Mr. HALLING. Yes; or even if he is guilty of a major infraction of the regulations. He would be precluded from doing any fishing that season, and the fishing season is only about 19 days. Senator WALLGREN. That is anticipating a little, is it not? Mr. HALLING. Well, it would be the law in this bill No. 930. Senator WALLGREN. We will take the matter up, Mr. Halling, and see if we cannot straighten it out. Mr. HALLING. I noticed that the amendment offered yesterday provided for prosecution in any court of competent jurisdiction of Alaska or the United States. I am just wondering whether or not that wouldn't mean a man might be tried any place in the United States. A man living in Alaska, for instance, might be called to stand trial in Cincinnati, Ohio, or in the District of Columbia. Senator WALLGREN. I don't think there is any danger of that. Mr. HALLING. I just wanted to ask the question because that would be so obviously unfair to anybody who might be accused of violating the regulations. Senator WALLGREN. That is not the intention. It was the intention of the amendment to simplify the matter so that the man could be tried wherever he might be. Mr. HALLING. On the objection of Delegate Dimond to the bill, I want to say this: That in the past number of years, Delegate Dimond has introduced bills into the House which would in effect restrict fishing to residents of Alaska alone. I think he said yesterday he wanted fishing open to everyone. We agree it should be thrown open to everyone with certain restrictions. I don't think he is quite consistent, because we have for a number of years fought his attempts. to restrict the right of fishing in Alaskan waters to residents of Alaska. Now it is true that a good part of our membership are residents of Alaska, but the effect of his attempts, if they had been successful, would have been to force our men from the Pacific coast States either to get out of the industry or to settle down in Alaska in order to continue the work which they have done for 30 or 40 or 50 years, some of them. We do not think that is a good policy. I don't think he was entirely consistent in his views yesterday, considering that he has a bill right now in this session of Congress which would give preference to Alaska residents. Senator WALLGREN. Mr. Halling, how many total days are fished by your people up in Alaska? Mr. HALLING. It varies some. It ranges from 17 to 19 to 24 days. It depends on the run of fish. Sometimes it may close down earlier. Actual fishing has been cut to as low as 17 days, I believe. Senator WALLGREN. It does happen that some fishermen go into Alaska and make considerable money in that short space of time? Mr. HALLING. What happens is that the fishermen work day and night because the season is so short, and the only way they can earn enough money to compensate them for holding themselves in readiness and going up there, and compensate them for devoting practically the whole year to the industry, is by fishing day and night and making what we call a good stake during the season. Senator WALLGREN. Aren't these fishermen operating in one area at one time of the year and then they move into another area later on, we will say? Mr. HALLING. I don't think it is so much in the salmon fishing. What we are trying to do during this war is to move our fishermen, after the season has closed in Alaska, to other areas off the Pacific coast. Senator WALLGREN. It is true that they do do that? Mr. HALLING. That is right. Senator WALLGREN. They go all the way down the coast, to the tuna fishing grounds? Mr. HALLING. In past years there has not been very much of that. As a matter of fact we have made great headway in trying to keep the fishermen in the fishing industry in California before the men would fish in Alaska and come back to the United States and go into some other industry. Some were longshoremen, some work in the woods, and so on. Due to the fact there is great need for fishermen and a great need for better use of gear and equipment now because of the Navy taking a number of fishing boats for their own use, we have tried to keep the gear and the equipment and the men in activity all the year around. We have been shifting them and we have done a fairly good job of shifting them from one area to the other. Senator WALLGREN. In other words, there are men engaged off the coast of California who later on in the season move up to Alaskan waters? Mr. HALLING. There are many of them. Senator BILBO (presiding). Are there any other questions? Senator BURTON. I would like to inquire whether you draw any distinction between the position of the trap fishermen and your men in your advocacy of the bill? Mr. HALLING. Our union takes in both the trap fishermen and the men who fish with nets. It is a very difficult question and I am frank to say I haven't found a solution for settling the qeustion as to the ones who fish with nets and the ones who fish with traps. It is the same problem you had perhaps with the sheep rangers and the cattlemen and I frankly don't know the solution to it, but I think that accounts for the seemingly divergent views that we have on it. Senator BILBO (presiding). We appreciate your presence here, Mr. Halling, and the information you have given us. FURTHER STATEMENT OF BJORNE HALLING, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS MARITIME COMMITTEE ON S. 930 On behalf of the International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, representing 20,000 fishermen and allied workers, we wish to submit the following in support of S. 930. It is our belief that the primary aim of this bill