all head who was scheduled where the fish would be canned from the fisheries to the different canneries. They not only refused to write a contract with this association that I represent-and we are a legal organization incorporated under the laws of the Territory and the United States-but they refused also to buy fish separately from the individual fisherman. Now that is in direct violation of the White Act. I know the intent and purpose of Congress in writing it. If you go back in the record, it is plain. When they said there will be no several right of fishery they were referring to a monopoly system. Mr. O'BRIEN. I would think not only a violation of the White Act but it came very close to being a violation of the act which bears the name "Sherman.'

Mr. EMBERG. We knew this was going to happen because all the members that we had had in the company boats had received notice of a termination of employment the winter before. They were told that the companies had no place for them.

So we wrote to the White House and asked for an Executive order in the emergency saying the residents would get some preference of employment, some assurance of fishing. What happened? We were referred to the Department of the Interior. We wrote to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which has a jurisdiction here, pointing up the fact that we have terrific tubercular incidence in this population, which is probably due a lot to economic causes. The people are just not living right, are not making enough to stay healthy. That was also referred to the Department of the Interior.

We complained to the Department of Labor and didn't get an answer from the Department of Labor.

We complained to the Governor and he referred us to the Department of the Interior. And he got in touch with the Alaska salmon industry and asked them to start a voluntary program of hiring the residents.

Mr. BARTLETT. Did you ever refer that letter to the Department of the Interior and have it referred to the salmon industry for answer? Mr. EMBERG. Not yet. Anyhow, there seemed to be nothing that any of these departments of the Federal Government that run this country, administer the laws here, and regulate the fisheries could do for us. And all the time-this is the thing that makes us angry-all the time we were asking for assurance of the right to fish, which the White Act guarantees us, they quote the same provision back at us saying that we cannot have a several right of fishery.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You believe apparently that by regulation or otherwise the Department has gone far beyond or astray from the original purpose of the White Act?

Mr. EMBERG. Absolutely.

Mr. O'BRIEN. And you think it is time that the appropriate committee, and Congress itself, pulled in that particular net and reexamined the White Act?

Mr. EMBERG. I think it is way past time. I don't think our fisheries are going to be ever rehabilitated under this White Act. Somebody sooner or later has got to have the authority to limit the amount of gear that goes in on these fisheries, and someone has to have the authority to allocate that gear among the fishermen.

Mr. O'BRIEN. How much do you think you would be helped if this control was turned over to the Territory?

Mr. EMBERG. I think we could do the job very well. We have a very fine department.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You at least would be close to the people where you could pound the table and get action.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you have any questions, Mrs. Pfost?

Mrs. ProST. No questions.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Utt?

Mr. UTT. No questions.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Emberg, I should have queried Mr. Downey a bit more about the traps but neglected to do so. So I will approach

you.

It was said that the canneries gave up their trap locations voluntarily, perhaps, with the arrival of more people, and yet more people have arrived in other parts of Alaska and there is no voluntary relinquishment.

Mr. EMBERG. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Was there any special situation in Bristol Bay that made the trap less effective than in other parts of Alaska?

Mr. EMBERG. I believe that was true; that it actually was more economical for the canneries to get their fish with gill-net gear. Because of the high tide we have here, the muddy water, the debris that floats up and down in these rivers, it made the driving of traps— it took a big investment to set up the traps.

Mr. BARTLETT. It wasn't the effective instrument here it has been elsewhere, though?

Mr. EMBERG. I don't believe it was. Otherwise I think we would still have it in Bristol Bay.

Mr. BARTLETT. What is the racial composition of the people of the Bristol Bay area? How are they divided as between white and so-called native group?

Mr. EMBERG. I would say between 90 and 95 percent are of native stock and origin here.

Mr. BARTLETT. Was that the Indian, Eskimo?

Mr. EMBERG. We have both Eskimo and Indian stock.

Mr. BARTLETT. Which race predominates?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BARTLETT. For the last 2 years this has been a disaster-relief area?

Mr. EMBERG. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. And what has the Government done to alleviate the situation?

