464 INVESTIGATION OF THE EUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OE ALASKA. 



The Chairman. But you had gathered the information that this 

 was going on and that is the reason you put it in your appendix. 



Mr. Clark. Well, I also put it in my report that the methods were 

 faulty — not that they were unsuccessful, but that they were faulty. 



The Chairman. Now, this is one of the parts of your report, or the 

 appendix attached to the report, that was not taken out, but for 

 which there was a substitute made on the part of Mr. Lembkey and 

 the advisory board — - — 



Mr. Watkins (interposing). Before we leave this point, Mr. Chair- 

 man, may I ask a question ? 



The Chairman. Certainly. 



Mr. Watkins. What was the object of either branding or shearing 

 the seals at the time they were branded or sheared ? 



Mr. Clark. Well, as the killing was growing close with the declining 

 herd an effort was made to make a positive breeding reserve. 



Mr. Watkins. Well, it was a reserve. That is the point. 



Mr. Clark. Yes. 



Mr. Watkins. It was to distinguish the reserve ? 



Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Watkins. Then if those were reserved in one season, what 

 reason was there why those who were included in the reserve the 

 previous season could not be disposed of in a* subsequent season ? In 

 other words, was that a permanent reservation of individuals or could 

 they all be taken together next year ? 



Mr. Clark. Well, that was the danger of the temporary mark. 



Mr. Watkins. Now, what reason would there be for making a 

 permanent reservation of any particular individuals ? 



Mr. Clark. There has to be an increment of males added to the 

 herd each year. 



Mr. Watkins. So that it was a permanent addition ? 



Mr. Clark. It ought to have been a permanent addition, but some 

 of those that were killed in 1909, the 4-year-olds, must have escaped 

 the killing of the year preceding, if they came through, because of 

 this mark. 



Mr. Watkins. So that if they had been marked for reservation in 

 1909 it would not have been permanent under the regulations and 

 they could be killed in 1910 '. 



Mr. Clark. We marked 2,000 of them in 1909 and they were pro- 

 tected all through. We watched them all through and not a single 

 one of them — with the exception perhaps of a few that might have 

 been accidentally struck in striking others, a negligible number, Avere 

 killed: all the rest were saved. 



Mr. Watkins. Then you recommended branding instead of shear- 

 ing because it would be permanent '. 



Mr. Clark. Yes: if there was a red-hot iron mark on the head or 

 some other part of the body, the animal would be protected until it 

 got clear out of the killing range. I will say here that the breeding 

 reserve that was set aside was composed of 2,000 animals and the 

 breeding stock did not number over 1,300. So that it was four times 

 as great as it ought to have been, and the lulling of some of those was 

 practically an economy, because the breeding reserve was too large. 



The Chairman. Now. another question in connection with Judge 

 Watkins' question. It is just as unlawful to kill a seal under the law 

 and regulations that has been reserved as it is to kill a small seal ? 



