The Daily Alaska empire., 1951-04-04
PROTEST I5 RADI0ED TO
 5E(Y. INT.
Drastic Objection Made 10 Proposals -Rejeefment
 Is Strongly Urged

Addressed to Oscar Chapman, Secretary of Interior, protest was radioed today regarding DFA fish, ing regulations. The wired commun- ication is as follows.
 Alaska Fisheries Board consisting of five Alaskans representing resi- dent fishermen. packers and gen. eral public and all confirmed by Territorial Legislature today unan- imously adopted following state ment. We protest Alaska salmon concentration plan proposed by De- fense Fisheries Administration. As good American citizens we want to make it clear we are in favor of any plan which would really con- tribute to the defense effort but we insist from our intimate knowledge of the Alaska situation that this proposal would in no way do so. AS the official body established to speak for all Alaskans in fish, cries matters we emphatically pro- test entrusting decisions governing Alaska commercial fisheries to Deputy Defense Fisheries Adminis- trator who has no background in ac- tual fishing and operating problems but only in unrelated selling and brokerage activities.
 We further protest method adopt ed of formulating proposals for Alaska on basis only of meetings held in Seattle with virtually no representation on recommending committees by bonafide Alaskans. l Actually the committees were stacked with nonresident packers and alleged representatives of fish ermen likewise nonresident or non- representative. The proposals which resulted reflect their selfish point of view only. It is our conviction after reviewing recommendations that the proposals for Bristol Bay, Cook Inlet and Alaska Peninsula, will not result in any savings oi manpower or equipment in 1851 but will under the guise of doing so give the resident interests complete control over this Alaska industry in those areas.
 Any manpower or equipment os- tensibly saved will actually be left stranded where it will not be able to contribute in the slightest to na- tional production efforts. There is no alternative offered under the arbitrary concentration plan to channel into other use in the in- terest of the defense effort. Moreover proposal comes so sud- denly and so late in season that equipment and supplies are already on hand for normal fishing during l95l. Improper use of the escape clause for hardship cases could readily lead to favoritism, chiseling and confusion.
 Already discrimination as between fishing areas is demonstrated by the proposal to limit the plan to but three specific areas. However laudable may be the objective of curtailed fishing effort in these areas for conservation purposes this so-called concentration plan is not a legitimate means of effecting such curtailment and is certain to be challenged in the courts. With in the departments existing auth ority means are available for attain ing the same objeetives legally If such are deemed advisable. Using as base year 1850 or in one case l949 would affect unfairly new resi- dents of Alaska who in some cases have in good faith equipped and prepared themselves to fish these areas under normal conditions.
 Plan differs basically from World War II Alaska salmon concentra- tion plan in which materials and manpower were saved through con- solidation of the actual canning operation but no attempt was made to limit fishing effort. On the con- trary every incentive was given for maximum production by the fish erman This new proposal appears to us to be nothing but disguised effort to wipe out gains which res- ident Alaskans have made painfully and slowly over recent years thru the legitimate means of obtaining needed changes in the fisheries regulations promulgated by your department pursuant to hearings.
 These are only a few of our more