Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada; Proposed Rule on Legal and Scientific Findings To Implement Section 104(c)(5)(A) of the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

50 CFR Part 18

RIN 1018-AD04

Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada; Proposed Rule on

Legal and Scientific Findings To Implement Section 104(c)(5)(A) of the

1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule and findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the proposed legal and scientific

findings on the importation of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) taken in

sport hunts in Canada, including ones taken, but not imported, prior to

enactment of the 1994 Amendments of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA). Specifically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

proposes to find that the Northwest Territories (NWT), the only area in

Canada that currently allows sport hunting, has a monitored and

enforced sport-hunting program that ensures polar bears are legally

taken, is consistent with the purposes of the Agreement on the

Conservation of Polar Bears, and is based on scientifically sound

quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a

sustainable level, provided certain provisions are in place in the

specific population. The Service proposes to approve populations where

the status of the population has been stable or increasing for previous

harvest seasons and local and/or joint management agreement(s) are in

place. Since Canada and the United States are Parties to the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES), the Service proposes that import and export procedures are in

place to meet CITES requirements. This notice also proposes regulations

on the disposition of the gall bladder, tagging of trophies, and import

procedures needed to monitor legal import and to ensure the import will

not contribute to illegal trade in bear parts

ernational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES), the Service proposes that import and export procedures are in

place to meet CITES requirements. This notice also proposes regulations

on the disposition of the gall bladder, tagging of trophies, and import

procedures needed to monitor legal import and to ensure the import will

not contribute to illegal trade in bear parts. The Service invites

comment on options proposed to meet the provisions of Section 102(b) of

the MMPA concerning the importation of pregnant and nursing polar

bears. For polar bears taken in the NWT prior to the Amendments through

the effective date of the final rule, the Service proposes to issue

permits when proof of legal take is demonstrated and the provisions of

the Act concerning pregnant and nursing polar bears are met. The

Service intends to make these findings for multiple sport-hunting

seasons pending review as required

under Section 104(c)(5)(C) of the MMPA. This proposed rule is a

supplement to the Service's previous proposed rule published on January

3, 1995.

DATES: The Service will consider comments and information received

August 31, 1995 in formulating its decision on this notice and proposed

rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments and information should be sent to: Director, Fish

and Wildlife Service, c/o Office of Management Authority, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Room 420C, Arlington, VA 22203. Materials received will

be available for public inspection by appointment from 7:45 a.m. to

4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Management

Authority, Room 434. The Service has prepared a draft Environmental

Assessment (EA) for this proposal. A copy of the draft EA may be

obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact

listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Stansell, Office of Management

Authority, at the above address, telephone (703) 358-2903; fax (703)

358-2281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

, Room 434. The Service has prepared a draft Environmental

Assessment (EA) for this proposal. A copy of the draft EA may be

obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact

listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Stansell, Office of Management

Authority, at the above address, telephone (703) 358-2903; fax (703)

358-2281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 3, 1995, the Service published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 70) a proposed rule to establish application requirements,

permit procedures, issuance criteria, permit conditions, and a special

permit issuance fee. At that time, the Service was gathering

information for this second proposed rule. This rule proposes the legal

and scientific findings required by the 1994 Amendments that need to be

made prior to the Service issuing permits to allow for the importation

of sport-hunted trophies of polar bears legally taken by the applicant

while hunting in Canada. Based on information on polar bear populations

in Canada and Canada's management program, the Service believes these

proposed findings are consistent with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

The Service invites comment on three proposed options to meet the

requirements of Section 102(b) of the MMPA that polar bears may not be

imported if the bear at the time of taking was pregnant or a nursing

cub. The rule also proposes to amend the proposed permit regulations

announced in the January 3, 1995, notice by adding regulations on

certification of legal take by the NWT for polar bears taken prior to

the effective date of any final rule; disposition of the gall bladder;

tagging of trophies; and import procedures needed to monitor legal

import and to ensure the import will not contribute to illegal trade in

bear parts

amend the proposed permit regulations

announced in the January 3, 1995, notice by adding regulations on

certification of legal take by the NWT for polar bears taken prior to

the effective date of any final rule; disposition of the gall bladder;

tagging of trophies; and import procedures needed to monitor legal

import and to ensure the import will not contribute to illegal trade in

bear parts.

In accordance with section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA, prior to

issuing a permit for the importation of a polar bear trophy, the

Service must make a finding that the polar bear was legally taken by

the applicant, and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission

(MMC), and after opportunity for public comment must make the following

findings: (A) Canada has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program

that is consistent with the purposes of the 1973 International

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (International Agreement);

(B) Canada has a sport-hunting program that is based on scientifically

sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock

at a sustainable level; (C) the export from Canada and subsequent

import into the United States are consistent with the provisions of

CITES and other international agreements and conventions; and (D) the

export and subsequent import are not likely to contribute to illegal

trade in bear parts. According to the Committee Report (H.R. Rep. No.

439, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.(1994)) these provisions were placed in the

law partly to ensure that the importation of polar bear trophies into

the United States would not increase hunting demand in Canada that

would result in unsustainable harvest levels. It was felt that if

Canada's polar bear management program regulates harvest through a

quota system based on principles of sustainable yield, any increase in

the harvest quota would be based on scientific data showing the

population had increased to such an extent as to support an increase in

the quota

d not increase hunting demand in Canada that

would result in unsustainable harvest levels. It was felt that if

Canada's polar bear management program regulates harvest through a

quota system based on principles of sustainable yield, any increase in

the harvest quota would be based on scientific data showing the

population had increased to such an extent as to support an increase in

the quota.

The proposed rule provides information on polar bear biology and

Canada's management program for this species. It discusses each of the

legal and scientific findings for the Northwest Territories (NWT), the

only area in Canada where polar bears can be harvested currently by

non-residents through a regulated sport-hunting program.

The Service is to make the findings in consultation with the MMC,

an independent Federal agency with statutory authority to make

recommendations pursuant to Title II of the MMPA. Copies of the

information received from Canada have been provided to the MMC for this

purpose. The Service intends to announce its decision on these proposed

findings after consultation with the MMC and the opportunity for public

comment.

Population Status and Distribution

Although polar bears occur in most ice-covered areas of the Arctic

Ocean and adjacent coastal land areas, their distribution is not

continuous. They are most abundant along the perimeter of the polar

basin for 120 to 180 miles (200 to 300 kilometers) offshore. The

primary prey of polar bears is the ringed seal (Phoca hispida),

followed by the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus). The abundance of

seals affects the distribution of polar bears. The long-term

distribution of polar bears and seals depends on the availability of

habitat which is influenced by seasonal and annual changes in ice

position and conditions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1995).

It is estimated that there are 21,000 to 28,000 polar bears

worldwide (Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) 1995)

he abundance of

seals affects the distribution of polar bears. The long-term

distribution of polar bears and seals depends on the availability of

habitat which is influenced by seasonal and annual changes in ice

position and conditions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1995).

It is estimated that there are 21,000 to 28,000 polar bears

worldwide (Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) 1995). The number of

polar bears in Canada is estimated at 13,120 in 12 relatively discrete

populations, referred to as management units or subpopulations in some

documents (Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), unpublished

documents on file with the Service) (Map 1).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP17JY95.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

The language in the Amendments refers to an ``affected population

stock'' in the singular, and raises the issue of whether the Service

needs to make the findings on one population for the whole of Canada or

on the 12 populations under which Canada has been managing polar bears

for over 20 years. In considering the following information, the

Service has decided to treat the 12 Canadian populations as population

stocks under the MMPA and make the proposed findings on that basis.

Congressman Jack Fields, during the House of Representatives floor

debate for the 1994 Amendments, clarified that ``the term `population

stock' as defined in the MMPA means a group of marine mammals of the

same species in a common spatial arrangement and is used in the bill to

refer to these subpopulations and management units which reflect

Canada's management regime'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725, April 26, 1994).

For many marine species, there have been difficulties in defining

stocks consistently under the MMPA

e term `population

stock' as defined in the MMPA means a group of marine mammals of the

same species in a common spatial arrangement and is used in the bill to

refer to these subpopulations and management units which reflect

Canada's management regime'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725, April 26, 1994).

For many marine species, there have been difficulties in defining

stocks consistently under the MMPA. This particularly became apparent

when the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under

the 1994 Amendments were tasked with conducting stock assessments to

determine the number of animals that may be removed from a population

by human-caused mortality. Dr. Barbara Taylor (1995) in a NMFS

administrative report pointed out that although the definition of

population remains illusive, it can be critical to good management. She

asserted that ``population stock'' in the MMPA has both a biological

and management meaning. Two populations should be managed separately if

interchange is low as there are potentially strong negative effects of

treating large areas as single populations when mortality is

concentrated in small areas. Dr. Taylor also suggested that

``maintaining the range of a species meets the MMPA objective of

maintaining marine mammals as significantly functioning elements of

their ecosystems.'' Canada's management program for polar bear

recognizes 12 discrete populations with a set quota for human caused

mortality specific to each population. Harvest data and scientific

research have provided information to show that interchange between

populations is low and human caused mortality is concentrated within

localized areas. Therefore, the management of polar bears in Canada as

discrete populations is consistent with the term ``population stock''

as used in the MMPA and ensures the maintenance of the polar bear

throughout its range in Canada.

The GNWT wrote the Service that Canada's ``stocks'' of polar bears

are termed ``populations''

ions is low and human caused mortality is concentrated within

localized areas. Therefore, the management of polar bears in Canada as

discrete populations is consistent with the term ``population stock''

as used in the MMPA and ensures the maintenance of the polar bear

throughout its range in Canada.

The GNWT wrote the Service that Canada's ``stocks'' of polar bears

are termed ``populations''. This designation is based on increasing

knowledge on the movement of polar bears. Boundaries of polar bear

populations in Canada were initially based on geographic features using

reconnaissance surveys. Over time, the boundaries have been confirmed

and refined through scientific research on the movement of polar bears

(e.g., mark-recapture, mark-kill harvest data, radio tracking, and

satellite telemetry), local knowledge of bear movements, and physical

factors affecting movements, such as ice formation and location of

polynyas (e.g., areas where ice consistently breaks up and creates open

water or areas where ice is refrozen at intervals during the winter).

The research and accumulation of other information are ongoing. For

example, the recently collected satellite telemetry data are being

analyzed to redetermine the population boundaries for the Parry

Channel/Baffin Bay population (GNWT).

Canada shares some polar bear populations with Greenland and

Alaska. Northeastern Canada shares three populations (Queen Elizabeth

Island, Baffin Bay/Parry Channel, and Davis Strait) with Greenland with

the extent of exchange between Canada and Greenland as yet unclear.

Northwestern Canada shares the Southern Beaufort Sea population with

northern Alaska, with extensive east-west movements of polar bears

between Canada and the United States.

Reproduction and Survival

Polar bears are intimately associated with Arctic ice. Due to

unpredictability in the structure of Arctic sea ice and associated

availability of food, it is

nada and Greenland as yet unclear.

Northwestern Canada shares the Southern Beaufort Sea population with

northern Alaska, with extensive east-west movements of polar bears

between Canada and the United States.

Reproduction and Survival

Polar bears are intimately associated with Arctic ice. Due to

unpredictability in the structure of Arctic sea ice and associated

availability of food, it is

thought that adult males do not defend stable territories but may

instead distribute themselves among different sea ice habitats at the

same relative densities as solitary adult females (Ramsay and Stirling

1986).

Males locate females that are ready to breed by scent and tracks.

Polar bears mate while on the sea ice between late March through May,

with implantation occurring in September. Maternity dens are typically

formed in drifted snow in late October and November and cubs are born

in December and January (USFWS 1995).

A summary of research data on the reproduction and survival in

polar bears is given in Taylor et al. (1987) and Ramsay and Stirling

(1986). The large-scale unpredictable fluctuations of the Arctic

environment strongly affect the recruitment rate and the survival of

young. Polar bears have a low birth rate and exhibit ``birth pulse''

reproduction. A small number breed for the first time at 3 years of age

and slightly more at 4 years of age. Most females start to produce

young at 5 or 6 years of age. The number of females available to breed

is affected by the survival rates of cubs, adult female survival rates,

litter size, and litter production rates. As cub and litter survival

rates increase, the number of females available for breeding in any

year decreases. In any year, 30 to 60 percent of available adult female

polar bears do not breed or are not impregnated. Typically, each litter

consists of two cubs. The overall sex ratio is 50 males to 50 females

rates of cubs, adult female survival rates,

litter size, and litter production rates. As cub and litter survival

rates increase, the number of females available for breeding in any

year decreases. In any year, 30 to 60 percent of available adult female

polar bears do not breed or are not impregnated. Typically, each litter

consists of two cubs. The overall sex ratio is 50 males to 50 females.

Cubs remain with the female until they are about 2.5 years old, during

which time the females avoid associating with adult males. When the

cubs are weaned, the females are again ready for breeding. Some females

lose their cubs and are available for breeding the next season. The

average breeding interval is 3 years. This results in a skewed sex

ratio, with fewer females available to breed in any one year than males

and in intrasexual competition among males for access to breeding

females. Females stop reproducing at about 20 years of age. Due to

mortality, the average litter size ranges from 1.58 to 1.87 in the High

Arctic populations to as high as 2.0 in Hudson Bay. The first year

survival rate is high (0.70 to 0.85) because of the long period of

female parental care. The life history strategy of the polar bear is

typified by high adult survival rates (0.76 to 0.95).

Canada's Polar Bear Management Program

Although each of the 12 populations of polar bear within Canada is

managed as a unit, there is a somewhat complex sharing of

responsibilities. Management has been delegated to the Provincial and

Territorial Governments, but the Federal Government (Environment

Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service) has an active research program and

is involved in management of populations shared with other

jurisdictions, especially ones with other nations. Native Land Claims

have resulted in Co-management Boards for most of Canada's polar bear

populations. Polar bears in Canada occur in the NWT, in the Yukon

Territory, and in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and

Newfoundland and Labrador (Map 1)

n active research program and

is involved in management of populations shared with other

jurisdictions, especially ones with other nations. Native Land Claims

have resulted in Co-management Boards for most of Canada's polar bear

populations. Polar bears in Canada occur in the NWT, in the Yukon

Territory, and in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and

Newfoundland and Labrador (Map 1). All 12 populations lie within or are

shared with the NWT. Provincial boundaries extend only to the low water

mark of the Hudson Bay. Canadian territorial waters within the Arctic

Ocean, Hudson Bay, and all islands and marine waters are part of the

NWT. The offshore marine areas along the coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador are under Federal jurisdiction (GNWT).

