CONTENTdm
British Columbia Historical Books Collection
Political economy series
Innis, Harold A. (Harold Adams), 1894-1952
Carrothers, W. A., 1889-1951
"[Political economy series, no. 10] Chapter 2: The fisheries to 1900 [p.5-16] Throughout the book, there is considerable statistical information for the pre-1900 period."-- Lowther, B. J., & Laing, M. (1968). A bibliography of British Columbia: Laying the foundations, 1849-1899. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, p. 196. "(University of Toronto. Political economy series, no. 10). History of salmon, halibut and other B.C. fisheries."-- Edwards, M. H., Lort, J. C. R., & Carmichael, W. J. (1975). A bibliography of British Columbia: Years of growth, 1900-1950. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, p. 66.
xv, 136, [1], pages : tables, advertisements ; 24 cm
application/pdf
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES By W. A. CARROTHERS With a Foreword by H. A. INNIS THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS TORONTO, CANADA 1941 -J POLITICAL ECONOMY SERIES, No. 10 London: HUMPHREY MILFORD Oxford University Press Copyright, Canada, 1941 Printed in Canada FOREWORD rT1HIS volume is significant in its contributions to an under- standing of the problems of the fisheries of the Pacific coast of North America, which followed from efforts to apply administrative machinery developed in relation to the demands of the fisheries of the Atlantic coast. In the British North America Act, fisheries were placed under the jurisdiction of the federal government for the purpose of securing effective financial support for protection against encroachment from American fishing vessels within the three-mile limit, and against smuggling incidental to encroachment and a federal tariff. The administration of the fisheries by the federal government was sufficiently effective to prove important in securing the Washington Treaty (1873-85) which enabled Canadian vessels to carry their fish to American ports, and secured direct pecuniary advantage in the Halifax Award. On the other hand, continued insistence of Canadians on their rights contributed to the termination of the Washington Treaty and to the international controversies which followed, Problems arising from the Atlantic fisheries had implications for the Pacific. The Pacific coast fisheries differed sharply in character from the Atlantic fisheries with the result that machinery effective for the latter was inadequate for the former. Cod was significant to the Atlantic, salmon to the Pacific. The cod and other Atlantic fish were taken by hook in inshore waters and on the banks, the salmon on the Pacific by nets and seines near the mouths of rivers. The Atlantic fish were cured by salt or handled fresh by the fishermen, the salmon were chiefly canned at points near the fishing areas. The jmiform character of the product facilitated the amplication ofrnachinery. The Pacific coast fishery developed along different lines1 from that of thp AtTanrir. On the* Pacific xThere were evidences of borrowing in that those first interested in canning came from New Brunswick. About 1900, G. Robertson introduced a hand-laid sturgeon twine from Labrador to take the place of linen twine. The main j developments were indigenous to the Pacific coast. The Columbia River boat*' proved more satisfactory in setting nets. The purse-seine was introduced about 1904. Its effectiveness was enormously enhanced by the use of the gasoline engine, which made it possible to close the seines much more quickly. Five" "iron Chinks" were installed in British Columbia canneries in 1906. The rotary cutter and the filling machine greatly increased the speed of the processes. Cans were lacquered by machinery after 1901. Double cooking ceased after 1898. THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES 1 coast the inshore and river fisheries were important, whereas on I the Atlantic coast the offshore fisheries on the banks were important. I In a sense the trend of development in the Atlantic was toward the sea and on the Pacific toward the land. The importance of the • land involved problems of jurisdiction between province and Dominion and between state and federal government which were not evident in fisheries dominated by the sea. The sheltered waters of the Pacific coast and the habits of the Pacific salmon in returning to the important rivers to spawn favoured the concentration of a large aboriginal population at strategic points along the coast. Salmon as a basic food left an indelible stamp on the aboriginal culture.2 European fur traders from the East followed up the rivers of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains and obtained a slight hold on the fur trade of the Pacific coast drainage basin by dependence on the salmon which penetrated to the upper reaches of its rivers. They began to compete with the Indian villages at the mouths of the rivers which served as channels for the trade in furs to the interior and to vessels which traded at these points along the coast. The Hudson's Bay Company attempted to organize the trade around a central depot at Fort Vancouver on the Columbia River and to check the flow from the interior to the Indian coastal villages and the coasting vessels, but, failing in this, it began the systematic construction of forts, such as Fort Langley on the Fraser and Fort Simpson on the Naas River. It gradually obtained a position in which it could take advantage of the complex trade of the American coasting vessels, and salt-cured salmon was exported from Fort Langley to the ^Hawaiian Islands. The salmon fishery was an imporJaiiEjcte^erm The rapid influx of population which followed the gold rush to British Columbia in the late fifties brought an important domestic market for salmon. The decline in yield of the gold fields compelled population to turn to the exploitation of other resources, notably the forests and the fisheries, for the production of exports. I The canning industry was established on the Fraser River in the seventies and the foundations were laid for rapid expansion after* completion of transcontinental railways to the northwest Pacific states and British Columbia, with access to the markets of the 2See Clark Wissler, The American Indian (New York, 1917), pp. 14-16 and passim. J? ♦ ' mm FOREWORD vii East and of Great Britain. A commodity based on abundant natural resources and with high food value withstood the heavy freight charges of long distances by rail and water. From the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the turn of the century, the industry was characterized by small j r regionalized units3 chiefly centring on the Fraser River. Tech- nique was limited in character and capital demands were relatively small. The drift gill net was introduced on the Fraser as early as 1875 and in the delta by 1885. The industry was exposed to the ^ full impact of low prices, especially in the depression of the nineties, and bankruptcies were numerous. Canners were dependent on agents who supplied twine nets, tin plate, and other goods, and disposed of the canned product, charging 5 per cent commission \ on both transactions, and few firms escaped their domination. The period was characterized by rapid and haphazard development.4 8See infra, pp. 7-10. Also spg Q. W. Frfprpanr "Salmon Industry of the Pacific Coast'' (Economic Geography. April. 1935). 4Findlay, Durham, and Brodie (British Columbia Canning Company of London, England) built a cannery on Deas Island in 1873 and organized the Delta Canning Company in 1878. Holbrook and Company purchased a cannery at Sapperton, that used by Captain Edward Stamp, in 1872. The company disappeared in 1879. In 1877 English and Company and Finlayson and Lane' started canneries, the latter succeeded by Lane, Pike, and Nelson, in 1878, but lasting only to 1879. Haigh and Sons built a cannery at Coquitlam in 1879, but the firm was reorganized and taken over by the B<5n Accord Company in 1884. King and Company started a cannery in 1878 but it was burned in 1880. The floating cannery of J. Spratt, started in 1883, disappeared after a couple of years. Adair and Company (Wellington Packing Company) began operations in 1880 and Laidlaw and Company in 1881. British Union Packing Company (Harlock), the British American and J. H. Todd^and Sons (Richmond) started in 1882. The Holly Cannery on Lulu Island built in 1887, was largely destroyed by tide£ Fj*£**3 in 1894. A plant built by H. Croasdale on the Naas River in 1881 was dismantled after four years because of its inaccessibility to steamers, and moved to Naas Harbor. The Douglas Packing Company plant, built in 1882 in the same region, was operated for two years and in 1888 moved to Mill Bay. The Cascade Packing Company plant, built in 1889, was dismantled in 1893. A plant built at Metlakatla in 1882 by the Rev. John Duncan was dismantled in 1886, and a plant built at Smith's Inlet by John Rood in 1883 was moved to Wannuck, Rivers Inlet, in the following year. A plant at Bute Inlet, built by C. S. Windsor and G. Hobson in 1890, was operated for one season. In 1892 it was claimecT] that only Findlay, Durham, and Brodie, R. P. Ritchie and Company, J. H. Todd and Sons, and A. Ewen and Company had sufficient capital. In that year the Anglo-British Columbia Packing Company acquired a number of canneries from weak firms, including the British Columbia Packing Company (Annieville), I THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES Difficulties^ in the depression of the nineties, and low prices incidental to the large run of salmon in 1901, hastened the growth T5fiaTge~organizations and led to demands tor amalgamation? The un^rovement in technique in Lfe~rrse~^f"th^^u7s^ and the JntroductiorTof the iron chink mad^ greater demands for capital, 'IrnlTprovidedlTTarger supply oFfish with the result that the British Columbia Packers' Association (British Columbia Fishing and Packing Company, Ltd., 1914) was formed in 1901 to acquire 29 ; of a total of 48 plants on the Fraser River5 and 12 in northern British Columbia.6 It closed down 19 canneries. The Anglo- British Columbia Packing Company also extended its numbers.7 Other smaller groups emerged in the regions to the north.8 Wadhams (1883), British American Packing Company (1882), Canoe Pass Canning Compaffy, Duncan and Batchelor (Britannia), English and Company (Phoenix), the British American (1883), and the North Pacific (1889), the two laTtef on* the Skeena River. (See J. N. Cobb, Pacific Salmon Fisheries (Bureau of Fisheries Document 1092, Washington, 1930); also G. G. Strong, "The Salmon Canning Industry in British Columbia" (unpublished essay in University of British Columbia Library, 493^J. 5These included Ewen and Company, Delta, Harlock, Wellington, Lulu Island, Terra Nova, Pacific Coast, Canadian Pacific, Short and Squair (Imperial), Brunswick (Steveston and Canoe P'ass), Dinsmore Island, Sea Island, Fisherman's Packing Company, Reliance, Atlas, Boutiliar, Hume, Anglo-American, Provincial, Westham Island, Westminster Packing Company, Premier, Cleve, Welsh Bros., Currie, McWilliams and Fowler, Colonial, Greenwood, Wurzburg and Company, Aeme. 6It bought the Balmoral (1883), Cunningham (1883), and Standard (1890) canneries in 1902. The Alexandra (1904) and the Dominion (1906), all on the Skeena River, were purchased later, and also canneries at Alert Bay built by D. A. Spencer in 1881, at Bella Coola built by John Clayton in 1900, and at Lowe Inlet, all in 1902. The China Hat cannery, built by Toms, Morris and Fraser, was bought and dismantled. On Rivers Inlet, canneries at Wannuck built in 1884 and at Vancouver in 1897, were acquired and dismantled and Wadhams, built in 1897 and Brunswick in 1896, were acquired and enlarged.- The plant built by Henry Croasdale in 1881 and moved to Naas Harbor in 1888, was purchased by B.C. Packers' Association in 1912. 7In 1911 it purchased the Pacific Northern (built in 1903 and sold to John Wallace in 1905 and moved to Arrandale), the Port Nelson Canning and Salting Company cannery built in 1905, and the Glendale Cove Cannery (built at Knight Inlet in 1907 and moved to Glendale Cove in 1910). Wallace Bros. Packing Company (Wallace Fisheries, Ltd., 1911) purchased the Claxton cannery (1892) on the Skeena River in 1899 and the Strathcona cannery (1906), built by Bain and Wilson on Rivers Inlet, in 1911. They built a cannery at Naden Harbor in 1912 but moved it to Masset Inlet in 1919. They FOREWORD ix Still further^ improvements in technique with the. use of Diesel engines favoured large-scale operations after the War. Decline in[ the sockeye run on the Fraser after 1913 hastened the trend toward^ large control and toward development of the northern regions. In xv£he prosperous period of the twenties large capital organizations were formed. The British Columbia Fishing and Packing Company, which had absorbed British Columbia Canning Company in 1923, and Wallace Fisheries, Ltd., in 1926, and Gosse-Millerd Packing Company,9 were absorbed by British Columbia Packers, Ltd., formed in 1928. It had control of 3.9 canneries, 5 reduction plants, and 3 cold-storage plants. At the same time the Canadian FisEing Company, Ltd., a subsidiary of the New England Fish Company, owned 17 canneries, 3 salteries, 4 mild cure stations, 6 cold storage plants, and 3 reduction plants. It purchased plants of Western Packers, Ltd.,10 in 1923 and of Northern British Columbia Fisheries, Ltd.,11 in 1926. Maritime Fisheries, Ltd.,12 and Weste/n Salmon Packing Company13 were smaller organizations. Trip tendency towarH amalgamation was in part a reflection of the problems of the fishery which followed decline on the Fraser River. It was part of a movement involving a shiftf rom the more val liable to less valuable species of salmon^from less valuable to bought the Wm. Hickey Canning Company plant (1902) on Smiths Inlet in 1912 and the Dawson and Buttimer plant (1903) at Alberni Canal in 1911. They built a cannery at Quatsino Sound in 1911 but dismantled it in 1914. 9The Gosse-Millerd Packing Company built plants at Sunnyside in 1916 and at San Mateo in 1919. It purchased a cannery at Bella Bella (1912) in 1915 which was burned in 1923. It purchased the Captain Cove Canning Company on the Skeena and the Nitinat Packers, Ltd., in 1927 and took over the Somerville Canning Company and Canadian Fish and Cold Storage plant at Prince Rupert. 10Western Packers built a plant at Marguerite Bay in 1917 and in the same year purchased a cannery at Warke Island (built in 1911 by Joljinr Wallace to pack Gardiner Canal fish) and at Shushartis Bay. uIt acquired canneries at Namu (1893) and Kimsquit (1901) built by Robert Draney (Draney Fisheries, Ltd., 1912) in 1918. They also purchased a Tallheo Fisheries, Ltd., cannery (1917) and the Mill Bay cannery (that of the Douglas Packing Company, built on Naas River, 1882, operated two years and moved to Mill Bay in 1888, sold to Kincolith Packing Company, 1908) in the same year. They also built new plants at Kumeon and at Port Edward and purchased the Skeena River Commercial Company plant at Port Essington. 12It purchased a plant at Aliford Bay (1912) in 1917 from the bankrupt British Columbia Fisheries, Ltd. It built a plant at Haysport in 1919. 13It built plants at Lagoon Bay and at Summerville in 1918. THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES more valuable processes, i.e. canning to fresh fish, from salmon to other species of fish, and from the Fraser River to other regions, fn 1902 sock-eye"Tonstitnted 85 per cent of the pack and in 1933 about 20 per cent. Cohoes becameln^re-importarrt afteT~T900. Churns whicfi^were canned for the first time in 1899 were 23 per cent of the pacjc in 1933 and pinks increased from about 5 per cent in 1902 to 42 per cent in 1933. Spring salmon also increased in importance. Severe fluctuations on the Fraser incidental to a long-run decline and to the importance of the "big run" were offset by steadier supplies in other regions, especially after 1913. Increasing reliance on cheaper brands of salmon compelled dependence on lower income and less dependable markets. The broker,14 handling over three-quarters of the pack, was in a stronger position. .Competition from Siberia, Japan, and the United States was felt more acutely, particularly as the domestic market in Canada was limited and in sharp contrast with that in the United States. A large proportion of the total pack was sold in the export market. Con- servationmeasures enhanced the burden of the canneries in reducing the time in which salmon could be taken and in restricting the use of more efficient methods, particularly of traps, while increased mechanization added to the overhead costs. In the Fraser River area the important position of the independent fishermen enabled the canneries to shift a part of the burden of overhead costs, but in other regions, canneries, in addition to substantial investments and commitments in advance necessary to take full advantage of the short season, gave more extensive credits to outfit the fishermen. Independent fishermen in the Fraser River and Gulf of Georgia regions sold the product in a competitive market and in the north prices were arranged between representatives of the fishermen and the canning companies. These labour costs in the northern part of the province on the other hand accentuated the use of machinery. The problem of labour has been closely interwoven with the problem of control. The Privy Council's decision in 1898 permitted 14The broker played an important role in maintaining standards. He purchased the cans at a fixed price minus 5 per cent as brokerage and one-half per cent for claims. When he added the label he was allowed 20 cents per can half flats and 15 cents for one of "tails," i.e. tall cans. .The label "sockeye" was apparently introduced by the Bell-Irving Company in 1894-5. FOREWORD foothjthc p^^vince^jid^jth^Dominion to impose licences on the\ fishery^,. In 1Q0T_the province enacted legislation imposing licence! 'jfeps an^^rpatpn^ajSepartment ot Fisheries^ In 19U81:lie^oTrlinron 1 refused to license new canneries and limited the number of boats/ in each region, but the Act was declared ultra vires. With the! defeat of this attempt to control the number of Japanese by the Dominion, the province introduced similar legislation in 1910 and attempts were made to encourage the employment of white labour. In the post-War period the demands for restriction of Japanese fishermen became more insistent. Licences to Japanese were reduced after 1922 and they were compelled to seek employment in lumbering, agriculture, or trade.15 \On October 15, 1928, the Privy Council upheld the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision limiting the powers of the Dominion to fishing operations only. In 1930 the province introduced legislation providing for five-year licences to canneries. t The amalgamation movements of the early nineties, the earl y pnrtoL-the rmtury, nnH thr twentipp were accentuated bv increasing mechanization within the canneries and the consequent increasing demandsJ^QX-JKechajMzatten---of the primary ■ process o| taking th&iiskr~ On the one hand, this development was linked td the problem of labour and on the other, to the problem of conservation. In contrast with Nova Scotia, for example, the province16 was compelled to take an increasing interest in the fisheries. The personal element which characterized the small individual cannery became less important with the death or disinterest of families and the increasing importance of company and large-scale organization. On the other hand, the Dominion was compelled to take a more active interest in conservation which limited the supply of raw material, intensified competition, and increased the peak load of the industry and in turn the labour costs. Conservation involved co-operation with the United States, or, since the fisheries were under the control of the states rather than the federal government, with the State of Washington. The long delay in the adoption of conservation measures followed the constitutional handicap. In 15See C. H. Young, H. R. Y. Reid, and W. A. Carrothers, The Japanese Canadians (Toronto, 1938), chap. in. 16See a valuable account of the work of the Province of Quebec after securing control of its fisheries, Louis Berube, Coup d'ceil sur les pickeries de QuSbec (Ste- Anne de la Pocatiere, 1941). 1 m mm THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES the Atlantic fishery the problem of treaties concerned the federal governments of Canada and the United States; on the Pacific coast the character of the salmon fishery involved a conflict between the federal government of Canada and the State of Washington. A boundary line which had been drawn previous to the emergence of the salmon fishery on a large scale created vested interests in i the state which opposed conservation in the Dominion. The ease with which conservation measures in relation to halibut were 1 adopted by the two federal governments is in sharp contrast with ^the difficulties in the salmon industry. The delay had repercussions for the economy of British Columbia. Opposition to conservation measures in the United States accentuated the need for conservation measures in Canada. Restrictions in Canada hastened the trend toward amalgamation. In turn the problems of labour became more acute and Chinese, Japanese, and Indians dominated the industry. Legislation was designed to secure employment for the white population, and the Japanese in particular were compelled to compete in other industries. Depletion of the Fraser River salmon fishery was followed by more rapid exploitation of other resources, including other fisheries. In suggesting these developments in British Columbia the volume is intended to supplement the study by H. E. Gregory and Kathleen Barnes, North Pacific Fisheries with Special Reference to Alaska Salmon (New York, 1939). Grateful acknowledgment is here made of the support of the Institute of Pacific Relations in facilitating publication. H. A. I. TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I The Salmon Fishery page • I The Pacific Salmon 3 -II The Fisheries to 1900 5 III The Fisheries after 1900 17 IV Capital Investment 26 V Fishery Regulations in British Columbia 37 VI Treaties and Tariffs 46 VII Conservation and the Fraser River Sockeye Salmon. 63 PART II The Halibut and Other Fisheries VIII Halibut . 85 IX Herring, Pilchard, Cod, Sturgeon, and Dogfish . . . 109 X Whaling and Sealing 125 Index . . . . 135 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Salmon Canneries in Existence in British Columbia in the Season of 1890 7-10 British Columbia Salmon Canneries, 1876-98 11 Capital Equipment in the Fishing Industry in British Columbia, 1877-98 12 British Columbia Sockeye Salmon Pack, 1876-98 14 Exports of Canned Salmon—By Value and Quantity, 1873-98 15-16 Freight Payments by Dominion Government, 1909-19 . . 19 British Columbia Salmon Pack, 1899-1938 20-21 Salmon Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1899- 1938 22-23 Exports of Canned Salmon—By Value and Quantity, 1899- 1938 24-25 Extent and Value of Capital Equipment in Primary Operations in British Columbia, 1900-37 27 Boat Equipment in British Columbia, 1899-1917 28 Nets in British Columbia, 1900-37 29 Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies Incorporated, Licensed, or Registered, 1882-1939 30-31 Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies which Ceased to do Business in British Columbia, 1892-1939 32-33 Value of Total Authorized Capital and Reported Value of Shares Issued in Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies, December 31, 1939 (by place of residence of controlling stock) 34 Value of Total Authorized Capital and Reported Value of Shares Issued in Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies, December 31, 1939 (by location of head office) 35 Number of Salmon Licences Issued in British Columbia, 1912-37 41 Customs Duties, 1865—Colony of British Columbia ... 55 Customs Duties, 1867—Colony of British Columbia ... 56 Halibut Landed in Alaska, 1907-14 93 Pacific Halibut Landings in Canadian and United States Ports, 1911-38 94 LIST OF TABLES xv Halibut Caught and Marketed—British Columbia, 1878- 1937 96 Men, Boats, and Tonnage Engaged in Pacific Halibut Fishery, 1928-37 103 Landings of Halibut by Ports for 1933 to 1939 105 Herring Oil and Meal Marketed in British Columbia, 1927- 37 Ill Canned Herring Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1915-37 113 Herring Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1884- 1910 114 Herring Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1910-37. 116-17 Pilchards Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1917- 37 119 Pilchard and Salmon Oil and Meal Marketed in British Columbia, 1926-37 120 Cod Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1888-1937 121 Sturgeon Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1880- 1937 122 Grey Fish Oil and Meal Marketed in British Columbia, 1930-37 123 Fish Oil and Fish Meal, N.E.S., Marketed in British Columbia, 1925-35 123 Total Fish Meal and Oil Marketed—British Columbia, 1921-37 124 Whale Oil and Fertilizer Marketed—British Columbia, 1905-37 126 ^Revenue Received under Pelagic Sealing Treaty, 1912-38 132 PART I THE SALMON FISHERY CHAPTER I THE PACIFIC SALMON Salmon found in Pacific waters are distinct species from those found in the Atlantic and include the sockeye, spring, cohoe, pink, andchum. These differ in appearance, average weight at matuTrrtyv composition of the flesh, and length of life. The pjnk lives only two years and weighs from three to six pounds, the average weight aT maturity being approximately four pounds. The cohoe lives three years and varies in size from five to fifteen pounds, the average weight at maturity being about six pounds. The chum lives three or four years, and its average weight is from eight to ten pounds. The sockeye lives from four to six years, and its average weight at maturity is from five to seven pounds, but fish weighing as much as twelve pounds have been caught. The spring salmon has the longest life span of^ight years. It.is the largest species, and reaches an average weight at maturity of about twenty pounds, but fish weighing one hundred pounds have been caught. Salmon are born in fresh water, but their mature life is spent in the sea; they are anadromous. Whether they go far to sea, or whether they stay near the coast, is a question which is still in doubt. When the spawning impulse comes upon them they turn their way toward a spawning ground in the river system where they themselves were spawned. Possibly, they return to the very stream where they were spawned, certainly they go back to the same system. When these migrations to the spawning grounds are in progress the fishermen make their great salmon catches. Year after year, when the migrations have begun, the fish swim along in their multitudes, in prime condition, their bodies stored with fat. The troll, the gill net, the purse seine, the trap, and the drag seine reap the harvest. The Dominion * Departmeri t~6T fisheries takes strict care to regulate fishing operations so that the salmon may reach the streams of the province in numbers sufficient to ensure adequate seeding of the spawning areas and the maintenance of future runs. Once started back to the spawning grounds from salt water the salmon takes no thought of feeding. The stored-up body fat apparently suffices them. The stomachs of the migratory salmon are always practically empty and, indeed, even free from living bacteria. Reaching the streams, the fish make their way against the current, mount rapids, by their own efforts, or perhaps, with the aid of fishways constructed and maintained by the Department of Fisheries, fight steadily onward, until they reach the spawning bed. Their store of fat has been used up in the long struggle against the current and in the formation of eggs. Some of the muscle protein and of the flesh colouring like the fat have entered into the development of the eggs. 3 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES When the spawning grounds are reached, each female salmon, guarded meanwhile by the male, deposits her eggs to the number of several thousand in a little basin which the fish scrape out in the river bed with snout and fin. When the eggs have been fertilized, the male and female fish join in covering them with gravel. The life cycle of the parent fish is ended. Unlike the Atlantic salmon, the Pacific salmon spawns but once, and death follows. One generation is dead before the next arrives. For a time, that particular "run" or family is represented only by millions of eggs tucked loosely in the gravel of a thousand mountain streams. There they lie for some time, depending upon the temperature of the water, until a tiny fish begins to form, the first thing visible being the eye. Gradually a backbone appears and then other features until a tiny fish is formed and most of the egg material has been used for food and transformed into a living fish. The little ones emerge from the gravel and seek other foods. Their enemies swarm about, and ^ large percentage fall victim to the avaricious birds, Dolly Varden trout, and other large fish. Some escape and learning from experience, become as wary and as agile as their enemies. Gradually descending the river, stopping for a while in favourable pools or lakes, they approach the ocean. Some go into the salt water when only a few months old, while others wait until their second year, when they may be six inches or even larger in size.1 xThe Salmon Fishery of British Columbia (Ottawa, 1931), p. 4; and W. A. Clemens, "Pacific Salmon in British Columbia Waters" (Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1934, p. 103). CHAPTER II THE FISHERIES TO 1900 Salmon formed the main food of the aboriginal population,1 being eaten fresh in summer and dried or smoked in winter, and were an important article in the diet of the early fur traders. Indian tribes erected barricades across the rivers, in which fish traps were constructed to interrupt the migration of the salmon to the spawning grounds and to facilitate their capture. Large quantities were taken and the existence of the salmon was so endangered that their * use by the Indians was forbidden.2 It has been estimated that the average consumption of fish by Indians in British Columbia amounted to about twenty million pounds per year: about seventeen and one-half million pounds of salmon, three million pounds of halibut, and one-quarter million pounds of sturgeon, herring, trout, and other fish, as well as eighty thousand gallons of fish oil valued at $4,885,000 in 1879, and at $3,257,000 in 1885. The Hudson's Bay Company bought salmon from the Indians on the Fraser River and preserved them by salt curing. From 1835 to j 1858 it exported yearly to the Hawaiian Islands and the continent j of Asia three to four thousand barrels of this product.3 It was also *Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1879 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 9, 1880, appendix 17, pp. 288-302). 2An inspector visiting Babine Lake and the headwaters of the Skeena River in 1904 gives an interesting description of the operations of the Indians: "The banks of the Babine river have a lovely appearance at this place and a most wonderful sight met our eyes when we beheld the immense array of dried salmon. On either side there were no less than 16 houses 30X27X8 feet filled with salmon from the top down so low that one had to stoop to get into them, and also an immense quantity of racks, filled up outside. If the latter had stood close together they would have covered acres and acres of ground, and though it was impossible to form an estimate, we judged it to be nearly three-quarters of a million fish at those two barricades, all killed before they had spawned, and though the whole tribe had been working for six weeks and a half it was a wonder that so much salmon could be massed together in that time." It was estimated that each Indian family used about one thousand salmon per year; a total for the Indian population of that district alone of about one million fish. Fish was the principal food of the multitude of dogs. Salmon were used as an article of commerce and formed a sort of legal tender, ten salmon being equivalent to a dollar. Dried salmon were sold to miners, merchants, and packers operating dog sleighs. 3The Salmon Fisheries of British Columbia (Ottawa, 1931), p. 3. See Frederick Merk, Fur Trade and Empire (Cambridge, 1939), p. 121. 5 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES / / L\V used for local consumption and was transported to various posts. Immediately following the influx of population after the gold rush, the fisheries4 expanded rapidly. In 1859, "salmon and herring twine, cod fish hooks, salmon and herring nets" were advertised for sale.5 "The sloop Leonede cleared today for the Fraser River carrying a party who intend to engage in salmon fishing at the mouth of the river. We hope to see the time when we shall be able to record the sailing of 300."6 In 1863, Captain William Spring established a salting and curing plant at Beechy Bay, and in the following year Messrs. Anaandale and Ewen commenced similar operations on the Fraser. The canning of salmon had been carried out on the* Columbia River in 1862 and on the Sacramento River in 1864. The first attempt at canning on the Fraser was begun as an experiment by James Symes in 1867, but the plant of Alexander Loggie and Company, established in 1870 at Annieville, about three miles \ below New Westminster, introduced the first commercial operations. It was almost entirely hand-operated. By 1882 there were thirteen canneries on the Fraser River, with an output of 250,000 cases. In 1889, a total of thirty-five canneries were in operation, fusing 835 boats, employing 7,158 people, and packing 473,936 cases of salmon (Table i). The industry had spread from the Fraser River northward along the coast to the Skeena,7 where the first 4"Every effort shall be made to increase our population, to foster agriculture, and to develop our mines and our fisheries and promote the interests of commerce and manufactures" (British Colonist, Dec. 11, 1858, p. 2). "No country ever had better or more valuable salmon fisheries, nor more easily developed, than our % own" (ibid., Feb. 5, 1859, p. 1). Hbid., June 29, 1859, p. 3. mid. 7"The chief fisheries of the salmon are at present on the Fraser River, near the mouth, and thence upwards as far as New Westminster. The business is prosecuted with much energy by three firms; but others purpose entering the business, and there is of course room for many more. The fish are caught by means of drift nets and are cured by either canning in a fresh state or salting in barrels. North of the Fraser, near the mouth of the Skeena River, discharging into Port Essington, another fishery has been established during the past summer. This last concern, known, I think, as the North West Fishing Company, was originated in SanFrancisco; and the capital necessary for its operations is owned, I believe, chiefly in that city and partly in Victoria" (Report of the Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, 1876, Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 5, 1877, appendix 21, p. 339). ja 13 (33 >, cc 53 o 1 U i o CtJ THE FISHERIES TO 1900 l> O CO tJH HMoeo O) H M CO © t*T V 00~ CM rH r-l t-4 O O O O O 00 ©_ CO rj^ CM rH rH © iO iO CO lO *C CO O N O O CO Tt* CO CM t-h CM CM CO CM rH N N Oi CO N 00 00 00 00 GO 00 00 OS 00 00 T3 T3 T3 fl CJ C 3 33 d U U HJ s o (J cu 1 C CTj w <y cct i CU & CQ ^ ccJ cu d I 1 U « i—1 nJ cu P Efiftgg £ u - > 44 & CJ o u cu rt X fe a o w o I H a o CO 1 « IB < o io rH © »o rH CM O id ^ 00 o < u u 44 m o 1 a ;CU a rt a 1 43 U 6 3 £3 • O O cu U .43 PQ s s PQ - d 0 "3 *§ sir cu w -S g h^ co 6 pg Jiff ri « si « u cj si w ^ w si cu cq si THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES fa |||| cc r- ^ c ^V'- c © © CM © *rt 4d CU iO t^ CN © c 10 10 CD 8 0 l> 1> CM I? l> rH O rt a rt CN l> [ oc c CC CM? CM? N co" u r~ CM $<■ cc CM CM 043 4 S *T3 CU <M c u: cc C © © | © 6 cu >"> CT s CM OC CM CM F^ CO jd CM CM cc cc CO CO T—f "a T3 © 0 j3 • n3 cu 10 a cu 00 00 t> CM OC ^ r^ tH CM ^'^ -rH ^ CO 0 I 1 ►2 g '—» CM r^ CM cc CM CM V. kit £ 43 .y #t3 T3 S ^_, CU C © a © cc rH 00 r— © to pj © b- oc 00 l> 00 t^ 00 © | U3 « oc 00 oc 00 00 00 00 OC 00 CU n r- %• ''•' rH r-i a ft 0 *o cu bfi 0 mG "C &'i 0 *3 c p a ct $•$ cu *c *r \ ' cf -C ifeli rJ If & c c T3 IT Ct P- a c G 3 cu J3 jt "7 C I cr $fe ""cr O cu CU I a a co ^ c c ct b'H^ c .c a CO {3 rt i "ct cu PQ >> cu 1 S3 rt U B cu s rt > c ct C £ c § . fa I 0 fa Ml > c ct C E c fa 0 > c i?&" > c ct C E % , 1 rt a a 0 0 rA > u. C c c ct 4: | i c ct St " 4 4* c, ct P- c c fa "a > a, c c rt a ^ S 0 I 0 i m *S faO .S 42 0 rt CU cu J3 C U 1 *c c ct *C PC 1 1 c c , PC 1 ct g CO 3 ct L a I 1 m rJ CJ i rt *CU 1 PQ ■4-) v.. cu i 3 cu s PQ cu «0 i I #E» > •^ > j^'-'-w I c c O cc C ct C3 *S U'— *o I 1 C rt 0 C5 D < u JS "a! 4: c "ct PC ' 1 c 'h c rt & E c L <£ c a, i 1 nip! CU 1 -0 rt rJ uA cj CO* 0 c a a. rS2 Cu . CO CU T3 rtJ ch": co PQ ^5 <L c c <L C CO < 2 I PQ § ° CO J5 -§1 O CO £ ^3 < < rt U- H < rt CO •—> rt TO CO U ui THE FISHERIES TO 1900 ^.^ CM XO jig MS t«* © © © a M cu I !>• CM 00 © CO © © © O I> rH © © co © © o rt rt O0 00 © © CM © © © H o & 43 TJ © »o IO n IO iO © CO CM a >> © CM CM CM CM CM r-< o i—< CM CM CM CM CM T-i r-M a T3 © "o £ 1 I ►2 2 cu CO J3 cu 00 00 © © © O © © © CM y—i r~i B Ttf n Th m rh CM CO CO £ 43 M \k T3 J-( !, 00 iO © © CO CO © © CO rt CO rt t>- l> 00 00 00 CO © © 00 cu 00 00 00 oo CO a) 00 00 00 >< CJ3 CU a o 3 rH rH 1 1 rt < a CO CO O O CU cu o B rJ CO >> g rt >> a c a rt o U a o m 0 rt U o (J a o U £ £ * l-J Cu w o a rJ rt ^Cu u pi o rJ CU a $3 1 o faO o C rJ U ^ 43 ,ti § - o 5.W W 0 £ 3 - £ 5 43 43 9 "a 3 >,43 © O 1 H PQ " D ^ ! J j5 co | a rt w < O | Sir^rt^K^^^K^^O i o CO a rt fao cu S2 u cu rt oi o •SCO •4 rt ^ 43 C5 - ft G ^ .3 O I O G r2 G ** <o, 10 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES /—N © © CM © © "tt ^ « © © CM © © i> © © CM © O rt cci u au © rH © © © T—1 IO rt S J2 «** L' "O © . rt 1 QO o o g ^ & ^ I C3 m -h» -w rt cu u ^ >< <43 CU a o 00 CO 00 GO rH r-i u cu > CU ^ G 44 CO o 1 G CU > rt rt £ *o o >> 43 rt £ y-k © O rJ > c2 > o U w rt O i u a o U CJ CJ a rt U rt U rt > u rt d >> d d rt rt W a a d o o U a fafl rt d CO > cu in cu cu o CU u CU I o a rt a O j U d «<_ ; § ° u ^ 43 .