Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Senator WALLGREN. These people who have $60,000,000 invested, wouldn't they be rather interested in protecting the industry?

Mr. ARNOLD. If you are going to take off the restrictions, their position will be that of not having $60,000,000 invested. They will lose it. When the fish are gone the investment is worthless. Maybe I do not make myself clear. I think I can see what your point is, that in order to attract capital, to enable those men to procure capital, something must be done to protect the industry.

Senator WALLGREN. My point is that the men engaged in the industry are or should be interested in assisting in conservation. Mr. ARNOLD. They must do it.

Senator WALLGREN. In order to perpetuate their industry. So they can come back next year again and get a certain part of their money back.

Mr. ARNOLD. If the annual runs are not perpetuated, their investments are lost.

Senator WALLGREN. Let us jump over to Siberia. We have had a run of salmon over there, and those waters were thrown open to Japanese fishermen; were they not?

Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir.

Senator WALLGREN. That was doubtless as a result of the Portsmouth Treaty at the close of the Russo-Japanese War. As I understand it, those waters are depleted now, but at one time there was a salmon industry there equal to ours.

Mr. ARNOLD. I do not claim to know that situation with particularity, but insofar as I do know it, by the Treaty of Portsmouth which was signed after the Russo-Japanese War in 1907 the Japanese compelled the Russians to make concessions to them on the Siberian coast. The Japanese went in under those concessions on a purely exploitive basis, on the basis of taking all they could get at any one time or at any one place. If the Russians attempted to impose any conservation restrictions or regulations, the Japanese ignored them. The result of it is that they made tremendous catches over there for a few years. Since that time the supply has dwindled down to the depletion point. And that, incidentally, is what led to the difficulties we had with the Japanese in 1936 and 1937. Having exhausted the fishery resources in Kamchatka, they moved their floating equipment over to our side. That is what led to the trouble. Does that answer your question?

Senator WALLGREN. Yes.

Senator BURTON. I take it you are in favor of the purpose of

this bill.

Mr. ARNOLD. I am not in favor of everything that is in this bill. If I were going to write it, I would do it a little differently. But I think the bill is a marked improvement over the legislation that exists today. I think it highly essential and necessary that some legislation on this subject be passed, and passed promptly, in view of the attitude of the War Department. The Delegate says they have been acting illegally, but I do not care to go quite that far. I do not think they have been on very sound ground in the position they have taken, but I think they have taken it because they realized the necessity of some stabilizing influence there.

Now, they say when hostilities come to an end they will not bother with this thing any longer, and it is my considered opinion that unless some legislation of this type is enacted we are going to have chaos.

In some respects I am inclined to agree with the Delegate. I live in Alaska, too. I would like to see those men have as much voice as practicable.

I think this, that this bill grants a lot of powers. It grants them to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think that these checks in the nature of public hearings and right of appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, and, if necessary, to the courts in cases of abuse, are the very minimum of safeguard that ought to be in the bill.

Senator BURTON. Do you contemplate there should be some type of legislation, in that it should cover fishing both through traps and fixed gear, in order to preserve the rights of those who use mobile gear? Mr. ARNOLD. That is right. And they are both treated in exactly the same way in the bill. The Delegate being interested in the fishtrap side of this controversy, I presume because he did not want to take the time of the committee he did not go into other features of the bill. The bill also places upon the Director the duty and the right of limiting mobile gear. At the same time the number of seine boats, and the number of gill nets, and the number of trollers or hook-andline vessels that can operate in a given area at a given time, and providing that they shall obtain a license to fish and thereby controlling their number, is covered.

In

Senator BURTON. When recognizing the shortage of something, you must regulate the distribution of that thing there is a shortage of. other words, any time you have a shortage you have to divide whatever that is in order to be fair.

Mr. ARNOLD. There is not enough for everybody. That is why we are rationing goods. It is not possible for everybody in the country to participate in these fisheries.

The Delegate talks about Bristol Bay. There the fishing season only lasts 21 days, and it takes 11 or 12 days to get out there, and 11 or 12 days to get back. If you are going to have unrestricted operations there, the Director of the Service can only protect the fisheries in one way, and that is to further shorten the season. get nowhere fast that way.

You will

As

I do not care to particularly go into anything else at this time. I have said, if you want to talk about abolition of fish traps, mobile gear, or Territorial control of fisheries, we could talk indefinitely. There has been a lot said and written on it, but I do not think that has any proper place in this bill.

This is not a gear fight, as I see it. I realize that there are large groups of mobile fishermen in the Territory of Alaska who are opposed to any legislation unless in paragraph one you abolish fish traps. If they read the bill that far and do not see it, they are against it.

Senator WALLGREN. Do you think it would be possible to obtain as substantial a pack of fish by eliminating traps alone?

Mr. ARNOLD. If you eliminate traps?

Senator WALLGREN. Yes.

Mr. ARNOLD. It is my judgment that if you eliminate traps in Alaska, disregarding the other complexities of it, investment and so forth, I think the pack would decrease considerably. And unless

there was a very marked decrease in grading standards, unless we made a great sacrifice of quality, that the pack would be cut 40 or 50 percent.

Senator WALLGREN. In the last 2 years did the Army just serve notice on the industry that they would have to have so much of the pack for the needs of the Army, the Navy, and Lend-Lease? Did they submit figures as to the amount of fish they would need, I mean submit figures to the industry?

