[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 136 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36382-36400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17432]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 18
RIN 1018-AD04
Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada; Proposed Rule on
Legal and Scientific Findings To Implement Section 104(c)(5)(A) of the
1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule and findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed legal and scientific
findings on the importation of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) taken in
sport hunts in Canada, including ones taken, but not imported, prior to
enactment of the 1994 Amendments of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). Specifically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
proposes to find that the Northwest Territories (NWT), the only area in
Canada that currently allows sport hunting, has a monitored and
enforced sport-hunting program that ensures polar bears are legally
taken, is consistent with the purposes of the Agreement on the
Conservation of Polar Bears, and is based on scientifically sound
quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a
sustainable level, provided certain provisions are in place in the
specific population. The Service proposes to approve populations where
the status of the population has been stable or increasing for previous
harvest seasons and local and/or joint management agreement(s) are in
place. Since Canada and the United States are Parties to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), the Service proposes that import and export procedures are in
place to meet CITES requirements. This notice also proposes regulations
on the disposition of the gall bladder, tagging of trophies, and import
procedures needed to monitor legal import and to ensure the import will
not contribute to illegal trade in bear parts. The Service invites
comment on options proposed to meet the provisions of Section 102(b) of
the MMPA concerning the importation of pregnant and nursing polar
bears. For polar bears taken in the NWT prior to the Amendments through
the effective date of the final rule, the Service proposes to issue
permits when proof of legal take is demonstrated and the provisions of
the Act concerning pregnant and nursing polar bears are met. The
Service intends to make these findings for multiple sport-hunting
seasons pending review as required
[[Page 36383]]
under Section 104(c)(5)(C) of the MMPA. This proposed rule is a
supplement to the Service's previous proposed rule published on January
3, 1995.
DATES: The Service will consider comments and information received
August 31, 1995 in formulating its decision on this notice and proposed
rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments and information should be sent to: Director, Fish
and Wildlife Service, c/o Office of Management Authority, 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Room 420C, Arlington, VA 22203. Materials received will
be available for public inspection by appointment from 7:45 a.m. to
4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Management
Authority, Room 434. The Service has prepared a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) for this proposal. A copy of the draft EA may be
obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact
listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Stansell, Office of Management
Authority, at the above address, telephone (703) 358-2903; fax (703)
358-2281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 3, 1995, the Service published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 70) a proposed rule to establish application requirements,
permit procedures, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and a special
permit issuance fee. At that time, the Service was gathering
information for this second proposed rule. This rule proposes the legal
and scientific findings required by the 1994 Amendments that need to be
made prior to the Service issuing permits to allow for the importation
of sport-hunted trophies of polar bears legally taken by the applicant
while hunting in Canada. Based on information on polar bear populations
in Canada and Canada's management program, the Service believes these
proposed findings are consistent with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
The Service invites comment on three proposed options to meet the
requirements of Section 102(b) of the MMPA that polar bears may not be
imported if the bear at the time of taking was pregnant or a nursing
cub. The rule also proposes to amend the proposed permit regulations
announced in the January 3, 1995, notice by adding regulations on
certification of legal take by the NWT for polar bears taken prior to
the effective date of any final rule; disposition of the gall bladder;
tagging of trophies; and import procedures needed to monitor legal
import and to ensure the import will not contribute to illegal trade in
bear parts.
In accordance with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA, prior to
issuing a permit for the importation of a polar bear trophy, the
Service must make a finding that the polar bear was legally taken by
the applicant, and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission
(MMC), and after opportunity for public comment must make the following
findings: (A) Canada has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program
that is consistent with the purposes of the 1973 International
Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (International Agreement);
(B) Canada has a sport-hunting program that is 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
CITES and other international agreements and conventions; and (D) the
export and subsequent import are not likely to contribute to illegal
trade in bear parts. According to the Committee Report (H.R. Rep. No.
439, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.(1994)) these provisions were placed in the
law partly to ensure that the importation of polar bear trophies into
the United States would not increase hunting demand in Canada that
would result in unsustainable harvest levels. It was felt that if
Canada's polar bear management program regulates harvest through a
quota system based on principles of sustainable yield, any increase in
the harvest quota would be based on scientific data showing the
population had increased to such an extent as to support an increase in
the quota.
The proposed rule provides information on polar bear biology and
Canada's management program for this species. It discusses each of the
legal and scientific findings for the Northwest Territories (NWT), the
only area in Canada where polar bears can be harvested currently by
non-residents through a regulated sport-hunting program.
The Service is to make the findings in consultation with the MMC,
an independent Federal agency with statutory authority to make
recommendations pursuant to Title II of the MMPA. Copies of the
information received from Canada have been provided to the MMC for this
purpose. The Service intends to announce its decision on these proposed
findings after consultation with the MMC and the opportunity for public
comment.
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). The abundance of
seals affects 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 (Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) 1995). The number of
polar bears in Canada is estimated at 13,120 in 12 relatively discrete
populations, referred to as management units or subpopulations in some
documents (Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), unpublished
documents on file with the Service) (Map 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 36384]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP17JY95.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
The language in the Amendments refers to an ``affected population
stock'' in the singular, and raises the issue of whether the Service
needs to make the findings on one population for the whole of Canada or
on the 12 populations under which Canada has been managing polar bears
for over 20 years. In considering the following information, the
Service has decided to treat the 12 Canadian populations as population
stocks under the MMPA and make the proposed findings on that basis.
Congressman Jack Fields, during the House of Representatives floor
debate for the 1994 Amendments, clarified that ``the term `population
stock' as defined in the MMPA means a group of marine mammals of the
same species in a common spatial arrangement and is used in the bill to
refer to these subpopulations and management units which reflect
Canada's management regime'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725, April 26, 1994).
For many marine species, there have been difficulties in defining
stocks consistently under the MMPA. This particularly became apparent
when the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under
the 1994 Amendments were tasked with conducting stock assessments to
determine the number of animals that may be removed from a population
by human-caused mortality. Dr. Barbara Taylor (1995) in a NMFS
administrative report pointed out that although the definition of
population remains illusive, it can be critical to good management. She
asserted that ``population stock'' in the MMPA has both a biological
and management meaning. 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. Harvest data and scientific
research have provided information to show that interchange between
populations is low and human caused mortality is concentrated within
localized areas. Therefore, the management of polar bears in Canada as
discrete populations is consistent with the term ``population stock''
as used in the MMPA and ensures the maintenance of the polar bear
throughout its range in Canada.
The GNWT wrote the Service that Canada's ``stocks'' of polar bears
are termed ``populations''. This designation is based on increasing
knowledge on the movement of polar bears. Boundaries of polar bear
populations in Canada were initially based on geographic features using
reconnaissance surveys. Over time, the boundaries have been confirmed
and refined 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 (e.g., areas where ice consistently breaks up and creates open
water or areas where ice is refrozen at intervals during the winter).
The research and accumulation of other information are ongoing. For
example, the recently collected satellite telemetry data are being
analyzed to redetermine the population boundaries for the Parry
Channel/Baffin Bay population (GNWT).
Canada shares some polar bear populations with Greenland and
Alaska. Northeastern Canada shares three populations (Queen Elizabeth
Island, Baffin Bay/Parry Channel, and Davis Strait) with Greenland with
the extent of exchange between Canada and Greenland as yet unclear.
Northwestern Canada shares the Southern Beaufort Sea population with
northern Alaska, with extensive east-west movements of polar bears
between Canada and the United States.
