No. 8.
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps.
Department of State,
Washington, February 7,
1888.
No. 782.]
Sir: I have received your No. 618, of the
12th of November last, containing an account of your interview with
Lord Salisbury of the preceding day, in which his lordship expressed
acquiescence in my proposal of an agreement between the United
States and Great Britain in regard to the adoption of concurrent
regulations for the preservation of fur seals in Behring Sea from
extermination by destruction at improper seasons and by improper
methods by the citizens of either country.
In response to his lordship’s suggestion that this Government submit
a sketch of a system of regulations for the purpose indicated, it
may be expedient, before making a definite proposition, to describe
some of the conditions of seal life; and for this purpose it is
believed that a concise statement as to that part of the life of the
seal which is spent in Behring Sea will be sufficient.
All those who have made a study of the seals in Behring Sea are
agreed that, on an average, from five to six months, that is to say,
from the middle or towards the end of spring till the middle or end
of October, are spent by them in those waters in breeding and in
rearing their young. During this time they have their rookeries on
the islands of St. Paul and St. George, which constitute the
Pribyloff group and belong to the United States, and on the
Commander Islands, which belong to Russia. But the number of animals
resorting to the latter group is small in comparison with that
resorting to the former. The rest of the year they are supposed to
spend in the open sea south of the Aleutian Islands.
Their migration northward, which has been stated as taking place
during the spring and till the middle of June, is made through the
numerous passes in the long chain of the Aleutian Islands, above
which the courses of their travel converge chiefly to the Pribyloff
group. During this migration the female seals are so advanced in
pregnancy that they generally give birth to their young, which are
commonly called pups, within two weeks after reaching the rookeries.
Between the time of the birth of the pups and of the emigration of
the seals from the islands in the autumn the females are occupied in
suckling their young; and by far the largest part of the seals found
at a distance from the islands in Behring Sea during the summer and
early autumn are females in search of food, which is made doubly
necessary to enable them to suckle their young as well as to support
a condition of renewed pregnancy, which begins in a week or a little
more after their delivery.
The male seals, or bulls, as they are commonly called, require little
food while on the islands, where they remain guarding their harems,
watching the rookeries and sustaining existence on the large amount
of blubber which they have secreted beneath their skins and which is
gradually absorbed during the five or six succeeding months.
Moreover, it is impossible to distinguish the male from the female
seals in the water, or pregnant females from those that are not so.
When the animals are killed in the water with fire-arms many sink at
once and are never recovered, and some authorities state that not
more
[Page 1829]
than one out of
three of those so slaughtered is ever secured. This may, however, be
an overestimate of the number lost.
It is thus apparent that to permit the destruction of the seals by
the use of fire-arms, nets, or other mischievous means in Behring
Sea would result in the speedy extermination of the race. There
appears to be no difference of opinion on this subject among
experts. And the fact is so clearly and forcibly stated in the
report of the inspector of fisheries for British Columbia of the
31st of December, 1886, that I will quote therefrom the following
pertinent passage:
There were killed this year, so far, from 40,000 to 50,000
fur seals, which have been taken by schooners from San
Francisco and Victoria. The greater number were killed in
Behring Sea, and were nearly all cows or female seals. This
enormous catch, with the increase which will take place when
the vessels fitting up every year are ready, will, I am
afraid, soon deplete our fur-seal fishery, and it is a great
pity that such a valuable industry could not in some way be
protected. (Report of Thomas Mowat, Inspector of Fisheries
for British Columbia; Sessional papers, Vol, 15, No. 16, p.
268; Ottawa, 1887.)
The only way of obviating the lamentable result above predicted
appears to be by the United States, Great Britian, and other
interested powers taking concerted action to prevent their citizens
or subjects from killing fur seals with fire-arms, or other
destructive weapons, north of 50° of north latitude, and between
160° of longitude west and 170° of longitude east from Greenwich,
during the period intervening between April 15 and November 1. To
prevent the killing within a marine belt of 40 or 50 miles from the
islands during that period would be ineffectual as a preservative
measure. This would clearly be so during the approach of the seals
to the islands. And after their arrival there such a limit of
protection would also be insufficient, since the rapid progress of
the seals through the water enables them to go great distances from
the islands in so short a time that it has been calculated that an
ordinary seal could go to the Aleutian Islands and back, in all a
distance of 360 or 400 miles, in less than two days.
