    [House Hearing, 105 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        POLAR BEAR TROPHIES IMPORTATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                 H. J. RES. 59

     To disapprove a rule affecting polar bear trophies from Canada under
     the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act issued by the
       United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the
                                    Interior

                                   __________

                         APRIL 30, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 105-18

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     41-402cc                    WASHINGTON : 1997
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
    KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held April 30, 1997......................................     1

    Text of H. J. Res. 59............................................    52

    Statement of Members:
        Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a U.S. Representative from
          California.................................................    49
        Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California...    49
        Norwood, Hon. Charlie, a U.S. Representative from Georgia....     2
        Peterson, Hon. Collin, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota..     3
        Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and
          Chairman, Committee on Resources...........................     1

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Akeeagok, David, Grise Fiord, Northwest Territories, Canada..    32
        Gosliner, Mike, Marine Mammal Commission.....................    13
        Hofman, Dr. Robert J., Marine Mammal Commission..............    13
        Jones, Dr. J.Y., Dublin, GA..................................    37
            Prepared statement.......................................   115
        Jones, Marshall, Assistant Director for International
          Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI...............    11
            Prepared statement.......................................    56
        Morrill, Dr. William, Safari Club International, Herndon, VA.    33
            Prepared statement.......................................    81
        Reynolds, Dr. John E., III, Chairman, Marine Mammal
          Commission.................................................    13
            Prepared statement.......................................    61
        Rose, Dr. Naomi, Marine Mammal Scientist, Humane Society of
          the United States..........................................    35
            Prepared statement.......................................   101
        Rowland, J. Roy, former Congressman, Dublin, GA..............     5
            Prepared statement.......................................    54
        Stansell, Ken, USFWS, Department of the Interior.............    11
        Young, Michael, USFWS, Department of the Interior............    11

    Additional material supplied:
        Testa, J.W., Ph.D.: Importation of Polar Bear Trophies From
          Canada Under the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal
          Protection Act (report)....................................    69

    Communications submitted:
        Bass, Hon. Charles F.: Letters to--
            Dort S. Bigg dated:
                October 19, 1995.....................................   136
                February 24, 1997....................................   133
            Hon. Don Young dated April 25, 1997......................   125
        Bigg, Dort S., to:
            Hon. Charles Bass dated
                September 21, 1995...................................   134
                February 7, 1997.....................................   131
                March 18, 1997.......................................   129
                April 4, 1997........................................   126
        Kearney, Kathy: Memorandum of October 31, 1995, to John
          Jackson on importation of polar bear hunting trophies......    93
        Jones, Marshall: Letter of May 8, 1996, to Dort S. Bigg......   137
        Rose, Naomi A., Ph.D.: Letter of November 6, 1995, to
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service on proposed rule.......   109

                        POLAR BEAR TROPHIES FROM CANADA

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1997

                              House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman
    of the Committee) presiding.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA;
                  AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

        The Chairman. Today we will hear testimony on H.J.
    Resolution 59, a resolution I introduced with Charlie Norwood,
    Collin Peterson, Ron Paul and Saxby Chambliss.
        The purpose of this resolution is quite simple: to
    disapprove the Department of Interior's final rule on the
    importation of certain polar bear trophies.
        Since coming to Congress, I have been involved with the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Over the years, I have
    worked hard to improve the law, and we were successful in
    enacting a number of positive changes in 1994. One of those
    provisions gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
    issue permits to Americans to import legally taken polar bear
    trophies from Canada both before and after 1994.
        Our intent in passing this provision was clear: we wanted
    to make it easier for hunters to import polar bear trophies
    into the United States as long as that activity did not
    adversely affect Canadian polar bear populations. There are
    about 13,120 polar bears in the Northwest Territories of
    Canada. According to scientific experts, this population is
    growing by three to five percent each year. Since the annual
    quota for sport hunting was 132 animals in 1996, this harvest
    rate has little if any effect on any of Canada's polar bear
    populations. What this activity is doing, however, is providing
    thousands of dollars to the Canadian Eskimos, allowing them to
    maintain their cultural heritage.
        On July 17, 1995, 15 months after the enactment of the 1994
    amendments, the Department of the Interior issued a proposed
    rule allowing all pre-1994 polar bear trophies to enter the
    United States. This was a correct interpretation of the 1994
    amendments.
        We must not lose sight of the fact that these are dead
    bears. I mean long dead. While we cannot wish them back to
    life, we can attain benefits to finance conservation programs
    of Alaska and Russia polar bear research populations by
    collecting a $1000 fee for each bear that is imported into this
    country that has been long dead.
        Furthermore, the 1994 amendments authorize the Secretary to
    make a determination on whether an import permit should be
    issued based on these criteria. The Canadian management program
    is based on scientifically sound principles that ensure the
    sustainability of the polar bear population. The management
    plan is consistent with international agreements. And the
    issuance of a permit is not--will not contribute to illegal
    trade in other bear parts.
        On February 17, 1997, after years of delay, the Department
    of Interior issued its final rule. In a move that would make
    any world class gymnast blush, the Department did a complete
    reversal without even the benefit of a trampoline, and
    announced it would now limit the importation of both new and
    old polar bear trophies to only five of the 12 identified
    populations in the Canadian Northwest Territories.
        While no rational explanation was provided, it is clear
    that in a mad rush to avoid litigation the Department has
    ignored both the scientific data and the Congressional intent
    contained in the 1994 MMPA amendments.
        The bottom line in this debate is the specific criteria
    outlined in the 1994 amendments have been satisfied. Canada has
    a growing population of polar bears. Sound conservation
    programs exist in the Northwest Territories, and a limited
    number of polar bear trophies will not undermine the
    sustainability of these populations. Even the Marine Mammal
    Commission, no fan of the polar bear provision, believes the
    Department has erred in not allowing the importation of polar
    bear trophies from additional populations.
        I look forward to hearing from my distinguished witnesses.
    I want to know why it took nearly three years to reach the
    wrong conclusion, why the Department is holding Canada to a
    higher standard than Congress intended in 1994 and when the
    Department intends to decide on the seven other polar bear
    populations.
        [Correspondence may be found at end of hearing.]
        The Chairman. Are there any other opening statements? Mr.
    Norwood.

     STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE NORWOOD, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                GEORGIA

        Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Chairman Young, and
    members of the Committee for inviting me here this morning to
    be part of the Resource Committee's hearing on the Fish and
    Wildlife Service interpretation of the 1994 Marine Mammal
    Protection Act.
        Two of today's panelists hail from the 10th District of
    Georgia. Congressman Roy Rowland represented part of the
    current 10th District in Washington for 12 years. While in
    Congress, Dr. Rowland emerged as a bipartisan leader on a wide
    range of issues including health care reform, the environment,
    budget deficit reduction and transportation. Dr. Rowland is
    currently the director of the Georgia Medicaid program, and I
    would like to welcome Dr. Rowland.
        And continuing with my statement, Mr. Chairman, with the
    second panelist seated I would like to welcome the second
    Georgian, if I may.
        The Chairman. You can welcome all of Georgia. You have got
    great people in that great State. You don't have many turkeys,
    you know.
        Mr. Norwood. Some folks can't kill them.
        If the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1994 was supposed to
    facilitate the import of legally harvested polar bears, why are
    we here this morning, Mr. Chairman? I do not want to impose on
    your generosity for the time that you have given me today, but
    I will sum up simply by saying that the intent of Congress was
    that the Secretary may issue a permit for the importation of
    polar bear parts, other than internal organs, taken in sport
    hunts in Canada, including polar bears taken prior to the date
    of the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments
    of 1994.
        I just--I want some questions answered here today and hope
    that we will get them. And it is simply this, were these bears
    legally harvested. It is my understanding that they were and
    each applicant for import certainly must have proven that.
        Is the importation of these bears consistent with the
    conventional international trade of endangered species of which
    the United States is a partner? I understand it is and that
    each applicant must produce the proper permit to prove that.
        Does Canada have a sound professional management plan in
    place for polar bears? I understand that Congress determined it
    does when it commended this act in 1994.
        Will the native villagers benefit from the sport hunting of
    these polar bears? I understand that they benefit enormously
    and they will hear much testimony--we will hear much testimony
    today supporting this.
        And finally and perhaps most importantly, will there be any
    negative impact on the current population of polar bears in
    Canada? I understand that the opposite is true here, that part
    of the $1000 permit fee is used for polar bear conservation.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much again for holding this
    hearing and allowing me to testify. I look forward to hearing
    the testimonies of our witnesses. To me it is just basic common
    sense to allow the importation of these polar bear trophies.
    And I believe it should be allowed without any additional
    delay.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other opening
    statements?
        Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome my
    colleague from Minnesota. He is from the temporary 6th Great
    Lake of Western Minnesota, so I am pleased to see him here and
    his work on the Congress is well known. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Any other opening statements? If not, I will
    recognize Mr. Peterson, because he is the seat member, and then
    Dr. Rowland, who is not seated but fondly remembered.

     STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN PETERSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               MINNESOTA

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    and the other members for the opportunity to speak here today.
    As I think you are aware, there are approximately 400 polar
    bears that were legally harvested under Canada's polar bear
    management program and are currently in storage in Canada
    because they have not been able to be imported into the United
    States. Many of these animals belong to my constituents, and
    they are very frustrated, they thought this had been fixed.
        Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act of '94 to
    allow the importation of these legally harvested trophies. The
    language of this amendment specifically refers to the imports
    of bears harvested prior to the amendment's adoption and it
    said the Secretary--and I quote, ``the Secretary may issue a
    permit for the importation of polar bear parts taken in sport
    hunts in Canada, including polar bears taken but not imported
    prior to the date of the enactment of the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act amendments of 1994, to an applicant which
    submits with its permit application proof that the polar bear
    was legally harvested in Canada by the applicant.''
        Now I think what is in question is some report language
    that accompanied this legislation that said it is the
    Committee's intent that all conditions outlined by this
    amendment concerning the importation of polar bear trophies
    taken prior to the adoption of this amendment have to be met.
        We think the correct interpretation of the requirements
    mandated by this language is that permit applicants must prove
    that they had the proper international permit, the animal was
    properly tagged and it can be proven that the animal was
    legally harvested.
        The Department of Interior interpreted the language
    originally this way when they issued their proposed rule July
    17, 1995, which as you pointed out, was almost 15 months after
    the enactment of the bill. And under this proposed rule, all
    polar bears harvested before the date of the final rule were
    grandfathered in and could be imported into the United States
    if it could be proven that they had not already been imported,
    that the specimen is sport hunter trophy, that the bear was
    legally harvested and that it was consistent with CITES.
        However, the final rule published on February 18, 1997,
    made significant changes in this grandfather clause. In regard
    to previously taken polar bears, the final rule only allowed
    for the importation of polar bears from populations deemed to
    be currently sustainable. And as a result, the majority of the
    bears that have been previously taken are still in freezers up
    in Canada and my constituents and a lot of your constituents
    are paying storage fees and are very unhappy.
        According to a review of the Administrative record of the
    Department of Interior on this rulemaking, in my opinion no new
    biological or scientific evidence was uncovered which warranted
    a change in the grandfather clause. Rather I think the
    Department reacted to advice from the Solicitor's Office
    regarding fears of a lawsuit from anti-hunting organizations if
    the grandfather clause remained as proposed. My question is why
    didn't the Solicitor's Office offer this interpretation when it
    reviewed the proposed rule in 1995? Wildlife management
    decisions should be made on the basis of sound scientific data
    and not on the basis of threats or fears of retaliatory
    lawsuits.
        And the change in this grandfather clause ignores one of
    the primary motives that Congress had in amending the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act of '94, which was to allow the
    importation of these bears. In addition, the issue of the
    grandfather clause was further complicated by the long time it
    took the Department to act on the direction of Congress. And
    this 15-month delay between the passage of the act, the
    proposed rule and the 20-month wait, does not conform with the
    intent and the expectation of Congress.
        I had a long discussion with former Congressman Jack
    Fields, who is the author of this, and he does not think that
    this rule is in conformance with what he thought he was trying
    to accomplish.
        This has also been pointed out, these bears are dead. This
    is not going to have any negative effect on anything at this
    point and the money, the $1000 permit fee, is going toward
    polar bear conservation.
        In closing, preventing the importation of these bears
    doesn't make any sense. It ignores the intent of Congress. It
    would have no negative impact on current polar bear population
    and denies a valuable source of funds for polar bear
    conservation. Accordingly, I think the Department should issue
    new regulations grandfathering all these bears and move in the
    direction that we originally intended.
        Thank you very much and I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman. Congressman Rowland.

