6) The causes of mortality among seals were described and 

 their effects were evaluated. The hookworm "Uncinaria sp." 

 was discovered (Lucas 1899d:75-98; Stiles and Hassall 1899: 

 99-177). Dead pups were counted on all rookeries for the first 

 time in 1896; mortality before 10 August was estimated to be 

 9% (Jordan and Clark 1898a:95, 214). The seal louse Antarc- 

 tophthirus callorhini was described by Osborn (1899:553). (See 

 also Ferris 1951:300.) A tick (Ixodes arcticus) also described, 

 has never been found since on fur seals; the original specimen 

 was evidently mislabeled. In 1897, "upward of 12,000 car- 

 casses" of worm-infested pups were collected on Tolstoi and 

 Zapadni and burned (Jordan 1922:585). In the same year, large 

 boulders were placed in rows on the sand flats at Zapadni for 

 pups to climb on. A theory was then held that hookworm in- 

 festation is correlated with sandy "death traps." 



7) Lucas (1899c, part 3, p. 59-68, 4 pis.) tabulated the food 

 items found in stomachs of 409 seals taken in Alaskan waters. 

 He also described the contents of pup and bachelor stomachs 

 examined on land. His information was largely based on the 

 reports of Townsend (1898, part 4, p. 472), and in Murray 

 (1898b, vol. 2, p. 52) and of Alexander (1892', 1898:600). Lucas 

 (1899c:62) mentioned also a food habits study by Merriam, the 

 results of which were evidently not published. (Townsend had 

 been the first naturalist to obtain evidence of food habits 

 when, on 2 August 1892, on the deck of the Corvvw, he opened 

 the stomachs of 33 seals.) 



8) The methods and results of pelagic sealing were summed 

 up by Townsend (1899:223), at a time when about 100,000 

 seals were being killed annually at sea. Data on the distribution 

 and migration of seals, obtained during the peak of pelagic 

 sealing, will perhaps never again be surpassed in volume, 

 though certainly in refinement of detail. Townsend's (1899, 

 opp. p. 234) map, based on a total take of 304,713 seals from 

 1883 to 1897, showed the position of sealing vessels in all 

 months of the year except October and November. The sug- 

 gestion is often heard that pelagic sealing was, and could be 

 again, a practical method of harvesting fur seals. But Town- 

 send gave counter arguments, among them the difficulty of 

 law enforcement, the unreliable statistics of the kill, the waste 

 through buck-shot-riddled skins, the loss of seals by wounding 

 and sinking, the inhumanity of pups starving on land, and the 

 hazard to men and ships. 



9) The first attempt to mark seals by hot-iron branding was 

 conducted by Murray (a cattleman from Colorado) on North 

 Rookery in August 1896. Totals of 337 female pups and 1 1 fe- 

 male adults were branded in 1896 and 7,251 female pups and 

 118 female aduUs in 1897 (U.S. Treasury 1898:38-39, 1898-99, 

 part 2, p. 447; Jordan and Clark 1899: 326, 328). The purpose 

 was to deliberately scar the pelts in order to make them unat- 

 tractive to pelagic sealers. The program was continued through 

 1902 on St. Paul and 1903 on St. George. We believe that no 

 adults were branded after 1897. A nearly complete record of 

 the female pups, numbering at least 22,833 branded from 1896 

 to 1903, was compiled by Hanna (1921b: 111). Strangely, no 

 one seems to have recognized the value of the branded seals as 

 specimens of known age. Had there been a biologist on the 

 Pribilofs from 1898 to 1905, he would have identified and de- 

 scribed the yearling fur seal, and thereby provided the Govern- 



'Alexander, A. B. 1892. Manuscript report concerning fur seals, 1892. The 

 National Archives, Records of the U.S. Fish Comm., Record Group 22, 40 p. 

 and 1 photograph. [Photocopy seen.] 



ment with scientific information it sorely lacked. The 1913 

 controversy between the Government and Elliott over identifi- 

 cation of "yearlings" will be mentioned later. 



10) In addition to branding, a second experiment designed to 

 discourage pelagic sealing was carried out in 1896-97 (U.S. 

 Treasury 1898-99, part 2, p. 419-421, 461, 588-592; Jordan and 

 Clark 1899:329). The plan was to round up large numbers of 

 bachelors after the close of the sealing season, to hold them for 

 a month in a corral, and to release them in autumn when the 

 pelagic sealers were leaving the Bering Sea. Conceived in des- 

 peration, the plan did not give birth to a management system. 

 About 950 seals were corralled in Salt Lagoon on 17 August 

 1896. The Aleuts who guarded them had a lively time, some 

 running along the beaches, shouting; one in a boat in mid- 

 channel at the outlet of the lagoon. On 4 September about 

 3,000 seals were again held for a day in the lagoon. The next 

 year, 300 acres of the lagoon were enclosed with 50-in (?) wire 

 fence and about 750 seals were held during the first week of 

 September. We suppose that the ideas of Murray, the cattle- 

 man, led to the corralling experiment. 



11) On 19 August 1896, the sex ratio of pups on Gorbatch 

 Rookery was found to be 246 males, 212 females (U.S. Trea- 

 sury 1898-99, part 2, p. 423). Many years later, on 4 August 

 1950, Kenyon and Scheffer repeated the study, finding 505 

 males, 495 females (Kenyon et al. 1954:19). 



12) Jordan and Clark (1898a:45) gave the specific name 

 alascanus to the Pribilof seals on account of the "slight, 

 [though] permanent and constant" differences from Asian 

 seals. The name stuck until Stejneger (1936:278, 285) pointed 

 out that it was preoccupied by Walbaum's 1792 name cyno- 

 cephalus. Finally, Wilke (1951:10-22) showed that Asian and 

 North American seals cannot be told apart on anatomical 

 grounds, and the name ursinus for the northern fur seal came 

 again into use. 



Incidentally, the investigators noted a "barnacle covered 

 cow" at Northeast Point (U.S. Treasury 1898-99, part 2, p. 

 507). Gooseneck barnacles are not uncommonly seen attached 

 to the pelage of seals. Scheffer (1962:40) found Lepas hillii; 

 Fiscus et al. (1964:57) found L. pectinata and L. anatifera. 



The investigations of 1896-97 did not quite result in an inter- 

 national treaty to stop pelagic sealing. In December 1897, sig- 

 natures of the United States, Japan, and Russia were obtained, 

 but not of Great Britain (representing Canada). Canada held 

 out for a share of the Pribilof harvest, a share which she finally 

 obtained in 1911 (Jordan 1922:602). "As the investigators had 

 no international status, and were not empowered to negotiate 

 a settlement, their labors now came to an end. The matter [of 

 pelagic sealing] was placed in the hands of a Joint High Com- 

 mission of the two nations sitting at Quebec in 1898. This 

 Commission had other matters of difference to settle, and in 

 the conflict of interests the fur-seal question still remains in 

 status quo" (Marsh 1907:461). 



No scientific studies were made from 1898 to 1903, inclu- 

 sive. Waher Irwin Lembkey was agent in charge from 1898 or 

 1899 to 30 June 1913, during the years when the seal herd was 

 declining to its lowest level in history (U.S. Congress, House 

 1911:9; Lembkey 1914:140). He made routine counts of seals 

 but was opposed to exploratory research, as we will show. 



Townsend visited the islands in 1900. "On his last visit he 

 said it was useless for him to make the trip, as the Treasury 

 agents could gather the information desired, and he availed 



