OUJFORNIA AND "CONSERMVION OF WILD UFE THROUGH EDUCATION 42861 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA EARL WARREN ..GOVERNOR WARREN T. HANNUM DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES FISH AND GAME COMMISSION H. L. RICKS, President Eureka LEE F. PAYNE, Commissioner Los Angeles W. B. WILLIAMS, Commissioner Alturas DOM A. CIVITELLO, Commissioner Sacramento EMIL J. N. OTT, Jr., Executive Secretary Sacramento BUREAU OF FISH CONSERVATION A. C. TAFT, Chief : San Francisco A. E. Burghduff, Supervisor of Fish Hatcheries San Francisco Brian Curtis, Supervising Fisheries Biologist , San Francisco L. Phillips, Assistant Supervisor of Fish Hatcheries San Francisco George McCloud, Assistant Supervisor of Fish Hatcheries Mt. Shasta D. A. Clanton, Assistant Supervisor of Fish Hatcheries Fillmore Allan Pollltt, Assistant Supervisor of Fish Hatcheries Tahoe R. C. Lewis, Assistant Supervisor, Hot Creek Hatchery Bishop Lloyd Booth, In Charge, Fall Creek Hatchery Copco C. W. Chansler, Foreman, Yosemite Hatchery Yosemlte Wm. Fiske, Fish Hatchery Man, Feather River Hatchery Clio Leon Talbott, Foreman, Mt. Whitney Hatchery Independence A. N. Culver, Foreman, Kaweah Hatchery Three-Rivers John Marshall, Foreman, Lake Almanor Hatchery Westwood Ross McCloud, Foreman, Basin Creek Hatchery Tuolumne Harold Hewitt, Foreman, Burney Creek Hatchery Burney C. L. Frame, Foreman, Kings River Hatchery Fresno Edward Clessen, Foreman, Brookdale Hatchery Brookdale Harry Cole, Foreman, Yuba River Hatchery Camptonville Donald Evins, Foreman, Hot Creek Hatchery Bishop Cecil Ray, Foreman, Kern Hatchery Kernville Carl Freyschlag, Foreman, Central Valley Hatchery _ Elk Grove S. C. Smedley, Foreman, Prairie Creek Hatchery Orick G. S. Gunderson, Fish Hatchery Man, Sequoia Hatchery Exeter Joseph Wales, District Fisheries Biologist Mt. Shasta Leo Shapovalov, District Fisheries Biologist San Francisco William A. Dill, District Fisheries Biologist ^ Fresno BUREAU OF GAME CONSERVATION J. S. HUNTER, Chief San Francisco Gordon H. True, Jr., In Charge, Pittman-Robertson Projects San Francisco Donald D. McLean, Economic Biologist San Francisco Carlton M. Herman, Parasitologist San Francisco Roy M. Wattenbarger, Supervisor Los Banos Refuge Los Banos Russell M. Reedy, Supervisor Imperial Refuge Calipatria Ralph R. Noble, Supervisor Suisun Refuge Joice Island John R. Wallace, Supervisor, Predatory Animal Control San Francisco O. R. Shaw, Supervising Trapper Salinas Gerald McNames, Supervising Trapper Red Bluff BUREAU OF GAME FARMS AUGUST BADE, Chief Yountville E. D. Piatt, Superintendent, Los Serranos Game Farm ■ . Chlno BUREAU OF MARINE FISHERIES RICHARD VAN CLEVE, Chief San Francisco S. H. Dado, Assistant Chief San Francisco W. L. Scofield, Supervising Fisheries Researcher Terminal Island Frances N. Clark, Supervising Fisheries Researcher Terminal Island Donald H. Fry, Jr., Supervising Fisheries Researcher Terminal Island J. B. Phillips, Senior Fisheries Researcher Pacific Grove Paul Bonnot, Senior Fisheries Researcher Stanford University W. E. Ripley, Senior Fisheries Researcher Stanford University Geraldine Conner, Fisheries Statistician Terminal Island (Continued on page 77) California Fish and Game "conservation of wildlife through education" Volume 31 SAN FRANCISCO, APRIL, 1945 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page In the Service of Their Country 34 A Preliminary Report on the Fishery Resources of California in Relation to the Central Valley Project Richard Van Cleve 35 The Bounty System and Predator Control W. C. Jacobsen 53 Occurrence of the Bramble Shark (EcJmiorhinus hrucus) in Cali- fornia Carl L. IIubbs and Frances N. Clark 64 Gapeworm in California Quail and Chukar Partridge Carlton M. Herman 68 Editorials and Notes — Fisheries and the Central Valley Project Brian Curtis 73 Twenty-five Years Ago in "California Fish and Game" Brian Curtis 74 Reports 75 California Fish and Game is a publication devoted to the conservation of wild- life. It is published quarterly by the California Division of Fish and Game. All material for publication should be sent to Brian Curtis, Editor, Division of Fish and Game, Ferry Building, San Francisco 11, California. ^ •, . The articles published herein are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in other periodicals, provided due credit is given the author and the California Division of Fish and Game. Editors of newspapers and periodicals are invited to make use of pertinent material. „ .—. , •, ^ t-. -n -u Subscribers are requested to notify the Division of Fish and Game, Ferry Build- ing, San Francisco 11, California, of changes of address, giving old address as well as the new. (33) 42861 In i:iie 3ert)icc of %\\m Countrg Now sening \\'ith the armed forces of the United States are the following 1 54 employees of the California Division of Fish and Game, listed in order of entry into the service: J. William Cook JVIerton N. Rosen Albert King E. L. Macaulay E. R. Hyde George Werden, Jr. E. A. Johnson Henry Bartol Edson J. Smith John F. Janssen, Jr. Richard Kramer Arthur Barsuglia George Metcalf fames F. Ashley \^^illiam Jolley Rudolph Switzer Jacob Myers Charles McFall Lloyd Hume John E. Fitch William H. Sholes, Jr. James Reynolds Paul Gillogley Ralph Becic Charles Cuddigan James H. Berrian Edward Dolder John Woodard Bob King Ross Waggoner John Canning William Richardson William Plett John Finigan Trevenen Wright John A. Maga Elmer Doty William Dye Lester Golden Richard N. Hardin Henry Frahm Lawrence Rubke Virgil Swenson Harold Dave Howard McCully Austin Alford Belton Evans Willis Evans James Hiller Robert Terwilliger Eugene Durney Charles W. Kanig Byron Sylvester Howard Shebley Donald Tappe Richard S. Crocker J. G. McKerlie Robert Kaneen Elmer Lloyd Brown Douglas Dowell William Roysten Dean L. Bennett John Chattin C. L. Towers Carlisle Van Ornum Arsene Christopher Harry Peters Mark Halderman John B. Butler Charles Comerford Niles J. Millen Carol M. Ferrell J. Alfred ApHn James E. Wade Nathan Rogan Henry Shebley S. Ross Hatton Jack Wm. Cook John J. Barry Chester Ramsey Elmer Aldrich Ralph Dale James D. Stokes George D. Seymour Glenn Whitesell A. E. Johnson Gustav E. Geibel Wm. Bradford Ernest E. McBain Karl Lund Henry A. Hjersman Elden H. Vestal Walter Shannon Jack R. Bell Harold Roberts Edwin V. Miller Phil M. Roedel Chester WoodhuU W. S. Talbott Richard Bliss William D. Hoskins Edgar Zumwalt Earl Leitritz John M. Spicer Wm. Longhurst George Booker Harold Wilberg Leslie Edgerton Arthur L. Gee George Shockley Laurence Werder Robert McDonald Frank L. D. Felton James A. Reutgen David M. Selleck Chris \A^m. Loris James T. Deuel Lionel E. Clement Thomas Borneman Richard Riegelheth Willard Greenwald Carl G. Hill H. S. Vary Emil Dorig Donald Glass Ruth Smith Wm. J. Overton Daniel F. Tillotson Earl S. Herald Theodore Heryford Ellis Berry Lawrence Cloyd Eleanor Larios John Laughlin Ralph Classic Owen Mello Gordon L. Bolander John B. Cowan Harold Erwick Bert Mann Douglas Condie Andrew Weaver Robert Fraser Don Davison William Payne Harley Groves Herbert Ream Merrill Frank Burns Carrie Heryford Kenneth Doty Don Chipman Howard Twining Fred Ross Robert Macklin Ray Bruer Mid in tine of Butg Arthur Boeke Richard DeLarae A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE FISHERY RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA IN RELATION TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT^ By Richard Van Cleive, Chief Bureau of Marine Fisheries, California Division of Fish and Game Introduction The difficulties encountered on the Pacific Coast in attempting to maintain supplies of anadromous fishes in connection with extensive programs of dam coixstruction have been brought into sharp focus in recent years. The first project that presented a major problem of fishery main- tenance was Bonneville Dam on the lower Columbia River. Some $7,000,000 of the cost of the dam was charged to fishways and other devices to protect the valuable Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs. The devices built at Bonneville Dam for passage of adult salmon have worked because of the low height of the dam ; but there still remains some doubt as to the success with which young, seaward-migrant salmon and steelhead pass this dam on their way to the ocean. The second major fishery protection problem encountered was Grand Coulee Dam on the upper Columbia River. Over $3,000,000 have been expended for investigations and for construction of hatcheries, tank trucks, traps, and other devices needed to preserve the runs blocked by this dam. The success of the effort is still to be demonstrated. The third major problem of this kind was caused by the construction of Shasta Dam near Redding, California, on the upper Sacramento River. Close to $2,000,000 have been expended on the fish, protection program there to date. Table Mountain Dam is now being seriously considered for con- struction on the Sacramento River near Red Bluff, California, some 40 miles below Shasta Dam. If this dam is built, it will block all salmon and steelhead at its site, and completely nullify the entire protection program made necessary by Shasta Dam. It will introduce additional hazards that will make the maintenance of the salmon runs affected diffi- cult and uncertain. The proposed postwar construction of a series of dams on tributaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers will affect the valuable fish resources of the Central Valley of California to a marked degree. Some, like Table Mountain Dam, will cause serious harm if they are built. Others, like the Folsom Dam on the American River, might benefit sal- mon and steelhead runs if an adequate minimum flow can be maintained below them, providing that all other limiting factors are eliminated to permit survival of greater numbers of adults and young. The salmon that spa^vn in the Sacramento-San Joaquin system rep- resent the escapement from both the ocean troll fishery and the river gill- 1 Submitted for publication, December, 1944. (35) CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESERVOIRS AND CANALS Fig. 13. Map of Central Valleys Project REPORT ON FISHERY RESOURCES 37 net fishery, as well as from the marine and fresh-water sport fisheries. The salmon that survive to maturity seek the gravel beds of Central Val- ley streams for spawning, after which they die. If dam construction proceeds without consideration for such a self-perpetuating, natural resource, the State and Nation as a whole will suffer a heavy and irre- placeable loss. The annual value of the salmon originating in Central Valley streams and caught by commercial and sport fishermen is esti- mated to be approximately $1,300,000. That proportion of the runs that originates above Table Mountain Dam is estimated to be worth approxi- mately $520,000. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that the effect of the dams on fishery resources be considered on the same basis as irrigation, power, flood control, and salinity control in studying the economy of the basin-wide, multiple-use projects. In addition to salmon and steelhead, shad and striped bass may be seriously affected by the proposed dams and the salt-water barrier. Catfish, large- and small-mouthed bass, and other fresh-water species will also be affected. The striped bass alone supports a large sport fishery, and was the principal species sought by over 200,000 anglers who fished in the Central Valley area in 1941. Difficult and complex fisheries problems have been created by Shasta and Friant dams, and others will develop as construction of other dams and diversion canals progresses. It is essential that a comprehensive program of study be undertaken with respect to the fisheries concerned so that a minimum of harm may result, and so that these resources may not be destroyed. In the short time available for the preparation of this report, it has not been possible to cover the subject in adequate detail, either as to the studies required or as to specific problems. However, a summary of data already available is presented along with an outline of studies that should be undertaken. Tables are included to present the information in summarized form. One map is included that shows in broad detail the major dams and water transfer canals proposed, with the spawning areas affected. The present paper embodies the general recommendations of the California Division of Fish and Game concerning protection of fish in the Central Valleys from the effects of the dams and diversions proposed for this area. The assistance of the following people is gratefully acknowledged : Dr. Willis H. Rich, Dr. Paul R. Needham, Dr. James W. Moffett, and Mr. Harry A. Hanson of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ; and Mr. A. C. Taft of the California Division of Fish and Game, who have contributed their knowledge of salmon in considering the effects of the proposed structures, including Table Mountain Dam, upon the fish inhabiting this area. The staff of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has supplied data concerning the salmon maintenance program below Shasta Dam. Don- ald H. Fry, Jr. of the Bureau of Marine Fisheries assisted with compila- tion of the tables, and in working out the evaluation of the fishery. General Principles of Fishery Protection Anadromous fishes are delicately balanced organisms which have become adapted to a complete dependence upon fresh water streams for their period of reproduction and upon the sea for their growth 38 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME to maturity. Completion of their life cycle requires access to both types of environment. Any program for their protection from artificial hazards must recognize the need of providing conditions for these fish that are as near natural as possible. Judging from past records of the success of hatcheries, it is neither economically feasible nor biologically sound to attempt to substitute artificial propagation for natural propagation where suitable conditions for natural propagation can be maintained. However, studies should be instituted to determine the efficiency of hatchery methods, and to set forth the exact role each should play in the future of salmon pro- tection in the Central Valley. Table 1 shows the months during which salmon are passing through the various stages of their fresh-water cycle. They require water during all these stages, although the amount may vary. The general principles set forth below involve those requirements that will allow the fish to move upstream, to remain there while their eggs ripen, and to spawn. They will then permit proper development of the eggs, and growth and downstream migration of the young. Some dams built in the past have not followed all of these require- ments. The effect of these dams has been largely responsible for the development of laws that now control such works. The potential threat to the continued existence of salmon runs that results from construction of dams and water diversions has been recognized only recently. The effect of water development upon fish life has been cumulative; and the realization of proposed postwar ]3rojects will bring the problem to the acute stage. Development of methods for overcoming the adverse effect, of dams and diversions on anadromous fishes has but recently been undertaken, and results to date give no guarantee of success. Table 1. Salmon Life History In Relation To Their Activities In Different Months of the Year Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug-. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Upstream run Spring run Holding period in stream Spawning XX XX XX XX XX X X XX Upstream i'all run XX XX XX XX run Spawning X XX XX XX Young Development of eggs Downstream migration XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX In general, on every stream where salmon and steelhead runs exist, the following provisions are recommended: 1. Dams should be located as far upstream as feasible to avoid destruction of spawning grounds. The transfer of runs to other streams is a poor substitute for the maintenance of original spawning areas. REPORT ON FISHERY RESOURCES 39 2. Adequate flows must be maintained below dams : a) To permit the upstream migration of adults b) to provide water for maintenance of spring-run fish in good condition over the summer c) to provide water during spawning, hatching, and growing periods d) to permit the j^oung salmon to perform their seaward migra- tion It is essential in this regard that there be no artificial reduction in the flow from any dam from the beginnig of the spawning period to the end of the period of emergence of young fish from the gravel. Vari- ation from high to low flows will cause the loss of large numbers of eggs since spawning is usually concentrated along the stream margins which are dried up with any drop in flow. At times spawning fish may be trapped by a sudden reduction in flow. 3. The adults must have free access to the spawning grounds remaining available below high dams. Streams should not be blocked by canal crossings. These crossings should be accomplished by siphons or bridges wherever they are located below or within the limits of a salmon migratory route. 4. All mixing of waters from different streams through direct discharge from canals above the point where mixing naturally occurs should be kept at a minimum. Canals that dump directly into stream beds, mixing water supplies, are believed to be major hazards to fish life. 5. Adequate protection should be provided during construction periods : a) To permit safe migration of both young and adults b) to permit safe spawning and incubation of eggs and growth of young c) to permit holding of spring-run fish d) to prevent any man-made catastrophe which might eliminate for all time a portion of, or a whole, annual cycle of salmon. 6. Planning, design, and construction of temporary fish ladders, traps, lifts, tank trucks, or other facilities should be well in advance of the time they are actually required. This is essential and was learned from hard experience. 7. Studies should be initiated to determine the need for screens and racks at all points where losses of either young or adults may occur in diversions. These investigations must determine the type of screen required for each locality and the size of fish which must be protected. In the case of low dams, suitable fish ladders must be installed Avherever fish may be blocked from upstream spawning areas. These ladders must be adapted to the particular conditions of each locality. Con- struction and design of both screens and ladders should conform with the best standards established for fish protection. 