FUR SEALS OF ALASKA. 29 
of those of Russia and Japan. I regard this report as the clearest and 
perhaps the most satisfactory discussion on the subject. He rests his 
conclusions on convincing reasoning, fortified by the fullest statistics. 
This is part 3 of the report of Professor Jordan. 
On page 227 of Leonard Stejneger’s report he says (he was speak- 
ing of the Russians—and see how it fits the case exactly): 
The propriety of prohibiting the killing of fur seals on land fora period of five 
years, as a means of building up the seal herd, has of late been discussed by the 
Russian authorities. When at sea they would be subject to the same danger from 
the pelagic hunters as the females. It shows that they have utterly failed to grasp 
the two essential points of the seal question as it stands to-day, viz, that the decline 
of the seal herd is solely due to pelagic sealing, and that the increase and consequent 
rehabilitation of the herd depends solely upon the preservation of the female seals. 
If pelagic sealing is stopped, no suspension— 
Luse the English instead of the Russian word— 
is necessary, or, as I shall show, it will be directly hurtful. If pelagic sealing be 
continued, a suspension will not only not protect the herd on shore, but it will 
directly result in increased catches for the pelagic sealers as long as the suspension 
lasts, since they will have the additional males to prey upon which will have been 
spared on land. i 
Now the future prosperity of the seal herd depends upon the number of females 
it contains; the number of bachelors is irrelevant in this connection. : 
Why? Because there are so many surplus bachelors that they are in 
the way. 
Mr. CiarK. What do you mean by bachelors, old fellows that have 
been ruled out of the business? ; 
Mr. Fautxner. No, maleseals. The bachelors are generally spoken 
of as those seals that have not acquired a harem or place on the rooker- 
ies. [Reading from the report of Mr. Stejneger:] 
Suppose pelagic sealing be suppressed and a five years’ suspension instituted on 
the Commander Islands; what would result? At the end of the five years there 
would be exactly as many females as if no suspension had been, not one more (possibly 
some less), because no female seals would have been killed even if the suspension had 
not been kept. But there certainly would bea great.many more killable seals at the 
beginning of the sixth year than during any one of the preceding years. A little 
reflection, however, will show that their total number must be less than the total 
sum of killed during these preceding years, inasmuch as the 2 to 4 years old bachelors 
of these years would have escaped the killing and become sikatchi, that is, available 
rookery bulls, and consequently unfit for killing during the suspension. And how 
would it look on the rookeries? * * * 
To sum up, a suspension as contemplated would result in (1) no addition of a single 
female to the herd; (2) loss in total number of killables; (3) highly injurious over- 
stocking of the rookeries with fighting males, and (4) a consequent heavy loss of 
young pups killed shortly after birth. 
This is the conclusion and summing up of this question, after four 
investigations of the islands by one of the most competent experts. 
Mr. Exxiorr. He does not know anything about our islands. 
Mr. Fautxner. I beg your pardon, he is absolutely familiar with 
our islands—more so than Mr. Elliott is. 
Mr. Exxiorr. He was only two days on the American islands. 
Mr. Fautxner. I question that; I have read the report. 
Mr. Wixtiams, of Mississippi. Who is that? 
Mr. Fautxner. Leonard Stejneger. He is a gentleman whom Sen- 
ator Nelson told me he had known from boyhood, and a man of the 
highest character; a man whose statement he would credit and for 
whom he had every respect. 
Mr. Wituiams, of Mississippi. Of course what you have read there 
is simply an opinion? 
F s—04——3 
