[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7302-7331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3954]
[[Page 7301]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 18
Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada Under the 1994
Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7302]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
RIN 1018-AD04
Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada Under the 1994
Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) establishes
application requirements, permit procedures, and a fee for the issuance
of permits to import trophies of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) sport
hunted in Canada, including bears taken before the enactment of the
1994 Amendments.
The Northwest Territories (NWT) is the only area in Canada that
currently allows sport hunting. The Service finds that the NWT polar
bear management program meets the general criteria in the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) and approves specific populations when provisions
are in place to be consistent with the International Agreement on the
Conservation of Polar Bears (International Agreement) and ensure the
maintenance of the affected population at a sustainable level. The
Service intends these findings to be effective for multiple sport-
hunting seasons pending review as required under the MMPA.
DATES: This rule is effective March 20, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Stansell, Office of Management
Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone
(703) 358-2093; fax (703) 358-2281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 1994, Congress amended the MMPA
to allow for the issuance of permits to import sport-hunted trophies of
polar bears legally taken by the applicant while hunting in Canada. At
the present time, Canada is the only country that allows non-residents
to harvest polar bears through a regulated sport-hunting program. Prior
to the 1994 Amendments, the MMPA required those seeking authority to
import polar bear trophies from Canada to obtain a waiver of the MMPA's
moratorium on importing marine mammals. The Amendments provide for
development of regulations to authorize the import of sport-hunted
trophies by permit.
This final rule establishes the application requirements, permit
procedures, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and issuance fee for
such permits and makes the legal and scientific findings required by
the MMPA. Under section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA, before issuing a
permit for the import of a polar bear trophy, the Service must make a
finding that the applicant legally took the polar bear while hunting in
Canada. In consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and
after opportunity for public comment, the Service also must make the
following findings: (A) Canada has a monitored and enforced sport-
hunting program that is consistent with the International Agreement;
(B) Canada has a sport-hunting program based on scientifically sound
quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a
sustainable level; (C) the export from Canada and subsequent import
into the United States are consistent with the provisions of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and
other international agreements or conventions; and (D) the export and
subsequent import are not likely to contribute to the illegal trade in
bear parts.
According to the Committee Report (H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d Cong.,
2d Sess. (1994)), Congress placed these provisions in the law partly to
ensure that the import of polar bear trophies into the United States
would not increase hunting demand in Canada that would result in
unsustainable harvest levels. The Committee believed Canada's polar
bear management program regulates harvest through a quota system based
on principles of sustainable yield and Canada would base any increase
in the harvest quota on scientific data showing the population had
increased to such an extent as to support an increase in the quota.
This final rule provides information on polar bear biology and
Canada's management program for this species. The Service discusses
each of the legal and scientific findings for the NWT in relation to
the information provided and made these findings in consultation with
the MMC and after notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Service consulted with the Canadian wildlife authorities to
gather information on Canada's program. Based on the best available
scientific information on polar bear populations in Canada and current
information on Canada's management program, the Service believes its
findings are consistent with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Application Procedures
Section 18.30 establishes the application requirements, permit
procedures, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and fees to allow for
the importation of polar bear trophies. The applicant also must meet
the applicable requirements in 50 CFR Parts 13 (General permit
procedures), 14 (Importation, exportation, and transportation of
wildlife), 18 (Marine mammals), and 23 (Endangered species convention
(CITES)). Thus, for example, all sport-hunted polar bear import permits
will be subject to the conditions of the new Sec. 18.30(e), as well as
the prohibitions of Sec. 18.12(c)(1) and (2) regarding the import of
pregnant or nursing marine mammals.
To ensure the requirements are met, the sport hunter must submit an
application to the Service's Office of Management Authority. The
application form will outline the general information needed for permit
processing and information specific to the import of a trophy of a
polar bear taken in Canada. This includes information indicating that
the applicant legally hunted the bear, the sex of the bear, and an
itemized description of the polar bear parts to be imported (e.g., one
female polar bear trophy consisting of a tanned hide, 2.5 m head to
tail length, with claws attached and skull). Inheritors of trophies
taken by a hunter who died prior to import of the trophy must provide
documentation to show that he or she is the lawful heir.
The Service recognizes that some applicants may wish to apply for
an import permit prior to sport hunting. The Service will accept such
applications for processing but will not issue a permit until the
applicant submits the permit issuance fee of $1,000 and any information
that may not have been known at the time of application, i.e., an
itemized description of the polar bear parts, sex of the polar bear,
information indicating that the applicant legally harvested the bear,
certification that the bear was not pregnant or nursing (i.e., in a
family group) or a bear constructing or in a den at the time of take,
documentation to confirm the bear was not pregnant at the time of take,
and any available documentation to indicate the bear was not taken
while part of a family group.
Definitions
The definitions in Parts 10, 18, and 23 of 50 CFR apply to this
section.
The Service defined the term ``sport-hunted trophy'' to specify
what parts of the polar bear are included in the term
[[Page 7303]]
and to stipulate that the permittee may only import such items for
personal, noncommercial use. The Service considered the House Committee
Report (H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)) in developing
the definition. The report states that ``Trophies normally constitute
the hide, hair, skull, teeth, and claws of the animal, that can be used
by a taxidermist to create a mount of the animal for display or tanned
for use as a rug. This provision does not allow the importation of any
internal organ of the animal, including the gall bladder.''
The definition in this rule includes parts that are traditionally
considered trophy items for personal display and excludes items such as
clothing and jewelry. Since the definition includes skull, teeth,
bones, and baculum (penis bone), the Service points out that these
items must be marked in accordance with marking requirements for loose
parts under the laws and regulations of Canada and the United States
(Sec. 18.30(e)(7)).
The terms and conditions of the import permit govern the subsequent
use of the trophy, outlining that even after import the permittee may
only alter and use the trophy in a manner consistent with the
definition of a sport-hunted trophy.
The Service defined the term ``management agreement'' for the
purposes of this rule to mean a written agreement between parties that
share a polar bear population which describes what portion of the
harvestable quota will be allocated to each party and other measures
that may be taken for the conservation of the population, such as
harvest seasons, sex ratio of the harvest, and protection of females
and/or cubs.
Review by the Marine Mammal Commission
The MMPA requires the Service to make the specific findings
outlined in section 104(c)(5)(A) in consultation with the MMC, an
independent Federal agency with statutory authority to make
recommendations pursuant to Title II of the Act. On November 9, 1995,
the MMC, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors,
provided the Service substantive comments on the proposed rules. The
Service carefully evaluated this advice, clarified some information
with the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) based on the advice, and
considered the information in making the decisions in this final rule.
Procedures for Issuance of Permits and Modification, Suspension, or
Revocation of Permits
The general procedures to be followed for issuance, modification,
suspension, or revocation of permits are set forth in 50 CFR Part 13
and 18.33. Section 18.33 outlines the application procedures required
by section 104(d) of the MMPA. When Congress added section 104(c)(5) to
the MMPA to allow for issuance of permits to import polar bear
trophies, they did not exempt polar bear applications from the
procedures in section 104(d) that require the Service to publish a
notice of each permit application in the Federal Register for a 30-day
public comment period.
Issuance Criteria
Before the Service can issue a permit, the Service must consider
the issuance criteria of this section in addition to the general
criteria in 50 CFR 13.21. The first issuance criterion provides that
the specimen is ineligible for a permit if the applicant already
imported it into the United States without a permit or if the Federal
government seized it for illegal import.
The second and third issuance criteria specify what parts qualify
under the definition as a sport-hunted trophy and stipulate who can be
the applicant. The floor debate in the House of Representatives (140
Cong. Rec. H2725, April 26, 1994) emphasized that the intent of
Congress was to limit import of polar bear trophies to the hunter who
actually took the polar bear and who desires to import the trophy. If
an individual who legally took a polar bear dies prior to the import,
however, the heirs of that person's estate could apply for an import
permit.
The Service took the next issuance criteria directly from the
language of the law at section 104(c)(5)(A)(I)-(iv) and addresses
determinations in regard to these criteria in the section on legal and
scientific findings.
Permit Conditions
The general permit conditions in Part 13 of this subchapter apply.
In addition, every permit issued is subject to the conditions currently
in the regulations for marine mammal permits at Sec. 18.31(d). These
conditions require the permittee or an agent to possess the original
permit at the time of import and to ensure a duplicate copy of the
permit is attached to the container that holds the polar bear specimen
while in storage or transit.
This rule adds eight conditions that help the Service make the
legal and scientific findings required by the MMPA. These conditions
specify that the permittee: may not import internal organs of the polar
bear; may not alter and use the trophy except in a manner consistent
with the definition of a sport-hunted polar bear trophy even after
importing the trophy; may not import a polar bear that was a nursing
bear or a female with such a bear (i.e., in a family group), a bear in
a den or moving into a den, or a pregnant female, at the time of take;
must ensure the import of a trophy is accompanied by a CITES export
permit or re-export certificate; must import the trophy through a
designated port, except for full mounts when accompanied with an
exception to designated port permit; must import all parts of the
trophy at the same time; must ensure the hide is permanently tagged and
parts marked; and if the tag is lost, must present the trophy to the
Service for retagging in a timely manner.
Duration of Permits
The Service designates the duration of the permit on the face of
the permit. Permits for the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies
will be valid for no longer than one year, a timeframe that should
allow for the import to occur.
Fees
The MMPA requires the Director to establish and charge a reasonable
issuance fee for polar bear trophy import permits. The Service can
issue the permit only after the applicant has paid the issuance fee
which is due upon notice that the Service has approved the application.
The issuance fee is in addition to the standard permit processing fee
of $25 that is required at the time of application in accordance with
50 CFR 13.11(d).
The Service set the issuance fee at $1,000. The Committee Report
outlined that the Committee considered a reasonable fee to range from
$250 to $1,000. The Service believes this level of fee is appropriate
given the use of such funds for polar bear conservation.
The MMPA further requires the Service to use all of the issuance
fee for polar bear conservation programs conducted in Alaska and Russia
under section 113(d) of the MMPA. The United States has concern for
polar bear conservation worldwide, as shown by adoption of the
International Agreement. The population shared between Alaska and
Russia is of particular concern in light of renewed interest in polar
bear hunting in Russia and the need for a well monitored and enforced
conservation program in that country.
[[Page 7304]]
Scientific Review
The MMPA required the Service to undertake a scientific review of
the impact of the issuance of import permits on the polar bear
populations in Canada within 2 years from the enactment of the MMPA,
that was by April 30, 1996. Due to the time it has taken to develop the
final rule, the Service is setting the timeframe for this review as 2
years from the effective date of the final rule.
The review provides for the monitoring of the effects of permit
issuance on Canada's polar bear populations and a means to guarantee
the cessation of imports should there be an indication of a significant
adverse impact on the sustainability of the Canadian populations. The
Service is not defining the phrase ``significant adverse impact'' at
this time but considers the intent of the 1994 Amendments was to
require the Service not to issue trophy permits if the issuance of such
permits was negatively affecting the sustainability of Canada's polar
bear populations. Congressman Jack Fields, during the House of
Representatives floor debate on the 1994 Amendments stated, ``A
significant adverse impact means more than a simple decrease, ordinary
fluctuation, or normal change in the population cycle. A decline should
not be considered significant if the decline is of short duration,
affects a minuscule percentage of the population, or does not
jeopardize the sustainability of the species in the long term. The
decrease must be proven to be directly related to the trophy imports by
sport hunters and of such a magnitude as to warrant suspension of those
imports. Even so, the issuance of permits should not be suspended
unless Canada does not reduce the harvest quota in response to this
decline.'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725. April 26, 1994)
The MMPA requires the Service to base the review on the best
scientific information available and solicit public comment. The final
report must include a response to such public comment. The Director
must not issue permits allowing for the import of polar bears taken in
Canada if the Service determines, based on such review, that the
issuance of permits is having a significant adverse impact on the polar
bear populations in Canada.
Following the mandatory review of the impact of the issuance of
permits on Canadian polar bear populations, the Director may conduct
subsequent annual reviews. If the Director does undertake a review, the
MMPI requires that the Service complete the review by January 31. The
Director may not refuse to issue permits solely on the basis that the
Service did not complete the review by January 31. However, the
Director may refuse to issue permits if the Service cannot make the
legal and scientific findings as described below.
Consideration of Population Stocks Under the MMPI
The language in the MMPI refers to both an ``affected population
stock'' and ``affected population stocks,'' raising the question of
whether the Service needs to make the findings on one population for
the whole of Canada or on each of the 12 identified population stocks.
Canada's polar bears have alternatively been described in terms of
management units, subpopulations, or populations. Discussions of polar
bears frequently use inconsistent terms. For example, one summary at
the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) 1993 meeting referred to polar
bears in terms of a ``circumpolar population,'' as ``Canadian
populations,'' and ``world's polar bear sub-populations'' (PBSG 1995).
Section 3(11) of the MMPA defines the term ``population stock'' as
``a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a
common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature.'' The decision
to consider a segment as a distinct population includes relative
discreteness of the grouping in relation to the whole, i.e., whether
the population is markedly separate from other populations as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or biological
factors.
There have been difficulties in consistently defining population
stocks for many marine species under the MMPA. Dr. Barbara Taylor
(1995) in a NMFS administrative report pointed out that although the
definition of population remains elusive, it can be critical to good
management. She asserted that ``population stock'' in the MMPA has both
a biological and management meaning. In her discussion, Dr. Taylor
contended that two populations should be managed separately if
interchange is low as there are potentially strong negative effects of
treating large areas as single populations when mortality is
concentrated in small areas. Dr. Taylor also suggested that
``maintaining the range of a species meets the MMPA objective of
maintaining marine mammals as significantly functioning elements of
their ecosystems.''
Canada's management program for polar bear recognizes 12 discrete
populations with a set quota for human-caused mortality specific to
each population. Canada recognizes that it is important when
delineating populations for effective management to consider geographic
barriers, distribution, abundance, rate of exchange, recruitment, and
mortality. Harvest data and scientific research have provided
information to show that each population is relatively closed, with a
clear core area and minimal overlap. A recent publication by Bethke et
al. (1996) provides information on the manner in which the NWT
populations are delineated, including methods and types of statistical
analyses involved. Lee and Taylor (1994) summarized information on
harvest data and practices.
Since harvest data and scientific research of Canada's polar bears
have provided information to show that interchange between populations
is low and human-caused mortality is concentrated within localized
areas, the Service believes the management of polar bears in Canada as
discrete populations is consistent with the term ``population stock''
as used in the MMPA and helps to ensure the maintenance of the polar
bear throughout its range in Canada. Thus, the Service looked at
whether it could make the required findings of the MMPA for each of
Canada's 12 polar bear populations.
Population Status and Distribution
Although polar bears occur in most ice-covered areas of the Arctic
Ocean and adjacent coastal land areas, their distribution is not
continuous. They are most abundant along the perimeter of the polar
basin for 120 to 180 miles (200 to 300 kilometers) offshore. The
primary prey of polar bears is the ringed seal (Phoca hispida),
followed by the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), with the relative
abundance of seals affecting the distribution of polar bears. The long-
term distribution of polar bears and seals depends on the availability
of habitat which is influenced by seasonal and annual changes in ice
position and conditions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1995).
It is estimated that there are 21,000 to 28,000 polar bears
worldwide (PBSG 1995). The number of polar bears in Canada is estimated
at 13,120 and is dispersed among 12 relatively discrete stocks as
discussed above (Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)
unpublished documents on file with the Service) (Map 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 7305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18FE97.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 7306]]
Canada initially identified the boundaries of polar bear
populations based on geographic features using reconnaissance surveys.
Over time, Canada has confirmed and refined boundaries through
scientific research on the movement of polar bears (e.g., mark-
recapture, mark-kill harvest data, radio tracking, and satellite
telemetry), local knowledge of bear movements, and physical factors
affecting movements, such as ice formation and location of polynyas
(i.e., areas where ice consistently breaks up and creates open water or
areas where ice is refrozen at intervals during the winter) (GNWT).
Canada expects to revise boundaries as research continues.
The boundaries of some of the 12 populations fall outside of
Canadian jurisdiction. Specifically, extensive east-west movements of
polar bears occur between northwestern Canada and northern Alaska,
while in eastern Canada there is some information which demonstrates
movement of bears between Canada and Greenland. The extent of this
exchange is not yet clear.
Reproduction and Survival
Polar bears are intimately associated with Arctic ice. Based on the
unpredictability in the structure of Arctic sea ice and associated
availability of food, it is thought that adult males do not defend
stable territories but may instead distribute themselves among
different sea ice habitats at the same relative densities as solitary
adult females (Ramsay and Stirling 1986). Males locate females that are
ready to breed by scent and tracks. Polar bears mate while on the sea
ice from late March through May, with implantation occurring in
September. They typically form maternity dens in drifted snow in late
October and November and cubs are born in December through January
(USFWS 1995).
A summary of research data on the reproduction and survival in
polar bears is given in Taylor et al. (1987) and Ramsay and Stirling
(1986). Polar bears have a low birth rate and exhibit birth pulse
reproduction. A small number breed for the first time at 3 years of age
and slightly more at 4 years of age. Most females start to produce
young at 5 or 6 years of age. Cubs remain with the female until they
are about 2.5 years old, during which time the female avoids
associating with adult males. This results in a skewed sex ratio, with
fewer females available to breed in any one year than males and in
intrasexual competition among males for access to breeding females.
When the cubs are weaned, the female is again ready for breeding. Some
females lose their cubs before weaning and are available for breeding
the next season. Overall survival rates of cubs, adult female survival
rates, litter size, and litter production rates affect the number of
females available to breed. Females, on the average, breed every 3
years and stop reproducing at about 20 years of age.
Typically, each litter consists of two cubs with an overall 50:50
sex ratio. However, due to mortality, the average litter size ranges
from 1.58 to 1.87 in the High Arctic populations to as high as 2.0 in
Hudson Bay. The first year survival rate is high (0.70 to 0.85) because
of the long period of female parental care. The life history strategy
of the polar bear is typified by high adult survival rates (0.76 to
0.95) (GNWT).
Canada's Polar Bear Management Program
Polar bears occur in Canada in the Northwest Territories, in the
Yukon Territory, and in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and
Newfoundland and Labrador (Map 1). All 12 polar bear populations lie
within or are shared with the NWT. The NWT geographical boundaries
include all Canadian lands and marine environment north of the 60th
parallel (except the Yukon Territory) and all islands and waters in
Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait up to the low water mark of Manitoba,
Ontario, and Quebec. The offshore marine areas along the coast of
Newfoundland and Labrador are under Federal jurisdiction (GNWT).
Although Canada manages each of the 12 populations of polar bear as
separate units, there is a somewhat complex sharing of
responsibilities. While wildlife management has been delegated to the
Provincial and Territorial Governments, the Federal Government
(Environment Canada's CWS) has an active research program and is
involved in management of wildlife populations shared with other
jurisdictions, especially ones with other nations. In the NWT, Native
Land Claims resulted in Co-management Boards for most of Canada's polar
bear populations.