Reproduction and Survival
Polar bears are intimately associated with Arctic ice. Due to
unpredictability in the structure of Arctic sea ice and associated
availability of food, it is
[[Page 36385]]
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 between late March through May,
with implantation occurring in September. Maternity dens are typically
formed in drifted snow in late October and November and cubs are born
in December and 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). The large-scale unpredictable fluctuations of the Arctic
environment strongly affect the recruitment rate and the survival of
young. 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. The number of females available to breed
is affected by the survival rates of cubs, adult female survival rates,
litter size, and litter production rates. As cub and litter survival
rates increase, the number of females available for breeding in any
year decreases. In any year, 30 to 60 percent of available adult female
polar bears do not breed or are not impregnated. Typically, each litter
consists of two cubs. The overall sex ratio is 50 males to 50 females.
Cubs remain with the female until they are about 2.5 years old, during
which time the females avoid associating with adult males. When the
cubs are weaned, the females are again ready for breeding. Some females
lose their cubs and are available for breeding the next season. The
average breeding interval is 3 years. 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. Females stop reproducing at about 20 years of age. 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).
Canada's Polar Bear Management Program
Although each of the 12 populations of polar bear within Canada is
managed as a unit, there is a somewhat complex sharing of
responsibilities. Management has been delegated to the Provincial and
Territorial Governments, but the Federal Government (Environment
Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service) has an active research program and
is involved in management of populations shared with other
jurisdictions, especially ones with other nations. Native Land Claims
have resulted in Co-management Boards for most of Canada's polar bear
populations. Polar bears in Canada occur in the NWT, in the Yukon
Territory, and in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and
Newfoundland and Labrador (Map 1). All 12 populations lie within or are
shared with the NWT. Provincial boundaries extend only to the low water
mark of the Hudson Bay. Canadian territorial waters within the Arctic
Ocean, Hudson Bay, and all islands and marine waters are part of the
NWT. The offshore marine areas along the coast of Newfoundland and
Labrador are under Federal jurisdiction (GNWT).
The Federal-Provincial Technical and Administrative Committees for
Polar Bear Research and Management (PBTC and PBAC, respectively) were
formed 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, plus 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 small number of meetings. In recent
years, the PBAC meetings have included the participation of the non-
government groups, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Labrador Inuit
Association, for their input at the management level. Beginning in
1995, representatives of Inuit groups harvesting polar bears were
invited to attend PBTC meetings. The annual meetings of the PBTC
provides for continuing cooperation between jurisdictions and for
recommending management actions to the PBAC (Calvert et al. 1995). Most
recently, emphasis has been on the development of Management
Agreements, reducing quotas for populations thought to be over-
harvested, and conducting research on populations with uncertain status
(PBSG 1995).
NWT's Polar Bear Management Program
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. Polar bears
are managed under the Northwest Territories Act (Canada). The 1960
Order-in-Council granted the Commissioner in Council (NWT) authority to
pass ordinances to protect polar bears, including the establishment of
a quota system to manage polar bears, that are applicable to all
people. The Wildlife Act, 1988, and Big Game Hunting Regulations
provide supporting legislation which recognizes each polar bear
population.
Although the recently completed 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. Under the umbrella of the NWT's Department of Renewable
Resources (DRR), polar bears are 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. These Agreements
are then used to develop regulations which implement the agreements.
Regulations specify who can hunt, season length, and age and sex
classes that can be hunted, and the total allowable harvest for a given
population in Polar Bear Management Areas. The DRR has officers to
enforce the regulations in most communities of the NWT. Since the co-
management system strives to develop local support for regulations
before they are implemented, there is strong community pressure to
comply with management agreements. Incidents of violation of
regulations, kills in defense of life, or exceeding a quota are
investigated.
There are a number of communities within the boundaries of each
polar bear population. The total sustainable harvest for each
population is divided among communities within the population
boundaries, called settlement quotas. When agreement on a particular
community's share of the
[[Page 36386]]
sustainable yield has been reached, tags are provided each year to the
Hunters' and Trappers' Organizations or Associations or Committees
(HTO). This group in conjunction with members of the community, decides
how many tags to allocate to sport hunting and how many are to be used
by local hunters. Sport hunting is not administered separately from
other polar bear harvesting. It should be noted that some communities
may hold quota tags for several separate populations, but tags can be
used only for the populations for which the tags are issued (GNWT).
Harvest of Polar Bears and Sport Hunting
The hunting of polar bears is an important part of the culture and
economy of indigenous peoples of the Arctic (PBSG 1995). A hunting
season was first imposed in Canada in 1935. Hunting opportunities were
restricted to Native people in 1949, with quotas for polar bears
introduced in 1967. The harvest of polar bears was almost 700 in 1967/
68, but dropped dramatically with the introduction of quotas. In the
1978/79 season, the largest increase occurred when the quota was
increased by 12 percent (Lee et al. 1994). Since 1991, quotas have
undergone major adjustments, mainly downward.
In the NWT, the indigenous people in a settlement may authorize the
sale of a permit from the quota to a non-resident hunter. These hunts
are subject to certain restrictions: the hunt must be conducted under
Canadian jurisdiction and guided by a Native hunter; 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. Sport hunters typically select trophy animals, usually large
adult males. Table 1 shows that in 1993/94, 79 percent of polar bears
taken as sport-hunting trophies were male. It also summarizes the
number of sport hunts that occurred in the different populations in the
NWT for the last two harvest seasons. Sport hunting for polar bears
began in the NWT in 1969/70 with three hunts and gradually increased
(GNWT). The average over the last five seasons was 55 as summarized by
the Service in Table 2. The maximum number of sport hunts in any one
year was 83 which occurred in the 1987/88 season. The success rate
varied from 30 percent in 1979/80 to 91 percent in 1985/86 (Lee et al.
1994) and has averaged about 79 percent over the past five seasons. The
number of quota tags used for sport hunting compared to the total known
kill in the NWT averaged 10.9 percent annually over the last five
seasons.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------
Population No. killed No. killed
(No. not Percent of Percent (No. not Percent of
successful) total male successful) total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
No. killed total sport
Season Total (percent Known total hunt to
sports hunt success) kill in NWT known kill
in NWT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989/90............. 60 48 (80) 537 11.2
1990/91............. 66 50 (76) 490 13.5
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..... 55 43 (79) 503 10.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) and requires responsibilities in dealing with
non-Native clients.
Polar bear sport hunts for non-residents are usually arranged
through an agent or broker. In general, the agent or broker contacts
the community's Hunters' and Trappers' Organization or Associations or
Committees (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-
hunt tags at a community meeting. The community decides on the number
of
[[Page 36387]]
tags to be designated for sport hunting. Then the fee for the tag is
paid and the tag is allocated to a specific hunter. The tag cannot be
resold or used by any other non-resident hunter. In most cases polar
bear tags for sport hunts are retained by the DRR officer until
provided to the hunter. In a few cases, the tags are retained by the
HTO who in turn provide them to the hunters (GNWT).
Proposed Legal and Scientific Findings and Summary of Applicable
Information
Currently, only the NWT allows sport hunting of polar bear. Thus,
the Service is proposing findings only for the NWT.
A. Legal Take
1. Proposed Finding
The Service proposes to find that the NWT has a management program
that ensures a polar bear was legally taken and to condition the permit
as outlined below. 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 and a CITES permit system if the trophy is
exiting Canada. This is all within the context of the laws,
regulations, and co-management agreements discussed earlier.
For polar bears that are taken after the effective date of any
final rule, the Service proposes to condition permits upon the
presentation of a copy of the NWT hunting license with tag number and a
Canadian CITES export permit that identifies the polar bear by hunting
license and tag number to a Service inspector at the port at the time
of import to satisfy the requirement of proof of legal take. For bears
taken prior to the effective date of any final rule, the Service
proposes to require the applicant to provide with his/her application a
certification from the Department of Renewable Resources, Government of
the Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested
and tagged, including the name of the hunter and location and season
the bear was taken.