-§ a a d "1 faO o .a ^ *a ^ d o rt cu 43 _„ a a ■J *E -43^ * — 1 PQ rt , , \rl PQ I CU 33 ^ rJ .frS 43 .ti a a ti " CJ d £P . rt ,c, CU 3 '? cu rt J3 55 . K P 1 rt co is ^ U. CO "3 CU Pi +■> £ t* rt 43 . rt o < PQ rtAciS <sia;£ THE FISHERIES TO 1900 11 cannery was built in 1875. In 1895, of a total of forty-eight canneries, thirty-one were on the Fraser, sixteen on the northern coast and one on the west^coast of Vancouver Island (Table ii). With the commencement of railway construction, scarcity of labour8 led to the adoption of labour-saving devices including a soldering machine and a filling machine which operated on the cans as they moved on an endless chain. In 1879, nearly 2,500 men were employed in the canneries on the Fraser River, including a number of Indians and Chinese. The latter were employed mainly in cleaning the fish and making cans by hand. This labour was TABLE II British Columbia Salmon Canneries, 1876-! Year Number Year Number 1876 3 1888 21 1877 4 1889 28 1878 10 1890 32 1879 9 1891 26 1880 9 1892 27 1881 12 1893 37 1882 18 1894 32 1883 24 1895 36 1884 17 1896 47*) 1885 9 1897 54 1886 17 1898 51 f 1887 20 supplied largely on the basis of contract, a common method of securing Chinese labour in the fisheries and in other types of work. The cans were hand-filled, cooked at 212°F., then pierced by an awl, soldered, and recooked at 240°F. By the end of the century the industry had been largely mechanized. In 1905 it was stated: It may now be claimed that after the fish leaves the boat from which it was captured, all handling of it ends then and there. After it is thrown up on the wharf by the fisherman it is handled thenceforward practically solely by machinery and the arrangements for so doing are very perfect... . Each machine is evidently the result of careful study by men fully aware of the 8Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1881 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 5, appendix 6, p. 202). 12 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES necessities of the business. The salmon are, by recent methods, taken from the boat by a huge conveyor which conveys them to the inside of the building and dumps them down on the floor, where the operator is waiting, standing before the huge machine known as the Iron Chink. This name arises from the fact that the machine will easily perform the work of many China- TABLE III Capital Equipment in the Fishing Industry in British Columbia, 1877-98 Year Fishing Boats (sail and row boats) Flat Boats (collecting vessels, scows) Total Boats, etc. 'No. ' Value (thousands of dollars) No. Value (thousands of dollars) 9 No. Value (thousands of dollars) 1877 137 366 354 317 375 654 874 878 867 994 991 2,399 2,600 3,718 4,917 5,080 9 20 19 15 17 33 41 42 40 49 42 92 106 164 228 218 21 18 12 16 35 47 66 65 42 64 96 1 3 1 2 4 6 7 6 5 8 15 3 6 20 8 33 158 384 366 333 410 701 940 953 909 1,058 1,087 1,090 1,364 1,471 1,478 1,485 2,287 2,399 2,600 3,718 4,917 5,080 10 1878 22 1879 20 1880 17 1881 21 1882 39 1883 48 1884 47 1885 46 1886 56 1887 57 1888 54 1889 69 1890 82 1891 68 1892 63 1893.. 94 1894 95 1895 112 .1896 184 1897 237 1898 252 Source: Papers). Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional men. No longer will it be necessary to have line after line of industrious Chinamen or Indian operators standing before their benches waiting with knives ready for the fish. They formerly cleaned the fish, but the Iron Chink does that part of the work. Fitted as it is with an intricate arrangement of knives and cutters, the machine takes the fish as they come from THE FISHERIES TO 1900 13 the water, and rapidly cuts off the head, fins and tail, and cleans the entrails out. This is done very rapidly, so rapidly that thousands of fish each hour will pass through. Each salmon is then taken to the big revolving cutter, which cuts it into slices ready for the tin. It is then carried on trays, fresh and clean, to the canning benches, where it is carefully placed in the cans. Passing down a long belt, the can is covered and finally soldered, all by machinery, and thoroughly cleaned. Passing still further down it is cleaned again, and then taken over to the test tanks. These are capacious tanks of water where the cans are submerged, and, should they exhibit the slightest defect in sealing, as shown by bubbles, they are at once taken out. The cans are then taken to the retorts, first passing through another cleaning process, and there, after being tested, are put into the large retorts or ovens and allowed to remain an hour at a high degree of heat. As they have previously passed through about 150 degrees this cooks the fish thoroughly. The cans are then ready to be labelled. But to reach the room where the labels are put on, the cans must go through another cleansing process, this time being finally cleaned and sprayed. They then pass to the rooms where they are labelled by machinery, and are ready to be packed in strong wooden cases and sent out.9 Pink and chum salmon had been important and favoured articles of diet among the Indians, but little attempt had been made to preserve them. In 1897, 600,000 pounds of cured chum salmon was shipped to Japan as an experiment.10 In the following year about 4,000,000 pounds were salted- They were shipped as dried salmon for dog food to the Yukon during the gold rush. They were mostly caught by fishermen when fishing for cohoes for the canneries and formerly thrown away. Canning of these fish began iaJLS99 and in 1900, 5,700,000^rjounds4oTsalted chumjjajmon were exported, £ and 6,340,000 pounds were canned, constituting a very valuable extension to the industry. The growing demand for salted chum salmon led to the development of this industry on the Queen Charlotte Islands. In 1898 herring were smoked or ' 'kippered" in considerable quantities and found a market in the interior as well as in the cities. As yet other varieties of salt water fish were not exported and were only caught in sufficient quantities to supply the local demand. Salmon were handled in cold storage with the establishment of two plants on the Fraser River with a capacity of 320,000 pounds in 1887. Fish from cold storage were shipped to the United States ^British Columbia Fisheries Commission, igos-igoy, Report and Recommendations (Ottawa, 1908), p. 14. 10Report of the Department of Fisheries, 189? (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 11A, 1898, appendix A, p. 321). 14 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES and Eastern Canadian markets and arrived in good condition, but high freight charges and competition from the Columbia River and Atlantic fishermen were a handicap. Salmon from the Pacific coast commanded a lower price than Atlantic salmon,.and Washington operators had the advantage of lower freight rates. In 1895 salmon wasjDeingjshipped in cold-storage to Europe and Australia. In 1892, a Commission was appointed to investigate the salmon TABLE IV British Columbia Sockeye Salmon Pack, 1876-1 Salt or Year Fraser Northern Puget pickled Total value ended River waters Sound (barrels) Fresh* Smoked f (thousands June 3 0 (cases) (cases) (cases) I of dollars) 1876.. 9,847 1,140 79 1877.. . 64,387 3,000 3,561 466 1878.. . 105,101 8,499 5,465 167 782 1879.. . 50,490 10,603 2,160 225 423 1880.. . 42,155 19,694 2,487 436 1881.. . -142,516 34,760 4,917 1,143 1882.. . 199,104 55,957 5,057 1,126 1,459 1883.. . 109,701 86,591 4,717 3,994 1,211 1884.. . 38,437 102,802 5,637 3,670 931 1885.. |p 89,617 18,900 3,468 3,700 652 1886.. . 99,177 62,087 3,006 8,256 227 926 1887.. . 130,088 73,995 4,459 22,266* 311 1,457 1888.. . 76,616 107,424 4,241 24,770 134 1,397 1889.. . -303,875 110,419 3,749 21,870 129 2,673 1890.. . 241,889 167,089 2,994 17,390 583 2,603 1891.. . 178,954 135,939 5,538 1,353 20,909j 1,213 1,767 1892.. . 79,715 148,755 2,954 2,348 29,3551 1,355 1,727 1893.. . H457,797 132,432 47,852 5,688 35,942 1,432 3,151 1894.. . 363,967 130,403 41,781 4,825 19,700 605 2,505 1895.. . 400,368 166,027 65,143 3,148 17,959 466 3,103 1896.. . 356,984 244,586 72,979 2,413 12,296 414 3,143 1897.. > 860,459 155,018 312,048 5,011 18,145 860 5,186 1898.. . 256,101 228,060 252,000 2,600 9,149 2,010 2,662 *Also the following items: 1880, 22,687 pieces; 1881, 153,800 pieces; 1883, 110,174 salmon; 1884, 173,056 salmon; 1885, 204,700 salmon. fAlso the following items: 1879, $800; 1880, $950; 1881, $1,450; 1882, $1,630. |Kits of 40 and 30 respectively must be added to the figures for 1879 and 1880. THE FISHERIES TO 1900 15 fisheries of British Columbia, particularly the adaptability of the general fishery regulations and the question of the disposition of frSh olfal into the waters of the Fraser River. Offal, consisting of TABLE V Exports of Canned Salmon—By Value and Quantity, 1873-98 Canadian Exports to Exports to B.C. export f Canadian U.K. Exports U.S. Exports produc Year* (thousands export f (thousands to U.K. (thousands to U.S. tion % of dollars) (oases) of dollars) (cases) of dollars) (cases) (cases) 1873.. 63 38 22 1874.. 204 27,999 175 20,434 25 7,013 1875.. 251 32,204 199 25,296 20 2,720 1876.. 96 15,900 51 8,350 27 4,513 9,847 1877.. 82 12,198 55 8,302 3 \ 499 67,387 1878.. 408 69,321 162 25,090 203 ( 37,545 113,601 1879.. 615 103,438 400 66,412 165 28,210 61,093 1880.. 303 60,252 265 52,^21 33 7,052 61,849 IS81.. 298 59,254 279 55,499 18 3,487 177.27B 1882.. 897 156,000 845 146,021 31 5,828 255,061 1883.. 1,156 228,692 1,130 223,694 5 761 196,292 1884.. 1 802 153,092 681 129,041 98 19,301 141,239 1885.. 511 105,020 423 86,076 28 5,751 108,517 1886.. 414 85,150 366 75,453 15 3,102 161,264 1887.. 602 111,146 527 97,504 23 3,368 204,083 1888.. 919 172,983 806 148,606 2 388 184,040 1889.. 753 140,385 592 110,504 16 2,891 414,294 1890.. r 2,070 373,418 1,923 347<828 282,336 64 10,129 408,978 1891.. 1,745 331,994 1,521 2 396 314,893 1892.. 1,255 j j 257,670 1,156 235,94\ 5 1,604 228,470 1893.. 870 171,240 847 166,368 0.296 46 590,229 1894.. 2,387 500,877 2,328 486,656 1 241 494,371 1895.. 2,009 427,591 1,935 411,910 0.033 8 566,395 1896.. 2,537 468,367 2,476 455,443 15 3,762 601,570 1897.. 2,856 582,539 2,776 564,695 0.321 83 1,015,477 1898.. 3,430 867,646 3,238 816,221 6 1,590 484,161 Source: British Columbia Production Figures, Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers). *The export figures are for the fiscal years only, ending June 30. fThe following figures are taken from the Customs reports of exports from British Columbia. They differ from production figures presumably because of delays in sales. JThese figures for the calendar year. 16 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES Table V—Continued British Columbia exports British Columbia exports (thousands (thousands Year of dollars) (cases) Year of dollars) (cases) 1873 8 1886.... 406 83,715 1874..... 39 4,434 1887.... 602 110,981 1875 104 14,463 1888.... 918 172,815 1876 50 8,500 1889.... 750 139,995 1877 71 10,142 1890.... 2,067 372,929 1878 393 66,687 1891.... 1,741 331,257 1879 585 99,078 1892.... 1,253 257,469 1880 295 58,775 1893.... 870 171,187 1881 297 59,099 1894.... 2,377 498,626 1882 896 155,837 1895.... 1,994 424,873 1883..... 1,153 228,259 1896.... 2,415 439,617 1884 798 152,583 1897.... 2,811 573,794 1885 504 104,220 1898.... 3,349 826,330 the heads, tails, fins, and viscera of the fish, was produced in considerable quantities, amounting to almost nine million pounds each season. Much of it consisted of flesh suitable for consumption, estimated to be equivalent to 280,000 salmon.11 Regulations were made prohibiting the throwing of offal into the river, but were not properly observed. The Commission recommended their enforcement, but without avail. In 1898 a company was formed to manufacture fish oil and fish guano from the offal and in that year produced about 12,000 gallons of fish oil and 2,000 tons of guano or fish meal.12 nReport of the British Columbia Salmon Fisheries Commission, 18Q2, p. 1. 12Report of the Department of Fisheries, 1898 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 11 A, 1900, appendix A, p. 197). CHAPTER III THE FISHERIES AFTER 1900 As a result, of the very large run of sockeye salmon in 1901, the canneries were unable to handle all the fish, and would accerjt^inTy a Hmited amount from the fishermen. Nets were sunk and lost on account of the weight of the fish caught. The pack amounted to 962.682 cases of 48 pounds each, or 46,208,736 pounds. Part of the pack was unsold in 1902 and the catch in that year dropped to 293,477 cases. Owing to the abundance of sockeye a smaller proportion of chum and pinks were packed. The pack of chums and pinks was determined rather by market conditions than by the supply ot fish available. In 1904 British Columbia fishermen were allowed to operate traps1 and in that year thirty-three trapping licences were taken out. Only four traps were actually operated, one of these being xThe "trap" used on the Pacific coast is in the nature of an obstruction in the pathway of the salmon, built out from the shore, with a device at the outer end designed to entrap the fish in their efforts to pass around this obstruction. "Traps may vary in minor details but their general plan is as follows: A 'leader,' made by driving long heavy poles or piling into the bed of the water and fastening to these poles a fence of wire or net webbing, is built out from the shore whatever distance may be necessary, perhaps nearly half a mile. At the outer end of the 'leader' is the first of two 'hearts' of net, fastened to piling. They are really enclosures with small entrances along the 'leader.' As the salmon strike the 'leader' they turn seaward to get around it and are thus diverted into the 'hearts' which are designed to collect and concentrate the fish. The second 'heart' lies directly behind the first and is attached to it, serving largely as a safeguard against the escape of fish that have entered the first. Beyond the second 'heart' is the 'pot,' the final unit of the trap proper, and the fish, in a renewed effort to escape, find their way into it by means of a narrow 'tunnel' from the 'heart.' This entrance is cleverly disguised from the inside of the 'pot' and the fish cannot find their way out. In most traps there are also one or two square enclosures or 'spillers' into which the fish may swim from the 'pot.' "When the time comes to remove the fish—'lifting' the trap is the fishermen's phrase—the 'spiller' net is raised within a couple of feet of the top of the water, several men in a rowboat enter the enclosure and gradually pull up the net, thus driving the fish into an end or pocket of the net. A 'brailer,' or large scoop of heavy netting, operated by power from a fish tender or tugboat alongside, dips out the salmon and drops them into a scow. When the trap has thus been emptied, as is done once a day, or once every other day, the tender tows the scow to the cannery or salmon curing plant and there the fish are prepared for market." 17 18 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES W near Victoria, and another on Pender* Island. In 1910, several traps were successfully used on the south-west coast of Vancouver Island, particularly in the capture of spring salmon, although the traps at Sooke, near Victoria, captured considerable quantities of sockeye. The catch of salmon particularly in northern waters was affected not only by the quantity of salmon but by weather conditions and the amount of gear used. Cold storage was facilitated by the erection of a plant at New Westminster in 1908. The Dominion government, commencing in 1909, attempted to foster the consumption of fish from the Atlantic and the Pacific in interior points in Canada by giving freight subsidies on fish shipped in less-than-carload lots. Shipments in carload lots were made from British Columbia to Toronto and Montreal, but the demand for fish in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba was not sufficient and the higher rates of less-than-carload lots hindered development of this market. One-third of the ordinary freight charges on fresh fish shipments from British Columbia to points in the Prairie Provinces was borne by the Dominion government. This trade necessitated the development of a cold storage system and the establishment of properly equipped fish stores. The policy met with satisfactory results. By 1917 the demand for halibut and salmon had grown to such an extent that it was difficult to satisfy. Consequently the practice of subsidizing freight charges on these fish was discontinued and an attempt was made to increase the consumption of other fish available in British Columbia waters. Two-thirds of the transportation charges on shipments of other fish, whether shipped by express or freight, or whether in carloads or in less-than-carload lots, was borne by the Dominion government. As a result it was possible to place other fish on the markets in the Prairie Provinces at a price of 10 cents per pound. The need for conservation of food during the war was a factor leading to adoption of the policy, and after the armistice the subsidies were discontinued. The following table shows the amounts paid by the Dominion government on shipments from the Atlantic and from the Pacific from 1909 to 1919. In the large run years, 1897, 1901, 1905, 1909 and 1913, the Fraser River pack of sockeye averaged 798,700 cases, whereas the average for similar small run years, 189871902, 1906, 1910, and 1914, was 216,240 cases. In 1913, disaster to the Fraser sockeye salmon followed the construction of the Canadian Northern Rail- THE FISHERIES AFTER 1900 19 TABLE VI Freight Payments by Dominion Government, 1909-19 Fiscal year On shipments from east On shipments from west 1909-10 $15,162 16,898 19,621 29,969 37,819 26,667 27,123 32,718 49,551 37,366 $13,542 1910-11. 21,897 1911-12 35,315 1912-13 39,277 1913-14 44,114 1914-15 34,529 1915-16 34,873 1916-17 36,800 1917-18 46,372 1918-19 53,481 Source: Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers). way through the Fraser canyon along the banks of the river. Hell's Gate, where the bed of the river narrows and the waters rush through with terrific force, was a difficult point of passage for salmon, but a small sheltered bay permitted the fish to rest and recover strength for the final passage. Shortly before the sockeye run in 1913, rock blasting operations on the Canadian Northern resulted in a rock slide which filled this sheltered bay. Strenuous efforts were made to remove the obstacle, but only a small part of the run succeeded in getting through to the upper waters of the Fraser, and millions of fish died in the lower part of the river without spawning. Although those familiar with the habits of the salmon pointed out that a large pack could not be expected in 1917 fishermen refused to heed the warning and the smaller run of that ^year was over-fished^ Only 148,164 cases of sockeye salmon were packed "on the Fraser as compared with 719,796 cases in 1913. In 1921 the pack declined to 39,631 cases. The Fraser River no longer enjoyed its big year, ancTeven the smaller years showed a marked decline since the absence of a large run tended to lead to overfishing in the small years. The pack of pink and chum salmon increased particularly with the decreasing runs of sockeye on the Fraser River (Table vh). \ Had it not been for the development of a market for the coarser grades of salmon, the industry would have been practically ruined. 20 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE VII British Columbia Salmon Pack, 1899-38 (cases) ■ Sockeye Canadian Salmon Fraser Northern Puget traps in Juan yother than Year* River waters Sound de Fuca Straits sockeye ^sw.... 510,383 f 153,949 499,646 68,105 ^900.... 316,522f 97,280 229,800 171,611 1901...... . 990,313f 164,404 800,000 § 8JU439- 1902.... §23^77 23ZJ&9 £22,301 94,546,- 1903.... "204,809 163,908 167,211 104,957' 1904.... 72,668 250,538 109,264 142,668- 1905.... 1 | 837,489 243,184 825,453 26,149'- 86,787- 1906.... 183,007 276,672 178,748 4,220 169,781 1907.... 59,815 254,259 93,122 2,802 233,38$- 1908.... 62,126 260,449 170,951 11,448 207,666^ 1909....-, „. 542,248 255,006 1,097,904 43,187^- 127,47a-" 1910.... 133,045 4i5,483 248,014 17,387 196,286- 1911.... 58,487 325,022 127,761 4,330 565,456*- 1912.... 108,784 320,883 184,680 15,095 551,864- 1913....-^ J684,596 252,382 1,673,099 52,065- 381,'323** 1914.... 1 185,483 338,513 335,230 j 12,700 574,343"" 1915.... 89,040 384,912 64,548 2,090 688,659- 1916.... U 27,394 182,634 84,Q37 4,752 780,285** 1917.... ■* 123,614 191,684 411,358 24,550 w 1,217,637^ 1918.... 16,849 256,762 50,723 2,848 1,350,279- 1919.... 29,628 330,591 63,346 6,194 1,023,711^ 1920./.. 44,598 303^006 62,654 3,80.1 836,211 <- 1921 - 35,900 124,283 102,967 3,731 439,634 1 1922.... 48,744 243,392 48,566 3,088 -990,722 — 1923.... 29,423. 302,992 47,402 2,232 1,007,020^ 1924. ;.-v~- - 36,200 329,860 69,369/ 3,543 1,375,710 1 1925.... 31,523 357,133 106,0641 3,862 1,326,766 1 1926.... 83,589 251,323 44,569 2,091 1,728,178 i 1927....- j — 57,085 246,659 96,343 4,337 1,052,582 * 1928.... 26,530 174,243 61,044 2,769 1,832,087 — 1929.... 60,407 219,708 111,856 3,480 1,117,493 - 1930.... 93,4163: 373,986 352,194 5,334 1,744,141- 1931. .-T^_ - 38,507$ 250,517 83,728 2,440 393,640' 1932...-. 61,769$ 218,586 78,319 4,000 796,676- 1933.... 43,745$ 205,642 125,738 8,721 1,006,942 1934.... 133,159$ 238,606 352,579 6,117 1,206,022 *T 1935 .„ 1 57,212$ 287,622 54,677 5,610 1,178,578' 1936.... 164,408$ 229,955 59,505 3,837 1,449,695 (^1937.... 66,583$ 225,564 60,259 6,152 1,183,841 1938.... 260,656 1,260,348 THE FISHERIES AFTER 1900 21 foot-notes to TABLE VII Source: Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers). For northern waters and salmon other than sockeye see Annual reports of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia. ♦From 1899 to 1906 inclusive, years ended June 30; from 1908 to 1916 inclusive, years ended March 31; since and including 1917, years ended December 31. No statistics are available for the nine-month period ended March 31, 1907. ■{These figures include the whole pack of all varieties, particulars of different species not being available. The packs were nearly all sockeye. $Does not include sockeye canned on Fraser and caught in other districts; 1930.pack allows for 14,480 cases sockeye caught in other districts and packed in the Fraser district; 1934 pack at Fraser River canneries includes 5,643 cases sockeye caught on Fraser River and canned in other districts; 1936 pack at Fraser River canneries includes 18,320 cases sockeye caught on Fraser River and canned in other districts. §Approximately. Canning of spring salmon for commercial purposes began in 1912,2 and in the same year at Victoria an additional 700,000 pounds of spring salmon for foreign markets was preserved by mild curing. The use of the troll method of fishing was developed mainly in connection with the catching of this species. 2Report of the Department of Fisheries, 1912-13 (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1914, no. 22, p. 297). 22 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES W ►J PQ < T3 MOOOO^NNNaMrt N tH rH T3 CSlOOOcMT^Ot^OOOrH iO (N o C5 Vh is OiCSNCONOfNCOMNO 00 a 00 CO s G NNHOOiOHiCtOO^OO *o 00 Oi !>• u r-HrHrHlOCMCMrHrH CM -a o ONH(OMCOCO>0000500WO^MO »o *o IO *M 1 >> o OCONiOO^COH^CDNOO^WfOHN CO 3 O £~ is o CM CM CO Q m o N^^Wh^»O000>OMNtJICO000>MN 00 CO T* CO CO WcCOCWJiO^lNWMMOMINHHHH CO CO Oi -a <v o iO OO»00OO0505iOiOON0iiO^(MC0M h- © CO 3 »o HH00ON«D>0NW00>OMHMO0005H tH CO OS rH OOOOHW^NHN^HOOiOOWOOH CO CM CM a CN MCCMiOrtt^^^^COOWiOCCN^ rH l> CN f,H ^ U) 3 j > 1^ WON^^OOOlOOHiOCOHCiHiCiON CO CO 00 CO *n CO rHiO00l>05CDC0t000<NOCD(MOC0OC000i0 IO tH n TfH ^H®cDMTj<i(TPCOOilN0500JONO^H r-K CO *C Oi p o u w C/l a en CM »C.O iO CC iO*N c35NcNNcNOOCOCOHrH>ONcO CO b- CO iO Ui rt CO CO W CNNcDO(N^^OOTHCS>flHCD05»0(N Oi 00 o 00 rt U o l> »0 CM CO Hjt rt< rH CO iO iQ-Oi NCSWMHHCSiOCO rH rH rH rH rH r-4 r-1 W f CO r-r H n -E3 CO © 00 *C Oi O O iO CO CONOOODHOcNOCON Oi Oi CM CO pj CO OOOOiOCDOONCOOJ^OMO^OOHOcO cmcm a>o^»c»cio(NOHaiTj<MHco^o N CM l> N LO t> >o I 00 NHHiOiO^HCOCOtNOiC^OO^^OcN rH 00 N rH u< h«NW(N00"3>OC0t}(K5N00hhOhcO Tt< Oi CO »o Q 00 rH CM CM CO CM TH rH CM CM W CO H Oi 8 s J< 00 O -r- eg o ©rHOlOOOOOTH © © OCOOONiOMOOOOO © t- TH if J>- 1 "O *o CO as 8 ^ C3J'05COO<N<NrH05(N ©O iO N ^ ;y CO «tfl t^ ON CO lO CM rH rH CO 1 55 rt CO a <J H W o (J G *} ^ t\ NONiiO^lMON CO Tt« CO IO rt •n *0 CO CM l> CO 00 © O ,ri "U a Z5 -*3T • * . , r\ -'A N«h005©cOhco 00 CM CM Oi bo G * P* */) >* J CO©CM©COCOOi©Oi CO CO *B O G rt U at <** *v^ *, f $* V5 OirHCNtOCOCOrHCOTfl CO CM 00 o 1 \ / s - en ^-s \ f 1 Ui b- cioO^OMCOHNCOOOTHTtflNO^ON^OSN N OS 00 tH rt o 05C0»OC0»fiM,05N00C0Tt*»O^^H(N^(NO CO CM N N 1 o M"ON05rtC0OM(NNN00i0(NON»O00(N iO iO o O 1 -< 3 tH C0CDM(NM00»O^^NC00505O00OO©N t^ »o 00 co r—i m o * J ai \ 00C3SrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH • • oi d r-< CM OHt?lW^«50M»d»OHNMT|iiO©N(» Oi OOOOOOOOOQrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH CM CM CM ■fl 00 Oi Oi Oi Oi ^im THE FISHERIES AFTER 1900 23 -o £* ^MOOOONWiOC35H(NOOOOHOO TJ CNO5NiOiHCOHO5^^cO00CO(NCO cu +■> 3 pi COt»l>OiOirHOi©rHrHCM©COCOCM S Tt<©l>COrHrHrHlO©CMOOrH©COCO HNNHtMNCNCN rH rH CO CM rH CM W& *0 O CU 4-> rt o COrHT^QO©COCMCOCOOi»OrH©COCO© Ui rHOi>OiOI>»UOCOCM©OOt>»OOOOCOOOOO rHrHTH(X)rHCMCOCM©CM00OiTHlO©lO Q CO*OOOOirH©l>cOcOr--<N©OSOiOOrH ©»OCOCO00l>l>rH00CM00OiCOTH©t^ r—iT-ir-i-r-t i—i H CO H r-i i-i i—i S ^ MC0i0^tMcO0000NC0OO»000H t>-COiOCOCOCOCOCMl>cOCOCOOOCOOO 1 £ CO©©OOTtllO'*COrHCM'*rH ?1® r"1 CO too J* ++ l>COCM©Tt<Oi©Oi^rHOicOCMcor<»00 SSS /—N l>rH00OiCOCMI>rH©COTtiCMCMCMl^Oi 3 <U CONNHCOCONXH00050010N H i < p ell HU3Oi>CQiO00HiOHiOCNO5H00N ^ThrHCOcOCOOiCMOOOOCOOOCMOO©© CONNOWOCOCNCOOcN»C»OOOiOIS a rHrHrHCMrHCMrHCM rH rH rH rH rH rH rH 43 ""> en 4J t>-©©CMCOrH«tff~COCOOO©t,»COCO CO00rH©OSC0rHl>COrHCO'H/l'HHiOCO OHOOCOOHCONOOHCOWNW OON^OOWc005^C0^0500hh CNNOOOhiOO^hOOhcOOOhcO CMCMCMrHCMCMCMCMCMrHCMrHCMCMCM Ui •+— O T3 CMrt<©rt<rH©COrHCO©OiCMt>-OiCO cu 44 CO^iOOOOOCMCOUOCO©l>-CMCMOOCM I>CMTHlOCO»OCMOOrHCMCMrH©lO 43" ° rH CO rH © CM CM ,$ s. 838 co T3 3 OCOCOifliOiQCOMHN-fOHOcO rt "O ^-s c0U5N»O05iCC0HrH00OOC0C3)C0 <u jj NHC0iCC0^OCNO^i005r)<^N 43 TtiiOMiOON^cONHOOCOiOH HCONCNO«5H050005HU500050 hn G »O©00rH'HHCMiOCMCMCM'^©t>©© rt U rHrHrHCMrHCMrHCMrHrHrHrHrHrHrH Cfi ^ i i P rt j en a l>b-T«t^.rt<©©rHlO©'*CM©l>-00Tt< rt WcNNNiOThCOHCSOOOOOOiOOO^ Oi©Oit«-CMCOCMCOrHlOrHT*©COOi>LO O T3 ^ 2 iHCO^OO^N^CONNOSMfNMiHTH •^ 43 H M JS f! • ^ ■; ^ ^ 'gSJ rH rH rH rH rH ^ O * m < m > CO ^*iOOI>o6oi'©rHCMCO^iOcOl^o6 CMCNCMCMCjMCMCMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi OS Oi OS OS Oi OS OS Oi Oi Oi rt 3 cu .2 CU Ui 3 3 2 fi PQ U 43 3 a O m G 3 O 43 S rt a .2 o ti o Q 3 ^ffl 00 en a - 00 ... b- cn cn CO Oi Oi CO Oi 43^ 3 .cu ^j #en u rt CU rt co <*-< (X| u v. CU J2 "H tn O a o cu CU rt -a 3 CU £ 3 ^ O rt i a CU n cn <U .3 3 ^ 3 O CO cu o a? > '£ 43 S g "M 3 O-oo CO +-) © v_ p O Vt-4 .2 IS fi 3 «3 "g-SS 1 1 3 .3 I rH 2 2 o h a) ^ O .2 Oi O U en cu 43 en cu m en E <■*-* o G eU +H +J C rH »1 OS* O rH Ui 8 £ « O -2 u. cu cu Co .~ § Oi S oo P3 cu 'u cu 43 cn ti © rt rt fa u co ~ 42 O u cu 3 O rt a cu Q i ill 3 * cu cn "3 .Si £ CU CU 43 43 J CO S cn -i-» E c3 cn cn s o « ^ gg O iO fi en £ *£ ^ i ^3 O a rt 5 £ 3 3 CU cu o ~ +j -^ 43 *rt rt co a, , CU CM "o G G < en 3 rH ^ *o co y CU cn 43 +2 o a co rH Oi rH Oi Oi 00 rt cn #CU 'u CU © 3 © * 8 ^ O <U O © _ © +3 3 «— cu o S »-. rt CO CO 3 3 3 < r-i 43 en © T3 © 00 CU 00 tn rt © fa rH TJ rH i S i 3 S Oi p o CO cn cn ^ u ,u 5 o fa rt fa < rj u rt CU p o CO S0T K^ 43 0) CO i> en 43 4-> <*-4 O © c3 24 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES p 3 l> CO © CM ^ rf ©©©©©rHlO©rH ©rHlOlO00©©00 •2 m COH iO 00N © ©©tO00CM©©CM© CO©©00COtOrHTH U Is <w T« "tf rH © © 00 tHtH^©©cm©©© © b- © "Tfi b- rH ©jtO y en 3 rt CM iO © tO CO to b-©b-CMb-CM00©CO rH tH IO b- © CO b- CO ffl CO CO CO CM b- © COCM^T*©©"tf©iO rH © © IO CM © 00 © N iO CM CO -* TH rH©tOtO©b-©©CO H H © IO CO M H CD a o 00 CO © rH tO © O0CO©CO00©00rHTt< CO00©©tO©©00CO OO^OOONOWTf) © rH b- 00 rH © ©CM©CMrHiLO00© CO ^ CO IO © CM rH © ©CMCOCO©t*©iOCM ©b-C000©CO©iO o a X fa . cn © Ml CO © rMCMb-b-CMCMCOCM "H/ IO rH 00 © © IO h3 g r-t © CO CM rH rH T* CM CM r—i 00 CO © rH o en ^-^ © © 00 3 *2 N O) CO iC iO CO ©CMCM©b-T*rH©CM lOb-COCOCMTHCMb- CO* rt «£3 tH rH CO CM rH rHCMlOCOrHrHCMrH rH rH "<H "<* IO 00 CO u cn 3^ CO CM rH rH CO © CM O a £ 3 O O T3 © 1 H H fa 43 v^ ^ o | P a o © 00 CM tO © rH COiOtH©©©CMI>-iO ©©iOiOtH©CO© O N 00 N N © tOCOrHCOtO^OOTHrH b-tOiOC0"^©l>© M 0) CM rH tO to tO iO ©©CO©00rHlO©C0 O0000^C>cONW Q o a rH 00 tO tO rH TH iO©t*iO00©©00CO b-00COTjH©©©rH 55 <! I § © © 00 IO to IO ©iO»Ob-©CM©b-CO rHCMCOCMCOC^iO tO l> tO © tH CM HOOtNCCCOcO-^^CO OiONN^COCDM Mr W P fa fa i-H fa o 4-> ""O cn 3 ?2 © © CM © © CO THCOCMCM©iO©©iO b-00rH©b-©CMlO, t» W rt J2 co 33 © rt< CM CO iO CO COtOCM©©CMC0rH© C0rHCO©00rH00O0 PQ P3 CM © CO b- t* tO COC0©CO©00©©© «*©©00©rHlOtO O 3 O o *o < | to CM CM CM rM CM rH rHTHrHCMCMCOCMCMCM tO^rH-HH^b-b-tO M i O X fa & o 41 CO Q 3 CM © rH © IO 00 C000CMC0©iOrH©© C0rH©©lO©©rH rt © 00 CM CO 00 to ONtJINMMOOhO l>00O0CMiO00©©rH ©OOrHrHCMrHtOb- (4 TI O cu £3 rH © CO rH 00 © 00©00©©rH00CO 55 1 1 u o rt © rH © b- tO b- ©b-©©b-CMrH©© CMrHC0©CM©rHCM ri tH b- CO CM 00 CM OiOHCONCMMINN b-CMCM©rH©00TH N N O O © OS CN © rt U »o i> t> ©^ a CO CM©C0tHC0I>iO©'<* CO H O 3 rt cn ^^ X3 cn 3 *-• b» CO © CO © © 00 00 rH © CM ©COCMCO0000©©tJH rH©©CO©00b-rH Ph »-• rt J3 b- N^OOOCDCOMOO COrJH©00b-©©00 I T3 o tH CO 00 © IO is. ©©©00t«C0©00tJH ©©COCMr«CM©tO fa u cu 3 O o *a 43 j£| w O 3 rt U CM CM CM IO CM HThHNNrhWWCO ©rH©©00©CMb- * u rt cu I © © rH CM CO *■* iO©^COOi©rHCMCO THiO©b^o6o5©rH © © © © © CO © © © © © © © © © © rH rHrH rH © © © © © © © © © rHrHrHrHrHrHCMCM © ©©©©©©©© THE FISHERIES AFTER 1900 X 25 -r- 3 © b- CO CM CO rH © © © rH rH © © CM rH b- CO O /-N *g b- rH 00 © CO CM b- rH © CO rH © CM © b- © u a <w © © CM CM rH CO © b- 00 © © 00 © tO © b- CU yj to IO © tO © IO 00 rH to rH IO CO © rH © b- PQ 3 rt 00 rH TH rH © CO CO © CM 00 00 © 00 CM © © © CM CO b- b- © CO © CO CM © © CM tO iO 00 tO b- y—i rH rH CM rH CM rH CM rH rH rH rH a o CM CO b- b- © rH CO CM © CM © 00 © CO © © © iO CO b- © © rH 00 iO © © r-k © © b- © © © i2 $ 8 CO CO N H CO H ^ CD CO y—< tO rH tO © © © © J-c o a X 1—f CM rH © rH IO © rH CM CO CM © © rH D jj SJ y-i rH CO rH © rH CO © CO CM rH CM © fa o cn ,*^ 3 b 00 © CO N rH h h ON y-4 rH b- b- © tO CO © t w rt JS b- rH rH CM rH to © rH CM CO rH © cn **h rH rH CM CO rH CM CM rH CM 3 O O -O i 43 ^ fa w O o 00 00 rH © 00 CO © © b- IO rH © tO © © © © © © © to to 00 © © rH © © CM b- IO rH rH © HH CU CM b- © © IO rH CO CO CM CM rH © CM rH © © © o a ►-! c0 © b- CO iO © to © © y—i b- CM © b- © rH rH CO CM rH tO rH © 00 rH 00 © CM rH CO © © 00 © CO i—i CO iO CO CM CM CM rH CO rH CM CM CM rH CO CO fa o cn ||| "O cn 3 >2 rH 00 © CO © CO rH CO 00 © © © CM © © © CM © © CM Sm rt rt b- to CO CO rH CO © © tO rH CO © © en 33 rH CO rH b- CO CM rH © 00 © © © (N rH CO 00 a^ 3 O o *o CO r-i CO rH rH CO CO rH rH CO CO rH CM CO rH CO CO XJ 43 ^ fa w O 3 00 CO © b- © b- oo to © b- © rH tO © © © O © © rt ■*-» O CO © CM © b- © CO iO 00 CO b- © © CO T3 O cu 00 b- CO CO © CM CO rH rH CO tO tO © CO © © © rt a 2 00 © © © b- CO © © rH 8 tO © b- b- © to CO 3 rr rt 8 b. CM rH © to © tO rH 00 © rH rH © to CO rt © rH © CO CM rH CO rH 00 © © © 00 © rH rH U n y—iy—ir-i 3 cn /^>> rt +^ 3 *2 CO s rH IO CO b- rH CO CM 00 © rH CO © IO © rH "2 o rt d. rt _2 CO © CM CM © rH IO © © y-i b- © b- © rH b- tO cn 3m rH rH b- rH rH b- rH rH CO CO © © b- © CO © CO 3 O o -o 43 ^ w o 3 5? rt cu U © rH b- © © © © © 00 © © CO to to b- © b- rt cu CM CO rH IO © b^ 00 © © CM CO rH id © b- 00 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO © © ©©©©©©© © © © © © © © © -0 OT £^ 3 .2 2 & rt cu 41 *rt fi © o H ^ CO v3 w-. O cu cu O 3 43 m 3 -4-> •£ S ■—> en 3 cu r» *o fi s *T3 cu T3 3 3 4-) Ui o ±> rt 3 ^4 a S m CU 3 Cu cu • hfl 00 cu r\ rt QQ3 rt cu rH 43 istics, of the Colum >> rt rt u en c3 cu 43 8 cu m o Sta port itish CU 43 3 CU 43 a Xi cu b- bT cn eau o ual r ies, E 8 rH 3 3 O © O a u 3 u 3 3 CU O O "o •^ © U-, M Ph b- 8 cu Xi fi 3 © O y—i 8, Domi , 1899-1 issioner CO 43 CJ E» rt fi O n o 3 3 cu 43 m bO 3 °? S fi jj *3 3 cu rH *•« 3 CM 3 3 cu a 13 rs; 19 n Fig tie Cc CU 43 ■4H I O Xi I Pap ducti rt of 4^ *3 O CU o -a 3 3 o « y. o X '% rt u rt cu CU 3 cu cu S rQ "rt rt cu rQ ada, S Colum Annu rt o c3 cu rt G CU > rt Xi Can ish -38, 43 ~rt en cu cn .tj co - u © O cu rt rvJ PQ m CU rt 43 I © •- rH Q •« O '.S oi? en cn CU cu u ii 3 3 o o « t* -1 bfl Ph ^^ <3 ba v3 v3 ce: Trade ssiona O a X cu cu rt cu rH ° S g. 43 <1> K L r*> cu cu P cu °0 43 43 rt-xi H H Sfe * 1^ 3 -o 3 CU CHAPTER IV CAPITAL INVESTMENT The technique of the fishing industry in British Columbia assumes a heavy capital investment. Canneries represent a substantial outlay and involve to an important extent support from corporate organization. Data available through the operation of legislation affecting companies operating in British Columbia throw light on the source of capital. Information on original investment can be obtained from the figures of authorized and issued capital, but this may bear little relation to present value of assets which may have been increased by reinvestment of profits, by borrowing, or by levies on shareholders. Information is available with regard to the source of this capital, whether Canadian, American, or British, but not to the total amount of foreign capital invested in the fishing industry (Tables x, xi, xn). The number and total authorized capital at the time of incorporation or registration of fishing, fish packing, fish storage and fish export companies incorporated, licensed or registered in British Columbia in the calendar years 1882-1939 inclusive, are shown in Table xni. Companies included in this table which, prior to December 31, 1939, had been struck off the register or whose registration or licence to do business in British Columbia had been cancelled are shown in Table xiv. Companies in final liquidation but which have not as yet been struck off the register are considered as though struck off in the year in which they went into liquidation, because of the interval which often elapses between the time when a company ceases to do business and the date when its name is removed from the register. Dissolutions and cancellations beyond the date for incorporations and registrations are also shown. These tables show that the total authorized capital in fishing, fish packing, fish storage, and fish export companies incorporated, licensed, or registered in British Columbia in the period 1882-1939 amounts to approximately $75,015,750; and the total authorized capital of such companies having ceased to do business in the same period as approximately $47,571,250; leaving a total original authorized capital of such companies still operating of $27,444,500. 26 CAPITAL INVESTMENT 27 4>"* 00 4>TJ 3 u i i Value (thousands of dollars) OiOrHOOOOCNCO^COCOrHTflCOiOTtfb-cOTfiOS CO rH 1*3 rH rH CN rH rH rH T* rH rH rH rH rH CN COCN r»< 6 »0»0b»C0e0©CDO0SC00SC0rHC0'<*»0'*C0rH <*o£ la a i o"jb WCOHlON^COHCfiONN CO GO COCN CM rH rt< rH 00 CD b-CN rHrHrH rH rH <N THCN CMlrH rH rH rH rH rHIQ rH 6 00 t>- CN ■* 00 OS W Tt< rH CO CN l- rHjc35 »0 r-t O OS CN O COCO COrH rHrHrHrHrHrHCOlrHrHrHrH rH rH •a bo a a oj <n Ml W o CJ US 09 CN00OS©rHCOC0"H<lO»QCOCNCNTt<b-»O0000rH 0®iH©©NSHNNN cO^CN CO rH OS ■* © »0 COrHCNrHrHrHrHCOCOrHT-tTl<CO i-H/tJ* rH rH CO CO 6 CD 00 *a IO CN t>- »0 rH 00 CN CO OS OS OOjO 00 ■* CO •<* CNCDOOlOlO-HHlOOOrHCOrH *>»». lOhO 00 rH CN CN rH rH rH rH rH rH CN Tf rH rH CO W rH CM CN CO CO CN is *3 ccJ w o o3,o t) i On s"3 <» & >* 5 ° s-^ g!*0" OS W CN CO rH CN CO CO rH »C »0 »C T* b~ rH CN CO © »D OS 00 ©CDOCN©lOCNb-TH<NCN©i©Tt<rHCNC0CDrH Tj« t^b-CNC35O^t*rHT«00»nO'^C0lf5 00t>-05rH I^CN<NrHtHrHrHCNCNCNCO*T^'eO*(MCOCO*CO*W 6 1 iH b-rH ^ © IO O ^ rH CD ^CD^rHrHJrHlO CO »0 00 OS CDb-b-CNOOOSCO^OOCOcO tWCO COKO OHOO IO W030N rH -IO 00 CO" rfe 00 COJOS ©jtf CN rH CD 00 >0 COCOCOCNCNCNCNCOTl<--rJ<-^rt<Tl<tOfOcOCOCOO -d-2 a g '3 b£ W O <y i !o"cn ^ S », *■" 11-8.3 05rHt>t^00000^05t^OOi«DCNTj400l>b-rH >OO>OCiNHc0Mr-iai00O'H|>N'<«,OM© CN"*'*COCNCNCNCO'«J«CNCN<NrHrHrHrHrH 6 U3OHiOiON©^NHO'ffl«(0MOi0 00O b«.00b-Tt«»OTt<OSTt< iCSkO rH C*^ "5 IP © »0 00 CO rH t* CN CO ©COOOCOCOOO^OS CNffiO rH <q ■* CN coco"co"coeo*CNCNV5lMiWwcN|^ •a c <" w 111 gog w <u i o'g 3 s m t3 I °*o~ 03 r« Z—< 005t^Tj<OrH05COrHTj(OOTt<CO^rHt^O>t>.CO rHOSrH.-**OSa000CO©CNCN©0000CN©OSb-© OSC0cOCSCO©T}«COas©©b-©C0©»O>O<O00 rHCNrHrHrHCNCN'tf'OcDcOiOCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 6 I OOCOt^COOCNt^OOS «D <0 rHiOO UOlM rH CO T* 00 COW5rt<COrHb-COrH'!}<COO'OCNTl<050000C3SO CNCNCNCOCOCOrHeOt^OCO »OjCN CN rH CN CN CN CO i g cd w 1 4> I O'w 03 rj ii" OJ C0CN»0»0OC0OC3ib-OCNO iOOO>000 CN CN •<* m CO CO tii co »o to *o o »o C0O"3CN«O>0 CO »OCOCNC0»O HHHHNtH| rHrHrHrHrH 6 I 00 ©rH©©©b-b-0000COO5CO rH"*CO»OcOCO r-* CNCNrHrHrH w 2 i * W 1 1311 w 03 ^3 OWiOiOiOOOOOMOO OCOCOCOCOOOOOOOOOCOCOCO 1-tCNCNCNCNrHrHrHrH 6 2 CO ^''f ■* ^ CO CO CO CO rH rH rH go t, M °> d-d 12:=! •^ *> c o 09 "^ xtl 00 rH 00 CN CN CN CO rHCN rH CO b-rH t> CN 05 O CO CN IO CO rH rH CN CO 00 CN rH IO •* rH CN O CO rHOJTj^OOCOOOO b-"* WH CO}-* OS rH CD1* C<TcNCNCO*V CO*-* ■*-* CNCNCNCO"cNCN 6 t«Tl*OCOCNOTt<CNCOCOO«OOCOa>C35COlOCOrHrH lOCNC0Tfb»Tj<COCOeOU3Tj<»OTt<TjHCNC0C0C0C0C0 11 11 1 c Si"'3 l0>0O00COC005b-C0»OrHt*C0 Of* In. CO 0Q rH CN l> t-00005COrHiOiOCOiOOOI>OCNiOl^COO>CO'*t« b» CO OS O COOSt^^rHCOUST^rH CbJO CO IO rH b- CO CO rHC^COOCJCNCNCCCRCOrHINiO^COtJtroOt^ 6 I oo co «o ■* t^ ■* o o »o co t» rH co o »o ■* oo os eo co t- t^00t«-tO»OCO«OCOcOt»t^cocOcOC0,<i*Tj<Ti<'«j<'*CO | ( > 4 OOCT>OrHCNC0Tt<>0 CCb- OOOOHNM^OCON OrHrHC<ICNCNCNCNCNCNp<CNCNCOeOCOCOCOCOCOCO 0J0i05O5010iO305O5 OS OS 05O501Oi05OiOSOSCSC3> -co §> §3 r«^T3 ^ 2-5 S q co co oo co m co rH J JNOHHCS^OO 0 ? »o l> O OS o> o >o m- r5 s fl a5^? OS 00 Tf rt< rH CO b- CN (30 . CN OS CO CO CO rH rH fs. j- O rH O CO ■* OS t* CN rH •- (5 CN CN rH (N rH CN CN CO* u. .H SJos a M "5 1 ffisS Si cOCN E ^-rco i 03 I 4»0 H CN CO Tt» »0 CO l> rHrHrH ■^lOCOb- gj OS OS OS OS OS OS OS ctl 03 <W <U 5 -C++&09 28 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XI Boa? Equipment in British Columbia, 1899-1917 . Year Fishing Boats (sail and row boats) Flat Boats (collecting vessels, scows) Total Boats, etc. No. Value (thousands of dollars) No. Value (thousands of dollars) No. Value (thousands of dollars) 1899 4,829 5,113 4,938 4,283 5,024 4,786 4,793 5,242 5,406 5,012 5,450 3,013 3,267 2,468 3,076 3,666 3,536 3,779 3,479 250 314 301 254 307 307 306 347 326 336 349 175 202 189 218 265 248 263 256 150 150 190 277 186 190 172 185 121 141 143 190 155 176 171 168 17 18 19 30 30 38 63 46 48 45 69 327 368 432 76 63 100 117 145 4,829 5,113 4,938 4,433 5,174 4,976 5,070 5,428 5,596 5,184 5,635 5,263 4,744 3,945 5,700 5,737 6,125 6,167 6,819 268 1900 332 1901 321 1902 284 1903 337 1904 345 1905 369 1906 393 1907-8 1908-9 1909-10 1910-11 1911-12 1912-13 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917 374 381 419 1,105 1,146 1,327 1,236 1,244 1,343 1,422 1,983 Source: Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers). CAPITAL INVESTMENT 29 TABLE XII Nets in British Columbia, 1900-37 Gill- Salmon drift- Salmon trap- Salmon purse- Salmon drag- nets nets nets seines semes Year Value Value Value Value Value No. (thousands of dollars) No. (thousands of dollars) No. (thousands of dollars) No. (thousands of dollars) No. (thousands of dollars) 1900.. 634 1 3 24 6 1910.. 505 9 98 66* 1928.. 126 15 5,739 1,311 5 25 353 512 21 6 1929.. 2,846 641 2,703 764 18 47 485 865 14 4 1930.. 97 9 5,611 1,283 6 95 395 767 19 11 1931.. 38 5 4,559 851 6 95 242 481 29 17 1932.. 59 4 5,147 868 4 60 149 239 42 16 1933.. 92 6 5,717 967 4 60 203 308 41 17 1934.. 55 4 6,291 1,050 5 75 265 320 13 6 1935.. 47 7 5,808 954 5 75 320 356 9 5 1936.. 28 5 6,238 1,027 4 61 188 207 9 6 1937.. 