should be the enacting into law of an adequate conservation program with the requisite regulations to perpetuate a great natural resource. Overfishing at any particular period upsets nature's balance. It can only mean definite depletion with resultant serious damage to our great natural resource. The union has for a long time advocated the extension of United States jurisdiction over fisheries in Alaska as set forth in S. 930, section 2, line 5 to 8, inclusive: "This Act shall be applicable throughout all of such waters as are waters of Alaska or are less than two hundred fathoms in depth or which shall be declared by the President to be fishing waters." The amendment to section 2 offered the committee does not include this language. We feel that the extension of jurisdiction for purposes of conservation is absolutely essential and that if it is found impractical Congress should at least strongly recommend that any treaties or agreements entered into by our Nation contain such extended jurisdiction as suggested in section 2 of the original bill. The experiences which the Alaska fishing industry had with the Japanese in the years before the war demonstrate the need for extended jurisdiction asked for in the original bill, besides acting as a guard against Japan ever again spying and gathering information on United States military establishments under the guise of engaging in commercial fishing. With regard to section 5 (b), this particular provision should be enforced with the definite understanding that there shall be absolute equality in the granting of licenses to every qualified person regardless of race. The union fully supports the amendment to section 10 offered the committee providing for the holding of hearings not only in Seattle, Wash., but in the city of Juneau, Alaska, or such other place as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service might deem appropriate. These hearings which are held from year to year have proven of great benefit in working out the sane and sound conservation program. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been able through these hearings to obtain advice and suggestions from fishermen and operators who have had wide experience in the industry. With regard to section 10 dealing with the Alaska Fisheries Review Board. It is our position that labor is entitled to representation not only in an advisory capacity, but to such representation as will grant labor a voice and vote in the formulation and enforcement of determinations and regulations. Therefore, we recommend the setting up of a tripartite agency (somewhat similar to the War Labor Board) consisting of representatives of the Government agency empowered to administer and enforce the provisions of S. 930, the operators, and labor (fishermen). Only such a truly democratic body would be able to serve the interests of the entire industry. In commenting upon section 10 (e), it is our hope that in the future the authority for the shortening or extending of fishing periods is exercised with the utmost flexibility. This would permit full advantage being taken of large runs when they appear, in order that full utilization can be made of this important resource. We suggest further that the part of section 14 dealing with the arrest of any fisherman for alleged violation of the provisions of this act shall be so amended as to provide for the posting of bond and postponement of hearings or trial until the fishing season is ended. It is our opinion that the same approach should be used concerning the fishermen as is used in section 15, paragraph B, with regard to the seizure of fish products, vessels, gear, etc., seized as a result of alleged violation of the provisions of this act. The International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America believes that the conservation and regulation measures contemplated by this bill will greatly stabilize and improve the fishing industry. This will further aid the carrying out of our pledge to the Government for maximum production of the products of our industry to sustain our armed forces and civilian population in the crucial struggles ahead, as well as to the preservation of a great natural resource of the people. STATEMENT OF F. J. GUNDERSON, FISH TRAP OPERATOR, WRANGELL, ALASKA Senator BILBO (presiding). We will next call on Mr. Gunderson, an independent fish-trap operator. Mr. GUNDERSON. My name is F. J. Gunderson. I live at Wrangell, Alaska. I have been associated for many years with fish-trap operation in that territory. Senator WALLGREN. How long have you lived in Wrangell? Mr. GUNDERSON. I have lived in Wrangell as a permanent resident in the town for about 16 years. I first came to the Territory when my dad brought me up there in 1909. He was a trap man for cannery up there. Senator WALLGREN. How long have you been engaged in the fishing business in Alaska? Mr. GUNDERSON. I grew right up with it, and took right over where my dad left off. In 1916 after working for trap men for the cannery he put out a trap for himself and continued along this line until 1923. When my brother and I became old enough he gave my brother and me a third interest in the trap. In 1934 we established another trapping ownership. Senator WALLGREN. Do you favor this legislation of this particular bill as we are trying to amend it? I think you have seen a copy of it. Mr. GUNDERSON. Yes; I have. Very much so, because anything that will tend to stabilize the situation in our industry we are very much in favor of. Senator WALLGREN. You are aware that under this bill the Director of Fisheries has the power to cut out any gear at any time or close a trap at any time? Mr. GUNDERSON. That is correct, as I understand this bill, but that doesn't change the situation at all. Senator WALLGREN. That is, if for conservation purposes he finds anybody abusing the privilege, he can immediately go to the trap and take away all gear, or refuse fishing in that particular area. Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right. If he feels, as I understand, that some area is overfished, that it should be built back a little, he has authority to close operation in that area. Senator WALLGREN. Let me amend that statement. He would not take away the gear, but at least he would close fishing in that area. Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right. We have established these traps, which take considerable time, study, and hard work, to put them in certain locations. You don't just go out and pick out a spot and say, "That is where I am going to put this trap." There is much adjustment to tides and the way they have to be laid on the shore. Senator WALLGREN. You mean you have to do a certain amount of engineering and prospecting? Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right. It is a process of prospecting. We have been since 1923-I only have two traps now. We were asked to reduce traps in 1928, from a conservation angle, and my dad gave up the trap he had had since 1916. Senator WALLGREN. Do you pack fish, or do you have a cannery? Mr. GUNDERSON. No. We catch the fish and our obligation ends. when we sell them to the cannery. We are directly engaged in the fishing operation itself. Senator BILBO. You are not connected with any cannery? Mr. GUNDERSON. Yes. However, rather than let it run quite as wild as that, we make a kind of a verbal contract with the cannery that we will fish that season for them and the process is more or less stabilized. It is a general trend and we follow that. I am a little disturbed about the section in the bill which requires that every transfer of permits be approved by the Director. Even now, the way we have it up there, we are able to inherit certain rights that we now have and I believe the courts in Alaska have approved those rights. Of course, I don't suppose any Director-I know that Dr. Gabrielson has never refused to approve of any transfer to any member of a family that happens to have a trap at the present time, yet I think we should have a provision in this act that any arbitrary refusal of the transfer of a permit by some future Director could be tried out in a court. Senator ROBERTSON. Is there any way that they could reduce a permit in a transfer? Mr. GUNDERSON. I don't quite understand you. Senator ROBERTSON. Well, I will give it to you in the case of this grazing an illustration of that-if you have a permit, we will say, for a band of 1,500 sheep in the grazing district and you decide to transfer or sell your permit they reduce the amount of livestock by 10 percent in the transfer of it, their object, or their thought being to enable them to work up a sufficient number to admit another permittee. Mr. GUNDERSON. I don't know how that could be effected. I don't think it is very possible. We have two traps. We either have two or we have one. If they are held within the family like we now have it we would like to see it continue in that way. After all the years we have put in there I would like to see that it would go to my heirs. At least that is the question I raise on this. Senator WALLGREN. Of course, that might be consummating a vested right. Dr. Gabrielson, when we talked the matter over with him, called it to my attention, that the original bill might have given people a vested right. Dr. Gabrielson felt he could not go along with that sort of a proposal and that resulted in the amendment which has been added here, because that I feel that any time a transfer is made of a trap, that it should be subject to the approval of the Director of Fisheries, just the same as if it were an application for the transfer of a radio station. It is either approved or disapproved by the Communications Commission. That was my idea in this case, so that a man could not acquire a fish trap and then go out and sell it at considerable profit in a couple of years because it turned out to be a good location. Mr. GUNDERSON. That is the question I raise. Under the present administration of the law we haven't any fears at all, but there is that possibility. Senator WALLGREN. You do take a pretty broad chance under any theory when you have to rely upon the discretion of the reviewing authority. You take a broad chance on the sound discretion of the commissioner. I take it from your statement you seem to feel there should not be that opportunity to make arbitrary decisions without some general review of the background. Mr. GUNDERSON. Yes. Senator WALLGREN. But the industry is one that requires decisions to be made that cannot all be written out in statute. Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right. Senator WALLGREN. But that they should be reviewed by someone? Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right. Senator WALLGREN. How much do you figure your investment is? Mr. GUNDERSON. Well, we built the thing up from nothing to about $30,000. Of course, the majority of that is in the boats. Senator WALLGREN. Under the existing law and under this bill if it becomes a law it might happen that for conservation purposes the Director of Fisheries might decide to close one of your traps and maybe both of them. Mr. GUNDERSON. That is right. Senator WALLGREN. That puts your investment out of work. |