SH ^mmWmimmm,fmm 3fci FUR SEALS COHVBHTION. Report frgm the Connaittse on Foreign Affairs. 1912. Qass v' t^^^ ' Book. 62d Congress, M 8esm)n. r . , 1 No. 295. THE FUR SEALS CONVENTION. Febuuaky 3, 1912. — Goinmitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. U' 5, Mr. SuLZER, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following KEPORT. [To accompany H. R. 16571.] The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 16571) to give effect to the convention between the Govern- ments of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia for the preservation and protection of the fur seals and sea otter which fre- quent the waters of the north Pacific Ocean, concluded at Washington, July 7, 1911, having had the same under consideration, recommends the adoption of the following amendments, to wit : On page 3, line 20, after the word "seals," insert the words "or sea otters." On page 5, line 12, after the word "skins," insert the words, "or sea otter skins," and after the words "seals," on line 12, same page, insert the words, "or sea otters." On page 5, line 13, after the word "seals," insert the words "and sea otters," so that section 7 of said bill shall read as follows: Sec. 7. That if any vessel shall be found within the waters to which this act applies, having on board fur-seal skins, or sea otter skins, or bodies of seals or sea otters, or apparatus or implements for killing or taking seals or sea otters, it shall be presumed that such vessel was used or emploj^ed in the killing of said seals and sea otters, or that said ap])aratus or implements were used in violation of this act until the con- trary is proved to the satisfaction of the court, in so far as such vessel, apparatus, and implements are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. On page S, line 11, strike out all after the word "authority," down to and including the word "same," on line 16, same page, that is to say, the following words: to determine the number of fur seals to be taken annually on the Pribilof Islands, or any other islands or shores of the waters m.entioned in the first article of said con- vention and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to which any seal herds hereafter resort: to direct the taking of the same. O THE FUK SKALS CON VENTION. C^N ^ v 0< «v S(» that section 1 I (»l" tlio bill shall read as follows: v^O^^ Sfc. U. That the .Secretary of Commerce and Lal)or. or his authorized agenti", shall have authority to receive on behalf of the United States any fur-seal skins taken af< provided in the thirteenth and fourteenth articles of said convention and tendered for delivery by the (lovernmenls of Japan and Great Britain in accordance with the terms of said Articles; and all skins which are or shall become the property of the Ignited Slates from any source whatsoever shall be sold by the Secretary of Tommerce and Labor in such maj-ket, at such times, and in such manner as he may deem most advanta^'cous; and the jjroceeds of such sale or sales shall be ])aid into the Treasury of the Inited Slates. And the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall likewise have authority to deliver to the authorized agents of the Canadian Government and the Jai)anese Government the skins to which they are entitled under the provisions of the tenth article of said convention; to pay to Great Biitain and Japan such sums as they are entitled to receive, respectively, under the provisions of the eleventh article of said convention; to retain such skins as (he I'nited States may be entitled to retain under the j)rovisions of the eleventh article of said convention; and to do or perform, (jr cause to be done or performed, any and every act which the LTnited States is authorized or obliged to do or perform by the provisions of the tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth articles or said convention; and to enable the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to carry out the provisions of the said eleventh article there is hereby approjiriated, out of any money in the Treasiu-y not otherwise appro[)riated, the sum of four hundred thousand dollars. And as amended the cointnittee recommends that the bill be passed. The object of this bill is to give efTect to the convention between the (lovernments of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia for tiie preservation and protection of the fur seals and sea otter whicli frequent the waters of tlie north Pacific Ocean, concluded at Washington Jidy 7, 1911. The negotiation and conclusion of this convention, for the preser- vation and protection of the fur seals and sea otters wliich frequent the waters (^f tlie north Pacific Ocean, was a signal trium})U of Ameri- can dij)lomacy, and wiien the convention is carried into e.Tect by the liigh contracting parties, ])elagic sealing, wliicJi is and has been the sc(un-ge of the fur-seal herd, will be a thing of the past, and