rREPORTS OF AGENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SALMON FISHERIES OF 



ALASKA.] 



REPORT OF SPECIAL AGENT PRACHT. 



Washingtoix, I). C, Jtoiuari/ J 9, 1893. 



Sill: III accordance with the terms of my instructions, dated August 

 10, 1892, I have the honor to submit herewith a statement of my work 

 for the ])artial season of 1891!.' 



A more extended report was made impracticable by the hiteness of 

 the action of Congress in making the necessary appropriation for the 

 protection of the sahnou fisheries of Alaska. The delay thus enforced 

 upon the agent made it impossible to leave for the scene of my labors 

 until the saiUng of the September steamer for Alaska. 



Immediately upon my arrival at Sitka, I caused to be published a 

 "notice to packers of salmon within the district of Alaska," securing 

 300 extra copies of the issue of the newspaper containing it, and the 

 same has been placed in the hands of every owner, agent, or manager 

 having connection with the salmon fisheries of Alaska. The same is 

 herewith attached, marked Appendix A. 



By rapid traveling, made possible by my thorough knowledge of the 

 numerous waterways, I succeeded in visiting all but two of the canner- 

 ies operated in southeast Alaska during the past season, having pre- 

 arranged meetings with the managers of those that I was not able to 

 reach before the cessation of active operations. 



barricades and obstructions. 



Within the letter and the spirit of the law, barricades or other obstruc; 

 tions, such as are described in the act of Congress approved March 2,' 

 1889, copy of which is hereto attached (see Department Circular No. 

 131, Appendix A), were reported to me to have existed in a number of 

 streams, and evidences of such having been removed previous to my 

 visit were found by me at a number of points. Without exception, all 

 the responsible managers cited to me that if the law was impartially 

 enforced, the corporations having the larger interests would hail the 

 result with satisfaction, and the assurance from the agent that all would 

 be brought within the strict pale of the law led to general acfiuiescence. 



In the larger streams, such as the Stikine, Unuk, Taku, Chilkoot, 

 and Chilkat, effective barricades are a practical impossibility. Where 

 • tried, the forces of nature, such as drift and freshets, have cairied them 

 out. In several of these streams, tra])s connected with the shore have 

 been used, but, as such have not extended into or beyond the channel, 

 no obstruction can be said to have been maintained. In arriving at 

 this conclusion, I have the advice of the United States attorney, Hon. 

 Charles S. Johnson, Sitka, to whom was referred the case of the alleged 

 obstruction of the Chilkat River. 



In the smaller streams, however, the partial or complete obstruction, 

 by means offences, dams, fish wheels, or traps, has been more success- 



' This report has l)een printed in Senate Douimu-nt No. 31, Fifty-second Congress, 

 second session. 



385 

 n. Doc. 92, pt. 2 25 



