JAPANESE SEALING UNDER THR TREATY, 1911-41 
For all that can be shown by the available Japanese literature, the Japanese 
abided by the tenets of the Fur Seal Convention from 1911 until they abrogated it in 1941. 
According to the published records the official government attitude was one of complete 
cooperation and accord. Measures were taken to manage and protect the Robben Island herd, 
and the required percentage of the annual Robben Island harvest was distributed meticu- 
louely among the other signers. However, Japanese pelagic sealing probably never ceased 
entirely, for the government apparently never made more than a token effort to prevent its 
nationals from violating this first and most essential of the convention's precepts except 
in home waters, and even there poaching activities were more or lesa openly condoned after 
the early 1930's, Unfortunately, no complete record of this duplicity is available, ae 
most of the official government files were destroyed, it is claimed, during World War II. 
So, for all that other governments can prove to the contrary, the Japanese Government acted 
in good faith and lived up to the spirit and the letter of the 1911 treaty. 
Shortly after the return of the Japanese delegates from the Washington conference 
in 1911 the Diet ratified the treaty and passed the required enabling legislation. Law 
Wo 21, of 22 April 1912, prohibited all pelagic sealing and sea otter hunting in all waters 
north of 30°M latitude, restricted land sealing as monopoly of the government, prohibited 
the importation of otter and seal skins unless legally taken, and empowered officiala to 
take necessary action to enforce these regulations (Appendix A). How strictly these laws 
were enforced cannot be ascertained; no records remain of any arrests made or cases prose- 
cuted. 
Simultaneously with the treaty legislation the Diet granted indemities to the 
Japanese ee ic sealers who were thrown out of work by the new restrictions (Bibl 239, 
241, 245, 24 Under Law No 22 of 20 April 1912, the pelagic sealers were paid ¥957,477. 
The Sesaiceatts Vaxpeoted this amount to be equalled almost immediately by the receipts from 
the United States, hence the latter's decision to harvest no seale for a five-year period 
caused the Japanese government some embarrassment (Bibl 243). Nevertheless, there was 
evidently very little activity among the illicit pelagic sealers at this time. The govern~- 
ment was anxious to build international amity and good will. Besides, seale were not suf- 
ficiently abundant in nearby waters to make operations profitable and the richer sealing 
grounds near the Pribilof and Commander Islands were very well guarded. 
Nevertheless the Japanese pelagic sealers did not remain idle for long. The first 
indication to the outside world that they were engaged in fairly large ecale poaching 
operations was Stejneger's report on their activities in the Commander Islands from 1917 
to 1922. 12/ The erstwhile poaching ships had been designed for operations in northern 
waters. After receiving the government indemnities, they continued to operate in the sane 
areas, ostensibly fishing for salmon and crab. Thus they were at hand to poach whenever 
opportunity offered, and the opportunity was not long in coming. When the Russian sea 
patrol was relaxed following the 1917 revolution the Japanese took immediate advantage of 
it to resume their rookery raids (Stejneger, idem, pp 327-329). In the absence of any 
authority in the area their piratical activities increased steadily and did not cease 
until the new Soviet government re~catablished armed protection of the islands. 
As Stejneger pointed out (idem, p 328) obtaining correct and reliable data on 
illegally taken seals ie next to impossible. The markets of the four powers which eigned 
the troaty were, theoretically at least, closed to all traffic in unlawfully procured seal 
skins. But the disposal of contraband has never posed any insurmountable problem in the 
Bast. Long before "black market" became a common English term during World War II, ehady 
transactions of all possible hues flourished along the eastarn Asiatic coasts. Some west- 
ern authorities have questioned the existence of large-scale seal poaching in the Orient, 
because no extra skins have appeared in European and American markets. But the markets of 
12/ Stejneger, L., Fur Seal Industry on the Commander Islands 1897-1922: Bull Bur of 
Fisheries, vol 41, Washington, 1925, pp 289-322. 
21 