8. As a general principle of fish protection, consideration should be given by the engineers, in planning dams, to the levels at which water will be withdrawn from the reservoirs. These must be as low as possible in order that cool water may be discharged through them. Fish life in general and salmon in particular, require cool water. Water drawn from the warmer upper layers of reservoirs during holding, spawning. 40 CAIilFORNIA FISH AND GAME or incubation periods will cause heavy losses if the temperatures exceed the tolerance levels of the fish. 9. The design and operation of all fish protective devices should be under the supervision of fisheries biologists, and no alteration of either design or plan of operation should be permitted without the consent of the biologists. Value of Central Valley Fish Resources The annual value of the present Sacramento-San Joaquin salmon fishery is about $1,300,000. The annual value of the commercial fishery alone is $356,000. This figure was determined from statistics of pounds landed, as given in the published records of the California Division of Fish and Game. It was Fig. 14. "V\'ha,t can happen. The Pit River just downstream Irym tlie diversion dam for "Pit 5" Power House, showing the effects of power diversion. Above, before diversion, flow 2700 cubic feet per second ; below, after diversion, with only DO cubic feet per second released through dam. i Rfcll'ORT ON Llsm.RY KF.iSOUKCEiS 41 assumevl tluit, ot' the tK'eau-i'auirhr salmon taken south ot tiie Mendoi-ino- Souoma County Hue. 90 per cent were oliinooks from the Central Valley streams. Silver salmon in this area amoiuit to less than 10 per cent of the eateh. and any ehino<^ks from Klaiuath or other northern streams should be approximately halaneed by Saeramento-Sau Joaquin tish caught in the northern part of the iState. To the ocean I'ateh thus ealou- lated were added the San Franeiseo Bay and Saeramento River catches. The value per pound used was the average wholesale price of 22 cents whicii is approximately that which held during the years U)3G to 1030. In calculating the total value, it was necessary to deduct 20 per cent from the total weight to allow for cleaning losses. The value of the salmon sport fishery attributable to the Central Valley area is estimated at $'Oo(K(HK) per year. To deternune this, the numbers of tish landed were obtained from unpublished data of the California Division of Fish and Game. An average weight of 10 pounds was assigned to these tish. The U. S. Fish and "Wildlife Service obtained an average of IS.l pounds fm- over 800 salmon trapped at Redding, but sportsmen take a higher percentage of young tish than the com- mercial tishery. To the total weight thus obtained (^950.000 pounds). a value of $1 per pound was assigned. While this same figure has been used by others in estimating the value of other sport fisheries, higher tigures have also been used. The value adopted for the present estimate is considered to be conservative. The total value of $1,306,000 calculated above for the Central Valley is considerably higher than that arrived at by the Board of Consultants on Fish Problems at Shasta Dam.- In their report, however, these con- sultants did not include the value of the sport tishery. Moreover, the value per poimd used by them was only that paid to the commercial fish- ermen in the years 1020 to l!^3S. The total weight used was based upon the size of the runs above Shasta Dam. The area included between Table Mountain dam site and Shasta Dam is estimated to support an addi- tional run two-thirds as great as that which formerly spawned above Shasta. The wholesale price whicli held during the years 1036 to 1030 is considered to be a more acciu'ate measure of the value of the catch to the whole commercial fishing industry. The full potential, cottunercinl value of salmon auil steelhead runs in tJie Central Valley streams has been calculated to be slightly over .f2.000.000 per year (, Table 2 . This figure was arrived at as folKnvs : The size of the potential runs was computed by measuring the area of suitable spawning gravel below the first impassable fish barrier or below the locations of proposed dams that will present such a barrier to the migratory fish. These figures were then divided by the average area utilized by each female salmon for spawning, giving the number of females the stream would accommodate. This number was doubled to allow one male for each female. All observations made on the spawning grounds to date have shown more than two males to each female. If this were taken into consideration, the potential value woidd be approxi- mately oue-third greater. However, in view of the doubtful accuracy of the estimates of the potential capacity of the spa^vuing areas, the more conservative fiirure Ls retained. s "Report «^t" the Boant of Consultants on the Fish Problems of the Upper Sacra- mento River." by R. D. Calkins. W*. F. Durand. and Willis H. Rich. t\ S. Bureau of Reclamation, mimeographed, June 21. l:MiV 2 — I2S61 42 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME The potential catch was considered to be equivalent to the potential stream capacities in terms of spawning fish, on the assumption that one fish could be caught for each one allowed to spawn. This ratio is con- servative. On the Columbia Kiver, Rich * determined that for chinook salmon the ratio of fish caught to fish escaping to spawn varied from 5 to 1 for spring fish, to 2 to 1 for fall fish. The final potential value was obtained as follows from the calculated number of salmon. Sport-caught fish average smaller than those caught commercially, but are worth more per pound, so that the value of sport- caught fish averages higher. Since we have no wav of knowing what Table 2. Major Salmon Streams Affected By Central Valley Water Project P*roposed Federal dams which may have serious effect on salmon and steelhead Size of present annual salmon-runi Potential run that might be developed Potential annual value of run in dollars^ Recommended minimum flows in c. f. s. San Joaquin River.. Friant (built but not on full operating sched- ule) E 15,OfO IC 6,000 100,000 318,400 350 at Friant Merced River E 2,000 15,000 47,800 ^50 at driest point below Ex- chequer Tuolumne River Jacksonville Dam and raising Don Pedro Dam C 64,767 65,000 207,000 400 at Modesto siOO below LaGrange Dam Stanislaus River 3 proposed E over 5,000 25,000 79,600 6100 below proposed Oakdale Dam Mokelumne River E 16,000 40,000 127,400 610C below Woodbridge Dam Cosumnes River Cosumnes Diversion, Nashville IC 358 12,000 38,200 650 below Cosumnes Diver- sion American River Folsom T 15,CC0 70,000 4222,900 250 below proposed Folsom Dam Yuba River Lower Narrows. Unknown 60,000 191,000 6250 below Narrows Dam 675 below Daguerre Pt. Dam Feather River BidwellBar, Oroville.. E over 10,000 90,000 286,600 6400 at driest point below Sutter-Butte Dam Deer Creek Power and irrigation... J3,000 12,C00 38,200 50 below Stanford- Vina Dam Mill Creek Power and irrigation. . . C 6,500 (Unknown spring-run) 10,000 31,800 50 below Clough Dam Sacramento (Basin) above Table Moun- tain (Dam Site) Table Mountain and Iron Can}'on Cand E 1CO,COO 140,000 445,800 3,000 below Table Mountain Totals 243,625 639,000 2,034,700 1 C^Rea-sonably complete counts (average of 3 years on the Tuolumne). IC=Tncomplete counts — possibly a high percent of run missed. E=Estimated. T^Calculated from tag returns. 2 3,CO0 is the native run. An additional 8,000 were transferred in the Shasta Salmon Program in 1944 and over 5,000 in 1943. 2 There is no way of estimating the proportion of these runs that would be taken by sport fishermen. Therefore, the potential values are calculated on the basis of commercial values only. (See text.) These are much lower than ac- cepted values for the sport catch. * An annual return of $560,000 would be obtained for the potential value on this stream if the calculations were based on a 2:1 ratio of catch to escapement instead of 1:1, and if a price of 20 cents per pound and an average weight of 25 pounds per fish was used. These figures are not greatly different from those obtaining elsewhere so the values given above may be considered as minimal. 