The Federal-Provincial Technical and Administrative Committees for

Polar Bear Research and Management (PBTC and PBAC, respectively) were

formed to ensure a coordinated management process consistent with

internal and international management structures and the International

Agreement. The Committees meet annually to review research and

management of polar bears in Canada and have representation from all

the Provincial and Territorial jurisdictions with polar bear

populations, plus the Federal Government. Beginning in 1984, members of

the Service have attended meetings of the PBTC and biologists from

Norway and Denmark have attended a small number of meetings. In recent

years, the PBAC meetings have included the participation of the non-

government groups, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Labrador Inuit

Association, for their input at the management level. Beginning in

1995, representatives of Inuit groups harvesting polar bears were

invited to attend PBTC meetings. The annual meetings of the PBTC

provides for continuing cooperation between jurisdictions and for

recommending management actions to the PBAC (Calvert et al. 1995)

rnment groups, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Labrador Inuit

Association, for their input at the management level. Beginning in

1995, representatives of Inuit groups harvesting polar bears were

invited to attend PBTC meetings. The annual meetings of the PBTC

provides for continuing cooperation between jurisdictions and for

recommending management actions to the PBAC (Calvert et al. 1995). Most

recently, emphasis has been on the development of Management

Agreements, reducing quotas for populations thought to be over-

harvested, and conducting research on populations with uncertain status

(PBSG 1995).

NWT's Polar Bear Management Program

The NWT geographical boundaries include all Canadian lands and

marine environment north of the 60th parallel (except the Yukon

Territory) and all islands and waters in Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait

up to the low water mark of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Polar bears

are managed under the Northwest Territories Act (Canada). The 1960

Order-in-Council granted the Commissioner in Council (NWT) authority to

pass ordinances to protect polar bears, including the establishment of

a quota system to manage polar bears, that are applicable to all

people. The Wildlife Act, 1988, and Big Game Hunting Regulations

provide supporting legislation which recognizes each polar bear

population.

Although the recently completed Inuvialuit and Nunavut Land Claim

Agreements supersede the Northwest Territories Act (Canada) and the

Wildlife Act, no change in management consequences for polar bears is

expected. Under the umbrella of the NWT's Department of Renewable

Resources (DRR), polar bears are co-managed through wildlife management

boards, made up of Land Claim Beneficiaries and Territorial and Federal

representatives. One of the strongest aspects of the program is that

the management decision process is integrated between jurisdictions and

with local hunters and management boards

is

expected. Under the umbrella of the NWT's Department of Renewable

Resources (DRR), polar bears are co-managed through wildlife management

boards, made up of Land Claim Beneficiaries and Territorial and Federal

representatives. One of the strongest aspects of the program is that

the management decision process is integrated between jurisdictions and

with local hunters and management boards. A main feature of this

approach is the development of Local Management Agreements between the

communities that share a population of polar bears. These Agreements

are then used to develop regulations which implement the agreements.

Regulations specify who can hunt, season length, and age and sex

classes that can be hunted, and the total allowable harvest for a given

population in Polar Bear Management Areas. The DRR has officers to

enforce the regulations in most communities of the NWT. Since the co-

management system strives to develop local support for regulations

before they are implemented, there is strong community pressure to

comply with management agreements. Incidents of violation of

regulations, kills in defense of life, or exceeding a quota are

investigated.

There are a number of communities within the boundaries of each

polar bear population. The total sustainable harvest for each

population is divided among communities within the population

boundaries, called settlement quotas. When agreement on a particular

community's share of the

sustainable yield has been reached, tags are provided each year to the

Hunters' and Trappers' Organizations or Associations or Committees

(HTO). This group in conjunction with members of the community, decides

how many tags to allocate to sport hunting and how many are to be used

by local hunters. Sport hunting is not administered separately from

other polar bear harvesting. It should be noted that some communities

may hold quota tags for several separate populations, but tags can be

used only for the populations for which the tags are issued (GNWT).

njunction with members of the community, decides

how many tags to allocate to sport hunting and how many are to be used

by local hunters. Sport hunting is not administered separately from

other polar bear harvesting. It should be noted that some communities

may hold quota tags for several separate populations, but tags can be

used only for the populations for which the tags are issued (GNWT).

Harvest of Polar Bears and Sport Hunting

The hunting of polar bears is an important part of the culture and

economy of indigenous peoples of the Arctic (PBSG 1995). A hunting

season was first imposed in Canada in 1935. Hunting opportunities were

restricted to Native people in 1949, with quotas for polar bears

introduced in 1967. The harvest of polar bears was almost 700 in 1967/

68, but dropped dramatically with the introduction of quotas. In the

1978/79 season, the largest increase occurred when the quota was

increased by 12 percent (Lee et al. 1994). Since 1991, quotas have

undergone major adjustments, mainly downward.

In the NWT, the indigenous people in a settlement may authorize the

sale of a permit from the quota to a non-resident hunter. These hunts

are subject to certain restrictions: the hunt must be conducted under

Canadian jurisdiction and guided by a Native hunter; transportation

during the hunt must be by dog sled; the tags must come from the

community quota; and tags from unsuccessful sport hunts may not be used

again. Sport hunters typically select trophy animals, usually large

adult males. Table 1 shows that in 1993/94, 79 percent of polar bears

taken as sport-hunting trophies were male. It also summarizes the

number of sport hunts that occurred in the different populations in the

NWT for the last two harvest seasons. Sport hunting for polar bears

began in the NWT in 1969/70 with three hunts and gradually increased

(GNWT). The average over the last five seasons was 55 as summarized by

the Service in Table 2

79 percent of polar bears

taken as sport-hunting trophies were male. It also summarizes the

number of sport hunts that occurred in the different populations in the

NWT for the last two harvest seasons. Sport hunting for polar bears

began in the NWT in 1969/70 with three hunts and gradually increased

(GNWT). The average over the last five seasons was 55 as summarized by

the Service in Table 2. The maximum number of sport hunts in any one

year was 83 which occurred in the 1987/88 season. The success rate

varied from 30 percent in 1979/80 to 91 percent in 1985/86 (Lee et al.

1994) and has averaged about 79 percent over the past five seasons. The

number of quota tags used for sport hunting compared to the total known

kill in the NWT averaged 10.9 percent annually over the last five

seasons.

Table 1.--Statistics for Polar Bear Sport Hunting in the NWT for Populations Identified as Southern Beaufort

Sea (SB), Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Queen Elizabeth Islands (QE), Parry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of

Boothia (GB), and Foxe Basin (FB)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1993/94 season 1992/93 season

----------------------------------------------------------------

Population No. killed No. killed

(No. not Percent of Percent (No. not Percent of

successful) total male successful) total

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB............................................. 3 (3) 9.7 67 1 (0) 2.7

NB............................................. 2 (3) 8.1 100 1 (1) 5.4

QE............................................. 0 (1) 1.6 ........... 1 (0) 2.7

PC............................................. 26 (2) 45.2 85 22 (2) 64.9

BB............................................. 5 (0) 8.1 80 2 (1) 8.1

GB............................................. 7 (3) 16.1 86 4 (1) 13.5

FB............................................

.............................. 2 (3) 8.1 100 1 (1) 5.4

QE............................................. 0 (1) 1.6 ........... 1 (0) 2.7

PC............................................. 26 (2) 45.2 85 22 (2) 64.9

BB............................................. 5 (0) 8.1 80 2 (1) 8.1

GB............................................. 7 (3) 16.1 86 4 (1) 13.5

FB............................................. 5 (2) 11.3 40 0 (1) 2.7

----------------------------------------------------------------

Total.................................. 48 (14) ........... 79 31 (6) ...........

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Summary of Sport Hunt Kills in NWT

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent

No. killed total sport

Season Total (percent Known total hunt to

sports hunt success) kill in NWT known kill

in NWT

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1989/90............. 60 48 (80) 537 11.2

1990/91............. 66 50 (76) 490 13.5

1991/92............. 48 39 (81) 549 8.7

1992/93............. 37 31 (84) 506 7.3

1993/94............. 62 48 (77) 432 14.4

---------------------------------------------------

Average..... 55 43 (79) 503 10.9

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is substantial economic return to the community from sport

hunts. The potential value of the ``actual hunt cost'' in 1993/94 in

Parry Channel for one polar bear was $18,500 (US) with 80 percent of

the money staying in the community. However, only a few communities

currently take part in sport hunts as it reduces hunting opportunities

for local hunters (GNWT) and requires responsibilities in dealing with

non-Native clients.

Polar bear sport hunts for non-residents are usually arranged

through an agent or broker

94 in

Parry Channel for one polar bear was $18,500 (US) with 80 percent of

the money staying in the community. However, only a few communities

currently take part in sport hunts as it reduces hunting opportunities

for local hunters (GNWT) and requires responsibilities in dealing with

non-Native clients.

Polar bear sport hunts for non-residents are usually arranged

through an agent or broker. In general, the agent or broker contacts

the community's Hunters' and Trappers' Organization or Associations or

Committees (HTO) to arrange for the hunt including the acquisition of a

hunting license and tag for the hunter. If the community has not

already decided what portion of its quota, if any, to designate for

sport hunters, the HTO representative presents all requests for sport-

hunt tags at a community meeting. The community decides on the number

of

tags to be designated for sport hunting. Then the fee for the tag is

paid and the tag is allocated to a specific hunter. The tag cannot be

resold or used by any other non-resident hunter. In most cases polar

bear tags for sport hunts are retained by the DRR officer until

provided to the hunter. In a few cases, the tags are retained by the

HTO who in turn provide them to the hunters (GNWT).

Proposed Legal and Scientific Findings and Summary of Applicable

Information

Currently, only the NWT allows sport hunting of polar bear. Thus,

the Service is proposing findings only for the NWT.

A. Legal Take

ear tags for sport hunts are retained by the DRR officer until

provided to the hunter. In a few cases, the tags are retained by the

HTO who in turn provide them to the hunters (GNWT).

Proposed Legal and Scientific Findings and Summary of Applicable

Information

Currently, only the NWT allows sport hunting of polar bear. Thus,

the Service is proposing findings only for the NWT.

A. Legal Take

1. Proposed Finding

The Service proposes to find that the NWT has a management program

that ensures a polar bear was legally taken and to condition the permit

as outlined below. This program includes the use of hunting licenses;

quota tags; DRR officers in communities; collection of biological

samples from the trophy and collection of data from the hunter; a

regulated tannery; a computerized tracking system for licenses, permits

and tags; and an export permit requirement to export the trophy from

the NWT to other provinces and a CITES permit system if the trophy is

exiting Canada. This is all within the context of the laws,

regulations, and co-management agreements discussed earlier.

For polar bears that are taken after the effective date of any

final rule, the Service proposes to condition permits upon the

presentation of a copy of the NWT hunting license with tag number and a

Canadian CITES export permit that identifies the polar bear by hunting

license and tag number to a Service inspector at the port at the time

of import to satisfy the requirement of proof of legal take. For bears

taken prior to the effective date of any final rule, the Service

proposes to require the applicant to provide with his/her application a

certification from the Department of Renewable Resources, Government of

the Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested

and tagged, including the name of the hunter and location and season

the bear was taken.

2. Summary of Legal Take

As described above, the agent or broker usually obtains the hunting

license and tag for the hunter

nt to provide with his/her application a

certification from the Department of Renewable Resources, Government of

the Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested

and tagged, including the name of the hunter and location and season

the bear was taken.

2. Summary of Legal Take

As described above, the agent or broker usually obtains the hunting

license and tag for the hunter. Once a polar bear is taken, the tag is

affixed to the hide and biological samples requested by the DRR officer

are collected. Polar bear tags are metal, designed for one-time use,

and stamped with the words polar bear, an identification number, and

the harvest year. The identification number in combination with the

harvest year identifies the community to which the tag was assigned. If

a tag is lost prior to being affixed to a hide, the lost tag number and

other information as required must be reported to the DRR officer prior

to issuance of a replacement tag. In the event that the sport hunt is

unsuccessful, the unused tag is destroyed.

By regulation, as soon as practicable after the bear is killed, a

person must provide the following information to a DRR officer in the

community, or a person who has been designated by the HTO and has the

approval of a DRR officer: (a) The person's name; (b) the date and

location where the bear was killed; (c) the lower jaw or undamaged

post-canine tooth and, when present, lip tattoos and ear tags from the

bear; (d) evidence of the sex of the bear; and (e) and any other

information as required. Except where an officer verifies the sex of

the polar bear, the baculum (i.e., penis bone) of the male polar bear

must be provided for the purposes of determining sex. If proof of sex

is not provided or an officer does not verify the sex of the bear, the

bear will be deemed to have been female for the purposes of population

trend/modelling

bear; and (e) and any other

information as required. Except where an officer verifies the sex of

the polar bear, the baculum (i.e., penis bone) of the male polar bear

must be provided for the purposes of determining sex. If proof of sex

is not provided or an officer does not verify the sex of the bear, the

bear will be deemed to have been female for the purposes of population

trend/modelling.

Additional information, collected to complete a numbered Polar Bear

Hunter Kill Return form, includes: The community where the hunt was

based; the polar bear population from which the bear was harvested; the

harvest season in which the bear was taken; the sex of the bear; the

approximate latitude and longitude of where the bear was taken using a

map or description of the location with geographical references;

general comments on the physical condition of the bear, including a

measure of the fat depth; an indication of whether the bear was alone

or part of a family group, including if the bear was a mother with

cubs; the estimated age class of the bear before the tooth was

examined; the disposition of the hide; the hide value to the hunter;

the hunter's address and the hunter's license number; the guide/

outfitters name; and the name of the DRR officer in the applicable

community.

By NWT regulation, a licensed tanner must needle stamp each hide or

pelt upon receipt so that the hide or pelt may be identified as

belonging to a specific customer. Polar bear tags are not intended to

remain on the hide during tanning. When a tag is removed for tanning,

it is returned to the owner of the hide.

In 1991, the DRR developed a Game License System to track all

licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department. It is accessible

from any area of the NWT. All eight Regional Offices complete a monthly

vendor return which is entered into the system. The vendor return

contains all the licenses, permits, and tags that were issued during

that month. Reports and searches may be generated as needed

991, the DRR developed a Game License System to track all

licenses, permits, and tags issued by the Department. It is accessible

from any area of the NWT. All eight Regional Offices complete a monthly

vendor return which is entered into the system. The vendor return

contains all the licenses, permits, and tags that were issued during

that month. Reports and searches may be generated as needed. Canada

also maintains a computerized national polar bear harvest database. Up

until quotas were established in 1967/68, harvest data were recorded

opportunistically. With the introduction of quotas, a large percent of

the harvest was recorded and since 1977/78 all harvests have been

recorded. Should it be required, a polar bear trophy imported from

Canada could be traced back to the individual who took the bear.

