seen, and therefore we know that
the fish traps will ultimately be
abolished because it is the efficient
cause of the depletion of our fish
eries and our population.
It is unfair for the Seattle Week
ly to brand Alaskans as being “bit
ter enemies of the (canning) in
dustry.” The canning industry as
such has no bitter enemies in Alas
ka. But there are bitter enemies
of certain evils that have been per
mitted in the canning industry.
We speak of some that we have
seen; the robbing of salmon streams
by some of the biggest superintend
ents; other canneries that equipped
boats to raid the creeks; other can
neries that canned salmon that were
•putrid; on one occasion a large
cannery closed its doors to vis
itors that came from an excurs:on
boat because of the putrid salmon
that were then being canned. We
would remind the Seattle Week
ly that during the late war the
Chemistry Bureau of the United
States condemned over 800,000 cans
of Alaska salmon because the cases
were more than 25 per cent putrid.
We saw two great salmon streams
that were absolutely blocked by
two great traps that took neariy
100,000 salmon, that is over 500,
000 pounds—away every day until
the streams stopped producing sal
mon; then the Bureau of Fish
eries “discovered” that the stream
was depleted and so ad nauseam.
The canning industry as such
has no enemies in Alaska, but
we do not believe that even the
Alaska Weekly, subsidized by the
canners as it is, would defend the
practices of these canners in
Alaska.
It is to Delegate Sutherland’^
credit that he will not rest until
the problem of Alaska’s fisheries
is solved. The industry will not be
destroyed when the traps are abol
ished. Witness the increasing im
portance of the fisheries of British
Columbia where fish traps are not
permitted, llhat district with a
pack of one-fourth that of Alaska
employs more fishermen than Alas
ka does. For the same fish, the
Canadians also often get 25 per
cent more in price.
“The figures show that in 1924
there were 277 traps (really over
500) in Alaska representing so the
Seattle Weekly says about $2,162,
236.00 of money which the Dele
gate would wipe out for mere
“politics”,
The legal phase of that question
is simply this; the fish trap is
not property as understood in law.
It is a mere license. The trap
owners have known this for many
years. Hence the Alexander bill,
the Sulzer bill, the Garfield bill,
the Britt Memorial, all drafted by
the cannerymen, sought to give the
canncrymen “vested” rights in trap
sites. This mere license termin
ates every year. The only right the
trapmen have is that of actual
possession. The moment a trapman
ceases to actually occupy a trap
site, he loses his right to it and
anybody else in the world may
then take the site.
So Mr. Alaska Weekly printed in
Seattle, what would the trapmen
give up if Mr. Sutherland’s bill
became a law?
You might just as well demand
that the United States pay all the
saloon keepers because their licenses
to deal in intoxicating; liquors were
taken away from them. There are
no property rights in such license
The holders know very well that
as a matter of law, their license
is only from year to year.
There is another thing to con
sider, Mr. Alaska Weekly sent
from Seattle weekly by cannery
men to poison the minds of Alas
kans, the fish trap is driven new
each year in most cases. On account
of storms and the rocky bottom
of Alaskan waters, the piles compris
ing the fish traps cannot last from
year to year. Therefore these traps
are driven new yearly. This is
especially true where the waters
rro deep for here the trapmen
use fir piling imported from Wash
ington. At the end of the season,
Cr
cannerymen send out their “pile
pullers” and themselves take down
their traps. Something like 5000
fir piles are brought to Alaska
every year. So you can see that
the fish trap is not property in any
sense of the word. The cannery
men themselves destroy their own
traps each year. Delegate Dan Suth
erland’s bill would merely save
the cannerymen from putting in
fish traps.
One more point about the fish
trap. Cannerymen hide the fact
that more cannery companies have
become bankrupt by building fish
traps than in any other way. One
canneryman that we know spent over
$30,000 in a trap that caught ,no
fish that year. Another big can
nery had 19 traps one year and
did not get enough nsn to pay
the watchman. Another cannery
last year went broke o,n account
cf building fish traps that caught
no fish. Another canneryman spent
over $12,000 when the storms came
and washed out the trap entirely.
The business of the fish trap is
very misleading and really cannot
be discussed by such landlubbers
rs edit the Seattle Weekly. For
example, we understand very well
that from the above statements,
the chechaco would say, “Why then
all the noise about fish traps being
so effective?” The truth merely
proves our case. The Bureau of
Fisheries talks about the “average
catch of fish traps” and places
it at about 50,000. As a matter of
fact these so-called averages are
very misleading. Many, many traps
catch practically nothing. To hide
FOREST J. HUNT
KODAK STORE THE FAIR
KODAK SUPPLIES Complete Stock
BOOKS
STATIONERY
PERIODICALS, NOTIONS
TOBACCOS, ETC.
NOTIONS and TOYS
KITCHEN UTENSILS
CUTLERY
PICTURE FRAMING
DEVELOPING AND PRINTING PROMPTLY AND
PROPERLY DONE
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
if
ALBERT REINERT
I
Ketchikan, Alaska
Ladies’ and Gents’ Furnishing#, Dry Goods, Boots and Shoes