SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE. 289 



The pelagic sealer not only kills or attempts to kill the males that he 

 happens to meet, but prevents the birth of males to take their place. 

 He often kills three with one' discharge of his rifle, viz.: the mother, 

 the unborn youug, and the pup at home; but he does it in a " sportsman- 

 like" manner, and he gives the sleeping animal a "fair sporting chance 

 for its life." (Sec. 610.) In many cases he either misses his object or 

 wounds it and loses it. So that there is by this manly process an utterly 

 useless waste of life, in many cases a waste more or less appalling as the 

 "sportsman" is more or less skillful. How destructive in reality this 

 process is proven to be may be seen from the British Commissioners' 

 report under the head of "Proportion of Seals Lost," (p. 104, Sec. G03) 

 Tt must be a consolation to those disposed to extol this kind of sport 

 that while nearly " all the pelagic sealers concur in the opinion that 

 the fur-seal is annually becoming more shy and wary at sea," it is cer- 

 tain that " the dexterity of the hunters has increased pari passu with the 

 wariness of the seals." (British Commissioners' Report, Sec. 401.) 



That the number of the seals has been diminished in recent years 

 and at a cumulative rate, and that such diminution is the consequence 

 of destruction by man, is certified by the Joint Report of all the Com- 

 missioners. That this human agency is pelagic sealing exclusively, and 

 not the mode, manner, or extent of capture upon the breeding islands, 

 is abundantly clear. 



This follows necessarily from admitted facts. The fur- seals being 

 polygamous, and each male sufficient for from 30 to 50 females, and 

 being able to secure to himself that number, it follows that there must 

 be at all times a larger number of superfluous males, and the killing of 

 these produces no permanent diminution of the number of the herd. 

 On the other hand, the killing of a single breeding female necessarily 

 reduces pro tanto the normal numbers. 



An excessive killing of males might indeed tend toward a decrease 

 if carried to such an extent as not to leave enough for the purpose of 

 effectual impregnation of all the breeding females. The taking from 

 these herds of 100,000 males would not, if that were the only draft 

 allowed, be excessive. This is evident from many considerations. 



(a) Those who, like the British Commissioners, propose to allow 

 pelagic sealingto such an extent as would involve the annual slaughterof 

 at least 50,000 females in addition to a slaughter of 50,000 young males on 

 the breeding islands, can not certainly with the least consistency assert 

 that the capture limited to 100,000 males would be excessive. Nor 

 14749 19 



