ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 66 



certain though not fully known interrelation and interchange of seals between the 

 eastern and western breeding islands of Bering Sea points very clearly to the advis- 

 ability of such cooperation in protection. (Keport of British Bering Sea Commis- 

 sioners, p. 25.) 



The most casual observer will see at a glance that the commission- 

 ers' suggestions are all in favor of the pelagic sealer and his "industry," 

 and against the United States and the seals. That the public at large 

 may see this as I see it, I will briefly review a few of the most prominent 

 points suggested. 



The commissioners say: 



The maximum number of seals to be taken on the Pribilof Islands to be fixed at 



50,000. 



That is to say, the United States must agree to reduce their catch on 

 land one half, to begin with, and the suggestion, remember, was made 

 long after it was known that the pelagic sealers had captured 78,000 

 seals in 1891. 



They continue : 



A zone of protected waters to be established, extending to a distance of 20 nautical 

 miles from the islands. 



As the largest catches are made at distances of from 80 to 200 miles 

 from the islands, and as the commissioners were well aware of that fact 

 when they made the suggestion, its worthlessness may be understood 

 so far as the protection and safety of the seals go. 



Again, they suggest: 



A close season to be provided, extending from the 15th of September to the Ist of 

 May in each year, during which all killing of seals shall be prohibited, with the 

 additional provision that no sealing vessel shall enter Bering Sea before the 1st of 

 July in each year. 



As the killing season never did open on the islands till June, and 

 always closed on or before August 10 (excepting the few seals killed 

 from time to time for natives' food), and as it is from May to October that 

 protection is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the seal herd; 

 and as the pelagic sealer hardly ever enters Bering Sea before July it 

 is difficult to see how the "suggestion" could benefit the United States 

 or save the seals. 



The next "suggestion" deserves careful attention, for it is the key- 

 note of the whole superstructure raised by the commissioners, who'say: 



Respecting the compensatory feature of such speciiic regulations, it is believed 

 that a just scale of equivalency as between shore and sea sealing would be found, 

 and a complete check established against any undue diminution of seals, by adopt- 

 ing the following as a unit of compensatory regulation: For each decrease of 10,000 

 in the number fixed for killing on the islands, an increase of 10 nautical miles to be 

 given to the width of protected waters about the islands. The minimum number to 

 be fixed for killing on the islands to be 10,000, corresponding to a maximum width 

 of protected waters of 60 nautical miles. 



Here they make the pelagic sealer the senior partner in the fiir-seal 

 "industry," and the repressive part of the "suggestion" is intended 

 for the United States only. 



The situation at the start is to be something like this: The United 

 States are to kill not to exceed 50,000 seals, and the pelagic sealer is 

 not to approach the breeding islands nearer than 20 nautical miles. 

 Then for every additional 10 miles we would remove the pelagic sealer 

 we must reduce our catch on shore by 10,000, so that by the time he is 

 60 miles away our maximum catch is to be 10,000. 



The first thought that suggests itself here is. What would happen 

 were we to ask him for a protected zone of 70 miles from the seal 



H. Doc. 92, pt. 2 5 



