Chapter II — Species of Special Concern 



• the export and subsequent import are consistent 

 with the provisions of the Convention on Interna- 

 tional Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

 Fauna and Flora and other international agree- 

 ments and conventions; and 



• the export and subsequent import are not likely to 

 contribute to illegal trade in bear parts. 



The amendments also direct the Secretary to charge a 

 reasonable fee for permits. Monies received are to be 

 used for developing and implementing cooperative 

 research and management programs for the conserva- 

 tion of polar bears in Alaska and Russia. 



After consulting with the Marine Mammal Com- 

 mission concerning several threshold questions, the 

 Fish and Wildlife Service on 3 January 1995 pub- 

 lished proposed regulations to implement the polar 

 bear import provision. The proposed rule addressed 

 application requirements, permit procedures, issuance 

 criteria, permit conditions, and a special issuance fee 

 for permits to import polar bear trophies from Cana- 

 da. A supplemental proposed rule addressing the 

 required legal and scientific findings listed above was 

 published on 17 July 1995. 



The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation 

 with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed 

 the Service's proposed findings and provided com- 

 ments by letter of 9 November 1995. The Commis- 

 sion concluded that some of the findings needed to be 

 explained better or further justified. In particular, the 

 Commission believed that findings with respect to 

 consistency with the Agreement on the Conservation 

 of Polar Bears and the scientific soundness of Cana- 

 da's sport-hunting program needed additional explana- 

 tion. A summary of the Commission's comments 

 may be found in the previous annual report. 



Comments received on the proposed rule prompt- 

 ed the Service to secure additional information from 

 Canada on the status and management of polar bears. 

 After reviewing this information and drafting respons- 

 es responses to comments, the Service published a 

 final rule on 18 February 1997, making affirmative 

 findings for 5 of 12 Canadian management units. The 

 management units from which imports were autho- 

 rized included Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern 



Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Western 

 Hudson Bay, and M'Clintock Channel. 



The final rule noted that regulations adopted by 

 the Northwest Territories protect female polar bears 

 from being hunted in denning areas, when in dens, or 

 when moving into dens. Further, Canadian regula- 

 tions prohibit the hunting of bears in family groups. 



Comments submitted by the Commission and 

 others prompted the Service to reconsider its proposal 

 concerning imports of those bears taken before 

 enactment of the 1994 amendments. In its final rule, 

 the Service agreed that the plain language of the 

 statute did in fact make such imports subject to the 

 four findings applicable to imports of other trophies. 

 The Service noted, however, that the statutory provi- 

 sion is written in the present tense and therefore that 

 it was unnecessary to examine historical data to 

 determine if the taking of such trophies is sustainable. 

 Consistent with its interpretation of the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act, the rule limited imports of 

 previously taken bears to those from the five approved 

 management units. As recommended by the Commis- 

 sion, the Service dropped its proposal to authorize 

 retroactively imports of polar bears taken after enact- 

 ment of the 1994 amendments from populations for 

 which affirmative findings had not been made at the 

 time of taking. 



Another key feature of the final rule was the 

 establishment of a $1,000 permit issuance fee. This 

 fee, which is in addition to the usual $25 processing 

 fee, was authorized by Congress as a means of raising 

 funds to be used for polar bear conservation. 



Upon publication, the rule was attacked both by 

 groups that supported and those that opposed the 

 measure. Hunting groups and some members of Con- 

 gress believed that the Service had interpreted the 

 1994 amendments too narrowly and, as a result, had 

 not authorized imports from all of the populations 

 they believed met the statutory criteria. On the other 

 hand, animal welfare groups believed that the Service 

 had erred by making affirmative findings for any of 

 the management units. Both sides threatened to file 

 suit challenging the regulations. 



83 



