But when they come to work, how much money they are going to have after the season is over they don't know, and most of them are broke before the first of the year, so if they ever can get bargaining rights so they can deal with the employer that would be a big help for themselves and feed their families.

That's all I have now.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, Oscar, some people say they are not entitled to this because they aren't employees but they share in the proceeds of the boat's take and they don't get wages and so why should they be allowed to bargain collectively as this bill would permit them to do.

Mr. ERICKSEN. My position is this: What do you share when you don't get anything for your share?

I believe most of the fishermen would be happy to hear that they can get minimum price as far as their share is concerned. Share and working for a living is the same thing.

Of course, working on a boat is the worst labor work that you have. It is worse than labor ashore because you have no place to sleep. You cook in the same place where you live, and so on.

I'm standing on this: That a share is the same thing as wages and employment, work. It is the same as labor ashore.

Senator BARTLETT. You say they really are employees? It is just a difference in the way they are paid?

Mr. ERICKSEN. Difference in the way they are paid. That's correct. That's the only way I can see it.

Senator BARTLETT. All right, Oscar.

Mr. Foster, do you have any questions.
Mr. FOSTER. No questions.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Oscar. Thank you for appearing and being the first witness at this Ketchikan hearing.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Now I would like to say a little bit about other things, about fishing, if I can do it later on.

Senator BARTLETT. You had better do it now, I think, although I think we had better foreclose any discussion-and I am not saying this only to you, Oscar

Mr. ERICKSEN. No, no.

Senator BARTLETT. But to everyone here, let's not talk about anything relating strictly to State administration. The Congress has nothing to do with that anymore anyway.

But anything else, shoot. So go ahead, Oscar.

Mr. ERICKSEN. I think for us to build up a salmon run and any other fisheries we have to cooperate first with other States. And of course we have done it so far pretty well with other States of the United States.

Senator BARTLETT. Could I interrupt you there, Oscar?

Mr. ERICKSEN. Yes.

Senator BARTLETT. I want to ask you if you know the bill I introduced became law the other day permitting Alaska to join with the other Pacific coast States in this effort to conserve and preserve salmon?

Mr. ERICKSEN. I overlooked that. I haven't seen that.

Senator BARTLETT. I just thought I would call it to your attention. It went through the Congress with no opposition naturally at all.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Well, then, I must drop it.

Senator BARTLETT. No, no, go ahead. I just put that in.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Because we have to cooperate first with the States and then with foreign countries. If you don't do that, we get run

over.

And like you said a while ago, we are No. 5. We used to be No. 1. And Japan, and most likely Russia and China, are way above us.

If we don't cooperate with foreign nations, they can run wild. They are doing it already, running wild, and they will do that because they don't care. They are allowed to fish outside of the 3-mile limit. And by the way, now, when I am talking about the limit, you got the telegram once from the chamber of commerce to recommend to the Geneva Conference about the 12-mile limit, didn't you? Do you remember?

Senator BARTLETT. How long ago?

Mr. FOSTER. That was some time ago.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Some time ago. That was sent from the Chamber of Commerce of Ketchikan. I was the one that made the motion, and I had a pretty hard fight to get that through, because my intention was to send it directly to Geneva and, of course, a copy to you. But that didn't work, so we had to change that to make an amendment to it, so we sent it to you.

I understand you wired it over to Geneva at that time.
Senator BARTLETT. Oh, yes. A long time ago, yes.
Mr. ERICKSEN. That is quite a while ago.

Senator BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Of course, the way it looks now we need more than 6 miles or 12 miles. At least to the Continental Shelf. If we had that 10 years ago, I don't think we would have had much trouble with fishing, and I don't think we would have stayed very far behind the rest of the nations.

That's all.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Oscar. Thank you for your contribution.