Canada formed the Federal-Provincial Technical and Administrative
Committees for Polar Bear Research and Management (PBTC and PBAC,
respectively) to ensure a coordinated management process consistent
with internal and international management structures and the
International Agreement. The committees meet annually to review
research and management of polar bears in Canada and have
representation from all the Provincial and Territorial jurisdictions
with polar bear populations and the Federal Government. Beginning in
1984, members of the Service have attended meetings of the PBTC and
biologists from Norway and Denmark have attended a number of meetings
as well. In recent years, the PBAC meetings have included the
participation of non-government groups, such as the Inuvialuit Game
Council and the Labrador Inuit Association for their input at the
management level. The annual meetings of the PBTC provide for
continuing cooperation between jurisdictions and for recommending
management actions to the PBAC (Calvert et al. 1995).
NWT Polar Bear Management Program
The GNWT manages polar bears under the Northwest Territories Act
(Canada). The 1960 Order-in-Council granted authority to the
Commissioner in Council (NWT) to pass ordinances that are applicable to
all people to protect polar bear, including the establishment of a
quota system. The Wildlife Act, 1988, and Big Game Hunting Regulations
provide supporting legislation which addresses each polar bear
population.
Although the Inuvialuit and Nunavut Land Claim Agreements supersede
the Northwest Territories Act (Canada) and the Wildlife Act, no change
in management consequences for polar bears is expected since the GNWT
retains management and enforcement authority. Under the umbrella of
this authority, polar bears are now co-managed through wildlife
management boards made up of Land Claim Beneficiaries and Territorial
and Federal representatives. One of the strongest aspects of the
program is that the management decision process is integrated between
jurisdictions and with local hunters and management boards. A main
feature of this approach is the development of Local Management
Agreements between the communities that share a population of polar
bears. Management agreements are in place for all NWT populations.
However, in the case of populations that the NWT shares with Quebec and
Ontario (neither of which is approved under the criteria specified in
this rule), the management agreement is not binding upon residents of
communities outside of NWT jurisdiction.
The GNWT uses these agreements to develop regulations that
implement the agreements. In addition to regulations to enforce the
agreements, there is strong incentive to comply with the management
agreements since they are developed co-operatively between the
government and the resource users who directly benefit from the
commitment to
[[Page 7307]]
long-term maintenance of the population. The interest and willingness
of members of the community to conform their activities to observe the
law reinforces other law enforcement measures. Regulations specify who
can hunt; season timing and length; age and sex classes that can be
hunted; and the total allowable harvest for a given population in Polar
Bear Management Areas. The Department of Renewable Resources (DRR) has
officers to enforce the regulations in most communities of the NWT. The
officers investigate and prosecute incidents of violation of
regulations, kills in defense of life, or exceeding a quota.
Harvest of Polar Bears
The hunting of polar bears is an important part of the culture and
economy of indigenous peoples of the Arctic (PBSG 1995). Canada first
imposed a hunting season in 1935; restricted hunting opportunities to
Native people in 1949; and introduced quotas for polar bears in 1967.
The harvest of polar bears was almost 700 in 1967/68, but dropped
dramatically with the introduction of quotas. The largest increase
occurred in the 1978/79 season when the quota was increased by 12
percent (Lee et al. 1994).
There often are a number of communities within the boundaries of
each polar bear population. The total sustainable harvest for each
population is divided among communities that harvest polar bears within
the population boundaries. The resulting portions are referred to as
the settlement quotas. When agreement on a community's settlement quota
has been reached, that number of tags are provided each year to the
Hunters' and Trappers' Organizations or Associations or Committees
(HTO). Some communities may hold quota tags for several separate
populations within their traditional hunting area, but communities may
use tags only for the population for which the tags are issued (GNWT).
The GNWT does not administer sport hunting separately from other
polar bear harvesting. An agent or broker usually arranges the polar
bear sport hunts. In general, the agent or broker contacts the
community's HTO to arrange for the hunt including the acquisition of a
hunting license and tag for the hunter. If the community has not
already decided what portion of its quota, if any, to designate for
sport hunters, the HTO representative presents all requests for sport-
hunting tags at a community meeting. The community decides on the
number of tags designated for sport hunting. The tag cannot be resold
or used by other sport hunters. In most cases the DRR officer retains
the polar bear tags for sport hunts and provides them to the hunters.
In a few cases, the HTO representative retains the tags and provides
them to the hunters (GNWT).
There is substantial economic return to the community from sport
hunts. The potential value of the actual hunt cost in 1993/94 in Parry
Channel for one polar bear was $18,500 (US) with 80 percent of the
money staying in the community. However, only a few communities
currently take part in sport hunts as it reduces hunting opportunities
for local hunters (GNWT). Table 1 summarizes the number of sport hunts
that occurred in the different populations in the NWT for the 1992/93
and 1993/94 seasons. Overall, the number of quota tags used for sport
hunting, including unsuccessful hunts, compared to the total known kill
in the NWT averaged 10.9 percent for the 1989-1994 hunting seasons
(Table 2).
Sport hunting for polar bears began in the NWT in 1969/70 with
three hunts and gradually increased (GNWT). Over the five seasons
between 1989-1994 the total number of sport hunts ranged from 37 to 66
(Table 2). All sport hunts are subject to certain restrictions. Sport
hunts must be conducted under Canadian jurisdiction and guided by a
Native hunter. In addition, transportation during the hunt must be by
dog sled, the tags must come from the community quota, and tags from
unsuccessful sport hunts may not be used again.
The success rate of a sport hunt is relatively high. The 1989-1994
seasons are characterized by success rates of 76 to 84 percent (Table
2), although the success rate does vary between populations (Table 1).
Sport hunters typically select trophy animals, usually large adult
males. For example, in the 1993/94 hunting season, 79 percent of polar
bears taken as sport-hunting trophies were male (Table 1).
Table 1.--Statistics for Polar Bear Sport Hunting in the NWT for Populations Identified as Southern Beaufort Sea
(SB), Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE), Parry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of
Boothia (GB), and Foxe Basin (FB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993/94 Season 1992/93 Season
----------------------------------------------------------------
Number Number
Population killed Sport hunt Percent Killed Percent of
(number not percent of male (number not total
successful) total successful)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB............................................. 3 (3) 9.7 67 1 (0) 2.7
NB............................................. 2 (3) 8.1 100 1 (1) 5.4
QE............................................. 0 (1) 1.6 ........... 1 (0) 2.7
PC............................................. 26 (2) 45.2 85 22 (2) 64.9
BB............................................. 5 (0) 8.1 80 2 (1) 8.1
GB............................................. 7 (3) 16.1 86 4 (1) 13.5
FB............................................. 5 (2) 11.3 40 0 (1) 2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 48 (14) ........... 79 31 (6) ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Summary of Sport Hunt Kills In NWT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Number total sport
Season Total sport killed Known total hunt to
hunt (percent kill in NWT known kill
success) in NWT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989/90..................................................... 60 48 (80) 537 11.2
1990/91..................................................... 66 50 (76) 490 13.5
[[Page 7308]]
1991/92..................................................... 48 39 (81) 549 8.7
1992/93..................................................... 37 31 (84) 506 7.3
1993/94..................................................... 62 48 (77) 432 14.4
---------------------------------------------------
Average................................................. ........... ........... ........... 10.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal and Scientific Findings and Summary of Applicable Information
Currently, only the GNWT allows the sport hunting of polar bears.
The Service reviewed the available scientific and management data for
each of the 12 populations contained wholly or partly within the NWT
and made findings to approve populations on an aggregate basis when the
criteria of section 104(c)(5)(A) were met. The Service intends these
findings to apply to bears taken in multiple harvest seasons, but can
consider new information that may affect the findings at any time. If
the Service determines by new information that the finding(s) are no
longer supported, the Service must stop issuing import permits for
sport-hunted trophies from affected polar bear population(s) following
consultation with the MMC and after notice and opportunity for public
comment.
The Service deferred making a decision on the remaining populations
until further scientific and management data become available. Upon
receipt of substantial new information, the Service will publish a
proposal for public comment and consult with the Marine Mammal
Commission. Any population found to meet all the criteria will be added
to the list in Sec. 18.30(i)(l).
A. Legal Take
1. Finding
The Service finds that the GNWT has a management program that
ensures hunters are taking polar bears legally. This program includes
the use of hunting licenses; quota tags; DRR officers in communities;
collection of biological samples from the trophy and collection of data
from the hunter; a regulated tannery; a computerized tracking system
for licenses, permits and tags; and an export permit requirement to
export the trophy from the NWT to other provinces. This is all within
the context of the laws, regulations, and co-management agreements
discussed earlier.
Under the 1994 Amendments the Service can issue permits only after
the applicant submits proof that he or she took the polar bear legally.
The Service will accept one of several different forms of
documentation, as detailed in the regulations at Sec. 18.30(a)(4).
2. Discussion of Legal Take
As described above, the agent or broker usually obtains the hunting
license and tag for the hunter. Once the hunter has taken a polar bear,
the DRR officer affixes a tag to the hide and collects biological
samples. Polar bear tags are metal, designed for one-time use, and
stamped with the words polar bear, an identification number, and the
harvest year. The identification number in combination with the harvest
year identifies the community to which the tag was assigned. If a tag
is lost prior to being affixed to a hide, the hunter must report the
lost tag number and other required information to the DRR officer prior
to issuance of a replacement tag. In the event that the sport hunt is
unsuccessful, the unused tag is destroyed.
By regulation, as soon as practicable after a person kills a bear,
he or she must provide the following information to a DRR officer in
the community, or a person who has been designated by the HTO and has
the approval of a DRR officer: (a) the person's name; (b) the date and
location where the bear was killed; (c) the lower jaw or undamaged
post-canine tooth and, when present, lip tattoos and ear tags from the
bear; (d) evidence of the sex of the bear; and (e) any other
information as required. Except where an officer verifies the sex of
the polar bear, the hunter must provide the baculum of the male polar
bear for the purposes of determining sex. If proof of sex is not
provided or an officer does not verify the sex of the bear, the GNWT
will deem the bear to have been female for the purposes of population
modeling.
Additional information, collected to complete a numbered Polar Bear
Hunter Kill Return form, includes: community; polar bear population;
harvest season; sex of the bear; approximate latitude and longitude of
take using a map or description of the location with geographical
references; general comments on the physical condition of the bear,
including a measure of the fat depth; indication of whether the bear
was alone or part of a family group (i.e., based on observation of the
bears or bear tracks), including if the bear was a mother with cubs;
estimated age class of the bear before tooth examination; disposition
of the hide; hide value to the hunter; hunter's address and the
hunter's license number; guide/outfitters name; and name of the DRR
officer in the applicable community.
By NWT regulation, a licensed tanner must needle stamp each hide or
pelt upon receipt so that the hide or pelt may be identified as
belonging to a specific customer. Polar bear tags are not intended to
remain on the hide during tanning. The tanner removes the polar bear
tag and returns it to the owner of the hide.
In 1991, the DRR developed a Game License System to track all
licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department. It is accessible
from any area of the NWT. All eight Regional Offices complete a monthly
vendor return that contains information on all the licenses, permits,
and tags issued during that month. The DRR can generate reports and
searches as needed. Canada also maintains a computerized national polar
bear harvest database. Up until quotas were established in 1967/68,
harvest data were recorded opportunistically. Since 1977/78 all
harvests have been recorded. If needed, Canada could track a polar bear
trophy imported from Canada to the individual who took the bear.
An exporter of wildlife, including polar bear parts, must obtain a
NWT Wildlife Export Permit from a DRR officer prior to export. The
hunter must show the hunting license and submit the tag, either removed
for tanning or removed at the time of export. The exporter also must
obtain a CITES export permit prior to export of the polar bear parts
from Canada (see discussion in the section on CITES) (GNWT).
[[Page 7309]]
B. 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears
During the 1950's and 1960's, there was a growing international
concern for the welfare of polar bear populations. The primary concern
was that the increased number of bears being killed could lead to
endangerment of populations. In 1968, biologists from the five nations
with jurisdiction over polar bears (Canada, Denmark (for Greenland),
Norway, the United States, and the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics) formed the PBSG under the auspices of the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, now known as
the World Conservation Union (IUCN). This group was in large part
responsible for the development and ratification of the International
Agreement, which entered into force in 1976 for a 5-year period and was
reaffirmed in 1981 for an indefinite period. Greenland was later
provided recognition through ``Home-rule'' although the Government of
Denmark maintained its role in affairs of international scope.
The International Agreement unites nations with a vested interest
in the Arctic ecosystem in supporting a biologically and scientifically
sound conservation program for polar bears. It is a conservation tool
that provides guidelines for management measures for polar bears. It
defines prohibitions on the taking of polar bears as well as the
methods of taking, and identifies action items to be addressed by the
signatories, including protection of polar bear habitat and conducting
research for polar bear.
The International Agreement is not self-implementing and does not
in itself provide for national conservation programs. Each signatory
nation has implemented a conservation program to protect polar bears
and their environment (USFWS 1995). In the United States, the MMPA
implements the International Agreement. Since the International
Agreement left implementation and enforcement to each nation, different
interpretations resulted in a diversity of practices in managing polar
bear populations (Prestrud and Stirling 1995).
The main purpose of the PBSG is to promote cooperation between
jurisdictions that share polar bear populations, coordinate research
and management, exchange information, and monitor compliance with the
International Agreement. The 1993 PBSG meeting concluded, ``Overall, it
seemed that all countries were complying fairly well to the intent, if
not necessarily the letter of the Agreement'' (PBSG 1995). Prestrud and
Stirling (1995) concluded that the influence of the International
Agreement on the circumpolar development of polar bear conservation has
been significant and polar bear populations are now reasonably secure
worldwide.
1. Finding
The Service finds that the GNWT has a monitored and enforced sport-
hunting program that is consistent with the purposes of the
International Agreement as required by the 1994 Amendments with the
following limitation. The Service only approved populations where
provisions are in place to protect females with cubs, their cubs, and
bears in denning areas during periods when bears are moving into
denning areas or are in dens. At this time the Service has deferred
making a final decision for the Southern Hudson Bay or Foxe Basin
populations. These populations share polar bears with Ontario and
Quebec, respectively. Neither province has legislation to protect such
bears or a written agreement with the GNWT to afford such protection.
Native hunters of both provinces have agreed to protect females with
cubs, their cubs, bears moving into dens, and bears in dens. However,
given the limited reporting and collection of harvest information in
Quebec and Ontario (PBSG, 1995) it is not possible to determine the
effectiveness of the respective management programs to protect females
with cubs, their cubs, bears moving into dens or bears in dens. As new
management data become available on these populations, the Service will
evaluate the data as to whether a proposed rule should be published to
consider adding the populations to the approved list in
Sec. 18.30(i)(1).
2. Taking and Exceptions
Article I of the International Agreement prohibits the taking of
polar bears, including hunting, killing, and capturing. Article III
establishes five exceptions to the taking prohibition of Article I as
follows: (a) for bona fide scientific purposes; (b) for conservation
purposes; (c) to prevent serious disturbance of the management of other
living resources; (d) by local people using traditional methods in the
exercise of their traditional rights and in accordance with the laws of
that Party; and (e) wherever polar bears have or might have been
subject to taking by traditional means by its nationals.
The International Agreement does not disallow sport hunting of
polar bears. Mr. Curtis Bohlen, head of the U.S. delegation at the 1973
negotiations of the International Agreement, clarified to the Service
(pers. comm. 1995) that the U.S. position, which was generally agreed
to by all, was that sport hunting could occur if the countries could
define the national territories and waters subject to national
jurisdiction so the remainder of the Arctic Ocean would become a ``de
facto'' polar bear sanctuary.
However, the somewhat overlapping nature of Article III.1.(d) and
(e) has led to confusion over which exception is applicable to allowing
a sport hunt or who may hunt. The Service views them as follows.
Exception (d) vests the local people with their traditional hunting
rights when exercised in accordance with national law, whereas
exception (e) creates a de facto polar bear sanctuary by allowing the
take of polar bears only where polar bears have or might have been
taken by traditional means by its nationals. Part of the confusion in
viewing these exceptions is caused by Canada's declaration that allows
the local people to sell a polar bear permit from the quota to a non-
Inuit or non-Indian hunter, a provision that is in accordance with the
laws of Canada.
Baur suggests that one possible interpretation of exception (e)
would be that only ``nationals'' of a country could take polar bears
within that country's area of traditional taking. Under this
interpretation it would be illegal for U.S. citizens to hunt polar
bears outside the United States. Baur offered, however, that the best
interpretation of exception (e) is that the intent of all the IUCN
drafts was to establish a taking prohibition outside of national
territories, with particular reference to the ``high seas.'' The
Parties chose to define a sanctuary area for polar bears in the Arctic
Ocean by limiting the area within which taking could occur to those
where hunting by traditional means occurred. Since such hunting was
conducted mostly by Natives by ground transportation (e.g., dog teams,
snowmobiles, etc.), the area affected seldom reached into the areas
commonly understood to be ``high seas'' (Baur 1993).
Early drafts of the agreement included an exception to the
prohibitions on killing polar bears for ``local people who depend on
that resource.'' U.S. representatives, who were concerned that
commercial dealers might hire local people to kill bears, felt the
language was appropriate. Canadian representatives, on the other hand,
wanted the words ``who depend on that resource'' deleted, arguing that
the agreement should include the rights of people who are only
culturally
[[Page 7310]]
dependent or even potentially dependent.
During development of the final document at the November 1973
meeting in Oslo, the delegates resolved the concerns raised by the
terms ``high seas'' in Article III of the draft and ``local people who
depend on the resource'' by specifying the vested class without
resorting to geographic boundaries. A report to the Secretary of State
from the U.S. delegation explained that the delegates agreed that
``there should be an overall prohibition on the taking of polar bears
in Article I without specifying any geographic units and that the
exceptions of Article III'' include exception (e), which in effect
establishes a polar bear sanctuary. The report further explained that
exception (d), allowing hunting by local people, did not appear to the
U.S. delegation to be necessary because under exception (e) ``such
hunting is of course permissible. However, some of the delegations felt
that the Agreement would be more acceptable to their governments if the
exception for local people was explicitly stated.''
Canada issued a declaration at the time of ratification of the
International Agreement to clarify that it regards the guiding of sport
hunters by aboriginal people, within conservation limits, to be
allowed. The declaration states, ``The Government of Canada therefore
interprets Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (d) and (e) as
permitting a token sports hunt based on scientifically sound settlement
quotas as an exercise of the traditional rights of the local people.''
Canada declared that the local people in a settlement may authorize the
selling of a polar bear permit from the quota to a non-Inuit or non-
Indian hunter, provided a Native hunter guides the hunt, a dog team is
used, and the hunt is conducted within Canadian jurisdiction.
The Canadian declaration did not define ``token sports hunt'' in
terms of a specific percentage. In a May 1996 letter, the CWS wrote the
Service that Canada did not define the term ``token'' at the time of
the declaration and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to define
it now. ``At the time the Agreement was signed, there was a fairly
small number of Inuit guided sport hunts for polar bears taking place
and no one knew whether or not the Inuit would continue to be
interested in this option. However, it was strongly felt by Canada that
if the Inuit wished to develop guided hunting, within scientific and
legal constraints in order to realize a greater economic benefit, that
their right to do so should be protected. The term `token' was added
because, in 1973, there was still a significant mood of public
revulsion about the extremely unsportsmanlike hunting of polar bears
from aircraft in Alaska and from large vessels in Svalbard.