On the Pribyloff Islands themselves, where the killing is at present
under the direction of the Alaska Commercial Company, which by the
terms of its contract is not permitted to take over 100,000 skins a
year, no females, pups, or old bulls are ever killed, and thus the
breeding of the animals is not interfered with. The old bulls are
the first to reach the islands, where they await the coming of the
females. As the young bulls arrive they are driven away by the old
bulls to the sandy part of the islands, by themselves. And these are
the animals that are driven inland and there killed by clubbing, so
that the skins are not perforated, and discrimination is exercised
in each case.
That the extermination of the fur seals must soon take place unless
they are protected from destruction in Behring Sea is shown by the
fate of the animal in other parts of the world, in the absence of
concerted action among the nations interested for its preservation.
Formerly many thousands of seals were obtained annually from the
South Pacific Islands, and from the coasts of Chili and South
Africa. They were also common in the Falkland Islands and the
adjacent seas. But in those islands, where hundreds of thousands of
skins were formerly obtained, there have been taken, according to
best statistics, since 1880, less than 1,500 skins. In some places
the indiscriminate slaughter, especially by use of fire-arms, has in
a few years resulted in completely breaking up extensive
rookeries.
At the present time it is estimated that out of an aggregate yearly
yield of 185,000 seals from all parts of the globe, over 130,000, or
more than two-thirds, are obtained from the rookeries on the
American and Russian
[Page 1830]
islands in Behring Sea. Of the remainder, the larger part are taken
in Behring Sea, although such taking, at least on such a scale, in
that quarter is a comparatively recent thing. But if the killing of
the fur seal there with fire-arms, nets, and other destructive
implements were permitted, hunters would abandon other and exhausted
places of pursuit for the more productive field of Behring Sea,
where extermination of this valuable animal would also rapidly
ensue.
It is manifestly for the interests of all nations that so deplorable
a thing should not be allowed to occur. As has already been stated,
on the Pribyloff Islands this Government strictly limits the number
of seals that may be killed under its own lease to an American
company; and citizens of the United States have, during the past
year, been arrested and ten American vessels seized for killing fur
seals in Behring Sea.
England, however, has an especially great interest in this matter, in
addition to that which she must feel in preventing the extermination
of an animal which contributes so much to the gain and comfort of
her people. Nearly all undressed fur-seal skins are sent to London,
where they are dressed and dyed for the market, and where many of
them are sold. It is stated that at least 10,000 people in that city
find profitable employment in this work; far more than the total
number of people engaged in hunting the fur seal in every part of
the world. At the Pribyloff Islands it is believed that there are
not more than 400 persons so engaged; at Commander Islands, not more
than 300; in the Northwest coast fishery, not more than 525 Indian
hunters and 100 whites; and in the Cape Horn fishery, not more than
400 persons, of whom perhaps 300 are Chilians. Great Britain,
therefore, in co-operating with the United States to prevent the
destruction of fur seals in Behring Sea would also be perpetuating
an extensive and valuable industry in which her own citizens have
the most lucrative share.
I inclose for your information copy of a memorandum on the fur-seal
fisheries of the world, prepared by Mr. A. Howard Clark, in response
to a request made by this Department to the U. S. Fish Commissioner.
I inclose also, for your further information, copy of a letter to
me, dated December 3d last, from Mr. Henry W. Elliott, who has spent
much time in Alaska, engaged in the study of seal life, upon which
he is well known as an authority. I desire to call your especial
attention to what is said by Mr. Elliott in respect to the new
method of catching the seals with nets.
As the subject of this dispatch is one of great importance and of
immediate urgency, I will ask that you give it as early attention as
possible.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
782.]
Review of the fur-seal fisheries of the
world in 1887.
[undated]
By A. Howard Clark.