2. Summary of Legal Take
As described above, the agent or broker usually obtains the hunting
license and tag for the hunter. Once a polar bear is taken, the tag is
affixed to the hide and biological samples requested by the DRR officer
are collected. 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 lost tag number and
other information as required must be reported 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 the bear is killed, a
person 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) and any other
information as required. Except where an officer verifies the sex of
the polar bear, the baculum (i.e., penis bone) of the male polar bear
must be provided 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
bear will be deemed to have been female for the purposes of population
trend/modelling.
Additional information, collected to complete a numbered Polar Bear
Hunter Kill Return form, includes: The community where the hunt was
based; the polar bear population from which the bear was harvested; the
harvest season in which the bear was taken; the sex of the bear; the
approximate latitude and longitude of where the bear was taken 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; an indication of whether the bear was alone
or part of a family group, including if the bear was a mother with
cubs; the estimated age class of the bear before the tooth was
examined; the disposition of the hide; the hide value to the hunter;
the hunter's address and the hunter's license number; the guide/
outfitters name; and the 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. When a tag is removed for tanning,
it is returned 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 which is entered into the system. The vendor return
contains all the licenses, permits, and tags that were issued during
that month. Reports and searches may be generated 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. With the introduction of quotas, a large percent of
the harvest was recorded and since 1977/78 all harvests have been
recorded. Should it be required, a polar bear trophy imported from
Canada could be traced back to the individual who took the bear.
A NWT Wildlife Export Permit must be obtained from a DRR officer
prior to exporting wildlife, including polar bear parts. The hunter
must show the hunting license to obtain a NWT Wildlife Export permit.
Polar bear parts may be exported from Canada with a Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(CITES) export permit (see discussion in section ``D'' below). The tag,
either removed for tanning or removed at the time of export, needs to
be submitted with supporting documentation as required for obtaining a
CITES export permit (GNWT).
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 1965 the PBSG, comprised of 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), was formed 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. It entered into force in 1976 for a 5-year
period, and in 1981 was reaffirmed for an indefinite period. Greenland
later was provided recognition through ``Home-rule''
[[Page 36388]]
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
polar bear research. 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). Since
implementation and enforcement of the International Agreement is the
responsibility of each signatory, different interpretations have
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. At the 1993 PBSG polar bear meeting it was
stated, ``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. Proposed Finding
The Service proposes to find that the NWT has a monitored and
enforced sport-hunting program that is consistent with the purposes of
the International Agreement as required by the 1994 Amendments under
certain conditions. For the reasons discussed below, the Service
proposes to approve only populations where the sport hunt for the
previous year did not exceed 15 percent of the total quota for the NWT.
Currently, all populations in the NWT meet this requirement (Table 2).
The Service also proposes to approve only 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 proposes not to approve the
Southern Hudson Bay, the NWT population that is shared with Ontario,
since Ontario has no provisions in place to protect females with cubs,
their cubs, and bears in dens. The following discussion outlines the
applicable requirements of the International Agreement as it relates to
sport hunting and management of polar bear in the NWT.
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.
Article III does not specifically exclude sport hunting from the
taking prohibition. However, 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 sport hunting was not
precluded and that the U.S. position, which was generally agreed to by
all, was that sport hunting could occur if the national territories
could be defined so the Arctic Ocean could become a sanctuary. 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.'' Based on the
clause ``in accordance with the laws of that Party,'' 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 the hunt is conducted under the guidance of a Native hunter
and by use of a dog team, and is conducted within Canadian
jurisdiction.
When the Service queried the GNWT for clarification of the term
``token'' sport hunt, they said that the term ``* * * has not been
discussed further by managers and user groups since the Agreement came
into effect in 1976.'' The GNWT pointed out that the most important
point to note is that polar bear tags allocated for guided sport
hunting are part of the normal allocation to the community and are not
added to the total (GNWT). Although the language of the International
Agreement does not limit the amount of sport hunting within a country's
national territory, Canada used the term ``token'' in its declaration.
Thus, for purposes of issuing import permits for sport-hunted polar
bear trophies taken in Canada, the Service proposes to approve only
populations where sport-hunting for the previous harvest season is
``token'', i.e., not to exceed 15 percent of the NWT total quota. This
proposed percentage is based on the history of use, where typically 10
to 15 percent of the annual quota is used by sport hunters (GNWT).
Baur (1993) stated, ``The final exception, which allows for taking
`wherever polar bears have or might have been subject to taking by
traditional means by its nationals' is the most difficult to
interpret.'' One possible interpretation 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. The 1975 Environmental Assessment in support of U.S. Senate
ratification of the International Agreement supported this
interpretation. However, Baur wrote that there is no support in the
background documentation leading up to the International Agreement to
support this view.
Baur (1993) suggested that the best interpretation of this
exception has to do with the intent of all IUCN drafts 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, snow mobiles, etc.), the area affected
seldom reached into the areas commonly understood to be ``high seas''
(Baur 1993). The Service agrees with this interpretation for this
exception in the International Agreement and notes that Canada allows
sport hunting within this interpretation (GNWT).
[[Page 36389]]
3. Protection of Habitat and Management of Polar Bear Populations:
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). It was
suggested at the 1993 PBSG meeting that Canada may be in non-compliance
with parts of the International Agreement. There was some discussion of
whether Canada is using sound conservation practices in managing polar
bears since some populations are thought to be over-harvested. Canada
noted, however, that their management system allows for the reduction
of quotas in response to a decline resulting from over-hunting. The NWT
is currently working with local communities to reduce quotas in those
jurisdictions where recent population data suggests an over-harvest.
It was also discussed that the selling of hides resulting from
polar bears killed in self-defense violates Article II of the
International Agreement. Canada noted that all polar bears killed in
defense of life are subtracted from the local quota so the sale is not
a conservation threat (PBSG 1995).
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 * * * except where the application of such prohibition would be
inconsistent with domestic laws.''
It is illegal in Canada to hunt polar bears from aircraft for
either sport or local hunting. Aboriginal guides and sport hunters must
conduct their hunt by dog team or on foot. (It should be noted that
non-sport hunters may travel and hunt polar bears by 3-wheel ATV (all-
terrain vehicles), snowmobile, and boats under 15 meters. There was
some discussion, but no resolution, at the 1993 PBSG meeting on whether
the extensive use of snowmobiles in Canada and Alaska to hunt polar
bears by native peoples complied with the International Agreement (PBSG
1995). However, Mr. Curtis Bohlen clarified that snowmobiles were
normally used by natives in Canada and Alaska and were considered
traditional (pers. comm. 1995).) Access to the communities is by air
only, so sport hunters must fly to reach their destinations. Aircraft,
snow machines, and boats are sometimes used to transport equipment,
hunters, and dogs to base camps which 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.''
5. The Prohibition on Taking Cubs and Females With Cubs
At the 1973 Conference, the Parties to the International Agreement
adopted a non-binding ``Resolution on Special Protection Measures'' 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 prohibitions in the Resolution are considered to be important
to the signatory nations, they are not terms of the International
Agreement itself and are not legally binding (Baur 1993). At the 1993
PBSG meeting the resolution was discussed but no agreement was reached
over the interpretation of whether females with their cubs and cubs are
specially protected under the 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 proposes to
approve only 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 proposes to find that the NWT meets these requirements
as females with cubs-of-the-year and bears in dens are protected by
Territorial regulations. In addition, females with yearlings and
yearlings are protected, and, in some areas, females with 2-year-old
cubs are also protected. However, the Service proposes not to approve
the Southern Hudson Bay population that is shared with Ontario, since
that province has no such protection in place.