Mr. EMBERG. We have had emergency allotments of surplus commodity foods which were brought into the country, I think, mostly by the Air Force and distributed by local committees. There has been some very limited work relief projects in the fall and in the spring. It is pretty hard to put a relief project on in the winter because everything is frozen up and snow all over the country.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You would be perfectly willing to substitute some substitute legislation for the continuation of relief?

Mr. EMBERG. All we want is the right to fish and make a living. Mr. O'BRIEN. You or the previous witness mentioned the high incidence of tuberculosis here. Is it your belief that the falling economic standard contributes to the continuation or a perpetuation of that?

Mr. EMBERG. I believe it does, because people just have to live a decent standard of living to keep their resistance up to diseases of that nature.

Mr. BARTLETT. How much would you say it costs 1 person to live for 1 year at Dillingham, the average person?

Mr. EMBERG. To live adequately, I would say it would cost them about $1,000 per person.

Mr. BARTLETT. It cost, then, as much per person as the wage earners are earning on the average for themselvs and their families, if they have families.

Mr. EMBERG. That is right. There is a lot of difference between just existing and living adequately.

Mr. BARTLETT. To explore very briefly a bit further the question propounded by Mr. OBrien. If you had your choice between a revision of the White Act and a law that would give the people of Alaska the right to administer their own fisheries, which would you take? Mr. EMBERG. I would take the transfer of the fisheries to the Territorial control.

Mr. BARTLETT. I was wondering if you would be so good as to prepare a table showing the year-by-year pack in Bristol Bay since and including 1938.

Mr. EMBERG. I have it on the second page of this written statement from 1906 until the present time.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Mr. EMBERG. If it isn't possible to get an overall revision or transfer of the fisheries, we are desperate in what we are going to do, and I would like to ask this committee to consider congressional legislation that would protect us in the interim.

What we should have here is that these units of gear, gill-net units should be defined locally as 150 fathoms, and we should have a provision that any corporation, combination, or concern or individual shall only operate one unit of gear in this district because that will takewell, 1954 couldn't happen again, I don't believe. You have a situation here that is analogous to the trap situation in the economic aspect of it, the industrial aspect. It is a form of gear. If you allow the operation of company fleets and they choose to supply themselves entirely with their own fishing efforts, then what are the independents going to do? They did it in 1954. There were no laws that stopped them. We complained to the Federal Trade Commission and never got an answer.

I think it is time we should get the gear in the hands of the people, of our fishermen. I don't think we should penalize the canning industry as a canning industry, but when they fish I think it is fair everyone should fish on the same terms and have the same general right of fisheries so far as the conservation of the resources permits.

Mrs. PrOST. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to compliment Mr. Emberg upon trying to preserve fishing for the people of this community. I hope that we can probe into the problem and find some method of allowing the people in the Bristol Bay area to fish for themselves and for the sustenance of their families rather than allowing people to come in here from stateside, so to speak, and take over an industry that is peculiar to this particular area.

70969-569

Mr. EMBERG. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. During the 83d Congress a bill was introduced and referred to this committee which would provide for the encouragement of fishing companies to give first choice of employment to the permanent residents of the Bristol Bay area. The bill was not heard in our committee. There were no hearings held on it and it got no further. A similar bill has not been introduced in the 84th Congress. I wonder if you recall that bill well enough to comment briefly.

Mr. EMBERG. Only to this extent: That the terms in which this preference would have been extended-well, the legislation wouldn't have been self-operative, as we understood it. It was another extension of a general right and no way to enforce it.

Mr. BARTLETT. It didn't require anything be done.

Mr. EMBERG. That is right.

Mr. O'BRIEN. A pious hope.

Mr. EMBERG. Certainly.

Mr. TAYLOR. The bill itself, had it had a second or third section which would have put teeth into it, would it have been received more favorably in the area?

Mr. EMBERG. Certainly.

Mr. TAYLOR. It is possible that bill might be revived and resubmitted.

This other question: How many non-Eskimo families have left the Bristol Bay area within the past 2 or 3 years and gone elsewhere?

Mr. EMBERG. There has been a certain amount of movement out of the area by the white families. Well, a lot of it. This is our home land too. I have been here, for instance, for 20 years, and I know that basically there is a rich resource.