39 7 5,887 934 5 75 208 259 21 11 *Includes salmon purse-seines and other seines. Hi 30 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XIII Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage and Fish Export Companies Incorporated, Licensed, or Registered, 1882-1939 Companies Extra-provincial Companies Licensed Incorporated in B.C. or Registered in B.C. British Other Total authorized Year No. of Total Total com capital No. of authorized No. of authorized panies (thousands of com capital com capital dollars) panies (thousands of pounds) panies (thousands of dollars) 1882... 1 16 1 (not 1891... 1 500 1 200 available) 1892... 1 200 1893... 1 500 1897... 1 50 1 50 1898.., 2 275 1 40 1899... 4 1,055 1 10 1900... 4 124, 1 375 1901... 10 654 1902... 3 150 1 4,000 1903... 5 446 1904... 5 405 1 1,000 1905... 8 525 I |':_'/0 200 1906... 8 380 1 5 1 2,500 1907... 3 1,710 1908... 5 815 1909... 7 270. 1 10 1910... 11 6,150^ 1911... 7" 2,800*" 1 20 2 818 1912... 17 2,475 1 250 1 500 1913... 13 3,465 1914... 4 400 1915... 12 715 1916... 16 574 CAPITAL INVESTMENT 31 Table XIII—Continued Companies Extra-provincial Companies Licensed Incorporated in B.C. or Registered in B.C. British Other Total Year No. of authorized Total Total com capital No. of authorized No. of authorized panies com capital com capital (thousands of panies (thousands of panies (thousands of dollars) pounds) dollars) 1917... 20 1,355 1918... 22 3,779 1 1,000 1919... 17 875 1920... 2\ 1,375^ 1921... 9 4,185" 1922... 17 490 4 9,500 1923... 10 635 1 100 1924... 8 225 1925... 17 1,495 1 250 1926... 18* 1,095 1927... 14 1,010 . 1928... 11 640 2 5,600 1929... 15 : 1,345^ 1930... 13 390 1 50 1931... 7 1,265 1932... 8 330 1933... 6 135 1934... 15 420 1 50 1935... 4 100 1936... 9 900 1937... 3 395 1 20 1938.... 3 60 1939... 1 100 Total . 413 45,754 7 575 23 26,473 m 32 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XIV Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies which Ceased to do Business in British Columbia, 1892-1939 Companies Incorporated in B.C. Extra-provincial Companies which Dissolved Ceased to do Business ii> rB.C. British Other Year Total of original Total of Total of No. of authorized original original com capital No. of authorized No. of authorized panies (thousands of com capital com capital dollars) panies (thousands of pounds) panies (thousands of dollars) 1892.... 1 16 *1904.... 1 500 1908.... 1 50 1910:... 1 4,000 1912.... 45 3,790 -• 2 10§ 1913.... 1 35 1914.... 13 1,835 1917.... 1 25 1918 4 120 1919.... 13 1,115 1920.... 7 719 1921.... 14 2,800 1922.... 32 1,930 1 1,000 1923.... 15 905 1 68 1924.... 9 1,800 1925.... 24 1,625 2 290 3 3,200 1926.... 2 175 1927.... 12 625 1928.... 24 5,579 1 1,000 1929.... 15 2,760 1 10 1930.... 8 365 1 250 1931.... 12 680 1 1,000 1932.... 15 895 1933.... 8 270* 1934.... 1 500 1 5 3 1,400|| 1935.... 5 235 1936.... 5 2,420 1 200** 1937.... 4 520 f 1 1938.... 10 465 1939.... 37 2,097.5| Total . 343 33,221.5 5 355 17 12,628 CAPITAL INVESTMENT 33 foot-notes to table xiv *This amount does not include authorized no par value stock of B.H. Fisheries Limited, and of Columbia Canners, Limited. fThis amount does not include the authorized no par value stock of Chinese Canadian Salt Herring Company, Limited. fThis figure includes $1,480,000 of authorized capital of 26 companies which are in process of liquidation or are about to be struck off the Register of Companies. §The British America Packing Company, registered March 8, 1882, is included in the "number of companies" but not in the "total authorized capitalization" as the records do not show the capitalization of this company. 11 This amount does not include the authorized no par value stock of Otteson Fish Company of Canada, Limited. **The Atlantic Coast Fisheries Company, Limited, which was dissolved during this period had 1,000 shares of no par value. The value of the total authorized capital and the reported value of shares issued in fishing, fish packing, fish storage, and fish export companies as of December 31, 1939, by place of residence of controlling stock for companies incorporated in British Columbia only, is shown in Table xv. Of the total reported value of shares issued/ of $10,400,856, the place of residence of the controlling stock of: $2,154,300 is in the United States, $7,137,856 in Canada, and $1,108,700 in the United Kingdom. Of $7,137,856 with place of residence of controlling stock in Canada, $5,795,856 has place of residence of controlling stock in British Columbia. Residents of Eastern Canada and the Prairie Provinces hold shares to the value of $1,260,800, and $81,200 respectively, but these amounts do not consist of controlling interests. Of controlling shares 20.7 per cent is held in United States, 10.7 per cent in the United Kingdom, and 55.7 per cent in British Columbia, while 12.9 per cent of non- controlling shares is held in Eastern Canada and the Prairie Provinces. The table shows the place of residence of controlling stock and the shares of subsidiary companies are given the place of residence of the controlling interest of the controlling company. There is a duplication of interest.to the extent of the shares of one fishing ^company held byranother. The total $10,luu,8£>6 does not represent the amount invested in British Columbia in fishing, fish packing, fish storage, and fish export companies as of December 31, 1939 (even apart from the exclusion of companies incorporated since 1930), in so far as it does not take account of profits ploughed back for which stock certificates have not yet been issued, nor of that part of the investment which is in "Notes Payable,'/ or in "Sub-y 34 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XV Value of Total Authorized Capital and Reported Value of Shares Issued in Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies December 31, 1939* By Place of Residence of Controlling Stock (Companies incorporated in British Columbia only) Authorized Capital Shares I 3SUED Number of com Total Per cent Reported Per cent panies authorized of value of of capital total shares issued total $ $ Total 61 8,499,000f 100.0 10,400,856 100.0 United States 8 3,440,000 40.5 2,154,300 20.7 United Kingdom 1 2,500,000 29.4 1,108,700 10.7 Eastern Canada % 1,260,800 12.1 Prairie Provinces J.. . . 81,200 0.8 Japanese residents in British Columbia.. . 9 380,000 4.5 143,420 1.4 British Columbia 43 2,179,000 25.6 5,652,436 54.3 *This table includes only those companies that are in good standing with the Registrar of Companies for British Columbia. f Authorized no par value stock not included in this total: B.C. Oyster Company, Ltd $ 7,000 issued J. H. Todd & Sons, Ltd 3,299,764 issued J Investors in Eastern Canada and the Prairie Provinces have no controlling interests in these B.C. incorporated companies. scribed Capital Stock." Nor can $2,154,300 be taken as representing the actual investment of United States capital in British '-Columbia fishing industries, since it represents the total issued capital of companies in which United States residents hold the controlling interest. Similar information for extra-provincial companies, by location of head office, is given in Table xvi. The value of shares issued in Canada outside British Columbia was $4,889,300, and in the United States $4,137,582. These figures represent the total capital of the companies concerned and not merely that part which applies to operations carried on in British Columbia as such details are not available. Location of head office does not indicate the actual CAPITAL INVESTMENT 35 TABLE XVI Value of Total Authorized Capital and Reported Value of Shares Issued in Fishing, Fish Packing, Fish Storage, and Fish Export Companies December 31, 1939 By Location of Head Office Authorized Capital Shares Issued Number of companies Total authorized capital Per cent of total Number of companies Reported value of shares issued Per cent of total United States.... United Kingdom . Eastern Canada.. British Columbia. 3 2 1 $2,781,200 £600,000 $2,500,000 34.0 35.5 30.5 4 2 2 1 $4,137,582 £372,000 $4,889,300 $3,600,000 28.7 12.5 33.8 25.0 Total* 6 $5,281,200f 100.0 9 $12,626,882 100.0 *The difference between the number of companies with authorized capital and the number of companies with shares issued is due to the inclusion of companies with no par value stock under the heading "Shares Issued." fAuthorized no par value not included in this total: British Columbia Packers, Limited, Vancouver, B.C $3,600,000 issued New England Fish Company, Portland, Maine 1,847,139 1 British Columbia Fishing and Packing Company, Limited, Toronto, Ont. 1,791,800 " Consolidated Whaling Corporation, Limited,Toronto, Ont. 597,500 I location of the ownership of the shares. Extra-provincial companies are required to file only the shares held by residents in British Columbia and the names of such shareholders, and consequently no list of stockholders is available to show the actual residence of the stockholders. In a majority of cases, however, a distribution by location of head office gives a reasonable indication of the source of control. Combining Tables xv and xvi, it will be seen that the totafj reported value of shares issued by companies operating in British Columbia fisheries and controlled in the United States is $6,291,882, or 25.3 per cent of the total; by companies controlled in the United Kingdom, about $2,912,900 or 11.8 per cent; by companies eon-! trolled in Eastern Canada and the Prairie Provinces, 25.1 per cent; and by companies controlled in British Columbia, $9,395,856 or 36 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES 37.8 per cent. The difference between the total original authorized capital of firms engaged in the British Columbia fisheries and incorporated or granted extra-provincial licence or registration in the period 1882-1939 and the total original authorized capital of such firms which ceased to do business in the same period amounted to approximately $27,444,500. The total authorized capital of the firms covered in Tables, xv and xvi is approximately $16,690,200. The difference of over ten million dollars is due to the omission of certain no par value shares in the authorized capital in Tables xv and xvi and to reorganization of a few of the larger companies which led to a reduction on nominal capital. The British Columbia Fishing and Packing Company, Limited, and the Consolidated Whaling Corporation, Limited, are two cases in point. CHAPTER V FISHERY REGULATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA When British Columbia entered Confederation in 1872 there was no code of regulations governing its fisheries such as existed in the Eastern Provinces. The fisheries had not been developed on a commercial1 basis and regulation did not appear necessary. After Confederation administration of its fisheries was carried out by the British Columbia Agent for the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa. The character of the fisheries is such that it is notl possible to administer rigid regulations. The coast line of British Columbia is approximately eleven thousand miles in length, and considerable variety exists in different places even in the same type of fishery. A degree of elasticity must exist, and successful administration depends to a large extent on the good judgment of the Inspector and his staff in relation to temporary and local conditions. In 1875, the Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries recommended that the Fisheries Act be made to apply to British Columbia, and that after inquiry special regulations be drawn up. In the following year a proclamation was issued extending the application of the Fisheries Act2 to British Columbia, to become effective on July 1, 1877. The Fisheries Act, framed with particular reference to the Atlantic fisheries, did not apply in all respects to conditions in British Columbia. The Inspector of Fisheries reported: H have, therefore, assumed that such portions, onlyT of the Act, as are obviously of general application, with such other portions as, on more minute inquiry, may be found to be of particular application, shall be locally adopted. Without, therefore, interfering captiously, and injuriously as I conceive, with existing practice, I shall continue, as hitherto, to exercise a watchful surveillance for the common benefit; reporting from time to time, the result of my 1"The fisheries of British Columbia are probably the richest in the world; in 1873 little had been done to develop them. They were then hardly spoken of as an interest, or industry; with the exception of an attempt at putting up salmon in tins on the Fraser River, and one or two whaling enterprises of a few years' standing, no efforts appear to have been made to develop the resources of the province in this respect" (Report of the Department of Fisheries, Canada, Sessional Papers, 1894, no. 11, p. ex). 231 Vic, c. 60. 37 38 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES observations, and under your sanction, extending such further protective portions of the law as may be found necessary or expedient." General fishery regulations for the province were approved on July 18, 1889, and consisted of three sections, referring to fisjnngjor salmon and trout and the use of explosives. In 1890, a Commission was appointed to investigate the fishery regulations with special reference to salmon fishing for canneries. An investigation ot the Fraser River fishery was made by the Commissioner who visited the seventeen canneries operating on the river and obtained the views of those engaged in the industry. The result was a modification of the regulations considerably^restricting the activities of the iishftrrnen. These restrictions caused much dissatisfaction and were severely criticized. -Another Commission was appointed in 1891gto make further invest1*gation ar>r* repnrf On the basis of the knowledge obtained from these various,investigations an Order-in-Council3 of MaTch 3, 1894, with new regulations, was issued. It made special provision for greater liberty for the Indians who were so largely q ^•f dependent on fish as an article of food. It covered the J^censing of fishernieji, the type of gear to be used in fishing and the„areas in which such gea*r could be used, the period during which fishing could be legally carried out, weekly close period in the case of salmon, information to be given to the Inspector, the size of salmon which could be caught, and the prohibition of the use of,„ fa^anns and explosives^ The £rxivincial Fisheries Department was organized in 1901, \ mainly as a result of requests from the canning interests who found themselves in disagreement with certain policies of the federal : government. In the delimitation of authority between the two governments, a modus vivendi was adopted by which the provincial government was to retire from the field of licensing and taxation. Taxes and fees from licences were to be collected by the Dominion government which was to pay to the provincial government all moneys received in excess of operating expenses. This arrangement was not carried out and the provincial government again entered the field of licensing and taxation. Eventually the question* was taken to the Privy Council which gave the decision that the regulation of the fisheries in British Columbia was the function of the federal government, but that the provincial government had the 3See appendix A. FISHERY REGULATIONS 39 right to levy taxation for revenue purposes, and, still more impor-"1 tant, that the fish once they were removed from the water came under the control of the provincial government by virtue of the clause in the British North America Act giving the provinces control over property rights. Consequently, through its power of licensing, the provincial government can exercise a degree of control over the - industry. The provincial and federal departments work in close co-operation with each other and with the industry. In 1905, a federal Fisheries Commission was appointed to investigate the British Columbia fisheries with special reference to the salmon fishing and canning industries. It reported in 1907 and changes in the regulations of 1894 were made. The main object was conservation, but the international character of the fisheries hindered the attainment of the objective. The regulations were modified from time to time on the basis of greater experience or of changes within the industry. For the better administration of the industry and to facilitate the application of local regulations, the province was divided into three divisions,4 each of which was placed under the direct charge of a district supervisor, who reported to the Chief Inspector. These districts were subdivided into smaller districts, each having an officer in charge of administration. In addition, temporary fishery guardians are employed from time to time.5 4" District No. 1 . . . that portion of the coast and waters tributary thereto of the mainland inside of a straight line drawn in a southeasterly direction from Gower Point at the northwesterly entrance of Howe Sound to the most westerly point of the international boundary line lying on the 49th parallel of north latitude in the Gulf of Georgia. "District No. 2 . . . the coast and waters tributary thereto of the mainland from a straight line drawn due west from Cape Caution northward to the northerly boundary of the province, as well as the coasts and waters of the islands opposite that portion of the mainland coast. "District No. 3 . . . the remainder of the province, and shall be subdivided as follows:— "West Coast Area—. . . all the territorial waters of British Columbia on the west coast of Vancouver Island between Beachy Head on the south and Cape Scott on the north. "East Coast Area—. . .all the territorial waters of British Columbia between the east coast of Vancouver Island and the mainland from Beachy Head at the south end of Vancouver Island to an imaginary straight line drawn from Cape Scott to Cape Caution on the north, except those portions thereof as are specifically exempted elsewhere in these regulations." (Digest of British Columbia Fishery Regulations, Western Fisheries, July, 1936). 5"Evidence of the Deputy Minister of Fisheries" (Proceedings of the Special Committee on Sealing and Fisheries in Pacific Waters, 1934, no. 1, pp. 10-12). 40 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES In 1910, regulations covering the maximum number of boats in certain areas in the northern part of the province were issued to prevent too intensive fishing in any one area. In 1912, a certain proportion of this number was reserved for white fishermen who were British subjects and owned their own boats and nets, in order to encourage their permanent settlement in the north. Considerable feeling arose between the whites and the Orientals, particularly the Japanese, who were rapidly displacing the whites. In 1920, the policy was adopted of granting unlimited licences to all British subjects of the white race and to Indians,6 and of restricting the number of licences to others. It was suggested that the Japanese should be excluded and a Royal Commission was appointed in 1922. Its report stated that Our investigations have made it clear to us that all the interests concerned, excepting of course Japanese Fishermen's Associations and allied interests, profess to be at one as to the desirability of having white fishermen employed to a greater extent in the salmon fishery of British Columbia. Members of the House of Commons from the Pacific province, white fishermen's associations, Indian fishermen and their representatives, organizations such as the G.W.V.A., and the people of British Columbia generally, have consistently and strongly urged that steps be taken towards restoring the fishery to white fishermen and ...Indians. Those canners who appeared before the Committee of the House last session expressed themselves as also desirous of seeing more white fishermen in the industry, and suggested a slight reduction in the licenses issued to oriental fishermen to start with. As a result of this pressure the Department, in June last, decided to gradually eliminate the oriental fishermen from the fishery by beginning in 1923 with the following reduction in the number of licenses issued in 1922: Gill netting, Fishing Districts Nos. 1 and 3, a 15 per cent reduction; Fishing District No. 2, Rivers and Smiths Inlets, a 50 per cent reduction; Fishing District No. 2, Skeena and Naas Rivers, a 10 per cent reduction. In the remainder of the province and on all kinds of licenses a 15 per cent reduction. It should be explained that as a result of urgent representations in the beginning of the year 1922, the number of licenses to orientals for trolling was reduced by 33% per cent, while a reduction of 25 per cent is being made effective in 1923. It will thus be seen that the question we have to consider in this connection is not whether Oriental licenses should be reduced in number, but what percentage of reduction should be decided upon in order to bring about the displacement of Orientals by white fishermen in the shortest possible time without disrupting the industry.7 6Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries, 1920 (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1922, no. 40). ^Report and Recommendations, British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1922, P. a. FISHERY REGULATIONS 41 The Commission, assuming the validity of the claims of the white interests, proceeded to outline a programme by which the gradual elimination of the Japanese could be carried out, and recommended a general reduction in 1923 of 40 per cent below 1922. Japanese licences8 were reduced from 3,933 in 1922 to 2,627 in 1923 and slight annual reductions continued until 1927, when the number TABLE XVII Number of Salmon Licences Issued in British Columbia 1912-37 Year Gill-net Troll Purse-seine Drag-seine Trap-net 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 ~1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 640 782 857 ,951 ,600 286 073 598 761 777 483 969 ,696 ,226 ,850 ,643 179 609 061 893 ,359 113 826 216 620 095 1,370 1,786 2,260 1,855 1,452 1,513 1,416 1,553 1,821 2,416 3,093 2,987 2,630 3,115 3,115 3,033 2,880 3,099 3,002 3,511 3,162 92 74 61 61 80 99 122 138 155 59 147 223 242 329 445 552 397 371 343 228 157 238 296 293 287 291 139 124 107 109 115 136 147 104 45 35 40 31 32 37 41 46 22 22 21 21 30 31 9 12 17 12 12 10 16 24 21 19 19 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 5 5^\ efoio Source: Papers). Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional 8See W. A. Carrothers, "Oriental Standards of Living" (C. H. Young and H. R. Y. Reid, The Japanese Canadians, Toronto, 1939, p. 258, also pp. 36-41). 42 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES was 1,999. There was an increase in 1228 to 2,261, when the policy of eliminating the Japanese was abandoned. In 1935, 2,023 licences were issued to Japanese, and from 1928 to 1935 the average annual number was 2,201. The number of purse-seines used in salmon fishing increased from Q2 in 1912 to 445 in 1926,9 and it became necessary to extend the prohibited areas to protect the schools of salmon, particularly In shallow waters. Districts Nos. 2 and 3 were divided into twenty- seven areas within which the use of the purse-seine was permitted, while the gill-net or drift-net only was permitted in certain other areas, particularly the estuary of the Naas and Skeena Rivers, Rivers Inlet, Smith Inlet, Butedale, Bella Coola, Dean Channel, and Namu. These areas were defined in such a way as to embrace as nearly as possible a complete system of waterways or salmon runs, and they were arranged to conform with the districts covered by each individual fishery inspector, and with areas used for the Collection of statistical information. An allotted number of purse- seines is given to each area, and, while no properly qualified person is refused a salmon purse-seine licence, if the allotment is exceeded, the weekly close period in that area is increased. This has been a potent factor in reducing excessive fishing in certain areas. 9Report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1926). FISHERY REGULATIONS 43 APPENDIX A 1. Fishing by means of nets or any other fishing apparatus whatever for any kind of fish without licences from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is prohibited in any of the waters of the Province of British Columbia. (a) Provided always that Indians may, at any time, with the permission of the inspector of fisheries, catch fish for the purpose of providing food for themselves and their families but for no other purpose, but no Indian shall spear, trap or pen fish on their spawning grounds, nor catch them during the close season, or in any place leased or set apart for the natural or artificial propagation of fish, or in any other place otherwise specially reserved. 2. Nets for catching "quinnat" or spring salmon in the tidal waters of British Columbia shall only be used from the first day of March to the 15th day of December, both days inclusive, and the meshes of such nets shall not be less than 7f inches in extension measurement, and nothing shall be done to practically diminish the size of meshes. 3. The meshes of nets for catching salmon, other than quinnat or spring salmon in the tidal waters, shall not be less than 5f inches in extension measurement, and shall only be used between the 1st day of July and the 25th day of August, both days inclusive, and between the 25th day of September and the 31st day of October, both days inclusive, in any year, and nothing shall be done to practically diminish the size of the meshes. 4. No salmon shall be taken in any of the waters of British Columbia from the 15th day of September to the 25th day of September, both days inclusive, nor from the 31st day of October to the last day of February following, both days inclusive. 5. No nets other than drift-nets shall be used for catching salmon of any kind, and such drift-nets shall only be used in tidal waters. 6. No nets of any kind shall be used for catching any kind of salmon in the inland lakes or in the fresh or non-tidal waters of rivers or streams. But Indians may, with the permission of the inspector of fisheries, use dip-nets for the purpose of providing food for themselves and their families, but for no other purposes. 7. Drift-nets shall not be used so as to obstruct more than one-third of the width of any river or stream or any branch or channel thereof, and nets shall be kept at least 250 yards apart. 8. No seines shall be used within the distance of five hundred yards from any point in any direction whatever from an imaginary line drawn across the mouth of any river or stream in British Columbia, and the points between which the said line shall be drawn shall be fixed by the inspector of fisheries. 9. No one shall fish for salmon from Saturday morning at six o'clock until the following Sunday afternoon at six o'clock. All other nets or other fishing gear set or used and all fish caught during this period shall be deemed to be illegally used or caught, and shall be liable to seizure and confiscation, and the person or persons so violating the law shall also be liable to the fines and penalties provided by the Fisheries Act. 44 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES 10. Before any net or fishing boat or other fishing apparatus is used the owner or person interested in such net, fishing boat or fishing apparatus shall cause a memorandum in writing, setting forth the name of the owner or person interested, the length of the net or boat, and the description and size of any fishing apparatus it is the intention to use and the place where it is proposed to use the same, to be filed with the inspector of fisheries, and if no valid objection exists, the inspector of fisheries may, subject to such instructions as he may receive from time to time from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, issue a fishery licence for the same. Any net, fishing boat or fishing apparatus, used before such licence has been obtained and any net, fishing boat or fishing apparatus used and not included in the description contained in such licence shall be deemed to be illegal and liable to forfeiture, together with the fish caught therein, and the owner or person using the same shall also be subject to the fines and penalties provided by the Fisheries Act. 11. All nets and fishing boats shall be numbered, and every boat shall have its number and the name of its owner painted on it in a conspicuous manner, and every net shall have the name of its owner or owners as well as the numbers legibly marked on buoys of wood or metal painted white, and floating on the water, attached to each end of the net, and such names and numbers shall be permanently kept on such nets and boats during the fishing season and shall be so placed and kept as to be visible without taking up the net or nets, and any net or fishing boat used without such marks shall be liable to forfeiture. 12. Each bona fide fisherman, being an actual resident of the province of British Columbia, |s to o.terin 9ne licence to fish -for salinonT* 13-16. Each firm, company or person actually engaged in the business of freezing and export of fresh salmon; each firm, company or person actually engaged in the business of shipping or exporting fresh salmon on ice not frozen or canned; each firm, company or person actually engaged in dealing in salmon for home consumption; and each firm, company or person carrying on the business of salting, curing or smoking salmon for the domestic or foreign markets shall be entitled to obtain not more than seven licences. £ 17. Each firm, company or person actually engaged in canning salmon J for the domestic or foreign markets, shall be entitled to obtain not more than \twenty licences. 18. The holder of every licence shall at the end of each fishing season make a true return of all fish caught under such licence. 19. No licence shall be granted to any company, firm or person unless each member of such firm or company or such person is a British subject, and such firm or company or person must be the actual owners or proprietors of the business, nets, boats and fishing gear for which the licences are granted, and all salmon caught for the purpose of being frozen, canned, salted, cured or smoked shall be so frozen, canned, salted, cured or smoked in the province of British Columbia. 20. No licence shall be transferable under any circumstances, unless the written consent of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has first been obtained. 21. All licences granted under sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, shall FISHERY REGULATIONS 45 be called a "commercial" licence, and no net to be used under any such "commercial" licence shall exceed in length three hundred yards, and the fee for such "commercial" licence shall be ten dollars ($10.00). 22. Every settler or farmer actually residing on his lands or with his family, being a British subject, shall be entitled to obtain one licence, by applying therefor to the inspector of fisheries, and under such licence may fish in any of the waters of British Columbia, except in any prescribed limits at the mouths of rivers or streams or during the close seasons, or in any place leased or set apart for the natural or artificial propagation of fish or in any other place otherwise specially reserved. Such licence shall be called a "domestic" licence. No net to be used under any "domestic" licence shall exceed three hundred yards in length. The meshes shall be of the same size as those under "commercial" licences, and such nets shall only be used for obtaining fish for the use of the owners' families and not for sale, trade or barter; the fee for a "domestic" licence shall be one dollar ($1.00). 23. No person shall fish for, kill, buy, sell or have in possession in the province of British Columbia any young of the salmon, such as fry, parr, smolt or grilse under three pounds in weight, and if any such young are caught by accident in nets or other fishing apparatus, they shall be liberated alive at the cost and risk of the owner of such, net or apparatus. 24. Holders of licences for using nets to catch salmon-trout and whitefish in the lakes in the province of British Columbia, may use gill-nets, such nets not to exceed one thousand yards in length, with meshes not less than five inches extension measure. The fee for a licence to catch salmon-trout and whitefish shall be five dollars ($5.00). j 25. No one shall fish for, catch, buy, sell or possess in the province of British Columbia any salmon-trout or whitefish from the first day of October to the thirtieth day of November, both days inclusive. 26. No one shall fish for, catch, kill, buy, sell or possess any brook-trout of any kind, or speckled-trout, between the fifteenth day of October and the fifteenth day of March, both days inclusive. But Indians may at any time catch such trout for the purpose of providing food for themselves and their families, but for no other purpose. 27. No one shall at any time fish for, catch or kill brook-trout of any kind or speckled-trout by means other than angling with hook and line, and this restriction shall apply to Indians. 28. The use of firearms of any kind, explosive materials, spears of any description, or torch or other lights to kill fish is prohibited in the province of British Columbia. 29. All materials, implements, nets, appliances or gear of any kind used, and all fish caught, taken, killed, bought, sold or possessed in violation of any of the above regulations shall be seized and confiscated, and any person or persons, or company violating any of the above regulations shall also incur the other penalties provided by the Fisheries Act. 30. The above regulations shall come into force on the first day of May, 1894, and thereafter all former regulations relating to the fisheries in the province of British Columbia shall be superseded and repealed. CHAPTER VI TREATIES AND TARIFFS A. Primary Products According to Article 3 of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, ... the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested, the right to take fish of any kind on the Grand Bank and all other banks in Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and at all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish; and also, that they shall have the liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, but not to dry or cure the same on that island; and also, on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, and so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlements without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of that ground. Tbf-^gT- of *fti9 abrogated tn^ treaty, w* th^jConvjenliQrijoi 1818j permitted United States fishermen to fish.andLi° .cure fish along parts of the coasts of Canada only when the coast was not settled. On ^settled parts o^jthejcoastjjfcshi^^ on pjnly~oulside the three mile limit. _The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 provided for reciprocal fishing privileges in certain-territorial waters of each country. Withjts termination in 1866, the provisions of the ConventiQn_.of-JL818^again came into force. A system of licensing foj^gjlJ^ss^ls^yas^adopted which allowed American .fishermen the r^hta tJiev had-enfoved under the. Reciprocity Treaty on payment of a licence fee.2 Increases in the fees led American fishermen to enter C?naHj?n waters without licencesanj^oonflicts betweeja the_ Canadian and American fishermen ensued. The system was discontinued in 1870. Tbg^ Wa^hin^tonjreaty was signed in 1871 and again provided for^reciprocal fishing privileges in Canadian and American waters. Provision_was made forth£jestablishment of arTarbitration board m. A. Innis, The Cod Fisheries (New Haven, 1940), pp. 246-8; Hugh L. Keenleyside, Canada and the United States (Toronto, 1929), chap, vn, p. 267. 2Innis, The Cod Fisheries, pp. 364-5. 46 TREATIES AND TARIFFS 47 to rule on the British claim that under the Treaty more valuable rights and privileges had been surrendered than had been received in return. The Board met in Halifax in 1877 and awarded Canada $5,500,000, one million of which went to Newfoundland. From this fund an annual grant of $160,000 was provided to assist in the development of the deep sea fisheries of Canada and in the encouragement of building and equipping of improved fishing vessels. In the debates leading to ratification of the Washington Treaty by the Canadian Parliament in 1872, representatives of the new Province of British Columbia held that its provisions applied to that province. According to Mr. Wallace, representing Vancouver Island, "It gave a free market for the fish and oil, the trade in which was now carried on at a loss. He spoke from large experience of the fishing interest of British Columbia where at present there was practically no market. The ratification of the Treaty would open up the Maritime Trade and produce the most beneficial results."3 The United States claimed4 that it did not apply to British Columbia, since the Treaty had been drafted and signed before the province entered Confederation. Thus, until 1885, when the application of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington was terminated by the United States government, duty was paid on fish entering the United States from British Columbia, while fish from the rest of Canada was admitted duty free. On the other hand, since British Columbia had entered the Dominion as a province, all rights to the control of tariffs had passed to the government at Ottawa, and fish from the United States entered British Columbia duty free in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. In 1888, failing to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the international problems of the fisheries, a modus vivendi was arrived at between Canada and the United States, by which American fishermen purchasing licences were allowed the use of Canadian harbours and bays for the purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and other supplies and outfits, and for the trans-shipment of catch and the shipping of crews. A licence fee of $1.50 per ton was paid. It was intended as a tem- ^Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1872, p. 526. 4In 1876 Mr. Amor de Cosmos said: ". . . we are aware of the action of the United States authorities, as well as their reasons, so far as communicated by the Customs Officers. They maintain that British Columbia, not having been a part of the Dominion at the date of the negotiation of this Treaty, cannot be admitted to the enjoyment of its benefits" (ibid., 1876, p. 215). 