2, nate inti SSNS NESA i a E f ee - rin , ot, ie r ue we i y MT ; ii hi ier ee era ak a sway YP te 3 ws ye (a | 9a) 1 A i} iL He te i , fT } t i | eT oh A ; fe} J! : t é a . 7 ——— i Ai , 5 1 a t ii a i} : : " 2 ry i} i » Ati | f a i , . Ah i if in oy ve m i y A ‘- we s Neg Li " ! ie, j = 50) y -_ | ' " 7 ; ri yh yy ie Pig | ie | : ae td (, ne Caan ia be “Oo 18g hae Ry ve wen ih" na a Ons is ; ye 7 A} aA ¢ : : ane W iu He 62p ConerEss, | HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPORT 2d Session. No. 321. PROTECTION AND REGULATION OF THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. Fresruary 13, 1912.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. FiLoop, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 20047.] The Committee on Foreign Affairs, in the consideration of the bill H. R. 16571, which gives effect to the recent convention between the United States and Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, concluded at Washington, July 7, 1911, for the protection of fur seals and sea otter from being killed while in the waters of the Pacific Ocean north of 30 degrees of north latitude, agreed to strike out of said bill all that por- tion thereof which relates to the killing on land of the surplus young males in the herd frequenting the Pribilof Islands, or American herd, and to present a separate bill to regulate such land killing by officers of the United States Government under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. That committee now reports said bill (H. R. 20047) and recom- mends that it be passed. In considering the question of land killing the committee has been - actuated by a desire to give every possible protection to the American seal herd and to take every step that will secure the increase and per- petuation of that herd. It has not been able to convince itself, how- ever, that a judicious and carefully regulated culling out of the surplus males at a time when their pelts are commercially valuable, such as has been practiced at least during the American occupation of the seal islands, ever has or will operate to decrease the species or cause it any injury. The fur seal is a highly polygamous species. One male has been known to fecundate over 100 cows in one season. Two males have been known in one summer to serve over 500 cows between them. Families consisting of one adult male (or ‘‘bull’’) and 75 females (or ‘““cows’’) are common on the rookeries where these seals breed. At ae 2 THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. aX Wa 4 Yn a time when there were thousands of adult males present that could not secure any females whatsoever the average ratio between breeding males and females was found to be only 1 male to 30 females. On the other hand, the births consist of equal numbers of males and females. Because of the polygamous habits of these species, not more than 1 male out of 30 born is necessary to perpetuate the race. The remainder of the males is superfluous and might be destroyed without in any way affecting the future of the species. From astock- breeder’s standpoint, it would be just as useless to preserve all of the superfluous male seals as to save all of the cocks in a flock of chickens, all of the bulls in a herd of cattle, or all the stallions in a band of horses. The bill provides for a close season in 1912; that only 3-year- old males shall be killed thereafter; and that there shall be reserved from among the finest and most perfect seals of that age not fewer than 2,000 in 1913, 2,500 in 1914, 3,000 in 1915, 3,500 in 1916, 4,000 each from 1917 to 1921, inclusive, and 5,000 each year thereafter to 1921. With the bulls now on the islands this makes 60,000 bulls for breeding purposes at the end of this period. A number large enough for the greatest number of cows that anyone has claimed that the herd would contain at the time the treaty ends. An important economic feature enters into this matter. Between the ages of 3 and 4 years these surplus male seals have pelts which have considerable commercial value. By judicious manip- ulation of the market in years past, the price at which the sealskins sell has been raised to an average of $40 each. From the sale of these pelts millions of dollars have been derived, both in profits to those who had leased the privilege of taking these pelts and to the Government as royalties from those skins taken. This Government for the last two years has done away with the leasing system, has taken these skins itself and marketed them for its own account. In these two years alone the net profits to the Government derived from the sale of sealskins has amounted to over half a million dollars. The total cessation of land killing would destroy the market for sealskins and cause the price of that skin to drop to an insignificant figure. As the primary object of the Government’s solicitude in the fur-seals is that sooner or later it may derive a handsome profit from the sale of these skins, it is a matter of vital importance that the high market value of these skins be maintained during the years that the herd is being built up by the operation of the treaty abolishing pelagic sealing. During the 15 years that the convention abolishing sea killing of females