Importation of Pregnant or Nursing Animals. The MMPA has a more
stringent requirement than the Resolution on Special Protection
Measures of the International Agreement discussed above. Section 102(b)
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 ``(1) pregnant at the time of
taking; (2) nursing at the time of taking, or less than eight months
old, whichever occurs later; (3) * * *; (4) taken in a manner deemed
inhumane by the Secretary.'' Number 4 was included to address the issue
of whether the taking of a mother if she had cubs would be inhumane
since the cubs probably would not be able to survive without her. These
prohibitions were part of the law passed in 1972 and have been applied
to all import permits. Since Congress did not specifically exclude
polar bear import permits from the prohibition of 102(b), the Service
has considered them in this notice.
The Service has noted two timeframes when it might be difficult to
ensure that these provisions are met. In viewing the life history of
polar bears, during the month of October it would not be possible to
know if the bear was pregnant. In the section on Reproduction and
Survival above, information was presented that polar bears become
implanted in late September and usually start building dens in late
October and early November. In some part of the NWT the harvest season
does not open until December 1, in which case any pregnant bears would
be protected. But in other areas the harvest season starts October 1
and pregnant females would be available to be taken. Second, polar bear
cubs 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 bear cubs
nearing the time when they are weaned would be difficult to identify.
The Service looked at various options to ensure that the
requirements of
[[Page 36390]]
Section 102(b) are met prior to issuing a permit for the import of
polar bear trophies taken in the NWT. The Service invites comments on
the following options: (1) Have the NWT 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 officer; (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 permits would not be issued for female bears
taken during the month of October and bears taken while in family
groups. At this time, the Service prefers the first option and so has
proposed language for it. However, the Service invites comments on the
three options presented. It should be noted that this provision applies
to all polar bear to be imported, including ones taken prior to the
1994 Amendments.
C. Scientifically Sound Quotas and Maintenance of Sustainable
Population Levels
The NWT 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).
Congressman Jack Fields stated in the House of Representatives
floor debate on the 1994 Amendments that ``. . . it is not the intent
of the language that the Secretary [of the Interior] attempt to impose
polar bear management policy or practices on Canada through the
imposition of any polar bear import criteria'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725,
April 26, 1994). The Service agrees that the intent of the Amendments
was not to change Canada's management program, but 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)).
The Service found in reviewing the information that Canada has a
dynamic management program for polar bears which includes research,
monitoring programs, enforcement, and coordination with other nations.
The NWT administers the bulk of the program through a system of co-
management that involves the indigenous people. The NWT polar bear
program has been shown to be an evolving program in the interest of
conserving polar bear populations.
1. Proposed Finding
Based on information as summarized in this Federal Register notice,
the Service proposes to find that the Northwest Territories in Canada
has a sport-hunting program that is based on scientifically sound
quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a
sustainable level for all populations, provided the status of each
population is maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest
season and the average of the three preceding harvest seasons, and a
joint management agreement(s) is in place that ensures the
sustainability of the total harvest in a shared population.
The Service proposes to approve the following populations in the
NWT where current data show that the status of the population has been
maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest season and the
average of the three preceding seasons: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern
Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock
Channel, and Western Hudson Bay.
The Service proposes not to approve populations where current data
show that the take for the last harvest season and the average of the
three preceding seasons has exceeded the quota to such extent that
Canada classifies the status of the population as declining. Currently,
this includes the two populations with uncertain data, Parry Channel/
Baffin Bay and Foxe Basin.
The Service also proposes not to approve the following populations
that are shared by the NWT with Greenland, Quebec, Ontario, or
Newfoundland and Labrador: Queen Elizabeth Island, Parry Channel/Baffin
Bay, Foxe Basin, Davis Strait, and Southern Hudson Bay. The Service
understands that currently there are no management agreements between
the NWT and Greenland or the listed Provinces to ensure that the total
harvest in these populations are sustainable.
The Service is concerned that U.S. residents may continue to take
polar bears in populations that have not been approved if the proposal
is adopted. Although the GNWT has told the Service that the two
populations with uncertain data (Parry Channel/Baffin Bay and Foxe
Basin) have ongoing research they believe will support a finding that
the current quota ensure sustainable populations, the Service notes
that any person who hunts in a non-approved population is taking a risk
that he/she may never be able to legally import the polar bear into the
United States. If a U.S. resident hunts a polar bear in a population
that is not approved for import, the Service proposes to issue an
import permit only if the Service finds, based on new data from the
NWT, that the total harvest for that harvest season and the average of
the three preceding harvest seasons was sustainable for the affected
population and a management agreement(s) was in place with Greenland
and/or a province(s) that shares the population with the NWT.
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 studies need to continue for 10 to 20
years to detect significant changes (Prestrud and Stirling 1995). Each
population in the NWT is assessed by a periodic population inventory
done on a rotational basis. 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. Boundaries, initially proposed based on
land forms, sea ice dynamics, and reconnaissance surveys, have been
refined by scientific research data on the movements of individual
bears through the use of mark-recapture, mark-kill data from the
harvest, radio tracking, and satellite telemetry. Research on
population boundaries is ongoing.
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 as to the size of the population. By
regulation, lip tatoos or ear tags, applied to polar bears in the
course of population inventories, must be submitted to the DRR at the
time of harvest of the bear. In addition, the sex and age structure of
the harvest is monitored. Changes in the sex and age
[[Page 36391]]
of the harvest over time provide insight into whether the population
may be increasing or declining. Should mark-kill data, information from
the monitoring program, or reports from local hunters indicate a
problem with a particular population, the period between assessments
could be shortened depending on the availability of research resources.
Data from ongoing research is incorporated into management
practices as appropriate. The results of studies on which management of
this species is based have been published in reports, conference
proceedings, and refereed scientific journals.
3. Calculation of Sustainable Harvest
The GNWT manages polar bears under the assumption that the polar
bear populations are experiencing maximal (e.g. no density effects)
recruitment and survival rates. The estimated sustainable rate of
harvest is then the maximum sustainable harvest.
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 which affected the value of the
analysis, the detailed analysis was simplified 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 vital 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 last harvest season and averaged over the last three and five
seasons. Based on this information, the status of the population is
designated as increasing, stable, or decreasing, represented by the
symbols ``+'', ``O'', ``-''. The population status is expressed simply
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. It should be noted that the status as outlined in the table
allows for a difference of up to 3 bears between the kill and the
calculated sustainable harvest. Thus, in the Gulf of Boothia, where the
harvest in the 1993/94 season exceeded the quota by 2.3 bears, the
status is considered to be stable.
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 and S.E. Kill Sustainable Kill Sustainable Kill Sustainable (5yr/3yr/1yr)
(%) harvest \3\ (%) 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
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 1 female is sustainable, although the mean age and abundance of males will be reduced at
maximum sustainable yield. Harvest data (Lee and Taylor, in press) indicates that the harvest is typically selective for males.
[[Page 36392]]
\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.
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 over-harvest.
Conservation management and comparisons with other long-lived species
suggest that noncompensatory harvest models are most appropriate for
polar bears (Taylor et al. 1987).
A common technique in wildlife management is to increase harvest of
males as a means of increasing sustainable yield and conserving the
reproduction potential of the population. Specific 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).
Mating in bears is promiscuous and recruitment is primarily a function
of the number of adult females (Taylor et al. 1987).
