determinations and to determine whether the popula- 
tions are in fact stable, increasing, or decreasing. 
Likewise, the Commission noted that it was not clear 
whether ongoing or planned population monitoring 
programs will be sufficient to ensure that neither of 
the shared polar bear populations in Alaska is reduced 
or maintained below its maximum net productivity 
level. 
In the Commission’s view, these issues should be 
considered as a matter of priority by the Service’s 
Polar Bear Management Planning Team. It therefore 
recommended that the Service, if it had not already 
done so, compile and provide to the planning team all 
available information on the discreteness, size, status, 
trends, and vital parameters of the Bering/Chukchi 
and Beaufort Seas polar bear populations. 
As of the end of 1992, the Commission had not yet 
received a reply to its June 1992 letter. It understood, 
however, that the polar bear conservation plan was 
undergoing internal review within the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and would be available for agency 
and public review by mid-January 1993. 
Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears 
Increased hunting of polar bears in the 1950s and 
1960s and concerns about the effects of industrial 
activities on polar bears and their habitat led to an 
international dialogue on the need to conserve polar 
bears throughout the Arctic. In 1973, the Govern- 
ments of Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, 
the Soviet Union, and the United States concluded 
negotiations for the Agreement on the Conservation of 
Polar Bears. Article I of the Agreement prohibits the 
taking of polar bears, subject to certain exceptions. 
Article II requires that each of the contracting parties 
“take appropriate action to protect the ecosystems of 
which polar bears are a part, with special attention to 
habitat components such as denning and feeding sites 
and migration patterns ....”. The parties also agreed 
to a resolution banning the hunting of cubs, female 
bears with cubs, and bears moving into denning areas 
or in dens. 
As noted above, the Marine Mammal Commission 
and others have questioned whether the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act or other statutes provide 
81 
Chapter III] — Species of Special Concern 
sufficient legal authority for the United States to fully 
implement the Agreement. On 6 July 1992, the 
Environmental Defense Fund wrote to the Department 
of State’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environ- 
mental and Scientific Affairs seeking information on 
the status of the polar bear Agreement. In particular, 
the Fund raised the question of whether the Agree- 
ment had been fully implemented within the United 
States. 
In response to such uncertainties, on 21 September 
1992 the Bureau hosted a meeting of representatives 
of interested Federal agencies to review U.S. imple- 
mentation of the 1976 polar bear agreement. A 
representative of the Marine Mammal Commission 
participated in the meeting. In addition, on 17 
September 1992 the Commission contracted with an 
attorney familiar with the issues to conduct a compre- 
hensive legal assessment of (1) in what ways, if any, 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act or other domestic 
Statutes fail to provide adequate authority for the 
United States to fully implement the provisions of the 
Agreement; (2) whether the United States may have 
failed or is failing to meet any of its obligations under 
the Agreement, and if so, in what ways; (3) whether 
additional statutory authority, regulations, or other 
measures may be necessary to enable the United States 
to fully meet its obligations; and (4) any changes in 
the Agreement that the United States should consider 
to clarify its provisions or otherwise provide for the 
effective conservation of polar bears and their habitat 
throughout the Arctic. 
The report is expected to be available early in 
1993. It will be provided to the Department of State 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service, along with recom- 
mendations for follow-up actions as may be necessary 
to ensure that the United States can fully implement 
the Agreement. 
Native Subsistence Hunting 
As noted earlier, prior to passage of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act in 1972, hunting of polar 
bears in Alaska was managed by the State. The Act 
transferred management authority to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and exempted coastal Alaska Natives 
from its prohibitions on taking when the taking is non- 
wasteful and for subsistence or handicraft purposes. 