will be in force it is estimated that, from the taking of the skins of those surplus males not necessary for breeding purposes, between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 in revenue can be derived by the Government, while the herd can be increased to nearly three times its present size. Surely this economic consideration, involving the question of millions of dollars of revenue to the Goy- ernment, should receive earnest attention. These surplus males, if killed at all, must be killed at a time when their skins have a commercial value, namely, when they are between the ages of 2 and 5 years. After their fourth year the pelt becomes heavy and the fur deteriorates, from the standpoint of the garment maker, to such a point as to be valueless, It would not do to stop all killing for, say, 10 or 15 years, allow the surplus males to grow to ou: AN THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 3 “. ‘ ; : : , maturity and then to attempt to kill the animal and sell the skin. The skin then would be worth nothing and would not pay for the cost of transportation to the market. If killed at all, these animals must Vs be slaughtered at a time when they are young, when their fur is 4 smooth and glossy, and when the hide itself is light in weight and g easily made into a garment. In considering the question of the effect upon the increase of the species of killing these surplus males the views of scientists and those perfectly familiar with the subject have been taken into account. It may be said that of all those who have testified before this committee only two persons were found to be opposed to this killing of the young males, while a much larger number of eminent experts have given their testimony in favor of a moderate and properly restricted killing. Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, was the head of a distinguished commission in 1896-1897 that visited the seal islands and made an exhaustive study of the seal herd. In the report of this commission,’ made as the result of this mvestigation, Dr. Jordan said: ' Owing to the polygamous habit of the fur seals, the greater part of the male life born is superfluous for breeding purposes. For the 130,000 breeding cows found on the rookeries of St. Pau! and St. George Islands in the season of 1897, 4,418 bulls were adequate, or at least out of fully 10,000 adult bulls ready and willing to serve harems, only this number were able to obtain them. Therefore only | bull in 30 is absolutely necessary under preseut conditions. That this limit could be materially lowered without positive danger to the herd is conclusively shown by the history of the Russian herd on Bering Island, where the observations of the past three years, as detailed by Dr. Stejneger, show that a male fur seal is capable of attending to the wants of between 100 and 200 cows. Moreover, the removal of the superfluous male life is not only possible but is really beneficial to the herd. As already indicated, the only deaths among adult bulls and cows discovered upon the rookeries of the islands resulted from the struggles of the bulls among themselves to obtain possession of the cows. In the death of young pups also this fighting and struggling of the bulls is a small but by no means insig- nificant cause of loss. In 1896 the great early mortality among nursing pups was wrongly ascribed to the trampling of the fighting bulls. But while the more com- plete and satisfactory investigation of 1897 shows another and more important cause, there still remains a considerable loss from this source. This loss is now insignificant compared with what it was in the wild state of the herd. When the number of adult males and females was practically equal, the destruction both among the cows and among the pups must have been enormous. Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States National Museum, who has spent a number of years on the Russian seal islands studying seal life, and who was a member of the Jordan Commission of 1896-97, makes the following statement: It was the unanimous opinion of the American-British Commission (Dr. D. S. Jordan, F. A. Lucas, L. Stejneger, Prof. d’Arcy W. Thompson, J. M. Macoun, and G. E. H. Barrett-Hamilton) that the proportion of 1 bull to 30 cows was so excessive that a number of bulls were ordered killed off. The islands are at present (1897) erossly overstocked with bulls, and yet the average size of the harem is about 30 cows. (Treasury Doc. 1994, p. 22.) wi The present ratio of 1 to 40 is consequently a great improvement and, even if it should fall as low as 1 to 50, or even 1 to 60, as it may in 1905, no alarm need be felt, as 1 bull to 50 cows is probably the most satisfactory ratio to be had. That close killing of males on land may have had an influence is utterly denied. The whole reasoning involved in such an explanation rests upon the fallacy of the assumption that all the male seals ‘“‘haul out” on land each year. If all the seals “hauled out” and the killing were as close as alleged, there would be nothing but yearlings the next year, and we know, of course, that such is not the case. I need not enlarge upon this theme here, but will only quote the expert commission of 1896-97 to the following effect: ‘‘It is, indeed, to be doubted whether at any time the killing 4 THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. on the islands could by any possibility be made close enough to endanger the supply of bulls, ete.’’ One of the British commissioners, Mr. Barrett-Hamilton, who in his report for 1896 held similar views with regard to the scarcity of bulls on North Rookery, Bering Island, abandoned them later after his additional experience of 1897. From what I have stated above, it will be seen that I regard the status of the fur- seal herd on the Pribilof Islands to be as satisfactory as under the present circum- stances (i. e., continued, though diminishing, pelagic sealing) it could possibly be. My own policy, therefore, would be to let well enough alone. T realize, however, that the department may wish to be ‘‘on the safe side,’’ and in that case I can see no special reason why the general agent of the islands should not be instructed to see to it that of the older bachelor seals a number satisfactory to him be exempt from being killed in the drives. On the other hand there should be no restriction as to the killing of the smaller bachelor seals. Only a minor proportion of these ‘‘haul out,’’ and the only result of their killing is that the company anticipates part of next year’s catch and gets smaller skins than it otherwise would. It should, therefore, be left entirely to the company Wo gecite how small skins they want to take, as the company itself will be the only sutferer. The taking of these young bachelors can not, by any possibility, affect the status of the herd, and from the standpoint of the Government must be regarded as desirable, in so much as there wiil be that many seals less for the pelagic sealers to prey upon. The company, therefore, might properly be encouraged to take as many yearling males as they can. * * * From what I have explained in the two foregoing chapters, it may be inferred that I am opposed to any stoppage of the killing of seals on land. Dr. F. A. Lucas, now curator in chief of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, as a member of the Jordan Commis- sion of 1896-97, reported as follows on this subject: AmerRiIcAN Museum or Natura History, New York, August 17, 1911. Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of August 14, with its accompanying documents, in which you ask for my opinion regarding the merits of House resolution 277, suspending the killing of fur seals on the seal islands ofAlaska for 15 years. In response to this, I wish to say that I regard such suspension of killing as abso- lutely unnecessary as well as impractical and unscientific. 1 have never seen the slightest reason to modify my view that up to the present time the killing on land has had no effect in diminishing the numbers of the fur-seal herd; and there is no reason why a carefully regulated killing should do so in the future. The suspension of land killing is impractical, because it would result in the absolute waste of many thousands of sealskins and many hundreds of thousands of dollars; this, too, at a time when, by treaty, Japan and Canada are to have a share in the proceeds of seals killed by the United States. Incidentally, I would say that in a period of 15 years every seal now living would die from old age or from other natural causes. Furthermore, it would seem that such suspension would be a direct attempt to evade our treaty obligations to Japan and Canada. The cessation of killing is unscientific for the following reasons: We have for the first time an opportunity to test the conditions of the seal herd when unaffected by the attack of pelagic sealers, and it is of the utmost importance, for the making of future treaties and regulations, that we should know the exact facts in the case. The arbitrary suspension of killing for a period of 15 years would be extremely unwise, as we know, from observations of seals made on Robben Island and of sea elephants on Kerguelen Island, that a seal herd that has been reduced almost to extinction will so recover in from 5 to 10 years as to yield a large number of killable males. Finally, as has so often been stated, there is not the slightest danger of exterminating animals like the fur seals where their breeding grounds are guarded. How much less is the danger when the actual killing can be regulated year by year according to the numbers present. The sole suggestion I would make would be that in the event that pelagic sealing is actually ended, a smaller number of males be killed for two or three years to come. But this is a matter for the fur-seal and advisory boards to consider. I remain, very respectfully, yours, F, A. Lucas. THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 5 Dr. F. W. True, for many years head curator of biology, United States National Museum, now assistant secretary of the Smith- sonian Institution, and special investigator on the seal islands in 1895, says: _ It does not appear to me that any serious concern need be felt as regards the condi- tion of the herd in 1903 and the prospects for the immediate future. It appears that in the breeding herd in 1903 there was approximately 1 bull to 42 cows. Should the increase in bulls and increase