12 DEPARTMENT OF THE NATAL SERVICE 



8 GEORGE V, A. 1918 



success. Finally the rookery at Solander island, off cape Cook, was visited. The 

 weather was very foggy, but after waiting for an hour and a half in the vicinity, the 

 captain was able to bring his ship near enough the rocks to make the sea-lions plainly 

 visible. The number was estimated to be at least 1,000, although it may have been 

 somewhat in excess of that number. Dr. Newcombe, in his reiK)rt in 1913, did not 

 consider Solander island to be a rookery but as shown elesewhere in this report, he is 

 now convinced that it is one. 



6. INFORMATION FROM EYE-WITNESSES. 



As the personal information on this trip, consequently, was somewhat limited, 

 rs much as possible was made of the evidence of eye-witnesses. These may be 

 divided into three classes: (1) Those who were not sufficiently familiar with sea- 

 lions to be able to distinguish them from hair seals, (2) those who claimed to have 

 personally seen sea-lions chasing and eating some species of fish, (3) those who 

 claimed to have seen sea-lions eating fish and had also examined the stomachs of one 

 or more of these animals. 



Of group (3) the majority were Indians, some of them old men, who, in earlier 

 days, had made use of many portions of the sea-lions for various purposes. Besides 

 these there were two white men, viz., Mr. F. Inrig, manager of the British Columbia 

 Packers' cannery at Wadhams on Rivers inlet, and Mr. J. Boyd, Fisheries Overseer 

 at Bella Bella. Group (2) included cannery men, cold storage men, active fishermen, 

 sea captains, fishery officers, as well as others, in no way directly connected with the 

 fishing business. The evidence of those in group (1) has not been considered. 



Representatives from numerous localities from Alert bay to Prince Rupert, and 

 all along the west coast of Vancouver island from cape Scott to Barkley sound sup- 

 plied information for this area and even beyond it to the mouth of the Nass river and 

 Hecate strait. Twenty-six in all made statements sufficiently definite to be worthy of 

 • consideration. The commission does not vouch for any of the evidence submitted, 

 but sees no reason to doubt its accuracy. The points at least on which there was 

 general agreement must be accepted until such times as they can either be corroborated 

 or disproved. Already a portion of the evidence has been confirmed as shown in a 

 later portion of the report. 



7. MATERI.-VLS USED BY SEA-LIONS AS FOOD. 



There was not a dissenting voice to the assertion that sea-lions eat food fishes. Of 

 the food fishes eaten, salmon and halibut have been most frequently noticed, and of 

 the species of salmon, spring, sockeye and coho. Humpback and dog salmon were not 

 reported. Besides the salmon and halibut, other food fishes, viz., lierring, oolachan, 

 red cod, ling cod, and rock cod were mentioned. Devil fish (which probably included 

 squid also) were frequently mentioned, dogfish and birds in a single instance. It may 

 be well to note here that lack of positive evidence is not negative evidence. These men, 

 almost without exception, stated that they saw no signs of sea-lions chasing other than 

 food fishes or of the remains of other than food fishes in their stomachs. Naturally 

 so, because in the first place they would never take the trouble to learn the haunts of 

 fish not suitable for food, and in the second place, the sea-lions would be killed almost 

 entirely in the neighbourhood of fishing grounds of some sort, and would more likely 

 than otherwise have eaten those very food fishes. This does not prove that the sea- 

 lion does not eat anything else in the sea when the food fishes are not readily avail- 

 able. This matter is taken up again later. 