       STATEMENT OF J. ROY ROWLAND, FORMER CONGRESSMAN, DUBLIN,
                                GEORGIA

        Mr. Rowland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
    of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
    today, and especially to visit with many of you who are
    longtime friends. I don't envy you the task that you have in
    governing our country, but I commend you, every Member of
    Congress, for shouldering that responsibility. And I want to
    thank my good friend and my Congressman Charlie Norwood for
    introducing me today.
        One of the issues that I dealt with while a Member of the
    House is before you today. Dr. J.Y. Jones, a close personal
    friend and medical colleague, and also one of my constituents,
    approached me with the surprising information that a person
    from the United States could go to Canada and hunt polar bears
    legally under the auspices of their hunting program but could
    not legally bring their trophy home.
        I have the utmost regard for J.Y. He is an excellent
    physician and surgeon with the highest personal ethics. He is
    greatly respected by the people in the community where we live
    and he gives generously of his time and resources and has done
    a total of 14 medical missionary trips to Honduras and Jamaica.
    After receiving additional information from him, including the
    fact that he personally had a polar bear trophy in Canada he
    couldn't bring home, I agreed to look into the matter and get
    back with him on the feasibility of amending the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act to allow such import.
        It appeared to me that such a restriction was unwarranted
    in view of the fact that our neighbor Canada is perfectly
    capable of managing their own wildlife resources without our
    interference.
        I discussed the import ban informally with my friend Gerry
    Studds, then Chairman of the House Merchant Marine and
    Fisheries Committee, and he expressed an interest in changing
    the law to allow import of polar bear trophies under certain
    conditions. He told me that he would have his staff research
    the law and prepare a proposal that might remove this
    restriction. Other interested Members of Congress specifically
    wanted to allow importation of polar bears already stored in
    Canada that had been legally taken. Also, those bears already
    harvested could have no effect on the polar bear population, so
    it made good sense to allow their importation if they had been
    legally taken.
        The opportunity to make this change in the law came shortly
    thereafter as the reauthorization of the original Marine Mammal
    Protection Act came up for consideration. I talked with
    Congressman Studds on several occasions and our staff people
    worked together on the amendments. Other Members of Congress
    gave input and advice concerning the pending legislation, and
    an effort was mounted to include the needed language. The
    actual legislation was finalized in early 1994.
        The record is clear that the Merchant Marines and Fisheries
    Committee was indeed successful in resolving the issue and
    subsequently recommended to the full House of Representatives
    that legally harvested polar bear trophies from Canada be
    permitted importation into United States by our citizens who
    had hunted there in the past or would do so in the future.
    After the House and Senate resolved their differences, the
    legislation was passed by both houses of Congress and it was
    signed into law by President Clinton on April 30, 1994, which
    is incidentally exactly three years ago today.
        Now I have learned still today, despite the interval of
    three years, not a single polar bear trophy has been imported
    under the amended law. What is even more mind boggling is that
    a simple bipartisan mandate of the Congress has been expanded
    far beyond its original intent, I am told, to include 30 pages
    of rules, a complicated application process, and provisions
    attached that even the name of the individual hunter applying
    for an import permit must be published in the Federal Register.
    I am also surprised that polar bears already stored in Canada,
    legally harvested in years past and specifically approved by
    Congress for import, have been held up indefinitely by a broad
    and bewildering array of polar bear subpopulation evaluations.
        I have been asked to testify as to what the intent of
    Congress was in 1994 on this issue. I believe that Congress
    expected the issuance of polar bear import permits to begin
    immediately. I know that I did. After five months of inaction
    on the new amendment, I joined a group of concerned Congressmen
    who sent a letter to Secretary Babbitt of the Interior
    Department urging him to use the authority granted him to
    develop interim regulations for polar bear imports so that
    waiting sportsmen could proceed with the importation without
    further delay. We recommended that if he believed a more
    detailed regulatory process be necessary, he could undertake
    that proceeding thereafter. Instead, the United State Fish and
    Wildlife Service developed these voluminous and dilatory
    regulations we have today.
        In summary, it was never the intent of Congress, based on
    my knowledge, that we attempt to micromanage the Canadian polar
    bear conservation system or to force Canada into new
    international agreements, but that we simply allow U.S. hunters
    to apply for and receive a permit to import their trophy if a
    few simple criteria were met, the most key of which being that
    the bear was legally taken in Canada and not illegally imported
    already. The regulations appear to go far beyond Congressional
    intent. They are yet another example of the tendency toward
    over-regulation in many levels of the Federal bureaucracy.
        I urge the members of the Committee to do what is necessary
    to carry out the will of Congress as passed in 1994, and I
    thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Statement of J. Roy Rowland may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. First, I agree with you
    100 percent because I am one of the few people who have been on
    the Fishery Committee for the last 25 years and now we took it
    to this Committee. It was a bipartisan effort. Everybody agreed
    to it, including the Administration. And now we find out that
    we have people that think that they are God and can tell the
    Congress to go fly a kite. And that is why we are going to vote
    on this before the House and find out whether they are God or
    not. It is wrong when they go against the intent, including the
    report language. These bears are dead. It is the government of
    Canada that does recognize it. And what we tried to do in this
    business, by the way, was to improve the polar bear population.
        I think we will hear testimony later on that this increased
    the value of the polar bear. It has protected the young. It has
    protected the sows. It has really, in fact, been harvesting the
    old boars, which are much more valuable. And that was the
    intent of the Congress. No way would Gerry Studds support
    something that wasn't that. And to have now an agency saying
    this is incorrect, I want to thank you for your memory. That is
    one reason I think that the institution should have a longer
    term instead of shorter term, so they do have some knowledge of
    what was the intent and what people thought they were doing and
    what does happen at a later date.
        Collin, I am going to ask a question. If you can, how do
    you think that the polar bear populations are affected by
    prohibiting the importation of these bears?
        Mr. Peterson. I don't think it has a negative effect,
    because if we would allow the importation, the fees would be
    paid and that money would go to conservation. It is going to
    have no negative effect in terms of harvest, because no one is
    questioning that we are going to have to have rules going
    forward and that there is going to have to be a management plan
    in place and that we are going to have to make sure that the
    rules are such that we are doing the right kind of
    conservation. But these dead bears have been taken and it is
    not going to have any impact one way or the other on
    conservation other than negative because we don't have the
    money.
        The Chairman. Under the present rule as being proposed by I
    don't know who, is there any conservation in that regulation
    that you can see?
        Mr. Peterson. Not that I can see.
        The Chairman. That is what my interpretation is, there is
    none whatsoever. And if I remember correctly, Dr. Rowland, is
    it not true that we had testimony from our scientists, the
    Marine Mammal Commission, and the Canadian scientists that were
    meeting their goal was to promote and actually improve the
    polar bear population? That was testified to this Committee, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Rowland. My recollection, that is exactly correct.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlemen. The gentleman--Mr.
    Vento.
        Mr. Vento. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that
    there is some controversy now. I was reading ahead to the other
    testimony and, just to understand the intent of this particular
    rule change, the intent here is just to knock out this rule.
    And then what would we be left with then?
        The Chairman. What would be left is a rule that follows the
    intent of Congress. They have to come back----
        Mr. Vento. I think the thing is that they had proposed a
    rule in '95. This law passed in '94. They proposed a rule in
    '95 and then they came up with this final rule in February or
    March.
        The Chairman. Which is a reversal of the original rule.
        Mr. Vento. So we knock it out with this. Then what do you
    put in its place?
        The Chairman. Nothing until they issue another rule with
    the intent of Congress. The have to follow Congress.
        Mr. Vento. It would be an indication that we disagree with
    it.
        The Chairman. There might be a--in fact, I may issue a
    citation of contempt of Congress, because they are not
    following our lead in what the Congress passed. They do not
    have that authority. You should accept that.
        Mr. Vento. I am simply asking what the effect would be of
    knocking out the rule. That is what--and so you are saying----
        The Chairman. They have to come back with a rule.
        Mr. Vento. They would have to come back, but I mean the----
        The Chairman. The intent----
        Mr. Vento. The issue is that there is--you will see in the
    next testimony that there is an issue here about the
    retroactivity, in other words, dealing with the grandfather.
    That is one issue. And then there is another issue
    perspectively. So what is the message we are sending here? The
    intent is obviously we want to grandfather importation of bear
    trophies that had been harvested between '94 and '97, is that
    the intent? You want to grandfather those in because the rule
    wasn't out and folks were operating on the basis----
        The Chairman. And prior, as long as they are legally taken.
        Mr. Vento. Well, whatever. That is one of the intents, but
    then perspectively is it the intent not to deal with the--and
    they, incidentally, talk about 14 areas in Canada, not 13--but
    is it the intent then to comply with or to then live with the--
    they are saying you can hunt in five areas out of the 14 or six
    areas out of the 14. Is the message that you want to send that
    you want--that perspectively that their interpretation of where
    the hunting can be permitted is inappropriate or not?
        The Chairman. It is my intent that we made an agreement
    with Canada. Canada defines scientifically which areas are
    appropriately being hunted. We have now an agency within the
    United States saying without scientific information that you
    cannot hunt in certain areas.
        Mr. Vento. Basically, then, there are two issues, in other
    words. There is the issue of the grandfather for whatever
    reason----
        The Chairman. That is right.
        Mr. Vento.--those trophies are there. Then there is the
    second issue, as I see this, of whether or not--what our
    relationship is with the Canadian permits to hunt for trophies.
    They are permitting them in, apparently, all 14 areas or
    something of this nature and/or 13 of the 14, and we are saying
    that it should be restricted to five.
        The Chairman. Yes, without scientific information, nothing
    to back it up.
        Mr. Vento. OK.
        The Chairman. So what we are doing, we are imposing our
    will against the Canadian government, and I don't think that is
    what we should be doing in the case where we have reached these
    agreements.
        Mr. Vento. Well, I am just trying to understand what the
    issues were, Mr. Chairman. I am just learning about this, but I
    would just point out on page two of the testimony, and, you
    know, maybe Collin or our friend Roy--I am sorry I didn't
    welcome you. I want to recognize our long friendship and work.
        But they point out the Service was required to determine
    under the 1994 amendments in consultation with the Marine
    Mammal Commission that these requirements were met in order to
    allow polar bear trophy imports. As part of these requirements,
    the Service is required to conclude the Canada sport hunting
    program is consistent with the purposes of the 1973 agreement
    on the conservation of bears and is based on scientifically
    sound quotas to ensure, the key word, the sustainability of
    effective population stock. Although these requirements were
    simply stated in the 1994 amendments, they are complex and
    involve multiple issues.
        So I am just--I mean, this is obviously a different
    requirement that they are reading the '94 law in a way that is
    inconsistent. So we will have to try to iron it out, and I
    understand that, Mr. Chairman, further that this is--apparently
    the Solicitor, Mr. Leshy, from Interior interpreted or was
    responsible for being consulted, or someone in his office, with
    regard to this issue.
        So I do think that, you know, since what you are really
    doing is knocking out the rule here, there is nothing being put
    in its place and I think we better get back to look at whether
    the law and what the law requires, because in fact if that
    interpretation is correct by a court, they could put in a rule
    and effect they want and they may apparently be challenged.
        The Chairman. That may be true, but they cannot, regardless
    of what they think they will be challenged about, go against
    the will of Congress. If they in fact implement a rule that we
    have directed them to do so and then they are taken to court,
    we will win. I mean, this idea--every time I hear one of my
    agency say oh, we might have to go to court, so--they hide
    under the table. Any time the Sierra Club or Friends of the
    Earth or Friends of the Animal group threaten a lawsuit, they
    go hide under the table.
        Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman. And we told them--this Congress told them
    what to do.
        Mr. Vento. Well, I think that it may be the law of
    unintended consequence that you didn't intend or Mr. Studds
    didn't or Mr. Fields didn't, but if this particular type of
    change did occur, I think we can rationally look at it and make
    a determination. And what I am suggesting to you is that maybe
    the answer is not so much in dealing with the rule but
    fundamentally looking at the law to see if there is a basis for
    what their action is.
        The Chairman. We will look at that. We don't believe it. I
    had my lawyers look at it. We don't think there is any
    rationale. Listen to what you just said about if they are
    difficult, was it, and it is complex. I mean that is pure
    gobbly goop. That is all it is, just gobbly goop. It is a way
    to delay the----
        Mr. Vento. It is a complex and involved multiple issue.
        The Chairman. Multiple issues. They don't define the
    multiple issues. They do not give us any scientific
    information. They do not consider Canada at all, and that was
    not the intent of the legislation.
        Mr. Vento. I think the witnesses adequately answered the
    questions.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Mr. Vento. Mr. Peterson or Mr. Rowland?
        Mr. Peterson. I associate myself with the Chairman's
    remarks.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia. Excuse me, in all
    due respects I have to recognize members of the Committee
    first.
        Mr. Norwood. Sure.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
        Mr. Calvert. I have no comment, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from----
        Mr. Walter Jones. I have nothing.
        The Chairman. OK, the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Norwood. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I do thank
    these witnesses. And I was not in Congress when this was
    passed, but it clearly seems to everyone I can talk to that the
    Department did not write rules and regulations, and both of our
    Members here just said that they did not write rules and
    regulations according to the will of Congress. In fact, as we
    get on into this hearing a little bit, a lot of the thoughts
    from the USFWS, you will find that had they used a little
    better data, for example some data as well as Canada might have
    used, they may too have come up with a different decision. So I
    thank you gentlemen very much for being here. And thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Hawaii. You were here, I
    believe, were you not?
        Mr. Abercrombie. I beg your pardon?
        The Chairman. You were on the Committee when this passed.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. Mr. Chairman, is the next witness to
    come up Mr. Jones to address the----
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing]--process of----
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Abercrombie. I will withhold questions until that time.
        The Chairman. All right, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate
    you being here. Have a good flight, Doctor.
        Mr. Rowland. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Marshall Jones,
    Assistant Director of International Affairs, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Department of Interior. He is accompanied by
    Mr. Ken Stansell and Mr. Michael Young. Dr. John E. Reynolds,
    III, Chairman of Marine Mammal Commission, is accompanied by
    Mr. Mike Gosliner and Dr. Robert Hofman. Mr. Jones.

          STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
      INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S.
      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY KEN STANSELL AND
                             MICHAEL YOUNG

        Mr. Marshall Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate
    your giving us this opportunity to testify before you today on
    House Joint Resolution 59, which would disapprove our recent
    regulations for the import of polar bear trophies from Canada.
        As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Kenneth
    B. Stansell, who is the Chief of our CITES Management
    Authority, and Mr. Michael Young from the Department of
    Interior's Solicitor's Office, as well as members of Mr.
    Stansell's staff who prepared the rule.
        Mr. Chairman, the development of these regulations over the
    past three years has involved some of the most controversial
    and difficult issues that I have had to deal with in 20 years
    in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Recognizing, Mr. Chairman, your views that the intent of
    Congress was clear, unfortunately the record which was
    compiled, the comments that we received during the comment
    period and our own review of the legislation indicated to us
    that we had to make findings not only involving future polar
    bears which might be taken in Canada, but also the bears that
    were already taken and that were sitting in storage. Our goal,
    Mr. Chairman, was to import, to allow the import of as many
    polar bears as meet the requirements of the law.
        Before I address some of the problems, Mr. Chairman, I
    would like to emphasize some of the positive aspects of this
    rule. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we determined that five of
    Canada's 12 polar bear populations fully meet the criteria that
    were contained in the law and the 1994 amendments, and we have
    approved them for import. The first 16 permit applications have
    now been approved and another 45 permit applications are now in
    the review process. So that within the next few weeks, Mr.
    Chairman, we believe that we will have approved 50 to 60 polar
    bear trophy imports.
        Mr. Chairman, I have the first tag which would be applied
    to the first permit, and we are anxious for the day when this
    tag is put on a trophy that is brought into the United States.
    And that is followed by as many trophies as will meet the
    requirements of the law.
        Also, Mr. Chairman, we were able to approve these
    applications, I believe, because of our decision to address
    each of Canada's polar bear populations separately. We believe
    that this approach was fully justified by the amendments to the
    law and the Marine Mammal Act itself. If we had chosen the
    alternative approach, to look at Canada on an all or none
    basis, Mr. Chairman, we were concerned that our decision would
    have had to be that because some areas of Canada didn't meet
    the criteria, all of Canada would have failed to meet the
    criteria and we wouldn't have been able to allow import of any
    trophies on that basis. We avoided that outcome, Mr. Chairman,
    by using the population by population approach.
        I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that we did not
    disapprove any populations. We approved some. We deferred
    others until we receive additional scientific data. No polar
    bear population has the door closed to import, although some
    people wanted us to disapprove some of those. We did not take
    that step. We have left the door open, and as soon as we can
    get new information which indicates they qualify under the
    criteria, we are prepared to approve them.
        Mr. Chairman, we have received new information from Canada
    and are now working on a proposal to make new findings
    regarding two additional areas in Canada in addition to the
    five which have already been approved.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, let me briefly address the major concern
    which has been raised about the regulations, our decision that
    all trophy imports must meet the criteria in the 1994
    amendments regardless of when they were taken. We originally
    proposed a blanket finding which would have allowed import of
    all trophies taken before the 1994 amendments. However, the
    Marine Mammal Commission and other commenters clearly
    demonstrated that this approach was not legally defensible
    based on the specific requirements in the law and in the House
    Committee report which accompanied it. Thus in our final rule,
    we were obligated to apply the same criteria to all trophies,
    regardless of where they were taken.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that we
    recognize that some are disappointed with our final rule and
    believe it was too restrictive. On the other hand, Mr.
    Chairman, I think this morning you will also hear from some who
    believe the rule was too permissive. Overall we believe that we
    have accurately and fairly implemented the '94 amendments in a
    way which supports Canada's polar bear management program,
    which we acknowledge is the best in the world, as well as the
    traditional hunting rights of Canada's native people and the
    legitimate desires of sport hunters.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, if House Joint Resolution
    59 is enacted and the regulation is disapproved, we do not
    believe that under the existing provisions of the law we would
    be able to prepare a new final rule which is substantially
    different from the existing regulations. On the other hand, Mr.
    Chairman, we are prepared to work closely with you, with sport
    hunters and with Canada to facilitate the approval of all
    populations which meet the requirements of the law, to make
    those decisions promptly and to open as many doors as we can to
    the import of polar bear trophies.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to answer any
    questions which you may have.
        [Statement of Marshall Jones may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Dr. John Reynolds.

    STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN E. REYNOLDS, III, CHAIRMAN, MARINE MAMMAL
           COMMISSION, MIKE GOSLINER AND DR. ROBERT J. HOFMAN

        Dr. Reynolds. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
    thank you for inviting the Marine Mammal Commission to testify
    on House Joint Resolution 59. I am accompanied today by Michael
    Gosliner, the Commission's General Counsel, and Robert Hofman,
    the Commission's Scientific Program Director.
        The Marine Mammal Protection Act amendments of 1994
    authorized the Department of the Interior to issue permits for
    importing polar bear trophies taken legally by applicants in
    sport hunts in Canada provided that certain findings are made.
    The statute places responsibility for making these findings on
    Interior and ascribes a consultative role to the Commission.
    The Commission commented on each finding required under the
    amendments. We did so to meet our responsibility to see that
    the Marine Mammal Protection Act is faithfully implemented as
    enacted. The Act clearly provides for authorizing the hunting
    of polar bears and other marine mammals and the importation of
    trophies in certain circumstances. And our statutory
    responsibility is to see that all applicable conditions are met
    before such taking or importation is allowed. We believe the
    final rule reflects the statutory criteria.
        My oral statement will be confined to the finding that
    Canada's sport hunting program is based on scientifically sound
    quotas, ensuring the maintenance of the affected population
    stock at a sustainable level. Although the Service suggested in
    its proposed rule that this, as well as other findings, were
    not applicable to those trophies taken by U.S. hunters in
    Canada prior to the enactment of the amendments, a plain
    reading of the statute and the accompanying statement of
    legislative intent indicate otherwise. Our comments therefore
    questioned the basis upon which the Service proposed
    differential treatment of trophies taken before and after
    enactment of the amendments.
        With respect to the finding of scientific soundness as it
    relates to pre-amendment trophies, the Commission noted that
    the nature of the required findings suggested that historical
    data be used and recommended that, at a minimum, the findings
    be based on present day quotas and management practices for
    each population.
        The other key question for the Service to resolve was
    whether the findings of scientific soundness were to be made
    for the individual polar bear management units in Canada, a
    single Canadian population, or for some other division of the
    populations. The Commission generally supported the use of
    management units as being appropriate and recommended that the
    final rule link the management units to the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act's definition of population stock.
        The Service published its final rule in February, making
    affirmative findings for five of the 12 management units used
    by Canada when the rule was proposed. The Commission believes
    that the final rule better reflects the statutory requirements
    and that the final rule is a considerable improvement over the
    original proposal. In the Commission's view, the Service, based
    on the record before it at that time, could not have sustained
    affirmative findings for any of the other seven management
    units.
        With final rules now in effect, there are three options on
    how to proceed. First, amend the rule based on revised
    interpretations of the statute. Second, amend the Act to
    establish different requirements, or third, work within the
    existing regulatory framework to consider additional data as
    they are developed. The Commission recommends the third option,
    i.e. working within the existing regulatory framework.
        This option enables the Service to consider new information
    and proposed revisions to the regulations as warranted. As
    described in Commission publications, this is something that is
    described as adaptive management, where you continually take in
    new data and revise your regulations.
        Shortly after publication of the final rule, the Commission
    obtained the most recent information on the status of Canadian
    polar bear populations and changes to Canada's management
    program. To assist in its review of this information, the
    Commission contracted with J. Ward Testa, Ph.D., a population
    biologist and biometrician. Dr. Testa's report, appended to my
    full statement, takes into account comments from the
    Commission, its Committee of Scientific Advisors, and outside
    reviewers.
        The report concluded that the Canadian polar bear program
    is consistent with generally accepted principles of sound
    resource management, that the methods and models used by Canada
    to set polar bear quotas are conceptually sound, and that
    available data supported Canada's realignment of the Queen
    Elizabeth Islands, Parry Channel and Baffin Bay management
    units into five management units.
        Using the criteria adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Service
    in the final rule, the report also examined whether polar bears
    from other management units might now qualify for import
    permits under the Act. It concluded that two of the revised
    management units, Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay, appear to
    meet the necessary criteria. Based on a review of the report,
    the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
    Scientific Advisors, has recommended that the Service, if it
    concurs with our analysis, initiate a rulemaking to make
    affirmative findings for these two additional management units.
        As for the remaining six management units, the Commission
    believes that there are problems that Canada still needs to
    resolve. We are well aware that some groups believe that the
    rule did not go far enough to allow imports of pre-amendment
    trophies or polar bears taken in other management units and
    that other groups felt that the Service's rule was too
    permissive. We believe that the Service's final rule accurately
    and appropriately implemented the plain language of the
    amendment.
        And I also would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [Statement of Dr. John E. Reynolds, III may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        The Chairman. All right, thank you. Mr. Jones, you
    mentioned you approved five of the 12 populations. Does the
    government of Canada believe all 12 populations have satisfied
    the criteria of the act?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the
    government of Canada has given us a direct comment or an
    evaluation.
        The Chairman. How did you base it?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. We used data.
        The Chairman. If they didn't give you a comment, what data
    did you use?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we used data that was
    provided by Canada. We had to do the evaluation. They provided
    the data.
        The Chairman. OK, now, in 1994 the government of Canada has
    communicated to the Committee and the United States that sport
    hunting of polar bears does not adversely affect the
    sustainability of the country's polar bear population and does
    not have a detrimental effect on maintaining these populations
    throughout their range. That was 1994. Now you just said they
    have the best system in the world.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. What criteria--what did you base your finding
    on?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we based our finding on
    the criteria that were contained in the law, and particularly
    one of the criteria which was the most difficult, the criteria
    that there must be scientifically based quotas which will
    provide for a sustainable population.
        The Chairman. OK, and what--let us say Canada comes down
    with a quota all the rest of the regions of two bears or three
    bears or four bears per region.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, if there were an enforced
    quota for each of the populations in Canada, then most likely
    we would have been able to approve all of the populations.
        The Chairman. But would you make a definition of enforced
    quota? What would be your idea of an enforced quota? Would it
    be two or three or five or ten or 15 or 20?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, Canada has the scientific
    basis to set their quotas, and we wouldn't try to tell them
    what those quotas should be.
        The Chairman. Without being argumentative, then, how can
    you deny the rest of the regions if they set the criteria. They
    submitted it to you, and yet you denied it. What basis--who
    told you to do this?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, there are provinces in
    Canada which don't have enforced quotas. The government of the
    Northwest Territories has what we think is a superb system. It
    involves quotas and it involves checking and it involves a
    scientific basis. Some of the other provinces, however, Mr.
    Chairman, either have quotas which are guaranteed and are not
    adjusted no matter what happens or don't have quotas at all.
        The Chairman. OK, the Marine Mammal Commission believes
    that the Lancaster population should be approved. Why is there
    disagreement?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we don't have a
    disagreement.
        The Chairman. Then why isn't it approved?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. We received the information too late to
    include it in the final rule which we published.
        The Chairman. OK, now my last statement. The thing that
    probably concerns me most, I sat in this Committee. We worked
    this out. We had the agreement. The Administration signed the
    bill. And you are sitting there and telling me you are going to
    work with everybody involved and you are going to do it in an
    expedited manner. Why should I believe you?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman. 1994, what year is--what day is today? Three
    years ago. What makes me think that you are going to do
    anything better?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, the issue that we had to
    deal with, as I mentioned, were very difficult. And
    understanding that your belief was that the intent of Congress
    was clear, when we read the law and when we looked at the
    criteria, we found that it required a lot of judgments on our
    part.
        The Chairman. Did the Solicitor tell you that you were
    going to be sued if you issued regulations as you proposed
    originally?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, we discussed the
    possibility that we could be sued. No one told us that we
    would.
        The Chairman. By who?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. By those who were unhappy--would be
    unhappy with the regulations.
        The Chairman. But why--but you have a responsibility as an
    agency to implement the act of Congress. That is your
    responsibility, is it not?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, it is.
        The Chairman. Then why do you run when someone threatens to
    sue you?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we don't run.
        The Chairman. You write a regulation that is contrary to
    what the Congress intended to do.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we hope that these
    regulations are not contrary to the intent of Congress. We
    didn't believe they were. We believe that we implemented the
    law, but we had to address all the issues that were raised on
    the record.
        The Chairman. My time is about up. What defense do you
    have, including your lawyers, about the bears, and how many are
    there that have been dead--why cannot we import those bears if
    they are legally taken under Canadian law, receive the moneys
    that we would receive from them, put it into polar bear
    research? Who insists upon not allowing those dead bears in? I
    can understand the future bears, but I cannot for the life of
    me understand a bunch of dead bears laying away in the closet,
    and who is going to sue you over a dead bear? I would love to
    take that case, by the way. And I am not a lawyer and I would
    win it. Some of you lawyers don't believe it. I would win that
    hands down. Who is going to sue you?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, it is probably better
    that I not speculate about who might sue us.
        The Chairman. I would like to know, because someone told
    you or someone told Katie McGinty or someone told Bruce Babbitt
    that you are going to be sued. Now who threatened to sue you?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. We have no formal threats of
    litigation.
        The Chairman. Then why do you worry about it?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, we are allowing the
    import of bears already taken from all the populations which in
    our judgment meet the criteria of the law, and we will allow
    the import of further bears from every other population which
    meets the criteria in the law.
        The Chairman. But what I am suggesting is what is the
    objection of a bear that was legally taken. Why not allow that
    bear to be taken by that hunter, bring into the United States,
    pay the $1000 fine, fee, whatever you want to do, pay it? Why
    not? I mean, what is the rationale for not doing that?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, personally I agree. What
    you have said makes perfect common sense. Mr. Chairman, however
    it is not what we believe the law requires. We have to make
    these judgments about the criteria and whether it came from a
    population which----
        The Chairman. My time is up, but one last one. Where does
    it say in the law, lawyer--you are getting paid for this. Where
    does it say in the law that you can be sued by allowing the
    importation of pre-killed 1994 bears?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, it says nowhere in the
    law.
        The Chairman. Well, then you said the law wouldn't allow
    you to do it.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, I say that our duty was
    to implement the law and apply the criteria that were in it,
    and it was our judgment--Mr. Chairman, we made a proposal based
    on the way we wanted to read the law.
        The Chairman. It wouldn't change that.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. We made a final rule based on what our
    final judgment, this is what the law really says with all of
    its requirements.
        The Chairman. Where does it say that you cannot import
    those bears, Mr. Lawyer?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, it says that they----
        The Chairman. I am talking to your--you have got legal
    counsel there. You are paying them enough. Where does it say--
    in fact, the original proposal of the rule said you could and
    would allow the importation of pre-killed 1994 bear, every one
    of them. Now where and who suggested the change and on what
    grounds?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, let me ask Mr. Young from
    our solicitor's office to----
        The Chairman. That is what I am saying. Where did it come
    from?
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer your
    substantive question, the reason the Fish and Wildlife Service
    found that it could not allow importation of non-approved
    populations, even for the pre-amendment bears, is because one
    of the criteria that we have to find before issuing permits
    says that Canada has a sport hunting program based on
    scientifically sound quotas, ensuring the maintenance of the
    affected population stock to a sustainable level----
        The Chairman. OK, stop right there. You are telling me if
    the species is sustainable and the Canadian government verifies
    that, all right, that the bear kill prior to 1994 effects the
    sustainable yield of the bear population?
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, that is not the particular
    criteria that we had to find here.
        The Chairman. Well, I am--again, I am trying to get back to
    what grounds are you worried about allowing those 1994 pre-
    killed bears into the United States?
        Mr. Young. We basically were not in a position to say that
    for the shared populations, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait and
    others, certainly South Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin, they are
    shared stocks.
        The Chairman. What difference does it make? This bear is
    dead. He doesn't even--I mean, this bear is no longer existing.
    It is a hide. It is a nothing. It is $1000 for polar bear
    research.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, that distinction was not made on
    the face of the statute.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman. Boy, I will tell you, this is like dealing
    with the doughboy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as your time is up,
    would you like some help?
        The Chairman. Yes, would you like--yes, Mr. Neil.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you. Gentlemen, I think you have
    gotten yourself into a bind here. You are not really answering
    the Chairman's question, or maybe you are and that is part of
    our difficulty. Your assignment was not to try and find ways
    that this couldn't be done. Your assignment really was to see
    how this could be implemented. Now I can see how you could
    answer the Chairman saying well, how does a dead bear affect
    this adversely. You could say well, that bear was alive, it
    could have been part of a procreation process, that this dead
    bear and all the other dead bears were part of a process which
    was antithetical to the aims of the legislation and apparently
    antithetical to the Canadian management program, because by
    killing these bears you were preventing reproduction and so on
    and so forth.
        But all the testimony that I see is to the exact opposite.
    There is an increase in the number of bears. Now maybe not in
    every region. Again, I can understand how you would do--
    possibly do regions and some may be sustaining themselves and
    reproducing maybe in excess in some regions and not in others,
    but you also testified that the Canadian plan--I don't know the
    word was excellent or what it was, but it was the finest plan.
        If there is no showing that the population is being
    reduced, if there is no showing that the Canadian management
    plan is not adequate to the task at hand, and if the management
    plan is consistent with international agreements and it doesn't
    contribute to any illegal trade, then at least on the question
    of those bears which are already taken, it seems to me the
    importation should have proceeded at pace.
        Now if the counsel could answer that question. I am unable
    to understand from the answer you gave why there is no
    importation if the points that I just raised are factual and a
    reasonable summation of the situation.
        Mr. Young. Thank you. I will attempt to give a more
    complete answer. Essentially taking the examples of the
    populations I have mentioned, South Hudson and Davis Strait and
    Foxe Basin, those populations are shared between the Northwest
    Territories and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as well as
    Labrador. The situation we faced was the fact that there are no
    enforceable quotas in either of those provinces. It is true the
    Northwest Territories has a managed program based on a
    scientific basis on quotas, but the population in its entirety
    does not. We felt that did not meet the requisite criteria as a
    prerequisite to issue permits.
        Mr. Abercrombie. OK, stop there. Then what you are saying
    is the Canadian management program is not scientifically sound
    and does not establish either quotas or other criteria that
    would allow for the importation of bears. You are saying the
    Canadian program is not adequate, but you are relying on, if I
    understand your testimony correctly, their submission of data
    to you.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Abercrombie, if I could answer your
    question.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Please.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. And it might be helpful to take a
    specific example. Baffin Bay, we have a map here, Mr.
    Abercrombie and Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Abercrombie. I can see it in part.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--which shows the 14
    existing new polar bear management areas.
        [The map may be found at end of hearing.]
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Baffin Bay is one of the areas which we
    did not yet approve. The population in the Baffin Bay area
    right now is judged by the data provided by Canada to be
    declining. And we have indications that there is concern within
    Canada about that population, not because of things happening
    in Canada, but because that population is shared with Greenland
    where there are no quotas right now.
        So, Mr. Chairman, that is an example of an area where there
    is substantial hunting, where there are many bears that have
    been taken in the past but because the law, finally, makes no
    distinction about when the bear was taken--the law requires
    that we make the same finding whether the bear was taken in the
    past and is already dead or whether the bear is going to be
    taken next year. We still have to make the same finding, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Abercrombie. All right, you say that, but believe it or
    not, I spent some time reading theology and you are making a
    theological statement there. If someone wants to sue you on
    that basis, I mean, that is part of your job. Let them go ahead
    and sue, but that really is a theological--this is Aquinas and
    Erasmus arguing and meanwhile there are poor people outside the
    church. That to me--you already--it doesn't make sense. You
    have already set up the criteria with respect to sustainability
    of the polar bear population in--is it five of the 12 or eight
    of the--I have forgotten.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. I beg your pardon?
        Mr. Abercrombie. You have already set up criteria, is it
    five of the 12 or eight of the----
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Five of the 12 have been approved so
    far.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Five of the 12, so you just move ahead in
    that. And as far as--and what I meant by theology is that dead
    bears, maybe that is true, but to reach back in effect to me is
    ex post facto. Then don't allow them to come in from Baffin
    Bay. You have already said that the way you are going to
    implement this is to do it region by region, right? Then just
    move ahead and do it and let the dead bears come in. That would
    save yourself a lot of grief. If somebody doesn't like that,
    let them sue you or something. That is what we have got--you
    have got lawyers that are paid seven days a week to deal with
    that. You have to have--and I am very jealous.
        I will tell you I am jealous of legislative prerogative. I
    realize that these days everything wants to move to the
    executive. We want the king--everybody has to bow to the king.
    That is one of the reasons I am allowing the commoner to sue
    the king. I think that is democracy, but the legislature, for
    good or for ill, we are all in this body here, the members
    sitting at this table here, are here because we are elected by
    our constituents. And we are here to try and do the job. And I
    have been on the winning side and the losing side of
    legislative issues, as has the Chairman and every Member here.
    But I certainly expect, having given my best effort, that the
    legislative intent is going to be obeyed absent some ruling to
    the contrary by competent authority.
        Now I don't think it is the business of--and I have been
    supportive of the Department of the Interior and Fish and
    Wildlife in every way that I possibly can be, because I think
    you have a tough job and a national question, national
    standards to maintain over and above regional considerations.
    And that is not always easy to do.
        But in this particular instance it seems to me you have
    done the job clearly adequately, but now you are getting into
    the minutia, virtually theological in nature, of
    differentiation that may be of concern to theologians, but has
    the practical consequence of actually undermining the
    legislative intent, at least--at the very least with the
    question of those bears that have already been taken and in
    those areas where you have already made a determination that
    you think you understand what the sustainable population
    criteria has to be and that bears can be taken there.
        Now if somebody wants to argue about Baffin Bay and perhaps
    one or two other areas that you have in mind, that is a
    separate issue that shouldn't prevent you from having the bears
    come in from the other areas where there is a sustainable
    population. Isn't that a reasonable position?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, what you have said and what the
    Chairman said previously, I told you, I agree makes common
    sense, but it also is contrary to the specific language of the
    law which tells us regardless of when the bear was taken,
    whether it is already dead, whether it has been taken in a
    future year----
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, then----
        Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--still have to make the
    same----
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, OK, I disagree with that. I think we
    should move ahead in some other--just let me finish this. If
    that was the case, because of the length of time, I don't think
    it is fair. And I think over this time--I guess this was passed
    when you were Chair, before Mr. Miller became Ranking Member.
        The Chairman. No, no, Mr. Studds was the Chair.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Excuse me, Mr. Studds was Chair. This is
    not a partisan issue here in this Committee, at least I think I
    can state that for the record. Because of the length of time
    that passed, I think you should have informed whoever was Chair
    of the Committee that the legislative intent was being
    undermined by your interpretation of the language of the bill
    as written and that it was going to be very difficult for you
    to implement the legislative intent because of the language,
    whether by default or design. To come to the Committee at this
    stage and say the language as written prevented us from doing
    what you sought to get done, OK, that is our fault if that
    happened. But it is up to you as the implementors--and this is
    a well-established legislative process, legislative standard.
        Legislators are not supposed to write rules and
    regulations. If we did that we would be here 365 days and
    nights a year and you would be writing legislation as long as
    your arm. We are to establish the policies and the intentions,
    and it is your job to put in the rules and regulations. If you
    think in good faith that the language put forward and the
    legislative intent inherent in that language disenables you
    from establishing rules and regulations which will carry out
    that intent, it is up to you to get back to the Committee and
    let them know that, not go three years and then come up and say
    well, this is the only way we can do it, it is too bad you guys
    didn't do a good legislative----
        The Chairman. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The
    thing that irritates me most, you--maybe not you personally,
    but the agency, both agencies, supported the language as we
    wrote the bill. You supported it and said it would work. It was
    our intent to import those dead bears and to improve the stock
    of the remaining bears. And we have done part of that thanks to
    Canada and the Eskimo people in Canada. But this is ridiculous.
    I mean, I have yet to hear anybody justify not allowing the
    dead bears in. This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever
    heard in my life, that you are going to punish the Canadian
    people, disrespect the Congress, because you won't import dead
    bears that no longer can do anything. I mean, I say this is why
    we have a real problem with government today, is you.
        The gentlelady.
        Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you
    agree with the common sense stated by Mr. Abercrombie and the
    Chairman. And God forbid we ever use common sense in
    government, I guess.
        You made a statement, Mr. Jones, and I wrote it down and I
    am anxious to see the transcript of this hearing, because I
    wondered when you said it if it was a Freudian slip. You said
    we based the final rule on what we wanted the law to say. And I
    just couldn't help but think that that must be a Freudian slip
    because we are running into that a lot.
        Yesterday we had a hearing on the process, the procedure
    before declaring the Escalante--before the President declared
    Escalante a national monument, and their testimony yesterday
    was that there was a leak to the press nine days before the
    declaration was made and that they did adequate communicating
    with members of the delegation from Utah and all the people in
    Utah in those nine days to make that good policy.
        The thought came to me--I couldn't get that out of my mind
    last night, because we are talking about different things. It
    seems that the--under Mr. Rashid--I am talking about him maybe
    more than I am you right now, at least in my assessment of
    that, that maybe it appeared you guys didn't think we were
    going to be here another two years and so you could--you didn't
    have to implement the things that we wanted to be done. And I
    am not asking for verification or denial or anything. These are
    just, you know, thoughts that have come to me because of all of
    these problems we have faced. It is not just this rule. It is
    many rules throughout the entire Interior Department.
        And I think that, judging from what I see, the problem lies
    more in the Interior Department than it does in Agriculture,
    than it does in most of the other departments. I don't
    understand that exactly, but I thought, you know, the three
    branches of government were established for a good reason. And
    Mr. Abercrombie referred to this. The Legislative Branch is to
    pass the laws. The Judicial Branch is to interpret the laws,
    and the Executive Branch is to administer the laws. But when
    the Executive Branch doesn't use common sense, as you say you
    didn't, or chooses to ignore the legislative intent, then they
    are constitutionally violating their role, which is to enforce
    the law.
        And I think we have to--we, the Congress, the Republicans,
    the Administration, we have got to start talking to each other
    about the same thing, about our role, and we have got to start
    developing some trust with one another, because we are going to
    be working together for a long time. And these are serious
    issues and these are about our country and our people. I guess
    I have rambled on long enough.
        What happens when this sort of abuse occurs is then that
    forces the Congress' hand to change a law that might be a good
    law and nobody wins, because like Mr. Abercrombie said, we
    should not be putting things that are in rules and regulations
    into law. That is too inflexible. It is too hard to get an act
    of Congress. We shouldn't have to do that in order to get the
    will of the Congress forced.
        So I just ask you as far as you can--I realize the whole
    thing is--you know, you are not the top guy on the totem pole.
