Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1940, The Far East, Volume IV

711.417/1100

The Secretary of the Interior (Ickes) to the Secretary of State

Washington, November 25, 1940.

Sir: Reference is made to the conference on October 30 in the office of Mr. Leo D. Sturgeon, Assistant to the Counselor, Department of State, at which time a confidential memorandum was handed to Mr. Charles E. Jackson, Assistant Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, together with copies of two cablegrams, one dated October 24 and the other October 25, from Ambassador Grew at Tokyo with regard to the desire of the Japanese Government to modify the convention of 1911 between the United States, Japan, Great Britain, and Russia, for the protection of fur seals of the north Pacific.

Careful consideration has been given to this important subject and the conclusion has been reached that every effort should be made to dissuade the Japanese Government from taking the proposed action. Any move in the direction indicated by Japan would be a backward step. It would destroy the work of restoring this great natural resource, which has been in progress since 1911 and is accepted widely as the world’s outstanding achievement in the conservation of aquatic animals.

When the treaty became effective 29 years ago, the North American fur-seal herd which has its breeding grounds at the Pribilof Islands numbered approximately 125,000 animals. By 1940, the herd had increased to 2,185,136 animals and in the interim about 900,000 surplus seals had been killed for their pelts at the Pribilof Islands. The number of skins so taken in the sealing season of 1940 was 65,263, the largest take since 1889.

Under the present system of management, the fur-seal herd at the Pribilof Islands is in excellent condition and is increasing at the rate of about 8 percent per annum. Undoubtedly, the outstanding reason for the success being achieved toward restoring the herd to its original total of probably at least 4,000,000 animals, was the convention of 1911 which did away with the highly destructive practice of pelagic sealing. Pelagic sealing inevitably is extremely wasteful because of the impossibility of selective killing. Females, as well as males, are taken, and about four out of every five shot sink before being reached and thus are a total economic loss.

The fur-seal treaty provides that the Governments of Great Britain and Japan shall receive 15 percent each of the total number of sealskins taken annually on the Pribilof Islands. Instead of taking actual delivery of the skins, Japan has always followed the practice of having its share sold in this country with those of the United States Government and receiving its due portion of the net proceeds. During the period of the fur-seal treaty the payments to the Government of Japan have been as follows:

Year	Amount	Year	Amount	Year	Amount
1913	$200,000.00	1923	$58,583.71	1933	$2,583.53
1914	10,000.00	1924	35,537.75	1934	24,658.05
1915	10,000.00	1925	59,847.37	1935	34,479.94
1916	10,000.00	1926	43,431.08	1936	68,035.32
1917	10,000.00	1927	63,048.80	1937	73,708.40
1918	10,000.00	1928	66,104.18	1938	66,254.24
1919	(*)	1929	70,843.26	1939	54,231.85
1920	(*)	1930	62,507.32	1940	43,938.45
1921	217,805.34	1931	34,703.96
1922	51,844.72	1932	44,471.94	Total	1,426,619.21

For a number of years Great Britain (or the Dominion of Canada) also followed the practice of sharing in the net proceeds of sales, but beginning in 1933, and in each subsequent year except 1939, delivery in kind has been made to the Dominion of Canada of its share of the sealskins taken on the Pribilof Islands, The number thus delivered to that Government since 1932 has been as follows:

Year	Number	Year	Number
1933	8,183	1937	8,277
1934	8,023	1938	8,755
1935	8,594	1940	9,789
1936	7,867

Under the terms of the convention of 1911 whereby the United States receives 10 percent of the skins taken by Japan, the maximum number so received in any one year was 214. The total number thus allotted to the United States since the treaty became effective was 3,268. These skins are of no particular interest to the United States as, generally speaking, their quality has been lower and, after the heavy transportation cost from Japan and other expenses are deducted, the United States only breaks about even from a financial standpoint.