I should mention, in addition to saying that the hearings opened in Seattle yesterday all devoted to this one bill, that from here we are going on to Petersburg, hold a hearing there, next to Anchorage, and wind up at Dillingham on Friday.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Well, I am hoping that every fisherman is testifying regarding your bill, because I think it is a good bill.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

Nils Nelson.

STATEMENT OF N. E. NELSON, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA

Mr. NELSON. In this particular committee you can open up anything that has to do on a national basis in connection with fisheries? Isn't that correct?

Senator BARTLETT. Surely.

Mr. NELSON. Well, due to the terrific influx of foreign fishing vessels in the State of Alaska waters or adjacent to the State's waters, it is very important that the 3-mile limit be extended to a 12-mile limit, with this so-called base line, which the way it has been explained to me will give us more actually in some areas than just 12 miles.

I'm not too familiar with it, but I do know—

Senator BARTLETT. I think that is right.

Mr. NELSON. That countries in this world have adopted this system and went through the World Court with it and won out.

As I understand it, Russia has recognized that particular limit for fisheries purposes.

Senator BARTLETT. Which limits, Nils?

Mr. NELSON. The 12-mile limit.

But, as you know, we do not have it in the United States proper, nor do we have it in Álaska.

The Alaska State Fish and Game Commission has officially asked for a limit to be extended to 12 miles for the purpose of conservation and regulation. It is a very important thing not only in salmon but in any other species of fish that is in the Pacific Ocean.

Therefore, I urge you to do all in your power to see that this limit be extended to at least 12 miles. That is what they have asked for, what the State has asked for.

It is going to help out not only in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak, Alaska, or the Aleutian Chain, but right here in our own neighborhood in time to come. There is no question in my mind about that.

I have one more subject, and on this one here I have to ask you a question.

I am not too familiar with this so-called Magnuson bill, the subsidy bill, the building of fishing boats. I have had some briefing on it, but I still don't get it.

Is this on a straight across-the-board proposition of subsidy or is it specifically for some specific type of boats?

If it is straight across the board, I would be opposed to it for the simple reason we have too many boats now. We do not have fish. enough to support the boats and the gear and equipment we already have in the field.

Senator BARTLETT. May I interrupt you there?

Mr. NELSON. Yes; go ahead.

Senator BARTLETT. One purpose of the amended bill which is designed to replace the original law is to take care of just this situation, Nils. It is to provide for the retirement from the fleet of some of the older outmoded vessels which aren't truly competitive in the American fleet and surely not competitive with some of the foreign competition in a manner best designed not to hurt the owners of those vessels but to permit them to get newer ones, more modern ones, better ones, and lay up the old ones.

This is just like they do in the subsidy program for the merchant marine fleet. They constantly strive to modernize, to improve, and put the old ones in the mothball fleet.

This is one reason for offering an amended bill, to do just this, because you are right that if you just use a lot of new ones in addition. to the old ones the situation would get worse instead of better.

Mr. NELSON. Well, on the other hand, if this subsidy was along the lines of putting bigger vessels into the field in competition with foreign nations to establish a historical right in the fisheries anywhere in the Gulf or the Bering Sea in Alaska in relation to the State of Alaska's waters, then I would go for it, for the simple reason—I have

said this 2 years ago and I will repeat it-that we will eventually see allocation of fisheries on the high seas within 25 years due to the tremendous effort that all nations in the world now are practically putting into it.

Just to give you an example, no one in the 1920's ever thought that there would ever be an allocation in the whaling industry in the Antarctic. Just look at what it is today.

The same thing is going to happen throughout the world with this tremendous effort and pressure brought on our fisheries. There is no question about it.

Now, if this subsidy was given to vessels of that type that could go out there in direct competition with these foreign nations in order for us to establish historical rights, sure, then I would go for it, because we are behind the eight ball whenever these allocations take place, because we do not have this.

In the 1920's, yes, we had codfish in the Bering Sea. We never caught what we called the scrap-fish variety of fish.

So if that was the thought behind it, I would be all for it.