Consequently, the term `token' in the Canadian letter of declaration
was used to try to deflect or minimize unjustified negative public
reaction to the inclusion of Inuit-guided hunts within a sustainable
quota.'' Canada believes ``token'' should remain undefined since ``the
important issue is that polar bears are being harvested within
sustainable levels and the portion taken by Inuit-guided hunters is a
matter for local people to determine for themselves.''
Neither the International Agreement nor Canada's declaration
specifically restricts the proportion of hunts that can be sport hunts.
Based on the above clarification from Canada and further review of the
International Agreement, the Service dropped the proposed
interpretation of ``token sports hunts'' as 15 percent of the total
number of polar bear taken in the NWT. The Service believes that
although it may be confusing that Canada has not defined ``token,'' as
long as the quota is scientifically calculated and the NWT polar bear
management program is sustainable, the International Agreement is not
violated. Therefore, the Service is interpreting ``token sports hunt''
as sport hunts that are within conservation limits. The Service notes
that any pressure to increase the quota as a result of an increase in
sport hunting will be carefully examined by the Service in the course
of its scientific review of the impact of import permits on the polar
bear populations in Canada.
3. Protection of Habitat, Management of Polar Bear Populations, and the
Prohibition on Taking Cubs and Females With Cubs
Article II of the International Agreement provides that Parties:
(1) take ``appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar
bears are a part''; (2) give ``attention to habitat components such as
denning and feeding site and migration patterns''; and (3) manage polar
bear populations in accordance with ``sound conservation practices''
based on the best available scientific data (Baur 1993).
At the 1973 Conference, the Parties to the International Agreement
adopted a non-binding ``Resolution on Special Protection Measures''
urging Parties to take steps to: (a) provide a complete ban on the
hunting of female polar bears with cubs and their cubs and (b) prohibit
the hunting of polar bears in denning areas during periods when bears
are moving into denning areas or are in dens. In adopting this
resolution, the Parties recognized the low reproductive rate of polar
bears and suggested that the measures ``are generally accepted by
knowledgeable scientists'' to be ``sound conservation practices''
within the meaning of Article II. While the signatory nations consider
the prohibitions in the resolution important, they are not terms of the
International Agreement itself and are not legally binding (Baur 1993).
Although biologists at the 1993 PBSG meeting discussed the resolution,
they did not reach agreement over the interpretation of whether females
with their cubs and cubs are specially protected under the
International Agreement (PBSG 1995).
Although the Service recognizes that the resolution is not binding,
the 1994 Amendments require the Service to make a finding that Canada's
management program is consistent with the purposes of the International
Agreement. The resolution clearly falls within the purposes of sound
conservation practices of Article II. Thus, the Service will only
approve populations where provisions are in place to protect females
with cubs, their cubs, and bears in denning areas during periods when
bears are moving into denning areas or are in dens.
The Service finds that the GNWT meets the resolution to the
International Agreement. At the time of the proposed rulemaking the
GNWT wildlife regulations protected cubs-of-the year, 1-year-old cubs,
and mothers of these bears. The GNWT in cooperation with the resource
users have since revised all management agreements to protect all bears
in family groups regardless of the age of the cubs (Ron Graf, DRR,
personal communication). The Service has deferred a decision on the
Southern Hudson Bay population that is shared with Ontario and the Foxe
Basin population that is shared with Quebec. These provinces have no
legislation in place to protect such bears and no written management
agreement with the GNWT to afford such protection. Upon receipt of
substantial new management data, the Service will publish a proposal
for public comment and consult with the MMC. If the Service finds that
a population meets all the criteria, the population will be added to
the list in Sec. 18.30(i)(1).
4. Prohibition on the Use of Aircraft and Large Motorized Vessels
Article IV of the International Agreement prohibits the use of
``aircraft and large motorized vessels for the purpose of taking polar
bears * * *
[[Page 7311]]
except where the application of such prohibition would be inconsistent
with domestic laws.''
It is illegal in Canada to hunt, pursue, or scout for polar bears
from aircraft (PBSG 1995). Native hunters may travel and hunt polar
bears by 3-wheel ATV (all-terrain vehicles), snowmobile, and boats
under 15 meters. Sport hunters and their aboriginal guides must conduct
the hunt by dog team or on foot. Access to the communities is by air
only, so sport hunters must fly to reach their destinations. Aircraft,
snow machines, and boats are used sometimes to transport equipment,
hunters, and dogs to base camps that can be a great distance from the
community. The hunt continues from the base camp by dog team. Canada
does not interpret transportation by air or other motorized vehicle to
a place where the hunt begins as a violation of Article IV of the
International Agreement (GNWT). The Service agrees with this
interpretation. Baur (1993) explained that Article IV of the
International Agreement ``followed strong opinion that the hunting of
polar bears with aircraft should be stopped and, furthermore, that the
prohibition against the use of large motorized vessels for taking was
directed at the practice, which was particularly common in the
Spitsbergen area, of hunting bears from vessels of 100 feet or
longer.'' Article IV of the International Agreement, appears to address
the use of aircraft for actually hunting the bear, not the use of
aircraft as a means of transport to a base camp from which a hunt
begins.
A second issue regarding the use of snowmobiles and aircraft is
whether the use of such equipment opens up non-traditional areas of
polar bear hunting, thus violating exception (e) of Article III.1. of
the International Agreement. The Service believes that the use of
snowmobiles and aircraft in the NWT for transportation in the course of
a hunt does not violate exception (e). First, numerous historical
accounts identify and document traditional land use areas for polar
bear hunting in the NWT. In particular, the Inuit Land Use and
Occupancy Project, which formed the basis of the Nunavut land claim,
established much of the information on the historical and traditional
land use by Inuit in the NWT (CWS 1996). Second, the delegates
addressed concerns regarding the use of snowmobiles during development
of the International Agreement. The report to the Secretary of State
from the U.S. delegation to the Conference states, ``In regard to the
snowmobile, which in many places has replaced the dog sled as the means
of transportation for Eskimos, the polar scientists explained that in
many circumstances it cannot penetrate the ice area as far as a dog
sled can. Therefore, the use of the snowmobile should not diminish the
area of protection.'' Similarly, due to the high operating costs and
the inaccessibility of aviation fuel in many Arctic communities,
airplanes cannot travel into areas that were not otherwise reached by
traditional means such as dog sled.
C. Scientifically Sound Quotas and Maintenance of Sustainable
Population Levels
The GNWT manages polar bear with a quota system based on inventory
studies, sex ratio of the harvest, and population modeling using the
best available scientific information. The rationale of the polar bear
management program is that the human-caused kill (e.g., harvest,
defense, or incidental kills) must remain within the sustainable yield,
with the anticipation of a slow increase in number for any population.
Each population is unique in terms of both ecology and management
issues, and baseline information ranges from very good in some areas to
less developed in others. But overall, polar bear populations in Canada
are considered to be healthy (GNWT).
The text of the House of Representatives floor debate on the 1994
Amendments (140 Cong. Rec. H2725, April 26, 1994) states that the
intent of the Amendments was not to change Canada's management program
or to impose polar bear management policy or practices on Canada
through the imposition of any polar bear import criteria. The Service
agrees and believes the intent of Congress was to ensure ``* * * sport
hunting of polar bears does not adversely affect the sustainability of
the country's polar bear populations and that it does not have a
detrimental effect on maintaining those populations throughout their
range'' (Committee Report, H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 34
(1994)).
1. Finding
Based on information as summarized in this final rule, the Service
finds that the GNWT has a sport-hunting program, based on
scientifically sound quotas, ensuring the maintenance of the affected
population at a sustainable level for the following populations:
Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound
(under a 5-year moratorium), M'Clintock Channel, and Western Hudson Bay
with provisions that there are management agreements in place.
These are aggregate findings that are applicable in subsequent
years. However, if the Service receives substantial new information on
a population, the Service will review the information and make a new
finding as to whether to continue to approve the population. If, after
consultation with the MMC and notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Service determines that the finding is no longer
supported, the Service must stop issuing import permits for sport-
hunted trophies from the affected polar bear population.
Prior to making the finding as required under Sec. 18.30(d)(5), the
Service will consider the overall sport-hunting program, including such
factors as whether the sport-hunting program includes: (a) reasonable
measures to make sure the population is managed for sustainability
(i.e., monitoring to identify problems, ways of correcting problems,
etc.); (b) harvest quotas calculated and based on scientific
principles; (c) a management agreement between the representatives of
communities that share the population to achieve the sustainability of
the program through, among other things, the allocation of the
population quota; and (d) compliance with quotas and other aspects of
the program as agreed in the management agreement or other
international agreements.
The Service has deferred making findings for the following
populations: Queen Elizabeth Island, Parry Channel/Baffin Bay, Gulf of
Boothia, Davis Strait, Foxe Basin, and Southern Hudson Bay. Upon
receipt of substantial new scientific or management data on the overall
sport-hunting program of any of these populations, the Service will
evaluate whether a given population meets the issuance criteria after
consultation with the MMC and notice and opportunity for public
comment. If the decision is to approve a population, the Service will
add it to the list at Sec. 18.30(i)(1).
No person may import a polar bear prior to the Service's issuance
of an import permit for the specific sport-hunted trophy.
2. Inventory
It is difficult and expensive to determine population trends for
polar bears since they are distributed over vast areas in the Arctic
environment. A minimum of 3 to 5 years of research is needed to gain a
reliable population estimate, and data collection needs to continue for
10 to 20 years to detect significant changes (Prestrud and Stirling
1995). Each population in the NWT is assessed by periodic population
[[Page 7312]]
inventory done on a rotational basis. With study of two or more
populations conducted concurrently, the time required to sequentially
assess all 12 populations and then begin the process over again is
projected to be 20 years.
The first part of the inventory process identifies the geographic
boundaries of each population. The second part of the inventory process
is to estimate the size of a population. The basic principle behind the
use of mark-recapture and mark-kill data in wildlife management is that
given a known number of identifiable animals, the rate at which those
animals are recaptured or killed provides an assessment of the size of
the population. By regulation, a person must submit to the DRR at the
time of harvest of the bear the lip tattoos or ear tags applied to
polar bears in the course of population inventories. The GNWT monitors
the sex and age structure of the harvest. Changes in the sex and age of
the harvest over time provide insight into whether the population may
be increasing or declining.
The GNWT then uses this information to calculate a sustainable
level of harvest. Should mark-kill data, information from the
monitoring program, or reports from local hunters suggest a problem
with a particular population, Canada could shorten the period between
assessments depending on the availability of research resources.
Canada incorporates data from ongoing research into management
practices as appropriate. Management of this species is based on
information from studies that have been published in reports,
conference proceedings, and refereed scientific journals.
3. Calculation of Sustainable Harvest
Polar bears are a long-lived and late maturing species that have a
low annual recruitment rate. Their life history strategy is a reliance
on a constantly high adult survival rate and stable recruitment.
Consequently polar bears are particularly vulnerable to overharvest.
Conservation management and comparisons with other long-lived species
suggest that noncompensatory harvest models are most appropriate for
polar bears (Taylor et al. 1987).
The GNWT manages polar bears under the assumption that the polar
bear populations are experiencing maximal recruitment and survival
rates (e.g., no density effects). The estimated sustainable rate of
harvest is then the maximum sustainable harvest. When the Service
inquired why this assumption was made, the GNWT responded that they
believe it is a legitimate and conservative approach. Little is known
about density-dependent population regulation in bears, including polar
bears (Taylor et al. 1994). The current data are insufficient to
determine if the mechanism is mainly nutritional, mainly social, or a
combination of social and nutritional. In addition, the study of
density effects on polar bears would be a long-term proposition and
very expensive due to the slow growth rates, high environmental
variability, and behavioral plasticity of the species. The intention of
the GNWT is to ensure the conservation of existing populations with
good data and management before doing more experimental work. They
believe the need for information on density effects will increase as
populations slowly increase under the current management system, and
anticipate that their periodic inventory and subsequent management
changes will provide information on how polar bear populations respond
to various density levels over the long term (GNWT).
Based on a model developed cooperatively between all jurisdictions
managing polar bears, it was demonstrated that the two most critical
parameters for estimating sustainable harvest are population numbers
and adult female survival rate (Taylor et al. 1987a). As a result of
sampling biases in the available data, Canada simplified the detailed
analysis to contain only the most important features. One such
simplification involved the use of pooled best estimates for vital
rates for all Canadian polar bear populations. Using the pooled best
estimates for vital rates, the polar bear harvest model indicated that
the sustainable harvest (H) of a population could be estimated as:
H = N (0.015/Pf),
where N is the total number of individuals in the population and
Pf is the proportion of females in the harvest measured directly
from the harvest returns. The formula can also be modified for
populations with different renewal rates and, if new information
becomes available, on birth and death rates (GNWT).
Table 3 provides information on each population including the
population estimate, the total kill (excluding natural deaths),
percentage of females killed, and the calculated sustainable harvest
for the 1993/94 harvest season and averaged over the preceding three
and five seasons. Based on this information, the status of the
population is designated as increasing, stable, or decreasing,
represented by the symbols ``+'', ``0'', ``-''. The population status
is expressed as the difference between the calculated sustainable
harvest and the kill. For example, the calculated sustainable harvest
for the Southern Beaufort Sea 1993/94 harvest season was 81.1. Since
the total kill was 64, the harvest of polar bears in the Southern
Beaufort Sea did not exceed the sustainable yield. Therefore, the
population had the potential to increase. In contrast, the Foxe Basin
(FB) kill exceeded the sustainable harvest, thus the population status
is represented as declining.
Table 3.--Population Status for Canadian Polar Bear Populations Incorporating Harvest Statistics From 1989/90 to 1993/94. The Populations Are Identified As Follows: Southern Beaufort Sea (SB),
Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Viscount Melville (VM), Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE), Parry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of Boothia (GB), M'Clintock Channel (MC), Foxe Basin (FB), Davis
Strait (DS), Western Hudson Bay (WH), and Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The Percent Females (%) Statistic \1\ Does Not Include Bears of Unknown Sex Except for Labrador (1991/92 and 1992/93) and
Greenland (All 5 Years). Harvest Statistics Include All Reported Human-caused Mortality of Polar Bears. Natural Deaths Are Not Included
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year average (1989/90- 3-Year average (1991/92- Current Year (1993/94)
1993/94) 1993/94) ------------------------------
Pop.\2\ Pop. Reliability * ------------------------------------------------------------ Population status **
estimate Sustainable Sustainable Kill(%) Sustainable (5yr/3yr/1yr)
Kill(%) harvest\3\ Kill(%) harvest\3\ harvest\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB................................... \6\1800 Good.................... 60.4 (39.6) 68.2 66.0 (39.5) 68.4 64 (32.2) 81.1 +/+/+
NB................................... 1200 Good.................... 32.2 (49.4) 36.4 30.0 (45.5) 39.6 16 (50.0) 36.0 +/+/+
VM\4\................................ 230 Good.................... 5.2 (45.8) 1.2 2.0 (83.3) 0.7 2 (50.0) 1.1 -/0/0
QE................................... 200 Poor.................... 10.6 (32.1) 9.0 9.7 (24.1) 9.0 11 (29.3) 9.0 0/0/0
[[Page 7313]]
PC-BB................................ \6\2470 Fair.................... 197.0 (30.7) 111.3 199.3 (31.5) 111.3 200 (31.9) 111.3 -/-/-
(data uncertain)
GB................................... 900 Poor.................... 37.8 (40.4) 33.4 38.7 (36.5) 37.0 36 (40.0) 33.7 -/0/0
MC................................... 700 Poor.................... 30.4 (40.3) 26.1 27.3 (33.7) 31.2 24 (33.3) 31.5 -/+/+
FB\5\................................ 2020 Good.................... 128.6 (40.8) 74.3 125.0 (41.7) 72.7 100 (48.5) 62.5 -/-/-
DS................................... \6\1400 Fair.................... 55.0 (41.6) 50.5 58.0 (38.2) 55.0 58 (36.2) 58.0 -/0/0
WH................................... 1200 Good.................... 44.8 (32.1) 54.1 41.3 (27.6) 54.1 32 (40.6) 44.3 +/+/+
SH................................... 1000 Fair.................... 59.0 (32.5) 45.0 51.0 (36.2) 41.4 45 (33.3) 45.0 -/-/0
------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \6\........................ 13120 ...................... 661.0 509.5 648.3 520.4 588 513.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GOOD: Minimum capture bias, acceptable precision. FAIR: Capture bias problems, precision uncertain. POOR: Considerable uncertainty, bias and/or few data.
** A difference of up to 3 bears between the kill and sustainable harvest statistics was considered to be no change in status. (-=decrease 0=no change +=increase)
Notes:
\1\ The percent of killed bears that are females is not regulated by law in all populations, but rather % Females is specified as a target in many of the Local Management Agreements.
\2\ Local Management Agreements now exist for all populations except QE. These agreements are reviewed periodically as new information becomes available.
\3\ Except for the VM population, the sustainable harvest is based on the sex ratio of the harvest, the population estimate (N) for the area and the estimated rates of birth and death (Taylor
et al. 1987):
SUSTAINABLE HARVEST=(N x 0.015)Proportion of Harvest that were Females.
Unpublished modelling indicates a sex ratio of 2 males to a female is sustainable, although the mean age and abundance of males will be reduced at maximum sustainable yield. Harvest date (Lee
and Taylor, 1994) indicates that the harvest is typically selective for males.
\4\ The rate of sustained yield of the VM population is one sixth that of the other populations because of lower cub and yearling survival, and lower recruitment. The projected proportion of
the harvest that are females is 15% based on the intention to take only males. A 5-year voluntary moratorium on harvesting bears in the VM population began in 1994/95.
\5\ Communities that harvest from the FB population have agreed to a phased reduction in quota. The final harvest level will be 91 bears or the sustainable yield as determined by subsequent
population estimates by 1997.
\6\ Totals refer to the sum of the all populations within or shared with Canada.
Modeling has shown that the sex ratio of the polar bear harvest is
a critical factor in calculating the sustainable yield of polar bear
populations (Lee et al. 1994). A selective harvest quota based on a
harvest ratio of two males to one female can be 50 percent higher than
an unselective one (GNWT). Increasing the harvest of males as a means
of increasing the sustainable yield and conserving the reproduction
potential of the population is a common technique in wildlife
management. This is applicable particularly for species such as bears
where mating is promiscuous and recruitment is primarily a function of
the number of adult females (Taylor et al. 1987).
Since the GNWT bases the population quota, in part, on the sex
ratio of the harvest, Local Management Agreements have been developed
with the intention to limit the female kill by prescribing a harvest
sex ratio of two males for each female. Some communities have the sex
ratio as a target and others have it as a regulation. For both
situations, the kill of female polar bears has exceeded the annual
sustainable yield in some communities in some years. The DRR is seeking
resolution to this problem including the development of conservation
education materials in an effort to reduce take of females due to
misidentification of sex. They revised a booklet on how to distinguish
between males and females to incorporate suggestions from hunters and
produced posters to encourage hunters to select for males. In addition,
the DRR developed a revised system referred to as the ``Flexible Quota
Option'', based on the number of female bears that can be taken
annually. This system requires adoption into regulation prior to
implementation (GNWT).