In the Encyclopædia Britannica, ninth edition, the fur-seal
fisheries are credited with an annual yield of 185,000 skins, of
which 100,000 are said to be obtained from the Pribyloff
Islands, 30,000 from the Commander Islands, 15,000 from the
straits of Juan de Fuca and vicinity, 12,000 from the Lobos
Islands, 15,000 from Patagonia and outlying islands, 500 from
the Falkland Islands, 10,000 from the Cape of Good Hope and
places thereabout, and 2,500 from islands belonging to
Japan.
The above statistics were communicated by me to the author of the
article “Seal Fisheries” in the Encyclopædia and had been
carefully verified by the latest official records and by a
personal interview with Messrs. C. M. Lampson & Co., of
London,
[Page 1831]
one of the
principal fur houses of the world, and by whom most of the
annual production of fur seal-skins are placed upon the
market.
A review of the subject at this time (January, 1888) necessitates
but a slight change in the annual production and in the
apportionment to the several fisheries. Some of the fisheries
have increased while others have decreased. Taking the average
annual yield from 1880 to date, I find that the total production
is now 192,457 skins, obtained as follows:
Annual yield of fur-seal
fisheries.
|
Fur-seal skins. |
Pribyloff Islands, Behring Sea |
94,967 |
Commander Islands and Robben Reef |
41,893 |
Islands belonging to Japan |
4,000 |
British and American sealing fleets on northwest coast
of America (including catch at Cape Flattery and Behring
Sea) |
25,000 |
Lobos Islands at mouth of Rio de la Plata |
12,385 |
Cape of Good Hope, including islands in Southern
Indian Ocean |
5,500 |
Cape Horn region |
8,162 |
Falkland Islands |
550 |
Total |
192,457 |
The statistics for the Pribyloff and Commander Islands are
compiled from reports of the Alaska Commercial Company, Mr.
Elliott’s reports in volume 8, Tenth Census, and in section 5,
U. S. Fish Commission report, and trade reports of annual sales
in London (Fur Trade Review, published monthly at No. 11 Bond
street, New York). The northwest coast statistics are from the
annual reports of the department of fisheries of Canada and from
Mr. Swan’s report in section 5, volume 2, of the quarto report
of the U. S. Fish Commission. For Japan, Lobos Islands, Cape of
Good Hope, and Falkland Islands the statistics are from the
“Annual Statements of the Trade of the United Kingdom with
foreign countries and British possessions as presented to
Parliament.” Statistics for Cape Horn region are from sealing
merchants of Stonington and New London, Conn.
The details of the fisheries for a series of years are shown in
the following table:
(As to the number of persons employed, it is not possible to give
details in all cases, At Pribyloff Islands in 1880 there were
372 Aleuts and 18 whites. At Commander Islands there are about
300 persons; in the northwest coast fishery 523 Indian hunters
and 100 whites, and in the Cape Horn fishery about 400 whites,
of whom perhaps 300 are Chilians.)
Number of fur-seal skins from
principal fisheries, 1871 to
1887.
[Compiled from official sources by A. H. Clark. No
returns for spaces blank.]
Year |
Pribyloff Islands. |
Commander Islands and Robben Reff. |
Northwest coast of America. |
Japan. |
Falkland Islands. |
Cape Horn. |
Lobos Islands. |
Cape of Good
Hope. |
1871 |
63,000 |
3,614 |
|
(*) |
|
(†) |
|
|
1872 |
99,000 |
29,319 |
|
(*) |
|
(†) |
|
|
1873 |
99,630 |
30,396 |
|
(*) |
|
(†) |
|
|
1874 |
99,820 |
31,272 |
|
(*) |
1,085 |
(†) |
7,954 |
9,393 |
1875 |
99,500 |
36,274 |
|
(*) |
100 |
(†) |
2,243 |
8,629 |
1876 |
99,000 |
26,960 |
|
(*) |
173 |
(†) |
6,618 |
11,225 |
1877 |
85,000 |
21,532 |
|
(*) |
1,386 |
(†) |
22,550 |
11,065 |
1878 |
95,000 |
31,340 |
|
(*) |
2,366 |
(†) |
11,931 |
13,086 |
1879 |
99,968 |
42,752 |
18,500 |
(*) |
4,038 |
(†) |
6,900 |
15,128 |
1880 |
99,950 |
48,504 |
19,150 |
(*) |
2,427 |
9,275 |
10,900 |
7,731 |
1881 |
85,000 |
42,640 |
|
(*) |
620 |
6,610 |
8,887 |
8,280 |
1882 |
99,800 |
46,000 |
‡17,700 |
(*) |
50 |
8,600 |
15,067 |
11,497 |
1883 |
78,000 |
25,000 |
|
11,943 |
8 |
(§) |
13,950 |
7,020 |
1884 |
99,500 |
38,000 |
‡15,641 |
|
684 |
(§) |
10,722 |
3,924 |
1885 |
99,600 |
42,000 |
‡15,000 |
|
|
(§) |
11,223 |
4,407 |
1886 |
98,000 |
45,000 |
‡38,907 |
3,695 |
68 |
(§) |
15,949 |
3,378 |
1887 |
99,890 |
48,000 |
║29,211 |
|
|
(§) |
|
|
* Annual average estimated at 4,000
skins.
