'

.. , .... ,..._ .... ____ ...

g ~ .. .. .... .. c .. u ,.. :

10

. .. ·5

' -. ;.~ i:l''

: ~-

·.·

::. .. :. _,. _.,

',.,,

Figure 19.

.. ,.

·,._, ---~

--· '""'~ .. _.,.

···------- ·•·:·

.,

-~:,;,:t~r~::: ::·:' ·, . -·--~·-~! .: "

. ::-··

':P.

Length in Millimeters

-~- =. i .

~:

._.,_ .. ;,;.1··

.: . ' . ~~ .;,:·.:~;;

Length frequency relationship, Humpback whitefish Tikchik Lak!! system, July, 1964 (Burnger, et al., N • 67 . ' ·!•."'~ :.

. ' -:-··'

·:--··:'~ ·.-·,.; ;~,: ""' ,,', ,-. .'·:--:::. . "~·-- .

- ..

·:,

;i · · !

\'• -~ . ,_, .. ;.

-:;-' -~.r--····--

,,~--- q._·:

. ' i

1965)

.:!"

,,

.,.::· .. !·

;·.': .' !f'i~n-·;:<; 1' _,1.:::~

.. ........... 'l~

:.: ' :!

.. ' ... .. ~, ..

-.;:--~:~:{~-/:'

-~--+: ~ :~ :~

f ..

·-:_,

'j"

_; ..

':.

:i;.; .,._

r.-.~-J ·.-

!:';' ·-·· -·~i-.

,_, .. ~ -·.

.,. ·'."

, ..

. ,. ~

: _. __ :·

·-;C.:-.-

s

. ,

i·.

. --~-.. . ,

•· -;.

.. ./:::-. 0~-~:-!-\:/; .. · ··-1·;1

i. i.-

, ..

...... ''•

e;

.,. --~ . '~-

~--;: .. .- .. : .. , ' ·' 'i" ~. -:-:.: .

~----·-·l'·

"' .......

. ; ,.

~-- "· ·! :;., ~- .-. ,.- ..

·j·

. :-·

. n:· •..

-.~ ,-.

.. ,:;. :~;;; :~- ,: . t; : .7.-

. ·.'_f-.-~:: ··- t-.

:: .

.. __..

:'

' :· ::. ~

, .. · ,;,,·;·-

;_·_.·:--:-.. f::~ . .•.·!, 1-

~ .. ~ ;;,:·:-··: ~- ~: :-~---

.-~.i) . ~-- ,._

_;_;. -·~ i . ~-r-<~:-.

O.flm-

. ··--,-~-L--J=:--'-·r!_.· ..... ·_· --;t:::-::--i" __ .,,:·_~'·''';--;t;~-'·~:·_j :s;;_. _··.:: ~~··· :._,,_~'b::~~ .. ~ '~~-[.-.,· , . . ' . ·.·-·- _'!:~-t.-~~ ./}_~:; ... , -;i~ .. ,,.

400 soo GOO

._ .. · .. ;._ ' '.-: :

•--· •rl'"'~·~-,~·'",':'·"."'

,,;

Figure 20. 'l:-.·· :·.; .. ·.,,;. ... ·:-- ,-., ... ,

: --··. -· ,. " __ ;;-.:-·. -~~---~ •·-'

'"" . ;•: ., - ,. ,_,,_, -~ ~

._. .. ·-~ ....... __,_...,.

:t.engt:b : ~ \ ·:';:·-~ f,;_~-

in Millimeters

·Length fr•equency relationship, Lake trout, Tikchik Lake system, July, 1964 (Burnger, et N-41

-··~-,;; -.-: , .... ~~-:'t-- ""·i·•- .... ~

.,-·,,,

~-'-0·,:; ·--~,;..;, ...

al •• 1965) . ,_.,

'l

. '