The Conventions regulating the management of the North Pacific fur seal have a more complex history than those of the halibut. The initial treaty in 1911 (Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) was developed in response to severe over harvesting of fur seals from the North Pacific. Pelagic sealing in the two decades prior to the Convention had a devastating impact on the population, which dropped to 200,000 to 300,000 animals. The new treaty banned pelagic sealing, vested responsibility for the harvest in the nation having jurisdiction over the rookeries, and shared the take with the nations that did not control the rookeries. Certification systems were put in place to prevent illegal trade in seal skins and an enforcement policy allowed seizure of ships involved with pelagic sealing.

The seal population grew at a rate of 6-8% per year over the next three decades, a commercial hunt of 34,000 animals was allowed by 1918. After two failed attempts to increase the harvest level, Japan gave notice of abrogation in 1940. The treaty was allowed to lapse in 1941 and it was not until 1957 that a new treaty (involving the same four nations) was signed. The new treaty called for managing the harvest to "provide the greatest harvest year after year". A scientific program was established to attain the stated goal of maximum sustainable productivity.

The current population of fur seals in the U.S. jurisdiction is about 1,000,000 animals, substantially higher than the estimate made prior to the 1911 agreements, but probably half that of the population of the mid 1950s. This decline is largely attributed to a deliberate reduction in herd size by a take of female seals from 1956-1968. Some have blamed entanglement, particularly by high seas gill nets, as a major contributor to the continuing lower population level, but I regard this as doubtful. More likely, in my view, are shifts in the oceanographic climate which seem to have a deleterious impact on many marine mammals, birds and crabs, but which appear to enhance the populations of pollock, flatfish and sharks. It’s, also possible that the increased population of salmon sharks has contributed to the failure of recovery, especially in light of the high seas movements of seals and their ability to sleep on the surface in the open ocean.

As in the case of the Halibut Convention, there is agreement that the Fur Seal treaty was a success. Unlike the halibut, however, a rising tide of interest in marine mammal protection, made the treaty somewhat irrelevant- animal protectionists, through their anti-fur drives, virtually eliminated the commercial value of the skins and made the hunt uneconomical. Further, the power of the protectionist community, especially in the absence of real economic importance (very few U.S. jobs were at stake) allowed our political leadership to permit the Treaty to lapse in 1988. The people of the Pribilofs have continued a harvest of about 2000 animals a year for subsistence and traditional use.

The disbanding of a multi-national and very competent scientific effort, particularly at a time we are trying to understand oceanic ecosystems was a triumph of political expediency over common sense.

The lesson provided by these examples is clear- it is not enough for a treaty organization to function effectively and accomplish its mission, the treaty must remain consistent with the prevailing ethos of its member states. Halibut remains an important fish, its range is inter- jurisdictional and sound management requires involvement of each of the nations in the range of the harvested stocks. The current arrangements may in the long run have to be changed to include Russia. The halibut fishery in their waters seems to be on part of the stocks managed by the Halibut Commission.

The Fur Seal Commission was also effective. The scientists working under aegis of the Treaty did an outstanding job in developing important data and understanding of the seal populations. However, the absence of a commercial hunt and the strong political powers of the animal protection community outweighed the value of science and the treaty was doomed.