When Canada presented the sex-selective harvest model at the 1993
PBSG meeting, biologists raised concerns. One concern was the
difficulty of accounting for compensation in the model if more females
were taken. Also, there was concern that if the population model was
incorrect or if ecological conditions changed substantially, there
would be a delay of many years before managers would realize that the
predictions of the model were incorrect. Some felt this delay was too
high a risk for use as a management tool (PBSG 1995). The DRR is aware
of the concerns and continues to monitor information on number, sex,
and age of most polar bears harvested. In addition, local hunters are
familiar with the relative abundance of polar bears in their areas and
would likely notice significant increasing or decreasing trends in
polar bear numbers. Because of both the monitoring program and the
contribution of local knowledge, the DRR anticipates they would likely
detect any overharvest or significant change in the population due to
natural ecological reasons. The DRR plans to do a comprehensive risk
analysis to consider all sources of uncertainty and to examine the
inventory rotation period and the current standards for precision in
the estimates of population size, but a date has not been set for its
completion (Mitch Taylor, personal communication). Canada is co-
operatively developing a simulation model to explore the effects of
harvesting black, grizzly, and polar bears with the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (GNWT 1996).
4. Quota
In 1968 when the GNWT started to set quotas, the size of polar bear
[[Page 7314]]
populations on which to base sustainable quotas was largely unknown. So
the GNWT introduced quotas on an interim basis considering previous
harvest records for each community. After the late 1970's, quotas were
increased on the basis of new scientific information for each
population (Prestrud and Stirling 1995). Quotas continue to undergo
adjustments based on new information. As a result of studies conducted
since 1991 and earlier, quotas have been reduced for the M'Clintock
Channel and Foxe Basin populations, and there is currently a moratorium
on hunting in the Viscount Melville population. Presently, the
calculated sustainable harvest for each population represents the
population quota. The quota allocated is specific to each population. A
quota allocated for one population cannot be used in another
population. Quotas are not carried over from one year to the next.
The GNWT subtracts all human caused mortality from the quota,
including polar bears killed in sport hunts, taken in defense of life
or property, or shot illegally, as well as accidental deaths from
research studies. Occasionally the quota is exceeded due to unexpected
defense kills, mistakes, or illegal kills. Typically the GNWT deducts
an overharvest from the following year's quota as a correction (GNWT).
On an annual basis, the GNWT presents the population quotas and a
summary of previous years harvest data for each population to the PBTC
in a manner comparable to that shown in Table 3. The DRR has reported
the reliability of each population estimate in qualitative terms (i.e.,
Good, Fair, or Poor) rather than quantitative because of bias in the
population estimate as a result of sampling problems. The DRR expects
they will use quantitative terms in future status reports as they
complete population inventories (GNWT).
5. Status of Populations the Service Approves
The Service approved populations as meeting the required finding of
section 104(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the MMPA based on currently available
information. A list of the approved populations and general provisions
are given in Sec. 18.30(i).
Southern Beaufort Sea (SB)
The estimated population is 1,800 and is considered to be
conservative. Mark-recapture and studies of movements using telemetry,
conducted semi-continuously since the late 1960's in Alaska and the
early 1970's in Canada have determined the boundaries of this
population. The GNWT rates the population data as good. Table 3 shows
the status of the population as increasing based on the 5-year and 3-
year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 64 bears taken
in the 1993/94 harvest, 32.2 percent were females. Guiding of sport
hunts occurs on a limited basis in the Canadian portion of the
population. The number of sport hunts conducted for the 1993/94, and
1992/93 seasons was 6 and 1, respectively (GNWT).
The NWT and Yukon Territory share this population with Alaska. In
Alaska polar bears are only taken for subsistence and handicraft
purposes by Alaska Natives. Harvest of bears on either side of the
international border affects the entire population. The Beaufort Sea
boundary remains an issue of dispute between the United States and
Canada as noted in the results of the Ottawa Summit. The United States
views the Canadian jurisdiction to end at the equidistant line and no
bears should be taken west of that line.
To date, the governments of the United States and Canada have not
signed an international agreement for the joint management of the
Southern Beaufort Sea population. However, in January 1988,
representatives of the Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) in the NWT and the
Fish and Game Management Committee of the North Slope Borough (NSB) in
Alaska (USFWS 1995) signed a management agreement for polar bears in
the Southern Beaufort Sea. Although the agreement is not with the
Canadian or U.S. governments, it is signed by both Native groups and
continues to be successful overall (Prestrud and Stirling 1995). The
agreement is a precedent-setting example of how Native groups can
successfully manage traditional harvest practices through self-
regulation. In Canada the agreement is consistent with previously
existing regulations. In Alaska it is more restrictive than the MMPA
(Nageak, Brower, and Schliebe 1991). The agreement has management
restrictions that are consistent with the International Agreement. The
agreement, among other things, calls for: (1) establishing harvest
limits based on the best available scientific evidence; (2)
prohibitions on the use of large vessels or aircraft for hunting polar
bears; (3) protection of all bears in dens or constructing dens,
pregnant females, cubs, and females with cubs; (4) a management system
to regulate the number of polar bears harvested and to ensure
compliance with harvest limit allocations; (5) a reporting system to
collect critical information from harvested polar bears; and (6)
protection of important polar bear habitat.
Under the agreement, the Native groups set the initial annual
harvest quota for the Southern Beaufort Sea population at 38 bears each
in Canada and Alaska. They share information pertinent to the status of
the entire population in various ways, including the PBTC meetings,
IUCN/PBSG meetings, and the annual Technical Committee meeting for the
agreement.
Both Parties have agreed that all bears in dens or constructing
dens are protected and family groups made up of females and cubs-of-
the-year or yearlings are protected. During the first harvest (1988/89)
under the management agreement take in Alaska exceeded the guidelines
by 20, while the harvest in Canada was below the allocation. However
the harvest during the next three seasons were less than allocation
guidelines in both Alaska and Canada. It is believed that the reduced
take by the second harvest season was due to extensive efforts to
distribute information on the management agreement. In addition, there
has been a general trend in Alaska to harvest fewer family groups
(USFWS 1995).
The population is also shared by the Yukon Territory where the
legal basis for regulating polar bears is the Wildlife Act, 1981.
Currently there are no residents of the Yukon harvesting polar bears as
the people all moved to the NWT. The Yukon wishes to retain their
management system in case the aboriginals return to the Yukon coast and
harvest polar bears. The Yukon has a total quota of six tags that they
have loaned to the GNWT. These tags are included in the NWT quota
(GNWT).
The Service approves the Southern Beaufort Sea population with the
specific provision that hunters not take bears in Canada west of the
equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea and that the general provisions in
Sec. 18.30(i) must be met. These provisions require the communities
that share a population to have a management agreement that allocates
portions of a scientifically sound quota among the parties.
Northern Beaufort Sea (NB)
Canada estimates the population at 1,200 polar bears and believes
the estimate is unbiased and conservative. At intervals since the early
1970's, Canada has conducted mark-recapture and studies of movements
using telemetry. They determined boundaries of the population using
telemetry and recovery of tagged bears. An ongoing study is examining
the possibility that this population extends further north than the
data previously indicated. The GNWT rates the population data as good.
Table 3 shows the status of the
[[Page 7315]]
population as increasing based on the 5-year and 3-year average of
harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Although the proportion of females in
the harvest has been at or near 50 percent, the sustainable yield of
females has not been exceeded. Guiding of sport hunters occurs on a
limited basis. Only 2 to 3 sport hunts occurred in the two seasons
between 1992-1994.
Viscount Melville Sound (VM)
Canada believes the population estimate of 230 polar bears to be
unbiased. In 1992, Canada completed a 5-year mark-recapture and
telemetry study of movements and population size. They based boundaries
of the population on observed movements of female polar bears. In the
mid-1970's when Canada allocated the original quotas, they thought this
population was large and productive. This area, however, has poor seal
habitat and the productivity of polar bears was lower than expected.
Harvesting polar bears at the initial quota levels caused the number of
bears in the population to drop, especially males. There is a
moratorium on polar bear hunting in this population until the year
2000. The GNWT anticipates that when harvest activities resume, there
will be an annual quota of 4 males. The Service does not consider this
area as being available for U.S. sport hunters at this time.
Although all hunting is currently disallowed in this area, the
Service approved the Viscount Melville population since there is a
management program in place that includes measures to return and then
maintain the population at a sustainable level.
M'Clintock Channel (MC)
In the mid-1970's, Canada conducted a 6-year mark-capture
population study. They estimated the population to be 900 polar bears.
Local hunters advised that 700 might be a more accurate estimate. Under
a Local Management Agreement between Inuit communities that share this
population, the harvest quota for this area has been revised to levels
expected to achieve slow growth based on the more conservative
population estimate of 700 polar bears. The recoveries of tagged bears
and movements documented by telemetry in adjacent areas support the
boundaries. Table 3 shows the status of the population as increasing
based on the 3-year average and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 24 bears
taken in the 1993/94 harvest, 33 percent were females.
Although Canada considers the population estimate information as
poor, the Service approved this population since the DRR in conjunction
with local resource users have agreed to a reduction in the population
estimate, hunting has been at a 2:1 ratio for several years, and there
is a management agreement in place.
Western Hudson Bay (WH)
Canada believes the population estimate of 1,200 is conservative as
a portion of the southern range has not been included in the mark-
recapture program. Canada has conducted research programs on the
distribution and abundance of the population since the late 1960's,
with 80 percent of the adult population marked. Mark-recapture studies
and return of tags from bears killed by Inuit hunters have provided
extensive records. The GNWT rates the population data as good. Table 3
shows the status of the population as increasing based on the 5-year
and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 32 bears
taken in last year's harvest, 40.6 percent were females. During the
open-water season, this population is geographically segregated. During
the ice-covered months there is some mixing of bears with the Foxe
Basin and Southern Hudson Bay populations. However, such movements are
believed to be very limited. Given the high number of marked bears in
the Western Hudson Bay population and the recent, intensive study of
the Foxe Basin population, substantial mixing of bears would be
apparent if it were occurring.
The NWT shares the Western Hudson Bay population with Manitoba,
where the Wildlife Act of 1991 lists the polar bear as a protected
species. There is no open hunting season and polar bears cannot be
hunted at any time of the year by anyone. To hunt polar bears,
including hunting by Treaty Indians, requires a permit from the
Minister and the Minister is not issuing permits at this time. The
Local Management Agreement allocates a quota of 27 tags out of 55 for
the Western Hudson Bay population to Manitoba. Manitoba holds eight
tags in reserve for the control program and accidental deaths
associated with the research program. They currently loan the remaining
19 to the GNWT for its quota (GNWT). This does not mean that there is a
total ban on hunting polar bears in the future. The Minister can
authorize the taking of bear for any purpose ``not contrary to public
interest.'' The current policy is that no person will be granted a
permit to hunt polar bear until it is established there is a
harvestable surplus over conservation needs of the population that
takes into account political and scientific concerns (Calvert et al.
1995).
6. Status of Populations for Which Scientific and Management Data are
not Presently Available for Making a Final Decision
After reviewing the best available scientific and management data
on the populations addressed below, the Service is not prepared to make
a final decision on whether these populations satisfy the statutory
criteria of section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA. As future scientific and
management data become available on these populations, the Service will
evaluate such data to determine whether a proposed rule should be
published that would add such populations to the approved list in
Sec. 18.30(i)(l).
Except for the Gulf of Boothia, the NWT shares all of the following
populations with Greenland, another Canadian province, or both.
Greenland and the other Canadian provinces do not have agreements with
other NWT communities as to how they will manage their portions of the
populations. Management agreements drafted in 1994 for the Davis
Strait, Foxe Basin, and Southern Hudson Bay populations allocated
existing harvest levels to NWT communities and documented current known
annual harvest levels for Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador,
and Greenland. Following completion of comprehensive population
studies, the sustainable harvest of each population will be estimated
and the user groups through joint negotiations will allocate the
quotas. Canada and Greenland are conducting joint research to confirm
shared population boundaries and population estimates. Upon completion
of this joint research the two countries are expected to move ahead
with negotiations on developing joint management agreements (GNWT).
Gulf of Boothia (GB)
Currently Canada estimates this population at 900 animals. Canada
based a population estimate of 333 polar bears on a limited research
program of mark and recapture restricted to the western coastal areas.
They increased the population estimate to 900 based on the information
from local Inuit hunters and an estimate of bears in the central and
eastern portions of the area that Canada had not sampled. Although the
900 animal estimate has no statistical level of precision, managers
believe it to be more accurate than the previous estimate. The
population data is still considered limited and the GNWT rates the
population data as poor. Studies conducted in adjacent areas support
the boundaries. The status of the population
[[Page 7316]]
was stable at the 3-year average harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of
the 36 bears taken in the 1993/94 harvest, 40 percent were females
(Table 3). The number of sport hunts guided for the two seasons between
1992-1994 was 10 and 5, respectively.
The Service revised its proposed finding for this population given
the lack of scientific data to support the population estimate and the
harvest of females in excess of the quota. Although the GNWT considers
the population estimate to be conservative, they substantially
increased the estimate based primarily on anecdotal information. NWT
polar bear managers rate the population data as poor. The Service
believes that the strict requisite that the quota be ``scientifically
sound'' has not been met. In addition, the slight but persistent
overharvest of females in this population raises concerns as to whether
there is effective management action.
Queen Elizabeth Island (QE)
Canada estimates the population at 200. Current information is that
there are few polar bears in this remote area. The reliability of the
data is poor. A likely scenario is that Canada will eventually manage
this area as a sanctuary for polar bears. The status of the population
was stable at the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94
harvest. Of the 11 bears taken in last year's harvest, 29.3 percent
were females. Only one sport hunt occurred during each of the past two
seasons. A Local Management Agreement has not been finalized for this
population. In addition, the NWT shares this population with Greenland
although the movement of polar bears between the NWT and Greenland is
thought to be small (see Parry Channel/Baffin Bay below).
Parry Channel (PC) and Baffin Bay (BB)
The Service is considering this area as a single unit in this
rulemaking since Canada is still researching what fraction of the
Greenland harvest was from either Parry Channel or Baffin Bay
populations. Information on the amount of exchange between these
populations in Canada and Greenland is important for management since
communities in both countries harvest polar bears. Canada considers the
current population estimate of 2,470 polar bears preliminary and
conservative. Canada obtained the population estimate by pooling the
previous estimates for Lancaster Sound (1,657, increased to 2,000,
based on sampling bias in the original studies that could have resulted
in an underestimate of the population) and NE Baffin (470) populations
with the assumption that a distinct population for west Greenland would
not be found. The GNWT rates the population data as fair. The status of
the population as shown in Table 3 is decreasing for the 5-year and 3-
year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. The 1993/94 season's
harvest was 200 bears (31.9 percent females). Most sport hunting has
occurred in Parry Channel, 28 in 1993/94 harvest season and 24 in 1992/
93. Limited guided sport hunts of 5 and 3 occurred in Baffin Bay during
the same seasons (GNWT).
According to Born (1995) there is little information available on
the take of polar bears in Greenland. There is no quota for harvest of
polar bears in Greenland. Regulations prohibit the use of vehicles for
the hunt and stipulate that hunters must be citizens of Greenland and
hunt or fish full time. As of January 1, 1993, Greenland requires
residents to obtain special permits to hunt polar bear. The reporting
of take is voluntary, and the system of reporting has not worked
reliably for many years. Greenland needs to obtain information on the
number and sex ratio of bears taken in all areas and number of animals
in the populations to establish a sustainable harvest level of polar
bears. There is an ongoing Canadian-Greenland joint study to obtain
data to delineate the range and number of bears in the shared
populations. A summary of results of a polar bear survey suggests a
harvest of 40 to 60 bears each year in West Greenland from the
population shared with Canada (PBSG 1995). Recent satellite telemetry
data indicates four populations: Lancaster Sound, Baffin Bay, Norwegian
Bay, and Kane Basin. Local hunters have requested one more year of
capture work to confirm the current estimates for Baffin Bay. At least
two more years of mark-recapture work will be required to provide
estimates for the Lancaster Sound, Kane Basin, and Norwegian Bay
populations (GNWT 1996). Management agreements have been developed for
these areas between GNWT and the local communities.
Foxe Basin (FB)
Canada concluded an 8-year mark-recapture and telemetry study of
movements and population size in 1992. They believe the population
estimate of 2,020 is accurate as they included the entire area in the
marking effort. Polar bears were concentrated on the Southampton Island
and Wager Bay areas during the ice-free season. But, significant
numbers of bears were found throughout the other islands and coastal
areas. Because Canada believes the previous harvest quotas to have
reduced the population from about 3,000 in the early 1970's to about
2,000 in 1991, they incrementally reduced the harvest quota to levels
that will permit recovery of this population. The reduction process is
described in the NWT Local Management Agreements between the Inuit
communities that share these polar bears. The GNWT rates the population
data as good. Table 3 shows the status of the population as decreasing
for the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest.
Of the 100 bears taken in last year's harvest, 48.5 percent were
females.
The NWT shares the population with Quebec where the legal basis for
regulating polar bear are the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act,
1983; the Order in Council 1 3234, 1971; and the James Bay
International Agreement, 1978 (GNWT). Inuit and Indians are allowed to
hunt polar bears from three different populations, based on the
``guaranteed harvest'' levels determined for the James Bay Agreement,
as long as the they respect the principle of conservation (PBSG 1995).
The guaranteed harvest levels are determined between the user groups
and the Government of Quebec based on harvest records between 1976 and
1980. The harvest levels set are 22, 31, and 9 for populations shared
in Southern Hudson Bay, Davis Strait, and Foxe Basin. The Inuit have
agreed with the harvest levels, while negotiations are occurring with
the Crees. If the Inuit exceed the ``guaranteed harvest'', which is
uncommon, there is no penalty. The number and sex of polar bears in the
harvest are monitored, with age determined on many of them. There has
been, however, some concern expressed over the inconsistencies in
harvest data. As previously mentioned, Native hunters have agreed to
protect females with cubs, their cubs, bears moving into dens, and
bears in dens but the collection of harvest information is sporadic and
the effectiveness of the protection measures cannot be fully
determined.
Davis Strait (DS)
Canada estimates the population at 1,400, based on field work
conducted during the spring from 1976 through 1979. Traditional
knowledge observations suggest that the population may have increased
since 1979. These include that: (a) hunters from Pangnirtung reported
larger numbers of bears in recent years and in 1994 took their entire
quota in less than 2 days; (b) hunters from the Labrador Inuit
Association reported seeing an
[[Page 7317]]
increased number of bears in the last several years; (c) hunters from
Iqaluit report they harvest the highest proportion of males of any
settlement in the NWT due to high densities of bears encountered; and
(d) hunters from Lake Harbour reported a higher rate of encounters with
polar bears in recent years. Observations made by biologists also
support an increase in population size: (a) during surveys conducted in
the fall of 1992 and 1993, observers found high densities of bears on
the Cumberland Peninsula, Baffin Island; (b) the number of bears
captured per hour of search time during 1991-94 on the Labrador coast
almost doubled from 1976-79; (c) during the above surveys conducted in
the 1990's, observers saw a large proportion of old adult males (such
sightings would not occur in an overharvested population where the
harvest was selective for males); and (d) satellite tracking data from
1991-94 indicate that a large proportion of the population is offshore
in the pack ice during the spring and would not have been included in
the capture and tagging as part of the 1980 population estimate.