6 Estimated flow. 3 "The Salmon Runs of the Columbia River in 1938," by Willis H. Rich, Fishery Bull. No. 37, U. S. Pish and Wildlife Service. REPORT OX FIHHKKY RESOURCES 43 proportion of the fish will be sport-eaught, the potential value was calcu- lated as though the entire catch would be coinuiercial. To partially counterbalance the greater value of sport-caught fish, the average weight of 18 pounds was u/sed. The values calculated above do not include intangible factors that can not at present be expressed in terms of dollars aud cents. Moreover, it does not recognize that salmon is the foundation of the entire small- boat fishery in northern California. Loss of the salmon fisheries would probably mean the loss of all of the fisheries dependent upon these boats since they could not operate economically on the other species alone. The potential runs that might be developed on the various streams can not be credited wholly to possible increased flows. The State of California for some time has been engaged in a comprehensive program of improvement of fish protective devices. These, added to adequate regulation of the commercial and sport fi.sheries, should result in sub- stantial increa.ses in the number of salmon and steelhead. This ls espe- cially true of such a stream as the Feather, where sufficient water is available during the period of .salmon runs. Even on such streanLS as the American, where controlled flows might improve conditions, an ur)kno\vn benefit will be derived from proper ladders over dams and proper screening of water diversions. The benefit to be derived from either water regulation or screens and ladders can not now be assessed. The two factors are so closely interdependent that valid separation is impossible, since the runs can not sursdve without water, and will cer- tainly be reduced by unscreened irrigation or power diversions, and killed outright by an impassable dam located downstream from spawning areas. A fundamental difference between engineering and fisheries prob- lems is that while the former can be worked out on paper, the answers to the latter are often not known until they become evident through the natural, or induced, course of events. Becaase of the fundamental dif- ferences between engineering and fisheries, there is no foundation for balancing, on paper, fish losses in one stream that result from construc- tion of a dam by hypothetical gains that may result from artificiall}-- controlled flows in other streams. Such an exercise assumes without any basis in fact that gains from controlled flows will automatically occur. It also disregards the possible major upset in economy of the fisheries that will result if the harmful dam is built first, and the salmon run dependent upon that stream is killed off before the construction of so-called favorable dams and the hypothetical increase has occurred. Under such circumstances it is necessary to recognize that the increases that are shown as possible are deduced only from the size of the spa\vning area. They will not occur unless all factors affecting sur^'ival are improved. They can occur only if some additional source of production is available. There Is little cause for optimism in contemplating the future potentialities of the Central Valley salmon runs if the plan of construction of dams Is such as to kill important runs before the building up of others has been realized, or even proved to be possible. Although emphasis has been given to the salmon and the hazards to their survival created by the proposed dams, it should not be over- looked that there is a commercial fisherv' for shad and catfish as well as a large sports fisher^' for other species in this area. In 1941, 203,350 44 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME licensed anp-lers fislied in the waters of the Central A'alley counties of California. The principal fishes involved are striped bass, large- and small-moutlied bass, catfish, crappie, snnfish, and steelhead. These fishes are not oiil}^ valuable as food, but are the basis of an extensive recreational business, -which prior to the war was increasing- rapidly. Between 1930 and 1940, while the population of California increased 22 per cent, the number of angling licenses sold increased 56 per cent. The uncertainty that exists as to the effects of the proposed dams and accessory facilities can be pointed out best by reference to the striped bass, the most important fish in this sport fishery. These fish spend a portion of their life in the ocean, but enter San Francisco Bay and pass into the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers to feed and to spa^vn. During 1941 111,400 anglers took 2,035,000 striped bass. At an average weight of three pounds, this catch amounted to about 6,105,000 pounds. Both the feeding and spawning grounds of these fish may be adversely affected through changes in water flows and salinity. No information exists at present as to the harmful or beneficial results that might follow the proposed construction. It is urgent that studies be undertaken at the earliest possible date, to find means of protecting these important fisheries. Special Problems A list of the proposed dams that will impose problems of fishery maintenance is given in Table 3. Certain of the problems are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Table 3. List of Dams Impassable To Fish, With Recommended Minimum Flows Name Height of dam in ft. Stream Recommended minimum flows in c. f. s. Major fish problems Table Mountain . Initial 170 Ultimate 250 Upper Sacramento River 3,000 Involves difficult salmon salvage program below site of Table Mountain; nullifies present salvage of program for Shasta Dam Bid well Bar. 696 Middle Fork, Feather River 400 Below Butter Butte Dam Eliminates spawning grounds in Middle and South Forks of Feather River. Good min- imum flow might actually improve con- ditions Narrows 605 Yuba River 250 Below Narrows Dam; 75 Below Daguerre Point Dam Good minimum flow can improve conditions in this stream Folsom 265 American River... 250 Minimum flow of 250 c. f. s. is the answer to salmon problem in this stream Monticello 239 Putah Creek 20 Of uncertain value to salmon and steelhead Wilson Valley.... 280 Cache Creek 20 Of uncertain value Black Butte 124 Stoney Creek Not determined Might be used for salmon if adequate flows are provided Nashville Dam... 340 Cosumnes River... 50 Below Cosumnes Diversion Minimum flow major problem here Oakdale Dam 170 Stanislaus River... 100 Below proposed Oakdale Dam Minimum flow major problem here EEPORT ON FISHERY RESOURCES 45 Table Mountain Dam It is miderstood that only a ''tight" dam is now planned for this site. Earlier, consideration was given to construction of an open-type round-head, buttress dam that would store water only when flows exceeded 24,000 c.f.s. At flows lower than this, salmon conld pass through to spawning grounds upstream. Even the latter type dam would have serious effects on salmon by (1) flooding out spawning grounds, (2) stranding seaward migrants as forebay levels fell in the reservoir, and (3) interrupting the migrations of adults and young fish during storage of flood waters. Other plans propose an initial low dam to be followed later by the construction of a high dam at Table Mountain. In terms of fishery pro- tection, both the initial and ultimate dams will have equally bad effects on salmon and steelhead runs except that the low dam (pool elevation 400 feet above sea level) will not flood out the new Coleman Salmon Hatchery on lower Battle Creek now being used in the Shasta program. It will flood the Balls Ferry rack and trap. Even though the low dam will not flood out the hatchery, it is questionable whether it will still be usable. The high dam will put all these facilities under 60 or 70 feet of water. In view of the serious losses to the fisheries that may result from the construction of Table Mountain Dam, a re-examination of the eco- nomics of the entire project is recommended. The dam will completely nullify the present maintenance program now in operation below Shasta Dam, on which nearly $2,000,000 has already been expended. Further- more, from a preliminary examination, the suggested methods for main- taining or transferring the runs appear to offer little hope of success. The present annual value of salmon, exclusive of steelhead, originat- ing in the upper Sacramento above Table Mountain is estimated to be $520,000. This is derived directly from the observed and estimated sizes of runs spawning in the different streams, as shown in Table 2. This area accounts for approximately 40 per cent of the total Central Valley salmon run. In addition to the loss of this annual income to the State, Table Mountain Dam will prevent full, future potential development of salmon runs to the upper Sacramento River. The annual value of this potential increase is estimated to be in the order of $140,000. The magnitude of the problem and the difficulties involved in salmon maintenance at the Table Mountain site can be better appreciated in the light of the following facts. 1. A maximum run of 150,000 salmon migrate past Table Moun- tain dam site into the upper river. Of these, 125,000 com]iose the fall run, and the remaining 25,000 the spring run. The fall run jjeaks in late October, and the spring run about June 1. 2. One of the gravest dangers to salmon from construction of Table iMountain Dam is the problem of Avater temperatures, Water stored in Shasta Reservoir will be warmed considerably there. Released to flow into Table Mountain Reservoir, it would be warmed again, and might very Avell reach temperatures in excess of those tolerated by either young or adult salmori. These dangers would be more pronounced in the years of low i-un-oft' when the discharge from Shasta and Table Mountain reservoirs would be principally from the upper, warmer layers. -JG CALIFORNIA FlUB. AND GAME 3. The temperature problem would also be present in the plan to divert water at or below Table Mountain to rehabilitate tributaries enter- ing the Sacramento below it. The water would have to be carried considerable distances in open ditches and, even though it was drawn off the bottom of the reservoir, its suitability for salmon would be limited by its maximum temperature. The following proposals have been advanced as offering possible solution of the salmon problem (or part of it) created by Table Mountain Dam. Fishery investigators are in agreement that none of them will prevent serious damage to the resource. 