s 



REPORT OF ALASKA INVESTIGATIONS. 



Fewer men are required to operate a trap than are needed to operate a haul or a purse seine. Therefore, 

 other things being equal, this is a good reason why the use of traps is proper for the sake of economy in 

 labor. Any successful business concern in the world to-day believes in the most up-to-date methods. 

 For example, if a man hired 50 clerks at a salary of $1,000 a year each and was offered a machine costing 

 $25,000 which would enable him to dispense with 40 of these clerks at a saving of $15,000 a year, not to 

 mention the time saved, I venture to say there is not a business concern but that would install the machine 

 without delay. This is the exact situation in regard to the fish trap. It saves labor and time, and I quite 

 agree that the success of an industry means the turning out of a good article with the least possible expense 

 and in the shortest possible time. 



The principal advantages of the trap are these: First, the fish remain alive in the pot or spiller, thus 

 permitting their delivery at the cannery in better shape than when taken by any other method of capture 

 in vogue to-day, and second, the trap is stationary and the Government official, or inspector, always knows 

 where to locate it, thus permitting of regulation and control, quite difficult or almost impossible with 

 purse seines and other mobile forms of apparatus. 



Plan of typical Alaska fish trap. 



Now as to the objections: First and foremost is the fact that traps catch not only salmon, but other 

 kinds of fish, which under present conditions are not utilized. Second, during the weekly close period 

 the owners of traps say bad weather is the cause for not complying with the law and closing every Saturday 

 night on the hour; but while this may occasionally happen the closing is more often neglected intentionally. 

 A popular objection to the trap is the fact that it fishes day and night, and thus takes too many fish, but 

 this objection is without merit, for the function of a trap is to catch fish, and, as mentioned before, all fish 

 remain alive until ready to be removed from the pot or spiller. 



I would suggest a curtailment in the activities of traps, on account of the ever increasing fishing and 

 the diminution in some sections of the supply of salmon. It is evident that the leads, which at the present 

 time may be of any length, should be limited. In waters tributary to Bering Sea I would recommend 

 that leads not exceeding 3,000 feet be permitted and that in the rest of Alaska the maximum length should 

 be 2,500 feet. In some cases the large number of traps placed close to the mouths of streams makes it 

 almost impossible for an adequate supply of breeding salmon to escape them and ascend to the spawning 

 grounds. And especially is it important to keep free the entrances to those waters on which hatcheries 

 are being operated. It appears necessary that no trap shall be erected closer than one-half mile to the 

 mouth of any stream and that those already erected within this distance shall be removed. The pro- 

 hibition of traps and other fishing gear within waters less than one-half mile from the mouth of any stream 

 is to my mind the most important feature in reference to the preservation of the future supply of salmon 

 in Alaska. As the law reads to-day, traps must be at least 600 yards apart laterally and 100 yards apart 

 endwise. These distances are inadequate, which is easily proved by the congestion of fishing paraphernalia 