those best able to judge confidently declare the fur seals will Vapidly increase and tlie herd grow rapidly. The attention of Congress is especially called to the necessity for legislation on the ])art of the United States for the purpose of ful- filling the obligations assumed under this convention, to which the Senate gave its advice and consent on the 24th day of July last. The fur-seal controversy, which for nearly 25 years has been the source ()f serious friction between the United States and the powers b )rdering upon the nortli Pacific Ocean, whose subjects have been permitted to engage in j)elagic sealing against the fur-seal herds hav-' ing their breeding grounds within the jurisdiction of the United States, has at last been satisfactorily adjusted by the conclusion of the north Pacific sealing convention entered into between the United States, Great Britain, Ja[)an, and Russia on the 7th of Julv last. This con- vention is a conservation measure of very great importance, and if it is carried out in the sjiirit of reciprocal concession and advantage upon which it is based, there is every reason to believe that not only will it result m i)reserving the fur-seal herds of the north Pacific Ocean and restoring them to their former value for the i)urposes of commerce, but also that It will afford a i)ermanentlv satisfactorv settlement of a (juestion the oidy other solution of which seemed to be the total destruction of the fur seals. In another aspect, also, this convention IS of importance in that it furnishes an illustration of the feasibility of J^^' THE FUR SEALS CONVENTION. "j securing a general international game law for the protection of other ^' mammals of the seA, the preservation of which is of importance to all ; the nations of the world. After the discovery of Alaska, in 1741, the Russians devoted their ^ efforts exclusively to the hunting of the valuable sea otter and paid little attention to the collection of other furs. By 1775, however, the supply of sea otters had become so depleted that efforts were directed toward securing those less valuable furs which theretofore had not attracted the cui)i(hty of the hunters. Among these were the skins of the fur seal. The existence of the fur seal was known to the early Russians only through the capture of an occasional animal in the water. The land habitat of the animal was not known. Inquiries by the Russians of the native Aleuts disclosed the fact that a profuse migration of these fur seals occurred each spring north- ward through those passes between the islands forming the Aleutian Archipelago, and that an equally profuse migration southward occurred each fall. From this it was concluded that these fur seals each spring returned to breed at a place to the northward of the Aleutian Islands and that they left this breeding ground each fall to spend their winters in the less rigorous climate of the Pacific Ocean. As the location of this breeding ground was unknown to the abo- rigines, the Russians bent their energies to discovering the place to which the fur seal migrated and where thev believed it could be found in countless numbers. Vessels to search for this unknown breeding grountl were fitted out and various attempts made toward its location. In 1786 the St. George, a small sailing vessel, sailed from Unalaska, in command of Gerrasim Pribilof, a navigator in the employ of the Lebedof Co., set out into Bering Sea to search for the haunts of the fur seal. It cruised for three weelvs in the supposed vicinity of the seal islands without discovering them, but, withal, finding unmistakable evi- dences of the close proximity of land. At last, in the first days of June, 1786, the mantle of fog that surrounds this locahty was lifted, and before Pribilof loomed the high coast of the eastern end of the most southern island of the group. The discovery was named St. George, after Pribilof's vessel. Finding no safe anchorage there the explorer ordered all his hunters ashore -wdth a supply of provisions, while he stood away again for the Aleutian Islands to spread such I'eports as to keep others from following. The news, however, of Pribilof's discovery of the breeding place of the fur seal was s])read amongst the various companies operating in Alaska, and in 1787, when Pribilof returned to the islantis, his ship was followed by others, and the location of the islands became a matter of general information. Various rival companies made settle- ments at several places on both the islands of St. Paul and St. George, and as these islands were found to be not inhabited b}' man they imported native Aleut hunters to perform the work of taking skins. In 1799, b}' imperial grant, the Russian American Co. was given the exclusive rigjU to exploit tlie resources of Alaska in consideration •of its bearing all the expenses of administration and of protection of the territory. This company at once expelled all the small traders