    I know that, but please try harder.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Would you yield a moment?
        Mrs. Cubin. You bet.
        Mr. Abercrombie. In that context, I have the criteria. Can
    it be explained to me again why hasn't there been the
    importation of those bears already taken? Because I have the
    law right in front of me and it specifically says that that is
    to be one of the things that is to be done. And if the law as
    we wrote it was unclear, which of the five points in it do you
    think needs to be rewritten, and if so, how?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, if I could first address the issue
    that was raised regarding common sense. I hope the record----
        Mr. Abercrombie. I didn't bring up common sense.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir, I understand.
        Mr. Abercrombie. I took too long to do that. I was being
    theological.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I simply wanted to make the point
    that I hope the record shows what I intended to say and what I
    think I said was the proposed rule was based on the way we
    wanted to read the law. The final rule, we believe, is the
    way--is based on the way the law is really written. That was
    the distinction.
        Mr. Abercrombie. OK.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Now, sir, in terms of the criteria,
    there is one that is sort of buried in the paragraph above that
    talks about the hunter must show proof that the bear was
    legally taken. Then there are Roman numerals, one, two, three
    and four. And particularly for Roman numeral two, the statement
    that there is a sport hunting program based in scientifically
    sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected
    population stock at a sustainable level, that has been the one
    that has been most difficult for us, because, Mr. Abercrombie,
    as I mentioned, for example, for Baffin Bay----
        Mr. Abercrombie. Yes.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. That is a population which data from
    Canada clearly shows right now is declining and one which we
    have information that has been provided to us from Canada that
    indicates they are concerned, that they find that disturbing.
    The reason is not because of what is happening in Canada, and
    that is why I say again Canada's management overall is very
    good, but in that case of that particular population, on the
    Greenland side they don't have quotas.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, then why can't you just
    differentiate those areas and don't allow for importation
    from--that would send a message to the Canadians or to anybody
    else.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Well, sir, in fact what we did was we
    said we cannot approve that area right now because the bears go
    back and forth.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Now why not the others? You would allow
    broad discretion in this law, very broad discretion. And I
    think you could have put it together. I am not trying to pick
    on you folks, but in some respects--and I was being entirely
    facetious when I brought up the theological argument. It is
    possible to make a distinction without a difference. And I
    think you are making distinctions here without a difference in
    terms of thwarting the effect of what the law is supposed to
    do.
        At some point--you say Canada's sport hunting program is
    based on a scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance
    of sustainable population on the whole. On the whole, if I
    understood your testimony correctly, and I have to take you at
    your word in it, Canada is doing that. Is that a fair
    statement?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. On the whole, yes, sir, but we cannot
    say that all areas in Canada fit----
        Mr. Abercrombie. That is not what the law--I won't go on
    and on with it, but that is not what the law says it has to be
    in all areas. And we are giving you that leeway. We are not
    trying to write rules and regulations for individual regions or
    provinces in Canada, but you have that power. You have the
    power to do that. All I am saying is that I think, and I will--
    and if Mrs. Chenoweth would allow me the--and Mrs. Cubin would
    allow me to steal into their time----
        The Chairman. The lady's time is up and it is Mrs.
    Chenoweth's time now.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, could I have 30 seconds of your
    time?
        The Chairman. Would you restart that, please. Go ahead.
    Mrs. Chenoweth, will you yield to the gentleman?
        Mr. Abercrombie. Would you yield me 30 seconds?
        Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to
    the gentleman.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you. You could have, and still can,
    I think, deal with the question of those trophies that have
    already been taken unless you can show they were illegally
    taken. And I think you could by the use of the system that you
    set up to regard certain areas as being--as fulfilling all of
    these five criteria, move forward at least in those areas with
    the ability for Americans to be able to take these trophies and
    bring them back to America. And I think that you would--and if
    we need then to clear up language with respect to the rest of
    it, I think certainly the Chairman would be open to those
    suggestions. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, and I am happy--I just want to
    make a couple of statements, and then I am happy to yield my
    time back to the Chairman to dispense however he wishes.
        I appreciate the brilliant questioning from the gentleman
    from Hawaii, but I do want to say that I find very little, a
    very thin nexus--I don't find a nexus at all in the rationale
    we heard today from these witnesses. And Aquinas is a very fine
    work, Summa Theologica. I am not Catholic, but I recommend
    anybody read it. It is an outstanding work. There is no nexus
    here, though.
        I am as amazed as anyone else in this listening audience
    that we could see the will of Congress thwarted by the
    rulemaking process, but I would like to yield back the balance
    of my time to the Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, and I will yield to
    the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood.
        Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
    looking forward to this. Mr. Jones, are you an attorney?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir, I am not. I am a biologist.
        Mr. Norwood. Mr. Chairman, are our witnesses under oath?
        The Chairman. No.
        Mr. Norwood. Be careful, because I am very interested in
    your answers to some questions I want to ask you. How many
    polar bear--I am no attorney either, so, you know, don't worry.
    How many polar bear trophies are now in storage in Canada?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we don't have a way to know that.
    We have inquired with Canada. They cannot give us a number. We
    have heard various numbers, but I am not in a position to
    verify how many there are.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, will you do a best guess.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Probably several hundred, but I can't
    say beyond that.
        Mr. Norwood. Have any of those trophies been imported from
    Canada since 1994?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir, not yet.
        Mr. Norwood. So nothing has happened since 1994 when
    Congress passed a law indicating, and incidentally signed by
    the President, indicating pretty clearly that one of the things
    we wanted to do was to allow our constituents who had polar
    bears in freezers in Canada to be able to bring them home.
    Would you--just between me and you, would you sort of agree
    that is what the 103rd Congress was trying to say?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I am not sure if I want to try to
    comment on the underlying intent. What I can comment upon is--
    --
        Mr. Norwood. I insist!
        Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--what the law says.
        Mr. Norwood. You have to understand the intent to write a
    rule or regulations. I insist you comment on what you thought
    Congress was trying to do.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we read the law on its face and we
    read the Committee report, and we drew our conclusions from
    what was on the record.
        Mr. Norwood. All right, now we have Federal laws. I am just
    trying to figure this out. We have Federal laws and generally
    they are written by a Congress who have attorneys advising
    them. And what you are saying is that the lawyers in Congress
    didn't understand the statute they were writing, but only your
    attorneys could interpret the statute that we wrote, is that
    what you are saying?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, tell me how is it that you say you had
    to write these rules and regulations because your attorneys
    told you X, Y, Z? You wrote these based on what your lawyers
    told you.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we based our decision to prepare
    the regulations based on all the advice that we got from
    lawyers and others that we needed a regulatory process----
        The Chairman. Who are the others? Who are the others?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Within the agency, those that we
    consulted with.
        The Chairman. If we have to, I will subpoena all the
    records of your rulemaking and find out who the others are
    within the agency. Who in the agency?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, the staff who worked on it----
        The Chairman. And no one else----
        Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--myself and others.
        The Chairman. No one else contributed to your decision?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I couldn't give you a list today
    of all those who were involved, but there were a number of
    people who were involved in the decision.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for an additional
    five minutes.
        Mr. Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You wrote and you
    have said that you wrote these rules based on your
    interpretation of the law, which you viewed as a better
    interpretation of the law than Congress' interpretation of the
    law. Now that is what you said in terms of your rules, is that
    right?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. We didn't say that ours is
    better. We didn't say that we had a comment on Congress'
    intent. We read the law. The law says that we can allow polar
    bear trophies into the United States if we make certain
    findings.
        Mr. Norwood. OK, let us try it this way. Maybe you didn't
    say anything. Your actions prove to me that you believe that
    your attorneys interpreted the law of Congress better than the
    attorneys of Congress' interpretation of the law. Let us just
    be honest with each other. Common sense, do you suppose we are
    trying to get these polar bears back home? What do you think?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Good, that is a great move in the right
    direction. That is what Congress and the President wanted to do
    when the law was passed. Now I am sympathetic with you, because
    I think you understand what this is all about and somebody
    somewhere has put pressure on you to say no, we are going to
    write these rules to suit, and the Chairman keeps trying to
    find out to suit who. Who is so important about our laws that
    they override Members of Congress? Who is it?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, it was not our view that the
    regulations over--were overriding the intent of Congress or the
    views----
        Mr. Norwood. You know they were. Come on, give me a break.
    You know. You just said what we wanted to do. Who got to you?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we published a proposed rule. What
    I said was we published a proposed rule based on the way that--
    --
        Mr. Norwood. Doing the opposite of what Congress wanted to
    do, and you know that was the opposite of what Congress wanted
    to do. And I am in sympathy with you, but who got to you? Who
    made you do that?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, no one made us do it. We made a
    decision based on the whole record. I did mention we received
    comments from the Marine Mammal Commission. We received
    comments from others that pointed out to us that the law did
    not make a distinction between the bears that were already dead
    and the bears that could be taken in the future, and that we
    had to apply the same criteria.
        Mr. Norwood. I presume you won't answer the question. Let
    me ask you this, because you said this in your testimony, that
    you are not prepared to change these rules. Regardless of what
    we do in Congress now to throw out your rules, you are going to
    come back with the same rules, but you will negotiate.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, based----
        Mr. Norwood. Now you said that and it is in the record.
    Basically you said it doesn't matter what we do, these are
    going to be the rules we are going to stay with, but you would
    negotiate. For whom would you negotiate?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I didn't use the word negotiate.
    What we said is----
        Mr. Norwood. It is in the record, by the way.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--we would work with you
    and with the hunters and with Canada to get the data so that we
    could approve as many populations as will meet the criteria
    under the law. And that is fully what we are prepared to do.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, let me just for the record--Mr.
    Chairman, we have a conservation plan for Alaska written by the
    Service, and I quote, ``a polar bear trophy legally killed in
    Canada in the past or from current approved populations may be
    brought into the United States by the hunter once final
    regulations are developed.'' Everybody, I think, that can walk
    and chew gum knows that is what we were trying to do.
        Now lastly, if I may, just out of curiosity, if the Fish
    and Wildlife Service believes polar bear hunting if properly
    overseen can contribute to proper polar bear conservation, do
    you believe that?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. I do, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Good, I do, too. Why is it that this was not
    addressed in your polar bear conservation plan goal?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I am not sure that I can comment--
    --
        Mr. Norwood. Why didn't you address the issue of hunting
    and how well that improves conservation in your goals you set
    out, in your conservation plan?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, since I wasn't involved in the
    preparation of the document, I am not the best person. I don't
    think we have someone here today who can comment on that.
        Mr. Norwood. I am sure your agency will be glad to give us
    an answer in writing.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, absolutely.
        Mr. Norwood. Is there anybody that you know in your agency
    that you might be willing to categorize as anti-hunting?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I have no way of knowing who might
    be anti-hunting or pro-hunting.
        Mr. Norwood. Can we take a survey? How do we find that out?
    I would know in my office if I had people that were anti-
    hunting.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, that is not a criteria for
    employment. The Fish and Wildlife Service is in favor of sport
    hunting. I am personally in favor----
        Mr. Norwood. It seems to be, though, a criteria for writing
    rules that differ from the intent of Congress.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we don't----
        Mr. Norwood. We think there is something that stinks about
    this very bad, and the Chairman pointed it out and I want to
    reemphasize this isn't so much about polar bears. This truly is
    about freedom and it is about American's freedom. That is what
    this really is all about. And it is about Federal agencies who
    thwart their nose at Congress saying we know better so we are
    going to write rules regardless of what your intent in the law
    is.
        My last question, Mr. Chairman. You have said, as I
    understand it, and I just want to know something about it, that
    you have approved five of the 12 management areas, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Mr. Norwood. Does that mean--when you say approved, does
    that mean that approved for hunting and the deportation of the
    bear back into this country? Is that what that means?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Not approved for hunting. That is a
    decision entirely of Canada, but we--by approved I mean we have
    made the determination that those five populations meet the
    criteria that are established in the law and import is allowed
    into the United States now for bears taken in any one of those
    five populations.
        Mr. Norwood. How does Canada feel about the conservation in
    those five areas? Surely you know. In those 12 areas, how do
    the Canadians feel about it?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I----
        Mr. Norwood. I mean, you don't want them imported back into
    this country in hopes that we won't go up there and hunt them.
    Obviously you feel the conservation efforts in those other
    seven management units aren't real good. How does Canada feel
    about it?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I would not presume to speak for
    Canada. I don't think it is fair for me to characterize. What I
    can say is we consulted with Canada. They provided us with
    their data and we used their data to make our decisions. The
    law asked us to make the decisions, and so we made the decision
    that five of the 12 areas meet the criteria. In addition, sir,
    we have got new information regarding additional areas, and two
    additional areas we are now working on a finding which----
        Mr. Norwood. State that new information for me, please.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Beg your pardon, sir?
        Mr. Norwood. State that new information that you have.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. The new information was that they took
    one of their large units and divided it into smaller units,
    into more bite-sized chunks. And those--two of those smaller
    units, Mr. Chairman, we believe now looks very likely that they
    meet the criteria under the law and we are going to publish a
    proposed finding regarding that very soon.
        Mr. Norwood. Did you base your data on 1993/94 data to come
    up with your rules and regulations?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we used 1993 and '94 data
    supplemented by additional information where it was relevant.
        Mr. Norwood. What about the last--the data from the last
    three years, what has that shown for non-approved populations?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, the situation in each population
    may be a little different. And in some cases, as we discussed
    previously, the issue is the fact that there is a lack of
    quotas for control of the polar bear take in areas that are
    shared with either another province besides the Northwest
    Territories in Canada or with Greenland.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, would new data improve our situation
    over five of 12?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir----
        Mr. Norwood. I mean, your data at five of 12 management
    units, in my understanding, is based on 93/94. Now we are some
    three years later and we have new data. Will the new data give
    us ten out of 12, for example?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. We have looked at that, the
    new data that is available so far, and what we have been able
    to determine so far is that there are two additional areas
    which very likely will meet the criteria. And we are prepared
    to publish our finding that lays out the reasons for that very
    soon. For the other areas, sir, there still are issues--all the
    data that is available to us right now does not tell us that
    they meet the criteria under the law.
        Mr. Norwood. One final closing comment. You have been very,
    very kind, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to tell you as a
    friend that you have written these rules based on the fact that
    somebody has said well, if we don't write them this way we are
    going to get sued. And I can almost guarantee you you are going
    to get sued either way, which is not your job to worry about
    that. You job is to implement the intent of Congress. And if
    you don't change these rules, you are going to get sued too, so
    don't worry about being sued.
        And I just want you to know that I only have one polar bear
    from the 10th District of Georgia, but as long as I can breathe
    air I am coming after this situation till you change it,
    because you are tramping on the freedoms of Americans and
    Members of Congress.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Norwood.
        Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
        Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chair, may I have a point of personal
    privilege?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mrs. Cubin. I would like to first tell these gentlemen that
    my parents taught me you never talk about someone while they
    are in the room, you talk to them, but I have to violate that
    because I don't know where we are. I don't know where this
    leaves us. Where are we? Three alternatives have been brought
    forward by the Department. One of them is that we can change
    the law again.
        The Chairman. Which they would not sign.
        Mrs. Cubin. Oh.
        The Chairman. I can just about guarantee you that. Whoever
    is behind this would never allow it to be signed, but go ahead.
        Mrs. Cubin. OK, so--all right, so I just want to know what
    are our options. I think that we have made it clear how we feel
    about what the intent of this is, what the intent of the
    legislation was. Could somebody tell me how do we get that
    intent implemented?
        The Chairman. No one can really tell because they don't
    want to do it.
        Mrs. Cubin. Well----
        The Chairman. Go ahead and answer.
        Mrs. Cubin. How can we----
        The Chairman. Before you do that, just let me interrupt for
    a moment. Two things occurred to me. This is Monday, July 17,
    1995. The notice announces proposed legal and scientific
    findings for the importation of polar bears, including ones
    taken but not imported prior to the enactment of the 1994
    amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The purpose is
    to find that Northwest Territories and only the area in Canada
    currently allows sport hunting has monitored enforced sport
    hunting programs that ensures polar bears are legally taken
    consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Act
    scientifically, et cetera, et cetera. It says polar bears taken
    in the Northwest Territory prior to the amendment through the
    effective date of the final rule of the Service proposes they
    issue permits. That is your statement. You recognize that?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, let me ask Mr. Stansell if he
    recognizes that language.
        The Chairman. That is yours.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Now we have a different proposal and we still
    haven't--and by the way, I am officially requesting all
    documentations, all correspondence, all input from every party
    involved in these regulations, including any outside influence,
    including other organizations. If you don't send it to me as
    quick as possible, you will be subpoenaed. Is that understood?
        Mr. Marshall Jones. We will provide you----
        The Chairman. I mean every----
        Mr. Marshall Jones. [continuing]--everything that we have.
        The Chairman. Every little iota, all e-mail, all
    correspondence, all memos, everybody involved in this
    decisionmaking process. Secondly, let us--I am an old teacher.
    Read the law. The Secretary may issue a permit for importation
    of polar bear parts, other than the internal organs, taken in
    sport hunts in Canada, including polar bears taken but not
    imported prior to the date of the enactment of the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act of 1994 to the applicant which submits
    with his permit application proof that the polar bear was
    legally harvested in Canada by the applicant. Now you are
    telling me the law, and you base the denial of importation on
    the words--and I think it was two. Canada has a sport hunting
    program based on scientificly sound quotas.
        Now my old teaching tales tell me has is when and had is
    when. I am referring to the bears killed prior to 1994. If that
    word said had a sport hunting program, had a monitored program,
    then you could in fact say you had a reason that it can't be
    documented for importation of those bears. Has is prospective.
    Now, lawyer friend, sitting at the table making big bucks, tell
    me how you could base the law on any other interpretation?
        Has is only to apply to the conservation units set up by
    Canada and in fact scientifically studied and being promoted
    for the continuation of the species. You can not apply has to a
    dead bear.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, first of all, if I am making big
    bucks, I would like somebody to show me where it says that on
    my pay stub.
        The Chairman. If you don't, you will.
        Mr. Young. In answer to your question, the problem is not
    with the first sentence of 104(c)(5). If the statute had
    stopped there, we would have had full discretion to have issued
    permits for any legally taken sport trophy. The problem was
    with the subsequent language, which----
        The Chairman. Which language?
        Mr. Young. I am sorry?
        The Chairman. Which language?
        Mr. Young. The language in the first sentence where it says
    the Secretary may issue a permit down to the point where it
    says----
        The Chairman. Including polar bears taken----
        Mr. Young. [continuing]--legally harvested in Canada by the
    applicant.
        The Chairman. That is right.
        Mr. Young. But the subsection continues such permit shall
    be issued if the Secretary makes the following findings.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Mr. Young. Which are connected with an and, each one being
    a mandatory criteria.
        The Chairman. Now let me stress the word has and had. Has,
    the intent of this Congress was prospective to protect the
    polar bears, to help the Eskimo people and to make this thing
    work. It does not apply--the has cannot apply to a dead animal.
    It has been dead prior to 1994. If you want to solve this
    problem with a pick, gentlemen, I am going to tell you how to
    solve it. You give me my so many bears that have been legally
    killed, applied for, and allow the importation, then we can
    discuss the rest of it. Because there is no legal ground for
    what you have done. I am not a lawyer, but I happen to be a
    school teacher, and you tell me whether I am wrong with the has
    and had. Had--if it said had, that would mean the bear has been
    killed, had an--I would agree, but has is prospective.
        Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, if I could respond to that, one of
    the suggestions which was made during the formal comment period
    was that we should look at every year from the day polar bear
    hunting started in Canada and go through year by year and make
    a finding that it was OK in 1973 from this population so
    trophies can come in, but in 1974 it is not and then in '75 it
    is OK again. For exactly the same reason, sir, that you have
    just outlined, we made the decision that no, it doesn't ask us
    to go back and look at each year. It asks us to make a judgment
    exactly what you are saying, how Canada is today.
        The Chairman. OK, before you go on let me--I am going to
    let you get out of here because I know you have been here a
    long time. Please listen to what I have to say on this. It was
    the intent of this Congress that if in fact the permittee
    applied to you, the Secretary of Interior, and Canada said this
    bear was legally taken, it is a dead bear. That is a fact. You
    could issue a permit for the importation of that bear. The
    intent of this legislation was to protect the bear. Again I
    want to stress this. You are dealing with something that is
    impossible. You are protecting something that is gone and will
    never return. If you want to protect the bear, then think of
    the future.
        I won't even argue the five areas. I think you are wrong. I
    won't argue it right now. I think you are not listening to the
    scientific information. I think the gentleman from Georgia is
    absolutely correct, but if you insist on saying the Congress
    did not intend, show me where the law says we did not intend.
    And you can't. The lawyer can't show it to me. You can't show
    it to me. It is not in writing. And I am going to suggest
    respectfully you had better think about this very seriously,
    because like Mr. Norwood said, this is wrong. I sat on that
    Committee. Mr. Neil sat on that Committee and we knew what we
    intended. And you knew what we intended and your lawyers agreed
    with the bill that we passed. And I still want to know who the
    others are.
        Any other questions? You are excused, but you are not
    forgotten. And you will be on my list until you are able to sit
    in my office--and by the way, I suggest you set that up. You
    better find a solution to this problem. You are excused.
        I apologize to panel two. I am going to have some fun here.
    Akeeagok, all right--I should be pretty good with that. I have
    got a lot of my Eskimo friends in Alaska who want to hunt polar
    bears, for those in the audience that smile and grin when
    someone says something. When I am done, that will happen--the
    Northwest Territories; Dr. William Morrill, Safari Club
    International; Ms. Naomi Rose, Marine Mammal Scientist, Humane
    Society of United States, Washington, D.C.; Mr. J.Y. Jones,
    Dublin, Georgia.
        And, Mr. Charlie Norwood, you are welcome to introduce your
    friend from Georgia.
        Mr. Norwood. My friend and constituent. Mr. Chairman and
    members, I would like to introduce you to Dr. J.Y. Jones, who
    also resides in the 10th District. He is an ophthalmologist in
    Dublin, Georgia. J.Y. spends a great deal of his time, Mr.
    Chairman, free time, doing two things, volunteering his medical
    expertise in third world nations, and hunting, among other
    species, polar bears. Most recently Dr. Jones has served as a
    leader in working to reform the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
    permit the import of locally harvested polar bear trophies from
    Canada. It has been four years since Dr. Jones himself legally
    took a polar bear in Canada, yet he has been unable to import
    it.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I feel like that anybody that is crazy
    enough to hunt on ice ought to be able to bring his trophy
    home. So with that I would like to welcome my friend Dr. Jones.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        The Chairman. Dr. Jones, thank you for being here. I will
    go in the order which I introduced you, though. The gentleman
    from far, far away, Northwest Territories. Dave, you are up.
    You are welcome. Welcome to America, and congratulations on
    your efforts to try to preserve the polar bear and conservation
    methods. Go ahead, sir.