A NWT Wildlife Export Permit must be obtained from a DRR officer

prior to exporting wildlife, including polar bear parts. The hunter

must show the hunting license to obtain a NWT Wildlife Export permit.

Polar bear parts may be exported from Canada with a Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna

(CITES) export permit (see discussion in section ``D'' below). The tag,

either removed for tanning or removed at the time of export, needs to

be submitted with supporting documentation as required for obtaining a

CITES export permit (GNWT).

B. 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears

with a Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna

(CITES) export permit (see discussion in section ``D'' below). The tag,

either removed for tanning or removed at the time of export, needs to

be submitted with supporting documentation as required for obtaining a

CITES export permit (GNWT).

B. 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears

During the 1950's and 1960's, there was a growing international

concern for the welfare of polar bear populations. The primary concern

was that the increased number of bears being killed could lead to

endangerment of populations. In 1965 the PBSG, comprised of biologists

from the five nations with jurisdiction over polar bears (Canada,

Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, the United States, and the former

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), was formed under the auspices of

the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, now known as the World Conservation Union (IUCN). This group

was in large part responsible for the development and ratification of

the International Agreement. It entered into force in 1976 for a 5-year

period, and in 1981 was reaffirmed for an indefinite period. Greenland

later was provided recognition through ``Home-rule''

although the Government of Denmark maintained its role in affairs of

international scope.

The International Agreement unites nations with a vested interest

in the Arctic ecosystem in supporting a biologically and scientifically

sound conservation program for polar bears. It is a conservation tool

that provides guidelines for management measures for polar bears. It

defines prohibitions on the taking of polar bears as well as the

methods of taking, and identifies action items to be addressed by the

signatories, including protection of polar bear habitat and conducting

polar bear research. The International Agreement is not self-

implementing and does not in itself provide for national conservation

programs

ines for management measures for polar bears. It

defines prohibitions on the taking of polar bears as well as the

methods of taking, and identifies action items to be addressed by the

signatories, including protection of polar bear habitat and conducting

polar bear research. The International Agreement is not self-

implementing and does not in itself provide for national conservation

programs. Each signatory nation has implemented a conservation program

to protect polar bears and their environment (USFWS 1995). Since

implementation and enforcement of the International Agreement is the

responsibility of each signatory, different interpretations have

resulted in a diversity of practices in managing polar bear populations

(Prestrud and Stirling 1995).

The main purpose of the PBSG is to promote cooperation between

jurisdictions that share polar bear populations, coordinate research

and management, exchange information, and monitor compliance with the

International Agreement. At the 1993 PBSG polar bear meeting it was

stated, ``Overall, it seemed that all countries were complying fairly

well to the intent, if not necessarily the letter of the Agreement''

(PBSG 1995). Prestrud and Stirling (1995) concluded that the influence

of the International Agreement on the circumpolar development of polar

bear conservation has been significant and polar bear populations are

now reasonably secure worldwide.

1. Proposed Finding

The Service proposes to find that the NWT has a monitored and

enforced sport-hunting program that is consistent with the purposes of

the International Agreement as required by the 1994 Amendments under

certain conditions. For the reasons discussed below, the Service

proposes to approve only populations where the sport hunt for the

previous year did not exceed 15 percent of the total quota for the NWT.

Currently, all populations in the NWT meet this requirement (Table 2)

nting program that is consistent with the purposes of

the International Agreement as required by the 1994 Amendments under

certain conditions. For the reasons discussed below, the Service

proposes to approve only populations where the sport hunt for the

previous year did not exceed 15 percent of the total quota for the NWT.

Currently, all populations in the NWT meet this requirement (Table 2).

The Service also proposes to approve only populations where provisions

are in place to protect females with cubs, their cubs, and bears in

denning areas during periods when bears are moving into denning areas

or are in dens. At this time, the Service proposes not to approve the

Southern Hudson Bay, the NWT population that is shared with Ontario,

since Ontario has no provisions in place to protect females with cubs,

their cubs, and bears in dens. The following discussion outlines the

applicable requirements of the International Agreement as it relates to

sport hunting and management of polar bear in the NWT.

2. Taking and Exceptions

Article I of the International Agreement prohibits the taking of

polar bears, including hunting, killing, and capturing. Article III

establishes five exceptions to the taking prohibition of Article I as

follows: (a) for bona fide scientific purposes, (b) for conservation

purposes, (c) to prevent serious disturbance of the management of other

living resources, (d) by local people using traditional methods in the

exercise of their traditional rights and in accordance with the laws of

that Party, and (e) wherever polar bears have or might have been

subject to taking by traditional means by its nationals.

Article III does not specifically exclude sport hunting from the

taking prohibition. However, Mr. Curtis Bohlen, head of the U.S.

delegation at the 1973 negotiations of the International Agreement,

clarified to the Service (pers. comm. 1995) that sport hunting was not

precluded and that the U.S

rever polar bears have or might have been

subject to taking by traditional means by its nationals.

Article III does not specifically exclude sport hunting from the

taking prohibition. However, Mr. Curtis Bohlen, head of the U.S.

delegation at the 1973 negotiations of the International Agreement,

clarified to the Service (pers. comm. 1995) that sport hunting was not

precluded and that the U.S. position, which was generally agreed to by

all, was that sport hunting could occur if the national territories

could be defined so the Arctic Ocean could become a sanctuary. Canada

issued a declaration at the time of ratification of the International

Agreement to clarify that it regards the guiding of sport hunters by

aboriginal people, within conservation limits, to be allowed. The

declaration states, ``The Government of Canada therefore interprets

Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (d) and (e) as permitting a

token sports hunt based on scientifically sound settlement quotas as an

exercise of the traditional rights of the local people.'' Based on the

clause ``in accordance with the laws of that Party,'' Canada declared

that the local people in a settlement may authorize the selling of a

polar bear permit from the quota to a non-Inuit or non-Indian hunter,

provided the hunt is conducted under the guidance of a Native hunter

and by use of a dog team, and is conducted within Canadian

jurisdiction.

When the Service queried the GNWT for clarification of the term

``token'' sport hunt, they said that the term ``* * * has not been

discussed further by managers and user groups since the Agreement came

into effect in 1976.'' The GNWT pointed out that the most important

point to note is that polar bear tags allocated for guided sport

hunting are part of the normal allocation to the community and are not

added to the total (GNWT)

ted this

interpretation. However, Baur wrote that there is no support in the

background documentation leading up to the International Agreement to

support this view.

Baur (1993) suggested that the best interpretation of this

exception has to do with the intent of all IUCN drafts to establish a

taking prohibition outside of national territories, with particular

reference to the ``high seas''. The Parties chose to define a sanctuary

area for polar bears in the Arctic Ocean by limiting the area within

which taking could occur to those where hunting by traditional means

occurred. Since such hunting was conducted mostly by Natives by ground

transportation (e.g., dog teams, snow mobiles, etc.), the area affected

seldom reached into the areas commonly understood to be ``high seas''

(Baur 1993). The Service agrees with this interpretation for this

exception in the International Agreement and notes that Canada allows

sport hunting within this interpretation (GNWT).

3. Protection of Habitat and Management of Polar Bear Populations:

Article II of the International Agreement provides that Parties:

(1) Take ``appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar

bears are a part''; (2) give ``attention to habitat components such as

denning and feeding site and migration patterns''; and (3) manage polar

bear populations in accordance with ``sound conservation practices''

based on the best available scientific data (Baur 1993). It was

suggested at the 1993 PBSG meeting that Canada may be in non-compliance

with parts of the International Agreement. There was some discussion of

whether Canada is using sound conservation practices in managing polar

bears since some populations are thought to be over-harvested. Canada

noted, however, that their management system allows for the reduction

of quotas in response to a decline resulting from over-hunting. The NWT

is currently working with local communities to reduce quotas in those

jurisdictions where recent population data suggests an over-harvest

ound conservation practices in managing polar

bears since some populations are thought to be over-harvested. Canada

noted, however, that their management system allows for the reduction

of quotas in response to a decline resulting from over-hunting. The NWT

is currently working with local communities to reduce quotas in those

jurisdictions where recent population data suggests an over-harvest.

It was also discussed that the selling of hides resulting from

polar bears killed in self-defense violates Article II of the

International Agreement. Canada noted that all polar bears killed in

defense of life are subtracted from the local quota so the sale is not

a conservation threat (PBSG 1995).

4. Prohibition on the Use of Aircraft and Large Motorized Vessels

Article IV of the International Agreement prohibits the use of

``aircraft and large motorized vessels for the purpose of taking polar

bears * * * except where the application of such prohibition would be

inconsistent with domestic laws.''

It is illegal in Canada to hunt polar bears from aircraft for

either sport or local hunting. Aboriginal guides and sport hunters must

conduct their hunt by dog team or on foot. (It should be noted that

non-sport hunters may travel and hunt polar bears by 3-wheel ATV (all-

terrain vehicles), snowmobile, and boats under 15 meters. There was

some discussion, but no resolution, at the 1993 PBSG meeting on whether

the extensive use of snowmobiles in Canada and Alaska to hunt polar

bears by native peoples complied with the International Agreement (PBSG

1995). However, Mr. Curtis Bohlen clarified that snowmobiles were

normally used by natives in Canada and Alaska and were considered

traditional (pers. comm. 1995).) Access to the communities is by air

only, so sport hunters must fly to reach their destinations. Aircraft,

snow machines, and boats are sometimes used to transport equipment,

hunters, and dogs to base camps which can be a great distance from the

community

Bohlen clarified that snowmobiles were

normally used by natives in Canada and Alaska and were considered

traditional (pers. comm. 1995).) Access to the communities is by air

only, so sport hunters must fly to reach their destinations. Aircraft,

snow machines, and boats are sometimes used to transport equipment,

hunters, and dogs to base camps which can be a great distance from the

community. The hunt continues from the base camp by dog team.

Canada does not interpret transportation by air or other motorized

vehicle to a place where the hunt begins as a violation of Article IV

of the International Agreement (GNWT). The Service agrees with this

interpretation. Baur (1993) explained that Article IV of the

International Agreement ``followed strong opinion that the hunting of

polar bears with aircraft should be stopped, and, furthermore, that the

prohibition against the use of large motorized vessels for taking was

directed at the practice, which was particularly common in the

Spitsbergen area, of hunting bears from vessels of 100 feet or

longer.''

5. The Prohibition on Taking Cubs and Females With Cubs

At the 1973 Conference, the Parties to the International Agreement

adopted a non-binding ``Resolution on Special Protection Measures'' to

take steps to: (a) Provide a complete ban on the hunting of female

polar bears with cubs and their cubs and (b) prohibit the hunting of

polar bears in denning areas during periods when bears are moving into

denning areas or are in dens. In adopting this resolution, the Parties

recognized the low reproductive rate of polar bears and suggested that

the measures ``are generally accepted by knowledgeable scientists'' to

be ``sound conservation practices'' within the meaning of Article II.

While the prohibitions in the Resolution are considered to be important

to the signatory nations, they are not terms of the International

Agreement itself and are not legally binding (Baur 1993)

the low reproductive rate of polar bears and suggested that

the measures ``are generally accepted by knowledgeable scientists'' to

be ``sound conservation practices'' within the meaning of Article II.

While the prohibitions in the Resolution are considered to be important

to the signatory nations, they are not terms of the International

Agreement itself and are not legally binding (Baur 1993). At the 1993

PBSG meeting the resolution was discussed but no agreement was reached

over the interpretation of whether females with their cubs and cubs are

specially protected under the Agreement (PBSG 1995).

Although the Service recognizes that the resolution is not binding,

the 1994 Amendments require the Service to make a finding that Canada's

management program is consistent with the purposes of the International

Agreement. The resolution clearly falls within the purposes of sound

conservation practices of Article II. Thus, the Service proposes to

approve only populations where provisions are in place to protect

females with cubs, their cubs, and bears in denning areas during

periods when bears are moving into denning areas or are in dens.

The Service proposes to find that the NWT meets these requirements

as females with cubs-of-the-year and bears in dens are protected by

Territorial regulations. In addition, females with yearlings and

yearlings are protected, and, in some areas, females with 2-year-old

cubs are also protected. However, the Service proposes not to approve

the Southern Hudson Bay population that is shared with Ontario, since

that province has no such protection in place.

Importation of Pregnant or Nursing Animals. The MMPA has a more

stringent requirement than the Resolution on Special Protection

Measures of the International Agreement discussed above

females with 2-year-old

cubs are also protected. However, the Service proposes not to approve

the Southern Hudson Bay population that is shared with Ontario, since

that province has no such protection in place.

Importation of Pregnant or Nursing Animals. The MMPA has a more

stringent requirement than the Resolution on Special Protection

Measures of the International Agreement discussed above. Section 102(b)

prohibits the import of any marine mammal, except under a permit for

scientific research or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species

or stock, if such marine mammal was ``(1) pregnant at the time of

taking; (2) nursing at the time of taking, or less than eight months

old, whichever occurs later; (3) * * *; (4) taken in a manner deemed

inhumane by the Secretary.'' Number 4 was included to address the issue

of whether the taking of a mother if she had cubs would be inhumane

since the cubs probably would not be able to survive without her. These

prohibitions were part of the law passed in 1972 and have been applied

to all import permits. Since Congress did not specifically exclude

polar bear import permits from the prohibition of 102(b), the Service

has considered them in this notice.

The Service has noted two timeframes when it might be difficult to

ensure that these provisions are met. In viewing the life history of

polar bears, during the month of October it would not be possible to

know if the bear was pregnant. In the section on Reproduction and

Survival above, information was presented that polar bears become

implanted in late September and usually start building dens in late

October and early November. In some part of the NWT the harvest season

does not open until December 1, in which case any pregnant bears would

be protected. But in other areas the harvest season starts October 1

and pregnant females would be available to be taken

urvival above, information was presented that polar bears become

implanted in late September and usually start building dens in late

October and early November. In some part of the NWT the harvest season

does not open until December 1, in which case any pregnant bears would

be protected. But in other areas the harvest season starts October 1

and pregnant females would be available to be taken. Second, polar bear

cubs nurse until they are approximately 2.0 to 2.5 years of age at

which time they are about the same size as the mother. Polar bear cubs

nearing the time when they are weaned would be difficult to identify.