from the seal i.slands and retained control of them until the ces.sion of Alaska in 1867. rriK I'l'lf SKALS CONVKNTION. HISTORY OF JIIK SKAI. HKHD. WJuMi Piihilof discovered tlie islands wliicli bear Ins name, aiu- pliihiaii life was found thereon in limitless quantity. Tlie shores of St. (leor«re literally swarmed with sea otters which, undisturbed so far hy man. could he killed as easily as sheep. Large number, of walrus inhal)ited fact tlmt lUiv ^ivoii class of polygamous aninials will (locroasf rapidly if a systojii of slaiifjlitci- is jnaiiitained whicli oppratcK directly upJm the fcmaloH of the species. Such killing tends at once to decrease the hiiths of new animals froni which the numbers of the herd nnist he maintained. Wlienever the number of animals killed beconies greater than tjie natural uicrenient through births, the species nuist tlecrease. The fact that large nunibeis of female seals were killed annually by the Russians through a series of many yeai-s, ])oints inevitablv to the cause of the seal herd's decrease during thai ])eriod. The killing of huge munbeis of feniale seals annually tlirough ])elagic sealing during the American (;ccupation indicates the sanu^ cause of the decline hi numbers of seal life in recent years. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the decrease in both the Russian and American occupations was due to a like cause, namely, the excessive killing of female seals. KEIIABILIT.VTION OF SEAl/ HERDS. It is now confidently asserted that, with a coniplete cessation of seal killing in the open ocean, and the consequent in)nuinizing of the breeding females froni slaughter, tlie Pribilof seal herd will rapidly increase in nunibers. It can be cited, in confirmation of this belief, that followhig the year 1835, when the Russians first reccgnized the principle of noninterference with the fenialcs, the Pribilof herd gradu- ally increased during a period of 35 3'ears to several millions in 1867. It is significant to note that this increase occurred contemporane- ously with an annual land killing of surplus males of from 6,580 in 1835 to 75,000 in 1867. Also the fur seals on Robben Island in the OkJiotsk Sea, after having been virtually wiped out by raideis in 1855, had by 1869 reestablished then selves in their original numbeis. 1 he committee submits this legislation to cany into effect the con- vention, especially so far as pelagic sealing is concerned, between the high contracting parties. The real ol)jcct of the convention is to stop pelagic seahng. That is an international question, and the bill pro- posed legislates on the subject matter without regard to the question of the killhig of the surplus male seals on the Pribilof Islands, which is purely a national or a domestic question, and about which there is nuich honest difference of opinion and legitimate controversy. In so far as the matter of the Government killing annually some of the surplus male seals on the Pribilof Islands is concerned, your com- mittee deems it advisable to legislate in that regard in a separate bill, so as not to complicate the international aspect of the case regarding nidagic .sealing with the local or national aspect of the case- regarding land kilhng on the islands of the surplus male seals. If Congress shall determine to legislate for a closed season, or to place restrictions and regulations on the number of surplus male seals to be killed each sea.son, or any season, on our own islands while this treaty is in force, it is exceedingly desirable for manv reasons, which must be apparent, that such restrictions and regulations should not be made in the act adopted for the sole jmrpose of giving effect to the treaty regarding pelagic sealing and to carry out in good faith our international obligations thereundei-. THE FITR SEALS CONVENTION. 9 We must recognize the fact that this country can not deal with the herd at sea as its own propert}^, and that the cooperation of Great Britain, Russia, and Japan in the manner providecl for in tlie fur-seal treaty is essential for the protection of the herd against pelagic sealing. The pelagic-sealing countries have been induced, after difiicult and protracted negotiations, to agree to abandon pelagic sealing on condition that they shall receive a compensating interest in the skins taken by us on land. If, however, the interest which they derive in this wa}' does not prove to be of more value to them than the profits to be gained by pelagic sealing, it is not likely that they will be willing to continue the treaty beyond the 15-year period, It is certainly true that if during the 15-year period they receive less than they regard as their fair share of the increase of the herd, they will be inclined to make up the difference by resuming ])elagic sealing, wliich presumably at tlie end of 15 years will be immensely profitable on account of the increase in the size of our herd. One of the cliief arguments which