MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION - Annual Report for 1995 



it had resolved several outstanding questions and was 

 able to make the findings required under section 

 104(c)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 



On 27 October 1994 the Fish and Wildlife Service 

 provided information on steps it was taking to imple- 

 ment the new import provisions. It stated that it was 

 working concurrently on developing permit regula- 

 tions and gathering data to make the required legal 

 and scientific findings. The Service further noted that 

 applications for the import of sport hunted polar bear 

 trophies would not be accepted until the completion of 

 the permit rulemaking process early in 1995, and that 

 it anticipated publishing a proposed rule on permit 

 requirements by November 1994. 



On 3 January 1995 the Fish and Wildlife Service 

 published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to 

 establish application requirements, permit procedures, 

 issuance criteria, permit conditions and a special 

 issuance fee for permits to import polar bear trophies 

 from Canada. The Service stated that it was working 

 with Canadian wildlife authorities to obtain informa- 

 tion needed to make the required legal and scientific 

 findings and that it expected to issue a second propos- 

 al addressing these findings early in 1995. 



By Federal Register notice of 17 July 1995 the 

 Service published its supplemental proposed rule on 

 legal and scientific findings to implement section 

 104(c)(5)(A) of the 1994 amendments. The proposed 

 rule noted that the worldwide population of polar 

 bears is estimated at 21,000 to 28,000 animals, 

 including an estimated 13,120 in Canada. According 

 to the Service, the Canadian polar bear population 

 comprises 12 relatively discrete stocks, all of which 

 are in or are shared with the Northwest Territories. 

 Because this is the only area in Canada where polar 

 bears can be harvested currently by non-residents 

 through a regulated sport hunting program, the 

 Service limited its proposed rule to the Northwest 

 Territories. 



The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation 

 with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed 

 the Service's proposed rule and provided comments 

 by letter of 9 November 1995. In its letter, the 

 Commission addressed the findings required under 

 section 104(c)(5)(A), stated above. In general, it 



concluded that some of the findings proposed by the 

 Service could be better explained or further justified. 



Finding on Consistency with Polar Bear Agree- 

 ment - With regard to the finding of consistency with 

 the international Agreement on the Conservation of 

 Polar Bears, the Commission noted that the interna- 

 tional agreement does not include a specific section 

 describing its purposes. Thus, in determining whether 

 Canada's sport hunting program is consistent with the 

 agreement, the Service should examine whether the 

 program is consistent with each of the applicable 

 provisions of the treaty. 



For instance, the Commission noted that Article I 

 of the agreement established a general prohibition on 

 the taking of polar bears, with certain exceptions set 

 forth in Article III. To be consistent, Canada's sport 

 hunting program must fit under at least one of the 

 exceptions. The Commission further noted that 

 Article III. 1 .(d) of the international agreement autho- 

 rizes parties to allow taking "by local people using 

 traditional methods in the exercise of their traditional 

 rights and in accordance with the laws of that Party." 

 Canada has long interpreted this provision as allowing 

 local people in a settlement to authorize the selling of 

 a polar bear permit from its quota to a non-Inuit or 

 non-Indian hunter. The Commission therefore recom- 

 mended that in its final rule the Service expand this 

 discussion to indicate whether it concurred with 

 Canada's interpretation. In doing so, the Service 

 should consider whether this exception is limited to 

 taking by local people or whether it would include 

 taking by non-nationals. 



Similarly, Article III. 1 .(e) authorizes the taking of 

 polar bears "wherever polar bears have or might have 

 been subject to taking by traditional means by its 

 nationals." In its letter, the Commission concurred 

 that the best interpretation of this exception would 

 allow a party to authorize taking by any person, 

 including a non-national, as long as the take occurs in 

 an area where the nationals of that country have 

 engaged in or might have engaged in taking by 

 traditional means. 



The Commission suggested that, if the Service 

 concurred with this interpretation, it should take steps 

 to determine where polar bears in Canada were or 



148 



