productivity of the ‘seal resource’ while at the same time maintaining a sustainable
conservation status and recognising the role of fur seals in the wider ecosystem. In
order to achieve this, scientific inquiry and international cooperation would be
crucial.
Although seals were considered a resource, their exploitation was consequently
not without limits. As in the 1911 convention, pelagic sealing, the seal hunt on the
open sea, was strictly prohibited. Two exceptions in this regard were possible: first,
if pelagic sealing was carried out for research purposes, not exceeding specific
numbers for the eastern and western North Pacific Ocean; second, if the Fur Seal
Commission permitted pelagic sealing provided that, in combination with land
sealing, it would not jeopardise the objectives of the convention. The Fur Seal
Commission was an international commission consisting of members of the
convention’s parties, which would make decisions on research concerning fur
seals, the translation of this research into management decisions and whether or
not pelagic sealing would be possible without undermining the objective of the
convention. While research and conservation stood at the fore of the role of the
commission, the underlying discourse was, however, that of the fur seal as an
exploitable resource. This was further underlined by the fact that the commission’s
work was to take into consideration the subsistence needs of the local native
population.
Even though the tripartite objective—conservation, sustainable use and
research—was significantly different to the 1911 Fur Seal Convention, some
elements were directly, if not verbatim, taken over. For instance concerning the
aboriginal exemption, this was almost the exact wording as in 1911:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to Indians, Ainos [sic], Aleuts, or Eskimos
dwelling on the coast of the waters mentioned in Article III, who carry on pelagic sealing in
canoes not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and propelled entirely by
oars, paddles, or sails, and manned by not more than five persons each, in the way hitherto
practiced and without the use of firearms; provided that such hunters are not in the
employment of other persons or under contract to deliver the skins to any person.
12
Also the compensation mechanisms, which were indeed a controversial element
of the 1911 convention, were taken over. It was thus that the Soviet Union and the
United States were to yield 15% of the commercial value of their hunts to Japan and
Canada. Why these provisions were inserted cannot be ascertained. Be that as it may,
the Interim Convention was not open ended but had an expiry date: once it had been
adopted, it was to be in force for 22 years unless a revised convention were to be
adopted by the parties.
While throughout the 1960s the Interim Convention remained the primary regime
to control the hunt for fur seals in Alaska, the year 1972 marked a legal and
normative shift in the United States. We must remember that the environmental
movement took off throughout the 1960s and that the exploitation of marine
12 Interim Convention, article VII; See also article 4 of the 1911 Fur Seal Convention.
6.4 The Second Half of the Twentieth Century
137
conservation status and recognising the role of fur seals in the wider ecosystem. In
order to achieve this, scientific inquiry and international cooperation would be
crucial.
Although seals were considered a resource, their exploitation was consequently
not without limits. As in the 1911 convention, pelagic sealing, the seal hunt on the
open sea, was strictly prohibited. Two exceptions in this regard were possible: first,
if pelagic sealing was carried out for research purposes, not exceeding specific
numbers for the eastern and western North Pacific Ocean; second, if the Fur Seal
Commission permitted pelagic sealing provided that, in combination with land
sealing, it would not jeopardise the objectives of the convention. The Fur Seal
Commission was an international commission consisting of members of the
convention’s parties, which would make decisions on research concerning fur
seals, the translation of this research into management decisions and whether or
not pelagic sealing would be possible without undermining the objective of the
convention. While research and conservation stood at the fore of the role of the
commission, the underlying discourse was, however, that of the fur seal as an
exploitable resource. This was further underlined by the fact that the commission’s
work was to take into consideration the subsistence needs of the local native
population.
Even though the tripartite objective—conservation, sustainable use and
research—was significantly different to the 1911 Fur Seal Convention, some
elements were directly, if not verbatim, taken over. For instance concerning the
aboriginal exemption, this was almost the exact wording as in 1911:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to Indians, Ainos [sic], Aleuts, or Eskimos
dwelling on the coast of the waters mentioned in Article III, who carry on pelagic sealing in
canoes not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and propelled entirely by
oars, paddles, or sails, and manned by not more than five persons each, in the way hitherto
practiced and without the use of firearms; provided that such hunters are not in the
employment of other persons or under contract to deliver the skins to any person.
12
Also the compensation mechanisms, which were indeed a controversial element
of the 1911 convention, were taken over. It was thus that the Soviet Union and the
United States were to yield 15% of the commercial value of their hunts to Japan and
Canada. Why these provisions were inserted cannot be ascertained. Be that as it may,
the Interim Convention was not open ended but had an expiry date: once it had been
adopted, it was to be in force for 22 years unless a revised convention were to be
adopted by the parties.
While throughout the 1960s the Interim Convention remained the primary regime
to control the hunt for fur seals in Alaska, the year 1972 marked a legal and
normative shift in the United States. We must remember that the environmental
movement took off throughout the 1960s and that the exploitation of marine
12 Interim Convention, article VII; See also article 4 of the 1911 Fur Seal Convention.
6.4 The Second Half of the Twentieth Century
137