this (jovernment relied upon throughout the past 15 years covered by the fur-seal controversy to induce Great Britain, and more recently Japan, to abandon pelagic sealing, has been that pelagic sealing was cliiefly responsible tor the destruction of the fur-seal herd. It will be particularly unfortunate if w^e lose the opportunity, which is now presented for the first time by virtue of this treaty, to demonstrate by actual experience the soundness of our argument. It is a serious ques- tion, however, if this can fairly be tested if land killing and pelagic sealing are both prohibited at the same time. Department of Commerce and Labor, Office of the Secretary, Washington, Jarmary 20, 1912. Dear Mr. Sulzer: T liave 1 een informed that during the c•on^ideration by your committee of H. R. 16571, a liill to give effect to the convention 1 etween the Govern- ments of tlie United State?, Great Britain. Japan, and Riissia for the preservation and protection of the fur f-eals and f-ea otter which fretjuent the watery of the North Pacific Ocean, conchxded at Washington, July 7, 1911, it has leen tuggOfted that the bill be amended providing for a snspen^ion of the killing of fur teals on the Pribilof Islands substantially as outlined in Houfc resolution 277, introduced at the last session of Congress. The question of killing fur .-eals on these inlands, including the regulations of this department and the manner of conducting the killing under the supervision of the agents of the Government, has been the suliject of inquiry and investigation during the year 1911 by the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor. That committee has taken con-ideralde evidence and at its last meeting, on August 17, 1911, voted to invite the meml ers of the Fur Seal Advisoiy Board, upon whose adA-'ce this department has acted, to 1 e heard I efore a final report is made. While I shall not now attemi)t to place before you and your committee all of the data in the possession of the department upon vvhich it has acted in this n-satter, I take the liberty of inclosing herewith for your information copies of statements made to me in August. 1911, by Mr. Charles H. Townsend. director of the New York Aqua- rium under the management of the New York Zoological Society, and Mr. F. A. Lucas, of the American Museum of Natural History. These statements strongly oppose a closed sea .son. Within the past few weeks I have talked with Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Leland Stanford University and chairman of the Fur Seal Advisory Board, and I have also discussed the matter with Dr. Leonard Stejneger, of the National Museum. I also have various statements and reports of these gentlemen and of Dr. C. Hart Mer- riain, of the National Museum, ]Mr. J. Stanley BrWu, of New York, and Mr. E. W.. 10 THE FUK SEALS COTTS'ENTION. Sims, who havf; devoted much time to this subject. They aj;ree sul>stantially with the two gentlemen, copies of whose statements 1 am sending you. All seven of them have made a careful study of the fur seal mid liave visited the islands — some of them several times. Respectfully, ('ii.m(I,i;.'< Nagel, Secretary. Hon. WiLUAM SULZER, Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs, Honae of Representatives. STATEMENT OF MR. CHAKLES H. TOW.NSEXU, DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK AQUARIUM. 1 can not commend the resolution (U. Res. 277, 62d Cong., Istsess.), that the Secre- tary "of Commerce and Labor be directed to suspend all killing of fur seals on the seal islands of Alaska for 15 years. The provision of the resolution is an unwise one. It would result in the undue accumulation of large fighting males on the breeding grounds, and thereby cause seri- ous losses of females and nursing pups during each breeding season. The provision of the resolution is not only unwise, but unnecessary. The fur seal is the most highly polygamous of all mammals. A single mahi controls anywhere from 20 to 80 females, according to his age and fighting weight. The careful investigations of the past 20 years show that he will do this whether there be present a large surplus of mature males or not. It is a matter of individual prowess, and this is common to all the older and heavier males. The provision is not only unwise and unnecessary, but it is unbusinesslike. The important revenue derived from the surphn males of each season would not only be cut off, but the fur tmde would be injured without reason. Since the beginning of the fur seal controversy the fur seal h?s been studied more critically than any other wild mammal. The facts of its life history as accepted to-day are all based on prolonged inquiry, under the keen criticism of the representatives of the two great nations interested in the fur-seal industry. The British and American representatives who spent the seasons of 1896-97 on the seal islands, published a "joint statement" respecting point'* upon which