ALASKA SALMON INVESTIGATIONS IN 1900. 
311 
II 
southeastern Alaska during 1900, generally small in their appointments, prepared to 
make a hand pack of 12,000 to 20,000 cases for the season. It is confidently expected, 
if the labor can be obtained, that from 15 to 20 additional ones will be located 
throughout Alaska in 1901, and all of the older canneries expect to increase their 
capacity. It is hardly necessary for me to say that the fisheries can not support all 
these canneries, at the present rate, for any length of time; they will surely become 
exhausted for extensive commercial purposes. 
There is another point which should receive the attention of the law, and that is 
the inspection of the product put in the cans and of the labeling. Compared with 
the large amount of salmon that reaches the market, the. quantity that might be called 
unfit bears a very small proportion. Yet salmon that should not be consumed are 
packed under misleading labels, and the law should prohibit it. The law also should 
require the canner to plainly label every can he produces with the species of fish 
in the can, the quality, and the location of the cannery packing. The number of 
different labels now used on the Pacific coast is very large; a list before me from 
one lithographic company represents 702. From this it may be inferred that even 
an expert finds difficulty in telling the quality of the goods covered by a label. It 
was noticed in some of the new canneries that, frequently a low grade of fish was 
covered by the most brilliant of labels, and in one. instance — though doubtless there 
are others — dog salmon were covered by “Fresh Columbia River salmon.” Such 
practices must throw discredit upon all goods, and one would fancy that reputable 
canneries would ask protection against it. 
It. is my opinion that a section of the law should provide for a certain time when 
fishing for redfish may commence, and prohibit their capture before that time. The 
object of this close season is to permit all the earliest arrivals to ascend to the lakes, 
where they may spawn early and have the eggs hatched before the cold weather sets 
in. It is probable that many of the feeders, used - as spawning-beds, freeze to the 
bottom during the winter, and the late eggs must necessarily be destroyed. No one 
appreciates the difficulty in framing such a law more than the writer; but it is not 
impracticable, and with the data now at hand it is entirely feasible. Take, for 
example, southeastern Alaska. We know that all redfish packed from the earliest 
arrivals to about July 4 hardly pay cannery expenses. This does not take into account 
the small pack of king salmon, made by a few canneries, from the Chilkat, Taku, 
Stikine, and Unuk. A law, therefore, prohibiting the capture of redfish in southeast- 
ern Alaska before July 4 would be an excellent provision, and other districts could 
be treated in a similar manner. In order to execute the law, might it not be well to 
pay informers one-half of all fines collected? 
With the large accessions of canneries in Alaska the struggle in the fisheries is sure 
to increase, and every means will be emplojmd for the capture of fish regardless of 
the law, unless the Government enforces it by an efficient and intelligent inspection. 
The future, even more than the past, requires efficient inspection, which, however 
can not be realized under the present conditions. 
