187 



partment provided additional testimony on the subject of treaties for 

 the protection of the polar bear. The exchange between Mr. Alanson 

 G. Burt, Special Assistant to the Office of Fisheries and Wildlife in 

 the Department of State, and the committee, was as follows :) 



Mr. DiNGELL. Now, T wouM like to discuss with you your comments here, and I 

 think that they have been very helpful to the committee in relationship to the 

 marine mammal legislation we are considering, and I very much think it would 

 be va'uable to discuss some of the points at this time from the standpoint of your 

 verv he'rvfn' stntement 



Can you, if you please, give us some comments on the three points that I have 

 raised with regard to the endangered species referring i>articularly to the 



I beMeve you are the expert in the State Department on polar bears, and have 

 been conducting negotiations with the Russians ; have you not? 



Mr. BtxRT. I am familiar with the subject ; yes. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Perhaps in the light of this you might wish to give some com- 

 ment to the committee with regard to the negotiations going forward with the 

 Russians on this particular point. 



Perhaps, particularly from the standpoint of your testimony on H.R. 3616 

 you might wish to comment. 



Mr. BuBT. Well, in that connection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 

 that under the terms of the present lUCN draft, the polar bears would be 

 protected in what they call appendix II. 



As I mentioned before, there are two categories of wildlife that would be 

 protected under the terms of that draft treaty. The first category is the en- 

 dangered species, a very clear cut category. The other category is the less-than- 

 endangered-but-in trouble category. On that list, the lUCN has placed the 

 polar bears along vdth some 65 other species. 



We hope to invite the Soviet Union to the conference in Washington in April 

 of 1972. My own view is that the Soviet Union will likely attend, as will Nor- 

 way, Denmark, and Canada, the other states that have polar bear under their 

 jurisdiction. At that time, I certainly hope that a full discussion will be given 

 over to the subject of polar bears, in particular. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Potter, who worked with the committee, our counsel, would 

 like to have some discussion with you on this point. 



Mr. Potter. Just a few questions, Mr. Burt. 



In the testimony a week ago on the matter of polar bears there was some 

 concern that we had not been able to get agreement with a number of other 

 governments, specifically including the Russians, on arrangements for the pro- 

 tection of the polar bear. 



We were given to understand that there were differences, they were not even 

 close to being resolved. What, if you please, are the major differences between 

 the various five nations involved as to appropriate regulations of the polar bear? 



Mr. Burt. I think thp difference rests in the fact that there is insufficient evi- 

 dence to show what the status of the polar bear really is. 



These five nations all belong to the polar bear research group, part of the 

 lUCN, or under the auspices of the lUCN. 



In that organization's latest communication to us they said that although 

 research on polar bears is underway, it is by no means completed, and that al- 

 though present evidence does not show that polar bears are endangered or not 

 endangered, in the meantime it would be very nice if restrictions were placed 

 upon the taking of polar bears, in the event it proves they are in trouble. 



From the point of view of U.S. wildlife managers, based on my contact with 

 them, this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, they tend to think in terms of 

 obtaining more facts, more evidence upon which to base their management 

 decisions. 