    STATEMENT OF DAVE AKEEAGOK, GRISE FIORD, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES,
                                 CANADA

        Mr. Akeeagok. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. [Inuktituk spoken] That in my language meant thank
    you for inviting me and giving me a chance to speak. First of
    all, I would like to let you know who I am. My name is David
    Akeeagok. I am an Inuk from Grise Fiord, which is Canada's most
    northern community. I am one of the Board of Directors for the
    Iviq Hunters and Trappers Organization, which represents the
    hunters and trappers interest in management of the wildlife.
    Also all my life I have hunted for food, which includes polar
    bear. Now that I live in the modern world, I also have a nine
    to five job at the local government.
        There are two main reasons why I came here to testify.
    First is to let you know that sport hunting is an important
    part of our social, economic and cultural livelihood. Also, if
    I may be blunt, sir, we would like you to stay out of our
    business and don't tell us how to manage our wildlife. We do
    not desire to judge your system or tell you what to do.
        We have a management system that is working very well and
    we are proud of. What I don't understand is why when scientists
    and us both work together and agree together to have a good
    sound management agreement with our government, now it appears
    your country disapproves it and are now telling us how to live
    our lives.
        Please, Mr. Chairman, I mean please, don't be the second
    culture to try and control our wildlife again. We are losing
    our faith and our self esteem in our culture when people from
    the worlds of trees and the hot sun are trying to control our
    lives.
        We still live off the land for survival. We want to
    continue this for our future generations.
        In our eyes sport hunting is subsistence hunting, since we
    do not increase quota or change current quota that is given to
    us by our government. In saying that, we don't use the fur for
    clothing as much as we used to, but now we can get non-Inuit to
    come up and shoot for us. They can take the worthless parts. We
    will keep the valuable part, which is the meat.
        Also sport hunting is keeping our culture alive by a law
    that a non-Inuk hunter must hunt a polar bear by using
    traditional ways of hunting, which is dog team. And it is an
    important part of our culture.
        It is a very important part of our community economy also
    because the money from the sport hunt that comes into the
    community is very high. Currently it is the third highest
    funding that comes into our community where we live in an
    expensive place where now that we are in the modern world
    everything has to be transported by plane or by an annual
    sealift, which when I mean everything I mean modern day food
    like hamburgers and that, which 50 percent is now coming in
    from the south. A single sport hunter brings to the community
    in around $20,000, and the money is shared all across the
    community.
        Mr. Chairman, let me tell you in 1994 when you approved the
    law for importation of polar bears we said finally the United
    States of America believed and recognized our management
    system, which we are very proud of. But in 1997, which is now,
    we feel you lied to us and betrayed us, and now we feel useless
    and are asking ourselves what did we do wrong. And we hope to
    get some answers.
        Mr. Chairman, Kujanamik, niliatigonaqaagavigna, which I
    mean--which I just said thank you for giving me a chance to
    voice my concerns. And I will try to answer your concerns and
    concerns of others while I am here in your country. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, David. And I will have a couple
    questions for you. Dr. William Morrill, Safari Club
    International.

     STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM MORRILL, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL,
                           HERNDON, VIRGINIA

        Dr. Morrill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come before this
    Committee today to talk about conservation, about the best
    large mammal sustainable use system in the world.
        Theoretical conservation was something I learned in school,
    but it is not the subject. Conservation on the ground in places
    like Kane Basin and Resolute, conservation that involves people
    and wildlife alike, that is what we are here to discuss,
    conservation that cuts through theoretical considerations and
    gets to the bottom line. Is it working? The answer for Canada
    is yes. Conservation that cuts through recognizing the
    elasticity of wildlife populations, but nonetheless has the
    foresight to be conservative and to balance that with the
    recognition that the resource will be used.
        I am not here today to talk about why the Canadian system
    won't work. I am here today to talk about that it does, maybe
    imperfectly, but well enough to meet the four conditions U.S.
    Congress put forth in the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act. There is a question that has been asked by a
    number of people, why not most, if not all, of the polar bear
    areas that were open to quota imports when the Canadians
    provided data that supported the harvest and export as outlined
    in the law Congress passed.
        The four conditions are the Canadians have a monitored and
    enforced sport hunting program consistent with the agreement on
    the conservation of polar bears. They meet condition number
    one. The Canadian polar bear hunting program is based on
    scientifically sound quotas, thereby meeting condition number
    two. The export and import are based upon existing treaties and
    conventions, thereby meeting condition number three. And the
    regulations in the final rule make the legal trade impossible,
    thereby meeting condition number four.
        There are two additional outstanding attributes of the
    Canadian system. The first is adaptive management. Adaptive
    management is basically research while the resource is being
    sustainably used. Canada has perfected that, and you can see
    that by the discussions which have gone on so far today and I
    think we will get into with questions. Central to adaptive
    management is the need to monitor, resulting in both learning
    and reducing uncertainty while resulting in adaptation of
    management.
        The second is the flexible quota system of Canada. It is an
    example of using management flexibility. If an over-harvest of
    bears occurs in one or more years, the following years quotas
    are reduced and vice versa. This recognizes people within the
    system of management in Canada.
        In summary, the Canadian system is scientifically based,
    rigorously monitored, strongly enforced, ecologically and
    politically appropriate and flexible for good conservation of
    the polar bear.
        But, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service added two
    additional conditions, first that any subpopulation or shared
    population would need to have cooperative management agreements
    in place between various governmental agencies. And this was
    addressed, I think, by Congressman Jack Fields, who said prior
    to the passage of this and for the record, ``let me first state
    that it is not the intent of the language that the Secretary
    attempt to impose polar bear management policy or practices on
    Canada through the imposition of any polar bear import
    criteria.''
        The Inuit are very proud of their management, their
    heritage as hunters and their ability to survive in the
    harshest climate in the Earth. The point that becomes even more
    vivid is the fact that the four conditions put forth by
    Congress were met.
        Data was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
    January of 1996 that would have allowed for a minimum of two
    more areas and in fact would have allowed under Congress'
    conditions for all but one of the areas to be opened. And yet
    Congress took that--excuse me, Fish and Wildlife Service took
    selective data on December 20, 1996, even beyond that time.
        Sport hunting has reduced the number of polar bears
    actually taken under the quota. It has provide conservation
    incentive to the local people living there. Canada has met the
    requirements that Canada placed upon importation of polar bear
    parts under the 1994 amendments. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service has, in fact, done exactly what Mr. Fields feared they
    would, and approved only a fraction of the areas that would
    have been approved if they had followed the direction given to
    it by Congress. There was an injustice here. The injustice is
    to Canada and her sustainable use program, to her people who
    lives in the harshest environment of the world and to the great
    white bear itself.
        Safari Club asks you to intervene on their behalf once
    again. Thank you very much.
        [Statement of Dr. William Morrill may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Rose.

      STATEMENT OF DR. NAOMI ROSE, MARINE MAMMAL SCIENTIST, HUMAN
              SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC

        Dr. Rose. Good morning. I am Naomi Rose, Marine Mammal
    Scientist for the Humane Society of the United States. On
    behalf of our four and a half million members and constituents,
    I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the
    House Resources Committee, for inviting me here to testify on
    the issue of polar bear trophy imports.
        While the HSUS disagrees with many elements of the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's final rule, we strongly agree with its
    decision to defer approval of trophy imports for seven of the
    12 polar bear populations in Canada. Therefore, we oppose
    passage of House Joint Resolution 59, as we understand its
    purpose is to disapprove the Service's current final rule with
    the goal of gaining import approval for those seven populations
    in a new final rule.
        My testimony today deals principally with our concerns
    regarding the scientific soundness of Canada's management
    program. The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group issued several
    resolutions in 1997. One affirmed the basic requirements for
    sound conservation practices. These include accurate
    information on: one, the number, location, sex and age of
    harvested polar bears; two, geographic boundaries of
    populations; three, size and sex age composition of the
    population; and four, rates of birth and death for the
    population. Canada's management program, at best, has accurate
    harvest information. It may have the best information available
    for two, three and four, but the best available information is
    not necessarily accurate.
        Regarding geographic boundaries, the boundaries for
    Canada's polar bear populations are based on the radio
    collaring of a relatively small number of female bears and
    mark-recapture studies of bears from limited accessible areas,
    resulting in non-random sampling biases. In most mammals,
    females have smaller home ranges and are more sedentary than
    males. It is clear that polar bear researchers still have a
    very limited understanding of male ranging patterns and their
    effect on gene flow between populations.
        In addition, the geographic boundaries of the populations
    are continually being revised. Just this past year, Canada
    split Parry Channel, Baffin Bay and Queen Elizabeth Islands
    into Lancaster Sound, Norwegian Bay, Kane Basin, Baffin Bay and
    Queen Elizabeth Islands. There is reason to question the
    biological basis for these changing boundary designations
    because of the uncertainty regarding genetic exchange and the
    question of reliability of small biased samples. In short, the
    boundaries appear to be more a convenience for human managers
    than a manifestation of actual biological processes in the
    bears.
        As for population estimates, sex-age composition and life
    history parameters, polar bear habitat makes the collection of
    accurate biological data extremely difficult. This is not a
    reflection on the data collectors. It is an inherent
    characteristic of the remote habitat and the species.
    Especially for the northern populations that have been little
    studied, population and life history data are poor. The Service
    has correctly disapproved several populations for which data
    are incomplete or for which Canada currently rates the
    population estimates as fair or poor. Based on data through the
    95/96 season, these populations include Gulf of Boothia, part
    of Queen Elizabeth Islands, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait and
    Southern Hudson Bay.
        There are still many unknown or poorly described aspects of
    polar bear life history and reproductive behavior. Much of the
    known life history information comes from Western Hudson Bay.
    This southern population, the most accessible to researchers,
    demonstrates higher birth rates, shorter interbirth intervals,
    and larger average litter sizes than other populations, all of
    which suggests that it is increasing relatively faster or
    declining less rapidly than other populations. In short, many
    management model assumptions come from an apparently
    nonrepresentative, best-case population, and using best-case
    assumptions can easily lead to over harvesting.
        Another factor influencing the Service's disapproval of
    several populations is that these populations cross national
    and provincial boundaries and joint management agreements are
    not yet in place. For example, Canada and Greenland will not
    finalize negotiations on joint management agreements until they
    complete research involving their shared populations, including
    Parry Channel/Baffin Bay. Given the lack of implemented joint
    management agreements, the Service was correct in deferring
    approval, as these populations do not yet have monitored,
    enforced and demonstrably sustainable management programs.
        I understand that the Safari Club and Dr. Jones, a fellow
    witness here, believe that the Service was in error evaluating
    the various polar bear populations in Canada separately rather
    than as a whole. I believe this is one aspect of the situation
    about which the HSUS might agree with them. The HSUS also
    believes that Canada should have been evaluated as a whole
    rather than as a series of management units. We base this
    belief on a strict legal interpretation of the language of the
    1994 amendments, which refers to Canada, not subpopulations
    within Canada.
        Yet both the Northwest Territories authorities and the
    Service acknowledge that Ontario does not protect pregnant
    females and females with cubs and Quebec's quota system is
    fixed and guaranteed and is not based on current scientific
    information. Thus, had the Service considered Canada as a
    whole, it would not have been able to make the first two
    statutory findings.
        In conclusion, the HSUS believes the Service was correct to
    disapprove imports from seven of the 12 populations in Canada,
    as the management programs for these populations do not meet
    the statutory requirements for being scientifically sound,
    adequately monitored and enforced.
        Thank you for your consideration of our comments. I am
    prepared to answer any questions you may have.
        [Statement of Naomi Rose may be found at end of hearing.]
        The Chairman. Dr. Jones.