The salmon fisheries here have produced almost 2 million cases of red salmon in a year. At $30 a case that is a $60 million production for 1 year. I am sure basically that once our problems of conservation and industrial control are answered the fisheries will be restored and this area should boom. I don't want to leave here.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You don't want to be driven away from your home when some sensible laws would enable you to stay here and earn a decent living?

Mr. EMBERG. That is right.

Mr. BARTLETT. Hasn't this been the richest red salmon fishery in the world right here in Bristol Bay?

Mr. EMBERG. Yes; it has. Last year the production was 350-some thousand cases of red salmon from Bristol Bay. At between $28 and $30 a case, what would that amount to? It is enough to support a couple of thousand of resident people and enough to add a profit for the canning industry, too.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Do you know whether Canada is handling similar situations better than the United States is handling them?

Mr. EMBERG. Their fisheries are holding up better than ours, and they do have a resident preference established for the fishermen, residents of the provinces. I am speaking there in reference to British Columbia.

Mr. O'BRIEN. They are protecting their local fishermen against stream exploitation by outside corporations or individuals?

Mr. EMBERG. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. That would be $3,800,000?

Mr. EMBERG. Yes. While this has been proclaimed a disaster area, we still have enough to support the population in adequate standards, but the fact is too much of that money is going out on nonresident pay

roll.

Mr. O'BRIEN. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you have a very inadequate, inefficient timekeeper. We have had two witnesses and we have consumed most of our time. I would hasten to add it has not been the fault of the witnesses. Their direct testimony has been considerably less than 8 minutes each. It has been the fault of the committee. I hope that indicates a very sincere interest on our part in your problems.

I think and this is directed more to the committee, Mr. ChairmanI think that if we exercise a little more self-restraint we can make up some of that time.

Mr. BARTLETT. The chairman will take that suggestion under advisement.

Thank you, Mr. Emberg.

Mr. EMBERG. Thank you.

(The statement submitted by Mr. Emberg follows:)

STATEMENT FOR BRISTOL BAY FISH PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

This statement relating to fisheries legislation is submitted by the Bristol Bay Fish Producers Association for inclusion in the records of hearings before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives on Territorial and Insular Affairs at Anchorage, Alaska, in September 1955.

The members of this association, with a few exceptions, are resident commercial fishermen of the Bristol Bay area. They are independent fishermen who own fishing boats and gear, and who earn their livelihood in the salmon fisheries. There are very real problems for Government in Bristol Bay: relating to the conservation of salmon; and, relating to the control of the fishing industry. That the Congress of the United States is aware of these problems, and of their importance, is shown by your presence here in Anchorage to hear us on those matters.

The salmon fisheries of Bristol Bay represent the only basic industry in the region. The local economy depends almost wholly upon their productivity. It is also dependent, and to an almost equal degree, upon the extent to which we are permitted to share in the wealth produced locally from this regional natural resource. Our income as fishermen is determined not only by the numbers of salmon we may catch, but also by the amount of salmon we are able to sell in the local markets for raw salmon.

We know that Federal supervision over our fisheries has failed in that it has not properly regulated either the conservation or the utilization of the resource. We believe that the basic congressional fisheries legislation is not competent to accomplish either of these ends.

It is evident to us that reform of that legislation is our paramount need. There are alternative methods by which this might be accomplished; our recommendations to this subcommittee are contingent upon the preference of the Congress as to the method to be followed. In the first instance, we recommend the enactment of an equitable statehood bill so that Alaska can conserve its fisheries and protect its economic interests in them. In the second instance, we recommend that the Congress enact H. R. 244 thus transferring the fisheries of Alaska from Federal to Territorial control and supervision. In the third instance, and concurrently with its consideration of those measures, we recommend that the Congress should seek the issuance of an Executive order to be in effect until the Congress shall have enacted legislation to amend or to supersede the legislation now in force. The Congress should recommend that this order affirm that an emergency exists in the salmon fisheries of Alaska and provide a regulatory authority adequate to insure the conservation of the resource and to protect the Alaskan economy and the resident fishermen of Alaska from the abuses to which they are subject.