34 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAYAL SERVICE 



8 GEORGE V, A. 1918 



conditions in the outer part of the inlet. The commissioners, as on previous occa- 

 sions, remained near by in Goose bay. Early in the morning the men were picked 

 up but no sea-lions had been shot and there was little evidence of their presence 

 except the remains of three sockeye and one humpback that were found in the nets. 

 A photograph was taken of these remains (se fig. 34.) It is interesting and instructive 

 to compare this photograph with one taken at the Canadian Fish and Cold Storage 

 plant at Prince Rupert, Septem'ber 8, 1915, which shows the way in which salmon 

 are mutilated by hair seals (see fig. 35.) 



20. LITTLE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS DAIIAGE IN 1916. 



After a week of negative results there was no encouragement to stay longer and 

 the commission prepared to depart on the following morning. As the fishermen 

 would all be fishing again on Sunday night, they were encouraged to make a final 

 eifort to get sea-lions while the commissioners were still in the neighbourhood. The 

 Emoh anchored in Goose bay for the night, and in the morning (July 24), since 

 there were no results reported, a start was made for home at 4.30. As the fishermen 

 were still confident that sea-lions could be captured in the inlet, they were assured 

 chat the offer of reward would hold good until the end of the season, if the stomachs 

 were sent to the Biological station for examination. No claim has yet been made for 

 such reward. 



21. PROBABLE AMOUN^T OF INJURY DONE BY THE SEA-LION. 



It will be seen from the above account that the commission spared no pains to 

 get concrete evidence on the situation at Rivers inlet. If a week of such endeavour 

 at the height of the season could produce no positive results, there was no hope that 

 a whole season's residence there would do so. Such being the case, the commission 

 feels justified in stating that, as far as the 1916 season was concerned, the sea-lions 

 were not a very decided menace to the fishing in the inlet. The Emoh travelled 

 several miles up and down the inlet every day during the sojourn there, and only on 

 one occasion was there seen a trace of a sea-lion, and at that time only one was seen. 

 The majority of the men that fished in the outer part of the inlet were questioned, 

 none of whom reported having seen more than four or five. The sea-lion is 

 undoubtedly to blame for some torn nets and mutilated fish, but that he alone is to 

 blame is open to question. On account of his bad reputation, all the blame is put on 

 him whether he deserves it or not. It might be mentioned that nets are commonly 

 torn at other fish centres where the men scarcely know what a sea-lion looks like. All 

 the fishermen agree in declaring that the damage in 1916 was much less than in the 

 previous years. If any further evidence is needed to show that the commission is 

 more than justified in making this stand, it is supplied by a letter to the secretary 

 from Mr. Frank Inrig, dated November 19, after the close of the fishing season. It 

 reads as follows : — 



To the Secretary of the Sea-Lion Commission, 



Room 929 Birks Building, Vancouver, B.C. 



Dear Sir, — As manager of the British Columbia Packers' Canneries, 

 Wadhams and Brunswick, at Rivers inlet, I can speak with knowledge of the 

 depredations of the sea-lions in former years to the commercial fisheries at 

 Rivers inlet. Up to two years ago these depredations were great, and in terms 

 of money, costly to the canneries. 



But the expenditure of a few thousand dollars on bounties by the Federal 

 Government, two years ago, resulted in many sea-lions, both young and old. 