              STATEMENT OF DR. J.Y. JONES, DUBLIN, GEORGIA

        Dr. J.Y. Jones. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
    I am J.Y. Jones, an ophthalmologist from Georgia. I am a
    lifelong hunter, and I speak today on behalf of America's 80
    million sportsmen and sportswomen. Thank you very much for
    allowing me to testify in that capacity. And thank you,
    Congressman Norwood, for introducing me.
        I must identify the fact that I am a devout Christian,
    having dedicated myself to Jesus Christ many years ago after
    finding no real meaning in life apart from him. I mention this
    to draw a significant parallel. I cannot disavow what I hold as
    my core beliefs, for to deny them denies who I am. In the same
    way, I am a hunter. I can trace my ancestry to soldiers who
    fought in the Revolution and the Civil War. Our menfolk were
    always hunters. I believe that all men are hunters in their
    inmost being, but in my case the opportunity to hunt at a young
    age cemented this innate aspect of my character into a dynamic
    force.
        I connect this with my Christian faith to draw the parallel
    I mentioned. My faith in Christ is not what I do, but what I
    am. So it is also with my hunting avocation. As our
    Constitution declares that I have a right to the pursuit of
    happiness within the rational constraints of the law, surely
    this includes my right to hunt. My heritage is under siege
    today, and the necessity of this hearing is proof of that.
        I would like to tell the story of Dr. Michael Werner. Dr.
    Werner was a general surgeon from Wyoming who hunted and
    harvested a polar bear in Canada in 1990. In 1993 he developed
    a type of brain tumor. He suffered through multiple brain
    operations, but he died in 1995. He never saw his bear
    imported.
        Mr. Joe Cafmeyer from Michigan is now 84 years old. He has
    waited for 24 years to import his polar bear.
        Canada's Eskimos have already benefited from the 1994 polar
    bear sport hunting amendments to the MMPA, though this cannot
    be sustained unless the rules are dramatically improved. The
    facts: the total harvest of polar bears has declined by about
    106 bears per year since the law was changed. The value of
    sport hunts to the Eskimos has increased by a factor of three.
        I am here today to protest three major points. First, there
    is the issue of grandfathering bears that are stored in Canada.
    The final rule gives six excellent reasons why all these bears
    should be approved for import. Paradoxically, ``based on
    comments received and a review of the MMPA'', the Service then
    disapproves these bears unless they were taken from an approved
    population. One must ask the Service why Congress specifically
    included bears already stored in Canada in the amendments to
    the MMPA. Did they think Congress really expected hunters like
    Joe Cafmeyer to select the population 24 years ago that would
    be importable today? One couldn't do that with a 1996 hunt! The
    answer is obvious. Congress intended to clear up the backlog of
    stored bears. The Service has taken some bad advice in ignoring
    this relevant fact.
        Second, only five of Canada's 13 polar bear populations
    were approved for import whether harvested in the past, present
    or future. These disapprovals were based on two super-criteria,
    neither mandated by Congress, those being that each
    subpopulation be either stable or increasing, and that
    comanagement agreements with other jurisdictions be in place.
    The Service consistently refers to Canada's 12 polar bear
    populations in the final rule.
        At the February 1996 Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting
    in Quebec City, which I attended, this key IUCN group approved
    redrawing three old populations into four new populations. Only
    two of these new populations are shared with Greenland, where
    the Service has taken the unprecedented step of requiring as an
    import criterion an agreement between two foreign governments.
        The new Lancaster Sound population is entirely within
    Canada and entirely within sustained yield. In some years past,
    Lancaster Sound has been home to the largest number of total
    sport hunts. While this population is mentioned, it is not
    considered a new population for purposes of permit issue. The
    Service had two representatives at that meeting in Quebec City,
    but this new information failed to make the final rule. Later
    data are included in the final rule in at least two other
    instances. It appears that the Service wants to approve as few
    polar bear import permits as possible.
        Lastly, in virtually every communication I have had with
    the Marine Mammal Commission, opposition was expressed to
    Congress going around the waiver provision built into the
    original law, a process which would have kept the MMC on center
    stage. Throughout the rulemaking, the MMC has erected
    barricades to obstruct importation of polar bear trophies as
    mandated by Congress, bringing up repeatedly legalistic, non-
    scientific questions that Congress by its action has already
    answered. I believe this obstructionism sheds light on why so
    much good data are ignored in the final rule. We need to remove
    the MMC from the decisionmaking process when it comes to polar
    bears.
        Please consider these facts:
        Congress intended for U.S. hunters to bring home polar bear
    trophies stored in Canada, but that process has been
    deliberately obstructed.
        Congress intended approval of imports of all legally
    harvested future polar bear trophies from Canada, but the
    intent has been subverted.
        Congress intended for the MMC to help expedite the process,
    but they have instead obstructed the process.
        Please do something to help us. Thank you for the
    opportunity to comment.
        [Statement of Dr. J.Y. Jones may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate your
    decoration and your enthusiasm. You have been in it a long
    time.
        David, first let me say--is it Dave or David?
        Mr. Akeeagok. David.
        The Chairman. David. Let me first say that I am not to tell
    you or your government how to manage your game. This is the
    Administration who is trying to do it, an agency within the
    United States Government. That is why we are having the
    hearings today, to try to find out how they arrived at this
    decision. But one of the things you said, I think, in your
    testimony that is counteracted by Dr. Rose is that they claim
    that sport hunting is not subsistence hunting. And you said
    that sport hunting is subsistence hunting. Can you explain that
    again.
        Mr. Akeeagok. To us sport hunting is subsistence because,
    for example, the government gives us in Lancaster Sound 25
    bears for us to have. They give us--they say there are 25 bears
    for you to eat. And we take that and say OK, we will take those
    and then we say in a meeting, the whole community comes in and
    says we will set aside this many for sport hunters for them to
    take home to them, but we will keep the meat. So when a sport
    hunter comes in and shoots that bear, he leaves the meat to us,
    and that provides meat for us, which is subsistence hunting.
        The Chairman. In reality what is happening, they are
    pulling the trigger. They are taking the hair, which you can't
    eat, and they are leaving you the meat?
        Mr. Akeeagok. Yes.
        The Chairman. That is subsistence.
        Mr. Akeeagok. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. All right, now, another question. What if all
    hunters stopped coming up there, what would happen to your
    community?
        Mr. Akeeagok. For now, we are relying on money, as in any
    other world. If sport hunting stops, one third of the economy
    will collapse, and those that have invested in their time to do
    sport hunting will not be able to function.
        The Chairman. When you hunt, sport hunting or most of your
    quota of sport hunting, you don't hunt the sows or the cubs, do
    you?
        Mr. Akeeagok. No, sir.
        The Chairman. You hunt the big boars?
        Mr. Akeeagok. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Prior to sport hunting being allowed, did you
    kill sows and cubs?
        Mr. Akeeagok. Prior to the '50's that was the case, but
    with the law that was agreed upon, sows and cubs were not
    allowed. But if a sow has no cub, we are still allowed to hunt
    those.
        The Chairman. Well, anyway, David, I appreciate you coming
    all this way, because this was our understanding, that in fact
    it improved the population of the polar bear and was a
    conservation method.
        Dr. Rose, do you agree that the Inuits or the Eskimos have
    a right to hunt subsistence?
        Dr. Rose. The HSUS does not oppose subsistence hunting in
    Canada or in Alaska.
        The Chairman. He just explained subsistence hunting. Do you
    agree with that interpretation?
        Dr. Rose. I respectfully disagree with it, because although
    the meat is left behind in the community, so is $20,000.
        The Chairman. So what is wrong with that?
        Dr. Rose. I am not--I don't think there is anything wrong
    with them wanting to make a living. I certainly don't think
    there is anything wrong with that, but----
        The Chairman. It is the only thing available, so what is
    wrong with it?
        Dr. Rose. I have concerns about putting that much value on
    the animal which makes--there is pressure there. I mean, you--
    --
        The Chairman. Now wait a minute now. The pressure----
        Dr. Rose. There is pressure there to increase the----
        The Chairman. How many are they allowed to shoot?
        Dr. Rose. What is the quota?
        The Chairman. Yes, what is the quota?
        Dr. Rose. It is different for each population.
        The Chairman. Now wait a minute. Let us use David.
        Dr. Rose. 25.
        The Chairman. OK, now where does the pressure come from?
    They make a decision what shall be shot and not be shot, but
    they put a value which is important to them, and they don't
    kill the sows and cubs. They kill the big boars. Now what is
    wrong with that principle?
        Dr. Rose. The population estimates are based, as I said in
    my testimony, on numbers that I consider to be not robust. And
    if there is such a value placed on the animal, I have grave
    concerns that there will be pressure on the managers to say
    that there are in fact more bears in a population than there
    really are. That has already been done. There was----
        The Chairman. Where?
        Dr. Rose. In--let me get this correct. In Davis Strait
    there were believed to be 950 bears and the quota was 58 bears.
    And the model that they said used that in order to sustain 58
    bears there should really be 1400 bears in that population, so
    they changed the number to 1400 bears. They came up with 450
    bears because that was what the----
        The Chairman. Did they kill 450 bears?
        Dr. Rose. No, but the quota was only sustainable under
    their model if there were 1400 bears, and they originally
    thought there were only 950.
        The Chairman. Let us get back to the permits. Did your
    group or yourself individually contact the Fish and Wildlife on
    this issue?
        Dr. Rose. No, sir.
        The Chairman. Nobody at all talked to them?
        Dr. Rose. No, sir.
        The Chairman. Nobody communicated to them, in fact, that
    there was a possibility of a lawsuit?
        Dr. Rose. Not to my knowledge.
        The Chairman. Not to your knowledge?
        Dr. Rose. Not to my knowledge.
        The Chairman. All right, because I am going to get those
    documents.
        Dr. Rose. And I am the only mammal scientist at the HSUS
    and I would have done it if anybody.
        The Chairman. I realize that, but I am going to get the
    documents, so the next time if there is any fingerprints----
        Dr. Rose. We submitted comments, sir. We submitted comments
    during the public comment period.
        The Chairman. Oh, comments?
        Dr. Rose. Yes.
        The Chairman. All right, you submitted--there was no
    contact, but you submitted comments?
        Dr. Rose. I am sorry. I thought you meant outside of the
    public comment process. I am sorry. I misunderstood you.
        The Chairman. All right, at least we can get that part
    straightened out.
        Dr. Rose. We submitted three sets of comments.
        The Chairman. Dr. Morrill, you are not an expert on polar
    bears, are you?
        Dr. Morrill. No, sir, I am not.
        The Chairman. You base your testimony on?
        Dr. Morrill. I base my testimony on the fact that I have 25
    years experience as a wildlife biologist, that I am familiar
    with sustainable use programs in three continents of the world
    and have overseen different projects and programs pertaining to
    sustainable use and wildlife management.
        The Chairman. Would you say that the testimony that the
    Fish and Wildlife presented today has any image of
    conservation?
        Dr. Morrill. I am sorry?
        The Chairman. The testimony of the Fish and Wildlife, is
    there any image of conservation in there?
        Dr. Morrill. In what Fish and Wildlife Service was saying?
        The Chairman. About the 100 bears--I am going to get back
    to Dr. Rose, why she objects to the 100 bears coming in. I
    don't understand, still don't understand that.
        Dr. Morrill. I listened to--you can make conservation out
    of anything. They were talking about regulation, and
    conservation, of course, usually fits within regulation in some
    form, but conservation occurs on the ground in the place where
    the animals are involving the people where the animals are.
    That is where conservation occurs. It doesn't, unfortunately,
    occur in Washington, D.C.
        The Chairman. Dr. Rose, again, are you supporting or
    objecting to the importation of the dead bears?
        Dr. Rose. This may surprise you, and if you do look at our
    comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service, we actually--I will
    be very honest with you, we just oppose the entire import
    provision in the MMPA. We opposed it at the time. Again, the
    record shows that. So we don't think any bears from Canada
    should be imported into the United States. So what will
    surprise you is to find that I do find that this final rule
    which says that prior bears, you know, pre-amendment bears
    can't come in but, you know, bears that have been approved--
    populations that have been approved can come in but populations
    that have not been approved can't come in, it does strike me as
    being somewhat illogical.
        The Chairman. It is not common sense, is it?
        Dr. Rose. I am not disagreeing with that, however I do
    oppose the whole permit import----
        The Chairman. Oh, I understand where you are coming from
    there, but the idea that the base says you can't import a dead
    bear----
        Dr. Rose. Our comments stated we felt that the amendments,
    the language of the law, said that they did have to look at the
    past history, the past conservation management history. They
    disagreed with us. We disagree with them. I told you we didn't
    agree with every element in the final rule at the beginning of
    my testimony.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from Wyoming.
        Mrs. Cubin. I don't have any questions.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from Idaho.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions.
    And then I will yield back the balance of my time. Dr. Rose,
    you mentioned that--on page 2 at the top of your testimony that
    little is known about the sex differences and ranging behavior
    and that males range more widely than females and that--on page
    3, paragraph 2, you say part of the problem here is that many
    contaminants from industrialized nations thousands of miles
    away end up in the food chain in the Arctic where the polar
    bear, as top predator, concentrates them in its tissue. That
    may, may, result in the bears experiencing decreased fertility
    or a diminished immune response. Are you positive? Do you have
    scientific information to back up this allegation in your
    testimony that the bears are experiencing decreased fertility
    and a diminished immune response?
        Dr. Rose. The whole point of my testimony, ma'am, is that
    scientists are not sure about these things. I did say may, and
    I am very careful to use that sort of language when we don't
    have positive proof. Science very rarely does, but with polar
    bears in particular the information is particularly non-robust,
    in my opinion, and therefore it is the very potential for this
    sort of thing that causes me concern. The precautionary
    principle should apply.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. You go on to state that given the
    vulnerability of the Arctic ecosystem to environmental
    degradation, which I really can't seem to put together,
    including the potential for global warming to shrink the polar
    bear's habitat.
        Dr. Rose. Uh-huh.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. Now this seems to be reaching very, very
    far in order to justify these people not being allowed their
    trophy.
        Dr. Rose. All of that testimony was simply to set the stage
    for saying that the polar bear, and particularly because of its
    marginal environment, because of its harsh marginal environment
    and because of the threats that it is facing from, as I said,
    the potential of things like global warming and contaminants,
    organochlorines and pollutants, that this is a species that is
    inherently unsuited to a frivolous sport hunt.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. At the bottom of your testimony on page 5,
    you indicate that in spite of all the global warming and all
    the toxic stuff, that these industrialized nations are sending
    thousands of miles away to influence their food chain and their
    tissues and so forth, that increased sightings and encounters--
    you admit to increased sightings and encounters which could
    result in the redistribution of the population in question as a
    result of more bears moving into an area frequented by hunters.
    Now that is very, very inconsistent.
        Dr. Rose. No, it is not, ma'am, because what I was saying
    was that, for instance, global warming could be forcing the
    population farther south. In other words, local hunters would
    in fact see more bears, not because there were more bears but
    because the bears that used to be farther north have now moved
    south. So the numbers are the same, but the density has
    increased.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. People are seeing more bears, but we know
    very little about it.
        Dr. Rose. I am simply offering an alternate hypothesis that
    the managers don't seem to be considering.
        Mrs. Chenoweth. And your final part of your testimony,
    which you did not offer verbally, was that Dr. Jones, who I
    think is one of the finest witnesses that we have ever had
    here, it reads Dr. Jones in his testimony viciously excoriates
    the Marine Mammal Commission for its conduct on this issue.
    Doctor, there is no way this gentleman could be vicious, no way
    at all. And I think that this pie in the sky non-scientific
    opinion is very little reason to oppose people being allowed--
    before this rule came in, people being allowed to bring their
    trophies into America. I think that we are just seeing a
    personal opinion that is influencing, and I think we will find
    that, influencing a policy that is sadly in opposition to that
    which the Congress directed. I am very sad to see that. Someday
    we are going to have to get back to the point where we deal
    with realities and where we don't attack people like Dr. Jones.
    I hope someday while I am still here in Congress that we are
    dealing with facts and not opinions. Thank you, Mister--Madam
    Chairman.
        Mrs. Cubin. [presiding] I wanted to express my appreciation
    to Dr. Jones for bringing up Mr. Werner. He is from my
    community. I knew him all my life, and I do appreciate your
    bringing up his memory.
        Mr. Norwood, do you have questions?
        Mr. Norwood. Yes, ma'am, I do. And some of these are yes
    answers, please, for in terms of time. But first let me say,
    David, that in your testimony you said our country disapproves
    or your management system. And I want to just humbly tell you
    that not everyone in our country does disapprove of your
    management system. There are some people who do, but surely you
    know many of us do not, too.
        Ms. Rose, I am sort of interested in your written testimony
    attacking my friend, Dr. Jones, too. And I have noticed that
    you seem to imply that he is a pawn of the Sierra Club and that
    he is this----
        Dr. Rose. Safari Club, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Safari Club. And you seem to say that he is a
    vicious individual, and I thought I would talk about that just
    a minute, because, you know, I can't imagine what you are going
    to call me when I try to defund the Marine Mammal Commission,
    but probably worse than vicious. But just so--for the record,
    my friend, who is a hunter and a conservationist, Dr. Jones, is
    not just a member of the Safari Club. He is a member of the
    National Rifle Association and the North American Hunting Club
    and the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, the Grand
    Slam Club, Quail Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, National Turkey
    Federation, Foundation of North America Big Game, Rocky
    Mountain Elk Foundation, Middle Georgia Gunners Association,
    Georgia Forestry Commission, Georgia Outdoor Riders
    Association, National Wildlife Refuge Association, The Wildlife
    Society.
        And I would submit to you, madam, that those groups do more
    for--pardon me, I am upset with you--with conservation in this
    country than perhaps the Humane Society ever thought about
    doing. It doesn't require a comment.
        Now I want to just ask you some simple questions. Did the
    Humane Society find that it was in agreement with the ruling
    that the Wildlife Service has recently put out regarding polar
    bears?
        Dr. Rose. We agree with their decision to defer those seven
    populations. We do not agree with their findings that the
    Canadian sport hunt program is monitored and enforced in
    agreement with the International Agreement on Conservation of
    Polar Bears, and we don't find that it is scientifically sound.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, would you have liked for them to have
    been a lot tougher?
        Dr. Rose. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. So you worked hard in order to try to make
    sure that they did not really promulgate a rule that went along
    with the intent of Congress, that you and your group knew a lot
    more about all this than the people in this country who write
    the laws. And there was no excuse in us doing what Congress
    wanted to do when your group knew so much better. Was that the
    approach?
        Dr. Rose. No, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. No?
        Dr. Rose. We submitted comments, as we are allowed to do
    under the democratic system, to submit public comment during
    the public comment period when rules and regulations are
    proposed. And we agreed with the Service's interpretation that
    Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to make certain
    findings. We disagree that--with their findings. We don't think
    that the four findings they made were correct, and so in fact
    we disagreed in that regard with the Service, and by the way,
    with the Marine Mammal Commission.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, so you are saying that the Humane
    Society really felt that the Marine Mammal and Wildlife should
    have gone a lot further and totally ignored the law passed by
    Congress in 1994? That was--you have every right to submit
    comments, but within your comments were you trying to push
    these agencies to write rules and regulations that were
    absolutely the opposite and went much further than Congress
    wanted to have happen?
        Dr. Rose. We were reading the statute on its face that said
    that Congress had directed the Secretary of the Interior to
    make certain findings. And we--in other words, it was up to the
    Secretary to make those findings, to make those decisions. And
    we disagreed with those decisions that were made.
        Mr. Norwood. Is the answer yes or no? Did you push through
    comment to try to get these agencies to undo what Congress
    wanted to have done?
        Dr. Rose. In our opinion, no, sir, we did not.
        Mr. Norwood. There probably is a difference in opinion
    there. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been to the Northwest
    Territories of Canada to examine their polar bear management
    program firsthand?
        Dr. Rose. I am sorry, sir, could you repeat that, please?
        Mr. Norwood. Have you ever been to the Northwest
    Territories of Canada to examine their polar bear management
    program firsthand?
        Dr. Rose. No, sir, but I have been in communication with
    the Northwest Territories.
        Mr. Norwood. Do you know where it is based, the management
    program?
        Dr. Rose. In Yellowknife.
        Mr. Norwood. In Canada?
        Dr. Rose. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Where is it based?
        Dr. Rose. In Yellowknife.
        Mr. Norwood. I am asking you if----
        Dr. Rose. I have been in contact with the biologists who
    are in the Department of Renewable Resources, the Department of
    Resources and Wildlife----
        Mr. Norwood. Well, the next time you call them you will
    probably want to know they have moved. Have you ever----
        Dr. Rose. To Iqaluit, yes, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Have you ever attended one of the IUCN Polar
    Bear Specialty Group meetings?
        Dr. Rose. Again, no, sir, but I am in communication with--
    --
        Mr. Norwood. Are you a member of that body?
        Dr. Rose. No, I am not.
        Mr. Norwood. You mentioned in your testimony the ever-
    changing boundaries of the Canadian polar bear populations. Are
    you aware that such changes are submitted to the IUCN Polar
    Bear Technical Committee for review and that the scientific
    data must pass scrutiny of this international body, and do you
    know that the last time they were changed was before 1996?
        Dr. Rose. Yes, I am aware that----
        Mr. Norwood. Are you familiar with all that?
        Dr. Rose. I am aware of how the ICUN PBSG reviews those
    things, yes, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. You mentioned in your testimony that most of
    the scientific studies have been done on female polar bears?
        Dr. Rose. According to my review of all the research, yes,
    sir.
        Mr. Norwood. I wonder why that is?
        Dr. Rose. My guess is because they are easier to approach,
    handle, anesthetize. They are more easy to--they are easier to
    find because of their ties to denning sights. I really----
        Mr. Norwood. David, is that right? Are females easier to
    find than males?
        Mr. Akeeagok. No, sir. The females are harder to find than
    the males.
        Mr. Norwood. That is what I would think. Are they easier to
    work with? I mean, are they nicer than the males?
        Mr. Akeeagok. Pardon?
        Mr. Norwood. Are the females nicer than the males?
        Mrs. Cubin. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Norwood. Polar bears, David. Well, let me just help
    you, because the reason that we have our information on females
    is because the neck of an adult male polar bear is larger than
    the head and satellite tracking collars fall off the males
    pretty easily. But males, just so you will know for the future,
    are instead marked and recaptured by tattooing a mark on the
    under side of the lips rather than placing the tag around their
    neck. That will be of interest later on.
        You say that there are relatively few polar bears tagged
    each year for scientific purposes. Do you know how many are
    tagged by the Northwest Territories each year?
        Dr. Rose. About two or three hundred a year, to my
    understanding.
        Mr. Norwood. That, just so you will know for the future, is
    436 bears, about 20 percent of the population.
        Are you aware of a recently published article in
    International Bear News, February 1997, Volume 6, Number 1,
    page 12, in case you want to look it up, which suggests that
    cannibalism is five to ten times higher in non-hunted bear
    populations as opposed to hunted populations? Are you aware of
    that?
        Dr. Rose. I am not aware of that. I am aware that Dr. Ian
    Stirling, who is a Canadian biologist, stated that he does not
    believe cannibalism is a significant mortality factor in polar
    bears.
        Mr. Norwood. David, do you find that when there is an
    abundance of bears, in particular polar bears, that there is
    cannibalism that goes on? In other words, the male eat their
    young, that kind of thing?
        Mr. Akeeagok. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Walter Jones. J.Y., tell me about that.
        Dr. J.Y. Jones. I would be glad to comment on that. It is
    true that cannibalism in the Canadian population is not a major
    problem, but I would point out that it is eminently hunted. We
    feel that it probably is a major problem in the Alaskan
    population, which is very lightly hunted, and in other polar
    bear populations around the world. But there is no question in
    the hunted Canadian population that Dr. Stirling would be
    addressing that it would be a minor problem. That is a hunted
    population.
        Mr. Norwood. But if it were not, because we can't import
    bears, we would expect, perhaps, that the numbers of bears
    might remain somewhere around the same because of cannibalism?
        Dr. J.Y. Jones. Well, you might--I don't know that you
    could infer that it would go up or down because of cannibalism,
    but I think what you wind up with is a major population shift
    toward older males and fewer cubs and females. This cannibalism
    study that you refer to demonstrated very clearly that the
    victims of cannibalism were not just cubs either. There were
    female bears as well, and so what you wind up with is a shift
    toward the very population that sport hunters are after or
    would like to harvest, which is the adult male polar bear.
    The--you require a certain number of adult male polar bears, of
    course, to maintain the population just for purposes of
    fertility and breeding, but when you have too many of them and
    when these old adult males are not removed from the population,
    you have a shift toward the older adult male and a shift away
    from cubs and females. It is as simple as that.
        The Chairman. How much time do you want?
        Mr. Norwood. One last final question.
        The Chairman. Before you do that, I heard the lady. She
    said how disgusting those old males are.
        Mrs. Cubin. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I said and we all know
    how disgusting old males----
        The Chairman. Old males are. May I suggest respectfully
    some younger ones are also disgusting.
        Mr. Norwood. Dr. Morrill, just a brief question, because I
    wasn't sure I heard you right in your comments. We have heard
    today that the Wildlife Service has approved five of the 12
    management units in Canada. And I thought you said that perhaps
    if we would listen to the Canadians just a little bit we would
    find that they would in their management system have approved a
    great deal more than five out of 12. Did I hear that right?
        Dr. Morrill. At the Polar Bear Specialist Group in 19--
    January of 1995--excuse me, 1996, the Canadians showed that all
    except one population was at a sustainable level. So given what
    Congress had said in the four conditions, then the Canadians--
    11 out of the 12 at that--excuse me, 12 out of the 13 at that
    time, because they divided one of the areas during that
    particular meeting, 12 out of the 13 would have been approved.
        Mr. Norwood. And that was some of the testimony in 1994
    that we took justifying the law that was passed then.
        Ms. Rose, my last question, just because I am real curious
    about it. I understand that the Canadian Humane Society has
    sued your Humane Society. What is that all about?
        Dr. Rose. I couldn't tell you, sir. I am the Marine Mammal
    Scientist. I am not in the executive level of the Humane
    Society of the United States.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, why--did the courts find you guilty--not
    you personally, the Humane Society guilty in misappropriation
    of funds?
        Dr. Rose. I am sorry, I can't comment to that, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Why?
        Dr. Rose. Because I am low on the totem pole. I am just in
    the wildlife department. I don't----
        Mr. Norwood. Do you not know the answer?
        Dr. Rose. I do not know the answer, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. Could you give us the name of somebody who
    might know the answer?
        Dr. Rose. You are free to contact Mr. Paul Irwin or Ms.
    Patti Forkan at the Humane Society of the United States.
        Mr. Norwood. Were you not aware of this suit?
        Dr. Rose. Oh, I am certainly aware of it. It is mentioned
    in the Safari Club's publications and in other publications.
        Mr. Norwood. And so within inside the Humane Society you
    all didn't talk about this we are being sued, for pity sakes,
    by another Humane Society or talk about the fact the courts
    have found us guilty for misappropriation of funds? You all
    didn't talk about that?
        Dr. Rose. Do you want me to testify to office gossip or
    what I know for a fact?
        Mr. Norwood. I am not really asking you did you read the
    summary of the court records. I am asking you was that
    generalized knowledge inside the Humane Society?
        Dr. Rose. I was aware of it, but I just don't know the
    details, sir.
        Mr. Norwood. OK, well, I don't either. I am just curious
    how in the world that could have happened. There must be a
    difference in opinion in the Humane Society.
        Dr. Rose. You do have to contact my bosses. I really don't
    know.
        Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady, do you have another question?
        Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, yes, I didn't ask questions
    before, and I just want to make a brief statement.
    Philosophically Dr. Rose and I are very, very far apart, but,
    you know, I think that the harm that has been done here has
    been done by the bureaucracy and not by people interested in
    this issue. I think it is perfectly acceptable that people
    disagree on issues philosophically and respect one another for
    that, and I just kind of want to go on the record that way. Any
    wrongdoing that I see was not done on the part of the
    interested public. It was done on the part of our own
    government.
        The Chairman. Only if they were involved with the
    decisionmaking by the agency which had the responsibility to
    implement the Congressional act and intent of the law. Then I
    get very concerned.
        Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mrs. Cubin. I would even disagree with you on that. If I
    had----
        The Chairman. I wouldn't expect you not to do anything
    else, but go ahead.
        Mrs. Cubin. If I--you know, I think that as a citizen
    concerned about an issue I have every right to deal at every
    level to get my view represented. I think when I am an elected
    official, when I am a bureaucrat it is a whole different deal,
    but anyway.
        The Chairman. I understand.
        Mrs. Cubin. For the record----
        The Chairman. I am just saying that my concern is for some
    reason this July of 1995 complete flip flop. I mean this is the
    most amazing thing I have ever seen. And the lawyer agree they
    wrote it. And that didn't happen overnight. Somebody working--I
    am going to restate it again. The lawyers in this room, the
    agencies in this room supported this legislation. If there was
    a problem when we wrote it, they should have let us know at
    that time. And that is what I am after. This is, like Charlie
    Norwood said, there is something very wrong here. And this is
    why our government has lost its credibility big time.
        The Chairman. And, David, again I want to thank you for
    being here. That bell, don't jump, that bell is for a vote. And
    I hope to get up to your area sometime. I had the privilege of
    harvesting a polar bear in 1964 before all this nonsense took
    place.
        And we do have an abundance, Doctor, of polar bears in
    Alaska to the point now we have lost three persons this last
    year. They also like to chew on people. An abundance of them
    and a terrible management system. If I can ever implement a
    program such as David has, I am certainly going to try to
    encourage it, because I think it is the right way to go. It
    helps the local people, but more than that it manages species
    that really now have some serious problems.
        With that, we have a vote. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and
    the following was submitted for the record:]