When the sex-selective harvest model was presented at the 1993 PBSG
meeting, there were concerns raised. One 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 NWT's DRR is aware of the
concerns and is currently conducting a comprehensive risk analysis to
consider all sources of uncertainty. It will be used to examine the
inventory rotation period and the current standards for precision in
the estimates of population size. In addition, they continue to monitor
information on number, sex, and age of most polar bears harvested. Any
over-harvest or significant change in the population due to natural
ecological reasons likely would be detected. In addition, local hunters
are familiar with the relative abundance of polar bears in their areas
and would notice significant increasing or decreasing trends in polar
bear numbers.
Since the population quota is based, 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.
A booklet on how to distinguish between males and females was revised
to incorporate suggestions from hunters, and posters were produced to
encourage hunters to select for males. In addition, a revised one-tag
system referred to as the ``Flexible Quota Option'' has been developed
by the DRR, based on the number of female bears that can be taken
annually. This system requires adoption into regulation prior to
implementation (GNWT).
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. To study
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 NWT has
placed its emphasis on conservation rather than maximization of yield.
Their intention is to ensure the conservation of existing stocks 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. They
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).
4. Quota
The recorded annual kill of polar bears in Canada tripled during
the 1960's. The size of the unrecorded harvest is unknown. In 1968 when
the NWT started to set quotas, the size of polar bear populations on
which to base sustainable quotas was largely unknown. Quotas were
introduced on an interim basis, based on 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.
Presently, the calculated sustainable harvest for each population
represents the population quota. Therefore, 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. Typically, the population quotas and a summary of
previous years' harvest data for each population is presented on an
annual basis to the PBTC. A summary of the population status for
Canadian polar bear populations incorporating harvest statistics is
provided in Table 3. The reliability and standard error of each
population estimate are expressed in qualitative (i.e., Good, Fair, or
Poor) rather than quantitative terms because of bias in the population
estimate as a result of sampling problems. The DRR expects that
quantitative terms will be used in future status reports as population
inventories are completed.
All human caused mortality is subtracted 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 an over-harvest is
deducted from the following year's quota as a correction. Any tags
identified for a sport hunt cannot be re-issued later if the hunter
does not harvest a polar bear. Every unused tag from a sport hunt
reduces the impact of the harvest on the affected polar bear
population. To date, sport hunting accounts for about 10 to 15 percent
of the annual quota, with about 80 to 90 percent of the quota tags
being used as a result of a successful hunt (GNWT).
[[Page 36393]]
5. Status of Populations the Service Proposes to Approve
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 population data is rated 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 last year's harvest, 32.2 percent were females. The
population estimate is currently under review. Guiding of sport hunts
occurs on a limited basis in the Canadian portion of the population.
The number of sport hunts for the last two seasons was 6 and 1,
respectively (GNWT).
This population is shared between the jurisdictions of the United
States (Alaska) and Canada (NWT and Yukon Territory). 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
affect the entire population. It should be noted that 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, no international
agreements between governments on the management of specific
populations of polar bears have been signed. However, in January 1988,
a management agreement for polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea was
signed by representatives of the Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) in the
Northwest Territories and the Fish and Game Management Committee of the
North Slope Borough (NSB) in Alaska (USFWS 1995). Although the
agreement is not legally binding on the Canadian or U.S. Government, it
is signed by both 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. The agreement has management
restrictions that are consistent with the International Agreement, and
that are in some part more stringent than the MMPA. The agreement,
among other things, calls for establishing harvest limits based on the
best available scientific evidence; prohibition on the use of large
vessels or aircraft for hunting polar bears; protection of all bears in
dens or constructing dens, pregnant females, cubs, and females with
cubs; a management system to regulate the number of polar bears
harvested and to ensure compliance with harvest limit allocations; a
reporting system to collect critical information from harvested polar
bear; and protection of important polar bear habitat.
The initial annual harvest quota for the Southern Beaufort Sea
population was set at 38 bears each in Canada and Alaska. The hunting
season in the NWT area is December 1 to May 31, timing limitations
which protect pregnant females prior to denning. In Alaska the season
for harvest by Alaska Natives is September 1 to May 31, a timing that
does not contain the same protection. However, 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 its
management system in case the aboriginals return to the Yukon coast and
harvest polar bears. There is a total quota of six tags which is
currently on loan and included in the NWT's quota.
The Service proposes to approve the Southern Beaufort Sea
population with the provisions that: (1) No bears be taken by sport
hunting west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea; (2) the
management agreement for polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea
between the IGC and NSB remains in effect; and (3) the Yukon Territory
quota remains with the NWT or a joint management agreement is in place
with scientifically sound quotas.
Northern Beaufort Sea (NB). The population estimate of 1,200 polar
bears is believed to be unbiased and may be conservative. Mark-
recapture and studies of movements using telemetry have been conducted
at intervals since the early 1970's. Boundaries of the population have
been determined 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 population data
is rated 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 16 bears taken in last year's harvest, 50
percent were females. Guiding of sport hunters occurs on a limited
basis. Only 2 to 3 sport hunts occurred in the last two years.
Viscount Melville Sound (VM). The population estimate of 230 polar
bears is believed to be unbiased. A 5-year mark-recapture and telemetry
study of movements and population size was completed in 1992.
Boundaries of the population were based on observed movements of female
polar bears. In the mid-1970's when the original quotas were allocated,
this population was thought to be 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.
Recent research has shown this population to have an annual recruitment
rate less than previously believed. Residents of this area have agreed
to a moratorium on polar bear hunting in this population until the year
2000. The placement of this moratorium on hunting is an example of how
Canada is effectively administering its polar bear program based on
current scientific information. It is anticipated that when the data
shows that harvest activities can resume, there will be an annual quota
of 4 males.
Gulf of Boothia (GB). Currently this population is estimated at 900
animals. A population estimate of 333 polar bears was derived from a
limited research program of mark and recapture restricted to the
western coastal areas. It was increased 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 had not been sampled, but was
collaborated by studies in the adjoining populations. 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
are limited and rated as poor. The boundaries are supported by studies
conducted in adjacent areas. The status of the population was stable at
the 3-year average harvests and the
[[Page 36394]]
1993/94 harvest. Of the 36 bears taken in last year's harvest, 40
percent were females (Table 3). More comprehensive research is planned
for this population within the next 5 years, including reassessment of
the size of the population. The number of sport hunts guided for the
last two seasons was 10 and 5, respectively.
M'Clintock Channel (MC). A 6-year mark-capture population study was
conducted in the mid-1970's. The population was estimated 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 boundaries are
supported by recoveries of tagged bears and movements documented by
telemetry in adjacent areas. 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 last year's harvest, 33 percent were females.
Western Hudson Bay (WH). The population estimate of 1,200 is
believed to be conservative as a portion of the southern range has not
been included in the mark-recapture program. Research programs on the
distribution and abundance of the population have been conducted 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 population data is rated 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 appears to be
geographically segregated, although it is intermixed with the eastern
Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin populations during the ice covered months.
The Western Hudson Bay population is shared with Manitoba, where
polar bears are listed as a protected species under the Wildlife Act of
1991. There is no open hunting season and polar bears cannot legally be
hunted at any time of the year by anyone. To hunt polar bears,
including hunting by Treaty Indians, would require a permit from the
Minister and no such permits are currently being issued. Under the
terms of a Local Management Agreement, Manitoba is allocated a quota of
27 tags out of 55 for the Western Hudson Bay population. Eight tags are
held in reserve by Manitoba for the control program and accidental
deaths associated with the research program. The remaining 19 are
currently on loan and included in the NWT total 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).
The Service proposes to approve this population with the provision
that a management agreement between the NWT and Manitoba is in effect
with scientifically sound quotas to ensure the total harvest in this
population is sustainable.
6. Status of Shared Populations the Service Proposes Not To Approve
All of the following populations are shared with either Greenland
or another Canadian province or both, and do not have formal agreements
as to how the portion of the population outside the NWT will be
managed. Management agreements drafted in 1994 for the Davis Strait,
Foxe Basin, and Southern Hudson Bay populations attributed to NWT
communities the existing, unchanged harvest levels and documented for
Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Greenland the current
known annual harvest. Following completion of comprehensive population
studies, including both scientific and traditional knowledge, the
sustainable harvest of each population will be estimated and allocated
fairly between all user groups through joint negotiations. These joint
management negotiations are ongoing. The next PBTC meeting will be in
Quebec partly to facilitate joint management discussions. Canada and
Greenland are currently conducting joint research to confirm shared
population boundaries and population estimates. Once this joint
research report is completed, the two countries have agreed to move
ahead with negotiations on developing joint management agreements
(GNWT).
Queen Elizabeth Island (QE). The population is estimated 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
this area will eventually be managed 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, this
population is shared with Greenland although the movement of polar
bears between the NWT and Greenland is thought to be small in this
population (see Parry Channel/Baffin Bay below).
Parry Channel (PC) and Baffin Bay (BB). This area is being
considered as a unit as it is unclear 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 polar bears are
harvested by communities in both countries. The current population
estimate of 2,470 polar bears is considered preliminary and
conservative. It was obtained 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
population data is rated 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. Last 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 residents are
required 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
[[Page 36395]]
West Greenland, from the population shared with Canada (PBSG 1995).
Recent satellite telemetry data indicates four populations: a western
population, Baffin Bay, Jones Sound-Norwegian Bay, and Kane Basin. The
final analysis and determination of population status will occur in the
summer of 1995 after the collection of the last movement data. A re-
inventory of population numbers is ongoing. Data collection should be
finalized in Baffin Bay by the Fall of 1995 and in Parry Channel by
1997. Canada is not recommending any management action until the study
is completed.
Foxe Basin (FB). An 8-year mark-recapture and telemetry study of
movements and population size was concluded in 1992. The population
estimate of 2,020 is believed to be accurate as the marking effort
included the entire area. 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 the previous harvest quotas are believed to
have reduced the population from about 3,000 in the early 1970's to
about 2,000 in 1991, the harvest quota is being incrementally reduced
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 population data are
rated as good. The status of the population (Table 3) is shown 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 population is shared with Quebec where the legal bases 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 principle of conservation is respected (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 levels are set without knowledge of the size of the polar
bear population and without consultation with other user groups that
hunt polar bears from the three shared populations. (In fact, The Inuit
from Quebec have declined to participate in a management agreement with
the NWT as there is some confusion how a co-management agreement would
mesh with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.) The harvest
levels set are 22, 31, and 9 for populations shared in Southern Hudson
Bay, Davis Strait, and Foxe Basin, respectively. The Inuit have agreed
with the harvest levels, while negotiations are occurring with the
Crees. If the ``guaranteed harvest'' is exceeded, 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. Quebec does not have legislation to protect female polar bears
with cubs and bears in dens (GNWT), but the Inuit hunters and trappers
in Northern Quebec have agreed to protect them (PBSG 1988).
Davis Strait (DS). The population estimate is 1,400, and is based
on field work conducted during the spring from 1976 through 1979.
Traditional knowledge observations suggest that the population may have
increased since 1979: (a) Hunters from Pangnirtung have 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 have
reported seeing an increased number of bears in the last several years;
(c) hunters from Iqaluit report they have harvested the highest
proportion of males of any settlement in the NWT due to high densities
of bears encountered; and (d) hunters from Lake Harbour report a higher
rate of encounters with polar bears in recent years. Observations made
by biologists support the traditional knowledge reported by hunters:
(a) during surveys conducted in the fall of 1992 and 1993, high
densities of bears were found 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, a large proportion of old
adult males were seen (such sightings would not occur in an over-
harvested 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. Population modeling indicates
that the population would need to be at least 1,400 to sustain the
present annual kill of 58 polar bear. The 1995 PBTC supported the
revision of the population estimate to 1,400. Further work will be
required to resolve the status of polar bears in this population. A
joint resolution was signed by Quebec and NWT supporting a co-operative
inventory of this population as a high priority. (Newfoundland and
Labrador could not attend the meeting where that resolution was
developed, but is supportive.) The population data is rated as fair.
The status of the population (Table 3) is shown as stable for 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 Davis Strait population is shared 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 bears 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, tags
are issued through the Labrador Inuit Association, 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, ice is blown onto southern
Greenland and, on the average, two bears are taken in Greenland. For
additional discussion on Greenland's program, see Parry Channel/Baffin
Bay above.
Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The population estimate of 1,000 is
considered conservative. It is based on a 3-year study mainly along the
Ontario coastline of movements and population size using telemetry and
mark-recapture. Since a portion of the eastern and western coastal
areas was not included in the study area, the calculated estimate of
763 bears was increased to 1,000. In addition, inshore areas were
under-sampled because of difficulties in locating polar bears in the
inland boreal forest. 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 population data is rated 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
[[Page 36396]]
in last year's harvest, 33.3 percent were females.
This population is shared with Quebec (see discussion under Foxe
Basin), the NWT, 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. There are no officers located in the
villages where polar bears are hunted. At the 1994 PBTC meeting, it was
reported that fewer kills are being reported by hunters, resulting in
incomplete data. If the quota is exceeded, which is uncommon, hunters
are encouraged to count the excess polar bears against the next year
quota. Bears in dens and females with cubs are not specifically
protected, but the take of such animals is believed to be rare.
7. Scientific Review
The language of the MMPA Amendments requires that a scientific
review of the impact of permits issued on the polar bear population
stocks be undertaken periodically. The Service published a proposed
rule in the Federal Register (60 FR 70) on January 3, 1995, that
discussed the scientific review process and proposed permit procedures.
The first scientific review of the impact of permits issued on the
polar bear population stocks is to be undertaken within 2 years after
enactment, that is by April 30, 1996. This review is to provide an
opportunity for public comment and the final report will include a
response to such public comment. The Director will not issue permits to
allow for the import of polar bears taken in Canada after September 30,
1996, if the Service determines that the issuance of permits is having
a significant adverse impact on the polar bear population stocks in
Canada. The Director may conduct an annual review of this
determination. The review provides for the monitoring of the effects of
permit issuance on Canada's polar bear population stocks and a means to
guarantee the cessation of imports should there be an indication of an
adverse impact on the sustainability of the Canadian population stocks.
These reviews are to be based on the best scientific information
available. If the Director does undertake a review, the Act requires
that the review be completed by January 31 of the year in which the
review was undertaken. The Director may not, however, refuse to issue
permits solely on the basis that the review has not been completed by
January 31.
D. CITES and Other International Agreements and Conventions
1. Proposed 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 proposes to find that the provision of
CITES will be met for the export and import of polar bear trophies
taken in Canada. The International Agreement was discussed previously.
At this time, the Service is not aware of any other agreements or
conventions that need to be considered.
2. CITES
CITES is a treaty established to protect species impacted by
international trade. Canada and the United States, along with 126 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. The export permit for dead
specimens can be issued for any purpose as long as the scientific
authority of the country of export determines that the shipment will
not be detrimental to the survival of the species and the management
authority of that country determines that the specimen was obtained
legally.
