328 THE FUR SEALS OP THE PRIBILOP ISLANDS. 



the raw skin, in the process of curing the fur would doubtless come out, and the 

 very fact that any class of skins were liable to this defect would cast doubt on the 

 whole lot and depreciate their value." 



We thus find that branding is not only a feasible operation, but that it is entirely 

 effective. Without injury to the animal itself or interference with its habits and 

 relations, its skin can be so marked as to destroy its value for commercial purposes. 

 Pelagic skins are now of much less value than are the island skins. Two or three 

 cross brands at intervals through the most valuable part of the skin must reduce 

 still lower its value and leave the business of taking these skins at sea unprofitable. 



We may note here that there is no truth whatever in the assertion so strenuously 

 urged by Mr. Henry W. Elliott, that the fur of the branded seal will replace itself 

 without scar. This contention is based on analogy to the way the wounds of the 

 seals from cuts or bites heal. The difference between the result of a bite and of the 

 application of a hot iron is too evident to need comment. The one destroys the hair 

 cells; the other does not. It is probable that most of the minor wounds of the seals 

 heal perfectly and without a scar; but it is not true that all do, as the welts in the 

 skin, due to imiierfect healing, which causes seals to be rejected on the killing fields, 

 abundantly show. 



But the proof necessary to break down this contention was found in the case of 

 the adult cows branded in 1896 which were present in the season of 1897. Five of 

 these were seen and the marks were clear and distinct, leaving no doubt as to their 

 destructive effect on the fur. That this would be the result was a foregone conclusion. 

 The process of branding domestic animals has been in vogue long enough to show 

 that a scar thus made in the skin of an animal remains permanently. There is no 

 reason why we should suppose a special exception in favor of the seal. There is none. 



It is necessary, also, to refute an equally absurd report that the branding had 

 the effect of driving the seals away from the Pribilof Islands across to the other side 

 of the Pacific, it being reported that during the season of 1897 branded skins had 

 been taken off' the Japan coast. 



We may say that an inspection by Captain Hooper of the catch of the schooner 

 St. Laiprence, the vessel said to have taken the skins, in Unalaska, failed to discover 

 any branded skins, and the master made affldavit that he not only did not take any 

 skins of this sort on the Japanese coast, but he had not even heard of any being 

 taken there. 



This of course is merely negative evidence. The fact that five out of nine cows' 

 branded in 1896 were seen present in 1897 is sufficient proof that they were not 

 driven away by the process of branding. That four should have been overlooked 

 among the thousands of seals on the rookeries is not strange. If any class of the 

 seals were likely to be affected by the branding it would be the adults. It is absurd 

 to suppose for a moment that the pups of 3 months old would remember what 

 had occurred, or, in case they did, that a mere temporary experience should weigh 

 against such an unerring and thoroughly fixed instinct as the homing instinct of 

 the seal. 



During the season of 1897 the work of branding was largely extended. Colonel 

 Murray branded on St. Paul Island in all 6,371 pups and 118 adult cows. Mr. James 

 Judge, Treasury agent in charge of St. George Island, branded 1,880 pups on the 