in cows continue in the same ratio in 1904 as in 1903, there would be approximately 1 bull to 54 cows. I think that the decrease in bulls might proceed until there was only 1 bull to 100 cows without menacing the welfare of the herd. If this view is correct, there is time for many years’ observations before it would be imperatively necessary to take steps for the preservation of the herd from extinction. The following extracts are taken from the report of the Bering Sea fur-seal investigations, by David Starr Jordan, assisted by Leonard Stejneger, Frederic Augustus Lucas, and George Archibald Clark, 1897. (Second Preliminary Report, Treasury Doc. 1994). The investigations of the present season have only served to confirm the conclusion reached last year, that killing, as practiced on land, has no connection whatever with the decline of the herd. Such killing is, and has been for half a century, confined to superfluous males, whose removal is a benefit rather than an injury. It would have been better for the herd if land killing had not been limited by the modus vivendi. The rookeries to-day are overstocked with adult bulls, which in their struggles to gain possession of the females tear them to pieces and trample their offspring. The only way in which land killing could injuriously affect the herd is through a reduction of the male life to a point below that required for propagation. The records oi the islands show that there was never anything approaching a dearth of breeding bulls on the rookeries. The mere fact that 14 years after the islands came into the possession of the United States approximately 100,000 seals were taken each year without difficulty shows that the usual birth rate was maintained. That the land kill- ing was not connected with the decline of the herd at its beginning—about the years 1882-1885—may reasonably be inferred from the fact that in the years 1876-77 only 175,000 males were killed, whereas the total for 1875 and 1878 was 215,000, and for the five years preceding and succeeding a like proportionate number was taken. (This included pups taken for food in the fall.) The 40,000 males thus saved out in 1876-77 were of breeding age in 1882, and were still in their prime in 1885 and the subsequent years of decline. Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years naturalist on the Fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur-Seal Commission of 1896 and 1897, and for nine seasons special investigator on the seal islands, says: My last visit to the islands was in the year 1900, when the number of surplus of nonbreeding males was much larger than it isnow. At that time and for years before the number of large nonbreeding males in the rear of the breeding grounds was so large that I advised a closer degree of killing by the lessees than had been the custom. The slaughter of females by pelagic sealers had been for years very heavy and the relative number of breeding males was on the increase. The lessees were then taking only the skins of what we were accustomed to regard as 3-year-olds, weighing perhaps 9 pounds or over. As the younger class of males, unlike the breeding males, wander away from the islands at times to feed, I advised that the lessees be permitted to take the smaller 4-year-olds. This was for the double purpose of increasing the catch by the lessees and decreasing the sea catch. This has naturally resulted in lessening the relative number of nonbreeding males. I am well acquainted with the present Government agents on the islands, having had them associated with me for several seasons while making the annual counts of both male and female seals present. I accept the figures which they furnish, knowing that they come from conscientious and careful observers. : Your statistics show that there is still a margin of over 500 young idle bulls. This surplus has occurred naturally, and shows that the policy of close killing of males has been a safe one. As this surplus is decreasing from year to year, the time has evidently come to make provision for the saving of moie breeding males. T would advise that the number taken 6 THE SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. by the lessees annually be curtailed and that the catch on land consist, as in former years, of practically 3-year-olds; it may be possible to add to this number a few of the larger 2-year-olds; certainly none of the larger size, i. e., those whose skins weigh over 9 pounds, should be taken. Your statistics do not show what proportion of the land catch consisted of seals over 3 years old. Your agents can furnish you that information. Indeed, if you wish to secure an immediate increase in the number of surplus males, you might restrict the catch absolutely to 3-year-olds. This will cover the num- ber required for food, and will give the lessees a chance to continue operations for two or three years on a small scale. Iam not willing to admit that the danger point is reached until all idle bulls adjacent to the rookeries disappear. A complete cessation of killing would remedy such a condition very rapidly, but in order that your department may be provided against criticism, I would counsel an immediate curtailment in about the manner above described.