The GNWT rate the population estimate data as fair. Based on
population modeling that indicates the population would need to be at
least 1,400 to sustain the present annual kill of 58 polar bear and
observations by hunters and biologists, the 1995 PBTC supported
revision of the population estimate from 950 to 1,400. Canada will need
to do further work to resolve the status of polar bears in this
population. A joint resolution was signed by Quebec and GNWT supporting
a co-operative inventory of this population as a high priority. Table 3
shows the status of the population as stable for the 3-year average of
harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 58 bears in last year's
harvest, 40.6 percent were females.
The NWT shares the Davis Strait population with Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador, and Greenland. For a discussion of Quebec,
see Foxe Basin above. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the legal basis for
regulating polar bear is the Wildlife Act, 1970. The current hunting
season is limited to residents of the Torngat Electoral District on the
northern Labrador coast, with no distinction made between Natives and
non-Natives. To maintain consistency with the International Agreement,
the Labrador Inuit Association issues the tags, with unused tags being
accounted for. Land claim negotiations that may affect how polar bears
are managed in Newfoundland and Labrador are currently underway. In
typical years Greenland harvests no polar bears from the Davis Strait
population. In some years, however, when ice blows onto southern
Greenland, hunters take an average of two bears in Greenland. For
additional discussion on Greenland's program, see Parry Channel/Baffin
Bay above.
Southern Hudson Bay (SH)
Canada considers the population estimate of 1,000 to be
conservative. They base the estimate on a 3-year study mainly along the
Ontario coastline of movements and population size using telemetry and
mark-recapture. Since Canada did not include a portion of the eastern
and western coastal areas in the study area, they increased the
calculated estimate of 763 bears to 1,000. In addition, because of
difficulties locating polar bears inland from the coast in the boreal
forest, the inshore was under-sampled. The study confirmed the
population boundary along the Ontario coast during the ice-free season
but showed the intermixing with the western Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin
populations during the months when the bay is frozen over. The GNWT
rates the population data as fair. Table 3 shows the status of the
population as decreasing for the 5-year and 3-year average harvests,
but as stable for the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 45 bears taken in last
year's harvest, 33.3 percent were females.
The NWT shares this population with Quebec (see discussion under
Foxe Basin) and Ontario. In Ontario, polar bears are protected under
the Game and Fish Act, 1980. Treaty Indians are allowed to hunt polar
bears with an annual permissible kill of 30 animals (GNWT). Ontario has
supported the adoption of guidelines for dividing the quota for polar
bear populations shared with the NWT and Quebec, but there is no joint
management agreement. If hunters exceed the quota, which is uncommon,
they are encouraged to count the excess polar bears against the next
year quota. There are no officers located in the villages where polar
bears are hunted. It was reported at the 1994 PBTC meeting that hunters
are not reporting all known kills, resulting in incomplete data.
Ontario does not specifically protect bears in dens and females with
cubs. Although the take of such animals is believed to be rare, the
omission in Ontario law to implement the resolution has been a point of
concern to polar bear biologists and managers (PBSG 1995).
D. CITES and Other International Agreements and Conventions
1. Finding
The MMPA requires that the Service find that the export from Canada
and subsequent import into the United States are consistent with CITES
and other international agreements and conventions. Based on the
discussion below, the Service finds that the provision of CITES will be
met for the export and import of polar bear trophies taken in Canada.
The Service discussed the International Agreement previously in this
final rule. At this time, the Service is not aware of any other
agreements or conventions that the Service needs to consider.
2. CITES
CITES is a treaty established to protect species impacted by
international trade. Canada and the United States, along with 132 other
countries, are Parties to CITES. The polar bear has been protected
under Appendix II of CITES since 1975. Appendix II includes ``species
which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may
become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to
strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their
survival'' (Article II of CITES). A CITES export permit must accompany
each shipment from the country of origin. A country can issue an export
permit for dead specimens for any purpose as long as the scientific
authority determines that the shipment will not be detrimental to the
survival of the species and the management authority determines that
the specimen was obtained legally.
Canada controls the export of polar bear trophies based on the
harvest of polar bears under quotas enforced by legislation and co-
management agreements. In the NWT, only the DRR Headquarters in
Yellowknife and its Regional Offices can issue CITES permits for polar
bears and polar bear products. Another Canadian province or territory
can issue a CITES permit for a polar bear product originating in the
NWT if the product was exported from the NWT with a Northwest
Territories Wildlife Export Permit into that province or territory.
Customs Canada must validate the CITES permit upon export.
For import into the United States, all wildlife and wildlife
products requiring a permit under CITES and the MMPA must meet
inspection and clearance requirements as outlined in regulation (50 CFR
Part 14), including entry through one of the ports designated for
[[Page 7318]]
wildlife import and completion of a Wildlife Declaration Form (3-177).
E. Illegal Trade in Bear Parts
1. Finding
The Service finds that the import of sport-hunted polar bear
trophies from Canada into the United States is not likely to contribute
to the illegal trade in polar bear parts and/or the illegal trade in
parts of all other species of bears, when such activity is done in
accordance with the Service's regulations. The permittee must make an
appointment with Service personnel at a designated port for Wildlife at
least 48 hours prior to import for inspection and clearance under 50
CFR Sec. 14.52. He or she must arrange for a Service Officer to affix a
permanent tag to the trophy and mark hard parts upon import. The
permittee also must import all parts of a single trophy at the same
time. The Service will not consider exceptions to the designated port
requirement except for the import of full mount trophies. Trophies may
not be sent through the international mail. If the original tag is
broken during tanning or is lost, the permittee must contact the
Service to get the polar bear hide or mount retagged.
To ensure that the gall bladders of polar bears taken by U.S.
hunters after the date of this final rule do not enter into trade, all
applicants must certify that the gall bladder, including its contents,
was destroyed.
2. Trade in Hides and Other Hard Parts and Tagging Requirement
Participants in the 1993 PBSG meeting reported that the fur market
is currently glutted, resulting in low prices for polar bear pelts on
the open market. A legal trade exists in Greenland that assists in
marketing polar bear pelts for local communities. In 1992, the tannery
purchased 60 hides. Thirty of these went to Denmark (PBSG 1995).
The MMPA prohibits, with limited exceptions, the import of polar
bear parts into the United States as well as the harvest and trade of
polar bears and polar bear parts in the United States. The MMPA
restricts the take of polar bears to any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who
resides in Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific
Ocean or the Arctic Ocean, provided such taking is not accomplished in
a wasteful manner and is for subsistence purposes or is done for
purposes of creating and selling authentic native articles of
handicrafts and clothing.
All polar bear hides and skulls taken as part of the Native
subsistence harvest in Alaska must be tagged within 30 days of
harvesting the polar bear. Only Service personnel or authorized Service
representatives (e.g., Native residents of the community) may tag the
polar bear parts. The skin and skull of an animal must accompany each
other when presented for tagging. Tags are attached to the skins and
skulls in such a manner as to maximize their longevity and minimize any
adverse effect to the appearance of the specified parts, or the
resulting handicraft. Tags must remain affixed to the skin through the
tanning process and until the skin has been severed into parts for
crafting into handicrafts or for as long as practical during the
handicrafting process. If the tag comes off of the specified part
prematurely, the person in possession of the part has 30 days to
present the part and broken tag to the Service or the Service's local
representative for retagging.
As previously described, the NWT tag applied to a polar bear hide
is removed either at the time of tanning or upon export. Therefore,
once imported, a person could not distinguish raw or tanned hides,
rugs, and mounts of Canadian sport-hunted polar bears from illegally
imported Canadian polar bears or untagged Alaskan polar bear hides that
may have been illegally acquired or transported. Thus, this rule is
requiring the permittee to present the trophy to the Service for
tagging and marking upon import. The Service Officer will affix a
permanent-locking tag to all sport-hunted polar bear trophies including
raw (untanned) hides, tanned hides, and prepared rugs and mounts and
mark the skull of the polar bear, as well as other hard parts with the
tag number of the accompanying polar bear hide. The permittee must
ensure the tag and marks remain on the trophy and trophy parts
indefinitely.
The Service has experience with tagging programs for polar bear,
walrus, and sea otter taken in the Native subsistence harvest in Alaska
and for CITES regulated fur-bearing species, including brown bear,
bobcat, river otter, and lynx. Prior to making a decision on the type
of tag to be used for sport-hunted polar bears, the Service considered:
(1) information from Service personnel experienced with other tagging
programs; (2) comments from taxidermists and tanners; (3) the condition
of the trophy upon import (i.e., untanned hide, tanned hide, finished
rug or mount); (4) the readability of identification marks on the tag;
(5) the ability to replace lost tags; and (6) the effect of the tag on
the overall appearance of the trophy. Based on these considerations,
the Service will affix a plastic tag to the hide in the belly or flank
area of all raw hides, rugs, or mounts in an area that is least
disruptive to the taxidermy process, more likely to be concealed by the
longer hair in these areas, and easily accessible to examination.
3. Trade in Gall Bladders
There is some illegal trade in bear parts in Canada, but the extent
is unknown. While British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador,
and Manitoba prohibit the trade in bear parts, it is still legal to
sell bear parts in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the NWT.
There is a diversity of opinion on trade in polar bear gall
bladders. Resolution 5 of the 1993 PBSG meeting recommended that each
party consider restricting the traffic in polar bear gall bladders.
This was done in recognition that worldwide trade in bear parts,
particularly gall bladders, threatens the survival of several species
of bear, and that the legal availability of gall bladders of any
species of bear makes it impossible to control the illegal trade,
encouraging further illegal take of all species of bears, including
polar bear (PBSG 1995). Canada's PBTC endorsed the resolution which
allows each party to make its own decision. The PBTC recommended the
PBAC discuss the issue and consider recommending a ban on trade of gall
bladders from all bear species. Although people can sell legally
harvested bear gall bladders in the NWT, the GNWT is reviewing the
practice. Between 1992 and 1994, the GNWT issued export permits for 61
polar bear gall bladders.
There is an absence of documentation substantiating the extent of
the demand for polar bear gall bladders. There is anecdotal information
that suggests there is not an extensive commercial demand for polar
bear gall bladders, possibly due to a fishy odor. On the other hand, in
1992 U.S. law enforcement agents in Alaska documented the first case of
the sale of polar bear gall bladders (Schliebe et al. 1995).
Regardless of the existing legal trade in some Canadian provinces
and territories, as well as the relative demand that may exist for
polar bear gall bladders, the Service believes that the safeguards
imposed in this rule at 18.30 (a)(1)(iv) and (e)(7) & (8) will ensure
that the import of legally taken polar bear trophies does not
contribute to illegal trade in bear parts. The required certification
that the gall bladder and its contents were destroyed and the strict
tagging requirements stipulated by this rule are effective
[[Page 7319]]
deterrents to the illegal trade in bear parts.
F. Import of Pregnant or Nursing Animals Under the MMPA
1. Finding
The Service finds that provisions of section 102(b) of the MMPA
that prohibit the import of pregnant and nursing marine mammals will be
met under the application requirements, issuance criteria, and permit
conditions placed in the final regulations. The applicant must certify
that the bear was not pregnant at the time of take and include relevant
documentation with applications for a permit to import female bears or
bears of unknown sex to indicate that the bear was taken legally and,
for such bears taken prior to January 1, 1986, other documentation to
indicate that the bear was taken at a time or place when it could not
have conceivably been pregnant near term.
For a bear taken prior to the 1996/97 NWT hunting season, the
applicant must provide a certification and any other documentation that
may be available to demonstrate a female polar bear, a bear of unknown
sex, or a male bear that is less than 6 feet in length was not taken
from a family group (i.e., nursing). The regulations also provide for
import permits to have a condition that the polar bear at the time of
take was not pregnant near term, was not a dependent nursing bear or a
female with such offspring (i.e., in a family group), and was not
moving into a den or already in a den. These measures ensure that the
prohibitions of Section 102(b) of the MMPA will not be violated, as
discussed further below.
2. Discussion of Pregnant or Nursing
Section 102(b) of the MMPA prohibits the import of any marine
mammal, except under a permit for scientific research or enhancing the
survival or recovery of a species or stock, if such marine mammal was
pregnant or nursing at the time of take. Since Congress did not
specifically exclude the issuance of polar bear import permits from
this prohibition, the Service considers the requirement to apply.
In the proposed rule (60 FR 36382), the Service requested comments
on the following options to ensure that the requirements of section
102(b) of the MMPA are met prior to issuing a permit for the import of
polar bear trophies taken in the NWT as follows: (1) have the GNWT
certify that at the time of take the bear was not pregnant, was not a
nursing cub, and was not a mother with cubs based on information
presented to the DRR office; (2) condition the import permit that the
permittee must certify at the time of import that at the time of take a
female bear was not pregnant or a mother with cubs, and a young bear
was not nursing; and/or (3) include issuance criteria that the Service
would not issue permits for female bears taken during the month of
October and bears taken while in family groups.
Based on the comments received, the Service adopted a modification
of proposed actions (2) and (3). In the proposed rule, the Service
noted two timeframes when it might be difficult to ensure the
provisions of section 102(b) would be met. First, it would be difficult
to know if a polar bear was pregnant in any months preceding denning.
Polar bears mate in spring, become implanted in late September and
usually start building dens in late October and early November. Cubs
are typically born at the end of December. As was pointed out by the
MMC, ``* * * determining whether a female is pregnant would be
difficult early in a pregnancy and, very early, might require analysis
of hormones in the blood or histological examination of the ovaries and
uterus. It is unlikely that either the hunter or the guide would be
qualified, or would have the equipment or material necessary to do such
analyses.'' Because of this concern, the Service reviewed the
legislative history of the MMPA for information on the meaning of the
term ``pregnant''. In 1972, when the MMPA was enacted the House
Conference Report (H.R. Rep. Conf. No. 92-1488, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 24
(1972)) indicates that the conferees discussed the provision of
prohibiting the import of pregnant marine mammals. The report states,
``It is known that some marine mammals are technically pregnant almost
year-round, and in the cases of others, it is extremely difficult for
even trained observers to detect pregnancy except in the latter stages
or in seasons when such animals are known to give birth. It is the
intent of the conferees that the term ``pregnant'' be interpreted as
referring to animals pregnant near term or suspected of being pregnant
near term as the case may be.''
The GNWT currently prohibits the hunting of bears constructing dens
or in dens. Since the proposed rule, the Service has learned that the
GNWT affords such protection to female bears, in part, by prohibiting
the hunting of female bears prior to December 1 in areas where denning
occurs. These measures effectively protect female bears pregnant near
term.
It is unclear when the GNWT put protection measures in place for
denning bears. In a December 20, 1996, memo to the Service, it was
stated that, ``For more than ten years, the Northwest Territories have
had regulations in place protecting polar bears at or constructing
dens'' (GNWT). Therefore, for female polar bears or bears of unknown
sex sport hunted in the NWT prior to January 1, 1986, the Service will
require an applicant to provide documentation that the polar bear was
not pregnant near term at the time of take. This documentation could be
a copy of the travel itinerary or hunting license which shows the
date(s) or location of the hunt, as proof that the bear was taken
during the time period when the bear could not conceivably be pregnant
near term or from an area that does not support maternity dens. The
Service selected the date of January 1, 1986, since bears typically
give birth prior to January 1, and 1986 represents the ten year period
of protection referred to in the memo.
The second timeframe of concern was for nursing bears (mother and
young). Bears typically nurse until they are approximately 2.0 to 2.5
years of age at which time they are about the same size as the mother.
Polar bears nearing the time when they are weaned would be difficult to
identify as nursing. At the time of the proposed rulemaking and as
discussed previously, the NWT wildlife regulations protect cubs of the
year, one-year-old cubs, and mothers of bears in these two age groups.
However, in some areas, the regulations do not protect two-year-old
bears or mothers of two-year-old bears. Effective with the 1996/97 NWT
polar bear hunting season, all management agreements were changed to
protect bears in family groups (Ron Graf, DRR, personal communication).
Although sport hunters tend to target large, older male polar bears it
is possible that 2-year-old bears or mothers of such bears were legally
sport hunted in the NWT prior to the management agreement changes.
Therefore, to ensure that the MMPA prohibition on the import of nursing
marine mammals is met, the Service will require applicants who took a
bear prior to the 1996/97 NWT hunting season to certify that the bear
was not hunted from a family group and provide any available
documentation that a female bear, a bear of unknown sex, or a male bear
that is less than 6 feet in length (from tip of nose to the tail) was
not taken from a family group. Such documentation may include
certification from the DRR based on their harvest records that the bear
was not taken as part of a family group.
[[Page 7320]]
G. Finding for Bears Taken Before the 1994 Amendments
1. Finding
The Service will issue permits for polar bears taken from approved
populations in the NWT between December 21, 1972, and April 30, 1994,
the date the MMPA was amended, when the issuance criteria of
Sec. 18.30(d) and the conditions of Sec. 18.30(e) are met. The Service
proposed that bears taken in all 12 populations in the NWT would be
eligible for import permits under an aggregate finding, but now the
Service finds that pre-Amendment bears must have been taken from
approved populations as discussed below. The Service will accept
several different forms of documentation, as described in
Sec. 18.30(a)(4) as evidence of legal take. The Service notes that
documenting the polar bear was legally harvested in Canada by the
applicant or by a decedent from whom the applicant inherited the trophy
may be more problematic for polar bears taken between late 1972 to 1976
since records maintained by DRR start from the mid 1970's. The
application information needed to determine the bear was not pregnant
or nursing at the time of take is the same as for bears taken after
April 30, 1994. This is to address the factors set forth in
Sec. 18.30(a)(7) and (8).
2. Discussion of Bears Taken Before the 1994 Amendments
Section 104(c)(5)(A) includes polar bears taken, but not imported,
prior to the 1994 Amendments. The Service proposed (60 FR 36382) to
issue an aggregate finding covering the NWT historic sport-hunting
program for each year starting in late 1972 to the present for the
following reasons: (1) Canada is a signatory to the 1973 International
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears that came into effect on
May 26, 1976; (2) since 1949 Canada has restricted hunting of polar
bears to Native people; (3) the GNWT has managed polar bears under a
quota since 1968; (4) the GNWT has maintained a data collection and
monitoring program on the polar bear harvest in its territory since the
1976/77 harvest season; (5) the DRR has demonstrated a progressive
management program for polar bear that includes scientific research and
traditional knowledge; and (6) the 1994 Amendments do not require the
evaluation of Canada's past polar bear management history.
