340 SEAL LIFE ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS. 



growing wider, and what is still more disturbing to the experienced 

 seal hunter there is a very noticeable sparseness of population, both 

 male and female, on every rookery. I should certainly be within bounds 

 in stating that at least one-third less seals landed on the islands this 

 year than ten years ago. 



You will remark that I have, at the beginning of this statement, 

 referred back for comparison only to ]873. Prior to that time we were 

 suffering from the excessive killing of 1808, when, in the absence of any 

 restriction, more than 200,000 seals were killed in a single year. The 

 deficiency of male breeding seals, caused by this excess, continued for 

 four or five years, and is referred to by Special Treasury Agent Bryant 

 in his report to the Department under date of September 5, LS72. I 

 allude to this only for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that 

 any improper handling of the seal industry is immediately followed by 

 marked results. 



For the cause of the present diminution of seal life we have not far 

 to look. It is directly traceable to the illicit killing of seals of every 

 age and sex during the last few years in the waters of the North Pacific 

 and Bering Sea. We are in no way responsible for it. During the first 

 thirteen years of the lease comparatively few seals were killed by 

 marauders, and we were then able not only to make good the deficiency 

 caused by the slaughter of 1868, but, under our careful management, to 

 produce a decided expansion of the breeding rookeries. 



The history of fur-seal killing on the British Columbia coast would, 

 no doubt, carry us back to an earlier date than the transfer of Alaska 

 to the United States, but it was done mostly up to 1875 by the use of 

 rude appliances, and the hunters were unable to pursue their vocation, 

 to any great extent, on the open sea. About 1875-70, under the stim- 

 ulus of better prices for skins, induced by the improved meth< ds applied 

 by us to the fur markets of the world, it was found profitable to fit out 

 more expensive ventures from Victoria, and the seals were followed 

 along the British Columbia and United States coasts as far north as 

 Sitka; but prior to 1882-83 it had not come to the knowledge of the 

 hunters that their work could be profitably pursued farther to the 

 northwestward. The catch was too small up to this time to seriously 

 affect seal life. An occasional predatory schooner came into Bering Sea 

 before 1882, and the San Diego, with her cargo, was seized in 1876 and 

 condemned to forfeiture under section 1956 of the United States laws. 

 In one or two other cases certificates of probable cause of seizure were 

 issued by the courts to the revenue officers, thus affirming the illegal- 

 ity of killing seals in Alaskan waters. 



About 1882-83 the British seal hunters discovered that profitable 

 voyages could be made to Bering Sea, and the few vessels engaged in 

 those years were soon joined by others, until, in 1885, a fleet of twelve 

 or fifteen schooners, some of them propelled by steam, were engaged in 

 the business, and the catch sent into Victoria amounted to about 25,000 

 skins. The fleet sent more than 40,000 skins to market in the following 

 year. More stringent orders were, however, issued to our revenue ves- 

 sels, and three of the twenty or more engaged in that year were seized 

 and still lie rotting on the beach in Unalaska Harbor. In 1887 a 

 still larger fleet appeared, but was badly demoralized before the end of 

 the season by the capture of fourteen of the vessels and the confiscation 

 and sale of a large part of them, together with a large number of skins; 

 in all, some 12,000, I think. Had this repressive policy of the Govern- 

 ment been firmly adhered to from that time we should probably be little 

 troubled with marauders this year; but pending negotiations with for- 