That's all I have. Thank you.

Senator BARTLETT. Just a moment. Would you please give your mailing address?

Mr. NELSON. My address is 2520 Third Avenue, Ketchikan, N. E. Nelson.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you.

The next witness is Robert Lindsey.

Mr. GEORGE ANDERSON. Robert is out of town.

Senator BARTLETT. I know it. In fact, he was down at the hearings in Seattle yesterday morning, and we couldn't get to him. I thought he would be there to testify yesterday afternoon, but he did not appear. So let me say here that anyone who sees him on his return can tell him that he can submit a statement in writing.

The record is going to be held open for 1 month for supplementary statements or for brandnew statements, and these should be sent to Mr. William C. Foster, 248 Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. They will be placed in the printed hearings just as if they were delivered.

Jim Pinkerton.

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. PINKERTON, MANAGER, KETCHIKAN COLD STORAGE CO., KETCHIKAN, ALASKA

Mr. PINKERTON. My name is James G. Pinkerton. I am manager of the Ketchikan Cold Storage Co.

Senator BARTLETT. What is your mailing address, please?

Mr. PINKERTON. Box 1309, Ketchikan.

Senator, it is a pleasure to be here to contribute what I can to this hearing.

Now, I would like to ask if there are any questions the Senator would like to ask.

Senator BARTLETT. No; we will try to develop some questions later. You just go ahead and make a statement, and some questions may flow from that.

Mr. PINKERTON. I would like to say that I feel that our fisheries are in dire need of development in areas not heretofore exploited. I make reference here to bottom fishing.

There have been statements made that there is not sufficient bottom fish available in Alaskan waters and adjoining waters to support such a fishery. I believe that theory has been proven wrong by the production being taken by the Japanese and Russian fleets, which, according to the most recent information made available to me by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, now exceeds 1 million tons per year, a large portion of which is utilized for food fish.

Now, I can think of no better way at this time to improve the economy of Alaska than to establish a bottom fishery to harvest these fish and to put them on the American market in competition with imported bottom fish fillets and fish blocks.

Now, this might require a certain amount of Federal assistance in construction of the vessels. You know on the east coast they are able to get one-third subsidy if the vessel takes more than 51 percent of its catch in one of either five or six species of bottom fish. That includes cod, haddock, and perch that I know of specifically. And it has to be Atlantic perch.

Now, we need assistance for machinery and for vessel construction and for training of the necessary crews and shore personnel to get into this type of fishery.

I would like to inquire of the Senator whether or not he thinks we should proceed toward this development.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, you reverse the role. I was supposed to be mute. But I don't mind answering that. I most assuredly do, Jim, and my only fear is we may be coming to a realization of the need for this somewhat belatedly, because the discouraging fact is that we have established no historical fishery in this situation, and since that is the case we can't make an exclusive claim.

But, nevertheless, I think we must step out boldly and with imagination and competitively with any nation that wants to face us.

Mr. PINKERTON. Those thoughts are in accord with what I have been thinking, that if we can get the facilities, the machinery and shoreside facilities and the vessels which can operate alongside the Japanese and the Russians, we will take our chances in harvesting this fish both for food and for fish meal and fish oils.

I dont' think there will be a great deal of profit in it to begin with, but at least we will be providing more nearly year-round employment for our people who are now engaged in the fishing industry some 4 or 5 months per year.

Senator BARTLETT. How do you think the American market would respond to these species of fish? Let me ask you that, Mr. Pinkerton. Mr. PINKERTON. I believe there is an excellent demand. I have made some surveys lately in connection with perch, and as far east as Chicago there is a good market for perch, Pacific Ocean perch.

With the coming of our ferry system and daily transportation out of Alaska becoming available in a manner not heretofore available, we will be in a position to provide food-that is, fish-to the tables of the population centers as far east as Chicago.

Senator BARTLETT. What kind of ground fish are available and which would be the most easily exploitable commercially?