The Service looked at various options to ensure that the

requirements of

Section 102(b) are met prior to issuing a permit for the import of

polar bear trophies taken in the NWT. The Service invites comments on

the following options: (1) Have the NWT certify that at the time of

take the bear was not pregnant, was not a nursing cub, and was not a

mother with cubs based on information presented to the DRR officer; (2)

condition the import permit that the permittee must certify at the time

of import that at the time of take a female bear was not pregnant or a

mother with cubs, and a young bear was not nursing; and/or (3) include

issuance criteria that permits would not be issued for female bears

taken during the month of October and bears taken while in family

groups. At this time, the Service prefers the first option and so has

proposed language for it. However, the Service invites comments on the

three options presented. It should be noted that this provision applies

to all polar bear to be imported, including ones taken prior to the

1994 Amendments.

C. Scientifically Sound Quotas and Maintenance of Sustainable

Population Levels

while in family

groups. At this time, the Service prefers the first option and so has

proposed language for it. However, the Service invites comments on the

three options presented. It should be noted that this provision applies

to all polar bear to be imported, including ones taken prior to the

1994 Amendments.

C. Scientifically Sound Quotas and Maintenance of Sustainable

Population Levels

The NWT manages polar bear with a quota system based on inventory

studies, sex ratio of the harvest, and population modeling using the

best available scientific information. The rationale of the polar bear

management program is that the human caused kill (e.g., harvest,

defense, or incidental kills) must remain within the sustainable yield,

with the anticipation of a slow increase in number for any population.

Each population is unique in terms of both ecology and management

issues, and baseline information ranges from very good in some areas to

less developed in others. But overall, polar bear populations in Canada

are considered to be healthy (GNWT).

Congressman Jack Fields stated in the House of Representatives

floor debate on the 1994 Amendments that ``. . . it is not the intent

of the language that the Secretary [of the Interior] attempt to impose

polar bear management policy or practices on Canada through the

imposition of any polar bear import criteria'' (140 Cong. Rec. H2725,

April 26, 1994). The Service agrees that the intent of the Amendments

was not to change Canada's management program, but to ensure ``* * *

sport hunting of polar bears does not adversely affect the

sustainability of the country's polar bear populations and that it does

not have a detrimental effect on maintaining those populations

throughout their range'' (Committee Report, H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d

Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1994))

es that the intent of the Amendments

was not to change Canada's management program, but to ensure ``* * *

sport hunting of polar bears does not adversely affect the

sustainability of the country's polar bear populations and that it does

not have a detrimental effect on maintaining those populations

throughout their range'' (Committee Report, H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d

Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1994)).

The Service found in reviewing the information that Canada has a

dynamic management program for polar bears which includes research,

monitoring programs, enforcement, and coordination with other nations.

The NWT administers the bulk of the program through a system of co-

management that involves the indigenous people. The NWT polar bear

program has been shown to be an evolving program in the interest of

conserving polar bear populations.

1. Proposed Finding

Based on information as summarized in this Federal Register notice,

the Service proposes to find that the Northwest Territories in Canada

has a sport-hunting program that is based on scientifically sound

quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a

sustainable level for all populations, provided the status of each

population is maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest

season and the average of the three preceding harvest seasons, and a

joint management agreement(s) is in place that ensures the

sustainability of the total harvest in a shared population.

The Service proposes to approve the following populations in the

NWT where current data show that the status of the population has been

maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest season and the

average of the three preceding seasons: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern

Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock

Channel, and Western Hudson Bay

ared population.

The Service proposes to approve the following populations in the

NWT where current data show that the status of the population has been

maintained as stable or increasing for the last harvest season and the

average of the three preceding seasons: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern

Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock

Channel, and Western Hudson Bay.

The Service proposes not to approve populations where current data

show that the take for the last harvest season and the average of the

three preceding seasons has exceeded the quota to such extent that

Canada classifies the status of the population as declining. Currently,

this includes the two populations with uncertain data, Parry Channel/

Baffin Bay and Foxe Basin.

The Service also proposes not to approve the following populations

that are shared by the NWT with Greenland, Quebec, Ontario, or

Newfoundland and Labrador: Queen Elizabeth Island, Parry Channel/Baffin

Bay, Foxe Basin, Davis Strait, and Southern Hudson Bay. The Service

understands that currently there are no management agreements between

the NWT and Greenland or the listed Provinces to ensure that the total

harvest in these populations are sustainable.

The Service is concerned that U.S. residents may continue to take

polar bears in populations that have not been approved if the proposal

is adopted. Although the GNWT has told the Service that the two

populations with uncertain data (Parry Channel/Baffin Bay and Foxe

Basin) have ongoing research they believe will support a finding that

the current quota ensure sustainable populations, the Service notes

that any person who hunts in a non-approved population is taking a risk

that he/she may never be able to legally import the polar bear into the

United States. If a U.S

Service that the two

populations with uncertain data (Parry Channel/Baffin Bay and Foxe

Basin) have ongoing research they believe will support a finding that

the current quota ensure sustainable populations, the Service notes

that any person who hunts in a non-approved population is taking a risk

that he/she may never be able to legally import the polar bear into the

United States. If a U.S. resident hunts a polar bear in a population

that is not approved for import, the Service proposes to issue an

import permit only if the Service finds, based on new data from the

NWT, that the total harvest for that harvest season and the average of

the three preceding harvest seasons was sustainable for the affected

population and a management agreement(s) was in place with Greenland

and/or a province(s) that shares the population with the NWT.

2. Inventory

It is difficult and expensive to determine population trends for

polar bears since they are distributed over vast areas in the Arctic

environment. A minimum of 3 to 5 years of research is needed to gain a

reliable population estimate, and studies need to continue for 10 to 20

years to detect significant changes (Prestrud and Stirling 1995). Each

population in the NWT is assessed by a periodic population inventory

done on a rotational basis. The time required to sequentially assess

all 12 populations and then begin the process over again is projected

to be 20 years.

The first part of the inventory process identifies the geographic

boundaries of each population. Boundaries, initially proposed based on

land forms, sea ice dynamics, and reconnaissance surveys, have been

refined by scientific research data on the movements of individual

bears through the use of mark-recapture, mark-kill data from the

harvest, radio tracking, and satellite telemetry. Research on

population boundaries is ongoing.

The second part of the inventory process is to estimate the size of

a population

roposed based on

land forms, sea ice dynamics, and reconnaissance surveys, have been

refined by scientific research data on the movements of individual

bears through the use of mark-recapture, mark-kill data from the

harvest, radio tracking, and satellite telemetry. Research on

population boundaries is ongoing.

The second part of the inventory process is to estimate the size of

a population. The basic principle behind the use of mark-recapture and

mark-kill data in wildlife management is that given a known number of

identifiable animals, the rate at which those animals are recaptured or

killed provides an assessment as to the size of the population. By

regulation, lip tatoos or ear tags, applied to polar bears in the

course of population inventories, must be submitted to the DRR at the

time of harvest of the bear. In addition, the sex and age structure of

the harvest is monitored. Changes in the sex and age

of the harvest over time provide insight into whether the population

may be increasing or declining. Should mark-kill data, information from

the monitoring program, or reports from local hunters indicate a

problem with a particular population, the period between assessments

could be shortened depending on the availability of research resources.

Data from ongoing research is incorporated into management

practices as appropriate. The results of studies on which management of

this species is based have been published in reports, conference

proceedings, and refereed scientific journals.

3. Calculation of Sustainable Harvest

The GNWT manages polar bears under the assumption that the polar

bear populations are experiencing maximal (e.g. no density effects)

recruitment and survival rates. The estimated sustainable rate of

harvest is then the maximum sustainable harvest

his species is based have been published in reports, conference

proceedings, and refereed scientific journals.

3. Calculation of Sustainable Harvest

The GNWT manages polar bears under the assumption that the polar

bear populations are experiencing maximal (e.g. no density effects)

recruitment and survival rates. The estimated sustainable rate of

harvest is then the maximum sustainable harvest.

Based on a model developed cooperatively between all jurisdictions

managing polar bears, it was demonstrated that the two most critical

parameters for estimating sustainable harvest are population numbers

and adult female survival rate (Taylor et al. 1987a). As a result of

sampling biases in the available data which affected the value of the

analysis, the detailed analysis was simplified to contain only the most

important features. One such simplification involved the use of pooled

best estimates for vital rates for all Canadian polar bear populations.

Using the pooled best estimates for vital rates, the polar bear harvest

model indicated that the sustainable harvest (H) of a population could

be estimated as:

H=N (0.015/Pf),

where N is the total number of individuals in the population and

Pf is the proportion of females in the harvest measured directly

from the harvest returns. The formula can also be modified for

populations with different renewal rates and, if new information

becomes available, on birth and death rates (GNWT).

Table 3 provides vital information on each population including the

population estimate, the total kill (excluding natural deaths),

percentage of females killed, and the calculated sustainable harvest

for the last harvest season and averaged over the last three and five

seasons. Based on this information, the status of the population is

designated as increasing, stable, or decreasing, represented by the

symbols ``+'', ``O'', ``-''. The population status is expressed simply

as the difference between the calculated sustainable harvest and the

kill

led, and the calculated sustainable harvest

for the last harvest season and averaged over the last three and five

seasons. Based on this information, the status of the population is

designated as increasing, stable, or decreasing, represented by the

symbols ``+'', ``O'', ``-''. The population status is expressed simply

as the difference between the calculated sustainable harvest and the

kill. For example, the calculated sustainable harvest for the Southern

Beaufort Sea 1993/94 harvest season was 81.1. Since the total kill was

64, the harvest of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea did not

exceed the sustainable yield. Therefore, the population had the

potential to increase. In contrast, the Foxe Basin (FB) kill exceeded

the sustainable harvest, thus the population status is represented as

declining. It should be noted that the status as outlined in the table

allows for a difference of up to 3 bears between the kill and the

calculated sustainable harvest. Thus, in the Gulf of Boothia, where the

harvest in the 1993/94 season exceeded the quota by 2.3 bears, the

status is considered to be stable.

Table 3.--Population Status for Canadian Polar Bear Populations Incorporating Harvest Statistics From 1989/90 to 1993/94

[The populations are identified as follows: Southern Beaufort Sea (SB), Northern Beaufort Sea (NB), Viscount Melville (VM), Queen Elizabeth Islands

(QE), Parry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of Boothia (GB), M'Clintock Channel (MC), Foxe Basin (FB), Davis Strait (DS), Western Hudson Bay (WH),

and Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The percent females (%) statistic \1\ does not include bears of unknown sex except for Labrador (1991/92 and 1992/

93) and Greenland (all 5 years). Harvest statistics include all reported human-caused mortality of polar bears

rry Channel (PC), Baffin Bay (BB), Gulf of Boothia (GB), M'Clintock Channel (MC), Foxe Basin (FB), Davis Strait (DS), Western Hudson Bay (WH),

and Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The percent females (%) statistic \1\ does not include bears of unknown sex except for Labrador (1991/92 and 1992/

93) and Greenland (all 5 years). Harvest statistics include all reported human-caused mortality of polar bears. Natural deaths are not included.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5-year average (1989/90- 3-year average (1991/92- Current year (1993/94)

1993/94) 1993/94) -----------------------------

Pop.\2\ Pop. Reliability* ---------------------------------------------------------- Population status**

estimate and S.E. Kill Sustainable Kill Sustainable Kill Sustainable (5yr/3yr/1yr)

(%) harvest \3\ (%) harvest \3\ (%) harvest \3\

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB................ \6\ 1800 Good........ 60.4 (39.6) 68.2 66.0 (39.5) 68.4 64 (32.2) 81.1 +/+/+

NB................ 1200 Good........ 32.2 (49.4) 36.4 30.0 (45.5) 39.6 16 (50.0) 36.0 +/+/+

VM \4\............ 230 Good........ 5.2 (45.8) 1.2 2.0 (83.3) 0.7 2 (50.0) 1.1 -/0/0

QE................ 200 Poor........ 10.6 (32.1) 9.0 9.7 (24.1) 9.0 11 (29.3) 9.0 0/0/0

PC-BB............. \6\ 2470 Fair........ 197.0 (30.7) 111.3 199.3 (31.5) 111.3 200 (31.9) 111.3 -/-/- (Data

uncertain)

GB................ 900 Poor........ 37.8 (40.4) 33.4 38.7 (36.5) 37.0 36 (40.0) 33.7 -/0/0

MC................ 700 Poor........ 30.4 (40.3) 26.1 27.3 (33.7) 31.2 24 (33.3) 31.5 -/+/+

FB \5\............ 2020 Good........ 128.6 (40.8) 74.3 125.0 (41.7) 72.7 100 (48.5) 62.5 -/-/-

DS................ \6\ 1400 Fair........ 55.0 (41.6) 50.5 58.0 (38.2) 55.0 58 (36.2) 58.0 -/0/0

WH................ 1200 Good.......

...... 900 Poor........ 37.8 (40.4) 33.4 38.7 (36.5) 37.0 36 (40.0) 33.7 -/0/0

MC................ 700 Poor........ 30.4 (40.3) 26.1 27.3 (33.7) 31.2 24 (33.3) 31.5 -/+/+

FB \5\............ 2020 Good........ 128.6 (40.8) 74.3 125.0 (41.7) 72.7 100 (48.5) 62.5 -/-/-

DS................ \6\ 1400 Fair........ 55.0 (41.6) 50.5 58.0 (38.2) 55.0 58 (36.2) 58.0 -/0/0

WH................ 1200 Good........ 44.8 (32.1) 54.1 41.3 (27.6) 54.1 32 (40.6) 44.3 +/+/+

SH................ 1000 Fair........ 59.0 (32.5) 45.0 51.0 (36.2) 41.4 45 (33.3) 45.0 -/-/0

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total \6\........ 13120 ............ 661.0 509.5 648.3 520.4 588 513.5 ....................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Good: Minimum capture bias, acceptable precision; Fair: Capture bias problems, precision uncertain; Poor: Considerable uncertainty, bias and/or few

data.

**A difference of up to 3 bears between the kill and sustainable harvest statistics was considered to be no change in status. ( - = decrease 0 = no

change + = increase)

Notes:

\1\ The percent of killed bears that are females is not regulated by law in all populations, but rather % Females is specified as a target in many of

the Local Management Agreements.

\2\ Local Management Agreements now exist for all populations except QE. These agreements are reviewed periodically as new information becomes

available.

\3\ Except for the VM population, the sustainable harvest is based on the sex ratio of the harvest, the population estimate (N) for the area and the

estimated rates of birth and death (Taylor et al. 1987):

Sustainable Harvest = (N x 0.015) Proportion of Harvest that were Females

st for all populations except QE. These agreements are reviewed periodically as new information becomes

available.