Based on comments received and a review of the MMPA, the Service
finds pre-Amendment bears must have been taken from approved
populations. The ``grandfather'' provision that allows permits to be
issued for pre-Amendment trophies is tied to the same statutory
criteria that apply to the import of polar bears taken after the
passage of the 1994 Amendments. Section 104(c)(5) of the MMPA allows
the issuance of import permits for polar bear trophies taken before
April 30, 1994, if the Secretary makes the necessary findings that,
inter alia, the Canadian management program is consistent with the
International Agreement and that ``the affected population stock'' is
managed under scientifically sound quotas ``at a sustainable level.''
For those pre-Amendment trophies which were taken from currently
deferred populations, the Service will consider substantial new
scientific and management data as it becomes available. If, after
public comment and consultation with the MMC, the Service is able to
approve the population at some future time, the regulations would be
amended to add that population to the list of approved populations in
Sec. 18.30(i)(1). Then, permits could be issued for the import of pre-
Amendment trophies of polar bears taken from the newly approved
population.
Background
On January 3, 1995, the Service published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (60 FR 70) to establish application requirements,
permit procedures, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and a special
permit issuance fee. The Service published a second proposed rule (60
FR 36382) on July 17, 1995, on the legal and scientific findings that
the Service must make before issuing permits for the import of polar
bears trophies. A notice (60 FR 54210) to reopen the public comment
period for 15 days was published on October 20, 1995. The Service
received 61 comments from the public, including 7 form letters from
hunters, 8 humane organizations, 11 hunting organizations, 23
individuals, 3 Native groups in Alaska, 3 businesses, and 7
governmental agencies.
Summary of Comments and Information Received; General Comments
Several respondents were concerned with the length of time it was
taking to finalize the rulemaking. One thought the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was inapplicable and was causing undue
delay.
Response: The Service made every effort to complete this rule in a
timely manner. The rulemaking process requires the Service to review
and give due consideration to public comments. NEPA requires the
Service to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions so
the Service can make a fully informed decision and assure the public
that it has considered all significant environmental concerns. Since
the Service conducted the rulemaking and NEPA review at the same time
and since the Service made a Finding of No Significant Impact under
NEPA which precludes the need to conduct an Environmental Impact
Statement, the NEPA review did not delay the Service's rulemaking.
Comments on Application Requirements and Permit Procedures
Issue 1: Several respondents encouraged the Service to make the
permit process more efficient and user friendly. Some suggested the
Service not require some of the proposed application information.
Response: The Service agrees the permit process should be easy to
understand and is developing an application package for the import of
polar bear trophies. Once available, the Service welcomes comments on
clarity of information. Individuals currently on the Service's polar
bear mailing list will be sent a copy of this package.
After further consideration, the Service revised the regulations on
application requirements. The Service is no longer asking for the name
and address of the exporter since the information will be on the CITES
export permit. Nor will the applicant need to give the age of the polar
bear as he or she generally will not know this information at the time
of import. The Service does not agree with some of the comments and
will continue to require the applicant to provide the sex of the polar
bear and the size of the hide or mount. The Service believes it is
important the permit describe the items being imported, to facilitate
inspection and clearance of the trophy into the United States.
Issue 2: The Service received several comments on the proposed
definition of ``sport-hunted trophy'' in Sec. 18.30(b). One respondent
urged the Service to stress that the permittee can use the imported
trophy only for non-commercial purposes. Another suggested the Service
expand the definition to include any part that would normally
constitute polar bear trophy items, such as the baculum and bones.
Response: The Service agrees and revised its definition. The
definition allows the trophy to be finished or unfinished, but requires
the items be suitable for the creation of a mount, display, or rug. It
does not include: (1)
[[Page 7321]]
unspecified polar bear parts and internal organs that may be of
curiosity but not traditionally kept as trophy items; (2) items that
are purchased in Canada; or (3) articles of clothing or ornamentation
such as pants, hats, shoes, gloves or jewelry, or other finished polar
bear products such as fishing lures or accessories.
Issue 3: One respondent correctly noted that the Service mistakenly
proposed in Sec. 18.30(c) that the MMC must review each polar bear
trophy application. The law only requires consultation with the MMC on
a series of general findings, not on each permit application.
Response: The Service agrees that Section 101(a)(1) of the Act
specifically exempts review by the MMC of each application for a permit
to import a sport-hunted polar bear trophy and revised the regulations
to reflect this.
Issue 4: One individual requested the Service set a timeframe for
the review and approval of applications.
Response: The Service believes the time already specified in the
regulations at 50 CFR Sec. 13.11 is appropriate. The permit applicant
should allow at least 90 days prior to the requested effective date of
a permit to be issued under the MMPA. The Service processes all
applications as quickly as possible, but notes that actual processing
time varies based on available resources and number of applications
received in a period of time. Applicants can facilitate the process by
ensuring that all information and documentation submitted in their
application is complete.
Issue 5: Two respondents objected to the proposal to publish a
notice of each permit in the Federal Register.
Response: Section 104(d)(2) the MMPA requires the Service to
publish notice of each application in the Federal Register. When
Congress added section 104(c)(5) to the MMPA to allow for issuance of
permits to import polar bear trophies, it did not exempt this type of
permit from the public notice and comment procedures required under
section 104(d) of the MMPA.
Issue 6: One respondent recommended the Service delete the issuance
criteria listed in Sec. 18.30(d)(4), (5), and (6) on Canada's sport-
hunting program, scientific quotas, and consistency with CITES since
the Service was making generic findings.
Response: Although the Service recognizes that some of the criteria
will be met through generic findings, it continues to believe the
regulations must contain all issuance criteria. To assist the public in
understanding the requirements, the application package will provide
information explaining issuance criteria and findings. Applicants may
cite the generic findings made in this rule on the consistency of the
Canadian program with the International Agreement and the sustainable
management of the particular population from which the trophy was
taken. However, for polar bears taken from populations other than those
approved in the final rule, the applicant should submit data on each of
the criteria so that the Service can determine whether the new data are
sufficient to allow the Service to make affirmative findings under
Section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Issue 7: Two individuals indicated that the import permit needs to
be valid for longer than one year since taxidermy work cannot be done
in Canada in that time interval. In addition, there should be a
provision to extend the permit without payment of another fee.
Response: The Service believes that a one-year duration of a permit
should be adequate time to make the shipping arrangements and import a
trophy since the permit is required to import the trophy, not to hunt
the polar bear. The permit applicant can apply for the import permit at
any time as best suits the anticipated completion date of the taxidermy
work in Canada. The Service continues to believe the standard
processing fee in 50 CFR Sec. 13.11(d)(4) should apply to renewal of
permits, including polar bear trophy import permits. This is a permit
administration fee to help defray the processing costs, not the one-
time polar bear issuance fee of $1,000.
Issue 8: Some respondents thought the proposed fee rate for the
issuance of polar bear permits was reasonable while others were
concerned the proposed fee was excessive. Several respondents were
concerned about the Service's use of the fee and its accounting of
disbursements.
Response: After consideration of the comments, the Service retained
the issuance fee at $1,000, as proposed.
Congress specifically wrote the law (section 113(d)) so the Service
would use the funds from the issuance fee to further the purposes of
the International Agreement for the conservation of polar bear
populations shared between the United States and the Russian
Federation. An issuance fee of less than $1000.00 (compared to the
projected number of import permits) would not produce sufficient
revenue to implement the conservation provisions of Sections
104(c)(5)(B) and 113(d).
The Service, working with the State Department, the MMC, and the
State of Alaska, is working with the Russian Federation to coordinate
measures for the conservation, sustainable use, protection of habitat,
and study of the Alaska-Chukotka shared polar bear population. The
Service anticipates they will fund the following kind of activities:
development of a harvest monitoring management program; collection of
specimen material; conducting aerial den or population surveys;
providing technical assistance for enforcement programs; and
development of conservation educational materials.
The Service will use monies from issuance fees to fund research and
conservation projects as outlined by the MMPA and not to process polar
bear import permit applications. The Service will provide periodic
progress reports to Congress on the effectiveness of the implementation
of the International Agreement and of the progress made in the
cooperative research and management programs with the Russian
Federation under section 113(c) and (d) of the MMPA.
Issue 9: One respondent urged the Service to define ``significant
adverse impact'' in its final rule under Sec. 18.30(h) on scientific
review.
Response: The Service decided not to develop a regulatory
definition of ``significant adverse impact'' at this time, but did give
consideration to its meaning as discussed in the section on scientific
review above.
Comments on Consideration of Population Stocks Under the MMPA
Issue 1: Many respondents questioned the management of polar bears
in Canada as 12 separate population stocks.
Response: After review of the comments and further consideration,
the Service continues to conclude that each of the 12 polar bear
management units in Canada is a separate population stock as the MMPA
defines the term. The Service believes that this designation ensures
the maintenance of the polar bear throughout its range in Canada. This
decision was made by applying sound biological principles to the
examination of polar bear biology and reviewing the data from
scientific research. A complete discussion of the Service's position on
this issue is provided under the heading ``Consideration of Population
Stocks under the MMPA.''
Issue 2: Although the MMC agreed that in the face of uncertainty it
generally is prudent to manage based on local populations or
subpopulations, they pointed out that splitting a discrete population
into smaller sub-units could lead to a positive finding for sub-units
[[Page 7322]]
that would not be reached if the population were considered as a whole.
Response: The Service agrees with the MMC, and notes Canada's polar
bear management program recognizes that there may be adverse
consequences if Canada defines and manages a population too broadly or
too narrowly. For example, when scientific data showed that the
recruitment level of the Viscount Melville population was substantially
different from other populations in Canada, the GNWT changed its
management of polar bears in this population. If the GNWT had lumped
this population with other populations and managed them as one, the
number of polar bears would have continued to decline in Viscount
Melville.
Comments on Canada's and NWT Polar Bear Management Programs
Issue 1: Many respondents praised the Canadian polar bear
management program as a model of good conservation and co-management
and asked the Service to defer to Canada's expertise.
Response: The Service agrees that Canada has established an
effective management program for polar bear, but the MMPA requires the
Service to independently make the findings set out by Congress.
Issue 2: Several respondents questioned Canada's ability to monitor
and enforce their polar bear sport-hunting program.
Response: After considering the comments, the Service continues to
find that Canada has an effective sport-hunting program. The Service
does not agree with the comment that Native land claim agreements will
supersede NWT and Canadian law. The NWT regulations implement the
agreements and apply to all hunters. The agreements include actions
necessary to fulfill the provisions of the International Agreement.
Some agreements have been in place a number of years (e.g., the
Inuvialuit Land Claim Agreement has been in place since 1984) and have
been shown to be effective in developing and implementing co-operative
management of polar bear and other wildlife resources.
Comments on the Harvest of Polar Bears
The Service received many extensive and contradictory comments on
the role of sport hunting in the harvest and management of polar bears.
Respondents disagreed on the significance of cannibalism by males;
whether sport hunting has an effect on the total harvest of polar
bears; the significance of sexual competition; the potential
consequences of targeting older, adult male bears; and the social and
economic effects of sport hunting on Native peoples.
Response: The Service must consider not whether sport hunting
should occur or is beneficial but whether Canada has a monitored and
enforced hunting program that is consistent with the International
Agreement and is based on scientifically sound quotas that will ensure
the maintenance of populations at a sustainable level. Thus, the
Service believes it is not necessary in this forum to respond to the
detailed comments debating the role of sport hunting. The Service
recognizes that, under certain conditions, sport hunting can be a
useful management tool. Canada has elected to incorporate it into their
total management program for polar bears. The selective harvesting of
males is a part of the Canadian model of management and is based on
biological and management considerations, not on the relative merits of
sport hunting.
Comments on Legal and Scientific Findings
Issue 1: The MMC thought the regulations should permanently
prohibit the import of polar bears taken in disapproved populations.
They wrote the Service that ``at the absolute minimum, the Service
should require the applicant to demonstrate that the trophy to be
imported was taken from a population for which the Service has made a
current affirmative finding.''
Response: The Service has carefully considered the comments
received and agrees that only polar bear trophies which were taken from
currently approved populations should be eligible for import at this
time. The Service will consider issuing import permits for polar bear
trophies taken from currently deferred populations if, after notice and
opportunity for public comment and in consultation with the MMC, the
Service is able to make all of the required findings for the deferred
population and add that population to the list of approved populations
at Sec. 18.30(i)(l).
Issue 2: Several respondents thought the proposed system to review
and update the status of populations would delay the subsequent
approval of populations that the Service had disapproved. The CWS asked
that the system retain flexibility so as to allow findings to be
reviewed and updated regularly.
Response: The Service agrees and revised the regulations to look at
the overall sport-hunting program. The Service removed the requirement
that the population status as reported by the DRR had to be either
``+'' or ``o'' for the average of the past three harvest seasons. For
additional discussion of the method of approving populations, see the
previous section on scientifically sound quotas and maintenance of
sustainable population levels.
Issue 3: One respondent was concerned that if the population status
changed for any particular year (i.e., an approved population became
disapproved), the Service would be required to confiscate already
imported trophies.
Response: The Service would consider legally imported trophies from
approved populations to be legal even if the population was
subsequently disapproved based on new information.
A. Comments on Legal Take
One respondent commented that the proposed rule placed the
authority to prove legal taking of a bear with the GNWT.
Response: The Service retains the responsibility to decide for each
permit application whether the hunter legally harvested the polar bear
in the NWT. The finding of legal take consists of two decisions by the
Service: (1) the aggregate finding on Canada's program as given in this
rule and (2) the finding for each permit application. The type of
documentation the applicant must provide is given in the regulations at
Sec. 18.30(a)(4) and is based on provisions in Canada's management
program.
B. Comments on the International Agreement
Issue 1: The MMC commented it is an open question whether the
International Agreement is self-executing. International law binds the
Parties to the provisions of the International Agreement, whether or
not a Party has domestic legislation to fully implement the Treaty's
provisions.
Response: The Service believes the International Agreement is not
self-implementing, but agrees with the MMC that international law binds
the Parties to its provisions. In any event, the Service believes that
the GNWT program for the management of polar bears is consistent with
the International Agreement.
Issue 2: The MMC asked which exemption in Article III.1--either (d)
or (e)--the Service considers to authorize a sport hunt by non-
nationals.
Response: Although exception (e) is the clearer authority, the
Service interprets both exceptions to allow sport hunts under specified
conditions discussed earlier in the section on the International
Agreement. Exception (d) allows for sport hunts in Canada
[[Page 7323]]
because of Canada's declaration. Exception (e) allows sport hunts by
any Party. So as referenced in Canada's declaration, both (d) and (e)
permit a sport hunt based on scientifically sound quotas under Canada's
laws.
Issue 3: Two respondents provided opposing views as to whether
exceptions (d) and (e) are more appropriately interpreted by plain
meaning or consideration of negotiating history.
Response: The Service agrees with the comment that negotiating
history may be consulted where the provisions of a treaty are unclear,
and that the plain meaning interpretation must be used where the
provisions are clear.
Issue 4: The MMC thought the Service should consider whether
exception (d) is limited to taking by local people as a literal reading
would suggest, or whether it allows taking by non-nationals, non-Inuit,
or non-Indian hunters under the guidance of a Native hunter, as the
negotiating history may support. One respondent argued that under the
plain meaning of the phrases of the exception hunting is limited to
only local people in contiguous land areas.
Response: The Service does not believe the scope of this exception
is limited to actual taking by local people in Canada based on Canada's
declaration to the International Agreement. Since persons may disagree
on the interpretation of the generalized words in the exception, the
Service believes it is necessary to look to the negotiating history as
discussed previously.
Issue 5: The MMC and two respondents gave widely divergent
interpretations of exception (e). One respondent suggested the
exception imposes a geographic restriction rather than a restriction on
the class of persons. Another thought the interpretation given by the
Service and the Baur Report was overly broad and overlooked the
consequences.
Response: The Service agrees with the MMC that the best
interpretation of exception (e) is that a Party nation may authorize
taking by any person, including a non-national, as long as the take
occurs in an area where nationals have hunted by traditional means. A
discussion of traditional hunting areas can be found in the section on
the International Agreement. Since the language of this exception is
open to different interpretations as shown by the range of comments
received, the Service examined the negotiating history of exception (e)
as discussed earlier.
Issue 6: One respondent suggested that Canada's polar bear sport-
hunting program is in violation of the International Agreement because
Canada filed its declaration after the Treaty was signed and the
declaration contravenes the language of the Treaty.
Response: The Canadian government submitted its declaration when it
deposited its instrument of ratification for the Agreement in 1976
(Baur 1993). The declaration provides Canada's interpretation of the
phrases ``traditional rights'' and ``in accordance with the laws of
that Party'' from the International Agreement. Moreover the Service is
not in a position to criticize Canada's interpretation of the
International Agreement or Canada's domestic implementation of the
treaty. It is the Service's judgment that Canada has the best polar
bear management programs in the world. The Service finds that the GNWT
management program for polar bears as well as the Canadian
interpretations of the International Agreement are consistent with the
purposes of the International Agreement.
Issue 7: Many respondents disagreed with the Service's
interpretation of ``token'', arguing that Canada had not defined the
term and Canada should determine the meaning. On the other hand, the
MMC thought the Service should define the term more conservatively.
Response: After considering comments and consulting further with
the CWS, the Service decided not to independently define the phrase
``token sports hunt'' in terms of percentage of the quota, but to
accept Canada's interpretation that token refers to sport hunts that
are within conservation limits.
Issue 8: The Service received two opposing comments on the
Resolution on Special Protection Measures to the International
Agreement that calls for the protection of females with cubs and their
cubs.
Response: The Service believes the Resolution is complementary to
the objectives of the International Agreement, and failure to comply
with the Resolution results in failure to meet those objectives.
Therefore, the Service will continue to consider whether populations
have provisions to protect females with cubs and their cubs prior to
deciding whether to approve polar bear populations for the import of
trophies into the United States.
Issue 9: Several respondents thought that hunts would be in
violation of the International Agreement if (1) hunters used aircraft,
snow machines, or boats to reach base camps in areas beyond where
nationals traditionally hunted or to areas that could not be reached by
Native hunters on dog sleds or (2) hunters used aircraft to assist in
locating or taking bears, or selecting base camps within areas of high
polar bear densities.
Response: After further consideration, the Service continues to
find that Canada's polar bear management program, including the use of
aircraft, snow machines or boats to reach base camps, meets the
provisions of the International Agreement. A discussion that addresses
the concerns raised by these comments is given in the section on the
International Agreement above.
Issue 10: The MMC pointed out that section 102(a)(1) of the MMPA
prohibits any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from taking any
marine mammal on the high seas, and advised that if sport hunts are
being conducted beyond Canada's 12-mile limit, which the MMC is
interpreting as the high seas, the Service will need to determine
whether such taking is consistent with the MMPA.
Response: The MMPA does not define the term ``high seas.'' Canada
signed the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea in 1982 and considers
waters under Canadian jurisdiction to include waters up to the limit of
the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (GNWT). This
interpretation is comparable to the definition of ``waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States'' as defined in the MMPA.
The MMPA provides for exception to the taking prohibitions of
section 102 by permit issued under section 104. Section 104(c)(5)(A)
allows the Director to issue permits for the import of polar bear
trophies legally taken in Canada. The Service has, therefore,
determined that the taking of polar bear trophies by U.S. hunters is
consistent with the MMPA so long as the trophy is hunted legally in
Canada, which includes the waters under the jurisdiction of Canada as
long as the provisions of the International Agreement are met.
