498 APPENDIX. 



mind that this increase is found by Mr. Tingle at a time when, as is now 

 well known, the herd was already declining under pelagic sealing. 



Mr. Tingle (p. 201) is doubtless right in supposing that the rookeries 

 of St. George had been in 1872 relatively underrated by Mr. Elliott. 



Mr. Tingle (p. 202) estimates a loss of 10 per cent of the pups before 

 they enter the water. This estimate, which is not far from correct, is, 

 he says, " caused by bulls in preserving rigid discipline * * * in 

 their domestic affairs." The discovery that most of this early loss is 

 due to a parasitic worm ( Uncinaria) was not made till 1897. The num- 

 ber of " pups lost by being washed off the rocks by the surf before 

 learning to swim " is, however, relatively very small, though it is cer- 

 tain that not more than half the pups which go to sea return as year- 

 lings, and but one-third as 3-year olds. 



On page 205 Mr. Tingle correctly notes that the slaughter at sea will 

 in a few years make it impossible for 100,000 skins to be taken on the 

 islands by the lessees. 



The estimate that the 30,000 reported as taken at sea in 1887 involved 

 the death of 300,000 may be an exaggeration. It is certain, however, 

 that in the early years of i^elagic sealing the number lost was greater 

 than the number secured. It has taken time for hunters to learn when 

 to shoot the swimming seal, and what size of shot is most effective. 

 The loss by the use of the rifle was especially great. 



Charles J. Goff, 1890: Page 234. 



Mr. Goff assigns the cause of the rapid decline to " indiscriminate 

 slaughter on the islands regardless of the future life of the breeding 

 rookeries." There is, in our judgment, not the slightest positive evi- 

 dence that this was the case. The excessively close killing for a num- 

 ber of years had reduced the bachelor herd, but we see no reason to 

 believe that there was ever a lack of sufficient male life to impregnate 

 all the females. The fact that " no 2-year olds of average size were 

 turned away in 1890" would account for the scarcity of 3-year olds in 

 1891, but it would not involve a paucity of 10-year old males. 



It is, to say the least, doubtful whether any one could "stand on Old 

 John Rock and count 10,000 fighting bulls." If that number ever existed 

 on Garbotch and the lieef, no one could possibly have approached "Old 

 John Rock." 



There is no doubt that a great decrease in the number of breeding 

 seals as well as of killable seals had taken place; but these reductions 

 were due to different causes: The reduction of breeding seals to the 

 killing of females at sea, the reduced number of bachelors to the killing 

 of the natural quota of 1-year olds as 2-year olds the year preceding. 

 The reduced number of breeding seals also reduced each year the 

 number of pups born. 



Joseph Murray, 1890: Page 236. 



The fact that the natives on St. George voted that " the seals had 

 diminished and would diminish from year to year, because all the male 

 seals had been slaughtered witliout allowing any to grow to maturity 

 for use on the breeding grounds," has very little value, unless it is 

 actually shown that there were too few males to form harems. 



It is also not clear on what grounds it was decided that "the seals 

 have been steadily decreasing since 1880." 



