954 
FOREST AND STREAM 
and Russia promised to pay Canada and Japan 
each year thirty per cent, of their land catch, 
fifteen per cent, to each country. Japan also 
agreed to pay thirty per cent, but since it was 
divided among three nations instead of two, it 
consisted of ten per cent, each, to the United 
States, Great Britain, and Russia. It is inter¬ 
esting to note that Great Britain was to receive 
payments from all other countries but she her¬ 
self was to make no payments whatever, although 
she was the only nation concerned who did not 
own a foot of territory upon which a seal was 
ever known to land. This, however, was not 
altogether because of her position as mistress of 
the seas, but on account of the proximity to the 
sealing waters of Canada, one of her colonies. 
When this treaty was finally signed it was 
felt that a great advance had been made toward 
the preservation of the seals and efficient man¬ 
agement of an important resource. The U. S. 
Bureau of Fisheries, which was charged with 
the administration of sealing matters, had al¬ 
ready taken steps to secure the advice of the 
leading American naturalists who had studied 
the subject and had made plans to ascertain with 
scientific accuracy the number of seals which 
might safely be killed from year to year and 
still maintain the highest possible increase in 
breeding strength. But these plans were scarce¬ 
ly put to trial, for at this point politics and pri¬ 
vate interests again took a hand, an agitation 
was started, and the following year in 1912 the 
Congress of the United States in passing a law 
to £ive effect to the treaty prescribed such regu¬ 
lations that it was freely predicted that instead 
of furthering the objects of the treaty they might 
lead to its abrogation and consequently to a 
return to pelagic sealing. This law of 1912 pro¬ 
hibited all killing of seals on land for five years 
(except a limited number to furnish food for 
the natives of the islands) and further provided 
for relatively limited killings for the ten years 
following, thus prescribing in advance just what 
should be done for fifteen years, which was. the 
full life of the treaty. Such a law was justified 
only on the assumption that the seal herd needed 
absolute protection and would continue to need 
it for this period since under the terms of the 
treaty the United States had the reserved right 
to suspend killing whenever such a measure was 
necessary “to protect and preserve the seal herd 
or to increase its number.” This need was de¬ 
nied by an overwhelming preponderance of 
American experts. In fact only one man who 
had ever seen the seal herd advocated the law, 
but peculiar conditions favored its passage and 
it went into effect August 24, 1912. During the 
discussion of the law and after its passage many 
phases of the sealing question were brought out, 
much that was irrelevant and only connected 
with past issues was injected into the situation, 
a congressional investigation took place, charges 
of mismanagement in the past were preferred, 
and in general the whole question was thrown 
into confusion. 
In the spring of 1914, criticism of the law, 
even by some of those whose duty it was to en¬ 
force it, and criticism both just and unjust of 
everything connected with the fur-seal problem 
had reached such a point that the Secretary of 
Commerce, upon the suggestion of the Commis¬ 
sioner of Fisheries, decided upon a fresh, un¬ 
prejudiced, and thoroughgoing investigation of 
the whole question. Accordingly three zoolo¬ 
gists:-—Prof. G. H. Parker, of Harvard Uni¬ 
versity ; Mr. E. A. Preble of the U. S. Biological 
Survey, and the writer were appointed for this 
purpose. They were joined by two Canadians, 
Mr. J. M. Macoun and Mr. B. W. Harmon, and 
a Japanese, Dr. T. Kitahara, who accompanied 
them for the summer season on the Pribilof Is¬ 
lands. These investigators were employed to 
make a census of the seals, to report actual con¬ 
ditions on the islands in detail, and to make rec¬ 
ommendations for future action; but the really 
vital matter to be considered was whether the 
law of 1912 was justified or not. The United 
States had promised other nations that unless 
the seal herd needed protection, she would kill 
surplus seals and divide profits with them. By 
stopping pelagic sealing, the other nations had 
kept their treaty promises and naturally were 
somewhat dismayed at the course of the United 
States, for if no seals were to be killed there 
would be no profits to divide and the expected 
reimbursement for the payments they had made 
to retire their sealing fleets would not be forth¬ 
coming. The foreign nations had made no pro¬ 
test in 1912 when the law went into effect for, 
although vigorously denied by practically all rep¬ 
utable experts, it was represented to Congress by 
some who were accused of malicious intent and 
by a few others who were obviously well mean¬ 
ing and dangerously innocent, that there was at 
that time a shortage of male life sufficient to 
justify the law. 