† Total 1870 to 1880, 92, 750;
average, 9, 275.
‡ Catch landed at British Columbia
vessels.
§ Returns not received.
║ Mostly taking in Behring Sea. See
Schedule A.
The second point upon which information is requested is “that of
the destruction of the fur seal, resulting either in its
extermination or the diminution of its yield, in places where it
formerly abounded,” etc.
[Page 1832]
At the beginning of the present century there were great
rookeries of fur seal at Falkland Islands, at the South
Shetlands, at Masafuera, at South Georgia, and at many other
places throughout the Antarctic region. These places were
visited by sealing vessels, and indiscriminate slaughter of the
animals resulted in the extermination of the species or in such
diminution in their numbers that the fishery became
unprofitable.
The details of the Antarctic fishery are given in section 5,
volume 2, of the quarto report of the U. S. Fish Commission,
pages 400–467; in report by H. W. Elliott on “Seal Islands of
Alaska,” 6, 117–124 (reprinted in volume 8, Tenth Census
Reports); in “Monograph of North American Pinnipeds,” by J. A.
Allen (Misc. Pub. XII, U. S. Geological Survey); in “Fanning.
Voyages Round the World” (New York, 1833); in “Narrative of
Voyages and Travels in Northern and Southern Hemispheres,” by
Amasa Delano (Boston, 1817); and in numerous other works, to
which reference will be found in the above volumes.
A few men are still living who participated in the Antarctic seal
fisheries years ago. Their stories of the iormer abundance of
fur seals I have obtained in personal interviews. As to the
manner of destruction there is but one thing to say. An
indiscriminate slaughter of old and young, male and female, in a
few years results in the breaking up of the largest rookeries,
and, as in the case of Masafuera and the Falkland Islands, the
injury seems to be a permanent one. As an instance, the South
Shetlands were first visited in 1819, when fur seals were very
abundant; two vessels in a short time securing full fares. In
1820, thirty vessels hastened to the Islands, and in a few weeks
obtained upwards of 250,000 skins, while thousands of seals were
killed and lost. In 1821 and 1822 Weddeli* says
“320,000 skins were taken.* * * The system of extermination was
practiced,* * * for whenever a seal reached the beach, of
whatever denomination, he was immediately killed and his skin
taken, and by this means, at the end of the second year, the
animals became nearly extinct; the young having lost their
mothers when only three or four days old, of course died, which
at the lowest calculation exceeded 100,000.” In subsequent
years, until 1845, these islands were occasionally visited by
vessels in search of seal skins, but never after 1822 were many
animals found there. About 1845 the Antarctic fur sealing was
abandoned. In 1871 the industry was renewed, and a few vessels
secured some valuable furs from the South Shetlands, but in a
few years voyages there became unprofitable. (See section 5,
volume 2, U. S. Fish Commissioner’s Report, pp. 402–458.)
The same story may be told of Masafuera, from which island about
3,500,000 fur-seal skins were taken between the years 1793 and
1807 (see section 5, as above, p. 407). Captain Morrell states
that in 1807 “the business was scarcely worth following at
Masafuera, and in 1824 the island, like its neighbor Juan
Fernandez, was almost entirely abandoned by these animals.”
