72 FUR SEALS OF ALASKA. 
Exursir H. 
[Memorandum for Ways and Means Committee.] 
SECRETARY SHAW’S REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE ALASKAN FUR-SEAL HERD FOR 
1902, SENT TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 3. 
No one questions the personal integrity and ability of Secretary Shaw; but that he 
can be imposed upon and made to present the following travesty upon the condition 
of the fur-seal herd of Alaska is indisputable. In his first annual report to Con- 
gress, on page 30, he says: 
‘(ds 22,470 seal skins were taken from the islands in 1900 and 22,672 in 1901, the catch 
of 22,804 skins in the current year is very gratifying, and tends to show that the seal herd is 
not decreasing in number as rapidly as heretofore. 
“The consul at Victoria, British Columbia, reports, through the Department of 
State, that a British sealing fleet comprising 23 vessels in the spring of 1902 took 1,611 
male and 1,562 female seals—in all 3,173—-which number is less than one-half of the 
catch of the same fleet, comprising 28 vessels, in the spring of 1901 and less than one- 
fifth of the number taken by 33 vessels in the spring of 1900. A preliminary report 
from the consul at Victoria of the summer catch of the British sealing fleet shows 
that 11 vessels have returned to that port with 4,456 seal skins. Four other vessels 
lately arrived, and 9 yet to arrive are not included in these figures. The average 
catch for each vessel for the current year, so far as reported, is 224 skins per vessel. 
The official report of the catch of the British sealing fleet in 1901, received in March 
last, shows that 39 vessels took 24,422 seals on the coast of British Columbia and 
Japan in the vicinity of Copper Island and in Bering Sea—an average of 626 skins 
for each vessel. The greatly diminished catch of the British sealing fleet in the last two 
seasons undoubledly accounts in great measure for the more stable condition of the Pribilof 
herd as indicated by the number of seals taken by the lessees of those islands since 
1899.”’ 
Is this the truth, even faintly expressed, as to the condition of this herd, which 
Congress has in these words received from him? ; 
No; itis not. That ‘‘very gratifying statement’’ as to the catches in 1900, 1901, 
and the current year 1902, ‘‘which tends to show that the seal herd is not decreas- 
ing in number as rapidly as heretofore,’”’ isasad error. Observe the following analy- 
sis of these catches: 
Out of 22,470 skins taken in 1900, 2,200 were ‘‘prime’’ skins and 14,000 were 
‘“‘eye plasters.’’? Out of 22,672 skins taken in 1901, 1,826 were “‘prime”’ skins and 
16,000 were ‘‘eye plasters.”” Out of 22,304 skins taken in 1902, 1,311 were ‘‘prime”’ 
skins and 16,878 were ‘‘eye plasters.’’? But out of 16,031 skins taken in 1894, 12,000 
were ‘‘prime”’ skins and no ‘‘eye plasters. ”’ 
Note the significance of that contrast, 1894-1902, and it is a dull mind that can 
not grasp the fact that it declares that in 1900, 1901, and 1902 the lessees are draining 
the very dregs of the young male life—hurrying it into complete extermination. 
“Very gratifying,’’ indeed! 
This is quite unfortunate, but what follows is even more so: 
Mr. Shaw tells us that only 7,219 sking have been taken this season (1902) by the 
pelagic hunting fleet, when in truth 22,812 skins were taken by these hunters. This 
shee an average of over 800 skins to the vessel, instead of only ‘‘244 skins per 
vessel. 
This official failure to inform Congress that the season of 1902 was the most profit- 
able one ever known to the pelagic hunter per vessel employed is fairly improper. 
It is also still more improper because on September 16, 1902, the Department had 
official information that a new force of pelagic destruction to the herd had appeared 
on the scene, and yet it does not appear to be deemed worthy of Mr. Shaw’s notice. 
I allude to the ‘‘Japanese’’ fleet. 
Then, too, he is officially informed on August 25, 1902, that the breeding bulls on 
the seal islands rookeries ‘‘have fallen off 25 per cent in number” from what they 
were in 1901; yet he tells Congress that this herd is in a ‘more stable condition” 
than heretofore. 
Mr. Shaw was warned a. few days after he entered the office of Secretary of the 
Treasury, February 21, 1902, that he was being imposed upon by his subordinates 
who had charge of the fur-seal business in the Department; he had documentary 
evidence of the fact submitted to him, but he seems to have forgotten the lesson or 
