in the permit applications and the development and implemen- 

 tation of a long-range fur seal conservation plan which the 

 Commission had recommended in its earlier letters. There- 

 fore, by letter of 15 July 1986, the Commission advised the 

 Service that its annual meeting would be held in Anchorage, 

 Alaska, on 28-30 October 1986 and that one of the agenda 

 items would be a review of ongoing and planned activities 

 related to the conservation of the Pribilof Islands fur seal 

 populations. 



To facilitate the review, the Commission requested that 

 the Service provide: a review of fur seal research carried 

 out by the Service in 1986; a detailed description and 

 explanation of the design and objectives of fur seal research 

 proposed to be carried out in 1987; the Service's proposal 

 for a long-range conservation plan; and a description of 

 steps that have been or would have been taken to finalize, 

 adopt, and seek international cooperation in implementing the 

 long-range conservation plan. 



On 29 September 1986, the Service forwarded a draft 

 North Pacific Fur Seal Research Plan containing sections on 

 research needs, priorities, and plans for studies that were 

 to have been conducted in FY 1986. The Service's cover 

 letter noted that the plan constituted a first draft of the 

 Fur Seal Conservation Plan recommended by the Commission. It 

 further indicated that plans for FY 1987 would not be 

 available for review at the Commission's meeting, but would 

 be available for review at a fur seal research program review 

 scheduled to be held in February 1987. 



During the Commission's meeting in Anchorage on 

 28-30 October 1986, there was a general review of actions 

 taken by the Service to address research and other issues 

 bearing upon the conservation of the Pribilof Islands fur 

 seal population. The review did not address all of the 

 issues and concerns noted previously and, on 2 3 December 

 1986, the Commission wrote to the Service recommending 

 further action on a number of fur seal issues. Among other 

 things, the Commission noted that the draft research plan 

 developed by the Service offered a useful start on a fur seal 

 conservation plan, but that it had to be expanded to address 

 management needs and long-term planning before it could be 

 viewed as a conservation plan. The Commission again recom- 

 mended that the Service constitute and convene a working 

 group to prepare and oversee implementation of a long-term 

 fur seal conservation plan. In addition, the Commission 

 noted that the Service should convene the planned research 

 program review as soon as possible so that the results could 

 be used in planning the 1987 research program and that a 

 description of long-term program objectives, tentative 1987 

 research plans, and other relevant materials should be 



48 



