INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 43 



Mr. Madden. Is that all on Pribilof Islands? 



Mr. Le-Mbket. On both islands, that is the number constituting the present herd 

 at the close of the season of 1911. 



The above statement 1 was made February 29, 1912, with the 

 approval of the entire "scientific" advisory board on fur-seal 

 service of the Bureau of Fisheries; and yet, a few months later, a 

 census was made by these same officials who have been busy with it 

 ever since June, 1896, declaring that instead of there being only 

 "127,000" seals of all classes alive on August 1, 1912, there were 

 "215,000." 



The authors of this last census were Messrs. Lembkey and George 

 A. Clark, the latter being the same man who aided Dr. Jordan to 

 make his "accurate census" of 1897, when he ridiculed the idea 

 that the figures given by Elliott in 1890 were sensible or fair. 



But the common-sense survey made this season of 1913 by us 

 declares the fact that at least 1,000,000 seals must have been in 

 existence on the Pribilof rookeries during the season of 1896, and 

 that Jordan's total of "376,000" for the season of 1897 is one that 

 is evidently and self-confessedly wrong, by the very logic of events. 



The exposure of the 191 1 census of the Bureau of Fisheries as a sham 

 and without any foundation of fact, April 20, 1912, to the House 

 Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and 

 Labor (pp. 605-606, Hearing No. 10), stirred those scientists to try 

 again and land in 1912, with some finding of sense. 



AX AXALTSIS OF THE FIGURES OF THE CENSUS OF THE JORDAN COM- 

 MISSION, 1896-97. 



In 1897 Jordan declares "an accurate survey," based on "actual 

 counts," shows that there aie only 129,216 seal cows in existence on 

 the Pribilof rookeries. (Treasury Doc. 1994, 1898, p. 15, Nov. 1, 1897.) 



In 1912 Jordan's man of 1897, G. A. Clark, declares an "actual 

 count" shows that full 81,000 seal cows are now in existence on the 

 Piibilof rookeries. (Economic Circular No. 10, Dept. Com. and 

 Labor, Dec, 1912.) 



1 In spite of this sworn statement made by Lembkey, Feb. 29, 1912, yet the fact that he knew that he- 

 did not give that committee a true figure is furnished by himself, as follows, in his report to the departs 

 ment for 1908, to wit: 



"The difference between the counts of pups made in the two years is so slight as to indicate on their 

 face that practically no change in the number of breeding cows has occurred. If these counts were taken 

 as a criterion of the" condition of all the rookeries on the two islands, we would have to believe that there- 

 has been no decrease in breeding female seals during the past year. This conclusion, however, would be 

 hard to accept. 



"If the number of breeding seals has not decreased, as these figures would lead one to believe, where, 

 then, could the catches of the pelagic fleets have been obtained? It is known that in 1907 some 17,00f> 

 sealskins were marketed by the two fleets — Canadians and Japanese — most of which were those of female 

 seals. This, of course, is in addition to the 15,000 young male skins taken in 1907 on the islands by the 

 lessee. A total of 32,000 skins, therefore, was taken from the herd in 1907, which, in that year, was com- 

 posed approximately of 175,000 animals, of which only 65,000 were adult and virgin cows. 



"In addition to this slaughter in 1907, the catch of the pelagic fleets in 1908 has been as heavy as in the 

 preceding year. The Canadian fleet, it is true, contains fewer vessels this year than ever before, 8 in all. 

 As against this, however, we have an increased Japanese fleet, composed approximately of 38 vessels. 

 Those pelagic schooners that have been spoken this year by the patrolling vessels were found to have been 

 quite successful. The 2 schooners captured last July by the U. S. S. Bear had over 700 sldns between them, 



"With all this activity, it is impossible to believe that so many seals could have been taken out of the 

 Pribilof herd — now only a skeleton — without decreasing the size of the herd. With so many agencies 

 consuming the life of the herd, there is only one factor to offset this decrease, namely, the annual incre« 

 ment of virgin cows. If we are to accept the conclusion that no decrease occurred between 1907 and 1908, 

 we must believe that the increment of virgin cows during the period mentioned was as large as the catch 

 of the schooners, added to the land killing, the loss from natural causes, and the waste from seals killed 

 in the water and not recovered. Such a conclusion can not be justified by conditions." (Appendix A, pp. 

 602-603, June 24, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.) 



With that distinct understanding, as above stated by himself, that this base of his census calculation 

 (the Jordan figures of 1897) was wholly in error, yet he returns to it, and continues the sham census, by 

 summing it up for 1908, as follows: 



"In 1907 the whole herd was estimated at 172 512. A deduction of 15 per cent from this number would 

 leave 146,636 as the estimated number of animals in the Pribilof herd at the close of the season of 1898." 