48 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES porary solution until such time as a satisfactory treaty could be negotiated, but since no treaty was negotiated the arrangement continued until 1918. The tariff on fish entering Canada is of comparatively little significance. In the Crown colony of British Columbia fish were at first not subject to duty. In 1859, they were taken off the free list and the Customs Amendment of 1860 placed a duty of one penny per pound on dried fish and one-half penny per pound on salt fish, fresh fish being classified amongst unenumerated articles paying 10 per cent. In 1865, dried fish paid 30 per cent, preserved fish 12J per cent, and fresh fish were free. In 1867, a duty of 15 per cent was imposed on preserved, dried, and salted, and frozen fish. Fresh fish, fish oil, and whale bone were admitted free. Reciprocity with the United States was discussed at the request of the Governor by the Colonial Legislative Council in 1869. A Committee recommended that reciprocity in certain articles should be negotiated, the enumerated articles such as fish of all kinds, fish oil, tar, pitch, and cotton canvas5 to be given freedom of trade or a small rate of duty determined mutually. The Canadian tariff extended to British Columbia in 1872 admitted fresh fish free, but imposed a duty of one cent per pound on salted or smoked fish, as compared with a duty of 15 per cent under the British Columbia tariff. The Washington Treaty admitted American fish to the British Columbia market free but did not admit British Columbia fish to the American market free. In 1879, fish, whether fresh, salted, or smoked, entering from countries other than the United States paid a duty of one cent per pound. On the termination of the Washington Treaty in 1885, mackerel, pickled salmon, and all other fish, except herring, pickled in barrels, paid a duty of one cent per pound. Herring, pickled or salted, and all fish, n.o.p., imported otherwise than in barrels or half barrels, whether fresh, dried, salted, or pickled, paid a duty of one-half cent per pound. The duty on fish, smoked and boneless, was one cent per pound; on shelled oysters in bulk, 10 cents per gallon; and on oysters in the shell, 25 per cent. The duties of 1885 were similar for the most part to those imposed on similar products entering the United States. The only element of free trade in fish and fish products which remained between the two countries was under Section 3 of the Revised Tariff of 1886, where provision was made fiJournals of the Legislative Council of British Columbia, Jan. 15, 1869. TREATIES AND TARIFFS 49 "for the remission of duties on fish from the United States and Newfoundland by proclamation of the Governor-in-Council, which may be issued whenever k appears to his satisfaction that the Governments of the United States or Newfoundland have taken off or reduced the duties on Canadian products going to those countries."6 Similarly, the Tariff Act of 1888 provided that "any or all of the following things, that is to say, fish of all kinds, fish oil, products of fish and of all other creatures living in the water, may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than is provided for by any Act at the time in force, upon the proclamation of the Governor-in-Council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar Canadian articles may be imported into the United States free of duty or at a less rate of duty. . . ."7 In 1890, the duty on salmon, pickled or salted, and on all other fish pickled or salted in barrels, was made one cent per pound. In 1895, the following item, 199a, was introduced: "Salmon, fresh, n.e.s., one-half cent per pound, provided that such salmon may be imported free of duty, upon proclamation of the Governor-in- Council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that fresh salmon may be imported into the United States from Canada free of duty."8 In the same year, a proclamation issued on August 13 permitted fresh salmon to be imported free of duty until further order.9 In the Tariff Act of 1897 a duty of one- half cent per pound on fresh salmon was restored. American and Canadian canners of sockeye salmon supplemented their supply in case of scarcity by importing fresh salmon across the border, but in 1904 the Canadian government prohibited the export of fresh sockeye salmon to Puget Sound for canning pur- * poses. The price was higher in the United States than in Canada as a result of the greater size of the American market and of certain features of the organization of the salmon industry in the United States. The larger canneries for the most part used their own traps for catching salmon, while the smaller canneries bought in the open market. The larger canners, in competition with the smaller canners, paid an artificially high price for salmon to independent • fishermen, even though in many cases they did not need the extra ^Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, chap. 33, sec. 3. ^Statutes of Canada, 1888, chap. 15, sec. 9. Hbid., 1895, chap. 23. Hbid., 1896, Proclamation, Aug.. 13, 1895. 50 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES source of supply. Had Canadian fishermen been free to sell fresh salmon on the American market, they would have received the artificially high price. It would have been difficult for Canadian canners to secure a supply of sockeye and the existence of the industry in British Columbia would have been endangered. In 1907, fish became subject to the three tariffs—British preferential, intermediate, and general—and all fish—fresh, pickled, or salted—were subject to a duty of f, f, and 1 cent per pound. Duty on "all other articles the produce of the fisheries, n.o.p." was increased to 15, 20, and 25 per cent. In 1908, a Trade Agreement between France and Canada provided that the French minimum tariff should apply on many of the fish and fish products of Canada. The duties were still high, and it is questionable whether the Treaty was of much benefit to the Canadian industry. The Underwood tariff of 1913 permitted Canadian fish to enter the United States market duty free. "Added impetus to all branches of the fisheries has been lent by the removal of the duty upon fresh fish entering the United States. Halibut, herring, cod, and other fisheries have benefited by this. The demand for pickled herring is a noticeable feature in this connection, and already one firm at Nanaimo and another in the north are preparing to cater to this market."10 Although provision had been made by the Canadian government previous to 1907 for reciprocity in the duties imposed on fish and fish products, it did not attempt to meet the terms of the Underwood tariff. The special War Revenue duty imposed in 1915 of 5, 7 J, 7J per cent on British preferential, intermediate, and general tariffs, applied on all fish except those coming from Newfoundland and fish caught by fishermen in Canadian boats. Fish and fish products were, however, exempted from the provisions of this Act in 1919. The Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 resulted in decreased exports of fish to the United States. It imposed duties on fresh or frozen halibut, mackerel, or salmon, of 2 cents per pound; all other fresh or frozen fish, 1 cent per pound; dried fish, 1| cents per pound; pickled herring and mackerel, 1 cent per pound; cod oil, 5 cents per gallon (formerly 3 cents); green-salted cod, li cents per pound. The only attempt made by Canada to remove the disabilities imposed was to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, by the inclusion of a section which provided that if the United States would reduce the 10Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1913, p. 8. TREATIES AND TARIFFS 51 tariff on certain fish products of importance, then Canada would make concessions to certain articles imported into Canada from that country. A new Trade Agreement between Canada and France in 1923, admitted fresh, dried, salted, or smoked fish, and fresh, preserved, or prepared lobsters, on the French minimum tariff but only lobsters have been exported in any quantity. In 1925, a Treaty with Australia granted to Canada her British preferential tariff on fresh, smoked, dried, or frozen fish, and on fresh oysters. A similar agreement was made in the same year with New Zealand. In 1934 the use of traps by United States fishermen was prohibited and the artificially high price for sockeye salmon to the American fishermen disappeared. Canadian and American canners of salmon operated on an equal basis. In these circumstances the embargo on the export of fresh salmon became a hardship to the Canadian fishermen, and was unnecessary as a protection for the Canadian canner. The Member for Comox moved in the session of the Dominion Parliament in 1935: "That, in the opinion of this house, the section of the special fishery regulations for the Province of British Columbia which prohibits the export of sockeye salmon in a fresh condition, is against public policy and should be rescinded."11 The embargo imposed in 1904 was removed and the United States market for fresh sockeye was opened to Canadian fishermen. B. Manufactured Fishing Products Canned salmon was probably admitted free under the general provisions for fish prior to 1859. Fish oil was probably subject to the duty of 10 per cent which applied to "all goods not enumerated." From 1859 to 1865 the duty on canned fish was presumably 10 per cent. The Canadian tariff of 1872 imposed a duty of 15 per cent on canned fish, oysters, and lobsters in tins or kegs, and fish oil, but canned fish entered free from the United States under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington. By the tariff of 1879, fish oil was admitted duty free, but medicated cod liver oil and sperm oil paid 20 per cent. In spite of the Washington Treaty, the United States imposed a duty of 1| cents per pound on all canned goods in 1879. In retaliation Canada placed a duty of 1| cents on each nCanada, House of Commons Debates, 1935 (unrevised ed.), p. 1114. 52 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES quart container with fish. The Minister of Finance stated that "It was intended to counteract the effect of American legislation by which the trade of the United States had an advantage over our people of 18 cents per dozen on all canned fish."12 With the expiration of the Washington Treaty in 1885, canned fish was subject to a duty of 25 per cent and the duty on fish containers continued. By Order-in-Council of 1886, fish skins and fish offal for the making of glue were admitted free. By the French Trade Agreement of 1894 the French minimum tariff applied to "fish preserved in their natural form," and assurance was given in the Canadian Parliament that canned salmon was definitely included.13 In 1903, however, shipments from British Columbia were forced to pay the French general tariff.14 In 1908, the treaty with France definitely admitted canned salmon as well as canned lobsters, fish oils, spermaceti, and roe of cod or mackerel, under the French minimum tariff. The tariff of 1907 placed a higher duty on canned fish of various kinds. Anchovies, sardines, and sprats, were made dutiable according to weight instead of size of box. The duty on other fish preserved in oil was changed from 30 per cent to 20, 30, and 35 per cent. Canned salmon and other preserved fish had a duty of 17|, 27|, and 30 per cent. The duty on fish oils was changed from 20 per cent to 12J, 20, and 22| per cent. The Customs Tariff War Revenue Act applied to canned fish, but this item was exempted in 1918. St In 1923, canned salmon shipped from British Columbia to Canadian ports on the Atlantic coast by way of the Panama Canal were considered to be dutiable, but arrangements were made which provided that if the ship did not call at intervening points, or if, having called, it did not break bulk, the cargo should not be dutiable. Since there was no Canadian Customs official in New York at that time, if a cargo of canned salmon was transferred at that point to a coastal steamer for transportation to a Canadian port, it had to bear the duty on entering Canada.15 In the Treaty of 1923 between Canada and France, "lobsters, preserved or prepared, fish oils, spermaceti, roe of cod and of 12Budget Speech for 1880, taken from S. J. McLean, The Tariff History of Canada (Toronto, 1895). nCanada, House of Commons Debates, 1894, p. 5576. "Ibid., 1903, p. 7799. ^Ibid., 1923, pp. 2615 and 3275. TREATIES AND TARIFFS 53 mackerel" were subject to the French minimum tariff. "Fish, preserved by pickling, or otherwise prepared," were allowed a reduction of 60 per cent of the difference between the French general and minimum tariffs. This meant an increase from 25 to 35 francs per 100 kilograms in the duty on canned salmon which previously had the privilege of the French minimum tariff.16 Canada gave France the benefit of specific duties on anchovies, sardines, sprats, and other fish packed in oil, which were considerably lower than those of the Canadian intermediate tariff. The Treaty did not alter the situation as far as the eastern fishing industry was concerned, but was adverse to the fishing industry in British Columbia.*7 The reduced advantage was of value, however, as American salmon entered France at a duty of 50 francs per 100 kilograms. , The Trade Agreement between France and Canada in 1^32/gave Canadian canned salmon, lobsters, fish fats, spermaceti, and roe of cod and mackerel, the French minimum tariff, and in return Canada granted France her intermediate tariff on anchovies, sardines, sprats, pilchard, and herring, packed in oil, or otherwise, in sealed containers. French sardines were also permitted to enter Canada at the intermediate tariff rate, less a discount of 20 per cent. This Agreement again placed British Columbia canned salmon on an equality with salmon imported from Japan. In 1925 a Trade Agreement between Canada and Australia gave canned salmon the important advantage of the British preferential tariff of one cent per pound. The Australian Trade Agreement of 1931 gave Canadian canned salmon a preference of 6 cents per pound over that of other countries, and practically secured the market for British Columbia. In 1931, the preference of $1.25 per case which New Zealand had granted on Canadian canned salmon was removed, presumably because of the increase in the Canadian tariff on New Zealand butter.18 The New Zealand Trade Agreement of 1932 gave Canadian canned salmon a preference of 1} pence per pound. In 1931, the duty on crabs and clams in sealed containers was increased from 17|, 27| and 30 per cent to 17|, 40, and 40 per cent (British preferential, intermediate, and general tariffs). The Trade Agreement with South Africa of 1932 provided for a preference of uIbid.t p. 2006. "Ibid., p. 2235. "Ibid., 1931, p. 2525. mm 54 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES 1J pence per pound on all Canadian canned fish. The Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom gave free entry to canned salmon and other canned fish, cod liver and other fish oils, and in addition a preference of 10 per cent on canned salmon and other fish. The following table shows the preferential position of Canadian fish products in the British market under this Agreement. Article Fish, fresh, sea Salmon, canned Fish, other, canned Codfish Salmon, chilled or frozen. Oysters, June-February.. Oysters, March-May.... Shell fish, other, fresh Cod liver oil Other fish oils Preferential rate free General rate 10 per cent 10 10 10 l|d. per lb. 30 per cent 10 30 Is. 4d. per gal. 10 per cent It was doubted, however, that the 10 per cent preference would be sufficient to protect the Canadian product against Japan and the Soviet Republic.19 Keen competition in canned fish products was met from Japan and Russia, particularly in the European markets, partly as a result of marketing policy, and partly from more favourable tariff provisions in the case of Japan. The Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, which became effective January 1, 1936, brought considerable reduction of duty on fish and fish products by both countries. C. Equipment Primary Industry It would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine the effect of the Canadian tariff on fishing equipment on the Pacific coast fishing industry. Prior to the union of the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia in 1866, Vancouver Island was a free trade area with Victoria as its port of entry, but on March 25, 1867, the customs duties of the colony of British Columbia were extended to Vancouver Island. The advantages of Vancouver Island fishermen were brought to an end. "Ibid., 1932-33, p. 534. TREATIES AND TARIFFS 55 In 1858, when British Columbia was made a Crown colony, Sir James Douglas issued a proclamation establishing a tariff. At first it was small, and no specific mention is made of fishing equipment, which entered the colony under the item of "all goods not enumerated," and paid an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. In 1859 considerable quantities of fishing nets were imported from Scotland, and nets and lines were brought in from San Francisco.20 Salt was admitted free and still remains on the free list when used commercially in the fishing industry. In 1864, Ordinance No. 16 provided that "all machinery for steam-boats and all materials bona fide intended and used for ship-building within the Colony" should have free entry. In 1865, in a complete revision of the tariff, a duty of 12J per cent was imposed on rope and cordage, hardware and iron- TABLE XVIII Customs Duties, 1865 Colony of British Columbia No. 3, An Ordinance to Amend the Duties of Customs, Feb. 1865 Item Duty Equipment Rope and cordage Hardware and ironmongery All kinds of machinery All materials required for ship or boat building Tar and pitch Raw Materials and Goods Consumed in Production Salt. . . Tin and tinware Woodware (barrels) Products Dried fish Fish (preserved) Fresh fish Oils (would include fish oil) All goods not enumerated Per cent 12| pi free free 12^ free 12| 12! 30 12! free 15 12! 20List of imports in British Colonist, Aug. 3, 1859. 56 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES mongery, and tar and pitch, but all machinery and materials used in ship or boat-building were admitted free (Table xviii). In 1867, the duty on rope, cordage, and twine was reduced from 12| pef cent to 5 per cent. Lead, copper, and wire were admitted free (Table xix). These duties remained in force until 1872 when British Columbia accepted the Canadian tariff. The opponents of Confederation pointed out in the debates of the Legislative Council of British Columbia in 1870 that the Canadian tariff on all commodities was 7 per cent lower on the average than that of British Columbia. In spite of this it was urged that TABLE XIX Customs Duties, 1867 Colony of British Columbia No. 18, An Ordinance to Amend the Duties of Customs in British Columbia Fishing Industry—Primary Items Duty Equipment Rope, cordage, and twine Hardware and ironmongery Lead in pipe, sheets, and bars; wire (iron and brass); copper sheets; tar and pitch; oakum and jute; patent metal for ships; anchors; cables, chains, and copper bolts for ship building; ships blocks and junk Hemp canvas Ship building materials: Manufactured sails Cotton canvas Salt Woodenware (barrels, kegs, pails, etc.) Fishing Industry—Secondary Machinery Raw Materials and Goods Consumed in Production Tin j Tinware All goods not enumerated Coal per ton Per cent 5 12! free 2! 20 5 free 12! 10 free 25 12! $1.25 TREATIES AND TARIFFS 57 the Canadian tariff policy would be detrimental to British Columbia since it was designed to protect manufactures rather than agricultural products and staple commodities. The policy of British Columbia was to protect agricultural and other primary products, and to admit free, or at a low rate of duty, articles which would assist in the development of its industries. The fishing industry would be stimulated by the fostering of low costs of equipment and salt. Fish-hooks, nets, and seines had free entry into Canada, while they had to bear a duty of 12 J per cent when imported into British Columbia. Lines and twines, cordage for ships* purposes, sail-cloth and canvas for ships, entered Canada free and paid a duty of 5 per cent when entering British Columbia. Tin, including tin-plate, which was important in the growing salmon- canning industry, was admitted free in British Columbia. On March 27, 1872, when the duties in force in Canada were extended to British Columbia, practically all equipment, as well as salt, bait, and muriatic acid, used in the fishing industry was admitted free. All other raw materials paid a duty of 15 per cent. The duty on tin-plate was 5 per cent. In 1874 the duties were amended and a 5 per cent duty placed on equipment and articles for boats and ships, cordage and sail-cloth or canvas for boats, and iron wire. Wire rigging for ships was still admitted free. With the National Policy in 1879 and its sharp upward revision of the tariff, the fishing industry lost the advantage of free entry for much of its equipment. A duty of 20 per cent was placed on cordage, 10 per cent on copper wire, 15 per cent on iron and steel wire. Duties were imposed on metals used by fishermen for the manufacture of equipment; for example, 10 per cent on sheet brass, lead, and tin-plate, although by Order-in-Council21 provision was made for a drawback on tin-plate of 34 cents per box of tin used in the manufacture of packages for articles exported. A duty of 25 per cent was imposed on sails. Wire rigging, oakum, and anchors remained on the free list, but a duty of 10 per cent was placed on foreign-built boats. A duty of 20 per cent was placed on muriatic acid, and 25 per cent on barrels, and the duty on all unenumerated articles was increased to 20 per cent. Fish-hooks, nets, seines, lines, and twines continued to have free entry. In 1880 the drawback on tin-plate was increased to 50 cents per box and in 1882 the duty was removed. Tin-plate was imported direct from England 21Order-in-Council, June 11, 1879. 58 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES to the Pacific coast. The 10 per cent duty on foreign-built boats was made in 1882 to apply only to the hull and rigging of the ships, but on all of the ship's machinery it was increased to 25 per cent. In 1883, old brass, copper, iron and steel wire were placed on the free list. In 1884, "labels for fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, etc.," were introduced into the tariff schedule and a duty of 10 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem imposed.22 It was increased in 1887 to 15 cents per pound and 25 per cent ad valorem.23 In 1886, the duty on cordage was changed to 1| cents per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem, which meant a decrease in the duty on expensive cordage and an increase in that on cheaper grades. New items were added to the equipment list, including: fishing rods, 30 per cent; waterproof clothing, 35 per cent; rubber boots used by fishermen, 25 per cent. Minor changes were made in all items of equipment from time to time, but were not of an extent to be significant. In 1896, the duty on cordage and twine was changed to 25 per cent ad valorem, and in 1897 the duty on labels to a straight 35 per cent ad valorem. In the same year, olive oil for canning fish was placed on the free list. The outstanding change in the tariff revision of 1897 was the adoption of a "reciprocal" tariff, which was one-eighth lower than the general tariff. This "reciprocal'' tariff was at once applied to the United Kingdom, and later extended to other countries as a result of trade treaties with the United Kingdom which contained the "most-favoured-nation" clause. It disappeared in 1898 when the British preferential tariff was adopted by Canada as follows: Articles which are the growth, produce, or manufacture of any of the following countries, may when imported direct into Canada from any of such countries, be entered for duty or taken out of warehouse for consumption in Canada at the reduced rate of duty provided for in the British Preferential tariff set forth in Schedule D to this Act: (a) The United Kingdom; (b) Bermuda; (c) British West Indies; (d) British Guiana; (e) any other British Colony or Possession the Customs tariff of which is as favourable to Canada as the British Preferential tariff herein referred to is to such Colony or Possession.24 The amount of reduction was at first 25 per cent of the ordinary duty, but in 1900, 33| per cent. In 1904, the general reduction was abandoned and the policy of a low preferential rate on each ^Statutes of Canada, 1884, chap. 30. 2*Ibid., 1887, chap. 39. 2iIbid., 1898, chap. 37, sec. 2 as amending sec. 17 of chap. 16, 1897. TREATIES AND TARIFFS 59 imported article followed. In 1907, the present system of three different duties, the British preferential, intermediate, and general, was adopted. By 1907 fishermen were beginning to use internal combustion engines in their boats, and^were affected by the tariff on oils. Diesel oil, which was largely used, was admitted free, but gasoline carried a duty of 1J, 2J, and 2\ cents per gallon. In 1915, the Customs Tariff War Revenue Act established additional duties of 5, 7J, and 7\ per cent respectively on the British preferential, intermediate, and general tariffs with certain exceptions which affected the fishing industry. Olive oil, cottonseed oil, and peanut oil25 were exempted. Certain modifications were made in the classification of items affecting the fishing industry entering under the free list. A duty of 7If 12\, and 12J per cent had been placed on tin-plate. In 1919, the 5 per cent additional duty on the British preferential tariff was removed, the intermediate and general tariffs remaining the same. In 1922, a reduction of the duty on gasoline for fishing boats was proposed as a special concession for fishermen. When it was pointed out that this reduction would be of small benefit to fishermen on the Pacific coast as most of the power boats used distillate, the latter was included and the duty on both reduced to \, f, and 1 cent per gallon. The duty on tin-plate was reduced in 1926 to free, 5 per cent, and 5 per cent on "tin-plate of a kind not made in Canada," while "tin-plate, n.o.p." still paid the duty of 7, 12|, and Vl\ per cent. A drawback of 99 per cent was provided for tin- plate used in the export trade. In 1927, the Customs Tariff Act of 1907 was revised and consolidated. The principal tariff changes as applied to the fishing industry involved, in general, an extension of the free list and reduction of the duties on equipment and materials used commercially. Duties of \, \, and J cents were placed on diesel oil in 1927, and duties were imposed on lubricating oils. In 1930, the duty on gasoline and engine distillate used by fishing boats was increased to 2, 2J, and 2| cents per gallon. In November, 1928, Connor Bros., Ltd., packers of sardines, asked the Tariff Board to investigate the duties on tin-plate with a view to reduction. In its brief the Company pointed out that a 25In 1902, refined cottonseed oil used for canning fish had been placed on the free list, and in 1914 similar provision was made for peanut oil. 60 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES tin cartel of manufacturers of tin-plate in South Wales and the United States had parcelled out the markets for tin-plate. The Canadian market had been given to the American producers. Although tin-plate from England was free and from the United States paid a duty of 5 per cent, they were forced to buy their tin from the United States. They claimed that tin-plate producers in South Wales would not quote a reasonable price to consumers in Canada. The cartel raised the price of tin-plate generally.26 The result of the petition was only an upward revision in 1930. The duty on tin-plate of a kind not made in Canada remained free, 5 per cent, 5 per cent, but the duty on tin-plate, n.o.p., was increased from tfm 12|, 12§ per cent to 1\, 12|, 15 per cent. An additional amendment in 1930 lowered the British preferential tariff on containers made of tin-plate from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. Prior to this date they had entered Canada under the item 344, "Tinware, japanned or not and all manufactures of tin," and paid a duty of 15, 22|, and 25 per cent. The Royal Commission on Maritime Fisheries in 1928 was asked to remove the tariff on gaskets. "In sealing sardine tins, it is necessary to use a rubber gasket which is not manufactured in Canada, and which, because of patent rights, cannot be manufactured by the packer who manufactures cans."27 The report of the Tariff Board on Sardines and Herrings in November, 1928, recommended a reduction in the duty on these rubber gaskets which came in under item 618, "manufactures of india-rubber and gutta percha, n.o.p." and paid a duty of 15, 25, and 27| per cent.28 In 1929, the duty on "gaskets of rubber for use in sealing of containers for food products" (item 618a) was reduced to free, 7| per cent, and 10 per cent.29 In the Special Session, 1930, item 618a was struck out of the tariff, and the duty reverted to 15, 25, and 27| per cent under item 618.30 In the first revision of.the tariff in 1932-3, the duties on tin- plate of a class or kind not made in Canada were changed from free, 5 per cent, 5 per cent, to free, 15 per cent, 15 per cent, and on tin- 26Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, Reference 108, Hearing on Sardines and Herrings, November, 1928. 27Report of the Royal Commission on the Maritime Fisheries, May, 1928, p. 5. 28Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, Reference 108, Hearings on Sardines and Herrings, November, 1928. ^Statutes of Canada, 1929, chap. 39. Z0Ibid., 1930-1, chap. 3, special session, 1930. TREATIES AND TARIFFS 61 plate, n.o.p. from 7J, 12J, 15 per cent, to free, 20 per cent, 20 per cent—a decrease in the British preferential and an increase in the intermediate and general tariffs. In addition, a 10 per cent duty was placed on olive oil for canning fish under the intermediate and general tariffs, making the duty free, 10 per cent, 10 per cent.31 Under the United Kingdom Trade Agreement, Canada agreed to give a margin of preference to Great Britain on olive oil of 10 per cent, and on tin-plate made in Canada of 20 per cent, and on tin- plate not made in Canada of 15 per cent. The duty on olive oil was repealed at a later date in the same session, 1932-3, presumably with the permission of Great Britain.32 Secondary Industry Secondary fishing industries, such as the production of fish meal, fertilizer, oil, bone meal, etc., were exposed to tariff burdens. The importance of fish oil is shown in a comparison of exports with those of fish from 1867 to 1870.33 In 1858, machinery used in the extraction Article 1867 1868 1869 1870 Fish $ 3,112 2,919 $ 7,679 26,642 $ 4,603 19,878 $ 13,394 Fish oil 18,467 of fish oil paid a duty of 10 per cent on entering the colony of British Columbia. In 1865, all kinds of machinery entered free but a duty of 10 per cent was again imposed on machinery in 1867. In 1872, under the Canadian tariff, the duty was 15 per cent. It was reduced in 1874 to 10 per cent on machinery which was not manufactured in Canada. The National Policy tariff of 1879 imposed a duty of 25 per cent on "steam engines and boilers and other machinery composed wholly or in part of iron," which had previously come in under goods n.o.p. paying 15 per cent in 1872, and 17| per cent in 1877. In 1887, the duty on machinery was further increased to 30 per cent; in 1897, it was reduced to 25 per cent; and in 1907 it was again increased to 27J per cent, the British preferential and intermediate tariffs being 15 and 25 per cent respectively. ^Ibid., 1932-3, chap. 6. ™Ibid., chap. 37. 33Canada, Sessional Papers, 1871, no. 6, Colony of British Columbia. mam 62 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES Machinery was subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff War Revenue Act of 1915, so that from 1915 to 1919 the duties on machinery were 20, 32|, and 35 per cent; on leather belting, 20, 27J, and 30 per cent; and on belting, n.o.p., 25, 32|, and 35 per cent. In 1920, the duties reverted to the tariff of 1907. In 1923, an important concession was given to the fish-reducing industry when "machinery, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and parts thereof^ for the manufacture of fish meal, stock and poultry food and fertilizer, from fish and the waste thereof" was placed on the free list.34 Mr. Fielding, the Finance Minister, stated: "It is represented to us that vast quantities of fish waste are destroyed in Canada which could be converted into useful material, such as fertilizers, poultry feed, and so forth, and we propose that machinery of a class or kind not made in Canada, designed for that purpose, shall be admitted free."35 In 1930, the duty on machinery, whether of a kind made in Canada or not, for converting fish waste, etc., was changed to free, 15 per cent, and 20 per cent. This was a reduction since all of the machinery was being made in Canada and had been subject to a tariff of 15, 25, and 27| per cent. Machinery for the manufacture of keys for opening cans containing food products was admitted at a duty of free, 15 per cent, and 20 per cent. This was of minor importance to British Columbia since only small quantities of fish products are packed in cans requiring a key for the opening. It was again raised in 1931 to 15, 27J, and 35 per cent. The duty on leather belting was increased to 20, 30, and 35 per cent. In 1935, the duty on diesel and semi-diesel engines and complete parts thereof was reduced from 15, 27§, and 35 per cent, to free, 25 per cent, and 30 per cent. This type of engine is used in some fish canneries for power purposes. "Statutes of Canada, 1923, chap. 42. ^Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1923, p. 2645. CHAPTER VII CONSERVATION AND THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON The most important Canadian-American fisheries problem pertains to the sockeye salmon of the Fraser River district. The sockeye salmon returns to fresh water in the fourth year after first entering' salt water. Before they return to the river, the fish are in first-class condition, well-fed; and their flesh, rich, oily, and red, is exceptionT( ally fine for canning purposes. During the sockeye salmon run in the summer, hordes of fishermen, equipped with nets, congregate^ in the waters through which the fish pass on their way from the ' open sea to their spawning-grounds. They dispose of their catch at the canneries on the banks of the river. If in any year too many sockeye are caught before they reach their spawning grounds, the run four years later will be relatively small; if, year after year, excessive catches are made, the runs will j sooner or later become so poor as to render commercial fishing for| sockeye unprofitable. The need for regulations to limit the amount of salmon caught becomes apparent: there must be shorter "open", seasons; nets must have meshes large enough to ensure that a per-f centage of the fish will escape; the number of fishermen must be limited, and they must not be permitted to fish too close together, lest the passage of the fish be almost completely blocked. Effective precautions in Canada have been impossible since the Fraser River sockeye, on their way back to their Canadian birthplace, pass through American waters. American rules and regulations have been more lenient than the Canadian, and have permitted a larger annual catch on the American side than on the Canadian. The Americans, or at least an influential element amongst them, opposed the introduction of greater limitations in their waters, while the Canadians were unwilling to limit their own catch further unless the Americans were willing to co-operate. Various endeavours have been made by the two countries to solve the problem. The sockeye fisheries in the waters contiguous to British Columbia and the State of Washington first became a subject of international action as a result of a conference between the American Secretary of State and a Canadian fisheries delegations at Washington, D.C., on February 15, 1892. As a result, Senator 63 64 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES J. W. Foster of the United States proposed on October 4, 1892, to the Canadian government that two experts, one representing Canada and the other the United States, should by mutual agreement be appointed to enquire into the following questions i1 (a) The limitation or prevention of exhaustive or destructive methods of taking fish or shellfish in the territorial and contiguous waters of the United States and her Majesty's possessions in North America, respectively, and also in the waters of the open seas outside the territorial limits of either country to which the inhabitants of the respective countries may habitually resort for the purpose of fishing. (c) The close seasons expedient to be enforced or observed in such contiguous waters by the inhabitants of both countries as respects the taking of the several kinds of fish and shell-fish. (d) The adoption of practical methods of restocking and replenishing such contiguous and territorial waters with fish and shellfish, and means by which such fish life may be thereafter preserved and increased. The Canadian government immediately agreed to the proposal, and an exchange of notes bringing the agreement into effect was completed on December 6, 1892.2 Dr. Wakeham was appointed Canadian representative and Mr. Rathbun represented the United States. On December 31, 1896, a report was finally submitted. The investigations covered all the boundary waters of the two countries, but only those pertaining to British Columbia will be discussed here. * The Commission observed that the waters under the control of Canada and the State of Washington respectively3 were subject to rules and regulations which differed widely. In British Columbia, commercial fishing was restricted to tidal waters. Nets were not permitted to exceed 300 yards in length, and were to have a mesh not less than 5§- inches if used for sockeyes. They were to be separated by at Feast 250 yards and were not to obstruct more than one- third the width of the river. The close season for the sockeye extended from September 16 to 25 inclusive and from November 1 to March 1. Resident fishermen were granted one licence each, while canners and dealers were allowed from two to twenty, accord- 11 'Report, Joint Fisheries Commission" (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1897, no. 11D, p. vi). 2Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, vol. XIX, 1895, pp. 907-8. 3In Canada, the federal government has jurisdiction over the coastal fisheries; in the United States, this jurisdiction belongs to the various states. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 65 ing to the size of their establishments.4 In Washington, the only regulations relating to sockeyes in the open waters of Puget Sound apjjlied to trap-nets. It was stipulated that the "lead" into the trap-net should not exceed 2,500 feet, the end passageway was to be at least 600 feet, and the lateral passageway between nets at least 2,400 feet. The Commission's conclusions _ endorsed the majority of the Canadian regulations and recommended thatT with one or two modifications, they should be extended under some form of joint control5 to the American side. The modifications chiefly concerned the use of purse-seines and trap-nets. Purse-seines were numerically so unimportant as to create no problem, and therefore were not* restricted in any way. The Commission felt that the use of trap- nets was acceptable so long as care was taken to ensure that a1 reasonable percentage of fish could escape. These views were dictated by the belief that there was no prospect of a shortage in the near future in the Fraser River fisheries. The opinion of the Commission on fish culture is instructive :6 "As no evidence of a decrease in the abundance of any of the salmon species has been obtained, we do not feel justified in recommending joint action at present in the matter of their artificial propagation. While we feel confident that the natural supply can best be maintained by early compliance with suitable protective measures, we found it generally admitted that the efforts made by the Canadian Government to increase the stock of sockeye salmon on the Fraser River by fish-cultural methods have been beneficial, the annual run of the fish being made more constant and the off seasons being improved."7 The international agreement, under the terms of which the 4The report did not point out that in British Columbia trap-nets and purse - nets were limited by licence to such an extent as to be relatively unimportant. Gill-nets were, and still are, the typical equipment. 5This suggestion was not developed by the Commission, but it is, in view of the recommendations of later commissions, worth noting. 6<'Report, Joint Fisheries Commission" (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1897, no. 11D, pp. 145-6). See, however, page 52 for the opinion of the Fisheries officials. 7It is fairly evident that the Commission was not distinguishing clearly *\ between an increase in the salmon run and an improvement in the methods of / catching fish. These are very different things. The phrase "off seasons" has Y reference to the three small runs which at that time came between the regular 1 fourth-year "big run." ^J 66 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES Commission had been appointed, contained a clause which provided that: "so soon as the reports of the commissioners shall be laid before them . . . the respective governments will consider the same and exchange views thereon, to the end of reaching, if expedient and practicable, such conventional or other understanding as may suffice to carry out the recommendations of the commissioners, by treaty, or concurrent legislation on the part of the respective governments or the legislatures of the several states and provinces, or both, as may be found most advisable, but nothing herein contained shall be deemed to commit either government to the results of the investigation hereby instituted."8 Since, however, the findings of the Commissioners indicated that there was no acute fisheries problem in the Fraser River district, no such action was taken. Commercial fishing in the State of Washington waters of the Fraser River system for sockeye salmon began in 1891 with the installation of traps in the vicinity of Point Roberts. These traps proved very effective in the capture of salmon and were looked upon as a source of danger by Canadian fishermen.9 In 1898 a strong protest was made. It is the opinion of everyone who, from observation and study of the subject is in a position to form an opinion thereon, that the Fraser River is the breeding place and nursery of practically all the salmon that enter the Gulf of Georgia by way of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Mr. A. C. Little, Fish Commissioner for the State of Washington, a gentleman who is well qualified to form an opinion, has stated that "his investigation has led him to feel certain that from 75 to 90 per cent of all sockeye salmon caught in the Sound, are Fraser River salmon." Mr. Little's estimate is none too large. In my opinion practically all the sockeyes which frequent the waters mentioned, are Fraser River fish. Now, when it is considered that the Juan de Fuca Straits and all the waters between its entrance and the mouth of the Fraser River, are practically an estuary of the Fraser, the obstructing of every available place and channel, with gear and appliances, so devised as to kill, or lead to destruction, salmon of all sizes, which, of necessity, must come in contact therewith, when in accordance with the law of their nature, they are seeking to enter their native rivers, in order to propagate their species,—it is apparent that, unless some protective measures are enforced to restrain__the_ cupidity of the fishermen, the future of the salmon fishing., industry of the Fraser River and the State of Washington as well, is menaced. 8"Report, Joint Fisheries Commission" (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1897, no. 11D, p. vii). 9Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1893 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 11, 1894, appendix 11, p. 383), and Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1894 (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1895, appendix 13, p. 369). THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 67 Another source of danger to the salmon of the Fraser River consists in the overflow of sand and clay, from the large hydraulic mining enterprises, on the upper waters of the Fraser, and its affluents, which affect some very important spawning grounds, by the debris, or tailings, overflowing or covering the gravel beds, and also by dams built across rivers, notably a dam across the South Fork of the Quesnelle River, formerly an important spawning place for salmon, but from which they are now excluded.10 Writing in 1900, the Canadian Deputy Minister of Fisheries stated: In the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound the number of U.S. trap-nets built was greatly in excess of the number erected in 1898, which in turn had a larger number of traps than had been in operation before that year. . . . The number of boats engaged in U.S. salmon fishing also greatly increased, and the time has come when the question of licensing Canadian trap-nets in the Straits of Juan de Fuca must be seriously considered. The department has been collecting all available information on the effects and possibilities of salmon trap-nets in the straits, and has under careful consideration the propriety of licensing such trap-nets to British Columbia fishermen.11 The competition of American fishermen with their more efficient trap-nets12 and purse-seines had become so vigorous that, on January 24, 1902, the Canadian government, by Order-in-Council, appointed a Commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Prince, Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries, to "investigate the/ proper protection and future development of the various branches of the salmon fishing industry in British Columbia."13 Work was begun immediately and "sixteen sittings were held, at which evidence was heard from fishermen, canners, merchants and fish dealers, official representatives of various public bodies, and other parties interested in the great salmon industry on Pacific waters." A request by American fishing interests for permission to lay their case before the Commission was met with the response that the latter had been authorized to deal with the Canadian salmon industry only, and therefore was forced to confine its hearings to representations of the Canadian fishing interests. The Commission soon "Ibid., 1898, p. 196. "Report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1900, 11 A, p. xv). 12At this time the Canadian government licensed only a few trap-nets in Boundary Bay. These were not in the main course of the salmon run and were never very successful. "Report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1903, no. 22, pp. xi, xii). 68 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES discovered that the Canadian interests were split into two factions. The canners agitated for permission to use trap-nets and purse-nets (seines) freely, contending that their use in the Straits of Juan de Fuca would enable Canadian fishermen to obtain their fair share of the catch by intercepting the salmon before they reached American waters. The canners, moreover, would be assured a plentiful supply of fish at prices more nearly in line with those paid by American canners, since the greater effectiveness of the trap-nets and purse-seines would enable the fishermen to sell their fish more cheaply than they were able to do when using the relatively ineffec- i tive gill-nets.14 These views were opposed by the fishermen who were not able to afford the expensive trap-nets and purse-seines,15 and who realized that if they were introduced the competition of such fishermen as were financed by the canneries in the purchase of the more efficient nets would soon drive them out of work.16 The evidence raised questions which called for a wider and more thorough investigation than the Commission had been authorized to make. The report, therefore, confined itself to indicating the complexity of the problem and refrained from making comprehensive recommendations.17 The run of 1901, a "big year," was very satisfactory, and the real issue was the distribution of the catch between Canadian and American fishing interests. Limitation of the total catch was not regarded as a matter of paramount importance, and the fishing interests believed that future runs would be assured by increased fish culture rather than by a limitation of fishing activity.18 The season of 1902 was such a failure,19 however, that J. P. Babcock, the British Columbia Fisheries Commissioner, stated:20 "Our fishermen should be permitted,tqjake. <">n1y thgt portion of the run which is in excess of the number necessary to the uDaily Columbian, Jan. 28, 1902; Daily Colonist, Feb. 4, 5, 1902. 15Trap-nets cost from $3,000 up; purse-seines from $1,000 up. 16The canners were only moderately successful in their agitation. By an Order-in-Council of May 2, 1904, the Canadian Commissioner of Fisheries was authorized to issue licences for the operation of trap-nets in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, but only a few were issued. 17Report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1903, no. 22, pp. xii-xiv). "Daily Colonist, Feb. 5, 1902. 19The British Columbia pack of Fraser sockeye salmon for 1902 was 293,477 cases. This was a comparatively small "small year" pack. ^Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1902, p. G4. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 69 perpetuation of the species. The present regulations for the Fraser river do noFaccomplisETtEe object of their enactment. Those in force in 1901 were shown to be effective, and no further restrictions should be placed upon fishing in that stream in the known years of abundance. It was demonstrated in 1902 that these regulations did not produce the desired result, so it is evident that more stringent restrictions should be enforced during the years of poor runs."21 Babcock fully appreciated the difficulties, particularly that further reduction of fishing in Canadian waters would mean that Canadian fishermen and canners would be penalized for the benefit i/ of the American fishing interests.22 T. R. Kershaw, Fisheries Commissioner for the State of Washington, also saw the injustice of the situation and visited Babcock at Victoria in order to discuss the possibility of establishing an American fish hatchery on the Fraser River. Kershaw's conference with Babcock (who was supported by Eberts, the British Columbia Attorney-General) was not encouraging, so he approached Professor Prince at Ottawa and Senator Foster at Washington, D.C. International correspondence followed, but the Canadian government was not favourably inclined towards the suggestion, resenting the implication "that Canada should lend herself to the enlistment of the services of a foreign government for pecuniary aid in the furtherance of her own national and domestic obligations."23 George Bowers, the United States Fish Commissioner, thereupon suggested that "the only mutually satisfactory arrangements relating to the question would be the adoption by the state of Washington and the government of Canada I of identical regulations for the Fraser river and its affluents and the establishment by each party of hatcheries on identical scales."24 He proposed that a conference should be called between representatives of his own bureau and of the Washington State Fisheries Commission, the Canadian Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the Fisheries Department of British Columbia.25 Meanwhile the situation in the Fraser River fisheries was 21The four-year cycle of sockeye runs was at that time characterized by three consecutive poor years followed by a "big year." 22Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1902, pp. G4, G5. 23George Bowers (U.S. Fisheries Commissioner) to John Hay (American Secretary of State), Nov. 25,1903 (Report, Washington State Fish Commissioner, 1903-4, pp. 20-4). "Ibid. 2Hbid. 70 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES becoming strained. The catch of 1903 (204,809 cases on the Canadian side, 167,211 cases on the American), was a very poor one and both sides were ready to put the blame on the other. Commissioner Babcock claimed that the Americans were primarily to blame because of their refusal to impose limitations "either of time or method" in respect of Puget Sound fishing.26 The Americans contended that British Columbia regulations were ineffective because of continual evasion. Escapement of fish was supposed to be ensured by the weekly closing time effective in British Columbia waters, but actually the majority of the fish which hao^e^jijper- mitted to "escape" were later caught by fishermen who pursued them far up the riven Realizing the need for expressing an official opinion, the recently- created Puget Sound Salmon Association held a meeting on July 6, 1904, and decided in favour of an international conference such as that proposed by Commissioner Bowers. It was at first believed that the Rathbun-Wakeham report of 1896 should be used as a basis of negotiations, but a close study demonstrated that its recommendations did not meet the present situation.27 Commissioner Bowers's proposed conference did not take place. Canada took the initiative when Professor Prince, after a visit to the Pacific coast, recommended the early appointment of a British Columbia Fisheries commission "having all the requisite powers for fully investigating the fisheries as a whole, and taking evidence, visiting the fishing grounds, and making an exhaustive survey of the whole subject. The commission would possibly include in its work a mutual conference with a United States Commission in the State of Washington."28 His proposal, supported as it was by numerous urgent petitions from Fraser River fishing interests, led to the appointment of an investigating commission by an Order-in-Council of July 22, 1905. Although the Commission was appointed ostensibly to examine the fishery situation on the entire British Columbia coast, stress was laid on the fact that the Fraser River question urgently demanded solution. The Commission was enjoined to investigate: "close seasons; mesh, depth and length of nets; limitations of net- 26Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1903, Fl-2. 27Kershaw to Foster, July 28, 1904 (Report, Washington State Fish Commissioner, 1903-4, pp. 28-9). 28Report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 22, 1905). THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 71 ting in Fraser river and estuary; conditions in granting of leases and ^ licenses . . . ; limitations of amount of gear; areas for pound-nets^ or trap-nets and other nets; limitation of canneries and suggested / abolition of canners' fishing licenses."29 The work of the Commission (of which Professor Prince was Chairman) commenced on September 19, 1905. After a year of sittings, hearings, and trips, and a conference with the Washington Special Fish Commission recently appointed by the State of Washington, the Commission was ready to make certain interim recommendations to its government, provided that the Washington State Commission would make similar recommendations to its government. At a second conference of September 19, 1906, the Washington Commission agreed to this stipulation. The Prince Commission thereupon made the following recommendations to Ottawa: salmon nets should be limited to a maximum depth of 60 meshes and a maximum length of 900 feet (150 fathoms); the weekly "close time" in the waters between New Westminster bridge and Mission should be 60 hours (instead of 36) in the poor years; such Canadian trap-nets as were permitted to operate (at Boundary Bay and off the south-west coast of Vancouver Island) should be closely regulated and heavy fines should be imposed for infractions of the rules; and an effective, speedy, launch patrol should be established. Similar recommendations were made by the Washington State Commission to its government, with a proposed "close time" for sockeye salmon fishing commencing in the latter part of August and running three weeks.30 The final report of the Commission, made in 1907, differed little in its international aspects from the interim report of 1906. 29Instructions appended to Order-in-Council of July 22, 1905 (Report, British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1905-7, p. 8). ^Report, British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1905-7, appendix A. To offset the declining run of sockeye an increase in the number of hatcheries designed for artificial propagation was advocated. It was also suggested that fishing for sockeye be prohibited absolutely for a period by both United States and Canadian fishermen. Provision was made by the State of Washington for a weekly close period of thirty-six hours similar to that adopted on the Canadian side. Unfortunately there was a lack of knowledge as to the rate at which the fish proceeded towards the spawning grounds which limited the value of the close season. It was necessary to adjust the dates at different points on the route of the fish, otherwise those allowed to escape at one point were liable to be caught nearer the Fraser River. (Annual report of the Department of Fisheries, Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 22, 1906, appendix 10, p. 202). 72 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES Action was first taken by the State of Washington. An Act of March 19,1907, introduced a weekly closing time for sockeye salmon extending from 6 P.M. Friday to 6 A.M. Sunday, and an annual closing time of three weeks, beginning on August 25 and ending on September 15. A more satisfactory method of closing the trap-nets was required, and a stiff penalty was authorized for failure to observe this requirement. The Act took effect immediately upon its passage.31 Canadian action was tardier but somewhat more comprehensive. By an Order-in-Council of June 8, 1908,32 the fishing regulations for the Province of British Columbia were rescinded in toto and a new set, comprehending the substance of the recommendations of the Commission, promulgated. The only important deviation from the recommendations was the reduction of the closing time in the Mission-New Westminster fisheries from 60 hours to 48 hours. The new regulations also introduced a stricter cannery licence system jwhich in effect gave the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the power to check the expansion of the canning industry beyond prudent limits. While these negotiations between Canada and Washington were helpful, they promised little for the future. The degree of co-operation was bound to vary spasmodically with changes in the complexion of political affairs on each side of the line. The paramount need was a joint commission with control of the international waters. Such a joint commission could not be established through negotiations between the Canadian and Washington governments, for the latter had not the necessary treaty-making powers, these being reserved by the constitution to the federal government. Hence negotiations between the two federal governments commenced, and on April 11,1908, the Bryce-Root Treaty was signed,33 Ratifications were exchanged on June 4 and on July 1, 1908, the treaty was proclaimed. It provided for the establishment of an international commission, consisting of one expert named by each government, which was empowered to draw up regulations concerning: (1) the time, seasons, and methods of fishing in all waters contiguous to both the United States and Canada; (2) the nets, engines, gear, zlWashington Sessional Laws, 1907, chap. 247. 32Order-in-Council, Statutes of Canada, 1908, pp. ccxxix-xxxiv. ^Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776-1909, vol. I (1910), pp. 827 et seq. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 73 apparatus, and appliances, which might be used in such waters. All such regulations were to be international in scope, that is, they were to apply indiscriminately to the waters in question. The Commission was also to study the problem of fish culture and make periodical recommendations. It was to exercise its control throughout the duration of the convention; and its regulations were to remain in force for a period of four years from the date of their executive promulgation, and thereafter until one year from the date upon which either government notified the other of its desire for a change in the regulations. Any alterations made by the Commission would require the executive promulgation of the government before becoming valid. The Commission consisted of Dr. David Starr Jordan of Stanford University for the United States and Professor E. E. Prince, Canadian Commissioner of Fisheries. The code of regulations agreed to _on May 29, 1909, contained the following general regulations: (1) there should be an adequate and efficient hatchery system; (2) there should be a concurrent and uniform system of licences for fishing in treaty waters; (3) enforcement of regulations should be attended to in Canadian waters by Canadian officials and in American waters by American officials; (4) violations of regulations by Canadians should subject them to penalties imposed by Canadian laws, and by Americans to those imposed by American laws. Certain recommendations specifically applicable to the Fraser River fishing district were made: (1) there should be a close season for all salmon between the dates August 25 to September 15 inclusive, except that cohoes might be caught outside the Straits of Juan de Fuca between September 1 and 15; (2) there should be a 48-hour close time, the period to begin and end 12 hours earlier in Washington than in British Columbia treaty waters, so that at these periods the fish entering such waters would have a clear run through them; (3) trap- nets should be constructed to permit effective sealing of the "leads" during the closing times. Regulations calculated to ensure the salmon a moderately clear passage of escape between the trap-nets were also proposed. Drag-seines were not to be used within a mile, and purse-seines within three miles, of river-mouths. Gill-nets were not to exceed 900 feet in length nor 60 meshes in depth.34 Canada amended the Fisheries Act during the following parlia- uReport of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1909, pp. 124-7. 74 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES mentary session to permit of the proclamation of these regulations whenever the United States should see fit to adopt the necessary legislation, but political activity in the State of Washington was too strong. In the next session of the Washington State Legislature the following resolution was passed: Be it resolved by the House, the Senate concurring, That the people of the State of Washington, through the legislature now assembled, most emphatically and earnestly protest against the Federal Government of the United States assuming or attempting to assume the jurisdiction and control of any of the fisheries within the territorial limits of the State of Washington, and we particularly protest against the joint control of any part of said fisheries by the United States Federal Government and the Dominion of Canada as proposed by a treaty convention between the United States and Great Britain.35 The State of Washington hereby affirms its title to all the public fisheries within its territorial limits, and insists that it has the exclusive right, by virtue of its sovereignty, to keep, control and regulate all the fisheries within its borders without Federal interference. Be it resolved further, That a copy of this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the United States senators and representatives from the State of Washington, and that they hereby be requested to use all honorable means within their power to prevent any action of the Congress tending to ratify35 or make said treaty effective.37 Against such opposition, the bill to make the International Commission's proposed regulations effective made little headway in Congress, and finally disappeared from view. By 1914 the Canadian government had become extremely impatient at the delay in the passage of the bill and notified the United States government that it would abrogate the treaty unless the latter took the legislative steps necessary to make the convention effective. An appeal by President Wilson that Congress expedite the passage of the required bill38 was ignored, and on October 19, 1914, the Canadian government notified the United States that it intended to resume its liberty of action in the matters with which the treaty was concerned.39 Thus these negotiations, which had promised so much, came to an 35Acting for Canada. 38The American Senate had already ratified the treaty, but had not passed the legislation necessary to give effect to the regulations proposed by the Joint International Commission. ^Washington Sessional Laws, 1911, p. 656. ™New York Times, Feb. 28, 1914. ^Treaties and Agreements Affecting Canada in Force between His Majesty and the United States of America, etc., 1814-1913, p. 181. 8% THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 75 ignominious end. Politics and petty sectionalism had triumphed over broader considerations. Satisfied that its sovereign rights were not impaired, Washington State resumed its 1906 policy of negotiating with the Canadian federal government. On March 6, 1915, the Washington Legislature approved a statute which was to become effective only if comparable Canadian laws were passed which would: (1) prohibit/ at all times the taking of sockeye salmon above New Westminster V bridge; (2) close the other Canadian waters of the Fraser River J fishing district to all fishing (not merely net fishing) during the / period August 25 to September 15; (3) provide for a 48-hour weekly V close time in all Fraser River fisheries on the Canadian side; (4) pro- \ hibit during the month of June the taking of salmon in the open sea within three miles from the entrance to the Straits of Juan de Fuca.40 The strained feeling between Canada and the United States, which obtained until the latter country entered the war, constituted an effective barrier to international fishery negotiations. In 1917, however, the entry of the United States into the war, the shortage of food, mld the failure of the expected "big run" of Fraser River sockeye due to the rock-slide at Hell's Gate, all combined to renew the willingness of the two countries to resume negotiations for an international fisheries treaty. The run of 1917 (the spawn of 1913) consisted for the most part of sockeye spawned in the Fraser River system below Hell's Gate,41 and was comparatively very poor.42 Canners of British Columbia and Washington packed only 559,702 cases of sockeye, which was a very meagre showing for a "big year" compared with the "big year" (1913) with a pack of 2,409,760 cases.43 The situation was considered sufficiently serious to justify the appointment of an investigatory commission, and a Canadian- "Washington Sessional Laws, 1915, chap. 31, sec. 54-59. 41J. P. Babcock, "The Fraser River Situation a Reclamation Project" {Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1919, appendix v). 42Under normal circumstances the "big year" was characterized by heavy spawning in the upper reaches of the river. It is now generally believed that the "big year" of pre-war times is to be explained by a prehistoric rockslide or other obstruction which for three years prevented the salmon native to the upper portion of the Fraser from reaching their spawning grounds; but which by the time the fourth year came around was washed away, and thus permitted the normal amount of spawning above the temporarily-obstructed point. 43See Table in, p. 12. 76 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES American Fisheries Conference was appointed in December, 1917, composed of J. D. Hazen, G. J. Desbarats, and W. A. Found, representing Canada; and William C. Redfield, E. F. Sweet, and H. M. Smith, representing the United States. An extensive survey re- ; vealed that conditions in the Fraser River fisheries had become I extremely serious, a thirty million dollar industry having fallen to a three million dollar one, and being threatened with complete extinction by over-fishing. The attitude of the Canadian fishermen was one of injured innocence. They claimed that they were forced to observe regulations which greatly restricted their catch, while the American fishermen, with their free use of purse-seines and trap- nets, caught two-thirds of the salmon. On the other hand, the Washington fishing interests contended that in proportion to capital invested their catch was not excessive, and that their appliances were those best suited to their waters, which were too clear to permit gill-net fishing.44 While both sides were apparently eager for international action, the situation was complicated by the unwillingness of the United States Fisheries Commissioners to invade the sovereign rights of the State of Washington. The draft treaty drawn up by the Hazen-Redfield Commission was obviously based on the 1908 treaty, and need not, therefore, be considered here. Negotiations for the conclusion of a new international treaty commenced. This convention was approved by the Canadian House of Commons on October 21, 1919,45 but 44The gill-net is constructed to catch and hold the salmon by the gills, and may be as long as 1,200 feet. Its use is most efficient in water which is not clear and in which it is difficult for the salmon to see the meshes as at the mouth of the FraseY, the waters of the Fraser passing well out into the Gulf of Georgia forming an area suitable for the use of these nets. In American waters nets have been coloured to reduce the possibility of being detected by the fish. The purse-seine, which runs from 900 to 1,200 feet in length, is a device for capturing the fish by an enclosing movement and is used from a power boat. When a school of salmon is sighted, one end of the net is put overboard and fastened to a buoy or a stationary row boat and the power boat then circles the school while the net is paid out over a roller at the stern. The circle is completed and the net is closed or "pursed" by means of ropes which pass through iron rings fastened on the bottom of the seine. In trolling, a hook and line is used from a rowboat or a power boat. Several lines may be used, some from the stern and others on poles projecting from the sides of the boat. This method is used mainly in the capture of springs and cohoes. A "spoon" or piece of bright metal is attached to the hook to attract the fish, and the depth is controlled by lead sinkers of varying weight. ^Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1919, pp. 1176-81. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 77 Washington State requested the Senate to refuse to ratify and effec- tively killed the treaty.46 The Canadian government then dispatched a delegation to the Pacific coast to take up the matter "with the Fisheries Board of the State of Washington, which had recently been appointed with administrative power sufficiently wide to enable it to take whatever steps were necessary for effectively dealing with this matter."47 In December, 1921, a conference was held! between the negotiants and both sides agreed to the desirability of stopping all fishing in the Fraser River fishing district for a period of% five years. The Canadian representatives, supported by the British] Columbia Fishermen's Association, demanded that at the end oi the proposed five-year close period purse-seines should be prohibited and the use of trap-nets and gill-nets properly regulated, their claim being that otherwise the benefits of the fishing truce would soon disappear. Washington State representatives were unwilling to accede to this proposition and the conference broke up abruptly. The Chief Inspector for the Dominion government stated in 1921: The runs in recent years show conclusively that in the past there has not been a sufficient escapement of parent fish of the sockeye variety to the spawning grounbSTjrhat being the case and if fishing operations were carried on with no greater intensity than up to several years ago, the necessity for some curtailment would still be apparent, but in the light of the last few years' ^xperienre when larger quantities of gear were used and in spite of which the catch became smaller, the necessity for some drastic action is much morejr^ is no alternative fiut to provlcfe immediately for a much larger escapement. '"TFndoubtedly the first consideration of the administration is the conservation of the supply as it can be readily realized that if the supply of raw product is not maintained it will only be a matter of time when the salmon fishing industry will be a thing of the past. The most efficacious way of assuring an adequate escapement of parent fish is by means of curtailing the fishing in the way of increased weekly closed periods, a shorter fishing season, the lowering of the fishing boundaries, or all three methods at the same time increasing to the greatest extent possible fish cultural operations and efforts in the way of clearing from the salmon streams all obstructions to the ascent of the parent fish to the spawning beds. To insure a sufficient escapement of salmon it may become necessary to so curtail fishing operations as to make them unprofitable to both fishermen and canners and oth^r hranrhps, qf thp industry until the runs have been ^ a^aia^iJItVp. In"this way the salmon supply would be preserved but it is 46Cf. Before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate (in re Sockeye Salmon Treaty). ^Report, British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1922, p. 14. a 78 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES possible that the industry, which is already in a precarious position financially owing to the last few years' experience, may be irretrievably injured and the situation is so serious as to require the most careful consideration. On the other hand if no prompt and adequate action is taken and if the runs are permitted to decrease each season it will be only a very short time before the runs of sockeye are so depleted as to result in the loss of employment to thousands of fishermen who now depend on the sockeye fishing and in addition the numerous canning establishments will be unable to operate for lack of a supply of this particular variety of salmon.48 The Dominion government, realizing that the abrupt termination of the conference nullified what might have proved to be a very satisfactory convention, determined to renew its parley with the State of Washington. A Canadian Order-in-Council of July 10, 1922, appointed still another fisheries commission to take up the threads of negotiation where they had been abruptly dropped by the previous delegation. On arrival in British Columbia, it discovered that Canadian opinion in respect to a five-year closure period for fishing had undergone a considerable change. While a few canners and fishermen were still in favour, the majority had swung around to the view that a close time at the height of the salmon run combined with a longer weekly close time would prove a more feasible solution. "Their attitude would appear to be due to a somewhat selfish point of view, inasmuch as they seem to be satisfied to continue so long as the few are left alone to deal with the diminished runs. In fact we were told by the head of one of the largest canning companies in British Columbia, who closed ten of their canneries but operated four of the ten in operation on the* Fraser last year, that he had benefited by the closing of so many canneries, especially competitors' canneries, and was able to get along with things as they are, and did not want to be prevented from packing sockeye for five years."49 The Commission found the Washington State Fisheries Board, however, opposed to all proposals favouring partial closing during the height of the salmon run. It still favoured, or pretended to favour, the almost impossible "five-year plan." It was therefore agreed in conference that the representatives should report to their respective governments in favour of such a plan. By far the most constructive recommendation made by the Commission was that which had already been made 48Report of the Department of Fisheries, 1921^2 (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1923, no. 6, appendix 1, p. 46). ^Report, British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1922, p. 16. THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 79 by two previous commissions: the establishment of a joint international fisheries commission. In this case, however, it was proposed that the two administering powers involved should be the Canadian and Washington State governments, not the two federal governments. The Commission did not seem to understand that under the terms of the American constitution the State of Washington had not the treaty-making powers necessary to conclude such an arrangement. It is hardly necessary to add that the recommendations received scant consideration from the two governments. The years following the unsuccessful negotiations of 1922 were relatively quiet. The sockeye salmon run in the Fraser River, although much poorer than in pre-war days, was sufficient to keep in operation those canners who were "satisfied to continue so long as the few are left alone to deal with the diminished runs."50 But the international fisheries question was by no means definitely settled. In spite of constantly improving methods of fish culture, the j Fraser River fisheries showed.little improvement during the period] 1922-8. The combined Canadian-American sockeye pack for 1928 (90,343 cases) was indeed one of the three poorest on record since the infant days of the industry.51 As a consequence negotiations for 50The total British Columbia and Washington sockeye packs for the following four-year periods are: 1897-1900 3,236,958 1913-1916 3,235,634 1901-1904 3,010,043 1917-1920 841,333 1905-1908 2,496,330 1921-1924 431,165 1909-1912 2,580,922 1925-1928 518,806 It will be observed that the pack for the period 1925-8, though showing a slight improvement over the previous four-year period, was less than 17 per cent of the 1913-16 pack. 51The others were 1918 (70,420) and 1923 (79,057 cases). 