\3\ Except for the VM population, the sustainable harvest is based on the sex ratio of the harvest, the population estimate (N) for the area and the

estimated rates of birth and death (Taylor et al. 1987):

Sustainable Harvest = (N x 0.015) Proportion of Harvest that were Females.

Unpublished modelling indicates a sex ratio of 2 males to 1 female is sustainable, although the mean age and abundance of males will be reduced at

maximum sustainable yield. Harvest data (Lee and Taylor, in press) indicates that the harvest is typically selective for males.

\4\ The rate of sustained yield of the VM population is one sixth that of the other populations because of lower cub and yearling survival, and lower

recruitment. The projected proportion of the harvest that are females is 15% based on the intention to take only males. A 5-year voluntary moratorium

on harvesting bears in the VM population began in 1994/95.

\5\ Communities that harvest from the FB population have agreed to a phased reduction in quota. The final harvest level will be 91 bears or the

sustainable yield as determined by subsequent population estimates by 1997.

\6\ Totals refer to the sum of the all populations within or shared with Canada.

Polar bears are a long-lived and late maturing species that have a

low annual recruitment rate. Their life history strategy is a reliance

on a constantly high adult survival rate and stable recruitment.

Consequently polar bears are particularly vulnerable to over-harvest.

Conservation management and comparisons with other long-lived species

suggest that noncompensatory harvest models are most appropriate for

polar bears (Taylor et al. 1987).

A common technique in wildlife management is to increase harvest of

males as a means of increasing sustainable yield and conserving the

reproduction potential of the population

are particularly vulnerable to over-harvest.

Conservation management and comparisons with other long-lived species

suggest that noncompensatory harvest models are most appropriate for

polar bears (Taylor et al. 1987).

A common technique in wildlife management is to increase harvest of

males as a means of increasing sustainable yield and conserving the

reproduction potential of the population. Specific modeling has shown

that the sex ratio of the polar bear harvest is a critical factor in

calculating the sustainable yield of polar bear populations (Lee et al.

1994). A selective harvest quota based on a harvest ratio of two males

to one female can be 50 percent higher than an unselective one (GNWT).

Mating in bears is promiscuous and recruitment is primarily a function

of the number of adult females (Taylor et al. 1987).

When the sex-selective harvest model was presented at the 1993 PBSG

meeting, there were concerns raised. One was the difficulty of

accounting for compensation in the model if more females were taken.

Also, there was concern that if the population model was incorrect or

if ecological conditions changed substantially, there would be a delay

of many years before managers would realize that the predictions of the

model were incorrect. Some felt this delay was too high a risk for use

as a management tool (PBSG 1995). The NWT's DRR is aware of the

concerns and is currently conducting a comprehensive risk analysis to

consider all sources of uncertainty. It will be used to examine the

inventory rotation period and the current standards for precision in

the estimates of population size. In addition, they continue to monitor

information on number, sex, and age of most polar bears harvested. Any

over-harvest or significant change in the population due to natural

ecological reasons likely would be detected

to

consider all sources of uncertainty. It will be used to examine the

inventory rotation period and the current standards for precision in

the estimates of population size. In addition, they continue to monitor

information on number, sex, and age of most polar bears harvested. Any

over-harvest or significant change in the population due to natural

ecological reasons likely would be detected. In addition, local hunters

are familiar with the relative abundance of polar bears in their areas

and would notice significant increasing or decreasing trends in polar

bear numbers.

Since the population quota is based, in part, on the sex ratio of

the harvest, Local Management Agreements have been developed with the

intention to limit the female kill by prescribing a harvest sex ratio

of two males for each female. Some communities have the sex ratio as a

target and others have it as a regulation. For both situations, the

kill of female polar bears has exceeded the annual sustainable yield in

some communities in some years. The DRR is seeking resolution to this

problem including the development of conservation education materials

in an effort to reduce take of females due to misidentification of sex.

A booklet on how to distinguish between males and females was revised

to incorporate suggestions from hunters, and posters were produced to

encourage hunters to select for males. In addition, a revised one-tag

system referred to as the ``Flexible Quota Option'' has been developed

by the DRR, based on the number of female bears that can be taken

annually. This system requires adoption into regulation prior to

implementation (GNWT).

Little is known about density-dependent population regulation in

bears, including polar bears (Taylor et al. 1994). The current data are

insufficient to determine if the mechanism is mainly nutritional,

mainly social, or a combination of social and nutritional

the number of female bears that can be taken

annually. This system requires adoption into regulation prior to

implementation (GNWT).

Little is known about density-dependent population regulation in

bears, including polar bears (Taylor et al. 1994). The current data are

insufficient to determine if the mechanism is mainly nutritional,

mainly social, or a combination of social and nutritional. To study

density effects on polar bears would be a long term proposition and

very expensive due to the slow growth rates, high environmental

variability, and behavioral plasticity of the species. The NWT has

placed its emphasis on conservation rather than maximization of yield.

Their intention is to ensure the conservation of existing stocks with

good data and management before doing more experimental work. They

believe the need for information on density effects will increase as

populations slowly increase under the current management system. They

anticipate that their periodic inventory and subsequent management

changes will provide information on how polar bear populations respond

to various density levels over the long term (GNWT).

4. Quota

The recorded annual kill of polar bears in Canada tripled during

the 1960's. The size of the unrecorded harvest is unknown. In 1968 when

the NWT started to set quotas, the size of polar bear populations on

which to base sustainable quotas was largely unknown. Quotas were

introduced on an interim basis, based on previous harvest records for

each community. After the late 1970's, quotas were increased on the

basis of new scientific information for each population (Prestrud and

Stirling 1995). Quotas continue to undergo adjustments based on new

information.

Presently, the calculated sustainable harvest for each population

represents the population quota. Therefore, the quota allocated is

specific to each population. A quota allocated for one population

cannot be used in another population. Quotas are not carried over from

one year to the next

ulation (Prestrud and

Stirling 1995). Quotas continue to undergo adjustments based on new

information.

Presently, the calculated sustainable harvest for each population

represents the population quota. Therefore, the quota allocated is

specific to each population. A quota allocated for one population

cannot be used in another population. Quotas are not carried over from

one year to the next. Typically, the population quotas and a summary of

previous years' harvest data for each population is presented on an

annual basis to the PBTC. A summary of the population status for

Canadian polar bear populations incorporating harvest statistics is

provided in Table 3. The reliability and standard error of each

population estimate are expressed in qualitative (i.e., Good, Fair, or

Poor) rather than quantitative terms because of bias in the population

estimate as a result of sampling problems. The DRR expects that

quantitative terms will be used in future status reports as population

inventories are completed.

All human caused mortality is subtracted from the quota, including

polar bears killed in sport hunts, taken in defense of life or

property, or shot illegally, as well as accidental deaths from research

studies. Occasionally the quota is exceeded due to unexpected defense

kills, mistakes, or illegal kills. Typically an over-harvest is

deducted from the following year's quota as a correction. Any tags

identified for a sport hunt cannot be re-issued later if the hunter

does not harvest a polar bear. Every unused tag from a sport hunt

reduces the impact of the harvest on the affected polar bear

population. To date, sport hunting accounts for about 10 to 15 percent

of the annual quota, with about 80 to 90 percent of the quota tags

being used as a result of a successful hunt (GNWT).

Any tags

identified for a sport hunt cannot be re-issued later if the hunter

does not harvest a polar bear. Every unused tag from a sport hunt

reduces the impact of the harvest on the affected polar bear

population. To date, sport hunting accounts for about 10 to 15 percent

of the annual quota, with about 80 to 90 percent of the quota tags

being used as a result of a successful hunt (GNWT).

5. Status of Populations the Service Proposes to Approve

Southern Beaufort Sea (SB). The estimated population is 1,800 and

is considered to be conservative. Mark-recapture and studies of

movements using telemetry, conducted semi-continuously since the late

1960's in Alaska and the early 1970's in Canada, have determined the

boundaries of this population. The population data is rated as good.

Table 3 shows the status of the population as increasing based on the

5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the

64 bears taken in last year's harvest, 32.2 percent were females. The

population estimate is currently under review. Guiding of sport hunts

occurs on a limited basis in the Canadian portion of the population.

The number of sport hunts for the last two seasons was 6 and 1,

respectively (GNWT).

This population is shared between the jurisdictions of the United

States (Alaska) and Canada (NWT and Yukon Territory). In Alaska polar

bears are only taken for subsistence and handicraft purposes by Alaska

Natives. Harvest of bears on either side of the international border

affect the entire population. It should be noted that the Beaufort Sea

boundary remains an issue of dispute between the United States and

Canada, as noted in the results of the Ottawa Summit. The United States

views the Canadian jurisdiction to end at the equidistant line and no

bears should be taken west of that line. To date, no international

agreements between governments on the management of specific

populations of polar bears have been signed

Beaufort Sea

boundary remains an issue of dispute between the United States and

Canada, as noted in the results of the Ottawa Summit. The United States

views the Canadian jurisdiction to end at the equidistant line and no

bears should be taken west of that line. To date, no international

agreements between governments on the management of specific

populations of polar bears have been signed. However, in January 1988,

a management agreement for polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea was

signed by representatives of the Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) in the

Northwest Territories and the Fish and Game Management Committee of the

North Slope Borough (NSB) in Alaska (USFWS 1995). Although the

agreement is not legally binding on the Canadian or U.S. Government, it

is signed by both groups and continues to be successful overall

(Prestrud and Stirling 1995). The agreement is a precedent-setting

example of how Native groups can successfully manage traditional

harvest practices through self-regulation. The agreement has management

restrictions that are consistent with the International Agreement, and

that are in some part more stringent than the MMPA. The agreement,

among other things, calls for establishing harvest limits based on the

best available scientific evidence; prohibition on the use of large

vessels or aircraft for hunting polar bears; protection of all bears in

dens or constructing dens, pregnant females, cubs, and females with

cubs; a management system to regulate the number of polar bears

harvested and to ensure compliance with harvest limit allocations; a

reporting system to collect critical information from harvested polar

bear; and protection of important polar bear habitat.

The initial annual harvest quota for the Southern Beaufort Sea

population was set at 38 bears each in Canada and Alaska. The hunting

season in the NWT area is December 1 to May 31, timing limitations

which protect pregnant females prior to denning

t limit allocations; a

reporting system to collect critical information from harvested polar

bear; and protection of important polar bear habitat.

The initial annual harvest quota for the Southern Beaufort Sea

population was set at 38 bears each in Canada and Alaska. The hunting

season in the NWT area is December 1 to May 31, timing limitations

which protect pregnant females prior to denning. In Alaska the season

for harvest by Alaska Natives is September 1 to May 31, a timing that

does not contain the same protection. However, both Parties have agreed

that all bears in dens or constructing dens are protected and family

groups made up of females and cubs-of-the-year or yearlings are

protected. During the first harvest (1988/89) under the management

agreement take in Alaska exceeded the guidelines by 20, while the

harvest in Canada was below the allocation. However, the harvest during

the next three seasons were less than allocation guidelines in both

Alaska and Canada. It is believed that the reduced take by the second

harvest season was due to extensive efforts to distribute information

on the management agreement. In addition, there has been a general

trend in Alaska to harvest fewer family groups (USFWS 1995).

The population is also shared by the Yukon Territory where the

legal basis for regulating polar bears is the Wildlife Act, 1981.

Currently there are no residents of the Yukon harvesting polar bears as

the people all moved to the NWT. The Yukon wishes to retain its

management system in case the aboriginals return to the Yukon coast and

harvest polar bears. There is a total quota of six tags which is

currently on loan and included in the NWT's quota

e the

legal basis for regulating polar bears is the Wildlife Act, 1981.

Currently there are no residents of the Yukon harvesting polar bears as

the people all moved to the NWT. The Yukon wishes to retain its

management system in case the aboriginals return to the Yukon coast and

harvest polar bears. There is a total quota of six tags which is

currently on loan and included in the NWT's quota.

The Service proposes to approve the Southern Beaufort Sea

population with the provisions that: (1) No bears be taken by sport

hunting west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea; (2) the

management agreement for polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea

between the IGC and NSB remains in effect; and (3) the Yukon Territory

quota remains with the NWT or a joint management agreement is in place

with scientifically sound quotas.

Northern Beaufort Sea (NB). The population estimate of 1,200 polar

bears is believed to be unbiased and may be conservative. Mark-

recapture and studies of movements using telemetry have been conducted

at intervals since the early 1970's. Boundaries of the population have

been determined using telemetry and recovery of tagged bears. An

ongoing study is examining the possibility that this population extends

further north than the data previously indicated. The population data

is rated as good. Table 3 shows the status of the population as

increasing based on the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the

1993/94 harvest. Of the 16 bears taken in last year's harvest, 50

percent were females. Guiding of sport hunters occurs on a limited

basis. Only 2 to 3 sport hunts occurred in the last two years.

Viscount Melville Sound (VM). The population estimate of 230 polar

bears is believed to be unbiased. A 5-year mark-recapture and telemetry

study of movements and population size was completed in 1992.

Boundaries of the population were based on observed movements of female

polar bears

. Guiding of sport hunters occurs on a limited

basis. Only 2 to 3 sport hunts occurred in the last two years.

Viscount Melville Sound (VM). The population estimate of 230 polar

bears is believed to be unbiased. A 5-year mark-recapture and telemetry

study of movements and population size was completed in 1992.

Boundaries of the population were based on observed movements of female

polar bears. In the mid-1970's when the original quotas were allocated,

this population was thought to be large and productive. This area,

however, has poor seal habitat and the productivity of polar bears was

lower than expected. Harvesting polar bears at the initial quota levels

caused the number of bears in the population to drop, especially males.

Recent research has shown this population to have an annual recruitment

rate less than previously believed. Residents of this area have agreed

to a moratorium on polar bear hunting in this population until the year

2000. The placement of this moratorium on hunting is an example of how

Canada is effectively administering its polar bear program based on

current scientific information. It is anticipated that when the data

shows that harvest activities can resume, there will be an annual quota

of 4 males.

Gulf of Boothia (GB). Currently this population is estimated at 900

animals. A population estimate of 333 polar bears was derived from a

limited research program of mark and recapture restricted to the

western coastal areas. It was increased to 900 based on the information

from local Inuit hunters and an estimate of bears in the central and

eastern portions of the area that had not been sampled, but was

collaborated by studies in the adjoining populations. Although the 900

animal estimate has no statistical level of precision, managers believe

it to be more accurate than the previous estimate. The population data

are limited and rated as poor. The boundaries are supported by studies

conducted in adjacent areas

n the central and

eastern portions of the area that had not been sampled, but was

collaborated by studies in the adjoining populations. Although the 900

animal estimate has no statistical level of precision, managers believe

it to be more accurate than the previous estimate. The population data

are limited and rated as poor. The boundaries are supported by studies

conducted in adjacent areas. The status of the population was stable at

the 3-year average harvests and the

1993/94 harvest. Of the 36 bears taken in last year's harvest, 40

percent were females (Table 3). More comprehensive research is planned

for this population within the next 5 years, including reassessment of

the size of the population. The number of sport hunts guided for the

last two seasons was 10 and 5, respectively.

