Now l’or my proposals which
are“ fundamentally sound.”
My proposals are not original
with me. I propose first that all
shad recognize that the UNIT
OF CONSERVATION is the sal
mon stream. By this I mean
t lat we shall recognize that ev
ery stream has its own capacity
of spawning area, and that over
spawning is just as bad for the
industry as under-spawning.
This being so, every fish not
needed in keeping up the run
should be caught for utilization.
How shall this be done? It shall
be done by creating districts of
such length that a district ward
en can cover it in one day. Un
der him shall be placed stream
watchmen to guard the “dead
line.” Fishing shall then be pro
hibited until an adequate supply
of salmon shall have ascended
Ihe stream. The dead-line
should be so placed that enough
salmon shall be protected for
planting” the stream and all ov
er that shall be caught if requir
ed. This might mean that today
the deadline would be at the
mouth of the stream; tomorrow,
500 yards away; the day follow
ing, one mile away; etc. In oth
er words, we would have a mov
able deadline placed in relation
to the contents of the stream.
This idea is the basic idea of
the Canadian reglations. Per
haps unknown to you, you copied
the idea and announced that it
was your original idea (page 173,
Saturday Evening Post of De
cember 14, 1929).
..The trouble with your idea is
that it is not complete. That is
the reason why I believe it is
the result of your own investiga
tions. Your idea does not con
template the variations of the
runs of the same species of sal
mon, nor the variations of the
different species. If you would
add my idea of the movable
deadline, your proposal would be
complete. I am surprised, how^
ever, to read that you “have not
yet met a fish man who offered
any fundamental objections.” It
is certainly fundamental not to
permit a sufficient escapement of
the different runs of the same
species to say nothing of the
early and late species
The ALASKA NATIVE BRO
THERHOOD will perhaps be
credited with having a small
amount of brains now that you
have endorsed their resolution
of 1928, as well as their resolu
tion of 1929. I would be surpris
ed if in your talks with the Bu
reau of Fisheries they did not
tell you that we had proposed re
gulations based on very startling
differences of principle from
theirs. I say, “I would be sur
prised.” No, I would not, for that
is another matter which shows
their stupidity—they have made
no study of this question. They
have no library or place where
proposals of this kind are kept.
In fact, theys seem to think that
by ignoring proposals of this
kind, they are answering the
conservation question.
But after all, I have been sim
ply dealing with the surface of
the problem, still not with the
“fundamentals” of our fisheries.
When Congress legislates, it does
so with its mind on the “funda
mental” law of the land, namely,
the Constitution. This Consti
tution, the unwritten one we call
“Common Law.” It is all based
on principles as distinguished
from the mechanics of the law.
The principle is easy to state;
but having the principle in mind,
the details should conform to the
principle, and when tested by the
yardstick of the fundamental
law, its mechanics should be
changed until they too conform.
Fisheries differ from all other
business in this, that efficiency
is not an end in itself; for there
is a principle that has stood the
test of centuries and which finds
its first expression in Magna
Charta wherein it is stated that
“there shall be no fixed engines
for catching fish.” This is mere
ly the way those English barons
expressed the law.
The law was but the result of
the ancient struggle between the
upper and lower fishermen,
which is this—that I, a lower
fisherman shall not be permitted
to catch all the fish and thus de
prive you, an upper fisherman,
of your share, but that my gear
shall be so regulated that there
shall be no escapement for you,
an upper fisherman. That is why
those Barons prohibited “fixed
engines” for catching fish,
(another name for fish traps);
that is why, today, the British
regulations and the Irish regula
tions require that in what few
traps they do have, there shall
be a free passage in the lead of
the trap so that boats and fish
may pass through; that even as
to the movable gear some part
of the gear shall always be held
in the hand.
Tell me, Mr. White, what is
Alaska but a (saltwater) stream?
And why should the trap owner
at Cape Spencer or at Cape Cha
con or along Chatham Straits be
allowed to catch all the fish to
the detriment of the “upper”
fishermen, say at Wrangell, the
Taku or the Chilkat?
In conclusion (I intend to add
a postscript because I find I fail
ed to note two strictures in your
letter) I wish to say that the
handling of the fishery prob
lems of Alaska is mere child’s
play in this—that it is in no
sense of the word difficult. I can
do it. I have been right on this
question for twenty-five years.
THWAIT’S PHOTO SHOP £
KODAK FINISHING %
COPYING—ENLARGING ?
y
Ketchikan |