'The Fraser River basin contains 1,514,000 acres of spawning area. That area has not been lessened or contaminated. It is as extensive and as suitable for the propagation of sockeye as formerly. The vast lake-waters of the Fraser are as rich in the natural foods of the young sockeye as ever. The channels of the river are open and free to the passage of such fish as are permitted to enter them. All that is required to; produce the abundant runs of former years is a sufficient numfeer of fish to seed them as abundantly as thev were seeded in those years. No other waters afford so alluring a field for exploitation, "The restoration of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser River System is the greatest reclamation project in which Canada and-the United States can jointly engage." The pack of sockeye in waters other than the Fraser remained reasonably constant, and methods of control which were not dependent on international agreement were effective. The lack of proper restrictions on the capture 80 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES the conclusion of an international fisheries treaty again began. Except in one important respect the new treaty differed little from its precursors of 1908 and 1919. The difference lay in a clause which provided that the international commission, the establishment of which the treaty contemplated, was to devise regulations which would ensure an approximately equal division of the season's sockeye catch between Canadian and American fishermen. This clause was introduced to silence the Canadian complaint that American fishermen secured two-thirds of the catch even though the fish were spawned in Canadian waters. While the treaty in its broader aspects was satisfactory to the Conservative opposition in Parliament, it did not please them in its details. Certain clauses which proposed to give considerable powers to the Commission in connection with the acquisition of property for fish culture operations were vigorously opposed. Furthermore, a new development on the Pacific coast promised to make the treaty ineffective. In this season of 1928, large numbers of American purse-seine fishermen decided to try the extra-territorial waters west of the entrance to the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Here, subject to no restrictions, they found a salmon fisherman's paradise, for they were able to intercept the fish before they entered the straits. Partly because of this new development, and partly because of the minor objections suggested above,52 legislative consideration of the treaty was temporarily halted, and the document was revised so as to lessen the powers of the contemplated international commission, and to introduce provisions for the control of all nationals of either country who fished in the extra-territorial waters beyond the Straits of Juan de Fuca.53 In this amended form the treaty was approved by the Canadian Commons on May 29, 1930.54 It was not ratified, of Fraser River sockeye which passed through both American and Canadian waters gave encouragement to the greed of fishermen on both sides of the line (J. P. Babcock, "A Canadian-American Salmon Reclamation Project," Paper read at a meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Seattle, Washington, Aug. 30, 1928, p. 3). 52These were greatly magnified in importance by the Mail and Empire, a Conservative organ: "It is felt that the proposed treaty in giving the United States equal authority in Canadian Territory is creating a precedent that may strike a deadly blow at Canadian independence" (May 20, 1929). ^Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1929, pp. 2630, 3186-9; also, 1930, pp. 2798-2814. "Ibid., 1930, p. 2814. 1 THE FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE SALMON 81 however, by the United States Senate and remained as pending until 1936, mainly through the opposition of interests in the State of Washington. In the meantime, attempts were made to overcome opposition to the treaty. In 1935, Governor Martin of Washington brought the question to the attention of the Senators from that state, to the representatives of the fishing industry, and to the Washington State Planning Council, so that a satisfactory understanding could be reached with regard to an international arrangement for the protection of the Fraser River sockeye. Negotiations in which representatives of the fishery interests in British Columbia were included, were carried on, and eventually it was agreed to recommend the ratification of the 1930 treaty with certain amendments. On January 16,1936, the following resolution of ratification was passed by the Senate: Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of Executive M, Seventy- first Congress, second session, the convention between the United States and Canada for the protection, preservation, and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser River system, signed at Washington on May 26, 1930 subject to the following understandings to be made a part of such ratification: (1) That the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission shall have no power to authorize any type of fishing gear contrary to the laws of | the State of Washington or the Dominion of Canada; (2) That the Commission shall not promulgate or enforce regulations until the scientific investigations provided for in the convention have been made, covering two cycles of sockeye salmon runs, or 8 years; and (3) That the Commission shall set up an advisory committee composed of five persons from each country who shall be representatives of the various branches of the industry (purse seine, gill net, troll, sport fishing, and one other), which advisory committee shall be invited to all non-executive meetings of the Commission and shall be given full opportunity to examine and to be heard on all proposed orders, regulations, or recommendations.55 The first amendment was due to fear that the International Commission might permit the reintroduction of traps which had been prohibited by the State of Washington. The second amendment was passed in order to meet objections that too little was at present known of the life-history and habits of the sockeye salmon to permit of intelligent regulations. The third amendment was made in order to make sure that the Fisheries Commission should avail itself of the advice and assistance of those directly interested in the industry. The treaty was ratified by the Canadian Parliament on July 28, 1937. ^Senate Congressional Record, June 16, 1936, p. 9729. PART II THE HALIBUT AND OTHER FISHERIES CHAPTER VIII HALIBUT Halibut are found in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans, the latter being the more important, and producing about 60 per cent of the world's catch. Of the remainder, about 33 per cent is caught by European countries, and about 7 per cent by countries on the Atlantic coast of North America.1 The Pacific coast Indians were almost entirely dependent on fish for food, and halibut was next to salmon in importance. It has been said that one hundred and fifty years ago they caught as much as three million pounds of halibut in one year.2 It was estimated that they took 3,165,000 pounds in 1885 and that after 1888 British Columbia Indians alone consumed over 600,000 pounds annually. Crude though the hooks appear compared with modern equipment, the Indians were expert in catching halibut.3 Catches of 100 fish per day to a canoe are recorded.4 Part of the catch was consumed fresh and the remainder cut in strips and dried for winter use. Halibut fishing by Europeans did not develop to any extent until the North American continent had been spanned by the first railway. Halibut were shipped in ice by schooner from Puget Sound, Victoria, and the west coast of Vancouver Island,5 to San Francisco,6 and apparently arrived in good condition. It was suggested in 18787 that this trade showed prospects of increase as there was a constant demand in the San Francisco market, where halibut Report of the International Fisheries Commission, 1928, p. 6. See J. Q. Adams, "The Pacific Coast Halibut Fishery" (Economic Geography, July, 1935, pp. 247-57). 2"Dawn of a Great Pacific Industry" (Western Fisheries, June, 1936). 3A description of the hooks used by the Indians is found in W. F. Thompson and N. L. Freeman, "History of the Pacific Halibut Fisheries" (Report of the International Fisheries Commissioner^). 5, 1930, p. 13). 4Captain Cook, in 1778, mentioned a catch of 100 halibut in an hour near Chumagan Islands, and Perouse, Vancouver, and other explorers have references to halibut. 6In 1879, halibut were reported as being caught at Nahwitti, situated in the Goletas Channel at the northern extremity of Vancouver Island. 6Fresh halibut were shipped in ice to San Francisco by the regular steamers which plied between Victoria and San Francisco three times a month. See Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1878 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 3, 1879, appendix 17, p. 296). Ubid. 85 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES retailed at fifty cents per pound. American fishermen objected to the sale of Canadian halibut and attempts were made to restrict it. Canadian fishermen found it difficult to ship full schooner loads, since their operations were limited. They were forced to pay the regular freights and this placed them at a disadvantage in San Francisco and limited them largely to the local market.8 International complications developed at an early date. The Inspector reported in 1879 that shortly before his arrival at Nah- witti "an American vessel, provided with ice, had been surreptitiously fishing in the neighborhood, and had recently sailed for San Francisco with a cargo of halibut/'9 This vessel the Emily Stephenson, Henderson of Astoria, Oregon, on her first voyage in May, proceeded to Knight's Inlet for ice, which she obtained from the glaciers near the village of Sawatti; she then filled up at Newitty with halibut caught on the bar, varying in weight from 50 to 200 pounds each, and aggregating, it is reported, 27,000 pounds. On her second voyage, having retained a sufficiency of her ice cargo on board, she again filled up with halibut to probably a considerably larger amount. These particulars were conveyed to you in my letter of the 15th November, and I then asked for instructions for my guidance in the event of a renewal, only too probable,^ in the approaching spring of these clandestine invasions. The fish thus illegally procured entering the markets of San Francisco in a fresh condition, realize to the importer a wholesale price of some twenty cents per pound, since halibut is ordinarily quoted in the market lists as retailing at fifty cents and upwards. Partially, to meet the demand a constant supply is sent from Victoria by dealers by the frequent steamers plying between the two ports. But these legally exported fish are met with the burthen of a heavy import duty, while the others enter free. Putting every other consideration aside the position of the provincial dealer, under this point of view, is certainly a hard one. It is needless, however, to repeat the story of the position with regard to our neighbours which we occupy in consequence of the abrogation, so far as British Columbia is concerned, of the reciprocity provisions of the Washington Treaty, but it may at least be argued that, while on the opposite side the letter of the treaty, as construed with reference to this Province, is rigidly enforced, our fishermen in turn are entitled to a corresponding protection. The Northern Pacific Railway was completed in 1887, and catches were shipped east from Tacoma in 1888. Because of high freight charges, shipments from Vancouver over the Canadian Pacific Railway were not made until 1892.10 Few of the early at- *Ibid., 1887 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 6, 1888, appendix 7, p. 245). Hbid., 1879 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 9, 1880, p. 283). 10Report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1889, no. 8, p. 237). HALIBUT 87 tempts at commercial fishing of halibut were financially successful and most of the fish were still caught by the Indians who used small boats and consequently were confined to the halibut banks in sheltered waters. It was chiefly marketed locally, since difficulty was experienced in shipping the halibut in good condition, and losses were incurred from spoiling. In 1889, 1,777,250 pounds of halibut were landed on the Pacific coast: 605,000 pounds in British Columbia, 685,000 pounds in Washington, and 487,250 pounds in » Oregon.11 Freight charges were high, the cost of ice was an impor- f tant factor, and eastern dealers were said to be not particularly . favourable to the Pacific coast industry. However, the increasing scarcity12 of halibut on the North Atlantic convenient to the markets in Boston and New York led to a rise in prices which assisted the Pacific industry. Trade connections were developed and improvements made in the handling of the catch. The halibut banks near at hand were first fished, but gradually the fishery was extended to the grounds six hundred miles north from Cape Flattery. Puget Sound and the inner British Columbia waters were gradually depleted and the fishermen had to go to more unsheltered waters. The American fishermen with sailing schooners encountered difficulty from lack of wind in the sheltered waters of Puget Sound and south-eastern Alaska, which led to delay in transportation or high costs for towing. In British Columbia, steamers were used almost entirely, since vessels going from Vancouver to the British Columbia banks had to pass through a long inside passage. American fishing vessels continued to trespass, and, as the Canadian fishery became more important, opposition to them increased. In 1897 it was recommended that more efficient protection should be provided against poachers and foreign fishermen "than can be supplied by one small steam launch and an occasional hired tug, which are never found to have the speed or sea-going qualities necessary for effective service."13 In 1901, a new cruiser was built in Vancouver to increase the efficiency of the protective service. A halibut fishery was first successfuly developed in 1893 on "Thompson and Freeman, "History of the Pacific Halibut Fisheries." ^H. A. Innis, The Cod Fisheries (New Haven, 1940), pp. 330-1. 13Annual Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1897 (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1899, no. 11a, appendix 9, p. 223). 88 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES Porcher Island, near Freeman's Pass, in Hecate Strait. A plant was erected, and ice for preserving the fish was obtained. The steamer Capilano, a small freighter owned by the Union Steamship Company, was chartered and anchored in the harbour while the fishermen went out in their boats. When a sufficient number of fish were caught they were taken to New Westminster and shipped to New York, while the fishermen continued fishing and stored their catch for the following trip. About 200,000 pounds were shipped the first year, but operations ceased in 1894. Shore fishing could not attain any degree of permanency because the banks near shore were soon depleted, and methods had to be adopted which would enable fishing to be carried on in open water. Boats were towed by steamer to the more distant banks. Dories were first used in 1895 and these increased efficiency as they could be stored on the vessel's decks. In 1894, the New England Fish Company used the Capilano, and the American Fishing Company the steamer Coquitlam in this way. The Delaware, an old stern wheel steamer, was towed out and used as headquarters. The Victoria Fishing and Trading Company operated the steamer Thistle ~at Goshen Harbour. Of the five or six companies engaged in the halibut fishery, only the New England Fish Company, which had trade connections with Boston fish dealers who controlled the halibut market, was financially successful. The other companies either dropped out or were absorbed by it. The New England Company, a strong organization, with headquarters in Boston, pioneered in the efficient handling of fresh halibut and in placing it in first-class condition on the eastern market. It was established first at Port Haney and New Westminster, and later at Vancouver, and made its first shipment to the East in 1890. The Canadian Pacific Railway had no refrigerator cars, but arrangements were made for six of them to be built to the Company's specifications. No shipping charges were to be paid if the shipment arrived in a spoiled condi-^ tion. The cars proved efficient and the most serious transportation problem of the industry was solved.14 In 1895, the Company operated the Capilano, Coquitlam, and the Thistle for the accommodation of the fishermen and in transporting the fish to Vancouver. In that year the catch amounted to 900,000 pounds, of which 750,000 pounds were shipped to eastern markets. I The first steamer specially built and equipped for the fishery, 14"Dawn of the Halibut Fishery" (Western Fisheries, June, 1936). HALIBUT 89 the New England, commenced operations in 1898, and landed 1,600,000 pounds of halibut during six months of the season 1898-9. In the same year, a second steamer, the Edith, similarly equipped and operated by a Tacoma company, entered the industry, and later other vessels such as the Kingfisher, Manhattan, Flamingo, Celestial Empire, Onward Ho, and the Roman, were added. These vessels marked the definite decline of the shore fisheries. Steamers made it possible for fishermen to go much further afield. Only a comparatively small part of the British Columbia coast, chiefly the main channels, were properly charted, and the uncharted areas had been surveyed by early halibut skippers. Captain Freeman, a Newfoundlander, who had his training on the Labrador coast, did outstanding work in charting. Halibut were abundant and a vessel could load in a few days. The size of the catch was limited bv the, market rather than by the quantity of fish available. The period of fishing was affected by the market and limited to the winter months when Atlantic halibut were scarce and prices higher. As the demand for western halibut increased, the period was extended, and in 1900 the New England fished throughout the year. The number of steamers operating off the British Columbia coast was six in 1906, eleven in 1909, and thirteen in 1911. Schooners were also provided with power and began to frequent the outer waters. These developments involved fishing in deeper water and the use of more gear. By_1910> depletion of the inner waters was definite. Halibut had almost completely disappeared from Puget Sound, the banks of Hecate Strait had to be abandoned, particularly by larger vessels, and smaller and poorer fish.:were caught.15 Official reports of the Canadian government repeatedly drew attention to depletion, pointing out that the industry was deserting the mainland harbours and passing to the Queen Charlotte Islands and the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Study of the halibut had been merely incidental, and associated with the study of other fish, but in 1914 a preliminary report was made on its life-history.16 In 1915, an inves- 15It requires about twelve years for the halibut to reach maturity, and it is not of commercial size until about five years of age. See W. F. Thompson and R. Van Cleve, "Life History of the Pacific Halibut" (Report of the International Fisheries Commission, no. 9, 1936, p. 14). 16W. F. Thompson, "A Preliminary Report on the Life History of the Halibut" (Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1914, pp. 76-99). n 90 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES tigation was carried out under the supervision of the British Columbia Department of Fisheries, and its report17 stated that Among the facts presented in the following pages, the one which stands forth most conspicuously is the great effect which the operations of the fishermen have had on the character oTtlie hafiput papulations oi the various banks. Not only have they been very extensively depleted, hut the proportions of mature and immature, of large and small fish have been radically changed. . . ,18 The intense fishery has, it is evident, made its influence felt throughout the whole biological appearance of the species, and in doing so it has rendered precarious the future of the banks, particularly the older or longer known. The number still found on them is so small, and the percentage of mature fish in this population has fallen so low, that it appears imminent that the halibut in the Pacific will drop to a minor position among the food-fishes. It may recede northward as it did from the shores of Massachusetts, and from the coast of England, until it exists only in the more remote and difficult to reach of the banks. It is very difficult to see wherein more proof than is at hand may be adduced to emphasize this tendency, save the final one of the catastrophe of commercial extinction itself. The rate of decre,?^ shown, over 70 per cent for each decader is surprisingly large. Yet it must be remembered that the constant shifting to new banks has staved off a portion of the effects of impoverishment. This extension is, in its way, a measure of depletion. Just as a mine may be exhausted and its owners reduced to working over the discarded low-grade ore, so may the halibut banks. The progress from Cape Flattery to Hecate Strait, and from there to Yakutat and beyond, has been at a constantly accelerated rate as the total catch has grown from year to year.19 The halibut fisheries, which at first were confined mainly to the waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the inner waters of the coast of British Columbia, gradually spread northward until a coast line of about eighteen hundred miles in length was covered. By 1910, it had extended six hundred miles north to Cape Ommaney on Baronof Island, and at that time as many fish were taken from this six hundred mile strip as were taken in the entire coast line of eighteen hundred miles in 1928, at the time of the first report of the International Fisheries Commission. At the latter date, the best fishing was to be found in the vicinity of Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Because of expansion of the area, depletion of the banks did not have an immediateeffect on the prosperity of the industry. As the industjXi3iQyfi(rl to more unshel- tered waters, the cost of the catch increased on the more distant 17W. F. Thompson, "Statistics of the Halibut Fishery in the Pacific" (Ibid., 1915). "Ibid., p. i "Ibid., p. 70. HALIBUT 91 banks and on the more depleted banks- The price which could be secured for the catch became more significant. The problem was not merely one of depletion of the hajibut batiksT but of the economic position of the industry as a whole. So long as new banks were available within economic reach of the market the industry could continue to prosper, but its final difficulties were inevitable. They could be postponed by increasing the efficiency of transportation and of fishing methods, but it was clearly recognized that although the total yield was being maintained it could not be continued indefinitely. Artificial propagation of halibut through con- trolled hatching was extremely, difficult because of its habits! It was suggested that the only solution was controlled protection and conservation. The changes in the location of the fishery may be summarized briefly. In 1 ftftft thp fishery commenced, and grew rapidly, most of the fish coming from the Cape Flattery Banks, but about 1895 the banks in Hecate Strait were being exploited. In the early years of the first decade of this century the South-eastern Alaskan and British Columbian banks in more or less sheltered localities were being utilized, resulting about 1910 in their impoverishment. The fishermen then moved to deeper waters in more exposed situations on the outer coasts, fishing in more than 100 fathoms coming into vogue. Those banks lying off the coast of Alaska as far as Icy Strait were. in great part depleted by 1913 or before, and at the present date, 1916, the greater part of the catch comes from Yakutat and beyond. . . . This constant movement was not made because richer banks were being discovered, but because the yield from the older banks for the gear employed steadily fell the longer they were fished. It is unfortunate that fishing is still carried on best within those old areas during that season of the year when the young fish are to be caught in greatest abundance. In brief, the history of the) fishery is that of a nomadic fleet, stripping the grounds as it goes, but leaving : hehincj,, ,a,SUffri'pnt number of Yi^^^1"Qli.pr.f>vprit remuneration.20 The rate of depletion may be seen from the decrease in the weight of fish caught per skate21 or unit of gear used. ''There was not only a decline in the catch per unit of gear, but also in the total catch taken from the banks. The catch per unit of standard size 20Ibid., p. 75. 21A skate of halibut gear varied from time to time and consisted of from six to ten lines of 300 feet each in length. Shorter lines with hooks were attached at intervals of from 10 to 12 feet. The hooks were baited and the lines anchored to the bottom for a definite period of time or overnight according to tidal conditions. An analysis of the results of various skates is found in W. F. Thompson, H. A. Dunlop, and F. H. Bell, "Biological Statistics of the Pacific Halibut Fishery" (Report of the International Fisheries Commission, no. 6). 92 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES fell from 272jx)unds in 1906 to about 36 pounds in_lfl3£L on the prolines off Rntish Columbia Off south-eastern Alaska the catch fell from 180 pounds per unit in 1914 to 54 pounds in 1928. In the Gulf of, Alaska the fall was from 320 pounds per unit in 1915 to 65 pounds in 1930. The total quantity taken from the grounds south of Cape Spencer fell from 60 million pounds in 1912 to 22J million pounds in 1930."22 Since each halibut bank is a unit in itself, it cannot recover by migration from other banks. It is evident that there is no extensive interchange of fish between localities, otherwise such differences as are given could not remain permanent. The progressive depletion of the banks from the south northward is therefore comprehensible. It has been like the annihilation of an army in detail, each separate detachment encountering the full force of the fishing fleet, which might be resisted if the resources of the remainder could be called on to aid. Fortunately it does not pay to fish a region over closely when by going a distance an abundance may be obtained, so there are still fish to be caught on the southern banks and presumably propagation continues there. But only when too late does one know when a species has been depleted on a bank past the limit of safety.23 The consequences of depletion of the banks were met by a movement of the industry to new areas and the provision of fishing vessels suitable to meet the conditions in more unsheltered waters. From 1903, all new vessels were equipped with power. The adoption of dories to take the place of the round-bottomed Columbia River boats which could be used only in shore fishing or in areas where they could be rowed, involved devising methods of hoisting the fish on board. At first small straps were fastened around the tail of each fish and they were hoisted in bundles of five. An average of ten fish per minute could be handled, varying with the weather and the efficiency of the men, but this method was slow and unsatisfactory. Another method involved attaching five hooks on short lines to a ring and placing the fish on these hooks. This implement was dangerous and opposed by the men. A third method, involving a net on a hoop with a diameter of two or three feet into which the fish were thrown, was difficult to use in rough weather. In 1902 slings were used, a rope being passed through the gills of the fish and fastened. In the same year landing nets were introduced, the fish being placed in the net which was lifted ^Report of the International Fisheries Commission, 1936, p. 3. !3<'Statistics of the Halibut Fishery in the Pacific" (ibid., p. 133). HALIBUT 93 on board by the vessel's winch. This greatly increased the efficiency of handling and made possible an increase in the amount of gear used and consequently in the fish caught. In 1910 the industry was definitely established as a deep sea fishery. Prospecting for new banks was carried out, and discoveries of halibut were made in that year off the north-west end of the Queen Charlotte Islands, Forrester Island, and Sitka, while fishing was also carried on to the north in the vicinity of Cape Spencer. The northward movement of the industry is illustrated by the increase in the amount of halibut landed in Alaska.24 TABLE XX Halibut Landed in Alaska Year Landed (pounds) Year Landed (pounds) 1907 4,492,118 5,692,000 5,234,924 21,630,289 1911 17,315,571 1908 1912 16,896,743 1909 1913 13,687,784 1910 1914 14,807,797 It is not possible to make a complete comparison before 1910, since complete statistics of the catch along the whole Pacific coast were not kept. In 1913, Yakutat, on the eastern side of the Gulf of Alaska, was one of the favourite fishing grounds, new halibut banks having been discovered in this area in that year. Other banks were opened in the vicinity of Prince William Sound. The profits to be obtained in the industry at this time led to the building of a considerable number of large power vessels, some of which were so equipped as to be used in either salmon or halibut fishing. Cold! storage plants were established in Ketchikan, Sitka, Wrangell, Juneau, and Taku in United States territory. Ships were fitted out k with cold storage accommodation, but the experiment was not suffi-) ciently successful to warrant development. The industry continued < to expand until the outbreak of the Great Warf but the catch r in British Q^llTOfcfo waters began to decline. The introduction of electric lighting systems to the vessels and J gear enabled fishing to be carried on successfully at night, and was 24Reports of United States Commissioner of Fisheries, quoted in Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1915, p. 74. 94 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XXI Pacific Halibut Landings* in Canadian and United States Ports 1911-38 (thousands of pounds) Year U.S. ports Canadian ports Percentage in Canadian ports U.S. fleet Canadian fleet 1911.. 1912., 1913., 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 1923. 1924. 1925. 19?6. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1930. 1931. 1932. 1933. 1934. 1935f 1936f 1937f 1938f 41 39, 44, 45, 36, 23, 25, 19, 20, 23, 22, 15, 20, 22, 20, 24, 27, 24, 26, 24, 24, 26, 29, 27 28, 31, 30, 29, 078 308 195 981 715 032 568 893 053 ,382 ,262 ,238 ,284 ,527 ,419 r170 ,840 ,038 750 ,308 ,956 ,574 033 874 933 385 006 ,404 15,854 21,127 22,347 21,444 31,9711, 25,864 23,030 17,793 20,085 23,233 29,892 26,906 30,029 29,998 29,546 27,681 26,825 30J54 29,696 24,797 18,374 17,047 17,027 18,310 17,127 16,790 18,762 19,346 27.8 35.0 33.6 31.8 46.5 52.9 47.4 47.2 50.0 49.8 57.3 63.8 59.7 57.1 59.1 53.4 49.1 55.6 52.6 50.5 42.4 39.1 37.0 39.6 37.2 34.6 38.5 39.7 50,279 36,593 38,697 31,358 32,672 37,999 41,997 32,905 41,163 42,853 42,585 43,907 46,324 44,321 47,182 41,309 35,547 37,209 37,774 36,466 35,854 37,586 37,034 36,747 18,406 12,303 9,901 6,328 7,466 8,616 10,157 9,239 9,150 9,672 7,380 7,944 8,341 9,871 9,264 7,795 7,783 6,412 8,286 9,718 10,206 10,589 11,734 12,003 Source: International Fisheries Commission for the years 1911-34; Annual reports of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, for the years 1935-8. "Landings do not include California and Oregon. fThe 1935-8 figures are for area 3, and area 2 laid down under the Halibut Treaty. HALIBUT 95 important as the industry moved northward into areas in which the period of darkness was longer, particularly in winter. Another | important improvement was the use of the diesel engine, which, I though invented in 1892, did not come into use in the halibut fleet until 1921. It led to reduction in costs since diesel oil was cheaper and more efficient than the distillate which had been previously used. As a result steamers disappeared from the fleet, only one being in use after 1925. The New England Fish Company, an American company, in spite of a duty of one-half cent per pound on halibut entering the United States, used Vancouver as a base port because of its natural advantages as a halibut port, as compared with Seattle. In 1896, the duty was raised to one cent per pound, and the Company, no longer able to meet United States competition, petitioned the Dominion government to permit them to ship halibut from Vancouver in bond to the eastern American market. This privilege was granted in an Order-in-Council dated November 8, 1897, which provided "That for the period of six months hereafter next ensuing, foreigners or foreign corporations bringing fresh fish in American bottoms to any port in British Columbia shall be permitted to land such fresh fish at such port, without payment of duties, and transship the same in bond to any part of the United States of America, under such rules or regulations as the Minister of Customs may determine.'' These privileges were continued yearly by Orders-in- Council. In 1907, the import duty on halibut entering Canada was raised from one-half cent to one cent per pound which meant that Canadian and American halibut fishermen each supplied the markets of their own country. "As a result of this tariff relationship, and as a result of the privilege of shipping in bond, there was maintained at Vancouver a fleet, partially American and partially Canadian, to correspond with the markets available in the two countries."25 With the coming into force of the American Underwood Tariff in 1913, fresh halibut was permitted to enter the United States duty free. This was a valuable privilege to Canadian fishermen, who could compete on equal terms with American fishermen in the United States market. In 1915 the bonding concession was extended to fish dealers:26 ^Thompson and Freeman, "History of the Pacific. Halibut Fisheries." 26Order-in-Council, March 9, 1915. 