In January, 1915, an exhaustive report was 
submitted and in June it was published. The 
foreign representatives made separate reports to 
their own governments concurring with the find¬ 
ings of the Americans. These findings were 
substantially that the seal herd was in a promis¬ 
ing condition, that a large number of young 
males might be killed with safety, and that the 
law of 1912 was no longer necessary, in fact 
that it was highly undesirable. The report took 
no account of whether the law was justified at 
the time it was passed, but regarded this as im¬ 
material in view of the facts which showed it to 
be unnecessary after having been in operation 
for three years. Instead of a shortage of young 
male life, a great abundance was found and it 
was shown that unless sealing was resumed on 
a rather extensive scale a large and undesirable 
surplus would soon be on our hands substan¬ 
tially as predicted by former investigators. Quite 
apart from the matter of treaty obligations it 
was indicated that failure to take surplus seals 
and market their skins was entailing consider¬ 
able loss most of which would soon be irre¬ 
trievable since the pelt of the male seal rapidly 
decreases in value when the animal passes its 
fourth year. Therefore, the report urged im¬ 
mediate action in order to save as much loss as 
possible in the summer of 1915, but Congress- 
adjourned on March 4th and it was only with 
considerable difficulty that authority was obtained 
at the eleventh hour to have the report published,, 
much less to make any alteration in the law. 
The investigation showed the seal herd to 
number nearly 300,000 animals and asserted that 
nearly 32,000 male seals might be killed in 1915 
without injuring the breeding strength. Using 
most conservative figures, it indicated that if the 
law remained in force the revenue to the gov¬ 
ernment would be more than three-fourths of a 
million dollars less than if the law were re¬ 
pealed and the surplus seals killed. But with the 
law still in force no seals could be killed except 
those required as food for the natives and the 
season of 1915 passed like those immediately 
preceding it with killings confined to the small 
number required for food. In this season, how¬ 
ever, another census of seals was made. Its 
results only serve to substantiate former conclu¬ 
sions and to make the demands for the repeal of 
the law more than ever incontestable. This cen¬ 
sus of 1915 was thoroughly dependable having 
been made by a careful and experienced man, 
Mr. G. D. Hanna, who had been in charge of the 
native schools on the islands and who had as¬ 
sisted the special investigators in 1914. The es¬ 
sential figures for 1912-1915 are as follows : 
1912 
■ 1913 
1914 
1915 
Harems . 
1,358 
1,403 
1,559 
2,151 
Idle bulls . 
113 
105 
172 
6 73 
Cows (pups) .... 
81,984 
92,269 
93,250 
103,526 
Av. size of harem 
60.4 
65.8 
59-8 
46 
More than anything else, this census of 1915 
shows that the previous predictions as to the ef¬ 
fect of the law of 1912 were well grounded. The- 
abrupt rise in the number of idle bulls in 1915. 
is essentially as predicted and by the same cal¬ 
culations it is to be expected that a tremendous 
increase in this class will occur in 1916. There 
will be thousands where there are hundreds now 
and the great majority will be useless to the 
herd. The number of pups born in 1915 is also- 
in accord with expectations. In the report of 
1914, maximum and minimum estimates for future- 
years were published and for 1915 the maximum 
estimate of cows was 105,755 and the minimum 
97,746; the number in 1915 by actual count of 
pups was 103,526, showing the essentially trust¬ 
worthy character of the estimates of the report. 
At present, therefore, it is difficult to conceive 
how any logical defense of the law can be made. 
It is waste of time and wholly beside the present 
issue to discuss the merits and demerits of the 
law at the time it was passed. Those who hon¬ 
estly supported it at that time may comfort 
themselves if they choose with the thought that, 
as they saw it, there were then some reasons for 
absolute protection; but such arguments (wheth¬ 
er fallacious or not) as may have been advanced 
then have no weight now. Then the herd was 
at a low ebb, pelagic sealing had just been 
stopped, male life was relatively reduced, and 
to all save experts the real needs of the herd 
were confused and problematical. Now the 
herd is in flourishing condition, containing near¬ 
ly 350,000 animals instead of a scant 200,000, a 
supply of breeding males sufficient to satisfy the 
most skeptical is assured, a superabundance of 
young male life is present, and a tremendous 
excess of half bulls and idle bulls is immedi¬ 
ately impending. That this government is suf¬ 
fering large losses by failing to market this sur¬ 
plus is so plain that no fair-minded man is like¬ 
ly to be deceived by further attempts to confuse 
dead issues of the past with realities of present 
conditions. 
The international aspect of the case greatly 
increases the desirability of repealing or radi¬ 
cally amending the law. So far Great Britain 
and Japan have made no serious protests, but 
since they are thoroughly conversant with the 
facts they cannot be expected to forbear much 
longer. If our present law is retained and these 
foreign countries are thus practically forced to 
demur they will doubtless ask for no more than 
