evidence though it was requested repeatedly. The two other parties to the convention, 
Great Britain and the USSR, were already embroiled in World War II, and as Japan and the 
United States were rapidly heading the same way, the matter of what happened to the fur 
seals was of comparatively little concern to anyone but the United States, the major setake- 
holder. 
Although it cannot be proved by the official record, available evidence indicates 
that Japan openly countenanced, if she did not in fact actually encourage, pelagic sealing 
by her nationale for almost a decade before abrogatirg the treaty. Inquiries among former 
Bureau of Fisheries and other government officials have met with emphatic denials that any 
pelagic sealing was done by Japan until after the treaty was abrogated. <A former sealing 
captain, however, has stated to the authors that he was engaged in pelagic sealing for the 
Nippon Kaiju Kaisha (Japan Sea Animal Co) from 1932 to 1945. This company, according to 
his story, had exclusive rights from the government to all sealing in the Kurile and oper- 
ated its six sealing ships off northern Honshu and Hokkaido as well. The informant states 
that other companies and private individuals were engaged in the business, a total of 62 
vessele hunting fur seals as well as porpoises (their primary concern, see p 62) in Japa- 
nese coastal waters during this period. The entire catch of skine supposedly was turned 
over to the Japanese army, which eent on to Manchuria for resale all pelts that did not 
pass ite rigid inspection. Repeated questioning failed to alter his story, which has been 
corroborated in many details by other Hokkwido and Honshu fishermen. Interrogation of 
former officials of the Nippon Kaiju Kaisha hae brought forth either denials or protesta- 
tions of complete ignorance of the matter. However, this company’s activities since 1945 
have not been above suspicion, for it is rumored to have fostered seal poaching during the 
Occupation by furnishing scarce agmunition to the hunters and by providing a ready outlet 
for their pelts in the local black market. Furthermore, the Asiatic representative of a 
large New York fur house, an American who formerly operated his business out of Shanghai 
and spent the war years in a Japanese concentration camp, has corroborated the fact that 
the Japanese army sold both fur seal pelts and sea otter skins in Manchuria in 1939 and 
1940, In fact, he was asked by the Japanese army to act as ite agent in disposing of some 
of these furs, a commission he took pleasure in declining. 
Also of considerable significance in refuting the Japanese protestations of inno- 
cence is the fact that Japan had a pelagic sealing fleet ready to operate the winter of 
1941-42, employing a radically different technique that must have been perfected over a 
considerable time, as will be described in a later chapter. 
If these allegations be true, one wonders why Japan bothered to abrogate the 
treaty, especially as she was then preparing to enter a major war against the other sign- 
ers, provoking it by a breach of international law far more serious than the killing of a 
few seals. The only possible conclusion seems to be that, in such minor matters at least, 
Japan was determined to have as clear an international record as possible. Otherwise why, 
when actually at war with the other powers, did the government bother to amend the old 
sealing law and establish a new set of statutes to regulate pelagic sealing? At any rate, 
for all that the official record shows, the Japanese Government's actions in the fur seal 
dispute are above reproach. 
JAPANESE SEALING FROM 1942 TO 1945 
According to the secant available record Japan did not engage openly in pelagic 
wealing until the spring of 1942. Although the Pur Seal Convention became ineffective in 
Octaber 1941, the Japanese etatutes prohibiting sea otter and fur seal hunting were not 
altered until 20 February 1942 (Bibl 296), when the Diet passed Law No 41 legalising pel- 
agic sealing under licensee by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry 
issued a set of corroborative regulations on 20 May 1942, to which minor amendments were 
made in 1943 and 1944, and which in effect are very similar to the old 1895 statutes. They 
stipulate strict licensing of all pelagic sealing operations and raguire the reporting of 
gomplete etatiatice of vessels, crews, areas hunted, and catches, but make no restrictions 
to linit the catch or to conserve and maintain the resource (Appendix A). 
