The Daily Alaska empire., 1947-02-12

iod
 Even if the bill is amended, we are still opposed to this till, was Arnold's answer.
 Second witness before the Senate was Alfred owens, of Kodiak, who identified himself as a "commer- cial fisherman" Asked by Peratro- vich, his opinion on the bill "as fisherman" owens declared:
 Tt seems fair, in a democratic state 10 put this question before the people, inasmuch as it affects SC many of them
 Regarding conservation, Owens cited that traps fish night and day, while fishermen using other rear necessarily must rest - giving the fish escapement periods.
 Gain Residents
 Deprccating any disastrous effect of trap elimination upon the indus try. Owens pointed to solvent can neries not now using traps. To the Westward, he added trap activities have made it difficult to build up population engaged in fishing, which could replace traps. He gave his opinion to Senator Charles D. Jones that fill in" occupations would develop if traps went out and they would result in the Terri tory's gaining permanent residents.
 Specifically, Owens stated: Traps (by taking and dumping unused species) have depleted the grey cod fishery and curtailed the salt ing of grey cod as an off-season employment. More competitive buying will lengthen the season. Cold storage plants can utilize the fhe fall season echoes now going to waste.'
 Following a line of leading ques- tions by Victor c. Rivers, Owens agreed with that Senator that Bristol Bay shows that the canned salmon industry can operate with out traps, and at the same time build up a resident population and economy.
 The final testifier was Frank Marshall, representing ALF unions the fishing industry He dis agreed with Arnold's figures that half the Alaska salmon pack is caught by trap Records show, Marshall said, that 37 per cent of the fish is now trap taken. Also, he argued, industry claims regarding superior quality of trap-caught fish ave not been proved.
 The industry, he said, is opposed to a referendum on traps because it is "a foregone conclusion" that the voice of the people" will favor trap elimination. It will then be a matter for Congress, he added, With his own view that the amend ment won't make much difference.
 Marshall took exception to other Arnold arguments with, in effect. these statements:
 Other types of gear can be used in any area where traps are now eing used; boats can go out farth- CT than traps.
 The catch of the average trap peesents the catch of Is to 20 boats; the need for boats to re- lace them will give rise to boat works industry and also discussed a textile industry for the weav- ing of nets.
 Filing used in traps, at least to the Westward, is imported; most of the wire used in traps also is imported
 Every union organization in the fishing industry is for abolition of traps; the purpose of the referen- dum is not to direct how a resource should be developed but is to find out what is best for the future ol Alaska.
 LCsv Exaggerated
 The amount Of investment that would be lost by trap elimination ildo DtSil tAdSSSidtC d tldp Payo for itself in one year. In reply to the same question that Senator Brownell had directed to Anold regarding the possible use the industry could make of amend ment to 10 years for the abolition period, Marshall answered that he , thinks any time" is out of place in the referendum Five years, how , ever, is the maximum period de- , sired by fishermen; why not give choice of years or 10 years, he , suggested.
 Senator L. P. Dawes pointed to , taxes paid for trap licenses. How much tax would be paid by the fishermen? Dawes asked
 Senator Edward D. Coffey then 9 took up the revenue phase, asking: t Have you any thought as to how ]. the Territory could he compensated q for lest revenue?'
 '. Marshall answered that he be- t lieves fishermen contemplate that T they may have to pay more tax