276 INVESTIGATION OF THE EUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OE ALASKA. 



In the killing this morning it may be noted that 27 animals with shaved heads, 

 designated as 3-year-olds, were released, but of the unbranded animals released only 

 5 are designated as 4- year-olds. It is only a supposititious case, but if we assume that 

 twenty-seven 3-year-olds were exempted by the shaving of last season, here are only 

 5 that have successfully run the gauntlet of the second year. 



In a word the marking of a 2 or 3 year old seal by a temporary mark which is obliter- 

 ated by the following season, the animal still being killable as a 3 or 4 year old, is futile 

 for the purpose of establishing a breeding reserve. 



There is another criticism that may justly be brought against this method of marking; 

 tha{; is, clipping or shaving the head — it does not in any way impair the value of the 

 skin. Undoubtedly this is a provision to prevent loss through carelessness. If a 

 clubber accidently strikes a shaved seal its skin is as good as any other, and such 

 accidents occur, although infrequently. 



The criticism, however, lies in this: The skin is just as valuable to the pelagic sealer 

 as if it were not marked. The shaving of the head is a good plan for identification by 

 the clubber. It would be unwise to attempt to bum a brand on the seal at this point, 

 but while the animal is caught for the purpose of shaving, a permanent burned brand 

 should be placed on the back or shoulder which will mar the value of the skin to the 

 pelagic sealer. If it mars the value of the skin also from the company's point of view, 

 then greater care should be taken in clubbing the animals. The present plan puts a 

 premium on carelessness, and an animal exempted this season is liable to be killed 

 next season. The only way to prevent this is to shave the head of this year's 2-year-old 

 next year as a 3-year-old, and again as a 4-year-old the third season; all of which is a 

 useless waste of energv. (Repoit Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, pp. 885, 886; Appen- 

 dix A, June 24, 19lV; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.) 



In getting the Hitchcock minimum limit of ll 5\ pounds" reduced to 

 11 5 pounds/' Lembkcy and Liebes succeeded in getting it done without any 

 warrant, in 1906, and so confess it, when cross-examined, to wit: 



[Hearing No. 9, pp. 449-451, 450, April 13, 1912.] 



Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, when you made that statement in 1901, you went to 

 Mr. Hitchcock and recommended a 5-pound limit. What did he tell you in 1904? 



Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember just what he did tell me, Mr. Elliott. 



Mr. Elliott. Did he not tell you that you were taking yearling skins? 



Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; he told me that you had made the charge that we were taking 

 yearling skins. 



Mr. Elliott. "Was he not impressed with the fact that you were taking yearling 

 skins? 



Mr. Lembkey. No, he was not. 



Mr. Elliott. Yet he fixed the limit five and one-half pounds? 



Mr. Lembkey. He did it solely as I have stated — to place the limit so high that you 

 nor any other man could make any objection to the policy of the department. 



Mr. Elliott. That was very correct on his part, was it not? 



The Chairman. Never mind about that. 



Mr. Elliott. When Mr. Hitchcock left the department who succeeded him? 



Mr. Lembkey. As chief clerk? I think Mr. Bowen did. 



Mr. Elliott. Mr. Bowen. Did you again renew your recommendation? 



Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember that I recommended that the weight be reduced 

 to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott. 



Mr. Elliott. That order of reduction was made in 1906? 



Mr. Lembkey. In 1906. 



Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief clerk then? 



Mr. Lembkey. I presume Mr. Bowen was. 



Mr. Elliott. And you again made the recommendation? 



Mr. Lembkey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no. The recommendation was made, I think, to 

 the Secretary, but it was made through Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, who 

 then had charge of the seal business. 



Mr. Elliott. Have you any table of weight measurement of your own making which 

 warranted you in making that recommendation? 



Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I expressed that as my opinion. 



