The Herring Controversy
The usual cry, “Don’t scare capital away” is
being raised by the attorneys for special in
terests as the question of the use of herring for
fertilizer comes to the front.
The question must be settled on its merits
and without fear of capital, or the subsidized
press.
Following we reprint an article taken from
the Pacific Fisherman, spokesman for Seattle
and other outside interests that visit Alaska for
two months each summer.
The conclusion of that paper is that nobody
knows anything about the herring or fertilizer
question, much less the Bureau of Fisheries,
and that therefore, nothing should be done that
might affect the fertilizer business.
Special attention should be directed to the
fact that the Bureau of Fisheries is just now
beginning to gather data on this industry, al
tho the question of herring fertilizer was rais
ed many years ago. In the last legislature
when an attempt was made to place a prohi
bitive tax on such fertilizer, the attorneys
argued that they had not had time to get facts.
This was two years ago. What have they done
in the meantime?
The Question
We deal with facts. The town of Ketchikan
and other towns depend on the trollers for their
existence. The fertilizer plants are driving the
herring out of certain bays and with the her
ring goes the king salmon. The experience of
every one is that if the herring is not pro
tected from fertilizer plants, the troller will
have to quit. The orotection that we now ask
is for our trollers. Take your choice SEATTLE
or ALASKANS.
ALASKA HERRING CONTROVERSY
(Pacific Fisherman)
Since the early days of the herring reduction
industry in Alaska there has been more or less
opposition to this method of utilization, altho
nrprfirally no market for the fish as
food until less than two years ago, and even
now, despite intensive development of the her
ring curing industry, the market for the pack
is confined to relatively narrow limits. It is
nossible to put up a very attractive canned pro
duct with Alaska herring, but development has
not been found commercially practical in com
petition with the vast supplies of similar fish
at low prices from Norway and California.
Direct utilization of Alaska’s herring re
sources for food, except on about the present
limited scale, is generally considered unfeas
ible; and from all indications it will be many
years before increased commercial development
on a food basis will be warranted. One im
portant obstacle is the fact that a great part
of the Alaska catch—by far the greater part in
some district-—is of sizes not wanted by the
market at present and almost entirely unsalable.
At the same time, Alaskan waters are frequent
ed by vast schools of herring, whose annual in
crese should apparently afford an important
harvest.
Undr these conditions the herring reduction
industry has grown to large proportions, es
pecially in Southeastern Alaska, where the pre
valent size of the fish is too small for curing.
There are now some 19 herring reduction plants
in the Territory, representing an enormous in
vestment, and producing over 3,000,000 gallons
a year of fish oil. With the rise of the indus
try, however, local opposition has also increas
ed, and is now beginning to assume a threaten
ing aspect. The situation emphasizes the ur
gent need of more complete and accurate knowl
edge of the herring resources than is now
available.
i ne earlier antagonism was not of a nature
to have much weight, but the recent rapid in
crease in quantities of herring taken for reduc
tion seems to have caused many people in the
Territory to wonder whether there might not
be danger of depletion and the opposition has
of late become rather wide spread in the Terri
tory, apparently extending beyond the purely
radical element. This is indicated by a resolu
tion recently adopted by the Wrangell Com
mercial Club, which has been widely distribut
ed among Territorial and Federal officials and
Legislators, in which it is asserted that the
herring fiheries are being rapidly depleted by
“wasteful methods”; that the herring is the
natural food of other fishes and is indispensable
as bait; and urging that fishing for herring be
limited to food and bait requirements and that
reduction be prohibited. It is also urged that
fishing be greatly restricted; that impounding,
even for food purposes, be prohibited; and that
gear be limited to gill nets.
Action along similar lines was also taken by
the Petersburg Commercial Club. The Juneau
Chamber of Commerce was asked to follow suit,
but decided to make further investigation be
fore acting. A leading part in the opposition
is said to have been taken by one F. Reed, who
is quoted as claiming that within a year or two
the herring supply will be exhausted.
It does not appear that much definite and re
liable testimony has been produced to show in
dications of the alleged depletion, while re
ports from producing districts show nothing
to cause any reasonable alarm. It is apparently
true that large herring were comparatively scarce
in Southeast Alaska most of the season; but