1. The salmon runs blocked at Table Mountain Dam might be maintained through artificial propagation. This idea is erroneous. To handle a run of 150,000 adult salmon would require hatcheries of unprecedented capacities, and to date no salmon run of commercial size has ever been maintained successfully by artificial propagation. All that hatcheries have done so far is to supplement natural spawning. In addition, there are no streams or springs in the vicinity of Table Moun- tain having the quantity and quality of water needed to supply a hatch- ery or hatcheries of the required capacity. The run now passing Table Mountain dam site can not be maintained by means of hatcheries alone. 2. The runs might be maintained by a combination of artificial propagation and natural spawning as in the present Shasta maintenance program. This might be accomplished by diverting Battle Creek around the forebay of Table Mountain reservoir and constructing another hatch- ery with rearing and holding areas near Table Mountain Dam. This would be expensive, and might not be justified in light of economic and biological studies. 3. Water might be diverted from a low dam immediately beloAv Table Mountain Dam to rehabilitate a number of intermittent tribu- taries. The economic, engineering, and biological feasibility of this plan remains to be determined. 4. All spring-run salmon might be trapped below Table Mountain Dam and transferred to Mill Creek and Deer Creek for natural spa^ATi- ing. Only detailed studies would determine the practicability of this plaii. 5. It has been suggested that fishing for resident game fishes in Table Mountain Reservoir would more than counter-balance the loss of salmon and steelhead runs to the upper Sacramento River. Reservoirs with highly fluctuating forebay levels are poor producers of fish. The periodic drying up of the richer, food producing, shallow-water areas by seasonal storage and release of water seriously reduces production of fish. The history of most such reservoirs in terms of angling is one of diminishing returns. In most California reservoirs, the fishing has not compensated for the loss of runs of salmon and steelhead ; and it is exceedingly doubtful that it would do so in this case. Minimum Flows One of the most important considerations on each stream, as far as fish are concerned, is the minimum flow. The recommended flows for all important Central Valley streams, on which dams are planned, are given in Tables 2 and 3. These minima have been estimated from examination of the various streams under all conditions. The figures are necessarily REPOKT ON FISHERY RESOURCES 47 preliminary. However, they are believed to be the lowest which will provide adequate coverage of the spawning areas, adequate feeding areas for the young salmon previous to their seaward migration, and which will also permit the upstream migration of the fish over natural barriers. There are many other projects proposed for other streams such as the Pine Flat Reservoir on Kings River, the Isabella Reservoir on Kern River, and others that have not as yet been studied but on which minimum flows will be required. Pig. 15. What can happen. The Pit River near Big Bend, showing the effects of power diversion for the "Pit 5" Power House. Above, before diversion, flow 1500 cuDic feet per second; below, after diversion, flow about 140 cubic feet per second (release of 50 cubic feet per second through dam about 5 miles upstream, plus inflow from tributaries below dam). 48 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Delta Cross Channel This channel, if constructed, will raise many entirely new and com- plicated problems concerned with the safe passage of tish both down and upstream. An open type of channel would probably result in heavy losses of young salmon no matter what type of screening might be devised. Losses would also result from interference with normal migratory routes, confusion to fish caused by new directions of flow, and by mixing waters from different drainage laasins. A closed type of channel is essential to prevent the loss of salmon runs from intercepted streams. Siphons or bridge crossings should be provided for the Delta Cross Channel over the lower end of the Cosumnes River, the Stockton ship channel, and the San Joaquin River. Water must not be spilled in large quantities directly from the channel to the lower reaches of other rivers. Studies should be instituted to determine whether or not the pump lifts from the Sacramento River will require screening. Seaward migrant salmon as small as 30 mm. total length have been taken near Hood, and if screens are required they must be built to protect these fish. It may prove necessary to screen against the young of striped bass and shad of even smaller size than the salmon. Lateral Canals These canals include the Red Bluff -Dixon Canal taking off from the west side of the Sacramento River near Red Bluff, the Folsom-Newman and Folsorn-Ione-Mendota Canals arising from the American River near Folsom, and the pumping connection to the latter canals from the Sacra- mento River near Hood. The same principles noted above for the Delta Cross Channel should be followed in constructing these canals. Studies should be instituted to determine the type of screens required on take-offs for the Red Bluff-Dixon, Hood pumping, and other canals diverting from the main streams. Siphons or bridges should be provided to take the canals across important salmon streams so as not to intercept the runs. No Avater should be spilled directly from them into the various river channels except where studies indicate that conditions for fish life will not be adversely affected. Mendota Pool The Mendota pool into which the lone-Mendota or the Delta-Mendota canals, or both, will dump water should be isolated from the main San Joaquin channel and the water of the main San Joaquin River. One way that this might be accomplished would be by digging a new channel for the river to the east of the pool and returning it to the present river bed downstream from it. Salt Water Barrier If this structure is built to prevent penetration of salt water into the delta area by tidal action it will create serious problems for the continued survival of anadromous fishes as well as other aquatic life that depends upon brackish water for all or part of its existence. The complexities of the problem will require much study. Salmon Refuges Streams such as Deer Creek, near Vina, California, and Mill Creek near Los Molinos, California, might be set aside as salmon refuges in HEPORT ON FISHERY RESOURCES 49 which no other conflicting use of the water would be permitted. The principle of providing- such salmon refuges should be recognized and the machinery set up whereby they may be established. Deer Creek is lieing utilized now as an important element in the Shasta salmon program. Since 1942 over 13,000 adult spring-run salmon blocked by Shasta Dam have been transferred to Deer Creek for natural spawning. The offspring of these fish will return to Deer Creek ; and it is important that every effort be made to assure unhindered migration of these fish in and out of this stream in future years. Proposed Program for the Study of Fish Protection Problems in the Central Valley of California A summary of proposed studies on each stream is given in Table 4. Additional details relating the various projects noted in the table to the entire program are outlined below. The outline lists the information required for each stream to determine the measures necessary to off-set the effects of dams and diversions on fish life. A. Determination of size of present runs a) By counts at weirs and dams b) By calculation from tag returns c) By a combination of the above methods B. Stream Surveys a) Estimate the spawning capacity of each stream b) Estimate variation in spawning capacity at different flows c) Establish minimum flows required d) Locate all hazards to fish life 1. Dams 2. Diversions 3. Pollution, mining, industrial, agricultural, and domestic 1) Determine extent to which pollution will be aggravated by reduced flows e) Make temperature studies of streams including the eft'ects of stor- age, reduced flows, depth of outlet and other conditions C. Study of methods of protecting fish from man-made hazards a) Determine place, size, and type of fish ladders needed b) Determine where bar screens are necessary to protect adults c) Determine location, type and mesh of screens needed to protect young migrants 1. Determine time of migration of young, and size of migrants D. Development of protection programs where necessary a) Determine size of present runs that must be handled b) Determine which nearby streams, if any, maj^ be used for the transfer of fish for either natural or artificial propagation c) Consider methods of transfer, if needed d) Survey spawning areas that might be developed by addition of water to dry or nearly dry stream beds e) Evaluate the role of artificial propagation in the program E. Study of needs for protection during construction a) Temporary fish ladders 3—42861 50 CALIFORNIA FISII AND GAME b) Problems of fish passage around coffer dams, side spills, etc., under varying flows c) Timing construction of protective devices to have them ready before dam construction