salmon fish traps in alaska: some historical perspectives steve colt uaa institute of social and...

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”