(Morrell’s Voyage: New York, 1832, p. 130.) Scarcely any seals
have since been found at Masafuera. Delano states that in 1797
there were two or three million fur seals on that island.
Elliott, in his report, already cited, gives accounts of earlier
voyages to Masafuera, etc. I have consulted log-books and
journals of several voyages, all agreeing in the former
abundance and the extermination of the fur seal on Masafuera as
well as on other Antarctic or southern islands.
At the Falkland Islands both fur seals and sea lions abounded,
but there, too, they were destroyed.
The sealing business at South Georgia was most prosperous in
1800, during which season sixteen American and English vessels
took 112,000 fur-seal skins. Though not as important a rookery
as some of the other islands, considerable numbers of fur seals
have been taken from South Georgia. Since 1870 some good cargoes
of elephant-seal oil have been taken there.
Fur seals were abundant at the Tristan d’Acunha Islands at the
beginning of the century, and because of the almost inaccessible
caves and rocks to which they resort, a few have survived, or
least as late as 1873 a few were annually taken there.
On the west coast of Africa, from Cape of Good Hope to 16° south
latitude, there was until 1870 a considerable number of fur
seals of an inferior quality, but they are now practically
exhausted, the few skins marketed as coming from there being
taken on various hauling grounds on islets farther south and
east. (See Sec. 5, vol. 2, U. S. Fish Com. Report, p. 415.)
The Prince Edward group, Crozet Islands, Kerguelen Land, and
other smaller islands in the Southern Indian and Southern
Pacific Oceans were important seal fisheries, both for the fur
and elephant seal. At none of them is any number of seals found
to-day. The English exploring ship Challenger visited Kerguelen Land in 1873–’76, and
reports:
“Two of the whaling schooners met with at the island killed over
seventy fur seals in one day and upwards of twenty at another,
at some small islands off Howe Islands
[Page 1833]
to the north. It is a pity that some
discretion is not exercised in killing the animals, as is done
at St. Paul Island, in Behring Sea, in the case of the northern
fur seal. By killing the young males and selecting certain
animals only for killing the number of seals even may be
increased; the sealers in Kerguelen Island kill all they can
find.” (See “Report of the Scientific Results of the Exploring
Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger, 1873–’76.
Narrative of the Cruise, vol 1, in two parts. 4°. Published by
order of Her Majesty’s Government, 1885.”)
In these volumes will be found similar references to other seal
islands visited by the Challenger. In
referring to Marion Island the report says:
“The ruthless manner in which fur and elephant seals were
destroyed by the sealing parties in the early part of this
century has had the effect of almost exterminating the colony
that used these desolate islands for breeding purposes.” (Vol.
I, p. 294.)
To recapitulate, concerning seal rookeries south of the equator,
I may say that there is no single place where any number are now
known to resort, except on the Lobos Islands, off Peru, and at
the mouth of the Rio de la Plata, and on the neighboring hauling
grounds at the cliffs of Cabo Corrientes. Here they are and have
long been protected by the Argentine Republic or Uruguay, and
the rookery appears to remain about the same size, with little
apparent increase or decrease in the number of animals, as may
be seen by statistics of the catch in the table above given.
The small rookeries or hauling grounds at Diego Ramirez Islands,
Cape Horn, and the rocky islets in that vicinity, from 1870 to
1883 or 1884, yielded some return to the hardy sealers of
Stonington and New London, Conn., from which ports a half dozen
vessels have been annually sent. Even this last resort of
American sealers is practically exhausted, and only by much
search is a profitable voyage made there. Dr. Coppinger, who was
at Cape Horn in 1878–’82 (Cruise of the Alert, by R. W. Coppinger: London, 1883), tells of the
difficulties of sealing at Cape Horn, and of the profits made
when even a few skins are secured. In 1880 Captain Temple “came
through the western channels of Patagonia, having entered the
straits at Tres Montes,” and on the Cavadonga group of barren
rocks he says he found some thousands of seals.
Had the great southern rookeries been protected by Government it
is altogether probable, according to all authorities, that they
would to-day yield many thousands of skins, in some cases equal
to the valuable returns of the Pribyloff group.
