Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T09:00:37.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The political economy of the Northern Fur Seal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Extract

The commercial harvest of Northern Fur Seals (Callorhinus ursinus)breeding on the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea has gone on with few interruptions for almost 200 years. Since 1910 this harvest has been carried out exclusively by the US federal government acting as an operating authority. At the same time the management of all Northern Fur Seals, those associated with Ostrov Tyuleniy [Robben Island] and Komandorskiye Ostrova [Commander Islands] as well as the Pribilofs, has been subject to the provisions of a series of international agreements dating back to 1911. These provisions also apply to small breeding populations of Northern Fur Seals on several of the Kuril'skiye Ostrova [Kuril Islands] and on San Miguel Island in the eastern North Pacific (US National Marine Fisheries Service, 1980, p 10–12). The most recent in this series, the Interim Convention for the Conservation of Northern Fur Seals of 1957, formally expired on 14 October 1980. But on the same date, the parties to the 1957 Convention (Canada, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States) initialled a Protocol extending the Convention, with some minor modifications, for another four years. The Protocol is currently awaiting ratification by Japan and the United States, a process that may take some time. In the interim, the parties are proceeding under an informal agreement to act as though the Protocol were in force, although this may become increasingly difficult if ratification does not occur by the summer of 1981 when the next harvest would normally occur.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. 1979. US has a seal slaughter of its own. Washington Post, 30 May 1979, p E12.Google Scholar
Berger, T. R. 1977. Northern frontier, northern homeland. Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Vol 1. Ottawa, Ministry of Supply and Services.Google Scholar
Foote, D. C. and others. 1968. St Paul community study; an economic and social analysis of St Paul, Pribilof Islands, Alaska. University of Alaska. Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research.SEG Report, No 18.Google Scholar
Gulland, J. A. 1974. The management of marine fisheries. Seattle, University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Hechter, M. 1975. Internal colonialism. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Parker, W. B. 1974. Alaska and the law of the sea; international fisheries regimes of the North Pacific. Anchorage, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.Google Scholar
Simpson, E. 1968. Report on sealing in the Pribilof Islands, 1967. Zurich, World Federation for the Protection of Animals.Google Scholar
Torrey, B. B. 1978. Slaves of the harvest: the story of the Pribilof Aleuts. St Paul, Alaska, Tanadgusix Corporation.Google Scholar
United States. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1979.Draft environmental impact statement on the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. Seattle, Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
United States. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1980. Final environmental impact statement on the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. Seattle, Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
United States. National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration. 1977. The story of the Pribilof Fur Seals. Seattle, Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (in press). Natural resources and the state: the political economy of resource management. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.Google Scholar