were the grazing lands of the Eskimos, would we
be called“unpatriotic”if we asked the Lomen s how
they got all these MILLIONS of acres of lands?
We are afraid to ask, or shall we emulate the
cat and dare to look the king in the face?
-xr
OLD STUFF BROUGHT DOWN TO DATE
-X
In 1925, William L. Paul wrote Governor
Parks:
“Mr. O’Malley’s regulations injured the can
ning industry to the extent of several million dol
lars without any commensurate returns.”. Such
losses were said by him to be the result of “ill ad
vised conservation methods.”
To this Henry O’Malley replied that the criti
cism “is of such broad general character and does
not cite any specific case wherein my regulations
are causing a loss of millions of dollars to the
canning industry; therefore I can only assume
that the regulations which have been promulgat
ed by the department are preventing the captur
ing of large numbers of salmon and permitting
them to escape to the spawning beds for repro
duction purposes, thus assuring the territory a
permanent industry; this being the real purpose
as I understand it, for which the White Bill was
enacted.”
The Deceit
5,215,332 cases was the average pack from
1914-1919. These were “war” years when there
was no restriction on fishing, and before Mr.
O’Mailev became King of Alaska.
5,209,177 cases was the average pack from
1924-1928, AFTER Congress made O’Malley King
of Alaska, and After the King had published his
“many” restrictions for the purpose of “permit
ting them (the fish) to escape to the spawning
beds for reproduction purposes, thus assuring the
Territory a permanent industry; this being the
real purpose, as I understand it, for which the
White Bill was enacted,” according to Mr. O’Mal
ley.
In 1919, the seine catch was 38 per cent and
the trap catch 57 per cent of the total. In 1928,
seines caught 25 per cent and traps 71 per cent.
An Open Letter To Hon. Francis D. Culkin
.Ketchikan, Alaska
Dear Mr. Culkin:
Washington, D. C.,
In Re: Henry O’Malley, the
The Enemy of the Natives of
Alaska.
In view of your “Extended Re
marks” of April 18, 1930, you
need some educating. We don’t
blame you, for you are but a vie*
tim of the propaganda continu
ally sent out by the Department
of Commerce who still believe in
Henry O’Malley.
You state, “While I am not as
familiar as many of my members
with the effectiveness of the
work of the Bureau of Fisheries
in the past, I wish to pay tribute
to the present Commissioner of
Fisheries.” Why?
Was it because he supported
the present “White” Fish Law?
He was opposed to it. See
hearings on H. R. 2714 of 1924.
Is it because he is a great con
servationist?
X
The average pack is as high as
ever.
The average pack for the “war
years” (the highest attained by
the industry) was 5,215,332 (1914
to 1918 inc.)
The average pack from 1924
to 1928 inclusive, when Mr.
O’Malley had absolute power to
“conserve” fish, was 5,209,177 or
within 6,000 cases of the “war
years.”
. .What then becomes of Mr.
O’Malley’s statement in the
hearings in 1924 on H.R. 2174,
“Certain districts are so serious
ly menaced that it would be wise
to close them for a term of
years. * * * All of those who have
entered the controversy con
cerning a wise and efficient
method of administering the
salmon fisheries of Alaska, are a
unit in contending that deple
tion has already occurred and
shat utter destruction of the in
dustry will follow if remedial
measures are not promptly tak
en,” page 4. Also see Curry hear
ings on H. R. 5694 (1921) pg. 444
and 445.
There has been no conserva
tion!
What has O’Malley done?
By his system of unfair and
discriminatory regulations and
WITHOUT giving us, the natives
of Alaska, a chance to be heard,
he has driven us out of our an
cient fishing grounds with the
loiiowing result. The percent
age of seine caught fish in 1924
compared with trap caught fish
was 38 per cent to 57 per cent. In
1928 (after four years of Henry
O’Malley) our gear (the seines)
is reduced to 25 per cent and the
traps (specially favored by Mr.
O’Malley) is increased to 71 per
cent—WITHOUT any change in
the average pack.
Who told you that “most of his
critics now recognize the sound