1 / 27

Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska: Some Historical Perspectives

Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska: Some Historical Perspectives. Steve Colt UAA Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage 28 October 2002. Salmon Fish Traps:. How many were used? Where? What did they cost? How efficient were they? Why were they banned?

nico
Télécharger la présentation

Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska: Some Historical Perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska:Some Historical Perspectives Steve Colt UAA Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage 28 October 2002

  2. Salmon Fish Traps: • How many were used? • Where? • What did they cost? • How efficient were they? • Why were they banned? • What were the immediate consequences of the ban?

  3. Aboriginal Use • 76,000 Natives taking 33 million lbs of salmon • Tlingit-Haida: property rights to streams, vested with family or clan, with secondary market • Natives used dams and weirs, e.g., across Stikine River Sources: Hewes 1957, Price 1990, Rogers 1960

  4. In-Stream Fixed Gear (cont.) • Russians in Southeast also used in-stream fixed gear • Full-width stream fencing banned in 1889 • Fixed gear in streams and bays banned in 1906

  5. How Many Were Used? Reduction by regulation

  6. How many were used?

  7. Where were they used? • Between 60-75% Southeast • Between 25-40% Central • Very few (<6) in Western region Source: Scudder 1970

  8. What did they cost?Pile-Driven and Floating Traps • Pile-Driven cost more, had to be re-driven each yr., but stronger1948: 110 pile, 261 floaters

  9. What did they Cost?Direct cost in today’s $$ per trap: Source: Colt 2000, based on calculations from numerous sources and personal interview with C. Asplund

  10. What did they cost? Indirect Costs • Siting: dry-hole and siting costs cited at $300,000 per trap in today’s dollars for a series of 11 traps (Philip MacBride, Hearings on S. 1446, p. 27) • Transportation to next processing stage

  11. What did they cost?Indirect benefits • Quality (esp. before ice tenders) • Traps did not go on strike • Exclusion of other gear – no traps within one mile and no boats within 300 feet…in theory.

  12. How Efficient?

  13. How Efficient?

  14. CAVEAT! Actual not Optimal • These estimates are based on the actual deployment of traps, not the economically optimal deployment.

  15. Why were they banned? • Replaced cannery labor and seiners labor in general • Replaced Native labor: • “The cannery owners do not hire as many natives as they did a few years ago, but instead they are putting in what they call fish traps, and these traps require very few laborers…” (quoted in Price p. 64)

  16. Why were they banned? • “The very quintessence of absenteeism” (Rogers 1960) • Alaska Native Brotherhood Platform, 1922: Equality of Natives before the law Equal rights and privileges Equal schools Abolition of fish traps A political convention Use of one language (English) One COUNTRY, ONE FLAG. (quoted in Price (1990), p. 91)

  17. Why were they banned?

  18. Why were they banned? Senator Moore: “The claim is made -- and it looks rather a reasonable thing to us -- that if you eliminated the trap you would be eliminating the most efficient operation up there.…”

  19. Delegate Bartlett: “That, I think, Mr. Chairman, is the desire of the people of Alaska -- for the simple reason that they feel that the trap is too efficient. It is like other things in this world that are regulated and governed sometimes out of existence because they do away with employment.” U.S. Senate, Hearings on S. 1446, 1948, p. 113

  20. Why were they Banned?

  21. What Happened after the ban? • Prediction from Industry: “the overall catch would fall....There are very basic reasons why the industry cannot exist in its present economic condition without the stabilizing factor raw supply which comes from the use of fish traps.” Source: W.C. Arnold, chief industry lobbyist, in Hearings on S. 1446, p. 85

  22. What Happened after the ban? • Prediction from Politicians: “The abolition of fish traps and the rebuilding of the salmon runs will eventually provide employment for 7,500 additional independent fishermen, supporting 22,000 or more persons directly and as many more indirectly. .” Source: Statement of Bob Bartlett, Hearings on HR 1515, 1949, p. 108

  23. What Happened after the ban? • Prediction from Sec’y of Interior: “the elimination of fish traps will unquestionably mean that the use of other forms of gear will be intensified and eventually will nullify any benefit that might accrue from trap elimination.” Source: Statement of Julius Krug, Secretary of the Interior, in Hearings on HR 1515, p. 2

  24. What Happened after the ban? • Purse seiner fleet up 45% • At pre-ban productivity levels, new catch equaled old catch – a perfect substitution of boat fishing effort for trap fishing effort • # of fishermen up by 6,000 – • from 11,000 to 17,000

  25. What Happened After Ban?

  26. Summary • How many traps? About 400 • Where? 60% in SE • What was Cost? About $70,000 per trap per yr (2001$) • How Efficient? Saved 10% of EVV • Why Banned? Us vs. Them • What happened? 6,000 more fishers 45% more seiners

  27. Read the Complete Paper at: www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu Look under “fisheries”

More Related