116 KEFORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



Following is the substance of the report submitted })y Messrs. 

 Kutter, Snodgrass, and Starks, the description of rookery sites and data 

 on the general habits of the sea lions being omitted. It will be seen 

 that while much has l)een established regarding the (Question at issue, 

 further inquiries should be addressed to some aspects of the subject. 



Report on the Sea Lion Investigation, 1901. 



The Steller sea lion {Enmetop'Ktfi steUeri) was found at Ano Nuevo Islan<l and nortli- 

 ward, and the California sea lion [ZnlophuK' cnl If ami anus) in the Santa liarbara 

 Channel and southward. The Steller sea lion is reported to breed on San Miguel 

 and Santa Rosa islands, but this could not be verified, owing to the rookeries being 

 deserted at the time of visit. 



Following is a tabulated statement of the stomach contents of 42 sea lions, 18 of 

 the species Eumetopias stelleri and 24 of the species Zalophus californianus. An exam- 

 ination of this table shows, among other things, the following points: 



1. Of the 26 sea lions whose stomachs contained food, fish remains were found in 

 18 and squid or octopus in 15. 



2. All of the 18 Steller sea lions whose stomachs contained food had eaten fish and 

 5 had eaten squid or o(;topus. The nunilier of squid eaten was small, 6 being the 

 maximum number in 1 sea lion, while the quantity of fish was large, at least 35 

 pounds being taken from 1 stomach. 



3. Of 13 California sea lions whose stomachs contained food 5 had eaten fish and 11 

 had eaten squid. The quantity of fish was inconsiderable, 17 small fishes being the 

 inaxinmni, while the remains of 100 to 300 scjuid were found in each of 5 stomachs. 



This study, as far as it goes, indicates that the Steller sea lion is largely a fish 

 consumer and the California sea lion is chiefly a stjuid eater. It seems apparent, 

 however, that either species feeds on whatever is most convenient. 



Very little jiositive information was obtained regarding the damage done to the 

 fishing industry at southern points. On one trip made with the fishermen a net 

 was found torn in one pla(;e, but there was no i)roof that the injury was done by sea 

 lions. The testimony of the fishermen was so contradictory that it is of no value. 

 One fisherman claims that in securing $3 worth of fish his net was damaged $75, 

 while another claims tliat there is very little damage done bysea lions. One man 

 holds that the sea lions are becoming more numerous and destructive every year, 

 while another claims that they are rapidly becoming exterminated. 



In foi'mer years the fishermen in the vicinity of San Francisco conijilained a great 

 deal about the sea lions, but there was practically no complaint at the time of the 

 investigation. Sea lions were scarcely ever seen in the vicinity of the salmon nets 

 during the year 1901. 



At the mouth of the Columbia River, as elsewhere, the direct evidence obtained 

 on this point is meager. Sea lions were seen fishing in considerable numbers about 

 the shoals near the jetty at the mouth of the river, but none was seen to catch a fish 

 of any kind. Gulls were frequently observed hovering about a group of sea lions and 

 acting as if picking up food. One such flock of gulls was seen coming gradually nearer 

 the jetty from a group of sea lions about a mile away; after a time, it was shown 

 that they were following a large piece of salmon flesh which the tide brought within 

 20 feet of the observer. Salmon were seen and photographed that had been muti- 

 lated (presumably by sea lions and seals) after being caught in gill nets. Such muti- 

 lated specimens were common. The fishermen stated that the seals simply pull off 

 the gills, but tlie sea lions always take a bite out of the belly of the netted salmon. 



A number of pound nets were visited, but no sea lions were seen in them. 