they were in agreement. They state in part; That the trampling of lighting bulls was a ty men who have not been there at all, and whose opinions upon the subject are of little A'alue. Even if it could lie admitted that it might possibly do no harm to stop land killing for a couple of seasons, the provisions of the resolution would be harmful, because the* period of cessation proposed is a very long one. The injury to the herd could not be promptly remedied when the qv\\ (which is sure to result) l)ecomes evident beyond question from any source. Nature had already fixed a limit to the size of the great seal herd when the islands wore discovered by Prihilof. and that the limit is founded chiefly upon the fact that an oversupply of hghting males tends to the reduction of the females and young. With the cessation of pelagic sealing the killing of females will cease. If modern zoology may now be permitted to apply its expensively acquired knowl- edge of the Pribilof seal herd, and to remove the altogether destructive male surplus, we (irmly believe that the breeding stock on the Pribilofs may. in the near future, be increased to numbers far greater than those foimd there when the islands were first dis- covered. Let the Congress 'investigate"' the fur-seal matter to its entire .satisfaction, but do not let us have a hastily made law at the critical moment when the killing of females has stopped, and we are ready to demonstrate what we have learned. I sincerely hope that you will do all in your i)ower to procure the withdrawal of this resolution. I value my 10 years' labor on the islands, where 1 was associated with many competent and faithful naturalists, too highly to let this resolution pass without criticism. C. H. ToWNSEXO THE FUR SEALS CONVENTION. 11 American Museum of Natural History, New York, August 17, 191}. 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, sus"pending the killing of fur seals on the seal islands of Alaska for 15 yeai-s. 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. I 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 abso- lute waste of many thousands of seal skins 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 noAv 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 eo often been stated, there is not the slightest danger of extermi- nating animals like the fur seals where their breeding grounds are guai'ded. II ow much less is the danger when the actual killing can be regulated year by year accord- ing 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 respectfullv, vours, F. A. Li. CVS. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, January 12, 1912. Hon. Wm. Sulzer, Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Sir: I have the honor to inclose a set of tables designed to show the effect on the Pribilof seal herd of the passage of the bill (H. R. 16571) which prohibits pelagic sealing during a period of 15 years in the waters frequented by these seals. These tables are as follows: Table 1. Number of females estimated to be in the herd each year to 1926. Table 2. Number of cows to be served by bulls each year to 1926. Table 3. Number of bulls required to serve these cows at the normal ratio of 1 bull to 30 cows. Table 4. Total number of bulls that would be produced in the herd if land killing were discontinued as well as sea killing; this is taken from Table 7. Table 5. Number of bulls that will be produced if a rational land killing of surplus young males be allowed; this is taken from Table 8. Table 6. Number of sealskins that could be taken during this period while pro- ducing the number of bulls shown in Table 5; this is taken from Table 8. Table 7. Total number of male seals estimated to be in the herd each year to 1926, without land or sea killing; Table 4 is based upon this. Table 8. Total number of male seals estimated to be in the herd if a rational land killing were allowed. Tables 5 and 6 are based upon this. The foregoing tables are constructed upon the following hypotheses, namely: (a) That all females above the age of 2 years bear one young annually. (6) That these yoimg are equally divided as regards sex. (<•) That a mortality of 40 per cent occurs among these pups or newborn seals between the time of birth and theii- return from their migration as yearlings. 