The Wrangell sentinel., 1944-11-17
GOVERNORS MESSAGE
Continued from Page one)

luf50n to all of our pIoDi1Ai-A
 sbst if must be coupled with eco- nonic opportunity In it's relation to inc aboriginal people of Amerl- ca the Federal Government has lh
 e9snt wears increasingly sensed It's
 .s-.onsibility. and has sought Io
 .8fu that responsibility by pro .sfing the native peoples run
 -erIess exploitation, and to help .ss,o to help themselves to ecoioLls
 indanendence. But [ assume Inat -1is wise and proper policy VIII
 -s'ir,,o only until such time as ss. Indians have developed suIllci- mi education and skllI anu am strength to hold their own In OSi ,.s nolitical. social and economic lile Ed to maintain themselves at a IavsI of decency and comfort. NoN ,,-t.5la in Alaska, which was seIIleo so ,nuch later than other parts oi -Sa limited States, conditions vary if may be said that in souIheas1oi U Alaska the native peoples "nousls Darbaps needing some assistance
 economic nature to protect Ineii '-,aans to A livelihood. have never doeirad to be treated as Warus Ill +bo sense that Indians have been ln ot6.T narts of the United Slales
 Certain restrictive legislation llS5 @nlon annIies to the Indians in the onIvso SfaIes does not apply to them heIs' ~ soe,ns to me that this is mat ter to which you should give Une reas+ serious consideration n u ,ao1.a mn your own minds what poll cles you would like to nave appii'1
 aJv own feeling is that the eco homie policy which seems to navy 4sen foreshadowed in the case oi 1vaaburg of enabling each com, o mnnity to have a cannery anu " ,,1ako sure of an adequate supply oL fish is desirable. It does no''
 seems to me, require the esUaDiisH
 ment of reservations. ;.
 In this connection l want " 'o tonch on the highly controVersl''l subiect of fish traps There h. 'S ,,on know a widespread Ieellhs among fishermen that the tlsn 'I"p .'i5 ts objectionable, lnterLeies isA tbair livelihood, and should be aDoI- isbed They point to the fact Ihat ,,el, trans have long since been anoiished in the States ot Wasn- Inoron and Oregon and would Ike to see the same policy here' Neeo- less to say, the fish trap o"ne1s rake the opposite view. me lsn ,nd wildlife Service of the Depart rnent of the Interior, whose nlaJoA concern is to prevent the depletloh tn tbe tish supply, and to make sure that fish are conserved so Iha' fbere may always be salmon run rine, mn our streams, views the Ilsh r,oH as an indispensable piece ol o.sar considers that the tlsh trap Guarantees a supply of fresh nsA' ',nd therefore favors it's retentloh' since in the Alaska Organic Ac1' nassed in 1912. the Territory ls specifically forbidden to leglslaIe concerning fisheries, any actloh oaaiing with fish traps would nave To come from the Congress, n sinca the majority of the fish traps are owned by companies locaVeo onrside of Alaska, we may assunle that they would use all posslDle eL- rort to prevent such abolition l, likewise, am by no means conVlnceu ,nat the fish trap is object1onaDle' feel rather that the real dltIlcuity lies not so much in the tlsh traps themselves as in the character or their ownership. Out of ASA tlsh trans in Alaska, ,245, or well over half. are owned by eight large non resident canning companies, ohe company owns 60 fish traps, an other company owns 58. Thus two companies own well over one-tourth of all Alaska's fish traps. More over. the overwhelming majority or all Alaska fish traps are owned Dy people not living in Alaska. me figure is really astonishing. Out 9t those 434 fish traps, 396, or 9l per cent. are owned by nonresidents This is in my judgment far too much concentration of ownership and too much absentee ownership. It has the aspects of monopoly of our natural resources. l believe that the ownership of these fish traps should be more diversified. do not think it sound public policy that any one company should own as many traps as are owned now by several companies. At present the ownership is too concentrated in too few hands. I would like to see the ownership spread. l would like to see it spread throughout IA aska so as to permit more individu- al Alaska residents to own fish trap to permit fishermen's cooper atives to own fish traps, and in particular to allow the communi- ties to whose prosperity a supply of F;.b f, aooantia1 and cannot he