There follows a table showing the amounts turned in to the United States Treasury from proceeds of sale of sealskins for the years 1918 to 1940, inclusive, after deducting payments to the foreign governments of their shares under the convention, as well as costs of taking, curing, processing and selling the skins. These amounts include proceeds from sale of the United States’ share of Japanese sealskins.

Fiscal Year	Amount	Fiscal Year	Amount	Fiscal Year	Amount
1918	$69,946.48	1927	$259,751.45	1936	$175,950.13
1919	741,197.42	1928	278,885.78	1937	251,112.33
1920	635,223.66	1929	287,833.01	1938	293,512.66
1921	1,128,953.13	1930	240,777.92	1939	171,236.68
1922	117,146.70	1931	85,772.87	1940–41	141,791.31
1923	238,068.79	1932	125,725.84
1924	110,956.09	1933		Total	5,775,180.53
1925	208,154.92	1934
1926	161,023.91	1935	52,159.45

Attention is invited to the fact that upon two previous occasions representatives of the Japanese Government have had discussions with officials of the Department of State and representatives of other Government agencies concerning allegations by Japanese fishermen that the increase in the size of the Alaska fur-seal herd was detrimental to their interests for the reason that seals consumed large numbers of fish. This matter was discussed quite extensively in 1926 and to a lesser degree more recently.

The facts do not support any such contention, as evidence shows (1) that the American fur-seal herd does not proceed down the Asiatic coast on its annual southern migration, but instead goes down the North American coast to the latitude of southern California; and (2) that fur seals do not feed upon salmon to any appreciable extent, as proved conclusively by studies of the stomach contents, both by the Government of the United States and Canada. Their food consists chiefly of a small non-commercial species known as seal fish, and in addition they eat large quantities of squid. Some pollock and other species are consumed.

The best information available concerning the distribution and migration of Pribilof Islands fur seals is based upon a compilation of the catches of 123 pelagic sealing vessels aggregating more than 300,000 seals in the period 1883 to 1897. These records, though old, are conclusive as to the distribution of seals at sea, and there is no reason to believe that migration routes have changed in recent years.

The communication of October 25 from Ambassador Grew points out eight stipulations with regard to which the Japanese Government is prepared to conclude a new agreement. Taking up these items in order, comment is offered, as follows:

1. This proposal indicates that the capture of fur seals overseas shall be recognized and that there is no objection to concluding a suitable agreement concerning hunting grounds or areas. This appears to mean the resumption of pelagic sealing in defined places. It is felt that the Government of the United States should resist any action of this nature in every way possible, as such operations inevitably would result in a great reduction in the number of fur seals and ultimately bring about the unfavorable condition which existed when the treaty of 1911 was concluded.

2. This item indicates that each country shall regulate the capture of fur seals on land. Thus, killings at the Pribilof Islands would be under the regulation and control of the United States; killings at the Commander Islands, where the herd is estimated to number about 60,000 animals, would be under Russian direction; and operations on Robben Island, where the herd is believed to aggregate not over 40,000 animals, would be regulated by Japanese authorities. There appears to be no objection for each nation to handle such matters upon its own sealing grounds. Canada, however, does not possess any land where fur seals come ashore, but that country would be concerned with regard to sealing operations conducted by any other nations which might take toll of fur seals of the American herd migrating northward along the coast of British Columbia en route from its period of wintering off the coast of southern California.

3. This article indicates that the Japanese Government would like to fix the “standard” of the total number of seals in the north Pacific Ocean at 850,000. This, it is assumed, has reference to the total number of animals in the American as well as the Russian and Japanese herds. Upon the basis of the American herd containing approximately 2,185,000 animals, the Russian herd 60,000, and the Japanese herd 40,000, there would be at present a total of 2,285,000 fur seals in north Pacific waters. If these ratios are maintained, the proposed total of 850,000 would mean a reduction of the present herds to approximately 813,000 for the United States, 22,000 for Russia, and 15,000 for Japan. This would mean a reduction of about 63 percent in the present American fur-seal herd, or a total of about 1,372,000 animals. Upon the basis of previous sealing experience at the Pribilof Islands, a herd of this size could not be expected to produce over 25,000 seals per annum. This is very undesirable from the standpoint of the Government of the United States.