     Statement of the Honorable George Miller, a U.S. Representative from
                                   California

        Mr. Young has asked our speakers to comment on whether the
    final rule reflects the legislative intent of the 1994
    Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Before these
    proceedings begin today, I would like to take a few moments to
    comment on the issues of intent and purpose.
        We should remember that the purpose of the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act is to protect marine mammals and their habitat.
    The 1994 Amendments did not change this purpose. Any rule
    promulgated in accordance with the Amendments, must be
    consistent with the overall Act and must allow only for
    sustainable activities.
        The Committee Report for the 1994 Amendments is quite clear
    that it is our intent to insure that sport hunting of polar
    bears does not adversely affect the sustainability of polar
    bear populations throughout their range in Canada. It is not
    sufficient that the overall numbers of polar bears grow, each
    separate polar bear population must grow as well, ideally to
    the MMPA goal of its optimum sustainable population.
        I understand that there is some debate regarding whether
    sport trophies taken prior to the enactment of the 1994
    amendments should be subject to the same conservation
    provisions as are applied to sport trophies taken after 1994.
    Again, I want to reference the Committee Report--which I have
    been told was agreed to by Mr. Young's staff at the time, and
    we have no dissenting views to indicate otherwise. The Report
    states: ``It is the Committee's intent that all conditions
    outlined by this amendment concerning importation of polar bear
    trophies taken prior to the adoption of this amendment have to
    be met.''
        I think we are all in agreement that agency decisions
    should be based upon solid scientific data and in accordance
    with sound, and effective, management principles. But what
    action is to be taken when the data is incomplete or practices
    are questionable? Was it the intent of Congress and the MMPA to
    err on the side of conservation and protection, or to err on
    the side of increased marine mammal takings?
        Finally, I think we should remember that the MMPA
    Amendments of 1994 require the Secretary to consider both the
    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
    as well as the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar
    Bears when analyzing Canada's polar bear management plans.
    These international agreements embody sound hunting and
    management practices. To take one example, the Polar Bear
    Agreement requires that pregnant and nursing females, as well
    as their cubs, be protected from hunting activities. Decisions
    based on principles such as these are ones we all can support.
        I look forward to hearing today's testimony and substantive
    discussion of the issues.

                                   ----------

    Statement of Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, a U.S. Representative from
                                   California

        Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of
    this resolution, H.J.Res. 59, disapproving the Department of
    Interior's Final Rule titled Importation of Polar Bear Trophies
    from Canada Under the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act.
        Today is the third anniversary of the date that the
    President signed the polar bear amendments to the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act (MMPA). Three full years have passed, and the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to issue its first
    permit.
        As a fiscal conservative, I am very sensitive to wasted
    time and dollars. In this case too many of both have been
    thrown away by the agencies involved. Thousands of dollars have
    been lost in conservation funds that could have been generated
    by the issuance of permits. Thousands of dollars have been
    denied the Inuit people who depend on this vital resource.
    Thousands of sportsmen have stayed home or gone elsewhere,
    because of the failure by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    carry out the intent of Congress.
        This fiasco was a long time coming. To begin, Congress very
    thoroughly considered the polar bear issue in 1994. We
    collected information from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and the Canadian government. When the amendments were
    adopted in 1994, Congress concluded that the Canadian
    government was efficiently managing its polar bear populations.
    Congress provided the Secretary of the Interior tools to make
    sure that the shift to sport hunting as a larger component of
    polar bear management did not threaten the Canadian management
    program. We then asked the Secretary to issue permits.
        Congress certainly did not expect a three-year delay in the
    process. I have tried to understand what went on to create the
    mess by reviewing the process as it unfolded. However, that
    does not answer why the Clinton Administration dragged its feet
    despite clear motivation and direction by members of this
    Committee. I would like to share with you the time line to make
    clear that Congress did its utmost to get this new law
    administered:

        April 30, 1994: President Clinton signed the
    amendments to the MMPA.

        June 20, 1994: Congressmen Young and Fields wrote
    to the Fish and Wildlife Service asking it to expedite the
    process and that it should use interim regulations to issue
    permits.

        August 24, 1994: The Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    Marine Mammal Commission, and the State Department met to
    design an approach for developing findings. The Fish and
    Wildlife Service had a goal of publishing regulations by
    January 1, 1995.

        August 29, 1994: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    responded to Congressmen Young and Fields informing them that
    rules need to be developed for the permits and that findings
    have to be made.

        September 28, 1994: 25 members of Congress joined
    me in a letter to the Secretary, noting that five months had
    passed with no action and urging him to use his existing
    authority to promptly issue permits.

        October 27, 1994: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    published a notice in the Federal Register outlining the
    process it would follow to make the required findings and
    saying that it would issue regulations covering the permit
    procedures.

        November 2, 1994: Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX),
    the principal author of the polar bear amendments, wrote to
    Assistant Secretary Frampton in response to the October 27
    notice. He reminded the Assistant Secretary that in 1993, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service had told Congress that sport hunting
    was part of the Canadian management system and that it was not
    harmful or in conflict with the Polar Bear Convention.
    Congressman Fields also reminded the Fish and Wildlife Service
    that it was not Congress' intent to impose management practices
    on Canada and that Congress knew that Canada managed by
    subpopulation. Congressman Fields also recommended to the Fish
    and Wildlife Service that it should stop focusing on the past
    management by Canadian authorities and instead focus on the
    future impact that increased hunting by American hunters would
    have on Canadian polar bear populations.

        January 3, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    published a proposed rule on the permit procedures.

        January, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service sends
    a draft proposed finding to the Marine Mammal Commission for
    review.

        March and April, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife
    Service held a series of internal meetings and prepared draft
    findings.

        July 17, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    published proposed findings. The public comment period was set
    to end on August 31,1995, but was extended through November,
    1995.

        September 7, 1995: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    wrote to Congressman Young, saying that it will have a rule out
    shortly (``this fall '') and then it will focus on the issue of
    Parry Channel, where most of the hunting of polar bears occurs
    in Canada, as a separate rulemaking.

        November 9, 1995: The Marine Mammal Commission
    provided comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

        July, 1996: The Fish and Wildlife Service received
    more data on Parry Channel populations but decided not to pull
    back the final rule, which they were preparing, and not to
    publish a new proposal since the research and data-gathering on
    Parry Channel was still ongoing.

        August 15, 1996: Draft final rule goes out for
    review and approval by various offices within the Fish and
    Wildlife Service.

        October, 1996: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    received more data on the Parry Channel issue. However, it
    decided not to act on the new data at that time because the
    final rule was near final publication.

        January, 1997: The Fish and Wildlife Service
    obtained further information about the Parry Channel area from
    the Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting.

        February 18, 1997: Final rule published, effective
    March 20, 1997.

        March 5, 1997: The Fish and Wildlife Service wrote
    to Canada asking for further information and saying it could
    possibly have a proposed rule on the Parry Channel area out by
    the end of April.

        April 22, 1997: The Marine Mammal Commission filed
    a scientific evaluation with a positive finding on management
    of two of the areas into which Parry Channel had been
    restructured: Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay.

        Following all of this effort, one would expect the Fish and
    Wildlife Service to publish a comprehensive rule meeting the
    criteria set forward by Congress. Unfortunately, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service has put forward a rule that is incomplete. Its
    final rule contains no provisions allowing for the import of
    grandfathered polar-bear trophies from before 1994. In fact,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that only five of
    Canada's twelve polar bear populations are stable. In addition,
    according to the Service's own data, there is little, if any,
    hunting of these populations.
        However, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that it
    was unable to determine the sustainability of any the other
    seven polar bear populations if hunting were allowed. When
    Congress passed the polar bear amendments to the MMPA, we
    considered this issue and instructed the Fish and Wildlife
    Service to consider Canada capable of managing its own
    populations. The Fish and Wildlife Service disregarded this
    information and moved forward with a rule which is inconsistent
    with the intent of Congress.
        For this reason, I would encourage my colleagues to vote
    for H.J.Res. 59, and direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    return to Congress a rule which is comparable with the
    amendments we passed in 1994. Mr. Chairman thank you for this
    time.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1402.087