96 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XXII Halibut Caught and Marketed—British Columbia 1878-1937 Year* Quantity (thousands of pounds) Value (dollars) Year Quantity (thousands of pounds) Value (dollars) 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907, 150 241 81 386 229 605 636 1,130 1,357 1,375 1,879 2,586 2,276 1,967 1,970 2,075 4,261 5,701 8,417 10,209 13,281 8,901 11,416 14,304 3,000 7,220 1,182 578 380 1,500 9,000 9,540 8,100 38,600 13,075 30,253 31,840 56,500 67,875 68,695 93,975 126,835 113,828 98,375 98,500 103,750 213,050 285,050 420,850 510,450 664,050 445,070 570,835 715,236 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936, 1937, 17,512 21,706 21,906 19,648 25,328 22,346 21,444, 19,489* 12,306 11,352 18,622 21,077 23,877 32,586 29,318 33,466 33,138 31,824 31,509 27,135 30,282 30,392 25,479 18,200 16,884 17,081 17,590 f 17,127 16,790 18,761 875,652 1,085,325 1,095,395 1,845,135 2,461,208 1,734,200 1,561,626 1,972,290 2,026,670 1,721,012 5,196,539 4,617,484 4,104,869 3,036,076 3,918,441 6,271,993 5,427,542 3,891,819 4,543,720 3,467,904 3,370,670 4,317,235 2,446,775 1,373,679 960,166 1,391,941 833,829| 940,862 1,039,8791 1,190,056$ Source: 1878-1918, Annual reports of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers)-, 1919-34, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries Statistics of Canada-, 1935-7, Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia. *From 1878 to 1906 inclusive, years ended June 30; from 1908 to 1917 inclusive, years ended March 31; since and including 1917, calendar years. No statistics are available for the 9-month period ended March 31, 1907. fin order to make the halibut series of figures comparable with previous years, 8,492 thousand pounds landed at British Columbia ports by American vessels were added to the 9,098 thousand pounds landed by Canadian vessels at British Columbia ports. " JThese figures include the following values for halibut livers: 1934—$36,439; 1935—180,513; 1936—196,311. HALIBUT 97 During the present calendar year (1915), foreigners or foreign corporations bringing fresh fish in vessels registered in the United States of America to any port in British Columbia shall be permitted to land such fresh fish at such port without payment of duties and transship the same in bond to any port in the United States, or to sell such fish in bond to such local dealer or dealers as may be properly and duly licensed therefor, under the regulations and conditions hereinafter mentioned, which dealer or dealers shall export the same in compliance with the bonding requirements (without the right, however, in either instance, to sell in Canada for consumption therein, or otherwise except in bond, any of such fresh fish so landed); and such foreigners and foreign corporations bringing fresh fish in vessels registered in the United States of America to any port in British Columbia, shall be permitted to purchase supplies, and ship crews for such vessels, at any port in the said Province of British Columbia, the whole under such regulations and conditions as the Minister of Customs may determine. The privilege of sale to dealers for shipment in bond was of par- / ticular value to the small American vessels which found it difficult to ship in carload lots and thus did not benefit greatly from the privilege of direct shipment. At first shipment in bond was only allowed by rail, but later provisions were made for the shipment of halibut by vessels to ports in the United States. The establishment of a cold storage plant with a capacity or""" fourteen million pounds at Prince Rupert and the opening of this t port as a transcontinental railway terminus in 1915 assisted the* northward movement of the industry. Prince Rupert was approxi- ( mately six hundred miles nearer the main fishing grounds than Vancouver and Seattle, and the use of smaller vessels, capable of operating within a radius of about three hundred miles, was made possible. It became the main halibut port on the north Pacific coast. Its use by United States vessels was encouraged by the Canadian government, which allowed shipments of fish in bond when landed by American vessels. American vessels were also allowed to use the port of Prince Rupert for the purpose of securing provisions, bait, fuel, ice, and crews. In 1916, foreign vessels bringing fresh fish to a British Columbia port were allowed to purchase bait with the understanding that catches made with such bait would be landed at a Canadian port and from there forwarded in bond to a port in the United States. Successful competition by the port of Prince Rupert led to an attempt on the part of American fishermen to make it impossible for fish landed in bond at a foreign port to enter the United States. A bill was introduced in Congress in 1916 to the effect "That from THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES and after ninety days from the passage of this Act, no fresh or frozen halibut or salmon from the north Pacific Ocean or its tributary waters shall be admitted into the United States through any foreign country, except when the same shall be in bond from an American port." Although strongly supported, it failed to pass. The Canadian government suggested that the whole question of the fisheries on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts as between Canada and the United States was fundamentally similar and that an attempt should be made to arrive at a final solution. It proposed :27 (1) That the modus vivendi be extended to all fishing vessels, by whatever means they may be propelled, that it be applied, to the Pacific coast as well as to the Atlantic, and that the annual fee be reduced from one dollar and fifty cents per registered ton to the nominal sum of one dollar per vessel. Also that the renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional on an Order in Council, but form part of the arrangement itself. (2) That United States fishing vessels on both coasts be allowed to sell their fish in Canadian ports for the Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, as well as to sell in bond. (3) That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to purchase bait in United States ports or waters, on equal terms with American fishing vessels. (4) That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches to United States ports and sell them there, subject to customs duties, if any. (5) That fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the other be given clearances for the fishing grounds if so desired. (7) That such arrangements be in force until the expiration of two years after either party thereto shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same. The United States government suggested the appointment of a Joint Commission of inquiry to report on the whole situation. The J proposal was accepted by Canada and a Joint International Fisheries ■ Conference was appointed. It reported that the objections of the American fishermen to the Canadian suggestions was founded in the main on erroneous information. The United States section of the Conference recommended that, at least for the term of the War, the restrictions imposed on Canadan fishing vessels in United States ports should be removed. This was agreed to by the President and an Order was issued to the Collectors of Customs: ' To promote the vigorous prosecution of the war and to make the utmost use jointly 21 Report of the Canadian-American Fisheries Conference, 1918, p. 10. HALIBUT 99 of all the resources of the nations now co-operating, you will permit, during the war, Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations now acting with the United States to enter from and clear for the high seas and the fisheries, disposing of their catch and taking on supplies, stores, etc., under supervision as in the case of merchant vessels entering and clearing for foreign ports, except as to tonnage tax and other charges specifically imposed on entry from and clearance for foreign ports." Similar recommendations were made to the Canadian government by the Canadian section of the Conference, and an Order-in-Council was approved on March 8, 1918: The Minister of the Naval Service recommends, under the authority of the War Measures Act, Chapter 2, of the Statutes of 1914, that during the war, United States fishing vessels, in addition to their treaty rights and privileges, shall be permitted to enter any port in Canada, without the requirement of a license or the payment of fees not charged to Canadian fishing vessels, for any of the following purposes: (a) The purchase of bait, ice, nets, lines, coal, oil, provisions and all other supplies and outfits used by fishing vessels whether the same are of like character to those named in this section or not; (b) Repairing fishing implements; (c) Dressing and salting their catches on board ship; (d) The shipping of crews; (e) The transshipment of their catches; (/) The sale thereof locally on payment of the duty. The Minister further recommends that the fees paid on licenses already taken out for the present calendar year be remitted. These orders applied to both Atlantic and Pacific ports. The United States orders were cancelled in 1921, and in 1922 licence fees for American vessels were introduced by the Canadian government. A proposed Halibut Treaty between the United States and Canada was drawn up, embodying reciprocal port privileges, the elimination of customs duties on halibut, close season from November 16 to February 15, a joint investigation of the life- history of the halibut, and the prohibition of nets in certain fresh waters, but it was not finally negotiated. In 1922, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff imposed a duty of two cents per pound on fresh halibut entering the United States. This placed Canadian fishermen at a disadvantage as compared with Americans who had equal port privileges with the Canadians, and could ship their halibut catch to the United States without paying duty. The imposition of the new duty was very definitely felt by the Canadian fleet which had expanded during the period when 100 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES halibut was on the free list. The suggestion that the United States duty was in retaliation for the Canadian duty on United States halibut was difficult to substantiate because market conditions were such that the Canadian duty could not seriously affect the American fishermen. Practically all of the American halibut fishermen's catch, and a considerable proportion of the Canadian, was marketed in the United States. The Member for Skeena in the Dominion Parliament stated in 1923: The United States have for years admitted fish free into their country while Canada maintained a duty of one cent a pound on fish coming into Canada from the United States. Now the Fordney tariff has retaliated and has imposed a duty of two cents on Canadian fish. This retaliation has made the situation in British Columbia acute as regards the halibut industry. United States fishermen get all the benefits of the port of Prince Rupert; they market their halibut in this port obtaining 16 cents per pound—this halibut goes in bond through Canada to the Boston and Eastern American markets. Canadian fishermen marketing their halibut in Prince Rupert for shipment to the United States can only get 14 oents a pound for it as they must themselves pay the American 2-cent duty in order to compete with the American fishermen.28 The question of conservation of the halibut and the problem of over-production could not be shelved permanently. In 1913 a large quantity of halibut was placed in cold storage which competed with the later catch and a closed season was proposed for winter months. The proposal received support not merely as a method of regulating the supply and market conditions, but "as a means of conservation. Reports presented under the auspices of the British Columbia Commissioner of Fisheries gave scientific data which supported the movement for a close period and finally brought its successful conclusion. Had the proposed Halibut Treaty of 1919 not contained controversial provision for reciprocal port privileges between Canada and the United States, the close season for halibut might have been inaugurated at that time. In the winter of 1921-2, American vessel owners proposed a voluntary closing of the halibut season from January 10 to March 15, which was observed by some of the large schooners but not by the fleet as a whole. In 1922, a Royal Commission, appointed by the Dominion government to investigate the fishing industry in British Columbia, recommended a close season extending from November 15 to February 15 annually, and pointed out that if the question of halibut 28Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1923, p. 2735. HALIBUT 101 were dealt with separately, the United States government would be prepared to conclude a treaty. "On the question of protecting the ha.lihnt fish pry pf the Pacific against entire depletion by over- fishing, we found all of one mind, namely: that a close seasonTor a] period of three months should be arranged in conjunction wrth the\ United State^aiithorities. who are equally concerned. We also found much dissatisfaction and impatience as a result of nothing having been done especially in the last two years to hasten the completion of an agreement with the United States dealing specifically with this matter."29 The recommendations of the Commission were accepted and al new treaty was formulated in 1922 dealing only with close seasons and with the establishment of an International Fisheries Commission I for the investigation of the halibut. After some delay, the Halibut! Treaty was negotiated on October 21, 1924, and the necessary legislation to control the halibut fishery passed.30 In November of that year, the first close season under the Treaty was established. This was^Jjie first treaty signed by Canada as a nation by its own agent as representative of the King, and it was also the first treaty between the High Contracting Parties for the joint regulation of a great fishery. Provision was made for the appointment of a com-^ mission of four, two members from each country, with power to make investigation into the life-history of the halibut and to regu- 9 late the industry subject to the approval of the Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada and the President of the United States of America. These regulations were related to the division of the convention waters into areas, the limit of the catch to be taken in each area, the fishing equipment to be used, licensing and clearances of vessels, collection of information regarding the halibut catch, and the closing of certain areas populated by small, immature halibut.31 The Pacific coast was divided into four areas: area no. 1 roughly consists of the coast of California and Oregon, and part of Washington; area no. 2 includes all the convention waters from the northern boundary of area 1 to Cape Spencer, and comprises the coast of British Columbia and south-eastern Alaska; area no. 3 extends from Cape Spencer to the Aleutian Islands; area no. 4 29Report and Recommendations, British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1922, pp. 22-3. 30See appendix 3, Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention. 31See appendix 5, Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations. 102 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES includes all the waters not included in areas 1, 2, and 3, and Bering Sea. W. F. Thompson, who had devoted much study to the Pacific halibut, was appointed director of investigations. Difficulties faced any investigation since the halibut can only be studied at sea and the fishery covers a coast line of about eighteen hundred miles. Captains of fishing vessels, however, co-operated fully and the Commission secured * 'extensive records of the individual catches, from which the yield per unit of fishing effort, the 'skate/ has been ascertained for each section of the coast. These coyer every season and are for years as far back as 1906."32 After three years' work a report was presented, covering records of the catch, the biology of the halibut, physical characteristics and growth of the different varieties, and the drift of the halibut eggs. It was recommended that power be given the proper governmental authorities:33 1. (a) To establish areas, within each of which, if deemed necessary for the preservation of the fishery there, the total catch of halibut may be reduced by a predetermined percentage annually, commencing not less than one year after the putting into force of this recommendation, until the fishery therein shall reach a state of stability of yield. •*" (5J^ To determine upon the amount of this percentage reduction, and to revise the same from time to time as may be found necessary, the intent being to restrain any increase in the amount of fishing within such area. 2. To Hnfip pprmanpntlv to all fishing the two areas herewith defined, and Unown to be populated by small, immature halibut, and to close such other grounds as may be found by the commission to be populated by a similar class of fish. jJ 3. To prevent the use of any fishing gear deemed unduly destructive. 4. To extend the present closed season for two weeks at its beginning, making the closure for all fishing in all areas from November 1 to February 15, both dates inclusive, and to facilitate future alterations in the length of the closed season. 5. To license all vessels fishing for halibut in treaty waters, under such terms as are necessary for the purpose of the treaty, including statistical returns, and for clearance to regulated waters. It was found that a closed season from November 16 to February 15 was inadequate. It had led to more intensive fishing of the banks during the open season, and there was actually an increase ^Report of the International Fisheries Commission appointed under the Northern Pacific Halibut Treaty, 1928, p. 8. "Ibid., p, 13. HALIBUT 103 in the annual halibut catch.34 The amount of fishing gear on the older banks was about two and one-half times that employed in « 1910. It was found that conditions on the different halibut banks TABLE XXIII Men, Boats, and Tonnage Engaged in Pacific Halibut Fishery, 1928-37 American Fleet Year Number of Men Number df Boats Tonnage 5 or less trips 6 or more trips 5 or less trips 6 or more trips 5 or less trips 6 or more trips 1928 223 247 213 294 287 243 288 400 358 396 1,536 1,689 1,673 1,354 1,301 1,326 1,244 1,237 1,376 1,412 56 64 58 80 88 57 78 95 91 101 253 304 295 243 234 244 245 208 244 257 622 879 745 1,164 1,011 922 1,056 1,399 1,230 1,305 5,856 1929 6,155 1930. 6,090 1931 5,400 1932 5,210 1933 5,114 5,217 1934 1935 4,552 1936 4,959 1937 4,934 Canadian Fleet Year Number of Men Number of Boats Tonnage 5 or less trips 6 or more trips 5 or less trips 6 or more trips 5 or less trips 6 or more trips 1928 158 89 127 126 135 89 125 128 168 148 352 374 371 377 215 245 329 366 417 491 33 19 23 29 38 26 39 40 40 37 79 87 83 85 47 57 76 89 95 117 613 441 468 509 394 294 433 459 616 536 954 1929 1,083 997 1930 'L 1931 1,068 643 1932 1933 773 1934 939 1935 1,024 1,191 1,302 1936 1937 Source: 1938 Year Book, Pacific Fisherman, p. 223. ^Ibid., p. 18. 104 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES L d varied and that special regulations would be necessary for particular areas. Some fishing grounds would be closed altogether. The average age of the halibut caught was from eight to ten years, and it was believed that if the industry was to be preserved, the immediate adoption of conservation measures was necessary. The *i Halibut Treaty was, therefore, modified in 1930 to extend the closed I season to the period from November 1 to the fifteenth of the fol- / lowing February. The halibut landings from areas nos. 2 and 3 I were limited to 46,000,000 pounds annually, and certain areas were completely closed.35 Very little fishing was done in areas nos. 1 and 4. f At the time regulation was adopted, the yield had decreased / from 60 million to 22J million pounds and it was claimed that without regulation the yield in 1936 would have been still less by at least 4 million pounds.36 Instead there is an accumulated stock, actually some 60 per cent greater than when the Commission began. The increase in the catch per unit of gear is due not so much to any increase in the number of fish coming to commercial size each year, as to the increased length of time that each year's addition of young is allowed to remain on the banks. In other words, there are more ■ x generations of halibut on the banks at one time; consequently not jonly is there a greater number of fish available, but the fish are (larger. There are also more fish for spawning, which is extremely important since it is impossible to propagate halibut artificially in anything like sufficient quantities to maintain the industry. lh The Commission has achieved marked success in the work of conservation, and is an outstanding example of international co- '?$ operation. / Difficulties were encountered in enforcing the regulations since the limitation of the catch involved restricting the activities of individual fishermen. They were most marked in area no. 2, which comprises British Columbia waters, where fishermen were inclined to take advantage of any loop-holes in the regulations to catch as many fish as possible. To meet this situation a Halibut Marketing J Board was set up, under the provisions of the Dominion Natural J Products Marketing Act and the marketing legislation of the prp- 35See appendix 5, Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations. z6Report of the International Fisheries Commission, 1936, p. 4. HALIBUT TABLE XXIV Landings of Halibut by Ports for 1933-39 (thousands of pounds) United States 105 Ports California Oregon Seattle Neah Bay Vancouver Prince Rupert Ketchikan Wrangell Petersburg. . . Sitka Juneau Seward Cordova Donna Lane.. Misc. Ports .. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 324 1,022 652 393 238 304 493 595 629 314 453 400 22,086 20,586 22,275 22,571 21,248 20,848 145 133 114 155 103 % 119 4 28 19 8,759 8,592 6,899 6,204 7,018 7,324 2,879 3,146 3,771 3,574 3,692 2,827 32f 292 112 497 590 ' 432 1,067 1,006 473 1,985 1,375 1,963 845 1,184 762 970 990 921 1,621 1,472 1,403 1,601 1,844 2,046 24 53 17 25 6 0.8 17 3 3 148 1 4 0 .5 61 1939 283 740 19,978 61 9,319 2,261 280 1,460 917 2,002 1 3 Canada Seattle Vancouver New Westminster District No. 3 Butedale Claxton Prince Rupert Petersburg Sitka. . . ., Juneau Misc. Ports 20 18 167 1,069 1,236 1,607 1,649 1,992 2,395 207 375 607 421 342 403 244 272 349 399 378 587 l',041 1,330 1,571 1,153 1,291 1,774 122 95 5,582 6,361 6,065 6,959 7,742 6,844 12 6 4 3 3 11 1 49 0 0 0 0 2,694 325 445 1,843 8,061 15 0 Source: International Fisheries Commission. vincial government, to control the activities of the fishermen. Owing to the improved condition of the halibut banks, it was possible for fishermen to catch their quota in a much shorter period* than is provided by the open season. In order to spread the catch over the whole season, boats are compelled on landing their catch" 106 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES 1 to remain in port for a definite period of time. Definite quotas of catch and tie-up periods have been laid down.37 In the Dominion Parliament sessions of 1929, 1930, and 1931 considerable attention was given to the American duty of two cents a pound on Canadian halibut. Two suggestions were made to secure its removal: that the port of Prince Rupert be closed to American fishermen, and that a port duty of 2 cents per pound be charged on all fish landed there. The proposal to close the port to American fishermen was strongly opposed because its use by Americans was of considerable benefit economically and commercially, and neither suggestion was adopted (Tables xxiii-xxiv). A duty was imposed on fresh, pickled, or salted halibut, of J, 2, and 2 cents per pound38 (British preferential, intermediate, and general tariffs) in 1931, in order to provide protection against imports from the United States and also possible imports from Japan. In 1929, Japanese landed in Seattle 400,000 pounds of frozen halibut of good quality at the low price of 9 cents per pound. 37See appendix B. "Statutes of Canada, 1931, chap. 30. HALIBUT 107 APPENDIX A Halibut livers, once thrown away, have become a valuable source off income since the discovery that halibut liver contains important vitamins. j The demand has continually increased and the price has risen from 12 cents per pound in 1932 to 15 cents in 1933, 20| cents in 1934, 40f cents in 1935, 50 cents in 1936, to 50| cents in 1937. The following table shows the amount and value of the Canadian product. Pounds 1932 222,100 $29,571 1933 229,300 45,995 1934 156,200 36,499 1935 181,200 80,513 1936 191,600 96,311 1937 178,200 94,405 In 1937 the combined Canadian and American halibut fleets landed halibut livers valued at $475,350. APPENDIX B (1) These regulations shall apply to all fishermen and all captains without regard to the size of the boats on which they operate or the amount of gear with which they fish. (2) Each fisherman must register his name and name of boat with the Secretary of the Board before the 3rd day of July; and (3) his own name and the name of his fishermen, and must notify the Secretary of any change made in his crew. (4) Captains must have a Board license and no halibut captain or fisherman may market any halibut or offer it for sale without a license in good* .standing for the year. (5) Captains may not go as fishermen on any other boat than the one on which he is registered during the same season without having spent full tie-up time, as hereinafter defined, in port; (6) Nor may fishermen fish or go as captain without first spending full tie-up time, other than on the boat he is registered on, providing that in an individual case where one fisherman has left one boat he may be permitted by the Secretary to engage himself as a member of the crew of another boat if by not doing so he might suffer hardship by being deprived of the right to fish. (7) Captains and fishermen must observe the ordinary tie-up time. Every captain must have his license marked by the Secretary before leaving port to indicate that he and his crew have stayed in port full tie-up time. They cannot market or offer for sale any halibut without having at the date of such marketing or offering for sale previously stayed in port the full tie-up time to the date of last clearance for the fishing grounds. (8) The tie-up time shall be as follows: (a) Ordinary tie-up time in port shall date from noon of the day on which a vessel first arrives in Prince Rupert, Butedale, Vancouver 108 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES or New Westminster if the vessel arrives before noon, and from noon of the next day if the vessel arrives after noon, and shall be as fol- s lows: Seven full days for boats carrying three men or less including captain. Eight full days for boats carrying four or five men including captain. Nine full days for boats carrying more than five men including captain. (b) Ordinary tie-up time shall be increased as follows: Two full days for each thousand pounds or fraction thereof above the permitted quota. (c) Ordinary tie-up shall be decreased as follows: One full day for * the first full two thousand pounds short of the permitted quota and one full day for each further full one thousand pounds short of quota, r (d) Quotas shall be as follows: Area 3—Thirty-eight hundred pounds a man a trip including captain, plus nine hundred and ninety-nine pounds; Area 2—Thirty-one hundred pounds a man a trip including captain, plus nine hundred and ninety-nine pounds. (e) When break-downs necessitate going into port for repairs, all time lost over twenty-four hours shall be deducted from the tie-up time immediately following break-down. (9) Infractions of the Marketing Act rules shall lead to cancellation of license. (10) Each captain must report the size of his catch and the area in which it was obtained to the Board within 48 hours after discharge of fish, providing that a captain who regularly furnishes statistical information to the International Fisheries Commission may be exonerated from the above if he authorizes in writing the I.F.C. to turn over their data to the Board. mm CHAPTER IX HERRING, PILCHARD, COD, STURGEON, AND DOGFISH, Herring ranks third in value of product in the British Columbia fishing industry. The^first attempt to put up herring in barrels for export was made in 1877 by a New Westminster firm, but a defect in the process of packing spoiled the product and it could not be marketed. About the same time oil from herring was extracted on a commercial basis in Burrard Inlet. "The apparatus is described as being a kind of steam boiler, which supplies steam to four vats in which the herring are steamed, and afterwards pressed, by means of powerful screws attached to the vats. The oil flows out through perforations in the bottom. The whole outfit is estimated to cost about $1,000. Messrs. Hanson and Rouster, in addition to their own labor employ five men, and use one boat with eighty yards of net."1 The scow in which the operations were carried out was moved from place to place. It was later taken over by a Mr. Spratt and popularly known as "Spratt's Ark." The work was expanded considerably and fish scrap was dried for fertilizer. Oil was also extracted from salmon offal. The factory burned down in 1886.2 By that time the herring had largely left Burrard Inlet and no other firm attempted to engage in the herring oil business. In 1882 about seven hundred barrels of salted herring were packed for export to Australia,3 but the market was largely local as British Columbia herring was considered inferior as a result of being caught in the spring in the shallow waters in which they had spawned. Small quantities were salted and smoked but demand was limited.4 The herring in northern waters were found to be of j better quality, and by 1890 the local demand was increasing andi small shipments were made to the Canadian prairies. Demand 1Report of the Inspector of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1878 (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 3, 1879, appendix 17, p. 291). 2Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 16, 1887, appendix 7, pp. 247-79. sIbid., no. 7, 1883, appendix 6, p. 1881. In 1877, 263 bbls. of pickled herring were valued at $2,104. In 1879, 20 bbls. valued at $80 were taken; in 1880, 50 bbls. valued at $300; in 1881, 200 bbls. at $1,200; in 1882, 1,290 bbls. and 423 kits valued at $11,691; in 1883, 36 bbls. and 150 kits valued at $926. In 1891*, 202 cwt. were valued at $909; in 1892, 145 cwt. at $653; in 1893, 250 cwt. at. $1,500; in 1894, 510 cwt. at $3,060; in 1896, 1,000 cwt. at $5,000. ^Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 6, 1888, p. 246. 109 110 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES increased during the nineties, and with the development of the halibut industry herring was used as bait. The Inspector of Fisheries for the province objected to the use of herring for the production of oil in a memorandum submitted to the Fisheries Commission in 1892: "Herring are valuable as a food fish, they are sold in large quantities in the markets of Victoria, Nanaimo, New Westminster and Vancouver, and are highly prized as food by settlers on the coasts and Island of the Province, and also by the Indian population. They are also the principal bait fish of our waters. Destroying them in immense quantities for their oil is a useless waste, as the dog fish on the coast which are very destructive to all other kinds of fish, are sufficiently numerous to supply all the oil for which a market can be found at present." The Commission recommended "That the great destruction of herring now practised to supply a few crude oileries on the coast and elsewhere should be prevented by departmental enactments and thus avoid the too great and rapid depletion of an important factor as bait for carrying on the deep sea fisheries of the B.C. coast."5 The catching of fish for use as manure had been prohibited in 1894,6 but the enactment was evaded by classifying fertilizer as a by-product of the reduction of fish into oil. Professor Prince, the Commissioner and General Inspector of Fisheries for the Dominion, paid tribute to the enormous numbers. Herring are caught on every part of the British Columbia coast. Those in the more southerly areas, while incredibly plentiful, are of smaller size than the less abundant schools of the north, where the herring reach a size almost equalling the large Labrador herring. In the Straits of Georgia the schools in certain months of the year, usually the fall, may extend for many miles. Indeed in 1893 I was informed that a small tug passed for three hours through a continuous mass of migrating herring in the month of June, while I myself have seen in February dead herring thickly covering the surface of the sea near Nanaimo for a distance of over two miles. Purse-seines of 1-inch extension measure were tried 14 or 15 years ago in March and April with considerable success. There seems to be little doubt that, if the movements of the schools could be ascertained, as, indeed, is possible only by an accurate scientific survey, herring could be captured in enormous quantities during the whole year as in Scottish and English waters. Until the present time, the fishermen have been content to await the arrival of the herring in the bays and inlets usually frequented by them at the close of the year and in the 5"British Columbia Salmon Fisheries Commission, 1892, Record of Proceedings" (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1893, IOC, pf 411). ^Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, s. 51 (enacted 57-58 Vic, c. 51, s. 5). OTHER FISHERIES 111 New Year. The principal centre of the fishery is Nanaimo and the vast schools, as a rule, move in about the middle of November.7 The question of damage by the use of herring for reduction into oil and fertilizer was investigated by the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1905-7. In 1910 the reduction of herring into oil and guano was prohibited.8 The"prohibition continued in force until 19259 when it was removed for the Vancouver and Prince Rupert) Districts. Permission to reduce herring has also been granted inter- j mittently on the west coast of Vancouver Island, particularly when there was an insufficient run of pilchards to give the reduction plants a profitable year's business. In order to obtain the best quality of fish it was necessary to take the herring in deep water, rather than with drag or beach seines in the shallow bays and inlets. A change in the method of catching was necessary, in any case, because the bays were being gradually deserted by the larger schools. By 1905 the use of gill nets was common at Point Grey, near Vancouver, and also at Departure Bay and Nanaimo. The device was so successful that the supply was threatened in certain areas, and attention was drawn to the 7"The Pacific Fishing Industries of Canada" (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1906-7, no. 22, special appended reports, p. lxvii). 8Ed. VII, 1910, c. 20, s. 51. 9Herring Oil and Meal Marketed in British Columbia, 1927-37 (calendar years) Oil Meal Year (thousands of gallons) (thousands of dollars) (tons) (thousands of dollars) 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 170 68 37 '60 HI 186 316 105 307 782 1,284 62 24 14 19 14 23 38 11 69 200 287 1,838 831 437 1,774 3,904 6,195 4,078 2,570 5,262 10,085 14,427 97 44 23 74 172 208 127 89 147 350 460 Source : Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. 112 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES danger of unrestricted seining.10 Drag-seines and gill nets had become inadequate for supplying the demand for herring which had [developed rapidly between 1905 and 1910, largely as a result of the growing market in the Orient for dry-salted herring, and the in- j creased use of herring as bait.11 The purse-seine was being generally used on the east coast of Vancouver Island by 1910. It was finally legalized, outside of certain restricted areas, in 1913, and was an important factor in building up an extensive herring fishery on the coasts of Vancouver Island. The market for fresh herring is largely limited to local demand, although small amounts have been exported, fresh or frozen, to Seattle. In 1904, 14,000 hundredweight were shipped fresh to Puget Sound. There was a large increase in the use of fresh herring from 1912 to 1918, probably a result of the stimulus given to the consumption of fish by the war.12 There has been a small local market for smoked herring since the beginning of the industry,13 although the quantity in recent years has diminished. In 1904, 2,000 barrels of herring were packed. An expert, J.J. Cowie from Scotland, was employed to make experiments in curing. As a result of his work there was an increase in the use of pickled herring. War demand and high prices led to a great increase in the pack. During the war, Scotch-cured British Columbia herring was shipped to points on the United States Pacific coast and to Chicago, and New York, and Australia. Some of the product I was badly cured and had an adverse effect on the market. With the close of the war, the demand for Canadian herring in the United States was materially reduced. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Alaska a tariff advantage of one cent per pound over British Columbia, and the competition, particularly in the eastern United States markets, of herring caught in the North Sea which could be placed in New York at a lower price than the British Columbia 1QReport of the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1905-7 (Ottawa), pp. 47-50. "From 1910 to 1935 an average of 28,208 barrels of herring were used annually as bait, amounting in value to an average of $62,325 per annum. 12Agitation for the protection of the herring industry of British Columbia led to an increase in the duties from 35, 45, and 50 cents per 100 pounds to f, f, and 1 cent per pound in 1931. 13See Tables xxv and xxvi. In 1877, it was estimated that $1,200 of smoked and kippered herring were put up, in 1878, 75 bbls. valued at $1,450; in 1879, $240; 1880, $1,590; 1881, $2,500; 1882, $2,600; 1883, $5,000. iyHtt OTHER FISHERIES 113 product, further restricted the market. More recently the demand for the Scotch-cured herring has been local, and in 1935 only 117 barrels were sold. The canning of herring has not developed as an established industry. In 1903, 3,500 cases ($14,000) were put up to utilize cans which had been left over from the poor salmon run. Canning was" resumed in 1915, when 11^,468 cases of herring were canned at a value of $68,808,14 and increased rapidly until 1919, when 64,002 cases were put up at a value of $345,571. Following the war, this branch of the industry in common with the others suffered a decline, and has been practically non-existent since 1926, with the exception of 1934 when 2,295 cases were canned. Dry-salted herring forms the most important branch of the I industry, the market being entirely in the Orient, particularly in China. This industry began in 1904 when 4,500 hundredweight of salt fish were shipped to Japan. The salteries were located mainly on Vancouver Island in the neighbourhood of Nanaimo, although they were established also on the mainland at Pender Harbour, New Westminster, and Vancouver. In 1911, the industry spread to the west coast of Vancouver Island, where salteries, established at Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds, rapidly expanded. Salteries on a small scale were later established in the northern part of the pro- 14 Canned Herring Caught and Marketed in British Columbia Thousands of Year Cases dollars 1915-16 11,468 69 1916-17 36,153 221 1917 46,650 304 1919 64,002 346 1920 19,968 124 1921 4,149 27 1922 2,114 11 1923 3,099 16 1925 391 2 1926 433 2 1931 | 43 0.2 1934 2,295 7 1936 51,695 155 1937 27,365 87 Source: 1903-18, Report of the Department of Fisheries, (Canada, Sessional Papers); 1919-37, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. 114 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XXV Herring Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1884-1910 Year* Fresh (cwt.) Fresh (dollars) Smoked and kippered (cwt.) Smoked and kippered (dollars) Total value of all herring and herring products § 346J 366 380 2,056 1,229 1,900 3,295 3,350 4,600 4,580 3,780 2,495 1,910 4,300 5,650 6,250 9,450 9,600 16,536 36,200 46,730 44,955 89,340 193,465 449,652 581,460 1,728$ 1,830 1,140 6,168 6,145 9,500 16,475 16,750 23,000 22,900 11,340 7,485 5,730 12,900 16,950 18,750 28,350 28,800 82,680 176,000 233,665 224,775 446,250 193,465 449,652 511,960 560 45 145 80 330 275 313 . 210 87 176 275 211 517 1,270 1,870 2,000 1,825 4,465 5,684 6,378 1,837 1,879 1,922 1,816 3,037 6,500 7,000 900 1,450 800 3,300 5,500 3,756 2,520 870 1,760 2,753 2,105 5,165 12,700 18,700 20,000 18,250 44,649 56,844 63,776 18,365 18,790 19,220 18,160 35,940 8,228 8,830 2,040 7,618 6,945 12,800 21,515 21,415 26,173 25,270 16,160 10,238 12,835 18,065 29,650 37,450 48,350 47,050 127,329 246,844 297,441 243,140 465,040 212,685 467,812 547,900 Source: Papers). Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional ♦From 1884 to 1906 inclusive, years ended June 30; from 1908 to 1910, years ended March 31. No statistics are available for the nine-month period ended March 31, 1907. fFigures for years 1899 to 1909-10 inclusive include salted. JThese figures are for herring and smelts together. §From 1884 to 1910 inclusive, the value of herring oil was included in the value of all fish oils. OTHER FISHERIES 115 vince, but at present all of them are on Vancouver Island. Unlike other branches of the industry, exports of dry-salted herring declined during the Great War. Since the war, decline in the market for other products has led to a stimulation of interest in the dry- salted product and it has accounted for by far the greater amount of the green weight of herring caught and marketed. Unsettled conditions in the Orient, together with depressed market conditions, have led to a decrease, the value of the product having decreased from $1,489,501 in 1928 to $203,401 in 1937. The industry and af considerable part of the trade with China is largely in the hands of the Japanese. In 1937 the Japanese government, by applying exchange control laws to salt fish, caused still greater restriction. In 1938 the quantity sold was reduced to 4,940 tons, as compared with 8,000 in 1937, but in 1939 had increased to 7,701 tons. A further factor in the decline has been the inefficient methods of marketing, particularly in consignment shipments, with their adverse effects on prices. The industry sought to take advantage of authority under the Dominion Natural Products Marketing Act* to set up a Board to control production and sale. A Board was established in 1934, and it limited production to an amount which » it was considered the market could absorb in an orderly manner. !'Consignment shipments were prohibited by a system of export licensing, licenses to ship being issued to cover firm sales or sales covered by letters of credit, cash against documents."15 Production was limited to 20,000 tons in 1934 and to 23,000 tons in 1935-6, 10,000 of which was allocated to Kobe, 7,000 to Shanghai, and 5,500 to Hong Kong. Licences to operate twenty-one herring dry salteries were issued by the provincial Department for the 1935-6 season, and the west coast of Vancouver Island was allotted 7,200 tons and the east coast 15,800 tons. The minimum price of herring was regulated and the quantities marketed controlled. In the season 1936-7, 18,000 tons of herring were sold. In spite of difficulties both in the fields of production and of marketing, the activities of the Board have stabilized the industry. The policy of abolishing sales on consignment has made it possible to stabilize prices, and the control of the quantities sold has done away with" the situation in which high prices were obtained for the herring in 15Annual report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1934, p. 13. 