ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 205 



know they eat. Whole wiudiows of the heads of cod and wolf fishes bitten off by 

 these ivuimals at the nape were washed np on the south-shore of St. George during a 

 gale in the summer of 1873. This pelagic decapitation evidently marked the 

 progress and the appetite of a band of fur-seals to the windward of the islands, as 

 they pa^ssed into and through a stray school of these tishes. 



So apparently they destroyed a great deal more than they actnally 

 consumed: they bit the fish at the nape of the neclc, the choicest part, 

 and let the rest go. 



Senator Morgan. — Do you remember if any other witness besides 

 Mr. Elliott has ever spoken of that fact. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I think every writer has spoken of the 

 enormous consumption of tish. 

 965 Senator Morgan. — But the partial consumption by biting oft' 



the heads at the nape of the neck. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I .am not aware; it may be, but I do not 

 know. 



Senator Morgan. — I think he drew on his imagination for that. 



Lord Hannen. — Yes, but he does not say that. He simply says their 

 heads were bitten off". It does not show tliat some were bitten slightly 

 and escaped. They jirobably reject that which they do not like. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1 take it to mean that they ate the choicest 

 parts. 



Lord Hannen. — But you added to it that some escaped. There is 

 nothing in Elliott's Report about that. 



Sir Charles Russell. — So, I did not think the Senator meant that. 

 I tliink 1 am right in saying that it is well known that otters, frequent- 

 ing salmon rivers, will if fish is plentiful simply eat the back of the 

 neck of the salmon and not eat the rest. That is an experience prob- 

 ably all of us who know anything about otter hunting are quite aware of. 



How many pounds per difin is reiiuired by an adult seal and taken by it when 

 feeding is not certain in my mind. .Judging from the appetite, however, of kindred 

 animals, such as sea-lions kept in confinement at Woodward's gardens, San Fran- 

 cisco, I can safely say that forty pounds for a full grown fur-seal is a fair allowance, 

 with at least ten or twelve pounds per diem to every adult female, and not much less, 

 if any, to the rapidly growing pups and young "holliischickie." Therefore, this great 

 body of four and live millions of hearty, active animals which we know on the seal 

 islands, must consume an enormous amount of such food every year. They cannot 

 average less than ten pounds of fish each j)er diem, which gives the consumption, as 

 exhibited by their appetite, of over six million tons of fish every year. What won- 

 der, then, that nature should do something to hold these active fishermen in check. 



Mr. Carter. — He revises those observations on page 307, I see. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am obliged. I will refer to it with pleas- 

 ure, I had not noticed it. 



Mr. Carter. — It begins in the middle of the page at the words 

 "Using the above as a suggestion". 



Sir Charles Russell. — 



Using the above as a suggestion, several writers have hastily assumed that it 

 would be a good thing if the seals were exterminated — that by exterminating them, 

 just so much more would be given to our salmon and cod fishermen to place upon 

 the markets of the world. These men forget the fact that all animal life in a state 

 of nature existing to-day as the fishes and seals do is sustained by a natural equilib- 

 rium, one animal preying upon the other, so that year after year, only so many seals, 

 so many cod, so many halibut, so many salmon, so many dog-fish, and so on through- 

 out the long list, can and do exist. 



That is dealing with the state of nature. 

 Mr. Carter. — But it goes on. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Very well, my learned friend, ]Mr. 



9GG Phelps, will refer to it if it is imporfanr. I referred to him not 



for the purpose of shewing the food they consume, but for the 