In proceeding up the Southern Pacific from Masafuera we pass St.
Felix, the Lobos Islands off Peru, and the Galapagos Islands, on
which, as well as on other islands in that ocean, the fur seal
once was found, but whence it has been exterminated. North of
the equator we meet first the Guadaloupe Islands, where in 1878
there were a few fur seals, presumably migrations from the
Pribyloff group. Moving northward along the Californian and
northwest coast the fur seal is found in winter and early spring
on its way to the great breeding grounds on the Pribyloff
Islands. It is during this migration that the Pacific sealing
schooners of British Columbia and San Francisco capture them,
and it is probable that if the fleet increases in size with a
corresponding increase in the number of seals taken, there will
ere long be an appreciable decrease in the number of seals on
the Pribyloff Islands. This can not but be the result, for many
seals are killed and not secured, and there is the same
indiscriminate slaughter as regards young and old, male and
female, that was practiced at the southern rookeries. The
statistics showing the present growing condition of the
northwest coast fishery and the efforts of the fishermen to
follow the seals even into Behring Sea are already a matter of
record and need not be repeated here except to refer to the
annual reports of the department of fisheries of Canada. In the
report for 1886 will be found (on page 249) the names of the
British Columbian fleet, aggregating 20 vessels manned by 79
sailors and 380 hunters, and their catch is fiven at 38,917
skins as compared with 13 vessels taking 17,700 skins in 1882.
The merican vessels in this fleet in 1880 and their catch is
given by Mr. Swan in section 5, volume 2, of the quarto report
of U. S. Fish Commission.
It is not necessary that I refer to the condition of the
rookeries on the Pribyloff Islands. There can be no question
concerning the advisability of regulating the number of animals
to be killed and the selection of such animals as will not
interfere with the breeding of the species. The history of the
islands at the beginning of the century, when there was an
indiscriminate slaughter of fur seals, and the protection of the
animals in 1808 and thereafter by the Russian and American
Governments is fully told by Veniaminov and by Elliott, and need
not be repeated here. (Veniaminov’s Zapieskie, etc.; St.
Petersburg, 1842; volume 2, pp. 568, quoted by H. W. Elliott in
Seal Islands of Alaska, pp. 140–145, volume 8, Tenth Census
Report.)
The Commander Islands (Behring and Copper Islands), in Behring
Sea, and Robben Reef, near Saghalien, in the Okhotsk Sea, are
leased by the Alaska Commercial Company, and are protected by
the Russian Government in much the same manner that the
Pribyloff Islands are protected by the United States Government.
A description of the seal industry on those islands is given by
Professor Nordenskiold in Voyage of the Vega, a translation of a
portion of his report being given by Mr. Elliott on pages
109–115, in Seal Islands of Alaska. At Robben Reef it is
impossible to establish a
[Page 1834]
station, the rock being often
wave-washed, but the Alaska Company send men there in the season
to gather from 1,500 to 4,000 skins each year. The agent of the
Russian Government confers with the Alaska Company’s agent each
year to determine the number of skins that shall be taken in the
Commander Islands.
The seals taken by the Japanese are those migrating from the
Commander group and are not secured in large numbers, the
average being about 4,000, though some years as many as 11,000
are taken.
Schedule A.—Memorandum of seal-skin seizures, vessels,
etc., in Behring Sea, in 1887.
Name and rig. |
Nation. |
Tonnage. |
Captain. |
Owner. |
Seized. |
Date. |
Seals. |
|
|
Steam-schooners. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. P. Sayward |
British |
59 |
Geo. R. Terry |
|
J. D.Warren |
|
Steamer Rush |
July 10 |
477 |
Anne Beck |
do |
36 |
Louis Olsen |
|
do |
|
do |
July 3 |
336 |
Grace |
do |
76 |
Wm. Petit |
|
do |
|
do |
July 18 |
769 |
Dolphin |
do |
70 |
J. D. Warren |
|
do |
|
do |
July 13 |
618 |
Schooners. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alfred Adams |
do |
68 |
W. W. Dyer |
J. Guteman |
|
do |
|
Aug. 12 |
1,379 |
Ada |
do |
65 |
J. Gandin |
|
J. Boskowitz |
|
Steamer Bear |
Aug. 25 |
1,870 |
Lottie Fairfield* |
|
|
|
|
L. A. Hough |
|
Steamer Rush |
|
|
Challenger |
American |
36 |
H. B. Jones |
|
A. Douglass |
|
do |
Aug. 5 |
443 |
Lily L |
do |
63 |
J. W. Todd |
|
G. W. Ladd |
|
do |
July 1 |
151 |
Annie |
do |
25 |
H. Brown |
|
Jas. Laflin |
|
do |
July 25 |
195 |
Kate and Annie |
do |
16 |
Chas. Lutjen |
|
Chas. Lutjen |
|
do |
Aug. 11 |
304 |
Ellen |
do |
12 |
T. H. Wentworth |
|
G. W. Lybyjust |
|
do |
Aug. 12 |
577 |
Alpha |
do |
26 |
James Talten |
{ |
Jas. Talten |
} |
do |
Aug. 12 |
195 |
|
|
|
|
J. V. Garvin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{ |
J. S. Lee |
} |
|
|
|
San José |
do |
51 |
J. S. Lee |
J. D. Griffin |
do |
Aug. 23 |
891 |
Angel Dolly |
do |
18 |
A. Tulles |
|
J. D. Griffin |
|
G. R. Tingle, Treas. agent. |
Aug. 5 |
178 |
Allie T. Alger |
do |
70 |
C. E. Raynor |
|
|
|
Steamer Bear. |
Aug. 25 |
1,594 |
Sylvia Handy |
do |
68 |
J. L. Cathcut |
|
L. N. Handy & Son. |
|
do |
Sept. 2 |
1,597 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,969 |
* Vessel not captured.
Arrival of sealing schooners from
Behring Sea in 1887, as far as
reported to October 5, 1887
Arrived at– |
Name of schooner |
No. of.
Skins. |
Port Townsend |
Lottie |
700 |
Victoria |
Mary Taylor |
1,000 |
Do |
Pathfinder |
2,300 |
Do |
Penelope |
1,500 |
Do |
Black Diamond |
595 |
Do |
Mountain Chief |
700 |
Do |
Lottie Fairfield |
2,997 |
Do |
Adel |
1,350 |
Do |
Favorite |
1,887 |
Do |
Teresa |
1,246 |
Do |
Triumph |
480 |
Do |
City of San Diego |
1,187 |
Do |
Vanderbilt |
1,300 |
|
|
17,242 |
Recapitulation, as reported up to October 5, 1887: Skins seized,
11,969; skins landed, 17,242; total, 29,211.
[Page 1835]
[Inclosure 2 in No.
782.]
Mr. Elliott
to Mr. Bayard.
Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C., December 3, 1887.
Sir: During the course of my extended
studies of the fur seal on its breeding and hauling grounds in
Behring Sea, I was led naturally into a very careful examination
of the subject of its protection and perpetuation. This
investigation caused me to give much attention then to the
effect which pelagic sealing would have upon the well-being and
the conservation of these anomalous and valuable interests of
our Government as we view them upon the Pribyloff group.
When preparing, in 1881, a final arrangement of my field-notes
and memoranda for publication in my Monograph of the Seal
Islands of Alaska (Tenth Census United States of America), the
late Professor Baird suggested that I omit the discussion of
this theme of pelagic sealing, because it might serve to invite
an attack which otherwise would never be made upon these
preserves of our Government.
This attack, however, has recently been made, and the thought
occurs to me now that a brief epitome of my study of the effect
which this plan of sealing will have upon the integrity and
value of our fur-bearing interests in Behring Sea—that such a
brief yet accurate statement will be of service to you. I
therefore venture to present the following transcript:
It is now well understood and unquestioned—
- (1)
- That the fur seal of Alaska is obliged to haul out
annually upon the Pribyloff Islands for the purpose of
breeding and shedding its pelage.
- (2)
- That from the time of its departure from these islands
in the autumn of every year up to the time of its return
to them in the following spring it lands nowhere
else.
- (3)
- That it arrives eu masse upon these islands in June
and July and departs from them in October and
November.
- (4)
- That when leaving the islands in the fall it heads
directly for and rapidly passes out from Behring Sea
into the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Its paths of
travel are bee-lines from the Pribyloff group to and
through the numerous passes of the Aleutian Archipelago;
the passes of Oonininak, Akootan, Ooualga, Oomnak, and
the Four Mountains are most favored by it.
- (5)
- That it returns from the broad wastes of the North
Pacific Ocean by these same paths of departure.
Therefore, if you will glance at the map of Alaska you will
observe that the convergence and divergence of these watery
paths of the fur seal in Behring Sea to and from the Seal
Islands resembles the spread of the spokes of a half wheel—the
Aleutian chain forms the felloe, while the hub into which these
spokes enter is the small Pribyloff group.
Thus you can see that as these watery paths of the fur seal
converge in Behring Sea they, in so doing, rapidly and solidly
mass together thousands and tens of thousands of
widely-scattered animals (as they travel) at points 50 and even
100 miles distant from the rookeries of the Seal Islands.
Here is the location and the opportunity of the pelagic sealer.
Here is his chance to lie at anchor over the shallow bed of
Behring Sea, 50 and 100 miles distant from the Pribyloff group,
where he has the best holding ground known to sailors, and where
he can ride at any weather safely swinging to his cable and in
no danger from a lee shore if it should slip. The immediate
vicinity, however, of the Aleutian passes is dangerous in the
extreme to him. There he encounters terrible tide-rips, swift
currents, and furious gales formed through the entrances, with
the very worst of rough, rocky, holding ground.
But up here, anywhere from 3 to 100 miles south of the Seal
Islands, in Behring Sea, in that watery road of the returning
fur-seal millions, he has a safe and fine location from which to
shoot, to spear, and to net these fur-bearing amphibians, and
where he can work the most complete ruin in a very short
time.
His power for destruction is still further augmented by the fact
that those seals which are most liable to meet his eye and aim
are female fur seals, which, heavy with young, are here slowly
nearing the land reluctant to haul out of the cool water until
the day and hour arrives that limits the period of their
gestation.
The pelagic sealer employs three agencies with which to secure
his quarry, viz: He sends out Indians with canoes and spears
from his vessel; he uses rifle and ball, shotguns, and buckshot;
and last, but most deadly and destructive of all, he spreads the
“gill-net” in favorable weather.
With gill-nets, under run by a fleet of sealers in Behring Sea,
across these converging paths of the fur seal, anywhere from 3
to 100 miles southerly from the Seal Islands, I am extremely
moderate in saying that such a fleet could and would ntterly
ruin the fur-seal rookeries of the Pribyloff Islands in less
time than three or
[Page 1836]
four short seasons. If these men were unchecked every foot of
that watery area of fur-seal travel in Behring Sea above
indicated could and would be traversed by these deadly nets, and
a seal would scarcely have one chance in ten to safely pass such
a cordon in attempting to go and return from its breeding
haunts.
Open these waters of Behring Sea to unchecked pelagic sealing,
then a fleet of hundreds of vessels—steamers, ships, schooners,
and whatnot—would immediately venture into them bent upon the
most vigorous and indiscriminate slaughter of these animals. A
few seasons then of the greediest rapine, then nothing left of
those wonderful and valuable interests of the public which are
now so handsomely embodied on the Seal Islands. Guarded and
conserved as they are to-day they will last for an indefinite
time to come, objects of the highest commercial value and good
to the world, and subjects for the most fascinating biological
study.
It is also well to note the fact that not an eligible acre of
land is barred out from settlement or any other fit use by our
people, and not a league of water is closed to any legitimate
trade or commerce in all Alaska by this action of our Government
in thus protecting the fur-bearing rookeries of the Pribyloff
group.
Such are the facts in this connection. They are indisputable. No
intelligent, unselfish man will advocate for a moment the policy
of destruction in this instance—he never will if fully aware of
the facts bearing on the question.
There are only two parties in this controversy. The party of
destruction demands the full right to unchecked pelagic sealing
in Behring Sea, while the party of preservation demands the
suppression of that sealing. Comment is unnecessary.
Very truly, etc.,