The Daily Alaska empire., 1947-02-12
REPUBLICANS SALMON TRAP DISAGREE ON REFERENDUM
 BUDGET CUTS IS AMENDED
Senators Served Fish Diet 10-Year Abolition
 Period Set

Are fish traps to be eliminated from Alaskan waters?
 That question today was one step nearer referendum place on the next General Election ballot-but with much of it's sting pulled by Senate action yesterday.
 The Senate Chamber dripped of fish facts before yesterdays after noon session was over; but when it was over. those Senators who are not anxious to meddle with the established order in Alaska s prime industry had scored a ma jor decision, with an amendment written into House Bill 8 which would lengthen from to 10 years the period over which elimination of traps would be proposed
 Opposing the amendment was a solid block of Third Division Sena- tors, plus Second Divisioner Will fam Munz and ong-time trap foe Frank Peratrovich.
 As the bill now reads, subject to Senate passage and to House ac- ceptance of the amendment, the voters would be asked to indicat; their reaction to these altsrna- tjves:
 l. Should the practice of fishing by means of fish traps within the Territory of Alaska be gradually abolished over a l0-year period by appropriate legislation?
 2. Should the practice of fishing by means of fish traps be con- tirued?
 Witnesses Heard Not formally Committee of the Whole hearing. yesterday after noon's Senate session became that practically when floor privileges were accorded to one opponent and two proponents of H. B. 8.
 w. C. Arnold, managing director of the Alaska Salmon Industry Inc. flatly stated that he was against the bill with or without the amendment"
 Conditions likely to ke affected by passage of H. B. 8, stressed by the industry spokesman, are.
 Approximately 50 percent of the Alaska salmon pack is taken by traps. with traps operating in areas where no other type of gear is efficient;
 Industry investment within Alas ka is approximately $60,o00,O00, or three-fourths of the total invested this figure includes shore installa tions, all gear and various forms of floating equipment. The portion of this investment where a prepon- derance of the catch is taken by traps-such as the Alaska Penin- sula area-would be seriously pre- judiced Arnold stated the indus try's belief-based upon lifetime experience and observation-that if traps are prohibited, mobile gear will not be able to make up the difference in production
 Stability Dependent
 The economic stability of the canned salmon industry is depen- dent upon the continued use ot traps, hence, inasmuch as this is Alaska's first industry and tax source, so is the economy of the Territory.
 Submission of this issue to the voters now could only result, Arn- old said, in clcuding the future of the industry at time when it is trying to get in step with post war conditions and inevitably would mean that extensive plans for re- mobilization, involving expenditure of large sums, would be withdrawn Expansion would be restricted.
 This is not the type of question properly to be submitted to the vot- CTS, Arnold maintained. It is not a political question It is a question not of government, but of how 8 resource is to be developed. It is technical question that is noi of general public concern and or which the general public in al parts of the Territory cannot be expected to entertain any specia viewpoint.
 Arnold recognized that organized groups are interested. but not, ht said, for general public reasons, but because they see a definite, and al least temporary, advantage fol themselves in elimination of com petitor. He recognized the pres sure that has heen brought fol submission of the issue to tht voters, but reiterated that it woulc prejudice millions in investments al a time when the salmon industry k the only prosperous industry in the Territory
 : With regard to the amendment /Cn&,ts,,,,oL n., mo E5pTlfl