182 ' THE ASIATIC FUR-SEAL ISLANDS. 



follows: At the close of the sealing season of 1896, and having witnessed the "scrap, 

 ing" of the rookery on Bering Island ("the bachelors * * * are killed off to the 

 last one," Barrett-Hamilton's own words, p. 12), do you believe that there were, say, 

 10,000 bachelors within sight or within a short distance ? Do you believe that in 1896 

 10,000 bachelors more hauled up, either during the killing season or later ? I can not be 

 in doubt about the answer. But then if they were not there nor elsewhere at sea, whence 

 then came the 5,000 bachelors killed on that same rookery in 1897, and the other 5,000 

 which probably perished during the migrations from natural causes, and from the shot 

 of the pelagic sealers? And, moreover, if all, or nearly all, of all classes hauled out 

 every year and they were "killed off to the last one" (except, of course, the yearlings), 

 how could there then be any 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds at all on the rookery all these 

 years when "over-killing" is alleged to have taken place? And yet the Bering 

 Island skins have been particularly heavy of late years. Is there any other conclusion 

 possible than the one I have drawn, viz, that only a fraction of the bachelors haul out? 

 But if this question is answered in the affirmative what then becomes of the theory 

 of over-killing? Clearly, no matter how closely the bachelors are killed on land, there 

 is always a reserve at sea quite sufScient to recruit the ranks of the few bulls which 

 annually retire from service, a number which even Barrett-Hamilton himself admits 

 is insignificant (Eep., pp. 35-36). 



Summary. — It may be useful finally to concentrate the above arguments into a 

 brief summary. 



The more or less sudden decrease in the yield of bachelors killed on land is no 

 indication of any decrease of the capacity of the rookeries, and a decrease of females 

 is so far from being necessarily concomitant with the decrease of the bachelors that 

 the breeding herd may actually be increasing even some time after the bachelors show 

 a decrease. In the specific case of the Commander Islands there is absolutely no 

 ground for the assertion that the decrease in the catch of bachelors in 1890 on Bering 

 Island, and in 1891 on Copper Island, "means a decrease of the 'whole herd also." 



There is no indication that over-killing is responsible for certain conditions on 

 Bering Island North Eookery. The absence of yearlings in 1895 did not mean their 

 non birth, nor their destruction that year after birth. The comparative scarcity of 

 bulls on that rookery can not be explained by over-killing. Even if the "last seal'' 

 that hauled out were killed each year (which they are not, the phrase only applying 

 to the killing season), there would be enough bachelors in the sea to supply the 

 necessary few bulls. There is nothing to substantiate any postulate that the bulls on 

 North Rookery have not been sufficient in number to impregnate aU the females, and 

 over-killing, therefore, even if it had taken place, can not be charged with the 

 decadence of the rookeries. 



The theory of over-killing having thus been found inefficient to explain the 

 decadence of the rookeries, I have to fall back upon my former conclusion, viz, that 

 the blame for it rests '■^ upon pelagic sealing and upon pelagic sealing alone." 



Mortality of Pops on the Commander Islands. 



When I wrote my "Russian Fur-Seal Islands" in 1895, it was not yet admitted 

 by the British side of the fur-seal controversy that the pelagic killing of the cow 

 on the feeding grounds meant the inevitable death of her pup on the rookery. 

 Consequently my calling attention to the fact of starving pups on the Oommander 