116 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XXVI Herring Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1910-37 (thousands of dollars) Total value Caught Smoked Used of all herring Year and Fresh Salted and Pickled as and herring landed kippered bait products* Used Dry- fresh salted 1910-11. 363 8 189 37 25 69 328 1911-12. 565 58 268 54 4 31 415 1912-13. 823 338 449 123 54 53 1,017 1913-14. 708 356 470 98 4 27 956 1914-15. 609 389 359 62 34 32 877 1915-16. 517 370 312 53 163 43 1,010 1916-17. 580 309 301 37 76 65 1,009 1917f... 677 341 329 29 118 72 1,193 1918 1,743 1,110 1919.... 696 92 467 82 70 36 1920.... 868 90 872 62 13 66 1,228 1921 636 63 667 60 29 118 963 1922.... 807 46 650 44 7 92 851 1923.... 903 51 1,088 58 23 103 1,338 1924.... 764 52 1,174 74 2 89 1,393 1925.... 992 65 1,528 49 0.5 74 1,718 1926.... 1,006 45 1,331 54 1 96 1,529 1927.... 1,342 71 1,483 54 3 94 1,867 1928.... 1,413 77 1,490 52 1 120 1,809 1929.... 961 88 1,249* 51 2 59 1,487 1930.... 717 80 961 39 0.8 49 1,222 1931.... 632 23 776 27 2 43 1,058 1932.... 183 30 214 23 0.9 38 536 1933.... 469 26 509 19 0.6 19 739 1934.... 201 24 433 24 2 38 629 1935.... 287 68 229 34 0.9 33 580 1936.... 383 28 347 32 0.2 30 1,526 1937.... 440 54 203 26 0.8 64 1,622 Source: For the years 1910-18, Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers); 1919-37, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. *From 1910 to 1926 inclusive, the value of herring oil was included in the value of all fish oils. The totals also include canned herring. fFrom 1910 to 1917 inclusive, years ended March 31; since and including 1917, calendar years. mm OTHER FISHERIES Table XXVI—Continued (quantities only) 117 Year Caught and landed (cwt.) Fresh (cwt.) Salted (cwt.) Smoked and kipperec (cwt.) Pickled (barrels) Used as bait (barrels) 1910-11 1911-12.... 1912-13 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917f 1918 275,193 545,442 729,567 649,062 563,406 467,452 496,030 487,241 636,921 567,868 1,001,357 944,866 1,002,519 1,035,823 1,157,625 1,437,875 1,301,269 1,724,246 1,535,118 1,315,667 1,229,962 1,481,080 1,003,204 1,077,373 820,362 1,008,507 1,620,625 1,929,795 Used fresh 7,688 14,150 42,708 42,014 96,631 73,942 88,330 87,173 Dry-salted 189,354 267,933 299,395 313,178 236,461 183,704* 172,988 161,865 3,234 5,196 8,856 7,938 7,310 5,791 4,014 6,263 3,125 939 18,765 1,643 6,544 8,890 7,590 7,923 34,534 31,195 51,894 26,935 15,270 17,180 28,757 28,785 1919 1920 26,999 47,327 21,533 13,150 10,893 13,891 19,973 11,070 21,674 18,693 76,520 53,386 8,204 58,352 8,005 13,236 35,050 15,908 23,511 255,058 512,168 479,971 522,768 744,036 853,543 1,083,174 938,647 1,048,190 1,072,188 923,848 805,973 788;227 269,420 513,024 414,626 302,710 383,337 203,401 9,979 8,034 8,133 6,946 6,728 8,948 5,622 6,199 15,005 6,187 5,580 4,713 2,315 2,894 2,445 3,213 4,386 4,335 3,601 6,796 1,431 2,417 755 1,970 146 52 80 138 65 187 46 142 50 100 132 117 28 68 17,100 25,043 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 40,477 41,507 36,708 29,971 25,598 30,359 29,774 47,971 25,098 16,628 31,676 20,985 12,848 20,106 18,899 14,227 29,335 Source: For years 1910-18 inclusive, Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers); for years 1919-37 inclusive, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. *This figure is given as barrels instead of cwts. fFrom 1910 to 1917 inclusive, years ended March 31; since and including 1917, calendar years. No statistics are available for the nine-month period ended March 31, 1907. 118 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES the early part of the season and disastrously low prices at the end.16 The effect of the operation of the Marketing Board has been to place the industry, although it is smaller in size, on a more profitable basis. The position of the British Columbia Salt Fish Board was affected by the opinion rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada that the Dominion Natural Products Marketing Act was ultra vires. The question arose during 1936 of the actual power of the Board to control the marketing of salt fish, but through co-operation with the provincial government which has the power to license dry salteries, sufficient power was acquired for the Board to function. The pilchard, like the herring, move from the open sea to the inlets of the west coast in vast schools, but unlike the herring, do not spawn in these inlets but in the open sea—at which time and in what manner is not definitely known. The canning of pilchards on a commercial basis commenced in 1917, with a comparatively small market for the canned or fresh product. In 1924 an Order-in-Council authorized the use of pilchards in British Columbia for reduction purposes for oil and meal, and the catch increased17 from a yearly average of 39,352 to 1,067,966 hundredweight. In 1925, pilchard oil to the value of $211,774 and pilchard meal to the value of $2,103,000 were produced.18 About 95 per cent of the pilchards taken are used for meal and oil. The fishery became a deep sea operation after 1927 as the fish ceased to a large extent to frequent the bays and inlets. Seine boats increased fin size and purse-seines were used almost exclusively. In 1928, I more than four million dollars was invested in plants and gear and jover one thousand men were employed. The oil is used in the manufacture of shortenings, oleomargarine, soap, certain types of paint, linoleum, waterproof fabrics, and in tanning and tin-plating. Comparatively little pilchard oil is used in the raw state in Canada, ..and the larger proportion is exported for refining. 16The Board also controls the sale of dry-salted salmon. In 1934 production was 5,345 pounds, and in 1935, 8,734 pounds. Practically all of it is exported to Japan where it forms a specialized branch of the dry-salted salmon trade. The British Columbia dry-salted salmon, the chum being the principal species used, are larger than those received in Japan from other waters and are used during the Christmas and New Year holiday season as presents for which their size makes them particularly desirable. 17J. L. Hart, The Pilchard Fishery of British Columbia (Bulletin no. xxxvi, Biological Board of Canada). 18Annual report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1929. OTHER FISHERIES TABLE XXVII Pilchards Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1917-37 119 Year Quantity (cwt.) Value (thousands of dollars) 1917 (caught) 1,363 72,723 65,624 88,050 19,737 20,342 19,492 27,485 318,973 969,958 1,368,582 1,610,252 1,726,851 1,501,404 1,472,085 886,964 121,013 860,103 911,441* 889,037 961,485 (marketed) 12 1918 414 1919 372 1920..: 540 1921 102 1922 106 1923 92 1924 83 1925 183 1926 1,257 1,839 2,563 2,200 1,590 808 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 384 1933 77 1934 550 1935 1936 670 667 1937 903 *Source: Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1935. The Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia in 1876 reported: "The cod caught in the narrow waters is an inferior fish, but I believe that on the outer shores there are banks on which a superior variety is found. ... A bank lying off the North West angle of the Queen Charlotte Islands is specially noted for the production of some of the finest cod; and these when dried appear to be quite equal in quality to the dried fish of the Atlantic."19 In 1880, twenty-two vessels, financed from San Francisco, were operating, and in 1889J stations were established on the west coast of the Queen Charlotte^ Islands by Captain C. A. Lundberg, who endeavoured to increase the attractiveness of this fish by a process of filleting, but without much success. The local demand was small and the termination 19Canada, Sessional Papers, 1877, no. 5, appendix 21, p. 344. 120 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XXVIII Pilchard and Salmon Oil and Meal Marketed in British Columbia, 1926-37 Pilchard Salmon Oil Meal Oil Meal Year (thou (thou (thou (thou (thou (thou sands of sands of (tons) sands of sands of sands of (tons) sands of gallons) dollars) dollars) gallons) dollars) dollars) 1926... 1,899 734 7,948 371 1927... 2,674 983 12,169 617 1928... 3,996 1,475 14,500 767 1929... 2,857 1,128 15,826 657 1930... 3,204 678 18,934 688 1931... 2,552 230 14,200 433 1932... 1,316 166 8,848 202 10 0.8 149 3 1933... 276 35 1,108 34 64 9 719 23 1934... 1,635 207 7,626 230 124 17 1,108 34 1935... 1,649 359 8,681 226 61 11 806 21 1936... 1,217 290 8,715 274 171 39 2,083 67 1937... 1,707 514 8,483 277 169 42 1,845 59 Source: 1917-18, Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers); 1919-37, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. of the Washington Treaty made it impossible for British Columbia fishermen to compete in the American Pacific coast market.20 Very little increase in the catch was made until 1909 when 10,827 hundredweight of cod were taken. There were further increases in succeeding years,21 particularly after 1915 when the kippeftng brblack cod began. Cod taken on the halibut hooks, previously thrown away, , became valuable, and were sold fresh, frozen, hard salted, pickled, kippered, and smoked. The industry has maintained a steady position, and in 1937, 72,375 hundredweight of cod were caught, with a market value of $485,400. * * * Sturgeon were caught and used by the Indians in the Fraser River area, particularly at Pitt Lake, about fifty miles, and at Harrison Lake and Harrison River about eighty miles, from the mouth of the Fraser. Sturgeon weighing as much as 1,100 pounds are said to have been taken, while fish ranging from 700 to 1,000 20Ibid., 1881, appendix 12, p. 266. 21See Table xxix, p. 121. J OTHER FISHERIES 121 pounds were common. Ordinary nets were too weak to hold them, and strong rope nets were specially constructed. The maximum catch was made in 1897, when 1,187,691 pounds of sturgeon were TABLE XXIX Cod* Caught and Marketed! in British Columbia, 1888-1937 (calendar years) Value Year J Quantity (thousands (cwt.) of dollars) 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. (caught) 1,248 3,513 2,558 1,743 1,925 4,774 3,302 2,990 3,012 3,085 5,445 5,595 5,725 4,960 5,550 6,637 7,820 6,685 7,170 7,449 6,300 10,827 20,334 25,065 28,500 (marketed) 10 34 29 31 31 28 20 15 15 15 27 28 29 25 28 33 36 37 39 41 38 65 127 190 209 JYear 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 1923. 1924. 1925. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1930. 1931. 1932. 1933. 1934. 1935. 1936. 1937. Value Quantity (thousands (cwt.) of dollars) (caught) (marketed) 29,220 202 47,161 367 35,870 300 63,771 555 87,532 888 74,238 755 57,851 525 59,885 524 49,773 386 47,203 355 45,930 357 58,713 441 46,592 11 49,463 452 66,507 548 64,416 491 64,405 566 66,063 483 58,460 293 49,109 220 51,521 263 67,008 375 91,808 459 87,493 422 72,375 485 Source: Annual report of the Department of Fisheries, 1888-1918 (Canada, Sessional Papers); Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics, 1919-37. *Includes "cod," "black cod," "ling cod," and "red and rock cod." f'Caught and landed" for the years 1910-34 inclusive. |The "black cod" figures were expressed in 200-lb. barrels in Canada, Sessional Papers, 1905, no. 22. Appendix II, p. 217, gives the weight of a barrel in pounds. 122 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES marketed.22 The profitableness of this catch drew attention to the sturgeon and there was a large increase in the number of fishermen. TABLE XXX Sturgeon Caught and Marketed in British Columbia, 1880-1937 Value Value Year Quantity (thousands Year* Quantity (thousands (cwt.) of dollars) (cwt.) of dollars) (caught) (marketed) (caught) (marketed) 1880 800 3 1909-10... 5,000 25 1881 703 4 1910-11... 5,500 27 1882 797 5 1911-12... 5,168 78 1883 690 4 1912-13... 5,051 76 1884 3,529 18 1913-14... 1,090 16 1885 3,545 18 1914-15... 1,149 23 1886 1,149 6 1915-16... 811 16 1887 2,490 15 1916-17... 735 13 1888 2,155 11 1917 445 10 1889 3,186 16 1918 1890 3,960 20 1919 222 6 1891 3,245 16 1920 143 4 1892 5,205 26 1921 197 5 1893 3,300 16 1922 322 6 1894 5,021 25 1923 574 11 1895 3,750 19 1924 306 7 1896 3,805 19 1925 274 6 1897 .. 11,377 57 1926 275 6 1898 7,500 37 1927 359 8 1899 2,787 14 1928 279 6 1900 1,050 6 1929 314 7 1901 650 3 1930 277 6 1902 335 3 1931 252 4 1903 300 3 1932 202 3 1904 350 3 1933 367 5 1905 200 2 1934 212 3 1906 250 2 1935 436 7 1907-8 1,000 5 1936 140 2 1908-9 1,800 9 1937 82 1 Source: 1880-1918, Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers); 1919-37, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. ♦From 1880 to 1906 inclusive, years ended June 30; from 1908 to 1917 inclusive, years ended March 31; since and including 1917, years ended December 31. No statistics are available for the nine-month period ended March 31, 1907. See also Table xxix, 22Canada, Sessional Papers, 1906-7, no. 22, p. lxix. p. 121. mm OTHER FISHERIES 123 The fishery was depleted and in a few years only a fraction of the former amount was taken. Sturgeon were frozen or chilled and shipped to New York and other cities, where they were cured and smoked and sold mainly to Russian, German, and other immigrants, amongst whom there was a great demand. In 1898, 164 net licences for sturgeon fishing were issued: in 1899, 88; in 1900, 23; and in 1901, 22. "The Fraser river sturgeon were cleaned out in a period of five or six years, as the industry brought to the fishermen no less than $67,000, but a few years later the value had fallen to $3,350 (1902)."23 The industry continued on a small scale, 436 hundredweight being caught in 1935, with a value of $6,936. Dogfish24 has been largely used for reduction into oil and fertil- - 23Professor E. E. Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries, "The Canadian Sturgeon and Caviare Industries" (Canada, Sessional Papers, 1905, no. 22, p. lix). 34 Grey Fish Oil and Meal Marketed in B.C., 1930-37 Fish oil Fish meal Year (thousands of (thousands of (thousands of gallons) dollars) (tons) dollars) 1930 115 22 899 45 1931 170 19 1,010 35 1932 35 5 264 7 1933 118 13 786 24 1934 204 25 1,135 40 1935 122 24 768 23 1936 1 165 35 1,065 35 1937 124 28 833 27 Fish Oil and Fish Meal, N.E.S., Marketed in B.C., 1925-35 Oil Meal Year (thousands of gallons) (thousands of dollars) (tons) (thousands of dollars) 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 851 231 375 411 460 68 71 6 9 64 313 88 138 119 123 22 8 0.6 1 14 4,094 1,746 2,512 3,198 2,404 362 447 91 215 573 203 94 145 174 121 16 13 3 6 14 Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. 124 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES izer. The table showing the fish oil and fish fertilizer marketed indicates the importance of this branch of the industry. Fish oil is used for a great variety of purposes, and fish meal has proved valuable as feed for cattle, swine, sheep, and poultry.25 TABLE XXXI Total Fish Meal and Oil Marketed—British Columbia, 1921-37 (calendar year) Meal* Oil (excluding whale oil) Year (tons) (thousands of dollars) (gals.) (thousands of dollars) 1921 359 633 523 1,508 4,094 9,694 16,519 18,529 18,667 21,969 19,561 15,456 6,782 12,654 16,090 21,948 25,630 23 34 31 84 203 465 860 985 801 824 653 421 211 398 431 726 824 44,700 75,451 180,318 241,376 850,506 2,129,571 3,219,456 4,475,425 3,353,418 3,447,067 2,904,406 1,547,554 779,652 2,076,858 2,203,596 2,335,565 3,285,480 7 1922 23 1923 65 1924., 89 1925 313 1926 822 1927 1,183 1928 1,618 1929 1,264 1930 741 1931 272 1932 195 1933 95 1934 261 1935 476 1936 564 1937 871 ♦Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. 25Rodney DeLisle, "Edible Fish-Meal, Its Composition and Value with Instructions for its Use in Feeding Cattle, Swine, and Poultry" (Annual report of the Commissioner of Fisheries, British Columbia, 1930, pp. 67-144). Ill «B% CHAPTER X WHALING AND SEALING In 1790 a British vessel sailing around Cape Horn established a sperm whale fishery. In 1835, whaling was carried on in the vicinity of Kodiak Island, and the Alaskan Peninsula. It passed to the coast of Kamchatka in 1843, and vessels had passed through Bering Strait into the Arctic Ocean in 1848. In 1846, the American Pacific whaling fleet numbered 729 vessels. In 1852, there were 278 sailing vessels engaged in the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and in 1860 two American steam whaling vessels were added to the fleet.1 Whaling in Canadian waters had attracted attention as early as 1870, but results were disappointing. In 1874, it was reported that: The whale fishing experimented upon for three or four years has not proved successful, which must be attributed more to the want of proper appliances than to the scarcity of whales, which are as numerous as ever. In 1887 Inspector Thomas Mowat, after a cruise of investigation along the coast, expressed his astonishment at the neglect of the rich whaling resources of the province, and at the neglect of the special advantages British Columbia possesses in its geographical position for utilizing the great whale resources of the Arctic, the richest areas being in the Canadian waters off the mouth of Mackenzie river. The inspector was at a loss to understand this lack of enterprise, "unless," he adds, "it be due to a scarcity of vessels or for want of properly realizing its importance. These cetaceans are very abundant all along the west coast, and I saw shoals of from 15 to 25 of them in the straits during my voyage last year. The fleet which sailed from San Francisco to the Arctic sea last season is reported to have captured 257 whales valued at $1,285,000, or an average of over $107,000 to each vessel. Considering that our people are situated 750 miles nearer the Arctic fishing grounds than our San Francisco neighbours, I am at a loss to understand why an effort is not made to participate in this remunerative business.2 The first Canadian company, the Pacific Whaling Company, was registered in British Columbia in 1905. It was taken over in 1910 by the Canadian North Pacific Fisheries, and later passed into the hands of the Consolidated Whaling Corporation, Limited, at? Victoria, incorporated in 1918 and still in operation. In 1905, the 1 14'The Whaling Industry of the North Pacific" (Natural Resources Intelligence Service, Canadian Fisheries, Aug., 1926, p. 247). 2Report of the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1905-07 (Ottawa), p. 62. 125 126 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES TABLE XXXII Whale Oil and Fertilizer Marketed—British Columbia, 1905-37* Whale Oil Marketed Fertilizer Marketed Total Value Whale Products Marketed (thousands of dollars) Year Quantity (thousands of gallons) Value (thousands of dollars) Quantity (tons) Value (thousands of dollars) 1905 8 2 75 2 4 1906 93 1907-8 292 1908-9 357 1909-10 315 1910-11 377 1,580 1,369 305 789 539 530 437 158 575 465 252 242 95 251 342 445 1911-12 1912-13 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917 3,315 1,484 1,060 829 574 1,227 858 120 56 40 1 33 23 51 53 760 537 303 277 123 317 418 1918 1919 610 604 283 707 646 557 468 438 572 713 526 509 814 427 764 662 531 338 130 247 310 267 224 193 261 328 192 96 159 89 145 197 1,200 1,033 230 910 926 835 666 651 754 779 581 631 687 108 83 14 36 42 36 37 39 45 46 29 7 18 21 649 1920 435 1922 159 1923 333 1924 360 1925 310 1926 270 1927 241 1928 319 1929 387 1930 228 1933 110 1934 184 1935 105 1936 172 1937 220 Source: 1905-18, Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers); 1919-37, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Fisheries statistics. Statistics of fertilizer for 1913-14, 1914-15, and 1916-17 may include small quantities made from fish. ♦Owing to market conditions whaling stations did not operate in 1921, 1931, and 1932. WHALING AND SEALING 127 Pacific Whaling Company operated the Sechart Whaling Station in Barkley Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It paid dividends in 1906-7 of 23 per cent on preferred stock and 16 per cent on ordinary stock. The use of explosives was permitted and greatly increased the efficiency of the fleet. A decrease in the demand for whalebone led to a reduction in price and a slump in the industry in the North Pacific and the Arctic.3 Of eleven whaling vessels operating in 1905-6, only one remained in 1912-13. In spite of this the British Columbia industry showed a steady growth from 1905 until the peak year of 1911-12. The Consolidated Whaling Corporation maintains two whaling stations at Rose Harbour and Naden Harbour in the Queen Char-1 lotte Islands and has a fleet of six specially constructed steam trawlers, each carrying a crew of eleven. Whales are hunted off the Queen Charlottes, running as far out as 110 miles into the North Pacific. The hunting season commences about the middle of May and continues until the end of October. Whales are caught with the harpoon and an explosive cartridge, and when caught are inflated and towed to the whaling station. Five species of whales are found off the British Columbia coast: the sperm, humpback, finback, sulphur bottom, and sie, the first three being most important from the commercial point of view, and the greater part of the catch consisting of sperms. In 1934, 265 sperms were killed as compared with 71 fins and 14 humpbacks. Sulphur and sie whales are caught only occasionally. The products of the whale are oil, meal, guano and bone meal, meat and whalebone, the extremely valuable bilious accretion known as "ambergris" used in the making of perfumes, which has been sold for as much as $25 a pound; the teeth of the sperm whale are formed of fine ivory; the hide and the larger intestines can be made into leather; adrenalin is extracted from the supra-renal glands, and it is said that even the milk of the cow whale has been condensed. In 1918, when the food supply of the world was limited, 29,585 cases of whale meat were packed by the Consolidated Whaling Company. I It was reported equal to the best canned beef or mutton, but it was not sufficiently popular to become a commercial proposition. Whale oil and fertilizer form the most important products, accounting in 1937 for $214,355 out of a total value of all whale products of 3See H. H. Bodfish, Chasing the Bowhead (Cambridge, 1936); Tom Maclnnis (ed.), Klengenberg of the Arctic: An Autobiography (London, 1932). 128 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES $220,251. Sperm whales taken in British Columbia waters average between fifty and sixty barrels of oil each. Canadian whaling is carried on under the provisions of the League of Nations Convention. The purpose of the Convention is to conserve the whale fishery throughout the world, especially the baleen or whalebone whales, which had been almost completely destroyed in the North Atlantic Ocean and were seriously endangered in the Antarctic. In 1930, the whaling fleets of the world destroyed 40,201 whales in the Antarctic Ocean, or more than twice the number which had been taken in the previous ten-year period.4 Under the treaty, the taking of suckling or immature whales, or females accompanied by calves, is prohibited. The fullest possible use is to be made of the carcasses of all whales. Remuneration of gunners and crews of whaling vessels is based as far as possible on such factors as the size, species, value, and yield of oil of whales, rather than on the number taken. All whaling vessels are to be licensed by the country whose flag is flown. The most complete possible biological information with regard to each whale is supplied to an international bureau for whaling statistics at Oslo. In the North Pacific there are three herds of seal which, although belonging to the same genus, have their own peculiar characteristics. The North American herd has its breeding place on the Pribilof Islands in Bering Sea, which became a possession of the United States at the ceding of Alaska in 1867. The Russian herd has its breeding place on Commander Islands, also in Bering Sea. The Japanese herd is located on a small island near Patience Bay off Sakhalin Peninsula which was ceded to Japan at the close of the Russo-Japanese War. The male seal is a large animal weighing from 350 to 450 pounds, while the female is relatively small, weighing on the average about 70 pounds. The female commences bearing young when three years old and has a life of about thirteen years. The seals are polygamous and, on reaching the breeding grounds, after strenuous battles each male collects around him a number of females, ranging from 35 to over 100, in a harem. The defeated male seals retire from the breeding grounds with the young seals and do not join the 4"Canada and the International Whaling Treaty" (Western Fisheries, Aug., 1935). &m WHALING AND SEALING 129 herd again until the breeding season is over. As winter approaches the seals leave the islands and journey southward, not touching land again until they return to the breeding grounds the following May. They proceed southward until in January they are opposite Southern California, when they turn northwards. Because of the habits of the seal, a large number of superfluous males can be killed each year without affecting the herd. Young males about three years old have the most attractive pelts, and by killing only these the industry can be carried on in the most economical way. When Alaska was ceded to the United States the herd on the Pribilof Islands was estimated at 4,700,000 animals. In 1870, the United States government entered into an agreement with the Alaska Commercial Company, with headquarters at San Francisco, granting to them exclusive sealing rights on the Pribilof Islands. The United States government was to be paid $55,000 a year for the lease and in addition about $2.60 per seal, and a further tax on seal oil. The kill each year was limited to 100,000 young male seals. It was an extremely profitable business both from the point of view of the Company and the government. The skins were sold at public auction in London and consequently attention was drawn to the trade. Fishermen on the Pacific coast were attracted, and Canadian fishermen, who had no protected sealing area available to them, began killing seals in the open sea. This practice commenced in the early eighties, and both Canadian and United States vessels joined the seal herd in January and followed it north to the islands, killing the seals as they proceeded. It was impossible to discriminate between young and old, male and female, and about 75 per cent of the seals killed were females who were carrying their young. The Alaska Commercial Company protested against the practice and discussion arose as to the ownership of the seals. It was argued that the seals, having been born on United States territory, were American property. The argument on which action was based was that in the cession of Alaska to the United States, Bering Sea was included, and that section of Bering Sea east of the 180 Meridian was United States territory and was subject to the regulations governing territorial waters. Canadian fishing vessels were seized and representations were made to the British government. Negotiations began between the American and British governments to settle the claims, and, pending settlement, it was agreed that 130 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES no sealing should be carried on in Bering Sea during 1891. But the Canadian vessels had already started out, and compensation had to be made to those who returned without catching seals. Some of them did not return, but proceeded to the Commander Islands where they got into trouble with the Russian government. The agreement was continued for two years and, in 1893, Great Britain and the United States agreed to submit the pelagic sealing question, including the international position of Bering Sea, to arbitration. By the Paris Award it was determined that the United States claim could not be sustained and that control in Bering Sea was subject as elsewhere to the three-mile limit. The United States had, therefore, to pay damages to the Canadian sealers for their seizures. Regulations were made governing the catch, and a close season was established during May, June, and July. No killing of seals was permitted within sixty miles of the Pribilof Islands. Spears only could be used in Bering Sea, shotguns in the Pacific Ocean. The use of rifles was prohibited. Provision was made for the revision of the regulations every five years, but since the United States wanted to make them more strict, in fact, to abolish pelagic sealing entirely, while Canadian fishermen wanted to relax them, no revision was made. Japanese fishermen entered the industry in the late nineties, and the Japanese government paid a bounty on vessels built for sealing. They were not subject to the regulations laid down in the Paris Award and consequently were free to catch the seals anywhere outside the three-mile limit at any time of the year and by any method which they chose.5 The seal herd on the Pribilof Islands declined rapidly and, in 1897, the United States prohibited its fishermen from engaging in pelagic sealing. Fewer Canadian vessels were engaged since it became less profitable with the decline of the herd. In 1897 over 94,000 skins had been secured but in 1911 only four Canadian vessels were engaged and secured a return of 2,673 skins. The herd was estimated at from 125,000 to 136,000.6 As a result of negotiations between the British and American governments, the Pelagic Sealing Treaty was signed in 1911, accord- hCanada, House of Commons Debates, speech of Mr. Wm. Sloan, M.P., on pelagic sealing in the North Pacific Ocean, Feb. 27, 1908. 6Annual report of the Department of Fisheries, 1929-30 (Canada, Sessional Papers, p. 37). WHALING AND SEALING 131 ing to which 15 per cent of the skins taken by United States sealers were to be handed over to an authorized representative of the Canadian government. Similar arrangements were made with the Russian and Japanese governments, on condition in each case that the Canadian sealers withdrew from the industry. The amount of skins to be paid by the Japanese government was 10 per cent. Indians are not subject to the terms of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty, but are permitted to fish from small boats without the use of firearms. Following the Treaty, the United States arranged a closed season of five years for commercial seal-catching on the Pribilof Islands, though the natives were permitted to catch seals for their own use. Similar action was taken by the Russian government, so that during these years the Canadian government received no skins. In 1915, the United States government entered into an agreement with the Funston Fur Company (later the Fouke Fur Company) by which the Company would market all seal skins or other furs taken under United States authority on the Pribilof Islands, that is, skins taken by the natives. The seal-skin market was diverted from London to Saint Louis. During the closed period the United States advanced on the basis of the treaty arrangement $200,000 and $10,000 per year, or a total, including interest, of $258,000, which was to be repaid when the closed season ended in 1917. According to the treaty the Canadian share of seal skins was to be delivered at the Pribilof Islands at the end of each season, but since this arrangement involved making a special trip to the islands, it was agreed that the United States should sell the Canadian percentage along with her own skins and account to Canada for 15 per cent of the net proceeds. A similar agreement was entered into with the Japanese government. When the sealing was recommenced, it was evident that the closed season had been beneficial to the herds. Dissatisfaction was expressed with the handling of the skins at Saint Louis. It was claimed that they were less skilfully treated than in London, with consequent loss to Canada. In 1933, Canada's share was delivered at Seattle so that those handling Canadian skins were free to ship them either to London or Saint Louis. Since then Canadian skins have been marketed in both centres. A special Committee of the Senate was appointed in 19347 to investigate ''Special Committee on Sealing and Fisheries in Pacific Waters, 1934. 132 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES complaints against the Pelagic Sealing Treaty. It was charged that the annual migration of the seals was a serious threat to the salmon industry in British Columbia, owing to the preying of the seals on this fish. An investigation of the contents of the stomachs of seals obtained from the Indians failed to support the contention. It would, appear that herring forms the largest part of the food of the seal, with oulachons, salmon, and squid, to a smaller extent. TABLE XXXIII Revenue Received under Pelagic Sealing Treaty, 1912-38 Year Value of Canada's share received under the Treaty* 1912-17 United States advances interest provided for by the $ Treaty 258,157 1917 From Japan and Russia 5,671 1918 From Japan 962 1917-21 From United States 210,308 1921-2 93,226 1922-3 60,343 1923-4 36,261 1924-5 28,770 1925-6 74,859 1926-7 35,789 1927-8 95,028 1928-9 73,548 1929-30 62,923 1930-1 37,168 1931-2 45,140 1932-3 2,629 1933-4 52,483f 1934-5 89,550 1935-6 113,596 1936-7 103,494 1937-8 45,626 Total. .. 1,525,124| Source: Annual report of the Department of Fisheries (Canada, Sessional Papers). The Treaty has not been in full operation as regards the Russian herd because of unsettled diplomatic relations. "(This amount includes the value of sixteen confiscated skins not included under the Treaty. fThis figure includes $34,253.02, the premiums on exchanges, etc., which the Department received. WHALING AND SEALING 133 The returns to the Canadian government from the sale of skins were first used to recompense sealers who had suffered loss through the withdrawal of Canada from the industry. Later they became part of the revenue of the Department of Fisheries and passed into the general revenue of the Dominion.8 Total claims of $60,663 were paid under the Treaty. Since the beginning of the operation of the Treaty, Canada's share has amounted to $1,525,124.98. 8Return of copy of all correspondence and reports of claims of sealers of British Columbia (Canada, Sessional Papers, no. 79, 1916). INDEX Alaska Commercial Co., 129 Annandale, 6 Annieville, 6 Arctic whaling, 125, 127 Australia, 14, 53, 109, 112 Babcock, J. P., 68-9 Babine Lake, 5 Baronof Island, 90 Beechy Bay, 6 Bonding, 95-8 Boston, 87-8, 100 Bowers, G., 69-70 British Columbia Fishing and Packing Co., 36 British Columbia Salt Fish Board, 118 Bryce-Root Treaty, 72 Burrard Inlet, 109 Canadian Northern Railway, 18-19 Canadian North Pacific Fisheries, 125 Canadian Pacific Railway, 88-9 Canneries, 6-13, 26, 67-8 Capital, 26-33; control, 33-5 Chicago, 112 China, 113, 115 Chinese, 11-12 Chum, 13, 17, 19; dry salted, 118 Cod, 118-19 Cold storage, 13-14, 18, 85-8, 91 Companies, 26-35 Connor Bros., 59 Consolidated Whaling Corporation, 127 Convention of 1818, 46 Cowie, J. J., 112 Desbarats, G. J., 76 Dogfish, 123-4 Douglas, Sir James, 55 Eberts, Mr., 69 Embargo, 49, 51 Fisheries Act, 37-9 Fisheries Department (B.C.), 38 Fordney-McCumber Tariff, 50, 99, 112 Forrester Island, 93 Foster, Senator J. W., 64, 69 Found, W. A., 76 France; treaty, 50-4 Freeman, Capt., 89 Funston Fur Co., 131 Fur trade, 5 Gill-net, 76, 112 Goshen Harbour, 88 Halibut, 18 Halibut livers, 107 Halibut Marketing Board, 104-6 Halibut Treaty, 98-104 Halifax Award, 47 Hanson and Rouster, Messrs., 109 Harrison Lake, 120 Hawaiian Islands, 5 Hazen, J. D., 76-7 Hell's Gate, 19, 75 Herring, 13; oil, 109-10; salted, 109, 113, 115; fresh, 112; Scotch cure, 112; canning, 113 Hong Kong, 115 Hudson's Bay Company, 5 Indians, 5, 11-12, 38, 40, 85 International Fisheries Commission, 90, 102-3, 108 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, 81-2 Japan, 13, 54, 113, 115, 132 Japanese, 40-1, 103, 115, 128, 130-1 Jordan, D. S., 73 Juneau, 93 Kershaw, T. R., 69 Ketchikan, 93 Kobe, 115 Kodiak Island, 90, 125 135 # 136 INDEX League of Nations Convention, 128 Licences, 39-41, 65, 67-8, 72 Little, A. C, 66 Loggie, Alexander, 6 Lundberg, C. A., 119 Machinery, 11-13 Martin, Governor, 81 Modus vivendi, 47 National Policy, 57-8, 61 Natural Products Marketing Act, 104, 107-8, 115, 118 Nawhitti, 85-6 New England Fish Co., 88-9, 95 New York, 87-8, 112, 123 New Zealand, 51, 53 Northern Pacific Railway, 86 Offal, 14-15 Pacific Whaling Co., 125, 127 Pelagic Sealing Treaty, 130-2 Pender Harbour, 113 Pilchards, 118 Pinks, 17, 19 Pitt Lake, 120 Porcher Island, 88 Port Essington, 6 Port Haney, 88 Preferential tariff, 58-9 Pribilof Islands, 128-31 Prince, Professor E. E., 67, 69-70, 110 Prince Rupert, 97, 100, 106, 108, 111 Privy Council decision, 38-9 Protection service, 87 Purse-seine, 76, 80, 110-11 Queen Charlotte Islands, 13, 89, 93, 118-19, 127 Rathbun, Mr., 64 Reciprocity Treaty, 1854, 46 Redfield, W. C, 76-7 Russia, 54, 128, 130, 132 Sacramento River, 6 Saint Louis, 131 Salmon—species and character, 3, 63; life cycle, 3-4; competition Atlantic salmon, 44 San Francisco, 6, 54, 85-6,119,125,129 Shanghai, 115 Sitka, 93 Skeena River, 5-6 Smith, H. M., 76 South Africa, 53-4 Spratt, Mr., 109 Spring, Capt. W., 6 Spring salmon, 19 Sturgeon, 120-3 Subsidized rates, 18 Sweet, E. F., 76 Symes, James, 6 Tacoma, 86 Taku, 93 Tariffs, 48-9, 51-62, 97, 106 Thompson, W. F., 102 Traps, 17, 51, 65-8 Treaty of Paris, 46 Underwood tariff, 50, 95 Union Steamship Co., 88 Victoria Fishing and Trading Co., 88 Wakeham, Dr., 64 Washington State Fisheries Board, 78 Washington Treaty, 46-8, 51, 86, 120 Wilson, President, 74 Wrangell, 93 Yakutat, 91, 93 Yukon, 13 POLITICAL ECONOMY SERIES University of Toronto I. Essays in Political Economy in Honour of E. J. Urwick. Edited by H. A. Innis, with an introduction by the Hon. and Rev. H. J. Cody. II. Farm Credit in Canada. By W. T. Easterbrook. With foreword by H. A. Innis. III. Canadian Marketing Problems: Ten Essays. Edited by H. R. Kemp. IV. The Wheat Economy. By G. E. Britnell. Editor's preface by H. A. Innis. V. The Diary of Alexander James McPhail. Edited by H. A. Innis. VI. Canadian Investment and Foreign Exchange Problems. Edited by J. F. Parkinson. VII. Marketing Organization and Technique. Edited by Jane McKee. With foreword by H. A. Innis. VIII. Essays in Sociology. Edited by C. W. M. Hart. With foreword by H. A. Innis. IX. American Influence in Canadian Mining. By E. S. Moore. With foreword by H. A. Innis. X. The British Columbia Fisheries. By W. A. Carrothers. With an introduction by H. A. Innis. eT
Includes an index. Other copies: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/502800537
Books
HB31 .T62
English
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Toronto : The University of Toronto Press
Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.
Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Koerner Library. HB31 .T62
Fisheries--British Columbia
Salmon fisheries--British Columbia
The British Columbia fisheries
Text