With most of the furs coming from Siberia and Kamchatka, schema remains too convoluted and expensive to pick up on a broader base. It requires ships, new port facilities, new settlements and the people willing to settle (not too many in OTL), solutions of the supply issues, etc. while the Siberian fur trade requires just buying the furs from the local hunters and transporting them by land, which by that time was a routine. Furs from Kamchatka did require some sailing but the ports already had been there, and the distances shorter. The main fur remained squirrel and both sable and fox had been abundant in the Siberia. Besides, with all its inconveniences, the Kyakhta trade provided a growing market of the non-fur goods, in other words, it was diversified and less dependent upon the specific fur market.I've been enjoying the discussion with alexmilman about the plausibility of profitable trading schemes centered around Russian America. It strikes me that it's not necessary that the triangular fur trade actually prove to be successful, merely that there's enough belief in its prospects to trigger a more serious effort to establish posts in North America.
So the “foundation” was rather shaky from the very beginning and at no time the whole schema started requiring the state subsidies.
Speaking of money, purchase of two ships for the first expedition based on “Canton schema” cost £17,000, with an additional expense of £5,000 for repairs to sail and more money along the route spent on the additional repairs and the whole thing did not turn too profitable. To quote wiki:
“Generally, the deal did not bring the expected profit. According to Korobitsyn, they managed to sell furs in the amount of 191 621½ Spanish piastres, for which tea was obtained for 80,000, silk fabrics for 20,000, porcelain for 14,000 and pearls for 3,000 piastres. In case they received 74 631½ piastres, however, from them they paid commission to British, taxes, measurement tax, supplies for ministers, as well as expenses of two captains, two clerks and their servants on the shore. Krusenstern settled in the Austrian trading post (costing 800 piastres), and Lisyansky in the Armenian one (600 piastres).Shemelin claimed that for the cargo they received only 176 605 piastres. The situation was extremely unfavourable, and it was decided to bring the best fur of sea otters, foxes, arctic foxes and bears back to St. Petersburg. For the most valuable beaver skins, Chinese side gave no more than 20 piastres (100 rubles), although in Moscow they could be sold for 200-300 rubles.”
So it took a multi-year expedition to bring to Canton the goods worthy of less than 1,000,000 rubles with the high expenses before and during the expedition and a need to bring the most expensive furs to St.Petersburg where the prices were higher.
For comparison, volume of Kyakhta trade in 1800 was 8,380,000 rubles and 16,000,000 in 1824 with a peak of 30,000,000 in between. It would be bigger if Manifest of 1801 did not limit trade to the merchants of the 1st Guild (which meant that the “balance” was traded unofficially). State was getting 20% in the export taxes. And even in the early XIX importance of the non-fur exports was quite significant and kept growing while the American schema was exclusively about the furs market of which already had been shrinking. So from the state perspective the whole thing was a very small and rather cost.y potato and from the commercial point of view it was anything but a good investment: high initial investment, a much longer time for ROI, high risk, low profit.
You keep insisting on the physical possibility (which you tend to overestimate ignoring general conditions of the Russian navy, financial aspect and demographics) while completely ignoring the motivations and the “boring details”.
Getting more land on the American coast to which purpose? Just for the fun of it? In the early XIX increasing Russian population of Siberia was of a higher priority and easier to do and even the southern areas of the European Russia were underpopulated. So, as a motivation resettlement is not a serious argument. As a financial schema it proved to be an expensive flop and kept proving this from year to year.
So how exactly this idea can be considered attractive by the broader merchant class and worthy of the serious support by the government?