Mr. ARNOLD. Senator, I have been in the Territory of Alaska the most of the time since the war started in connection with correlating and coordinating activities of the salmon industry with the military operations out there. I would rather dislike to go into details about our relations with the Army out there.

Senator WALLGREN. That is perfectly all right. It was my understanding that the Army had made a request of the industry for so many cases of salmon. I was pointing out the importance of getting out a substantial pack.

Mr. ARNOLD. The Army, the Navy, and the lend-lease authorities have requisitioned practically 100 percent of it. After the amount of the pack is known, and after it is safely brought out of the Territory and is in the warehouse at Seattle, they have determined their requirements and have released some percentage back to the owners. I think 1 year it was 40 percent.

Senator WALLGREN. You mean they released some percentage of the pack for civilian use?

Mr. ARNOLD. That is right.

Senator BURTON. You are certain about one thing, and that is that traps are necessary in order to get an adequate supply to make the pack.

Mr. ARNOLD. I am very certain of that. Of course, I have not said very much on it. It is a long subject, and I do not think it a proper part of this hearing, or that I ought to exhaust all of the time by attempting to defend the use of fish traps. I do not see that their status is changed by this bill. They are not prohibited.

Senator BURTON. You are certain about another fact, as I understand you, and that is that there must be a limitation on the licensing of both traps and mobile gear if you are going to conserve fish for a future supply in the Territory.

Mr. ARNOLD. That is definitely correct, with this one exception, that it might be possible to do it by continually shortening the season. Every time you double the gear you shorten the season. The longest season in the Territory is only 45 days, and if you cut them down every time the gear increases, after a while it is not going to be of any benefit to anybody.

I shall be glad to answer any questions, if I can, that anyone wishes to ask.

Senator BURTON. With those two statements you make, it would seem very necessary that some legislation be enacted.

Mr. ARNOLD. I notice this one thing that I thought might be helpful: The Coordinator of Fisheries, who is the Secretary of the Interior, since the advent of war has supervised operations in the Territory of Alaska for the purpose of bringing about the largest possible propagation of salmon, or production of salmon, I should

say, with the minimum amount of manpower, ship space, and critical materials.

This was partly brought about by the fact that when the war began about 80 percent of the floating equipment owned by the industry was requisitioned for military use. A great deal of that equipment has been turned back under the supervision of the Coordinator of Fisheries.

Under the supervision of the Coordinator of Fisheries the industry has been consolidated, or concentrated, and there are about 115 plants that normally operate. By a very intricate system, those plants have been reduced to about 75 or 80 key plants, thereby reducing the demands for manpower.

The system also calls for the allocation of manpower. The Coordinator of Fisheries appoints a committee, composed of operators and fishermen and individuals, to work out the plan. I happen to be the chairman of that committee. It has just been devising an operating plan for 1944. The allocations of manpower to be used in the Territory as between residents and nonresidents-the question the Senator propounded a while ago-is as follows, subject to some slight changes: There are to be 7,840 nonresidents allocated for use in Alaska salmon fisheries in 1944, and 4,703 residents. Those figures are a great deal lower than used under normal operations, but the percentages are approximately the same. Of the 12,500, 4,703 are residents and the remainder nonresidents.

Is there anything further?

Senator BILBO (chairman of the subcommittee). Any other questions by members of the subcommittee?

(A pause without response.)

Gentlemen, I think we have carried the hearing as long as we would like to this afternoon. I suggest that we meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in this room. Other gentlemen who gave their names in as witnesses, if you will be here promptly at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, we will try to hear you.

(Thereupon at 4:40 p. m. the subcommittee recessed until 10 o'clock the following morning, Friday, January 21, 1944.)

ALASKA FISHERY ACT

FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1944

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m. pursuant to adjournment of Thursday, January 20, 1944, in the Commerce Committee hearing room, the Capitol, Senator Theodore G. Bilbo (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bilbo (presiding), Wallgren, Burton, and Robert

son.

Present also: Anthony J. Dimond, Delegate for Alaska, House of Representatives.

Senator BILBO (presiding). The committee will come to order The first witness we wish to call this morning is Mr. Halling of the C. I. O. Maritime Committee.

Senator WALLGREN. He is not here as yet, I understand. He will be here shortly.

Senator BILBO. We will hear Mr. Allen, then, chairman of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Have a seat, Mr Allen.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD W. ALLEN, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC SALMON FISHERIES; SECRETARY INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION; SEATTLE, WASH. Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am a lawyer from Seattle and have had considerable to do with fishery employment. I am also United States Commissioner and Chairman of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, and United States Commissioner and Secretary of the International Fisheries Commission. One is salmon, the other is halibut.

Senator Wallgren yesterday suggested to you changing section 2 of the act with reference to the question of extending our coastal jurisdiction over fisheries, in view of the request of the State Department. Undoubtedly, his suggestion is sound in view of their request and their desire to pursue the matter through diplomatic channels. However, the matter is considered so important and so urgent by our people out on the Pacific coast that it has been suggested that we should present it a little more fully to you, if you would permit that to be done, and urge upon you that you press the matter to immediate action with the administrative officials who, I know, are taking a very keen, lively interest in it.

This matter is not only important to Alaska, but it is a basic problem in the great food fishery industry on all coasts and has very important international relations involved in it.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »