along Vancouver Island.

Seals followed this connection that both Capt. Kelley and Capt. Petit, above mentioned, state that they have followed the seals "along" the coast of British Columbia, which is evidence of the fact that the seal herd was moving northward when hunted off Vancouver Island.

The distribution of the Alaskan seal herd is much more scattered during the winter months than is implied by the Report, and the range of portions of the herd is much farther south and west than appears on the Commissioners' chart of migration. Capt. Hooper, R. M., who extended his observations of 1892 in Bering Sea into September and continued his investigation of seal life and the migration of the herd until some time in November, states: "Those that leave [the Pribilof Islands] earliest go farthest south, arriving on the coast of California, and those leaving later reach the coast further up. They appear at about the same time off a long line of coast, reaching from California to Washington. When they are so found they are known always to be moving northward up the coast."1 This is also more fully treated in his report of November 21, 1892.2

*

Capt. Walter H. Ferguson, who has followed

C. L. Hooper, post p. 370.

Report of Capt. Hooper, November 21, 1892, post p. 228.

the sea as a profession for twenty years, and

*

Seals found in

lat. 40 N. and

who made a careful investigation for six years long. 1720 W. of the winter resorts of the Alaskan seals for the purpose of hunting them during that season, says: "All reports tend to show there must be an immense feeding ground between latitude 40° and 42° north and extending from longitude 172° west to 135° west. * The reports of these vessels all show for the months of November, December and January, large bodies of furseal in this locality." In a volume entitled "List of Reported Dangers in the North Pacific Ocean," compiled by the United States Hydrographic Office and published in 1871, mention is made of an area about 40° north latitude and 150° to 151° west longitude where the sea swarmed with seals. It is evident, therefore, that the limited range of the fur-seal during its migration, as depicted by the Commissioners, is

erroneous.

Case.

From the further data collected and mentioned New migration chart presented above a new migration chart has been con- with Counter structed, correcting and modifying the one subImitted with the Case of the United States. The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is here

with directed to this chart, which the United

1 Walter H. Ferguson, post p. 362.

• Post p. 288.

New migration States insist is more accurate and based on fuller chart presented

with Counter data than the chart contained in the Report.1

Case.

Increased pelagic nature alleged.

2. That the Alaskan seal herd has changed its habits

as a result of disturbance on the breeding islands and of pelagic sealing.

(a) The first assertion advanced by the Report under this head is that the seals, for the reasons above stated, have become more pelagic in their nature (Secs. 44, 85, 86).

This assumption is resorted to, as it appears, to show that land is not a necessity to the furseal and in order to harmonize the sworn statements of the pelagic sealers appended to the Report, that at sea the seals have not decreased, with the acknowledged decrease on the Islands. To support this proposition the evidence of these interested sealers is advanced to show that there has been no decrease at sea similar to the decrease on the Islands, but rather a possible increase (Secs. 87, 89, 94, 402). At the same time it is asserted (Sec. 281) that no 'stagey" "Stagey" seals seals are taken at sea, that the "stagey" period on the rookeries lasts about six weeks, and that this period of hair shedding is caused by prolonged resort to land. All seals must at some

taken at sea.

แ

1 Chart of migration, Portfolio of maps and charts, appended to the Counter Case of the United States.

1

taken at sea.

period each year shed their hair, and it is a fact "Stagey seals that many taken in the water are "stagey," the cause alleged by the Report being undoubtedly the true one. A seal must, therefore, of necessity be on the Islands each year at some period, and it is insisted by the United States that observations on the rookeries and hauling grounds are the only criterion of the numerical condition of the seal herd.

catch per boat and

The Commissioners also present a table giving Table of average the average catch per man and per boat to show per man. that the number taken respectively from year to year has not materially changed, notwithstanding the continual decrease (Sec. 409, p. 74). This compilation begins with 1887 and includes 1891. The years 1885 and 1886 are not used, for a reason which becomes obvious when the statistics. Why averages in the Report are examined, namely, the average per man in 1885 was 127 seals, or 68 more than in any year given in the table, and in 1886, 77 seals, or 18 more than the highest number in any following year. In the year 1886 the average per boat was 241, or nearly one-third more than Such averages in any year thereafter. It must also be recol

2

Charles Behlow, post p. 357; C. W. Preiss, post p. 384; Walter E. Matin, post p. 376; see, also, title-page of London catalogue of sales, post p. 412.

These averages are taken from the tables of catches transmitted with the Report, pp. 209, 210.

for 1885 and 1886 not used.

of no value.

of no value.

Such averages lected in considering this question that the sealing captains have each year become more and more familiar with the migration route of the seals in the North Pacific and their feeding grounds in Bering Sea, which naturally tends to increase annually the catches in these localities; and it is, therefore, only by the comparison of the catches taken in the older hunting areas, with which pelagic sealers have been familiar for twelve or fifteen years, that any evidence of value

Average per

boat in "spring

can be obtained.

For this purpose a table has been prepared catch," 1886-1891. from the Commissioners' tables, giving the aver

age per boat for the "spring catch," which is obtained in and about the alleged "winter habitat" of the fur-seal. As there is only one hunter to a boat, the average per man is of no value. This table shows an average of 118 seals per boat in 1886, and a constant decrease each following year until in 1891 it was but 151.1 The United States deny, therefore, in view of evidence already presented in their Case2 and the facts above stated, that the seals have not decreased at sea in a like ratio to that observed on the Islands.

1 Table of average catch per vessel and per boat, post p. 411. Case of the United States, p. 169.