For the export of polar bear from Canada, control of the polar bear
harvest is demonstrated by quotas enforced by legislation and co-
management agreements, and by development of a management plan. In the
NWT, only the DRR Headquarters in Yellowknife and its Regional Offices
can issue CITES permits for polar bears and polar bear products. A
CITES permit for a polar bear product originating in the NWT may be
issued from another Canadian province or territory only if the product
was exported from the NWT with a Northwest Territories Wildlife Export
Permit. This permit must be validated by Customs Canada 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
wildlife import and completion of a Wildlife Declaration Form (3-177).
E. Illegal Trade in Bear Parts
1. Proposed Finding
The Service proposes to find that the export and subsequent import
of sport-hunted polar bear trophies to the United States would not be
likely to contribute to the illegal trade in bear parts if the
conditions proposed are adopted. The Service notes that this finding
covers the illegal trade in parts of all species of bears. To ensure
that the gall bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not
enter into trade, the Service proposes to condition any import permit
that the permittee certify that the gall bladder was destroyed. To
ensure that all polar bears that enter the United States can be
identified as legally taken sport-hunted trophies and do not contribute
to the illegal trade in polar bear parts, the Service proposes that the
permittee make an appointment at least 72 hours prior to import with
Service personnel at a designated port for wildlife to have a permanent
tag affixed to the trophy upon import.
2. Trade in Gall Bladders
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 legally harvested bear gall
bladders can be sold in the NWT, the GNWT is currently reviewing the
practice. Between 1992 and 1994, NWT Export Permits were issued for 61
polar bear gall bladders.
The Service is unaware of any published source that documents a
demand for polar bear gall bladders, but there are several anecdotal
episodes that suggest they are not in commercial demand. Dr. Derek
Melton, Director, Wildlife Management, DRR, NWT, wrote the Service that
Judy Mills, co-
[[Page 36397]]
author of the World Wildlife Fund report on The Asian Trade in Bear
Parts, verbally told him ``that gall bladders from polar bears were
regarded as less desirable than those of terrestrial species, possibly
because of the taste associated with their marine diet.'' Dr. Ed
Espinoza, Chief of the Criminalistics Section of the National Fish and
Wildlife Forensic Lab related that examination of polar bear gall
bladders at the Lab revealed that polar bear gall bladders smell fishy,
probably due to the high content of marine fatty acids and oils. He
remembered Inuits from Kotzebue, Alaska, telling him that they are not
able to get financial compensation for polar bear gall bladders because
``they smell bad''. He also remembered a Canadian Wildlife Conservation
Officer in Whitehorse telling him there were no interested Asian
parties for the polar bear gall bladders because of the odor these
galls had. On the other hand, in 1992, the first case of illegal sale
of polar bear gall bladders was documented by U.S. law enforcement
agents in Alaska (Schliebe et al. 1995). To ensure that the gall
bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not enter into trade,
the Service proposes to condition any U.S. import permits for polar
bears if this proposed rule is adopted. The condition would require the
permittee to certify that the gall bladder, including its contents,
from the polar bear proposed for import was destroyed.
3. Trade in Hides
It was reported at the 1993 PBSG meeting that the fur market is
currently glutted, resulting in low prices for pelts on the open
market. The trade in polar bear hides is fairly flat, and the market in
the United States is closed because of the MMPA. According to the
Service's Division of Law Enforcement, an undercover operation in
Alaska during 1991 and 1992 showed that a black market for polar bear
hides existed in Alaska. Greenland assists in marketing polar bear
pelts for local communities. In 1992 a total of 60 hides were purchased
by the tannery. Thirty of these went to Denmark (PBSG 1995).
4. Canada
There is some illegal trade in bear parts in Canada, but the extent
is unknown. There are documented cases in the provinces, especially
British Columbia. While trade in bear parts is now prohibited in
British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba, it
is still legal to sell bear parts in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and
the NWT. There may be some trade in bear parts from a province that
does not allow trade by routing them through the provinces that still
allow trade. There have been some questionable kills and some illegal
kills of black bear to gain parts in the NWT. However, the trade in
polar bear parts is not thought to be involved in any significant
degree. GNWT wildlife officials have stated that distance and cost make
polar bears inaccessible to southern poachers. Residents of the NWT
consider the polar bear of cultural importance and worth more than just
the economic value of its parts. Canada does not anticipate an increase
in illegal activity or in the number of polar bears illegally killed as
a result of allowing the export of sport-hunted trophies by U.S.
citizens (GNWT).
5. Alaska
The MMPA prohibits, with limited exceptions, the harvest and trade
of polar bears and polar bear parts in the United States. It 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 must be tagged within 30 days of harvesting the
polar bear. These tags are provided by the Service, are numbered for
accountability and of such a design, construction, and material so as
to maximize their longevity and durability on the specified parts.
Polar bear parts may only be tagged by Service personnel or authorized
Service representatives (e.g., Native residents of the community). The
skin and skull of an animal must accompany each other when presented
for tagging. Tags are attached or applied to the skins and skulls in
such a manner as to maximize their longevity and minimize adverse
effect to the appearance of the specified parts which might result due
to hindering the tanning or handicrafting of skins, or the
handicrafting of skulls. 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 does come off of the specified part
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.
6. Proposed Tagging Requirement
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, hides (raw and tanned), rugs, and mounts of Canadian
sport-hunted polar bears are not distinguishable from untagged Alaskan
polar bear hides which may have been illegally acquired or transported.
In addition, there may be some polar bear hides and mounts taken in
Canada and illegally imported into the United States prior to the
Amendments.
To ensure that all polar bears that enter the United States can be
identified as legally taken sport-hunted trophies and not contribute to
the illegal trade in polar bear parts, the Service proposes that they
be marked with a one-time tag that is to remain on the trophy
indefinitely. The tag would be similar in design to tags used for
Alaskan polar bears taken in the Native subsistence harvest. The
Service is currently working with the Canadian Wildlife Service and the
Government of the NWT on the feasibility of permanently tagging the
hide of all sport-hunted polar bear in Canada at the time of harvest.
Developing such a cooperative program might include developing a tag
which could withstand the cold climate of the NWT, the tanning process,
and the taxidermy process; be unobtrusive on a polar bear mount or rug;
and be visible for inspection, if necessary. The Service anticipates
that the development and implementation of this program could take from
6 months to 2 years.
Until a procedure for permanently tagging sport-hunted polar bear
hides at the time of harvest has been adopted, the Service proposes
that a permanent tag be affixed to all sport-hunted polar bear trophies
including raw (untanned) hides, tanned hides, and prepared rugs and
mounts, upon import into the United States and that the skull of the
polar bear, if separate from the remainder of the trophy, be
permanently marked with the tag number of the accompanying polar bear
hide. To ensure that all polar bear parts are permanently marked or
tagged, the Service proposes that all sport-hunted polar bears must be
imported through a Fish and Wildlife Service designated port during
normal business hours with at least a 72-hour prior notice.
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. Based on this
[[Page 36398]]
experience and discussions with professional taxidermists and tanners,
the Service has learned that plastic tags are more durable than metal
tags, less likely to break or rip from the hides, and less likely to
damage tanning equipment. The Service considered the following factors
when looking at tagging requirements: the condition of the trophy upon
import (i.e., untanned hide, tanned hide, finished rug or mount), the
recommendations of professional taxidermists and tanners, the ability
to examine the identification marks on the tag, the ability to replace
a lost tag, and the extent to which the tag would be obtrusive to the
overall appearance of the trophy.
Based on these considerations, the Service proposes that a plastic
tag be placed like a bracelet around the ankle area of either the fore
or hind legs of a mounted polar bear trophy. The same type of tag would
be used for a raw or tanned hide or finished rug. In these cases, the
Service proposes that the tag be affixed to the hide in the belly or
flank area of the bear where it will be least disruptive to the
taxidermy process and more likely to be concealed by the longer hair in
these areas. To reduce the chances of a tag being snagged and ripped
out or broken during the tanning process, and to reduce the
obtrusiveness of the tag, the Service proposes that Service personnel
would loop the tag upon itself prior to affixing it to a raw or tanned
hide or a finished rug. Service personnel in Alaska have used this
procedure when tagging sea otter pelts and have not had difficulty
reading the tag. Provisions are also proposed to retag polar bear hides
or mounts if tags are broken during tanning or lost.
Proposed Findings for Bears Taken Prior to the 1994 Amendments
Section 104(c)(5)(A) includes polar bears taken, but not imported,
prior to the 1994 Amendments. The Service proposes that a permit for
import of trophies taken in the NWT between December 21, 1972, through
the effective date of any final rule may be issued when the applicant
has demonstrated that the polar bear was legally taken and was not
pregnant or nursing at the time of take. Such trophies would be subject
upon import to the same marking and tagging requirements as sport-
hunted polar bears taken in Canada after the effective date of any
final rule.
The Service proposes to issue a blanket 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 which
came into effect on May 26, 1976; (2) the hunting of polar bears in
Canada has been restricted to Native people since 1949; (3) polar bears
have been managed in the NWT under a quota since 1968; (4) the NWT has
maintained a data collection and monitoring program on the polar bear
harvest in its territory since the 1976/77 harvest season; (5) the NWT,
DRR, has demonstrated a progressive management program for polar bear
which includes scientific research and traditional knowledge; and (6)
the 1994 Amendments do not require the evaluation of Canada's past
polar bear management history.
It should be noted that proof 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 Service proposes that an applicant provide the
following to show proof of legal harvest for a polar bear taken prior
to the effective date of the final rule if adopted: certification from
the Government of the NWT that the bear was legally harvested and
tagged during the specified harvest season and by the hunter of record.
Whatever option is adopted for determining whether the specimens were
pregnant or nursing at the time of taking, as discussed above, would
also apply to these bears.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service is currently deliberating on the comments received on
its earlier proposed rule and will respond to all comments to its
proposals in the final rule. The Service invites comments on these new
proposals. The Service will take into consideration the comments and
any additional information received in making a decision on this
proposal, and such consideration may lead to final findings and
regulation that differ from this proposal.
Required Determinations
The Service has prepared a draft environmental assessment on the
proposed rule, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). A determination will be made at the time of the final decision
as to whether the proposed rule is a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.
This proposed rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. The Department
of the Interior (Department) has determined that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). The proposal 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 information collection requirement contained in this section
has been approved by OMB as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned clearance number 1018-0022. There
will be no additional information collection requirements for tagging
polar bears if the condition is adopted. Since the proposed rule would
apply to importation of polar bear trophies into the United States, it
does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in Executive Order
12612.
The Department has certified to OMB that these regulations meet the
applicable standards provided in Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12778.
References Cited
Baur, D.C. 1993. Reconciling the legal mechanisms to protect and
manage polar bears under United States laws and the Agreement for
the Conservation of Polar Bears. Report prepared for the Marine
Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 153 pp.
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. 25-29, 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)
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 36399]]
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.
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. Draft Habitat Conservation
Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 91 pp.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedures, Imports, Indians, Marine
mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend Part 18 of Chapter I of
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read 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. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January
3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.
(a) * * *
(5) Proof that the polar bear was legally harvested in Canada by
the applicant (or by a decedent from whom the applicant inherited the
trophy), including:
(i) If the polar bear was taken prior to (effective date of final
rule), a certification from the Department of Renewable Resources,
Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested and
tagged, giving the name of the hunter and location (settlement and
population) and season the bear was taken;
(ii) If the polar bear was taken on or after (effective date of
final rule), the permittee must provide documentation at time of import
to the Service inspector as outlined in Sec. 18.30(f)(1)(ii).
(6) * * *
3. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January
3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.
* * * * *
(f) Additional permit conditions. Permits to import a sport-hunted
polar bear trophy taken in Canada are subject to the conditions
outlined in Sec. 18.31(d) and the following special conditions:
(1) If the polar bear was taken on or after (effective date of
final rule), the permittee must:
(i) Sign a statement, as a condition of the permit, that the gall
bladder, including its contents, taken from the polar bear proposed for
import was destroyed; and
(ii) Provide a copy of the NWT hunting license and tag number under
which the polar bear was taken and a Canadian CITES export permit that
identifies the polar bear by hunting license and tag numbers;
(2) The permittee must present to a Service inspector at the time
of import a certification from the Department of Renewable Resources,
Northwest Territories, that the polar bear at the time of take was not
pregnant, was not a nursing cub, was not a mother with cubs, and was
not moving into a den or already in a den.
(3) Any sport-hunted trophy imported with a permit issued under
this section must be imported through a designated port for wildlife
imports (see Sec. 14.12) during regular business hours. The importer
must notify Service personnel at the port at least 72 hours prior to
the import and make arrangements for the Service to affix a tag in
accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section prior to being
cleared;
(4) A serially numbered, permanently locking tag identifying the
species, year of import, and port of import must be affixed by the
Service to each sport-hunted trophy upon import and must remain fixed
indefinitely to the trophy as proof of legal import. Tags must be
attached in a manner established by the Service to maximize their
longevity and minimize their adverse affects to the appearance of the
trophy; and
(5) In the event the tag comes off the trophy, the permittee 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; and
(ii) At the time the new tag is attached, present the broken tag
and proof that the trophy had been tagged and legally imported or, in
the event that the tag was lost, a signed, written explanation of how
and when the tag was lost and proof that the trophy had been tagged and
legally imported.
* * * * *
4. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January
3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph (j) to
read as follows:
Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.
* * * * *
(j) Findings. (1) The Service has determined that the Northwest
Territories, Canada, has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program
that meets issuance criteria of paragraphs (e) (4) and (5) of this
section for the following populations: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern
Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock
Channel, and Western Hudson Bay, provided:
(i) For the Southern Beaufort Sea population, no bears be taken
west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea; the management
agreement between the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Fish and Game
Management Committee of the North Slope Borough in Alaska remains in
effect; and the Yukon Territory quota remains with the Northwest
Territories or has a joint management agreement in place with
scientifically sound quotas;
(ii) For the Western Hudson Bay population, a management agreement
between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba is in effect with
scientifically sound quotas;
(iii) For all of these populations, that females with cubs, cubs,
or polar bears moving into denning areas or already in dens are
protected from taking by hunting activities; and
(iv) The number of sport-hunted trophies taken in the prior harvest
season does not exceed 15 percent of the total quota of the Northwest
Territories.
(2) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories on
or after (effective date of final rule) from a population that
currently is not approved by the Service for import, will only be
approved for an import permit if the Service can find, based on
[[Page 36400]]
updated information from the Northwest Territories, that:
(i) The total harvest during that harvest season and the average of
the three preceding harvest seasons was sustainable for the affected
population; and
(ii) A management agreement(s) was in place with Greenland and/or a
province(s) that shares the population with the Northwest Territories.
(3) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories,
Canada, between December 21, 1972, and (effective date of final rule)
must meet the issuance criteria of paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), and
(6)(i) of this section and may be imported upon obtaining an import
permit prior to import and meeting the conditions of paragraphs (f)
(2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.
Dated: June 22, 1995.
George T. Frampton,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-17432 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