blocks existing passages d) Pollution by corLstruction agencies e) Problem of holding fish below dam without losses F. Determination of the utility of the new reservoirs for other than anadromous fishes G. Determination of the effects of the proposed salt-water barrier on the fish resources of the Central Valley, including the striped bass Table 4. Summary of SI udies Pro posed 1 CO s 1 Name of stream Section § a s CO § 3 a. -a J3 bD ? C3 §• § a 1 & t CO o qa S 3 B a 1 bO © a a o Q 1 O) V ' accredited to the species. The skin is distinctively armed with isolated tubercular scales, each with a hard stellate base and a small spine at the summit (hence the common name "bramble shark"). The nostrils are divided by a sharply pointed flap from the front margin. There is a short fold around the corner of the mouth. Most of these specific characters are well shown in the two photographs of the California speci- men (figures 16 and 17) . After two months in cold storage this specimen (i(i CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME was almost uniform dark brown, without clear indications of the dark spots reported in some descriptions. Measurements follow of the California specimen, taken on the left side with the aid of special tuna-measuring calipers on the fresh speci- men as soon as it had largely thawed out after having been hard-frozen for two months. The proportions are expressed as thousandths of the total length (196 centimeters). Greatest depth of body, about 141. Least depth of caudal peduncle, 62. Distance from tip of snout to tirst gill-slit, 192 ; to last gill-slit, 261 ; to insertion of pectoral fin, 260 ; to insertion of pelvic, 583; to origin of first dorsal fin, 590. Distance between origins of dorsal fins, 103. Interdorsal space, 39. Distance between bases of second dorsal and caudal fins, 37. Length of front Fia. 17. Mead of the California specimen of Echinorhinus bntcaa, yliowing structure of mouth, lips, teeth and nostrils, and the arrangement of the prickly scales. Photograph by Donald H. Fry, Jr. I OCCURRENCE OF THE BRAMBLE SHARK G7 margins of fins : first dorsal, 97 ; second dorsal, 88 ; upper caudal lobe, 218; lower caudal lobe, 117; pectoral, 115; pelvic, 89. Length of base of fins: first dorsal, 55; second dorsal, 51; pectoral, 72; pelvic, 104. Distance from origin of first dorsal fin to lateral line, 51. Height of first gill-slit, 44; of last gill-slit, 65. Length of snout: preocular, 81; preoral (from fold of lip), 72. Least distance between nostrils, 45. Width of left nostril, 15. Least interorbital width, 91. Length of orbit, 18. Suborbital width, 24. Width of mouth overall, 111. Length of mouth perpendicular to line joining ends of jaws, 41. Length of grooves at corner of mouth : upper, 16 ; lower, 19. Depth of snout above front of mouth, 51. Although it was six feet, five inches long prior to preservation the male specimen at hand does not appear to have attained full maturity, for its claspers are very simple in structure, with merely a groove along one side, and are short, not reaching the posterior angle of the pelvic fin. The taking of the bramble shark in California is a prompt confir- mation of the opinion recently expressed in this journal by Barnhart and Hubbs (1944, p. 53) to the effect that many discoveries will follow upon a more thorough exploration of the fish fauna of the moderate depths along the coast of this State. Probably Echinorhiniis will prove to be much less rare in California than the available data would seem to indicate. Acknowledgements For information and references dealing with the distribution of this shark we are particularly indebted to Henry B. Bigelow of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard University. Further advice has been received from Leonard P. Schultz of the United States Natural Museum and from three California ichthyologists, George S. Myers and Rolf L. Bolin of Stanford University and W. L Follett of Oakland. Robert D. Byers, now of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has given data on the specimen that was caught off Santa Barbara. We also thank the Union Ice and Storage Company for the cold storage of the specimen. Donald H. Fry, Jr., of the California Division of Fish and (lame, cooperated by taking the two photographs here reproduced. Literature Cited Barnhart, Percy S., and Hubbs, Carl L. 1944 Recoi-d of the oilfish (Ruvetius pretionus) in California. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 30, pp. 52-53, fig. 29. Berg, Carlos 189S Comunicaciones ictiologicas. Com. Mus. Nuc. Buenos Aires, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-13. Garman, Samuel 1913 The Plagiostomia. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., no. 30, pp. i xiii, 1 — 515, pis. 1-75. Goode, George B., and Bean, Tarleton H. 1879 A catalogue of the fishes of Essex County, Massachusetts, including the fauna of Massachusetts Bay and the contiguous deep waters. Bull. Essex Inst., vol. 11, pp. 1-38. Pietschmann, Victor 1928 Neue Fischarten aus dem Pazifischen Ozean. Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 65, pp. 297-298. 1930 Remarks on Pacific fishes. Bull. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., no. 73, pp. 1-24, pis. 1-4, figs. 1-4. GAPEWORM IN CALIFORNIA QUAIL AND CHUKAR PARTRIDGE^ By Carlton M. Herman Bureau of Game Conservation California Division of Fish and Game Introduction It is evident from our observations that "•apeworni is a common parasite in some of our California game birds in captivity. Altliougli there are no published reports of the occurrence of this parasite in either game birds or domestic poultry in California, we have observed it regularly in ehukar partridge (Alecforis graeca) which we have autop- sied at the Yountville Game Farm. We have not observed it in anj' birds from the Los Serranos Game Farm at Chino, nor are there any records of its occurrence there. We also have observed heavy infec- tions in chukars at holding pens in Susanville during September, 1943, and again in quail (Lophortyx californica) at holding pens in Scotia in August, ]9-lr4. Gapeworms in domestic poultry and game birds in other parts of the world present a serious problem and mortality is high. These parasites have been reported from many species of birds. In the United States natural infec- tions have been reported as occurring in ruffed grouse, bob white quail, and pheasant. Other investi- gators state that gapeworm infection apparently causes little or no distress to ruff'ed grouse and quail (eastern bobwhite) under natural conditions, but there are numerous reports of high mortality among pheasants, particularly from northwestern and east- ern States. Although observation of the infections that occur in ehukar and California quail leads us to the conclusion that mortality is high in infected birds of these species when in captivity, we have not observed these parasites in any of the wild birds examined. Causative Agent This disease is caused by a roundworm (Syn- ganiiis trachea) Avhich lives in the windpipe of the bird. The Avorms are red from feeding on the blood of the bird. The female worms are from -| to 1 inch long, the males about 4 of an inch. In the windpipe the males ai-e permanently attached to the females, in copula (see Fig. 18). Nodules may occur on the .FCMALC Fig. 18. Drawing- of male and female gapeworms. About 4 times natu- ral size. (FromWehr, 1941). ^ Submitted for puI)lication, December, 1944. (68) GAPEWORM IN QUAIL AND PARTRIDGE G9 wall of the windpipe at the site of attaclnnent of the w^orius. Til effects arc caused by loss of blood of tlie bird and blockage of the fiir ])assage. Symptoms The characteristic symptoms are usually readily observed in yoimy birds which evidence gasping or coughing, hence the use of the common terms "gape" or "yap" disease. This usually develops within one or two weeks after infection. Quick jerks of the head and extension of the neck, indicating that the birds are not getting enough air, usually accompany this gasping. Prior to death the infected birds refuse food and water, become very weak ajid sluggish. Adult chukars apparently do not show" symptoms. Two adult birds maintained in the laboratory for a period of five months remained infected throughout this period. Older birds which overcome the effects of the infection but continue to harbor the worms serve as a constant source of spread. P:g. II Life history of g'apeworm. (After AVehr, 1!)41). 