The Cordova daily times., 1920-12-20

hatcheries along lines prescribed by government experts under the belief that the supply of fish would be main tained indefinitely through this means. The hatcheries have produced millions of fry of the sockeye salmon 1 to which have been added other mil lions as the product of the govern ment hatcheries during the last four | the protective measure provided in the law and regulations, the sockeye | we found to be getting scarcer in | the district where the hatcheries were | located, whereas in places remote | from hatchery operations, it held out better. One by one in the interven- ing years the privately owned hatch cries discontinued operations.
 The state of Washington, in its strenuous attempt to restore the sal | mon runs in it's waters, is operating | thirty six hatcheries and is playing a | losing game, because they let their ! natural means for maintenance reach l too low point before applying the remedies. One of their most serious i mistakes is made in trying to carry on trout culture, upon a large scale, at the same time, that fish being one of the greatest feeders upon salmon ! fivu nf ho | fry.
 PROPOSED NEW LEGISLATION | From the evidence and information the various phases of the salmon sit uation throughout the territory and the prevailing spirit of conservation for the maintenance of the industry, the necessity for new and construc- tive legislation became apparent This feeling resulted in a conference of the general fishing interests which was attended by members of the commits sion. The question of control of Alas kan fisheries, whether by federal or 1 territorial authority, received much consideration. The preponderance of opinion was in favor of the former for the next few years or until such time as the population becomes more 1 stable and the affairs of the terri | tory are in better shape to assume the responsibility and expense. The i'm | portant matters of maintenance of supply, involving natural and artifi- cial propagation, stream improvement, restricted fishing areas, closed seasons, curtailing and limiting gear, patrol, protection, enforcement of present regulations and laws, etc., were given attention as well as pr acy and other questions. Finding that much time and attention would be ne cessary to work out the details, a committee was named and was given full power to prepare such measure or code of laws as to it should seem necessary to meet the demands. This
 
 every phase of the theme except the 1 actual handlers of the gear used in the industry. All of the various features were discussed by the committee and i rules and plans laid down covering ! each; then finding that the prepara- tion of the law would take more time | Of Gn vote to that purpose, sub committee of it's membership, Messrs. Beegle, O'Mally and Garfield, was given the task of writing bill. After comple- tion it was submitted to a promin- ent attorney well versed in fishery laws and principles, for correction as to legal phraseology, then to the gen eral committee for approval and fin ally sent to the governor of Alaska, who was in Washington at the time, to be approved by him and handed to the delegate in congress for such ac- tion as he deemed advisable toward enactment. The measure covered every requirement. for the further ance and benefit of the industry which came to the minds of the com mittee at the time of it's preparation and was a code in extent. However the bill was not introduced for the reasons that it was forwarded to Washington too late to receive con sideration at the hands of the con trolling committee of the house of representatives and in addition, con tained provisions objected to by the