M'Clintock Channel (MC). A 6-year mark-capture population study was

conducted in the mid-1970's. The population was estimated to be 900

polar bears. Local hunters advised that 700 might be a more accurate

estimate. Under a Local Management Agreement between Inuit communities

that share this population, the harvest quota for this area has been

revised to levels expected to achieve slow growth based on the more

conservative population estimate of 700 polar bears. The boundaries are

supported by recoveries of tagged bears and movements documented by

telemetry in adjacent areas. Table 3 shows the status of the population

as increasing based on the 3-year average and the 1993/94 harvest. Of

the 24 bears taken in last year's harvest, 33 percent were females.

Western Hudson Bay (WH). The population estimate of 1,200 is

believed to be conservative as a portion of the southern range has not

been included in the mark-recapture program. Research programs on the

distribution and abundance of the population have been conducted since

the late 1960's, with 80 percent of the adult population marked. Mark-

recapture studies and return of tags from bears killed by Inuit hunters

have provided extensive records

1,200 is

believed to be conservative as a portion of the southern range has not

been included in the mark-recapture program. Research programs on the

distribution and abundance of the population have been conducted since

the late 1960's, with 80 percent of the adult population marked. Mark-

recapture studies and return of tags from bears killed by Inuit hunters

have provided extensive records. The population data is rated as good.

Table 3 shows the status of the population as increasing based on the

5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the

32 bears taken in last year's harvest, 40.6 percent were females.

During the open-water season, this population appears to be

geographically segregated, although it is intermixed with the eastern

Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin populations during the ice covered months.

The Western Hudson Bay population is shared with Manitoba, where

polar bears are listed as a protected species under the Wildlife Act of

1991. There is no open hunting season and polar bears cannot legally be

hunted at any time of the year by anyone. To hunt polar bears,

including hunting by Treaty Indians, would require a permit from the

Minister and no such permits are currently being issued. Under the

terms of a Local Management Agreement, Manitoba is allocated a quota of

27 tags out of 55 for the Western Hudson Bay population. Eight tags are

held in reserve by Manitoba for the control program and accidental

deaths associated with the research program. The remaining 19 are

currently on loan and included in the NWT total quota (GNWT). This does

not mean that there is a total ban on hunting polar bears in the

future

t Agreement, Manitoba is allocated a quota of

27 tags out of 55 for the Western Hudson Bay population. Eight tags are

held in reserve by Manitoba for the control program and accidental

deaths associated with the research program. The remaining 19 are

currently on loan and included in the NWT total quota (GNWT). This does

not mean that there is a total ban on hunting polar bears in the

future. The Minister can authorize the taking of bear for any purpose

``not contrary to public interest.'' The current policy is that no

person will be granted a permit to hunt polar bear until it is

established there is a harvestable surplus over conservation needs of

the population that takes into account political and scientific

concerns (Calvert et al. 1995).

The Service proposes to approve this population with the provision

that a management agreement between the NWT and Manitoba is in effect

with scientifically sound quotas to ensure the total harvest in this

population is sustainable.

6. Status of Shared Populations the Service Proposes Not To Approve

All of the following populations are shared with either Greenland

or another Canadian province or both, and do not have formal agreements

as to how the portion of the population outside the NWT will be

managed. Management agreements drafted in 1994 for the Davis Strait,

Foxe Basin, and Southern Hudson Bay populations attributed to NWT

communities the existing, unchanged harvest levels and documented for

Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Greenland the current

known annual harvest. Following completion of comprehensive population

studies, including both scientific and traditional knowledge, the

sustainable harvest of each population will be estimated and allocated

fairly between all user groups through joint negotiations. These joint

management negotiations are ongoing. The next PBTC meeting will be in

Quebec partly to facilitate joint management discussions

al harvest. Following completion of comprehensive population

studies, including both scientific and traditional knowledge, the

sustainable harvest of each population will be estimated and allocated

fairly between all user groups through joint negotiations. These joint

management negotiations are ongoing. The next PBTC meeting will be in

Quebec partly to facilitate joint management discussions. Canada and

Greenland are currently conducting joint research to confirm shared

population boundaries and population estimates. Once this joint

research report is completed, the two countries have agreed to move

ahead with negotiations on developing joint management agreements

(GNWT).

Queen Elizabeth Island (QE). The population is estimated at 200.

Current information is that there are few polar bears in this remote

area. The reliability of the data is poor. A likely scenario is that

this area will eventually be managed as a sanctuary for polar bears.

The status of the population was stable at the 5-year and 3-year

average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 11 bears taken in

last year's harvest, 29.3 percent were females. Only one sport hunt

occurred during each of the past two seasons. A Local Management

Agreement has not been finalized for this population. In addition, this

population is shared with Greenland although the movement of polar

bears between the NWT and Greenland is thought to be small in this

population (see Parry Channel/Baffin Bay below).

Parry Channel (PC) and Baffin Bay (BB). This area is being

considered as a unit as it is unclear what fraction of the Greenland

harvest was from either Parry Channel or Baffin Bay populations.

Information on the amount of exchange between these populations in

Canada and Greenland is important for management since polar bears are

harvested by communities in both countries. The current population

estimate of 2,470 polar bears is considered preliminary and

conservative

nit as it is unclear what fraction of the Greenland

harvest was from either Parry Channel or Baffin Bay populations.

Information on the amount of exchange between these populations in

Canada and Greenland is important for management since polar bears are

harvested by communities in both countries. The current population

estimate of 2,470 polar bears is considered preliminary and

conservative. It was obtained by pooling the previous estimates for

Lancaster Sound (1,657, increased to 2,000, based on sampling bias in

the original studies that could have resulted in an underestimate of

the population) and NE Baffin (470) populations with the assumption

that a distinct population for west Greenland would not be found. The

population data is rated as fair. The status of the population as shown

in Table 3 is decreasing for the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests

and the 1993/94 harvest. Last season's harvest was 200 bears (31.9

percent females). Most sport hunting has occurred in Parry Channel, 28

in 1993/94 harvest season and 24 in 1992/93. Limited guided sport hunts

of 5 and 3 occurred in Baffin Bay during the same seasons (GNWT).

According to Born (1995) there is little information available on

the take of polar bears in Greenland. There is no quota for harvest of

polar bears in Greenland. Regulations prohibit the use of vehicles for

the hunt and stipulate that hunters must be citizens of Greenland and

hunt or fish full time. As of January 1, 1993, Greenland residents are

required to obtain special permits to hunt polar bear. The reporting of

take is voluntary, and the system of reporting has not worked reliably

for many years. Greenland needs to obtain information on the number and

sex ratio of bears taken in all areas and number of animals in the

populations to establish a sustainable harvest level of polar bears.

There is an ongoing Canadian-Greenland joint study to obtain data to

delineate the range and number of bears in the shared populations

and the system of reporting has not worked reliably

for many years. Greenland needs to obtain information on the number and

sex ratio of bears taken in all areas and number of animals in the

populations to establish a sustainable harvest level of polar bears.

There is an ongoing Canadian-Greenland joint study to obtain data to

delineate the range and number of bears in the shared populations. A

summary of results of a polar bear survey suggests a harvest of 40 to

60 bears each year in

West Greenland, from the population shared with Canada (PBSG 1995).

Recent satellite telemetry data indicates four populations: a western

population, Baffin Bay, Jones Sound-Norwegian Bay, and Kane Basin. The

final analysis and determination of population status will occur in the

summer of 1995 after the collection of the last movement data. A re-

inventory of population numbers is ongoing. Data collection should be

finalized in Baffin Bay by the Fall of 1995 and in Parry Channel by

1997. Canada is not recommending any management action until the study

is completed.

Foxe Basin (FB). An 8-year mark-recapture and telemetry study of

movements and population size was concluded in 1992. The population

estimate of 2,020 is believed to be accurate as the marking effort

included the entire area. Polar bears were concentrated on the

Southampton Island and Wager Bay areas during the ice-free season, but

significant numbers of bears were found throughout the other islands

and coastal areas. Because the previous harvest quotas are believed to

have reduced the population from about 3,000 in the early 1970's to

about 2,000 in 1991, the harvest quota is being incrementally reduced

to levels that will permit recovery of this population. The reduction

process is described in the NWT Local Management Agreements between the

Inuit communities that share these polar bears. The population data are

rated as good

rvest quotas are believed to

have reduced the population from about 3,000 in the early 1970's to

about 2,000 in 1991, the harvest quota is being incrementally reduced

to levels that will permit recovery of this population. The reduction

process is described in the NWT Local Management Agreements between the

Inuit communities that share these polar bears. The population data are

rated as good. The status of the population (Table 3) is shown as

decreasing for the 5-year and 3-year average of harvests and the 1993/

94 harvest. Of the 100 bears taken in last year's harvest, 48.5 percent

were females.

The population is shared with Quebec where the legal bases for

regulating polar bear are the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act,

1983; the Order in Council 1 3234, 1971; and the James Bay

International Agreement, 1978 (GNWT). Inuit and Indians are allowed to

hunt polar bears from three different populations, based on the

``guaranteed harvest'' levels determined for the James Bay Agreement,

as long as the principle of conservation is respected (PBSG 1995). The

guaranteed harvest levels are determined between the user groups and

the Government of Quebec based on harvest records between 1976 and

1980. The levels are set without knowledge of the size of the polar

bear population and without consultation with other user groups that

hunt polar bears from the three shared populations. (In fact, The Inuit

from Quebec have declined to participate in a management agreement with

the NWT as there is some confusion how a co-management agreement would

mesh with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.) The harvest

levels set are 22, 31, and 9 for populations shared in Southern Hudson

Bay, Davis Strait, and Foxe Basin, respectively. The Inuit have agreed

with the harvest levels, while negotiations are occurring with the

Crees. If the ``guaranteed harvest'' is exceeded, which is uncommon,

there is no penalty

o-management agreement would

mesh with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.) The harvest

levels set are 22, 31, and 9 for populations shared in Southern Hudson

Bay, Davis Strait, and Foxe Basin, respectively. The Inuit have agreed

with the harvest levels, while negotiations are occurring with the

Crees. If the ``guaranteed harvest'' is exceeded, which is uncommon,

there is no penalty. The number and sex of polar bears in the harvest

are monitored, with age determined on many of them. There has been,

however, some concern expressed over the inconsistencies in harvest

data. Quebec does not have legislation to protect female polar bears

with cubs and bears in dens (GNWT), but the Inuit hunters and trappers

in Northern Quebec have agreed to protect them (PBSG 1988).

Davis Strait (DS). The population estimate is 1,400, and is based

on field work conducted during the spring from 1976 through 1979.

Traditional knowledge observations suggest that the population may have

increased since 1979: (a) Hunters from Pangnirtung have reported larger

numbers of bears in recent years and in 1994 took their entire quota in

less than 2 days; (b) hunters from the Labrador Inuit Association have

reported seeing an increased number of bears in the last several years;

(c) hunters from Iqaluit report they have harvested the highest

proportion of males of any settlement in the NWT due to high densities

of bears encountered; and (d) hunters from Lake Harbour report a higher

rate of encounters with polar bears in recent years. Observations made

by biologists support the traditional knowledge reported by hunters:

ased number of bears in the last several years;

(c) hunters from Iqaluit report they have harvested the highest

proportion of males of any settlement in the NWT due to high densities

of bears encountered; and (d) hunters from Lake Harbour report a higher

rate of encounters with polar bears in recent years. Observations made

by biologists support the traditional knowledge reported by hunters:

(a) during surveys conducted in the fall of 1992 and 1993, high

densities of bears were found on the Cumberland Peninsula, Baffin

Island; (b) the number of bears captured per hour of search time during

1991-94 on the Labrador coast almost doubled from 1976-79; (c) during

the above surveys conducted in the 1990's, a large proportion of old

adult males were seen (such sightings would not occur in an over-

harvested population where the harvest was selective for males); and

(d) satellite tracking data from 1991-94 indicate that a large

proportion of the population is offshore in the pack ice during the

spring and would not have been included in the capture and tagging as

part of the 1980 population estimate. Population modeling indicates

that the population would need to be at least 1,400 to sustain the

present annual kill of 58 polar bear. The 1995 PBTC supported the

revision of the population estimate to 1,400. Further work will be

required to resolve the status of polar bears in this population. A

joint resolution was signed by Quebec and NWT supporting a co-operative

inventory of this population as a high priority. (Newfoundland and

Labrador could not attend the meeting where that resolution was

developed, but is supportive.) The population data is rated as fair.

The status of the population (Table 3) is shown as stable for 3-year

average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 58 bears in last

year's harvest, 40.6 percent were females.

The Davis Strait population is shared with Quebec, Newfoundland and

Labrador, and Greenland. For a discussion of Quebec, see Foxe Basin

above

s

developed, but is supportive.) The population data is rated as fair.

The status of the population (Table 3) is shown as stable for 3-year

average of harvests and the 1993/94 harvest. Of the 58 bears in last

year's harvest, 40.6 percent were females.

The Davis Strait population is shared with Quebec, Newfoundland and

Labrador, and Greenland. For a discussion of Quebec, see Foxe Basin

above. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the legal basis for regulating

polar bears is the Wildlife Act, 1970. The current hunting season is

limited to residents of the Torngat Electoral District on the northern

Labrador coast, with no distinction made between natives and non-

natives. To maintain consistency with the International Agreement, tags

are issued through the Labrador Inuit Association, with unused tags

being accounted for. Land claim negotiations that may affect how polar

bears are managed in Newfoundland and Labrador are currently underway.

In typical years Greenland harvests no polar bears from the Davis

Strait population. In some years, however, ice is blown onto southern

Greenland and, on the average, two bears are taken in Greenland. For

additional discussion on Greenland's program, see Parry Channel/Baffin

Bay above.

Southern Hudson Bay (SH). The population estimate of 1,000 is

considered conservative. It is based on a 3-year study mainly along the

Ontario coastline of movements and population size using telemetry and

mark-recapture. Since a portion of the eastern and western coastal

areas was not included in the study area, the calculated estimate of

763 bears was increased to 1,000. In addition, inshore areas were

under-sampled because of difficulties in locating polar bears in the

inland boreal forest. The study confirmed the population boundary along

the Ontario coast during the ice-free season but showed the intermixing

with the western Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin populations during the

months when the bay is frozen over. The population data is rated as

fair

to 1,000. In addition, inshore areas were

under-sampled because of difficulties in locating polar bears in the

inland boreal forest. The study confirmed the population boundary along

the Ontario coast during the ice-free season but showed the intermixing

with the western Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin populations during the

months when the bay is frozen over. The population data is rated as

fair. Table 3 shows the status of the population as decreasing for the

5-year and 3-year average harvests, but as stable for the 1993/94

harvest. Of the 45 bears taken

in last year's harvest, 33.3 percent were females.

This population is shared with Quebec (see discussion under Foxe

Basin), the NWT, and Ontario. In Ontario, polar bears are protected

under the Game and Fish Act, 1980. Treaty Indians are allowed to hunt

polar bears with an annual permissible kill of 30 animals (GNWT).

Ontario has supported the adoption of guidelines for dividing the quota

for polar bear populations shared with the NWT and Quebec, but there is

no joint management agreement. There are no officers located in the

villages where polar bears are hunted. At the 1994 PBTC meeting, it was

reported that fewer kills are being reported by hunters, resulting in

incomplete data. If the quota is exceeded, which is uncommon, hunters

are encouraged to count the excess polar bears against the next year

quota. Bears in dens and females with cubs are not specifically

protected, but the take of such animals is believed to be rare.

7. Scientific Review

The language of the MMPA Amendments requires that a scientific

review of the impact of permits issued on the polar bear population

stocks be undertaken periodically. The Service published a proposed

rule in the Federal Register (60 FR 70) on January 3, 1995, that

discussed the scientific review process and proposed permit procedures

of such animals is believed to be rare.

7. Scientific Review

The language of the MMPA Amendments requires that a scientific

review of the impact of permits issued on the polar bear population

stocks be undertaken periodically. The Service published a proposed

rule in the Federal Register (60 FR 70) on January 3, 1995, that

discussed the scientific review process and proposed permit procedures.

The first scientific review of the impact of permits issued on the

polar bear population stocks is to be undertaken within 2 years after

enactment, that is by April 30, 1996. This review is to provide an

opportunity for public comment and the final report will include a

response to such public comment. The Director will not issue permits to

allow for the import of polar bears taken in Canada after September 30,

1996, if the Service determines that the issuance of permits is having

a significant adverse impact on the polar bear population stocks in

Canada. The Director may conduct an annual review of this

determination. The review provides for the monitoring of the effects of

permit issuance on Canada's polar bear population stocks and a means to

guarantee the cessation of imports should there be an indication of an

adverse impact on the sustainability of the Canadian population stocks.

These reviews are to be based on the best scientific information

available. If the Director does undertake a review, the Act requires

that the review be completed by January 31 of the year in which the

review was undertaken. The Director may not, however, refuse to issue

permits solely on the basis that the review has not been completed by

January 31.

D. CITES and Other International Agreements and Conventions

o be based on the best scientific information

available. If the Director does undertake a review, the Act requires

that the review be completed by January 31 of the year in which the

review was undertaken. The Director may not, however, refuse to issue

permits solely on the basis that the review has not been completed by

January 31.

D. CITES and Other International Agreements and Conventions

1. Proposed Finding

The MMPA requires that the Service find that the export from Canada

and subsequent import into the United States are consistent with CITES

and other international agreements and conventions. Based on the

discussion below, the Service proposes to find that the provision of

CITES will be met for the export and import of polar bear trophies

taken in Canada. The International Agreement was discussed previously.

At this time, the Service is not aware of any other agreements or

conventions that need to be considered.

2. CITES

CITES is a treaty established to protect species impacted by

international trade. Canada and the United States, along with 126 other

countries, are Parties to CITES. The polar bear has been protected

under Appendix II of CITES since 1975. Appendix II includes ``species

which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may

become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to

strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their

survival'' (Article II of CITES). A CITES export permit must accompany

each shipment from the country of origin. The export permit for dead

specimens can be issued for any purpose as long as the scientific

authority of the country of export determines that the shipment will

not be detrimental to the survival of the species and the management

authority of that country determines that the specimen was obtained

legally

CITES). A CITES export permit must accompany

each shipment from the country of origin. The export permit for dead

specimens can be issued for any purpose as long as the scientific

authority of the country of export determines that the shipment will

not be detrimental to the survival of the species and the management

authority of that country determines that the specimen was obtained

legally.

For the export of polar bear from Canada, control of the polar bear

harvest is demonstrated by quotas enforced by legislation and co-

management agreements, and by development of a management plan. In the

NWT, only the DRR Headquarters in Yellowknife and its Regional Offices

can issue CITES permits for polar bears and polar bear products. A

CITES permit for a polar bear product originating in the NWT may be

issued from another Canadian province or territory only if the product

was exported from the NWT with a Northwest Territories Wildlife Export

Permit. This permit must be validated by Customs Canada upon export.

For import into the United States, all wildlife and wildlife

products requiring a permit under CITES and the MMPA must meet

inspection and clearance requirements as outlined in regulation (50 CFR

Part 14), including entry through one of the ports designated for

wildlife import and completion of a Wildlife Declaration Form (3-177).

E. Illegal Trade in Bear Parts

1. Proposed Finding

The Service proposes to find that the export and subsequent import

of sport-hunted polar bear trophies to the United States would not be

likely to contribute to the illegal trade in bear parts if the

conditions proposed are adopted. The Service notes that this finding

covers the illegal trade in parts of all species of bears. To ensure

that the gall bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not

enter into trade, the Service proposes to condition any import permit

that the permittee certify that the gall bladder was destroyed

y to contribute to the illegal trade in bear parts if the

conditions proposed are adopted. The Service notes that this finding

covers the illegal trade in parts of all species of bears. To ensure

that the gall bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not

enter into trade, the Service proposes to condition any import permit

that the permittee certify that the gall bladder was destroyed. To

ensure that all polar bears that enter the United States can be

identified as legally taken sport-hunted trophies and do not contribute

to the illegal trade in polar bear parts, the Service proposes that the

permittee make an appointment at least 72 hours prior to import with

Service personnel at a designated port for wildlife to have a permanent

tag affixed to the trophy upon import.

2. Trade in Gall Bladders

There is a diversity of opinion on trade in polar bear gall

bladders. Resolution 5 of the 1993 PBSG meeting recommended that each

party consider restricting the traffic in polar bear gall bladders.

This was done in recognition that worldwide trade in bear parts,

particularly gall bladders, threatens the survival of several species

of bear, and that the legal availability of gall bladders of any

species of bear makes it impossible to control the illegal trade,

encouraging further illegal take of all species of bears, including

polar bear (PBSG 1995). Canada's PBTC endorsed the resolution which

allows each party to make its own decision. The PBTC recommended the

PBAC discuss the issue and consider recommending a ban on trade of gall

bladders from all bear species. Although legally harvested bear gall

bladders can be sold in the NWT, the GNWT is currently reviewing the

practice. Between 1992 and 1994, NWT Export Permits were issued for 61

polar bear gall bladders.

The Service is unaware of any published source that documents a

demand for polar bear gall bladders, but there are several anecdotal

episodes that suggest they are not in commercial demand. Dr

lthough legally harvested bear gall

bladders can be sold in the NWT, the GNWT is currently reviewing the

practice. Between 1992 and 1994, NWT Export Permits were issued for 61

polar bear gall bladders.

The Service is unaware of any published source that documents a

demand for polar bear gall bladders, but there are several anecdotal

episodes that suggest they are not in commercial demand. Dr. Derek

Melton, Director, Wildlife Management, DRR, NWT, wrote the Service that

Judy Mills, co-

author of the World Wildlife Fund report on The Asian Trade in Bear

Parts, verbally told him ``that gall bladders from polar bears were

regarded as less desirable than those of terrestrial species, possibly

because of the taste associated with their marine diet.'' Dr. Ed

Espinoza, Chief of the Criminalistics Section of the National Fish and

Wildlife Forensic Lab related that examination of polar bear gall

bladders at the Lab revealed that polar bear gall bladders smell fishy,

probably due to the high content of marine fatty acids and oils. He

remembered Inuits from Kotzebue, Alaska, telling him that they are not

able to get financial compensation for polar bear gall bladders because

``they smell bad''. He also remembered a Canadian Wildlife Conservation

Officer in Whitehorse telling him there were no interested Asian

parties for the polar bear gall bladders because of the odor these

galls had. On the other hand, in 1992, the first case of illegal sale

of polar bear gall bladders was documented by U.S. law enforcement

agents in Alaska (Schliebe et al. 1995). To ensure that the gall

bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not enter into trade,

the Service proposes to condition any U.S. import permits for polar

bears if this proposed rule is adopted. The condition would require the

permittee to certify that the gall bladder, including its contents,

from the polar bear proposed for import was destroyed.

3

s in Alaska (Schliebe et al. 1995). To ensure that the gall

bladders of polar bears taken by U.S. hunters do not enter into trade,

the Service proposes to condition any U.S. import permits for polar

bears if this proposed rule is adopted. The condition would require the

permittee to certify that the gall bladder, including its contents,

from the polar bear proposed for import was destroyed.

3. Trade in Hides

It was reported at the 1993 PBSG meeting that the fur market is

currently glutted, resulting in low prices for pelts on the open

market. The trade in polar bear hides is fairly flat, and the market in

the United States is closed because of the MMPA. According to the

Service's Division of Law Enforcement, an undercover operation in

Alaska during 1991 and 1992 showed that a black market for polar bear

hides existed in Alaska. Greenland assists in marketing polar bear

pelts for local communities. In 1992 a total of 60 hides were purchased

by the tannery. Thirty of these went to Denmark (PBSG 1995).

4. Canada

There is some illegal trade in bear parts in Canada, but the extent

is unknown. There are documented cases in the provinces, especially

British Columbia. While trade in bear parts is now prohibited in

British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba, it

is still legal to sell bear parts in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and

the NWT. There may be some trade in bear parts from a province that

does not allow trade by routing them through the provinces that still

allow trade. There have been some questionable kills and some illegal

kills of black bear to gain parts in the NWT. However, the trade in

polar bear parts is not thought to be involved in any significant

degree. GNWT wildlife officials have stated that distance and cost make

polar bears inaccessible to southern poachers. Residents of the NWT

consider the polar bear of cultural importance and worth more than just

the economic value of its parts

and some illegal

kills of black bear to gain parts in the NWT. However, the trade in

polar bear parts is not thought to be involved in any significant

degree. GNWT wildlife officials have stated that distance and cost make

polar bears inaccessible to southern poachers. Residents of the NWT

consider the polar bear of cultural importance and worth more than just

the economic value of its parts. Canada does not anticipate an increase

in illegal activity or in the number of polar bears illegally killed as

a result of allowing the export of sport-hunted trophies by U.S.

citizens (GNWT).

5. Alaska

The MMPA prohibits, with limited exceptions, the harvest and trade

of polar bears and polar bear parts in the United States. It restricts

the take of polar bears to any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides in

Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the

Arctic Ocean provided such taking is not accomplished in a wasteful

manner and is for subsistence purposes or is done for purposes of

creating and selling authentic native articles of handicrafts and

clothing.

All polar bear hides and skulls taken as part of the Native

subsistence harvest must be tagged within 30 days of harvesting the

polar bear. These tags are provided by the Service, are numbered for

accountability and of such a design, construction, and material so as

to maximize their longevity and durability on the specified parts.

Polar bear parts may only be tagged by Service personnel or authorized

Service representatives (e.g., Native residents of the community). The

skin and skull of an animal must accompany each other when presented

for tagging. Tags are attached or applied to the skins and skulls in

such a manner as to maximize their longevity and minimize adverse

effect to the appearance of the specified parts which might result due

to hindering the tanning or handicrafting of skins, or the

handicrafting of skulls

ive residents of the community). The

skin and skull of an animal must accompany each other when presented

for tagging. Tags are attached or applied to the skins and skulls in

such a manner as to maximize their longevity and minimize adverse

effect to the appearance of the specified parts which might result due

to hindering the tanning or handicrafting of skins, or the

handicrafting of skulls. Tags must remain affixed to the skin through

the tanning process and until the skin has been severed into parts for

crafting into handicrafts or for as long as practical during the

handicrafting process. If the tag does come off of the specified part

the person in possession of the part has 30 days to present the part

and broken tag to the Service or the Service's local representative for

retagging.

6. Proposed Tagging Requirement

As previously described, the NWT tag applied to a polar bear hide

is removed either at the time of tanning or upon export. Therefore,

once imported, hides (raw and tanned), rugs, and mounts of Canadian

sport-hunted polar bears are not distinguishable from untagged Alaskan

polar bear hides which may have been illegally acquired or transported.

In addition, there may be some polar bear hides and mounts taken in

Canada and illegally imported into the United States prior to the

Amendments.

To ensure that all polar bears that enter the United States can be

identified as legally taken sport-hunted trophies and not contribute to

the illegal trade in polar bear parts, the Service proposes that they

be marked with a one-time tag that is to remain on the trophy

indefinitely. The tag would be similar in design to tags used for

Alaskan polar bears taken in the Native subsistence harvest. The

Service is currently working with the Canadian Wildlife Service and the

Government of the NWT on the feasibility of permanently tagging the

hide of all sport-hunted polar bear in Canada at the time of harvest

ked with a one-time tag that is to remain on the trophy

indefinitely. The tag would be similar in design to tags used for

Alaskan polar bears taken in the Native subsistence harvest. The

Service is currently working with the Canadian Wildlife Service and the

Government of the NWT on the feasibility of permanently tagging the

hide of all sport-hunted polar bear in Canada at the time of harvest.

Developing such a cooperative program might include developing a tag

which could withstand the cold climate of the NWT, the tanning process,

and the taxidermy process; be unobtrusive on a polar bear mount or rug;

and be visible for inspection, if necessary. The Service anticipates

that the development and implementation of this program could take from

6 months to 2 years.

Until a procedure for permanently tagging sport-hunted polar bear

hides at the time of harvest has been adopted, the Service proposes

that a permanent tag be affixed to all sport-hunted polar bear trophies

including raw (untanned) hides, tanned hides, and prepared rugs and

mounts, upon import into the United States and that the skull of the

polar bear, if separate from the remainder of the trophy, be

permanently marked with the tag number of the accompanying polar bear

hide. To ensure that all polar bear parts are permanently marked or

tagged, the Service proposes that all sport-hunted polar bears must be

imported through a Fish and Wildlife Service designated port during

normal business hours with at least a 72-hour prior notice.