70 caijTpornia fish and game Transmission Tlie adult gapeworms in the windpipe i)i'oduee numerous eg'gs which are coughed up, then swallowed, and finally expelled with the bird's droppings. If these eggs are swallowed immediatelj^ by a susceptible bird, no infection occurs. The eggs must remain outside the body of the bird from 10 to 14 days before becoming infective. Some of the eggs may hatch and live as larv^ free in the soil. It has also been shown by other workers that the eggs or larvge may be swallowed by earthworms. The birds become infected by eating the infective eggs or larvae along with their food or water, .or by eating the contaminated earthworms. This life cycle is pictured graphically in figure 19. Prevention in Captive Birds Sanitation is of chief importance in the prevention of this disease in game farm birds and in holding pens. Young birds should be kept separate from older birds and should not be placed on areas previously occupied by birds infected with gape disease. It is suggested that infected pens be allowed to remain dormant for at least two years. Droppings should be disposed of at least weekly and in such a manner that they will not be accessible to other birds. Holding pens should be placed, wherever possible, on sandy, well-drained soil. Treatment Gapeworm infections in wild birds would be extremely difficult to control and at present no technique is available for the control of such outbreaks should they occur. Since the release of infected birds not only would create the hazard of epidemic outbreaks in the existing population of wild game birds, but could also be spread to domestic fowl, it is impera- tive that the practice of releasing birds with gape disease be terminated. Investigations conducted by the Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, have shown that birds can be effec- tively and efficiently treated with barium antimonyl tartrate. In a recent leaflet, Wehr (1941), has outlined this treatment as follows: "The infected birds are placed in a closed container or box (Fig. 20) and exposed to the powder for 15 to 20 minutes. The size of the dose is determined by the cubic capacity of the container. One ounce of barium antimonyl tartrate is sufficient for a box having a capacity of 8 cubic feet. The box should be deep enough to allow a space of at least 6 inches above the heads of the birds when standing erect. In the beginning, one- third of the total dose is blown into the box by means of a dust gun through an opening at the top. The box, if of a convenient size, is then tilted slowly from one side to the other several times. Tilting causes the birds to stir around in the box, thereby aiding in redispersing any powder that may have been settled on the feathers or the floor of the box, and forcing the birds to breathe more heavily and more frequently. This affords a better opportunity for the powder to reach the worms that may be located in the lower part of the windpipe. In the case of mature birds, when the treatment box is likely to be too heavy to tilt, a small electric fan may be placed on the floor of the box to keep the powder agitated. Five minutes after the introduction of the first one-third of the powder. GAPEWORM IX QUAIT. AND PARTRIDGE ''';js:<.^s^i;Sf«-^«bj:T3o<>%;:^'^ -^ssmKS^,- If^l •»& ft> '?^-'s^ \. Fig. 20. Dust gun and box used for treating birds for gapeworm. (From Wehr, 1941) the second one-third is introduced, and the tilting or the use of the fan is repeated. The remaining powder is introduced 10 to 15 minutes after the beginning of the treatment, and the box is again tilted or the fan used. The birds are released 5 to 10 minutes after the last of the powder has been blown into the box." In a later paper, Wehr and Olivier (1943) reported on experimental treatment of young pheasants with this dust. Its efficiency approaches 100 per cent. They state that immediately following treatment, the eyes of a few of the birds appeared to be slightly irritated, probably as a result of some of the powdered drug being blown directly into the eyes. How- ever, this condition did not persist and in a few hours the eyes of the affected birds became normal. Coughing, which had continued steadily from the seventh day after infection, ceased within a few hours after the birds were removed from the treatment box. There was only a slight interruption in feeding as a result of the treatment. Wehr and Olivier also pointed out that because of the necessary con- finement in the tight box for 16 to 20 minutes during treatment, the birds may become damp and overheated, and they recommend that following treatment the birds be placed in a warm, well- ventilated place until tliey become dry and cool. 72 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Barium antinionyl tartrate can be obtained from several commereial concerns that specialize in poultry pharmaceuticals. It costs approxi- mately $3 per pound so that the cost of the drug is slightly over one cent per bird for this treatment. Literature Cited Wehr, E. E. 1941. Controlling gapeworms in poultry. U. S. Dept. Agri. Leaflet No. 207, G pp. Wehr, E. E. and L. Olivier 104.S. The efBciency of barium antinionyl tartrate for the removal of gapeworms from pheasants. Proc. Helm. Soc. Wash., vol. 10, pp. 87-89. EDITORIALS AND NOTES FISHERIES AND THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT Of the many dams proposed for postwar construction in California, the series to be located on the Central Valley streams forms a system of far-reaching importance to our fish resources. ' Fortunately, con- sideration is being given to protection of the fisheries in the early stages of the planning. A board of consultants has been appointed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to give them special advice on the problem. The California State Division of Fish and Game is vitally interested, and the first article in this issue sets forth its recommendations. Among the ideas put forward are several of a kind not heretofore found in reports of this nature. The most outstanding is the recom- mendation that, in the design of all dams and reservoirs, definite pro- vision be made for specific storage capacity over and above the needs of power, irrigation, and other interests, to furnish water to be released in the streams below for the protection of fish life. In the case of dams like Bonneville on the Columbia River, where the full volume of the stream flows over the dam, this problem does not arise; but for many of the proposed California dams it is of paramount importance, in that they are designed to catch the runoff, store it, and in many cases divert it out of the natural channel. In the past, water has been stored for power, for irrigation, and for flood control; but no water has been stored for fish. California State law (Fish and Game Code, Sect. 525) provides that ' ' The owner of any dam shall allow sufficient water at all times to pass through a fishway, or in the absence of a fishway, allow sufficient water to pass over, around or through the dam, to keep in good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam." It is obvious that if a stream is inhabited by the full number of fish which its food production and other environmental conditions can sup- port, the diversion from it of any appreciable quantity of water will, make it impossible for that number of fish to continue to live there. Areas of the bottom which supported aquatic fish foods or served as spawning beds will become dry land ; the velocity of the current will be reduced as the volume of flow decreases ; and the temperatures will rise as the water becomes slower and shallower. It has been impossible in practice to demand fulfillment of the requirements of the law as worded, and the Fish and Game Commission, unable to stand firm on a legalized foundation, has had to fight for small releases of water to maintain at least some semblance of a fishery. In practice, as water is diverted and the flow in a stream bed reaches low values, a critical point often occurs at which conditions are still suitable for fish but below which they become unsuitable. Inclusion in the design of dams and reservoirs of storage capacity specifically reserved for the purpose of supplying this minimum amount of water would be a long step forward in fish conservation. — Brian Curtis, Editor, California Fish and Game, January, 1945. ( 73 ) 74 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO IN "CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME" ''The Mullet Fisheries of Salton Sea" by AVill F. Thompson and Harold C. Bryant was one of the leading articles in California Fish AND Game twenty-five years ago. The mullet, Mugil cephalus, a form Avhich can live in both salt and fresh water, occurs in the Colorado River, and it was presumably during the historic overflow of this river in 1905 and 1906 that it became established in the Salton Sea. In 1915 it was sufficiently abundant to support a small fishery, but received little mar- ket favor in spite of the fact that it has been looked upon as a great deli- cacy in Europe since Roman times. By 1918 Calif ornians had apparently become more receptive, and 91,000 pounds were marketed. The principal figure in the fishery was a former New Englander, Captain Charles Davis, who, with eight trammel nets each 30 fathoms long, took 250 to 300 pounds daily, shipping to Los Angeles and San Francisco and receiving 15 cents a pound at the station. The fish were large, 2 to 2^ feet long. Thompson and Bryant felt it very questionable whether this Salton Sea fishery could persist and indeed by 1921 these mullet had become so scare as to disappear from the commercial catch. However, an event unforeseeable by our authors, the great development of the Lower Colo- rado River, has brought in recent years a considerable inflow of waste irrigation water into the Sea, and the mullet has re-appeared in com- mercial numbers. In 1942 netting was permitted on an experimental basis, and in 1943 the fishery was re-established, with a July-December closed season, a 14-inch size limit, and with gear limited to the fixed gill net with five-inch minimum stretched mesh. In 1943 36,000 fish were reported taken weighing 187,000 pounds ; and in 1944, 58,500 weighing 337,000 pounds. In 1944 the price ranged from 4 to 12 cents a pound to the fisherman. In 1945 to date the fishery has suffered from the use of Salton Sea as an aerial bombing range, and the resultant destruction of mullet. Of long-range significance was the announcement in that issue of the bulletin of the agreement reached with the United States Forest Service whereby forest rangers would henceforth act as fish and game wardens, and our patrol force would reciprocate by acting as forest fire wardens. The two services have continued this cooperation in law enforcement ever since, to the benefit of both. Of archaeological and sentimental, as well as piscatorial and eco- nomic interest is this sentence in an editorial discussion of the preceding season 's herring catch : ' ' None were salted or smoked, as the local demand for salted and smoked herring ended when the saloons closed on July 1st. ' ' — Brian Curtis, Editor, California Fish and Game, March, 1945. REPORTS FISH CASES October, November, December, 1944 Offense Abalones: no license, undersize, bringing ashore mutilated Angling: no license, at night, failure to show fish on demand, snagging, illegally taken fish, fish- ing on fish ladder, fishing on spawning beds - Bass, striped: use more than one line, overlimit, undersize, at night, selling Clams: undersize, no license - Commercial: illegal gill net, gill net closed district, net District 3 on Sunday, no license, using set lines District 13 Lobsters: undersize . - — .. — Salmon: snag hooks, undersize, no license, untagged, shooting with rifle, at night Spearing: closed area, on spawning beds, possess spear in fish ladder, gaff at dam, 300 ft. of stream Sunfish: overlimit - Totals— 196 Number Fines arrests imposed 7 1320 27 560 34 1,067 7 165 27 1,305 4 300 64 1,905 25 830 1 25 S6,477 GAME CASES October, November, December, 1944 Offense Deer: 2 deer in a 1 deer district, altering deer tags, take forked horn deer District IM, carry tags of another, closed district, failure to show deer on demand, fawn, doe, transfer tags to another, failure to tag, spotlighting, spike buck, failure to complete deer tags, refuge -., Deer meat: unstamped, closed season, illegal Doves: overlimit, trapping, selling birds without a game breeder's license Ducks: refuge, early and late shooting, overlimit, no license, shooting from power boat, closed season, unplugged gun_ Failure to declare out-of-state game Failure to make report of fur sales Failure to show license on demand Firearms: refuge - .--- _ _ Hunting: no license, no deer tags, refuge, aiding and abetting juvenile in hunting without a license, purchase resident license while not a resident - -- Non-game birds ' Pheasants: closed season, hen, no license, no tags, failure to tag Pigeons: closed season . Pollution -. - Quail: closed season, overlimit, refuge -- -- Seagulls Shooting from vehicle, from public road, protected birds - - ---- Swans Totals - - -- - Fines imposed ?5,860 315 1,250 3,940 125 10 10 1,200 415 25 6,595 250 250 635 25 135 240 121,280 (75) lb CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME SEIZURES OF FISH AND GAME October, November, December, 1944 Fish: Bass, black 2 Bass, striped, pounds - -- 1,500 Clams 458 Lobsters 7 Lobster traps : 45 Salmon 42 Salmon, king . 25 Salmon, silver, pounds 45 Trout, rainbow 3 Trout, steelhead 1 Game: Deer 40 Deer meat, poimds 273 Doves 162 Ducks _ 668 Geese 51 Pheasants --. 12 Pheasants, cock 206 Pheasants, hen 47 Quail, valley 7 Rabbit, cottontail 1 Sagehens 2 Squirrel, gray 1 Swan__ 1 Woodducks - - 2 42861 4-45 4200 (■Continued from inside cover) BUREAU OF ENGINEERING JOHN SPENCER, Chief San Francisco Clarence Elliger, Assistant Hydraulic Engineer San Francisco Samuel Kabakov, Junior Civil Engineer San Francisco BUREAU OF LICENSES H. R. DUNBAR, Chief Sacramento L. O'Leary, Supervising License Agent Sacramento R. Nickerson, Supervising License Agent Los Angeles Lorraine Atwood, License Agent San Francisco ACCOUNTS AND DISBURSEMENTS D. H. BLOOD, Departmental Accounting Officer Sacramento BUREAU OF PATROL E. L. MACAULAT, Chief of Patrol (absent on military leave) San Francisco L. F. CHAPPELL, Chief of Patrol San Francisco CENTRAL DISTRICT (Headquarters, Sacramento) C. S. Bauder, Inspector in Charge Sacramento Northern Division A. A. Jordan, Captain Redding Jos. H. Sanders, Captain Sacramento A. H. Willard, Captain Rocldin E. O. "Wriath, Captain Chico L. E. Mercer, Warden, Butte County Chico Taylor London, Warden, Colusa County Colusa Albert Sears, Warden, El Dorado County Placerville E. C. Vail, Warden, Glenn County Willows Louis Olive, Warden, Modoc County Alturas Earl Hiscox, Warden, Nevada County Nevada City Nelson Poole, Warden, Placer County Auburn E. J. Johnson, Warden, Plumas County Quincy Charles Sibeck, Warden, Sacramento County Sacramento Earl Caldw^ell, Warden, Ssahta County Burney Brice Hammack, Warden, Siskiyou County Yreka Fred R. Starr, Warden, Siskiyou County Dorris R. E. Tutt, Warden, Sierra County ." Loyalton R. W. Anderson, Warden, Tehama County Red Bluff C. L. Gourley, "Warden, Trinity County Weaverville C. O. Fisher, Warden, Yolo County Woodland R. A. Tinnin, Warden, Yuba County Marysville "Wm. LaMarr, "^"'arden. Placer County Tahoe City Rudolph Gerhardt, Warden, Butte County Gridley Walter Krukow, Warden, Shasta County . Redding Southern Division S. R. Gilloon, Captain Fresno John O'Connell, Captain Stockton R. J. Little, Warden, Amador County Pine Grove L. R. Garrett, Warden, Calaveras County Murphys P. A. Bullard, Warden, Fresno County Reedley Paul Kehrer, Warden, Fresno County Fresno Lester Arnold, Warden, Kern County Bakersfield C. L. Brown, Warden, Fresno County Coalinga Ray Ellis, Warden, Kings County Hanford H. E. Black, Warden, Madera County Madera Gilbert T. Davis, Warden, Mariposa County Mariposa Hilton Bergstrom, Warden, Merced County Los Banos "Wm. Hoppe, "Warden, San Joaquin County Lodi Geo. Magladry, Warden, Stanislaus County Modesto W. I. Long, Warden, Tulare County Visalia Roswell Welch, Warden, Tulare County Porterville F. F. Johnston, Warden, Tuolumne County Sonora Donald Hall, Warden, Kern County Kernville COAST DISTRICT (Headquarters, San Francisco) Wm. J. Harp, Inspector in Charge Sati Francisco Northern Division Scott Feland, Captain Eureka Lee C. Shea, Captain .^ Santa Rosa W. J. Black, "Warden, Humboldt County Garberville W. F. Kaliher, Warden, Humboldt County Fortuna M. F. Joy, Warden, Napa County , ^ Oakville R. J. Yates, Warden, Marin County : San Rafael Ovid Holmes, Warden, Mendocino County Fort Bragg Floyd Loots, Warden, Mendocino County Willits J. E. Hughes, Warden, Solano County Sacramento Bert Laws, Warden, Sonoma County Petaluma Victor Von Arx, Warden, Sonoma County Santa Rosa Jack Sawyer, Warden, Lake County Lakeport Robert Wiley, Warden, Humboldt County Eureka Otis Wright, Del Norte County Crescent City Southern Division O. P. Brownlow, Captain Alameda J. W. Harbuck, Warden, Contra Costa County Antioch F. H. Post, Warden, Monterey County Salinas J. P. Vissiere, Warden, San Benito County Hollister C. R. Peek, Warden, San Mateo County San Mateo C. E. Holladay, Warden, Santa Clara County San Jose F. J. McDermott, Warden, Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz Warren Smith, Warden, Contra Costa County Antioch SOUTHERN DISTRICT (Headquarters, Los Angeles Earl Macklin, Inspector in Charge Los Angeles H. 0. Jackson, Captain Los Angeles Western Division L. T. Ward, Captain Escondido F. W. Hecker, Captain San Luis Obispo Fred Albrecht, Warden, Los Angeles County Los Angeles Walter Emerick, Warden, Los Angeles County Palmdale Theodore JoUey, Warden, Orange County Norwalk E. H. Glidden, Warden, San Diego County San Diego R. E. Bedwell, Warden, Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara H. L. Lantis, Warden, Santa Barbara County Santa Maria Orben Philbrick, Warden, San Luis Obispo County Paso Robles Leo Rossier, Warden, Ventura County OJai L. R. Metzgar, Warden, Los Angeles County Los Angeles A. F. Crocker, Warden, Ventura County Fillmore A. L. Stager, Warden, Los Angeles County Los Angeles Henry Ocker, Warden, San Diego County Julian Eastern Division Tate Miller, Captain San Bernardino C. J. Walters, Warden, Inyo County Independence James Loundagin, Warden, Inyo County Bishop W. C. Blewett, Warden, Riverside County Indio W. L. Hare, Warden, Riverside County , Elsinore W. C. Malone, Warden, San Bernardino County San Bernardino Erol Greenleaf, Warden, San Bernardino County Big Bear Lake Otto Rowland, Warden, San Bernardino County Vlctorville ClifE Donham, Warden, Riverside County Idyllwild MARINE PATROL C. H. Groat, Inspector in Charge Terminal Island T. W. Schilling, Captain Monterey Kenneth Webb, Warden Monterey Kenneth Hooker, Warden, Launch Minnow Tiburon Walter Engelke, Captain and Warden, Cruiser Bonito Newport Robert Mills Newport N. C. Kunkel, Warden Newport Beach Leslie E. Lahr, Warden Wilmington Ralph Miller, Warden San Francisco G. R. Smalley, Warden Richmond T. J. Smith, Warden San Diego Carmi Savage, Warden Santa Monica R. C. Schoen, Warden Terminal Island MARINE PATROL AND RESEARCH BOATS Cruiser Bonito, Newport Harbor Cruiser Rainbow III, Antioch Cruiser Shasta, Redding Launch Shrapnel, Suisun Launch Minnow, San Rafael printed in California state printing office SACRAMENTO, IJ-^J GEORGE H.MOORE, STATE PRINTER