The following is a guest post by Trisha Baillon, an intern with the Digital Resources Division of the Law Library of Congress. She is an undergraduate student studying international relations and Russian at Seton Hall University.
Seals in the Arctic region starting on their long swim to southern seas. Between 1900 and 1930. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsc.01973
The state of Alaska has long been known as the “Last Frontier” due to its “rugged landscape and climate coupled with the fact that it is the least densely populated state” in the United States. Alaska’s history is just as fascinating and complex as the nature it is home to. Indigenous communities were met with Russian colonization, and eventually, the United States purchased the territory, which would lead to it becoming the 49th state. Because of Alaska’s natural resources, such as wildlife and gold, explorers have traveled to Alaska for centuries with the hope of profit. As early as the 16th century, Russia sent expeditions to explore, map, and colonize Alaska, which eventually led to the development of fur trading. Many of the historical documents from this time can be found in the Meeting of Frontiers collection of the Library of Congress.
From its time as part of the Russian Empire to its existence as a state, the fur trade industry has been a significant element of Alaskan history. For example, after the Second Kamchatka Expedition (1741-42), the Russians started to barter sea otter pelts to markets in China. Another significant event regarding the origin of the Alaskan fur trade was the discovery of the Pribilof Islands in 1786, which were home to fur seals and became a crucial site in the fur trade industry. After the discovery of the islands and the population of fur seals, commercial entities like Russian-American Company began operating in the area. The Russian-American Company received a monopoly charter from Emperor Paul I to operate out of Alaska in 1799, establishing a central outpost for the Russian Imperial Court to oversee colonial responsibilities as well as trade. It quickly became the most influential corporation in the fur trade industry.
Map of Alaska and adjoining regions. Petroff, Ivan. 1882. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g4371d.mfa00032
To address the ongoing competition in trading, a treaty was signed between Russia and America in 1824 regarding boundary disputes in Alaska, which outlined the specific boundaries each country could operate within. (Navigation and Fisheries on Northwest Coast, U.S.-Rus, April 17, 1824, 8 Stat. 302.) Similarly, the Treaty of St. Petersburg was signed in 1825 between Russia and the United Kingdom, though it resulted in discussions about the legal extent of the “Pacific Ocean” and what could be considered specifically Alaskan waters. If waters were not specifically designated as part of a country’s territory or allocated to a country in a treaty, arguments arose about who had “rights” to that water and, by extension, the resources found there as well. Twenty-five years after these treaties, Russia lost territory in Europe following the Crimean War, which led to decreased interest in its Alaskan territory. Subsequently, Russia offered to sell Alaska to the United States. However, it took multiple years for the purchase in 1867 to be completed by the Secretary of State at the time, William H. Seward.
Initially, there was little interest in exploring the newly acquired territory. The purchase became known as “Seward’s Folly,” referring to the idea that there was nothing to gain from purchasing Alaska. However, in 1868, Representative Leonard Myers from Pennsylvania made a speech regarding the purchase of Alaska, in which he referenced the importance of Alaska and its natural resources to the United States. He specifically cited the Russian American Company (which would later become the Alaska Commercial Company) and its privilege in the fur trade. He claimed in the speech that, “the possession of Alaska is a question of power.” and with the United States in possession of the territory, they would have the power of its natural resources. (Myers at p. 2)
Draft for Payment for the Purchase of Alaska. 1868. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.wdl/wdl.16745
Despite the initial hesitation about Alaska, eventually Americans flocked to the territory to take advantage of its natural resources, including the fur seals, which were hunted in large quantities. Because of the lack of a present state government and the great geographic distance from the existing states, the massacre of fur seals went unregulated. Once the federal government in Washington, D.C. became aware the of declining fur seal population, they declared the Pribilof Islands a reservation in 1869. Furthering conservation efforts, Congress passed the Act to Prevent the Extermination of Fur-Bearing Animals in Alaska in 1870, which outlined restrictions on when and how fur seals were allowed to be hunted in order to preserve the populations of the seals. (16 Stat. 180.) The act was one of the first pieces of legislation that outlined laws and regulations regarding hunting for the fur trade. The fur trade was further monitored by Congress through reports submitted by the special agent in charge of the fur-seal fisheries, Charles Bryant. An 1871 report to the House Committee on Commerce details a narrative and statistics over the year preceding the report. (42nd Cong.., 2d Sess. H. Exec. Doc. No. 20 (1871) reprinted in Serial Set Vol. 1506.)
The hunting and endangerment of seals caught the interest of conservationist and painter Henry Wood Elliott, who traveled to Alaska in 1872 with the intention of exploring the Pribilof Islands and observing the fur seal populations. He has been credited by many as the Defender of the Fur Seal and has been largely credited with preventing the species from becoming extinct. In 1886, he published the book, Our Arctic Province, Alaska and the Seal Islands, in which he discusses his travels to the Pribilof Islands, providing some of the earliest accounts and images of not only the islands, but the fur seals themselves. He describes the Islands as “a perfectly adapted resting-place for any number, from a thousand to millions, of those intelligent animals…” (Elliot, at p. 230.) Additionally, he described how the act passed in 1870 impacted the fur trade in the area by exclusively allowing the Alaska Commercial Company to operate, “outside of the Seal Islands all trade in this territory of Alaska is open to the public. There is no need of protecting fur-bearing animals elsewhere…” (Elliott, at p. 248.) He goes on later in the book to show support for the 1870 law and its success in conservation. After his expedition to Alaska, he continued to be an activist for regulations and laws that would protect the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands. With both the United States and the United Kingdom interested in the lucrative fur trade, growing interest in the region led to further conservation concerns. In 1891, the two nations signed a treaty with the intent to manage the conservation of the fur seal population. (Fur Seal Fisheries in Bering Sea, U.S.-U.K., June 15, 1891, 27 Stat. 980.) Two additional arbitrations took place in the following years. (December 18, 1891 & February 29, 1892).
Fishing for and drying of halibut, Haidah village, Prince of Wales Island, Sitka Archipelago, Alaska. 1874. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.22775
Elliott’s efforts have been part of a continuous struggle to protect the populations of fur seals in Alaska. One such example is the first international treaty dedicated to wildlife conservation, the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty of 1911. (Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, July 7, 1911, 37 Stat. 1542.) The treaty prohibited hunting fur seals in open waters, after open water sealing by nations other than the United States had decimated many populations of the fur seals. In 1912, hearings on bill H.R. 16571 outlined endeavors to further protect fur seals and sea otters in Alaska through joint efforts of American, Russian, and Japanese patrols.
Similar sentiments of conservation have been voiced throughout the 1900s and 2000s. The historic concerns of overhunting populations persisted, as multiple bills have been passed by Congress related to targeted animals of the fur trade. For example, the Fur Seal Act of 1966 placed continued protections and regulations on hunting fur seals for trade, declaring it unlawful to hunt the fur seals outside of the exceptions outlined in the Act. (80 Stat. 1091.) An example of an exception is that certain indigenous communities of the Pribilof Islands have been allowed to continue hunting fur seals to support their local economies.
However, conservation is an ongoing process as concerns adapt over time to respond to crises faced by wildlife populations. New acts are being passed and introduced in the U.S. relating to current conservation concerns, such as the Coastal and Fisheries Improvement Act of 2000, the Refuge from Cruel Trapping Act, and the Pribilof Islands Transition Act. All of these demonstrate evolving conservation concerns and the process of protecting wildlife over the years. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), continue to monitor the status of animals such as the fur seals, detailing policies and plans that are dedicated to ensuring that their populations will be maintained for years to come.
Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.
blogs.loc.gov · Public Domain