For the six tribes just discussed, the ethnographic notes at our
disposal offer a means of estimating the population, but we have also
another basis for our calculations. Fishery was the most important
single factor in the California Athabascan economy, hence the fish
resources of the region undoubtedly exerted a marked influence on
population size. Therefore, before attempting to estimate the population
of the remaining groups, for which we have scanty ethnographic
information, I would like to present some data on the fish resources of
the region.
I have attempted to calculate the number of stream miles of fishing
available and thereby to form some estimate of the economic basis of
each of the groups. Most of my information comes from Mr. Almo J.
Cordone, Junior Aquatic Biologist of the California Department of
Fish and Game, who was kind enough to gather the relevant data from
the records of that organization. I have not included material on the
freshwater trout, which was apparently too scarce to be important, or
on the lamprey eel, on which we do not have sufficient information,
although it was of some importance, especially in the Eel River and its
tributaries.
The available stream miles of fishing may seem insufficient material
on which to base estimates of fish resources and unquestionably it
would be desirable to have some idea of the fish population per mile of
stream in order to estimate the food value of the resources available to
the people. On the other hand, this point may not be as crucial as it
seems, for apparently the fish population was not a governing factor in
the number of fish taken by the Indians. According to Rostlund (1952,
p. 17), the aboriginal fishermen of California did not even approach
overfishing. If this is so, then there must have been fish left uncaught
even in the smaller salmon streams and it would therefore seem that
one stream was nearly as good as another, if it carried salmon at all.
An exception would be the Trinity River and its tributaries, the only
streams in the Athabascan area with both spring and fall runs of salmon.
In other streams there is only a fall run.
The lists that follow include data, not only for the six tribes
previously discussed (Wailaki, Pitch Wailaki, Mattole, Lolangkok
Sinkyone, Hupa, and Whilkut), but also for the Nongatl, Kato, Shelter
Cove Sinkyone, Lassik, and Bear River groups. The fish species is
recorded, when it is known; when our source gives no identification of
species, however, the generic term is used.
_Available Stream Miles for Fishing in Tribal Territory_
KATO 29 mi.
South Fork Eel R.--19 mi. Quantities of steelhead and silver
salmon go up at least to Branscomb and King salmon go at least to
Ten Mile Cr. (Dept. of Fish and Game).
Hollow Tree Cr.--5 mi. There was fishing on this stream
(Gifford, 1939, p. 304). Fish not specified, probably steelhead and
salmon.
Ten Mile Cr.--5 mi. This stream appears to be large enough
for salmon and there were villages on it. Also the Fish and Game
information for South Fork implies fish in the stream.
WAILAKI (Eel R. and North Fork Wailaki) 23 mi.
Eel R.--16 mi. There are good runs of salmon as far up as Lake
Pillsbury (Dept. of Fish and Game).
North Fork Eel--7 mi. Salmon go up North Fork farther than 7
mi. (see Pitch Wailaki).
PITCH WAILAKI 15 mi.
North Fork Eel--12 mi. See below.
Casoose and Hulls creeks--3 mi. The Dept of Fish and Game
states that salmon do not ascend North Fork above Asbill Cr. but
Goddard's informant (see Pitch Wailaki Village no. 21) said that
fish got up into Hulls and Casoose creeks, the mouths of which are
above Asbill Cr. The Dept. of Fish and Game information may refer
to a more recent situation.
LASSIK 25 mi.