C. Comments on Scientifically Sound Quotas and Maintenance of
Sustainable Population Levels
Issue 1: Several respondents questioned the quality of the data
used by the Service to make its findings, suggesting the information
was insufficient or uncertain for key elements of the management
program such as definition of population boundaries.
Response: The Service based its findings on the best available
information. The Service does not consider the re-examination of
population boundaries, for example, by the DRR as being indicative of a
scarcity
[[Page 7324]]
of data. On the contrary such re-examinations demonstrate an interest
in obtaining the best information possible given current management
practices and technology.
Issue 2: Several respondents thought the GNWT relied too much on
population inventories. The length of time between inventories was long
and the lack of adequate funds might limit the periodic inventories
being conducted.
Response: The Service notes that the 20-year timeframe between
inventories is practical considering other data Canada collects and
uses to monitor polar bear populations and polar bear life history that
is characterized by a long life span, slow population growth, large
distribution, and low density.
Issue 3: Several respondents expressed concern by the lack of
standard error measures for population estimates.
Response: The Service considers the use of the population estimates
within the present context to be valid. The population estimates were
determined through research using scientific methodology and are a
conservative approach. Although the Service acknowledges that the use
of a quantitative term, such as the standard error, to report the
reliability of the population estimate is more acceptable
scientifically, the use of qualitative terms is appropriate at this
time due to sampling bias.
Issue 4: The Service received a number of comments on the use of
local knowledge collected from hunters in the NWT polar bear management
program.
Response: The use of local knowledge by the GNWT demonstrates one
aspect of co-management of the polar bear resource and reflects the
efforts of the GNWT to collect as much information as possible to
identify research and management needs. Local knowledge is one kind of
information considered in conjunction with monitoring of the polar bear
populations. This is similar to other wildlife management programs that
use hunter information, such as the white-tail deer programs in the
United States. The Service notes that the analyses used to examine the
harvest data as well as their interpretation and the conclusions of the
investigators have been discussed in a recent publication by Lee and
Taylor (1994).
Issue 5: Several respondents commented that allowing the import of
polar bear trophies into the United States might result in pressure on
the GNWT to increase the harvest quotas.
Response: The drafters of the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA
recognized this possibility and placed provisions in the MMPA to
address it, i.e., specific scientific review and findings to ensure the
issuance of permits is not having a significant adverse impact on the
polar bear populations in Canada. In addition, the NWT polar bear
program is subject to review by the IUCN PBSG as well as other national
and international representatives at annual PBTC and PBAC meetings.
Issue 6: Several respondents were critical of the model used by
Canadian wildlife managers for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest
concerns was there would be a delay of many years before managers would
know if the predictions of the model were correct.
Response: Given the varied aspects of the NWT polar bear management
program and the constraints of the polar bear life history, the Service
believes the model used to calculate sustainable harvest is
appropriate. Some time may be required before certain variables within
the existing model can be precisely quantified, but this is typical of
models for species, such as the polar bear, characterized by low
reproductive potential, long life spans, low density, and large
distribution. Given this life history, there is no model available
which could provide a prediction of trends within a short timeframe.
This includes the model currently mandated by the MMPA for U.S. marine
mammal stocks which includes the determination of maximum net
productivity.
Issue 7: The MMC commented that the use of this model would result
in very conservative management for populations near carrying capacity,
but that populations below their maximum net productivity level will
remain depleted. The choice of this model indicates the GNWT intends to
maximize yield and to sustain existing populations rather than bring
those populations to optimum sustainable levels.
Response: The 1994 Amendments do not require the Service to apply
the terms ``depleted,'' ``maximum net productivity,'' and ``optimum
sustainable levels'' in relation to the NWT polar bear program. The
Service must make a finding that Canada has a sport-hunting program
based on scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the
affected population at a sustainable level, not at an optimum
sustainable level.
Issue 8: Some respondents believed that the GNWT should not manage
polar bears under the assumption of maximal recruitment and survival
rates (e.g., no density effects).
Response: The Service does not agree with these comments. As
discussed previously, information is lacking on density-dependent
population regulation in bears, including polar bears. Until such time
as there is accurate data on how density affects bears, the Service
believes the GNWT has taken a reasonable approach by assuming that
there is no density effect and basing its management program on
measurable numbers.
Issue 9: The MMC asked why the Service used the midpoint or best
population estimates, rather than minimum population estimates, which
are used in calculating potential biological removal levels under the
MMPA.
Response: The Service used the phrase ``best estimates for vital
rates'' in the proposed rule, not ``best population estimates.'' The
Service believes the population estimates used are appropriate. It was
agreed at the workshop for the development of the DRR polar bear model
(DeMaster 1988) that minimum estimates of population size should be
used when reliable estimates of population size are not available. This
results in a conservative quota.
Issue 10: Several respondents considered the emphasis on harvest at
a 2:1 sex ratio as inappropriate given the lack of information on
number of males needed to make up a healthy population and male
reproductive success, and the possible reduction of genetic vigor in
the population.
Response: The Service acknowledges that genetic viability, mate
selection, and genetic vigor are not well documented for polar bear but
believes that Canada is using the best available information in
deciding on tools to manage this species. It is known that male polar
bears are opportunistic breeders and do not contribute to the care of
young. The loss of a male bear generally will have less of an impact on
population recruitment than the loss of a female. So the sex-selective
harvest is a valid wildlife management tool that is based on science
and is utilized to conserve the population by reducing the impact of
the harvest on females.
Issue 11: Other respondents thought the GNWT could not keep the
harvest of females within the specified ratio because the DRR does not
appear to have effective law enforcement against the taking of female
bears.
Response: The DRR has regulations and enforces such regulations for
the harvest of females in excess of the quota. Because there have been
problems with implementation of the harvest sex ratio, the GNWT
developed the Flexible Quota Option that provides a more consistent
means of reducing the
[[Page 7325]]
community quota when there has been an overharvest of either male or
female polar bears.
Issue 12: The MMC pointed out that if the proportion of females in
the harvest drops to 1.5 percent, the allowable harvest would be the
entire population.
Response: The Service agrees that the theoretically absurd outcome
hypothesized by the MMC could occur if the GNWT blindly followed its
formula without regard to the dramatic change in the composition of the
harvest. It is highly unlikely that such would occur. To further ensure
that such an event does not occur, the GNWT encourages polar bear
harvesting at a 2:1 ratio. The use of the Flexible Quota Option will
help to ensure this level of harvest is not exceeded.
Issue 13: The Service received a number of comments on the method
used by the Service to approve populations. Some respondents thought it
was inappropriate to use the population status or exceeding the quota
as determinative factors, but rather the Service should look at the
success of the overall management program.
Response: The Service agrees that neither factor alone fully
reflects how a particular population meets the required finding. The
Service proposed to use the population status as a non-discriminatory
means of approving populations, but now believes the population status
is better used as an indicator of how well the allocated quota is being
adhered to.
The Service must make a finding that there is a sport-hunting
program based on scientifically sound quotas to ensure the
sustainability of the affected population. To clarify, the Service
views scientifically sound quotas as ones that are based on scientific
methodology that have undergone some scientific (i.e., peer) review
and/or are generally accepted by the scientific community at large. It
is the sport-hunting program, not the quota, that must include
mechanisms that will ensure the maintenance of the affected population
at a sustainable level. The quota is one factor that affects the growth
or decline of the population. See the previous section on the legal and
scientific findings for further discussion.
Issue 14: One respondent thought the Service should approve
populations where authorities are working to establish a management
agreement rather than requiring such an agreement be in place.
Response: The Service believes that the management agreements are
an essential part of co-management of polar bear populations between
the resource users and government wildlife managers. So the Service
continues to require management agreements be in place before approving
a population.
Issue 15: One respondent noted that the Service had approved the
Southern Beaufort Sea and Western Hudson Bay populations with a
condition that the management agreements between communities remain in
place. The respondent questioned why the Service had not placed a
similar condition on other approved populations.
Response: The Service reviewed the management agreements for all
populations in making its proposed findings, but only conditioned the
approval for these two particular areas that involve
interjurisdictional management agreements. Given the critical role that
management agreements play in the NWT polar bear management program,
the Service agrees that the approval of all populations should be
conditioned and revised the regulations to reflect this.
Issue 16: In the proposed rule, the Service stated that the Quebec
Inuit had declined to participate in co-management agreements with the
GNWT. The CWS clarified that although there is no specific agreement
between Quebec and the NWT, both Quebec and the Quebec Inuit have been
active participants in the cooperative management of shared
populations, and that all parties are committed to cooperating to
ensure the conservation of polar bears.
Response: The Service regrets the error regarding participation of
the Quebec Inuit and removed the statement from the preamble of this
rule.
Issue 17: The Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee
established under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the
Act Respecting Hunting and Fishing Rights in the James Bay and New
Quebec Territories asked the Service to allow the import of polar bear
hides resulting from subsistence harvest in Quebec.
Response: The 1994 Amendment to the MMPA only allows the issuance
of a permit to import a polar bear trophy that was sport hunted by the
permittee. Any other exemption to the prohibitions of the MMPA,
including the import of purchased hides or handicrafts for personal
use, would require administrative action under other provisions of the
MMPA.
Issue 18 Southern Beaufort Sea: One respondent thought the Service
should not approve the Southern Beaufort Sea area based on the lack of:
management provisions, including a treaty or agreement between the
United States and Canada to manage this population; limits on Native
take of marine mammals; and enforceable measures on the take of
pregnant polar bears and cubs.
Response: The Service accepts the agreement between the resource
user groups in Canada and Alaska as being in the same context as
management agreements for populations contained within the NWT. The
agreement establishes the sustainable harvest level and allocation of
the quota, provides for protection of cubs and their mothers and
denning females, and restricts hunting seasons. The NWT management
program incorporates measures to resolve problems and to investigate or
correct a suspected decline in this shared population.
Issue 19 Northern Beaufort Sea: One respondent disagreed with the
Service's approval of the Northern Beaufort Sea population due to the
failure of hunters to adhere to a 2:1 harvest ratio of males to
females.
Response: The Service provides the following clarification.
Although the harvest in the Northern Beaufort Sea has not been at 2:1,
the harvest of females did not exceed the 2:1 quota. For example, the
sustainable harvest in the 1993/1994 season was 36. If the harvest was
conducted at a 2:1 ratio, then 12 females could have been harvested.
The total kill was 16, with 50 percent of these being female. So eight
female polar bears were killed in the 1993/1994 season, and the quota
of 12 females was not exceeded.
Issue 20 Viscount Melville: Several respondents disagreed with the
Service's approval of the Viscount Melville population since there is a
moratorium on hunting. One felt that it was not clear whether the DRR
had enforcement authority over this moratorium.
Response: The Service considers this area closed to U.S. sport
hunters, but approved the population since the GNWT based the quotas on
recent scientific information and a management program is in place.
Although the residents in the geographic area inhabited by this
population voluntarily agreed to reduce hunting pressure, the GNWT has
enforcement authority under the management agreement.
Issue 21 Gulf of Boothia: Some respondents thought the Service
should not approve the Gulf of Boothia population and noted that the
Service had acknowledged that the data for this population is limited
and rated as poor and that the population status is listed as
decreasing over the 5-year average.
[[Page 7326]]
Response: The Service agrees. After evaluating the overall sport-
hunting program in this area, the Service revised the regulations to
defer approval of this population. The GNWT considers the population
estimate information, which plays a substantial part in the calculation
of the quota, as poor with no measurable level of precision. The
Service found that the quota for this population does not fully meet
the criteria of being scientifically sound. In addition the Service is
concerned that the harvest of females has exceeded the quota.
Issue 22 M'Clintock Channel: One respondent similarly disagreed
with the Service's approval of the M'Clintock Channel population,
arguing that Canada has not conducted reliable surveys in this area for
over 20 years.
Response: Contrary to the Gulf of Boothia population where there
was an increase in the population estimate based in part on anecdotal
evidence, the GNWT decreased the population estimate for the M'Clintock
Channel population based on anecdotal evidence and concerns regarding
the previous estimate obtained many years before. The Service continues
to approve this population given this more conservative approach. The
DRR recognized the problem of the poor population estimate and Canada
has scheduled research to occur within the next 5 years. A management
agreement is in place between the communities that share the quota and
hunting was at a 2:1 male to female ratio in the 1993-1994 season.
Issue 23 Western Hudson Bay: Some respondents thought the Service
should disapprove the Western Hudson Bay population because bears from
this population intermix with bears from the Foxe Basin and Southern
Hudson Bay populations that the Service had not proposed for approval.
Response: Canada based the boundaries of the Western Hudson Bay
population on movements of marked bears. In the open water months the
water acts as a natural geographical barrier between the populations.
In ice-covered months when this natural barrier is no longer present
some limited movements of bears between populations have been found.
Given the high number of marked bears in the Western Hudson Bay
population and the recent and intensive study of the Foxe Basin
population, biologists would most likely have discovered substantial
mixing of bears between the populations if it were occurring.
Issue 24 Parry Channel and Baffin Bay: Numerous respondents thought
the Service should approve the Parry Channel/Baffin Bay population(s),
noting most sport hunting occurs in these areas. Many said that the
GNWT has significant new data on the Parry Channel/Baffin Bay
population(s), including information on population boundaries and
sustainable harvest level. They urged the Service to evaluate fully the
data from Canada before making any final decision on disapproval of the
populations.
Response: The Service is aware that study of the Parry Channel and
Baffin Bay area is in progress. When available, the Service will
consider in a subsequent review any new data for these populations, as
described previously for all populations that the Service has deferred
findings.
The Service notes that data on the 1993/1994 hunting season as well
as the 3-year and 5-year averages (Table 3) indicate the total harvest
in these areas has consistently been more than 70 percent greater than
the calculated sustainable harvest. Compliance with quotas is one
factor the Service considers in its review.
Issue 25 Davis Strait: One respondent advised that every indication
suggested a substantially growing population of polar bears in Davis
Strait and the Service should approve this population.
Response: The Service agrees there is observational information to
suggest this population has increased since the 1979 field work. The
Service, however, was unable to find based on the scientific and
management data currently available that the quota is scientifically
sound, and that communities in the NWT and Greenland, Labrador, or
Quebec have management agreements in place. The Service has deferred
making a decision on approving the Davis Strait population at this
time.
D. Comments on CITES
A couple of respondents noted that provincial wildlife offices
issue CITES permits, not the CWS as indicated in the proposed rule.
Response: To clarify, the Service notes the CWS is the CITES
Management Authority for Canada, but provincial and territorial offices
issue CITES permits for the export of polar bear trophies.
E. Comments on Illegal Trade in Bear Parts
Issue 1: Several respondents commented that the provisions of the
proposal would not prevent bear gall bladders from entering into
illegal trade.
Response: The Service agrees and revised the regulations so the
applicant certifies that the gall bladder and its contents have been
destroyed at the time of application, rather than at the time of
import. This allows the Service to review documentation prior to the
issuance of the import permits. Since Canadian law does not require
physical surrender of the gall bladder to the community DRR officials,
the Service was unable to adopt that suggestion.
Issue 2: The Service received opposing comments on the requirement
that the permittee must import the polar bear trophy only at a
designated port for wildlife.
Response: In considering the comments, the Service agrees that the
import of a full mount trophy could cause a financial burden to the
owner. The Service revised the regulations to allow applicants with
this type of trophy to request an exception to designated port
authorization at the time the applicant submits an MMPA import permit
application to the Service. Such request will need to meet the
requirements of 50 CFR Part 14. The permittee will need to make special
arrangements for a Service Office to tag the trophy at the time of
entry. All other trophies must be imported through a designated port
for wildlife.
Issue 3: One respondent thought hunters should be allowed to ship
trophies through the international mail.
Response: To prevent misdirection of trophies and difficulties in
clearing parcels, the Service revised the regulations specifically not
to allow the shipment of polar bear trophies through the international
mail. The Service encourages the permittee to work directly with
Service personnel at a designated port when making arrangements to
import a trophy. The Service recommends that the permittee use airline
cargo or common carriers to facilitate the inspection, clearance, and
tagging of a trophy.
Issue 4: One respondent requested the Service not allow sport
hunters to present CITES permits retrospectively for clearance.
Response: The Service will not accept retrospective CITES permits
for the import of polar bear trophies since a condition of the MMPA
import permit is that the trophies must be accompanied by a valid CITES
document.
Issue 5: Some respondents stated that import requirements would not
prevent illegal activities while others thought the requirements were
burdensome, especially notification of the Service prior to import.
Response: The Service believes that the general inspection and
clearance procedures of 50 CFR Part 14 (i.e., prior notice of arrival,
filing of a wildlife declaration form, etc.) and the specific
requirements for polar bear trophy
[[Page 7327]]
imports (i.e., use of a designated port for wildlife, tagging of the
hide, etc.) will be effective in ensuring only legally taken polar
bears enter the United States. The Service works with Canadian
enforcement and U.S. Customs to ensure effective inspection of
shipments and notes that Service wildlife inspectors must inspect and
cancel Canadian export permits at the time of import as required by
CITES.
Prior notification of the import of a polar bear trophy is
necessary to coordinate inspection and tagging by Service wildlife
inspectors. The Service did, however, reduce the proposed notification
to 48 hours in this rule to agree with the current timeframe in 50 CFR
Part 14.
To assist the importer, the Service will provide information to the
permittee when the permit is issued that outlines import procedures. In
addition, the Service will condition each import permit with specific
polar bear import requirements.
Issue 6: Two respondents urged the Service to eliminate some of the
paperwork required at the time of import, especially duplicate
certifications.
Response: The Service agrees and revised the regulations to require
certifications at the time of application for a permit. The Service
also changed the regulations to require the applicant to present
documents to show legal take, such as a copy of the NWT hunting license
and tag number, at the time of application for a permit, rather than at
the time of import.
Issue 7: One individual requested that the Service refrain from
issuing permits until a tagging program is in place and fully
functional.
Response: The Service remains interested in pursuing a joint
tagging program with Canada. However, given the time necessary to
develop and implement such a program, the Service has developed an
independent program for tagging and marking polar bear trophies upon
import as described in Sec. 18.30(e).
Issue 8: One respondent questioned whether trophy parts other than
the hide or rug need to be tagged.
Response: Only the hide (i.e., raw or finished as a rug or mount)
must be tagged. But the Service revised the regulations at
Sec. 18.30(e)(7) to clarify that parts of the trophy other than the
hide, such as the skull or bones, must be permanently marked with the
hide tag number upon import to show they are part of the same trophy.
Issue 9: One individual asked the Service to eliminate the proposed
requirement to tag a full mount with a leg bracelet.
Response: The Service agrees. Full mounts will now have the same
tagging requirement as rugs or hides. The Service must affix a
permanent plastic tag in a plainly visible yet unobtrusive location.
Issue 10: The Service received a range of comments on the
replacement of lost or broken tags: the Service should require proof
that the trophy had been tagged and legally imported, not just a
written statement when a tag is lost; the hunter may not know when the
tag was lost; the Service should consider the time and expense
necessary to move and retag a full mounted bear; and the permittee
should be required to pay a tag replacement fee.