12 THK FUR SEALS CONVENTION. ((/) That a luoitality of 10 per cent per aunum occurs among all other seals than pups. Table 1 deals with the expected increase in femals during the 15-year period covered by the treaty. As the females measure the producing capacity of the herd, and there- fore are the most important factor in the replenishment of the rookeries, their increase mus't be considered first. The tableshows that 84,719 females of all classes, in the herd in 1911, will be increased in 1926 to 357,673, of which 179,243 will be adult females. Table 2 shows that in 1926 219,195 cows, adults, and 2-year-olds will be present to be served by the males. Table 3 shows that at the estimated normal ratio of 30 cows to 1 bull, 7,307 bulls will be required to serve these cows. Table 4 shows that, if all land killing be suspended during this 15-year period, 71,589 adult bulls will be present on land in 1926, of which only 7,307 will be needed. The remainder, 64,282 will be useless and will represent simply economic waste. Table 5 shows the number of bulls that can be proWded each year^ while at the same time killing, when their pelts will be valuable commercially, those young males which, as adults, will be superfluous and not required as breeders. The table demonstrates that, in 1926, 18,800 bulls will be present, of which only 7,300 ^vill be necessary to impregnate the females, while a take in that year of 35,000 2 and 3 year old male pelts could be secured . Table 6 shows the number of seal pelts that can be taken during this period while yet providing over twice as many males as will be required for breeding. The table shows that an aggregate of 262,000 sealskins could be taken, which, at $35 each, would bring into the treasury $9,170,000. Tables 7 and 8 are the full computations upon which the foregoing tables are based (except Tables 1, 2, and 3), and demonstrate the number of each class of male life present during any given year of this period. These computations at the rate of increase stated show that in 1926, with no pelagic sealing, and with such land killing as has been assumed in Table 6, there will be the following numbers of seals in the herd in 1926: Adult bulls 18, 810 6-year-old males 2, 996 5-year-old males 2, 407 4-year-okl males 2, 686 3-year-old males 3, 270 2-year-old males 10, 952 1-year-old males 48, 857 Piips, males 89, 621 Adult females 179, 243 2-year-old females 39, 952 Yearlinsr females 48, 857 Pups, females ' 89, 621 537. 272 ()i course killing during this period can be made greater or less than that stated in Table 6. If greater, the number of breeding bulls will be decreased, and ^^ce versa. The table is intended to show, however, the absurdity of an entire cessation of killing. The statement has been made to the committee that there should be an eliminative test applied to the fur seal whereby to rid the herd of weaklings and to insure that only the physically perfect survive as breeders. To this principle I agree. It is not true, however, that this test can be made only by combat among the males. If such were the case, no test would be provided for the females, and the physically imperfect of these would breed along with the perfect. Nature herself, in the case of the fur seal and other pinnipedia, provides an elimina- tive test entirely apart from the struggling of bulls with each other for supremacy on land. This test occurs through the extremely rigorous environment in which these seals are placed by nature and which weeds out the physically inperfect more effectu- ally than any other known process and operates on both sexes alike. This test begins almost with the seal's birth. Before the baby seal has scarcely learned to swim beyond the borders of the rookerv on which it is born, while it is still a suckling and knows not how to seek other food, it is separated from its mother and driven off the land by the rigor of the climate. Weak and miskillful swimmer as the pup is, not only must it withstand the severe winter storms in the northern ocean V)ut in the same unfavorable element pursue and THE FUR SEALS CONVENTION. 13 capture its food and elude its natural enemies of the sea. As the result of this struggle with the natural conditions in which it is placed it is estimated that one-half of the pups die during the initial migration. Only the strongest and most wary can survdve this trial. This struggle for existence continues incessantly during the animal's life. From each migration it sends back to the breeding grounds only those animals hardy enough to withstand its severity. That animal leaving the rookeries with any physical imperfection does not return. It dies at sea. Those that do return are the most perfect examples of their class. With this severe eliminative test occurring as the result of natural environment, to superimpose a violent struggle with his own kind after the animal has reached the breeding ground would be to subject him to further stress entirely unnecessary to prove his ability as a breeder. Having passed successfully through the winter's migration, the animal returns to the rookeries a perfect specimen of its kind. A severe trial by combat could not have the effect of increasing its breeding efficiency, but, on the other hand, could only seriously impair if not wholly destroy it. It would be the same if two Aaluable stallions, each physically perfect, and matched in strength and courage, were allowed to light each other until one were killed. The survivor, if one did survive, would be so seriously injured by its opponent as to be rendered