THE ALASKA FISHERMAN
Published the 15th of each month at Ketchikan, Alaska
WILLIAM L. PAUL, ATTORNEY FOR THE
Alaska Native Brotherhood
Entered as second-class matter at the Post Office at
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE $2.00 FOR TWELVE ISSUES
OUR PLATFORM:
ALASKA FOR ALASKANS.
FULL TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.
ABOLISHMENT OF ALL TRAPS.
COMPETENT CHRISTIAN CITIZENSHIP.
“Politics vs. Business”
In an editorial published October 3, 1924, the
Alaska Weekly, published in Seattle, Washing
ton, starts out as follows:
“Mr. Paul says, ‘We should worry because
the trap amendment failed—we’ll tax them out
of existence.’ * * * The cannery is as nec
essary to the fisherman as the fisherman is es
sential to the cannery. In many instances no
traps mean no cannery; and no cannery means
no market; and no market means hungry fisher
men. * * * Just how intelligent people can
continue to figure that any cog in a machine
may be damaged without throwing the whole
machine out of tune is a little more than we can
understand. If conservation of the fisheries is
the real objective then traps and seines must be
considered and treated alike. In fact, laying
aside all other consideration but the fish, we
are inclined to thin,k that the seine offers the
greatest difficulty to the conservation program.
A trap abolished is a trap out of existence—
prohibiting seine fishing in a certain area means
only that the owner of the seine boat will seek
another field of operation.”
The first great difficulty in discussing the
fish question law is the fact that writers are
woefully ignorant of the subject from a practical
standpoint. As a proof of the ignorance of the
Alaska Weekly’s writer, we call attention to
the fact that the abolishment of the trap does
not mean the shutting down of all canneries. In
other words, it is utterly wrong for any person
to say that the cannery system and the trap
system are one and the same question. The last
available records of the relative catch of the
seines and traps is for the year 1923. In that
year out of 55,000,000 fish caught the Bureau
of Fisheries says that 21,000,000 were caught
by 173 beach seines and 337 purse seines, and
34.000. 000 were caught by 51 traps, a ratio or
2 to 3. Even the Alaska Weekly must admit
that if traps were abolished we would still have
need for canneries sufficient or enough to pack
tht 21,000,000 salmon caught with seines. The
Alaska Weekly must then admit that of the
24.000. 000 fish caught by traps two-fifths would
be caught by seines. In other words, there
would be an increase of the seine catch by
approximately 14,000,000 salmon. So that the
total estimated , catch by the seines in 1923,
if there had been no traps, would have been
35,000,000 salmon, enough to fill 2,500,000 cases.
The abolishment of traps in the year 1923
would have meant under these circumstances the
escapement of approximately 20,000,000 addi
tional salmon, which would have been ample to
guarantee the future runs.
The true fishery problem is very compre
hensive. The cannerymen claim that the eutire
problem is the conservation of fish. This is not
true. We Alaskans say it is the conservation of
fish AND of bona hide residents of Alaska, for
under the present system our resident Alaskans
are becoming as badly depleted as the salmon.
Nor can the trap be defended on the stand
point of efficiency, for if that were true, all we
would have to prove is that the trap is not the
most efficient form of catching fish. Where
upon the supporters of the efficiency theory
would have to vote for the abolishment of the
trap and the adoption of the most efficient
method. The most efficient method is the
method which was proposed by the Bureau of
Fisheries at the instigation of the fish trust to
abolish both seines and traps at Karlack River,
and in place thereof to fence the river under
the supervision of the Bureau of Fisheries. One
half the salmon were to be allowed to escape
for spawning purposes and the other fifty per
cent were to be handed over to the Alaska
Packers’ Association and the Northwest Fish
eries Company. In this way but half a dozen
men would have been required, no expensive
traps would have been built, no expensive seines
purchased, the fish would have been caught
with the least expenditure of effort and money,*
and the escapement would have been guaranteed.
This method of catching fish could be adopted
at every creek in Alaska. In which event there
would be no more use for permanent residents,
but all of us could go down to Astoria or San
Francisco and join the so-called Alaska Fisher
man’s Union, that twin migratory bird that flies
north with the canneryman, much as seagulls
fly following the large passenger ships, having
in mind the sole expectation of flying for hours
and hours at a stretch and feel amply rewarded
if perchance they might swallow a morsel from
the slops that are thrown overboard from the
large floating palaces.
Real Conservation
The cause of the depletion of our fisheries
remains. You can compromise to your heart’s
content, but until the trap is abolished, our sal
mon will continue to vanish from our shores.
Thorne Bay, Tolstoi Bay and other bays have
been closed to commercial fishing by Mr. Hoover
because the Bureau of Fisheries says that these
spawning grounds are already depleted.
No fisherman may catch the five or ten thou
sand salmon that have finally escaped and
reached those bays. But what about the millions
of salmon that are caught by the big traps at
Chacon, Tree Point, Cape Fox, Ship Island, and
on the West Coast of Prince of Wales Island?