salmon fish traps in alaska: some historical perspectives steve colt uaa institute of social and...
TRANSCRIPT
Salmon Fish Traps in Alaska:Some Historical Perspectives
Steve ColtUAA Institute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska Anchorage28 October 2002
2
Salmon Fish Traps:• How many were used?• Where?• What did they cost?• How efficient were they?• Why were they banned?• What were the immediate
consequences of the ban?
3
Aboriginal Use
• 76,000 Natives taking 33 million lbs of salmon
• Tlingit-Haida: property rights to streams, vested with family or clan, with secondary market
• Natives used dams and weirs, e.g., across Stikine River
Sources: Hewes 1957, Price 1990, Rogers 1960
4
In-Stream Fixed Gear (cont.)
• Russians in Southeast also used in-stream fixed gear
• Full-width stream fencing banned in 1889
• Fixed gear in streams and bays banned in 1906
5
How Many Were Used?Number of Fish Traps, 1906-59
(data gaps before 1927)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1906
1908
1913
1923
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
Reduction by regulation
6
How many were used?Productivity of Fish Traps, 1906-59
(data gaps before 1927)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
1906
1908
1913
1923
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
avg physical product,fish/trapavg revenue product,1967$/trapnumber of traps
7
Where were they used?
• Between 60-75% Southeast• Between 25-40% Central• Very few (<6) in Western region
Source: Scudder 1970
8
What did they cost?Pile-Driven and Floating Traps
•Pile-Driven cost more, had to be re-driven each yr., but stronger1948: 110 pile, 261 floaters
9
What did they Cost?Direct cost in today’s $$ per
trap:
Best-guess High end
Up-front $48,000 $124,000
Recurring Capital $55,000 $62,000
Labor $6,000 $6,000
Annualized at 8% capital recovery factor
$65,000 $78,000
Source: Colt 2000, based on calculations from numerous sources and personal interview with C. Asplund
10
What did they cost? Indirect Costs
• Siting: dry-hole and siting costs cited at $300,000 per trap in today’s dollars for a series of 11 traps (Philip MacBride, Hearings on S. 1446, p. 27)
• Transportation to next processing stage
11
What did they cost?Indirect benefits
• Quality (esp. before ice tenders)• Traps did not go on strike• Exclusion of other gear – no traps
within one mile and no boats within 300 feet…in theory.
12
How Efficient?
13
How Efficient?Profits per Trap
2001$
(60,000)
(40,000)
(20,000)
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
Best-Guess
High-Cost
14
CAVEAT!
Actual not Optimal
• These estimates are based on the actual deployment of traps, not the economically optimal deployment.
15
Why were they banned?
• Replaced cannery labor and seiners labor in general
• Replaced Native labor:– “The cannery owners do not hire as
many natives as they did a few years ago, but instead they are putting in what they call fish traps, and these traps require very few laborers…” (quoted in Price p. 64)
16
Why were they banned?• “The very quintessence of absenteeism”
(Rogers 1960)
• Alaska Native Brotherhood Platform, 1922:
Equality of Natives before the lawEqual rights and privileges
Equal schoolsAbolition of fish trapsA political convention
Use of one language (English)One COUNTRY, ONE FLAG.
(quoted in Price (1990), p. 91)
17
Why were they banned?The Alaska Salmon Catch, 1896-1980
-
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
18
96
19
00
19
04
19
08
19
12
19
16
19
20
19
24
19
28
19
32
19
36
19
40
19
44
19
48
19
52
19
56
19
60
19
64
19
68
19
72
19
76
19
80
mill
ion
s o
f fis
h
red
pink
all
All salmon (ma(5))
18
Why were they banned?
Senator Moore: “The claim is made -- and it looks rather a reasonable thing to us -- that if you eliminated the trap you would be eliminating the most efficient operation up there.…”
19
Delegate Bartlett: “That, I think, Mr. Chairman, is the desire of the people of Alaska -- for the simple reason that they feel that the trap is too efficient. It is like other things in this world that are regulated and governed sometimes out of existence because they do away with employment.”
U.S. Senate, Hearings on S. 1446, 1948, p. 113
20
Why were they Banned?Total Profits from Traps
millions of 2001$
(40.0)(30.0)(20.0)(10.0)
-10.020.030.040.050.0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
Best-Guess
High-Cost
21
What Happened after the ban?
• Prediction from Industry:“the overall catch would fall....There
are very basic reasons why the industry cannot exist in its present economic condition without the stabilizing factor raw supply which comes from the use of fish traps.”
Source: W.C. Arnold, chief industry lobbyist, in Hearings on S. 1446,
p. 85
22
What Happened after the ban?
• Prediction from Politicians:“The abolition of fish traps and the
rebuilding of the salmon runs will eventually provide employment for 7,500 additional independent fishermen, supporting 22,000 or more persons directly and as many more indirectly. .”
Source: Statement of Bob Bartlett, Hearings on HR 1515, 1949, p. 108
23
What Happened after the ban?
• Prediction from Sec’y of Interior:“the elimination of fish traps will
unquestionably mean that the use of other forms of gear will be intensified and eventually will nullify any benefit that might accrue from trap elimination.”
Source: Statement of Julius Krug, Secretary of the Interior, in Hearings on HR 1515, p. 2
24
What Happened after the ban?
• Purse seiner fleet up 45%• At pre-ban productivity levels, new
catch equaled old catch – a perfect substitution of boat fishing effort for trap fishing effort
• # of fishermen up by 6,000 –– from 11,000 to 17,000
25
What Happened After Ban?
Alaska Total Salmon Catch and Non-Trap Fishing Effort, 1955-1970 (index values)
0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
catch
fishers
boats
catch_per_boat
traps abolished
26
• How many traps? About 400• Where? 60% in SE• What was Cost? About $70,000 per
trap per yr (2001$)• How Efficient? Saved 10% of EVV• Why Banned? Us vs. Them• What happened? 6,000 more fishers
45% more seiners
Summary
27
• Read the Complete Paper at:www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu
Look under “fisheries”