a point where they simply have had to get together, or else this fishery would be completely exhausted. As to the statistics, I believe Mr. Gardner can testify better than I can, but I know this whole fishery has become almost depleted. At one time it was the most profitable and extensive fishery in the Northwest, but now it is down to practically nothing. I believe that official statistics in both countries will show that salmon were taken out of this area amounting to over 1,000,000 cases. That was within recent years. Statistics also show that it is now down to less than 250,000 cases. Mr. TABER. There were so many last year that they did not know what to do with them, and we had to appropriate money to take them off the market. Mr. KEATING. I do not believe that was this species. They were not sockeye salmon. This is the best and rarest species of salmon, and is the most expensive, due to the fact that it has become scarce. TRAVEL EXPENSE OF COMMISSION Mr. LUDLOW. I notice that almost one-seventh of the total estimate is set up for travel. How many persons will be in a travel status? Mr. KEATING. The Commission will consist of six members, three on the part of Canada and three on the part of the United States. Presumably, at least two of them will be out in the State of Washington. Doubtless two of the Commissioners will be from that State. Mr. LUDLOW. Will it require $2,000 for their travel? Mr. KEATING. Of course; a meeting of the Commission may be at Ottawa, at Seattle, or it may be at Washington. The Commission has to be organized, and the work will have to be started. You cannot tell just what the travel expense will be. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Who are the Commissioners that you have referred to? Mr. KEATING. They are not appointed as yet, but they will be appointed any day now. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is any provision made here for the salaries of the Commissioners? Mr. KEATING. No, sir; there are not any salaries provided for. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. No salaries are provided for them here? Mr. WOODRUM. What can the Commission do, if they cannot regulate the fisheries? If they come to a decision as to what should be done, what can they do in the way of putting conservation measures into effect? Mr. KEATING. Of course, this Commission will be composed of scientific men. They will have to make a complete survey of the area with a view to recommending regulations for those waters, and, possibly, the installing of hatcheries in connection with the spawning work, and things of that sort. Mr. Gardner, from the Bureau of Fisheries, is better informed on that than I am. Mr. TABER. They will show the fish how to spawn. Mr. GARDNER. Supplementing Mr. Keating's statement, I might say with regard to the items for travel, and so forth, that there will be three American members of the Commission who will not draw salaries, but who will be reimbursed for their travel expenses in attending meetings of the Commission. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is that expense included in the sheets you have given us? Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir. There will also be travel on the part of personnel employed by the Commission. The statement you have of personnel represents the estimate at this time of the personnel that the Commission will require. That includes a director of investigations; and any personnel employed by the Commission, when making an investigation of the fishery away from their headquarters, will draw per diem and be reimbursed for their travel. EMPLOYMENT OF TEMPORARY FIELD EMPLOYEES Mr. BOYLAN. I do not see any item in this statement providing for the employment of any practical fishermen. You provide for biologists and assistant biologists, with a director of investigations, but it seems to me that we should have a few practical fishermen engaged in this work. Mr. GARDNER. There are more fishermen now than there are fish. Mr. BOYLAN. There is none designated as such in this statement. Mr. GARDNER. I think there will be no occasion for the Commission actually engaging any fishermen. Mr. BOYLAN. Still, they would have to have the knowledge of the men actually engaged in these fishery operations in order to make an intelligent report. Mr. GARDNER. They will be in possession of all that information. In other words, one of the duties of these biologists will be to analyze the statistics that have been collected of the yield of the fisheries for the past 30 years, or more. Mr. BOYLAN. Of course, some of them do not know anything about catching fish. Mr. GARDNER. I do not understand that that will be essential for the proper operation of this Commission. We do provide here $1,050 for temporary field employees. Mr. BOYLAN. Do you think that would include fishermen? Mr. GARDNER. I think that will provide for any necessary fishermen. Mr. KEATING. I think I might explain one point you have raised there: One of the reservations made to the convention is an advisory committee to be set up representing all of the fishery groups, including the sports fishermen, the canners, and all of the industrial interests involved in it. Before any regulation is provided by this Commission, they must first get the views of this advisory committee. Mr. WOODRUM. It is a pretty safe bet that after this Commission functions, we will ultimately have estimates for fish hatcheries, ponds, dams, ladders, and so forth. Mr. KEATING. Yes, sir; that is true. This particular estimate would not take care of that. NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. SNYDER. How many members will there be of this International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission? Mr. GARDNER. There will be six commissioners, three on the part of the United States and three on the part of Canada. Mr. SNYDER. Have the commissioners been appointed? Mr. GARDNER. The American members have not, but it is expected that they will be appointed soon. Mr. SNYDER. Will they serve for a year or 2 years? Mr. GARDNER. They will serve at the pleasure of the President. Mr. LUDLOW. If this convention became effective in 1930, why was not this sent up sooner? Mr. KEATING. The reason is this: The convention was signed in 1930 and was ratified by Canada. It was sent to the Senate, but the Senate did not act upon it. Nothing was done up until last year, 1936, when the question was brought up again. Then the Senate of the United States gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty with three reservations. Then it had to be sent back to the Canadian Parliament, which had to act on those reservations. EXPENSE SHARED BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Do I understand that Canada shares in the expense under the item of "Other obligations"? Mr. KEATING. Yes, sir. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. As well as in the items under personnel services? Mr. KEATING. Yes, sir. They pay half of the expense of the administrative work. Mr. HOSMER. May I say that Canada has appropriated already the equivalent of this $15,000. As the estimate of the first year's expenses of the Commission is necessarily more or less hypothetical, their appropriation was $15,000, which became available at the beginning of their fiscal year, the first of April 1937. As to our part of the Commission, we have been awaiting the exchange of the ratifications, which only occurred last Wednesday, or on the 28th of July. Mr. LUDLOW, The expenses are to be paid on a 50-50 basis. In that connecton, I think it might be well to read into the record. a telegram from our Minister to Ottawa, Mr. Armour. This telegram is dated July 22, 1937, and is addressed to the Secretary of State by our Minister, Mr. Armour, as follows: With reference to exchange of ratifications of sockeye salmon treaty now set for July 28, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs informed yesterday that personnel of Canadian Commission has now been decided upon and will be ready to begin work as soon as ratifications exchanged, all members of Commission having given up other plans in order to be available. Dr. Skelton also stated that salmon run began on July 12 last and further delay may mean that an entre year's work will be lost. For this reason he hopes that our Commission will be ready to meet Canadians as soon as possible after July 28. SALMON RUN Mr. WOODRUM. How long will the salmon run last? Mr. HOSMER. I understand not, and in that connection, may I repeat, Canada has provided the equivalent of this amount, $15,000. It includes of course, funds necessary for the establishment of the headquarters, and it also includes provisions for the scientific equipment necessary for the field investigations. Mr. WOODRUM. If you do not get this before the salmon run is over, is there anything that you can do before next July? Mr. GARDINER. Yes, sir. I think the statement that an entire year's work would be lost was unfortunate. It was made apparently with a view to demonstrating the necessity for prompt action on the part of our Government. As a matter of fact, the activities of the Commission after the personnel is set up will undoubtedly be the gathering together of all the available statistics as to the yield of these fisheries over the pst 30 or 40 years. One of the first things that will be undertaken will be to analyze the statistics to determine the trend of the fisheries by studies of the catch per unit of effort employed in the fisheries, and then they will make a comparison to see how that has varied. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Are those figures readily available? Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir; statistics have been collected of that catch annually back as far as 1880, and possibly before that. Mr. WOODRUM. When did you say the salmon run began? Mr. GARDNER. On July 12. Mr. WOODRUM. And it lasts how long? Mr. GARDNER. For several weeks. Mr. WOODRUM. It must be over now. It has been several weeks since July 12. Mr. HOSMER. Yes; it has been several weeks, but the salmon run may be expected to last considerably longer. I understand there have been telephone conversations with our Minister at Ottawa on the subject since that time, and he has assured us that if we can get the Commission named promptly they can go ahead this year, and there is considerable available data that can be used. Mr. WOODRUM. You do not need this money after the salmon run is over. You could do the preliminary work next year. Mr. GARDNER. I think the answer to that question is this: As I suggested a moment ago, I think the statement made in the telegram that a year's work would be lost must be qualified. In that connection, I think that was merely a statement used to urge upon the American Government the necessity of prompt action and that is indeed very important. Now, if the Commission had been established and was operating during the run, undoubtedly it would have had personnel observing the run and noting its magnitude, or observing the practical difficulty that the salmon may have in ascending the Fraser River. The convention contemplated not only a scientific investigation, but the actual physical removal of the obstructions in the river. Mr. WOODRUM. Does the Bureau of Fisheries make any observations of that? Mr. GARDNER. The Fraser River is in Canadian territory. We have statistics of the catch of fish. This fishery has been participated in by Canadian fishermen as well as those of the State of Washington. One provision of the convention is that the fishery shall be so regulated as to insure as nearly as possible an equal distribution of the catch. OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED BY COMMISSION Mr. WOODRUM. Will this $15,000 do the work of the Commission, and will this be the end of it? Mr. GARDNER. No, sir; this commission will be comparable in nearly every respect to the International Fisheries Commission between the United States and Canada which studies and regulates the halibut fisheries. Mr. LUDLOW. As I understand it, the salmon fisheries are more or less localized in certain States, like Oregon and Washington: Are those States doing what they can to collect statistics, and would the work of this commission be a duplication of work done by the States? Mr. GARDNER. No, sir. For instance, in all probability, the chairman of the Washington Fish and Game Commission will be one of the American commissioners. He is a man who, by reason of holding that position, would be ideally suited to serve on this commission. Of course, there is nothing that the State of Washington can do to regulate these fisheries, because they are in Canadian waters. Mr. LUDLOW. That information has, perhaps, already been collected. Mr. GARDNER. They have undoubtedly collected statistics on the catch of their commercial fishermen. Mr. LUDLOW. The question in my mind is whether this is relieving a State industry, or the industry of certain States, from an obligation which to a certain extent rests on them. Mr. GARDNER. That was one of the difficulties that was responsible for entering into the convention. In other words, it was a fishery in boundary waters. DEVELOPMENT OF FISH PROPAGATION METHODS Mr. TABER. The object of this fishery legislation is for developing methods of propagation, is it not? Mr. GARDNER. Ultimately, after the Commission has studied the fishery and has reached some conclusions with regard to what is necessary it is expected that the Commission may establish hatcheries. They will actually determine the amount of gear that may be used, and the kind that may be used. They might establish a closed season during which time fishing would be prohibited entirely. Mr. TABER. Has that been done in connection with anything else? Mr. GARDNER. That has been done in the case of the Pacific halibut fisheries, through the International Fisheries Commission, which has full authority to control and regulate the fishery. They can limit the catch to what they determine can be safely taken from the fisheries without endangering the future supply. Mr. TABER. Do you mean that this operation will go over a year, and that we will be called upon the carry an appropriation of, say, $25,000 for the United States share of the expense of the Commission? You are hoping that they will go on with something like that? Mr. GARDNER. I would say that a Commission of this sort would have an expense in excess of that. Mr. TABER. How large will it be? |