ALASKA FISHERY AND FUR-SEAL INDUSTRIES, 1920, 105 
The chief object in the counting of pups is the determination of 
the average number of cows to each bull, or the average harem. 
Since birth is given to but one young each year it follows that the 
determination of the number of young will give the number of 
breeding females, and by dividing this by the number of harem 
bulls found earlier in the season the av erage harem is determined. 
Obviously the greater the number of pups counted the greater the 
accuracy of the census as a whole. Up to and including 1916 it was 
possible to count this class on all of the rookeries. In 1917, however, 
the greatly increased number of bulls prevented pup counting until 
such a late date that breeding areas could not all be gone over. The 
increasé in size of the herd has further complicated matters. While 
it is not physically impossible to make a complete pup count when 
bulls are present in no greater numbers than in 1920, still a much 
larger force of counters would be required for the work than has 
heretofore been available. 
Since 1917 a comparatively small proportion of the pups has been 
counted. Rookeries have been chosen, however, which were believed 
to represent the herd as a whole with regard to growth. They have 
been, in the main, the smaller ones, in order to reduce to a mini- 
mum the danger of loss from trampling by bulls and from smoth- 
ering. 
Neither of these factors enters largely into the operations if a 
competent force of white men is performing the work, because 
there are expedients which can be used in emergencies which effec- 
tually prevent deaths. For instance, if pups have piled up in the 
counting and are in danger of smothering, they can be scattered 
by a man wading into the mass. There is no other known means 
whereby the animals can be spread out quickly enough to prevent 
loss on a warm day. it so happens that the natives are entirely too 
irresponsible to be depended upon in such an emergency. In seven 
years of counting I have never seen one offer to do the scattering 
in such an emergency. It is obviously impossible for the person 
who does the actual counting to keep constant watch of the “ pod- 
ding” ahead of him, and if there should be no one else looking after 
that part of the work danger is sure to result; this is particularly 
true on the larger rookeries. Unfortunately the natives allowed 
eight pups to smother on Z: apadni Reef rookery during the work on 
St. Paul in 1920. They have been included among the live pups on 
that rookery in the table because it is desirable to have the number 
of dead represent the natural loss only. 
In selecting rookeries for counting in 1920 it seemed desirable in 
many ways to choose those which were counted in 1919. The work- 
ing out of the average harem for those uncounted rookeries would 
then give results which were more strictly comparable than if new 
territory were selected. 
While it seems reasonable to suppose that any one rookery would 
grow at the same rate as the herd, this is unfortunately far from 
the case. There is great variation among the several rookeries and 
on any one from year to year. This makes the estimating of the 
average harem on rookeries where pups have not been counted more 
or less uncertain. But unless all rookeries are counted—a manifestly 
impracticable task with a limited force and a large herd—no way 
to avoid the difficulty is known, and the matter must devolve upon 
the best judgment of those who have it in hand. 
