ESTIMATES BASED ON FISH RESOURCES
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.