76 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



PELAGIC SEALING INDIRECT CAUSE OF CLOSE LAND KILLING. 



Examination of the records and chance interrogation of various individuals formerly 

 connected with seaUng make it clear that pelagic sealing, with its reckless and piratical 

 inethods, may have indirectly affected the sincerity and morale of land sealing. The 

 conditions were such that it could scarcely be otherwise, and those in charge of the land 

 operations can not be justly criticised for it. If there had been no pelagic sealing, the 

 lessees would have desired to perpetuate the herd quite as much as the Government, 

 but when it was merely a question whether the lessee or the pelagic sealer got the seal, 

 it was to be expected that the lessee would take practically all he could get. As it then 

 appeared, the herd was doomed any way and the preservation of a seal on land was no 

 guarantee that it would not immediately be killed at sea. Thus, even if close killing on 

 land be admitted, it is evident that pelagic sealing was to a considerable extent responsi- 

 ble for it. This form of killing may therefore be credited with even more than its 

 direct drain on the herd. It has been almost the sole cause of trouble. It is incon- 

 ceivable othenvise that prudent business men, such as constituted the leasing com- 

 panies, would have allowed their own interests to dwindle by the goose and golden 

 egg method; and of course their agents were thoroughly familiar with at least the 

 main features of the breeding habits of the seals and able to appreciate the futility of 

 efforts at protection on land while wholesale destruction went on at sea. 



THE EFFFCT OF LAND SEALING. 



The effect of land killing is irretrievably involved in that of pelagic sealing. All 

 things considered, it is difficult, if not practically impossible, to show that any land 

 killing during American ownership has been "excessive." The killing of gray pups 

 for food of natives, as practiced to some extent during the period of the first lease, was 

 wasteful, but even this did not include females. The killing of males on land imtil 

 191 1 has served to reduce the catch at sea and in itself may not have produced any 

 shortage of breeders. The reduction of land killing in 1892 and 1893 produced a surplus 

 of old males in 1896 and 1897, but was accompanied also by a large increase in the 

 pelagic catch, and it is evident that a continued cessation of land killing at that time 

 would only have caused the pelagic sealers to redouble their efforts, and the herd would 

 have continued its decline. In the six years from 1890 to 1895 the number of seals 

 killed on land was 80,482; during the same period pelagic sealers took 295,965 and 

 caused the death of at least several times as many more. In every year thereafter 

 until 191 1 the pelagic catch exceeded the land catch. Under such conditions, the 

 effect of any limitation of land killing was problematical. The system of reserving 

 males for breeding purposes inaugurated in 1904 and continued until 1912 had its 

 objectionable features, since certain animals reserved in one season may have been killed 

 the next, but in spite of this it might have been effective but for pelagic sealing. This 

 is evident from the increased number of bulls in 1913 and 1914, due to the reserves 

 of 1910 and 1911. That the reserves of former years did not produce a like number 

 of bulls at the proper time was beyond doubt due to the effect of pelagic sealing. If 

 larger reser\'es had been made, it is questionable whether they would have accomplished 

 more than an increase in the pelagic catch; certainly a proportionate increase would 



