NUMBER THIRTEEN, bound up
river, to subscribe the price of pas
sage and freight of the outfit to
the mouth 'of Dali River in con
sideration of two claims to be
staked and recorded in the name of
the Homestake Mining and Trading
Co., a co-partnership of six persons,
Hennessey and McTavish being one
third of the company.
At the mouth of Dali River there
were several prospectors who had
just come down from the head of
the river and reported that no strike
had been made. Four of these men
had spent the previous winter pros
pecting in the vicinity of where the
strike was reported to be. These
prospectors were planning to spend
the winter in the Novikaket country
where a strike was reported annually.
Hennessey and McTavish decided to
irift down to the Novi. It happened
that the Dali River Indians had
made considerable money during the
summer arid as it was now late
August they desired to invest this
money in grub for the winter, and
they suggested to Hennessey and
McTavish that the mining grubstake
bo sold to them, as it could be re
plenished at Tanana for less money
than the Indians were willing to pay.
It was a sound business proposition
for my partners to lighten up their
boat for the drift down to Tanana,
and the cost of food was less at
Tanana than at Dali River. They
accordingly sold their entire grub
stake, except enough food for the
down river trip, and were paid in
cash. The evening before their de
parture for down river Hennessey
and McTavish spent at an Indian’s
cabin where a poker game was run
ning, and the two evinced so much
interest in the game that they were
invited to “sit in.” By morning this
“sitting in” had cost the two pros
pectors all the money they had re
ceived from the Indians for the
grubstake. They were not the kind
of men who become discouraged over
the loss of a grubstake, and so they
started out early in the morning de
termined to rustle a new one at
Rampart or Tanana.
They could find no one at Tanana
who was willing to stake two pros
pectors to the Novi, but they did
find a man wrho wished to purchase
a good prospecting boiler and equip
ment for four hundred dollars, and
with this amount in their pockets
they started on to Tanana. The re
ports from the Novi were not very
encouraging and it would be useless
to go there without a boiler and
complete food supply, but no one
could be found at Tanana to furnish
the boiler. Three weeks were spent
at Tanana and their funds were get
ting low and they decided to take
the last steamer up the Tanana to
Fairbanks. A deal was made with
a Sergeant at Fort Gibbon whereby
they received eighty-five dollars for
the boat, snow-shoes, etc., and with
this money purchased tickets to Fair
banks.
One day in November, McTavish
approached me to join him in a lay
on Goldstream. He would put up his
share of the expense when a draft
from Dawson arrived by winter mail,
but I already had had enough of
the game.
THE FISH PROBLEM IN
ALASKA
Honorable Dan Sutherland,
167 H. O. B.,
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Sutherland:
The subject of fisheries was ex
tensively discussed on many days in
the recent session of the Alaska
Legislature. During these discussions
a number of facts were clearly
brought forth. I wish to enumerate
the facts concerning which there was
no dispute, in other words, those
facts which were accepted as true by
the Legislature.
1st. That during all the past years
the Bureau of Fisheries has been in
sole control of the fishing industry
of Alaska.
2nd. That Alaska has never had
and does not now have any authority
over her own fisheries.
3rd. That during the first ten
years of the Bureau of Fisheries
regime, there were almost unlimited
quantities of fish in every stream
that had sufficient water to hold a
single salmon.
4th. That depletion is an accom
plished fact in very many areas.
5th. That at no Uime has the
Bureau of Fisheries ever discovered
that delpetion was going on until
the stream was virtually barren, this
in spite of the fact that residents
were continually complaining about
the fact that the process was go
ing on.
6th. The excuse of the Bureau
of Fisheries has always been that
the law of 1906 was inadequate and
they lacked authority under it to
do what was necessary.
Since that time Congress has pass
ed a law giving the Secretary of
Commerce unlimited power to do
anything and everything necessary
to conserve the fish of Alaska, ex
cept that he cannot grant an ex
clusive right of fishery and that
wherever fishing is permitted it shall
be permitted to every one alike.
However, the policy of the Bureau
of Fisheries has remained the same,
to-wit: the burden of conservation is
placed 100 per cent upon the resi
dent fishermen of Alaska, a large
portion of whom are native Indians.
To illustrate: Under the law of 1906,
for many years the closed area sur
rounding fishing streams was two
hundred yards. Over the protest of
the natives, this prohibited area was
extended to five hundred yards. The
protest of the natives was against
the conservation whose burden was
placed entirely upon them and none
upon the trap system. The fact to
be noted here is this,—that the fish
ermen using hand gear catch prac
tically all their fish in the immediate
vicinity of the salmon stream, and
the extension of the closed area from
two hundred yards to five hundred
yards brought down their catch at
least 25 per cent, whereas the traps
being placed in the open waters,
which are most favorable to their
operation, are not affected in vthe
least. It should be borne in mind
that the ratio of the catch between
the two forms of gear is three to
one, in favor of the trap. It is
really greater than that, for the rea
son that many traps do not catch
enough fish to justify their existence,
they being but dummy traps whos.e
primary purpose is to protect the
good trap location rather than to
catch fish. This policy of favoritism
still continues, for example, the Bu
reau of Fisheries has created a closed
district at 58° 40' north latitude
within the waters of Lynn canal.
This point is the southern end of
the brackish waters of the Chilcook
and Chilkat rivers, which means that
the natives who have lived in this
district during the past centuries can
not fish with their gill nets for this
appliance cannot be used in clear
water. In Alaska we do not thintc
it is a mere incident that the line
at 58° 40' is just north of the last
good trap belonging to the Bank of
California, who operate their can
neries under the name of the Alaska
Consolidated Canneries. The name of
this trap is the Eldred ltock Trap.
This trap, according to eye witnesses,
continued to fish after a cannery
which operated it burned down, the
watchmen being withdrawn from the
trap without closing it so that it
continued to fish until destroyed by
the storms when an estimated 150,
000 fish were killed and thrown on
the adjacent beach.
To further illustrate the continued
favoritism of the Bureau of Fish
eries for the trap system, the closing
order of 58° 40' will not operate as
•i bona fide conservation measure for
this reason: The fish are not being
destroyed in that area but are being
destroyed in the Icy Straits district
something like 100 miles distance
and by the traps there and not by
e seiners. •
Some people will think that the
;w ruling requiring the traps to be
least 1V2 miles apart answers this
iticism of trap favoritism,
ould only satisfy the most ignorant
ul shallow thinking person,. ±oi
iere will be enough traps remaining
that district to catch just as many
Continued on Page Six