Chapter III — Species of Special Concern 
take polar bears for subsistence purposes and for 
purposes of creating and selling traditional handicrafts 
and clothing. The Act does not restrict the number of 
animals that can be taken or the take of cubs or 
females with cubs, provided that the take is not 
wasteful. 
In 1973 the Governments of Canada, Denmark (for 
Greenland), Norway, the Soviet Union, and the 
United States concluded an agreement to conserve 
polar bears and their habitat throughout the Arctic. 
Efforts to implement this agreement are described 
below. 
Preparation of a Polar Bear Conservation Plan 
The 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act directed the Secretaries of the Interior 
and Commerce to develop conservation plans for 
depleted marine mammals species and populations, 
and when appropriate, for non-depleted species and 
populations. On 11 January 1989 the Marine Mam- 
mal Commission wrote to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service suggesting that the Service prepare conserva- 
tion plans for polar bears, walruses, and sea otters. 
The Service concurred with the Commission’s recom- 
mendation, but due to demands placed on its resources 
by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Service was not able 
to proceed promptly with development of the agreed 
conservation plans. 
During the annual meeting of the Commission and 
its Committee of Scientific Advisors in April 1991, 
representatives of the Commission and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service discussed the Service’s progress in 
drafting conservation plans for the Alaska populations 
of these three species. At that meeting, the Commis- 
sion offered to assist the Service in developing draft 
plans that could be used to expedite completion and 
adoption of conservation plans. The Service accepted 
the Commission’s offer. 
On 28 June 1992 the Commission forwarded to the 
Service a draft conservation plan for polar bears. The 
draft plan identifies and provides the rationale for 
research and management actions necessary to identify 
and maintain polar bear populations in Alaska within 
their optimum sustainable population range, as re- 
quired by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In its 
79 
letter accompanying the draft plan, the Commission 
noted that the Service had constituted a planning 
group, including representatives of the environmental 
community and Native and industry groups, to assist 
in identifying potential polar bear conservation prob- 
lems and possible solutions. The Commission recom- 
mended that the Service: (1) provide the draft conser- 
vation plan to the group for review and comment; 
(2) use the draft plan and the planning group’s com- 
ments on the draft as the basis for preparing a final 
draft conservation plan; and (3) circulate the final 
draft plan to the Commission and others for agency 
and public review and comment prior to its adoption. 
In its letter the Commission also identified a 
number of actions that it considered deserving of 
priority attention. These included: 
(1) Determining whether oil and gas exploration 
and development in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge would be to the disadvantage of polar bears 
— The Commission noted that available information 
indicates that the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is the most important on-land polar 
bear denning area in Alaska. Available information 
is insufficient, however, to determine the degree to 
which the Beaufort Sea polar bear population might be 
affected by oil and gas exploration and development 
in the Refuge. The Commission pointed out that high 
priority should be placed on determining and conduct- 
ing population, movement, and “effects” studies 
necessary to determine the extent to which oil and gas 
activities might affect the polar bear population shared 
with Canada and ways in which possible adverse 
effects might be avoided or mitigated. 
(2) Implementation of the Agreement on the 
Conservation of Polar Bears — The Commission 
noted that when the Agreement on the Conservation of 
Polar Bears was ratified by the United States in 1976, 
it was assumed that the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act of 1972 provided adequate statutory authority to 
implement all its provisions. The assumption may not 
be valid and, as discussed in previous annual reports, 
the Commission has recommended that the Fish and 
Wildlife Service undertake a review to determine 
whether additional legislation or regulations may be 
needed to effectively implement the polar bear agree- 
ment. By letter of 24 December 1991, the Service 