incapable of service for the time being, if not permanently. To breed a large luunber of surplus male se^s that they may fight among them- selves and determine the strongest in combat is useless. By the time the strongest individuals have proved their superiority they have expended so much of their energy in lighting that physically weaker but fresh animals may overpower them and take their cows. Such is the history of the Pi'ibilof rookeries during the time when thousands of idle bulls were present. Instances to substantiate this conclusion have been witnessed many times. Since physical combat is not required to test the ability of a male fur seal, no reason is known for providing a number of males beyond that necessary to fertilize the females in the herd. Therefore the practice of killing surplus males at the time when their pelts have a considerable commercial value should be continued. From the foregoing tables, it can be demonstrated: First, that upon the suppression of pelagic sealing, seals of all classes will increase at a comparatively rapid rate. Second, that during this period of increase judicious killing of surplus bachelors on the islands not only will work no injury to the herd, but wUl be a positive benefit in restraining the increase of the nonproductive class, the surplus of which will add no additional lives to the herd, but will constitute only a menace to the breeding females and males alike. Respectfully, Geo. M. Bowers, Commis-noner . 14 THE FUR SliALS CONVENTION. s f- « - S ^'OSI'-' CM t- CO .-I NOJeoto I-H CO »-H c*5 t^ O CO 0>0i ^ O t- -H lO t^ t~ -J2 00 lO o O r~ ■^ c^ 05 r^ S (MTlit-rt U5rt rt M S NOMCO 2 I'-M-Tc-T «•-< rHrt a gss 42 "Ss S 03 =*"s s »§ g » « s§ o 3 4,000 16.000 s oo ss 1 ! '^ 1 1 88 oo MM o OO 88 o 8 88 oo coo c. oo lOO o g »— 1 oo §8 (NOO o ciod § o o (N t-^ oT oo 88 NO o 00 8 o oo' 00 1 i ^ 1 c^ 1 "5 1 THE FUR SEALS CONVENTIOX. 15 ►J o 'A en :?: »f5XQCl--O0500CC; ('-.-•c^c^eocc'^x; «-H CO »o t- X O Ol c^ eotcos^gi^cgj'^ gCO -^ t^ ^ O) cv? »C •eP CO to t^ X re X ;c »-* c o Oi OS cc Oi I >o "^"^ x ci --s" ci o CO to -H ^ w c^i CO -r i-^ CC^CCOiCOSOW CO CO :!;' o -^ OS :c t— .-. t^ C^ TP CO • — 1^ CC r- c: O :D (N OS t^ iCi— OlC^C^CSC^O 1-^ c4 -^ x' :-^ CO X CO CO »o I'-'-ViOXOSXM'cC t'-Ot^t-^I^CO^CO rrcs w o: cJirTx' -^ CiCSCOXOOCirO CO^ »0 — ' i^ o C^I 'X oi -^ » Ofl r~ 3: »o ac :c c XMMlNr-. -a: .GCO) .-. CO fC O M" » -S 17,426 3.474 3,328 2,674 8,984 (2.984) .30,300 (10,300) 44,391 81,429 =°¥ CO 16.061 3.301 3. 8.59 3. 697 S.971 (2.971) 32.982 (9.982) 40. 3.33 73. 985 oo oo o c g 2 14,493 3,352 3,667 4,287 10.107 (4.107) 29,967 (9,967) 3(), 646 ti7,222 oo §§ -rrOS-^Ti-CO.^OS.'-s-XI- OO I - CM CS t- -,C CO <>» OJ 0» 1^ oo ■^ rr I- O I- — Oi Ol (M O CO '(Ni-H CO « — ' -^ X or^ ::? y— sO^-^Tf -^ ;^^^eoc<):::coc>»ooi — H OS X — ^ ic rj r- CO c-i 'f .-. -^ (M OS CO »0 ■t CO M ?3 w '-^CO .^v'f5 -O -COO COr-< TjC0OX o o>o OS o r^ -~< .— CM •^ Q C O O X^-nO-* XXCl o r-xxco CO -rHCM i2c3c3S5£SE S Gi C? CI a^ 16 THE FUR SI:ALS CONVENTION. Depautment oi' Commerce and Labor. lUiREAU OF Fisheries, Washington, Jamiary 6, 1912. Hon. William Sulzer, . Chairman Committee on Foreign Nelalionn, Jlou^e of Representatively, Washington, IJ. C. Sir: As reque.-*tecl ])y you during the hearings on H. R. 1(5571, to give effect to the recent treaty on the fur-i^eal (luestion, 1 liave the honor to inclose herewith a statement of the receipts from the sale of sealskins, and of the expenditures incident to taking the same, and the maintenance of the establishments on the seal islands during the season of J910. A similar statement for 1911 is not furnished for the reason that the full data upon which to make such statement have not all been received. Respectfully, (lEO. M. Bowers, Commissioner. Receipts and expenditures, Alaska fitr-seal service, 1910. Received from sale of fur-seal skins $403, 946. 94 Cost of operations and support of native inhal)itants of Pril)ilof Islands: Charter of supply vessel and expenses thereof 15, 757. 50 Fuel 4, 399. 41 Food, clothing, supplies, merchandise 59, 71 1. 25 Travel and sul>sistence 2, 752. 96 Services, school teachers and physicians 3, 782. 58 Salaries 14, 430. 00 Telegrams and miscellaneous 69. 87 100, 903. 57 Estimated stock of merchandise on hand at close of season 20, 000. 00 Note. — Practically all of the above expenditures would be necessary in any event for the support and care of the native iuhabitants. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, January 18, 191.i. Hon. William Sulzer, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Sir: Referring to the table submitted by Henry W. Elliott to the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the hearing on January 4, 1912, and printed on page 99 of the hear- ings, showing the prospective increase in the seal herd of the Pribilof Islands, I have the honor to advise that a critical examination of this table shows such seriotis errors in computation and such glaring discrepancies as to render the table unreliable and wholly misleading. The biu-eau transmits herewith a copy of Elliott's figures for breeding cows, nubiles, and female pups, with the correct computations in parallel columns, so that the nature of the discrepancies can be seen at a glance. The corrected figures have been arrived at throughout by using Elliott's own basis of computation. Some of the errors are so palpable as to be readily apparent to the committee. The prospective number of breeding cows in the herd in 1927 is shown to be 303,371 , whereas Elliott claims that there will then exLst 800,000 breeding cows. If the committee consider it worth while to have a hearing on this matter, the bu- reau will be pleased to show in detail the numerous inaccuracies in Elliott's table. By direction of the commissioner. Very respectfully, H. M. Smith, Acting Commissioner. THE FUR SEALS CONVENTION. 17 Table showing prospective increase in Pribilof seal herd from 1911 to 1927, submitted by Henry W. Elliott, with correct computations in parallel columns. Year. Breeding cow.s. Nubiles. Female pups. Elliott. Correct. Elliott. Correct. Elliott. Correct. 1911 50,000 54,000 57,600 66,870 74,358 88,793 103,314 120,066 145, 997 192,000 225,000 260,000 321,000 395,000 450,000 612,000 800,000 50,000 54,000 57,600 66,015 74,723 83,580 93,938 105,728 118,852 133,598 150,213 168,887 189,874 213,473 240.005 269,834 303,371 10,000 10,000 15,750 24,300 26,000 30,092 33,462 42,163 46, 496 57, 100 58,000 61,000 74, 000 100,000 162,000 200,000 200,000 10,000 10,000 15,750 17,010 18,144 20,795 23,538 26, 328 29. 590 33,. 304 37, 439 42,084 47,317 53,199 59,810 67,244 75,601 25,000 27.000 28,800 33, 435 37, 179 44,396 56, 657 65,033 77,998 96,000 112,000 130,000 165.000 197,000 225.000 .306.000 400,000 25,000 1912 27,000 1913 28,800 33,008 37, 362 1914 ■.... 1915 1916 41,790 1917 46,969 52,864 59,426 06,799 75, 106 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922. 84 443 1923 94,937 106, 736 120,002 134 917 1924 1925 1926 1927 151,685 American Museum of Natural History, Neiv York, January ,5, 1912. Dear Sir: I understand tliat the question of a closed season for the fur seals is likely to come up again, and I take the liberty of writing you to protest against this closed season as being absolutely unnecessary as well as unpractical and unscientific. I have never seen the slightest reason to modify my view, which is that of all scientific men who have actually studied the fur seal, that up to the present time killing on land has had no effect in diminishing the numbers of the fur seal herd, and there is not the least reason why a carefully regulated land killing should do so in the future. By killing on land it is, of course, understood that the bachelor seals are referred to. The suspension of land killing is unpractical, 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, a suspension of land killing would seem to 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 attacks of pelagic sealers, and it is of the utmost importance for the making of future treaties and regulations regarding the taking of seals that we should know the exact facts in the case. Such suspension of killing is wholly unnecessary as regards the repletion of the seal herd, for we know from the 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, this where every seal that could be taken (whether male, female, or young) has been slaughtered by the sealers. With pelagic sealing at an end, the control of the soal h^rd is absolutely in our hands, and as the killing is now done by the Government and not by any parties directly interested in the number of seals tak"^n, it is a simple matter to control the killing as may be desired. The sole sugg'^stion I would make would be that as pelagic sealing has ceased, a smaller number of males be killed for two or three years to come, but this is a matter that the fur S'^al and advisory boards can consider at leisure. I sincerely trust that no such absurd measure will be considered as to prohibit the killing of bachelor seals. I remain, faithfully, yours, F. A. Lucas. Hon. William Sulzer, Chairman House Committee Foreign Affairs, Washington, D. C. H. Kept. 895, 62-2 2 18 THE FUR SEAX,S CONVENTION. The American' Museum of Natural History, Office of the President, New York, January 5, 1912. . Dear fcn the twelfth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and eleven; NoAv, therefore, be it known that I, William Howard Taft, Presi- dent of the United States ol America, have caused the said Con- vention to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof. In testimony whereof. I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington this fourteenth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and [seal] eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-sixth. Wm H Taft By the President: P C Knox Secretary of State. o