Alaska on conservation of Co
lumbia River Salmon
This objection is not perti
nent because the closure of the
first three months of each
year here will not help the Co
lumbia River waters but remain
here and will be caught in April.
How then can such a ruling
help Columbia River? The clos
ure seems only to be a device
to penalize the resident Alaskan
and would undoubtedly encour
age others to desert the<e wa
ters during the winter months
and to build their homes else
where.
3..Waste due to catching im
mature fish.
Mr. O’Malley here makes a
pointNsupporting our proposal
by showing that immature fish
should not be caught He also
misses the point in speaking
about “silver salmon” which
double their weight “during the
summer just preceding their
spawning.
No silver salmon arc caught
by us during January, February
and March. We cannot accept
conclusions based on experi
ments with silver salmon in the
summertime just before spawn
ing for two reasons—we are not
dealing with salmon about to
spawn. We catch fish (king
salmon) that come in from the
ocean to feed and not to spawn.
We have even anticipated Mr.
O’Malley for our proposal was
to save the immature fish for
the entire year, whereas his
closure rule would have had no
bearing in this matter at all.
Rather we, the resident fisher
men of Alaska are being told
to keep our hands off until the
non-residents can get here in
April and all of us would catch
both the mature and immature
fish the balance of the year.
We believe that from the very
merit of our proposal, the Com
missioner might accept our pro
posal in place of his own.
4..Seasonal changes in percent
age of immature fish caught.
We respectfully pass over this
subject because from the argu
ment itself (it mentions the
months of May, June, July,
and August) it has no bearing
on the three months of Janu
ary, February and March.
It is also nothing more than
a guess for the Commissioner
says: “If the same thing applies
in the Alaska troll fishery.” We
insist that a ruling that so se
riously affects the welfare of
such a large body of resident
Alaskans should be based on
something stronger than a con
jecture.
5. Other possible substitutes for
the present regulation
The first paragraph under
this heading deserves the great
est consideration because it is
true, namely, that it is a ruling
that affects only those trollers
who reside in Alaska all the
year round. Under it, they are
forbidden to catch king salmon
to enable them to eke out an ex
istence in Alaska. To make
matters worse, the very salmon
which they are forbidden to take
will be caught by the hundreds
of nonresident fishermen who
come to Alaskan waters in
April.
Mr. O’Malley has proposed
substitute schemes to replace
the regulation now under dis
cussion possibly to get our ideas;
First, to increase the weekly
closed period to sixty hours, se
condly, to reduce the number
of lines from six to four.
Regarding his first substitute
proposal. He proposes to
lengthen the closed period each
week enough to make up the
three months closure against
which we are now protesting.
From this and other statements
it appears that the department
believes that king salmon are
like the other species with which
they are familiar and that troll
ing is a sort of continuous per
formance which is only inter
rupted by the legal closed sea
son. This is not so for the sal
mon wc catch (king salmon)
is not a spawn fish but a feeding
fish at the time we catch them
in areas now open to trolling.
Also there is already an ample
closed season both by legal
force and natural causes.
78 days of 24 hours are now
closed on account of the week
ly closing now in effect.
An average of 1 day per week
in addition to the above is lost
on account of bad weather.
Those trollers who take their
own fish to the market lose
three days out of every ten, and
as 75 per cent of the trollers
do so, this amounts to an addi
tional average net loss of 73
days.
Repairs to engine and boat for
15 days more.
Every night increases the pro
tection of king salmon.
Travel from one fi s h i n g
ground to another is unavoid
able.
From all of the above, we cal
culate that the average trolling
year is one of only 167 eight
hour days, and to decrease this
b y the proposed substitute
would be unjust.
We also would point out that
such a ruling would be ineffect
ive for this reason—fishermen
carry ice, and during this peri
od, need only fish outside the
three-mile limit, come in dur
ing the legal period, and no one
can tell the legal from the il
legal fish.
6..Need for restriction.
We are in favor of every re
gulation that would conserve
the king salmon. We maintain
however that every such regula
tion must direct itself to pro
tecting the salmon which are
about to spawn.
If the department protects
Continued on Page 13