hE U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
FEMALH Pup Fur SEALS BRANDED ON ST. PAUL AND St. GEORGE ISLANDS, 
1896 To 1908. 
A : ; Quadruple Triple Single diag- 
Year. Unknown.! Single bar. | Double bar.| Triple bar. bar. : crossbar. cnet pans 
== 
W896 Sas es ee alee nse eaees 191 2 62 29 124 | nccceeeneeee 
WSOTSS ERE SS Sh Pe ae Ss 3 5,389 41,133 BAT. sdk Sock PSK A556 ae eee 
Ti aR Gia wo a Te ye 2000. ey cee c[ece eae Seals ah ates | Se, eee 334 
PROONE eee Naha Ee eee FIG Woo wc we daclon tase seegeel hon euecs ol pee 
19NO. etek Sess 51,076 629) ces te koa eet eS sles ee See ll ieeteeioere ee ieee 
LOOLESE ore eee Cy ik (een ii (Raa icine Rap Map ENS cea GE Pope Oe 2. 
1002s Seas 2, 245 BOT Vices heh Ot EEE ae ae ieee 
1903 32 eee 80370 [sce vn angel tl sock ees be cacbde teas (es naotest lnc rr 
1 Believed to have been single bar across back. 
2 All cows. 
3 Includes 18 cows. 
4 Includes 100 cows. 
5 Includes 7 cows. 
§ Includes 29 cows. 
Many records of “ branding” after 1903 have been made, but they 
refer in every case, it is believed, to the marking of a bachelor reserve. 
This was first undertaken in 1904 and continued up to and including 
1911. In every case, with the possible exception of the first year and 
irregular branding on St. George from time to time, permanent 
brands were not used. The hair was simply clipped from a spot on 
the back of the head so as to make the animal recognizable the re- 
mainder of that season. Unfortunately this process has been called 
“branding” almost always and has so confused the record of the real 
hot-iron work that the truth is in some cases in doubt. 
A journal entry on September 25, 1901, was found which stated 
“* * * one [cow was seen] with a brand just behind its front 
flippers and another running parallel to its backbone, but a little to 
one side.” In commenting upon this, C. E. Crompton says: “I posi- 
tively saw [a cow with] this same brand at Staraya Artil while 
counting pups this year [1919].” 
No record of the use of this brand has been found, but it was prob- 
ably in 1898, or else no record was made when the work was done. 
Unfortunately the journal entries are usually very brief and do not 
describe the character of mark at all. As, for instance, “ October 10, 
1901, branded seals at Little East, 127 branded.” 
To have been a cow in 1901, the animal must have been born in 
1898 or earlier. It is not likely that the odd brand was used on more 
than one batch of pups, nor in more than one year. This would 
make the cow seen by Mr. Crompton in 1919 at least 21 years of age. 
This is three years more than the maximum age which has heretofore 
been ascribed to a fur seal. 
Tn all, seven cows of the 1902 series were seen on the various rook- 
eries in 1920. Facilities for observation over the great mass of rook- 
ery areas are so poor, however, that this can represent but a small 
fraction of the number which must have actually been in existence. 
It is most important to note that these animals were 18 years old, 
unless by possible chance they were all from the lot branded on St. 
George in 1903, when they would be 17. ‘This is so highly improbable 
that it may be dismissed. Thus the maximum age of the cow is 
several years more than the most sanguine have previously suspected. 
