84 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



per cent per annum, which is about 2 per cent more than results from natural termination 

 of life. Thus if 3,528 bulls were present in 1916, 86 per cent, or 3,034, would be assumed 

 to survive to 1917, and therefore an increment of 675 bulls in 1917 would be necessary to 

 make the total requirement of 3,709 bulls for that year. From this table it is seen that 

 even for the maximum estimate of cows, only 12,734 bulls would be needed in 1926 and 

 the annual increments would be very small, not exceeding 2,000 until 1923. Under the 

 mean estimate, which is a much more reasonable one, scarcely more than 8,000 bulls 

 would be needed in 1926, and the increment would not exceed 1,500 until 1925. There- 

 fore, no reserve of over 1,500 would be necessary until 1922. 



In Table No. 6 is shown the result of a reserving system based on the estimates of 

 the preceding tables and compared with the results to be expected under present law. 

 The results thus indicated are decidedly conservative, and it is highly probable that 

 smaller reserves would suffice, but as a guide for action it is desirable that all reasonable 

 provision be made that the supply of bulls be ample. Therefore, under the system 

 proposed in this table, it is intended that there shall be at least i bull to 35 cows. That 

 this can not fail to result is evident when it is noted that this ratio is maintained in a 

 calculation in which the bulls are assumed to increase at a slower rate than the cows. 

 It would be quite fair to state the requirements of the minimum estimate of cows, since 

 the males to be killed represent a minimum, but in order to allow for all possible con- 

 tingencies the mean estimate of cows is used. The maximum estimate need not be 

 considered, except as an indication that under the most extreme and improbable increase 

 of cows the number of bulls required would still be small as compared with that provided 

 by law. 



In order to establish a rational reserving system at once and to prevent loss of 

 revenue, all surplus 5-year-olds and 4-year-olds should be killed in 1915. Thereafter, 

 reserves would be made from the 3-year-olds and would increase from year to year at 

 the rate of 8 per cent. Referring to Table No. 5, it is seen that an increment of 1,075 

 bulls would be needed in 1916, the increment in that year being relatively large owing to 

 the present shortage as compared with an ample allowance. This increment will be 

 supplied by the 5-year-olds of 1915, of which all but 1,075, therefore, might be killed. 

 In 1917 the increment would be 836 to be supplied from the 4-year-olds of 1915. The 

 following year, 191 8, would require 904 new bulls, and this determines the size of the 

 reserve of 3-year-olds in 1915. In 1916 the reserve of 3-year-olds would be 975, and 

 subsequent reserves would increase at the same rate. The size of the reserve in any 

 given season would be 8 per cent larger than the reserve of the previous year or approxi- 

 mately 22 per cent of the number of harem and idle bulls which were present the pre- 

 ceding year. 



Table No. 6 shows also the estimated revenue to be derived under the proposed 

 reserving system in comparison with that which might be expected under present 

 law. It is seen that a prospective loss of more than three-fourths of a million dollars 

 is indicated for the year 191 5, from which it is apparent that immediate action is 

 necessary. The total loss indicated for the 12 years from 1915 to 1926, inclusive, is 

 $2,708,890, or an average of $225,742 per annum. Of this loss only 70 per cent, or 

 $1,896,223, would be suffered directly by the United States, since 30 per cent, or $8.12,667, 

 would fall upon Great Britain and Japan. These losses are computed on the basis 

 of a price of $35 per skin, which is the approximate average price received during 