4. This item indicates that seals captured and killed should not be divisible among treaty countries. This does away with the present treaty provision whereby Japan and Great Britain (Canada) each are entitled to 15 percent of the animals obtained in controlled land killing operations at the Pribilof Islands. The fact that the Japanese Government has allowed its share of skins to be dressed, dyed and sold at public auction in the United States has given industry in this country the benefit of the work thus involved.

5. This item indicates that there shall be an exchange of information at appropriate times by the nations signatory to the treaty with regard to the numbers of seals on breeding grounds and rookeries, the estimated number to be captured, and the actual number of seals taken. There appears to be no objection to the complete and full exchange of information concerning these matters.

6. This stipulation would require any of the signatories of the new treaty to participate in any investigation or consultation concerning the condition of the seal herds, the results of the agreement, or any other question pertaining to the agreement when and if any treaty country should propose such action. There appears to be no objection to working out something along this line.

7. This article would fix the term of the agreement or treaty for a period of 10 years. There seems to be no objection to this proposal, although it might be better to endeavor to have the agreement run for a period of 15 years as with regard to the convention of 1911.

8. This item proposes that prior to the expiration of the proposed 10–year term to be covered by the treaty the signatories shall consult among themselves as to whether it is desirable to continue the agreement either with or without revision. This is believed to be a desirable undertaking. It appears to make it obligatory upon the signatories of the treaty to have a conference 9 years after the new arrangement becomes effective. The fur-seal convention of 1911 contains something of a similar nature, although it fixes no time as to when a conference shall be called. The treaty of 1911 specifies that at any time prior to the termination of the convention a conference may be requested by any one of the high-contracting parties between representatives of all the parties to the convention to consider and, if possible, agree upon an extension of the convention with any additions and modifications that may be found desirable.

The Department of the Interior suggests that the Department of State ascertain the attitude of the Canadian Government and of the Russian Government with regard to the proposal of the Japanese Government to modify the fur-seal convention of 1911. While neither of these nations has as great an interest in the matter as the United States, nevertheless it is felt that action which they may desire to take may have important bearing upon the subject.

If it is determined that the action of the Japanese Government in advising Ambassador Grew on October 23 is sufficient to constitute the 12-months notice of abrogation of the treaty of 1911, operations would continue through the sealing season of 1941, as killing operations at the Pribilof Islands are concluded usually about the end of July or early in August.

After considering the matter from all angles it is the opinion of the Department of the Interior that a conference should be held in Washington by representatives of the four nations signatory to the present fur-seal convention with the view of developing the best possible arrangement for future action in dealing with the protection and utilization of the fur seals of the north Pacific. It is suggested that any such conference include discussions also with regard to the protection of sea otters which are covered by the convention of 1911.

Very truly yours,

Harold L. Ickes

1. Under the terms of the North Pacific Sealing Convention of July 7, 1911, (Article XI), an advance payment of $200,000 each was made to Great Britain and Japan, and $10,000 annually in lieu of any share of skins during the years when the killing of seals was prohibited except for the use of the natives on the Pribilof Islands, and the United States reimbursed itself for such annual payments by retaining an additional number of skins from the shares of those Governments in subsequent years when killing was resumed. [Footnote in the original.]
2. Under the terms of the North Pacific Sealing Convention of July 7, 1911, (Article XI), an advance payment of $200,000 each was made to Great Britain and Japan, and $10,000 annually in lieu of any share of skins during the years when the killing of seals was prohibited except for the use of the natives on the Pribilof Islands, and the United States reimbursed itself for such annual payments by retaining an additional number of skins from the shares of those Governments in subsequent years when killing was resumed. [Footnote in the original.]