U2 REPORT OF ALASKA INVESTIGATIONS. 



CONTROL OP FUR-BEARING ANIMALS. 



The question of the Department of Commerce retaining jurisdiction over the fur-bearing animals of 

 Alaska through the Bureau of Fisheries has been given much thought and consideration. Until 

 recently the system of protection for these animals in Alaska has been in a more or less confused condition. 

 Through intelligent investigations and operations extending over a period of several years, this Department 

 has worked out quite definite plans, and now, after its officials have acquired much valuable knowledge 

 and experience at no little expense to the Government, there is talk of transferring jurisdiction over these 

 animals to another department. I can not agree with such a step. If this is done, it will take many 

 years for the practical knowledge that has been gathered in the Department of Commerce through the 

 Bureau of Fisheries to be acquired by new people in charge; in other words, a new start will have to be made, 

 which would mean much confusion during the time of readjustment. 



Before I made my trip to Alaska, I was rather doubtful as to the desirability of such a change; but after 

 seeing the actual conditions and studying the various important phases of the question on the ground, I 

 formed the opinion, based on facts as I saw them, that it would be unwise and unprogressive to allow 

 the control of the fur-bearing animals to pass from the Department of Commerce to another department 

 of the Federal Government or to the Territory of Alaska. With the help that Congress can provide in 

 the way of more wardens to look after the work, there is no apparent reason why the matter of protecting 

 the Alaska fur-bearing animals will not be better attended to and even more advantageously handled if 

 the authority is kept where it now is; and from an economical and business standpoint it will be better, 

 as our wardens can assist with the fishing industry in summer and look after the fur-bearing animals 

 in winter, thereby saving a double patrol system. 



PROTECTIVE SEASONS. 



The majority of fur-bearing animals in Alaska should be afforded protection during certain seasons. 

 There are, however, at least three exceptions — certain bears, the wolf, and the wolverine. It seems very 

 shortsighted to give protection to the bears other than the polar bears at any time of the year. Through 

 the greater part of Alaska bears are very abundant and are shot regardless of seasons. To-day there is a 

 law which prohibits in certain seasons the killing of the great brown bear of Kodiak Island, which is the 

 single species of bear, and of fur-bearing animals, under the care of the Department of Agriculture. Because 

 this law is misunderstood, all brown bears, regardless of species or shade of color, are included in this 

 restriction. This confusion not only works a hardship on those who trap for a living, but is a serious hin- 

 drance to the enforcement of the laws and regulations applying to the bears in general. The brown bear 

 is as clearly a fur-bearing animal as the other bears, and all species should come under the jurisdiction of 

 the Department of Commerce. It is earnestly hoped that this inconsistency will be remedied so as to 

 remove the state of embarrassment and confusion that now exists in Alaska among the trappers, mer- 

 chants who deal in bear skins, Federal and Territorial wardens, and customhouse officials. There may 

 come a time when there should be a close season on some bears in certain parts of the Territory in addi- 

 tion to that provided for the polar bears, but it is not now necessary, and is certainly unwise. 



The wolves are the most destructive wild animals that roam the woods of the Territory. This espe- 

 cially applies to southeastern Alaska. They frequent many of the islands in packs and are ever hunting 

 for food. The Department of Agriculture, through the Biological Survey, is now making an effort to 

 protect the deer in southeastern Alaska, to make up for the years of wanton slaughter. This effort is 

 admirable, but unless the wolf, which is increasing as a menace, is eliminated to some extent there will 

 be no further use for prescribing protection to deer, as they are rapidly disappearing on many of the 

 islands. I observed a number of instances where the wolves had killed deer, and in others I saw specimens 

 of deer that were thin because of the ceaseless chasing they had had by those animals. It is a serious 

 matter, and I would strongly recommend that Congress provide a bounty of $5 on wolves in southeastern 

 Alaska, to take effect at once. I consider them the greatest menace in this section to deer and game birds. 



EFFECT OF EXISTING LAWS ON NATIVES. 



The natives in different parts of Alaska that are affected by the laws prohibiting the killing of certain 

 fur-bearing animals feel that a great injustice has been done them and that they should be accorded certain 

 privileges not now allowed. They are generally satisfied with the open and close season on the small 



