You have stated a great truth:
“Its sole aim (the Bureau of
I isheries) was to aid the can
ners.” They have done so by
making the regulations for fish
ing such that the form of gear
used by the canners is the only
gear that is now effective. You
know the canners are almost the
exclusive owners of fishtraps,
whereas the residents of Alaska
(of whom the Natives form a
large part) use mainly seines.
With the publications of the Bu
reau of Fisheries as my author
ity, I say this: that whereas the
percentage of the seine catch
has been reduced 38 per cent to
25 per cent since 1923 to 1928, the
percentage of the trap catch
has been increased from 57 per
cent to 71 per cent; but the
proof of O’Malley’s discrimina
tion against the residents of
Alaska and his deceit in the use
of the term “conservation” is in
this—in the years 1914 to 1919,
“war years,” of admitted over
fishing, the average case pack
was 5,215,332, whereas the aver
age case pack for the years 1924
to 1928, a time when O’Malley,
now clothed with full power by
Congress, had issued many regu
lations which you yourself are
praising highly and which result
ed in the above decline of seine
fishing and increase of trap
fishing, was above decline of
seine fishing and increase of
trap fishing, was 5,209,177—with
in 14,000 cases of the war years.
The answer is this—THERE HAS
BEEN NO CONSERVATION. And
the “sole aim” was indeed “to aid
the canners” for nobody else has
been aided.
Your quotation that somebody
told you that Mr. Hoover “is out
to ruin the country and to de
prive every honest man in it of
a chance to make a living” is a
trick of writing that a writer of
your class should not use. The
people of Alaska do not believe
that, and if some individual told
you that, you should not dignify
it and give the reading public
an idea that such a sentiment
is general. What we do believe
is this—that Mr. Hoover does not
know anything about the situa
tion but relies entirely on what
Mr. O’Malley tells him.
Where does Henry O'Malley
come in? I can only guess about
his responsiveness to the wishes
of the “big interests,” but my
guess is borne out by the fact
mat he pleases certain ones.
However it may be that Mr.
O’Malley is really doing the best
he can uninfluenced by any big
interests. If that be true, then
the record is all against his ef
feciency even if we go no farther
than your summary. O’Malley
was given full authority in 1924,
and yet you charge him with be
ing so derelict that in spite of
the imminence of depletion in
1924 (see his own statements in
the hearings on H. R. 2714) he
did nothing until 1927 although
“the industry went blithely on
building more boots and more
traps and generally preparing
to eat further into its fast di
minishing capital. * * * The pack
leaped to the impressive total of
more than 6,500,000 cases. * * *
That was a year of greatest ex
pansion, and at the same time
a tremendous falling off in the
average catch per unit of gear.”
Whereupon you say “Mr. Henry
O’Malley, of the Bureau of Fish
eries, promptly countered this
situation by what he himself de
scribes as ‘a drastic curtailment
in fishing.’ ”
Did he really counter, Mr.
White? Or are you, too, among
the fooled? If he countered,
why doesn’t it show in the pack?
The pack was over 5,200,000 cas
es, a ten per cent reduction from
1927, not at all due to regulations
covering the big packer but to
regulations touching the resident
seiner, together with a falling
of the run of that year.
What were these “curtail
ments” of 1927 that you speak
about The regulations of 1928
do not indicate any such thing.
But the regulations of 1928 show
ed “drastic curtailments” all
right. These, however, only af
fected the resident seiner, who
having been driven from his fish
ing grounds was compelled to
fish in the trap areas, and there
upon began the trap method of
fishing, namely, with a hook-off.
The hook-off is the device of ty
ing one end of the seine to the
shore (like a trap lead) and thus
forcing the travelling fish to
school whereupon the “purse”
is completed. Mr. O’Malley
promptly prohibited this device,
although he did nothing about
the trap’s hook-off, an identical
device.
You speak about Mr. O’Malley
as being “open minded and flex
ible changing his regulations in
stantly when new information
convinces him that the change
is for the better.” If that is true,
you have discovered something
about Mr. O’Malley of which no
body else has heretofore had a
hint.
In 1928, O’Malley stood on
Demmert’s dock in Klawock and
saw one million salmon in the
bay when the stream was so full
of fish that not another one
could enter. It was evident that
none of the salmon in the bay
could spawn, for during that en
tire summer the Klawock river
had been kept packed to capac
ity. O’Malley could have per
mitted a half million to be pack
by simply directing the stream
watchman to move the “Mark
ers” back 500 yards. He told
Demmert that the line should
be moved back, but he did noth
ing. The same thing happened
in Harris Creek and many oth
er places. It was repeated in the
fall of 1929. I will go no further
into this phase of the matter ex
cept to say that I could multiply