The Service has experience with tagging programs for polar bear,

walrus, and sea otter taken in the Native subsistence harvest in Alaska

and for CITES regulated fur-bearing species, including brown bear,

bobcat, river otter, and lynx. Based on this

ar bears must be

imported through a Fish and Wildlife Service designated port during

normal business hours with at least a 72-hour prior notice.

The Service has experience with tagging programs for polar bear,

walrus, and sea otter taken in the Native subsistence harvest in Alaska

and for CITES regulated fur-bearing species, including brown bear,

bobcat, river otter, and lynx. Based on this

experience and discussions with professional taxidermists and tanners,

the Service has learned that plastic tags are more durable than metal

tags, less likely to break or rip from the hides, and less likely to

damage tanning equipment. The Service considered the following factors

when looking at tagging requirements: the condition of the trophy upon

import (i.e., untanned hide, tanned hide, finished rug or mount), the

recommendations of professional taxidermists and tanners, the ability

to examine the identification marks on the tag, the ability to replace

a lost tag, and the extent to which the tag would be obtrusive to the

overall appearance of the trophy.

Based on these considerations, the Service proposes that a plastic

tag be placed like a bracelet around the ankle area of either the fore

or hind legs of a mounted polar bear trophy. The same type of tag would

be used for a raw or tanned hide or finished rug. In these cases, the

Service proposes that the tag be affixed to the hide in the belly or

flank area of the bear where it will be least disruptive to the

taxidermy process and more likely to be concealed by the longer hair in

these areas. To reduce the chances of a tag being snagged and ripped

out or broken during the tanning process, and to reduce the

obtrusiveness of the tag, the Service proposes that Service personnel

would loop the tag upon itself prior to affixing it to a raw or tanned

hide or a finished rug. Service personnel in Alaska have used this

procedure when tagging sea otter pelts and have not had difficulty

reading the tag

e chances of a tag being snagged and ripped

out or broken during the tanning process, and to reduce the

obtrusiveness of the tag, the Service proposes that Service personnel

would loop the tag upon itself prior to affixing it to a raw or tanned

hide or a finished rug. Service personnel in Alaska have used this

procedure when tagging sea otter pelts and have not had difficulty

reading the tag. Provisions are also proposed to retag polar bear hides

or mounts if tags are broken during tanning or lost.

Proposed Findings for Bears Taken Prior to the 1994 Amendments

Section 104(c)(5)(A) includes polar bears taken, but not imported,

prior to the 1994 Amendments. The Service proposes that a permit for

import of trophies taken in the NWT between December 21, 1972, through

the effective date of any final rule may be issued when the applicant

has demonstrated that the polar bear was legally taken and was not

pregnant or nursing at the time of take. Such trophies would be subject

upon import to the same marking and tagging requirements as sport-

hunted polar bears taken in Canada after the effective date of any

final rule.

The Service proposes to issue a blanket finding covering the NWT

historic sport-hunting program for each year starting in late 1972 to

the present for the following reasons: (1) Canada is a signatory to the

1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears which

came into effect on May 26, 1976; (2) the hunting of polar bears in

Canada has been restricted to Native people since 1949; (3) polar bears

have been managed in the NWT under a quota since 1968; (4) the NWT has

maintained a data collection and monitoring program on the polar bear

harvest in its territory since the 1976/77 harvest season; (5) the NWT,

DRR, has demonstrated a progressive management program for polar bear

which includes scientific research and traditional knowledge; and (6)

the 1994 Amendments do not require the evaluation of Canada's past

polar bear management history

(4) the NWT has

maintained a data collection and monitoring program on the polar bear

harvest in its territory since the 1976/77 harvest season; (5) the NWT,

DRR, has demonstrated a progressive management program for polar bear

which includes scientific research and traditional knowledge; and (6)

the 1994 Amendments do not require the evaluation of Canada's past

polar bear management history.

It should be noted that proof the polar bear was legally harvested

in Canada by the applicant or by a decedent from whom the applicant

inherited the trophy may be more problematic for polar bears taken

between late 1972 to 1976 since records maintained by DRR start from

the mid 1970's. The Service proposes that an applicant provide the

following to show proof of legal harvest for a polar bear taken prior

to the effective date of the final rule if adopted: certification from

the Government of the NWT that the bear was legally harvested and

tagged during the specified harvest season and by the hunter of record.

Whatever option is adopted for determining whether the specimens were

pregnant or nursing at the time of taking, as discussed above, would

also apply to these bears.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service is currently deliberating on the comments received on

its earlier proposed rule and will respond to all comments to its

proposals in the final rule. The Service invites comments on these new

proposals. The Service will take into consideration the comments and

any additional information received in making a decision on this

proposal, and such consideration may lead to final findings and

regulation that differ from this proposal.

Required Determinations

lier proposed rule and will respond to all comments to its

proposals in the final rule. The Service invites comments on these new

proposals. The Service will take into consideration the comments and

any additional information received in making a decision on this

proposal, and such consideration may lead to final findings and

regulation that differ from this proposal.

Required Determinations

The Service has prepared a draft environmental assessment on the

proposed rule, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). A determination will be made at the time of the final decision

as to whether the proposed rule is a major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

This proposed rule was not subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. The Department

of the Interior (Department) has determined that this proposed rule

will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of

small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq.). The proposal will affect only those in the United States who

have hunted, or intend to hunt, polar bear in Canada. This action is

not expected to have significant taking implications, per Executive

Order 12630.

The information collection requirement contained in this section

has been approved by OMB as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned clearance number 1018-0022. There

will be no additional information collection requirements for tagging

polar bears if the condition is adopted. Since the proposed rule would

apply to importation of polar bear trophies into the United States, it

does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in Executive Order

12612.

The Department has certified to OMB that these regulations meet the

applicable standards provided in Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778.

References Cited

ng

polar bears if the condition is adopted. Since the proposed rule would

apply to importation of polar bear trophies into the United States, it

does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in Executive Order

12612.

The Department has certified to OMB that these regulations meet the

applicable standards provided in Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778.

References Cited

Baur, D.C. 1993. Reconciling the legal mechanisms to protect and

manage polar bears under United States laws and the Agreement for

the Conservation of Polar Bears. Report prepared for the Marine

Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 153 pp.

Born, E.W. 1995. Status of the polar bear in Greenland 1993. Pages

81-103 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and g.W. Garner, eds. Polar Bears.

Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-29, 1993,

Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10.

Gland, Switzerland. (in press)

Calvert, W., M. Taylor, L. Stirling, G.B. Kolenosky, S. Kearney, M.

Crete, and S. Luttich. 1995. Polar bear management in Canada 1988-

92. Pages 61-80 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and g.W. Garner, eds. Polar

Bears. Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993,

Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10.

Gland, Switzerland. (in press)

PBSG, The World Conservation Union. 1995. Polar Bears. Proc,

Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen,

Denmark. O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Occas. Pap. IUCN

Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)

PBSG, The World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1988. Polar Bears. Proc.

Tenth Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Oct. 25-29, 1988, Sochi, USSR. O.

Wiig, ed. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 7. Gland,

Switzerland.

enth Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen,

Denmark. O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner, eds. Occas. Pap. IUCN

Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)

PBSG, The World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1988. Polar Bears. Proc.

Tenth Working Meet. IUCN/SSC PBSG Oct. 25-29, 1988, Sochi, USSR. O.

Wiig, ed. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec. Surv. Comm. No. 7. Gland,

Switzerland.

Lee, J., M. Taylor, and A. Sutherland. 1994. Aspects of the polar

bear harvest in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Northwest Terr.

Dept. Ren. Res. File Rep. No. 113. 27 pp.

Prestrud, P. and I. Stirling. 1995. The International Polar Bear

Agreement and the current status of polar bear conservation. Aquat.

Mammals. (in press)

Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1986. On the mating system of polar

bears. Can. J. Zool. 64:2142-2151.

Schliebe, S.L., S.C. Amstrup, and G.W.Garner. 1995 The status of

polar bears in Alaska 1993. Pages 121-134 in O. Wiig, E.W. Born, and

G.W. Garner, eds. Polar Bears. Proc. Eleventh Working Meet. IUCN/SSC

PBSG Jan. 25-28, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Occas. Pap. IUCN Spec.

Surv. Comm. No. 10. Gland, Switzerland. (in press)

Taylor, B.L. 1995. Defining ``population'' to meet management

objectives for marine mammals. Adm. Rep. LJ-95-03, NMFS, La Jolla,

CA.

Taylor, M., ed. 1994. Density-dependent population regulation in

black, brown, and polar bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage.

Monogr. Series No. 3. 43 pp.

Taylor, M.K., D.P. DeMaster, F.L. Bunnell, and R.E. Schweinsburg.

1987. Modeling the sustainable harvest of female polar bears. J.

Wildl. Manage. 51(4):811-820.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Draft Habitat Conservation

Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 91 pp.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

Administrative practice and procedures, Imports, Indians, Marine

mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

le harvest of female polar bears. J.

Wildl. Manage. 51(4):811-820.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Draft Habitat Conservation

Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska. 91 pp.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

Administrative practice and procedures, Imports, Indians, Marine

mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend Part 18 of Chapter I of

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS

1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January

3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(5) to

read as follows:

Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

(a) * * *

(5) Proof that the polar bear was legally harvested in Canada by

the applicant (or by a decedent from whom the applicant inherited the

trophy), including:

(i) If the polar bear was taken prior to (effective date of final

rule), a certification from the Department of Renewable Resources,

Northwest Territories, that the polar bear was legally harvested and

tagged, giving the name of the hunter and location (settlement and

population) and season the bear was taken;

(ii) If the polar bear was taken on or after (effective date of

final rule), the permittee must provide documentation at time of import

to the Service inspector as outlined in Sec. 18.30(f)(1)(ii).

(6) * * *

3. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January

3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read

as follows:

Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

* * * * *

on or after (effective date of

final rule), the permittee must provide documentation at time of import

to the Service inspector as outlined in Sec. 18.30(f)(1)(ii).

(6) * * *

3. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January

3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read

as follows:

Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

* * * * *

(f) Additional permit conditions. Permits to import a sport-hunted

polar bear trophy taken in Canada are subject to the conditions

outlined in Sec. 18.31(d) and the following special conditions:

(1) If the polar bear was taken on or after (effective date of

final rule), the permittee must:

(i) Sign a statement, as a condition of the permit, that the gall

bladder, including its contents, taken from the polar bear proposed for

import was destroyed; and

(ii) Provide a copy of the NWT hunting license and tag number under

which the polar bear was taken and a Canadian CITES export permit that

identifies the polar bear by hunting license and tag numbers;

(2) The permittee must present to a Service inspector at the time

of import a certification from the Department of Renewable Resources,

Northwest Territories, that the polar bear at the time of take was not

pregnant, was not a nursing cub, was not a mother with cubs, and was

not moving into a den or already in a den.

(3) Any sport-hunted trophy imported with a permit issued under

this section must be imported through a designated port for wildlife

imports (see Sec. 14.12) during regular business hours. The importer

must notify Service personnel at the port at least 72 hours prior to

the import and make arrangements for the Service to affix a tag in

accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section prior to being

cleared;

nted trophy imported with a permit issued under

this section must be imported through a designated port for wildlife

imports (see Sec. 14.12) during regular business hours. The importer

must notify Service personnel at the port at least 72 hours prior to

the import and make arrangements for the Service to affix a tag in

accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this section prior to being

cleared;

(4) A serially numbered, permanently locking tag identifying the

species, year of import, and port of import must be affixed by the

Service to each sport-hunted trophy upon import and must remain fixed

indefinitely to the trophy as proof of legal import. Tags must be

attached in a manner established by the Service to maximize their

longevity and minimize their adverse affects to the appearance of the

trophy; and

(5) In the event the tag comes off the trophy, the permittee must

within 30 days:

(i) Contact the nearest Service office at a designated port or a

Law Enforcement office as given in Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter to

schedule a time to present the trophy for retagging; and

(ii) At the time the new tag is attached, present the broken tag

and proof that the trophy had been tagged and legally imported or, in

the event that the tag was lost, a signed, written explanation of how

and when the tag was lost and proof that the trophy had been tagged and

legally imported.

* * * * *

4. Proposed Sec. 18.30 [proposed to be added at 60 FR 70 (January

3, 1995)] is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph (j) to

read as follows:

Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.

* * * * *

(j) Findings. (1) The Service has determined that the Northwest

Territories, Canada, has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program

that meets issuance criteria of paragraphs (e) (4) and (5) of this

section for the following populations: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern

Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock

Channel, and Western Hudson Bay, provided:

* * * * *

(j) Findings. (1) The Service has determined that the Northwest

Territories, Canada, has a monitored and enforced sport-hunting program

that meets issuance criteria of paragraphs (e) (4) and (5) of this

section for the following populations: Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern

Beaufort Sea, Viscount Melville Sound, Gulf of Boothia, M'Clintock

Channel, and Western Hudson Bay, provided:

(i) For the Southern Beaufort Sea population, no bears be taken

west of the equidistant line of the Beaufort Sea; the management

agreement between the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Fish and Game

Management Committee of the North Slope Borough in Alaska remains in

effect; and the Yukon Territory quota remains with the Northwest

Territories or has a joint management agreement in place with

scientifically sound quotas;

(ii) For the Western Hudson Bay population, a management agreement

between the Northwest Territories and Manitoba is in effect with

scientifically sound quotas;

(iii) For all of these populations, that females with cubs, cubs,

or polar bears moving into denning areas or already in dens are

protected from taking by hunting activities; and

(iv) The number of sport-hunted trophies taken in the prior harvest

season does not exceed 15 percent of the total quota of the Northwest

Territories.

(2) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories on

or after (effective date of final rule) from a population that

currently is not approved by the Service for import, will only be

approved for an import permit if the Service can find, based on

updated information from the Northwest Territories, that:

does not exceed 15 percent of the total quota of the Northwest

Territories.

(2) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories on

or after (effective date of final rule) from a population that

currently is not approved by the Service for import, will only be

approved for an import permit if the Service can find, based on

updated information from the Northwest Territories, that:

(i) The total harvest during that harvest season and the average of

the three preceding harvest seasons was sustainable for the affected

population; and

(ii) A management agreement(s) was in place with Greenland and/or a

province(s) that shares the population with the Northwest Territories.

(3) Any sport-hunted trophy taken in the Northwest Territories,

Canada, between December 21, 1972, and (effective date of final rule)

must meet the issuance criteria of paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), and

(6)(i) of this section and may be imported upon obtaining an import

permit prior to import and meeting the conditions of paragraphs (f)

(2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.

Dated: June 22, 1995.

George T. Frampton,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 95-17432 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P