MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1992 
advised the Commission that it proposed to ask its 
Polar Bear Management Planning Team to review and 
provide advice on the need for additional legislation 
or regulations. 
In its 28 June 1992 letter accompanying the draft 
conservation plan, the Commission questioned wheth- 
er the Polar Bear Management Planning Team had the 
expertise necessary to made the determination. The 
Commission recommended that the Department’s 
Solicitor’s Office, in consultation with the Department 
of State’s Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs, be 
asked to identify such additional legislation or regula- 
tions as may be necessary for the United States to 
effectively implement all provisions of the Agreement. 
Other action taken by the Commission in this regard 
is discussed in a following section of this chapter. 
(3) Development of site-specific polar bear 
interaction plans — The increasing level of industrial 
activities in the Arctic, particularly those related to oil 
and gas exploration and development, brings with it 
an increasing probability of interactions between polar 
bears and people, with potential risk of death and 
injury to both bears and people. In January 1989 the 
Commission held a workshop in Anchorage, Alaska, 
to determine measures necessary to assess and miti- 
gate possible adverse effects of arctic oil and gas 
activities on polar bears. The report of the workshop 
(see Appendix B, Lentfer 1990) recommended, among 
other things, that site-specific polar bear interaction 
plans be developed to minimize the possibility of 
bears either jeopardizing or being jeopardized by such 
activities. 
In its letter forwarding the draft polar bear conser- 
vation plan to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
Commission noted its understanding that the Service 
was working with the Minerals Management Service, 
relevant state agencies, and industry groups to facili- 
tate development, adoption, and implementation of 
site-specific polar bear interaction plans, but that it did 
not know precisely what was being done. Therefore, 
the Commission asked that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service advise it of specific steps that had been taken 
to require development of site-specific interaction 
plans for all areas where polar bears are likely to 
come into contact with industrial activities, and of any 
80 
problems that have been encountered in developing 
such plans. 
(4) Harvest monitoring — A number of uncer- 
tainties exist regarding the accuracy of information 
being obtained on the subsistence take of polar bears 
by Alaska Natives and on the adequacy of U.S.- 
Canadian cooperative efforts to ensure that Native 
taking does not cause the Beaufort Sea polar bear 
population to be reduced below its maximum net 
productivity level. Furthermore, it is not clear 
whether there is a need for a cooperative program 
between the United States and Russia to govern the 
taking of polar bears from the Bering/Chukchi Seas 
population. 
To resolve these uncertainties, the Commission 
indicated that the Service should place high priority on 
(1) reviewing its marking and tagging program and as 
necessary expanding information, education, and 
enforcement programs to ensure that it is getting 
accurate information on the number, age, sex, and 
general condition of polar bears being taken by Alaska 
Natives for subsistence and handicraft purposes; 
(2) working with appropriate representatives of coastal 
Alaska communities to ensure that Native hunters are 
fully aware of and are complying with the provisions 
of the Agreement between the North Slope Borough’s 
Fish and Game Management Committee and the 
Inuvialuit Game Council of the Northwest Territories 
(discussed below under “Native Subsistence Hunt- 
ing”); and (3) consulting polar bear biologists and 
managers in Russia to determine if commercial or 
recreational hunting has been or is likely to be re- 
sumed in eastern Siberia and, if so, taking measures 
to establish a cooperative management program. 
(5) Better determine population discreteness, 
status, and trends — In its letter, the Commission 
noted that available information suggests that polar 
bears inhabiting Alaska and adjacent areas are from 
two relatively discrete populations, both of which are 
probably either at or above their maximum net pro- 
ductivity level. The Commission added, however, 
that to its knowledge available data had not been 
evaluated to determine the likely carrying capacity and 
maximum net productivity levels of the two popula- 
tions. Nor had data been evaluated to determine what 
additional data if any would be required to make these 