Response: The Service revised the regulations to clarify
information needed to show the trophy had been tagged and legally
imported. The permittee needs to keep copies of the cleared import
permit and canceled Canadian CITES export permit to document legal
import. The Service anticipates few permittees will need to have tags
replaced and intends permittees to work with Service regional staff to
make reasonable arrangements for replacement tags. The Service regards
the tagging of sport-hunted polar bear trophies as essential for the
proper administration of the program and is not planning to charge a
fee to replace lost or broken tags.
F. Comments on Importation of Pregnant or Nursing Animals Under the
MMPA
The Service received numerous comments on the three proposed
options for ensuring that bears to be imported were neither pregnant
nor nursing when sport hunted. Respondents thought it would be
difficult to ascertain whether a polar bear is pregnant prior to moving
into a den; to determine whether a bear is pregnant if in the early
stages of pregnancy; for a hunter, guide, Wildlife Inspector, or a DRR
Officer to make the required certification; and to determine whether a
young bear was nursing or a female was lactating.
The MMC proposed a fourth option not to issue import permits for
polar bears taken from populations with hunting seasons that begin
before December 1st. Another respondent suggested limiting permits to
the import of adult male bears.
Response: Current NWT regulations protect female polar bears from
being hunted in denning areas, when in dens or moving into dens, or in
family groups. The Service learned that the GNWT affords such
protection, in part, by opening polar bear hunting seasons in December
when females would already be in dens, or prohibiting the hunting of
female polar bears until December in areas where the polar bear hunting
season begins in October. The Service added provisions to the
regulations to ensure that bears pregnant near term or nursing (either
mother or young) are not imported. See the previous section on the
finding on pregnant and nursing polar bears for further discussion.
G. Comments on Bears Taken Before the 1994 Amendments
Issue 1: The MMC questioned why the Service proposed to establish
the cutoff for this provision as the effective date of the final rule,
rather than the date the 1994 Amendments were enacted.
Response: The Service proposed to establish this date in view of
the elapsed time between enactment of the amendments and final
regulations in order to more fully inform the public of the proposed
regulations. However, in considering the MMC's comment in view of the
plain language of the Amendments, the Service decided to set the
grandfather date as the date provided by the law, April 30, 1994.
Issue 2: Several respondents thought the Service was required to
make the findings on the sport-hunting program that was in place at the
time the bear was taken. The MMC suggested that if quotas have been
adjusted downward in response to overharvesting, such adjustments
underscore the need to review the quotas that were in place at the time
of taking.
Response: The Service does not agree that the Service must base the
findings on the program in place at the time the bear was sport hunted.
The MMPA specifically uses the present tense in the findings--``Canada
has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program consistent with the
purposes of the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears.'' There
is no other reference in the MMPA amendment that requires or infers
that the Service must base the findings for trophies taken in the past
on the program at the time of taking. Furthermore, since Congress
enacted the MMPA prior to development and implementation of the
International Agreement, it is possible that some bears were sport
hunted but not imported in the time span between enactment of the MMPA
and the International Agreement.
Issue 3: Several respondents did not agree with the Service's
interpretation that bears taken, but not imported, prior to final
regulations were exempt from
[[Page 7328]]
the required findings of section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Response: After careful consideration of the comments submitted
concerning the grandfathering of polar bears, the Service agrees that
the required findings of section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA are
applicable to all polar bear sport-hunted trophies taken in the NWT
since implementation of the MMPA in 1972. Therefore, the grandfather
provision of this final rule will apply only to those populations which
have been approved. Polar bear trophies sport-hunted from currently
deferred populations could be imported once the Service was able to
make all of the findings and the population was approved.
Issue 4: One individual commented that grandfathering of previously
taken bears rewarded people who took bears counter to the purposes of
the MMPA before the law allowed their import.
Response: Congress crafted the special import provision in
Sec. 104(c)(5) to avoid the more thorough waiver proceeding required by
Secs. 101(a)(3) and 103. By this rule, we implement the special import
procedure to effectuate the intent of Congress. The Service lacks
discretion to modify this procedure by adding additional requirements.
Issue 5: The MMC recommended that the Service assume that a pre-
Amendment bear may have been pregnant or nursing unless the applicant
provides sufficient evidence that the bear was a male or the bear was
taken at a time of year when all polar bears normally would be in dens.
Response: The Service reviewed the information currently available
and revised the application requirements and issuance criteria in the
final regulations to avoid the possibility that pregnant or nursing
bears might be imported. See the discussion in the previous section on
the import of pregnant and nursing bears.
Required Determinations
The Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for this final rule
and concluded in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on a
review and evaluation of the information contained within the EA that
there would be no significant impact on the human environment as a
result of this regulatory action and that the preparation of an
environmental impact statement on this action is not required by
Section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. The issuance of
individual marine mammal permits is categorically excluded under 516 DM
6, Appendix 1. The EA and FONSI for this rule are on file at the
Service's Office of Management Authority in Arlington, Virginia, and a
copy may be obtained by contacting the individual identified under the
section entitled, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
This final rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. A review under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) revealed that
this rulemaking would not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities which includes certain businesses,
organizations, or governmental jurisdictions, because no burden will be
added to the already generally mandated permit requirements imposed
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1374. No change in
the demography of populations is expected. The final rule will affect
only those in the United States who have hunted, or intend to hunt,
polar bear in Canada. This action is not expected to have significant
taking implications, per Executive Order 12630.
The Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) has approved the collection of information
contained in this final rule and assigned clearance number 1018-0022
which expires on January 31, 1997. The Service submitted the necessary
documentation to OMB requesting three year approval for the collection
of information for all areas covered by this rule. The collection of
information will not be required until it has been approved by OMB. The
Service will collect information through the use of the Service's form
3-200, which will be modified pursuant to 50 CFR 18.30, to address the
specific requirements of this final rule. The Service is collecting the
information to evaluate permit applications. The likely respondents to
this collection will be sport hunters who wish to import sport-hunted
trophies of polar bears legally taken while hunting in Canada. The
Service will use the information to review permit applications and make
decisions, according to criteria established in various Federal
wildlife conservation statutes and regulations, on the issuance or
denial of permits. The applicant must respond to obtain or retain a
permit. A single response is required to obtain a benefit. The Service
estimates the public reporting burden for this collection of
information to vary from 15 minutes to 4 hours per response, with an
average of 1.028 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The estimated number of likely respondents
is less than seventy (70), yielding a total annual reporting burden of
seventy-two (72) hours or less. The Service determined and certifies
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.,
that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in
any given year upon local or state governments or private entities. The
Service determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards
provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
References Cited
Baur, D.C. 1993. Reconciling the legal mechanisms to protect and
manage polar bears under U.S. laws and the Agreement for the
Conservation of Polar Bears. Report prepared for the Marine Mammal
Commission, Washington, D.C. 153 pp.
Bethke, R., M. Taylor, F. Messier, and S.E. Amstrup. 1996.
Population delineation of polar bears using satellite collar data.
Ecol. Appl. 6: 311-317.
Born, E.W. 1995. Status of the polar bear in Greenland 1993. Pages
81-103 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Polar Bears.
Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-59, 1993,
Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10.
Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
Calvert, W., M. Taylor, L. Stirling, G.B. Kolenosky, S. Kearney, M.
Crete, and S. Luttich. 1995. Polar bear management in Canada 1988-
92. Pages 61-80 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Polar
Bears. Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993,
Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10.
Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
Frankfurther, F. 1947. Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes,
Difficulties of Construction. 47 Colum.L.Rev. 527-546.
Lee, J., M. Taylor, and A. Sutherland. 1994. Aspects of the polar
bear harvest in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Northwest Terr.
Dept. Ren. Res. File Rep. No. 113. 27 pp.
Nageak, B.P., C.D. Brower, and S.L. Schliebe. 1991. Polar bear
management in the Southern Beaufort Sea: An agreement between the
Inuvialuit Game Council and North Slope Borough Fish and Game
Committee. Trans. 56th N.A. Widl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 337-343.
PBSG, The World Conservation Union. 1995. Polar Bears. Proc,
Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen,
Denmark. O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Occas. Pap. IUCN
Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
PBSG, The World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1988. Polar Bears. Proc.
Tenth Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Oct. 25-29, 1988, Sochi, USSR. O.
Wiig, ed. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 7. Gland,
Switzerland.
[[Page 7329]]
Prestrud, P. and I. Stirling. 1995. The International Polar Bear
Agreement and the current status of polar bear conservation. Aquat.
Mammals. (in press)
Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1986. On the mating system of polar
bears. Can. J. Zool. 64:2142-2151.
Schliebe, S.L., S.C. Amstrup, and G.W. Garner. 1995. The status of
polar bears in Alaska 1993. Pages 121-134 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and
G.W. Garner, eds. Polar Bears. Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC
PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec.
Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)
Taylor, B.L. 1995. Defining ``population'' to meet management
objectives for marine mammals. Adm. Rep. LJ-95-03, NMFS, La Jolla,
CA.
Taylor, M., ed. 1994. Density-dependent population regulation in
black, brown, and polar bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage.
Monogr. Series No. 3. 43 pp.
Taylor, M.K., D.P. DeMaster, F.L. Bunnell, and R.E. Schweinsburg.
1987. Modeling the sustainable harvest of female polar bears. J.
Wildl. Manage. 51(4):811-820.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Habitat Conservation Strategy
for Polar Bears in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 91 pp.
Authorship
The originators of this final rule are Lynn Noonan, Paul McGowan,
and Maggie Tieger of the Office of Management Authority, Branch of
Permits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, Part 18 of Chapter I of Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is hereby amended as follows:
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Section 18.4 is added to subpart A of part 18 to read as
follows:
Sec. 18.4 Information collection requirements.
(a) The Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. has approved the information collection requirements contained in
Subpart D and assigned clearance number 1018-0022. The Service is
collecting this information to review and evaluate permit applications
and make decisions according to criteria established in various Federal
wildlife conservation statutes and regulations, on the issuance or
denial of permits. The applicant must respond to obtain or retain a
permit.
(b) The Service estimated the public reporting burden for this
collection of information to vary from 15 minutes to 4 hours per
response, with an average of 1.028 hours per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Service Information
Collection Clearance Office, Fish and Wildlife, Service Office of
Management and Budget, Mail Stop 224, Arlington Square, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240 and the
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1018-
0022), Washington, DC 20503.
3. Section 18.30 is added to subpart D of part 18 to read as
follows:
Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.
(a) Application procedure. You, as the hunter or heir of the
hunter's estate, must submit an application for a permit to import a
trophy of a polar bear taken in Canada to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22203. You must use an official application (Form
3-200) provided by the Service and must include as an attachment all of
the following additional information:
(1) Certification that:
(i) You or the deceased hunter took the polar bear as a personal
sport-hunted trophy;
(ii) You will use the trophy only for personal display purposes;
(iii) The polar bear was not a pregnant female, a female with
dependent nursing cub(s) or a nursing cub (such as in a family group),
or a bear in a den or constructing a den when you took it; and
(iv) For a polar bear taken after April 30, 1994, you made sure the
gall bladder and its contents were destroyed;
(2) Name and address of the person in the United States receiving
the polar bear trophy if other than yourself;
(3) For a polar bear received as an inheritance, documentation to
show that you are the legal heir of the decedent who took the trophy;
(4) Proof that you or the decedent legally harvested the polar bear
in Canada as shown by one of the following:
(i) A copy of the Northwest Territories (NWT) hunting license and
tag number;
(ii) A copy of the Canadian CITES export permit that identifies the
polar bear by hunting license and tag number;
(iii) A copy of the NWT export permit; or
(iv) A certification from the Department of Renewable Resources,
Northwest Territories, that you or the decedent legally harvested the
polar bear, giving the tag number, location (settlement and
population), and season you or the decedent took the bear;
(5) An itemized description of the polar bear parts you wish to
import, including size and the sex of the polar bear;
(6) The month and year the polar bear was sport hunted;
(7) The location (nearest settlement or community) where the bear
was sporthunted;
(8) For a female bear or a bear of unknown sex that was taken
before January 1, 1986, documentary evidence that the bear was not
pregnant at the time of take, including, but not limited to,
documentation, such as a hunting license or travel itinerary, that
shows the bear was not taken in October, November, or December or that
shows that the location of the hunt did not include an area that
supported maternity dens; and
(9) For a female bear, bear of unknown sex, or male bear that is
less than 6 feet in length (from tip of nose to the base of the tail)
that was taken prior to the 1996/97 NWT polar bear harvest season,
available documentation to show that the bear was not nursing,
including, but not limited to, documentation, such as a certification
from the NWT, that the bear was not taken while part of a family group.
(b) Definitions. In addition to the definitions in this paragraph,
the definitions in 50 CFR 10.12, 18.3, and 23.3 apply to this section.
(1) Sport-hunted trophy means a mount, rug or other display item
composed of the hide, hair, skull, teeth, baculum, bones, and claws of
the specimen which was taken by the applicant or decedent during a
sport hunt for personal, noncommercial use and does not include any
internal organ of the animal, including the gall bladder. Articles made
from the specimen, such as finished or unfinished, worked,
manufactured, or handicraft items for use as clothing, curio,
ornamentation, jewelry, or as a utilitarian item are not considered
trophy items.
[[Page 7330]]
(2) Management agreement means a written agreement between parties
that share management responsibilities for a polar bear population
which describes what portion of the harvestable quota will be allocated
to each party and other measures which may be taken for the
conservation of the population, such as harvest seasons, sex ratio of
the harvest, and protection of females and cubs.
(c) Procedures for issuance of permits and modification, suspension
or revocation of permits. We, the Service, shall suspend, modify or
revoke permits issued under this section:
(1) In accordance with regulations contained in Sec. 18.33; and
(2) If, in consultation with the appropriate authority in Canada,
we determine that the sustainability of Canada's polar bear populations
is being adversely affected or that sport hunting may be having a
detrimental effect on maintaining polar bear populations throughout
their range.
(d) Issuance criteria. In deciding whether to issue an import
permit for a sport-hunted trophy, we must determine in addition to the
general criteria in part 13 of this subchapter whether:
(1) You previously imported the specimen into the United States
without a permit;
(2) The specimen meets the definition of a sport-hunted trophy in
paragraph (b) of this section;
(3) You legally harvested the polar bear in Canada;
(4) Canada has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program
consistent with the purposes of the 1973 International Agreement on the
Conservation of Polar Bears;
(5) Canada has a sport-hunting program, based on scientifically
sound quotas, ensuring the maintenance of the affected population at a
sustainable level; and
(6) The export and subsequent import:
(i) Are consistent with the provisions of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) and other international agreements and conventions; and
(ii) Are not likely to contribute to illegal trade in bear parts,
including for bears taken after April 30, 1994, that the gall bladder
and its contents were destroyed.
(e) Additional permit conditions. Your permit to import a sport-
hunted trophy of a polar bear taken in Canada is subject to the permit
conditions outlined in Sec. 18.31(d) and the following additional
permit conditions:
(1) You, the permittee, may not import internal organs of the polar
bear, including the gall bladder;
(2) After import you may not alter or use the trophy in a manner
inconsistent with the definition of a sport-hunted polar bear trophy as
given in Sec. 18.30(b);
(3) You may not import a sport-hunted trophy if the polar bear at
the time you or the decedent took it was:
(i) A nursing bear or a female with nursing young (i.e., part of a
family group);
(ii) A pregnant female; or
(iii) A bear moving into a den or in a den;
(4) You must present to Service personnel at the time of import a
valid CITES document from the country of export or re-export;
(5) You must comply with the following import procedures:
(i) Import the sport-hunted trophy through a designated port for
wildlife imports (see Sec. 14.12 of this subchapter) during regular
business hours, except for full mount trophies that have been granted
an exception to designated port permit requirements under Sec. 14.32 of
this subchapter;
(ii) Not send the trophy through the international mail; and
(iii) Notify Service personnel at the port at least 48 hours before
the import (see Sec. 14.54 of this subchapter) and make arrangements
for Service personnel to affix a tag in accordance with paragraph
(e)(7) of this section prior to being cleared (see Sec. 14.52 of this
subchapter);
(6) You must import all parts of a single trophy at the same time;
(7) The following tagging/marking procedures apply:
(i) Service personnel must affix a permanently locking tag that
contains a unique serial number and the common name ``polar bear'' to
the hide which must remain fixed indefinitely to the hide as proof of
legal import; and
(ii) Service personnel must permanently mark upon import the parts
of the trophy other than the hide, such as the skull and bones, with
the hide tag number; and
(8) If the tag comes off the hide, you must within 30 days:
(i) Contact the nearest Service office at a designated port or a
Law Enforcement office as given in Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter to
schedule a time to present the trophy for retagging;
(ii) Provide as proof that the trophy had been tagged and legally
imported a copy of the:
(A) Canceled CITES export permit or re-export certificate;
(B) Cancelled U.S. import permit issued under this section; or
(C) Cleared wildlife declaration form (3-177); and
(iii) Present either the broken tag, or if the tag was lost, a
signed written explanation of how and when the tag was lost.
(f) Duration of permits. The permit will be valid for no more than
one year from the date of issuance.
(g) Fees.
(1) You must pay the standard permit processing fee as given in
Sec. 13.11(4) when filing an application.
(2) You must pay the issuance fee of $1,000 when we notify you the
application is approved. We cannot issue an import permit until you pay
this fee. We will use the issuance fee to develop and implement
cooperative research and management programs for the conservation of
polar bears in Alaska and Russia under section 113(d) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
(h) Scientific review. (1) We will undertake a scientific review of
the impact of permits issued under this section on the polar bear
populations in Canada within 2 years of March 20, 1997.
(i) The review will provide an opportunity for public comment and
include a response to the public comment in the final report; and
(ii) We will not issue permits under this section if we determine,
based upon scientific review, that the issuance of permits under this
section is having a significant adverse impact on the polar bear
populations in Canada; and
(2) After the initial review, we may review whether the issuance of
permits under this section is having a significant adverse impact on
the polar bear populations in Canada annually in light of the best
scientific information available. The review must be completed no later
than January 31 in any year a review is undertaken.
(i) Findings. Polar bear sport-hunted trophies may only be imported
after issuance of an import permit, and in accordance with the
following findings and conditions:
(1) We have determined that the Northwest Territories, Canada, has
a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program that meets issuance
criteria of paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this section for the following
populations: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern Beaufort Sea, Viscount
Melville Sound (subject to the lifting of the moratorium in this
population), Western Hudson Bay, and M'Clintock Channel, and that:
(i) For the Southern Beaufort Sea population, no bears are taken
west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea;
(ii) For all populations, females with cubs, cubs, or polar bears
moving into denning areas or already in dens are protected from taking
by hunting activities; and
[[Page 7331]]
(iii) For all populations, management agreements among all
management entities with scientifically sound quotas are in place; and
(2) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories,
Canada, between December 21, 1972, and April 30, 1994, may be issued an
import permit when:
(i) From an approved population listed in paragraph (i)(1); and
(ii) The issuance criteria of paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3), and (6)
of this section are met.
Dated: February 7, 1997.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 97-3954 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
