Statesmanship
G. L. Wakeman, assistant manager of the
Bank of California says, “If conservation is the
idea, the proper step would be to limit the catch.
Then the cnnners could make definite plans, ar
range their labor contracts to fit, send up only
so much supplies, and hurry their pack through.”
That has been the very idea advanced by The
Fisherman, Delegate Sutherland and resident
fishermen in Alaska. That was the very thing
the Packing Trust objected to when the Suther
land amendment was attached to the White P»ill
in the House of Representatives.
But whenever measures with constructive con
servation ideas are put forth the Fish Barons
claim that they will destroy the entire industry.
Dr. E. D. Clark, director of the laboratories of
the National Canners said that the Sutherland
amendment would cut the catch of salmon 40
percent through the traps. Then it is that Mr
Wakeman says: “If it is conservation of the
great natural resource that is sought, this is not
the way to go .about it.” How in the world are
we going to get conservation of our fisheries
without curtailing operations? Does Mr. Wake
man and the Fish Barons expect the Bureau of
Fisheries to insure the perpetuity of that indus
try. Do the actions of the Bureau during
the past years give rise to the belief of resident
fishcirren and Alaskans that they are fit and
oualified to properly conserve this industry?
How about Staney Creek? How about White
Stone and Emmon’s Island, Iloonah Sound? Did
the Bureau ever take any steps to prohibit the
operation of those traps which were in strict
violation of the law? Not until great damage
had been done and after fishermen had protested
the criminal indifference of the Bureau of Fish
eries in the enforcement of the law.
We are agreed with Mr. Wakeman and every
one else familiar with the fisheries question
agrees with us that the only way to conserve
this industry is to curtail operations. In the
enactment of legislation for the benefit of the
people it is a fact that the few must be hurt
for the common good of all. Forty percent of
the traps would be affected by the Sutherland
amendment, according to the assistant director
of the laboratories of the National Canners. Ac
cording to our idea conservation would result as
follows:
Trap fish caught in 1921 31,000,000
Seine fish caught in 1921 14,000,000
Differential in favor of
conservation .17,000,000
Allowing 7,000,000 for destruction by “eagles”
and the insistent violation of the Sunday closing
period there would still be 10,000,000 for escap
ment to the spawning grounds. This alone
would insure the perpetuity of the industry.
The curtailment of the trap production would
not be and cannot be offset by increase of the
seine catch. We are demanding the curtailment
of the one gear that is directly responsible for
the depletion of our salmon.
That is the plan that is followed in the Canadi
an waters and that is the reason why the can
ners there know before the first of each year
the exact number of cases they will pack. The
plan as advised and devised by the Fish Barons
and their pet in the Department of Commerce
is just as much a gamble today as it was in the
past. And the effort to get every last salmon
into the can regardless of whether the fins and
tail are worn to frazzle or whether they have
spawned or not will continue.
It is well to remember that the Indians first
declared the danger of the coming destruction
of the fisheries as early as 1902 and the Terri
torial Legislature made investigation in 1913
where the effort to enact legislation was blocked
by the Bureau of Fisheries and other agents of
the Fish Barons. It is well to remember that
when resident fishermen were declaring the need
for protection of our fisheries the Bureau of
Fisheries declared the industry to be in just as
healthy a condition as during the previous twen
ty years. As proof of their statement they
showed by the finished pack of 1912 the Packing
Trust put up more salmon than any year previ
ous, therefore they declared there were just as
many fish. But they did not report that the
traps were fishing more intensively than ever
and were robbing the streams of “seed fish” to
make the greater show of cans.
Misrepresentation of facts has been the entire
history of the Fish Barons and their servants
in the Bureau of Fisheiies from one end of the
department to the other. Hoover listens to the
“voice” of big interests and tells the world that
our “Fighting” Dan is misrepresenting the situ
ation and the will of the people.
Proof as to who misrepresents—Hoover or
Sutherland, the Packing Trust or the fisherman
is self evident. Hoover, three thousand miles
away turns to lobbyists of the Packing Trust,
the Bureau of Fisheries and Henry O’Malley.
Sutherland turns to the people who are most
directly benefited or hint by any proposed legis
lation. Consider the memorial presented to Con
gress by the Territorial Legislature; the peti
tions and protests of the Alaska Native Brother
hood in fourteen towns; the Pioneers of Valdez,
Kodiak, Anchorage, Wrangell; the American Le
gion of Petersburg; over four hundred signa
tures on a petition from Wrangell; a mass meet
ing of the citizens of Petersburg; a similar meet
ing of the citizens of Ketchikan; and the thou
sands of other Alaskans who are outspoken
against the legislation proposed by the Packers.
Against these we have a mere statement from
Hoover that the facts are misrepresented.
LOUIS F. PAUL,
Secretary Alaska Native Brotherhood.
Real Conservation
It depends on who is speaking whether a man
is a “statesman” or a “mere politician.”
A statesman is one who would go to the root
of the question, and removes the cause.
For many years, the United States was cursed
by slavery. Calhoun, Webster, Clay, and many
men called “statesmen” today, made one com
promise after another. But the question was
never settled by these compromises.
“Statesmanship” ! ! Get rid of the causes!