USTVESTIGATION" OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 41 



Pribilof breeding and hauling grounds, is well brought out by the 

 following testimony, given to the House committee April 20, 1912, 

 in hearing No. 10, pages 605, 606, House Committee on Expenditures 

 in the Department of Commerce and Labor, to wit: 



AS TO KILLING ON LAND AT THE DISCRETION OF DEPARTMENTAL AGENTS, IN RE FUR- 

 SEAL HERD. 



Mr. Elliott. How can any "percentage of reservation" of "10 per cent" or "25 

 per cent," or "50 per cent," or "95 per cent" of young male life be "safely fixed" by 

 man upon the basis of the following self-evident, worthless, and padded census of 

 the fur-seal herd of Alaska? 



Ever since 1900 the departmental reports to Congress have annually declared an 

 immense loss suffered by the fur-seal herd of Alaska from the work of the pelagic 

 hunters, yet never has this annual loss been subtracted from the sum totals of their 

 annual census tables officially sent to Congress. Why? 



Witness the following proof of it officially given: 



The official census of the fur seal herd of Alaska as annually made and published 

 since 1904 declares that there is not a fur seal in existence on the Pribilof Islands at 

 the close of the season of 1910, if the official statements of annual loss made from 

 pelagic sealing are computed. 



Official reports of Department of Commerce and Labor to Congress from 1904, 

 annuallv, made to close of season of 1909, declare that in — 



1904, "243,103 seals of all classes alive August 1, 1904; 1905, 223,000 seals of all 

 classes alive August 1, 1905; 1906, 185,000 seals of all classes alive August 1, 1906; 

 1907, 172,502 seals of all classes alive August 1, 1907; 1908 (no figures), August 1, 1908; 

 1909, about 140,000 seals of all classes, August 1, 1909; 1910, 137,000 seals of all classes 

 alive August 1, 1910; 1911, about 133,000 seals of all classes alive August 1, 1911. 



These official figures of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor are quoted verbatim 

 from those annual reports as appended. They declare the fact that if the figures of 

 1904 are correct, then, by the figures of annual loss alone since that season, there is 

 not a fur seal in existence on the seal islands of Alaska since 1908. 



In these departmental tables the strange and inexcusable error is made of not 

 subtracting the loss entailed annually, after August 1 to November 30, by the pelagic 

 sealers' catch. If that loss is taken from this count, as it must be taken, then those 

 departmental tables will show a finish in 1907 as follows: 



At the close of the season of 1904 the pelagic catch from this Alaskan herd was 



22,670 seals. Taking the department's own estimate of this loss as about " three 



seals killed for each one taken," then there is a total of some 67,000 seals to subtract 



from 243,103 seals alive August 1. That would leave alive at the opening of season 



of 1905 only 177,000 seals in round numbers instead of 243,103. 



Seals, male 

 and female. 



Therefore, when the season of 1905 opened there were 177, 103 



Then the lessees took therefrom up to Aug. 1 14, 000 



Leaving then 163, 103 



Then the pelagic catch from August to November was 20,000, or a loss of. . . 60, 000 



Thus leaving alive at the opening of 1906 only 103, 103 



Then the lessees took up to Aug. 1, 1906 14,000 



Leaving then only 89, 103 



Then the pelagic catch, August to November, follows, of 20,000, or loss of. . 60,000 



Thus leaving alive at the opening of 1907 only. 29, 103 



Then the lessees took therefrom up to Aug. 1 14, 000 



Leaving then only 15, 103 



Then the pelagic catch, August to November, 22,000, or loss of 66, 000 



Thus leaving not a single seal alive at the opening of the season of 1908. 



In the light of the above reduction of those figures of seal life and its status from 

 year to year, is it at all strange that those authors of these grotesque census tables 

 should juggle my figures in vain, as given on page 99, Hearing, House Committee on 

 Foreign Affairs, January 4, 1912? 



